30
1, FEBRUARY 1994
An Electrical Engineering Design Course Sequence
Using a Top-Down Design Methodology
R. E. Gander, Senior Member, ZEEE, J. E. Salt, Member, ZEEE, and G. J. Huff
Abstruct-A sequence of two courses (second term of third
Qunior) year and both terms of fourth (senior) year) has been
developed to introduce students to a structured approach to
design. The first course includes lecture-style presentation of the
top-down, step-wise refinement, design methodology. Realistic
documentation and clientkonsultant communication is fostered
as well as the design, fabrication, and testing of a prototype.
In the senior-year course, students divide into teams of three
members to undertake a single design problem, with individual
faculty members acting as “clients”. A more complete sequence
of the top-down design process is undertaken in these senior-year
projects. Documentation is required at each stage of the design
sequence to ensure compliance with the clientheam “contract”.
Introduction of a formal design process, including time manage-
ment, has resulted in an increased “success” rate in the final
designs and in more complex problems being proposed by the
“clients ” than had previously been our experience.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE ABILITY to design is the characteristic that dis-
tinguishes engineers from other professions. Design is
central to the practice of engineering, and for this reason it is
an important component of an engineering curriculum. This
importance is reinforced in North America by the guidelines
set out by the professional bodies responsible for accreditation
of engineering programs-the Canadian Engineering Accred-
itation Board and the Accreditation Board for Engineering
Technology. In the past, many engineers expressed the opinion
that design was an “art” and could not be taught or formalized.
This view does not fit the majority of engineering projects,
which are now of such a magnitude that many individual
engineers, often from different disciplines, must work together
to complete a design in reasonable time.
In Canadian engineering programs, students in their fourth
year are typically required to complete a design project. (In the
U.S., these are often referred to as capstone design projects.)
These projects may be formulated by faculty members or
outside agencies. Students may work on these alone or in small
groups. Our own past experience is with students working
alone on relatively small projects. This started with a paper
design problem in a design class in the second term of third
year and then a slightly larger laboratory-type project that
extended over both terms in the fourth year. The fourth-
Manuscript received September 1991, revised February 1992.
R. E. Gander is with the Department of Electrical Engineering and a member
of the Division of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N OW0 Canada.
J. E. Salt and G. J. Huff are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N OW0 Canada.
IEEE Log Number 9214230.
0018-9359/94$04.00 0 1994 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 37, NO.
year design class evolved toward a more realistic setting
where the students work on a project in teams and the
interaction among team members becomes a significant part
of the design effort. Small student groups (usually three)
were formed, and the projects were made larger. It soon
became clear that in this new environment a more structured
approach to documentation and scheduling of effort was
needed. More specifically, the students needed a methodology
for approaching their design projects to help them manage the
more complex problems encountered in the larger projects. To
address these concems, a requirement analysis of the “design
program” was performed, and the program was changed to
include a lecture component that explained the underlying
principles of a top-down methodology and the importance of
the requirement analysis, the systems-level synthesis/analysis,
and the testing of the prototype.
The motivation for changing our design class was provided
by local industry. They spplied pressure at almost every
opportunity: while recruiting, while providing student projects,
while judging design competitions. Their concems were very
similar to those listed by Hoole [l], Jones [2], and Liebman
[3]. A comment made by Howard Grant, vice president of
SED Systems, stands out. Paraphrased in the words of the
authors, his comment was, “It seems your graduates have
very little difficulty in designing at the circuit-board level,
but they have great difficulty making the step to system-level
design.” The reason for this may have been that our fourth-
year projects were basically circuit-board designs, and to make
the matter worse, the marking scheme for the design course
did not reward system-level synthesis or analysis.
The final year design project, or capstone project, courses
have changed or are in the process of changing at many
universities. The trend is toward a structured format that
emphasizes team concepts and forces the students to follow
a particular design methodology [4]-[6]. This was also
the case in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
University of Saskatchewan. The objectives of all these
programs are quite similar. If the objectives of the University
of Saskatchewan program differ from those of the programs
cited above, it would be in the following three areas: the
greater emphasis placed on the documentation of the design;
the inclusion of testing into every stage of design, even
the problem definition stage; and the importance placed
on the systems engineering stage.
