Abstract: In an atmosphere of high concurrence and continual corporate restructuring, engineers should be prepared for responding to multiple challenges. The pressures on the undergraduate engineering curriculum for the broader capabilities characteristic of a more “versatile” engineer are requiring a rethinking of the educational experience. The incorporation of quality concepts into engineering education seems to be a key component of any educational reform. Using the manufacture environment as a reference model, it can be said that engineering education was conceived and developed in the same molds of the mass production. The objectives are the same: resource productivity and the establishment of productivity measures. The customer service level is not fully take into consideration. However, the unique nature of academia requires an adaptation of such model. The basic concepts of improving product quality can not be directly applicable to improve the education process. It seems to be a consensus that the quality we should be interested in is the one that could be understood easily by organization and adapted as a consistent goal. In this sense, the user-centered approach has been rescued from the secondary sector with a lot of emphasis by the service sector. This happens because the consumer’s direct presence is required in service activities. To effectively respond to those pressures university must change. It must revitalize itself from a traditional educational institution to an “educational enterprise”, to meet industries and society needs. Many attempts to improve engineering education are being made in many areas:

• Focus on learning, not teaching
• The use of technology
• Preparation for life (professionals with multi-disciplinary competence)
• Customer-oriented environment

Under these assumptions, this paper discusses the evolution of Engineering Education to setting down a comparison between the development of manufacturing and service sector. This paper also point out the limitations of the current model adopted in Engineering Education and proposes a framework for analyzing engineering education supported by the concepts and models developed for managing service activities.

Keywords: education, service, quality

1 Introduction

There has been rapidly growing concern over the past few years in regard to the improved quality of the teaching of engineering, which has led a large number of specialists to seek new educational paradigms. One of the aspects that strongly indicates the need for a new model is the markedly dissimilar development between the current stage of technological development and the real market demand for professionals qualified with state-of-the-art knowledge. From this standpoint, it is not difficult to understand that there is a lacuna in the educational structure of university curricula which must be filled.

The knowledge developed in the last thirty years has superseded practically all the knowledge previously developed by humanity. In a rapidly changing society, as pointed out by Drucker [1968], the old model, in particular, which required one to go to school in order to have access to knowledge, has become practically obsolete. Students today have no difficulty in accessing knowledge, but they must absorb it, assimilate it, until they can master it so that it can then be disseminated. The transmission-reception model, in itself, is no longer as effective as it was in the past. There is an emergent need to implement a method based on learning how to learn and, consequently, to seek a new model that allows such learning to be articulated within today’s context of influences.

This new model sees education as a service activity and is based on a change in the methodological approach from the teaching centered one currently employed to a learning centered approach. It also considers issues related to the characterization of the client, the roles and attitudes of the new agents and actors: teacher and students, and the essential ingredient of performance evaluation. Time, also, has become a determining factor in the educational process.

2 Teaching Engineering in the Image of Manufacturing

To help one understand the current stage of engineering education and the need for a change of paradigms, figure 1 shows the evolutionary model developed by Belhot [1997]. It is a well known fact that the production management processes of the secondary sector of the economy are going through profound changes. These can be characterized as paradigmatic changes, evolving from mass production to lean production. Comparatively, it can also be noted that the educational process, in this case the teaching of engineering, is also going through a transitional phase that is characterized by innumerable similarities.

In the early history of production, as taught in engineering courses, there was handcrafted production, that is, the knowledge of manufacturing and production itself were united in a single person, the craftsman, who used his own tools and method to produce a given product. The skills required for this activity were those of a worker, acquired in the context of the manual task. This phase of craftsmanship could also be seen in education, i.e. it was the period when the master, who was called the tutor or mentor, taught one child at a time and dedicated himself to this single student for as many years as it took the latter to reach a high level of proficiency.

Mass production, which came about as an evolution of industry and which, according to the Scientific Theory, optimized production efforts, is based on concepts and principles that are valid to this day. The division of work, separation between the planning and performance of tasks, unequivocal communication, rigid controls, standardization, and the increased scale of production still make up the cornerstones of a large part of today’s industrial activity. To optimize results, knowledge and decision are separated from task performance, thus strongly alienating labor and turning management in an elite.

The companies that operate according to this system, called “the Second Wave” by Tofler [1980], prioritize the productivity of resources and establish productivity performance measures. Something similar occurs in education, which seeks to establish unique performance measures based on actions centered on the mentor, i.e., the professor, and which disregards the heterogeneous characteristics of the students. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the different characteristics of the Taylor and Post-Taylor approaches.

