Licensing:This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The work on which this project has been based was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK through the UK FIRES Program (EP/S019111/1) and the Future Electrical Machines Manufacturing Hub (EP/S018034/1). Earlier work supported by High Value Manufacturing Catapult has also been essential in developing the basis for this work.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: This article 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 is crucial to achieving imperatives such as decarbonisation. Yet engineering typically addresses specific, well-defined challenges rather than broad, ambiguous ones. Education and practice reinforce this approach, with even postgraduate and academic engineers often focusing on problem depth over breadth. While this produces deep technical insights and tangible technological capability, it risks delaying uptake and impact unless multidisciplinary teams are involved. Recognising this gap between aspirations and execution suggests a role for structured frameworks and tools to trigger bridging activity. Wicked problem thinking is a way to understand complex problems and systems thinking, and it is related to situations which are ambiguous, contested, sometimes lacking an end state, evolving over time, requiring collaboration, adaptability, and inherently cross-disciplinary.
Background:
Climate change is a helpful case in illustrating the gap between global ‘wicked’ problems, and the work of the engineer. Engineering’s success, by underpinning industrialisation and thereby enabling mass consumption, can also be seen as its biggest failing in contributing to climate change (Datea & Chandrasekharana, 2022) and other environmental impacts. Going forward, engineers must help mitigate it, through better deployment of existing technologies and creation of new ones. Clearly climate change is complex, spanning scientific, technological, behavioural, and political dimensions, and this complexity limits what can be achieved solely from engineering consideration. Conventional engineering methods, though highly effective at the project and programme level, risk drifting away from the original issue and producing isolated solutions with limited systemic effect.
Wicked problems thinking:
Global challenges like climate change are sometimes labelled “super-wicked” problems—time-limited, caused partly by the problem-solvers, lacking central authority, and often deferred (Levin et al.). In engineering, wicked problems present a risk, because engineers are inherently tasked with addressing a part of the wider problem and often via particular approaches. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that engineers are trained for structured problems with clear solution methods (Schuelke-Leech, 2021). Unfortunately such approaches are rarely transferable directly to wicked contexts, except when problem structure and solution approaches align unusually well. Education reinforces this, as engineering curricula focus on well-defined challenges (Lönngren, 2017).
At the research level, problems are often entangled, requiring both high-level perspective and detailed work. Sustainable engineering science (Seager et al., 2012) calls for ethical awareness, adaptive methods, and “interactional expertise” drawn from other disciplines. While this opens opportunities to measure cause and effect across scales, tangible short-term indicators often dominate.
A structured approach to Wicked Problems:
Alford & Head’s (2017) typology places problems on a spectrum from “Tame” to “Very Wicked.” Most engineering projects are tame, even when complex, because specification and management processes reduce ambiguity. Issues like decarbonisation-related engineering research, however, often involves wicked characteristics. This framework has recently been extended (Fehring, 2025) to allow consideration of a wider range of engineering research scenarios, Figure 1.
Figure 1. A framework for categorising complexity of engineering research scenarios (Fehring)
Each of the identified scenario types is somewhat distinctive, as follows:
Tame: Challenge of delivery and execution within known (but potentially challenging) parameters.
Analytically complex: Known and accepted performance gaps with corrective actions not obvious.
Communicatively complex: Multiple elements being brought together at the discretion of different parties.
Complex: Major external influences drive the need for fundamental change.
Cognitively complex: All agree on the need for action, but the nature of the action is unclear.
Politically complex: A known technological challenge, which can only be addressed collaboratively via multiple parties.
Conceptually contentious: Many indicators of impending change and the need to respond, but response is open to interpretation.
Politically turbulent: Major competing factions exist, promoting alterative interpretations to global problems.
Very wicked: All that is known for certain is that there is a tangible basis for concern and no obvious route to resolution.
Supportable opportunity: An area where research is interesting and sufficiently well aligned to available funding models to be well supported.
Provocation: A general issue is raised as a burning platform for action, without any consideration of potential mitigations.
Challenging opportunity: An area with potential for development, but not well aligned to themes supported by funders.
Realisation: Evidence of the issue is presented and published without any proposal or speculation on solutions.
Paradigm shift: An area of potential Research and Development and potential major breakthrough which is contrary to accepted thinking.
Call to Action: A call to adopt a solution which is available but for the most part unacceptable at the human or social level.
Ignored Issues: Situations that only become problems because they are not discussed based on their taboo nature or unacceptability of discussion in an area.
Conclusions:
Engineers can often be drawn into issues and challenges which can require multidisciplinary approaches.
A structured framework, such as the one described here, can be helpful in allowing the nature of a particular situation to be understood and the applicability of different approaches considered.
Pure engineering approaches are most applicable in scenarios closest to Tame Problems.
Multidisciplinary approaches seem most essential in cases closest to Very Wicked Problems.
Engineering research extends to a wider range of scenarios than those considered problems per se, and these have been added to the categorisation framework. This extension of the framework, while not problem specific, is helpful in providing a logical means of extending the consideration to wider research situations.
One of the primary areas of potential in this form of analysis is to demonstrate the degree of separation that can exist between focused and engineering R&D and the system level problem which drives it.
References:
Alford, J and Head, B. W. ‘Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework’, Policy and Society, 36:3, (2017) 397-413, DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634
Datea, Geetanjali. and Chandrasekharana, Sanjay., ‘Beyond Efficiency: Engineering for Sustainability Requires Solving for Pattern’, Engineering Studies, 10, 1, (2022), 12–37
Fehring, F. ‘A wicked and complex problem-based analysis framework applying wicked problem thinking to the supply chain and engineering research domain’, Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis, University of Strathclyde, (2025)
Lönngren, J., ‘Wicked Problems in Engineering Education : Preparing Future Engineers to Work for Sustainability’ PhD dissertation, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola), (2017)
Schuelke-Leech, Beth-Anne., ‘A Problem Taxonomy for Engineering’, IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society’, 2, .2, pp.105-105, (2021)
Seager, T., Selinger, E. and Wiek, A., ‘Sustainable Engineering Science for Resolving Wicked Problems’, J Agric Environ Ethics 25, (2012), 467–484, DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2
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.
Licensing:This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. It is based upon the author’s 2025 article “A Simulation Tool for Pinch Analysis and Heat Exchanger/Heat Pump Integration in Industrial Processes: Development and Application in Challenge-based Learning”. Education for Chemical Engineers 52, 141–150.
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 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). In addition, this resource addresses the themes of Science, mathematics and engineering principles; Problem analysis; and Design.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim:To equip learners with the ability to model, analyse, and optimise pathways for industrial decarbonisation through a complex-systems lens – integrating technical, economic, and policy dimensions – while linking factory-level design decisions to wider value-chain dynamics, multi-stakeholder trade-offs, and long-term sustainability impacts.
Learning and teaching notes:
This teaching activity explores heat integration for the decarbonisation of industrial processes through the lens of complex systems thinking, combining simulation, systems-level modelling, and reflective scenario analysis. It is especially useful in modules related to energy systems, process systems, or sustainability.
