Have a good idea for a startup? Trying to grow your startup?
Whether you're launching a new venture or trying to scale your startup, translating your ideas into a plan with a strong strategy (and then executing and improving your strategy), is critical to success.
A robust strategy can help you win more customers, attract investors, inspire your team and grow more quickly. In summary, your strategy and execution of that strategy can help you achieve your goals and succeed.
In this upcoming masterclass, you will receive an introduction to some strategic planning tools and frameworks and execution methodologies.
Here is what you will cover:
Strategic planning tools and frameworks: ○ Vision and mission statements ○ Market sizing ○ Strategy on a page
Stefan Lie's Stream of Consciousness is an exploration of three dimensional products and how we perceive and interpret them through form and materiality.
Lie is an academic design practitioner and lecturer in Integrated Product Design at UTS, whose investigative research process aims to develop new knowledge concerning our experience and interaction with a range of products and objects. By exploring how materials can be given form through different manufacturing processes, Lie's practice engages with a multitude of techniques applied to product design practice.
Stream of Consciousness is the result of newly developed techniques of forming three dimensional ceramic products by coating cylindrical objects of various materials in clay and experimenting with a range of form giving techniques. The innovative and abstract objects are inspired by 2D images of data visualisations and are the preliminary stage of Lie's investigative process.
Representing moments in his stream of consciousness as he experiments with the material and its temporal limitations, the works are seemingly unfamiliar and impossible forms made from a familiar material.
Lie is an internationally recognised designer whose works have been exhibited throughout Australia, Europe and Japan. Lie's work is included in the permanent collection of MAAS (the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences).
Following Stefan Lie, Kensington Contemporary is excited to continue its partnership with the UTS School of Design with work by Head of School Prof. Dr. Lawrence Wallen.
Opening reception: Thursday 15 June 6-8pm at Kensington Contemporary
Gallery hours: Tue-Fri 10am-6pm, Sat 10am-5pm, Sun 12pm-4pm
This is just one of many examples of similar problems that have been doing the rounds for years but still continue to baffle some people. Here’s another:
No matter how hard you try, it’s impossible to resist that challenge. You give it a go and then look at the comments section only to find some people agree with your answer while others have something completely different.
So let me outline the correct way to approach these online equations with the minimum of fuss. I’ll explain why in some cases there may be more than one possible correct answer.
The language of mathematics
In the English language we read from left to right. It therefore seems very natural to look at mathematical equations in the same way.
But you wouldn’t try to read Mandarin or Arabic like this, and nor should you attempt to do so with the distinct language of mathematics.
To be maths-literate, it is important to understand the relevant rules about “spelling” and “grammar” in mathematics.
A strict set of rules known as the order of operations defines the correct arithmetical grammar. These rules tell us the order in which we must perform mathematical operations such as addition and multiplication when both appear in an equation.
In Australia, the mnemonic BODMAS (Brackets, Order, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction) is typically taught to students to help them remember the correct order. Here, the ‘Order’ in BODMAS refers to mathematical powers such as squared, cubed or square root.
In other countries, this may be taught as PEMDAS, BEDMAS or BIDMAS, but these all boil down to exactly the same thing.
This means that if, for example, we have an equation that contains both addition and multiplication, we always carry out multiplication first regardless of the order in which they are written.
Consider the following equations:
(a) 3×4+2
(b) 2+3×4
When we apply BODMAS, we can see that these equations are exactly the same (or equivalent) – in both cases we begin by calculating 3×4=12, then compute 12+2=14.
But some people are likely to get the wrong answer for the second equation because they will try to solve it from left to right. They will do the addition first (2+3=5) and then multiplication (5×4) to obtain an incorrect answer of 20.
Brackets can make a difference
This is where brackets (or parentheses) can be a very useful part of arithmetical punctuation. In English, a well-placed comma can be the difference between saying “Let’s eat, John” and “Let’s eat John”.
The same applies in maths, where a well-placed bracket can completely change our calculation. Brackets are used to give priority to a particular part of an equation – we always carry out the calculation inside the bracket before dealing with what is outside.
If we introduce brackets around the addition in equations (a) and (b) above, then we have two new equations:
(c) 3×(4+2)
(d) (2+3)×4
These equations are no longer equivalent to each other. In both cases, the brackets tell us to do the addition before we do the multiplication. This means we have to calculate 3×6 for (c) and 5×4 for (d). We now get different answers, (c) is 18 and (d) is 20.
Note that for equations (a) and (b), brackets were not necessary because BODMAS tells us to carry out multiplication before addition anyway. However, adding brackets that reinforce the BODMAS rules can help to avoid any confusion.
More rules
Understanding BODMAS gets us most of the way there in terms of solving these problems, but it also helps to be aware of the commutative and associative properties of mathematics.
A mathematical operation is commutative if it does not matter which order the operands (numbers) are written in. Addition is commutative, since a+b=b+a.
But subtraction is not, because a-b is not the same as b-a. It is also straightforward to show that multiplication is commutative, but division is not.
Such distinctions exist in the English language too. Ordering “vodka and orange juice” is the same as ordering “orange juice and vodka”, but “shaken not stirred” is not the same as “stirred not shaken”.
An operation is associative if, when we have multiple consecutive occurrences of this operation, it does not matter which order we carry them out in.
Again, addition and multiplication have this property, while subtraction and division do not. If we have the equation a+b+c, then it does not matter whether we solve it as (a+b)+c or a+(b+c).
But if we have a-b-c then the order is important, as (a-b)-c is not the same as a-(b-c) and we should always work from left to right. See for youself:
(3-2)-1=0
3-(2-1)=2
Again, English language implicitly has such concepts; “rum and coke and lime” is the same product regardless of whether rum is added to (coke and lime), or lime is added to a (rum and coke).
But we cannot rearrange any of these operations in “order then drink then leave” – a successful trip to the pub relies on these actions being carried out in exactly that order.
Once we understand the correct order of operations and the associative and commutative properties, we have the toolbox to solve any simple, well-defined arithmetical equation.
So do you know the answer?
So let’s return to the original problem:
6÷2(1+2)=?
The equation has more than one legitimate meaning. Some might believe the answer is 1, others might think the answer is 9. And neither answer is really wrong.
After carrying out the addition inside the brackets, we are left with 6÷2(3). Some people will argue that we should work from left to right, calculating 6÷2=3 and then multiplying 3×3=9, which is the answer given by Google’s calculator.
Others, and I consider myself part of this camp, would argue that 2(1+2) should be computed in its entirety first, since the juxtaposition of these terms without a × sign implies that it consists of a single element.
A mathematician would more normally express the equation as follows:
That leaves us with 6÷6=1.
The problem here is a poorly constructed equation, and the ÷ is the main culprit. Mathematicians rarely use this sign (or the multiplication sign ×); in practice, they prefer to use clear, unambiguous notation such as fractions.
