We are seeking further contributions for the Complex Systems Toolkit. Please register your interest in developing a resource by 12th July 2026. You can also join our forthcoming CPD-certificated webinar on ACE-Box and agentic engineering workflows, where we will tell you more about this call for content.

 

Background

In November 2025 the EPC, with support from Quanser, launched a new Complex Systems Toolkit, aimed at providing accessible, practical resources for embedding complex systems concepts into engineering education.

The Toolkit launched with an abundance of resources, allowing educators and industry professionals to dive into the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of complex systems with knowledge and guidance articles, discover ready-to-use teaching resources including case studies and other classroom activities, and hear directly from the creators and partners who helped shape the Toolkit with a well-attended launch webinar (now available to watch on demand).

These resources have been well used in their first six months, but we’re not stopping there. We want to add further resources, on topics that are emerging as being of vital importance to students as they graduate and seek work. The first of the topics that we want to cover is intelligent robotics.

 

What and why?

Intelligent robotics, and the more recent applications to physical AI, generally refers to artificial intelligence systems that are embedded in and interact directly with the physical world, rather than operating purely in digital environments. This includes technologies like robots, autonomous vehicles, and drones that can perceive their surroundings through sensors, process that information using AI models, and take real-world actions. Unlike traditional software-based AI, intelligent robotics applications deal with real-time constraints, uncertainty, and complex environments, requiring tight integration between hardware (like sensors and actuators) and decision-making algorithms.

For engineering students, learning about intelligent robotics and physical AI workflows matters because it sits at the intersection of software, hardware, and real-world problem solving. It forces students to grapple with uncertainty, noisy sensor data, timing constraints, and safety considerations, which are unavoidable in real systems like robots or autonomous vehicles. That experience builds practical intuition about how algorithms behave outside ideal conditions. Engineers who understand this are better equipped to design systems that are robust, adaptive, and resilient. Industries are moving rapidly toward automation, robotics, and intelligent infrastructure, so familiarity with intelligent robotics and physical AI workflows opens doors in fields like manufacturing, healthcare technology, and transportation. It helps engineers think holistically: not just “does the code work?” but “does the system behave safely and effectively in the real world?”.

 

Contributors sought to develop resources on Intelligent Robotics for inclusion in the toolkit

We are seeking experts in intelligent robotics, from academia, industry, and engineering organisations, to develop resources on this topic for publication in the Complex Systems Toolkit. These resources will inform, guide and aid educators to embed teaching on intelligent robotics into their engineering lessons, modules or courses.

We invite contributors to develop resources in three areas:

We’re also looking for experts in intelligent robotics and physical AI to join us as reviewers and working group members.

 

We are seeking content on the following topics

Resources should reference the topic’s relationship to complex systems and engineering education/graduate skills. We are particularly interested in resources that help engineering educators teach these topics effectively.

 

 

Read more about the specific content we are looking for (click on the arrows to expand the sections)

Submit a knowledge article

Submit a knowledge article

As well as choosing a topic, you will need to choose an angle for your resource.

For knowledge articles. contributors might consider one of the following:

  • What it is: explaining the topic and its relation to complex systems.
  • Why educators should teach it / students should learn it.
  • Why it should be integrated into engineering education.
  • An angle of your own choosing.

These articles should connect the why (why must teaching about the topic be present in engineering education?) to the how (how can this be done efficiently and effectively?). Through these tools, we aim to help upskill UK engineering educators so that they feel capable of and confident in integrating complex systems concepts and intelligent robotics topics into their engineering teaching.

 

Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a knowledge article

Research:

Knowledge articles are resources that users can access to improve their knowledge or find more information. These are intended to provide theoretical and practical background on complex systems concepts and tools such as modelling or decision-making approaches. While guidance articles focus on “how”, knowledge articles focus on “what”.

Before you begin, you should review existing Complex Systems Toolkit knowledge articles, since we hope that contributions will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone.

Knowledge articles are meant to be overviews that a reader with no prior knowledge of the topic could refer to in order to develop a baseline understanding and learn where to look for additional information (they can reference other sources). They should be understandable to students as well: imagine that an educator might excerpt content from the article to provide their students context on a project or learning activity.

They should be approximately 500-1000 words (although they can be more in depth if necessary) and reference relevant online open-source resources.

Overview:

The articles are meant to be able to stand on their own as a piece of knowledge on a topic; they are also meant to work alongside other articles so that taken together they form a sort of complex systems in engineering handbook.

Purpose:

Each article should inform, explain, and provide knowledge on the topic. Put yourself in the perspective of an engineering educator who is new to the topic.

Content:

The content of the article should be organised and well developed. That is, it should be presented in a logical way and thoroughly explained.

References and resources:

Where additional explanation could be given, it might point to other resources, and where information is presented from another source, it needs to be properly referenced using Harvard referencing.

Format:

Knowledge articles should follow this format:

  • Premise;
  • Body of article, divided up into headed sections as necessary;
  • Conclusion (optional);
  • References: use Harvard referencing;
  • Resources (online and open source).

 

Step 2: Before you submit, review this checklist

  • Does the article both make sense as a single piece of content as well as fit in with the rest of the knowledge articles?
  • Would someone new to this complex systems topic understand the information presented and would it help them?
  • Do you need to expand on any ideas or reorganise them to make them clearer?
  • What additional resources or references have you included?
  • Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
  • Are sources cited using Harvard referencing?

 

Step 3: Submitting your knowledge article:

Knowledge articles should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx).

