Curriculum Revision and (Re)-Design in the Department of Civil Engineering

1. Curriculum Revision and (Re)-Design in the Department of Civil Engineering A capacity building study for planning departmental and institutional success …has mainly become possible due to the Waternet commitment to support the department Coordination: Walter F. Holch (HOD, SL)

2. Current Programmes and their interlinking status National Diploma in Civil Engineering, stand alone, poor interlinks, unbalanced curriculum, substantial knowledge gaps, content duplication, lack of industry and research integration, extreme study times (SWCH’s) B-Tech in Urban Engineering, slightly progressive and market oriented, poor articulation with ND, little research integration

3. Current Programmes and their outcomes focus National Diploma in Civil Engineering, complete lack of outcomes focus, unclear learning outcomes, no professional roles, no key-competences included, difficult to measure student success, OWpCH=0.5 for S1/S2 (OWpCHintern.={4-6} B-Tech in Urban Engineering, poor outcomes focus, average learning outcomes, no key-competences included, no research integration, difficult to measure student success

4. The Analysis-Paths (I) Systemic department support analysis (to guide on the many options for success&failure analysis >what should be looked at?<) Human Resource Analysis/Target Groups (to understand the market potential for our ‘products’ and the “loss on investment” in case of failure, virtual value) Industry Feedback (to understand industry needs and demand, to discover industrial competences needed, to gather major design parameters)

5. The Analysis-Paths (II) Graduate Feedback (to understand the success or failure of current and past departmental operations) Student Feedback (to understand the current student’s perceptions of the system, their expectations&anticipations) Lecturer Feedback (to understand their past and current needs and battles with the system)

6. The Analysis-Paths (III) Benchmark Analysis (to understand the success of international higher education institutions, to identify strategic partners for future development, their lecturing strategies, etc.) Review of the 2003 CTP-Evaluation (to gather CTP feedback and conditions for successful accreditation and market relevance)

7. The Key-Tools for Analysis • Knowledge Mapping • SWOT-Analysis • Analytical Marking (Bloom’s Taxonomy) • Intellectual Assets Monitoring (competence profiling) • Programme/Course Cross Impact Analysis • Complexity and Sensitivity Analysis&Modeling

8. The Design-Paths (I) …pulling out of the mud is easier than pushing out of the mud if you stand in the mud…(actio/reactio) Strategic Partnerships (SADC-Waternet, Universities in Carinthia(AUS), Kiel(D) and Tampere(FIN), TWR(RSA), HOD-Convenorship for Technikons (RSA), Universidad D Cordoba(ES), WPI(USA), UNESCO-IHE(NL)

9. The Design-Paths (II) Sectorizing the department (sector-strategy is an acknowledgement of the complexity and interlinks between the sectors and the opportunity to identify suitable faculty competence with the necessary degree of specialization, to achieve a sector responsibility both in terms of sustainable development and accountability)

10. The Design-Paths (III) • Outcomes Focus • Harvesting hidden key-outcomes and key-competences from strategic partners (by-product of benchmark analysis) • Balancing key-competences with local/regional and international needs (discovering international academic culture and practice)

11. The Design-Paths (IV) • Partnership Support • The philosophy of strategic competitor support to becoming a market leader and for developing towards sustainability is the key-motivation behind such cooperation and networking. • Designing&hosting researcher’s webs for SADC • Including international resources into locally accessible data banks and libraries (long ongoing activity to prepare for partner input) >>>’give-and-take’

12. The Design-Paths (V) • Strategic Partnership Inputs • Integrating existing resources (HR, modules, processes etc.) on the basis of cybernetic management principles. • Designing for system self regulation (partners discover the need for input) • Identifying best capacity building options (for 3D articulation within the institution and with external institutions)

13. The Design-Paths (VI) • Knowledge Mapping • Structuring existing knowledge (recycling) along best management and best output paths (golden line) • Discover deficits and include prior feedback • Design for multi purpose use (no stand-alone solutions) • Design for controlling tools (provide for guidance while designing, incl. FAQ’s)

14. The Key-Tools for Design (I) • Strategic Planning&Controlling • Knowledge Mapping • Professional Roles Main Stream (and profiling) • Binary Outcomes/Competence Matrix • Competence Profiling (strategic recruitment) • Cybernetic Management&Design Principles

15. The Key-Tools for Design (II) • Central Course Mapping (for sector dependencies, co-& prerequisite derivation, course weights, study sequences, progression, capacity building) • Outcomes/Competence Indicator (supplement to PON policy for CurrDev, accompanying every syllabus, for research integration, competence&skills training, course manual development, student assessment, competence profiling)

16. The Design Results (I) • National Diploma in Civil Engineering&Project Management • Fully compatible to RSA Technikon Education (small compatibility) in civil engineering • In line with European study courses (wide spectrum) • Balanced outcomes exposure (progressive increase) • Excellent articulation (horizontal and vertical) to other PON programmes

17. The Design Results (II) • Bachelor of Technology in Urban Engineering • Fully compatible to RSA Technikon Education (small compatibility) in urban engineering • In line with European study courses (wide spectrum, docking options) • Balanced outcomes exposure (progressive increase) • Excellent articulation (horizontal and vertical) to other PON programmes and to Master programmes abroad

18. The Design Results (III) • Bachelor of Technology in Water Engineering • Fully upwards compatible to IWRM-MMP (SADC) • In line with local and regional needs and demand (wide spectrum, docking options) • Balanced outcomes exposure (progressive increase) • Excellent articulation (horizontal and vertical) to other PON programmes and to Master programmes abroad

19. The Design Results (IV) • Masters in Integrated Water Resources Management • Fully upwards compatible to international research programmes and PhD options • Full downward articulation with inhouse B-Tech programmes • In line with local and regional needs and demand (wide spectrum target groups) • includes full compatibility to related MSc-courses with SADC higher education institutions

20. The By-Products for PON use New courses developed for horizontal articulation in other PON departments (especially SEIT and SNRT) Analysis Tools and Processes also applicable to other departments Design Tools and Processes also applicable to other departments Reputation increase for PON and SEIT

21. The End The department’s view: …our success is your success (care&share)