Outcome survey

Outcome Survey

By

Denis Gray

Department of Psychology

Center for Communications and Signal Processing North Carolina State University

Submitted to

Division of Industrial Science and Technological Innovation National Science Foundation

August 1984

Paq~ Ba cK.gr0undo. • • • 0 • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 Q • 0 • • e0 I) • • • • 0 0 • " 0 .. • 0 .. • • • 0 • • 0 0 " 1

r

nt r odu ct ion. .. .. . . . 0 • • • • • 0 0 .. .. • .. " .. • • .. • .. .. " " • 0 • . . co • • .. .. e .. 0 . . 0 0 • " . . 1

Exe cut i ve Summary 0 0 • • 0 Gl 0 • 0 ~ • • 0 0 2

Industrial S;Jonsor Questionnaire ... 0 • • • e . . . 10 .. 0 0 " " " • e 0 . . . 0 • D . 4

Student Questionnair~o.. o o . D . e o o o o . o o o o o o o . D . " o o D o . o o . o • • •14 Industrial Sponsor-Faculty Comparisons"oo .. o o o o • • • • • • " • • • •15 Conclusions .. 0 .. " . . . " • • 0 e 0 0 0 . . . . O D D " 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 • D . . . e • • & D .. D . . . " II> 015

A.ooend ix: 0 • • • D • • • 0 0 " 0 " 0 D " .. 0 0 II e 17

-- Executive Summary Figures (Fiqs. 1 - 3)0 . • . . . 0 0 • • • • • •17

Industrial Sponso~ Tables (Tables 1~24) 20

Facultv Tables <Tables 25-29).0 30

Student Tables (Tables 30-31) 0 • • • • • • • • • •32

BACK(;RO(JND

This report sumrnari.~es the ~~sults of a survey ~onducted

d'lring· the fall of 1983 of tacu Ity , students~ and industrial

representatives participating in the Center fo~ Communications

and Signal ?rocessing at North Carollna State Universitv (CCS~)~

Nine industrial board members, 12 facultv and 18 -students returned the questionnaires which were mailed~to them. CCSP had

been in operatian one year when this information was obtained. Current plans call for this survev to be administe~ed annuallv for at least 5 years. It is hoped· that the information p~ovid~~

in this and i.n subsequent reports f,.J1.11 prr:."ri.<i.e usef'ul f e edbac k to

Cent~r staff and when combined with data f~orn other National

Science Foundation funded cente~5, help illuminate the ~r0cesses

~t ~ooperat1ve research. funds to ~onduct this asseS5m~nt wer~

orlJv1.,j.ed bv th~ Nati ona I SC'lerlC(~ F()Llnuat.ion:~ Oi"J"ision of Indust>

~.. tal 5cienc:e and 'I'echnoLoo t ca 1 Innova r ionr and wit:1'\ a. f~w l?x~ept­

tons the que s t ionnair~ used in th.is assessmerrt is a stanrta r-i

tnst r-..iment us ed to co I l ect outcome data at all NSF sponsored

,industry-university coope~ative research c~nters. ~

This ~eport has been orcranized into 6 major sections: Executive SummarYr Industrial Sponsor guestionnaire¥ faculty

~11e5ti onnai r e , Sttldent Quest.ionnaire, Lndust rtaI Sponsor-F'acttl ty Compa rLaons . and Conclusions. 'I'he ExecutiLve Stlmmary pr ov'ide s a.

schematic summary of major findinqs contained in the other sect. ions of the r eport and several figtlres w.hich graphically portray responses across respondent groups. The Industrial

Spon-sor, faculty and Student Questionnaire sections detail th~ responses of the respective respondent groups to questions inc 1 uded on thetr que s c ionnai r e . The Indust r ia 1 Sponsor-fac111ty

Comparison section compares and contrasts faculty and ind\Jstrial

sponsor responses on items which were ~ommon to both their

auestionnaires. Finally, the Conclusions section provides a

;llmmary and conclusions based on these findings. In geru~ralr the

information p~ovided in this report constitutes a snapshot of

CCSP one vea~ after it began operation as a center and as such

~eems bes~ suited to describe CCSP rather than evaluate CCSP's

suc ce s s . Witrl t:his r-eport as a baseline, t ut ur e assessments should pr ove more u sefu l for evaL u at tve c u rp ose s ,

EXECUT

rvs

STJM1"tl\R

y

i r If\IT:,TJ~'rpT.?.L 8t='()~lS()P F·Il\TDIN(}S

~ri~r Contact

wt1:h-CCSp-p'erSOnnel

~RELATlv~LY--LOW P~TE-OF CONTAC~: ~rior to e5tablishin~ CCSP.

board. membe r s ( 8Ms) reported low f r equericy cf contact with

faCtl1ty: a m1.nority of companies had formal relationships with

t acui tyo

Board M~mb@r lnvolvpment with CCSp:

·'''~R·I~TL1. -l)HG~~rIZ LNG "MEEl.'INGS-t\l\ID-I?LANNI~IG

"'"REC~'RUI'rING N~-:W MEMBERS: 2 companies C'osr~ ~f ~art:ic..t.pM~iQ.n.l.

Av~AGE MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: 16K (trav~l staff time. etco)

TOTAL COST (average): 66K (avera~~)

Orrranizattnnal r~inkaap ".Jith CCSP

*~GfNEER!N(;---AND"'-TECHNIt:..~

GRofjp:

~eq'-11ar or occasional conr.ac e

by all but one company

*OrVISIONAL

aND

CENrRAL R&D:

~eqular or occasional contact

by

7

and 5 companies~ ~~spectiv~ly

rNFOR~~TION REQ(~~STS: average 9 per company (90% t~chnical)

CCSP Goals:

*QVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF BMS BELIEVE GOALS REALISTIC

*MOST IMPORTANT GOALS: general knowl~dqe expansion~ development

of new ~esearch projects in your firm

*LEAST IMPORTANT GOALS: development of commercial products and

patentable products

Lik.elv Ben~fits

*MOST-LIKELy--aENEFIT:

better recruitment

*LEAST LIKELY BENEFIT: patentable

products

Eft"e~ts of Particioatton on Res~arch in Their Firm

"SOME CHANGE:'· research top

iCSaria-{ss,je SO

in··labs

-*A LITTLE CHANGE: ~esearch method and procedures

~NEW RESEARCH PR().JECTS: 250K in ne'N projects· and 280K in out si de

t:ontracts

f)the r

f.:f

f e~i;.li .(')t .~art:i.~

iEg.

t i.!lQ. .Q.D ~Q.mPstDY

kDEFINI'rE Et~~CT: imp~ov~d ability to coop~rate with outside scientists

"'P')SSIBLE EFrEC'r: improved pr oduct and pr0f7~S5 d,=siqnIf improved

processes and m~thods of p~oduction

*CCSP STUDENT IWrERVIEWS:

24: HIRES:

3

*INDUSTRY SCIENTISTS ON-SITE:

~

*rJNI~lERSITY SCIENTISTS OFF-SI1.~: 9 Sati~.t"a~tion:

~HIGH GENERAL SATISPACTION: 78% considerably O~ completely

5a tist·i ed.

~ESPECIALLY SATISFIED: manaqemenc; ~~sponsivene5s: digital

signal processing

*ESPECIALLY OISSA'rISFIED: facili.ties need imot"ov~m~nt; abi l i t v

to attract quality graduate stUdents and additional faculty ~o

potJer area

Lik~lihood ~f Membe~shic Ren~wel

II. FACTJLrry F'EE;DB~.l~K

D~ci si.oJ'J. Maki.nq [nf Luenc e 9.f. P_1f1."p=-r~rt.. ~~O~Eg

*f:ON'I'Il'IGDrrr - ·C'.N -

-oEeTs

ION

A.REA: Fa cultv be lieve they exert most influence on decisions affectina the ~~ond'uct or-. t h ·-' elr- rese(\~ch

while the Director and boa~ct m~mbers exert most influen~e over

admini5trativ~ ~atters; most other a~eas reflect shared decision

makincr. (See fiq. 1)

CCSP R~search

-*WAVS' CCSP- IS' [iII--'F'ERENT rrHAN OTHER

u.

RESEARc::H

*Diffe~ent: How Evaluated

*Somewhat different: Research Topics

~Slightly different: Research Methods

COl'lrrRIBfJTION TO T'ENTJRE: contributes a moderate amount.