Also submit any additional resources such as spreadsheets, handouts etc., and ensure that they are in an editable format. Please clarify where in the resource these should be embedded or linked.

Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format. We need these to be uploaded separately from the Word file, as we will be embedding them in a web page. Please ensure that they are of high resolution and adequate size (we suggest a minimum of 800 pixels wide); that you have the right or permission to use them (bearing in mind they will be published under a Creative Commons license); and that you have added any permissions, sources, credits or other details for them in the body of the document that you are submitting.

To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the Toolkit resources in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, this work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence users are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that they must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.

Download a copy of this guidance

Submit your knowledge article here

Submit a guidance article

Submit a guidance article

As well as choosing a topic, you will need to choose an angle for your resource.

For guidance articles, contributors might consider one of the following:

  • Guide to explaining the topic to students.
  • How to assess for skills / competencies on this topic.
  • An angle of your own choosing.

These articles should also connect the why (why must teaching about this topic be present in engineering education?) to the how (how can this be done efficiently and effectively?). Through these tools, we aim to help upskill UK engineering educators so that they feel capable of and confident in integrating complex systems concepts and intelligent robotics topics into their engineering teaching.

 

Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a guidance article

Research:

Guidance articles are resources that users can access to learn how to do something. These are intended to provide practical advice on subjects such as how to explain complex systems to students, or how to assess for skills and competencies in complex systems. While knowledge articles focus on “what”, guidance articles should focus on “how.”

Before you begin, you should review existing Complex Systems Toolkit guidance articles, since we hope that contributions will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone.

Guidance articles aim to help situate our teaching resources in an educational context and to signpost to additional research and resources on complex systems theory and tools.

They should be approximately 500-1000 words (although they can be more in depth if necessary) and reference relevant online open-source resources.

Overview:

Guidance articles are meant to be able to stand on their own as a piece of guidance on a topic; they are also meant to work alongside other articles so that taken together they form a sort of complex systems in engineering handbook.

Purpose:

Each article should inform, explain, and provide guidance on the topic. Put yourself in the perspective of an engineering educator who is new to the topic.

Content:

The content of the article should be organised and well developed. That is, it should be presented in a logical way and thoroughly explained.

References and resources:

Where additional explanation could be given, it might point to other resources, and where information is presented from another source, it needs to be properly referenced using Harvard referencing.

Format:

Guidance articles should follow this format:

  • Premise;
  • Body of article, divided up into headed sections as necessary;
  • Conclusion (optional);
  • References: use Harvard referencing;
  • Resources (online and open source).

 

Step 2: Before you submit, review this checklist

  • Does the article both make sense as a single piece of content as well as fit in with the rest of the guidance articles?
  • Would someone new to this complex systems topic understand the information presented and would it help them?
  • Is the explanation clear, logically structured and technically accurate?
  • Do you need to expand on any ideas or reorganise them to make them clearer?
  • What additional resources or references have you included?
  • Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
  • Are sources cited using Harvard referencing?

 

Step 3: Submitting your guidance article

Guidance articles should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx).

Also submit any additional resources such as spreadsheets, handouts etc., and ensure that they are in an editable format. Please clarify where in the resource these should be embedded or linked.

Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format. We need these to be uploaded separately from the Word file, as we will be embedding them in a web page. Please ensure that they are of high resolution and adequate size (we suggest a minimum of 800 pixels wide); that you have the right or permission to use them (bearing in mind they will be published under a Creative Commons license); and that you have added any permissions, sources, credits or other details for them in the body of the document that you are submitting.

To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the Toolkit resources in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, this work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence users are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that they must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.

Download a copy of this guidance

Submit your guidance article here.

Submit a teaching activity

 

Submit a teaching activity/resource

As well as choosing a topic, you will need to choose an angle for your resource.

For activities, contributors might consider one of the following:

  • Case studies that, through a real-world situation, illustrate the topic and its relation to complex systems, use cases for the tools that can be used to model / simulate this, techniques that promote development and use of systems architecture, and effects such as trade-offs, emergent properties, impacts, or unintended consequences. Case studies could also reference the implications for risk, security, ethics, sustainability, teamwork, and communication.
  • Demonstrator simulations that provide examples of how systems can be modelled.
    • This could include:
      • Examples of how the topic relates complex systems
      • Interactive examples showing how well-intentioned action can lead to failure
      • Interactive examples showing the best approaches to handling complexity
  • Teaching/learning activities, coursework, project briefs, lesson plans, modelling or simulation exercise/activities, technical content related to complex systems, worksheets, slides, robotics labs, swarm behaviour activities, system mapping exercises, hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations, digital twin exercises, or other teaching materials.
  • An angle of your own choosing.

These resources should promote active learning pedagogies and real-world teaching methods by showing how complex systems teaching can be embedded within technical problems and engineering practice. Through these resources, we aim to help upskill UK engineering educators so that they feel capable of and confident in integrating complex systems into their engineering teaching.

 

Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a teaching activity/resource

Research:

Teaching activities are resources that users can access to help them know what to integrate and implement. These include use cases/case studies which provide examples of complex systems topics which can be directly utilised in teaching with the suggested tools, as well as other classroom activities such as coursework, project briefs, lesson plans, simulation exercises, robotics labs, swarm behaviour activities, system mapping exercises, hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations, digital twin exercises, or other exercises.

Before you begin, you should review existing Complex Systems Toolkit teaching resources, since we hope that contributions will be fairly consistent in length, style, tone, format and approach. Remember that the audience for these resources is educators seeking to embed complex systems topics within their engineering teaching.

