Engineeringleadershipeducation:
Asnapshotreviewofinternationalgoodpractice
WhitePapersponsoredbytheBernardM.GordonâMIT
EngineeringLeadershipProgram
DrRuthGraham([email protected])
DrEdwardCrawley,Director,GordonâMITELP([email protected])
BruceR.Mendelsohn,CommunicationsDirector,GordonâMITELP([email protected])
Executivesummary
Thissummaryreportpresentsthefindingsofasnapshotreviewofengineeringleadership
educationconductedbetweenSeptember2008andMarch2009.Thereviewaimstoprovide
insightintocurrentprovision,highlightinternationalvariationsinapproachandidentify
examplesofgoodpractice.Itdoesnotthereforeprovideanexhaustivesurveyofthefield.
Muchoftheinformationgatheredduringthereviewwascollectedthroughdetailedinterviews
withinternationalexpertsinengineeringeducationanddirectorsofestablishedengineering
leadershipprograms.Over70individualswereconsultedandover40programswere
investigated.
Threekeyobservationsemergefromthereview.
Firstly,thereisadistinctdividebetweentheUSandtherestoftheworldinbothattitudeand
approachtoengineeringleadershipeducation.Duringtheinterviewphaseofthestudy,it
becameapparentthattheUSâbasedexpertsarefamiliarandcomfortablewiththeconceptof
targetingâleadershipâasaspecificthemewithinengineeringeducation.However,thereis
greaterdiscomfortamongstthenonâUSintervieweeswiththisapproach,whichisseentorun
countertoaneducationalculturethatemphasizesinclusivenessandequality.
Secondly,thevastmajorityofprogramsofengineeringleadershipeducationidentifiedinthe
studyarebasedwithintheUSandmostarerelativelynew(developedinthelast5years).USâ
basedprogramstypicallyfallinoneofthefollowingtwocategories:(i)thosebasedaround
leadership/managementâtheoryâ,oftenwithastrongpartnershipwiththeuniversityâsbusiness
school,and(ii)thosebasedaroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicetheme.
MostnonâUSprogramsidentifiedinthereviewhavebeeninoperationforovertenyearsand
typicallyfallintooneormoreofthefollowingcategories:(i)thoseinvolvingâcoachingâofmore
juniorstudents,(ii)thoseinvolvingindustryâbasedârealâworldâprojects,wheretheentire
programisfundedthroughcompaniesâsponsoringâoneormoreteam,and(iii)thosebased
aroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicetheme.
Thirdly,thereviewuncoversasurprisingdearthofresources,expertiseandformalnetworks
currentlyavailableinthefieldofengineeringleadershipeducation.Thisfindingisinsharp
contrasttotherelateddisciplinesofâengineeringentrepreneurshipeducationâandâglobal
engineeringeducationâ,forwhichstrongcommunitiesandresourceshaveemergedoverrecent
years.Opportunitiesclearlyexisttodevelopnewpartnerships,knowledgeandnetworksinthis
emergingfield.
Thereportalsopresentsexamplesofinternationalgoodpracticeinengineeringleadership
education.Theseexamplesaregroupedintotwocategories:(i)âexplicitâprograms,where
engineeringleadershipdevelopmentistheprimaryandexplicitobjective,and(ii)ânonâexplicitâ
programs,wheretheengineeringleadershipdevelopmentisembeddedwithinabroaderremit.
Examplespresentedofgoodpracticewithanâexplicitâleadershipobjectiveincludethe
EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinoratPennStateUniversity,theGordonâMIT
EngineeringLeadershipProgramatMIT,theEngineeringLeadershipProgramatIowaState
UniversityandLeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentatMonashUniversity.Examples
presentedofgoodpracticewithaânonâexplicitâleadershipagendaincludetheConstructionarium
intheUK,theEngineeringCulturescourseatVirginiaTech,andtheEWBChallengecoordinated
byEngineersWithoutBordersAustralia.
Acknowledgements
ThisreportwasundertakenwithfinancialsupportfromtheGordonâMITEngineeringLeadership
ProgramatMIT.
Iamparticularlygratefultotheengineeringfaculty,programstaffandengineeringstudentsfrom
acrosstheworldwhocontributedsogenerouslytothereviewbygivingtheirtimeandsharing
theirknowledgeandexpertise.
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
2 Overallobservations............................................................................................................3
2.1 Theinternationalfieldofengineeringleadershipeducation..........................................3
2.2 Currentandfuturetrends .............................................................................................5
3 Theinternationalpicture:regionalvariationsinapproach...................................................8
3.1 Europe ..........................................................................................................................8
3.2 NorthAmerica ..............................................................................................................9
3.3 Australasia ..................................................................................................................11
3.4 Asia,AfricaandSouthAmerica ...................................................................................12
4 Internationalgoodpractice ...............................................................................................14
4.1 Explicitleadershipprograms .......................................................................................14
4.2 Nonâexplicitleadershipprograms................................................................................15
5 Casestudies.......................................................................................................................17
5.1 Casestudy1:EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinorâPennStateUniversity ....17
5.2 Casestudy2:EngineeringLeadershipProgramâIowaStateUniversity.......................19
5.3 Casestudy3:GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgramâMIT...............................19
5.4 Casestudy4:LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentâMonashUniversity...........25
6 Concludingcomments .......................................................................................................28
AppendixA. Individualsinterviewed/consulted....................................................................30
A.1. NorthAmerica ...........................................................................................................30
A.2. Europe .......................................................................................................................31
A.3. Restoftheworld .......................................................................................................32
AppendixB. Summarytableofselectedprograms................................................................34
1
1 Introduction
Thissummaryreportpresentsthefindingsofaâsnapâshotâreviewofinternationalgoodpractice
inengineeringleadershipeducation,conductedbetweenSeptember2008andMarch2009.The
reviewfocusesoncurricularandcoâcurricularprogramsthatprincipallycatertoengineering
undergraduates.Thedefinitionofengineeringleadershipusedinthereviewisbasedonthe
âcapabilitiesofanengineeringleaderâidentifiedbytheGordonâMITEngineeringLeadership
Program,asoutlinedbelow.
CoreValuesandCharacter
Initiativeanddecisionmaking(responsibility,integrity,loyalty,selfâawareness,personalvision)
Sensemaking Makingsenseoftheworldaroundus(theneedsofsociety,technology,systemthinking,solutionjudgment)
Relating Developingkeyrelationshipsandnetworks(listeningandseekingcompromise,communicatingandadvocating,wideconnections,enterprise)
Visioning Creatingacompellingimageofthefuture(tappingcreativity,definingsolutions,creatingconcepts)
Realizingthevision Gettingthejobdone(buildingateam,managingaproject,innovating,inventing,implementingandoperating)
Technicalknowledgeandcriticalreasoning
Groundinginthedisciplinaryfundamentals(problemsolving,criticalthinking,inquiry)
Thereportisnotanexhaustiveexaminationofthefield,butseekstoprovideaninsightinto
currentpractice,highlightinternationalvariationsinapproachandidentifyexamplesofgood
practice.Muchoftheinformationgatheredduringthereviewhasbeencollectedthrough
detailedinterviewswithinternationalexpertsinengineeringeducationanddirectorsof
establishedengineeringleadershipprograms.Theprocessadoptedforthestudyisoutlined
below.
1. Backgroundreviewandstudy:literaturesearchandreviewtoidentifythebroad
spectrumofinternationalactivitiesinengineeringleadershipeducationandrelated
initiatives.
2. Targetedinterviewswithinternationalexpertsinbothengineeringeducationand
engineeringleadershipeducation:interviewswithinternationalleadersto:
a. betterunderstandglobaltrendsinthefield,
2
b. identifythemosthighlyâregardedprogramsaroundtheworld,and
c. identifyotherexpertsinthefieldforfollowâupinterviews.
3. Investigationoftargetedprograms:furtherinvestigationofthemosthighlyregarded
programsthroughdetailedinterviewswithprogramstaff,undergraduateparticipantsand
relatedfaculty.
Duringtheresearchphaseofthisstudy,over70expertshavebeenconsulted(aslistedin
AppendixA)andover40programshavebeeninvestigated.
Allwebâsitereferencesgiveninthisreportwerelastaccessedon5thMay2009.
3
2 Overallobservations
2.1 Theinternationalfieldofengineeringleadershipeducation
Muchoftheinformationgatheredinthisstudyhasbeencollectedthroughdiscussionswith
internationalexpertsinengineeringeducation.Theseinterviewsindicatethatengineering
leadershipeducation,asasubâdiscipline,isnotcurrentlyontheradarofmostengineering
educationexpertsoutsidetheUS.Theinterviewprocessalsorevealedalevelofdiscomfortwith
thenotionofâleadershipeducationâbymanyofthenonâUSinterviewees,astheyfeltthatthis
conceptrancountertotheireducationalcultureofinclusivenessandequality.Inthesecases,
however,theintervieweeswereabletoidentifywithallofthecharacteristicsoftheengineering
leaderasdefinedbytheGordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,andtheywereableto
highlightexamplesofgoodpracticeonthisbasis.
AverycleardividewasthereforeapparentbetweentheresponsesfromtheUSintervieweesand
thenonâUSinterviewees.TheUSintervieweesweregenerallycomfortablewiththeconceptof
educatingundergraduatesinâleadershipâ,wereabletoidentifyprogramsinengineering
leadership,butweretypicallyonlyfamiliarwiththeengineeringeducationsceneintheUS.The
nonâUSintervieweestendedtobemuchmorefamiliarwiththeinternationalscenein
engineeringeducation,butwerelessengagedwithâleadershipâasaspecificdisciplineand
tendedtoidentifyexamplesofgoodpracticeinwhichleadershipdevelopmentisembeddedina
broaderprogram.Forthisreason,theinternationalapproachestoengineeringleadership
educationdiscussedinthisreportaredividedintotwocategories:
1. âExplicitââprogramswhereengineeringleadershipdevelopmentistheprimaryand
explicitobjective.
