Mechanical Engineering Ow Web

Mechanical Engineering
May 2007
Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU)
Catharijnesingel 56
PO Box 8035
3503 RA Utrecht
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0) 30 230 3100

Telefax: +31 (0) 30 230 3129
E-mail: info@qanu.nl
Internet: www.qanu.nl
© 2007 QANU
Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopy-
ing or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned.
QANU / Mechanical Engineering

Table of Contents
Foreword 5
Preface 7
Part I General Part 9
1. Administrative data 11
2. Structure of the report 15
3. General remarks 17
Part II Assessments of the degree courses 21
1. The Mechanical Engineering Department, TU Eindhoven 23

2. The Engineering Technology Faculty, University of Twente 39
3. The 3mE Faculty Mechanical Engineering, TU Delft 57
4. The 3mE Faculty Biomedical Engineering, TU Delft 75
5. The 3mE Faculty Material Science and Engineering, TU Delft 87
6. The 3mE Faculty Systems and Control, TU Delft 99
Appendices 111
Appendix A: Appointment notice (“Instellingsbesluit”) 113

Appendix B: Curricula Vitae of the Committee Members 117
Appendix C: Domain-Specific Reference Framework 121
Appendix D: Assessment Summary Mechanical Engineering 2006 123
Appendix E: Visit programmes 125
Appendix F: List of abbreviations 133

FOREWORD
This report is part of the quality assessment of university Bachelor and Master degree courses
in the Netherlands. The purpose of this report is to present a reliable picture of the results of
the degree courses submitted for this review, to give feedback to the internal quality assurance
of the institutes concerned, and to serve as the basis for accreditation of the degree courses by
the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO).
The report is written in the English language because of the international composition of the
Committee.
The Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities Foundation (QANU) aims to ensure indepen
dent, unbiased, critically constructive assessments using standardised quality criteria as far as
possible, while taking specific circumstances into account.
The QANU Review Committee Mechanical Engineering has fulfilled its tasks with great dedi-
cation in a period marked by the transition to the Bachelor-Master structure. The courses are
evaluated in a thorough and careful manner within a clear framework. We trust the judgments
and recommendations will be carefully considered by the course providers, the management
of the faculties and the boards of the universities concerned.
We thank the Chairman and members of the Review Committee for their willingness to par
ticipate in this assessment and for the dedication with which they carried out this task. We
also thank the staff of the university departments concerned for their efforts and for their co-
operation during the assessments.
Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities
Mr. Chris J. Peels Dr. Jan G.F. Veldhuis

Director Chairman of the Board

Preface
This report describes the assessment of the Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes in
Mechanical Engineering, and related Master’s programmes, of the Eindhoven University of
Technology, the University of Twente and the Delft University of Technology.
The Evaluation Committee reviewed the quality of the educational programmes and proc-
esses, focussing on the topics defined in the NVAO assessment framework.
The Evaluation Committee is grateful to the Mechanical Engineering Department / Faculties

and related departments for their efforts in preparing the self-evaluation reports and providing
other documentation about the degree programmes concerned. The information provided in
the self-evaluation reports served as a starting point for the assessment process and proved to
be of great significance. The committee appreciated the open, constructive and stimulating
discussions with the board, management, staff and students.
The educational programmes provide a challenging and motivating environment in which

students are offered an excellent opportunity for education in mechanical engineering.
Possible areas for improvement have been recognised by the faculties, and the committee trusts
that faculty management, departmental staff and students will be working together to further
improve the mechanical engineering educational programmes.
As chairman of the committee, I would like to express my great appreciation for the com-
mitment and the contributions of the committee members. They showed great interest and
dedication in the different stages of the demanding assessment process.
Prof. J. De Schutter
Chairman of the Committee

part I: general part

10 QANU / Mechanical Engineering
1. Administrative data
1.1. Eindhoven University of Technology
Bachelor programme:
Name programme Mechanical Engineering

CROHO number 56966
Level Bachelor
Orientation academic
Study load 180 EC
Degree B.Sc.
Location Eindhoven
Accreditation expiry date 31-12-2007
Department Mechanical Engineering
Master programme:

CROHO number 60439
Level Master
Study load 120 EC
Degree M.Sc.
Variant(s) DSD, TFE, CEM, AES, µNT
Location Eindhoven
Department Mechanical Engineering
1.2. University of Twente
Bachelor programme:

CROHO number 56966
Level Bachelor
Study load 180 EC
Degree B.Sc.
Location Enschede
Faculty Engineering Technology
QANU / Mechanical Engineering 11

Master programme:

CROHO number 60439
Level Master
Study load 120 EC
Degree M.Sc.
Variant(s)
Location Enschede
Faculty Engineering Technology
1.3. Delft University of Technology
Bachelor programme:

CROHO number 56966
Level Bachelor
Study load 180 EC
Degree B.Sc.
Location Delft
Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
Master programme:

CROHO number 60439
Level Master
Study load 120 EC
Degree M.Sc.
Variant(s) BMD, CE, PMM, SFM, SPET, TE
Location Delft

Master programme:
Name programme Biomedical Engineering

CROHO number 66226
Level Master
Study load 120 EC
Degree M.Sc.
Location Delft
Master programme:
Name programme Materials Science and Engineering

CROHO number 66958
Level Master
Study load 120 EC
Degree M.Sc.
Location Delft
Master programme:
Name programme Systems and Control

CROHO number 60359
Level Master
Study load 120 EC
Degree M.Sc.
Location Delft

2. Structure of the report
In this document, the Educational Evaluation Committee for Mechanical Engineering (in this
report referred to as ‘the Committee’) reports its findings. The report consists of two parts: Part
I General part (Chapter 1 Administrative data, Chapter 2 Structure of the report, Chapter 3
General remarks) and Part II Assessment of the degree courses (Chapters 1 up to and including
6) which contains the results of the educational evaluation and assessment of the mechanical
engineering degree courses offered at the Eindhoven University of Technology, the University
of Twente and the Delft University of Technology.
The general part summarises the tasks, composition, input documentation and work proce-
dures of the Committee. A brief overview of the recent developments in the respective faculty
organisations and degree programmes is, for each university, provided in Part II.
The chapters describing the evaluation and assessment of the respective educational pro-
grammes are structured in accordance with the accreditation criteria prescribed by the NVAO
(Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders).

3. General remarks
3.1. Task of the Committee
The task of Committee was to evaluate and assess nine degree programmes in total, at three
different universities in the period 2000-2005.
Eindhoven University of Technology

Two degree programmes of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering:
• the academic BSc programme in Mechanical Engineering; three years, CROHO 56966,
start September 2002
• the Academic MSc programme in Mechanical Engineering; two years, CROHO 60439,
University of Twente
Two degree programmes of the Faculty of Engineering Technology:
formal start September 2002, although the programme actually started in September 2001
• the Academic MSc programme in Mechanical Engineering; two years, CROHO 60439,
Delft University of Technology

Five degree programmes of the Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
(3mE):
• the Academic MSc programme in Mechanical Engineering (ME); two years, CROHO
60439, start September 2002
• the Academic MSc programme in Biomedical Engineering (BME); two years, CROHO
• the Academic MSc programme in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE); two
years, CROHO 66958, start September 2003
• the Academic MSc programme in Systems and Control (SC); two years, CROHO
Where applicable in this report, it will be explicitly mentioned whether the text concerns the
Bachelor’s or the Master’s programme. Otherwise the text applies to both curricula.
This evaluation and assessment is based on, and complies with, the accreditation requirements
of the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO).

3.2. The constitution of the Committee
A shortlist of candidates was formally approved by the QANU Board on November 24, 2005.
The Committee was constituted formally on September 5, 2006. All members of the Commit-
tee signed a declaration of independence as required by the QANU protocol to assure that:
• the panel members judge without bias, personal preference or personal interest, and
• the judgement is made without undue influence from the institute, the programme or
other stakeholders.
The Committee consisted of a chairman and seven members:
chair
• Prof. J. De Schutter, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Division Production Engi-
neering, Machine Design and Automation (PMA), K.U. Leuven, Belgium
members
• Dr C. Van Den Bogaert, Head of Education Department, University of Antwerp, Ant-
werp, Belgium
• Prof. A. Demaid, Department of Design and Innovation, Faculty of Technology , The
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK
• Prof. R. Ohayon, Mechanics, Structural Mechanics and Coupled Systems Laboratory,
Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (CNAM), Paris, France
• Prof. G. Van der Perre, Department of Biomechanics and Graphical Design, KU Leuven,
Belgium
• Ir. G.J. Wierda, Director of Moog FCS B.V., Nieuw-Vennep, The Netherlands,
• M. Haagsma BSc, student in Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente,
The Netherlands
• G. Karsemakers, student in Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Eindhoven University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
A short curriculum vitae of each of the Committee members is included in Appendix B.

Ir. P.C. van Holten, QANU, was appointed secretary of the Evaluation Committee.
3.3. Materials presented to the Committee as a basis for the assessment
The three engineering technology faculties offering the degree courses each prepared a
self-evaluation report in accordance with the new NVAO accreditation criteria and the
QANU instructions for the compilation of a self-evaluation report. Appended to the self-
evaluation reports, the respective faculties provided their study guides and lists of the 2004
and 2005 BSc and MSc theses of the programmes concerned. The Committee selected a
total of 29 theses from three Bachelor’s and six Master’s programmes for review and assess-
ment.

Accreditation protocol for academic educational programmes, NVAO, 14 February 2003.

Brief instructions for the writing of a self-evaluation report; QANU, March 2004.

In addition, the three faculties developed a domain-specific reference framework (DSRF),
attached as Appendix C, that was used as the reference framework together with the booklet
‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’.
The self-evaluation documents and the DSRF were sent to the Committee members by mid-
March 2006.
The Committee is of the opinion that the self-evaluation reports are detailed and reflect on the
existing status of the educational programmes and related subjects in an open and thorough
way. The self-evaluation reports include summaries of strengths and weaknesses per subject.
Both staff and students contributed to the self-evaluation reports.
3.4. Working method adopted by the Committee
The Committee used the ‘QANU protocol for the assessment of the Bachelor’s and Master’s pro-
grammes’ This QANU protocol is an elaboration of the assessment criteria of the NVAO.
The Committee held a preparatory / kick-off meeting on September 5, 2006. Based on prior
study of the self-evaluation reports, the Committee discussed their contents and quality and
formulated questions, in addition to the QANU protocol questions, in preparation for the
actual visits.
The DSRF, referred to above, is a one-page, high-level document. It is an updated version of

the domain description, as used for the self-evaluation and educational visitation of the pro-
grammes in 1999/2000. The DSRF, in combination with the booklet ‘Criteria for Academic
Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’, was accepted by the Committee as an adequate framework
for the 2006 educational assessment ‘Mechanical Engineering’.
The Committee decided, in principle, to use all topics, facets and criteria of the QANU pro-
tocol as well as the additional questions it formulated.
TU Eindhoven was visited on September 18 and 19, the University of Twente was visited on
September 20 and 21, and TU Delft was visited on September 25 – 27. Each member of the
Committee attended all visits. The respective programmes of the site visits are included in
Appendix E.
All visits started with a two-hour preparatory meeting in which each of the Committee
members reviewed a selection of the documentation on display relating to the degree courses
under review. Interviews with representatives of all relevant entities of the faculty organisa-
tion were held subsequently. The Committee interviewed: lecturers, students, members of
the Education Committee (Opleidingscommissie) and of the Examination Committee (Exa-
mencommissie), study coordinators, student coaches and members of the staff (including
support staff ). Finally, the Committee went on a tour of the laboratories and other learning

ISBN 90-386-2217-1, NUR 846; Authors: A.W.M. Meijers, C.W.A.M. van Overveld, J.C. Perrenet.

QANU protocol for the external quality assessment of academic Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes for ac-
creditation, v3.1, Jan 2004 – Aug 2005.

Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula, a joint publication of Delft University of Technology,
Eindhoven University of Technology and University of Twente; TU/e 2005, ISBN 90-386-2217-1.

facilities. A get-together was organized to meet representatives of the university board and of
the faculty management. The afternoon of the last day of each visit was reserved by the Com-
mittee for review, to summarise the observations made and to prepare for the close-out meet-
ing. Prior to the close-out meeting, open to all staff and students of the faculty, a no-surprise
meeting was held attended by the Dean, the manager of the faculty and the Director of Educa-
tion. However, due to time constraints at close-out during the Eindhoven visit, the no-surprise
meeting was skipped, with mutual agreement.
After the site visits a report was drafted by the Committee. The version of the draft report sent
for review to the universities was established by the Committee after in-depth discussions in a
final meeting held on November 15, in Utrecht. This version was submitted to the faculties
offering the degree courses for the correction of misinterpretations and factual errors.
The scores per facet in this report follow the scale prescribed by the NVAO and have the fol-
lowing meaning:
• Excellent (4) means that the quality level of this facet is very good in all aspects and with-
stands international benchmarking. It is an example of best practice.
• Good (3) means that the quality level of this facet exceeds expectations and is the result of
a well-considered policy;
• Satisfactory (2) means that the level of this facet meets the basic standard of quality.
• Unsatisfactory (1) means that the level of this facet is below the basic standard of quality.
The score ‘satisfactory’ means that all basic requirements for academic education are met and
that nothing noteworthy has been observed, either in a positive or in a negative sense, relating
to a particular facet.
The scores per facet are summed up on a two-tier scale (score ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’)
per topic. In this process an ‘unsatisfactory’ facet can be compensated by a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’
facet under the same topic.
This report is based on an assessment of the period 2000-2005 and is structured in accordance
with the accreditation criteria prescribed by NVAO.
All assessments are based on the status at the time of the evaluation.
In general, the Committee members were impressed by the curricula and levels achieved,
staff, facilities and provisions, and quality assurance systems of the mechanical engineering
programmes of the three Dutch universities of technology. Rather than elaborating on these
themes in the following assessment narratives, the Committee undertook to identify areas for
possible further improvement.
Where applicable, it will be explicitly mentioned whether the text concerns the Bachelor’s
or the Master’s programme. Otherwise the text applies to both curricula. If, for a particular
facet, the Bachelor’s and the Master’s programmes have been rated differently, both ratings (for
example ‘Satisfactory’ for the Bachelor’s and ‘Good’ for the Master’s programme) are specified
in the format: ‘Satisfactory/Good’.

Part II: assessments of the degree courses

1. The Mechanical Engineering Department, TU Eindhoven
1.0. General
The Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) has, over the past decade, proven to be a solid
organisational and financial unit within Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). Until the
mid-1990s the ME department was structured along the lines of fundamentals, design and
manufacturing. There had always been a strong desire for a new integrated approach incor-
porating fundamentals and applications. In 2001 this resulted in the establishment of three
divisions each integrating fundamentals, design and manufacturing:
• Computational and Experimental Mechanics (CEM) with a focus on mechanics and

materials
• Thermo Fluids Engineering (TFE); with a focus on heat and flow
• Dynamical Systems Design (DSD); with a focus on systems, dynamics and control.
Each division consists of three tenure chairs each filled by a full professor. All groups feature
so-called ‘industrial chairs’, each held by a part-time professor who forms the bridge between
science and industry.
As a result of the new structure, the tenure chairs have moved from being more application-
oriented to being more research-oriented.
A mission statement was formulated at the department level:
• To focus on long-term, generic, system-oriented and internationally competitive research on

analysis, engineering, design and optimisation of materials, processes and products with (poten-
tial) industrial or societal relevance.
• To realise an educational and research programme with a balanced combination of fundamental
and utilitarian aspects, thereby aiming at scientifically educated and application driven engineers.
1.1. Mechanical Engineering
The Faculty of Mechanical Engineering of TU/e offers two educational programmes which
are evaluated in this report: the Mechanical Engineering Bachelor’s programme and Mas-
ter’s programme.
Both programmes originate from the 5-year integral Mechanical Engineering programme
(CROHO 6966), the last propaedeutic examination of which was held in September 2003.
Formally, students have until 31 August 2009 to complete this programme.
The Master’s degree programme provides three, division-related tracks: CEM, TFE and DSD.
In addition two application-oriented tracks are offered: Automotive Engineering Science
(AES) and Micro- and Nano-Technology (µNT).
The Mechanical Engineering courses are formally offered as a full-time and a part-time variant.
However, no special programme exists for part-time students, for example evening or weekend
classes. Hence no distinction is made in this evaluation report between the full-time and the
part-time variants. Moreover, to date, no students have enrolled for the part-time programme.
Only one full-time programme is evaluated here.
The previous educational evaluation took place in 2000.

1.2. The assessment framework
1.2.1. Aims and objectives of the degree courses
F1: Domain-specific requirements

The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the requirements made to a degree course in the
relevant domain (field of study/discipline and/or professional practice) by colleagues in the Netherlands and
abroad and the professional practice.
TU/e Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) has chosen its mission, developed a domain-
specific reference framework (DSRF) and formulated Bachelor’s and Master’s programme objec-
tives and, from there, final qualifications as documented in the self-evaluation report.
With regard to education, the ME department’s mission reads:
To realise an educational and research programme with a balanced combination of fundamental

and utilitarian aspects, thereby aiming at scientifically educated and application-driven engineers.
The DSRF for Engineering Technology is an updated version of the domain description used
for the self-evaluation and education visit of the education programmes in 1999/2000. It was
formulated jointly by the three Dutch universities of technology (3TU: University of Twente,
TU Delft and TU/e) for their engineering technology degree programmes. It describes the
field of engineering technology and - in generic terms of knowledge, skills and attitude - the
final competencies of the academic engineer. Engineering technology comprises, in the con-
text of this report, mechanical engineering and related fields: biomedical engineering, materi-
als science and engineering, and systems and control.
The ME Department has formulated objectives for the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes
that meet the highest international standards. Detailed final qualifications have been devel-
oped on the basis of these objectives.
Benchmarking of the ME degree programmes and objectives is realised through the 3TU
cooperation and the IDEA League (a strategic alliance between Imperial College London, TU
Delft, ETH Zürich and RWTH Aachen). TU/e (and UT for that matter) benefit, by proxy,
from the IDEA League’s comparative work on degree programme standards and their promo-
tion of student mobility.
This benchmarking is supported by the input from an active alumni association (WIE) and
the many contacts of the academic staff through international academic and research net-
works. The functional approach of the group of part-time professors as a key advisory body is
effective in promulgating the links with industry.
No formal benchmarking of the TU/e ME programme with other universities has been car-
ried out.
Based on review of the relevant documents, the Committee concludes that the final qualifica-
tions of the degree courses fully comply with the requirements set for a degree course in ME.
The score for this facet is: Good.

F2: Level
The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to general, internationally accepted descriptions of the
qualifications of a Bachelor or Master.
All three Dutch universities of technology are complimented on having developed an agreed
formal statement on the nature of engineering degrees at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels
in their ‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’ (2nd edition, Jan. 2005).
These criteria are formally accepted by NVAO as a more expanded and relevant statement
of the Dublin descriptors which must be respected according to the QANU protocol. By
having developed and implemented these criteria, the three Dutch universities of technology
stand out positively from other universities in the Netherlands. The criteria describe, in detail,
the distinction in level between academic Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, and also the range
of intellectual attributes and understanding of contexts that a trained engineer may require,
depending on career direction. Therefore, these criteria are more suitable for a specific quali-
tative examination of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes concerned than the Dublin
descriptors. The formulation of the scientific and engineering competence requirements is
largely based on the ‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’, and therefore
compliance with the Dublin descriptors is assured.
Based on the analysis performed by the Department and the verification carried out by the
Committee, it can be concluded that the final qualifications of the degree courses meet the
requirements laid down in the Dublin descriptors.
F3: Orientation
The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to the following descriptions of a Bachelor at universities:
University (WO):
• The final qualifications are based on requirements made by the academic discipline, the international aca-
demic practice and, if applicable to the course, the relevant practice in the prospective professional field.
• A University (WO) bachelor possesses the qualifications that allow access to a minimum of one further
University (WO) degree course at master’s level as well as the option to enter the labour market.
• A University (WO) master possesses the qualifications to conduct independent academic research or to
solve multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary questions in a professional practice for which a University
(WO) degree is required or useful.
No specific objectives have been developed for the Bachelor’s programme to prepare the Bach-
elor graduate for the labour market. The option to enter the labour market is, obviously, open
to a Bachelor graduate, but few take this option, and there is some evidence that industry is
looking to the three Dutch universities of technology (3TU) to provide Master graduates.
The Bachelor graduate in ME has unconditional access to some 18 Master’s programmes

including the ME Master’s programmes of TU/e, University of Twente and TU Delft, and to
15 other Master’s programmes in a large number of international universities after a bridging
course of at most 30 EC.
More than 90% of the Bachelor graduates prefer to take their Master’s degree in Eindhoven.
This might be due to the fact that no ‘hard-cut’ exists between the interwoven Bachelor’s
and Master’s programmes, which does not stimulate the decision to take a Master’s degree
from another institute.

The TU/e Master’s programme in ME is offered in three division-related tracks and two appli-
cation-oriented tracks:
• Dynamical Systems Design (DSD);

• Computational and Experimental Mechanics (CEM);
• Thermo Fluids Engineering (TFE);
• Automotive Engineering Science (AES);

• Micro- and Nano-Technology (µNT).
The Master graduates in ME possess the capability to conduct independent academic research
and to solve multi- and interdisciplinary questions in an application-orientated environment.
This is demonstrated by the fact that 93% of the TU/e ME Master graduates find a job almost
immediately within their own or in a closely related field.
The Master graduates in ME have ample opportunity to undertake a PhD. Each year approxi-
mately 10% of the MSc graduates start a PhD study. At the time of this evaluation, the ME-
related departments counted 111 PhD students, of whom 77 held an ME Master’s degree from
TU/e.
The score for this facet is: Satisfactory/Good
Based on the score of the three facets above, the topic ‘Aims and objectives of the degree
courses’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.
1.2.2. Programme
F4: Requirements for university degree courses:

The programme meets the following criteria applicable to a degree programme at a University (WO):
• The students acquire knowledge on the interface between teaching and academic research within the rel-
evant disciplines;
• The programme follows the developments in the relevant academic discipline(s), as it is demonstrated that
it incorporates current academic theories;
• The programme ensures the development of skills in the field of academic research;
• For those courses for which this is applicable, the course programme has clear links with the current profes-
sional practice in the relevant professions.
Bachelor’s programme
All academic teaching staff nominally spends 40% of their time on research, and full professors
teach in the Bachelor’s programme.
The design-based learning (DBL) projects comprise about 40% (in terms of EC) of the Bach-
elor’s programme. These DBL projects provide an active introduction in problem-solving and
design (which are essential professional engineering competencies), and they include visits
to companies. In the DBL projects and the Bachelor’s final project, students also learn to
integrate knowledge from different sources (synthesis, constructive learning). In addition, the
Bachelor’s final project provides a first active introduction to academic research.

