University of Rhode Island
College of Engineering (COE)
A PLAN FOR 2000 AND BEYOND
Otto Gregory, Chemical Engineering
Manbir Sodhi, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Arun Shukla, Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Malcolm Spaulding (Chair), Ocean Engineering
Raymond Wright, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Qing Yang, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Table of Contents
1. Background and Process ........................................................................................................
2. Agenda ...................................................................................................................................
3. Assessment of the COE .........................................................................................................
4. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................
5. References ..............................................................................................................................
1. Background and Process
In November 1997, Thomas Kim, Dean of the College of Engineering (COE) established an
Engineering Year 2000 Committee (COE2000) and charged the committee to develop a mid-term (3
to 5 year) plan to guide the operation and development of the COE in offering programs of
excellence in teaching, research, and service to the state, the region, and the nation. The last mid-
range plan for the college was prepared by a similar committee in 1993 (COE, 1993). The present
committee was comprised of senior representatives from each department in the college and included
Otto Gregory, Chemical Engineering; Arun Shukla, Mechanical Engineering and Applied
Mechanics; Manbir Sodhi, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering; Malcolm Spaulding (chair),
Ocean Engineering; Raymond Wright, Civil and Environmental Engineering; and Qing Yang,
Electrical and Computer Engineering. The formal charge to the committee, including a tentative
agenda and proposed schedule were provided by the Dean.
The committee held weekly meetings from November 1, 1997 through May 1, 1998. In addition
interim progress reports were presented and in-depth discussions held with the faculty in each of the
normally scheduled college faculty meetings for the 1997-98 academic year ( December 12, 1997;
February 20, 1998; and May 1, 1998). Input was also solicited from the faculty and staff at each
stage of the process through participation of department representatives on the committee and in
several cases by special department meetings that were used to gather input from the faculty and to
discuss preliminary committee findings and recommendations. In addition the COE2000 committee
met with representatives from the College of Business Administration (Frank Budnick, Interim Dean,
February 19, 1998), the office of the Vice Provost for Research, Graduate Education, and Service
(Thomas Rockett, Imeh Ebong, and Charles Turtle; February 26, 1998), and the Department of
Computer Science and Experimental Statistics ( Jim Kowalski, Acting Chair; March 19, 1998).
These meetings were held to gather information from those groups who had close affiliations with
the college, to understand the activities and plans within each unit, and to discuss how they might
impact the COE s plan. The committee requested but was never able to schedule a meeting with the
office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
To better understand the recent operation of the COE, the committee requested and obtained the
following data from the Office of the Dean; the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Graduate
Education, and Service; and the Office of Institutional Research for the last 7 years.
1. Personnel, operating, travel, capital equipment, and student aid expenditures for each
department, the Dean s office, and the COE as a whole.
2. Number of faculty,staff, state supported graduate assistantships, and undergraduate and
graduate students in each department in the COE.
3. Research and foundation income for each department, the Dean s office, and the COE.
4. Research overhead generated by the COE and the Dean s office and the amount returned o
the COE and each department.
5. Copies of professional activity forms for COE faculty for the 1996-97 academic year.
6. Department annual reports.
7. Course offerings at the graduate and undergraduate level and the credit hours generated by each
department and the COE.
8. Tuition and fee expenses for undergraduate and graduate students.
This data was evaluated to assess the current state of the college s activities and to provide
quantitative support to several of the committees findings and recommendations.
In assessing the colleges performance and making recommendations for improving its programs the
committee used President Carothers seven principles (December 1, 1997) to guide its deliberations.
In brief the seven principles are:
1. Focus our efforts: Develop programs in the four focus areas: marine and environmental science;
health sciences; children, families, and communities; and enterprise and technology.
2. Build a quality undergraduate student body: Challenging and innovative curriculum, experiential
learning, 70 % retention rate, reduce failures from substance abuse and uncivil behavior.
3. Build our capacity for graduate study, research, and outreach: Support and advance partnership
4. Enhance information technology: Advance active and collaborative learning inside and outside
the class room.
5. Increase administrative efficiency and effectiveness: Creative applications of technology,
employee involvement, and community decision making.
6. Improve the quality of the physical environment: Maintain, replace, repair, and rehabilitate
facilities and grounds according to master plan.
7. Build external support: Use alumni as a vehicle to reach state executives and legislators.
The committee orally presented its recommendations to the COE faculty at the last faculty meeting
of the 1997-98 academic year (May 1, 1998). Extensive discussions were held at that meeting and
several faculty members provided written input to the committee following the meeting. The chair
of the committee made a similar presentation of COE2000 findings and recommendations to the
COE s Engineering Advisory Council (EAC) at its annual meeting held on June 12, 1998 at the
University Club and moderated a lively discussion of the recommendations. The present document
constitutes the final report of the COE2000. It reflects the committees deliberation and the input
received from the college faculty, staff, external groups within the University and the Engineering
Advisory Council. It should serve as a useful guide for mid-term planning in the college.
In undertaking its assignment the committee organized the work in a series of tasks. The first task
was to develop an agenda of the issues that were of primary concern to the faculty, staff, and the
administration. This was followed by a frank assessment of the current state of the COE programs
and activities. This assessment was presented to and discussed with the faculty and staff in the
college. Copies were also provided to each of the external groups with which the committee met and
to the Dean and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. In the second task the
committee compared and contrasted the COE to our peer institutions and evaluated our strengths and
weaknesses. Based on this analysis the committee proposed a series of recommendations to address
the weaknesses and to continue to build on the COE s strengths. The goal throughout was to focus
on developing high quality programs. These preliminary recommendations were presented and
discussed with the faculty and staff to obtain their input.
The committee purposely focused on making recommendations that could be achieved within the
COE given the existing and likely near term constraints on resources and the present University and
RI Department of Education management structure for higher education. As an example while
many COE faculty members feel strongly that pay scales at the University are too low (particularly at
the Associate and Professor level) and being constantly eroded and that some form of merit increases
are needed beyond the normal inflationary increases the recent history of contracts between the
Amercican Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the State of Rhode Island Board of
Governors suggests that significant changes in compensation and merit increases are unlikely. This
pragmatic approach was used to develop recommendations that would have the maximum likelihood
of implementation and that could be realistically achieved in the planning horizon. The committee
also did not focus on preparations for the next round of review for accreditation. This task is
currently being undertaken by the ABET2000 committee (Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Using the Dean s formal charge as a starting point the committee developed a tentative agenda of
the most important issues or challenges facing the college. The committee s draft list given below
was presented to the COE faculty and staff and discussed in depth at college faculty meetings, at
COE2000 committee meetings, and through E-mail exchanges. The agenda was divided into major
categories to facilitate discussions and presentation.
(1) Engineering Research Operation
* Research direction
* Contracts, grants, gifts
* Research office and URI Foundation
* Research revenue targets and enhancement
* Research incentive/seed funding
* Intellectual property and economic development in RI (spin-offs, incubator)
(2) Revenue Enhancement
* General revenue and PCA, alternates evaluation strategies
* Research related revenue (OH, release time, etc.)
