Korea’s Success Model of Industrialization and Roles of Deans Council in Economic Development

1. Korea’s Success Model of Industrialization and Roles of Deans Council in Economic Development 20th October, 2010 Singapore Prof. Wonjong Joo Innovation Center for Engineering Education Seoul National Univ. of Science and Technology

2. Contents • Korea’s Compressed Development Model • Innovation Center for Engineering Education • Seoul Tech ICEE Operation

3. Korea’s Compressed Development Model • <One generation efforts can change the shape of a nation>

4. Korea in Asia Geopolitically sensitive region Only one divided country Korea can be a hub country in Asia ! Within 3 hrs distance from Seoul, 1) 61 metropolitans having more than 1 million population 2) 1/3 world population 3) 20% of World GDP 4) Purchasing power same as USA

5. Seoul 1951, Korean war

6. Han River (Seoul) Early 1960s: 2 bridges

7. At the end of Korean War Isolation -> Colony -> World War II -> Korean War -> Division -> Instability (for 100 years) • NO money • NO Technology • NO Natural resources • YES we have People

8. Seoul Now

9. Han River at Seoul Now: 26 bridges

10. GNI • 1963 $ 100 • $ 250 • $10,000 • 2009 < ~20,000 100 times (4.5 times growth, every 10 years) Less than 2 times during last 13 years

11. Strong Leadership

12. Woolsan City Construction Site of Hyundai Shipbuilding Co., year 1972

13. Woolsan City Hyundai Heavy Industry Co. Shipbuilding Ship Engine Offshore Electrical Construction Platform Systems Vehicles

14. Korea’s Accomplishments • GDP #12 ($928.7b, • ’08) • Export# 8 ($383.5 b, • ‘09) • Population # 26 • (48 Million, ‘06) • Higher Edu. Rate #1 • (56%, OECD Ave. 34%, • ‘07) • - Shipbuilding #1 • - Display #1 • - Mobile Phone #2 • - Automobile #5 Economic Power Human Resource Industry Competitiveness ~ Rank 10 • 2008 Beijing Olympic # 7 • 2010 Winter Olympic # 5 • 2002 Worldcup #4 Sports • R&D Budget # 7 • ($33.6 Billion, ‘07) • Int. License Reg. # 4 • (‘07) Science/ Technology Korean Drama

15. Reasons 1: Fast Economic Growth • 0) InternationalHelp • Adversities in last 100 years • 2) Respect to scholar (Education) • 3) Free Market, Enterprise, and Trade • 4) Strong Leadership • 5) Qualified/ diligent Engineer • Only one country to be a donor from a receiver !!

16. Reason 2: Fast Economic Growth Co-work: Check and Balance UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY

17. Korea’s View: World Economy Trend • New Emerging • Countries / BRICs • China: World • Factory to Market • - City construction G20 • New Energy • Source Business • Climate change • CO2 Market • (‘06) 36B (‘07) 64B • (‘10) $150B • China’s Energy C Green • - Conversance • Electric Car (Me + EE) • Smart Phone (IT + conts) • IT, BT, NT Fusion • U-Health Fusion

18. Korea’s next Driving Forces 17 Driving items Service Green Fusion • Broadcast+Telecom • IT Fusion • Robot Applications • New Material (Nano) • Bio-Pham, Med. Eq’t • High Add. Food • Global Healthcare • Global Education • Green Finance • Contents/SW • MICE/ Tour • Recovery Energy • CO2 reduced Energy • Water Treatment • LED Applications • Green Transportation • Green City

19. Innovation Center for Engineering Education • < Change everything except wife!>

20. NI Trend Analysis GNI Economic crisis 2 Economy 5 year Plan Economic crisis1 Specialized Universities Expansion of Universities Quality ? Mismatch !

21. Reflection: University Entrance Rate Japan Korea USA 83.8% 61.9% 59.9% 46% 36.3% 33.2% 1990 2-06 1990 1990 2006 2008

22. Reflection: SCI Paper Publication Japan Korea USA 340,638 259,215 239% 79,541 71,241 35,569 14,904 2001 2009 2009 2001 2009 2001 The Times-QS Evaluation: Only 4 universities in top best 200s (’09) Research competence (?): SCI Papers: rank 12, Quotation: rank 14 * Total papers:1,158,247papers, Korea35,569 papers (2.4%)

23. Reflection: Quantity VS Quality World top of entrance rate: 33.2% (’90) → 68.0% (’00) → 83.8%(’08) Completion rate of higher education for ages 25-34: OECD Rank 1 or 2(56%) Satisfaction level of Univ. education: 3.1/5.0 IMD World competition Report: Lack of response to society needs * Adaptedness of university education to the society (rank 51/57 countries) * Supply level of qualified engineers (rank 50)

24. Innovation = Specialization 24

25. Start of Innovation for EE • - Industry complaints • - Government asked Deans Council of College of Engineering • - One year (2006) workshop of DCCE+ Government+ SERI • SERI benchmarked world role model universities and • made a guideline of ICEE • 10 universities was selected for preparing • sample proposals that were distributed to all colleges of • engineering

