Evaluating the Future of Robotics - Essay Example

Evaluating the future of robotics Name Institution Course Instructor Date Evaluating the future of robotics Introduction According to Diehl, et al. (2012, p. 249), the rate at which technology is advancing is something to reckon today. It is true when it comes to robotics, a new branch of science that deals with the study and construction of robots. Robots have been proven useful in many industries such as manufacturing, processing, construction, and exploration, among others to perform duties that are dangerous or rather impossible to the normal human beings. There are continuing researches on constructing robots that can fit into the normal society and perform normal duties just like human beings. This paper seeks to present a report that evaluates the future of robotics based on existing researches on robotic technology. It will achieve its objectives by evaluating the future of robotics based on the benefits and limitations of robotics to individuals, organizations and governments, reflecting on the future of robotics and providing recommendations on the effective and efficient adoption of robotic technology by individuals, organizations and governments. Contextual evaluation Benefits and limitation of robotics to individuals In recent research findings, robotics was displayed as an indispensable technology when it comes to healthcare systems (Diehl, et al., 2012, p. 255). It is due to the numerous applications of the robotic technology in the medical field, whereby; they do not only aid patients to overcome suffering and recover from different ailments, but also aid the medical practitioners in giving quality health care services to the patients for effective treatment. For instance, robotic technology was used in life support machines to provide standardized conditions for the effective recovery of the patient. Some of the recognized benefits include aiding patients with chronic stroke-associated Hemiparesis to perform bimanual tasks that require both hands, providing precision in surgical operations and rehabilitating old age or physically-disabled individuals, transporting medical supplies to nurses and doctors, increasing the access to quality health care and increasing the number of medical practitioners (Lum, et al., 2002, p. 40). Also, they helped in increasing social interaction of individuals thereby reducing stress, improving social and communication skills in children and coaching individuals on the essence of healthy lifestyles and exercise. There are several limitations that accompanied the use of robotic technology by individuals. In many western countries, the controversy that surrounded the adoption of robotics for individual use revolved around the sustainability of robots in a physical environment (non-technical-environment), the assuarity of patient safety due to the use of robotics, negative public perception on the use of robotics, cost-effectiveness of using robots in the performance of different tasks and ethical issues such as the privacy of patients when using robotic technology (Ng, 2013, p. 200). In the context of safety assurance, it may be hard for patients to control robotic technologies. It consequently puts the patients in more danger than their state of suffering. Ethically, the use of robotics in the social context was attributed to increased state of desolation, loss of human dignity, infantalisation of the individuals and reduced privacy, among other aspects. The use of robotic technology was attributed to loss of jobs in Europe and the U.S, whereby, they replaced the human workforce in various aspects including effectiveness, efficiency, precision, supervision, availability, reliability, sustainability and affordability (Mutlu & Forlizzi, 2008, p. 293),. Finally, the research findings established that the commercial production of robots for individual use may not be cost-effective. It is because; the production of robotics requires highly sophisticated technology and expensive raw materials. The two aspects increase the cost of producing costs. Benefits and limitation of robotics for organizations The advances in technology require both business and non-business organizations to adopt effective and efficient means of delivering quality services. That is why several benefits were realized from the use of robotics in the U.S organizations. In a recent scientific research report, robotic application in organizations was shown as an opportunity for creating jobs (Bajcsy, 2014, p. 42). It is based on the fact that the production of highly sophisticated technology such as robots requires highly trained and professional individuals. In this context, robot manufacturing industries had to employee many people to aid in the robotics research, construction and servicing processes, programming of robots to perform various tasks, supervision and control of robots and monitoring of robotic activities. According to the 2007-2008 survey, it was prospected that the robotic technology can be a major creator of job opportunities in the near future due to the advancement of technology and the increase in need of highly sophisticated, efficient and reliable robots. Another notable benefit of robotics to organizations involved establishment of job efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In the context of cost-effectiveness, robots were shown to perform absolutely all kinds of tasks previously performed by human labour (Zorn, et al., 2009, p. 1126). Additionally, few robots were used to perform tasks that required many employees. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the robots performed tasks faster than human workforce thereby promoting high organizational productivity, consistency and reliability. Robotic technology had several limitations in its application in organizations. Some of the notable limitations included loss of jobs, low quality of products, and promotion of laziness and shortfall of skills. The use of robots in China for production of cars and other mechanical devices contributed to the downfall in demand of human labour. It is based on the fact that few robots replaced the majority of employees whom the companies claimed were expensive to maintain (Mutlu & Forlizzi, 2008, p. 289). Additionally, when robots were first introduced in Japan car manufacturing industries, there was a significant increase in the number of cars produced per day. It meant that the companies were able to meet the rising demand of cars. However, the consumers complained on the poor quality of the cars that were produced by robotic technology. Most of the robot-made cars suffered frequently from mechanical breakdown compared to the previous human-made cars. Finally, robotic technology was attributed to the increased state of employee laziness in the industries. It is because; employees rely on robots to perform all the work. Moreover, robotics technology limits human manpower from advancing skills on the false pretext that robots are able to perform all tasks. Based on this evidence, organizations were portrayed by the research findings to be at the determinant of robotic technology adoption in the world. Benefits and limitation of robotics for governments According to the research studies, there are many benefits that were realized by the world governments, especially developed countries due to the use of robotics technology. Many adopted robotics as a military strategy and as an advanced system of protecting their borders. However, few governments adopted robotics to provide rescue in times of emergency. As a military strategy, research findings revealed that many governments invested in the robotic technology to design robots that can replace soldiers in combat missions (Fagin & Merkle, 2003, p. 310). It is because; robots were shown to be less vulnerable to injuries like humans and better mission executioners because they lacked deterrents such as feelings and disturbing thoughts (Sun, Zhuang & Giles, 2007, p. 1124). Moreover, military robots were operational in all kinds of environment even those dangerous to human soldiers such as mine fields. As a means of protecting borders, governments designed robots to protect buildings, industries and secret facilities, among other premises from intruders. For instance, the U.S designed the drones, an example of advanced robotic technology to aid in military espionage and covert affairs. Finally, governments used the robotic technology to aid in rescue missions that are even dangerous to human rescuers such as victims in collapsed buildings. It was evident on 11 September 2001 bombing of the World Trade Centre in the U.S., whereby, robots were deployed to retrieve trapped victims and dead bodies. The adoption of robots by the government had various negative implications such as misuse of the robotic technology and increased public concerns on the military use of robotics. The prospected misuse of the robotic technology by malicious individual has prevented many governments from adopting the robotic technology (Bajcsy, 2014, p. 42). Robotic engineers revealed that such individuals can be members of the government who have access to the governments’ robotic technology. By programming the robots differently, the individuals are able to control the robot to perform malicious acts such domestic and foreign terrorism. Also, several issues arose in the military adoption of the robotic energy. The main issues included the state of legal affairs and the unpredictability of the robotic technology. The legal affairs question the reliability of the robotic soldiers as opposed to human soldiers. Whereby, robots might fail to have a human consideration in the battlefield. In the context of unpredictability, the U.S government reinstated that the military performance of robotic technology is still unpredictable because robots rely on programs which can fail at times (Fagin & Merkle, 2003, p. 309). To an extent, robotic technology offers government resolution to security, surveillance and covert affairs, but it is also fraught with several negative effects. Personal reflection on the future of robotics After reading, analyzing and contextualizing the existing literature on the future of robotics, I concluded that there are still various issues that are not yet clear concerning the adoption of robotic technology. However, the studies revealed that robotic technology is the future of the coming technology world. It is based on the high rate of technology advancements in robotics. I realized that human beings are ready to embrace the new technology based on various advantages of robotics on the individual, organizational and governmental levels. For instance, on the individual level, the medical practitioners were eager in adopting the technology due to its numerous uses in tele-medicine, aiding patients and aiding health care givers, among other uses (Lum, et al., 2002, p. 45). The success of the robotic technologies models used in the U.S and Japan increased the eagerness of many medical facilities around the world in adopting the robotic technology. The research findings predicted that the robotic technology is helpful in medical procedures such as surgery and out-patient care among other advantages. Organizationally, I was shown by researchers that robotic technology was capable of executing tasks that are currently beyond the ability of any man. It was supported by the use of robotics in the exploration of the space by organizations such as NASA (Sun, Zhuang & Giles, 2007, p. 1123). Therefore, robotic technology proved indispensable when it came to the adverse conditions of the earth and the space that are dangerous to survivability of the human workforce. I came to understand that the robotic technology is important in organizations because it saves costs incurred on hiring many employees. It is because; a given organization only required few robots to perform tasks that needed massive human workforce. Moreover, the robotic technology was reliable, efficient and highly productive compared to human labour. Governmentally, I noted that robotic technology defines the military supremacy of a given country. That is why many governments around the world are hurrying to adopt the most