Advancing the College of Engineering and Science: The Role of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Advancing the College of Engineering and Science: The Role of the Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies

30 OCT 2013

Professor Daniel L. Noneaker Associate Chair & Graduate Program Coordinator Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

1 ¡

Advancing the College: From Vision to Accomplishment

Ø Vision for COES

• Formal COES Vision Statement is under revision
• Move COES to next level in research, graduate education, societal impact

² Contribution to intellectual advancement within the disciplines ² Preparedness, professional impact of graduates ² Effectiveness as driver of knowledge economy, betterment of society Ø Measures of success

• Rankings of graduate engineering, science, and disciplines

² USN&WR, ARWU, Business Insider Top 50, etc.

• “Ground truth” of perception

² Assessment by our peers, our graduates, industry, the public Ø Key underlying metrics

• Research expenditures
• Scholarship and scholarly reputation
• PhD production (not just enrollment)
• PhD graduates pursuing academic careers

2 ¡

Impact of the ADR on these Metrics

Ø Initiate and facilitate funded research opportunities for COES faculty

• “Business development” function in seeking new funding sources,

identifying and building internal & external collaborative relationships

• Train and support faculty in effective proposal preparation
• Manage and broker resources for maximum research impact

Ø Enable and facilitate career success for COES faculty

• Foster development of junior faculty
• Sustain momentum of mid-career faculty
• Encourage continued productivity of senior faculty

Ø Lead and assist in recruiting, retaining high-quality graduate students

• Foster cost-effective, time-efficient recruiting practices across COES
• Pursue block-funded fellowships, facilitate other financial support
• Ensure effective, best-practice policies and procedures for

student/program and student/supervisor relationships

3 ¡

The Federal Research-Funding Picture

Ø Federal R&D funding to universities: $29 billion Ø Clemson’s share: $57 million - $5 million to subcontractors = $52 million

67.4% ¡ 14.2% ¡ 7.8% ¡ 3.5% ¡ 3.2% ¡ 2.7% ¡0.7% ¡ 0.4% ¡0.2% ¡

Federal ¡Basic ¡& ¡Applied ¡Research, ¡ Advanced ¡Development ¡Funds ¡to ¡ Universi:es, ¡FY ¡2011 ¡

¡

NIH ¡$19 ¡Billion ¡ NSF ¡$4 ¡Billion ¡ DoD ¡$2.2 ¡Billion ¡ DoE ¡$1 ¡Billion ¡ DoA ¡$0.9 ¡Billion ¡ NASA ¡$0.75 ¡Billion ¡ DoC ¡$0.2 ¡Billion ¡ DHS ¡$0.1 ¡Billion ¡ DoT ¡$0.060 ¡Billion ¡

NIH ¡ NSF ¡ DoD ¡ DoE ¡ DoA ¡ NASA ¡

16% ¡ 25% ¡ 18% ¡ 11% ¡ 15% ¡ 2% ¡ 3% ¡ 2% ¡ 2% ¡ 6% ¡

Clemson ¡Federal ¡Research ¡Expenditures, ¡ FY2011 ¡

¡

NIH ¡$9 ¡Million ¡ NSF ¡$14.3 ¡Million ¡ DoD ¡$10.3 ¡Million ¡ DoE ¡$6.1 ¡million ¡ DoA ¡$8.8 ¡Million ¡ NASA ¡$1.2 ¡Million ¡ DoT ¡$1.6 ¡Million ¡ DoC ¡$0.9 ¡Million ¡ EPA ¡$1.2 ¡Million ¡

NSF ¡ ¡ DoD ¡ DoE ¡ ¡ DoA ¡ ¡ NASA ¡ ¡ DoT ¡ ¡ DoC ¡ ¡ EPA ¡ ¡ All ¡others ¡ ¡ NIH ¡ ¡

4 ¡

Why Emphasize Federal Funding?

Ø Federal funds dominate COES research funding: $31.2 million of $35.5 million Ø Exceptions to this characteristic

• Automotive Engineering:

61% non-federal funding

• Industrial Engineering:

44% non-federal funding

88% ¡ 7% ¡ 5% ¡

COES ¡Research ¡Expenditures, ¡FY2012 ¡

¡

Federal ¡ Industry ¡ Other ¡

Federal ¡funds ¡ Industry ¡ ¡ Other ¡

5 ¡

National Science Foundation Funding Opportunities

Ø CAREER and core programs

• Awareness of opportunities, training in proposal preparation are givens
• Success in funding highly correlated with institution’s reputation

² Moving the needle has a decade-scale time constant Ø Large-grant basic research programs (ERC, MRSEC, NSEC, etc.)

