Socio-technical Plan (Part I)

Unit 4 Individual ProjectSocio-technical Plan (Part I)ThienSi (TS) LeColorado Technical UniversityCS 875-1602C-01Professor: Dr. Imad Al Saeed

28-May-2016

The dynamic and energetic world has constantly changed and intertwined rapidly with full uncertainty and chaos. It is almost impossible to predict the different future from the known present. In an aggressively competitive business environment, many organizations realize that innovation of the existing systems with the interaction between humans and technology such as robotics in the socio-technical process and system is important in business, particularly education in computing world as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Socio-technical plan in computing

(Source: Adapted from www.interaction-design.org)

           This paper will describe a socio-technical plan in robotics in two parts. The first part that will cover seven sections in this document includes:

            PART 1:

                        I. Introduction

II. Scope

III. Purpose

IV. Supporting forces

V. Challenging forces

VI. Methods

                        VII. Summary for Part 1

References (Part 1)

                        Appendix:

The second part will cover six sections in the next paper as follows:

            PART 2:

                        VIII. Model

IX. Analytical plan

X. Anticipated results

XI. Conclusion

XII. Areas of future research

References (Part 2)

         The first part will be described in-depth in this paper as Unit 4 Individual Project.

I. Introduction

            Social-technical plan in organizational development is a scheme of arrangement and process of complex work design that employs the interaction between humans and technology in the workplaces (Long, 2013). The social-technical system refers to the interaction between complex infrastructures and human behaviors. It is about joint optimization such as interrelatedness of social and technical aspects of an organization or the society as a whole (Trist, & Bamforth, 1951). In education, many academicians and higher education leaders usually address using technologies to advance learning and creative expression. One of the technologies is robotics that can be applied in a socio-technical system for the educational purpose.

II. Scope

            New Media Consortium (2016) predicts that robotics can be used in higher education to assist students to become better problem solvers in the next five years. Humanoid robots can interact and assist learners in disorder or people with disability to develop well-behaved social skills and better communications in a sociotechnical process.   

Robotics has direct implications for higher education areas:

     - Air traffic management targets safer drone air traffic (NMC Horizon, 2016).

     - Annual robotics law and policy conference hosts conversations between designers, builders, manufacturers on the legal and social structures. (NMC Horizon, 2016).

     - Multiple disciplines on autonomous mobile robots in mechatronic systems are provided to students for engineering study (NMC Horizon, 2016).

            While robots become popular in demand in industry, robotics provides many compelling features. Some typical features are (1) teaching, (2) learning, and (3) creative inquiry.

(1)   Teaching: 

Bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in healthcare robotics in the US universities such as Emory University, Georgia Institute of Technology, etc. with National Science Foundation (NSF)’s initiative.

(2) Learning:

Robots have been used to train medical students and perform clinical procedures in hospital settings.

(3) Creative inquiry:

Robotics research conducted a creative inquiry such as social skills in using robots to enable children to communicate each other, creating curriculum modules for math and science teachers in middle schools.

            Except the enlightening features, robotics has several limitations. Some typical limitations are:

     - Robotics’ applications such as humanlike robots have hurdles due to the complexity of the human system. For example, human’s intellectual asset is difficult to transform into machines such as humanoid robots.  

     - Even though applications of the robots gain more momentum in progress, robotics’ hardware is still in a developing stage.

    - Robotics software is diverse. There are many kinds of robotics software in various platforms that rely on many divergent manufacturers. There is no standardization in robotics software. 

III. Purpose

The aspect of robotics becomes more practical and less futuristic than ever. Robots that are recently less clumsy, more humanlike and sophisticated, can perform a useful, complex and dangerous tasks (Picard, 2016). The purpose of the study of the advancing robotics between humans to technology (i.e., robots) in socio-technical plan is to infuse more humanlike behavior in machines to adapt or accommodate human needs and demands in many fields such as manufacturing, healthcare, mining, defense, security, transportation, securities, home appliances, particularly education in using affective computing in robotics design that balances emotion and cognition.  

Figure 2: Robot and human in collaboration and interaction

(Source: Adapted from http://venturebeat.com/tag/robotics)

IV. Supporting forces

            The integration of robots into the industry such as automotive, healthcare transportation, education, etc. impacts business model and economies globally. The socio-technical plan of robotics in education is driven by many forces such as technological, economical, societal, educational strength. Three typical driving forces are discussed as follows:

     - Technological force

            The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded many projects in the robotics field. Many universities such as UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, MIT, etc. increase their research and development effort in robotics. For example, scientists who are inspired by the human brain are able to program a robot based on neural circuitry (The New York Times, 2016).  

     - Economical force

Proponents such as economists, social scientists, and futurists are fascinated by robots for labor. International Federation of Robots in a study between 1993 and 2007 found that robots made a great impact on productivity. Robots have replaced low-skilled workers, increased production for factories, and generated new jobs for other high-skilled workers (Rotman, 2015).  

