A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a. common purpose performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves. mutually accountable, They then stated that working groups are not teams because there is no significant incremental. performance need or opportunity that would require the group to become a team Katezenback. and Smith 1993 further refined the concept of teams into pseudo teams potential teams real. teams and high performance teams This research however did not differentiate between. various types of groups and teams Therefore the terms team group and working group will be. used interchangeably herein, The effect of group size GS specifically small three person groups and large six person. groups on performance time cost and other process variables is another major aspect of this. Many tools are being developed to increase the concurrency of design by allowing teams. of designers to remotely communicate on a network and share information in a common data base. Cleetus and Reddy 1992 The importance of the development of tools to enable CE can be. seen by the level of federal research funding allocated to CE tool development 60 million spent. by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency over a three year period Reddy Wood and. Cleetus 1991 However in some product classes the use of CE tools has slowed the. development process King and Majchrzak 1996, Computer supported cooperative work CSCW is a new field of research that draws. together social scientists with system builders interested in developing a more refined. understanding of how people work together and make decisions Galegher and Kraut 1990. CSCW is a computer assisted coordinated activity carried out by a group of collaborating. individuals to solve problems and communicate Baecker 1993 The multi user software. supporting CSCW is called groupware Herein the term CSCW will be used when referring to. theoretical issues Groupware will be used when referring to the software used in this research. Decision making ranks with innovation in the importance in the engineering design process. Siddall 1972 Therefore computer supported cooperative work technology holds great. potential for improving the design process, The effect of computer supported cooperative work technology CSCW on performance. time cost and other process variables is another major aspect of this research New information. technologies like CSCW have created a need to measure and evaluate system performance. comprehensively Kleiner 1997 proposed a generalizable framework for understanding. measuring and evaluating performance within an information based management system. The theoretical basis of this research is sociotechnical systems theory Sociotechnical. systems STS theory suggests that personnel variables like group size must be considered along. with technological variables like the use of computer decision making tools to optimize the. engineering design process The top down sociotechnical engineering systems approach to the. design of organizations work systems jobs and related human machine user system and. human environment interfaces is called macroergonomics Hendrick 1986 1991 1995. This experimental research with field confirmation adoped a sociotechnical systems and. macroergonomic view of the engineering design process This means that the impact of both. technological and personnel variables in the design of an engineering organization are considered. The following independent variables each with two levels were considered by this research. Engineering Design Methodology EM concurrent versus sequential engineering. Group Size GS large six person versus small three person groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW using versus not using computer. supported cooperative work technology i e manual, By experimental analysis of the main effects and interactions of these variables on design. performance process time process cost and member satisfaction engineering organizations can. develop strategies to become more competitive, The following subsections elaborate on the independent variables manipulated in this. 1 1 1 Engineering Design Methodology, Dr Nam P Suh the former assistant director for engineering of the National Science. Foundation and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated that Suh 1990 p. Design as the epitome of the goal of engineering facilitates the creation of new. products processes software systems and organizations through which engineering. contributes to society by satisfying its needs and aspirations. The design process is often portrayed as a spiral or a helix Suh 1990 reflecting the. iterative process of evolving a concept from a need to requirements to a design Assumptions. must be made and then verified, There are two different approaches to design In the sequential engineering SE or. traditional approach resources are focused on designing a product that will meet the customer s. need Then the design is evaluated for its manufacturability After the manufacturing process has. been designed the design is evaluated for its supportability or maintainability Then the support. processes are designed Problems with manufacturability or supportability are referred to the. design engineers for resolution, In the concurrent engineering CE approach to design manufacturing and support. processes are designed at the same time the product is being designed Manufacturing and. support influence product design While this approach would seem the most logical it has only. been used in the United States in the last ten years. In the late 1980 s the Department of Defense formed a Technology Assessment Team to. study Japanese manufacturing techniques Their final report