In summary, DBL has proven to be an effective approach to meet the university requirements
in the Bachelor’s programme.
Master’s programme
While 33 of the 120 EC are offered as courses, 19 EC are available for an internship, 8 EC
for projects and 60 EC (the 2nd year) for the Master’s thesis. Hence the programme provides a
lot of space for professional practice (internship) and research (Master’s thesis). The 8 EC for
the project have now been declared ‘open space’ and can be filled by three additional courses.
Some 90% of the internships are done abroad, of which about 50% in industry. A total of 60%
of the Master’s theses are prepared outside the university.
The target level/format for the Master’s thesis is a scientific paper publishable at an interna-
tional conference. In addition, in the elective courses, teaching is linked with up-to-date sci-
ence and knowledge.
A link with local industry is realized through the involvement of part-time teachers from industry.
F5: Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the programme
• The course contents adequately reflect the final qualifications, both with respect to the level and orienta-
tion, and with respect to domain-specific requirements.
• The final qualifications have been translated adequately into learning targets for the programme or its com-
ponents.
• The contents of the programme offer students the opportunity to obtain the final qualifications that have
been formulated.
The Bachelor’s programme has a broad scope and covers the major areas of ME. While the pro-
gramme prepares students effectively for the relevant Master’s programmes, it is not designed to
prepare students for entering the labour market. More specifically, the Bachelor’s final project
is rather scholastic and focussed, while the necessary breadth is supplied by the DBL aspect of
the programme.
A cross-reference of courses versus the major themes is presented in a table of the self-evalu-
ation report. In addition, a relation is established between each of the programme elements
and the final qualifications, as presented in the academic criteria. This is a remarkable and very
valuable exercise. The majority (70%) of the Bachelor’s and Master’s courses have their learn-
ing targets defined in the study guide.
The breadth and depth of the curriculum are exceptionally comprehensive, with many courses
and topics taught as compulsory or provided as electives. This permits a student to select a special-
isation that is of particular interest while still receiving an education in the broad field of ME.
There is a strong impact of the graduation professor on the composition of individual Master’s
programmes, but there are guidelines which safeguard the relation between the objectives and
the content of a Master’s programme. These guidelines take the form of a summary of key
courses, recommended courses, and interesting courses for each specialisation.
The Master’s programme allows the students to reach the targeted qualifications in engineer-
ing and research. No formalised policy was found saying that at least one of the a) internships,

b) projects or c) graduation project is to be carried out in industry. The graduation professor is
responsible for the industrial part of the student’s Master’s programme. In practice, there seems
to be a trade-off between industrial internships (with a company) and international intern-
ships (at a university or research lab). This trade-off could work in favour of the latter, resulting
in a situation that students graduate without relevant experience inside industry. However, the
Committee agrees that an international internship in a university or research lab is a valuable
alternative that contributes to the acquisition of the final attainment levels.
F6: Coherence of the programme

Students follow a programme of study that is coherent in its contents.
The contents of the various parts of the programme are well matched, and there is an explicit
focus on the ability of students to integrate knowledge from different sources.
The Bachelor’s curriculum is well designed, in particular the integration of courses; DBL
(breadth) and final year (depth) projects provide coherence.
The Bachelor’s programme allows students to acquire the ability of independent learning
needed for the Master’s study.

The programme structure allows the construction of a consistent combination of courses,
projects, internship and a Master’s thesis.
The coherence of each individual student’s Master’s programme is assured by the input of the
graduation professor and approval by the Examination Committee.
F7: Study load

The programme can be successfully completed within the set time, as certain programme-related factors that
may be an impediment to study progress are removed as much as possible.
General
The actual study load of a curriculum element in general corresponds to the planned study
load. However, while the planned or nominal study time is 40 hours per week, students spend
on average only 33 hours per week on their study, which is the main cause of study delay. By
and large students do not seem to worry too much about study duration.
In the courses the main principles are explained. The digestion mainly has to take place in the
guided self-study courses which are set up in close association with the lectures and give the
teacher valuable feedback. A DBL project can start some time after the course has been fin-
ished, can run in parallel or even occasionally precedes a course to prepare the student.
Sometimes, however, students as well as teachers experience some constraints in mastering
the necessary course material before it is to be applied in a project. However, stresses are
alleviated by the relaxed atmosphere and the easy contacts between students and teach-

ers. To make sure that students are adequately equipped for a DBL project, specific entry
requirements in terms of the number of courses/projects passed must be satisfied before
taking part in DBL project.
According to the students, completing the elective courses (33 EC) within ½ year is impaired
by the scheduling of courses by the University, making it extremely difficult to complete the
Master’s programme within the nominal two years. However, all international students com-
plete their Master’s programme within two years.
The possibility to start Master’s courses prior to graduation from the Bachelor’s programme
increases the flexibility as well as the feasibility to remain within the nominal study time.
Organising an internship abroad is a time-consuming exercise in itself, and in addition many
students combine an internship with one or two months of holidays in the same country. This
delays the study progress.
The score for this facet is: Satisfactory.
F8: Intake
The structure and contents of the programme are in line with the qualifications of the students that embark on
the degree course:
• Bachelor’s degree at a University (WO): VWO (pre-university education), propaedeutic certificate from a
University of Professional Education (HBO) or similar qualifications, as demonstrated in the admission
process.
• Master’s degree at a University (WO): bachelor’s degree and possibly selection (on contents of the subject).
Bachelor
There is a serious and two-fold problem with the basic education level of students entering
from high school vwo: a) a lack of knowledge and understanding of basic mathematics, and b)
a lack of familiarity with a learning and working culture.
The lack of knowledge and understanding of basic mathematics is tackled by a mathematics
test and a compulsory course for those failing it (the majority). The lack of familiarity with a
learning and working culture is tackled by a close follow-up and coaching in the first semester
and the first year. The innovative use of computer-based learning could be of benefit to all the
3TUs with this problem.
The appointment of a vwo information officer who is at the same time 1st year coordinator
(former vwo coordinator) is a very positive action.
Master
In general, adequate measures are taken by the University to realise a smooth transition, i.e. a
transition programme of at most six months for Bachelor graduates from another engineering
programme or from related fields like Applied Physics and Industrial Design. With the intro-
duction of minors (for the 3TUs as from 2006), Bachelor’s students from other courses can
tune their programme towards admission to the Master ME programme.
A bridging programme is available for students who have successfully passed one of a
selected number of programmes from a polytechnic (hbo). After having successfully passed
the bridging programme, such students can start a personalised ME Master’s programme last-
ing 2 years.

Admission of foreign students is checked through assessments of the Master’s Admissions
Committee.
F9: Duration
The degree course complies with formal requirements regarding the size of the curriculum:
• Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule.
• Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.
The Bachelor’s curriculum has a study load of 180 European Credits (one EC nominally cor-
responds to 28 hours of study) and a nominal study duration of 3 years.
The Master’s curriculum has a study load of 120 EC and a nominal study duration of 2
years.
The curriculum sizes of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes are in accordance with the
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS).
In some cases students take more than the nominal number of EC: for example the basic math-
ematics course in the 1st year and additional elective courses in view of the Master’s thesis.
The size of the Bachelor and Master curricula comply with the ECTS requirements.
F10: Co-ordination of structure and contents of the degree

• The didactic concepts are in line with the aims and objectives.
• The teaching methods correspond to the didactic concept.
Bachelor
The didactic concepts (courses, cases and projects) are in line with the objectives and the con-
tents to be realised through the programme. However, the didactic concepts cause some of the
teaching staff to feel overloaded (see Facet 13).
Lecture notes as well as – international - study books are used.
Several video lectures and interactive computer-based courses exist to help students to obtain
the required level of knowledge. For example, Matlab courses for first-year students, and
Mechanical Engineering and Control courses for second-year students.
There is a good balance between lectures, guided self-study and self-study, together comprising
about 60% of the study load.
Master
The project contents of both programmes (Bachelor’s and Master’s) have been pushed to a
point where some lecturers of the Master’s programme express their concern about the number
of elective courses (33 EC) remaining for the Master’s students. This number might be insuf-
ficient to cover the necessary contents matter. The Committee shares this concern. To address
this concern, the multidisciplinary project (8 EC) has been declared ‘open space’, and can
be filled in with courses as well. This open space introduces some flexibility for the students
to tune the programme to their individual needs. As for the internships, special attention is
required to maintain a clear and consistent quality level between them.

The score for this facet is: Good/Satisfactory
F11: Assessments and examinations

The system of assessments and examinations provides an effective indication whether the students have reached
the learning targets of the course programme or its components.
The system of assessments and examinations is effective in checking the learning targets of the
course programme and its components. Examination questions are, in principle, reviewed by
peers.
The DBL group project assessment consists of two parts: a group assessment and an individual
assessment. Feedback is given to the student about those aspects that were good and those that
could be improved.
The Graduation Committee gives separate marks for six different aspects of the Master’s thesis
projects. In many cases the final mark is just the average of the 6 topics. However, should the
Committee deviate from this method for a specific reason - the application of weighing factors
is left to the discretion of the Graduation Committee - the deviation should be motivated to
the student and to the Examination Committee. To ensure independent and consistent assess-
ments, formalized rules are applied for the composition of the Graduation Committee.
Based on the score of the eight facets above, the topic ‘Programme’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.
1.2.3. Deployment of staff
F12: Requirements for University

Teaching is largely provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area.
Almost all tenured academic staff, 96% of which has a PhD, are active in a specific research
field for at least 40% of their total workload and contribute to education for close to 40% of
their workload. In this way they assure the required exchange between research and teaching.
The teaching load is almost equally distributed between the Bachelor’s and Master’s pro-
grammes. Strictly speaking, the Bachelor’s programme should occupy 60% of the teaching
load (180 EC) and the Master’s programme 40% (120 EC). The actual distribution corre-
sponds to the more individual nature of education in the Master’s programme.
All major ME-related subjects (faculty chairs) are covered by one of the 10 full professors
of the ME Department. All of the full professors, except for one professor who was recently
appointed, teach at least one subject in the Bachelor’s programme.
A strong link with the mechanical engineering industry and relevant research institutes is
established by the 14 part-time professors who teach at TU/e on the one hand and have their
professional basis in industry or carry out research at an institute on the other.

F13: Quantity of staff
The staff levels are sufficient to ensure that the course is provided to the required standards.
The teaching load, expressed in terms of student to staff ratio, increased over the past years to
a figure of 29.4 in 2004, based on ME Department staff only (based on total teaching staff
input, the student to staff ratio equals 27.4). This increase is entirely due to the number of
students attending lectures.
The education model of design-based learning (DBL) adopted - students working in project
groups on realistic case studies – is an attractive concept to enable students to attain the
required qualifications. However, it puts a relatively heavy teaching load on the staff. Hence,
although the TU/e student to staff ratio is the lowest of the three Dutch universities of tech-
nology and seems adequate, signs of overloading of the teaching staff become visible - at the
expense of research activities. Another cause of the perception of overloading is the uneven
distribution of students over the chairs.
The Committee notes that, if the distribution of academic staff across the chairs is not going
to be carefully managed, some staff might become overloaded by the demanding teaching task
in combination with their research activities.
The score for the quantity of staff is: Satisfactory.
F14: Quality of staff

The staff is sufficiently qualified to ensure that the aims regards contents, didactics and organization of the
course programme are achieved.
The Committee noticed great enthusiasm and dedication to teaching among the staff.
Very selective appointment procedures are applied for full professors and part-time profes-
sors from industry (e.g. from Philips, TNO) as well as for the recruitment of new young staff
members and PhDs. Regular evaluation and appraisal of staff and course evaluations are at the
heart of the quality control of staff and teaching.
Regular training and sabbaticals further contribute to the high quality of the staff.
The teaching process is supported internally by the Mechanical Engineering Educational Insti-
tute (OIW) and externally by the Educational Service Centre (OSC). The latter provides
training of teaching skills for lecturers.
The score for the quality of staff is: Good.
Based on the score of the three facets above, the topic ‘Deployment of staff ’ rates
‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.4. Facilities and provisions
F15: Material facilities

The accommodation and material facilities are sufficient to implement the programme.
The students have access to the buildings during normal working hours. The central library is
open from 08:30 till 22:30 h during weekdays. Master students can obtain, upon their request,
a permit to access their laboratory during weekdays until 23:00 h.
Students experience the space for lectures and self-study as cramped. Too small a number of
team rooms is available. The lecture rooms are noisy and crowded, particularly in the first year,
because the initial estimate of the number of students attending a course is often too low. Also,
the canteen is experienced as limited in space. Lecturers confirm the poorly ventilated and
limited space per student.
The crowding has been noticed, and the Department is playing an active role in the new
master plan 2020 for the whole campus. More than other departments of TU/e, the ME
Department has upgraded its educational facilities from its own budget. Examples are the new
Student Project Laboratory, the increase of the number of DBL rooms and the recent make-
over of the ME DBL rooms. In 2007, another €5 million renovation is scheduled. It should
be noted here that a substantial increase in the number of first-year students is expected at the
technical universities in the Netherlands.
The research laboratories and experimental facilities for Bachelor as well as for Master students
are very well kept, up to date, and suitable for education.
In the first year each student is provided with a laptop on the basis of an attractive offer made
with the help of the Department. All the necessary software for study purposes is installed on
the laptop, and an efficient helpdesk for computer support exists. The laptop acquired during
the first year is not suitable to run specialized software during the Master’s programme. Hence,
the computing facilities of the research groups provide Master’s students with up-to-date soft-
ware and equipment.
Students show great appreciation for ‘StudyWeb’, the electronic learning environment that in
many cases acts as a portal which links to information elsewhere on the web. StudyWeb is also
a way to record lecture notes so students can ‘re-attend’ a class afterwards.
The score for this facet is: Satisfactory/Good.
F16: Student support and guidance

• The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students are adequate for the purpose
of students’ progress.
• The student support and guidance, as well as the information given to students meet the requirements of
the students.
In the first year, and in particular in the first semester, students are coached very closely. Dur-
ing the first year the study coach meets with each student at least 3 times. Meetings with the
study coach in the second and later years are at the student’s request.
The study coaches are DBL leaders and experienced staff.

DBL motivates students to finish their courses because of the logical sequence of specific
courses followed by a DBL case.
The guided self-study is performed in groups of 20 to 30 students and one lecturer. Students
who attend, highly appreciate the guided self-study.
Students are obliged to maintain a study portfolio. Tutors do have access to the portfolio of
students they coach. Others have to be granted access to a portfolio by the student.
Extra exams are possible for students who missed or failed an examination. Students can be
assisted by the study advisor or the tutor at all times.
After failing the mathematics test at entry from pre-university education (vwo), students are
offered extra classes in mathematics.
The first year of the Bachelor’s degree programme also has a selective and directive function.
Students are provided with a recommendation - in terms of a grade A or B (positive), or C or
D (negative) - about the further course of their studies at the end of the first year.
Students have to pass 50% theory and 75% DBL to obtain a positive recommendation at the
end of the first year. The recommendation is not binding. In case of a negative recommenda-
tion, the grade is checked with the study coach and the study advisor to see whether special
circumstances are relevant and should be taken into account.
The Secondary school and information coordinator acts as a focal point for secondary school
(vwo) teachers and pupils and has at the same time the role of 1st year coordinator.
For the first two years, a semester booklet is given to all students each semester, giving all
the relevant information for the semester to come. The semester booklet for the 3rd year
has the format of a yearbook, e.g. giving all necessary information about the Bachelor’s final
project (organization, assessment in detail, projects, etc). The yearbook informs the students
adequately about the expectations in relation to the Bachelor’s thesis and the rationale for its
assessment.
Guidance in the Master’s programme is mainly provided by the graduating professor. In con-
sultation with the latter, the programme of courses is selected as well as the subjects for intern-
ship and research. Internships are most of the times arranged by the graduating professor
on the basis of his personal network, while the international officer supports the process of
obtaining formal papers like visas, etc.
Regular meetings are held between the student and the graduation professor. Most students
prefer a frequency of once or twice a month for such meetings.
In the DBL handbook detailed guidelines are given about writing a technical report, such as
the Master’s thesis. Master students receive ample feedback regarding the application of the
guidelines during the Master’s project.
Study progress results (and a comparison of progress with the average of all fellow students
as a function of time) are registered using OWIS, which is accessible for the student through
StudyWeb.
The score for this facet is: Excellent/Good.
Based on the score of the two facets above, the topic ‘Facilities and provisions’ rates
‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.5. Internal quality assurance
F17: Evaluation of results

The degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets.
The quality control (QC) system is based on the concept of the ‘quality circle’ comprising the
four components of planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement.
Three QC sub-cycles are defined and distinguished by their length: short, middle and long
term. Every subject element of the short-term QC cycle (routine quality control activities
such as evaluation of courses) is evaluated at least every three years. The mid-term QC cycle
(analysis and evaluation at programme level) still has to be executed, as soon as all parts of the
Bachelor’s course have been evaluated. The long-term QC cycle concerns the overhaul of the
educational programme or parts of it, e.g. the introduction of DBL. This cycle has not been
executed yet. However, the carefully developed overall set-up and the execution of the new
educational programme (DBL) show the feasibility of a long-term QC cycle.
The QC system is comprehensive and well documented (reference is made to the overview
tables 8.1-2 in the self-evaluation report. Criteria and targets for required quality are explicitly
documented. A professional self-assessment report, presenting a clear summary of strong/weak
points and dilemmas per chapter, is one of the products of the QC system.
A QC officer has been nominated and is in charge of executing the QC protocol. He reports to
the Director of Education who has final responsibility and is accountable to the Department
Board.
A system of quick scan surveys has been developed to protect students against ‘survey-
fatigue’.
Lecturers confirm the value of the direct feedback from students (after class). It is, in fact, the
main instrument for evaluation of the Master’s programme. Special care is taken by the DoE
and QC officer that the formal QC system does not come to dominate but to complement this
informal manner of evaluation.
Each year an education day is organised by the Department, which is highly appreciated and
results in renewed commitment from staff and students. The education day is a powerful tool
in the strategic thinking about education and courses. Conclusions of the gathering are trans-
lated into action plans for the year to come.
The QC system is well established, the surveys and other QC actions produce valid informa-
tion for the monitoring of the educational processes. Topics like the transition from high
school/polytechnic or English as the working language in the Master’s programme are subjects
of surveys and analyses.
At the time of the visit, tools for the monitoring of a number of educational topics, like the
Master’s thesis, internships, DBL reports, international mobility, were under development or
recently introduced.

F18: Measures to effect improvement
The results of this evaluation form the basis for measures that can be demonstrated to improve the course and
that will contribute to reaching the targets.
Well-documented procedures for the reporting and follow-up of improvement actions exist. Courses
with a negative score are reviewed again one year later, other courses once every three years.
The structure of the formal follow-up by the lecturers of improvement actions is unclear from
the information in the self-evaluation report, but students did not mention any problems in
that respect.
The recommendations of the previous educational evaluation (VSNU 2000) have been fol-
lowed up carefully. The majority of the recommendations have been implemented, which
resulted for example in the introduction of student portfolios and study coaches, the appoint-
ment of a Quality Officer and an increased emphasis on international contacts.
The Bachelor’s 1st year success rate and total study time remain a point of attention.
The structural involvement of alumni and of the professional field in the quality assurance
process still needs to be intensified (see Facet 19).
The DoE, QC officer, Study Programme Committee (OCW) as well as the Dean and divi-
sions are working well together to improve the quality of education.
F19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field

Staff, students, alumni and the professional field in which graduates of the course are to be employed are
actively involved in the internal quality assurance.
Both staff and students are involved in all phases of the QC cycles, and the study association
‘Simon Stevin’ is very active on educational policy matters. The involvement of students is
realised through membership on the Department Board, the Department Council and the
Study Programme Committee (OCW). The OCW meets monthly, and documented minutes
are available; QA/QC is a main topic on their agenda. The students feel that their contribution
‘makes a difference’.
The study association contributes on behalf of the students in the development of courses and
in the discussion about course issues.
Lecturers of the Bachelor’s programme feel that the direct feedback from students during lec-
tures and, when asked for, in personal contacts are as valuable as the outcome of surveys.
Considerable transparency is maintained with respect to review results. For example, students
and staff are able to consult survey results on StudyWeb.
Involvement of alumni and of the professional field can be improved, e.g. a systematic feed-
back from the professional field is lacking (apart from the ‘Advice from a temporary Com-
mittee of CEO’s of industry and commerce concerning the TU/e research Profile’, dated 4
October 2004)
Based on the score of the three facets above, the topic ‘Internal quality assurance’ rates
‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.6. Results
F20: Level that has been achieved

The final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level,
orientation and domain-specific requirements.
Bachelor
The desired level is achieved if the students can complete a related Master’s course success-
fully. Since no students have yet completed the Master’s course after receiving the Bachelor’s
diploma, no figures are available about this success rate. However, the post-propaedeutic year
success rate indicates that, after selection in the first year, most students complete the integral
course successfully (70% within seven years and 80% within eight years or more). Despite
the short history of the Bachelor’s final project, the Committee recognises its qualities and the
continuous improvements made by the Department.
The Bachelor’s programme is largely based on the former ‘kandidaats’ programme, therefore
the Committee expects that the Bachelor’s degree provides a substantial guarantee for the suc-
cessful completion of the Master’s programme.
Master
The Committee is convinced that the final qualities achieved match those aspired to, and the
quality of the graduates is high. Recent surveys indicate that engineers from TU/e are perhaps
less assertive in communicating and have an image of being less management-oriented com-
pared with engineers from the other Dutch universities of technology, at least at the start of
their careers. In response to this concern, short training courses are now offered within the
DBL projects of the Bachelor’s programme to develop specific professional skills.
The Master’s theses reviewed by the Committee showed a consistently high level and a good
correlation between level and obtained grade.
The graduates are almost unanimously satisfied with the education they received.
The Master’s graduation project permits the graduate to enter the labour market at an advanced
level without difficulty. This is demonstrated by the fact that 93% of the TU/e ME Master
graduates find a job almost immediately within their own or in a closely related field.
F21: Success rates

To measure the success rates, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses.
The success rates meet these targets.
The KUO (central database for academic study results) figures differ from TU/e reported fig-
ures and are hard to interpret.
The three Dutch universities of technology each use their own – different – target figures,
although target figures have been formulated at the 3TU level (refer to enclosure 4 of the
self-evaluation report): for the Bachelor’s programme 70 – 80% yield on intake and for the
Master’s programme 80 – 90% yield on Bachelor’s intake.

Bachelor
For the TU/e Bachelor’s programme explicit target success rates, in terms of 1st-year and
graduate yields, have been specified: of the students who continue after their first half-year
of study with a positive study recommendation, 75% should complete the 1s year phase, and
70% should ultimately complete the Bachelor’s programme. Realised success rates are not (yet)
available for the Bachelor’s programme. Based on the available figures to date, the Committee
estimates that the target success rates are reasonable and feasible. Furthermore, the Committee
recognizes that the 1st year fulfils its selective function properly.
The Committee notices that no target has been defined for the study duration. Although the
Department is conscious about study duration, their prime importance is maintaining the
quality level.
Recently, the 1st-year success rate dropped, with an increase of the study duration as a conse-
quence.
Master
No explicit targets are specified for either success rate or study duration in the Master’s phase.
Given the criteria to assess this facet, the absence of explicit target figures results in a score of
‘Unsatisfactory’. Obviously, this score does not relate to the level of the graduates, which has
been assessed under Facet 20 as ‘good’.
Instead of specifying target figures, the self-evaluation report refers to the existing 80% suc-
cess rate based on the post-propedeutic year intake and the existing 78 months average study
duration; the latter figure is biased because graduates from the 4-year integrated course are still
included.
A different parameter to express the results of teaching is the overall success rate (yield on
intake of the integrated course, published in the Elsevier summary for 2005) which is equal
to about 50%, higher than at the other Dutch universities. However, the overall success rate
has decreased recently, with consequently an increase in study duration. For example, not a
single vwo (pre-university education) direct entrant of the 1999 intake finished the 5-year
programme in the nominal time, and only 19% of the 1998 intake did so in six years.
Polytechnic entrants
No explicit targets are specified for either success rate or study duration in the Master’s
phase, although the SER refers to the existing 75% success rate within four years and a final
success rate of 90%. In the opinion of the Committee this success rate is very good, but the
study duration is rather long.
A crucial factor with respect to study duration of both the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes
is the time devoted by students to their studies. An average of 33 hours per week is consider-
ably fewer than the assumed 40 hours per week. The Committee considers the fact that hardly
any vwo entrant finishes in nominal time to be sufficient reason for continuing the current
reflection and follow-up actions both in the Department and the University.
The score for this facet is: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory.
Based on the score of the two facets above, the topic ‘Results’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.

