Faculty of Engineering

FACULTY BOARD

ENG10-M2

Minutes of the meeting held 10 November 2010.

Members: Professor Chris Backhouse (Acting Dean and Chair), Dr Adam Crawford, Dr Paul Cunningham (ab), Dr Sandie Dann, Ms Marijana Dragosavac, Dr James Flint, Dr Matthew Frost, Dr Ralph Gottschalg, Dr Jane Horner, Mr Dulanjan Kaggodaarachchi, Mrs Stephanie McKeating, Dr Danish Malik (ab), Dr Sue Morton, Dr Zoly Nagy (ab), Dr Mohamed Osmani (ab), Professor David Parish (ab), Professor Rob Parkin, Professor Shirley Pearce (ab), Dr Jon Petzing, Dr Simon Pomeroy, Professor Chris Rielly, Dr Carol Robinson, Professor Steve Rothberg (ab), Dr Mike Smith, Professor Richard Stobart (ab), Mr Tony Sutton, Dr Dave Twigg (ab), Professor Yiannis Vardaxoglou, Dr Stephen Walsh (ab).

Observer: Wg Cmdr Angela Hawley (ab).

Apologies for absence: Paul Cunningham, Angela Hawley, Danish Malik, Zoly Nagy, Mohamed Osmani, David Parish, Steve Rothberg, Richard Stobart, Dave Twigg, Stephen Walsh.

In attendance: Marie Kennedy, Secretary

Also in attendance: Ms Sue Sargent, Senior Development Officer, Development and Alumni Relations Office (for item 4), Dr Phil Richards, Director of IT Services, and Mr Martin Hamilton, Internet Manager, IT Services (for item 5).

AGENDA

1. Welcome

The two new student representatives and the three visitors were welcomed to the meeting.

2. Minutes (ENG10-M1)

Confirmed.

3. Matters arising from the Minutes, not appearing elsewhere on this Agenda

.1 Development Award studentships

HoDs had liaised with the Faculty Marketing Manager as requested.

.2 Recruitment 2010/11

HoDs were asked to inform the International Office of any HNDs that would be acceptable as entry qualifications, including any that were suitable for direct entry into Part B of a programme. Any direct recruitment to Part B would need to be included in departmental quotas as new students.

ACTION: HODs

SECTION A – Items for Discussion/Report

4. Fund raising and DARO (ENG10-P7) (tabled)

Members received a PowerPoint presentation on the work of DARO. DARO’s Development Team was concerned with encouraging philanthropic support for the University while the Alumni Team maintained communication with some 75,000 alumni across the world. Their work overlapped at the points where alumni were encouraged to make a donation, and/or become involved in the work of the University as mentors, visiting lecturers etc. DARO was encouraging more alumni donations, particularly as competition for donations from sources such as trusts and national organisations was increasing.

The Development Team was also encouraging others who were connected to the University in some way to donate, in the hope that some donors would become regular and/or major donors. In addition, it was encouraging support both from the local community and from national organisations, trusts and foundations; these included gifts in kind or legacies. The Schofield Society and Loughborough University Engineers’ Fund had recently been established to raise funds for the University’s strategic priorities: the former aimed to recruit major donors and the latter to provide (eg) scholarships/bursaries, prizes or equipment for engineering students. Departments had already been asked to identify projects worthy of funding that might interest donors; these should be aligned with the University’s strategy, departmental interests and donor interests.

DARO wished to take advantage of the government’s matched funding scheme which would end in July 2011; together with gift aid for UK tax-payers, this could realise £1.69 for each £1 donated. Extra funding could also be obtained for philanthropic research.

Alumni who had received honorary degrees in the University’s Centenary celebrations had been telephoned to see if they were willing to make a donation, but the University was also encouraging younger alumni to make donations. Members felt it would be difficult to ask students, who faced increased fees and debts, to donate to other students, but DARO hoped that alumni who had benefited from free higher education would be willing to help those who could not.