concluded that Japanese companies. take half of the time that U S companies take to deliver major products like aircraft and. automobiles by using a process that has come to be called concurrent engineering Kelly and. Nevins 1989 The report stated the Japanese practice of concurrent engineering the. simultaneous design of the product and all supporting life cycle processes is a major factor in. shortening the product development cycle Evanczuk 1990 Concurrent engineering differs from. the traditional sequential design process of designing the product designing the manufacturing. process manufacturing the product and finally designing its support processes. In 1988 the Department of Defense DoD tasked the Institute for Defense Analyses. IDA to assess claims of improved product quality at lower costs and shortened product. development time through the use of concurrent engineering The final product of IDA s. assessment was documented in Technical Report R 338 The Role of Concurrent Engineering in. Weapons System Acquisition An important contribution of this report was the following. definition of concurrent engineering Winner et al 1988 page 2. Concurrent engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated concurrent. design of products and their related processes including manufacture and. support This approach is intended to cause the developers from the outset to. consider all elements of the product life cycle from conception through disposal. including quality cost schedule and user requirements. Others during the same time period offered similar definitions The Pymatuning Group. Inc under a contract from The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA in 1988. defined CE to be the set of methods techniques and practices that Istvan 1988. Cause significant consideration within the design phases of factors from later in the life. Produce along with the product design the design of processes to be employed later in. the life of the product, Facilitate the reduction of the time required to translate designs into the fielded. products and, Enhance the ability of products to satisfy users expectations and needs. There are a number of terms that are often used synonomously with concurrent. engineering These terms more often represent the evolution of the concept in particular sectors. of the market rather than a fundamental difference in the overall construct Some of the terms. frequently used are systems engineering 1950 s 60 s simultaneous engineering. automotive industry integrated product process development Air Force producibility. engineering manufacturing life cycle engineering design integrated manufacturing. design fusion early manufacturing involvement parallel engineering and design in the. large In Europe design for production and design for economic manufacture have been. used Parsaei and Sullivan 1993, The integrated concurrent design of the product and its manufacturing and logistic. support processes is fundamental to concurrent engineering Figure 1 1 compares a classical. sequential approach to product development with a concurrent approach. Marketing Product,Definition,Product Mfg Quality,Suppliers R D. Manufacturing,Manufacturing Manufacturing,And Assembly Feedback Customer Marketing. Customer and Product Customer,Service Delivery Feedback. Sequential Engineering Concurrent Engineering, Figure 1 1 A Comparison of Sequential and Concurrent Engineering Adapted from. Carlson and Ter Minassian 1997, The implementation of concurrent engineering employs a variety of tools techniques. processes many of which are product specific However a key generic element of most. implementations of concurrent engineering is a reliance on multifunctional teams to integrate the. designs of a product and its manufacturing and support processes Winner et al 1988 The. size of these teams is a critical issue Large teams consume resources at a faster rate however. large teams bring more intellectual potential to the design challenge. 1 1 2 Group Size, Most of the work that people perform requires some degree of cooperation and. communication with others that is some kind of teamwork Galegher and Kraut 1990 The. Coming of the New Organization by Peter Drucker in 1988 said business teams were the wave of. the future Drucker 1988 The importance of teams as the future organizational unit was stated. by Johansen in Computer Augmented Teamwork as follows Johansen 1992 p 14. We are entering an age of organizational experimentation and redesign in which. teams will be a basic perhaps the basic organizing unit Flatter organizations. will depend on teams to get things done the remaining hierarchies will still. provide basic business functions but teams will be most important in most. Katzenbach and Smith 1993 stated in The Wisdom of Teams that Teams outperform. individuals acting alone or in larger organizational groupings especially when performance. requires multiple skills judgments and experiences p 9 They further assert that teams should. be the basic unit of performance for most organizations regardless of size. Teams formed to develop large complex products e g military systems with members. drawn from throughout the organization are called cross functional teams Cross functional. teams leverage the expertise of different areas on the design and definition of the product foster. communication and facilitate achieving design consensus Snoderly 1992 Throughout the. literature on concurrent engineering the terms cross functional multi functional and. multidisciplinary are used somewhat interchangeably. Multidisciplinary concurrent engineering teams make design and engineering decisions. Over thirty years ago Simon 1960 identified the stages in the decision making process to