advanced robotic technology which can be used as a military weapon aimed at replacing the human soldiers, as espionage and covert affairs instruments and as protectors of borders (Maniar, et al., 2005, p. 26). From this evidence, I was contended that the world has technological gap that it is striving to fill with the robotic technology. However, I realized that as the world struggles to adopt this sophisticated technology, there were many implications associated with the short-term and long-term use of the robotic technology. The short-term implications included massive loss of jobs due to the replacement of human workforce with robots, lack of sustainability and reliability, promotion of laziness, lack of safety and privacy, inflexibility of the robotic technology and high costs incurred in the maintenance of the robotic technology (Sun, Zhuang & Giles, 2007, p. 1124). The long-term implications included use of robotic technology for criminal activities and lack of imperative research to reinstate the safety and future applications of the robotic technology. Thereafter, I understood that the benefits of the robotic technology are mulled with implications. However, the need to adopt robotic technology seems to have outweighed the prospected implications. The robotic scientists must proceed with caution to prevent negative implications of robotic energy. That is why I decided to propose recommendations on the individual, organizational and governmental adoptions of the robotic technology. Recommendations on the individual preparation for the future of robotics Researches recommend various aspects that modern scientists need to put into consideration in the production and application of robotic technology on an individual level. To the designers and constructors of robotic technology, there are several issues that must be addressed. For instance, the robotic industries must produce robotic technology that guarantees the safety of the patients (Ng, 2013, p. 201). This means that the future robotic technology must be able to carefully assess the abilities or rather inabilities of a given patient and provide the required assistance. Also, the robotic technology needs to fit the preferences of a given user. It is because; individuals accused the robotic technology of lacking flexibility such that it only operated well in technical environment. In the future design of robots, the designers must ensure that the robots operate in both technical and non-technical environments. Moreover, autonomy must be avoided to ensure that the robotic technology fits different preferences of the consumers (Mutlu & Forlizzi, 2008, p. 294). The same applies to the robotic technology used in coaching and exercising. This type of robotic technology must be personalized, highly intelligent and socially interactive. It is because; the coaching process is an inductive undertaking that requires mutual engagement and participation for successful outcomes. Still on the designers and constructors, they must consider the sustainability and reliability of the robotic technology (Lum, et al., 2002, p. 42). The robotic technology must be reliable in all conditions and environments that it was built to work in. This recommendation is based on the fact that many robotic technologies in the recent past have experienced mechanical breakdowns in the midst of executing a given task. It proved that they are not reliable as earlier prospected by scientists. On the same note, the robotic technology is far too expensive for many people to afford individually. Therefore, the future of robotic technology demands scientists to build robots that are easy to maintain especially in non-technical environments (Zorn, et al., 2009, p. 1127). Ethically, the robotic technology designers should produce robotic technological innovations that do not contribute to solitude, social seclusion, loss of dignity and infantalisation of old age individuals among other negative societal implications. Finally, the designers must ensure that the robotic technology upholds individual privacy. To the individuals, the current robotic technologies are implicated to be expensive and unreliable (Bajcsy, 2014, p. 42). Therefore, individuals, such as medical practitioners, must assess the affordability, safety, reliability, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of adopting robotic technology in any medical institution. The same applies to other individuals in different environments. Moreover, the robotic technology should not lead to massive loss of jobs as seen in the developed countries. This means that when adopting any technology, individuals must first weigh the positive implication and the negative implications of that particular technology. Recommendations on the organization preparation for future of robotics According to Mutlu & Forlizzi (2008, p. 287), organizations recorded the highest implications on the use of robotic technology. Therefore, the recommendations outlined at the organizational level must be taken seriously by the robot designers. The design of the robotic technology must consider the several factors such as preservation of workflow, establishment of environmental sustainability and promotion of social interaction in a given organization. To ensure the success of the above named factors, the adoption of the robotic technology must create new jobs rather than lead to loss of jobs (Sun, Zhuang & Giles, 2007, p. 1123). This task is challenging based on the fact that the adoption of robotic technology was attributed the consequent loss of employment due to the replacement of human labour with robotic technology. To curb this consequence, the robotic technology must be personalized to help the employees in executing their task effectively, efficiently and productively. Also, the robotic technology designers must ensure that the robots engage the employees in the organizational environment to reduce the reported laziness. The same applies to the shortfall of skills that was associated with organizational adoption of robotic technology. In this regard, the design of the robotic technology must