2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

0-7803-9028-8/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE.

Preparing Engineering Students for Working in Teams through Senior Design Projects

Hodge JenkinsMercer Universityjenkins_he@mercer.edu

Laura W. Lackey Mercer UniversityLackey_L@mercer.edu

Abstract

This paper explores teaming and its cultivation in senior capstone design projects to better prepare students for occupational interaction with other professionals, clients, and management to solve complex or open-ended problems. Teaming is deemed an important skill for engineers, by organizations employing engineers and other professionals. In the global marketplace organizations that value and capitalize on these skills can be more agile and competitive. The impact of current and future trends on teaming, including outsourcing and globalization, are discussed in terms of non-technical skills required for practicing engineers and the preparation of new engineers.

Parallels between senior design projects and actual industry projects are drawn to highlight the key personal interaction skills and tools required for success. Examples of successful student teams and professional teams are presented for discussion.

Measurements of project and teaming success by industry and professional organizations are presented. Topics include: traditional, global and virtual team structures emphasizing the non-technical aspects necessary for modern teams including, team communication, diversity and cultural aspects, problem resolution, and other elements necessary for project success.

Keywords: teaming, communication, engineering education, capstone design

Traditional Teams

Modern history reveals that teams of diverse professionals have worked on multifaceted projects, such as the great construction projects of 19th century. The reasoning for team approaches to development or design projects has remained largely the same as decades ago. Organizations apply the talents of many individuals in a team to:

(1) Attain better solutions (2) Divide labor, assign tasks to talents (3) Integrate subtasks into a complete project (4) Meet completion time requirements

Successful communication within the team and externally to the client is necessary to achieve these teaming project goals. Aside from selecting the appropriate team members, the success of a project is largely determined by the full participation and appropriate interaction of the team members.

Changing Markets and Demographics

Global competition forces modern organizations and corporations, large and small, to have the most effective product development teams possible. It is evident that world economies are becoming more linked by the reduction of trade barriers. Free trade and open markets provide opportunities for global business through trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) and those of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Add the rapid communication access of electronic media, and it is easy to see how traditional distance and time zone barriers are crumbling in engineering design and manufacturing, allowing for the renovation of conventional standards of design organizations.

129

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

Global partnering is becoming more common as original equipment manufacturers ally with suppliers/partners for product development and sharing manufacturing. The idea is to focus on business core competencies and use the strengths of suppliers/partners in non-core areas, especially in international markets. This allows corporations to design global products with customization for the local market.[1]

Global Teams (Multi-location, Multi-cultural)

The high cost of product development in many businesses creates a need for a large global market. Thus, products must be designed for multiple markets or be able to be customized. In either case, multicultural factors are important for a new product designed for a global market.[2] Multicultural teaming in design is one way of providing diverse input. Well-defined structures and interfaces are needed to make the multicultural team successful. But once successfully established, multicultural teams out perform single culture teams.[3]

New demands of teaming in this environment, in addition to those associated with traditional teaming, include:

1) Preparing products for the global marketplace, understanding local customers and cultures

2) Attaining better global designs through a global and diverse workforce

3) Providing rapid communication 4) Better understanding of different

professional disciplines in a project

With the demographics of engineers and consumer populations constantly evolving, it is important for diversity inclusion into design teams and product development consideration. Better solutions are found when all available input is utilized, especially from teams including both genders and diverse cultural representations. Diversity considerations must also be included in product designs. Other considerations must also include environmental and societal impacts.

Modern business organizations draw from a more varied talent pool to overcome a lack of skilled people locally. This leads to a fundamental shift in the way people work: the global or multi-location team. A global team is possible primarily because of the current state of information technology. The

global team is in multiple time zones and can literally work around the clock on a problem.[4]

Many modern global organizations have international teams with members at multiple locations. Global teams have similar problems to conventional single-location teams. The obvious additional drawbacks of the multi-location teams include the limited face-to-face communication and lack of informal conversations where additional information is exchanged. Here most communication is electronic. A significant root cause of failure of a global team is from poor group member interactions and communications.[5] Culture of the various groups must also be taken into account for the basis of acceptable group behavior. (For example, how different cultures react to unsolicited help and the perceived need for help. The French may appreciate assistance, while Americans may regard the efforts as interference.) For successful global teams to exist, it is necessary to periodically measure the team’s performance and address personal conflict. It is also necessary for there to be mutual respect between each team member.

