Question of the Week: Is robotics engineering different enough from embedded engineering to warrant being treated as a separate discipline?

It?s an interesting discussion. Typically there are differences between robotics curricula that focus on the system level and embedded curricula that deal with the microprocessor or lower level code. However, they both have many aspects that overlap and if students are armed with the proper tools and enough time, a combined curriculum is the way to go. We see this overlap happening in educational institutions across the globe, where professors and students have access to easy-to-use common programming language tools that help them collaborate across disciplines ? from engineering to computer science ? so that they receive a well-rounded understanding of robotics, mechatronics, embedded and more. All this meshing of curricula is necessary today in order to give students the skills needed to become ?holistic engineers,? which will ensure their success no matter what field of engineering they ultimately pursue. Tom Gaudette Education Marketing The MathWorks

It?s an interesting discussion. Typically there are differences between robotics curricula that focus on the system level and embedded curricula that deal with the microprocessor or lower level code. However, they both have many aspects that overlap and if students are armed with the proper tools and enough time, a combined curriculum is the way to go. We see this overlap happening in educational institutions across the globe, where professors and students have access to easy-to-use common programming language tools that help them collaborate across disciplines ? from engineering to computer science ? so that they receive a well-rounded understanding of robotics, mechatronics, embedded and more. All this meshing of curricula is necessary today in order to give students the skills needed to become ?holistic engineers,? which will ensure their success no matter what field of engineering they ultimately pursue. Tom Gaudette Education Marketing The MathWorks

After a 50+ flirtation with AI, robotics is coming back to the RIA definition of "A reprogrammable, multifunction manipulator designed to move material, tools, [etc.] ..." Moving things around is what real robots do in factories. They are starting to move out of factories into the field. Examples of modern robot designs are autonomous cruise missiles and autonomous fork lifts in warehouses. . A robot is not just an embedded system such as an iPod or an appliance (examples of the two kinds of embedded system designs). Robot design is not just software design, sensor design, electronic hardware design design, servo motor design or mechanical design. It is - at least - all of these, combined into a single system. No single aspect rules the system design. . Modern robot design is the system design of mobile robots for moving things around, including subsets of this definition, such as non-mobile manipulators, etc. It should be taught as such, with emphasis on the integration of each element of the system into an overall design, and the trade-offs of improvements in one system element against another. . Teaching robotics as merely an application of machine tool design, software design, mechanical design or motor servo design, etc. is a dead end. You wind up with sub-optimal robots at best, or - more commonly - fragile laboratory curiosities. . So, yes, robotics should be taught as a stand-alone robotic system design curriculum, IMHO.

After a 50+ flirtation with AI, robotics is coming back to the RIA definition of "A reprogrammable, multifunction manipulator designed to move material, tools, [etc.] ..." Moving things around is what real robots do in factories. They are starting to move out of factories into the field. Examples of modern robot designs are autonomous cruise missiles and autonomous fork lifts in warehouses. . A robot is not just an embedded system such as an iPod or an appliance (examples of the two kinds of embedded system designs). Robot design is not just software design, sensor design, electronic hardware design design, servo motor design or mechanical design. It is - at least - all of these, combined into a single system. No single aspect rules the system design. . Modern robot design is the system design of mobile robots for moving things around, including subsets of this definition, such as non-mobile manipulators, etc. It should be taught as such, with emphasis on the integration of each element of the system into an overall design, and the trade-offs of improvements in one system element against another. . Teaching robotics as merely an application of machine tool design, software design, mechanical design or motor servo design, etc. is a dead end. You wind up with sub-optimal robots at best, or - more commonly - fragile laboratory curiosities. . So, yes, robotics should be taught as a stand-alone robotic system design curriculum, IMHO.

Agreed... The questions asked - are same as I have had for some time.. Personally, I think engineering degree titles, should be more general.. until Masters or Doctorates are involved. All engineers should have sound and reasonably detailed competence in physics, mechanics, electronics and software - before specializing in a specific application of this knowledge base. and yes .. still have rounded education (history, language, etc..... and, yes, including other sciences). too much specialization .. bad for society. End up with people that create without regard (concern) of it's impact on the world.

