|
|
 |
by Allan Chang, BBA1 and Nader Shwayhat
aychang@umich.edu, naders@engin.umich.edu
Since the beginning of the school year, nearly 200 students from the engineering, business, LS&A and art schools, have buried themselves in one of the University's largest student-run projects: the University of Michigan Solar Car Team. The team is currently working on the fifth generation solar vehicle, named MaizeBlaze, which is scheduled to compete in Sunrayce 1999. Sunrayce, sponsored by General Motors, Electronic Data Systems, and the Department of Energy, is a biannual solar car race, open only to North American universities and non-profit organizations.
The key to the Solar Car Team's past success (which includes two national championships and the wi nningest record among all teams) is not just the engineering talent that goes into designing each vehicle, but the hard work of B-school students as well. The Solar Car Team operates on the largest budget of any student run organization, and in order to finance its expensive operations, the team has always turned to the B-school for help.
BBA and MBA students have been involved with every previous Solar Car Team, usually through participation on the Solar Car Business Team. As a Business Team member, participants are exposed to diverse aspects of the business world and are offered real-world experience. For example, students have been involved with various exciting activities including: unveiling the vehicle at the North American Auto Show, presenting informative sessions to corporate executives at companies such as Ford, 3M, Proctor & Gamble, and Lockheed-Martin, and developing and implementing fundraising strategies in order to raise over $1.5 million in corporate sponsorships.
The benefits of participating on the Business Team are obvious. Not only do team members contribute towards finding alternative energy solutions, but also gain valuable, hands-on experience in return for their hard work and dedication. The Solar Car Team also develops business skills in a team-oriented environment. Business students are aware that recruiters look for this type of experience, and many of the team's sponsors have realized the value of being part of this project. In fact, many companies have recruited BBA and MBA students straight from the team.
Dean White understands the unique opportunities that the Solar Car Team offers UMBS students. Consequently, UMBS has been one of the team's most valued and dedicated sponsors. Just last month, the Business Team, which presently includes four BBA students, met with Dean White and presented a sponsorship proposal. The presentation went very well, and Dean White was enthusiastic about sponsoring the team once again. When asked why the B-school is a consistent sponsor, Dean White stated "the Solar Car Team is a unique, multi-disciplinary experience that is a great development opportunity."
The University of Michigan Solar Car Business Team is an excellent way to become involved with one of the University's largest and most recognized student-run organizations. If you are interested in joining the Solar Car Business Team, there are weekly meetings held on Thursdays at 6:00 in room B0205, or if you have questions, feel free to contact Nader Shwayhat or Jeremy Lappin at jlappin@umich.edu.
 |
Buy Recommendation:Features Good Quality Pass Value Excellent Performance Good Comfort Good Fun Good |
by Ryan Scott, MBA1
rscottz@umich.edu
Remember the Three Bears? No, it was not in our Marketing core class (wait, maybe it was Stats). You know, the first bed was too small, the second bed was too big, but the third was, well, just right. Many have said that the all new Dodge Durango is that "just right" Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) we have all been waiting for.
With a couple of V8s to choose from (a V6 will follow this summer), seating for eight, and handsome styling, the Durango has the recipe to climb up the sport-ute sales charts. We have already tested the Mercury Mountaineer, Chevy Tahoe, and Lincoln Navigator. As we will explore, perhaps we have indeed saved the best for last.
Chrysler is the last to come play in the phenomenally profitable SUV market. Though it could be fairly claimed that Jeep, currently a subsidiary of Chrysler, invented the small sport-ute class with the Jeep Cherokee, this was before its acquisition. Dodge has tried to play the value card with the Durango: prices range from $27,000 to $29,500. This might amount to a voice in the wilderness of overpriced SUVs, but it is an alternate message that stands in stark contrast to last week's Lincoln Navigator.
The Durango is based on the Dodge Dakota midsize pickup truck. Introduced during the Eighties, the Dakota has successfully straddled the pickup truck market with its "just right" dimensions placed between compact pickups (Ford Ranger and Chevy S-10 pickup) and full-size pickups (Ford F-Series, Chevy C/K Series).
