This presentation describes the results of an exploratory study investigating the work that newly graduated and hired "freshout" engineers perform in the workplace. The study investigates: * The tasks that freshouts perform successfully and unsuccessfully on the job. * The consequences of nonperformance. * The root causes of nonperformance. This study was funded by the National Science foundation. Portions of this material are based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1037808. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

2. What’s Happening to Our
“Freshout” Engineers?
https://sites.googboisestate.edu/faculty/sv
illachica.htmle.com/a/boisestate.edu/ieeci/
e2r2p
2
 Steven W. Villachica
 Anthony W. Marker
 Donald Plumlee
 Amy Chegash
Project Worldwide Out
of the Box

3. Engineering Education
Research to Practice (E2R2P)
Portions of this material are
based upon work supported by
the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. 1037808.
Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are
those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect the views
of the National Science
Foundation.
The Research Team
Don Plumlee, PhD.
Steve Villachica, PhD.
Tony Marker , PhD.
Linda Huglin, PhD.
Drew Borreson
Shannon Rist
Amy Chegash
Lorece Stanton
Jessica Scheufler
3
Business Plan
• Ray Svenson

4. Agenda
Share our exploratory research
Ask for your help interpreting the data we’ve
collected
Dialog, not an information dump
Wrap up
4

5. Why Should You Care?
Engineers create a lot of the stuff we use.
Universities can’t mint them fast enough.
64% engineering employers are “somewhat
satisfied” with quality of new hires.
(Spinks, 2006; Trevelyan & Tilli, 2008; Trevelyan, 2010; Blom
& Sakei, 2011)
Professional skills for the engineering
workplace include teamwork, communication,
coordination, data analysis and problem
solving.
(Hoey & Gardner, 1999; Jonassen et al., 2006; Grant &
Dickson, 2006; Korte, Sheppard, & Jordan, 2008; Trevelyan,
2007, 2008; Anderson et al., 2011; Passow, 2012; ASEE &
NSF, 2013)
5

6. Research Design
What sort of
engineers do
engineering
firms REALLY
want to hire?
Boundary Crossing Competencies
Communication, teamwork, networks, critical thinking, global understanding,
perspective, organizational culture, project management, etc.
Many Disciplines Many Systems
Deepatleastonediscipline
Deepatleastonesystem
(c.f. Brown, 2005; Spohrer, 2010;
ASEE & NSF, 2013)
6
ME

7. Research Design
Decrease Ramp-up Time to Competent Job
Performance in the Engineering Workplace
Research Questions
• What are newly graduated and hired “fresh out” engineers doing/not
doing in the workplace that they should?
• What are the consequences of performance/non-performance in the
workplace?
• What are the root causes of workplace nonperformance?
Mixed Design: Focus Groups & Surveys
• Engineering managers, engineering leads, HR personnel, and technical
scientists who work with fresh out engineers
• Fresh out engineers
• Professional engineering organizations
7

8. Actual
Competency
New Task/Project
Leave University/Enter Workforce
Literature Review
8
Desired
Competency
Promotion!
Performance
Time
Company Costs
$ Training
$ Errors
$ Mentoring
$ Salary
$ Opportunity
$ Other projects
$ Others?
{REDUCE
CO$T
• Improve Starting Skills
• Change Performance Curve
• Make Boundaries Porous }

9. Literature Review
There is a significant disconnect between
engineering education and engineering practice.
(Bucciarelli & Kuhn, 1997; NAE, 2005; Jonassen et al., 2006;
Spinks et al., 2006; Korte et al., 2008; Trevelyan, 2008, 2010;
McCrohon & Gibson, 2009; Sheppard et al., 2009; Morgan &
O’Gorman, 2010; Anderson et al., 2009, 2010; Duderstadt,
2010; Stump et al., 2011; ASEE & NSF, 2013; Winters et al.,
2013)
9

