CAMPUS FORUM December 11, 2012
Accredited Engineering Programs 1936 – Industrial Era 7
2
Accredited Engineering Programs 1956 – Post War Era 7 8
3
Accredited Engineering Programs 13 8 7 1976 – Post Sputnik Era
4
Accredited Engineering Programs 13 8 7 1996 – InformaGon Era
24
5
Accredited Engineering Programs 13 8 7 2006 – Today
29 24
6
The Market
-‐PopulaGon Density
7
The Market is Covered -‐Accredited Engineering Programs
24 7 8
13
29
WHY?
The Market is Covered -‐Accredited Engineering Programs
24 7 8
13
29
Top Midwest Public UniversiGes National
Regional Truman State University (MO) University of Northern Iowa Univ. of Wisconsin–La Crosse Washburn University (KS) Univ. of Wisconsin–Eau Claire University of Michigan–Dearborn Univ. of Wisconsin–Stevens Point Eastern Illinois University University of Minnesota–Duluth Grand Valley State University (MI) Univ. of Wisconsin–Platteville Univ. of Wisconsin–Whitewater Missouri State Univ. Univ. of Wisconsin–Green Bay Univ. of Wisconsin–River Falls Southern Illinois U.–Edwardsville University of Wisconsin–Stout Western Illinois University Northwest Missouri State Univ. Southeast Missouri State Univ. Winona State University (MN) Univ. of Nebraska–Kearney
3 8 11 14 19 21 21 21 26 30 30 30 38 45 45 52 52
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign Pennsylvania State U.–University Park University of Pittsburgh Ohio State University–Columbus Purdue Univ.–West Lafayette (IN) University of Iowa Miami University–Oxford (OH) Indiana University–Bloomington Michigan State University Univ. of Minnesota–Twin Cities Iowa State University University of Kansas Univ. of Nebraska–Lincoln Ohio University University of Missouri–Rolla
Which list do we want to be on?
2006 -‐ More Need For Graduate Degrees • Technology has goTen more complex – Look at your car engine, your computer
• Need for more graduate degrees – 33% in USA – 18% at Michigan Tech
120,000,000
Revenue Trends FY94 -‐ FY12 Current Fund
100,000,000 Student TuiGon and Fees Grant and Contract Revenue State AppropriaGons
80,000,000
Auxiliary AcGviGes
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ScaTer chart from Rich
2006 -‐ The Future of Michigan Tech -‐Turning the Strategic Plan into AcDon 1. We Must Change Top NaGonal University 2. How We Change 3. What We Must Do
Strategic Plan • Approved by Board of Control on April 27, 2012 ! Major Goals Remain Same
" People " DisGncGve EducaGon " Research/Scholarship/CreaGvity/Entreprenuership
• hTp://www.mtu.edu/stratplan/
17
Faculty Drives ReputaGon -‐ReputaGon aTracts the best students • Faculty drives reputaGon – Conferences / papers / citaGons – Research programs – Graduate programs
Driving factors in the US News raGng system alumni giving 5%
financial resources 10%
faculty 20%
reputa'on 25%
student selec'vity
15%
gradua'on and reten'on
20%
gradua'on perf. 5%
2006 -‐ We Must Recruit Top Research Oriented Faculty • The Good News – Half our faculty will turn over in the next seven years
• The Bad News – We don’t have a program to replace them with research oriented faculty
• What does it take? – Professorships and Chairs – Restructuring and prioriGzaGon of compensaGon and hiring policy – Start-‐up funds – SFHI
The Future of Michigan Tech -‐Turning the Strategic Plan into AcDon 1. We Must Change Top NaGonal University 2. How We Change ATract Research Faculty 3. What We Must Do
2006 -‐ What We Must Do -‐in the next 7 years
• Alumni
– Chairs and Professorships – Planned giving
• Michigan Tech Fund
– Capital Campaign aimed at change – Sell the vision – Fund graduate research faculty
• AdministraGon
– Budget for change, direct funds to research faculty – Research oriented Provost, Deans, and Chairs – Review and manage the change
• Board of Control
– Hold administraGon accountable for the change – Develop the indicators for change – regular reviews – every meeGng
Michigan Technological University Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty by Gender 2006-‐07 through 2011-‐12 2010-‐11
2011-‐12
Male Female
235 239 241 244 253 65 71 71 85 89
261 93
Total
300 310 312 329 342
354
Percent Female
21.7 22.9 22.8 25.8 26.0
26.3
2006-‐07
2007-‐08
2008-‐09
2009-‐10
Note: Figures include all tenured and tenure track instrucGonal and research faculty. Also includes those faculty on sabbaGcal or on unpaid leave of absence. Deans, associate deans, department chairs, execuGves and professional staff with tenure are excluded.
