Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) Volume 11 Number 08 (139th Issue) - August 15, 2001 Note: If you have problems with the format of this document, try ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents Next Month's Topic - Software Engineering as a Profession After the Withdrawal: One Year Later Articles International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC): A Glimpse into the Future of University and Industry Collaboration by Kenneth L. Modesitt The Computer Society International Design Competition by Alan Clements News Items IEEE-USA Releases Statement on Engineer Title Position Openings Texas Tech University University Of The West Of England - Research Studentship Contact and General Information about FASE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Next Month's Topic - Software Engineering as a Profession After the Withdrawal: One Year Later Topic Editor: Don Bagert Texas Tech University Don.Bagert@ttu.edu On 30 June 2000, ACM voted to withdraw from the Software Engineering Coordinating Committee (SWEcc or SWECC), primarily due to differences with the IEEE Computer Society (its partner in the venture) over the licensing of software engineers. That September, FASE published several articles on the topic "Software Engineering as a Profession After the Withdrawal", which provided for a wide range of articles on the subject. Currently, most of the projects coordinated by SWECC, including SWEBOK (the body of knowledge project) and SWEEP (the education project, which is still a joint IEEE-CS/ACM venture) are still existing and active. It is therefore fitting that FASE revisit the subject a year later, to see how the SWECC projects are doing, to discuss what impact the ACM withdrawal has had, and to look at the progress of other software engineering professional initiatives that may have an impact in this field. Short (generally 2000 words or less) viewpoint and information articles related to this subject are requested. Although ACM and IEEE-CS are both USA-based organizations (albeit with an international membership), submissions from both inside and outside of the US are encouraged. The deadline for submission is on September 8; the submission format is at http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase/#submissions and at the end of this issue. For more information, please contact the topic editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Articles ###################################################################### From: Kenneth L. Modesitt International Software Engineering University Consortium (ISEUC): A Glimpse into the Future of University and Industry Collaboration Kenneth L. Modesitt, Ph.D. Professor Computer and Information Science Department College of Engineering and Computer Science University of Michigan-Dearborn 4901 Evergreen Road Dearborn, MI 48128-1491 (313) 436-9145 modesitt@umich.edu Abstract ISEUC (pronounced "I see, You see") is a consortium of universities and colleges around the world who will provide Software Engineering (SE) courses (also called "subjects" in some countries) to students globally via distance learning, primarily using the asynchronous mode of the Internet. ISEUC members, currently numbering 35 from Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S.A., already have established programs and/or degrees in software engineering, as determined from an ACM/IEEE-CS funded survey [1,2,3]. All 35 were visited personally by the author between October, 2000 and June, 2001, and have agreed to make one or more courses in SE available on-line, with face-to-face mediators, with some beginning in September, 2001. ISEUC serves as a broker for its members to provide additional students for existing and future Web-enabled courses, and is not a degree-granting organization. ISEUC will have both faculty and professional advisory boards. The primary markets are corporations that employ professionals trying to develop reliable, robust, and useful software products in a timely and efficient fashion, but who do not currently have state-of-the-art knowledge or skills. This paper gives a short description of why ISEUC has come into existence, what it looks like, results of the 35 personal visits, and what would be involved to become a member. Current detailed information can be found at www.iseuc.org. Background: There is a lack of qualified software engineers to address the dramatic worldwide growth in Information Technology, and the supply produced by current Software Engineering programs is not keeping up with the increasing demand for qualified SE professionals [6, 7]. Because of the high demand for SE professionals, institutions of higher learning (hereafter just called "universities") have an opportunity to increase enrollment and revenues while continuing to develop SE-specific curricula and courses for students. These resources can be efficiently leveraged using Distance Learning technologies, also called "Distributed Learning," and processes to expand the reach of universities to a global student body as well as local students. ISEUC will provide access for software-intensive industries and their global sites, involving renowned international universities. ISEUC is based on international best SE education practices, accreditation standards, credit programs and professional education. ISEUC differs from National Technological University (www.ntu.org), in that the latter has a primary focus