The widespread move by industries into global trade is creating the very real need for engineering graduates with international experience. International assignments, or assignments with international aspects are becoming common place within industry and those engineers with international experience are more likely to get those important assignments. Thus it is imperative that US institutions offer expanding opportunities for students to develop expertise in the various international aspects of modern engineering.
Engineering professors who have limited international experience are ill equipped to instruct their students in the practice of global engineering. Industries tend to move into new approaches and technologies much faster than do the educational programs of universities. Thus, unless strong counter measures are developed, faculties with dated experience and insufficient currency for effective teaching will become the norm. Engineering education must accept the challenge of graduating engineers with sufficient experience to function in the developing international arena and, at the same time, increase the number of professors who are qualified to teach leading-edge design experience with international content.
Discussions with industry representatives from John Deere, Cummins, Field Technologies, and others, and faculty involvement with International Standards Organization activities developed an awareness within the Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering department at Oklahoma State University that we were not adequately preparing our graduates for participation in the international engineering community. Although international activities have become common place for many companies and new engineers are being trained on the job to meet international challenges, university engineering curricula developments have not kept pace. Within the Ford Motor company, engineering teams comprised of engineers scattered throughout the world, work on the same projects via computer linked CAD systems and E-mail. John Deere engineers at Mannheim, Germany and those at Waterloo, IA communicate regularly about design projects and conduct conference sessions via televideo communications. Such examples of how engineering design is being conducted today serve to point out those areas in which engineering graduates need to be prepared. To that end, we initiated a project to enrich and broaden our senior design course with an international dimension that encompassed much of the experience employers now seek in entry-level engineers.
Our current design education format at Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK consists of one sophomore two-credit hour course followed by two senior-level two-credit hour courses which are offered in sequential semesters (Capstone Design Course). The sophomore course simply introduces the students to design while the senior course seeks to engage the student with engineering design similar to that experienced at entry-level employment. The class projects are thus team oriented, consist of design problems provided by industry, and include design, construction, testing, modification and a formal report. We normally are able to have the company involved provide the money for hardware and also supply an engineer to act as the company contact with the class during the execution of the project. When the project is completed, all hardware and a copy of the student design report is returned to the company. We have had good results with this approach and thus expected that we could "build on success" by adding international aspects.
The Capstone Design course at OSU is designed to provide students with realistic design challenges so that upon completion of the course sequence (BIOEN 4012 & 4022) the student will be able to perform selected aspects of engineering design, including:
Additionally, we intended:
Internationalization of Engineering Design Education encompasses a variety of concepts and ideas. Included are the notions of international team effort, cultural exchange, modern methods of spatial communication and international travel, projects with international scope and consequence and multinational companies. With these ideas in mind, preliminary contact was initiated with professors at the Department of Agricultural Engineering, Wageningen, The Netherlands and with representatives from John Deere seeking to ascertain their interest in such a project. Both parties enthusiastically accepted the opportunity and planning was commenced.
Wageningen Agricultural University engineering design classes were conducted very similar to those at OSU and they had the procedures in place whereby selected classes could join with ours at about the same level of engineering training. Likewise, discussions with industry revealed a desire to cooperate by providing support in the form of engineering consultants to assist with design project selection, reviews of student design progress, and provision of international communications facilities for televideo conferencing.
Funding
Activities planned for the course including exchange travel for students and professors to each participating country, travel to industry facilities for video conferencing and miscellaneous items such as communication, shipping and supplies required that outside funding be secured. A USDA Education Challenge Grant providing for these necessary expenses was developed and funded. Additional support was provided for the course by Deere, Alphabet, Raychem, Cherokee Nation Industries, New Holland, the WAU and OSU academic departments and International Programs at OSU. Support included both funding and in-kind items.
Although initial plans were for a single year project, the success
of the 1995-1996 project, and its enthusiastic reception by all
involved, prompted a request to the USDA Challenge Grant agency
for an extension through June, 1997. Funds which had been budgeted
for a workshop to disseminate the project experience to industry
and academia were requested to be diverted for use in conducting
an additional year's project. The request was granted and the
WAU and OSU 1996-1997 student design teams also cooperated on
a common design project.
It was envisioned that there would be a single design project with a single design team (half of the team residing in Wageningen, and the other in Stillwater, OK.) The teams were to consist of the local students, the local design course professor, an industry engineer who would serve a role similar to that of a company project engineer, and one other local designated professor having expertise appropriate to the project who could serve in an advisory capacity. Multinational companies were sought as industry partners so that, although a single company would be involved, there would be company facilities located within travel distance to each team.
Expectations were that each team would perform the design for about one-half of the total project work, the drawings would be exchanged between the teams and each team would fabricate the design from the common drawings. Applicable international standards, as well as local standards and concerns were to be included during the many sessions of electronic-mail international communication anticipated during the course of the developing design. Ultimately, the design drawings were to be exchanged and the entire design fabricated at both locations, based on the working drawings generated by both teams. The kernel of this overall plan was actually achieved but not without some alterations and customizations necessary for its ultimate success.
Two different courses were brought together for this project. The WAU course was an engineering practice course which is normally used to provide practical experience to students. It is normally taken at the end of the students academic program and may be somewhat variable in length and credits. The OSU course is considered the capstone design course and consists of two two-hour courses taken in sequential semesters. Each two-hour course consists of one hour of lecture and two hours of laboratory. The Wageningen academic calendar is offset from the OSU calendar by a couple of weeks and is based on a tri-semester framework while at OSU the courses are offered in two semesters and a summer school session. Another difference between the course schedules is that the final examination period at WAU lasts for approximately four weeks while at OSU there is only a one-week period devoted to final exams. The project course syllabus was thus designed to accommodate most of these differences (Reference Appendix I).
Communication between the two team groups was encouraged by the requirement that a report must be written each week and sent by electronic mail to the other members, including the project engineers at John Deere. This provided for weekly updates on the project progress and resulted in development of international communication skills and further interchange of cultural and language differences. The duty was alternated between the two countries.
Observation of the syllabus reveals the normal design sequences which are usually included in a course that begins with design and ends with some type of manufactured hardware. However, the international aspects are also included such as exchange visits by teams and professors to enhance cultural exchange, communication via the internet, and team coordination and team effort toward a common goal, and experiences in the use of video-conferencing.
