Mechatronic Futures – Keates 1

Chapter 15
Engineering Design for Mechatronics – A
pedagogical perspective
Simeon Keates1

15.1 Introduction
Since the introduction of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in
Mechatronics and related subjects from the mid-1980s onwards, there has been a
near continuous debate as to the nature and standing of Mechatronics both as an
Engineering discipline and in relation to its role within Engineering Design [1–
5].
In the case of Mechatronics education, what has emerged is a wide variety and
range of courses structured around the basic tenets of integration concentrated
around the core disciplines of Electronics, Mechanical Engineering and
Information Systems or Computing but with a wide range of variation and
variety to accommodate local requirements and conditions.
Thus, a course developed and delivered in, say, Detroit [6], is likely to differ
significantly from one in place in Singapore [7], while both have entirely
legitimate claims and arguments to be considered as Mechatronics programmes.
Notwithstanding this difference in emphasis, each course will, in general, seek to
conform to the requirements of achieving an appropriate level of integration
between the core disciplines, with an emphasis appropriate to the overall
requirements of the course.
Here we examine how innovative and challenging Mechatronics programmes
structured to meet future needs must still incorporate the basic principles of
Engineering Design. However, Mechatronics remains a fundamentally
innovative field and simple instruction in the basic mechanics of putting the
components together is missing an educational opportunity to push students to
develop their creative engineering thinking. Mechatronics, being such a diverse
field, allows students and teachers to explore genuinely innovative questions and
solutions. As such, it is well suited to allowing teachers to set tasks and projects
for students that break new ground and explicitly support the creation of the new
concepts and solutions required to take mechatronics forward.
When looking at Mechatronics oriented degree programmes, it is necessary to
consider how Mechatronics is likely to develop and change in the mid- to
longer-term future. The goal of any good degree programme is to not only
prepare each student to secure their first job, but also to give them the correct
skills and mindsets to retain employment throughout their entire working life.
This goal is a particular challenge in a discipline that is as diverse as
Mechatronics.

1
Faculty of Engineering and Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, UK
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 2

15.2 Learning Objectives of Mechatronics Courses

As the name Mechatronics implies, the subject is generally considered to be a
merger of both traditional Mechanical and Electrical/Electronic Engineering,
often with Computing elements. However, while knowledge of both engineering
disciplines allows students to understand how mechatronic systems function, it is
suggested that an essential component of any Mechatronics programme is
Engineering Design. Mechatronics students are not typically driven solely by
grades, although this is an undeniably important motivational factor for the
brightest students in particular. Instead, most Mechatronics students are
motivated by the desire to problem-solve. Any educational programme should be
oriented to support this desire and must not inhibit it through too much
formulisation. In other words, Mechatronics programmes need to support open-
ended active enquiry rather than do-it-yourself flat-pack or pro forma type
assembly instructions. It is proposed that the key attributes of a graduate of a
Mechatronics programme are:
 Confidence  Skills
 Creativity  An ability to work in a team
Fig. 15.1 [5] shows that Engineering Design can be placed at the intersection of
a science based set of skills, the horizontal element of the figure, and social and
artistic skills, the vertical element. To these must be added a wider awareness of
a range of issues necessary to convert a concept into a viable system or product,
such as aesthetics, manufacture, ergonomics and human factors.

Politics

Sociology
Psychology

Economics

Engineering Engineering Engineering

Science Production
Science Design Technology

Industrial
Design

Artistic Design

Art

Figure 15.1 Engineering design issues (after [5])

In considering the requirements of a Mechatronics course with Engineering

Design at its core, the essence remains that of balancing the Engineering and IT
content within a design focus that supports both individual and group working.
The latter is especially important for Mechatronics, which is a confluence of
very diverse technical domains and thus any one person is unlikely to be a
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 3

master of all of the technical skills required to build a successful device or

system, particularly within the context of developments such as cyber-physical
systems and the Internet of Things. In industry, most graduates will be expected
to work in a team and so ought to experience the realities of such co-operative
work in their programmes.
Key elements here are the need to support communication between members of
the group, for instance through computer-based communications structured
around the use of digital libraries [8,9], and to expose students, both individually
and as members of a group, to the design process from concept development to
implementation [10]. Intrinsic to this is the need to ensure that, particularly in a
cross- and inter-disciplinary environment, issues of potential misunderstanding
through different and differing use of terminology is avoided [11].
Further, it has been suggested [5] that Design can be categorised in relation to
two broad approaches; theoretical and pragmatic, as illustrated by Fig. 15.2. In
practice, these extremes do not exist in isolation, but co-exist along a continuum
within the design process. What is perhaps of more significance in relation to
course design is that students, inevitably, lack the range of experience associated
with established design engineers, and this then impacts on their approach to
problem solving [12,13].
Here we shall consider issues associated with achieving a design-based input
through a combination of project- and problem-based learning linked to
Mechatronics and looks at these from a range of perspectives including the need
to encourage innovation and student perception [14-19].

