U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT JANUARY 1-MARCH 31, 2019 Cooperative Agreement AID-391-A-15-00001 This document has been produced for review by the Submitted to: USAID-Pakistan United States Agency for International Development Submitted by: Arizona State University (USAID). It has been prepared by Arizona State University.1 Submission date: April 15, 2019 USPCAS-E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under the research component, ASU During the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 (FY19), completed close-out review of four joint the U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in research projects (two from NUST and Energy (USPCAS-E) at Arizona State University (ASU) two from UET-P). A quarterly review worked closely with its partner Pakistani universities; of two UET-P joint projects and eleven National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) 4 JOINT ongoing local applied research projects and University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar RESEARCH was also completed. In this quarter, ASU (UET) to implement the approved work plan activities. PROJECTS COMPLETED attended the 31st and 32nd Research Evaluation Committee (REC) meetings Under the governance component, at NUST. The USPCAS-E partner universities organized ASU continued its participation in an International Conference on Sustainable Energy in and support for academic and project Pakistan from March 12-13. The conference included management committee meetings at talks by international energy professionals on four themes: renewable, thermal, power and policy, while the LEADERSHIP NUST and UET-P. In the 4th National TRAINING Advisory Committee meeting of the panel discussions highlighted challenges and solutions Centers for Advanced Studies held related to energy generation, transmission, distribution on January 7, Higher Education and storage. Commission Chairman Dr. Tariq Banuri and staff from USAID, NUST, UET, Mehran University Under the exchange component, a and ASU reviewed project progress and deliberated on total of 46 exchange visitors including 8 sustainability plans in detail. Dr. Banuri emphasized that female students 2 male faculty arrived the Centers should submit their business plans to HEC. in US to begin their research training ASU Professor Dr. Dan Shunk, a renowned leadership at Arizona State University and Oregon researcher, traveled to Pakistan and conducted a 46 EXCHANGE State University. The seventh and final leadership training for the partner universities from March VISITORS cohort will complete its exchange 18-22. The training is expected to enable both NUST program in May 2019. ASU organized and UET-P leadership to finalize their strategic plans for a cross-cultural activity and industry visit during spring sustainability. break to the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam Power Plant, Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, and more.
Under the curriculum component, As part of its sustainability efforts ASU completed curriculum review of this quarter, ASU facilitated linkages USPCAS-E NUST and UET-P during between UET-P and NUST and over 15 this quarter. A review of six master’s industrial/government institutes. A total programs was successfully conducted, of 12 different funding opportunities CURRICULUM including three programs at NUST 15 LINKAGES were identified for both partners. As a REVIEW MADE PROCESS (Energy Systems Engineering, Thermal result, one MoU was signed by Fauji COMPLETED Energy Engineering and Electrical 12 FUNDING Fertilizer Company (FFC) Energy and Power Engineering) and three at OPPS USPCAS-E NUST, and one MoU UET-P (Renewable Energy Engineering, Thermal IDENTIFIED between USPCAS-E UET-P and Water Energy Engineering and Energy Management and and Sanitation Service Company Sustainability). Under ASU’s pedagogy support for its Peshawar was initiated. Three industrial visits and five partners, Dr. Peter Rillero (ASU), conducted a workshop local seminars for USPCAS-E students and faculty on Advancing Instructional Methods from January 15-17 were organized with ASU facilitation. In addition, for 33 participants from both NUST and UET-P. ASU continued support for Technology Centers’ establishment including the selection of equipment.
2 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS The following sections of this quarterly report provide progress on all five components of the USPCAS-E program undertaken by ASU during this quarter. ASU staff and faculty visits and key tasks completed during the quarter included:
NAME DATES KEY TASKS KEY RESULTS/ACCOMPLISHMENTS Dr. Peter Rillero, January 13-18, Pedagogy – Conduct Conducted a three-day workshop (January 15-17) as Associate 2019 a three-day workshop Phase I (of three) of a comprehensive program leading to Professor ASU on Advancing Advancing Instructional Methods certification for NUST and Instructional Methods UET-P faculty. (AIM) Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, March 12-15, Presentation Presented at the international conference. Held curriculum Project Director/ 2019 in International reviews with relevant faculty. Reviewed Technology Center Professor, ASU Conference and progress. Delivered a project review to USAID and begin follow up with NUST project closeout discussions. Met with ASU staff based in and UET-P on Pakistan on project updates. Technology Center and curriculum review Mr. Andrew March 10-22, Exchange and Attended the international conference. Conducted tax filing Sarracino, 2019 Leadership Training with 2018 exchange visitors and took back signed forms Program Manager, Workshop – Meet to mail to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Conducted ASU project staff and pre-departure orientation for all visiting faculty and staff orientation to faculty coming to ASU on J-1 visas. Assisted Dr. Dan Shunk with visiting ASU in coming onboarding and introduction to project staff and faculty for quarter the Leadership Training Workshop. Dr. Dan Shunk, March 16-21, Leadership Training Conducted Leadership Training workshop for UET-P and Professor ASU 2019 – Conduct a training NUST senior faculty and management staff (March 18- on leadership and 21). Also held individual sessions with NUST and UET-P to strategic plan discuss their strategic plans for sustainability. development
Key Highlights for this quarter against workplan activities included: ACTIVITIES PLANNED IN FY19 ACCOMPLISHMENTS DURING REPORTING QUARTER Governance Participation in national, university and 4th National Advisory Committee meeting held January 7 center level committees 9th Committee on Research Policy (CRP) meeting of NUST held March 26 31st Research Evaluation Committee (REC) meeting held February 1 32nd Research Evaluation Committee meeting of NUST held March 26 Project Review Meeting of NUST held on March 27 Organize training on academic ASU organized a Leadership Training workshop March 18-21; it was facilitated by leadership ASU Professor Dan Shunk Train NUST and UET-P to organize NUST hosted its First Think Tank Session in January 2019 with technical and lead Think Tank sessions assistance from ASU. Support to Project Management Unit ASU supported UET-P in preparing a gender and graduate target modification letter (PMU) Supported UET-P in organizing meeting with Speaker Provincial Assembly Curriculum Pedagogy and development of Training workshop on Advancing Instructional Methods held January 15-17 experiential learning Online course development training Staff/faculty from both centers nominated for online course development training at ASU 3 Revision of curriculum developed 6 MS program reviews conducted: Three programs at NUST (ESE, TEE and EE) Three programs at UET-P (REE, TEE and EMS) New degrees, labs and library ASU finalized MS hydropower program in consultation with UET-P and followed- up with management for approval Research Support NUST and UET-P in organizing a joint international Joint International Conference held March 12-13 at NUST with ASU support conference Joint Research Projects at NUST Final review of 4 joint research projects (NUST 2 and UET-P 2) completed and UET-P quarterly review of 2 UET-P projects completed Local Applied Research projects at ASU reviewed the quarterly progress of 11 ongoing local applied research projects UET-P at UET-P and advice in executing the research Exchange Program Students and faculty exchange 46 exchange visitors, including 8 females, are participating in exchange program visits to ASU and OSU at ASU and OSU Sustainability Technology Center Staff/faculty from both centers nominated for Technology Center training at ASU Ongoing sustainability activities 3 industrial visits organized for UET-P students including industrial visits, local 5 local seminars organized seminars
Industrial Engagement MoU signed between Fauji Fertilizer Company (FFC) Energy and USPCAS-E NUST
4 GOVERNANCE
KEY UPDATES USPCAS-E hosted the International Conference on Sustainable Energy; leadership training held in Pakistan USPCAS-E 2019 • QUARTER 2 COMPONENT 1: GOVERNANCE National Advisory Committee
The 4th National Advisory Committee meeting of the Centers for Advanced Studies (CAS) was held on January 7, 2019. The meeting was led by Chairman HEC Dr. Tariq Banuri and attended by USAID, NUST, UET, Mehran University and ASU staff. Salient points of the meeting include: i) Dr. Banuri requested that USAID provide a no-cost extension to CAS to discourage inappropriate spending; ii) USAID responded that no-cost extension is highly unlikely and the centers should focus on completing work plan activities; iii) NUST’s request for the High Voltage lab was not approved; iv) Dr. Banuri committed to match any funds given by Ministry of Energy; v) USAID suggested that CAS establish a marketing office for promotion of centers. Academic Leadership Training
ASU conducted a training on “Leadership in Higher Education” in Islamabad March 18-21, 2019. The training was conducted by Dr. Dan Shunk, an ASU professor and leadership researcher and consultant. The training was attended by 44 participants including six females from NUST and UET-P. The first two days were for all participants, followed by one day each for UET-P staff and NUST staff to discuss their specific sustainability plans. The bottom line is that these training sessions taught the participants how to lead and how to strategize. To expect complete strategic plans in one day is not reasonable, however, the enthusiasm was there for the participants to follow-up with their teams. The facilitator HIGHLY recommends a follow-up session in the next two months to ensure that the planning started during the training sessions is continuing. (Detailed report attached as Annex 3). Committee on Research Policy
The 9th Committee on Research Policy (CRP) meeting at NUST was held on March 26, 2019 and was attended by Dr. Kannan and Dr. Bertan Bakkaloglu via Skype. The committee approved the closure of Dr. Brian Fronk and Dr. Muhammad Zubair’s joint research project. A three-month extension was granted to the joint research project (JRP) led by Dr. Harvey Bryan and Dr. Bilal Sajid and will now end on May 22, 2019. A three-month extension until May 16, 2019 was approved for the JRP led by Dr. Kannan and Dr. Majid Ali. ASU Project Director Pakistan Visit
Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, Project Director/ASU, visited Pakistan to participate in the international conference and deliver a talk on future trends in energy. He also met with the senior management from NUST and UET-P for project- related matters with a specific focus on sustainability. He met with HEC Chairman Dr. Tariq Banuri to discuss HEC’s support to the centers post-project closure. He also reviewed USPCAS-E NUST and UET-P’s curriculum and provided guidance in incorporating the comments from ASU faculty in their respective areas. Project Review Meeting USPCAS-E NUST
A Project Review Meeting for USPCAS-E NUST was held on March 27, 2019. The members approved, i) preparation of USPCAS-E closeout plan; ii) nomination of Dr. Hassan Abdullah Khalid (faculty) and Mudassir Ayub (lab engineer) for training on Technology Center at Dr. Mani’s PRL lab at ASU; and iii) nomination of Dr. Imran Mahmood (faculty) and Sikandar Mirza (IT specialist) for the online program development training at ASU. ASU Support to PMU UET-P
ASU supported UET-P in preparing a gender and graduate target modification letter for submission to USAID. The letter recommended the revision of graduate and gender target with strong evidence-based justification.
6 ASU and UET-P management held a meeting with the Speaker of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly to ensure that the funding committed in the provincial budget of 2019 for the center’s operations is realized. The speaker expressed his full support and mentioned that he will request that the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to write a letter to the USAID/Pakistan Mission Director for program extension up to six months.
ASU also provided support to UET-P for the following:
• Realigning the budget including correction of irregularities and re-alignment of the UET-P workplan for FY19
• Developing of the draft close-out plan of the project
• Developing a project review presentation for USAID
• Finalizing the presentation for the National Advisory Committee
• Organizing a meeting with the Secretary Higher Education, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The department has shown interest in providing support for the sustainability of the center. A proposal from the center needs to be submitted to Higher Education Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
ASU Professor Dan Shunk led a multi-day leadership training for USPCAS-E in Islamabad.
7 8 CURRICULUM
KEY UPDATE
Pedagogy training held in Pakistan
USPCAS-E 2019 • QUARTER 2 COMPONENT 2: CURRICULUM REFORM Curriculum review of USPCAS-E NUST
ASU conducted curriculum reviews of Energy Systems Engineering (ESE), Thermal Energy Engineering (TEE) and Electrical Power Engineering (EE) master’s programs at USPCAS-E NUST. ASU faculty and technical staff reviewed these programs and shared detailed comments/recommendations with NUST faculty. The following table summarizes the key recommendations provided to NUST faculty:
REVIEWER FEEDBACK/RECOMMENDATIONS Energy Systems Engineering - NUST Faculty: Dr. Govindasamy Tamizhmani, The curriculum itself is well designed, and it would be necessary to view the actual Dr. Arunachala Mada Kannan, Dr. T. W. classes and class materials to make concrete statements. Lee A robust materials science and engineering course should be added to the core (or the electives) Staff: Dr. Edward William, Technical Lecture-lab course content should be encouraged for the effective delivery of the Advisor course. Every course should consider having a few lab sessions to provide hands- on experience. Would be good idea to have a full-fledged batteries course. The rigor and workload should be maintained on par with programs at other institutions. The laboratory components should be strengthened. MATLAB and analysis software such as ANSYS/FLUENT and others should be incorporated into the course work. Thermal Energy Engineering - NUST Faculty: Dr Patrick Phelan, Dr T. W. The list of courses is extensive, other than couple of voids as noted below (on Lee, Dr Arunachala Mada Kannan, Dr experimental/testing). Also, NUST and UET-P students are in general weak in Brian Fronk (OSU) practical applications, e.g., design, analysis of real thermal energy devices and systems. Staff: Dr Edward William, Technical Curriculum is consistent with thermal fluids tracks within mechanical engineering Advisor of most U.S. institutions. This course should include using different lab equipment, developing experimental methods, uncertainty analysis, etc. Both NUST and UET-P have added a lot of high-tech equipment. This course should train students on how to actually use and maintain this equipment. Some of the elective topics are interesting and typically seen in other programs. The program should also place heavier course load in terms of number of credit hours required, to help build work habits and ethics. Strongly suggest including thermo fluids topics (thermodynamic analysis of mixtures and power cycles, design and analysis of fluid systems) in the Advanced Thermodynamics course (Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 9th Ed. By Cengel & Boles, McGraw-Hill).
10 Electrical Power Engineering - NUST Faculty: Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, Dr. Anamitra The courses cover all aspects of transmission, distribution and generation. Pal, Dr. Yang Weng, Dr. Bertan The program can benefit from additional optional courses with focus on Bakkaloglu symmetrical components for power system protection or semiconductor Staff: Dr. Edward William, Technical material for solid state transformers (SST). Advisor Recommend adding courses on power electronics with focus on inverters, transients from circuit switching and solid state transformers (SST). Note: With the advancements in the semiconductor field, especially Silicon Carbide (SiC)-based power electronics devices, the concept of SST is expected to penetrate in grid applications. Ref: https://www.tdworld.com/ transmission-reliability/role-power-electronics-grid-modernization. A course on the smart grid would be beneficial. Application in renewables such as wind, solar, and fuel cells would be beneficial. Recommend use of a software tool such as PLECS that runs on Simulink: https://www.plexim.com/plecs and a hands on platform such as TI’s piccolo system for experimentation: https://www.farnell.com/ datasheets/1325655.pdf The content can be: Power Diodes, Thyristors, GTOs, JFETs and FCTs, MOSFETs, IGBTs, Wide Bandgap Devices, Snubbers, Magnetic Component Design, Electromagnetic Compatibility Add Power System Protection and Controls course.
Curriculum review of USPCAS-E UET-P
ASU faculty and technical staff completed review of three master’s programs at UET-P including Renewable Energy Engineering (REE), Thermal Energy Engineering (TEE) and Energy Management and Sustainability (EMS). The review of Electrical Energy Systems Engineering (EESE) is in progress. Dr. Kiaei conducted a meeting with UET-P faculty and reviewed all curriculum.
REVIEWER FEEDBACK/RECOMMENDATIONS Renewable Energy Engineering - UET-P Faculty: Prof. Dr. Govindasamy Tamizh, Program should encourage and give priority to the lab based or hands-on based Prof. Dr. Arunachala Mada Kannan, courses as it is more of an applied engineering program. (Mani) Prof. Dr. Bertan Bakkaloglu The course on hydropower engineering is okay but the innovations and applications in this industry are already saturated in almost all the countries and Staff: Dr. Edward William & Ahmed the jobs for the students are very limited. (Mani) Sohail Khan, Technical Advisors I propose that the courses are designed on ‘systems approach’. (Kannan) There needs to be more instructional labs that the students can engage in. Based on observation in the exchange program, students have challenges with the labs (E William). Electronics courses are in accordance with international best practices (Bertan). Regarding the Risk and Reliability Engineering course, it should be a generic course, but I don’t know any specific generic reliability course from other universities to recommend. I am confident a good web search could locate a university which is offering this type of courses - probably, as part of an industrial engineering program. (Mani) The innovations and applications in this industry are already saturated in almost every country and the jobs for the students are very limited. (Mani)
11 Thermal Energy Engineering - UET-P Faculty: Prof. Dr. Patrick Phelan, Prof. The curriculum is consistent with what we would expect of a ME thermal fluids Dr. T.W. Lee type track. We would strongly suggest that a practical, hands-on laboratory course in thermal fluid measurements is made a requirement. ASU experience with Dr. Brian Fronk scholars from both UET-P/NUST shows that they have challenges in this area. Again, with all of the new equipment procured through the USPCAS-E program, it Staff: Ahmed Sohail Khan, Technical would be invaluable to ensure that this equipment is utilized properly. (Brian Fronk) Advisor The curriculum looks reasonable on paper except it does not address the main weaknesses: lack of lab work (as noted above by Prof. Fronk) and a lack of rigor and work ethic.
*This is a basic problem across the board, so having lab classes alone will not fix it, but at least it is a start. In addition, instructors with backgrounds along this line should be sought. Also, the content of the course and evaluation criteria of both the students and instructors should be strengthened to the point of discomfort, in order to gain any forward momentum. (Lee).
* We think it’s better to be more inclusive. We suggest not to limit applications to students only in these disciplines. Energy Management and Sustainability - UET-P Faculty: Prof. Dr. Clark Miller An energy sustainability course that addresses environmental impact of energy policy is essential in this program. Energy policy could have significant impacts on land and water resource use, water quality, air quality, climate change, soil quality, ecosystem services and more. Environmental sustainability, economic development, and social well-being impacted by energy policy and its implementation are both short-term and long-term. Understanding its tradeoffs is critical toward a strategy for sustainable energy production while minimize and mitigate undesirable environmental consequences. (May Wu, Argonne National Laboratory)
Overall, the curriculum looks quite good to me. The overall course list is excellent, especially the electives. What I would like to see is a better description of the core courses and a justification for why those have been selected as the core courses versus some of the others that are listed as electives. For example, national energy policy and planning could easily be a core course. As could energy modeling. Why have the others been chosen in favor of these? I’m not objecting. I just need more information to be convinced that the program is designed to meet its objectives and the needs of students and their prospective future employers. (Clark Miller)
MS Hydropower Program UET-P
ASU has supported USPCAS-E UET-P in the finalization of the MS hydropower program. ASU led the curriculum development effort and engaged the stakeholders. ASU developed the complete MS hydropower curriculum in consultation with USPCAS-E and the UET-P Peshawar Civil Engineering Department. The ASU team regularly followed up with USPCAS-E management for the approval of the curriculum from Board of Studies and Academic Research (BOSAR) and on lab funds approval from USAID. Pedagogy support
Dr. Peter Rillero (ASU), conducted a three-day workshop for USPCAS-E faculty on Advancing Instructional Methods (AIM) January 15-17, 2019. A total of 33 participants including three females attended the workshop from NUST and UET-P. Following the training, Dr. Rillero gave assignments to faculty which they completed and shared with him. In addition, ASU also procured a license for Socrative software for each faculty member 12 to help improve their pedagogical skills. The next session on AIM is scheduled for the last week in April 2019. Under this program, ASU also engaged a consultant for classroom observation of five selected USPCAS-E faculty to assess how the acquired skills are being applied in the classroom. Additional support from ASU to UET-P
UET-P installed an online video capturing system with the support of ASU in two classrooms. A detailed training was delivered to faculty for its effective use during lectures. The system offers:
1. Interactive touch LED screen with advanced features 2. Wireless pocket microphone for presenter recording 3. Motion tracking video camera for presenter video capture 4. Media station to start and stop recordings Online program development at ASU
ASU plans to conduct a training on creating online programs for USPCAS-E faculty and an IT specialist in June 2019. Dr. Imran Mahmood (faculty) and Mr. Sikandar Mirza (IT specialist) from NUST and Mr. Mansoor Yousaf (IT manager) from UET-P will visit ASU in the next quarter for the one-week training.
13 RESEARCH
KEY UPDATE
Four joint research projects successfully completed.
USPCAS-E 2019 • QUARTER 2 14 COMPONENT 3: APPLIED RESEARCH International Conference
USPCAS-E partner universities organized the International Conference on Sustainable Energy in Pakistan March 12-13, 2019 at NUST in Islamabad. The conference brought together national and international energy professionals from the government, industry, academia and civil society to discuss the challenges and solutions related to energy generation, transmission, distribution and storage. The conference was inaugurated by Federal Minister for Energy Omar Ayub and attended by over 500 participants. Eleven international speakers from the U.S., the UK, Denmark, Norway, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Malaysia delivered talks on four themes: renewable, thermal, electrical power and policy and management. In addition, 13 national energy experts participated in two panel discussions. The ASU team provided support to UET-P and NUST in the arrangements including the formation of technical, administrative and communication committees, the identification of and coordinating with national and international speakers and finalizing the conference program. Research projects’ reviews
ASU completed the final review of three first cycle joint research projects of NUST which include joint research projects (JRP) led by Dr. Clark Miller/Dr. Kafait Ullah, Dr Govindasamy Tamizhmani/Dr. Ahmed Kazmi, and Dr. Brian Fronk/ Dr. Muhammad Zubair. Dr Miller/Dr. Kafait’s project will be completed on April 30, 2019. Dr. Mani/Dr. Kazmi’s project is closed by ASU, but despite completing all deliverables, NUST has yet to approve its closure. Final closeout report is awaited. Dr. Fronk/ Dr. Zubair’s project is closed by both ASU and NUST and closeout report received for review and approval. Dr. Bertan Bakkaloglu/Dr. Khawaja Arsalan’s project was reviewed by ASU faculty and it is on track for completion in Q3 of FY19. The following two JRPs at NUST are on track and will be completed on time:
1. Dr. Kannan/Dr. Majid’s project completed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the second quarter and is scheduled to close in Q3.
2. Dr. Harvey Bryan/ Dr. Bilal Sajid’s project completed KPIs for the third quarter and is on track for completion in Q3.
ASU participated in the 31st Research Evaluation Committee (REC) meeting held on February 1, 2019. At that meeting, Dr. Zubair and Dr. Brian Fronk’s project was successfully closed. The meeting also reviewed applied research projects led by Dr. Muhammad Hassan and Dr. Khawaja Arsalan and on completion of KPIs recommended the release of the next installment. ASU also participated in 32nd REC meeting held on March 26, 2019. The progress of four joint research projects was reviewed and upon successful completion of KPIs for the second quarter approved their next installment. The four projects presented were Dr. Harvey Bryan/Dr. Bilal Sajid, Dr. Clark Miller/Dr. Kafait Ullah, Dr. Kannan/Dr. Majid Ali, and Dr. Bertan Bakkaloglu/Dr. Khawaja Arsalan. In addition to local ASU staff, Dr. Kannan and Dr. Bakkaloglu attended the meeting via Skype.
Similarly, ASU conducted the quarterly reviews of one joint research projects at UET-P being implemented by Dr. Mani/Dr. Saim Saher. The quarterly reviews show that these JRPs are on track and the quarterly KPIs have been completed. Technical feedback was provided to PIs.
ASU continuously worked with the PIs of these JRPs awarded in cycle one for successful closure: • National Energy Modeling Strategy for Pakistan and KP province (Dr. Irfan Mufti/Dr. Clark Miller) • Hybrid Energy Test-Bed for Remote Communities – Integration of PV, Biomass Generator and Micro hydro Generator (Dr. Govindasamy Tamizhmani/Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khalid PI/Dr. Abdul Basit Co-PI)
The PIs have completed closeout reports and submitted these to ASU and UET-P for review and approval. Based on the feedback, PIs are completing the required evidences and annexures for the closeout report. It is expected that two JRPs from UET-P that were awarded in cycle one will be officially closed in Q3.
ASU provided support in reviewing the quarterly progress of 11 ongoing local applied research projects at UET-P and advice in executing the research such as identifying the most appropriate location for the project “Data Communicator for Grid Control System (DCGCS). ASU also provided support in achieving the second-generation device development for grid monitoring.
15 EXCHANGE
KEY UPDATE
46 exchange scholars traveled to the U.S. for the spring 2019 semester.
USPCAS-E 2019 • QUARTER 2 COMPONENT 4: EXCHANGES AND SCHOLARSHIPS A total of 46 exchange visitors (EVs), including 39 students (8 female and 31 male) and two male faculty arrived at Arizona State University and five students (male) arrived at Oregon State University to begin their research training and exchange program. Criteria of completing exchange program
The research training and exchange program includes:
• Reporting to their lab for a minimum of 20 hours a week while maintaining a satisfactory prescribed course of training.
• Attending the 16-week training session in energy policy.
• Attending the 16-week training session in technology entrepreneurship. Students work in various labs at ASU and OSU
Exchange students are assigned to faculty and their labs to enhance their research skills by completing tasks agreed to in their implementation plans. The following table summarizes faculty/lab assignments.
