Directional-based Cellular e-Commerce: Undergraduate Systems Engineering Capstone Design Project

Directional-Based Cellular e-Commerce:Undergraduate Systems EngineeringCapstone Design Project*

HUSSAIN AL-RIZZO,1 SESHADRI MOHAN,1 MELISSA REED,1 DWAYNE KINLEY,1

ZAK HEMPHILL,1 CHRIS FINLEY,1 AMANDA POPE,1 DOUG OSBORN,1 WAYNE CROLLEY2

1 Systems Engineering Department, George W. Donaghey College of Engineering and Information

Technology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2801 South University Avenue, Little Rock,

AR 72204-1099, USA. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]&T AES Engineering, Little Rock, AR 72201-1618, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

This paper describes the framework of an innovative style of mentoring for a capstone design courseoffered in the Systems Engineering Department of the George W. Donaghey College of Engin-eering and Information Technology at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). Thecourse is focused on a pedagogical approach to teach systems engineering design by establishing aclient-based, industrially inspired, experiential teamwork learning environment, which allowsstudents to think divergently to create a convergent solution using creative approaches. A teamfrom the Computer and Telecommunications Systems Engineering Options addressed aspects of thedesign and development cycle of a directional-based cellular e-commerce project including systemmission, architecture, operational scenarios, design, prototyping, and validation. The teamconsidered relevant stakeholder needs and constraints, contrasted viable design alternatives againstproject requirements, followed a sub-system breakdown to fulfill the requirements identified in theRequest for Proposal (RFP) to which system functions and properties can be mapped, andexamined potential implementations within a constrained budget while ensuring system levelcompliance. A classroom environment, which is conducive to creative engineering design, is initiatedby nurturing novel thoughts, encouraging autonomy, individual learning styles, self-reflection,assessment, and expanding students’ ability to reason on original thought processes. Overall, thestudents felt they were provided with a unique and valuable experience that would be beneficial tothem in their careers. Nearly all students were enthusiastic about the hands-on use of CAD formodeling and simulations and other professional systems engineering tools to solve real-worldproblems.. Although some students were frustrated at times, in the end, the experience gained wasconsidered valuable. Assessments based on interviews conducted by the industry sponsor withindividual students, results from quantifiable metrics and rubrics, comments from alumni, and theindustrial advisory board on the course instruction have been overwhelmingly positive, supportingour conclusion that the course structure provided an effective learning experience.

Keywords: capstone design course; systems engineering education; industry sponsorship project;project-based learning; creative engineering design

1. INTRODUCTION

INFORMATION DELIVERY to customers,based on their location, offers the potential for abroad range of service offerings and consequentlyincreased revenue for telecommunications opera-tors and other service providers [1–4]. A servicethat has an even better potential for revenuegeneration, which is the subject of the capstonedesign project under consideration in this paper, isone that could determine the location and direc-tion of motion of customers, anticipates arrival ata certain location, and delivers a list of Points-of-Interests (POIs) based on customer profiles.The Systems Engineering Department at UALR

offers a two-semester capstone design course

during the senior year: SYEN 4385: Systems En-gineering Capstone Design I, and SYEN 4386:Systems Engineering Capstone Design II. Duringa two-semester period, a directional-based cellulare-commerce project, termed eViator, was offeredto a team consisting of six undergraduate studentsfrom the Computer and TelecommunicationsSystems Engineering Options. The team investi-gated the design and implementation of eViatorwith special emphasis on speed estimation, pre-planned versus on-demand services, and infra-structure integration. Students examined availablesupporting technologies, determined the most suit-able method of implementation, designed a systemthat can be easily integrated with an existingcellular infrastructure, and developed a suite ofplatform-independent, software algorithms to deli-ver the vital elements of eViator.Providing an engineering design experience to* Accepted 4 April 2010

1285

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 1285–1304, 2010 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 2010 TEMPUS Publications.

student teams working on industry-inspired/spon-sored capstone design projects is not novel [5–10].The literature is replete with numerous journalarticles and conference proceedings addressingthe role of a capstone course for traditional elec-trical, computer, mechanical, civil, and industrialengineering programs [11–20] with excellentdiscussion of the methods and techniques as wellas challenges associated with objective evaluationsto gauge student attainment of outcomes [9]; [16–17]; [21–23]. However, considerably less literaturehas tackled issues related to a capstone designcourse in the realm of systems-centered disciplin-ary programs [24–26]. It is this latter area that thispaper is focused on. More specifically, our objec-tive is to enhance the creativity of undergraduatesystems engineering students by bringing a conceptinto reality through evolutionary design and novelthoughts to develop organization skills, tapingboth needed domain knowledge and systems en-gineering tools and processes to rapidly and effec-tively architect, design, integrate, and validatecomplex systems that involve humans, organ-izations, and technologies. We have tested twohypotheses in this regard. The first is how tobreak away from the traditional role of industryinvolvement that is centered on ‘‘taking industryinto the classroom’’ and focus instead on ‘‘injectingthe student into the industry environment.’’ Theconcept of placing students into real-world scenar-ios facing contemporary business challenges wasreversed and, instead, students were treated asstrategic business partners in a mock businessscenario to transfer research in emerging technol-ogies into potential marketplace success. Thesecond hypothesis employs a system engineeringparadigm as an intricate cognitive process thatuses creativity to bring new thoughts into thedesign and implementation of a feasible product.Creativity, in our context, is the process of devel-oping and expressing novel ideas that are likely tobe useful whereas innovation refers to synthesizingor bridging ideas from different domains [27–28].Laboratory-intensive suites of system-level

simulations have been offered early in SYEN4385 to familiarize students with technical topicsrequired to support the project. Students weregiven the opportunity to use professional CADtools, experience day-to-day social, ethical, andpolitical real-world challenges, and become moreproficient at writing technical reports for managersin response to realistic situations, rather thanwriting for professors in contrived situations.These activities assisted students to synthesizenovel ideas into implementation that is realisticand functional in the context of standard systemsengineering development processes: problem defi-nition, concept design, system-level design,detailed design, test, and verification. Participatingin activities such as project planning, performanceanalysis, reliability, human interfaces, cost, execu-tion, validation, and tradeoff studies providedstudents the opportunity to acquire proficiency in

interpersonal, teamwork, economics, conflictmanagement, decision making, ethics, socialissues, and entrepreneurship [29].The instructional team consisted of two faculty

members, the industrial sponsor, guest lecturers,and four graduate teaching assistants. The instruc-tional team provided the resources for knowledgeacquisition, established a close relationship withand within the students’ team, proactively advisedand counseled the students in technical, time, andteam management, assessed ties among thestudents without imposing methods, views, orsolutions. The industrial sponsor from AT&Tprovided the students with a RFP, which buildsthe objectives and specific aims that the finaldeliverable must be complied with. He also assistedin the design of laboratory experiments and parti-cipated in informal learning experiences such asseminars and conference calls. Moreover, hecontributed to determining a framework of skillsneeded, and evaluation by assessing the appropri-ateness of the content of the laboratory experi-ments in producing learning, which are functionalin an industrial environment, and evaluated theoutcomes of the project and the processes by whichthe course contents were developed and delivered.This active involvement resulted in an increasedawareness of employer expectations, constraintsinvolved in the design, and how students will beexpected to perform in their future careers. Itshould be noted that the involvement of theindustrial sponsor in the evaluation process (grad-ing and assessment) enhances competition amongthe students and motivated them to seek excellence[30].The instructors assisted students during brain-

storming, mind mapping, and recombination ofideas sessions. The instructional team deliveredtwo groups of lectures. The first group coveredtopics pertaining to project planning such afeasibility study, conceptualization, reduction ofconcepts, formulating open-ended designproblems, discovering system requirements,system evaluation, project management, replyingto RFPs, team performance, and protection ofintellectual property. The second group of lecturescovered technical topics of specific interest to theproject such as WLAN and cellular systems, wire-less geo-location algorithms based on linear pathestimation, database programming and manage-ment, VXML, and OPNET [31]. Building experi-ence in these multidisciplinary domains makes itpossible to approach a solution for each subsystemof eViator with a flexible mind set, willingness totry new perspectives, and search for new combina-tions. Students submitted individual status reportsand conducted project meetings on a weekly basisto evaluate their progress, describe actions thathave taken place, schedule issues, debate newideas, and play the roles of project managers anddirect liaisons to the industry sponsor and facultyon a two-week rotational basis to ensure that eachstudent had an opportunity to practice firsthand

H. Al-Rizzo et al.1286

what it is like to be responsible for a complexproject.The rest of the paper is organized as follows.

