Advancing the College of Engineering and Science: The Role of the - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Advancing the College of Engineering and Science: The Role of the Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Professor Daniel L. Noneaker Associate Chair & Graduate Program Coordinator Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 30 OCT 2013 1 ¡

Advancing the College: From Vision to Accomplishment Ø Vision for COES • Formal COES Vision Statement is under revision • Move COES to next level in research, graduate education, societal impact ² Contribution to intellectual advancement within the disciplines ² Preparedness, professional impact of graduates ² Effectiveness as driver of knowledge economy, betterment of society Ø Measures of success • Rankings of graduate engineering, science, and disciplines ² USN&WR, ARWU, Business Insider Top 50, etc. • “Ground truth” of perception ² Assessment by our peers, our graduates, industry, the public Ø Key underlying metrics • Research expenditures • Scholarship and scholarly reputation • PhD production (not just enrollment) • PhD graduates pursuing academic careers 2 ¡

Impact of the ADR on these Metrics Ø Initiate and facilitate funded research opportunities for COES faculty • “Business development” function in seeking new funding sources, identifying and building internal & external collaborative relationships • Train and support faculty in effective proposal preparation • Manage and broker resources for maximum research impact Ø Enable and facilitate career success for COES faculty • Foster development of junior faculty • Sustain momentum of mid-career faculty • Encourage continued productivity of senior faculty Ø Lead and assist in recruiting, retaining high-quality graduate students • Foster cost-effective, time-efficient recruiting practices across COES • Pursue block-funded fellowships, facilitate other financial support • Ensure effective, best-practice policies and procedures for student/program and student/supervisor relationships 3 ¡

The Federal Research-Funding Picture Federal ¡Basic ¡& ¡Applied ¡Research, ¡ Clemson ¡Federal ¡Research ¡Expenditures, ¡ Advanced ¡Development ¡Funds ¡to ¡ FY2011 ¡ Universi:es, ¡FY ¡2011 ¡ ¡ ¡ EPA ¡ ¡ All ¡others ¡ ¡ NIH ¡$9 ¡Million ¡ DoE ¡ DoA ¡ NASA ¡ 6% ¡ 2.7% ¡0.7% ¡ DoC ¡ ¡ 2% ¡ NSF ¡$14.3 ¡Million ¡ 2% ¡ 0.4% ¡0.2% ¡ 3.2% ¡ DoT ¡ ¡ NIH ¡$19 ¡Billion ¡ 16% ¡ 3.5% ¡ 3% ¡ NASA ¡ ¡ 2% ¡ DoD ¡$10.3 ¡Million ¡ NSF ¡$4 ¡Billion ¡ NIH ¡ ¡ 7.8% ¡ DoE ¡$6.1 ¡million ¡ DoD ¡$2.2 ¡Billion ¡ DoD ¡ DoE ¡$1 ¡Billion ¡ DoA ¡ ¡ DoA ¡$8.8 ¡Million ¡ 15% ¡ NSF ¡ ¡ DoA ¡$0.9 ¡Billion ¡ NSF ¡ 14.2% ¡ NASA ¡$1.2 ¡Million ¡ NIH ¡ 25% ¡ NASA ¡$0.75 ¡Billion ¡ DoT ¡$1.6 ¡Million ¡ DoE ¡ ¡ DoC ¡$0.2 ¡Billion ¡ 67.4% ¡ DoC ¡$0.9 ¡Million ¡ DoD ¡ DHS ¡$0.1 ¡Billion ¡ 11% ¡ EPA ¡$1.2 ¡Million ¡ DoT ¡$0.060 ¡Billion ¡ 18% ¡ Ø Federal R&D funding to universities: $29 billion Ø Clemson’s share: $57 million - $5 million to subcontractors = $52 million 4 ¡

Why Emphasize Federal Funding? COES ¡Research ¡Expenditures, ¡FY2012 ¡ ¡ Industry ¡ ¡ Other ¡ 5% ¡ Federal ¡ 7% ¡ Industry ¡ Federal ¡funds ¡ Other ¡ 88% ¡ Ø Federal funds dominate COES research funding: $31.2 million of $35.5 million Ø Exceptions to this characteristic • Automotive Engineering: 61% non-federal funding • Industrial Engineering: 44% non-federal funding 5 ¡