10. Literature Review
The time for freshout engineers to fit into their
jobs and perform them competently is a
significant workplace cost.
2 to 5 years ramp-up.
(Trevelyan & Tilli, 2008; Jonassen et al., 2006)
Socialization and onboarding are long-lived.
(Dai & De Meuse, 2007; Bradt & Vonnegut, 2009; Roethle,
2012; Jones, 2013)
The engineering workplace supports
socialization and onboarding variably well.
(Montesano, 2007; Roethle , 2012; Korte & Lin, 2013)
Bad onboarding is co$tly.
(Ramlall, 2004; Rollag et al., 2005; Snell, 2006; Kowtha,
2008; Lindo, 2010; Roethle, 2012; Korte & Lin, 2013)
10

11. Literature Review
Academics, industry, and government agencies
own this shared problem, and it requires a
systemic solution. Unfortunately, we know little
about
Engineering practice for freshout engineers.
(Kowtha, 2008; Trevelyan, 2007, 2008; Brunhaver et al.,
2010, in press; Winters et al., 2013)
What freshout engineers do successfully and
unsuccessfully in the workplace.
(Trevelyan & Tilli, 2008; Trevelyan ,2008, 2009)
Barriers to desired workplace performance.
(Korte et al., 2008; Atman et al., 2010; Brunhaver et al.,
2010, in press; Anderson et al., 2010)
E2R2P is an opportunity to collaborate systemically to decrease
ramp-up time to competent performance.
11

12. Thanks to Our Professional
and Industry Sponsors!
Practicing
engineers at ISPE
BSU COEN
Advisory Council
Focus Groups at
local engineering
firms
12

13. Method
Practicing Engineer Survey
Short survey measuring:
Types of work assigned to
freshouts.
Typical time to competence
Costs and risks that
organizations incur when
freshouts can’t perform to
standards
Typical project organization
for groups of engineers
Organizational support for
freshouts ISPE (2012), n = 23
13

14. Time to Competency for
"Fresh-Outs" (in months)
2 3 4 4
10
Six to Nine Ten to Twelve Thirteen to
Sixteen
Seventeen to
Twenty-Four
More than
Twenty-Four
14

15. Typical Assignment Size
2 2
6
2
Design Analysis Drawing
Drafts
Project
Management
Large/Complex Projects
19
14
19
3
Design Analysis Drawing
Drafts
Project
Management
Small/Simple Projects
15

16. Organizational Support
9 8
15
11
20
10
3
Formal
Training
Formal
Mentoring
Informal
Mentoring
Orientation Performance
Feedback
SOPs Other
16

17. Method
Focus Groups
Collect Incidents
Generate Categories
Negotiate Categories
Group Incidents
under Categories
Select Incidents of
Non-performance
Group Incidents
Under a Root CauseRank Categories
17
Critical Incident Technique
(Flanagan, 1954)
NominalGroupTechnique
(Delpetal.,1975)
Cause Analysis

18. Collect Incidents
Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954)
18

19. Focus Group Results
Performance Categories
Category Unsuccessful Successful
Communication 9 8
Technical
Fundamentals 3 11
Business
Systems
5 7
Design 5 6
Motivation 6 5
Problem Solving 6 5
Initiative 2 8
Positive Attitude 3 4
Work Ethic 2 5
Circuit Debug 3 3
Freshout-Defined Categories
n = 10
Competency Unsuccessful Successful
Design 14 18
Communication 18 10
Analysis 10 14
Motivation 8 10
Technical
Fundamentals
3 12
Problem Solving 7 6
Software 3 10
Business
Systems
5 7
Initiative 2 8
Leadership 4 5
Process
Knowledge
4 3
Positive Attitude 3 4
Manager-Defined Categories
n = 20
19

20. Focus Group Results
Consequences
Successful Performance
Consequences
# of Events
Met Schedule 19
Freed up Senior Staff 18
Saved Resources 18
Improved Processes 15
Developed New Tool 14
Developed Skill / Knowledge 12
Saved Time 12
Gained Client Confidence 10
Gained Employer Confidence 10
Stayed Within Budget 7
Increased Productivity 6
Unsuccessful Performance
Consequences
# of Events
Lost Time 34
Rework 22
Additional Staff Support 17
Missed Deadline 12
Increased Costs 10
Wasted Budget 8
Lost Employer Confidence 5
Stressed Staff 5
Job Unfinished 4
Lost Client Confidence 4
Exceeded Budget 3
20
Aggregated Freshout and
Management Events