Univ~rsitv Benefits

*LIKELY: improved knowledge base, better student ~ecruitmentr

better student placement

*UNLIKELY: increased universitv patent activttv, increased fund

for r e s ea r cb from publt c sour ce s ..

Effects .o( P~~i;j.ripat.inq0D. ~9J1-Y (flc:1.Cl.I~t.V ~erc:ept:ion)

hDEFINlTE EFFECT: improved ability to coope r ate ~Nith out si d.e

~cienti.~t.s

*PC,SSIBLE EF~F'l:::C~l'~ fmproved product and process desi.gn ~~ prod.l.Jct~ anc s e r'vtces

CC~~? ft.lndilJg c.(j~p_,:g~d to .0t.'p-e~ fttnc\j.JJ9: *COfv!~AHES l-'AVORABLY':

~A.dvice trom co Ll e acrue s

*Likelihood of tlmdinq lonq-term ~esearch

*Amount of funds funding

-~(:OMPt\.RES r]i\JFAVORABLY:

~Amount of paperwork

~Autonomy in deciding on research

III. INDUSTRY VE~RSTJS ~ACULTY VERSTJS DIRECTOR COMPARISONS

Center Goals~ (see Fia. 2)

*AREAS

OF-oAGREEMEWf:"

fN'it-h'-only minor exceptions tndust rv . f a cu l>

ty and director:s highest rated goals and lowest rated goals tor

CCSP are almost identical

~AREAS OF DISA..C;REEMENT: 1 ) Center Director sees I Ienhancement; of

c raduat e s t.ud ent technical t rai nfnc " as somewhat. more impor-tant than inctustry and faculty; 2) f e cu lty see Ilredir~ction

of un ive r s itv research toward tndust rta l probLemsII as less imoortant than industry and Center Director

Areas of Satisfaction: (see Ficr.

11

*AREAS-OF AGREEMENT: in relative and absolute terms all parties appear to express about the same level of satisfaction across all areas

IV. STUDENT FINDINGS

Satisfaction wit~ k~~e

*H [(;H SATISFAC'rrON: student s Lnd teate a. high leve 1 of sati sf ac-rion with their CCSP research experience

"-:MOUES'L' SATISF.A(:TION: st.udent 5 Le s5 sati sf ied with CCSP ,3.5

3-vehicle for obtaining experienc~ in industrial sites

I~JDrJsrrRIAL SFJUNSOk QUES'fIONNAIRE

['escri.otiv~ Informat~on

80arn Membe~ Table 1 displays the descriptive informati~n

obtained about the individuals who are ~epresent1ng their com?any

as a boarct member (BM) of CCSP. including their work experi~nce,

~ducational levels and prior CCSP involvement.

The typical BM ~epo~ted being with his company approximat~ly

i8 years (Table 1, Ql), with 12 years spent 1.n "esearch and

dev~lopment (02). These fi~res reflect long-term tenure with

sponso~inq companies, since- respondents indicated bein~ in

industry an average of 24 years <Q3) and research and development

~n average of 19 yea~s <Q4l o In addition, one-thi~d of all

industry participants have advanced degrees (12~S% M.A.'s! 2500% Ph0 D'S) (Q8), with 25% of all respondents having taken·3. cours e

or re~eived a d~gree from North Carolina State University (Q9)o

~s one ~ould expect, board members occupy positions of

~esponsibility in their respective companies~ The average number

of organizational levels bet~een the industry participants and

the chief e~ec~ltiTle officer is 4 ('fable 1" Q6)" with apP~Qximate­ LV ~ peopLe reporting dir~ctly to the participant <Q7). A wide

range of ~Talues were r~ported tor the number of people ~epor~inq

inairectly. with 11.5 being the meaian <Q7a).

Interestingly, board membe~s (EMs) report very little

contact ~ith pe~sonnel affiliated with CCSP Erio~ to its e st ab l a shmenc . Specificallyp only two individuals ('rable 1, Qli)

repcrted frequent contact (several times per month or more) r

while the remaining BMs report that they rarely or never had

contact (44.4%) or that contact was limited to several times o~r

ye~r (33.3%). EMs do indicate some invalvement in activities W'hich l~d up to the e stab Lf shnerrt of C(~SP ((212) primert iv invol~Ting the organl~inq of m~etings (4404%) and planning

(33.3%). However, only one 8M (11.1%) reported involvement in

recruiting- ne~N companies and no one r epo r t ed "proposal writing"

or IIbuilding university support. II

With two exceptions, this level of involvement is unchanqed

with respect to current CCSP activities. One additional 8M (or 2

8Ms) reports assisting in the recruitment of ne~ members and one 8M ~eports providing assistance in bUilding support within the

university. Given these findings it is nat surprising that most 8Ms indicate that their top management have only some <55.6%) or

no (33.3%) involvement in CCSP (Q17).

SconS9~ Organ~z~tiqD§~ Table 2 display~ descriptive information

r e sponctents p~O~lid.ed about; member compante s . In (J"eneral, 8~{s

contact with CCSP perz0nnel (Table 2, QI0) _ Only three companies

~epcrted previously using Center faculty as consultantsr and two

companies used faculty in contract research, while one member

each reported bcinq previously involved in general faculty

3Up-port or student/faculty exchange programs with CCSP faculty.

Not surprisingly, the process of joining CCSP involved a number of actions within a given company_ Based on information supplied by BMs~ the decision to join CCSP involved concurrence

by several individuals at their level and approval from several other levels within their organization. Specificallyr

~pproximately 3 inctjviduals at the same level as the 8M had to

concur and two orqanizational levels had to give approval betore

a membe~ship commitment was confirmed. While the official cost

at membe rahi p 1.S ';OK per yea r r participation in CCSP t nvolve s

additional c03tS in the torm of travel costs, staff time, etc. EMs estimate that on the average these costs amount to lb.1K rer

year "Q13) . Thus" the tot.al cost of pa r t Lc t oat tncr in CCSP f'Jr.· a

memb~r company (membership fee + rel~ted co~tS) ~otals on the

aVi::raqe b6K.

As might be expected, the functional group in member com~anies most likely to work with the Center on a reqular basis

is the engineering/technical staff (Table 3, Q14). Five BMs indicate th~t the engineering/technical ~roup have regular con-tact with CCSP and three indicate occasional contact by this

group. The functional areas least likely to work directly with the Center are the marketing, production and corporate planninq

staffs. Contact by the central and divisional ~esearch and development staffs was reported as being either occasion~l or

regular by roughly half of the member companies. Board members

also report an average of 8.6 people requesting information

(during cesP's first year of operation) concernin~ specific

activities or projects of the Center. The majority of those ~eq'lests (80.6%) w~re technical in nature.

~nd L;' ke1i. hoort

(:cs~ Goal~.~ Rea_~~iZRt iol'}

To a large extent ratings of the relative importance of various CCSP goals reflects a given constituency's p~ioritics. The folloWing section details the ratings of CCSP goals by

indus-trial board members along a number of dimensions.

With respect to the realism of qoals" the overwhelmincr

majority of BMs (89.9%) believe that CCSP has established realistic goals and objectives. None of the r~spondents

contradict this assessment, although one 8M qualified his

assessment by indicating- that CCSP goals lima:' bell r ea Lt st tc .

~pp~ar~d to stress the ,importance of general kno~ledge

improvement, stimulation of new research in firms and the

foste~inq of industriallv relevant research and trainincr over

er cduct and patent development (Table 5). F'o~ instance" "qenera1

~xpansion of knowledge in this technical areaII received the

highest averaae importance ratin~ (3.8 on a scale of 4)D _ The

next highest imoortance ~atinqs were given to "development OI new

r-esea rcb project s in your firmIII ( '3 •1 ), and 10redirect ion of university research toward industrial problems" (3.1>, followed

by "enhancement of graduate und~rstanding of industry" (2.9) and

IIenhancement of eraduabe student technical training" ( :'. . 8 ) ,

"enhancement of quality industrial research" (2.7), "development of commer-cial products in your firm' o _{(2.4), and "development of}

patentable products" (1.9). Clearly, most BMs seem to ~ant CCSP

scientists to do research~ not development, but they want that

~esearch to be more relevant to industrial needs.

