You will be rewarded, if you read to this strange, but interesting sentence “This places a University between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place.” …

This email made my day, and provided a nice possible motto for our upcoming T Summit 2014…

“United we stand; divided, we fall.  No one can be passive.”

….posted with permission (and of course, these are Geanie’s opinions not those of her employer, just as these blog posts are mine, and not those of my employer)

From Geanie Umberger, PhD, MSPH, RPh, Assistant Vice President for Research , Industry Research Program, Purdue University

Hi Jim,

Yes, that would be what we would want in an industry partnership with Purdue Polytechnic Institute: (1)  industry would provide real-world challenges, tools, data, coaches for the student projects, and (2) some of the best students get industry mentorship or internships or hired as employees.

As you know from your days in academia, most faculty desperately need industry partnerships in order to know about what the market needs are, how industry functions,  and other important touch-points that Industry monitors daily.

In addition to the complaints from the public on how a college degree costs too much and the strong pressure to quicken the pace to confer degrees, Universities have been hit from the other side by industry saying that we do not adequately prepare our students for the job market.

How can we cut-back on important knowledge to shorten graduation time, still teach critical thinking, plus provide a student with the opportunity that they “have what it takes” to complete a rigorous degree, and yet address industry’s valid concerns?  (The “what it takes” component seems to have evaporated from the buzz on education.)

This places a University between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place.

I see where the Purdue Polytechnic Institute offers one possible solution to this quandary, but the only way these types of programs can be successful is if companies also play a significant role.  It is more than just funding, but mentorships, internships, input on curriculum, and so forth.  Yes, Universities must change the way they educate (and conduct research, which is a whole separate topic) for the future.  However, in the words of one of our great forefathers, “United we stand; divided, we fall.”  This means that industry, the government, K-12 schools, parents, universities, AND the student all must play an active role.  No one can be passive.

Students cannot expect to be spoon-fed information they then spit back on an exam, and just because they were accepted to college does not guarantee they automatically get a degree and a great job.  Certain character-building components must be there as well.  Students who want an economical short experience have to be serious with their focus and not jump major-to-major. (A number of colleges have stats that show a student taking 5 to 6 years to graduate, how much of this is due to  jumping majors? I don’t know….how do we add internships and/or co-ops?)  We need to  devise effective programs that help students determine (1) if they want to even go to college; (2) give them viable options and assistance if they don’t; and (3) if they do go to college, help them zero in on the career to reduce the jumping around.  Once the student goes to college, we need to make sure certain skills (soft and hard) are provided to the students and industry and the university collaborate.  Students who want to jump around and explore, must understand there are very real economic and time costs.  Perhaps the jumping around and exploring more paths actually creates a student that is better rounded, and better T-shaped boundary spanner – but it comes at a big cost in the current university structures, and impacts measures the public watches carefully – cost to degree, time to degree.

To be totally honest, I am unaware if any robust programs like I am thinking of which might address this gap to discern careers, etc.    To my limited knowledge, no one has devised a way to address this gap.  The conversation is buzzing around the area, but not landed on that specific topic just yet.

I could go on, but I think I have bored you enough so it is time for me to jump off my soapbox and put it away.

Please let me know if you would like to talk further about the Purdue Polytechnic Institute, and thanks for reading this far.

Do’s and Don’ts of starting new academics disciplines

Do’s
1. Do read Andrew Abbot’s  “Chaos of Disciplines” and “System of Professions”

2. Do study existing disciplines that overlap the new discipline, and how they began and took hold

3. Do build a social network of all the faculty currently teaching aspects of the discipline

4. Do have a very good answer to the “Why now?” question

5. Do align with existing conferences (only start new ones later)

6. Do align with special issues of  existing journals (only start new ones later)

7. Do align with existing professional associations (only start new ones later)

8. Do encourage new sections in popular textbooks (only start whole new ones later)

9.  Do generate a list of grand challenge problems to solve, and practical next steps on each

10.  Do create and post freely available introductory lectures, including case studies.

Don’ts
1. Don’t expect the “discipline’s brand” to become big over night (this work takes decades)

2. Don’t forget to co-create a new profession in business and government at the same time

3. Don’t forget that professions need tools – what are the new tools the discipline builds?

4. Don’t become too rigorous too fast (early mathematization can create a narrow niche discipline)

5. Don’t forget to ask if others have tried and failed (or only partly succeeded)

6. Don’t forget the discipline needs a pipeline of doctoral students who want to be faculty

7. Don’t forget the profession needs practitioners willing to give themselves new job titles

8. Don’t forget someone has to hire the undergraduate, master, and doctoral students

9. Don’t forget new disciplines require accreditation for programs and certification for practitioners

10.  Don’t forget to be persistent – there will be many up’s and down’s along the way

Most important of all – relate the new discipline to something in the world that is evolving rapidly (entities), and strive to deeply understand the evolution of the ecology of  those entities.  Disciplinarians should be creating case studies, and sharing data sets about the entities, even as the theoretical foundations are put in place.  Ultimately, the quality of the discipline is tied to the quality of data about the entities being studied.

Both the “Spellings Report” and the “Engineering Flexner Report” provide insightful analysis and recommendations for improving US Higher Education.  The original Carnegie Foundation sponsored  “Flexner Report” was an early 20th Century report (book-sized report) that led to the radical transformation of medical education in the US and Canada.

While these two newer reports are full of recommendations for higher education and engineering education, respectively, their well-reasoned transformations have been slow in coming.