Learners analyse a manufacturing site’s energy system using a custom-built simulation tool to explore the energy, cost and carbon-emission trade-offs of different heat-integration strategies. They also reflect on system feedback, stakeholder interests and real-world resilience using causal loop diagrams and role-played decision frameworks.
This activity frames industrial heat integration as a complex adaptive system, with interdependent subsystems such as process material streams, utilities, technology investments and deployments, capital costs, emissions, and operating constraints.
Learners run the simulation tool to generate outputs to explore different systems integration strategies: pinch-based heat recovery by heat exchangers, with and without heat pump-based waste heat upgrade. Screenshots of the tool graphical user interface are attached as separate files:
The learning is delivered in part, through active engagement with the simulation tool. Learners interpret the composite and grand composite curves and process tables, to explore how system-level outcomes change across various scenarios. Learners explore, using their generated simulation outputs, how subsystems (e.g. hot and cold process streams, utilities) interact nonlinearly and with feedback effects (e.g., heat recovery impacts), shaping global system behaviour and revealing leverage points and emergent effects in economics, emissions and feasibility.
Using these outputs as a baseline, and exploring other systems modelling options, learners evaluate trade-offs between heat recovery, capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating costs (OPEX), and carbon emissions, helping them develop systems-level thinking under constraints.
The activity embeds scenario analysis, including causal loop diagrams, what-if disruption modelling, and stakeholder role-play, using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to develop strategic analysis and systems mapping skills. Interdisciplinary reasoning is encouraged across thermodynamics, economics, optimisation, engineering ethics, and climate policy, culminating in reflective thinking on system boundary definitions, trade-offs, sustainability transitions and resilience in industrial systems.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Analyse non-linear interactions in thermodynamic systems.
Reconcile conflicting demands (e.g. energy savings vs costs vs emissions vs technical feasibility) using data generated from real system simulation.
Model and interpret feedback-driven process systems using pinch analysis, heat recovery via heat exchangers, and heat upgrade via heat pump integration.
Explore emergent behaviour, trade-offs, and interdisciplinary constraints.
Navigate system uncertainties by simulation data analysis and scenario thinking.
Understand the principles of heat integration using pinch analysis, heat exchanger networks, and heat pump systems, framed within complex industrial systems with interdependent subsystems.
Evaluate decarbonisation strategies and their performances in terms of energy savings, CAPEX/OPEX, carbon reduction, and operational risks, highlighting system-level trade-offs and nonlinear effects
Develop data-driven decision-making, navigating assumptions, parameter sensitivity, and model limitations, reflecting uncertainty and systems adaptation.
Explore ethical, sustainability, and resilience dimensions of engineering design, recognising how small changes or policy shifts may act on leverage points and produce emergent behaviours.
Analyse stakeholder dynamics, policy impacts, and uncertainty as part of the broader system environment influencing energy transition pathways.
Construct and interpret causal loop diagrams (CLDs), explore what-if scenarios, and apply multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), building competencies in feedback loops, system boundaries, and systems mapping.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Embed systems thinking and complex systems pedagogy into energy and process engineering, using real-world simulations and data-rich problem-solving.
Introduce modelling and scenario-based reasoning, helping students understand how interactions between process units, energy streams, and external factors affect industrial decarbonisation.
Facilitate exploration of design trade-offs, encouraging learners to consider technical feasibility, economic sustainability, and environmental constraints within dynamic system contexts.
Support students in identifying leverage points, feedback loops, and emergent behaviours, using tools like CLDs, composite curves, and stakeholder role play.
Assess complex problem-solving capacity, including students’ ability to model, critique and adapt industrial systems under conflicting constraints and uncertain futures.
Proprietary Simulator for Pinch Analysis & Heat Integration. Freely available for educational use and can be accessed online through a secure link provided by the author on request (james.atuonwu@nmite.ac.uk or james.atuonwu@gmail.com). No installation or special setup is required; users can access it directly in a web browser.
About the simulation tool (access and alternatives):
This activity uses a Streamlit-based simulation tool, supported with process data (Appendix A, Table 1, or an educator’s equivalent). The tool is freely available for educational use and can be accessed online through a secure link provided by the author on request (james.atuonwu@nmite.ac.uk or james.atuonwu@gmail.com). No installation or special setup is required; users can access it directly in a web browser.The activity can also be replicated using open-source or online pinch analysis tools such as OpenPinch, PyPinchPinCH, TLK-Energy Pinch Analysis Online. SankeyMATIC can be used for visualising energy balances and Sankey diagrams.
Pinch Analysis, a systematic method for identifying heat recovery opportunities by analysing process energy flows, forms the backbone of the simulation. A brief explainer and further reading are provided in the resources section. Learners are assumed to have prior or guided exposure to its core principles. A key tunable parameter in Pinch Analysis, ΔTmin, represents the minimum temperature difference allowed between hot and cold process streams. It determines the required heat exchanger area, associated capital cost, controllability, and overall system performance. The teaching activity helps students explore these relationships dynamically through guided variation of ΔTmin in simulation, reflection, and trade-off analysis, as outlined below.
Introducing and prioritising ΔTmin trade-offs:
ΔTmin is introduced early in the activity as a critical decision variable that balances heat recovery potential against capital cost, controllability, and safety. Students are guided to vary ΔTmin within the simulation tool to observe how small parameter shifts affect utility demands, exchanger area, and overall system efficiency. This provides immediate visual feedback through the composite and grand composite curves, helping them connect technical choices to system performance.
Educators facilitate short debriefs using the discussion prompts in Part 1 and simulation-based sensitivity analysis in Part 2. Students compare low and high ΔTmin scenarios, reasoning about implications for process economics, operability, and energy resilience.
This experiential sequence allows learners to prioritise competing factors (technical, economic, and operational), while recognising that small changes can create non-linear, system-wide effects. It reinforces complex systems principles such as feedback loops and leverage points that govern industrial energy behaviour.
Data for decisions:
The simulator’s sidebar includes some default values for energy prices (e.g. gas and electricity tariffs) and emission factors (e.g. grid carbon intensity), which users can edit to reflect their own local or regional conditions. For those replicating the activity with other software tools, equivalent calculations of total energy costs, carbon emissions and all savings due to heat recovery investments can be performed manually using locally relevant tariffs and emission factors.
The Part 1–3 tasks, prompts, and assessment suggestions below remain fully valid regardless of the chosen platform, ensuring flexibility and accessibility across different teaching contexts.
Educator support and implementation notes:
The activity is designed to be delivered across 3 sessions (6–7.5 hours total), with flexibility to adapt based on depth of exploration, simulation familiarity, or group size. Each part can be run as a standalone module or integrated sequentially in a capstone-style format.
Part 1: System mapping: (Time: 2 to 2.5 hours) – Ideal for a classroom session with blended instruction and group collaboration:
This stage introduces students to the foundational step of any heat integration analysis: system mapping. The aim is to identify and represent energy-carrying streams in a process plant, laying the groundwork for further system analysis. Educators may use the Process Flow Diagram of Fig. 1, Appendix A (from a real industrial setting: a food processing plant) or another Process Diagram, real or fictional. Students shall extract and identify thermal energy streams (hot/cold) within the system boundary and map energy balances before engaging with software to produce required simulation outputs.