Textbooks for the course were different at each school and were
mainly used as references. They included Basic Engineering
Design, C. V. Starkey, Edward Arnold, ISBN 0-7131-3669-3;
Introduction to Engineering Drawing, 2nd
Ed., Luzadder/Duff , Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-480849-5; Design
in Agricultural Engineering, Christianson & Rohrbach,
ASAE, ISBN 0-916150-80-1; Invention and Evolution/ Design
in Nature and Engineering , 2nd Ed., French Cambridge
Univ. Press, ISBN 0-521-46911; Design of Machine Elements,
6th ed., Spotts, Prentice-Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-200593-X.
COURSE PRESENTATION AND EVENTS
The 1995-96 design course began a couple of weeks sooner at OSU than at WAU. Ir. H. C. de Vries traveled to Stillwater to meet with the US students (six) and to participate in the development of the course syllabus. The seven Dutch student's names and e-mail addresses were presented to the OSU students and communications were immediately initiated between Stillwater and Wageningen. The only problem with this internet long distance communication was that there was a significant time difference of about seven hours between the two locations. Messages begging immediate responses simply had to wait for the respondent to get a good nights sleep before they were returned. And then, of course, the recipient of the reply was probably asleep when the reply was being sent. To assist us in keeping track of the time difference, two clocks were installed at OSU in the student computer room, one for "Wageningen Time" and one for "Oklahoma time".
The international communication standards for CAN (Controller Area Networks) were currently being developed at the same time this course was being planned (ISO/TC23/SC19 Sub-committee on International Agricultural Electronics). It was out of this area of activity that the idea was generated for the design project. Integral to such networks is a bus which physically connects each of the processors and sensors. Although the bus consists of four twisted wires and is simple in concept, there exists a complicating factor, that being the need to electrically attach a short length of the same bus from the computers to the communications bus. Since these "stubs" are required to be no longer than about 0.5 m, must be connected so that each conductor mates with the corresponding conductor within the bus and may be required at any place along the bus for any particular vehicle, the task is being done manually. Since it is expected that most all automobiles, tractors, trucks and trailers will be soon manufactured with CAN installed, the mechanization of the stub-bus installation could become extremely important to the industry. The design project was defined as mechanizing the attachment of stubs to a 4-wire communications bus and was titled "Splicing Twisted Quad Cable". The project selected was one deemed to be entirely current, having suitable scope for a senior design project yet one with significant world-wide importance and the attention of several multinational companies.
Jurgen Hollstein, at the John Deere facility in Mannheim, Germany was selected as the project engineer for the Dutch design team and Mr. W. J. Formwalt, Engineering Manager at the Electrohydraulic Engineering, John Deere Product Engineering Center, Waterloo, IA, the project engineer for the Oklahoma State team.
Within the first two weeks of the semester, W. J. Formwalt visited OSU to present the design project with background information and required specifications. This information was communicated to Wageningen and the development of constraints and specifications phase of the project was initiated. It was during this phase of the course that the meaning of "internationalization" was first experienced by the US students. A literature document dealing with the project was sent to OSU by the Dutch team. This was not in itself much different than the sending of an e-mail message, except that the document was sent as an attachment and had to be treated a little differently at the receiving end. The procedure called for the document to be read from its computer file by a word processing program and then printed for dissemination to the rest of the team members. All went well until the printing. The document would not print. A check of the printer turned up nothing amiss, but still no printing. Finally, it was noted that the print manager was calling for A4 paper, the standard size in Europe.
A similar problem was experienced with a video sent from WAU to OSU for viewing by the OSU team members. Since the European video standard is VHS PAL, such tapes cannot be read by the US standard VHS T-120 VCR equipment. Any videos from Holland thus had to be carried over to the OSU Audio-Visual Department for viewing. The inverse of this problem was experienced by the Dutch team.
The design activities progressed from the initial problem description phase into the specifications and constraints development phase. It was during this period when patents and literature were being reviewed that our department became acutely aware that this international cooperation was underway. Until this event occurred, each of the OSU students and the associated professors were listed as recipients of all mail from the Wageningen team members. One afternoon the Dutch Wire Team, as they called themselves, decided to update the OSU Wire Splicers regarding all that they had discovered from publications in The Netherlands. The documents were prepared, attached to an e-mail message and sent. The following morning, as the OSU faculty began attempting their routine network logon procedures, it was discovered that the OSU network was down. Further, it was discovered that every member of the team and the two professors each had a large backlog of documents waiting to be received. The multiplicity of documents had exceeded the network drive capacity and caused the system to shut down. The problem required significant effort to remedy, since each affected account had to be individually emptied by the service technician. Eventually, the network was back in order but with two major changes, the entire department was well aware that there was an international project underway and there was a single address mounted on the network into which all communication addressed to the design team members was routed.
One of the objectives of this project was to provide international video-conferencing experience for the students. Although such conferences are expensive, multinational companies rely on them to provide face-to-face interaction between design engineers and others who may be concurrently working on a common project. Students from Wageningen thus traveled to the John Deere facility at Mannheim, Germany and the OSU part of the team traveled to the John Deere facility at Waterloo, Iowa to participate in a video conference. Although the stated purpose was to conduct an exchange of ideas and to discuss the design project, foremost in the mind of everyone was that they were about to see the other half of the team for the first time. The video rooms were each prepared with overhead transparencies of drawings to be discussed, lighting and orientation of the video camera's were adjusted, seating was selected and then....the connection was made between the two locations. At first, the conversation was hesitant. Questions asked were obviously not even heard until several seconds later and then, just as it seemed necessary to make additional comments because of the silence, the other side would begin to answer the former question. Physical gestures from one side to the other were also delayed, which added to the confusion. Before long, however, everyone was thinking in delay mode and the exchanges were underway with good efficiency. It was apparent that more information was exchanged in a thirty-minute period, both culturally and technically, than had been possible with e-mail alone during the semester to-date. The video-conference was entirely successful and the students received favorable comments regarding their performance by those at John Deere who were experienced users of this means of communication.
The second semester began with the OSU students traveling to Wageningen to visit the Dutch Wire Team. The visit was over a period of about seven days during which time project work, cultural exchange and sightseeing was accomplished (reference the course syllabus). This visit was later evaluated as the event which enhanced project progress the most during the year. E-mail communication is important to convey information or to ask questions, but quite often several exchanges would be necessary due to language differences. Video conferences were an improvement over e-mail but being present with the other team members around a conference table multiplied the efficiency of communication well beyond any other means. This exchange visit also enhanced the e-mail communication necessary during the second semester, since the communicators were better acquainted and understood each others manor of speaking better.