In March, at the upcoming T Summit 2014, many of the participants will be familiar with these two reports.

With a focus on the co-creation of 21C Talent, the T Summit 2014 will  outline a co-transformation of  industry and academia (new partnership model) in regions globally.  A  continuous improvement logic, like a “Moore’s Law for higher education” may then be possible, allowing sustainable value co-creation and capability co-elevation through smarter technologies and social networks of T-shaped professionals, dramatically increasing professional productivity of individuals and regional quality-of-life.

For those who are not, familiar with these two reports I have extracted some key quotes that provide a sampling of the topics explored, and also included URLs to the full reports.

US DOE (2006) A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C..  URL: http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html.

• “After all, American higher education has been the envy of the world for years. In 1862, the First Morrill Act created an influential network of land-grant universities across the country. After World War II, the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill made access to higher education
  a national priority. In the 1960s and 1970s, the launching and rapid growth of community colleges further expanded
  postsecondary educational opportunities. For a long time, we educated more people to higher levels than any other nation.” (P. ix).
• “For close to a century now, access to higher education has been a principal—some would say the principal—means of achieving social mobility. Much of our nation’s inventiveness has been centered in colleges and universities, as has our commitment to a kind of democracy that only an educated and informed citizenry makes possible. It is not surprising that American institutions of higher education have become a magnet for attracting people of talent and ambition from throughout the world.” (P. xii).
• “History is littered with examples of industries that, at their peril, failed to respond to—or even to notice—changes in the world around them, from railroads to steel manufacturers. Without serious self-examination and reform, institutions of higher education risk falling into the same trap, seeing their market share substantially reduced and their services increasingly characterized by obsolescence.” (P. xii).
• “Ninety percent of the fastest-growing jobs in the new knowledge-driven economy will require some postsecondary education. Already, the median earnings of a U.S.
  worker with only a high school diploma are 37 percent less than those of a worker with a bachelor’s degree. Colleges
  and universities must continue to be the major route for new generations of Americans to achieve social mobility.” (P. 1).
• ” According to the most recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy, for instance, the percentage of college graduates deemed proficient in prose literacy has actually declined from 40 to 31 percent in the past decade.” (P. 3).
• “We recommend that America’s colleges and universities embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement. We urge these institutions to develop new pedagogies, curricula and technologies to improve learning, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics. At the same time, we recommend the development of a national strategy for lifelong learning designed to keep our citizens and our nation at the forefront of the knowledge revolution.” (P. 5).
• “Close to 25 percent of all students in public high schools do not graduate10—a proportion that rises among low-income, rural, and minority students.” (P. 8).
• “According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 17 percent of seniors are considered proficient in mathematics,11 and just 36 percent are proficient in reading.” (P. 8).
• “Access and achievement gaps disproportionately affect low-income and minority students. Historically these are the very students who have faced the greatest academic and financial challenges in getting access to or completing college. Many will be the first in their families to attend college. Regardless
  of age, most will work close to full-time while they are in college and attend school close to home. ” (P. 9).
• “From 1995 to 2005, average tuition and fees at private four-year colleges and universities rose 36 percent after adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, average tuition and fees rose 51 percent at public four-year institutions and 30 percent at community colleges.27” (P. 10).
• “Only 66 percent of full-time four-year college students complete a baccalaureate degree within six years.40 (This reflects
  the percentage of students who begin full-time in four-year institutions and graduate within six years.)” (P. 13).
• “It is fundamental to U.S. economic interests to provide world-class education while simultaneously providing an efficient immigration system that welcomes highly educated individuals to our nation. Foreign-born students represent about half of all graduate students in computer sciences, and over half of the doctorate degrees awarded in engineering.51 Almost 30 percent of the actively employed science and engineering doctorate holders in the U.S. are foreign born.52 However, current limits on employer-sponsored visas preclude many U.S. businesses from hiring many of these graduates, which may discourage some talented students from attending our universities.” (P. 16).
• “At a time when innovation occurs increasingly at the intersection of multiple disciplines (including business and social sciences), curricula and research funding remain largely contained in individual departments.” (P. 16).
• “These redesigned courses provided online access to Web-based tutorials, on-demand feedback, and support from student peer mentors. The use of technology reduced course preparation time for instructors and lowered instructional costs per student.
  The results speak for themselves: more learning at a lower cost to the university. Institutions reported an average of 37 percent reduced cost and an increase in student engagement and learning. For example, scores in a redesigned biology course at the University of Massachusetts increased by 20 percent, while the cost to the university per student dropped by nearly 40 percent. For more information, visit http://www.collegecosts.info/pdfs/solution_papers/Collegecosts_Oct2005.pdf.” (P. 21).
• “Salt Lake City-based Neumont University is educating the most sought-after software developers in the world. Neumont’s curriculum is project-based and focuses on the skills most valued by today’s employers. The institution’s unique instructional approach is built on a project-based, experiential foundation that incorporates the tools and technologies important to the industry. Students learn both the theory of computer science and then apply that theory in real-world projects, initially mentored by faculty, and ultimately mentored by other senior students in peer-to-peer relationships. Neumont offers an accelerated program; in about 28 months graduates can earn a Bachelor of Science in computer science degree; IBM, .NET and other leading industry certifications; and a digital portfolio of projects. For more information, visit www.neumont.edu.” (P. 26).
• “The administration should encourage more research collaboration, multi- disciplinary research and curricula, including those related to the growing services economy, through existing programs at the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.” (P. 27).
• “Our report has recommended strategic actions designed to make higher education more accessible, more affordable, and more accountable, while maintaining world-class quality. Our colleges and universities must become more transparent, faster to respond to rapidly changing circumstances and increasingly productive in order to deal effectively with the powerful forces of change they now face.” (P. 29).