Interestingly, ~hen asked about the likelihood of realizinq

benefits from CCSP (Table 6>" "better recruitment" was rated the

benefit companies were most likely to deri~e <303 on a scale of

4)0 Seven BMs (770 8 % ) indicated that they thought bett~~

recruitment ~as either almost ce~tain or pretty likely to be

realized from their participation in CCSP. "Improved research in

their company" (2.8) was rated next most likely benefit from

participation. 'rangible benefits in the form of commercialized

products (2e2) and patentable products (109) ~ere perceived as

l~ss likelyo Thus~ although better recruitment is indicated as

the most likely benefit of participation in CCSP, relatively

speaking BMs appear to believe that improved research projects in

their company~ one of the goals they ~ate as most important, is

pretty likely to be realized from their participation in CCSPft

Pe~ived Eff~ct of ~articipation

iQ

CCS~

Board members were also asked to indicate if participation

in CCSP had any effect on their R&D projects and on their

company. Not surprisingly, given the brief tentlre ot CCSP ~hen

this survev was conducted, no 8Ms indicated CCSP r~s~arch had

caused "a ·lot" of change in their R&D projects. Howev~rr a

majority felt that it had caused at least Ita little"

change on their research topics and issues (Table 7). Thre'e 8Ms

<3705%) also indicated CCSP research had caused at least "a

little" change in their ~esearch methods and procedures while two felt that it had caused at least "a little" change in the

crite-~ia and methods used to evaluate research productso Thus, there

is some indication that CCSP ~esearch was beginnin~ co impact,

although sl~ghtly, R&D in some companies.

A l~ss subjective assessment of CCSP effect involves the

extent to which companies have initiated ne~ research projects

and contracts because of CCSP activities. Two EMs ~eported the

initiation of 2 research pr-ojects in their company which were

stimulated by CCSP act Lvt t Le s . These projects were initi\3.t:~d

equivalent staff, resp~ctivcly (Table 8). In addition, three

companies reported having initiated outside research contracts

with faculty or anothe~ laboratory because of CCSP activities. The average contract beina for an estimated 95K (Table 9). All

such contracts totalled a~ estimated 286K.

Despite indications that CCSP activities have bequn to have

some influence on the research beincr conducted· by member companies, it would seem unlikely that products and processes

would be influenced after one brief year. Thus, it is not surprising that most BMs do not report seeing product and process

effects of CCSP partici~ation in their company. On the other hand, at least_one 8M indicated there might have been an effect in every area mentioned in this question. The greatest effect of CCSP reported. by BMs was in their abi1i ty to coope r at e wi.th

outside scientists. Five BMs o~ 71% indicated participation in CCSP had had an effect in this are~. Surprisingly, 4 BMs (80%) indicated that they may have realized irnprnved product and

process desi~n via participation. One 8M r~ported improvements

in processes~andmethods of production (1~.6%) and anoth~r felt

CCSP miaht have had an effect in this area (16.6%). Althouah RMs failed to report an effect in other areas, two EMs indicated CCSP participation might have (:'rnaybe") had an effect on Lmpr ovemerrt s

in products and services, new product development, ~eduction in cost of production and capability to deal with go,rernment regulations. One BM used the IImaybeII response concerning effect on lI~hanges in warranty and complaints in view of improvements in products," and "changes in cost of product.s to users and

increased uniformity of products. 1I

Given the decidedly research

rather than development goals most BMs seem to hold for CCSP

these effects although modest seem significant.

A final possible area of CCSP impact relates to personnel, that is, student recruitment and exchange of scientific personnel. Once again the reported effect in this area is modest although quite evident. Six of the nine companies participating in the Center indicated having interviewed students trained in

Center research projects. A total of twenty-two students W~~~

interviewed by four companies with one company hiring three of

them (Table 11). In addition, two of the companies have had

their scientists working on-site at CCSPr while four companies

have universitv scientists working on-site in their company

Satisfaction with CCS~

Althoucrh cesP's successs can be describ~d by analyzinq its

impact on various areas, to a large extent, the BM's sub;ective

assessment of satisfaction with CCSP may be the most important

indicator ot it3 relative successo

Based on a global rating of satisfaction. the vast majority

of EMs seem qUite satisfied with the operations and activities of

CCSP (Table 14). All EMs indicated some satisfaction with CCSP

activities. In tact, over two-thirds (77.8%) of the companies

~articipating jn the Center reported being considerably or

completely satisfied ~ith the Qv~rall operations and activities

of the Centero

BMs also listed their satisfaction ~ith specific featur~s of

CCSP (Table 15). In general, EMs ~eported the highest degree of

satisfaction with administrative and communication aspects of

CCSP. Specifically, eight EMs (8809%) repo~ted complete (2 EMs)

or a qreat ~eal(6 EMs) of satisfaction ~ith Center administrative

practices. while 770 7 % and 66.6% reported at least a qre~t deal

of satisfaction with communications between CCSP staff and their

company and responsiveness of CCSP staff to industry needs,

respectively. Relatively speaking, degree of satisfaction with

the technical quality ot research was not as high. Five or 55%

of all BMs indicated complete or a great deal ot satisfaction

with the technical quality of research with the other EMs (4)

indicating IIsome't satisfaction with this feature of the Center0

Since many of CCSP's research pro;ects were undergoing fine

tuning based on industry input during this period, this

evalua-tion seems understandable~ Interestingly, when asked to evaluate

the overall research program of CCSP_compared to similar research

proarams in othe~ Uo SD univ~rsities, most EMs were auite

comcli-mentary. Three EMs rated it in the top 10%, 4 ~ated it as above

average. and one as below average (Table 16).

BMs were also provided an o~portunity to list the operations

and r~~ult5 with which they ~ere espe~ially satisfied or

dissatisfied. Comments hicrhliqhtinq features thev were

espectaLly sat tsfted with inclllc1ed.:'· It professional

management. many first year pr-oblems r'~solv'!d,." It

r e sponsi vene s s i " I I .

o.

responsive to criticisms," IIdiqital s

i.c-nal processing and networking wo~k," I I . Administration of

Center, .. IIresponsiveness r II IIsupport of uni versi ty,I I '·workinq relationship of board members," and "too soon to tello" Com':

mments highlighting features they we~e especially dissatisfied

with included: . facilities need to be tmer ovedv " II • • •

cohe s ; verie s s of p~oqram,II I I . • • inabi1i t7 to r ec ruat quali ty

graduate stuaents. . . failure to get participation of a faculty

member who could aide a specific project," "difficUlty in tying

independent research of graduate students toqether into a

cohe-sive project, .. and II • • • disappointed in the·lack: of involv,:ment

of faculty and students with direct technical and professional

inte~~sts r",:l.ated to business of our company." 'mlile"most of the

dissatisfaction appears to be a belief by two BMs that there were not as many faculty or graduate students interested and involved in research related to their business.

The most tanqible way for a 8M to express his satisfaction Qr dissatisfaction with CCSP will be when thev are asked to r~new

their membership. The vast majo~ity of BMs described their renewal as 1I1ikely.1I Specifically, 7 BMs (77.8%) indicated they

were likely to renew and 2 labeled membership renewal as

"uncer-tain" (Table 17). None of the BMs labeled their company's

renew-al as "unlikely." When asked to describe changes or improvements which would have to be made before renewal could be confirmed, two BMs indicated specific projects would have to be made more relevant to their company's research needs. Since this

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

Oescriptiv~ Information

A total ot 12 Center taculty members participated in the

survey. Table 18 displays the descriptive information collected.

Excludinq the Center Director, the typical Center faculty member

holds the rank of associate professor and is not tenuredD Half

of the Center staff r~port being involved in a single proj~ctr

while the remainder report involvement in t~o or more projects.

The averaqe percentage of time allocated to projects is 35%.

Prio~ Contact Wi

tll

Tndt.1stry

Tables 19 and 20 provide information about faculty contact

with industry in general and ~ith member companies in particular

prior to CCSP. Prior to CCSP, most faculty contacts with

industry were through the consultant cole <Table 19). FaC111ty

~eported the next most common means of contact with industry ~~re

via contract ~esearchp faculty exchange and via supervision of

student exchange. With respect to frequency of contact with

member companies prior to CCSP, faculty report some, althouqh

~ather infrequent, contact with about half of the companies

(Table 20)0 However, none of the faculty reported contact with

five companies~

CP&L,

Exxon,

GTE

p

Western

Union and Roc~ell.

The highest rate of contact was reported with IBM and Digital.