on M.S. degrees in several disciplines, one of which is software engineering. The latter currently has 18 universities participating, all from the U.S.A. ISEUC, by comparison, extends to international universities, and also offers undergraduate courses via its members. Both NTU and ISEUC include professional, non-credit, courses in their catalog of offerings. Since the author was the first industry board member (from Texas Instruments) on NTU in 1980, and has a long-standing relationship with the founder, as well as vice-president of NTU, this was the very first place he visited in October, 2000. ISEUC Mission and Vision The following elements represent the Mission Statement of ISEUC: * Since lifelong learning is required by people performing software development, ISEUC provides easy access to them for such learning, via a combination of distance learning (DL) and face-to-face contact. * In order to reach these developers, ISEUC provides the infrastructure that Software Engineering educators need to expand the scope of their courses beyond their campuses. Distance or Distributed Learning (DL) courses originating from "primary" universities will be coupled with traditional face-to-face aid from "associate" universities that are closer to the student. Thus, an effective hybrid program of web-based asynchronous and synchronous interactive learning modes can be fashioned to benefit the consortium participants, the students, and the industries that rely upon SE. In the design, development and implementation of ISEUC we have a vision of ISEUC characteristics that are similar to the best software products: * Fulfills a real client need in a timely and cost-effective fashion * High quality * Built from tested components * Built-in redundancy * High reliability * Easy to learn * Easy to use * Affordable * Robust * Exceed expectations of clients! Broad Objectives The objectives of ISEUC include: 1. Increase the number of Software Engineering professionals 2. Enhance the skills of existing professionals from many disciplines 3. Facilitate cross-discipline training and awareness for management Specific Schedule and Goals: 1. In the academic term of August 20001 to December 2001: ISEUC will deliver five to ten SE DL course from five to six universities worldwide. These courses will include 40 to 50 additional students, who would not otherwise be enrolled. Fifty percent of the new students will come from industry. 2. In the academic term of August 20003 to December 2003: ISEUC will deliver 100 SE DL courses from numerous universities worldwide. These courses will include 1000 additional students, who would not otherwise be enrolled. Seventy-five percent of the new students will come from industry. ISEUC Curriculum The following is a list of broad curriculum/course categories that will be used to organize and categorize the offerings by the member institutions. These categories were adapted from ones used by Carnegie Mellon University, and they are based on many effective and world-class Software Engineering curricula: Core Courses - Methodology - Requirements - Design - Construction - Project Management - Evolution - Capstone Projects Recurring Courses - Ethics and Professionalism - Processes - Quality - Modeling - Metrics - Tools and Environments - Documentation Existing Courses: Most recognized SE curricula already have courses in place that fall within the above categories. Also, implementation of DL programs for many of these courses has already taken place at some universities. Subject Delivery / Learning Modes: The consortium will drive distance learning using both asynchronous and synchronous learning modes. Asynchronous: delivery will be based on Web-based systems; and synchronous delivery will based on face-to-face contact, video conferencing and the use of chat and other types of interactive sessions. Packaging Individual courses could transfer, if desired, from the primary university. They could be packaged into certificates (3-4 courses with a specific focus), as well as on a stand-alone basis. Those courses taken for professional development would typically be short courses. Benefits Benefits for Consortium Participants: 1. As a "primary" university, additional students would enroll in existing SE DL courses. 2. New SE DL courses may be developed, for additional university revenue, from a worldwide population of students. 3. Participation as an "associate" university would also increase revenues. Benefits for Students: 1. New state-of-the-art courses from universities world-wide from which to choose 2. Asynchronous mode for most of course: "any" time and place accessibility 3. Synchronous mode, when required, is available via mediator from closer by associate university 4. Single Point of Contact (POC) via ISEUC a. administration b. enrollment at any ISEUC member university c. payment for courses taken for credit, with reimbursement from industry employer, when the student is employed Benefits for Industry: 1. Additional qualified SE professionals 2. Added breadth and depth of professionals 3. Better accessibility to academic centers of SE ISECU Administration The consortium will require various activities, including: 1. Administration 2. Marketing 3. Coordination 4. Single Point of Contact (POC) for students, e.g., ISEUC serves as portal for students who take courses from several ISEUC members, e.g., University of Queensland (Australia), University of Michigan-Dearborn (U.S.), Texas Tech (U.S.), University of Wales at Aberystwyth (UK), and Ottawa University (Canada) 5. Soliciting recommendations on mission, goals, objectives, operations, etc. from Advisory board of ISEUC members and from Professional Advisory Board ISEUC Membership ISEUC currently has thirty-five university members. In soliciting for membership we look for institutions and programs that have an excellent software engineering faculty, who possessed appropriate industry experience and knowledge. We look for quality programs that have an Industrial Advisory Board, and adequate operational and development resources (staff, tools, processes, course ware, etc.). One concern is the infrastructure support for DL and the gap between a university's capability and ISEUC needs. It is planned to address this gap through requests for seed funding from a variety of sources. The responsibilities of ISEUC members are listed in the appendix. The appendix also includes a set of complementary responsibilities for ISEUC administration. Details on the Personal Visits In order to between understand the capabilities and potential for ISEUC, from October 30, 2000 through June 5, 2001, the author made personal visits to thirty-five universities that had indicated a positive interest in ISEUC membership. The thirty-five universities covered the world, as follows: Country Number of Cities/States/Provinces Australia 9 Canada 2 United Kingdom 4 United States of America 20 TOTAL 35 These institutions had responded to a query sent to all of the current 108 SE programs that have supplied data for a survey of academic SE programs internationally. The survey was funded by ACM and IEEE-Computer Society and has been presented at several international conferences as well to on-line publications [1,2,3,4,5]. A joint dialogue at each site, based on a presentation developed by the author and given as the first hyperlink at www.iseuc.org, generated lots of discussion. These results are given in the "Lessons Learned" hyperlink at the same web-site. These "lessons" consist of individual responses from each university to the following four questions: 1. What is the current status of Software Engineering and Distance Learning at your location? Examples could include numbers courses and students, years of experience, faculty involved, etc. 2. What are unique or distinguishing characteristics of SE and DL at your location? Examples could include industry support, complete program on-line, etc. 3. What taxonomy do you use for Software Engineering at your location? 4. What are the next steps for you to become involved with ISEUC? Participants at the meeting included faculty, department chairs, deans, heads of schools, provosts, distance learning staff, development staff, and industry. The meeting length ranged from 30 minutes to six hours, with a median of 2-3 hours. Locations were often in department conference rooms, but also included department chair offices and industry sites, as in the case of the meeting for Murdoch University, which was hosted by the Software Engineering Australia (SEA) industry group of Western Australia. The discussion covered some of the following components: * Why are we here? (Context) * Where are we now? (Current status) * Where could we be? (Proposal) * Why would we want to do this: Faculty, Administration, Industry? * How could it be done? * What are the next steps: Faculty, Administration? * So what? * Supporting material * Sample scenarios: Faculty (full-time and adjunct), Administration, Industry The topics were selected based on the background of the group. That is, some universities were already very proficient in distance learning, but wanted to know why a consortium would help them. The analogy of the "Star Alliance" consisting of major international airlines was used in such instances. Others had questions about distance learning. ALL had excellent software engineering programs. A natural question the reader might have is something like the following: "If distance learning is so great, why didn't you practice what you preach, and just use video-conferencing for these meetings, instead of getting on an airplane or in a car all the time?" Good question! Clearly the consortium emphasizes NOT getting in an airplane or car to attend a class. The answer has its roots in 40+ years of personal experience in both academe and industry - and relates to the value of first impressions. Initial contacts are vital in relationships, and so the author felt it would be much better for ISEUC prospective members to be able to see him in person, and vice versa, as we begin the development. Thereafter, such face-to-face meetings are not as essential. That is also the reason that students who enroll in SE courses via ISEUC will have the option of having a face-to-face "mediator" to help them with the course. If a university is interested in ISEUC membership, here is a list of suggested steps on how to proceed: * Review the information at www.iseuc.org. * Contact the author for a draft agreement between ISEUC and your university. * Add your SE DL courses to the ISEUC catalog. * Place them into relevant taxonomy. * Add them to ISEUC calendar for 2001-02. - Provide URLs for former versions. - Provide e-mail contact for instructor. * Add tuition/fees to ISEUC list. * Determine arrangements for ISEUC to be POC for students enrolled via ISEUC marketing: transcripts, "guest," fees, etc. Summary ISEUC (pronounced "I see, You see") is now under