Marine Technology Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials

Marine Technology Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and

Materials Engineering Delft University of Technology

December 2006

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 P.O. Box 8035 3511 GE Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)30 2303 100 Fax: +31 (0)30 2303 129 e-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.qanu.nl Quality assessment of education and research in Dutch universities was until recently carried out by the Quality Assurance Department of the VSNU. In 2004 the activities of this department were transferred to QANU. © 2006 QANU Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned.

2 QANU / Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology

Table of Contents Foreword 5 Preface 7 Part I General Part 9 1. Structure of the Report 11 2. General Remarks 13 3. The 3mE Faculty: An Overview 17 4. The Assessment Protocol 19 Part II Programme Report 21 1. Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology 23 Appendices 41 Appendix A: Appointment Notice (“Instellingsbesluit”) 43 Appendix B: Curricula Vitae of the Committee Members 45 Appendix C: Domain Specific Reference Frame 49 Appendix D: Assessment Summary 51 Appendix E: Visit Programme Marine Technology TU Delft 53 Appendix F: List of abbreviations 55

QANU / Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology 3


FOREWORD

This report is part of the quality assessment of university degree programmes in the Netherlands. The purpose of this report is to document the results of the educational evaluation of the Bachelor and Master programmes ‘Maritieme Techniek’ and Marine Technology of Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) and to serve as the basis for accreditation of these programmes by the Dutch Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO). The report is written in English because TU Delft has chosen, in cooperation with NVAO, to conduct this assessment in the presence of an observer of the Swiss accreditation organisation for academic educational programmes, ‘Organe d’Accréditation et d’assurance Qualité des hautes écoles Suisses’ (OAQ), and because of the international composition of the Committee. Quality Assessment Netherlands Universities (QANU) aims to ensure independent, unbiased, critically constructive and comparable assessments using a formal protocol of standardised quality criteria described in the QANU protocol, a guide to external quality assessment of Bachelor and Master degree programmes in research-oriented universities, while taking specific circumstances into account. The Marine Technology programmes were evaluated in a thorough and careful manner. We expect the conclusions will be taken under careful consideration by the course provider (the Marine and Transport Technology Department), by the management of the Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering and by the Board of TU Delft. We thank the chairman and members of the Review Committee for their willingness to participate in this assessment and for the dedication with which they carried out this task. We also thank the staff of the Marine and Transport Technology Department for their carefully prepared documentation and for their co-operation during the assessment. Dr. Jan G.F. Veldhuis Mr. Chris J. Peels Chairman of the QANU Board QANU Director



PREFACE

This report describes the assessment of the Bachelor and Master degree programmes ’Maritieme Techniek’ and Marine Technology of TU Delft. The evaluation committee reviewed the quality of the educational programmes and processes and focussed on the topics defined in the NVAO assessment framework. The evaluation committee is grateful to the Marine and Transport Technology Department for their efforts in preparing the self-evaluation report and providing other documentation about the degree programmes concerned. The information provided in the self-evaluation report served as a starting point for the assessment process and proved to be of great importance. The committee appreciated the open, constructive and stimulating discussions with the board, management, staff and students. The Marine Technology programmes offer a challenging and motivating environment in which students are given an excellent education. Possible areas for improvement have been recognised by the faculty, and the committee trusts that the faculty management, departmental staff and students will cooperate and work together to continue improving the Marine Technology educational programmes. As chairman of the committee, I would like to express my great appreciation for the commitment and the contribution of each committee member. They showed great interest and dedication in the different stages of the demanding assessment process. Ir. George F.M. Remery Chairman of the Committee



PART I: GENERAL PART



1. Structure of the Report

In this document, the Marine Technology Evaluation Committee (in this report referred to as ‘the Committee’) reports its findings. The report consists of two parts: a general part and a part which contains the results of the evaluation and assessment of the degree courses concerned. The general part summarises the tasks, composition, input documentation and work procedures of the Committee, including the reference framework and an overview of the domain.



2. General Remarks

2.1. Task of the Committee

The Committee aimed to evaluate and assess two degree programmes of the Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) of TU Delft: • the academic Bachelor of Science programme ‘Maritieme Techniek’ (started September 2002) • the academic Master of Science programme Marine Technology (started September 2002) Both programmes originate from the five-year Master programme ‘Maritieme Techniek’ (CROHO 6957) which was terminated in August 2002. This evaluation fully complies with the accreditation requirements of the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO).

2.2. Composition of the Committee

The Committee was constituted formally on July 3, 2006, prior to the start of the university visit (ref Appendix A ‘Appointment Notice’), and consisted of: Ir. G.F.M. Remery, retired General Manager of MARIN, chairman, and as members: Prof. dr. W.M.G. Jochems, Professor of Educational Innovation, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Prof. dr. C.M. Larsen, Professor of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim Ir. J. Huisman, Technical Manager, Royal Netherlands Navy, Ir. W.J. Kruijt, Director Products, Imtech Marine & Offshore BV, Ir. R.J. Rijke, General Manager Production, IHC Holland Dredgers BV, M. Haagsma, B.Sc., student at the University of Twente. A short curriculum vitae of each of the Committee members is included in Appendix B.

Ir. P.C. van Holten, QANU office, was appointed secretary of the Evaluation Committee.

The composition of the Committee was formally approved by the QANU Board on April 19, 2006. All members of the Committee 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.

Dr. I. Justin, staff member of the Suisse accreditation organisation ‘Organe d’Accreditation et d’Assurance Qualite des hautes ecoles Suisses’ (OAQ) was present as an observer during the TU Delft visit.


2.3. Materials presented to the Committee

The 3mE faculty offering the degree courses prepared a self-evaluation report in accordance with the new NVAO accreditation criteria1 and the QANU protocol2. Study guides of the programmes were provided as part of the self-evaluation report, along with lists of the 2004 and 2005 BSc and MSc theses of the programmes concerned. The Committee selected 14 theses in total from the Bachelor and two variant Master programmes for review and assessment. The three engineering technology faculties of TU Delft, TU Eindhoven and University of Twente developed a domain-specific reference frame (DSRK), attached under Appendix C to this report, that was used together with the detailed exit qualifications for the Bachelor and Master programmes as defined in the self-evaluation document. The self-evaluation document and the DSRK were sent to the Committee in early March 2006. It is the opinion of the Committee that the self-evaluation report reflects the current status of the educational programmes and related subjects in a crisp and concise way. The self-evaluation report includes a summary of strengths and weaknesses per subject. Both staff and students contributed to the self-evaluation report.

2.4. Working method adopted by the Committee

The Committee used the ‘QANU protocol for the assessment of the Bachelor and Master programmes’2. This QANU protocol is an elaboration of the assessment criteria of the NVAO and meets all NVAO criteria in this respect. The Committee held a preparatory meeting on April 6, 2006. Based on study of the self-evaluation report, the Committee compiled a list of 61 questions about the programmes concerned, in addition to the test questions from the QANU protocol. The additional questions were addressed by the 3mE faculty prior to the actual visit. The Committee requested and received additional documentation: • Overview of 3mE staff. • Matrix organisation diagram (department contributions vs study programmes) • Benchmark, in which the Marine Technology programmes are compared with the programmes of

foreign universities. The DSRK is a one-page, high-level document. It is an updated version of the domain description used for the (self-)evaluation of the education programmes in 1999/2000. The DSRK and the detailed Bachelor and Master exit qualifications described in the self-evaluation report were accepted by the Committee as an adequate framework for the educational assessment ‘Marine Technology’ in combination with the booklet ‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’3. The Committee decided, in principle, to use all of the topics, facets and criteria of the QANU protocol as well as additional questions it formulated. The site visit took place on 3 and 4 July 2006. The visit started with a 2-hour preparatory meeting in which each of the Committee members reviewed a selection of the documentation relating to the degree courses. Interviews with representatives of all relevant parts of the MT organisation were held on 3 and 4 July.

1 Accreditation protocol for academic educational programmes, NVAO, 14 February 2003 2 QANU protocol for the external quality assessment of academic Bachelor and Master programmes for accreditation, v3.1, Jan 2004 – Aug 2005 3 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


The programme of the site visit is included in Appendix E to this report. The Committee interviewed lecturers, students, members of the Education Committee and of the Examination Committee, study coordinators, student coaches and members of the (support) staff. Finally, the Committee had a tour around the facilities. A get-together was organized to meet representatives of the University Board and of the faculty management. The afternoon of July 4 was reserved by the Committee for review, to summarise the observations made and to prepare for the close-out meeting. Prior to the close-out meeting, open to all staff and students of the faculty, a no-surprise meeting was held, that was attended by the dean, the manager of the faculty and the Director of Education. During the site visit the Committee received additional information on some topics: • a letter from the University Board to all lecturers regarding the English language test and courses; • course objectives for the courses MT830 ‘Application of Finite Element Method’ and MT836

‘Advanced Programming’; • a template/form to record the composition of the Examination Committee for a specific MSc

project, a template/form to record the MSc project results/grades and a template/form to record the BSc project results/grades.

