Session R3F
Expanding the Boundaries of Design of Products and Processes for Solutions to Problems in the Developing World Angela S. Lindner1, R. Keith Stanfill2, Mark Hodges 3, and Anil Rajvanshi4 Abstract – While traditional engineering education fosters training of students in the design of products and processes that target the one billion “rich” citizens of this planet, the five billion “poor” who also lack proper sanitation, clean water, and countless other luxuries are virtually ignored. As the gap between the rich and the poor in this world increases and as engineering becomes increasingly global, universities in the developed world can no longer deny their role in raising awareness in future engineers of the problems of the developing world, in preparing them to use their skills to benefit all of this planet’s citizens, and of the possible far-reaching consequences of not doing so. This paper addresses the mechanism and the unique challenges and benefits of an initiative in its early stages at the University of Florida to incorporate design projects with direct relevance to the problems of the developing world into its existing Integrated Process and Product Design two-semester course series. Index Terms – Bioreactor design, Capstone Engineering for the developing world, Sustainability
design,
INTRODUCTION Engineering education in the United States has traditionally focused on “training” the student in preparation for engineering jobs within its own borders. Most United States engineering education institutions have been accused of extreme conservatism in their curriculum, with a compounding effect of over-specification and overprescription of education requirements [1]. As described in a recent National Academy of Engineering report [2], engineering programs in the United States teach “more and more about less and less,” with an unwillingness to embrace curricular changes that will provide broader relevance to engineering education. The face of engineering in the United States has rapidly changed in the past decade, mirroring changes in its increasingly global economy that are, in turn, triggered by an unfettered ability to communicate worldwide via the Internet and advanced telecommunications networks [2]. As a result,
many American businesses find less expensive design and manufacturing options in developing countries, such as China and India, with readily available skilled engineers who are willing and capable of working at significantly lower wages than earned in the developed world. Global teams composed of researchers from all over the world are becoming more prevalent and are bridging cultures, knowledge, and economies [2]. This reality of the new global focus of American engineering is accompanied by an increased awareness of the conditions outside of our “developed” world. Currently, 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity [1, 3, 4]. Three billion people live on less than $2 per day; 1.2 billion people cannot access clean drinking water, resulting in 4 billion cases of diarrhea and 2.2 million otherwise avoidable deaths each year; 2.1 billion people do not have sanitation services available to them; and approximately 2-3 billion people are threatened by malaria, with 1 million dying of this disease yearly [5, 6, 7]. Eleven million children less than 5 years old die needlessly each year, many as a result of diarrheal disease and dehydration caused by contaminated drinking water, and 3 million of these are newborns whose mothers did not have access to transportation to a health clinic (or their community lacked a health clinic altogether) [8]. Nearly 1.2 billion people lack adequate housing, and 1.8 billion live in zones in direct conflict, in transition, or with permanent instability. Over 4 billion people are illiterate in this world, with 130 million being aged 15-24 years old, mostly females [9]. Projections of the condition of the world by 2050 include 8 of the 9 billion people in the world living in developing communities, English not being the most popular language, the location of most industrial headquarters not located in the United States, and economic growth inextricably linked to females working in all professions [1]. With the increasingly global focus of engineering, United States engineering education institutions can no longer ignore the necessity of heightening awareness in its students that the problems faced by the currently 5 billion people living in developing communities are just as worthwhile, or even more worthwhile, to solve as those problems of the 1 billion people living in developed communities. In fact, several institutions
1
Angela S. Lindner, Associate Professor, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,
[email protected] R. Keith Stanfill, Director, Integrated Product and Process Design, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,
[email protected] 3 Mark Hodges, Environmental Engineering Consultant, Gainesville, FL,
[email protected] 4 Anil Rajvanshi, Director, Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI), Phaltan, Maharashtra State, India,
[email protected] 2
San Juan, PR
July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education R3F-11