2. The Engineering Technology Faculty, University of Twente
2.0. General
In the period 2001 – 2003 the ten faculties of the University of Twente (UT) merged into
five new faculties. The former Faculty of Mechanical Engineering (ME) and the Department
of Civil Engineering of the former Faculty of Management and Technology merged and now
form the new Faculty of Engineering Technology (CTW). The fields of interest within the
CTW Faculty are Civil Engineering, Industrial Design Engineering and Mechanical Engi-
neering.
The CTW Faculty comprises nine departments, of which the first six are primarily involved in
the ME Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes:
1. Applied Mechanics (TM)

2. Biomedical Engineering (BW)
3. Design, Production and Management (OPM)
4. Engineering Fluid Dynamics (TS)
5. Mechanical Automation (WA)
6. Thermal Engineering (ThW)
7. Construction Management and Engineering (B/I)
8. Transport Studies (VVR)
9. Water Engineering and Management (WEM)
Within the six ME-related departments, eleven tenure chairs are held by a full professor and
eight external chairs are held by a part-time professor. The external chairs form an institution-
alised bridge between the faculty and the industry and research institutes.
At faculty level a mission statement was formulated:
The faculty aims to educate academics at the Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD levels for those typical
sectors of the labour market within the field of engineering technology.
The graduates will be prepared for the positions of tomorrow, and therefore will have a profound
orientation on the newest knowledge and methods within this field and also will have the attitude
and learning competence for functioning in adjacent fields at short notice.
The graduates should have a level of competence equivalent to that of well-reputed universities in
western countries.
The Faculty of Engineering Technology at the University of Twente covers two ME educa-
tional programmes which are evaluated in this report: the Mechanical Engineering Bachelor’s
and the Mechanical Engineering Master’s programme.
Both programmes originate from the five-year integral Mechanical Engineering programme
(CROHO 6966). Formally, students have until 31 August 2011 to complete this pro-
gramme.
The ME Bachelor’s degree programme started formally in 2002, and the ME Master’s degree
programme in 2004. The two ME-related Master’s programmes, Mechatronics (together with

Electrical Engineering) and Sustainable Energy Technology (starting 2006), are not part of this
evaluation.
The previous educational evaluation took place in 2000. In general, the recommendations
originating from that evaluation were used in the development of the BA-MA structure; the
recommendations regarding the QA system were implemented in parallel.

The Faculty of Engineering Technology of the University of Twente (UT) has chosen its mis-
sion, developed a domain-specific reference framework (DSRF) and formulated Bachelor’s
and Master’s programme objectives and, from there, final qualifications as documented in the
self-evaluation report.
With regard to education the faculty’s mission reads:
To educate academics at Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD levels for those typical sectors of the labour
market within the field of engineering technology. The graduates will be prepared for the positions
of tomorrow, and therefore will have a profound orientation on the newest knowledge and methods
within this field and also will have the attitude and learning competence for functioning in adja-
cent fields at short notice.
The DSRF for Engineering Technology was formulated jointly by the three Dutch universi-
ties of technology for their engineering technology degree programmes. It describes the field
of engineering technology and - in generic terms of knowledge, skills and attitude - the final
competencies of the academic engineer. Engineering technology comprises, in this context
mechanical engineering and related fields: mechatronics and sustainable energy technology.
The Faculty has formulated objectives for the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes that meet
the highest international standards. Detailed final qualifications have been developed on the
basis of these objectives.
Benchmarking of the ME degree programmes and objectives is realised through the 3TU
cooperation and the IDEA League, of which TU Delft is a member. UT (and TU/e for that
matter) benefit, by proxy, from the IDEA League’s comparative work on degree programme
standards and their promotion of student mobility.
The Faculty has many relations with peers, in educational networks (SEFI and CIRP) and
in the professional field. These relations have not yet been institutionalised for the Faculty to
obtain external feedback on programme requirements, however.

Based on review of the relevant documents, the Committee concludes that the final compe-
tencies of the degree courses fully comply with the requirements set for a degree course in the
relevant academic or professional domain.
F2: Level
a formal statement on the nature of engineering degrees at the Bachelor’s and Master’s level
These criteria are formally accepted by NVAO as a more expanded and relevant statement of
the Dublin descriptors which must be respected according to the QANU protocol. By having
developed and implemented these criteria, the three Dutch universities of technology stand
out positively from other universities in the Netherlands.
The criteria describe, in detail, the distinction in level between academic Bachelor’s and Mas-
ter’s degrees, and also the range of intellectual attributes and understanding of contexts that
a trained engineer may require, depending on career direction. Therefore, these criteria are
more suitable for a specific qualitative examination of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes
concerned than the Dublin descriptors.
The formulation of the scientific and engineering competence requirements is largely based on
the ‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’, and therefore compliance with
the Dublin descriptors is assured.
F3: Orientation
University (WO):
The option to enter the labour market is, obviously, open to a Bachelor graduate, but few take
this option, and there is some evidence that industry is looking to the three Dutch universities
of technology to provide Master graduates. The preparation for a career in the professional
environment is not included in the objectives of the Bachelor’s programme. However, this is
recognised by the Faculty, and Bachelor students who are considering a professional career

following graduation are strongly advised to include an internship in their Bachelor’s pro-
gramme.
The ME Bachelor graduate has unconditional access to the ME Master’s programmes of the
University of Twente, TU/e, and TU Delft (some 40 Master’s programmes in total), as well
as to the ME Master’s programmes of a large number of international universities, including
the IDEA League universities. The ME Master’s programme as well as the related tracks and
variants are grouped to realise three competence profiles:
• Research and Development;

• Design and Construction;
• Organisation and Management.
The ME Master graduate possesses the capability to conduct independent academic research
and to solve multi- and interdisciplinary questions in an application-orientated environ-
ment. The position on the labour market of the ME Master graduate from UT is good and
can be described as “adequately qualified for the position” and “not having any difficulty in
finding a job”.
The ME Master graduates have ample opportunity to undertake a PhD. At the time of this
evaluation, the ME-related departments counted 77 PhD students, of whom 44 held an UT
Master’s degree.
The score for this facet is: Satisfactory/Good
2.2.2. Programme

evant disciplines;
By developing attitudes and skills for problem-solving, design and research as well as team-
work, the Bachelor’s programme creates a momentum that carries the students along in their
Master’s programme (and then stimulates them to go into doctoral research).
The programme concept is project-led education (PLE). Projects comprise 50% of the first
year and 30% of the second and third years. As a result of the first-year project work, students
develop momentum for group work in the following years.

In addition, the theory courses are strongly integrated with the projects. The project topics
are realistic examples of professional practice. With PLE, students get an active introduction
to problem-solving and design (essential professional engineering competencies), as well as a
preliminary training in elementary research skills. A main goal is to change the attitude of stu-
dents gained in high school into a learning and working attitude, that is, taking responsibility
for their own learning.
The 20 EC minor in the third year, compulsory on a university-wide scale to deepen or
broaden their perspective, knowledge or competencies, is considered somewhat problematic
by the staff, because the minor mainly consists of theory courses which interrupt the PLE
scheme. Increasingly, minors are chosen as a bridging programme for a Master’s programme
outside ME. However, the minor can also be taken as an internship in industry. Apart from
this opportunity, there is no internship at the Bachelor’s level. On the other hand, in the third
Bachelor’s year an alumnus working in industry gives a lecture about his professional practice
every fourth week.
A link with research is provided by the third-year course ‘Introduction to Technological
Research’ at the end of which the students have to write and defend a research proposal.
Furthermore, full professors teach in the Bachelor’s programme, while all teaching staff are
involved in research.
The first year of the Master’s programme consists of theory courses. The second year schedules
40 EC (max. 45 EC) for the thesis project and 20 EC (min. 15 EC) for an internship.
Students choose between an internship in industry (70%) or at a university or research insti-
tute (30%). The teachers of the Master’s programme do not consider an immersion in the
industrial context as an essential component of engineering education; a stay at a research
institute is a valuable alternative. While almost all internships at universities or research insti-
tutes are carried out abroad, internships in industry are carried out both in the Netherlands
(43%) and abroad (57%).
The target level/format for the Master’s thesis is a scientific paper, preferably in English (not
compulsory). In addition, in the elective courses, teaching is linked with up-to-date science
and knowledge.
UT Master’s students - often contributing to the work of PhD students, the latter who publish
about the work - are encouraged to write reports in a way that provides learning for following
students rather than aiming at publishable material.
ponents.
been formulated.
The contents of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes amply reflect the final qualifications which
have been formulated. Knowledge is built up in theory courses, while competencies and practical
skills are addressed in projects, assignments as well as short computer or laboratory courses.

The Committee noticed that the learning objectives for some of the courses are missing or
uninformative in the course information.
Some teachers expressed the opinion that some of the compulsory courses remain too intro-
ductory.
The Bachelor’s programme covers all aspects of mechanical engineering and forms a ‘generalist
pre-engineer’. The Bachelor’s programme prepares students sufficiently and effectively for the
relevant Master’s programmes.
On the other hand, the Bachelor’s programme is not designed as a stand-alone programme
which prepares students for entering the labour market after graduation. This can be illus-
trated by the fact that the Bachelor’s final project (project F) is again a group project rather
than an individual project. Outflow at the Bachelor’s level is apparently not the intention, but
the context might change as a result of the government’s financing policy and developments
in other EU member states.
The Master’s programme is built up using a matrix model: the students choose one out of three
professional competence profiles in combination with a technological specialisation area. This
approach is innovative and seems to work. The approach is based on specific rules for the
selection of courses both in the competence profile and in the specialisation track, to ensure
that the final qualifications are met.
No explicit policy exists requiring that the internship or the thesis is carried out in industry.
The current situation where some 30% of the students carry out their internship in research
institutes abroad seems to match the R&D competence profile and not the Design and Con-
struction profile or the Organisation and Management profile.

There is a strong coherence within each year of the Bachelor’s programme because most theo-
retical courses are integrated with the projects.
This coherence is maintained despite the inherent difficulties caused by the educational phi-
losophy adopted. That is, the PLE concept requires a special effort to feed in the course con-
tent at the right moment and the right level in the programme, making the learning activities
more effective and the learning outcomes more sustainable.
The coherence is somewhat disturbed by the minor - imposed on a university-wide scale - and
by the theory courses in the third year.
The project-led education (PLE) approach in the Bachelor’s programme is formally continued
only in the Industrial Design and Manufacturing (IDM) Master’s programme and not in the
other tracks. Hence there is a style break in the first Master’s year, as it is strongly course-based.
However, incoming Bachelor graduates are able to deal with this style break as they have built
up the attitude and ability of working and learning in the group: they develop from coached

PLE at the Bachelor’s level to spontaneous self-organized group work at the Master’s level.
The new Master’s programme displays an innovative two-angle approach: students choose
both a competence profile and a specialisation track. There are rules for choosing a consist-
ent combination of courses, projects, an internship and a Master’s thesis. The chair (gradua-
tion professor) checks the balance and the coherence of each individual Master’s programme;
another check is made by the Examination Committee.
F7: Study load

In general, the actual study load of a curriculum element corresponds to the planned study
load. However, while the planned or nominal study time is 45 hours per week, students spend
only 30-35 hours per week on average on their study, which is the main cause of study delay.
According to the students who were interviewed by the Committee, the study load for some
courses as nominally specified does not correspond to the real study load: for example, in the
case of Thermodynamics, the real study load as perceived by the students is higher than 5 EC,
while students claim that the reverse is true for the course Manufacturing and Production.
The strong PLE orientation might impose some constraints and stresses on the process of
knowledge transfer between teachers and students.
Course prerequisites to enter a project are sometimes felt by the students to be too strict and
an impediment to study progress. This applies in particular to the criteria for access to project
F, the third-year Bachelor’s project. Also, students feel there is insufficient time to digest the
material offered in theory courses before it has to be applied in a project.
Such problems are still resolved personally between students and teachers. By and large, stu-
dents are pleased with the open atmosphere and the easy contacts between students and staff.
The Master’s programme is taught in English.
There is an uneven loading of the ‘5 EC courses’ (between the semesters) in the first year of
the Master’s programme. Although the Director of Education explained that the schedule of
the Master’s programme is optimised primarily for the regular students and the most popular
courses, some students still perceive an unequal distribution as a problem.
A longer than nominal study duration is generally easily accepted by the students, and the
development of a clear consensus about study duration among all stakeholders (students,
teachers, university, government) might become necessary.

F8: Intake
the degree course:
process.
There is a serious, two-fold problem regarding the basic education level of students entering
from vwo (high school):
• a lack of knowledge and understanding of basic mathematics, and

• unfamiliarity with a learning and working culture.
The first problem is tackled by a mathematics test and a compulsory course for those failing
it (the majority). The second problem is tackled by a close follow-up and coaching in the first
semester and the first year.
Polytechnic entrants would like to have more mathematics support and more contact with
teachers in the pre-Master’s period to bridge the gap.
The innovative use of computer-based learning could be of benefit to all the 3TUs in relation
to the above problems. It was pointed out that the virtual reality lab is fully embedded in the
faculty’s education system as design environment and that the faculty is involved in the Digital
University/Surf project on the theme ‘mathmatch’ for the remediation of deficiencies in the
students’ knowledge of mathematics.
F9: Duration
Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule.
Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.
The Bachelor’s curriculum has a study load of 180 EC (one EC nominally corresponds to 28
hours of study) and a nominal study duration of 3 years.
years.

The Committee recognizes the specific character of the educational philosophy of project-led
education (PLE), and also recognizes the strengths and the challenges (i.e. demands, difficul-
ties and constraints) this type of education puts on the students and lecturers. In particular,
PLE requires a strict schedule, great efforts to integrate courses and projects, and it can only
work in an open atmosphere where students can drop in to see the lecturer and ask for help.
The PLE structure could make it difficult to cover the necessary contents material on the
required scientific-technological level.
The programme allows students to acquire the ability to work and learn in groups, but the
Committee was less convinced about the development of the ability to work and learn inde-
pendently and individually. Even the Bachelor’s final project (project F) is a group project.
The didactic concepts (courses and projects) are in line with the contents and the objectives to
be realised through the programme.
Lecture notes as well as international books are used.
While there are very good material facilities to support an electronic learning environment,
the systematic use of ICT for new learning approaches can be developed further. Examples of
existing developments are the virtual reality lab and ‘mathmatch’ (see Facet 8).
Bachelor
There is a good balance between lectures, tutorials, exercises, assignments, labs, group projects
and individual study.
The PLE concept is consistently implemented and realized at a high level of quality. It seems
to have matured since its first introduction in 1994. In this 12-year period the implementation
of the concept has continuously been subject to monitoring, evaluation and tuning. Further
monitoring and tuning are still needed, for example, the Bachelor’s final project (project F) is
a group assignment while there is a demand from the students for individual assignments.
Master
Through PLE the Bachelor graduates entering the Master’s programme should have acquired
the necessary autonomy to work and learn independently as well as the ability to work in
groups. As already stated under Facet 6, there seems to be some discontinuity in the educa-
tional concept and structure between the 3rd Bachelor’s and the 1st Master’s year. This raises a
question about the nature and function of PLE. Is it merely a pedagogic method for education
at a junior level, or is it a model of autonomous and competence-based learning that works
as well at a senior – Master’s – level? Faced with this question, Master’s students explain that
through the PLE in the Bachelor’s programme they received a strong training in teamwork that
enables them to organise group project work on their own initiative.
The score for this facet is: Good/Satisfactory.

The system of assessments and examinations is effective in consistently checking the achieve-
ment by students of the learning targets of the course programme and its components.
An inherent problem with the PLE structure is distinguishing individual performance from
the group’s performance. This problem is well recognised and taken into account. The evalu-
ation sheets for PLE assessment are elaborate as they pay attention to many different aspects
and qualifications. In addition, the feedback to students on their individual performance in
the PLE projects is very detailed.
Students at the Bachelor’s level receive effective feedback on their learning progress, for exam-
ple, through the “Tentamen opvraag systeem Twente” (TOST).
The marks for the final project in the Bachelor’s programme and for the thesis in the Master’s
programme are equal or higher than the average marks of the preceding courses, indicating
that the final competencies are achieved.

All major ME-related chairs are filled by a full professor except for the chair of Biomechanical
Engineering, which is vacant.
Almost all members of the academic staff are active in a specific research field and contribute
to education for approximately 40% of their workload. In this way they assure the required
exchange between research and teaching.
Around 60% of the Bachelor’s programme and 85% of the Master’s programme are under the
direct supervision of the tenured academic staff. Almost 100% of the full and associate profes-
sors and 64% of the assistant professors have a PhD degree.
The majority of the full professors teach at least one subject in the Bachelor’s programme.
established by the professors who teach at Twente University ánd have their professional basis
in industry or carry out research in an institute.
Guest lecturers from industrial companies are often involved in projects and in the specialist
courses.

A total of 92 academic ME staff members are involved in teaching and research.

The teaching load, or student to staff ratio, expressed in terms of the number of students
per fte education varied slightly over the past few years and amounted to 33.4 in the year
2004/2005 (ME staff only taken into account). Some 38% of the courses are delivered by
staff from outside the faculty. If external staff is counted as well, the student to staff ratio just
exceeds 29 for the year 2004/2005 (and equals 30.0 for 2006).
The student to staff ratios are similar to the ratios of other engineering programmes at the Uni-
versity of Twente but are slightly higher than the student to staff ratios of the ME programmes
of the other Dutch universities of technology.
The relatively large number of elective Master’s courses attended by a low number of students
increases the workload.
A succession plan at the level of the full professors has been made for the period 2006 – 2010.
Substantial changes in the organisation and the budget system are expected in the years to
come. Therefore, it is difficult to plan any changes and vacancies at the level of the associate
and assistant professors at this moment in time.

The overall quality, enthusiasm and commitment of the teaching staff are high. The teachers
of core courses like Mechanics of Materials, Structural Dynamics, and Fluid Dynamics – the
contents of which are experienced by the students as complex and difficult – receive outstand-
ing ratings from the students.
In the 1990s the former faculty of Mechanical Engineering introduced the concept of project-
led education (PLE). Nearly all teaching staff participated in upgrading programmes related to
their new roles within the PLE concept.
The large number of specialized courses often rely on the one expert available, which makes
the system potentially exposed.
Since 1994, newly appointed staff with teaching duties must participate in educational upgrad-
ing courses. New professors participate in Didactic Training Course for University Personnel
(DUIT). Other staff and PhD students follow more tailored courses related to a specific task
like the guiding of Master’s research and tutoring. Evaluation of education skills is always
incorporated in the assessment of new staff.
Based on the score of the three facets above, the topic ‘Deployment of staff’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.


The project rooms for students in the first-year Bachelor’s programme and the multifunc-
tional facilities for the other Bachelor’s students are very well suited for project-led education
(PLE).
The feasibility of the PLE concept is strongly sensitive to the availability of sufficient space
and adequate infrastructure. Although no problems have been identified up to now, scal-
ing up to larger student populations could pose significant problems in the future, due to
overcrowding.
The workshops (e.g. mechanical) provide students with an opportunity to get acquainted with
the practical side of mechanical engineering.
The available experimental/laboratory facilities are adequate and well equipped. A central
library open to students is available on campus.
Students’ experience of the facilities is positive.
Master students have their own workplace assigned near the research facilities used for their
thesis work.
Since 2003 students have been given an attractive offer to purchase a laptop. The laptop is
supplied with professional software packages used for educational purposes. In addition, the
students have access to one of the 70 desktop computers in the department building.
Students enrolled before 2003 do not all own a laptop, therefore they were not pleased by the
fact that many desktop computers have been removed. However, Master’s students have a
desktop computer of the research group at their disposal during their thesis work.
Through the portal ‘My campus’ students have access to all e-services of the university and fac-
ulty, for example to academic programmes, course and project information, systems to register
for examinations and to ‘TeleTop’, the electronic learning environment used by the University
of Twente. Through TeleTop the teachers inform the students about schedule, course material,
handouts, sheets, etc. The students expressed their satisfaction with TeleTop.

the students.
Bachelor
The students receive information on their progress in different ways. All new students are
allocated a mentor. The mentor is the key person in student counselling and a member of the
teaching staff. In addition, student-mentors are allocated to reduce the threshold for seeking
support with problems. Students are very positive about the student-mentor, who can also

refer them to a staff-mentor for a particular problem. In some (more serious) cases, the staff-
mentor will refer them to a student counsellor (study advisor). The student-mentors meet
twice a year with students of all cohorts who have obtained too few ECs. The students indicate
that they know where to go to in case of problems and praise the open atmosphere.
At the end of the first year, all students receive a written recommendation about continuing
their study at the ME faculty. About 20% of these students are recommended to consider a
career outside the ME programme.
Tutors guiding the project groups interact intensively with the students. Tutors often become
a mentor later.
Students indicate that ‘Project A’ in the first-year programme teaches them to plan their study
work carefully and to spend a fair number of hours per week on studying, because the pro-
gramme is heavy.
Every year meetings are organised for every cohort to inform them about the year to come.
Master
The Master’s student is assigned a departmental co-ordinator (DPC). The DPC - often the
chair holder - discusses the programme, planning, progress and ambitions regarding internship
and thesis with the student. After every period the DPC is informed by the Educational Sup-
port Unit (ESU) about the student’s progress. Lack of progress might be a reason to intensify
the contact with the student.
The score for this facet is: Excellent/Good.
‘Satisfactory’.

The quality assurance (QA) system covers quality assessment (measurement, assessment and
improvement) and quality care (the assurance that students achieve the degree qualifica-
tions).
The current QA system, in place for quite some time, is very well implemented and has been
modified several times since 2000. The system was consolidated in 2005 in a policy plan for
QA. The QA system is comprehensive and well documented.
The DoE is in charge of QA. Students on the Evaluation Committee provide input in the com-
pilation of the surveys and organise the surveys of the courses/course periods. Electronic surveys
are conducted immediately after the final examination of a course. The surveys and other QA
activities produce valuable information for the monitoring of the educational processes.
Annual plans for the evaluations are drafted by the DoE and reviewed by the Educational
Committee.
A reflective self-assessment report, presenting a clear summary of strong/weak points and

dilemmas, is one of the products of the QA system.

Informal contacts between staff and students are considered as important as the formal control
systems in use. Among students a well developed understanding of the balance between formal
and informal quality processes was found. The Committee also noticed a great sense of owner-
ship among the students for the monitoring of the educational processes.
Indicators and targets for specific quality aspects are explicitly documented and quantified.
The concept of ‘reference groups’ is applied to guarantee the reliability of the measurements
and comparability of the results.
The score for this facet is: Excellent.

Well-documented procedures for the reporting and follow-up of QA actions exist.

