|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 35
II
Genesis of the Engineering
Research Centers
OCR for page 36
OCR for page 37
The Concept and Goals of the
Engineering Research Centers
NAM P. SUH
INTRODUCTION
As the papers by Dr. Keyworth, Dr. Schmitt, and Mr. Bloch make
clear, the concept behind the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) is
both exciting and promising. The response the Centers have received from
the university and industrial communities has been overwhelming, and
very gratifying. While many people made them possible, Dr. Low's role
emphasizes the fact that it sometimes takes just one man with vision and
imagination to influence the course of history.
To review the concept and goals of the Centers I will supplement the
National Academy of Engineering report on the ERCs* and the NSF
program announcement by highlighting several points.
It is appropriate to ask whether or not our mode of operation in the
ERC program ought to be different now that we have gone through the
initial phase. Having established six Centers, we are in a much better
position to examine what we have done, and also to see whether or not
the actions we have taken are consistent with the original concept.
It should be said at the outset that the final decisions in selecting the
Centers were very difficult because there were so many good proposals.
We used one overall criterion in arriving at our decisions: excellence. The
NSF's ERC proposal review panel agreed to use excellence as the major
criterion in view of the ambitious goals set for the ERC program, and in
view of the enormous hope and expectations that everyone has for the
ERCs.
*Guidelines for Engineering Research Centers (1983).
37
OCR for page 38
38
THE CONCEPTS AND GOALS OF ERCS
All of us in the engineering community can be proud of the fact that
the review panel experienced no political pressure in arriving at these
decisions. In the final analysis, the goals of the ERC program simply
reflect the goals of the National Science Foundation as established by
Congress in the NSF Act of 1950. According to the act the goals of the
NSF are to promote the progress of science and engineering; to ensure
the nation's health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national
defense. In the sense of these goals the ERCs reflect our determination
to strengthen engineering research and education in view of the rapidly
changing international environment and the need to increase our produc-
tivity.
The goals established for the ERCs are very difficult for any institution
or any nation to achieve because they require new kinds of thinking, new
modes of operation, and the establishment of new kinds of relationships
among our institutions. But if any organization can help the nation ac-
complish these goals, I believe the ERCs can, because in them we have
the right people, the right institutional ingredients, and all the elements
required to get the job done.
CHANGES IN THE NSF ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE
Recently we have instituted some changes at the National Science Foun-
dation in the field of engineering. We believe these changes are necessary
to meet national needs, the aspirations of the engineering community, and
new requirements that may be imposed on the engineering community.
Since these changes have been made to balance and complement the ERC
program, a few words about the NSF's renewed commitment to excellence
in engineering education and research are in order before going on to
discuss the ERC program.
The NSF reorganized the engineering directorate to deal with the fol
. .
owing Issues:
· research support
· quality of engineering manpower
· facilities and equipment
· effective institutional resource utilization
· academic infrastructure for emerging and critical technologies.
We have created new programs to support research that is designed to
establish a science base in fields that do not yet have such a base. We
have created programs to assist universities in establishing the academic
infrastructure needed to generate knowledge and trained people in many
of the emerging areas in which the NSF has not had much previous activity.
In addition, we have initiated ways of supporting high-risk, high-return
OCR for page 39
NAM P. SUH
39
projects even when peer review gives a mixed rating to the proposed work.
These programs reinforce the traditional NSF support for engineering
science and research, which will significantly affect the intellectual and
technology bases of the nation in years to come.
The NSF is considering a number of other new initiatives to improve
the quality of engineering manpower, basic engineering systems research,
and the utilization of institutional resources such as the federal laboratories.
It has a variety of programs that augment and strengthen the ERC program,
and which in turn are strengthened by the ERCs. The ERC program is
one of many that support university research. We are ready and we are
eager to work with the university community in strengthening the research
infrastructure .
RATIONALE FOR THE ERCS
One of the first questions that people asked me when I came to the
NSF in the fall of 1984 was why we need the ERCs. Good answers have
been given to that question in other papers in this volume, but I want to
stress that the ERC program is a result of the realization that our engi-
neering schools are becoming increasingly engineering-science oriented,
with greater and greater emphasis on analysis of narrowly focused topics.
While analysis in engineering science is an important facet of engineering,
it is clear that we have neglected synthesis-oriented skills such as design,
optimization of engineering systems, and system integration.
