Oregon University System logo

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhancing Engineering Programs
2001 and Beyond

Table of Contents

Summary

Options

Option A

Option B

Option C

Option D

Recommendation

Questions and Answers

Capital Requirements

MGT Work Plan / Time Line

Engineering and Technology Industry Council Recommended Investments for 2001-2003



OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Options for Enhancing Engineering Programs
2001 and Beyond

Purpose

This report responds to institutional and Board interest in structuring a budget priority that focuses on improving engineering programs or schools to a level of national visibility. The budget request, based on national comparative data, would seek to build operating budgets and capital inventories to the levels of aspirational peer institutions. Four options have been created from a combination of the consultant (MGT of America) findings and the approved request of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF). The relationship between the EEIF and Tier I/Spires of Excellence is particularly important in understanding how similar objectives affect budget decisions.

Connecting EEIF and MGT Objectives

The EEIF enhancement request consists of a $30 million state General Fund component and a $17 million industry match focused on the addition of faculty to double the output of engineering and computer science degrees awarded by OUS. The MGT findings estimate funding requirements necessary to improve national ranking, with specific attention to funding for added faculty, staff, scholarships, operating and faculty start-up costs. There is overlap between the EEIF and MGT objectives in that the added faculty and other resources in the EEIF request will contribute to the targets underlying the Tier I / Spires of Excellence objectives.

The MGT findings for additional faculty at OSU and PSU are based on the median number of faculty of aspirational peers; while commonly accepted averages/ratios are used to calculate the number of staff, graduate assistants, scholarships, research start-up costs, and operating funds. UO and OIT utilized similar cost factors as OSU/PSU for faculty, staff, operating, etc., and assumed a doubling of enrollment of their programs. (The consultant suggests that aspirational peers of OSU/PSU are more than double the size in enrollments and faculty, which supports parallel logic for OIT/UO.)

Four Options

Four options have been developed that use the MGT findings as a starting point to determine funding required to reach aspirational levels. Option A suggests that the MGT findings can be modified through a reduction in funding for (50%) that should be funded through EEIF. It allocates the request over a three-biennia period. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $16.09 million in state General Fund and $16.1 million from other sources.

Option B goes a step further and modifies the MGT findings by reducing faculty (50%) and scholarships (25%) that could be earmarked through the EEIF. The 25% reduction (shift to EEIF) was chosen not because there was a clear-cut match in the EEIF request, but because of emphasis on degree production. The priority need to double degrees suggests a greater commitment to attract and retain top students. It also requests funding over a three-biennia period. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $14.17 million in state General Fund and $14.18 million from other sources.

Option C reflects the same budgetary assumptions as Option A (i.e., assumes 50% of faculty funded through EEIF), but allocates costs over four biennia. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $12.06 in state General Fund and $12.08 million from other sources.

Option D (recommended option) reflects the same budgetary assumptions as Option B, but allocates the costs over a four-biennia period. The 2001-2003 Biennial Request would be $10.63 million in state General Fund and $10.63 million from other sources.

Establishing Reasonable Funding Objectives

There is no precise way to determine the extent of overlapping costs between the EEIF request and MGT findings. No "reduction" was included for research start-up costs, graduate assistants, or staff, yet the EEIF request will, to varying degrees, include such costs. The clearest connection is the number of faculty estimated by each initiative. Options B and D assume a 25% share of scholarship costs borne by EEIF given the emphasis on the growth in number of students and necessity for financial aid. Institutions will be able to create expenditure plans that reflect the best mix of expenditures by category and fund source for their purposes. If they can raise more scholarship funding privately, state support can be allocated for other purposes. The funding request is a biennial target that recognizes the EEIF / Tier I interrelationship and will require annual assessment of expenditures against program objectives (i.e., increased research expenditures, increased degree production, etc.).

Options A and B do not seek to earmark additional EEIF resources against the MGT targets given the EEIF objectives of supporting pre-college programs, distance education enhancements, and laboratory improvements. The basic staff support, graduate assistants, research start-up costs, and continuing operating costs appeared less of an objective or a function of the EEIF and more of a requirement of the MGT peer improvement initiative. Table V in each option presents the total funding requested--EEIF and Tier 1/Spires--for 2001-2003. The combined commitment ranges from $79 million in Option A to $68 million in Option B (state and other sources).

Options C and D extend the achievement of Tier I / Spires of Excellence objectives an additional two years. As time lines are lengthened, costs will grow, thus increasing the total cost of implementation. (The current value of costs is reflected in all options; possible market and price changes are not considered in total funding.)

Enhancing Engineering Programs
Summary Fact Sheet
(in millions)

 

OPTIONS

 

A

B

C

D

MGT

Total Funding (per biennium)

$96.58

$85.04

$96.58

$85.04

$113.00

State General Fund Share (per biennium)

$16.10

$14.17

$12.06

$10.63

25-67%

Other Funds Share
(per biennium)

$16.10

$14.18

$12.08

$10.63

33-75%

Biennia phase-in

3

3

4

4

multi-year

50% Faculty Salaries - EEIF

Y

Y

Y

Y

n/a

25% Scholarships - EEIF

N

Y

N

Y

n/a

Number of Added Faculty

111

111

111

111

222

Number of Added Staff

45

45

45

45

45

Number of Added Graduate Assistants

178

178

178

178

178



OPTION A

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option A is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) limited modification of MGT findings in acknowledgment of the EEIF funding request; 2) a three-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources.

The EEIF request, approved by the Board, consists of $30 million for additional faculty, laboratory enhancements, research, pre-college programs, and distance education expansion. The primary objective of the funding is to increase degrees awarded in engineering and computer science by 85%. An additional $17 million is expected as an industry match.

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

 

Total Need (Annual)

 

Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 3.95

$ 3.95

$ 7.90

$ 15.80

OSU

16.40

16.40

32.80

65.60

PSU

5.40

5.40

10.80

21.60

UO

2.50

2.50

5.00

10.00

Total

$28.25

$28.25

$56.50

$113.00


Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Annual

 
Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 3.33

$ 3.34

$ 6.67

$13.34

OSU

13.98

13.98

27.96

55.91

PSU

4.70

4.71

9.41

18.82

UO

2.12

2.13

4.25

8.51

Total

$24.13

$24.16

$48.29

$96.58

Table II reflects a modification of the MGT findings to "fit" two significant Oregon conditions. First, the Board has approved a $30 million EEIF request. The request includes funding for additional faculty. It is appropriate to reduce the MGT findings where the funding in the EEIF request will contribute to advancement in Tier standing. Second, the amount of the funding required annually, $48.29 million, is substantial enough to expect a non-state share.

Assumptions:
•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) = $48.29

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing funding for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

 

OIT

OSU

PSU

UO

Total

Faculty

$ 1,225,000

$ 4,877,000

$ 1,388,000

$ 730,000

$ 8,220,000

Graduate Assts

-

1,770,000

630,000

270,000

2,670,000

Staff

261,000

696,000

232,000

116,000

1,305,000

Operating

612,500

2,439,000

694,400

365,100

4,111,000

Scholarships

4,576,000

12,272,000

4,368,000

1,872,000

23,088,000

Start-up

-

5,900,000

2,100,000

900,000

8,900,000

Total (Annual)

$ 6,674,500

$27,954,000

$ 9,412,400

$4,253,100

$48,294,000

Total (Biennial)

$13,349,000

$55,908,000

$18,824,800

$8,506,200

$96,588,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise nearly 50% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students).

Staffing Requirements

  OIT OSU PSU UO Total
Number of faculty* 22 59 21 9 111
Number of staff 9 24 8 4 45
Number of graduate assistants - 118 42 18 178
Total 31 201 71 31 334
* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

 

Biennial Request

Unit

State

Other

Total

OIT

$2.22

$2.22

$ 4.44

OSU

9.32

9.32

18.64

PSU

3.13

3.14

6.27

UO

1.42

1.42

2.84

Total

$ 16.09

$ 16.10

$32.19

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-third, $32.19 million, of the $96.58 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request
(in millions)

 

EEIF

Tier I / Spires Enhancement

Total

Unit

State

Other

State

Other

State

Other

OCECS

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

-

-

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

OGI

3.73

.86

-

-

3.73

.86

OIT

2.45

.60

2.22

2.22

4.67

2.82

OSU

11.00

3.20

9.32

9.32

20.32

12.52

PSU

6.30

6.30

3.13

3.14

9.43

9.44

UO

3.75

3.20

1.42

1.42

5.17

4.62

Research

1.00

1.00

-

-

1.00

1.00

Total

$30.00

$16.85

$16.09

$16.10

$46.09

$32.95

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $79.04 million, $46.09 million from the state and $32.95 million from other sources.

The expectation for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take three biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following two biennia and through EEIF.



OPTION B

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option B is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) more extensive modification (than Option A) of MGT findings due to increased expectation of EEIF funding to support Tier I/Spires of Excellence initiatives; 2) a three-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources. Simply put, Option B places a greater reliance on EEIF for funding undergraduate scholarships than Option A.

The EEIF request, approved by the Board, consists of $30 million for additional faculty, laboratory enhancements, research, pre-college programs, and distance education expansion. The primary objective of the funding is to increase degrees awarded in engineering and computer science by 85%. An additional $17 million is expected as an industry match.

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

 

Total Need (Annual)

 

Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 3.95

$ 3.95

$ 7.90

$ 15.80

OSU

16.40

16.40

32.80

65.60

PSU

5.40

5.40

10.80

21.60

UO

2.50

2.50

5.00

10.00

Total

$28.25

$28.25

$56.50

$113.00

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Annual

 
Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 2.76

$ 2.77

$ 5.53

$11.06

OSU

12.44

12.44

24.88

49.77

PSU

4.16

4.16

8.32

16.64

UO

1.89

1.90

3.79

7.57

Total

$21.25

$21.27

$42.52

$85.04

Table II reflects a modification of the MGT findings to "fit" two significant Oregon conditions. First, the Board has approved a $30 million EEIF request. The request includes funding for additional faculty. It is appropriate to reduce the MGT findings where the funding in the EEIF request will contribute to advancement in Tier standing. Second, the amount of the funding required annually, $42.5 million, is substantial enough to expect a non-state share.

Assumptions:

•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) - $5.77 (scholarships) = $42.52

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing funding for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
•EEIF or other source will support $5.77 million annually in scholarships.

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

 

OIT

OSU

PSU

UO

Total

Faculty

$ 1,225,000

$ 4,877,000

$ 1,388,000

$ 730,000

$ 8,220,000

Graduate Assts

-

1,770,000

630,000

270,000

2,670,000

Staff

261,000

696,000

232,000

116,000

1,305,000

Operating

612,500

2,439,000

694,400

365,100

4,111,000

Scholarships

3,432,000

9,204,000

3,276,000

1,404,000

17,316,000

Start-up

-

5,900,000

2,100,000

900,000

8,900,000

Total (Annual)

$ 5,530,500

$24,886,000

$ 8,320,400

$3,785,100

$42,522,000

Total (Biennial)

$11,061,000

$49,772,000

$16,640,800

$7,570,200

$85,044,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise 41% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students). Also 25% additional funding for undergraduate scholarships will be supported through EEIF and is not reflected in Options B or D.

