In response to the ethical dilemma, as a member of Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), we must refer to the Rules of Conduct (RoC) issued by the IET and the Statement of Ethical Principles issued by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) and the Engineering Council (EC), the latter of which is declared in point 2 in the RoC. As such it can be seen from point 14 of the RoC, quite clearly, that as - “Members shall at all times take all reasonable care to limit any danger of death, injury or ill-health to any person that may result from their work and the products of their work.” – our team must act vigilantly in regards to this matter, as we have estimated a high probability of death as a result of products of our work. As to what our team does in response to the situation, turning to the IET’s resource to members on whistleblowing, entitled “Whistleblowing: guidance for members” (referred to in this text as ‘whistleblowing guidance’), it states:
“The IET’s Bye-laws (Bye-law 29) and Rules of Conduct impose obligations to act when encountering something inconsistent with those Rules. Failure to raise a relevant concern may render a member liable to disciplinary action under our Rules of Conduct.”
It then goes on to state:
“Many organisations, both within the public and the private sector, have policies and procedures for the employees to raise concerns. In the first instance, therefore, IET members who are concerned about apparent wrong-doing in their organisations should consult their employer’s code or procedures for reporting wrong-doing.”
Therefore, we are obliged as a team to ‘whisleblow’, as failure to do so is to contravene point 14 of the RoC and will result in disciplinary action as per the whistleblowing guidance. As per the secondary statement listed, we are required to follow the relevant procedures within our professional organisation/employer to raise the issue.
Although, as per point 11 of the RoC, any member of the IET must support others’ that have made a genuine whistleblow, the company/professional body with whom our team is working with/for may be resistant to such a case; moreover, the company/organisation may not be a member of the IET, or recognise its legitimacy. In this case, as members of the IET ourselves, we would refer again to the whistleblowing guidance, which states that, whilst there being no compulsion or recommendation, that members of the IET “may decide to go outside their organisation” (i.e. take the whistleblowing into the public domain) if “a member be in a position where they have tried to use their employers’ internal procedures and this has not proved effective”. Therefore, if the whistleblowing process internally within our company/organisation is resistant and tries to ‘cover up’ our raising of concern of the issue, formally the RoC does not make recommendation about if or how we are to pursue further action, however as per point 14 of the RoC, the IET does make it clear that at all times a member must act reasonably to prevent death, and we think most people would in this situation, like ourselves, believe it ethical to whistleblow externally, as this would be perhaps the only option to prevent death given the circumstances.
Cost Breakdown of Micromouse
Component | Farnell Stock Code | RS Stock Code | Mouser Stock Code | Quantity used | Individual Cost (ex. VAT) | Total Cost (ex. VAT) | Notes |
MC9S08AW60 microprocessor board | N/A | 1 | £50.0000 | £50.000 | |||
IR Receiver | 2 | £1.2300 | £2.460 | ||||
IR Emitter | 2 | 1.57 (Min 5 pcs) | £1.570 | ||||
LDR | 3168335 | 4 | £1.0000 | £4.000 | |||
3mm Red LED | 1 | £0.304 (Min 5 pcs) | £0.304 | ||||
3mm Green LED | 1 | £0.3875 (Min 5 pcs) | #VALUE! | ||||
BC557 Transistor | 1 | £1.06 (Min 10 pcs) | £1.060 | ||||
1k 1% 1/4W Resistor | 4 | £0.316 (Min 10 pcs) | £0.316 | ||||
10k 1% 1/4W Resistor | 5 | £0.326 (Min 10 pcs) | £0.326 | ||||
100R 1% 1/4W Resistor | 2 | £0.3510 | £0.702 | ||||
62k 1% 1/4W Resistor | 1 | £0.321 (Min 10 pcs) | £0.321 | ||||
47k 1% 1/4W Resistor | 1 | £0.0351 | £0.035 | ||||
1M 1% 1/4W Resistor | 3 | £0.317 (min 10 pcs) | £0.317 | ||||
1N4148 Diode | 3 | £0.279 (min 5 pcs) | £0.279 | ||||
1nF ceramic capacitor | 1 | £0.1330 | £0.133 | ||||
100nF ceramic capacitor | 9411887 | 6 | £1.95 (min 10 pcs) | £1.950 | |||
10uF electrolytic capacitor | 1 | £0.0862 | £0.086 | ||||
Pololu Motor | n/a | n/a | 2 | £10.8800 | £21.760 | ||
Pololu Wheel (pair) | n/a | n/a | 1 | £4.7300 | £4.730 | ||
Pololu Motor Bracket | n/a | n/a | 2 | £3.3800 | £6.760 | ||
Pololu Micromouse Chassis | n/a | n/a | 1 | £5.4300 | £5.430 | ||
Pololu Ball caster | n/a | n/a | 2 | £2.0800 | £4.160 | ||