The problem statement submitted to the studentsin the form of a formal proposal is described inSection 2. In Section 3, we introduce the systemsengineering approach followed by the students forthe eViator concept development, which culmi-nates in defining the systems architecture. A briefstakeholder analysis and the requirement hierarchydeveloped using the Vitech systems engineeringand architecting software CORE [32] is presentedthrough an in-depth analysis from requirementsdefinition through architecture to systems verifica-tion. Section 4 summarizes the two phasesfollowed for system-level design: research, andimplementation. In Section 5 we briefly describethe three algorithms developed to estimate thetime-of-arrival at the POI. In Section 6, theconceptual and system-level design are integratedtogether to generate a novel functional system withparticular emphasis on the engine and database.The role of the industrial advisor and outcomeassessment strategies are introduced in Sections 7and 8, respectively. Finally, Section 9 concludesthe paper.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT: REQUESTFOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

eViator delivers services notification and contentto wireless devices carried by travelers of aninterstate highway that may be interactive, real-time, on-demand, planned, or spontaneous. A keybenefit of eViator is its use of existing cellularinfrastructure to deliver services information,traveler location, and directional information, toa wide array of wireless devices. eViator’s featuresinclude:

. Services information in various media formatsfrom textual messaging to streaming audio andvideo.

. Versatility in methods of purchase:– Pre-Planned—user visits a website prior to anautomobile trip and requests to be notified ofspecific services of interest.

– On-Demand—user initiates search from awireless device for a specific service while inroute to a destination.

. Infrastructure and target device independent.

. Billing methods tiered to allow businesses tomaximize their advertising budgets.

. On-demand searches that can be initiated in anumber of ways.

. Targeting information to proven markets.

Another goal of the RFP is to enlist the research ofa firm to complete two projects associated with thisservice:

. Location Estimation—develop a method (soft-ware), which will track a device as it travels

along a linear path passing through a series ofhotspots, associating the location of the deviceas it relates to the fixed location of the hotspottower. A database should be included in thedesign which would collect this information forthe additional purposes of:– Determining the direction of the device’stravel as it relates to the linear series of hot-spots.

– Estimating the approximate speed of travel ofthe device based on information collectedfrom a series of wireless hotspots.

– Estimation of the arrival of the device at thenext subsequent wireless hotspot based on theinformation collected regarding the device’stime and duration in previous hotspots.

– By monitoring the device’s travel throughhotspots and approximating the estimatedtime of arrival in the next cell, determine ifthe device has stopped moving in a linearmanner, and provide alerts of this situation.

. Device Identification—monitor a series of wire-less hotspots, aligned in a linear manner, toidentify when new wireless devices enter thehotspot and associate with the access point bytracking the unique ID of the device. Monitor aparticular device as it enters the first hotspot andthen progresses along a linear path, through aseries of hotspots:– Actively monitor all devices associated with aparticular wireless access point.

– Determine when a device enters or exits thecoverage pattern of the antenna of a particu-lar access point.

– Develop a method by which alerts would begenerated once a wireless device enters orexists a particular wireless hotspot.

3. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Systems engineering approachDevelopment of the eViator project is aligned

with the following objectives: adequately define thesystem over its life cycle; define clear-cut inter-mediate development stages to ensure successfulsystem acquisition. Students followed two comple-mentary systems engineering perspectives for theintegration of subsystems to meet design require-ments defined in the RFP. The first is through aseries of discrete steps occurring sequentially overtime; the second is that of a set of technicalactivities that occur throughout the life cycle.Project tailoring is achieved by controlling thenumber of iterations of the discrete steps and thetechnical activities to distinguish phases and estab-lish control gates between groups of activities. Thestudents relied on an iterative process thatcomprises the following seven tasks: state theproblem, investigate alternatives, model thesystem, integrate, launch the system, assess perfor-mance, and re-evaluate. These functions can be

Directional-Based Cellular e-Commerce: Undergraduate Systems 1287

summarized with the acronym SIMILAR [33] inFig. 1.

3.2 Systems architectureThe approach followed to translate the RFP

into a system encompasses: developing functionaland physical interfaces, verifying that the designmeets the users’ perceived needs, and conductingtradeoff and risk analysis. The following statementinspired this approach, ‘‘The problem statementshould be in terms of what must be done, not howto do it.’’ [34]. Several brainstorming sessions wereconducted involving interaction and exchange ofideas to refine the final design of the eViatorsystem by invoking individual inputs and feed-backs to influence the students’ creative minds.At this stage, the industry sponsor played a signif-icant role in constraining the generation of ideason the intended scope of the project and to initiatea mapped solution to the problem.Dynamic marketplace, globalization, and fast

changing technologies require the eViator to bedeveloped quickly to stay ahead of competition.Fast system evolution driven by a half life oftechnologies significantly shorter than system lifecycles or even system development cycle times,leading to further problems for system architec-tures. Therefore, steady insertion of new technol-ogies is necessary to keep the system competitive.The eViator must accommodate integration atall levels since it is incorporated into externalnetworks that experience different levels of tech-nological evolutions at different times. The overalldesign needs to account for these aspects toproduce a long life cycle for the developed plat-form. These major drivers require that the systemarchitecture be: Flexible—ability to be changedeasily and rapidly, and Transparent – ability toadapt to changing environments.The eViator model depicted in Fig. 2 was devel-

oped to provide guidelines for research and design,and to prevent type three errors: working on thewrong problem. Confirmed by the client through aresponse to the RFP, this model was the basis forgenerating requirements, acted as a baseline forabstract modeling, and drove the developmentstages for the project to progressively reduce thelevel of abstraction. Research conducted by thestudents revealed that the three major drivers thatdemand immediate systems development are:dynamic marketplace, technological evolution,and variety of environments.A key component of the eViator is the engine,

which controls the whole eViator service. Theengine performs the following tasks:

. locate users;

. direction determination;

. initiate service;

. initiate users’ travel database;

. authenticate and authorize customers;

. verify and update customers’ preferences;

. update customers’ travel log.

An attribute essential to the system’s success is thatthe engine must interface well with the database.Moreover, the engine has to run independentlyfrom other components, but at the same timecollaborate and interwork with them.The database provides storage for user accounts,

tracks progress during a trip, and stores userpreferences to ensure the services are applicableto their individual trips. There will be multifunc-tion reading and writing to the database. TheeViator project is supported by an educationalbudget; therefore the cost of developing andrunning the database needs to be minimal.Taking all these factors into consideration,MySQL is the best option for the project. Thedesign needs to be tailored to the DatabaseManagement System (DBMS) needs, requiringmore control and flexibility in the infrastructure.This is not available in ‘‘closed system’’ architec-ture [35]. The open source nature of MySQLallows modification of equipment and services,and development of applications and services per-sonalized to each user. Tracking the user’s progressrequires that the database be updated in real time.One type of interface for the eViator is voice toensure user safety while on a trip. VXML waschosen as the functioning language due to its easeof portability and to leverage industry consortiatrends, such as the World Wide Web Consortium(W3C). Another interface is that between the userand the database. This interface must effectivelywork with the MySQL database and HTML. Theuser registration component is HTML because it isthe most widely used Internet language. TheSNMP and WML are the interfaces chosen forcommunications with the user’s wireless device.

3.3 Requirements analysisRequirements analysis allows for a generalized

problem to become more focused. The first step isto identify the various stakeholder groups fromwhich feedback is sought for the validation processto meet expectations. A stakeholder analysis

Fig. 1. The SIMILAR process.


allows proper shaping of the design space forproject expectations. To meet these expectations,requirements are listed for each of the groupsinvolved.

3.3.1 Stakeholder analysisFigure 3 depicts the primary stakeholders: custo-

mers and clients (organizations that use eViator todeliver content to the customers). The secondarystakeholders are AT&T and the capstone team.The external stakeholders consist of UALR andsupport staff.Table 1 shows the rankings (scale of 1: lowest to

5: highest) which indicate relative priority that theproject should give to each stakeholder in meetingtheir interests. Each stakeholder bears an influenceto each aspect of the project: to control whichdecisions are made, facilitate its implementation,or exert positive or negative influences. Influence isperhaps best understood as the extent to whichpeople, groups or organizations (i.e. stakeholders)are able to persuade or coerce others into makingdecisions, and following certain courses of action.Furthermore, this influence is an extension of thepower of that stakeholder group. Power mayderive from the nature of a stakeholders’ organ-

ization, or their position in relation to otherstakeholders.Consideration was given to the secondary stake-

holders, but by definition, these were sorted intodirect contributing groups. The assignment ofrelative priority was also ranked to reflect the

Fig. 2. Overall eVaitor system.

Fig. 3. Primary, secondary, and external stakeholders.


importance of these areas for fulfillment. Externalstakeholders are listed to the extent of their prio-rities and to demonstrate their interests. Theseinterests can be catalogued in areas such as advi-sors, assessment, sponsorship, and availability.

