Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechatronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechatronics

Mechatronics – More questions than answers

David Bradley
School of Computing & Engineering Systems, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell Street, Dundee DD1 1HG, UK

a b s t r a c t

Since the introduction of mechatronics as an integrated and integrating approach to the design, develop-
ment and operation of complex systems, there have been significant developments in technology, and in
particular in processing power, which have changed the nature of a wide range of products and systems
from domestic appliances and consumer goods to manufacturing systems and vehicles. In addition, the
development and implementation of strategies such as those associated with concurrent engineering
and the introduction of intelligent tools to support the design of complex products and systems has also
changed the way in which such systems are conceived, implemented and manufactured.
The aim of the paper is not however to attempt to address or answer specific questions as to the nature
of mechatronics and its current and future standing as an approach to engineering design and develop-
ment, but to initiate, provoke and stimulate debate and discussion on a range of mechatronics related
issues, without necessarily attempting to provide answers or suggest new methods or approaches, relat-
ing to the future potential of and directions for mechatronics. In this respect therefore, while containing
an element of review, the paper is intended as a discussion document structured around the author’s per-
sonal experience and perspective of mechatronics issues.
Inherent to this questioning of the ways in which mechatronics may develop are the various attempts
that have taken place over the years to provide a definition of mechatronics, either in the form of text or
logo and whether these efforts have of themselves been a source of confusion as to both content and
direction within mechatronics? In which case, might it be preferable for mechatronics practitioners to
operate within their own particular context than to attempt to conform to a specific and overarching def-
inition?
Finally, it must also be made clear that in writing this paper that complete agreement with the reader
as to the particular questions raised and comments made is neither sought nor intended.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Thus while the paper incorporates a review element in respect

Over many years of involvement with mechatronics it has be-
come increasingly challenging at a personal level to reconcile the
various different and differing arguments as to what it is that de-
fines, constitutes and differentiates mechatronics with respect to
related engineering disciplines such as systems engineering, con-
trol engineering, design engineering and manufacturing systems
as well as identifying its continuing role in education [1]. The
aim in writing this paper is not however to attempt to answer
the general questions of ‘what is mechatronics?’ or ‘how might
mechatronics be defined?’, but to raise these and other questions,
without necessarily providing answers, with the intent of provok-
ing debate and discussion as to the future potential of and direc-
tions for mechatronics as an engineering discipline. For instance,
is there, or indeed could there be, a single overarching structure
for mechatronics, or are there several interrelated and interlinked
structures, each emphasising a specific aspect of the whole?
of certain aspects of mechatronics, it is not aimed at providing a
detailed analysis of a specific aspect of mechatronics or of propos-
ing new and novel structures for the discipline but at posing ques-
tions relating to its future role and development. It should
therefore be considered as a discussion paper presenting a partic-
ular, and personal, viewpoint, in this case that of the author.
In developing the discussion it is necessary to consider the ways
in which mechatronics is perceived. Various attempts have taken
place over the years since its introduction to provide a ‘concrete’
definition of mechatronics, either in the form of text or logo. As
an illustration of this activity, one web site [2] lists over 20 defini-
tions of mechatronics, each of which places a slightly different
emphasis on the central theme of the integration of the core disci-
plines of electronics, mechanical engineering and information
technology1. Similarly, a search for mechatronics logos suggests that
many academic and other institutions engaged in aspects of mecha-
tronics have attempted, at various degrees and levels of complexity,

1
E-mail address: d.bradley@abertay.ac.uk Or Computing, Information Systems and other variants.

0957-4158/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.07.011
828 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841

to produce something which reflects both the nature of the institu- Table 2
tion and its mechatronics context. Some milestones in mechatronics.

Could it however be argued that an such attempt to provide any 1940 Isaac Asimov published the first of his robot stories and develops the
form of expression of mechatronics, whether textually or graphi- ‘Three Laws of Robotics’
cally, may of itself be a source of confusion and that it may there- 1948 Transistor is developed at Bell Laboratories by John Bardeen, Walter H.
Brattain and William B. Shockley
fore be better for mechatronics practitioners to operate within 1952 A prototype Numerically Controlled machine is demonstrated at
their own particular context than to attempt to conform to a spe- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
cific and overarching definition? 1958 Texas introduces the first commercial integrated circuit
In order to place the subsequent discussion into context, the pa- 1959 Planet Corporation introduces the first commercial robot based on
limit switches and cams
per begins by providing an overview of the introduction of mech-
Richard Feynman delivers the lecture There’s Plenty of Room at the
atronics, its initial concepts and the ways in which it has Bottom at Caltech [2]
developed. By its very nature and breadth, Table 1 provides an 1961 A Unimate robot is installed by Ford to service a die-casting machine
indication of the topics that have been and are associated with The part programming language APT (Automatically Programmed
mechatronics, any of which could have been chosen to illustrate Tooling) is released
1963 The American Machine Company introduces the Versatran robot
the arguments within the paper, this means that a choice has 1965 Gordon Moore proposes that the size of integrated circuits will double
had to be made, in this case that of engineering design. It must also approximately every 2 years
be acknowledged that in writing this paper it will be inevitable Digital Equipment Corporation introduces the PDP-8 computer
that issues which individual readers consider important will have 1968 Burroughs produces the first computers to use integrated circuits
1969 The term mechatronics is proposed by Tetsuro Mori to describe the
been omitted and apparently ignored. No apology is made for this
integration of electronics with mechanical engineering
other than those of limitations of space and the background, views 1970 Digital Equipment Corporation introduces the PDP-11 computer
and opinions of the author, and complete agreement with the read- 1972 8-bit microprocessors introduced
er is neither sought nor intended. 1974 ASEA introduce the all electric drive IRb6 robot
The T3 robot Tomorrow Tool, better known as the T3 robot, is
introduced by Cincinnati Milicron
2. The growth of mechatronics 1978 The PUMA (Programmable Universal Machine for Assembly) is
introduced by Unimation
16-bit microprocessors introduced
The first commercial and industrial use of the term ‘mechatron- 1979 The SCARA (Selective Compliance Arm for Robotic Assembly) arm is
ics’ is generally credited to Tetsuro Mori in 1969 [3–5], though it developed at Yamanshi University in Japan
may well have been used informally several years earlier by Profes- 1980 Intel introduces the first 32-bit microprocessor
sor Takashi Kenjo [6]. Since its introduction, it has generally been 1981 IBM introduces a personal computer with an industry standard disc
operating system (DOS)
argued that mechatronics represents a significant, and initially dif-
1982 IBM introduces the RS-1 assembly robot
ferent, approach to the design, development and implementation 1984 Sumitomo demonstrates an organ playing robot developed at Waseda
of a wide range of inherently complex products and systems. While University in Japan
that may have been the case when the concept was originally pro- 1988 Institute for Defense Analysis Report R-338 on concurrent engineering
posed, can this view be sustained 40 years later [7]? is published
1990 The World Wide Web is set up by Tim Berners-Lee at the European
Consider the very much abbreviated timeline of Table 2 as to Particle Physics Laboratory in Switzerland
what might be considered mechatronic oriented developments. 1993 Intel introduce the Pentium processor
This list must however also be placed in the context of earlier 1997 Pathfinder mission lands the Sojourner vehicle on Mars
developments and not taken as implying that systems and techni- 1998 Honda introduces the P3 humanoid robot
1999 Sony introduces the AIBO robot dog
cal integration began with mechatronics. Consideration of the ear-
2000 AMD released the Athlon 1 GHz
lier years of the 20th century provides many examples of such Honda introduces the ASIMO humanoid robot
integration ranging from the naval gunnery control systems based 2001 First autonomous flight over the Pacific by the Global Hawk unmanned
around integrated optics and mechanical analogue computers [8] aerial vehicle
to aircraft flight control and inertial navigation systems [9]. In 2004 Rovers Spirit and Opportunity land on Mars
2005 DARPA Grand Challenge, five teams completed the off-road course
manufacturing, the introduction and development of mass produc- with Stanford University’s Stanley the winner
tion systems integrated with developments in machine tool tech- 2006 Intel introduces the Core 2 processor
nology also supported the underlying concepts of systems Sony releases the Playstation 3
integration generally felt to be integral to mechatronics. In addi- Nintendo releases The Wii
2007 TOMY introduces the i-sobot humanoid robot
tion, mechatronics has developed to encompass issues such as bio-
Apple launches the iPhone
mechatronics, focused on issues such as the analysis of human
motion, interfacing with the nervous system and ways in which