development, and currently involves institutions of higher learning from 20 states and four countries, drawn from respondents to a worldwide survey of Software Engineering degree programs funded by ACM and IEEE-Computer Society. ISEUC plans to provide comprehensive integrated and high -quality asynchronous learning opportunities (undergraduate and graduate credit courses, post-graduate continuing professional education courses, certificates, etc.) to the international community of current and prospective pools of software engineering practitioners, as well as current and future students enrolled in such curricula. This paper discussed the rationale, concepts, and organization for ISEUC as well as lessons learned from personal visits to all 35 universities. Appendix A. Responsibilities of the ISEUC Member Institution 1. Supply a single Point of Contact to serve as the ISEUC representative. 2. Review existing and likely inventory of SE courses that could be added to the ISEUC catalog of asynchronously delivered courses. Such courses could be for-credit or professional development in nature. Provide complete subject details, e.g., catalog description, pre-requisites, credit hours, etc. Place all selected courses in a taxonomy as currently given in the ISEUC proposed curriculum. 3. Notify ISEUC when such SE courses would be available in DL mode at least one month prior to the actual subject being offered, as well as details, e.g., instructor of record, URL of subject, etc. Any materials deemed relevant for marketing purposes is to be supplied to ISEUC, e.g., samples from previous courses, highlights of instructor, etc. 4. Notify ISEUC if the subject cannot be offered, or if there are changes in dates, etc., so ISEUC can notify the student(s) affected. 5. Provide to ISEUC a current list of tuition and fees for students who wish to take a single subject via distance learning using asynchronous modes. The fee structure must comprehend both undergraduate and graduate student statuses. 6. Provide a list of industry advisory board members, if such a board exists, and agree to contact the board members when ISEUC makes marketing material available. 7. Recommend a member of their industry advisory board (if one exists) to be a member of the ISEUC Professional Advisory Board 8. Evaluate all students enrolled via ISEUC in a manner identical to that of all other students enrolled in the subject 9. Assist in developing evaluation measures for courses in which ISEUC students are enrolled and provide such data to ISEUC. 10. Notify ISEUC in the event that membership in ISEUC is no longer desired. B. Responsibilities of ISEUC 1. Help ISEUC member universities who request assistance in developing distance learning versions of their courses. Such assistance could include contracting with other ISEUC members who already provide such a service internally, e.g., converting an existing subject to one that uses a course management system such as WebCT or Blackboard, or an electronic learning ISP such as e-college. 2. Upon notification of item A.3, market the courses via a wide variety of modes to likely students, primarily in industry, and likely using the individual industry advisory boards. 3. Maintain a useful, attractive, and functional web presence that serves as a "one-stop shopping" node as well as a marketing one. 4. Act as a single POC for students, including collecting their transcripts, resumes, sample work products, etc. as required by the members of ISEUC, and transmit same to the ISEUC members. 5. Provide for a qualified person to act as mediator for the student, if desired. This person may come from a nearby ISEUC member university or from the place of employment of the student. This person may also act as "proctor" during exams, should the ISEUC member require it. 6. Collect payment for ISEUC courses from the students. 7. Pay ISEUC member universities their advertised amount for tuition and fees. 8. Pay the instructor of record for each student enrolled via ISEUC. The current such payment is $120 US/student/subject. This assumes a subject in which the normal number of contact hours is approximately 40-45, including the final exam. 9. Pay the mediator for each student enrolled in a subject via ISEUC. The current such payment is $30 US/student/subject, subject to the assumptions above. 10. Notify the student of any changes in subject offerings, in the event that the subject is not offered or that the dates change, etc. This would be subject to having such notification as in A.4. 11. Form a Professional Advisory Board, using recommendations from A.7. 12. Using evaluation data from A.9, provide summary data to ISEUC members and the Professional Advisory Board on a timely basis. 13. Notify all ISEUC members on a timely basis, should ISEUC cease to exist, and ensure that all monies collected from students on behalf of members be paid promptly to the members, in such an instance. Bibliography 1. "The Software Engineering Academy Joins Industry: Results of the First Annual Survey for International SE Programs and a Future Portrait" accepted for International Colloquium on Global Changes in Engineering Education, American Society of Engineering Education and European Society of Engineering Education, Berlin, Germany, September, 2001. 2. "Where Are We Now? A Status Report on the First Annual Survey for International Academic Software Engineering Programs", primary author, co-authored with D. Bagert and L. Werth, 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Toronto, CA, May, 2001, pp. 643-652. 