5. IT Services: strategic priorities for the coming year (ENG10-P8)

The Director of IT Services introduced the annual consultation with Faculties on strategic priorities for the coming academic year. IT underpinned all University activities – teaching, research, enterprise, administration as well as services to tenants – and was a key part of the student experience. The University now needed a better core system to support the main services of network, data centre and voice, together with an increasing number of other services that were run across the network. It was essential to avoid overload and breakdowns, the impact of which was felt immediately in all parts of the University. Three levels of investment proposals for 2012 and the next five years were being suggested (gold, silver and bronze options), to replace ageing equipment with high running costs and carbon output. These proposals had been benchmarked against investments already made or being considered by comparable universities in the 1994 Group. The ‘i2012 IT Infrastucture’ project had recently been given Stage 1 approval by Operations Committee, and the project management board would now provide further details for each of the three options.

The Internet Manager explained that the new Student Portal should bring together a number of points of contact such as email, calendar, Learn and Library, as well as budget, a search facility, bookmarks, ‘alerts and notifications’ and ID card payments. The prototype would be piloted this term, and Faculty Board members were asked to provide feedback on the concept, and on what should be included in Phase 2 of the project. Students had already suggested the need for a mobile phone interface, to enable them (eg) to check lists of available PCs in different parts of campus to minimise time searching for free monitors.

In response to members’ questions, the IT Services representatives explained that:

i. The expected savings from introducing a University-wide desktop purchasing policy for staff machines, suggested in the previous consultation, had been less than expected because staff behaviour had not significantly changed.

ii. The central timetabling project should be in operation for 2011-12, following the pilot scheme currently operating in two departments; however, a dual system would be in place in case of problems.

iii. Each of the new Schools proposed in the University’s restructuring would need to decide whether it would be cost-effective to have its own IT co-ordinator, but there would be benefit in groups of Schools sharing such positions.

iv. Although the new halls of residence had excellent wifi, they suffered from poor mobile signals, because that part of Central Park was low-lying and because of the building design. Two strategies to deal with the issue had been suggested: encouraging students to use wifi applications such as Skype, and to use just one supplier such as O2.

v. No decision had yet been made on whether the new Student Portal would include advertisements, although these could contribute a six-figure income stream for the University. Although students were apparently very tolerant of advertisements, if they were permitted, they would appear only on log-on, would be subject to strict control over the organisations that were allowed, and the University would be careful to avoid any perception that it endorsed the organisations.

6. Periodic Programme Review: Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (ENG10-P9(a)&(b))

The Learning and Teaching Committee had also recently considered the report and the School’s formal response. The School was content with the report, and was taking actions in response to the Panel’s recommendations.

7. engCETL (Engineering Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning) Annual Report (ENG10-P10)

Dr Adam Crawford, Director, introduced the main items in the report. The engCETL was part of 13 years of specialist support for engineering education in the University, longer than any other such centre. It had developed (inter alia) WebPA and Co-Tutor, which had been rolled out across the University. It had managed a number of projects ranging from relatively small amounts up to £50,000, but funding was increasingly difficult in the current economic climate. Following the completion of the five-year CETL funding, discussions had been held with senior University staff to ensure continued support for Engineering staff in future. The University’s senior management had agreed to support both the CETLs situated at Loughborough but the amount of funding had yet to be determined.

The Acting Dean congratulated the Director and his staff for an excellent report.

Dr Crawford also drew attention to Unitech, in which Loughborough was the only UK academic partner. The ten Unitech students who had recently commenced a period of study at Loughborough would shortly give presentations to Faculty students who were interested in studying and working overseas as part of the scheme. He strongly encouraged Faculty staff to use UCAS Open Days to promote these unique opportunities to possible future students. The Head of the Civil and Building Engineering Department would also shortly invite Faculty HoDs to meet the ten incoming students at a special dinner.

8. Mathematics Education Centre Annual Report

http://mec.lboro.ac.uk/pages/stakeholder.html

Dr Carol Robinson, the Head of Centre, summarised the key points from the report. Engineering students comprised 25% of all visits to the mathematics and statistics support facilities available at the two Mathematics Learning Support Centres (MLSCs). The drop-in and appointment systems for statistics support had proved popular with postgraduates as well as undergraduates.

External funding for the Centre included £80,000 from JISC to develop an international website aimed at supporting students in transition from school to university, and Hewlett Packard funding to explore ways of using tablet PCs in learning and teaching. Continued funding for the two MLSCs had become an issue with the dismantling of Faculties, although Operations Committee had approved funding for the current academic year. The HE STEM project had also granted £300,000 to extend the work of the sigma-hub network until 2013, in order to spread good practice.

