miércoles, 30 de noviembre de 2011

Inside American R&D – Part I: Losing the Competitive Edge


Photo from flickr.com/photos/ucdaviscoe/
Amid the hulks of abandoned steel mills in a part of the country that epitomizes the decline of American manufacturing is a worrying symbol of another sort.
It’s not a ruin. It’s a building owned by Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where an institute named for automotive icon Lee Iacocca teaches entrepreneurship and leadership to business students from around the world.
What once happened in this building is what helped make the United States preeminent in leadership and entrepreneurship, in more tangible ways than teaching case studies from business textbooks.
Before it was converted into classrooms and a cafeteria, this was the Homer Research Labs of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the largest steel research complex in the world, where hundreds of scientists made discoveries in such fields as metallurgy and thermodynamics, developing products still in use today—until the company went bust, the lab was shut down, and what was left was sold to Lehigh.
Research that was conducted in such places as this one, and the famous Bell Labs—now owned by the French company Alcatel-Lucent—has long propelled the American economy. But cuts in corporate, federal, and academic spending are triggering high-level unease about the health of U.S. research and development.
The U.S. still accounts for about a third of the $1 trillion a year worldwide that goes to R&D. But American R&D spending was flat in the first half of the last decade, while it soared by 23 percent in China and by double digits in other competitor economies. More recent figures won’t be out until January, but observers expect that the financial downturn has taken a further toll in U.S. research spending.
“The stagnation in industry support for its own basic research in this century, together with the current decrease in support of academic R&D and basic research by the federal government, could over time have severe implications for U.S. competitiveness in international markets and for highly skilled and manufacturing jobs at home,” the normally staid National Science Board warned in a largely overlooked report: Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness  in a Global Economy.
Jack Plunkett, CEO of Houston-based Plunkett Research, which follows research-and-development trends, is less oblique. “This is a huge concern,” says Plunkett. “And that’s a vast understatement. R&D is absolutely and totally critical and vital for the future, even the near future, and unfortunately there are some counterproductive trends.”
These include the first multi-year declines in decades of support for academic research from the federal government—the source of nearly 30 percent of the money that goes to R&D in the U.S., second only to industry—which came even before Congress began the austerity kick that threatens further curbs in spending.
Meanwhile, state budget cuts and falling returns on endowments have taken a huge toll on universities, which carry out more than half of basic research in America—the kind of slow-paced, abstract, theoretical work that underpins most important scientific advances.
“Too many people in the U.S. are focusing on the short-term and not the long-term, at the corporate level, at the political level, and at the educational level,” says Amit Mukherjee, who teaches technology, operations and information at Babson College. “We’re in a situation in which the U.S. is so far ahead of even China that it doesn’t seem to matter, but I begin to wonder whether we’re going to hit a tipping point very soon.”
The U.S. may already have. It’s now eighth among the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in the proportion of its GDP it spends on research. The number of articles in scientific journals by authors who work in U.S. private industry has plummeted by 30 percent since 1995.
The share of applications to the U.S. patent office filed by U.S.-resident researchers is also falling. Nearly half of all patents granted in America today name at least one non-U.S. citizen as an inventor. And a report by Thomson Reuters concluded that the U.S. research based “has at best plateaued in performance and—on some estimates—is now in decline.”
Nor is it likely that this has turned around within the last few years, for which performance indicators won’t be out until January. “Industry tends to cut back on R&D when business is not good,” says Rolf Lehming, who compiles the statistics for the National Science Foundation. “And the federal government and others are pretty constrained about what they can afford over the next decade or longer. So I would imagine that, as in previous recessions, there will be some cutback in industrial R&D.”
Which means that someone else will have to do it. “There are no more Bell Labs,” says Sethuraman Panchanathan, chief research officer at Arizona State University. “What we need is not only more investment by corporations, but more partnerships with universities to do research. Because if the status quo continues we can’t assume we will remain competitive in the global marketplace.”