S# LAB FACULTY # OF STUDENTS 1 Thermal Energy Brian Fronk (OSU) 5 male 2 Power Systems Anamitra Pal 4 male & 1 female 3 Energy Materials Zachary Holman 3 male & 2 female 4 Wind Energy Ronald Calhoun 2 male 5 Thermal Energy Patrick Phelan 1 male 6 Power Electronics Bertan Bakkaloglu 4 male & 1 female 7 PV Reliability Govindasamy Tamizhmani 3 male & 2 female 8 Fuel Cells and Batteries A.M. Kannan 4 male 9 Energy Policy Clark Miller 5 male & 2 female 10 Power Systems Yang Weng 5 male
Exchange visitors training and excursion activities
• Professional development opportunities:
o American culture and business etiquette session: Included a discussion on cultural formalities (e.g., handshaking, gift giving, family life, etc.) as well as social and business etiquette (e.g., punctuality, social viewpoints and cross-cultural acceptance).
o Professional Development Series #1 - Professional Writing
• Attending cross-cultural activities that satisfy the Department of State regulation for J-1 Exchange Visitor Programs [22 CFR 62.5(d)].
o Visit to the Heard Museum in Phoenix to learn about Native American tribes of the Southwest.
o The spring break excursion included an industry visit and cultural outings: Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam Power Plant, Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, and several other destinations. During this excursion, the EVs learned about:
• Environmental conservation and tourism.
17 • Native American tribes and their land conservation efforts and utilization practices that promote tourism.
• National Parks as places that promote conservation and appreciation of natural landmarks
• Energy policy and its role in the construction of the Hoover Dam for irrigation and power generating.
• Massive scale projects and specifically the resources required to construct the Ivanpah Solar owerP Plant.
• Leveraging local industry to promote social values, a family atmosphere, boosting the local economy.
• Looking at how renewable energy can be implemented in multiple sectors, including the tourism sector at venues such as in Disneyland and Universal Studios.
• The mid-term self-assessment for students was initiated at the end of March.
Virtual seminar
The virtual seminar on the Open-Source Hydropower Assessment Tool (HPAT) Package by Dr. Kendra Sharp has been rescheduled to Q3.
18 SUSTAINABILITY
KEY UPDATES ASU facilitated linkages with more than 15 industrial/government institutes.
USPCAS-E 2019 • QUARTER 2 COMPONENT 5: SUSTAINABILITY
Industrial liaison
ASU continued to support its partners in industrial outreach. ASU facilitated meetings/visits with various industries and government institutions for possible collaborations.
TYPE INDUSTRIAL PARTNER RESULT Visit Wind energy expert from the International Finance To advise faculty on wind resource data Corporation (IFC) to USPCAS-E NUST collection. Visit Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) team to To discuss possibility of joint research, USPCAS-E UET provision of services from USPCAS-E to PESCO. Follow up United States Education Foundation in Pakistan To provide improved access to scholarship (USEFP) opportunities for USPCAS-E students. Meeting Genco Holding Company Limited (GHCL) GHCL is interested in the development and management of a corporate training program through USPCAS-E. Meeting Ministry of Climate Change (MoCC) Collaboration with USPCAS-E in energy efficiency and renewable energy for buildings. Meeting Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (PRIME) Explored collaboration opportunity in the area of energy resilient cities. Meeting Secretary Finance Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and UET Funded study on waste-to-energy with USPCAS-E. Meeting Enabling Integrated Oilfield Solutions (LMKR) with To undertake collaborative research in USPCAS-E UET the area of condition monitoring of oil rig equipment. Meeting Finned Heat Exchanger Manufactures in Pakistan and Research collaboration NUST Meeting Independent Power Producers Advisory Council To seek a collaboration on thermal energy research projects and internships and job placements for students. Meeting Japanese Integrated Turbine Services To seek a collaboration with USPCAS-E NUST on turbine coatings. Meeting Minister of Industries, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa To fund center projects in the areas of boiler tune-up in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and energy efficiency in brick kilns. Meeting Pakistan’s only electric vehicle manufacturer, Explored collaboration opportunity with Economia USPCAS-E in the areas of batteries and building management systems (BMS).
In addition to these meeting/visits, the ASU identified General Electric’s Grenoble France Scholarship Program 2019 for USPCAS-E NUST students and arranged interviews for two students Industrial visits and local seminars
ASU continued to support its partners in arranging student visits to industrial facilities. In addition, ASU supported USPCAS-E UET-P in finalizing its annual visit and seminar plan. The following industrial visits were organized during
20 the quarter:
1. USPCAS-E UET-P student visit to National Cleaner Production Center
2. USPCAS-E UET-P student visit to Attock Refinery Limited
3. USPCAS-E UET-P student visit to High Voltage Lab
ASU continued to support its partners in meeting their targets regarding local seminars. The following seminars were managed during the reporting period:
• Seminar held on February 26, 2019: “Sharing Australian Experiences in Solar PV Technology” by SAARC Energy Center for USPCAS-E UET.
• Higher Education Commission Knowledge Caravan Seminar organized with ASU support on January 22 at USPCAS-E UET-P to give students opportunities to study in the U.S.
• Ten U.S. universities visited USPCAS-E NUST on February 19 and provided information on graduate student recruitment.
• Mock GRE session held at USPCAS-E UET-P on February 23 and GRE session held at NUST on March 28. Career fair
ASU supported USPCAS-E UET-P in designing and conceptualizing a career fair including preparation of a list of industry invitations and an invitation package; a list of 70 energy sector employer organizations; and outreach to the energy sector for participation in the career fair. USPCAS-E NUST was also provided support in outreach to energy sector employers for the NUST career fair. Fund raising
ASU continued its support to partner universities in the identification and access of different funding opportunities. ASU organized a meeting with United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and USPCAS-E UET-P in which UNIDO expressed its willingness to allocate US$50,000 to USPCAS-E UET-P and US$25,000 to UET Peshawar subject to the submission of proposals. ASU is working with USPCAS-E NUST and UET-P faculty in developing funding proposals.
The ASU team also met the Advisor Energy Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to ensure support to USPCAS-E UET-P in collaborating with proposals for a) Microgrid Project totaling PKR 400 million; b) A waste-to-energy project totaling PKR 10 million; and c) a National Conference.
ASU organized various meetings to explore funding opportunities and some major interactions are given below:
1. Meeting with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Department of Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL). They showed interest in funding joint projects in the area of solar energy in Pakistan.
2. China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Working Group agreed to the allocation of funds for UET-P Peshawar in the area of device fabrication center; subsequent steps are yet to happen.
3. Outreach to KfW to align their Renewable Energy Institute with the USPCAS-E NUST Technology Center; their delegation has already visited NUST.
4. Meetings with KfW and MoCC for funding for USPCAS-E NUST regarding its solarization and to undertake an energy audit of the MoCC Building. MoCC will cover the cost of the audit.
5. USPCAS-E UET-P developed a training calendar for revenue generation with ASU support during FY19. It was sent to the Pakistan Engineering Council for approval.
6. Identified a funding opportunity from SAARC Energy Centre and shared with partner centers. 21 7. A concept note was prepared for USPCAS-E UET-P on the development of solarization of Kohat village pilot projects.
8. Meeting of electrical faculty from USPCAS-E with the management of the High Voltage Lab at National Transmission Dispatch Company (NTDC) regarding collaborative research and internship placement. Partnerships
As a result of enormous efforts of ASU team, three collaboration are either completed or in the final stages. These partnerships include:
1. An MoU was signed between Fauji Fertilizer Company (FFC) Energy and USPCAS-E NUST.
2. Finalized the working paper on Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) workshop for active collaboration between USPCAS-E and the power distribution sector of Pakistan.
3. An MoU draft was finalized between USPCAS-E UET-P and Water and Sanitation Service Company Peshawar in the area of waste-to-energy. Think Tank
Based on ASU’s example, NUST hosted its First Think Tank Session in January 2019. The agenda for energy research in the future was discussed as part of the Think Tank. Technology Center
Mr. Bulent Bicer, an expert from the Photovoltaic Reliability Lab (PRL) lab at ASU, visited Pakistan to discuss the establishment of the Technology Center and the plan for the upcoming trainings on PV installation, certification and reliability. Dr. Sayfe Kiaei held a detailed meeting with the management and faculty of partner universities regarding the establishment of Technology Centers and finalized the next steps. This was a continuation of the Skype meetings held by Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, Dr. Mani and Bulent Bicer with NUST and UET-P. NUST nominated Dr. Hassan Abdullah Khalid (faculty) and Mr. Mudassir Ayub (lab engineer), and UET-P nominated Dr. Arif Khattak (faculty), Ms. Noor Saif (lab engineer) and Ms. Shaista Afridi (project staff) for training at Dr. Mani’s lab at ASU. NUST shared the letters of commitment for the nominees and also a list of equipment and other documents required by ASU. Dr. Mani and Bulent Bicer assisted NUST and UET-P in finalizing technical specifications of the required equipment. NUST is procuring two pieces of equipment from ASU for the Technology Center.
22 Photo by Alessandro on Unsplash Bianchi CHALLENGES
USPCAS-E 2019 • QUARTER 2 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
Governance Research Participation of faculty/staff in ASU-led events Delay in completion of Joint Research Projects
The participation of NUST faculty and students in ASU is continuously providing support to aid the ASU-hosted events has been an ongoing challenge. smooth implementation of joint research projects Despite efforts by ASU and USPCAS-E NUST PMU, implemented by UET-P. However, one JRP overall participation remained low. NUST asked ASU implemented in Malakand Agency, where the Hybrid to hold events at NUST facilities to help address this Testbed project was implemented with ASU support, issue. However, despite shifting all events to NUST, the has not been able to synchronize the three energy participation did not improve much. The participation sources: hydro, solar and biomass, due to non- from NUST and UET-P in the pedagogy workshop availability of an electronic load controller (ELC). and leadership training was intermittent and remained Several requests were made to UET-P to focus on on the lower side during the course of the event. ASU the integration of the three projects, however, despite staff had to approach each participant individually multiple reminders, USPCAS-E management could not and convince them to attend the event. This helped to resolve the issue of provision of an ELC which is very improve participation. critical for smooth closeout of the research project.
Curriculum Sustainability Approval of UET-P Hydropower MS program Nominations for Technology Center training
ASU extensively supported UET-P in developing the Response from the partners on the nomination of curriculum for MS program in hydropower. We surveyed participants for the Technology Center training has state-of-the-art curricula from worldwide universities, been slow. The training had to be rescheduled twice identified the most suitable courses addressing the due to a lack of response from NUST and UET-P. needs of Pakistan, and engaged Dr. Kendra Sharp from OSU to lead this effort. ASU provided curriculum to UET-P for final approval and despite numerous efforts, USPCAS-E could not get approval from the Board of Studies and Research (BOSAR) and Academic Council. Commitment of faculty/staff in pedagogy online events
Dr. Peter Rillero’s training on pedagogy required completion of some online assignments after the workshop. However, despite several written and verbal reminders from Dr. Rillero and ASU staff, very few faculty members completed the assignments. Motivating faculty to improve their skills and knowledge has been a challenge in this quarter in particular and the project in general.
24 USPCASE.ASU.EDU
26
Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Matrix (QPR2 FY19 January-March 2019) Project Indicator Progress as of Dec 31 ‘18 During (Jan-Mar 2019) Cumulative as of Mar 31 ‘19 Remarks 1. Number of 179 courses developed Annual review of six 179 courses developed The list of courses Masters/PhD courses NUST – 73 courses master’s programs NUST – 73 courses reconciled and newly developed or UET – 106 courses successfully conducted, UET – 106 courses verified with UET revised for Energy including three programs and NUST program in both centers at NUST (Energy Systems Annual Review of six Ms therefore number (UET and NUST) Engineering, Thermal programs of NUST and UET revised and Type of Indicator Energy Engineering and conducted. updated. Out of Custom Electrical Power 179 courses Engineering) and three at developed, 147 UET (Renewable Energy offered that Engineering, Thermal include NUST 67 Energy Engineering and and UET 80. Energy Management and Sustainability). 2. Number of Steering committees Following meeting held: Steering committees established These committees committee/s and established and functional – 4th National Advisory and functional – 02 (NUST and were established working groups 02 (NUST and UET). Committee UET) in first year of established/activated Council for Research Policy 9th Committee on CRP committees established and project with the and functional with ASU committees established and Research Policy (CRP) functional – 02 (NUST and UET) support of ASU. support for smooth functional – 02 (NUST and meeting of NUST Research Evaluation Committee All these implementation of UET). 31st Research Evaluation established and functional – 02 committees hold project activities Research Evaluation Committee of NUST (NUST and UET) regular meetings Type of Indicator Committee established and 32nd Research Evaluation Regular meetings organized and and take program Custom functional – 02 (NUST and Committee meeting of ASU supported and actively related decisions. UET). NUST participated. Project Review Meeting of NUST 3. Project management PMUs established at NUST ASU continuously PMUs established at NUST and units of UET and NUST and UET by Dec 2014. providing support to UET by Dec 2014. established and ASU support included: PMU of NUST and UET on ASU support included: functional with ASU *ToR of NUST PMU review need basis. *ToR of NUST PMU review support drafted. Participated in PMU drafted. Type of Indicator *Supported UET in reviewing review meeting. *Supported UET in reviewing Custom PMU structure, job PMU structure, job descriptions descriptions and manuals. and manuals. *Supported UET and NUST in *Supported UET and NUST in communication, M&E and communication, M&E and developing linkages with developing linkages with external stakeholders. external stakeholders. *ASU participated in NUST’s *ASU participated in NUST’s PMU review exercise in Q4 PMU review exercise in Q4 FY18. FY18.
4. MoU between NUST, Four-way MoU finalized, Already completed in Q1 Four-way MoU finalized, UET and HEC finalized approved and signed FY18. approved and signed between and signed with ASU between NUST, UET and NUST, UET and HEC. support HEC. Type of Indicator Custom
5. Number of govt. 28 government officials (24 02 workshops organized 28 government officials (24 officials and other male and 4 female) for NUST and UET faculty male and 4 female) participated stakeholders participated in various but no govt official was in various workshops organized participated in the workshops organized by ASU required for these by ASU faculty in collaboration workshop faculty in collaboration with workshops. with NUST and UET. Type of Indicator NUST and UET. Custom U.S.-PAKISTAN 1 CENTERS FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENERGY ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Project Indicator Progress as of Dec 31 ‘18 During (Jan-Mar 2019) Cumulative as of Mar 31 ‘19 Remarks
6. Number of 16 laboratories established ASU provided continuous 16 laboratories established and ASU support laboratories and and functional (10 NUST and and comprehensive functional (10 NUST and 06 included review of libraries established 06 UET). support to NUST and UET UET). list for laboratory with ASU support 02 libraries established in the establishment of 02 libraries established (NUST equipment and Type of Indicator (NUST and UET). the Technology Centers. and UET). books for library. Custom ASU assisted NUST in the ASU provided support to NUST in UET’s 4 main selection of equipment preparing list of equipment for laboratories such as Environmental the establishment of High include 02 sub Chamber and Laminator. Voltage Laboratory. laboratories.
7. Number of 12 technical/ thematic Leadership Training 13 technical/ thematic 03 days Advanced thematic/technical workshops conducted workshop held from workshops conducted Instructional workshops organized 1) Renewable Energy, PV March 18-21 1) Renewable Energy, PV system method (AIM) Type of Indicator system – Dr. Kiaei (FY15). – Dr. Kiaei (FY15). training under Custom 2) Policy – Dr. Clark (FY16). 2) Policy – Dr. Clark (FY16). pedagogy was also 3) Strategic Planning – Dr. 3) Strategic Planning – Dr. Sayfe held however it is Sayfe (FY16). (FY16). part of series 4) Batteries and Fuel Cells – 4) Batteries and Fuel Cells – Dr. pedagogy training Dr. Kannan (FY16). Kannan (FY16). therefore did not 5) Green Buildings – Dr. 5) Green Buildings – Dr. Harvey fall under Harvey (FY17). (FY17). workshop 6) Gender – Dr. Haines 6) Gender – Dr. Haines (FY17). definition. (FY17). 7) PV Reliability – Dr. Mani 7) PV Reliability – Dr. Mani (FY17). (FY17). 8) Technology Entrepreneurship, 8) Technology Ken Mulligan (FY17). Entrepreneurship, Ken 9) Strategic Proposal Mulligan (FY17). Development – Dr. Alan Paul 9) Strategic Proposal (FY18). Development – Dr. Alan Paul 10) Energy Material – Dr. (FY18). Zachary Holman (FY18). 10) Energy Material – Dr. 11) Corporate Engagement – Lou Zachary Holman (FY18). Farina (FY18). 11) Corporate Engagement – 12) Hydro Power – Dr. Kendra Lou Farina (FY18). Sharp (FY18). 12) Hydro Power – Dr. 13) Leadership Training Kendra Sharp (FY18). Workshop – Dr Dan Shunk (FY19)
8.Number of self- Comprehensive self- Already completed. Comprehensive self-assessment ASU reviews self- assessments exercises assessment tool developed tool developed and shared with assessment conducted by NUST and and shared with UET and UET and NUST. reports and UET with ASU assistance NUST. Self-assessment/Review of UET provides feedback and recommendations Self-assessment/Review of conducted in 2016. and key provided UET conducted in 2016. NUST and UET conducted self- recommendations. Type of Indicator NUST and UET conducted assessment in FY17 and FY18. Custom self-assessment in FY17 and FY18.
9. Number of plans 14 plans finalized All key plans developed 14 plans finalized reviewed and finalized 02 strategic plans (01 NUST, and no review required 02 strategic plans (01 NUST, 01 with the assistance of 01 UET) by UET or NUST. UET) ASU 02 sustainability plans (01 02 sustainability plans (01 NUST, Type of Indicator NUST, 01 UET) 01 UET) U.S.-PAKISTAN 2 CENTERS FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENERGY ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Project Indicator Progress as of Dec 31 ‘18 During (Jan-Mar 2019) Cumulative as of Mar 31 ‘19 Remarks Custom 08 annual work plans (04 08 annual work plans (04 NUST, NUST, 04 UET) 04 UET) 02 LoP plans (01 NUST, 01 02 LoP plans (01 NUST, 01 UET) UET)
10. 4.2-b Number of U.S. NUST – 06 joint research Final review of 4 joint NUST – 06 joint research host country joint projects awarded. research projects (NUST 2 projects awarded. development research UET – 05 joint research and UET 2) completed UET – 05 joint research projects projects projects awarded. awarded. Type of Indicator Bi-annual review of 06 joint Quarterly review of 2 UET Final review of 4 joint research projects completed MSF research projects completed. projects (NUST 2 and UET 2) completed
Quarterly review of 2 UET projects completed 11. 4.2.3-a Number of 171 exchange visitors 47 exchange visitors 171 exchange visitors Current batch will host country individuals completed including 8 females are completed complete who completed US NUST – 83 (56 male and 27 participating in exchange NUST – 83 (56 male and 27 exchange program funded short-term female) program at ASU and OSU female) in May 2019. training or exchange UET – 88 (70 male and 18 NUST. UET – 88 (70 male and 18 programs involving female) female) higher education institutions Type of Indicator MSF
12. Number of students 57 internships secured No progress during 57 internships secured ASU identifies placed in energy sector NUST – 23 reporting period. NUST – 23 internship for internship with the UET – 34 UET – 34 opportunities and support of ASU shares with NUST Type of indicator and UET. Custom Number of internships completed and female participation is the responsibility of NUST and UET. 13. Number of public- 9 partnerships established 01 MoU signed between 10 partnerships established private linkages UET – 06: MoU/Contract Fauji Fertilizer Company UET – 06: MoU/Contract signed established and signed (01 with Haier, 01 (FFC) Energy and (01 with Haier, 01 with CERAD, strengthened between with CERAD, 01 with GBC, 01 USPCAS-E NUST. 01 with GBC, 01 with Aviation PCASE universities and with Aviation Design Design Institute, 01 with HEC private sectors through Institute, 01 with HEC Technology Development Fund, ASU support Technology Development 01 with NEPRA, 01 with PCRET). Type of indicator Fund, 01 with NEPRA, 01 NUST – 04: MoU/Contract signed Custom with PCRET). (01 with HEC Technology NUST – 03: MoU/Contract Development Fund, 01 with signed (01 with HEC Golden Pumps, 01 with PCRET, Technology Development 01 with Fauji Fertilizer Company Fund, 01 with Golden FFC). Pumps, 01 with PCRET).
U.S.-PAKISTAN 3 CENTERS FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENERGY ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Project Indicator Progress as of Dec 31 ‘18 During (Jan-Mar 2019) Cumulative as of Mar 31 ‘19 Remarks 14. Number of key 5 stakeholder meetings No Stakeholder meeting 5 stakeholder meetings Meeting minutes stakeholders conducted planned in this quarter conducted and stakeholders’ participated in the Feb. 2016 – 22 stakeholders Feb. 2016 – 22 stakeholders feedback is stakeholder meeting including 01 female. including 01 female. submitted to Type of indicator Dec. 2016 – 42 stakeholders Dec. 2016 – 42 stakeholders USAID. Custom including 02 females. including 02 females. Oct. 2017 – 71 stakeholders Oct. 2017 – 71 stakeholders including 05 females. including 05 females. Apr. 2018 – 122 Apr. 2018 – 122 stakeholders stakeholders including 13 including 13 females. females. Nov. 2018 – 94 stakeholders Nov. 2018 – 94 stakeholders including 11 females. including 11 females.
15. Percent of Study/survey concept/ToR 78% respondents rated 78% respondents rated Final draft of the stakeholders/individuals finalized and consultant satisfaction at the highest satisfaction at the highest level study received and reported that they hiring is in process. level whereas 22% rated whereas 22% rated for medium submitted to received support from for medium (stakeholders (stakeholders study findings) USAID along with ASU according to agreed study findings) QPR terms Type of indicator Custom
U.S.-PAKISTAN 4 CENTERS FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN ENERGY ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Workshop/Training Narrative Report
ADVANCING INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS (AIM), PETER RILLERO, PH.D. NUST, Islamabad Pakistan Full Day Workshop, January 15 to 17, 2019
a) WORKSHOP/TRAINING SUMMARY
This three-day training workshop (January 15-17) is Phase I (of three) of a comprehensive program leading to Advancing Instructional Methods (AIM) Certification. Topics for the workshop include Higher-Level Thinking, Questioning Techniques, Assessing and Engaging through Classroom Response Systems, the PETE Method and Discrepant Events, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
b) WORKSHOP/TRAINING PURPOSE
The main purpose of the three-day training workshop was to provide professional development to faculty in active learning methodologies to educate engineers who excel as designers, problem-solvers, critical thinkers, group workers, and leaders.
c) DISCUSSIONS AND ACTIVITIES o Introduction to AIM and Program Certification Requirements o Big Ideas in the Engineering Curriclum o Higher-Level Thinking and higher level questions o Questioning Techniques § Methods to maximize student thinking and communication when asking high-level questions § Wait time § Think-Pair-Share o Assessing and Engaging: Classroom Response Systems § Clickers § Plickers o PETE Method and Discrepant Events § Predict, Explain, Test, and Explain o Alternative Conceptions o Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) § Studying and improving own teaching as scholarship § Publishing opportunities § Creating a climate for innovation o NUST/UET Faculty Lectures from SoTL workshop attendance § “Improve Teaching Efficacy and Job Satisfaction through Mindfulness” Dr. Arsalan Habib Khawaja, NUST
Page 1 of 7
Advancing Instructional Methods Workshop Report
§ "The effects of passive vs active teaching methodologies on learner outcomes" Dr. Muhammad Noman, UET § "Who cares about an assignment once it’s graded? Everyone will if it’s a renewable assignment" Dr. Affaq Qamar, UET
d) VOICES FROM THE PARTICIPANTS
Following are the post-survey statements collected by the project:
• Excellent workshop. It will help us in future a lot, i.e. better out teaching way. • As the participation from Higher Education, more examples from university teaching be taken to enhance the teaching methodology and research. A very effective way of conducting a workshop, where most of the participants were fully engaged. • The workshop was more adequate for primary and high school teacher rather university students. Very importantly, the presenter was lacking context knowledge of educational setup of Pakistan. • Excellent workshop. • It was excellent teaching workshop, which enhance my knowledge. • Thank you everyone for arranging such great workshop. • The teaching methodology of Dr. Peter was very good. I will use AIM and Peter methods in my teaching. • This was one of the greatest opportunity to look back at the way we are teaching and and compare it with the alternative techniques learned in workshop. Simple things and approches could make huge impact. • It was excellent learning experience. I hope that ASU will provide logistocal support for AIM certification. It would be great to attend the next level of training for the AIM certificates. • It’s a good workshop. However it must encapsulate the dynamics of Pakistani culture and methods. Once again thanks for training. It is good overall. • Intrested in AIM Certification.
e) RESULTS OR OUTPUT
The following table shows number of participants from partner universities. Detailed list of participants is given in annex 1.
Institution/University Participants Male Female Total NUST 12 2 14 UET Peshawar 18 1 19 Total 30 3 33
Post-Workshop feedback form was circulated at the end of workshop. A total 19 participants completed feedback form and responses analysed. This data was collected to identify areas of improvements and assess the participants’ satisfaction in following areas:
• Logistical Arrangements
Page 2 of 7
Advancing Instructional Methods Workshop Report
• Instructional Methodology & Contents • Facilitator/s support, time management, and • Overall satisfaction and usefulness of workshops
Following are the findings from the participants’ feedback on four specific areas:
1. LOGISTIC ARRANGEMENTS
95% participants agree/strongly agree that the The workshop venue was comfortable and well located. workshop arrangements met their expectations.
