cmc's symposium & itac's executive forum evaluation statistics based on 70...

CMC's Symposium & ITAC's Executive Forum Evaluation

Statistics based on 70 respondents (Staff filtered out)

November 2012

Survey Execution & Response

• Sent to 201 attendees

• 79 Respondents (36.3 % Response)– 70 Non-staff attendees

• 5 surveys “in progress” and only half complete

– 9 Staff (CMC & ITAC) filtered out in this report• 1 survey “in progress” and only half complete

2Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses

3

Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event

Please indicate your satisfaction with the following elements of the event: Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Number of people who attended

TEXPO research exhibits and demonstrations

78.18% 37.04% 5.88% 5.96% n=55

CMC's vendor sponsored CAD training sessions 63.64% 8.93% 3.92% 2.01% n=22

CMC's Technology Roadmap Session 60.38% 43.24% 19.05% 5.68% n=54

Vendor and agency exhibits 45.31% 75.00% 40.00% 15.50% n=65

Thursday morning session content 75.44% 46.15% 14.29% 0.00% n=58

Thursday afternoon session content 67.24% 54.84% 7.14% 7.31% n=58

Awards Banquet 81.25% 26.67% 4.55% 0.00% n=49

November 2012Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses

4

TEXPO research n=55

CAD training sessions n=22

Roadmap Session n=54

Vendor and agency n=65

Thursday morning n=58

Thursday afternoon n=58

Awards Banquet n=69

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

78%

64%

60%

45%

75%

67%

81%

37%

9%

43%

75%

46%

55%

27%

6%

4%

19%

40%

14%

7%

5%

6%

2%

6%

15%

7%

The satisfaction with the following elements

Satisfied

Somewhat Sat -isfied

Somewhat Dissat -isfied

Dissatisfied

November 2012


Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses

5

Comments:(All 12/22):• TEXPO research exhibits and demonstrations -- No time• CMC's vendor sponsored CAD training sessions -- My only comment that it will be much better to have these sessions on a different day than the competition day so students can attend -- Not so much a training as a presentation of the product -- only had three attendees across two sessions - more promotion and better timing is required• CMC's Technology Roadmap Session -- Had doctor's appointment -- Presentation was not really compelling, even if content was -- Too detailed during dinner -- Was already aware of the content so less informative then the Thursday sessions• Vendor and agency exhibits -- Due to the large and segregated venue for the symposium, I felt that the traffic flow resulted in fewer attendees and researchers visiting the vendor and agency exhibits. -- Have limited interest in those due to nature of my job -- Nice variety of vendors to speak with. -- Not enough attendees visit the exhibit area completely



6

Comments:(All 10/22):Thursday morning session content -- Good high-level overviews -- Great lineup of speakers, very engaging presentations -- Interesting from a business point of view, but less for research• Thursday afternoon session content -- Interesting from a business point of view, but less for research -- Not interesting -- Same comment as above, although more technical and less, accessible material for me, still good speakers -- variety of views• Awards Banquet -- ha ha - I won! -- the columns in the facility were very irritating ... not a good venue -- Very good networking opportunity



7


November 2012

Question Likely Unlikely I Don't Know

Likelihood that you will recommend future TEXPO Research Competitions to others: 75.71% 2.86% 21.43%


8

Likelihood to recommend TEXPO: Please comment on your selection. (All 13):• CMC Microsystems Texpo is a great opportunity for researchers to exhibit their Microsystems research.• Excellent opportunity to showcase research within Canada with good prizes• Exposure more valuable than most students realize• Good experience for postgrad students• I attended mostly for networking. TEXPO was for curiosity. I would ask the competitors what they got out

of it before recommending it to any researchers I know.• It dominantly seemed like it was for students and not companies.• Like the format, opportunities for students to showcase the fruit of their labor• Not sure if it was a match our industry, more academic than industry focused• One of the best so far• Outstanding work from various researchers in the country - a must see for anyone interested in the latest

in electronics and microsystem research in Canada.• The event was quite mild and as exhibitor we were not seeing the ROI we expected for• The price should be in the $700 range. Also some incentive to get people to visit each table. Maybe a

giveaway prize if you complete a vendor signature form at each table.• This is great opportunity to see other universities research and work. In addition, the sessions were

helpful to see the industry trends and advancement in various fields



9

Please describe your satisfaction with the following administrative elements of the joint event held by CMC and ITAC:

Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Number of people who attended

The proportion of time allocated to presentations, networking, and technical sessions 83.87% 53.85% 33.33% 20.67% n=62

The length of the event 83.87% 53.85% 50.00% 0.00% n=62

The value received for the price paid 79.37% 43.75% 55.56% 20.86% n=63

Toronto as a location for the event 74.60% 68.42% 50.00% 0.00% n=63

The October timing of the event 77.78% 70.59% 40.00% 0.00% n=63

Organization and administration (registration, venue, room setup, audio/visuals, TEXPO) 88.71% 40.00% 33.33% 20.46% n=62

Holding CMC's Symposium and ITAC's Executive Forum concurrently 78.95% 52.38% 10.00% 0.00% n=57

Overall satisfaction with the event 79.37% 75.00% 0.00% 20.86% n=63

Part 2 - Organization & Administration


10

The proportion of time n=62

The length of the event n=62

The value received n=63

Toronto as a location n=63

The October timing of the event n=63

Organization and administration n=62

Symposium and ITAC's Executive n=57

Overall satisfaction n=63

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

84%

84%

79%

75%

78%

89%

79%

79%

54%

54%

44%

68%

71%

40%

52%

75%

33%

50%

56%

50%

40%

33%

10%

21%

21%

20%

21%

The satisfaction with the following administrative elements

Satisfied

Somewhat Sat -isfied

Somewhat Dissat -isfied

Dissatisfied

November 2012



11


Comments:(All 10/20):• The proportion of time allocated to presentations, networking, and technical sessions -- networking sessions could be more• The length of the event -- The training sessions should not be on the same competition day• The value received for the price paid -- Free admission for me so can't complain! -- Only as relates to the training sessions• Toronto as a location for the event - Comments: -- A little expensive for students. -- Canada -- Canada -- Choose a location that is not prone to so much traffic on Toronto's periphery next time! -- Hub airport - city expensive• The October timing of the event -- Conflict with Nano Ontario was avoidable


12


Comments:(All 10/20):• Organization and administration (registration, venue, room setup, audio/visuals, TEXPO) -- Great work by the team! -- Room booking was inadequate -- the pillars in the room were very irritating -- Top notch! Many helpful staff members, always available. -- University of Manitoba -- University of Windsor• Holding CMC's Symposium and ITAC's Executive Forum concurrently -- Allows for additional networking -- Didn't attend ITAC -- synergistic for both organizations• Overall satisfaction with the event -- Disappointed with quantity of student participation


13

Question Yes No Maybe

Would you attend this event with the same format next year? 73.02% 4.76% 22.22%


Comments (All 5) • Change city each year• if not me, someone else from PMC-Vancouver• If time permits, I would like to or recommend others to.• Looking forward to it.• Maybe arrive only for the annual meeting and not for the training.


14

What theme would you like to see at next year's Annual Symposium? (This year was 'Embedded Software & Hardware'; 2011 was 'Energy Matters'; 2010 was 'Sensors') Comments (All 14/35) • 3D-IC• Biomedical Microsystems• Biomedical Microsystems• Canadian Nanotechnology roadmap• Convergence of the PC, Camera, Smartphone, Tablet etc.• DSP in optical coherent telecommunications• Electronics Innovation• Embedded Software & Hardware for Aerospace & Defense• Embedded Software and Hardware• Embedded systems for Aerospace• Global R&D Trends with emphasis on role for North America.• Heterogeneous systems• In line with DMT strategy more focus on commercialization• Interdisciplinary systems