* Auxiliary enterprises
(3) Restructuring degree programs and administration
* Degree programs and curriculum revision
* College administrative structure
* Cooperation with Computer Science
* Cooperative programs with College of Business Administration
* Enrollment - quality versus quantity
* Diversity, recruitment, and retention
* Revised ABET accreditation
* International Engineering Programs
(4) Recognition and Awards
* Faculty and staff recognition and awards
* Endowed faculty positions
* Student (Undergraduate and Graduate ) awards, scholarships, and fellowships
* Alumni and COE friend recognition
(5) Teaching improvements and alternative learning vehicles/styles
* Lecture, laboratory, and seminar courses
* Theoretical versus hands-on experience
* Internships, training
* Design experience
* Goals and assessment process
* Student advising
(5) Faculty and staff development and work load
* Faculty workload expectation
* Recruitment and retirement planning
* Promotion and tenure standards and review process
* Ad hoc lecturers in Engineering
* Job performance reviews
(6) Service and Outreach
* Expectations on service to University and profession
* Graduate admissions and support
* Research centers
* Cooperative education
* Short courses, conferences, training programs
The principal feedback from the faculty and staff was that the committee should focus its work on
the five to seven most important issues facing the COE, make recommendations in these areas, and
direct its energy to seeing that these recommendations are implemented. There was consistent and
wide spread concern expressed that if too many recommendations were made that few if any would
actually be fully implemented.
3. Assessment of the COE
An in depth review of the current operation and performance of the college in meeting its
educational, service, and teaching missions was performed so that the committee had a clear
assessment of the colleges strengths and weaknesses. Summarized below is the committee s
assessment of the state of the college in several key areas of interest based on the agenda outlined
above. Only those issues on which the faculty felt most strongly are assessed here.
To assess the financial status of the COE data on the general revenue budgets were obtained from
1990 to 1998. Table 1 gives the budgets for each academic year for personnel, travel, capital, and
operating expenses. The totals for each year are also provided. A review of the table shows that the
college personnel budget, which comprises over 85 % of the total budget, has been roughly constant
(within 5 %) at about $5.9 M since 1990. The travel budget has declined substantially from 1990
and has been non-existent four of the last five years. The capital budget was about $ 200 K in 1990-
91, 1991-92, and 1994-95 and zero or very low in the remaining years of the survey period. The
operating budget was generally in decline from 1990 to 1995. It dropped precipitously in 1996-97 to
$120 K and has increased to twice that level for the last two years. It remains at less than half its
value in 1990-91. The total budget for the college has remained almost constant at approximately $
6.4 M over the period. The budget for the 1998-99 academic year is within about $100 K of the
budget for the 1990-91 academic year. During that period the labor costs, as determined by the
various agreements between the state and the unions representing the faculty and staff have
increased by 28 %. The CPI increase for the same period is 29.5 %. Faculty and staff salaries have
hence lagged the CPI.
During the same period, the unit labor cost for faculty in the college has continued to increase. This
has been caused by the lack of turnover and the gradual aging (and hence increasing salaries) of the
faculty. At present (1997-98) there are 4 Assistant Professors, 19 Associate Professors and 39
Professors in the COE (62 total). They represent 6.5%, 30.6% and 62.9% of the faculty,
respectively. Almost 94 % of the COE faculty are tenured This compares to 73 (12.3%) Assistant
Professors, 173 ( 29.1%) Associate Professors, and 349 (58.6%) Professors (tenure track) for the
University. Approximately 87% of the tenure track University faculty are tenured. The distribution
of faculty in the COE and the University are substantially skewed to tenured senior level positions.
The COE has far fewer (factor of almost 2) faculty members at the Assistant Professor level and
more at the Associate and Professor level than University wide. The continuing aging of the faculty
will result in higher unit labor costs and a substantial generation gap in the future composition of the
faculty given the recent lack of recruitment at the Assistant Professor level. The very high
percentage of faculty members tenured also dramatically limits the ability to adjust the faculty size to
accommodate decreases in budgets and student enrollment.
As a basis to assess the reasonableness of the COE budget given the enrollment data on the number
of faculty (expressed as FTEs), number of undergraduate and graduate students, and the student to
faculty ratio (Table 2) were evaluated for academic years 1991-92 to 1997-98. The data were
obtained from the University Instructional Activity reports and the Dean s office. The total
(undergraduate and graduate) number of students during this period has declined from 1231 in 1991-
92 to 979 in 1997-98, a decrease of approximately 20%. The FTEs in the college have
correspondingly declined about 20% from 77 to 62 over the same period. Almost half of the decrease
in the faculty size occurred between the 1996-97 and 1997-98 academic years as the result of a
number of retirements and resignations. Given the similar rate of decline in both the total number of
students and the total number of faculty the student/faculty ratio at present (15.8) is almost identical
to its value in 1991-92 (15.9). This compares to a value of 20.3 (13,437 total students and 662
faculty (tenure and temporary status), 1997-98 Office of Instructional Research) for the University
and to 3.4 for GSO, 14.3 for the College of Resource Development and 16.6 for the College of Arts
and Sciences. URI is reported to have a student to faculty ratio of 15 in the most recent version of the
US News and World Report (1998).The current faculty to student ratio in the COE is reasonable
given the nature and quality of the engineering education programs offered and comparable to other
programs at the University. The value is also comparable to our peer institutions (University of
Connecticut- 14; University of Delaware-15; University of New Hampshire- 14; University of
Massacushetts-Amherst- 18; University of Vermont- 14; SUNY Stony Brook- 17; University of
Maine- 14; US News and World Report, 1998). For comparsion the top tier institutions have very
low student to faculty ratios (Massachusetts Institute of Technology- 5; California Institute of
Comparison of the size of the student body currently served and the general revenue budget provided
to the college shows that the college is substantially underbudgeted for the mission it presently
serves, after correction for salary increases, increases in unit salaries due to aging of the faculty, and
changes in the size of student enrollment. The funds provided have continued to decline since 1990-
91 and have reached a crisis level in operating budgets. Travel funds have essentially disappeared.
Capital budgets are small, intermittent, and inadequate to meet the needs of the educational
programs offered. They are normally driven by the three- to six-year cycles for accreditation (ABET)
review and the amount and scheduling unknown. This uncertainty and variability precludes an
orderly process of capital planning and expenditures.
From the 1994-95 to 1996-97 academic years the operating budget for the college decreased by
approximately 50% and dropped again in the next academic year by a similar amount. The budget
recovered partially in 1997-98, but still remains at less than half the level in 1994-95. To cover
routine operational expenses during this period, the college and the departments have used overhead
generated by funded research activities (Table 3). This diversion of funds has substantially
decreased the resources available to support and advance the COE funded research programs.
The proposed budget for 1998-99 and a basic budget to meet the college s needs are given below.
The basic budget assumes reasonable levels of funding in each of the main categories based on the
projected level of enrollment in the college.