23
SFHI Faculty # Start Date Sustainability 6 Aug 2008 ComputaGonal Discovery/Innov. 6 Aug 2009 Health & Energy 7 Aug 2010 4 Aug 2011 2 Aug 2012 Water & TransportaGon 7 Aug 2012 32 expect 3 to 4 more in Water & Transp.
SFHI As of Dec 2012: 18 faculty submiTed a total of 229 grants 16 faculty were awarded 60 proposals for a total of $6.2 million of external research funding In addiGon to research, they contribute significantly to teaching and the growth in graduate student educaGon
Dashboard Metrics
Michigan Tech Graduate Degrees
Michigan Tech Graduate Degrees
Michigan Tech Research InsGtute 40
Employees
23
$10.8 $4.3 FY 2007
FY 2012
Research Expenditures (millions)
Full Time Graduates Vs. FTE Undergraduates Michigan Public UniversiDes and Michigan Tech Benchmark UniversiDes Fall 2011 40
35
Northern
FTE Undergraduates/FTE T-‐TT Faculty
Central
Saginaw 1.2 U of Minn -‐ Duluth
0.9
3.0
1.9
30
UM-‐Flint
Cal Poly 25
Western Lake State
1.3
Grand Valley 1.3 Eastern
2.7
1.6
MUST
Ferris
0
20
U of Wisc -‐ Milwaukee 3.3 Oakland
1.8
1.2
C S Mines
3.5
1.6
Clarkson
UM-‐Dearborn
2.6
1.0
Michigan State 4.4
RPI 3.4
15
U of I -‐ Champaign 5.5
U of Minn -‐ Twin CiGes
U of Wisc -‐ Madison
2.6
10
MTU (2004) MTU (2010) MTU (2011) 2.0
5.1
UM -‐Ann Arbor
MTU (2012)
Carnegie
4.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
Wayne 5.6 Georgia Tech 6.1
4.5
Lehigh
5.9
6.8
5
0 0
1
2
3
4
Full Time Graduate/FTE T-‐TT Faculty
5
6
7
Progress Toward Goals 2006-‐2012
+243%
+243% 24
+31% +31% 554 554 423 423
PhD Enrollment
+54% +54% 63 63
+76% +76%
24
$72M $72M
41 41
$43M $43M
PhD Degrees
Research Funding
7 7
Chairs & Professorships
Campaign # End Date – June 30, 2013 # Goal -‐ $200M
Campaign Totals by Source June 2006 – November 30, 2012
Total $188,941,368 Corp Sponsored Research $41,887,493 Annual Fund $9,350,848
Discounted Planned Gib Commitments $66,215,794
CorporaDons $11,151,567
FoundaDons & Other Orgs Gibs-‐in-‐Kind $2,671,158 $6,174,229 Major & Restricted Gibs/Pledges $47,650,380
Realized Planned Gibs $3,839,899
33
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY Generations of Discovery Campaign Progress Summary as of November 30, 2012
Alumni & Friends CorporaGons Private FoundaGons Gils-‐in-‐Kind Grand Total
$127,056,922 53,039,059 2,671,158 6,174,229 $188,941,368
Michigan Technological University GeneraDons of Discovery Campaign Breakdown As of November 30, 2012
• FaciliGes $ 7.2M • Scholarships/Fellowships 31.2M • Chairs & Professorships 38.2M • Depts. Program Support/Ops. 57.1M • Unrestricted or undesignated 4.8M • Research 50.4M TOTAL $188.9M 35
Michigan Tech Fund Planned Giving Registry ($129,253,143.47) - Actuarial Expectancy by Years July 31, 2012 40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0 Yr 1
2-5 Years
6-10 Years
11-15 Years
16-20 Years
21-25 Years
26-30 Years
31-35 Years
36-40 Years
41-60 Years
$811,375
$15,716,781
$14,568,707
$39,475,376
$15,579,619
$19,690,519
$7,875,852
$8,035,719
$3,866,000
$3,633,196
The Future of Michigan Tech -‐Turning the Strategic Plan into AcDon 1. We Must Change Top NaGonal University 2. How We Change ATract Research Faculty 3. What We Must Do We all have a criGcal role
BUDGET
Current Fund Balances 2006-‐2012
FISCAL YEAR
GENERAL FUND
DESIGNATED AUXILIARY FUND FUND
R&I FUND
EXPENDABLE RESTRICTED FUND
TOTAL CURRENT FUNDS
6/30/2006
(9,418,709)
11,711,149
9,361,936
1,100,429
1,801,945
14,556,750
6/30/2007
(9,144,578)
12,704,216
8,122,457
1,366,980
3,030,770
16,079,845
6/30/2008
(9,639,258)
14,459,317
9,210,497
