Home‎ > ‎Minutes‎ > ‎

2009 Minutes

Meeting Minutes - Phone Conference Call

attendees: S. Coe, S. Danielson, M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, R. Mott, V. Raju, M. Stratton, B. Wolff

regrets: D. Wells

  1. ABET MFG EAC Description ABET_EAC_DRAFT_00
    • The Accreditation Committee is applauded for their hard work on the updates.
  2. Engineering Go For It http://www.egfi-k12.org/read-the-magazine/
    • Some comments were provided that will be incorporated next year.
  3. ASEE Meeting Events (Val)
    • Merging ASEE MFG events with MER
    • ASEE MFG DIV is putting together a floor exhibit. Efforts are underway to coordinate booth sponsors before the end of January.
    • ASEE abstract submission is now closed - other options?
  4. DOL ONET (Bob)
    • http://www.careeronestop.org/competencymodel/
    • http://online.onetcenter.org/find/
    • These list standard occupational codes published by the Department of Labor. There was no job title with Manufacturing on the site in the past - efforts have been made to get manufacturing included. Manufacturing Engineer, Manufacturing Technologist, and Manufacturing Production Technician.
    • These can then be used to collect and distribute wage and employment data.
  5. Bylaw update
    • Revised bylaw committees - see below - will be combined into the TCN Operating guide by Monday Oct., 26
    • TCN_operating_policies will be circulated
  6. Other info

Committee (Technical Group) Structures

  • Other Roles:
    • [Mark Stratton to identify] Liaison to NAMRI

Manufacturing Education and Research Community Meeting

Note: The meeting was held at the Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit in Austin, TX, June 19, 2009 - 2-4pm CT

attendees: R. Bennett, S. Coe, G. Conkol, W. Erevelles, M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, H. King, H. Kraebber, E. McKell, B. Mott, C. Pung, V. Raju, E. Roe, M. Stratton, S. Wallman, D. Wells

regrets:

  1. Reports
    • NAMRI
      • Bob Mott attended the NAMRC/NAMRI board meeting. The meeting was arranged by Tom Kurfess, Scott Smith and Mark Stratton.
      • The purpose was to increase the ties between the MER and NAMRI - the discussion went for 2 hours
      • Items discussed were;
        • A panel session for the May 26-28, 2010 NAMRC meeting, Kingston, ON - in particular the topic might be moving research into the classroom more efficiently. It has been added.
        • A liaison between the MER and NAMRI.
        • A stronger set of ties between the SME and named manufacturing programs (many are involved in MSEC of ASME). There have been discussions of joining conference activities with NAMRC.
        • Trying to identify and grow ties to other programs that have manufacturing content.
        • The SME could consider specifying manufacturing content in other programs with the ABET and other criteria.
      • ACTION ITEMS:
        • The accreditation committee is asked by the MER to develop criteria for minors in manufacturing engineering. Hulas has added it to the Accreditation Committee Agenda.
        • [King and Jack] Volunteers will be sought to be a panelist for NAMRC 2010, and as a liaison to NAMRI. Candidates will be asked by Hulas King. The results will be communicated to the NAMRI board (Larry Yao and Jack Jeswiet) by Hugh once the candidates are selected.
  2. Activities - new initiatives
    • ASEE Manufacturing Division - Big 2010 ASEE/SME event in Louisville
      • 2009 over 40 papers in 10 sessions and a Lean Production workshop
      • a booth area - Voted to put up some money for the booth
      • a common program
      • a big gala event for the banquet
      • invite groups such as the accreditation committee, SME-MER, NAMRI
      • More poster sessions
      • include ASME, ASEE entrepreneurial division, and others?
      • ASEE is committed but significant coordination is needed
      • How does this concept appeal to other groups?
      • Questions;
        • Details still sparse - planning required
        • To soon for complete commitment, but enough for support?
        • Are there ways to reduce the costs?
        • What is the expected value?
    • ACTION ITEM:
      • Form a group to explore details and report back to the MER steering committee. The committee will be Mark Stratton, David Wells, Winston Erevelles, and Val Hawks.
  3. Committee Structures

For a future meeting

  1. Strategy
    • mission and values of the community
    • 2009-10 budget items
  2. Activities - looking for help
    • A Committee of Manufacturing Program Chairs
    • Recruiting new MER folks and increasing participation


MER Conference Call - June 3, 2009

Attendee: A. Agrawal, D. Bee, G. Conkol, S. Danielson, H. ElMaraghy, M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, B. Mott, V. Raju, M. Stratton

  1. [Jack] Discussion of SME Annual Meeting Presentation
    • Various suggestions were integrated.
    • The presentation will include opportunities for volunteers
    • Keep a positive tone
  2. [Mott] NAMRI Meeting at NAMRC 2009
    • Session scheduled (panels / papers) on education at NAMRC 2010 - Jack Jeswiet of Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, is already at work organizing the session implementing a panel discussion on manufacturing education next May. Jack is the host of NAMRC 38 at his school and has primary responsibility for developing the program.
    • We need to work on preparing a concise description of the essential manufacturing content for non-manufacturing-named programs. I have heard this mentioned by David Wells and Winston Erevelles but I don't know where to get it in writing. This is critical to the actions called for in Item 4 to get manufacturing principles and practices into ABET criteria for mechanical and related programs. We should also discuss this with the SME Accreditation Committee, of which Dave and Winston are (or were recently) also members.
  3. The next call will be for the METS planning group June 11, a notice will be send. The next MER call will be Friday June 19 in conjunction with the Summit - details to follow.

Attachment - NAMRI Meeting Items

  1. NAMRI naming a liaison to the Manufacturing Education & Research Community.
  2. NAMRC Organizing Committee integrating at least one session in NAMRC 38 at Queen’s University that concerns manufacturing education.
    1. Panel discussion session is probable format
    2. Topic: Manufacturing research and education curricula: essential elements of curricula that prepare students for working in manufacturing industries and research.
    3. Potential planning/panel members:
      1. Steve Hayashi, GE Global Research
      2. Scott Smith, University of North Carolina Charlotte
      3. Neil Duffie, University of Wisconsin Madison
      4. Tom Kurfess, Clemson University (on fundamentals of accreditation process)
  3. Collaborating with the Manufacturing Education & Research Community to define essential manufacturing content in mechanical and related education curricula.
  4. Promoting collaboration between SME and ASME ABET commissioners to enhance manufacturing content in mechanical and related* curricula. [*industrial, electrical, quality, etc.]
  5. Providing input to MER identifying appropriate results from manufacturing research that should be included in manufacturing curricula, i.e., become a part of the body of knowledge for manufacturing curricula.
  6. NAMRI and the Manufacturing Education & Research Community promoting the inclusion of manufacturing tracks, options, certificates and other approaches to introduce manufacturing content in mechanical and other non-manufacturing programs.


