An Integrated Approach to Graduate Education
`in Manufacturing Systems—
`The U.T. Dallas Model
`
`BLAKE E. CHERRINGTON
`Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science
`The University of Texas at Dallas
`
`ABSTRACT
`A graduate program in Manufacturing Systems has been
`designed by the faculty of the University of Texas at Dallas
`and a fourteen member industrial advisory committee using a
`top-down approach. By establishing an independently
`administered program with it’s own faculty, it was possible to
`design “de-novo” a highly integrated set of new courses in a
`structured curriculum built around the central theme of the
`design of computer supported/controlled systems for engi-
`neering and manufacturing. There are nine required courses
`organized under the categories of manufacturing processes,
`process control, computer systems, product design, manufac-
`turing systems, and business principles. A manufacturing
`project caps off the curriculum.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In January 1987, the Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
`Computer Science at The University of Texas at Dallas began
`planning the implementation of a program in manufacturing
`systems education with the strong support of local industry and
`excellent financial resources for program initiation. The general
`intention was to develop programs that would serve the long range
`interests of the high technology industries in the Dallas–Fort
`Worth area, especially in telecommunications, computers, and
`microelectronics.
`The Erik Jonsson School consisted of a well established
`program in computer science, and a newly initiated program in
`electrical engineering with an emphasis on telecommunications
`and microelectronics. There were no programs in industrial
`engineering or in mechanical engineering to “claim” responsibility
`for manufacturing, and there were few faculty doing research in
`areas that fell under the definition of manufacturing that we
`wished to use. We faced the disadvantage of having essentially no
`courses on the books or resident faculty resources with which to
`initiate a manufacturing program. On the other hand, we had no
`“pieces” of the program that would have led us into a multiple
`department menu curriculum (two courses from I.E., three from
`M.E., one from E.E., etc.) that would keep us from developing
`an independently administered integrated manufacturing pro-
`gram with a faculty of it’s own, and we had no preconceived ideas
`about what constitutes “manufacturing engineering education.”
`Furthermore, the University of Texas at Dallas has a tradition of
`
`supporting multidisciplinary programs with a focus on research
`and graduate instruction.
`Our approach, which was consistent with our original goals to
`serve the long range interests of local industry, was to ask fourteen
`representatives of primarily local electronics based industries
`(usually Vice Presidents for Manufacturing) and several consult-
`ants to serve on a Manufacturing Systems Advisory Committee
`to work with the School administration and faculty on a long term
`basis to define, monitor and evaluate a new Master’s level
`manufacturing curriculum.
`The response by industry representatives was enthusiastic and
`generous. Currently, our committee has industrial representation
`from Alcatel Network Systems, Convex Computer Corporation,
`Cyrix Corporation, DSC Communications Corporation, Digital
`Equipment Corporation, E-Systems, EPI Technologies Inc.,
`IBM, Lennox International Inc., MicroFab Technology, Texas
`Instruments, and VITEK in addition to representatives from
`AMK Associates, Collins Associates and The Thomas Group.
`
`II. CURRICULUM GOALS
`The basic charge to the committee was to undertake a top-
`down design of a manufacturing systems curriculum. To initiate
`this process, each member was asked to reflect on the questions:
`l What will your factory look like in the year 2000+?
`l What will a manufacturing engineer need to know in order
`to work effectively in that factory?
`l Will the manufacturing engineer be a specialist or a gener-
`alist/integrator?
`The committee met regularly for a period of approximately one
`year to study and debate these questions and, although the
`deliberations of our committee were independent of other groups
`studying the same basic issue(1-5), the conclusions were remarkably
`similar. Because of increased global competition, the increasing
`complexity of the manufacturing environment, and the ever
`increasing pace of technology change, the committee agreed that
`the manufacturing engineer of the future needs to be an effective
`integrator of all the disciplines involved, with the breadth neces-
`sary to solve complex technical and managerial problems. These
`engineers need to be highly productive in design, development,
`start-up, operation and management of modern manufacturing
`systems.
