The undergraduate engineering curricula in all disciplines of engineering (civil, chemical, electrical, industrial, mechanical, etc.) are being scrutinized and re-evaluated. This re-evaluation is being brought on by a myriad of external and internal forces. Pressures such as the public's questioning of education budgets, industry's demands of practical valence of graduate's knowledge, and the normal periodic self evaluation that all faculty go through are putting in question the value and essence of our current curriculum offering. These pressures are both valuable and dangerous. The public, who pays the bill for a large part of the education budget, is a major customer that is increasingly requesting accountability. A second major customer, industry, is rightfully demanding a product that is more in-line with the demands of the job market available. And finally, we as faculty are aware of the weaknesses in our curriculum that have resulted from obsolescence, changing demands, and a lack of improvement in pedagogical style. But change for change sake can also be dangerous. In industrial engineering, most faculty will agree that curriculum changes must be addressed, but a change can take many different paths. This paper explores the critical issues involved in the current debate on industrial engineering undergraduate curriculum re-evaluation. The critical points in this debate are analyzed and several options are presented for further debate. A project management perspective is presented not as a final solution, but a straw man to anchor and stimulate this debate.
|Number of pages
|ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings
|Published - 1995
|Proceedings of the 1995 Annual ASEE Conference. Part 1 (of 2) - Anaheim, CA, USA
Duration: Jun 25 1995 → Jun 28 1995