Many leaders in industry and academe complain that experimental tech-
niques and hands-on experience are not sufficiently emphasized in our
engineering schools. The way we practice engineering in industry is very
different from the way we teach our students. The ERCs are needed to
nurture new ideas, encourage innovation, produce better-educated people,
and promote stronger interaction among our institutions, including those
in industry and government.
If we do not take these tasks seriously, then 10 to 20 years from now
in many of our industrial sectors we may be in a very different position
vis-a-vis other countries. The ERCs are clearly a mechanism by which
we can correct some of the weaknesses of our institutions today.
SELECTION FACTORS
Given these reasons for establishing the ERCs, it may be asked what
specific attributes and qualifications the NSF looks for in selecting ERCs.
I will just cite some of the important factors.
One important element obviously is the quality of the idea underlying
the ERC proposal. Is there a new and promising idea that can strengthen
OCR for page 40
40
THE CONCEPTS AND GOALS OF ERCS
engineering research and education? Is there a potential for major break-
throughs, in either an intellectual or a technological sense? The overall
research idea is the most important component of a Center proposal. We
are looking for ideas that can produce many breakthroughs, both in ac-
ademe and industry. Without such an idea at the core, a Center proposal
is unlikely to succeed in being funded.
I have visited a large number of universities, and often I have been
asked about the formula for success in getting ERC funding. There is no
such formula. If an ERC is working on good ideas, the university will
have no trouble getting industrial support; students will be challenged and
interested; and universities will be able to forge the research team needed
to make timely progress. Good ideas will elicit excitement.
The next element we look for in selecting ERCs is research topics. Is
the problem large enough to enable a cross-disciplinary research team to
work on it together and make a major contribution that cannot be made
otherwise? Or does the proposal contain a collection of unrelated random
topics? Is the topic relevant to meeting national needs? Are the research
goals achievable?
Another element we have been looking for is the competence of the
Center director and key participants. Can they achieve the stated goals of
the NSF? Do they have the right mix of people? Are they capable? Do
they have the needed expertise?
The fourth element in our thinking is industrial support. What is the
likelihood that industry will support the type of endeavor proposed? How
much support is there from industry? These questions are asked in full
recognition of the fact that industrial support will vary from field to field.
We have to use different measures, depending on the area of concentration.
A related factor, also important, is the type of interaction with industry.
Is meaningful interaction possible? We believe that industry's participation
in the research program must be substantial and real; the ERC must benefit
from industrial input in all phases of its operations. Industrial participation
should open up new avenues of research as well as opportunities to create
new technologies. It is important that research ideas flow in two directions,
from the ERCs to industry and from industry to the Centers. We believe
that this "two-way street" quality is a vital element of an ERC.
Another element that we have been very concerned about is the edu-
cational aspect of the proposed work. Since one aim of the ERC program
is to strengthen both undergraduate and graduate education, we have to
ask: How are they going to involve undergraduate students? At many
universities undergraduate students traditionally have not been heavily
involved in research programs. If we are going to involve undergraduate
students in ERCs, in what ways is it to be done, and how are they going
OCR for page 41
NAM P. SUH
41
to contribute to ERC activities? How is the experience likely to enhance
their professional growth?
Still another element very much on our minds is the institutional en-
vironment. Is the proposed ERC really supported by the university? In
what form and to what degree? Can the Center overcome interdepartmental
barriers and actually conduct cross-disciplinary research? Are there in-
centive systems in place? To whom does the Center director report? Does
he or she report to one department head, or to the dean? Can he or she
really implement the goals of the Center, and do so through the right kind
of institutional structure? We are also interested in deliverables- that is,
in what a proposed Center could ultimately deliver.
To repeat, there is really no concrete formula for success in obtaining
ERC funding. We are looking for creative ideas. We are hoping to be
surprised by some very innovative concepts. We will even consider es-
tablishing regional Centers in areas where there are no research univer-
sities.
MEASURES OF SUCCESS
One other question that is frequently asked is: How will the NSF measure
the success of ERCs? There are both short-term and long-term indicators
we can employ to measure their success. Since Mr. Mayfield's paper
presents short-term indicators, I will cite just a few of the long-term
measures.
First of all, 20 years from now we would like to be able to see that
each of the Centers has contributed in a significant way to bringing forth
new ideas that have resulted in advances in U.S. engineering industries.