33 89% participants showed satisfaction with the fact 35 28 that the workshop was well-paced within the 30 allotted time. 25 17 20 61% responded that the workshop venue was comfortable and well located. However, significant 15 11 11 39% participant showed less satisfaction with the 10 venue. 5 0 0 94% participant’s said refreshments and food Strongly Agree Neither disagree Strongly Not agree disagree Applicable provided were adequate.
2. WORKSHOP INSTRUCTION
Contents of instruction were relevant and 100% participants agreed that the instructions appropriate(%) given were consistent with the stated objectives.
47 50 95% participants agreed that the teaching 42 45 methods were appropriate for the subject matter. 40 35 Similarly, 89% respondents said that the contents 30 of the instruction were relevant and appropriate, 25 whereas 11% were not satisfied. 20 15 79% participants said the material/handouts 10 5 5 provided were useful while 21% either did not 5 reply or showed dissatisfaction. 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree
Page 3 of 7
Advancing Instructional Methods Workshop Report
3. WORKSHOP FACILITATION
90% participants said that the facilitator was The facilitator was knowledgeable on the topic. knowledgeable on the topic.
disagree Neither 5% 89% participants agreed that the facilitator gave 5% clear explanations of the topics.
Another 95% respondents said that the facilitator was able to engage the participants whereas 5% Agree 32% disagreed with this statement. Strongly agree 58 89% participants were of the opinion that the facilitator utilized the time effectively whereas 95% participants agreed that facilitator was responsive to participants’ questions.
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION
The learning outcome will be advantageous to my role. 89% respondents felt that the workshop met its planned objectives.
Not Applicable 0 90% participants said that the workshop
Strongly disagree 5 enhanced their professional expertise whereas 10% did not comment and remaining 4% 0 Disagree disagreed with this statement.
Neither 0 Similarly, 95% respondents said that the Agree 37 learning outcomes of the workshop will be advantageous to their role. Strongly agree 58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Page 4 of 7
Advancing Instructional Methods Workshop Report
f) TRAINER’S/FACILITATOR’S KEY NOTES: o Participants were enthusiastic about improving their instruction. o They were excited by being able to talk to their colleagues about instruction. Sometimes it was difficult to get them quiet for full group discussions. My recommendation is to have lecture style seating in the front of the room and small group seating for group work. That would allow smoother transitions and making sure during the whole group discussions, faculty were listening to each other. o The video crew did not have a wireless microphone. This should be a requirement.
g) PHOTO GALLERY
Participants practice wait time and discussion techniques. Participants use Plicker cards to answer a question. The results are then displayed on the computer.
A discrepant event is shown to the particpants
Training video highlights: https://vimeo.com/313731559 Complete training videos: day 1, day 2, day 3
Page 5 of 7
Advancing Instructional Methods Workshop Report
ANNEX 1 - AIM TRAINING WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION Advancing Instructional Methods
Workshop and Program Led by Peter Rillero
Workshop Goals: To provide professional development to faculty in active learning methodologies to educate engineers who excel as designers, problem-solvers, critical thinkers, group workers, and leaders.
About the Workshop: This three-day workshop (January 15-17) is Phase I (of three) of a comprehensive program leading to AIM Certification. Topics for the workshop include Higher-Level Thinking, Questioning Techniques, Assessing and Engaging through Classroom Response Systems, the PETE Method and Discrepant Events, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Daily Schedule:
Workshop Session: 0900-1030
First Tea break: 1030-1045
Technical Session 1: 1045-0100
Lunch break: 01:00-02:00
Technical session 2: 0200-0330
Second Tea break: 0330-0345
Technical Session 3: 0345-0500
Peter Rillero, Ph.D. is an associate professor of science education at Arizona State University and science educator for over 35 years. Peter joined the US Peace Corps in 1982 and taught grades 8 to 10 in a rural school in Kenya for three years. Peter then taught high school general science, physics, biology, and science research for four years in a public school in Bronx, NY, while earning a masters degree in science education (Teachers College, Columbia University) and a masters degree in biology (City University of New York). After earning his doctoral degree in science education from The Ohio State University, Peter accepted a tenure-track faculty position at Arizona State University (1994). As part of his work at ASU, Peter was an exchange professor at the National University of Costa Rica, a Fulbright Lecturer in science education in Iceland, STEM consultant in Cebu, Philippines, and Chair of the department of Secondary Education. Peter has authored and co-authored dozens of books with the goal of improving science education. Recent projects by Rillero include co-developing a solar energy curriculum for middle grades students in Palestine and providing professional development for the teachers and conducting a problem-based learning virtual exchange between high school girls in Egypt and the US.
Page 6 of 7
Advancing Instructional Methods Workshop Report
ANNEX 2 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Sr.No Name of Participant Gender Designation Institution 1 Muhammad Shoaib Male Research Assistant USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 2 Dr. Saim Saher Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 3 Muhammad Hassan Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 4 Dr. Sohail Zaki Farooqui Male Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 5 Dr. Abdul Basit Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 6 Tanvir Ahmad Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 7 Muhammad Noman Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 8 Adnan Daud Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 9 Dr. Khurshid Ahmad Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 10 Muhammad Bilal Sajid Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 11 Adeel Waqas Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 12 Engr. Fahad Ullah Zafar Male Lab Engineer USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 13 Noor Saif ur Rehman Dar Female Lab Engineer USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 14 Muhammad Saad Rehan Male Lab Engineer USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 15 Zafarullah Khan Male Lab Engineer USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 16 Muhammad Aslam Male Lab Engineer USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 17 Majid Ali Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 18 Dr. Rabia Liaqat Female Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 19 Dr. Affaq Qamar Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 20 Abdul Saboor Male Research Associate USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 21 Noor Muhammad Male Lab Engineer USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 22 Khawaja Arsalan Habib Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 23 Abdul Kashif Janjua Male Research Assistant USPCAS-E NUST 24 Dr. Abraiz Khattak Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 25 Dr. Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 26 Kaleemullah Male Research Assistant USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 27 Muhammad Zubair Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 28 Nadia Shehzad Female Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 29 Hassan Abdullah Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 30 Arif Khattak Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E UET Peshawar 31 Dr Kafiat Ullah Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 32 Dr. Muhammad Hassan Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 33 Nasir Muhammad Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST
Page 7 of 7
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report March 18-21, 2019 at Islamabad Organized by ASU and facilitated by Dr Dan Shunk
Executive Summary
During the week of March 18-21 three distinct training sessions were conducted for the U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E) program in Islamabad, Pakistan. The following executive summary highlights the events, the data captured from each event and the resulting actions planned to address the identified gaps from each event. Following sections and annexes that summarize each event:
• Section 1 - Leadership Training – held in Islamabad at the Marriott on Monday, March 18 and Tuesday, March 19. The purpose of this event was to train the Center leadership professionals on modern leadership principles, solicit from the participants what they believe are the biggest leadership gaps that USPCAS-E faces and begin to address these gaps. Results capture the prioritized leadership gaps and how teams of professionals will address these gaps. • Section 2 – Sample Leadership Training Team Report – of highest priority was the Leadership Gap addressing management being a good example and management creating an innovative environment. A cross-functional team from both institutions developed an action plan to address this. • Section 3 - Strategic Sustainability Planning at University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (UET) – held in Islamabad at the Marriott on Wednesday, March 20. The purpose of this event was to train key professionals from UET on how to strategically sustain their Center of Excellence. Again, we used an assessment tool to prioritize the gaps for sustainability and we launched teams to address these gaps. For UET we present their SWOT, their strategic sustainability gaps, the prioritization of these into actionable Goals. Each set of Goals is assigned to teams to develop these into Action Plans. • Section 4 – Strategic Sustainability Planning at National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) – held on the NUST campus in Islamabad on Thursday, March 21. The purpose of this event was to train key professionals from NUST on how to strategically sustain their Center of Excellence. The same tools and techniques were used but with a slightly different end result. For NUST we present their SWOT, their strategic sustainability gaps, the prioritization of these into actionable Goals. Each set of Goals is assigned to teams to develop these into Action Plans. • Section 5 – Strategic Sustainability Team Report – the first report from a team addressing strategic sustainability came from NUST. This can be found in Annex 5. • Annex 1 – Participants feedback • Annex 2 – Participant List for the Various Sessions
Page 1 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
Section 1 - Leadership Training Report
Leadership Training Marriott Hotel, Islamabad, Pakistan Monday, March 18 from 1:30 until 4:30 pm, Tuesday, March 19 from 9:00 am until 4:30 pm
a) Workshop/Training Summary: Approximately 44 faculty and staff from UET and NUST attended this day and a half training program that focused on advancing the leadership skills of professionals at the two universities and developing plans for addressing perceived leadership gaps at the two universities. Annex 2 has the list of attendees for the session.
b) Workshop/Training Purpose or Objective(s): Task 6 of the USPCAS-E Program addresses the need for a strategic and tactical plan to lead the Centers into a “Sustainable” future. The Leadership Training for both universities addressed key leadership issues. The desired training outcomes were as follows: • Establish a modern understanding of leadership principles for sustaining “sustainable” ventures • Conduct an assessment of the Leadership and Strategic Gaps related to ultimate sustainability of the two Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy. Develop a 360 degree leadership assessment approach • Develop a personality profile for each individual and demonstrate how high-performance teams require combinations • Review the intrapersonal and interpersonal traits of good leadership • Demonstrate how leaders can “make change happen” • Establish an understanding of how organizations create an “Innovation Culture” The training methodology was one of “active learning” ~ a technique championed at ASU to accomplish the greatest comprehension by the attendees. The agenda for this training is as follows:
Monday, 18 Mar 2019 Time Topics Covered 1330 Opening Ceremonies 1415 Training Overview, Agenda 1440 Modern High-Performance Leadership Overview Developing Academic Leadership Capacity The Learning Organization 1540 Assessing the Leadership Challenges of USPCAS-E 1600 Exercise: Populating the LSAT Instrument 1630 Closure Tuesday, 19 March 2019 Time Topics Covered 0900 Modern People-centric Leadership 0945 Reviewing the LSAT Results and Action Planning 1130 Break 1145 Building / Leading / Coaching an Innovation Team 1215 Creating Technological Discontinuities 1230 Lunch
Page 2 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
1400 Personality Types – the Myers – Briggs Assessment 1445 Seven Habits of Highly Effective People 1515 Conducting an Effective Meeting 1530 Making Change Happen 1600 Closure with Actions Required (AR’s) c) Discussions and activities: Leadership training for USPCAS-E was conducted in an interactive manner using modern Active Learning techniques. With an audience of 44 individuals we used five tables of approximately 8 individuals each to address key topics during the day. There were two key interaction points to be highlighted here: - The first was the capture, plotting, prioritization and team actions addressing overall program leadership opportunities. These were assigned to various tables and each table is to respond. One such response can be found in section 2. - The second was the creation of a personal view of each professional. We used the Myers-Briggs self-assessment methodology. Many of the participants were surprised by how their personality profile compared to others. This introspection is needed so that the leaders not only know others, but they know themselves as well. d) Case Studies/Success Stories/Voices from the Participants (if any): Various case studies and videos were used to access the “guru’s” of leadership. This was effective because after each case or video the participants were asked “what did you hear?” and that launched very rich discussion. e) Results or Output: At this event we used a Leadership Self-Assessment Tool (LSAT) to identify the biggest gaps. The paredo distribution of the biggest gaps can be found below.
Value*Gap
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
-
3.4 Barriers are removed quickly 2.1 High level of two way comm
2.2 Management6.1 visible Common and availablekey measures are used 1.4 Management creates environment 2.3 Company plans are well developed 10.2 Associates canand do self perf6.2 eval Measures are tied to company goals 7.3 All associates are trained6.3 Measures to use tools are displayed in work areas 5.3 Accountability, credit, responsi & owner. 9.3 People are coached and1.2 trainedAlignment3.1 Behavior in tools and reinforces liine4.3 Roadblocksof site continuous of strat4.2 to goals CSatMission improve are clearly actively understood worked and focused 5.2 Decision making delegated8.1 to lowestTraining 1.1poss is Strategy viewed3.2 as devel Supervisors a critical and4.1 reviewTeamworkinvestment and clearlymanagers across defined routinely all functions train drive satis 7.1 Managers are good examples of leadership 1.3 Associates have 3.3time Key to workdrivers improvement for performance defined / track 10.3 Compensation is tied to Goal Achievement 10.1 Goal achievement is recognized and celeb 5.1 Associates9.1 recognized Change managementas Most Val Resource is effectively7.2 conductedIn house leadership facilitators are developed 8.2 Performance8.3 Promotions evaluation are9.2 basedAllbased project onon desired contribplans include tolead orgn the improv approp lead model
Page 3 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
At the training event the top eight gap clusters were defined with their LSAT gap scores shown in parenthesis. Those highlighted in Bold were then to be developed by teams of participants.
a. 1.4 (10.27) – Management does NOT create an environment b. 2.1 (8.46) and 2.3 (8.28) - Communication c. 3.4 (10.87) – Barriers NOT removed quickly d. 5.1 (9.95), 5.2 (8.76), 5.3 (9.82) – Recog, Decision Making, Accountability e. 7.1 (11.48) – Managers NOT Good Examples of Leadership! f. 8.2 (9.05), 8.3 (8.47) – Evals and promotions g. 9.1 (9.17), 9.2 (8.17) – Change and Leadership models h. 10.3 (9.44) – Compensation
The first report delivered was from the team addressing 1.4 (Management does NOT create an environment where associates can evolve) and 7.1 (Management is NOT a good example of modern, people-centric leadership). This can be seen in Annex 2 which follows.
f) Trainer’s/Facilitator’s Key Notes: Assigning a full ten (10) hours to this topic got the discussion rolling. And it accomplished the Active Learning goal of disseminating modern information in a manner that can be acted upon. We broke into teams to address these key leadership opportunities with many of the participants taking their assignments seriously. However, once the facilitator departs the attention to leadership detail tends to wane. Recommended is that we follow-up, using some means of team interaction, in a month or two to ensure that the Actions Required are actually being addressed.
Section 2 – First Team Report Addressing Leadership Training Gap Identification
Group Discussion
Topics:
(1) Managers are not good examples of leadership (LSAT Category 7.1). (2) Management does not create environment where associates can evolve (LSAT Category 1.4).
Members: (1) Dr. Farid Gul (NUST) (2) Dr. SM Ali (UET) (3) Dr. Khurshid Ahmad (UET) (4) Dr. Abdul Basit (UET) (5) Dr. Tanvir Ahmad (UET) (6) Engr. Ahmed Sohail (ASU)
Page 4 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
1.1. Problem Identification: The group members discussed the above-mentioned problems identified through the LSAT analysis. The group discussed the possible reasons behind the larger gap between the desired and current level of the above-mentioned parameters.
(a) Usually, right person is not hired for each of the leadership position. People hired on leadership positions are often not from within the organization and therefore, they have little idea about the actual situation of issues, resources, employees etc. within the organization. Therefore, they cannot lead the organization effectively. (b) There is often a gap between the managers and the employees. The managers rely on the information fed through them via the hierarchal structure of the organization. The real image of a good employee could be compromised through the indirect information thorough his or her superiors. This often leads to distrust among employees and managers. (c) Work load is often not well defined. Similarly, the schedule of activities frequently changes which leads to extra pressure on the employees for meeting the sharp deadlines. There is no proper method to assess the work load. Work load contains a large number of activities which are either not considered in the annual appraisal or given much lesser weightage as compared to the volume of work. The employee is overstressed through extra burden of work without appropriate compensation. (d) There is a very formal culture for interacting with the institutional leadership, which leads to communication gaps. (e) Managers can not feel the pains of their employees. Employees feel like being treated as typical wage workers rather than a part of the organization. (f) Powers are not delegated to lower level. (g) Goals are not defined objectively. (h) There is a lack of accountability. (i) There is a lack of financial security. (j) There is an excessive political interference in institutions.
1.2. Actions Required (i) The top management should come from within organization, who can understand the culture, environment, issues, resources and dynamics of the organization. (ii) The organization must have clear and measurable goals effectively communicated to all lines of employees. (iii) There must be a closed loop self-assessment mechanism to evaluate the current status against the goal and objectives with an effective mechanism for accountability and corrective measures to get any forward momentum. (iv) Ideally there must be zero political interference. If it cannot be stopped completely, it must be minimized. The organization must strictly follow “Educate, attain and retain knowledge worker” policy.
Page 5 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
1.3. Resources Required (A) The organization needs funds to provide incentives to its employees and attract knowledge workers as well as for their training. (B) The organization needs better human resources and their proper training.
Section 3 - Strategic Sustainability Planning at UET Strategic Sustainability Planning at UET Marriott Hotel, Islamabad, Pakistan - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm
a. Workshop/Training Summary: Approximately 12 faculty and staff from UET attended this day-long training program that focused on the ability to strategically plan the sustainment of the Center of Excellence in Energy at UET.
b. Workshop/Training Purpose or Objective(s): Task 6 of the USPCAS-E program addresses the need for a strategic and tactical plan to lead the Centers into a “Sustainable” future. The Strategic Planning and Execution Training planned for both universities addresses key planning issues to make the Centers successful. The desired training outcomes are as follows: o Establish a modern understanding of strategic planning principles for sustaining “start-up” ventures. o Establish a modern understanding of world-class execution methods for sustaining “start-up” ventures. o Develop with each Center leadership the Goals for 2019 and the Execution plans necessary to achieve these goals. o Develop how resources will be obtained as the USAID funding diminishes. o Develop how contributions to the Pakistani energy issues create value. o Create a Sustainability Strategic Plan framework for each Center.
The training methodology will be one of “active learning” ~ a technique championed at ASU to accomplish the greatest comprehension by the attendees. The agenda for this training is as follows:
Time Topics Delivered 0900 Welcome by the USPCAS-E Host and Introductions 0915 Introduction to Academic Strategic Planning • What is strategic planning? • Michael Porter’s foundation for strategic planning. • A complete review of an academic start plan process and result 0935 The Academic Strategic Planning Model 0945 Exercise #1 – The Environmental Scan • SWOT for the Center • Strategic Gap Analysis using the VSAT 1030 BREAK with VSAT Data Input 1045 • Prioritization of the Gaps 1115 Exercise #2 – Establishing the Strategic Metrics – KPI’s 1145 Exercise #3 – Mission and Vision Refinement 1230 Lunch
Page 6 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
1400 Exercise #4 – The Strategic Goals of the Center – the “What’s” • Internal Goals ; External Goals 1500 Exercise #5 – Strategies for Each Goal – How can we achieve the What’s? 1600 Exercise #6 – Creating the Game Plan – A two month and a one-year master plan 1630 Closure c. Discussions and Activities: The Active Learning methodology is a great way to get the audience engaged. As can be seen in the agenda we had planned on conducting six full exercises. Due to time, some of these were condensed but all were addressed and actions were taken by the teams to develop the goal and strategy statements in detail. d. Case Studies/Success Stories/Voices from the Participants (if any): We began the session listening to Michael Porter talk about “What is Strategy”. This was a great ice breaker as many of the participants had not done strategic planning before. We also used external videos to address key issues like ~ “What is a Unique Value Proposition?” and “How to do a SWOT”. e. Results or Output: The agenda above highlights six, rigorous, data-driven exercises. To do this in a day was achieved but reflection and actions after the training are required to leave with a strategic sustainability plan. After formally introducing the closed-loop strategic planning format, the first real exercise was to create a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) for the Center. The results can be seen below. f. SWOT Strengths: Weaknesses: • World class labs and infra – no competitors • Don’t have integration of resources • Good HR • Weakness of where going and how get there • Good Infrastructure • Question on quality of educ providing • Soft Branding • Technical point of view • Timely establishment • Limited alumni point of view • Good government linkages, policy • Less security • Some research $$’s • Few senior faculty • Public-sector center • Accreditation issue evolves from fact needs • Geographic location • Sustainability of the Center • Missing the historical perspective (new) • Availability of Foreign Expiates to university Opportunities: Threats: • Future energy needs of Pak • Financial sustainability • Good energy resources • Tangible Branding • Need energy research • Intellectual sustainability of the Center • Have CPEC and BRI • Sustaining the technical people • Have no real competition • Job security • External funding available • Policies and Procedures taking time • Real commercialization opportunities • Loss of good students • Have the ASU brand • Lack scholarships / lack of financial support • Access to local market • Internal competition for resources • Quality of Education • Political interference • Consultancy services
We then discussed in detail where UET needed to focus its attention and conducted a second exercise to formally identify the strategic gaps faced by the Center. These results are also shown below.
Page 7 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
Pareto Distribution of "Value*Gap" for Overall Leadership
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0 Actual Value*Gap Actual
2.0
-
2.2 Teaching Load2.5 TA Availability 1.10 Journal Outputs 1.12 Research Impact 3.2 Internal Leadership 4.6 Faculty Governance 1.11 Journal Leadership 4.7 Faculty Contributions
3.5 Ph.D.4.4 Graduate Everyone Placement Knows the Goals 2.6 Student Success Measurable 1.2 Research Needs Disseminated 2.3 Faculty Teaching Collaboration
1.6 MS Student Magnet and Placement 2.1 Accreditation Expectations Fully Met 4.5 University Support for New Initiatives 1.8 MS Student Funding and Availability 1.1 Brand Image Enhancement Initiatives 4.1 Clear1.7 Communication Ph.D. Student Magnet Channels and Exist Placement1.9 Ph.D. Student Funding and Availability 3.1 External Professional Assoc. Leadership 2.4 Plan of Study and Course Collab.1.4 with Research ... Funding Adequately Available 3.4 Exec. Ed. And External Outlets exploited… 4.3 Collaborative Environment cross-functionally1.3 Centers4.2 Collaborative of Excellence Environment Defined and withGrowing Department 1.5 Funding Opportunities Clearly Disseminated
Strategic Value Streams
With only a dozen participants not all gaps could be addressed; however, we were able to form three teams to address the five highest priorities. These GOALS were:
- FINANCIAL STABILITY: Achieving external funding / internal financial stability, Exhaust government channels for policy making, Target industry for research funding, enhance role of ORIC, Provide consultancy svc
- BRANDING: Develop the Center Brand, Achieve collab with international R&D comm.
- RESEARCH AND DEVELOP: Utilize the facilities / Res Utilization, Mobilization of resources
- ATTAIN AND RETAIN KW: Retain Professional knowledge workers
- QUALITY EDUCATION: Accredited quality education, Produce well-rounded intellectuals
Each of these Goals is being developed by a team of professionals at UET. Follow-up is recommended.
Page 8 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report g. Trainer’s/Facilitator’s Key Notes
Bottom line for these training sessions is that the participants walked away knowing how to lead and how to strategize. To expect complete strategic plans in one day is not feasible; however, the enthusiasm was there for the participants to follow-up in their teams. The facilitator HIGHLY recommends someone do a follow-up in the next two months to ensure that the planning started at the training sessions is actually being accomplished.
Section 4 - Strategic Sustainability Planning at NUST Strategic Sustainability Planning at NUST NUST, Islamabad, Pakistan Thursday, March 21, 2019 from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm
a. Workshop/Training Summary: Approximately 20 faculty and staff from NUST attended this day long training program that focused on the ability to strategically plan the sustainment of the Center of Excellence in Energy at NUST.
b. Workshop/Training Purpose or Objective(s): Task 6 of the USPCAS-E Program addresses the need for a strategic and tactical plan to lead the Centers into a “Sustainable” future. The Strategic Planning and Execution Training planned for both universities addresses key planning issues to make the Centers successful. The desired training outcomes are as follows: o Establish a modern understanding of strategic planning principles for sustaining “start-up” ventures. o Establish a modern understanding of world-class execution methods for sustaining “start-up” ventures. o Develop with each Center leadership the Goals for 2019 and the Execution plans necessary to achieve these goals. o Develop how resources will be obtained as the USAID funding diminishes. o Develop how contributions to the Pakistani energy issues create value. o Create a Sustainability Strategic Plan framework for each Center.
The training methodology will be one of “active learning” ~ a technique championed at ASU to accomplish the greatest comprehension by the attendees.
Page 9 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
The agenda for this training is as follows:
Time Topics Delivered 0900 Welcome by the USPCAS-E Host and Introductions 0915 Introduction to Academic Strategic Planning • What is strategic planning? • Michael Porter’s foundation for strategic planning. • A complete review of an academic start plan process and result 0935 The Academic Strategic Planning Model 0945 Exercise #1 – The Environmental Scan • SWOT for the Center • Strategic Gap Analysis using the VSAT 1030 BREAK with VSAT Data Input 1045 • Prioritization of the Gaps 1115 Exercise #2 – Establishing the Strategic Metrics – KPI’s 1145 Exercise #3 – Mission and Vision Refinement 1230 Lunch 1400 Exercise #4 – The Strategic Goals of the Center – the “What’s” • Internal Goals • External Goals 1500 Exercise #5 – Strategies for Each Goal – • How can we achieve the What’s? 1600 Exercise #6 – Creating the Game Plan • A two month and a one-year master plan 1630 Closure
c. Discussions and Activities: The Active Learning methodology is a great way to get the audience engaged. As can be seen in the agenda we had planned on conducting six full exercises. Due to time some of these were condensed but all were addressed and actions were taken by the teams to develop the goal and strategy statements in detail.
d. Case Studies/Success Stories/Voices from the Participants (if any): We began the session listening to Michael Porter talk about “What is Strategy”. This was a great ice breaker as many of the participants had not done strategic planning before. We also used external videos to address key issues like ~ “What is a Unique Value Proposition?” and “How to do a SWOT”.
e. Results and Output: The agenda above highlights six, rigorous, data-driven exercises. To do this in a day was achieved but reflection and actions after the training are required to leave with a strategic sustainability plan. After formally introducing the closed-loop strategic planning format, the first real exercise was to create a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) for the Center. The results can be seen below.