The Durango benefits from the handsome restyling of the Dakota last year. It is the most distinctive of the domestic sport-utes on the road today, straying far afield from the square box styling that afflicts most SUVs. The roofline of the truck has a distinctive arch that provides more headroom in the second and third row of seats. It was rumored that a particular Chrysler exec, who is over six feet tall, could not fit in the original design's third row seat and forced designers to add the bowed roof so he could fit. It was a good call functionally, but from a styling perspective, it really sets the truck apart.
The Dakota's stuck in the middle size benefits the Durango as well. It is not much bigger than the Explorer and smaller than a Tahoe, yet it boasts a third row bench seat like the much the larger Expedition/Navigator and Suburban. Since it is not as big, the Durango feels much more manageable on the road than any of the above.
The Durango has a solid comfortable feeling on the road. Our test truck was equipped with the 5.2 liter Magnum V8, which churns out 230 hp and a ground-pounding 300 lb ft of torque. This was more than adequate, though a larger 5.9 liter motor is available. Acceleration feels strong, though it certainly could not keep up with our previously tested Chevy Tahoe sprint king at the local drag strip (Tappan Street).
When pushed the Durango corners with a fair amount of body roll, but it hangs on well thanks to the aggressive tread of the beefy tires. Brakes with ABS do an average job hauling down the 4600 pounds the truck brings to bear. 0-60 arrives in 10.8 seconds, not bad for this class, and the automatic transmission does a good job managing the show, always providing the right gear at the right time.
The four-wheel drive system offers on-the-fly shifting in and out of 4-wheel drive. The truck boasts both low and high ranges. The drivetrain is held over in both the Dakota and Durango from the last generation, so a lever on the floor must be pulled to the option of your choice. This technology is a few years behind Ford and GM's push button systems, but is no less functional.
What it boils down to is that the Durango is the most comfortable of the SUVs we have tested behind the wheel. It is tuned to feel largely like a minivan, and except for the long hood in the driver's line of sight, it is a convincing act.
Our test Durango returned disappointing mileage, even for an SUV. We took a long run up to Flint and averaged 13 mpg. Around town, the number was more like 10 mpg. That is below the mark set by both the Tahoe and Mountaineer. One possible explanation stems from the fact that the 5.2 liter motor may be bit on the small side for lugging around this size truck and has to work harder to get the job done. Ironically, the larger 5.9 liter engine may provide better mileage since it has less work to do relatively speaking.
Executive Summary1998 Dodge Durangohttp://www.4adodge.comSticker (tested)$ 29,500 |
Under the Hood:5.2L V8 4 Wheel Drive 230 hp 300 lb ft |
The Numbers:0-60 10.8 sec 60-0 155 ft Skidpad .67 g Mileage 13/17 mpg |
Competition:Ford Explorer Chevy Blazer Jeep Cherokee Chevy Tahoe |
Not surprisingly the Durango is a mix of two parts minivan, one part truck. After all, we are talking about a truck from the "Minivan Company." The dash comes straight off of a Dakota, which is largely a good thing. The seats were an attractive cloth material that looked durable yet was very comfortable for long hauls. Cruise control buttons were integrated into the steering wheel, but the cruise always seemed to overshoot the mark, settling at 72 when set at 70 for example.
Both the second row, which will seat three, and the third row, which really seats two, have adequate leg and head room. Access to the third row is through the usual flip-and-fold of the second row seats. It is a little awkward, more so than in the Navigator, but it is certainly effective.
Complaints centered on, of all things, the speedometer markings. There is a line for every 2.5 mph increment around the dial but major marks, such as 50 or 60, appear no different than the minor increments. Point is, it is hard to tell how fast you are going. Unfortunately, that excuse will not hold up in court. The climate controls are arranged in a stack next to the instrument panel and are a reach for the passenger. Also, the Chrysler parts bin stereo suffers from the same outmoded ergonomics and tiny buttons as all mainline Chrysler products.