Perceived Level of Influence QD _CCS~ Decision

The operation of a complex organization like CCSP is subject

to influence by a number of groups or forc~s including the

Indus-trial Adviso~y Board, the Center Director, faculty, students,

unive~sity administrationr and university procedures. Table 21

(13.150 Fig. 1) describes the facl.tlty's rating of their tnrl uenc e

and the influence of these various qroup5_ pe~sons and procedures

on decision areas affectina CCS~. Based on mean influence

rat-ings <4

=

almost complete c6ntrol, 3

=

a lot of influence, 2

=

some influence, 1 : no influence) r faculty f~lt that the Cent~r

Director exercised the greatest influence on ~lanntng and

strategy (3.1) although they felt that faculty (2.8) and the

Industrial Advisory Board (2.6) also exercised a lot of influence

in this area. University administration (1.7), procedur~s (1.4)

and students (1.2) exerted much less influence. In the domain of

o~oiect selection faculty indicated that they (3.1) and the

I:enter Di~ecto~ (300) exerted the most and rouahlv the same

degree of influence with the Industrial Advisory Board (2.4)

exercising some~hat less. Students (1.4) had some influence in

this area while other sources exerted minimal influence. In the

conduct of research faculty clearly see themselves as havinq the

greatest influence (3.5) followed by their students (2.7), ~ the

Center Director (2.0) and the Industrial AdVisory Board. In the

(2.8) and the Industrial Advisory Board (2.9) as having the

greatest influence, with slightly less exercised by the Center

Dire~tor (2.6). Of the other groups, only students (2.0) have a

mean~ngful level of influence in this area. Interestingly~

faculty ascribe almost complete control to the Director (3.8) on

matters of budqet and logistics. They suggest that they (2.3)

and the Industrial Advisory Board (1.9) along with procedures

~1.9) and university administration (1.6) exercise only some

1nfluence here. Finally, they see the Director (2.9) as havinq

the greatest influence on appointments of faculty/staff, although

procedures (2.5), university administration (2.2), themselves

(2.1) and the Industrial Advisory Board also exercise influence

in this area. In summary, it appears that in heavily

administra-tive decision making areas (budget and appointments) the Center

Director exerts the greatest influence, while in other areas

including planning, project selection and evaluation of projects,

there is considerable sharing of influence by the Director,

faculty and board. Finally, in the conduct of research faculty

and students seem to remain pretty much the masters of their own

fate. On the whole., this breakdown appears to approximate the

collective model one would expect or at least hope to find in a

cooperative research center.

PerceptioQ of CCSP ~esearch

anq

~ts Contribution to Tenure

Other faculty perceptions of CCSP activities and outcomes

are also important to understanding faculty reactions to and

involvement in CCSP. In this vein, faculty were asked to rate

the degree to which research conducted under CCSP is different

from research typically conducted by them (Table 22). The

greatest difference faculty perceive in CCSP research is in the

"criteria and method used to evaluate research projects. II The

vast majority of faculty believe that there is lIa lot .. (33.3%) or IIsome" (50%) difference in this area. This may reflect the major

role faculty have previously indicated their Director and the

board have in this domain. Similarly faculty see IIsomeII (50%) or lIa lot" (25%) of difference in research topics and issues of

CCSP, probably due to the Industrial Advisory Board's role.

Finally, faculty tend to see considerably less difference in the

"research methods and procedures used" on CCSP and their other work.

When asked about the degree of contribution to tenure,

promotion, or salary increase attributable to CCSP participation, faculty responded either a moderate amount (62.5%) or "a little"

(37.5%) (Table 23). Clearly, faculty feel CCSP participation

~ill only be one of several things which influence these

decisions.

CCSP Goals:

As will be discussed in a latter section, ratings of CCSP

goals by faculty members are strikingly similar to those of

industrial sponsors. Goal importance in decreasing order of

(3.6), enhancement of quality graduate student training (3.3),

development of commercial products in your firm (2.8) p

enhance-ment of quality industrial research (2.8), ~edirection of

univer-sity ~esearch toward industrial problems (2.6), enhancement of

graduate student understanding of industry (2.3), development of

patentable products (106) and development of commercial products

in your firm (105).

Perceived ~ikelihood of University Benefits

Faculty also rated the likelihood of the university

realizing tangible benefits from participating in CCSP (Table

25). Based on mean ratings (4

=

almost certain, 3 = pretty

likely, 2

=

somewhat likely, 1

=

scarcely likely> faculty appear to believe that the university is "a Lmo st; ce'rtain/I to "pretty

likely" to realize most of its goalso In decreasing order of

likelihood, faculty listed: "improved knowled~e base" (3.9)" "better student t:>ecruitment" (3.5), "better student placement" (3.5), lIincreased funds for research from private sources" (302),

"imp~oved research projects in university'o (3II 1) and "beet e r

faculty recruitmentII (3.0)0 Faculty listed as noticeably 1~5s

likely "increased. university patent activity" (205) and

lIincreased funds for research from public sources" (2.3).

Faculty Perception of CCSP Effect Qn Sponsoring fi~ms

Like board members, faculty ~ere also asked to indicate

their opinion on whether or not participation in CCSP had

pro-duced specific outcomes from sponsor firms. In general faculty

ratings are consistent with BM ratings, indicating i t is probably

too early to see outcomes of CCSP participatione The vast

majority of faculty, like BMs believe sponsor companies have

already "improved their capability to cooperate with outside

scientists" (Table 26). Most faculty (78%) also believe that

CCSP participation mignt have ("maybe") had an effect on

"improved product or process design," "improvements in products and services" (6205%), "and new products developed due to relatpd

~~search" (55.6%)0 Only a minority believe CCSP ~articipation

might have had an effect on "changes in warranty ..

"improvement in processes and methods of production," "changes in cost . . . (reduced maintenance)," nreduction in product costs."

Mo one believed "increased capability to deal with qovernment

~equlations" or "increased uniformity of productsu

had"occ:urredll

Despite some minor differences these impressions tend to mirror

the evaluations made by BMso

Facultv Satisfaction and Estimate of Inctustrv Satisfaction witQ

Specific Featur~ of CCSP

Like board members, faculty were asked to rate their

satisfaction with specific features of CCSP. In general, facuLty

indicate a moderate degree of satisfaction with the technical

the Center, and its responsiveness to industry needs (2.6). Communications between Center staff and industrial participants was rated the lowest but still reflected a moderate degree of

satisfaction (2.3) (Table 27).

When asked to rate the same features according to their perception of industry's satisfaction with them, administrative practices (3.1) the technical quality (2.6) of the research and communications (2.6) were given the highest average ratings. Although faculty were satisfied with the Center's responsiveness to industry, their ratings of industry's satisfaction was slightly lower (Table 28).

Comparison of ratings to BM ratings of the same areas is interesting. In general faculty satisfaction, their estimate of industry satisfaction, and actual industry satisfaction are reasonably convergent. The only noteworthy discrepancy might be that faculty seem to be somewhat less satisfied with communicat-ion between staff and industrial participants than board members. Interestingly, faculty appear to anticipate this difference in

their estimate of industry ratings.

Comparison of ~CSP Fundinq to Othe~ Fundinq pources

To a large extent, faculty will tend to evaluate their participation in CCSP research relative to other research fundinq opportunities. In order to determine whether CCSP funding compares favorably or unfavorably to other research funding mechanisms, faculty were asked to compare each across a number of dimensions. On the whole CCSP funding appears to be a mixed bag (Table 29). Based on mean ratings (3

=

favorable, 2

=

about the

51~e~ 1

lmfavorable). faculty

tend to compare

CCSP

favorably to

other fundinq sources on "a v ailability of help/advice from colleagues. - ... (2.6), "likelihood funding will be available

for long-range research goals" (2.5), and "a mount of tund Inc

provided to conduct research" (2.3). On the other hand, CCSP research compares unfavorably to other funding on "amount of

paperwork. . .. (1.5), and "amount of autonomy in deciding how

to conduct research" (1.6). On most dimensions, however,

inclu-ding "amount of ",Jork invested to obtain funding, If "adrninistrati~le

time. . . , " r e cognnition and rewards. II "budgetary

flexibility . . . ," and liability to support graduate students. · II

there are no meaningful differences. Informal conversations with faculty suggest that an issue not addressed in this question, ability to publish research findings, may be an area of

dissat-isfaction among faculty.

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Student perceptions of the Center they do research for are

not a part of the standard NSF evaluation protocolo However~ in

order to get some feel for student satisfaction with their CCSP

experience, a questionnaire, developed at another NSF sponsored

center, was used to collect student satisfaction data. It should

be pointed out that this questionnaire contained a number of

questions related to student satisfaction ~ith their research in

industrial settinas and their communications with industrial

scientists. While direct industrial contact and experience was

an integral feature in the Center for ~hich this questionnai~e

was developed, it is not a standard element of a CCSP student's

experience.