Theoretician Pragmatist
Reviews design process and Emphasis on problem solving
outcomes Selects, uses and refines
Identifies methods and methods
generates procedures Generates solutions
Establishes good practice Establishes practice
Refines theories

Figure 15.2 Approaches to design

15.3 The Challenge of Teaching “Innovation”

Innovation and, by extension, the ability to innovate, is a key element of any
Engineering Design process and one that needs to be encouraged and developed
within a Mechatronics course. In the widest sense, the ability to innovate
impacts upon issues such as market penetration and the ability to develop,
implement and introduce new products to market ahead of competitors, and to
maintain that position over time.
Typically, innovation is seen as a continuous and dynamic process involving
investigation and feedback across a number of individuals. However, until
relatively recently, innovation was considered by many companies as a closed
process. An alternative approach, that of open innovation, takes as its goal not
simply preserving a current market, but actively seeking to grow and develop
other market areas through importing ideas, concepts and technologies as
appropriate.
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 4

15.3.1 Open and Closed Innovation

Innovation, in all its potential forms, is key to the achievement of new
generations of products and systems. In order to develop and take forward the
innovative process to meet a new set of challenges, Chesbrough [20, 21] has
suggested the need for a shift from the traditional approach, defined as Closed
Innovation, with its orientation towards secrecy and the retention of ideas to one
of Open Innovation in which ideas and solutions are widely sought from both
within and from outside the organisation.
Research Development
Science & Technology Base

Firm boundaries

The
Market
Research
projects
New Products
Development & Services

Fig. 15.3 Closed innovation

Research Development
Technology Base

Licensing Other
Company's
Internal

Market

New
Market

Established
Technology Base

Market
Research
External

projects

Open
Boundaries

Technology
Insourcing
Fig. 15.4 Open innovation
The relationships between these two divergent approaches can be seen in Figs
15.3 and 15.4. From these, it can be seen that they each represent a significantly
different focus on the innovation process, both in terms of the value of ideas and
the ways in which such ideas are to be incorporated into that process. The
revised methodology represented by open innovation has been adopted by
organisations such as Proctor & Gamble [22] and the US Department of
Education [23] to create platforms to develop and take forward new ideas, but
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 5

perhaps more importantly to bring in new ways of thinking from outside the
organisation. Similarly IBM runs an annual “Innovation Jam” as part of its
Global Innovation Outlook [24]. Though the underlying motivation, in one case
growing company profitability and in the other enhancing an education system,
may differ, both are exhibiting a degree of openness by inviting external bodies,
groups and individuals to submit their ideas into a central ‘pot’ for consideration.

15.3.2 Students and Innovation

In 1998, John Prados [25] suggested that Engineering graduates were perceived
as having a range of weaknesses, including:
 Technical arrogance
 Lack of design capability or creativity
 Lack of appreciation for considering alternatives
 Lack of appreciation for variation
 Poor overall perception of the project
 Narrow view of engineering and related disciplines
 Weak communication skills
 Little skill or experience in working in teams
In developing innovative thinking by students, all of the above issues need to be
considered, some of which may well, however, be in conflict with the
administrative requirements associated with grading and the ability to
differentiate between individual students in assessment schemes [26-32].
Project Ideas Concept
Evaluation Detailing
Definition Generation Development

General
Project Management Continuing role throughout project
Tools
i.e. Microsoft Office

Visualisation Increasing sophistication and detail

i.e. Photoshop, Illustrator,
etc.
Interchange
Simulation
Distillation of technical i.e. MatLAB/Simulink,
information into form Dimola, 20Sim Increasing sophistication and detail of models
understandable by all
stakeholders
Interchange
CAD Tools
Develop understanding and i.e. AutoCAD, ProEngineer,
allow expression of ideas in etc. Increasing detail
appropriate forms and
language
Interchange
Analysis
i.e. Finite Element,
Workflow, etc Increasing detail

