BACo Brussels 2007 Final Report

1/16/161/16/16

BEST, Academics and Companies Forum 4th

Brussels March - 10th March 2007

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

T a b l e of C on t en t s TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................2 PEOPLE INVOLVED ...........................................................................................................................................3 FACILITATORS: .................................................................................................................................................... 3 PROFESSORS AND EXPERTS: ................................................................................................................................. 3 PARTICIPANTS: .................................................................................................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT - SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................4 TREE DAY - UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 5 OUTCOMES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 1 .............................................................................................................. 5 OUTCOMES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 2 ............................................................................................................... 9 OUTCOMES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 3 ............................................................................................................. 12 IBM DAYS – SERVICE SCIENCE ................................................................................................................... 16 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 16 OUTCOMES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 1 ............................................................................................................ 16 OUTCOMES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 2 ............................................................................................................. 18 OUTCOMES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 3 ............................................................................................................ 19 CREDITS.............................................................................................................................................................. 21

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 2 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

P eop l e in v o lv e d Facilitators: Adriana Garboan ( “Politehnica” University of Bucharest, Romania ) Andrei Bursuc (“Politehnica” University of Bucharest, Romania) A nna Fe r na nde z ( T ec hni c al U ni v ersi ty of Ca tal oni a , Sp ai n ) N i c o l ò W o j e w o d a ( D e l f t Te c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y, N e d e r l a n d s ) Ö m e r H a n t a l ( I s t a n b u l Te c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y, Tu r k e y )

Professors and experts: B a r t V a n D e n M e e r s c h e ( IBM Belgium & Luxembourg ) Professor Claudio Borri (President of SEFI ) Dorothea Derks ( Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium ) Djeevan Schifferli (IBM Belgium ) P r o f. E d d y To r f s ( V r i j e U n i v e r s i t e i t B r u s s e l s , B e l g i u m ) P r o f. I r i n a V e r e t e n n i c o f f ( V r i j e U n i v e r s i t e i t B r u s s e l s , B e l g i u m ) Ja cque s De Ke ge l ( IBM Be lgium ) Jacques Platieau (IBM Belgium ) D r. L i b a S v o b o d o v a ( I B M Z u r i c h R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y ) Liliane Declercq (Brussels Relocation and Interfacing Network for Scientists – BRAINS ) L u c K i n d t ( R V O S o c i e t y & Q AT I n v e s t m e n t s ) P a t r i c k S l a e t s ( A g o r i a Tr a d e A s s o c i a t i o n ) Paul Kontogiorgis (IBM Almaden Research Center ) P a u l Va n D r o o g e n b r o e c k ( I B M B e l g i u m & L u x e m b o u r g ) D r P ä i v i To s s a v a i n e n ( H e l s i n k i P o l y t e c h n i c S t a d i a , F i n l a n d , T R E E representative ) P r o f. D r. R . S ' J e g e r s ( U n i v e r s i t e i t B r u s s e l s , B e l g i u m )

Participants: Abramo Spagnolo (Politechnic of Milan, Italy) Aleksandra Kovacheva (University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius" , Macedonia) Bohdana Hendrychova (Brno University of Technology , Czech Republic) C h ri st i n e Vol a n i ( T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y o f C r et e ( T .U . C .) , G r e e c e ) E l e n a Ta n e v s k a ( U n i v e r s i t y " S s . C y r i l a n d M e t h o d i u s " , Macedonia) Iul i an a Orzan ( “Polite hnica ” Un iversity of Bu ch arest , Roman ia ) Jose Carlos Miranda (Polytechnical University of Madrid , Spain) Miroslaw Jaskulowski (Technical University of Lodz , Poland) P a u l C o l c e a Te c h n i c a l ( U n i v e r s i t y o f C l u j - N a p o c a , R o m a n i a ) Raido Kivinurm (Tallinn University of Technology , Estonia) Svetlana Kasatkina (Urals State Technical University , Russia) Ta t j a n a P e t r o v ( U n i v e r s i t y o f N o v i S a d , S e r b i a ) Va n e s s a I sl a H e rn a n d e z ( P o l y t e ch n i ca l U n i v e r si t y o f M a d r i d , Spain) Va si l i j S a vi n ( U p p sa l a U n i v e r s i t y , S w e d e n ) Va si l i s G e o r g i l a s ( U n i v e r si t y o f P a t ra s , G r e e c e ) Ye l i z D e m i r a y ( I s t a n b u l T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y , T u r k e y ) Zoltan PintÈr (Budapest University of Technology , Hungary) Julien loron (University of SUPELEC, France)

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 3 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

Ab s t rac t - S umm a r y A “ B E S T, A c a d e m i c s a n d C o m p a n y F o r u m " ( B A C o ) i s a p u b l i c e v e n t o f t h e B o a r d o f E u r o p e a n S t u d e n t s o f Te c h n o l o g y ( B E S T ) . T h i s k i n d o f e v e n t gathers for one week students, aca demics and representatives from companies in round tables, to discuss topics related to the nowadays challenges in European education on engineering. The goal of the event is to bring together the three stakeholders in education and help them exchange opinions, share experiences, offer suggestions and f ind solutions to common issues.