The Tools Used in Conceptual Design


These tools should be intuitive and capable of quickly creating realistic models that can be shared and evaluated by others on the design team. These tools must also be flexible, so designs—still fluid and changeable—can be iterated on and recreated quickly based on design input.

Often as a result of this laundry list of requirements—which are quite different from those of an engineer’s CAD software used for more detailed engineering design—manufacturers end up using myriad of concept design tools from multiple vendors that offer little integration with downstream applications.  As a result, these concepts models must often be recreated in engineers’ CAD program, often losing design intent in the process.

Use of Multiple Tools Multiplies Downstream Issues

In a recent study entitled, Trends in Concept Design, conducted by PTC, the majority of participants (51%) said that they capture design concepts and ideas electronically in the form of 3D data. So what software tools are being used during this exploratory phase of design? The lion’s share of participants in the PTC survey (61%) responded that they use 3D CAD modeling and surfacing tools to quickly create a multitude of potential product designs. Based on the survey results, manufacturers use many different tools during this phase of development.

The use of multiple tools from multiple vendors often complicates the process of concept design and creates problems downstream when concept models move to detailed design.  According to the PTC survey, participants who reported that they used tools from multiple software vendors during the concept phase of new product development were three to seven times more likely to have to recreate data due to incompatibility.

According to the survey respondents, companies using design tools from two vendors were three times more likely to have to recreate data later in the design cycle, compared to those using tools from a single vendor. Those using tools from five different vendors were seven times more likely to have to recreate data, than those buying tools from just one vendor.

One way to avoid these issues is to choose a suite of design tools that is capable of handling all phases of design from concept to detailed design through manufacturing. These tools offer bi-directional interoperability, reducing the risk of miscommunication and eliminating the need for engineers to reinterpret or re-create designers’ conceptual models, safeguarding design intent and facilitating the re-use of design data so mechanical engineers are not starting from scratch once concept models are approved.

Standardizing on one suite of design tools can facilitate brainstorming, manage the exploration of ideas, and aid in the development of product concepts within a single environment. By integrating all these efforts into the same software platform, product concept data is managed in a single, cross-disciplinary data repository, which enables team members to access the information in a timely, secure manner. In addition, customers—through the use of intuitive modeling tools—can collaborate and provide feedback to ensure that concepts will ultimately meet their requirements.

When conceptual design tools and MCAD tools have interoperability with each other, the fruits of designers’ labor—sketches, drawings, and 3D concept models—can be seamlessly brought into engineers’ CAD software where they can get to work further refining the model into a true 3D digital model or virtual prototype that can be ultimately designed, tested, and built.

Creo Customer: Grimme Potato Harvesters Feed Real World


You have to wait, and there are a lot more variables. Grimme makes harvesting machinery for real potato farmers including planters, separaters, cultivaters, hoppers, conveyers, loaders, even box fillers. It further customizes equipment for each customer depending on climate, weather, and consistency of the soil.  

If all that big machinery seems like overkill just to grow cheap starchy tubers, consider this: the average global citizen eats 70 pounds of potatoes every year.  Multiply that by  7 billion people, and … that’s the “ville” Grimme farmers are playing in.

Creo’s direct modeling approach is part of that story too. Grimme says Creo has unlocked value for the company by cutting development time in half for its equipment. Together, they help agribusinesses produce the potatoes that feed the real world. Look for Grimme and Creo in this episode of The Product Design Show.


martes, 29 de noviembre de 2011

Robotic Arm Inspired by Elephant’s Trunk


Courtesy of Festo
You can’t beat Mother Nature’s design. And Germany-basedFesto—a bionics pioneer—has built an entire business around this premise. Most recently, they introduced the Bionic Handling Assistant, the design of which mimics the movement of an elephant’s trunk.
This is no small feat. An elephant’s trunk has 40,000 muscles and can move in a multi-directional way. The Bionic Handling Assistant offers eleven degrees of freedom which allows for a variety of task-specific directions—a breakthrough in that conventional handling systems are typically restricted to linear axes.
The gripper at the end of the arm—which is based on a fish fin—can hold and move very delicate objects.
Because of the sophisticated control system and lightweight material—polyamide and not metal—Festo hopes that the new handling system can interact with humans in a safer way and be used in the home as well as industry. For example: medical procedures, rehabilitation, and as an aid for the handicapped.
Learn more about how the most innovative products are designed today.

