Modifications to a Senior Capstone Program to Improve Project Management and Design-Cycle Pedagogies and Enhance Student Learning

Improvements have been made to an Electrical Engineering Senior Capstone sequence. Improvements include the addition of a supporting course, development of department guidelines to formalize project acceptance, new industry and academic partnerships, and significant modifications to course content. This effort began three design cycles ago and continues to produce successful results. An Engineering Economics course was unpopular with both students and faculty because it lacked significant substance and was often taught in such a way that students had difficulty relating the material to industry assignments after graduation. Therefore, this course was modified to become a supporting course for the Senior Capstone and now contains both engineering economics and project management material. Learning Objectives in the first half of the course focus on project management material which directly relates to the students’ Capstone projects. The topics added to the course include selected items from the Initiating, Planning, Monitoring, Executing, and Closing Process Groups, with the primary focus on the Planning Processes and very minimal focus on the Closing Processes. The second half of the semester is dedicated to the same Economics topics covered in the original course, but are covered in a much more concise way. Guidelines for project acceptance criteria were formalized. Among other things, it was determined that more emphasis was needed on developing industry-sponsored and multidiscipline projects. In order to increase the availability of true multidiscipline projects, a formal agreement was formed with the Mechanical Engineering Senior Capstone program to create official multidiscipline teams in which both groups of students now report to a single faculty member. Many new partnerships were also developed with industry to increase the penetration of sponsored projects. These projects all are required to have clearly specified requirements at the onset of the project, which makes the assessment of the project management techniques easier to assess. The original Senior Capstone program was mostly successful, but students did often complain about the workload at specific times throughout the sequence and not all projects were completed on time. Through a more rigorous implementation of project management techniques taught in the supporting course, use of project resources have been more evenly distributed throughout the sequence reducing the student complaint of being overworked. Projects now finish a three weeks earlier allowing time to expose students to an introductory level of system testing and product verification. Results of these modifications have been quite positive. Students gain a more formal understanding of project management while being exposed to more realistic projects. While the overall workload has actually increased, that load has been distributed more evenly throughout the sequence and is more positively accepted. Project success rate has been nearly 100% since the changes were implemented. Additionally, the increase of true multidiscipline projects was favorably noted during a recent accreditation and the increase of industry-sponsored projects have resulted in a number of excellent recruiting opportunities. Introduction Most universities use a capstone senior design course(s) to address ABET’s General Criterion 5 which states “students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience” [1]. These programs likely use the capstone course(s) to assess at least some combination of ABET Student Outcomes 3b (design and conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data), 3d (function on multidisciplinary teams), 3e (identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems), and 3g (communicate effectively) [1]. In theory, the benefits students gain through exposure to such an experience and the advantages faculty have in using the experience for assessment are substantial and well-documented. However, students who have never managed a large project may struggle with the capstone sequence and poor project-selection can negatively impact faculty’s ability to assess the project. This paper presents modifications made by South Dakota State University’s (SDSU) Electrical Engineering (EE) program to enrich the capstone experience. Particular attention was paid to student workload, Industry Advisor Board’s (IAB) requests, and ABET requirements. An existing Project Management (PM) and Engineering Economics course was restructured to directly support the capstone sequence, department guidelines were created to help define acceptable projects, and a formal agreement between the EE and Mechanical Engineering (ME) departments was developed to support true-multidisciplinary projects. Background One important factor in the success of a capstone program is the quality of the projects assigned to students. While all curriculums theoretically attempt to expose students to high quality projects, faculty often have difficult agreeing on exactly what constitutes the optimal project. Considering there are many successful, yet dissimilar, models of capstone programs [2], [3], [4], there is not likely to be a one-choice-fits-all solution. However, attempting to accommodate significantly differing opinions within a single course can cause a multitude of problems. For example, if the course instructor is teaching requirement-driven design he or she likely requires a developed Requirements Document. Students working on a research-driven project without well-defined requirements might struggle meeting such course expectations. While both projectstyles potentially result in good projects, equitably assessing both within the same course can prove quite challenging. While most students tend to respond favorably to their design experiences, it should be recognized that this major design experience does, in fact, introduce a certain level of stress beyond that typically associated with other courses. The size and complexity of projects pursued in most senior design programs are often the most complex project students have experienced at this point in their academic careers. Additionally, many students are stressed when required to formally communicate [5], yet such communication is a common component to senior design. Still others students perceive the team aspect of these projects actually adds to the complexity of their design [6]. Many projects falter due to these issues. While some teams overcome and achieve their goals, others fall so far behind they are unable to satisfactorily complete all the project objectives [2]. Students who struggle often do not grasp the underlying causes of their failure and may end up blaming each other, causing additional friction, or otherwise lose motivation. A solution to many of these problems may be formal project management training [2]. Although project management is a transformative concept in engineering education, it can often be troublesome for learners and, therefore, should be developed through deep learning opportunities [7]. The assumption that students will simply ‘pick up’ these skills is probably not valid. Even specific course content dedicated to project management, without the opportunity to apply material in a realistic setting, will likely not produce this ‘deep learning.’ By their very nature, typical senior design experiences can almost always be classified as Problem Based Learning (PBL). In this pedagogy, students, usually working in teams, take the lead in solving an open-ended, real-world problem; the necessary distinction of PBL is that only after students identify the need for instruction does the instructor provide it [8]. PBL has been shown to develop problem solving, teamwork, analysis, and communication skills [9] making it the natural pedagogy of choice for capstone courses. Since most students recognize the need to manage their capstone project well, they are internally motivated to learn the PM material in order to reduce the difficulty of their capstone projects. Considering the need to apply project management skills to effectively master them, and the natural correlation between PM and design skills, it seems that PBL is also the natural choice for teaching PM material. However, the use of PBL to teach PM is significantly less documented than using PBL to teach design. Course Histories There are three EE courses at SDSU related to the senior design sequence: EE422 Engineering Economics and Project Management, EE464 Senior Design I, and EE465 Senior Design II. EE464 Senior Design I and EE465 Senior Design II The first EE senior design course offerings were piloted at SDSU in 1992 and developed into the modern sequence in 1994. Around this time, the concept spread to the other engineering departments and soon every engineering student at SDSU was required to complete a discipline specific design sequence, consisting of two 2-credit courses. The original intent of these courses was to prepare students for a real-world design experience while adhering to realistic budgets, time constraints, and project requirements. Projects could originate from industry or research programs, but the majority were posed by faculty members. Student were expected to write a project proposal, provide regular status reports, maintain a Gantt chart, and prepare final reports (both written and oral) [10]. Until 2013, teams were consistently comprised of two EE students, a project advisor, and possibly a project customer/sponsor. Course offering typically had 6 to 8 projects, depending on the number of students enrolled in the sequence. Subsequent to 2013, class composition has become much more varied; project teams range from 2 to 6 student with a mix of EE and ME backgrounds, and class sizes vary from 5 to 11 projects. Each project team is assigned at least one project advisor and answers to one industry customer. Due to the small size