 

Step 1a: Guidance for submitting a case study

Case studies present real-world scenarios that can be used in teaching about complex systems topics in engineering. They provide students with opportunities to explore complex systems tools, and trade-offs, in authentic contexts, and reflect on decisions made about them.

They are usually based on a real example, although fictionalised cases are acceptable when they are grounded in realistic detail. Case studies should enable students to identify or interpret key features of complex systems topics (feedback loops, interdependence or emergent behaviour) and apply relevant tools or frameworks to make sense of the situation.

Case studies will vary in length depending on scope and resource, but many are around 1500-2000 words. They should reference relevant online open-source resources.

Please see the current research on good practice in writing case studies, which you may find helpful as you write, as well as our article about a recipe for writing a case study. This ‘recipe’ can guide you as you write to include or develop other aspects of the case. Both articles are from our Engineering Ethics Toolkit, but the guidance given can be adapted for complex systems cases.

Overview:

The case study should be presented as a narrative about a complex systems issue in engineering.

Narrative strength: the case should be clearly structured with a compelling and coherent story.

System complexity: it should explore interdependencies, multiple stakeholders and/or competing goals.

Tool integration: systems tools should be mentioned or incorporated (e.g. soft systems methodology, SysML, Agent-based modelling etc).

Activities and Resources: there should be questions, prompts or teaching activities to guide discussion or classroom use.

Authenticity:

Case studies are most effective when they feel like they are realistic, with characters that you can identify or empathise with, and with situations that do not feel fake or staged. Giving characters names and backgrounds, including emotional responses, and referencing real-life experiences help to increase authenticity.

Complexity of issue:

Many cases are either overly complicated so that they become overwhelming, or so straightforward that they can be “solved” quickly. A good strategy is to try to develop multiple dimensions of a case, but not too many that it becomes unwieldy. Additionally, complexity can be added through different parts of the case so that instructors can choose a simpler or more complicated version depending on what they need in their educational context.

Activities and resources:

You should provide a variety of suggestions for discussion points and activities to engage learners, as well as a list of reliable, authoritative open-source online resources, to both help educators prepare and to enhance students’ learning. Where information is presented from another source, it needs to be properly referenced using Harvard referencing.

Educational level and assessment:

Educational level: When writing your case study, you should consider which level it is aimed at. A Beginner level case is aimed at learners who have not had much experience in engaging with this complex systems topic or problem, and usually focuses on only one or two dimensions of a challenge. An Advanced-level case is aimed at learners who have had previous practice in engaging with this complex systems topic or problem, and often addresses multiple challenges. An Intermediate case is somewhere in between.

Assessment: If possible, suggest assessment opportunities for activities within the case, such as marking rubrics or example answers.

Format:

The case study should follow the following format:

  • Teaching notes (with learning objectives, time needed, materials): This is an overview of the case and its dilemma, and how it relates to AHEP4 and INCOSE competencies.
  • Learning and teaching resources: A list of reliable, authoritative, open-source online resources that relate to the case and its dilemma. These can be from a variety of sources, such as academic institutions, journals, news websites, business, and so on. We suggest a minimum of five sources that help to provide context to the case and its dilemmas.
  • Summary of system or context.
  • Narrative of the case (presenting the complexity).
  • Questions and activities. This is where you provide suggestions for discussions and activities related to the case and the dilemma.
  • Further discussion or challenge (optional). Some case studies are sufficiently complex at one dilemma, but if the case requires it you can provide further parts (up to a maximum of three).
  • References: use Harvard referencing.
  • If possible, suggest assessment opportunities for activities within the case, such as marking rubrics or example answers.
  • Keywords: On the submission form you will be prompted to provide keywords, including educational aims, issues and situations highlighted in the case.

 

Step 2a: Before you submit, review this checklist:

  • Does it follow the correct format?
  • Narrative strength: is the case clearly structured with a compelling and coherent story?
  • System complexity: does it explore interdependencies, multiple stakeholders and/or competing goals?
  • Tool integration: are systems tools mentioned or incorporated (e.g. soft systems methodology, SysML, Agent-based modelling etc)?
  • Activities and resources: are there questions, prompts or teaching activities to guide discussion or classroom use?
  • Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
  • Are sources cited using Harvard referencing?
  • What additional references have you included?

 

Step 1b: Read the guidance for submitting a different teaching activity

 Purpose & outcomes:

Teaching activities/tools are intended to support educators’ ability to apply and embed complex systems concepts and topics within their engineering teaching.

Educators need to quickly and easily find help with:

  • Adapting and integrating existing complex systems resources to their disciplinary context.
  • Implementing new and different pedagogies that support complex systems learning.
  • Structuring lessons, modules, and programmes so that complex systems skills and outcomes are central themes.

Thus, these teaching activities/tools will provide crucial guidance for those who may be teaching complex systems related material for the first time, or who are looking for new and different ways to integrate complex systems concepts or topics into their teaching.

Teaching activities/tools may take the form of learning activities, coursework, project briefs, lesson plans, modelling or simulation exercise/activities, technical content related to complex systems, worksheets, slides, robotics labs, swarm behaviour activities, system mapping exercises, hardware-in-the-loop demonstrations, digital twin exercises, or other similar teaching materials.

Research:

Before you begin to write, you should familiarise yourself with existing Complex Systems Toolkit teaching resources, as well as content that has been created to complement case studies in our Ethics Toolkit and teaching tools in our Sustainability Toolkit, since we want these resources to be produced in a similar style and format.