If we want to convey the first meaning above, it would be more common to write the equation with extra brackets as (6/2)(1+2), which gives the answer 9. To convey the second meaning, we would write 6/(2(1+2)) as shown in the equation above, which gives the answer 1.
By writing things this way, we can eliminate the whole debate and save everyone a lot of time and energy.
Online puzzles can be a great way to refresh your mathematical skills, but it’s important to watch out for the deliberately confusing ones.
The next time one pops up on your timeline, remember BODMAS and you should be fine.
But if the answer is still not clear, then it’s best to avoid the debate and instead step back, take a deep breath and say: “They haven’t spelled that correctly!”
Craig Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
License
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
There's a reason why some people get different answers to those frustrating viral maths problems. You need to learn how to "read" the maths, writes Craig Anderson
Two 2SER 107.3 programs featuring the work of UTS researchers and an investigative series on coal led by UTS journalism academic Tom Morton have won awards at this year's New York Festivals International Radio Program Awards.
Announced on 19 June in New York, the awards honour the world's best radio programs, receiving entries from radio stations, networks and independent producers from around the globe. This year 336 finalists were selected from entries submitted from 32 countries.
Community station 2SER was awarded a gold medal in the Health/Medical category for Think: Health and silver for Think: Digital Futures in Science and Technology. The Think: Sustainability program received a finalist certificate in Environment and Ecology.
Associate Professor in UTS's journalism program Tom Morton was the reporter for Beyond the Coal Rush, broadcast in August and September last year as part of The Science Show on ABC Radio National. It was awarded a bronze medal in the Climate Change and Sustainability category.
"I am thrilled and honoured to receive this prestigious award," Associate Professor Morton said. "Given the debates we're having in Australia right now about energy policy and the need to transition to a future beyond coal, it's especially timely."
2SER Station Manager Melanie Withnall said, "Up against large national and international radio broadcasters including the ABC, SBS, CBC, BBC and Swedish Radio we are over the moon to be recognised for making some of the world's best work in radio broadcasting.
"The collaboration between 2SER and UTS academics has allowed us to make such great quality programs and we look forward to making more into the future.
"We know there is a demand for this unique content that you won't get anywhere else. UTS academics are at the cutting edge of research and with the careful and considered crafting of this information by our producers at 2SER, who turn the research work into weekly relatable and interesting audio, we are able to produce content that is both notable and compelling," Ms Withnall said.
2SER is supported by UTS to produce the Think programs to showcase innovative UTS research in an entertaining radio format. The programs are made by a team of producers including current and graduate journalism students from UTS and Macquarie University – 2SER is jointly owned by UTS and Macquarie University, but is largely self-supporting.
The 2SER team includes Ellen Leabeater (former Think: Health and current Digital Futures reporter) Jake Morcom (Think: Sustainability reporter), Josh Nicholas (former Think: Digital Futures reporter), Ninah Kopel (former Think producer), Miles Martignoni (former Think Supervising Producer) Emma Lancaster (Think Supervising Producer) and Station Manager Melanie Withnall. UTS staff members also work closely with the reporters to source story ideas.
Associate Professor Morton said Beyond the Coal Rush was also "the work of many hands".
"I particularly want to pay tribute to the ABC Science Show production team: Executive Producer David Fisher for his meticulous editorial guidance, researcher Emma Lancaster, a graduate of the MA Journalism program at UTS, who has been recognised with a number of other New York Festival awards for her work at 2SER, sound engineer Judy Rapley whose aural imagination brought the series to life on the radio, and composer Stuart Brown who wrote the music which gave it a pulse – and of course The Science Show's presenter Robyn Williams, whose father was a coal miner.
"The series is also the product of three years of on-the-ground research collaboration and vigorous intellectual debate between our team of academic researchers – including UTS academics James Goodman, Devleena Ghosh and Jon Marshall, Linda Connor and Stuart Rosewarne (University of Sydney), Ortwin Renn (Potsdam), Dipesh Chakrabarty (Chicago), Katja Műller (Halle), Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon (CPR, Delhi).
"It's one of the outcomes from our Australian Research Council Discovery Grant 'The Coal Rush and Beyond: Coal Reliance, Climate Change and Contested Futures in Australia, India and Germany'– and a great example of how academic research and creative practice can work hand-in-hand."
In summary:
Radio 2SER and UTS journalism academic Tom Morton have taken out medals in the New York Festivals International Radio Program Awards, honouring the world's best radio programs
2SER won gold for Think: Health and silver for Think: Digital Futures, both featuring the work of UTS researchers. Tom Morton was the reporter for investigative series Beyond the Coal Rush on ABC Radio National, which was awarded a bronze medal
A leading manufacturer of quality motor vehicles, Honda Australia has announced an exciting industry and educational engagement with the University of Technology Sydney's Faculty of Transdisciplinary Innovation.
As an industry partner to the award-winning Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation (BCII), Honda Australia will join with UTS students and BCII staff to workshop and solve complex scenarios with the potential for the winning idea to be brought to life.
This is one of the many hands-on, industry co-created components of the BCII course which offers students real-world experiences as part of the curriculum.
The partnership offers students an opportunity to meet with seasoned professionals from the motoring giant, workshop possible solutions to a brief as well as enjoy access to guidance on a career in innovation.
Honda Australia Director Stephen Collins said, "We are thrilled to have this opportunity to support the next generation of bright and talented minds.
"While a collaboration with UTS BCII students fuels creative thinking and problem solving, it also opens the doors to networking and potentially career opportunities in the automotive industry. It's a positive outcome for both students and the Honda Australia business.
"While Australia no longer manufactures vehicles, there is still enormous opportunity for graduates considering a move to the automotive sector – from product planning, right through to engineering and customer-facing roles at a grassroots dealership level."
Dean of the UTS Faculty of Transdisciplinary Innovation Professor Louise McWhinnie said, "We are very excited to welcome Honda Australia to our group of industry faculty collaborators.
"The transdisciplinarity, entrepreneurial and future focus of the BCII provides industry with unique insight into our future graduates, and they in turn gain immense insight from collaborating with such rich industry knowledge.
"Honda Australia has a heritage that has been resonating with Australians for generations and we welcome the opportunity to apply innovation to real-world issues facing the automobile industry.
"The students are equally thrilled and we look forward to seeing the ideas produced through these unique workshops."
The collaborative workshops will take place in the BCII module Past, Present and Future of Innovation from 10 to 14 July.
In summary:
A new partnership with Honda Australia will allow students in UTS's Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation (BCII) to workshop and solve complex scenarios for the motoring giant, with the potential for the winning idea to be brought to life
This is one of the many hands-on, industry co-created components of the BCII course which offers students real-world experiences as part of the curriculum
City Recital Hall and the University of Technology Sydney present Blink!– a ground-breaking, multidisciplinary collaboration enabling Jess Irwin, a renowned photographer with cerebral palsy, to join the Australia Piano Quartet (APQ) as guest artist.
