A Structured Approach For Identifying Appropriate Programs For A Planned Engineering College At Prince Sultan University
13 Water Resources & Irrigation Systems 14 Energy Systems Engineering
The survey of the Management related engineering programs revealed the following:
A) The highest concentration of management related engineering programs are offered in U.S. universities.
B) Only 23 US universities offer undergraduate Engineering Management program. Most US universities offer such programs at the graduate level.
C) Most common Management related Engineering Programs include:
• Industrial Engineering and Management,
• Management Science and Engineering, and
• Construction Engineering and Management.
D) In K.S.A., the most common Management related Engineering Programs include:
• Industrial Engineering and Management, and
• Construction Engineering and Management.
The committee suggested offering Engineering Management, Engineering and Technology Management, or Management Science and Engineering. Other programs like Energy Engineering and Management, Natural Resources Engineering and Management, and Water Resources Engineering and Management require more resources and are rarely offered elsewhere.
2.2. Identifying Candidate Programs
Based on the study survey and analysis of the relative frequency of the offered programs in the Saudi Arabia to those of the region and worldwide, the committee identified 15 programs that can be promising for fulfilling the needs of Prince Sultan University. A list of 57 programs was complied to include all potential engineering programs. The elimination process was carried out by asking each committee member to select a total of 15 programs that he/she considers as viable or promising. To dilute bias towards programs in one's discipline, each committee member was instructed to select five programs in his/her discipline and 10 programs from other disciplines. Table 3 is a list for the 15 selected programs with slight modifications to eliminate repetition and to group programs that were usually offered as majors within other programs.
Table 3: The 15 selected programs 1 Computer Engineering
Computer, Embedded Systems Engineering, Data Communication Engineering 2 Electronic Engineering
3 Telecommunications Engineering
The committee conducted a brainstorming session to come up with a list of criteria by to evaluate the 15 potential programs. The list was then passed to each committee member who was asked to select 10 criteria that he/she considers as relevant. Also they were asked to list the selected criteria in the order of importance.
The following is a list of the top 12 criteria that the committee selected as the most important and most relevant:
1) Students' Demand / Attractiveness
2) Current & Future Market Demand / Sustainability 3) Uniqueness / Competition
4) Social / Cultural Acceptability
5) Compatibility with PSU Programs, Labs and Courses 6) Degree of Complexity
7) Resources / Facilities Requirements and Cost 8) Faculty Requirements and Availability
9) Compliance with National and Regional Strategic Plans 10) Application / Technology Oriented
11) Accreditation Requirements
12) Time Required to Establish the Program 2.4. Assessing Criteria of Importance
The next step was to determine the degree of importance for each of the defined criteria. This was accomplished using the Criteria Evaluation Matrix. Each committee member was asked to rank the degree of importance of each criteria from 0 for not important to 5 for extremely important.
Table 4 shows the results of the committee evaluation of the degree of importance for each criterion. Outcomes were grouped by respondent's gender to control for gender differences in perception. The last three columns show the average degree of importance for males, females, all respondents. The results clearly indicate that:
(A) Current and future demand is extremely important.
(B) Program uniqueness, attractiveness, social/cultural acceptability, compliance with national and regional strategies, and resources and cost requirements are very important.
(C) Other criteria except for the time required to establish the program are important.
(D) The time required to establish the program is moderately important.
Table 4: Results of evaluation of criteria degree of importance.
Average
Criteria for Programs Selection Male respondents Female respondents All respondents
1 Students' Demand / Attractiveness 4.00 4.25 4.10
2 Current & Future Market Demand / Sustainability 4.67 4.25 4.50
3 Uniqueness / Competition 4.17 4.50 4.30
4 Social / Cultural Acceptability 3.33 4.50 3.80
5 Compatibility with other PSU Programs, Labs & Courses 3.33 3.25 3.30
6 Degree of Complexity 2.17 3.25 2.60
7 Resources/Facilities Requirements and Cost 3.33 3.75 3.50
8 Faculty Requirements & Availability 2.67 4.00 3.20
9 Compliance with National & Regional Strategic Plans 3.83 3.25 3.60
10 Application / Technology Oriented 3.50 3.50 3.50
11 Accreditation Requirements 3.17 3.00 3.10
12 Time Required to Establish the Program 2.33 2.25 2.30
It is interesting to find difference between males and females perceptions of degree of importance. Females considered social/cultural acceptance, faculty requirements and availability, and degree of complexity are more important than males. Males, on the other hand, considered compliance with national and regional strategies and current and future market demands more important than females.