Duderstadt, J. J. (2007). Engineering for a Changing World: A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice, Research, and Education. The Millenium Project, Michigan University. URL: http://milproj.dc.umich.edu/publications/EngFlex_report/

• “Here it is interesting to note that during his study of medicine, Flexner raised very similar concerns about engineering education even at this early period. “The minimum basis upon which a good school of engineer- ing accepts students is, once more, an actual high school education, and the movement toward elongating the technical course to five years confesses the urgent need of something more.” However, he went on to contrast medical and engineering in two ways: first, engineering depends upon the basic sciences (chemistry, physics, mathematics) while medicine depends upon the sec- ondary sciences (anatomy, physiology), which, in turn, depend upon basic sciences. Second, while engineers take on major responsibility for human life (e.g., build- ings, bridges), they usually do so after gaining experi- ence working up the employment ladder, while phy- sicians must deal with such issues immediately upon graduation.” (P. 6).
• “Ironically, although engineering is one of the professions most responsible for and responsive to the profound changes in our society driven by evolving technology, its characteristics in practice, research, and education have been remarkably constant–some might even suggest stagnant–relative to other professions.” (P. 7).
• “Of comparable concern are the very narrow pigeon holes that industry and government employers fre- quently force engineers into, stunting their intellectual growth and adaptability. It is almost as if many large companies actually prefer “grunt engineers” they can utilize as disposable commodities. ” (P. 28).
• “Yet, the recruiters that companies send to the cam- puses tend to stress narrow technical skills and achieve- ment over such broader abilities–e.g., C++ program- ming, computer-aided engineering, and, oh yes, at least a 3.5 GPA. This despite the claim by their executive lead- ership that what they really value are broader abilities such as communication skills, a commitment to lifelong learning, an appreciation for cultural diversity, and the ability to drive change. Certainly the mismatch between the broader skills that industry leaders claim they need and the very narrow criteria imposed by their campus recruiters is driven in part by the marching orders and incentives given corporate human resources staff to de- liver engineering graduates capable of immediate im- pact. But these broader abilities, more characteristic of a broad liberal education, while certainly essential for the executive suite, are also not usually the attributes valued by managers seeking engineering graduates ca- pable of making immediate contributions. Hence there appears to be a mismatch between the goals of technical depth demanded by recruiters and line managers and the broader intellectual skills for engineering graduates sought by corporate leadership.” (P. 31).
• “Depth vs. breadth: Part of the problem is the way that the intellectual activities of the contemporary uni- versity are partitioned into increasingly specialized and fragmented disciplines.” (P. 32).
• “Recalling the definition of Kodama (and Bordogna), the essence of engineering practice is the process of inte- grating knowledge to some purpose. Unlike the special- ized analysis characterizing scientific inquiry, engineers are expected to be society’s master integrators, working across many different disciplines and fields, making the connections that will lead to deeper insights and more creative solutions, and getting things done. Thus, engi- neering education is under increasing pressure to shift away from specialization to a more comprehensive cur- riculum and broader educational experience in which topics are better connected and integrated.” (P. 33).
• “Overload: As the knowledge base in most engineer- ing fields continues to increase exponentially, the engi- neering curriculum has become bloated with technical material, much of it obsolete by the time our students graduate. Even with this increasing technical content, most engineers will spend many months if not years in further workplace training before they are ready for practice. MIT professor Rosalind Williams suggests “Engineering has evolved into an open-ended ‘profes- sion of everything’ where technology shades into sci- ence, art, and management, with no strong institutions to define an overarching mission. All the forces that pull engineering in different directions–toward science, toward the market, toward design, toward systems, to- ward socialization–add logs to the curricular logjam. Few students will want to commit themselves to an educational track that is nearly all-consuming” (Wil- liams, 2003).” (P. 34).
• “Who is holding back change? Certainly constitu- encies such as the professional societies, the National Academy of Engineering, ABET, and the National Sci- ence Foundation have recognized the need for change and launched important efforts aimed at better align- ing engineering with the changing needs of society. Yet, quite frankly, although well intentioned, most of these steps have been largely at the margin, leaving both the fundamental character and the imperative challenges of engineering largely unscathed.
  Industry is a bit more ambivalent. Although they wax eloquently about the need for more broadly edu- cated engineering graduates, better able to adapt to the new demands of the global economy, they still tell their campus recruiters to stress traditional technical skills and academic records. Furthermore, while professional societies and educators alike recognize the inadequacy of an undergraduate engineering degree, the employer market continues to resist upgrading the degree re- quirements to the graduate level or making an adequate investment in the continuing education and training of their engineering staff, particularly when the alterna- tive of off-shoring engineering services to cheaper for- eign providers provides such cost advantages.
  What about the academy? To be sure, change is sometimes a four-letter word on university campuses. It is sometimes said that universities change one grave at a time. Judging from a comparison of today’s course of study with the engineering curriculum of a century ago, even this may be too optimistic for engineering education. In fact, most engineering educators are ill- informed about new pedagogies based on learning re- search in areas such as cognitive science. ” (P. 40).