`The range of challenges facing the manufacturing engineer
`immediately established that any curriculum had to be broad and
`multidisciplinary, while still satisfying the requirements for a
`successful university program that the courses provide a rigorous
`foundation that lead to, and are stimulated by, a strong manufac-
`turing research program. Indeed, the committee strongly felt that
`this program should stress student and faculty internships in
`
`January 1993
`
`Journal of Engineering Education 43
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1011, Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`industry, that research needed to be tied to real manufacturing
`problems, and that the corporate factory should be the university
`laboratory.
`Some of the manufacturing trends that the UT Dallas Manu-
`facturing Systems program is designed to address are:
`l Faster integration of new technologies into the manufactur-
`ing environment. (More change has taken place in the last 5 years
`than in the previous 25 years)
`l Manufacturing personnel more than ever before need to
`interact with specialists in many different disciplines.
`l Shorter product life cycles are the driving force for much
`quicker R&D to manufacturing development cycles and this
`requires new technologies to break down artificial barriers be-
`tween design and manufacturing (simultaneous engineering,
`CIM, etc.).
`l Pressures from the international economy force a much closer
`and complex tie between marketing, product design and manu-
`facturing than ever before.
`l A more complex, time-dependent character of problem
`solving is required.
`l Manufacturing elements must be treated as a system and not
`as a collection of loosely coupled isolated functions(1).
`The top-down approach taken by the committee concluded
`that the curriculum should develop manufacturing engineers who
`have the following characteristics:
`l A systems orientation.
`l A multidisciplinary approach to solving problems.
`l A decision making approach based on data analysis rather
`than on intuition.
`l An ability to deal effectively with ambiguity.
`l Good interpersonal skills and a keen awareness of the human
`element.
`l A good team player.
`l A change agent.
`l Technical depth in one or more key areas.
`l A broad awareness of the business and financial aspects of the
`manufacturing enterprise.
`
`III. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
`The combination of the need for technical depth and broad
`awareness of many related business and leadership issues provided
`quite a challenge. We could easily have justified a “two-year”
`equivalent Master’s program (in excess of 70 semester credit
`hours), but we chose to restrict ourselves to a normal 36 semester
`credit hours, “one-year” equivalent program with primary con-
`centration on the technical aspects but with some attention to
`leadership and business issues.
`The guiding principles for curriculum development were:
`l The approach should be revolutionary rather than evolution-
`ary. New courses should be designed rather than relying upon a
`largely unrelated menu of traditional IE, ME, EE, Materials
`Science and CS courses.
`l The core curriculum would be highly structured and inte-
`grated with each course closely related to, and drawing upon,
`previous courses.
`l The central technical theme would be the design of computer
`supported/controlled systems for engineering and manufactur-
`ing, and the focus would be on the role of the computer as an
`
`integral part of manufacturing. Indeed, the role or the use of the
`computer is to be an important part of every course.
`l A capstone project or thesis would be required, preferably to
`be accomplished in an industrial setting.
`l The curriculum would be flexible and reflect those elements
`that are key to the future of manufacturing.
`l The emphasis would be on the rigorous technical aspects of
`manufacturing, but an effort would be made to integrate impor-
`tant business principles into the curriculum.
`An important aid in the committees’ deliberations was the
`curriculum diagram shown in Figure 1 as developed by Dr.
`Donald Hayes, a member of the committee. This diagram shows
`how the various technical and business themes in manufacturing
`build upon a student’s background in mathematics, physical
`science, engineering and computer science, and provides a road
`map for curriculum development.
`The wide range of topics to be covered and the desired depth
`of understanding of the graduates of the program required us to
`place stringent conditions on student background and prepara-
`tion, as well as on the pace of study. Every student entering the
`program is expected to have a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate
`engineering discipline (usually ME, IE, EE or Chem E), to be
`currently employed in a manufacturing environment and to have
`typically 5 years or more experience. This ensures that the
`students are ready to absorb, understand and apply the material.
`We also limit the course load to two courses per semester. This
`results in a two-year program which allows adequate time to
`explore topics in depth.