Closing days of the project seemed to find the two teams communicating less and less intently. Admonitions by the professors that ideas and changes should be discussed with the Dutch Wire Team members would occasionally elicit comments implying that the others weren't talking either. About midway during the second semester each team had selected a favorite approach to the problem solution and decided to pursue their own ideas further. This was at first, considered a breech of course objective by this professor, however, further evaluation seemed to indicate that both ideas were good ones and each should be evaluated. This resulted in significant design and development effort being conducted by two separate teams rather than by one multinational team, however. The Dutch Wire Team idea consisted of a mechanical device which held each of the stub conductors to its corresponding bus conductor. The OSU Wire Splicer idea was referred to as the "reverse snuggle" in which the bus conductors were individually stripped of their outside insulation and "snuggled" next to a similarly prepared stub. Individual copper braids were wrapped around both the bus and stub at each of the stripped positions, thus making contact between each respective bus and stub conductors. Each idea had its individual aspect, yet both ideas were entirely dependent on a common stripping process.
Design and development progressed, until the semester's end was at hand. It was time for the Dutch Wire Team to visit the USA. On May 3, 1996 the two teams met in Tulsa, OK and traveled to Stillwater. During the next few days, intense efforts were applied to ready the hardware and prepare the PowerPoint® presentations for delivery to industry. All was completed by about 1:00 AM on the morning of departure.
The design project was presented at the American Machinery Conference, Cedar Rapids, IA during the afternoon of May 8, 1996. Attendees included representatives from John Deere, Alphabet, Raychem, Cherokee Nation Industries, and several universities other than OSU and WAU. The response from those attending was enthusiastic with many good questions asked. Comment sheets, passed out to attendees, solicited their comments and evaluation of the presentation. These were also very favorable as to the quality of performance exhibited by the students. One of the companies decided to attempt implementation of some of the developed concepts and another sent an e-mail to each of the team members soliciting their application for employment.
The 1996-97 design course began about the same as for the previous year. All of the students were "new to the game" so, except for some occasional coaching from the professors who had been through the project during the previous year and stories they had heard from the previous year's seniors, they were embarking on a new experience. The students sent their personal information and their e-mail addresses to their counterparts so that they could become acquainted and begin communication. Reports were sent each week, alternating between the Dutch and US teams. Very few equipment or technological problems were experienced by either side. The time difference did cause quite a few headaches for the students when they began to make appointments to chat about the project development. Compromises were worked out via e-mail, however.
New Holland was chosen as the industry partner for 96-97. New Holland is an international company with manufacturing facilities in Zedelgem, Belgium and in New Holland, PA. A different company for 1996-1997 was thought desirable, primarily for the purpose of providing the experience of students having to develop working relationships with a new company rather than simply extending those developed by their predecessors. Additional benefit stemming from the change was the development of additional industry association. Kees Muijs, Chief Engineer at Zedelgem and John Posselius at New Holland, PA were selected as project engineers for the Dutch and OSU design teams, respectively. Mr. Walter Pype, Research and Development at New Holland North America, also followed the course progress and was a fine example to the students of an engineer with international experience and language skills and one who has a deep interest in education.
Mr. Posselius traveled to OSU during the third week of the first semester to present the design project to the OSU design team. The class project objective, selected by New Holland for the student design teams, was "to reduce injuries around farm machinery". New Holland was careful not to direct the team toward any particular approach so that the students involved could approach the problem from any desired perspective they might deem appropriate and potentially effective. Suggested in the criteria, however, was a critical need to apply modern electronic methods and to consider CAN standards compatibility.
At about the same time that John Posselius visited OSU, the WAU students went to Zedelgem to discuss the project with Kees Muijs. It was during the exchange of information (New Holland North America to OSU and New Holland Zedelgem to WAU) that a misunderstanding developed which served to point out the basic need for international communication and understanding among project design engineers. Accurate translation and subsequent understanding of the New Holland-OSU-WAU relationship was not clear to the engineers at Zedelgem at the time the WAU students visited to receive the project objectives. Thus the WAU students returned to Wageningen with the impression that New Holland's position was that changes in their equipment, regarding safety, were not needed at this time. The currently manufactured items are meeting the European Community safety standards so a different project direction was suggested by Zedelgem. Perhaps to investigate, via opinion poll, how the European farmers were accepting the current safety standards.
The subsequent e-mail communications between the team members exhibited the resulting confusion. Mildly put, both sides concluded that the other was ignorant of the real situation and that perhaps there was no need for further cooperation! Fortunately, New Holland was included in the e-mail distribution loop and the situation was quickly clarified by phone calls and intensive e-mail exchanges between all concerned.
The design process proceeded throughout the first semester with many e-mail messages going between the students and industry and with planning underway for the upcoming visit to the US by the Dutch students. They arrived in Miami, FL during the last week of December, 1996 and motored via rental car to Philadelphia. The entire team met for the first time and proceeded to New Holland, PA for the presentation of their mid-term report to New Holland engineers. Following discussions at New Holland North America, the teams went by van directly to OSU where various cultural activities were planned for the students. Within three days of their arrival into Stillwater, OK it was time for the team to split again and the Dutch students returned to The Netherlands.
The remaining project time was devoted to work by subgroups of
the team who had various project component assignments. Communication
among the team members continued by e-mail, fax and file transfers
via FTP. The project was concluded by the OSU students traveling
to Wageningen in May, where the final touches were administered
to the final report. Travel to points of interest were included
in the Wageningen work schedule as the US students experienced
the European culture. The final report was presented to John Posselius,
Walter Pype and Kees Muijs, along with several Zedelgem professionals,
at the New Holland Zedelgem manufacturing facility. A plant tour,
presentations, critical discussion and comments by New Holland
project engineers completed the 96-97 project work.
Measurement of the success of such a project as this is rather
subjective, which seems to be the case for most educational efficiency
measurements. However, an attempt was made to discover the students
attitudes and to get their responses as they self-evaluated personal
development attributable to this course. Students were asked to
respond to the following questions:
1. Identify, describe and evaluate any benefits you believe
you received from the international aspects of this course.