The Committee drafted a report after the site visit. The version of the report sent for review to TU Delft was established by the Committee after in-depth discussions in a so-called final meeting held on September 15, in Utrecht. This version was submitted to the faculty offering the degree courses for the correction of misinterpretations and factual errors. The facet scores in this report follow the scale prescribed by the NVAO: • Excellent (4) means that a quality level is attained that is very good in all aspects and stands

international benchmarking. It is an example of best practice. • Good (3) means that a quality level is attained that corresponds to expectations and is the result of a

well-considered policy. • Satisfactory (2) means that the level meets the basic standard of quality. • Unsatisfactory (1) means that the level for 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 notable or remarkable has been observed, either in a positive or in a negative sense, relating to a particular facet. The facet scores are combined in a score per topic: either ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. In this process an ‘unsatisfactory’ facet can be compensated by a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ facet under the same topic. All assessments are based on the status at the time of the evaluation.



3. The 3mE Faculty: An Overview

3.1. General

The Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering (3mE) of TU Delft covers seven educational programmes. Two of them, the Marine Technology Bachelor and Master programmes, are evaluated in this report. The other five programmes (Mechanical Engineering Bachelor and Master programmes as well as the three Master programmes Materials Science and Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, and Systems and Control) will be evaluated later this year (2006) together with the Mechanical Engineering programmes of TU/e and University of Twente. From September 2006 3mE will also offer an eighth educational programme: the Master programme Offshore Engineering. This programme was formerly coordinated by the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences. Offshore Engineering has already been evaluated by a visitation committee of QANU earlier in 2006. Since the last educational evaluation in 2000, many developments have taken place. The faculty has been reorganised and renamed. This was necessary to ensure a well functioning organisation, to restore financial health and to motivate staff and students to accept new ways of education and research. Both TU Delft and the 3mE faculty see education as a top priority. The nomination of a Vice-President Education in the TU Delft Executive Board illustrates that education is receiving the priority it deserves. A mission statement was formulated at the faculty level: “ The education of motivated engineers and PhD students, the proposal and execution of boundary crossing research and the marketing of knowledge in the fields of Mechanical Engineering, Marine Technology and Materials Science; to be a dynamic and innovative faculty within Delft University of Technology and 3TU setting, providing an identifiable societal contribution.”

3.2. Marine Technology

Marine Technology (MT) is part of the Department of Marine and Transport Technology (MTT) of 3mE. This department participates in the educational programmes Marine Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Offshore Engineering and in the interfaculty Master programme Transport Infrastructure and Logistics. The Marine Technology educational programmes are mainly run by the Maritime groups of MTT. At present, the Maritime groups include a 'Hydromechanics and Structures' group headed by a full-time full Professor of Hydromechanics and a ‘Design, Production and Operations’ group (DPO) to be headed by a full Professor of Ship Design and Production. In the near future the Offshore group of Civil Engineering will be incorporated in the MTT Department and will then be headed by a full-time full Professor of Offshore Engineering. The Hydromechanics and Structures group presently consists of a full-time full Professor of Hydromechanics and a part-time full Professor of Ship Resistance and Propulsion. From 1 October 2006 the professor of Hydromechanics will be succeeded by a recently appointed successor. Plans are under development to also have a part-time full Professor of Ship Structures. In the Hydromechanics and Structures group 6 permanent associate (UHD) and assistant professors (UD) are active. The DPO group presently consists of the following part-time full professors: Ship Design, Ship Production, Shipping Management, Marine Engineering and Marine Diesel Engines. From 1 October 2006, a recently appointed full Professor of Ship Design and Production will head the DPO group. In the DPO group 6 permanent associate (UHD) and assistant professors (UD) are active. In addition to the permanent scientific staff, the Maritime groups have a support staff and a number of student assistants. At present, 18 PhD students are preparing their thesis (Hydromechanics and Structures 12; DPO 6). The recruitment of a full-time full Professor of Offshore Engineering is in progress.


With regard to education, the Maritime groups have defined their mission statement as follows: “To offer a full-scope, integrated marine education to future generations of academics working in the marine field.” This mission statement contains the following important ingredients: • It is confined to education. Clearly, research and education go hand-in-hand, but since this document (Curriculum

MT2000) is about education, the vision refers to that part of Marine Technology • The education is full scope in that it does not force students to limit themselves to scientific/technical education alone, but

that also other - less technical - academic areas of marine relevance can be pursued. • The education is integrated as it provides students with a program in which all issues are covered in a systematic

manner, which helps the students to better grasp the interactions between all approaches and views to the marine sector. • Marine Technology targets the future generations of academics and thereby wishes to stress that it is committed not only

to a lasting effort, but that it will also contribute to life-long learning. • Marine Technology aims, unlike some other TU Delft programmes, only at marine activities. It does this in the view of

its philosophy, that the marine sector and its supporting activities form a cluster which exhibits by its very nature particular properties which demand an independent programme.


4. The Assessment Protocol

This report is based on an assessment of the period 2000-2005, in accordance with the assessment protocol of QANU including a degree of extrapolation into the future by taking into account formally documented planned actions and adaptations. The report is structured in accordance with the accreditation criteria as prescribed by the NVAO (Netherlands Flemish Accreditation Organisation). General evaluative remark While the Committee recognises possibilities for further improvement in some aspects, it also wishes to acknowledge the achievements made since the last education visit in 2000: • a well functioning Marine Technology team; • restoration of financial health; • improvement of staff and student motivation for education and research; • progress with respect to the recruitment of additional professors and staff. Moreover, in the period under review, the programme has made a successful effort to strengthen the relationship between the educational programmes and the (international) professional field. The findings documented in the following sections of this report must be seen in that context. Where applicable, it will be explicitly mentioned whether the text concerns the Bachelor or the Master programme. Otherwise the text applies to both curricula.



PART II: PROGRAMME REPORT



1. Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology Administrative data: Bachelor programme Name of programme Maritieme Techniek CROHO number 56957 Level Bachelor Orientation Scientific Study load 180 EC Degree B.Sc. Location Delft Accreditation expiry date 31-12-2007 Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering Master programme Name of programme Marine Technology CROHO number 66957 Level Master Orientation Scientific Study load 120 EC Degree M.Sc. Variants ‘Science’ and ‘Production, Design and Operation’ Location Delft Accreditation expiry date 31-12-2007 Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering Both the Bachelor and the Master programmes are offered in a full-time version only.

1.1. Objectives of the Degree Courses (Topic 1)

1.1.1. Domain-specific requirements (Facet 1)

Criterion: 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. The 3mE Faculty has defined its mission statement as:

“The education of motivated engineers and PhD students, the proposal and execution of boundary crossing research and the marketing of knowledge in the fields of Mechanical Engineering, Marine Technology and Materials Science; to be a dynamic and innovative faculty within TU Delft and in 3TU setting, giving an identifiable societal contribution.”

At Marine Technology level the Maritime groups have defined a mission statement with regard to education. Discussion with the staff during the visit revealed that this mission statement has not been formalised and that it has been insufficiently communicated within and outside the faculty. Therefore, it is not clear to the MTT groups and the local and international maritime community at which level of education Marine Technology wants to operate. This could affect the inflow of students in the future.