This event was introduced by BEST in the light of the dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n e n g i n e e r i n g e d u c a t i o n a n d i n d u s t r y. I t s a i m i s t o provide a connection and dialogue opportunity to the three stakeholders in the context just described. The conclusions and results of these discussions are then gathered and summed up in to reports which present the opinions of the participants and offer hints or proposals on what kind of development and improvement could be made concerning the topic at hand. Such reports are consequently forwarded to the interested stakeholders in education , or directly presented by BEST members in educational - related conferences around Europe.

B A C o 2 0 0 7, w a s o r g a n i z e d i n a b e a u t i f u l c h a t e a u j u s t o u t s i d e t h e city of Brussels by the hosting local BEST group, Brussels, and by the Educational Committee of BEST (EduCo).The main topics of the event were “ U n d e r g r a d u a t e R e s e a r c h ”, a p r o j e c t u n d e r T R E E T h e m a t i c N e t w o r k , a n d “ S e r v i c e s S c i e n c e , M a n a g e m e n t a n d E n g i n e e r i n g ”, a t o p i c b r o u g h t i n t h e discussion by IBM and it’s representatives.

BACo Brussels gathered a group of 18 participant students from 14 different countries, all of them studying engineering in different stages, from freshmen to PhD. The participants were prepared for the event, by having them read the topic introductions provided by EduCo before, to ensure that they will participate actively in the discussions .

The outcomes of the working groups will be used to f inalise the work of TREE concerning the undergraduate research, and also for implementing Service Science in the European engineering education and to raise the awareness about the topic among y oung technical students.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 4 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

T R E E d ay – U nd e rg rad ua t e Re se a rc h Introduction Undergraduate Research (UR) is research that is carried out by students during the undergraduate studies in Higher Education Institutes, also known as universities.

Research, in this context, means systematic and active process of inquiry and collecting information about a particular subject in order to d i s c o v e r, r e v i s e o r i n t e r p r e t f a c t s , e v e n t s , t h e o r i e s , b e h a v i o u r s o r t o m a k e practical applications with the help of the information gathered. It can be divided into Basic Research, wh ose primary objective is the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables, and Applied Research, wh ose goal is to solve spe cif ic and practical questions.

Undergraduate students, according to the study model described by the Bologna Process (BP), are the ones studying towards a Bachelor .UR is for the f irst cycle of studies, towards the Bachelor degree. The second cycle of degrees towards the Master of Science degree is not included.

The aim of this discussion day was to give the students an insight to the implementation and the state of development of UR in Europe, to the w o r k b e i n g d o n e a n d t o g e t f e e d b a c k a n d n e w i d e a s a b o u t t h e m . To a c h i e v e this the session started with a round -up sharing session. Students shared information about the current situation of UR in their home universities/countries regarding the implementation, the purpose, the funding, the quality and ideas of improving .

Afterwards the discussion continued with the benef its and drawbacks of implementing UR in the universities of the participant students.

The day concluded with a work session on making new guid elines for implementing UR starting from the ones already made by TREE until now.

Outcomes from discussion group 1 The day started by asking students about the current situation in their countries to get a general overview of the UR in the diff erent countries.



What is the current situation of UR in your own country?

R u s s i a n F e d e r a t i o n : S o f a r, t h e r e a r e n o U n d e r g r a d u a t e R e s e a r c h a c t i o n s taken. Some times, there are some research activities organised together with faculties and companies, but those have the purpose of analysing the skills of the students, and not to improve the research in the education.

France: Research is something very specialised. There are some research tasks such as documentation, but in general education is like in scho ol and Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 5 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

does not involve research. Students go to lectures, attend courses and have exercises and exams, but not a def ined research project. Undergraduate Research is possible, although it is not very popular among students because in undergraduate studies they do not have enough knowledge to make proper quality research.

UK - England: Research is working professionally oriented. There are options to make research studies in companies, especially at master’s level, where there is the possibility to make res earch inside business companies and work in projects. Undergraduate Research is not possible because students of the 1st cycle do not have enough knowledge and are lacking certain necessary skills like creativeness and the will to learn of an e n g i n e e r, a f t e r o n l y t w o y e a r s o f s t u d i e s .

Spain: Undergraduate students do not have real contact with research; they do not really know what it is because research is mostly carried out by the d e p a r t m e n t s o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y, o f f e r i n g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d o t h e f i n a l project at Master’s level. Usually there is a big distance between professors and students, so it is diff icult to talk about research if there is lack of communication. There are research opportunities, but they are oriented more to master’s level than to u ndergraduate students. Companies are usually not interested in hiring students to do research.

