ACADEMIC PROGRAM PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS

(1)

A

CADEMIC

P

ROGRAM

P

ROPOSAL

S

UBMISSION

P

ROCESS

Stage I: Preliminary Strategic and Financial Analysis Review

Step 1: Consultation.

A. A meeting with your chair and dean to discuss:

 the idea for a new program

 it’s fit with Otterbein’s mission

 potential overlap with existing programs

 Potential for quality (qualifications of faculty, existing curriculum, existing resources)

B. Notify Chair of Academic Planning Committee (Provost/VPAA) of intent to submit

proposal

 Refer to Barbara Wharton, Institutional Effectiveness, and Ben Shoemaker,

Admissions, to access appropriate data sources

 Submit preliminary draft of New Program Proposal Review to Chair of Academic

Planning Committee (Provost/VPAA) for feedback

Step 2: Strategic Feasibility and Financial Analysis Review. The Academic Planning Committee will review:

 Brief summary of program, addressesing fit and strategic importance of the proposed

program

 Current/projected market demand and program capacity

 Outlook for students

 Competitive environment

 Relationship to existing program

 ProForma: Program costs, including space needs, personnel, administration and other

relevant financial matters and Projected income; Pro Forma Assumptions: Narrative on basis upon which you came to the conclusions on estimates provided

Academic Planning Committee will vote to Support or Not Support (expressing concerns, reservations) and will provide a rating of High – Low Priority

Stage II: Curriculum Committee/Graduate Committee Review

Proceed as usual with curricular proposal process

(2)

S

TRATEGIC

F

EASIBILITY

P

ROPOSAL

P

RIORITIES

R

EVIEW

The

Academic

Planning

Committee

will

review

each

proposal

according

to

the

following

priorities,

with

the

first

being

the

most

important.

1. Otterbein

University

Mission/Strategic

Initiative

Fit

a.

Strength

of

tie

to

Mission/

Fit

with

Strategic

Initiatives

2. Impact

regardless

of

revenues

a.

Strong

benefits

to

students/the

field/the

region/

the

institution

3. Fiscal

Feasibility/Revenue:

Strength

of

fiscal

feasibility/Potential

for

revenue

generation

based

on

a.

Capacity

&

Staffing

Needs

b.

Demand

&

Outlook

c.

Competition

d.

Resource

Needs

4. Other

proposal

areas

to

be

considered

when

determining

weight

of

the

above

through

a. Potential for Synergy and /or limited Duplication

b.

Ability

to

meet

professional/disciplinary

standards

c.

Limited

negative

enrollment

impact

(3)

(4)

Otterbein’s signature Integrative Studies program a degree that focuses on Systems Engineering will prepare a professional who “thinks deeply and broadly” and will provide a firm foundation of versatility in problem solving to join either the engineering work force or proceed to graduate school for further specialization.

3. Capacity and Staffing What is the proposed capacity for this program? Please address any staffing

needs raised on the proforma [Full‐time/part‐time, department and university course coverage.

The Systems Engineering major will have an initial capacity of annual first‐year cohorts of 32 students. The capacity number was arrived at by considering chiefly the reasonable/optimal size of lectures and labs in the Systems Engineering Curriculum alongside a reasonable consideration of the program’s likely facilities and staffing needs. The question of student demand and outlook—addressed in section 5 below—also contributed to the arrival at conclusions regarding capacity. In short, 32 students per year is an aspirational and achievable capacity to reach.

The staffing needs that follow from this capacity would be as follows: 1 FTE beginning in year zero of the program. This person would assist in the planning and launch of the program, while, in year zero, providing some teaching either in Physics or Math. In year one of the program, this personwould teach the Engineering Fundamentals I & II courses. In year two of the program, this person would teach (again) the Engineering FundamentalsI & II courses, as well as the ENGR Lectures and labs at the 2000 level. In year three, the program would require an additional FTE. In year four, the program would require two additional FTEs. By year four of the program, there will be 19 lecture sections and 8 sections of lab. (Labs are two hours each.)

The program will have some part‐time staffing needs as well. In Mathematics, cap sizes will necessitate the addition of an extra section of each of the Math courses listed as the program grows – e.g. 2 sections in year 1, 4 sections in year 2. In Physics, we will need an extra section of lecture and two labs per year. In Chemistry, an extra lecture and two sections of lab in year two (and beyond). For FYS, two sections will need to be added each year (discussion K. Lehman, 8/8.13). Coda: It should be noted, too that the proposed curriculum for Systems Engineering leaves Otterbein just three courses form a program in Mechanical Engineering – a program, the demand for which would make possible the doubling (at a minimum) of the number of students seeking Engineering degrees at Otterbein.