• Maturity of proposed technical concept, fit & timeliness of concept

² Ex.: Fit & timeliness - renewable energy technologies, leverage CURI grid simulator

• Honest assessment of capabilities, gaps in COES
• Ability to identify partner(s) to fill critical gaps
• Commitment of CU resources based on assessment of payoff in scholarship & funding

Ø Major research instrumentation

• Space, skilled personnel, other resources required for proposal success, utilization

² Resources sometimes in place (GPUs for Data Science), often not (EBIT)

• Commitment of resources based on assessment of payoff in scholarship, future funding

Ø Systematic involvement of senior faculty, College administrators in early-stage NSF workshops important for shaping, planning for upcoming opportunities

• Ex.: K-C Wang, Jim Bottum w/ GENI program, US Ignite à CU leadership in SDN

6 ¡

Department of Defense Funding Opportunities

Ø DOD R&D funding (FY 2011)

• Basic research: $1.0 billion (64% to universities, excl. FFRDCs)
• Applied research: $5.1 billion (12% to universities, excl. FFRDCs)
• Advanced development: $6.6 billion (9% to universities, excl. FFRDCs)

Ø Standard basic research grants (ARO, ONR, AFOSR, BMDO, DTRA BAA/DURIP/MURI)

• Faculty sometimes fail to recognize relevant opportunities

Ø Targeted, high-profile opportunities are more readily recognized

• High-energy lasers, advanced manufacturing are key opportunities

Ø Applied research programs (DARPA, Rapid Innovation Fund)

• Existing relationship with industry partner is often key
• Faculty are often unfamiliar with opportunity, don’t know where to begin

Ø Applied research to advanced development (Navy Centers, Army RD&EC, AFRL, Major Test Centers, TMSO, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) ² Opportunities all five COES-related University emphasis areas

• Contracts to academia underutilized, evolving, differ by agency
• In-depth understanding of “customer’s need” requires significant time investment

Ø Success in funding is significantly relationship-driven

• College-level business-development approach needed to maximize success

7 ¡

National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunities

Ø Challenge for Clemson: no medical school Ø Advantages for Clemson

• strong in bioengineering/biomedical research, very big funding pie
• strong links with MUSC (CU-MUSC program), GHS & CUBEinC

Ø K programs, exploratory grants (R21)

• Awareness of opportunities, training in proposal preparation are givens

Ø Program project grants, R01 grants, COBRE grants, resource (equipment) grants

• Leverage relationships with medical institutions
• Same test for commitment of supporting resources as for large NSF proposals

Ø Emphasize translation to practice, capture created IP (CUBEinC)

• Promulgating IP enhances reputation as much revenue
• Things Clemson’s BioE have always done well

Ø Pursue “patient outcomes” research opportunities

• Industrial engineering collaboration with GHS clinicians

8 ¡

Department of Energy Funding Opportunities

Ø Office of Science is predominant source of DoE research funding: 70% of total Ø Funding at Clemson spread broadly across several areas

• Basic science (Office of Science): circa $2 million including pass-through funds
• Applied renewable energy research
• Applied nuclear power research
• Applied fossil fuels research
• Applied environmental research

Ø Grow Office of Science funding (College-wide)

• Basic energy science, biological & environmental, scientific computing & visualization,

workforce development

• Broader education of faculty about single-investigator opportunities
• Clemson’s HPC facilities and research capability, big-data research capabilities create
• pportunity to pursue research in “extreme-scale” science and scientific computing

Ø Develop applied research in renewable energy systems (CURI, College-wide)

• Wind-turbine test facility, grid simulator, and graduate education center provide

foundation for large-scale projects

• Expand vehicle technology research (CU-ICAR, College-wide)
• Advanced engines, hybrids, battery technology, power electronics, fuels, materials

9 ¡

Faculty Development

Ø Foster development of junior faculty

• Guidance in proposal writing

² Workshops in place at College level for NSF, NIH, DoE ² Technical writing support in place at College level

• Systematic approach to faculty mentoring

² Proposal writing ² Professional relationship development ² Management of graduate students, course management ² Some academic units mentor more effectively than others

• Priority allocation of College resources

Ø Sustain momentum of mid-career faculty

• Expand view of funding opportunities
• Enable broader scope of research activities, interdisciplinary collaboration
• Encourage increased professional leadership
• College resources linked to scholarly productivity, pursuit of funding

10 ¡

Faculty Development (cont’d)

Ø Encourage continued productivity of senior faculty

• Access to College resources linked to significant ongoing contributions
• Seek new ways to recognize varied contributions

Ø Support Development Office in fund raising for endowed chairs and professorships

• Target University emphasis areas for support from upper administration
• Target critical gaps to achieve continuum of strengths within emphasis areas

