Requests for Comments (RFCs) are the technical documents that define how the internet works. Published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1969, the RFC series now contains over 9,700 documents covering everything from the foundational TCP/IP protocols to modern security standards like TLS 1.3 and post-quantum cryptography.
Every time you load a webpage, send an email, connect to Wi-Fi, or make a video call, you are relying on technology defined in RFCs. They are freely available to anyone at rfc-editor.org: a core principle of the open internet.
About this visualisation
The animated bar chart race shows the cumulative number of RFCs published over time, classified into nine technology domains based on keyword analysis of each RFC’s title. The bars rank and re-sort dynamically as leadership shifts between domains, revealing how the priorities of internet standardisation have evolved over five decades.
Data: Per-year publication totals are exact figures from the RFC Editor’s official statistics page. Topic classification is derived from keyword frequency analysis of the complete rfc-index.txt file (~9,900 entries), mapped to IETF Area categories.
Final frame: The state of Internet standards in 2025
Figure 1: Cumulative RFCs by technology domain as of 2025. Data: RFC Editor (rfc-editor.org/rfcs-per-year/).
2025 rankings by technology domain
Rank
Technology domain
Cumulative RFCs
Share
Examples
1
Security & Cryptography
1,809
18.6%
TLS, IPsec, OAuth, DKIM
2
Routing & Switching
1,359
14.0%
BGP, OSPF, IS-IS, MPLS
3
Network Management
1,312
13.5%
SNMP, YANG, NETCONF
4
Web & Applications
1,277
13.2%
HTTP, QUIC, SIP, JSON
5
Core Protocols
1,204
12.4%
TCP, UDP, IP, ICMP
6
Other / Process
941
9.7%
IETF process, April 1st
7
Transport & File Transfer
688
7.1%
FTP, TFTP, NFS
8
Email & Messaging
640
6.6%
SMTP, IMAP, MIME
9
DNS & Naming
475
4.9%
DNS, DNSSEC, RDAP
Key findings for educators
Security went from almost nothing to #1. In the 1970s, security represented roughly 2% of new RFCs. By the 2020s, it accounts for 28% of new publications :reflecting the transformation of the internet from a trusted academic network to a global system requiring robust protection.
The Web emerged from nothing in 1993. Before HTTP, web-related RFCs simply did not exist. The domain now accounts for over 1,200 cumulative standards, driven by HTTP/2, QUIC, WebRTC, and application-layer protocols.
Foundational protocols are mature but still active. Core Protocols (TCP, IP, UDP) saw their highest growth in the 1970s–80s but continue to receive updates :for example, RFC 9293 (2022) formally revised the TCP specification after 41 years.
Email standards peaked early. Email was one of the first killer applications of the internet and dominated early RFC output. Its share has declined steadily as the web and security took over, though DMARC and SPF keep it active.
Routing remains the backbone. BGP, OSPF, and MPLS continue to generate significant standards activity. Routing has maintained a consistent 13–18% share across every era, reflecting its importance as the internet’s structural layer.
Category mapping: Based on IETF Area structure with title keyword matching
Animation: Generated using Python matplotlib + FuncAnimation
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.
WHY
Standards only become meaningful when students can see their real-world impact. UK engineering graduates need to understand not just what standards exist but also how they are applied in practice, shaping critical national infrastructure, enabling new technologies, and driving regulatory compliance across sectors from transport to energy. UK Industry Case Studies bridge the gap between theory and practice, grounding standards education in tangible examples drawn from the UK engineering context and demonstrating why standards competence is a career-defining skill.
WHAT
This category shows real-world use of digital technical standards in UK engineering. Case studies include the UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, CLC/TS 50701 for railway cybersecurity, and IET’s Electric Vehicles Guidance. This is the most active category, with more case studies planned to cover additional sectors.
HOW
Use the case studies below to bring real-world context into your teaching. Each links to an authoritative source demonstrating how digital technical standards operate in professional practice.
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.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking, Systems Modelling and Analysis, Configuration Management, Requirements Definition, Communication, Verification, and Validation INCOSE Competencies.
AHEP4 mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4):Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses the themes of Sustainability and Communication.
Educational level: Advanced.
Learning and teaching notes:
Overview:
This multi-part case study guides students through the complex systems challenges of Prince Edward Island, Canada’s ambitious 100% renewable energy transition by 2030. Students will experience how technical, social, and economic factors interact through emergence, feedback loops, and multi-scale dynamics that traditional engineering analysis alone cannot capture.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Identify complex systems characteristics (emergence, feedback loops, nonlinearity) in real energy systems.
Apply multiple modelling approaches (ABM, system dynamics, network analysis) to analyse system behaviour.
Evaluate how technical decisions create emergent social and economic consequences.
Synthesise insights from different modelling approaches to inform policy recommendations.
Communicate complex systems concepts and uncertainties to non-technical stakeholders.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Demonstrate complex systems concepts through hands-on modelling.
Facilitate discussions on emergence and system-level behaviours.
Evaluate learners’ ability to apply systems thinking to engineering problems.
Connect technical modelling to real-world policy and social implications.
Overview: Energy transition as a complex systems challenge:
Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada’s smallest province, aims to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Its small grid, dependence on imported power, and growing renewable infrastructure make it a natural laboratory for systems thinking in energy transitions.
This case invites students to explore how technical, social, and policy decisions interact to shape renewable integration outcomes. Using complexity-science tools, they will uncover how local actions produce emergent system behaviour, and why traditional linear models often fail to predict real-world dynamics.
The complex challenge: Traditional engineering approaches often treat energy systems as predictable and linear, optimising components like generation, transmission, or storage in isolation. However, energy transitions are complex socio-technical systems, characterised by feedback loops, interdependencies, and emergent behaviours.
In PEI’s case, replacing stable baseload imports with variable wind and solar generation creates cascading effects on grid stability, pricing, storage demand, and social acceptance. The island’s bounded geography magnifies these interactions, making it an ideal context to observe emergence and system-level behaviour arising from local interactions.
PEI currently imports about 75% of its electricity via two 180 MW submarine cables, while 25% is produced locally through onshore wind farms (204 MW). Plans for offshore wind, community solar, and hydrogen projects have triggered debates around stability, affordability, and social acceptance.
Taking on the role of an engineer at TechnoGrid Consulting, students are tasked to advise Maritime Electric, the island’s utility, on modelling strategies to guide $2.5 billion in renewable investments.
Competing goals:
Maintain grid reliability while replacing fossil baseloads.
Achieve policy targets without increasing public resistance.
Balance economic cost, environmental benefit, and technological feasibility.
Discussion prompt:
In systems terms, where do you see tensions between policy, technology, and society? How might feedback loops amplify or mitigate these tensions?
While Maritime Electric’s engineering team insists the project scope should stay strictly technical, limited to grid hardware, generation, and storage, policy advisors argue that social behaviour, market pricing, and community engagement are part of the system’s real dynamics.