Using Creo: Creo Direct Modeling Express Interface


Read the full article

WorldCAD Access: More Free Creo Software from PTC


Read the full article

lunes, 28 de noviembre de 2011

New Electric Car Offers a Sustainable Future


streetscooter-unveiling
In May 2011, the StreetScooter Consortium—headed by RWTH Aachen University in Germany—presented its forward-looking electric car concept to the public for the first time.
The StreetScooter project—which aims to demonstrate that electrical vehicles can be produced at a competitive price in small batches by a network of supply chain partners without the need for sustained government funding—was launched in December 2007 and is scheduled to roll out its first batch of 10 prototypes at the end of 2011.
The project could well become the holy grail for an automotive industry facing massive technological changes as internal combustion engines are gradually succeeded by alternative power units. And as many of the anticipated structural changes in the automobile industry are also on the agenda in other industries, aerospace and defense in particular, the project has far reaching implications.

What is concept design? A product development perspective


It’s a thoughtful explanation, but it’s also broad. In fact, you could argue there’s little difference between the expression “concept design” and simply “design.” We take a narrower view. When we talk about concept design, we refer to a phase of the design process, within the product development process.  Recognizing that phases overlap, we specifically mean that after you’ve determined product requirements, but before you start detailed design, you’re in the thick of concept design. Here’s a quick visual:

IDEA–>REQUIREMENTS–>DESIGN concept–>DESIGN detailed–>PROTOTYPE–>MANUFACTURING

Concept design for industrial equipment
Concept design for industrial equipment

Concept design is the initial big picture or macro design. It shows us what problems the product will solve, how it will solve them, and what it will feel like as it is solving them. Arguably the most creative stage of product development, concept design is stickies slapped on whiteboards, ink and wash, napkins and crayons even. It calls on us to consider sweeping ideas and all the various possibilities. The more the better. In concept design lies the very soul of innovation.

Detailed design, for many product developers, signals the introduction of CAD tools. It’s the cold hard truth phase where we build mathematically correct virtual models. In detailed design, we worry about manufacturability, clearances, and how long you can use the product before it starts a fire. One more thing: Notice I didn’t say concept design is limited to sports cars and shiny laptops.  Potato harvesters, water treatment devices, industrial packaging lines, hospital equipment–any product worth developing–goes through some form of concept design. Or should.

Concept design for an electric vehicle
Concept design for an electric vehicle

In all of our articles about Creo and concept design, we’re arguing a role exists for CAD before detailed design–in concept design.  Furthermore, we’re working to show it can enhance concept design. But that’s for a future post. [Ed - Like the concept designs we've included in this post? For even more inspiration, browse the PlanetPTC Community for even more designs from our user community]

Safeguarding Design Concepts and IP

A lack of processes and procedures in place to protect IP and safeguard design concepts during development, can lead to lost IP, which in turn results in lost sales, product commoditization, and lower profit margins. Manufacturers must implement organizational structures, business processes, and technologies that support “IP friendly” collaboration, document IP and enable legal protection, and safeguard product data, including enhancing IT security and digital rights management.

Protecting Product Concepts

Concept designs are captured and managed differently at organizations. In a recent study entitled, Trends in Concept Design, conducted by PTC, only 37% of the participants responded that their company utilized some type of centralized management system to capture and manage design concepts. Another 34% indicated that their companies “strictly manage all concept designs, including revisions, in a centralized process.” Another 22% of respondents said that each person on the development team stores concept designs on his or her own computers, indicating that no centralized management system was in place.