3.3.2 COREThe CORE environment [32] synchronizes

system requirements, behavioral models, architec-tures, and design solutions with system specifica-tions and test procedures. In order to trainstudents in how to represent the problem definitionthrough various contexts of creative thoughts, theyare required to document their experience, organ-ize thoughts, and express ideas using professionalsystems engineering tools during the incubation ofthe project. CORE was used in requirementsanalysis and organization portions of the designphase, in particular to implement hierarchicaldesign requirements. To allow the creative processto have direction and purpose, the general andfunctional requirements developed for the COREimplementation in response to the RFP are listedbelow.

. General requirements1.0 The product must adhere to federal, state,

and local government regulations.2.0 The customer (user) shall be given the

option to choose the type of service.2.1 The customer shall be able to acquire

service access at any given time (on-demand).

2.2 The interface to the service shall besimple and interactive.

2.3 Content delivery shall be timely andaccurate.

2.4 Content delivery shall be indiscriminateof the type of device.

3.0 The product must make provisions fordifferent user devices and be platform inde-pendent.3.1 The product shall be portable.3.2 The service shall be applicable to a

variety of wireless devices.

3.3 The product should self-monitor forsystem redundancy.

4.0 The product should account and bill custo-mers accordingly.4.1 The system shall distinguish between

on-demand versus pre-planned custo-mers.

4.2 The system should be flexible to theextent to distinguish between text andother forms of content delivery.

. Functional requirements1.0 The location estimation component of eVia-

tor must estimate customer position.System components shall determine thedirection of travel.1.1 System components shall estimate the

approximate speed of travel based ondata gathered from wireless carriersystems.

1.2 The system shall determine if the devicehas stopped moving in a linear manner.

1.3 The system should provide an estimatefor the time of arrival at the next sub-sequent wireless access point.

1.4 The system must determine the deliverytime of content prior to site arrival.

1.5 The system shall be able to providegeographic placement of ‘on-demand’users.

2.0 Device identification component of eViatormust identify active service customers.2.1 System components shall actively moni-

tor wireless access points.2.2 A method should be developed by

which alerts will be generated once amember device becomes active in anywireless access area.

3.0 The customer interface must be simple touse no matter the type of customer.3.1 The system should provide an option

for virtual hands-free access.

In order to create the CORE requirement hierar-chy of how the eViator should function, the teamdeveloped ‘‘use cases’’ that describe possible usesof the system. A use case depicts the set of

Table 1 Stakeholder analysis

Interests Potential Project Impact Relative Priority of Interest

Primary StakeholdersClients * Reliability (+) 5Customers * Ease-of-use

* Safety(+)(+)

55

Secondary StakeholdersAT&T * Portability

* Modularity(+)(+)

54

Student Team * Timeliness* Skill sets* Achievement of targets

(–)(+)(+)

454

External StakeholdersUALR Staff * Achievement of targets

* Control over activities* Public image

(+)(+/–)(–)

454

UALR Support Staff * Availability (+) 3


interactions that take place when an external party(e.g. a user, an operational system such as authen-tication center) uses the system. The following is anexample of one of the use cases developed in anattempt to define the missions of the system:

I sit at my computer planning a cross-country roadtrip. As I log onto my cellular carrier’s web site, Ienter my starting point and destination along with myfavorite restaurants, gas stations, and approximategas mileage of my car. In addition, the websitegenerates a checklist of POIs that I might visitduring my trip. Viola, my trip is planned, but insteadof printing out directions, I just set my phone into ahands-free device and begin to drive my route. As Ibegin, the local cell tower picks up my signal andbegins to estimate my distance traveled. As I travelthrough different cells, I begin to get notifications thatI am approaching POIs that I might want to stop at,such as nearby gas stations when needed, or restau-rants at times when we might want to eat. Also, ourprogress is tracked and reported back to a websitethat my family can securely log onto see if we aretraveling safe and well.

Using this scenario and others that describe differ-ent parts or different functions of the eViatorsystem, a list of requirements that the systemmust meet in order to be considered successfulhas been developed. The preliminary list was verybroad and attempted to encompass all functions ofthe system. This was based on the descriptionprovided by the industry sponsor, and the discus-sions between the instructional team and students.The first thoughts on the system included preciselocation identification, indoor versus outdoorimplementation, network security, and marketingstrategies. All of these requirements were gatheredand organized into a source document to use forthe CORE requirements hierarchy. Here is anexample of one CORE source document.

3.3.2.1 ScopeThere are two related designs available using the

idea of directional-based services. System 1 (High-way billboard system) shall act as a mobile bill-board for customers traveling down a highway andwill alert users only when they enter the vicinity ofa desired service. System 2 (Theme park directionsystem) shall be capable of operating on a smallerscale inside a building or small perimeter withmore specific location estimations in order toprovide detailed directions to the user. Bothsystems could be tailored to either users’ or busi-ness’ requests.

3.3.3.2 Requirements2.1 System 1 (Highway billboard system)1. The system shall be able to determine a

user’s estimated time of arrival to POI.1.1 The system shall have a method of deter-

mining a user’s general location (i.e. withina radius of two miles).

1.2 The system shall determine the user’s direc-tion of travel.

1.3 The system shall determine the user’sapproximate speed of travel.

1.4 The system shall be able to detect when auser has deviated from his/her predictedtravel pattern and adjust its estimated timeof arrival accordingly.

2. The system shall provide accurate, mean-ingful, desirable information to the user.

2.1 The system shall be able to deliver alertsearly enough for the user to make a deci-sion, but not so early that the user forgetswhat was available.

2.2 The system shall be able to not only conveysimple messages such as store names, butshould also be able to convey more detailedinformation about the services based onwhat the business clients wish to broadcast.

3. The system shall provide a user-friendlyinterface for the customer to interact with.

3.1 The system shall consist of a computer-based interface that provides the customera method to plan his route and choose whattypes of services he is interested in gettingalerts about.

3.2 The system shall consist of an interface on amobile device that is easy to use whiledriving a car in order for users to dynami-cally request services from the system.

4. The system shall maintain an accurate data-base containing services that are availablefor alerts and information regarding usertrip data.

5. The system shall have a profitable philo-sophy consisting of either charging the indi-vidual users, the businesses who advertise,or both.

6. The system shall be secure.6.1 The system shall be able to secure the data

from a user’s computer at the time of tripplanning so that no outside party can accessthat information without the user’s consent.

6.2 The system shall be able to secure the datarelating the user’s location at all times unlessotherwise allowed by the user.

6.3 The system shall be able to secure all trans-missions from the system to the user’smobile device at all times.

7. The system shall provide a method toexpand or retract the services provided bythe system in order to ensure future growthand/or optimization of the system.

2.2 System 2 (Theme park direction system)1. The system shall be able to determine a

user’s specific location (i.e. within a fivefoot radius).

1.1 The system shall have a method of deter-mining a user’s location in three-dimen-sional space.

1.2 The system shall determine the user’s move-ments in real time.

2. The system shall provide accurate, mean-ingful, and desirable information to theuser.


2.1 The system shall be able to deliver detaileddirections as a user moves toward the POI.

2.2 The system shall be able to not only conveysimple messages, such as names of places,but should also be able to convey moredetailed information about the locationbased on what the business clients wish tobroadcast.

3. The system shall provide an interface on amobile device that is easy to use in order forusers to dynamically request services fromthe system and receive information based ontheir location.

4. The system shall maintain an accurate data-base containing all information about a sitethe business client deems necessary.

5. The system shall have a profitable philo-sophy consisting of either charging the indi-vidual users, the businesses who advertise,or both.

6. The system shall be secure.6.1 The system shall be able to secure the data

relating the user’s location at all times unlessotherwise allowed by the user.

6.2 The system shall be able to secure all trans-missions from the system to the user’smobile device at all times.

7. The system shall provide a method toexpand or retract the services provided inorder to ensure future growth and/or opti-mization.

4. SYSTEM-LEVEL DESIGN

4.1 Phase I—researchFundamentally, the design process did not

evolve in a linear manner. Rather, it has beenconducted in phases of reflective thinking.During SYEN 4385, the team identified alternativedesigns that meet user needs in whole or in part,and conducted tradeoff studies among thesedesigns such as wireless geo-location technologiesand supporting interfaces/software tools in termsof performance, reliability, availability, conveni-ence, and cost. Investigation in the initial stage ofthe design involved defining the problem, familiar-ization with the project objectives, and scope ofwork. The deliverable of this phase is an in-depthunderstanding of eViator’s functions, approach tocreate a working eViator system, alternatives avail-able for the subsystems, and the reasons forselecting the baseline design. During theseactivities, communication played a vital role indeploying the necessary courses of action. Thefollowing research topics were conducted duringPhase I:

. Protocols and standards for WLAN and cellularsystems;

. Integration, portability, and device identifica-tion in cellular networks;

. Effects of shadowing, multipath, and antennaradiation pattern on cellular coverage;

. Interface design for seamless operation;

. Database architecture and design techniques;

. Software applications and implementation tech-niques;

. Modeling and simulation techniques for geolo-cation;

. Hand-off mechanisms for location determina-tion;

. Capabilities and utility of GMLC;

. VXML as a viable interface solution.

