Home‎ > ‎Minutes‎ > ‎

Minutes_Manufacturing_Education_Transformation Summit

Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit

attendees: S. Coe, G. Conkol, H. Jack, H. Kraebber, V. Raju, M. Stratton, C. Williams

regrets: R. Bennett, K. Birch, W. Erevelles, V. Hawks, B. Mott, C. Saygin, L. Wolf

  1. [Jack] Survey results from the summit
    • Overall Satisfaction - OK, not outstanding
    • Facilities - a good setup
    • Issues
      • More positive is desired
      • More take-aways, working sessions
      • Include community colleges
      • Move beyond issues and towards actions
      • Keep or expand networking
      • Extend to student groups, recent grad, and others
      • Sessions geared to each of the invited groups
      • Include some pragmatic interests; competitions, learning experiences
      • More online activity - e.g. Twitter, facebook, linkdin, webinars, virtual booth
      • Try to avoid sitting in audiences for sequential presentations
      • Memory stick good - need printed instructions, verbal summary at opening
      • Standardize on PDF
      • More discussions in sessions
      • Internet access required
      • Communications and paper review expectations should be better
      • Real-time feedback mechanisms, e.g. Pittsburgh Forum expanded
      • Add a place for comments - poster style
      • Paper proceedings
      • Outside activities
      • Better timekeeping
      • fewer papers more time
      • More industry folks
      • More with ASEE MFG Div.
      • Summaries and recaps
      • Better wiki and paper site
  2. [Stratton] wrapup of overall logistics and budget
    • The location was good and the meeting rooms were good
    • The internet access was an issue we should had taken care of earlier
    • The cost of the facilities were good thanks to some work from Mark
    • There was an issue with the online registration - will be solved next time
    • The budget will be met
    • Some issues with communications from Hugh - Will be revisited
      • Invitations
      • Attendee confirmations
      • Author/presenter information
  3. New Initiatives -
    • [Conkol] Whitepapers on the Curriculum 2015
      • Globalization (Conkol) and undergrad engineering programs (Mott) are the first two for September
      • These will feed into the Curriculum 2015
      • Can be like a series of 'blue books' (e.g. brief documents with a focus published by CASA)
      • Each white paper would be the basis for another event such as; webinar, workshop, meeting, online course
      • ACTION ITEM: Conkol to hold phone conference to take the next step - group includes Mott, Kraebber, Raju, Hawks, Stratton, Jack
    • [Jack] The Webinar Format
      • Online presentations and discussions following a conference format
      • As much as possible cherry pick from previous presentations
      • Target for September/October
      • ACTION ITEM: Jack to hold phone conference to take next step - group includes Stratton, Conkol
  4. A followup call for the group of the whole will be held Monday August 3, noon ET.

Manufacturing Education Transformation Summit

attendees: G. Conkol, H. Jack, B. Mott, M. Stratton, D. Wells, L. Wolff


How well did things work?

  • the networking time was good.
  • conversation time in and between sessions was good.
  • the balance of keynote talks.
  • talks that were 30 minutes including questions were good, 20 minutes was too short.
  • frequent and enthusiastic about the product content of manufacturing education - mixing design and manufacturing - a powerful curriculum message.
  • many positive messages came out - there was no fixation on the problems such as enrollment
  • a positive message kept things from degrading
  • the flip charts were enabling and seemed to reduce the need to push messages
  • inclusion of the MERC and CareerME message was helpful.
  • recognizing the importance in the opening and that everybody is on board leads to a sense of cooperation.
  • The material booth (especially the DVD) was well done.
  • the venue was good
  • the USB proceedings had advantages over CDs
  • food was very good.
  • the web based presentation went reasonably well - there were a couple of hiccups.

What could be better?