to use muscle tissue as actuators [10–12] and micromechatronics,

Table 1 generally associated with MEMS2 technologies [13,14].
Some mechatronics applications areas. What may however be considered to be of particular signifi-
Automation and robotics Machine vision cance to the development of mechatronics from the 1960s on is
Automotive engineering Mechatronics systems that at about the time that the concept was first being mooted,
Computer aided and integrated Medical systems computers such as the PDP-8 and PDP-11 were beginning to im-
manufacturing systems pact upon the industrial and process control markets. Though ini-
Computer Numerically Controlled machines Packaging
Consumer products Sensing and control systems
tially limited in power and scope, at least in current terms, such
Diagnostic, reliability, and control system Servo-mechanics computers nevertheless provided a whole series of lessons that
techniques have stood future systems designers and integrators in good stead.
Engineering design Structural dynamic systems Consider for instance the development of avionics where in the
Engineering and manufacturing systems Systems engineering
1960s aircraft designers and manufacturers began to conceive of
Expert systems Transportation and vehicular
systems
Industrial goods
2
Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems.
 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841 829

the translation of the complex analogue flight control and engine available [15]. It is also perhaps salutary in this context to recog-
management systems into their digital equivalents, initially in nise that the Apollo Primary Navigation and Guidance System
the form of electronic logic and then by means of microprocessor (PNGS) computer, essentially a digital fly-by-wire unit, developed
based systems and their subsequent developments, and were for the Moon landing programme from 1969 to 1972 had the spec-
thinking in those terms even before the necessary devices became ifications and functions as set out in Table 3 and Fig. 1 [16].
However, at the start of the 21st century, computing technolo-
Table 3
gies have matured and developed to the point where processing
Apollo Primary Navigation and Guidance System (PNGS) computer specifications. power is available at near zero cost to the system developer. Sys-
tem costs are then to a very large degree those associated with
Developed by MIT instrumentation laboratory
Manufacturer Raytheon
achieving integration and developing the software required to
Processor Discrete IC RTL based meet user perceptions in what continues to be a rapidly developing
Frequency 2.048 MHz market place.
Memory 16-bit words, 2048 words RAM (magnetic core memory), While technology was evolving, so to was the concept of engi-
36,864 words ROM (core rope memorya)
neering design changing from the static and linear strictures asso-
Ports DSKY, IMU, Hand Controller, Rendezvous Radar (CM),
Landing Radar (LM), Telemetry Receiver, Engine Command, ciated with the established concepts of sequential development,
Reaction Control System and all the problems associated with this, to the introduction of
Power 70 W the concepts of concurrent engineering with its implied parallelism
Weight 70.1 lb (31.8 kg) as illustrated by Fig. 2 [17,18].
Dimensions 24  12.5  6.5 in. (61  32  17 cm)
Thus whilst the original concept of mechatronics as concen-
a
The core rope memory consisted of a series he ferrite cores operating as trans- trated on the integration of electronics with mechanical engineer-
formers. The signal from a word line wire passing through a core was coupled to the ing and software, is it now the case that the emphasis needs to shift
bit line wire and interpreted as a binary ‘‘one” while a word line wire that bypassed
to one which encompasses a more holistic view of system design
the core was not coupled to the bit line wire and was read as a ‘‘zero”. Up to 64
wires could be passed through a single core. Software written by NASA program- and development?
mers was ‘woven’ into the cores to create the ‘rope’. [86]. This shift, as suggested in part by Fig. 3, would effectively place
mechatronics within a network of engineering functions and issues
ranging from aesthetics to marketing. In reviewing this network it
is however also important to recognise and understand that mech-
Display & atronics, and indeed engineering design in general, is not solely
Radar DSKY
Range concerned with or about technology but relies on people, and in
Keyboard particular on the interactions between individuals, to make it
Direction
Velocity Engine work.
Commands Is it therefore the case that mechatronics can no longer, as
might have originally have been the case, be considered purely
Navigation as being associated with the integration of specific technologies
Star Tracking
Computer Attitude but as a systems oriented approach to the design, development
Inertial Platform
Controls and implementation of complex systems which takes as its founda-
tion the transfer of functionality from the physical domain to the
Manual information domain? This view is reflected in the comment by
Control Millbank that [19]:
Data
Signals Telemetry
Display ‘By definition then, mechatronics is not a subject, science or tech-
nology per se – it is instead to be regarded as a philosophy – a fun-
Fig. 1. Apollo Primary Navigation and Guidance System (PNGS) computer damental way of looking at and doing things, and by its very nature
functions. requires a unified approach to its delivery.’

Quality

Design for
testability

Conceptual
design Service &
Support
Requirements Design for
Definition Manufacture Embodiment Manufacture Product

Marketing Manufacturing
processes
Industrial
design

Interface
design

Fig. 2. Concurrent engineering work flow.