Specialist

Figure 15.5 Design support tools

There is a range of tools available to support both the design process (Fig. 15.5)
and communications between members of the design group [8,9,34]. In terms of
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 6

encouraging an innovative approach to design problems, in which the aim is

encouraging students to bring forward new and novel ideas, there is a need to
create an environment where trying and failing is not considered as a failure in
relation to a student’s ability to progress or pass the course or module. This
means that students are then free to put forward ideas and pursue options in an
environment in which the emphasis is on trying and not on failing, i.e: “Try and
fail, but don't fail to try.”
However, students often focus on the requirements necessary to achieve a
particular grade, which in turn tends to lead them to be conservative in their
approach as they attempt to ensure that they achieve the necessary marks for the
target grade. This conservatism then runs contrary to the requirement to
encourage innovation at the expense of an occasional failure to achieve set goals.
Thus, insistence on the allocation of a grade, and of differentiating between
students, can have a negative impact on the level of innovation.
In this respect consider student reaction to the essay topic: “Eli Witney and the
origins of mass production,” which was posed in a manufacturing course.
Students were told:
 That there was no predefined or predetermined content required to
achieve a particular grade.
 That the emphasis was to be on their ability to source, organise and
interpret data available from a variety of sources.
 That in order to obtain a passing grade they were required to
demonstrate that they had carried out a level of research and analysis
associated with basic information gathering.
 That to achieve a higher grade they were required to demonstrate that
they could organise and arrange the information to tell a specific story of
their choice using the title as guide.
 The length of the paper.
A comparatively small number of students took advantage of the flexibility to
develop a case while the majority took the conservative approach of ensuring
they did what was required required to pass but then did not feel that they
wished to take on what they perceived were the potential risks associated with
the achievement of a higher grade.

15.3.3 Choice of Tools

Once a design brief has been given to students, they are then typically given
access to a workshop or laboratory for construction of their solutions. The
equipment and construction components they are given access to will influence
their design process. For example, it is common to use standard components
such as Arduino boards and associated sensors [35] or Lego Mindstorms [36] in
first or second year Mechatronics projects. The choice of which of these
components are available will push students down particular design paths. While
such provision may simplify the project for the students, as well as keep costs
down, it does come at the expense of a level of restriction on design creativity.
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 7

One possible solution to the cost issue is the use of computer simulations of
components through the kinematic modelling of their properties. An example of
such an approach was the variable fidelity prototype developed for the
Interactive Robotics Visual Inspection System (IRVIS) [37], which was an
accurate model of both the size and kinematic response of robot with 5 motors
and 5 degrees of freedom – see Fig. 15.6(a) and (b). Such a virtual prototype can
be reconfigured, redesigned and completely altered with a few lines of code for
absolutely no cost.

Figure 15.6 Virtual prototyping in design education

(a) Interactive robotic visual inspection system (IRVIS) consisting of a camera
mounted on a gantry above a moveable tray of microcircuits. The robot has 5
degrees of freedom.
(b) The variable fidelity prototype – a virtual model of the IRVIS robot with
authentically modelled kinematic performance.
The advantages of using a working model that can be adjusted quickly and for
comparatively little resource cost when trying to teach innovation are obvious.
Students are encouraged to explore different options, because the effort involved
in creating alternative options is minimal and the feedback on the success or
otherwise of their design is very quick. However, the model does need to be
flexible enough to support more radical design solutions, otherwise what may be
intended as a tool to promote innovation may itself become a limitation on that
same innovation if students cannot explore and examine all of the design
variations they can conceive.

15.4 Approaches to Assessment

As design is generally a group or team exercise, it is sensible to incorporate a
group design exercise within a design-oriented Mechatronics course. This,
however, leads to issues of ensuring that the marks and grades reflect the
contribution of the individual members of the group. Strategies that have been
used include:
Flat marks – Here, each member of the group receives the same mark
irrespective of their contribution to the final report. This can work if balanced by
the internal peer pressures of the group ensuring a balanced level of activity
across all members.
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 8

Individual contribution – Assessing an individual student’s contribution could

typically involve an agreed introduction and conclusion for which each member
of the group would be awarded a shared mark. The individual contributions to
the overall project would then be identified and the sections of the report
associated with particular responsibility and activity graded separately. This
approach generally works best where group members have either identifiable
skills or worked on clearly demarcated components. The classic example is the
development of a robot for following a white line where students can be
allocated responsibility for building (i) the robot chassis; (ii) the sensor array;
and (iii) the control code.
Combined marking – An alternative approach is to couple the project work with
an examination that is designed to establish a student’s overall depth of
knowledge of the project. For example, students are first asked to write a group
project report, which is then graded for the whole group. The group is then
invited to make an (ungraded) presentation on the report summarising the key
findings. The students are free to decide who presents what. This presentation is
then followed by individual oral exams, where the group project marks can be
increased or decreased by up to one grade.
Such an approach gives the students an incentive to work well as a group,
because they all benefit from a high initial report grade. However, the students
feel some degree of confidence that weaker members of the group will be found
out in their individual exams and so there is an element of correction in the final
grade. Similarly, very able and diligent students also have the opportunity to
improve their grade if there had been a problem elsewhere in the group.
Peer assessment – Peer assessment can be used in association with either of the
above but with a proportion of the marks being held back to be allocated by
members of the group to the other members of the group to reflect their
perceived contribution.
Each of the above has been used in association with group projects in design,
and each has been met with various degrees of scepticism by students. However,
the general view was that the overall marks awarded reflected the contribution
by the individual group members.
A further approach used where groups were competing on the same project brief,
as for instance representing individual design groups tendering for a project, was
to distribute the reports to other teams prior to marking and asking for a critique
of the these to be submitted. These critiques were then graded, with the grade
then contributed a percentage of the overall grade. The results from these
critiques were generally very interesting, as the majority of teams did not set out
to attempt to destroy the other’s case, but to genuinely perform a critical analysis
of the proposal. Two instances are of particular interest:
 One group commented that they wished they had thought of an idea put
forward by another group and followed this up with a detailed analysis
to demonstrate why they still thought that their solution was superior.
 Another group commented to the effect that after doing the critique
remarked on “the problems of grading such reports” and that they had
never appreciated these previously.
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 9

15.4.1 Measures of Success and Success Criteria

The challenge of how to grade such reports is interesting. In any design activity,
one of the earliest considerations is that of what measures of success are to be
used. Put simply, if two designs are to be compared, what evaluation criteria are
to be used? Again there is a range of possible strategies.
For example, consider the classic Civil Engineering student design problem, that
of building a structure to span a gap supporting a specified weight at the
midpoint. Typical measures of success are (i) whether the structure supported
the load; (ii) the weight of the structure; and (iii) the “cost” of the structure,
which is usually calculated based on the cost of the components and the labour
time for fabrication. Most students typically design a traditional truss-type
structure, usually a Pratt or Warren truss, because that is what they automatically
assume will be the most effective structure. In reality a Waddell-type truss, i.e. a
very large triangle design, is usually the most cost-effective solution.
A typical Mechatronics project is substantially more complicated than this and
thus less straightforward to assess, not least because it will necessarily involve
multiple Engineering disciplines and multi-skilled teams.

15.5 Teaching Mechatronics – An Example

We have comprehensively overhauled the entire Engineering undergraduate
experience at the University of Greenwich. As with many newer universities, the
focus of Engineering programmes had typically been on the acquisition of
technical knowledge. Consequently, the entire pedagogical experience had been
focused on technical instruction, typically in the traditional forms of equations
and laws, delivered through lectures supported by laboratory sessions.
Assessments were largely exam-based, with traditional mathematically-heavy
questions where answers were typically either correct or incorrect. Exploration
of problem and solution spaces is difficult to encourage in this context.
While the acquisition of technical knowledge is clearly a key requirement of any
undergraduate programme, the pedagogical focus on this somewhat narrow goal
tended to miss the wider objectives of preparing the students for professional
practice. In particular, important skills such as innovation, creativity and
Engineering “instinct”, the ability to look at a design and have a realistic view of
its merits and weaknesses, were not typically taught. This apparent oversight
was not because the academic did not appreciate the value of such skills, more
that the programme structure and assessment practices did not lend themselves
to supporting them, for the reasons discussed earlier in this chapter.
Furthermore, the programmes were delivered in a heavily silo-ed approach,
which made the delivery of strongly interdisciplinary subjects such as
Mechatronics inherently difficult administratively.
Given that we believe that with the rise of notions like the Internet of Things
[38], the traditional silos are increasingly archaic, we took the step of completely
re-thinking all of the programmes. A number of new degree programmes were
introduced, such as Design, Innovation and Entrepreneurship – to help
encourage the next generation of entrepreneur-inventors – and Engineering for
Intelligent Systems – which is, in effect, a degree in Mechatronics.
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 10