2. Briefly discuss any changes that may have taken place in
your original concepts or attitudes toward the cooperating country
and people. (USA or The Netherlands)
3. Discuss your opinion of video conferencing.
4. Discuss the feasibility of conducting engineering design
interaction via the internet.
5. Please comment on this course. Include any criticism or
praise you believe is appropriate.
These questions were asked of both the Dutch and US students at the conclusion of each project year. Due to the number of student responses, they all cannot be included in this paper, however a few selected responses for each question from each country is presented as follows:
One of the big things I experienced in this course was that
it's very hard to work on a project when you hardly know each
other. Our cooperation went better after the visit from OSU to
WAU. I think both sides can learn from each other how to tackle
problems and working methods. It's a great change to do an international
project and exchange information about what is going on in the
"real" world on both continents. Because it's an international
course you have a change to get along with totally different people
and culture, which is an experience you carry for a lifetime.
I'm very grateful to the fund that made this experience possible
for me and I hope other students will get such a chance also.
(WAU)
The most important aspect that I have learned is the cultural
awareness. I did not know anything about the Dutch people, or
most people from England for that matter. I learned that although
there are many cultural differences, people face many of the same
challenges. I think that I have become a much better person as
a result of my interaction with students from another country.
(OSU)
At first, I thought the people from Netherlands would be quite
different. I changed my view. They were nice and hard working.
The students have contributed plenty to our design. It is nice
to know that we could depend on them. (OSU)
Because we have been traveling through the States for one week
and have met a lot of people and having spent a week with the
American students and professors, I think I got a rather good
impression of the American people and their habits. Some people
in Holland told us that the American people didn't like tourists
but the opposite is true! Every where we came the people were
very excited and very helpful to us. Another thing that impressed
me was that the American people work much harder and make much
more hours a week than the Dutch people. I think this is because
the American people find it very important to have high standard
of living; having a big house and a lot of big cars. Of course
this doesn't count for all the people we met. (WAU)
The video conference was very helpful to the progress of the
report. Especially because there were also two persons from John
Deere present and we got a lot of important information. It took
some time before we got used to the delay of the images and sound
but then it went well! (WAU)
The video-conferencing trip was a big help for both teams.
I wish there could have been more! The conference greatly helped
both teams express to the other what was wanted and/or needed
to be done. To me there was a sense of relief after the conference.
In the future, I think video-conferencing should be a requirement.
Hopefully in the near future real-time video conferencing can
be done on a regular basis with the use of PC's. (OSU)
Communications by e-mail went pretty well, I think. But the
internal phone was not such a big success. Chatting is only successful
when it's about smaller points. When it is about major decisions,
you get endless discussions. Thus in brief: Use e-mail for major
things and keeping each other updated about what's going on. At
least send an e-mail after every meeting and when major things
have been discussed in the group. Use chatting for detailed questions
that should be answered quickly and for informal fun talk to build
up the team spirit between the two teams who eventually have to
work as one. Wait until internet phone has been improved before
attempting its use with a design project. (WAU)
E-mail was the most important tool that we used in our design
project. It made the communication process very easy. We could
send a message one day and get one back the next. The project
would have been much more complicated without the internet. The
time that would have been wasted waiting for communications would
have been much longer without the internet. I think using the
internet allowed our project to be successful. Personally, I think
it made our project feasible. (OSU)
I liked very much to participate in this project. I leaned
a lot, but sometimes it was hard to keep communication good. Sometimes
we had the idea OSU wouldn't answer our mail and sometimes we
were irritated about that. I think it is essential that everybody
knows what the others are doing, so maybe communication is the
most important part of this project. The subject was good, not
what we expected, but it was hard enough to find a good solution.
(WAU)
I believe that this course presented a "slice" of
what the real world is like. We always discuss the "real
world", college is not the "real world". One is
taught for five years to be careful of those significant figures,
but you realize that personal opinion and experience is the most
important tool which you have. This course shows you that. You
learn just how long it takes to implement, develop, build, test,
and finish a project. I listen to students in other senior design
projects and am proud to have been a member of this project. I
feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be a member of
this design team. (OSU)
It was envisioned that, as a result of participation in this course, student attitudes and viewpoints would take on international perspective, students would develop knowledge and skills which would prepare them for membership on future multinational design teams, and that they would be provided realistic design experiences with international aspects and constraints. The successful execution of a design project with complexity, extensively open-ended, with immediate and apparently expanding world-wide applicability, and possessing the current interest of several multinational companies has adequately fulfilled the latter expectation. The students evaluation of the worth of this course personally, implies that indeed attitudes and viewpoints were expanded and that they did experience and develop skills necessary for their entry into the globalized engineering world.
The following conclusions, some not so unique to this course alone, are presented based on both the student's comments, observations by the professors, and expressions of industry representatives closely associated with the course:
1. Open-ended design problems, although the norm in industry,
are "painful" to the inexperienced engineering student.
2. Teaming up with people whom you do not know is difficult and
takes time before becoming productive.
3. Culture or language difference is a problem but maybe not as
great a problem as is the preconceived notions held about "those
other people". These notions adjust into perspective when
face-to-face communication takes place.
4. Nearly every student commented about some misconception that
was corrected toward the other country after participating in
this course.
5. Video-conferencing is a good communication method between design
groups but it must be used as soon as possible in the project
to acquaint the team members with each other and to bring all
to the same point in understanding of the project.
6. Students learn too late that "time slips away". Intensity
of effort seems to rise exponentially as the semester comes to
a close.
7. The paramount word of importance to every participant in this
course was unquestionably "communication". When
it was good, the team felt in control, when it was poor, chaos
and the sense of breakdown was prevalent.
8. International exchange between two universities at the classroom
level apparently served the objectives of this course well. The
added constraints of cultural and language difference, the distance
involved and the necessity for effective communication were sufficient
to introduce and cultivate the skills entry level engineers will
need for membership on international design teams.
9. Exchange travel by the course participants was a highlight
of the course and probably served to develop cultural appreciation
among team members better than any other course activity.