The DSRK for Engineering Technology was formulated jointly by the Engineering Technology organisations of the University of Twente, TU Eindhoven and the 3mE Faculty of TU Delft for their engineering technology degree programmes. The DSRK is an updated version of the domain description used for the self-evaluation and educational visit of the degree programmes in 1999/2000. The DSRK describes the field of engineering technology and the final competences of the academic engineer in generic terms of knowledge, skills and attitude. Engineering Technology comprises Marine Technology, Mechanical Engineering and related fields: Biomedical Engineering, Materials Technology and Engineering, and Systems and Control. The 3mE faculty has formulated objectives for the Bachelor and Master Marine Technology (MT) programmes. Based on the DSRK and these objectives, detailed exit qualifications for − and competences expected from − the graduated Bachelor ‘Maritieme Techniek’ and the graduated Master Marine Technology have been specified. A preliminary comparison of the educational programmes of the Trondheim, Hamburg, Newcastle and TU Delft Universities has been carried out.4 Nevertheless, TU Delft MT exit qualifications and programme learning goals have not been benchmarked, given the absence of other Dutch MT university programmes and of formally documented exit qualifications of the named foreign MT programmes. Hence the position of the MT programmes under review cannot be compared yet in a thorough and objective way with the MT programmes of relevant universities like Trondheim, Hamburg and Newcastle. The faculty has set up a Professional Review Committee or ‘Beroepenveldcommissie’ (PRC) for Marine Technology. The PRC consists of 15 experts from industry and research with different specialisations in MT and represents the link with industry and research institutes. The PRC meets twice a year and advises the faculty about the contents and educational matters of the MT Bachelor and Master programmes. The PRC has formally agreed with the MT learning goals and exit qualifications. Based on review of the relevant documents, the Committee concludes that these exit qualifications fully comply with the requirements set for a degree course in the relevant academic or professional domain and meet the criteria for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.1.2. Level (Facet 2)

Criterion: The final qualifications of the degree course correspond to general, internationally accepted descriptions of the qualifications of a Bachelor or a Master. TU Delft has developed, in cooperation with TU/e and the University of Twente, an agreed formal statement on the nature of engineering degrees at Bachelor and Master levels in their ‘Criteria for Academic Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula’5 (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. The criteria describe, in detail, the distinction in level between the Bachelor and Master degrees, and also the range of intellectual attributes and understanding of contexts that a trained engineer might require, depending on career direction. Therefore, these criteria are more suitable for a specific qualitative examination of the Bachelor and Master programmes.

4 Report on Comparison of Study Programs in Marine Technology, prepared for accreditation 2006 by Ir. C. Dirkse and Ir. J. Pinkster, October 2005 5 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


To assure compliance, the 3mE faculty has compared the exit qualifications of the MT Bachelor and Master programmes with the Dublin descriptors in terms of 1) Knowledge and understanding, 2) Knowledge application and understanding, 3) Judgement, 4) Communication and 5) Learning abilities. From this comparison it was concluded that the exit qualifications for both a Bachelor graduate and a Master graduate comply with these descriptors. Based on the analysis performed by the faculty 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. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.1.3. Orientation (Facet 3)

Criteria: The final qualifications are based on requirements made by the academic discipline, the international academic 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. To date, the majority of Bachelor graduates have proceeded to the MT Master programme. Apparently, students feel that a university Bachelor's degree is primarily preparation for an MSc rather than for practical work. No experience exists with Bachelor students entering the labour market. The PRC has expressed the viewpoint that the Bachelor graduate in ‘Maritieme Techniek’ could certainly find appropriate employment. The Bachelor graduate in ‘Maritieme Techniek’ has unconditional access to the MT Master programme of TU Delft and of one of the following WEGEMT universities: Newcastle, Southampton, Hamburg, Berlin and Trondheim. The TU Delft MT Master programme offers two variants:

• Design, Production and Operation (DPO); • ‘Science’.

In addition, the graduated Bachelor has access to a large number of other study programmes at the MSc level such as: Mechanical, Aerospace and Materials Science and Engineering, Applied Earth Sciences, Transport Infrastructure and Logistics, etc. The MT Master graduates of both the ‘DPO’ and ‘Science’ variants have ample opportunity to continue a PhD study. At the time of evaluation, there were 18 MT PhD students, of whom 14 held an MT Master degree from TU Delft. The position on the labour market of the MT Master graduate is good due to their capability to conduct independent academic research and/or to resolve multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary questions. This is demonstrated by the fact that Master graduates find a job within a few months either in the Netherlands or abroad. The score for this facet is ‘Good’. Based on the score of the three facets above, the topic ‘Objectives of the degree courses’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.


1.2 Programme (Topic 2)

1.2.1. Requirements University (Facet 4)

Criteria: • The students acquire knowledge on the interface between teaching and academic research within the relevant 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 professional practice in

the relevant professions. The MT-related subjects are taught by, or under the direct supervision of, 7 full professors. One professor is full-time. Three of the part-time professors are research fellows at an institute or teach at another university. Guest lectures from industry and research institutes are regularly incorporated in the MT education programmes. Master thesis projects are frequently defined in cooperation with industry and research institutes. This ensures a strong connection with the professional field, and relevant Master thesis topics. To date, all major MT-related subjects are covered by a full professor except for the field of Ship Structures where active research is missing. Almost all tenured staff (HL, UHD, UD) are active in a specific research field: the Hydromechanics staff for almost 60% and the Ship Design, Production and Marine Engineering staff for almost 40%. However, the staff linked to Ship Structures is mainly active in education. Consequently, education in the area of Ship Structures could in future become insufficiently based on the latest academic developments and theories. It was confirmed that the MTT Department would in the near future recruit a full professor for this topic on a part-time basis. Moreover, it was explained to the Committee that, to further ensure that education of the MT engineer will remain sufficiently research-based in the future, two full-time professors had been recruited and nominated by the University Board (one of them being a replacement). The new full-time professors will be active in ‘Design, Production, Operation, Marine Engineering and Propulsion Systems’ and in 'Ship Hydromechanics and Structures'. For the DPO variant the MTT Department of the 3mE faculty enhanced cooperation with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim (NTNU). This should result in a joint programme for Master students. The objective is to combine the best of both Marine Technology programmes, thereby improving their quality and efficiency and offering students a study period abroad. The principle of cooperation means that the university with the best course will be leading while the other university provides the fellow lecturer. It is the opinion of the Committee that the Bachelor programme covers the development of research skills and aims to bridge scientific theories with the professional practice. The Master thesis addresses new developments involving research staff and/or PhD students. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.2. Relationship between aims and objectives and contents of the degree programme (Facet 5)

Criteria: The course contents adequately reflect the final qualifications, both with respect to the level and orientation, and with respect to domain-specific requirements. The final qualifications have been translated adequately into learning targets for the programme or its components. The contents of the programme offer students the opportunity to obtain the final qualifications that have been formulated.


The self-evaluation document gives a detailed account of the relation between the exit qualifications and the individual courses. The exit qualifications have been translated adequately into goals for the programmes and learning targets for the active courses. Students confirm that the sequence in which courses and projects are programmed generally follow the required progress in learning. The ability of permanent self-study is described in the exit qualifications of both the Bachelor and the Master curriculum. The permanent self-study attitude is addressed and practised in projects and assignments in which self-initiated study is necessary. In particular, the Bachelor design and Master thesis projects require self-study and create ‘learning’. The Bachelor and Master theses reviewed demonstrated that the students have followed a well-matched curriculum and achieved an adequate level of understanding. However, a remark should be made about reporting skills. These skills are addressed in the Bachelor programme, but the results seen in the theses vary considerably. The Bachelor student can choose to follow a minor to deepen or broaden his/her knowledge. He/she can also choose to follow a minor to get entrance to a Master programme that does not directly follow from the Bachelor programme, or to define a flexible minor. The flexible minor requires the consent of the Board of Examiners. Learning goals for the minors are currently being developed (adapted Bachelor programme; first use 2009). Individual Master study programmes are developed with the variant coordinator / supervisor and approved by the Board of Examiners. Students confirm that they are guided in designing a good study programme. No formal criteria for the approval of individual study programmes by the Board of Examiners have been seen. However, each individual Master study programme is documented, agreed and signed-off by the individual student, the graduation professor and a representative of the Board of Examiners. It was demonstrated to the Committee that both the Bachelor and Master programmes consist of lectures, projects and self-study that reflect the exit qualifications defined and meet the general and domain-specific requirements. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.3. Coherence of programme (Facet 6)

Criterion: Students follow a programme of study that is coherent in its contents. The programme has been developed along learning lines (i.e. courses, projects and theses) to avoid gaps and overlaps in the learning process. Two of the learning lines (‘construction/production/marine operations’ and ‘ship design/marine engineering’) were reviewed by the Committee in detail and were assessed as ‘coherent’. According to the students interviewed: “the programme builds on acquired knowledge and skills, and unnecessary overlap and repetition are avoided”. Integration of theoretical topics and practice is realised by projects in the curriculum. An effective link between theory and research on the one hand and professional practice on the other hand is achieved through the functioning of the PRC, in which the involvement of MT professionals in the programmes and their coherence are formalized. The Committee concludes that the coherence in the programmes meets the criteria for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Good’.