`These constraints then led to the design of a highly structured
`set of nine required courses within six major areas plus a manu-
`facturing design project for all students and an opportunity for
`students to take at least two advanced electives.
`The curriculum flow and prerequisite structure is shown in
`Figure 2. As can be seen, there are five technical areas that lead
`towards the general theme of computer integrated manufactur-
`ing, and culminate in a significant manufacturing project. Al-
`though the treatment of business principles is hardly comprehen-
`sive, the two required courses stress the concepts of communica-
`tions, and the business context of manufacturing.
`
`Figure 1. Curriculum development diagram showing the
`evolution of a manufacturing engineer’s knowledge and
`responsibility from a sound basic foundation of science, math-
`ematics and engineering fundamentals out to a comprehensive
`responsibility for manufacturing business strategy.
`
`44 Journal of Engineering Education
`
`January 1993
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1011, Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`The required courses in the six areas are:
`
`Manufacturing Processes
`MFSC 6301 Materials Processing and Fabrication
`Fundamental manufacturing techniques for turning raw ma-
`terials into finished parts. Machining, welding and joining,
`bonding, casting and forming, molding, surface treatment. Semi-
`conductor processes, hybrid processes, surface mount technology.
`Characteristics of processing equipment. Precision techniques.
`Required text: Serope Kalpakjian “Manufacturing Engineer-
`ing and Technology”, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
`
`Process Control
`MFSC 6310 Mathematical Foundations for Manufacturing
`Quantitative methods, especially statistics, for solving prob-
`lems related to manufacturing. Statistical quality control, design
`of experiments, control charts, reliability, total quality techniques,
`statistics in business decisions involving cost, sampling, queuing
`theory, Markov processes and simulations for modeling and
`testing manufacturing flow and capacity.
`Required texts: Thomas P. Ryan “Statistical Methods for
`Quality Improvement”, Wiley, 1989; William J. Diamond, “Prac-
`tical Experiment Design for Engineers and Scientists”, 2nd
`Edition, Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1989.
`
`MFSC 6311 Process Automation and Control
`Instrumentation, automation and control of manufacturing
`processes. Review of SPC, review control theory, process control-
`manual, process control-automatic, sensors, controllers.
`Required texts: John G. Bollinger & Neil A. Duffie “Com-
`puter Control of Machines and Processes”, Addison-Wesley,
`1988.
`
`Computer Systems
`MFSC 6320 Computer Systems for Manufacturing
`Introduction to Computer Aided Manufacturing. Use of
`computers, networks and systems to achieve higher levels of
`automation .
`Required text: Mikell P. Groover “Automation, Production
`Systems and Computer Integrated Manufacturing”, Prentice-
`Hall, 1987.
`
`Product Design
`MFSC 6330 Computer Aided Design Systems
`Introduction to the use of mechanical CAD systems and
`factory simulation tools. The use of CAD in the factory.
`Required texts: C. D. Pedden, P. E. Shannon and R. P.
`Sachowski “Introduction to Simulation using SIMAN/CIN-
`EMA”, McGraw-Hill, 1991; D. Baker and H. Rice “Inside Auto
`CAD”, 6th edition, New Riders Publishing, 1991.
`
`Figure 2. Manufacturing systems course organization, prerequisite structure and course sequencing for required courses. The
`courses are grouped, as in the text, under six broad categories and are taken in sequence from the top down culminating in the
`Manufacturing Project and the course on Computer Integrated Manufacturing.
`
`January 1993
`
`Journal of Engineering Education 45
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1011, Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Manufacturing Systems
`MFSC 6340 Manufacturing Systems
`Overview of manufacturing systems. The evolution of manu-
`facturing in the U.S. is discussed together with the requirements
`for manufacturing in the coming decades. Topics covered include
`flexible manufacturing; history of the machine tool, steel, and
`auto industries; overview of German and Japanese experiences in
`achieving manufacturing excellence.
`Required texts: Nigel Greenwood “Implementing Flexible
`Manufacturing Systems”, Halsted Press, 1988; Philip B. Crosby,
`“Quality is Free”, The Penguin Group, 1980; Donald A. Hicks,
`“Is New Technology Enough?”, American Enterprise Institute
`for Public Policy Research, 1988.