be. intelligence design and choice Simon further elaborated on design activities to include. inventing developing and analyzing Gallupe DeSanctis and Dickson 1988 Concurrent. engineering teams formulate ideas analyze them and achieve consensus on final design decisions. On complex products the number of disciplines that could be represented on a concurrent. engineering team can be quite significant For example a team might include members from. electronic and mechanical design software engineering manufacturing component reliability. maintainability logistics support life cycle cost analysis human factors quality assurance. marketing and management Keller 1992 The development of a complex product can require. hundreds of people from various functional groups in an organization Dierolf and Richter 1990. Given the need to have technical input from a large number of people a key issue is the. determination of the optimum number of people that should participate on the team While more. team members might imply additional resources such as ideas and information and leadership. Holloman and Hendrick 1971 found that groups of two were too small and groups larger than. six did not produce improved enough results to warrant the additional costs of more members. This research therefore considered the effect of group sizes of three and six members on the. engineering design process Group size is an important variable in designing organizations that. can have important ramifications on the cost and efficiency of an organization Dierolf and. Richter 1990, There have been a number of technology based tools that have been developed to facilitate. the work of groups There are a number of terms in current use to describe the general area of. computer augmented teamwork Computer augmented teamwork is a perspective on computing. and telecommunications based on the premise that the user is a collaborative work group rather. than an individual as in personal computing or an aggregation of unallied users as in time. share computing Johansen 1992 The use of this technology is a critical issue for management. of engineering organizations There can be high costs associated with its use however it may. improve the efficiency and productivity of groups,1 1 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW. Much of the literature concerned with technological support of group processes goes. under the label of group decision support systems GDSS Yet there is no consensus in the. literature on what exactly constitutes a GDSS Kraemer and Pinsonneault 1990 Kraemer and. Pinsonneault 1990 defined and differentiated two broad types of technological support systems. for group processes as GDSS and group communication support systems GCSS. The following definition of a GDSS was developed by Gallupe 1992 p 274. GDSSs are defined as interactive computer based systems that assist groups in a. variety of tasks such as generating ideas formulating problems analyzing information. and building consensus, The following definition of a group communication support system GCSS is based on. work by Kraener and Pinsonneault 1990 p 198, GCSS are information aids They are systems that primarily support the communication. process between group members even though they might do other things as well The. main purpose of GCSS is to reduce communication barriers in groups. Two terms will be used herein for use of computer technology to support the work of a. group Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW is a very broad term that encompasses. all of the terms cited It is a rubric for interdisciplinary research across a range of disciplines. including computer science artificial intelligence psychology sociology organizational theory. and anthropology Greif 1988 Groupware is the multi user software supporting CSCW The. term has been defined as follows Johnson Lenz 1982 p 47. The intentional group processes and procedures to achieve specific purposes plus. software tools designed to support and facilitate the group s work. The two terms are related as follows CSCW is the emerging scientific discipline that guides the. thoughtful and appropriate design and development of groupware Greenberg 1991. 1 1 4 Sociotechnical Systems Theory Macroergonomics. The term sociotechnical system was coined by Trist to describe the interrelatedness of. the functioning of the social and technical subsystems of the organization and the relation of the. organization as a whole to the environment in which it operates Pasmore et al 1982. Sociotechnical systems theory is characterized by several core principles joint causation joint. optimization and joint design Joint causation refers to the notion that the social and technical. subsystems are both affected by the environment Since both subsystems respond to causes in the. environment optimizing one suboptimizes the other Joint optimization is therefore the goal. Joint design is the method by which joint optimization is achieved. Three dimensions of the engineering design process were the focus of this research 1. the overall engineering process methodology of concurrent engineering versus traditional. sequential engineering 2 the personnel structure of those performing the design process based. on group size and 3 the technological structure supporting the design process as computer. supported cooperative work The interrelationship of these variables as they might be jointly. optimized was the goal of this research, The consideration of an organizational system s social and technical subsystems in the. design implementation and use of organizational systems has been called macroergonomics by. its founder Hal Hendrick 1985 and can be operationally defined as follows Brown Imada. Hendrick and Kleiner 