Industry, Faculty & Student Collaboration

Bring practical experience, academic guidance, and student ingenuity together.

Explore a collaborative senior design process and download a fillable project planning and feasibility form.

Start with a shared opportunity

Senior design brings three complementary perspectives together: industry understands the practical setting, faculty guide technical depth and learning, and students contribute questions, analysis, creativity, and design work. Together, they can turn a performance gap, an operational challenge, or an opportunity for improvement into a useful engineering project.

The collaboration begins with a conversation. Industry partners and faculty can develop an initial brief together; students help refine requirements, explore alternatives, and plan verification as their involvement begins. The brief remains a shared working document as the team learns more.

The proposed initial focus is Arkansas Tech, with resources designed for adaptation by other universities. This page does not announce a university partnership, an open call administered by a university, or a commitment to accept projects.

Download the collaboration planning form (PDF)

Four pages · 45 fillable fields · Pages 1–3 support joint planning · Page 4 records the faculty-led feasibility review

What makes a strong senior design project?

A strong collaboration combines industry insight and faculty guidance with student responsibility for engineering decisions. Students should be able to define requirements, develop and compare alternative solutions, perform appropriate analysis, consider risks and trade-offs, and evaluate their design against the requirements.

ABET’s 2026–2027 engineering criteria describe design as an iterative process that applies mathematics, science, and engineering to meet needs within constraints. Criterion 5 requires a culminating major design experience that builds on earlier coursework and incorporates appropriate engineering standards and multiple constraints. These expectations guide the questions in this form; faculty must also check the applicable review cycle, discipline-specific program criteria, and local course requirements. See the official ABET engineering criteria and our ABET alignment guidance.

Useful opportunities may include a material-handling aid, a test fixture, an inspection system, a control system, or a redesigned process. Suitability depends on the engineering decisions students can own, not simply the project’s size or commercial value.

Example: “Design a changeover fixture that reduces setup from 45 minutes to under 20 minutes, fits the existing work area, and addresses operator safety” gives students requirements and room to compare alternatives. “Purchase and install this exact fixture” may need reframing to create a sufficient design opportunity.

A shared planning form

Page	Contributors	Information requested	Purpose
1. Understand the shared opportunity	Industry and faculty; students as involved	Contact, current problem, people affected, desired improvement, available data, and decisions students may make.	Build a shared understanding of the need and student design responsibility.
2. Define the design opportunity	Faculty, industry, and students as involved	Three measurable requirements, possible alternatives, engineering analysis, constraints, known standards, and hazards.	Identify the technical design and verification opportunity.
3. Plan the collaboration	Industry and faculty; students as involved	Deliverables, schedule, funding, resources, access, supervision, sponsor support, restrictions, and dependencies.	Agree on a useful, achievable educational scope and shared responsibilities.
4. Collaborative feasibility review	Faculty records the review with partner and student input	Nine assessment areas, an overall outcome, evidence, required scope changes, and next steps.	Document suitability, agreed revisions, and a shared path forward.

Write “unknown” or “to discuss together” when appropriate. Industry partners do not need a finished specification before the first conversation. Faculty and students can help identify missing information, clarify requirements, and develop the design opportunity. Record known restrictions so everyone can plan realistically.

Define measurable success

For each requirement, state the present condition, the desired target, and how performance could be verified. For example: “Current changeover: 45 minutes; target: under 20 minutes; verification: timed trials under an agreed procedure.” Other measures might include load capacity, positioning error, energy use, scrap rate, or maintenance access.

Identify constraints and standards

Explain how limits affect the design. A budget, a fixed footprint, cleanability, manufacturing capability, energy availability, and service access may create competing priorities. Identify known codes, standards, company requirements, and hazards; faculty and students will determine their appropriate application. Checking a box alone does not demonstrate that a constraint influenced a design decision.

Set a useful and achievable scope

Separate the minimum useful deliverable from optional stretch goals. A verified design package, validated model, or tested prototype may be an appropriate course outcome. Production deployment, certification, and ongoing support require separate planning. Be explicit if only production-ready equipment would have value to the sponsor.