Session R3F in the United States have managed to do just this. A recent article in the American Society for Engineering Education’s publication, the Prism [10], describes various globally focused engineering initiatives that have been adopted by universities around the United States in an attempt to provide “course adjustment” to the current traditional engineering focus. The University of Colorado has developed an entire undergraduate program of study, entitled “Engineering for Developing Communities.” Co-founded by Dr. Bernard Amadei, founder of Engineers Without Borders-USA, this program provides the opportunity for students to obtain hands-on learning where they can apply their skills using appropriate solutions to solve problems faced by developing communities worldwide [11]. This program is unique among American universities because it is supported by a larger College of Engineering program, entitled “Earth Systems Engineering Initiative,” which sponsors active learning opportunities for students. While the University of Colorado has a history of supporting global programs through its proximity to Engineers Without Borders, most academic programs in the U.S. that desire to become active in these global activities do not have the luxury of such a resource base. In the short term, before these institutions can support sustainable programs that focus on problems in the developing world, finding the means to interject global focus of engineering design into the existing curriculum and demonstrating the sometimes unexpected or unintended causes and effects of not addressing global issues are essential. This paper presents a first-basis approach for developing an international focus to the engineering design curriculum at the University of Florida (UF). The mechanism for launching this effort is an established, two-semester program, entitled “Integrated Product and Process Design (IPPD).” In its eleventh year of existence, IPPD has successfully completed over 250 traditional, industry-focused projects using multidisciplinary teams of undergraduate students under the guidance of faculty coaches and industrial liaison engineers to design and build authentic industrial products for sponsoring companies [12-18]. The development methodology utilized in the IPPD program is a top-down framework focused on progressively transforming customer needs and expectations into technology-based product, process and software deliverables delivered on time and within budget. Proposed here is incorporation of a project in the IPPD program at UF involving the design of a high-efficiency bioreactor system for end-use at individually owned agricultural sites in India. The general framework of the IPPD program is proposed to conduct this year-long design project, namely, requiring two trips, one for assessment and the other for implementation, to the host site during the design phase, sponsors for funding support, and a mentoring team of faculty and professional experts. In addition, a close collaboration with a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), the Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI), in Phaltan, Maharashtra State, India will be established to ensure direct applicability of the design to the targeted rural communities. By including such a project into the mainstream design curriculum, additional tangible and intangible benefits are
anticipated for all participants, including a broadened perspective of the value of their engineering skills, a heightened sensitivity to other cultures, and an increased awareness of the importance of including environmental and public health criteria at the design stage. A report of the proposed bioreactor team design approach in the IPPD structure and a discussion on the usefulness of this model for incorporation of other types of design projects related to problems of the developing world are presented herein. APPROACH I. Biogas Reactor Design Biogas production and use are by no means new to India, starting over 100 years ago and with major programs undertaken during the 1930s. The legendary “Gobargas” (gobar is Hindi for animal dung) biogasifiers are ubiquitous. In recent times there has been resurgence in development and dissemination of gasification technology, for example, irrigation pumping and village electrification, to meet a variety of rural energy needs [19]. In 1999, it was estimated that there was potential for installation of well over 12 million familyscale biogas plants, but, as of that date, only 2.9 million had been installed [20]. Various reasons exist for the lag in development of these systems, including high costs, unoptimized yields because of a lack of understanding of the microbiological processes, and inability to use a variety of agricultural feedstocks, most of which can be productively addressed by engineering design and process improvements. This project will focus on design and operational improvements of biogas reactors that will directly address the current weaknesses in the technology, regarding agricultural applications in India and analogous operating environments. Specific design constraints of the biogas reactor design, intended for use in agricultural applications in rural India, will include 1) efficiency high enough to produce sufficient methane to power a 100 kW diesel engine, 2) ability to accept feedstocks of agricultural residues from Indian farms that are typically high in lignocellulosic material (for example, sugarcane leaves, safflower stalks, wheat husk, etc.) and potentially high in silica content, 3) a short retention time, and 4) immunity to temperature fluctuations. Additional elements included in the design phase will be potential methods of separating the methane gas from other gas byproducts and the diversified use of the reactor slurry for value-added products. II. Integration into IPPD Infrastructure Project Recruitment Traditional, U.S.-based IPPD projects are recruited from companies and agencies that have a specific design problem to solve. The IPPD director obtains a verbal project commitment from an executive or senior manager (for instance, the vice president of engineering) of the sponsoring entity. This commitment initiates a search for appropriate projects, and the sponsor forwards a number of these project ideas for review.