not only engage the employees as discussed above, but also it must promote learning of new skills and knowledge. In a nutshell, the technology must be designed in a way that encourages people to learn new skills by helping employees to complete their tasks rather than executing the employees’ tasks completely (Mutlu & Forlizzi, 2008, p. 293). To the organizations, they must assess the quality of products, cost-effectiveness, reliability and sustainability of the robotic technology. The organizations must put more emphasis on the aspect of product quality. Whereby, many customers complained about the low quality of robotic-manufactured products compared to the human-manufactured products. They should not aim for productivity without ensuring that the adopted robotic technology produces quality products. On the same note, the organizations must assess the legality of a given robotic technology before incorporating it into the business environment. This precaution is intended to ensure that the organization abides by the legal requirements that govern adoption of any robotic technology, to reassure the safety of the employees and to ensure the safety of the environment (Bajcsy, 2014, p. 43). Additionally, the organizations must ensure that the robotic technology is reliable (befits its intended purpose). This implies that for a given robotic technology to be adopted by a given organization, it must outperform the current human workforce. Finally, the organizations need to ensure that the adopted robotic technology is within the financial affordability of the organization (cost-effective). Recommendations on the government policy implication for future of robotics The rate at which the world governments are adopting and using robotic technology requires monitoring through the implementation of robotic technology policies (Maniar, et al., 2005, p. 27). In this regard, the policies must allow every world government to explore its interest in the robotic technology, but at the same time ensure that the process is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the policies. This means that the world must form a robotic technology oversight committee that formulates the policies and implements them fairly and squarely with no exceptions. By doing so, the committee can transform the country-based ‘hard laws’ that imposes restriction on adoption of the robotic technology to the global-based ‘soft-laws’ that encourage the adoption of the robotic technology but under close scrutiny. In this regard, the ‘soft-laws’ act as guiding procedures in the safe adoption and utilization of robotic technology by different world governments. Also, the world governments need to come up with protocols that govern the exchange of robotic technology between different countries (Bajcsy, 2014, p. 43). These protocols ensure that the trade is conducted transparently and in a mutually beneficial manner. Additionally, the world governments must hold annual conferences to discuss the prevailing status of the world robotic technology and assess the future implications of such undertakings. Such conferences allow exchange of ideas and resolution of problems surrounding the adoption and advancement of robotic technology. Additionally, they ensure that the world is prepared to tackle any negative crisis that can arise due to the use of robotic technology (Zorn, et al., 2009, p. 1131). In conclusion, it is clear that the constant interaction and sharing of information on robotic technology trends by the world governments establishes peace and eliminates the threats of another world war. Conclusion In conclusion, the paper presented a report on the researches conducted on the implications of robotics. It achieved its objectives by evaluating the future of robotics based on the benefits and limitations of robotics to individuals, organizations and governments. Additionally, the paper presented a personal reflection on the on the future of robotic technology. The reflection revealed that the world was ready to adopt the robotic technology despite the negative implications associated with it. However, from the reflection and the evident negative implications of the robotic technology, the paper proposed strategic recommendations that must be considered by the identified levels in the adoption and utilization of the robotic technology. Therefore, the report revealed that robotic technology is an emerging technological trend which defines the future of the current world. References Bajcsy, R 2014, ‘Robots Are Coming,’ Communications of the ACM, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 42-43. Diehl, JJ, Schmitt, LM, Villano, M & Crowell, CR 2012, ‘The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review,’ Research in autism spectrum disorders, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 249-262. Fagin, B & Merkle, L 2003, ‘Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science,’ In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 307-311. Lum, P, Reinkensmeyer, D, Mahoney, R, Rymer, WZ & Burgar, C 2002, ‘Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: current status and challenges to clinical acceptance,’ Topics in stroke rehabilitation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 40-53. Maniar, HS, Council, ML, Prasad, SM, Prasad, SM, Chu, C & Damiano Jr, RJ, 2005, ‘Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: implications on training and adoption,’ Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 23-29. Mutlu, B & Forlizzi, J 2008, ‘Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction,’ In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on, pp. 287-294. Ng, J 2013, ‘Robotics in Endometrial Cancer Care,’ Robotics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 198-202. Sun, Y, Zhuang, Z & Giles, CL 2007, ‘A large-scale study of robots,’ In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1123-1124. Zorn, KC, Gautam, G, Shalhav, AL, Clayman, RV, Ahlering, TE, Albala, DM & Joseph, JV 2009, ‘Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons,’ The Journal of urology, vol. 182, no. 3, pp. 1126-1132. Read More