Page 10 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
f. SWOT
Strengths: Weaknesses: • NUST is the hub • Weak Info Flow • People power • Bureaucratic Delays • Industry Linkage • Lack of Enabling Environment • Government Linkage • Structural Limitations • Technical Support • Lack of Commercial initiative • Brand Image • Poor Information Flow • Lab Equipment • Lack of measurable KPI’s • Strategic Location • TRUST
Opportunities: Threats: • CPEC • SILO’s • Industry Growth with many opport’s • Retention of Talent (Brain Drain) • Capacity to link strategically with industry • Sustainability and government • How be on the leading edge • Energy crisis / transformation with • Drain on financial resources government agreement • Phase out of ASU : Financial and • Center resources technical • Alumni exploit
We then discussed in detail where NUST needed to focus its attention and conducted a second exercise to formally identify the strategic gaps faced by the Center. These results are also shown below.
Pareto Distribution of "Value*Gap" for Overall Leadership
9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Actual Value*Gap Actual 1.0 -
2.5 TA Availability 1.10 Journal Outputs 1.12 Research Impact 3.2 Internal Leadership 4.6 Faculty Governance1.11 Journal Leadership 3.3 Hosting Key Events 4.7 Faculty Contributions
4.4 Everyone Knows the Goals 3.5 Ph.D. Graduate Placement 2.6 Student Success Measurable 1.2 Research Needs Disseminated 2.3 Faculty Teaching Collaboration
1.8 MS Student Funding and Availability 1.6 MS Student Magnet and Placement 4.5 University Support for New Initiatives 4.1 Clear Communication Channels Exist 1.9 Ph.D. Student Funding and Availability 1.7 Ph.D. Student Magnet and Placement 1.1 Brand Image Enhancement Initiatives 3.1 External Professional Assoc. Leadership1.4 Research Funding Adequately Available 2.4 Plan of Study and Course Collab. with ... 4.8 Department Culture Conducive to Success 3.4 Exec. Ed. And External Outlets exploited… 4.3 Collaborative Environment cross-functionally 1.5 Funding1.3 Centers Opportunities of 4.2Excellence CollaborativeClearly DefinedDisseminated Environment and Growing with Department Strategic Value Streams
Page 11 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
The exercises then continued with listing the prioritized gaps that fell into two categories ~ those that are internal that can be controlled and those that are external that need support and we must influence. These are:
Internal Gaps External Gaps • BRAND: communicating our brand • ADMINISTRATION: streamlining the • LEAD: the role of leadership Center operation, addressing structural • TALENT: the internal investment in limitations, addressing the talent, grad student availability communication gap, addressing the lack • REVENUE: maintaining the cash flow as of involvement of policy makers USAID wanes • TIME: freeing the researcher’s time to do • POLICY: developing a means to impact research policy implementation • IAB: activate the IAB in order to get the • CURRICULUM: achieving curric. implicit industry support Feedback and skill set alignment • IP: access the core legal skills of the • RESEARCH ENGINE: how do we become university the dominant force behind the energy transformation
With only a dozen participants not all gaps could be addressed; however, we were able to form three teams to address the highest priorities. These are:
Team 1 - Research Engine and Talent Educate / Attain / Retain
Team 2 - Curriculum and IAB
Team 3 - Leadership and Revenue
Section 5 is an example of one of the team reports addressing the creation of a research engine strategy and the educate / attain / retain talent strategy.
g. Trainer’s/Facilitator’s Key Notes (also including recommendations if any, for any improvements i.e. methodology, material, duration, logistics etc. for future trainings based on current training experience and participant’s feedback) Bottom line for these training sessions is that the participants walked away knowing how to lead and how to strategize. To expect complete strategic plans in one day is not feasible; however, the enthusiasm was there for the participants to follow-up in their teams. The facilitator HIGHLY recommends someone do a follow-up in the next two months to ensure that the planning started at the training sessions is actually being accomplished.
Page 12 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
Section 5 – First Team Report Addressing Center Strategic Sustainability from NUST
Preamble
This report is in response to the assignment given during the USPCAS-E Sustainability training course at Islamabad, Pakistan.
Goals assigned for development of Strategies, measures and resources required:
- Goal 1: Research Engine - Goal 2: Talent availability
Measurable Objectives
Goal 1
1. Number of new research areas (groups) added per year: One for first two years, two per year from year 3 and onwards. 2. Minimum 60 percent of our graduates to be employed in the first year after graduating. 3. Percentage of research projects ready for commercialization: Minimum 25 percent by the end of every year. 4. Addition of at least two industrial partners per year for first two years, three per year from year 3 and onwards.
Goal 2
1. Number of Research Assistantships (RAs) available should be sufficient to attract at least 30 – 35 percent of top graduate students (on completion of their studies). 2. Research Assistant’s satisfaction survey to indicate that 70 percent of RAs have more than 80 percent satisfaction level. 3. Turnover of RAs should be less than 25 percent per annum.
Development of strategies
For Goal 1
1-1: Aspire to become one stop solution provider in the area of energy management, using inter- disciplinary skills and strategic partnering. Suggested research areas/ groups are;
a) Policy Planning (Energy mix etc.) b) Energy Management Systems (Conservation etc.)
Page 13 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
c) Environmental Sustainability (Energy storage, carbon sequestration – using coal in an environment friendly manner.) d) Smart Grid Technologies
1-2: Development of skilled human resource (will be taken care of in Goal 2).
1-3: Strengthening & commercialization of labs/ facilities.
1-4: Development of Faculty/ Student Exchange programs.
For Goal 2
2-1: To attract & retain high quality human resource as Assistants/ Associates.
2-2: Monthly remuneration of research personal to be t par with the market salary.
2-3: Flexibility in the hiring process
2-4: Facilitating approval process for attending seminars/ workshops and for procurement of technical equipment.
2-5: Prior availability of funds with the Center for timely disbursement.
Resources Required
For Goal 1
a) Upgradation/ development of new labs/ facilities b) Availability of funds for Travel grant, honorarium and local hospitality c) Conduct of open House/ job fairs etc. d) Joint conduct of seminars/ workshops with Industrial partners.
For Goal 2
a) Funds availability for initial hiring, continuity and boarding / lodging of skilled resource. b) Funds for conduct of ancillary actions like open house/ job fairs etc. c) Special grants for unforeseen/ unplanned but strategic initiatives.
Page 14 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
Annex 1 - Participant Feedback
A. Summary
ASU conducted a training on “Leadership in Higher Education” in Islamabad March 18-21, 2019. The training was conducted by Dr. Dan Shunk, an ASU professor and leadership researcher and consultant. The training was attended by 44 participants including six females from NUST and UET. The first two days were for all participants, followed by one day each for UET staff and NUST staff to discuss their specific sustainability plans. Following table provides participant’ details.
Institution/University Participants Male Female Total NUST 27 6 33 UET Peshawar 11 0 11 Total 38 6 44
B. Participants’ feedback
Post-Workshop feedback form was circulated at the end of workshop. A total of 13 participants completed feedback form and their responses analyzed. This data was collected to identify areas of improvements and assess the participant’s satisfaction on following areas:
• Logistical Arrangements • Instructional Methodology & Contents • Facilitator/s support, time management, and • Overall satisfaction and usefulness of workshops
In addition to Likert scale responses, participants provided written comments and suggestion against the open-ended question.
Participants suggestions how these workshops could be improved:
• The training was really useful to inculcate leadership qualities. The trainer may have put more focus on limitation we face here in our country. • This was an exceptional training very patient and useable. • Very smooth flow of workshop. The methodology used was interactive and encouraged participation to the highest level. The output of the workshop was commendable. • My only suggestion is to make the content contextual as some things are not applicable everywhere. Moreover, external factors such as culture, should consider for future trainings. • Would be happy to have more such trainings.
Page 15 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
• The workshop was very useful and well managed. • Very useful workshop. • More participants from USPCAS-E should have participated in the workshop.
Following are the findings from the participants’ feedback on four specific areas:
1. Logistic Arrangements
Participant satisfaction with logisttics 62% participants strongly agree and 38% agree that the workshop arrangements met 100 their expectations. 90 80 100% participants showed satisfaction with 70 100 100 100 100 60 the fact that the workshop was well-paced 50 40 within the allotted time. 30 20 100% responded that the workshop venue was 10 0 comfortable and well located. The workshop The workshop The workshop The arrangements was well paced venue was refreshments met my within the comfortable and and food 100% participants said refreshments and food expectations. allotted time. well located. provided were adequate. provided were adequate.
2. Workshop Instruction
Additional reading materials/handouts 92% participants agreed that the instructions given were useful. given were consistent with the stated objectives. No comments , 15 100% participants agreed that the teaching methods were appropriate for the subject Disagree/Strongly Disagree, 8 matter.
Similarly, 100% respondents said that the Strongly agree/Agree, 77 contents of the instruction were relevant and appropriate.
77% participants said the material/handouts
Page 16 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
3. Workshop Facilitation
THE FACILITATOR GAVE CLEAR 100% participants said that the facilitator was EXPLANATIONSNo commentsOF THE TOPICS. knowledgeable on the topic. , 8 92% participants agreed that the facilitator gave clear explanations of the topics.
Another 100% respondents said that the facilitator was able to engage the participants.
Strongly 92% participants were of the opinion that the agree/Agree facilitator utilized the time effectively whereas 8% participants did not comment on this.
4. Overall Satisfaction
The learning outcome will be advantageous to my role. 92% respondents felt that the workshop met its planned objectives whereas 8% had shown no opinion. 15 No comments 92% participants said that the workshop enhanced their professional expertise 0 Disagree/Strongly Disagree whereas 8% did not comment.
Similarly, 85% respondents said that the 85 Strongly agree/Agree learning outcomes of the workshop will be advantageous to their role. The remaining 0 20 40 60 80 100 15% did not comment on this.
Page 17 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
Photo Gallery
Dan Shunk explains management and leadership Participants engage in group work
Day 3 session with UET faculty and staff Day 3 session with NUST faculty and staff
Training video highlights: https://vimeo.com/326730053
Page 18 of 19
Leadership Training and Strategic Sustainability Workshop Report
Annex 2 - Participant list
Sr.No Name of Participant Gender Designation Organization/Institution 1 Fawad Kashan Male Industrial Liaison Officer USPCASE NUST 2 Dr. Hina Kazmi Female Deputy Director USPCAS-E NUST 3 Dr. Ume Laila Female Assistant Professor S3H, NUST 4 Dr. Khurram Yaqub Male Assistant Professor SCME, NUST 5 Dr. Majid Ali Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 6 Dr. Bilal Niazi Male Assistant Professor Associate Professor, HoD Chemical Eng. 7 Fariha Khan Female Program Coordinator USPCAS-E NUST 8 Dr. Khurshid Ahmad Male Assistant Professor USPCASE UET Peshawar 9 Tanvir Ahmed Male Assistant Professor USPCASE UET Peshawar 10 Abdul Basit Male Assistant Professor USPCASE UET Peshawar 11 Zuhr Khan Male Project Director USPCASE NUST 12 Dr. Abdul Shakoor Male Professor/Director ORIC UET Peshawar 13 Dr. Khalid Akhtar Male Associate Professor NUST 14 Dr. Amjad Naseer Male Professor UET Peshawar 15 Saad Al Marwat Male Assistant Professor NUST 16 Siraj ul Islam Male Professor UET Peshawar 17 Dr. Ammar Mushtaq Male Assistant Professor RCMS, NUST 18 Dr. Mudassir Iqbal Male Assistant Professor NUST 19 Dr. Muhammad Qasim Male Assistant Professor SNS, NUST 20 Dr. Syed Rizwan Hussain Male Associate Professor SNS, NUST 21 Dr. Muhammad Tahir Male Associate Professor ASAB, NUST 22 Dr Arshad Hussain Male Assistant Professor NUST 23 Dr. Muhammad Zubair Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 24 Dr. Adeel Javed Male Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST 25 Dr. Shahid Maqsood Male Professor UET Peshawar 26 Dr. Naseem Iqbal Male HOD/ Asst. Professor USPCAS-E NUST 27 Dr. Hammad M. Cheema Male HOD/Asst. Professor RIMMS, NUST 28 Dr. Farid Gul Male Head of Department SEECS, NUST 29 Dr. Fahad Javed Male HOD/Asst. Prof SEECS, NUST 30 Dr Asad Ali Shah Male Asst. Professor/HoD CS SEECS, NUST 31 Najam-ul-Qadir Male Assistant Professor SMME, NUST 32 Dr. Shehzad Saleem Male Assistant Professor SEECS, NUST 33 Dr Asad Mumtaz Male Assistant Professor SNS, NUST 34 Jawwad Zaidi Male Assistant Professor SADA NUST 35 Shahzaib Rao Male Lecturer SADA NUST 36 Dr Syed Muhammad Ali Male Director and Professor UET Peshawar 37 Javeria Karim Female Grants Coordinator USPCAS-E NUST 38 Arsalan Ahmed Male Assistant Professor SEECS, NUST 39 Dr Ishaq Ahmad Male Director QEC UET Peshawar 40 Aamir Sikander Male Assistant Professor UET Peshawar 41 Altaf Hussain Male Assistant Professor UET Peshawar 42 Hassan Raza Male Communication Specialist USPCASE NUST 43 Nadia Shahzad Female Assistant Professor USPCASE NUST 44 Dr Rabia Liaqat Female Assistant Professor USPCAS-E NUST
Page 19 of 19
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy
Assessing support extended from Arizona State University (ASU) to U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E) stakeholders
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by: Jawad Ali, PhD; Arjumand Nizami, PhD
Submitted to: USAID/Pakistan
Submitted on: March 2019
Cooperative Agreement No: AID-391-A-15-0001
This report has been produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It has been prepared by Jawad Ali, PhD and Arjumand Nizami, PhD for Arizona State University. The authors’ views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
1 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ACRONYMS
AEDB Alternate Energy Development Board
ASU Arizona State University
CAS Center for Advanced Studies
ESE Energy Systems Engineering
GoP Government of Pakistan Higher Education Commission of Pakistan / Department in KHYBER HEC / D PAKHTUNKHWA
JRP Joint Research Project
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LoP Life of Project
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NEECA National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
NUST National University of Sciences and Technology
OSU Oregon State University
PC-1 Project Cycle – 1 Form
PI Principal Investigator
PPP Public Private Partnership
PMU Project Management Unit
ToRs Terms of Reference
UET University of Engineering and Technology - Peshawar
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USPCAS-E U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy
2 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 7 1.2 UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS’ MAP WITH RESPECT TO ASU SUPPORT ...... 8 2. ASSESSING KEY SUPPORT AREAS – TARGETS AND ACHIEVEMENTS ...... 10 3. RELEVANCE OF ASU SUPPORT ...... 11 3.1 HARNESSING COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES OF USPCAS-E AT UET AND NUST ...... 11 3.2 REMAINING RELEVANT IN EVOLVING CONTEXT ...... 11 3.3 RELEVANCE TO GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND NEEDS...... 12 3.4 RELEVANCE TO NUST AND UET ...... 13 3.5 OVERALL RATING BY INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS ON RELEVANCE ...... 13 4. EFFECTIVENESS OF ASU SUPPORT...... 14 4.1 STRENGTHENING GOVERNANCE ...... 14 4.1.1 USPCAS-E AT UET PESHAWAR ...... 15 4.1.2 USPCAS-E AT NUST ...... 16 4.2 CURRICULUM REFORM ...... 17 4.3 RESEARCH ...... 18 4.3.1 JOINT RESEARCH ...... 19 4.3.2 APPLIED RESEARCH ...... 19 4.3.3 LABORATORY FACILITIES ...... 19 4.3.4 RATING OF RESEARCH BY STAKEHOLDERS ...... 20 4.3.5 NETWORKING AND LINKAGES ...... 20 4.3.6 RATING OF NETWORKING BY THE STAKEHOLDERS ...... 21 4.4 KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE AND COLLABORATION ...... 22 4.4.1. UET AND NUST FACULTY AND PMU PERSPECTIVE ...... 22 4.4.2. UET/NUST STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE ...... 23 4.5 SUSTAINABILITY ...... 23 4.5.1. OWNERSHIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT ...... 24 4.5.2. ABILITY TO GENERATE AND RAISE REVENUES ...... 25 4.5.3. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION ...... 26
3 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
4.5.4. JOBS PROSPECTS FOR PCASE GRADUATES ...... 27 5. OVERALL SATISFACTION ON ADEQUACY OF ASU SUPPORT ...... 28 6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT...... 30 6.1 OVERALL ...... 31 6.2 CONCLUSION ON FIVE SUPPORT COMPONENTS (SCALE 1-5)...... 31 6.2.1 GOVERNANCE ...... 31 6.2.2 CURRICULUM REFORMS ...... 31 6.2.3 RESEARCH...... 32 6.2.4 EXCHANGE...... 32 6.2.5 SUSTAINABILITY ...... 32 7. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33 7.1 FOR THE REMAINING LIFE OF PROJECT...... 33 7.2 FOR FUTURE REPLICATION OF SIMILAR INITIATIVES ELSEWHERE ...... 33 ANNEXES ...... 34 ANNEX 1: WORK PLAN FOR THE ASSIGNMENT ...... 35 ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF SUPPORT COMPONENTS FROM ASU ...... 36 ANNEX 3: PEOPLE AND EXPERTS MET AND CONSULTED ...... 41 ANNEX 4: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ...... 43 ANNEX 5: SURVEY TOOL: SEMI STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE KIIS / FGDS CHECKLIST ...... 44
4 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by Arizona State University (ASU) to assess ASU’s support provided to newly established Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy at two Pakistani Universities – National University of Sciences and Technology Islamabad (NUST) and University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (UET). The Centers were designed by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support Pakistan’s economic development by strengthening the capacity of Pakistani universities to respond to changing public and private sector needs for applied research and skilled graduates in the energy sector. The project is funded by the United States Agency for International Development.
The main objective of this study was to assess success of the project in achieving desired results and satisfaction of the stakeholders. The support by ASU to the two Centers was provided in five key areas - Governance, Curriculum Development and Reform, Exchange and Scholarship programs, Research, and Sustainability of the Centers. The study ascertained success of the project on five parameters - relevance, timeliness, quality, efficiency and sustainability of the interventions. The multiple stakeholders involved by the project have been presented on a matrix for interest and influence. The study has taken all types of stakeholders’ observations for analyzing the quality of work undertaken by ASU.
In total 51 stakeholders were interviewed including 24 students through Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews and brief workshops.
The results of this study indicate that the support provided by ASU in all five key areas was successful and highly effective. The relevance, timeliness, quality, efficiency and sustainability were measured on a scale of 1-5 (1 being lowest and 5 being highest). The aggregate results show that the rating for overall effectiveness of various parameters was rated 4 and higher than 4. The overall satisfaction on adequacy of support in all the 5 components was assessed on a scale 1-3 (3 being highest). 78% of the total 51 respondents interviewed rated their satisfaction at the highest level whereas 22% rated for medium. Interestingly, both the Centers located at two different universities, 200 kilometers apart and in two different socio-political contexts rated the support at almost the same level indicating that ASU had shown significant flexibility to adjust its support to the needs of both the Centers.
The stakeholders also identified areas for improvement if similar projects are implemented in future. The study makes conclusion and recommendations taking this feedback into consideration.
5 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
This study was commissioned by Arizona State University (ASU) to assess ASU’s support provided to newly established Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy at two Pakistani Universities – National University of Sciences and Technology Islamabad (NUST) and University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (UET). ASU support to these Centers were provided under a Cooperative Agreement between ASU and USAID - ‘Cooperative Agreement No. AID-391-A-15-00001. The study ascertains whether this support has been helpful in achieving desired results to the satisfaction of the stakeholders involved.
The USPCAS-E is part of a larger project co-designed by USAID and the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) known as the Centers for Advanced Studies (CAS). The purpose of this project is to support Pakistan’s economic development by strengthening the capacity of Pakistani universities to respond to high priority sectors’ needs by gaining excellence in applied research, producing skilled graduates and forge public-private partnerships and networks to bring forward-looking knowledge of academia, government, business community and sector specialists together. Under this project, 4 Centers were established at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Sind (Water), Agriculture University Faisalabad, Punjab (Food Security), National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad (Energy) and University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar (Energy). To support the two energy Centers at NUST and UET, USAID has signed three independent agreements with ASU, NUST and UET. The total US$ 48 million financial allocation by USAID to support the two Centers was distributed as follows: - Arizona State University: USD 18.8 million1 - National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) Islamabad: USD 14.9 million2 - University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Peshawar: USD 14.9 million3
The Cooperative Agreement of USAID for ASU support to USPCAS-E states the following: • Deliver relevant and innovative research to meet the needs of clients (industry, civil society, government) • Improve USPCAS-E curriculum relevance and quality, strengthen the use of effective teaching methods, and upgrade graduate degree and certificate programs and research facilities • Strengthen engagement between USPCAS-E universities and stakeholders to support optimal linkages between supply and demand for USPCAS-E research, policy engagement and skilled graduates • Increase access for talented, economically and/or culturally disadvantaged students, to high quality educational opportunities in the disciplines of food security/agriculture, energy and water • Establish governance structures, fundraising and other elements of administrative capacity to support USPCAS-E sustainability at each university
1 Page 3, Cooperative Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University 2 Page 26, Cooperative Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University 3 Page 26, Cooperative Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University
6 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
The USPCAS-E project success was hinged on leadership extended by HEC in furthering the need, objectives, and rationale for USPCAS-E as well as the institutional leadership emerging at each USPCAS-E university partners. The USAID expected that by the fifth year of program implementation, each Center will have established sustainable and productive partnerships with each other, their American partner university (ASU in this case), and diverse public-private stakeholders. In summary, the support extended by ASU has aimed at multi-stakeholders including the community of NUST and UET, Higher Education Commission (HEC), private sector and the government.
The USPCAS-E at NUST and UET are producing skilled graduates as well as the applied research needed to advance the energy sector in Pakistan. Through this partnership, ASU is leveraging its expertise to help Pakistan harness its enormous potential in energy sector for economic growth through its universities. This assessment was cognizant of the contextual changes and it is reflected also in most of the interviews conducted with external stakeholders. Despite that CAS projects and ASU support were conceptualized in 2014 when some of these changes were yet to take place, the stakeholders analyzed effectiveness of USPCAS-E initiatives and ASU support with respect to the recent changes in the context (see chapter 3 for more detail).
This study evaluates desired result of the support provided by ASU under the Cooperative Agreement to support UET and NUST. The study objective was to assess ASU support provided to both partners universities under various components and other stakeholders as per agreed terms. Also, to what extent the support was helpful/useful in implementation of project activities, achieving desired results and, their satisfaction with this support.
1.1 METHODOLOGY
Four data collection methods were used in this study:
1. Review of documents provided by ASU and independently accessed by evaluation team. 2. Bilateral / key informant interviews: Such interviews were conducted with senior members of stakeholder institutions and the individuals in leading positions. Three different checklists4 for interviews were used for various stakeholders due to the type of group activities. These checklists were meant to provide a guideline for the interviews and were slightly tailored to the knowledge/expertise/position of the respondent by selecting questions relevant to the person/people being interviewed. It was not deemed necessary to ask every question to everyone. 3. Focus group discussions / interviews: Stakeholders with similar level of engagement and shared interests were interviewed through this tool (e.g. faculty, staff, students, exchange groups), while necessary faculty were also interviewed individually.
4 One each for the senior management staff, external stakeholders and students.
7 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
4. Mini workshops: This approach was useful for discussion with the students5. The two workshops (one each at UET and NUST, two hours each) helped exposing participants with provocative questions leading to understand quality and relevance of this support followed by plenary discussion on lessons learned.
The documents provided by ASU are listed in Annex 4; the checklists of questions taken up with the stakeholders are documented in Annex 5. During the meeting with ASU staff, some of the additional observations, concerns and open questions were noted and kept in mind during the assessment: 1. How to bridge the two distant actors: Corporate sector demand where energy technology eventually lands, and academia (namely the two host universities). 2. Gender integration has been expected by ASU and USAID with at least 50% female representation in project activities (scholarships, exchange, enrolment etc.), which is ambitious. 3. What is the perceived level of demand in the job market for the students graduating from these centers with Masters’ degrees in specialized fields? 4. Based on ground realities, there have been crucial instances where adaptive planning became imperative and ASU / Project Management Units (PMU) had to adjust their support towards partner universities. How flexible and yet suitable was this support, merits analysis. 5. Defining sustainability seems to be a challenge and dependent on several external factors – therefore assessment needs to focus on adequacy of ASU support only.
In total, 51 individuals were interviewed for this study. The respondents of the study were identified in close collaboration with ASU team in Pakistan. These included internal and external stakeholders (see Annex 3 – list of respondents consulted) to explore multiple questions, leading the evaluators to assess the overall satisfaction level towards ASU support.
1.2 UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS’ MAP WITH RESPECT TO ASU SUPPORT
The USPCAS-E is founded on networking with a wide range of stakeholders. ASU shared their understanding of the stakeholders involved. Internal stakeholders include UET and NUST faculty and students. External stakeholders include HEC, industries, government officials, donors’ community and others interested in energy sector. This analysis may be useful as a departure point for this study. It is important to see the stakeholders in perspective of their influence, interest and institutional position to ascertain where the support has impacted the most. A stakeholders’ analysis was conducted separately for UET and NUST placing just a few selected stakeholders on the interest-influence matrix to capture an idea.