2.5. Evaluating Potential Programs
Committee members were asked to evaluate the candidate programs for each of the defined program criteria. The evaluation was carried out using the Programs Evaluation Matrix on a relative scale from 0 to 10:
• 0 if the program does not meet the criteria.
• 10 if the program perfectly meets the criteria.
Table 5 shows the average of all respondents’ evaluations of the candidate programs for each criterion.
Table 5: Average score of respondents evaluation of candidate programs.
Programs
Criteria
Students' Demand / Attractiveness Current & Future Market Demand / Sustainability Uniqueness / Competition Social / Cultural Acceptability Compatibility with other PSU programs Degree of Complexity Resources/Facilities Requirements and Cost Faculty Requirements & Availability Compliance with National Strategic Plans Application / Technology Oriented Accreditation Requirements Time required to establish the new program 1 Computer Engineering 7.8 7.7 5.9 7.1 8.8 7.3 7.0 7.5 7.9 8.6 6.5 7.5 2 Electronic Engineering 7.0 7.3 7.0 5.5 5.9 5.6 5.1 6.6 7.3 8.2 6.2 5.5 3 Telecommunications Engineering 8.4 8.0 7.3 6.2 6.5 6.5 6.3 7.5 8.2 8.9 6.9 6.7 4 Biomedical Engineering 8.4 8.3 8.4 6.2 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.1 8.2 8.5 5.9 5.2 5 Electrical Engineering 6.1 6.8 4.2 2.8 4.6 6.1 5.8 7.4 6.7 8.0 6.7 6.3 6 Environmental Engineering 6.8 7.5 7.3 5.4 5.2 7.1 6.7 6.7 7.7 7.6 7.0 6.9 7 Architectural Engineering 8.3 8.0 6.3 5.5 6.6 7.3 7.1 7.6 7.8 8.0 7.7 7.5 8 Architecture 8.0 7.5 5.9 8.6 8.0 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.1 9 Materials Science and Engineering 6.3 6.7 7.0 5.1 4.3 6.0 5.2 6.2 7.3 7.6 7.2 6.1 10 Mechanical Engineering 5.6 6.5 3.8 2.0 3.0 5.8 5.6 7.7 6.6 6.9 6.9 6.4 11 Industrial Engineering 7.8 7.7 6.9 4.7 6.0 7.3 7.0 6.8 7.6 7.1 7.9 7.2 12 Engineering & Technology Management 7.4 7.4 8.2 6.7 6.9 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.4 7.2 8.1 7.7 13 Water Resources & Irrigation Systems 6.7 7.1 7.6 4.2 4.2 6.1 5.7 5.8 7.7 7.7 7.1 6.1 14 Energy Systems Engineering 7.8 8.0 8.0 4.1 4.7 6.1 5.8 6.5 8.0 8.1 6.8 6.3 15 Aeronautic & Aviation Engineering 7.5 7.3 8.4 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.0 6.5 7.2 4.2 3.6
The summation of the average scores for each program is meaningless because it assumes that different criteria are of the same importance. Therefore, the average of all respondents’ evaluations of the candidate programs for each criterion was recalculated. A weighted score for each program was obtained by multiplying the average score for each criteria by the criteria importance factor (ranging from 0 for not important to 5 for extremely important). The resulting weighted scores and summation thereof of the candidate programs are shown in Table 6 below. The last row in the table shows the maximum possible weighted score for a hypothetical program that perfectly meets all defined criteria (i.e., scores 10 on every criteria).
Table 7: Results of the Programs Evaluation Matrix.
