Next-Generation Engineering: Design of a New Major

1. Next-Generation Engineering: Design of a New Major

2. Sustainability Engineering Economic, environmental, and legal trends all point to Sustainability Engineering becoming an unavoidable part of our future. It will become necessary for the world and has the qualities a major needs to thrive in industry, and within UCB.

3. Project Definition: Wide View Discipline Department Major To identify and design a new engineering discipline that encompasses a key, yet underutilized, spectrum of knowledge.

4. Stage 1 Research: Project Parameters • Interview: Robert Giomi, Assistant Dean College of Engineering • Internet • Personal Experiences

5. Key Stakeholders • Students • Faculty • University • Industry • End-Users

6. Key Stakeholders: Faculty • Support • Example: Computer Engineering – Created Due to 2 or 3 faculty interest • Teach • Example: Bio-Engineering – Took 2 years to recruit faculty • Research

7. Key Stakeholders: University • 2 Stages for Approval • University Internal • Engineering Science Study Committee • College of Engineering Vote • COCI – Committee on Courses of Instruction • ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) • Logistics • Housing • Organization of Faculty • Organization of Financing

8. Key Stakeholders: Industry • Funding • Example: Bio-Engineering – Grown because of need from: Region, State & Federal Government. • Employment

9. Constraints Major Constraints • Current Course Catalog • Faculty to Teach • Funding of the Major • Housing of the Major Project Constraints • Surveying Issues (time, sample size, contacts) • Timeframe • Team Resources

10. Competition & Status Quo • Competition • Internal • 21 Engineering Programs (including double major programs) • 78 other possible overlapping degrees • External • Similar Programs Nationwide

11. Definition of a Desirable Major • Satisfies Key Stakeholders • Obeys Given Constraints • Differentiated from Competition

12. Narrowing Process • Brainstorming – 100 Ideas • Top 10 Ideas • Top 3: • Conservative: Nano-Engineering • Intermediate: Sustainability Engineering • Radical: Recreation Engineering

13. Stage 2 Research – In-depth Analysis of Top 3 • Internet • Student Surveys

14. Nano-Engineering Nano-Engineering combines the science and engineering of nanometer scales in order to develop novel nanoscale systems and technologies.

15. Nano-Engineering

16. Recreation Engineering Recreation engineering integrates fields such as logistics, psychology, ergonomics, civil/mechanical engineering, and others to plan, develop and manage events, installations, hotels, theme parks, customer service operations, etc.

17. Recreation Engineering

18. Sustainability Engineering • The combination of engineering methods with scientific tools to design product, facility, and infrastructure life cycles in ways compatible with long-term considerations, including focuses on energy conservation and the reduction of lost resources.

19. Sustainability Engineering

20. Top 3 Comparison

21. Sustainability Engineering

22. Sustainability Engineering • It currently requires about 300 kilograms of natural resources to generate US$100 of income in the world's most advanced economies. Given the size of these economies, this volume of materials represents a truly massive scale of environmental alteration. • First quarter 2003, US GDP = $10.6 Trillion. Equates to 30 Trillion kilograms of natural resources Source: http://www.wri.org/trends/ Source: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/criticaltrends_1408.pdf

23. Satisfying the Stakeholders End Users - Users of Technology and Products Developed as a Result of a New Engineering Discipline • A study published in 1997 by the Berne Declaration calculated that every Swiss franc of official development assistance generates a net return of 1.26 francs in Switzerland. Source: http://www.foundation.novartis.com/development_assistance.htm

24. Satisfying the Stakeholders Industry – 1999 ITT/Discover survey results • In your opinion, what will be the greatest challenge solved by civil engineers in the 21st century? • 22.1% Water Supply • 20.6% Infrastructure development and replacement • 16.2% Transportation • 13.2% Environmental Concerns • Chemical Engineers? • 29.9% Environmental Concerns • 20.9% Developing new energy sources • 9.0% Water supply • Mechanical Engineers? • 30.9% Developing new energy sources • Electrical Engineers? • 27.6% Developing new energy sources Source: http://www.ieeeusa.org/newspubs/features/ittsurvey.htm

25. Satisfying the Stakeholders University • EPA region III serves Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia • 13 projects were funded by EPA in region III between 1996 and 1999 • Popularity of SE projects has grown since then Source: http://www.epa.gov/r3chespk/sdcg.htm

26. Satisfying the Stakeholders Faculty • Research undertaken by faculty at Centre for Sustainable Design at University College, UK • Integrated Product Policy and Eco-Product Development (IPP-EPD) project • The Eco-Design Training for Manufacturing, Use and 'End-of-Life' for SMEs (ETMUEL) project • The Strategic Comprehensive Approach for Electronics Recycling and Re-use (SCARE) project • Sustainability Integrated Guidelines for Management (SIGMA) project Source: http://www.cfsd.org.uk/research/index.html