The skills required today are those acquired in the information environment.

Industry today targets its actions directly at its clients, offering product differentiation (customization) achieved through flexible processes that ensure every customer requirement is fulfilled at low cost, high quality, and within the customer’s pre-defined timeframe. This is what is known as Clean Production.

Here we must analyze education based on a new approach that seeks to improve student learning. It longer suffices to see education simply through teaching, following the evolution of manufacturing. It is necessary to return to learning, to the client, to his needs, and to discover new paradigms that encompass these issues.

1. Organization of work
TAYLORISM	POST-TAYLORISM
RIGIDITY	FLEXIBILITY
The functions of conception, control and execution are rigidly separated. Tasks are simplified with a view to effectiveness. A workstation is allocated to each individual. Information and decisions are centralized. Low-skilled labor is prevalent, with specialized labor employed for certain tasks. Outside supervision and control of the performance of tasks. Separation of functions and individuals according to tasks. Beginning of the development of organization in production.	Flexible division and integration of the functions of conception, control and execution. Definition of tasks according to circumstances and needs. Integration of tasks to create a “complete” job that is identifiable and has visible results. Initiative, independence and discretion of the individual in planning his/her work and in determining the procedures for its execution: Performance of tasks and functions in work groups; Qualified and multi-skilled labor; Clear information of the results obtained from work and self-control. Based on the functions of interdisciplinary and semi-autonomous teams. Beginning of flexibility.
2. Qualifications
Ability to perform prescribed tasks. Ability to perform simple and repetitive tasks. Discipline and obedience in following instructions. Isolated individual work (carried out in a spirit of competitiveness). Specialized and limited technical knowledge. Performance of tasks.	Ability to take initiative in decision making and accept responsibilities. Ability to perform varied and complex tasks. Ability to identify and solve problems based on a global understanding. Ability to work in a group (teamwork). Ability to adapt to changes. High level of technical knowledge and skills. Take on different functions.

Figure 2. Qualification characteristics and requirements resulting from the modification of production factors and structure [Porfirio 1992]

In order to understand the new paradigms being proposed, one must see education as being a service activity that, when rendered, fulfills someone’s needs, that is, the needs of the client, and no longer as a transformer of resources into products, as shown in figure 3.

Only recently have we begun to gather the knowledge required to effect changes in education, as Drucker had already pointed out in 1968, since teaching is the only important human occupation for which instruments have not yet been perfected to make the average person capable of being competent and showing a good performance.

It can be stated that, in the teaching of engineering, a good teacher is already born good, since trust is placed in the inherent skills of those who, one way or the other, know how to teach. Thus, the search for better results must necessarily include factors such as suitable teaching instruments and the proper work organization of potentially “good teachers”.

In 1968, Drucker already stated that certainly one of the most important goals for any change in schools would have to involve more time spent by students in learning and by teachers in teaching. We must, here, admit the fact that research generates information rather than knowledge, and that the capacity of organization in the application of information to the final results is what constitutes the process of development of “knowledge”. Hence, for this same author, the main requirement is for man to have the ability to develop and teach an application with a view to achieving final results, knowledge and the statements supplied by the several disciplines. Furthermore, the man is sought who is able to unite knowledge and skills in many different disciplines, integrating them in an effective application to solve future problems.

3 The teaching of engineering as a service activity

One of the best ways to instrumentalize the educational process is to associate its practice to the context of service development. The concept of what a service is, although it may be perceived intuitively, is nonetheless not a simple one.

Historically, services were born of an economic activity in the pre-industrial era, associated to personal services rendered by one individual to another, usually in an only slightly modified version of the relationship of servitude so common in those times.

The beginning of industry caused a significant impact on personal services. First, the factory, introducing the concept of salaried work, originated a situation that completely altered the concept of servitude. Moreover, factory workers’ salaries gradually increased and exceeded those of individual workers.

Thus, the more worthy (because it eliminated the bond of ownership between the master and the servant) and better paid relationship in industry affected the nature of the activity of services, making way for the appearance of small firms of independent businessmen or of self-employed workers.

Another, more recent factor, that strengthened the activity of services was the extension of the concept of “product”. Indeed, product “marketing”, inasmuch as it became more sophisticated, implied the need of support for clients to better use (take better advantage of) the products. Thus, many service activities appeared as an extension or complement of manufactured items and products.

