Analysing Relevancy of Industrial Engineering to Requirements of Industry using Scientific Approaches
Relevancy of industrial engineering to industry requirements
Keywords:
Reliability Analysis, AHP, QFD, HOQAbstract
Designing Curriculum has primarily carried out solitude without relying on the voice of stakeholders, which leads to crafting engineers with unnecessary understanding, thus struggle to offer available means to fix industry challenges. This research will aid in establishing strategies where the voice from the stakeholders (industry, alumni, and current students) will probably be methodically turned into having appropriate courses in industrial engineering programs employing Quality Function Deployment (QFD) tool. A survey for every single stakeholder is made per qualified thoughts and opinions and sent out involving 240 plus individuals, while 124 legitimate reactions are noted down, to help make a decision depending on the study. Scientific resources like Cronbach's alpha for reliability analysis, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for showing priority for stakeholder's requirement and QFD for adjusting those prioritized requirements into associated industrial engineering programs widely-used to review the relevance of industrial engineering schooling to the demands of the industry, alumni and students. The Cronbach’s alpha values are in acceptable range i.e. 0.80, 0.85, 0.73, 0.74 for industry, graduate, student, and aggregate survey data, respectively. All the courses are ranked using House of Quality (HOQ). In a nutshell, this study has developed model for designing curriculum as per requirements of stakeholders. This course developed if delivered, will aid give you the needed skills and knowledge towards the graduates. In exchange, the graduates will begin actively playing a productive part in industries that can help bring back the interest and belief of industry in engineering schools and create strong University-Industry Linkages.
References
T. Atlan, Bring together industry and university engineering schools. Getting More Out of R&D and Technology, The Conference Board, Research Report (1987).
L.S. Peters, and H. Fusfeld. University-industry research relationships. National Science Foundation 235: 236-237 (1982).
S. Martin, and J.T. Scott. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy 29(4-5): 437-447 (2000).
J. Friedman, and J. Silberman. University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer 28(1): 17-30 (2003).
M. Balconi., S. Breschi, and F. Lissoni. Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Research policy 33(1): 127-145 (2004).
W. Faulkner, and J. Senker. Knowledge frontiers: public sector research and industrial innovation in biotechnology, engineering ceramics, and parallel computing, Clarendon Press Oxford (1995).
E. Mansfield. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. The review of Economics and Statistics. 55-65 (1995).
F. Meyer-Krahmer, and U. Schmoch. Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research policy 27(8): 835-851 (1998).
Jaleel. Pakistan Industrial Growth. Rawalpindi. The Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce & Industry (2018).
N.J. Adler, and S. Bartholomew. Managing globally competent people. Academy of Management Perspectives 6(3): 52-65 (1992).
D.E. Guest. Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. International journal of human resource management 8(3): 263-276 (1997).
J. Peralta. Top Five Traits of Successful HR Professionals Training (2015).
S. Pahuja, and R.C. Dalal. Achieving Competitive Advantage through HR Practices: A Case Study. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management. 1(2):35 (2012).
K. Stankiewicz. Contemporary Issues and Challenges. Econ papers: 7-8 (2015).
K. Hafeez, and I. Aburawi. Planning human resource requirements to meet target customer service levels. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 5(2): 230-252 (2013).
F.F. Ahmadian., A. Akbarnezhad., T.H. Rashidi, and S. T. Waller. Dynamic Programming Approach toward Optimization of Workforce Planning Decisions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144(2): 04017113 (2017).
S. Niazi. Technical courses revamp focuses on practical learning (2018).
R.E. Yager, and A. Hofstein. Features of a quality curriculum for school science. Journal of Curriculum Studies 18(2): 133-146 (1986).
Nrmed. Overview of The Curriculum Development Process. Fao. (2018).
W. Kuo, W. Engineering curriculum development. ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement Proceedings, American Society for Quality (1998).
L.J. Cronbach. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrical 16(3): 297-334 (1951).
E. Triantaphyllou, E, and S. H. Mann. Using the AHP for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice 2(1): 35-44 (1995).
Y. Akao, and G.H. Mazur. The leading edge in QFD: past, present and future. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20(1): 20-35 (2003).