Key activities and concepts include:
Defining system boundaries: Focus solely on thermal energy streams, ignoring non-thermal operations. The boundary is drawn from heat sources (hot streams) to heat sinks (cold streams).
Identifying hot and cold streams: Students classify process material streams based on whether they release or require heat. Each stream is defined by its inlet and target temperatures and its heat capacity flow rate (CP).
Building the stream table: Students compile a simple table of hot/cold streams (name, supply temperature, target temperature and heat capacity flow CP).
Constructing energy balances and Sankey Diagrams: Students manually calculate energy balances across each subsystem in the defined system boundary, identifying energy inputs, useful heat recovery, and losses. Using this information, they construct Sankey diagrams to visualise the magnitude and direction of energy flows, strengthening their grasp of system-wide energy performance before optimisation.
Pinch Concept introduction: Students are introduced to the concept of “the Pinch”, including the minimum heat exchanger temperature difference (ΔTmin) and how it affects heat recovery targets (QREC), as well as overall heating and cooling utility demands (QHU & QCU, respectively).
Assumptions: All analysis is conducted under steady-state conditions with constant CP and no heat losses.
Discussion prompts:
What insights does the Sankey diagram reveal about energy use, waste and recovery potential in the system? How might these visual insights shape optimisation decisions?
Why might certain streams be excluded from the analysis?
How does the choice of ΔTmin influence the heat recovery potential and cost?
What trade-offs are involved in system simplification during mapping?
How can assumptions (like steady-state vs. transient) impact integration outcomes?
Student deliverables:
A labelled system map showing the thermal process boundaries, hot and cold streams.
A structured stream data table.
Justification for selected ΔTmin values based on process safety, economics, or practical design and operational considerations.
A basic Sankey diagram representing the energy flows in the mapped system, based on calculated heat duties of each stream.
Part 2: Running and interpreting process system simulation results (Time: 2 to 2.5 hours) – Suitable for lab or flipped delivery;only standard computer access is needed to run the tool (optional instructor demo can extend depth):
Students use the simulation tool to generate their own results.The process scenario of Fig. 1, Appendix A, with the associated stream data (Table 1) can be used as a baseline.
Tool-generated outputs:
Curves: Composite and Grand Composite (pinch location, recovery potential).
Scenario summary: QREC, QHU, QCU; COP (where applicable); CAPEX/OPEX/CO₂; payback period for various values of system levers (e.g., ΔTmin levels, tariffs, emission factors).
Heat Pump (HP) tables: Feasible pairs, Top-N heat pump selections (where N = 0, 1, or 2); QEVAP, QCOND, QCOMP, COP. All notations are designated in the simulator’s help/README section.
Learning tasks:
1. Scenario sweeps Run different scenarios (e.g., different ΔTmin levels, tariffs, emission factors, and Top-N HP selections). Prompts: How do QREC, QHU/QCU, HX area, and CAPEX/OPEX/CO₂ shift across scenarios? Which lever moves the needle most?
2. Group contrast (cases A vs B: see time-phased operations A & B in Appendix A) Assign groups different cases; each reports system behaviours and trade-offs. Prompts: Where do you see CAPEX vs. energy-recovery tension? Which case is more HP-friendly and why?
3. Curve reading Use the Composite & Grand Composite Curves to identify pinch points and bottlenecks; link features on the curves to the tabulated results. Prompts: Where is the pinch? How does ΔTmin change the heat-recovery target and utility demands?
4. Downstream implications Trace how curve-level insights show up in HX sizing/costs and HP options. Prompts: When does adding HP reduce utilities vs. just shifting costs? Where do stream temperatures/CP constrain integration?
5. Systems lens: feedback and leverage Map short causal chains from the results (e.g., tariffs → HP use → electricity cost → OPEX; grid-carbon → HP emissions → net CO₂). Prompts: Which levers (ΔTmin, tariffs, EFs, Top-N) create reinforcing or balancing effects?
Outcome:
Students will be able to generate and interpret industrial simulation outputs, linking technical findings to economic and emissions consequences through a systems-thinking lens. They begin by tracing simple cause–effect chains from the simulation data and progressively translate these into causal loop diagrams (CLDs) that visualise reinforcing and balancing feedback. Through this, learners develop the ability to explain how system structure drives performance both within the plant and across its broader industrial and policy environment.
Optional extension: Educators may provide 2–3 predefined subsystem options (e.g., low-CAPEX HX network, high-COP HP integration, hybrid retrofit) for comparison. Students can use a decision matrix to justify their chosen configuration against CAPEX, OPEX, emissions, and controllability trade-offs.
Part 3: Systems thinking through scenario analysis (Time: 2 to 2.5 hours) – Benefits from larger-group facilitation, a whiteboard or Miro board (optional), and open discussion. It is rich in systems pedagogy:
Having completed simulation-based pinch analysis and heat recovery planning, learners now shift focus to strategic implementation challenges faced in real-world industrial settings. In this part, students apply systems thinking to explore the broader implications of their heat integration simulation output scenarios, moving beyond process optimisation to consider real-world dynamics, trade-offs, and stakeholder interactions. The goal is to encourage students to interrogate the interconnectedness of decisions, feedback loops, and unintended consequences in process energy systems including but not limited to operational complexity, resilience to disruptions, and alignment with long-term sustainability goals.
Activity: Stakeholder role play / Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Students take on stakeholder roles and debate which design variant or operating strategy should be prioritised. They then conduct a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), evaluating each option based on criteria such as CAPEX, OPEX savings, emissions reductions, risk, and operational ease.
Stakeholders include:
Operations managers, focused on ease of control and process stability.
Investors and finance teams, focused on return on investment.
Environmental officers, concerned with emissions and policy compliance.
Engineers, responsible for design and retrofitting.
Community members, advocating for sustainable industry practices.
Government reps responsible for regulations and policy formulation, e.g. taxes and subsides.
The team must present a strategic analysis showing how the heat recovery system behaves as a complex adaptive system, and how its implementation can be optimised to balance technical, financial, environmental, and human considerations.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Before constructing causal loop diagrams (CLDs), learners revisit key results from their simulation — such as ΔTmin, tariffs, emission factors, and system costs — and trace how these parameters interact to influence overall system performance. Educators guide this transition, helping students abstract quantitative outputs (e.g., changes in QREC, OPEX, or CO₂) into qualitative feedback relationships that reveal cause-and-effect chains. This scaffolding helps bridge the gap between process simulation and systems-thinking representation, supporting discovery of reinforcing and balancing feedback structures.
Activity: Construct a causal loop diagram (CLD) Students identify at least five variables that interact dynamically in the implementation of a heat integration system (e.g. energy cost, investment risk, emissions savings, system complexity, staff training). They must map reinforcing and balancing feedback loops that illustrate trade-offs or virtuous cycles.
Where could policy or process changes trigger leverage points?
How could delays in response (e.g. slow staff adaptation to new technologies) affect outcomes?
How might design choices affect local energy equity, air quality, or community outcomes?
What policy incentives or ethical trade-offs might reinforce or hinder your proposed solution?