Staffing Requirements

  OIT OSU PSU UO Total
Number of faculty* 22 59 21 9 111
Number of staff 9 24 8 4 45
Number of graduate assistants - 118 42 18 178
Total 31 201 71 31 334
* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

 

Biennial Request

Unit

State

Other

Total

OIT

$1.84

$1.85

$ 3.69

OSU

8.29

8.30

16.59

PSU

2.78

2.77

5.55

UO

1.26

1.26

2.52

Total

$14.17

$14.18

$28.35

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-third, $28.35 million, of the $85.04 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request
(in millions)

 

EEIF

Tier I / Spires Enhancement

Total

Unit

State

Other

State

Other

State

Other

OCECS

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

-

-

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

OGI

3.73

.86

-

-

3.73

.86

OIT

2.45

.60

1.84

1.85

4.29

2.45

OSU

11.00

3.20

8.29

8.30

19.29

11.50

PSU

6.30

6.30

2.78

2.77

9.08

9.07

UO

3.75

3.20

1.26

1.26

5.01

4.41

Research

1.00

1.00

-

-

1.00

1.00

Total

$30.00

$16.85

$14.17

$14.18

$44.17

$31.03

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $75.20 million, $44.17 million from the state and $31.03 million from other sources.

The expectation for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take three biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following two biennia and through EEIF.




OPTION C

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option C is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) a modification of MGT findings (same level as Option A) based on overlapping funding with EEIF; 2) a four-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources.

The basic variation of Option C from Option A is to spread costs over a four-biennia period. It maintains the same budgetary conditions as Option A (i.e., costs total $48.29 million annually and are split 50%-50% between state and non-state sources).

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

 

Total Need (Annual)

 

Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 3.95

$ 3.95

$ 7.90

$ 15.80

OSU

16.40

16.40

32.80

65.60

PSU

5.40

5.40

10.80

21.60

UO

2.50

2.50

5.00

10.00

Total

$28.25

$28.25

$56.50

$113.00

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Annual

 
Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 3.33

$ 3.34

$ 6.67

$13.34

OSU

13.98

13.98

27.96

55.91

PSU

4.70

4.71

9.41

18.82

UO

2.12

2.13

4.25

8.51

Total

$24.13

$24.16

$48.29

$96.58

Table II reflects a modification of the MGT findings to "fit" two significant Oregon conditions. First, the Board has approved a $30 million EEIF request. The request includes funding for additional faculty. It is appropriate to reduce the MGT findings where the funding in the EEIF request will contribute to advancement in Tier standing. Second, the amount of the funding required annually, $48.29 million, is substantial enough to expect a non-state share.

Assumptions:

•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) = $48.29

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing requests for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

 

OIT

OSU

PSU

UO

Total

Faculty

$ 1,225,000

$ 4,877,000

$ 1,388,000

$ 730,000

$ 8,220,000

Graduate Assts

-

1,770,000

630,000

270,000

2,670,000

Staff

261,000

696,000

232,000

116,000

1,305,000

Operating

612,500

2,439,000

694,400

365,100

4,111,000

Scholarships

4,576,000

12,272,000

4,368,000

1,872,000

23,088,000

Start-up

-

5,900,000

2,100,000

900,000

8,900,000

Total (Annual)

$ 6,674,500

$27,954,000

$ 9,412,400

$4,253,100

$48,294,000

Total (Biennial)

$13,349,000

$55,908,000

$18,824,800

$8,506,200

$96,588,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise nearly 50% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students).

Staffing Requirements

  OIT OSU PSU UO Total
Number of faculty* 22 59 21 9 111
Number of staff 9 24 8 4 45
Number of graduate assistants - 118 42 18 178
Total 31 201 71 31 334
* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

 

Biennial Request

Unit

State

Other

Total

OIT

$1.66

$1.67

$ 3.33

OSU

6.99

6.99

13.98

PSU

2.35

2.35

4.70

UO

1.06

1.07

2.13

Total

$12.06

$12.08

$24.14

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-quarter, $24.14 million, of the $96.58 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request
(in millions)

 

EEIF

Tier I / Spires Enhancement

Total

Unit

State

Other

State

Other

State

Other

OCECS

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

-

-

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

OGI

3.73

.86

-

-

3.73

.86

OIT

2.45

.60

1.66

1.67

4.11

2.27

OSU

11.00

3.20

6.99

6.99

17.99

10.19

PSU

6.30

6.30

2.35

2.35

8.65

8.65

UO

3.75

3.20

1.06

1.07

4.81

4.27

Research

1.00

1.00

-

-

1.00

1.00

Total

$30.00

$16.85

$12.06

$12.08

$42.06

$28.93

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $70.99 million, $42.06 million from the state and $28.93 million from other sources.

The expectations for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take four biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following three biennia and through EEIF.



OPTION D

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Recommendations to Enhance Engineering Programs
2001-2003

The following tables offer a progression beginning with MGT findings (Table I) to an integrated biennial recommendation consisting of the of the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request and the Tier I / Spires of Excellence request (Table V).

Option D is one of four alternatives. It is built around three assumptions: 1) more extensive modification (than Option A) of MGT findings due to increased expectation of EEIF funding to support Tier I/Spires of Excellence initiatives; 2) a four-biennia phase-in; and 3) a 50%-50% funding split between state and non-state sources. Simply put, Option D, like Option B, places a greater reliance on EEIF for funding undergraduate scholarships than Option A.

TIER I / SPIRES OF EXCELLENCE ENHANCEMENTS
Additional Cost to Raise Budgets to Peer Level

TABLE I: MGT Findings
(in millions)

 

Total Need (Annual)

 

Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 3.95

$ 3.95

$ 7.90

$ 15.80

OSU

16.40

16.40

32.80

65.60

PSU

5.40

5.40

10.80

21.60

UO

2.50

2.50

5.00

10.00

Total

$28.25

$28.25

$56.50

$113.00

Table I is the current value of annual costs identified by MGT to move the four institutions to an aspirational peer level. The costs are allocated 50%-50% between the state General Fund and other sources. (MGT found that peers in engineering reflected at least a 50%-50% split in fund source.) The factors used to generate the estimates, including the choice of peers and formula costs, appear reasonable. The major cost components are faculty salaries, scholarships, start-up costs for new faculty, graduate assistants, support staff, and operating support. The use of two methodologies to compare costs provided a useful check.

TABLE II: Connecting MGT Findings and EEIF Request
(in millions)

Annual

 
Unit

State

Other

Total

Biennial

OIT

$ 2.76

$ 2.77

$ 5.53

$11.06

OSU

12.44

12.44

24.88

49.77

PSU

4.16

4.16

8.32

16.64

UO

1.89

1.90

3.79

7.57

Total

$21.25

$21.27

$42.52

$85.04


Table II reflects a modification of the MGT findings to "fit" two significant Oregon conditions. First, the Board has approved a $30 million EEIF request. The request includes funding for additional faculty. It is appropriate to reduce the MGT findings where the funding in the EEIF request will contribute to advancement in Tier standing. Second, the amount of the funding required annually, $42.5 million, is substantial enough to expect a non-state share.

Assumptions:

•Represents MGT findings less funding overlap with EEIF request:
$56.50 - $8.21 (faculty salaries) - $5.77 (scholarships) = $42.52

•EEIF will support addition of 50% (111) of 222 additional faculty.
•Continuing funding for faculty through EEIF.
•50%-50% split state General Fund/Other Funds. (Increased support beyond 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged.)
•EEIF or other source will support $5.77 million annually in scholarships.

TABLE III: Projected Expenditures for Engineering (Annual)
(in millions)

 

OIT

OSU

PSU

UO

Total

Faculty

$ 1,225,000

$ 4,877,000

$ 1,388,000

$ 730,000

$ 8,220,000

Graduate Assts

-

1,770,000

630,000

270,000

2,670,000

Staff

261,000

696,000

232,000

116,000

1,305,000

Operating

612,500

2,439,000

694,400

365,100

4,111,000

Scholarships

3,432,000

9,204,000

3,276,000

1,404,000

17,316,000

Start-up

-

5,900,000

2,100,000

900,000

8,900,000

Total (Annual)

$ 5,530,500

$24,886,000

$ 8,320,400

$3,785,100

$42,522,000

Total (Biennial)

$11,061,000

$49,772,000

$16,640,800

$7,570,200

$85,044,000

Table III is a detailed analysis of the total funding required by expenditure item. The undergraduate scholarships comprise 41% of the added cost. It is assumed, again based on peers, that 50% of new students will receive scholarships (the 50% target appears realistic based on a need to recruit and retain the highest quality students). Also 25% funding for undergraduate scholarships will be supported through EEIF and is not reflected in Options B or D.

Staffing Requirements

  OIT OSU PSU UO Total
Number of faculty* 22 59 21 9 111
Number of staff 9 24 8 4 45
Number of graduate assistants - 118 42 18 178
Total 31 201 71 31 334
* Represents 50% of faculty identified by consultant; remaining 50% assumed funded through EEIF.

TABLE IV: 2001-2003 Biennial Request
(in millions)

 

Biennial Request

Unit

State

Other

Total

OIT

$1.38

$1.39

$ 2.77

OSU

6.22

6.22

12.44

PSU

2.08

2.08

4.16

UO

.95

.94

1.89

Total

$10.63

$10.63

$21.26

Table IV is the biennial request derived from Table II (i.e., it is one-quarter, $21.26 million, of the $85.04 million biennial total). It is assumed that the funding will become an ongoing expenditure in the annual budgets of four institutions.

Assumptions:

TABLE V: 2001-2003 Integrated Engineering
Enhancements Request

(in millions)

 

EEIF

Tier I / Spires Enhancement

Total

Unit

State

Other

State

Other

State

Other

OCECS

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

-

-

$ 1.77

$ 1.69

OGI

3.73

.86

-

-

3.73

.86

OIT

2.45

.60

1.38

1.39

3.83

1.99

OSU

11.00

3.20

6.22

6.22

17.22

9.42

PSU

6.30

6.30

2.08

2.08

8.38

8.38

UO

3.75

3.20

.95

.94

4.70

4.14

Research

1.00

1.00

-

-

1.00

1.00

Total

$30.00

$16.85

$10.63

$10.63

$40.63

$27.48

Table V is the integration of the EEIF request and Tier/Spires request reflecting both state and non-state funding.

The 2001-2003 Biennial Budget Request for engineering enhancements totals $68.11 million, $40.63 million from the state and $27.48 million from other sources.