• “Disciplines were added and curricula were created to meet the critical challenges in society and to provide the engineers, knowledge base, and pro- fessional skills required to integrate new developments into our economy. Today’s landscape is little different; society continually changes, and engineering eventu- ally must adapt to remain relevant. But we must ask if it serves the nation well to permit the engineering profession and engineering education to lag changes in technology and society, especially as these occur at a faster and faster pace. Rather, should the engineering profession anticipate needed advances and prepare for a future where it will provide more benefit to human- kind? Likewise, should engineering education evolve to do the same? (Clough, 2005)” (P. 41).
• “A second essential competency is the integration of knowledge across an increasingly broad intellectual span. Focusing on one or even several of the traditional technical disciplines of engineering will simply not be sufficient to address the complexity of the needs of to- morrow’s society. Instead one must heed the warning of E. O. Wilson: “Most of the issues that vex humanity daily cannot be solved without integrating knowledge from the natural sciences with that of the social scienc- es and humanities. Only fluency across the boundar- ies will provide a clear view of the world as it really is, not as seen through the lens of ideologies and religious dogmas or commanded by myopic response to im- mediate needs”. He refers to this capacity to integrate knowledge across many disciplines as consilience, and this will become an increasingly important trait of suc- cessful engineers. In fact, one might even suggest that the American engineer of the 21st century should strive to become a polymath, one who is knowledgeable in many fields, (and in the arts and sciences in particular), much like others in our history who have made unusu- ally important contributions to society through technol- ogy (e.g., Leonardo Da Vinci).” (P. 45).
• “It should be noted that making experiential learning the core of professional education has been adopted by other professions such as medicine, law, and business.” (P. 51).
• “In these new learning paradigms, the word “stu- dent” becomes largely obsolete, because it describes the passive role of absorbing content selected and con- veyed by teachers. Instead we should probably begin to refer to the clients of the 21st-century university as active learners, since they will increasingly demand responsibility for their own learning experiences and outcomes. Furthermore, our students will seek less to learn about (after all, in many ways they are more so- phisticated at knowledge navigation in the digital age than their teachers) and instead seek to “learn to be” by looking for opportunities to experience the excitement and challenge of engineering practice (Brown, 2006).
  In a similar sense, the concept of a teacher as one who develops and presents knowledge to largely pas- sive students may become obsolete. Today, faculty members who have become experts in certain subfields are expected to identify the key knowledge content for a course based on their area of interest, to organize and then present the material, generally in a lecture format, in this course. Frequently, others, including graduate teaching assistants and professional staff, are assigned the role of working directly with students, …” (P. 52).
• “The increasing value a knowledge-driven society places upon creativity and innovation suggests we might even speculate that the university of the 21st-cen- tury should also shift its intellectual focus and priority from the preservation or transmission of knowledge to the processes of creativity and innovation themselves. Such a paradigm shift would require that the univer- sity organize itself quite differently, stressing forms of pedagogy and extracurricular experiences to nurture and teach the art and skill of creation. This would prob- ably imply a shift away from highly specialized disci- plines and degree programs to programs placing more emphasis on synthesizing and integrating knowledge to enable creativity and innovation. ” (P. 53).
• “Beyond synthesis, creativity, and design, tomor- row’s engineers must acquire skills in innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovation involves much more than mastering newly emerging science and technology. It involves the creativity to understand how to take this knowledge to the next stage into the marketplace and to serve society. As Richard Miller, president of Olin College, puts it, “Engineers in the next generation must take ownership for the process or commercialization of technology and not simply leave this to the business community. This doesn’t mean that the need to add an MBA to their list of accomplishments, but they at least need to know the vocabulary and questions that MBAs bring to the table. Ultimately, I believe the coun- try would almost always be better off with the final decision maker having an engineering background.”” (P. 53).
• “Of comparable importance is developing an educa- tional paradigm capable of producing truly global en- gineers, capable of practice in an increasingly complex, interconnected, and rapidly changing world. Beyond an understanding of the workings of the global economy, engineers need the ability both to understand and work with other cultures, to work effectively in multinational teams, to communicate across nations and peoples, and to appreciate the great challenges facing our world– sustainability, poverty, security, public health. ” (P. 54).
• “Lifelong Learning
  From this perspective, it becomes clear that our educational perspective must broaden from educat- ing the young to preparing our students for a lifetime of education. Just as in other majors, engineering stu- dents should be encouraged early in their studies to think more expansively about career options and life- time goals, to consider the grand challenges facing our world, which will require engineers of exceptional skill, creativity, innovation, and global understanding. The list of “grand challenges” suggested in Chapter 2 provides a good starting point–global sustainability, infrastructure, energy, global poverty and health, and the knowledge economy–but students should be chal- lenged to consider the importance of addressing these and other great challenges facing our society to stimu- late both their commitment to their college education and to future careers.
  To reinforce the idea that engineering education should become life-long, perhaps we need to consider a step system of engineering education objectives that would be mastered through formal programs, work- place training, and practice experience in phases dur- ing a professional career. In fact, one might even con- sider a new set of credentials that would add value to engineers as they meet each educational objective, com- manding more responsibility and earning more com- pensation with each step up the ladder. Parenthetically, this might provide a far more constructive role for ac- creditation agencies such as ABET rather than focusing their attention upon undergraduate education.” (P. 55).