Instructor debrief (engineering context with simulation linkage): After students share their CLDs, the educator facilitates a short discussion linking their identified reinforcing and balancing loops to common dynamic patterns observable in the simulation results. For instance:
Limits to growth: As ΔTmin decreases, heat recovery (QREC) initially improves, but exchanger area, CAPEX, and controllability demands grow disproportionately — diminishing overall economic benefit.
Shifting the burden: Installing a heat pump may appear to improve carbon performance, but if low process efficiency remains unaddressed, electricity use and OPEX rise — creating a new dependency that shifts rather than solves the problem.
Tragedy of the commons: Competing units or stakeholders optimising locally (e.g. for their own OPEX or production uptime) can undermine total system efficiency or resilience.
Success to the successful: Design options with early financial or policy support (e.g. high-COP heat pumps) attract more investment and attention, reinforcing a positive but unequal feedback loop.
This reflection connects quantitative model outputs (e.g. QREC, OPEX, CAPEX, emissions) to qualitative system behaviours, helping learners recognise leverage points and understand how design choices interact across technical, economic, and social dimensions of decarbonisation.
Activity: Explore “What if?” scenarios
Working in groups, students choose one scenario to explore using a systems lens:
What if gas prices fluctuate drastically?
What if capital funding is delayed by 6 months?
What if a heat exchanger fouls during peak season?
What if CO₂ emissions policy tightens?
What if current electricity grid decarbonisation trends suffer an unexpected setback?
What if government policies now encourage onsite renewable electricity generation?
Each group evaluates the resilience and flexibility of the proposed integration design. They consider:
System bottlenecks and fragilities.
Leverage points for intervention.
Need for redundancy or modular design.
Educators may add advanced scenarios (e.g. carbon tax introduction, supplier failure, or project delay) to challenge students’ resilience modelling and stakeholder negotiation skills.
Stakeholder impact reflection:
To extend systems reasoning beyond the technical domain, students assess how their chosen design scenarios (e.g., low vs. high ΔTmin, with or without heat pump integration) affect each stakeholder group. For instance:
Operations managers assess control complexity, downtime risk, and maintenance implications.
Finance teams evaluate CAPEX/OPEX trade-offs and payback periods.
Environmental officers examine lifecycle emissions and regulatory compliance.
Engineers reflect on reliability, retrofit feasibility, and process safety.
Community members or regulators consider social and policy outcomes, such as visible sustainability impact or energy equity.
Each team member rates perceived benefits, risks, or compromises under each design case, and the results are summarised in a stakeholder impact matrix or discussion table. This exercise links quantitative system metrics (energy recovery, emissions, cost) to qualitative stakeholder outcomes, reinforcing the “multi-layered feedback” perspective central to complex systems analysis.
Learning Outcomes (Part 3):
By the end of this part, students will be able to:
Identify systemic interdependencies in industrial energy systems.
Analyse how feedback loops and delays influence system behaviour.
Assess the resilience of energy integration solutions under different future scenarios.
Balance multiple stakeholder objectives in complex engineering contexts.
Apply systems thinking tools to communicate complex technical scenarios to diverse stakeholder audiences.
Use systems diagrams and decision tools to support strategic analysis.
Instructor Note – Guiding CLD and archetype exploration:
Moving from numerical heat-exchange and cost data to CLD archetypes can be conceptually challenging. Instructors are encouraged to model this process by identifying at least one reinforcing loop (e.g. “energy savings → lower OPEX → more investment in recovery → further savings”) and one balancing loop (e.g. “higher capital cost → reduced investment → lower heat recovery”). Relating these loops to common system archetypes such as “Limits to Growth” or “Balancing with Delay” helps students connect engineering data to broader system dynamics and locate potential leverage points. The activity concludes with students synthesising their findings from simulation, systems mapping, and stakeholder analysis into a coherent reflection on complex system behaviour and sustainable design trade-offs.
Assessment guidance:
This assessment builds directly on the simulation and systems-thinking activities completed by students. Learners generate and interpret their own simulation outputs (or equivalent open-source pinch analysis results), using these to justify engineering and strategic decisions under uncertainty.
Assessment focuses on students’ ability to integrate quantitative analysis (energy, cost, carbon) with qualitative reasoning (feedbacks, trade-offs, stakeholder dynamics), demonstrating holistic systems understanding.
Deliverables (portfolio; individual or group):
1. Reading and interpretation of simulation outputs
Use the outputs you generate (composite & grand composite curves: HX match/area/cost tables; HP pairing/ranking; summary sheets of QHU, QCU, QREC, COP, CAPEX, OPEX, CO₂, paybacks) for a different industrial process (from the one used in the main learning activity) to:
Identify the pinch point(s) and explain what the curves imply for recovery potential and bottlenecks.
Comment on QHU/QCU/QREC and how they change across the scenarios you run (e.g., ΔTmin, tariffs, emission factors, Top-N HP selection).
Interpret trade-offs among energy, CAPEX, OPEX, emissions, using numbers reported by the simulator. No calculations beyond light arithmetic/annotation.
2. Systems mapping and scenario reasoning
A concise system boundary sketch and a simple stream table.
A Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) highlighting key feedbacks (e.g., tariffs ↔ HP use ↔ grid carbon intensity ↔ emissions/cost).
A short MCDA (transparent criteria/weights) comparing the scenario variants you test; include a brief stakeholder reflection.
3. Decision memo (max 2 pages)
Your recommended integration option under stated assumptions, with one “what-if” sensitivity (e.g., +20% electricity price, tighter CO₂ factor).
State uncertainties/assumptions and any implementation risks (operations, fouling, timing of capital).
Students should include a short reflective note addressing assumptions, feedback insights, and how their stakeholder perspective shaped their recommendation.
Appendix A: Example process scenario for teaching activity:
Sample narrative: Large-scale food processing plant with time-sliced operations
The following process scenario explains the industrial context behind the main teaching activity simulations. A large-scale food processing plant operates a milk product manufacturing line. The process, part of which is shown in Fig. 1, involves the following:
Thermal evaporation of milk feed.
Cooking operations after other ingredient mixing and formulation upstream.
Oven heating to drive off moisture and stimulate critical product attributes.
Pre-finishing operations as the product approaches packaging.
In real operations, the evaporation subprocessoccurs at different times from the cooking/separation, oven and pre-finishing operations. This means that their hot and cold process streams are not simultaneously available for direct heat exchange. For a realistic industrial pinch analysis, the process is thus split into two time slices:
Time Slice A (used for scenario Case A): Evaporation streams only.
Time Slice B (Case B): Cooking/separation, oven and pre-finishing streams only.
Separate pinch analyses are performed for each slice, using the yellow-highlighted sections of Table 1 as stream data for time slice A, and the green-highlighted sections as stream data for time slice B. Any heat recovery between slices would require thermal storage (e.g., a hot-water tank) to bridge the time gap.
Fig.1. Simplified process flowsheet of food manufacturing facility.
Note on storage and system boundaries:
Because the two sub-processes occur at different times, direct process-to-process heat exchange between their streams is not possible without thermal storage. If storage is introduced:
Production surplus heat at time slice A can be stored at high temperature (e.g., 80 °C) and later discharged to preheat time slice B cold streams.