The novelty of the program at the University of
Saskatchewan is in the implementation. The program
integrates several concepts now in use at a variety of schools.
GANDER et 01.: ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE SEQUENCE USING TOP-DOWN DESIGN METHODOLOGY
I Customer Analysis
- - - - - - StiltementofWork
I RequirementsAnalysis
- - - - - -Requirement Specification
System Design (including
system subdivision)
+- - - - - - - System Specification
Bottom Block Design
----
Bottom Block Implementation
and Test
- - - - - -Working Modules
(and Test)
I
Fig. 1. The design process from a top-down perspective,
It starts in the third or junior year with a course that teaches
a top-down methodology through lectures and reinforces it
with carefully designed assignments. This approach is similar
to that taken by Green from a Software Perspective [71. The
assignments consist of delivering the documentation at the
stage boundaries of a simple design. The class is divided
into two sections, and a different problem is assigned to
each section. After the requirement analysis is complete, the
requirement sl)ecification document is between
student groups with different problems in different sections.
The students then the product described in the
requirement 'pecification they received' This
takes place again for acceptance testing. This is done to
emphasize the importance of the documentation, the theory
being that working from student quality documentation will
drive the point home. Ballew [ 5 ] also found crossover to
be useful when implemented in a slightly different manner.
The students then follow the top-down methodology in their
capstone project which runs the full 8 months of two terms.
The first term is devoted to requirement analysis and systems
The second term is used for the bottom block
designs, integration and testing.
11. COURSE OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The outcome of the requirements analysis was that the two
design classes should be coordinated as a sequence to address
five objectives. At the end of the course sequence students
should have
1) An in-depth understanding of a formal design method,
2) Some understanding of the development engineering
process,
3) Some understahding of the system engineering process,
31
I
1
(and draft user's manual)
Schematic Diagrams
- MechanicalDrawings
Functional Description
Art Work
and Test Results
Working Prototype System
Test Results, Full Documentation
and User's Manual
4) An awareness of the manufacturing process, and
5) An appreciation for the importance of project organiza-
tion, control, and documentation.
These fit within the broad departmental objective to instruct
students on effective methods of solving problems by applying
mathematics and scientific principles of technologies in the
field of electrical engineering. The top-down design method
(Fig. 1) was to provide the formalized approach to
design for three reasons: It is a mature methodology that is well
documented and easily understood ,8], [91. It lends itself to
formal interim documentation, task assignment between team
members, and work scheduling. It unifies the entire engineer-
ing cumcula by explaining the relationship among systems
classes, component level classes, science and mathematics
classes, and relevant humanities and social sciences classes.
In top-down design, the solution is first proposed as a
system of interconnected functional blocks. Many solutions
to design problems in electrical engineering can be readily
described in this way without priori, the de-
tailed implementation of the functional blocks. The inputs
and outputs and the function of each block must be clearly
and precisely documented. The inputs and outputs must be
specified with respect to all electrical, mechanical, operational,
and functional aspects. A system analysis is then performed
to see if the proposed system satisfies all the constraints
(e.g., performance, stability, energy consumption, reliability,
maintainability,and cost). If a means for implementing a block
cannot be readily determined, then that block is subdivided.
Each of the subblocks is defined in terms of its inputs, outputs,
and function, and then the subsystem is analyzed to see
if it achieves the purpose of its parent block. Subdivision
is repeated until a level is reached where the function of
32
TABLE I
COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS
each block can be realized and satisfy the input and output
specifications with a high degree of certainty. A brief review
of top-down design is given by Gander et al. [ 101, and a more
detailed description can be found in Mills [9].
The top-down design method comes out of system design
and software design experience [8], [9]. However, it is similar
to design methodologies that are derived from hardware de-
sign experience [ l l]-[ 131. In top-down design, considerable
emphasis is placed on system analysis. A fundamental part
of the system analysis is the system decomposition process.