San Juan, PR
July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education R3F-12
Session R3F Faculty with subject matter expertise in some aspect of the project review the ideas select a few for further refinement. A manager or engineers at the sponsor site will write up project summary sheets, and these summaries will be reviewed by the IPPD director and selected faculty for down select. The IPPD director finds a faculty member to serve as the project coach. The coach works with a project liaison engineer at the sponsor site to refine the project definition and agree upon appropriate student disciplines to staff the project. The IPPD director sends the sponsor an agreement letter and invoice for the project. Projects related to the developing world as proposed here will be identified and selected through a process that may involve an NGO in the host country or by submitting a proposal to Engineers Without Borders-USA (EWB-USA), a non-profit organization that serves as a hub of projects for student and professional chapters located throughout the U.S. In either approach, a project is identified by a host-country liaison, thus ensuring the relevance of the project to the community. The pilot implementation of the developing world project into the IPPD program at UF will involve an agreement with NARI, whose director will serve as the liaison engineer, on the project goals, deliverables, intellectual property agreement, and estimated budget, and, once in place, both institutions will collaborate to obtain funding support for the project. Unlike the traditional IPPD projects where the industrial contact is the sponsor of the project, these developing world projects would require external sources of funding. Possible project sponsors, including federal and nonfederal funding agencies, industry, etc., will be approached as potential supporters for the project. Student Recruitment Under the existing structure of IPPD, as projects are defined and agreed upon, student numbers by discipline are aggregated and, in turn, accepted from applicant pools within each academic discipline. The applicant pools are assembled from qualified undergraduate students in their last year of study. When the 25 to 30 projects launch in late August, 150 or more students, representing all the disciplines required to complete all the projects are assembled to learn about the projects and select which projects they wish to work on. Concerning the projects centered in the developing world, the student recruitment pool can be expanded to include senior-level undergraduate students who are affiliated with the EWB-UF student chapter. This will ensure that students chosen for the project have a desire to commit to projects of this nature. In the current and proposed IPPD projects, the faculty “coaches” work together to staff each team based upon student preference and project needs. Project Management Students in the existing IPPD program attend a common lecture series to learn the IPPD process (a top-down development process based upon industry best practices). The
team meets at least weekly with their coach to work on upcoming deliverables, prepare for design review presentations, and interact with their project’s liaison engineer. Often, the sponsor company is remote from the university, so the weekly liaison engineer interaction is handled via a teleconference on a speaker phone. The students meet in a dedicated design facility (the “design stations”), where they have 24-hour access to computers, printers, copiers, conference rooms, and laboratories. There are three formal sponsor design reviews: the preliminary design review, the system level design review, and the final design review. The system level design review (held in December) and the final design review (held in April) are hosted on the University of Florida campus in a conference-style format, complete with multiple presentation rooms, poster and prototype displays, and a banquet luncheon. All the sponsors, the university community, plus outside guests are invited to participate in the on-campus reviews. In addition to the public design reviews, panels of faculty experts privately review each project team two times in the spring semester to identify issues, risks, and solutions. If an EWB project were chosen to be incorporated into IPPD, additional deliverables and deadlines must be imposed per the requirements of EWB-USA. In this proposed project with NARI, the same project management approach will be required. In addition, professional engineers affiliated with a Florida-wide EWB Professional Chapter with expertise in the culture of the host country, medical issues specific to traveling in the host country, and biogas design and implementation will be identified to serve as external technical advisors for the project. Also, as discussed below, the host country liaison will be invited to attend both on-campus reviews to facilitate team communication. Project-Related Travel The project teams travel to their sponsor sites typically two to three times throughout the two-semester IPPD course series. The first travel occurs within two weeks of the project launch. This meeting is used to begin the process establishing a working relationship with the liaison engineer and to document customer needs. The next travel occurs about 8 weeks after project launch. The purpose of this trip is to conduct a preliminary design review with the sponsor, resulting in an agreement to proceed or a redirection or rescoping of the project. The final travel is to be arranged— typically occurring at the conclusion of the project. It is anticipated that, given time and resource limitations, project travel protocol will be changed dramatically in the developing country projects. Rather than bear the expense of the team traveling to the host country in the early phase of the project, if possible, the country liaison will visit UF to introduce the project and the problem to the team. Subsequently, the students will familiarize themselves with not only the design aspects of the project but also with the culture of the host country using the services and expertise of UF’s International Center. The liaison will return to UF for