(1,548,501)
2,933,114
15,415,169
6/30/2009
(11,119,692)
17,622,935
9,408,680
(3,098,785)
2,821,643
15,634,782
6/30/2010
(11,260,088)
17,669,080
8,109,037
(1,897,826)
2,692,577
15,312,779
6/30/2011
(10,999,503)
17,482,191
6,850,582
(62,315)
2,808,383
16,079,338
6/30/2012
(12,602,185)
15,816,151
9,235,156
(3,551,797)
3,590,414
12,487,739
39
1100
Faculty & Staff Employees 1000
974
965
951
+1.9%
985
969
900 800
Numbers
700 Faculty
600
Staff
500 400 310
312
329
342
354
+14.3%
300 200 2008 Source: University Compendium
2009
2010 FY (Fall Census)
2011
2012 41
$60,000 Faculty & Staff Salaries $51,839
$50,825
$50,000
+18%
$48,768 $46,451
Current Fund ($1,000’s)
$43,757 $41,015
$42,216
$39,836
$40,000
Faculty
$36,474
Staff
$34,223
+23%
$30,000
$20,000 2008 Source: Audited Financial Statement
2009
2010 Fiscal Year
2011
2012 42
Planned (millions)
General Fund FY 2012
Actuals (millions)
OperaGng Revenue
$118,930
$117,139
OperaGng Expenses
$(144,951)
$(148,927)
Transfers
$(14,740)
$(12,734)
Non-‐OperaGng Revenues NET
$40,761
$42,919 $(1,603)
-‐-‐-‐
43
Current Fund FY 2012
Budget (millions)
Actuals (millions)
OperaGng Revenue
$192,175
$189,024
OperaGng Expenses
$(244,494)
$(247,400)
Transfers
$(6,037)
$(5,043)
Non-‐OperaGng Revenues Net
$58,398 $42
$59,828 $(3,591) 44
General Fund FY13 Budget Budget (thousands)
Base Year
Budget Year
FY12
FY13
Variance
Operating Revenues $ 118,929,621
122,901,384
3,971,763
3.34%
$ (27,728,705) $ (39,511,577) $ (3,369,235) $ (984,956) $ (24,209,149) $ (16,662,514) $ (27,264,097) $ (4,520,850) $ (3,200,000) $ (147,451,083)
(27,864,030) (41,609,216) (3,504,004) (943,447) (25,438,614) (15,203,289) (31,453,097) (4,520,850) (3,200,000) (153,736,546)
(135,324) 0.49% (2,097,638) 5.31% (134,769) 4.00% 41,509 -4.21% (1,229,465) 5.08% 1,459,225 -8.76% (4,189,000) 15.36% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% (6,285,463) 4.26%
$ (12,239,738) $ 40,761,200 $ -‐
(11,724,738)
515,000 -4.21%
Operating Expenses
Staff S&W Faculty S&W Grad Student S&W Undergrad Student S&W Fringe Benefits Supplies & Services Scholarships Utilities Carry forward/Contingency Reserve Transfers Non-operating Revenues (Expenses)
Net Income (Loss)
42,559,900 0
1,798,700 0
4.41% 45
Commencement Speaker Dr. Arden L. Bement
Chief Global Affairs Officer Director, Global Policy Research InsGtute Purdue University Former Director, NaGonal Science FoundaGon
46
Midyear Commencement StaDsDcs " Undergraduate " Graduate 24 -‐ PhD 110 -‐ Masters
As of November 28, 2012
346 134
Total ApplicaDons 6000 5549 5,337 5000
4000
3,972 3,758 2009 ApplicaGons 2010 ApplicaGons
3000
2011 ApplicaGons 2012 ApplicaGons 2013 ApplicaGons 2000
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Recruitment week
Accepted ApplicaDons 4500 4050
4000
3,898
3500
3000
2500
2,806 2,595
2009 Accepts
2000
2010 Accepts 2011 Accepts
1500
2012 Accepts 2013 Accepts
1000
500
0
Recruitment week
Enrollment Deposits 1600 1,427 1400 1,333 1200
1000
2009 Deposits
800
2010 Deposits 2011 Deposits 600
2012 Deposits 2013 Deposits
400
200
215
0
Recruitment week
DomesDc Minority Accepted ApplicaDons 600
500 482 410
400 374
300
371
283
2009 2010 2011
200
2012 2013 100
0
Recruitment week
Female Accepted ApplicaDons 1400
1200
1,156 1,097
1000 874 800
797
2009
600
2010 2011 2012
400
2013
200
0
Recruitment week
Ten year female admit history as of Dec. 1 each year 1000
33% 31%
900
874
29% 28% 25%
794
25%
740 710
700 21%
28%
28%
28%
787
800
31%
714
23%
22% 623
600 543
Total Accepts
567
18% Percent of all admits which are female
