Cramer, Henriette

Jacobsson, Mattias

English

Software institutes' Online Digital Archive

 Universal Robots as ʻSolutionsʼ to Wicked Problems: 
Debunking a Robotic Myth
 Mattias Jacobsson, Henriette Cramer 
Mobile Life Centre @ SICS 
Kista, Sweden 
majac@sics.se, henriette@mobilelifecentre.org 
  
ABSTRACT 
This work in progress discusses a persistent myth about robots, 
namely that ‘future robots will be universal solutions’, or in other 
words that robots should tackle many complex tasks and 
situations. In our approach we consider whether this is a case of 
posing robots as solutions to wicked problems or if robots can be 
considered wicked design problems in themselves. At the same 
time we make an argument for adopting a research through design 
approach. Our stance suggests that by viewing robots as 
composed of design materials we can sensitively address and in 
the long run perhaps even avoid wicked problems related to 
robotics. 
Categories and Subject Descriptors 
H.5.M [Info. interfaces and presentation]: Misc. 
General Terms 
Design, Human Factors  
1. INTRODUCTION 
Within the field of HCI the approach of research through design 
has been practiced for some time now [1][2]. One of the factors 
that contributed to this shift in framing was the recognition of the 
issue of designing for so called wicked problems [3][4]. Such 
problems are often characterized by being very complex, are  
dependent on a variety of changing parameters, e.g. societal 
changes, and different stakeholders with potentially conflicting 
values and needs. Examples include such as urban crime or 
disease epidemics. Zimmerman et.al [4] argue that one of the 
main points in Rittel & Webbers classical analysis is that an 
engineering approach is far from enough when trying to address 
problems; no clear, one solution will solve these problems, and 
many ‘solutions’ that will have positive effects from the 
perspective of a subset of stakeholders are likely to have 
(unexpected or negative) side-effects for other stakeholders. The 
opposite of a wicked problem is defined as a tame problem, and 
could still be just as complex, but in contrast relatively easy to 
define and find a solution to. Within the field of HRI we 
sometimes come across statements regarding robotic ‘solutions’ 
for problems associated with for example low birth rates, 
healthcare for aging populations or time limitations of hard 
working families. Looking at how robotic research often is 
portrayed (and mystified) in research agendas as well as popular 
media we realize that many of the questions posed to be solved 
are indeed – wicked problems.  
Within the research through design paradigm we have found 
participatory design and experience centered approaches valuable 
in identifying issues that contribute to and uphold wicked 
problems in the robotic artifact domain. From another perspective, 
a research through design approach would also validate robotic 
artifacts as a knowledge currency that can be assessed and 
reflected upon as a representative population of ideas and design 
cases. We thus have an unique position in that we as 
interdisciplinary researchers can actively take a stance and clearly 
motivate that our research is about exploring a most complex 
technological and social space available, and so without resorting 
to ideals and references from science fiction [6]. In our own 
research we have explored this theme through a number of 
workshops, the first one in 2005 entitled “Designing Robot 
Applications for Everyday Environments” and the last one in 
2010 “Designing Robotic Artifacts With User- and Experience-
Centered Perspectives” (see e.g. [7] and [8]).  
The goal with this poster is on one hand to clarify the relationship 
between robots as complex design problems and robots as 
(mythical) solutions to wicked problems. Furthermore, we suggest 
that by viewing robotic artifacts as compositions of so called 
robotic materials, we will be able to distance ourselves from 
framing robots as solutions to wicked problems. Such materials 
would reside in both the physical and digital realm [9], and at the 
same time articulate aspects attuned to robotic artifacts.  
2. UNIVERSAL ROBOTS  
Looking at some given definitions of a wicked problem [3] we 
learn that different stakeholders have different definitions of such 
problems, that there are many parameters or interdependencies, 
that there may be unforeseen consequences when attempting to 
address wicked problems, often there is a lack of clear solutions, 
the problem can be of a constantly changing nature, it is socially 
complex, usually involves that people need to change behavior 
and finally - are prone to chronic policy failures. Still, such 
problems are often posed as the motivation for robot projects. 
Now let us compare it with how the term universal has been 
introduced and used in the context of robots. 
The notion of robot was introduced in western popular culture 
with the play Rossum’s Universal Robots by Čapek in 1921. We 
note that universal in this case stands in close relation to the slave 
connotation that has put a sort of cultural flavor to how we in the 
western culture have learned to adopt the word robot (Robota 
being the Czech word for compulsory labor). A more modern 
version of the concept of a universal robot can be described 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).  
HRI’11, March 6–9, 2011, Lausanne, Switzerland.  
ACM  978-1-4503-0561-7/11/03. 
similarly to how as for example Moravec frames the concept in 
his 1991 book  [5]: 
“To be useful in many tasks, the first generation of universal 
robots should navigate efficiently over flat ground and reliably 
and safely over rough terrain and stairs, be able to manipulate 
most objects, and to find them in the nearby world.” 
Perhaps more interesting is the defining vision in the far end of 
Moravec’s prediction where we would finally arrive at what 
would be the ultimate universal robot: 
“The fourth robot generation and its successors, with human 
perceptual and motor abilities and superior reasoning powers, 
could replace human beings in every essential task. In principle, 
our society could continue to operate increasingly well without us, 
with machines running the companies and doing the research as 
well as performing the productive work.” 
Visions of robots as ‘having to be’ universal and able to serve a 
multitude of tasks, and able to address a multitude of wicked 
problems, appear to still live on and are nurtured both within 