San Juan, PR
July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education R3F-13
Session R3F the system level design review in December, and the team will continue their efforts through the spring term leading up to Spring Break, when they will travel to the host country site to present their mid-course designs. The country liaison may choose to attend the final design review on the UF campus in April. III. Collaboration/Management Plan The UF team will conduct its research in collaboration with Dr. Anil Rajvanshi, who will serve as the India liaison. Communication will be conducted via weekly emailed progress reports sent, and Dr. Rajvanshi will be invited to attend the two on-campus reviews. During the two-semester IPPD course, the UF team will develop the basic technology of conversion of agricultural residues into methane, applying the previously mentioned design constraints. Dr. Rajvanshi and NARI will fabricate the plant in Phaltan and run it as a pilot plant with different residues which are readily available. Subsequent work at NARI will involve scaling up and implementation of the final design. IV. Outcomes Assessment The primary student learning outcomes of the existing IPPD program projects through both classroom and laboratory experience are to convey 1) how fundamental engineering science is relevant to effective product and process design, 2) that design involves not just product function but also production cost, schedule, reliability, quality, customer preferences and life cycle issues, 3) how to complete projects on time and within a budget, and 4) that engineering is a multidisciplinary effort. An additional outcome anticipated from a project involving designs centered in the developing world is a heightened awareness in the student to the importance of considering cultural differences in product and process designs. We propose to use the standard method of outcomes assessment currently used in UF’s IPPD Program with additional steps to capture the additional outcome. Since fall 1996, pre- and post-self-assessment of educational objectives have been collected by the IPPD administrators, capturing over 1000 data sets. The students are asked to self-rate themselves in the following areas: 1) applying engineering knowledge in design, 2) understanding how to integrate product and process design, 3) understanding structured design methodology, 4) understanding principles of teamwork, 5) using principles of teamwork, 6) understanding principles of effective oral communication, 7) communicating effectively in oral presentation, 8) understanding principles of effective written presentations, and 9) communicating effectively in writing. The students are also asked to rate their confidence level in practicing design in industry. These outcomes are measured using both the pre- and post-selfassessments. The post-self-assessment includes “this course has improved my ability to perform independent research” as an additional measure. Additional pre- and post-self-assessment outcomes will be developed for students participating in developing world
projects. These outcomes will focus on knowledge and understanding of technology needs of the developing world, challenges of incorporating technological solutions for the developing world, sensitivity to cultures in the developing world, understanding the principles of sustainable design, and using the principles of sustainable design to create appropriate technological solutions for the developing world. IPPD participants are required to keep records of their project work in a design notebook suitable for documenting a patent—meaning the notebook has permanently affixed, numbered pages. The developing world students will follow this process and may also use the book as a learning journal. The faculty coach will review this notebook on a weekly or biweekly basis. ABET requires direct evidence that learning outcomes are met. The results of student surveys are considered as indirect evidence. Therefore, the faculty project coach and any project advisors that interact regularly with the project team will be asked to evaluate the team with respect to the satisfaction of ABET outcomes “A” through “K.” Since few industrial projects lacking in economic merit are ever undertaken, all IPPD projects require the development of a business case. Cost-benefit analysis is typically performed for each sponsored project. Cost-benefit analysis can also be used effectively to evaluate engineering ethics problems [21]. We believe this tool will invaluable to the developing world project teams during the concept selection phase of the design