Programs
Criteria
Students' Demand / Attractiveness Current&Future Market Demand / Sustainability Uniqueness / Competition Social / Cultural Acceptability (Women programs) Compatibility with other PSU programs Degree of Complexity Resources/Facilities Requirements and Cost Faculty Requirements & Availability Compliance with National & Regional Strategic Plans Application / Technology Oriented Accreditation Requirements Time required to establish the new program Weighted Program Score 1 Computer Engineering 32.1 34.8 25.4 26.9 29.1 18.9 24.5 24.1 28.5 30.2 20.3 17.4 312.2 2 Electronic Engineering 28.7 32.7 30.1 21.1 19.5 14.7 17.8 21.2 26.2 28.6 19.2 12.8 272.5 3 Telecommunications Engineering 34.3 36.0 31.3 23.5 21.6 17.0 22.0 23.9 29.5 31.2 21.4 15.5 307.0 4 Biomedical Engineering 34.3 37.2 36.0 23.5 14.7 13.0 15.9 16.3 29.5 29.6 18.3 11.9 280.2 5 Electrical Engineering 25.1 30.5 18.2 10.6 15.0 15.9 20.2 23.8 24.0 28.0 20.7 14.6 246.5 6 Environmental Engineering 28.0 34.0 31.3 20.4 17.1 18.4 23.5 21.5 27.8 26.7 21.7 15.9 286.3 7 Architectural Engineering 33.9 36.0 27.0 21.1 21.9 18.9 24.8 24.4 28.1 28.0 24.0 17.1 305.3 8 Architecture 32.8 34.0 25.4 32.8 26.4 19.9 26.7 24.4 27.8 27.7 23.7 18.6 320.2 9 Materials Science and Engineering 25.7 30.3 30.1 19.3 14.1 15.6 18.1 19.8 26.2 26.7 22.3 14.0 262.2 10 Mechanical Engineering 23.0 29.3 16.3 7.6 9.9 15.1 19.6 24.6 23.8 24.2 21.4 14.7 229.4 11 Industrial Engineering 32.1 34.8 29.7 18.0 19.8 18.9 24.5 21.8 27.5 24.8 24.5 16.5 292.9 12 Engineering & Technology Management 30.2 33.1 35.2 25.6 22.8 19.4 26.4 22.4 26.5 25.1 25.1 17.8 309.6 13 Water Resources & Irrigation Systems 27.6 31.9 32.8 15.9 13.8 15.8 20.0 18.6 27.8 27.0 22.0 14.0 267.4 14 Energy Systems Engineering 32.1 36.0 34.4 15.5 15.6 15.8 20.4 20.7 28.8 28.3 21.1 14.4 283.1 15 Aeronautic & Aviation Engineering 30.9 32.7 36.0 10.0 10.2 8.3 12.1 12.8 23.6 25.1 13.0 8.4 223.0 Maximum weighted score 41.0 45.0 43.0 38.0 33.0 26.0 35.0 32.0 36.0 35.0 31.0 23.0 418.0 Accordingly, the most feasible programs are the ones with maximum weighted program score as follows:
1. Architecture
2. Computer Engineering 3. Engineering Management 4. Communication Engineering 5. Architectural Engineering
Conclusions
Proposed Colleges and Programs
According to the evaluation of the candidate programs and considering the nature and type of programs that are attractive and socially acceptable for Saudi males and females, the committee suggested establishing the following programs:
A) Female programs:
• Architecture
• Interior Design/Architecture
• Graphic & Multimedia Design B) Male programs:
• Communication & Networking Engineering
• Engineering Management
Computer and Industrial Engineering were eliminated because they are offered in almost all public and private universities in the Kingdom.
Recommendations:
When presented to the Board of Directors, it was decided to initially begin with:
• Two programs for men: Communication & Network Engineering and Engineering Management
• Three programs for women: Interior Design, Architecture, and Graphics & Multimedia Design.
These programs were anticipated to meet the Saudi Arabian strategic goals of “Vision 2020” and to fulfill the university aspiration for development.
References
Nahed, T. (2005). “Managing Tensions of Wealth Creation in the Kingdom”, A Report published by Saudi National Central Bank.
Al-Sultan, Kh. (2007). “Higher Education Training in KSA, Vision 2020”.
SAGIA (2007). Saudi Arabia’s Economic Cities, Annual Report, Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority.
Ministry of Economy and Planning. (2010). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vision 2020, www.mep.gov.sa, Accessed on June 2010.
Ministry of Higher Education. (2010). Higher Education Statistics Centre, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, http://statistics.mohe.gov.sa, Accessed on June 2010.
European Commission. (2003). Science and Technology Report.