Final Draft - 9/1/00

For presentation at a meeting of the American Public Works Association (APWA) in Louisville, KY, on Sunday, 10 September 2000.

James T. P. Yao

PE; Honorary Member, ASCE; Fellow, ASEE; Professor of Civil Engineering, and Holder of Carolyn S. and Tommie E. Lohman '59 Professorship in Engineering Education, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX  77843-3136.

Jose M. Roesset

PE; N.A.E.; Honorary Member, ASCE; Professor of Civil Engineering and Ocean Engineering, and Holder of Wofford Cain '13 Senior Chair of Engineering in Offshore Technology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX  77843-3136.

SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR A CURRICULUM IN
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT

James T. P. Yao and Jose M. Roesset

Public works and infrastructure management have always been the primary domain of civil engineers. In recent decades, however, the role of the civil engineer in this field seems to have been decreasing in importance, with increasing emphasis being placed on administrative skills, management experience and political savvy over technical expertise. If civil engineers want to regain a prominent position in the planning and management of public works, a new curriculum that properly balances mathematics, sciences, engineering, humanities, and social and political sciences must be developed and implemented in our colleges and universities. This curriculum should provide students with a basic knowledge and understanding of:

·        Mathematics and  basic science

·        Engineering science

·        Technical aspects of infrastructure systems

·        Principles of uncertainty and risk analysis

·        Decision analysis in the face of uncertainty

·        Management and business principles

·        Societal needs, ethics, public policy, and political science

·        Communication skills

In addition, the students should be exposed to engineering practice through a variety of means including summer internships, cooperative programs, and interactions with practicing professional engineers. Furthermore, faculty need to be exposed to practical problems to bring back that experience into the classroom. In this paper, we discuss these aspects in some detail. We also believe that a broad-based undergraduate degree should be followed with a more specialized master level degree for civil engineering practice at a professional level.

Public works, or civil infrastructure (using the newer and more marketable terminology), have always been intimately associated with the civil engineering profession. The planning, design, construction, and operation of public works, or civil infrastructure, were the main reasons for the existence and, in turn, education of civil engineers in many countries around the world. In many of these countries, (1) civil engineering schools maintained a close connection with the national/state departments of public works, and (2) civil engineering graduates often became government employees at the national, regional, or local (municipal) level. It was also common to have not only the local and regional heads of infrastructure management offices (e.g., hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, transportation, waste disposal, and water supply), but also the national/state Secretary (or Minister) of Public Works (encompassing transportation, housing, and urban development) be civil engineers. Ultimate decisions on whether to undertake important public works or establish an order of priority among various projects was always left to political figures (e.g., mayor, governor, or the head of state). However, civil engineers provided the technical and economic input directly to the decision-makers and were then in charge of supervising the design, construction, and eventual maintenance and operation of these systems.

Several decades ago, this close association of civil engineers with the planning, design, construction, and operation of public works and civil infrastructure was also widespread within the USA. Recently one gets the impression that it has become more common to have non-technical persons (e.g., professional administrators, politicians, and even lawyers) filling what used to be technical positions. It still happens as an occasional exception rather than the rule that a civil engineer is appointed to a high position as a public works official (e.g., see ASCE, 1999). More frequently, however, an increasing number of intermediate layers have been established between the engineers and the decision-makers. This could relegate future civil engineers working for governmental agencies to the status of clerks, available to only provide numerical data or to perform computations, but without any major say in the planning and management processes.

This apparent decline in importance of the civil engineer within the arena of Public Works is reflected, not only in the reduction of representation at the top executive levels, but also in the sphere of national research in the field. For instance, when the National Science Foundation decided a few years ago to fund a major program on civil infrastructure at the national level, it did not award it to a civil engineering department but to the Department of Government at a university. This attitude is now spreading to other countries that are always eager to imitate the United States. It seems ironic that, in a world increasingly dependent on technology, the leadership role of those who have knowledge of and experience with technology might continually diminish.

The perceived decline in the importance of the role that civil engineers play in the public works arena is attributable to a number of different and complex reasons. One of the key reasons for this is the change in the perception of the need for civil engineering expertise. In developing countries (and in the USA in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries), politicians know they need a sound infrastructure (transportation, water supply, waste treatment, energy generation and distribution, communication, etc.) as the foundation for a competitive economy. The citizens are clamoring for safe drinking water, reliable energy, etc. This causes the senior management in developing countries to turn to those who can help develop these facilities as quickly as possible. Civil engineers have traditionally provided the knowledge needed for this development. However, once that public infrastructure is in place, the perceived need for civil engineers decreases. Many politicians then look to providing other services to their constituents including better health care, sports facilities, etc. The civil infrastructure is ignored until it breaks. Then, a civil engineer is called to fix the problems, but the need for the engineer is seen as an on-call resource, not as a major decision-maker.

