Carleton University Simulator Project (CUSP) M.J.D. Hayes1, R.G. Langlois1, T.W. Pearce2, C.-L. Tan1, J.A. Gaydos1 1 Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] 2Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada [email protected] This paper presents novel aspects of CUSP, an industrially relevant 4th year design project, and its pedagogi- cal paradigm in the framework of Capstone Design Projects in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Carleton University. There are currently six projects involving 28 faculty members, 6 grad- uate students, 200 4th year students, and a significant number of 3rd year student volunteers. CUSP will be presented as a case study. This project is by nature multidisciplinary and includes participation of the Depart- ment of Systems and Computer Engineering, the Centre for Applied Cognitive Research, and the Eric Sprott School of Business. Given its industrial relevance, proposals have been made for industrial sponsorship of graduate students and post-doctoral fellows to lead basic research and development aspects, thereby evolving the project into a vertically integrated research programme. A similar thrust is being made by the five other multidisciplinary projects. 1 INTRODUCTION veloped at Canadian universities. The most gen- erally accepted idea was that modern engineer- In February 2003, the CSME and the Department ing design challenges require a multidisciplinary of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Con- paradigm, rather than an interdisciplinary team cordia University in Montreal´ co-hosted the Inter- approach. That is, in the paradigm of 4th year national Conference on the Future of Engineering capstone design projects it is not enough to en- Education (CSME-ICFEE 2003). The objective able interaction between different engineering dis- was to create an opportunity for frank discussion ciplines. What is required is the enablement of between engineers in academia and those in in- interaction between different disciplines. For ex- dustry. Topics ranged from issues facing women ample, a design team examining issues associated in engineering to a panel discussion on Interdisci- with human factors in the design of a human- plinary Engineering Programmes and another on machine interface must include not only mechan- Re-Engineering the Aerospace Curriculum. All ical, electrical, and systems engineers, but also re- of the sessions were productive, but the two panel quires input from psychologists, cognitive scien- discussions were particularly so. Moreover, the tists, industrial designers, physiologists, etc.. resulting conclusions and recommendations from The panel on re-engineering the aerospace cur- the two panel sessions meshed very nicely with riculum was chaired by Hany Moustapha from th the evolution of 4 year capstone design projects Pratt & Whitney Canada. The majority of panel in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace members were from the aerospace corporations Engineering at Carleton University. in the Montreal´ area, including CAE, Bell Heli- Filippo Salustri, from the Department of Me- copter, and Bombardier. There was general agree- chanical, Aerospace, and Industrial Engineering ment that mechanical and aerospace engineering at Ryerson University, led the discussion on in- students graduate with sufficient technical skills, terdisciplinary engineering programmes [2]. The but lack key soft skills. The outcome of the dis- panel members were all academics and the discus- cussion was a wish list of soft skills the aerospace sion focused on how such programmes can be de- industry members wanted the aerospace, and by CSME 2004 Forum 1 extension the mechanical engineering, curriculum 2 EVOLUTION to impart to new graduates. This wish list was Carleton University began offering Masters and nicely summarized by Gerhard Serapins [3], Man- Doctoral degrees in aeronautical engineering in ager of Research and Development, Operations, the early 1960s. By the 1970s there were sev- CAE Inc.: eral faculty members who had spent some time in the United Kingdom and were well aware of “There is a need for students to expe- the design project that was a major part of the rience working in a virtual enterprise educational activities at The College of Aeronau- environment. Among other soft skills, tics, Cranfield, England (now Cranfield Univer- they need to experience a design project sity). The Cranfield project involved a design matrix: experience having to prioritise team of about 20 students, guided by several fac- among multiple supervisors and mul- ulty members. Over a period of a year or more tiple tasks; communicating in a large the team would typically develop, to quite a high multidisciplinary team; develop verbal level of detail, the design of an aircraft for some and written communication skills, but specified mission. also develop the capacity for unbiased In 1986 a proposal to offer an undergraduate listening.” degree program in aerospace engineering was be- ing prepared for Carleton University’s Senate and For the last ten years the paradigm for the 4th there was a consensus that a team design project year capstone design projects in the Department similar to that at Cranfield should be included in of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Car- the final year of the new program. The intent was leton University has evolved such that it satisfies to simulate insofar as possible the team-design en- the major requirements agreed upon by both panel vironment typically found in the aerospace indus- discussions [1]. That is, a compromise has been try. It was felt that such a team project would found that meets the academic requirements for not only provide students with substantial first- accreditation, while focusing on industrially rele- hand design experience but would also provide vant design issues. a vehicle for attaining other educational objec- tives, including making students aware of the im- While the projects are resource intensive both portance of collaborative effort, communications, in terms of funding, time, and space, the end re- documentation and configuration control and for sult is very well justified. Moreover, the return on giving them opportunities to improve their presen- the investment is irresistible. It includes good will tation and report-writing skills. The proposal was and cooperation from industry and government in- accepted by Carleton’s Senate and both an aircraft stitutions, research opportunity, potential graduate and a satellite design project, each with about 20 students, and graduating students well prepared to students, were implemented in 1991-92, the final make a strong contribution to any modern design year of the first Aerospace Engineering graduat- project. One very tangible benefit for our 4th year ing class. students that stems from the relationship between industry and university fostered by the capstone Representatives of industry were involved in design projects is a job. The final design reviews the projects from the beginning, both as lead en- are well attended by relevant industry represen- gineers in the project work itself and as evaluators tatives. Frequently students are invited to inter- in the formal design reviews at the end of each views, or even offered an entry level position dur- academic year, see [4], for example. The feed- ing the banquet following the design review. back from industry representatives was very pos- itive, so much so that in 2001-02 the same team In the next section we shall give a brief history th project format was adopted in the mechanical en- of the evolution of the 4 year capstone design gineering degree program. At present there are six project paradigm, present an overview of man- ongoing projects. agement and operational practices, and briefly de- scribe each of the current six projects. The sub- 3 OVERVIEW sequent section will illustrate the concepts using CUSP as a case study, wherein we shall describe The current success and popularity of the capstone the objectives of CUSP in greater detail, discuss design projects largely can be attributed to three the management and organization of the matrix main factors: challenge, industrial relevance, and format, and outline the technical aspects. continuity. Experience has demonstrated that the CSME 2004 Forum 2 more challenging the task faced by students, the At present, projects are proposed and selected greater the accomplishment that can be expected. by departmental faculty members. As industry To foster this, project managers and lead engi- fully appreciates the potential of these projects neers (faculty members and consultants) are find- for tackling challenging problems that can more ing that technical and management support rather easily be undertaken in a university environment than direction is an effective operating model for due to greater academic resources, greater cost ef- the projects. Each project is technically challeng- fectiveness, and reduced requirements for guaran- ing and generally based on ambitious end objec- teed success or immediate results, it is likely that tives. All the projects have multi-year time lines, projects will be selected and coordinated collabo- typically five years, carried out in yearly phases. ratively with the research and development activi- Projects are industrially