4.2 Phase II—implementationThis phase marks the transition from conceptual

level design to prototyping. After a critical designreview, the start of SYEN 4386 brought the finaldesign and detailed testing plans to verify thesystem performance. Every major component isdescribed in terms of input, output, and function.The most critical components, the engine anddatabase, were given the utmost importance.Once completed and analyzed, the task of design-ing other subcomponents becomes evident. Thedeliverable of this phase is a detailed design ofthe eViator including: engine and its functions,database and queries associated with engine,website, PHP, and VXML.Each student was given the responsibility of the

components and subsystems that she/he wanted tospecialize in and implement. For every componentthere were at least two students working on it toensure its completion. This phase is not only themost difficult, but also the most important sincethe deliverable is a working prototype. The imple-mentation phase encompasses: writing and debug-ging engine function codes, integrating functionsinto the main program, writing and debuggingdatabase code, writing queries for the enginefunctions to call information from the database,integrating the engine and database, writingHTML for the user registration website, writingthe PHP code to support the website and inputdata into the database, integrating HTML, PHPwith the database, writing VXML for the on-demand scenario, integrating VXML with theengine, installing access points for demonstrationby parsing a user’s unique ID, running tests onAPs set-up, integration with the engine, setting thewireless device to receive messages from theengine, and testing the eViator system with scenar-ios.

5. ESTIMATING THE TIME-OF-ARRIVAL(TOA)

Three algorithms were proposed to estimate theTOA at the POI in scenarios involving a linear-path, one-way trip with potential delays andvariations in radiation pattern coverage of thebase station antennas. The three algorithms devel-


oped to estimate the average speed per trip Strip avg

are:

Strip avg ¼½Strip avg�ðcell countÞ�þScurrent cell avg

ðcell countÞ ; cell count < 1

½Strip avg�ðcell countÞ�þScurrent cell avgðcell countÞþ1 ; cell count > 1

8><>:

ð1Þ

Strip avg ¼S1 þ S2 þ S3 þ :::þ Scell count

cell countð2Þ

Strip avg ¼Dtotal

Ttotal¼ D1 þD2 þD3 þ :::þDcell count

T1 þ T2 þ T3 þ :::þ Tcell count

ð3Þ

where D is distance, and T is time. Algorithm (1)computes a cumulative weighted average of thespeed per trip. Algorithm (2) computes the averagespeed by performing a summation as the userpasses through each cell. Algorithm (3) utilizestime stamps to compute the average speed througheach cell.The algorithms are applied to the scenario

shown in Fig. 4 where it is assumed that thecoverage patterns of adjacent base stations donot overlap. This allows for the entire distancetraversed during the trip to be accounted for bypredefined coverage patterns. The average cover-age area of a macro cell is 10 square miles [36].

Size fluctuations (e.g. terrain environment) areaccounted for by assuming that the pattern cover-age is uniformly distributed between two and fourmiles. A total of 115 cells were used to define thetrip length. This number results in an average of345 miles for each one-way trip as reported by theBureau of Transportation Statistics in 1995 [37].Driving patterns are difficult to quantify due to theunavailability of a reliable source that couldprovide reliable statistical data with any amountof certainty. Based upon claims in [38], whichreported 74 mph as the average speed on thehighway and that 68% and 20% of the driversexceed 70 mph and 80 mph, respectively, weassume that the speed is uniformly distributedbetween 60 mph and 90 mph.Random stops were introduced during the trip

to account for tank refills, fast/long-term dining,and possible rests during the trip. ‘‘Dwelling’’ timeis assumed within cells by distributing a number ofstops from 0 to 4 per user trip. Each stop consistsof dwell times uniformly distributed between fiveminutes and 30 minutes.The simulations were executed over 50 times

assuming 1000 users for consistency. In keepingwith the functional flow of the proposed design,the customer’s trip begins at the exiting of cell #1in order for eViator to capture the entering andexiting times to compute the speed of the customer.The simulation is terminated upon delivery of alertat the edge of the cell containing the POI. Success

Fig. 4. Simulation scenario.

Fig. 5. Results from Algorithm1: y-axis is the number of users; x-axis is the difference between the actual and estimated arrival times inminutes.


is measured by comparing the time of alert versusthe actual trip time.For the three algorithms, the alert time was

found to range from –0.3 to 0.4 minutes comparedto the time when the alert should have beendelivered. A positive value indicates an earlydelivery of an alert, whereas a negative valuereflects a late delivery of an alert. An extendedstop time was applied to assess the performance ofthe three algorithms. It has been found that algo-rithm (3) has a much slower reaction time duringan extended dwelling time. Other constraints werenext applied to algorithms (1) and (2) to gauge thebetter of the two. It is concluded that algorithm (1)should be used in eViator due to the higher systemoverhead for algorithm (2). Furthermore, it shouldbe noted that more computations would be neededfor Algorithm (3) to update the average trip speedfor each customer.Figure 5 displays results from simulations

conducted using Algorithm (1) and the parametersdisplayed in Table 2.

6. DESIGN OF ENGINE ANDDATABASE

To increase productivity and reassurance forreliable results, students applied contradiction toutilize and combine existing technologies in waysthat spark a novel overall design. eViator needs tobe flexible enough to handle changes in user needsand financial models. Moreover, eViator must bedesigned for system evolution by adopting a flex-ible architecture. There are four aspects of change-ability: flexibility, agility, robustness, andadaptability. The system should be flexible sothat changes can be made easily; and be agile sothose changes can be made rapidly. The concern isthe trade-off between the robustness and adapt-ability aspects. Can a system deliver its intendedfunctionality under varying operating conditionswithout being changed, or does it need to adaptitself towards changing environments to deliver itsintended functionality? To resolve this dilemma,the team provided an adequate design margin toaccount for uncertainties over the life cycle.The Open Systems Joint Task Force in 1998

defined an open systems approach to allow thisflexibility while keeping overhead costs down [35].

To optimize a product, we might need only tomodify one facet instead of redesigning the entireproduct. Furthermore, an open system could leadto easier insertion of technology and better inter-operability of mixed technologies. eViator is aspecialized product and no one commercialproduct could solve the different and difficultchallenges; however, as an example, we couldsubstitute well-developed mapping software toprovide route selection in the trip-planning aspectas long as the system interfaces are properlydefined. This openness allows for changeabilitywhile maintaining high reliability once the servicemarket starts to respond.Application along these guidelines dictates that

the functional blocks should be extracted intoseparate file spaces. This will maintain the flex-ibility of an open system model so that theseseparate files can be modified on an as-neededbasis to allow program optimization withouttotal overhaul of the eViator. The overall programis simplified into separate function calls to handlethe challenges of eViator. To meet other require-ments, the system runs several of the functionssimultaneously. A benefit of this structure is scal-ability. By allowing these functions to run inparallel on a multi-server platform, eViator willbe able to meet higher demands without sufferingcomputational slowdowns.Decomposition of the model into a high-level

architecture requires several iterations of thesystem’s engineering process to assign high-levelfunctionality properties. These functions consoli-date the results out of the evaluation of the designalternatives. At higher levels, architecting methods,experience-based heuristics, abstraction, and inte-gratedmodeling must be used [33]. This evolution isdescribed by the ‘rule of ten’ stating that with eachsubsequent program phase the implementation ofchange becomes ten times more costly (e.g. time,manpower, money) [34]. Figure 6 depicts the high-level architecture, which guided the development inthe implementation phase.For the software to know what each user needs,

it must have a bank of information to poll andupdate user information. As the user travels, theservice learns more about where the user is going,speed, and services requested. A MySQL databaseholds this information and manages the datamanipulation using SQL queries. The real worldentities are mapped within the database includinguser, trip, POIs, cells, billing, provider, devices,and trip history as shown in Table 3. Each entity isdescribed by its attributes, where only one value isgiven for each instance of an attribute. To poll forinformation, constraints are placed upon the data-base to distinguish instances of attributes. Forexample, a user ID distinguishes multiple usersstored within the database.Each query utilized frequently by multiple func-

tions will be called as a separate function from aninclude file. All of the specialized queries that askfor certain information from the database with

Table 2 Simulation parameters used to generate the results inFig. 5

Parameter Value

Speed 60–90 mphCell diameter 2–4 milesUsers 1000Number of cells 115Dwell quantity 0–4Dwell time 5–30 minutesRandom cells selected for Dwell 16 41 62 97Random length of dwell time 20 14 14 23


distinct conditions are embedded into the softwareas a function or part of a function. This creates adirect connection from the engine to the database.Next, the students analyzed how the enginemanages the eViator using three scenarios, whichare briefly described below. The first scenario is apre-planned user traveling through POIs withoutstopping. Secondly, an on-demand user scenariothat ends successfully at first attempt. Finally, weconsider an on-demand user scenario that did nothave a successful first attempt and becomes a pre-planned user.