Serbia: In Serbia, some scientif ic centres provide research work undergraduate students and they have the possibility to do some research papers. Among other students, they have the possibility closer to professors and to get introduced to the research world. situation for undergraduate research is pretty favourable.

for serious to get The

Turkey: There are some opportunities for undergraduate research when students are doing an internship. Since internship is compulsory in every u n i v e r s i t y, i t i s n o t s e e n a s a r e s e a r c h o p p o r t u n i t y b y s t u d e n t s . S t u d e n t s d o not really know what research is. Universities should do more effort showing what research is to students by providing more places to work in the laboratories in order to get a better idea about research opportunities.

After the sharing part, there was a discussion about whether first cycle students can participate actively in research activities and how this participation could be carried on . There were several opinions, but in general students agreed that during the f irst cycle, students are probably not ready to do proper research because they lack some important skills that are only developed afte r some years of studies.

In order to introduce research in the f irst cycle and provide the students with the skills they are lacking to be able to make proper research, students could start getting familiar with research by making reviews of existing research papers. Undergraduate students should learn what has been done and think about proper ways to apply it in real life, learn how to analyse, more than try to invent something new. Some suggestions about how to increase participation of under graduate students to participate in research activities were to assign some mentors from the 2 nd cycle to 1st c y c l e s t u d e n t s ( c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n i n S e r b i a ) , t h a t w a y, 1 s t c y c l e s t u d e n t s have a closer view about the research that is carried on in higher stud ies and have a closer relation with people involved in research that could guide them in a closer future; and focus more in applied research, making accessible laboratory projects to students, in order for them to understand and learn the research process.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 6 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

The next topic that was discussed was the necessity and benefits of Undergraduate Research. Everybody agreed that undergraduate research was needed in order to have better engineers. The term better e n g i n e e r s m e a n t t h a t t h e s t u d e n t a c h i e v e d c e r t a i n s k i l l s s u c h a s f l e x i b i l i t y, creativity and knowledge (learning on the topic), but to reach this purpose, it was needed to study the research process that leads to those skills.

While studying the research process, some more issues rela ted to undergraduate research such as “should undergraduate research be optional or mandatory?” and “should the research be done individually or collectively?” were discussed. One important point everybody agreed was the need to assess students’ knowledge, so in order to do that, the group concluded that undergraduate research should be mandatory during the last ye a r o f st u d ie s (s im il a r t o m a st e r ’s t h e s is , b ut fo r u n de r gra du a t e s t ude n t s) and that there would have to be a mandatory course on learning techniq ues to analyse research papers and gathering information tools during the f irst y e a r.

About if the research should be done individually or collective, there was not a consensus in the group. Some had the opinion that it could be more useful to have a group research project to improve team work and learn from the research and the other students, but there was the problem that companies are more open to take one student to work than the whole group, so it would be more diff icult to f ind a compa ny to support the research project. On the other hand, doing an individual research project the student get a bigger overview about the whole process and not only just one part. Considering both opinions, students could have some small group r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t t h e s e c o n d y e a r, a n d t h e f i n a l y e a r t h e y c o u l d h a v e a bigger individual project, when they have already gained some experience doing research.



Providing guidelines to apply UR

To p r o v i d e g u i d e l i n e s , t h e r e w e r e s e v e r a l o p i n i o n s a n d t h e participants did not reach a consensus, although all of them concluded that there is a need of Undergraduate Research for better engineers. The students were divided into two small groups of 3 people each.

Guidelines proposed by the 1st group o

For the profe ssors o Provide projects (topics), explanation of the context, def ine a task and give well-organised support to students o B e ava il ab le o Good communication with students and university o Selection criteria for undergraduate research students o Assessment of student s’ knowledge o Evaluation of the research



For the o o o

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

students Choose department and f ield of interest.

Making links with professors, good communication with them Propose topics of interest to the professors Report – 7 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

o o o o

Work ( colle cting data , crea ting docume nt s, et c) Be motivated Evaluation of the work done Te a m w o r k d u r i n g t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s



For the university o Mandatory courses about the process of research work on the undergraduate level. o Clear def inition of Undergraduate Research o Assessment of student’s knowledge, rec ognition o Support Undergraduate Research and promote different departments from the university o Promotion of research o Provide research opportunities to professors and students o Good communication and cooperation with companies o Fund and support research



For the o o o

companies Support universities funding research projects Provide internships for students Suggest research topics of their own interest

Good communication among students, professors, university and companies is essential.

Guidelines proposed by the 2nd group The second group def ined the undergraduate research process in a six months term.





Students o Have an idea, interest for some specif ic topic o Be motivated o Research and learning process:  Literature review  Data research  Design and simulations  Writing f inal paper



Professors o Approval of the selected topic o Advice/Recommendations o Provide data source o Corrections of the work o Review o Good communication with students Companies o Suggest a research topic they are currently working on

After this six months research process, the student become better engineers gaining new skills, and it is ready to decide by him/herself if they w a n t t o s t a y d o i n g r e s e a r c h a n d s t u d y i n g a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y, o r t h e y p r e f e r t o w o r k i n t h e i n d u s t r y.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 8 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –



How to promote UR? Benefits

The last topic discussed was about how to promote Undergraduate Research.