In general, students express a high level of satisfaction

with their CCSP experience, both on an absolute scale (Table 30)

and relative to other faculty research (Table 31)G The vast

majority of students indicated "completetD

or IUa great deal of

-satisfaction" 'i1ith the technical quality of research,

communications bet~een students and faculty, ~ork among students,

and opportunities to learn about communications and signal

processing research. Student satisfaction tended to be higher

when they rated these features of CCSP relative to other faculty

research (as compared to their absolute ratings). Not

surprisingly, students indicated considerably less satisfaction

with "communications with industrial scientists" and

opportunities to learn about research in industrial settings.

Since extensive on-site industrial experience is not a normative

aspect of the CCSP student's experience~ these ratings are not

INDUSTRIAL SPONSOR-FACULTY COMPARISONS

A number of items were common across the four questionnaires

used. These common items allow direct comparison of the results

between respondent groups. The first of these common items dealt with the level of satisfactton each group had regarding specific

f~atures of.the Ce~tere For the most part, the respondent groups

d~ffered l~ttle 1n their levels of satisfaction assiqned to

Center features. Faculty's estimate of industryls level of

satis-faction, although slightly less than industry, in all cases was

very accurate, differing less than a half point between the

estimates and actual ratings (see Table 32, Fig. 3).

Like the board members, CCSP faculty also rated the

import-ance of various Center goals (see Table 33, Fig. 1). Overall

there is a remarkable amount of congruence between these

ratings. Faculty rating of the most important goal (general

knOWledge expansion (3.6) and two least important goals (lidevelopment ... commercial products" (1.5) and "development ...

patentable products (1.6» reflect the same relative rankings

given by board members. In addition both groups rate "deve Lop-ment of new research projects in your firm" very highly (EMs:

2nd; faculty: 3rd). The biggest difference between faculty and

BM rating would appear to be the greater importance faculty

attach to "e nhancement of graduate student technical training" (faculty: 2nd; BMs: 5th). In contrast EMs give a slightly higher importance ranking (4th) to "e nhance graduate student under-standing of industry" than faculty (6th). Another minor differ-ence is qUite interesting. Both faculty and BMs thought it was

more important for CCSP to influence their partner's research

environment than their own. For instance, BMs gave higher impor-tance rating to "redirection of university research toward indus-trial problems" than to Ie enhance quality industrial research. II

Faculty reversed the importance of these goals in their

priorities. Both faculty and board members seem to be saying the

same thing. flIt's not that important that CCSP influence my

research environment; it's more important for it to influence the research environment of the other guy."

Ratings of the likelihood of receiving tangible benefits

from Center participation were generally similar between the

faculty and industry sponsors. Faculty tended to be slightly

more optimistic about participation benefits than were industrial sponsors (see Table 34, Fig. 2).

CONCLUSIONS

When the information contained in this report were collected

CCSP was a one year old organization comprised of several

re-search projects with even briefer histories. Given this early

stage of development these findings appear to be the basis for

considerable optimism about CCSP's future survival and success. From an orgnizational perspective possibly the most

signifi-cant findinq ~as the strikinaly similar goal ratings given by

industrial sponsers and facuity. Both faculty and industrial

sponsors appear to have the same high priorities (expanded

know-ledae base, ~nhanced trainina infrastructure for studentsr and

ne~-(universitystimulated) research projects in industrial labs)

and low priorities (new products and patents) for CCSP~ Not

surprisingly given these findings, both industrial sponsors and

faculty express a ~elatively high level of satisfaction ~ith

their involvement in CCSP. Similarly, student's subjective

eval-uation of the experience they have received through their

involvement in CCSP is also quite positive.

On a more tangible level there are also modest indications

that industrial sponsors are beginning to realize some reseach

and related benefits from their investment in CCSP.

Specifical-ly, many industial sponsors indicated that CCSP projects had

produced IIs ome change" in research topics and issue within their

labs and IIa Iit tle changeII in their research methods and

proce-dures. In additionp most industrial sponsors indicated a

"possible effectlO

from CCSP involvement may have been realized in

improved product and process design and improved processes and

methods of production. BMs also reported that CCSP research had

stimulated new projects worth 248 K in their labs and reported

investing an additional 286 K on outside research (mostly

through CCSP supplemental or enhancement contracts) related to

CCSP efforts.

From a human ~esource perspective additional efforts we~e

apparent. Industrial sponsors overwhelmingly expressed a belief

that their ability to cooperate Qith outside scientists had been

enhanced. Further, member companies reported intervie~ng 22

CCSP students for jobs and hiring 3 during the center's first

year of operationo Thus~ although modest in scope, technology

transfer, both direct and indirect (via personal collaboration

and recruitment) are evident at CCSP's first anniversaryD

Not~ithstandina these favorable signs, it is probably safe

to assume that these findings and the evaluations of all parties

reflect the honeymoon phase in the center's development.

Although of uncertain import at this time all constituencies

involved in the center pointed to areas where CCSP could be

improved. Several companies indicated CCSP's research activities

and staffing ~ere not as closely alligned to their interests as

they would have liked. Faculty felt their activities within CCSP

compared unfavorably to other funding mechanisms in a few ar~a5

(autonomy in conducting reseach and amount of paperwork) D

Finally students did not feel CCSP gave them di~ect industrial

research experience. While most of these concerns appear minor

in comparison to areas of satisfaction, they warrant continuina

attention as CCSP stabilizes and its various partners decide what

they need to realize from their involvement in CCSP over the lana

haul.

PENCf.lVED INt1.UfMCE ON DlfISlOliS - fAQlLTV

I

, PROJECT SELECtlOlll

I

I

I

UP

UA

fAe CD

IUPOINTHEHTS Of fACULn/STAH'

Uf

IAR IUDGET AHDLOGISTICS

CD

lAB

'AC

£VAlUA TlON 0.· RESEAflW

S1'

10

CDlOOCT Of RlSfARCil

CD

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I

ua

I

I

~

I

UA

I

flC I.

PI..AHNINC " STRATEGY

CIl

So. .

influence

A101 of

iQflueQce Al.aat

C:O.pl~le COQlfOl

lAB UP

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ST

ur

ST

I I . I I I I -- -~, I I I I I I I l I I I J I I b4d I I I I IS1 I I J Jio fnfluenc~ II I I I

CO • CEMTEILDIR£C1OI

FAC • FAaR.n

lAB • 11m. ADVIS. IOAMD

ST • SnJDmTS

OP • DIIIV. PROCEWIES

UA • mil'. AJIfIIIST1lA.

CD • CEJtTf:R DIREC'IOII

fAC· FAQlLn

1A1. IND. ADVIS. lOA II0

ST • SlUlDTS

DP • UNIV. PICOCI::.XlRES

l'A • UNIV. A.JttINISTKA.

~

fiG 2. IMPORTANCE OF CCSP GOALS BY RESPONDENT CROUPS

Extremely 4

Con.iderably l

I

t-' _I~

00

P 0

R

r

A N

C

E

SomewBlat 2

Not at all

DEV. REDIR. ENHANCo l:.a'4HANC. ut:v.

GEN. NEW OF U. CRAD. ST. GRAD.ST. COHli. Er~HANC. DEV. OF EXPAU. RES. RES. TO UNDST. TECH. PROD. QUAL. PATENT. KNOut. PROJo IND. INDo TRAIN. IN FIRli INO. RES .. PROD.

CD

.~

I

I _I

I

-

_I

_I

~

_i

I

I

..LU

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

)

I

I

I

!

_I

I

_I

I

_I

rAe

I

I

I

~

cJ

cp~

~

CD

I

CD 5 ,.a

.~ _~

-

...-~ _FAe""""'"

~ ~AB. lAB

_-

_..

....--u.e

,

~ 6 _,

AB

W;

-.

.

.w

~

~ ~

!~

AC ~

CD m CENTER DIRECTOR FAe • FACULTY

S

A A Great Deal _~ T

I

S F

A

C T

I

0

N

SOOlP Comp l ete ly

Not' at all

41

FIG 3. SATISFACTION WITH CCSP FEATURES BY RESPONDENT GROUPS

I

₁

_~

~

_I

I

TECHNICAL QUALITY

I

COMMUNICATIONS

I

I

I

CCSP

I

RESPONSIVENESS _I OF RESEARCH _{~ CCSP/IAB ADMINISTRATIVE}

I

I

I

PRACTICES

I

I _I

I

I

I

cn

CD

J

CB

I

J ~

lAB lAB

J

FAC lAB

FAC I

lAB FAC

I

I

FAC

I

CD

I

.

