1 / 8

LESSONS FROM THE EVOLUTION OF A CENTER

LESSONS FROM THE EVOLUTION OF A CENTER. Sarosh Talukdar Carnegie Mellon University Panel on Centers, Summer Power Meeting July 24, 2002, Chicago, IL. DRC EDRCICES is almost 30 years old and has been growing steadily all its life. HISTORY. 1974-1986: DRC (design research center)

huyen
Download Presentation

LESSONS FROM THE EVOLUTION OF A CENTER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LESSONS FROM THE EVOLUTION OF A CENTER Sarosh Talukdar Carnegie Mellon University Panel on Centers, Summer Power Meeting July 24, 2002, Chicago, IL

  2. DRCEDRCICES is almost 30 years old and has been growing steadily all its life

  3. HISTORY 1974-1986: DRC (design research center) Mission: convert craft to science Funding: $55,000 from the engineering college $500,000 from SLOAN some industrial contracts Participants: faculty interested in systematic synthesis processes 1986-1987: EDRC (engineering design research center) Mission: convert design craft to science, do applied research Funding: $2.5 M per year from NSF $4.5 M (in the last year) from other govt. agencies and industry Participants: about 30 faculty members, 40 grad. students, 5 staff members

  4. HISTORY (continued) 1997- : ICES (institute for complex engineered systems) Mission: improve the design and performance of complex systems Funding: $10.3 M per year 57% from government agencies 23% from industry 20% from the state of Pennsylvania Participants: about 65 teaching faculty, 10 research faculty, 70 grad. students, 10 staff, many undergraduates

  5. PRODUCTS • monotonic growth in applied research • continual stream of useful results • wearable computers • n-dim • A-Teams • - • - • several new courses • many Ph.Ds and papers • but little or no basic research

  6. OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS • Stake holders: project managers in funding agencies • industrial affiliates • faculty and staff • students • Attributes: leverage • lateral relations • fast dynamics • new research opportunities • new educational opportunities • Design and organization: university consortia have trouble • with: matrix management • project selection • design of flagship projects

  7. start-up and maintenance efforts are large • industrial affiliates: • are essential, • require disproportionately large amounts of • faculty and student time, and • are becoming harder to find and keep • obtaining support for individual research, without a consortium, is becoming more difficult • 7. research consortia can produce a lot of results. But they • favor applied, short-term results over basic research. • short-term results conflict with other university time- • constants • 9. consortia are more hierarchic and centralized in their organizations than other university units

  8. SUMMARY • interdisciplinary consortia can be very productive • the technology for managing and designing them is • underdeveloped • consortia can be as big as departments. Consortia • are more centralized and have faster dynamics. • They encourage short-term applied research. This • can conflict with educational cycles, which are • longer.

More Related