Another important reason according to Dick Birdwell (a licensed engineer who served as a mayor in Louisiana and several-term city councilman in Texas) is a smaller number of engineers going to work for cities due to generally lower starting salaries. Wayne Klotz, another experienced and licensed engineer, mentioned other factors such as personality type, security, image, and the shortage of engineers. Another possible factor is that it is more difficult for international engineers to move into positions of public leadership. Many graduates majoring in public administration go to work for cities in low-level positions, and years later fill high-level positions. Even in a state such as Texas where there is the Texas Engineers Practice Act requiring certain positions to be taken by licensed engineers, the cities can get around it by simply changing titles. Approximately forty years ago, the major input for city public works came from the elected policy body and the City Engineer. Recently, planners and administrators set city public works policy, which is then rubber-stamped by the elected policy group.

Civil works can represent very large public investments and a significant number of jobs at all levels. These jobs range from high-level federal and state appointments such as Secretaries, Agency or Department Directors, and Commissioners to less glamorous but still important positions such as Deputy Directors, District Engineers, and Municipal Engineers. The opportunity to use these jobs for political patronage to reward services to the political party or to an individual’s campaign is too appealing to be ignored by politicians, especially if they do not see an immediate impact of making the change. Engineers in general tend to spend time doing technical work rather than performing service for a political party or helping in the running of political campaigns. At the same time, where the basic infrastructure is in place, the loss of engineering expertise in the decision making process probably will not have an immediately obvious detrimental impact on the civil infrastructure. These facilities generally last for many years, and the public works supervisor (who may not be an engineer) can keep them operating for a considerable period without significant engineering assistance. Thus what should be technical jobs, or jobs requiring at least some technical knowledge, are increasingly filled by persons without any technical education.

In addition, starting in the fifties, the emphasis in engineering education switched to mathematics and basic science at the expense of practical subjects such as sanitary engineering, surveying, plan preparation or plan reading. During this time period at research universities, undergraduate students have been prepared to attend graduate school and graduate students are supposed to learn by contributing to the research efforts of the faculty in their discipline with less emphasis on internships with practicing engineers. Humanities and social science courses are viewed by engineers as necessary evils when they were designed (1) to broaden the engineers’ understanding of the societal needs and relationships, and (2) to provide a balanced education rather than simple training. As a result, engineering students take these courses perfunctorily without gaining the needed knowledge about society and the interrelationships between society and technology. The present civil engineering curricula are not conducive to producing individuals who can play a key role in the planning and management of public works. Instead, they tend to produce academic researchers and/or technicians who can only make advanced computations. We must pursue revision of the curriculum if we want to recover the prestigious role in society the profession once held.

Another more difficult and subtle issue is the apparent conflict between the code of ethics taught to engineers and the current morality of our society. On one hand, engineers have often been accused of being too inflexible, seeing only right or wrong without any intermediate shades. The strong deterministic mathematical background traditionally required of an engineer may be partly responsible for this attitude, given that the solution of well-posed problems in mathematics is often unique. Some young engineers tend to shy away from problems without a unique solution. Yet engineering problems dealing with the real and physical world are rarely ideal mathematical models with a unique deterministic solution. Including an appreciation for the uncertainties involved in a constructed facility in the curriculum would greatly help in this respect. On the other hand, it is very difficult for engineers to subscribe to a new code of ethics in which service to an individual client must come ahead of the public good. In such a new code of ethics, (1) political patronage is more important than technical and economical considerations, (2) right or wrong is not absolute but relative, (3) telling the plain truth is unnecessary, and (4) the public good suffers for individual advancement. These are larger issues that are critical and should be addressed. However, they fall beyond the scope of this paper. We will concentrate instead on the need to revise the present engineering curricula to enhance the role of civil engineers in public works.