Expanding boundaries makes the model richer but harder to manage; narrowing them simplifies computation but risks missing the very factors that determine success.
Temporal boundaries: timescales from milliseconds (grid response) to decades (infrastructure).
Organisational boundaries: stakeholders, regulations, and markets.
Discuss how including or excluding elements (e.g., electric-vehicle uptake, community cooperatives, carbon policy) changes the model’s focus and meaning.
Learning insight:
Complex systems cannot be fully understood in isolation; boundaries are analytical choices that shape both perception and leverage. Every inclusion or exclusion reflects an assumption about what matters and that assumption determines which complexities emerge, and which stay hidden.
Part three: Modelling the system: Multiple lenses of complexity:
(a) Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) with NetLogo:
Students construct simplified models of households, businesses, and grid operators:
Household agents: decide to adopt rooftop solar based on payback time and neighbour influence.
Technology providers: adjust prices in response to market demand.
Grid operator: balances reliability and cost.
Emergent patterns such as adoption S-curves or network clustering illustrate how simple local rules generate complex collective dynamics.
(b) System Dynamics (SD) with Vensim:
Students then develop causal loop diagrams capturing key feedbacks:
Adoption–Learning Loop: installations ↓ costs ↓ encourage more adoption.
Cost–Acceptance Loop: higher bills ↓ public support ↓ investment capacity.
This provides a macroscopic view of feedback, delay, and leverage points.
(c) Network Analysis with Python (NetworkX):
Students model actor interdependencies: how households, utilities, industries, and regulators interact. Network metrics (centrality, clustering, connectivity) reveal where resilience or vulnerability is concentrated.
Reflection prompt:
Which modelling approach offered the most insight into system-level behaviour? What were the trade-offs in complexity and interpretability?
Part four: Scenario exploration: Pathways to 2030:
Students explore three transition scenarios, each with distinct emergent behaviours:
A. Distributed Solar + Community Storage
300 MW solar, 150 MWh batteries
Decentralised coordination challenges and social clustering effects.
B. Offshore Wind + Grid Enhancement
400 MW offshore wind, new 300 MW interconnection
Weather-dependent reliability and cross-border dependency.
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.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: Thisarticle should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating complex systems in engineering education.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking and Critical Thinking INCOSE competencies.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems).
Premise:
Engineering education is undergoing a fundamental transformation. The convergence of technological, social, and environmental challenges demands that future engineers move beyond procedural problem-solving toward complex thinking – a mindset capable of navigating uncertainty, interdependence, and dynamic change. This shift has been accelerated by advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), which have redefined both the nature of engineering practice and the competencies students must develop to thrive in it.
For scientists and engineers, understanding complex systems is critical for the ability to apply knowledge and techniques across diverse contexts. This is particularly visible in fields such as bioengineering, which depends on advances in chemistry, physics, computing, and other engineering disciplines. Such integration requires designing subsystems where engineering expertise can be meaningfully applied. Complex systems also involve human interaction, introducing unpredictability, feedback loops, and uncertainty. Modern AI-enabled systems—ranging from autonomous vehicles to smart grids and biomedical devices—cannot be fully understood through a single traditional discipline. These systems are not simply complicated; they are interconnected, dynamic, and often nonlinear (Jakobsson, 2025).
What this means for engineering education and educators:
Across the globe, educators have turned to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as a central strategy for cultivating systems-oriented thinking. For instance, Tauro et al. (2017) and the case study conducted at Tishk International University demonstrate that integrating PBL within mechatronics education enhances students’ ability to connect theory with practice, encouraging collaboration and creativity in addressing multifaceted engineering problems. Similarly, Watters et al. (2016) show that industry–school partnerships transform classrooms into real-world laboratories, reinforcing the value of experiential learning and knowledge transfer between academia and professional practice. These initiatives reflect a broader movement toward authentic, interdisciplinary engagement, a necessary foundation for understanding and designing complex systems.
However, adopting PBL and interdisciplinary methods is not only a pedagogical improvement but also an epistemological necessity. As Stegeager et al. (2024) emphasise, educators themselves must evolve from instructors to facilitators, cultivating reflective and adaptive learning environments that mirror the complexity of professional engineering contexts. Mynderse et al. further highlight that when students are given responsibility for solving open-ended problems, they report higher satisfaction and deeper conceptual integration. These outcomes suggest that active learning approaches foster the kind of complex, interconnected reasoning required for contemporary engineering practice.
In parallel, the AI-driven classroom is transforming the educational landscape. Emerging evidence shows that generative AI tools support personalised learning and immediate feedback, freeing educators to focus on mentorship and creativity (Jaramillo, 2024). Yet this technological advancement also underscores the limits of automation. Machines can model and predict, but they cannot interpret ethical implications, reconcile trade-offs, or integrate human and ecological perspectives. This is where complex thinking becomes indispensable: it enables learners to understand AI not merely as a computational tool but as a component within broader sociotechnical systems.
The need for complex systems understanding is especially acute in fields such as bioengineering and mechatronics, where technologies intersect with living systems and social contexts. The defining feature of complex systems is the interaction among multiple components that produce emergent, often unpredictable behaviour. For engineering students, grasping these principles means developing the ability to think beyond linear causality and to engage with feedback loops, uncertainty, and adaptive design.
The imperative to transform engineering education:
In traditional engineering education, students get topics presented in discrete classes. They get trained in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and they often forget what they have learned by the time they are at the control systems course where there is an opportunity to bring together skills from prior knowledge. This modularised model is already losing its effectiveness in preparing the students for encountering real-world problems. As the adage says, “In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not”. Understanding the role of noise, measurement errors, simplifying assumptions and computational errors play an essential role. To this end, it is crucial to centre complex system design and embrace interdisciplinarity to develop a competency that supports life-long, adaptive learning.
As an example, Aalborg University in Denmark stands as a global exemplary of systems-oriented engineering education. Its PBL model is not an add-on; it is the spine of the entire curriculum. Every semester, students tackle a new problem – often tied to societal needs such as urban planning, environmental sustainability, or healthcare. Students must identify relevant knowledge areas, work collaboratively across disciplines, and reflect on both process and outcome. Faculty report that this structure promotes holistic thinking, resilience, and a sense of professional identity early on the students’ journeys (Kolmos et al. 2008).
On the undergraduate level, capstones are a common part of engineering education which happens at the late stages of the student’s studies. At Rowan University (New Jersey, USA), Engineering Clinics provide a different but equally powerful model. Students work across all four years on interdisciplinary teams, contributing to faculty research or industry-sponsored projects. These clinics are embedded in the curriculum and require students to engage deeply with current research problems, often involving complex technical and human systems. A junior clinic project, for example, might involve the optimisation of a renewable energy system integrating mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering principles. Therefore, students learn to navigate ambiguity, collaborate with experts, and see the relevance of their disciplinary knowledge in a broader context by confronting the messy nature of real data.