830
Engineering
Science
Science
100%
INNOVATORS EARLY
ADOPTERS
Relative percentage of
customers
MAIN MARKET
(a) Adoption
The strength of such an approach may then be that it supports
the understanding of the nature of the embedded complexity by
ensuring that the different engineering, and other, disciplines are
considered together from the start of the design process.
That such a parallelism is important may be seen from the fact
that products typically generate the most revenue early in their life
cycle, particularly if the product offers new features not present in
its competitor’s products. As the product matures and competitors
enter the market, profit erosion will begin to occur as the compe-
tition for available customers increases. It is therefore important
that products are designed and produced on time and that produc-
tion rates are rapidly ramped up to mature levels. Any delays in the
release of the product to the market will translate into lost sales
that will not be recovered over the life of the product.
As indicated by Fig. 4, a key element of the market profile is the
need to convince the pragmatists that the system is of value to
them once the innovators and early adopters have opened up the
market [20,21]. The introduction of a mechatronic approach to
technology integration allied to a concurrent engineering develop-
ment strategy has historically resulted in products which are
inherently more capable, and hence more attractive to the prag-
matic users, than their predecessors at reducing real costs.
In recent years, products and systems of all types from domestic
appliances to vehicles have become increasingly complex. This
complexity may often be defined in turn by the combination of lo-
cal and distributed processing power with mechanical design and
is driven by the increased availability of processing power based
not only around microprocessors but of devices such as Application
Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICS) and Field Programmable Gate
Arrays (FPGAs) allied to enhanced communications strategies and
protocols. Thus at one level, a system such as the Wii games con-
sole utilises three-axis accelerometers to record motion and to
D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
Politics
Sociology
Psychology
Economics
Engineering Engineering
Production
Design Technology
Industrial
Design
Artistic Design
Art
Fig. 3. Mechatronics and engineering design issues.
100%
PRAGMATISTS SCEPTICS INNOVATORS EARLY PRAGMATISTS SCEPTICS
ADOPTERS
Market penetration
MAIN MARKET
Time Time
(b) Market penetration
Fig. 4. Profiles of technology adoption and market penetration.
translate that motion into an on screen response by means of a
Bluetooth communications link. At another level a modern car will
integrate multiple systems ranging from engine management to
driver and passenger comfort controls and potentially even auton-
omous navigation [22,23].
These developments are supported by the increasing availabil-
ity of ‘smart components’ such as the SunSPOT3 system from Sun
Microsystems [24], which in turn facilitate the construction of larger
systems utilising the embedded processing power of their distrib-
uted elements. The increasing availability of system elements such
as SunSPOTs and RFID tags is resulting in increasingly complex sys-
tems in which the ability to analyse and interpret the data then be-
comes the major source of added value. Thus while historically
mechatronics has been associated with system products such as
vehicles and manufacturing technologies such as robots, these same
mechatronic concepts are now appearing in applications such as
healthcare.
So, does mechatronics remain something that could, or indeed
should, continue to be considered as separate and distinct from
other approaches to engineering and engineering design, or has it
some 40 or more years after the term was proposed, become
embedded within mainstream engineering? Or is it the case that
both contentions are to some degree correct?
Consider first the validity or otherwise of treating mechatronics
as a separate and distinct approach to engineering design. Given
the increasing complexity of systems, and of the integration of
technologies that this implies, there is a need to ensure and man-
age the communication between the domain specialists whilst
ensuring that there is awareness of the need to transfer functional-
3
Sun Small Programmable Object Technology.
 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
ity and complexity between domains [25]. By its nature, mecha-
tronics has implied such an integration across disciplines, and
hence an awareness of mechatronic approaches and outcomes by
a design team is likely to be supportive of the appropriate identifi-
cation of the range and variety of solutions associated with these. A
similar case can also be made in relation to the teaching of mech-
atronics within undergraduate and postgraduate engineering pro-
grammes as a means of generating a breadth of awareness not
necessarily associated with more conventional, and single disci-
pline, engineering courses and programmes [26–29].
However, as the majority of engineering systems are now inher-
ently integrated and interdisciplinary in nature, an effective case
could perhaps also be made that the engineering design process
has itself adapted to accommodate the need to manage technical
and other integration at all levels within that process. This is illus-
trated here by comparing the design model proposed by French
[30] and shown in Fig. 5 with the V-Model [31] of Fig. 6, the later
initially being for software development but increasingly used to
describe system development.
As can be seen from Fig. 5, while French’s model incorporates
elements of feedback, it follows an essentially linear representa-
tion of the design process with minimum embedded parallelism.
In contrast, the V-Model attempts to combine the sequential ele-
ments with appropriate evaluation, for instance by stressing the
Need
Analysis of
Problem
Statement
of Problem
Conceptual
Design
Feedback
Selected
Schemes
Embodiment
of Schemes
Detailing
Working
Drawings
Fig. 5. French’s design model.
831
need to design the test processes along with the system rather than
separately as had often historically been the case.
Other examples of the holistic approach to design that may now
be considered as common are the use of a ‘Third Age Suit’ by Ford
engineers [32,33] to allow younger members of the design team
to evaluate the physical layout of a vehicle from the perspective
of someone with reduced joint flexibility, vision and dexterity
and the establishment by Volvo of an all female design team to re-
view concept vehicles [34]. Whilst neither of these examples is
explicitly associated with design integration or mechatronics, they
are illustrative of the parallelism now found in most design teams.
In this context therefore, should mechatronics now be considered
as being an element of the mainstream design process rather than
a separate and independent design strategy?
Following on from the above, should it be considered that the
issues previously associated with the design of mechatronic sys-
tems are now essentially those associated with the design of all
types and forms of complex, integrated systems?
3. Successes and failures
The danger in considering mechatronics from the standpoint of
the various developments presented in the previous section is that
it may come to be perceived as a continuous and continuing suc-
cess story. That is indeed far from being the case, and any review
of literature will reveal the various flaws in any such argument.
Whilst it is not the aim of this paper to go into the detailed reasons
as to why failures occur, it is possible to explore, albeit briefly, the
reasons behind some of these failures within a mechatronic, and
indeed a more general systems context.
3.1. A misunderstanding of the relationships between system
technologies, and particularly software
Engineering disciplines such as mechanical design and control
engineering have often followed an essentially separate path
whilst acknowledging a commonality of approach in certain areas.
This has led on occasion to control systems being deployed at a rel-
atively late stage in the development process to accommodate
deficiencies in the mechanical design of a system, rather than their
having been considered as a part of that system from the first
instantiation.
This problem was perhaps exaggerated or exacerbated when
the view developed in some quarters that ‘it is all software now’,
and that as changes to the software were considered as relatively
easy, changing the system was in turn easy. This then led to further
complications as the demands on software by other parts of the
system were continually changing as ‘it was simple to make the
change there’! In fact, both these approaches led to delays and
errors.
As an illustration of this type of failure, consider the case of a
flight F22 Raptors transferring from Hawaii to Okinawa in 1997
which when they crossed the International Date Line lost all navi-
gation aids. The problem was traced to a coding error which re-
sulted in an infinite loop as a consequence of the unexpected
date change. In the words of Donald Shepperd, a former head of
the US Air National Guard, ‘‘Reliance on electronics has changed
the flight-test process. It used to be tails falling off, now it’s typos that
ground a fighter.” [35,36].
3.2. Problem complexity and communications
As systems become increasingly complex, it is difficult, and of-
ten indeed impossible, for any single individual to manage all the
levels of detail required. This leads to a necessary partitioning of
832 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
Requirements
Analysis
Requirements
Test Planning
Documents
Specificatiion
Specification Test Planning
High-Level
Design
Design
Test Planning
Specification
Detailed
Design
Module
Design
Development
Phase Construction/
Coding
Output from
Phase
Fig. 6. The V-model.
function to levels at which an individual can operate. This in turn
implies that there is an understanding at the level of the ‘domain
experts’ both of their specific task and of the nature of that task
within the wider context of the overall system. Failure to achieve
this understanding can then have a significant impact on the out-
comes of the design process.
Thus, the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) was lost in 1999 when a
failure in communications between the group responsible for nav-
igation, who customarily used Newton-seconds to express thrust,
and that responsible for the propulsion system, who in contrast
used pound-seconds to express thrust, resulted in the MCO being
100 km too close to Mars when it attempted to enter orbit [37].
A further issue associated with system complexity is that of
fault detection and diagnosis. While it would normally be the case
that individual sub-systems and sub-assemblies are tested in their
own right, this is often achieved through the use of synthetic data
to represent the remainder of the system. A ‘hardware-in-the-loop’
simulation being an example of this. However, when the sub-
assemblies are connected to form the complete system, their indi-
vidual interactions can result in faults and abnormal behaviours
which are extremely difficult to detect.
3.3. An overemphasis on core disciplines
The name mechatronics by implication and usage has, as re-
ferred to earlier, become associated with the three core disciplines
of electronics, mechanical engineering and information technology
or computing. This can result in a lack of focus on issues such as
aesthetics or manufacturing technology which may ultimately
determine the success of the product or system. Any lack of a
Service
Certified
System
Certification
Verified
System
System Test
Integrated
System
System
Integration
Test Tested
Planning Modules
Module Test
Modules
broader awareness of the overall context within which the mech-
atronics approach is being deployed is therefore likely to be detri-
mental both to outcomes, and to an outsiders view of the nature of
mechatronics.
4. Design issues in mechatronics (and elsewhere)
As was suggested in the introduction, the breadth of mecha-
tronics and the range of engineering domains with which it is asso-
ciated requires that within the context of the paper a specific area
must be chosen in order to develop the discussion. As was indi-
cated earlier engineering design was chosen for this purpose as it
is believed that it presents the most complex challenges and argu-
ments relating to the future role and contribution of mechatronics.
Similar arguments could however be developed for any of the in-
stances identified in Table 1, and it must also be acknowledged
that this table is not complete or comprehensive. Some of the is-
sues presented in the following sections, as for instance the impor-
tance of establishing robust communications across a design team,
have already been introduced and the intent here is to give more
detailed consideration to specific points.
4.1. The engineering design process
As technologies expand they provide additional capacity, capa-
bility and functionality to the designer, leading to a requirement
for new and novel tools to support design thinking and integration
at all stages in the design process and the effective integration of
such tools with more function oriented design tools, as for instance
 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841 833