It is indeed timely to consider curriculum reform designed around the areas of public works and infrastructure management. The need to re-evaluate engineering education has been a topic of considerable interest and debate for many years. Industry, government and academia have all made apparent the need for engineers who have not only in-depth knowledge of physics, mathematics, advanced analysis procedures and specific technical subjects, but who can also communicate effectively, participate in team work with a variety of other professionals, lead interdisciplinary projects, and have an understanding of the legal, political and socio-economic impacts of engineering projects. Many committees and workshops organized with the sponsorship of the National Academy of Engineering, the National Science Foundation, professional associations, and academic institutions have resulted in essentially the same recommendations. For example, the Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable (ASEE, 1994) recommended that universities continue to teach scientific and engineering fundamentals as well as a broadened curriculum by incorporating team skills, communication skills, leadership skills, system perspective and integration of knowledge throughout the curriculum with a commitment to quality and ethics. If these broader aspects are needed for all engineers, their knowledge is particularly crucial for civil engineers planning to have a career in public works.

Ettema (2000) argued that a large number of students could find themselves adrift in the current curriculum and thus become under-motivated and under-performing. His suggested remedies included (1) making the progression of knowledge clear to the students, (2) showing that subsequent courses extend knowledge from earlier ones, (3) demonstrating how the knowledge is used in practice, and (4) indicating how information can be obtained in advanced courses. Earlier, Shaeiwitz et al. (1994) reported that a holistic curriculum was implemented in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the West Virginia University. They defined the holistic curriculum as one in which (A) the desired skills are taught from the beginning, reinforced throughout the curriculum, and polished in the capstone design course; (B) a departmental culture is developed to evolve around the curriculum, and (C) the curriculum content is modified based on comparisons between actual and desired student performance. The tenets of both Ettema and Shaeiwitz et al. have major implications for the future of engineering education, and subsequently, engineering practice.

Many four-year curricula have been successfully developed and implemented. As an example, Kuo and Deuermeyer (1999) described a new curriculum in Industrial Engineering at Texas A&M University. To paraphrase them, the traditional curriculum was characterized by (1) tools, (2) vertical integration of concepts, (3) a misdirected role, (4) disinterest of industry, and (5) a gap between undergraduate and graduate education. Their new curriculum is (A) problem-driven, (B) vertical in integration of subjects and design, (C) relevant to industry, and (E) eliminating the gap between undergraduate and graduate education among other advantages to their discipline. As another example, Fletcher (1997) traced the evolution of mechanical engineering curricula, and compared those of the 1950s with those of the 1990s. He then formulated a mechanical engineering curriculum for the 2020s emphasizing creativity and innovation.

In this paper, several topics are suggested for a new curriculum. We believe that a four-year bachelor degree in civil engineering followed by a master degree with practical experience are needed for civil engineering practice at a professional level. If and when a consensus for suggested topics is reached, a detailed curriculum can then be developed and implemented.

Along with the letter inviting us to present a paper on civil engineering education, President Jerry M. Fay, PE, sent us a copy of a paper by Ross (2000). After reading this paper, we became very much interested in this topic. Subsequently, Neil Grigg kindly sent us a copy of his papers along with those by Gordon (1999) and Little (1999). Although we are novices in this particular subject area, we offer our opinion on the desirable curriculum for infrastructure managers and for civil engineers.

Grigg (1996) talked about “fragmentation” of our proud profession several times in his paper. The authors had also observed this phenomenon (e.g., Roesset and Yao, 2000) and attributed it in part to the current faculty hiring and reward system. New faculty must produce a number of journal publications, be good teachers, and be involved in professional activities early in their careers to gain tenure and remain in faculty positions. Administrators, deans, and department heads, often believe they must hire young faculty members who have excelled in research in a highly visible, but specialized, area. This leads the faculty to believe that the normal practice of engineering is specialized, while in reality, most practicing engineers must cover several specialties within civil engineering. Public works and infrastructure management are not considered highly visible areas, and those faculty candidates who have the broader backgrounds needed for public works and infrastructure management may not be favorably considered in the hiring process when compared to other more fashionable types.

Another observation by Grigg (1996) was that “… infrastructure policy studies hardly mention education and research; mostly, they focus on finances and policy,” and that “infrastructure needs good engineers, analysts, and managers.” He suggested that “… civil engineers have unique opportunities to exercise leadership…” In a subsequent paper, Grigg (1998) recommended that universities and professional societies “work together to attract quality students to civil engineering, support and enhance their education, and provide lifelong career support for the civil engineering workforce.”

Gordon (1999) proposed a curriculum that has been implemented at the University of Southern California. Little (1999) suggested a new discipline in infrastructure management with the following items:

“1. The knowledge base necessary for engineers … to successfully manage complex infrastructure systems. 2. The basic curriculum elements and level of instruction necessary to develop a core competence … that will produce better trained and more capable infrastructure professionals. 3. The means by which truly interdisciplinary thinking and communication skills can be developed and supplied by a broad range of professionals to infrastructure problems. 4. The adequacy of available university-level programs.”

Grigg (2000) summarized these papers and reviewed his own experience in teaching this subject since the late sixties. His course on infrastructure management now focuses on the principles of infrastructure (including planning, management systems, decision-support systems, operations, finances, project management, and maintenance), and uses case studies for illustration purposes. Ross (2000) challenged “Educators and practitioners … [to] come together to create a shared vision of a new professional curriculum that will equip public administrators with the technical, engineering, societal, political, communication, economic, and people skills necessary to effectively manage public infrastructure …”

Amekudzi et al. (2000) have emphasized the importance of “deterioration science,” economics, finance, decision analyses, management theory, maintenance, and public policy, in addition to knowledge of design standards in managing infrastructure systems. They also reviewed a course initiated at the Carnegie Mellon University and offered at five different universities.

As Roesset et al. (1988) stated, fundamentals (including mathematics, basic and engineering sciences) are essential foundations of any engineering education. Equally important are decision analysis under conditions of uncertainty including risk analysis, which should be taught from the beginning and subsequently reinforced at all levels. With the understanding of uncertainty and risks, engineers and planners can make decisions rationally, considering all the options and implications. In addition, proper involvement in public works and other civil engineering practice requires good communication skills and an understanding of societal needs, public policy, and political science, as well as management and business principles. The key to the successful management of infrastructure systems is technical expertise on infrastructure systems. However, this engineering expertise must be complemented by all these other skills. Another important component is practical experience. In the following paragraphs, we discuss each of these topics. We believe that, without creating a new discipline that would lead to further fragmentation of the civil engineering profession, it is possible to reform our existing curricula not only for infrastructure management but also for civil engineering in general. A key issue is to have all of the above topics properly integrated rather than as a collection of independent and often disparate, unrelated courses. If nothing changes, we would agree with Arnesen (2000) that the future of civil engineering “may not be so rosy.” In other words, civil engineering is not attracting the students that will be the leaders of the next generation.

Mathematics (including the theory of probability and statistics) and physical sciences (e.g., chemistry, and physics) form the foundation of all engineering disciplines. The basic mathematics and science courses have been traditionally taken in the freshman year with more advanced material (a third calculus course for instance) and other sciences (such as biology and geology) in the sophomore year and several possible electives in those subjects in the junior and senior years. With rapid advances in computer technology, discrete mathematics should be emphasized more than they are at present. However, the ASCE accreditation requirements are still directed at traditional differential equations.

Ideally the basic courses are the same for all students regardless of discipline. In some cases, however, different courses are offered for engineering and science students. One may in this case have the worst science professors teaching students with non-science majors, using these courses as a crib to reduce the number of students rather than a means to teach well this crucial material.

So-called engineering science courses (e.g., solid and fluid mechanics, and thermodynamics) are typically taught in the sophomore year. It was common for engineering students to take all these courses before seeing any actual engineering applications. At present, students are no longer willing to learn abstract concepts without seeing immediately the purpose and application of what they are learning. An effort is being made now to incorporate meaningful practical applications as early as possible in the curriculum. However, this effort may be in conflict with another trend to have common courses in engineering sciences for all students as they were in the 1950s. This trend tends to imply more abstract and general coverage of the material abstaining from a lot of specific applications. It is our belief that basic science courses should be the same for all engineering and science students. Engineering science offerings should contain specific real applications of interest to each particular discipline (e.g., civil, mechanical, and electrical) while emphasizing the systems approach (e.g., see Bordogna, 1998), and should thus be tailored to the needs of each discipline.

At present, civil engineering students are often exposed to an introductory course providing an overview of each specialty: environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, structural, transportation and water resources engineering. Very general presentations tend to be complemented by lectures on use of computers for text editing, drafting or computing, with exposure to many software packages. The number of credits for such a course may vary from 1 to 3. In some curricula, students are further required to take a basic introductory course in each of these specialty areas. If this is the case, these curricula should include a course on public works. An introductory course such as the one taught by Gordon (1999) or Grigg (2000) is preferable with an emphasis on principles of maintenance and optimization. In other curricula, students are not required to take any specific engineering courses beyond the basic engineering science offerings. In that case, the introductory area course should be required of all undergraduate students who have designated that specific area as their major option. In each of these optional areas (including public works), there should be an introductory and overview course that exposes the student to a complete picture of the issues involved within the field. Included in such an introductory, overview, course should be (1) actual case studies, and (2) integration of the material of other courses (e.g., probability, risk and decision analysis, ecology, socio-economic considerations, communication skills, and political and human factors). This “big picture” can then be followed by more advanced subjects in the same area at the upper division or graduate level.