These are two of many examples where systems thinking is cultivated. Students gain exposure to open-ended problems and practice seeking connection across domains as they encounter the limits of their knowledge. In this fast-moving era, crossing disciplines empowers students for lifelong adaptation, allowing them to incorporate their experiences into any new technological developments. It also encourages treating learning as a collaborative social process, rather than a solo race to secure the first job.
Educators must do more than just deliver content; they also need to act as facilitators and learn alongside their students. By redesigning the curriculum around design-oriented problems that mirror real-world changes, higher education will better prepare future engineers to face upcoming systemic global challenges.
Looking ahead:
As artificial intelligence and automation continue to reshape industry, engineering education must also evolve. Integrating complex systems into teaching offers students the opportunity to engage directly with the data-driven ecosystem they will encounter in practice. The goal is not only to produce technically skilled engineers, but also thoughtful stewards of technology who can navigate its broader social and ethical dimensions.
One ongoing challenge is that independent projects often vary in quality and can be difficult to assess. Without intentional design, students may default to trial-and-error approaches instead of drawing on knowledge from prior courses. At the same time, the pressure to cover extensive technical material can make it difficult to provide the broader systems context essential for modern engineering. Yet when learning is reinforced across the curriculum, students are better prepared for future careers that demand systems-based thinking.
Experiential, self-directed projects play a crucial role in this preparation. They allow students to choose their own path while working closely with advisors and industry partners. Whether developing a product, designing a system, or engaging with professionals, students gain a perspective that feels different from traditional coursework. This process offers them a glimpse of what it means to think and act like real engineers, fostering both confidence and adaptability as they transition from the classroom to the workplace.
References:
Jakobsson, Eric et al. (1999) ‘Complex systems: Why and what?’, New England Complex Systems Institute. Available at: https://necsi.edu/complex-systems-why-and-what (Accessed: 16 July 2025).
Stegeager, N., Traulsen, S., Carvalho Guerra, A., Telléus, P., Du, X. (2024) ‘Do good intentions lead to expected outcomes? Professional learning amongst early career academics in a problem-based program’, Education Sciences, 14(2), p. 205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020205.
Tauro, F., Cha, Y., Rahim, F., Rasul, M.S., Osman, K., Halim, L., Dennisur, D., Esner, B., Porfiri, M. (2017) ‘Integrating mechatronics in project-based learning of Malaysian high school students and teachers’, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306419017708636 (Accessed: 1 August 2025).
Watters, J., Pillay, H. and Flynn, M. (2016) ‘Industry-school partnerships: A strategy to enhance education and training opportunities. Australia’, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/98390/ (Accessed: 30 July 2025).
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.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking, Requirements Definition, Communication, Design For, and Critical Thinking INCOSE Competencies.
AHEP4 mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses the themes of Sustainability and Communication.
Educational level: Beginner; intermediate.
Acknowledgement:
The case study underpinning this teaching activity was developed by Prof. Kristen MacAskill (University of Cambridge). The Module was first developed and implemented in teaching by TEDI- London, led by a team of learning technologists, Ellie Bates, Laurence Chater, Pratishtha Poudel, and academic member, Rhythima Shinde. This work was carried out in collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineering through its Engineering X programme — a global partnership that supports safer, more sustainable engineering education and practice worldwide. With critical support from Professor Kristen MacAskill and involvement of Ana Andrade and Hazel Ingham, Aisha Seif Salim. This was a collective effort involving many individuals across TEDI-London and RAEng (advisors and reviewers), and while we cannot name everyone here, we are deeply grateful for all the contributions that made this module possible.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study introduces a structured, systems-thinking–based teaching resource. It provides educators with tools and frameworks—such as the Cynefin framework and stakeholder mapping—to analyse and interpret complex socio-technical challenges. By exploring the case of the Queensland, Australia floods, it demonstrates how engineering decisions evolve within interconnected technical and social systems, helping students link theory with practice.
The Cynefin framework (Nachbagauer, 2021; Snowden, 2002), helps decision-makers distinguish between different types of problem contexts—simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disordered. In an engineering context, this framework guides learners to recognise when traditional linear methods work (for simple or complicated problems) and when adaptive, experimental approaches are required (for complex or chaotic systems).
Within this teaching activity, Cynefin is used to help students understand how resilience strategies evolve when facing uncertainty, incomplete information, and changing stakeholder dynamics. By mapping case study events to the Cynefin domains, learners gain a structured way to navigate uncertainty and identify appropriate modes of action.
This case study activity assumes basic familiarity with systems concepts and builds on this foundation with deeper application to real-world socio-technical challenges.
Summary of context:
The activity focuses on a case study of 2010–2011 floods in Queensland, Australia, which caused extensive damage to urban infrastructure. The Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) initially directed resources to short-term asset repairs but subsequently shifted towards long-term resilience planning, hazard management, and community-centred approaches.
The case resonates with global engineering challenges, such as flood, fire, and storm resilience, and can be easily adapted to local contexts. This case therefore connects systems thinking theory directly to engineering and governance decisions, illustrating how frameworks like Cynefin can support engineers in navigating uncertainty across technical and institutional domains.
Learning objectives:
Aligned with AHEP4 (Engineering Council, 2020) – Outcomes 6, 10, and 16 on systems approaches, sustainability, and risk – this activity emphasises systems thinking, stakeholder engagement, problem definition, and decision-making under uncertainty.
This teaching activity introduces learners to the principles and practice of systems thinking by embedding a real-world case study into engineering education (Godfrey et al., 2014; Monat et al.,2022). The objectives are to:
Enable students to recognise interconnections, interdependencies, and evolving behaviours of stakeholders within socio-technical systems.
Support learners in applying systems frameworks —particularly the Cynefin framework and stakeholder mapping—to analyse complexity, uncertainty, and decision-making in climate resilience and disaster mitigation contexts.
Apply systems thinking tools and frameworks to real-world challenges, such as climate resilience and disaster mitigation.
Strengthen confidence in addressing uncertainty and complexity in engineering problem-solving.
Collaborate effectively across diverse teams, appreciating multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Reflect critically on trade-offs and decision-making in engineering practice.
Equip students to transfer systems insights from case-based scenarios to broader projects in their curriculum and future professional practice.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce students to complex systems concepts through engaging, real-world case studies.
Facilitate interactive, blended learning using narrative-driven tools, explainer animations, and role-play exercises.
Assess learners’ baseline and improved understanding of systems thinking through pre- and post-module surveys.
Guide students in navigating multiple systems frameworks while managing cognitive load.
Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder-focused analysis within classroom or project-based settings.
Adapt and scale the teaching activity for different educational levels, contexts, and case study themes (e.g., floods, wildfires, extreme heat).
This dedicated platform hosts the interactive modules designed for this teaching activity. Students progress through three modules — Context, Analysis and Insights, and Discussion and Transferable Learning. Each module includes animations, narrative-driven content, scenario prompts, and interactive tasks. The platform ensures flexibility: it can be used in fully online, hybrid, or face-to-face settings. All necessary digital assets (readings, maps, videos, and quizzes) are embedded, so learners have a “one-stop” environment.