2. âNonâexplicitââprogramswhichinvolveengineeringleadershipdevelopment,butthis
maynotbeexplicitand/ormaybeembeddedwithinabroaderremitorprogram.
Furtherdiscussiononthedifferingregionalapproachestoengineeringleadershipeducationis
giveninthefollowingsectionofthisreport(Section3).
Thereareanumberofstrongcommonthreadsrunningacrossmanyoftheprogramsof
engineeringleadershipeducationidentifiedinthestudywithrespecttotheiroperationand
management:
4
⢠Aswithmanynovelengineeringeducationinitiatives,theprogramsidentifiedinthis
studyareoftendirectedbyarelativelyhighâprofile,highlypassionatechampion,on
whomthesuccessandcontinuationoftheprogramlargelyrests.
⢠Manyprogramsoperateonarelativelysmallbudgetwithaverysmallprojectteamâin
manycasestheteamsimplycomprisesapartâtimedirectorandapartâorfullâtime
administrativeassistant.
⢠Almosteveryprogramdirectorinterviewedhasexperiencedsignificantdifficultiesin
identifyingandemployingsuitablyqualifiedstafftobothdesignanddeliverthe
programs.
⢠Alargenumberoftheprogramsidentifiedoperateoutsideoftheformalengineering
curriculum.Manyprogramdirectorscommentedthatthiswas,inpart,duetoalackof
resourcesand/oralackofengagementinthefieldofengineeringleadershipbythecore
engineeringfaculty.Oftenthisindependencefromboththecurriculumanddepartmental
proceduresallowsformorecreativeeducationalapproachesandamuchgreater
flexibilityinthestructureanddesignoftheprograms.Forthisreason,anumberof
programsinvestigatedinthestudywereabletolaunchtheiroperations,securefunding,
designtheactivitiesandwelcomethefirstcohortofstudents,allwithinamatterofafew
weeks.
⢠Sometensionisapparentinmanyinstitutionsbetweenthebusinessschoolsandthe
engineeringschools,intermsofwhoshouldbeâowningâandoperatingtheprograms.In
almosteverycase,engineeringleadershipprogramsarehostedwithintheschoolof
engineeringorequivalent.Itwasclearlyfeltthatsuchprogramsshouldcontinuetobe
hostedwithinengineeringschoolsinordertoprovidetherequiredacademicand
professionalcontextforthestudentswhenseekingtoapplyandreflectontheir
developingleadershipabilities.
Oneinterestingfindingthatemergedthroughthestudyisthedearthofformalnetworks,events
andresearchprogramsinengineeringleadershipeducation.Thisisinstarkcontrasttothe
5
paralleleducationalthemesofâengineeringentrepreneurshipâandâglobalengineeringâ,forwhich
anumberofformallearningcommunities1,2,resourcecentres3,4andannualevents5,6exist.Very
limitednumbersofresearchprogramshavebeenidentifiedinthefieldofengineeringleadership
education.Themajorityofthisworkisofmodestambition,linkeddirectlytospecificeducational
programs,andmainlyfocusedontheareaofstudentassessment.
2.2 Currentandfuturetrends
Acrosstheworld,themissionstatementsofmanyundergraduateengineeringdegreesinclude
aspirationssuchasââŚtoproduceengineeringleadersforthe21stCenturyâ.However,themajority
ofprogramsappeartohavenoformalorarticulatedmechanismtodelivertheleadership
componentofthisgoal,beyond(typically)studentinvolvementinprojectâorproblemâbased
learningactivities.
AsimpleInternetsearchofengineeringleadershipeducationwillrevealawidevarietyof
programscurrentlybeingofferedatundergraduatelevel,manyofwhicharebasedintheUS.
Wheninvestigatedmoreclosely,however,itappearsthatmanyofthesearenotcoherent
programsdesignedforengineeringstudents,butsimplypulltogetheraseriesofpreâexisting
modulesfromacrosstheuniversitywithperhapsoneadditionalteamâbasedprojectattheendof
thesequence.
Whereprogramsofengineeringleadershipeducationhavebeenspecificallyâdesignedâ,theytend
tofallintooneormoreofthefollowingcategories:
1. thosebasedaroundleadershipandmanagementâtheoryâ,oftenincludingastrong
partnershipwiththeinstitutionâsbusinessschoolorâleadershipâcentre,
2. thosebasedaroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicefocus,
3. thoseinvolvingâcoachingâofmorejuniorstudents,usuallyinprojectteams,and
1 Entrepreneurship Division, American Society for Engineering Education (http://www.asee-ent.org/) 2 Online Journal for Global Engineering Education (http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ojgee/) 3 GlobalHUB (http://globalhub.org/) 4 Entrepreneurship Corner, Stanford Technology Ventures Program (http://stvp.stanford.edu/outreach/educators-corner.html) 5 Roundtable on Entrepreneurship Education, Stanford Technology Ventures Program (http://ree.stanford.edu/) 6 International Colloquium on International Engineering Education (http://www.uri.edu/iep/colloquia/)
6
4. thoseinvolvingindustryâbasedârealâworldâprojects,wheretheentireprogramisfunded
throughcompaniesâsponsoringâoneormoreteam.
Forthevastmajorityofprogramsinvestigated,theirinceptionwasoriginallymotivatedbyoneof
thefollowingdrivers:
1. todevelopleaderswhoareabletooperateeffectivelyinsideandoutsidetheengineering
profession.Manyintervieweesweremotivatedbyadesiretoseeworldleaders,inall
spheres,whohadbeeneducatedasengineers.
2. toensurethattheirnationimprovesormaintainsitsgloballycompetitiveposition.This
visionisparticularlyevidentinUSâbasedprograms.
Mostprogramsidentifiedinthisstudyareeitherrelativelynewintheirinception(lessthan10
yearsold)oroperateinrelativeisolationwithinthegeographicalregion.Perhapsforthose
reasons,veryfewoftheprogramsidentifiedbasedtheirprovisiononexistingmodelsof
engineeringleadershipeducation.Themajorityofprogramsinvestigatedwereeitherdeveloped
followingnopriorexternalresearch,orelsewerebasedonmodelsfoundingeneralleadership
education,thosefoundinindustryorthoseusedinthemilitary.
Onemajorcurrenttrendinengineeringleadershipeducationisthedevelopmentofthestudentsâ
globalawarenessandtheirabilitytoworkoncomplexcrossânationalprojectsâwhichisseenby
manyastheenvironmentwithinwhichtheengineeringleaderofthefuturewillneedtooperate.
Manyoftheprogramswhichweremosthighlyratedbyintervieweesincorporatesomeglobal
elementseitherthroughinternationaltravel,remotelinkâupswithoverseas
universities/companiesorprojectbriefsinvolvinganinternationalorcrossâculturalcontext.The
trendtowardsamoreâglobalâviewofleadershipeducationwasseenbymanyofthe
intervieweesasonethatwouldcontinue.
Themajorityofprogramsidentifiedinthisstudyusesomeformofpsychometrictestingofthe
studentsaspartoftheirleadershipdevelopment.Inmostcases,thisisusedinconjunctionwith
someformofleadershipdevelopmentâjournalâand/oronâgoingindividualmentoring.Another
emergingtheme,particularlyamongstthemosthighâratedprograms,istheprovisionofa
flexibleeducationthatistailoredtothechangingneedsofeachindividualstudent.
7
Duringtheinterviewprocess,threerelatedtrendswerepredictedforengineeringleadership
educationinthefuture:
1. globalengineering:increasingfocusonthestudentsâabilitytooperateincomplex,
internationalmultiâdisciplinaryteams,withastrongerawarenessofnationalandcultural
differencesintheirapproachtoengineeringproblems.
2. programcollaborations:greaterdevelopmentofcrossânationalpartnershipsbetween
engineeringleadershipprograms,inparttoofferstudentsgreaterâglobalâexposure.
3. selfâanalysisandreflection:awarenessâbuildingofthestudentsâpersonalskillset,
analysisofhowthiswillimpacttheirownleadershipabilityandprovisionofatailored
programtoaccommodatethestudentsâindividualdevelopmentneeds.
8
3 Theinternationalpicture:regionalvariationsinapproach
Thereviewhighlightssomeinterestinggeographicaldifferencesinbothattitudeandapproachto
engineeringleadershipeducationacrosstheworld.Themoststrikingobservationisthatthevast
majority,probably80â90%,ofprogramswhichexplicitlyfocusonleadershiparebasedintheUS.
Outlinedbelowisasummaryofthecurrentstatusofengineeringleadershipeducationbyregion,
asidentifiedinthereview.
3.1 Europe
Thenotionofeducatingstudentsinleadershipclearlydoesnotsitcomfortablywithmany
engineeringfacultyinEurope,andveryfewEuropeanprogramshavebeenidentifiedinthestudy
thatexplicitlyusethetermleadershipinthecoursedescription.Theoverallvisibilityof
engineeringleadershipeducationasadisciplineisalsoverylowâalmostalloftheleadersof
existingengineeringleadershipprogramsinterviewedwereunawareofothercomparable
activitiesacrossEuropeorworldwide.However,themajorityofEuropeanprogramsidentifiedin
thisreviewhavebeeninoperationforover10years.