Allocated Budget 1998-99 Proposed Budget 1998-99
Personnel 6,221,797 6,350,000
Operating 278,936 600,000
Capital 100,000 350,000
Capital Match 120,000
Travel 15,175 65,000
Total 6,735,908 7,365,000
The principal differences are in the area of capital, travel, and operating funds. The budget for
1998-99 hence is about 11% short of the amount needed to operate the college at a reasonable level.
To develop a sense of the size and strength of the research program in the college data were collected
on the level of funded research from the Research Office s Annual Reports from 1991-92 to 1996-
97. The amounts reported as funded through the research office, through the URI Foundation and
the total are provided in Table 4. Also given are the FTEs for each academic year and the research
and foundation funds generated per FTE. A review of the data shows substantial year-to-year
variability in the level of funding and the amount of funding received through the research office and
the Foundation. A close inspection shows that this variability can be principally attributed to the
year in which large, multi-year grants (e.g. NUWC student services contract, RI Environmental
Education and Training Facility) and one-time large grants (e.g. Kirk Building fund) are received. In
reporting the data the research office allocates the entire award amount to the year in which the
award is made even though the grant may be for multiple years.
The data suggest that the total research income for the college has declined over the period. It has
remained about constant however when viewed in terms of the funds generated per FTE. The
average research funds per FTE over the 6-year period is approximately $62,000 (when large one
time building and training grants are not considered) or $ 74,000 when all funds are considered. The
variation with time has been about 12% of the mean over the period.
To develop a sense of the research funding levels of the various departments in the College, Dr. I.
Ebong, Director of Research Development, undertook an analysis of the research generated by the
various departments in the college for the period from 1991 to 1995. He used data from the
Research Offices annual reports and included both research office and Foundation income. The data
show that the research income per FTE varies substantially (factor of 2 to 3) between departments.
This trend has continued in recent years based on a review of the Research Office s Annual Report
Dr. Ebong also looked at the distribution by faculty member within the college and noted that the
faculty could generally be divided into three groups, with about equal numbers in each group. The
first group included faculty who had active research programs that consistently received funding.
The second group included researchers who had intermittent funding. These individuals might have
research grants for several years followed by periods with no funding for several years. There was
finally a third group who had essentially no research funding. A review of the Instructional Activity
Forms for the 1996-97 academic year and the research office annual reports confirmed this general
trend. The research office reports also show that most of the funding came from multi-investigator (2
or 3 investigators), multi-year grants/contracts from a single entity, typically the government. The
amount of research generated as part of activities of centers was small.
To develop insight into the performance of the college relative to engineering programs at regional
peer institutions, Dr. Ebong compared the research income per FTE averaged over the period from
1991-1995. The Carnegie classification, current faculty size, research income per FTE, and the
amount and percent of income federally financed is given in Table 5. The URI College of
Engineering research income is in the middle of the range and comparable to our peer institutions.
The amount of federal versus other (e.g. state, private industry) funding is also comparable. The
amounts given for University of Connecticut are substantially higher than for any other institution in
the survey and reflect substantial allocations from the state to research programs at the institution.
The Instruction Activity Forms for all COE faculty members were obtained from the Dean s office
for the 1996-97 academic year. They were reviewed in detail to understand how faculty time is
employed. The committee specifically focused on the amount of time, and hence faculty resources,
the college was devoting to its education, research, and teaching missions. Using the standard load
of 9-credit equivalent units (CEU) per semester the typical faculty member in Engineering teaches
two courses (6 CEU) per semester. The remaining time (3 CEU) is spent in either research or
service, with service activities predominating. Service commitments include internal (department,
college and University committees) and external (professional societies, editorships, meeting
organization, etc.). Very few faculty have full time teaching commitments or full time research
From this analysis it is seen that approximately two thirds of the faculty time is devoted to the COE
educational programs and the remaining one third to service or research. Given a faculty of 62
approximately 20 FTEs are used for some combination of research and service activities.
Promotion and tenure
The process and procedures, including the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved are given
in clear detail in the AAUP- University contract. These are supplemented by instructions from the
Provost s office that outline the detailed submission requirements. In spite of the extensive nature
of the review and evaluation process some faculty feel that the standards for evaluation vary
significantly between departments in the college and with time. As the evaluation system is currently
implemented in the college there is no one group or committee that reviews all applications. There is
a desire on the part of the faculty to improve the consistency of the evaluation process across the
various departments in the college.
Faculty in the COE have worked actively with the Research Office in the patenting and marketing of
intellectual property generated as part of the University s research programs. The University s
policy in this area has recently been extensively revised and upgraded and potential opportunities
more aggressively pursued. COE faculty and students have also developed a number of small
companies that transfer results of their research to the commercial market place. Unfortunately the
vast majority of these companies appear to be very small operations that mainly serve as vehicles for
the faculty to perform consulting work. There is little evidence of the faculty working aggressively
to foster the development of small businesses as a result of university research and make a
substantial contribution to economic development in the state or even in South County. Given the
COE s unique position as the only state college of engineering it needs to take a more active role in
Within the framework of the URI Capital Campaign the Dean, assisted by staff of the development
office, has taken a very aggressive role in the development of capital and endowment funds for the
COE. These include funds for the building and outfitting of the Kirk Applied Technology Center,
endowed chairs in Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, distinguished Engineering Professor
positions, and funds for scholarships and awards. This has also been accompanied development
outreach activities (e.g. URI COE Founders Wall). The total amount of funds generated over the
past 5 years is about $8 M. The Dean s success in fund raising has been been excellent and the
prospects for the future appear to be very good.
Allocation of resources among departments
The committee undertook a review of the available data to determine how resources (faculty, staff,
state funded assistantships) were distributed among departments within the college and how the
resources were allocated relative to the total number of students and research income for each
department. Data on FTE, staff, graduate research assistantships, and enrollment were obtained from
the Dean s office for 1996-97. This year was selected since it was the most recent for which data
were available. Data on research income was obtained from the research office s annual reports.
These data are summarized in Table 6. The data have been further processed to show the percent of
the total allocated to each department (Table 7). The Dean s office has been included as a separate
category since many central functions are performed by his staff.
Comparison of the percent of faculty positions and graduate assistantships to total enrollment for
each department shows that they are almost in exact balance. The staff allocation is also in
approximate balance with enrollment when consideration is made for the allocation of staff to the
Dean s office for fiscal services. Comparison of resource allocation to the research generated by
department shows little correlation. According to this measure Chemical and Ocean Engineering
have too few staff resources and Electrical and Mechanical too many.
Evaluation of degree programs
In 1995, the University developed and implemented the program contribution analysis (PCA) to
determine the cost and performance of various degree programs at the University. The core of the
analysis is based on straight forward accounting techniques where the income (generated primarily
by tuition revenue) for students taking classes in a given department/degree program and expenses
(faculty and staff salaries, operating costs, overhead expenses) are calculated for each degree
program at the University. The principal sources of data for this analysis are from the registrars
office for student enrollment, from the instructional activity reports for the allocation of faculty time,
and from the business office on expenses. Since first instituted the PCA has become
institutionalized and now is performed each academic year. Summary reports are given to the Dean
and department chairs providing the most recent data and the change from the prior years analysis.