Engineering notebooks are commonly used to capture proposed designs during the concept phase of development. In the PTC survey, the largest percentage of respondents (66%) said that some team members use engineering notebooks during the concept stage. Who owns the information contained in those notebooks? Over 59% of respondents believed the company owned the notebooks and the information contained within, however, another 41% of respondents either didn’t know who owned the notebooks (22%) or believed that the individual owned the data captured in the notebook (19%).

Despite advancements in and increased deployment of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems and knowledge management systems, many manufacturers still use informal tools and processes, such as engineering notebooks, to communicate and manage key product data, which can inhibit collaboration and elevate IP risk.

Without established procedures in place to safeguard the information contained in these notebooks, when employees leave a company, valuable and proprietary data leaves right along with them. Though 67% of respondents indicated that they didn’t think the notebook would be taken upon an employee’s departure, another 33% either “didn’t know” or thought it would be taken.

So how is this information safeguarded? At many companies, there are no established procedures to protect this valuable corporate product data. In the survey, only 16% of respondents indicated that the data captured in these engineering notebooks is captured electronically in the company’s systems. Nearly 70% of respondents said that there was no such procedure in place to capture this data electronically in corporate systems.

A strong strategic approach to IP and concept design management must span from product conception to market release. Companies must implement a systematic approach to safeguarding emerging design concepts and the potential IP they hold in order to reduce the risk of IP theft or loss. Integrating IP management into R&D through product development seamlessly provides opportunities to improve IP protection that can reduce a manufacturer’s risk and lower costs.

viernes, 25 de noviembre de 2011

Space Exploration: Designing a Future for Young Engineers


My 7-year-old son is always talking about what he wants to be when he grows up. “I want to build spaceships,” he tells me. So when I returned recently from a trip to the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs with piles of space related swag and a suitcase full of booklets and brochures, he was overjoyed. “I’m taking these to school to show my class what I’m going to do when I grow up,” he said. I hope he keeps up the momentum.
This year’s National Space Symposium focused heavily on how the US needs to step up its game in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education to ensure a competitive edge in space innovation. I sat in on a panel discussion led by well-known industry players—including Raytheon and Booz Allen Hamilton—to hear how they are investing in future engineers.
“We take a multipronged approach to reaching kids,” said Lynn Mortensen, VP of Engineering at Raytheon Intelligence and Information Systems. “We are broadly involved in a variety of programs like MathMovesU and FIRST Robotics. Our Sum of all Thrills ride at Epcot Walt Disney World Resort allows children to custom-design their own thrill ride using mathematical tools, an innovative touch-screen table and a robotic simulator. Raytheon Women’s Network (RWN) has gone into junior high schools in the Dallas Fort Worth area to teach physics classes.”
“We need to grow a workforce that can meet the challenge in math and engineering,” said Philip Marshall, VP of United Launch Alliance Production and Recurring Operations. STEM is the future in so many ways. The US lags behind other countries in math and science and it’s an industry imperative to step up to the plate as cuts to resources are continuing to be made in the classroom.”
Winner of the 2010 Spirit of Innovation Award, high school student Mikayla Diesch sat on the panel. Diesch, together with her sister, came up with a NASA-approved nutrition bar for astronauts. “America is not doing as well as it could,” Diesch said. “All the students in my class think they can do OK and still get somewhere, but that’s just not so. You have to work hard to get somewhere, and in order to inspire kids to go the extra mile you need companies to come into schools and talk to students about their future on a personal basis.”
Mikayla Diesch, and her sister Shannon, who together invented a NASA-approved granola bar named the Solar Flare (photo courtesy of MTV Geek)
Asked how to inspire STEM learning, Marshall said: “We need to give kids an immersive education in a non-traditional environment – an opportunity to apply their learning in a hands-on situation and avoid this assembly line approach to education where kids are merely regurgitating facts on tests.”
“Teachers are not valued and sometimes don’t have the skills to teach engineering and science for today’s market,” said Carol Staubach, Senior VP at Booz Allen Hamilton. “We need programs that train the teachers better in order to grow the skills needed for industry.” Raytheon has just such an initiative, allowing teachers to visit Raytheon sites with the goal of obtaining insight into what it’s actually like to work there, and the skills required to succeed.
How can corporations measure whether their programs are working in schools? “It’s really hard for some companies to quantify,” said Mortensen. “At Raytheon we really focus on pushing kids through the pipeline from high school through to 4-year college or technical college. Because we provide scholarships and grants to students, we are able to measure our success. Our programs are working.”
But corporate involvement is only part of the solution, at least for the space industry. The US needs to somehow rejuvenate interest in its space initiatives. Asks Fred Gregory, Former Commander of Space Shuttles Atlantis and Discovery: “How can you talk to a student about STEM when you can’t show there are exciting space programs out there that they can be a part of? We in the space community need to come up with a new mission. The next big idea. Something that the future generation can believe in.”