6.1 Pre-planned scenarioIn the pre-planned scenario, the user schedules a

trip via the web interface. The eViator system is in

the process of locating the user according to thetrip information. Once the user is found, theeViator begins the process of estimating the timebefore the user approaches the first POI. As theuser travesl along, eViator provides more accurateestimations. When the user approaches the POIs,eViator delivers the appropriate message to theuser’s device. These actions continue until theuser reaches a final destination, as determined bythe trip information.Figure 7 identifies the function arrangement for

the pre-planned user. In start_ trip, the user’s tripbegins when the requested time to start tripmatches with the current time. Then update_arrivallocates the user, determines average speed, andupdates alerts for the chosen POIs. Next, whenthe user comes in range of POI, an alert, i.e. textmessage, is sent to the user by sched_alert. Once allPOI alerts are sent and the user has arrived at thedestination delete_trip will end the service.

6.2 On-demandIn the on-demand scenario, the user has not

scheduled a trip, but wants to request informationduring the current trip. The user calls the eViatorservice from the cell phone, through which the useris identified. The user is guided through a series ofvoice prompts to extract the information beingrequested. Once the eViator service determinesthe POIs that the user is requesting, it respondsby giving all of their locations within the servingcell. The reason for providing all locations isbecause the user’s direction of travel is unknownat the time of the request. The eViator service thenchecks to see if any of the given POIs are relevantto the user. If any are relevant, the initiated call is

Fig. 6. High-level architecture.

Table 3. Entities and their attributes

User Trip

Userid (Primary Key)� Password� First name� Last name� Address� Phone number� Email

Trip_id (Primary Key)� Name� Description� Start_location� End_location� Duration� Active(Boolean)� User_device_id� Alert_type� Average Speed� Points of Interest

Points of Interest� POI_id (Primary Key)� Altert_time� Arrival_time� Category (food)� Cell_id� Exit_Number

� Cell� Cell_id (Primary Key)� Cell_distance� Description


then terminated. If none of the given POI isconvenient for the user (i.e. the user has alreadypassed them on), the third scenario begins.Figure 8 shows the functional flow of the on-

demand scenario. Notice how it shares the samefunctions as the pre-planned scenario, except forthe immediate POI function. The scenarios areinitiated differently and therefore need differenttriggers. The user calls the eViator service for aparticular POI. The user is located and receives analert with the information. The customer is satis-fied with the result, and then the scenario ends.

6.3 On-demand to pre-plannedIn the on-demand to pre-planned scenario, the

on-demand scenario has already taken place.Unfortunately, the desired POIs were notprovided. In order to properly service the user,the eViator system places that user into a pre-planned trip. During this process, speed andtravel information are acquired to determinewhen the user might arrive at a POI. Once theuser arrives at the, the trip is considered over.

7. ROLE OF THE INDUSTRY PARTNER

By design, the roles of the instructors and theindustry sponsor were developed to simulate roleswhich would be encountered should the scenariohave been a real-world experience. Specifically, the

instructors pressed students for assignmentcompletion, provided guidance for design efforts,constrained the students in some areas whileempowering them in others, and previewedstudents’ status reports before they were presentedto the industry sponsor. It was made clear that theinstructors provide technical information whenneeded, but otherwise play the role of an observer,noting progress and individual performance. Thelecture time was used for round-table group meet-ings that were run by the students. The instructorsparticipated in these meetings primarily by raisingquestions, when considered necessary, pertainingto technical issues, team logistics, or planning—allof which were addressed and answered by thestudents. Each student submitted a brief weeklyprogress report summarizing achievements andpresenting challenges to be resolved during thenext round-table discussions.To make the academic experience as close to an

industry experience as possible, the industry spon-sor was portrayed as a customer who hired thestudent team as contractors to perform researchand development. By integrating components ofthe project such as RFP documents, which werevague about some requirements, but specific aboutothers; mandatory conference calls; status reports;and demanding timelines for completion, thestudents were able to experience factors whichwould be encountered in industry.From an industry perspective, involvement in

Fig. 7. Pre-planned scenario.

Fig. 8 On-demand scenario.


partnerships such as the one described in this papercarries not only a great deal of responsibility, butalso a great deal of value on many levels for allinvolved. Aside from the opportunity to observestudents currently enrolled in a degree program aspotential hires for a business, the role of anindustry sponsor in this particular partnershiprequired a unique level of commitment and invol-vement quite different than the traditionalacademic advising role. Before integrating theeViator project into SYEN 4385 and 4386, theindustry sponsor worked closely with the instruc-tors to delineate responsibilities and roles of bothparties. Beginning with articulating the intendedoverall goal of the partnership, the industry part-ner then evaluated resources available that mightenhance the academic experience. Each industryand indeed each individual business can bring itsown unique value to a partnership, and the indus-try partner’s assessment of the value it can provideis the crucial starting point for a successful partner-ship.Based on experience, industry sees first-hand

from employees any trends in acquisition of skillsor commonalities in skills they possess as well as intheir deficiencies and strengths. The industry spon-sor helps to integrate this experience into thepartnership and make suitable recommendationsto students, faculty and staff so that the observedgaps in skills can be filled by students while inschool, skills that will likely make them invaluableto the industry upon graduation. A particular skillneeded is the understanding and application ofsystems engineering methodologies, includingrequirements analysis, systems life cycle, integra-tion, testing, and upgrading.Historically in industry, methodological

approaches to design are defined in technicaldisciplines such as software programming andtelecommunications engineering, while in someareas, the concept of the importance of how tosolve a problem is sometimes lost in the effort tosolve a problem. In the instance of the eViatorproject, a great deal of time was spent by thestudents evaluating the various methodologiesavailable to them. Students were not only able toarticulate the details of the selected methodology,but also the reasons why the selected methodologywould be the most effective for the projectassigned. Clearly, this systems engineeringapproach demonstrated that a focus on thechoice of methodology is as important as thesolution itself.In successful engineering projects much of the

intended focus revolves around a holistic view ofthe stated problem and the proposed solution. Keydesign considerations, such as cost, are not alwaysweighted with the same importance by an engin-eering team as by the customer. Details regardingchallenges in industry with regard to competitivesituations, customer relations, and technical guid-ance on the design of the solution were provided tostudents allowing them to benefit from experience.

An example of this mentoring was provided when‘‘the customer’’ asked if a feature could be addedto the system which was not defined in the RFP orproject requirements and in their effort to win thebusiness, students openly offered to add therequested feature. A subsequent discussion wasconducted with the students about the ‘‘dangersof scope creep’’ and how by agreeing to add thefeature, their costs had increased radically withoutany consideration for charging these costs back tothe customer (the mock price to complete thisproject had already been agreed between thestudent team and the ‘‘customer’’).

8. ASSESSMENT

The success of the capstone design course shouldbe judged on how well student needs are met.Students were asked to evaluate the benefitsderived from their experiences with the course,find out whether the level of the material matchedtheir abilities, the intellectual challenge, and inter-est of the course, and the suitability of the work-load. The instructors evaluated participation ofgroup members and evaluated the capstonedesign course using rubrics developed by theassessment committee of the Systems EngineeringDepartment. Additional data were collected basedon feedback from the industrial advisory board,surveys from alumni and employers, as well assenior exit surveys. Moreover, an outcome-basedgrading scheme has been followed which emphas-izes team performance, product developmentprocess, project management, communications,and interpersonal skills [23], [39].It should be noted that the students faced

challenges in fulfilling some of the requirement ofthe two-term design sequence. The first challenge isthat they often did not have all the requisitetechnical skills to solve the problem posed tothem. It is the first course in the curriculumwhere they are introduced to the concept of ‘‘learn-ing how to learn.’’ In other words, they soondiscovered that they had to research a technicaltopic on their own, instead of being presented in atextbook. The second challenge is the ‘‘soft skills’’that are required of them to perform the project,ranging from teamwork to formulating a businessplan. Again, these ideas are not necessarily intro-duced in a textbook. The third challenge is thesignificant responsibility that falls on theirshoulders—the fact that they are managing theirown ‘‘enterprise,’’ the success or failure of which isdetermined by the efforts that they exert. Eachmember is responsible not only individually, butfor the entire team.

8.1 Key questionnaireAs a part of the industry involvement role, the

industry sponsor met with each student, and askeda series of questions intended to gauge the


student’s experience and overall engineering abil-ity.

. Question 1. How would you characterize theimportance of industry involvement in thisproject?Overall, students provided a very positiveresponse to this question. The majority statedthat the experience of designing a solution basedon a project developed by industry enhancestheir ability to acquire a job upon graduationand subsequently perform successfully in themarketplace.