those associated with detailed mechanical design and analysis. Product Data Product support
Such tools aim not to simply manage the details of the design pro- Management manuals
cess, but to underpin the associated thinking by helping users with Automatic generation of
2D drawings (if wanted)
the identification of alternative solutions. This is particularly
Shopfloor
important as the various aspects and stages of the design process assembly aids
become more tightly linked, as for instance through the need to 3D
3D Thinking Computer Aided
evaluate the manufacturing process through the employment of
Engineering
Design for Manufacture and Assembly tools and methods at the
conceptual stages of design. Assembly
Figs. 7 and 8 and Table 4 illustrate some of these relationships checking
Integration with
within the context of the overall design flow. Together, these show diagnostic control and
Performance
that as the design progresses, so the tools progressively add detail checking - FEA
feedback systems
to the information passed down from the earlier stages of that Computer Aided
process. Manufacturing
Integration
In looking at this linkage, it perhaps needs to be considered that
the development of engineering design understanding is, almost by Fig. 8. 3D-CAE and business integration [84].
necessity, retrospective in that it looks at what has been done to
obtain an effective solution, and then analyses and interprets this
to arrive at best practice which can then be deployed in future de-  Mechanical Engineers think in terms of physical forms and
sign activities. There is also within engineering design a balance, as motions.
well as a conflict, between the theoreticians, who seek to under-  Electrical Engineers think in terms of signals and circuits.
stand the processes by which a successful and effective design is  Software Engineers think in terms of logic and syntax.
achieved, and the pragmatists, who are primarily concerned with
achieving effective solutions in response to identified need. As sug- However, such a simplistic division based on technology, while
gested by Fig. 9, the balance between these two different aspects of perhaps initially having some justification, has been superseded in
the design process, supported by the effective use of appropriate many, but certainly not all, instances by approaches structured, as
tools to enhance communication and understanding, perhaps has already been suggested, around methods such as concurrent
should be considered as a symbiotic process based around effective engineering which recognise such differences and put in place
information exchange. mechanisms to deal with them. Such approaches also place an
Within the context of mechatronics, such linkages can be found emphasis on ensuring effective communication not only within
in a variety of application domains ranging from manufacturing to the design team but also with prospective specifiers and users [38].
vehicle systems and domestic products, further illustrating the There however remains the need to provide effective tools to
diversity of application of the mechatronics concept. support the ability to work with, and hence to communicate, ab-
stract concepts as part of the design process. This perhaps implies
a need to provide means of ensuring an understanding across spe-
4.2. Communication cialisms through a combination of ontological forms, both linguis-
tic and symbolic, together with relevant syntactical and semantic
Referring to Fig. 10, it has often previously been suggested that: structures to support a common meaning.

Project Ideas Concept

Evaluation Detailing
Definition Generation Development

General
Project Management Continuing role throughout project
Tools
i.e. Microsoft Office

Visualisation Increasing sophistication and detail

i.e. Photoshop, Illustrator,
etc.
Interchange
Simulation
Distillation of technical i.e. MatLAB/Simulink,
information into form Dimola, 20Sim Increasing sophistication and detail of models
understandable by all
stakeholders
Interchange
CAD Tools
Develop understanding and i.e. AutoCAD, ProEngineer,
allow expression of ideas in etc. Increasing detail
appropriate forms and
language
Interchange
Analysis
i.e. Finite Element,
Workflow, etc Increasing detail

Specialist

Fig. 7. Design support tools.

834 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841

Table 4
Activities in the product development process.

Market Product development stages

Specification Concept design Detail design Manufacture
Tasks
Market analysis Develop Product Definition Generate, select and embody Detail concept Optimise design for
Statement (PDS) concept manufacture
Input
Legislation, reports, competitive products, Market analysis results PDS document Layout drawing Detailed drawing
statistics, market data
Tools/approaches
User behaviour capture tools Objectives tree Brainstorming Performance Simulation and computer
specification methods analysis
– Parametric analysis Competitive benchmarking Sketching and rendering
– Needs analysis Comparative analysis – Decision tools
– Matrix analysis Word processors – Weighted objectives tree 3D modelling Laboratory experiments
Spreadsheets – QFD Finite Element Design for manufacture
modelling
– Morphological chart Engineering analysis Process planning
2D draughting Process simulation
Information
User observations Performance of competing ‘Standard’ functions (i.e. Standard part Available manufacturing
products common mechanisms) catalogues processes and facilities
Market surveys Material databases
Forecasts and trends User specifications
Comparative analysis Manufacturer’s on- Comparative costs
line catalogues
Details on competing products Discussion
Patent database
Output
Market analysis results PDS document Layout drawing Detailed drawing Production plan

Theoretician Pragmatist
Reviews design process and Emphasis on problem solving
outcomes Selects, uses and refines
Identifies methods and methods
generates procedures Generates solutions
Establishes good practice Establishes practice
Refines theories

Fig. 9. Approaches to design.

access to relevant information, principles, exemplars and context

all support the creation of robust design concepts by acting as
stimuli for discussion [44].

4.3. Artificial intelligence and mechatronics design

Despite the availability of a wide range of tools to support de-

Fig. 10. Communications issues.
Referring specifically to concept design, this is generally under-
taken in a collaborative setting founded on and based around dis-
cussion [39–42]. Although exposure to previous solutions can in
some instances result in a fixation on a particular approach [43],
sign thinking as was suggested earlier by Fig. 7, the basic problem
of managing communications between domain specialists remains
in place. There is a specific need to support specialists from one do-
main in the early identification of potential solutions from other
domains in a way that then enables the relevant domain expert
to provide effective input. One approach to achieving this has been
through the use of a case-based reasoning approach [45,46] in
which the system guides the user towards either existing solutions,
the cases, or to the generation of outline solutions which can then
be taken to the domain expert for refinement.
Consider also the design environment of Fig. 11 in which func-
tional decomposition tools are used to support the mapping of the
decomposed system onto the relevant hardware. For instance, take
the filter hierarchy of Fig. 12. The top level of this hierarchy con-
tains information common to all filters while the progressive lower
 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841 835