1997, Macroergonomics is concerned with the optimization of organizational and work system. design through consideration of relevant personnel technological and environmental. variables and their interactions, This dissertation applys macroergonomics and its STS theoretical underpinnings to the. engineering design process to determine the optimum combination of technical considerations. e g engineering methodology and computer supported cooperative work and social. considerations e g group size that will improve the performance and competitiveness of. engineering organizations,1 2 Problem Statement, Competitive pressure causes companies to continually reexamine their processes for. effectiveness efficiency productivity and quality The design process is particularly important. because even though a relatively small cost is incurred during design a high percentage of. product life cycle costs are committed early in the design process Salomone 1995. Engineering managers deploy resources in order to achieve their mission Resources can. be directed at technological alternatives like the engineering process methodology used or the use. of computer support technology Or alternatively managers can direct resources at personnel. alternatives like increasing the number of people on the project Sociotechnical systems theory. suggests that there is an optimum combination of personnel and technological alternatives that. will optimize performance, The problem statement of this research is What is the relationship between the important. design process personnel and technological issues that must be considered by management or. management systems engineers responsible for organizations performing the design of complex. systems How do these issues interrelate Is there an optimum combination of process social. and technical approaches that will maximize performance while creating a high quality of work life. climate for employees,1 3 Research Purpose, The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding of the relationships. among technological and personnel variables This information could then be used by engineering. management or those responsible for the design of organizations to create higher performing. engineering design organizations Specifically this research considered two technological issues. 1 the overall design process methodology concurrent engineering versus sequential. engineering and 2 whether to use or not use computer supported collaborative work. technology and one personnel issue 1 whether large teams of six persons would be more. effective and efficient than small teams of three persons. 1 4 Research Objectives, This research had a broad range of objectives The first objective was to develop a. theoretically derived research base of knowledge to augment the existing body of anecdotal and. research information related to concurrent engineering Secondly no known applications of. CSCW have been researched in an engineering design environment Therefore an objective was. to confirm the applicability of previous CSCW and groupware research to the engineering design. environment It was expected that this research would be able to identify other variables for. future research that will increase the body of knowledge relating to the application of design. process methodologies teams and CSCW Finally this research provided practical guidance to. engineering design managers on effective and efficient ways to implement engineering design. processes that would result in high performance and would be satisfying to group members. 1 5 Conceptual and Research Models, Suh s 1990 conceptual model of the engineering design process is shown in Figure 1 2. Figure 1 2 Suh s Overall Conceptual Model of Design Process 1990. Suh 1990 defined the four components of the design process as 1 problem definition. from fuzzy sets of facts and myths into a coherent statement of the question 2 the creative. process of devising a proposed physical embodiment of solutions 3 the analytical process of. devising a proposed physical embodiment of solutions and 4 the ultimate check of the fidelity of. the design product to the original perceived needs. This research was primarily focused on the design generation component of the overall. model Suh s conceptual model of the design process is independent of process and socio. technical considerations Since design does not specify whether it includes product and or. processes it is equally applicable to concurrent engineering or sequential design processes Suh s. model is also independent of technology used to define the problem generate design alternatives. evaluate designs and check them, There are a number of conceptual models for depicting the relationship of the social. subsystem technical subsystem and task to performance The model used herein Figure 1 3 is. adapted from McGrath s work McGrath and Hollingshead 1994 and from Kraemer and. Pinsonneault s conceptual model Kraemer and Pinsonneault 1990. TECHNOLOGICAL SUBSYSTEM TECHNOLOGICAL VARIABLES,Engineering Design Performance. Methodology Process Time,Computer Supported Process Cost. Cooperative Work TASKS,Conceptual Design,Detail Design. PERSONNEL SUBSYSTEM,Organizational Design,Group Size PERSONNEL VARIABLES. Group Interaction Member Satisfaction,Environment,Independent Variables Process Dependent Variables. Figure 1 3 Conceptual Model Adapted from McGrath 1994 and from Kraemer and. Pinsonneault 1990, The research model Figure 1 4 shows a causal diagram of the relationship among the. major variables of this research The model predicts that satisfaction will be positively effected by. group dynamics and negatively effected of process time and cost Design performance will be. positively affected by the number