1.2.4. Study load (Facet 7)

Criterion: 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. A minority of students completes the Bachelor and Master programmes within the timeframe set, i.e. a nominal study time of 3 + 2 years. The average study duration (based on the pre MT2005 Bachelor programme) is approximately 7 years. Students confirm that it is feasible to carry out the programme within, or close to, the nominal study time and that the load is approx. 42 h/week conform the data in the self-evaluation report. The majority of students, however, consider other activities as contributing to their personal development or necessary for earning money. As a result they spend on average 32 h/week on study, and thus hardly any student completes the programme within the nominal study time. The MT staff and lecturers more or less accept this phenomenon and little stimulus is offered to the students to complete their study nearer to the nominal times. The planned distinct separation (‘hard-cut’) between obtaining the Bachelor degree and starting Master courses and the introduction of 'rights to government-funded education' (‘leerrechten’) in the near future may aggravate this situation and cause financial problems for students who substantially exceed the nominal study duration. Exceeding the nominal study duration is not a specific MT or TU Delft phenomenon, but in fact a common trend at European universities. In this context it should be noted that industry in general looks not only at the quality of the work, but also at conformity to planning, an aspect which should be addressed during the programme. To assist the students in meeting the nominal study duration better, the faculty has implemented specific measures with respect to student coaching, parallel projects, number of exams and logistics with the introduction of the new Bachelor curriculum in 2005 referred to as ‘MT2005’. The faculty still has to evaluate the MT2005 Bachelor programme since it was taught for the first time in 2005/2006. It is the opinion of the Committee that the program has been - and still is - feasible. What needs improvement is the student's priority setting, thereby reducing the actual study duration. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.5. Intake (Facet 8)

Criteria: 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 programme: Bachelor’s degree and possibly selection. The target group for the three-year Bachelor’s degree programme ‘Maritieme Techniek’ comprises candidates with a pre-university education with a natural sciences profile: 1) Natural Sciences and Technology or 2) Natural Sciences and Health. It was reported to the Committee that a large number of the incoming students has an inadequate knowledge of mathematics for the Bachelor programme concerned: Bachelor students interviewed state that under the pre-university VWO profile ‘Natural Sciences and Health’, insufficient mathematical skills and knowledge are developed to successfully complete the MT Bachelor programme. These students, although formally meeting the intake requirements, potentially encounter major problems during the first year of their study. A mathematics test is offered to incoming Bachelor students to assess their mathematic capabilities and identify areas for improvement. The pass rate of the participants of the 3mE faculty in the initial test in


2005 was 44%. A repeat test, administered to the same student population half a year later, showed that the pass rate had improved to 68%. Remedial measures are available, but they are not compulsory, nor is the mathematics test. The intake of polytechnic college students is increasing. It is still possible for students with a propaedeutic (1st year) certificate from a technical degree programme of a college of higher professional education to join the first year of a university Bachelor degree programme. Students who have obtained a Bachelor degree ‘Maritieme Techniek’ from one of the following WEGEMT universities: Newcastle, Southampton, Hamburg, Berlin and Trondheim, can enter the Master programme without selection. Students who have obtained a Dutch academic Bachelor degree in ‘Engineering’ also have access without selection, but have to follow additional courses. For all other Master level applicants, explicit standards (English language and Grade Point Average) are applied. Students with a Bachelor degree from a technical college of higher professional education can enter the Master degree programme only if they meet a set of well-defined requirements. A special minor is being developed to further improve the transition of these students to an academic environment. The Committee concludes that the relationship between the entry qualifications of the students and the structure and contents of the programme meets the criteria for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.6. Duration (Facet 9)

Criterion: 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 Technical University: a minimum of 120 credits, dependent on the relevant degree course. The Bachelor curriculum has a study load of 180 European Credits (one EC nominally corresponds to 28 hours of study) and a nominal study duration of 3 years. The Master curriculum has a study load of 120 EC and a nominal study duration of 2 years. The curriculum sizes of the Bachelor and Master programmes are in accordance with the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). Students who have obtained a Bachelor 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. This track puts the student in a position to follow an additional programme of 30 EC in addition to the Master programme. Since the size of the Bachelor and Master curricula complies with the ECTS requirements, the score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.7. Coordination of structure and contents of the degree programme (Facet 10)

Criteria: The didactic concepts are in line with the aims and objectives. The teaching methods correspond to the didactic concept. Bachelor programme The didactic concepts in the Bachelor programme are ‘class education’ and ‘projects’. These concepts are in line with the objectives, instrumental in developing the programme, and applied in a well-balanced manner.


Class education comprises lectures complemented by workgroup instructions, exercises (some mandatory) and self-study. This counts for approximately 67% of the study load. In the course of the Bachelor programme, the workgroup instructions and exercises are gradually reduced, demonstrating the change from guided study to self-study. Bachelor students are well exposed to the marine industry through site visits, internship, individual projects, group projects, assignments and lecturers from industry. The objective of the internship in the industry at the end of the first year is to make students familiar with the culture on the workshop floor in the maritime - and related - industry. The internship is properly supervised by MT including site visits. The Bachelor programme concludes with an innovative design study or a research task. The Committee has reviewed a number of these design reports and concluded that the work required a significant amount of the knowledge taught earlier. The Committee concludes that the Bachelor programme is executed with a well-balanced set of different teaching tools. The use of tools is effectively developed during the progress of the study. Internship and final design projects are properly integrated in the programme. The score for the Bachelor-related part of this facet is “Good”. Master programme The didactic concepts in the Master programme are ‘class education’ and ‘assignments’. Depending on the variant and the student’s individual study programme, class education counts for 40-60% of the study load. The remainder is devoted to assignments, including the final Master thesis, the internship in industry or research institute, and literature surveys. Approximately 10% of the workload for these assignments is reserved for MT contact hours used for student guidance and study progress monitoring. Master students are well exposed to the marine industry through good cooperation between the MT department and the “William Froude” student association. The Committee has checked a number of MSc theses and concluded that in general the subject and the extent of the study were relevant to demonstrate the required knowledge and skills and the ability to apply them. The Committee concludes that the teaching methods and the didactic concepts are in line with the objectives, instrumental in developing the programme and applied in a balanced manner. Students expressed their satisfaction with the accessibility of the professors and scientific staff for support, guidance and information (open-door culture). The score for the Master-related part of this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.2.8. Assessment and examinations (Facet 11)

Criterion: The system of assessments and examination provides an effective indication whether the students have reached the learning targets of the course programme or its components A well-defined and properly organised system of examination exists. Before the start of every course, a study guide is provided to the students who have registered, setting out the learning goals, design, content and examination schedule of the module and the applicable assessment criteria. Increasing use is being made of the electronic learning environment ‘Blackboard’ to make information concerning courses and other teaching methods available to students.


For each course there are two examination occasions per year, and in exceptional cases a third occasion is created. Different means are used to evaluate the internship, projects and assignments. Depending on the type they are evaluated by the teacher(s) based on a report, on a presentation, on individual examinations or on peer evaluation by fellow students in a project group. For these evaluations no guidelines were available, either for the teacher for correction or for the student for preparation and guidance. The results of the evaluations are properly communicated to the students. Students confirm that they obtain adequate feedback. In the case of disagreement about an evaluation result, formal procedures exist to resolve such issues via the “Committee for Appeal” and the “Board of Examiners”. The examination method is determined by the responsible teacher in consultation with the director of education and/or the educational adviser. Preparing an examination is the task of the individual teacher. It is the policy of the faculty to have peer reviews carried out on examination questions. Currently, this policy is implemented only for the mathematics and mechanics courses. A study is in progress to develop guidelines for the formulation of examination questions to adequately measure the extent of achievement of the course objectives. The lack of guidelines described above could result in examination questions that do not provide an adequate check on the achievement of the learning objectives of a particular course. However, experience has shown a proper compatibility between the course and examination questions so far. The Evaluation Committee has reviewed several BSc and MSc theses and did not find any serious discrepancies regarding grading by the lecturers. Formally documented methods, criteria and weighing factors (e.g. presentation 25%, reporting 25%, content 50%) for the assessment of student work are lacking. No guidelines exist for the planning, evaluation and rating of Bachelor and Master theses. Each lecturer supervises the development of these documents individually with the student. The Master thesis is graded by a committee consisting of at least three scientific staff members. One member is the responsible professor, the second member is the supervisor concerned, and the third member belongs to another department (or sub-department). External academic representatives can take part in the committee, e.g. if the thesis has been developed and written in cooperation with a research institute or in industry. There exists a well-established, published system describing how the Board of Examiners determines whether a student ultimately passes or fails. The Committee feels that the examinations and assessments used to determine whether the students have reached the learning targets are adequate. However, the underlying system needs further formalisation and implementation. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’. Based on the score of the eight facets above, the topic ‘Curriculum of the degree courses’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.

1.3. Deployment of Staff (Topic 3)

1.3.1. Requirements University (Facet 12)

Criteria: Teaching is largely provided by researchers who contribute to the development of the subject area.