Time Critical Projects With the current world state of technology, commerce, wages, and talent, global teaming arrangements are emerging in many product design areas. Teams are working in various locations around the globe, sometimes around the clock. This is an advantage to traditional single-location teams, where shifts would be necessary to compress schedules.

An example of using world-wide resources in this 24-hour, global fashion in engineering design was the Boeing 777, designed all electronically (without paper) by engineers in various international locations. Work was conducted on the design literally around the clock.[6] It is clear that international teams are becoming more prevalent. Thus, it is all the more important for students to understand cultural differences to attain better personal communication and interpersonal skills.

Virtual Teams

A new variant of the global team has emerged with improved communication resources: the virtual team. A virtual team has been defined as “a group of people with complementary competencies executing simultaneous, collaborative work

130

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

processes through electronic media without regard to geographic location.”[7] Thus, the key difference between a virtual team and a global team is the real-time collaboration component in virtual teaming.

The concept of virtual teams emphasizes collaboratively working via electronic media. This may be in real-time or near real-time. This is in contrast to where work is simply divided and worked on independently. Clearly, virtual teaming is ideal for teams with members scattered across the globe or in different locations.

Interaction of members in multi-location teams varies by the available technology. Figure 1 lists the communication technologies in increasing order of collaboration empowerment. Telephone conversation and FAX are at the lower end of collaboration enabling technology, while video conferencing and real-time virtual teaming allow the highest levels of collaborative opportunities.

• Virtual teaming (real time data exchange and interaction)

• Video conferencing

• Discussion board

• Project web site

• E-mail

• FAX

• Phone teleconference

Increasing

Level of

Collaborative

Technology

Figure 1. Communication Technologies for Team Collaboration.[7]

Documentation While much communication and documentation is in the form or electronic media, written documentation is still prudent. Documentation is a critical component in the highly competitive global marketplace. The quality and thoroughness of the documentation for a product or process can have an enormous impact on patent disputes. Also the quality of the project team is viewed by their customers in terms of the quality of their documentation.

Aside from other forms of communication (e.g., electronic), it is important to have documentation for legal situations, such as requiring proof for date of conceptions of inventions or ideas, and the date of successful and practical embodiment of the invention. These establish inventor and person who can attest to the recorded matters.[8]

Personal Performance (Non-Technical, Interpersonal) Skills

It is important for all teams to establish initial relationships upon which to build a strong team, especially global teams.[9] Good interpersonal communication skills are a key to a successful team. This is especially true in global teams where face-to-face meetings are removed from the usual interaction. Here e-mail can escalate conflict faster than in teams with regular physical meetings. Many people write stinging comments in e-mails that they would never say in person. In geographically separated teams, phone calls are preferred for conflict resolution rather than e-mails. Protocols must be established in the group for conflict resolution.[7]

With the global or multi-cultural product design team, it is essential for the various disciplines represented to understand and respect their colleagues. Mutual respect of team members and recognizing the local cultural aspects of interaction are essential. Gender issues in cultures must also be addressed in team organization. In many non-western cultures, some actions are restricted by gender. Care must be taken in selecting and training team members in these situations to respect the cultures, as well as the team members.

Industry Feedback on Necessary Skills for Graduating Engineers

Several sources that describe the deficiencies commonly observed in new engineering graduates are presented in the following paragraphs. From these references, it is apparent that the majority of skills not sufficiently developed in engineering schools are related to the non-technical personal performance skills previously discussed.

The Society of Manufacturing Engineers has identified that half of the major educational competency gaps can be categorized as personal performance skills.[10] Among the shortcomings of current engineering graduates identified are personal performance skills, including the art of interpersonal communication and real team work.[11] Other performance skills that are important as a functioning engineer are conflict mediation, understanding of corporate culture, and embracing human diversity. Educators would agree that it is difficult to teach these personal performance skills, as most engineers are independent learners, taking in information and

131

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

structuring it to solve a problem.[11] Independent thinking tends to enforce a desire to work alone and develop conclusions. This desire to work alone can lead to poor interpersonal skills, and training is essential to assist in the development of these skills.