The Centre’s research activities were unusual, as most other research was conducted in schools, not higher education.

The Acting Dean noted that the MEC was one of the great successes for the Faculty. It had provided demonstrable support for students, and should be promoted during Open Days as a means of enhancing the student experience at Loughborough, not just as a means of support for weaker students.

9. Science and Engineering Foundation Programme Annual Report

(ENG10-P11)

The Programme Director, Dr Sandie Dann, summarised the main points of the report. Departments were asked to give careful consideration to recruiting applicants who had traditionally done well in the SEFS programme, such as mature students and those with inappropriate A-Levels.

Departments were also asked carefully to consider applicants from Loughborough’s International Foundation Programme, who were typically intelligent students who needed an additional pre-university year. The LUIFS programme was an important element of the University’s provision: it was a University-controlled programme, established in partnership with Loughborough College, as a deliberate alternative to commercial suppliers. It comprised two-thirds subject and one-third English language study. Its students achieved good results compared to most other IFPs, and successful students needed to be encouraged to continue onto the University and not seek places elsewhere. Members should also be aware of the pressure on the University from commercial suppliers of international students whose qualifications might be questionable.

10. Reports from Faculty Officers

.1 Acting Dean

(a) Restructuring of the University

The two main developments since the last meeting had been the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and approval of proposals for the University’s academic restructuring. The CRS had been timed to coincide with publication of the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (‘the Browne report’) and its effect was therefore less onerous than might have been expected. The likely increase in student fees, probably between £6,000 and £9,000 pa, meant that universities’ teaching income might not be reduced as much as had been feared. The University had not yet decided what fees it would charge, and it would probably not charge different rates for different programmes because it was essentially selling ‘the Loughborough Experience’. The national situation was complicated by the variety of scholarships and bursaries as well as differential fees charged by HEIs. Members understood that UCAS had now informed applicants whose places had been deferred to 2011 entry that they would be charged the higher rates of fees.

It also appeared from the CSR that government-provided research income would be cash-constant, and therefore reductions were less than had been anticipated. Loughborough was in a relatively stronger position than many HEIs because a high proportion of its activities were in the protected STEM subjects.

Members noted the transfer of the Department of Materials to the Faculty of Engineering for the current academic year, and the formation of a new School comprising the Departments of Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Materials.

The Project Management Board charged with implementing the new organisational structure (INOS) had appointed a number of working groups to manage the consequences of restructuring. The Acting Dean chaired the HR Working Group and the AD(T) was a member of the Learning and Teaching Working Group. The PMB had recently agreed that the management team structure for each new School should include Dean, Associate Deans (Teaching, Research, and possibly Enterprise), Manager and (optionally) heads of department. A School could have a Dean and (eg) three heads of department, based on existing departments, but no new departments would be created. Alternatively, Schools could have heads of division instead of department. Line management of academics would be with the Dean although reporting could be through a HoD. The School Manager would manage all support staff, including academic-related, using intermediary managers as appropriate. Deans of School would be appointed, using the current procedures for a head of department, before Christmas, and the new Academic Leadership Team would begin meeting in January.

Members were very disturbed that the abolition of the current lean Faculty structure, that had served the University well, was leading to a multiplication of non-Faculty staff, including up to thirty Associate Deans, a proliferation of administration, and a significant increase in costs. They noted that the current Associate Deans of Faculty received a modest financial uplift, but, in future, there seemed to be no incentive for staff to take on such roles, and no honoraria for heads of department or division to manage staff. Members were also concerned at the risk to the University’s reputation if departments suffered a similar loss of staff to that of the engCETL, which enjoyed high national prestige.

The Acting Dean reported that the issue of Engineering Faculty support staff was being addressed. Some of the activities currently undertaken by Faculty staff could be absorbed by central support services, while others would be transferred to the new Schools. Managers needed to work to ensure the best outcome from the new structure, in the best interests of the majority of staff.

.2 Associate Dean (Research)

(a) GE Visit to the University

Noted.

(b) REF update

Staff needed to remain focused on the forthcoming REF during the period of academic restructuring.

Loughborough’s relatively low number of citations continued to depress its overall position in international league tables, which gave heavy weighting to citations, and therefore negatively affected its image among staff in HEIs overseas and overseas visitors to the University.