of quality ideas generated and group dynamics while negatively. affected by process cost Process cost will increase with the use of computer supported. cooperative work technology and increased group size and will be positively related to process. time Process time will be increased by the use of sequential engineering and will be decreased. with concurrent engineering Excellent group dynamics will decrease process time The use of. computer supported cooperative work technology will increase the number of quality ideas has a. negative impact on group dynamics and will increase process cost A greater group size will. increase process cost and will increase the number of quality ideas. Engineering,Methodology,Concurrent,Engineering Process. Sequential Time,Engineering,Group Process,Large Design. Generation Satisfaction,Small Great,Computer Performance. Support Group,With Notation,Variables A and B increase or decrease together. Variable A increases variable B decreases or if,variable A decreases variable B increases. Figure 1 4 Research Model,1 6 Research Questions and Hypotheses. The overall questions this research addresses and hypothesizes are discussed in this. section The following independent variables and their levels were used. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE LEVEL,Engineering Methodology EM. Concurrent Engineering CE,Sequential Engineering SE. Group Size GS,Large Groups LG,Small Groups SG,Computer Supported Cooperative Work Use CSCW. Computer Support CS,No Computer Support NS, The following dependent variables were considered by this research. Design Performance DP,Process Time PT,Process Cost PC. Member Satisfaction MS,1 6 1 Design Performance, Research Question 1 How is design performance affected by engineering methodology group. size and use of computer supported cooperative work. 1 6 1 1 Engineering Methodology, H0 Design performance is not affected by engineering methodology. H1 The design performance of concurrent engineering groups will be greater than that of. sequential engineering groups DPCE DPSE, There is a growing belief among practitioners and academicians that concurrent. engineering positively impacts development time product cost and product quality Liker et al. 1996 Concurrent engineering is a very popular contemporary methodology because it has strong. face validity and there are a large number of successful anecdotes reported in the literature. 1 6 1 2 Group Size, H0 Design performance is not affected by group size. H1 The design performance of large groups will be greater than small groups. Steiner s theory of group productivity states that performance should increase with group. size when the task is additive or disjunctive Steiner 1972 Social facilitation research has. shown that the presence of others can improve a person s performance for easy tasks and hinder. performance for more difficult tasks Zajonc 1965 Large groups have more knowledge and. experiential resources to apply to design conception and design problem solving Other process. gains expected by large groups are synergy and better evaluation of alternatives. 1 6 1 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work, H0 Design performance is not affected by computer support. H1 The design performance of computer supported groups will be greater than non. computer supported groups DPCS DPNS, Performance should be better in computer supported groups because of task focus higher. quality communication better decision quality and greater level of effort put into the decision. process Kraemer and Pinsonneault 1990 Computer supported cooperative work technology. provides a framework of tools that will allow engineers to perform complex design tasks more. efficiently Salomone 1995, The Fellers laboratory experiment showed that groups generated significantly more ideas. different ideas ideas of higher total quality and more good ideas as rated by expert judges and. were more satisfied with the group idea generation process when given computer support. Bostrom Watson and Over 1992 Electronic brainstorming was not only the most productive. technique in the number of unique ideas generated compared to traditional and nominal. brainstorming but the most satisfying Gallupe 1992. Given that engineering design could be defined as a difficult task Gallupe DeSanctis and. Dickson 1988 have shown in their research that the benefits of CSCW are more detectable for. relatively difficult tasks And given that four studies of computer supported groups showed that. they had a higher degree of consensus McGrath and Hollingshead 1994 design performance. should be better with CSCW,1 6 2 Process Time, Research Question 2 How is process time affected by engineering methodology group size and. computer supported cooperative work,1 6 2 1 Engineering Methodology. H0 Process time is not affected by engineering methodology. H1 The process time of sequential engineering groups will be greater than concurrent. engineering groups PTSE PTCE, In sequential product development projects each stage of the project is performed. sequentially with the functional groups handing off the project to one another after an extensive. stage gate evaluation process Overlapping development activities traditionally performed. sequentially such as product and process design will reduce development time Zirger and. Hartley 1996 Many companies have reported between 30 to 70 reductions in total. development time using concurrent engineering Salomone 1995. 