The size of the tank depends on the portion of hot utility demand of sub-process B to be offset, the temperature swing, and the duration of the sub-process B.
Table 1. Process stream data corresponding to flowsheet of Fig. 1. Yellow-highlighted sections represent processes available at time slice A, while green-highlighted sections are processes available at time slice B.
Appendix B: Suggested marking rubric (Editable):
Adopter note: The rubric below is a suggested template. Instructors may adjust criteria language, weightings and band thresholds to align with local policies and learning outcomes. No marks depend on running software.
1) Interpretation of Simulation Outputs — 25%
A (Excellent): Reads curves/tables correctly; uses QHU/QCU/QREC, COP, CAPEX/OPEX/CO₂, payback figures accurately; draws clear, defensible trade-offs.
B (Good): Mostly accurate; links numbers to decisions with some insight.
C (Adequate): Mixed accuracy; limited or generic trade-off discussion.
D/F (Weak): Frequent misreads; cherry-picks or contradicts generated data.
2) Systems Thinking & Scenario Analysis — 30%
A: Clear CLD with at least one reinforcing and one balancing loop; leverage points identified; scenarios coherent; MCDA with explicit criteria, weights, and justified ranking; uncertainty acknowledged.
B: Reasonable CLD; scenarios sound; MCDA present with partial justification.
C: Superficial CLD; scenarios/MCDA incomplete or weakly reasoned.
D/F: Little or no systems view; scenarios/MCDA absent or not meaningful.
Atuonwu, J.C. (2025). A Simulation Tool for Pinch Analysis and Heat Exchanger/Heat Pump Integration in Industrial Processes: Development and Application in Challenge-based Learning. Education for Chemical Engineers 52, 141-150.
Oh, X.B., Rozali, N.E.M., Liew, P.Y., Klemes, J.J. (2021). Design of integrated energy- water systems using Pinch Analysis: a nexus study of energy-water-carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production 322, 129092.
Rosenow, J., Arpagaus, C., Lechtenböhmer, S.,Oxenaar, S., Pusceddu, E. (2025). The heat is on: Policy solutions for industrial electrification. Energy Research & Social Science 127, 104227.
Bale, C.S.E., Varga, L., Foxon, T.J. (2015). Energy and complexity: New ways forward. Applied Energy 138, 150-159.
Atuonwu, J.C. (2025). Proprietary Simulator for Pinch Analysis & Heat Integration. Private reviewer access available on request (demo video or temporary login).
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.
Licensing:This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. It was originally developed as part of the Strathclyde Climate Ambassadors Networks (StrathCAN) at Strathclyde in collaboration with the Centre for Sustainable Development.
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):Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems), Problem analysis, Sustainability, and Science, mathematics, and engineering principles.
Educational level: Beginner.
Learning and teaching notes:
The two complementary workshops, Climate Fresk and En-ROADS, are introduced to situate Renewable Energy Technologies within the wider context of the Net Zero transition. Their purpose is first to deepen students’ understanding of the climate science that underpins climate change as the driver of technical innovation, and then to broaden awareness of the social, economic, political, and environmental factors that shape global decarbonisation pathways. Building on this foundation, the workshops shift focus to the policy levers required to enable systems change – highlighting, often with surprising insights, their relative effectiveness in reducing emissions and limiting temperature rise. Together, they provide the context for a Renewable Energy Technologies module, where attention turns to the role of renewables and other low-carbon technologies as climate solutions. The central takeaway is that there is no single “silver bullet” solution; instead, a coordinated “silver buckshot” approach is essential.
Learners do not require any prior learning in the area of climate change or climate solutions for these workshops. The workshops are the perfect introduction to these. Climate Fresk facilitator training begins with attending a workshop as a participant, followed by a session on facilitation. Staff can train via local workshops, the CF MOOC and peer-to-peer practice, or through official training, enabling institutions to build a self-sustaining community of facilitators at minimal cost.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Learn about the climate science that underpins the IPCC assessment reports.
Develop an understanding of systems thinking by applying it to climate science and the impacts of climate change, while also exploring the policy solutions needed to drive systems-level change.
Be Introduced to the En-Roads Climate Simulator tool and the possibility of becoming trained Climate Fresk Facilitators themselves.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Actively engage the students in taking a systems thinking approach to their understanding of ‘the problem’ of climate change, and exploring ‘the solutions’ to it.
Use these workshops as stand-alone activities (for outreach) or embed within the curriculum.
Collaborate with other teachers and students, by training them as facilitators to support future workshops.
Engage students with different competencies such as systems thinking, critical thinking, and anticipatory thinking and highlight to students how these are relevant and applied.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
This activity utilises off-the-shelf educational tools in the form of the Climate Fresk workshop and the En-Roads Climate Simulator tool. These are used in two separate (but connected) workshops adapted from the guided assignment that is presented in the resources above. These are not intended to be run back-to-back. In fact, some gap (of days) in between is desirable as together, this would be too exhausting, and also give time for reflection in between.
The Climate Fresk workshop is designed to build a solid understanding of cause-and-effect in climate systems. This develops baseline systems thinking without overloading students.
En-ROADS, is designed to engage students with the types of sectors that we need to decarbonise and get them thinking about the need for system wide policies to achieve system wide decarbonisation of our energy system.
Figure 1. Using Climate Fresk and En-ROADS as complementary workshops focusing on ‘the climate problem’ and ‘climate solutions’.
A key aspect of both workshops is highlighting the need for systems thinking in both understanding the problem of, and exploring the solutions to, climate change. This involves introducing students to the cause and effects of climate change, feedback loops and the concept of tipping points – both in terms of climate tipping points (BBC Sounds – The Climate Tipping Points, no date) that can potentially trigger irreversible changes in the climate system, as well as positive, social tipping points (TEDx Talks 2023) that once crossed can shift social norms, and how policies can affect this. It allows discussions around leverage points in the context of climate solutions and policies, which Donella Meadows describes as where “a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything”.
Part one: Climate Fresk workshop:Understanding the problem of climate change (or the ‘science piece’):
Overview:
Climate Fresk is a 2-2.5 hour facilitator-led gamified workshop based on the latest IPCC report, where participants work in groups to build a causal-loop diagram (or fresk) of the Earth’s climate system using specially designed cards. The activity encourages discussion, challenges assumptions, and develops systems thinking by illustrating the interconnections, feedback loops, and tipping points of climate change. In doing so, it supports UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development competencies in anticipatory and systems thinking, helping participants understand the potential impacts of climate dynamics on ecological, social, and economic systems in a way that is accessible.
Scalability and setup:
The Climate Fresk workshop can be delivered to almost any number of participants, limited only by the size of the space, the number of trained facilitators available, and the number of card decks. Participants are usually divided into groups of 8 (10 at a push), each working around a table roughly 2m x 1m in size. Each group (table) requires a dedicated facilitator to guide the process.
Facilitation and training:
Facilitators must be trained before running the activity. Training can be undertaken through official Climate Fresk courses (see resources) or, once enough experience has been built, in-house peer-to-peer training supported by staff development units. Facilitators use a “crib sheet” containing guiding questions and timings to help keep groups on track.