The DoE is in charge of the follow-up of evaluation results. To give an example: the self-evalu-
ation report includes an overview of the actions for the improvement of courses scoring below
target in 2004/2005.
The recommendations of the previous educational evaluation (VSNU 2000) have been acted
on conscientiously. The majority of the recommendations have been implemented which
resulted in, for example, the incorporation of ‘sustainability’ in projects and courses, the intro-
duction of three competence profiles for the Master’s programme, the introduction of a sum-
mer course for – female – students, the involvement of full professors in all phases of the
programme including the first year, and the set-up of regular communication between the
DoE and the alumni association ‘Principia’.
The Bachelor’s 1st year success rate and total study time as well as the structural involvement
of alumni in the quality assurance process remain points for attention.
It is the explicit responsibility of the DoE to devise plans for improvement/change in concert with
students and teachers. The DoE, students and staff manage to work together very efficiently and
achieve tangible results. The students comment strongly on their ability “to make a difference”.
The Education Committee has a role in safeguarding the process of follow-up.

Students are highly involved in the design of the evaluations of the educational process through
membership on the Faculty Council, the Education Committee, the Evaluation Committee
and in the study association ‘Isaac Newton’.
The staff is involved in all phases of the quality assessment (and care) process.
The self-evaluation document was written by the staff of the Educational Support Unit, super-
vised by the DoE, with contributions from students and teaching staff.

The involvement of the professional field through alumni, a method for surveying alumni in
leading positions, was implemented for the first time in 2005.
Considerable transparency is exercised with respect to the review of survey results: both stu-
dents and staff can consult survey results.
The response rate on surveys is sometimes low (30% or less).
Apart from the surveys done by the Alumni Association and the Placement Officer, systematic
feedback from the professional field is lacking.
The Education Committee meets monthly. Documented minutes of the meetings are avail-
able. QA is a main topic on the agenda.
The DoE has a pivoting role in the communication between the Disciplinary Council and the
Education Committee.
Students and staff praise the working of both the formal and informal processes of QA with
respect to education.
‘Satisfactory’.
2.2.6. Results

Bachelor
fully. Since no students have yet completed a Master’s course after receiving their Bachelor’s
diploma, no figures on this success rate are available. On the other hand, in the traditional
integral course most students will eventually graduate, but the progression rate is slow. Since
the Bachelor’s programme is largely based on the former ‘kandidaats’ programme, the Com-
mittee expects that the Bachelor’s degree provides a substantial guarantee for successful com-
pletion of the Master’s programme.
The new course ‘Introduction to Technological Research’ (ITR) and the Bachelor’s project
(project F) are the concluding parts of the Bachelor’s programme. The ITR course focuses on
formulation of a research question; the students have to produce a well-documented research
proposal. On the other hand, the Bachelor’s project consists of an integrated Mechatronics
group project. The Committee concludes that both the assignment related to the ITR course
and the Bachelor’s project indicate that the final attainment level has been achieved. In par-
ticular, the Bachelor’s project reports reviewed by the Committee show a varying but accept-
able level.
The Committee notices that, in spite of the ITR course and the Bachelor’s project, outflow at
the Bachelor’s level is really not the intention, but the context might change.

Master
The Committee is convinced that the final qualities achieved match those aspired to, and
the quality of the graduates is high. The Master theses reviewed by the Committee showed a
consistently high level and a good correlation between level and obtained grade, as appreciated
by the Committee. A recent survey (WO-monitor 2003) indicates that most graduates find
suitable employment quickly after graduation, many of them in an ME-related function. In
addition, the graduates are satisfied with the education they received, while they point out the
project-led and broad education as the major strong point.
F21: Success rates

Both the Bachelor’s and the Master’s programme have explicit target figures for drop-out rates
during the first year, for the yearly progression rate (Bachelor’s programme only), for the pass
rates per course, and for the overall output (numbers of students graduating) rate at the pro-
gramme level. In each case, the target figures are defined with respect to a reference group. The
Committee considers these target figures, set in comparison with other degree programmes at
UT, to be very relevant and adequate.
As for the actual results, the following conclusions can be made. The ‘target’ drop-out rates
in the first year are met. These rates prove that the selective function of the first year is
adequate as the majority of drop-outs leave during their first year. The yearly progression
rates (average number of credits obtained) meet the norms in the first and second Bachelor’s
year, but do not meet the norm in the third Bachelor’s year, where the progression rate has
recently started to decline even more. The target pass rates per course are met in all three
Bachelor’s years and in the first Master’s year (4th year of the traditional programme), but
the participation rate at first attempt is declining (less than 50% in third Bachelor’s and first
Master’s year). These low participation rates explain why the yearly progression rates are below
the norm in the 3rd Bachelor’s year. Finally, the overall output rates of both Bachelor’s and
Master’s programmes are below the norms: 54% of the reference group obtain their Bach-
elor’s degree after four years of study (target: 75%), and 50% of the reference group obtain
their Master’s degree within seven years of study (target: 75%). Again, the low overall out-
put rates are explained by the low participation rate at first attempt in the third Bachelor’s
and first Master’s year. Compared with other Dutch mechanical engineering programmes
(integrated course), the overall output rates are about average, while the study duration is
similar.
One crucial factor with respect to study duration of both programmes is the time devoted by
students to their studies. The reported 35 hours per week during the first year and 30 hours
per week during the second and third year is considerably fewer than the assumed 40 hours per
week. Another important factor is the international component of the programme. According
to information provided in the self-evaluation report, the organisation of travel, mishaps in
schedules and supplementary holiday trips cause additional delay.

Polytechnic Entrants
A target output rate exists for the Polytechnic entrants (graduates from institutes of higher pro-
fessional education; 75% should graduate from the Master’s programme within three years).
However, the actual output rate is far below the norm. In addition, the success rate for the pre-
Master’s programme has dropped dramatically recently. This phenomenon can be explained
by the fact that polytechnics have admitted lowering their standards recently.

3. The 3mE Faculty Mechanical Engineering, TU Delft
3.0. General
The Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and
Materials Engineering (3mE) covers seven educational programmes. Five of them, the
Mechanical Engineering Bachelor’s programme and the four Master’s programmes:
Mechanical Engineering (ME), Biomedical Engineering (BME), Materials Science and
Engineering (MSE), and Systems and Control (SC) are evaluated in this report. The other
two programmes (Marine Technology Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes) were evalu-
ated earlier this year (2006).
Since the last education visitation in 2000, many developments have taken place. The faculty
has been reorganised and renamed. This was necessary to produce a well-functioning organisa-
tion, to restore financial health and to motivate staff and students to try new ways of education
and research.
The total of 78 full, associate and assistant professors (in ME, BME and SC; the input from
MSE is not included) are active researchers who contribute directly to undergraduate and
postgraduate education. In addition to the professors’ personal contacts with industry, R&D
institutes and universities, the Faculty has set up a Professional Review Committee (PRC) for
Mechanical Engineering and the related fields of expertise BME, MSE and SC. The PRC con-
sists of twenty experts from industry and R&D institutes with different specialisations in ME
and the related fields. The PRC meets twice a year and advises the Faculty about programme
contents and other educational matters of the Bachelor’s and Master’s curricula.
Both TU Delft and the 3mE Faculty see education as a top priority, and education receives the
high priority it deserves.
At faculty level a mission statement was formulated:
The education of motivated engineers and PhDs, the proposal and execution of boundary-crossing
research and the marketing of knowledge in the fields of Mechanical Engineering, Marine Technol-
ogy and Material Science and to be a dynamic and innovative faculty within the TU Delft and in
the 3TU setting, giving an identifiable societal contribution.
The Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes in Mechanical Engineering (ME) originate from the
5-year integral Mechanical Engineering programme (CROHO 6966). The effective end date
of the 5-year ME programme was August 31st 2002, at which date all students were transferred
to the new Bachelor’s or to the new Master’s programmes. This transfer was possible because
the structure of the old 5-year programme fitted well with the new BA-MA structure.
Formally, students have until 31 August 2011 to complete this programme.
Biomedical Engineering (BME) has been set up as an entirely new curriculum starting from
September 1st, 2004. BME is a joint MSc programme of the Faculty of Applied Sciences
(TNW), the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science (EWI)
and the Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) in collaboration

with clinical partners at Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Erasmus Medical Centre
Rotterdam (Erasmus MC) and the Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam (AMC).
The Department of Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) was originally a Metallurgy
Department. In the Netherlands it is unique in the sense that it offers the only academic edu-
cational programme specifically directed to materials science.
The MSE Master’s programme started in 2003. In 2004 the MSE Department was trans-
ferred from the Faculty of Applied Sciences to the – newly named – Faculty of Mechanical,
Maritime and Materials Engineering. The MSE Department only recently moved to the
3mE Faculty building.
The start of the MSc programme in Systems and Control (SC) was strongly related to the
establishment of the Delft Centre for Systems and Control (DCSC), a merger of three former
systems and control groups of the Departments of Electrical Engineering (EWI), Mechani-
cal Engineering (3mE) and Applied Physics (TNW), and centred around fundamental and
generic aspects of systems and control engineering.
The creation of the Delft Centre of Systems and Control, the move of the Material Sciences
Department to the Mechanical Engineering Faculty, and the creation of a Biomedical Engi-
neering programme are strategically very interesting and important. In particular, integrating
the Materials Sciences Department creates important opportunities for engineering, as has
been the case for systems and control.
At first sight, the complete picture of the ME, BME, MSE and SC Master’s programmes
and all variants of the ME Master’s programme and specialisations appears to be very com-
plex. After closer examination it becomes clear that this structure provides a framework
to support flexibility and to provide guidance for the students. However, its presenta-
tion could be improved, for example, in the self-evaluation report one section could have
shown the complete picture and the relation between the individual degree programmes
and variants.

The TU Delft Faculty 3mE has chosen its mission, developed a domain-specific reference
framework (DSRF) and formulated Bachelor’s and Master’s programme objectives and, from
there, developed elaborated exit qualifications as documented in the self-evaluation report.
With regard to education the 3mE Faculty’s mission reads:

ogy and Materials Science and to be a dynamic and innovative faculty within the TU Delft and in
3TU setting, giving an identifiable societal contribution.
The DSRF for Engineering Technology was formulated jointly by the Engineering Technology
organisations of the three Dutch universities of technology (3TU) for their ME degree pro-
grammes. The DSRF describes the field of engineering technology and the final competencies
of the academic engineer, in generic terms of knowledge, skills and attitude. Engineering tech-
nology comprises, in this context, mechanical engineering and the related fields: biomedical
engineering, materials technology and engineering and systems and control.
The 3mE Faculty has formulated objectives for the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes that
meet the highest international standards. Detailed exit qualifications have been developed on
the basis of these objectives.
Benchmarking of the ME degree programmes and objectives has been realised through the 3TU
cooperation and the IDEA League, of which TU Delft is a member and has been used to improve
exit qualifications and the curricula, as required. In 2001 the curricula were evaluated by ABET
and were considered to be substantially equivalent to comparable study programmes.
The Professional Review Committee (PRC) consists of twenty experts from industry and
R&D with different specialisations in ME and represents the link with industry and R&D.
The PRC meets twice a year and advises the faculty about the contents and educational mat-
ters of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes in Mechanical Engineering and of the related
Master’s programmes (BME, MSE, SC). The PRC has formally agreed with the ME pro-
gramme objectives and exit qualifications.
Based on review of the relevant documents, the Committee concludes that the exit qualifica-
tions of the degree courses fully comply with the requirements set for a degree course in the
academic and professional ME domain.
F2: Level
formal statement on the nature of engineering degrees at Bachelor’s and Master’s levels in their
‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’ (2nd edition, Jan. 2005). These crite-
ria are formally accepted by NVAO as a more expanded and relevant statement of the Dublin
descriptors which must be respected according to the QANU protocol. By having developed
and implemented these criteria, the three Dutch universities of technology stand out positively
from other universities in the Netherlands.
ter’s degrees, and also the range of intellectual attributes and understanding of contexts that
a trained engineer may require, depending on career direction. Therefore, these criteria are
more suitable for a specific qualitative examination of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes
concerned than the Dublin descriptors.

F3: Orientation
University (WO):
The option to enter the labour market is, obviously, open to a Bachelor graduate. The Com-
mittee notes that although not many Bachelors have taken this route yet, the outflow of Bach-
elors to the labour market is considered as a serious option. The PRC expressed the viewpoint
that an ME Bachelor graduate would certainly get employment.
An ME Bachelor graduate is granted unconditional access to the ME Master’s programmes of

the TU Delft, the University of Twente and of the TU Eindhoven as well as to the ME Mas-
ter’s programmes of a large number of international universities including the IDEA League
universities. The ME Master’s programme is offered in six variants:
• BioMechanical Design (BMD);

• Control Engineering (CE);
• Production, Mechatronics and Microsystems (PMM);
• Solid and Fluid Mechanics (SFM);
• Sustainable Process and Energy Technology (SPET);
• Transportation Engineering (TE).
In addition, the Bachelor’s degree gives access to a large number of other study programmes at
MSc level such as: Aerospace and Materials Science and Engineering, Applied Earth Sciences,
Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, etc.
The ME Master graduates of the above-named variants have ample opportunity to continue onto
a PhD programme. At the time of this evaluation, the ME-related departments counted 112 PhD
students (excl BME, MSE and SC), of whom 55 held an ME Master’s degree from TU Delft.
The position on the labour market of the ME Master graduate is good due to their capability
to conduct independent academic research and/or to resolve multidisciplinary and interdisci-
plinary questions.

3.2.2. Programme

evant disciplines;
The structure of the Bachelor’s programme is ‘classical’, as it is mainly based on courses with
a strong scientific and technological basis. Project work is limited to about 30%, and projects
(assignments) are integrated with the courses (as practical applications of the taught course
material) rather than vice versa. There is a minor of 30 EC (including 10 EC project work)
in the 3rd Bachelor’s year, as well as a 9 EC Bachelor’s final project. In the 1st Bachelor’s year
students have to take an internship of 4 EC (three weeks during the summer holidays); this
internship is intended for practical training and need not necessarily to be taken in a company.
For example, it has also been taken in a mechanical-workshop environment at another depart-
ment of the university.
The projects are also used to teach professional engineering competencies. In addition, the
Bachelor’s final project covers an original research task or innovative design and contains an
introduction to research methodology. Furthermore, full professors teach in the Bachelor’s
programme, and all teaching staff are involved in research.
Some basic course textbooks are from the ‘Delft University Package’, which contains courses
common to different faculties, such as mathematics.
The Master’s programme offered is very strongly anchored in the research of the relevant
departments. At first glance, a clear common faculty strategy is missing in the contents offered
in the different variants (for example, with respect to the other Master’s degrees such as Bio-
medical Engineering and Systems and Control). The variety in master variants is probably due
to the fact that their educational content is derived from existing research expertise rather than
from an attempt to define industrial or societal needs. The coexistence of ME variants with
other Master’s degree programmes that are very similar is to some extent historical and seems
to be a transitional situation. The Faculty has adopted a sensible evolutionary approach in this
matter. In fact, the programmes offered provide students with a lot of flexibility in composing
their own ‘custom-made’ programme under the guidance of their graduation professor ( à la
carte offer or rather menu conseillé). However, some effort is needed to clarify the framework
for the students.

Also, there is no uniform faculty strategy in the didactic structure of the different variants and
degrees. In the first Master’s year there are 45 to 60 EC of courses, while in the second Master’s
year 45 to 60 EC are invested in the thesis (including a literature survey and an internship). In
the elective courses teaching is strongly linked to up-to-date science and knowledge.
An interesting feature is that in most of the variants the literature survey is defined as a separate
learning activity with a well-defined budget of EC and a separate assessment.
ponents.
been formulated.
General
Elaborate exit qualifications have been worked out for the Bachelor’s programme as well as for
each of the Master’s variant programmes. These exit qualifications are regularly and formally
discussed in the review panel with industry: the PRC. In addition, the learning outcomes are
clearly defined for each of the courses in an informative way.
Commendably, TU Delft is the only one university of 3TU that explicitly shows the relation
between the exit qualifications and the courses’ learning outcomes.
Students display a uniform enthusiasm about the educational processes they experience in
order to reach their final qualifications, in particular the ability to individually tackle assign-
ments in project, course and thesis work. Clearly, the processes that staff are deploying seem to
be quite effective, although those processes may differ between the variant programmes.
The Bachelor’s programme has a broad scope and covers the main areas of mechanical engi-
neering. Although currently only a few Bachelor graduates leave the university to enter the
labour market, the faculty is open to societal developments within the Netherlands and in
neighbouring countries that might push towards the Bachelor’s degree being a final qualifica-
tion for a significant proportion of the graduates. The faculty is in principle willing to consider
this potential evolution in the contents and structure of its Bachelor’s degree programme. Also,
a dual learning model in which some of the Bachelor graduates would take their Master’s after
several years of professional experience (for example in industry) is not excluded. However,
the present Bachelor’s programme does not specifically prepare for outflow at the Bachelor’s
level as it focuses on the scientific-technical content. In addition, the final Bachelor’s project
is research based and is a team effort which is assessed at an individual basis, in addition to
assessment of the team effort. Non-technical subjects, like project skills, reporting, presenting,
sustainability, safety and ethics, are incorporated in projects. An exception is the subject eco-
nomics which is dealt with in a third-year lecture. Apart from this, it depends on the student’s
choice of the minor whether or not more credits are spent on non-technical subjects.
In general, the Master’s programme is strongly research oriented. There are students graduat-
ing with a Master’s after having finished a purely scientific-technological programme, with-

out any training in, for example, organisation and management and without any industrial
experience. Students do not perceive this as a problem: “it is every student’s responsibility to
compose his programme and even industry needs some NERDS”.
A very valuable initiative is the creation of an honours track (HT) programme for talented
students. These students may do an additional programme of 30 EC on top of the Master’s
programme. The HT programme is intended to further expand the Master’s study for example
in preparation for a PhD study or to broaden knowledge and skills for a job in industry.
The Master’s graduates have a high level of academic qualification and in particular a strong
research basis, as reflected in the theses.
The score for this facet is: Good/Excellent.

Each of the Bachelor’s and Master’s variant programmes show, on their own, a good coherence
in which unnecessary overlap is avoided.
The introduction of the BA-MA system did not create major changes compared with the tra-
ditional programme structure, as the existing programme was already very close to the BA-MA
concept. Only the introduction of the minor in the third year is new.
There is a large variety in programmes and educational approaches, due to the fact that the
programmes of the variants evolved independently in different research units and chairs.
Moreover, the variants do not appear to have been conceived explicitly as a follow-up of the
ME Bachelor’s programme. This could lead to a lack of coherence between the Bachelor’s and
Master’s programmes. A uniform vision of the structure of the different Master’s variants was
not found. This could lead to a lack of transparency between the Master’s variants. On the
other hand, ME Bachelor’s students from the TU Delft entering these Master’s variants have a
strong science and engineering basis.
F7: Study load

General
Measures have been taken to make sure that the actual study load of a curriculum element
corresponds to the planned study load. Furthermore, the Faculty has removed impediments to
completing the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes within the nominal time. However, while
the planned or nominal study time is 42 hours per week, students spend on average only 32
hours per week on their study, which is the main cause of study delay.
The implementation (in 2010) of a clear separation (‘hard cut’) between the entrance to the
Master’s programme and the Bachelor’s graduation will bring along a double challenge: 1) to

prevent further study delay, and 2) to stop Bachelor’s graduates dropping out before moving
to the Master’s programme, for example because they accept a job while waiting to complete
their Bachelor’s programme. On the other hand, it will create equal conditions in comparison
with students coming from other Dutch and foreign universities and enable and encourage
students to consider mobility after the Bachelor’s phase.
Problems were identified with the study loads and success rates of some courses in the first
Bachelor’s year: analysis, thermodynamics and statics (the last is called a bottleneck). Low suc-
cess rates are partly explained by typical student behaviour, that is, delaying the more difficult
courses to a later date. For the analysis course appropriate measures have been taken to limit
the audience to groups of 60 students maximum. For the Statics course the situation has been
improved by the implementation of a computer-supported self-study programme.
Parallel projects scheduled within the same teaching period, which caused inefficient use of
time and bad preparations for examinations, have been eliminated. Furthermore, the system
of student coaches for 1st year Bachelor’s students works very well.
The pre-Master’s programme for students from a university of professional education (poly-
technic) is perceived as heavy. Starting from September 2006 polytechnic ME students will be
offered the possibility to follow the Master’s programme within the nominal 120 EC, provided
they follow a special minor during their polytechnic Bachelor’s study. An effective buddy sys-
tem exists for foreign students to facilitate their progress.
F8: Intake
the degree course:
process.
There is a serious, two-fold problem with the basic level of education of students entering the
Bachelor’s programme from pre-university education (vwo): a lack of knowledge and under-
standing of basic mathematics, and unfamiliarity with a learning and working culture.
The lack of knowledge of basic mathematics is tackled by a mathematics test. Students failing the
test receive a recommendation to study specific chapters from a mathematics textbook. A com-
pulsory mathematics training course for those failing the test is not part of the 1st-year Bachelor’s
programme. Also a self-test with feedback exists, offered by the Mathematics Department.
Unfamiliarity with a learning and working culture is tackled through the vwo teacher/coor-
dinator (covering the link with the vwo educational programme) and the system of student
coaches in the first year.
The structure and contents of the Master’s variants match well the exit qualifications of the
Bachelor’s degree of the three Dutch universities of technology and of a selected number of
foreign universities (for example IDEA League).

The intake and selection of foreign students from other universities is accomplished in two
steps: firstly, at the central TU Delft level based on general selection criteria, and secondly at
the faculty level based on specific criteria for the chosen variant. This still leads, in some cases,
to admitting students without the desired qualifications.
F9: Duration
The Bachelor’s curriculum has a study load of 180 EC (one EC nominally corresponds to 28
hours of study) and a nominal study duration of three years.
The Master’s curriculum has a study load of 120 EC and a nominal study duration of two
years.
Students who have obtained a Bachelor’s degree cum laude or have passed the Bachelor
examination with an average mark of 7.5 or higher are invited to follow the Honours Track
programme. In addition, Master’s students who have obtained all marks 6 or higher and an
average of 7.5 or higher within the first half of their course are also invited to follow the hon-
ours programme. This track puts the excellent student in a position to follow an additional
individual programme of 30 EC on top of the Master programme. TU Delft has developed a
special interdisciplinary course of 6 EC for all students within the Honours Track programme
that focuses on academic competencies such as communication skills, philosophy of science,
methodology and ethics.
The size of the Bachelor’s and Master’s curricula comply with the ECTS requirements.

Bachelor
The teaching methods (lectures, workshops, project meetings, Bachelor’s project) are in line
with the objectives and the contents to be realised through the programme. A good balance
was found between those teaching methods. The didactic concept promotes self-study (63%
of the workload in the Bachelor’s programme) and aims at developing autonomy and inde-
pendence. However, there is no generic model for the application of didactic work methods,
such as for example lectures in large groups versus work sessions in small groups (the latter is
applied for the mathematics courses, which are taught in groups of at most 60 students).
Lecture notes from the series ‘Delft University Package’ as well as international textbooks are used.
The electronic learning-management system Blackboard is very well developed and used for
communication as well as for the distribution of course materials such as lecture notes and

‘bonus exercises’. Interactive learning material such as computer-based learning packages and
self-tests with feedback have been developed for mathematics and statics.
The ‘projects’ mainly involve problem-solving assignments for practising analysis, synthesis,
application and design.
Students have too little information on the ‘small internship’ in the first year.
Full professors teach in the Bachelor’s programme which is seen as essential for the marketing
of the different Master’s variants.
Master
The teaching methods are in line with the objectives and the contents to be realised through
the programme. While lectures and project meetings take up about 22% of the total study
load, the didactic concept is very much based on self-study (33%) and thesis work (45%),
and aims at developing autonomy and independence. One of the assignments, equivalent to
a study load of 15 EC, is an internship in industry or at a research institute. Neither teachers
nor students see a stay in industry as absolutely necessary.
The learning management system Blackboard is very well developed and used for communica-
tion as well as for the distribution of course materials such as lecture notes. Students expressed
criticism about the English fluency of some of the teachers.
Students are not really familiar with the proceedings concerning the Master’s thesis. To rem-
edy this, a document providing guidelines for the procedures related to Master’s theses is in
preparation.
The score for this facet is: Satisfactory

General
The learning targets of the courses are very well defined as already stated under Facet 5, and
the exams consistently test these learning outcomes.
There is a complex system of passing rules, with clusters of exams allowing a (limited) failure
in some individual exams.
Bachelor
Because a number of subjects were mastered less well by treating them within a project (a
didactic reason) and in order to avoid parallel scheduling of projects (feasibility), the share of
‘projects’ in the Bachelor’s programme has been reduced from 45% to 33%.
Projects in the first Bachelor’s year are undertaken by groups of 8 students, in the second year
by groups of 4 students, and the Bachelor’s projects are done by groups of 3-4 students. In
principle, 50% of the grades are based on group evaluation and 50% on individual evaluation
which includes an individual closing exam. However, correct assessment of project work in
teams remains difficult.
Master
The split of the Master’s thesis into separate units (literature study, internship, thesis) makes
the assessment more substantiated and transparent.