Engineering involves decision-making with less than perfect knowledge. An understanding of decision making, uncertainty concepts and risk analysis is essential for engineers to be able to evaluate alternatives and make rational decisions in the real world. Since the sixties, the departments of civil engineering of many universities have been teaching a required undergraduate course on probabilistic methods. This course is of limited permanent value unless the probabilistic concepts are applied in subsequent engineering offerings and properly integrated throughout the curriculum. Nevertheless, liability issues should be considered regardless of how the decisions are made. In any event, the engineer is responsible for his/her actions.

As an example in structural engineering, European codes developed in the 1950’s incorporated explicitly the concept of uncertainties such as in the magnitudes of the environmental actions, in the material properties, and in the as-built dimensions. The United States adopted this concept later in their design codes through the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach. These specifications are sometimes taught as a procedure with several load factors and a resistance factor that are probability-based. However, the LRFD specifications were written without any explicit mention of probabilities for fear of rejection by American practitioners in the seventies. Most practitioners at that time were not educated in probabilistic methods. The problem is further aggravated by the fact that some instructors of design courses do not know enough about probabilities to incorporate them meaningfully in their courses. Meanwhile, many practicing engineers still believe that these considerations unnecessary. In their opinion, the student should know what factors to apply without questioning or understanding the underlying reasons. Load and resistance factors have been selected in a way (called ‘calibration’) to obtain essentially the same results as with the ‘proven’ allowable stress design, rather than on the basis of the actual uncertainties.

In the real world, few things are deterministic without uncertainties. We need to expose students to uncertainty concepts at an early stage. In response to a written question by T. V. Galambos concerning uncertainty in design courses, a panel discussion was held during the 1982 meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS) in Logan, Utah (Yao, 1983). The panelists recommended to

·        Teach uncertainty concepts and their applications to freshman engineering students.

·        Publish at least one undergraduate textbook with problems and solutions.

·        Teach a sophomore course with a general title of uncertainty in which both probability theory and fuzzy sets are covered.

·        Teach a senior course in which real data with uncertainty are analyzed.

To date, such courses have not materialized in the States to our knowledge. Approximately two years ago, Colin Brown, Felix Wong, and Jim Yao presented a paper at the 4^th International Conference on Stochastic Structural Dynamics (Yao, et al. 1998). They advocated an undergraduate course in civil engineering to

·        Emphasize risk, decision-making, and uncertainty concepts.

·        Include other uncertainty analyses such as fuzzy sets (e.g., see Wong, et al. 1999 for civil engineering applications).

·        Encourage educators and practitioners to apply non-deterministic methods in their applications.

Based on the personal experience of teaching a civil engineering undergraduate course on probabilistic methods since the sixties, it will take more than one course (and more than a few instructors) to have practical effects on engineering education. Ideally, uncertainty can be introduced to freshman students in a basic course offered by the mathematics or statistics department or by an engineering department. An engineering course with emphasis on risk analysis and decision-making should follow.  Such concepts should be reinforced in subsequent engineering courses at all levels with their application advocated by most instructors. Public works problems are ideal case studies for such courses in the civil engineering curriculum, especially for the Capstone design courses. Until we can teach widespread applications, most students will not pay attention to any one course on uncertainty concepts.

Once students have a solid knowledge of engineering sciences, decision analysis, probabilistic concepts and risk analysis, they can apply these principles to make rational decisions. This requires consideration not only of technical issues but also of the economic, social and political factors affecting all major engineering works as well as environmental factors and sustainable development (e.g., see Poirot, 1997). The planning of public works requires the consideration of the complete economics of the project, integration of the design and construction processes, considerations of the financing alternatives, and return on investment or other expected benefits to society. Projects that may not be justifiable at a particular time on the basis of simple economics alone, may be desirable because of social and political consequences such as the creation of jobs in a depressed area or providing a public service. Engineers must be aware of all these aspects and must be able to incorporate them in their decision-making and evaluation of alternatives. Management of public works requires all these considerations plus management and administrative skills that are rarely taught to engineers at present.