I

I

I _I

r

TABLE 1

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION-INDUSTRIAL BOARD MEMBERS

(ail) Question N _! Mean Median Std. Dev.

(1 ) YEARS WITH COMPANY lA.64 2.1.0 8.7

(?) YEARS IN R&D WITH COMPANY 15.0 11.0 11.1

(3) _YEARS ININDUSTRY 230'1 23.0 7.1

(4 ) YEARS INR&D INDUSTRY 18.. 7 22.0 11.7

(6) ~o• OF LEVELS BE'l'WEEN RE- 400 2 ..5 208

SPONDANT AND CEO

(7) NO. OF PEOPLE REPORTING 5.4 4.33 3.2

TO RESPONDANT

(7a) NO. OF PEOPLE REPORTING 13800 11.'; 34'" . 6

VIA SUBORDINATES

(8) HIGHEST DECREE RECEIVED

SA 5 62.5

MA 1 12.5

Ph.Do 2 2500

(9) DECRE~ RECEIVED OR COURSE-WORK FROM NCSU

No 6 75.0

Yes 2 25.0

(11) PERSONAL CONTACT WITH CCSP PEflSONNEL PRIOR TO CCSP

several t1mes per week 1 1101

several times per month 1 11 .. 1 several times per year J 33.3

r-arely or never it 44.4

(12) PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT I~ CCSP ESTABLISHMENT·

Recrui tment of new companies 1 11.1

Or~nizin~ meetin~ 4 44.4

[>ropo:3'11 writilU~ _a 0.0

Plannin~ 3 33.J

Build1n~University support a 0.0

(?O) PERSONAL INVOLV~ENT IN CURRENT CCSP ACTIVITIFS·

Recruitment of new companies 2 22.2

Or~anizing Meetin~ J 3303

Proposal Writin~ _a 0.0

Planning 4 44.4

BuildinR University Support· ₁ 11.1

(17 ) ~'l'TMATF:n nF:GRer: Of9' 'fOI' MANAGE-MENT INVOLVEMANAGE-MENT IN CCSP

not at all 3 33.3

some 5 55.6

considerably 1 11.1

TABLE 2

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION-MEMBER COMPANY

(Q# ) Question N % Mean Median Std. Dev.

(10) Corporate contact with CCSP Personnel prior to CCSP (multiple responses allowed will not equal 100%)

as consultant 3 33.3

contract research 2 22.2

gen. faculty support 1 11.1

student thesis 1 11.1

faculty exchange 1 11.1

student exchange 2 22.2

other 3 33.3

(15) No. of organizational levels 1.9 1.7 1.3

of required to give approval to participate in Senter

(16) No. of individuals at sa-me 2.9 .5 5.5

level as board member who had to concur on decision to participate

(13) Estimated cost of CCSP par- 16.1 12.5 16.9

ticipation above yearly fee (i.e. travel, staff time, etc. )

TABLE 3

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT AND INFORMATION REQUESTS

(QII) Question N % Mean _~ Std. Dev.

(14) Frequency of contact with CCSP

by functional groups

Central Ii & D

no answer 4 44.4

occasionally J 33.3

Mtgularly 2 2202

Divisional R&D

no answer 5 55.6

occasionally 2 22.2

regularly 2 22.2

Production

no answer ₉ lOO.D

occasionally a 000

regularly o 0.0

Marketing

no answer ₉ 100.0

occationally 0 OoQ

regularly 0 0.0

Engineering/technical

ne answer 1 11.1

occasionally 3 33.3

regularly ₅ 55.. 6

Corporate planning

no answer 8 8809

occasiQnally 1 1101

regularly 0 0.0

(18) NoD of people ~questin8inC) 8.6 5033 7,,0

(ormation on CCSP activi-ties and projects

(19) Percent of information re~ 80.6 8904 2100

quests technical in nature

Percent of information re- 1904 1006 21.0

quests admin9 or

opera-tional 1n nature

Table 4

Cr:SP has established realistic goals and objectives (026)

N %

Yes 8 8909

Maybe 1 1101

Table 5

Perceived importance of CCSP goals and outcomes (025)

1

4 3 2 Not at

Extremely Consid. Somewhat all

Mean Import. Import. Import. Import.

(4=hi) (Nr % (N) % (N) % (N) %

(1=10)

General expansion of 3.8 (7) 77.8 (2) 22.2 (0) 0'.0 (0) 0.0 knOWledge in this

tech. area

Development of new 3.1 (4) 44.4 (2) 22.2 (1) 14.3 (1 ) 14.3 research project in

your firm

Redirection of univ. 3.1 (4 ) 44.4 (2) 2'2.2 (3) 33.3 (0) 0.0 res. toward indus.

problems

Enhancement of grad- 2.9 (1 ) 11.1 (6) 66.7 (2) 22.2 (0) 0.0 uate stud.

under-standing of industry

Enhancement of grad- 2.8 (1 ) 11.1 (5) 55.6 (3) _33.3 (1 ) 0.0 uate stud. tech.

train-ing

Development of commer- 2.4 (1) 11.1 ( 4) 44.4 (2) 22.2 (2) 22.2 cial products in your

firm

Enhancement of quality 2.7 (2) 22.2 (3) 33.3 (3) 33.3 (1 ) 11.1 indus. research

Development of 1.9 (0) 0.0 (1) 11.1 (6) 66.7 (2) 22.2

patentable products

Table 6

Perceived Likelihood that company will realize tangible benefits from participating in CCSP (021)

4 3 2 1

Almost Pretty Somewhat Scarcely

Mean Certain Likely Likely Likely

( m ) (N) _% (N)% (N) % (N) %

(1=10)

Better recruitment 3.3 (5) 55.6 (2) 22.2 (2) 22.2 (0) 0.0

Improved research 2.8 (2) 22.2 (3) 33.3 (4) 44.4 (0) 0.0 projects in company

Patentable products 1.9 (0) 0.0 (1 ) 11.1 (6) 66.7 (2) 22.2

Commercialized 2.2 (1 ) 0.0 (4) 44.4 (3) 33.3 (2) 22.2

products

Table 7

Degree to which CCSP research has changes in R&D projects in company

4 3 2 1

Mean Alot Some A little Hardly Any

(4=hi) (N' % (N) % (N) % (N) %

(1=10)

Research topics 2.0 (0) 0.0 (3) 37.5 (2) 25.0 (3) 37.5

and issues

Research methods and 1.5 (0) 0.0 (1 ) 12.5 (2) 25.0 (5 ) 62.5 procedures used

Table 8

stimulated in your laboratory by CCSP activities (028)

~ew Research projects

Number of Projects Mean N ~

-0 6 7500

-2 2 25.0

In Research Dollars

-0 7 77.8

1 11.1

-98K

2705 1 1101

-lSOK

In Per~on Years of

Fulltime Equivalent Stafr

-0 7 77.8

1 11.1

-3

077 1 11.1

-4

Table 9

Has CCSP activities 9timulated other outside research contracts with faculty or another laboratory? (29)

Yes

No

Don't Know

N

3

3

3

Total number of contracts g 2

Est~ted dollar value ot such research activities

Mean

-30K

-56K

-200K

-Don't Know

95..3

Total dollar value =286K

24

2

1

1

1

Table 10

Has participation in CCSP had any effect ou the followinp; in your company (Percenta~e3

calculated without "Not Applicable" response)? (032)

3 2 1 ~Jot

Mean Yes Maybe No Applicable

(3=Yes) N % N % N % N %

(1= No)

Improved c~pability to 2.51 (5) 71.4 (1 ) 14.3 (1 ) 14.3 ( ?) ??? cooperate with outside

scientists

Improved product or 2.14 (0) 0.0 (4) 80.0 (1 ) 20.0 (4) 0.0

process design

Improvement in pro- 1.5 (1 ) 16.6 (1 ) 16.6 (4 ) 66.6 (3) 0.0

cesses and methods of production

Improvements in pro- 1.4 (0) 0.0 (2) 40.0 (3) 60.0 (4 ) 0.0

ducts and services

New products developed 104 (0) 0.0 (2) 40.0 (3) 60.0 (4 ) 0.0

due to related efforts

Reduction in costs of 1.33 (0) 0.0 (2) 33.3 (4 ) 66.7 (3 ) 0.0

production

Improved capability to 1.33 (0) 0.0 (2) _33.3 (4) 66.7 (3 ) 0,0

deal with government regulations

Changes in warranty and 1.25 (0) 0.0 (1) 25.0 (3) 75.0 (5) 0.0 complaints in view if

improvements in products

Changes in cost of pro- 1.25 (0) 0.0 (1) 25.0 (3) 75.0 (5 ) 0.0

ducts to users (price changes or decreased product maintenance)

Increased uniformity 1.20 (0) 0.0 (1) 20.0 (4 ) 80.0 (5 ) 0.0

of products

Table 11

Number of CCSP trained students interviewed for possible employment (033).