5 The students interviewed came from Peshawar and Islamabad where the CASs were located and also from Swabi, South Waziristan, Shangla, Kashmir, Lakki Marwat, Sialkot, Quetta, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi, Jhelum and Lahore.
8 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
High interest Low interest
Influence 1 2 High Vice Chancellor / Rector of the two universities Faculties and staff at both universities Principal USPCAS-E NUST PMU staff USPCAS-E UET (project-based actor) PMU staff USPCAS-E NUST (project-based actor) USAID Influence 3 4 Low Higher Education Commission Islamabad National independent energy experts Higher Education Department KHYBER Sub-national industrial ministries / chambers PAKHTUNKHWA Pakistan Council of Renewable Energy Relevant faculties in USPCAS-E UET / NUST Technologies (PCRET) Students at USPCAS-E UET / NUST Distant industries Industries in KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, Islamabad, Other universities offering similar research Rawalpindi services National Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority Alternate Energy Development Board Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA Energy Development Organization (PEDO)
1. Stakeholders (mostly internal) who offer their maximum time, interest and influence to ensure sustainability of ultimate desired outcomes of this project. 2. Stakeholders highly important to be engaged due to their high influence – USPCAS-E at both places need to acquire a level of excellence so that actors start seeing their direct stake in USPCAS-E sustainability. 3. Stakeholders who may have high interest and stake but are only indirectly consulted/ engaged. They do not directly influence USPCAS-E decisions. Their involvement is crucial and needs to be enhanced using innovative means and brought to the list of major players. 4. Stakeholders whose interest and influence are marginal in sustaining project results and investing in them is less relevant and may be taken up at a later stage.
Stakeholders may also be analyzed for thematic specializations being addressed by USPCAS-E (e.g. solar, hydro, wind or biomass energy, or with respect to policy, advocacy, governance, curriculum development etc.).
9 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
2. ASSESSING KEY SUPPORT AREAS – TARGETS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
This section covers all five areas of ASU support to USPCAS-E at UET and NUST. The respondents evaluated the question regarding overall judgment on ASU support based on latest progress reports. For analysis, the study team also benefited from additional information provided and observations made by ASU and Project Management Unit (PMU) teams at both the Centers.
a) Sound Governance, pertaining with the establishment of the Center b) Modernized and specialized curriculum development in energy c) Exchange and scholarship programs and new teaching strategies and methods d) Applied and Joint Research Projects, and e) Activities related to the long-term sustainability of the Centers
All the stakeholders interviewed rated the extent of targets achieved by ASU as “mostly achieved” (see chapter 4) and exchange. In addition, 78% respondents from the two PMUs have recorded appreciation for ASU’s ability in adaptive planning and support during the years. Annex 2 provides description of key parameters of the support expected to be provided by ASU and in how far these could be achieved.
On a 1-5 scale (1 lowest and 5 highest) the respondents assessed the overall success in achieving targets as very high (Figure 1). The most striking differences are in exchange and sustainability. The respondents at UET felt that exchange component could be made more successful by addressing certain issues such as timing of students’ exchange visits (after 3rd instead of 2nd semester) and making collaboration closer between students and faculty during exchange visits. In case of sustainability, NUST feels much ahead with its integration into NUST system. However, there are more steps to take in order to become sustainable such as industrial linkages. Some respondents feel that Center at UET can be sustainable if it is made a Center of Excellence governed by its own Board of Directors including members from the private sector, an on-going discussion between the university management and the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. More details on sustainability and exchange in later chapters on relevance and effectiveness.
Figure 1: Ranking by Perceived Success in Implementation of Support from ASU (Scale 1-5)
4.3 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.1
4.4 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.6
Governance Curriculum Research Exchange Sustainability PCASE-UET PCASE-NUST
10 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
3. RELEVANCE OF ASU SUPPORT
3.1 HARNESSING COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES OF USPCAS-E AT UET AND NUST
As per stakeholders’ assessment, there are other elements which distinguish comparative advantages of USPCAS-E initiatives at NUST and UET analyzed in this section. NUST based in Federal Capital Islamabad in a context where national discussions on energy sector are much dominant than specific sub-national issues. Hence federal level policies and institutional development are important for NUST to follow to remain more relevant. It is well placed to attract attention for policy engagement. The industrial climate in the capital city though evolving, is too small in scale when compared to other federating units of Pakistan6, yet NUST is benefited by its location attracting booming private sector in neighborhood industrial cities of Punjab (e.g. Rawalpindi, Gujranwala and Lahore). UET is based at a public sector university located in Peshawar. Due to specific regional location is inclined to innovative, non-traditional energy sources such as bioenergy, solar power and micro-hydel power, but with an adapted scalability for medium and micro levels. The UET will need to consider the mountainous character of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (60% geographical area), rich endowment of water resources in the high mountains, vulnerability to climate risks and extremes and relatively small/medium industrial activity (third largest industrial sector in the country)7, though growing fast along new Industrial Policy 2016. In summary, the stakeholders opined that while NUST intends to specialize in broader energy generation and management research, UET’s focus on renewable and alternative energy sources seems more favorable. The assessment shows that ASU has remained well cognizant of these differences and has tailored match-making efforts with the stakeholders accordingly. At federal level, beside industry, there is more connectivity with actors at the center of energy policy influencing narrative for Pakistan whereas in Peshawar a stronger focus is placed on connecting USPCAS-E with provincial players including government and industry.
3.2 REMAINING RELEVANT IN EVOLVING CONTEXT
The context within which USPCAS-E NUST and UET operate has evolved during the last five years heavily in favor of such specialized centers in Pakistani universities: 1. The political and security landscape of the country has recently witnessed positive signs of stability and recuperation in terms of attracting foreign investments. Therefore, the need for rapid industrialization has gained even more importance to uplift the country, especially in view of providing more jobs to youth.
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pakistani_provinces_by_gross_domestic_product. Accessed 16th February 2019 7 Ibid
11 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
2. The Industry has virtually remained hostage to energy crisis during the last two decades. The country’s demand for energy is expected to rise at the rate of 10-12 percent annually in the foreseeable future. If this rate of increase continues, the demand for energy may well double before the end of 20198. 3. Despite the above-mentioned stress, with improved geo-political situation, increased investment and other support factors, the industrial sector is growing by average 5%9 contributing average 21% to GDP and is a major source of tax revenues. A growing industrial sector is a contextual support for USPCAS-E in both places to thrive with their academic excellence and demand-based research offers. 4. The policy climate regarding energy and related sectors has evolved into much more favorable situation for the objectives of USPCAS-E. The assessment observes that ASU support has harnessed favorable contextual change in favor of USPCAS-E sustainability at both universities. An increasing support from the host government has been harnessed for taking advantage of improved security and policy environment for UET. In case of NUST, linkages with federal institutions (such as NEECA, AEDB) help in remaining relevant to further influence the changing narrative in favor of non-conventional innovative sources of energy for Pakistan’s development.
3.3 RELEVANCE TO GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND NEEDS
Pakistan is undergoing an unprecedented energy crisis. There is a demand and supply shortfall of 8000MW in the country (SDPI 2014). Pakistan has an installed electricity generation capacity of 33,836 MW in 201810. Furnace oil (16%), hydel (27%), Natural gas (12%), LNG (26%), Coal (9%), Renewable (Solar & Wind 5%) and nuclear (5%) are the principal sources. During the next 10 years, peak electricity demand is expected to rise by 1,500 MW. Pakistan imports 400,000 barrels of petroleum products per day which costs approximately $15 billion per year (Abbas 2015). Ever-increasing oil prices in the international market has burdened Pakistani economy. Promoting energy efficiency therefore has been the top agenda of the national governments for the last many years. Promotion of energy takes an important place in all recent major policy documents of Pakistan.
1. National Power Policy 2013 stresses on energy conservation emphasizing on technology standards, power distribution and improving the energy efficiency in existing and new infrastructure. Due to the change in government, the material implementation of this policy began in 2014-15. 2. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Policy 2016 identifies unreliable energy supply as one of the leading challenges faced by industrialization, followed by lack of skilled employees and skills related training. This said, the policy places finding solutions to these challenges at a priority level. At another place, the policy pledges to improve environmental compliance by adopting green technology in multiple sectors. 3. National Energy Efficiency & Conservation Act (NEECA) 2016 is all about promoting energy efficiency and source diversification in Pakistan. The Act resulted in establishment of an Authority (NEECA, re-designated from ENERCON) in Islamabad and provincial chapters.
8 http://blog.pakistaneconomist.com/2018/02/08/industrial-development-pakistan-issues-challenges/ 9 https://www.dawn.com/news/1335386 10 https://www.dawn.com/news/1454888/circular-debt-rises-to-rs755bn-pac-told
12 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
4. Draft National Industry Policy of Pakistan to be announced in June 201911 recommends pragmatic shift in Pakistan’s energy consumption pattern. It states that Pakistan’s energy mix is skewed heavily towards more expensive sources of energy (64% thermal, 33% hydroelectricity). This policy will be a very important development in the context in which USPCAS-E are to strategize their research program. 5. National Energy Policy 2013-18 states that Pakistan will develop the most efficient and consumer centric power generation, transmission, and distribution system that meets the needs of its population and boosts its economy in a sustainable and affordable manner (GoP 2013, 2). 6. National Water Policy 2018 proposes hydropower development to increase the share of renewable energy (GoP 2018, 6). Sustainable water resources development has a close nexus with renewable energy is an important strategic priority of the policy. 7. National Climate Change Policy 2012 devotes an entire chapter on Energy. The Policy further states that energy efficiency improvement, energy conservation and demand reduction provide excellent and cost- effective ways to ensure sufficient energy supply to achieve economic development goals, reduce carbon emissions and achieve climate change mitigation goals (GoP 2012, 24)
3.4 RELEVANCE TO NUST AND UET
Academia has been identified by all the above-mentioned policies as an important stakeholder, especially for conducting demand-based research and produce relevant competences for future leadership. The universities in Pakistan have so far taught disciplinary courses related to energy and technology. Interdisciplinary teaching on energy has been largely missing. Initiation of a masters’ degree on energy therefore is a welcome move. This will open the doors for out of the box thinking on energy solutions in an energy deficient country. The objective of ASU support to developing MSc courses on energy within four streams, (i) Renewable Energy Engineering, (ii) Thermal Energy Engineering, (iii) Electrical Engineering, and, (iv) Energy Management and Policy, fits well within the broader objectives of the establishment of both the universities. The project fits well with the mandates of both the universities, NUST and UET i.e. teach and promote research on engineering and technology subjects. The mission statement of NUST includes to work on environment challenges, “develop NUST as a comprehensive, academic and research-led university with a focus on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship so as to amicably negotiate social, economic and environmental challenges faced by the country”. The UET has been teaching subjects related to energy for years.
3.5 OVERALL RATING BY INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS ON RELEVANCE
Both the internal and external stakeholders were asked to suggest if ASU support to UET and NUST was relevant for applied research, producing skilled graduates, for the industry needs and for the government priorities (Figure 2).
11 https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/04/20/national-industrial-policy-sets-ambitious-target-of-8pc/ accessed 15th February 2019
13 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
Figure 2: Relevance of ASU Support (Highest: 3, Medium: 2, Low: 1)
Perspective of Internal Stakeholders Perspective of External Stakeholders
Demand for applied research in… 2.7 2.8 Producing skilled grads in Energy 2.6 2.2 Relevance to Industry Needs 2.1 2.6 Relevance to University 2.6 2.6 Relevance to Government… 2.7 2.4
As seen in the above graph, the distinguishing feature is the external stakeholders’ tendency for rating relevance to industry needs at a higher level. This shows their interest and faith that such knowledge centers are much needed in the industrial and academic domains. Interestingly, although most of the external actors (e.g. industry) have a low influence on the management of USPCAS-E at both universities (see section 1.4 on stakeholders mapping), they see applied and joint research being conducted in the Centers benefiting them. The government stakeholder interviewed also rated relevance of ASU support high, as a contribution to improving energy situation in the country. The stakeholders however stressed the need to develop the Centers at par with such expectations and demand. The administration of both the universities must take cognizance of the challenges to be faced once USAID support including through ASU ends.
4. EFFECTIVENESS OF ASU SUPPORT
This section analyses effectiveness of ASU support provided to both partner universities with respect to the five components. While analyzing the effectiveness, the study takes account of the background in which the Centers were established so that effectiveness of ASU support is put in context.
4.1 STRENGTHENING GOVERNANCE
ASU has implemented the project in two well established universities with well-developed governing systems. ASU support was implemented in close collaboration with two other USAID-funded projects independently assigned to NUST and UET for establishment of USPCAS-E at each partner university. Therefore, the effectiveness of ASU support, particularly in governance and sustainability, may have greatly been influenced by these factors particularly the well-established governing practices of the two universities. Well-developed institution may sometimes resist change. USPCAS-E are emerging independent and flexible Centers within the overall governing frame of the university. If these Centers are not made independent, they will develop into usual departments of the universities. Therefore, decision-making regarding future governance of the Centers at
14 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
NUST and UET while the USAID-funded projects are still around for support, is crucial for these Centers to develop as originally envisaged by the HEC and USAID.
4.1.1 USPCAS-E AT UET PESHAWAR The students at USPCAS-E UET come from remote areas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with humble backgrounds. They often lack opportunities to further increase their technical competences highly required in uplifting province and bringing it back to the progressive path. The USPCASE UET was established in 2015. It could not go off the ground till 2017 when ASU took over its operational responsibility as an adaptive planning measures and agreed arrangements with UET management that the USPCAS-E could operate as an independent entity outside University’s regular systems reporting to the Vice Chancellor as a Project Director. The Center followed USAID procedures with required due diligence for its day to day operations including procurement and staff induction.
The USPCAS-E has been approved by the UET syndicate as a degree awarding institute of the university. 12 faculty members were recruited. The head of the Center (Deputy Director) is UET staff on leaves. The remaining PMU staff has been recruited from the market for the project duration. ASU assigned a Technical Advisor and a Deputy Director from ASU to jointly work with the Deputy Director of the Center. Figure 3: UET Support extended by ASU in Strengthening The respondents rated overall success in Governance: Perceived Success, Effectiveness, achieving governance indicators and Efficiency (Scale 1-5) targets at 4.4 on a scale 1 to 5 (5 being highest, Figure 3). This support was rated Efficiency & timeliness 4.1 as highly effective (4) and was delivered in Effectiveness of support 4.0 an efficient manner (4.1). The respondents Preceived success 4.4 have rated these indicators while considering the fact, that the Center is not yet there at acquiring fully independent governance that can function on its own without support from ASU – this discussion has been recorded in the section later in the report. The respondents indicated the following main factors attributed to the effectiveness of ASU support for governance of USPCAS-E UET: 1. All necessary committees have been established and are functional. ASU regularly participates in the meetings and provides essential inputs for improved governance. The lead for these fora is with UET. 2. The Technical Advisor from ASU was physically present at the center and was readily accessible for day to day support and backstopping role towards PMU. The role of technical advisory is extremely effective as unanimously indicated by all PMU staff. 3. Corporate Engagement Officer at ASU has extended great support in making linkages between faculties / researchers and potential clients (such as corporates, public companies). 4. Although one of the challenges identified in the report is the need for improved visibility of both the centers at NUST and UET, the role of communication in branding and promoting the image through brochures, booklets, media, press, workshops and social media has been impressive.
15 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
5. UET and ASU work as a team in all respects to acquire effective governance for USPCAS-E. The examples include corporate engagement, liaising and networking, communication and M&E. 6. UET’s core interest is to establish the Center as a think-tank and a hub for technology transfer and not just as a degree awarding place. PMU is reportedly promoting public private partnership (industry, academia, government). Within a short period of less than two years, several linkages were activated. A high level of ownership was conveyed from the offices of Additional Chief Secretary and Higher Education Department – crucial to acquire credibility as a recognized institution in the province. The Cooperative Agreement sets high standards for gender integration in governance, management and outcome. The respondents shared that mainstreaming women in advanced studies in energy is expected at 50% which is considered far challenging, especially in the context of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where tribal and difficult contextual history prevails. It was however impressive to note that UET is striving to take affirmative actions for improved gender equity. Examples, as reported by faculty members and students, include:
- Scholarships are granted based on academic excellence and for financial support to low income groups. In local context these would not match since students from humble and remote backgrounds may not compete on academic excellence with their counterparts from better families. Hence 5-7% adjustment is tolerated to mainstream such students including women. 60% scholarships are merit-based and 40% for humble backgrounds. A specific favor paid off. Out of 40% students, at least 70% were observed uplifted in their performance and demonstrated good value for money – especially women. - For women to qualify for scholarships, maximum annual income of their guardian is higher (PKR.140000) when compared to PKR.70000 for the boys. This is to encourage more women in the scholarship bracket. - The students (including female students during interviews) reported a highly women-friendly environment at UET. Working in gender-mixed groups is encouraged whereas the same may be considered culturally insensitive in other faculties within the UET and other universities.
4.1.2 USPCAS-E AT NUST NUST founded the Center in 2012 whereas the RFP for USAID support was prepared during 2013-14. USPCAS-E is integrated in the NUST’s regular system just like other schools established by NUST. Therefore HR, recruitments, procurements, etc. were conducted following NUST’s manuals. Due to the integrated set up, USPCAS-E at NUST has its own principal whereas a PMU (just like one at UET) operates project functions lead by a Project Director with differentiated roles. 60 people have been employed by the project including 20 faculty members, 10-11 lab engineers, admin, and PMU staff. In this pretext, ASU support to strengthening governance entails relatively less intensive day to day issues and is mainly focused on institutional content. ASU was expected to appoint a Technical Advisor at each Center. A Technical Advisor was assigned to USPCAS-E NUST who discontinued after a while. The post remained vacant for two years. The Project Director, ASU faculty and ASU Technical Advisor for UET provided support to NUST on need basis. ASU appointed a full-time Technical Advisor based at ASU in September 2017. NUST accepted a trade-off with a distant international support over regular day to day and face-to-face support. The Deputy Director at ASU and the Corporate Engagement Officer extend support into the matters that require a closer support. This is another example where the ASU has shown flexibility to address emerging needs of the Centers.
16 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
The successful achievement of this Figure 4: NUST component was rated at a high level by all the Support extended by ASU in Strrengthening Governance Perceived Success, Effectiveness, Efficiency (Scale: 1-5) respondents (4.3 on a scale 1-5, Figure 4). The efficiency of support is rated at 4.6 and effectiveness at 4.2. The rating for Efficiency & timeliness 4.6 effectiveness is high, yet it was only Effectiveness of support 4.2 influenced by NUST’s own decision to have Technical Advisor placed at ASU and not in Preceived success 4.3 Pakistan which had its own limitations reflecting on effectiveness of ASU support. Another reason is that the structural support in governance component (when compared to curriculum, exchange and research) was relatively less crucial when compared to UET since most of the issues were handled by NUST through integrating the Center in its system. Therefore, this rating may be read as how important this support was for NUST in the first place instead of qualitative judgement on the effectiveness of support. The success indicators in Governance component are described as follows: 1. All the structures are well-defined and working efficiently. ASU regularly attends the meetings for technical support. The lead for these fora is with NUST. 2. The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) members (ASU and PMU) work as a team to ensure synergies and avoid duplications. 3. 4 out of 20 faculty are women; exchange visits are also organized in a very gender-friendly manner giving full chance to female students. 4. The Technical Advisor’s support is organized through Skype meetings and short-term missions to Pakistan. Urgent issues are tackled at ASU Pakistan. The support is appreciated by the respondent in general with a comment that a distant support has limitations as explained before. It is evident that ASU has provided support beyond its original mandate. One example is the establishment of Technology Centers at both PCASE-NUST and PCASE-UET which were originally not included in the Cooperation Agreement. ASU realized that these are important for sustainability and supported. All the details pertaining to these technology centers are being handled by ASU – this also includes arranging funds through re- appropriation in relevant budget lines (UET only). A similar example is a special situation at UET where the Center needed an extra-ordinary support from ASU to ensure its continuation.
4.2 CURRICULUM REFORM
Most of the respondents stated that curriculum support from ASU surpassed targets. Under this component, curricula were revised, reviewed and monitored. Technically, the curriculum development processes were to be followed by the partner universities themselves and ASU task was to provide support in quality assurance and content review. However most of the meetings, approval processes, and lobbying were handled by ASU to assure fast delivery of curriculum content and courses’ approval. Although not directly ASU’s role, post- curriculum support was also pushed and pursued by ASU, such as faculty engagement to deliver these courses. The acquired number of courses is impressive. One degree program usually has about 20 courses. Hence a total achievement of 157 (51 NUST, 106 UET) is highly impressive.
17 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
Effectiveness of curriculum support was mostly rated at the highest level by the stakeholders (Figure 5). Curriculum support was rated at 4.1 (very high) in terms of overall success in accomplishment. It was rated highly effective (4.2), and it was delivered with high efficiency and timeliness (4.6).
The Technical Advisor for UET provided Figure 5: Support extended by ASU in Curriculum (UET continuous resident support while the and NUST): Perceived Success, Effectiveness, Efficiency Technical Advisor for NUST provided remote (Scale 1-5) support in addition to three visits for curriculum and holding conference sessions. Efficiency & timeliness 4.6 HEC requires comparison among universities Effectiveness of support 4.2 in Pakistan for similar courses and with similar universities around the world. Hence Preceived success 4.1 curricula must be same or at par with other universities for acquiring approval. Curricula review, and approval go through a long cumbersome process engaging relevant authorities. Once approved, it is hard to change content and pass through the same process. Therefore, timely feedback from ASU on curricula to improve quality was highly appreciated. 80% students interviewed have rated quality of curricula as better when compared to their previous degree institutions. They found curricula much more relevant to find practical solutions to the problems and less inclined towards theory. One of the stakeholders interviewed from private sector (Star Hydro) stated that he found quality of students at par with some of the renowned universities in Pakistan. Education delivered is highly productive, qualitative and practice oriented which needs to be maintained and improved. The respondent is a graduate from UET and got his mater’s degree from LUMS. Students, faculty and external stakeholder at UET opined that curricula could be more tailored to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s specific energy challenges12 and potentials and therefore a stronger relevance for USPCAS-E UET existence in Peshawar. The respondents from AGES Consultants and China-Pak Three Gorges project pleaded the case for inclusion of micro-hydel engineering in degree courses. Other stakeholders also pleaded the same due to its micro and small hydro-power potential. AGES also offered support in formulation of courses on hydro- power. This could serve as a revenue stream since several donors are interested to invest and potential is high. This however never materialized for some reasons, perhaps, in respondent’s view, due to pre-conceived thematic streams that could not be adapted to new ideas. The students also suggested that not all courses noted on the prospectus are being offered. They found faculty less mature when compared to previous departments where they studied their bachelors (often at the same university).
4.3 RESEARCH
Applied research, since the beginning, has remained on the mark and ASU support has remained exceptional and consistent throughout the period. Collaboration with corporate sector is at the heart of USPCAS-E existence in both partner universities. This agenda is supported through joint and applied research grants, an active
12 High mountain remote areas scattered population, lack of access to fossil fuels, deteriorated biomass energy potential and lack of access to formal energy sources.
18 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019 support for creating research-based linkages between UET and NUST and clients (public and private companies), conferences, workshops and seminars where potential clients also participate. Energy efficiency /conservation is a booming marketable field and much needed in Pakistan. However, the culture of R&D and innovation is not so prevalent in private sector. There is little demand for qualified engineers to find high quality solutions. USPCAS-E may change this, as stated by external stakeholders interviewed in this study.
4.3.1 JOINT RESEARCH Joint research is a partnership between UET or NUST (with maximum budget of $30,000) and ASU (with a maximum budget of $40,000). Research topics are usually identified by Principal Investigators (PIs) in Pakistan and both PIs work together on a maximum time span of one year. Joint research proposals are submitted in response to call for proposals from ASU. At times it is hard to find a relevant PI at ASU for a joint research proposal. Joint research is an excellent opportunity for the partners to engage in a joint learning contract. The two PIs from partner universities and ASU work together with distant collaboration. ASU PI works from US whereas most of the work is performed on this side. Some PIs from ASU did not come to Pakistan specifically for the joint project discussions, although they have all visited Pakistan for other activities such as technical workshops. Also, PIs visit ASU at least once to discuss their projects with their counterparts at ASU.
4.3.2 APPLIED RESEARCH Applied research is open for faculties in all the universities in Pakistan and is highly competitive (with a maximum grant of US$30,000). In this case too, interested PIs send proposals in response to a call and may integrate students in the projects, also spanned over one year. Proposals are submitted to PMUs, evaluated, sent to ASU for comments, and approved or rejected. The process is reportedly very transparent and satisfactory. After the completion of selection process, ASU gives feedback to PIs for improving research proposals. Technical support from ASU in research includes helping and polishing research topics, research design, data analysis, publishing, sharing, equipping laboratories, and correctly using equipment. Final research reports are reviewed by PMU and ASU. Students may also benefit from internships opportunities with public and private companies. This proves important for opening job possibilities.