`
`MFSC 6341 Computer Integrated Manufacturing
`Fundamental effect of computers in integrating manufactur-
`ing activities and facilities. Artificial intelligence applications.
`Analysis, modeling and simulation of the integrated manufactur-
`ing environment. Synthesis of planning and layout, materials
`movement and inventory, scheduling, assembly/process organi-
`zation, inspection and test, robotic systems, on-line quality
`control and malfunction management. Required text: Paul K.
`Write and David A. Bourne “Manufacturing Intelligence”,
`Addison-Wesley, 1988.
`
`Business Principles
`MFSC 6350 Manufacturing in the Corporation
`Integration of modern manufacturing skills into the Corpora-
`tion. The Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award elements,
`benchmarking, cycle time reduction.
`Required texts: Robert H. Hayes, Steven C. Wheelwright and
`Kim B. Clark “Dynamic Manufacturing”, The Free Press, 1988;
`Robert C. Camp “Benchmarking”, ASQC Quality Press, 1989.
`
`MFSC 6305 Effective Professional Communication
`Interpersonal skills and leadership development. Listening,
`non-verbal communication, meeting organization and elements
`of management psychology. Effective written and oral commu-
`nications.
`
`Electives
`
`The most popular electives have been courses specifically
`designed for this curriculum, such as “Electronic Manufacturing
`Processes”, “New Product Development”, “Engineering Eco-
`nomics”, “Industry, Technology and Science Policy” and “Engi-
`neering Management”. A wide range of other courses are avail-
`able, such as “Computer Vision Systems”, “Robotics”, “Survey of
`Artificial Intelligence”, “Advanced Engineering Mathematics”
`and “Semiconductor Processing” for those students interested in
`more rigorous studies, especially as preparation for research in
`manufacturing.
`
`IV. IMPLEMENTATION
`Our non-traditional approach to a new area of emphasis in
`engineering education has brought a series of unique challenges.
`
`Students
`
`The maturity of our students (average age of 34) and their
`industrial experience (exceeding 7 years on the average) are a great
`asset to the program. As a group, they are serious about improving
`manufacturing in their organizations. They are able to critically
`evaluate and in many cases immediately apply the principles they
`have learned in class. This is of importance in ensuring that
`students absorb and retain the materials taught. Their own store
`of experience is, of course, an excellent resource to share with
`faculty and fellow students. The students have a wide range of
`backgrounds and career objectives. Currently we have 28 students
`in the program: 8 mechanical engineers, 7 electrical engineers, 4
`industrial engineers, 3 chemical engineers and the remainder with
`degrees in other fields. It is interesting to note that this program
`is attractive to women, who constitute 25% of the class. They are
`typically employed in the semiconductor, telecommunications,
`electronics equipment manufacturing, consumer electronics, or
`software industries.
`Although diversity of backgrounds and industrial experience is
`a significant strength to their work environment, we have found
`that students who have been away from formal studies for several
`years have often lost proficiency in mathematics, statistics and
`computer programming, and many do not have any previous
`background in control systems. Background assessment and
`allowance for variations in prior academic experience is impor-
`tant.
`
`Industry Involvement
`
`Industry participation has been absolutely critical to our suc-
`cess. The key is extensive and continuing interaction with indus-
`try. The interactions come in the following areas:
`l The Manufacturing Systems Advisory Committee is a
`standing committee of the School that meets regularly, to review
`the status of the program and to provide valuable feedback on
`effectiveness. This committee is also the primary source of
`referrals for new students.
`l Over half of our courses are taught by Ph. D. level industrial
`lecturers with extensive industry experience. This ensures that our
`course offerings keep a “real-world” orientation and applicability.
`l Guest lecturers are frequently invited in to present special
`topics or case studies.
`l Tours of manufacturing facilities are regularly used to
`illustrate the subjects being taught.
`l Industries support the use of “real” in-house manufacturing
`problems for our required student projects.