ing environment such as that shown in Fig. 15 in which a factory

Design
Information
wide system, a manufacturing cell and an individual machine tool
or robot are represented. This environment may then be redrawn
in the form of the structured graph of Fig. 16 in which each level
Design Environment
is represented by a series of nodes linked by a communications
Functional Functional Implementation network. Structurally therefore, each level in the system represents
Simulation Decomposition Libraries an individual mechatronic system, with higher levels in the system
being formed from the integration of a number of lower level
systems.
Mapping to
Costing & This hierarchical structure also reflects the nature of the tasks
Simulation Hardware &
Documentation involved at each of the individual levels within the overall system.
Software
At the lowest, or device, level the emphasis is implicitly on achiev-
ing specific levels of functionality and performance. Progressing
upwards through the system, the emphasis shifts from the perfor-
mance of the individual devices, to the integration of a number of
Hardware Software Electronic Enclosure
Development Development Development Design such devices as part of a larger system. Thus there is a move away
from the detailed design and operation of these devices to the
Fig. 11. Structuring the design environment [85].
management of the information infrastructures required to
achieve overall system functionality and performance.
Such shifts are also associated with changes in the operational
levels then contain more detailed information specific to the retrie- time frame which may range from milliseconds at the lowest, or
val category. The bottom level is then the instantiation of the spe- machine, level to hours, days or weeks at the highest, human, lev-
cific filter. Each instance thus inherits information from the top els. These time shifts are also associated with changes in the nature
level ‘‘filter” along with features from the associated subclasses. of the associated information. Consider the situation of Fig. 17
This structure can be decomposed as shown in Fig. 13, estab- which illustrates the flow of procedural, the WHAT, and process
lishing the major high-level processes and their relationships. Fur- data, the HOW. Each of the layers in this system represents an inte-
ther decomposition then allows the detail of the individual grated process such as a the strategic or factory level, a manufac-
processes to be defined. The associated data dictionaries contain turing cell, an individual machine tool or robot or an individual
three elements; a Name field which specifies the flow or group of actuator or sensor. There is then a requirement for the manage-
flows to which the entry corresponds, the Form field which identi- ment of the procedural information as it flows up and down the
fies, where appropriate, the variable to be used as the information system to match the information needs at each of the process lev-
carrier for the flow and a description of the flow, provided for the els. In this model, human interaction with the system decreases
benefit of the designer and intended as purely descriptive. The user from top to bottom, the highest levels being those associated with
can then define the design requirements and application criteria strategic decision making and the lowest with the operation of
for the filter when the system will then return the best-fit cases individual devices or components.
as in Fig. 14. In the context of such systems, whether they be factories, air-
craft, vehicles, or indeed any systems based device, product or pro-
4.4. Mechatronics and systems engineering cess, is it perhaps therefore the case that the lower levels of the
hierarchy are those where the mechatronics approach has had a
A feature of many mechatronic systems is that the design per- major impact, while at the higher levels it is systems integration,
spective is inherently scalable. Consider for instance a manufactur- and hence systems engineering, that is more important?

Filter

Lowpass Highpass Band-Pass Band-Stop

Passive Active Digital

Butterworth Chebyshev1 Chebyshev2 Elliptic FIR IIR

Equiripple Least-squares Window Butterworth Chebyshev1 Chebyshev2 Elliptic

Chebyshev Kaiser Bartlett Blackman Hamming Hann Triangular

Fig. 12. Filter hierarchy, Butterworth block is shaded.

836 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841

lay User Fil

d is p te r
_a
h ._ pp
e/ te c F il
._ d
isp
p t te r
_ ty n pu _a la y
te r ._i pp
F il e ch ._ i
e/t np
_ ty p ut
te r
Select F il
Link_to_app. Select
type/tech App .
1.1 1.2
Link_to_type/
tech.
Ne
w_
ty p
e_t

New_app._to select
Ty

Ne
os
e le
pe

w_
c t( 1
/

)
te

ty
pe
ch

_t
._

o
inf

se
or

le
m

ct
at

(2
ion

)
S im u
Design late d
_ de s
User_inputs(1) ign Find
Design tools
a filter To ol_req
design
User uest
1.4
1.3
User
Design_display

De
De

s
puts

ig
De
st
st
lay

n
sig

ue

_s
ue

sig
ria_in

disp
n_

el
eq

req

ns

ec
_r
inf

fit

tio
n_

_lis
h
_
orm

n_

Design_match
rc
Crite

eria

n
s ig
a

t
sig
Se
ati

De
est

Crit

De
on
requ

User
Optimise Complete
Tool_

the design designs

1.5
Updated_
design
Simulated_design Modify
Design tools the design
1.6
Tool_request

Frequency_ New_
range frequency

User

Fig. 13. First Level Decomposition of the Filter Design System.

Fig. 14. Search results.

 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841 837

5. Mechatronics education
Factory-wide Network
Since its inception, mechatronics has, in a variety of forms and
formats, established itself internationally as a discipline within
engineering science education and there are increasing numbers
of courses worldwide carrying a mechatronics label. Such courses
cannot necessarily be considered as having significant commonal-
Manufacturing Cell ity in either approach or content other than at a basic level as they
each tend to reflect the local and national interests where the
course is being developed and implemented. Within that context,
is the very flexibility and adaptability of the mechatronics concept
working to its advantage in terms of course structures, whilst add-
ing to the diversity of perception as to what, in the widest sense,
mechatronics represents?
Actuators Sensors Whatever the context, in the development of mechatronics edu-
cation, the concern in course design has always been that achieving
Robot or Machine Tool an appropriate balance between the provision of the necessary
depth of understanding of the core technologies and disciplines
Fig. 15. A simplified manufacturing hierarchy.
with the ability to develop solutions which integrate those tech-
nologies. This may be compared to a subject based approach to
engineering science education where the emphasis is on ensuring
Factory-Wide Network
a depth of understanding within the subject area.
Each node represents a
manufacturing ce with the Is it therefore then the case that the education of a mechatron-
interconnection provided by the ics engineer should place an emphasis on the ability to work across
factory wide network
and between individual areas of technology? This is not however
to suggest that a mechatronics educated engineer is not required
have to have a depth of knowledge in specific specialist areas,
Manufacturing Cell rather that such depth is balanced by an understanding and appre-
Each node represents an individual ciation of the contributions of other areas of technology as is sug-
machine tool, robot or handling
systemn with interconnection gested by Fig. 18.
provided by the local network
Should therefore the achievement of a balanced programme of
mechatronics education be based around ensuring that individuals
are provided with sufficient depth in at least one area of technol-
ogy in order to allow them to make an effective contribution to
that area, whilst ensuring the breadth of understanding necessary
Machine Tool or Robot to give them credibility with respect to other subject specialists?
Each node represents an Consequently, is the key challenge facing mechatronics course
actuator, sensor or controller
with interconnection provided by
designers then that of ensuring that there is an appropriate balance
the machine network between depth and breadth within the course as well as providing
opportunities to enable students to practice integration?
Though mechatronics emphasises integration, it may also be
Fig. 16. Manufacturing hierarchy. perceived as encompassing a number of themes such as design,
manufacturing or automation. In relation to course development,
the choice of theme is generally dictated by a number of factors
including:
Human based

Engineering
systems

System

Overlap Mechatronics
Engineer
Procedural Information
- the WHAT

Depth

Depth

Data Translation &

Interpretation between
Process Layer Process Layers
Mechatronics
Machine based
systems