. Question 2. What challenges were created byindustry involvement, if any?Many students interviewed felt the most compel-ling challenge from industry involvement wasthe complexity of the project within the timelineimposed. Students stated they felt the pressure,albeit self-imposed, to perform well. Clearly,these students felt a strong obligation to notonly achieve a good grade, but also representhis/her team, the systems engineering program,and UALR to the outside world.

. Question 3. How much of the workload wouldyou say you individually performed as com-pared to your fellow student team members?Interestingly, all of the students responded thatthe workload was evenly distributed among thestudent team members. Some pointed out that insome instances, students who were strugglingwith assigned tasks received assistance fromother team members voluntarily and that anyassistance given by one student was balancedout at some later time by that same studentreceiving assistance in areas in which he or shewas struggling.

. Question 4. What did you find the most reward-ing about this project?Most of the students responded to this questionby saying this project was rewarding because itchallenged them in skill areas learned in thesystems engineering program. In some instances,skill areas in which they perceived themselves asbeing strong were challenged. In other cases, thestudents quickly realized their skills were betterthan they had perceived. Specifically, softwareprogramming was mentioned as an area inwhich many students felt they did well. Othercomments from students included how theirtime management skills were applied effectivelybecause of this project, and how the documenta-tion skills taught in this course were extremelyimportant in communicating the solutionrecommendation to the industry partner.

. Question 5. What aspect of the industry involve-ment would you recommend be changed?The overwhelming response from students wasthat there were no recommendations on how theindustry partnership could have better servedthe project.

What are the additional instruments employed toimplement the salient features of the eViator

project? Here are some details. First, the industrialsponsor was involved in grading the students. Inthis case, the sponsor evaluation weighed 20% ofthe final grade. Also, peer evaluation is emphas-ized to characterize the distribution of efforts onproject planning, development, presentation, anddeliverable. This approach assists in enhancingteamwork, since those that simply ‘‘ride along’’will be uncovered through such peer evaluation.Peer evaluation constitutes another 20% of thecourse grade. Another way to enforce teamworkis the instructors’ requirement that individualcontributions should be clearly specified in thefinal report, so that there is accountability forteam effort. Finally, the instructors made it clearthat to get an ‘‘A’’ or a ‘‘B,’’ students must showexceptional (i.e. outstanding, or above average) ininitiative and creativity—completing what isrequired is enough to earn only a ‘‘C’’. Second, aproject presentation rubric is developed andemployed to evaluate each teamwork presentation.An example rubric includes the following to meas-ure soft skills:

. knowledge of subject;

. body language;

. eye contact;

. introduction and closure,

. delivery of material, poise;

. elocution (enunciation, voice).

The capstone course plays a key role in achievingthe ABET-2000’s ‘‘Professional Component’’criterion [39], which states that ‘‘Students mustbe prepared for engineering practice through thecurriculum culminating in a major design experi-ence based on the knowledge and skills acquired inearlier course work and incorporating appropriateengineering standards and multiple realisticconstraints.’’Aside from the survey instrument, an objective

evaluation procedure has been set up to measurehow well the capstone design achieves ABET’sprogram outcomes. As shown in Tables A.1 andA.2 of the Appendix, course objectives are relatedto ABET’s outcomes. The capstone projectprovides an excellent assessment measure.Indeed, the majority of the ABET’s programoutcomes are assessed in the capstone design.Most importantly, the appendix prescribes howeach outcome-objective incidence pair is beingmeasured quantitatively. As depicted in TableA.3, all the scores satisfy the threshold of 60% orthree points. However, the instructors notice thatProgram Outcome h can be improved furtherabove 3.5. Efforts will be made to ensure thatstudents become aware of the need to apply theirbroad background to comprehend the need forenvironmental, economical, and societal impactsof their engineering design earlier on during theirdesign phase and incorporate suitable solutions.Apparently, in spite of our diligent efforts, morecan be done to further this cause. The instructors


will take this into full account in the next offeringof the capstone design.In all, the involvement in this project was

extremely rewarding from an industry perspectiveas well as valuable for the students. The results ofthe research performed were exemplary anddemonstrated a strong understanding of systemsengineering skills and discipline. Along with someof the core skills taught in our systems engineeringprogram, students were also very competent in the‘‘soft skills’’ of presentation and documentation.From the feedback provided by the studentsduring the end-of-the-course survey, studentsexpressed how they developed a great deal ofconfidence in their abilities to communicate, bothorally and in writing, as a result of the project, askill in combination with an engineer’s technicalskills that will prove to be of immense value to theindustry.Since the eViator project has reached a design

that is mature enough to be patented by theindustrial sponsor, another project has beenadopted for the subsequent capstone design. The‘‘Dynamic Airport’’ project is about improving theoperations in the airport gates [40]. The RFPsubmitted by the Little Rock Airport Authorityseeks a system that provides dynamic, on-demandassignment of ticket counters to airline carriers andan automated assignment of the incoming aircraft(already landed and identified by the air trafficcontrol) to the airport gates. This is subject topassengers’ traffic, gate availability, timing anddimensional constraint, combined with an auto-mated identification of the aircrafts. Moreover, aninformation system is requested that automaticallybills the airliners a penalty fee when the timeallocated for docking has passed but the aircraftis still at the gate.It is clear that the new project has a very

different flavor than the eViator project. Never-theless, the prevailing philosophy remains thesame, including industrial sponsorship and theemphasis on soft and technical skills not coveredin the regular courses. In the Airport Project, moreemphasis is placed on imparting entrepreneurialexperience to the capstone design team. Finally, itshould be noted that since 2005, the systemsengineering program has added mechanical andelectrical options. The emphasis on interdisciplin-ary design becomes even more pronounced underthe expanded program where the current coursesequence serves as the capstone for undergraduatedegrees in telecommunications, computer,mechanical, and electrical systems engineering.

9. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents an innovative capstonedesign course aimed at equipping students withsystems engineering methodologies and toolsessential to solving complex engineering problems;experiences they will be expected to exercise

shortly after graduation. The eViator project isthe first effort by the Systems Engineering Depart-ment of UALR to develop a product from conceptto operation with a group of undergraduates whofocused not only on individual subcomponents,but also collaborated on integrating the entiresystem utilizing expertise gained from their parti-cular option emphasis area within a formal courseframework. The course has produced many differ-ent impacts of importance to systems engineeringdegree programs. Creating a team from students inthe Telecommunications and Computers SystemsEngineering Options and using an industry spon-sor who exerted influence on their grades andcourse assessment helped to engage the students,encouraged competition, maintained their focusthroughout the two-semester course, and ensuredthat the students and instructors were aware ofcurrent issues, practices, and procedures. The earlyidentification of the project provides students withample time to understand the problem and developconceptual solutions. Results show improved post-course knowledge compared to pre-course know-ledge for all learning objectives assessed in thecourse. Significant improvements were observedin student preparation and confidence for thedevelopment of an integrated entrepreneurship–engineering capstone. More importantly, theinstructional team eventually convinced thestudents that there is no single solution to a real-world problem. Instead, a reasonably good designthat meets customer needs and fits within eco-nomical, financial, marketing, safety, and regula-tory constraints, as well as technical and functionalperformance criteria stated in the RFP, is anacceptable solution.In all fairness, it should be mentioned that the

above accomplishments have been made with someunselfish responsibilities taken up by students andinstructors. With any new or redesign of courses,there are usually obstacles to overcome and areasto improve upon. Often, students were not happywith the pressure imposed by instructors duringthe conduct of the capstone design. The idea of‘‘learning how to learn’’ takes time to be conveyedto the students—the fact that for all the coursesthey have taken, and for all the assignmentsprovided, there remain technical issues thatstudents need to resolve on their own. Manyrequirements in the RFP were completely new tothe students. Initial serious debates and confronta-tion among team members quickly disappeared asstudents organized themselves and convergedtowards a unified theme which allowed them todevelop a sense of leadership, responsibility, andownership of the project.For the instructors, there were frustrating

moments as well, when the students simply didnot accomplish what was expected. The instructorsconducted their own ‘‘soul searching’’ to discoverwhere the curriculum could be improved, wherebymore cogent skills can be instilled in students toface such open-ended design projects as the


capstone. There were debates among the facultyregarding the tradeoffs between breadth versusdepth in the curriculum. Accordingly, thesystems-engineering core requirements have beenre-adjusted vis-a-vis that of the specialty options.The sequencing of courses has also been tightenedup to allow basic technical skills to be coveredprior to the capstone design course. However,more remains to be done, and there is seriousdoubt whether there will ever be any substitutefor ‘‘learning on one’s own’’ when the situationarises.It is safe to say that at the minimum, the

capstone should be a course that complementsthe remainder of the curriculum in terms of studentexposure. For example, project management,including the use of tools such as CORE, has notbeen provided to the students in their curriculum.The capstone is a natural place to introduce it.Similarly, such entrepreneurial skills as configur-ing a business plan should be part of the capstoneexperience, if it has not been introducedpreviously. When we observed such phenomenain a systems engineering program, the authorswould surmise that it is even more relevant in amore traditional engineering program, when

students do not have the advantage of a systemsengineering core.Finally, it should be noted that after decades of

increasingly specialized undergraduate engineeringcurricula, there is a recent trend to provide morebreadth in the bachelor degree program. As asystems engineering department, we haveconducted a timely study of this philosophy. Forthat reason, our experience may very well shedsome light for other more traditional engineeringprograms regarding their curricula improvementsor reforms. Continuing the industrial flavor of thecapstone design project, current seniors partneredwith students from the UALR Business College toput together a business proposal to the Donald W.Reynolds Cup, which is a statewide entrepreneur-ship competition. The competition, complete withcash award, further supplements the business skillsrequired of engineering students in today’s en-vironment.