• “In a global economy increasingly driven by tech- nological innovation and the creation of new business, the role of the engineer as innovator and entrepreneur becomes ever more important. Unlike the 20th century, when the large systems engineering projects character- izing the defense industry set the pace for engineering practice, today most of the excitement is in small busi- ness development within collaborative-competitive global networks. ” (P. 60).
• “For example, Olin College of Engineering is pio- neering a project-based approach, with a heavy em- phasis on design, innovation, entrepreneurship, and other aspects of engineering education, coordinated with nearby Babson College of Business to provide the necessary business background. ” (P. 67).
• “Why Is Change So Slow?
  And What Can We Do About It?
  Change in engineering has proceeded at glacial speed for many decades despite study after study and the efforts of many individuals and groups (e.g., ABET, NAE, and NSF). There are many barriers to change. Considerable resistance comes from American indus- try, which tends to hire most engineers for narrow tech- nology-based services rather than for substantive lead- ership roles. All too many companies continue to prefer to hire engineers on the cheap, utilizing them as com- modities, much like assembly-line workers, with nar- row roles, preferring to replace them through younger hires or off-shoring rather than investing in more ad- vanced degrees.
  Resistance to change also comes from university fac- ulty, where the status quo is frequently and strongly de- fended as the best option. Engineering educators tend to be particularly conservative with regard to peda- gogy, curriculum, and institutional attitudes. This con- servatism produces a degree of stability (perhaps rigor mortis is a more apt term) that results in a relatively slow response to external pressures. The great diversity of engineering disciplines and roles has created a cha- otic array of professional and disciplinary societies for engineering that, in turn, generates a cacophony of con- flicting objectives that paralyze any coordinated effort to drive change.” (P. 68).
• “Yet we face a dilemma: To produce higher value in a hypercompetitive global economy, U.S. engineers clear- ly need a broader and more integrative undergraduate education, followed by a practice-based professional education at the post-baccalaurate level, and augment- ed throughout their career with lifelong learning op- portunities. Yet they also face a marketplace governed by a business model that seeks the cheapest talent that will accomplish a given short-range goal. Hence the key question: How do we motivate U.S. (or global) companies to pay more for better educated engineers? Can practice-based professional education increase the value of American engineering sufficiently to justify the investment of time and resources? And what will hap- pen to those American engineers without this advanced education? Will they face the inevitability of their jobs eventually being off shored through global sourcing? Could it be that the future of American engineering will become similar to other exportable services: that most routine engineering services and engineering jobs willeventually be off shored, leaving behind a small cadre of well-educated “master engineers” managing global engineering systems to address complex engineering challenges?” (P. 68-69).
• “The initial goal should be to create (actually, re– create) a guild culture for engineering, where engineers identify more with their profession than their employ- ers, taking pride in being members of a true profession whose services are highly valued by both clients and society. Although many think of the concept of guild in medieval terms such as craftsmen and apprenticeships, today there are many examples of modern guilds in the learned professions. The practice of law and medicine is sustained by strong laws at the state and federal level that dictate both educational requirements and practice requirements.” (P. 72).
• “There are several possibilities for clinical experience in engineering practice, along the lines of the teaching hospital or law clinic. While sophisticated intern expe- riences in industry are certainly a possibility–if care- fully designed and monitored by the faculty–it may be desirable to create specific opportunities more closely related to campus-based activities. Here the Discovery Innovation Institutes mentioned earlier in this chap- ter would be one attractive possibility.” (P. 83).
• “Finally, a very strong involvement of the engineer- ing profession in the design, accreditation, and support of these new professional schools would be essential. Organizations such as the National Society of Profes- sional Engineers, the American Association of Engi- neering Societies, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, the American Society for Engineering Education, and, of course, ABET would be key players.
  There are several models of such professional engi- neering education we might look to for guidance. Many engineering schools already have developed profes- sionally oriented masters programs, substituting a proj- ect work or an internship in place of a research thesis. Some have also developed specific M.Eng. programs for industry, working closely with particular compa- nies to address particular needs of practicing engineers. Here Stanford’s tutored Internet instruction paradigm, Michigan’s global engineering program with General Motors, and Johns Hopkins programs for the defense industry are examples.
  Perhaps the most highly developed practice-based engineering professional program is MIT’s David H. Koch School of Chemical Engineering Practice. Found- ed over 75 years ago, the MIT Practice School utilizes a carefully constructed internship program to introduce professional training and experience that requires in- tense effort on several industry projects at an advanced technical level within engineering teams working close- ly with company personnel and management. Here it is important to stress that unlike cooperative education, the students are not employees of particular companies but rather organized into teams of consultants, work- ing closely ….” (P. 83)
• “Proposal 5: In a world characterized by rapidly ac- celerating technologies and increasing complexity, it is essential that the engineering profession develop a structured approach to lifelong learning for practic- ing engineers similar to those in medicine and law. This will require not only a significant commitment by educators, employers, and professional societies but possibly also additional licensing requirements in some fields.” (P. 87).
• “The same challenge faces the engineering profession. The growing tendency of American industry to out- source engineering services should serve as a wakeup call in the same way that the outsourcing of blue–collar manufacturing jobs did in the 1980s. The global knowl- edge economy is merciless in demanding that compa- nies seek quality services at minimal cost. ” (P. 95).