This provides a structure for the designer (or design team)
to subdivide a large design project into modules of a size
sufficient for a single individual to undertake with a reasonable
probability of success. The process also emphasizes sequential
documentation, with the amount of documentation increasing
with each stage of the design sequence. For example, in
software design, the user’s manual starts to be defined at the
requirement analysis stage and continues to expand through
subsequent steps.
The course in the second term of third, or junior, year (JYD)
deals primarily with the first three of the five objectives with
some exposure to the manufacturing process. The fourth, or
senior, year course (SYD) reinforces the first three objectives
and also covers the fourth and fifth objectives. At the end
of the sequence, each student should have the ability to
apply the top-down method to a variety of problems and
situations. The students are made aware of some of the
specialized equipment and software used in the development
engineering process. In particular, the students should have
used one or more simulation programs that are typically
employed in electrical design analysis. The students will have
had experience Mth in generating design documentation and
in working from documents prepared by others. By working
in teams, the students will have had some experience with
project organization and control.
Several aspects of the engineering process are not formally
addressed in these design classes. For example, marketing
and production, although discussed, are not studied in detail
and do not f o m a major part of student projects. It is
not that we believe concurrent engineering is an invalid or
unworthy processdRather, it is very difficult for students to get
meaningful production or marketing experience from projects
in a university engineering laboratory setting. These topics are
dealt with to a certain extent in an engineering economics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 31. NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1994
FOR JUNIOR-YEAR
DESIGN
course. The social and environmental context of design is
covered in an impact of technology course, and, for reasons of
time limitation, design optimization is not formally included.
111. COURSESTRUCTURE
As previously mentioned, the three-term sequence is divided
into two courses-JYD (one term) and SYD (two terms). The
students in each course are divided into two sections.
3.1 Course Outline and Assignments
Junior-Year One-Term Course (JYD) The course outline
for JYD is shown in Table I. The class time is scheduled as
a single three-hour block in which there is either formal
information exchange for the first half and interactive
discussion for the second half or there is interactive discussion
for the entire three hours. The structure of the course requires
interaction among student groups that is most effectively
achieved if the course is given in two separate sections with
nearly equal numbers in each section.
Two problems are assigned-one for each section. Each
section as a whole drafts a statement of work or formal
statement of the problem. For the first assignment, the students
work in pairs, do the requirement analysis, and then write
a requirement specification. Testing of the problem solution
is addressed immediately after the requirement analysis, and
a complete set of acceptance tests are ,included in the re-
quirement specification. The problems have been chosen to
be sufficiently simple as to be a single block system. That is,
system analysis is not required, and implementation can be
achieved with readily available components. The groups are
encouraged to work independently and not discuss the problem
with anyone from the other section. After completion, each of
the requirement specifications developed in one section are
given to the groups in the other section for implementation
(Assignment 2). This transfer is done anonymously.
The requirement specification is no doubt far from perfect,
so the receiving group is given the opportunity to pass back,
again anonymously, a letter seeking clarification and offering
suggestions where appropriate. The originating group responds
to the questions before the circuit design is started. Each
group develops two or three possible design solutions and then
compares them before choosing one for implementation. The
anonymous exchange of information serves the dual purpose
GANDER et 01.: ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE SEQUENCE USING TOP-DOWN DESIGN METHODOLOGY
TABLE I1
ASSIGNMENT
TOPICS FOR JUNIOR-YEAR
DESIGN
block heater tester, CMOS logic probe, detector to find
the studs in the frame behind a wall, guitar tuner, 12:OO
of forcing the students to communicate totally in writing and
allowing them to be more open.
The circuits are fabricated on proto-boards. These boards,
along with the complete documentation package are delivered
to a different group in the originating section. A third group
performs the acceptance tests (Assignment 4) laid out in the
requirement specification and writes a report on their findings.
The intent of having separate pairs of students undertake
the three different tasks (specification, implementation, and
testing) is to reduce the reliance on prior knowledge and
assumptions and to increase the dependence on the docu-
mentation for completion of the sequence. In fact, most of
the learning on the content and quality of a requirement
specification comes from the second assignment where they
are designing a circuit based on someone else’s requirement
specification.Working from a less than professional specifica-
tion that requires clarification demands a critical appraisal of
the specification and impresses the importance of accurate and
clear writing on the minds of the students. The feedback from
the clarification stage is also a valuable learning experience.