The star of this show is the brilliant Jess Irwin, who has had a dream to be a rock star. Born with severe cerebral palsy which affects her movements, she is non-verbal, but her deep love for music, incredible drive to succeed and unique flair for performance left her wanting more than just a listening experience.
In the creative hot-house of UTS, the APQ has collaborated with Dr Jordan Nguyen, Nick Temple and Jess Irwin on technology that brings out her musical creativity. Jordan and Nick's start-up social business Psykinetic is aimed at creating futuristic, inclusive and empowering technologies to improve independence and quality of life for people with disabilities.
Using eye-tracking technology, Jess can manipulate a computer screen and play instruments, creating melodies, rhythms and stunning aural effects. She has devoted herself to becoming a musician – lessons, frustrations, hours of practice every day.
In this performance her electronic instrument will blend, sing and dance with the acoustic instruments of the quartet to create a magical experience. Come and enjoy her profound talent and creativity – to see her perform is to feel one's heart soar.
Australian Composer, Jane Sheldon, fresh from a decade at the forefront of new music in New York, has written a piece with Jess Irwin in mind and commissioned by UTS.
The program will also feature two other works performed by the Australia Piano Quartet and featuring its outstanding work as ensemble in residence at UTS: a 2016 commission by Perth based composer Lachlan Skipworth; and Fauré's impassioned French jewel, the Piano Quartet in C minor.
Climate change is real. Cities around the world are already feeling the impacts of massive floods, huge storms and unprecedented heatwaves. What’s worse, modelling suggests that the impacts of climate change are set to escalate in coming decades.
With Sydney's population growing rapidly, how can our city become liveable, sustainable and safe? Some experts might recommend options like building seawalls – as Japan did in the wake of the Fukushima Tsunami. But using design to create adaptable, resilient cities may actually hold the solution.
At 2017's first UTSpeaks, you will hear from experts in urbanism, sustainable development and design about planning futures, climate forecasts and real-world case-studies (plus the lessons they hold for Sydney).
Speakers:
Rod Simpson Environment Commisioner, Greater Sydney Commision
Streaming video is testing the limits of China’s media control. A recent ban affecting three of China’s biggest online platforms aimed at“cleaning up the air in cyberspace” is just the latest government crackdown on user-generated content, and especially live streaming.
This edict, issued by China’s State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) in June, affects video on the social media platform Sina Weibo, as well as video platforms Ifeng and AcFun.
The government has tried to wrest control from online platforms in the past. In 2014, for example, one of China’s biggest online video platforms LETV began removing its app that allowed TV users to access online video, reportedly due to SAPPRFT requirements.
The ubiquitous use of social media and now live-streaming poses new and unpredictable challenges to the Chinese government’s ideological control of news and entertainment, and it’s struggling to keep up.
Controlling the comment section
Platforms allowing live streaming have mushroomed in China. China’s largest social media network, Sina Weibo, launched an app named Yi Zhibo in 2016 that allows live streaming of games, talent shows and news.
Internet celebrities and everyday citizens alike have taken to live streaming in such large numbers that it’s been dubbed by some Chinese vloggers as the “new gold rush of the 21st century”.
This explosion of widely accessible live media is clearly posing technological challenges to content censorship, and especially in the comment section.
AcFun— referred to in China as “Site A” and Bilibili— “site B” – are two of the most successful video streaming platforms in China. They specialise in animation, comics and games, catering mainly to users in their 20s and younger.
The appeal of both sites lies in the “bullet screen” (danmu). It allows users to interact with each other by firing comments (“bullets”) across the screen in real time.
As can be imagined, such ephemeral, unregulated content presents a new headache for censors.
A video with “danmu” or bullet comments.
Controlling the news
In some cases, bans on live streaming are simply the Chinese authorities flexing their muscles and putting in place new rules to tackle new technology. But in other cases, the move seems to be aimed at controlling unconventional media outlets.
Ifeng’s troubles with the authorities started soon after it launched its live streaming platform zhibo.ifeng.com at the end of 2016, when it live-streamed parts of the US presidential election. This caused official concern about excessive coverage of the democratic process outside China.
At least three of Ifeng’s programs, including The Loudest Voice Today, were shut down. These programs relied mostly on self-generated news and current affairs content, delivered by anchors and host personalities who enjoyed huge fan bases and were inclined to spout views and values that conflicted or competed with official positions.
China’s live-streaming explosion.
A newly established regulatory body, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), issued Edict No. 1 in May. This stipulated that as of June, all internet portals must relay only news that has been produced by state-authorised news organisations at city, provincial and national levels.
All websites must now identify authors and editors, and ensure original sources can be traced.
This regulation is clearly intended to curb the incursions of new media platforms into social and political commentary.
Some see these bans as a clear message from the government to investors that, while there may be fast money to be made from online entertainment, this opportunity comes with political risks and responsibilities.
And like the social media platform WeChat, these companies are now being pressured to find their own technological solutions to filter out sensitive words and topics.
Controlling morality
Apart from facilitating the spread of politically sensitive material, live streaming has also arguably led to the proliferation of video that’s seen as unlawful and unscrupulous.
This is content that, from the point of view of the Ministry of Culture, falls into the “three categories of vulgarity” (san su) that pollute cyberspace: the “trashy”, the “sensational”, and the “kitsch”.
In late 2016, Chinese Central Television (CCTV) broadcast a story about several people who visited a remote, isolated and poverty-stricken village in Daliangshan in Sichuan Province and pretended to be philanthropists. They reportedly handed out wads of cash to poor villagers, only to take the money back once they had finished live-streaming the event.
While the latest ban may aim to “clean up the air” in cyberspace in preparation for 2017’s 19th National Congress - the significant political event held every five years by the Chinese Communist Party - we can be certain that similar crackdowns are coming.
Yet in the end, these bans are cyclical, reflexive, and seldom effective. Like regulators elsewhere, the Chinese authorities will have difficulty keeping up with the technology.
Wanning Sun does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
License
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
Regulations encouraging energy users reduce their demand for power would improve reliability, reduce emissions and cut power bills according to a new study by UTS's Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF).
The study, commissioned by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), found that the current regulatory framework favours investing in network infrastructure – such as new poles and wires – over demand management involving energy providers helping consumers to reduce their power demand and bills.
It found that building new grid infrastructure was more profitable for network businesses than demand management solutions.
Demand management includes offering incentives to help customers save energy through smarter, more efficient appliances and voluntarily shifting energy use from peak periods.