  • the communication and advertising paths were not very good.
  • many people did not know about the event.
  • the message is being spread, but not much new was done.
  • found some new people who were very good contacts and show interest.
  • Some of the content was off target including keynote talks.
  • enforce session end times and leave more time for the speakers.
  • we need to communicate a sharper message.
  • internet access was poor.
  • some issues with temp control.
  • still some paper for agenda and other items is critical - counting on computers is not sufficient.
  • the advance notices did not arrive.
  • the paper review and notification processes had some rough spots.
  • using PDFs or specifying file formats for the future.
  • providing a fixed presentation computer is a good idea.
  • there was inconsistency with moderators - introductions and more.

Issues - what were we missing?

  • find a way to spread the word so that people know it is happening.
  • somebody with a clear mission for recruiting.
  • a process that carefully screened talks and keynotes.
  • it is hard to strike a balance between hearing our message .back again - or - allowing topics to be chaotic.

How did the intent of the Summit change?

  • started with Curricula 2015, but became.....
  • started with the idea of directed invitations.

Where do we go next?

  • use MERC for distribution. METEC too.
  • Look for other groups - north america, schools containing manufacturing in other program.
  • define the question clearly but allow variation in approaches.
  • provide speaker prep time.
  • provide a clear set of standards with presentations due ahead of time.
  • a speaker/moderator meeting before the day starts.
  • speaker preparation meetings ahead of the presentation day or meeting.

Did we have impact? Did we meet our expectations?

  • the small numbers hurt.
  • did not change manufacturing education.
  • the results of the meeting are not immediately usable by educators, and influence policy makers.
  • identified new players.
  • promoting the value of products.
  • local group and industry involvement.
  • international aspects.
  • sharing information from other programs.

Planning for the Future

  • extend this summit or something new.
  • white papers - take papers that are best practices and turn them into strategies.
  • take the summit talks to an online format.
  • deliver talks asynchronously.
  • white papers developed from comments and are meant to capture conflicting points of view.
  • 'target to engineering and engineering technology'.
  • Gordon style conferences to generate more content.
  • gather a small group together for a week to finalize the curricula document or even something smaller.
  • a few focused white papers delivered to a small group. Then the group works to gather them together into a plan. The web based meetings to prepare. Work ahead of time is key.
  • selectivity, advanced preparation, on-site focus.
  • emphasize what is taught and how it is taught.
  • cherry pick from the three events.
  • do it in pieces.
  • the document is the means, not the end.
  • the book is a reference for the actions.

The Next Steps

  1. Outcome:
    • ACTIVITY: An online recap of the summit and forums
    • PURPOSE: to widen the exposure and set the stage for the following events
    • DATE: September
  2. Outcome:
    • ACTIVITY: Preparation of one or more white papers based on the summit and forums
    • PURPOSE: To create them to add to the Curriculum 2015 document.
    • PERSON - CHAMPION: Gary Conkol
    • DATE: (Gary) First round with globalization - September
    • VOLUNTEERS: (Bob) Develop something for the BS curriculum chapter
  3. Outcome:
    • ACTIVITY: Validate the white papers in a Gordon style conference.
    • PURPOSE: To bring a group of approximately one dozen to review and join the white papers.
    • PERSON - CHAMPION: Gary Conkol
    • DATE: February 2010
  4. Discussion:
    • The Gordon (or similar) style conference could draw researchers and others. Probably using other budgets from groups.
    • Should be driven by anticipated outcome, not a budget.
    • A Gordon (or similar) conference normally gathers a group to create not reviews.
    • More details will follow for final approval.

Motion: To accept these three activities in principle and request more detailed plans within a month. (unanimous support.)

