Approved Minutes SEC Teleconference

Approved Minutes SEC Teleconference 3 March 2011

Attendees: David Law Amin Karim Yatin Trivedi Wael Diab Don Heirman Ted Bickart Malcolm Thaden Howard Wolfman Geoff Thompson Jim Olshefsky Stephen Kwan Susan Tatiner Samantha Bradley Rona Gertz Jennifer McClain ------Draft Agenda v2.0 1. Call to order (Law) 2. Introductions 3. Approval of draft agenda (Law) 4. Approval of draft minutes from 10 February 2011 (Law) 5. Approval of draft minutes from 26 January 2011 (Law) 6. Requirements to include standards in the ABET criteria (Bickart) 7. FIRST Robotics Competition and college-level pilot (Chris Jones) 1. 2011 College-level Pilot Program 2. Collegiate Project Plan 2. Update on Sustainability Case Study Competition (Stephen Kwan) 3. Update on University Outreach Activities (Trivedi/Tatiner) 1. India trip in February (Trivedi) 2. UK trip in March (Law) 2. Report on Standards Education Workshop in Chicago on 11 February (Karim/McClain) 1. Program Agenda and Presentations 2. Results of attendee survey 2. New student mini-grant application #75, Chet Cyr for project, "Nimbus" (Law) 1. Spreadsheet with SEC votes and comments 1 V2.0

2. Standards Education Speakers Bureau Activity for 2011 (Tatiner/Gertz) a. Request for Standards-related presentation at Region 1 workshops (Tatiner) 1. Call for Standards Education Award Nominees (McClain/Gertz) 2. Next Meeting: Face-to-Face on Friday, 1 April, 9:00 AM Eastern to 3:00 PM, IEEE Headquarters, Piscataway, NJ 3. Adjourn (Law) 1. David Law called the meeting to order at 11:04 AM Eastern. 2. All attendees introduced themselves. 3. Approval of the draft agenda. David asked whether anyone had any changes to the agenda. Motion to approve was made by Amin Karim and seconded by Wael Diab. Agenda was approved by unanimous consent. 4. Approval of draft minutes from 10 February 2011. Motion to approve made by Wael Diab and seconded by Amin Karim. Motion was approved by unanimous consent. 5. Approval of draft minutes from 26 January 2011. Amin suggested two minor typo corrections. Action: Jennifer to correct the typos. Amin Karim made motion to approve the draft minutes. Wael Diab seconded the motion. Motion was approved by unanimous consent.

6. Ted Bickart provided an update on efforts to strengthen language about standards in the Engineering Criteria under ABET. Ted referenced the last portion of Criterion 5, Curriculum, namely: “Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints.”

He also referenced Outcome C in Criterion 3, Student Outcomes: (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.

Over the past several years, but after the revised criteria came into being, students were still largely not getting exposure to standards other than through the Senior Design Projects. As Ted previously mentioned, the SEC should support including standards as an constraint in addition to those listed as potential realistic constraints..

Ted prepared a message for the Chair of the IEEE Committee on Engineering Accreditation Activities suggesting that the language for Criterion 3 be reworded to include standards. Also suggested changes to the language in Criterion 5. This went to IEEE Committee on Engineering Accreditation Activities, Chair Ken Cooper. Ken reported back that the committee has passed the new language along for further consideration.

2 V2.0

Changes will be considered by the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission in July 2011. If adopted, they would then go up to the next level. Probably the earliest ABET could adopt the language would be 2013-14.

Ted also suggested trying to suggest to engineering faculties that standards are the means by which society informs those who design products, processes, and services their expectations and conditions and that this supports the attainment of Outcome H of Criterion 3, namely: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solution in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context. In short, he observed that standards are society’s means of communicating about safety, etc. and that attention to standards represents design in a societal context.

Action: Jennifer to arrange conference call with Rich Painter and Ted Bickart.

7. Stephen Kwan from San Jose State provided an update on his Case Study Competition. (SEC is a sponsor of this event.) a. Competition begins in May. Will all be web-based. b. Getting faculty teams from Europe, Asia, US. c. He is looking for an expert on Sustainability to put on the Expert Panel and also act as a Judge. c.i. Person would need to know about sustainability and how energy consumption is calculated. Yatin Trivedi will contact Stephen Kwan directly. He may be able to help. d. Website is now open for registration. Dr. Kwan will need to qualify each team and may need to speak with the faculty advisors. e. In the future, if this runs well, next year may involve having winning team participate in next year’s competition.