3. "International Academic Software Engineering: Results of First Annual Survey", primary author, co-authored with D. Bagert and L. Werth, IASTED International Conference on Applied Informatics, Innsbruck, Austria, February 19-22, 2001, pp. 555-560. 4. "Survey of Software Engineering Programs", ACM Software Engineering Notes (SIGSOFT), 25 (4), July, 2000, pp. 5-7. 5. "Annual Survey of International Software Engineering Programs (Progress Reports)", Forum for Advancing Software Engineering (FASE), available on-line [www.cs.ttu.edu/fase], 10 (5), May, 2000, November, 2000. 6. Freeman, P. and W. Aspray, "The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United States, Computing Research Association, 1999. 7. Office of Technology Policy, "America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers", U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998, available on-line at www.ta.doc.gov/OTPolicy/reports.htm ###################################################################### From: Alan Clements The Computer Society International Design Competition Alan Clements University of Teesside, United Kingdom Background Many organizations run a competition to draw attention to their work. A well-designed competition can create a spirit of camaraderie amongst the contestants and help cement their relationship with the organizing society. The IEEE Computer Society is the world's largest association of computer societies. Although the Computer Society is highly active in education at all levels, it didn't have a competition that involved students until last year. In 1997, a working party was set up by Bruce Shriver to construct the Computer Society International Design Competition. The competition's mission statement was "The Computer Society International Design Competition will advance excellence in education by having student teams design and implement computer-based solutions to real-world problems." The CSIDC is designed to involve a team of four or five undergraduate students working over a period of four months. Teams are expected to specify a system, design it, construct it, test it, and document it. The theme of the competition is state-of-the-art computing and technology sponsors provide modern technology to all the competing teams. An important aspect of the competition is fairness. Universities should have equal access to the competition. All teams competing in the competition are given the same kit of parts to prevent the competition being influenced by the spending power of teams from the more affluent universities. A limit of $200 is imposed on any additional spending. The First Year CSIDC-2000 Teams taking part in the competition are selected at random, although at least two teams are selected from each of the IEEE's ten regions (assuming that two or more teams apply from that region). This algorithm ensured that the first competition had a range of teams from all over the world. Because the competition is the Computer Society's flagship event, and because of the sheer effort expected of the students, the prizes are substantial (the first prize is $25,000). Moreover, the top ten teams and their faculty mentors are invited to the World Finals in Washington, DC. The competition is open to teams of three to five undergraduate students in computer science, computer engineering, or related fields. Each team includes a faculty mentor to provide guidance but who does not take part in the competition. A team member is permitted have a prior first degree in a non-computer science subject, but may not be a CS graduate. The first competition had 50 teams with an approximately 50:50 balance between US and non-US teams. There were many applications from East Europe, although West Europe was grossly under-represented. The second competition in 2001 was expanded to 75 teams. Teams from West Europe were still under-represented although one of the two West European teams who entered took the second prize. After the first year of the competition, universities whose teams take part in the World Finals have the automatic right to compete in the following year. If a team is not selected one year, a team from the same university who enters next year has double the chance of being selected. The theme of CSIDC-2000 was healthcare applications based on Internet technology. Participating teams were given a single-board computer and three operating systems (Windows CE, Linux, and a real-time operating system). It was felt that a competition involving healthcare, something that concerns everyone, would be more likely to attract media attention than a competition involving the construction of a particular algorithm. Judging CSIDC-2000 After four months teams submitted a 30-page written report. Projects were divided into groups of five and each batch was sent to a three- person submission evaluation team, (SET) selected to have a balance between hardware and software skills and to represent both industry and academia. Members of the SET were asked to grade the reports and to select the best two. The best two projects from each SET (10 SETs x 2 projects = 20) were passed on to a judging session in Washington DC where ten judges spent two days whittling down the 20 reports to the final ten. At the first World Finals of the CSIDC in Washington, DC, the top ten teams had to demonstrate their systems to the