Creo Customer: Livengood Declutters the Hospital Room

  • Patients can stay attached to life-saving devices when moving to surgery, to testing equipment, or even to the shower.
  • Patients can support themselves with their cart, like a walker, as they amble through hospital hallways.
  • Hospital staff and family are all safer and can move more freely around the patient.
  • Hospitals have more flexibility to accommodate surges of patients in disasters, pandemics, and other public health emergencies as the Livengood platform greatly reduces the space needed to care for patients.
With so many medical devices attached to 21st century patients, it’s inconvenient and hazardous to have cables, tubes, and cords spread around the bed. With a stable mobile platform that can hold everything, move it, and support the patient all at once, there’s less risk of accidents of all sorts when moving patients and even when navigating the hospital room. Entrepreneurial Livengood uses Creo’s direct modeling approach for its flexibility because customer requirements change so fast, even late in product development. A great example of how a business can unlock value with Creo. Look for Livengood featured in this episode of The Product Design Show.



Mechatronic Management (Part 4): Integrated System Engineering Aspects

 
 
iStock 000004802983Small 300x200 Mechatronic Management (Part 4): Integrated System Engineering Aspects

This series of four posts looks at the management of items, data and bills of material for mechatronic products. It is split into mechanical aspects, electrical aspect, software aspects and integrated aspects.

Time flies, right? I started this series on Mechatronics Management back in April thinking it would be straightforward. But I have to admit that this post in particular has been the most challenging. And as a result has taken the longest to develop. You see, as I traveled to different conferences and listened in on various webcasts, the list of things related to integrated aspects of mechatronics management has grown and grown and… well… you get the idea. But enough about the backdrop, let’s get into the details.

What Do You Mean by Integrated Aspects of Mechatronics Management?

So far in this series, we’ve talked about mechanical, electrical and software aspects. Each of those engineering disciplines have their own design artifacts that need to be managed and that have specific interrelationships. But there are also some cross relationships between these discipline specific representations also that need to be managed. And there are also some processes specific to system engineering and integration efforts that need to be supported. In my mind, those are the artifacts and processes that fall into an integrated aspect category.

Artifacts and Processes for System Engineering

Beyond the traditional mechanical, electrical and software engineering disciplines, there are system engineers whose primary responsibility is to make sure that systems and sub-systems that span those traditional disciplines work in the end and fulfill the functions originally assigned to them. The following are some of the artifacts and processes that they have to manage.

Requirements Breakdown and Allocation

Requirements are a pretty standard issue within product development. Why would they be involved in system engineering? Because requirements that start at the very top-level in a product are not specific to any single discipline. In fact, requirements at that level often have to be fulfilled by design from some combination of those disciplines. The system engineer coordinates the breakdown of those requirements into piecemeal ones that can be fulfilled by systems, then sub-systems then into assemblies and sub-assemblies. Eventually, after they have been broken down many times, requirements can be assigned to something that is discipline specific. But those discipline specific designs must work in concert to satisfy higher level requirements.