To give a better definition, one can conceive of services as being “… an operation or set of operations whose objective is to increase the value of the state of someone or something”, as opposed to the concept of manufacturing, which is “… an operation or set of operations whose objective is to increase the value of the form of physical resources” [Ellenrieder 1998:4], or “service is generated by the activities of interaction between the supplier and the client, where the client’s activities can be essential to the supply of the service and the delivery of the use of a product can be part of the offer”, according to the ISO 9004-2 norm.

Inherent to services are characteristics such as intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity and perishability, as described in Gianesi & Correa [1994], which, in the specific case of education, are illustrated in figure 4.

Teaching as a form of service production is a complex phenomenon that is subject to the interference of a great number of variables required to effect intellectual, behavioral, psychomotor and other changes in the individuals who are the objects of its action [Colenci 1994]. Moreover, it must be noted that service allied to quality represents a strong basis for competitive advantage, as pointed out by Albrecht & Bradfort [1992].

According to Porfirio [1992], it is the choices that result from reflecting on the issue of how to educate that make the act of teaching not a routine, repetitive activity disconnected from reality and made up of a collection of loose elements but, rather, a coherent pedagogic project articulated to educative intentions… It is the conception and execution of this project that, although on the one hand it makes new demands on teachers, on the other, it justifies the understanding of the activity of teaching as something that does not stop at teaching and instructing, but is oriented in such a way as to trigger the formation, development and education of our students.

Thus, it is up to the teacher, in the development of the learning process, to use the power of decision he holds and the intervention time he has with his students to act in line with the educational project in which he participates, using the methodological concepts as guidelines to help him achieve good results. Under the current circumstances, a new paradigm is beginning to govern the educational process, integrating new dimensions of conception and communication that involve the exercise of teaching, the application of the process and the perfecting of skills, sensitivity in relation to decisions (feeling), to execution and control, giving place to intelligently structured and well organized action on the part of the professional

SERVICES	EDUCATION
Intangibility	Education is intangible since it consists of experience lived by the client. This intangibility makes it difficult for the director, teachers, society and the student himself to properly evaluate the results and quality of education. It is difficult to standardize education, which makes managing the process even more complex.
Need for the presence of the client	It is the client who triggers the operation in terms of when and how it should come about. The client is treated by the system. In the case of education, there are some questions concerning who the real client of education is: the students, society, or the teachers? And today, with the issue of technology, the need for the physical presence in of long distance teaching, at least in some activities, is an as yet unanswered question.
Services are produced and consumed simultaneously	There is no intermediary stage in education between knowledge and its assimilation.
Services cannot be stocked	The issue that can be brought up here refers the possibility of “stocking up” on knowledge.
Services are highly variable	Education varies from one person to another, thus it should be individualized.

Figure 4. Education as a manifestation of services

4 The educational approach centered on learning

To an understanding of engineering education must be added the change of approach in the development of the activity, which must go from a teaching focus to a learning focus, as shown in figure 5.

As a result, changes in the process of academic management will be felt that will, however, still require behavioral changes on the part of the institution and the academic body to lead it from a centralizing model to a more participative, up to date model.

COMPONENT	TEACHING CENTERED APPROACH	LEARNING CENTERED APPROACH
Focus	Teacher	Student
Teacher	Provider of Knowledge	Learning Facilitator
Stimulus	Non Pertinent Abstract Information	Real, Pertinent Learning Situation
Mental Process	Convergent, Memorizer	Divergent, Analytical, Constructive
Objectives	Informational, Discursive; Correct Response, Self Learning.	Promoter: “Know how” “Know why” “Skill” “Feeling”
Rhythm	Uniform	Variable
Behavior	Rigid: Convergent	Flexible; Divergent
Effects	Promotes Individualism; Creates Dependence	Stimulates Teamwork; Favor Initiative; Lends Prestige to Leadership

Figure 5. Different approaches to the educational process [Colenci 1998]

5 Systemically treated education

According to Colenci [1994], the organization’s permanent program of quality must include the following factors:

1. the final client;
2. the commitment of the agents involved;
3. the improvement and emulation of human resources;
4. the establishment of indicators, and the collection of data and facts as factors for a proper decision process;
5. the search for ongoing improvement;
6. constant monitoring of activities;
7. systematic evaluation of results;
8. the development of partnerships and integration with external and internal environments so that high standards of efficiency and effectiveness are achieved.