There is an appropriate historical model. In the early 1900s a large number
of universities in Europe and England, all within a 200-mile radius of
Berlin, made significant contributions to physics. In fact, many of the
concepts we use in engineering today came from the work of physicists
in that region. One of the questions I have often asked myself is: Why
was this single group of scientists able to develop so many important new
ideas and principles? My answer is that they had a unique cultural envi-
ronment that enabled them to interact with each other and stimulate each
other's thought processes.
If they are successful and do their job right, the ERCs will help in
forming an exciting cultural environment like that one an environment
that will create new intellectual frontiers and many important break-
throughs in engineering. The ERCs need to develop fundamentally new
concepts and technologies comparable in scale to numerical control ma-
chining, which was first developed 35 years ago and which is having a
OCR for page 42
42
THE CONCEPTS AND GOALS OF ERCS
major impact in industry today. We hope the ERCs will come up with
ideas that, 20 years from now, will improve the way we live, the way
we function, and the way we produce goods.
The second long-term measure of ERC success is the impact they have
on our educational system. A third measure would be the impact of the
ERCs on the improvement of U.S. industrial competitiveness.
NSF STRATEGY FOR STRENGTHENING ENGINEERING
Some university people are very concerned about the ERCs. They are
concerned because they are afraid that ERCs will decrease support for
individual research projects that is, projects that are initiated by one
investigator working with one or two students. It is my view that it would
be counterproductive and a mistake to establish and fund ERCs at the
expense of individual research support. The NSF has not done that, and
does not intend to do it.
Funding for individual engineering research projects has increased over
the past several years. In 1983 the NSF spent $82.9 million on such
projects. In 1984 the amount was increased to $86.4 million (a 4.2 percent
increase). Support was increased again in 1985 to $96.8 million, an in-
crease of 12 percent. And there is $107.2 million in the FY 1986 budget
for this purpose; if the Congress approves the FY 1986 request, we will
realize a 10.7 percent increase over the FY 1985 level.
The NSF goal is to strengthen engineering research and engineering
education in the United States. We know that we must move carefully on
a broad front if we are to accomplish that objective. We cannot make the
ERCs the only focus of increased funding. If we were to do that the
Centers might soon act as magnets, attracting the best talent away from
other institutions. That would weaken the fabric of engineering research
in our engineering schools, and we must not let it happen.
The task of building strength in engineering in the United States is a
very large one. To ensure that we get this strength where it is most needed
we are going to have to undertake a number of new thrusts, while con-
tinuing to expand engineering research project support in the established
fields. It is this type of broad-based program growth that NSF is seeking.
We must have it if we are to remain a leader in engineering in the twenty-
first century. It is going to take a substantial sum; I have estimated that
it will cost $500 million a year.
The funding that NSF is providing for ERCs is in two parts: a minimum
support element for the conduct of basic research and to maintain the
infrastructure of the ERCs, and a variable support element that will depend
on the performance of the ERCs, including the support they get from
. .
OCR for page 43
NAM P. SUH
43
industry. Of course, these plans are contingent upon the availability of
funds.
The NSF hopes to establish a large number of Centers. The question
is, are the numbers that we have in mind enough to solve the nation's
problems in engineering? My answer is that the ERCs cannot deal with
all engineering problems. There are 259 engineering schools in the United
States; 210 offer graduate programs, and 150 of these offer Ph.D. degrees
in engineering. Even with 25 Centers we would reach only about one-
sixth of the doctorate-generating institutions. Furthermore, our data show
that about one-half of the 77,000 engineering bachelor's degrees awarded
in 1984 were given by institutions that do not grant Ph.D.s.
What all this means is that we have a tremendous job ahead of us if
we are to make a difference in the way engineering education and research
are carried out in the United States. We have barely gotten started. It is
apparent that we must think smartly and move ahead quickly to keep
America in a leadership position in engineering. We have taken the first
step. The NSF is considering a large number of other ideas that could
enhance engineering education and research.
I think we can all join forces to create an exciting era for engineering
and to make important contributions to the nation's industrial competi-
tiveness.
DISCUSSION
Questions for Dr. Sub centered around NSF's plans for shaping the
ERC program in the future. To a question about the possibility of funding
"mini-Centers" at schools where the engineering faculty is small, he
replied that NSF is open to this concept if the proposal for such a Center
demonstrates that it could contribute to the ultimate goals of the ERC
program. He also said that there is no policy to preclude a single university
from hosting more than one ERC if subsequent proposals are strong enough
on their own to win support. Dr. Sub observed that the engineering research
areas represented by the first six awards should not be taken to suggest a
preference for high-technology fields; mature industries such as steel-
making can also benefit from engineering research. The NSF will depend
on the research community for ideas to shape its strategy in this regard.
OCR for page 44
The Criteria Used in
Selecting the First Centers
ERIC A. WALKER
It is a privilege to be part of an effort aimed at strengthening engineering
in the United States. The Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) are an
exciting adventure, and we have great hopes for their success. Thus, I
was honored and pleased to be asked to serve on the National Science
Foundation (NSF) panel that evaluated the proposals for ERCs
The role of the ERC panel is to help in the selection of the most
meritorious proposals, to provide advice on ways to improve their effec-
tiveness, and to help ensure the program's success. After I have outlined
the steps taken by the ERC panel to ensure that the best Center proposals
have been selected for support, I hope it will be evident that all that should
have been done was done to select the most meritorious among them.
It is my good fortune to serve as cochairman of the ERC panel, along
with C. Lester Hogan, former President of Fairchild Camera. Fourteen
people serve on the panel; ten are from industry and four are from uni-
versities. There are a number of reasons for the heavy industry represen-
tation. One is the goal of the program itself, which is to develop new
knowledge that will help U.S. industry maintain its industrial competi-
tiveness over the long term. Another is the fact that, all together, about
300 university researchers were listed as participants in the 142 ERC
proposals received by NSF. That posed potential conflict-of-interest prob-
lems in the review process because most of the university people who
could function as expert peer reviewers were included in the proposals as
participants.
The group brought together to serve on the ERC panel is impressive.
In addition to Lester Hogan there are Willis Adcock, a Vice-President of
44
OCR for page 45
ERIC A. WALKER
45
Texas Instruments; Paul Chenea, retired Vice-President for Research, Gen-
eral Motors; Richard Davis, Vice-President, Martin Marietta; Ernest Kuh,
Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley;
John Hancock, Vice-President, United Telecommunications; Terry Loucks,
Vice-President for Technology, Norton Company; Gene N. Norby, Chan-
cellor, University of Colorado; Harry Paxton, Vice-President, United States
Steel Company; Percy Pierre, President, Prairie View A&M University;
K. Venkat, Vice-President, H. J. Heinz Company; Melvin Baron, partner
and Director of Research, Weidlinger Associates; and Gordon Brown,
Director, Polymer Processing, Eastman Kodak Company.
It might be wondered how such a group of people could be brought
together on a panel on the same day. Pete Mayfield, who has been one
of the outstandingly innovative managers at NSF for many years, accom-
plished this very simply by scheduling the panel's meetings for Saturdays
and Sundays.
There were several steps in the review process. Before the ERC panel
met, the Foundation's engineering divisions had called in 88 outside ex-
perts in the various engineering fields. These people served on topic-area
panels. They reviewed all 142 of the ERC proposals submitted to NSF,
and divided them into three categories highly recommended, recom-
mended, and not recommended. Forty of the 142 proposals came through
the preliminary review with a "highly recommended" rating. The content
and potential impact of the research were the principal points of focus in
this review.
The ERC panel held its first meeting during the weekend of December
1, 1984. Nam Sub and Pete Mayfield each spoke during an opening session
that lasted about an hour. The goals of the program as they appeared in
the program announcement were emphasized, and we were briefed on
what had been done in the preliminary reviews. We were given our charge,
which was to identify 10 to 15 of the ERC proposals that were most
deserving of site visits.
The quality of the research, the probability that the principal investigator
and his or her associates would be able to accomplish the research agenda
described in the proposal, and the extent to which the proposal met the
goals and objectives of the program were major considerations in our
review.
It was understood that the Foundation was determined to follow a
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) recommendation* that the fund-
ing level for each Center be sufficient to permit the Center to make a
noticeable difference in its area of research. This meant that the panel
*The NAE report Guidelines for Engineering Research Centers (1983) presented the NSF
with recommendations regarding the establishment of an ERC program.
OCR for page 48
48
THE CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING THE FIRST CENTERS
It is interesting to note that among the consultants who participated in
the site visits were Edward Jefferson, President of DuPont, and Gordon
Moore, President of Intel. The Engineering Research Centers have evi-
dently sparked great interest in the industrial community. Our meetings
with industry people revealed that there was much greater industry interest
in some proposals than even the principal investigators had imagined.
After the site visits were completed the panel introduced a further step
suggested by Nam Suh. Nam felt that each of the principal investigators
(P.I.s) in the 14 proposals that were in the final group should have an
opportunity to make a presentation to the full ERC panel. This session
permitted panel members to ask questions and satisfy any unmet infor-
mation needs regarding a proposal. We allowed 20 minutes for the oral
presentation and reserved 10 minutes for questions. Some P.I. s commented
afterward that the experience reminded them of their "orals" for the
doctorate. I believe the oral presentations and the question-and-answer
periods that followed were especially valuable because they gave the full
panel an opportunity to learn firsthand more of the specifics of what the
P.I. intended to do.
Before the oral session began, Erich Bloch and Nam Suh spoke to us
again about the goals of the program. Nam Suh urged the panel to be
especially sensitive to a number of factors which he called "the ingredients
for success." I wrote these down. They were:
leadership
~ proper focus on problems
· bona fide industrial participation
· infrastructure, including
-university commitment to cross-disciplinary research goals
-internal organization
· intellectual challenge should
-establish new intellectual frontiers
-contribute to the knowledge base
-provide graduate research topics
· education: should enhance opportunities for graduate and under-
graduate students.
Nam said that the ERC should not be a collection of individual research
topics that could be funded just as well through project grants. The panel
agreed that a proposal selected for support should have the potential to
achieve technological breakthroughs using a cross-disciplinary research
approach. In addition, the research proposed could not be "more of the
same," or simply an extension of what was already being done. It had
to represent a new dimension in research in the eyes of the panel.
OCR for page 49
ERIC A. WALKER
49
I believe that the principal investigators who went through this session
found it to be a tough but fair exercise. We were talking to first-rate people
with superb research credentials. It was a great experience for me. I believe
all the panel members learned a great deal in the course of reviewing the
proposals, making site visits, and sitting through the oral presentations.
The panel completed the orals at about 5 p.m. on a Saturday, and
adjourned to meet again Sunday morning at 7 a.m. During the next five
hours the panel members went over each of the 14 proposals. The members
who had been on the site visits reviewed their findings; we studied the
site-visit reports. By now each panel member knew where the strengths
and weaknesses were in the proposals, and each had developed his own
list of concerns about aspects of the proposals. At the Saturday meeting
the principal investigators had been questioned closely about what it was
that they were going to do if funds were provided. On Sunday the panel
spent its time critiquing and evaluating all that it had learned about the
proposals.
As we moved into the final phase, the questions most often raised were
these: Would the Center, if funded, make a difference? Did it have the
university and industry commitment necessary to mount a bona fide cross-
disciplinary effort that would push research forward in areas of industrial
interest? Was there evidence of substantial university commitment to the
undertaking?
We had been asked to select the 6 best finalists and to rank the next
3. At noon on Sunday, then, the panel came to agreement on which of
the 14 finalists it would recommend for NSF support. After more reviews
by NSF management, including a thorough review by the National Science
Board's Programs and Plans Committee, Erich Bloch made the award
decisions with the approval of the National Science Board. The 6 proposals
selected by NSF for funding were those that had been recommended for
award by the ERC panel:
· Engineering Center for Telecommunications Research, at Columbia
University
· Center for Robotic Systems in Microelectronics, at the University of
California, Santa Barbara
· Biotechnology Process Engineering Center at MIT
· Center for Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, at Purdue University
· Systems Research Center at the University of Maryland in collabo-
ration with Harvard University
· Center for Composites Manufacturing Science and Engineering, at
the University of Delaware in collaboration with Rutgers University.
We were free to select proposals for award on the basis of excellence,
even if that meant selecting two proposals submitted by a single institution.
OCR for page 50
so
THE CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING THE FIRST CENTERS
The proposals we selected were, therefore, those that we believed were
of the highest quality and would best achieve the goals of the program.
The ERC panel will continue as a standing body. Its role is to help the
NSF select the best proposals for support, and to provide advice and
suggestions on ways to strengthen the program as we go along. Its objective
is to ensure that the program is a success. There is no question that the
United States is being challenged as never before for technological lead
ership.
The Engineering Research Centers are a long-term investment. They
should contribute significantly to efforts aimed at building America's
engineering strength as we gear up for the competitive environment of the
twenty-first century. The Centers will help improve the university infra-
structure and will also strengthen the linkages between industry and uni-
versities, areas where new strength is needed if America is to continue to
produce the world's best engineers.