The administration indicates that this is one of several evaluation metrics used to assess the
performance of various degree programs and their economic viability.
A review of the results of the PCA on a University-wide basis show that oceanography, engineering,
and the professional programs fare very poorly on the PCA (offer degree programs that represent a
net financial loss to the University). Programs that have strong positive contributions are those that
have a strong service teaching role (English, Psychology ) and no requirements for laboratory or field
experimental work. Engineering has vigorously objected to the sole or primary use of the PCA as an
evaluation metric because it is inconsistent with how our degree programs are offered. As an
example, a typical Engineering student takes about 130 credit hours to complete his degree
requirements. Of this about 60% of the credit hours are taken in Colleges other than engineering in
order to fulfill University general education and Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology
(ABET) requirements. The remaining 40% of the credit hours are given in Engineering with
substantial requirements in other than the degree granting department. As an example, Ocean
Engineering students take half of their Engineering courses in Ocean Engineering and the remaining
half in other engineering departments. The tuition income in the PCA is pro-rated by the department
registering course enrollment, hence 60% of the income from engineering students is attributed to
colleges other than engineering (principally to Arts and Sciences). Since other degree programs at the
University do not require students to take courses in Engineering, the engineering service teaching
load is low, and hence, the college is a large exporter of student credit hours, and hence, tuition
income. It is virtually impossible for the college to achieve a net positive contribution using the
currently implemented PCA as an evaluation metric.
The PCA does not account for the contributions of research to the University and the surrounding
community, nor does it provide any measure of the quality or reputation of the program. As a
dramatic example of this problem, the lowest ranked programs at the University, based on the PCA,
are those offered in Oceanography, while the Graduate School of Oceanography and its research
programs are those for which the University is most widely recognized as a national leader.
College administrative structure and operation
The Dean of the College of Engineering reports to the Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs and is responsible for the operation of the college. The office of the Provost provides the
Dean with a budget at the beginning of the academic year to operate the college. The Dean then
manages the college to deliver the education and research programs within the budget. The budgets
allocated to the COE are often unrealistic given the mandated salary increases for faculty and staff
members and appear not to follow any short or mid range plan. In the area of faculty and staff
positions, the Provost has instituted a policy by which all positions revert to the Provost s office in
the event of a resignation, retirement, or transfer. The chair of the effected department must work
with the Dean to request that the department be allowed to fill the vacancy. With the development of
the focus areas in the University the chair and Dean must also work with these coordinating bodies
as well. This policy gives effective control of faculty and staff recruitment and development to the
Provost s office and substantially weakens the Dean s and chair s role in setting the agenda for the
college and developing its faculty and staff. It also has the unintended and very negative
consequence of retaining faculty and staff members who maybe marginal in the interest of
maintaining those positions in a given department.
Allocation of graduate assistants (GA) is typically done by the Vice Provost for Research, Graduate
Education, and Service under the direction of the Provost. Historically the state has funded graduate
assistantships to support the teaching missions of the various colleges and their departments.
Changes in the number of GAs allocated to a given college was normally based on the changing
educational missions and workloads in the programs. Recently this allocation process has been
altered to consider (inappropriately) the number of funded research assistantships generated by each
department and each college. The Vice Provost s office has specified the allocation of
assistantships to the departments and hence removed the Dean from the process of deciding how this
resource is to be used. This policy once again weakens the Dean s ability to manage the colleges
The Associate and Assistant Dean support the Dean in operating the college. The Associate Dean
has responsibility for coordinating building development and space utilization, oversight of the
computing facilities, directing education initiatives, and serving in the Dean s absence. The
Assistant Dean s principal duty is the area of student advising and support. He maintains the
records for each student, administers the scholarship program, implements the graduate tracking
program, operates the college s recruitment program and manages the International Engineering
Programs. The Dean receives part-time staff assistance from the University Capital campaign office
to assist in raising capital and endowment funds for the COE. Diversity and women s program are
directed by the Dean with the assistance of selected faculty in the college. Coordination and
development of off campus course and degree program offerings are performed on an ad-hoc basis
by selected department faculty and chairs. The support in the general outreach area for the college is
inadequate to meet the colleges needs. The areas of principal concern are recruitment and retention,
off campus education programs, funding raising and diversity and woman s programs.
The College of Engineering is organized along classical department lines with department heads
serving in three-year rotating terms. Each department is allocated secretarial and support staff in
approximate relationship to the size of the student body and the faculty. Funds are allocated to the
departments based on the budget established between the Dean and the Provost s office. These
budgets cover salaries and wages, operating, travel, and capital equipment. In addition the
departments receive 60% of the research overhead income received by the Dean from the
administration. The remaining 40% is kept by the Dean. Most departments in the college distribute
half of the overhead received to the investigator who generated the income and use the remaining
amount to support department operation.
The faculty generally favor the existing departmental structure given it strong historic tradition, its
relatively efficient operation and its consistency with professional accreditation and organizations.
The principal problems with department operations are the lack of resources (operating, travel, and
capital) to support the fundamental educational mission of the college. Overhead funds are used to
partially make up the shortfall.
One of the primary roles of the college is to provide an education to students that prepares them for a
variety of career opportunities including working in their professional fields, teaching and research.
Information was sought by the committee from selected faculty members, members of external
advisory committees for the departments and college, alumni, and the results of exit interview with
students completing their degree program. While much of the data is anecdotal in nature the general
consensus was that the educational programs in the college were doing a good job in preparing our
students for the job market. Our students are able to compete well in the market and generally feel
that they have obtained a good quality education. Employers of our graduates provide a similar
assessment of the educational programs the college offers.
Summary of Findings
Based on the assessment given above the committee developed the following findings:
* COE offers reasonable/good quality undergraduate and graduate degree programs that are
competitive with many of our peer (New England) institutions but in most cases are not highly
ranked nationally. URI is ranked in the third tier of national universities ( US News and World
* Students are able to find good employment opportunities and do well in their work.
* COE student (undergraduates and graduates) to faculty ratio is currently (15.8) at about its
historical average (15.1, 91-97) and reasonable for the programs offered and level of research
* Research income per FTE per year for the COE (FY 91-95, average $72,000) is competitive with
peer institutions in New England and those nearby (range $39,000- $100,000) but is significantly
below the standard for well developed, mature research institutions ($150,000 to 200,000).
* The distribution of resources (faculty positions, GAs, staff positions) across the departments is in
very good balance with total student enrollment but substantially out of balance with research
* Research (research plus URI Foundation) income per FTE is highly variable between
departments ($30,000 - $100,000) and varies substantially from year to year.
* About 1/3 of the faculty are active researchers, 1/3 intermittent researchers, and 1/3 do very little
or no research.
* The average faculty in COE teaches 6 credits per semester with the remaining 3 credits attributed
to research, service, or administration. In general the more research/service the less teaching.