This course has been an attempt to address a perceived need for
international perspective in engineering design education and
represents a nontraditional approach to teaching engineering design
that possibly may serve as a model for other universities. We
have seen the working relationship between WAU and OSU develop
as acquaintances have been initiated between students and the
two faculties. Personal and professional growth in the participating
students has been apparent. Based on our current level of experience
with this project, we believe that projects like this have the
potential to develop strong relationships among the universities
of the world, between the private sector and the universities
and within the student/faculty community. We anticipate, and hope,
that the benefits will be so obvious that universities, as well
as industry, will continue to support this concept and that the
benefits will transcend the duration of the current USDA support.
Back to the TOP
| Course outline, Introduction to design, Problem description, Introduction to Wageningen Agricultural University, Discussion | |
| Introduction to Internet communication:
* E-Mail- group messages & reporting protocol * File transfer (FTP) * World Wide Web (WWW) Project Management Technique * Overview * Microsoft Project® | |
| Project Description, Project Management Application
Start information gathering: Literature, Patents, Standards | |
| Problem Definition | |
| Primary and Secondary Functions | |
| Define Conditions and Boundaries
(Design Constraints) | |
| Prepare report of conditions and boundaries
Patents / Standards / Literature and applicability | |
| Brainstorming, list of possible and impossible solutions | |
| Fall Break | |
| Preliminary evaluation of ideas | |
| Evaluation of ideas and Preliminary decision matrix | |
| Selection of idea (s), Final decision matrix, Justify decision | |
| Analyze selected solution / preliminary design | |
| Prepare for video conference | |
| Video conference | |
| Organize video conference material
Outline of Mid Project Report | |
| Draft of Mid Project Report | |
| Final Examination, Mid Project Report Due | |
| Students depart for out-of-country visit to team counterparts. |
| Review project schedule & team organization. | |
| Design and CAD working drawings. Continued student interchange via internet. | |
| Design and CAD working drawings. Continued student interchange via internet. | |
| Design and CAD working drawings. Continued student interchange via internet. | |
| Design and CAD working drawings. Continued student interchange via internet. | |
| Drawings are critiqued by each participant group and comments returned by 15 Feb. | |
| Design groups act on comments and begin fabrication. | |
| Project status reports from teams. | |
| Spring Break | |
| Project assembled, tested, modifications determined and drawings revised. | |
| Project assembled, tested, modifications determined and drawings revised. | |
| Project reassembled and tested. | |
| Project testing & report writing at each university. | |
| Project testing & report writing at each university. | |
| Complete project tests and reports and send reports to JD and to counterpart design teams. | |
| JD project engineers send graded reports back to respective universities. | |
| Final Examination | |
| Students travel to present final report to industry. |
Students were asked to respond to a series of questions pertaining
to the course. Both Dutch and US students participated and their
responses have been tagged for country identification. Where necessary
for clarity, their grammar and spelling has been edited.
Question 1. Identify, describe and evaluate any benefits
you believe you received from the international aspects of this
course.
One of the big things I experienced in this course was that it's
very hard to work on a project when you hardly know each other.
Our cooperation went better after the visit from OSU to WAU. I
think both sides can learn from each other how to tackle problems
and working methods. It's a great change to do an international
project and exchange information about what is going on in the
"real" world on both continents. Because it's an international
course you have a change to get along with totally different people
and culture, which is an experience you carry for a lifetime.
I'm very grateful to the fund that made this experience possible
for me and I hope other students will get such a chance also.
(WAU)
The great benefit for me was the extra knowledge you got from
working internationally. The way people work compared to how we
work, the differences between it and sometimes the difficulties.
I really learned to work together and to discuss and finally to
solve problems. Most of the time it was difficult to say what
was in your mind, or to discuss internationally. When you're speaking
to someone personal, it's more easy to discuss or to say things.
More easy the e-mail or chatting on the internet. When I'm looking
back, I think it has been a successful international project from
which I have learned a lot. (WAU)
The benefits I received from the international character of this
project, I think are: I learned English a lot more, I learned
working with the internet and e-mailing, I learned the differences
in study style between the Netherlands and the USA, I learned
to get used to another culture, I got the chance to see something
of the USA. (WAU)
The thing I liked most is that I learned a lot about the American
habits and way of living and their educational systems. The practical
part of their study is much more developed, they've got a lot
of space and equipment for their research and our department in
Holland should have more practical stuff like in America. I also
learned a lot of the different ways of communication like e-mail,
chat with the internet program IRC (Internet Related Chatting)
and talking using the internet program phone. E-mailing worked
very well, as long as you have enough time to wait for the response
and if you made sure that every thing you write is totally clear.
It takes a lot more time if you have to explain again in another
mail. The internet chatting didn't work as well as we thought
it would. The American students used a lot of words we didn't
understand which they had to explain. And because of the time
difference between Holland and America we didn't have much time
that we were both available. The big advantage was that you could
respond immediately. (WAU)
I think it's very good to participate in an international project.
You learn how people in another country work and you learn something
about their culture. I also learned a lot about communication,
within the group and between the groups. Sometimes it was hard
to find the right words to say what you wanted, but mot of the
time it worked out. I think our English was good enough to have
good conversations. (WAU)
Benefits I received from the international aspects of this course
are first that I learned a lot when we discussed about things
which we both learned at our universities but in a different way.
Some ideas are different and it is interesting to discuss about
it. Secondly, both groups had different contact-persons and contact
companies, so more information could be obtained. Of course, this
project was good for our English, too. (WAU)
The benefits which I feel that I have received are: communication
and simplicity. In all the classes which an engineering student
takes, only the ones within this department helped prepare and
refine my communication skills. Yet, I learned more in this course
than in any of the other classes. This was more prevalent with
international students. This also deals with the issue of simplicity.
A person learns just how basic a diagram, phrase, or comment must
be for others to completely understand it. With having two separate
cultures, simple words or phrases are misunderstood thus causing
confusion. One cannot start "specific". You must start
basic, make sure your audience understands, then progress into
more complicated issues. (OSU)
I think that being involved in this course has opened my eyes
toward international engineering cooperation. Realizing that people
all over the world are working on the same problems makes it very
important for good communication and cooperation between people
from different cultures. Throughout this course, II have been
exposed to many of the current technologies that are instrumental
in the realm if international engineering. I feel that this course
has given me the skills to participate in international projects.
(OSU)
The international aspect was not only appropriate for a design
project, it also allowed for a rapport between two communities
of engineers separated by oceans, ideas, language and culture.
