I'm glad you enjoyed the post, bobjengr. It is always good to hear the perspective of someone in the industry as well. I think, too, this is just a more practical way to design things that customers in a particular market really need and it just makes sense to have this kind of program in place. I can't imagine why more universities and research institutes aren't doing it. I think it could not only benefit industries by giving professionals in them the products they want, but also save a lot of time and money.
I think the approach is excellent and should be duplicated as often as possible by university engineering departments. This will give the students "hands-on" experience and allow them to solve, or at least approach solving, real-world problems faced on a daily basis. At GE, this is what we called quality functional deployment (QFD). Taking customer "wants" and transferring them into specifications usable enough to produce an actual product. Great experience for an engineering student. Great post Elizabeth--very informative.
I couldn't agree more, CLMcDade. I like the idea that "everybody in the class has to be able to do the math, the analysis, the real dimension drwaings." It's nice to know that there's such practical application of knowledge outside the realm of the senior design project.
@Cabe: Huh? R&D spending on healthcare is much larger than R&D spending on smartphones. U.S. healthcare and life science companies spent $182 billion on R&D in 2012. That's not even counting government spending on healthcare R&D. That's just private sector spending.
Apple spent $3.4 billion on R&D in 2012, and smartphones are only part of that. Add in Microsoft ($9.8 billion) and Google ($5.2 billion), and that's still less than a tenth of healthcare R&D.
In the U.S., we spend nearly 18% of GDP ($8233 per person per year) on healthcare. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't spend that much on a smartphone.
I know, Cabe, I can't imagine some of these things being used on patients...but hopefully they would be under anesthesia during the process! The thing is, I think there is more medical innovation than we think and I've written about some cool stuff lately...I think it's just difficult to get it out into the commercial market because of regulations and other hurdles to actual adoption. The minds and the technology are there, it's just seeing it make it to what has become a commoditized and politicized medical industry. And in my mind, it's one of the most important fields for innovation.
Thank you, CLMcDade. I completely agree with you. I think this is the way forward to get innovations out into the commercial market and best prepare new engineers for their professional careers as well. I really enjoyed covering this topic, and appreciate your interest in it.
By experimenting with the photovoltaic reaction in solar cells, researchers at MIT have made a breakthrough in energy efficiency that significantly pushes the boundaries of current commercial cells on the market.
In a world that's going green, industrial operations have a problem: Their processes involve materials that are potentially toxic, flammable, corrosive, or reactive. If improperly managed, this can precipitate dangerous health and environmental consequences.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is