4. Duplication/Overlap and Synergy Does the proposed program generate any duplication with other

courses in your department? Overlap with existing programs at the University? Opportunities for

synergies with other programs in your Department or across the University?

Engineering will have a close relationship with physics, and to a lesser extent with chemistry.

Some engineering courses should be suitable as physics electives. This should work in the other direction as well – existing physics courses in advanced mechanics, materials, and electronics, for example, could potentially serve as engineering electives, as well as inorganic and analytical chemistry. In this way, options for students in all these areas would be expanded.

Faculty members in the Department of Physics will be able to teach certain engineering courses if necessary, and their expertise may be counted for accreditation purposes.

There will also be opportunities for research synergies between engineering and physics faculty members. This will depend on the exact pattern of hiring in engineering, of course, but there is good potential for overlap with mechanical, electrical, or systems engineering.

Furthermore, some of the technical infrastructure needed for engineering – machine tools, electronics, other laboratory and diagnostic equipment – may be shared between departments. Engineering will necessarily result in a significant increase in technical capabilities on campus, capabilities that may find application in departments outside the sciences, for example Art and Theater.

(5)

5. Demand and Outlook What is the current/projected admissions demand for such a program? What

is the current/projected outlook for graduates of such a program?

Engineers of the future must be solution providers and be able to grasp the larger societal issues. They will effectively communicate orally and in writing. The National Academy of Engineering book, “The Engineer of 2020”, carefully examines what is needed to address continually more complex social and ethical challenges of an integrated high technology world that is constantly evolving at increasing speed. The message is clear that “those involved with technology will need to be multidisciplinary; and social, cultural, political, and economic forces will impact technological innovation.”

“The Engineer of 2020” states “The successful future engineer will need strong analytical skills, practical ingenuity, creativity, good communication skills, business and management knowledge, leadership, high ethical standards, professionalism, dynamism, agility, resilience, flexibility, and the pursuit of lifelong learning, the report says.” To prepare such individuals, engineering education must change to address the following recommendations:

• The bachelor’s degree should be considered a pre‐engineering or “engineer in training” degree.

• The master’s degree should become the recognized engineering “professional” degree.

• Institutions should take advantage of flexible accreditation criteria in developing curricula and

expose students to the essence of engineering early in their undergraduate experience.

• University education should produce engineers who can both define and solve problems.

• Institutions must teach students how to be lifelong learners.

• Engineering undergraduate programs should introduce interdisciplinary learning and use case

studies of both engineering successes and failures as a learning tool.

Otterbein University’s proposed program carefully addresses these guidelines in its general systems engineering program. Employers want technically trained staff with a broad base of analytical skills. The specific industry provides on the job training to acclimate the engineer to the particulars needed in the engineering niche of the organization. Large international firms provide 3 month to 1 year

assignments for young engineers to new environments both in a technological sense as well as geographical. They do not desire narrowly focused discipline specific individuals that cannot easily evolve and growth to meet future unknown demands that often occur at the interface of multiple disciplines.

The job outlook for Otterbein University engineering graduates is unlimited. This is especially true in a world that will often find employees changing jobs an expected 7 times in their careers. The program develops engineers that will walk directly into many opportunities that will have significant impact on the world as we know it. They will be focused forward to lifelong learning and meeting the guidelines for “The Engineer of 2020”. There are world‐wide engineer shortages and the job market will continue to grow at a rapid pace. It is and will continue to be a world of choices for the caliber of engineering graduates that Otterbein will produce.

The overall market demand for Engineering in Ohio compares favorably to demand in HSS. For students with an ACT composit >=20 there are 3, 796 student in Ohio compared to 3,830 in the HSS majors (data from 2011 ACT testers). When you include the entire US the number jumps to over 63,000 students with an interest in Engineering. When you stratify to student’s with an ACT Math subscore of >=27 (for placement in Calculus) the number drops to 1700 in Ohio with another 3,700 students outside the state of Ohio. There are no engineering programs in central Ohio (within 75 miles) except Ohio State, which is highly competitive, so good students looking to stay in Columbus area don’t have many options.

6. Competition Who are likely competitors and how well are they positioned to meet that demand?

Who has recently successfully introduced such a program and what was their experience?

The Ohio State University is the closest University to Otterbein with an engineering program. The OSU program includes engineering programs that are more highly specialized than the one proposed here at

(6)

Otterbein and is highly competitive with very selective admissions. Marion Technical College has a pre‐ engineering program with enrollments over 200/year. Many of these students will seek enrollment to engineering programs outside of the central Ohio area due to the current lack of availability of

engineering programs in the central Ohio area.