Essential non-technical skills for engineers were ranked as a result of a survey of graduate engineers from Southern Illinois University.[12] It was interesting to note that about half of the 188 respondents functioned in a team-centered work situation. The survey found that Listening, Decision Making, Problem Solving, Verbal Communication, Leadership, and Time Management were deemed the most important non-technical skills, with the first three being the same whether engineering work environments were team-centered or more traditional. It was also concluded that the most effective training technique for learning non-technical skills was from mentoring, as opposed to in-house training, seminars, or personal study. Additionally the two top suggestions made by the graduate engineers were to create senior design projects with local or regional real-world application and to require all teaching faculty to have amassed a minimum of 3-5 years of industrial work experience prior to teaching.

Industry feedback, typically through advisory boards, has been used to drive the capstone design experience at most institutions. But recent findings from solicitations to the defense-related industry [13] highlight a basis for change. In this survey, industry perceptions of new graduate engineers indicated weaknesses in several areas that are non-technical.[14] These include:

• Arrogance in technical abilities • No appreciable consideration for

alternatives• Narrow view of engineering and related

fields• Weak communication skills • Poor ability to work in teams

Industry Teaming Examples A classic example of a partnership collaboration between disciplines for a better design is the partnering between architects and engineers in building design.[15] This centers on mutual respect and good communication along with other personal performance skills. Each discipline must respect

and understand the other for mutual benefit to themselves and their customer.

A teaming approach to product development is emphasized by companies working on complex systems such as the Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System.[16] Engineers and managers at Boeing in software development had to be “trained” in a culture different from conventional work environments. Instead of complex, clever coding of software, it was imperative that software be easy to follow and modify for continuing improvements. The code must be understandable to everyone on the team. From a managerial position, it was important to balance project control with engineering freedom.

Engineering Education for Teaming

Since WWII, engineering education has focused more on technology than on the practice of engineering. This led to many professors with little or no engineering practice in industry. Consequently, as the emphasis of engineering education now focuses on commercial enterprise and global competitiveness, the mix of skills deemed necessary for a practicing engineer have been augmented to include teaming, communication, business, ethical, and social components.[17]

Although many educational institutions have teaming as part of a freshman or sophomore design course, as well as group projects throughout the engineering curriculum, it is difficult to have a culture of teaming in the current mode of engineering education. However, much of the real personal performance skills are not developed until the capstone design project.

Student International Experiences As discussed previously, corporations have been sensitive to the issues of global teaming and marketing of global products. Engineering education seems to be somewhat behind in embracing the importance of this trend. The number of US students studying abroad was approximately 2000, or about 1% of all engineering students in the US.[6] International experiences in engineering education must be encouraged to improve this situation.

132

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

Examples of Successful Student Projects Currently most, if not virtually all, student projects are self-contained to a student group and instructor at a single institution. Many involve external clients from industry or other real-world sources. Few involve product design teaming on a larger scale, with team (student) members outside of one institution.

Some attempts have been made in the area of multi-location design teams. An experiment in virtual project capstone design teams with subgroups at different campuses was conducted to simulate real-world teaming situations.[18] The subgroups at the different universities were relatively independent, coupled by the fact the subsystems must all be assembled into the final product. Students had no travel budget and were limited to electronic communications (e-mail, internet video conferencing). Schools participating included University of Pennsylvania, Ohio State University, Cooper Union, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Drexel University. Initially, the design was created by one school and was critiqued by the other schools with suggestions for redesign, leading to a second design. This serial design and review process was repeated a few times before a prototype was created.

Implementing another approach, four designs were created by each subgroup independently. Later a final design was agreed upon by combining the best aspects of all designs. In a subsequent semester the design was analyzed, refined, and prototyped. Component designs were developed by each school for assembly into the final product.

This research indicated that a face-to-face meeting at one location of all involved was deemed to be the most important means of communication. The speed of communicating ideas was fastest here. The second best alternative was video conferencing. Data transfer between subgroups was easily accomplished via internet, e-mail, FAX, and Web pages with project updates.

Issues of technology standards were a problem. For example, computer operating systems and software compatibility were an issue, as many incompatibilities were found in file structure, data files, and CAD models. Students also felt that time was wasted on guiding the project in the right direction, and other students my not have cooperated fully. Time consuming communication

tasking, such as Web site management and video conferencing setup, were also negatively viewed. Other logistical issues, such as varying school calendars, also provided some difficulties.