All major MT-related subjects are covered by one of the professors, except for Ship Structures. As already stated under Facet 4, that subject is insufficiently supported by professorial supervision of the research activities. Almost all tenured staff are active in a specific research field: the Hydromechanics staff for almost 60% and the Ship Design, Production and Marine Engineering staff for almost 40% . It was explained to the Committee that two full-time professors have been recruited and nominated by the University Board (one of these two being a replacement). The new full-time professors will be active in ‘Design, Production, Operation, Marine Engineering and Propulsion Systems’ and in 'Ship Hydromechanics and Structures'. The department's structure has been successfully reorganized since the last evaluation in 2000. This was necessary to improve its functioning and communication lines, to restore financial health and to motivate staff and students to accept a new approach towards education and research. Excellent links exist between the teaching staff on the one hand and the maritime industry and research institutes on the other hand. Moreover, the cooperation with NTNU, Trondheim, on curricula and student exchange is promising and is expected to grow in the future. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.3.2. Quantity of staff (Facet 13)

Criteria: The staff levels are sufficient to ensure that the course is provided to the required standards. The MT staff capacity is currently limited to 12.8 fte. The educational load of 7.5 fte is relatively high compared with the remaining 5.3 fte for research and other activities. The student/staff ratio, based on the MT staff involved in education, equals 36,3 and based on total staff input the ratio equals 25. The educational tasks however are carried out according to the programme because these tasks take priority over other (e.g. research) tasks. A consequence of the high educational load could be insufficient in-house research activities, in turn leading potentially to a situation, in the future, in which the academic level of the education is affected. It must be emphasized that the Netherlands Marine Technology in particular is based on a high-tech industry requiring engineers to be educated in a top level research environment. The total of 1.03 fte at full professor level available for the teaching of MT courses is small. At this moment only one full-time full professor is tenured (active in the area of Ship Hydromechanics). This is insufficient from the point of view of the organisation and strategic positioning of Marine Technology. The increased use of part-time teachers (from industry) may assure the relevance but not the quality in the long run. No full professor is tenured for the area of Ship Structures. The status described has been recognised by the MTT Department, and it was explained to the Committee that two full-time professors have been recruited and nominated by the University Board (one of these two being a replacement). For a third professor position (for the Master programme in Offshore Engineering, that will be transferred from Civil Engineering to MTT), recruitment is still in progress. The two new full-time professors will be section leaders for the variants DPO (‘Design, Production, Operation, Marine Engineering and Propulsion Systems’) and Science (Ship Hydromechanics and Structures). The current age profile of the permanent staff means that at least three scientific staff members need to be replaced over the next five years. Currently, two vacancies exist for assistant professors (UD; Ship Production and Marine Engineering), and recruitment is in progress. The majority of these vacancies is known, and actions are being taken to recruit additional staff. However, a complete succession plan including both the scientific, non-professorial, staff was not available at the


time of the evaluation. Considering the long lead times for recruitment, insufficient staff numbers could be the result in the near future. Given the situation at the time of evaluation:

• availability of only 1.03 fte at full professor level for MT courses, • availability of only one full-time full professor for the MT programmes, • absence of a full professor in the area of Ship Structures, • relatively high educational load (7.5 / 12.8 fte), • age profile of the staff and the staff vacancies,

the Committee is of the opinion that the demographical composition of the staff in combination with the quantity of staff is at this moment in time inadequate to maintain the concept of research-based education in the long run. The score for the quantity of staff is therefore ‘Unsatisfactory’.

1.3.3. Quality of staff (Facet 14)

Criteria: The staff is sufficiently qualified to ensure that the aims regarding contents, didactics and organisation of the course programme are achieved. The Committee met highly motivated (scientific) staff during the visit who appeared to give sufficient priority to education. This was apparent from the various group meetings as well as from individual informal discussions. Students were also positive about their contacts with and the accessibility of the teaching staff and about the atmosphere in the department. The majority of the teachers have a recognised and respected status in the maritime research community and/or in industry. There is a system in place that provides input about the didactic qualities of the various teachers and which generates remedial actions. Some lecturers lack educational qualities. They are actively stimulated to attend courses to improve their educational qualities. According to the students there are some exceptional cases where improvement appears to be a slow and/or difficult process. These cases appear to be known to the director of education and are receiving special attention. All new staff members have to obtain a basic teacher qualification, and all lecturers have to pass an English language test. If this test shows shortcomings, English language courses have to be taken. In summary, the staff is in general well qualified to ensure that the aims regarding contents, didactics and organisation of the course programme are achieved. 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’.


1.4. Facilities and Provisions (Topic 4)

1.4.1. Material facilities (Facet 15)

Criterion: The accommodation and material facilities are sufficient to implement the programme. Very well-kept and managed (experimental) facilities/laboratories, workshops and buildings help to increase student motivation. An exception is made for the lecture rooms which need upgrading and refurbishment. A request for improvement of the lecture rooms has been filed with the real-estate department of TU Delft. The use of hydrodynamic facilities is efficiently integrated in the various years of the study programme. Proper ICT facilities and assistance are provided: pilot project laptops, wireless network, up-to-date website ‘Blackboard’, available software and study scheduling using IRIS and the degree course website. • The introduction of the – pilot – project to attractively offer laptops to all first-year students of

‘Maritieme Techniek’ in 2005/2006 appears to have solved the lack of computing facilities. • The faculty website is well developed and provides information about: study advice, study

programmes, course descriptions, internships and study abroad, rosters/schedules, examination results and course evaluations.

• The electronic learning environment ‘Blackboard’ (website) gives information concerning the relevant courses like: course set-up and learning goals, study material and distribution, assignments, scores and examination results, old exams and answers and e-mail function. Blackboard also provides an excellent system for communication between students and teachers. Increased use of Blackboard is expected.

• There used to be a local library at MT, but this book collection is now a part of the central library. The central library also organizes virtual learning centres for educational programmes. The Marine Technology Learning Centre is new and has so far not been extensively used by the students.

• The ‘Service point’ desk for the 3mE faculty has been in operation since January 2006. All questions about the study programme, study progress, credits, application for exams, reservation of rooms and computer facilities can be addressed there.

The Committee concludes that the material facilities amply meet the criteria for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Good’.

1.4.2. Student support and guidance (Facet 16)

Criteria: 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. The guidance of first-year Bachelor students is very well organised: • introduction to the university, the study programme and the city of Delft; • mentoring during the first-year project work by a student coach; • guidance by a study advisor; • active follow-up in the case of insufficient progress; • end-of-year progress letter and advice.


Student coaches are selected on the basis of their ability to coach and are professionally trained for their role. Moreover, student coaches are supported by staff members. This arrangement adds quality to the BSc student coaching, and the student coaches benefit from it themselves also. During the first year the coaches monitor student progress by keeping in close contact with the project groups. If problems arise that are more serious than progress only, students could be invited to visit a study advisor. After the first semester the active guidance declines, but progress is monitored by means of the credits achieved, and facilities remain available to advise and assist the students on their own initiative. Before the end of the first year and depending on the credits achieved, the student is advised to a) continue, b) make more efforts or c) consider whether the study chosen is suitable. After the first study year progress is monitored in a similar way. During the Master programme students are free to consult the study advisor as required, and Master students have regular reviews with the programme/variant coordinator. A monitoring system for guidance during the assignments phase of the Master programme has recently been implemented. An overall ‘open door’ policy exists. The students are positive about the carefully organised support and guidance systems. Moreover, the relatively small size of the MT section of the 3mE faculty eases the communication with and accessibility of the staff. The Committee considers the Bachelor student support during their first year as ‘Excellent’. The rating for the student support and guidance in other years is ‘Good’. Based on the score of the two facets above, the topic ‘Facilities and provisions’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.

1.5. Internal Quality Assurance (Topic 5)

1.5.1. Evaluation of results (Facet 17)

Criterion: The degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets. The quality assurance cycle (plan, do, review/analyse and improve) implemented in the faculty has a well-defined structure which is documented in the report ‘Basis concept integraal kwaliteitszorgsysteem TU Delft opleidingen’. The roles and responsibilities of the entities of the organisation involved in the learning process are clearly identified. Quantified targets for the response rate and score of questionnaires and for the passing rate of courses are set as ‘warning/alarm settings’. The learning process is reviewed at the course, learning line and curriculum level. Various aspects are periodically reviewed: student appreciation of the programme CENS (Course Evaluation New Style), covering contents of courses, teaching behaviour of lecturers, study material, organisation, applied working method and assessment. • During the Bachelor phase meetings are organised per educational period where students comment

on the current programme. These are followed by meetings with the lecturers. Reports of these student meetings and the teacher’s comments are input for the period evaluation report, which includes actions to be taken.

• For the evaluation of the courses of the Master programme, students complete a questionnaire on the quality of the courses attended. These are discussed with the supervisor, who transfers the results to the Director of Education. If required, actions for improvement are defined and taken.