The issue remained that Faculty staff published in the top UK journals for their subject areas, although some, such as construction, were not ISI listed, and had not previously considered citations to be a good indicator of quality for their discipline. Other comparable UK universities that published useful research were in a similar position. In addition, Loughborough did not engage in some of the subject areas that were heavily cited, such as law and medicine. Members also noted that some international league tables contradicted some national tables in which Loughborough was highly placed.

Although there was a possibility that the government might in future target investment in HEIs that were mainly research or teaching-oriented, members noted that EPSRC’s current focus was on research that had an industrial impact, such as that in which Loughborough engaged. They also noted, that in some disciplines, publications could be targeted for both science and engineering audiences.

All Faculty staff were asked to maximise their opportunities for citation by ensuring that each of their publications was on the Institutional Repository.

ACTION: all members

.3 Associate Dean (Teaching)

(a) Recruitment 2010-11 (ENG10-P12)

The data had been compiled on 26 October and more reliable data would be made available following 5 December. Population data were not yet complete.

UK/EU UG: The University’s small over-recruitment was well within HEFCE’s allowable margins.

UG International: Recruitment was slightly above targets set in departmental Business Plans.

FT UK PGT: Recruitment was slightly higher than Business Plan targets, mainly due to the Civil and Building Engineering intake.

FT International PGT: Business Plan targets had been met.

The Acting Dean congratulated all concerned with recruitment.

(b) NSS 2010 results

Institutional-level issues included some criticism that some staff needed to be more engaged in their teaching, and it was hoped that colleagues would support each other in addressing this. Student complaints regarding feedback on assessed work were partly concerned with its usefulness, especially when provided at a generic level. A project had begun in the Teaching Centre to consider this issue.

Together with Teaching Centre staff, the AD(T) had visited each department to discuss their results and agree actions to be taken. Results showed that, within departments, there were often significant differences in results between programmes, with feedback on assessed work being the main issue. There were also some locally-specific issues regarding coursework loads or IT provision, of which HoDs were already aware.

Members noted that timing of assessed work was often an issue for students, especially when deadlines for coursework hand-in were close together.

(c) Cessation of HEFCE funding for Foundation Degrees

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2010/fdf.htm

Noted the ending of funding for foundation degrees but that Employer Engagement would continue.

11. Award of Research Degrees (ENG10-P13)

The Board made the following awards:

MPhil:

Department of Chemical Engineering:

M A Al-Tamimi

PhD:

Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering:

D. Astapenko

A. Komatsu

M. Lampis

Z. Liu

Department of Civil and Building Engineering:

S.A.A. Al-Otaibi

N.R. Velaga

Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering:

Z. Cao

L. Ma

P. Vorasayan

Department of Materials:

J. Huang

M.T. Pace

Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering:

M.M. Azoulay

V. Hiwarkar

T. Justham

A. Kamaludin

N.A. Othman

D.G. Waugh

R. Zhou

12. Personal Titles

Congratulations were offered to he following members of Faculty who had been awarded Personal Titles:

Dr Neil Hopkinson, Reader in Additive Manufacturing,

Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

Professor Zoltan Nagy, Professor of Process Systems,

Department of Chemical Engineering

Dr Gilbert Shama, Reader in Applied Microbiology, Department of Chemical Engineering

Professor Simon Watson, Professor of Wind Energy,

Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering

Professor Andrew West, Professor of Intelligent Systems,

Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

SECTION B – Formal ‘Starred’ Items for Approval

13. Actions of the Associate Dean (Teaching) (ENG10-P14)

Approved.

SECTION C – Items for Information

14. Briefing note for members (ENG10-P15)

Noted.

15. Membership of the Board for 2010-11 (ENG10-P16)

Noted.

16. Representation on other University Committees 2010-11 (ENG10-P17)

Noted.

17. Prizes Committee

Noted prizes awarded to Faculty students during 2010/11.

18. Curriculum Sub-Committee

.1 Discontinuation of programmes

Noted.

.2 Changes to programme titles/awards

Noted.

.3 Suspension of programmes

Noted.

19. Staff-Student Committees

Noted.

20. Date of the next meeting

Wednesday 18 May 2011 at 1.15 pm in the engCETL Design Studio (first floor, Keith Green Building). The Board meeting will be followed immediately afterwards by a meeting of the Engineering Directorate.

Author – Marie Kennedy

Date – November 2010