Students o o o o

Mandatory research activities Respectful diploma Recognition in the degree Future promotions in science

Professors o Higher salaries and bonuses o Special trainings o Knowledge improvement Universities o Accreditation o Highly demanded graduates o Fund raising from companies and government Companies o Potential employees o Fresh look and innovative solutions o Opportunity to see the current formation of the potential employees.

Outcomes from discussion group 2 The discussion started with a sharing session. After this round-up students found out about the current situation of UR in other universities or countries and discussed about it’s implementation, benef its and ways to improve it.

Estonia: There are no guidelines and no system about undergraduate research but on the other hand research institutions and companies are close to the universities so it is up to the student to decide for research in the bachelor degree and f ind ways of implementing it (support from teachers and funding from companies).The Bologna Process is not implemented yet so undergraduate research is diff icult to def ine and to integrate at the moment.

Romania: Undergraduate research is yet not clearly def ined or regulated but is quite familiar for students. Most of the undergraduate research activities are done inside of company programs such as internships and practice periods. Companies see the potential of research for undergraduates and work in cooperation with professors in order to promote it among students and to f ind proper ways of delivering it.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 9 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

Macedonia: Research for students in general is quite undeveloped so undergraduate research is out of question. Acc ording to students there are problems with the thesis also which is more and more less scientif ic o u t c o m e o r i e n t e d b u t a n e c e s s i t y i n o r d e r t o f i n i s h t h e u n i v e r s i t y. B e c a u s e of Bologna Process implementation practice periods in companies are no longer compulsory and even if students take them, companies are not prepared to teach or support students in their research.

Czech Republic : There are only few opportunities for undergraduate research. Although research in the undergraduate level is not very well known students have the possibility to do research but they have to f ind t h e i r w a y, t e a c h e r t o h e l p a n d f u n d i n g f r o m c o m p a n i e s .

Spain: Due to no Bologna integration (still in test) u ndergraduate research is offered by the departments through internships, b ut there are only few opportunities compared to the number of students willing to do it . Research is mainly done for the f inal project and regulations for undergraduate research are missing on national level.

Greece: Undergraduate research is not implemen ted in the curriculum. The possibility of doing UR exist but is not well organised and there are no funds from the university for it. The research in general is funded by the government which leads to little money for it but a more independent research.

After the sharing part the discussion moved to the issue of funding.

Students concluded that there are more advantages if a company provides the resources for research such as money (more than provided by the u n i v e r s i t y ) , p o s s i b i l i t y t o u s e t h e f a c i l i t i e s a n d l a b o r a t o r i e s o f t h e c o m p a n y, help from the company ’s researchers. The only aspect that concerned students was that if the research would be funded by the university/government then researchers would have more freedom in choosing their research topic and would have a more independent way of working. The idea that non prof it organizations and foundations could solve this problem was given by the Belgian professor involved in the discussion and students agreed upon but had no awareness about so mething similar going on in their countries or universities.

The next topic for debating was the reason and necessity of UR. Despite the fact that none of the students p resent had any experience with UR they were very enthusiastic about UR and quite convinced about its u t i l i t y a n d n e c e s s i t y. S t u d e n t s f o u n d t h e n e e d o f U R f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f university when it is very diff icult for a student to decide on the f ield and specialization to focus on. It was also agreed on that taking a research activity very early in the university studies can help students decide on their career not only the related to the work f ield but also the activity performed ( e n g i n e e r, r e s e a r c h e r ) .

Moreover students were in favo ur of the fact that UR is an excellent teaching and learning method that can be implemented as a p r o j e c t b a s e d l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y. I n t h i s c a s e t h e f o c u s o f U R h a s t o b e properly set. Generally the purpose of research is getting scientif ic outcomes but in the particular case of research f or undergraduates seen as a project based learning activity students suggested that the outcomes should be learning and pedagogical based.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 10 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

Students agreed that at the moment in most universities the research activity is rather seen as for som e different/special students (geeks, nerds) fact that should change in order to make UR more popular a n d e a s i e r t o a p p r o a c h . To a c h i e v e t h i s n e w i m a g e o f r e s e a r c h a m o n g student it was proposed that UR should be implemented from the f irst year of university studies, more specif ically compulsory subjects in the curricula concerning research (such as introductory course on research, laboratories with basic research approach).

The problem that students encountered while debating was agreeing on how the curricula for UR and teaching and learning methods should be structured but the issue was solved by the professor present who concluded that universities promote a variety of learning methods. Giving a lecture can be an eff icient way of teaching, in the same way as a project based learning can be very useful for assessing and applying knowledge.

Learning styles and teaching styles are important and should be varied in order to reach the full potential of a student.

Another keyword of UR that was tackled during the discussion was the selection procedure of the students that want to do UR and it was a gre ed t ha t t he ma in c r ite r ia fo r se le c tin g s h ou l d be m ot i vat i o n, s ki l ls , grades, prior knowledge in balanced amounts.