The expectation for fully funding the Tier I / Spires of Excellence initiative is that it will take four biennia, assuming similar levels of state and other funding support in the following three biennia and through EEIF.



RECOMMENDATION

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Options for Enhancing Engineering Programs
Recommendations -- 2001-2003

A number of assumptions underpin the decision-making process for additional funding of Oregon engineering programs.

Assumptions to Achieve Tier and Peer Improvement

•The Board accepts the findings of the MGT study concerning peer comparisons with OUS institutions, including the factors that best measure resources and quality levels.
•A definite gap exists between the OUS institutions and the resources available at their respective aspirational peer institutions. To close the gap will require significant growth of faculty size as well as associated administrative support, facilities, and equipment.
•Statewide engineering objectives, as established by the Board through OCECS and ETIC, are further clarified and connected to qualitative and quantitative goals. Funding is recommended for multiple institutions in recognition of a comprehensive approach to providing engineering education.
•Funding necessary to attain the peer improvement must be derived from at least 50% of non-General Fund sources (i.e., grants, contracts, tuition and fees, and private gifts). Increased support beyond the 50% target in Other Funds is encouraged and may be critical to attain the desired levels.
•Measured growth in faculty in conjunction with necessary facilities expansion represents a realistic approach to capital and operating budget growth.
•Facilities will require expansion and modernization to support increased capacity in faculty and student growth. Significant enhancement in sponsored research is critical and will dictate more and improved space.
•Each institution must develop an expenditure plan based on their allocation of the General Fund request. The Board should approve the plan and underlying program objectives.

Recommendation
The System recommends Option D as the alternative that best addresses a number of competing concerns. The following reasons support Option D:

•addresses qualitative demands for enhanced engineering and computer science programs (computer science at SOU, WOU, and EOU, while outside the scope of the MGT study, will require additional state General Fund and Other Funds investment) ;
•connects with the Engineering Educational Investment Fund (EEIF) request to create an integrated response to long-range engineering program requirements;
•recognizes and builds on the strengths of engineering programs at OSU, PSU, OIT, and UO;
•requires a substantial non-state commitment to funding and, ultimately, success;
•supports institutional goals for peer improvement including OSU Tier I aspirations;
•establishes a four-biennia time frame to actively seek non-state support, build state programs, and acquire necessary capital resources; and
•represents the least cost scenario ($10.63 million General Fund on a biennial basis), thus allowing for funding opportunities of other OUS priorities.

Options A through D are relatively similar in addressing points 1 through 4, but Option D (the lowest cost option allocated over four-biennia) increases the chances for leveraging all resources in a measured and meaningful fashion.

As highlighted in the summary, the identification of overlapping or duplicated costs between EEIF and MGT is imprecise. It is critical, however, to recognize that achievement of a number of the objectives in the EEIF proposal will contribute to peer improvement and close the funding gap that presently exists. (An annual process of assessment could be developed that reviews actual expenditures from state and other sources with the intent of providing a set of measures against those factors that define peer improvement.)

The success of all of the options is dependent on gaining sufficient support through the EEIF and substantial non-state sources. Realistically, if the projected faculty and scholarship funds from EEIF are not realized, the success of the Tier 1/Spires of Excellence enhancement will be even more dependent on non-state resources.

Option D provides an additional margin of time to react to circumstances driven by financial considerations. The alternative does not restrict institutions from soliciting operating and capital funds that allow for achieving the objectives in a reduced period of time. In fact, it encourages all institutions to seek non-state funding that exceeds the 50% target.

Board Action:
Approval of Option D to include:

•$85.04 million total funding target (evaluated each biennium based on appropriate price adjustments);
•$10.63 million 2001-2003 biennial state General Fund request;
•$10.63 million 2001-2003 biennial commitment in Other Funds;
•four-biennia time frame (reassessed each biennium); and
•biennial allocations by institution:

(In millions)



Unit

State

General Fund



Other Funds



Total

OIT

$ 1.38

$ 1.39

$ 2.27

OSU

6.22

6.22

12.44

PSU

2.08

2.08

4.16

UO

.95

.94

1.89

Total

$10.63

$10.63

$21.26

•Require annual progress reports on the program and funding status of engineering and computer science programs



QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Options for Enhancing Engineering Programs
2001 and Beyond

Questions / Answers

Q: How does the commitment to enhancing engineering programs benefit Oregon?

A: Assuming success in attaining aspirational levels, the state would have: "local" resources to support engineering job demand; substantial grants and contracts enhancing economic development; creation of jobs supporting programs; expanded research components to better address industry R&D; and a greater source of pride, driven by program quality and reputation, higher quality educational experience (instruction, laboratory, and advanced research) in engineering and computer science programs. This results in greater ability by the campuses to attract and retain quality faculty and students.

Q: What measures or standards will be used to determine success of the investment?

A: The MGT findings offer a number of indicators which will be benchmarks to assess progress:

•student / faculty ratios by level of instruction
•number of doctoral students
•number of master's students
•number of full-time teaching faculty
•gross square feet per faculty member
•research laboratory space
•teaching laboratory space
•research expenditures
•degrees granted--by level

An annual report assessing progress toward program objectives in conjunction with a funding review would ensure accountability.

Q: How do other nationally recognized colleges of engineering view the initiative for Oregon universities to move to a Tier I status?

A: Engineering officials from a number of schools did not want to speculate. There seems to be consensus that state and institutional commitment to achieving such objectives is necessary but dependent on a number of variables (i.e., funding availability, attracting "star" faculty, meeting statewide goals, industry support, etc.).

Three leaders, who wished to have their comments remain confidential, suggested that a number of conditions had to be addressed to attain top tier status.

•The quality of facilities was of particular importance in attracting and retaining top notch faculty.
•If funding for research start-up is limited, then the quality of faculty attracted to the institution(s) will be adversely affected.
•A priority should be placed on admitting top graduate and undergraduate students. Good faculty seek strong graduate students.
•The time frame for accomplishing both operating and facilities improvement will likely extend beyond a four-biennia period.
•More emphasis might be placed on the ranking / improvement of specific disciplines as opposed to a school of engineering as a whole.
•Peer competitiveness extends to all aspects of program development and delivery, including faculty, students, and facilities.

Q: What prevents institutions from reallocating funds to engineering programs?

A: Institutional priorities would be the most apparent factor influencing whether or not institutions reallocated funds. Answering the question "Where does enhancing engineering programs fit with priorities such as access, fully funding the RAM, employee compensation, and others?" reflects an important institutional decision. There are obvious limitations to an institution's ability to shift program emphasis, not the least of which is the desire and mission to offer students sufficient course alternatives. Overall funding constraints, such as an underfunded enrollment model, limits further flexible reallocations.

Q: What is a reasonable return on investment with the estimated infusion of personnel and funding?

A: The consultant refers to the multiplier effect; how a $1 investment drives $2 to $3 of business sales. The effect of engineering research can range from 3.5 to 7.0 times with business sales associated with the transfer of technology. The findings indicate a $56.5 million annual increase (consultant estimate) in operating support to attain peer levels, a portion of which must be driven from research-based grants and contracts, will generate a healthy return. The options recommend an increase of 334 faculty, staff, and graduate assistants over a four-biennia period. The benefits of an annual expenditure of nearly $12.5 million in salaries from 334 added positions have obvious economic impacts.

Q: Should the System have a policy or strategy that connects the needs of state and national economies? (Is there a vision?)

A: The System's EEIF request is built on estimated growth in state engineering graduates ("2x"-doubling degree production) continuing to 2005 and beyond. The following are the Board's vision, and goals and objectives, approved in December 1996:

Vision
To meet the needs that exist as a result of Oregon's economic growth, the following vision provides guideposts and a foundation for measuring success:

Goals and Objectives

•Establish an Engineering and Technology industry council to guide and review the programs and operations of the college.
•Provide high quality engineering and technology education for a broad range of students.
•Conduct research, provide specialized consulting, and transfer technology that is at the forefront of the fields.
•Provide for continuing education and professional development programs that are responsive, flexible, accessible throughout Oregon, and up-to-date.
•Focus the College's resources in disciplines of highest priority to Oregon industries and communities.
•Increase the System's educational capacity to graduate more students.
•Implement uniform policies and practices and provide a supportive and productive experience for students, faculty, and staff.
•Enhance the offerings of engineering programs by cooperating and collaborating with other public and private educational providers, both in Oregon and elsewhere.
•Operate in an efficient, open manner at a level of performance consistent with the vision for the College.

Q: Is there difficulty in ranking "collaborations" rather than single institutional colleges of engineering?

A: There is no national data base that identifies rankings on a multi-institutional basis (i.e., PSU/ OGI/OHSU collaboration). Discrete institutional colleges of engineering or separate disciplines are ranked. It can be assumed that where there are program collaborations and related resources, the combined "programs" are strengthened. (MGT could not offer an analysis of the collaboration that paralleled OSU, but did review the national peers in comparison with PSU programs.)

Q: Could all of the state public universities participate in a collaborative model?

A: The degree to which a multi-institutional collaboration would be successful would depend on the willingness of all parties to modify individual agendas to meet statewide program objectives. That is, where institutions have overlapping or mutual strengths (such as PSU/ OGI/OHSU in the metro model), then strengthening programs would require substantial coordination. In those instances where program strength is located in a single institution, then expanding and building on that strength would offer new statewide opportunities.

Q: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a single institution (OSU) approach in achieving engineering goals?

A: MGT's survey of OSU's aspirational peers suggests that OSU is best positioned among the OUS campuses to make progress toward achievement of Tier I status over a period of several biennia. This is based on current program rankings, the comprehensiveness of its current engineering programs, and the University's explicit desire to achieve this objective, as well as the strong support it is receiving from ETIC's leadership. An advantage would be a singular focus on engineering program development, faculty requirements, degree production, etc.

The logistics of student access, however, would be problematic. If all students had to attend the one campus in Corvallis, access would be a major drawback. If they could attend throughout the state, access concerns would be lessened and costs would increase. Another principal disadvantage of pursuing this approach is the very large resource gap between OSU programs today and its aspirational peers with Tier I programs. It is clear from MGT's study that this goal will require a large inf8usion of both state funds and other revenues which must be sustained over several biennia. A disadvantage of identifying one institution as the sole provider would be a contradiction to the Board's 1996 position in establishing a statewide college. The magnitude of growth (2x) in degrees awarded envisioned through the Engineering and Technology Investment Council (ETIC) suggests a broad-based approach to engineering education.

The distributed approach would also permit the Board to address the issue of opportunity costs of such directed state funds from other high priority program needs within the engineering and computer science program offerings from other OSU institutions today (PSU, UO, and OIT) as well as enhancements in teacher education to meet the state's needs for additional teachers given the current projected shortages in Oregon.

A continued focus on expanding and strengthening existing programs statewide provides continuity with the 1996 Board position and allows for institutional initiatives in achieving selected excellence.



CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Enhancing Engineering Programs
Capital Requirements

Attached is a table displaying the current projects proposed by OSU and PSU in the 2001-2006 Capital Budget. These projects may be considered the Capital Budget correlate to the Operating Budget proposals associated with a doubling of enrollments in engineering and computer science and attainment of campus goals concerning research and program growth.

The information displayed compares the projects proposed against the needs identified by the MGT study, and are displayed in terms of whether a given project would support enrollment growth or research growth, principally, and by time frame.

OSU
The MGT study identified a net new need of from 320,960 gsf to 418,900 gsf, associated with adding 118 new faculty and their associated support staff, graduate assistants, and laboratories, and using (a) an MGT space standard as well as (b) gsf of their aspirational peer medians.

OSU's facilities department independently calculated space needs associated with a doubling of enrollment in the College of Engineering and associated faculty increases. However, they did not carry out a specific building programming exercise as did PSU (see below). Using OSU space standards, the department identified that an incremental 400,000 gsf would be needed to house its growth. This figure is within the MGT range.

The 2001-2003 OUS Capital Construction Budget request for OSU identified one project, a $40 million research-oriented facility, specifically to address the Engineering growth. To fund the OSU proposal, the campus requested $10 million of Article XI-G bonds, $10 million of General Fund and $20 million of gifts and grants. This building would add 89,671 net new gsf (117,000 total gsf minus 27,329 gsf in the existing Merryfield Hall, which would likely be replaced). No separate instructional building was identified; rather, at least initially, the College of Engineering intended to use space in a new $14.4 million, 48,000 gsf Classroom and Distance Education Building proposed in the 2001-2003 budget as a general purpose classroom for the campus as a whole.

The remainder of the needs associated with growing into the 400,000 gsf projected need have yet to be identified in terms of specific building plans.

PSU
The MGT study identified a net new need of from 114,240 gsf to 210,000 gsf, associated with adding 53 new faculty and their associated support staff, graduate assistants, and laboratories, and using (a) an MGT space standard as well as (b) gsf of PSU's aspirational peer medians. These figures excluded the faculty and graduate students at OGI and, to a lesser extent, at OHSU, who would partner with PSU under the metropolitan collaborative model.

PSU's facilities department independently identified an incremental 273,843 gsf would be needed to house PSU's specific goals under its metropolitan collaborative proposal. This figure is higher than the MGT range. However, PSU's figures were generated as a result of a two-year professional feasibility study which included department-by-department curriculum review, space analysis and enrollment growth. OUS space standards were used, supplemented by others where no exact equivalent existed in the OUS data. The study calculated the need by department and by year based on a rate of growth consistent with the OUS overall enrollment projections for PSU.

In the 2001-2003 OUS Capital Budget, PSU identified a single $60 million project having three phases, two renovation projects and a new building, summarized below:

•Phase I: The first renovation would renovate 38,814 gsf for faculty being vacated from the Portland Center for Advanced Technology (PCAT) Building; there is no net new space gained in this project. This project, at $7.2 million, would be entirely paid for by Article XI-F(1) bonds supported by lease payments of tenants in the Engineering building. (NOTE: PSU will be requesting the Board approve this project for submittal to the Legislative Emergency Board at its November meeting in order to provide space for the faculty being relocated.)
•Phase II: A smaller renovation project for $3.16 million would provide 6,033 net new gsf. It would be supported by $1.58 million in Article XI-G bonds, matched by gifts.
•Phase III: A 133,600 new tower would then be constructed to house the bulk of enrollment growth, as well as assist in some consolidation of scattered faculty. At $51 million, this project would require $25 million in Article XI-G bonds, matched by gifts.

The funding requested for this single combined project is $27.5 million of Article XI-G bonds, matched by $27.5 of private gifts/grants and $5.0 million of Article XI-F(1) bonds. No General Fund support is sought.

For the period 2005-2007 and beyond, PSU has identified an additional $19 million renovation project that would provide 67,667 net new gsf and a new $75 million research building, half of which would be for the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences and the remainder for other sciences and mathematics units. This large building would add 72,570 net new gsf, as it would make possible the relocation of faculty from their current space into new, consolidated quarters.

Recommendations

In sum, both campuses have plans underway to address the facilities needs they would face were they to attain their aspirational peers' median requirements. In addition to the new space needed to meet enrollment growth, the campuses are greatly hampered by deferred maintenance, code and academic modernization needs of their current facilities. Providing sufficient space to meet the median of aspirational peers for research will require considerably greater resources beyond those identified solely for 2001-2003.

Staff recommend the Board approve as requested the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Budget submittals offered by OSU and by PSU, as shown on the following table. The rationale for this recommendation is as follows:

OSU

PSU

Engineering Enhancements for Oregon State University
in the OUS Capital Construction Budget for 2001-2003
(in millions)

 

Total Funding Requested

     
 

State Funds

Other Funds

TOTAL

   

Campus

G Funds

XI- Bonds

XI-F(1) Bonds


Gifts

 

Net New GSF to Meet Median Peers

Net New GSF per Campus Plans

OSU GSF
Current College of Engineering Science: 258,943 gsf
   

320,960 to 418,900 gsf

400,000 gsf

(A) Enrollment-driven instructional space

$4.8

$4.8

 

$4.8

$14.4

  48,000 gsf , shared within general purpose class/lab uses
(B) Research-intensive
2001-2003:
Replacement of Merryfield Hall (117,000 gsf, 89,671 net new)

$10.0

$10.0

 

$20.0

$40.0

  89,671 net new planned to date; additional projects to be planned.
Separate project included in the 2001-2003 Capital Construction Budget:
(A) OSU Classroom & Distance Education Building (for general campus and College of Engineering needs) - Est. new 48,000 gsf. Additional projects to be planned. .


(B) Replacement of Merryfield Hall - 117,000 gsf; 89,671 net new. Additional projects to be planned.
2001-2003 ENGINEERING ENHANCEMENTS

PSU
Current College of Engineering and Computer Science - 150,811 gsf
         


114,240 to 210,000 gsf



273,843 net new (371,114 total replaced & new) over 12-15 yrs
(A) Enrollment-driven instructional space              
2001-2003:
Phase I - Renovations
             
(a) Replacement of PCAT
(38,814 gsf, no net new)
   

7.20

 

7.20

 

no net new gsf

(b) Renovation of leased space (6,033 net new gsf)  

1.58

 

1.58

3.16

 

6,033 net new gsf

Phase I - New
(c) New South Tower (133,600 net new gsf)
 

25.48

 

25.48

51.36

 

133,600 net new gsf

Total renovation & new:  

_____

$27.06

______

$7.20

_____

$27.06

______

$61.72

 

______________

139,633 net new gsf

Engineering Enhancements for Portland State University
in the OUS Capital Construction Budget for 2005-2007
(in millions)

 

Total Funding Requested

     
 

State Funds

Other Funds

TOTAL    

Campus

G Funds

XI- Bonds

XI-F(1) Bonds

Gifts

 

Net New GSF to Meet Median Peers

Balance of Net New GSF per Campus Plans after 2001-03

(A) PSU Enrollment-driven

Future date to be determined
(d) Potential to renovate Pacificorp lease (67,667 net new gsf)
 

$7.6

$3.8

$7.6

18.95

 

Balance: 134,210



67,667 net new gsf

(B) PSU Research-driven

2005-2007
Phase II:
Engineering & Science Bldg shared with Science & Math
(see below)

$25.0




$25.0

 


$25.0




$75.0

  250,000 gsf bldg, shared equally with Science, Math; translates to 125,000 gsf, with 72,570 net new gsf for Engineering
Full project as included in the 2005-2007 Capital Construction Budget:
(A): This project is dependent on existing tenant lease terminating without renewal; it is possible this space would be combined into the following project; it would then increase in size to accommodate remaining enrollment need to meet 10-year doubling of enrollment.

(B): PSU Research-Intensive Building (for housing Science, Math, and Technology as well as Engineering & Computer Science, split approximately 50%-50%) - Est. 250,000 gsf


MGT WORK PLAN AND TIME LINE

REVIEW OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS WITHIN THE
OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Proposed Work Plan and Time Line
(as of August 8, 2000)

PROJECT WORK PLAN

1.0 Project Kick-Off Telephone Conference Call

1.1 Obtain complete listing of OUS engineering and engineering-related programs by institution and degree-level.

1.2 Schedule project kick-off telephone conference call with OUS Project Officer to:

1.3 Hold project telephone conference call.

1.4 Revise and submit final work plan (if necessary).

2.0 Conduct Brief Review of Existing National Rankings of Engineering Schools and Specific Engineering Programs and Underlying Ranking Methodologies

2.1 Conduct brief review of the literature to determine existing national rankings of engineering schools and specific engineering disciplines.

2.2 Review methodologies used in rankings and develop list of variables and factors used.

2.3 Summarize existing ratings of OSU and PSU engineering schools and specific disciplines from the rankings.

3.0 Obtain Relevant, Necessary Data from Existing National Sources, OUS, OSU and PSU Related to Ranking Methodologies.

3.1 Prepare list of discrete data elements related to ranking factors in Task 2.2 above.

3.2 Identify and obtain national data sources for data elements (e.g., ABET, ASEE, IPEDS, NSF, discipline-based associations).

3.3 Work with OUS Project Officer and institutional contacts to identify and obtain supplemental data sources for data elements (preferably in electronic format).

3.4 Review data sources for accuracy and consistency.

3.5. Create electronic data base(s) using data obtained in Tasks 3.2 and 3.3.

4.0 Interview OUS, OSU, PSU, UO and OIT Staff Regarding Current and Future Engineering Program Goals

4.1 Schedule 2-3 day period for on-campus interviews with OUS Chancellor, Project Officer, and institutional representatives (OSU, PSU and UO only); and schedule phone interview with OIT.

4.2 Develop interview guides focusing on the following areas:

4.3 Conduct on-campus interviews with OUS, OS, PSU and UO representatives.

4.4 Conduct phone interviews with OIT representatives.

4.5 Summarize interview findings.

5.0 Develop Initial List of Aspirational Peers for OSU and PSU Engineering Schools

5.1 Create lists of aspirational peers for OSU and PSU based on interviews in Task 4.3 and verify with institutional contacts. NOTE: We suggest a list of 5-10 peers for each institution.

5.2 Identify national rankings of aspirational peers based on research conducted in Task 2.0

5.3 Perform independent assessment of appropriateness of aspirational peers using data compiled in Task 3.0.

5.4 Review findings with OUS Project Officer and institutional contacts (as appropriate), including alternative aspirational peers, if necessary.

5.5 Finalize aspirational peer lists for OSU and PSU.

6.0 Develop Total Cost Estimates for OSU and PSU to Reach Aspirational Peers

6.1 Develop descriptive profile of OSU and PSU aspirational peers in tabular format regarding faculty, students, finances, research activities and facilities using available data.

6.2 Identify current "position" of OSU and PSU engineering schools and specific programs relative to aspirational peer lists.