All major ME-related subjects are taught by a full professor. Most full and associate professors
have a PhD: 85% and 82%, respectively, while 35% of the assistant professors have a PhD.
These figures are relatively low compared with those from the ME programmes at the other
Dutch universities of technology. Tenured academic staff are active in a specific research field
for some 40% of their total workload, and for 40% of their total workload they contribute to
education. In this way they ensure the required exchange between research and teaching.
At least one full professor of each 3mE department concerned (some 20% of the full profes-
sors) teaches in the Bachelor’s programme.
established by the PRC. The PRC consists of representatives of the professional community,
two members for each Master’s variant. The PRC discusses all aspects of education: (elabo-
rated) exit qualifications, learning lines, curriculum and course objectives, teaching methods
and quality control.
The industry commends the comprehensive syllabus of courses varying from rather basic to
specialised courses. This comprehensive list of courses allows the student to enter, at an early
stage, highly specialised and interdisciplinary areas.

A total of 233 3mE staff members are involved in teaching and research.
Staff numbers are currently sufficient for education, although insufficient to systematically
support the teaching of ‘small group’ work sessions for each of the courses.
For the Mechanics courses and for the Transportation Engineering variant, the number of staff
is just adequate.
The teaching load, expressed in terms of the student to staff ratio, increased over the past years
to a figure of 31.9 in 2004, based on 3mE staff only (based on total teaching staff input, the
student to staff ratio equals 28.5).
The upward trend in the student to staff ratio is due to the increasing number of students in
general and to efficiency measures with regard to education in particular (i.e. increasing num-
bers of students attending lectures).

Four vacancies exist at the full professor level. Hence recruitment procedures are in progress for
the P&E (3) and PME (1) Departments of 3mE. Moreover, 5 vacancies exist at the assistant/
associate professor level in the P&E (1), DCSC (2), BME (1) and PME (1) Departments.

The appointment of academic staff is based on scientific qualities, on research achieve-

ments, and on teaching qualities. The last are nowadays considered equally important to
the scientific qualities of a candidate. Recently, it was decided to include the evaluation
and appraisal of the teaching qualities of staff as part of the annual staff appraisal (R&O)
cycle. Dedicated training courses are offered to staff members requiring improvement in
their teaching skills.
Newly appointed lecturers are required to take the ‘Basic Teacher Training’ (BKO) within two
years of their appointment.
Part of the Faculty’s career policy is the ‘Van Leeuwenhoek’ programme, funded by TU Delft.
Under this programme a limited number of associate professors of proven excellence can be
appointed as full professors to avoid top talent leaving the university. In recent years seven
Van Leeuwenhoek professors have been appointed in the fields of engineering mechanics, bio-
medical engineering, control engineering, materials science & engineering, process technology
and fluid dynamics, thus ensuring the range of specialisms required to support the Faculty’s
programme.
‘Satisfactory’.

Students have complaints about the comfort of the lecture rooms. The Committee has also
experienced the discomfort and agrees with the students. The 3mE faculty has requested pro-
posals for improvement of the lecture rooms by TU Delft real estate services.
For the project work project tables are available with a desktop computer. Students would like
to see more rooms available where they can meet in a quiet atmosphere.
Very well equipped experimental facilities and laboratories are available, offering sufficient
capacity. Separate experimental facilities are available for the practical work and projects of the
Bachelor’s programme.

Since 2005 most students have purchased a laptop on the basis of an attractive offer made to
them with the help of the Faculty. The laptop is supplied with professional software packages
that are used for educational purposes. Students indicate that the laptop can be used more
intensively in support of the different course programmes.
Besides the laptops, the students have access to various desktop computers in the department
building, and special CAD workstations are also available.
The students confirm that they can easily access ‘Blackboard’, the electronic learning environ-
ment, for all information about courses and projects.
Master students get their own, well equipped workplace near the research facilities during their
thesis work.
During their thesis work Master students have their own desktop computer at their disposal.
If the student intake continues to increase in the coming years, the available facilities and space
may become insufficient.

the students.
Student tutoring and coaching in the first year is completely dealt with by student-coaches.
The student-coaches monitor them during the first-year programme. The student-coach will,
in the first instance, advise the student directly. The student-coach refers more demanding
cases to the study advisor. The students are very positive about the accessibility and effective-
ness of their student-coaches. Students who become student-coach are also positive about the
value of the experience.
The students receive information about their progress in different ways. The student-coaches
carry out a formal progress update with their individual students in the second and third
period of the first year. If necessary, they refer problems to the study advisor. Study advisors
also give introductory lectures before the start of the study and before the start of periods.
After the first half-year the study advisors talk to first-year students who have obtained too
few ECs. After the first year the study advisors again invite the same category of students for a
personal talk, and all students receive a written recommendation about the continuation and
progress of their studies in the 3mE faculty.
A Master student is assigned a variant co-ordinator who advises the student on the composi-
tion of their individual study programme. Moreover, the student meets the co-ordinator regu-
larly to discuss his/her progress.
The variant co-ordinator supplies all the information needed by a Master student for his/her
progress in the programme, its planning, the internship and the thesis. The students are satis-
fied with this level of guidance.

There is also an International Coordination Officer, advising students regarding matters related
to study and internship abroad.
‘Satisfactory’.

The formal QA system implemented in the Faculty is the result of a university-wide project on
QA that started in 2003. The three levels in the educational programme (courses, coherence
between courses and curriculum) correspond to three closed loops in the QA process. Each
loop has its own monitoring frequency.
A full-time QA officer reporting to the Education and Student Affairs Department (ESAD)
is in charge of the systematic monitoring of all degree programmes in the Faculty. The moni-
toring is carried out through the use of questionnaires (CENS) and evaluation meetings (BA:
groups of representatives, MA: individual). The topics of the questionnaires are rated, and
target figures have been set.
Schedules for the annual evaluations at curriculum level are available for the Bachelor’s pro-
gramme. Any backlog of QA reporting and follow-up is resolved by the ESAD re-organisation
and the appointment of the QA officer.
An informative self-evaluation report, including a clear summary of strong/weak points per

topic, also results from this QA process.
The formal QA system is comprehensive and well documented. For the Bachelor’s programme
the basics of the evaluation process including the periodic evaluation of the curriculum were
implemented in 1999/2000. For the Master’s programme the implementation of the system
was started only very recently (2004/2005) and is still in a phase of internalization by the
Faculty staff. At the time the ME department was visited, the system was not yet fully imple-
mented in the Master’s programme.
Currently, a system of scheduled meetings between the students and the Programme Coordi-
nators is operational and effective for the Master’s programmes, supported by good informal
contacts between staff and students.
The widely varying student numbers of the different Master’s variant programmes mean that a well-
developed understanding of the balance between formal and informal quality processes is required.
The score for this facet is: Good/Satisfactory.

The working of the system for the follow-up of evaluations and QA actions is mainly based on
contacts/meetings between staff (DoE, Programme Coordinator, Education Advisor), lectur-
ers and students. The results of such meetings are published in Blackboard.
The recommendations of the previous educational evaluation (VSNU 2000) have been care-
fully followed up. The Faculty has undertaken to resolve a sizable list of specific actions since
the last evaluation, and the majority of the recommendations have been implemented. This
resulted in, for example, an increased emphasis on the projects in the first two Bachelor’s years,
the formation of the PRC and structured feedback from the professional field, and the imple-
mentation of the current QA system. The Bachelor’s 1st year success rate and total study time
remain points for attention.
It is still too early to make reliable conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the new system.
Target scores in CENS serve as a warning limit within the Bachelor’s programme for the tak-
ing of action. Within the Master’s programme the CENS questionnaires are not yet effectively
applied in all variants.
The QA system represents an effective (formal) feedback loop from students to DoE, Edu-
cation Adviser, Education Committee and/or (MA) Programme Co-ordinators/Heads of
Departments.

A strong involvement of students is ensured through representation on the Education Com-

mittee, through the study association ‘Leeghwater’, through meetings of the Students’ Council
with the Dean and the DoE and through the surveys. Individual meetings with Master stu-
dents to review the quality aspect of the Master’s programmes are well organised. However,
the Committee is not convinced that all staff are fully involved in all phases of the formal QA
process.
The target response rate for Bachelor’s surveys is low in relative terms (>20% only) and is
chosen to avoid survey fatigue amongst students. However, the absolute numbers of responses
are sufficient for a representative student feedback. In addition, the direct feedback during
daily informal contacts between staff and students is felt to be as valuable as the outcome of
the surveys.
The self-evaluation report was compiled by a core team of five persons headed by the DoE
with input from the coordinators of the different degree programmes. Students and teaching
staff have been consulted in the final stages of the writing process.

The PRC is a good instrument to maintain systematic contacts with the professional field.
However, more attention should be paid to the different professional contexts of the various
Master’s programmes.
The Education Committee meets monthly. Documented minutes of the meetings are avail-
able. QA is a main topic on the agenda. In general, students and staff are satisfied with the
working of the Educational Committees.
‘Satisfactory’.
3.2.6. Results

Bachelor
fully. Since no students have yet completed the Master’s course after receiving the Bachelor’s
diploma, no figures are available about this success rate. On the other hand, the post-prope-
deutic year success rate indicates that, after selection in the first year, most students completed
the traditional integral course successfully (50% within seven years and 80% within eight
years or more). Because the Bachelor’s programme is largely based on the former ‘kandidaats’
programme, the Committee expects that the Bachelor’s degree provides a substantial guarantee
for the successful completion of the Master’s programme.
The individual Bachelor’s project involves either a piece of original research or an innovative
design. According to the Committee the Bachelor’s project demonstrates the final qualification
levels achieved, but it is carried out at a rather academic level.
The Committee also notes that, although not many Bachelors have taken this route yet, the
outflow of Bachelors to the labour market is considered as a serious option.
Master
The Committee is convinced that the final qualifications achieved match those aspired to, and
the quality of the graduates is high. Feedback from industry indicates that the Delft engineer
is perhaps a bit more independent, but less good at teamwork, than other Dutch academic
engineers. In the opinion of the Committee, the first characteristic is due to the educational
approach at TU Delft which requires more independence from the student, while the latter is
expected to improve due to the introduction of project-based education in 1997.
The Master’s theses reviewed by the Committee show a consistently high level and a good cor-
relation between level and obtained grade, as appreciated by the Committee.
Most graduates find suitable employment quickly after graduation, many of them in a ME-
related function.

F21: Success rates
Target figures have been defined for both the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes, i.e. the
1st- year Bachelor’s yield on the high school intake (vwo), the Bachelor’s yield on the high
school intake and the Master’s yield. The Committee considers these target figures relevant
and adequate. However, they have never been met in practice, and the Department feels these
target figures are ambitious. The final 1st-year yield is still in the order of 60%-70% (tar-
get 70%), but the 1st-year yield within one year is below 30%, even dropping below 20%
recently (target: 40%). Measures have been taken to improve the doability. Yield figures for
the total Bachelor’s programme and the Master’s programme are not available yet. Compared
with other Dutch mechanical engineering programmes (integrated course) however, the final
overall graduation rates are slightly lower, while the study duration is slightly better, and more
students (10%-15%) are able to finish in nominal time or even earlier.
Polytechnic Entrants
No target figures are defined in the self-evaluation report for the graduation rates of polytech-
nic entrants.
One crucial factor with respect to study duration is the time devoted by students to their stud-
ies, on average 32 hours per week, which is considerably less than the nominal 42 hours per
week.

4. The 3mE Faculty Biomedical Engineering, TU Delft
4.0. General and Mechanical Engineering
See paragraph 3.0. General and paragraph 3.1. Mechanical Engineering.
4.1. Preliminary remarks
Biomedical Engineering (BME) has been set up as a entirely new curriculum starting from Sep-
tember 1, 2004. BME is a joint MSc programme of the Faculty of Applied Sciences (TNW),
the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science (EWI) and the Fac-
ulty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE), in collaboration with clinical
partners at Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam
(Erasmus MC), and Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam (AMC).

The TU Delft Faculty 3mE has chosen its mission, developed a domain specific reference
framework (DSRF) and formulated BME Master’s programme objectives and, from there,
developed elaborated exit qualifications as documented in the self-evaluation report.
With regard to education, the 3mE faculty’s mission reads:
ogy and Materials Science and to be a dynamic and innovative faculty within TU Delft and in
The DSRF for engineering technology was formulated jointly by the three Dutch universi-
ties of technology for their ME degree programmes. The DSRF describes the field of engi-
neering technology and the final competencies of the academic engineer in generic terms of
knowledge, skills and attitude. Engineering technology comprises in this context mechanical
engineering and related fields: biomedical engineering, materials science and engineering and
systems and control.
The 3mE Faculty has formulated objectives for the BME Master’s programme that meet the
highest international standards. Detailed exit qualifications have been developed on the basis
of these objectives.

At the time the review was conducted, a limited form of benchmarking of the BME Master’s
programme and objectives was realised through the 3TU cooperation and the IDEA League,
of which TU Delft is a member.
The 3mE faculty has set up a Professional Review Committee (PRC) Mechanical Engineer-
ing and related Master’s programmes: BME, MSE, SC. The PRC consists of twenty experts
from industry and R&D with different specialisations in ME and related fields of expertise
and represents the link with industry and R&D. The PRC meets twice a year and advises the
faculty about the contents and educational matters of the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes
of mechanical engineering and of the related Master’s programmes.
The PRC has been involved in reviewing the BME Master’s programme objectives, exit quali-
fications and curriculum.
tions of the degree course fully comply with the requirements set for a Master’s degree course
in the academic and professional biomedical engineering domain.
F2: Level
the Dublin descriptors which must be respected according to the QANU protocol. By having
The criteria describe in detail the distinction in level between academic Bachelor’s and Mas-
ter’s degrees, and also the range of intellectual attributes and understanding of contexts that a
trained engineer may require, depending on career direction. Therefore, these criteria are more
suitable for a specific qualitative examination of the Master’s programme concerned than the
Dublin descriptors.
Committee, it can be concluded that the final qualifications of the degree course meet the

F3: Orientation
University (WO):
The BME Master graduates have ample opportunity to continue onto a PhD study. The exit
qualifications comply with the international requirements regarding the different specialisa-
tions of biomedical engineering and those of the professional field.
At the time of this evaluation, the BME Department counted 23 PhD students, of whom ten
held an ME Master’s degree from TU Delft.
The position on the labour market of the BME Master graduate is good due to their capability
plinary questions. Although at the time of this evaluation, only one BME Master student had
graduated, and therefore no experience with such Masters entering the labour market exists, it
has been shown that graduates from the BME Master’s programmes of University of Twente
and TU Eindhoven find a job within a few months in the Netherlands or abroad. Moreover,
the report of the Sminia Committee ‘Techniek met Zorg’ notices the healthy labour market
for BME Master graduates.
To date, all BME Master graduates will have an engineering BSc rather than a biomedical
engineering BSc. Therefore, the BME MSc graduate can apply for jobs outside the area of
biomedical engineering as well.
4.2.2. Programme

evant disciplines;
The difference between the Biomedical Engineering (BME) Master’s programme and the Mas-
ter’s variant Biomedical Design within the Mechanical Engineering programme (ME-BMD)
can be clarified as follows. The Master’s programme BME prepares for a career in the medi-

cal sector (clinics, research or medical industry) and involves courses in biomedical sciences
and a direct interaction of engineering students with students and researchers in medicine as
well as clinicians (for example, during the Master’s graduation project). The Master’s variant
ME-BMD prepares for a career in the wide area of Mechanical Engineering and is used as an
application field for the acquisition of advanced know-how in Mechanical Engineering.
BME is a joint MSc programme of the Faculty of Applied Sciences (TNW), the Faculty of Elec-
trical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science (EWI) and the Faculty of Mechanical,
Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE), in collaboration with clinical partners at Leiden
University Medical Centre (LUMC), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam (Erasmus MC), and
Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam (AMC).
The specialisations offered within the Master’s programme BME are very strongly anchored
in the research of the collaborating departments of TU Delft and the clinical partners. The
programme could be further enhanced by the introduction of a course on Biomaterials. A real-
istic opportunity exists of introducing Biomaterials as a discipline together with the Materials
Science Department.
For all specialisations within the BME programme, the first year is completely devoted to
courses, while the second year consists of an internship (12 EC), a literature survey (10 EC)
and a Master’s thesis (38 EC). An interesting feature is that the literature survey exists as a
separate assignment carrying a defined load of 10 EC.
Master’s thesis projects are individual projects and are carried out under the supervision of at
least two professors: one from TUDelft and one from one of the clinical partners e.g. LUMC,
Erasmus MC or AMC. The theses are written in the format of a journal paper, and aimed at
that level.
There is a strong link with clinical practice and medical research. The network with industry
is limited in size, only Philips Medical Systems is identified as a company that is active in the
medical sector.
ponents.
been formulated.
Elaborate exit qualifications have been worked out for the BME Master’s programme. These
exit qualifications are regularly and formally discussed in the PRC. The learning outcomes for
each of the courses are very well defined. Commendably, TU Delft is the only university of
3TU that explicitly shows the relation between the exit qualifications and the courses’ learning
outcomes.
Each specialisation contains a number of compulsory courses which are intended to cover the
exit qualifications.
Students as well as teachers show a great enthusiasm for the new programme.

The Master graduates have a high level of academic qualification and in particular a strong
research basis, as reflected in the theses reviewed.
In the course of the programme, students become acquainted with the clinical and health sec-
tor and learn how to interact with medical staff.
The job opportunities in the biomedical sector could in future become limited, especially if
the programme turns out to be successful. Therefore, it might be of strategic importance to
promote the programme to employers outside the sector, as a training in a broad and ‘real’
engineering discipline, yielding graduates that are also employable outside the field of bio-
medical engineering.

The BME Master’s programme is not preceded by a BME Bachelor’s programme, which is an
explicit policy of the 3mE faculty. As a result, students entering the programme have a broad and
solid background in a basic discipline such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering,
physics or applied physics which, in the opinion of the Committee, is a strength of this policy.
The composition of the individual study programme depends on the particular background
of the student entering the programme, as compulsory mathematical and engineering courses
have been defined depending on the Bachelor’s degree obtained by the student and on the
chosen specialisation within the BME Master’s programme.
In addition to these compulsory mathematical and engineering courses, the student has to take
a number of compulsory biomedical engineering courses and a number of elective courses,
chosen from a list that reflects the chosen specialisation. These elective courses all focus on
aspects that are highly relevant for the specialisation.
By giving TUD students the opportunity to attend medical courses - and LUMC and Eras-
mus students the opportunity to attend technical courses - the Master’s programme BME is
actively working to bridge the gap between the medical and the technical field.
In summary, adequate lists of compulsory and elective courses have been defined for each
specialisation. Detailed rules for the composition of a study programme ensure that the study
programme is coherent, makes up for knowledge gaps due to the background of the student
entering the programme, and avoids overlap.
F7: Study load

Some students take longer than the nominal study duration to finish the programme. This is
probably due to the fact that they spend fewer than the planned 40 hours per week. On the
other hand, a small number of students have proven that it is possible to finish within two
years.

The study load is monitored, and the nominal loads of a number of courses have been increased
in the past because of student evaluations.
Administrative problems with the enrolment of students for courses at Erasmus University
Rotterdam have caused delays in study progress. A solution for these problems is being worked
out.
F8: Intake
the degree course:
process.
The intake is very broad: Bachelors in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, phys-
ics and applied physics as well as Bachelors from universities abroad and students graduating
from polytechnics (higher professional education, abbreviated ‘hbo’). A number of them are
attracted through the cooperation with medical doctors in projects during their Bachelor’s
study.
As stated under Facet 6:
“The TU Delft does not offer a specific Bachelor’s programme ‘BME’. This is considered to be
a strength because, in this way, TU Delft Bachelor’s students entering the BME Master’s pro-
gramme have a strong science and engineering basis. The composition of the individual study
programme depends on the particular background of the student entering the programme,
as compulsory mathematical and engineering courses have been defined depending on the
Bachelor’s degree obtained by the student and depending on the chosen specialisation within
the BME Master”.
The 3mE faculty has a solid plan for the introduction of a minor in biomedical engineering
in their ME Bachelor’s programme. This might be a way to attract more students to the BME
Master’s programme, as it would help those who are interested in biomedical engineering to
complete the ME Bachelor’s programme in preparation for the BME Master’s programme.
F9: Duration
• Bachelor of a University (WO): 180 credits as a rule.
• Master of a University (WO): a minimum of 60 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course.
years.
The curriculum size of the Master’s programme is in accordance with the European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS).
Students who have obtained a Bachelor degree cum laude or have passed the Bachelor exami-

nation with an average mark of 7.5 or higher are invited to follow the ‘Honours Track’ pro-
gramme. This track puts the excellent student in a position to follow an additional programme
of 30 EC.
Foreign students can be admitted to the HT programme on the basis of excellent study results
(average mark ≥ 7.5) in the first semester of the first Master’s year.

Learning the higher-level technological activities, for example synthesis and design, are sup-
ported by project work of different types at different stages of the student’s progression through
the Master programme. The balance between teaching and creative learning is well served.
the programme. While lectures, workshops and project meetings take up about 28% of the
total study load, the didactic concept is very much based on self-study (27%) and thesis work
(45%) and aims at developing autonomy and independence.
tion as well as for the distribution of course materials such as lecture notes.
The development and introduction of interactive learning material and self-tests with feed-
back could increase the efficiency of the teaching process.

The learning targets of the courses are very well defined (see Facet 5), and the exams consist-
ently test these learning outcomes.
Test questions are evaluated by peers, prior to the examination, to ensure their validity (of
learning goals tested) and reliability (of student’s understanding).
Students receive adequate feedback on tests in several ways: from the review of tests during
lectures to direct feedback in oral examinations.
To prepare the student, an example test and model answers are published on the Blackboard
site of the relevant courses. Students are encouraged to consult the lecturer for questions regard-
ing specific subjects and/or the extent to which they have achieved the course objectives. For
practicals and projects the students receive feedback in a meeting with the lecturer.
The Board of Examiners is responsible for the pass/fail rules and regulations of the examina-
tion and for the assessment of the examination results. The Board appoints a Master’s Examin-
ing Committee for the assessment of each thesis.
the assessment more objective and transparent.


