1. Introduction
CDEN, also identified in the French language as RCCI, Reseau Canadien de la Conception en Ingenierie, has received seed funding from the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council [NSERC] to promote the development and the sharing of educational engineering design tools among all Engineering Schools within Canadian Universities.

The design process is clearly critical to the economic well being of any developed country. The value of a product (or process, or system), its efficiency, environmental impact and consumer appeal, are all determined by design. It is unfortunate then that the practice of design, the development of design methods and the supervision of young designers are activities which have not been highly valued or indeed sufficiently rewarded within our Universities, as compared with the publication of science based research undertakings.

The CDEN/ RCCI network will enable the communication of best practices between schools, promote the production and sharing of courseware, help inject more real design experiences into the university, and allow all schools to access the best available expertise in areas of detailed interest. The network will facilitate the joint development of multi-discipline design related courseware modules, including lectures, case studies and open-ended design projects. The focused intent is to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the practice of design will be central to the education of the next generation of engineers. Engineering design researchers and educators are few in number and scattered throughout the country. The Canadian Design Engineering Network will serve to support existing faculty with design materials and encourage schools to collectively build the critical mass within a team environment needed to promote the importance of design and effect significant improvement in existing programs.

The NSERC Design Chair Initiative is an excellent initial step along the path to improving the visibility and status associated with engineering design. The NSERC program will enrich University programs through the integration of new faculty with significant professional design experience and a mandate to encourage the practice of design. The CDEN/RCCI network will form the primary support and communication mechanism for the new NSERC Design Chairs.

CDEN/ RCCI will also encourage Canadian industry to take a direct role, both in the provision of design problems and student supervision. The first two years of operation must be recognized as a start-up phase [1], during which communication structures will be developed and new linkages with industry established.

2. Structure of the Network

Differences in size and emphasis among various schools, the variations in culture among disciplines, and the different requirements of undergraduate and graduate activities mean that CDEN/RCCI must build significant flexibility into the system, hence the modular approach. The ideal solution, from a system viewpoint, must allow extreme ease of entry, and considerable flexibility of both the rate and amount of use.

The first stage in building the C-DEN initiative is the provision of very basic information in an easily accessible way to all schools. This implies local storage of the material, (design exercises, case studies, technology/science modules and catalogues or reference materials). Each school will need a minimum of a single computer connected to a local network and the CDEN network to download and update the material on a regular basis. Personnel considerations, even at this level, are a little more complex. One needs to have a champion at each school who knows what CDEN has to offer and the best way of accessing and integrating the material with the various design courses using local facilities. A local CDEN Committee, chaired by the C-DEN champion and comprising members from several departments will ensure that available material is optimally used. Centralized tasks of information sharing, reviewing of basic material, selection of best practices and identification of new requirements are handled by a national program committee that meets as required. The Program Committee is comprised of champions from the various nodes (each school potentially qualifies as a node).

Each school will have the chance to influence which modules are produced and to cooperate in their production. It is not envisaged that the same courses will be given at each school. Rather, the basic modules are used in whatever way the instructors at each school think is best for their particular Program. It is anticipated that each school will only download the modules suited to their programs. To ensure that the material is most useful, the modules will be largely self contained with some reference to fundamental (lower tier) modules as is required. The tier 1 and tier 2 modules will be formulated so that an instructor could use them in a lecture format as well as to support regular design activities. The CDEN servers will also make available standard reference materials (standards, material properties, catalogues, etc.) to all schools for use in design projects.

The undertaking at the undergraduate level is complex. At steady state there may be as many as 300 faculty actively involved, at up to 34 sites within five regions which comprise all Schools of Engineering within Canada. Key issues in the early stages of the network are relatated to the ownership of the educational materials, and the formula by which schools may access the CDEN materials. At this point a very simple set of policies have been agreed to for intellectual property with the original faculty members retaining copyright of the materials produced by them. CDEN will be given the right to distribute these materials and any income generated by the sale of written materials or sharing of the material with non CDEN members will be shared with the copyright holder. Access to the CDEN material has to be carefully controlled. Each school contributing material will have added considerable resources to the CDEN funding and the efforts of an individual faculty member. In return these schools can expect to access 20 or 30 times the material produced by them. Clearly there is no room for passengers in this shared endeavor and the real cost of production will have to be covered by schools who wish to "wait and see" before contributing.

3. Module Tiers and Sorts

To share information through the development and shared use of various modules requires, in the first instance, that the modules be concisely defined. Three tiers of modules are proposed to allow for the classification of the different kinds of modules as these are created, and for identifying the opportunities to develop new modules within the evolution of CDEN/ RCCI. See the tiers and sorts of modules outlined in the matrix that is Table 1. The tiers are used to arrange modules over a spectrum from fundamental engineering science principles to open-ended engineering design exercises.