• At the end of the Master programme, all students are requested to complete a standard questionnaire about their final year. Once a year the results are processed into standard evaluation reports per Master/variant.

• A report is assembled annually that finalises the year's quality assurance cycle with conclusions regarding the results of CENS questionnaires, passing rates of courses and the periodic evaluation reports. There is a special focus on study progress, results and follow-up review of improvement actions from the previous cycles.

The Committee found that the implementation of the above system is almost complete: • a regular review and improvement process for the teaching methods is in operation. • the plan and execute part of this QC cycle is well developed (CENS, VOLG+ and education

evaluation meetings) and functioning effectively. • the reporting part of the cycle is partly implemented, the format of the annual quality report is

currently being developed - throughout TU Delft - and not yet implemented. It is the opinion of the Committee that the evaluation of results meets the criteria for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.

1.5.2. Measures to effect improvement (Facet 18)

Criterion: 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. The most tangible result of the evaluations referred to under facet 17 above consists of the defined actions for improvement. These actions are listed per course period, per year and per the 3–5-year education policy plan. The latest education policy plan (October 2004), which was reviewed by the Committee, included a long list of actions with the names of the persons responsible for execution and deadlines for completion of the action. Some major actions like the creation of the PRC and the change of the Bachelor programme to introduce minors have already been fully implemented. Others, like the writing of a quality handbook, are still in progress. The Committee found that the quality system and the recently modified education system have both not been working long enough to be able to determine whether the selected actions are effectively contributing to an improvement of the educational system. However, students were generally satisfied with the response to their comments and their suggestions for improvement. Recommendations from the previous review have been taken under serious consideration, and many steps have been instituted, as documented in the self-evaluation report, with positive results. Also, many quality improvement actions have been undertaken since the last education visit. On the one hand, data were gathered and analysed through reviews, studies and meetings in order to obtain a proper view of educational processes and products; on the other hand, actions to improve the various quality aspects of the educational system are not always followed up in an adequate manner. The Committee feels that the review and improvement part of the QC cycle needs further strengthening, in particular with respect to the documentation and follow-up of actions and the assessment of whether they deliver the required improvement. This applies particularly to the Master programme. However, a robust system is in place to identify action required for improvements. Although the system is under development, the Committee is of the opinion that the measures for improvement are being implemented and amply meet the requirements for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’.


1.5.3. Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field (Facet 19)

Criterion: 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. Students, lecturers, alumni and the professional field are involved at key points in the quality assurance cycle. This has resulted in an effective and efficient combination of formal and informal stakeholders inside and outside the university: • Students are fully involved in the quality cycle. This is achieved in different ways, viz. by

personal/direct contact with the staff, via the student association William Froude, via the faculty student counsel, by completing questionnaires at regular intervals during the study.

• Staff members are involved in the quality cycle by participating in monthly meetings with the Educational Committee and the management team and in meetings held every educational period (for the Bachelor programme 4 times a year; for the Master programme once a year) to evaluate the current period and by reviewing the questionnaires about programme and course quality.

• Recent graduates are interviewed every two years through a questionnaire. • The PRC meets with the staff twice a year and is actively involved with the curriculum. Its members

represent the professional field and occupy positions where they are in close contact with alumni from the MTT Department.

• The final responsibility for the quality system and its application is vested in the Director of Education, who discusses quality issues and corrective actions in the management team chaired by the dean.

The involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field exceeds the basic standards for accreditation. Although the approaches to the alumni network and information gathering about industry appreciation could be further improved, the Committee is of the opinion that the score for this facet is ‘Good’. Based on the score of the three facets above, the topic ‘Internal quality assurance’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.

1.6. Results (Topic 6)

1.6.1. Level that has been achieved (Facet 20)

Criterion: The final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level, orientation and domain-specific requirements. The current Bachelor and Master programmes ‘Maritieme Techniek’ and Marine Technology, respectively, were started in September 2002. Because this change is quite recent, only a few Bachelor students have graduated from the new programme. Starting from September 2005 the Bachelor programme was further modified by the introduction of a minor in the first semester of the last (third) year. An evaluation of the results is therefore mainly based on students following the old programme and on those who in the course of their study were transferred to the new programme; between September 2002 and February 2006, 110 students in the latter categories obtained their MSc diploma. Students with a BSc degree in MT are able to continue with a Master programme in one of the MT variants without problems.


There is no experience with BSc graduates entering the labour market. To date all of them continued in a Master programme. The Committee has checked a number of Bachelor and Master theses and concluded that, in general, the subject and extent of the study task demonstrated that the candidate had obtained the defined exit qualifications. The ratings for the quality of those theses given by the Committee members were generally in line with the ratings given by the supervisors/Examination Committee. A few of those reports were found to be weak in style and presentation. No structured review on how Master graduates are appreciated by the labour market was found. Information from the Professional Review Team indicates that MT Master graduates are highly regarded and that the industry is in need of them. This is confirmed by ‘WO monitor’ data (based on 10 students who graduated in the period year 2002/2003): 90% of them were employed within 3 months, 50% with a permanent contract. Some 80% of the Master graduates were happy with their present function, and 90% of them would chose the same education again. The WO monitor indicates that the students in general are satisfied with the breadth of the study, but only 50% indicates that the depth is adequate. To investigate whether this rather low score is not affected by the low number of respondents, an extended version of the end-of-study questionnaire, including additional questions on the curriculum, has been sent to recent graduates. Results are expected soon. As the new Bachelor and Master programmes are firmly based on the previous 5-year doctoral programme, and having observed the results of that programme and its appreciation in the industry and research institutes, the Committee concludes that the exit qualifications amply meet the targets set for level, orientation and domain-specific requirements. The score for this facet is “Good”.

1.6.2. Results of teaching (Facet 21)

Criteria: To measure the results of teaching, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses. The results of teaching meet these targets. The faculty has set target numbers for the propaedeutic, Bachelor and Master yields. The numbers are based on the success rates realised for a comparable study programme (Civil Engineering) and on the wish to improve the current success rates. Although there are no reliable figures available for the “new” Bachelor and Master programmes, the indication is that quite some discrepancy between realised and target study durations will remain:

• The target propaedeutic yield after one year of study equals 40% and has not been met. Actual figures have varied between 13% and 29% per cohort since 1995 (cohorts counting on average more than 50 students).

• The ultimate target propaedeutic yield equals 70%, whereas the actual figures are in the order of 60-70 %.

• The ultimate target Bachelor yield is 65% (based on VWO intake). Realised yield figures for the Bachelor programme are not available yet.

• The ultimate target Master yield is 90% (based on intake of Bachelor graduates). • The combined target yield for Bachelor + Master programmes is calculated at 58.5% (65% and

90%). Starting from the re-introduction of the 5-year programme in 1994, the ultimate yield could come out in the order of 50% and 55%.

It was noted earlier in this report that students confirm the feasibility of the study within the nominal time, but the majority of students seems not to be motivated to spend the average study time of 42 hours


per week. This phenomenon (not specifically MT or TU Delft related) represents at least one reason for the discrepancy between nominal and actual study duration in the last 20 years: 7 years actual versus 5 years nominal. The committee feels that discrepancy between actual and target study duration is certainly not caused by too heavy a programme load or by inefficiencies in the organisation of the curriculum. It seems to a large extent to be the unique choice of the student. The Committee is of the opinion that the results of teaching meet the criteria for accreditation. The score for this facet is ‘Satisfactory’. Based on the score of the two facets above, the topic ‘Results of teaching’ rates ‘Satisfactory’.

1.7. Internationalisation and External Contacts

TU Delft has a clear ambition to be a leading engineering university in Europe. The current MSc programme uses English as the working language (lectures, notes, examinations, student reports, etc.). TU Delft has a strong international position, and the students are motivated to strive for international cooperation. In this context no specific vision has been formulated at the department level (‘Marine and Transport Technology’). Recently, an ‘international office’ was created at the faculty level to support student exchange. The integration process with the departments and staff/professors is still ongoing. The full effect of this move is therefore not evident yet. Student mobility (in and out) is good, and incoming students are taken care of and given excellent support. The drive among 3mE faculty students to go abroad is strong. Programmes like the ‘EU Erasmus programme’ and several other European sources provide adequate financial support in this respect. Individual MT lecturers/professors have good international networks and contacts with other universities. However, staff mobility (in terms of sabbatical/visiting professorships at international universities) is low and partly due to the limited numbers of staff. Plans exist for increased internationalization amongst staff at the university level. Cooperation with NTNU Trondheim on curricula and student exchange is promising and expected to be strengthened in the future. Student exchanges might as a result become a regular part of the curriculum and not an initiative of the individual student anymore. Only two international professors (both from Trondheim) have stayed for a longer period at the MTT Department during the last 10 years. More visitors would be expected for a first-class university. The European Association of Universities with a Naval Architecture/Marine Technology Department (WEGEMT, see http://www.wegemt.org/) provides an excellent network among relevant universities in Europe. However, the activity of MT in WEGEMT has been low recently. This could result, over time, in a lack of structured international contacts with other universities. In line with the QANU protocol, no formal assessment is given for this topic.