MER Conference Call - June 3, 2009

Attendee: A. Agrawal, D. Bee, G. Conkol, S. Danielson, H. ElMaraghy, M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, B. Mott, V. Raju, M. Stratton

  1. [Jack] Discussion of SME Annual Meeting Presentation
    • Various suggestions were integrated.
    • The presentation will include opportunities for volunteers
    • Keep a positive tone
  2. [Mott] NAMRI Meeting at NAMRC 2009
    • Session scheduled (panels / papers) on education at NAMRC 2010 - Jack Jeswiet of Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, is already at work organizing the session implementing a panel discussion on manufacturing education next May. Jack is the host of NAMRC 38 at his school and has primary responsibility for developing the program.
    • We need to work on preparing a concise description of the essential manufacturing content for non-manufacturing-named programs. I have heard this mentioned by David Wells and Winston Erevelles but I don't know where to get it in writing. This is critical to the actions called for in Item 4 to get manufacturing principles and practices into ABET criteria for mechanical and related programs. We should also discuss this with the SME Accreditation Committee, of which Dave and Winston are (or were recently) also members.
  3. The next call will be for the METS planning group June 11, a notice will be send. The next MER call will be Friday June 19 in conjunction with the Summit - details to follow.

Attachment - NAMRI Meeting Items

  1. NAMRI naming a liaison to the Manufacturing Education & Research Community.
  2. NAMRC Organizing Committee integrating at least one session in NAMRC 38 at Queen’s University that concerns manufacturing education.
    1. Panel discussion session is probable format
    2. Topic: Manufacturing research and education curricula: essential elements of curricula that prepare students for working in manufacturing industries and research.
    3. Potential planning/panel members:
      1. Steve Hayashi, GE Global Research
      2. Scott Smith, University of North Carolina Charlotte
      3. Neil Duffie, University of Wisconsin Madison
      4. Tom Kurfess, Clemson University (on fundamentals of accreditation process)
  3. Collaborating with the Manufacturing Education & Research Community to define essential manufacturing content in mechanical and related education curricula.
  4. Promoting collaboration between SME and ASME ABET commissioners to enhance manufacturing content in mechanical and related* curricula. [*industrial, electrical, quality, etc.]
  5. Providing input to MER identifying appropriate results from manufacturing research that should be included in manufacturing curricula, i.e., become a part of the body of knowledge for manufacturing curricula.
  6. NAMRI and the Manufacturing Education & Research Community promoting the inclusion of manufacturing tracks, options, certificates and other approaches to introduce manufacturing content in mechanical and other non-manufacturing programs.


Meeting Minutes Monday May 11, 2009, 11am-noon ET

Attendees: S. Coe, G. Conkol, M. Gartenlaub, L. Gillespie, V. Hawks, H. Jack, H. King, H. Kraebber, B. Mott, V. Raju, M. Stratton, C. Williams

Regrets:

  1. Recommendations for activities
  2. Next Call June 1, 2009 11am ET - we may have a call sooner if necessary.

Meeting Minutes Monday April 27, 2009, noon-1pm ET

Attendees: R. Bennett, G. Conkol, M. Gartenlaub, L. Gillespie, H. Jack, H. Kraebber, B. Mott, V. Raju

Regrets: S. Coe, S. Danielson, V. Hawks, M. Stratton

  1. Update on Summit
    • 41 abstracts/papers in the system
    • ACTION ITEMS: Please register soon. Reviewers are still needed, email jackh@gvsu.edu to volunteer
  2. Next Call May 11, 2009 11am ET
  3. Recommendations for activities

Attachments

image:robotics.jpg - Figure from Marshall showing the role of robotics



Meeting Minutes Monday April 6, 2009, 1-2pm ET

attendees: R. Bennett, G. Conkol, S. Danielson, L. Gillespie, V. Hawks, H. Jack, H. King, B. Mott, M. Stratton, D. Wells

regrets: none

  1. Mark Stratton gave an update on Summit program development and registrations;
    • There are a number of participants registered - 'everybody is encouraged to register now.'
    • It is looking like the cost will balance even with a very low registration rate.
    • To date there are 39 submissions in review, not including keynotes and panelists.
    • The accreditation committee will be using a time from 8-noon.
    • The working group time on Saturday will be used for the Curriculum 2015 documents and next directions.
  2. Bob Mott discussed some of the expectations of the upcoming NAMRI board to discuss education efforts in future NAMRC activities.
  3. Mark Stratton May 1-2 is the next SME leadership series events in Buffalo, NY. This would be a very good activity for anybody involved. The SME will cover a night and registration costs if you can arrange transportation. These occur several times a year. This helps to understand the SME structure and motivations. The outcome is to understand how to increase participation and get support. For more details go to http://www.sme.org/leadership
  4. Mark Stratton mentioned the annual meeting in Philadelphia June 8-10 which will highlight activities of different groups including the MER. There will also be a number of education and training opportunities. For more details see http://www.sme.org/annualmeeting
  5. Next Call Monday April 20, 2009 noon-1pm
  6. Discussion on role of MER Community and recommendations in report of Task Force on SME Role in Higher Education;
    • Trying to introduce manufacturing into 2/4 year programs and K-12 schools has been difficult. A large challenge is trying to get manufacturers involved/engaged. Ideally exciting students with thoughts of exciting careers. Go beyond the processes and promote the transformation of materials.
    • Close ties between industry and education has had tremendous benefits.
    • The issues are not unilateral - educators are as much to blame as industry. Both groups are highly inconsistent and not united.
    • There are lots of good stories to spread that don't always get out.
    • pg. 109 February 2009 Manufacturing Engineering - "Focus on

the Workforce, Building Coalitions" - http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&09fem006&ME&20090201&&SME&#

    • There has been a failure to reach out and present positive images of manufacturing to children/students. Collaboration with industry is critical for success of the methods.
    • A program is needed to keep students engaged once they are exposed to manufacturing.
    • A good strategy is not to look at cradle to college, but look at cradle to grave.
    • A clear 'value proposition' is needed to help sell the values of Manufacturing and the SME.
    • Community building is the key.
    • 'You raise what you praise' - we need to increase visibility and recognition of the stories about manufacturing people have to tell to spread the word.
    • Student competitions seem to be low tech. and don't have the buzz factor.
    • There are over 75 competitions promoting manufacturing in different ways. The trick is to find ways to make these consistently exciting.
  1. FUTURE ACTION ITEMS: Recommendations for activities (from LaRoux and others). These will be expanded and discussed later, it is not an exclusive list;
    • Student Competitions Planning Committee - how to get more exciting competitions
    • MER sets metrics - for activities to prioritize support/funding
    • Awards Committee - Providing recognition for educators
    • Promotions Committee - Visibility of stories and spokesman for manufacturing
    • Connect Programs - annual meetings, communications, etc.
    • Coordination Committee - expand ties to other groups for information and strategy exchange.