judges, who were given an opportunity to discuss each project with individual team members. Each team gave a presentation, sometimes making spectacular use of multimedia, and a demonstration of their project to an audience of judges and other interested parties (journalists, Computer Society staff, and some embassy staff from foreign teams' home countries). The winning entry was from McMaster University in Canada. Their project involved the construction of a heart monitor that was suitable for remote use by patients. They designed an EKG interface (the sensor pads attached to the patient and the signal-conditioning circuitry), an analog-to-digital converter, the algorithms used to extract features of the EKG wave, and the neural network that took these features and used them to make the diagnosis. The neural network (freeware downloaded from the Internet) was trained with EKG patterns from medical textbooks. The system incorporated a low-cost GPS (global positioning system) and a radio link to the Internet. If the patient suffered a coronary event, the system detected it and sent the details and the patient's location to their medial team. Feedback from CSIDC-2000 At the end of the competition feedback forms were issued to all those involved: SET members, judges, students, and faculty mentors. Students were asked how they first learned of the competition, whether its duration and starting/ending dates were appropriate, and about the format of the report. Most students found out about the competition from many sources, although Computer Magazine was the most important. Once some students became aware of the competition via Computer, many others learned about it by word-of-mouth. Although some students would have preferred different starting dates and a few might have liked a longer period, most students would have been unable to take part in a competition spanning more than one semester. The competition was sometimes incorporated into the students' existing course. Most universities were happy with the timetable, although some non-US universities found the dates inconvenient. This problem is particularly significant for teams in the southern hemisphere because the key part of the project falls during the students' summer recess. When asked whether they would prefer to submit a longer report, few students selected that option. Several students would have liked the opportunity to include background material such as graphics, screenshots, and the code in an appendix, although one of the mentors pointed out that appendices could lead to the undisciplined dumping of material. Students were generally happy with nearly all aspects of the competition's organization, from the rules to the competition's website. In particular, there was a very strong endorsement for the $200 spending limit. The Second Year - CSIDC-2001 CSIDC-2001 focused on the Personal Area Network, PAN, based on Bluetooth wireless technology. Projects had to consist of a working prototype using components from the CSIDC Project Kit provided by Ericsson, Intel, and Toshiba, and the software supplied by Microsoft. The only strongly prescriptive regulation was that the project must use the Bluetooth Developer's Kit supplied to all teams taking part in the competition. CSIDC-2001 gave the students a much smaller project kit than CSIDC 2000. I held my breath for the first few months of the competition because we had put all our eggs in one basket - either the students would learn to use the Bluetooth kits or they would fail to complete the competition. Teams participating in CSIDC were told that the top ten projects would be judged on whether they achieved their design objective; the design and implementation of any tools developed in the course of the project; system specification and implementation; creativity and ingenuity including evaluation of trade-offs at all levels of the design; manufacturability, marketability, and maintainability; and validation testing and performance measurements. The quality of the 2001 finalists was superb. The reports were well written; the demonstrations were interesting; and the presentations were excellent. Although the first language of about half the students was not English, most of the teams gave presentations in almost flawless English. CSIDC-2002 and Beyond The challenge faced by the International Design Competition is scalability. In the first year, the number of teams was 50 and in the second year the number of participating teams grew to 75. We anticipate that CSIDC-2002 will have 85 teams. Where do we go after that? Some competitions are relatively easy to scale. The CSIDC takes place over four months and is a one-shot competition with no practical way of devolving judging by repeating the competition. Suppose that the competition allowed 300 teams to participate. This would require 60 submission evaluation teams, or 180 judges. These SETs would have to submit 120 projects to the panel of judges to select the best 10. Judging is not the only process affected by scalability. Obtaining large numbers of project kits and shipping them is not a trivial matter. Clearly, CISDC is not scalable in its current form. Moreover, although the current system of selecting teams at random is very fair and creates a level playing field, it is not popular. Sponsors don't like it because they feel that their kits don't go to the best teams and some students don't like it because they feel that their enthusiasm