Removing the regulatory bias against demand management could deliver more power capacity than a Hazelwood power station, ISF Project Director Chris Dunstan said.
"Our study has found a clear and quantifiable bias in the regulatory incentives in favour of building network infrastructure over energy saving, local generation and storage solutions, which would offer a better deal for customers.
"Intelligently reducing electricity demand can be just as useful as increasing supply, and is often cheaper and quicker to achieve," Mr Dunstan said.
The study was in part intended to assist the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) which is currently developing a Demand Management Incentive Scheme. The new scheme is intended to create a level playing field for network demand management.
ARENA Chief Executive Officer Ivor Frischknecht said the study was an important contribution to understanding how to support the reliable and affordable integration of variable renewable energy into the electricity grid.
"Having more variable renewable energy in our electricity system means we will also need more flexible resources to balance the system," said Mr Frischknecht.
"Batteries can help provide this flexibility but in many cases it may be simpler, cleaner and cheaper for electricity networks to work with customers to reduce or shift power demand," he said.
"Demand management also allows more efficient use of our existing network assets and reduces the need for network investment", Mr Frischknecht said.
Summary of Findings
The study has revealed significant bias against demand management in Australia's national electricity regulations.
The study examined four generic scenarios of supply constraints in the grid as case studies, and compared the cost and benefits of network infrastructure and demand management solutions.
Analysis of these scenarios found that bias in economic incentives meant that investing in new network infrastructure was often more profitable for network businesses, even where demand management solutions were found to deliver lower costs for consumers.
The study concluded that creating incentives for demand management would improve reliability and reduce carbon emissions while also reducing power bills.
The ISF study was in part intended to assist the AER in designing a Demand Management Incentive Scheme.
The first recommendation is to "normalise" demand management cost recovery and put demand management expenditure on an equal footing with network capital expenditure.
The second recommendation is to provide a specific Demand Management Incentive to level the playing field for demand management and to compensate network businesses for passing on the benefits of demand management to consumers.
The study included extensive consultation with network businesses, demand management providers, regulators, government and consumer representatives.
An Institute for Sustainable Futures study has found a clear bias in regulatory incentives in favour of building electricity network infrastructure over energy saving, local generation and storage solutions
Removing the bias against demand management could deliver more power capacity than a Hazelwood power station
A new Australian team will take on the world’s best at the biggest robot competition in Japan this year.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) is the only Australian team to qualify for the 2017 RoboCup@Home Social Robot League, a competition that requires teams to design robot behaviours that allow for interaction and collaboration with people in realistic home situations.
Team UTS Unleashed! will represent Australian research and innovation in social robotics at RoboCup with support from the NSW government’s Research Attraction and Acceleration Program.
Team members are PhD students at UTS headed by Australia’s leading social roboticist, Professor Mary-Anne Williams, director of The Magic Lab at UTS.
“As Australia’s leader in social robotics we focus on the disruptive nature of intelligent, socially aware technologies. Social robots are not just automated problem-solvers, they have emotional and social intelligence that allows them to collaborate with people in safe, fluent and enjoyable ways to enhance the human experience,” Professor Williams said.
She said participating in RoboCup allowed the UTS team to benchmark new algorithms and intelligent software against some of the world’s top universities including Carnegie Mellon University in the US, University of Rome and the University of Amsterdam.
Team UTS Unleashed! brings together a range of expertise that will contribute to the design and development of an innovative transdisciplinary social robot software system. The human members and their skills are:
Sam Pfeiffer – robot animation
Meg Tonkin – human-robot interaction
Jonathan Vitale – cognitive robotics
Ali Raza – machine learning
Suman Ojha – robot emotions and ethics
Sidra Alam – robot cooperation
Chand Gudi – robot communication
Le Kang - robot knowledge bases
Benjamin Johnston – robot common sense reasoning
Xun Wang – robot risk management
Richard Billingsley – natural language understanding
Jesse Clark – robot knowledge management systems
Thomas MacKenzie and Sophie Phillips – disruptive innovation.
The humanoid is Pepper, a human-shaped robot from industry partner Softbank Robotics, which can be programmed to analyse and respond to human expression and voice.
The team will design and develop complex AI software that will enable a robot to communicate with humans, navigate and map new environments, sense and recognise objects and faces, and perform adaptive behaviours in different human-centric situations.
“Teams from around the world face significant design challenges in preparing Pepper robots to interact and collaborate with people in real-world situations that will arise in smart homes of the future. For UTS, engagement in RoboCup provides transformational leadership opportunities and transdisciplinary practice-based learning experiences for our students,” Professor Williams said.
UTS Unleashed! will help to enhance critical national capability in social robotics, an emerging disruptive technology that, according to the McKinsey Research Institute, will affect every Australian industry in the next few years. Team members will engage in discovery and transdisciplinary innovation, and will be able to test, evaluate and reflect on their transdisciplinary solutions using benchmark challenges at this major international competition.
They will also contribute to a global strategic scientific effort that seeks to make safe and intelligent social robots a reality.
RoboCup 2017 takes place in Nagoya, Japan, 27-30 July.
In summary:
UTS is the only Australian team to qualify for the 2017 RoboCup@Home Social Robot League, to be held in Japan in July
Team UTS Unleashed! is made up of humans - PhD students led by Australia’s leading social roboticist, Professor Mary-Anne Williams – and a humanoid called Pepper
Ten teams of start-ups, three months of mentorship, workshops, co-working and many, many late nights.
Listen to these amazing entrepreneurs present their final pitches to an industry panel before they fly the Hatchery+ coop.
Join us afterwards for celebratory drinks, a bite to eat and a spot of networking next door in the Hatchery.
The event is free. Please RSVP as places are limited. Follow the "attend" button above.
UTS:Hatchery+ is an accelerator program and co-working space that supports early stage start-up ventures founded or co-founded by UTS students and alumni. Applications are open now.
The ever evolving networked world has increased our ability for connectedness, smart technologies and efficiencies in our homes and global community. But as the cyber landscape advances, so does the need for greater security measures that provide the framework protecting the very fabric of our new smart society.
The digital revolution has brought opportunities - self driving cars, internet of things (IoT), digitial currencies (BitCoin), robotics and the list goes on. We have never had so much human "traceability" and this can be used in a positive way for intelligence. However, with opportunities come challenges. With the increasing disruption what are the emerging technologies that threaten our cyber security, and how can we build a safer cyber world?
At this UTSpeaks you will hear from experts in cyber forensics, IoT and cyber security exploring the opportunities and challenges that we face in a "smart world".
An international expert on the safety of sports, play and recreational surfaces and equipment, Professor Eager applied risk engineering and technology interventions to mitigate injury to dogs, through the identification and analysis of injuries focused on track design.
This report was commissioned by the sport’s governing body, Greyhound Racing NSW (GRNSW), which has oversight of 33 tracks throughout the state.