A new common first year, focusing on the fundamental principles of

Engineering Science, was introduced for all Engineering students, whether
studying on traditional programmes, such as Civil or Mechanical Engineering, or
the newer programmes. The new first year consists of four double-courses:
Engineering Mathematics – Students explore a range of engineering problems
through which relevant Mathematical skills are taught
Practical and Experimental Skills – Students are provided with the lab sheets at
the start of the year, complete with theoretical primers that are to be completed
prior to the lab sessions. The lab sessions then focus on “learning by doing,” i.e.
verifying the theoretical answers through replication in the labs.
Engineering Professional Skills – Students are taught the wider aspects of
becoming a professional engineering, such as communication (including essay
writing, critiquing, how to précis and presentation skills), risk assessment and
management (including the study of engineering failures), ethics and
management, among other skills.
Design and Materials – This consists of some traditional Materials instruction
coupled with an introduction to Engineering Design. These complementary
topics are then combined into a group design, build and evaluate Mechatronics
exercise.
An example challenge is to build a remote-control boat. The students are given a
budget of £50 and are allocated a material out of which to build their hull. These
materials can vary from newspaper to plastic drinks straws or ice cream tubs. A
series of challenges for the boats to complete are set, around attributes such as
speed and manoeuvrability. For example, in any one year the challenges may
include:
 Build the fastest boat
 Complete the obstacle course in the fastest time and with the fewest
penalties
 Be the most aesthetically pleasing
 Be the best value-for-money
Students then have to decide for which challenges to prioritise with their
designs.
A possible grading scheme could be developed by attaching values to each of
these factors and a simple algorithm implemented to calculate a total “score” for
each group. However, once the students become aware of how the scoring
algorithm works, this knowledge will axiomatically influence how they
approach the design process, thus potentially stifling their creativity. For
example, should encountering an obstacle be more heavily penalised than, say,
time to complete a traverse, then the students will begin to prefer slow, but
steady solutions.
DARPA addressed this issue in its self-driving car challenge [39] where the
criteria for success was simply that the first vehicle to cross the finish line wins.
A consequence of this approach is a wide variety of highly innovative entrants.
Similarly, the Robot Wars television programmes had an equally direct approach
to establishing the “better” design – a fight until only one robot remained and all
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 11

opposition had either been immobilised or ejected from the arena. Again, there
was a similarly wide variety of innovative designs among the entrants. We are in
the process of working with the team behind Robot Wars to establish an
outreach programme to local schools to inspire the next generation of
Mechatronics students by helping schoolchildren design and build robots to
compete in Robot Wars.
The solution that we use was inspired by the role of the jury on Robot Wars
where a panel of external experts is used to assess each finished design against
each of the stated challenges and category champions identified. Those
champions then progress through to a final round and a “champion of
champions” is named as the design that, in the opinion of the experts, best meets
as many of the challenges as possible.

15.5.1 In Summary
Engineering Design is a major element of Mechatronics and can form the
unifying theme throughout such courses. However, the requirement to encourage
innovation is often in conflict with the requirements of ‘quality’ and of the need
to assign grades to all forms of student based activity, even when doing so
encourages a conservative approach to design. Instead, the aim should be to
encourage innovation, and even failure, as to reward students for the adoption of
an innovative and a novel approach.
One possible way of accomplishing this is to simplify the criteria or measures of
success as much as possible – ideally to a single such metric, e.g. the fastest or
the lightest. It is also suggested that all Mechatronics programmes focus not only
on the development of working solutions, but also on how the solutions fit
within the wider environment of use, including their users.

15.6 A Final Note - Do Not Forget the User

A common failing among many Mechatronics projects is a focus on the
technical capability of the device or robot being constructed. This failing is not
restricted solely to students, it pervades many Mechatronics industrial and
research projects. For example, the first iteration of IRVIS project [37] discussed
earlier failed to produce a usable robot. The development team had spent three
years developing the robot and ensuring that it functioned. The interface
received scant attention until almost the very end of the project such that when
the robot was taken to the industrial test site, the interface was a barely
developed version of the testing interface used to drive the motors individually.
The final user acceptance test was a failure, because although the user could
move each of the motors individually, the visual inspection task required
complex simultaneous motor control, which the interface simply did not support.
A second three-year development cycle was required to address these
shortcomings. The original development team was replaced and their parting
advice to the new team was that the acceptance trials failed because the robot
was under-specified and needed a (very expensive) complete overhaul. The new
development team instead focused on developing a working interface by
focusing on the end tasks of the user. A more complete, task-focused interface
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 12

was developed and the user acceptance trials were completed with no significant
shortcomings being identified. No overhaul of the robot itself was required. The
deficiencies in performance suggested by the first set of user trials was a result
of the motors not being driven effectively – one at a time instead of
combinations together.
The experience of this project is unfortunately common among many such
Mechatronics projects. In a very insightful paper, Buhler examined the success
of several of the major EU TIDE Rehabilitation Robotics projects in the 1990s
[41]. His conclusion was that only one of the projects that he evaluated (the
MANUS project [42]) had achieved its original design objectives and had
achieved a respectable degree of success. All of the other projects were
considered failures and the most common reason for failure that was identified
was a focus on the technology to the exclusion of almost all other
considerations.
Clearly, any Mechatronics programme must bear this in mind and ensure that
students are aware not only of how to develop such systems, but also how they
interact with the wider environment, including their users. Such considerations
are routinely taken into account in other specialist domains, such as medical
device design and it is suggested that Mechatronics students are made aware of
such broader approaches to Engineering Design.

Figure 15.7 RoboThespian

IRVIS, as a mechatronics product, was very basic compared with the capabilities
of modern systems, such as RoboThespian, shown in Fig. 15.7. RoboThespian
has been designed explicitly to mimic human movements and appearance. Final
year students are taking up projects to explore how people may wish to interact
with the robot and it is straightforward to code and implement lifelike responses.
At the same time the success of the IBM Watson system in answering
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 13

unstructured questions in the Jeopardy!TM challenge [42] shows that “artificial

intelligence” is developing apace.

15.7 The Future

Mechatronics is moving to a future where the design of complex physical
components is becoming commoditised, i.e. it is becoming easier to find
complex products off-the-shelf, meaning the real area for innovation is in
exploring innovative ways to use such capabilities to interact with people.
As we have seen, Mechatronics is necessarily a cutting edge discipline where
technology is changing rapidly. Humanoid robots, such as RoboThespian, that
were the stuff of science fiction only a decade or so ago, are now available to
purchase. Their cost is still prohibitively expensive for many degree
programmes, but similar technologies have shown that an order of magnitude
decrease in price is eminently achievable over a relatively short time span as the
technology becomes increasingly commoditised.
Indeed, this process of commoditisation is changing much of Engineering and
Technology education, as increasingly complex functions do not typically need
solutions to be custom built from scratch. Instead, increasingly powerful
modular components can be brought together as an assembly, and with the
correct settings and control coding can accomplish complex tasks without
students needing to reach for the soldering iron.
While it is still very necessary that students understand what goes into each
modular component, how they are designed, and what their capabilities and
limits are, there is also a growing challenge in terms of the opportunities that are
now opening up. The power and potential of these systems means that engineers
and designers are now on the verge of being able to think very ambitiously about
what they would like their device or system to accomplish, almost unlimited and
unrestricted by the capabilities of the hardware. We are not quite there yet, but
the capability of the technology is now only a small step behind that of the
imagination of the typical Engineering student.
The impact of the next generation of Mechatronics devices is already being felt.
Take, for example, the rise of 3D printing. In the 1960s and 70s, companies
began to realise that labour costs in the developing world were very much less
than in developed countries. The notion of offshoring was born and the
following few decades saw the manufacture of low added value products in
particular being transferred from countries such as the US and UK to the Far
East and elsewhere. However, it is highly likely that the “no labour” costs of 3D
printers will undercut even those low labour costs, and also have the added
advantage that the products can be made at the point of demand and do not need
shipping halfway round the world. Once 3D printers and other similar
technologies become sufficiently commonplace, the money to be gained in
manufacturing will move from those who can make the product most cost
effectively to those who can design the most useful or desirable product.
Similarly, the Internet of Things is also an increasingly important development
that has the potential to change the world in which we live as much as the
Internet itself has done since the early 90s. Again, technologies that are already
available are capable of supporting many exciting innovations. However, it is
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 14