4.3.3 LABORATORY FACILITIES 100% PMU and faculty members and 30% external stakeholders stated that these labs have achieved a level of excellence that these can generate resources for the USPCAS-E at both universities by offering demand-based commercial testing. UET indicated such demands already coming their way (e.g. iron testing, transformers repair, energy efficiency, etc.). NUST has not yet opened its facility for this purpose. In view of one of the external stakeholders, NUST needs to plan how access for private companies to these labs may be facilitated, without which labs’ business plan is ought to fail. Most labs at UET and NUST have been equipped and are functional. Some final procurements are reportedly pending and will be completed within the remaining period. Faculty and students from UET noted that thermal lab was not ready yet and therefore students felt deprived of proper research opportunity. ASU is also supporting establishment of solar technology testing labs at UET and NUST which were originally not included in the Cooperative Agreement. Due to their importance for sustainability, budget re-appropriation was arranged to organize resources. Reportedly each lab has its own
19 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019 business plan to recover its annual recurring costs through services. This may help in furthering research agenda since well-resourced and uninterrupted management of labs will ensure effective maintenance of equipment and the staff will improve their experience.
4.3.4 RATING OF RESEARCH BY STAKEHOLDERS The stakeholders rated overall success of research at 4 (high), effectiveness at 4.5 (high) and timeliness of support at 3.9 (medium to high). This rating reflects that the respondents have been conservative with respect to their own success in research regarding timeliness (Figure 6).
They appreciate ASU’s networking effort which helped enhancing applicability Figure 6: Support extended by ASU in Research (UET and NUST): Perceived Success, Effectiveness, Efficiency (Scale 1-5) and relevance of research projects. PMU respondents at UET are concerned on continuation of joint research Efficiency & timeliness 3.9 component in future. Some of them hoped for and looked forward to a Effectiveness of support 4.5 continued collaboration with ASU. They thought that after five years of Preceived success 4.0 productive collaboration, there needs to be a proactive thought process on both sides on how to continue in a post-project scenario for continuing this relationship13. In addition, ideas such as managing joint degree program, subsidizing exchange for students (albeit shorter duration) may also be discussed. The assessment also did not find any evidence of partner universities trying to forge a longer-term relationship and continuation with ASU.
4.3.5 NETWORKING AND LINKAGES In general linkages between academia and industry are rare in Pakistan. To bridge this distance, a lot of networking and match-making support is extended from ASU in both applied and joint research and development. Research calls encourage PIs to knit linkages with corporate sector in the proposals; however, if they do not adequately do this, the USPCAS-E at both universities with support from ASU try to link and network with the relevant actors. 100% respondents rated effectiveness of support from ASU in joint and applied research at the highest level. Several examples were quoted of research collaboration, e.g.:
- National Transmission and Distribution Company (NTDC): Transmission dispatch and testing. - Diamond Supreme Foam: Development and testing of insolation material. - Builders in Lahore (Gulf constructors, Easy Deal): Insolation and energy efficient buildings (growing field). - Coronet Foods Pvt. Ltd. EBM biscuit industry: Energy conservation from bakery for boilers.
13 “Develop and implement a robust program of sustainable and long-term collaborative linkages between the Recipient (ASU) and its Pakistani partner university”. Page 34. “…sustainable and productive, long-term linkages between ASU and the Pakistani universities”. Page 74, Cooperative Agreement.
20 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
- National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA): Energy technology in brick kilns. - Fauji Fertilizer Company (FFC).
This is not an exhaustive list. Some of these linkages are highly strategic in nature for their policy dimension and / or promotion of public-private partnership in energy sector. The assessment team therefore views these examples also from the lens of longer-term sustainability of USPCAS-E initiative.
4.3.6 RATING OF NETWORKING BY THE STAKEHOLDERS Face to face workshops, conferences Figure 7: Effectiveness of Workshops, Conferences, and virtual seminars have been Seminars (scale 1-5) appreciated by all the respondents (Figure 7). These events also add to networking portfolio and acquire visibility for the USPCAS-E initiatives. 4.1 4.1 3.7 4.1 In case of students, pre- and post- tests are conducted to see learning 4.0 impact. Each graduate is tracked. 3.6 3.7 3.7 External stakeholders are always on PMU PCAS-UET PMU PCAS-NUST Students PCAS-UET Students PCAS- board in the workshops at the NUST invitation of ASU. Respondent from Virtual seminars / workshops Workshops /Conferences Alternate Energy Development Board also supported these views by highlighting need for developing alternate source of energy development. NEECA also appreciated ASU’s exceptional support in research.
The external stakeholders were also asked about their satisfaction regarding the efforts of ASU on Figure 8: Satisfaction level of stakeholders on their engagement stakeholders’ engagement and ensuring that their participation remains engaging and interesting. Based on the evidence that several important stakeholders were mobilized to engage in activities including 11% research collaboration, as well as stakeholders’ own feedback to the study team (Figure 8), it is evident that ASU’s engagement with stakeholders has remained highly satisfactory. This goes in line with the indicator of USPCAS-E sustainability that several 89% essential external stakeholders may be mobilized and gradually shift their roles to become major actors in Highest Medium favor of USPCAS-E initiatives. This will however require continuous collaboration efforts and generating demand for USPCAS-E to conduct applied research on the challenges dealt with by these stakeholders.
21 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
4.4 KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE AND COLLABORATION
Students’ Exchange program to Arizona State University (ASU) seems to be a central and most favored component among all the internal stakeholders and has received high degree of ranking. ASU support is considered phenomenal in preparing for exchange visits since lots of logistical details are involved in making arrangement, preparations and providing guidance for exchange. This section analyses different perspectives (faculty, PMU staff, students) at both universities regarding effectiveness of exchange program.
4.4.1. UET AND NUST FACULTY AND PMU PERSPECTIVE The respondents stated that this component Figure 9: Support extended by ASU in Exchange evolved with feedback from various batches (UET and NUST): Perceived Success, visiting ASU. The students acquire learning Effectiveness, Efficiency (Scale 1-5) opportunities, are exposed to new skills, exposure, and gain a lot of confidence and qualification for Efficiency & timeliness 3.8 scholarships (e.g. Fulbright). The exchange serves Effectiveness of support 4.5 grooming opportunity since for many students it is Preceived success 4.2 the first time to be in any international university. Lab facilities are excellent. Faculty experienced that exchange students’ ability to make presentations and write papers was noted to have improved. Many have published papers on return from exchange. NUST faculty stated that the students are sent for exposure after 3rd semester when they are 4 months advanced with their research projects and make full benefit of lab facilities at ASU. Faculty members indicated two main benefits for themselves from joining exchange visits: Networking, and exposure to instruction methodologies. For them the 16-week period for exchange was not enough for research. They have rated an overall success of this component at 4.2 (on a scale 1-5), effectiveness at 4.5 and overall efficiency and timeliness at 3.8 (Figure 9).
The observations shared by these groups are analyzed below: a. The most frequent feedback was on role of faculty members joining the exchange students. The exchange program is students and not faculty-centric, hence did not add value to faculty’s skills in a significant way. b. The PMU at NUST added, if faculty have no chaperon role, what then their expected role to accompany the students was? Exchange plan is designed keeping students in mind and there are no planned deliverables for the joining faculty which render the exchange ineffective for faculty. c. One faculty member added that the exchange has networking benefits. It depends on individuals’ own networking abilities. If joining faculty desires to meet relevant ASU faculty, it is welcomed and arranged through ASU administration, however brief. d. Students’ interaction with foreign students is missing. Hence an important opportunity for inter-cultural exposure is missed. Opportunity interactions in the labs with foreign students are limited. e. Separating supervisor and students in different labs has happened in few cases. This is being addressed so that one research group remains together.
22 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
f. Most of the course is lab oriented. Labs are vast, well equipped and useful with rich experimental choices. However, there are long ques to wait and alignment issues emerge with labs assigned to the students.
4.4.2. UET/NUST STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE All the students stated that exchange was highly effective and useful in contributing to building their confidence in a multi-cultural environment. At ASU students gain hands on experience and pitching ideas for the market. One student stated, “It is a training on research methods. So that we are prepared to conduct applied research on any topic of our choice when we come back. The core focus of exchange is on improving skills. I feel I can use my skills in my research and work much faster with confidence.” 100% students admired an excellent logistical support in preparing for the exchange. Selection of students was reported to be transparent. The students’ shared following observations on exchange program: a. 100% exchange students stated that they did not feel well prepared for the exchange program (e.g. pre- discussing their interest with an assigned supervisor, align their expectations and determine expectations). A few students took the initiative to contact ASU to pre-identify a research idea. However, they could not follow up on this since everything was pre-scheduled with too many activities and less time for research. b. Incompatibility of lab assigned was the main frustration for most of the students. A change on spot was often not accommodated. c. The students at UET shared that no targets are assigned to the students for research. They spend their time only in familiarizing with tools, know-how, and follow a fixed program in a pre-assigned lab. The timing is premature for UET students to go to ASU after 2nd semester when they have not prepared any research idea. The students were adjusted in ready research projects prepared for the course. NUST students are sent after the 3rd semester and they can link their exchange better than UET students. d. Different members of faculty have different approaches. Few have a stronger relevance for Pakistan. Hence, the exchange serves as an exposure and not an aide to the degree course. e. Students feel that lectures and theory sessions may have added a lot of value and add discussion- oriented learning environment during stay at ASU. f. UET students also regret that they were not taught research methods before leaving for ASU exchange. Therefore, their ability to understand instruction at ASU remains a struggle. g. At NUST, only GPA-centric selection of students for exchange excludes the chance for students with better leadership qualities, published papers, humble background or gender. h. The students indicated that the exchange did not count to degree grades. 25% students believed that despite this, the course was useful in competence building and improve research methods back home. i. 100% students at UET shared that gender considerations were important in selecting students for exchange. In case of NUST it is purely merit based.
4.5 SUSTAINABILITY
All the targets assigned to ASU for sustainability component have been fulfilled as indicated in chapter 2. However, the effectiveness of these activities and results will prove only when UET and NUST build on these in
23 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019 future and remain dynamic. Sustainability of the Centers is a core subject and challenge. This section captures the discussion held with stakeholders on sustainability.
Both the Centers have their own history and strategies to sustain themselves beyond USAID support. According to the stakeholders interviewed at NUST, all the basics have been achieved at NUST for sustainability. The Center is fully integrated into NUST and staff employed by NUST. PMU will cease to exist, however NUST plans to retain institutional memory by placing interested PMU staff in different suitable positions within the university. There are 19 such Centers at NUST, hence USPCAS-E is not a burden on the university. UET is struggling to determine if this should become a department integrated in the UET or acquire status of Center of Excellence with an independent status, own Board of Governors, and affiliation with the UET. For the Center to continue as a dynamic institution and generate its own funds, it has to acquire a status of independent institution like the Water Center at Mehran University in Sindh and the International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences in Karachi (http://iccs.edu/). There is an opportunity at UET for continuity of faculty. UET has started recruitment process for engaging faculty on the university pay scales. The call is open for all qualified candidates. In case the experience in joint/applied research in relevant fields is also weighted high along teaching experience, the existing faculty may have a higher chance to be retained. If not, the existing faculty may be replaced by candidates with more publications and academic experience.
The study team recorded key ingredients of sustainability comprehended in the Cooperative Agreement14.
4.5.1. OWNERSHIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT 1. Government seems to be 100% convinced and interested in both institutions to continue and is ready to support. More examples have been reported from UET: a. The Chief Minister Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Speaker Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Parliament, the Chief Secretary, and the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) are highly supportive of continuation of the Center. The ACS reportedly requested USAID for a No Cost Extension (NCE) seeking a bridge towards finding a permanent solution for the Center. Whether the NCE is granted or not, this reflects a high level of ownership of the government to sustain Center at UET by finding a good solution within the extra time borrowed from USAID. b. Meeting with Speaker Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly led to the discussion that the annual financial requirement of the UET will be budgeted in the upcoming Annual Development Plan for 2020. c. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil and Gas Company and PEDO are promoting public private partnership in energy sector. UET may play a role in developing proposals for partnership (innovations). d. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Energy Department have also expressed their commitment towards continuation of USPCAS-E at UET.
2. Higher Education Department (HED) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa reflected that their interest in USPCAS-E UET continuation is very high but it was a very short period since 2017. Building sustainable institutions takes
14 The sustainability of each CAS will rely on several key factors: (i) Government leadership / ownership (ii) The ability of each Center to raise revenues (iii) enduring partnerships with top ranking universities outside of Pakistan. Cooperative Agreement, page 33.
24 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
time. The HED shared that PKR 40 million grant was approved for establishing solar testing lab and added, “We are giving a high value to this Center since it has a potential to earn for themselves and employ more youth. The Center needs to work on its promotion and visibility; has a potential to support the government in policy making issues on energy and may serve as a role model for other universities.”
The question of ownership by the government is closely linked with USPCAS-E establishment as robust institutions. The stakeholders highlight the following elements for a stronger institutional sustainability:
1. USPCAS-E need to acquire a strong problem-solving approach and ability to offer real life solutions and questions faced by the industry. For this, capacity building of researchers and faculty is a must. ASU’s potential role could be to conduct training needs assessment of researchers from this angle so that they are able to fulfil the expected roles. 2. Globally accepted certifications and accreditations may be included in capacity building plan for researchers as well as labs. 3. One faculty member stated that faculty has also grown along with USPCAS-E. In a usual scenario, PhD is a must for qualifying to become a faculty. However, the fields where USPCAS-E is to flourish are new and is evolving with young graduates. Hence technical experience and exposure are also to be considered important for qualification rating. 4. Both NUST and UET need to follow policy evolution in energy and industry sectors. They need to be prepared for addressing policy priorities and quickly adapt their offers. 5. There needs to be stronger inter-departmental synergy especially within NUST. This will reinforce and strengthen USPCAS-E’s presence to the external stakeholders. 6. It is also important to encourage exchange among the two universities – not just with US universities. Joint projects among the two may render a lot of learning and strong national image.
4.5.2. ABILITY TO GENERATE AND RAISE REVENUES As stated by HEC stakeholder, sustainability is not just continuing as an isolated center or acquiring enough funds – it is about dynamic search for sustainable and concrete public-private partnerships (PPP). The need for effective PPP has been identified as a precursor for revenue generation by all the external stakeholders interviewed for this study. With intensive support from ASU, several linkages were established with a variety of clients (see Chapter 4). The Cooperative Agreement however sees the need for more long-lasting linkages and revenue generation through collaborative work. Collaboration with PESCO and NTDC for instance has such potential which may be harnessed by both Centers. The stakeholders however are concerned that industry is not research driven and does not see academia as a partner. In such an environment, an additional role of USPCAS-E is to create awareness in this sector by offering cost-effective models. The most rewarding offer in this regard may be in the field of energy efficiency as suggested by most of the external stakeholders. They also highlighted that modern high-quality labs may further attract such joint ventures and attracting clients for raising revenues. It is encouraging to note that both UET and NUST have acquired funding opportunities, especially in applied research, from multiple sources. ASU’s support is highly evident since most of this was achieved through mobilizing clients and duty bearers in energy sector in the country:
25 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
1. UET • Energy department FATA for solarization of FATA, PKR 400 million – 100% lobbying support came from ASU including writing of the PC1. • PKR 40 million from Higher Education Department (HED) for solar testing lab. 70% lobbying support came from ASU. • Labs are ready, operational with good instruments, and can function for funds generation. Major actors in the industry already know that Center has built own capacity with good equipment and access to labs relevant to needs. • UNIDO is keen to work with UET with little start of US$80,000 (biomass). • PESCO is negotiating for transformers’ management and repair. However, this will require additional capacity.
2. NUST • Research labs serve a strong sustainability strategy as paid testing facilities for interested clients. • Consultancies, e.g. with NTDC, FFC (80% fee for the consultant, 10% for USPCAS-E and 10% for NUST). • 250 kw PV plant based on power generation capacity potential to earn 4-5 million annually. Its capacity is being increased. • Projects have been financed by Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF), Fauji Fertilizer Company (FFC) and HEC. The HEC has already approved a project of US$ 1million.
Branding the centers and what they offer including labs (and how and on which terms these labs may be accessed etc.), is urgent and important. Technology in Pakistan can go rapid transformation if economic activity, as promised by the government, increases. Stakeholders expressed their concern that a much stronger industry liaison is necessary to ensure continuation of the Center functions. Except for few faculty / research fellows motivated by ASU, others are not proactively investing their time in this task. One of the stakeholders stated, “USPCAS-E will have to go to the industry, the industry will not come to them.” ASU has made immense efforts to bridge this through active networking (see Figure 8) and interns’ placement at the industry and through preparing sustainability plans.
4.5.3. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION It is stated in the Cooperative Agreement, … CAS sustainability will also depend on the establishment of enduring partnerships with top ranking universities outside of Pakistan (in this case US universities)… It is important to analyze progress on this. Certainly, once USAID withdraws its support, it is up to USPCAS-E at the two universities and the international partner universities to continue and explore resources to finance most useful activities. One of the stakeholders expressed that continuation of some collaboration (e.g. joint research) and new ideas of cooperation (e.g. joint degree program) may be useful in the future. Other internal stakeholders expressed their wish to continue collaboration as follows: - Reduced exchange program for students only (even with 20% of the current intensity). - Joint research on energy-mix and diversification (wind, solar, hydro). - Joint submission of project proposals.
26 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
Stakeholders from HEC and HED highlighted the need of university to university collaboration based on thematic alignment within and outside Pakistan and not limited to US based universities. Energy is a growing field in Pakistan and therefore opportunities will be numerous in future.
4.5.4. JOBS PROSPECTS FOR PCASE GRADUATES Although not indicated in the Cooperative Agreement under ASU’s domain, improved job prospects, is reflected as a secondary branding message and an effect of USPCAS-E sponsorship to universities15. The assessment team came across some interesting discussion that is recorded here for the benefit of stakeholders. High induction of students in jobs based on their degree from USPCAS-E indicates demand for these competences in the market and the credibility of the institutions and their alumni.
Figure 10 presents that the students and faculty members see a medium to high chance for the students to find jobs based on their degrees, whereas PMU and external stakeholders are more optimistic (with high rating of 4 and 4.3) in this regard. NUST reported that 73% graduate students are employed (this Figure 10: Perspective of Stakeholders on Job includes interns and students on higher Potential for UET and NUST Graduates (Scale 1-5) studies). Female students are included in 4.3 this figure. The students however 4 challenged that their alumni colleagues got 3.5 3.5 the jobs based on their BE degrees.
Some of the most important perspectives recorded are as follows:
Students PMU Faculty External stakeholders Students and Faculty 1. Most industries try to manage their functions by hiring lower qualified personnel (e.g. B-tech and at the most BE). Most industries try cheaper solutions by replicating or copying existing models and do not try to create or innovate technologies since this requires R&D and tailoring technology to their need. A culture of R&D does not prevail in most of our industry. 2. Since competition for jobs is quite tough, just BE is not enough. USPCAS-E provides opportunity to improve qualification, grooming, communication skills, networking and hence higher chances for jobs. 3. Primary job criteria may be determined by BE (main eligibility) and Masters’ degree brings additional points. New qualifications are not widely known hence not prescribed in advertisements. 4. “Energy Management and Policy” degree is a big question mark. There is no explicit demand in the sector for these students. However, it is not excluded that this is highly needed field in Pakistan. 5. The industry needs to know the skills available in the graduates are why they may be better than others in the energy sector.
15 By acquiring the ability to conduct applied research for industry and policy makers, engineering students can enhance their job prospects and their capacity to contribute to Pakistan’s economic growth. Cooperative Agreement, Page 75
27 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
6. More effort is required by both Centers to polish students (for jobs or for self-employment) through more practical engagement.
Private sector perspective 1. There should be no doubt in demand for these students! BE students after graduation often try to find internships to acquire better hands on skills. UET and NUST provide a kind of internship to polish their skills, equip them with more knowledge practical know-how. 2. Another respondent viewed that the market does not recognize this degree. USPCAS-E at both places need to publicize their institutions and the graduates / graduation streams. 3. The ones with BE degree have a vertical knowledge, whereas Masters’ students have horizontal knowledge and good networking with other related disciplines that can help them open their minds and strategic thinking. With this additional knowledge their demand will be higher. 4. There is a need to conduct a study on job forecasting for Pakistan in energy sector. The government desperately needs ideas and planning in energy sector. Students must not only target private sector, the government and government owned companies may be a big possibility.
Public sector perspective 1. The university and HEC need to work with Public Service Commission and Provincial Commissions for recognition and inclusion of the degrees in future calls. 2. The Centers need to conduct impactful applied research by engaging students and alumni in collaboration with clients. This will generate demand for the students. 3. There are no well-defined jobs for such graduates in the country yet. Both UET and NUST need to put pressure on major employers including government to create and evolve demand for such graduates.
5. OVERALL SATISFACTION ON ADEQUACY OF ASU SUPPORT
In an aggregate assessment, all five Figure 11: Aggregate Ranking by Effectiveness (1-5) components were analyzed in terms of 4.3 effectiveness of support on a scale 1-5 (5 4.2 being the highest). The highest in this regard is 4.1 Exchange (4.5) followed very closely by 4.0 4.0 curriculum reforms. Governance and research come next with 4.1 and 4.0 respectively at high level. Sustainability stands at 3.9 with a Governance Curriculum Research Exchange Sustainability trend from medium to high (Figure 11.)
28 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
The respondents were asked several questions on individual components of support (Annex 5) and based on this discussion and ranking in multiple places, they were asked to give their candid opinion on overall satisfaction for adequacy of ASU support. Figure 12: Overall satisfaction An aggregate percentage (UET+NUST, Figure 12) of stakeholders Regarding Adequacy of ASU highly satisfied with adequacy of ASU support in all the Support components is 78% whereas 22% rated the same at medium level (of which 60% are students). 22% Figure 13 presents segregated pictures of assessment from PMU staff, students, and external stakeholders of each Center. The 78% graph also presents an aggregate figure for UET and NUST. None of the stakeholders rated low or zero for their satisfaction level for adequacy of support. At UET, an aggregate percentage of Medium level of satisfaction highly satisfied respondents is 79% whereas 21% (all students) rated their satisfaction at medium level. At NUST, an aggregate percentage of highly satisfied respondents is 78% whereas 22% (of which 57% are students) rated their satisfaction level at medium (Figure 13).
The following graphs present segregated perspectives from PMU+ faculty, students and external stakeholders at each PCASE (Figures 14, 15 and 16).
29 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT
Following internal and contextual challenges were identified by the study team in various discussions:
1. USPCAS-E project and ASU support arrived in 2015 when the context was still quite challenging with regional insecurity and visibility had to be extremely low (especially Peshawar). 2. UET faced a special situation and therefore ASU took operational responsibility of the matters and committed to catch up with targets within a limited time (2017-2019). 3. Subject specialists in the relevant fields of USPCAS-E interest were not easily available within Pakistan and hence establishing the right set of human resource was the first challenge to deal with. 4. Technical Advisor for NUST is based at ASU and is challenged by distance and limited contextual experience. UET had a local Technical Advisor and readily available to the team. 5. Procurement process for labs were at times very slow and caused delays in making the labs operational on time. 6. Industry is not research oriented and therefore cultivating demand for USPCAS-E services remained a challenge and up-hill task.
Within this context, ASU support for making the project successful both at UET and NUST has been phenomenal and up to the mark.
30 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
6.1 OVERALL
• All the internal and external stakeholders both in Peshawar and Islamabad have recorded a high level of appreciation for ASU support in all five components and even beyond. ASU has gone extra mileage to address emerging issues and needs with a flexible approach. • An overall percentage (UET+NUST) of stakeholders stating that they are highly satisfied with adequacy of ASU support is 78% whereas 22% rated the same at medium level (of which 73% are students who had limited exposure to all the components). At UET, an aggregate percentage of highly satisfied respondents was 83% whereas 17% (students) rated their satisfaction level at medium. • At NUST, an aggregate percentage of highly satisfied respondents was 78% whereas 22% (of which 57% are students) rated their satisfaction level at medium. • None of the stakeholders rated low for their satisfaction level for adequacy of support.
6.2 CONCLUSION ON FIVE SUPPORT COMPONENTS (SCALE 1-5)
6.2.1 GOVERNANCE It is evident that ASU provided immense support in this component and at times beyond their original mandate ensuring adaptive planning by addressing emerging challenges. All mandatory activities have been implemented and the relevant structures are performing.
UET: The overall perceived success of this component in terms of targets was 4.4. This support was rated as highly effective (4) and was delivered in an efficient manner (4.1). The respondents have rated these indicators considering the fact, that the UET is not yet there at acquiring fully independent governance that can function on its own without technical support from ASU and financial support from USAID – this discussion has been recorded in the section 4.5 in the report.
NUST: The successful achievement of this component was rated at a high level by all the respondents (4.3). The efficiency of support is rated at 4.6 and effectiveness at 4.2 (medium).
6.2.2 CURRICULUM REFORMS Curriculum support was rated at 4.1 (very high) in terms of overall success in targets’ accomplishment. It was rated highly effective (4.2) and delivered with high efficiency and timeliness (4.6). This support was crucial since without all necessary timely approvals, degree courses would not have been launched in time. Hence all the support for necessary preparation, consultations, feedback from ASU experts and lobbying on curricula to improve quality were highly appreciated for their effectiveness and timeliness. Some of the faculty members expressed, that in future feedback on curriculum content may be more explicit for creating learning impact.