15

What theme would you like to see at next year's Annual Symposium? (This year was 'Embedded Software & Hardware'; 2011 was 'Energy Matters'; 2010 was 'Sensors') Comments (All 15/35) • IP world market - supply, demand, and quality standard• MEMS and materials• MEMS or packaging• Micro Optical systems• Microfluidics• microsystems and sensors• Mobile• More software• New and Emerging Technologies• new technologies for computer engineering• Optics, optoelectronics and photonics.• Refrain from answering (vendor).• RF. Microwave and millimeter wave, MMIC• Sensors• sensors



16

What theme would you like to see at next year's Annual Symposium? (This year was 'Embedded Software & Hardware'; 2011 was 'Energy Matters'; 2010 was 'Sensors') Comments (All 6/35) • Smart Materials• System prototyping• The Internet of Things - How Everything is Becoming Connected• Wireless Communications & Embedded Systems• Wireless Power• Wireless, Telecom



17

Suggested speakers: Comments (All 12) • a medical researcher making prolific use of microsystems• Art de Genus• Aerospace & Defense non-profit organizations (i.e. CADSI)• Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google• Arthur Carty• Dr. Mike Smith from University of Calgary• Luc Ouellette, Dave Danovitch• Microsoft, Apple, ...• Paul Yeager• Perhaps speakers from early successes from DMT engagements• Prof. Trevor J. Hall• Someone in Cisco or Alcatel-Lucent



18

Question Yes No

Number of people who attend

Would you consider assisting in the planning for next year's event? 19.64% 80.36% n=56

If "Yes", how? Comments (All 7) • As a volunteer if CMC requires any help• Generate more awareness!• it depends on what CMC is needed on that time!• ITAC program advice (like in 2012)• TBD• TEXPO RESEARCH• Training and Network



19

Name: Telephone: Email:

Nabeeh Kandalaft 5199651617 [email protected]

Zack Sharon 6478711555 [email protected]

Ehsan 2048816321 ehsan.tahmasebian

Pierre Paulin (STMIcroelectronics) (613) 768-9069 [email protected]

Khalil 418-576-3665 [email protected]

Chan-Wang Park 418-723-1986 ext 1737 [email protected]

Sam ho 613-799-3220 [email protected]

Dong cheng Deng 587-718-2727 [email protected]

Ken Wagner (SMC Chairman) 514 501-3411 [email protected]

Carolyn Ren 1-519-888-4567 x 33030 [email protected]

Ian McGill 416-312-3406 [email protected]

Francisco Moreno 510 248 4643 [email protected]

If you would consider assisting, please provide your contact information: (All 12)



20

Is there anyone you'd like to nominate for next year's Outstanding Service Award (either Academic and/or Industrial)? (All 6) • Bill Miller retired Windsor U• Dr. Robert Laganiere – U of Ottawa• Imed Zine-El-Abidine• Mr. Kris McNeil from Solace Power Inc.• No• Sebastian Fischmeister

Can you add the name of any new microelectronics companies for our mailing list?(All 5) • I will send you mine when it is created!• Nemsors Technology• No• Option, Advanced, Direct Microelectronics• See ITAC Recruiting



21

Additional comments: (All 4/9) • An eye-opener. I really liked it. • Good networking opportunity, I will attend in the future to continue building relationships and learning

about R&D and companies in electronics industry in Canada and USA.• [Email received]: Due to my classes on the second day of the CMC’s 2012 Symposium and ITAC’s 18th

National Executive forum, I was only able to attend the evening event on the first day. I am sure the Symposium must have went well, as it has always been. Unfortunately, I am not be able to fill the evaluation form. Sorry about that.

• I started to fill out the survey when I received the first email about a week ago. However, all that I did at the conference was teach the COMSOL workshop and then I left after the first day. It seemed to me that the questions were more suitable for people who stayed for the entire conference, so I didn't complete the survey. I thought the venue was nice, the food was good and I enjoyed myself. One thing that could have gone more smoothly was setting up in the morning. I got the impression that a key person was sick (not much you can do about that), but it would have been better if there was a backup plan in place. (I spent a fair bit of time looking for the projector and looking for course material that was mailed from our office to the conference venue.) This is minor, and I'm sure that if the person was not sick then things would have gone smoothly, but a backup plan is also a good idea. Thanks for everything!