()

1

2 3

6 10

Mean

1.71

Tota1 intervIewed = 22

N %

-1 4?Q

1 14.1

2 14.3

1 14.3

1 14.3

1

Number of CGSP trained students hired by your company

Mean

o 1

.29

Total hired J

25

N

6 3

%

Table 12

Number of scientists from com~any working on-site at CCSP

Mean

o

1 2

043 total on site =3

N 1 1 1 77.8 11.1 11.1 Table 13

Number of University scientists working on-site in company lab ( )

Mean o 1 2 3 .9

Total working on site :: B

Table 14

Satisfaction with operations and activities ot CCSP Mean

(4=hi, 1=10)

cOJll1)letely (4) considerably (3) some (2)

not al all(l)

Table 15 N 5 2 o 2 N 1 6 2 c 55.6 22.2 0.0 22.2 Mean (4:hi, 1=10)

Degree of Satisfaction with Specific Features of CCSP (in percentage) (022)

4 3 2

Completely Great Deal S~e

(N) % (N) % (~%

1

~lot at all

(N) ~

Technical quality of 2057 (2) ₂₂₀₂ (3) _33.3 (4) 44.4 CO) 0.0

the research

Cormnunications between 2.86 (3) _33.3 (4) 44.4 (2) 22.2 (0) Q.Q

CCSP staff and your company

Center administrative 2.86 (2) ₂₂₀₂ (6) 66.7 (1) 1101 (0) QoQ

practices

Responsiveness of CCSP 2011 (2) 22.2 (4) 4404 (3) 3303 (0) QoQ

3taff to indo needs

Table 16

Rating of overall research program in CCSP to similar research program in other UoSo

Table 11

Likelihood of renewing membership in CCSP

Mean (3=hr;-T=lo)

likely (3) uncertain (2) unlikely (1)

2.1

1

2

o

%

77.8 22.2 0.0

Table 18

Descriptive Information - University Faculty

(011 ) Ouestion N % Mean Median Std. Dev.

(3) Academic Rank (does not include CCSP Director)

Assistant 3 30.0

Associate 6 60.0

Full 0 0.0

Other 1 10.0

(3) Tenure Status

Tenured 4 36.4

Not Tenured 1 63.6

( 3) Number of Projects involved in

1 6 50.0 1.8 1.0

2 4 33.3

3 1 8.3

4 1 8.3

(3 ) Percentage of time 34.8 25.0 31.2

allocated to each project

Table 19

Percentage of faculty contacts with industry prior to CCSP by type of contact

(Q/) Question

(2) Faculty contact with in-dustry prior to CCSP

as consultant

contract research raculty exchange supervisor ot student

exchange

Mean Median

2205 1.3 4.1 oS

Stdo Dev.

-Multiple responses allowed may not total. 100%.

Table 20

Frequency ot contact with companies ~r1ar to establishment

or

ccsp (al)

1+ .3 2 1

Several Several Several Rarely or

Mean T1meslWeek T1meslMo. Times/yr. never

m

(!!)

,

_(~) i (N) % (N) %

(lela)

Carolina I'ower &l.ight 100 (0) _000' (0) 000 (0) 0.0% (12) 100.0%

Digital 106 (0) OoQ (1) ₈₀₃ (5) 4107 (6) 5000

Exxon 1.0 (0) 000 (0) OoQ {Ql _{000 (12) 10000}

GTE loa (0) OoQ (0) _OoQ (0) 0,,0 (12) 100.0

IBM 108 (0) _0.0 (j) _2.5 (4 ) _33.3 (5) 4107

ITT 1.4 (0) 0.0 (1) _8.3 (3) 25.0 ~8) 6607

Western anion loa (0) QoQ (0) ₀₀₀ (0) QoQ (12) 100.0

Westinghouse 1.4 (0) QoQ (2) ₁₆₀₇ (1) ₈₀₃ (9) 1500

Table 21

Faculty Rating of extent of influence specified groups, persons or procedures has on defined decisions (4 =almost complete control, 1 Q no influence) (Q4)

Established

University Center Industry University

Administration Director; Paculty Advisory Board Students Procedures

Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Std.

Hean Hed. _~.

_--

Hean

_--

Hed. Dev. _{!!!.!!!. ~.} Dev. _{!!!.!!!. ~. !!!!: !!!!!!. ~.} Dev. !!!!!!. Med. !!!!..

Planning 1.7 '1.8 0.5 3.1 3.1 0.3 2.7 2.8 0.5 2.6 2.6 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.4 1.4 1.4 0.5 and

Strategy

Pxoject 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.1 0.9 3.1 3.1 0.7 2.4 2.3 0.8 1.4 1.4 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0

Selec-tion

N Conduct 1.1 1.l! 0.3 2.0 1.8 1.1 3.5 l.6 0.7 1.8 1.5 0.9 2.7 2.9 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.2

\D _{of the}

Research

Evalua- 1.2 1.1 0.4 2.6 2.7 0.8 2.8 2.9 0.4 2.9 2.9 0.7 2.0 2.0 0.7 103 1.2 0.5 tion of

the Research

Budget 1.6 1.5 0.1 3.8 3.9 0.4 2.3 2.3 0.1 1.9 1.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.6 and

Logistics

Appoint- 2.2 2.1 1.0 2.9 3.0 1.0 2.1 2.1 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 2.3 1.1

Table 22

Degree to which faculty believe research conducted at CCSP 1s different from research

typ~ca1lyconducted by faculty (Q11)

4 3 2 1

~ean A lot Some Little Hardly Any

(~) (N-r-% (N)% (N) % iN) %

(1:10)

Research topiC3 and 2,,8 (3) 2500 (6) 50.0 (1) 8.3 (~) 16.7 issues

Research methods and 2.3 (0) QoQ (7) ';R.3 (1) $Il.J '4 ) 33.3 procedures used

Cr1teria and methods 3.1 (4) _33.3 (6) 50.0 (1 ) 8.3 (1 ) A.3 used to evaluate

research projects

Table 23

Perceived degree CCSP part1cipatich contributes to tenure, promotion or salary increL~e

CCSP (Q5)

Agreat deal (4)

A moderate amount (3)

A 11ttlft (2 ,

Not at all(l)

Mean N %

5 6205

3 37.5

o OoQ

Table 24

Perceived importance of CCSP goals and outcomes (Q9) 2 1

4 1 Some- ~ot

Rxtremo Consid. what at all

Mean Import. Import. Imcort. Import.

(~) (N)

,.

(N) jI (N)

"

(N) ~

(1=10)

-General expansion of 306 (q) 7';.0 (1 ) _A.1 (2\ 16.7 (0\ 0.0

knowledge in this tech. area

Development of new re- ~.8 (2) ₁₆₀₇ (5) 4l.o7 (5) c7 (0) 0.0

search project In your finn

De'/~lopment"r cOmJ'nfi!rcial loS (0) 000 (0) 0.0 (6) 5000 (6) 50.0 products in 'lour firm

Enhancement of graduate 303 (6) 50,,0 (4 ) _{3303 (2) 16.7}

XI) 000 stud. tech. training

~nhancementof graduate 203 (0) 000 (4) ₃₃₀₃ (7) 5803 (1) 8.3 scud. ~nderstandingof

industry

Redirectlon of univ. res. 2.6 (2) 16.7 _'4) 33.3 (5) _{41.7 (1) 8.3}

toward indus. problems

Enhancement of quality 208 (3) 2500 (4) 33,,3 (5) 41.7 (0) 000 indus. research

1 Scarcely

tit_!!el Y_!

Table 25

Per~eived likelihood that university will r~eall~u tangible benefits from participating

in CCSP (010) 2

14 3

Some-Almost Pretty what

Mean Certain tite1Y tite1l (4-hi) (!) % N % ! !