All engineering students take at least one course on engineering economics covering such basic concepts as present worth, rate of return, and cost-benefit analysis. They should also be exposed to several courses on social and political issues, which do not exist at present. Taking an economics and a political science course are again not sufficient. As in the case of probabilities and risk analysis, the material learned in these courses must be applied within the context of actual engineering projects for it to be effective and meaningful. The introductory course in each area is a first step in that direction. Courses that address our basic public works and infrastructure, including water resources, environmental, and transportation engineering, should incorporate these concepts. Capstone engineering (including design) courses should again cover aspects of a real engineering design project, and public works projects provide the ideal design experience because they must address all of these issues. It is particularly important that all design courses incorporate case studies with real or realistic projects and discussion of all their aspects as well as budget preparation. The budgeting process and environmental impact are of particular importance in public works management.

Little (1999) talked about stakeholders including elected officials, public administrators, citizens, the financial community, engineers, architects, planners, and the US defense establishment. In a paper on structural health monitoring, Wong et al. (2001) referred to a value chain with the starting link at the “selection of monitoring systems” and ending at “evaluation of tradeoffs (decision support technology and value to stakeholder).” Wong is a principal in the consulting engineering firm of Weidlinger and Associates, Inc. As a practicing engineer, he understands the value to the stakeholders and the need to use financial considerations to convince them.

Throughout history, perceptions usually have been more important than reality. This is even more so today. Most people do not have the time or patience to read reports carefully, but rely instead on headings, outlined extracts, and attractive visual displays to judge the quality of a proposal. Public works projects (just as legislation, research proposals or educational initiatives) require appropriate marketing and salesmanship to be approved. The technical quality of a project is not enough by itself. The way the project is presented to the decision-makers, funding authorities, and to the public in general is crucial to its acceptance. The engineer in charge of the planning and operation of these projects must be able to communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing, taking advantage of all the tools now available for multimedia presentations. Traditional courses on technical communications involving only technical English (oral or written) have to be supplemented today by more general courses on technical presentations, something which is already being done at a number of universities. Courses on communications must be complemented with material on team working, conflict resolution, and leadership. In addition, the engineer must learn to listen to the stakeholders.

When we were undergraduate students in the fifties, all our teachers had practical experience in engineering. Since the sixties, an increasing number of professors have started teaching without practicing engineering first and thus lack the much-needed ability to bring the real-world application into the classroom. Worse still, engineering educators are over-relying on computer simulations to such an extent that costly experimental studies have been de-emphasized in engineering education. The students need to be exposed to reality with the following steps:

·        Active participation of experienced practitioners in teaching - There have been notable and exemplary cases such as the late Professor Walter P. Moore, Jr., at Texas A&M University and Professor John M. Hanson at North Carolina State University. However, they both had Ph.D. degrees and they both were elected members of the prestigious National Academy of Engineering (NAE). What we need in academia are many more experienced engineers whether they have doctoral degrees and/or are elected members in NAE or not.

·        Actual case studies - We need industry to share actual case studies with academia. With the assistance of faculty members, practicing engineers can prepare these case studies for use by students.

·        Exposure of faculty members to real engineering problems - Many faculty members need to be exposed to real engineering problems. However, the present faculty reward systems do not recognize such efforts. Many of them pay lip service to such accomplishments, and at most give one-time teaching awards (rather than permanent salary raises) for such efforts.

·        Summer internship and/or cooperative program - We need more firms and public works agencies that are willing to sponsor students (and faculty members who lack experience) obtaining practical experience through summer internships and/or cooperative programs. Following the professional master’s programs, we can make the “clinical” experience a required part of the program.

·        Re-emphasis of experimental studies - Students should be taught how to conduct good experiments. Results of new analytical studies must be validated by experiments.

The practical experience of faculty members is especially important for this suggested curriculum. We must merge the interests of academicians and practitioners again in order to be successful in our effort to upgrade the profession.