All major BME-related subjects are thaught by a full professor. The vast majority of full and
associate professors have a PhD: 100% and 94%, respectively, while 67% of the assistant pro-
fessors have a PhD. Academic staff are active in a specific research field for some 40% of their
total workload, and for 40% of their total workload they contribute to education. In this way
they ensure the required exchange between research and teaching.
The link with the BME professional field is established by the PRC. The PRC consists of
representatives of the professional community, two for each Master and variant programme.
The PRC discusses all aspects of education: (elaborated) exit qualifications, learning lines, cur-
riculum and course objectives, teaching method and quality control.
The syllabus of courses is comprehensive, which enables the student to enter highly specialised
and interdisciplinary areas at an early stage.

A total of 43 academic staff members, excluding physicians from LUMC and Erasmus MC
but including teachers from TNW and EWI, are involved in the BME programme of teaching
and research, representing a total of 12.9 fte for education. This number of fte’s includes the
education effort for other study programmes. The education effort for BME is relatively high,
reflecting the starting phase of this programme.
Teaching load figures at the level of the 3mE faculty only are available for the BME Master’s
programme. Expressed in terms of student to staff ratio, the teaching load increased over the
past years to a figure of 31.9 in 2004, based on 3mE staff only (based on total teaching staff
input, the student to staff ratio equals 28.5).
No vacancies at the full professor level (HL) and one vacancy at the associate/assistant profes-
sor level (ud/uhd) exist for the BME programme. The number of academic staff is sufficient
for education.
The score for the quantity of staff is: Good.

The academic staff involved in the BME programme have achieved wide recognition for their
research activities. The appointment of such staff is based on scientific qualities and research
achievements as well as on teaching qualities. Recently, it was decided to include the evaluation
and appraisal of the teaching qualities of staff as part of the annual staff appraisal (R&O) cycle.
Dedicated training courses are offered to staff members who need to improve their teaching
skills.
Newly appointed lecturers are required to obtain the ‘Basic Teacher Training’ (BKO) within
two years of their appointment.
appointed as full professors to avoid top talent leaving the university. In the recent years four
Van Leeuwenhoek professors have been appointed in the Faculty in the field of biomedical
engineering, thus securing the range of specialisms to support the Faculty’s programme.
‘Satisfactory’.

During their thesis work Master students have a desk and a desktop computer at their disposal
at a location near the research facilities.
The research facilities are well equipped.
tion as well as for the distribution of course materials such as lecture notes. Computer-based,
interactive learning material and self-tests with feedback could be used to increase the effi-
ciency of the learning process.

the students.
Each BME Master student is assigned to a Programme Coordinator who advises the students
on the composition of their individual study programme. The student meets this co-ordinator
regularly to discuss study progress.
The Programme Coordinator supplies all the information the student needs about the pro-
gramme, the planning, the internship, and the thesis. The students are satisfied with this kind
of guidance. The 3mE faculty started an international office in 2004 which advises students
regarding their study and/or internship abroad. Almost 80% of the students do their intern-
ship and/or part of their project abroad.
‘Satisfactory’.

between courses and curriculum) correspond to three closed loops in the QA process. Each
A full-time QA officer reporting to the Education and Student Affairs Department (ESAD) is
in charge of the systematic monitoring of all degree programmes in the Faculty. The monitor-
ing is carried out through the use of questionnaires (CENS) and individual evaluation meet-
ings with the BME Master students. The topics of the questionnaires are rated, and target
figures have been set.

topic, also results from this QA process.
The formal QA system is not yet fully implemented for the Master’s programme. However, a
system of scheduled meetings between the BME Master student and the Programme Coordi-
nator is operational and effective for the BME programme, supported by good informal con-
tacts between staff and students. The smaller number of students in the Master’s programme
means that a well developed understanding of the balance between formal and informal qual-
ity processes is required.

The working of the system for the follow-up of QA actions is mainly based on contacts/meet-
ings between staff (DoE, Programme Coordinator, Education Advisor) and students. The
results of such meetings are published on Blackboard.
Target scores in CENS serve as a warning limit but not yet (systematically) as a trigger for tak-
ing action.
The QA system of the 3mE Faculty is also applied to the BME Master’s programme. This
programme started in 2003, hence it is still too early to make reliable conclusions regarding
the effectiveness of the QA system.
However, the results so far indicate that the QA system represents an effective feedback loop
from students to staff.

The involvement of students is ensured through representation on the Education Committee,

the study association ‘Van Leeuwenhoek Society’, meetings of the Students’ Council with the
Dean and the DoE and through surveys. Individual meetings between lecturing staff and Mas-
ter students to review quality aspects of the Master’s programme are well organised. The direct
feedback through daily informal contacts between staff and Master students is considered as
valuable as the outcome of the surveys. The BME students mentioned that their study associa-
tion could play a stronger role in QA as is the case in other degree programmes of the Faculty.
That way they could have more influence on educational policy matters.
The self-evaluation report was compiled by a core team headed by the DoE with input from
the Programme Coordinator of the MSE programme. Students and teaching staff were con-
sulted in the final stages of the writing process.
More attention could be paid to the different professional contexts of the various Master’s
programmes.
Documented minutes of the meetings of the Education Committee are available. QA is a

main topic on the agenda. In general, students and staff are satisfied with the working of the
educational committees.
‘Satisfactory’.

4.2.6. Results

So far, only one student has graduated. Therefore, the score cannot be more than satisfactory.
The level of the Master’s thesis of this student was exceptional, resulting in several journal
papers. Hence the Committee is confident that, in future, the exit qualities attained will
match those aspired to.
F21: Onderwijsrendement
Voor het onderwijsrendement zijn streefcijfers geformuleerd in vergelijking met relevante andere opleidingen.
Het onderwijsrendement voldoet aan deze streefcijfers.
Target figures are defined for the Master’s yield within three years (55%) and the final yield
(90%). However, because the BME Master’s programme was only started in 2004, no actual
numbers are available.

5. The 3mE Faculty Material Science and Engineering, TU Delft
5.0 General and Mechanical Engineering
The Department of Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) historically originates from a Met-
allurgy Department. In the Netherlands it is unique in the sense that it offers the only academic
educational programme specifically directed to materials science. The MSE Master’s programme
started in 2003. In 2004 the MSE Department was transferred from the Faculty of Applied Sci-
ences to the – newly named – Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE
faculty). The MSE Department only recently moved to the 3mE Faculty building.
The move of the Material Sciences Department to the 3mE Faculty is strategically very inter-
esting and important. Integrating the Materials Sciences Department in the 3mE Faculty cre-
ates important opportunities to influence the syllabus of Mechanical Engineering (for example
in Biomedical Engineering) and Marine Technology by adding a new dimension to the degree.
There may also be opportunities for the MSE programme itself through cross-fertilisation
from sister departments in the 3mE faculty.

The TU Delft 3mE Faculty has chosen its mission, developed a domain-specific reference
framework (DSRF) and formulated MSE Master’s programme objectives and, from there,
developed elaborated exit qualifications as documented in the self-evaluation report.
The DSRF for Engineering Technology was formulated jointly by the three Dutch universities
of technology for their ME degree programmes and related Master’s degree programmes. Engi-
neering technology comprises, in this context, mechanical engineering and the related fields:
biomedical engineering, materials science and engineering, and systems and control.
The DSRF describes the field of engineering technology and the final competencies of the
academic engineer in generic terms of knowledge, skills and attitude.

The 3mE Faculty has formulated objectives for the MSE Master’s programme that meet the
At the time the review was conducted, a limited form of benchmarking of the MSE Master’s
The 3mE Faculty has set up a ME Professional Review Committee (PRC). The PRC consists
of twenty experts from industry and R&D with different specialisations in ME and related
fields of expertise and represents the link with industry and R&D. The PRC meets twice a year
and advises the Faculty about all aspects of education: (elaborated) exit qualifications, learning
lines, curriculum and course objectives, teaching method and quality control of the ME and
related Master’s programmes (Biomedical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering,
and Systems and Control). The PRC has been involved in reviewing the MSE Master’s pro-
gramme objectives, exit qualifications and curriculum.
in the academic and professional MSE domain.
F2: Level
the Dublin descriptors, that must be respected according to the QANU protocol. By having
Dublin descriptors.

F3: Orientation
University (WO):
The Materials Science and Engineering Department has a strong materials science tradition
that grooms students to PhD study which is reflected in the large number of PhD students
who have moved into the Materials Science and Engineering Department.
The exit qualifications of the Master’s programme comply with the international scientific
requirements regarding materials science and engineering and those of the professional field.
At the time of evaluation, the MSE Department counted 53 PhD students. Of these students,
eleven held a Master’s degree from TU Delft, of whom nine held a Master’s degree of the
former integral course or the 2003 MSE Master’s programme.
The position on the labour market of the MSE Master graduates is good due to their capabil-
ity to conduct independent academic research and/or to resolve multidisciplinary and inter-
disciplinary questions. Almost all graduates found a job within a few months, either in the
Netherlands or abroad.
5.2.2. Programme

evant disciplines;
The programme offered is very strongly anchored in research: the Department has over 50
PhD students engaged in frontline research using excellently equipped laboratories.
There are no courses on specialist materials, such as biomaterials (there is an elective course on
this topic in the Nanotechnology programme), composite materials (there is an elective course
in the Aeronautical Engineering programme) and ‘smart materials’. On the other hand, the
rather general topic ‘Materials in art and archaeology’ is offered as a specialisation, but is not
often chosen by students.

An internship does not appear formally on the programme, but one can be chosen as an elec-
tive of 6 EC.
The course ‘Technology and Society’ was recently replaced by ‘Ethics & Engineering’ and
‘Complex Organisations’.
There is a strong link with the professional practice and with R&D through the PRC, staff work-
ing part-time in industry or at research institutes, and through joint research programmes.
ponents.
been formulated.
Elaborate exit qualifications have been worked out for the MSE Master’s programme. These
exit qualifications are regularly and formally discussed in the PRC. In addition, the learning
outcomes are clearly defined for each of the courses.
Commendably, TU Delft is the only one university of 3TU that explicitly shows the relation
Each specialisation offered within the MSE Master’s programme contains a number of com-
pulsory courses which are intended to contribute to the exit qualifications. The course con-
tents relate fundamental materials science principles to important engineering applications.
Master’s thesis projects explicitly aim at publication of a scientific paper. More than half of the
Master’s theses are developed in industry.
Students show a great enthusiasm for the programme, whereas the teaching staff seems to need
more time to adjust to the recent transfer from the Faculty of Applied Physics to the 3mE
Faculty and the move to another building.

As the MSE Master’s programme is not preceded by a MSE Bachelor’s programme, students
entering the programme have a background in a variety of disciplines such as mechanical
engineering, electrical engineering, physics or applied physics, chemistry and chemical engi-
neering, civil engineering, marine technology and aerospace engineering. The mix of these
backgrounds brings along an added value for the students in the programme.
During the first semester of the first year, students follow an individually prescribed list of
courses, 30 EC in total. During the second semester, students follow a generic course on Mate-

rials Science and a module on Technology and Society, again 30 EC in total. In the second
year, students follow one of five specialisation courses (20 EC), in which the room for electives
is limited to 6 EC, which may be used for an internship as well.
In summary, adequate lists of compulsory and elective courses have been defined for each spe-
cialisation, together with detailed rules to compose a study programme, to make sure that the
study programme is coherent, to make up for knowledge gaps due to the background of the
student entering the programme, and to avoid overlap.
In order to enhance the coherence between the Bachelor’s and the Master’s phases, a minor
(30 EC) in Materials Science and Engineering has recently been created in the Bachelor’s pro-
grammes of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Physics.
F7: Study load

Some students take longer than the nominal time to finish the programme. This is probably
due to the fact that they spend fewer than the planned 40 hours per week. On the other hand,
a small number of students have proven that it is possible to finish within the nominal study
time.
Study load is monitored, and the nominal load of a number of courses has been increased in
the past, because of student evaluations.
On the other hand, the Master’s thesis project frequently takes more time than planned,
because both the student and the thesis supervisor desire a better or more extensive result than
initially intended.
The programme is confronted with a multicultural student population. Cultural and language
differences can cause an increased study load for students coming from abroad and some
impediments (for example, communication problems in team work) for Dutch students. The
Education Committee is aware of this problem and is working on it.
F8: Intake
the degree course:
process.
The programme attracts a very broad international student population (amongst others from
China, Indonesia, Greece, etc.). Students entering the programme hold Bachelor’s degrees
from different universities as well as from polytechnics (i.e. an institute for higher profes-

sional education). The curriculum is designed for students with an appropriate BSc degree from
TU Delft or from one of the IDEA League universities. They are admitted without selection.
Students holding another Bachelor’s degree from a (technical) university or polytechnic can be
accepted after evaluation of the contents of their Bachelor’s programme. The Board of Examiners
is responsible for this selection and for the definition of any required additional programme.
There is no specific MSE Bachelor’s programme at TU Delft or even in the Netherlands.
The Committee was most impressed by the enthusiastic responses from the students, for most
of which materials science ‘is a mission’.
The programme has rather low intake numbers (nine per year). An increase in the intake is
expected from the minor (30 EC) in Materials Science and Engineering that was developed
and introduced recently at TU Delft in the Bachelor’s programmes of Mechanical Engineering
and Applied Physics.
F9: Duration
The Master’s curriculum has a study load of 120 EC and a nominal study duration of two years.
Students who have obtained a Bachelor’s degree cum laude or have passed the Bachelor’s exam-
ination with an average mark of 7.5 or higher are invited to follow the ‘Honours Track’ pro-
of 30 EC.

Learning the creative engineering skills, for example synthesis and design, is supported by
project work of different types at different stages of the student’s progression through the Mas-
ter’s programme, and the balance between teaching and creative learning is well served. Two
main educational forms are used, i.e. lectures and assignments, thereby taking into account
that the students are in an advanced stage of their study and to a large extent able to work
independently. While lectures and practicals take up about 24% of the total study load, the
didactic concept is very much based on self-study (43%) and thesis work (33%) and aims at
developing autonomy and independence further. An optional internship targets work at a level
comparable to what is expected after graduation.

The teaching methods are in line with the objectives and the contents of the programme and
tuned to the multicultural student population, which is a very commendable effort.

The learning targets of the courses are very well defined (see Facet 5), and the exams consistently
test these learning outcomes. Test questions are evaluated by peers, prior to the examination,
to ensure their validity (of learning goals tested) and reliability (of student’s understanding).
lectures to direct feedback in oral examinations.
To prepare the students, an example test and model answers are published on the Blackboard
site of the relevant courses. Students are encouraged to consult the lecturer about questions
regarding specific subjects and/or the extent to which they have achieved the course objectives.
For practicals and projects, the students receive feedback in a meeting with the lecturer.
The Board of Examiners is responsible for the pass/fail rules and regulations of the examination
and for the assessment of the examination results. The Board appoints a Master’s Examination
Committee for the assessment of each thesis. The split of the Master’s thesis into separate units
(literature study, internship, thesis) makes the assessment more objective and transparent.

All major MSE-related subjects are taught by a full professor. The majority of full, associate
and assistant professors have a PhD: 88%, 100% and 100%, respectively. Tenured academic
staff are active in a specific research field for some 40% of their total workload, and for 40%
of their total workload they contribute to education. In this way they ensure the required
exchange between research and teaching.
There is a strong link with the professional practice and with R&D through the PRC, staff work-
ing part-time in industry or at research institutes, and through joint research programmes.

A total of 95 3mE staff members are involved in the MSE programme of teaching and research,
representing a total of 4.66 fte for education.
Staff numbers are sufficient for education. The teaching load, expressed in terms of the student
to staff ratio, decreased over the past few years to a figure of 11.6 in 2004, based on 3mE staff
only. No academic staff vacancies exist in the MSE Department.
The score for the quantity of staff is: Good.

The academic staff have the advanced know-how and the exceptionally well equipped facilities
needed to develop and implement a top-level programme of high educational quality.
The appointment of staff is based on scientific qualities and research achievements as well as
on teaching qualities. Recently, it was decided to include the evaluation and appraisal of the
teaching qualities of staff as part of the annual staff appraisal (R&O) cycle. Dedicated training
courses are offered to staff members who need to improve their teaching skills.
Newly appointed lecturers are required to obtain the ‘Basic Teacher Training’ (BKO) within
two years of their appointment.
The monitoring of the development of teaching skills seems new in this Department and
should be assessed in the next evaluation.
The Faculty’s career policy is supported by the ‘Van Leeuwenhoek’ programme, funded by TU
Delft. Under this programme a limited number of associate professors of proven excellence
can be appointed as full professors to avoid top talent leaving the university. In recent years
one Van Leeuwenhoek professor has been appointed in the MSE Department, so ensuring the
range of specialisms required to support the degree programme.
‘Satisfactory’.


Exceptionally well equipped experimental research facilities are available to support the devel-
opment and implementation of a top-level programme of high educational quality. There is
a wealth of analytical equipment available in the laboratories. Despite the recent move, all the
basic analytical equipment was back in operation.
tion as well as for the distribution of course materials such as lecture notes. Computer-based,
interactive learning material and self-tests with feedback could be used to increase the effi-
ciency of the learning process.

the students.
MSE Master’s students meet the Masters Coordinator regularly to discuss study progress. The
Masters coordinator advises the student on the composition of a coherent, individual pro-
gramme. The Masters Coordinator supplies all the information the student needs for his/her
progress in the programme, its planning, the internship, and the thesis.
The students are satisfied with this kind of guidance.
The 3mE Faculty established an international office in 2004 which offers support for students
in planning their internship abroad.
‘Satisfactory’.

between courses, and curriculum) correspond to three closed loops in the QA process. Each
in charge of the systematic monitoring of all degree programmes in the Faculty.
The monitoring is carried out through the use of questionnaires (CENS) and individual evalu-
ation meetings with the MSE Master students. The topics of the questionnaires are rated, and
target figures have been set.

topic, also resulted from this QA process.
The formal QA system is not yet implemented for the Master’s programme. However, a sys-
tem of scheduled meetings between the MSE Master students and the Masters Coordinator
is operational and effective for the MSE programme, supported by good informal contacts
between staff and students. The small number of students in the Master’s programme means
that a well developed understanding of the balance between formal and informal quality proc-
esses is required.

The working of the system for the follow-up of QA actions is mainly based on contacts/meet-
ings between staff (DoE, Masters Coordinator, Education Advisor) and students and seems to
work well. The results of such meetings are published in Blackboard.
Target scores in CENS serve as a warning limit but not yet (systematically) as a trigger for the
taking of action.
The recommendations of the previous educational evaluation of the five-year doctoral pro-
gramme ‘Technische Materiaalwetenschappen’ (VSNU 1999) have been followed up care-
fully. The Faculty has undertaken to carry out a sizable list of specific actions since the last
evaluation and the majority of the recommendations have been implemented. This resulted,
for example, in the introduction of small projects in the first semester of the programme, in
the formal development of programme objectives, in an increased number of elective courses,
and in the implementation of an effective QA system. Some actions have been rendered obso-
lete because the five-year doctoral programme has ceased to exist. The increase of the student
inflow remains an important point of attention.
It is still too early to make reliable conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the new system.
However, the results so far indicate that the QA system represents an effective (formal) feed-
back loop from students to staff.

Involvement of students is ensured through representation on the Education Committee,

meetings of the Students’ Council with the Dean and the DoE, and through the surveys. Indi-
vidual meetings between teaching staff and Master students to review quality aspects of the
Master’s programmes are well organised. The direct feedback through daily informal contacts
between staff and Master students is considered as valuable as the outcome of the surveys. The

MSE students don’t have an active study association as is the case in other degree programmes
of the Faculty. Their study association ‘Tubalkain’ ceased to exist shortly after the Committee’s
visit. Consequently, the students lack an opportunity to influence educational policy matters.
The self-evaluation report was compiled by a core team headed by the DoE with input from
the coordinator of the MSE programme. Students and teaching staff were consulted in the
final stages of the writing process.
programmes.
Documented minutes of the meetings of the Education Committee are available. QA is a

main topic on the agenda. In general, students and staff are satisfied with the working of the
Educational Committees.
‘Satisfactory’.
5.2.6. Results

No students have graduated from the 2005 Master’s programme yet. However, this programme
is the successor of the former integral course in Technical Material Sciences and of the Master’s
programme that started in 2003.
The Master’s theses of these former programmes reviewed by the Committee show a consist-
ently high level and a good correlation between level and obtained grade, as appreciated by the
Committee.
Most graduates of this former programme found suitable employment quickly after gradua-
tion, many of them in a MSE-related function.
Based on the above findings, the Committee is confident that the final qualities will match
those aspired to and that the quality of the graduates will be high.
(90%). However, because the MSE Master’s programme started only in 2003, very limited

actual numbers are available. These indicate that the first target figure will be met.

6. The 3mE Faculty Systems and Control, TU Delft
6.0 General and Mechanical Engineering
The start of the MSc programme Systems and Control was strongly related to the establish-
ment of the Delft Centre for Systems and Control (DCSC), a merger of three former systems
and control groups of the Departments of Electrical Engineering (EWI), Mechanical Engi-
neering (3mE) and Applied Physics (TNW), and centred around fundamental and generic
aspects of systems and control engineering.

The TU Delft 3mE Faculty has chosen its mission, developed a domain-specific reference
framework (DSRF) and formulated SC Master’s programme objectives and, from there, devel-
oped elaborated exit qualifications as documented in the self-evaluation report.
The DSRF for Engineering Technology was formulated jointly by the three Dutch universities
of technology for their ME degree programmes and related Master’s degree programmes. Engi-
neering technology comprises in this context mechanical engineering and the related fields:
biomedical engineering, materials science and engineering, and systems and control.
The DSRF describes the field of engineering technology and the final competencies of the
academic engineer, in generic terms of knowledge, skills and attitude.
The 3mE Faculty has formulated objectives for the SC Master’s programme that meet the
At the time the review was conducted, a limited form of benchmarking of the SC Master’s

The 3mE Faculty has set up a ME Professional Review Committee (PRC). The PRC consists
of twenty experts from industry and R&D with different specialisations in ME and related
fields of expertise and represents the link with industry and R&D. The PRC meets twice a
year and advises the faculty about all aspects of education: (elaborated) exit qualifications,
learning lines, curriculum and course objectives, teaching method and quality control of the
ME and related Master’s programmes (Biomedical Engineering, Materials Science and Engi-
neering, and Systems and Control). The PRC has been involved in reviewing the SC Master’s
programme objectives, exit qualifications and curriculum.
in the academic and professional Systems and Control domain.
F2: Level
formal statement on the nature of engineering degrees at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels in
their ‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’ (2nd edition, Jan. 2005). These
criteria are formally accepted by NVAO as a more expanded and relevant statement of the
Dublin descriptors, that must be respected according to the QANU protocol.
Dublin descriptors.

F3: Orientation
University (WO):
The SC Master’s programme exit qualifications comply with the international requirements
regarding an academic education and those of the professional field. The SC Master graduates
have ample opportunity to continue on to a PhD study.
At the time of the evaluation, the Delft Centre for Systems and Control (DCSC) counted 47
PhD students, of whom 24 held an ME Master’s degree from TU Delft.
The position on the labour market of the SC Master graduates is good due to their capability
plinary questions. All graduates found a job within a few months, either in the Netherlands
or abroad.
The score for this facet is:Good.
6.2.2. Programme

evant disciplines;
The programme is strongly embedded in the high-level research of the Delft Centre for Sys-
tems and Control (DCSC), with 40 PhD students. The Centre was founded in 2003 as a joint
venture of the Faculties of Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Applied Sci-
ences. PhD training in systems and control is coordinated by the Dutch graduate school DISC
(Dutch Institute of Systems and Control).
The programme does not offer further specialisations or variants. The first year includes 24
EC of compulsory courses, of which 5 EC is reserved for an integration project (design of a
controller) which integrates the knowledge built up in previous courses. In addition, there are
32 EC of elective courses and 4 EC of non-technical courses.