SME Executive Committee Report

Executive Summary

This report summarizes 30 current SME efforts and highlights six strategies and 31 recommended tactics for achieving the goals given to this task force.

Issues, Trends and Developments Documented

The trends in sustaining an adequate pipeline of trained and competent manufacturing practitioners and professionals and the impact of not doing so have been documented in literally hundreds of articles and papers over the past two years. A brief summary white paper, entitled “Skills Shortage – A Pipeline Issue,” describing the issues was prepared as a starting point for this task force. (See Appendix A.) Similarly, at two national forums sponsored in 2008 by the SME Manufacturing Education & Research Community (MER) and at a conference on manufacturing engineering education sponsored by the International Academy for Production Engineering (CIRP) in Nantes, France, in late 2008, developments in education and research were addressed and documented. A number of SME’s education leaders attended these events.

In addition, the National Center for Manufacturing Education (NCME) has a grant from the National Science Foundation to research trends in manufacturing education, specifically recruiting methodologies, program trends, best practices, enrollment trends, program content and accreditation type. The research is being done in conjunction with SME; the SME Education Foundation; the SME Manufacturing Education & Research Community; the Manufacturing Division of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE); ABET, Inc. (formerly the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology); and the National Association of Industrial Technology (NAIT). This multiyear grant will result in at least two reports a year through 2012 on these trends.

Recommended Strategies to Update Competency Gaps

Strategy 1. Determine manufacturing, engineering and technology education needs and recommend solutions. The first strategy, that of addressing competency gaps, has been implemented by holding a series of workshops addressing education needs at the collegiate level. This was done in parallel to task force efforts by the SME Manufacturing Education & Research Community. The MER Community initiated discussions at two national forums to define needed changes in manufacturing engineering and technology education. The culmination of this effort to define education needs at the collegiate level will be a June 2009 MER Community Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit.

The primary issues identified in the above review of educational needs of graduates include:

  • pipeline, image and marketing issues in manufacturing education,
  • the need for a collective plan for recruitment and attraction of new entrants to the manufacturing

industry as students, skilled workers and re-trainees,

  • the need for a set of strategies and policies to be used to further manufacturing education by

summit participants and other stakeholders,

  • clear goals on emerging technologies, techniques and pedagogy and how to integrate them into

manufacturing education so that educators can redesign and update their curricula.

Results from the first two MER forums are too extensive and detailed to list here, but briefly they include specific educational needs and desires by industry as well as by educators, and numerous solutions to address the needs. The discussion encompasses both two and four-year programs as well as engineering and technology programs.

A manufacturing education “wiki” site (www.merconline.net/wiki) contains the documentation from the two forums and an update on Curriculum 2015 along with information on the 2009 Summit. Companies have identified a need for practitioners coming out of community colleges and technical schools to receive training on expected work practices, in addition to their technical skills, prior to applying for jobs. Work practices include arriving at work on time, dressing appropriately, workplace behavior, computer literacy, problem solving and decision making, teamwork, applied math and manufacturing principles such as blueprint reading, mechanics and precision measurement. An example of how this is being implemented can be found on Metropolitan Community College Kansas City’s “Making It In KC” page (http://mcckc.edu/mccbtc/MakingIt.asp).

Recommended Strategies for Filling the Pipeline

Five strategies involving many roles for SME are identified for filling the pipeline and bridging students to regular SME members.

Strategy 2. Use metrics for SME efforts to define progress on all student-related issues. The task force recommends defining metrics for all student-related efforts so that the reasons for success or lack of success can be directly identified. The task force identified all of the SME efforts and practices that directly affect students and higher education and assessed their relative impact where some metrics existed. In many instances, SME has efforts under way without measures to determine whether they are or will be successful. The efforts under way in 2008 are identified in Appendix B.

Strategy 3. Continue supporting SME Education Foundation efforts for attracting students to engineering and manufacturing. This would include developing, promulgating and facilitating ways for individual members and local chapters to participate in SME Education Foundation recruitment activities. The SME Education Foundation efforts affecting K-12 students and teachers seem exceptional in their impact on filling a pipeline of students into college for engineering and technical careers. Several of the efforts directly involve the students in manufacturing exercises so they have insight into manufacturing in a manner that interests them. SME needs to continue supporting this SME Education Foundation strategy of attracting young students and involving them in real design and manufacturing issues. In 10 years, this will lead to tens of thousands of students exposed to manufacturing and entering engineering and scientific fields. It also provides direct-access avenues for manufacturing professionals to relate to students. While the Foundation efforts expose students to manufacturing, SME also needs to develop a mechanism that allows students to see why manufacturing engineering and technology can be a fulfilling and important discipline for them.

Strategy 4. Enhance the SME student member program. The fourth strategy is to develop a meaningful student member program that assures successful transition to senior chapters. Many tactics necessary to achieve this are described in the body of this report. Some of the tactics individually help reach this objective and others combine several elements to keep the pipeline full and provide large numbers of transitioning students. One of the first elements of this strategy, already mentioned above, is to identify metrics for involvement and transition. In 2008, SME has no definitive goals or compelling drivers for transition of student members.

Strategy 5. Improve support for collegiate faculty through more recognition and attention to faculty needs. The fifth strategy involves increased support for faculty who teach manufacturing. The report describes a number of suggested ways to enhance this strategy. This ranges from those who teach in the grade schools and high schools to those who teach in post-secondary capacities. Student faculty advisors at colleges and universities influence every one of our student members, and they serve without much or tangible reward. SME does have examples of recognition at the secondary school level – specifically, the Building the Future Awards recognizing educators who teach in the Project Lead the Way program and an Outstanding Partner Award sponsored by the SME-EF and the 3M Foundation. SME needs to continue to address increasing appropriate recognition at all levels for educators who influence our students.