Even prior to the fifties, there have been discussions about lengthening the period of formal education in engineering. It is vital that the curriculum be reformed as well as that the length of formal education in civil engineering be extended. Since the adoption of a policy statement on a master’s degree as the first professional degree by the Board of Direction of the ASCE in October 1998, the pros-and-cons of additional length of education in civil engineering have been debated (e.g., see Yao and Lutes, 1999). The debate continues at present. We believe that it is desirable to produce qualified civil engineers with an additional length of formal education. We can teach the basic mathematics, science, humanities, social science, decision theory, engineering practice, etc. in the limited time available in the undergraduate program, but we cannot cover the more complex topics. For the graduates to make an immediate impact as a civil engineer practicing in water resources, environmental engineering, transportation, or public works and infrastructure management, they need the additional knowledge that can only be covered in the master’s degree. Skills in infrastructure management like condition assessment of existing facilities, analysis of needed work on existing facilities, and planning and programming work on existing facilities is well beyond what can be covered in the undergraduate curriculum. Nevertheless, we have to address these legitimate concerns in the new curriculum. For those students who are not interested in studying advanced technical subjects, they may pursue a master’s degree in engineering management after the BSCE.

In a presentation at the 1998 ASCE Boston Convention on “Civil Engineering Education in the 21^st Century,” Moore, Roesset and Yao (1998) pointed out that “Engineers have been happy to stay within the realm of science and technology without getting involved in the socio-political implications of their work. They accepted and chose in fact the role of technical experts who provide advice to other professions (mostly lawyers), who are the decision-makers. The other professions gladly accepted this assignation of responsibilities and it has been often said by government officials that engineers should stay within their technical areas and limit themselves to providing input when asked to do so. The lack of more active participation of engineers in legislative bodies of the government is not healthy and thus one should seriously consider a curriculum that would enable and even encourage engineers to play a stronger role in society.”

The desirable curriculum changes go beyond the simple addition of a new subject or the piece-meal modification of a few courses. They represent a complete and detailed re-examination of the complete curriculum (including life-long learning), something that is rarely done, except at some enlightened institutions. It requires also the integration of the subject matter and the use of case studies. A close collaboration with departments of Economics and Political Science would be highly desirable. At Texas A&M University, for example, the faculty in the Bush School of Public Service is highly interested in joint programs with engineering departments and represents a tremendous opportunity to integrate much-needed elements into the engineering curriculum. There is already a joint research program between the Bush School, the Department of Civil Engineering and the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI, also in the Texas A&M University System) with the city of Houston looking at infrastructure management and the relation between technical and political factors.

In summary, we recommend that a student have (1) a broad-based undergraduate education in civil engineering to pursue a career in public works and infrastructure management; (2) a more specialized master’s degree to practice civil engineering at a professional level; (3) exposure to engineering practice through summer internships and/or a cooperative program; and (4) a strong education in mathematics, statistics, basic and engineering sciences, technical aspects of infrastructure systems, risk analysis, management principles, social and political sciences, ethics, and communication skills. Public works problems should be used as case studies to emphasize these issues and these topics should be taught in integrated courses and reinforced throughout the educational process.

In this paper, we suggest topics to be included in a new civil engineering curriculum. After there is a consensus of topics, a detailed curriculum can then be developed. While it is important to produce the quantity of civil engineers needed to fill these additional positions in public works, caution must be taken in attracting qualified students who can think critically. Otherwise, we will produce many more technicians instead of engineers. Meanwhile, we need to pay attention to diversity especially considering the fact that municipalities are resided by people with different backgrounds. Moreover, we need to attract students interested in a more active role in management and politics in addition to technical matters. We believe that decision-making, public policy, social and political sciences (including ethics), and management and business principles, should be taught in an integrated manner and reinforced at all levels. Otherwise, most students will not take them seriously. The intended purpose of this new curriculum is to improve the civil engineering practice at a professional level.

Some of the reviewers of this paper have expressed pessimism in relation to the implementation of this type of curriculum within a reasonable amount of time. They also question the efficacy of a curriculum change in solving the problem. We agree with them that difficult tasks are ahead if something is to be done. For the sake of good public works in the future, however, we must try harder and keep trying.

We wish to thank the Carolyn S. and Tommie E. Lohman ‘59 Professorship in Engineering Education, and the Wofford Cain ‘13 Senior Chair of Engineering in Offshore Technology at Texas A&M University for their financial support in preparing and presenting this paper. In addition, we wish to express our sincere thanks to APWA President Jerry M. Fay, PE for inviting us to attend this important summit meeting where we can exchange ideas with prominent leaders on a desirable curriculum. We also thank Dick Berry, Dick Birdwell, Jack Buffington, Vince Drnevich, Bob Elliott, Skip Fletcher, Dan Frangopol, Neil Grigg, Bill Hall, Delon Hampton, George Housner, Paul and Wendi Kasper, Bill Kelly, Wayne Klotz, Way Kuo, Guenther Natke, Ralph Peck, Paul Roschke, Andy Sauvage, Roger Smith, Felix Wong, and other friends for helping us to improve this paper. Most of these friends have valuable experience with various infrastructure systems. We have tried to incorporate all of their suggestions even when they were not always consistent or in agreement with our own viewpoints. In that sense, this paper tends to represent opinions of a large group of professional engineers.