     - Educational force

            Since popular demand of robots in industry, many higher education institutions

Have developed bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in healthcare robotics at Georgia Institute of Technology, air traffic management system for safer drone air traffic, robotics engineering technology program at University of California, etc. These programs imply educational force on robotics in practice (NMC Horizon, 2016). 

V. Challenging forces

            In parallel with the amenable and supporting forces, the innovation of robotics encounters some challenging forces. For example, the limitation of development in robotics includes:  

     - Instilling more humanoid behavior in robots is difficult and sophisticated because of the complexity of the human system.

     - Robotics’ hardware such as arms, legs, microprocessors, etc. for motions is still gradually under development.  

     - Divergence in robotics software in various platforms is another challenging force for integration between robots manufactured by different vendors in many countries. There is no availability of the Robotics software’s standardization today.

     - Manufacturing customized robots carries higher price tags and requires more funding as well as research.

VI. Methods

Group decision making is a participatory process for multiple participants who collect information, analyze problems or situations, weigh courses of actions, and select the best solution. The number of participants in group making-decision varies differently, typical from 5 to 10 persons. Decision-making groups may be formal, informal with a specific goal. The process used to arrive at decisions may be structured or unstructured. Time pressure or conflicting goals that are external contingencies impact the development and effectiveness of decision-making groups (Office of Student Programs, 2011). There are four typical group decision-making methods. They are brainstorm, dialectical inquiry, nominal group technical, and the Delphi technique (Barnett, 2016). The Delphi technique is a group decision-making process that can be used by decision-making groups when the individual members are in different physical locations. It was developed by RAND Corporation in the 1950s. A member of the Delphi group is selected due to his/her expertise on the problem. A facilitator asks each member independently to provide ideas, input to the problem in successive rounds, typically three rounds. For example, this forecast method is applied by a facilitator bases on the results of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts via e-mail, fax, or online discussion forum. Each round the responses is ranked or rated in some order. The group arrives at the consensus decision on the best course of action (RAND Corporation, 1950).

            In socio-technical plan of innovating robotics, the method of Delphi technique is chosen because of the rationale below:   

     - A socio-technical plan is complex and intensive. It requires highly skilled members who are likely located in different physical locations. 

     - A member of the Delphi group is selected due to his/her expertise in robotics and education.

     - A facilitator asks each member independently to provide ideas, input to the problem in successive rounds, typically three rounds.

     - The group arrives at the consensus decision on the best course of action.

VII. Summary for Part 1

            This document of the socio-technical plan (Part 1) on innovation of robotics in education consists of eight sections and Appendix Section for Part 2:

            I. Introduction: This section introduces a socio-technical plan of innovating robotics for learning in education.

II. Scope: It provides the overall view of the interaction between humans and robotics in higher education areas.

III. Purpose: It targets to infuse humanlike behavior in machines to adapt human needs and demands in many fields, particularly education.

IV. Supporting forces: This section discusses driving forces in technology, economics, and education.

V. Challenging forces: It describes obstacles and hurdles in the socio-technical plan on applying robotics in education .

VI. Methods: This section describes several methods to be used in socio-technical plan and emphasizes Delphi technique as a good choice with rationales.

            VII. Summary for Part 1: It is this section

            Appendix: This section lists the headers sections for Part 2     

            VIII. References

Appendix

PART 2: Outline and headers

                        VIII. Models:

1.      The socio-technical architecture

2.      Interactive socio-technical system

3.      Models

IX. Analytical plan:

                                    1. Framework

                                    2. Analytical plan

X. Anticipated results

1. Robotics program for higher education

2. Robotics’ assistance in K-12 program

3. Robotics with children in bipolar disorder

XI. Conclusion

                                    Summary and conclusion of the study of robotics in education

XII. Areas of future research

1.      Robotics in safer drone air traffic control

2.      Robotics law and policy conference

3.      Multiple disciplines on autonomous mobile robots in mechatronic systems

References (Part 2)

References (Part 1)

Barnett, T. (2016). Group decision making. Retrieved on April 17, 2016 from

www.referenceforbusiness.com/management

Long, S. (2013). Socioanalytic methods: discovering the hidden in organisations and social systems. Karnac Books.

New Media Consortium, (2016). NMC horizon. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from

http://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon/ 

            go.nmc.org/airtraffic;

            go.nmc.org/calu;

            go.nmc.org/werobo.

           

Office of Student Programs, Mount Holyoke College (2011). Skill building – group

decision making. Retrieved on April 18, 2016, from

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/sites/default/files/studentprograms/docs/skillbuilding_groupdecisionmaking.pdf;

Picard, R., (2016). Affective computing. Retrieved May 25/2016 from

http://affect.media.mit.edu/

Rotman, D. (2015). Who will own the robots? Retrieved May 26, 2016, from

            https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538401/who-will-own-the-robots/

The New York Times (2016). Uber would like to buy your robotics department.

Retrieved May 25, 2016

from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/uber-would-liketo-buy-your- robotics-department.html?_r=0