Subject Area Subject Area

Process Information
- the HOW (a) Specialist education (b) Mechatronics education
Fig. 18. Balance of technical expertise for specialist and mechatronics educated
Fig. 17. Information flows. engineers. (a) Specialist education, and (b) mechatronics education.
838 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
 The backgrounds and interests of the staff involved in teaching
the course.
 Industrial requirements, both locally and nationally.
 Student perceptions and interests.
 Availability of resources, particularly human and financial.
 Research activity.
While it is unlikely that any one of these considerations will
dominate course development to the exclusion of others, any one
of these factors may well be the defining influence for a particular
programme or course.
For instance, resource implications will often mean that teach-
ing of specialist material will require that mechatronic engineers
are incorporated as part of a larger group of subject specialists
for this purpose, with the courses then being structured to meet
the needs of the subject specialists rather than the mechatronics
students. Also, the increasing modularisation of programmes can
tend to mitigate against the ability to introduce the necessary inte-
grating material, particularly where modules are seen as having to
be complete and entire within themselves.
In light of the above challenges, how might the designers of a
mechatronics course respond? What is clear is that they are faced
with a number of questions including:
 Should a theme be chosen or should it emerge as a result of the
local expertise and enthusiasms?
 How are the integration aspects of mechatronics to be intro-
duced and managed?
 How are external requirements, as for instance the Bologna
Agreement in Europe [47,48], to be managed?
 What is the local market for graduates and is the proposed
course going to meet those requirements?
As a consequence of the above, has mechatronics suffered from
an identity crisis both within the academic community and else-
where, and is this likely to continue to be the case given the diver-
sity of approaches and emphasis that are found within the
community?
Yet there is no doubt that there is a need for graduate engineers
with the particular integration skills that are provided by a mech-
atronic education.
The key challenge facing mechatronics course designers there-
fore remains that of achieving an effective balance between the
requirement for detailed knowledge and engendering the ability
to act in an integrating role in a wide range of engineering environ-
ments. The achievement of this balance is further subject to a
whole range of pressures ranging from the rapid advance of tech-
nology to external factors impacting on course management and
design such as the moves to implement sustainable systems or in-
crease student mobility. The underlying precepts presented here
are however likely to remain as a constant for course designers
and developers.
6. Challenges
It is clear that engineering design and its mechatronic compo-
nent will need to continue to adapt to meet and respond to a range
of challenges in areas such as energy systems, transport, health
care, medicine and manufacturing. Indeed, could it be argued that
the achievement of sustainable systems in all of these, and other,
areas will depend on the ability to integrate a mechatronic ap-
proach to system design and development with corresponding
developments in areas such as materials technology which will im-
pact not only on new product concepts, but also on the way they
are made?
Such a shift in perspective will in turn cause present consider-
ations of Design for Manufacture and Assembly, which are often
in conflict with the requirements of design for disassembly or
maintenance, to be brought into question. Consider for instance
the use of snap connectors for joining components. These are easy
to assemble but can make access problematic without the destruc-
tion of the item in question.
6.1. Mechatronics and a sustainable future
In the 1987 report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common
Future, sustainable development was defined as [49]:
‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.4
This requirement to embbed sustainability within future sys-
tems in emphasised by the ratification in 2007 of the United Na-
tions and ICLEI5 TBL standard for urban and community
accounting. Similar UN standards apply to natural capital and human
capital measurement to assist in measurements required by TBL
[50–53].
Given the significance of these developments, is it implicit that
mechatronics must change and adapt itself to encompass issues of
sustainability within its conceptual remit? Assuming that this is
the case, what then are the implications for the design, develop-
ment and implementation of future mechatronic systems?
6.2. Developments in mechatronic applications
Some of the potential areas where mechatronics could poten-
tially have a major impact in relation to future applications are
suggested in the following sections.
6.2.1. Manufacturing
Mechatronics is often associated with robotics and factory sys-
tems. However, systems that move, machine and assemble are per-
haps only classifiable as such by the degree to which they
incorporate adaptability and agility within their operation? As
manufacturing systems have evolved to incorporate increasing
numbers of semi and near autonomous elements, mechatronic sys-
tems have played a role in applications such as assembly, machin-
ing, inspection, dangerous material handling and disassembly.
With the introduction of ‘manufacture on demand’ strategies,
buyers seek increased opportunities for customisation. This has
necessitated an agility of operation, often involving autonomously
reconfigurable machine tools [54] and dynamic decision making
[55] as an integral part of the process, enabling manufacturing
groupings to be created [56] in response to demand. As a conse-
quence, manufacturing cells increasingly provide a variety of job
functions on a part-by-part basis. The resulting organisational
and operational complexity has in turn been supported by the
introduction of strategies such as game theory [57] and self-orga-
nisation [58,59].
Other areas of production where mechatronic systems can be
considered to have impacted is with respect to those environments
where it is either unsafe or inconvenient for humans to work. This
includes the movement of materials [60], the handling of toxic and
radioactive materials and maintenance in heavily polluted envi-
ronments [61].
There is also an increasing move, driven in part by legislation on
waste disposal and management as well as on recycling, to in-
crease the emphasis on design for disassembly and component re-
4
Formerly the World Commission on Environment and Development and chaired
by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland.
5
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.
 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
use. Is this perhaps also an area where mechatronics will have a
growing, and significant, role to play?
6.2.2. Transport
Is this a key area where mechatronics is likely to significantly
impact on and influence design, development and operation? For
instance:
6.2.2.1. Rail. The further development of tilting trains, active sus-
pensions, driven and steered wheelsets and traction and braking
control are all likely to feature to some degree in future train sys-
tems along with enhanced drive technologies and controller strat-
egies [62]. Other potential areas of development include high-
speed trains and the use of maglev technologies [63,64].
6.2.2.2. Road transport. The move towards hybrid vehicles and the
use of fuel cell technology [65] as well as an increasing range of
on-board systems for driver assistance, safety and security and
vehicle and engine management. An example of such thinking is
the Siemens eCorner ‘smart wheels’ concept. This uses a hub motor
located inside the wheel rim together with an electronic wedge
brake whose pads are driven by electric motors. An active suspen-
sion and electronic steering replace conventional hydraulic sys-
tems, supporting advanced drive-by-wire concepts [66].
6.2.2.3. Aircraft. Aircraft, the growth of air transport and the impact
on the environment is undoubtedly one of the most contentious
areas in which mechatronics is likely to play a role. Issues include
the design of aircraft that are quieter and more fuel efficiency and
with a lower environmental impact than present aircraft [67–70].
6.2.3. Energy technologies
The deployment and use of alternative energy sources such as
wind and wave power [71,72], the introduction micro combined
heat and power (microCHP) systems [73] heat pumps and fuel cells
as well as new generations of appliances and energy management
options within the home are all going to be influenced by mecha-
tronic approaches to their design operation and control.
6.2.4. Health
Instances here include the development of enhanced and intel-
ligent prostheses for both the upper and lower limbs [74–77], the
introduction of systems to support the rehabilitation of a range of
medical and clinical conditions [78,79], the provision of new surgi-
cal methods and techniques involving the deployment of robotic
systems and telecare, telemedicine and telehealth strategies based
on the introduction and deployment of enhanced sensors, net-
working and data analysis [80]. In each of these and related areas,