(1-10) Table 26 Improved knowledge base Better student recruitment Better student placement Better faculty recruitment Improved research projects in the univ Increased funds for research from private sources

Increased univ. patent activity

Increased funds for research from public sources 3.9 3.5 3.5 1.0 3.1 3.2 2.5 2.3

(11) 91.7 (1) 8.3 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0

(7) 58.3 (4) 33.3 (1) 8.3 (0) 0.0

(6) 50.0 (6) 50.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0

(3) 25.0 (6) 50.0 (3) 25.0 (0) 0.0

(3) 25.0 (7) 58.3 (2) 16.7 (0) 0.0

(5) 41.7 (4) :3.3 (3) 25.0 (0) 0.0

(0) 0.0 (7) 58.3 (4) 33.3 (1) 843

(0) 0.0 (5) 41.7 (5) 41.7 (2) 16.7

Faculty perception of effect of participation in CCSP on outcomes in sponsorin~firms (Percentages calculated without "Not Applicable" response) (Q12)

~ot

Applicable

(N) %

Improved capability to cooperate with outside scientists Improved product or process design Improvements in pro-ducts &services New products dev~l­ oped due to related efforts

Changes in warranty

&complaints in view of improvements in products

Improvement in pro-cesses and method of production Changes in cost of products to users (price changes or decreased product maintenance) Reduction of pro-duct costs

Improved capability to deal with govern-ment regulations Increased uniformity Mean {3=yes, 1=No) 2.9 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0

3 2 1

Yes ~aybe No

(N) % {N} % (N)

(R) ~A.9 (1) 11.1 (0)

(1) 11.1 (6) 66.7 (2)

(0) 0.0 (5) n2.~ (3)

(0) 0.0 (5) ~~.n (4)

(0) 0.0 (2) 33.3 (4)

(0) 0.0 (2) 33.3 (4)

(0) 0.0 (2) 28.6 (5)

(0) 0.0 (1) 20.0 (4)

(0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (5)

(0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (4)

Table 27

Degree of university satisfaction with specific features of CCSP (Q7)

3 1

4 A Great 2 Not at

Mean Completely Deal Some all

(4=hi)

(1=10) {N} (%) ( N') % (N) % (N) %

Technical quality 2.6 (0) 0.0% (7) _63.6% (4) _36.4% (0) 0.0% of the ~esearch

Communications be- 2.3 (0) 0.0 (5) 41.7 (5) 41.1 (2) 16.1 tween Center starr

and industrial part-icipants

CCSP administrative 2.1 (1) _8.3 (6) 50.0 (S) 41.1 (0) 0.0 practices

Responsiveness ot ~.6 (2) _18.2 ( 4) 36.4 (4) 36.4 ( I) _9.1 CCSP to industry

needs

Table 28

Faculty perception ot _{degree of industry satisfaction with specific}

reatures of CCSP (Ca)

3 1

'+ _{A Great} 2 _{Not at}

Mean Complece deal Some _all

(4-h1)

-(1-10) (N) % (N) %. (N) % (N) %

Teehnical quality of the 206 ~ (1) 9.,1 (4) 3tic.4 (6) 5405 (0) 0410

research

Communications between 2.,6 (1) 9.,1 (4) 36.4 (6) 54.5 _{(1) 0.0} center staff and industrial

participants

raeHCCSP administrative 301' (2) 2000 (7) 70.0 (1) 1000 _{(0) 000}

practices

Responsiveness of IfJ€RCCSP 203 ' (0) 000 (3) 30.0 (7) 7000 _{(0) 000}

Table 29

Ratings of CCSP funding versus other research funding sources on specific dimensions (Q 11)

3 _{2 1}

Compares About the Compares

Mean Favorably Same Unfavorably

(3=hi)

(1=10) (N) _% (N) % (N) %

Amount of work in- 2.1 (3) 27.3% (6) 54.5% (2) 18.2% vested to obtain

funding

Amount of paper 1.5 (2) 18.2 (1) 9.1 (8) 72.7

work required to document progress

&goal achievement

Administrative timel 1.9 (4) 45.5 (2) 18.2 (1 ) 36.4 effort invested in

project

Likelihood funding will 2.5 (6) 54.5 (4) 36.4 (1 ) 9.1 be available for long

range research goals

Amount of funding 2.3 (5) 45.5 (4) 36.4 (2) 18.2

provided to conduct research

Recognition &rewards 2.1 (2) 20.0 (7) 70.0 (l) 10.0 given by dept./school

for securing funds

Budgetary flexibility 2.1 (3) 27.3 (6) 54.5 (2) 18.2 for equipment

acqu~-sition, changes in research, travel

Ability to support 2.1 (2) 9.1 (8) 72.7 (1) 18.2

grad. student theses/ doctoral research

Availability of help/ 2.6 ( 6) 54.5 ( 5) 45.5 (0) 0.0 advice from collegues/

others on how to proceed

Amount of autonomy 1.6 (1 ) '9.1 (5 ) 45.5 (5) 45.5 in deciding how

to conduct research

Table 30

Student Satisfaction with Specific Features of CCSP

3 1

4 A Great 2 Not at

Mean Complete Deal Some All

Feature

(t;;hI) (N) % (N) % (Nr--% (m--%

(1=10) technical quality of

(4 ) 22.2 (11) 61.1 (3) 16.7 (0) 0.0

research 3.1

communications:

stud-(4) 22.2 (10) 55.6 (3) 22.2

indus. scientists 2.0 (0) 0.0

comeunrca tions : stud- _{38.9 (9) 50.0} (2) 11.1 (0) 0.0

faculty 3.3 (7)

3.1 (5 ) 27.8 (10) 55.6 (3) 16.7 (0) 0.0 work among students

oppor. to learn about _{(1 ) 5.6 (6)} 33.3 (7) 38.9 (4 ) 0.0

res. in indus. 2.2

oppor. to learn about com./sig. proc.

Table 31

Student Satisfaction with CCSP Research Relative to Other Faculty Research

J 1

4 A Great 2 Not at

Feature Mean Complete Deal Some All

(4:hi) (N) % (N) % (~!-r-% (~,

(1:10)

technical quality 3.4 (7) 5308 (4) 30.8 (2) 15.4 (0) 0.0 communications:

stud.-indo 2.1 (0) 0,,0 (4) 3008 (6) 4602 (3) ₂₃₀₁

communications:

Stud.-fac. 3.5 (7) 5308 (5) 3805 (1) _1.1 (0) 0.0

work among students 2.9 (4) 3008 (4) 30.8- (5) _{38 .. 5} (0) 0.0 oppor. to learn about

re~. in indo 2.1 (2) 15.·.4 (6) 46.2 (4) 30.8 (1) 7.7

oppor. to learn about

com/sig proc. research 30 4 (6) 46 .. 2 (6) 46.2 (1) 7.7 (0) 0.0

Table 32

Degree of Satisfaction with Specific

Features of CCSP (See Figure 3p Executive Summary)

Fac. Ind ..

TIf;l2) TFf;9T

Technical quality

of research 2.6 206

Communications between Center staff and

industrial participants 203 2.9

Center administrative

practices 207 209

Responsiveness of

Center to industry

needs 206 201

Scale: 1= not at all

2: some 3= great deal 4: :ompletely

Mean Fac. estimating Ind.

fN=12)

3 2.5

Table 33

Perceived Importance of CCSP Goals and Outcomes (See Figure 2, Executive Summary)

(1= not at all impt., 2 = somewhat impt., 3= considerably, 4= Extremely)

Means

Faculty Industry

General expansion of knowledge

in this tech. area 3.6 3.8

Enhancement of grad. stud.

tech. training 3.3 2.8

Enhancement of grad. stud.

understanding of industry 2.3 2.9

Redirection of univ. research

toward industrial probe 2.3 3.1

Enhancement of quality of

industrial research 2.8 2.7

Devel. of new research

proj. in firm 2.8 3.1

Devel. of patentable

products (in firm) 1.6 1.9

Devel. of commercialized

products (in finn) 1.5 2.4

Table 34

Perceived Likelihood Company Will Realize Tangible Benefits

(benefits in the following areas as a result of participation in IUCRCCSP? (Faculty #10 e,d; Industry 27 a,b)

-Better personnel (faculty) recruitment

-Improved research projects in your company (university)

Faculty

3.0

3.1

35

Means

Industry

3.3