1 6 2 2 Group Size,H0 Process time is not affected by group size. H1 The process time of large groups will be greater than small groups PTLG PTSG. In general the larger the group the greater the difficulty in obtaining consensus requiring. more time Shaw 1981 Large groups may also expend time overcoming other process losses. like socializing coordination problems and competition for available speaking time. 1 6 2 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work, H0 Process time is not affected by computer support. H1 The process time of computer supported groups will be greater than non computer. supported groups PT CS PTNS, Computer support can increase or decrease time based on the task the participation level. and the degree of group focus Kraemer and Pinsonneault 1990 Given the difficulty of the. design task and the overall unfamiliarity of the subjects with computer support tools the process. time is expected to be greater using computer support tools. 1 6 3 Process Cost, Research Question 3 Is process cost affected by engineering methodology group size or. computer supported cooperative work,1 6 3 1 Engineering Methodology. H0 Process cost is not affected by engineering methodology. H1 The process cost of concurrent engineering will be less than sequential engineering PCCE. Process cost differences between sequential and concurrent engineering are expected to be. proportional to the impact of these processes on time Therefore concurrent engineering should. have much lower process cost,1 6 3 2 Group Size,H0 Process cost is not affected by group size. H1 The process cost of large groups will exceed that of small groups PC LG PCSG. The process cost of large groups based on person hours expended multiplied by a labor. rate is expected to cause large groups to be more expensive than small groups. 1 6 3 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work, H0 Process cost is not affected by computer support. H1 The process cost of computer supported groups will be greater than non computer. supported groups PCCS PCNS, The cost of tools and equipment is expected to cause the process cost of computer. supported groups to exceed that of non computer supported groups Also since computer. supported groups are expected to require more time the process cost will be greater. 1 6 4 Member Satisfaction, Research Question 4 Is the satisfaction of group members affected by engineering methodology. group size or computer supported cooperative work,1 6 4 1 Engineering Methodology. H0 Group member satisfaction will be affected by engineering methodology. H1 There will be no significant difference in member satisfaction in either concurrent or. sequential engineering, Given an unlimited amount of time to complete the experiment there is no reason to. expect that group member s satisfaction would be influenced by engineering methodology. 1 6 4 2 Group Size, H0 Group member satisfaction will be affected by group size. H1 There will be no significant difference in member satisfaction in either large or small. Given an unlimited amount of time to complete the experiment there is no reason to. expect that group member s satisfaction would be influenced by group size. 1 6 4 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work, H0 Group member satisfaction will be affected by computer support. H1 There will be no significant difference in member satisfaction. Given an unlimited amount of time to complete the experiment there is no reason to. expect that group member s satisfaction would be influenced by computer support. 1 6 5 Optimum Combination, Research Question 5 Is there an optimum combination of engineering methodology group size. and computer support that creates the greatest technical and social outcome. H0 There is no optimum condition, H1 Non computer supported large concurrent engineering groups will be the optimum. If the prior hypotheses are supported then the optimum condition would be large non. computer supported concurrent engineering groups, Table 1 1 summarizes the hypotheses of this research.
Charity and Conflict: Poor Relief in Mid Seventeenth Century Dundee John McCallum Introduction Research on poverty and welfare in early modern Scotland is in its infancy. In contrast to a highly-developed literature on England and mainland Europe, the range and scope of Scottish
influencing interpersonal relationship: climate of openness, team building efforts and the initiation of social activities among employees. More so, Ulrich (2010) in his study on interpersonal relationships at work, organization, working and health in Sweden public health organizations used social support, organizational
The effects of interpersonal communication style on task performance and well being A Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Howard Taylor School of Human Sciences and Law Faculty of Society and Health Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College Brunel University October, 2007 . ii Abstract This thesis is based around five studies examining the psychology of interpersonal ...
21UTME2017/23020010 KWARA UNITS CBT Centre, Behind Diamond Field Filling Station, Off Asa Dam Road, Ilorin, Kwara State. The centre was also sanctioned for Technical Deficiency during the conduct of a Third-Party Examination. 22UTME2017/27190001 LAGOS Malicomp Computers, 17 Adesola Akande, off Oyemekun Street, Ifako Ijaiye, Lagos, Lagos State.
Learning Chinese: A foundation course in Mandarin Julian K. Wheatley, 4/07 Finally, I must acknowledge the people who made this enterprise possible in the first place, the teachers who covered the same ground as Learning Chinese when I was an undergraduate student at Columbia University and gave me my foundation in Mandarin:
cellor of Kwara State University, Malete and Pro -Chancellor, Bayero University, Kano. Professor Tayo thanked him for the visit and briefed him on some of the milestones recorded by the University since its charter from the Federal government. A cross section participants at the conference