8. Yatin Trivedi provided an update on his university outreach in India. Yatin stated that Jennie Steinhagen from Standards Association (SA) has put together a report from the SA’s India trip. Susan Tatiner will extract the information about standards education activities and send out to the SEC group. a. Yatin visited five universities to talk with students and faculty about standards education. Faculty from Delhi Technological University (DTU) indicated that they want to teach standards and want to know how they can include standards in the curriculum. They would like to be the hub to teach this curriculum to other universities in the neighboring localities (within100 to 200 miles). b. Case Studies are also wanted so they can be included within courses: impact of standards, product and industry development (higher level universities). b.i. Yatin has asked for an outline from the faculty showing what they want to see in a case study. We need to know the appropriate level of content, etc. This is something we can try and then measure the level of success so it can be replicated elsewhere. c. Another request came up from Prof. Mehta and DTU concerning working groups that require attendance fees. How can university faculty and graduate students contribute or get involved. 3 V2.0

c.i. Group discussed how people might be able to participate at a lower cost. c.ii. Yatin suggested that they may want to create a regional working groups. c.iii. David suggested: 1) looking at the costs and ease of participation in the Smart Grid area. 2) Suggest that the India Standards SIG should fund one or two people from the SIG and then bring the information back. d. Group agreed that we need to create new case studies. We would need individual volunteers willing to help write the case studies. Group debated which standards or groups of standards may be good candidates. 9. David reported on the upcoming UK university outreach visits the week of 21 March 2011. Region 8 is meeting in London at the end of that week, so there’s an opportunity to conduct some outreach since Steve Mills, President of the SA and David will be available. They are going to the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow where Tariq Durrani, VP of EAB, is on the faculty. David and Steve will be giving a one-hour presentation for final year engineering students on the Monday, 21 March. Students from Glasgow University have been invited as well. a. Will get three to four opportunities for visits throughout the week.

10. Chris Jones Christopher Jones from Illinois Institute of Technology and Sabrina, orgainzers for the FIRST Robotics Competition gave some background on the event. Was originally for high schools students and they are now expanding it to include college students as well. Now there are 13 universities represented so far. All of the FIRST students come together (30,000 students) for the final competition in St. Louis 27-30 April 2011. a. Normally in FIRST they are strict about communication standards. They want to allow for more innovation this time around. Want some kind of robotic communication standards for communication between robotics. Standards have always been a part of the competition since students need to follow specifications. They need to understand why standardization exists , as well as where they have flexibility. b. Looking for judges: April 27th through the 30th. c. Looking for technical support at the event. d. They will have the opportunity to run workshops. The workshops are basically a conference to prepare the participants. There is room for presenting information on standardization (maybe about an hour or several shorter sessions). e. Having a case study specific to each of the programs would be helpful. f. Jennifer: Follow up with Rich Painter, Chris Jones. Contact the person with the Robotics Society and then reach out to St. Louis Section. 11. Amin and Jennifer reported on how the Chicago Workshop went. Amin has received inquiries from Illinois Institute of Technology and DeVry looking for guidance and resources on standards. A couple faculty members have mentioned that the mastery quizzes may work better for classroom use if the students could only take them once. a. David suggested that the SEC take a look at the participant survey results in more detail at the April face to face meeting. Action: Jennifer add to the agenda. 12. SEC reviewed new Student Mini-Grant Application #75. Motion to approve grant was made by Yatin. Amin seconded the motion. There was no discussion. Motion was approved by unanimous consent. 4 V2.0

13. Susan was to provide an update on the Standards Speakers Bureau, however due to time constraints the group agreed that the update should be given at the April face to face meeting. A representative from Region 1 will be joining us for this agenda item. 14. Don Heirman wants to look at continuing education outside universities. Wants to also include how mature people within the industry who switch jobs. Susan and Don Heirman will hold a call to follow up. 15. Jennifer and Rona provided an update on efforts to publicize the new joint EAB/SA Standards Education Award. Call for Nominees is publicized by the EA and the SA. SA outreach included to the Board of Governors, Standards Board, Corporate Advisory Group, all Working Groups. There is also a link is off the SA Awards site. 16. Next meeting is face to face on Friday, 1 April, at the IEEE in Piscataway, NJ. 17. Meeting was adjourned at 1:03 PM Eastern. Summary of Action Items:

1) Jennifer: fix two typos on minutes from 26 January 2011 teleconference. 2) Jennifer: help set up teleconference between Rich Painter and Ted Bickart. 3) Yatin: contact Stephen Kwan about ‘sustainability expert’ for the case study competition. 4) Susan: extract information concerning standards education from the SA’s India Trip Report. 5) Jennifer: follow up with Robotics Society, St. Louis Section, Rich Painter and any others who may be able to offer Chris Jones help with FIRST Competition. 6) Jennifer: Add Chicago Workshop attendee survey results to 1 April SEC agenda.