6.3 Simulate enhancements needed to reach aspirational peers for both OSU and PSU using data compiled in Task 3.0 as well as other relevant information gathered through this study (e.g., additional faculty; additional research funding; additional financial support for graduate students; additional scientific equipment).

6.4 Develop cost estimates for OSU and PSU to reach aspirational peers based on simulation results.

7.0 Prepare Final Report

7.1 Develop draft summary report that incorporates major study findings and submit to OUS Project Officer for review.

7.2 Hold telephone conference call to review draft report with Project Officer and institutional representatives.

7.3 Incorporate edits and suggestions as appropriate and issue final report.

8.0 Make Presentation of Final Report to OUS Officials/State Board of Higher Education

8.1 Prepare formal presentation based on final report.

8.2 Make presentation at Board meeting (or other venue as appropriate).

PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
REVIEW OF OUS ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Project Tasks

Start-End Period

Task 1.0 Project Kick-off Aug 14
Task 2.0 Conduct review of existing national rankings of engineering programs Aug 14 - 21
Task 3.0 Obtain relevant, necessary data related to ranking methodologies Aug 21 - Sept 4
Task 4.0 Interview OUS, OSU, PSU, UO, and OIT staff Aug 28 - Sept 4
Task 5.0 Develop initial list of aspirational peers for OSU and PSU Sept 4 - Sept 18
Task 6.0 Develop total cost estimates for OSU and PSU to reach aspirational peers Sept 11 - Sept 18
Task 7.0 Prepare final report Sept 18 - Oct 2
Task 8.0 Make presentation of final report Oct 9 - Oct 16




ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDED INVESTMENTS FOR
2001-2003

October 5, 2000
Version 5.0

Executive Summary:
This proposal describes how Oregon's engineering and computer science programs can take a large step towards meeting the Governor's goal of doubling the number of engineering and computer science graduates by 2005.

Proposal. This document proposes that $30 million be allocated to the Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund during the biennium starting July 1, 2001. Oregon companies are expected to invest about $17 million during this same period, producing a total investment of almost $47 million. These funds will be used to

Hire 39 new professors who will strengthen Oregon's ability to educate its young people and its workforce in the areas of engineering and computer science.
Expand laboratories to serve the needs of the increased student population and increase the quality of the educational offerings.
Enhance distance delivery capabilities, allowing faculty with specialized knowledge to teach courses at multiple locations and students to take classes at other campuses without leaving their home campus.
Enhance programs that will encourage young people to pursue majors in engineering and computer science, with a goal of touching 2,450 middle school and high school students over the next two years.

These and related investments will result in an increase in the number of undergraduate degrees awarded of engineering and computer science programs by 85% by 2005. In addition, the number of graduate degrees awarded will increase by 40% by 2005.

ETIC. The Engineering Technology Industry Council (ETIC) includes executives from some of Oregon's top high technology employers, key public organizations and education partners.

Process. Each campus has done a careful analysis of how it can contribute to the goals described here. The members of ETIC have reviewed each campus's analysis for relevance to industry needs and its ability to contribute to a dramatic growth in degrees awarded. This review process has resulted in the set of investments initiatives described in this document. The members of ETIC are committed to the success of this effort.

Proposal Structure. The remainder of this proposal is divided into sections describing the undergraduate and graduate components of the proposed investments. An appendix provides summaries of the individual investments. ETIC is working on another proposal that will focus on bringing Oregon into the top tier of engineering programs in the United States. This latter proposal will be distributed at a later date.

(Table 1: The effects of the proposed funding on degree production)

(In millions)

State Funds

Industry Funds

Expected Follow-on Request

1998-99 Degrees Granted

2004-05 Result Degrees Granted

% of Increase 1999 to 2005 Goal

Undergraduate

$ 11.82

$ 6.20

$ 2.99

927

1,718

85%

Graduate

$ 17.18

$ 9.65

$ 3.49

383

535

40%

Research

$ 1.00

$ 1.00

 

 

 

 

Total

$ 30.00

$ 16.85

$ 6.48

1,310

2,253

72%

Summary:

  1. $14.0 million invested in hiring additional engineering and computer science faculty.
  2. $2.8 million invested in continuing support of faculty hired with previous OEEIF allocations.
  3. $1.0 million matched dollar-for-dollar by industry to sponsor $2.0 million in research.
  4. $12.2 million invested in supporting engineering and computer science programs.
  5. Undergraduate Engineering and computer science degrees awarded increased by 85% and Graduate degrees increase 40% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.


Industry Matching:
Each campus is working with industry representatives to obtain donations, grants, and other support that will leverage the Oregon's investment in engineering and computer science education. We currently project that Oregon companies will invest almost $17 million during the 2001-2003 biennium. These investments will provide significant leverage to the state's investment and help assure that the combined investments will be made in areas that will produce measurable results and have the maximum impact on the growth of Oregon's economy.

The following table presents the 2001-2003 proposed investments by campus and by degree type and shows the expected industry investments during the biennium as well as the state funding requests that are anticipated for the 2003-2005 biennium.

(Table 8)

 

Investments by Campus and Degree Type Assuming $30M
Investment of State Funds

(In millions)

State Funds

Industry contributions

Follow-on Request

Undergraduate

Graduate

TOTAL

OGI

 

3.73

3.73

0.86

0.83

OIT*

2.45

 

2.45

0.60

1.38

U of O

1.18

2.57

3.75

3.20

0.56

OSU

5.00

6.00

11.00

3.20

2.00

PSU

3.04

3.26

6.30

6.30

1.58

OCECS

0.15

1.62

1.77

1.69

0.14

Subtotal Investments

11.82

17.18

29.00

15.85

6.48

Research

 

1.00

1.00

1.00

 

Total Investments

11.82

18.18

30.00

16.85

6.48

* Includes collaborations with OGI for Saturday Academy, OSU, WOU, EOU, SOU

Undergraduate Category:

Goal: Increase the number of graduates by 85% by 2005 (vs. the 1998-99 Academic year)

(Table 2: The State Funds required in the 2001-2003 biennium to meet undergraduate goals by campus.)

(In millions)

1998-99 Academic Year
Actual

2004-05 Academic Year
Forecast (1)

Increase 2004-05 over 1998-99

$K

 

State Funds

Student Credit Hours

Graduates 1998-99

Student Credit Hours

Graduates 2004-05

Student Credit Hours

Graduates '05 over '99

# of Incr. Degrees

State Funds
Per Incr. Degree

OIT & Collaborations (2)

$ 2.45

64,383

322

117,080

690

82%

114%

368

$ 6.66

OSU

$ 5.00

52,690

389

58,515

622

11%

60%

233

$21.46

OCECS (3)

$ 0.15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PSU

$ 3.04

20,785

157

30,554

289

47%

84%

132

$23.04

U of O

$ 1.18

3,665

59

8,697

117

137%

98%

58

$20.34

Total

$11.82

141,523

927

214,846

1,718

52%

85%

791

$14.95

Proposal: $11.82 million from the Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund and almost $6.2 million matching dollars from Oregon industry will be used during the biennium starting July 1, 2001. These funds will be used to

•Hire additional faculty to support more undergraduate courses to be offered.
•Expand laboratories to support the additional students and courses.
•Enhance distance delivery capabilities to allow students to take elective courses from faculty on campuses other than their own.

Pre-College:

•Enhance programs that will encourage young people to pursue majors in engineering and computer science. These programs include apprentices, clubs, and workshops (Saturday Academy, OPT for Co-op and other pre-college outreach programs) administered by OGI, OIT and OSU that expose approximately 1,225 young people per year to the field of science and engineering and gives them insights into careers in these fields.
•The pre-college line items are exceptions when calculating a follow-on request, as these line-items are funded year to year and have no tuition or other revenue sources.

These and related investments will result in an increase in the number of undergraduate degrees award by engineering and computer science programs by 85% by 2005.

Outcomes:

•Expand undergraduate student credit hours by 52% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.
•Increase the number of undergraduate engineering and computer science degrees awarded by 85% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.


(1) This forecast assumes the anticipated industry contributions and follow-on investments shown in Table 4 on the next page.
(2) Includes collaborations with OGI for Saturday Academy, OSU, WOU, EOU and SOU. Also includes pre-college programs; see Table 4 on next page.
(3) Includes distance education investment. See Table 4 and Addendum 1.

UNDERGRADUATE INITIATIVES
Goal: To increase capacity and graduates

(Table 4: Proposed undergraduate investments during 2001-2003 biennium by campus)
(See Addendum 1 for program descriptions)

Entity

Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on Requests

OIT and Collaborations (OGI for Saturday Academy, OSU, SOU, EOU, and WOU)
OIT, SOU, EOU, WOU OIT (with SOU, EOU, WOU) Increasing Capacity of IT Degrees


$ 0.40


$ 0.15


$ 0.10

OIT & Saturday Academy (OGI)
OIT (with OGI) Pre-College Experiential Programs: OPT for Co-op/Saturday Academy/student contacts


$ 1.10


$ 0.07


$ 1.18



OIT
OIT (with OSU) Extending Technology: A Business Retention and Expansion Pilot Project collaborative partnership OIT, OSU, and OECDD



$ 0.35



$ 0.33



$ 0.10


OIT
OIT: Information Technology Educational Programs for Working Students. * Certificates and Degrees


$ 0.60


$ 0.05


$ -

  Subtotal (Including OGI Sat Academy)

$ 2.45

$ 0.60

$ 1.38

U of O  
U of O Networking

$ 0.55

$ 0.05

$ -

U of O Building Science in Architecture

$ 0.20

$ 0.08

$ 0.05

U of O Expanded Capacity for Undergraduate Majors in CIS

$ 0.43

$ -

$ -

  Subtotal

$ 1.18

$ 0.13

$ 0.05

OSU  
OSU Continuation of 1999-2001 Growth Initiative

$ 1.00

$ -

$ -

OSU Growth I: Learning Infrastructure Support

$ 2.90

$ 2.38

$ 0.58

OSU Growth II: Add Degrees

$ 1.10

$ -

$ 0.22

  Subtotal

$ 5.00

$ 2.38

$ 0.80

PSU  
PSU Faculty Continuation

$ 0.63

$ 0.79

$ -

PSU Enrollment Services

$ 0.64

$ 0.49

$ 0.12

PSU Electronic Packaging

$ 0.10

$ 0.06

$ -

PSU Material Science and Engineering

$ 0.13

$ 0.22

$ 0.13

PSU Computer Science

$ 0.66

$ 0.64

$ 0.17

PSU Mechanical Engineering

$ 0.24

$ 0.23

$ 0.12

PSU Electrical and Computer Engineering

$ 0.17

$ 0.16

$ 0.08

PSU Civil Engineering

$ 0.48

$ 0.46

$ 0.12

  Subtotal

$ 30.04

$ 3.06

$ 0.73

OCECS  
OCECS Campus-to-Campus Digital Video

$ 0.15

$ 0.04

$ 0.03

  Total

$11.82

$ 6.20

$ 2.99

The Graduate Category

Goal: To provide and expand lifelong learning opportunities and enhance access to programs, to enhance quality and excellence of graduate programs.