project. This concept selection includes both the technology and the process by which the technology will be implemented to solve the particular design challenge. DISCUSSION The IPPD development framework has proven to be flexible enough to handle a wide variety of technical project content. This content has included the development of sophisticated electronics, machines and components, chemical processes, manufacturing processes, and software. Recent entrepreneurial extensions to the traditional industry-based projects have included the formation of virtual companies around university intellectual property that is ready for commercialization. Since 2003, seven virtual companies, including business students, law students, faculty inventors and so-called “serial entrepreneurs,” have developed prototypes and business plans in this effort. It is anticipated that the IPPD structure will also be as flexible in managing the inclusion of a developing-world extension. Recognizing the unique challenges of these types of projects is essential in their early stages of conceptualization. Table I summarizes the key differences between the developing community-based IPPD projects and the traditional industry-sponsored projects. Initiating projects independent of the EWB framework requires a network of individuals who are intimately knowledgeable of the needs in the communities, and ideally these individuals live in that area so that they can serve as the liaison between the UF team and the developing community’s citizens. A constraint on any design that is associated with the IPPD program is that the
San Juan, PR
July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education R3F-14
Session R3F community has the ultimate decision-making power, and, likewise, the community must be able to be trained in the operation and maintenance of the design. An additional requirement of these projects is the need to secure external funding from industry, other non-federal organizations, and federal agencies. The budget for projects involving the developing world will generally require more funds, particularly because of the additional travel costs, thus possibly necessitating only one trip to the host site, as opposed to the traditional IPPD requirement of two trips. The students must be trained in the culture of the host country, and staffing an external advisory board with experts in the cultural, health, and technical aspects of the project and host country is advised. Finally, outcomes assessment methods must include a means of measuring the extent of a student’s increased understanding of other cultures, different approaches to design, and, ultimately, tolerance for individuals of different cultures. TABLE I UNIQUE ASPECTS OF DEVELOPING COMMUNITY-BASED IPPD PROJECTS Project Phase Project Recruitment
Developing Country Project ● Initial contact made with NGO or EWB-USA ● If EWB-USA, compete for existing project or work with local community to submit an application
Student Recruitment
● Expansion of student pool to EWB-UF student chapter members
Travel
● Additional cost ● Liaison travels to UF
Collaboration/ Management
● Additional student training in cultural sensitivity
• Recruit professional engineers with international and technical expertise to serve as technical advisors
Outcomes Assessment
● Include methods to capture anticipated benefits of heightened sensitivity to other cultures
● If working with an NGO, develop project, deliverables, and estimated budget ● Seek funding from a variety of sources.
● UF team travels to host country during spring break ● Additional EWBUSA deliverables and timeline constraints ● Work directly with host community to ensure sustainability of design ● Select a medical expert to serve as a health point-of-contact and increased ability to communicate with different engineering cultures
CONCLUSIONS What may be arguably one of the most important elements of a design project centered in the developing world is imparting on the students the virtue of “doing well by doing good.” This is an essential feature that must be inculcated in students and participants early in the program, thereby balancing the
“ideal” and the “real.” This change in the engineering education approach is much needed to produce tangible, hands-on results that may then truly effect increased education, reduced mortality, morbidity and birth rates, and resultant reductions in poverty and increased quality of life for so many. We have provided herein a method for rapid integration of design projects relevant to the developing world into the existing framework of the traditional engineering design curriculum. Despite the need to address the unique features and challenges of projects involving the developing world, including a relevant application of and immediate need for the design and additional funding requirements for travel, considering the tangible and intangible benefits of internationalizing the curriculum, the additional constraints of such projects should not be viewed as prohibitive. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the vision and leadership of Dr. Bernard Amadei of the University of Colorado in establishing the Engineers Without Borders-USA, Engineers Without Borders–International and Engineering for Developing Communities programs. REFERENCES [1]
Katehi, L., “The Global Engineer,” Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 151-155.