to enter is not rewarded. The CSIDC executive is currently considering ways of increasing participation while retaining elements of the level playing field concept; for example, teams could be selected by asking prospective teams to submit a proposal and then selecting teams with the best proposals according to geographic region. If anyone would like to help me run CSIDC-2002 or would like to help in raising sponsorship, I can be contacted at a.clements@tees.ac.uk Conclusion The Computer Society International Design Competition is two years old. It has been more successful than those who designed it could have imagined (based on student feedback, comments from mentors and sponsors, and the views of those who organized it). However, this is a very expensive competition in terms of financial costs and in terms of the amount of effort required from large numbers of volunteers. The Computer Society is actively looking at ways of increasing student participation while reducing the cost of the competition. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ News Items ###################################################################### By: Don Bagert (Professional Issues Editor) IEEE-USA Releases Statement on Engineer Title The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America (IEEE-USA) Board of Directors has released a new position statement, which is located on their web site at http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/titleengineer.html and reprinted (with permission) in its entirety below. [Thanks to Jim Carlo for bringing this to our attention.] _____ IEEE-USA Position Use of the Title "Engineer" Approved by the IEEE-USA Board of Directors (June 21, 2001) IEEE-USA recognizes that the title, Engineer, has a multiplicity of meanings within the context of laws of various U.S. jurisdictions. All jurisdictions protect the titles Professional Engineer, Licensed Engineer, Registered Engineer, or some variation thereof, to refer to individuals licensed in those jurisdictions to practice engineering. In addition, some jurisdictions protect the title, Engineer, with no qualifying words added. The purpose of protecting these titles is to ensure that the public can easily identify those individuals who possess the requisite skill, knowledge and competence to protect public safety, health and welfare in the practice of engineering. Generally, the public interprets the term, Engineer, to mean a person who is qualified to practice engineering by reason of special knowledge and use of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, acquired by engineering education and engineering experience. It is our position that the title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves the interest of both the IEEE-USA and the public by providing a recognized designation by which those qualified to practice engineering may be identified. The education and experience needed for the title, Engineer, is evidenced by Graduation with an Engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering (or equivalent*), coupled with sufficient experience in the field in which the term, Engineer, is used; and/or Licensure by any jurisdiction as a Professional Engineer. This statement was developed by the Licensure and Registration Committee of the IEEE-United States of America (IEEE-USA) and represents the considered judgment of a group of IEEE U.S. members with expertise in the subject field. IEEE-USA is an organizational unit of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., created in 1973 to promote the careers and public-policy interests of the more than 230,000 electrical, electronics, computer and software engineers who are U.S. members of the IEEE. * A degree from a foreign institution (or the total education when a person holds a graduate degree in engineering but no accredited B.S. in engineering) can be evaluated through a service offered by ABET. Copyright 2001 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Position Openings ###################################################################### From: Dan Cooke Texas Tech University The Department of Computer Science invites applications for one or more tenure track positions at all levels for the academic year 2001-02. Specific areas of need include software engineering; network and distributed systems; and theory. Other areas will be considered for exceptionally strong candidates. Applicants must have a Ph.D. degree in computer science or a closely related field. Faculty are expected to teach existing graduate and undergraduate courses, develop new courses, and contribute to the research mission of the university. We offer competitive salaries, a friendly and cooperative environment, and excellent research facilities. Applicants should send a resume, including a brief statement of research interests, and the names of at least three references to Professor Daniel Cooke, Chair, Department of Computer Science, Texas Tech University, Box 43104, Lubbock, TX 79409-3104. Email: dcooke@coe.ttu.edu. Website: http://www.cs.ttu.edu. Review of applications will begin as soon as they are received. Applications will be accepted until the positions are filled. Candidates must be currently eligible to work in the United States. Texas Tech University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and actively seeks the candidacy of women and minorities. ###################################################################### From: Stewart Green University Of The West Of England Research studentship with the Systems Modelling Group The Systems Modelling Group in the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Mathematical Sciences is engaged in research with a basis in software engineering and a specific focus on process modelling. Process modelling is about building representations of patterns of activities in a workplace and implementing them as computer-based systems. The aim is to build software systems which fit and support working practices. To continue developing our research in this area, we should now like to engage a PhD student to work with us. There are several areas we want to explore further, including: enactable process modelling languages; case study investigations of organizational processes; process modelling for requirements engineering; and process modelling in particular application contexts, e.g., electronic commerce or engineering. Specific research proposals from applicants will also be considered. Applicants should have a good honours degree or a postgraduate qualification in a computing discipline. Suitable applicants will be interviewed. The successful applicant will receive a bursary of 6,800 pounds p.a. for three years. Please send your C.V., contact details for two academic referees, and an initial indication of your area of interest to: Stewart Green, CEMS Faculty, University Of The West Of England, Bristol BS16 1QY. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contact and General Information about FASE FASE is published on the 15th of each month by the FASE staff. Article and Faculty Ad Submission Guidelines Send newsletter articles to one of the editors, preferably by category: Articles pertinent to academic education to Tom Hilburn ; corporate and government training to David Carter ; professional issues, faculty ads, and all other categories, to Don Bagert . If the article is for a FASE topic where there is a guest editor, the submission should instead be to that person, according to the schedule provided. Items must be submitted by the 8th of the month in order to be considered for inclusion in that month's issue. Also, please see the submission guidelines immediately below. FASE submission format guidelines: All submissions must be in ASCII format, and contain no more than 70 characters per line (71 including the new line character). This 70-character/line format must be viewable in a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad WITHOUT using a "word wrap" facility. All characters (outside of the newline) should in the ASCII code range from 32 to 126 (i.e. "printable" in DOS text mode). _____ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Information Everyone that is receiving this by email is on the FASE mailing list. If you wish to leave this list, send a message to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: unsubscribe fase To rejoin (or have someone else join) the FASE mailing list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase For instance, if your name is Jane Smith, write: subscribe fase Jane Smith But what if you have something that you want to share with everyone else, before the next issue? For more real-time discussion, there is the FASE-TALK discussion list. It is our hope that it will be to FASE readers what the SIGCSE.members listserv is to that group. (For those of you that don't know, SIGCSE is the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education.) To subscribe to the FASE-TALK list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase-talk For instance, if your name is Jane Smith, write: subscribe fase-talk Jane Smith Please try to limit FASE-TALK to discussion items related to software engineering education, training and professional issues; CFPs and other such items can still be submitted to the editor for inclusion into FASE. Anyone that belongs to the FASE-TALK mailing list can post to it. As always, there is no cost for subscribing to either FASE or FASE-TALK! (Subscriptions can also be maintained through the Web via http://lyris.acs.ttu.edu. From there, click on "TTU Faculty Mailing Lists", and then either "fase" or "fase-talk", depending on which list you desire.) _____ Back issues (dating from the very first issue) can be found on the web (with each Table of Contents) at in chronological order, or in reverse order. _____ The FASE Staff: Tom Hilburn -- Academic Editor Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Department of Computing and Mathematics Daytona Beach FL 32114 USA Phone: 904-226-6889 Fax: 904-226-6678 Email: hilburn@db.erau.edu URL: http://faculty.erau.edu/hilburn/ David Carter -- Corporate/Government Editor 807 Hwy 1204 #B-2 Pineville LA 71360 Phone: 318-641-0824 Email: dacarter@bayou.com Don Bagert, P.E. -- Professional Issues/Misc Editor and Web/Listmaster Department of Computer Science 8th and Boston Texas Tech University Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA Phone: 806-742-1189 Fax: 806-742-3519 Email: Don.Bagert@ttu.edu URL: http://www.cs.ttu.edu/faculty/bagert.html Laurie Werth -- Advisory Committee Taylor Hall 2.124 University of Texas at Austin Austin TX 78712 USA Phone: 512-471-9535 Fax: 512-471-8885 Email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu Nancy Mead -- Advisory Committee Software Engineering Institute 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Phone: 412-268-5756 Fax: 412-268-5758 Email: nrm@sei.cmu.edu