To address the goal of increasing the graduate engineering and computer science degrees by 40% by 2005, the proposal calls for an investment of $17.18 million in State Funds and $9.65 million in industry funds during the 2001-2003 biennium.

(Table 5: The State Funds required in the 2001-2003 biennium to meet graduate goals by campus.)
 



In millions

1998-99
Academic Year
Actual

2004-05
Academic Year
Forecast (1)



Increase 2004-05 over 1998-99



In thousands

 

State Funds

Student Credit Hours

Degrees Awarded

Student Credit Hours

Degrees
Awarded

Student Credit Hours

Degrees Awarded

# of Incr. Degrees

State Funds
Per Incr. Degree

OGI

$ 3.73

4,508

89

5,246

122

16%

37%

33

$ 113.03

OCECS (2)

$ 1.62

600

 

2,400

 

300%

 

 

 

OSU

$ 6.00

12,870

164

16,542

230

29%

40%

66

$ 90.91

PSU

$ 3.26

8,685

109

11,286

142

30%

30%

33

$ 98.73

U of O

$ 2.57

2,486

21

5,254

41

111%

95%

20

$ 128.50

Total

$ 17.18

29,149

383

40,728

535

40%

40%

152

$ 113.01

Outcomes:

•Expand graduate student credit hours by 40% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.
•Increase the number of graduate engineering and computer science degrees awarded by 40% by the 2004-05 Academic Year.

The table on the following page presents the 2001-2003 proposed investments by campus and shows expected industry investments during the biennium as well as the state funding requests that are anticipated for the 2003-2005 biennium.


(1) This forecast assumes the anticipated industry contributions and follow-on investments shown in Table 7 on the next page.
(2) Includes distance education investment. See Table 7 and Addendum 1.

GRADUATE INITIATIVES

(Table 7: Proposed graduate investments by campus)
(See Addendum 1 for program descriptions)

 

 

(In millions)

Entity

Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on Requests

OGI
OGI Faculty Continuation

$ 0.33

$ 0.20

$ -

OGI Faculty Expansion

$ 3.30

$ 0.65

$ 0.83

OGI Webcast - OGI portion (with PSU)

$ 0.10

$ 0.01

$ -

  Subtotal

$ 3.73

$ 0.86

$ 0.83

U of O  
U of O MSI Graduate Internship Program

$ 1.82

$ 2.95

$ 0.46

U of O Networking

$ 0.55

$ 0.05

$ -

U of O Building Science in Architecture

$ 0.20

$ 0.08

$ 0.05

  Subtotal

$ 2.57

$ 3.08

$ 0.51

OSU  
OSU Growth I: Learning Infrastructure Support

$ 1.00

$ 0.82

$ 0.20

OSU Growth II: Add Degrees

$ 5.00

$ -

$ 1.00

  Subtotal

$ 6.00

$ 0.82

$ 1.20

PSU  
PSU Faculty Continuation

$ 0.63

$ 0.79

$ -

PSU Enrollment Services

$ 0.21

$ 0.16

$ 0.04

PSU Electronic Packaging

$ 0.57

$ 0.34

$ -

PSU Material Science and Engineering

$ 0.29

$ 0.51

$ 0.29

PSU Computer Science

$ 0.54

$ 0.52

$ 0.14

PSU Systems Engineering

$ 0.10

$ 0.03

$ 0.10

PSU Mechanical Engineering

$ 0.06

$ 0.06

$ 0.03

PSU Engineering and Technology Management

$ 0.60

$ 0.58

$ 0.15

PSU Electrical and Computer Engineering

$ 0.14

$ 0.13

$ 0.07

PSU Civil Engineering

$ 0.12

$ 0.12

$ 0.03

  Subtotal

$ 3.26

$ 3.24

$ 0.84

OCECS  
OCECS OMSE

$ 0.80

$ 0.23

$ -

OCECS OGEIP

$ 0.37

$ 1.29

$ 0.09

OCECS Campus-to-Campus Digital Video

$ 0.15

$ 0.04

$ 0.03

OCECS Desktop Video Feasibility Study

$ 0.20

$ 0.06

$ -

OCECS Video Delivery TQM Program

$ 0.10

$ 0.03

$ -

  Subtotal

$ 1.62

$ 1.65

$ 0.12

  Total

$17.18

$ 9.65

$ 3.49

Research Category

Goal: Enhance research programs that can help drive Oregon's economic growth.

Proposal: $1 million will be allocated from Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund. These funds together with matching funds from industry will be used to enhance research programs on Oregon's campuses. The following process will be used:

During July 2001, a Request For Proposals (RFP) will be issued to all of Oregon's engineering and computer science programs.

•During September 2001, proposals will be received and screened by the Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science for completeness and conformance to the criteria described in the RFP.
•During October 2001, a committee of reviewers representing Oregon's high technology companies will be established, which will review the proposal for quality and relevance to the needs of Oregon's industry.
•During November 2001, a set of finalists will be reviewed by the Engineering Technology Industry Council.
•By the end of December 2001, awards will be made to the research teams.
•Between January 2001 and June 2002, each research team will submit quarterly reports identifying the status and issues of their project, with final reports being due by June 30, 2002.

Outcomes:

•Expand industrially relevant research by $2 million dollars during the 2001-2002 biennium.
•Strengthen the relationships between Oregon's engineering and computer science programs and Oregon's technology companies.

(Table 9)

 

(In millions)

 

State Funds

Industry Match $$

RFP Process

$1.0

$1.0

Total Research

$1.0

$1.0

Addendum 1 - Investment Descriptions

Investment Descriptions: Summaries of the Undergraduate, Graduate, and Research investments proposed in this document. More complete proposal narratives are also available at the ETIC website
- - http://www.jbj-oregon.com/etic/

Undergraduate Programs:

OIT & Collaborative Programs w/OGI for Saturday Academy, WOU, SOU and EOU

OIT (with SOU, EOU, WOU) Increasing Capacity of Information Technology (IT) Degrees

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OIT, SOU,
EOU,
WOU


OIT (with SOU, EOU, WOU) Increasing Capacity of IT Degrees



$ 0.40



$ 0.15



$ 0.10

During the 1999-2001 Biennium, a collaborative proposal involving Eastern Oregon University (EOU), Western Oregon University (WOU), Southern Oregon University (SOU), and Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) was partially funded by ETIC. The project is currently underway and is addressing the need to expand information technology (IT) education in rural Oregon.

The proposal described herein would continue the collaborative work currently underway among key faculty and staff at the collaborative institutions to increase capacity and numbers of graduates in the key IT fields of Computer Science, Information Technology Management, and Computer Systems Engineering Technology. IT graduates enjoy good salaries, are in high demand by all segments of business and industry, and may be employed in large or small communities.

The proposed project will provide continued support for a Project Director hired during the 1999-2001 biennium funding cycle. The Director, an expert in an appropriate information technology field, will continue to manage the creative efforts of adjunct faculty and other IT professionals in the development of on-line courses, self-paced course modules, and supplementary multi-media course materials targeting Freshman-level courses (especially computer programming) in Computer Science at WOU and SOU, Computer Systems Engineering Technology at OIT, and Information Technology at OIT. Also, the Director will coordinate the sharing of faculty and articulation of curricula at all of the institutions in collaboration with the appropriate academic personnel, and will actively assist in recruiting students to one of the IT programs.

OIT (with OGI) Pre-College Experiential Programs:

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OIT & Saturday Academy (OGI) OIT (with OGI) Pre-College Experiential Programs: OPT for Co-op/Saturday Academy/student contacts


$ 1.10


$ 0.07


$ 1.18

The following proposal is being submitted to ETIC by OGI's Saturday Academy and OIT's OPT for Co-op program to address the need for pre-college engineering projects in the State of Oregon which will increase the awareness of students, teachers and parents about science and engineering professions. This collaboration between Saturday Academy's programs and OPT for Co-op's programs will allow for broader, statewide delivery of all programs and an opportunity to make an impact on more individuals, thus increasing the number of students entering the engineering pipeline.

Oregon Institute of Technology, Opt for Coop Program
The OPT for Co-op program is designed to increase the pipeline of students enrolling in OIT's engineering and technology majors. This is accomplished by providing career information and exploration opportunities to high school students that consist of workshops, summer camps and internship opportunities.

A new addition to this project is the development of workshops for parents and teachers. These workshops would provide an overview of Oregon's high tech industries and the career fields and college majors that are needed to support these industries. These workshops are directed at the people who have the most impact on a student's career decision making.

Saturday Academy, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology

Apprenticeships in Science and Engineering (ASE) and Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics (AWSEM).

The ASE Program will serve up to 140 additional high school students in its established eight-week full-time summer mentorship program for a projected total of 520 apprenticeships over the biennium. The focus of these new positions will be to increase statewide participation of both mentors and students, thereby introducing more students to science and engineering professions. The ASE Program (Apprenticeships in Science and Engineering) includes a mid-summer academic and career exploration conference, use of internet/web for communication and research, and a final symposium at which students present their work to the public. The AWSEM Program (Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering and Mathematics) will develop after-school clubs for middle and high school girls statewide to stimulate interest in these fields and to introduce students to women science and engineering professionals. Clubs will be led by graduate and undergraduate women science and engineering majors.

Extending Technology (OIT with OSU)

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests


OIT
OIT (with OSU) Extending Technology: A Business Retention and Expansion Pilot Project collaborative partnership OIT, OSU, and OECDD


$ 0.35


$ 0.33


$ 0.10

This pilot project is a collaborative effort between OIT's Oregon Technology Center (OTC) and OSU's Extension Service to expand technology resources outside the Metro area. The pilot's initial activities will be in five counties: Jefferson, Jackson, Deschutes, Klamath and Lake. The focus is to provide new and existing businesses technologies for retention and expansion activities and extend IT into the 4-H youth curriculum.

IT Educational Programs for Working Students

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests


OIT
OIT: Information Technology Educational Programs for Working Students. * Certificates and Degrees


$ 0.60


$ 0.05

$ -

A serious shortage of information technologists currently exists. There is an urgent need to prepare more students in this important field.

In response to this need, last fall Oregon Institute of Technology launched a Bachelor's degree program in Information Technology (BSIT) at their Klamath Falls campus. This spring, the BSIT program will also be offered at the Capital Center Portland campus. This new program emphasizes the development of business (management and accounting) software, primarily using desktop and server programming tools. Students have opportunities to learn by doing, including project-based capstone courses and practical experiences in real-life environments (e.g., summer externships and cooperative education). IT program majors will graduate with essential skills to meet the current IT industry standards, as well as be prepared for future innovations in the industry.