The T Summit 2014 event will focus on graduating tomorrow’s talent today, the future workforce, future citizens, and  industry-academic partnerships that dovetail to co-create twenty-first century (21C) talent.  21C talent includes university graduates and lifelong learning professionals who are T-shaped with both depth and breadth across disciplines, sectors, and cultures (see image below). To understand T-shaped talent and empathy, or the desire to learn all areas of knowledge, think about the return of the generalist, without sacrificing depth in some area(s) of specialization.

When it comes to 21C Talent, the logic is really quite simple for IBM and other globally-integrated enterprises with platforms for scaling the benefits of new knowledge globally, rapidly, and sustainably:

1. IBM’s primary initiative is to build a Smarter Planet, and that requires diverse IBMers, customers, partners, etc. working together on teams
2. IBM hires people from all disciplines – engineering, management, social sciences & public policy, arts & humanities – etc.
3. IBM hires people to work on solutions for all sectors – transportation, water, manufacturing, energy, communications, buildings, retail, finance, health, education, government, etc.
4. IBM hires people from nearly all continents and countries – North and South America, Europe, Africa, Middle-East, Asia, ASEAN, etc.

Projects teams at IBM often span multiple disciplines, sectors, and cultures – and so we need T-shaped graduates who can work well together to co-create solutions for a Smarter Planet.

From an IBM perspective, world-class universities should be well positioned to graduate 21C Talent:

1. Universities missions include learning, discovery, engagement, and integration.
2. University faculty span all disciplines – engineering, management, social sciences & public policy, arts & humanities – etc.
3. University research centers span all sectors – transportation, water, manufacturing, energy, communications, buildings, retail, finance, health, education, government, etc.
4. University faculty and students span nearly all continents and countries – North and South America, Europe, Africa, Middle-East, Asia, ASEAN, etc.

Project teams at world-class universities span multiple disciplines, sectors, cultures – and so creating T-shaped graduates is both desireable and doable to prepare them as citizens and professionals helping to build a Smarter Planet.

The questions for every faculty at a world-class university include:

• do your courses include team projects for your students?
• do the team projects have multidisciplinary teams?
• do the team projects include industry participants from diverse sectors?
• do the team projects have multicultural teams?
• do the team projects focus on real-world challenges to improve local systems?
• what percentage of your course lectures change every year?
• do new lectures highlight new research finding from journals that highlight new knowledge?
• do new lectures highlight new entrepreneurs, applying new knowledge to create value?
• do new lectures and team projects build the social networks of your students?

The questions for every manager in industry (globally integrated enterprise) include:

• do your annual performance evaluations for your employees include coaching student teams?
• do the coached team projects have multidisciplinary participants?
• do the coached team projects include industry participants from diverse sectors?
• do the coached team projects have multicultural participants?
• do the coached team projects focus on real-world challenges to improve local systems?
• what percentage of your customer offerings change every year?
• do new offerings highlight new research finding from journals that highlight new knowledge?
• do new offerings highlight new entrepreneurial ecosystem partners, applying new knowledge to create value?
• do new offerings and team projects build the social networks of your employees?

Today, most faculty and managers might not score too well, or even see the value of these measures to their work and outcomes. Of course there are outstanding exceptions too – already modeling these next practices! However, to better co-create 21C Talent both academia and industry must transform to realize the vision of Smarter Education – especially as change accelerates.

The adaptiveness, empathy, and boundary spanning abilities of T-shapes are even more important when you factor in the era of cognitive systems, and really smart machines unfolding in the next two decades (about the time for today’s newborns to get to college).  The productivity of faculty, students, managers, and employees will all benefit from smarter machines, if they have the T-shaped skills that prepare them to be better boundary-spanning and adaptive innovators capable of taking on grand challenge opportunities. Big data analytics will be applied to helping students select courses that will prepare them for the jobs and careers they are most interested in and most ready to excel in.  Big data analytics will be applied to helping employees select work assignments that will prepare them for career advancements they aspire to achieve, as lifelong learners.   21C Talent will become more expert at outsourcing routine work to smart cognitive systems (cognitive computing) and brainstorming innovation opportunities with their smart social networks (social business).  Beyond Deep Blue for Chess and Watson for Jeopardy! – which were demonstrations of human-level performance on tasks – the next generation of cognitive systems will be part of our social networks, and will become force-multipliers that enhance performance of human-machine teams on tasks, from medicine to  education, and across all sectors of business and society where there are grand challenge opportunities.

To achieve these outcomes both academia and industry must transform and engage in a new level of partnership with a focus on multidisciplinary, multisector, multicultural team projects that actively seek out local community challenge opportunities that are stepping stones to global grand challenge opportunities, and working on challenges in teams will help create 21C Talent which is truly prepared to help build a Smarter Planet.

ISSIP is a professional network linking together T-shaped professional from other professional associations (IEEE, ACM, INFORMS, AMA, AIS, etc.).  ISSIP is building a capability that allows individuals to code their resumes and curriculum vita to self-evaluate their own MyT-Score.  In the future, ISSIP hopes to provide an app for smart phones that allows professionals to update their MyT-Score using Tweets and other social media interactions on work-and-learning-related projects.  ISSIP encourages industry-academic collaboration and student project teams that span disciplines, sectors, and cultures.   Join the ISSIP professional network today, it is fast and free!

Stay tuned for T Summit 2015 in planning now – possibly at the National Academies in Washington DC.

Photo credits and caption:

Credits: Julie Belanger, Photographer, 111th Aerial and On-Site Photography Services

Caption:  Jim Spohrer, IBM Director of Global University Programs describing T-shaped professionals with depth and breadth across disciplines, sectors, and cultures at the November 2013 BHEF CyberSecurity event at IBM Research – Almaden, San Jose, CA .

In preparation for T Summit 2014, you can read about T-shapes using hash-tag #TSummit2014 at twitter.com.