Strategy 6. Develop a program that communicates directly with department heads to improve the infrastructure in engineering and technology programs. The sixth strategy involves infrastructure within higher education and between secondary and post-secondary schools. The goal is to help keep coordinators and leaders of manufacturing programs abreast of changes that may impact their programs, and provide a regular pulse-taking of the health of individual programs with prescriptions and support to get healthier. It would also help create and sustain a bridge between interest in high school and successful entry into college and encourage mentoring of SME scholarship winners when they enter college. If they are among the best in the field, they would make excellent leaders within higher education and in student chapters and, subsequently, senior chapters. Strong manufacturing programs will assure robust student involvement and retention in the field. Several suggestions are made in Appendix C that would enhance this area.

Coordination of SME Higher Education Activities

The third portion of the task force assignment was to recommend ways in which SME may better prioritize and coordinate the higher education activities in which the Society is currently engaged. The first recommendation is to establish an Education Council or Center for Education communication effort. The committee recommends that the Manufacturing Education & Research (MER) Community establish a quasi-formal Education Council or Center for Education that would consist of all SME education-related entities. Specifically, accreditation, certification, licensing, NAMRI/SME, the SME Education Foundation, student Member Council leaders and leaders involved with academic institutions would participate with the MER Community in proposed twice-a-year conference calls to discuss education issues and assure that SME provides a single voice on education issues. The MER Community is primarily the group responsible for defining and distributing the manufacturing education body of knowledge from which institutions teach manufacturing-related engineering and technology. It also is the single group with the charge for mapping the future of manufacturing education. The recommended action is not for any structural or authority change within SME, rather to assure via a council that everyone is aware of the education issues being pursued and the impact of changes on the many SME education efforts. The education council would not be a policy-making entity, merely a communication tool. It is possible that when appropriately chosen the MER Community steering committee could be that education council. The second recommendation is to provide an SME web site specifically focused on academic education issues and functions. While a drop down menu for University/higher education has been proposed, most of the committee believe that a single landing page will be the better approach. It is important that the site be identified in some manner as formal higher education as opposed to the many other forms of non-degree granting SME educational activities.

Recommended SME Role in Accreditation

The last portion of the Task Force assignment was to provide strategic recommendations for SME’s role in ABET accreditation, as well as strategic direction to SME’s Accreditation Committee for their 2009 annual agenda.

Strategy 1. Pick leaders who will drive growth. SME must provide strong support of ABET efforts to maintain professional acceptance of manufacturing degrees. It is both a practical support issue as well as a strategic effort to assure continued viability of the degrees. In that vein it will always be critical to select the leaders of ABET efforts who are true leaders who can and will influence others. If it becomes just a committee SME will lose credibility and face the loss of programs.

Strategy 2. Grow manufacturing programs. There is a wide divergence of opinion on how to best accomplish this. In the United States engineering programs are reluctant to invest in the many costly resources required for a new manufacturing degree program. Funding for research is their main driver and less funding is being directed to manufacturing. Growing programs that have manufacturing in their title has been more prevalent at the engineering technology level. To grow manufacturing related programs SME needs to include in its focus programs not now accredited as a manufacturing program or option, but with some little effort can step up and be accredited. ABET provides the standards, but some programs are not aware of them. This requires careful study of programs not now in ABET and support for them. One possibility is to review the schools which report through the ABET Applied Science Accreditation Commission. Another is to review schools with options that are manufacturing. Another is to promote accreditation of graduate level manufacturing programs which are easier and more flexible to accredit than undergraduate programs.

A second tactic for growth is to build on the interests by international schools in manufacturing. SME leaders are serving on ABET evaluation teams for programs at schools in the Mideast and on the Asian continent. International growth may be easier to accomplish than within domestic arenas. That also requires some dedicated effort to identify schools considering new programs, identifying schools that have programs but are not accredited, and meeting the faculty who would lead such efforts. Since ABET now provides a service like that when schools request accreditation of their programs through ABET, SME could provide the awakening or pump priming to move such interest along. Using this information to foster membership of students and faculty is an integral opportunity and natural extension of this activity.

The 2009 SME Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit will present additional suggestions. Strategy 3. Assist existing ABET programs to assure their health. As part of the infrastructure issues expressed in a paragraph above (Section 3 Strategy 6) SME should be in such close communication with accredited schools that we know the issues they face as soon as they are expressed and can help address solutions where possible. Solutions would include getting local industry support rather than just SME funding, initiating a national blitz similar to that done and being done as a result of the nursing shortage. We need to build a reputation for helping the named programs and drawing interest from programs considering providing more manufacturing education.


Meeting Minutes Monday April 6, 2009, 1-2pm ET

attendees: R. Bennett, G. Conkol, S. Danielson, L. Gillespie, V. Hawks, H. Jack, H. King, B. Mott, M. Stratton, D. Wells

regrets: none

  1. Mark Stratton gave an update on Summit program development and registrations;
    • There are a number of participants registered - 'everybody is encouraged to register now.'
    • It is looking like the cost will balance even with a very low registration rate.
    • To date there are 39 submissions in review, not including keynotes and panelists.
    • The accreditation committee will be using a time from 8-noon.
    • The working group time on Saturday will be used for the Curriculum 2015 documents and next directions.
  2. Bob Mott discussed some of the expectations of the upcoming NAMRI board to discuss education efforts in future NAMRC activities.
  3. Mark Stratton May 1-2 is the next SME leadership series events in Buffalo, NY. This would be a very good activity for anybody involved. The SME will cover a night and registration costs if you can arrange transportation. These occur several times a year. This helps to understand the SME structure and motivations. The outcome is to understand how to increase participation and get support. For more details go to http://www.sme.org/leadership
  4. Mark Stratton mentioned the annual meeting in Philadelphia June 8-10 which will highlight activities of different groups including the MER. There will also be a number of education and training opportunities. For more details see http://www.sme.org/annualmeeting
  5. Next Call Monday April 20, 2009 noon-1pm
  6. Discussion on role of MER Community and recommendations in report of Task Force on SME Role in Higher Education;
    • Trying to introduce manufacturing into 2/4 year programs and K-12 schools has been difficult. A large challenge is trying to get manufacturers involved/engaged. Ideally exciting students with thoughts of exciting careers. Go beyond the processes and promote the transformation of materials.
    • Close ties between industry and education has had tremendous benefits.
    • The issues are not unilateral - educators are as much to blame as industry. Both groups are highly inconsistent and not united.
    • There are lots of good stories to spread that don't always get out.
    • pg. 109 February 2009 Manufacturing Engineering - "Focus on

the Workforce, Building Coalitions" - http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&09fem006&ME&20090201&&SME&#