The second year comprises 60 EC of assignments including project work, Master’s thesis
project and internship. The internship is optional. Almost all students choose it in conjunc-
tion with the Master’s thesis. Few students take the internship abroad.
There is a strong link with the professional practice and with R&D through the PRC, through
affiliated research groups and through joint research projects, reflecting the strong network in
the academic and research world.
ponents.
been formulated.
Elaborate exit qualifications have been worked out for the SC Master’s programme. These exit
qualifications are regularly and formally discussed in the review panel with industry: the PRC.
In addition, the learning outcomes are clearly defined for each of the courses.
Commendably, TU Delft is the only university of 3TU that explicitly shows the relation
The SC Master’s programme contains a number of compulsory courses which are intended to
cover the exit qualifications.
Students as well as teachers show a great enthusiasm for the programme.
The Master’s graduates have a high level of academic qualifications and in particular a strong
research basis, as reflected in the theses.
Students expressed the opinion that the Faculty should strengthen the collaboration with
industry.

The Master’s programme is not preceded by an SC Bachelor’s programme. As a result, stu-

dents entering the programme have a broad and solid background in a basic discipline such
as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, applied mathematics, applied physics or
aerospace engineering.
Depending on the particular background of the student, elective courses may be chosen to
remedy knowledge gaps.
Knowledge integration carries a high and successful profile in the SC Master’s programme.
Knowledge acquired through compulsory courses in the first Master’s year is applied in the

‘Integration project’ (1st year) and, together with the elective courses, integrated in the Master’s
thesis in the 2nd year.
The elective courses in systems and control have been arranged into four profiles in order to
facilitate the choice of a coherent set of electives.
F7: Study load

Some students take longer than the nominal study time of 2 years to complete the programme.
This is probably due to the fact that they spend fewer than the planned 40 hours per week.
On the other hand, a small number of students have proven that it is possible to finish within
the nominal time.
The study load is monitored, and the nominal study loads of a number of courses have been
adapted in the past because of student evaluations.
On the other hand, the Master’s thesis project frequently takes more time than planned,
because both the student and the thesis supervisor desire a better or more extensive result than
originally intended.
A challenge which is done very well is the teaching of the compulsory course on control theory
to students with such different backgrounds.
Due to their varied background, students interested in the control of chemical or biochemical
processes might encounter difficulties in mastering the basics of the chemical or biochemi-
cal application discipline. This problem has been recognized, and an introductory course on
‘Chemistry and Chemical Plants’ has been organised to address this problem. However, it is
questionable whether a basic 3 EC course on Chemistry and Chemical Plants is sufficient to
make up for a completely absent chemical background.
F8: Intake
the degree course:
process.
The curriculum is designed for students with an appropriate BSc degree from a Dutch uni-
versity of technology in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, aerospace engineering
or a Bachelor’s degree from one of the IDEA League universities. They are admitted without
selection. Students holding another Bachelor’s degree from the named (technical) universities
or from polytechnics (higher professional education, abbreviated hbo) can be accepted after
evaluation of the contents and the study results of their Bachelor’s programme. The Intake
Coordinator of the Board of Examiners is responsible for this selection and for the defini-

tion of any required additional programme up to a maximum study load of 30 EC. The SC
Master’s programme is believed to attract students with a high level of abstract thinking (“the
best students of mechanical engineering”) and also recruits internationally. Still, getting all the
students up to speed in linear algebra is a challenge.
The intake is around 25 students per year; about 50 Master’s students in total follow the SC
Master’s programme.
F9: Duration
The Master’s curriculum has a study load of 120 EC and a nominal study duration of two
years.
Students who have obtained a Bachelor’s degree cum laude or have passed the Bachelor’s exam-
ination with an average mark of 7.5 or higher are invited to follow the ‘Honours Track’ pro-
of 30 EC.

Learning the higher-level technological activities, e.g. synthesis and design, are supported by
project work of different types, like the introduction and integration projects in the first year
and the literature study, internship and Master’s thesis in the last year, at different stages of
the student’s progression through the Master’s programme. The balance between teaching and
creative learning is well served.
the programme. While lectures and project meetings take up about 24% of the total study
load, the didactic concept is very much based on self-study (31%) and thesis work (45%), and
aims at developing autonomy and independence. Part of the thesis work, equivalent to a study
load of 14 EC, can be carried out as an internship in industry or at a research institute.
Rather than using interactive computer-aided learning programmes, students ask for more
attention and greater access from the teachers and PhD students.


The learning targets of the courses are very well defined (see facet 5), and the exams consistently
test these learning outcomes. Test questions are evaluated by peers, prior to the examination,
to ensure their validity (of learning goals tested) and reliability (of student’s understanding).
lectures and direct feedback in oral examinations, to ‘model’ answers for written examinations.
Students are encouraged to consult the lecturer in the case of questions regarding specific sub-
jects and/or the extent to which they have achieved the course objectives. For practicals and
projects, the students receive feedback in a meeting with the lecturer.
the assessment more objective and transparent.
The Board of Examiners is responsible for the pass/fail rules and regulations of the examina-
tion and for the assessment of the examination results.

All major SC-related subjects are taught by one of the full professors. The majority of full and
associate professors have a PhD: 83% and 86%, respectively, while 67% of the assistant pro-
fessors have a PhD. Tenured academic staff are active in a specific research field for some 40%
of their total workload, and for 40% of their total workload they contribute to education. In
this way they ensure the required exchange between research and teaching. The scientific staff
is highly multidisciplinary.
The link with the system and control industry and relevant research institutes is established by
the Mechanical Engineering PRC, the networks of the academic staff and by activities organ-
ised by the ‘Out of Control’ study association.
The PRC consists of representatives of the professional community, two for each Master’s/var-
iant programme. The PRC discusses all aspects of education: (elaborated) exit qualifications,
learning lines, curriculum and course objectives, teaching method and quality control.

A total of 62 DCSC staff members are involved in the SC programme of teaching and research.
They represent 10.09 fte education. Staff numbers are sufficient for education.
Only 3mE teaching load figures are available for the SC Master’s programme. The 3mE teach-
ing load, expressed in terms of the student to staff ratio, increased over the past years to a figure
of 31.9 in 2004, based on 3mE staff only (based on total teaching staff input, the student to
staff ratio equals 28.5).
No vacancies exist at the full professor level, while there are two vacancies at the associate/
assistant professor level.

The academic staff all have the advanced know-how required to develop and implement a top-
level programme of high educational quality. The appointment of staff is based on scientific
qualities and research achievements as well as on teaching qualities. The latter are nowadays
considered equally important. Recently, it was decided to include the evaluation and appraisal
of the teaching qualities of staff as part of the annual staff appraisal (R&O) cycle. Dedicated
training courses are offered to staff members who need to improve their teaching skills.
Newly appointed lecturers are required to obtain the ‘Basic Teacher Training’ within two years
of their appointment.
appointed as full professors to avoid top talent leaving the university. In the recent years two
Van Leeuwenhoek professors have been appointed in the field of systems and control, thus
ensuring the range of specialisms required to support the Faculty’s programme.
‘Satisfactory’.


The research facilities are well equipped.

the students.
Each SC Master student is assigned a Programme Coordinator. The student meets this Coor-
dinator regularly to discuss study progress. International students and polytechnic students
are, in addition, monitored closely by student-coaches.
The Programme Coordinator supplies all the information needed by a Master student for his/
her progress in the programme, its planning, the internship and the thesis. The students are
satisfied with this level of guidance.
The 3mE Faculty started an international office in 2004 which supports students in planning
their internship abroad.
In preparation for the final phase of the MSc study, the DCSC Department organises the
so-called ‘Bladel sessions’ for all new MSC students (the name refers to the place where these
sessions are held) to discuss topics that are of interest to them like possible MSc thesis projects
and internship.
‘Satisfactory’.


between courses, and curriculum) correspond to three closed loops in the QA process. Each
in charge of the systematic monitoring of all degree programmes in the Faculty. The monitor-
ing is carried out through the use of questionnaires (CENS) and individual evaluation meet-
ings with the SC Master’s students. The topics of the questionnaires are rated and target figures
have been set.
The self-evaluation report, including a clear summary of strong/weak points per topic, also
resulted from this QA process. However, the SER for the SC Master’s programme seemed
too much a copy of the ME SER and is less reflective. This observation was adjusted by very
informative meetings with the students and the staff of SC.
The formal QA system is not yet implemented for the Master’s programme. However, a sys-
tem of scheduled meetings between the SC Master’s student and the Programme Coordina-
tor is operational and effective for the SC programme, supported by good informal contacts
between staff and students. The small number of students in the Master’s programme means
that a well developed understanding of the balance between formal and informal quality proc-
esses is required.
The score for this facet is: Satisafctory.

The system for follow-up of QA actions is mainly based on contacts/meetings between staff
(DoE, Coordinator, Education Advisor) and students. The results of such meetings are pub-
lished on Blackboard.
The Faculty has undertaken to carry out a sizable list of specific actions since the last visit.
Target scores in CENS serve as a warning limit but not yet (systematically) as a trigger for the
taking of action.
The QA system of the 3mE Faculty is also implemented for the SC Master’s programme. This
programme started in 2003, hence it is still too early to make reliable conclusions regarding
the effectiveness of the QA system.
However, the results so far indicate that the QA system represents an effective feedback loop
from students to staff.

A strong involvement of students is ensured through representation on the Education Com-

mittee, the ‘Out of Control’ study association, meetings of the Students’ Council with the
Dean and the DoE and through surveys. Individual meetings of the teaching staff and Master
students to review quality aspects of the Master’s programme are well organised.
The direct feedback through daily informal contacts between staff and Master’s students is
considered to be as valuable as the outcome of the surveys.
The self-evaluation report has been compiled by a core team headed by the DoE with input
from the Programme Coordinator of the SC Master’s programme. Students and teaching staff
were consulted in the final stages of the writing process.
programmes.
Documented minutes of the meetings of the Education Committee are available. QA is a main
topic on the agenda. In general, students and staff are satisfied with the working of the Educa-
tion Committee.
‘Satisfactory’.
6.2.6. Results

The Master’s theses reviewed by the Committee showed a consistently high level and a good
correlation between level and obtained grade, as appreciated by the Committee.
At the time of evaluation of this programme, only a few students have graduated from this pro-
gramme, and no information is available yet about the career of a SC MSc graduate. However,
there is experience with graduates from systems and control variants within mechanical engi-
neering, electrical engineering and applied physics. These graduates have found a job within
their field of specialisation relatively easily.
Based on the above findings, the Committee is confident that the final qualities will match
those aspired to and that the quality of the graduates will be high.

(90%). Because the SC Master’s programme was only started in 2003, no reliable numbers are
available yet to draw any conclusions.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Appointment notice (“Instellingsbesluit”)
INSTELLINGSBESLUIT VISITATIECOMMISSIE
Werktuigbouwkunde / mechanical engineering
d.d. 5 september 2006
Het bestuur van de Stichting Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU), gelet op zijn
brief d.d. 23 december 2005 aan de Colleges van Bestuur van de universiteiten over het voorne-
men van QANU om in 2006 een onderwijsvisitatie Werktuigbouwkunde / Mechanical Enginee-
ring te organiseren en de daarop ontvangen opdrachtbrieven van het College van Bestuur,
BESLUIT
A. tot instelling van een visitatiecommissie voor de Bachelor- en Masteropleidingen res-

pectievelijk Werktuigbouwkunde en Mechanical Engineering;
B. tot voorzitter, tevens lid, van de visitatiecommissie te benoemen

• prof. J. De Schutter;
C. tot leden van de commissie te benoemen:

• ir. H. Wierda
• prof. R. Ohayon
• dr. C. Van Den Bogaert
• prof. A. Demaid
• prof. G. Van der Perre
• G.J.A. Karsemakers
• M. Haagsma
D. tot secretaris van de commissie te benoemen:

• ir. P.C. van Holten van het bureau QANU
E. met betrekking tot de visitatie voor de Bachelor- en Masteropleidingen Werktuigbouw-

kunde / Mechanical Engineering de navolgende uitvoeringsbepalingen vast te stellen:
a. de visitatiecommissie heeft tot taak om op basis van de door de desbetreffende faculteit

of het desbetreffende instituut aan te leveren informatie en door middel van ter plaatse
te voeren gesprekken:
1. een oordeel te geven over de verschillende kwaliteitsaspecten van de betrokken
opleidingen, zoals beschreven in het QANU-kader ;
2. op basis daarvan vast te stellen of de opleidingen naar haar oordeel voldoen aan
de criteria voor basiskwaliteit, en
3. de aspecten van de opleidingen te identificeren die naar haar oordeel voor verbe-
tering vatbaar zijn;

Gids voor de externe kwaliteitsbeoordeling van wetenschappelijke Bachelor- en Masteropleidingen ten behoeve van
Accreditatie, januari 2004

b. de bevindingen van de visitatiecommissie ten aanzien van de opleidingen worden in
een rapport vastgelegd volgens het in het genoemde QANU-kader gegeven model; de
commissie brengt haar rapport uit aan het bestuur van de Stichting QANU;
c. de visitatie betreft de volgende opleidingen:
Universiteit Faculteit Opleidingen CROHO

Technische Mechanical, Marine and • Werktuig- 56966
Universiteit Delft Materials Engineering bouwkunde
(3mE) (Bachelor)
• Bio Medical Engi- 66226
neering (Master)
• Materials Science 66958
& Engineering
(Master)
• Mechanical Engi- 60439
neering (Master)
• Systems and 60359
Control (Master)
Technische Werktuigbouwkunde • Werktuigbouw- 56966
Universiteit kunde (Bachelor)
Eindhoven
neering (Master)
Universiteit Twente Technische • Werktuigbouw- 56966
Natuurwetenschappen kunde (Bachelor)
neering (Master)
d. de visitatiecommissie voert haar werkzaamheden uit overeenkomstig de richtlijnen van

het genoemde QANU-kader, met inbegrip van de bepalingen ten aanzien van de onaf-
hankelijkheid van de commissieleden;
e. een afschrift van dit besluit te zenden aan:

• de Colleges van Bestuur van de betrokken universiteiten;
• de leden van de visitatiecommissie;
• de betrokken faculteitsbesturen;
• de voorzitter van de VSNU;
• de voorzitter van het Decanenoverleg;
• de deelnemers aan het K&A-overleg;
• de Inspectie van het Onderwijs;
• de voorzitter van de NVAO;
• het Ministerie van OCW.
Utrecht, 5 september 2006

Bestuur van Stichting QANU,
drs. J.G.F. Veldhuis

voorzitter
– English translation –
APPOINTMENT NOTICE FOR SITE VISIT COMMITTEE

WERKTUIGBOUWKUNDE/mechanical engineering
5 September 2006
The Board of the Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities Foundation (QANU), with
regard to its letter dated 23 December 2005 sent to the Board of Governors of the various
universities about its intention to organise an educational visit for the Mechanical Engineering
Department in 2006 and the letters of intent received from those Boards of Governors,
DECREES
A. the establishment of a Review Committee for the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes
of Werktuigbouwkunde and Mechanical Engineering, respectively;
B. the appointment as chair, and member, of the Review Committee

• Prof. J. De Schutter;
C. the appointment as members of the committee:

• Ir. H. Wierda
• Prof. R. Ohayon
• Dr. C. Van Den Bogaert
• Prof. A. Demaid
• Prof. G. Van der Perre
• G.J.A. Karsemakers
• M. Haagsma
D. the appointment as secretary of the committee:

• Ir. P.C. van Holten from the QANU office
E. the setting of the following conditions for conducting the site visit for the Bach-
elor’s and Master’s programmes in Werktuigbouwkunde / Mechanical Engineering:
a. the task of the Review Committee is, based on the information provided by the faculty
of the institute concerned and interviews conducted during the site visit:
1. to evaluate the various quality aspects of the programmes concerned, as described
in the QANU protocol;
2. and to determine on that basis whether the programmes meet the criteria for
fundamental quality in its opinion, and
3. to identify the aspects of the programmes that could be improved in its opinion;

Guide for the external evaluation of quality of research-oriented Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes for the purposes
of Accreditation, January 2004

b. the findings of the Review Committee about the programmes will be presented in a
report according to the model given in the above-mentioned QANU protocol; the
Committee will issue its report to the Board of QANU;
c. the site visit for the following programmes:
University Faculty Programmes CROHO

Delft University Mechanical, Maritime • Werktuigbouwkunde 56966
of Technology and Materials Engineer- (Bachelor)
ing (3mE) • Bio Medical 66226
Engineering (Master)
• Materials Science & 66958
Engineering (Master)
• Mechanical Engineer- 60439
ing (Master)
• Systems and Control 60359
(Master)
Eindhoven Mechanical Engineering • Werktuigbouwkunde 56966
University of (Bachelor)
Technology
ing (Master)
University of Twente Engineering Technology • Werktuigbouwkunde 56966
(CTW) (Bachelor)
ing (Master)
d. the Review Committee will conduct its task according to the guidelines of the QANU
protocol, including the requirement of independence of the Committee members;
e. a copy of this Decree will be sent to:

• the Board of Governors of the universities concerned;
• the members of the Review Committee;
• the faculty boards involved;
• the Chair of the VSNU;
• the Chair of the Deans’ Council;
• the participants in the Quality and Accreditation Council (K&A-overleg);
• the Education Inspectorate;
• the Chair of NVAO;
• the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science (OCW).
Utrecht, 5 September 2006
QANU Board,
J.G.F. Veldhuis
chair

Appendix B: Curricula Vitae of the Committee Members
Prof. J. De Schutter
Joris De Schutter was born in 1958. He received the degree of mechanical engineer from the
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Subsequently, he specialised in systems and control at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he obtained a Master’s degree at the Department
of Mechanical Engineering. In 1986 he defended his PhD thesis on programming and control
of sensor-based robots at the K.U.Leuven. Currently, Joris De Schutter is a full professor at the
Department of Mechanical Engineering of KU Leuven. Programming and control of ‘intelli-
gent’ robots is still one of his favorite research areas, but he also works on mechatronic subjects
such as the interaction between drive systems and machine dynamics. Joris De Schutter was
the coordinator of the newly developed study programme in mechatronics at KU Leuven.
This study programme started off as a postgraduate programme (1986), and later it became
a specialisation in the regular Master’s programme (1989). In 2000 he was a member of the
Evaluation Committee for the study programmes in electrical and mechanical engineering in
Wallony, and in 2004 he chaired the Evaluation Committee for the study programmes in elec-
trical engineering at the Dutch technical universities. In 2001-2003 he was the President of
the Royal Flemish Society of Engineers (K VIV), and in 2002-2004 he was the Vice-president
of CLAIU (Council of Associations of long cycle engineers of a University or Higher School
of Engineering of the European Union). He also spent short periods in industry, both in the
chemical sector (1985-1986) and the environmental sector (2000-2001).
Ir. H. Wierda
Gerhard Johan Wierda was born in 1957. He was awarded a MSc in Applied Physics from
Delft University of Technology in 1983. That same year Harry Wierda started as systems
engineer working for Fokker Aircraft where he was involved in the design and development
of simulation systems for aircraft. In 1987 he became group leader of the design and develop-
ment section. In 1990, he founded FCS Control Systems B.V. for the design and development
of high performance control systems for the simulation and test industry. In 1996 he became
Technical Director of FCS and since 2001 Business Manager Automotive Systems of the same
company. From 1997 onwards Harry Wierda has been teaching mechantronics, as an invited
lecturer, at the Department of Electrical Engineering of Delft University of Technology.
Prof. R. Ohayon
In the period 1970 to 1992 Roger Ohayon worked for the ‘Office National d’Etudes et de
Recherches Aérospatiales (National Aerospace Research Center) ONERA, Structure Direc-
tion’ in Chatillon in France, for which he still acts as consultant. Since 1992 Roger Ohayon
has been Professor, Chair of Mechanics and Director of the Structural Mechanics and Cou-
pled Systems Laboratory of the ‘Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers’. Roger Ohayon
received awards from the French Academy of Science (1989) for the mechanical and numerical
modelling of fluid-structure interaction problems and from the International Association of
Computational Mechanics IACM (2004, at the World Congress on Computational Mechan-
ics, WCCM in Beijing) for computational mechanics. Roger Ohayon was President of the
French Computational Structural Mechanics Association (1992 – 1997). Since 1993 he has
been an honorary member of the National Academy of Engineering of Brazil. Roger Ohayon
is fellow/member of several institutions in the field of structural mechanics and on the edito-
rial board of a number of international journals.

Dr. C. Van Den Bogaert
Cis Van Den Bogaert was born in 1952 in Belgium. He received his PhD in Physics in 1980 at
the University of Antwerp (UIA) after working as a researcher at the Interuniversity Institute
of Nuclear Sciences (IIKW) in the field of experimental elementary particle physics. In 1974
he obtained the certificate of academic teacher training (Aggregaat) by which he was quali-
fied to teach in secondary school. During the period 1980-1981 he worked for the Belgian
consumers’ association (Verbruikersunie), where he did comparative quality research of home
computers and developed information tools for general project planning. From 1981 to 1983
he conducted research at the University of Antwerp (RUCA) for an interuniversity project
on more efficient education in the first study years of university. For the Flemish Interuni-
versity Council (VLIR) he co-ordinated the project ‘Research and Organisation of Educa-
tional Professionalisation for the Flemish Universities’ in 1983-1984. In the subsequent years
(1984-1999) he was at the Service for Study Guidance of the University of Antwerp (RUCA)
where he was responsible for the general organisation of the bridging courses for freshmen,
for the teaching of bridging courses in mathematics and physics, and for the co-ordination of
the study guidance for freshmen. From 1992 onwards he was the Secretary of the Education
Council and in particular responsible for the co-ordination of the education and examination
regulations and quality assurance at the university. During this period he was also one of the
founding members of the Dutch Open University’s study centre in Antwerp (1984), a com-
mittee member of the Flemish Physics Olympiad (1988-1995) and a member of the technical
advisory group (1995-1996) that prepared the Flemish entrance examination for medicine
and dentistry studies. In 1999 he was appointed secretary for educational policy matters at
the University of Antwerp (then a confederation and since 2003 a merger of RUCA, UFSIA
and UIA), and since 2003 he has been Head of the Department of Education in the rectorate
of the university. The tasks of the Department lie in the domains of educational policy and
organisation, quality assurance, educational innovation, doctoral programmes and educational
administration (study programmes, enrolment, examination results, diplomas). He is a long-
standing committee member of the Flemish Contact Group for Higher Education, which
brings together educational professionals and specialists from Flemish universities and higher
education institutions in an informal way for seminars on themes in the field of educational
development and innovation.
Prof. A. Demaid
Adrian Demaid started work in the Open University, Materials Engineering discipline, more
than a quarter of a century ago, working on innovative distance teaching techniques: in partic-
ular, the use of case studies to put formal subjects into an industrial context and advanced com-
puter-aided learning programs to support teaching. He developed an international reputation
for his research in the innovative application of knowledge-based systems in engineering. This
interdisciplinary work culminated in the development of two object-oriented representation
languages used to produce developmental software machines for testing models of engineering
design and materials selection. This work has influenced design knowledge representation and
computing language development. He founded the Knowledge-Based Systems in Engineer-
ing Research Group at the OU in the 1990s and developed this interest in knowledge-based
systems in the management domain since 2000. He chaired the postgraduate course in Manu-
facture Materials Design, part of an EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council)-funded postgraduate programme that covered all the major manufacturing methods
from the perspectives of design, materials and manufacturing using industrial case-studies:
material from this course formed an integral part of the UK’s Department of Trade and Indus-
try Materials Matter programme. He went on to become Director of the Postgraduate Manu-

facturing Masters Programme. Adrian Demaid played a leading role in a group of European
senior academics, funded within the framework of a NATO Materials Science Panel. When
the European group formed an educational charity, the European Society for Materials Educa-
tion (ESME), Adrian was appointed one of three European board members. Funding from the
COMETT-1 programme of the European Union led to the planning, technical editing and
refereeing of two books of case-studies in Manufacturing with Advanced Materials, which were
published by North-Holland.
Adrian Demaid led, with colleagues from Sheffield University, the design and presentation
of industrial postgraduate courses on Structural Integrity/Fracture Mechanics. This program
has been presented abroad, and was specially commissioned for presentation at Rolls Royce,
RR&A, British Aerospace and British Gas. As part of his ongoing work in structural integrity,
Adrian published his e-book FAIL-SAFE: The Development of Ideas in Fracture and Failure,
in 2002 and a second edition of FAIL-SAFE was published by the Open University in 2004.
Adrian acted as a strategic advisor to the EPSRC. Adrian now works in the Department of
Design & Innovation, where he holds a personal chair in Engineering Systems; he continues
to serve on national and international academic bodies.
Prof. G. Van der Perre

Georges Van der Perre was born in 1942 in Belgium. After finishing secondary school in
Greek-Latin humanities (1960), he studied at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, where he
obtained a Master’s degree in Engineering Science (Materials Science) in 1967. From 1967 to
1971 he was a research assistant at the Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering.
From 1971 to 1976 he worked as a research engineer at the Research Centre of the company
Bekaert N.V. in Zwevegem. In 1975 he obtained his doctorate in Applied Sciences (PhD)
from the KU Leuven. In 1976 he was appointed Associate Professor in Engineering Mechanics
at the Faculty of Applied Sciences (Engineering) at the KU Leuven, and in 1984 he became
full professor. From 1987 to 2005 he was head of the Biomechanics and Engineering Design
group, a newly established division of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. From 1984
to 1996 he was the chairman of the postgraduate programme in Biomedical Engineering at
KU Leuven. He lectures in engineering mechanics and biomechanics, and does research in
the area of musculoskeletal biomechanics. He is the author and co-author of more than 200
papers in this field. In 1996 he received the international distinction of Fellow of Biomateri-
als Science and Engineering, and in 1998 he was elected President of the European Society
for Biomechanics (1998-2002). He was also a member of the editorial board of the Journal of
Biomechanics (1999-2002). In 2004 he was awarded honorary membership of the European
Society of Biomechanics. Beyond education and research within his own academic field, he
has developed a broader activity in educational development, at first within the area of engi-
neering education, and later in innovation in higher education in general. His work focuses on
ICT in education, distance learning, lifelong learning and international networking. In 1986-
87 he was President of SEFI (Societe Européenne pour la Formation des Ingenieurs, European
Society for Engineering Education). He received the fellowship of SEFI in 1995. From 1993
to 2004 he was President of EuroPACE (European Program of Advanced and Continuing
Education, a network of 40 European universities based in Leuven). Within the KU Leuven
he was also Chairman of LINOV, the Leuven Institute for Innovative Learning, from 1995
to 1999. He has published a series of papers, reports and conference presentations on these
topics, and started the e-learning spin-off company EPYC in 2001. Currently, he is also edu-
cational director for the first cycle of the Bachelor’s programme in Engineering Science at KU
Leuven, and board member and academic consultant at Group T Polytechnic in Leuven.

G.J.A. Karsemakers
Guido Karsemakers was born in 1982 in the Netherlands. Since September 2001 Guido has
studied Mechanical Engineering at Eindhoven Technical University. Now he is preparing for his
MSc degree in the section Systems Engineering. This group aims to use quantitative methods
for analysis, design and realization of (manufacturing) systems exhibiting concurrent behav-
iour. He is working on a project, which is a preparation for his internship at the University
of Michigan, USA. The subject of this project and the internship is the parametric behaviour
of an augmented Lagrangian coordination method for multidisciplinary design optimization.
The internship will be finished in May 2007. Thereafter he will start his final thesis, planned
for completion in June 2008. In the academic year 2004/2005 Guido was student consultant
of the department board, advising the board with respect to subjects concerning students. In
the academic year 2003/2004 Guido was board member of study association W.S.V. Simon
Stevin in the function of Education Commissioner.
M. Haagsma, BSc
Maarten Haagsma was born in 1982 in the Netherlands. He is preparing for his MSc degree
in Mechanical Engineering, ‘Design, Production and Management’ from the University of
Twente in the Netherlands. He is currently in Auckland, New Zealand, for an internship
‘Development of a Technology Strategy’, within a furniture-producing SME. In 2005, he
received his BSc degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Twente. During his
study Maarten was a member of the Engineering Technology Faculty Committee and educa-
tional officer for the study association ‘Isaac Newton’ for one year full-time. Since 2003 he
has been a member of the Mechanical Engineering Educational Committee. In 2003 Maarten
joined the Summerschool of the Universität Dortmund in Germany. In the same year he
designed a crank axle lock, the Havon Lock, along with a fellow student; this design was
awarded the first prize for ‘the unstealable bike’ by the technical journal De Ingenieur.

Appendix C: Domain-Specific Reference Framework
Engineering Technology
The field of engineering technology, in this domain-specific reference framework, comprises

marine technology, mechanical engineering and related fields: biomedical engineering, materi-
als science and engineering, and systems and control.
Modern engineering technology comprises the conception, design, development, manufactur-

ing, operation and maintenance of systems, equipment and materials. It includes marine sys-
tems, workshop machinery, transport vehicles, instruments, process installations and medical
equipment.
Engineering technology is of great economic importance. Although many achievements are

not eye-catching and do not receive much public notice, many of the activities are essential for
the proper functioning of modern society.
During the last century engineering technology developed from a craft-based activity (empiri-
cally, built on trial and error and experience) to a science-based activity as part of the engineer-
ing sciences.
Although the more fundamental subjects, such as (applied) mathematics, structural and hydro
mechanics, and fluid dynamics, still form the foundation of engineering, there are increasing
interactions with other disciplines such as electronics, micro-electromechanical systems, infor-
mation and communication technology, materials science, chemistry, medicine and biology.
Education in the field of engineering technology

The academic engineer has a broad academic background and thorough domain knowledge
(such as: solid and hydro mechanics and fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, control engineer-
ing, materials, design and production).
He/she is capable of developing new solutions for problems by using scientific knowledge and
technology. Moreover, the engineer is able to realise the solutions in the form of new designs
and prototypes and to take into account the economic, societal and socio-cultural context.
The engineer has an independent and initiative-rich attitude and is internationally oriented in
thought and action. The academic engineer is the driving force behind the development and
implementation of new technologies and the resulting industrial activities.
A further specification of the profile of the engineer is given in ‘Criteria for Academic Bach-
elor’s and Master’s Curricula’, a joint publication of TU Delft, TU/e and UT (ISBN 90-386-
2217-1, NUR 846, January 2005).
Realization of the domain-specific reference framework

This description is an updated version of the domain description, as used for the self-evalua-
tion and education visit of the education programmes in 1999/2000.
The goals of the education degree programmes are a combination of the goals of the three
participating faculties. The description is based upon the experiences of the three faculties,
including the frequent contacts with professional and academic communities.

TU/e UT TUD ME TUD BME TUD MSE TUD SC
assessment per assessment per assessment per assessment per assessment per assessment per
Topic / Facet Topic / Facet Topic / Facet Topic / Facet Topic / Facet Topic / Facet
(Bachelor’s / (Bachelor’s / (Bachelor’s / (Master’s) (Master’s) (Bachelor’s /
Master’s) Master’s) Master’s) Master’s)
Topic 1: Objectives of the degree course Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 1: Domain-specific requirements Good Good Good Good Good Good
Facet 2: Level Good Good Good Good Good Good
Facet 3: Orientation Satisfactory / Good Satisfactory / Good Good Good Good Good

Topic 2: Programme Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 4: Requirements University Good Good Good Good Good Good
Facet 5: Relationship between aims and objec- Good Good Good / Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
tives and contents of the programme
Facet 6: Coherence of programme Good Good Good Good Good Good
Facet 7: Study load Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory/Good Satisfactory Good Good
Facet 8: Intake Good Good Satisfactory / Good Good Good Good
Facet 9: Duration Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 10: Coordination of structure and contents Good/Satisfactory Good/Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Good
of the programme
Facet 11: Assessment and examinations Good Good Satisfactory/Good Good Good Good

Topic 3: Deployment of staff Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 12: Requirements for University Good Good Good Good Good Good
Facet 13: Quantity of staff Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Good Good Good
Facet 14: Quality of staff Good Good Good Good Good Good

Topic 4: Facilities and provisions Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 15: Material facilities Satisfactory / Good Good Satisfactory/Good Good Excellent Good
Facet 16: Student support and guidance Excellent / Good Excellent / Good Good Good Good Good

Topic 5: Internal quality assurance Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 17: Evaluation of results Good Excellent Good/Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 18: Measures to effect improvement Good Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni Good Good Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Good
proffesional field

Appendix D: Assessment Summary Mechanical Engineering 2006
123
Topic 6: Results Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Facet 20: Level that has been achieved Good Good Good Satisfactory Good Good
Facet 21: Success rates Satisfactory / Unsatisf. Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Appendix E: Visit programmes
Visit Programme TU/e
Quality Assessment Mechanical Engineering, TU/e
1st day, 18 September
08.30-10.30 hrs: Committee meeting and review of documentation displayed:

1. Alumni review (WO-monitor)
2. ICT learning environment (access to ………….)
3. evaluation reports, student surveys, QA/QC manual
4. mom Study-programme Committee (OCW), Examination Com-
mittee, the Executive Committee for Examinations (DCE) and the
representation of the part-time professors (the latter acting as Profes-
sional Review Committee and representing the link with industry)
5. study books, lecture notes and readers
6. BA/MA thesis guidelines
7. Internship and related organization
8. (preliminary) examination papers (last three years) and elaboration
9. policy documents, development plans
10.30-11.30 hrs: editors of the self-evaluation report: Director of Education (& Visit
Coordinator & Head of Education Institute OIW) and the QA/QC
staff member.
11.30-12.30 hrs: students involved with quality control & assurance and administra-
tion e.g. the student advisor(s) on the Department Board (DBW) and
the student advisor(s) of the Education Institute (OIW) and the board
members of the study association ‘……’.
12.30-13.00 hrs: Committee lunch (private)
13.00-14.00 hrs: students of the Bachelor’s programme (2nd and 3rd year)
14.00-15.00 hrs: lecturers of the Bachelor’s programme
15.00-15.15hrs: break
15.15-16.00 hrs: The Executive Committee for Examinations (DCE) and the (lecture-)
members of the Study Programme Committee (OCW)
16.00-16.45 hrs: lecturers involved with graduation, study advisors and coordinator prac-
tical work, coordinator educational international affairs.
16.45-17.15 hrs: Committee review and summary of observations

17.15-18.15 hrs: get-together with drinks (set-up by TU/e-ME): further introduction of
the Committee to the representative of the University Board, the Dean
and his management team (DBW) and representatives of the Depart-
mental Council (FRW)
19.30-21.00 hrs: Committee dinner (private)
2nd day, 19 September
08.30-09.15 hrs: students of the Master’s programme
09.15-10.00 hrs: lecturers of the Master’s programme
10.00-11.00 hrs: tour of the facilities / individual discussions as requested in parallel (selec-
tion of three different tours is feasible)
12.30-15.30 hrs: (plenary) completion of worksheets, preparation of close-out presenta-

tion
15.30-16.00 hrs: ‘no-surprise’ meeting with representative of the University Board, Dean,
Director of Education and representative of the Education Office
16.00-16.30 hrs: close-out presentation (invitation by TU/e-ME; in principle for all mem-
bers of the Faculty)
17.00-18.30 hrs: Dinner in the Faculty Club, room B (dining in Eindhoven to avoid rush
hour)
18.30- 20.30 hrs: Committee travel by bus to Enschede (Twente University)
Eindhoven University of Technology

Building: W-hoog
Address: Den Dolech 2
Room: W-hoog 1.08
tel no: + 31 (0) 40 247 5580 (mw. Hetty van Neerven W-hoog 1.126)
Hotel Eindhoven
Mandarin Park Plaza Hotel
Geldropseweg 17
5611 SC Eindhoven
tel: +31 (0)40 21 25 055
Mobile tel. no. Peter van Holten: 00 31 (0)6 511 21017

Visit Programme
Quality Assessment Mechanical Engineering, UT
08.30-10.30 hrs: Committee meeting and review of documentation displayed:

1. Alumni review (WO monitor)
2. ICT learning environment (…………..)
4. mom Education Committee, Examination Committee, the Discipli-
nary Council ID&ME, the Chamber of Professors and the ‘Profes-
sional Review Committee’ (including minutes in which the curricula
of members were ‘approved’)
10.30-11.15 hrs: clarification: editors of the self-evaluation report, Director of Education

(& Visit Coordinator & Head of Education Supporting Unit, ESU)
11.15-12.00 hrs: Evaluation Committee (students involved with quality control & assur-
ance) and student members of the Education Committee.
12.00-12.30 hrs: students involved with administration e.g. Mechanical Engineering rep-
resentatives in the Faculty Council, students organized in SOWEBO
and the board members of the study association ‘Isaac Newton’
13.15-14.15 hrs: students of the Bachelor’s programme (2nd and 3rd year)
14.15-15.15 hrs: staff members teaching in the Bachelor’s programme
15.15-15.30 hrs: break
15.30-16.15 hrs: Examination Committee (BSc and MSc) and the staff members of the
Education Committee
16.45-17.00 hrs: break
17.00-18.00 hrs: get-together with drinks (set up by UT-ME): further introduction of the
Committee to the representative of the University Board, the Dean and
his management team, representatives of the Faculty Council
19.30-21.00 hrs: Committee dinner (private)

08.30-09.30 hrs: students of the Master’s programme
09.30-10.30 hrs: staff members teaching in the Master’s programme
10.30-12.00 hrs: tour of the facilities / individual discussions as requested in parallel
12.00-12.45 hrs: Committee lunch with Director of Education (for questions raised dur-
ing visit if any)
12.45-13.30 hrs: BA and MA coordinators, study advisors and coordinator practical work,
coordinator educational international affairs

tion
Director of Education and representative of the Education Supporting
Unit (ESU)
16.30-17.00 hrs: close-out presentation (invitation by UT-ME; in principle for all mem-
17.00-17.30 hrs: drinks (informal)
17.30 hrs: departure of Committee members

Twente University
Address: Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede
Building, Room: De Horst, Z-203
tel no: 00 31 (0) 53 4895607 (mw A.M. Klijnstra)
Hotel Twente
Best Western Hotel De Broeierd
Hengelosesstraat 725
7521 PA Enschede
Tel: 053 850 6500

Visit Programme
Quality Assessment Mechanical Engineering, TUD
08.30- 10.30 hrs: Committee meeting and review of documentation displayed:

1. Alumni review (WO monitor)
2. ICT learning environment (‘Blackboard’)
4. mom Education Committee, Board of Examiners and of PRC (includ-
ing minutes in which the curricula were ‘approved’)
10.30- 11.30 hrs: editors of the self-evaluation report, Director of Education (& visita-
tion coordinator), Head of Education and Student Affairs Department
(ESAD), QA/QC staff-member and representative of the Advisory Board
for Quality and Accreditation (AKA).
11.30- 12.30 hrs: ME students (BA & MA) involved with quality control, assurance and
administration: representatives in the Student Faculty Board (FSR), stu-
dent members of the Education Committee and the board members of
the study association ‘Leeghwater’.
12.30- 13.00 hrs: Committee lunch, private (arranged by TUD)
13.00- 14.00 hrs: students of the Bachelor’s programme
14.00- 15.00 hrs: lecturers of the Bachelor’s programme
15.00- 15.15 hrs: break
15.15- 16.00 hrs: Board of Examiners (ME), the (lecture) members of the Education Com-
mittee (ME) and MSc Variant Coordinator (ME)
16.00- 16.45 hrs: study advisors, coordinator practical work and coordinator educational
international affairs
16.45- 18.00 hrs: tour of the facilities (ME) / individual discussions as requested in parallel
18.00- 18.30 hrs: Committee review and summary of observations
18.30- 19.30 hrs: travel to hotel and preparation for dinner
19.30- 21.00 hrs: Committee dinner, private (arranged by QANU)

08.30- 09.15 hrs: students of the ME Master’s programme
09.15- 10.00 hrs: lecturers of the ME Master’s programme
10.00- 10.15 hrs: break (summary of observations ME Master’s programme)
10.15- 10.45 hrs: BME students involved with quality control and assurance, student
members of the Education Committee (BME) and BME student mem-
bers of the faculty council and of the board of the study association
‘Leeghwater’
10.45- 11.30 hrs: students of the BME Master’s programme
11.30- 12.15 hrs: lecturers of the BME Master’s programme
12.45- 13.30 hrs: tour of the facilities (BME) / individual discussions as requested in parallel
13.30- 14.15 hrs: Board of Examiners (BME), the (lecture) members of the Education
Committee (BME), Programme Coordinator (BME)
14.15- 14.30 hrs: break (summary of observations BME Master’s programme)
14.30- 15.00 hrs: MS&E students involved with quality control and assurance, student
members of the Education Committee (MS&E) and MS&E student
members of the faculty council and of the board of the study association
‘Leeghwater’
15.00- 15.45 hrs: students of the MS&E Master’s programme
15.45- 16.30 hrs: lecturers of the MS&E Master’s programme
16.30- 17.15 hrs: tour of the facilities (MS&E) / individual discussions as requested in
parallel
17.15- 18.00 hrs: Board of Examiners (MS&E), the (lecture) members of the Education
Committee (MS&E), Programme Coordinator (MS&E)
18.00- 19.00 hrs: get-together with drinks (arranged by TUD-ME): further introduc-
tion of the Committee to the representative of the University Board,
the Dean and his management team and representatives of the Faculty
Works Council (ODC)
19.00- 19.15 hrs: Committee review (summary of observations MS&E Master’s pro-
gramme)

19.15- 20.00 hrs: travel to hotel and preparation for dinner
20.00-21.30 hrs: Committee dinner, private (arranged by QANU)
3rd day, 27 September
08.30- 09.00 hrs: SC students involved with quality control and assurance, student mem-
bers of the education Committee (SC) and SC student members of the
faculty council and of the board of the study association ‘Leeghwater’
09.00- 09.45 hrs: students of the SC Master’s programme
09.45- 10.30 hrs: lecturers of the SC Master’s programme
10.30- 10.45 hrs: break
10.45- 11.30 hrs: tour of the facilities (SC) / individual discussions as requested in paral-
lel
11.30- 12.15 hrs: Board of Examiners (SC) and the (lecture) members of the Education
Committee (SC) , Programme Coordinator (SC)
12.45-13.15 hrs: Committee review (summary of observations SC Master’s programme)

tion
15.15- 15.30 hrs: break
Director of Education and head of ESAD
16.00-16.30 hrs: close-out presentation (invitation by TUD-ME; in principle for all mem-
Venue
Delft University of Technology,
Faculty: 3mE,
Building: ‘Werktuigbouwkunde en Scheepsbouwkunde’,
Address: ’Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft,
Room: Faculty room,
tel no: 0031 (0)15 278 6595 (mw. Elisabeth van Os).

Hotel (arranged by QANU)
Best Western Hotel Delft
Phoenixstraat 50a
2611 AM Delft
tel no: + 31 (0)15 215 3070

Appendix F: List of abbreviations
3mE TU Delft Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering
3TU Three Dutch universities of technology
BA-MA Bachelor/Master
Blackboard Electronic learning environment, Delft University of Technology
BME Biomedical Engineering
BSc Bachelor of Science
CEO Chief Executive Officer
DBL Design-based Learning
DoE Director of Education
DSRF Domain-Specific Reference Framework
EC European Credit
ECTS European Credit Transfer System
hbo University of professional education
HL Full professor
HT Honours track (programme), Delft University of Technology
IDEA Strategic alliance Imperial College London, TU Delft, ETH Zürich, RWTH
Aachen
KUO Central database for academic study results in the Netherlands
ME Mechanical Engineering
MSc Master of Science
MSE Materials Science and Engineering
NVAO Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
PLE Project-led education
PRC Professional Review Committee
QANU Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities
QA/QC Quality assurance/Quality control
R&D Research and development
R&O Staff appraisal, Delft University of Technology
SC Systems and Control
SER Self-evaluation report
SME Small/medium enterprise
StudyWeb Electronic learning environment, Eindhoven University of Technology
Teletop Electronic learning environment, Twente University
TU Delft Delft University of Technology
TU/e Eindhoven University of Technology
ud Assistant professor
uhd Associate professor
UT Twente University
VSNU Association of Dutch universities
vwo Pre-university education
wo Academic education
WO-monitor Evaluation instrument for university ‘outcome’ (performance of graduates)

Mechanical Engineering Ow Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical Engineering Ow Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical Engineering ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Phone: +31 (0) 30 230 3100

 QANU / Mechanical Engineering

Part I General Part 9

Part II Assessments of the degree courses 21

1. The Mechanical Engineering Department, TU Eindhoven 23

Appendix A: Appointment notice (“Instellingsbesluit”) 113

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities

Mr. Chris J. Peels Dr. Jan G.F. Veldhuis

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 

The Evaluation Committee is grateful to the Mechanical Engineering Department / Faculties

The educational programmes provide a challenging and motivating environment in which

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 

Name programme Mechanical Engineering

Name programme Mechanical Engineering

1.2. University of Twente

Name programme Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 11

Name programme Mechanical Engineering

1.3. Delft University of Technology

Name programme Mechanical Engineering

Name programme Mechanical Engineering

12 QANU / Mechanical Engineering

Name programme Biomedical Engineering

Name programme Materials Science and Engineering

Name programme Systems and Control

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 13

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 15

Eindhoven University of Technology

Delft University of Technology

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 17

The Committee consisted of a chairman and seven members:

A short curriculum vitae of each of the Committee members is included in Appendix B.

3.3. Materials presented to the Committee as a basis for the assessment

18 QANU / Mechanical Engineering

3.4. Working method adopted by the Committee

The DSRF, referred to above, is a one-page, high-level document. It is an updated version of

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 19

20 QANU / Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 21

• Computational and Experimental Mechanics (CEM) with a focus on mechanics and

A mission statement was formulated at the department level:

• To focus on long-term, generic, system-oriented and internationally competitive research on

1.1. Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 23

1.2.1. Aims and objectives of the degree courses

F1: Domain-specific requirements

With regard to education, the ME department’s mission reads:

To realise an educational and research programme with a balanced combination of fundamental

The score for this facet is: Good.

24 QANU / Mechanical Engineering

The score for this facet is: Good.

The Bachelor graduate in ME has unconditional access to some 18 Master’s programmes

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 25

• Dynamical Systems Design (DSD);

• Automotive Engineering Science (AES);

The score for this facet is: Satisfactory/Good

F4: Requirements for university degree courses:

26 QANU / Mechanical Engineering

The score for this facet is: Good.

QANU / Mechanical Engineering 27

Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering

QANU / Mechanical Engineering