For example, here are some initial readings: https://service-science.info/archives/3297

Many employers wish they could hire students who “know it all” deeply, not possible today, so a well-chosen team of T-shapes is a first order approximation.

The T Summit 2014 will focus on improving university-industry partnerships to co-create more T-shapes (skills for the future, depth and breadth).

For example, 10x mentorships might lead to 2x internships and 100% increase in quality of hires – building everyone’s professional social networks as well.

The T Summit 2014 at IBM Research – Almaden, San Jose, CA March 24-25, 2014
Free registration (space is limited, so we plan to stream): http://www.tsummit2014.org
Some readings: https://service-science.info/archives/3297

All participants  (at Almaden) will be given a copy of the book:
Smart Machines: IBM’s Watson and the Era of Cognitive Computing
http://cup.columbia.edu/static/cognitive
IBM wants to hire T-shaped adaptive innovators to co-create a Smarter Planet.

T Summit 2015 is in early stages of being planned – and will perhaps be in Washington DC at the National Academies.

ISSIP.org is a professional network for T-shaped individuals,  growing their “know who” as well as their “know what” “know how” and “know why” across disciplines, sectors, and regions.

International Society of Service Innovation Professional (ISSIP – pronounced I-ZIP)
Free membership: http://www.issip.org/join-the-community/
(please join this network of T-shaped professionals to receive and contribute to monthly newsletter)

Join ISSIP today and join a global network of T-shaped professionals.
ISSIP’s T-shape model interconnecting disciplines, sectors, regions:

T-Shapes

Prof. Peter Capelli (Wharton) writes lucidly about why focussing too narrowly in college can backfire
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324139404579016662718868576

Students, if getting a good job and career start is your top reason for going to college, then you need to truly know yourself first and foremost ….

If you know what you are excellent at naturally, then get your depth first and add breadth along the way (early depth binding)…

If you do not know what your are excellent at naturally, then get your breadth first and add depth only as you approach graduation in areas where your capabilities and interests are aligned with the “hot jobs” (delayed depth binding) …

Today’s college graduates need to be adaptive innovators – T-shape Talent with both depth and breadth.

Also, the experience of working in a start-up during and after graduation helps everyone become more T-shaped – learning about business, technology, customers, marketing, operations, and organizational change and growth, communications, creativity, etc. – even if the startup fails (most will) – this can be great preparation for real-world opportunities where 2-3 years of real-world experience is required.  Meet the entrepreneurial faculty and students on your campus and help them.

I would like to invite you to the T-Summit event at IBM Research – Almaden, San Jose, CA on March 24-25, 2014.

Register your interest here (space is very limited, preference to true T-shaped enthusiasts): http://www.tsummit2014.org

The focus is T-shaped professionals (with depth and breadth), and their talents (competences, skills, and attitudes) that enable them to be better adaptive innovators and lifelong learners than I-shaped professionals.

Every participant will get a copy of the soon to be released book “The Era of Cognitive Computing” (see http://cup.columbia.edu/static/cognitive) and be provided with a vision of T-shaped professionals innovating healthcare, education, finance, retail, transportation, communications, government, buildings, energy, utilities, and more (what the National Science Foundation calls “smart service systems”).

As the pace of innovation accelerates, leading companies, universities, professional associations, and many others have become strong advocates for the need for more T-shaped professionals who have both depth and breadth (see examples and sidebars below).

The T-Summit will convene industry, academic, government, and foundation leaders in a “trading zone” to take the concept of T-shaped people to the next level, and advance our thinking about the competences, skills, and attitudes of future adaptive innovators and life-long learners.

How might academia, industry, and others collaborate in new ways to co-create and co-elevate more T-shaped graduates, and sustain lifelong learners throughout their careers?

I hope you can make it, but if you cannot, please feel free to recommend a colleague to this invitation-only event.

The welcome dinner on the evening of the 24th will be followed by all day workshop on the 25th, closing shortly after a university presidents’ panel in the afternoon.

I would very much value your thoughts and participation in the event.

Here are some suggested pre-reading materials about T-shaped Talent and blog-posts about T-Summit goals and outcomes…

Some Suggested Pre-Reading Materials About T-shape Talent

IDEO CEO Tim Brown describes T-shaped designers here…
http://chiefexecutive.net/ideo-ceo-tim-brown-t-shaped-stars-the-backbone-of-ideoae%E2%84%A2s-collaborative-culture

Prof. Henry Chesbrough (Berkeley, Open Innovation) describes T-shaped managers here…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrychesbrough/2011/04/28/the-war-for-talent-and-open-innovation/

INFORMS description of T-shaped certified analytics professionals (CAP for big data scientists) here…
https://www.informs.org/ORMS-Today/Public-Articles/February-Volume-39-Number-1/The-shape-of-analytics-certification

Nicholas Donofrio (IBM Fellow Emeritus) describes T-shaped innovators here…
http://www.kauffman.org/advancing-innovation/innovation-that-matters.aspx

Business Higher Education Forum describes T-shaped and deeper learning skill needs
http://www.bhef.com/publications/promoting-effective-dialogue-between-business-and-education-around-need-deeper-learning

Dr. Phil Gardner (MSU, Collegiate Employment Research Institute) describes T-shaped graduates and professionals here…
http://www.ceri.msu.edu/t-shaped-professionals/

Blog Posts about Possible T-Summit Goals and Outcomes

Mentorships are one way to help students become more T-shaped
Proposed goal “10x mentorships, 2x internships”
https://service-science.info/archives/3235

A logic for future talent, professional work, and higher education
Proposed goal “Towards A Moore’s Law for Higher Education”
https://service-science.info/archives/3225

Please send links to your blog-posts

We invite participants to send us links to blog-posts about T-shape Talent to add to the lists above…

Again space is very limited (register at http://tsummit2014.org) and preference will be given to true T-shape Talent enthusiasts who have spoken, written, blogged about T-shape Talent in the context of future of innovation leadership in an era of accelerating change.