still looking a little like a solution in search of a problem. The only innovations
that have thus far gained any notable traction in the market place are somewhat
mundane, with elements of home automation, home security and heating
applications initially being the most pervasive Internet of Things solutions in the
marketplace. Such applications are only scratching the surface of what the
technology can support. However, designers and developers are still struggling
to find the “killer application(s)” that will lead to sufficient homeowners
investing serious money in the necessary Internet of Things infrastructure in
their house.
Changes in the general population also need to be considered. Many countries in
the developed world already have populations that can be considered aged,
rather than ageing. There is a clear need for more technology to help support
people in retaining their ability to maintain independent living in their own
homes [43]. Mechatronics will underpin much of the new developments in tele-
healthcare, assistive technologies and support for the activities of daily living
[38]. However, designing for older adults or those with disabilities involves
particular design challenges because of the variety of user functional capabilities
[44] that may be encountered as well as different user priorities and goals [45].
Consequently, future Mechatronics engineers will need to understand as much
about consumer wants, needs and aspirations as they will about, say, different
types of motors.
To reiterate what was stated in the introduction to the chapter, The goal of any
good degree programme is to not only prepare each student to secure their first
job, but also to give them the correct skills and mindsets to retain employment
throughout their entire working life, requiring educators to consider how
Mechatronics is likely to change in the mid- to longer-term future, and how
these changes are likely to impact on course content, structure and delivery. This
is a particular challenge in a discipline such as Mechatronics with all its
diversity. The solution must be to aim for a balance between:
 Technical knowledge - Providing sufficient content about the technology
of today
 Underlying fundamental technical skills - Skills such as Design and
Mathematics will support graduates throughout their working life
 Personal skills – These encompass lifelong learning, adaptability,
problem-solving and open-mindedness that together make up a flexible
and adaptive mindset, open to new challenges.

References
1. Buur J, 1991, A theoretical approach to mechatronics design, Institute
for Engineering Design, Technical University of Denmark
2. Bradley DA, 2004, What is Mechatronics and Why Teach it?, Intl. J.
Electrical Engineering Education, 41(4):275 – 291
3. Hanson M, 1994, Teaching mechatronics at tertiary level, Mechatronics
- Special Issue Mechatronics in Sweden, 4(2):217n - 225
4. Acer M & Parkin RM, 1996, Engineering Education for Mechatronics,
IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics, 43(1):106 - 112
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 15

5. Bradley DA, 2010, Mechatronics, More Questions than Answers,

Mechatronics, 20(8):827 – 841
6. Vantsevich VV, 2010, Education in Mechatronics, Mechatronics in
Action, Springer Verlag:197 - 218
7. Cheah Choo Lek & Chan Kwan Ye, 2010, Mechatronics Education in
Singapore, 7 pages @ http://mechatronics-net.de/first-ws/ws_cheah.pdf
(accessed 20th August 2015)
8. Grierson H, Nicol D, Littlejohn A & Wodehouse A, 2004, Structuring
and sharing information resources to support concept development and
design learning, Network Learning Conf 2004, Exeter UK
9. Grierson H, Wodehouse A, Breslin C, Ion W, Nicol D & Juster N, 2008,
An evaluation study of a digital library of ideas: Workflow Model and
classroom use, Intl. J. Digital Libraries, 9(1):29-39
10. Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD & Leifer LJ, 2005,
Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, J. Engineering
Education:103 – 120
11. Bailey-McEwan M, 2009, Difficulties of Mechanical Engineering
students in developing integrated knowledge for the cross-discilpline of
mechatronics: A conceptual investigation, Report submitted to the
Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education
12. Atman, CJ, Adams RS, Cardella ME, Turns J, Mosborg S & Saleem J,
2007, Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and
Expert Practitioners, J. Engineering Education:259 - 379
13. Savin-Baden M, 2000, Problem-based Learning in Higher Education:
Untold Stories, Soc. Research into Higher Education & Open University
Press
14. Doppelt Y, 2005, Assessment of Project-Based Learning in a
Mechatronics Context, J. Technology Education, 16(2),
(scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v16n2/doppelt.html)
15. Delyser RR, Thompson SS, Edelstein J, Lengsfeld C, Rosa AJ,
Rullkoetter P, Whitman R & Whitt M, 2003, An Educational Brief :
Creating a Student Centered Learning Environment at the University of
Denver, J. Engineering Education:269 - 273
16. Giurgiutiu V, Lyons J, Rocheleau D & Weiping Liu, 2005,
Mechatronics/microcontroller education for mechanical engineering
students at the University of South Carolina, Mechatronics, 15:1025–
1036
17. Falchikov N & Goldfinch J, 2000, Student Peer Assessment in Higher
Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks,
Review of Educational Research, 70(3):287 - 322
18. Hanrahan SJ & Isaacs G, 2001, Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment:
The students' views, Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1):
53 – 70
19. Papinczak T, Young L & Groves M, 2007, Peer Assessment in Problem-
Based Learning: A Qualitative Study, Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 12:169–186
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 16