26. Government: Basic Direction for Innovation “Need-based Innovation for Engineering Education” • Specialization based on a strategic plan of Univ. • Industry Need-based Eng. Education Setting • Reinforcement of Industry supporting functions Innovation of C. of Eng. • Exact needs signal to Universities • Reinforcement of collaboration with university • Participation on ABEEK Industry’s contribution • Expanding invest on Education • Efficient Funding methods • Systematic Support for Industry collaboration Innovation of Policy

27. Ⅰ. Why demander’s views Key Issues No guarantee of competitiveness with supply-centered education ■ Highunemployment rate / shortage of manpower (quantity mismatch) ■ Gap betweenindustry’s expect and University’s education(quality mismatch) • Lack of hard skills: Math, science, major, and practical knowledge for solving real problems • Lack of soft skills: communication, teamwork, inter-personal skills ■ The mismatch problem is rooted from a unified, supply-centered education

28. 2. Main University Issues in Demander’s views ■ Lack of strategic differences between universities ■ Research & education estranged from industry’s needs • Lack of adaptive ability of graduates to practical fields • Increase of re-education cost for the new employees · training cost per an employee: $100,000, ~30 months (FKI , 2005)

29. Innovation = Our Own 29

30. 3. Main Policy Issues in Demander’s views ■ Lack of Government policies to enforcement each university’s specialties ■ Weak incentive system based on assessment ■ Lack of practical communication between industry and universities ■ Lack of Government policies for industry collaboration

31. BasicDirectionof E-E Innovation ■ Strategic positioning of each university and engineering education to meet industry needs ■ Model suggestion for a university to select its strategies - SERI suggest various models for a university and a department to distinguish from others. • Suggest various Prototypes (contents, methods) for the innovation of engineering education ■ Quality assurance for the suggested new model

32. Process of Innovation Visioning, Idea search, action Stage1. Visioning Situation analysis SERI Survey Benchmarking Needs analysis Strategic direction Forum/ consulting Stage2. Innov. items Finding IEE direction Indust./Univ. needs analysis Benchmarking Ideas extraction Univ. Innov. I/U interaction Policy Inno, Indust. roles Stage3. Action Planning Planning EEI Action

33. Innovation = Competition 33

34. University’s Innovation Process • As-Is analysis • SWOT Analysis • Regional industry’s situation analysis • To-Beconfiguration • Gap (between As-Is and To-Be) analysis • Find alternative solutions to be To-Be

35. Role Models of E-E Innovation

36. UniversityA Configuration B Configuration A-1 Department A-2 Department A-3 Department

37. UniversityB Configuration B-1 Department A Configuration B-1 Department

38. TO-BE As-Is vs To-Be AS-IS

39. 2005년 (14.7%) (6.1%) 14.9% 11.1% 1998년 (29.3%) (49.9%) 36.5% 37.5% MIT Configuration MIT, 4,581(2005) 4,498 (1998)

40. Innovation Process

41. ICEE Center 60 ICEEs 5 Hub Center 2 Fusion Hub C. 5 years project ICEE Hub Center 1 Seoul Tech ICEE Hub Center (20 Univ) ICEE Hub Center 2 Hub Center Council ICEE Hub Center 4 ICEE Hub Center 5 2 Eng. Fusion Hub Center

42. Seoul Tech ICEE Operation • <Present technologies won’t exist after 10 years>

43. Seoul Tech. (SNUT -> SNUST) Seoul TP • Undergraduate: 12,500/ Graduate; 1,300 / Faculty ~400 • University strategy: NT+IT+Design Fusion technology • Seoul Techno-Park ( Seoul TP) • ICEE Hub university/ Capstone Design Hub University

44. Seoul Tech. Seoul Techno Polis Seoul TP K. Electric Co. Atomic Medical Center Business Incubator Center

45. SWOT Analysis Strength -> Maximize strength Weakness -> Overcome weakness Opportunities -> Utilize opportunities Threats -> Prepare threats

46. Seoul Tech. Configuration 19% 5% 27% 7% By: Specialized Dep. Contract Dep. Fusion Grad. Sch. NITU (senior yr) 21% 10% 15% 38% 60% 85% 35% 78%

47. Establish assessment system on professor /department / college Student average level: 3rd/9 levels Lack of assessment system Produce top 30% students to be 1st and 2nd levels Evening class Miss-match of curriculum Lack of research manpower Clearly purposed dual system (day and evening) Establish specialized graduate school and ROU TO-BE AS-IS Big load of education and admin. Work on Professor High student-professor ratio 1 professor-1 teaching assistant Utilize retired professors and industry people Rigid department basis Formal industry collaboration Weak feed-back student system Flexible program basis Establish win-win industry collaboration Establish a standard feed-back system Job placement rate 90% by demand oriented education Job placement rate 80% Demand (student, industry) oriented education Supply (univ.) oriented education Gap analysis

48. Innovation Items 1

49. Innovation Items 2

50. Innovation Items 3