Although the students present had no experience with UR they identif ied at least theoretically a couple of ways for improving it such as better recognition (ECTS given, curriculum vitae reference, work published in scientif ic magazines), evaluation of the UR should be done in grades but also in learning outcomes. Another idea that popped up was creating a UR community in universities which would be motivating and stimulating for students. Inside of this community students would communicate easily and w o u l d h a v e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t o s h a r e a n d h e l p e a c h o t h e r. F r o m t h e e x p e r t ’ s p o i nt o f v ie w, a w a y o f i m p ro vi n g UR i s m a ki n g s ur e t h a t t he pr o ce s s o f acquiring knowledge and doing research is properly done and not judging everything in scientif ic outcomes (a guidance portfol io which would allow constant feedback).

Guidelines session The foreseen aim of the session was to make students aware of the status of work being done in order to implement UR and to get feedback and new ideas about them.

The Board of the universities: - starting point: o search within themselves to f ind out activities that are complying to UR but are named in an inappropriate way (projects that consists the topics of beginning of UR even tough they are not seen as such) o look for already existing contacts with research centers and institutions o clear def inition of undergraduate research, common perception upon UR at all university levels, coherence in depth and breath, bringing curriculum together in joint courses example of action plan:

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 11 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

o

o o

-

-

1st year – courses on learning techniques and gathering information tools, screening the information, basic skills students need for research 2nd year – small projects within the university 3rd year - scientif ic projects that can involve also the corporate level and other institutions

working from very beginning in strong cooperation with teachers (as they are the ones implementing UR) in order to come to a common goals, working methods and appropriate evaluating procedures (coherence between goals, worki ng, evaluation) the process of UR should be very clear from the beginning, with clearly def ined goals and procedures f irst step could : international European project study the countries that have already implemented UR Good communication with the professors and the students Common agreement for research topics Find founds for the research (establish good relations with the companies and the f inancers) Support the UR Ask professors about topics for UR (which an be proposed by students)

For the University Professors and Researchers : - Good communication with students and the management board - Provide topics and support (different time length projects and different diff iculty) - Establish the criteria for the UR selection For the Educational Department of the s tate: - Fund projects (analyze projects from universities and decide if they are eligible) - Participate in the development of the national framework For the management of the Industries and the Research Institutes - Support (money and logistics) the universiti es - Suggest topics for research - Allow students to do research in their labs - Provide specialists to help with the UR - Provides internships and scholarships for students involved in research For the university undergraduate students : - Participate actively and be motivated - Follow the rules/guidelines of the framework - Communicate with other students/professors - Help others get involved/team work - P ro p os e t o pi c s for UR’s

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 12 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

Outcomes from discussion group 3 The session started with a small discussion over the current situation of UR in the home universities/countries of the participants attending the event.

Lithuania : UR is not very common. There are some subjects, like Physics or Chemistry that have better chances to be approached as research top ic by undergraduates. In the other cases the only thing that resembles with researching are some course projects, but they are more like training. The students are not even interested in doing researches during their studies.

The percentage of student doin g research while studying is very low, lower than 1%.

Macedonia: There is no UR. The university don’ t give the students any facility for researching. The university doesn’t give the student neither m o r a l o r p h y s i c a l s u p p o r t . M o s t o f t h e t i m e t h i s i s d u e t o t h e l a c k o f m o n e y.

Romania: There are some research projects, but many students do not know about them. Most of the times it’s up to the teacher to tell the students about some of his projects and choose them. Even if you are involved in a research pr oject, the professors don’ t give the students too much support in continuing his researches. So another problem that was raised is how can you f ind the right professor to help you with the researches.

Greece: The closest thing to research are the summer practice programs that school offers. In most of the cases students do no attend them and if they do they don’t take them too serious.

Hungary: The UR is not very developed. If there are any research projects going on, most of the students don’t know abo ut it. Even after the implementation of Bologna Process the situation didn’t change too much.

Italy: : Undergraduate research is offered by the university departments through internships, b ut there are only few opportunities compared to the number of st udents willing to do it . Research is mainly done for the f inal project and thesis.

Further on, the participants discussed about the benef its and drawbacks of UR. The main benef its that they agreed on where that UR helps improving the English knowledge, it involves you more in the topic, t h e f i e l d o f s t u d y. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g a n d t h e n e t w o r k i n g and meeting people interested in the same topic were also some benef its pointed out in the discussion. Also UR helps you gain new kn owledge and improves the research and communication skills.

As for the drawbacks for UR, the participants agreed that if it is n o t e xp la i ne d pr op e rl y t o s t ud e nt s , t h e y m i g ht m is u n de rs t a nd i t a n d it ’s outcomes, and might get upset. UR also dem ands a good organisation of the structure and good time management skills, that not many students have.

In the next part of the working session the participants discussed on how they could implement UR in their universities. Some of them considered the UR should be introduced in the curricula and it should be compulsory in order to get accreditation from school for it, as many people Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 13 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

that do researches do not have enough time for studying in school also and fail many of their exams. But most of the participants agreed that UR should b e o pt io n al a s yo u ne ed p e op le w h o a re in t ere st ed , m ot i va te d a nd ca pab le o f d o i n g i t ., n o t j u s t t o d o i t b e c a u s e i t i s i n t h e c u r r i c u l a .

