G5 use analysis: Difference between revisions

From Control Systems Technology Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In this analysis we will first sketch the ideal operation of the robot: its functionality and deployment. Then we will analyse the effects and implications of the robot for each of the following stakeholders: Municipalities, citizens and people working in the public maintenance sector, society as a whole, enterprises specializing in maintenance.  
USE analysis
 
(WIP: italic text requires research)
 
In this analysis we will first sketch the ideal operation of the robot: its functionality and deployment. Then we will analyse the effects and implications of the robot for each of the following stakeholders: Farmers, consumers, governments, society.


Functionality and deployment
Functionality and deployment
The robot operates on sidewalks, which it keeps clean and safe. It picks up litter, removes weeds and leafs, clears snow or ice and cleans the tiles. It operates only on sidewalks and avoids any objects or humans or animals on the sidewalk. It charges at a charging station, located somewhere in the vicinity, and will charge when necessary. It operates 24/7, independent of the weather. It does not require human interaction to operate after initial installation, and possible maintenance, however it can call for a human to come and assess the situation in case something is hindering it or its operation. It communicates with a server about its status and the tasks it has and is performing.  
The robot operates exclusively on farm fields (potentially in a greenhouse). It removes weeds from in between the crop, without damaging the crop and without using pesticides. Potentially multiple robots work together on the same field.


Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Municipalities:
Farmers:
For municipalities the robot is a cheaper, more efficient and reliable way to maintain the sidewalks at all time. It reduces the overhead of delegating and managing workers by operating fully autonomously, increasing the productivity of the municipalities as well.
First of all, farmers will no longer have to purchase pesticides, but will have to buy and maintain the robot. While the upfront cost of a (set of) robot(s) might be bigger than the cost of pesticides, the maintenance cost will be lower and hence will be more cost effective in the long run.
The robot allows municipalities to allocate resources, including workers and money, to more important matters, for example doing groceries for elderly people, or helping them in other ways, seeing as there is a lack of such workers due to the aging of society.  
Without the use of pesticides, farmers will no longer have to worry about any of the negative effects of the pesticides and hence will never suffer the consequences of potentially harmful product.
A potential downside of the robot is the upfront cost of the robot and the infrastructure it requires, but this will be more cost effective after some time.  
Farmers may see an increase in demand and hence revenue, as people are potentially more inclined to buy pesticide-free products.
Removed weeds can potentially be used as fertilizer or fuel.


Citizens and people working in the public maintenance sector:
Consumers:
For citizens, the robot means a cleaner, healthier environment, which will increase happiness. Moreover, the people previously working in the maintenance sector will be allocated to other, more important or difficult jobs, which might improve their happiness even further. The robot is less noticeable, both visually and audibly, than a (group of) maintenance worker(s), reducing potential annoyance. Finally, the robot will make sure that people do not have to take care of the sidewalk near their house anymore, which previously could lead to situations where people slipped over snow or ice and the house owner could be held responsible. Overall this will increase happiness.
No pesticides on food suggests healthier food and hence healthier and happier consumers.  
The downside of the robot is that people have to keep the robot in mind when walking about on the sidewalks, potentially having to walk around them, but this is not a big effort and is hardly a reason to not deploy the robot.
Since no pesticides have to be purchased, the product are cheaper.
 
Governments:
Do not deal with the consequences of harmful product, contaminated (ground) water etc.  


Society:
Society:
From the two stakeholders above, we can already deduce a couple of advantages for society: More happiness and health, and a more productive workforce in both municipalities and any sector where the ex-maintenance workers are working now. One downside for society is the people might get more lazy and stop picking up litter or leafs etc. or will actually start littering more, care must be taken to punish litterers more severely.
Less pesticides implies healthier ecosystem, hence better world to live in.
Also, if vandals destroy or steal a robot or a charging station, the costs can become very expensive, so a nice environment is required for the successful deployment of the robot.
 
Enterprises specializing in maintenance:
While such enterprises may see their income drop due the deployment of the robots, there will still be plenty of work as the robot is limited to the sidewalk. Alternatively, the enterprise might decide to deploy robots of its own, and improve its performance or income as a result.
 
Overall, the robot is a useful addition to society, increasing happiness and productivity, and helps in relieving the worker shortage in other sectors.

Revision as of 14:40, 17 February 2019

USE analysis

(WIP: italic text requires research)

In this analysis we will first sketch the ideal operation of the robot: its functionality and deployment. Then we will analyse the effects and implications of the robot for each of the following stakeholders: Farmers, consumers, governments, society.

Functionality and deployment The robot operates exclusively on farm fields (potentially in a greenhouse). It removes weeds from in between the crop, without damaging the crop and without using pesticides. Potentially multiple robots work together on the same field.

Stakeholders Farmers: First of all, farmers will no longer have to purchase pesticides, but will have to buy and maintain the robot. While the upfront cost of a (set of) robot(s) might be bigger than the cost of pesticides, the maintenance cost will be lower and hence will be more cost effective in the long run. Without the use of pesticides, farmers will no longer have to worry about any of the negative effects of the pesticides and hence will never suffer the consequences of potentially harmful product. Farmers may see an increase in demand and hence revenue, as people are potentially more inclined to buy pesticide-free products. Removed weeds can potentially be used as fertilizer or fuel.

Consumers: No pesticides on food suggests healthier food and hence healthier and happier consumers. Since no pesticides have to be purchased, the product are cheaper.

Governments: Do not deal with the consequences of harmful product, contaminated (ground) water etc.

Society: Less pesticides implies healthier ecosystem, hence better world to live in.

Retrieved from "https://dsdwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=G5_use_analysis&oldid=65833"