DISCUSSION
Participants asked questions regarding the selection procedure to be
used by NSF in evaluating future ERC proposals. Dr. Sub responded that
the selection procedure for next year will be virtually the same as that for
the first year, although NSF is seeking ways to improve the process. A
new program announcement had just been issued, containing slight changes
from the previous announcement.
Regarding the question of weighting systems for evaluation, Dr. Sub
expressed an opinion that rating schemes are largely irrelevant, that the
winning proposals stand out fairly quickly on the basis of quality of ideas.
There is no set formula. Mr. Bloch confirmed that view, and added that
the "believability" of a proposal is a major determinant that is, a pro-
posal must make clear that the interdepartmental cooperation it describes
is an ongoing reality rather than an image constructed just for the purpose
of the proposal.
OCR for page 51
Nurturing the Engineering
Research Centers
LEWIS G. MAYFIELD
In response to the Fiscal Year 1985 program announcement regarding
the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), the Engineering Directorate of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) received 142 proposals from 106
different institutions. In all, the proposals requested about $2 billion over
a five-year period. Slightly more than 3,000 people were listed as partic-
ipants in the proposals; 75 percent of these were from various engineering
disciplines and the remainder were from scientific disciplines and the
humanities.
The fact that so many institutions took the time and effort to write
proposals is a strong indication of the desire on the part of engineering
schools to initiate the type of research organization described in the an-
nouncement. The message must be that the format for the Centers, in-
volving as it does both research and education on topics of importance
for international competitiveness, is of great interest to engineering schools.
The total amount of funding requested by the proposals has a certain
significance. The March 1985 issue of the Journal of the American Society
for Engineering Education reports a separately budgeted engineering re-
search expenditure in the United States of about $1.2 billion for 1983-
1984. The $400 million per year requested by the proposals thus represents
an increase of roughly 30 percent over current expenditures, suggesting
that there is substantial unused capacity within the nation's engineering
education and research enterprise. It is apparent that the engineering system
has the capability and the will to perform additional research and produce
more graduates without experiencing undue stress.
51
OCR for page 52
52
NURTURING THE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS
The ERC announcement was unique for the Foundation in that it called
for both undergraduate and graduate students to be an integral part of the
research of the Centers. For the first time universities could propose an
activity to the NSF which would allow them to integrate education and
research in a thoroughgoing way. This is a real step forward for engineering
education and research.
NEW FEATURES OF THE 1986 ANNOUNCEMENT
The principles in the FY 1986 program announcement are unchanged
from those of 1985. That is, a proposed Center should have as its focus
a topic that would lead to greater effectiveness and world competitiveness
of U.S. industrial companies. Proposals may be concerned with techno-
logically strong or weak U.S. industries; there is no preference here on
the part of NSF.
Several format changes have been made to facilitate both proposal
preparation and review. First, a three-page executive summary is to be
included. This summary will be extremely useful in the review of the
proposals and will permit many more panelists to interact in a meaningful
way during the review process.
Second, the section describing the proposed research program is to be
limited to 25 single-spaced pages. The point is that this section needs to
be well thought out by its preparers, so that reviewers can readily come
to grips with the research being proposed.
The third change involves the presentation of the budget. The format
for the first-year budget remains the same, but all out-year budgets must
show increments above the preceding year, exclusive of equipment. This
device will help everyone involved to focus on what is gained by expen-
ditures above the preceding year.
In addition, the FY 1986 announcement encourages the formation of
consortia of schools in regions where such relationships will further the
educational and research objectives of the Center.
In the second round of proposals the amount and quality of industrial
support will be much more important factors. In the first round there was
insufficient time for proposing institutions to gain strong industrial support.
I suspect that indications of industrial support will be much stronger and
better substantiated in the FY 1986 proposals.
The FY 1986 ERC announcement does not include a list of potential
Center topics, as the first announcement did. However, at the point when
about 12 Centers have been established this "open" procedure will no
longer be appropriate. When the full complement of 20 to 25 Centers has
been established the subject matter they represent should encompass a
broad range of research areas contributing to international competitiveness.