It allowed me to get a better understanding of how future topnotch
engineers in other parts of the world formulate their thought
processes. I benefited from getting to know them and finding out
what makes them tick. (OSU)
I learned more about what it takes to deal with operations overseas.
Planning the project takes longer and communications are very
valuable. (OSU)
The most important aspect that I have learned is the cultural
awareness. I did not know anything about the Dutch people, or
most people from England for that matter. I learned that although
there are many cultural differences, people face many of the same
challenges. I think that I have become a much better person as
a result of my interaction with students from another country.
(OSU)
Working with the international students had quite a variety of
benefits. I was able to increase my communication skills. Also,
my view towards international people totally changed. In the engineering
aspect, it was nice to know that I could contribute on the international
level. (OSU)
I learned about the art of communicating with people of a different
culture. Difficult at times to get across what you were trying
to say. This had given me the knowledge to not take anything for
granted when trying to explain something to someone. (OSU)
Question 2. Briefly discuss any changes that may have taken
place in your original concepts or attitudes toward the cooperating
country and people. (USA or The Netherlands)
I feel that the WAU team did not take the design as far as we
did. There has been, at times, a lack of communication between
both teams. In a nutshell I think we did communicate like we were
expected too. (OSU)
At first, I thought the people from Netherlands would be quite
different. I changed my view. They were nice and hard working.
The students have contributed plenty to our design. It is nice
to know that we could depend on them. (OSU)
I did not have a good concept of the people of this country. During
our visit to The Netherlands, I learned that the people are extremely
nice and outgoing. We did not encounter any rudeness just because
we were Americans. In most places we were welcomed with open arms.
It reminded me of the small town where I was raised. (OSU)
Originally, I was under the impression that the students from
The Netherlands would not be very much help in the design. However,
after working with them for the past two semesters, I have become
quite aware that they are very capable of good engineering work.
I was happily surprised when we were in The Netherlands. I expected
the people to be less friendly, but everyone was very helpful.
I think that it would have been quite different if we had gone
to a country where English is not widely spoken. (OSU)
Originally, I did not even think of the culture change. I thought
that they were Europeans and their attitude and ideas would be
similar to ours. That was immediately changed, this was most obvious
when we visited them. It seemed that they were not as serious
and as diligent as we were. We, OSU members, understood the importance
of this project and took it upon ourselves to totally dedicate
our time to this project. Our whole manner seemed more serious
than theirs. Yet, the manner in which we addressed our professors
as equals when faced with a common problem was much different
from their philosophy. It seemed that a professor, in the Netherlands,
has complete control and tells the students what to do. When we
address a problem, we are equal with a professor in the area of
criticism and the ability to accept or reject an idea. We treat
them as if they were a fellow member, because they are. (OSU)
Initially, I anticipated the Netherlands students would have had
limited exposure to people outside of their culture. I learned
quickly, however, their concept of diversity on average exceeded
that of the peers I work with. The Netherlands students were not
as over zealous about dominating with their ideas and following
strict, uncreative guidelines as I had been informed. The most
interesting aspect of working with the Netherlands students was
finding out that individuals from other countries have commonalties
and special interests that instantly erase international distances,
such as playing musical instruments. (OSU)
Of course we had an impression from the people and the way of
living in the States, but this was just from television or books
and stuff like that. Now that we have been in the USA we know
that most things people say about America are true. It is a beautiful
country with kindly people and everything is really much bigger
there. The houses, the cars, the areas of land, etc. One thing
that surprised me was that the people are very correct. Rules
are rules. They do what they have to do and they work very hard.
I do like it there. They also have high technical equipment and
knowledge. Big universities with laboratories. It is better than
I thought in most all ways. Only the food is better and healthier
in Holland I think (also more expensive). (WAU)
At first I didn't know what we had to expect from "the American
people". I wasn't sure whether the communication would be
good or not but afterwards I think we listened good to each other
and the discussion we had, they were good. (WAU)
Because we have been traveling through the States for one week
and have met a lot of people and having spent a week with the
American students and professors, I think I got a rather good
impression of the American people and their habits. Some people
in Holland told us that the American people didn't like tourists
but the opposite is true! Every where we came the people were
very excited and very helpful to us. An other thing that impressed
me was that the American people work much harder and make much
more hours a week than the Dutch people. I think this is because
the American people find it very important to have high standard
of living; having a big house and a lot of big cars. Of course
this doesn't count for all the people we met. (WAU)
Everything is even bigger in the US than I thought. The university
here has a more commercial way or style. The social life between
the students is very poor. There's not much contact between the
students besides their studies. (WAU)
I didn't have a good opinion of American students. Some things
that I expected to be different was the way the OSU students work
together. I had expected they should have been more close to each
other. I think the students are a bit more selfish, and work very
hard for their own results. My final opinion to our counterparts
is very positive. (WAU)
I'm from WAU The Netherlands. I think you learn to respect other
people's country's working methods, backgrounds and lifestyle.
I don't know if I'm really thinking different on the USA now cause
I mostly don't have a preset opinion. I'm more like open minded
toward anything but it is a great change to make an opinion yourself.
So far, I think it is all king of big around here which may mean
there is slightly less personal contact, but more different choices
you can make. (WAU)
Question 3. Discuss your opinion of video conferencing.
I think the video conference should have taken place at the very
beginning of the project. This way we could have become better
acquainted and would have been better able to talk about the project
and ask questions of the people who came up with the project.
They could have explained it better. Bill Formwalt talked with
the OSU students, also to the other participants in the project.
WAU, should have been able to directly communicate with Bill.
That would have made starting up a lot easier. When it's possible,
it would be a big help to the projects if both universities were
to have direct communication equipment so the video conference
could be conducted at each university. This would have made communications
a lot more easier and effective. (WAU)
The video conference was very useful for the progress of the project.
It was the first time that we could see each other and discuss
on-line. This worked much better than e-mail or other communication
methods. It was a pity that we had to drive such a long way for
this conference. It would have been much better for the project
if we could have had this equipment at our own university. This
probably is too expensive. (WAU)
I think it's a very good form of communication overseas. It is
kind of funny the delay between seeing and hearing, although it
wasn't really a problem. I think the groups made a lot of progress
during the video conference. We saw each other for the first time,
so afterwards you had some idea with whom you were working with.
