Melting-Pot Design at Oakland University

1. Melting-Pot Design at Oakland University Michael A. Latcha, Ph.D. Debatosh Debnath, Ph.D. Imad Elhajj, Ph.D. Edward Y.L. Gu, Ph.D. Richard E. Haskell, Ph.D.

2. Reasons for change • Assessments of senior design showed significant problems • Most problems traced to lack of multidisciplinary expertise • Problems had to be limited to expertise of single field, not real-world in scope or complexity • Great duplication of effort across School, stretching limited resources

3. The “Melting Pot” ApproachOverview • Combine all engineering and computer science senior design courses • Combined course supervised by team of professors from Electrical, Computer and Mechanical engineering • Design groups are assigned based on field, skills and experience • Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors • Questions are almost always answered only with “I don’t know, let’s find out” • Always culminates in a public competition/expo

4. Combine 5 courses into one • Combine all engineering (computer, electrical, mechanical and systems), and computer science senior design courses • Combined course supervised by 3 professors from Electrical, Computer and Mechanical engineering • Design groups meet 20 min/week with faculty, other times as needed

5. Assigning design teams • Design groups are assigned based on major field, skills and experience • 70-100 students/semester • Roughly 40% electrical, 40% mechanical, 15% computer/computer science, 5% systems • Assignments based on field, life experiences and skills, interests

6. Don’t answer questions • Questions are (almost) always answered only with “I don’t know, let’s find out” • Forces students to rely on research skills rather than faculty expertise • Allows students to watch faculty learn • Generates more freedom in choice of projects

7. The importance of competition • Always culminates in a public competition/expo • Self-motivation is the only effective kind • Simple competition is sufficient • Rules of competition provide reasons and justification for engineering decisions • Expositions are great for public relations

8. Choice of design projects • Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors • W’04: line-following autonomous cars, additional payload of 15 lb, 100-m closed circuit track with obstacles

9. Choice of design projects • Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors • F’04: Rope-climbing robots, to top of 100’ tower, in any weather

10. Choice of design projects • Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors • W’05: Ball-throwing robots, autonomously targeted and fired

11. Choice of design projects • F’05-W’07: “develop a multidisciplinary product that could be competitive on the global market” • do-it-yourself zone-controlled HVAC system • remote trailer-hitching assistant • infant simulator with respiration and pulse • diagnostic muscular rigidity test

12. Choice of design projects • Planned for F’07: • Each group to develop a small autonomous robot • All of the robots must collectively cooperate to perform a task (marching band?) • Communication between robots to be decided by communications committee, with representatives from each design group

13. Fund the cost of prototypes • Pre-W’06 • Project costs funded by students, usually limited by project description • Since W’06 • Projects funded by Provost’s Undergraduate Research initiative, $1000 per design group

14. Assessment and Improvement • Initial assessments showed marked improvement over separate design projects • Concept extended to new multidisciplinary sophomore design course • Projects involve microprocessor control of dynamic systems