The variation within departments and across COE is wide but few just teach or do research.
* COE has a generally poor/modest record in the area of economic development via creation of
companies, spins off, etc.
* The program contribution analysis (PCA) (used as a management tool by the administration)
provides a good measure of service teaching but a poor measure for the income/expenses of
offering programs of study. It does not accurately reflect the contributions of research and
* The COE is under funded for the mission it serves and the size of the faculty and staff. Funding
for COE has remained almost constant ($6.3 M, within 5%) while salaries and wages have
increased at about 3-5% per year. Operating budgets have dramatically decreased ($550 K, 1991
to $120 K, 1997) and generally no funds made available for capital equipment and travel. The
shortfall is made up by research generated overhead.
* COE (Dean) has had excellent success in raising its endowment and generating funding through
the capital campaign. (e.g. DEPs, faculty awards, scholarships, building and room naming funds,
* It is perceived that standards for tenure and promotion are inconsistently applied within and
Based on the findings generated during the study, an assessment of the college performance in
key areas, and input from the faculty and staff, the COE2000 committee has developed a series
of recommendations. These are given below and organized by major topic area to facilitate
A. COE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION
* ADEQUATE BUDGET FOR COE OPERATIONS (OPERATING AND CAPITAL)
As noted above the budget currently allocated to the college is inadequate to deliver quality
educational programs given the current size of the student body served. While the budget for
personnel is reasonable the funds allocated for capital, travel, and operating are unacceptable. The
shortfall is currently being made up by the use of research overhead funds. It is recommended that
the Dean of the college request an increase of the budget by a minimum of 12 % in order to meet the
colleges most basic needs.
* INCREASED AUTONOMY FOR COE
The policy of having all faculty and staff positions revert to the Provost s office when a vacancy
occurs either through resignation or retirement substantially restricts the Dean s ability to plan and
implement mid and long term planning for faculty and staff development. It is recommended that the
Dean be allowed to control the allocation of faculty and staff positions within the constraints of the
budget provided by the University.
* REJECT SOLE USE OF PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS (PCA) AS EVALUATION
CRITERIA, CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES
The administration has instituted a program contribution analysis (PCA) as a management tool to
assess the cost of offering various degree programs at the University. The PCA has become
institutionalized since its introduction in 1995 and serves as one metric to evaluate programs. The
methodology used in the PCA, while giving insight into the cost of offering programs, is poorly
suited to evaluate the COE and other professional programs given its strong bias in favor of
programs/departments with significant service teaching commitments. In addition, it gives no real
measure of the educational or economic impact of research programs. It furthermore provides no
sense as to the quality of the programs.
It is recommended that the college reject the sole or predominant use of the PCA to evaluate or
manage the offering of degree programs. Attempts to improve the colleges performance using this
metric will often have the unintended consequence of decreasing the quality of program offerings
and misdirecting resources. Modifications of the PCA to address its weaknesses or alternate
methods of evaluation should be sought by the administration.
B. RESEARCH OPERATIONS
* EXTRA FACULTY COMPENSATION, RESEARCH FUNDED
Faculty salaries and benefits are negotiated every 2 to 3 years between the Administration and the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Salary increases over the last several
cycles have consisted of adjustments for inflation and for changes in rank or years in rank. There
have been no funds available for merit or performance increases. It appears that funds for merit
increases are unlikely to be part of the contract between the University and the AAUP in the near
future. Faculty summer salaries (normally funded by research funds) are currently pro-rated based on
the academic year salary and hence effectively limited by those salary levels. Given this situation
exceptional faculty or staff performance cannot currently be rewarded either through salary increases
or bonuses under the existing contract.
To provide a mechanism for additional compensation for faculty, it is recommended that faculty be
allowed to recontract for one additional month of their time during the academic year subject to
approval by the Dean. This additional time could be made available from the time that faculty
members are allowed for outside consulting ( Section XXII of the University-AAUP agreement).
The advantages of this approach are that it allows faculty members to obtain extra income, the funds
are provided by research grants, and hence, cost the University nothing ( in fact there would be a net
income to the University from the overhead funds), and the additional workload can be justified
within the context of the AAUP-University agreement.
* TARGET COE TOTAL RESEARCH $7 M/YR (CURRENT $4 M/YR)
The COE currently has research income on the order of $4 to 5 M per year. Given the commitment
of the University to achieve Carnegie Research I ranking and the desire to strengthen the COE
research enterprise it is recommended that the COE set a target of $7 M per year for research funding
within 5 years. This level of funding can be achieved by a renewed emphasis on the importance of
generating funded research, by making achievement of a healthy research program a requirement for
promotion and tenure, by establishing funded COE research centers, and by re-directing the efforts of
the faculty to increase the commitment to research.
* USE INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY FORMS TO RECOGNIZE TIME ALLOCATED TO
The current practice within the University is to allow time for research in five separate categories:
R1-externally funded research via release time, R2- research funded as match for externally funded
project, R3-support for URI funded research projects, R4- research initiation and development for
new faculty and R5- University supported research. These commitments are documented on
instructional activity forms filed each semester with the Dean and Provost s office. It is
recommended that the COE adopt a policy that faculty members be allocated one credit equivalent
unit for every $10 K of funded research generated, under category R3. This allocation is in
recognition of the work required to manage and maintain an active research program in the case
where no funds are available or allowed for release time in the research grant. This policy should not
apply to equipment grants and the like. If a faculty member received approximately $180 K per year
he would be released from teaching and service commitments. This level of release is consistent
with that employed in other programs at the University where faculty have substantial commitments
* ESTABLISH COE RESEARCH CENTERS
Research income to the COE is predominantly through a number of multi-investigator, multi-year
projects typically funded by one agency (normally a government or state agency). With the
exception of the URI PartnershipThin Film Research Center COE currently has few mutli-
disciplinary centers that attract significant external funding. The current individual investigator
model, implicit in the current COE research operations, limits research income given the workload of
faculty who presently do or are likely to do research and the number of faculty who make no
contributions to the research program. A study of research programs both at URI and its peer
institutions shows that in order to take the next step in the development of research funding the COE
must strengthen existing research centers and foster the development of additional centers. These
centers allow concentration of resources in selected areas of expertise and for the resulting center to
effectively compete for large grants and contracts. To achieve increased research funding for the
college, it is therefore recommended that the COE initiate the development of additional research
A brief overview of how the centers might be selected and funded is given below. It is beyond the
scope of this report to provide details. The recently implemented University partnership program
provides one role model for the formation and operation of the COE centers.
The COE centers should be selected based on an open, competitive proposals submitted by the
faculty (in conjunction with other URI non-engineering faculty, external faculty, industry partners,
and others). Each proposal must show convincing evidence of the ability of the center to address
important engineering problems and its projected research activities and funding. Each center should
have educational and economic development components. The COE should allocate 1.5 to 2 FTE to
direct the operation and work of the successful center proposals. The COE should also allocate 50%
of the overhead returned to the college from the centers operation to the center. This would provide
a basis of support for the centers routine operational expenses. Center proposals would be submitted
for a 3-year period (renewable), with annual reviews to assess performance and progress in the
center s development. The center director would be eligible to receive a salary supplement for his
role in directing the center.