is the deployment of a mechatronic approach is likely to be key in
achieving robust, reliable and effective systems?
6.2.5. Materials
The choice of materials is becoming increasingly important in
relation to the design and operation of systems of all types, as for
instance in the increased use of composite materials in vehicles
such as cars and aircraft as well as in consumer products. The pro-
vision of new types of materials has itself made it possible to de-
velop these products in a way which supports the general
mechatronic concepts of integration at the systems level [81–83].
This includes technologies such as smart fabrics which can incor-
porate a sensing function for health related issues such as monitor-
ing people working in hazardous environments such as those
involving high ambient temperatures.
839
6.3. Potential for technological impact
Developments in technology are going to continue to drive
changes within the design process and to impact upon the design
process. For instance, the development of low cost network sensors
creates opportunities to develop new approaches to information
collection and management and the increasing availability of
MEMS devices is likely to force a radical rethink of the approach
to many areas of application, supporting the integration of mea-
surement and data processing throughout the system.
Many of these system components will incorporate significant
processing power in their own right, opening up the opportunity
to create not only a distributed sensor network, but of using those
same sensors as part of a distributed and parallel processing array.
It is not therefore inconceivable to envision a system such as a
vehicle relying on such a distributed array to manage all its on-
board functions, with the added benefit of multiple redundancy
in case of a failure of component part.
Developments in materials and actuators are also going to im-
pact on the approach to the design of a wide range of systems.
For instance, neural interface chips such as those being developed
at the University of Utah and elsewhere could support the design,
development and implementation of a new range of prosthesis by
allowing a level of connectivity between the original nerve bundle
and the prosthetic to be re-established. This brings with it the
prospect of providing neural feedback on the position and behav-
iour of the prosthetic limb, perhaps even restoring an element of
proprioception and kinesthesia to limb movement.
7. Discussion
In the introduction it was stated that the key aim of the paper
was to raise questions as to the current and future direction and
status of mechatronics as an engineering discipline, or perhaps a
design philosophy structured around integration. Or indeed if
some other direction or directions of development are likely or
appropriate. In this context, it is perhaps possible to reduce the dis-
cussion of the previous sections to the key question ‘‘Does mecha-
tronics still remain significantly different when compared to other
approaches to system integration?”
While it is the intent of the author that each reader formulates
their own response to this and the other questions and issues
raised, there are a number of comments that might perhaps be
made in support of the discussion that it is hoped to engender.
For instance, while it is possibly the case that mechatronics has
to a significant degree been integrated with and incorporated with-
in mainstream engineering design methods and strategies, is this
because other areas of engineering design have learnt about inte-
gration from mechatronics as part of the natural transfer that takes
between design practice and design theory and vice versa?
Further, when mechatronics was first suggested, was it repre-
sentative of a wider shift in thinking about systems and integration
with in the overall engineering design process that was taking
place around that time, as expressed by the emergence of the pre-
cepts of concurrent engineering? When combined with such new
and different ways of thinking about the management and organi-
sation of the design process, and supported by an evolving techni-
cal capability, this has led over the last 40 years to the
development and implementation of a wide range and variety of
products and systems which have technical integration at their
core. Having thus initially been driven by a realisation that changes
in technology required a shift in thinking about product design and
development, does mechatronics still retain that ability to bring to-
gether the best from a wide range of domains, and not exclusively
technical domains, to create further systems?
840 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
Is therefore the case for the future of mechatronics that it rep-
resents a continuing coming together of the ways in which com-
plex and integrated systems are conceived and envisioned and
implemented? As a consequence, have members of the mechatron-
ics community simply to live with the name, despite the fact that
the original motivation for its construction has perhaps long since
gone?!
8. Conclusions
The past 40 years have seen significant changes in the capacity
and capability of the technologies around which mechatronics was
initially structured, conceived and developed. In this same period,
new tools, technologies and techniques have been put in place to
support the design and development of a wide range of often
increasingly complex engineering systems. The period has also
seen a growth in the range of activities and disciplines encom-
passed by the mechatronics banner. The premise on which the pa-
per is based is therefore that of a need to revisit the mechatronics
concept, not with the aim of redefining this, if indeed this were
possible without over-constraining activity, but of repositioning
it in line with the various technical and organisational threads with
it could, or should, be associated with over the next 40 years.
The issues for debate arising from the paper are not therefore
whether mechatronics has made a significant contribution to the
design, development and implementation of a wide range of engi-
neering systems but how the concepts and structures which have
underpinned the 40 years of development since the mechatronics
was put in place are to change and evolve to accommodate current
and future developments. These issues are the underlying consid-
erations and concerns in putting forward the background, argu-
ments and questions embedded throughout the paper.
Having been involved in mechatronics for some 25 years, the
paper reflects an ongoing personal debate regarding issues such
as achieving sustainability through mechatronics and its evolution
to encompass developments in technology, as for instance associ-
ated with MEMS technology. Unfortunately, this personal debate
has not resulted in a specific outcome other than a belief that it
is increasingly necessary for the wider mechatronics community
to recognise these issues.
Acknowledgements
The above represents a highly personal view resulting from
more than 20 years of working in the field of mechatronics. The
development of the underpinning arguments would not however
have been possible without the involvement, in some cases over
many years, of colleagues, research associates and research stu-
dents. These include, but not exclusively, in no particular order
and with apologies to those who space precludes me from men-
tioning; Michael French, David Dawson, Derek Seward, Tony Dorey,
Bill Scarfe, John Millbank, Nouredine Bouguechal, Stephen Harris,
Allan Parker, Andrew Wodehouse, Camilo Acosta-Marquez, Samir
el-Nakla, Simon Brownsell, Sa’ad Mansoor, Jacob Buur, Myrup
Andreasen, Lars Hein, Glen Bright, Dave King, Capel Aris, Glynn
Jones, Roger White, Gareth Williams, Dewi Jones, Richard Walters,
Rob Bracewell, Mark Hawley, Sue Mawson, Pam Enderby and David
Russell plus various assorted masters students, members of the
Mechatronic Forum in the UK and friends and colleagues else-
where throughout the world.
References
[1] Bradley DA. Mechatronics – an established discipline or a concept in need of
direction? In: Mechatronics2000, Atlanta (CDRom only); 2000.
[2] //mechatronics.colostate.edu/definitions.html (accessed 20.01.10).
[3] Tomizuka M. Mechatronics: from the 20th to 21st century. Control Eng Pract
2002;10(8):877–86.
[4] Harashima F, Tomizuka M, Fukuda T. Mechatronics – what is it, why, and how?
IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 1996;1:1–4.
[5] Kyura N, Oho H. Mechatronics – an industrial perspective. IEEE/ASME Trans
Mech 1996;1:10–5.
[6] Kenjo T, Lorriman J. Creating a new paradigm – mechatronics and future
challenges, IET; 2009. <kn.theiet.org/magazine/rateit/control/mechatronics.
cfm> (accessed 1.02.10).
[7] Brown A. Who owns mechatronics. Mechanical engineering, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, June; 2008. <www.memagazine.org/contents/
current/features/whoowns/whoowns.html> (accessed 03.02.10).
[8] Brooks J. Dreadnought gunnery and the battle of Jutland – the question of fire
control. Routledge; 2005.
[9] King AD. Inertial navigation – forty years of evolution. GEC Rev 1998;13(3):
140–9.
[10] //biomech.media.mit.edu/publications/publications.htm (accessed 24.06.10).
[11] http://www.ric.org/research/centers/smpp/labs/biomechdev/Biomechatronics.aspx/
(accessed 24.06.10).
[12] //bss.ewi.utwente.nl/research/biomechatronics/index.html/ (accessed 24.06.10).
[13] www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=4479 (accessed 24.06.10).