We heard that day really what was expected from us and that we
could look to different sources, too. If you had questions you
could ask them straight away and receive answers. So it works
very quick and efficient. The problem is that both groups have
to go so far to do a video conference. (WAU)
The video conference was very helpful to the progress of the report.
Especially because there were also two persons from John Deere
present and we got a lot of important information. It took some
time before we got used to the delay of the images and sound but
then it went well! (WAU)
Video-conferencing is a very good way of communication. We learned
a lot of new things about the project during the conference. I
only think the video-conference was a little too late because
we needed some information before we were able to learn it at
the conference. If people are not able to come together, I think
video-conferencing is the best way to communicate. (WAU)
The video-conference is very important. It was very useful to
do this in the first semester. Maybe we should have done it a
little bit earlier. It was good to show what we had been working
on and to discuss it at the same time. Just chatting and mailing
it is very difficult to explain exactly what you mean or what
things look like. Besides, it was nice to see with who we are
working and to speak to each other. It is also very important
that some experts are present during the conference, such as Mr.
Formwalt. If there are any questions, the right people can answer
them immediately. Our video-conference was very useful and I think
it is almost a necessity for such a project. (WAU)
Video-conferencing is a productive and efficient way to allow
two or more groups to discuss ideas visually. The manual equipment
needs to be a little more user-friendly. (OSU)
Video-conferencing is better than the internet. (OSU)
The video-conference was a terrific experience. We learned how
the real world works. You were able to associate a name with a
face and that allowed for a team to be developed. You were able
to see one's facial expression when an idea was expressed. That
is not possible with e-mail. While in school, you don't know what
is available in many areas. The video-conference allowed us to
see what our future may have in-store. (OSU)
I think that the experience of video-conferencing was very different.
I think that it is a valuable tool for international engineering
projects. It has many advantages over other forms of communication.
It is easier to work with someone when you actually know the person
with whom you are working. You are also able to use props to help
explain difficult subject matter. It made e-mail more personal,
and improved the project greatly. It was instrumental in the success
of our project. (OSU)
Video-conferencing is better than a phone conversation but not
anywhere near the value of meeting face-to-face. In our situation,
the video-conference was much better than just communication by
e-mail. It was not as good as our face-to-face meetings in The
Netherlands. (OSU)
I thought it was different and it took some time to get used to.
It is nice to know that one can have a conference without everyone
actually being there in person. (OSU)
The video-conferencing trip was a big help for both teams. I wish
there could have been more! The conference greatly helped both
teams express to the other what was wanted and/or needed to be
done. To me there was a sense of relief after the conference.
In the future, I think video-conferencing should be a requirement.
Hopefully in the near future real-time video conferencing can
be done on a regular basis with the use of PC's. (OSU)
Question 4. Discuss the feasibility of conducting engineering
design interaction via the internet.
Communications by e-mail went pretty well, I think. But the internal
phone was not such a big success. Chatting is only successful
when it's about smaller points. When it is about major decisions,
you get endless discussions. Thus in brief: Use e-mail for major
things and keeping each other updated about what's going on. At
least send an e-mail after every meeting and when major things
have been discussed in the group. Use chatting for detailed questions
that should be answered quickly and for informal fun talk to build
up the team spirit between the two teams who eventually have to
work as one. Wait until internet phone has been improved before
attempting its use with a design project. (WAU)
In the beginning we had some start-up problems but after that,
it worked well. We didn't have strict rules about the person in
charge of communication. This resulted sometimes in confusion.
Another thing was that sometimes one of the networks broke up.
This took us a couple of days until we could send a message. This
was frustrating. Towards the end of the project, the communication
got worse. We were both doing our own work without e-mailing.
This also had to do with strict appointments about communication.
(WAU)
The project had problems. We never knew what was expected from
us. First, we thought we should make paper designs, later, we
thought we had to make a real prototype. Finally nobody knew exactly
what we had to do. I think the project was too big to place it
in the course we had. I also think we could have finished the
project better if we didn't have the problems with the communication,
and had we gotten more support from our supervisors. Maybe this
looks a bit negative but this is not supposed to be. I think it's
always difficult because, for everybody, it's the first time.
(WAU)
It is a possibility for communication, but it has it's problems.
The problem with e-mail is that you can't answer immediately.
Another problem is the time difference between the US and The
Netherlands. If we sent an e-mail, the answer would not be there
until the next day for us. Therefore e-mail takes a lot of time.
Internet Chatting works better than e-mail, but it is not easy
to explain everything by words. Drawings can explain things much
more easily. Another problem was to make good appointments when
communication should place because both groups need to have time
and there is a time difference. (WAU)
I think the e-mail worked fine as long as everything was clear
that you wrote in the e-mail. The big advantage was that you could
send and read the e-mail when you wanted, which was handy because
of the time difference. The IRC didn't work very well because
of some of the American words we didn't understand. There was
a time difference and perhaps some lack of real good preparation.
I think if you would put some more effort to it, it could work
better. The internet phone didn't work because of bad quality
of the sound. I don't know if the quality could be improved. (WAU)
I think internet is a good way to communicate, it is quick and
fast. Although, with e-mail it takes too long for an answer to
your own mail. Internet chatting can also be very useful, if you
know what you are going to talk about. We also tried internet
phone but the sound quality and the way it worked wasn't good
enough to have a good conversation. But beside the internet it
is necessary to have personal contacts, because if you know the
person you're talking to, communication is much easier. (WAU)
Communication by using the internet worked well. We could send
almost everything to the other side of the ocean. Text, pictures,
photos, everything. It was also very fast. It was a shame that
the internet phone didn't work well. It was difficult to hear
each other correctly. What did work well was chatting. When we
had an important question or a point of discussion, it was good
to talk about it with more people at the same time. Things became
really clear by chatting. (WAU)
All of the tools necessary are available to have an outstanding
design team produce work over the internet. The only problem is
that students have different learning curves, therefore advancement
to the next time saving technique may leave someone behind. I
highly recommend engineering design over the internet, however,
teams should be aware of problems such as network down-time and
computer hackers who could cause delays in progress. (OSU)
It is possible but very hard to conduct engineering via the internet.
The teams were not talking face-to--face, ideas were not flowing
between the teams sometimes, and it was difficult to divide up
the responsibilities between the teams. This resulted in excessive
delays in decision making. (OSU)
Engineering over the "net" is extremely hard. We were
able to hear the other team's opinion on the spot while chatting.