References

Amekudzi, A., Herabat, P., Sandford-Bernhardt, K. L., and McNeil, S., (2000), "Educating Students to Manage Civil Infrastructure Systems," Proceedings, ASEE St. Louis Conference (Session No. 2315), 17-22 June 2000, 10 pages.

Arnesen, T., (2000), "The future of civil engineering," CE News, March 2000, pp. 50-52.

ASCE (1999), "C.E. Makes the Leap from Professor to Public Works Official," ASCE News, Vol. 24, No. 10, October 1999, p. 4.

ASEE (1994) Engineering Education for a Changing World, Joint Report of the 

           Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable. 24-25 February 1994.

Bordogna, J., (1998), "Tomorrow's Civil System Engineer - The master Integrator," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, April 1998, pp. 48-50.

Ettema, R., (2000), "Adrift in the Curriculum," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 21-26.

Fletcher, L. S., (1997), "Mechanical Engineering Education for the 21^st Century," International. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997, pp. 42-51.

Gordon, C., (1999), "Educational Requirements for Civil Infrastructure Managers - What Should They Know and When Should They Know It?" Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, July 1999, pp. 81-88.

Grigg, N. S., (1996), "Education and Research for Infrastructure and Public Works," Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2, October 1996, pp. 120-128.

Grigg, N. S., (1998), "Universities and Professional Associations: Partnerships for Civil Engineering Careers," Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, March/April, 1998, pp. 45-55.

Grigg, N. S., (2000), "Where are We in Infrastructure Education?" Dialogue, Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 4, No. 3, January 2000, pp. 256-259.

Kuo, W., and Deuermeyer, B., (1999), "The IE Curriculum Revisited: Developing a New Undergraduate Program at Texas A&M University," IIE Solutions, Institute of Industrial Engineers, June 1999, pp. 16-21.

Little, R. G., (1999), "Educating the Infrastructure Professional - A New Curriculum for a New Discipline," Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2, October 1999, pp. 93-99.

Moore, W. P., Jr., Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1998), "Civil Engineering Education in the 21^st Century," presented at the ASCE Boston Convention, available on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu click on the link: Convention under the heading of "Forum."

Poirot, J. W., (1997), "World Federation of Engineering Organization," presented at the RIO +5 FORUM, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13-19, 1997.

Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1988), "Civil Engineering Needs in the 21^st Century," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp. 248-255.

Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (2000), "Roles of Civil Engineering Faculty," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 126, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 8-15.

Ross, D. H., (2000), "Creating A New Curriculum To Prepare Public Administrators to Effectively Manage Public Works Programs - A Response to Gordon, Little, and Grigg," Dialogue, Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, April 2000, pp. 331-334.

Shaeiwitz, J. A., Whiting, W. B., Turton, R., and Bailie, R. C., (1994), "The Holistic Curriculum," Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, October 1994, pp. 343-348.

Wong, F. S., Chou, K. C., and Yao, J. T. P., (1999), "Civil Engineering Including Earthquake Engineering," Chapter 6, Practical Applications of Fuzzy Technologies (Edited by H. J. Zimmerman), Kluwer Publishers, Boston/London/Dordrecht, pp. 207-245.

Wong, F. S., and Yao, J. T. P., (2001), "Health Monitoring and Structural Reliability as a Value Chain," to appear in Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.

Yao, J. T. P., (1983), "NAFIPS-1 Panel Discussion of Fuzzy Sets to Undergraduate Engineering and Science Curricula," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 5-7.

Yao, J. T. P., Brown, C. B., and Wong, F. S., (1999), "The Role of Risk and Reliability in Engineering Education," Stochastic Structural Dynamics, Edited by B. F. Spencer, Jr., & E. A. Johnson, A. A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield, pp. 479-484.

Yao, J. T. P., Lutes, L. D., (1999), "On Professional Degree Requirement for Civil Engineering Practice," Proceedings, ASEE Charlotte Conference, June 1999, 8 pages.

Return to the Lohman homepage