[14] www.mems-exchange.org/MEMS/what-is.html (accessed 24.06.10).
[15] Scarfe WR. Flight systems engineering. British aerospace, personal
communication.
[16] www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Part1.html (accessed 02.02.10).
[17] Habib MK. Interdisciplinary mechatronics engineering and science. problem-
solving, creative-thinking and concurrent design synergy. Int J Mechatron
Manufact Syst 2008;1(1):4–22.
[18] Allen RG. Mechatronics engineering: a critical need for this interdisciplinary
approach to engineering education. In: Proc IJME – INTERTECH conf, paper
ENG 205-085; 2006.
[19] Millbank J. Mecha-what? Mechatronics forum newsletter, Summer; 1993.
[20] Crossing MooreG. Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling high-tech
products to mainstream customers. New York: HarperCollins; 1991.
[21] Rogers E. Diffusion of innovation. The Free Press; 1995.
[22] Thrun S et al. In: Buehler M, Iagnemma K, Singh S, editors. Stanley: the Robot
that won the DARPA grand challenge, the 2005 DARPA grand
challenge. Springer; 2006.
[23] Isermann R. Mechatronic systems – innovative products with embedded
control. Control Eng Pract 2008;16(1):14–29.
[24] www.sunspotworld.com (accessed 24.08.10).
[25] Bradley DA. The what, why and how of mechatronics. IEE J Sci Educ
1997;6(2):81–8.
[26] Craig K. Is anything really new in mechatronics education? IEEE Robot Autom
Mag 2001;8(2):12–9.
[27] Bradley DA. What is mechatronics and why teach it? Int J Electr Eng Educ
2004;41(4):275–91.
[28] Siegwart R. Grasping the interdisciplinarity of mechatronics. IEEE Robot
Autom Mag 2001;8(2):27–34.
[29] Doppelt Y. Assessment of project-based learning in a mechatronics context. J
Technol Educ 2005; 16(2). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.145.3330&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 24.08.10).
[30] French MJ. Conceptual design for engineers. Springer-Verlag; 1998.
[31] <http://www.iabg.de/presse/aktuelles/mitteilungen/200409_V-Model_XT_en.php>
(accessed 24.08.10).
[32] Coughlin JF. Not your father’s auto industry? Aging, the automobile, and the
drive for product innovation. Generations 2004;28(4):38–44.
[33] Hitchcock DR, Lockyer S, Cook S, Quigley C. Third age usability and safety – an
ergonomics contribution to design. Int J Human–Comput Stud 2001;55(4):
635–43.
[34] Styhre A, Backman M, Börjesson S. YCC: a gendered carnival? Project work at
Volvo Cars. Women Manage Rev 2005;20(2):96–106.
[35] http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-the-
international-date-line-03087/ (accessed 02.02.10).
[36] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626359.900-the-doh-of-technology.
html?page=2 (accessed 02.02.10).
[37] http://www.in.tum.de/~huckle/bugse.html (accessed 20.01.10).
[38] Wodehouse A, Bradley DA. Gaming techniques and the product
development process: commonalities & cross applications. J Des Res
2006;5(2):155–71.
[39] Cross N. Engineering design methods, strategies for product design. John Wiley
& Sons; 1994.
[40] Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design, a systematic approach. Springer;
1995.
[41] Pugh S. Total design. Addison-Wesley; 1991.
[42] Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD. Product design and development. McGraw-Hill;
1995.
[43] Smith SM, Kohn NW, Shah J. What you see is what you get: effects of
provocative stimuli in creative invention. In: NSF int workshop on studying
design creativity, Provence; 2008.
[44] Benami O, Jin Y. Creative stimulation in conceptual design. In: Joint ASME 2002
design engineering technical conference & computer and information in
engineering conference, Montreal; 2002.
[45] El-Nakla S, Bradley DA. Case-based reasoning and conflict resolution in
support of the design of mechatronic systems. In: 9th Mechatronics forum
conference; 2004. p. 123–30.
 D. Bradley / Mechatronics 20 (2010) 827–841
[46] El-Nakla S, Bradley DA. Case-based reasoning in the design of mechatronic
systems. In: 11th Mechatronics forum conference, electronic publication;
2008.
[47] http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/EHEA2010/BolognaPedestrians_en.
asp#P132_13851 (accessed 03.02.10).
[48] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_process (reviewed 03.02.10).
[49] Bruntland G. Our common future: the world commission on environment and
development. Oxford University Press; 1987 (<http://www.anped.org/media/
brundtland-pdf.pdf>) (accessed 24.08.10).
[50] Elkington J. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century
business, Capstone; 1999.
[51] Elkington J. Towards the sustainable corporation: win–win–win business
strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manage Rev 1994;36(2):90–100.
[52] Brown D, Dillard J, Marshall RS. Triple bottom line: a business metaphor for a
social construct. Portland State University, School of Business Administration;
2006. http://www.recercat.net/bitstream/2072/2223/1/UABDT06-2.pdf
(accessed 24.06.10).
[53] http://www.goethe.de/ges/umw/dos/nac/den/en3106180.htm (accessed 24.06.10).
[54] Bi ZM, Lang SYT, Shen W, Wang L. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: the
state of the art. Int J Prod Res 2008;46(4):967–92.
[55] Shu-Hsien Liao. Expert system methodologies and applications – a decade
review from 1995 to 2004. Expert Syst Appl 2005;28(1):93–103.
[56] Katz R. Design principles in reconfigurable machines. Int J Adv Manufact
Technol 2007;34:430–9.
[57] Qiu R, McDonnel P, Joshi S, Russell DW. A heuristic game theoretic approach to
resource sharing in reconfigurable manufacturing. Int J Adv Manufact Technol
2005;25(1–2):78–87.
[58] Rao A, Gu P. Expert self-organizing neural network for the design of cellular
manufacturing systems. J Manufact Syst 1994;13(5):346–59.
[59] Kubota N, Fukoda T. Structured intelligence for self-organizing manufacturing
systems. J Intell Manufact 1999;10(2):121–33.
[60] Durrant-Whyte HF. An autonomous guided vehicle for cargo handling
applications. Int J Robot Res 1996;15(5):407–40.
[61] Micire MJ. Evolution and field performance of a rescue robot. Int J Field Robot;
2008. robotics.cs.uml.edu/fileadmin/content/publications/2008/jfrExample.
pdf (accessed 3.02.10).
[62] Goodall RM, Kortüm W. Mechatronic developments for railway vehicles of the
future. Control Eng Pract 2002;10(8):887–98.
[63] Hyung-Woo Lee, Ki-Chan Kim, Ju Lee. Review of maglev train technologies.
IEEE Trans Magn 2006;42(7):1917–25.
[64] Vuchic VR, Casello JM. An evaluation of maglev technology and its comparison
with high speed rail. Transport Quart 2002;56(2):3–9.
[65] Emadi A, Rajashekara K, Williamson SS, Lukic SM. Topological overview of
hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power system architectures and
configurations. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2005;54(3):763–70.
841
[66] fp.is.siemens.de/traffic/en/news/itsmagazine/html/0702/pdf/artikel/englisch/
Drive-by-wire_e.pdf (accessed 3.02.10).
[67] Green JE. Future aircraft – greener by design? Meteorol Z 2005;14(4):
583–90.
[68] Åkerman JA. Sustainable air transport – on track in 2050. Transport Res Part D:
Transport Environ 2005;10(2):111–26.
[69] Thomas C, Raper D. Sustainable mobility and the air transport industry –
comments on the European commission’s views. Air Space Eur 2000;2(3):
13–6.
[70] Daviss B. Green sky thinking. New Sci 2007;193(2592):32–8.
[71] Ackermann T. Wind power in power systems. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
[72] Clément A et al. Wave energy in Europe: current status and perspectives.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6(5):405–31.
[73] Peacock AD, Newborough M. Impact of micro-combined heat-and-power
systems on energy flows in the UK electricity supply industry. Energy
2006;31(12):1804–18.
[74] Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb
prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2(6):346–57.
[75] Ohnishi K, Weir RF, Kuiken TA. Neural machine interfaces for controlling
multifunctional powered upper-limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Dev
2007;4(1):43–53.
[76] Bonato P. Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical
medicine and rehabilitation. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2005;2(2). doi:10.1186/1743-
0003-2-2 (accessed 24.08.10).
[77] Sup F, Varol HA, Mitchell J, Withrow TJ, Goldfarb M. Self-contained powered
knee and ankle prosthesis. In: 11th Intl conf on rehabilitation robotics, ICORR
2009, paper 0024; 2009.
[78] Riener R, Nef T, Colombo G. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper
extremities. Med Biol Eng Comput 2005;43(1):2–10.
[79] Ball SJ, Brown IE, Scott SH. MEDARM: a rehabilitation robot with 5DOF at the
shoulder complex. In: IEEE/ASME intl conf adv intell mech; 2007. doi:10.1109/
AIM.2007.4412446 (accessed 24.08.10).
[80] Wootton R, Dimmick SL, Kvedar JC, editors. Home telehealth: connecting care
with the community. Royal Society of Medicine; 2006.
[81] Ashby MF, Bréchet YJM, Cebon D, Salvo L. Selection strategies for materials and
processes. Mater Design 2004;25(1):51–67.
[82] Sapuan SM. A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical
engineering design. Mater Design 2001;22(8):687–95.
[83] http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces/ (accessed 3.02.10).
[84] Dawson D. Personal communication; 2009.
[85] Walters R, Bradley DA, Dorey AP. A computer based tool to support
electronics design in a mechatronic environment. In: Mechatronics’98,
Skövde; 1998.
[86] http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/apollo/public/
visual3.htm (accessed 2.02.10).