Ø Facilitate interaction of faculty on main campus and Innovation Campuses

• Avoid risk of isolation due to location, esp. at CURI

² CU-MUSC provides model of success on smaller scale

• Two-way faculty “exchanges”
• Open-house days, on-site seminars at Innovation Campuses

11 ¡

Recruitment of Graduate Students

Ø Tier one: Clemson undergraduates – persistent exposure to research environment

• Encourage high-quality information material, informative periodic presentations on

graduate-school opportunities given at department level ² Supplement with College-level material as appropriate for common use

• Facilitate systematic, targeted mentoring of all academically promising undergraduates

no later than start of junior year

• Tie undergraduate research projects to targeted graduate recruiting

Ø Tier two: other US undergraduates – cost-effective, time-efficient outreach

• Ensure high-quality Web presence for each graduate program
• Virtual graduate-school fairs with graduate student & faculty participants

² Initiated recently by Interim ADR and Graduate School

• “Virtual seminars” to student professional organizations at other schools
• Highly selective on-site faculty seminars (e.g., key HCBUs, “target rich environments”)

Ø Tier three: international undergraduates

• First three items above
• On-site faculty seminars leveraging other opportunities to visit locale
• Seminars by current COES graduate students on visits home

12 ¡

Graduate Student Fellowships (US students)

Ø Systematic training, mentoring for individually initiated national fellowships (NSF GRF, NIH F31, DOD NDSEG & SMART, DOE, other)

• Graduate School workshops excellent for most aspects of NSF applications
• Mentoring by faculty in specialty area required for research proposals, essays

Ø College-coordinated pursuit by all programs of block-grant fellowship funds (NSF NRT, NIH T32, DoEd GAANN)

• NRT: proposed reformulation of IGERT may required new approach
• GAANN awards can realistic provide 30-40 fellowships per year in College

² 40 concurrent NSF-level fellowship = $42 million endowment !! Ø Opportunistic pursuit of occasional block-grant opportunities

• Ex.: BPC computer-science fellowship grant in Human-Centered Computing

13 ¡

Graduate Program Management and Practices

Ø Comprehensive Graduate Program Handbooks with clearly defined academic requirements, policies, and procedures Ø Standardized assistantship contracts with clearly stated expectations, rights, and responsibilities

• Similar documentation for fellowship awards

Ø Consistently implemented procedure for warning and termination for non- performance of assistantship duties Ø Consistent procedure for establishing expectations of thesis/dissertation research relationship

14 ¡

Economic Development

Ø Developing the knowledge economy of SC depends on fulfilling the College’s other responsibilities effectively Ø Focal points of research (Innovation Campuses, Centers, emphases) yield critical mass in related disciplines to achieve economic impact at scale

• Portfolio of ideas, intellectual property stimulate business formation
• Breadth of research, advanced development and technical services

serves as an attractor to large knowledge businesses for relocation Ø Highly prepared graduates, well-designed graduate programs are the linchpins of the knowledge economy’s workforce

• Strong disciplinary foundation prepares graduates for career of

scientific and technical leadership

• Classroom connection with state-of-the-art practice prepares graduates

for immediate impact in industry

• Well-motivated graduate research projects inform direction of future

corporate R&D

15 ¡

ADR’s Role in Economic Development

Ø Leadership in funded research growth, faculty development, quality of graduate program has follow-on effect on economic development Ø Vigorous pursuit of IP resulting from research within College

• Collaborate with CURF to educate faculty on IP process at Clemson,

make IP process as simple as possible for faculty Ø Cultivate entrepreneurial outlook among COES graduate students

• Collaborate with CBBS to promote Technology Entrepreneurship Certificate,
• ther opportunities for entrepreneurial preparation

Ø Work with Innovation Campuses to accommodate workforce preparation needs of major SC employers, prospective employers

• Ensure COES graduate students are the preferred hires for the state’s

knowledge-economy industry leaders

• Do so without compromising academic rigor of programs

Ø Facilitate opportunities for new MENGR & online programs focused on engineering practice (e.g., current ECE pursuit of SPAWAR)

• Extend the impact of our graduate programs
• Generate income for strategic initiatives within academic units

16 ¡

30 OCT 2013

THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST. ANY QUESTIONS? ¡

17 ¡

dnoneak@clemson.edu

Data Sources

Ø Federal R&D Funding FY 2011 pie chart National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2009–11” Ø Clemson Federal Research Expenditures FY 2011 pie chart Clemson University OMB Circular A-133 Reports For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 Ø COES Research Expenditures FY 2012 pie chart

American Society for Engineering Education, online profiles,

Clemson University 2012; COES Post-Award Project Management

18 ¡