Purpose:

Imagine that you are an engineering educator who is new to teaching complex systems concepts or topics. You turn to this teaching tool to help you apply and embed these in your module.

  • Does this resource help introduce or develop concepts related to complex systems or systems thinking so that learners can engage with these topics in the context of engineering?
  • If not, what is needed to make this possible?

Presentation and clarity:

Depending on the resource, you may choose to provide worksheets, slides, problem sets, narrative prompts, etc.

  • Is the resource explained in such a way that someone new to teaching complex systems could understand how to use it?
  • Is the material clearly introduced and described?

Resources and guidance:

Depending on the topic, educators may need additional resources or guidance to support their use of the material. For instance, background information may be required or a technical topic explained.

  • Have you provided sufficient material so that educators can easily employ the resource?
  • Do references use Harvard referencing?

Format:

The teaching activity/tool should follow this format:

  • Overview:
    • Short description of what the resource is and what it aims to do.
    • States how it is related to complex systems or systems thinking topic(s), referring to external content such as INCOSE Competencies and AHEP 4.
    • Provides an overview of the activity, suggesting how it might be implemented and in what contexts, how long it might take, and any other relevant delivery information.
  • Details any specific materials or software required for the activity, as well as any modelling or simulation tools to be used.
  • Lists any learning and teaching resources recommended in order to undertake the activity, including suggested pre-reading or other references.
  • Explains the activity in as much detail as is required (this will vary depending on the type of material the resource addresses.)
  • If relevant, provides assessment guidance–marking rubrics, sample answers, etc.

 

Step 2b: Before you submit, review this checklist:

  • Does this resource help introduce or develop concepts/topics related to complex systems or systems thinking so that learners can engage with these topics in the context of engineering?
  • Is the resource explained in such a way that someone new to teaching complex systems could understand how to use it?
  • Is the material clearly introduced and described?
  • Have you provided sufficient material so that educators can easily employ the resource?
  • Do references use Harvard referencing?
  • Does it follow the correct format?

 

Step 3: Submitting your teaching activity/resource

 Teaching resources should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx).

Also submit any additional resources such as spreadsheets, handouts etc., and ensure that they are in an editable format. Please clarify where in the resource these should be embedded or linked.

Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format. We need these to be uploaded separately from the Word file, as we will be embedding them in a web page. Please ensure that they are of high resolution and adequate size (we suggest a minimum of 800 pixels wide); that you have the right or permission to use them (bearing in mind they will be published under a Creative Commons license); and that you have added any permissions, sources, credits or other details for them in the body of the document that you are submitting.

To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the Toolkit resources in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, this work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence users are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that they must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.

Download a copy of this guidance

Submit your teaching resource here

 

 

Register your interest

 

Additional information

In undertaking this work, contributors will become part of the growing community of educators who are helping to ensure that tomorrow’s engineering professionals have the complex systems skills, knowledge, and attributes that they need to provide a better future for us all. Contributors will be fully credited for their work on any relevant Toolkit materials and will be acknowledged as authors should the resources be published in any form. Developing these resources will provide the chance to work with a dynamic, diverse and passionate group of people leading the way in expanding engineering teaching resources, and may help in professional development, such as preparing for promotion or fellowship.

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

The latest news and updates on the EPC’s Inclusive Engineering Toolkit.

29th May 2026 – The third meeting of the Inclusive Engineering Toolkit Leadership Team takes place.

26th May 2026 – The Inclusive Engineering Toolkit is mentioned at the EPC EDI Community of Special Interest Meeting.

22nd May 2026 – The second meeting of the Inclusive Engineering Toolkit Expert Working Group takes place.

30th April 2026 – Subgroups of the Expert Working Group have been formed to help define the focus, structure, and quality expectations for the Call for Contributions.

24 April 2026 – The second meeting of the Inclusive Engineering Toolkit Leadership Team takes place.

24 March 2026 – The Inclusive Engineering Toolkit is mentioned at the EPSRC EDI Hub+ Annual Conference: Shaping the future of research through inclusion.

17th April 2026 – The first meeting of the Inclusive Engineering Toolkit Expert Working Group takes place.

April 2026 – Membership of the Inclusive Engineering Toolkit Expert Working Group is confirmed. The Expert Working Group comprises subject experts from academia and industry who will manage the development of the toolkit.

March 2026 – The EPC announces the development of an Inclusive Engineering Toolkit, which will be supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering and is aimed at supporting educators to embed equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) principles into their teaching and professional practice. A call is put out for volunteers to be members of the Expert Working Group.

March 2026 – The Planning and Scoping Group progressed into the Expert Working Group Leadership Team, which held its first official meeting.

 

This post is also available here.

Peter Martin, Director of Research & Development at Quanser, and co-chair of the Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group, reflects on the importance of engineers understanding complex systems when working in the field of intelligent robotics.

 

“In late 2024 I had the opportunity to join the EPC Complex Systems Toolkit team as co-chair of the working group. At the time I felt a little fraudulent, as the intricacies of complex systems thinking was new to me. I had brushed up against complex systems numerous times over the years as I had studied and worked in the world of robotics for over 20 years. However, I had never discovered the world of formal complex systems analysis. Looking back, this is a perfect validation for the need to create a toolkit to better prepare students for careers like mine. As I have learned more over the last 18 months about the tools and techniques that systems engineers employ to model and manage complexity, the critical value that these techniques offer engineers in the world of intelligent robotics has become obvious. As we hear often in the field of engineering lab equipment for the academic space, “I wish I’d had this when I was at university”.