OCR for page 53
LEWIS G. MAYFIELD
53
Therefore, the FY 1987 announcement should suggest potential topics that
complement the established Centers. The National Research Council will
conduct a workshop on this subject in the fall of 1985, in time to have
an impact on the FY 1987 ERC announcement. At that time we will know
what the proposed topics for 1986 are, and will provide that information
as one input to the workshop. The important point is that we will seek
guidance before suggesting a list of topics in the FY 1987 announcement.
COMMON DEFICIENCIES IN PROPOSALS
Quite a few of the proposals for 1985 had certain faults in common.
Many of them were much too long. I hope that the new 25-page limit
for the proposed research section will encourage brevity throughout. The
reading of proposals more than 800 pages long must be considered cruel
and unusual punishment for reviewers!
The FY 1985 announcement emphasized that research conducted at the
Centers is to be cross-disciplinary in nature. In many instances this state-
ment was taken so literally, and the scope of the proposed research was
therefore so broad, that the research could not be adequately defined and
described. Frequently the prior research of any faculty member having
even a remote bearing on the focus of the proposed Center was included
in the proposal. There are many potential topics for proposals which are
sufficiently important and broad to meet the cross-disciplinary require-
ments for a Center. Setting reasonable and manageable goals and objec-
tives would have improved many proposals considerably. Those writing
proposals should keep in mind that reviewers are technical people, and
that they have to feel that they understand the scope and focus of the
research being proposed. Even when the scope of a proposal was suitable,
many proposals failed to make an analysis of the key research issues
involved in the topic.
Another major deficiency of many proposals was that they appeared to
be collections of individual projects that might just as easily have been
supported individually. Reviewers had to be convinced of the synergism
of the projects and the people making up the proposed Center. A proposal
viewed as a collection of projects simply did not make the grade. The
impression that a proposal was a collection of projects was sometimes
inadvertently conveyed by the inclusion of individual budgets for specific
projects; in fact, on occasion these budgets were tailored to be about the
size of standard NSF research grants. This approach gave a "business-
as-usual" signal. I need not point out that NSF has a time-tested system
for selection of individual research projects.
Still another factor that eventually influenced decisions was the lead-
ership quality of the Center director. The perceived ability of the leadership
OCR for page 54
54
NURTURING THE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS
to manage and direct the research activities of the Center was a pivotal
issue during the final stages of review. The Center director has to be a
versatile individual-skilled in managing people, a competent researcher,
and a good leader. In addition, the Center director must be able to devote
a major portion of his or her time to directing Center activities.
ERC MANAGEMENT ISSUES
"Systems Aspects"
Both the 1985 and 1986 announcements suggest that an ERC should
"emphasize the systems aspects of engineering to help educate students
in synthesizing, integrating, and managing engineering systems." This
feature of the Centers results from the concern expressed by industrial
employers that young engineers are not prepared to deal with complex
engineering systems found in practice. I believe that I have a sense of the
"systems aspect of engineering"; but when I tale with others it becomes
clear that everyone has a somewhat different idea of the meaning of that
phrase. Some think that "design" embodies the system concept; others
tend to describe specific industrial problems they have encountered as
"systems problems. " Both notions leave out important parts of the system.
While I would not deny that there is some value in having a diversity of
definitions and opinions, I am made uncomfortable by the fact that the
concept has not been carefully articulated.
Of equal concern to me is how best to implement education in the
systems aspects of engineering. Engineering schools have an intensive
program. One must ask how much more can be added while retaining the
engineering science base and the humanities that we have struggled to
include in engineering curricula during the past 40 years. A workshop
being held under the auspices of the NRC Cross-Disciplinary Engineering
Research Committee will examine this issue and prepare a report. I think
that report will be studied very carefully by engineering educators and
will be of considerable value.
Information Exchange
Another issue of concern to me involves methods for disseminating
information from the Centers to the research community, in industry as
well as universities. Is the traditional university strategy of publishing in
formal journals going to be sufficient for these cross-disciplinary research
centers? Should innovative techniques be developed to supplement tra-
ditional methods? At first reading this may not appear to be a very sig-
nificant question; but it does have many ramifications when considered
OCR for page 55
LEWIS G. MAYFIELD
55
in the context of international competition. The NRC has conducted a
workshop to explore this issue.
Preliminary discussions regarding this workshop have been useful. For
example, I think that "information exchange" comes closer than "infor-
mation dissemination" to describing the relationship that should exist with
industry. After all, an important objective of the Centers is to "involve
participation of engineers from industry in order to focus the research on
current and projected industry needs." To accomplish this objective, uni-
versities must have a meaningful dialogue with their industrial partners.