research as well as popular media. The pinpoint appears to be the 
following: an escalation of attributing human qualities to robots 
that even goes beyond human capabilities and thus would result in 
the belief that universality will solve our own unsolvable wicked 
problems. As a bit of a paradox, we are at the same time 
observing developments that show a very opposite trend - that 
robots with a rather particular purpose are the innovations that are 
actually breaking ground. Illustrative examples in this case would 
be the new breed of remote controlled robotic teleconferencing 
systems (e.g. The Giraffe) and commonly referenced robotic 
vacuum cleaners (e.g. Roomba). 
3. ROBOT DESIGN & WICKED 
PROBLEMS 
Let us then briefly consider aspects of robotic design and how 
these are commonly approached within the field. Here we find 
several concepts regarding e.g. level of autonomy, the uncanny 
valley and the media equation. The common theme of these 
concepts is the central role that we humans as a measure of 
success are used in their evaluation. Now, reflecting on humans as 
sufferers and producers (and an integral part) of wicked problems 
we can get to the core of this issue. A robot as a wicked design 
problem is thus really the following: how can we design robots 
that actually solve human problems and address needs – without 
resorting to trying to design for ‘anything and everyone’? It would 
be safe to say that this is really still a core question for the HRI 
community and one that is up for a wider debate. 
Here we would like to open the prospect of adopting a research 
through design agenda. An important aspect for us is that it helps 
us frame wicked problems by doing what Frayling refers to as 
‘doing the right thing’; making artifacts or in this case robotic 
artifacts intended to transfer the world from the current state to a 
preferred state [see 4]. From an ideological perspective, a designer 
can also be regarded ‘responsible’ for the resulting robotic 
artifacts. Researchers embracing such a value-sensitive agenda 
can feel truly proficient about creating artifacts that transform the 
world into ‘a preferred’ state, and thus will be able to answer up to 
and more clearly motivate their research. However, we have to 
realize the values we ourselves bring to the table and that what is 
preferred and ‘solutions’ are not universal. Nor should we try to 
solve all with one type of design. Our standpoint is that robots 
should not be posed as solutions to wicked problems, but rather 
sensitively designed as compilations of robotic materials that are 
articulated to particular situations rather than as universal agents.  
In our vision we suggest that a robotic material is a material that 
combines the kind of physical-digital material proposed by 
Fernaeus, with an aesthetical take of being in motion as suggested 
by phenomenological approaches [1]. Robotic material is not 
always fundamentally different from other physical-digital 
materials, nor should building ‘a robot’ be the be-all and end-all 
of our endeavors. We believe that robotic designs are more likely 
to be successful if grounded in real use and real experiences 
addressing real needs. Our long-term goal is that this approach 
would in due time reduce the urge to pose “robots as solutions to 
wicked problems” by constantly asking ourselves the obvious 
question: could there be another technology or social change that 
addresses (part of) this particular problem in a better (perhaps less 
complex) way?  All in all, the stance that we take -perhaps 
unsurprisingly- suggests that we continue doing research through 
an iterative loop consisting of field studies, design and 
implementation, and evaluation of (un)intended effects. As a 
byproduct we can rest in comfort knowing that we at least have a 
sound and universal argument for creating the kinds of robotic 
artifacts that we do. Or can we? 
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
This work is part of LIREC, funded by the EU Community's 7th 
Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013, grant n° 215554). We 
thank our colleagues for their valuable input on this work in 
progress and our “Robot Myth” group for intriguing discussions. 
5. REFERENCES 
[1] Fallman, D. 2003. In Romance with the Materials of Mobile 
Interaction: A Phenomenological Approach to the Design of 
Mobile Information Technology. Online: http://www.diva-
portal.org/umu/abstract.xsql?dbid=170, Acc: 11 Jan. 2009. 
[2] Dourish, P. 2004. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of 
Embodied Interaction, New Ed. The MIT Press, MA, USA. 
[3] Rittel, H. and Webber, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general 
theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2, Jun 1973), 155-169. 
[4] Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. and Evenson, S. 2007. Research 
through design as a method for interaction design research in 
HCI. In Proc. of CHI’07. ACM, NY, USA. 493-502. 
[5] Moravec, H. 2000. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent 
Mind. Oxford University Press, USA, 2000. 
[6] Fernaeus, Y., Jacobsson, M., Ljungblad, S., and Holmquist, 
L.E. 2009. Are we living in a robot cargo cult? In 
Proceedings of HRI’09. ACM, NY, USA, 279-280. 
[7] Ljungblad, S. and Holmquist, L.E.. 2005. Designing robot 
applications for everyday environments. Workshop SOC-
EUSAI’05, Grenoble, France, 65-68. 
[8] Fernaeus, Y. et al. 2009. Where third wave HCI meets HRI: 
report from a workshop on user-centred design of robots. In 
Proc. HRI’09. ACM, NY, USA, 293-294.  
[9] Fernaeus, Y., Tholander, J., and Jonsson, M. 2008. Beyond 
representations: towards an action-centric perspective on 
tangible interaction. Int. J. of Arts and Tech. 1 (3), 249 - 267. 
 
 


Universal Robots as ‘Solutions’ to Wicked Problems: Debunking a Robotic Myth, Late breaking abstract, HRI’11, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Swedish Institute of Computer Science Publications Database

Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-line

RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden

http://soda.swedishict.se/5224/1/HRIlbr221-Jacobsson.pdf

Universal Robots as ‘Solutions’ to Wicked Problems: Debunking a Robotic Myth, Late breaking abstract, HRI’11, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Software institutes' Online Digital Archive

Swedish Institute of Computer Science Publications Database

Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-line

RISE – Research Institutes of Sweden