WithinEurope,theUKisthemostactivecountryintheprovisionofâexplicitâprogramsin
engineeringleadership.UKâbasedexamplesincludetheTeamworkandLeadershipmoduleat
LoughboroughUniversity7,theEngineeringLeadershipAdvancedAwardforUndergraduatesrun
bytheRoyalAcademyofEngineering8andtheEngineeringDesignMEngdegreeatBristol
University9.
AnumberEuropeanengineeringschoolshavedevelopedpeertutoringmodelswithastrong
leadershipelement,wheremoreseniorstudentsâcoachâjuniorstudentprojectteams.An
exampleofsuchamodelistheProjectManagementinPractice10courseattheUniversitatRovira
iVirgili,Spain,whereselectedfourthyearstudentsleadfirstyeargroupdesignprojectteams.
7 Teamwork and Leadership Module, Civil and Building Engineering, University of Loughborough (http://cisinfo.lboro.ac.uk/epublic/WP5015.module_spec?select_mod=08CVD017) 8 Engineering Leadership Advanced Award Scheme for Undergraduates, Royal Academy of Engineering (http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/undergrad/ela/default.htm) 9 Engineering Design MEng, Bristol University (http://www.edes.bris.ac.uk/index.html) 10 Ozgen,S., Alabart, J.R. and Medir, M. (2008) A 360Âş-Degree Feedback Process to Assist Senior Engineering Students in Their Leadership Development, SEFI 36th Annual Conference on Quality Assessment, Employability and Innovation, July 2-5, Aalborg, Denmark
9
Thisexperienceissupportedbyleadershipdevelopmentmodulesandintensivetutoringforthe
studentstoreflectonandlearnfromtheirleadershipexperiences.Manysuchâcoachingâbasedâ
programswereoriginallymotivatedbydepartmentalresourceconstraints,withmoresenior
undergraduatesbeingtrainedandpaidtosupervisegroupprojects.Forexample,intheFaculty
ofAerospaceEngineeringattheDelftUniversityofTechnology11,carefullyselectedthirdâyear
studentsareprovidedwithtrainingandpaidasteachingassistantstosupervisefirstandsecond
yearprojectgroups.
AcrossEurope,manyoftheprogramsthatincorporateleadershipelementsalsohaveastrong
focusonglobalandcrossâculturalteaming.Forexample,studentsparticipatingintheGlobal
EngineeringTeams12programattheTechnischeUniversitätBerlininGermanyworkinteams
withstudentsfromacrossanumberofdifferentcontinentstodeliveraprojectorproducttoa
strictsetofdeadlines.
3.2 NorthAmerica
ThevastmajorityofâexplicitâengineeringleadershipprogramsarebasedintheUS.Theofferings
rangefromsmallextraâcurricularprogramsthroughtoengineeringminorsandevenincludean
engineeringschoolthathasidentifiedleadershiptobethecentralthemeoftheirengineering
education13.USâbasedintervieweeswereverycomfortableandfamiliarwiththeconceptof
educatingâleadersâ.Theonlyconcernraisedrelatedtotheabilityofcurrentengineeringfaculty
todelivereffectiveleadershipprogramsandthedifficultiesofidentifyingsuitablyqualifiedstaff
fromoutsidetheirowninstitution.ThemajorityofengineeringleadershipprogramsintheUS
havebeendevelopedfollowingtheintroductionoftheABETEngineeringCriteria2000,witha
significantnumberestablishedinthepast5years.
USâbasedprogramstendtofallintotwocategories:
(i) thosebasedaroundleadership/managementâtheoryâ,oftenwithastrongpartnership
withtheuniversityâsbusinessschool,and
11 Andernach, J.A. and Saunders-Smits, G.N. (2006) The Use of Teaching Assistants in Project Based Learning at Aerospace Engineering, ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28-31, San Diego, CA 12 Global Engineering Teams, Technische Universität Berlin (http://www.global-engineering-teams.org/) 13 Lyle School of Engineering, Southern Methodist University (http://lyle.smu.edu/)
10
(ii) thosebasedaroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicetheme.
Ingeneral,theprogramsmosthighlyratedbythoseinterviewedinthisstudyfallintothelatter
category.
TheâglobalâthemeisparticularlystrongwithinUSprograms.ManyUSfacultymembers
identifiedalackofglobalexperienceorunderstandingasamajorweaknessoftheirengineering
studentsâitwasobservedbyanumberofthoseinterviewedthatmanyoftheirstudentshad
neverlefttheirownstate.Theabilitytoworkeffectivelyacrossculturesinaninternational
sphereisclearlyseenbymanyasanincreasinglyvitalelementofanengineerleader,whichis
reflectedinmanyoftheprograms.ExamplesincludetheEngineeringGlobalLeadershipHonors
ProgramattheUniversityofMichigan14andtheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinorat
PennStateUniversity15.Anumberofhighlyâratedprogramsinâglobalengineeringâforwhich
leadershipdevelopmentisanonâexplicitgoalemergedinthestudy,suchastheGlobal
EngineeringProgramatPurdueUniversity16.
AnotherstrongthemewithinUSengineeringleadershipeducationisâstudentempowermentin
theirownleadershipdevelopmentâ,andmanyprogramsarepartiallyoralmostfullymanaged
anddeliveredbythestudentsthemselves.ExamplesincludetheextraâcurricularCAMPprogram
atSouthDakotaSchoolofMines17andtheEngineeringLeadershipProgramatIowaState
University18.
Perhapsthemostambitiousprogramofengineeringleadershipeducationinvestigatedinthe
studyistherecentlyestablishedGordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram19,basedatMIT.
Theprogramcombinesasuiteofeducationalactivitiestodeveloptheleadershipcapabilitiesof
theundergraduateengineersatMITwithabroadernationalroletoimprovetheleadership
capabilitiesoffutureUSengineeringgraduates.Inpursuitofthesegoals,theprogramhas
14 Engineering Global Leadership Honors Program, University of Michigan (http://www.engin.umich.edu/egl/) 15 Engineering Leadership Development Minor, Penn State University (http://www.eldm.psu.edu/) 16 Global Engineering Program, Purdue University (https://engineering.purdue.edu/GEP/) 17 Center of Excellence for Advanced Manufacturing and Production (CAMP), South Dakota School of Mines (http://camp.sdsmt.edu/index.php) 18 Engineering Leadership Program, Iowa State University (http://www.eng.iastate.edu/leadership/index.asp) 19 Gordon-MIT Engineering Leadership Program, MIT (http://web.mit.edu/gordonelp/)
11
alreadysecuredexternalfundingof$20m,withaviewtomatchingthissumoverthenextfew
years.
AnumberofâengineeringentrepreneurshipâprogramsintheUSarebasedonbroaddefinitions
ofentrepreneurshipwhichencompassesasignificantfocusonleadership,suchastheStanford
TechnologyVenturesProgramatStanfordUniversity20.USâbasedactivityalsoincludestheCentre
forEngineeringLeadershipandLearningattheUniversityofCentralFlorida21.Thisgroupis
seekingtodevelopneweducationalprograms,offertrainingandresourcesinthefieldof
engineeringleadership,andundertakeresearchintotheâscienceoflearningandteaching
engineeringleadershipâ.
Eachyear,theNationalAcademyofEngineeringawardstheGordonPrize22toaUSâbased
engineeringeducationprogramwhichdisplaysânewmodalitiesandexperimentsineducation
thatdevelopeffectiveengineeringleadersacrosstheUSâ.Sinceitsinceptionin2001,the$500k
prizehasbeenawardedtoanumberoftheprogramshighlightedinthisstudy.
OnlytwoengineeringleadershipprogramshavebeenidentifiedinCanada:(i)theLeadersof
TomorrowprogramatTorontoUniversity23,whichcombinescurricular,coâcurricularandextraâ
curricularactivities,and(ii)aMastersofEngineeringandPublicPolicyandaMastersof
EngineeringDesignofferedbytheWalterG.BoothSchoolofEngineeringPracticeatMcMaster
University24.
3.3 Australasia
AswiththeEuropeaninterviewees,manyoftheAustralasianengineeringeducatorsinterviewed
expresseddiscomfortwiththeconceptofselectiveprogramsinleadershipdevelopment.
Concernswereparticularlyfocusedonhowstudentsshouldbeselectedforsuchprogramsand
onwhetherleadershipabilityorpotentialcanbedemonstratedinanapplicationprocess.
20 Stanford Technology Ventures Program, Stanford University (http://stvp.stanford.edu/) 21 Centre for Engineering Leadership and Learning, University of Central Florida (http://www.engineeringleadership.us/) 22 Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education (http://www.nae.edu/nae/awardscom.nsf/weblinks/DWHT-4UJPVA?OpenDocument) 23 Leaders of Tomorrow, University of Toronto (http://www.undergrad.engineering.utoronto.ca/students/vice-dean/leaders.htm) 24 Walter G. Booth School of Engineering Practice, McMaster University (http://msep.mcmaster.ca/)
12
OnlyoneâexplicitâprograminengineeringleadershiphasbeenidentifiedinAustralasiaâthe
LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentprogramatMonashUniversity25.Thisprogramoffers
athreeyearcoâcurricularleadershipdevelopmentexperiencetothetoptierofengineering
studentswiththehighestentryqualifications.
Anumberofengineeringschoolsofferâhighpotentialâfellowshipprograms,oftenlinkedtoa
studentscholarship,thatprovidearangeofleadershipdevelopmentopportunities.Examples
includetheDeanâsScholarsProgramatQueenslandUniversityofTechnology26.
TheAustraliangovernmentrequiresallengineeringstudentstoparticipateinanindustrial
experiencewheretheyworkunderthedirectsupervisionofanindustryprofessional.This
mandatoryexperienceisseentoprovidestudentswithsignificantleadershipdevelopment
opportunities.Inaddition,theAustralianaccreditationsystemhasbeenoutcomesâdrivenfor
nearly15years,whichhasresultedinanincreasedfocusonstudentsâpersonalandprofessional
development.AcrossAustralia,therearemanyexamplesofânonâexplicitâprogramswhere
leadershipisembeddedintocoursesorprojects.OneexampleistheEngineersWithoutBorders
Challengeprogram27wherefirstâyearengineeringstudentsfromuniversitiesacrossAustraliaare
providedwitharealdesignbrieffromthedevelopingworldandaskedtoproduceâengineering
anddesignsolutionsthataretailoredtothelocalsocial,cultural,political,environmentaland
economiccontextâ.
3.4 Asia,AfricaandSouthAmerica
ThestudyrevealedadearthofengineeringleadershipprogramsacrossAsia,AfricaandSouth
America.Althoughsomeinterestingprogramshavebeenidentified,thesetendtooperatein
isolationandtheprogramleadersareoftenunawareofanyotherleadershipprogramsavailable
intheirregion.NoprogramswereidentifiedinAfrica.
25 Leadership in a Technological Environment, Monash University (http://www.eng.monash.edu.au/current-students/merit/leadership/) 26 Deanâs Scholars Program, Queensland University of Technology (http://www.bee.qut.edu.au/study/scholarships/commencing/deans.jsp) 27 Engineers Without Borders (EWB) Challenge, EWB Australia (http://www.ewb.org.au/ewbchallenge/)
13
AmongalmostallprogramsidentifiedinAsiaandSouthAmericaisaverystrongâglobalâtheme.
Forexample,theGlobalLeadershipEngineeringEducationProgram28atKyotoUniversityfocuses
onthedevelopmentofgloballeaderswithastrongcrossâculturalunderstanding.
Anumberofleadershipprogramsarestructuredaroundprojectâbasedindustryplacements
alongsidesupplementaryleadershipdevelopmentcoursesandopportunityforstudentsto
reflectonanddeveloptheirleadershipstyle.Oneexampleofsuchanapproachisatthe
UniversidadedeSĂŁoPauloinBrazil,withaprogramthatcanberoughlytranslatedasâProgramof
capacityâbuildinginleadershipâ.
Anumberofinstitutions,particularlyinAsia,areinvolvedwithUSâbasedengineeringleadership
programs.Forexample,RiceUniversity,alongwithanumberofUSâbasedpartneruniversities,
offertheINNOVATE29programâa10âdaysymposium,heldindifferentregionsofAsiaeachyear,
for60â70USandregionalengineeringstudents.Thisexperienceseekstodevelopthestudentsâ
abilitytomakeculturallysensitivedecisions.
ManyuniversitiesacrossAsiahaverecentlystartedlookingathowleadershipmightbe
integratedintotheengineeringcurriculum.However,mostoftheseinitiativesareatanearly
stage,andareonlylikelytoproducemodestleadershipelementswhichareembeddedinto
groupprojectwork.Forexample,from2005allengineeringprogramsinMalaysiahavebeen
requiredbytheMinistryofHigherEducationtoincludeanumberofprofessionalskills(including
leadership)withinthelearningoutcomes.Inresponse,anumberofuniversitieshavestartedto
developaproblemâbasedlearningapproachtomanyelementsoftheundergraduateengineering
education,withâleadershipdevelopmentâembeddedwithinthisstructure.
28 Global Leadership Engineering Education Program, Kyoto University (http://www.t.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/undergrad/lectures/glprogram) 29 INNOVATE (http://innovate.rice.edu/)
14
4 Internationalgoodpractice
Aspartofthestudy,expertsfromacrosstheworldwereinvitedtomakeajudgmenton
internationalbestpracticeinengineeringleadershipeducation.Throughcompilingthese
judgments,ithasbeenpossibletoidentifyanumberofprogramsthatareparticularlyhighly
regardedinthecommunity.Thissectionprovidesasummaryoftheseâgoodpracticeâ
approaches.
AsdiscussedinSection2,twodistinctcategoriesofprogramhavebeenidentifiedinthisstudyâ
onesforwhichleadershipisanexplicitlydefinedfocusandonesthatembedthedevelopmentof
leadershipcharacteristicswithinabroaderremit.Forthisreason,theexamplesofinternational
goodpracticediscussedinthissectionarepresentedwithineachofthesetwocategories.
ProvidedinAppendixBisatablethatsummarisestheactivitiesofeighthighlyâregarded
engineeringleadershipprogramsfromacrosstheworld.
4.1 Explicitleadershipprograms
Thevastmajorityofâexplicitâengineeringleadershipundergraduateprogramsarebasedwithin
theUS,andinevitablythisiswheremanyoftheexamplesofgoodpracticewereidentified.A
numberofprogramswereparticularlyhighlyratedduringtheinterviewprocess,aslistedbelow.
⢠D.School30,StanfordUniversity
⢠EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinor15,PennStateUniversity
⢠EngineeringLeadershipProgram18,IowaStateUniversity
⢠GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram19,MIT
⢠LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment25,MonashUniveristy
ItshouldbenotedthattheprogramsatIowaState,MITandMonasharestillintheearlystages
ofdevelopment.
Therewereanumberofotherengineeringleadershipprogramsidentifiedthatdonotholdthe
levelofnationalorinternationalvisibilityofthoselistedabove,butwhichwereneverthelessvery
highlyratedbyanumberofinterviewees.Theseprogramsinclude:
30 Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (âD.Schoolâ), Stanford University (http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/)
15
⢠CenterofExcellenceforAdvancedManufacturingandProduction17,SouthDakotaSchool
ofMines
⢠LeadersofTomorrow23,UniversityofToronto,Canada
⢠LyleSchoolofEngineering13,SouthernMethodistUniversity(SMU)
⢠TeamworkandLeadershipModule7,LoughboroughUniversity,UK
⢠TheArcherCenterforStudentLeadershipDevelopment31,RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute
ItshouldbenotedthattheProgramatSMUisstillintheveryearlystagesofdevelopment.
Anumberofindustryâbasedengineeringleadershipdevelopmentprogramswerealsowidely
recommended.TheseincludetheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentProgramatLockheed
Martin32.
4.2 Nonâexplicitleadershipprograms
Theidentificationofbestpracticeapproachesinwhichâleadershipâisnotexplicitbutembedded
withinbroaderprogramshasproventobeaninterestingchallenge.Evenwithintheâexplicitâ
programsdescribedinSection4.1,definitionsofâleadershipâvaryconsiderablyandresultin
quitesignificantdifferencesinemphasis.Withouttheformallabel,theidentificationof
programsthatembedâleadershipdevelopmentâhasbeenbasedonthesubjectivejudgmentof
theindividualsinterviewedduringthestudyandthatoftheauthor.
Outlinedbelowisaselectionofthehighlyâratedânonâexplicitâengineeringleadershipprograms
fromacrosstheworld.
⢠Constructionarium33,UKuniversityandindustrypartnership
⢠EngineeringClinic34,HarveyMuddCollege
⢠EngineeringCultures35,VirginiaTech
31 The Archer Center for Student Leadership Development, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (http://archer.union.rpi.edu/) 32 Engineering Leadership Development Program, Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/college_leadershipdev_engineering.asp) 33 Constructionarium, UK university and industry consortium (http://www.constructionarium.co.uk/) 34 Engineering Clinic, Harvey Mudd College (http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/index.php?page=Clinic.php) 35 Engineering Cultures, Virginia Tech (http://www.engcultures.sts.vt.edu/overview.html)
16
⢠EWBChallenge27,EngineersWithoutBordersAustraliaandAustralianuniversity
partnership
⢠GlobalEngineeringAllianceforResearchandEducation36(GEARE)andEngineering
ProjectsinCommunityService(EPICS)37,bothatPurdueUniversity
⢠GlobalEngineeringTeams12,TechnischeUniversitätBerlin,Germany
Whenaskedtoidentifybestpracticeapproachestoengineeringleadership,manynonâUS
intervieweesalsospokeaboutsuccessfulapproachesusingproblemâbasedlearning.Aalborg
UniversityandOlinCollegeofEngineeringwerebothwidelycitedandhighlyrecommendedin
thisregard.
36 Global Engineering Alliance for Research and Education (GEARE), Purdue University (https://engineering.purdue.edu/GEP/Programs/GEARE/) 37 Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS), Purdue University (http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/)
17
5 Casestudies
Outlinedinthissectionarefourcasestudyexamplesofgoodpractice.Thecasestudieshave
beeneachselectedtohighlightastrongthemeortrendininternationalengineeringleadership
educationthatemergedduringthestudy,asoutlinedbelow.