“Our preliminary findings have highlighted there are multiple and interrelated track features that increase the likelihood of injuries. These include sudden changes in the camber and the lack of a smooth transition from the straight into the bend,” said Professor Eager, from the UTS Faculty of Engineering and IT.
Computer simulation and modelling have allowed efficient and cost-effective generation of evidence to justify major changes to track design. They reveal how the overall shape of a track influences the lateral dynamics of greyhounds on the track.
Different tracks have different curvatures, cambers and transitions, so the centrifugal forces, acceleration, and changes in these forces experienced by greyhounds are elevated. Changes in the curvatures of a greyhound’s running path can result in rapid changes in the centrifugal force, increasing the likelihood and severity of injuries. Gradual changes in the centrifugal force and camber are more predictable and adaptable for racing greyhounds and statistically will result in fewer injuries.
Eleven wide-ranging recommendations to improve animal welfare and major adjustments to the way racing is currently conducted include:
GRNSW and the Australian greyhound racing industry consider developing purpose-built straight tracks
Install extended lures at all tracks
Progressively remove bend starts and discontinue the associated race distances
Increase the height of the starting box grilles to at least 400m
Conduct trials with a delayed starting box opening
Trialling a reduction in the number of starters from eight to six greyhounds.
GRNSW interim CEO John Gibbons thanked UTS for work to date and said it would greatly help the transition to safer greyhound tracks.
“This watershed report and the recommendations it makes will pioneer track design reform in NSW and across Australia to ensure safer standards of racing at all levels and reduced rates of injury,” he said.
“The Special Commission of Inquiry into the Greyhound Racing Industry in NSW as well as the Greyhound Industry Reform Panel made it clear that more needs to be done to increase safety at greyhound tracks, to improve safety standards for greyhounds and reduce racing-related injuries.”
GRNSW will now consider the recommendations of this Phase I report. It has commissioned UTS to undertake Phase II: extending the injury data collected to include all Australasian tracks, evaluating the effectiveness of changes to track layouts in reducing the frequency and severity of injuries, and recommending parameters for optimal track design.
This will allow the enhancement of existing tracks as well as the better design of new tracks. The study is expected to take three years to complete at a cost of $975,000.
In summary:
A UTS research team has made recommendations for improved safety and welfare in the greyhound racing industry
These include a preference for purpose-built straight tracks and fewer dogs starting in each race
Can the transition to renewable and decentralised energy create a clean and affordable future for us all?
Snowy 2.0. Tesla batteries save SA. Clean coal. Beyond the headlines and political soundbites, the national energy system that has served us since the mid-20th century is changing before our very eyes.
But can future change be better planned to benefit one and all?
Australia’s energy system is interconnected and complex, delivering reliable electricity to homes, businesses and industry with diversity and balance between supply, demand, consumers and technologies both large and small. Add in the social, environmental and economic factors of providing power to the masses and this mostly invisible electricity network is best thought of as an ecosystem.
The so-called ‘tri-lemma’ of transitioning Australia’s energy ecosystem to provide affordable and reliable power while addressing climate change offers exciting opportunities. With the nation’s coal-fired power stations approaching retirement, the rapid cost reductions in new technologies and the digital revolution unleashing our country’s innovation and creativity, a clean decentralised energy ecosystem is emerging.
New UTS research shows that energy solutions like renewable energy, battery storage, smart software and demand management can transform our energy ecosystem into one that is cheaper, cleaner, fairer, faster and more flexible – and importantly more reliable and secure than today.
The loud and at times divisive national conversation on energy and climate is a truly unique moment in our nation’s history. By overhauling our energy grid we can bring power prices down and regain our position as innovation leaders.
Join leading energy thinkers on 17 August for an inspiring, urgent and vital discussion about the path towards a clean, fair and resilient energy ecosystem that will power Australia well into the 21st century and beyond.
Speakers
Audrey Zibelman, CEO, Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
Collaborative teams use thousands of Post-It notes, but hours are lost transferring those notes into digital tools that teams use every day.
That’s the problem brothers and co-founders Geoff and Alex Bullen set out to fix with their augmented reality app, WallSync, which scans Post-It notes directly into project management tools.
After spending three months in the UTS Hatchery+ accelerator program, Geoff and Alex, along with nine other teams, presented to a Demo Day judging panel WallSync and impressed with its simplicity, sophistication and strategy.
The Hatchery+ accelerator supports early stage ventures founded or co-founded by UTS students or alumni. It provides teams with $2,000 seed funding, coworking space and mentors and advisors.
Of the 15 Hatchery+ groups that participated last year, 13 are still active, and together have raised close to $1.8 million in funding and generated approximately $1.31m in revenue. Sixty seven employee and internship positions have also been created.
The winning venture, coined the 'personal assistant for your Post-It notes', is set to launch as an Innovation Partner at the Atlassian Global Summit in San Jose on September 26.
This isn’t the Bullen brothers’ first start up – they also co-founded software company Centrum, which they sold in 2014.
“The Hatchery+ team have given us amazing support and our other fellow startups have also given us lots of advice," says Geoff, who is completing a UTS Master of Business Administration in Entrepreneurship (MBAe).
“We want to make technology a help, not a hindrance, when groups of people are collaborating. We have some exciting ideas about making human computer interactions more powerful. Watch this space.”
Founder of Flatmates.com.au Andrew Maloney was one of the judges who selected WallSync as crowning champions. “All the Demo Day presentations were of a phenomenally high quality. We felt WallSync targets a very specific market, with a clear need, and a solution with global potential. I’ll be following their journey with a lot of interest.”
The $3,000 prize for second place was awarded to COU | TECH, founded by UTS MBAe student and fashion designer Peta Portelli, which allows professional women who wear orthotics to customise a stylish shoe design.
$1,000 was also awarded to Tuna Solutions, a centralised online tuna marketplace, founded by fisherman and former Sydney Fish Market auctioneer Thomas de Kock, and former tax and recruitment consultant Xixiang Ngan, a UTS Master of Professional Accounting graduate.
The audience also had their say, voting money saving app Carrots Money the winner of the $1,000 People’s Choice prize. Co-founded by UTS graduate Sarah Nguyen, alongside Jacqui Park and Simon Warner, Carrots Money, uses behavioural change to build smarter money habits.
“Entrepreneurship is a path many graduates are choosing, with employers increasingly looking favourably upon those with innovative mindsets," says UTS Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) Professor Glenn Wightwick.
"It is these shifts that have encouraged the development and creation of UTS’ unique curricular and extracurricular activities to support entrepreneurship, like Hatchery+.
“It pleases me to see that in this year’s cohort, we had a variety of teams tackling important issues, from sustainability and education to social enterprise."
Other presenters on Demo Day included:
Akili, by Fabiana Alvarez. A social venture designed to connect artisans in developing countries to global markets.