There are many different systems that can manage a requirements structure. However most do not allow for allocation across a full mechatronics definition due to the fact that they do not represent the designs to a granular enough level. Electrical representations of PCBs stop at the board and component level when requirements might be allocated to specific traces. Software representations stop at the compiled code when requirements might need to be allocated to libraries, specific calls and other aspects of raw code.

Functions Development and Allocation

An adjacent approach to requirements management is to develop a functional architecture that generically and theoretically satisfies a requirements structure. As you might imagine, one requirements structure might be satisfied by many potential functional structures. Once fully defined, individual functions are allocated to specific systems, sub-systems, assemblies, sub-assemblies and items. It’s very similar to the requirements breakdown and allocation but with a different take.

Regardless, this sort of process and the resulting artifacts and relationships are also managed by the system engineer. And like the requirements that were described in the previous section, they could be allocated to items that are mechanical, electrical, software or some resulting combination.

When it comes to systems that manage and support functions, the list is fairly few. There are some languages such as SysML that try to do the job fairly well but ultimately they are fairly disconnected from the systems, such as PLM, PDM and SCM, that actually house the artifacts representing items in the system. As a result, much like the situation for requirements, those functions cannot be allocated to them directly.

Interfaces

Another artifact that is used is called an interface. It essentially acts as the definition that is used to integrate two systems in a product. A mechanical example could be a mounting hole pattern. An electrical example could be a timing standard used for two PCBs to pass signals back and forth. A software example could be an agent or service that communicates between two pieces of software. But modern-day interfaces are definitely cross-disciplinary. For example, an interface between two systems on a satellite might have a mating plate, specifically defined electrical connectors and detailed software protocols.

Unfortunately, cross-disciplinary interfaces suffer from the same lack of support that requirements and functions also do. And again, it is due to the lack of granularity in the design representation within a single system. Most interface definitions are reduced to a specification which may point or link off to mechanical, electrical and software definitions that each exist in PLM, PDM or SCM systems separately.

Managing Verification and Validation

Another major piece of system engineering is often forgotten but is terribly important. Towards the end of the design phase, system engineers need to make sure that all of the items, sub-assemblies, assemblies, sub-systems and systems all do exactly what they are supposed to do. And because the design phase of the development cycle is a whirlwind of work-in-process, that can be very difficult to do. As a result, system engineers have adopted a highly disciplined approach that is highly configuration managed. Everything, from requirements, functions, interfaces to design artifacts, is configuration managed. And there are procedures in place to ensure that an exact version and iteration of a requirement is exactly fulfilled by an exact version and iteration of a mechanical item. Ultimately it becomes a hugely complicated checklist through which progress must be tracked and managed. And if an item goes through a change, then anything related to that specific item must be verified and validated again.

What systems help do this? Not many. The list of systems actually enable systems engineers to track and manage this process is very very small. As a result, they have to do most of it through spreadsheets. Hugely, complicated, mind-numbing spreadsheets.

Conclusions and Questions

Actually, this isn’t the end of the story. In this post we’ve just covered the system engineering parts of mechatronics integration. There’s actually a whole other side of the story in terms of integrated detailed design of mechatronics products. But that’s a touch too much to include in this post. It deserves its own.
In conclusion, with many of today’s products including mechanical, electrical and software aspects in it, there’s a large need for system engineering discipline to ensure it all works before design release. This includes artifacts and processes like requirements management, functions management, interface management and verification and validation.