21. Categories, Activities and
Consequences
Top-Ranked Categories Source Activity Consequence
1. Communication /
Teamwork
Freshout “The first time I had to write up an
engineering report--I struggled doing it. I
never had to submit something to IDQ
before, and I wasn’t confident”
“It just took me a lot of my personal time
and a senior had to review it and it wasn’t
good.”
2. Skill Develop-
ment / Learning
Freshout “I observed a lot of nuclear test procedures
and started evolutions on board and naval
vessels so after you learned we went out to
the vessels and basically were like buddy
buddy with a qualified test engineer to learn
the procedures and observe what was going
on…”
“I think I was pretty successful. You had to
regurgitate what you learned. You had a
qualification check off sheet and so you’d have
to go back with that test engineer and
regurgitate what you saw and how you thought
the procedure went then he would sign off
your sheet and you’d go on to the next.”
3. Work Ethic Manager “We had a junior engineer. I think he had
only been here a couple of weeks. Got him
onto a team for ongoing projects and gave
him minimal amount of direction…”
“…He immediately started contributing more
than I think any of us envisioned…within a
few days he was coordinating with several
other staff inside and outside our company.”
4. Business Systems
/ Processes
Freshout “I didn’t consider that activity [resolving
drawing issues] successful because I was
not aware or did not have enough
knowledge about manufacturing processes
in general to really be effective and resolve
those issues in a short time span. It took
me a lot longer than it could have...”
“As a result it there were a lot of late
deliveries to those revisions and caused us to
do multiple rework and multiple parts…”
21

22. Categories, Activities and
Consequences (con’t)
22
Top-Ranked Categories Source Activity Consequence
5. Problem Solving Manager “There was an issue that was found on the
floor and it was in the CAB. The CAB group
lead came to this person [the new engineer]
and asked him to go figure out what the
problem was.”
“That person went out there, they figured it
out, they investigated it…found out that it
was in fact a design error, and they went and
took care of it…ended up fixing the design
error correctly…It allowed production to keep
going and we had minimal down time”
6. Analysis Freshout “The engineer that was doing it [analysis] had
a lot going on. Field work and stuff so [he]…
passed it off to me. “
The biggest impact was probably time and
cost for doing it slower than he was or
would’ve and … a couple hours of
coaching…So there was a learning curve to
it..”
7. Technical
Fundamentals
Manager “…basically he [the new engineer] didn’t know
how to use the software and didn’t have the
general, multiple CAD system-type training.
“He was focused all on one CAD software when
he was in school and so although he could
model in 3-D, he couldn't psych out how this
software thought and how it behaved and that
it was different than what he had done
before…”
8. Design Manager “I had a young engineer who was tasked with
developing a draw bar for semi trailers.”
“He [the new engineer] was able to, in about a
four-month period, generate a single CAD
model that could then be driven through a
family table to automatically generate new
designs and drawings. He took a typically 8
hour to 12-hour project down to 30 minutes.
The impact was huge.”

23. Categories, Activities and
Consequences (con’t)
23
Top-Ranked Categories Source Activity Consequence
9. Software Freshout “We had switched over to this other software
and for 9 months I don’t think we produced
any usable products. “
“.Literally everything we did in the software for
six months was never used. It was never
useable. Had to be trashed. It was an
extremely frustrating part of my career. “
11. Leadership [When I joined the design team] “I was
immediately put in charge of an entire CAB
design for one of our contracts. Essentially
what that entails is facilitating the whole design
process.”
“I don’t feel like I was ill prepared to do that.”

24. Root Cause Analysis
Instrumentation
• Data
• Expectations
• Feedback
• Standard Operating
Procedures
• Resources
• Software
• Tools
• Support
• Incentives
• Rewards
• Consequences
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Physical Capacity
• Mental Capacity
• Flexibility
• Resilience
• Motives
• Affect
• Work Habits
• Drive
ENVIRONMENTPERSON
INFORMATION TOOLS MOTIVATION
24

25. Root Cause Analysis
Results
10
20
24
8
11
Managers
Information
Tools
Incentives
Knolwedge
Capacity
Motivation
6
7
0
22
1 2
Freshouts
25