How to use and share the PDF

1. Download and save the PDF. Open the saved file in a PDF application that supports interactive forms, such as Adobe Acrobat Reader. Browser PDF viewers vary in how they save entries.
2. Develop pages 1–3 together. An industry partner or faculty member may start the form. Refine it through discussion and include student contributions as students become involved. Faculty record the review on page 4 using that shared input. If an answer exceeds the visible space, attach a numbered continuation page keyed to the field label; scrolling text may not all appear when printed.
3. Save a completed copy and reopen it. Confirm that the entries remain visible. Keep a copy for your records. The form can also be printed and completed by hand.
4. Arrange a planning conversation. Contact the participating program’s senior design coordinator to discuss opportunities, identify faculty collaborators, and agree on how to share the form. Include students when appropriate to the course and project stage.
5. Provide supporting information when requested. Useful items include nonconfidential photographs, baseline measurements, process sketches, and existing requirements. Wait for approved arrangements before sending sensitive or proprietary material.

This website does not currently accept uploads or automatically route proposals. The PDF contains no submission button or automatic assessment. Submission instructions and an organizational contact channel can be added once established. Do not send a proposal to an assumed university or company address.

How the collaboration develops

The proposed workflow is a starting point for agreement with a participating program; it does not promise a response time or a particular review committee.

1. Explore the opportunity: Industry and faculty discuss the need, educational value, resources, and broad scope. Students contribute early questions and observations when involved. Identify unknowns to investigate together.
2. Define a shared brief: Faculty, industry, and students as involved develop measurable requirements, identify standards and constraints, and agree on design responsibilities, deliverables, and verification.
3. Review feasibility together: Discuss technical depth, schedule, safety, access, resources, and assessment. Faculty record the findings on page 4 and determine academic suitability under the program’s requirements.
4. Refine the plan: Review the outcome together, resolve gaps, and agree on revisions and next steps. Update the shared brief as the project becomes clearer.
5. Agree on working arrangements: Before student project work begins, faculty and industry establish responsibilities, milestones, site access, safety procedures, costs, confidentiality, intellectual property, and reporting expectations through the university’s procedures. Students understand the arrangements that affect their work.
6. Design, review, and learn: Students lead the engineering work, faculty guide technical reasoning and learning, and industry contributes practical feedback. Joint reviews help the team compare alternatives, interpret test results, refine the design, and plan a useful handover. Faculty retain responsibility for academic assessment.

How suitability is assessed

Page 4 uses Yes / Needs clarification / No, with “Not reviewed” as the initial value, across nine areas:

• Meaningful engineering design and comparison of alternatives.
• Appropriate technical depth based on earlier coursework.
• Measurable requirements.
• Relevant engineering standards and multiple constraints.
• A credible verification approach.
• Realistic scope, schedule, budget, team, and facilities.
• Feasible safety controls, supervision, and access.
• Sufficient access to student work for academic assessment.
• Fit with the discipline, course, and applicable program criteria.

This is a proposed screening rubric, not an ABET-prescribed checklist. An unresolved issue is considered on its merits; a numeric total does not determine suitability. The reviewer records evidence and recommended changes rather than relying on checked boxes alone.

Review outcome	What it means
Suitable for project development	The proposal merits further planning; project placement and final scope still require agreement.
Suitable after listed scope changes	Identified changes are needed before the project proceeds.
More information needed	Faculty need additional evidence or clarification to make a decision.
Not suitable for this senior-design course	The proposal does not currently fit this course; faculty may identify another educational setting or a possible reframing.

A suitable proposal is not a guarantee of team assignment, acceptance, commercial success, or a specific technical result. ABET accredits programs; this form does not approve or certify individual projects.

Three perspectives, shared progress

Industry partners bring operational knowledge, user needs, practical constraints, access, resources, and experience. They help shape requirements, join reviews, and provide feedback on usability and implementation. Their guidance supports student ownership of design decisions.

Faculty collaborators connect the opportunity to engineering theory and learning goals. They help frame a feasible scope, guide analysis and verification, and facilitate useful technical reviews. Faculty retain responsibility for academic suitability, supervision, assessment, and applicable program and institutional requirements.

Student engineers, once involved, contribute investigation, creativity, analysis, and design. They help refine requirements, develop and compare alternatives, document decisions and risks, and verify performance. They explain their work, seek feedback, and use that feedback to improve the solution.

Together, the collaborators maintain the project brief, agree on communication and review milestones, discuss trade-offs openly, and document decisions and next steps. Shared planning supports both a useful industry outcome and a rigorous student learning experience.

Download the fillable PDF

Explore Arkansas industry project themes · Read about senior design · Find project planning resources