Sustainable Example of Multi-Disciplinary Teams

The educational experiments conducted with a multi-location project team, previously discussed, while successful, are difficult to sustain on a long-term basis. Educational institutions, as opposed to business ventures, have no financial incentives to sustain such relationships. This is especially true noting the necessity for at least one face-to-face meeting of all team participants. Other issues, such as changing instructors at institutions, contribute to the difficulties. It seems that the most sustainable model for capstone design project teams is a multi-disciplinary team at a single institution.

While it is difficult to implement, a single location university has the potential to provide a multi-disciplinary design team experience. Three examples of successful capstone projects using multi-disciplinary teams are provided in the following paragraphs.

At Mercer University School of Engineering (MUSE) a two-semester capstone design course is required of all engineering disciplines. Teams are self-forming in terms of multiple disciplines as appropriate to the project selected. All projects have sponsors from faculty, local industries, entrepreneurs, or even NASA.

As an example, a team of four engineers collaborated on a design and created a prototype of a specialized fitness apparatus for a local entrepreneur. Mechanical, biomedical, electrical, and industrial engineering disciplines were represented on the team. The team also included both genders. The physical design was a collaboration of the mechanical and biomedical engineering students. The mechanical engineer created the basic design with human biometric parameters developed by the biomedical engineer. The sensors, electronics, and user interface were concurrently designed by the electrical engineer. Manufacturability of the design was the charge of the industrial engineer. The team worked through several designs iterations taking into account the charges of each member. The final design and prototype was impacted by all members of the

133

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

team. The success of the team was largely due to good interaction between all members and the client. Hard work and respect for each person and profession were key elements in their success.

Another example of a successful interdisciplinary senior design team was comprised of two biomedical engineering students working with a mechanical engineering major. This team worked on a faculty-sponsored project with an overall goal to design a device that could be inserted into a shoe and measure the dynamic force/pressure distribution of the foot throughout the range of motion of the gait of a test subject. Data taken by the pressure sensors at the foot were to be transmitted to a computer and manipulated using Labview software. This student team very successfully divided the applicable tasks such that each student became an expert on appropriate content relative to their specific major. For example, the mechanical engineering student designed, built, and tested the shoe insert with appropriate pressure sensing device and sensor housing unit that was compatible with the hardware and computer interface designed by one of the biomedical engineering students. The third team member concentrated on software development and data manipulation. The successful completion of this project required, in addition to technical competence, excellent communication skills, and effective teaming in the collaborative design.

A final example of a MUSE interdisciplinary senior design team consisted of six students (3 electrical, 1 computer, 2 mechanical) working on a NASA-funded project with a goal to design and build an experimental apparatus for testing the stability and heat transfer characteristics of condensate liquid films in a reduced gravity environment commonly associated with parabolic flight aircraft. Again, the successful completion of the project was a function of both technical aptitude complimented by mature communication and conflict resolution skills.

Summary

From the literature and personal observations, the most significant areas for graduate engineer improvement relate to non-technical areas. More needs to be done to promote personal performance skills in engineering education. It seems apparent that curriculum and courses for addressing

interpersonal skills become more critical as global product development teams become more prevalent. Teaming skills seemed best learned through mentoring, rather than taught through a classroom.

Areas of personal performance improvement in engineering education should focus on teaming skills and communication. Issues pertaining to varying culture and gender must center on mutual respect for team members.

While technology has made possible global teaming in industry, it is difficult to simulate the experience in coursework. As curricula advance it is evident that teaming experiences across national or international campuses might provide a platform for a truly real-life industrial experience.

Despite the advances of technology, conflict resolution and the starting of teams appeared to be best accomplished by face-to-face communication. Thus, it appears that the most sustainable capstone design team format, of those discussed, is one using multiple disciplines, represented as appropriate for the project, at a single location.

Future Directions

A need for aligning engineering education to industry demands is a continuous process as the world and businesses evolve. Graduate engineers must be more prepared to assimilate into the work environment, including the non-technical aspects of engineering.

Although a significant effort is necessary, it would be educationally valuable to have students from different universities across the world work on a project together (i.e., senior capstone design, upper level design course). Students might use e-mail, video streaming, VOIP telephony, and common software, and databases for communications and organization structure. As the work world is heading this direction, it could be of value for further study on how this mode of learning might be taught to benefit students for engineering practice and communication.