    • There has been a failure to reach out and present positive images of manufacturing to children/students. Collaboration with industry is critical for success of the methods.
    • A program is needed to keep students engaged once they are exposed to manufacturing.
    • A good strategy is not to look at cradle to college, but look at cradle to grave.
    • A clear 'value proposition' is needed to help sell the values of Manufacturing and the SME.
    • Community building is the key.
    • 'You raise what you praise' - we need to increase visibility and recognition of the stories about manufacturing people have to tell to spread the word.
    • Student competitions seem to be low tech. and don't have the buzz factor.
    • There are over 75 competitions promoting manufacturing in different ways. The trick is to find ways to make these consistently exciting.
  1. FUTURE ACTION ITEMS: Recommendations for activities (from LaRoux and others). These will be expanded and discussed later, it is not an exclusive list;
    • Student Competitions Planning Committee - how to get more exciting competitions
    • MER sets metrics - for activities to prioritize support/funding
    • Awards Committee - Providing recognition for educators
    • Promotions Committee - Visibility of stories and spokesman for manufacturing
    • Connect Programs - annual meetings, communications, etc.
    • Coordination Committee - expand ties to other groups for information and strategy exchange.

SME Executive Committee Report

Executive Summary

This report summarizes 30 current SME efforts and highlights six strategies and 31 recommended tactics for achieving the goals given to this task force.

Issues, Trends and Developments Documented

The trends in sustaining an adequate pipeline of trained and competent manufacturing practitioners and professionals and the impact of not doing so have been documented in literally hundreds of articles and papers over the past two years. A brief summary white paper, entitled “Skills Shortage – A Pipeline Issue,” describing the issues was prepared as a starting point for this task force. (See Appendix A.) Similarly, at two national forums sponsored in 2008 by the SME Manufacturing Education & Research Community (MER) and at a conference on manufacturing engineering education sponsored by the International Academy for Production Engineering (CIRP) in Nantes, France, in late 2008, developments in education and research were addressed and documented. A number of SME’s education leaders attended these events.

In addition, the National Center for Manufacturing Education (NCME) has a grant from the National Science Foundation to research trends in manufacturing education, specifically recruiting methodologies, program trends, best practices, enrollment trends, program content and accreditation type. The research is being done in conjunction with SME; the SME Education Foundation; the SME Manufacturing Education & Research Community; the Manufacturing Division of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE); ABET, Inc. (formerly the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology); and the National Association of Industrial Technology (NAIT). This multiyear grant will result in at least two reports a year through 2012 on these trends.

Recommended Strategies to Update Competency Gaps

Strategy 1. Determine manufacturing, engineering and technology education needs and recommend solutions. The first strategy, that of addressing competency gaps, has been implemented by holding a series of workshops addressing education needs at the collegiate level. This was done in parallel to task force efforts by the SME Manufacturing Education & Research Community. The MER Community initiated discussions at two national forums to define needed changes in manufacturing engineering and technology education. The culmination of this effort to define education needs at the collegiate level will be a June 2009 MER Community Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit.

The primary issues identified in the above review of educational needs of graduates include:

  • pipeline, image and marketing issues in manufacturing education,
  • the need for a collective plan for recruitment and attraction of new entrants to the manufacturing

industry as students, skilled workers and re-trainees,

  • the need for a set of strategies and policies to be used to further manufacturing education by

summit participants and other stakeholders,

  • clear goals on emerging technologies, techniques and pedagogy and how to integrate them into

manufacturing education so that educators can redesign and update their curricula.

Results from the first two MER forums are too extensive and detailed to list here, but briefly they include specific educational needs and desires by industry as well as by educators, and numerous solutions to address the needs. The discussion encompasses both two and four-year programs as well as engineering and technology programs.

A manufacturing education “wiki” site (www.merconline.net/wiki) contains the documentation from the two forums and an update on Curriculum 2015 along with information on the 2009 Summit. Companies have identified a need for practitioners coming out of community colleges and technical schools to receive training on expected work practices, in addition to their technical skills, prior to applying for jobs. Work practices include arriving at work on time, dressing appropriately, workplace behavior, computer literacy, problem solving and decision making, teamwork, applied math and manufacturing principles such as blueprint reading, mechanics and precision measurement. An example of how this is being implemented can be found on Metropolitan Community College Kansas City’s “Making It In KC” page (http://mcckc.edu/mccbtc/MakingIt.asp).

Recommended Strategies for Filling the Pipeline

Five strategies involving many roles for SME are identified for filling the pipeline and bridging students to regular SME members.

Strategy 2. Use metrics for SME efforts to define progress on all student-related issues. The task force recommends defining metrics for all student-related efforts so that the reasons for success or lack of success can be directly identified. The task force identified all of the SME efforts and practices that directly affect students and higher education and assessed their relative impact where some metrics existed. In many instances, SME has efforts under way without measures to determine whether they are or will be successful. The efforts under way in 2008 are identified in Appendix B.

Strategy 3. Continue supporting SME Education Foundation efforts for attracting students to engineering and manufacturing. This would include developing, promulgating and facilitating ways for individual members and local chapters to participate in SME Education Foundation recruitment activities. The SME Education Foundation efforts affecting K-12 students and teachers seem exceptional in their impact on filling a pipeline of students into college for engineering and technical careers. Several of the efforts directly involve the students in manufacturing exercises so they have insight into manufacturing in a manner that interests them. SME needs to continue supporting this SME Education Foundation strategy of attracting young students and involving them in real design and manufacturing issues. In 10 years, this will lead to tens of thousands of students exposed to manufacturing and entering engineering and scientific fields. It also provides direct-access avenues for manufacturing professionals to relate to students. While the Foundation efforts expose students to manufacturing, SME also needs to develop a mechanism that allows students to see why manufacturing engineering and technology can be a fulfilling and important discipline for them.