For what most of us use SUVs for, the Durango is champ. It has a little extra size on the Explorer, Blazer, and Cherokee, but is much more manageable than behemoths such as the Suburban, Tahoe, and Expedition/Navigator. Its old-tech 4-wheel drive is no big concern for most of us.
The Durango is more stylish, but does not always feel as well screwed together as the competition, especially some Ford products. Also mileage seems to be a concern, coming in as bad as the Navigator.
But, the Durango has everybody beat on price, our truck came in at a fire sale price of $29,500. The truck packs a lot of value. If you are serious about an SUV, you have to drive the Durango, just make sure to bring your whole dang MAP team: they will all fit and I am sure that you have not spent enough quality time with them quite yet.
by Team 6, OB618
Editor's Note: This is the second in a five part series which describes technology ideas and recommendations for the Business School. The article is part of a final report created by a team focused on technology in Caproni and Mercer's OB618 class, "Leading a Learning Organization."
The faculty area is a critical component of learning enhancement. Technologies are rapidly developing that are improving the effectiveness of learning, but the Michigan faculty is not in the right environment to make use of these tools. Technology must become integrated into coursework if the Business School is to remain competitive with other top MBA programs.
Key components
* Incentives need to be created for faculty to use technology
* Faculty play an important role in developing new systems
* Faculty and students are drivers of technology, not driven by technology (see Figure 1)
Concerns over the use of technology at the UMBS are not new. In the 1980's the CIS department was created to address the needs for technology-related courses, but until last year the school did not focus on this area. In 1996, Dean White made "Technology" one of his top five priorities at the Business School, and he selected Gautam Kaul to lead an effort to examine this area. Gautam formed a group called the Information Resources Committee (IRC), headed by Will Mitchell, to create a short and long-term plan. The short-term plan is in a document called the Service Level Agreement, which is concerned mainly with getting bids from various consulting firms to build a new help desk system. With a focus of improvement within 6-12 months.
To understand faculty incentives, we also investigated the current compensation structure. It is composed of a base salary (25-50%), independent research and consulting income (50-75%), and a substantial benefits package. In addition, a chair position can be as much as 25% of the faculty's total compensation. Student evaluations also continue to play a large part.
We also looked at other business schools for best practices. We found that
the quality and types of technology initiatives varied widely, but that other top programs were taking actions to address their technology concerns. Examples include:
* Columbia--One of the most "wired" business schools, has laptop connections in classrooms
* Harvard--Recently allocated $11 million for technology upgrades
* Darden--Now requires laptops for all students
When we apply the framework developed in our teachable point of view, and analyze the feedback from our research, the most critical issue seems to be the lack of incentives for faculty to use technology. We believe that if the impetus for using technology in the classroom exists, then this will drive the development of faculty training and support programs, standards and templates, infrastructure development, and other necessary actions. We recommend two areas of focus.
Educate students on potential uses of technology
One reason students cannot act as current change agents is that there is not enough awareness of the technologies that exist to enhance learning. Students may not know what they are missing. We need to benchmark against other schools and
"corporate universities" that have success-fully used tools (such as interactive and mobile) to improve learning. Like the Writing Assessment, students should be required to pass a Technology Awareness Assessment during orientation. The goal is not to see if students know how to use tools like computers; rather, its purpose is to ensure they can describe current trends that involve using technology to improve learning, and that they can articulate reasons why technology should or should not be used given various scenarios.
Include a question in student-faculty evaluations that asks
"Did the professor effectively use available technologies in the class to enhance your learning of the course material?"
If students have a base-line awareness about the technologies that are available and the reasons they do or do not work, then they can become change agents. Students are probably in the best position to assess situations where technology can be better leveraged within each course. The faculty will respond to them if their performance evaluation includes this area. This will enhance learning and ultimately allow the Business School's mission to be realized by driving the use of technology with strategy.
Front
Page | News
| Features
| Leisure
| Opinion
| Sports
Clubs
Technology |
Corporate
| Global
Blue | Alumni
This Week... |
UMBS Links |
Search
Archives | Mail
the Editor |