The core teaching narrative is anchored in this Engineering X case study. It documents the evolution of the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) from a short-term flood recovery body to a long-term resilience institution. This resource provides students with authentic socio-technical detail — including stakeholder conflicts, institutional learning, and systemic barriers — which they then interrogate using systems thinking frameworks.
This resource provides a suggested delivery schedule for facilitators. It maps when live sessions, asynchronous tasks, and group discussions should occur, ensuring students remain engaged over the course. It also indicates where key reflective points and assessments (both formative and summative) can be integrated.
5. Pre- and post-module assessment form: (Appendix C)
This tool evaluates students’ systems thinking learning outcomes. It includes:
Baseline survey: assesses initial understanding of systems thinking, approaches to complex problems, and confidence in collaboration.
Scenario-based survey: applies systems thinking questions to a specific context (e.g. extreme monsoon rains and flooding in the case of Sakura Cove – as per the group assignment in module 1).
Post-module survey: measures changes in understanding, confidence, and skills, while also capturing qualitative reflections on learning.
The form provides both quantitative data (Likert scales) and qualitative insights (open-ended reflections), enabling robust evaluation of teaching impact.
Assessment:
Formative: Pre- and post-module surveys assess changes in learners’ self-reported understanding of systems thinking (Appendix A). Facilitators may adapt reflective prompts and scenario-based activities as part of coursework.
Summative (optional): Students can integrate insights into ongoing design projects (e.g. climate resilience in urban redevelopment), with assessment based on problem analysis, stakeholder engagement, and solution development.
Narrative of the case:
Learners are introduced to the case via a fictional guide, “Bernice,” who frames the scenario and supports navigation through the material. Students work through three stages that progressively apply the Cynefin framework and other systems tools to understand how resilience emerges through evolving governance and engineering responses:
1. Context module:
Initial Mandate: Students explore how the QRA was first tasked with rapid technical recovery—fixing roads after flood damage.
Narrative Depth: They study the Queensland floods of 2010–11 not just as a physical shock, but as a systemic stress test on multiple layers: infrastructure, governance, and community systems.
2. Analysis & insights module:
Framework Application: Learners apply systems frameworks (e.g., Cynefin, stakeholder maps) to see how QRA’s remit expanded over time—from asset restoration to hazard anticipation and community resilience.
Knowledge Types: Students distinguish between explicit knowledge (e.g., rebuild standards, hydrology data) and tacit knowledge (e.g., local inter-agency trust, relational coordination).
Governance Layers: Activities explore how resilience depends on multi-level governance, local-state-federal coordination, and overcoming systemic barriers like funding cycles or short-lived institutional mandates.
3. Discussion & transfer learning module:
Reflective Debate: Students weigh whether engineering alone can deliver resilience, or whether social relationships and institutions are equally critical.
Barrier Identification: They debate typical constraints—political, funding, institutional—and propose ways systems thinking can mitigate them.
Transfer Lab: Learners apply the evolved QRA model to other scenarios—e.g., urban heat adaptation or wildfires—considering both technical measures and governance dynamics.
Interactive learning design:
The teaching activity integrates multiple interactive elements to immerse students in systems thinking:
Role-play simulations: Learners take on the role of Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) decision-makers, negotiating trade-offs between immediate engineering fixes and long-term institutional resilience. This requires balancing technical priorities with building trust, relationships, and governance capacity.
Scenario challenges: Students are presented with governance disruptions (e.g. funding cuts, loss of stakeholder trust, leadership turnover). They must reframe solutions using systems approaches, moving from reactive technical patchworks towards adaptive, capacity-building strategies.
Interactive digital tools: The online platform provides hotspot maps for exploring interdependencies, drag-and-drop activities for categorising frameworks, explainer animations, and AI-driven chatbot negotiations with sceptical stakeholders. These exercises develop critical and applied problem-solving skills.
Collaborative reflection: Group discussions and peer-to-peer feedback allow learners to surface diverse perspectives, debate trade-offs, and integrate insights into ongoing project briefs.
Why this approach adds value:
Although rooted in social-technical interactions, the activity explicitly connects systems thinking to core engineering design competencies—problem framing, stakeholder analysis, and iterative solution development under uncertainty
Holistic understanding of resilience: Students experience resilience as more than just technical recovery. They engage with a dynamic system that includes knowledge creation, governance evolution, and social relationships.
Adaptive systems thinking in action: The evolving narrative demonstrates how system boundaries shift over time, and how sustainable outcomes require not only engineering but institutional and cultural change.
Direct relevance to real-world engineering: The case mirrors global infrastructure challenges where effective disaster response and resilience planning depend on the interplay between technical solutions, governance capacity, and community engagement.
Guided questions and activities:
Facilitators can use these prompts to stimulate inquiry and structured reflection:
Who are the key stakeholders in the QRA flood response, and where do their priorities align or conflict?
How do feedback loops and interdependencies influence resilience planning?
What trade-offs exist between rapid repair and long-term resilience?
How can systems frameworks such as the Cynefin model or stakeholder mapping guide decision-making under uncertainty?
In role-play: how would you convince a sceptical funder (AI chatbot) to invest in resilience measures?
How could lessons from flood mitigation be applied to other contexts such as wildfire or urban heat resilience?
Opportunities for extension:
In addition to the Queensland floods and Sakura Cove examples, educators may draw parallels with urban heat planning in London, wildfire adaptation in Australia, or storm resilience in the Netherlands. These comparative cases allow learners to generalise systems insights beyond one event or geography.
The activity is designed to be scalable and adaptable:
Broader case study base: Educators can expand beyond flood resilience to include wildfire, storm, or extreme heat events.
Integration with larger modules: The activity can be embedded into project-based learning modules (e.g. urban redevelopment, transport network resilience).
Advanced complexity: For higher-level learners, facilitators can introduce additional frameworks (e.g. agent-based modelling, system dynamics) to deepen analysis.
This flexibility allows educators to tailor the activity to their students’ level of expertise, institutional context, and disciplinary focus.
References:
Design Council. (2021). Beyond Net Zero: A systemic design approach. Design Council.
Godfrey, P., Crick, R. D., & Huang, S. (2014). Systems thinking, systems design and learning power in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education.
Monat, J., Gannon, T., & Amissah, M. (2022). The case for systems thinking in undergraduate engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 12(3), 50–88.
Nachbagauer, A. (2021). Managing complexity in projects: Extending the Cynefin framework. Project Leadership and Society, 2, 100017.
Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self‐awareness. Journal of knowledge management, 6(2), 100-111.
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.
Authors: Professor Anne Nortcliffe (Wrexham University); Crystal Nwagboso (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: A practical guide for educators on using the Toolkit to embed inclusive employability in teaching, illustrated with real-life case studies and step-by-step session plans.
Engineeringdisciplines: Any.