Workshop materials:
The Fresk uses a deck of 42 cards, each representing a cause, effect, or impact within the climate system-ranging from fossil fuel use across industry, buildings, transport and agriculture, to wider impacts on society, biodiversity, and ecosystems. Each card has a graphic on one side and explanatory text on the other, which participants use to determine its role in the system.
Learning process:
Over the session, participants collaboratively arrange the cards on a large sheet of paper to construct a causal-loop diagram of the climate system. In doing so, they identify drivers of carbon emissions, critical carbon sinks, feedback loops, and potential tipping points. The activity encourages discussion, challenges assumptions, and introduces key climate science terminology, while making visible the complex interdependencies of Earth systems.
Reflection and discussion:
After constructing the Fresk, participants are encouraged to reflect on how the process made them feel (normative competency) and what insights they gained. This is followed by open discussion on mitigation strategies and possible solutions. In a standard Climate Fresk workshop, around 45 minutes is devoted to this. However, when combined with the En-Roads simulator, this discussion naturally transitions from the “problem space” of the Fresk workshop to the “solutions space” of the subsequent En-Roads workshop, where participants explore the realistic impacts of different climate solutions, their co-benefits, and the equity issues they raise – engaging participants in deeper systems-level thinking.
Part two: En-ROADS workshop:‘Exploring the solutions’ to climate change (or the ‘policy piece’):
Overview:
This En-ROADS workshop can be run from one to two hours, and can follow a role-play format, where participants are asked to take on the role of policymakers, exploring different policy options to limit global temperatures to 1.5oC (or 2oC). They are introduced to the workshop by telling them “you are policymakers tasked with limiting global heating”. En-Roads is a climate change simulator developed by Climate Interactive and MIT that uses roleplay to explore global policy interventions for limiting temperature rise. It enables participants—from students to policymakers—to test combinations of climate solutions, examine trade-offs and unintended consequences, and understand that no single “silver bullet” exists. The workshop develops UNESCO Education for Sustainable Development competencies in anticipatory, systems, critical, and strategic thinking, while highlighting the challenges of achieving policy consensus across diverse stakeholders.
Preparation:
1. Participants
Suitable for classes split into small groups.
Works well in groups of 3–5 for discussions.
2. Facilitators
1 facilitator to introduce the tool and guide reflection.
Teaching assistants can circulate during group tasks to prompt discussion.
Handouts: list of possible climate “levers” (policy actions) – See resources – En-Roads Control Panel
Online polling software (e.g. Mentimeter)
Step-by-step instructions for 60-minute workshop (but can be expanded to 2 hours involving more discussion and more interaction with En-Roads simulator):
1. Introduction (5 mins)
Introduce EN-ROADS as an interactive simulator for testing climate solutions.
Explain the goal: Can we keep global heating below 1.5 °C?
Use causal loop diagram below to demonstrate how mitigating actions effect positive change.
Figure 2. Causal loop diagram showing how increasing GHG emissions drive climate action and emissions reduction.
2. Initial actions brainstorm (5 mins)
Ask cohort to use an online polling system, asking them to vote for their Topaction (from the list of mitigating actions – see resources – En-Roads Control Panel) that that they think will have the greatest impact on reducing emissions and temperature.
Figure 3. Example of a Menti poll to capture learners’ understanding of climate solution impacts.
Don’t show this yet – keep this for later, when you will ask them to vote again and can then compare how their views have changed from beginning to end of session.
Ask participants to self-sort into groups of 3–4, and now ask them to discuss what their Top 3 actions would be – they must agree on these.
3.Using EN-ROADS (15 mins)
As facilitator, ask one group to volunteer their top action. Demonstrate their action using the simulator with an example (e.g. applying a coal phase-out or carbon tax).
IMPORTANT: Before you implement the action – ask the group (and others) what they expect to happen to emissions and temperature.
Apply their action and ask if it is what they expected. Then discuss why it is, or is not, what they expected to see.
Highlight unintended consequences (e.g. rising energy prices and discussion on the real-world impacts this can have on local communities or households, land-use impacts).
This does require the facilitator to be familiar with the simulator and what these impacts might be and how to use the simulator to show these (there is a Climate Interactive course available (Training, no date), which is free, and there are also many resources available for individuals to work through at their own pace).
Can repeat this with other groups volunteering their top action. Ask for a group who has a different top action, or ask a group for their second top action to ensure you cover different levers.
4. Group simulation (15 mins)
Ask groups to now use En-Roads to consider other levers to get temperature as close to 1.5oC as possible, to determine whether their initial top 5 ranking has changed.
They should record how much each action reduces emissions and temperature rise.
Take the poll again.
Show both polls and look at differences – have they changed their views on certain actions – ask them why.
Discuss: Which actions had the biggest effect? Which had less than expected? Why?
5. Achieving 1.5 °C (10 mins)
Ask who reached 1.5oC
Ask them to show their combined actions.
Open up for discussion on how feasible these actions look – what are the implementation challenges associated with them. Are there risks of unintended consequences such as GDP, equity, biodiversity, etc?
6. Reflection and debrief (5 mins)
Discuss key takeaways:
The importance of combining multiple actions (“silver buckshot” rather than a silver bullet).
Trade-offs and co-benefits (e.g. health, equity, biodiversity).
The role (and challenge) of collaboration and consensus in policy decisions.
7. Post Workshop – optional
Challenge groups to adjust policies and combinations of levers to approach the IEA’s Net Zero 2050 (1.5 °C) pathway, and compare their pathways with this. Gives them a sense of how challenging/possible the net-zero pathway will be.
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: Mr. Neil Rogers (Independent Scholar), Dr. Sarah Jayne Hitt Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University)
Topic: Designing a flood warning system to communicate risk.
Keywords: Climate change; Water and sanitation; Renewable energy; Battery Technologies; Recycling or recycled materials; AHEP; Sustainability; Student support; Local community; Environment; Future generations; Risk; Higher education; Assessment; Project brief.
Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Anticipatory; Strategic; Integrated problem-solving; Normative.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. Potential alignments with AHEP criteria are shown below.
Related SDGs: SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy); SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Authentic assessment.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 / Advanced.
Learning and teaching notes:
This resource outlines a project brief that requires an engineer to assess the local area to understand the scale of flooding and the local context. This will highlight how climate change affects everyday life, how water usage is changing and happening on our doorstep.
The project also requires the engineer to be considerate of the needs of a local business and showcases how climate change affects the economy and individual lives, enabling some degree of empathy and compassion to this exercise.
Depending upon the level of the students and considering the needs of modules or learning outcomes, the project could follow either or both of the following pathways:
Pathway 1 – Introduction to Electronic Engineering (beginner/intermediate- Level 4)
LO1: Describe the operation of electronic circuits and associated discrete components (AHEP4: SM1m).
LO2: Compare the operation principles of a variety of electronic sensors and actuators and apply them to a given task (AHEP4: EA2m).
LO3: Interpret how transistors and operational amplifiers function (AHEP4: EA4m).
LO4: Know how amplifiers operate and assess their performance for a given application (AHEP4: EA1m; EA2m).