Next Call

Thursday July 9, 2009 noon-1pm ET

METS Organizers Conference Call

attendees: R. Bennett, S. Coe, G. Conkol, L. Gillespie, V. Hawks, H. Jack, H. Kraebber, B. Mott, V. Raju, M. Stratton, C. Williams

regrets: none

  1. Various Items:
      • the program was reviewed and finalized.
      • Raju says the program is ready to go.
  2. Action Items:
    • Mark will....
      • forward rooms to Hugh for the program.
      • take care of larger signs.
      • take copies of the task force report.
      • send electronic version of task force presentation to Hugh.
      • Mark will bring name-tags.
      • registration list, and list for those who need certificates.
      • Mark will send a roster to Hugh for limited posting.
      • Mark will print a complete roster for on-site distribution -- paper only.
    • Hugh will....
      • print the program.
      • do an after event web based assessment.
      • prepare proceedings.
      • use the registration list to find missing registrations.
    • LaRoux will....
      • prepare a shortened task force report and presentation.

Manufacturing Education Technology Summit Conference Planning Call

May 14, 2009, 2-3pm

Attendees: K. Birch, G. Conkol, H. Jack, P. Jaromilla, B. Mott, V. Raju, M. Stratton, C. Williams

Regrets: V. Hawks

  1. Paper review
    • 42 abstracts accepted, 15 papers submitted and accepted, 6 authors have asked for extra time. Submit by 15th.
      • [Jack and Raju] the paper session schedule will be set by Monday afternoon.
      • [Jack - Done] email to authors - if abstract accepted welcome to present.
      • [Raju] May 30 drop dead date for review, June 8 for final (camera ready) version.
      • [Jack - Done] look at Bob's email in the system.
  2. Program
    • Friday Morning Speaker needed
    • Panel Discussion - Karen outlined
      • part - technical education for high schools in the states
      • part - dept of labor grant winners for manufacturing growth areas
      • part - community colleges and pathway to 4 year degrees - 2+2+2 plans
      • part add? - somebody from a 4 year program - possibly graduate level
      • request - to make it a broad discussion
      • question - how to address graduate programs?
      • objectives - ways to connect the K-16-graduate pipeline
      • objectives - curriculum that is informed by industry
      • objectives - how to get funding
      • [Stratton] To contact somebody about the Haas technical centers
      • [Birch] To recruit a four year program representative
      • [Jack] to identify moderators
  3. Details
    • Cracker Barrel needs staffing
      • [Mott] will ask V. Hawks
  4. When and where
    • Radisson room rates are from $116 to $lots. So lower rates than advertised are available.
    • The network access is not guaranteed
      • [Jack - Done] email to address outstanding registration
      • [Jack - Done] wireless network connections will be limited - phone modems can be used.
      • [Jack] projector available - bring laptops
  5. Check-in call - Thursday June 11 at noon ET

METS Phone Conference Call - April 23, 2009

attendees: H. Jack, R. Mott, M. Stratton

regrets: K. Birch, G. Conkol, W. Erevelles, V. Hawks


  1. Abstract and Paper Submission
    • 40 abstracts in the system so far.
    • Raju is continuing to accept abstracts, but at some point the process will be closed (May 30?)
    • Two more abstracts are expected from 'Tooling U' and 'Oxygen Education'.
  2. Planning Issues
    • 8 reg now.
    • Looking for registrations after paper acceptance.
    • The SME rate for the hotel is the main option now.
  3. Recruiting
    • Attendance numbers should increase
      • Presenters - Hugh Jack
      • Other speakers - Hugh Jack
      • ATE centers - Karen Birch
      • ETD listserve - Hugh Jack
      • SME accreditation committee - Mark Stratton/Hulas King
      • SME certification committee - Mark Stratton/
      • SME EF Grant Winners - Mark Stratton
      • ASEE Manufacturing Division - Bob Mott
      • Department chairs - Hugh Check with Val Hawks or Winston Erevelles or others
  4. Session Planning
    • Workshop with John Anderson - looks fine to proceed
    • Finalize the sessions - Hugh work with Raju
    • Details on the panel session - Hugh will work with Raju and Karen
  5. Publishing
    • Guidelines for publishing the papers - Raju will provide to authors
    • Mark will arrange for USB flash drives