`l Case studies from industry experience are widely used,
`especially in our courses on “Computer Integrated Manufactur-
`ing” and “Process Automation and Control”.
`l Class room materials developed by industry in areas such as
`SQC and TQM are valuable teaching aids.
`l Industries are generous in making donations of teaching
`equipment to the university, and/or in allowing use of their
`facilities for special projects.
`l Industries are willing to provide support for faculty to do
`research on manufacturing problems and encourage close work-
`ing relationships between faculty and local manufacturing engi-
`neers.
`
`46 Journal of Engineering Education
`
`January 1993
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1011, Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`l The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences provides
`valuable support for the development of this program.
`
`Textbooks and Teaching Materials
`
`Designing new courses “from scratch” has the advantage of
`consistent intellectual quality and pedagogical coherence, but
`raises major problems in finding suitable textbooks and teaching
`materials. Our situation is not the same as is often encountered in
`newly developing courses, often at the advanced graduate level,
`where students are comfortable with lecturer’s notes, or no notes
`at all. Since our current students have been out of university for
`quite some time and suffer some lack of confidence, especially in
`the areas of mathematics and computer programming, a text book
`is at least a psychological necessity. The problem is compounded
`by the relative scarcity of graduate level books with the rigorous
`quantitative basis that we desire. This often requires significant
`effort on the part of the faculty to provide supplementary notes
`and materials to augment the course texts. As alluded to previ-
`ously, industrially developed materials and case studies are valu-
`able supplements.
`
`Evaluation and Feedback
`
`With a new program, evaluation and feedback is necessary and
`continuous. We have an active program of consultation among
`students, faculty, and industrial advisors.
`Every six to eight months, the Manufacturing Systems Advi-
`sory Committee, the members of which employ most of the
`current members and graduates of the program, meet to assess the
`status of the program and provide industrial feedback on the
`effectiveness of the program. Industrial support remains high,
`with this committee playing an important role in publicizing the
`program and recruiting students.
`The students are surveyed every semester about their experi-
`ence with every course—as are the faculty and lecturers—to
`provide immediate feedback. The satisfaction of the students
`remains high as evidenced by the fact that many students can
`immediately apply what they learn in their work environment and
`
`also by the fact that at least one half of the new students entering
`the program were encouraged to do so by current students or
`recent graduates.
`We now have 12 graduates of the program and we are
`preparing for a systematic survey of the graduates’ effectiveness.
`We keep in close touch with the graduates, the majority of whom
`have remained in the local environment, and the anecdotal
`response has been very positive. The most dramatic report we
`have received is the experience of one graduate who applied the
`principles of the curriculum to reducing printed circuit board
`production cycle time from 8 weeks to 1 week in his manufactur-
`ing environment.
`
`V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
`The development of this curriculum has been supported by the
`National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. I acknowledge and
`appreciate the active support of our faculty and industrial advisors
`in planning and implementing this program. Special thanks go to
`Dr. Bernard List, Dr. Donald Hayes, Dr. Klaus Truemper, Dr.
`Jack Chou, and Dr. Yura Kim for their valuable contributions.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`1. Education for the Manufacturing World of the Future, National
`Academy of Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington, D.
`C., 1985.
`2. Toward a New Era in U. S. Manufacturing—The Need for a National
`Vision, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C., 1986.
`3. Francis, P.H., et al., “The Academic Preparation of Manufactur-
`ing Engineers: A Blueprint for Change”, Manufacturing Review, vol. 1,
`no. 3, Oct. 1988, pp. 158—163.
`4. Koska, D.F., J.D. Romano, Countdown to the Future: The Manu-
`facturing Engineer in the 21st Century, A. T. Kearney Inc., Society of
`Manufacturing Engineers, PO Box 930, Dearborn, MI, 48121—0931.
`5. Dertouzos, Michael L., R.K. Lester, R. M. Solow and the M.I.T.
`Commission on Industrial Productivity, Made in America—Regaining
`the Productive Edge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1989.
`
`January 1993
`
`Journal of Engineering Education 47
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1011, Page 5 of 5
`
`