LO5: Integrate the operation of an actuator, sensor, and power supply into a system for a given task (AHEP4: EA4m; EA6m).
In this pathway, the project deliverables could be in the form of a physical artefact, together with a technical specification.
Pathway 2 – Electromagnetics in Engineering (intermediate/advanced- Level 5)
LO1: communicate the primary challenges inherent in wireless communication (AHEP4: SM1m
LO2: devise solutions to a given design challenge (AHEP4: SM1m; SM3m) In this pathway, the project deliverable could be in the form of a Technical Report.
This project allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
analyse local environmental factors that affect river water levels,
appreciate local planning with respect to installing devices on or near a riverbank,
consider how to communicate with a variety of stakeholders,
undertake cost-benefit and value trade-off analysis in the context of using sustainable materials,
undertake cost-benefit and value trade-off analysis in the context of using renewable energy,
practise argument and reasoning related to sustainability dilemmas.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce concepts related to climate change in the local environment,
introduce concepts related to environmental sensors,
introduce concepts related to renewable energy sources,
introduce concepts related to battery systems,
introduce concepts related to local planning laws,
informally evaluate students’ argument and reasoning skills,
integrate technical content in the areas of electrical or mechanical engineering related to water level monitoring,
authentically assess a team activity and individual work.
A local business premises near to a river has been suffering from severe flooding over the last 10 years. The business owner seeks to install a warning system that can provide adequate notice of a possible flood situation.
Time frame & structure: This project can be completed over 30 hours, either in a block covering 2-3 weeks (preferred) or 1 hour per week over the academic term. This project should be attempted in teams of 3-5 students. This would enable the group to develop a prototype, but the Specification (Pathway 1) and Technical Report (Pathway 2) could be individual submissions without collusion to enable individual assessment.
It is recommended that a genuine premises is found that has had the issues described above and a site visit could be made. This will not only give much needed context to the scenario but will also trigger emotional response and personal ownership to the problem.
To prepare for activities related to sustainability, teachers may want to read, or assign students to pre-read the following article: ‘Mean or Green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behaviour?’
Context and Stakeholders:
Flooding in the local town has become more prevalent over recent years, impacting homes and businesses. A local coffee shop priding itself on its ethical credentials is located adjacent to the river and is one of the businesses that has suffered from severe flooding over the last 10 years, causing thousands of pounds worth of spoilt stock and loss of revenue. The local council’s flood warning system is far from adequate to protect individuals on a site-by-site basis. So the shop is looking for an individual warning system, giving the manager and staff adequate notice of a possible flood situation. This will enable stock to be moved in good time to a safer drier location. The shop manager is very conscious of wanting to implement a sustainable design that uses sustainable materials and renewable energy, to promote the values of the shop. It is becoming clear that such a solution would also benefit other businesses that experience flooding and a wider solution should also be considered.
Pathway 1
This project requires assessment of the local area and ideally a visit to the retailer to understand their needs and consider options for water level monitoring. You are required to consider environmental and sustainable factors when presenting a solution.
After a visit to the premises:
Discussion: What is your initial reaction to the effects of the flooding and doesit surprise you? What might your initial reaction reveal to you about your own perspectives and values?
Discussion: What is your initial reaction to the causes of the flooding anddoes it surprise you? What might your initial reaction reveal to you about your own perspectives and values?
Discussion and activity: List the potential issues and risks to installing a device in or near to the river bank.
Activity: Research water level monitoring. What are the main technical and logistical issues with this technology in this scenario?
Activity: Both cost-benefit and sustainable trade-off analyses are valuable approaches to consider in this case. Determine the possible courses of action and undertake both types of analysis for each position by considering both short- and long-term consequences.
Reflection: Obligations to future generations: Do we have a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for humans that don’t yet exist, or for an ecosystem that will eventually change?
Design Process:
To satisfy the learning outcomes identified above the following activities are suggested.
Assessment activity 1 – Physical artefact:
Design, build and test a prototype flood warning device, monitoring various water levels and controlling an output or outputs in an alarm condition to meet the following as a minimum:
a) The device will require the use of an analogue sensor that will directly or indirectly output an electrical signal proportional to the water level.
b) It will integrate to appropriate Operational Amplifier circuitry.
c) The circuitry will control an output device or devices.
d) The power consumption of the complete circuit will be assessed to allow an appropriate renewable energy supply to be specified (but not necessarily be part of the build).
The written specification and accompanying drawings shall enable a solution to be manufactured based on the study, evaluation and affirmation of the product requirements.
The evaluation of the product requirements and consequent component selection will reference the use of design tools and problem-solving techniques. In compiling the specification the component selection and integration will highlight the underlying engineering principles that have been followed. The specification shall be no more than 1000 words (plus illustrations and references).
Pathway 2
This project requires assessment of the local area and ideally a visit to the retailer to understand their needs and consider options for water level monitoring.
You are required to consider environmental and sustainable factors when presenting a solution.
After a visit to the premises:
Discussion: What is your initial reaction to the effects of the flooding and does it surprise you? What might your initial reaction reveal to you about your own perspectives and values?
Discussion: What is your initial reaction to the causes of the flooding anddoes it surprise you? What might your initial reaction reveal to you about your own perspectives and values?
Discussion and activity: List the potential issues and risks to installing a device in or near to the river bank.
Activity:Both cost-benefit and sustainable trade-off analyses are valuable approaches to consider in this case. Determine the possible courses of action and undertake both types of analysis for each position by considering both short- and long-term consequences.
Wireless communication of information electronically is now commonplace. It’s important for the learners to understand the differences between the various types both technically and commercially to enable the most appropriate form of communication to be chosen.
Pathway 1 above explains the need for a flood warning device to monitor water levels of a river. In Pathway 2, this part of the challenge (which could be achieved in isolation) is to communicate this information from the river to an office location within the town.
Design Process:
Design a communications system that will transmit data, equivalent to the height of the river in metres. The maximum frequency and distance over which the data can be transmitted should be explored and defined, but as a minimum this data should be sent every 20 seconds over a distance of 500m.
Assessment activity – Technical report:
A set of user requirements and two possible technical solutions shall be presented in the form of a Technical Report:
Highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of each.
Explaining the inherent challenges in wireless communication that defined your selections
Design tools and problem-solving techniques should be used to define the product requirements and consequent component selection
The report shall be no more than 3000 words (plus illustrations and references)
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: Integrated problem-solving; Systems thinking; Critical thinking; Collaboration; Anticipatory.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 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure); SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); SDG 13 (Climate action).
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 aim: To foster a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities in balancing environmental sustainability and profitability/safety in construction projects. To develop critical thinking and decision-making skills in addressing social, economic, and environmental considerations. To encourage students to propose innovative and comprehensive solutions for sustainable urban development.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Learning and teaching notes:
Before engaging with the case study, learners should be familiar with the process of calculating embodied carbon and conducting a cost-benefit analysis. The case study is presented in three parts. In Part one, an ambitious urban revitalisation project is under development, and a project manager needs to find a balance between financial considerations and the urgent need for sustainable, low-embodied carbon construction. In Part two, the project being developed is located in a coastal area prone to climate change-related disasters. The team needs to ensure that the project is durable in the face of disasters and, at the same time, upholds sustainability principles. Lastly, in Part three, stakeholders involved in the two previous projects come together to identify potential synergies.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Assess the ethical dimensions of construction scenarios, particularly the trade-offs between socio-economic constraints and environmentally-friendly practices.