22

Additional comments: (All 5/9) • I think holding MNRC can bring more people and it is advantageous to students and faculty like the one in

2009.• I would be happy to help secure candidates for "Outstanding Service Award" • Thanks for your great efforts!• Valuable event. Likely need to sort out relationship with ITAC SMC. CMC seemed to dominated this

year. SMC mandate now unclear.• Very good day - well organized, lively and informative. TEXPO was a pleasant surprise!



TEXPO Participants only

9 Respondents

24

Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO


Would you participate in Texpo again? 77.78% 0.00% 22.22%

Why? comments: (All 3) • Excellent opportunity to show off research• Good learning experience overall, and have more to present in the future• Great opportunity to see audience's view of our new technology

November 2012TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents

25



Would you recommend presenting in TEXPO to another student or faculty member? 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

Why? comments: (All 3) • Excellent opportunity to show off research• Good learning experience overall, gives exposure to your work• Same reason


26


QuestionE-mail bulletin

CMC's website

Faculty advisor

Another student or faculty member

Other, please specify

How did you hear about TEXPO? (check all that apply) 33.33% 44.44% 88.89% 22.22% 0.00%


27


Please indicate your satisfaction with the following aspects of pre-TEXPO preparation Satisfied Dissatisfied

Not applicable

TEXPO information posted on CMC's website 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

TEXPO information sent to you by e-mail 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

Information on travel subsidies and accommodation arrangements 77.78% 0.00% 22.22%

Pre-TEXPO arrangements for your presentation 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

Set-up time and available resources (e.g. support staff, supplies, etc.) 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

comments: (All 1) Information on travel subsidies and accommodation arrangements - If dissatisfied, how could it be improved?• Did not use.


28

Please indicate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the competition Satisfied Dissatisfied

Not applicable

Competition information on CMC's website 77.78% 11.11% 11.11%

Competition information sent to you by e-mail 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

The judging process 75.00% 12.50% 12.50%

The space provided (table, facilities, etc.) 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%


comments: (All 2) Competition information on CMC's website - If dissatisfied, how could it be improved?• More concrete details on allotted time for presenting, one thing said 10 mins with 5 mins of questions,

another said it didn't matter how the time was spent, but you just get 15 mins total

The judging process - If dissatisfied, how could it be improved?• However, I think the judging should be on the student contribution to a project and not the whole project. It

is a student competition, not a team competition. Some projects have been carried out for few years. Few students has been working on small part of the project are presenting the whole project as their own, while other students had worked thoroughly on their own project for couple of years, but it is their own total project


29


Question Yes NoNot applicable

Did you select which competitions to enter by carefully reviewing the criteria? 88.89% 0.00% 11.11%

Question Yes No

Were you able to do other things that you wanted to do? (visit other presentations, talk to companies, etc.) 100.00% 0.00%

comments: (All 1) • but not as much as I might have wanted


30


Question Too long Too short Just right

What is your opinion about the amount of time that TEXPO is officially open? 0.00% 33.33% 66.67%

comments: (All 1) • Only during lunch hour. People became more interested after the awards were presented.


31


Question Yes No

Holding TEXPO judging the afternoon on the day before the symposium gives you the opportunity to showcase your research at the symposium and attend the presentations during the day. Do you like the time that the TEXPO judging is held? 88.89% 11.11%

comments: (All 1) • It should not be at the training sessions held on that day


32

Additional Suggestions

We welcome any additional comments, and please comment if you have any additional suggestions on how CMC could improve our preparations or your participation in TEXPO (All 2) • NA• See above comments


cmc's symposium & itac's executive forum evaluation statistics based on 70...

Documents