Open Visa, by Elle Fleming, Cory Mayfield, Yuxin Kwan and Teresa Nguyen. Removes the duplication and double handling of the visa application process, reducing errors, saving time and money.
SkilledSmart money school for adults, by Paridhi Jain.
Buzzbox, simplifying business gifting, by John Phung, Boris Poletan and Ashley Cheuk.
SIRK, by Isabella Shields. An innovative teaching solution for sailing instructors to take the complexity out of the sport.
Pro Feed, by Samuel Walsh, Thomas Hart, George El Boustani. Connects fitness influencers to fans through personal daily workout feeds.
In summary:
An augmented reality app that scans Post-It notes directly into project management tools took out the winning $5,000 prize at the UTS Hatchery+ Demo Day
The Hatchery+ accelerator supports early stage ventures founded or co-founded by UTS students or alumni, providing teams with $2,000 seed funding, coworking space and mentors and advisors
Artificial intelligence (AI) enables Siri to recognise your question, Google to correct your spelling, and tools such as Kinect to track you as you move around the room.
Data big and small have come to education, from creating online platforms to increasing standardised assessments. But how can AI help us use and improve it?
AI has a long history with education
Researchers in AI in education have been investigating how the two intersect for several decades. While it’s tempting to think that the primary dream for AI in education is to reduce marking load – a prospect made real through automated essay scoring– the breadth of applications goes beyond this.
For example, researchers in AI in education have:
developed intelligent tutoring systems that use student test responses to personalise how they navigate through material and assessments, targeting the skills they need to develop;
investigated automatic detection of affect– including whether students are bored or confused – and used that to adapt materials they use; and
Artificial intelligence or intelligence amplification?
These are new approaches to learning that rely heavily on students engaging with new kinds of technology. But researchers in AI, and related fields such as learning analytics, are also thinking about how AI can provide more effective feedback to students and teachers.
One perspective is that researchers should worry less about making AI ever more intelligent, instead exploring the potential that relatively “stupid” (automated) tutors might have to amplify human intelligence.
So, rather than focusing solely on building more intelligent AI to take humans out of the loop, we should focus just as much on intelligence amplification— or, going back to its intellectual roots, intelligence augmentation. This is the use of technology – including AI – to provide people with information that helps them make better decisions and learn more effectively.
This approach combines computing sciences with human sciences. It takes seriously the need for technology to be integrated into everyday life.
Keeping people in the loop is particularly important when the stakes are high, and AI is far from perfect. So, for instance, rather than focusing on automating the grading of student essays, some researchers are focusing on how they can provide intelligent feedback to students that helps them better assess their own writing.
UCL Professor Rose Luckin on artificial intelligence and the future of learning.
Impacts on what we teach
But for the use of AI to be sustainable, education also needs a second kind of change: what we teach.
To be active citizens, students need a sound understanding of AI, and a critical approach to assessing the implications of the “datafication” of our lives – from the use of Facebook data to influence voting, to Google DeepMind’s access to medical data.
Students also need the skills to manage this complexity, to work collaboratively and to innovate in a changing environment. These are qualities that could perhaps be amplified through effective use of AI.
The potential is not only for education to be more efficient, but to think about how we teach: to keep revolution in sight, alongside evolution.
Another response to AI’s perceived threat is to harness the technologies that will automate some forms of work, to cultivate those higher-order qualities that make humans distinctive from machines.
Simon Buckingham Shum on learning analytics versus cognitive automation.
Consider, for example, the potential for “predictive analytics” in flexi-pricing degrees based on a course-completion risk-rating built on online study habit data. Or the possibility of embedding existing human biases into university offers, or educational chatbots that seek to discern your needs.
If AI delivers benefits only to students who have access to specific technologies, then inevitably this has the potential to marginalise some groups.
Significant work is under way to clarify how ethics and privacy principles can underpin the use of AI and data analytics in education. Intelligence amplification helps counteract these concerns by keeping people in the loop.
A further concern is AI’s potential to result in a de-skilling or redundancy of teachers. This could possibly fuel a two-tier system where differing levels of educational support are provided.
What does the future hold?
The future of learning with AI, and other technologies, should be targeted not only at learning subject content, but also at cultivating curiosity, creativity and resilience.
The ethical development of such innovations will require both teachers and students to have a robust understanding of how to work with data and AI to support their participation in society and across the professions.
Simon Buckingham Shum is a grantee from The Australian Office for Learning & Teaching, for Learning Analytics projects.
Simon Knight does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
License
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
New approaches to learning rely heavily on students engaging with new kinds of technology. Researchers in AI, and related fields such as learning analytics, are also thinking about how AI can provide more effective feedback to students and teachers
The future of learning with AI, and other technologies, should be targeted not only at learning subject content, but also at cultivating curiosity, creativity and resilience
Two researchers at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have been named as finalists in the 2017 Australian Museum Eureka Prizes.
Distinguished Professor Jie Lu, of the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, is a finalist in the new category of Excellence in Data Science, for her work on data-driven prediction and decision-making, especially in fast-changing environments or where data is limited.
Professor Lu’s research pioneered the integration of fuzzy techniques into machine learning to establish new models, algorithms and methodologies of fuzzy transfer learning, concept drift detection and fuzzy recommender systems, which has been advancing data driven-decision making.
NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer Mary O’Kane, who supported Professor Lu’s nomination, says the research has a “tremendous capacity” to benefit society and the economy with its application in large and complex corporations.
Associate Professor Igor Aharonovich, of the Faculty of Science, is a finalist in the category of Outstanding Early Career Researcher for his work creating ultra-bright pulses of light to make computing, communication and sensing technology that is faster, less expensive and completely secure.
Associate Professor Aharonovich, winner of the 2017 Pawsey medal in physics from the Australian Academy of Science, has made significant contributions towards harnessing defects in atomically thin materials such as hexagonal boron nitride to create light sources for photonic quantum technologies and quantum-based computing. The innovative materials engineered by Aharonovich can also detect extremely weak signals, with potential for new diagnostic tools.
“We are very proud to have finalists represented in two categories at this year’s Eureka Prizes,” said Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Professor Glenn Wightwick. “Data science is a key focus area for UTS, as data is increasingly underpinning every field of human endeavour.
“Also, the recognition of an early career researcher, such as Associate Professor Aharonovich, is crucial to our trajectory of becoming a world-leading university.
“The recognition of our people in these categories is especially pleasing and, on behalf of UTS, I would like to congratulate Distinguished Professor Jie Lu and Associate Professor Igor Aharonovich on their achievements.”
The Eureka Prizes have been awarded annually since 1990 to recognise outstanding achievements in Australian science and science communication.