The other reassuring aspect of my experience, for me, is that I’m not alone. A growing need for better approaches to managing complexity has emerged in industry over the last couple of decades as robotics and their governing systems have become increasingly integrated into society. This transition of robotics out of the structured environment of the factory floor and into direct contact with both the dynamic and unstructured world and the public, has introduced a high degree of non-linear predictability, complex interactions with multiple robotic agents, and emergent behaviours as the decision-making algorithms that dictate robotic behaviour adapt. All of these elements are central to the world of complex systems analysis.

At a high level, modern robotics systems no longer represent technical engineering challenges in the narrow, discipline-specific sense that engineers would traditionally have seen in higher education. They are complex adaptive systems that routinely demonstrate behaviours that emerge from interactions with their environment rather than being fully specified in advance. A robot navigating a hospital corridor, a swarm coordinating warehouse logistics, or a surgical assistant adjusting in real time to tissue variability represent challenges in undefined, non-linear, and largely unpredictable spaces. Students, and later robotics engineers who lack a complex systems vocabulary are essentially tasked with trying to understand emergence without the tools to describe it.

An example that I like to use is one that we encountered a couple of years ago: a team of mobile robots transporting parts around a manufacturing space. In many cases, the agents (ground robots, arms, etc.) in this scenario are programmed with independent control and decision-making code to govern their behaviour, with some overarching supervisory code to manage tasks and assignments. The ground robots would have algorithms to localise, path plan, navigate, and avoid obstacles while communicating with other complementary agents and central task management. However, as I have learned, complexity lies in the emergence of unexpected interactions between the agents and their environment. How they avoid each other and the environment while achieving their tasks is largely a complex non-linear system where conflicts can routinely delay or disrupt their operation. Introducing more sources of disruption such as humans, unstructured environments, weather conditions etc. only makes dealing with unpredictable scenarios more and more complicated using traditional techniques.

Luckily, many of the tools and techniques that are highlighted in the toolkit have direct applications to the challenges faced by engineers in the world of robotics. Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) are an excellent way to model the feedback dynamics that are at play in adaptive control systems. When a robot’s perception system updates its world model based on changes in what the sensors can perceive, that leads to changes in its action policy that when executed create a feedback loop. These diagrams are a great way to visualise and analyse these loops. Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) is directly relevant to the scenario I described above where swarms of robot must be coordinated or manage human-robot interaction scenarios. Using these simulation tools, engineers can test and manage emergent fleet behaviour without hardware. If things do go sideways, Fault Tree Analysis is a common approach to mapping causes and evaluating data to help develop robots that work in safety-critical applications. Finally, for long-term operations such as field robotics missions, Systems Dynamics Modelling can be a useful tool for predicting and managing a robot’s resource consumption (battery, compute, bandwidth) depending on the required task performance over time.

In addition to these considerations, there is a whole world of network modelling and the management of behaviour stemming from machine learning and applied AI algorithms that also overlaps quite closely with complex systems. Engineers that understand emergence, feedback loops, and attractors are far better equipped to reason about why a robot does something unexpected, than students who only have a component-driven technical understanding of the behaviour of an intelligent robot. Beyond the decisions, at an actual component level there are critical decisions that need to be made for efficient deployment of physical and edge AI algorithms.  What data is processed locally and what goes to the cloud, when models are updated and how decision making is distributed across a robot swarm are exactly the kind of questions that systems thinking trains engineers to answer. Systems tools are ready to help, including influence diagrams to manage information exchange and action planning.

Overall, the field of complex systems introduces a set of tools, techniques, and mental models that are increasingly essential to robotics engineers that seek to prepare their agents to be effective in performing complicated tasks in increasingly complex systems.”

 

Click here to see details of our newest call for content, on the subject of intelligent robotics and its relationship to complex systems. Register your interest by 12th July 2026

Intelligent robotics, and the more recent applications to physical AI, generally refers to artificial intelligence systems that are embedded in and interact directly with the physical world, rather than operating purely in digital environments. For engineering students, learning about intelligent robotics and physical AI workflows matters because it sits at the intersection of software, hardware, and real-world problem solving. It helps engineers think holistically: not just “does the code work?” but “does the system behave safely and effectively in the real world?”. 

We are seeking experts in intelligent robotics, from academia, industry, and engineering organisations, to develop resources on this topic for publication in the Toolkit. These resources will inform, guide and aid educators to embed teaching on intelligent robotics into their engineering lessons, modules or courses.

 

Click here to register for the Complex Systems Toolkit CPD-certificated webinar: ACE-Box and agentic engineering workflows on 29th June 2026

This free webinar introduces practical engineering workflows, from requirements capture through to verification and validation. These concepts will be demonstrated using the ACE-Box, a low-cost, hands-on engineering learning platform, alongside MATLAB and Simulink to illustrate key stages of the workflow. The webinar will also explore the emerging role of agents in engineering workflows. Through practical examples and demonstrations, it will show how agent-enabled approaches can support engineers in solving problems more effectively. During this webinar we will also be launching a new call for content, providing you with an opportunity for your work to be featured in the Complex Systems Toolkit.

 

This post is also available here.

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

We’ll keep you updated on the latest events associated with the Complex Systems Toolkit.

2026

2025

Dr. Manoj Ravi, with the support of colleagues and students, reflects on the outcomes of a hackathon between students from the University of Leeds and NTU Singapore which explored solutions to sustainability challenges as well as fostering interdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration. 

