Strong inference: The continuous improvement of engineering management

"The first requisite for a good teacher is that he have something to teach. His aim should be to give inspiration and direction to students for further study. To do this, a teacher must possess knowledge of the subject. The only operational definition of knowledge requisite for teaching is research," (Deming, 1986; p. 173).. This quote is at the heart of one of the major debates that exists and has existed for some time between "educators" and "researchers." Many faculty members see a distinct defamation between good educators and good researchers. Others like Deming, believe that research is in fact a prerequisite for good teaching. This debate also encompasses many of the principle issues that comprise a discipline of study. Specifically, the strength or weakness of a discipline can be directly related to the strength and weakness of the research being conducted by its practitioners and researchers. Does the discipline have specific research agendas? Are they visible and well defined? These issues and the implications they have on Engineering Management curricula, instruction, and pedagogy are examined in this paper. The issues covered in this paper are presented to stimulate a debate on current Engineering Management curricula and instruction as well as the possible avenues which may develop in the future.