References

[1] V. N. Patel, C. K. Siese, F. M. Hiemstra, S.C. Himes, “Rapid development and commercialization of products – a business

134

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

imperative in the global telecommunication landscape,” Bell Labs Technical Journal, pp. 157-170, Oct. 2000.

[2] C. H. Chen, L. P. Khoo, W. Yan, “Evaluation of multicultural factors from elicited customer requirements for new product development,” Research in Engineering Design, vol. 14, pp. 119-130, 2003.

[3] M. Eriksson, J. Lillieskold, N. Jonsson, D. Novosel, “How to manage complex, multinational R& D projects successfully,” EngineeringManagement J., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 53-60, 2002.

[4] S. Alexander, “Virtual teams going global,” Infoworld, pp. 55-56, Nov. 13, 2000.

[5] J. W. Bing, and C. M. Bing, “Helping global teams compete,” Training and Development, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 70-71, March 2001.

[6] L. A. Gerhardt, “Internationalizing Education,” ASEE Prism, vol.12, 1998.

[7] P. S. Chinowsky, and E. M. Rojas, “Virtual teams: Guide to successful implementation,” J. of Management in Engineering, vol. 19, issue 3, pp. 98-106, July 2003.

[8] A. W. Fentiman, and J. T. Demel, “Teaching students to document a design project and present results,” J. of Engineering Ed., pp. 329-333, Oct. 1995.

[9] K. S. Pawar, and S. Sharifi, “Physical or virtual team collaboration: Does it matter?” J. Production Engineering, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 382-290, 1997.

[10] Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Manufacturing Education Plan: Phase I Report, Industry Identifies Competency Gaps Among Newly Hired Engineering Graduates, Dearborn, MI: SME, 1997.

[11] E. Seat and S. Lord, “Enabling effective engineering teams: A program for teaching interactive skills,” J. of Engineering Ed., pp 43-51, Jan. 1999.

[12] C. G. Downing, “Essential non-technical skills for teaming,” J. of Engineering Ed., pp. 113-117, Jan. 1999.

[13] R. H. Todd, C. D. Sorensen, and S. P. Magleby, “Designing a capstone course to satisfy industrial customers,” J. of Engineering Ed., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 92-100, April 1993.

[14] R. C. Knox et. al. “A practitioner-educator partnership for teaching engineering design,” J. of Engineering Ed., pp. 1-7, Jan. 1995.

[15] R. G. Weingardt, “Partnering: Building a stronger design team,” J. of Architectural Engineering, pp. 49-54, June 1996.

[16] S. Budiansky, “A revolutionary approach,” ASEE Prism, pp. 36-40, September 2004.

[17] J. D. Lang, S. Cruse, F. D. McVey, and J. McMasters, “Industry expectations of new engineers: A survey to assist curriculum designers,” J. of Engineering Ed., pp. 43-51, Jan. 1999.

[18] V. Kumar, G. Kinzel, S. Wei, G. Bengu, and J. Zhou, “Multi-university design projects,” J. of Engineering Ed., pp. 353-359, July 2000.

About the Authors

Dr. Hodge Jenkins is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Mercer University, School of Engineering, since the fall of 2002. He is a registered professional engineer, and has over 20 years of design and development experience. Dr. Jenkins has been an engineering and research professional for Westinghouse Electric, Fisher Scientific, Carnegie-Mellon Research Institute most recently with Lucent Technologies, and Bell Laboratories in optical fiber development. Dr. Jenkins holds a Ph.D. in ME from Georgia Tech in 1996, as well as BSME (1981) and MSME (1985) degrees from the University of Pittsburgh.

Dr. Laura W. Lackey is an Associate Professor in the Department of Biomedical and Environmental Engineering at the Mercer University School of Engineering. She earned B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Tennessee. The terminal degree was awarded in 1992. She has six years of industrial experience at the Tennessee Valley Authority as an Environmental/Chemical Engineer where she conducted both basic and applied research with emphasis on the mitigation of organic wastes through bioremediation. In the six years since Dr.

135

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

Lackey began her career at Mercer, she has taught 14 different courses, ranging from a freshman-level Introduction to Problem Solving course to a senior-level Process Chemistry course, which she developed. She is a registered professional engineer.

136