31 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
6.2.3 RESEARCH The respondents rated overall success of research component at 4.0, effectiveness at 4.5 and timeliness of support at 3.9 (medium to high). They appreciate networking effort of ASU with clients which helped enhancing applicability and relevance of research projects.
6.2.4 EXCHANGE An overall success of this component was rated at 4.2. Overall effectiveness was rated at 4.3 and efficiency and timeliness at 3.8 (medium to high). The students and faculty visitors’ perspectives were rather similar – yet this component remained highly effective and relevant for the students rather than faculty. The main area of improvement in this component is to align students’ priority with ASU faculty and lab assignment. The long duration of exchange for teachers was not deemed useful.
6.2.5 SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability was assessed only in a qualitative sense. The targets set for ASU are process oriented and the progress is on a good track. All six identified ingredients are well on track due to an extensive, punctual and sincere support from ASU towards UET and NUST. These include ownership of and engagement with government, institutional strengthening (partly addressed through strengthening governance), public-private partnerships, fund raising and increased job prospects for the graduated students. International collaboration needs to be firmed up for a longer-term relation. USPCAS-E need to perform and undertake rigorous effort in all these areas on a steep learning curve. Some of the additional critical conclusions are noted here which may determine the remaining course of ASU’s advisors’ engagement with both the universities. 1. The international connectivity of the Centers will decrease once ASU and USAID support ends. Joint research and exchange opportunity will suddenly diminish. This will negatively impact motivation of the faculty and students. What are the future thoughts on this and whether any means have been secured to maintain international linkages? 2. It is not yet clear how the continuation of efforts for industry liaison and marketing of USPCAS-E will be ensured when PMU and ASU are not there? Do the university statutes have provisions to recruit staff for such functions? These are critical questions if these Centers are to become service-oriented and self- sustained. With a status of a regular department of the university this may become challenging. 3. There is an opportunity at USPCAS-E UET for continuity of faculty since UET has started recruitment process for engaging faculty on the university pay scales.
32 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 FOR THE REMAINING LIFE OF PROJECT
1. A workshop involving all important stakeholders to offer a platform to acquire clarity on USPCAS-E UET future and structure. There is not much time left to decide on the future of the Center as an independent institution governed by a Board of Directors (e.g. center of excellence) or department of UET. 2. Continue to help the USPCAS-E initiatives finding new sources of funding including with multi-lateral and development donors (sustainability). Other means (such as labs, consultancies) will take time to generate required funding to continue the Centers’ function at current quality. In the absence of additional funding students would pay full fees and joint research will seize for some time. With full fee, enough enrolment to run a degree program is not ensured. 3. Advocate for corporate partners’ formal representation within the governing structure of USPCAS-E. 4. Explore international connectivity – e.g. opportunities for a joint degree program with ASU, funding for joint research, etc. 5. Complete procurement and establishment process for labs. 6. Motivate USPCAS-E for seeking required accreditations and business plans 7. Create awareness in corporate sector for R&D and need-based solutions (recommendation for PMUs at each partner university). 8. Organize brainstorming sessions for USPCAS-E on long-term partnership strategies based on comparative advantages of these centers by mapping demand and offers. These may be shared with external stakeholders in a workshop environment. 9. Support USPCAS-E at both places to prepare a marketing and branding strategy to attract funds.
7.2 FOR FUTURE REPLICATION OF SIMILAR INITIATIVES ELSEWHERE
1. Exchange opportunity in future be made flexible in terms of assigning labs and giving research assignments while at ASU. 2. Ensure opportunities for the students to interact with other international students while at ASU. 3. Student’s participation in exchange may be more useful after they have completed their research proposals. 4. Opportunities to attend credited courses at ASU so that time spent is rewarding and more productive. 5. In future, publicity campaigns of services possibly provided by such Centers must be embedded in the project documents and work plans.
33 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ANNEXES
34 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ANNEX 1: WORK PLAN FOR THE ASSIGNMENT
Week / month Task
Week 2 Review documents / secondary material (This will continue during the entire course of the study) Inception meeting with ASU focal person
December18 Week 4 Organize inception report and draft data collection tools 16th Initial meetings with ASU staff and primary stakeholders in the universities and prepare draft stakeholders’ map and analysis 19 20th Furnish final inception report along data collection tools Conduct FDGs and first round of key informant interviews January January 30th and 31st • CAS-UET Peshawar • 1st and 2nd February • Stakeholders’ meetings Peshawar 4th – 6th February • CAS-NUST Islamabad th th
7 to 13 February • Stakeholders’ meetings Islamabad, Peshawar
19 th th February 9 – 19 • Data analysis (quantitative and qualitative) and narrative notes • Preparation of draft report Continue with data collection and conduct mini workshops th February 20 February • Initial debriefing with ASU on draft report 25th February • Submit first draft for ASU comments followed by a workshop with ASU, NUST, UET and key stakeholders to share findings and acquire feedback 5th March • Finalize report (final date of submission will be adjusted as per feedback received)
March March 19 End of assignment / sign off
35 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF SUPPORT COMPONENTS FROM ASU
This Annex section describes key parameters of the support expected to be provided by ASU in five areas, and in how far these could be achieved.
1. Sound Governance, pertaining with the establishment of the Center 2. Modernized and specialized curriculum development in energy 3. Exchange and scholarship programs and new teaching strategies and methods 4. Applied and Joint Research Projects, and, 5. Activities related to the long-term sustainability of the centers
The information included in this Annex is derived from progress reports of ASU and verification during interviews with stakeholders. For analysis, the study team has benefited from additional information provided and observations made by the ASU and PMU teams at both the Centers.
1. Governance
According to the Cooperative Agreement, the primary objective of this component is to foster collaboration among partner universities and HEC to develop governance structures that clearly define roles and responsibilities for all PCASE functions, as well as how the PCASE fits within the existing governance structure of both its host universities to allow for institutionalization and sustainability of each PCASE16. The extended objective of this component was to propel the case and appetite for replication of similar centers in the future by stimulating a national discussion on the level of higher education governance and development. The mandatory technical assistance activities for ASU to perform with partner universities under this component and achievement are:
1. In conjunction with the HEC and ASU, assist PCASE partners to establish and/or activate and lead a PCASE Advisory Committee that includes members from each of the PCASE universities, the private sector and relevant government stakeholders that will meet 2-4 times a year to discuss progress, problems and make recommendations as necessary. 2. In conjunction with PCASE partner(s), establish a PCASE Steering Committee at the individual university partner led by the Vice Chancellor and leadership of the PCASE, including key department, private sector and other stakeholder representatives. 3. In conjunction with PCASE partner(s), establish and/or activate a committee on research and policy. 4. Support the establishment of a Project Management Unit within each PCASE to facilitate and monitor the implementation and performance of the PCASE program in a participatory way. 5. Make recommendations and provide technical assistance to respond to needs identified through a self-assessment conducted by each of the partner universities to assess their institutional capacity. 6. Organize a series of workshops, conferences and/or short-term consultancies to assist PCASE partner(s) to inform the development of university-level PCASE strategies, an annual Work Plan, and an overall implementation plan in all component areas. 7. Provide training and/or technical assistance to support the efficiency, transparency and sustainability of grant making and other financial processes managed by Pakistani partner university. 8. Support PCASE partner(s) to develop initial agreements to establish the essential ground rules for the governance of the PCASE projects.
16 Page 27 Cooperation Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University
36 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
Based on the above-mentioned mandatory activities, the ASU has achieved the following targets under the Governance component:
# Targets Achievements 1 Establishment of Advisory Committee Advisory committee established and functional 2 Establishment of Steering Committees at each PCASE 02 steering committees established and functional 3 Establishment of Research and Policy committee Research and Policy committees established and functional at each PCASE 4 Establish PMUs at each PCASE PMUs established at each PCASE and functional 5 Achieved - discussions with stakeholders reflect Provide technical assistance to respond to needs for improved institutional capacity that this is a continuous process 6 Organize a series of workshops, conferences, consultancies Achieved - This is a continuous process 7 Training and/or technical assistance to support the Achieved - discussions with stakeholders reflect efficiency, transparency, sustainability of financial processes that this is a continuous process 8 MOU signing with HEC, ASU, NUST and UET MoU signed
2. Curriculum development and reform
According to the Cooperative Agreement17, the curricula offered by each PCASE are expected to include broadly transferrable skills that enhance graduate competitiveness. Appropriate IT based means were proposed to increase equitable and quality access to instruction. The process defined under this component included, (i) involvement of both PCASE faculties and staff with input from HEC, ASU, and government and business community stakeholders, to review existing degree programs and courses, identify areas where they are outdated or irrelevant to public and private sector needs, and determine which new courses were needed (ii) HEC and the curriculum committee of each partner universities will be involved in vetting process of recommended course contents (iii) Course syllabi will then be developed that include options for applied and/or policy research and internships. ASU was expected to give support in designing a complete package of curriculum reforms, however, the authority to approve, adopt and accredit the proposed reforms rested with the universities’ leadership and HEC. ASU was expected to provide the following mandatory technical assistance to the partner universities: 1. Support creation of a curriculum development working group at each PCASE university with sub-committees for subjects and courses as appropriate. These committees will include stakeholder representation. 2. Assist in launching of existing university curriculum committees as needed to improve the variety and quality of coursework (including across sectors) offered by the partner universities. 3. In collaboration with the partner universities, HEC, and public and private sector stakeholders, develop graduate and postgraduate training policies and plans to support PCASE provision of advanced research and experiential learning opportunities linked to qualitative improvements in teaching, curriculum and research. Plans will have quantitative as well as qualitative results and benchmarks. Based on the above-mentioned mandatory activities, the ASU has achieved the following targets under the curriculum reform component:
# Targets Achievements 1 Establishment of Curriculum Development Working Curriculum Development Working Group established Group. Assist improve the variety and quality of and functional at each PCASE coursework
17 Page 9, Cooperation Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University
37 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
2 6 new professional certificate programs (3 NUST and 13 new professional degree certificate programs 3 UET) developed (NUST 7 and UET 6) 3 40 new courses (NUST 20 and UET 20) 157 new courses developed (NUST 73 and UET 106) 4 O2 libraries O2 libraries established (1 each at UET and NUST)
3. Joint and Applied Research
The core aim of this component according to the Cooperation Agreement was to encourage and catalyze research focused on emerging market demands and anticipated societal challenges pertaining to energy and economic growth within the overall US-PCAS-E scope of support in the country. The work of PCASE faculties and students must meet the need for high quality, advanced applied research18. The researchers are expected to internalize a new mindset away from overly theoretical concepts toward innovative applied research solutions that are both sensible and sustainable. Applied research requires relevant private sector and government stakeholders to get engaged in developing PCASE research agendas to ensure relevance to their needs. Such research, if relevant to the needs of private sector, may attract funding from private sector. As part of this component, laboratories and libraries were to be improved to bring them at par with modern standards, including communications and IT innovations to promote effective research. ASU was expected to extend the following mandatory technical assistance to partner universities under the research component:
1. Support partner universities to organize stakeholder meetings to set applied research agendas. 2. Labs and libraries: a. Supplement the materials available to purchase additional equipment needed for laboratory, research and library equipment and materials and assist university partners to develop plans for laboratory and library improvements. b. Assist partner universities to assess and propose to USAID any ‘brick and mortar’ library and laboratory upgrades to be built through USAID’s construction contract. c. Procure and deliver laboratory equipment to enhance the productivity of each PCASE. 3. Convene policy dialogues among key stakeholders. 4. Conduct applied research in collaboration with the partner universities. Based on the above-mentioned mandatory activities, the ASU has achieved the following targets under the Research component:
# Activity target Achievements 1 Organize stakeholders’ meetings A regular feature of support (5 meetings held so far) 2 Labs and libraries 18 Dedicated labs established (8 UET and 10 NUST) 2 libraries established (1 at each PCASE) 3 Convene policy dialogues among stakeholders A regular feature of support 4 30 Applied research projects (15 each at NUST and UET) 36 (NUST 14 and UET 22) 5 10 joint Research projects (NUST 5 and UET 5) 12, (NUST 6 and UET 6)
4. Knowledge exchange and collaboration
As noted in the Cooperation Agreement, in collaboration with US university counterparts (ASU), PCASE faculty will increase the prevalent use of effective teaching techniques and applied learning opportunities that promote critical thinking. This component emphasizes extensive short-term study and exchange programs for professors and students, as well as scholarships and internship opportunities. The Cooperation Agreement intended that within the PCASE degree programs, students will acquire the opportunity to attend the courses at ASU19. The training will be for master’s and post graduate
18 Page 31, Cooperation Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University 19 Page 32, Cooperation Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University
38 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019 students including non-degree coursework or other structured learning opportunities in high priority PCASE specialty-related technical areas, policy development and research. Most importantly, training will be geared toward creating high quality graduates possessing the skills needed by public and private sectors. ASU’s mandatory activities in technical assistance to partner universities regarding exchange included the following:
1. Develop graduate and post graduate (i.e. masters level and above) short-term training and exchange programs at each PCASE for students and faculty. 2. Organize workshops and exchanges at ASU to institutionalize the use of effective, experiential teaching techniques at the graduate level that promote critical thinking. 3. Develop an internship program with private sector organizations. 4. Administer a transparent merit and needs based scholarship program for the PCASE, according to HEC standard operating procedures and USAID gender equity principles. 5. Organize at least 50 student and faculty exchanges20 to participate in training and/or research at the recipient university. The ASU will need to budget all associated costs related to these exchanges. 6. Support partner universities to issue at least 50 advanced applied research grants over five years
Based on the above-mentioned mandatory activities, the ASU has achieved the following targets under the exchange component:
# Activity target Achievements 1 Develop graduate / post-grad exchange program Achieved 2 Organize workshops and exchanges at ASU (10 12 technical and thematic workshops held technical and thematic workshops) 7 virtual seminars held 3 Develop internship program / opportunities with 99 (NUST 65, UET 34) private sector 4 Develop / administer merit-based scholarship 517 scholarships (NUST 267, UET 250 (13% women) program 5 200 exchange visitors (NUST 100 and UET 100) 137 exchange visitors (NUST 77- 34% women; UET 60 – 18% women)
5. Sustainability
According to the Cooperation Agreement, the sustainability of each PCASE will rely on several key factors21: 1. Government leadership at HEC and each PCASE is essential if project reforms are to survive at the PCASE and spread throughout the higher education system. 2. The ability of each PCASE to raise revenues, commercialize research and make alliances with stakeholders. 3. PCASE sustainability will also depend on the establishment of enduring partnerships with top ranking universities outside of Pakistan (in this case U.S. universities) to exchange ideas, collaborate on research and continue to raise the standards of higher education in Pakistan beyond the life of the PCASE project. The mandatory technical assistance activities for ASU to perform with partner universities under this component and achievement are: 1. Increase the capacity of each PCASE to raise funds from alumni, grant making foundations, and corporates. 2. Build capacity of the PCASE to reach out to the business community and other private sector stakeholders to establish productive dialogue, promote PCASE research services, and market the skills and qualifications of graduates.
20 This target was changed to 100 for each CAS 21 Page 33, Cooperation Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I – USAID and Arizona State University
39 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
3. Develop and implement a robust program of sustainable and long-term collaborative linkages between the ASU / international universities and its Pakistani partner university. Based on the above, the ASU has achieved the following targets under the sustainability component:
Activity target Achievements 2 million USD fund raising (1 1.54 million USD raised million at both PCASE) PCASE-NUST: USD 1.13 PCASE-UET: USD 0.41 Linkage development with 379 officials representing 88 various industries, government, academia and stakeholders private organizations participated in stakeholder meetings Long-term collaboration with Current with ASU and OSU. Yet to be determined for post-project scenario international universities
40 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ANNEX 3: PEOPLE AND EXPERTS MET AND CONSULTED
No. Organization Name Designation 1 NUST Dr. Zuhair S. Khan Principal 2 NUST Dr. Bilal Sajid Assistant Professor 3 NUST Dr. Rabia Liaqat Assistant Professor 4 NUST Dr. Naseem Iqbal Assistant Professor 5 NUST Dr. Majid Ali Assistant Professor 6 NUST Wajiha Tauqir Student 7 NUST Ujala Sarwar Student 8 NUST Bushra Hassan Student 9 NUST Shehzar Shehzad Student 10 NUST Noorulain Ali Student 11 NUST Rehan Anwar Student 12 NUST M. Naveed Arif Student 13 NUST Shah Fahad bin Masud Student 14 NUST Nisar Ahmed Student 15 NUST Unza Jamil Student 16 NUST Ahsan Malik Student 17 NUST Naveed Ali Director Admin 18 NUST Dr. Hina Kazmi Deputy Project Director 19 NUST Fawad Kashan Mir Industry Liaison Officer 20 NUST Asim Ayub M&E Specialist 21 NUST Javaria Karim Grants Coordinator 22 NUST Mohammad Nawaz Database Officer 23 ASU Arshad Nafees DD Technical (UET) 24 ASU Ahmed Saeed Deputy Director 25 ASU Shagufta Jeelani M&E Specialist 26 ASU Ammar Yasser Corporate Engagement Officer 27 ASU Ahmed Sohail Technical Advisor UET 28 ASU Arsal Latif Communication Specialist 29 UET Dr. Saim Saher Assistant Professor 30 UET Dr. Afaq Qamar Assistant Professor 31 UET Dr. Khurshid Assistant Professor 32 UET Saqib Marwat Student 33 UET Sohail Khan Student 34 UET Faisal Nawab Student 35 UET Muhammad Ali Student 36 UET Maoz Khan Student 37 UET Saddam Ali Student 38 UET Asfand Yar Ali Student 39 UET Mehak Asad Student 40 UET Fareeha Student 41 UET Adnan Ayb Student 42 UET Noor Muhammad Student 43 UET Sheraz Khan Student 44 UET Inzimamul Haq Student 45 UET Dr. Najeeb Ullah Deputy Director 46 UET Uzair Ahmad M&E specialist
41 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
No. Organization Name Designation 47 UET Shaista Afridi Industrial Liaison 48 UET Mohammad Sohail Barki Communication Manager 49 IUCN Azfar Ansari Programme Officer 50 IUCN Dr. Abdul Majeed Water & Energy Expert External stakeholders 51 PESCO Haider Ali SDO 52 Higher Education Hamid khan CPO Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 53 National Energy Efficiency Asad Mahmood and Conservation Authority (NEECA) 54 Higher Education Dr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan But Advisor Commission (HEC) 55 China Three Georges South N. A. Zubairi Senior Advisor and Deputy CEO Asia Investment Limited 56 Alternate Energy Dr. Irfan Yousaf Development Board (AEDB) 57 Star-hydro Power limited Waqar Ahmad CEO 58 AGES consultants Pakistan Aziz ul Haq Partner
59 Coronet Foods Muhammad Riaz Manager utilities
42 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ANNEX 4: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
Documents shared by ASU
1. Annual reports 2017-2018 2. Annual workplans 2018-219 3. Awareness and Strategy Building for Gender Equity in Engineering, 2017 4. Briefing note on steering committee 5. Briefing note on Committee of Policy and Research 6. CAS Metrics Overview, 30th September 2018 7. Cooperative Agreement No. AID-391 -A-15-0000 I, Partner Center for Advanced Studies in Energy (PCASE). 8. Council for Research Policy (ToRs) 9. Energy Material Workshop, at Serena Islamabad, Pakistan, 2018 10. Exchange Students/Faculty Feedback Fall 2016 11. Exchange Students/Faculty Feedback Fall 2017 12. Exchange Students/Faculty Feedback Fall 2018 13. Exchange Students/Faculty Feedback Spring 2017 14. Faculty interaction notes 15. Green buildings workshops report, 2016 16. Hydro-Power Workshop at NUST, Islamabad, 2018 17. NUST Steering Committee Notification 18. Organogram 19. Quarterly progress report, April-June 2017 20. Quarterly progress report, April – June 2018 21. Quarterly progress report, July - September 2018 22. Solar Photovoltaic Certification and Reliability Workshop, 2017 23. Stakeholders meeting updated list 24. Strategic Proposal Development, at Serena Islamabad, Pakistan 2018 25. Summary tables from all components - Mandatory Results and Targets, and Outputs and Activities to Achieve the Results 26. Technology Entrepreneurship Workshop Report, September 2017 27. Workshop/Training Narrative Report, Corporate Engagement Training, NUST Islamabad, Pakistan April 19-20, 2018
43 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
ANNEX 5: SURVEY TOOL: SEMI STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE KIIS / FGDS CHECKLIST
a. PMUs and Faculties at UET and NUST This checklist will be used for Key Informant interviews and Focus Group Discussions with PMU staff and faculties at UET Peshawar and NUST. The interviewers will start by introducing themselves and explaining the objective of the study. It will be a learning exercise to improve future operational performance/ support by the donors. This checklist of questions is meant to provide a guideline for the interviews and will be tailored to the knowledge/expertise/position of the respondent by selecting questions relevant to the person/people being interviewed. It is not necessary to ask every question to everyone. Looking at the nature of study, it is more appropriate to follow a qualitative approach. Therefore, this checklist is mainly based on questions meant for qualitative data collection. In addition, few questions in the checklist will also help in collecting quantitative data, where necessary.
RESPONDENT’S NAME: RESPONDENT’S TITLE & FUNCTION: DATE: LOCATION:
Questions Opening / warm up 1. What was/is your role in the USPCASE? What is your specific role within your organization? 2. What support was extended by ASU in all five areas stipulated under the US-PCASE Appropriateness/relevance of the ASU support 3. To what extent are the support activities in line with national demands and government initiatives in energy sector? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 4. To what extent were the University administration involved in the process? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 5. What is the relevance of courses at the CAS for Degree in Energy? (1-5) 6. To what extent this support was relevant to priorities of? (Highly, Average, Not Really) a. University b. HEC c. Industry (demand for skilled graduates for jobs) 7. Was the support relevant to the objectives of producing skilled graduates as well as promoting applied research needed to advance the energy sector in Pakistan. 8. Is this support relevant for meeting needs for Applied research? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 9. Ranking by perceived success in implementation of support from ASU: Governance, Curriculum Development, Research and Knowledge Exchange? (1-5 scale) 10. What priority needs do you think the ASU support is not addressing?
Effectiveness/quality
11. To what extent the targets set by the support were achieved? All, Most, Few
12. How do you evaluate the adequacy & appropriateness of support extended? (Highly, Medium, Low) 13. Assess the level of support received from ASU before, during and after exchange program? 1-5 14. Flexibility of ASU in accommodating students in research labs, participation in workshops. 1-5 15. What support was extended in implementation of joint research projects? 1-5
44 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
16. How effective was this support received in implementation of joint research projects? 1-5 17. Evaluate the relevance of workshop topics and student feedback etc. 1-5
18. How do you assess effectiveness of ASU communication and networking? 1-5 19. How engaging are the stakeholder meetings organized by CAS /ASU? High, Medium, Low 20. Relevance and appropriateness of virtual and face to face workshops (1-5) 21. What were the criteria for selection of students for the studies under this project? 22. How well have gender considerations been incorporated into ASU support extended to the partner universities (degree, exchange)? 1-5 23. Chances for graduates to find a job improved on the basis of this degree (highly, relatively, not really) 24. Were there any other research projects that you may have liked to conduct instead of what you did? 25. How do you measure an overall impact of this support? What are your indicators? 26. What are the main external factors that affected the realization or non-realization of the intended support? 27. Which support area was most effective in your opinion, prioritize from: Governance, Curriculum Development, Research and Knowledge Exchange? (Lowest 1- Highest 5) 28. What were the main strengths and main weaknesses of the overall support? Timeliness of support
29. Did the procurement processes followed slowed down timely provision of lab equipment /services (Highly, relatively, not really) 30. Were the project activities delivered in timely manner? (Highly, relatively, not really) 31. Were there any delays that required accommodating last-minute needs / changes? (Highly, relatively, not really) 32. What flexibility did ASU and the University offer to respond to last minute needs / changes? (Highly, relatively, not really) 33. How did ASU steer adaptive planning and emerging needs of the partners? Examples
34. Did the M&E provided effective feedback regarding timely implementation of the project activities? (Highly, Medium, Low) 35. Assess the timeliness of information communicated (Highly, Medium, Low)
Efficiency & Resource Utilisation 36. How did ASU catalyze information-sharing and exchange between partners and stakeholders? (1-5)
37. Which support area was provided in the most efficient manner in your opinion, prioritize from: Governance, Curriculum Development, Research, and Knowledge Exchange? (Lowest 1 - Highest 5) 38. How effective did you find communication and information flow from ASU? (Highly, relatively, not really) 39. How engaging did you find ASU process (highly engaging – engaging to some extent – top down) Sustainablity of the Centers including any ASU support 40. Will this support contribute to the medium/long term sustainability of Centers’ activities using evidences under the following? a. The Center notified as a statutory teaching institution of the University (Yes / No) b. Teaching course have been approved by the relevant University bodies / HEC (Yes / No) c. Faculty recruitment has been completed and are integral part of University (Yes / No) d. Self-sufficiency of CAS in funds for future continuation with evidence (Yes / No)
45 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
i. Commitment by the university to the CAS as integral part of university (Yes / No) ii. Fund raising from corporate sector (Yes / No) iii. Self-generation of funds / fund raising through own marketing (e.g. training) 41. Identify wider organizational learning taking stock of strengths, weaknesses and mistakes 42. What are the key sustainability challenges at each CAS in partner universities Closing 43. Suggestions for optimum support from ASU during the remaining period? 44. What important lessons have we learnt that may be carried forward to future interventions?
b. External stakeholders
This checklist will be used for Key Informant interviews and Focus Group Discussions with PMU staff and faculties at UET Peshawar and NUST. The interviewers will start by introducing themselves and explaining the objective of the study. It will be a learning exercise to improve future operational performance/ support by the donors. This checklist of questions is meant to provide a guideline for the interviews and will be tailored to the knowledge/expertise/position of the respondent by selecting questions relevant to the person/people being interviewed. It is not necessary to ask every question to everyone. Looking at the nature of study, it is more appropriate to follow a qualitative approach. Therefore, this checklist is mainly based on questions meant for qualitative data collection. In addition, few questions in the checklist will also help in collecting quantitative data, where necessary.