Strategy 4. Enhance the SME student member program. The fourth strategy is to develop a meaningful student member program that assures successful transition to senior chapters. Many tactics necessary to achieve this are described in the body of this report. Some of the tactics individually help reach this objective and others combine several elements to keep the pipeline full and provide large numbers of transitioning students. One of the first elements of this strategy, already mentioned above, is to identify metrics for involvement and transition. In 2008, SME has no definitive goals or compelling drivers for transition of student members.

Strategy 5. Improve support for collegiate faculty through more recognition and attention to faculty needs. The fifth strategy involves increased support for faculty who teach manufacturing. The report describes a number of suggested ways to enhance this strategy. This ranges from those who teach in the grade schools and high schools to those who teach in post-secondary capacities. Student faculty advisors at colleges and universities influence every one of our student members, and they serve without much or tangible reward. SME does have examples of recognition at the secondary school level – specifically, the Building the Future Awards recognizing educators who teach in the Project Lead the Way program and an Outstanding Partner Award sponsored by the SME-EF and the 3M Foundation. SME needs to continue to address increasing appropriate recognition at all levels for educators who influence our students.

Strategy 6. Develop a program that communicates directly with department heads to improve the infrastructure in engineering and technology programs. The sixth strategy involves infrastructure within higher education and between secondary and post-secondary schools. The goal is to help keep coordinators and leaders of manufacturing programs abreast of changes that may impact their programs, and provide a regular pulse-taking of the health of individual programs with prescriptions and support to get healthier. It would also help create and sustain a bridge between interest in high school and successful entry into college and encourage mentoring of SME scholarship winners when they enter college. If they are among the best in the field, they would make excellent leaders within higher education and in student chapters and, subsequently, senior chapters. Strong manufacturing programs will assure robust student involvement and retention in the field. Several suggestions are made in Appendix C that would enhance this area.

Coordination of SME Higher Education Activities

The third portion of the task force assignment was to recommend ways in which SME may better prioritize and coordinate the higher education activities in which the Society is currently engaged. The first recommendation is to establish an Education Council or Center for Education communication effort. The committee recommends that the Manufacturing Education & Research (MER) Community establish a quasi-formal Education Council or Center for Education that would consist of all SME education-related entities. Specifically, accreditation, certification, licensing, NAMRI/SME, the SME Education Foundation, student Member Council leaders and leaders involved with academic institutions would participate with the MER Community in proposed twice-a-year conference calls to discuss education issues and assure that SME provides a single voice on education issues. The MER Community is primarily the group responsible for defining and distributing the manufacturing education body of knowledge from which institutions teach manufacturing-related engineering and technology. It also is the single group with the charge for mapping the future of manufacturing education. The recommended action is not for any structural or authority change within SME, rather to assure via a council that everyone is aware of the education issues being pursued and the impact of changes on the many SME education efforts. The education council would not be a policy-making entity, merely a communication tool. It is possible that when appropriately chosen the MER Community steering committee could be that education council. The second recommendation is to provide an SME web site specifically focused on academic education issues and functions. While a drop down menu for University/higher education has been proposed, most of the committee believe that a single landing page will be the better approach. It is important that the site be identified in some manner as formal higher education as opposed to the many other forms of non-degree granting SME educational activities.

Recommended SME Role in Accreditation

The last portion of the Task Force assignment was to provide strategic recommendations for SME’s role in ABET accreditation, as well as strategic direction to SME’s Accreditation Committee for their 2009 annual agenda.

Strategy 1. Pick leaders who will drive growth. SME must provide strong support of ABET efforts to maintain professional acceptance of manufacturing degrees. It is both a practical support issue as well as a strategic effort to assure continued viability of the degrees. In that vein it will always be critical to select the leaders of ABET efforts who are true leaders who can and will influence others. If it becomes just a committee SME will lose credibility and face the loss of programs.

Strategy 2. Grow manufacturing programs. There is a wide divergence of opinion on how to best accomplish this. In the United States engineering programs are reluctant to invest in the many costly resources required for a new manufacturing degree program. Funding for research is their main driver and less funding is being directed to manufacturing. Growing programs that have manufacturing in their title has been more prevalent at the engineering technology level. To grow manufacturing related programs SME needs to include in its focus programs not now accredited as a manufacturing program or option, but with some little effort can step up and be accredited. ABET provides the standards, but some programs are not aware of them. This requires careful study of programs not now in ABET and support for them. One possibility is to review the schools which report through the ABET Applied Science Accreditation Commission. Another is to review schools with options that are manufacturing. Another is to promote accreditation of graduate level manufacturing programs which are easier and more flexible to accredit than undergraduate programs.

A second tactic for growth is to build on the interests by international schools in manufacturing. SME leaders are serving on ABET evaluation teams for programs at schools in the Mideast and on the Asian continent. International growth may be easier to accomplish than within domestic arenas. That also requires some dedicated effort to identify schools considering new programs, identifying schools that have programs but are not accredited, and meeting the faculty who would lead such efforts. Since ABET now provides a service like that when schools request accreditation of their programs through ABET, SME could provide the awakening or pump priming to move such interest along. Using this information to foster membership of students and faculty is an integral opportunity and natural extension of this activity.

The 2009 SME Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit will present additional suggestions. Strategy 3. Assist existing ABET programs to assure their health. As part of the infrastructure issues expressed in a paragraph above (Section 3 Strategy 6) SME should be in such close communication with accredited schools that we know the issues they face as soon as they are expressed and can help address solutions where possible. Solutions would include getting local industry support rather than just SME funding, initiating a national blitz similar to that done and being done as a result of the nursing shortage. We need to build a reputation for helping the named programs and drawing interest from programs considering providing more manufacturing education.