Keywords: Academics; Active Learning; Case Study; Employability and Skills; Curriculum or Course; Engineering Professionals; Inclusive or Responsible Design; Interdisciplinary or Multidisciplinary; Pedagogy; Problem-Based Learning; Project-Based Learning; Students; Teaching and Learning; Workshop; Collaboration; Higher Education; General and Non-Specific or Other Engineering; Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Who is this how-to guide / case study for? This guide is designed for educators, curriculum developers, and academic support staff seeking to integrate inclusive employability into engineering education. Through real-world case studies and detailed session plans, it provides practical strategies for fostering students’ professional skills, reflective practice, and meaningful engagement with industry, adaptable across diverse engineering disciplines and teaching contexts.
Activity: Assessment. This example demonstrates how the questions provided in Assessing ethics: Rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level.
Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).
This example demonstrates how the questions provided in the accompanying rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level. Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.
Year 1
Personal values: What is your initial position on the issue? Do you see anything wrong with how DSS are using water? Why, or why not?
Students should provide a stance, but more importantly their stance should be justified. In this instance this may involve reference to common moral values such as environmental sustainability, risk associated with power issues and questions of ownership.
Professional responsibilities: What ethical principles and codes of conduct are relevant to this situation?
Students should refer to relevant principles (e.g. from the Joint Statement of Ethical Principles). For example, in this case some of the relevant principles may include (but not be limited to) “protect, and where possible improve, the quality of built and natural environment”, “maximise the public good and minimise both actual and potential adverse effects for their own and succeeding generations” and “take due account of the limited availability of natural resources”.
Ethical principles and codes of conduct can be used to guide our actions during an ethical dilemma. How does the guidance provided in this case align/differ with your personal views? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students’ answers will depend upon those given to the previous questions but should include some discussion of similarities and differences between their own initial thoughts and principles/codes of conducts, and allude to the tensions involved in ethical dilemmas and the impact on decision making.
What are the moral values involved in this case and why does it constitute an ethical dilemma? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students should be able to identify relevant moral values and explain that an ethical dilemma constitutes a problem in which two or more moral values or norms cannot be fully realised at the same time.
There are two (or a limited number of) options for action and whatever they choose they will commit a moral wrong. The crucial feature of a moral dilemma is not the number of actions that are available but the fact that all possible actions are morally unsatisfactory.
What role should an engineer play in influencing the outcome? What are the implications of not being involved? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Engineers are responsible for the design of technological advancements which necessitate data storage. Although this brings many benefits, engineers need to consider the adverse impact of technological advancement such as increased water use. Students may therefore want to consider the wider implications of data storage on the environment and how these can be mitigated.
Year 2
Formulate a moral problem statement which clearly states the problem, its moral nature and who needs to act. (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
An example could be: “Should the civil engineer working for DSS remain loyal to the company and defend them against accusations of causing environmental hazards, or defend their water rights and say that they will not change their behaviour”. It should be clear what the problem is, the moral values at play and who needs to act.
Stakeholder mapping: Who are all the stakeholders in the scenario? What are their positions, perspective and moral values?
Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the relevant stakeholders and values that may come up.
Stakeholder
Perspectives/interests
Moralvalues
DataStorageSolutions (DSS)
Increasing production in a profitable way; meeting legal requirements; good reputationtomaintain/grow customer base.
Representviewsofthose concerned about biodiversity. May be interested in opening ofgreenbattery plant.
Human welfare; environmental sustainability;justice.
LocalCouncil
Represent views of all stakeholders and would needtoconsidereconomic benefits of DSS (tax and employment), the need of theuniversityandhospital, as well as the needs of local farmers and environmentalists. May beinterestedinopeningof green battery plant.
This may depend on their beliefs as an individual, their employment status and their use of services such as the hospital and university. Typically interested in low taxes/responsible spending of public money. May be interested in opening of green batteryplant.
Reliable storage. They mayalsobeinterestedin being part of an ethical supply chain.
Trust; privacy; accountability;autonomy.
Non-humanstakeholders
Environmental sustainability.
What are some of the possible courses of action in the situation. What responsibilities do you have to the various stakeholders involved? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each? (Reworded from case study.)
Students should provide a stance but may recognise the tensions involved. For example, at a micro level, tensions between loyalty to the profession and loyalty to the company/personal financial stability. Responsibilities to fellow employees may include the degree to which you risk their jobs by being honest. They may also feel that they should protect environmental and natural resources.
At a macro level, they may consider the need for engineers to inform decisions regarding issues that engineering and technology raise for society (e.g. increased water being needed for data storage) and listen to the aspirations and concerns of others, and challenging statements or policies that cause them professional concern.
What are the relevant facts in this scenario and what other information would you like to help inform your ethical decision making? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students should identify which facts within the case study are relevant in terms of making an ethical decision. In this case, some of the relevant facts may include:
Water use permissible by law (“the data centre always uses the maximum amount legally allotted to it.”)
This centre manages data which is vital for the local community, including the safe running of schools and hospitals, and that its operation requires sufficient water for cooling.
In more arid months, the nearby river almost runs dry, resulting in large volumes of fish dying.
Water levels in farmers’ wells have dropped, making irrigation much more expensive and challenging.
A new green battery plant is planned to open nearby that will create more data demand and has the potential to further increase DSS’ water use.
Obtaining water from other sources will be costly to DSS and may not be practically possible, let alone commercially viable.
Studentsshouldbeawarethatincompleteinformationhindersdecisionmakingduring ethical dilemmas, and that in some cases, further information will be needed to help inform decisions. In this case, some of the questions may pertain to:
Exactly how much water is being used and the legal rights.
Relationship between farmer and DSS/contractual obligations.
How costly irrigation is to the farmers (economic impact), as well as the knock-on impact to their business and supply chain.
How many people DSS employ and how important they are for local economy.
Detail regarding biodiversity loss and its wider impact.
How likely it is that the green battery plant will open and whether DSS is the only eligible supplier.
How much the green battery plant contract is worth to DSS.
How much water the green battery plant will use in the case that DSS get the contract.
Whether DSS is the only option for hospital and university.
What will happen if the services DSS provide to the hospital and university stop or becomes unreliable.
Year 2/Year 3
(At Year 2, students could provide options; at Year 3 they would evaluate and form a judgement.)
Make use of ethical frameworks and/or professional codes to evaluate the options for DSS both short term and long term. How do the uncertainty and assumptions involved in this case impact decision making?
Students should list plausible options. They can then analyse them with respect to different ethical frameworks (whilst we don’t necessary make use of normative ethical theories, analysis according to consequences, intention or action may be a useful approach to this). Below we have included a non-exhaustive list of options with ideas in terms of analysis.
Option
Consequences
Intention
Action
Keepusing water
May lead to expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply.
Reputational damage of DSS may increase. Individual employee piece of mind may be at risk.
Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers which may have further impact long term.
Intentionbehindaction notconsistentwith that expected by an engineer, other than with respect to legality
Actionfollowslegalnormsbut not social norms such as good will and concern for others.
Keep using the water but limit furtherwork
May limit expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply.
Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers and may have further impact long term. This could still result in reputation damage.
Intentionbehindaction partially consistent with that expected by an engineer.
Actionfollowslegalnormsbut only partially follow social norms such as good will and concern for others.
Makeuseof other sources of water
Data storage continues.
Potential for reputation to increase.
Potential increase in cost of water resulting in less profit potentially less tax revenue/employment.
Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.
Alternativewatersourcesmaybeassociated with the same issues or worse.
Intention behind action seems consistent with that expected by an engineer. However, this is dependent upon
whether they chose to source sustainablewaterwithlessimpact on biodiversity etc.
Thismaybedependenton the degree to which DSS proactively source sustainable water.
Reduce worklevels or shut down
Impact on profit and thus tax revenue/employment and supply chain. Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.
May cause operational issues for those whose data is stored.
Seems consistent with those expected of engineer. Raises questions more generally about viability and feasibility of datastorage.
Action doesn’t follow social norms of responsibility to employeesandshareholders.
Investigate othercooling methods which don’t require as much water/don’t take on extra work untilanother method identified.
May benefit whole sector.
May cause interim loss of service.
This follows expectations of the engineeringprofession in terms of evidence-baseddecisionmaking and consideration for impact of engineering in society.
It follows social norms in termsofresponsibledecision making.
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.
Author: Onyekachi Nwafor (CEO, KatexPower).
Topic:Waste management.
Tool type: Teaching.
Relevant disciplines: Environmental; Civil; Systems engineering.
Keywords: Sustainability; Environmental justice; Water and sanitation; Community engagement; Urban planning; Waste management; Nigeria; Sweden; AHEP; Higher education.
Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Integrated problem-solving competency; Strategic competency.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
Related SDGs: SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation); SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); SDG 13 (Climate Action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Cross-disciplinarity.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Educational level: Beginner.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study juxtaposes the waste management strategies of two cities: Stockholm, Sweden, renowned for its advanced recycling and waste-to-energy initiatives, and Lagos, Nigeria, a megacity grappling with rapid urbanisation and growing waste challenges. The contrast and comparison aim to illuminate the diverse complexities, unique solutions, and ethical considerations underlying their respective journeys towards sustainable waste management.
This case is presented in parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Parts two and three develop and complicate the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case study allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities, as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Understand the role of UNSDGs in urban planning and waste management policy.
Analyse and apply diverse waste management strategies considering socio-economic and cultural contexts.
Advocate for inclusive, equitable, and environmentally conscious waste management solutions.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce concepts relating to circularity
Link real-world and systemic engineering problems with SDGs
You are a renowned environmental engineer and urban planner, specialising in sustainable waste management systems. The Commissioner of Environment for Lagos invites you to analyse the city’s waste challenges and develop a comprehensive, adaptable roadmap towards a sustainable waste management future. Your mandate involves:
Assessing the current state of waste generation, collection, and disposal in Lagos.
Evaluating the exemplar Stockholm’s waste management strategies and identifying transferable best practices.
Examining the socio-economic and cultural context of Lagos and its specific waste management needs.
Devising a holistic waste management framework that prioritises environmental sustainability, social equity, and community engagement.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Discussion: Compare and contrast Lagos’s current waste management with Stockholm’s system, considering factors like efficiency, technology, and environmental impact.
Activity: Map the various stakeholders involved in Lagos’s waste management system, identifying potential partners and challenges for collaboration.
Discussion: Explore the social and economic dimensions of waste management in Lagos. How does waste affect different communities and individuals?
Part two:
As you delve deeper, you recognise the multifaceted challenges Lagos faces. While Stockholm boasts advanced technologies and high recycling rates, its solutions may not directly translate to Lagos’s context. Limited infrastructure, informal waste sectors, and diverse cultural practices must be carefully considered. Your role evolves from simply analysing technicalities and policies to devising a holistic strategy. This strategy must not only champion environmental sustainability but also champion social equity, respecting the unique socio-economic and cultural nuances of each urban setting. You must design a system that:
Promotes waste reduction and source separation at the community level.
Empowers and integrates the informal waste sector through training and formalisation
Ensures access to safe and efficient waste collection for all, particularly underserved communities.
Leverages sustainable technologies and practices (e.g., composting, biogas) while remaining adaptable to resource constraints.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Analysing existing waste management policies
City: [Choose Stockholm or Lagos]
Existing policy: [Specify the specific policy you are analysing]
Adaptability for diverse contexts:
Can this policy be easily adapted to other cities with different socio-economic and cultural contexts?
What are the key challenges and opportunities for adaptation?
What resources and support would be needed for successful adaptation?
What technical knowledge and skills are required to enact the policy? What local industries and partners will be critical to success?
Discussion prompts:
To what extent does the existing policy prioritise environmental sustainability, social equity, and economic feasibility?
What role can communities and diverse stakeholders play in shaping and implementing waste management policies?
Part three:
While implementing your strategy, you encounter enthusiasm from some sectors but also resistance from others, particularly informal waste workers and industries whose livelihoods may be impacted. Balancing immediate socio-economic concerns with long-term environmental benefits becomes crucial.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Discussion: Explore the ethical considerations of implementing a sustainable waste management system that might have short-term negative impacts on certain groups. How do you balance long-term benefits with potential immediate drawbacks?
Activity: Investigate real-world examples of cities transitioning to sustainable waste management and the strategies they used to mitigate negative socio-economic impacts.
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.
Sustainability competency: Anticipatory; Strategic; Integrated problem-solving.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
Related SDGs: SDG7 (Affordable and Clean Energy); SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities); SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Cross-disciplinarity. The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study offers learners an explorative journey through the multifaceted aspects of deploying off-grid renewable solutions, considering practical, ethical, and societal implications. It dwells on themes such as Engineering and Sustainable Development (emphasizing the role of engineering in driving sustainable initiatives) and Engineering Practice (exploring the application of engineering principles in real-world contexts).
The dilemma in this case is presented in six parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Parts two and three develop and complicate the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case study allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities, as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Recognise the significance of the SDGs in engineering solutions;
Enhance their skills in applying sustainable engineering practices in real-world scenarios.
Delve into the complexities of implementing off-grid solutions.
Navigate through the ethical considerations of deploying technologies in remote, often vulnerable, communities.
Engage in critical thinking to balance technological, societal, and environmental aspects.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Highlight the importance of SDGs in engineering.
Facilitate discussions on ethical implications in technology deployment.
Evaluate learners’ ability to devise sustainable and ethical engineering solutions.
DGS; Planning and installing photovoltaic systems: A guide for installers, architects and engineers; ISBN: 978-1849713436; Planning and installing series.
In accordance with a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and statistics provided by the World Bank, approximately 633 million individuals in Africa currently lack access to electricity. This stark reality has significant implications for the remote villages across the continent, where challenges related to energy access persistently impact various aspects of daily life and stall social and economic development. In response to this critical issue, the deployment of off-grid renewable solutions emerges as a promising and sustainable alternative. Such solutions have the potential to not only address the pressing energy gap but also to catalyse development in isolated regions.
