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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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