APPENDICES



Appendix A: Appointment notice (“Instellingsbesluit”)

Het bestuur van de Stichting Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU), gelet op zijn brief d.d. 23 december 2005 aan het College van Bestuur van de Technische Universiteit Delft over het voornemen van QANU om in 2006 een onderwijsvisitatie Maritieme Techniek / Marine Technology te organiseren en de daarop ontvangen opdrachtbrieven van het College van Bestuur,

INSTELLINGSBESLUIT VISITATIECOMMISSIE

Maritieme Techniek / Marine Technology d.d. 3 juli 2006

BESLUIT

A. tot instelling van een visitatiecommissie voor de Bachelor- en Masteropleidingen

respectievelijk Maritieme Techniek en Marine Technology;

B. tot voorzitter, tevens lid, van de visitatiecommissie te benoemen • ir. G.F.M. Remery, gepensioneerd algemeen directeur MARIN;

C. tot leden van de commissie te benoemen: • prof. dr. W.M.G. Jochems, hoogleraar-directeur Onderwijstechnologisch

expertisecentrum; • prof. dr. C.M. Larsen, hoogleraar Marine Technology, Norwegian Institute of

Technology; • ir. J. Huisman, Sous-chef technische afdelingen, Dienst Materieel Koninklijke

Marine; • ir. W.J. Kruijt, Director Products, Imtech Marine & Offshore B.V.; • ir. R.J. Rijke, General Manager Production Department, IHC Holland N.V. Beaver

Dredgers; • M. Haagsma BSc, studentlid, oud commissaris onderwijs studievereniging Isaac Newton; D. tot secretaris van de commissie te benoemen: de heer ir. P.C. (Peter) van Holten

medewerker van het bureau QANU; E. met betrekking tot de visitatie voor de Bachelor- en Masteropleidingen Maritieme

Techniek / Marine Technology 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 6;

6 Gids voor de externe kwaliteitsbeoordeling van wetenschappelijke bachelor- en masteropleidingen ten behoeve van

accreditatie, versie 3.1, januari 2004


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 verbetering vatbaar zijn;

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:

Visitatie Type

opleiding opleidingsnaam+Code vt, dt, du

Bachelor Maritieme Techniek (56957) J N N

Technische Universiteit Delft Master Marine Technology (66957) J N N

d. de visitatiecommissie voert haar werkzaamheden uit overeenkomstig de richtlijnen van het genoemde QANU-kader, met inbegrip van de bepalingen ten aanzien van de onafhankelijkheid 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(s) van de relevante landelijke disciplinaire overlegorganen (DOO, kamers); • de deelnemers aan het K&A-overleg; • de Inspectie van het Onderwijs; • de voorzitter van de NVAO; • het ministerie van OCW.

Utrecht, 3 juli 2006 Bestuur van Stichting QANU, drs. J.G.F. Veldhuis voorzitter


Appendix B: Curricula Vitae of the Committee members

Ir. G.F.M. Remery George F.M. Remery was born in Rotterdam in 1943. He studied at Delft University of Technology from where he graduated with an MSc degree in Naval Architecture in 1967. After serving the Dutch Navy as lieutenant he joined the Maritime Research Institute MARIN (at the time called “Nederlands Scheepsbouwkundig Proefstation”), where he became Head of the “Ocean Engineering”group of laboratories. He carried out several research studies and wrote publications about ship hydrodynamics and mooring technology. In 1978 he joined Single Buoy Moorings Inc. (SBM) as manager of the R&D department. SBM Inc is specialised in the "turn-key" delivery and lease of floating production (FPSO) and mooring systems. In 1986 he became Senior Vice-President, Chief Engineer and member of the Management team of SBM, responsible for all engineering activities of the group. He also became member of the Supervisory Board of MARIN, of Gusto Engineering and of IMODCO Inc (USA). In the year 2000 he returned to MARIN to take up the position of President from where he retired in 2005. In this period MARIN restored its financial health and its position as innovative service provider for research and development to the Dutch and international maritime industry and community. Prof. dr. W.M.G. Jochems Wim M.G. Jochems was born in Heythuysen the Netherlands in 1947. He received his Master degree in Educational Psychology and Methodology from the University of Utrecht in 1973 and became a PhD in Technical Sciences at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) in 1980. In 1989 he became full professor in educational development and educational technology at TU Delft, responsible for the educational research and educational innovation programme of Delft University of Technology and head of the Educational Development Unit. From 1993 until 1998 he was the Dean of the faculty of Humanities of the same TU Delft. In 1998 he became General director of the Educational Technology Expertise Centre and full professor in Educational Technology of the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL). From 2006 onwards Prof. Jochems is Dean of the Eindhoven School of Education and full professor in educational innovation at Eindhoven University of Technology and Fontys University of Applied Sciences. Prof. Jochems is president of the Netherlands Educational Research Association (VOR), treasurer and member of the executive board of the European Educational Research Association (EERA), chair of the Programme Committee of the Dutch Digital University, chair of the Flemish Committee for Educational Innovation and member of the board of the Dutch Research School on Educational Research. Prof. dr. C.M. Larsen Carl M. Larsen was born in 1945 in Norway. He became M.Sc. of Naval Architecture in 1970 at the Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH, from 1996 onwards called Norwegian University of Science and Technology or NTNU). In 1976 he became PhD in Marine Technology at the same university. In 1976 Dr. Larsen was nominated Assistant Professor at the Department of Marine Structures of NTNU. From 1982 to 1983 he was engaged as head of the Marine Technology section, division of Structural Engineering, of SINTEF and from 1983 onwards he is scientific advisor for the same SINTEF organization (from 1999 called the MARINTEK, Marine Structures group). He became full professor at the same department in 1984. In 1987 Prof. Larsen was, for one year, visiting professor with Elf Aquitaine in Pau, France. During the period 1989 – 1992 Prof. Larsen was dean of the Faculty of Marine Technology of NTNU. In 1994 he became for one year visiting professor at the Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering of the University of Michigan in the USA. He returned to NTNU and became in 1998 Head of Department of Marine Structures at the Faculty of Marine Technology. In 2002 he was nominated head of the department of Marine Technology of the Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology at NTNU. In 2005 Prof. Larsen was visiting professor in the department of Marine Technology and Transport of TU Delft in the Netherlands. His present position is professor in the department of Marine Technology of the Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology of NTNU.


Prof Larsen is a member of the Board of Advisors of the Norwegian Maritime Directorate and was until 2003 a member of the Executive Committee of WEGEMT, the European Association of Universities in Marine Technology and Related Sciences. Before the year 2000 he was: • a member of the ISSC Committee V.5, "Structural design of pipelines, risers and sub sea systems" • a member of the board of directors of MARINTEK • a member and later chairman of the "Scholarship Committee", Royal Norwegian Council for

Scientific and Industrial Research (NTNF) • chairman of ISSC Committee V.7, "Slender marine structures" and • A member of the ISSC Committee II.2, "Dynamic load effects". Prof Larsen wrote publications amongst others about: • Stochastic dynamic analysis in marine riser design • Analysis of vortex-induced vibrations • Marine operations in deep water • The influence from hydrodynamic forces • Control algorithm for dynamic positioning of floating vessels Ir. J. Huisman Jaap Huisman was born in 1950 in Amersfoort, the Netherlands. He studied Marine Engineering at Delft University of Technology and graduated in 1976. He joined the Ministry of Defence, Royal Netherlands Navy in 1976. In 1980 he became head of the Hydromechanics department followed in 1989 by the function of head of the section Ship Design. Later in 1993 he became head of the department Ship Design & Construction. After the reorganisation, in 1997, in which the department Ship Design & Construction and the department Platform Systems merged, he became head of the new department Naval Technology. From 2004 onwards Ir. Huisman is Technical Manager of the Royal Netherlands Navy in various functions. Ir. Huisman has been member of several Nato project groups and NL Chairman of the Trilateral Frigate Co-operation between Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Currently he is NL Chairman and secretary of the Management Board of the Netherlands – German Naval Ship Co-operation and NL Chairman of the German-Norwegian-Netherlands steering committee of the Hegerness acoustic range. Ir. W.J. Kruijt Wouter J. Kruijt was born in 1960 in Utrecht in the Netherlands. He graduated in 1983, with honours, from the Royal Netherlands Naval College as Mechanical Engineering Officer. His thesis on Fluidised Bed Combustion was honoured with a prize by the ‘Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Technici op Scheepvaartgebied’. In 1988 he graduated with honours as Mechanical Engineer from Delft University of Technology. Between 1983 and 1989 he served as Mechanical Engineering Officer on board various vessels of the Royal Netherlands Navy and the Ministry of Defence, cooperating on a high level with the Dutch Technical Universities and industry for the development of the M-class frigate. Ir. Kruijt is now Director Products for Imtech Marine & Offshore, responsible for Research, Development & Innovation in the fields of IT-systems, ship automation, energy systems and convertors. As Director Products he is also responsible for Product Development, Production and Procurement. Imtech is a listed company of which the maritime cluster is active worldwide in the field of System Integration in the maritime world on all electrical aspects on board all types of vessels. Imtech Marine & Offshore is recognised as a Leader Firm in maritime innovation. In 2004 the Maritime Innovation Award has been awarded to Imtech’s UniMACS® Blue Line Integrated Bridge system. Cooperation with various TNO departments, Delft University of Technology and various high-tech SME’s is an integral part of the research, development and innovation activities of Imtech. Ir. Kruijt is Vice Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Maritime Research Institute of the Netherlands in Wageningen.