The students are given access to the laboratories in the
evenings, and the testing is done, as are other assignments,
outside of regularly scheduled time.
At this time, systems engineering is being discussed in class.
The system engineering assignment (Assignment 3) is intended
to show that altemative designs can be developed and analyzed
at the system block level without doing detailed bottom block
design. The same problem is given to both sections, and again
the students work in groups of two. Each student in a group
is to develop independently a system design, and then the
two students select one of the designs with an analysis as to
why it was selected. At the same time, the need for proper
specification of the interface between blocks in the system is
emphasized. The students hand in a joint system specification,
which includes a description and evaluation of each system,
and a comparison of the two systems.
Grading of the assignments is done by the faculty instructors
and, in the case of Assignments 1 and 2, also by the receiving
groups. Examples of design projects are given in Table 11. The
instructors use a check-list type marking sheet, which is given
to the students with each assignment package. This approach to
marking is used to improve the uniformity of marking between
the two sections and to stimulate specific comments as to
strengths and weaknesses. The students appreciate having a
copy of the marking sheet prior to the start of an assignment.
This helps them understand the relative importance of various
aspects of each assignment.
33
Course evaluation is based on the assignments (75%), a
midterm examination (10%) and a final examination (15%).
Most of the assignment marks are associated with Assignments
1, 2, and 3. We have tried both written and oral examinations,
and we have chosen to use written exams. The oral exams were
conducted by having one instructor examine the students in the
other section. The results of the exam did not correlate well
with the opinion of the other instructor, who based his opinion
on assignments and in-class performance. Because there is a
formal design methodology, students can be asked to use parts
of that method in the exam or to critique design documentation.
This serves as a useful means of determining individual
progress in understanding the method, and it impresses on the
students that the course is taken seriously. That is, the student
does not automatically pass the course.
Senior-Year Two-Term Course (SYD) The course outline
for SYD is shown in Table 111. The classes remain at three
hours per week, but the formal information exchange only
occurs in the three-hour time periods when assignments
are handed out. The remaining classes in the first term are
interactive and involve going over examples and answering
student questions. In the second term, no interactive classes
are held.
Except for the data book assignment, all the assignments
relate to the design projects. The project ideas are submitted
prior to the start of classes in September by all faculty
members in the department. The faculty member may generate
the project idea or may be serving as a contact for an extemal
“client”-a faculty member in another department or college
or a company/organization outside the university. Examples
of project topics are:
An integrated circuit identifier and tester
Sprint block instrumentation
A credit card electronic lock for student access to under-
graduate laboratories
A lack-of-motion alerting system for use by firefighters
and police
A torque meter that supports dynamic measurements
A system that grades potatoes by size
Each project submission includes a statement of work. These
are circulated to the students in the first lecture period.
The students divide themselves into groups according to
the projects that interest them. Group size is usually three,
although some projects may lend themselves to two or four
persons. The students then visit the faculty members associated
with projects of interest to the group. This is done to obtain
more information and to negotiate with the faculty member to
agree on supervision. The course instructors may intervene
to spread the supervision work load more evenly among
department members. Subsequent assignments are used to
ensure that the groups are active on their projects in the first
term.
Grading in the first term is done by the two course instruc-
tors. This provides uniform feedback to the students as to the
quality of work, and it highlights deficiencies that must be
corrected if subsequent stages of the design process are to be
successful. Grading in the second term is done by the faculty
34
TABLE I11
COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTSFOR
member associated with the design team. The major portion
of the final grade is associated with the individual block level
design documentation (35%), the oral presentation (20%), and
the final report (10%). Each of the other documentation steps
has a 5% weighting toward the final mark. The final report has
a relatively low weighting because it is largely a compilation
of the interim documentation generated throughout the project.