* ESTABLISH ANNUAL RESEARCH AWARDS FUNDED THROUGH FOUNDATION
The COE has a number of awards that recognize faculty and staff contributions to the teaching,
research, and service mission of the University. Some of the awards are for general excellence in
engineering and can be awarded to any faculty member while several are restricted to a given
department at the request of the donor whose endowment supports the award. The awards typically
include several thousand dollars and an engraved plaque. Currently there are no awards that are
given solely for performance in research.
It is recommended that the COE establish one or more college faculty research awards that would
recognize extraordinary performance in research. The endowment funded award(s), with a monetary
value of $5 to 10 K, would be awarded annually at graduation.
* CONTINUE DISTINGUISHED ENGINEERING PROFESSOR AND NAMED CHAIRS
The Dean of COE, as an interim step in developing endowed chairs in Engineering, has obtained
funds from external donors to support six Distinguished Engineering Professorships in Engineering.
One has been selected by an external review committee from each department in the college as the
result of an open competition among the faculty. The DEPs provide the selected faculty with
significant funds that can be used to support their research and educational activities. The Dean has
aggressively and successfully pursued funding for three (Kirk and V. J. Bax Chairs in Chemical
Engineering and the Ostrach Chair in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics) endowed
chairs within the college. The committee applauds the Dean s success in this area and encourages
him to continue to seek funds to increase both the number of DEPs and named chairs.
C. FACULTY TENURE AND PROMOTION
* ESTABLISH COE PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW BOARD
There is a perception among many of the college faculty that the standards for promotion and tenure
within the COE are not uniformly and consistently applied either in time or among faculty from
various departments. Given the critical role that the quality of the faculty play in the education and
research programs in the COE and the University it is important that the review process for
promotion and tenure be strengthened. It is also critical to assure that the level of review and
standards used to evaluate applicants are consistently applied across all departments within the
With this goal in mind, it is recommended that the COE establish a review board to evaluate all
applications for promotion and tenure. The review board would be comprised of six individuals with
rotating three-year membership and include three senior-level COE faculty, one non-Engineering
URI faculty member, one external (outside the University) faculty member and one professional
from private industry. The board would review all applications for promotion and tenure and make
written recommendations accordingly. The Board s review would be advisory in nature and
provided to the Department chairs as part of the normal external peer evaluation component of the
promotion and tenure process.
D. UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE EDUCATION
The COE has recently gone through a comprehensive review and evaluation of its undergraduate and
graduate degree programs. The primary result of that process was to reduce the number of credit
hours in the undergraduate programs and to develop a common freshman year for all engineering
students. In the graduate area the principal changes were to alter the MS degree requirements,
particularly in the thesis research area. The recommendations of the committee are therefore
restricted to several individual issues where improvements or advancements can be made. These are
* ENCOURAGE EXPERIMENTATION IN OFFERING PROGRAMS
The basic undergraduate degree programs in COE have generally been quite traditional and changed
relatively slowly (except in number of credit hours required) over the past decade. The most
substantial development in program offerings has been the development and implementation of the
International Engineering Program (IEP) in German. This dual degree program, through excellent
leadership and hard work, has won an ABET award for the college and attracts very good-quality
students. It has spawned a similar program in French. The University also recently received a grant
to develop a Spanish IEP. These innovative programs provide exciting educational opportunities for
the students and help to recruit the very best students to the University.
It is recommended that the COE more vigorously pursue experiments to improve methods and
procedures to offer its degree programs and more actively participate in government (NSF)
sponsored programs to improve undergraduate education.
* TARGET UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS AT 120 CREDITS
* REDUCTION IN GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS ( 3-6 CREDITS)
The COE has made a concerted effort to reduce the number of credit hours necessary to obtain an
undergraduate degree without compromising the quality and breadth and depth of engineering
education. Within the last several years credit requirements have decreased from approximately 134
to 126. It is recommended that the number of credit hours be reduced further to make the credit
hours required by engineering students consistent with those of other students at the University (120
credit hours). Some of this reduction could come from reducing general education requirements and
the remainder from tightening of program offerings. It is noted that general education requirements
required by the University for COE undergraduate degree programs currently exceeds those required
by ABET. This initiative should be led by the COE undergraduate curricular affairs committee.
* OFFER TECHNOLOGY BASED GENERAL EDUCATION SCIENCE COURSES
The COE currently does not offer any courses that can be taken by other students in the University to
fulfill general education science requirements. This is particularly startling given the role that
technology currently plays in society and its probable increasing presence and importance in the
future. Efforts in this direction have been initiated but need to be accelerated. It is recommended
that the COE Undergraduate Curricular Affairs Committee work with the Associate Dean to develop
one or several courses focused on technology and society and submit these for approval through the
* CONSIDER DEGREE PROGRAM IN TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
In discussions with representatives from the College of Business they expressed interest in the
possibility of developing a joint undergraduate degree with Engineering in Technology Management.
The Departments of Civil and Environmental and Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering might
logically take the lead in representing the college in this potential program. It is recommended that
the Deans of the two colleges establish a working group to pursue this potential degree program.
The working group needs to assess the market for such a program and the ability of the University to
offer a quality program.
* INCREASE USE OF EGR COURSES (UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE)
The historic evolution of course offerings in the college has been primarily along departmental lines,
even in the case where these courses are required of all engineering students and provide a common
background in engineering. These foundation courses are also taught by faculty from the department
of origin of the course. The college has recently experimented with and implemented college wide
EGR courses (EGR 105 and 106) in support of the common freshman year initiative. These EGR
courses have employed faculty members from all departments. Based on student evaluations and
assessments by the teaching faculty they have generally been judged quite successful. Given this
success it is recommended that the COE Undergraduate Curricular Affairs committee move forward
with the conversion of other common engineering courses. These might include strength of
materials, statics, dynamics, passive and active circuits and others.
* INSTITUTE GRADUATE CENTENNIAL SCHOLARS PROGRAM
Within the last several years, the University has instituted a Centennial Scholars program. In this
program, the most promising undergraduate students (in and out of state) are offered scholarships to
help support their educational expenses. For the 1998-99 academic year the University awarded 552
scholarships with 76 of those in Engineering. Funds for the program are included in the University
budget. The scholarships range in size from $1,000 to the full cost of tuition. The scholarships are
renewable based on the student s academic performance. This program has been very successful in
attracting top quality students to the University and to the college. As an example, the combined
SAT scores for the 1998-99 Centennial Scholars in Engineering is 1274 compared to an average of
1200 for the remaining students. Engineering has done very well in recruiting these Centennial
scholars. No such program exists at the graduate level at the University.
Given the success of the undergraduate Centennial Scholars program, it is recommended that the
Dean work with office of the Vice Provost for Research, Graduate Education, and Service to develop
a similar program for graduate students. The Univeristy would fund the program by discounting
graduate tuition. This program would improve the Universities ability to attract top-quality graduate
students and reduce the sole reliance on teaching and research assistantships to support graduate
students. As with the recent University experiment in reduction of costs of summer school fees, the
loss in revenue from discounting graduate tuitions will likely be made up by increased enrollments.
Even in the case that the program breaks even the quality of the graduate students will be improved.
* IN STATE TUITION FOR RESEARCH SUPPORTED GRADUATE STUDENTS
The Vice Provost for Research, Graduate Education, and Service has been leading an initiative to
have the Board of Governors approve research supported students to pay in state tuition. This
proposal will reduce the cost to a research grant to hire a student. This in turn will allow researchers
to fund additional students on their grants. As with the proposed graduate Centennial scholars
program above, the loss in tuition revenue should be compensated by additional numbers of students
who enroll in the graduate programs and pay a portion of their tuition costs out of non grant funds.
It is recommended that the Dean actively support the Vice Provost for Research, Graduate
Education, and Service in this initiative.
* CONSOLIDATION AND REDUCTION IN GRADUATE COURSE OFFERINGS
The course offerings at the graduate level are quite board and usually offered by one department with
limited joint offerings. In several areas the courses offered in various departments have a similar
fundamental focus but a different emphasis. Given the low enrollment in most graduate courses and
the desire to reduce the cost of offering these programs the COE has periodically discussed and
evaluated reductions in course offerings. These evaluations however have resulted in little real
change given the often times vested interests of the department and faculty offering the courses.
It is recommended that the COE Graduate Curricular Affairs committee perform an in-depth review
of the graduate course offerings and develop and implement a plan to reduce the number and
increase the enrollment in the courses. Where possible, courses that are similar should be
consolidated. Consolidation of offerings should at the minimum be considered in fluid mechanics,
thermodynamics, materials, structural dynamics, acoustics, and data processing and analysis.
* PROMOTE 1 YR MBA PROGRAM
The College Business Administration has instituted a one-year MBA program for on-campus
students. The program has been designed so that undergraduate engineering students could obtain a
BS and MBA in 5 years. Unfortunately few engineering students take advantage of this opportunity.
This program represents an excellent opportunity for engineers to prepare themselves for careers in
private industry. The Interim Dean of the College of Business Administration has listed this as one
of his priorities for strengthening the interaction between College of Business Administration and
It is recommended that the Dean s office and the faculty advising undergraduate students promote
this MBA program to those student who would benefit from participation.
* DEVELOP INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COURSES (BUSINESS, IME, ELE)
A review of the course offerings in Business ( Management Science and Information Systems),
Computer Science and Experimental Statistics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Industrial
and Manufacturing Engineering show that there are a wealth of courses available in the general area
of information technology. There is correspondingly a large demand for professionals in this area.
As an example, the number of available positions in computer science and engineering far exceeds
the number of graduates produced from our degree programs in the last several years. While
informal conversations have been held between some members of these departments on how to
better coordinate their activities there has not been a careful review of the courses and programs
offered nor an assessment of the needs of the job market.
It is recommended that the department of Electrical and Computer Engineering take the lead and
work with representatives of IME, Management Science and Information Systems, and Computer
Science and Experimental Statistics, and the Vice Provost for Information Services to review the
course and program offerings in information technology and develop a coordinated plan to
strengthen the University programs in this area. The review should consider the need for on- and
off-campus course offerings and degree programs as well as potential areas of research.
E. SERVICE, DIVERSITY, AND OUTREACH
* INCREASE STAFF IN DEAN S OFFICE TO HANDLE COMMON TASKS:
ENROLLMENT AND RECRUITMENT, DIVERSITY, OFF CAMPUS
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, ALTERNATIVE LEARNING, PUBLICITY, FUND RAISING
As currently staffed, the COE is undermanned to provide a variety of important support functions for
the departments and the college. The areas of principal concern are in the general area of outreach
and include recruiting, diversity and minority affairs, off campus educational programs, publicity,
and fund raising. While the Associate and Assistant Dean try to cover as many of these areas as
possible, the work load is simply too large. Additional support in these areas is critical to the health
of the college and to maintaining and enhancing its competitive position.
It is recommended that the Dean add additional staff members to his office to direct the COE s
diversity and outreach activities.
* COE-BUSINESS KEYNOTE SEMINAR SERIES
The interactions between the College of Business Administration and COE in the Enterprise and
Advanced Technology focus area have been limited even though the President and Provost have
identified this as one of the four core focus areas for the University. To help increase the interaction
the Interim Dean of the College of Business has recommended that the two colleges offer a joint key-
note seminar program. In this program there would be one key-note seminar given each semester by
an individual with a distinguished career in both business and engineering. The program would be
widely publicized within the University and to the regional business community.
It is recommended that the Deans of the two colleges work cooperatively to institute this seminar
* ENCOURAGE BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY FACULTY AND
The COE has had very modest success in the area of business development, this in spite of the fact
that the COE has a fairly active research program and capable students. Most faculty businesses
formed to date appear to be used as vehicles for the faculty to provide consulting services. The Vice
Provost of Research, Graduate Education, and Service has recently taken a more active role in
fostering the development of intellectual property developed by the University. Incubator programs
and business development have received far less attention.
It is recommended that the COE encourage faculty, staff, and students to take an active role in
business and economic development. The COE should work with the College of Business
Administration and others to initiate an incubator program. Faculty members should be encouraged
to foster the development of businesses and economic opportunities. Contributions in these areas
should be recognized in promotion and tenure decisions.
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Throughout the committee s deliberations, discussions with various departments, and numerous
presentations to the College faculty there was great skepticism expressed about the usefulness of the
review and mid-range planning process. Most faculty felt that in order for any of the
recommendations to be implemented, they had to be very limited in number and many felt that none
of the more important recommendations would ever be implemented. Given this level of skepticism,
it is critical that a plan be established to accomplish those recommendations that are agreed to and
that the faculty be involved in their implementation. This process should start immediately.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Rhode Island Board of Governors,
College of Engineering (COE), 1993. Engineering at URI: A plan for the next decade, prepared by
the College of Engineering Planning Committee (R. Brown, P. Dewhurst, L, Jackson, E. McEwen,
A. Silva (chair), and F. White), February 1993.
University of Rhode Island (URI), 1998. Fact Book 1997-98, Office of Institutional Research,
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
University of Rhode Island (URI), 1997. Instructional report, Academic year 1996-97. Office of
Institutional Research, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
University of Rhode Island (URI), 1996. Instructional report, Academic year 1995-96. Office of
Institutional Research, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
University of Rhode Island (URI), 1995. Instructional report, Academic year 1994-95. Office of
Institutional Research, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
University of Rhode Island (URI), 1994. Instructional report, Academic year 1993-94. Office of
Institutional Research, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
University of Rhode Island (URI), 1993. Instructional report, Academic year 1993-92. Office of
Institutional Research, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
US News and World Report, 1998, America s Best Colleges, see www.usnews.com.
List of Acronyms
ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
AAUP American Association of University Professors
CEU Credit equivalent units
COE College of Engineering
COE2000 College of Engineering Mid Range Planning Committee
EAC Engineering Advisory Council
FTE Full time faculty equivalents
IEP International Engineering Program
PCA Program Contribution Analysis
URI University of Rhode Island
List of Tables
Table 1. General revenue budget by category for the COE from 1990-1991 to 1997-98.
Table 2. Number of faculty, undergraduate and graduate enrollment and student faculty ratio in
the COE from 1991- 1998.
Table 3. Overhead generation by departments in the COE from 1995 to 1997.
Table 4. Research and Foundation income, FTEs, and total research generated per FTE for the
COE from 1991 to 1997.
Table 5. Carniege classification, current faculty size, research expenditures per FTE and
amount of research federally financed for selected peer institutions of URI. Values
represent averages for 1991 to 1995 unless otherwise noted. (Source: I. Ebong, URI
Table 6. Number of faculty and support staff, undergraduate and graduate enrollment, graduate
assistants and research and foundation income for each department in the COE for the
1996-97 academic year.
Table 7. Allocation of faculty, staff, graduate assistantships, total enrollment, and research income
for each department in the COE for the 1996-97 academic year.
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Budget (General Revenue)
1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97
Personnel 5,600,969 5,506,879 5,776,618 6,021,191 6,116,376 5,954,908 6,170,812
Increase (3%) (3%) (0%) (5%) (5%) (0%) (3%)
Travel 26,132 17,694 16,035 -0- 12,100 -0- -0-
Capital 225,960 200,000 -0- -0- 200,000 -0- -0-
Operating 552,614 537,638 501,718 305,908 485,378 238,229 120,188
Total 6,405,675 6,262,211 6,294,371 6,327,099 6,613,854 6,193,137 6,193,137
* FY98 Budget as of 12/1/97
** Separately Budgeted (Provost Office)
COE ENROLLMENTS, FACULTY, AND STUDENT-FACULTY RATIO
Year Faculty Undergraduates* Graduates** Total Student/Faculty
B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Total
97-98 62 771 143 65 208 979 15.8
96-97 68.25 748 134 64 198 946 13.8
95-96 71 829 127 76 203 1023 14.4
94-95 73 819 145 82 227 1046 14.3
93-94 74 866 -- -- 275 1141 15.4
92-93 75 910 -- -- 321 1231 16.4
91-92 77 965 -- -- 266 1231 15.9
* Assistant Dean s Office, September summary.
** Engineering Workforce Commission Survey forms.
TOTAL UNIVERSITY OVERHEAD GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT BY YEAR
Department 1995 1996 1997
CHE $ 58,000 $ 98,000 $115,000
CVE 168,000 260,000 136,000
ELE 134,000 106,000 99,000
IME 33,000 27,000 15,000
MCE 79,000 127,000 118,000
OCE 102,000 117,000 152,000
DEAN * 210,000 180,000
COE TOTAL $574,000 $945,000 $815,000
Overhead to COE (37.5%) 215,250 354,375 305,625
Operating Budget (General Revenue) $485,378 $238,229 $222,840
* Not reported in PCA
COE TOTAL RESEARCH AND FOUNDATION INCOME PER FTE
Year Research Income
Research Office Foundation Total
96-97 3,879,647 664,700 4,544,347 68.25 $66,583
95-96 6,514,320* 525,007 7,039,327 71 $99,145
94-95 5,362,269** 1,171,933*** 6,534,202 73 $89,509
93-94 3,794,478 253,158 4,047,636 74 $54,697
92-93 4,316,707 381,087 4,697,794 75 $62,637
91-92 4,839,627 655,691 5,495,318 77 $71,368
(Avg with +) $62,765
* NUWC Student Services Contract - $2,795,336
** RI Environmental Education and Training Facility - $1,271,506
***Kirk Bldg. Fund - $770,750
+ Without large grants noted above
Attribution of Sea Grant Support
Regional Budgeted Engineering R&D Expenditures*
(Expenditure per Faculty per year x $1000)
University Carnegie Current Exp./Fac./Yr. Fed. Financed
Classification ** (96-97)
Mass/Amherst R1 109 92,346 46,906 (50.3%)
Rhode Island R2 72 72,481 41,564 (57.3%)
New Hampshire D2 49 75,882 35,600 (46.9%)
Connecticut R1 126 210,367 31,865 (15.1%)
Vermont R2 28 53,193 28,379 (53.4%)
Stonybrook R1 100 39,220 21, 926 (55.9%)
Maine D2 66 54,479 12,833 (23.5%)
* URI Research Office (I. Ebong)
** Carnegie Classification
RI - 50 doctorates/yr., $40M federal support per year
R2 - 50 doctorates/yr., $15.5 - 40M federal support per year
D1 - 40 doctorates/yr. in 5 disciplines
D2 - 20 doctorates/yr. in 3 disciplines
COE 1996-97 DEPARTMENT/UNIT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCE
AND ENROLLMENT AND RESEARCH INCOME
Faculty Support Staff Enrollment
Department FTE % Total Technical Sec/Fisca Total % Total Undergraduate Graduates
CHE 9 13 1.5 1 2.5 9 94 25
CVE 11 16 1 1 2 7 124 33
ELE 19 28 3 2 5 17 205 69
IME 5 7 1 1 2 7 42 13
MCE 15 22 1.5 2 3.5 12 172 37
OCE 7 10 2 1 3 10 63 21
DEAN 2 3 3 8 11 38 48 --
Totals 68 13 16 29 748 198
Enrollment GA Research Income
% % Research Foundation Total %
Total Total Number Total Office Total
CHE 119 12 4 13 853,446 92,253 945,699 21
CVE 157 17 5 16 505,962 8,000 513,962 11
ELE 274 29 9 29 361,717 62,789 424,506 9
IME 55 6 3 10 74,976 111,950 186,926 4
MCE 209 22 6 19 421,768 122,883 544,651 12
OCE 84 9 3 10 729,372 1,200 730,572 16
DEAN 48 5 1 3 932,407* 265,625 1,198,032 26
Totals 946 31 3,879,647 664,700 4,544,348
*NUWC Student Services Program - $891,407
COE 1996-97 DEPARTMENT/UNIT RESOURCE ALLOCATION
AND ENROLLMENT AND RESEARCH INCOME
F S G T E R I
A T A O N E N
C A T R S C
U F A O E O
L F L L A M
T L R E
Y M C
CHE 13 9 13 12 21 (28)*
CVE 16 7 16 17 11 (15)
ELE 29 17 29 29 9 (13)
IME 7 7 10 6 4 (6)
MCE 22 12 19 22 12 (16)
OCE 10 10 10 9 16 (22)
DEAN 3 38 3 5 27
* REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT DEAN S OFFICE CONTRIBUTION