⢠ProgramswithastrongfocusonglobalengineeringleadershipâEngineeringLeadership
DevelopmentMinor,PennStateUniversity
⢠ProgramswhosedesignandmanagementarestronglystudentâledâEngineering
LeadershipProgram,IowaStateUniversity
⢠Highlyâselectiveprogramsprovidingintensiveandchallengingstudentexperiencesâ
GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT
⢠CoâcurricularprogramscateringforselectedâhighâpotentialâstudentsâLeadershipina
TechnologicalEnvironment,MonashUniversity
5.1 Casestudy1:EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinorâPennStateUniversity
5.1.1 OverviewofProgram
TheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentProgram15(ELDP)atPennStatewasfirstlaunchedin
1995throughtheLeonhardCenterfortheEnhancementofEngineeringEducation38andoffers
studentsfromacrosstheuniversitytheopportunitytopursueaminorinengineeringleadership
development.TheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentminor(ELDM)âusesacombinationofinâ
classdiscussion,internationaltravelandcontextuallearningtoteachleadershipskillsâ.Thereisa
significantfocusonsociallyârelevant,handsâonprojects,manyofwhicharebasedoutsidetheUS,
whichseektoprovideaâtransformationalâexperienceforthestudentsinthedevelopmentof
theirleadershipoutlook.
TheELDPwasoneofthefirstengineeringleadershipprogramsintheUSanditsfocushasbeen
verymuchshapedbythedrivinginterestsofthethreedirectorswhohaveledtheprogramover
thepast10yearsâinturncenteringonbusinessleadership,personalleadershipandglobal
38 Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education, Penn State University (http://www.engr.psu.edu/leonhardcenter/)
18
leadership.Themostrecentdirector,DrRickSchuhmannhassignificantlyenhancedtheglobal
dimensiontotheprogram:âStudentsintheprogramaretrainednotjustinleadershiptheoryand
skills,buttobegloballeaderswithknowledgeoftheworld,skillsincrossâculturalcommunication,
andexperienceinparticipatinginchangeprocessesinothercountriesâ.Theâglobalâelementsof
theprogramarehighlightedinblueintheELDMstructure,illustratedbelow.
TheELDPoperatesthroughtheSchoolofEngineeringDesign,TechnologyandProfessional
Programs(SEDTAPP).InadditiontotheELDM,SEDTAPPalsoofferaminorinEngineering
Entrepreneurship(EâShip),whichalsoreceivedanumberofstrongrecommendationsduringthe
review.Around90%oftheELDMparticipantsand60%oftheEâShipminorparticipantsare
engineeringmajorsandbothprogramsarecaseâstudydrivenandbasedaroundactiveâlearning.
5.1.2 Programstructureandfocus
TheELDMcomprisesatotalof18credits,ofwhich6creditsformthecompulsorycoreinthe
followingmodules:
⢠ENGR408âLeadershipPrinciples
⢠ENGR493âLeadershipPracticum
⢠ENGR407âTechnologyâbased
Entrepreneurship
StudentswhosuccessfullycompleteENGR
408andENGR493aretheneligibletotake
theminor.Theprogramsubsequentlyoffers
twopaths,withtheâglobaloptionâallowing
thestudentstotraveltoeitherMoroccoor
Hungary.Currently,around50studentsper
yeartakethefullELDMwitharound
50%followingtheglobalpathway,althoughmanymoreopttotaketheindividualmodules.
Theobjectivesforthecoursearedescribedasfollows:âTherearethreecommonlyaccepted
criticalattributesofaneffectiveleader:beingabletocommunicateasharedvision,
19
demonstratingintegrity,andfocusingonresults.Fiveadditionalfactorshaveemergedascritical
forleadersinthenewâflatworldâofthe21stcentury:thinkingglobally,appreciatingcultural
diversity,developingtechnologicalsavvy,buildingpartnershipsandalliances,andsharing
leadership.Theseeightcoreattributes,aswellaspossessinganentrepreneurialmindset,serveas
thecornerstoneforthecourseeducationaloutcomesâ.
ThestructureoftheELDMislikelytobeâstreamlinedâinthefuture,suchthattheglobal
experiencesbecomethecoreelementoftheprogramratherthananoption.
TheELDPgroupiscurrentlyworkingwiththeLeonhardCenter38todevelopasetoftoolstoallow
themtoassesstheimpactoftheprogramontheparticipatingstudents.Duringthepastcouple
ofyears,theyhavedevelopedsurveyinstrumentstoassessleadershipdevelopmentthatwillbe
trialedoverthecomingyear.Preliminaryworkisalsounderwaytobetterunderstandthe
incrementalimpactofthethreeelementsoftheinternationalmodule(inturn,anacademic
studyofgloballeadership,remoteinternationallinkâupsandatravelelement)toseewhich
bringsthegreatestbenefittothestudentleadershipdevelopment.
5.2 Casestudy2:EngineeringLeadershipProgramâIowaStateUniversity
5.2.1 OverviewofProgram
TheEngineeringLeadershipProgram(ELP)atIowaStateisacoâcurricularprogramcurrentlyinits
thirdyearofoperation.TheELPwasinitiallyestablishedasa4âyearpilotprogramfollowinga
$1mdonationfrom3M.Theprogramemploysaskeletonstaff(0.75FTEAcademicyearDirector
with0.5FTEsecretarialsupport),butisotherwiseentirelymanagedandoperatedbythestudent
participants.
Theprogramseekstodevelopengineerswhoareequippedtotakeonleadershiprolesboth
withinandoutsideengineeringandhasastrongfocusontheresponsibilityofengineerstobetter
society.Allparticipantscurrentlyreceivea$2500p.a.scholarship($10kintotal),althoughthisis
likelytobeallocatedonlyonaneedsâbasedsystemoncethepilotphaseoftheprojectis
completedin2010.
ParticipantstypicallyentertheELPintheirfreshmanyearandfollowtheprogramthroughout
theirfourâyeardegree,althoughprovisionisalsomadeforstudentstoenteratlaterstagesin
20
theirstudies.Selectiontotheprogramismadebyacommitteeofstaff,students,faculty,alumni
andindustryandisbasedontheapplicantsâacademicachievementtodate,extraâcurricular
involvement,leadershipexperienceandinterestintheprogram.Theselectionprocessis
designedandmanagedbytheELPstudentparticipantsandwouldtypicallyaccept15students
fromover100applicantseachyear.
5.2.2 Programstructure
TheELPisstructuredintwophases,withyear1devotedtocommunityâbuildingandyears2â4
providingamoreindividualizedprogramguidedbyasetofeightlearningoutcomesofa
leadershipmodel.Theleadershipmodelwasdesignedthroughaniterativegroupexerciseover
thecourseofayear,involvingstudents,staffandfacultyandprofessionalsfromthewiderIowa
Statecommunity,andprovidesacommonlanguageforgoalsettingandassessingprogress.A
significantfocusoftheupperyearsisthedevelopmentofaâleadershiplearningprojectâ.An
outlineofthetwophasesisgivenbelow.
Year1activitiesinclude:
⢠LeadershipRetreat:anovernightoffâcampusteamâbuildingexperienceforstudentsas
theyjointheprogramasfreshmen,whichstartstointroduceleadershipconcepts.
⢠LeadershipSeminar:aweeklyoneâhourseminarsfocusingonleadershipskillsandstyles
ledbythestudentdirectorandincorporatingexternalspeakers.
⢠PeerMentorProgram:eachstudententeringtheprogramisallocatedwithamentor,
whowouldtypicallybeamoreseniormemberoftheELP.Meetingsareheldwith
mentorsonabiâweeklybasisandtheforumisusedforsupportanddevelopment.
⢠FacultyMentorProgram:eachstudentselectsafacultymentorfromarosterof
volunteersupdatedannually.Scholarsareencouragedtomeetwiththefacultymentors
ingroupsof2â3eachmonth.
⢠ServiceLearningProjects:duringthesecondsemester,studentsparticipateinaservice
learningproject,asamechanismtoapplyanddeveloptheirleadershipskills.
⢠ReflectionJournals:allstudentsarerequiredtocompleteaâreflectionjournalâeach
week,whichisreviewedanddiscussed.Weeklytopicsaresuggestedforthesejournals,
21
althoughstudentsmayalsoselecttheirownareasoffocus,relatingittotheirpersonal
development.
Years2â4activitiesinclude:
⢠CommunityBuildingRetreats:annualdayâlongcommunitybuildingeventstoreâenergize
andreconnectparticipantswiththeirpeergroups.
⢠LeadershipSeminar/LearningTracks:weeklyoneâhourseminarprovidesacommunityâ
buildingroleaswellasaforumfordiscussionanddevelopmentforthefirstsemester
afterthefreshmanyear.Forotherstherearesmallgroupthematiclearningtracks
and/orbookgroupstomaintainasenseofcommunitywhileallowingforscheduling
flexibility.
⢠LeadershipLearningProject:thisprojectisthemainfocusoftheELPfollowingthefirst
year,andstudentsidentifytheirownprojecttheme,basedontheirpersonalgoalsand
passions.Studentsareinitiallyaskedtosubmittheirproposedprojectunderoneoftwo
themes:(i)personaldevelopmentanddiscovery(shortâtermprojectsaimingtohelp
studentstorefinetheirgoalsforthefuture)or(ii)action,engagementandcontribution
(longerâtermprojectsaimingtomakeanimpactonalocal,nationalorinternational
community).
⢠PersonalLeadershipPortfolio(eâDoc):anelectronicportfolioforstudentstoplan,track
andreflectontheirleadershipdevelopment(asdiscussedbelow).
5.2.3 Trackingstudentsâdevelopment
Asetof19studentcompetenciesisdefinedfortheprogram,groupedintofourthemes,as
outlinedbelow.ThesecompetenciessupporteightABESTâalignedlearningoutcomes.
⢠LeadershipCharacteristics:initiative,integrity,analysisandjudgment,communication,
energyanddrive,
⢠EngagingOthers:buildingasuccessfulteam,developingothers,coaching,teamwork,
leadingthroughvisionandvalues,
⢠AwarenessandGrowth:engineeringknowledge,generalknowledge,culturaladaptability,
continuouslearning,and
22
⢠DemonstratingExcellence:qualityorientation,customerfocus,innovation,professional
impact,planning.