National Science Foundation Funding Opportunities Ø CAREER and core programs • Awareness of opportunities, training in proposal preparation are givens • Success in funding highly correlated with institution’s reputation ² Moving the needle has a decade-scale time constant Ø Large-grant basic research programs (ERC, MRSEC, NSEC, etc.) • Maturity of proposed technical concept, fit & timeliness of concept ² Ex.: Fit & timeliness - renewable energy technologies, leverage CURI grid simulator • Honest assessment of capabilities, gaps in COES • Ability to identify partner(s) to fill critical gaps • Commitment of CU resources based on assessment of payoff in scholarship & funding Ø Major research instrumentation • Space, skilled personnel, other resources required for proposal success, utilization ² Resources sometimes in place (GPUs for Data Science), often not (EBIT) • Commitment of resources based on assessment of payoff in scholarship, future funding Ø Systematic involvement of senior faculty, College administrators in early-stage NSF workshops important for shaping, planning for upcoming opportunities • Ex.: K-C Wang, Jim Bottum w/ GENI program, US Ignite à CU leadership in SDN 6 ¡

Department of Defense Funding Opportunities Ø DOD R&D funding (FY 2011) • Basic research: $1.0 billion (64% to universities, excl. FFRDCs) • Applied research: $5.1 billion (12% to universities, excl. FFRDCs) • Advanced development: $6.6 billion (9% to universities, excl. FFRDCs) Ø Standard basic research grants (ARO, ONR, AFOSR, BMDO, DTRA BAA/DURIP/MURI) • Faculty sometimes fail to recognize relevant opportunities Ø Targeted, high-profile opportunities are more readily recognized • High-energy lasers, advanced manufacturing are key opportunities Ø Applied research programs (DARPA, Rapid Innovation Fund) • Existing relationship with industry partner is often key • Faculty are often unfamiliar with opportunity, don’t know where to begin Ø Applied research to advanced development (Navy Centers, Army RD&EC, AFRL, Major Test Centers, TMSO, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) ² Opportunities all five COES-related University emphasis areas • Contracts to academia underutilized, evolving, differ by agency • In-depth understanding of “customer’s need” requires significant time investment Ø Success in funding is significantly relationship-driven • College-level business-development approach needed to maximize success 7 ¡

National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunities Ø Challenge for Clemson: no medical school Ø Advantages for Clemson • strong in bioengineering/biomedical research, very big funding pie • strong links with MUSC (CU-MUSC program), GHS & CUBEinC Ø K programs, exploratory grants (R21) • Awareness of opportunities, training in proposal preparation are givens Ø Program project grants, R01 grants, COBRE grants, resource (equipment) grants • Leverage relationships with medical institutions • Same test for commitment of supporting resources as for large NSF proposals Ø Emphasize translation to practice, capture created IP (CUBEinC) • Promulgating IP enhances reputation as much revenue • Things Clemson’s BioE have always done well Ø Pursue “patient outcomes” research opportunities • Industrial engineering collaboration with GHS clinicians 8 ¡

Department of Energy Funding Opportunities Ø Office of Science is predominant source of DoE research funding: 70% of total Ø Funding at Clemson spread broadly across several areas • Basic science (Office of Science): circa $2 million including pass-through funds • Applied renewable energy research • Applied nuclear power research • Applied fossil fuels research • Applied environmental research Ø Grow Office of Science funding (College-wide) • Basic energy science, biological & environmental, scientific computing & visualization, workforce development • Broader education of faculty about single-investigator opportunities • Clemson’s HPC facilities and research capability, big-data research capabilities create opportunity to pursue research in “extreme-scale” science and scientific computing Ø Develop applied research in renewable energy systems (CURI, College-wide) • Wind-turbine test facility, grid simulator, and graduate education center provide foundation for large-scale projects • Expand vehicle technology research (CU-ICAR, College-wide) • Advanced engines, hybrids, battery technology, power electronics, fuels, materials 9 ¡

Faculty Development Ø Foster development of junior faculty • Guidance in proposal writing ² Workshops in place at College level for NSF, NIH, DoE ² Technical writing support in place at College level • Systematic approach to faculty mentoring ² Proposal writing ² Professional relationship development ² Management of graduate students, course management ² Some academic units mentor more effectively than others • Priority allocation of College resources Ø Sustain momentum of mid-career faculty • Expand view of funding opportunities • Enable broader scope of research activities, interdisciplinary collaboration • Encourage increased professional leadership • College resources linked to scholarly productivity, pursuit of funding 10 ¡