In mechatronic system design, we integrate. From the very
start of the design process, we combine the physical system with sensors,
actuators, computer control and human interfaces to give it some intelligence
and decision-making capability.
At its very heart, system complexity is synonymous with
power. However, this power can be good or bad. If the complexity in any system
is not tamed, the consequences can be devastating. We have witnessed some of
the consequences of untamed complexity in the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident
in 1986, the recent world financial meltdown, and now the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill. All are examples of systems of unimaginable complexity — intended or not
— that were left unmanaged without common-sense, human-centered checks and balances,
which resulted in catastrophes of immense scope.
In a complex system,
learning how all the pieces — constant and variable — interact gives a depth of
understanding that averts catastrophe. That is what we mean by human-centered
design — understanding the interfaces among technology, people, communities,
governments and nature. This is what makes complexity manageable.
All complex systems have, as a foundation, fundamental
principles or core knowledge that cannot be ignored. However, there must also be
a flexibility from the engineering perspective to respond to problems which
inevitably arise. Clearly, the typical discipline-specific engineer is not
well-equipped to manage such complexity; not even an engineer with
multidisciplinary engineering breadth can do an effective job.
Complexity demands an engineering skill set with technology
depth and also non-technical breadth — specifically, human-centered design
expertise capable of managing complexity. This concept received wide acceptance
at the IBM/IEEE Conference on Transforming Engineering Education, held April
6-9 in Dublin. Jim Spohrer, director of IBM University Programs, saw it as
essential to IBM's focus on service activities worldwide because every product
has a service associated with it. The questions that arose at this conference
were: "Why are these engineers not being created?" and "How do we ensure that
they will be?"
The urgent problems society faces are multidisciplinary in
nature, complex, and ever-changing. Engineering graduates need to be able to
adapt and apply technology that is human-centered, desirable, feasible, viable,
sustainable, usable and manageable. Incoming students need to experience a
culture change. They need to transform from the world of memorizing,
test-taking and focusing on grades, to the world of critical-thinking problem
solving, turning easily accessible information into insight and understanding,
and taking responsibility to become an engineer.
So if we all know what should happen in engineering
education, why is it not happening?
As I see it, there are two main impediments to engineering
education reform. First, the silo structure in a typical engineering college
does not foster reform. Engineering departments typically don't collaborate or
interact in a multidisciplinary way and fail to realize that doing so would
enhance, not diminish, what they do. Second, there is a failure of faculty to
get out of their comfort zone, become involved in real-world problem solving,
and respond to the challenges of teaching multidisciplinary engineering problem
solving in a discovery learning mode, as opposed to a lecture mode.
Knowledge needs to be unbundled and rebundled in engineering
education to give it balance between theory and practice and relevance to the
solution of the multidisciplinary problems society faces. Engineering education
done in this manner can mitigate catastrophe!
Visit the Mechatronics
Zone for the latest mechatronics news, trends, technologies and