 

Experiential learning is vital for preparing engineers to tackle sustainability challenges that cannot be solved in isolation. By enabling engineering students to work in intercultural and interdisciplinary settings, we foster systems thinking skills, where working alongside peers from diverse disciplines help further understand the interconnections between the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. Such collaboration reflects the reality that sustainable solutions must also bridge cultural perspectives across countries and local communities, emphasising the collaborative mindset and skills required to design solutions that are globally relevant, equitable and impactful.

 

How was it done?

Drawing inspiration from this idea, the University of Leeds (UoL) and Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU Singapore) organised a year-long student sustainability hackathon. We brought together 10 student teams, each with four members — two from UoL and two from NTU Singapore. The students were first- and second-year undergraduates, working in interdisciplinary groups that combined chemical engineering, bioengineering, and environmental sciences. They were asked to address open-ended problem statements focused on two critical themes for the context of Singapore and Leeds: sustainable transportation and retrofitting. Each problem statement was mapped onto the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring the work aligns with global sustainability priorities while giving students experience in addressing real-world challenges.

The student-led solutions to these global challenges were developed in two phases. Phase 1 was the ideation or conceptualisation stage where students used system and design thinking approaches to brainstorm potential solutions through a mix of asynchronous (individual reflection and analytical thinking) and synchronous activities (online meetings, group brainstorming and planning). Each group then presented their ideas as elevator pitches to receive feedback from staff at both universities. In the second phase, students moved onto validating their idea and prototyping. The objective of this phase was for students to move from ‘an idea on paper’ to produce something more tangible by demonstrating feasibility in multiple dimensions including technical feasibility, economic viability and regulatory alignment. This challenged students to confront issues that might not have been envisioned during the ideation phase often requiring multiple iterations. Each group had flexibility in terms of how they wanted to present their final hackathon output. The solutions proposed included smart, low-cost retrofitting strategies such as LED lighting, daylight harvesting and motion sensors, alongside more experimental approaches involving recycled materials, including food waste-derived phase change materials and repurposed plastic panels. In all these cases, teams considered the applicability of their solutions from a socio-cultural lens reconciling differences in subsidy structures, urban densities, infrastructure constraints and public behaviour across the two countries. This necessitated students to think of sustainable solutions that bridge cultural perspectives across countries and local communities.

 

Student reflections

“My biggest learnings through the hackathon have been the extent to which the feasibility of an environmental solution being implemented is dependent on various local and national regulations, as well as how the economic sustainability (and hence scalability) of these solutions can differ in different locations depending on the focus of regional environmental subsidies. I should benefit from these learnings in the future in terms of being more acutely aware of how to design a change to a chemical plant, for example, in a legal and economically sustainable way.” – UoL Chemical Engineering Student

“I signed up for this hackathon because I wanted to push myself beyond my comfort zone and explore how far my creativity could take me in an open-ended environment. I have always enjoyed brainstorming ideas and thinking of alternative ways to solve problems, and this hackathon felt like a good opportunity to challenge myself to innovate in areas I was less familiar with. Reflecting on the experience, my biggest learning was understanding how important it is to balance creativity with feasibility. I learned that good ideas need to be refined, prioritised, and supported by clear reasoning in order to be impactful. Working closely with my team also taught me how to adapt quickly, manage differing viewpoints, and stay focused on the core problem despite constraints. These learnings will benefit me in the future by helping me approach complex problems more confidently, collaborate effectively across disciplines, and develop solutions that are not only innovative but also realistic and meaningful projects.” – NTU Singapore Chemical and Bioengineering student

“My thinking changed in two ways. First, brainstorming became more disciplined. Instead of chasing the most exciting idea, we compared options and asked early questions: what problem does this solve, what assumptions are we making, what would fail first, and what evidence would be needed to support it. This helped reduce ambition into something more realistic. Second, I became more focused on feasibility. Over time, I shifted from “this sounds strong/interesting” to “what is the first thing that proves this can work?”, and “what would fail first?” That meant focusing on clear steps, constraints, and what would be required for real approval and real use.” – UoL Geology student

 

Staff reflections

As staff involved in the design and delivery of this hackathon, we believe this international collaboration creates new pathways for collaborative curriculum development and empowering students to engage deeply with the complexity of global climate challenges. One of our key reflections from this hackathon is that challenge-based learning offers a truly unique environment for students to develop sustainability competencies. It allows for an authentic and holistic consideration of sustainability whereby core disciplinary knowledge is grounded in socio-cultural, economic, policy and environmental considerations.

We also observe that resilience and commitment are crucial for students to successfully engage in this exercise. Working across largely different time zones with fellow students who bring in different perspectives and skills requires a strong degree of commitment and being resilient in the face of challenges. Students who engaged in the hackathon also commented on how they had to pivot on ideas and make assumptions when faced with inadequate information or uncertainties in data. These are all vital skills for future engineers to thrive in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world.

In future iterations, we aspire to focus on strengthening industry engagement and developing more structured mechanisms for evaluating student learning by embedding the activity within the programme or a module of study. More broadly, this work invites educators to consider how collaborative online international learning (COIL) might be adapted within their own institutional settings to better prepare students for the complexities of global engineering practice.

 

Authors

 

This post is also available here.

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

Engineering for One Planet (EOP) advances rapid innovation in engineering education, embedding sustainability and climate literacy to prepare engineers capable of solving today’s challenges without compromising tomorrow. For Earth Day on 22nd April, as part of our Sustainability Toolkit, we share details of their newest resources.