The participants concluded that the more students get involved in U R , t h e m o r e s c i e n t i s t s a n d r e s e a r c h e r s a r e d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y.

An interesting question popped-up at this moment. The question was what u n i ve rs i tie s s h o u ld “p ro d u ce ” : s c ie nt is t s a nd i n n o va to r s or sp e ci al i st w it h engineering skills.

UR should not be like a normal class. People learn better when they get a more realistic problem and they have to search for a solution for themselves.

Students should be more active, so the participants started to think on ways to motivate students to do UR in order to have more of them doing it. This is an important issue as it is hard to convince any student to work on something extra -curricular with no credits. For the students it would be easier to join an already active research team, as motivated people are very important. Students can also get motivated if they are sent to a conference to present their work, if they have an article in a newspaper about them, to make them feel that their work is recognized. The connection between the student and the professor is also very important. Professor should restrict themselves just for giving the list of topics. They should also guide the student, encourage him in his work and help him whenever possible.

Guidelines session 

●

Change -

curricula to include research projects University management + professors: Develop new courses and assign credits Mandatory course on research methods

Reward mechanism - Publication - Promotion - Selection for ERASMUS - Master programme - Giving credit.



Intelectual property protection for students - Tr e a t B a c h e l o r t h e s i s t h e s a m e w a y a s P h D d i s s e r t a t i o n



Professors mentor programme - Professors should act as mentors, providing guidelines and encouragement



Informal association - Suggestion to drop national network from guidelines



Compensation system for research team - Increased funding for teams tha t take UR

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 14 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –



Promotion campaign - Universities should organise seminars, promoting UR, websites, newsletters, advertising camp aign

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 15 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

I B M d ay s – Se r v i c e Sc i e nc e Introduction The service sector is becoming increasingly important throughout the developed world, in terms of both the amount of value added and n u m b e r s o f e m p l o y e e s . H o w e v e r, c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n d u s t r y, productivity in the service sector is low, and the re have been consistent c a l l s f o r i t s i m p r o v e m e n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y, t h e f u t u r e e f f e c t s o f i n v e s t m e n t i n services and the level of future predictability are also low for the service s e c t o r. A s a r e s u l t , b o t h s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a n d c l i e n t s a r e h i g h l y d i s s a t i s f i e d w it h t h e c u rre n t a s se s sm e nt a nd d i st ri b ut i o n o f va l ue t ha t the y feel s ho u ld be attainable through investment in services.

In response to this, a new concept has emerged, centered on IBM’s “service science” (now abbreviated as SSME, for servi ces sciences, management, and engineering). The goal of service science is to increase t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h e s e r v i c e i n d u s t r y, p r o m o t e i n n o v a t i o n , a n d c r e a t e greater validity and transparency when assessing the value of investments in services. Services Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) is a new multi-disciplinary research and academic effort that integrates aspects of established f ields such as computer science, operations research, e n g i n e e r i n g , m a n a g e m e n t s c i e n c e s , b u s i n e s s s t r a t e g y, s o c i a l a n d c o g n i t i v e sciences, and legal sciences. SSME hopes to bring together ongoing work in all the domains mentioned above in order to develop the skill required in a s e r v i c e s - l e d e c o n o m y.

During two days, IBM introduced the SSME topic to the studen ts participating in BACo. In the f irst IBM day the students met some of key persons in IBM Belgium and found out from them about the perspective of I B M o v e r t h e i n n o v a t i o n o f t h e 2 1 s t c e n t u r y, a b o u t i t ’ s b u s i n e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n and made the f irst steps in IB M’s world of invention and innovation. After an astonishing experience of the emerging business opportunities, the i m a g i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n w a s t e s t e d w i t h a c a s e s t u d y. D u r i n g t h e walking dinner that followed fruitful discussions, smiles and prize s were generously found in the presentation room of the castle.

In the second day f inally got deeper into Service Science during the second day dedicated to this topic. After presentations over the big number of domains the SSME could be found or applied in order to achieve improvement, the participants attended a working session with opinions over the topic, on the skills of the engineer of the future and on how could SSME help achieve this.

Outcomes from discussion group 1

The IBM second working session was focused on three main directions in order to get an overall overview of the level of awareness and understanding upon service science in the context of the 21 st century’s economical and social prerequisites as presented du ring the event.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 16 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

The three directions were the following: the general perception of students on service science, the skills required in order to be competitive on the labor market and last means and ideas on achieving these necessary skills.

The discussion started with stating the general impression students had on service science as a result of the insight they were give at the IBM Forum. Students agreed that nowadays, we encounter two types of markets, commodities’ market and services’ market . Services complement commodities by making them differentiated and competitive on the overall market. As an opinion commonly sustain was the act that in the economy we are having today services are the key point, considering an economy is def ined as supply & demand and the supply and diversity of goods is higher than the demand A surprising question popped up. Thinking that for the last century (19th ) high productivity in agriculture and manufacturing was the k e y p o i n t f o r s u c c e s s , t h e n i n t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y s e r v i c e s h a d t h e g l o r y, a normal question comes to mind. What comes next? Which is the next challenge, what is there beyond services?

A more personal learning point that students achieved through the IBM session was understand ing the fact that the market is the driving force in the world, but considering their own case, our education and mindset are left behind.

After agreeing on the current situation of service science in the context of worldwide economy we moved on to trying to identify the skills necessary for a person to be competitive on the labor market and to match them to the institutions and responsible for educating and teaching the human capital.

Among the most important skills identif ied w ere: ability to think c r i t i c a l l y, c r e a t i v i t y, f l e x i b i l i t y, a s s e r t i v e n e s s , p r o a c t i v e n e s s , t e a m p l a y i n g , networking skills, leadership, ambitious, presentation skills, professional s k i l l s , t o l e r a n c e , a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t , r e l i a b i l i t y, r i s k t a k i n g a t t i t u d e , o p e n n e s s to new technologies, competitive spirit and knowledgeable.

After def ining the skills the man/woman of tomorrow should have to achieve success in a career nowadays we tried to see which institutions should teach that person the partic ular skills we mentioned.

As a f irst idea that came to mind was starting the analytical thinking at e a r l y a g e s b y l e a r n i n g a n d d e v e l o p i n g f r o m k i n d e r g a r d e n c r e a t i v i t y, competitiveness, tolerance. The discussion moved on elementary school and second cycle elementary school which were seen by students as bedrock for building a strong knowledge center and to start/continue developing all skills mentioned above. Coming to the university level, students expressed their disappointment that there is no communicat ion between the academia and the corporate world (the companies). They felt that almost everything they learnt in university was just food for the thought, just a mind exercise and not what they should know when they enter the world of companies.

Therefore they agreed that the initiatives of companies to f inance laboratories and to create special programmes in cooperation with the universities are extremely useful. Other thing that was mentioned was the idea of building student trust in the university and t he subjects that are taught but this would happen only if there would be a coherent and safe pass from academia level to corporate level, so that the things learnt in s c h o o l w o u l d b e r e a l l y a g o o d p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a g o o d a n d s u c c e s s f u l c a r e e r.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 17 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

Outcomes from discussion group 2 The working session started wi th a brainstorming over the skills and abilities that students should have in a future job. The participants agreed that the student of the future should have ca clear idea about his skills and about the needs and expectations of the companies. This student should also have some basic knowledge in economics and management, even though he is studying engineering, adding also presentation and soft skills. The knowledge of more foreign l anguages is must, plus abilities like team -work, good communication and leadership skills.

Concerning the technical part of the student’s prof ile, most of the participants were satisf ied by the education they get in their f ields of work.

After this small brainstorming session, the participants discussed over the points raised in the previous session. The participants concluded that as engineers, besides the technical skills students should have, they also have to be aware of the dynamics of the job market and of the business f ields, and also to have some business, economics and management background. These would help the student to f ind a direction suited to his prof ile and will help him f ind the things he should work on to improve in o rd er t o b e c o me a mo re va l ua bl e fu t ure e mp lo yee a n d f i nd a s u it ab le jo b.

Students should also have an idea on what will be their role in the companies. For example a student should know that management skills don’ t h e l p y o u j u s t t o b e c o m e a g o o d m a n a g e r, t h e y a l s o h e l p y o u u n d e r s t a n d h o w you are managed and understand the manager’s point of view.

The awareness of SSME could form the students’ way of thinking, getting them more practical about services, making them to focus on important matters for them an d, why not, improving their innovation skills.

The participants agreed that this knowledge will help most of the engineering students to f ind a job and to integrate easier in the job market.

Regarding the technica l education engineering students get in Europe, most of the participants in the discussion seemed satisf ied by the education they receive. They appreciated the changes implemented due to the Bologna Process as most of their courses were updated and the documentations were renewed.

In order to give the possibility to the students to gain these skills, the participants in the discussion established some of the actions that should be taken by the main stakeholders. It was concluded that universitie s should cooperate more with companies or industry partners in order to be updated with the current demands on the market for engineers and so to improve their educational programs and curriculum. Also as a part of the agreement between the university and the companies, there can be included the obligation of the company to get an amount of students in internships.

Another suggestion from the students was that companies could have a c o u r s e i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y t o p r e p a r e t h e s t u d e n t s f o r t h e w o r k i n t h e i n d u s t r y, as there are things specif ic to engineers that are needed to be known by them. Company visits can also be welcomed by the students.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 18 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

The curriculum should have some changes, too. For this, some optional classes for soft skills can be implem ented. Thus, this way the c u r r i c u l u m c a n b e c o m e t o o b i g t o c o v e r. I n o r d e r t o a v o i d t h i s , a n o t h e r solution popped up. In some existing classes there can be included elements of managerial or soft skills, through different projects and role -playing tasks, that stimulate team -work and communication. Some good results can b e o bta i ne d b y c h a ng i n g t he e va l ua ti o n m et h o ds .

Regarding the increasing of the awareness of students towards service science there could be organized in the universities different types of presentations, seminars, events with companies to promote the concept and to inform people about the current situation in the market. It can also be included in the curriculum of some service science oriented Master Degrees.

Outcomes from discussion group 3 The session started sharing different opinions about the importance of services in order to remind the morning presentations. Students had the opportunity to give their own input about the topic. The main ideas a bout why services are important were:     

Bring additional value to the products in high competition areas.

H e l p y o u t o l i v e b e t t e r.

Optimising benef its from a product ( 1 product – N services) Stronger bond is established between companies and customers.

Customers get additional value to the product while companies approach to customers’ needs.

Fulf il gaps between engineering and business

Once realized the important of services in a closer future, the discussion was moved towards a new topic where students discussed about the skills they might need for their future job or careers.

Some of the most relevant skills discussed were: f l e x i b i l i t y / a d a p t a b i l i t y, e m o t i o n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , a n a l y t i c a l , s o f t s o c i a l communication skills (team work, pu blic presentations, etc), open-minded, p e r s e v e r a n c e , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, p l a n n i n g , s y n t h e t i c m i n d , u n d e r s t a n d i n g o t h e r ’ s needs, willingness to provide services and curiosity/willingness to learn more.

Once the list of skills was made, students anal ysed properly each one of them and discussed which kind of activity or action would be appropriate in order to acquire those skills.

Students concluded the session proposing some guidelines to the university/industry and government , in order to provide the right education t o g a t h e r t h e s k i l l s t h a t m i g h t b e n e e d e d i n a f u t u r e j o b o r c a r e e r.

Guidelines to improve education in the future in order to achieve the appropriate skills

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 19 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –



University o Seminar courses  Students have to prepare a presentation about different topics and they are the lecturer during one session. Some other students are opponents and they have to evaluate and prepare questions related to the topic.

o

o

o

o

o

o o

o



Case Studies  A real problem is given to the students and they have to solve it in teams, trying to fulf il all the requirements. A public presentation of the solution is required.

Engineering Competitions  Three categories: team design, case study and debates.

Students working in teams have to compete to prove they are the best in the different modalities.

Pedagogical competence to the professors  Essential to have better understanding of student’s needs and capabilities.

Promote associations  Students have the opportunity to develop some leadership, management and social skills being members of associations.

Recognition of extracurricular activities  Encourage students to develop themselves doing non academic related activities .

Improve exchange programs  Offer broader opportunities.

Some course related to sum up scientif ic/research art icles  To i n t r o d u c e r e s e a r c h a t e a r l y s t a g e s a n d m a k e s t u d e n t s familiar with research papers .

Public Speaking  Develop presentation skills.

Industry o Offering real internships  Guaranteeing quality (not just foto copies)  Paying them o Offering seminars/workshops/conferences at the university to approach students. o Improve cooperation between companies and educational institutions o Funding students associations  Supporting students ideas and projects. o Scholarship for best students. o Offering and funding research pro jects 

Government o Lower taxes for industry if they offer internship to students. o More funding for research. o Free higher education. o Scholarship for best students. o Supporting junior enterprises. o Study years counting as full time work. o Free health care & insu rance taxes when offering internship to student

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 20 of 21

Board of European Students of Technology – BEST, Academics and Companies Forum, Burssels –

C r ed it s Authors of the report: BEST Educational Committee Document date: May 2007 First published 2007 B E S T – B o a r d o f E u r o p e a n S t u d e n t s o f Te c h n o l o g y w w w . B E S T. e u . o r g All comments should be addressed to the Educational Committee of BEST at t h e f o l l o w i n g e - m a i l a d d r e s s : e d u c a t i o n @ B E S T. e u . o r g .

BEST would like to thank IBM for their indispensable support of the event, f inancial aid included B E S T t h e T h e m a t i c N e t w o r k T R E E ( Te a c h i n g a n d R e s e a r c h i n E n g i n e e r i n g i n Europe) for their valuable support for the event.

BEST appreciates the kind support of Vrije University of Brussels to this event and to Local BEST Group Brussels.

Last but not least, BEST would like to thank the professors Claudio Borri, D o r o t h e a D e r k s , E d d y To r f s , I r i n a V e r e t e n n i c o f f, P ä i v i To s s a v a i n e n , R .

S ' J e g e r s a n d B a r t Va n D e n M e e r s c h e , D j e e va n S c h i f f e r l i , J a c q u e s D e Ke g e l , Ja cque s Platiea u, Lilia ne De clercq, Patrick Sla ets, Pa ul Kontogiorgis a nd Pa ul Va n Dr o og e nbr o e c k fo r t h e i r k i nd a n d si gi n i f i ca nt p a r t i c ipa t i on i n B AC o Brussels.

Document date: 2016-Jan-16

Report – 21 of 21