Pololu 3-position Microswitch | n/a | n/a | 1 | £0.4400 | £0.440 | ||
CD4093 Schmitt Trigger | 595-CD4093BE | 1 | £0.4120 | £0.412 | |||
Battery kit | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1 | £22.0300 | £22.030 | |
PCB | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1 | £35.0000 | £35.000 | |
3D-Printed Shell | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1 | £5.0000 | £5.0000 | 100g 3D print, at £0.05 /g |
Solid-core 20AWG wire | n/a | n/a | 1 | £16.6200 | £16.6200 | per reel | |
Grand Total | £186.59 | ||||||
Overhead Resource Cost Breakdown
Overhead | Details/Notes | Per Hour Cost | Total Cost |
Lab Time | 20 weeks, 4 hrs per week | £20.0000 | £1,600.0000 |
Technical/Academic Support | (Micromouse required 20 weeks, 4 hrs per week, lab time) Calculations for the time Micriomouse required for 2 academic staff, £25,000 pa ph salary, salaried for 37.5hrs per week | £102.5641 | £8,205.1282 |
Grand Total | £9805.13 | ||
Billable Time Cost
Billable Time | Details/Notes | Cost per hour per person | No. of Hours total | Total Cost |
Micromouse Development | 20 weeks, 4 hrs per week per person (4 people total) | £10.00 | 320 | £3,200 |
Website development | 20 weeks, 1 hr per week, 1 person | £10.00 | 20 | £200.00 |
Grand Total | £3,400.00 | |||
Part Name : Cost: Arduino Genuino UNO 21 kuman 1602 Shield Module LCD Display V3 Compatible for Arduino 13.69 dht 11 Temperature/ Humidity sensor 3.04
Reflection on Sustainability
Our team is acutely aware of the need for sustainability in engineering, and it influenced our Micromouse is a number of ways.
We were aware that we could improve sustainability by minimising the number of components used throughout the project, meaning that components used in breadboarding elements of the Micromouse were the same components used in the final assembled mouse. In addition, careful attention was made during soldering not to waste components or to damage them.
Thorough the whole Micromouse project we endeavoured to use electricity, and power sources generally, in the minimum required amount. This was achieved by: switching on air extraction, keeping soldering stations powered, or having computers in ‘wake’ state for a minimum amount of time.
Where possible, RoHS-compliant components were used, however LDRs (due to containing Cadmium Sulphide) do not comply. Thus, and although the links with our recycling plan, strict adherence to their proper recycling will contribute to ecological health and therefore, sustainability.
All electronic devices come with some cost-benefit analysis in regards to resource usage and potential for recycling. Given that our micromouse is not to be made in mass production, and is a single unit made for education purposes, the natural resource outlay versus the human benefit from its existence is weighted firmly towards human benefit, and as such shows the device’s high level of sustainability. Furthermore, once our use of our micromouse ceases, we imagine the mouse will be used, sparingly at least, for demonstration purposes at the university, of how, or how not (!), to design such a device.
Recycling Plan at End-Of-Life
As remarked in the ‘Reflection on Sustainability’, recycling will be an aspect to the sustainability of our Micromouse project. To improve the sustainability, and in accordance with Waste of Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) regulations 2013, it would be recommended by our team that whoever is disposing of the Micromouse, as our team may not be in the position to do so, does so as to maximise reuse of components. The reuse of components may be significantly easier on our Micromouse in comparison to some electrical equipment, as many of the components are THDs, and thus easy to remove by cutting. Although the PCB itself is largely non-recyclable and non-resuable, the microprocessor board, depending on the time and place at which recycling is performed, may be reused for other Micromouse projects or reused for other means, and certain of the peripheral components, such as sensors or touch bars, may be easily reused. The same principle applies to the plastic parts, including the chassis, of the Micromouse, which may also be recycled. Any of the components that are non-salvageable or not reusable, such as the PCB, motor assemblies, etc. must be disposed of in the correct way as per WEEE 2013 regulations (or newer).
Plan for Website Maintenance
During the assessment period for Micromouse we endeavour to maintain the website to keep it up-to-date with the progress of the project. These key points are to be implemented during the project and the assessment period: