ProcessThe program was designed to select cohorts of 20-25 each year to reach a capacity of 80-100students between the two institutions. While it would have been unrealistic to expect 100 percentof the students to complete the program, there were some surprises regarding the expectation thatcohorts would transfer in a systematic fashion.As the second year of the program began, instead of 20 students from the first admission grouptransferring, only 14 students (8 from the first admission group in Fall 2006, 6 from the secondadmission group in Spring 2007) transferred to the University of Maryland and 7 students (6from the first admission group, 1 from the second admission group) left the program. The
developed, and students are becominginvolved in the process. Michigan Tech now has one of the highest percentages of undergraduatestudents named on invention disclosures in the nation. Also, many local inventors areapproaching the SmartZone and Michigan Tech for advice and assistance in starting anddeveloping businesses.1. Context: Historical Background and LocationMichigan Tech is an emerging research institution with over two-thirds of approximately 5,800undergraduates majoring in science and engineering. It produces 40 to 50 engineering andscience Ph.D.s per year from approximately 900 graduate students enrolled in MS and PhDprograms. As shown in the map on the next page, it is located 420 miles north of Chicago inMichigan’s Upper Peninsula near
are two individualadventures and two team adventures during the first eight weeks. The course schedule is shownin Table 1.The 3-hour sessions and Adventures are described briefly below.Electrical and Computer Engineering Fundamentals: This is an optional session held duringthe first week of class that reviews fundamental concepts including voltage, current, resistance,Ohm’s law, analog (AC/DC) signals, digital signals, concept of ground, sensors and transducers,parts of a personal computer, number systems (decimal, binary, hex, and converting betweenthem using Windows calculator) and familiarization with various lab equipment including digitalmultimeters (DMMs), power supplies, function generators, and oscilloscopes. This session iscritical
survey was administered. Acomparison of the pre and post-course surveys yields a shift in perceptions.Six methods of creative problem solving were explored by the students. The methods, whichvary in number of steps from four to eight, were compared and broken into five general steps. Atthe conclusion of the course, the students analyzed the effectiveness of the course.1. IntroductionHistorically, entrepreneurship at Lawrence Technological University (LTU) arose from twoseparate programs – one in the College of Engineering and the other in the College of Arts andSciences. In the College of Engineering, it was recognized that graduates play many roles inindustry, all of which require business and entrepreneurial skills. In response to this
& D andcommercialization projects.Nanotechnology OverviewThe term “nonotechnology” covers processes associated with the creation and utilization ofstructures in the 1 nanometer (nm) to 100 nm range. Nanofabrication involves engineeringat the atomic length scale. Engineering at this scale makes it feasible to create, atom byatom, fibers which are very small in diameter but extremely strong. In the health caredomain, extremely minute probes can detect disease by examining individual strands ofDNA. Nanofabrication makes it possible to manufacture capillary systems for providingnutrients to man-made replacement organs.The nanofabrication process has been used for creation of new chemical and biological
. (The list of respondents is at the end of the paper).These responses and the more informal discussions that preceded the survey and arecontinuing indicate that there is a wide range of interesting activities to promoteentrepreneurship at many schools. In fact the range is wide enough that drawing preciseinferences from such a heterogeneous sample of a small size may be premature.However, the data and its collection are adequate for some qualitative conclusions inwhich there can be confidence.Questions for email survey 1. What statement best describes the way your entrepreneurship center wasestablished?24% A gift or potential gift caused school administrators to organize an effort toestablish the center. 29% A multidisciplinary group saw
plan. Themessage to students is that all their ideas are worthy of converting into detailed operatingdocuments. They are not. These ideas must be screened and assessed. The entrepreneur’s time,after all, is the most precious resource of all. There is no sense wasting it on an idea that has nochance of being economically successful. The good news is that there is increasing attentionbeing paid to—determining the feasibility of the business. More and more institutions arebeginning to look at teaching methodologies to assess the feasibility of a proposed new business.Our courses take the steps necessary to show students how to create entrepreneurial ventureswith significant business potentials (Figure 1). Further discussion of the phases laid out
: Growing the business; • Phase VI: Exiting your business -- from succession planning to IPOs.Our current emphasis in the joint curriculum development is to focus on the early phases, wherethe complementary skills of both the engineers and the business students are crucial. In Phase I,for example, opportunity identification takes two forms: 1. Finding an optimal marketopportunity for a given technology and 2. Identifying an emerging market opportunity anddetermining what technology may be necessary to exploit it. Two new courses have been createdand taught to focus on each of these issues: Driving the Innovation Process, and EntrepreneurialBusiness Fundamentals for Scientists and Engineers. These courses complement previouslyexisting