A model of transformation that applies resources to achieve high quality service for clients must fit into the environment at the same time that it is influenced but the latter, and seeks efficiency and effectiveness of its actions. Figure 6 illustrates the development of a control cycle for this model, based on an academical subsystem and its component elements.

This systemic view will allow for the beginning of planning related actions and implementation and later, for control and corrective remanagement.

Within the systemic approach, the planning and teaching development stages of the process must be related to the social needs which it must fulfill. Figure 5 represents this connection.

The issue of quality in teaching or education highlights the difficulties involved in making measurements or comparisons and sets forth two aspects for consideration [Colenci 1994]: i) the results of teaching, ii) the teaching-learning process, in which the criteria for comparison or measurement are based on:

• social indicators
• the results provided by educational research
• pedagogical practices.

Several comparisons are possible, in regard to figure 6, such as a comparison between planned and achieved objectives (a3) and the level of student inputs (a7).

6 Conclusions

We are currently going through a new era, where “chalk” and “chip” will not easily share the same classroom. The increasingly fast pace of the innovative process demands that students be prepared to solve future problems, and this requires a complete review of the current practices of the educational process so as to offer the work market professionals with a multidisciplinary education who are capable of acting in a variety of functions using multiple skills. Their education must promote the development of Social Sensitivity, Technological Competence, Functional Skills, Responsibility, high Behavioral and Ethical Standards, Self-teaching and a Proactive Attitude.

In the imminent review of the performance of the academic body in its capacity of service provider, changes are expected in the educational model, teaching methods and practices, curricular proposals, in the intensified use of new teaching technologies, and behavioral changes in the management process, dropping the Taylor model in favor of participative and developmental management.

Preparing the engineer for the work market can no longer be seen as a process similar to manufacturing, where the raw material is transformed into a product to meet the needs of a market segment. Today there is a process that aims to integrate this professional and, mainly, to educate professionals that are able to access the knowledge required at the right time and in the right way.

This will only become effective when there is a change in focus in the classroom, that is, in a change from the activity of teaching planning to that of learning planning. When this happens, the student will become the center of the process and the objectives, planning, and evaluation will be performed aiming at the student, his real learning, and will thus have the effect of increasing the student’s productivity and of optimizing his development.

References

ALBRECHT, K & BRADFORD, L. J. Servicos com qualidade, a vantagem competitiva. SP. Makron Books do Brasil. 1992. 216p.

BELHOT, R.V. Reflexoes e propostas sobre o “Ensinar Engenharia” para o seculo XXI. Sao Carlos. 1997. 113p. Tese (livre docencia), Escola de Engenharia de Sao Carlos, Universidade de Sao Paulo.

____________. O ensino de engenharia sob o enfoque de servicos/ Anais (CD-Rom) International Conference on Engineering Education realizado no periodo de 17 a 20 de agosto de 1998/ Rio de Janeiro – RJ.

COLENCI Jr. A. et al. Elementos para uma revisao da atuacao institucional, no ambito do ensino superior do CEETEPS. Sao Paulo, maio 1998/ Monografia/.

The interrelation organization quality in the teaching of engineering. In Congresso Interamericano de Educacion en Ingenieria y Tecnologia. Intertech 96, 4., Valencia, Venezuela, 1994. Proceedings. Valencia, Venezuela, 1994.

DRUCKER, P.F. Uma era de descontinuidade: orientacao para uma sociedade em mudanca. Circulo do Livro. Sao Paulo. SP. 1968. 423p.

ELLENRIEDER, A. R. V. Administracao em servicos: parte 1: conceitos. Engenharia de producao, n.1, p. 3-6. 1998.

GIANESI, I. & CORREA, H. Administracao Estrategica em Servicos. Sao Paulo. Atlas, 1994.

LABEGALINI, P. R. O papel do professor universitario na qualidade de servico. Sao Paulo, 1997, 211p. Tese (doutorado), Escola Politecnica da Universidade de Sao Paulo.

PORFIRIO, M. Metodologia do projecto tecnologico. Universidade Aberta, Lisboa, 1992. 392p.

TOFLER, A. A terceira onda – o fim do industrialismo. Trad. de Joao Tavora. 15ª ed. Rio de Janeiro, Record, 1980. 491 p.