[2]
National Academy of Engineering (NAE), The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2004.
[3]
International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2004, IEA, Paris, France. Available online at http://www.iea.org/bookshop/ add.aspx?id=180.
[4]
Jackson, S.A., “Engineering for a New World,” Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2005 Symposium, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 155-165. Available online at http://www.nap/edu/catalog/11577.html.
[5]
World Health Organization/United Nations Children’s Fund (WHO/UNICEF), Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, 2000 Report, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
[6]
World Bank Group, Millennium Development Goals: About the Goals, 2004. Available online at: http://www.developmentgoals.org/About_ the_goals.htm.
[7]
Lantagne, D.S., Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2005 Symposium, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 45-51. Available online at http://www.nap/ edu/catalog/11577.html.
[8]
The Lancet, “An Open Gate to Newborn and Child Survival,” Vol. 366, #9502, 2005, p. 1984.
[9]
Engineers Without Borders-USA, 2006. Available online at: www.ewbusa.org .
[10] Mulrine, A., “To the Rescue,” Prism, March 2006, pp. 28-33. [11] Engineering for Developing Communities (EDC), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 2006. Available online at: http://www.edccu.org.
San Juan, PR
July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education R3F-15
Session R3F [12] Integrated Process and Product Design (IPPD), University of Florida, IPPD Program, 2006. Availability online at: http://www.ufl.edu/ippd. [13] Integrated Product and Process Design. 2005. World Wide Web: (http://www.ippd.ufl.edu).
[17] Fitz-Coy, N., Mikolaitis, D.W., Stanfill, R.K., Vu-Quoc, L., “Maintaining Industry Partnerships in Integrated Product and Process Design Education,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, QC, June 16-19, 2002, 13 pp. (CD-ROM).
[14] Stanfill, R.K., Sander, E.J., Rossi, W.J., Ingley, H.A., Whitney, E.D., Hoit, M.I.,“Integrating Entrepreneurial Projects into a Successful Multidisciplinary Capstone Design Program at the University of Florida,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education 2004 Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 20-23, 2004, 9 pp. (CD-ROM).
[18] Stanfill, R.K., Wiens, G.J., Lear, W.E., Whitney, E D., “Institutionalized University and Industry Partnership in Multidisciplinary Design and Build: Product and Process Realization,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 11-16, 2001, New York, NY, 11 pp. (CD-ROM, Book No. I00517).
[15]
[19] Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), “Biogas and Liquid Biofuels,” 2006. Available online at: http://www.itdg.org/html/ technical_enquiries/docs/biogas_liquid_fuels.pdf .
Stanfill, R.K., Crisalle, O.D., “Recruiting Industry-Sponsored Multidisciplinary Projects for Capstone Design,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Southeastern Section 2003 Annual Meeting, Macon, GA, April 6-8, 2003, 12 pp. (CD-ROM).
[16] Stanfill, R.K., Wiens, G.J., Eisenstadt, W.R., Crisalle, O.D., “Lessons Learned in Integrated Product and Process Design Education,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Southeastern Section 2002 Annual Meeting, Gainesville, FL, April 7-9, 2002, 14 pp. (CD-ROM).
[20] The Energy Research Institute (TERI), ”Renewables in India”,” 2006. Available online at: http://static.teriin.org/renew/tech/biogas/bene.htm . [21] Fleddermann, C. B., Engineering Ethics, 2nd edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2004, pp. 34-36.
San Juan, PR
July 23 – 28, 2006 9th International Conference on Engineering Education R3F-16