With e-mail, the ability to understand another personal opinion
is much harder because of the miscommunication which is constantly
present. The internet phone would be a great tool. We were just
too early for the implementation of this technology. For the future,
I recommend the use of more video-conferences, internet phone,
chatting, and a better time-line for the project. (OSU)
E-mail was the most important tool that we used in our design
project. It made the communication process very easy. We could
send a message one day and get one back the next. The project
would have been much more complicated without the internet. The
time that would have been wasted waiting for communications would
have been much longer without the internet. I think using the
internet allowed our project to be successful. Personally, I think
it made our project feasible. (OSU)
Engineering on the internet is feasible, but it needs to be outlined
before it is started. Using e-mail to communicate slows down the
process of design considerably. The good news is that it tests
a students ability to communicate. When employers say that they
are looking for people with communication skills, they do not
simply want to know if you can carry on a conversation. Communication
via the internet, video-conferencing, and teleconferencing, develops
skills that you do not learn in other classes. (OSU)
It was nice to know that we could send e-mail and receive a reply
within the US that same day. It cut down on the total time spent
on the project. The time a team waits on information is reduced
greatly. Money and time is saved in the long run. (OSU)
Video-conferences are a good way of communicating. If this were
the only way of communicating, however, I don't think a project
could be done as it should be. Use of the internet for communication
was a requirement for the project. (OSU)
Question 5. Please comment on this course. Include any criticism
or praise you believe is appropriate.
The international project was really great to work on. It has
been a great experience. Most problems came up with communication
which hasn't been always as good as it should be. It's of vital
importance that both sides let each other know what they are up
to, at least once a week. A video conference at the beginning
of the project and exchange half-way and at the end will do, I
guess. Communication is the essential point in the project for
both cooperating teams. I would really recommend this project
course to anyone who wants to work hard and get a great time in
return. (WAU)
I think it is very important for everyone to know what is expected
right from the beginning. I think that was not the case in our
course, and it changed during the project. Communication could
be a lot better. The communication between the groups wasn't good
at all. Most of the time we didn't know what the OSU group was
doing and we didn't get answers to our questions. There were not
really good opportunities and the groups did not realize the need
of good communication. Maybe we could have had more support from
our supervisors. (WAU)
I think this course is the best one I've had until now. Not only
because we've been able to travel around America and also to show
Americans our country, but also because I have learned a lot about
using the internet as communication medium and learning a lot
about another country so I understand their ways of doing things.
The last two months the communication didn't go very well; the
Americans didn't know what we were doing and we didn't know what
they were doing. This slowed down the progress and caused us both
to work on separate ideas. There wasn't enough feed-back. For
this kind of course, the communication is the most important part
and we found out that there should be at least one person at both
sides who is responsible for checking the e-mail and informing
the other team members. I think we didn't get much support from
our supervisor. The days the American professors were in Holland,
we learned more about the project. (WAU)
I liked very much to participate in this project. I learned a
lot, but sometimes it was hard to keep communication good. Sometimes
we had the idea OSU wouldn't answer our mail and sometimes we
were irritated about that. I think it is essential that everybody
knows what the others are doing, so maybe communication is the
most important part of this project. The subject was good, not
what we expected, but it was hard enough to find a good solution.
(WAU)
It was quite an experience to do such a project. You can learn
a lot from it. In the beginning it wasn't exactly clear what the
real problem was. Maybe it would have been better if an exact
problem were slated at the beginning. The type of problem used
for this course was, of course, different but we wasted a lot
of time working on a partly wrong problem. It is very important
that there be a good supervisor who can guide the group a little
bit. (WAU)
As always, certain rules should be better enforced while others
demand less attention. The grading system is in need of re-vamping
before situations become irrevocable. Good engineering is not
just answers spit out by equations. Good engineering is based
on estimation and what intuition tells you from experience. The
same concept should be applied to this course evaluation. You
can very completely separate the objective from the subjective.
It will inevitably result in bad decision making. (OSU)
This is a great coarse in learning how to deal with other organizations,
countries and other people. The only negative comment is that
the professors should set down and determine what is expected
from the students in the beginning. They should be the same on
both sides. (OSU)
I believe that this course presented a "slice" of what
the real world is like. We always discuss the "real world",
college is not the "real world". One is taught for five
years to be careful of those significant figures, but you realize
that personal opinion and experience is the most important tool
which you have. This course shows you that. You learn just how
long it takes to implement, develop, build, test, and finish a
project. I listen to students in other senior design projects
and am proud to have been a member of this project. I feel privileged
to have had the opportunity to be a member of this design team.
(OSU)
The course was a huge learning experience. Our problem was a real
world design problem of great magnitude. Making the project an
international project has given us the opportunity to be involved
in another aspect of engineering. I was very pleased with the
course. The problem definitely challenged us. I think that we
realized that we were falling behind after it was too late, which
was another good learning experience. I think that our group needed
a little more guidance concerning time management. That was probably
our main problem. (OSU)
Obviously, the time commitment is not appropriate for the number
of hours credit. I don't think that this is as big of a problem
as most people make it out to be. There have been some three-hour
classes in which I have spent as much time or more. I like the
fact that the course is a two-semester course. This yields a greater
opportunity to learn. I do think that the course should be a little
bit more structured. Our project was not defined very well. Some
people would view this as good, but you can also argue that it
is more difficult for the students to move toward a solution if
they are not sure what the solution is. Overall, I would say that
it is a good course that could use some changes. The only problems
that I have with the course could be attributed to this particular
project. (OSU)
First of all, I appreciate the effort the other team members provided
towards the completion of the design. This was a huge problem
in industry. We now realize how much of a problem it was. Making
this an international problem has brought many more benefits to
this team. I think, however, we got too involved with the small
things associated with our project. This cost us valuable time.
I also think we learned from this experience. (OSU)
The project was a great learning experience. I feel the part of
trying to automate the process was a little too much for just
the second semester. Had the team decided to automate the process
in the first semester, the load would not have been as much. There
was a lot of stress on the team at the end of the semester trying
to complete the project. Working on the project and taking finals
at the same time is difficult. All of this may be the result of
the beginning of the first semester. The team wasn't really sure
what was expected of them. With respect to the second semester,
the first semester seems transparent in some ways. Hind-sight
is always 20/20! (OSU)