Student and Faculty Time Commitment The students are
expected to spend seven hours per week in each of the three
terms. In JYD, this means three hours per week in class
and four hours on their own time-some of which is in the
laboratory. In SYD, it is more difficult to strictly account for
student time commitment. In the first term, the ratio of in-class
time to self-directed time is roughly 2 5 . However, the total
time spent is probably less than seven hours per week. In
the second term, all the time is self-directed, but, from time
records kept by the students, the time spent greatly exceeds
seven hours per week for most of the students.
The faculty loading outlined here assumes that the class
consists of 75 students. Overall, course instructors have 169
contact hours with the students. This comes from: 3 hr/week
x 13 weeks x 2 faculty members in JYD, 3 hr/week per
instructor x 13 weeks x 2 instructors in the first term of SYD
and 1 hr/week x 13 weeks x 1 instructor in the second term
of SYD. (Although there are no formal in-class responsibilities
for the second term of SYD, it requires one hour per week to
organize the oral presentations and take care of administrative
commitments.) There is significant assignment marking as well
as the usual preparation time associated with any course. This
amounts to a further 156 hours of faculty loading-that is,
3 hr/week per instructor x 13 weeks/term x 2 terms x 2
instructors. In addition, the SYD projects involve supervision
and grading by other faculty members. The time involvement
varies with course enrollment (and hence the number of
projects) and the faculty member’s approach to supervision.
A reasonable estimate for this with our current enrollment is
a loading of 195 hours, that is, 0.5 hr/week per project x 13
weekdterm x 2 terms x 15 projects. As might be expected,
loading is not evenly distributed among the faculty, as the
students tend to prefer certain supervisors or types of projects.
Resources: The students are expected to use the laboratory
during unscheduled hours. The laboratories are available after
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 37, NO. I , FEBRUARY 1994
SENIOR-YEAR DESIGN
regular hours and on weekends through a key sign-out proce-
dure. The budgeted laboratory use is 15 hours per student in
JYD and 70 hours per student in SYD. The latter figure is,
however, nominal as students spend more than the budgeted
70 hours.
The circuit designs in JYD may require special components,
but, in general, they can be completed using parts in stock.
Therefore, there is no cash budget for JYD. The fourth-year
projects have a limit of $50.00 per student for specially ordered
parts. Special permission of the department head is required
to exceed this. Often, high-priced components are a result of
projects associated with research projects and, therefore, are
covered by faculty research grants. Parts taken from stock
are recorded for departmental budgeting purposes, but are
not charged against the allowed limit. Most projects are well
within the $50 student limit.
Iv. LIMITATIONS
OF THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION
Some of the aspects of engineering design not covered by
this course sequence were given in Section 3. Many “real-
life” engineering projects are multidisciplinary in scope. Our
fourth-year projects, also, may have nonelectrical engineering
design requirements. However, many project ideas are likely
not proposed by faculty because the non-EE content may
be perceived as being too large. No attempt has been made
to cooperate with other engineering departments to allow
design teams to be formed across disciplines. Although there
are real problems in scheduling and differences in course
format and content between departments, these would not be
insurmountable if the advantages of such projects were seen
by the respective departments.
Another possible use of formally scheduled time would be
for tours to local industries. Although we have not yet arranged
any, we have discussed possibilities available to us. These
include electronic development and circuit fabrication, fiber
optic manufacturing, military-type system engineering, power
generation facilities, and telephone switching control centers.
The former two would provide exposure to manufacturing
processes and equipment,’ and the latter three would be used
to enhance the understanding of systems concems, such as
stability and reliability.
GANDER et al.: ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE SEQUENCE USING TOP-DOWN DESIGN METHODOLOGY
V. CONCLUSION
The two-course, three-term design sequence was designed
to address the five objectives originally stated. The top-
down design process is presented in lecture format to the
students, and it is applied to several design problems. Through
discussion and by means of guest lecturers, some aspects of
development engineering, reliability engineering, and manu-
facturing processes are also presented to the students. The
use of an engineering teadclient structure in fourth year and
the decoupling of design steps in third year has increased
the appreciation of the students for good documentation and
for project organization and control. Student performance in
the design projects has improved, as judged by the project
supervisors in that prototypes are more likely to meet the
design requirements and client expectations. The students have
done noticeably better in national and international design
competitions; one group took overall international honors in
the IEEE competition. With the team approach to design, the
project proposals have also increased somewhat in complexity,
so that students are working on more challenging problems.