entrepreneurship, so that at the end of their formalstudies, the students will become “Innovation Ambassadors” who think and lead innovatively. Several different related courses, workshops, approaches and programs have been developed,implemented and assessed over the past years at FAU. Among these are: Page 13.750.3 1. “Eight-Dimensional (8D) Methodology for Innovative Problem Solving.” (Raviv 2002a) It is asystematic and unified approach that stimulates innovation by effectively using “both sides” of thebrain. It builds on comprehensive problem solving knowledge gathered from industry, business,marketing, math, science, engineering, technology
CEOs Program is based on measuring short-and long-term outcomes with program activities and the theoretical principles of the program.The funding and assets of the Hinman CEOs Program support experiential education to includethe living, learning, and launching activities. These activities align with the teaching outcomessuggested by the National Content Standards for Entrepreneurship Education14.As illustrated in Figure 1, our performance measurement system is based on a four-dimensionalevaluation model. Assessment of all four areas ensures that the Program employs a holisticapproach to entrepreneurial education progress through both short-term measures(entrepreneurial mindset and functional skill sets) as well as long-term measures of new
video clips of an interview with thesubject entrepreneur plus engaging dialog with the students. Hence a paper format renders thepresentation comparatively dry and uninspiring. The authors will gladly make available thePowerPoint slides used in presentation of the cases, supplemental materials, and the video clipsavailable for any other instructors wishing to adopt the cases.Case 1: Jonathan Smith and Wave Dispersion TechnologiesJonathan Smith Case: Background MaterialJonathan Smith and his father, Dennis, motivated by the need for erosion protection for anoceanfront condominium development in New Jersey embarked on what would become WaveDispersion Technologies (WDT). Their erosion prevention product is a modular and highlyengineered marine
environment for the development ofnew products based around faculty research and student ideas. One of the major goals of theIMPaCT program is to create an entrepreneurial environment for students and faculty thatpromotes the development of high-tech startup companies in the region.The IMPaCT program essentially began during the Fall 2004 and subsequently received twoyears of NSF funding (NSF-0536482). IMPaCT began as an adaptation of Purdue’s EPICS(Engineering Projects in Community Service) program. EPICS was initiated in the fall of 1995with NSF funding and has been hugely successful.1 The IMPaCT program provides opportunitiesfor students from all over campus to work together to solve problems. Students can elect to
problem toproduct-focused environment. The experiences described in this paper will be particularlyinteresting to those looking to develop similar learning experiences for their students.The machine the team built completed a task of individually shredding 5 sheets of 8 1/2" x 11”20 lb paper into strips using a shredder over 215 steps. This paper will elucidate a successfuldesign process including task determination, theme selection, module brainstorming, storyboardcreation, and machine building. Artifacts of the process will be described, including an exampleof a module design where reliability became a problem that required multiple design iterations tothoroughly solve. Finally, a discussion of storyboarding as a way to promote creativity
this might be so, consider the Herrmann Whole BrainModel3 shown below. Page 13.1189.3 a. First Year Students b. Senior Engineering Students Figure 1. HBDI Thinking Preference Profiles for Engineering StudentsFirst Year students, even engineering students, are typically all over the map in terms of learningstyles or thinking preference profiles (Fig. 1.a.). However the average thinking preference curvefor engineering students tends to be significantly more concentrated in the engineering or rationalself of the whole brain model (Fig. 1.b.). While much of the engineering work requirescoordination (green), systems design and
current companies or stimulates new start-up ventures in the localregion. Figure 1 contains a conceptual diagram of the Engineering EntrepreneurshipEducational Experience (E4) model that begins with the generation of ideas for use by thestudent teams and continues in a self-sustaining manner through licensing and/orincubation of new technology innovation companies. To date, oneproject has culminated in the development of a working prototype that was then licensedby the Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC) to a new venture forcommercialization. Royalties from sales of this new product will be paid to Texas A&M,a portion of which will go to the three former students that are listed as inventors of theintellectual property.With each
of GVSU required the formulation of a formal intellectualproperty policy. A committee of faculty and administrators established the policy 20041. One of the guidingprinciples of the policy was the idea that the discoveries made at the university should pushed into the marketto benefit the local economy. The salient points of the policy are summarized below. 1. The university may license or assign intellectual property to external entities for further development and commercialization in exchange for a return on resulting revenues. The university and creator (inventor) shall divide the return on resulting revenues using one of the two formulas as follows: 2. The University and the creator divide the gross revenue 70% to the
, represents a new and uniqueentrepreneurial approach to improving undergraduate education in the U.S.This paper shows how building an entrepreneurial ecosystem within and among engineeringschools, as exemplified by KEEN, will provide a strong foundation for graduating engineersentering organizations operating in an innovation-based economy. Ecosystems can be definedas environments with interconnected relationships influenced by a variety of factors. Anentrepreneurial ecosystem links people by vision, commitment, passion, and innovationsurrounding the achievement of a common goal.The paper has five objectives: (1) establish the need for an innovative and entrepreneurial talentpool coming out of U.S. engineering schools; (2) identify critical skills