• Tier 1: Addresses fundamental principles of two specific types (a) a basic qualitative or quantitative relation or law from the engineering sciences or mathematics, or (b) in design science, an empirical relation or statement about the technical aspects of product development that is likely to be true in most cases. Examples: Engineering Science: conservation of momentum, Kirchoff's laws. Design Science: standardization of parts lowers product complexity. This tier may be thought of as the Grammar of Design, the set of rules that must be rigorously followed to yield a feasible solution. It is also perhaps the level where most automation may be expected, (as is the case with grammar and spell checking).
• 
  
  
• Tier 2: Addresses different technologies, methods and engineering practices. Examples: A technology module describes capabilities such as adhesive bonding approaches; a methods module address a methodology or procedure such as a design process, i.e. QFD, axiomatic design etc., whereas an engineering practice module might provide insight into the workings of a device or system i.e. pump or a series of pumps. Other tier 2 modules would address dimensioning, tolerancing, material selection, solid modeling, FEA etc. This tier may be thought of as forming the "Vocabulary of Design", the knowledge one must have to actually be able to Design realistic devices with competitive functionality and cost. It should be noted that this level is very often neglected within existing Engineering Programs.
• 
  
  
• Tier 3: Design. The integration of tier 1 and tier 2 modules to build toward various design modules. Examples: design of an electric bicycle, a fuel cell. This tier will be accompained by a standard Design Process document so that all the modules follow a similar procedure and students become accustomed to the sequence and breadth required

Table 1. A Matrix of Tiers and Sorts

Table 1 outlines the various sorts of modules in each of the three tiers. Universities will choose to use the modules in various ways. Six sorts have been categorized and are identified in each column. A brief descriptor follows:

Teaching Module: representative of a lecture, most likely at tier 2 because the tier 1 modules are expected to be in outline form...suitable for revision perhaps.

Demonstration Problem: representative of a worked exercise or illustration. Student Task: similar to a demonstration problem, but without a detailed solution.

Case Study: presentation of the design experience to emphasize the interrelationships of various principles, technologies, and methods.

Open-ended Project: a problem to exercise the students? ability to integrate principles, practices, methods, and technologies.

The early development of successful Tier 1 and Tier 2 modules, will facilitate and support the creation of the Tier 3 modules which focus on the design elements, whether it be case studies or the open-ended design problem. In subsequent years the tiers and sorts will be expanded as the sophistication of the module structures are refined.

4. Physical Network

The network's physical architecture includes a server at each node. These servers will vary in capacity depending upon the size of the node and the magnitude of material to be stored and accessed at each site. There will be at least two locations where the complete CDEN database is stored, where authority to modify portions of the database will be managed (i.e. each acts as keeper of some data and mirrors the rest). The most common transactions will be:

• local area network access of a local server by students and faculty;
• 
  
• local server access for development of instructional materials by faculty and staff;
• 
  
• automated downloading of files from main servers to local servers;
• 
  
• semi-automated uploading of course materials from local servers to the main servers;
• 
  
• Internet-based access to selected servers for software development, specialized design areas, and distributed design activities.
• 
  
• A national subcommittee will identify suitable software and standards, as well as negotiate the best possible hardware and software costs.

5. Design Module Creation, Comments and A Preliminary Example

5.1 Introduction

The modules will cover the full range from engineering science, through methodology, to design and practice. Such first and or second year courses are usually not discipline specific since many engineering schools have a common first year. Even in second year much of the material is representative of the basic sciences and engineering fundamentals. Such courses provide the first opportunity for students to do real engineering. They also provide students with the opportunity to give serious thought to the particular engineering discipline that they might wish to pursue.

6. Observations on the CDEN Rationale

Technology will dramatically change the way that engineers will be educated and the societal role of the university system. There are huge opportunities to improve the educational process while achieving considerable economies. Universities have much to offer in creating the tools and in adding value to existing educational packages. However, there is a critical need to understand that new infrastructure is needed to support learning processes that go beyond typical lecture-based courses.

The success of the CDEN initiative is dependent on the desire of faculty and universities to work cooperatively. Immense gains can come from a richer exposure to design; the rewards in terms of industrial interaction are also extremely significant. The initial workload will inevitably fall on a few, however it is critical that a sense of purpose extend to all those engaged in design education. The recent NSERC Design Chairs initiative provides a large part of the solution, but it is necessary to promote the ideals vigorously to ensure that the local committees are active across all disciplines. Finally, some degree of ongoing funding for the network will be needed; the Steering Committee, advised by the Industrial Advisory Committee, will create a viable plan to ensure continued viability, before passing control to an elected board.

7.Acknowledgements

The seed funds, made available by NSERC, together with additional cash and in-kind contributions by the 33 participating universities and the support of Materials Manufacturing Ontario, is gratefully acknowledged.