—

The 2014 International Conference on Service Science (ICSS 2014)
Theme: Promoting Serviceology in the Era of Big Data

Sponsored by IBM

Hosted by School of Software and Microelectronics at Wuxi, Peking University

May 22-23, 2014, WuXi, China

Conference Website: http://www.ic-ss.net

Conference Objective

In the times of big data, how to provide high-quality and effective services is a challenge to all research institutes and industries. In light of this emerging trend, ICSS 2014 will be held in Wuxi, China on May 22-23, 2014, which is hosted by School of Software and Microelectronics at Wuxi, Peking University, with the sponsorship of IBM , following the 2005 SSME Symposium at Peking University, in Beijing, the 2006 Asia Pacific SSME Symposium at Tsinghua University, in Beijing, the 2008 ICSS at Harbin Institute of Technology in Beijing, the 2009 ICSS at Peking University, in Beijing, the 2010 ICSS at Zhejiang University, in Hangzhou, the 2011 IJCSS (jointly with ICSSI) at Yuan Ze University, in Taipei, the 2012 IJCSS (jointly with ICSSI) at Fudan University, in Shanghai, and the 2013 ICSS at Tsinghua University and Harbin Institute of Technology, in Shenzhen. This event aims to bring together scholars, researchers and managers of various areas and industries for intellectual exchanges, research cooperation and professional development. This conference features EIGHT different submission tracks inviting presentations of theoretical research findings and case reports in serviceology, and also offers excellent networking opportunities to participants, with a wonderful taste of local culture.

Tracks and Topics of Interests

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Service Science

• Service and service system modeling, simulation and analysis
• Human behavior in service systems
• The dynamics of service system evolution
• Data mining for service intelligence

2. Service Management

• Consumer/customer service experience
• Customer relationship management
• Service supply chain management
• Human resource management in services
• Service project management
• Service development process management
• Service quality management
• Service marketing management
• Service-dominant logic of marketing
• Service communication
• Service pricing
• Service branding

3. Service Innovation

• Service design methodology
• Service innovation theory
• Business model innovation
• Business process modeling and design
• Innovation and service industry evolution
• Tools and techniques for IT service innovation and management
• Globalization of service innovation

4. Software and Service Engineering

• Service development
• Service quality assurance
• Service design methodology
• Service optimization
• Service demand forecasting, pricing, and planning
• User Contribution Systems
• Service requirement collection, specification, analysis

5. Cloud Computing and Services

• Cloud Computing Architectures and Cloud Solution Design Patterns
• Infrastructure, Platform, Application, Business, Social, and Mobile Clouds
• Self-service Cloud Portal, Dashboard, and Analytics
• Cloud Quality Management and Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Cloud Configuration, Performance, and Capacity Management
• Cloud Migration Service
• Services on Cloud Computing

6. Big Data and Big Services

• Foundational Models for Big Data
• Algorithms and Programming Techniques for Big Data Processing
• Big Data Persistence and Preservation
• Big Data Quality and Provenance Control
• Management Issues of Social Network Big Data
• Privacy Preserving Big Data Analytics
• Algorithms and Systems for Big Data Search
• Visualization Analytics for Big Data

7. Applications and Industry Practice

• Public Services: Healthcare, education, government, transportation, telecommunication
• Private Services: Small business, distribution, retailing, service for social and cultural events
• Service in manufacturing companies

8. Education and Curricula Development

• Service science education and curricula design
• Talent requirement in modern service industry
• Methodology and practice of service science curricula design
• Practice of teaching service science courses
• Teaching method and case study for service science courses

Paper Submission

High quality research papers and case studies are invited to be submitted through the following link: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icss2014Each submission should meet the following requirements:

• No more than 6 pages in length including references, illustrations, and appendices.
• A short abstract around 150 words and keywords contained on the first page
• 2-column, single-spaced text in 10 point Times Roman for the body of the text
• No page numbers
• No headers and footers
• Standard US-letter size
• PDF format

All submissions must be original work and must not have been published elsewhere and must not be currently under consideration by any other conferences or journals. Submitting a paper means that, if the paper is accepted, at least one author will pay the registration fee and attend the conference to present the paper.

Publication

The conference proceedings will be published by IEEE CPS and submitted to IEEE Xplore and CSDL digital libraries. The proceedings in previous years have been included in EI Compendex, and CPS will make reasonable efforts to ensure similar indexation.

The excellent papers presented at the conference (after extension) will be recommended for publishing in Service Oriented Computing and Applications, which are indexed by EI-Compendex, SCOPUS, INSPEC, Google Scholar, Academic OneFile, ACM Digital Library, DBLP, Expanded Academic, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by Serial Solutions.

Awards

ICSS 2014 will offer ONE BEST PAPER award and ONE BEST STUDENT PAPER award.

Important Dates

Submission Due: January 15, 2014

Notification of Acceptance: February 15, 2014

Camera Ready Copy Due: March 01, 2014

Author Registration Due: April 01, 2014

Contact

Dr. Mo Tong

Email: icss2014@gmail.com