Acknowledgement—The authors gratefully acknowledge theassistance and help provided by Joe Swaty, the former AssistantDean for Corporate Relations, Dr Yupo Chan, the teachingassistants, Diane K. Haynes, Graduate Institute of Technology,University of Arkansas at Little Rock and Ansoft Corporation.The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewersfor their constructive remarks.

REFERENCES

1. U. Varshney, R. J. Vetter, R. Kalakota, Mobile commerce: A new frontier, Computer, 33(10), 2000,pp. 32–33.

2. A. Fortier, G. Rossi, S. Gordillo, Decoupling decision concerns in location-aware services, IFIPInternational Working Conference on Mobile Information Systems, Leeds, UK, Dec. 6–7, 2005.

3. A. K. Tripathi, S. K. Nair, Mobile advertising in capacitated wireless networks, IEEE Transactionsof Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(9), 2006, pp. 1284–1296.

4. E. W. T. Ngai, A. Gunasekaran, A review for mobile commerce research and applications, DecisionSupport Systems, 43(1), 2007, pp. 3–15.

5. R. Todd, C. D. Sorensen, S. P. Magleby, Designing a senior capstone course to satisfy industrialcustomers, Journal of Engineering Education, 82(2), 1992, pp. 92–100.

6. S. P. Magleby, R. H. Todd, D. L. Pugh, C. D. Sorensen, Selecting appropriate industrial projectsfor capstone design programs, International Journal of Engineering. Education., 17(4), 2001,pp. 400–405.

7. M. P. Brackin, J. D. Gibson, Capstone design projects with industry: Emphasizing teaming andmanagement tools, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition, 2005.

8. R. K. Stanfill, O. Crisalle, Recruiting industry-sponsored multidisciplinary projects for capstonedesign, 2003 ASEE Southeast Section Conference.

9. G. Nirmala, Industrially sponsored senior capstone experience: Program implementation andassessment, Journal of Professiona. Issues in Engineering. Education and Practice, 134(3), 2008,pp. 257–262.

10. J. E. Jorgensen, A. M. Mescher, J. L. Friday, Industry collaborative capstone design course,International Conference on Engineering Education, Oslo, Norway, Aug. 6–10, 2001.

11. D. A. Andersen, Civil engineering capstone design course, Journal of Professional. Issues inEngineering. Education. and Practice 118(3), 1992, pp. 279–283.

12. A. J. Duston, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby, C. D. Sorensen, A review of literature on teachingengineering design through project-oriented capstone courses, Journal of Engineering Education,1997, pp. 17–28.

13. J. Noble, An approach for engineering curriculum integration in capstone design courses,International Journal of Engineering Education, 14(3), 1998, pp. 197–203.

14. B. I. Hayman, From capstone to cornerstone: A new paradigm for design education, InternationalJournal of Engineering Education, 17(4 and 5), 2001, pp. 416–420.

15. D. G. Taylor, S. P. Magleby, R. H. Todd, A. R. Parkinson, Training faculty to coach capstonedesign teams, International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4), 2001, pp. 353–358.

16. M. J. Paulik, M. Krishnan, A competition-motivated capstone design course: The results of afifteen-year evolution, IEEE Transactions in Education, 44(1), 2001, pp. 67–75.

17. G. W. Hislop, Scaffolding student work in capstone design courses, 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers inEducation Conf., October 28–31 2006, San Diego, CA. 2006.


18. M. Krishnan, M. J. Paulik, N. Rayess, A multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural competition-basedcapstone design program, 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Oct. 10-13, 2007,Milwaukee, WI, 2007.

19. M. J. Schroeder, A. Kottsick, J. Lee, M. Newell, J. Purcell, R. M. Nelson, Experiential learning ofelectromagnetic concepts through designing, building and calibrating a broad-spectrum suite ofsensors in a capstone course, International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, April 1,2009, pp. 198–210.

20. D. Brandon, J. Pruett, J. Wade, Experiences in developing and implementing a capstone course ininformation technology management, Journal of Information Technology Education, 1 (2), 2002,pp. 91–102.

21. J. A. Shaeiwitz, Mining capstone engineering experiences for program assessment results,International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 2002, pp. 193–198.

22. D. Davis, S. Beyerlein, P. Thompson, K. Gentili, L. McKenzie, How universal are capstone designcourse outcomes, Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition, 2003.

23. M. Keefe, J. Glancey, N. Cloud, Assessing student team performance in industry sponsored designprojects, Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(7), 2007, pp. 692–701.

24. D. W. Miller, D. R. Brodeur, The CDIO capstone course: An innovation in undergraduate systemsengineering education, Proceedings 2002 American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference and Exposition, 2002.

25. L. M. W. Mann, D. Radcliffe, Using a tailored systems engineering process within capstone designprojects to develop program outcomes in students, 33rd ASEE/IEEE in Education Conference,November 5–8, 2003, Boulder, CO, 2003.

26. G. Muller, Didactic recommendations for education in systems engineering, Embedded SystemsInstitute, Jan. 22, 2010, pp. 1–12, available online http://www.gaudisite.nl

27. P.O. Orono, S. Ekwaro-Osire, Impact of selection of projects on pan-mentoring in creative design,Frontiers in Education Conference, 36th Annual, 27–31 Oct. 2006, pp. 27–34.

28. J. Alves, M. J. Marques, I. Saur-Amaral, P. Marques, Creativity and innovation throughmultidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation, Creative and Innovation Management, 16, 2007,pp. 27–34.

29 J. Goldberg, Lecture topics for senior capstone design courses, IEEE English Medical. BiologyMagazine, 2007, pp. 50–51.

30. S. T. McGann, M. A. Cahill, Innovative is project management pedagogy: Combining real worldprojects and action learning, Issues Inform. Systems, VI(1), 2005, pp. 1–8.

31. www.opnet.com32. www.vitech.com33. T. Bahill, ‘‘What is Systems Engineering?’’ A Consensus of the INCOSE Fellows, 1998.34. M. Maier, E. Rechtin, The Art of Systems Architecting, CRC Press. Boca Raton. 2002.35. M. Hanratty, Open Systems and the Systems Engineering Process Office of the Undersecretary of

Defense (Acquisition and Technology). Open Systems Joint Task Force 1998.36. M. Schwartz, Mobile Wireless Communications, University Press. Cambridge. 2005.37. Bureau of Transportation Statistics—Transtats. Household Trips Database. 1995, transtats.bts.

gov/tables.asp38. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Faster Travel and the Price We Pay, 38(10), 2003.39. R. M. Felder, R. Brent, Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria,

Journal of English Education, 92(1), 2003, pp. 7–25.40. College students’ project reduces airport waits, USA TODAY, 6/5/2007.

APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT SAMPLE

SYEN 4385—Systems Engineering Capstone Design ITable A.1 depicts the learning objectives the instructors have established for SYEN 4385. Achievements

of these course-learning objectives helps prepare the students to achieve ABET program outcomes that arerequired for graduation from the systems engineering program.Table A.2 lists the systems engineering program outcomes that the capstone design course contributes to

via the established course learning objectives.Table A.3 indicates how the learning objectives for this course lead toward the systems engineering

(ABET) program outcomes. The numbers in each cell indicate, on a scale of 1 to 5 with a score of 5representing the highest possible achievement of an outcome, calculated based on students’ work in thecourse and the grades assigned to them, For example, the table below illustrates that course learningobjective (1) contributes to program outcome (c) through students’ response to RFP and assignments andthe average achievement of the outcome is 4.35. (Numbers within each cell gives the objective assessment ofthat outcome on a 5-point scale)The contribution of this course to satisfying the systems engineering program outcomes were measured

directly by student performance on designated assignments, RFP responses, research, and final presentationas prescribed in the above Course Learning Objectives vs. SYEN Program Outcomes mapping. Minimumacceptable individual performance is an average total score of 60% on the designated assignments andreports for all students who receive a final course grade of ‘C’ or better in SYEN 4385.