Ir R.J. Rijke Reinier Rijke was born in 1953 in the Netherlands. In 1980 he became M.Sc. Naval Architecture at Delft University of Technology. Ir. Rijke started his career as project design engineer with IHC, Jan 1st 1980. He aquinted himself in the design of dredging and offshore equipment, a.o. jack-up rigs. In 1985 he became project manager R&D and product manager marine systems for Wijsmuller Engineering bv., worked in automation and (shipyard) facility management. From 1995 onwards, he worked as project manager with IHC again. Projects he was involved in covered: dredging and project management related to dredging, studies for motions of semi-submersibles, design and building supervision of (conversions) dredgers & offshore units and stability calculations for semi-submersibles and self-elevating platforms. In 1997 Ir. Rijke became Manager Project Proposal department at IHC Holland N.V. Beaver Dredgers. Since then he worked as General Manager Production department, GM Engineering department of Beaver Dredgers and since 2005 as GM of the Production department of IHC Holland Dredgers B.V. in Kinderdijk, the Netherlands. Ir. Rijke is a member of NVTS (Dutch Society of Naval Architects) and of NIN (Dutch Institute of Navigation). M. Haagsma B.Sc. Maarten Haagsma was born in 1982 in The Netherlands. He is preparing for his M.Sc. degree Mechanical Engineering, ‘Design, Production and Management’ from the University of Twente in The Netherlands. Accordingly 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 B.Sc. degree Mechanical Engineering from the University of Twente. During his study Maarten has been member of the faculty committee Engineering Technology and was educational officer for the study association “Isaac Newton” for one year full time. From 2003 until present he has been a member of the educational committee Mechanical Engineering. 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 which design was awarded the first prize for ‘the unstealable bike’ by the technical journal ‘De Ingenieur’.



Appendix C: Domain Specific Reference Frame

Engineering Technology The field of Engineering Technology In this Domain Specific Reference Frame Engineering Technology comprises Marine Technology, Mechanical Engineering and related fields: Biomedical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering and Systems and Control. Modern Engineering Technology comprises the conception, the design, the development, the manufacturing, the operation and maintenance of systems, equipment and materials. It includes marine systems, workshop machinery, transport vehicles, instruments, process installations and medical equipment. Engineering Technology is of great economical 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 the modern society. During the last century Engineering Technology developed from a craft-based activity (empirically, built on trial and error and experience), to a science-based activity as part of the engineering 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, information 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 engineering, materials, design and production). He/she is capable to develop new solutions for problems by use of 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 social-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 Bachelor’s and Master’s Curricula”, a joint publication of TU Delft, TU/e and UT (ISBN 90-386-2217-1; January 2005). Realization of the Domain Specific Reference Frame This description is an updated version of the domain description, as used for the Self evaluation and Education visitation 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.



Appendix D: Assessment Summary

Assessment per facet (BA / MA)

Assessment per topic

Topic 1: Objectives of the degree course satisfactory Facet 1: Domain-specific requirements satisfactory Facet 2: Level satisfactory Facet 3: Orientation good Topic 2: Programme satisfactory Facet 4: Requirements University satisfactory Facet 5: Relationship between aims and objectives

and contents of the programme satisfactory

Facet 6: Coherence of programme good Facet 7: Study load satisfactory Facet 8: Intake satisfactory Facet 9: Curriculum size satisfactory Facet 10: Coordination of structure and contents of

the programme good / satisfactory

Facet 11: Assessment and examinations satisfactory Topic 3: Deployment of staff satisfactory Facet 12: Requirements University satisfactory Facet 13: Quantity of staff unsatisfactory Facet 14: Quality of staff good Topic 4: Facilities and provisions satisfactory Facet 15: Material facilities good Facet 16: Student support and guidance excellent / good Topic 5: Internal quality assurance satisfactory Facet 17: Evaluation of results satisfactory Facet 18: Measures to effect improvement satisfactory Facet 19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and

the professional field good

Topic 6: Results satisfactory Facet 20: Level that has been achieved good Facet 21: Results of teaching satisfactory



Appendix E: Visit programme Marine Technology TU Delft

1st day (3 July 2006) 08.30-10.30 hrs: committee-meeting and review of documentation displayed: 1. Alumni review (WO-monitor)

2. ICT learning environment (access to Blackboard) 3. evaluation reports, student surveys, QA/QC manual 4. Minutes of meeting Education Committee, Board of Examiners and ‘Beroepenveld commissie’ (incl. minutes in which the curricula were ‘approved’) 5. study books, lecture notes and readers 6. Ba/Ma thesis guidelines 7. Internship and related organization 8. (preliminary) examination papers (last 3 years), elaboration 9. policy documents, development plans

09.00- 09.15 hrs: committee installation by drs. J.G.F. Veldhuis, chairman QANU-foundation)

10.30-11.30 hrs: editors of the Self-evaluation report, director of education (& visitation

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: students involved with quality control & assurance and administration e.g.

Marine Technology representatives in the Student Faculty Board (FSR), student members of the Education Committee and the board members of the study association ‘William Froude’.

12.30-13.00 hrs: committee lunch, private (arranged by TUD) 13.00-14.00 hrs: students of the Bachelor programme 14.00-15.00 hrs: lecturers of the Bachelor programme 15.00-15.15hrs: break 15.15-16.00 hrs: Board(s) of Examination (BSc and MSC) and the (lecture-) members of the

Education Committee 16.00-16.45 hrs: MSc Variant Coordinators, study advisors and coordinator practical work,

coordinator educational international affairs. 16.45-17.15 hrs: committee review and summary of observations 17.15- 17.45 hrs representatives of the Faculty Works Council (ODC) 17.45-18.45 hrs ‘get together’ with drinks (arranged by TUD-MT): further introduction of the

committee to the representative of the University Board, the dean and his management team and representatives of the Faculty Works Council (ODC)

19.45-21.00 hrs: committee dinner, private (set-up by QANU)


2nd day (4 July 2006) 08.30-09.15 hrs: students of the Master programme 09.15-10.00 hrs: lecturers of the Master programme 10.00-11.00 hrs: tour of the facilities / individual discussions as requested in parallel 11.00-12.00 hrs: committee review and summary of observations 12.00-12.30 hrs: committee lunch, private (arranged by TUD) 12.30-15.30 hrs: (plenary) completion of worksheets, preparation of close-out presentation 15.30-16.00 hrs: ‘no-surprise’ meeting with representative of the University Board, dean, director

of education and head of ESAD 16.00-16.30 hrs: close-out presentation


Appendix F: List of abbreviations

3mE TU Delft Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering BSc Bachelor of Science DPO Variant Programme Design, Production and Operation (MT) DSRK Domain Specific Reference Frame EC European Credit ECTS European Credit Transfer System HL Full professor MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands MSc Master of Science MT Marine Technology MTT Department Maritime and Transport Technology NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim NVAO Dutch Flemish Accreditation Organisation OAQ Organe d’Accréditation et d’assurance Qualité des hautes écoles Suisses PhD Doctor of Philosophy PRC Professional Review Committee or ‘Beroepenveldcommissie’ QANU Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities SME Small and Medium sized Enterprise TU Delft Delft University of Technology TU/e Eindhoven University of Technology UD Assistant professor UHD Associate professor VWO Dutch education system preparing for university education WEGEMT European Association of Universities with a Department Naval

Architecture/Marine Technology


Date post:	12-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Marine Technology Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials

Documents