The new prize for Excellence in Data Science is sponsored by UTS to encourage and motivate researchers and practitioners to make breakthrough discoveries in data science or a significant impact with their research.
The award for Outstanding Early Career Researcher is sponsored by Macquarie University for outstanding scientific research conducted by an individual or teams of early career researchers.
For the full list of 2017 finalists, click here. The winners will be announced at an awards dinner at Sydney Town Hall on Wednesday 30 August.
In summary:
Distinguished Professor Jie Lu, of the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, is director of the UTS Centre for Artificial Intelligence
Associate Professor Igor Aharonovich, of the Faculty of Science, is the current Australian Academy of Science Pawsey medallist for physics
Never before have we been able to analyse so much data, so quickly. But that isn’t always a good thing. Director of the Faculty of Health’s Centre for Health Services Management Joanne Travaglia and researcher Hamish Robertson have teamed up to examine how unchecked assumptions about data are reinforcing privilege, prejudice and inequity, and why a more critical approach is needed.
We have reached a point in history where understanding the world means understanding big data. The rapid growth of interest in this field has been so marked and so universal that some theorists are predicting it will result in a major paradigm shift in industry and research.
Presented as an uber (pun intended) example of disruptive innovation, the buzz around big data and data analytics is palpable. But studies of how the big data field developed, its risks and benefits and how individuals, communities and organisations can manage the implications of ever-increasing volumes of digital data remain scarce.
Instead of the conventional cross-sectional or longitudinal studies that grew out of the ‘small data’ age, there is a perception that big data is neutral, immediate and comprehensive. But things aren’t, of course, quite that simple.
While there is some evidence that big data medical research is producing positive findings, not all of the big data industry is aimed at socially beneficial outcomes. In some places, governments are trying to retreat from conventional data methods on the basis that big data will suffice.
However, it often serves quite different purposes to conventional methods like a census or regular social surveys. And it is often volunteered data, so it’s both technically free and monetisable – which is doubly appealing to some governments and the companies that lobby them. The risks, therefore, are real.
Breaches of centralised data have always been a concern and remain a major problem in healthcare and elsewhere. The tracking of behaviour – including predictive advertising – often raises discomfort in even the most avid social media user. Indeed, we would argue that big data is becoming problematic and the cracks in its uncritical application to social issues are already beginning to show.
Of course, this isn’t a new problem. Since Victorian times, at least, data (of every type) has been used for social engineering purposes. Social inquiries into vulnerable groups were, and can continue to be used to ‘identify’, quantify and isolate the source of such problems. It’s here that we saw the origins of enduring ideas such as ‘scientific’ racism, eugenics and the workhouse system – counting and classification were central to these ideological and practical systems. Indeed, Victorian-age social policy ideological inheritance is alive and well in the 21st century. That’s one reason why we face many of the same problems and why the promised solutions prove so intangible still.
Throughout history, systematically collected ‘scientific’ data has also been used to justify the isolation, torture and abuse of people with intellectual or physical disabilities, people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, First Nations peoples, and virtually every other vulnerable group.
At the very same time these groups continue to be regularly excluded from other forms of data collection. This absence has significant implications for health services delivery and health services management.
“Big data is becoming problematic and the cracks in its uncritical application to social issues are already beginning to show.”
Take, for example, cardiovascular disease. It’s the leading cause of premature death amongst Australian women, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds experiencing even higher rates of morbidity and mortality than the general population.
But we know from numerous other studies that women are significantly under-represented in the majority of clinical trials. Women’s symptoms are also different to men’s, and comparatively under-studied, and so they continue to go unrecognised by the general public and clinicians. As such, women to miss out on effective treatments at virtually every step of their interaction with healthcare, from prevention, to diagnosis, referral and treatment.
How can we design, implement and evaluate the efficacies of interventions and services if data from half the population is missing? We can’t.
There are also socio-political risks to consider. It’s already apparent in some of the critique of proprietary algorithm use in social policy domains such as welfare and justice work. Cathy O’Neill, for example, describes much of the work in this field as “weapons of math destruction”, by which she means many of the unchecked assumptions in such models and methods reinforce existing systems of privilege and prejudice.
Individuals on the margins of society can become even more vulnerable through the application of advanced big data technologies. Once big data is applied to social problems, which is to say ‘people problems’, then we need to pay much closer attention to its application. This is especially true in the social sciences where we have seen this kind of led-by-the-nose enthusiasm for the promised ‘big fix’ before.
So how do we as students and researchers of technology, business and humanities address this within and across our disciplines?
Our argument is that we need not only a sociology ‘of’ big data, that is, how to understand and use big data in sociological contexts, but also a big data sociology. The latter would need to examine the sociological implications of big data use and possibilities from a critical perspective. Data is not, and never will be entirely neutral. It is a tool, and like every tool is dependent on the intentions of those who use it.
To begin, a big data sociology needs to confront the hype front on. No more techno-mythology or endless streams of unaccountable ‘innovation’ stories. At least not without close inquiry, analysis and follow-up. Secondly, the impact on society’s vulnerable groups have to be transparent. No more hiding behind the algorithms (‘the maths made me do it’) or proprietary systems, copyright law and weak, individualistic ‘privacy’ protections.
These responses may be unavoidable in some situations but they also tell us something about the risk attached to some big data applications. If the provider wants to hide how their system actually works, then they have probably got something to hide that is of importance to the people it targets.
And that’s why we need a big data sociology to confront these issues directly and separate the big data hype from its potential.
In summary:
Big data may be perceived as neutral, immediate and comprehensive, but Centre for Health Services Management Director Joanne Travaglia and researcher Hamish Robertson say that’s not always the case
They argue for a sociology ‘of’ big data and a big data sociology to examine the use of big data and ensure unchecked assumptions don’t reinforce privilege, prejudice and inequity
Imagine life without computers. It’s likely that’s something you can’t, or don’t want to, do. Now, UTS students and researchers are working together to create software that will power more socially-aware and responsive robots. Their hope is that, one day soon, these robots will revolutionise our lives, just like the once-not-so-humble computer.
“Most robots today are anti-social. In fact, they satisfy the definition of a psychopath because they don't care and they have no feelings,” explains Director of the Innovation and Enterprise Research Laboratory Mary-Anne Williams.
Enter Pepper. Standing roughly 120 centimeters tall and weighing less than 30 kilograms, Pepper is social, expressive and self-aware. Pepper knows the difference between you and a chair.
It’s all thanks to the software running on Pepper (yes, Pepper is a robot). The software enables Pepper to understand that people need to be treated differently because, unlike an object like a chair, people have intentions and the ability to act.
“Pepper is adaptable, empathetic and attentive,” says Williams. “It can bring you the newspaper, tell you who won an election, entertain you, provide you with real-time data from your smart home or lead physical exercises.”