26. Root Cause Analysis
Results
16
9
0
46
8
13
Combined
Information
Tools
Incentives
Knolwedge
Capacity
Motivation
35%
29%
11%
11%
8%
6%
Dean (1997)
26

27. Limitations
Validity and reliability of the Practicing
Engineer Survey is unknown.
Small exploratory study using a convenience
sample of local engineering firms.
No post-focus group data checking with
participants and their company sponsors
(managers).
27

28. Conclusions
Decreasing time to engineering workplace
competency is a shared problem.
Freshout engineers are variably prepared to
enter the workplace.
The engineering workplace supports freshout
performance variably well.
Socialization and onboarding involves a lot of
self-reported learning.
We don’t know about the extent to which
fixing the workplace environment and
introducing it to students sooner would
decrease ramp-up time.
28

29. Next Steps
Seek funding to expand research.
– Include other engineering populations.
– Regional, national, or international sample.
– Scale up and automate processes.
Investigate research questions about:
– Blurring traditional academic and industry
boundaries.
– The extent to which a smarter workplace
environment introduced in academics could
decrease ramp-up time.
Create a collaborative venue to decrease
ramp-up time.
29

30. Summary
Research questions and importance
Literature review
Method
Results
Limitations
Conclusions
30
What are your lessons
learned?
How might you apply
them back on the job?

31. References
Anderson, K., Courter, S., McGlamery, T., Nathans-Kelly, T., & Nicometo, C. (2009, June). Understanding the
current work and values of professional engineers: Implications for engineering education. Paper presented
at the American Society for Engineering Education, Austin, TX.
Anderson, K.J.B., Courter, S.S., McGlamery, T., Nathans-Kelly, T.M., & Nicometo, C.G. (2010). Understanding
engineering work and identity: A cross-case analysis of engineers within six firms. Engineering
Studies, 2(3), 153-174. doi: 10.1080/19378629.2010.519772
ASEE & NSF. (2013). Transforming undergraduate education in engineering: Phase I--Synthesizing and
integrating industry perspectives. Arlington, VA: American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved
from http://www.asee.org/TUEE_PhaseI_WorkshopReport.pdf
Atman, C.J., Sheppard, S.D., Turns, J., Adams, R.S., Fleming, L.N., Stevens, R., . . . Lund, D. (2010). Enabling
engineering student success: The final report for the center for the advancement of engineering education.
San Rafael, CA: Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education. Retrieved from
http://www.engr.washington.edu/caee/CAEE%20final%20report%2020101102.pdf
Blom, A., & Saeki, H. (2011). Employability and skill set of newly graduated engineers in India. The World Bank
South Asia Region Education Team. Retrieved from
http://elibrary.worldbank.org/docserver/download/5640.pdf?expires=1337278148&id=id&accname=guest&
checksum=E557A65C13E9CA650433F9E5798C4242
Borrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally
connected field of inquiry. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 14-47.
Bradt, G.B., & Vonnegut, M. (2009). Onboarding: How to get your new employees up to speed in half the time.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, T. (2005). Strategy by design. Fast Company, (June 1). Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/52795/strategy-design
Brunhaver, S., Korte, R., Lande, M., & Sheppard, S. (2010, June). Supports and barriers that recent engineering
graduates experience in the workplace. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering
Education, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Brunhaver, S.R., Korte, R., Barley, S.R., & Sheppard, S.D. (in press). Bridging the gaps between engineering
education and practice.
Bucciarelli, L.L., & Kuhn, S. (1997). Engineering education and engineering practice: Improving the fit. In S. R.
Barley & J. E. Orr (Eds.), Between craft and science: Technical work in the United States (pp. 210-229).
Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
Dai, G., & De Meuse, K.P. (2007). A review of onboarding literature. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited.
Retrieved from http://boardoptions.com/onboardingevidence.pdf 31

