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

4. Combine 5 courses into one n Combine all engineering (computer, electrical, mechanical and systems), and computer science senior design courses n 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 n 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 n 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 n 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 n 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 n 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 n 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 n 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 n 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 n Pre-W’06  Project costs funded by students, usually limited by project description n Since W’06  Projects funded by Provost’s Undergraduate Research initiative, $1000 per design group

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