RESPONDENT’S NAME: RESPONDENT’S TITLE & FUNCTION: INTERVIEWER’S NAME(S): DATE: LOCATION:
Questions Opening / warm up 1. What support was extended by ASU in all five areas stipulated under the US-PCASE Appropriateness/relevance of the ASU support
2. To what extent are the support activities in line with national demands and government initiatives in energy sector? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 4. To what extent were the University administration involved in the process? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 5. What is the relevance of courses at the CAS for Degree in Energy? (1-5) 6. To what extent this support was relevant to University / HEC / Industry priorities? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 7. Was the support relevant to the objectives of producing skilled graduates as well as promoting applied research needed to advance the energy sector in Pakistan. 8. Is this support relevant for meeting needs for Applied research? (Highly, Average, Not Really) 9. Ranking by perceived success in implementation of support from ASU: Governance, Curriculum Development, Research and Knowledge Exchange? (1-5 scale) 10. What priority needs do you think the ASU support is not addressing? Effectiveness/quality
46 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
11. How do you evaluate the overall adequacy and appropriateness of support extended? (Highly, Medium, Low) 12. How do you assess effectiveness of ASU communication and networking? 1-5 13. How engaging are the stakeholder meetings organized by CAS /ASU? High, Medium, Low 14. What are the main external factors that affected the realization or non-realization of the intended support? 15. Which support area was most effective in your opinion, prioritize from: Governance, Curriculum Development, Research and Knowledge Exchange? (Lowest 1- Highest 5) 16. How do you measure an overall impact of this support? What are your indicators? 17. Chances for graduates to find a job improved on the basis of this degree (highly, relatively, not really) 18. What were the main strengths and main weaknesses of the overall support? Sustainablity of the Centers including any ASU support 19. Identify wider organizational learning taking stock of strengths, weaknesses and mistakes 20. What are the key sustainability challenges at each CAS in partner universities Closing 21. Suggestions for optimum support from ASU during the remaining period? 22. What important lessons have we learnt that may be carried forward to future interventions?
c. Feedback by students at CAS UET / CAS NUST
Mini workshop
Name______Ph:______Date of enrolment at the center______Degree______Date of participation in exchange program ______Name of the course attended at ASU______
Individual questionnaire 1. Is the degree you are receiving relevant to market demands? 2. Evaluate the relevance of courses offered at ASU for completion of your degree (1-5) 3. Evaluate relevance of courses offered at the center for completion of your degree (1-5) 4. Evaluate the adequacy and appropriateness of support extended (1- 5) 5. Assess the level of support extended during preparation for the exchange program (1 -5) 6. Asses the level of support extended during the exchange program at ASU (1 – 5) 7. Criteria for selection of students for exchange program? 8. Flexibility of ASU in accommodating students as per requirements of the assignment at ASU (1-5) 9. Evaluate the timeliness of support provided (1-5) 10. Evaluate quality of teaching at the center compared to your previous studies (lower, same, higher) 11. Evaluate appropriateness and adequacy of workshops organized at the center (1-5) 12. Evaluate appropriateness and adequacy of virtual workshops/lectures by ASU (1-5) 13. Assess networking and communication to further your studies (1-5) 14. How well have gender considerations been incorporated while selecting students for admissions (1-5)? 15. How well have gender considerations been incorporated while selecting students for exchange program (1-5)?
47 | Page
Stakeholder Evaluation Study Report | March 2019
16. Evaluate improvement in your chances to find a job on the basis of degree you will receive (1-5). If above 3, why? 17. Evaluate improvement in your chances of finding a job due to the exchange program (1-5). If above 3, why?
Plenary discussion:
18. Is this support activities in line with Govt. priorities known to you? 19. Main Strengths and weaknesses of the project? 20. Lesson learnt for future interventions? 21. Any other question to further qualify / clarify individual questions
48 | Page
PAKISTAN
SUCCESS STORY USPCAS-E applied research projects are focused on finding indigenous energy solutions for communities throughout Pakistan.
TURNING LOSS TO GAIN in cookie-factory baking facilities
Illustrations by Qiudi Zhang t’s been 66 years since former General Motors “The share of gas in our utility bill is 80 percent in terms president Charles E. Wilson was misquoted as of monetary value.” saying “What’s good for General Motors is good I Due to limited resources and low gas pressure of for the country.” The line took off because it’s easy to extrapolate national benefit from corporate success. natural gas, Sultan says Coronet uses a combination of If industry can increase profitability and operate natural gas and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) to fulfill equipment in a greener way, such benefits also impact plant requirements. Those requirements mandate an society at large. average monthly consumption of around 27,33,72 cubic meters, of which 70 percent is LPG and 30 percent is That’s the hope behind recent research conducted by natural gas. the U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E). An applied research project has Sultan adds, “We require huge amount of hot water in resulted in energy-saving equipment that’s likely to our different areas of production processes like mixing deliver considerable savings to Pakistan-based Coronet areas, washing areas and kitchens. Our hot water Foods, a subsidiary of English Biscuit Manufacturers. requirement is around 200 gallons per hour, and we are using gas geysers (water heaters) for this operation. UP IN SMOKE These gas geysers are adding a huge amount to our utility bill.” Natural gas prices have skyrocketed in Pakistan. This past September, Pakistan’s Economic Coordination Worse, much of that money is essentially drifting up the Committee (ECC) approved a 57 percent increase in flues of baking ovens. gas prices for the commercial sector. General industry saw a 40 percent increase and the power sector took a “For most fuel-fired equipment, a large amount of the 57 percent hike. heat supplied is wasted as exhaust or flue gasses,” notes Saim Saher, an assistant professor of engineering “Industry will be hit squarely,” says Ahmed Sohail Khan, at UET Peshawar. “These gasses still hold considerable the USPCAS-E technical advisor with the University of thermal energy. In many systems, this is the greatest Engineering and Technology (UET), Peshawar. “Gas single loss of heat.” prices have more than doubled in recent months.” But, Saher continues, the loss can be mitigated. That’s bad news for bakeries like Coronet Foods, which relies on gas for production. “The energy efficiency can often be increased by using waste heat gas recovery systems to capture and use “Coronet foods is one of the largest biscuit industries in some of the energy in the flue gas.” Pakistan and our production is mainly depends on gas,” says Asif Sultan, a professional engineer and principal Working with Saher and some of his students, Coronet investigator on a joint research project with USPCAS-E. Foods has been developing a heat-recovery system. “The primary aim of the research was to design and construct a system that will recover 70 percent of waste heat energy from natural gas furnace ovens and make it usable for water heating purposes. Currently, we are wasting this energy (by releasing it) into the environment.” — Asif Sultan
INDUSTRY DRIVEN, ACADEMIA SUPPORTED
“This is basically an industry-driven project,” says Saher. “The principal investigator, Asif Sultan, came up with the idea and we discussed it before developing the proposal.”
To support the research project, Saher advertised a student job and hired Yaseen Mehmood, a graduate scholar and mechanical engineer. He designed the device that would be used in the waste-heat recovery system and worked with Sultan to finalize and approve the design. “Most factories in the country are using their regular “The company management is very encouraging production processes and not considering energy in terms of innovation,” Sultan says. “When I came conservation or efficiency,” Saher says. “This is a up with this idea, there was no resistance from unique approach in Pakistan, particularly when we approving authorities and, in fact, they motivated me talk about the food industry.” to pursue the project.” The team hopes to spotlight the finished project for Part of the payback of this project comes from other bakeries and spread this efficiency measure strengthened bonds between industry and academia. nationwide. He adds that there were frequent exchange visits OUTSMARTING SULFUR between Sultan and the scholars, where each visited the other’s site, a move that proved to be a strong Cookie-baking ovens can reach temperatures relationship builder. as high as 250 degrees Celsius or 482 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat-recovery equipment extracts “Normally, the private sector does not trust the much of the heat and discharges gasses at 75 capabilities of academia to provide design solutions,” degrees Celsius or 167 degrees Fahrenheit. explained Saher. “This project has boosted trust.” “Whenever you extract heat below 100 degrees In addition, it served as a showcase for industry Celsius there is condensation and sulfur dioxide leaders to discover the benefits of academic in the flue gasses, and this could corrode the research. equipment,” says Khan. Condensing appliance technology allows 45 °C maximum heat recovery from the flue gases. 130 °C
230 °C
This has been one of the challenges of the project. “After installation of heat recovery system, we save every month,” Sultan says. To combat this, the UET Peshawar researchers leveraged materials science along with engineering Even if the final heat-recovery system only operates in designing the equipment. The prototype unit was at 40 percent efficiency, it is likely to recover system designed with stainless steel because it is resistant to costs in less than one year. And, because it was a joint corrosion, allowing the team to cool flue gases more research project with UET Peshawar, the benefits can completely and capture more of the thermal energy. spread throughout Pakistan.
“The lower the flue gas temperature can be reduced, “If companies are implementing different cost-effective the more efficient the condensing appliance solutions, they are not disseminating these practices technology,” notes a report produced by the research to a larger audience,” Saher says. “Our project seeks team. to benefit other players in the market by sharing our findings and results.” Right now, the team is testing a second version of the heat-recovery device because moisture was getting In fact, the project may go beyond bakery ovens and trapped inside the first unit. wind up benefiting many businesses in Pakistan. Khan also envisions this type of condensing economizer “We have redesigned the model based on testing and being used in five-star hotels in the country’s northern are currently fabricating a new product,” Saher says. mountains.
He says this time the team created a condensing “There is no natural gas because there is no pipeline for economizer, a device that removes heat from hot flue these areas,” he says. “They operate boilers with diesel, gases by passing them through coiled pipes. and that has a heavy sulfur content. This design holds enormous potential for industry.” “Once complete, we plan to replicate with the baking industry across Pakistan,” he adds. “We will invite representatives of industry to visit the factor and see BY BETSY LOEFF results of our project.”
The results should be impressive. Currently, Coronet Foods invests 1,211,760 Pakistani rupees or nearly $9,000 per month in natural gas and LPG for water heating only. PAKISTAN
SUCCESS STORY Working to ensure a bright future for Pakistan
Growing up, Shazmina Jamil had to change minds. Shazmina is now a graduate student in electrical She explains that in Pakistan, people don’t see girls energy/power systems at the U.S.-Pakistan Center as engineers, engineering is seen as a male-only for Advanced Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E) at realm. But she definitely had an engineering mindset the University of Engineering and Technology from an early age, being curious about how things (UET) Peshawar. She’s from Kohat, in the Khyber worked and taking things apart to see the inner Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. After earning her workings for herself. undergraduate degree in electrical engineering at UET Peshawar, continuing on as a graduate student “I always had a passion for learning new things and with USPCAS-E was a natural next step. a thirst for understanding the latest technologies,” Shazmina explains. “When I was getting my undergraduate engineering degree, I knew that I wanted to do research in power She worked to change minds bit by bit in her systems. After graduating, I decided to pursue a community and family, changing the concept of who master’s degree,” Shazmina says. can be an engineer.
“The concept that only boys could be engineers was a concept that I had to overcome. I did that and I am the first girl in my family to become an engineer.” ENVISIONING A 24/7 POWERED FUTURE FOR PAKISTAN
Shazmina wants to see fulltime availability of power in her home country. She wants everyone to have the freedom to pursue any activity without worrying about power availability.
“I want my people to have 24-hour access to power. I want everyone to be able to study when they want, to cook when they want, and to do anything that they want without worrying about outages,” Shazmina explains.
Shazmina’s research focuses on phasor measurement unit (PMU) data for fault detection. Her work is like that of a detective, looking for system faults before they happen in order to prevent overloads and blackouts.
“I am working on PMU data for fault detection in different parts of power systems. This is important for Pakistan because currently, we can’t always detect faults and prevent blackouts. In Pakistan, we now have PMUs so with this new knowledge I can help Pakistan Shazmina echoes the sentiments of other exchange manage its energy network.” scholars in her admiration of the good time management, hard work, rule following (like traffic laws), Shazmina knows that load shedding events impact and the management of public spaces and venues like the quality of life in Pakistan and her work focuses Disneyland and national parks that she has observed in on identifying potential issues before systems and the United States. She noticed that even very crowded transformers are overloaded and power outages occur. areas are well managed in the U.S. Power outages can affect Pakistanis for 12 to 16 hours a day greatly interfering with economic activities and “We need to implement these things at home in everyday life. Pakistan.”
THE POWER OF EXCHANGE Shazmina observed that it’s easy to follow her culture when she’s at home in Pakistan but being immersed Shazmina says that the best part of her USPCAS-E in another country gave her a new appreciation for experience has been the exchange program. her own culture as well as an appreciation for other “The exchange program was an amazing experience. cultures. I am excited to be learning these things in the U.S.,” “I really learned to follow my culture and value my own she says. It’s really awesome working in the lab. I have norms while living far away from home and at the same learned a lot of things but I am most excited about time, appreciating and accepting others.” learning the way research is done at ASU and will take that knowledge back with me.” After graduation, Shazmina plans to continue her research and hopes to pursue a Ph.D. in the United In addition to learning about the research process in States. her lab at ASU, Shazmina has also learned a lot about American culture in her first visit to the United States.
“There are many misunderstandings about America in my country, so it’s nothing like what I expected. The American people are very welcoming and adaptive, accepting people from all different countries and cultures.”
USPCAS-E applied research projects are focused on finding indigenous energy solutions for communities throughout Pakistan. Visit uspcase.asu.edu to learn more.
2 PAKISTAN
SUCCESS STORY Bringing knowledge home: USPCAS-E grads aim to spread lessons
ome visitors leave the U.S. with a miniature SEEING THE BIGGER PICTURE Statue of Liberty or Grand Canyon photos. USPCAS-E scholars leave the country with Both Qamar and Umar had degrees in electrical S engineering when they were admitted to the transformational knowledge they’ll put to good use in their native Pakistan. USPCASE program, and both are firmly focused on developing renewable energy resources for Two such scholars are Afshan Qamar and Farooq their energy-strapped nation. Each clearly sees Umar. They’ve both earned master’s degrees that the value of renewable energy extends from NUST and established impressive research beyond the electricity generated. credentials. Now they’re headed to doctorate-level study to further the expertise they will eventually “I did my first job in electrical power stations,” apply to solving Pakistan’s energy crisis. says Umar. As an electrical maintenance engineer at a utility, he was dismayed by what he saw streaming from conventional, coal-fired power plants: pollution. Nearby, however, he saw solar generators. Renewables, Qamar knows, can help stop that flow of money out of the country and also create trickle- down benefit.
“When you invest in renewables, you’re not only creating electricity; you’re creating jobs. A lot of people are involved: designers, manufactures and the people who are installing these systems,” she says. OPENING A DOOR TO OPPORTUNITY
Participating in the USPCAS-E program put both Qamar and Umar at opportunity’s door. As hoped, Umar found himself working in a well-equipped lab with top-tier technology, and he credits his experiences at Arizona State University with giving him the foundation to do one of the projects he’s working on now: developing a smart inverter specifically designed to respond to the frequent load-shedding events Pakistanis endure. Load- shedding is when electrical power supply is intentionally shut down to avoid excessive load. This disrupts power availability and everyday life. An inverter helps keep certain devices running during load-shedding.
“It is very different from the inverters available in the local market,” he says. “The number one benefit is that is has more efficiency.”
That’s because some inverters currently made in Pakistan can have efficiency as low as 20 percent, while 80 percent is the upper rating. “I got really inspired by seeing that clean power. Umar is designing an inverter he expects to deliver That is why I made my decision and quit my job.” 90-percent efficiency, and it also can be run on-grid or off. That means the inverter can decouple from Umar discovered the USPCAS-E program through the grid, and load shedding can happen without a colleague from his undergraduate studies and necessitating curtailment of the solar generator or applied. storage unit the inverter is attached to.
“My friend was doing his master’s,” he says, “And Along with gaining technical skills, Umar says his his knowledge was very up-to-date. He had the experience in the U.S. fostered personal growth, latest technology to use with this program.” partly through the interaction with other professional researchers and partly through exposure to people Qamar had been focused on renewables from of different backgrounds. her undergraduate days. While she values clean energy, she also recognizes the economic benefit “ASU is a very diverse university. I went to an event, that renewables deliver. International Night, and there were people from 42 different countries. I have friends from India, the “Right now, the sources we use to create electricity USA, China and Japan.” in Pakistan are mostly oil and coal and, of course, they are very expensive,” she says. “We’re Qamar echoes these sentiments. spending a huge amount from our economy on resources we’re importing.”
2 “The U.S. is a place where you have people from every country and every religion,” she says. “That was a very good experience: seeing people with different cultures, behaviors, manners, religions and foods.”
Like Umar, Qamar also values the experience she gained working in a world-class laboratory.
“The big thing for me is the experience I got at the Solar Reliability Lab at ASU,” she says.
The center focuses on predicting the lifetime of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules for various climatic conditions by applying statistical tools. Qamar worked under the guidance of Dr. Govindasamy Tamizhmani (Dr. Mani), a PV research veteran at ASU with some 32 years of experience and more than 150 published papers under his belt.
One of Qamar’s research projects during Umar is teaching as well, plus he’s conducting her USPCAS-E studies involved creating a research, including the solar inverter project noted mathematical model that tracks the health of a PV before as well as the development of a test that is system. based on international standards to evaluate the efficiency of large industrial motors. The goal is to “You can see how your system behaved, how much identify inefficient motors and find ways to fix them. energy you produced and compare that to how much energy you should produce,” Qamar says. Like Qamar, Umar is also headed back to North “The analysis gives you insights to help you install America, and he’s awaiting word on admission to systems in different areas in Pakistan so that they his doctorate program. He’ll be attending a U.S. can deliver maximum performance.” school on a Fulbright Scholarship, one of the most competitive and prestigious fellowship programs Qamar’s other USPCAS-E project involved working in the world. According to Umar, his USPCAS-E on a micro-hydro system capable of generating experience helped him earn that scholastic honor. electricity using the flow of small streams. After he earns his doctorate, Umar dreams of “The purpose was to electrify remote communities, enriching his hometown university, which he says especially in rural areas,” she says. Through her now suffers from a lack of doctorate-level teaching USPCAS-E research projects, Qamar was able to fellows. contribute to two professional papers, a good start to the publishing life that is central to an academic “I want to bring contracts, funding and good people,” career. he says.
WORKING TODAY AND WORKING He also wants to encourage entrepreneurship TOWARD TOMORROW locally in the energy sector.
Qamar is headed to graduate school again, hoping The similar path these two scholars have chosen to be admitted to a university in Canada so she can to take reflects the life-changing knowledge they explore another country. For now, she’s teaching acquired through their USPCAS-E studies. classes at two private universities in Pakistan. Once she completes her doctorate, she hopes to continue “It gives me my vision,” Qamar says. “Now I am teaching in her native country and also consult very clear on what I should do and what I will do. within the energy industry there. That is because of USPCAS-E.”
BY BETSY LOEFF
3 PAKISTAN
SUCCESS STORY First international conference puts USPCAS-E centers on the energy map
ou’re not going to solve Pakistan’s energy The conference, held March 12 and 13 at the “Ycrisis from Britain or the U.S. or any other National University of Sciences and Technology place in the world,” said Arizona State University (NUST) in Islamabad, was organized and hosted professor Dr. Clark Miller in a Pakistani television by the U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced interview in 2016. “You’re going to have to own it Studies in Energy (USPCAS-E) project’s three and solve it here.” partners: Arizona State University (ASU), the University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Three years later, and on the heels of the first-ever Peshawar, and NUST. The conference was a International Conference on Sustainable Energy seminal event featuring 11 international speakers in Pakistan (ICSEP), it’s evident that Pakistani and more than 550 participants, 120 of whom were faculty, students and government representatives Pakistani women pursuing technical careers in the are doing just that. energy sector. “I see this conference as a valuable addition to “ICSEP provided a forum to highlight and disseminate Pakistan’s now flourishing energy sector, and the centers’ achievements in applied research to the specialized research centers like USPCAS-E surely industry, academia, government and civil society,” said will play an instrumental part in providing sustainable USPCAS-E Deputy Director Ahmad Saeed, who is and renewable energy solutions for Pakistan’s energy based at NUST. challenges,” said Mr. Omar Ayub Khan, Federal Minister for Power Division, in his address as the “Our stakeholders were able to get a better conference’s chief guest. understanding of the high caliber of the faculty and graduates of the two centers. The conference also Sustainable research centers, which produce provided an opportunity to the faculty and students sustainable energy solutions for Pakistan, are critical. to network and learn from the experiences of the And that’s why this international conference was so prominent international and national energy experts monumental. It’s a first leap in ensuring the long- who attended.” term sustainability of the two USPCAS-E research centers in Pakistan, which were created as part of Conference speakers were selected for their cutting- a collaborative five-year project with an $18 million edge research and application in key areas: investment from the United States Agency for • Energy policy and management. Highlights in International Development (USAID). The project is this area included a presentation by USPCAS-E now in its fifth and final year of USAID funding. Director and ASU professor Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, on Mr. Jerry Bisson, USAID Mission Director, said: future trends in energy. Another notable speaker “One of the most important investments we can was Dr. Adil Najam from Boston University, who make moving forward is in the institutions that foster presented the idea of distributed generation innovation and the great minds that convene within in a whole new manner and highlighted how a them.” challenge can be converted to an opportunity.
USPCAS-E was established with a driving mission • Renewable energy. Dr. Jawwad Darr of University to cultivate and grow indigenous talent in Pakistan College London-UK gave a keynote on new specially trained to tackle the country’s mounting approaches and capabilities for energy storage energy challenges. The project’s main goals are to materials, as well as an update on the UK Faraday focus on applied research relevant to Pakistan’s challenge for energy storage. Another keynote was energy needs and help produce skilled graduates in given by Dr. Kamaruzzaman Sopian of Universiti the energy field. Kebangsaan in Malaysia, who focused on advances in photovoltaic thermal solar collectors. BUILDING ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Thermal energy engineering. Technologies, Since the project’s inception in 2014, USPCAS-E has, barriers and research in the area of advanced among other accomplishments: biofuels via biomass gasification was discussed by keynote speaker Dr. Edd A. Blekkan, a • Built two new buildings, housing 16 labs and two professor at Norwegian University of Science and libraries, at NUST and UET Peshawar. Technology (NTNU) in Norway. • Developed 14 new degree programs at NUST and STUDENTS SHINE IN RESEARCH UET. POSTER SESSION
• Initiated 48 joint and applied research projects. In addition to the plenary talks, technical sessions and • Established nine public-private partnerships. panel discussions that happened throughout the two- day conference, faculty and students at USPCAS-E • Graduated 184 Pakistani students with master’s were able to showcase and discuss their work with degrees. visiting experts and local stakeholders. A total of 42 Pakistani students — 21 from UET and 21 from NUST USPCAS-E leadership and faculty decided to build — presented research posters. on these accomplishments by hosting ICSEP, which fit perfectly into the overarching goals of the project in many ways.
2 “In the poster session, the students had an opportunity for local industry and fellow researchers to critically assess the work they presented on their posters,” said Dr. Tanvir Ahmad, a UET professor and conference organizer. “Some of my students are already invited for meetings by industry professionals to get more information about their ongoing projects.” THE BEGINNING OF CROSS SECTOR COLLABORATION
From an economic perspective for Pakistan as a whole, the international conference marks the beginning of a new initiative between universities, Jerry Bisson industry and international partners to work together to address energy challenges.
“It demonstrated the importance of the USPCAS-E centers and the fruition of students graduating with advanced degrees to help lead the effort,” said Dr. Sayfe Kiaei. “This project has brought a significant number of local energy experts to Pakistan’s economy.”
There are global ramifications, as well. Conference organizer Dr. Naseem Iqbal said: “Overall, ICSEP helped in putting USPCAS-E on the energy map of not only Pakistan but the world. It emerged as a credible energy research institute undertaking cutting-edge Omar Ayub Khan applied research in energy.”
That’s a fantastic outcome, especially given the challenges that USPCAS-E faculty had to overcome in planning the conference. Chief among them were safety concerns that invitees had with traveling to Pakistan.
“At the moment, due to security challenges, Pakistan is not a favorite travel destination,” said Saeed. “We had some speakers cancel due to concerns, but past experience with international conferences shows that the scientific community embraces a greater courage to stand by their comrades in difficult times, and ICSEP was no different. The majority of our invitees Sayfe Kiaei chose to visit Pakistan, and I think the conference showed a softer side of the country.”
“It helped bring people closer and address biases and any misunderstandings which may have existed for any reason. I would call the conference a resounding success.”
BY JEN KENNEDY
USPCAS-E applied research projects are focused on finding indigenous energy solutions for communities throughout Pakistan. Visit uspcase.asu.edu to learn more. USPCAS-E master’s student Leena Aftab, right, received first prize in the student poster competition. 3