Theleadershipdevelopmentofstudentswithineachofthesecompetenciesistrackedusingan
electronicportfoliosystem,whichwasdevelopedinâhouseatIowaState.Throughthissystem,
studentsareabletocreatetheirownindividuallyâcustomisedportfoliotosetgoals,track
progressandreflectontheirowndevelopment.Theseportfolioscanalsobesharedexternally
withsupervisors,otherprogrammembersorprospectiveemployers.
5.3 Casestudy3:GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgramâMIT
5.3.1 Programoverview
TheGordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram(GordonâMITELP)waslaunchedin2007,
followinga$20mgiftfrominventor,philanthropistandMITalumnusBernardM.Gordon,who
hasalongâstandingcommitmenttodeveloptheleadershipcapabilitiesofUSengineers.
Unlikeotherengineeringleadershipinitiativesidentifiedinthestudy,theGordonâMITELP
combinesactivitiesofleadershipdevelopmentforitsownundergraduateengineerswitha
broaderaimofusingthiseducationalapproachtoinformandimproveengineeringleadership
educationacrosstheUS.TheMITâbasedelementsoftheprogramofferacademiccoursesand
handsâon,practicalexperiencesandarefocusedonthreeconcentricgroupsofengineering
students,cateringrespectivelyfortheâallâ,theâmanyâandtheâfewâ.Basedonthisdistinction,
theeducationalaimsarestatedas:
⢠togiveallMITengineeringstudentshandsâonvisceralexperienceinprojectâbased
learningandresultsâorientedleadershipaspartoftheirnormalacademicexperience;
⢠topreparemany(âGordonEngineersâ)MITengineeringstudentstobemoreeffective
contributorstoengineeringinvention,innovationandimplementationeffortsthrough
advancedcoursesandmultidisciplinaryprojects;
⢠afocusedprogramtoeducateandprepareafew(âGordonEngineeringLeadersâ)MIT
engineeringstudentstobefutureleadersofengineeringinvention,innovationand
implementationefforts.
23
Twoclearthemesemergewithintheprogram:(i)providingarangeofopportunitiesto
contextualiseandapplythestudentsâdevelopingleadershipskills,and(ii)ensuringthatthe
participantstakeanactiveroleinthedesignanddirectionoftheoverallprogram.Thecoreteam
supportinganddeliveringtheGordonâMITELPactivitiesincludes5fullâtimestaff,withassociated
administrativesupport.Theprogramisdirectedbytwoseniorengineeringprofessorswithinthe
SchoolofEngineeringandisalsosupportedbyanumberofhighâleveladvisoryboards,witha
strongfocusonUSâindustrypartnerships.
ThetwokeycomponentsoftheGordonâMITELPâonefocusedonMITengineering
undergraduatesandonefocusedonenhancingengineeringleadershipeducationacrosstheUSâ
areeachdiscussedinturninthefollowingtwosections.
5.3.2 Structureofeducationaloffering
TheMITâbasededucationalactivitiesoftheprogramcomprisethreeelements:(i)curricular
enhancementsavailabletoallMITundergraduateengineers,(ii)coâandextraâcurricularactivities
offeredtoaannualcohortofapproximately200âGordonEngineersâ,and(iii)anintensive,mainly
coâcurricularprogramforasmaller,highlyselectivegroupofâGordonEngineeringLeadersâ
(approximately20â30studentsperclassyear).Developmentoftheprogramâseducational
materialstartedinthesummerof2008,andthemajorityofearlyworkhasbeenfocusedonthe
âGordonEngineeringLeadersâtrack.
Thefirstthreadoftheprogramsâeducationalofferingaimstoprovideleadershipdevelopment
opportunitiestoallMITundergraduateengineers.Althoughthisworkisstillatanearlystage,
plannedactivitiesincludethedevelopmentoffouroneâhourleadershipmodulestobeledbythe
undergraduateprogramparticipants.
Applicationstothetwoselectivetracksoftheprogram(theGordonEngineersandtheGordon
EngineeringLeaders)willbeconsideredduringthesophomoreyear,oncethestudenthas
successfullycompletedtheUndergraduatePracticeOpportunitiesProgram(UPOP).Bothtracks
willoperateinthestudentsâJuniorandSenioryearsandaimtoprovideaframeworkthat
continuouslyexposesthemtocyclicphasesoftheory,applicationandreflectionintheir
leadershipdevelopment.Reflectingthiscycle,bothtrackscombineregularleadershipclasses,
projectâbasedexperiencesforleadershipapplicationandsignificantmentoringandguidance.
24
TheâGordonEngineerâ(GE)trackiscurrentlyinthedesignphase.Studentsacceptedintothis
trackwillparticipateinleadershipcoursesandaârealisticscaleprojectâ(suchasFormulaSAEor
âdesignâbuildâflyâ),beofferedopportunitiestocompleteandreflectonapersonalleadershipplan
andbeprovidedwithmentoredsupportfromprogramstaffandindustrypartners.
TheâGordonEngineeringLeadersâ(GELs)verymuchlieattheheartoftheGordonâMITELP,and
thesecondcohortofGELswilljointheprograminSeptember2009.Thishighlyâselective
programtrackprovidesamoreintensiveandchallengingexperiencetothatplannedforthe
GordonEngineers.TheGELtrackiscenteredaroundaweeklyEngineeringLeadershipLab,which
providesstudentswithârealâlifeexperientialscenariosâ.Thisactivityisdesignedanddeliveredby
theGELparticipantswithastrongfocusontheseniorstudentsguidingthejuniors.Aroundthis
coreEngineeringLeadershipLab,thethreephasesoftheory,applicationandreflectionare
offeredtotheparticipantsthroughthefollowingmeans:
⢠Theory:GELsareexposedtoframeworks,modelsandcasestudiesinengineering
leadershipthroughcurricularandcoâcurricularmodules.Inall,studentsmustselectfour
âshortsubjectsâandoneâadvancedsubjectâ,allavailablethroughtheprogram.
⢠Application:GELsareprovidedwithleadershippracticeopportunitiesthroughouttheir
twoyearsintheGordonâMITELP,andareexpectedtoremaininvolvedwiththeprogram
insomecapacitybeyondtheirgraduationfromMIT.Duringtheiractivetimeinthe
program,theyarerequiredtocompletetwoârealisticscaleprojectsâandparticipateina
summerindustryinternship.GELsalsohaveaâserviceâresponsibilitywithintheGordonâ
MITELP,whichmayincludeassistingwiththeoperation,designanddeliveryofprogram,
oractingasaâleadershipcoachâormentortomorejuniorstudents.
⢠Reflection:Allparticipantscompleteapersonaldevelopmentplanandareprovidedwith
opportunitiesforevaluationandreflectionontheirownleadershipdevelopmentwith
programstaff,industryleadersandmentors.
25
5.3.3 Disseminationandoutreach
Thesecondoverarchingprogramaimistoâincreasethefocusofnationalengineeringeducation
onthedevelopmentofleadersofproduct,processandsystemdevelopmentâ.Earlyworkis
alreadyunderwayinthisarea,andoverallgoalsinclude:
⢠developmentofaUSâbasedcommunityofinstitutionsengagedwithengineering
leadershipeducation,
⢠developmentofanengineeringleadershipeducationalmodelthatcanbereplicatedin
engineeringschoolsacrossthecountry,withsupportingresourcesandworkshops,and
⢠hostingofanannualBernardM.GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipConferenceto
highlightbestpracticeinthefield.
5.4 Casestudy4:LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentâMonashUniversity
5.4.1 Programoverview
LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentacoâcurricularprogramthatoperatesforthreeyears
oftheundergraduateengineeringdegreeatMonashUniversity.Thisstructuredleadership
programwasestablishedbytheFacultyofEngineeringin2006(andcommencedinFebruary
2007),adecisionwhichwasdrivenbytwokeyfactors:(i)callsfromindustryforimproved
leadershipskillsandattitudesinengineeringgraduates,and(ii)adesiretoattracttopperforming
prospectiveengineeringstudentstotheuniversity.
Theprogramexplicitlytargetsâeliteâstudents,withtwoentrymechanisms:
1. EachyeartheFacultyofEngineeringoffers50to60EngineeringExcellenceAwardsof
$6000(AUS)p.a.forentrystudentswhoachievedthehighestscoresintheirYear12
examinationresults.Todatethishasmeantcutoffscoresof98.3,98.4and99.4forthe
threeentrycohorts.AllAwardholdersareinvitedtoentertheLeadershipina
TechnologicalEnvironmentprogram.
2. Anadditional10â15placesarealsoallocatedduringthefirstyearofstudyfornonâAward
holders.Applicantsmustdemonstratemotivationandprovenleadershipabilities
determinedthroughanapplicationandinterviewprocess.
26
Corestaffinglevelsontheprogramareverysmallâprogramdesignandmanagementisdrivenby
theAssociateDeanforTeaching,withaSpecialProjectsOfficerprovingfullâtimedevelopment
andadministrativeassistance.Muchofthecontentdeliveryisoutâsourcedtoexternalspeakers.
Theprogramcostsaround$150k(AUS)p.a.tooperate.Itiscurrentlywhollyfundedthroughthe
FacultyofEngineering,althoughexternalsupportisnowbeingactivelysought.
5.4.2 Programstructureandfocus
Theprogramcomprisesarangeofdifferentactivities,includingresidentialworkshops,modules,
workâshadowingandnetworking,asoutlinedbelow.