Table A.1 Learning objectives of SYEN 4385

SYEN 4385 Course Learning Objectives

1. Ability to design a high-level architecture of a system given user specified requirements.2. Ability to function in a multidisciplinary team to synthesize a complex system by determining interfaces or protocols requiredusing diverse components constituting the system.3. Effective communications skills, both oral and written, by writing a response to client specified requirements and tocommunicate the response to the client orally.4. Ability to apply the broad and well-rounded background in arts, humanities, science, math, and engineering to understand thatengineering design incorporates solutions appropriate in a societal context that ensure privacy and security, and that areeconomical to implement.5. Ability to engage in research/self-study to learn contemporary issues (e.g., data bases, designing voice-based systems)6. Ability to use multiple state-of-the-art tools to design components of a telecommunications/computer system (e.g., CORE,VXML, PHP)

Table A.2 Program outcomes that the capstone design course contributes to via established course learning objectives.

Systems Engineering Program Outcomes Assessed in SYEN 4385

(c) an ability to design and test systems in response to user requirements,(d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams that synthesize engineering solutions from diverse components,(e) an ability to identify and formulate systems engineering problems, and to develop and implement solutions to these problems,(g) an ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing,(h) broad and well-rounded education necessary to comprehend the impact of engineering designs and solutions in global,economic, environmental, and societal contexts,(i) a commitment to life-long learning and a desire to keep abreast of latest developments in the engineering field,(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues and an understanding of the role of the systems engineer in contemporary society,(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and state-of-the-art engineering tools necessary for professional practice.

Table A.3 Objective assessment of program outcomes

Relationships between Course LearningObjectives and Assessed Program

Outcomes


(c) (d) (e) (g)

SYEN 4385CourseLearningObjectives

(1)p

(Response toRFP, assign.)

4.35

p(Response to

RFP and FinalPresentation)

4.41

(2)p(response to RFP

and FinalPresentation)

4.41

(3)p(Response to

RFP and FinalPresentation)

4.41

Relationships between Course LearningObjectives and Assessed Program

Outcomes


(h) (i) (j) (k)

SYEN 4385CourseLearningObjectives

(4)p

(response toRFP, research toidentify systemcomponents &interfaces, final

power point report)3.5

(5)p

(response toRFP, research toidentify systemcomponents &interfaces, final


p(response to

RFP, research toidentify systemcomponents &interfaces, final


(6) Assignmentsinvolving state-of-

the-art tools4.36


Hussain Al-Rizzo is currently a Professor of Systems Engineering at the UniversityArkansas at Little Rock. Before, he served as a Research Assistant at the Space andAstronomy Research Center, Scientific Research Council, Baghdad, Iraq, HonoraryResearch Associate at the University of New Brunswick, and Senior Research Engineerat EMR Microwave Technology Corporation, Fredericton, NB, Canada, and AssistantProfessor at the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Sultan QaboosUniversity, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. He has published over 35 journal papers, 70conference presentations, and two patents. Dr. Al-Rizzo won the nomination by theUniversity of New Brunswick as the best doctoral graduate in science and engineering in1992. He won the UALR’ excellence awards in teaching and research in 2007 and 2009,respectively. His research areas include implantable and wearable antennas and associatedwireless systems, carbon nanotube-based antennas, WLAN deployment and load balan-cing, electromagnetic wave scattering by complex objects, design, modeling and testing ofhigh-power microwave applicators, design and analysis of microstrip and smart antennasfor mobile radio systems, precipitation effects on terrestrial and satellite frequency re-usecommunication systems, field operation of NAVSTAR GPS receivers, data processing, andaccuracy assessment, effects of the ionosphere, troposphere and multipath on code andcarrier-beat phase GPS observations and the development of novel hybrid Cartesian/cylindrical FD-TD models for passive microwave components. He received his BSc inElectronics and Communications (1979) (High Honors), Postgraduate Diploma in Electro-nics and Communications (1981) (High Honors) and M.Sc. in Microwave CommunicationSystems (1983) (High Honors) from the University of Mosul, Mosul, In 1987, he joined theRadiating Systems Research Laboratory, Electrical and Computer Engineering Depart-ment, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada where he obtained his Ph.D.(1992) in Computational Electromagnetics, Wireless Communications, and the GlobalPositioning System.

Seshadri Mohan is currently a professor and the chair of Systems Engineering Departmentat the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Previously, he served as the Chief TechnologyOfficer with Telsima, Santa Clara, California; as Chief Technology Officer with Comverse,Wakefield, Massachusetts; as a Senior Research Scientist, with Telcordia, Morristown, NJand as a member of the technical staff with Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ. He also servedas an associate professor at Clarkson University and as an assistant professor at WayneState University. He has authored/coauthored over 85 publications in the form of books,patents, and papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings. He has co-authoredthe textbook Source and Channel Coding: An Algorithmic Approach. He has contributed toseveral books, including Mobile Communications Handbook and The CommunicationsHandbook (both CRC Press). He holds eleven US and international patents in the areaof wireless location management and authentication strategies as well as in the area ofenhanced services for wireless. He is the recipient of the SAIC Publication Prize forInformation and Communications Technology. He has served or is serving on the EditorialBoards of IEEE Personal Communications, IEEE Surveys, IEEE Communications Magazineand has chaired sessions in many international conferences and workshops. He has alsoserved as a Guest Editor for several Special issues of IEEE Network, IEEE CommunicationsMagazine, and ACM MONET. He was nominated for 2006 GWEC’s Global WirelessEducator of the Year Award and selected the runner up, the 2007 ASEE Midwest SectionDean’s Award for Outstanding Service, and the IEEE Region 5 Outstanding EducatorAward in which he was selected the runner up. He holds a Ph.D. degree in electrical andcomputer engineering from McMaster University, Canada, the Masters degree in electricalengineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, and the Bachelorsdegree in Electronics and Telecommunications from the University of Madras, India.

Wayne Crolley is an area Manager- Global Development, AT&T. He joined AT&T in 2000,and currently serves as an Area Manager of Global Business Development for AT&T. Hisrole is to act as liaison within international customers, aligning technology skills withAT&T to the needs of those customers for opportunities involving complex customizedsolutions such as Unified Communications, WAN Acceleration, and Mobility.

Melissa Reed graduated from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2006 with a BSin Systems Engineering. She completed two summer internships prior to graduation atNASA Kennedy Space Center working on systems engineering projects involving launchvehicles. After graduating, she was hired at Windstream Communications as an Engineer Iin Transport Engineering. She was also selected to be a part of Windstream’s ExecutiveLeadership Development program. After becoming an Engineer II in Transport Engineer-ing, she moved to Quality Assurance and is currently an internal network auditor forWindstream’s communications network. Melissa is also currently a graduate student in theManagement Business Administration program at the University of Arkansas at LittleRock.


Dwayne Kinley graduated from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2006 with a BSin Systems Engineering. He is currently employed with the State of Arkansas at the WirelessInformation Network (AWIN) as an engineer.

Zak Hemphill graduated from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2006 with a BSin Systems Engineering and a minor in mathematics, and in 2008 with a M.S. inManagement of Information Systems. Before graduation, Zak worked for Drive Clean,which operates high-end express carwash tunnels in the Midsouth region of the UnitedStates, in their IT Department. He is currently still with Drive Clean as head of their ITdepartment and is responsible for maintaining their private wide-area network, systems andsoftware integration, and remote operation.

Chris Finley graduated in 2006 from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock with a BS insystems engineering with emphasis in computing systems and minors in mathematics andmusic. During his final year at UALR, he completed a two-semester internship withWindstream Communications, a Fortune 500 telecom company based in Little Rock, AR.Upon graduating, he accepted a position with Windstream in its Executive LeadershipDevelopment program. Since then, he has held various positions within Windstream’sNetwork Operations-Systems group, including ISP applications administration and data-base administration. He is currently the network monitoring administrator responsible forWindstream’s broadband network fault-management system.

Amanda Pope graduated from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2006 with a BSin Systems Engineering. After graduating, she went on to be hired at Alltel, a telecommu-nications company, as an engineer. After becoming an Engineer II, Alltel was acquired byVerizon Communications. She is currently employed at Verizon Communications as anengineer.

Douglas Osborn graduated from the University of Arkansas in Little Rock (UALR) in 2006with a major in Systems Engineering (Telecommunications Concentration). He went on toLockheed Martin in 2006 as a Systems Engineer. While at Lockheed Martin’s Simulation,Training, and Support Business Unit in Orlando Florida, he has worked primarily on theClose Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) Program. The purpose of the CCTT program is todevelop tactical vehicle simulators for the military forces. He has developed Systems S.


Directional-based Cellular e-Commerce: Undergraduate Systems Engineering Capstone Design Project

Technology

systems engineering

aes engineering

capstone course

viable design alternatives

course instruction

course structure

cellular ecommerce project

effective learning experience