Thanks to a partnership with SoftBank Robotics, UTS is one of only eight universities worldwide that Pepper can call home. The collaboration gives UTS the chance to benchmark our work against the world’s top robotics labs, such as the University of Rome in Italy, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and Carnegie Mellon University in the USA.
“Benchmarking is critical. We don’t ask, ‘Is my algorithm more optimal than yours?’ Instead we ask ‘Can your robot solve a complex human interaction problem better, faster and more sociably than ours?’,” explains Williams.
“We are creating the future,” adds PhD student Jonathan Vitale. “It's like when they introduced computers to the university for the first time. They were very big and expensive. Then they created desktop computers.” Vitale is part of a team of 14 students and researchers who took Pepper to the RoboCup@Home social robot competition last July. But, more on that later.
Back at UTS, you wouldn’t glance twice at the nondescript Magic Lab where Pepper ‘lives’. It sits in the middle of a row of classrooms in building 11. And with the blinds drawn, prying eyes cannot see the wonders inside – a transdisciplinary team of students and researchers conducting experiments, coding and mapping, creating and testing interaction designs until they reach the ‘aha’ moment.
The team, led by Williams, consists of web designers, robotics researchers, artificial intelligence researchers, cognitive specialists and coders, just to name a few. They create the software that gives life to Pepper and will one day make robots an everyday addition to our lives.
“Robots will be another form of species,” explains Vitale. “They do not necessarily have to copy humans, as long as they can be understood by and interact with humans. They can do that through different ways of communication, like through a tablet. Robots may even have different feelings, like'having their circuits on fire'.”
“We don’t ask, ‘Is my algorithm more optimal than yours?’ Instead we ask ‘Can your robot solve a complex human interaction problem better, faster and more sociably than ours?’”
Williams adds, “For a social robot to be successful they will need to be able to interact with people. If you saw me carrying a lot of boxes towards the door you are just coming out of, you would just open the door for me. I wouldn't even have to ask you. Will humans do the same for robots, and will robots do the same for humans?
“People effortlessly empathise with each other and that guides much of our behaviour in society. How can a robot get that kind of response from people?” Williams asks. “How can robots engage people and find win-wins in social settings and complex human-centered environments?”
The answer: robot personalities.
“You can embed any personality in a robot. You can have a grumpy, bad-tempered robot, or an overeager, helpful robot,” says Williams. “But what's important is that a robot’s traits and behaviours make sense to people and allow people to predict them.”
That’s why, this year, Williams led the university-wide hunt for Pepper’s personality. It culminated in a hackathon that invited students from all faculties and levels of robotics experience to contribute.
“It was a way to get a much more diverse set of robot personality ideas for the team to work on and bring to life,” says Williams.
Even Head of Animation at Animal Logic Rob Coleman, fresh off The LEGO Batman Movie production, joined the hackathon to explain how Hollywood creates animated characters. Students then used the same methodology to create personalities for Pepper.
“Each group came up with a personality – a job, a back story, a favorite object, a fear and a conversation,” recalls Graduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching and Learning student Lyndal Parker. She was one of 20 students from a range of faculties who participated in the hackathon.
“I was trying to put myself out of my comfort zone. I’ve never thought of myself as particularly creative but I have a lot to do with animals and with children. They wanted to make a robot engaging. Animals and kids really engage people. So, I thought, well, I'll put it out there and give it a go.”
In July this year, some of these personalities were used by the UTS team (the only Australian team to qualify) in the newly established social robotics league at RoboCup 2017 – the biggest robot competition in the world.
It wasn’t the first appearance by the university. Williams says, “Past years have seen UTS earn a reputation for innovation by thinking outside the engineering box. We have had sports players and dancers on our robot soccer team who helped develop ballerina-type kicking motions and the league’s first ‘dodge’ and ‘dribble’ manoeuvers that changed the way the game is played.”
And with RoboCup 2018 and 2019 being held in Montreal, Canada and Sydney respectively, Williams is confident it won’t be our last. “Our enviable track record as one of the most innovative teams emboldens us to ignore conventional approaches to robotics, and to pursue radically unconventional designs drawn from our transdisciplinary foundations.”
The UTS team is still looking for members from all faculties. To find out more about how you can be involved, visit utsunleashed.webnode.com
In summary:
Standing roughly 120 centimeters tall and weighing less than 30 kilograms, Pepper is a social, expressive and self-aware robot now ‘living’ at the Innovation and Enterprise Research Laboratory
In July, using personalities developed during a university-wide student hackathon, a UTS team took Pepper to RoboCup 2017 where they won the Best Human-Robot Interface Award and placed second in the Social Special Platform League
William Feuerman, or Billy as he’d prefer, is a “visual person”. So, in 2010, when his sight was affected by a rare form of stroke that damaged the nerves in his eyes, Feuerman’s interpretation of the world shifted.
“Being partially blind, I was much more aware of the space around me,” says Feuerman. “This awareness of space became a key component to my work and the work that I’ve done since then.”
That work, says Feuerman, plays on defining the invisible spaces of our urban environments, the ones that go unnoticed, and transforming the ways we interact with them. His aim, ultimately, is to alter our perceptions of the world around us.
Feuerman explains, “I like constructing an experience in an incredibly pre-scripted way. It’s not just about looking at it, it’s about interacting with it, occupying it, inhabiting it. It has strong implications on what architecture can potentially be.”
Feuerman points to one of his first urban installations – Street Light Disco, where mirror-ball banners lined the light poles in Martin Place, reflecting light during the day and illuminating the dark passageway at night. More recently, Feuerman created Urban Chandelier. Here, over 6000 reflective triangles were hung, with precision, from carbon fibre rods suspended above an alleyway in Chattanooga, USA. The idea was simple – design an architectural experience in which people can enter to escape the distraction and hum of urban existence.
Feuerman says, “We are all in a way blind – as we are tied to our technology.” Taking a brief moment to look at the buzzing cafe around us, people are at tables or walking to and from ensconced in their mobile devices. They’re completely oblivious to the goings on around them.
Feuerman’s focus, however, is clear: “This is a major problem that exists in the urban environment. How can architecture make people more aware, more attentive of the space around them?”
He’s particularly fascinated by dense urban environments (he confesses it’s the New Yorker in him) and creating experiences where “people stop, think about what they’re looking at, making them more aware – even just for a moment.”
While his work is incredibly playful and beautiful, Feuerman is clear to point out it’s “not beauty for beauty’s sake”.
He says, “By using architecture as a device, architectural elements can exist that don’t just beautify the city, but actually impact the psychology of the city. And that it incredibly valuable.”
In summary:
In 2010, a rare form of stroke which damaged the nerves in William Feuerman’s eyes, changed the way he interprets the world
Since then he’s been using architectural installations to define the invisible spaces of our urban environments and change the ways we interact with the city