With all that said, did I miss anything from a system engineering perspective? I’d be a little surprised if this covered most of the artifacts and disciplines that are related to system engineer. Sound off and let us know what else is involved.

jueves, 24 de noviembre de 2011

If Only Snooki Had Learned to Use Power Tools

NANCY PARDO | Published: 
In today’s celebrity culture it’s easy to appreciate why the average teenager might believe their only options in life are MTV or the NBA. Introducing children to new experiences and perspectives can redefine how they perceive themselves and their role within society.
FIRST Robotics Competition aims to break through cultural stereotypes and put the cool back into engineering and science. Each year high school teams from all over the United States and around the world are tasked with building a robot from a kit of parts that will be able to perform a specific set of tasks in competition. The national playoffs take place late April in St. Louis.
Last Friday and Saturday saw the Seattle Cascades and Olympic Regionals at Qwest Field, Seattle, Washington (right in my backyard). I was lucky enough to be able to get a firsthand look at the competition. Entering Qwest Field I couldn’t help but be taken aback by the sheer number of people and astounding noise level. The competition was well underway by the time I showed up mid-morning Friday and the energy level was high. The field—cordoned off into three sections, two arenas for the Seattle Cascades and Olympic playoffs and one huge pit nestled in between—was teaming with kids and their robots.
Although crowds of spectators gathered in the stands to watch the matches, the real action was in the pits (think NASCAR). Students rapidly refined their bots and fixed unexpected problems in a surprising display of cooperation, comradeship and mutual respect.
“You have to remember that we ship our robot to the event and we might not see it for a week or more, it’s only in the pits that we are reunited and then it’s a time crunch to make final adaptations and fix anything that may have broken en route,” says Jillian Andrews, a sophomore at Tahoma High School and Senior Fabricator on her team called Bear Metal. “It’s really down to the wire, but it teaches us to work closely as a group to get things done.”
Andrews, who wants to go into the medical profession, is one of the many young women competing in FIRST who says the competition has given her a sense of self confidence, leadership skills and the technical knowledge to compete in an area traditionally dominated by men.
Taylor Dowel, on the same team as Andrews, was hands-on in the pit giving directions to her fellow teammates. When prompted, she gave a five-minute briefing on her bot, including how the chassis, lift, claw, deployment system and mini-bot work. “We all have different jobs on the team. I run the CNC mill, I like doing all the machining and the hands-on stuff,” Dowel says.
When asked about her favorite part of the FIRST Robotics Competition Andrews says, “Working with top engineers from Boeing and the like is a privilege and an eye opener. FIRST has taught me that I can do anything—that I don’t have to limit myself because I am a girl.”
Boeing, like PTC, is an industry sponsor of FIRST. Conrad Ball, Washington FIRST Executive Advisory Board Chair and Chief Engineer at Boeing Military Aircraft, attended the Washington regionals. “I see the importance of attracting the best and brightest talent if we are to remain competitive in the global economy,” he says.
P1010253.JPG
Each of the competing teams has mentors—teachers, parents and industry professionals—who volunteer their time to advise and support the kids in building their robots. Mentors believe FIRST is valuable in teaching young people the relevance of science and technology in their daily lives through hands-on experiences and real results. “Kids ask what is this algebra, trigonometry and science for anyway? All we have to do is regurgitate it on tests,” says a Franklin High School mentor. “Well, here they are able to put it to practice on robots.” Franklin High School, sponsored by PTC, was a competition finalist and winner of the Innovation in Control Award at the Washington event.
00000023.JPG
The brainchild of Dean Kamen, FIRST Robotics Competition is fundamentally changing the way young people view science and technology. Kamen believes that exposing young people to professional scientists and engineers changes what they do and where they put their time and attention. “The probability that one of [these kids] is going to do something spectacular that they would not have done without FIRST is almost a guarantee.” Kamen says.
Sound too good to be true? Just ask Google co-founder, Larry Page whose dad smuggled him into a robotics competition when he was 12, or ask one of the many students who attended the Seattle playoffs this weekend and who’ll be starting MIT in the fall.