1. âResidentialsâ.Atthestartofeachacademicyear,allprogramparticipantsattendan
intensive2â3dayresidentialworkshop.Thisexperienceisdesignedtobuildthe
communitybond,shapethestudentsâleadershipawarenessandpreparethemforthe
comingyearâsactivities.Forexample,duringthefirstyearâresidentialâ,studentsspend
onedayexaminingtheirpersonalitytype(usingaMyersBriggsprofile)andexploringhow
thisimpactstheirleadershipapproach.
2. Modules:Atotalofnineshortmodulesareprovidedoverthethreeyears,intopicssuch
asâWhatisleadership?â,âEthicsâandâChangeManagementâ.Eachmoduleistypically
structuredinthreeparts:(i)apresentationonthemodulethemefromanexpertinthe
field,(ii)relatedteamactivities/projects,and(iii)afinaldiscussionandreflectionexercise
withanindustrypanel.
3. Industryexperience:Thisexperienceincludesahalfâdayindustryshadowinginthefirst
yearoftheprogramandaoneâweekworkexperienceduringthesecondyear.Regular
seminarsandpresentationarealsogivenbyindustry.Theseactivitieshavealreadyledto
somestudentsobtainingvacationworkexperienceatanearlierstagethanmost
employerswouldoffer.
4. Networking:Participantsareprovidedwithanumberofnetworkingopportunities,
includinganannualdinnerattendedbyseniorrepresentativesfromindustryand
academia.
27
Althoughtherearenopublicationsavailablerelatingtothisprogram,apaperiscurrentlyin
planningwhichdescribestheunexpectedoutcomesofthestudentsâpersonalityprofiling
exercise.OnepointtonotefromtheprofilingisthatthefullrangeMyersBriggstypeswere
foundintheprogramcohort,withconcentrationsingroupsthatwouldnotnormallybeexpected
tobefoundinengineeringstudents.
28
6 Concludingcomments
Thereportpresentsthefindingsofasnapâshotreviewofbestinternationalpracticein
engineeringleadershipeducation.Arangeofinterestingprogramshavebeenidentifiedfrom
acrosstheworld.
Thestudyrevealssignificantinternationaldifferencesbothinattitudesandapproachto
engineeringleadershipeducation.Inthisregard,acleardistinctionisapparentbetweentheUS
andtherestoftheworld.Itisclearthatthehubofactivityinâexplicitâengineeringleadership
educationislikelytoremainintheUS,atleastforthenext5â10years.
Thestudyrevealsadearthofexpertiseandresourcescurrentlyavailabletoengineeringschools
wishingtoestablishnewprogramsofengineeringleadershipeducation.Themajorityof
programscurrentlyinoperationarerelativelynew(lessthan5yearsoldsincetheirinception)
andthereforearenotinapositiontoprovidethecommunitywithprovenmodelsofsuccessor
longâtermlongitudinaldataontheimpactoftheireducationalapproach.Thedifficultlyin
identifyingandsecuringfacultyandsupportstafftodesignanddelivertheprogramactivitiesis
seenasaparticularchallengebyprogramleaders.
Acrosstheworld,thereisaverystrongâglobalandcrossâculturalâthemeevidentinprogramsof
engineeringleadershipeducation.Understandinghowtooperateeffectivelywithincomplex
internationalandcrossâculturalenvironmentsisclearlyseenasanimportantelementof
successfulengineeringleadershipinthefuture,sothisthemeislikelytobecomeaneverâ
strongerfocus.
Themajorityofengineeringleadershipeducationprogramsidentifiedinthestudyaremanaged
attheschool(ratherthandepartmental)levelbyarelativelyseniorfacultymemberwithasmall
projectteam,operatingpredominantlyoutsideofthecurriculum.Thesizeandpositionofsuch
programsallowsforhighlevelsofflexibilitytodevelopneweducationalapproachesto
engineeringleadershipeducation.Lookingtothefuture,assuchmodelsareproven,
opportunitiesexisttoembedsuccessfulapproacheswithinthecurriculum.
Themoststrikingfindingofthereviewisthedearthofresourcesorformalnetworkscurrently
availableinengineeringleadershipeducation.Giventheemphasisthatmanyinternational
29
engineeringeducationprogramsplaceonâeducatingfutureleadersâintheirpromotional
materialthisrepresentsakeygaptobefilled.Inrecentyears,theprofileandknowledgeâbasefor
therelatedfieldsofâglobalengineeringeducationâandâentrepreneurshipengineeringeducationâ
havegrownconsiderably.Itisclearfromthestudythatpartnershipsacrossandbetweenthese
communitieswillbeanimportantfactorinthefuturedevelopmentofexcellenceinengineering
leadershipeducation.
30
AppendixA. Individualsinterviewed/consulted
A.1. NorthAmerica
KrishnaAthreya Director,EngineeringLeadershipProgram,IowaStateUniversity
LoriBreslow Director,TeachingandLearningLaboratory,MIT
TomByers FacultyDirector,StanfordTechnologyVenturesProgram,StanfordUniversity
EdCrawley CoâDirector,GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT
MonicaCox DepartmentofEngineeringEducationandDirector,âLeadershipPolicyandChangeâgraduatecourse,PurdueUniversity
LesiaCrumtonâYoung
FormerDirector,CenterforEngineeringLeadershipandLearning,UniversityofCentralFlorida,currentlyonsecondmentattheCenterfortheAdvancementofScholarshiponEngineeringEducation,NationalAcademyofEngineering
MelanieDâEvelyn ProjectDirector,NationalConsortiumforCharacterâBasedLeadership,CenterfortheStudyofthePresidencyandCongress
DanDolan ProfessorofMechanicalEngineeringandCoâDirector,CAMP,SouthDakotaSchoolofMinesandTechnology
GaryDowney ProfessorofScienceandTechnologyStudiesandCourseDirector,EngineeringCultures,VirginiaTech
CliveDym FletcherJonesProfessorofEngineeringDesign,HarveyMuddCollege
NormanForenberry Director,CenterfortheAdvancementofScholarshiponEngineeringEducation,NationalAcademyofEngineering
PeterGray DirectorofAcademicAssessment,UnitedStatesNavalAcademy
KamyarHaghigi Head,DepartmentofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity
DanHastings DeanforUndergraduateEducation,MIT
DanHirleman HeadofMechanicalEngineeringandDirector,GEARE,PurdueUniversity
BethHolloway Director,WomenandEngineeringProgramandDirector,âWomenandLeadershipâcourse,PurdueUniversity
DonnieHorner ProfessorofLeadershipEducation,DepartmentofLeadership,EthicsandLaw,UnitedStatesNavalAcademy
PKImbrie DepartmentofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity
BrentJesiek DepartmentofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity
AmyJoines StudentDirector,EngineeringLeadershipProgram,IowaStateUniversity
31
AmeryKuhl StudentLeader,CAMP,SouthDakotaSchoolofMinesandTechnology
TomLitzinger Director,LeonhardCenterfortheEnhancementofEngineeringEducation,PennStateUniversity
BillLucas DirectorofResearch,GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT
SusannLuperfoy ExecutiveDirector,UndergraduatePracticeOpportunitiesProgram,MIT
CherylMatherly AssociateDeanforGlobalEducationandDirector,INNOVATE,UniversityofTulsa
PamelaMcCauleyâBush
ActingDirector,CenterforEngineeringLeadershipandLearning,UniversityofCentralFlorida
LindaMcCloskey Director,ArcherCenterforStudentLeadershipDevelopment,RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute
LeoMcGonagle ExecutiveDirector,GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT
RickMiller PresidentandProfessor,FranklinW.OlinCollegeofEngineering
RabiMohtar Director,GlobalEngineeringProgram,PurdueUniversity
GeoffreyOrsak Dean,BobbyB.LyleSchoolofEngineering,SouthernMethodistUniversity
DavidRadcliffe AssociateHead,DepartmentOfEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity
TeriReedâRhoads AssistantDeanofEngineeringforUndergraduateEducation,AssociateProfessorofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity
DougReeve Chair,DepartmentofChemicalEngineeringandAppliedChemistryandCoâLeader,LeadersofTomorrow,UniversityofToronto
ChellRoberts ChairofEngineering,ArizonaStateUniversity
JoelSchindall CoâDirector,GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT
RickSchuhmann Director,EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentProgram,PennStateUniversity
SheriSheppard AssociateViceProvostforGraduateEducation,ProfessorofMechanicalEngineering,StanfordUniversity
KarlSmith ProfessorofCooperativeLearninginEngineeringEducation,PurdueandMinnesotaUniversities
DianeSoderholm EducationDirector,GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT
A.2. Europe
AlisonAhearnLecturerinEducationalDevelopmentandCoordinator,Constructionarium,FacultyofEngineering,ImperialCollege
32
JoanAlabartDepartmentdâEnginyeriaQuĂmica,UniversitatRoviraiVirgiliandDirector,ProjectManagementinPractice
CarolArlettCentreManager,HigherEducationAcademyEngineeringSubjectCentre,LoughboroughUniversity