REFERENCES
[ l ] S. R. H. Hook, “Engineering education, design, and senior projects,”
IEEE Trans. Eng. Educ., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 193-197, 1991.
[2] J. B. Jones, “Design at the frontiers of engineering education,” in Proc.
1991 Frontiers in Education, IEEE, pp. 107-111, 1991.
[3] J. C. Liebman, ”Designing the design engineer,” J . Prof. Issues in Eng.,
vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 261-270, 1989.
[4] W. L. Cooley, R. L McConnell, and P. H. Whiting, ”Indus-
try-community-academia cooperation in an EE senior design
environment,” in Proc. 1986 Frontiers in Education, IEEE, pp. 273-279,
1986.
[ 5 ] D. Ballew, “A senior design course for computer science,” SIGCSE
Bull., (Assoc. for Comput. Mach., Special Interest Group on Comput.
Sci. Educ.), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 131-133, 1986.
[6] S. P. Magleby, C. D. Sorensen, and R. H. Todd, “Integrated product
and process design: a capstone course in mechanical and manufacturing
engineering,” Proc. 1991 Fronriers in Education, IEEE, pp. 469-474,
1991.
[7] D. G. Green, D. G. Smith, and G. L. Vaughn, “Engineering design taught
from a software perspective,” in Proc. 1987 Frontiers in Educarion,
IEEE, pp. 134-136, 1987..
[8] E. Yourdon, Techniques of Program Structure and Design. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1975.
[9] H. Mills, “Top-down programming in large systems,” in Debugging
Techniques in Large Syslems, R. Rustin, Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971, pp. 41-55.
35
[lo] R. E. Gander, J. E. Salt. and G. J. Huff, “a three term course sequence
in electrical engineering design,” in Proc. of the Seventh Can. Conf. on
Eng. Educ., pp. 62-74, 1990.
[ I I] W. C. Tumer, J. H. Mize, and K. E. Case, Introduction to Industrial
Engineering. 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1987.
[ 121 S. F. Love, Planning and Creating Successful Engineered Designs., rev.
ed., Los Angeles: Advanced Professional Development, Inc., 1986.
[ 131 W. E. Eder, “Systematic design-basis for engineering curricula,” in
Proc. of the Seventh Can. Conf. on Eng. Educ., pp. 127-137, 1990.
R. E. Gander (S’70, M’72, S’76, M’79, SM’85)
obtained the B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering
in 1972 from the University of Alberta, and the
M.A.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
Toronto in 1975 and 1980, respectively.
He has been a faculty member in the Bioengi-
neering Institute and the Department of Electrical
Engineering at the University of New Brunswick.
He is currently an Associate Professor in Electrical
Engineering and a member of the Division of
Biomedical Engineering at the University of
Saskatchewan. His research interests are in the application of artificial neural
networks.
He is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of
Saskatchewan, the Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society,
RESNA, and a senior member of IEEE.
J. Eric Salt (M’88) received the B.Sc. degree
from the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Canada, the M.Eng. degree from Carleton Univer-
sity, Ontario, Canada, and the Ph.D. degree from
the University of Saskatchewan, all in electrical
engineering, in 1974, 1977, and 1987, respectively.
He worked as a Product Development Engineer in
the telecommunica tions industry with Bell Northem
Research, Ottawa, Ontario, from 1974 to 1976,
and with SED Systems, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
from 1977 to 1982. He joined the Department of
Electrical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, in 1985 and presently
holds the rank of Associate Professor. His current research interests are in
building wireless communication and underwater sonar signal processing.
G. J. Huff received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the University of
Saskatchewan in 1965 and 1968 respectively.
He was a co-founder of and Development Engineer for Develcon Elec-
tronics Corporation. He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Saskatchewan in 1969 and presently holds the rank of Associate
Professor. His research interests lie in several areas of instrumentation.