I think universities should enter into agreements with industry when the
exchange of information will result in a better focus of university engi-
neering research on current and projected industry needs. Support money
may be necessary to get industry attention, but money and attention may
not be sufficient if the interaction does not result in a debate leading
toward more pertinent research. The question of information exchange
has many facets.
Evaluation
I am frequently asked how NSF is going to evaluate the Centers. There
is little question that evaluation is an important management activity. The
program announcement states that three years after they are established,
the Centers will be reviewed by the ERC panel to determine if each Center
is meeting its proposed goals and objectives, including those for quality
of research and the extent of industrial participation. This evaluation will
determine whether NSF will continue to support the Center fully for the
remaining two years, or provide decreased funding to terminate the Center
at the end of the grant.
In preparation for the third-year evaluation the NSF Office of Cross-
Disciplinary Research (OCDR) and the Center directors are preparing a
list of progress indicators. These include items such as the names of
graduate students at Centers, a list of Center publications, new courses
attributed to the Center, and the amount and type of industrial support.
This information will provide a factual base that will assist in the third-
year evaluation, and that will also be useful for management purposes.
In addition to the formal evaluation, the NSF Engineering Directorate
will form liaison management teams for each of the Centers. Each team
will consist of a program director closely associated with the technical
aspects of the Center, a program director from OCDR, a program director
from the Engineering Directorate, and several outside consultants. The
program director from the Engineering Directorate will be the major in-
ternal source of information for the team on the technical nature of the
OCR for page 56
56
NURTURING THE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS
Center's work. The liaison team will report to the Head of the Office of
Cross-Disciplinary Research.
OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE
As everyone is aware, 1985 is a particularly interesting year in which
to watch congressional action on appropriations. The President's FY 1986
budget, now before Congress, requests $25 million for ERC activity. With
that amount NSF can maintain the Centers established this year and start
a similar number next year. Of course no one can say for certain what
the outcome of the budget process will be. It is easy to get caught up in
the day-by-day problems and the rhetoric of the Engineering Research
Center activity. It is important to note that in the long run the success of
the program will be largely dependent on the quality and innovativeness
of the research that is performed by the Centers, and on whether or not
the students educated in the process make new and important contributions
to the competitiveness of the United States.
Many people professors, practicing engineers, and NSF staff mem-
bers have devoted large amounts of time to the preparation of proposals
and their evaluation. Much remains to be accomplished, and I am confident
that the good relationships developed so far between universities, industry,
and government with regard to the Engineering Research Center initiative
will continue.
DISCUSSION
Several members of the audience took the opportunity to ask questions
relating to the proposal preparation and review processes. Not only Mr.
Mayfield, but also Messrs. Bloch, Sub, Walker, and Stever responded to
these inquiries. Regarding the high cost of preparing a proposal in the
light of the relatively low probability of success, one questioner asked
whether NSF had considered simplifying the process, perhaps by means
of a pre-proposal screening stage. NSF officials responded that no change
is envisioned for the near future, but stressed the importance of the proposal
preparation process to the university itself for clarifying its concepts and
goals governing research. NSF is trying to locate other funding sources
for some proposals.
Regarding the question of what NSF might do to involve industry more
meaningfully in the proposal review process, it was pointed out that con-
flicts of interest must be avoided- although 40 percent to 45 percent of
the members of the preliminary review panel were from industry. Two
options that NSF is considering are (1) to give funded ERCs a certain
OCR for page 57
LEWIS G. MAYFIELD
57
period of time to develop industry support; and (2) to take a long-term
view of industry support, focusing on whether the essential ingredients
are present in the proposal to ensure industry interest. Careful planning
is necessary to ensure that a Center can continue with industry support
even if NSF funding is terminated after five years.
The new 25-page limit on the research section drew some concern. Mr.
Mayfield emphasized that this section should not attempt to be very de-
tailed; instead, it should set the framework for what the proposing insti-
tution hopes to accomplish with the ERC.
Certain points in the ERC program announcement were clarified, such
as the reference to "rebuilding the base of engineering education." NSF
officials reiterated the need to relate engineering education to engineering
practice, to codify that aspect of engineering knowledge for transmittal
to students, and to help universities establish a science base in this area.
The importance of this work for improving international competitiveness
was clarified.
OCR for page 58
Representative terms from entire chapter:
erc panel