PeterBullen Director,BlendedLearningUnit,UniversityofHertfordshire
BobDitchfieldDirector,EducationAffairsandDiversity,TheRoyalAcademyofEngineering
ErikdeGraaff FacultyofTechnology,UniversityofDelft
JohnDickens
Director,HigherEducationAcademyEngineeringSubjectCentreandEngineeringCentreforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning,AssociateDean(Teaching)ofEngineering,UniversityofLoughborough
KristinaEdstrĂśm KTHLearningLab,KTH
MarcoEisenberg ProgramDirector,GlobalEngineeringTeams,TechnischeUniversitätBerlin
MarkEndeanEngineeringProgrammeDirector,FacultyofMathematics,ComputingandTechnology,TheOpenUniversity
MikeGregoryHeadoftheManufacturingandManagementDivisionoftheUniversityEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofCambridge
AlisonHalstead ProâViceâChancellor,LearningandTeachingInnovation,AstonUniversity
MichaelHush FacultyofTechnology,TheOpenUniversity
AnetteKolmosProfessorinEngineeringEducationandPBLandChairholder,UNESCOChairinProblemBasedLearninginEngineeringEducation,AalborgUniversity
JuliaKingViceChancellor,AstonUniversityandChair,RoyalAcademyofEngineeringâEngineersofthe21stCenturyâProgram
CarolineLowreyAssistantManager,EngineeringCentreforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning,LoughboroughUniversity
MarkRussell DeputyDirector,BlendedLearningUnit,UniversityofHertfordshire
GillianSaundersChairofAerospaceStructure,FacultyofAerospaceEngineering,DelftUniversityofTechnology
DaveTwiggCivilandBuildingEngineeringandDirector,âLeadershipandTeamworkâmodule,UniversityofLoughborough
A.3. Restoftheworld
LizzieBrownDirectorofEducation,TrainingandResearch,EngineersWithoutBordersAustralia
33
IanCameronSeniorFellow,AustralianLearning&TeachingCouncilandProfessor,ChemicalEngineering,UniversityofQueensland
DuncanCampbellAlternateHeadofSchool,SchoolofEngineeringSystems,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology
GaryCodnerAssociateDean(Teaching)andDirector,LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment,FacultyofEngineering,MonashUniversity
CarolineCrosthwaite
DirectorofStudiesandAssociateDean,FacultyofEngineering,PhysicalSciences&Architecture,UniversityofQueensland
DavidDowling
ProfessorofEngineeringEducation,Coordinator,MasterofEngineeringPracticeprogram,FacultyofEngineeringandSurveying,UniversityofSouthernQueensland
LizGodfreyFacultyofEngineering,UniversityofAucklandandPresident,AustralasianAssociationforEngineeringEducation
RogerHadgraft Director,EngineeringLearningUnit,MelbourneSchoolofEngineering
DougHargreavesHeadofSchool,SchoolofEngineeringSystems,QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyandDeputyPresidentofEngineersAustralia
AshrafKassimViceDean(UndergraduateStudies),FacultyofEngineering,NationalUniversityofSingapore
NickNoakesDirector,CenterforEnhancedLearningandTeaching,HongKongUniversityofScience&Technology
AldoOmetto DepartamentodeEngenhariadeProdução,UniversidadedeSãoPaulo
KhairiyahYusofDeputyDirector,CentreforTeaching&Learning,UniversitiTeknologiMalaysia
34
AppendixB. Summarytableofselectedprograms
Providedoverleafisatablesummarisingsomeofthekeyfeaturesofeightselectedprogramsof
engineeringleadershipeducation.Theprogramsincludedinthetableare:
⢠EngineeringLeadershipProgram18,IowaStateUniversity(IowaState)
⢠TeamworkandLeadershipModule7,LoughboroughUniversity(L'borough)
⢠GordonâMITEngineeringLeadershipProgram19,MIT(MIT)
⢠LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment25,MonashUniveristy(Monash)
⢠EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinor15,PennStateUniversity(PennState)
⢠LeadersofTomorrow23,UniversityofToronto,(Toronto)
⢠GlobalEngineeringTeams12,TechnischeUniversitätBerlin(TUBerlin)
⢠Constructionarium33,UKUniversityandIndustryPartnership(UKPart.)
Thetableprovidesanoverviewofthemostsignificantactivitiesorthemeswithineachprogram,
presentedwithininsixmainareas:
1. Centralprogramthemes:thekeytheme/saroundwhichtheactivityiscentredandwhich
isembeddedthroughouttheprogram.Forexample,thoseprogramsidentifiedwitha
âglobal/crossâculturalâthememayinvolvestudentsspendingaportionoftheirtime
overseas,crossânationalprojectteamswithoverseaspartnersorasignificantfocuson
developingstudentsâcrossâculturalunderstanding.
2. Contentandeducationalapproach:theoveralleducationalapproach,structureand
contentoftheprogram.Forexample,thissectionwillidentifywhethertheprogram
includesanâintensiveâtransformationalâexperienceâwherestudentsarefullyimmersed
inadeliberatelychallengingactivityoveradefinedperiodorwhethertheprogramholds
aregularâleadershipseminar/workshopâdesignedtounitethecohortaroundthecentral
programideas.
35
3. Leadershippracticeopportunities:theopportunitiesprovidedforstudentstoapplyand
honetheirleadershipskills.Thissectionidentifiesthepracticalopportunitiesofferedfor
âleadershippracticeâ,suchasâcampusâbasedhandsâonprojectsâ(suchasFormulaSAE),
intensiveâresidentialoffâcampusretreatsâoropportunitiesforâmentoringorcoachingof
morejuniorstudentsâ.
4. Reflection,guidanceandassessment:themechanismsusedtoencouragestudentsto
reflectontheirleadershipdevelopment,theguidanceofferedandthestudent
assessmentprocessesused.Forexample,thissectionwillidentifywhetherprograms
facilitatestudentstodevelopâreflectivejournalsâ,whetherâpeerâevaluationâisemployed
orwhethertheprogram/institutionhavedevelopedâassociatedassessmenttoolsâ
specificallytailoredforengineeringleadershipandusedwithintheprogram.
5. Structureandorganisation:howtheoverallprogramisstructuredandorganised.For
example,thissectionwillidentifywhetherthereisaâcompetitiveselectionprocessâfor
admittancetotheprogram,whethertheprogramhasdevelopedanyâassociated
researchprojectsâinengineeringleadership,whethertheprogramisofferedasa
âcurricularâand/orâcoâcurricularâactivityorwhetherthereisafocusonâdisseminationof
theprogramâsoutcomesâoutsidetheinstitution.
6. Governance:howtheoverallprogramisadministered.Thissectioncoversaspectssuch
aswhethertheprogramispredominantlyâstudentâledinitsdesignanddirectionâor
whetherâexternalexpertgroupsâareengagedtoprovideguidanceandadvicetothe
programdevelopmentteam.
Itshouldbenotedthatmostprogramswilltouchonalmosteverycriterionpresentedinthetable
insomeform.However,onlythoseaspectsthatrepresentasignificantfocusoftheprogramsâ
activitiesarerepresentedoverleaf.
36
Sig
nifica
nt p
rogra
m elem
ents
Iow
a S
tate
L'b
oro
ugh
MIT
Mon
ash
Pen
n S
tate
Toro
nto
TU
Berlin
UK
-Part.
Cen
tral p
rogra
m th
emes
Glo
bal/cro
ss-cultu
ral contex
t!
!!
Busin
ess/entrep
reneu
rship
contex
t!
! C
ontrib
utio
n to
society
or en
viro
nm
ent
!!
!!
! P
rofessio
nal p
ractice and p
artnersh
ips
!!
!!
!C
onten
t and ed
uca
tional a
ppro
ach
Articu
lated learn
ing o
utco
mes
!!
!!
!!
! U
nitin
g 'lead
ership
semin
ar/work
shop'
!!
!!
'Case-stu
dy' led
instru
ction
! L
eadersh
ip/b
usin
ess 'theo
ry'
!!
!!
! E
ngin
eering-d
esign fo
cused
!!
Pro
ject-based
appro
ach!
!!
!!
!!
! P
ersonality
pro
filing ex
ercises!
!!
! In
tensiv
e 'transfo
rmatio
nal' ex
perien
ces!
!!
Lea
dersh
ip P
ractice O
pportu
nities
Cam
pus-b
ased h
ands-o
n p
rojects
!!
!!
!!
Off cam
pus 'real-w
orld
' experien
ces!
!!
Resid
ential o
ff-campus 'cam
p' o
r 'retreat'!
!!
!!
Intern
ational ex
perien
ces!
! P
eer men
torin
g o
r 'coach
ing' o
f junio
r studen
ts!
!R
eflection, g
uid
ance a
nd a
ssessmen
t
Men
torin
g (b
y facu
lty, industry
etc.)!
!!
!!
! P
ersonal lead
ership
dev
elopm
ent p
lan!
! R
eflective jo
urn
als/portfo
lios
!!
!!
Self-ev
aluatio
n!
!!
! P
eer-evalu
ation
!!
!!
Novel (in
-house d
evelo
ped
) assessmen
t tools
!!
!!
Stru
cture a
nd o
rganisa
tion
Pro
gram
indiv
idually
-tailored
for each
studen
t!
!!
Curricu
lar elemen
ts!
!!
!!
! C
o-cu
rricular elem
ents
!!
!!
Asso
ciated research
pro
jects!
!!
Com
petitiv
e applicatio
n an
d selectio
n p
rocess
!!
!!
Asso
ciated stu
den
t scholarsh
ip p
rogram
!!
! E
xtern
al pro
gram
of d
issemin
ation an
d o
utreach
!!
Pro
gram
in o
peratio
n fo
r over fiv
e years
!!
!!
!G
overn
ance
Stu
den
t-led d
esign, d
elivery
and d
irection
!!
! H
oused
with
in E
ngin
eering S
chool/s
!!
!!
!!
!!
Extern
al adviso
ry g
roups
!!