Editing National Engineering Center (section)

===NEC in the 90s===

Dr. Francisco L. Viray (Executive Director, 1988 to 1993) took over the leadership of NEC from Dr. Abis.  Assisting him were Dr. Alexander P. Paran (Assistant to the Executive Director, 1988 to 1990), Dr. Angela D. Escoto (Assistant to the Executive Director, 1990 to 1991), and Prof. Artemio P. Magabo (Assistant to the Executive Director, 1991 to 1992; Deputy Executive Director, 1992 to 1995).  
Dr. Viray wasn’t going to rest on the NEC's laurels. His team sought to improve what Dr. Abis and Prof. dela Peña had already accomplished. For one, the Continuing Engineering Education Unit (CEEU), composed of faculty representatives from all engineering departments, was established. The CEEU updated NEC’s existing continuing education program and expanded the number of courses.    In addition, incentive programs were established for the COE and NEC staff, new courses were developed, and facilities were improved.
The support of alumni members who have important positions in the industry, government, and educational sectors led to consistently high number of participants in NEC’s training programs and more industry partnerships and joint undertakings.  NEC was also able to provide free training programs to faculty members in the Western Visayas through a joint undertaking with then Bureau of Higher Education now Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST).  

Dr. Viray considers the unification of leadership of the COE and the NEC as the highlight of his term. “It was really the intention of the faculty that the Executive Director of NEC & the Dean of COE be one and the same. Since NEC is the research and extension arm of the college, it would be better to coordinate activities with only one person in charge.”

Prof. Magabo credits the spur of NEC’s development during Dr. Viray’s term largely in part with the unification of leadership. Many more COE faculty members became involved with NEC projects and activities than ever before. 
But the unification of posts also presented a different kind of problem never before faced by the NEC. “Dr. Viray saw the need for someone who would be able to run the day-to-day operation of NEC. There was no position available for this particular job when the NEC was created,” Prof. Magabo recalled. 

That same year Prof. Magabo became NEC’s first Deputy Executive Director and he would serve under that capacity well into the term of Dr. Reynaldo B. Vea (Executive Director, 1993 to 1997), Dr. Viray’s successor.

During Dr. Vea’s term, the NEC took the lead role in the Engineering Science Education Project (ESEP) funded by the Department of Science and Technology.   Dr. Vea contends, “There were lots of projects going on at that time but the ESEP turned out to have more lasting consequences.”  Through ESEP, funds were poured for faculty, library, laboratory facilities, infrastructure development in general, and graduate students’ scholarships for 19 ESEP schools which accounted for 50% enrollment of engineering schools.  One of the project’s results was the formulation of the Peer Evaluation Process (PEP) instrument, a set of criteria to evaluate the engineering programs in the various areas in engineering education against which the progress of the ESEP schools could be gauged after the implementation of the project. Outside of the project, the Foundation for Engineering Education Development (FEED) was set up to conduct the evaluation.  According to Dr. Vea, “The FEED is now leading the effort for the Philippines to become a member of the Washington Accord, which is important for Filipino engineers to be able to become members of international registers of engineers.”
The NEC’s involvement with the ESEP illustrates the NEC’s national scope. As Dr. Vea puts it, “NEC was created not only for UP. NEC has a mandate for manpower development for the entire country.  So it is important that the executive director continues to be active in the technical panel for engineering education.  Because it is one manner where we were able to exert influence in the direction of manpower development for industry… We have concerns bigger than UP, and NEC is the appropriate instrument for that.  While the Dean takes care of the concerns the College, (s)he also has to think about national concerns as far as engineering education and engineering practice are concerned.  That was the way I looked at it.  That’s the way I still look upon it as being the role of NEC.”
It was also under Dr. Vea’s term that the NEC received its accreditation as a Training Institution in the area of ‘Engineering and Technical Courses’ from the Civil Service Commission.