32. References
Dean, P.J. (1997). Thomas f. Gilbert, ph. D: Engineering performance improvement with or without training. In
P. J. Dean & D. E. Ripley (Eds.), Performance improvement series: Vol. 1. Performance improvement
pathfinders: Models for organizational learning systems (pp. 45-64). Silver Spring, MD: International
Society for Performance Improvement.
Delp, P., Thesen, A., Motiwalla, J., & Seshardi, N. (1977). Nominal group technique. In P. Delp (Ed.), Systems
tools for project planning (pp. 14-18). Bloomington, IN: International Development Institute.
Duderstadt, J.J. (2010). Engineering for a changing world. In D. Grasso & M. Burkins (Eds.), Holistic engineering
education: Beyond technology (pp. 17-35). New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from
http://milproj.dc.umich.edu/pdfs/2009/Engineering%20for%20a%20Changing%20World.pdf
Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. doi:
10.1037/h0061470
Grant, C.D., & Dickson, B.R. (2006). Personal skills in chemical engineering graduates: The development of
skills within degree programmes to meet the needs of employers. Education for Chemical
Engineers, 1(1), 23-29. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/ece.05004
Hoey, J.J., & Gardner, D.C. (1999). Using surveys of alumni and their employers to improve an institution. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 1999(101), 43-59. doi: 10.1002/ir.10103
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Chwee Beng, L. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for
engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2006.tb00885.x
Jones, K. (2013). Virtual onboarding for today’s global workforce. Oakland, CA: Bersin by Deloitte. Retrieved
from http://communication.on24.com/virtual-onboarding-for-todays-global-workforce
Korte, R., & Lin, S. (2013). Getting on board: Organizational socialization and the contribution of social capital.
Human Relations, 66(3), 407-428. doi: 10.1177/0018726712461927
Korte, R., Sheppard, S., & Jordan, W. (2008). A qualitative study of the early work experiences of recent
graduates in engineering. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering
Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
Kowtha, N.R. (2008). Engineering the engineers: Socialization tactics and new engineer adjustment in
organizations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 67-81. doi:
10.1109/TEM.2007.912809
32

33. References
Lindo, D.K. (2010). New employee orientation is your job! SuperVision, 71(9), 11-15.
McCrohon, M., & Gibson, P. (2009, December). Student experiences in the direct applicability of their
engineering education to professional practice. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference for the
Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Adelaide, Australia.
Montesano, A. (2007). Orienting new employees for career success: Effective onboarding ensures smoother
integration and faster productivity. Canadian HR Reporter, 20(18), 23-24.
Morgan, M., & O’Gorman, P. (2010, July). Developing industry-ready engineers: A regional university
perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education ICEE-
2010, Gliwice, Poland.
National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to
the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11338#toc
Passow, H.J. (2012). Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work?
Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 95-118. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00043.x
Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention
within organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 5(1/2), 52-63.
Roethle, J. (2012). Developing a new employee onboarding program in a small engineering department.
Milwaukee School of Engineering, Milwaukee, WI.
Rollag, K., Parise, S., & Cross, R. (2005). Getting new hires up to speed quickly. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 46(2), 35-41.
Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W.M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future
of the field (Vol. 9): Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA.
Snell, A. (2006). Researching onboarding best practice: Using research to connect onboarding processes with
employee satisfaction. Strategic HR Review, 5(6), 32-35.
Spinks, N., Silburn, N., & Birchall, D. (2006). Educating engineers for the 21st century: The industry view.
London: The Royal Academy of Engineering.
Stump, G.S., Hilpert, J.C., Husman, J., Chung, W.-t., & Kim, W. (2011). Collaborative learning in engineering
students: Gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 475-497.
33

34. References
Trevelyan, J. (2007). Technical coordination in engineering practice. Journal of Engineering
Education, 96(3), 191-204.
Trevelyan, J. (2008). A framework for understanding engineering practice. Paper presented at the American
Society for Engineering Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
Trevelyan, J., & Tilli, S. (2008). Longitudinal study of Australian engineering graduates: Perceptions of working
time. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
Trevelyan, J.P. (2009). Engineering education requires a better model of engineering practice. Paper presented
at the Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Palm Cove, QLD, Australia.
Trevelyan, J.P. (2010). Mind the gaps: Engineering education and practice. Paper presented at the 21st Annual
Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Sydney, Australia.
Winters, K.E., Matusovich, H.M., Brunhaver, S., Chen, H.L., Yasuhara, K., & Sheppard, S. (2013, June). From
freshman engineering students to practicing professionals: Changes in beliefs about important skills over
time. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA.
34