Agreed... The questions asked - are same as I have had for some time.. Personally, I think engineering degree titles, should be more general.. until Masters or Doctorates are involved. All engineers should have sound and reasonably detailed competence in physics, mechanics, electronics and software - before specializing in a specific application of this knowledge base. and yes .. still have rounded education (history, language, etc..... and, yes, including other sciences). too much specialization .. bad for society. End up with people that create without regard (concern) of it's impact on the world.

If the robot were a teaching instrument and only system controls/coding were required, Mr. Robert Cravotta's comments are understood. However, the question this author raises also underscores the misunderstanding one gets from considering the differences between the disciplines. For example, does a robotics engineer need to know embedded systems design in order to create a robot? Not in every case but more than likely, yes. On the other hand, does an embedded systems engineer need to know robotics systems design? The answer is no, unless dealing specifically with robotics. From this, a grasp of physics and mechanical engineering is required in the latter case but not necessarily in the former! Embedded systems design can be purely '1's and 0's' without the need for motion of any kind. With rare exception, functional robotics requires a conversion from the '1's and 0's' to physically moving something. Without the expanded background, calculating the requirements and specifying the mechanical attributes of a final system, the embedded systems engineer could be lost! I save "Bravo!" to WPI and other institutions like them. A multi-disciplinarian approach for problem moving forward will quicken design times and make for more robust products. - Karl Meier (BSEEE, MSCS) Marketing Manager, ADVANCED Motion Controls Senior Member, IEEE & Robotics and Automation Society

If the robot were a teaching instrument and only system controls/coding were required, Mr. Robert Cravotta's comments are understood. However, the question this author raises also underscores the misunderstanding one gets from considering the differences between the disciplines. For example, does a robotics engineer need to know embedded systems design in order to create a robot? Not in every case but more than likely, yes. On the other hand, does an embedded systems engineer need to know robotics systems design? The answer is no, unless dealing specifically with robotics. From this, a grasp of physics and mechanical engineering is required in the latter case but not necessarily in the former! Embedded systems design can be purely '1's and 0's' without the need for motion of any kind. With rare exception, functional robotics requires a conversion from the '1's and 0's' to physically moving something. Without the expanded background, calculating the requirements and specifying the mechanical attributes of a final system, the embedded systems engineer could be lost! I save "Bravo!" to WPI and other institutions like them. A multi-disciplinarian approach for problem moving forward will quicken design times and make for more robust products. - Karl Meier (BSEEE, MSCS) Marketing Manager, ADVANCED Motion Controls Senior Member, IEEE & Robotics and Automation Society

You ask a good question regarding what distinguishes Robotics Engineering from Embedded Systems. One could also ask the same for Mechatronics. There is no clear demarcation. I strongly agree that all engineers should be taught broad principles, but this does not happen in most programs. A feature of the WPI program is that it balances the roles played by CS, ECE, and ME. A recurring theme is that there are no boundaries -- great engineers use whatever tools from whatever disciplines. The Unified Robotics curriculum, co-taught by faculty from the 3 departments, strongly reinforces this. Do students get it? A stroll through the lab -- where one is equally likely to see free body diagrams / Java class definitions / circuit diagrams / differential equations -- suggests that they do. Visitors welcome! - Mike Gennert Director, Robotics Engineering, WPI

You ask a good question regarding what distinguishes Robotics Engineering from Embedded Systems. One could also ask the same for Mechatronics. There is no clear demarcation. I strongly agree that all engineers should be taught broad principles, but this does not happen in most programs. A feature of the WPI program is that it balances the roles played by CS, ECE, and ME. A recurring theme is that there are no boundaries -- great engineers use whatever tools from whatever disciplines. The Unified Robotics curriculum, co-taught by faculty from the 3 departments, strongly reinforces this. Do students get it? A stroll through the lab -- where one is equally likely to see free body diagrams / Java class definitions / circuit diagrams / differential equations -- suggests that they do. Visitors welcome! - Mike Gennert Director, Robotics Engineering, WPI