Recently introduced programs in Ohio include the University of Mt. Union in Alliance, Ohio. Although overall enrollment at Mt. Union is reported as declining, the engineering major is flourishing and the University of Mt. Union is in the process of building facilities to accommodate their mechanical and civil engineering programs. Additional schools of like size that have successfully added engineering programs in the last few years include Benedictine University in Illinois and Union University in Tennessee.

Specific to Systems (or general) Engineering, programs across the United States number in total 16. Twelve of these schools offer the Bachelor of Science degree, 3 offer a Bachelor of Arts degree, with one offering a Bachelor in Engineering degree. The only program of like kind in Ohio is Case Western

Reserve University in Cleveland.

7. Standards How would this proposed program compare with programs from peer/aspirant

institutions/programs? How would this program match with standards from accrediting bodies (if any)?

The Systems Engineering degree proposed here is a somewhat unique program, in that it is blend of mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, as well as topics in other traditional areas of

engineering. The degree could be classified as “General Engineering;” however, the intentional emphasis on systems level analysis within several traditional areas of engineering defines a curriculum that deserves a more compelling name. Graduates of our program will be well‐positioned to solve problems in a broad range of engineering contexts and will be more flexible than graduates of traditional engineering degree programs. While we believe our approach to be unique, it is not so different as to be risky. Employers, students, and parents will recognize the strong overlap with mechanical and industrial engineering and so our program will not suffer from a lack of recognition. Furthermore, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, or ABET, has a category for “Systems and Similarly Named Engineering Programs.”

ABET is the industry standard accreditation body for engineering programs in the United States, and their accreditation is essentially required for a well‐regarded engineering program. Both students and employers will expect it. ABET accreditation of engineering programs may only be requested after the program has produced at least one graduate. Accreditation begins with a self‐study which assesses accreditation criteria such as faculty, administration, facilities, and institutional support as well as the program’s success in meeting its stated Program Objectives and Student Outcomes. An accreditation team then visits campus and assesses the program in these areas and provides feedback before issuing a final report with their recommendation.

ABET requires that a program define a set of Program Objectives “which are consistent with the mission of the institution [and] the needs of the program’s various constituencies. The program must have documented student outcomes that prepare graduates to attain the program educational objectives. “ The Systems Engineering program has been designed around Program Objectives consistent with Otterbein’s mission (integrative experiences, broad application of content knowledge, a solid base in liberal arts) as well as Learning Outcomes that are consistent with ABET’s requirements. The Program Objectives and corresponding Learning Outcomes are shown in Appendix XX, along with letters indicating which of ABET’s required outcomes our learning outcomes satisfy.

ABET uses the self‐report as the basis of their evaluation of the program during the campus visit. Therefore, the intentional commitment to defining Otterbein’s vision of a successful System Engineering program will provide the framework for successful accreditation once the program starts producing graduates.

(7)

programs in the department? Across the university? Document conversations with chairs, INST, as

relevant.

Enrollment impact is expected to be substantial, growth at Otterbein that will be noticed in all areas of campus from the classroom, to residence halls and student services and programming. The beginning capacity of 32 new enrolled freshman per academic year will yield approximately 120 additional students on campus over fours years when the program is fully enrolled.

Potential for growth is also substantial. As noted earlier, the curriculum for Systems Engineering is based on a combination of traditional engineering majors and would only require a few additional courses, along with additional lab and equipment, to expand into a mechanical engineering program. Mechanical engineering is the largest engineering major in the United States and could potentially double Otterbein’s engineering enrollment.

As discussed earlier, a Sytems Engineering program will have an immediate impact on the enrollment in classes in Physics, Math, Chemistry, FYS and Integrated Studies. Course capacity currently exists in some of the science classes and INST courses. The planning proforma includes the addition of sections in these areas to assure the availability to students of all required courses.

This proposal has been discussed broadly across campus including discussions in Departments of Physics, Chemistry, Math, and Modern Languages. Conversations have also occurred with University Programs including Integrated Studies, SYE, and FYS; with the Library, Institutional Advancement and at Cabinet meetings. (Documentation available upon request.)

9. Other Resource Needs Per the pro forma, briefly summarize the cost to run/add this program

versus the likely revenue generated., including Materials/Equipment/Facilities and Library/Instructional

Technology.

The budget proforma is attached along with a description of anticipated minimal facility needs. Current lab and classroom space on campus can accommodate the first two years of the engineering curriculum, through spring, 2017. If absolutely necessary, there are tentative plans that could accommodate the third year of the program in current space but the fit would be tight and a couple additional sections of engineering labs would need to be added as lab section enrollment would be reduced in size.