Conference call Minutes - March 9, 2009 - noon-1pm ET

SME Manufacturing Education and Research Community

Attendees: R. Bennett, S. Coe, S. Danielson, G. Conkol, W. Erevelles (?), M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, B. Mott, M. Stratton

Regrets: H. ElMaraghy, H. Kraebber, S. Smith,


  1. The first question, what do we need to do,
    • the basic structure identifies major activities.
    • we do not currently attract people from outside the group.
    • we are not always able to get people involved, even if they are already part of the group.
    • try to be project focused.
    • allow self selected individuals to recommend projects and then go with them.
    • we need to align with the SME desires.
    • the report will outline what the MER community can do.
    • use the calls to update instead of initiate.
    • clearly define resources - people (and more?)
    • resources are available if formally requested.
    • the report driven mandate may drive the direction of the community.
    • recognize that Mark Stratton is one of the SME resources we have.
    • establish a push (champion) and pull (committee) system?
    • adding new people is a valuable step.
    • committees should be defined for longer term issues with assigned resources and clear roles.
    • champions should be enabled for short term objectives with a definite objective.
    • committees can generate ideas and try to find a champion to carry it forward.
    • the process could be self regulating if champions don't step up. But sole reliance on this model could put an end to progress.
    • examples cited included student competitions and curriculum update.
    • progressively complex committees/tasks could be recognized to develop leaders. ABET accreditation follows this type of model.
    • many members will not want to plug into a 'progressive' system and will want to join groups based on interest.
    • allow new participants to plug into the system, and then help them expand their roles.
    • the NCME database (generated by survey responses) can be used as a way to pull more people in.
    • look at it as a matrix structure with committees to drive well defined agendas crossed by focused events. 'Activity vs Subject based'. Activity is time dependant, subject is not.
    • update the strategic plan for the group, don't replace it.
    • get authority and clean objectives for committees.
    • ACTION ITEM: Consider options and possibilities. And, review the report. Identify elements of interest.
  2. Next meeting Monday March 23, 11am-noon eastern time.


Possible Future Thoughts/Discussion

  1. Addressing the organization and structure of the Manufacturing Education & Research Community to be responsive to critical issues, challenges and opportunities. Strategic approaches,
    1. Status Quo - keep the current structure.
      • Bioengineering
      • Credentialing
      • Graduate Studies in Manufacturing
      • Industry & Continuing Education
      • Information Resources for Manufacturing Education
      • NAMRI/SME
      • Undergraduate Manufacturing Education
    2. Objective Based - create groups to achieve clear objectives. e.g., revise undergrad curriculum
      • bridge industry needs to academic programs
      • bridge the new developments in research to industry and the classroom
      • to assess the health an opportunities for manufacturing education
      • act with and between engineering educators and other stakeholders
      • to keep ahead of new developments
    3. Method Based - Develop groups based on what we can do. e.g., newsletter items
      • forums
      • Curriculum 2015
      • recommendations to SME board
      • updating the ABET criteria to match current practice
      • revise credentialing process
      • develop recommendation documents for use by educators
      • contact MER community members directly (e.g. email)
      • add content to the SME website
      • contribute to the SME tech library
      • develop SME publications
      • conduct phone conferences
      • present materials and run sessions at other conferences
      • act as advocates to other groups
      • other activities if we want to put in the time
      • have an impact on other groups through shared members
      • contact members based on self selected SME registration settings.
      • Publications - MER is a logical lead for publications possibly including initiation, coordination, review, categorization, and recommendation.
    4. Hybrid - A mix of the other methods.
    5. Champion Driven - Let groups form if somebody wants to lead. Groups end when a leader is not evident.
      • MER had been used as an incubator for new groups that may, one day, be communities of their own. For example, Bio-engineering is currently in MER. Should we accept that or recommend to the TCN Steering committee a different approach ?
      • ACTION ITEM: i) do we want to change?, ii) which model(s) make sense?, iii) which tasks are worth taking on now?
  2. [Conkol] The Benevolent Action Committee (BAC) and Tech Watch to the list of Tech Groups are to be discussed. The BAC was officially approved back awhile ago and the Tech Watch has never been officially disbanded. We should discuss both.

Conference call Minutes - March 9, 2009 - noon-1pm ET

SME Manufacturing Education and Research Community

Attendees: R. Bennett, S. Coe, S. Danielson, G. Conkol, W. Erevelles (?), M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, B. Mott, M. Stratton

Regrets: H. ElMaraghy, H. Kraebber, S. Smith,


  1. The first question, what do we need to do,
    • the basic structure identifies major activities.
    • we do not currently attract people from outside the group.
    • we are not always able to get people involved, even if they are already part of the group.
    • try to be project focused.
    • allow self selected individuals to recommend projects and then go with them.
    • we need to align with the SME desires.
    • the report will outline what the MER community can do.
    • use the calls to update instead of initiate.
    • clearly define resources - people (and more?)
    • resources are available if formally requested.
    • the report driven mandate may drive the direction of the community.
    • recognize that Mark Stratton is one of the SME resources we have.
    • establish a push (champion) and pull (committee) system?
    • adding new people is a valuable step.
    • committees should be defined for longer term issues with assigned resources and clear roles.
    • champions should be enabled for short term objectives with a definite objective.
    • committees can generate ideas and try to find a champion to carry it forward.
    • the process could be self regulating if champions don't step up. But sole reliance on this model could put an end to progress.
    • examples cited included student competitions and curriculum update.
    • progressively complex committees/tasks could be recognized to develop leaders. ABET accreditation follows this type of model.
    • many members will not want to plug into a 'progressive' system and will want to join groups based on interest.
    • allow new participants to plug into the system, and then help them expand their roles.
    • the NCME database (generated by survey responses) can be used as a way to pull more people in.
    • look at it as a matrix structure with committees to drive well defined agendas crossed by focused events. 'Activity vs Subject based'. Activity is time dependant, subject is not.
    • update the strategic plan for the group, don't replace it.
    • get authority and clean objectives for committees.
    • ACTION ITEM: Consider options and possibilities. And, review the report. Identify elements of interest.
  2. Next meeting Monday March 23, 11am-noon eastern time.


Possible Future Thoughts/Discussion

  1. Addressing the organization and structure of the Manufacturing Education & Research Community to be responsive to critical issues, challenges and opportunities. Strategic approaches,
    1. Status Quo - keep the current structure.
      • Bioengineering
      • Credentialing
      • Graduate Studies in Manufacturing
      • Industry & Continuing Education
      • Information Resources for Manufacturing Education
      • NAMRI/SME
      • Undergraduate Manufacturing Education
    2. Objective Based - create groups to achieve clear objectives. e.g., revise undergrad curriculum
      • bridge industry needs to academic programs
      • bridge the new developments in research to industry and the classroom
      • to assess the health an opportunities for manufacturing education
      • act with and between engineering educators and other stakeholders
      • to keep ahead of new developments
    3. Method Based - Develop groups based on what we can do. e.g., newsletter items
      • forums
      • Curriculum 2015
      • recommendations to SME board
      • updating the ABET criteria to match current practice
      • revise credentialing process
      • develop recommendation documents for use by educators
      • contact MER community members directly (e.g. email)
      • add content to the SME website
      • contribute to the SME tech library
      • develop SME publications
      • conduct phone conferences
      • present materials and run sessions at other conferences
      • act as advocates to other groups
      • other activities if we want to put in the time
      • have an impact on other groups through shared members
      • contact members based on self selected SME registration settings.
      • Publications - MER is a logical lead for publications possibly including initiation, coordination, review, categorization, and recommendation.
    4. Hybrid - A mix of the other methods.
    5. Champion Driven - Let groups form if somebody wants to lead. Groups end when a leader is not evident.
      • MER had been used as an incubator for new groups that may, one day, be communities of their own. For example, Bio-engineering is currently in MER. Should we accept that or recommend to the TCN Steering committee a different approach ?
      • ACTION ITEM: i) do we want to change?, ii) which model(s) make sense?, iii) which tasks are worth taking on now?
  2. [Conkol] The Benevolent Action Committee (BAC) and Tech Watch to the list of Tech Groups are to be discussed. The BAC was officially approved back awhile ago and the Tech Watch has never been officially disbanded. We should discuss both.