 

We know that engineering students are increasingly demanding the skills to address the climate crisis. We also know that educators’ syllabi are already packed, and finding the time to develop new, high-quality climate content can be a significant hurdle.

To bridge this gap, Engineering for One Planet (EOP) — in collaboration with 18 global organisations, including ABET, ASEE, ASME, and IEEE — is proud to release a new, open-access resource:

Link: Get Started with EOP | Engineering for One Planet

 

What is the Climate Guide?

This guide is a practical companion to the EOP Framework. It provides a “menu” of flexible, vetted teaching activities designed to integrate seamlessly into existing courses. Whether you are teaching introductory, advanced, required, or elective engineering classes, this guide provides the modular tools you need to equip students with essential climate-related competencies.

 

Why use this guide?

How to get started:

  1. Download the Guide at: Get Started with EOP | Engineering for One Planet
  2. Select a Topic Area: Browse the 9 EOP competency areas (Systems Thinking, Environmental Literacy, Responsible Business and Economy, Social Responsibility, Environmental Impact Assessment, Materials, Design, Critical Thinking, Communication & Teamwork).
  3. Adapt & implement: Choose an activity level (introductory, intermediate, or advanced) that matches your student level and drop it into your next lesson plan.

As engineers and engineering educators, we have a moral and professional imperative to design, code, and build in ways that protect life on Earth. This guide is your “first step” in preparing the future workforce to lead that change.

We invite you to explore the guide and join the global community of educators making sustainability a core tenet of the engineering profession.

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters. 

The Digital Technical Standards Toolkit launched at a free, one-hour webinar on Thursday 26th March 2026, with a panel of experts explaining what it is and what’s in it. You can watch the launch webinar below.

 

 

You can access the transcript here.

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

This post is also available here.

Supporting UK engineering educators to embed Digital Technical Standards into curriculum design. A collaboration between the Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) and the University of Lancashire. Funded by the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT).
 

WHY: The case for digital technical standards in education 

 

Introduction 

Digital Technical Standards (DTS) are foundational to the UK’s digital infrastructure, innovation ecosystem, and global competitiveness. They underpin the technologies and systems that define modern engineering practice from telecommunications and cybersecurity to the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence. Yet engagement with DTS development remains limited among engineering students and early-career professionals. 

The Digital Technical Standards Toolkit has been developed to address this gap. It is a comprehensive, academically aligned resource designed to support engineering and computing educators across UK higher education in embedding DTS into curriculum design and delivery. 

The Toolkit is a collaboration between the Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) and the University of Lancashire funded by the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT). It builds on the success of the EPC’s growing series of widely used toolkits :including those covering ethics, sustainability, complex systems, and inclusive employability :which have collectively received over 100,000 visits in the past three years. 

“The Digital Technical Standards Toolkit represents a timely and necessary intervention for UK engineering education. As digital technical standards become increasingly embedded within accredited programme requirements, there is a clear and urgent need to equip academics with curated, accessible resources that support confident and consistent delivery. This project is not about creating content in isolation it is about harnessing the collective expertise of a broad community, drawing together what already exists, and making it genuinely usable for educators within the pressures of a modern engineering curriculum.”  – Professor Georgina Harris, Dean of Engineering and Computing, University of Lancashire; Chair, DTS Toolkit Project

“Digital technical standards are not simply technical documents; they are the foundations upon which our digital infrastructure, our industries, and ultimately our societies are built. For young engineers to be truly prepared for professional practice, they must understand not only that standards exist, but how the global standardisation ecosystem functions, why standards are needed, and how they themselves can contribute to shaping them. The DTS Toolkit has the opportunity to provide that foundational understanding by mapping the landscape from ETSI and IEEE to IETF, W3C, and ITU and by framing content around enduring principles rather than the specifics of any single standard.” – Dr. Hermann Brand, Standards Expert, IEEE; Co-Chair DTS Toolkit Project

 

Purpose 

The DTS Toolkit will enhance understanding and engagement with digital technical standards, which underpin the UK’s digital infrastructure, engineering practice, and international competitiveness. Specifically, the Toolkit aims to: 

 

WHAT: Toolkit content and scope 

 

What the Toolkit contains 

The Toolkit brings together resources from eight International Standards Development Organisations (ISDOs) in one accessible location, providing educators with the materials they need to teach DTS effectively. 

 

Types of resources 

The Toolkit includes a range of resource types, designed for use across different teaching contexts including lectures, seminars, problem-based learning, and online delivery: 

Knowledge articles: explaining key DTS concepts, SDO structures, and the role of standards in engineering practice. 

Guidance articles: providing pedagogical support for educators embedding DTS into their teaching, including curriculum mapping and assessment design. 

Teaching resources: ready-to-use classroom materials such as case studies, activities, and project ideas. 

UK industry case studies: demonstrating real-world applications of digital technical standards in UK engineering contexts. 

Signposted external resources: curated links to high-quality existing materials from SDOs, professional bodies, and academic literature. 

 

HOW: Development, governance and getting involved 

 

Project leadership 

The project is co-chaired by: 

The project is managed by Dhanushka Hewaralalage at the University of Lancashire, with strategic oversight from Johnny Rich, Chief Executive of the EPC.

 

The Expert Working Group 

The development of the Toolkit is guided by an Expert Working Group comprising representatives from academia, industry, professional bodies, and Standards Development Organisations. The Working Group has been convened to: 

Working Group members and contributing experts include representatives from organisations such as the Engineering Council, British Standards Institution (BSI), Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), Royal Academy of Engineering, DSIT, and UK universities. 

 

Background and context 

This initiative builds on the meeting on Technical Standards convened on 11 September 2025 by the Engineering Council. Following that meeting, DSIT funded the creation of this Toolkit to support engineering academics in better understanding digital technical standards and embedding them in their teaching. 

The project follows the successful model established by the EPC’s toolkit series, which provides free-to-use resources in areas where engineering educators need particular support to stay current and aligned with academic, professional, and accreditation requirements. Existing EPC toolkits cover topics including engineering ethics, sustainability, complex systems, enterprise collaboration, and inclusive employability. 

 

How to get involved 

The Toolkit is a community-owned project, and contributions from academics, industry professionals, and standards experts are welcomed. There are several ways to get involved: 

All contributors and participating experts will be acknowledged publicly on a dedicated DTS Toolkit page on the EPC website. 

 

Get in touch 

To register your involvement or interest, contact: 

Dhanushka Hewaralalage 

Project Manager, Digital Technical Standards Toolkit 

Email: dsahewaralalage1@lancashire.ac.uk

 

Hosting and sustainability 

The Toolkit is hosted on the EPC website, which is widely used by engineering academics across the UK. It is be freely accessible to all users without the need for membership or subscription. 

The Toolkit will remain on the EPC website for a minimum of three years, with the intention that it will be maintained indefinitely. Users will be invited to submit new content for inclusion, which will be reviewed by volunteers from the Expert Working Group, ensuring the Toolkit remains current and relevant. 

A launch webinar and marketing campaign will promote the Toolkit to all EPC members: approximately 9,000 academics from over 90 engineering departments throughout the UK.

 

Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.  

We’re looking for expert working group members and suggestions of resources we can incorporate into our new Digital Technical Standards Toolkit, which will launch in March 2026.

Following the meeting on Technical Standards convened on September 11th 2025 by the Engineering Council, DSIT is funding the creation of a new Digital Technical Standards (DTS) Toolkit to support Engineering academics to better understand this area and embed it in their teaching. We are pleased to invite you to participate in the next stage of developing this toolkit as we would greatly value your expertise and suggested content. 

The project is a collaboration between the Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) and the University of Lancashire and is being led by Professor Georgina Harris (University of Lancashire / EPC President) and Dr. Hermann Brand (IEEE) who will co‑chair the Expert Working Group.

Project Purpose
The DTS Toolkit will be a comprehensive, academically aligned toolkit to support engineering and computing educators in embedding Digital Technical Standards into curriculum design and delivery. It will enhance understanding and engagement with DTS, which underpin the UK’s digital infrastructure, engineering practice and international competitiveness.

The toolkit will consolidate existing high‑quality resources, signpost relevant external materials, and develop new UK‑context content where required.

It will support educators in embedding DTS concepts, Standards Development Organisation (SDO) structures such as ETSI, 3GPP, IETF, W3C, ITU‑R, ITU‑T, IEEE, and ISO/IEC and standards‑related career pathways within engineering and computing curricula.

Given the tight delivery timeframe, with a firm completion deadline of March 2026, we need to identify existing content and organise relevant resources.

How you can contribute
We are looking for people who can provide the following:
  • Sharing of current materials you know or your organisation like to share
  • Signposting of external resources
  • Suggestions for filling content gaps
  • To produce short, targeted guidance content where required

To have an idea about the output, you can see the EPC’s Complex Systems Toolkit which gives an indication of the sort of resource we hope to create. All contributors and participating experts will be acknowledged publicly on a dedicated DTS toolkit page (similar to this).

To get involved, please email Dhanushka Hewaralalage at dsahewaralalage1@lancashire.ac.uk.

 

This post is also available here.

The latest news and updates on the EPC’s Complex Systems Toolkit.

9th January 2026 – The Complex Systems Toolkit is featured in an article in Building magazine.

9th December 2025 – The Toolkit’s officially launches with an introductory webinar, now available to watch on demand.

24th November 2025 – New Toolkit content is published, comprising brand new Knowledge resources, Guidance resources, Teaching resources, and a resource library.

20th June 2025 – The Working Group co-chairs, Dr. Nikita Hari (University of Oxford) and Peter Martin (Quanser), discuss why they believe the toolkit is a vital resource and why people should get involved.

7th June 2025 – A Call for Contributions is opened for the Complex Systems Toolkit, closing on 30th June.

27th May 2025 – The first Launch & Engagement sub-group meeting takes place.

28th April 2025 – The first Review & Curation sub-group meeting takes place.

17th April 2025 – The first Curriculum & Pedagogy Content sub-group meeting takes place.

15th April 2025 – The first Technical & Simulation Content sub-group meeting takes place.

April 2025 – Sub-group kick-off meetings are confirmed.

24th March 2025 – The second meeting of the Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group takes place.

March 2025 – Sub-groups of the Working Group are confirmed, to work on Curriculum Pedagogy Content, Technical and Simulation Content, Review and Curation, and Launch and Outreach.

27th February 2025 – The first meeting of the Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group takes place.

February 2025 – The first official meeting of the Working Group leadership team takes place.

December 2024 – Membership of the Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group is confirmed. The Working Group comprises subject experts from academia and industry who will manage the development of the toolkit.

November 2024 – The EPC announces that the development of a Complex Systems Toolkit, which will be supported by Quanser, and is aimed at supporting educators in their teaching of the subject. A call is put out for volunteers to be members of the Working Group, content reviewers, content contributors, and toolkit ambassadors.

 

This post is also available here.

Let us know what you think of our website