The budget proforma is built on a projected capacity of 32 entering freshman student each year, a 50% discount rate and a 87 – 92% retention rate. It is expected that the average graduating class will include 22 Systems Engineering majors with 3 students returning for fifth year of study leading to graduation. The retention rate is based on Otterbein’s current retention rate for students of high academic ability consistent with expected admitted student in the Systems Engineering major.

The investment costs, including materials, equipment, library and IT needs, have been identified through consultation with engineering faculty from area programs and reflect a realistic estimate of costs and space needs.

10. Impact Regardless of revenues, what are the benefits to students, the field, and the region to

adding this program at this time?

As indicated in this proposal, there is a large societal need for engineering professionals. An engineering program that provides a broad based education will meet the needs of future engineers to be solution providers and to grasp the larger societal issues. Otterbein’s reputation as producing students that think broadly and deeply and experience an immersed education in both the professions and the liberal arts will meet societal needs. Graduates from the program will be able to secure employment in well paid jobs that will allow them to support families and the broader community.

(8)

Benefit considerations)?

There are certainly identifiable costs for implementing an engineering program and revenue through tuition and room and board will help offset cost. Additional benefits, beyond predictable revenue would include publicity for Otterbein University in pursuing this new initiative that will attract a large number of student and families, while informing interested high school counselors about all programs at Otterbein. The opportunity exists to develop productive relationships with a wide variety of new and different corporations, industries, and professionals that work in the engineering field or are associated with engineering. Opportunities for capital equipment collaborations and facility development exist that would not only positively impact an engineering program but would be available to enhance our current programs in STEM areas.

Please

Attach

Pro

Forma

and

Pro

Forma

Assumptions

to

this

Form

(9)

Proposed Program: Systems Engineering

DRAFT 8/26/13

Revenue:

Number of Gross Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Students Revenue Discount Rate Tuition Waivers Annual Retention

Rate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015 students year 1 Tuition Revenue^ 32 $ 960,000 50% $ 480,000

Summer Revenue $ - $

-$

2015 students year 2 Tuition Revenue 28 $ 837,120 50% 87.2% $ 418,560

2016 students year 1 Tuition Revenue 32 $ 960,000 50% $ 480,000

-$

2015 students year 3 Tuition Revenue 25 $ 750,000 50% 89% $ 375,000

-$

Summer Revenue $

-$

2015 students year 5 Tuition Revenue^^ 3 $ 90,000 50% $ 45,000

Summer Revenue $

-Course Fees

Less: Transfer Students (no new revenue)

Total Program Revenue $ - $ 480,000 $ 898,560 $ 1,273,560 $ 1,650,0001,605,000 $

Expense: Pre-program Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Cost f 2014 f 2015 f 2016 f 2017 f 2018 f 2019

Faculty Salary* $ 84,800 $ 84,800 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 400000

Faculty Benefits $ 23,744 $ 23,744 $ 28,000 $ 56,000 $ 112,000 112000

Potential Summer Salary

PT Faculty (@3800/faculty)** $ 19,000 $ 45,600 $ 57,000 $ 57,000 57000

PT Faculty Benefits

FT Administrative Salary, 9 months $ 26,500 $ 26,500 26500

FT Administrative Benefits $ 7,420 7420 7420

FT Overload Wages FT Overload Benefits

PT Support Staff Salary, Lab Asst $ 35,000 35000 35000

PT Support Staff Benefits $ 9,800 9800 9800

Sabbatical Support Student Wages GA Wages Development Costs

Consultant Expenses $ 5,000

Accreditation Fees $ 7,000 $ 7,000 4000 4000

Library Resources $ 30,000 $ 28,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 25000

Furniture / Equipment $ 3,500 $ 3,500 7000

General Operating Supplies $ 20,000 $ 50,000 $ 12,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 16000

Start up funds/new faculty $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000

Software (with GOS row 64)

Recruitment Costs $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 5000

Professional Development, Travel, etc. $ 800 $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 2,400 2400

Dean's Travel Funds $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 1,050 $ 2,100 $ 4,200 4200

Other (telephone, copier etc) Other (Program Specific): Facilities

Program Expenses $ 173,094 $ 247,394 $ 229,450 $ 501,920 $ 811,320 $ 704,320

Overhead (15% total expenses) $ 37,109 $ 34,418 $ 75,288 $ 121,698 $ 105,648

Total Program Expenses $ 173,094 $ 210,285 $ 195,033 $ 426,632 $ 689,622 $ 598,672

Net Change (Revenue minus Expense) $ (173,094) $ 269,715 $ 703,528 $ 846,928 $ 915,378 $ 1,051,328

Cumulative Net Change $ (173,094) $ 96,621 $ 800,149 $ 1,647,077 $ 3,613,7832,562,455 $

Proforma_template_FY13--Engineering_1aug13 9/12/2013