Phone Conference Meeting - Monday, Feb., 23, 2009, noon-1pm ET

Attendees: R. Bennett, K. Birch, T. Bond, S. Coe, G. Conkol, M. Gartenlaub, L. Gillespie, V. Hawks, H. Jack, B. Mott, M. Stratton, D. Wells, S. Wendel, L. Wolff

Regrets:

  1. The report of the Task Force on the Role of SME in Higher Education is almost done. LaRoux gave a summary of the report. He gave a presentation to the board and it was very well received. The report focuses on the role of the SME (and EF) in higher education. It maps many of the current SME activities and the quantity/quality of metrics used for assessing effectiveness. Suggesting methods to fill out and reprioritize the strategies in use. There was a request for the MER to participate in developing and implementing the plans.
    • ACTION ITEM: The report will be distributed through the President of the SME in approximately 1-2 weeks. Hugh to add discussion of strategy information to agenda of a future call after the report is issued.
  2. Discussion of ICE group activities and discuss standardizing 2-4 year curriculum by Tim Bond - The group has been brainstorming how to present the value of manufacturing programs to increase the pipeline. The group includes members from both coasts. The group is considering the role of the SME in the revisions to programs in 2/4 year schools.
    • ACTION ITEM: The ICE group will send invitations to discussions to Gary Conkol and Ron Bennett.
  3. The Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit is June 18-19 in Austin, Texas: http://www.merconline.net/wiki/index.php?title=Manufacturing_Education_Transformation_Summit_2009. There is a call this Thursday - please let me know if you would like to be involved.
  4. NAMRC 37 is at Clemson, Greenville, SC, May 19-22, 2009. We should have somebody join the Scientific panel to organize education activities.
    • ACTION ITEM: Bob Mott may be able to attend. Hugh will send an introduction.
  5. Next meeting Monday March 9, noon-1pm eastern time.

Phone Conference Meeting - Monday, Feb., 9, 2009

Attendees: S. Coe, G. Conkol, M. Gartenlaub, V. Hawks, H. Jack, B. Mott, M. Stratton Regrets:

Items:

  1. Addressing the organization and structure of the Manufacturing Education & Research Community to be responsive to critical issues, challenges and opportunities.
    1. What can we do? - examples are listed below. Look to the committee recommendations of the report.
      • forums
      • Curriculum 2015
      • recommendations to SME board
      • updating the ABET criteria to match current practice
      • revise credentialing process
      • develop recommendation documents for use by educators
      • contact MER community members directly (e.g. email)
      • add content to the SME website
      • contribute to the SME tech library
      • develop SME publications
      • conduct phone conferences
      • present materials and run sessions at other conferences
      • act as advocates to other groups
      • other activities if we want to put in the time
      • have an impact on other groups through shared members
      • contact members based on self selected SME registration settings.
    2. Why should we do it?
      • bridge industry needs to academic programs
      • bridge the new developments in research to industry and the classroom
      • to assess the health an opportunities for manufacturing education
      • act with and between engineering educators and other stakeholders
      • to keep ahead of new developments
    3. When should we do it?
      • after we compare needs
      • after we plan for the next state or goal
    4. How is the process initiated?
      • perceptions and requests
    5. How does our current structure support this? Ideas
      • consider dropping some of all groups and reform
      • move to a structure driven by clear goals and short time commitments
      • use increasing commitments to draw people in. Start small, grow big.
  2. SME's Strategic Plan is now updated with a 6th goal: http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/getsmepg.pl?/html/smestratplan.htm&&&SME&. These represent a major addition of a member centric value to the goals. The changes are based on a careful assessment of the SME. An important outcome is expected to be a Council Of Education (COE) involving the MER.
    • Goals:
      1. Knowledge SME will be the premier manufacturing knowledge resource throughout the global manufacturing community.
      2. Education SME and the SME Education Foundation will be known as advocates for careers in manufacturing and a leading resource for manufacturing education.
      3. Membership SME will actively engage people and companies in their communities of interest to add value for the member.
      4. Brand SME's brand creates the image of the most valued source of manufacturing knowledge.
      5. Lean & Effective SME will be both lean and effective.
      6. Knowledge Delivery SME will deliver knowledge in ways that meet the needs of members and customers.
    • Some of the facts of interest seen in a recent membership report:
    • Typical member profile: in industry looking for knowledge
    • MER Membership: 2006-5238, 2007-6772, 2008-4373
    • Large membership sectors: Aerospace and Defense 4198, Medical 2231, Motorsports 2323, oil/gas 2154
  3. The report of the Task Force on the Role of SME in Higher Education is nearing completion and will indicate key opportunities for the MER Community.
    • Mark will ask LaRoux for slides or copy of document ASAP.
  4. NAMRC 37 will feature 84 technical presentations and a panel on education: www.sme.org/namrc at Clemson, Greenville, SC, May 2009.
    • Hugh will check to see if they need us to suggest people.
  5. The SME annual conference and meeting is June 7-9 in Philadelphia: www.sme.org/annualmeeting
    • poster abstract/panel session submissions
  6. The Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit is June 18-19 in Austin, Texas: http://www.merconline.net/wiki/index.php?title=Manufacturing_Education_Transformation_Summit_2009
    • call this Thursday
    • hold that MER steering committee there
  7. Future items
    • invite Tim Bond to discuss Standardizing 2-4 year curriculum
    • have programs do a daily article in SME Newsletter - grad and undergraduate
    • ask for research summaries for SME newsletter
  8. Next meeting Monday February 23, noon eastern time.

Comments