Situated in one of Egypt’s most breathtaking desert landscapes, Siwa holds a position of immense natural heritage importance within Egypt and on a global scale. The region is home to highly endangered species, some of which have restricted distributions found only in Siwa Oasis. Classified as a remote area, a particular community in Siwa Oasis currently relies predominantly on diesel generators for its power needs, as it remains disconnected from the national grid. Moreover, extending the national grid to this location is deemed economically and environmentally impractical, given the long distances and rugged terrain.
Despite these challenges, Siwa Oasis possesses abundant renewable resources that can serve as the foundation for implementing a reliable, economical, and sustainable energy source. Recognising the environmental significance of the area, the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) declared Siwa Oasis as a protected area in 2002.
Part one: Household energy for Siwa Oasis
Imagine being an electrical engineer tasked with developing an off-grid, sustainable power solution for Siwa Oasis village. Your goal is to develop a solution that not only addresses the power needs but also is sustainable, ethical, and has a positive impact on the community. The following data may help in developing your solution.
Data on Household Energy for Siwa Oasis:
Activities:
Analyse typical household appliances and their power consumption (lighting, refrigeration, pressing Iron).
Simulate daily energy usage patterns using smart meter data.
Identify peak usage times and propose strategies for energy conservation (example LED bulbs, etc)
Calculate appliance power consumption and estimate electricity costs.
Discussion:
a. How does this situation relate to SDG 7, and why is it essential for sustainable development?
b. What are the primary and secondary challenges of implementing off-grid solutions in remote villages?
Part two: Power supply options
Electricity supply in Siwa Oasis is mainly depends on Diesel Generators, 4 MAN Diesel Generators of 21 MW which are going to be wasted in four years, 2 CAT Diesel Generators of 5.2 MW and 1 MAN Diesel Generator 4 MW for emergency. Compare and contrast various power supply options for the household (renewable vs. fossil fuel).
Renewable: Focus on solar PV systems, including hands-on activities like solar panel power output measurements and battery sizing calculations.
Fossil fuel: Briefly discuss diesel generators and their environmental impact.
The Siwa Oasis community is divided over the choice of power supply options for their households. On one hand, there is a group advocating for a complete shift to renewable energy, emphasising the environmental benefits and long-term sustainability of solar PV systems. On the other hand, there is a faction arguing to continue relying on the existing diesel generators, citing concerns about the reliability and initial costs associated with solar power. The community must decide which power supply option aligns with their values, priorities, and long-term goals for sustainability and energy independence. This decision will not only impact their day-to-day lives but also shape the future of energy use in Siwa Oasis.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Debate: Is it ethical to impose new technologies on communities, even if it’s for perceived improvement of living conditions?
Discussion: How can engineers ensure the sustainability (environmental and operational) of off-grid solutions in remote locations?
Activities: Students to design a basic solar PV system for the household, considering factors like energy demand, solar resource availability, and budget constraints.
Part three: Community mini-grid via harnessing the desert sun
Mini-grid systems (sometimes referred to as micro-grids) generally serve several buildings or entire communities. The abundant sunshine in Siwa community makes it ideal for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and based on the load demand of the community, a solar PV mini grid solution will work perfectly.
Electrical components of a typical PV system can be classified into DC and AC.
DC components: The electrical connection of solar modules to the inverter constitutes the DC part of a PV installation. Its design requires particular care and reliable components, as there is a risk of significant accidents with high DC voltages and currents, especially due to electric arcs.
The key DC components are:
PV cables and connectors: PV modules are usually delivered with a junction box and pre-assembled cables with single-contact electrical connectors. They enable easy interconnection of individual modules in strings. Solar cables are made of copper or aluminum (more cost-efficient).
Combiner boxes: Here, incoming strings are connected in parallel, and the resulting current is channeled through an output terminal to the inverter. A combiner box usually contains all required protection devices, disconnectors, and measuring equipment for string monitoring.
AC components: The equipment installed on the AC side of the inverter depends on the size and voltage class of the grid connection (low-voltage (LV), medium-voltage (MV), or high-voltage (HV) grid). Utility-scale PV plants usually require the following equipment:
Transformers, to increase the inverter output voltage to the grid voltage level
AC cables, buried
Circuit breakers, switchgears, and protection devices, for large PV plants (MV/HV connection)
Electricity meters
Activities:
Research and discuss the safety precautions and regulations for working with DC systems.
Analyse the DC components of a typical PV system, including cables, connectors, and combiner boxes.
Calculate the voltage and current levels at different points in the DC circuit based on the system design.
Investigate the concept of power factor and its significance in grid stability and energy bills.
Analyse the power factor of common household appliances and discuss its impact on the mini-grid.
Propose strategies to improve the overall power factor of the mini-grid, such as using capacitors or choosing energy-efficient appliances.
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.
Keywords: Circular business models; Teaching or embedding sustainability; Plastic waste; Plastic pollution; Recycling or recycled materials; Responsible consumption; Teamwork; Interdisciplinary; AHEP; Higher education.
Sustainability competency: Integrated problem-solving; Collaboration; Systems thinking.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 13 (Climate action); SDG 14 (Life below water).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity, Active pedagogies and mindset development, Authentic assessment, Cross-disciplinarity.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study is focused on the role of engineers to address the problem of plastic waste in the context of sustainable operations and circular business solutions. It involves a team of engineers developing a start-up aiming to tackle plastic waste by converting it into infrastructure components (such as plastic bricks). As plastic waste is a global problem, the case can be customised by instructors when specifying the region in which it is set. The case incorporates several components, including stakeholder mapping, empirical surveys, risk assessment and policy-making. This case study is particularly suitable for interdisciplinary teamwork, with students from different disciplines bringing their specialised knowledge.
The case study asks students to research the data on how much plastic is produced and policies for the disposal of plastic, identify the regions most affected by plastic waste, develop a business plan for a circular business focused on transforming plastic waste into bricks and understand the risks of plastic production and waste as well as the risks of a business working with plastic waste. In this process, students gain an awareness of the societal context of plastic waste and the varying risks that different demographic categories are exposed to, as well as the role of engineers in contributing to the development of technologies for circular businesses. Students also get to apply their disciplinary knowledge to propose technical solutions to the problem of plastic waste.
The case is presented in parts. Part one addresses the broader context of plastic waste and could be used in isolation, but parts two and three further develop and add complexity to the engineering-specific elements of the topic.
Learners have the opportunity to:
apply their ethical judgement to a case study focused on a circular technology;
understand the national and supranational policy context related to the production and disposal of plastic;
analyse engineering and societal risks related to the development of a novel technology;
develop a business model for a circular technology dealing with plastic waste;
identify the key stakeholder groups in the development of a circular business model;
reflect on how risks may differ for different demographic groups and identify the stakeholder groups most vulnerable to the negative effects of plastic waste;
develop an empirical survey to identify the risks that stakeholders affected by or working with plastic waste are exposed to;
develop a risk assessment to identify the risks involved in the manufacturing of plastic waste bricks;
provide recommendations for lowering the risks in the manufacturing of plastic bricks.
Teachers have the opportunity to include teaching content purporting to:
Physico-chemical properties of plastic waste;
Manufacturing processes of plastic products and plastic bricks;
Sustainable policies targeting plastic usage and reduction;
Climate justice;
Circular entrepreneurship;
Risk assessment tools such as HAZOP and their application in the chemical industry.
Plastic pollution is a major challenge. It is predicted that if current trends continue, by 2050 there will be 26 billion metric tons of plastic waste, and almost half of this is expected to be dumped in landfills and the environment (Guglielmi, 2017). As plastic waste grows at an increased speed, it kills millions of animals each year, contaminates fresh water sources and affects human health. Across the world, geographical regions are affected differently by plastic waste. In fact, developing countries are more affected by plastic waste than developed nations. Existing reports trace a link between poverty and plastic waste, making it a development problem. Africa, Asia and South America see immense quantities of plastic generated elsewhere being dumped on their territory. At the moment, there are several policies in place targeting the production and disposal of plastic. Several of the policies active in developed regions such as the EU do not allow the disposal of plastic waste inside their own territorial boundaries, but allow it on outside territories.
Optional STOP for activities and discussion
Conduct research to identify 5 national or international regulations or policies about the use and disposal of plastic.
Compare these policies by stating which is the issuing policy body, what is the aim and scope of the policy.
Reflect on the effectiveness of each policy and debate in class what are the most effective policies you identified.
Write a reflection piece based on a policy of your choice targeting the use or disposal of plastic. In this reflection, identify the benefits of the policy as well as potential limitations. You may consider how you would improve the policy.
Conduct research to identify how much plastic is produced and how much plastic waste is generated in your region. Identify which sectors are the biggest producers of waste. Conduct research on how much of this plastic waste is being exported and where is it exported.
Identify the countries and companies with the biggest plastic footprint. Discuss in the classroom what you consider to contribute to these rankings.
Research global waste trading and identify the countries that are the biggest exporters and importers of plastic waste. Discuss the findings in classroom and what you consider to contribute to these rankings. Discuss whether there are or should be any restrictions governing global waste trade.
Write a report analysing the plastic footprint of a country or company of your choice. Include recommendations for minimising the plastic footprint.
Impressed by the magnitude of the problem of plastic waste faced today, together with a group of friends you met while studying engineering at the Technological University of the Future, you want to set up a green circular business. Circular business models aim to use and reuse materials for as long as possible, all while minimising waste. Your concern is to develop a sustainable technological solution to the problem of plastic waste. The vision for a circular economy for plastic rests on six key points (Ellen McArthur Foundation, n.d.):
Elimination of problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging through redesign, innovation, and new delivery models is a priority
Reuse models are applied where relevant, reducing the need for single-use packaging
All plastic packaging is 100% reusable, recyclable, or compostable
All plastic packaging is reused, recycled, or composted in practice
The use of plastic is fully decoupled from the consumption of finite resources
All plastic packaging is free of hazardous chemicals, and the health, safety, and rights of all people involved are respected
Optional STOP for group activities and discussion
Read about the example of the Great Plastic Bake Off and their project focused on converting plastic waste into plastic bricks. Research the chemical properties of plastic bricks and the process for the manufacturing process. Present your findings on a poster or discuss it in class.
Develop a concept map with ideas for potential sustainable technologies for reducing or recycling plastic waste. You may use as inspiration the Circular Strategies Scanner (available here).
Select one idea that you want to propose as the focus of your sustainable start-up. Give a name to your startup!
Describe the technology you want to produce: what is its aim? What problem can it solve or what gap can it address? What are the envisioned benefits of your technology? What are its key features?
Map the key stakeholders of the technology, by identifying the decision-makers for this technology, the beneficiaries of the technology, as well as those who are exposed to the risks of the technology
Analyse the market for your technology: are there businesses with a similar aim or similar technology? What differentiates your business or technology from them?
Identify key policies relevant to your technology: are there any policies or regulations in place that you should consider? In your geographical area, are there any policy incentives for sustainable technologies or businesses similar to the one you are developing?
For your start-up, assign different roles to the members of your group (such as technology officer, researcher, financial officer, communication manager, partnership director a.s.o) and describe the key tasks of each member. Identify how much personnel you would need
Identify the cost components and calculate the yearly costs for running your business (including personnel).
Perform a SWOT analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for your business. You may use this matrix to brainstorm each component.
Part three:
The start-up SuperRecycling aims to develop infrastructure solutions by converting plastic waste into bricks. Your team of engineers is tasked to develop a risk assessment for the operations of the factory in which this process will take place. The start-up is set in a developing country of your choice that is greatly affected by plastic waste.
Optional STOP for group activities and discussion
Agree on the geographical location of the startup SuperRecycling and identify the amount of plastic waste that your region has to cope with, as well as any other relevant socio-economic characteristics of the region.
Identify the demographic categories that are most exposed to the risks of plastic waste in the region.
Research and analyse the situation of the informal plastic waste picking sector in the region: who is picking up the waste? How much do they earn for working with waste? Is this a regular form of income and who pays this income? What does it mean to be an “informal” worker? Are there any key insights about the characteristics of the plastic waste workers that you find interesting?
Based on research and your own reflections, write a report on the role and risks that the plastic waste pickers are exposed to in their work.
Create an empirical survey with the aim of identifying the risks the plastic waste pickers are exposed to, as well as the strategies they take to mitigate risks or deal with accidents.
Create an empirical survey with the aim of identifying the risks that the factory workers at SuperRecycling are exposed to, as well as the strategies they take to mitigate risks or deal with accidents.
Research the manufacturing process for developing plastic bricks and analyse the technical characteristics of plastic bricks, based on existing tests.
With the classroom split into 2 groups, argue in favour or against their use of plastic bricks in construction. One group develops 5 arguments for the use of plastic bricks in construction, while the other group develops 5 arguments against the use of plastic bricks in construction. At the end, the groups disperse and students vote individually via an anonymous online poll whether they are personally in favour or against the use of plastic bricks in construction.
Create a HAZOP risk assessment for the manufacturing processes of the factory where plastic waste is converted into plastic bricks.
Develop an educational leaflet for preventing the key injuries and hazards in the process of converting plastic waste into bricks, both for the informal waste pickers and the factory workers.
Acknowledgement: The authors want to acknowledge the work of Engineers Without Borders Netherlands and its partners to tackle the problem of plastic waste. The case is based on the Challenge Based Learning exploratory course Decision Under Risk and Uncertainty designed by Diana Adela Martin at TU Eindhoven, where students got to work on a real-life project about the conversion of plastic waste into bricks to build a washroom facility in a school in Ghana, based on the activity of Engineers Without Borders Netherlands. The project was spearheaded by Suleman Audu and Jeremy Mantingh.
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.
Toolkit: 