U of O

Networking
Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

U of O Networking

$ 0.55

$ 0.05

$ -

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Commerce projects that Oregon's technology work force will triple in the next six years, with networking being one of the most intense areas of growth. In response to this need and as the recognized leader in networking in the state, the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Oregon has a 3-4 year plan for expansion of the networking curriculum and faculty. (See http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~lo/intel.html) The heart of this plan involves the creation of seven new practical, laboratory-based courses in networking and operating systems to complement established computer science courses currently offered in these areas. These new laboratory courses will be integrated with our strong research program through research internships, on the one hand, and with real world experiences through industrial internships, on the other. (The UO CIS Network Research Group is at http://www.nrg.cs.uoregon.edu and recently received a $1 million grant from NSF.) We have strong industry support from CISCO and Advanced Relay, and possibly Intel through the recent grant proposal we submitted. We anticipate that increased investment by ETIC in our networking research program will allow us to seek NSF Graduate Training money, as well as increased research grants from NSF's ITR program. The expected increase is another $1 million in the next three years.

Building Science in Architecture

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

U of O Building Science in Architecture

$ 0.20

$ 0.08

$ 0.05

The objective of this proposal is to bring to the Oregon economy new graduates who combine domain knowledge of architecture with advanced preparation in the computational methods of building science.

The design, construction, and operation of buildings are mainstays of the world economy and a rapidly expanding market for software and hardware products which support these tasks. In the United States, building design and construction constitute eight percent of the gross national product, employing five million people and the annual operation of buildings consumes 67% of our electrical energy. Well designed commercial buildings use 50% less energy, and basic improvements such as increased use of daylight have been found to increase office worker productivity by six to 16%. These critical economic concerns will be addressed by professional graduates who combine knowledge of architecture with the background and skills needed to develop and apply advanced computational methods. The Department of Architecture at the University of Oregon is nationally recognized for its successes in linking education in building technology with architectural design. This proposal seeks to introduce a new, high-tech component to the University's existing market niche, to produce graduates uniquely qualified in state-of-the-art building science.

Expanded Capacity for Undergraduate Majors in CIS

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

U of O Expanded Capacity for Undergraduate Majors in CIS

$ 0.43

$ -

$ -

We are currently experiencing a huge 35-40% increase in enrollment in the CIS major compared to our enrollment in 1997-98. In Fall 1997 we had 396 majors; in Fall 1999 we had 531. In academic year 1997-98 we had 56 students graduate; in June 2000 we expect 81. This expansion is presently limited by the relatively flat funding of the past few years and the high cost of high technology education. The Department will be able to continue this expansion if investment resources are available for faculty, for graduate teaching fellows, and for computer labs. The student demand for this major will continue to be strong, particularly given the projection of 28% growth in Oregon technology employment over the next three years (Oregon Technology Benchmarks 1998 report). Funds were originally requested to provide a 25% expansion in the number of CIS majors graduated per year. The available funding left in the ETIC budget allowed an eight percent expansion. We are now requesting funding for an additional 20%. This will allow us to increase the number of course sections taught in the major by 30%.

OSU

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OSU Continuation of 99-01 Growth Initiative

$ 1.00

$ -

$ -

OSU Growth I: Learning Infrastructure Support

$ 2.90

$ 2.38

$ 0.58

OSU Growth II: Add Degrees

$ 1.10

$ -

$ 0.22

  Subtotal

$ 5.00

$ 2.38

$ 0.80

The College of Engineering strategic plan calls for an innovative undergraduate learning environment, interdisciplinary research programs, recruitment and retaining the best students, and providing leadership in advanced technology. We have made significant progress towards achieving these goals over the past 18 months. Among our achievements are:

Top-end high school students enrollment in the College increased by 38% from fall 1998 to fall 1999. We placed 250 student interns in 55 MECOP member companies, and others in more informal internship positions. Our students scored in the upper two percentile on the national Fundamentals of Engineering Exam.

Our achievements have been enabled through targeted initiatives such as the Engineering Education Investment Fund, scholarship programs offered by OSU and the College for top-end high school students, support from industry particularly in the infrastructure and high-tech areas, and focused initiatives within the College of Engineering.

We request funding for the 2001-2003 biennium to increase our resident degree output rate to 622 by 2004-05 from 389 in 1998-99, a 60% increase. As we grow, we would like to continue to increase the proportion of freshmen students with 1300 or better SAT. We will also continue the innovation in our undergraduate programs to develop high quality engineers--the best combination of technical skills, entrepreneurial skills, social skills, life long learning skills and internships--that make them the best prepared to immediately deliver results. Our request in the undergraduate category consists of funds for infrastructure and process improvement (Learning Infrastructure Support), and for hiring new faculty and support staff, student scholarships and curriculum innovation (Add Degrees).

PSU

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

PSU Faculty Continuation

$ 0.63

$ 0.79

$ -

PSU Enrollment Services

$ 0.64

$ 0.49

$ 0.12

PSU Electronic Packaging

$ 0.10

$ 0.06

$ -

PSU Material Science and Engineering

$ 0.13

$ 0.22

$ 0.13

PSU Computer Science

$ 0.66

$ 0.64

$ 0.17

PSU Mechanical Engineering

$ 0.24

$ 0.23

$ 0.12

PSU Electrical and Computer Engineering

$ 0.17

$ 0.16

$ 0.08

PSU Civil Engineering

$ 0.48

$ 0.46

$ 0.12

  Subtotal

$ 3.04

$ 3.06

$ 0.73

PSU's proposed undergraduate investments are focused on achieving our goals of increasing undergraduate enrollment and enhancing the breadth and depth of our offerings. First, we are investing in additional enrollment services to convince more students to major in engineering and computer science at PSU by raising awareness of PSU's engineering and computer science programs (via marketing) and capturing more students who apply (via more personal contact and scholarships). Second, we are investing in two key programs (materials science and engineering and electronic packaging) to broaden the range of courses we offer and attract new students. Third, we are helping to ensure that more students who start in engineering and computer science finish their degrees, again by investing in enrollment services like additional advising and tutoring. Fourth, we are making sure we have enough capacity to support increased student demand by adding additional faculty positions and continuing to support faculty funded by ETIC in the 1999-2001 biennium. These additional positions will allow us to offer new courses and to offer more sections of existing courses, helping students finish their degrees more quickly than in the past. As enrollments increase, most of the investment costs will be funded by OUS RAM funding to PSU.

OCECS

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OCECS Campus-to-Campus Digital Video

$ 0.15

$ 0.04

$ 0.03

Campus-to-Campus Digital Video (See Graduate Descriptions)

Investment Descriptions: Summaries of the Undergraduate, Graduate, and Research investments proposed in this document. More complete proposal narratives are also available at the ETIC website
- - http://www.jbj-oregon.com/etic/

Graduate:

OGI

Faculty Expansion
Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OGI Faculty Expansion

$ 3.30

$ 0.65

$ 0.83

SB 504 directs ETIC to implement an investment strategy for the Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund "responding to the urgent engineering educational needs of Oregon's fast growing high technology industry, especially in the Portland metropolitan area." As we did for the 1999-2001 Biennium, PSU and OGI are responding to this challenge by submitting a joint proposal to ETIC for a coordinated program of faculty expansion to serve pressing needs for education and research capacity in the Portland metropolitan area.

PSU and OGI have cooperated in identifying disciplines with the highest priority for engineering education capacity expansion in the Portland metropolitan area. OGI will focus its Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund faculty recruiting in the following areas, maintaining flexibility within the list to hire the best qualified candidates available:

Networking (two positions)
Computer and Network Security
Hardware Verification
Software Verification
Embedded Systems Engineering
Natural Interfaces
Intelligent Signal Processing
VLSI Design
Semiconductor Engineering
Business and the Internet

PSU and OGI will coordinate all faculty recruitment activities, including candidate interviews. The goal of the coordinated process will be to achieve, between the two institutions, both balance across program areas and critical mass within targeted program areas.

Faculty Continuation

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OGI Faculty Continuation

$ 0.33

$ 0.20

$ -

OGI is requesting continuation funding for each of two new faculty positions created during the 1999-2001 Biennium. OGI's ETIC proposal for the 1999-2001 Biennium described the justification for these new faculty positions.

Webcast - OGI portion (with PSU)

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OGI Webcast - OGI portion (with PSU)

$ 0.10

$ 0.01

$ -

ECE departments at PSU and OGI have been working for some time to unify their graduate level curricula. Our long-term goal is a single, virtual graduate curriculum. For the last three years we have been cross listing some of each other's courses. However, the number of students who take these crossover courses from the other institution is still rather small. A big part of this is due to the difficulty that OGI students have commuting in to PSU and vice-versa.

One of the areas where the two departments have strong complementary research and education is in VLSI design, which is also an area that is important to many Oregon based companies. Providing a distance learning capability for these courses would significantly enhance the curriculum for both schools, making PSU courses more accessible to OGI students and vice-versa. What makes semiconductor engineering courses more difficult to adapt to distance learning format is that these courses typically have a variety of labs associated with them.

To complement this existing Internet 2 distance laboratory effort, we are proposing to create the infrastructure to do web-casting of PSU circuit and test courses to OGI students (on campus at OGI) and of OGI VLSI and logic design courses to PSU students (on campus at PSU).

U of O

MSI Graduate Internship Program

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

UofO MSI Graduate Internship Program

$ 1.82

$ 2.95

$ 0.46

The goal of this proposal is to provide uniquely trained graduate students--chemists and physicists with knowledge of semiconductor device physics and processing--for Oregon's high tech industry. MSI's internship program provides the necessary background and introduces the fundamental concepts and processes used in industry to students with chemistry and physics backgrounds so they can be effective problem solvers in the industrial environment. These students are clearly in demand as demonstrated by the success of our trial internship program during the last two years.

Networking (See Undergraduate Description)

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

UofO Networking

$ 0.55

$ 0.05

$ -

Building Science in Architecture (See Undergraduate Description)

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

UofO Building Science in Architecture

$ 0.20

$ 0.08

$ 0.05

OSU

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OSU Growth I: Learning Infrastructure Support

$ 1.00

$ 0.82

$ 0.20

OSU Growth II: Add Degrees

$ 5.00

$ -

$ 1.00

  Subtotal

$ 6.00

$ 0.82

$ 1.20

The College of Engineering strategic plan calls for interdisciplinary research programs and leadership in advanced technology. We have established some very successful research programs such as the Parallel Tools Consortium, micro-energy and chemical systems, hazardous and mixed waste management, cryptography, high energy density heat removal, and electronic packaging, with most of these programs being interdisciplinary in nature. We would like grow our graduate and research programs at OSU that will provide important benefits for the citizens of Oregon including:

•Professionals will have easy access to the continuing and graduate education opportunities they need to improve their skill.
•Companies will have local access to top-level research.
•Exciting new businesses (and their high paying jobs) will be attracted to Oregon.
•The research performed at OSU will stimulate the creation of local start-ups.

The requested funds will help us to significantly expand our graduate programs by increasing our number of graduate degrees by 40%, attracting new faculty and graduate students, and providing increased opportunities for research growth through interaction with Oregon companies and federal and state agencies.

Similar to our undergraduate request, the funds requested in this category would be targeted to improve the learning infrastructure (facilities, equipment, and operations) and to add degrees (new faculty and technical staff, graduate students).

PSU

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

PSU Faculty Continuation

$ 0.63

$ 0.79

$ -

PSU Enrollment Services

$ 0.21

$ 0.16

$ 0.04

PSU Electronic Packaging

$ 0.57

$ 0.34

$ -

PSU Material Science and Engineering

$ 0.29

$ 0.51

$ 0.29

PSU Computer Science

$ 0.54

$ 0.52

$ 0.14

PSU Systems Engineering

$ 0.10

$ 0.03

$ 0.10

PSU Mechanical Engineering

$ 0.06

$ 0.06

$ 0.03

PSU Engineering & Technology Management

$ 0.60

$ 0.58

$ 0.15

PSU Electrical and Computer Engineering

$ 0.14

$ 0.13

$ 0.07

PSU Civil Engineering

$ 0.12

$ 0.12

$ 0.03

  Subtotal

$ 3.04

$ 3.24

$ 0.84

PSU's proposed graduate investments are focused on achieving our goals of increasing graduate enrollment, enhancing the breadth and depth of our offerings, and expanding our research in areas of special interest to Oregon. First, we are investing in additional enrollment services to recruit more graduate students nationwide. Second, we are investing in two key programs (materials science and engineering and electronic packaging) to meet the graduate education and research needs of Oregon industry. Third, we are adding additional faculty positions to strengthen our graduate programs and to add research capacity. As enrollments increase, much of the investment costs will be funded by OUS RAM funding to PSU.

OCECS

OMSE

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OCECS OMSE

$ 0.80

$ 0.23

$ -

OMSE was funded in the amount of $2.25 million for the 1997-1999 biennium and at the $1.8 million level for the 1999-2001 biennium. (For an overview of the program, please see www.omse.org.) OMSE requests $800,000 for the 2001-2003 biennium ($600,000 under the $20 million scenario). The rationale for funding is to subsidize low course enrollments in the highest tier of courses while the number of degree-seeking students increases, with the objective to achieve financial viability following this period of state funding.

OGEIP

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OCECS OGEIP

$ 0.37

$ 1.29

$ 0.09

In partnership with major Oregon corporations and four Oregon Universities, the Oregon Graduate Engineering Internship Program (OGEIP) combines quality graduate education with paid industrial experience--providing selected masters degree students an excellent technical work/study experience.

The program works to create paid internship experiences that match company needs with the interns' abilities, professional goals, and areas of interest. OGEIP students earn competitive salaries and have an opportunity to explore full-time careers with their sponsoring companies. Scholarship assistance is available to selected students, targeting interns with undergraduate degrees from Oregon colleges or universities.

OGEIP objectives are threefold:

•To provide masters engineering and computer science students with an internship opportunity in their area of specialty and interest.
•To help meet the needs of Oregon companies for masters engineering and computer science talent.
•To help expand and retain the available pool of graduate technical professionals in Oregon.

In the 2001-2003 biennium, the goal is to merge OGEIP with the Multiple Engineering Cooperative Program (MECOP). A portion of the investment will go to each institution participating in the statewide internship program to support on-campus activities. Each institution will designate a faculty member to serve as liaison to the statewide program and to monitor the educational progress of participating students. Institutions may also designate a staff person to coordinate communications between participating companies and students, ensuring that student's interactions with industry meet the needs of both.

Measurable Results:

Results   Year Ending  
  June 2001 June 2002 June 2003
Internships (OGEIP) 35 50 60

OCECS

Campus-to-Campus Digital Video

Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OCECS Campus-to-Campus Digital Video

$ 0.15

$ 0.04

$ 0.03

We have an opportunity to increase the collaboration between our campuses by upgrading our campus-to-campus video-delivery capability. Our engineering and computer science departments are limited by the size of their faculty. Sharing upper division electives and selected graduate courses will have the effect of "cloning" faculty. This is a particular powerful idea in cases where one campus is short on expertise in a specialized area and that expertise is available on another campus. The upgrade described in this proposal will allow more courses to be offered at multiple campuses, increasing our ability to support an increase in undergraduate and graduate enrollment.

This project will upgrade the existing distance delivery capability in two ways:

  1. Investing in Internet protocol (IP) based digital coder/decoders to take advantage of existing OWEN connections between campuses and new Internet 2 capability, as it becomes available. In addition to the decoders themselves, we will purchase scheduling software and interface hardware that will provide an efficient method of scheduling and delivering courses with this new transmission technology. We will work with OCATE, OGI, OIT, OSU, PSU, and UO to determine the best allocation of equipment based on the expected level of video delivery of engineering and computer science courses.
  2. Upgrade selected classroom and control room equipment to ensure high-quality audio and video signals for transmission from campus to campus and for archiving for later playback.

These investments will increase the quality, availability, and consistency of delivery of video courses between OCECS campuses. In addition, the recurring costs of IP-based transmission are expected to be lower than for the current satellite-based transmission.

Measurable Results
Result

Year Ending

Increase in student credit hours taken by video

June 2001

June 2002

June 2003

Undergraduate

0

200

400

Graduate/Professional

0

200

400

Desktop Video Feasibility Study
Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OCECS Desktop Video Feasibility Study

$ 0.20

$ 0.06

$ -

We have an opportunity to extend the reach of Oregon engineering and computer science departments to deliver courses directly to corporate campuses. Today's engineers need to constantly upgrade their skills to keep abreast of the state of the art in the field and increase the level of their contribution. These same engineers find it increasingly difficult to travel to a campus location at a regular time each week to take professional development courses. This proposal addresses this apparent paradox by investigating the feasibility of delivering graduate courses and short courses to corporate locations by taking advantage of desktop video technology. This technology will allow us to use the bandwidth of the current Internet to deliver interactive courses to engineers at their desks or in conference rooms at their employer's campus. In addition, as additional bandwidth becomes available from the Oregon Enterprise Network and Internet 2, the additional bandwidth will be exploited to increase the quality of the video and the interaction between instructors and students.

We will purchase and test two or more desktop video solutions and deploy one or two on an experimental basis to several sites. A set of evaluation criteria will be established in advance of these purchases. Based on the results of this feasibility study, we will recommend how OCECS and its member campus can best exploit desktop video technology to serve working engineers. We hope to be able to propose a comprehensive system that will serve many corporate locations, deliver a variety of engineering and computer science courses, and allow hundreds of additional engineers to take graduate courses and short courses. We expect that such an expanded system would be jointly partially underwritten by the corporations that it serves as well as an additional investment from the Oregon Engineering Education Investment Fund in the 2003-2005 Biennium. Measurable Results

Measurable Results
Result

Year Ending

 

June 2001

June 2002

June 2003

Credit hours delivered by desktop video

0

30

180

Total Quality Management of Video Delivery of Engineering Courses
Entity Program

State Funds

Industry Contributions

Follow-on
Requests

OCECS Video Delivery TQM Program

$ 0.10

$ 0.03

$ -

The Oregon University System currently delivers both undergraduate and graduate courses by video. The courses are originated in a classroom at one campus and delivered to classrooms at one or more other campuses. The transmission technologies used today are typically satellite or microwave. We expect transmission by Internet Protocol to become increasingly common in the future.

In practice, the quality of the delivery of video courses varies widely. The source of this variance is the result of three variables:

•The skill, attention, and cooperation of the technicians supporting the course delivery.
•The skill and commitment of the instructor in exploiting the video medium to its best advantage.
•The quality of the equipment and the quality of its maintenance.

This project will address all three of these variables by implementing a Total Quality Management program. This program will work with all the parties involved to:

•Benchmark other programs to determine best practices for video delivery of engineering courses, including management practices and processes as well as technical equipment and practices.
•Establish quality standards for course delivery by video.
•Train faculty and staff on best practices in video delivery.
•Gather statistical information on the quality of video delivery with an emphasis on customer satisfaction.
•Identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement.
•Implement improvements based on these priorities.

These steps will be implemented on a recurring basis so that as quality is improved, new statistical data will be gathered and additional improvements will be implemented.

Addendum 2 - Additional Indicators

Undergraduate Indicators and charts:

Outcome:

•More than 781 incremental* BS degrees by 2004-05 over 1998-99
•Increase of 38% in total student credit hours in 2004-05 over 1998-99 actuals

(Table 3)
 

UNDERGRADUATE

OIT*

OSU

PSU

UofO

Total

 

Requested/Biennium

         

Academic Year Ending Spring 1999 Actuals

Student Credit Hours

64,383

52,690

20,785

3,665

141,523

Degrees Granted

322

389

157

59

927

Academic Year Ending Spring 2002 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

93,608

54,190

24,967

5,814

178,579

Degrees Granted

486

449

189

90

1,214

Academic Year Ending Spring 2003 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

123,841

54,940

26,691

8,477

213,949

Degrees Granted

642

479

202

109

1,432

Academic Year Ending Spring 2004 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

102,715

56,690

28,568

8,697

196,670

Degrees Granted

584

549

216

117

1,466

Academic Year Ending Spring 2005 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

117,080

58,515

30,554

8,697

214,846

Degrees Granted

690

622

289

117

1,718

% Increase '05 over '99 w/Investment

Student Credit Hours

82%

11%

47%

137%

52%

Degrees Granted

114%

60%

84%

98%

85%

GRADUATE INITIATIVE INDICATORS

Outcomes:

•Expand graduate student credit hours by 40%.
•Increase the number of graduate degrees awarded in engineering and computer science by 40%.

(Table 6)
 

Institution / Program

OGI

OSU

PSU

UofO

OCECS

Total

 

Requested for Biennium

           

Academic Year Ending Spring 1999 Actuals

Student Credit Hours

4,508

12,870

8,685

2,486

600

29,149

Degrees Granted

89

164

109

21

0

383

Academic Year Ending Spring 2002 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

5,024

13,410

9,222

4,519

1,500

33,675

Degrees Granted

112

170

116

16

0

414

Academic Year Ending Spring 2003 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

5,246

13,680

9,859

5,254

2,400

36,439

Degrees Granted

122

177

124

37

0

460

Academic Year Ending Spring 2004 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

5,246

15,030

10,552

5,254

2,400

38,482

Degrees Granted

122

205

132

41

0

500

Academic Year Ending Spring 2005 Forecast

Student Credit Hours

5,246

16,542

11,286

5,254

2,400

40,728

Degrees Granted

122

230

142

41

0

535

% Increase '05 over '99 w/Investment

Student Credit Hours

16%

29%

30%

111%

N/A

40%

Degrees Granted

37%

40%

30%

95%

 

40%