20. Chesbrough HW, 2003, Open innovation: the new imperative for
creating and profiting from technology, Harvard Business School Press
21. Chesbrough HW, Vanhaverbeke W & West J (Eds), 2006, Open
Innovation – Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press
22. http://secure3.verticali.net/pg-connection-
portal/ctx/noauth/PortalHome.do (accessed 20th August 2015)
23. http://www.ed.gov/open/plan/flagship-initiative-collaboration (accessed
20th August 2015)
24. IBM Global Innovation Outlook:
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/gio/us/en/index.html (accessed 20th August
2015)
25. Prados JW, 1998, Engineering Education in the United States: Past,
Present, and Future, Intl. Conf. on Engineering Education; 8 pages
26. Stouffer WB, Russell JS & Oliva MG, 2004, Making The Strange
Familiar: Creativity and the Future of Engineering Education, Proc.
2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference,
Session #1615;13 pages
27. Malmqvist J, Young PW, Hallström S, Kuttenkeuler J & Svensson T,
2004, Lessons learned from design-build-test based project courses, Intl.
Design Conference (DESIGN20004);8 pages
28. Berggren K-F, Brodeur B, Crawley EF, Ingemarsson I, Litant WTG,
Malmqvist J & Östlund S, 2003, An international initiative for
reforming engineering education, World Trans Engineering and
Technology Education, 2(1); 49 – 52
29. Crawley EF, Malmqvist J & Östlund S, 2007, Rethinking engineering
education: the CDIO approach, Springer
30. Schaefer D, Panchal JH, Choi S-K & Mistree F, 2008, Strategic Design
of Engineering Education for the Flat World, Intl. J. Engineering
Education, 24(2); 274 - 282
31. Colgate JE, Bruce AM & Ankenman B, 2004, Implementing Design
Throughout the Curriculum at Northwestern, Design Engineering
Education; 12 pages
32. Platanitis G & Pop-Iliev R, establishing fair objectives and grading
criteria for undergraduate design engineering project work: An ongoing
experiment, Intl. J. Research & Reviews in Applied Science, 5(3);271 -
288
33. Wodehouse A & Bradley DA, 2003, Computer Tools in Product
Development, Proc. 14th Intl. Conf. on Engineering Design,
ICED03:333-334 (exec.summ.), Full paper no. DS31_1096FPC
34. Macintyre FR, Thomson A & Wodehouse A, 2011, Identification,
translation and realisation of requirements for a knowledge management
system in an engineering design consultancy, Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. on
Engineering Design, ICED 2011
35. http://www.arduino.cc/ (accessed 20th August 2015)
36. http://mindstorms.lego.com/ (accessed 20th August 2015)
37. Keates S, Clarkson PJ & Robinson P, 1999, Designing a usable interface
for an interactive robot. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
Mechatronic Futures – Keates 17

on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR 99), Stanford, CA. 156-162

http://www.rehabrobotics.org/icorr1999/papers/papers/keates.pdf
(accessed 20th August 2015)
38. Keates S, Bradley D & Sapeluk A, 2013, The future of universal access?
Merging computing, design and engineering. Universal Access in
Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services for Quality of
Life, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 54-63
39. Seetharaman G, Lakhotia A & Blasch EP, 2006, Unmanned Vehicles
Come of Age: The DARPA Grand Challenge, Computer, 39(12), 26-29
40. Buhler C, 1998, Robotics for rehabilitation - a European(?) perspective.
Robotica, 16(5), 487-490
41. Driessen BJ, Evers HG & van Woerden JA, 2001, MANUS--a
wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation robot. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001,
215(3), 285-90
42. Keates S, Varker P & Spowart F, 2011, Human-machine design
considerations in advanced machine-learning systems. IEEE/IBM
Journal of Research and Development, IEEE, 55(5) September/October
2011, 4:1-4:10
43. Keates S & Clarkson, PJ, 2003, Countering design exclusion: an
introduction to inclusive design. Springer-Verlag: London
44. Clarkson PJ, Keates S & Dong H, 2003 Quantifying design exclusion.
Inclusive design: design for the whole population, Springer-Verlag,
London (eds Clarkson, Coleman, Keates, Lebbon), 422- 437
45. Keates S2006, Designing for accessibility: A business guide to
countering design exclusion. CRC Press: Hillsdale, New Jersey