500 417
13%
400
300
8%
200 3% 100
0
-‐2% 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
COE Female Accepted ApplicaDons 600
540 500
505 483 456 421
400
300 2009 Accepts 2010 Accepts 2011 Accepts
200
2012 Accepts 2013 Accepts 100
0
Recruitment week
Ten year COE female admit history as of Dec 1 each year 600
30%
26% 500
24%
22% 400
379 19% 16%
20%
419 20%
369 332
25%
Total Accepts 327
16%
300
268 230
18%
20%
21%
483
284
15%
244
200
10%
100
5%
0
0% 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Percent of all admits which are female
UG COE female total 800
20.0% 20.0% 19.2% 17.6%
700 16.3% 600
16.2%
674 640
16.5% 595
15.4%
18.0%
18.0%
16.0%
586
551 505
519
14.0%
526
500
12.0%
400
College of Engineering Undergraduate Females
10.0% Percent female 8.0%
300
6.0% 200 4.0% 100
2.0%
-‐
0.0% 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
LEAN
ConDnuous Improvement using Lean Principles Lean Facilitators and Implementation Leaders Complete Training in November
ConGnuous Improvement using Lean Principles
Lean Training Funded by Federal MediaDon and ConciliaDon Services Grant • $55,000 Awarded – Lean Consultants Provided Training • Lean Facilitators and ImplementaGon Leaders Trained • Five Campus-‐wide Sessions Occurred
– Lean Books and Resources Purchased
Use Lean culture building to enhance labor-management relationships and communication. ConGnuous Improvement using Lean Principles
23 Lean Facilitators – Trained to facilitate Kaizen Improvement Events for any campus department or area interested in making improvements. $ Rick Berkey, InsGtute for $ Interdisciplinary Studies $ $ Ernie Beutler, Dining Services $ Catherine Burns, Human Resources $ $ Derrick Butkovich, FaciliGes Management $ Theresa Coleman-‐Kaiser, Vice President $ for AdministraGon Office $ $ Wendy Davis, Auxiliary Services $ $ Laura Givens, Career Services $ $ Laura Harry, Memorial Union $ $ Bob Hiltunen, Auxiliary Services $ $ Shellie Hubert, Enrollment Services $ $ Alane Issacson, AthleGcs and RecreaGon $ $ Amie Ledgerwood, Geology and Mining
Gina LeMay, Sponsored OperaGons Tanya Maki, School of Business and Economics Rhonda McClellan, FaciliGes Management Margo O'Brien, AccounGng Services Heidi Reid, Memorial Union Julie Ross, Civil and Environmental Eng. Megan Ross, Auxiliary Services Julie Seppala, Sponsored Programs Office Shane Sullivan, IT Services and Security Kathy Wardynski, Dining Services Rachel Wussow, Student AcGviGes
ConGnuous Improvement using Lean Principles
10 Lean Implementation Leaders – Trained in Lean concepts aimed at building a Lean practice into the day to day work for an area/department. $ Karla Aho, Office of Development $ Julie Blair, J. Robert Van Pelt Library $ Theresa Coleman-‐Kaiser, Vice President for AdministraGon Office $ Wendy Davis, Auxiliary Services $ Bob Hiltunen, Auxiliary Services $ Wendy Jones, School of Forestry & Environmental Resources $ Jarrod Karau, AdministraGve InformaGon Systems $ Tammy LaBissoniere, Sponsored Programs Office $ Gregg Richards, FaciliGes Management $ Cayce Will, IT Services and Security ConGnuous Improvement using Lean Principles
Get Started • Hold a Kaizen Improvement Event • Tailored Lean Workshops and Trainings Wendy Davis, Manager of Process Improvement
[email protected] 7-3180
ConGnuous Improvement using Lean Principles
INTERNET SECURITY # 1.2M internet aTacks per day # Average of 40 virus infecGons per day # 5-‐10 phishing aTempts per week
Thanks For All You Do! QUESTIONS