27. Satisfying the Stakeholders Students • Student surveys • Need – Challenging studies • Need - Opportunity for employment

28. 3 Major Emphases • Production • Product quality improvement and design for obsolescence, equipment selection and reliability, process efficiency improvement and impact reduction, packaging, and materials selection and handling. • Sample Companies: High-Tech and Traditional Manufacturing • Facilities • Construction materials, energy optimization, waste reduction and landscape impact. • Sample Companies: Contractors, Developers and Consulting Companies. • Infrastructure • Public policy and budgeting, environmental economics, transportation systems and landscape design. • Sample Companies: PG&E, Shell, Exxon, and consulting firms as well as government service including CalTrans.

29. SE Curriculum – First Years

30. SE Curriculum - Specialization Production Facilities Infrastructure

31. New SE Classes • SE 122 – Sustainable Processing of Materials in Manufacturing • Related to ME 122 • SE 126A – Obsolescence • SE 126B – End-of-Life Considerations in Product Design • SE 174 – Senior Project • SE 180 – New Technology and Research • Survey interest

32. Logistics • Department Status: Within Civil Engineering Department • Faculty: • Arpad Horvath, As. Prof. Civil Engineering • William W. Nazaroff, Prof. Environmental Engineering • Kent S. Udell, Prof. Mechanical Engineering • Housing: Davis Hall

33. Competition • Internal to UC Berkeley • Civil and Environmental Engineering • Mechanical Engineering • External Programs • Cornell University, graduate minor in Conservation and Sustainable Development • University of Arizona, College of Architecture and Environmental Design • Centre for Sustainable Design within The Surrey Institute of Art & Design, University College, UK • Independent research projects from universities, such as Colorado State and University of Texas.

34. Stage 3 Research – User Testing • Interview: William W. Nazaroff, Professor of Environmental Engineering at UCB • Interview: Kent S. Urdell, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at UCB • Current Engineering Surveys • Industry Surveys

35. Interview: William W. Nazaroff • Prof. Environmental Engineering • Interested in Civil Engineering Aspects of Sustainable Development • Teaches Graduate Seminar – CE 292A “Technologies for Sustainable Societies” • Referred by Arpad Horvath

36. Results & Change Effected • Changed Major Name – Sustainable Development Engineering to Sustainability Engineering • Input on Emphasis • Infrastructure, Manufacturing • Focus on Engineering Economics

37. Interview: Kent S. Udell • Prof. Mechanical Engineering at UCB • Interested in Mechanical Engineering Aspects of Sustainable Development • Goal: To get Faculty perspective on Sustainability Engineering

38. Results & Change Effected • Use Existing Department • Much easier to take small steps • Focus on Energy Conversion • Develop Main Emphases

39. Current UCB Engineering Students • Surveyed 61 Current Engineering Students, Variety of Engineering Fields, Variety of Course Level • Used a variety of qualitative and quantitative questions • Goal: To get input from current engineers to refine our major

40. Survey Results

41. Web-Site

42. Survey Results • Question: “How important are these factors when considering a major?”

43. Web-Site

44. Survey Results Continued Sample questions: “Did your major turn out like you expected?” “What would you change about your major?” Qualitative Results: “Make the curriculum less flexible” – BioEngr major “At Berkeley, I would make my major more focused…it’s really hard to chose your own path in bioengineering” – BioEngr major “I wish they would have had more projects/labs earlier in the curriculum too, so you got to know your peers better earlier” – ME Major

45. Industry Engineering Surveys • Surveyed 5 Engineers Currently in Industry • Goal: To gain additional perspective for engineering major improvements. • Sample Question: “What do you regret not learning in college?”

46. Industry Surveys Results • Desire: Better Writing and Presentation Skills • Change: Moved E190 up to Junior Year, Most New SE Courses are Project/Presentation Focused • Desire: Focus on more Emerging Technology • Change: Included SE 180 – Year Long Emerging Technology Course

47. Questions? Team Members

48. References • Slide 5 Image: Zyvex, Inc., http://www.zyvex.com • Slide 7 Images: Clip Art (globe and city), Greenroofs.com, www.greenroofs.com • Slide 9 Chart: IEEE Spectrum, January 2003 Issue, http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/jan03/2003IEEEfellsurv.ppt • Slide 10 Image: Ollner Design, www.ollnerdesign.com

49. Sustainability Engineering IEEE Survey Results Below is a list of broad social issues. Please indicate the amount of technological resources you feel will be needed in the next five years to address each issue. (10= need more technological resources; 1= need less technological resources)