Identify potential conflicts between environmental advocacy and financial considerations, fostering critical thinking in real-world construction project dilemmas.
Gain hands-on experience in researching and calculating the embodied carbon of different construction options, enhancing their understanding of sustainability metrics.
Equip students with strategies to navigate tensions between sustainability goals and socio-economic constraints.
Integrate technical content on sustainable construction methods.
Integrate engineering content with business and entrepreneurial leadership, fostering interdisciplinary learning and preparing students for real-world challenges.
Informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills through discussions, activities, and presentations related to sustainable construction practices.
Supporting resources:
Learning and teaching resources:
Environmental impact assessment:
Hammond, G., et al. (2011). Embodied carbon: the inventory of carbon and energy.
Korpi, E., & Ala‐Risku, T. (2008). Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies.
Mishan, E. J., & Quah, E. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis.
Woodward, D. G. (1997). Life cycle costing—Theory, information acquisition and application.
Systems thinking and holistic analysis approaches (PESTLE, SWOT):
Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems thinking basics .
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking.
Coman, A., & Ronen, B. (2009). Focused SWOT: diagnosing critical strengths and weaknesses.
Christodoulou, A., & Cullinane, K. (2019). Identifying the main opportunities and challenges from the implementation of a port energy management system: A SWOT/PESTLE analysis.
Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis–where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade.
Perera, R. (2017). The PESTLE analysis.
Rastogi, N. I. T. A. N. K., & Trivedi, M. K. (2016). PESTLE technique–a tool to identify external risks in construction projects.
Real-world cases to explore:
Related to Part one: Hudson Yards (New York City), King Abdullah Economic City (Saudi Arabia), Masdar City (United Arab Emirates).
Related to Part two: Bangladesh Delta Resilience Project, Majuro Atoll Relocation Project, New Orleans Post-Katrina Redevelopment, Kivalina Relocation Project, Vietnamese Red River Delta Resilient Cities Project.
Related to Part three: Amsterdam Circular Centre, Seoul Forest.
Part one:
In the heart of an urban revitalisation project, the company CityScape Builders is embarking on a transformational journey to convert a neglected area into a vibrant urban centre which will be named ReviveRise District. This urban centre will mostly be formed by tall buildings.
Avery, the project manager at CityScape Builders, is under immense pressure to meet tight budget constraints and deadlines. Avery understands the project’s economic implications and the importance of delivering within the stipulated financial limits. However, the conflict arises when Rohan, a renowned environmental advocate and consultant, insists on prioritising sustainable construction practices to reduce the project’s embodied carbon. Rohan envisions a future where construction doesn’t come at the cost of the environment.
On the other side of the situation is Yuki, the CFO of CityScape Builders, who is concerned about the project’s bottom line. Yuki is wary of any actions that could escalate costs and understands that using low-embodied carbon materials often comes with a higher price tag.
In light of this situation, Avery proposes exploring different options of construction methods and materials that could be used in the design of their skyscrapers. Avery needs to do this quickly to avoid any delay, and therefore consider just the most important carbon-emitting aspects of the different options.
Optional STOP for questions and activities
Activity: research and calculate the embodied carbon of three different options that could be used to build one of the buildings at ReviveRise District. Make sure to consider all key aspects involved (e.g., project’s location, possible materials, etc.). Students can be encouraged to challenge the need to build skyscrapers.
Activity: conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the different options. What are the potential financial gains and losses? Students may want to consider the gains and losses from the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as engineers (e.g., construction programme savings) or quantity surveyors/cost consultants (e.g., security of supply material, insurance premiums).
Discussion: what are the key challenges in reducing embodied carbon in a construction project?
Discussion: how can the construction industry minimise activities that cause conflict between profitability and sustainability, and maximise activities that mutually-benefit sustainability and profitability?
Discussion: what are some strategies for convincing stakeholders of the long-term benefits of sustainable practices? In class, this can be done in different ways (e.g., class debate, elevator pitches).
Part two:
CityScape Builders is now embarking on a new challenge, ResilientCoast, a construction project located in a coastal area that is susceptible to climate change-related disasters. This region is economically disadvantaged and lacks the financial resources often found in more developed areas.
Micha, the resilience project manager at CityScape Builders, is tasked with ensuring the project’s durability in the face of disasters and the impacts of climate change. Micha’s primary concern is to create a resilient structure that can withstand extreme weather events but is equally dedicated to sustainability goals. To navigate this complex situation, Micha seeks guidance from Dr. Ravi, a climate scientist with expertise in coastal resiliency. Dr. Ravi is committed to finding innovative and sustainable solutions that simultaneously address the climate change impacts and reduce embodied carbon in construction.
In this scenario, Bao, the local community leader, also plays a crucial role. Bao advocates for jobs and economic development in the area, even though Bao is acutely aware of the inherent safety risks. Bao, too, understands that balancing these conflicting interests is a substantial challenge.
In this situation, Micha wonders how to construct safely in a vulnerable location while maintaining sustainability goals.
Optional STOP for questions and activities
Activity: investigate sustainable construction practices that enhance resilience. Create a list of methods and materials designed to withstand climate challenges,and evaluate their effectiveness to date.
Discussion: how can the construction industry minimise activities that cause conflict between safety and sustainability, and maximise activities that mutually-benefit sustainability and safety?
Discussion: what are the ethical considerations when constructing in areas prone to natural disasters and resource scarcity?
Discussion: what are some innovative solutions to promote safety and sustainability in construction projects in challenging environments, and what is their effectiveness in this situation?
Part three:
Robin and Samir are two independent sustainability consultants that are supporting the projects in ReviveRise District and ResilientCoast respectively. They are concerned that sustainability is just being assessed by embodied carbon and cost sustainability, and they believe that sustainability is a much broader concept than just those two indicators. Robin is the independent environmental consultant working with ReviveRise District officials and is responsible for assessing the broader environmental impacts of the construction project. Robin’s analysis spans beyond embodied carbon, considering local job creation, transportation effects, pollution, biodiversity, and other aspects of the project.
Samir, on the other hand, is a municipal board member of ResilientCoast. Samir’s role involves advocating for the local community while striving to ensure that sustainability efforts do not compromise the safety and resilience of the area. Samir’s responsibilities are more comprehensive than just economic considerations; they encompass the entire well-being of the community in the face of climate change.
Robin and Samir recognise the need for cross-city collaboration and information sharing, and they want to collaborate to ensure that the sustainability efforts of both projects do not create unintended burdens for their communities. They acknowledge that a comprehensive approach is necessary for analysing broader impacts, and to ensure both the success of the construction projects and the greater good of both communities. They believe in working collectively to find solutions that are not only sustainable but also beneficial to all stakeholders involved.
Optional STOP for questions and activities
Activity: work in pairs or small groups to analyse the holistic impacts of a construction project in their local area. Consider environmental, social, and economic factors and propose potential solutions. This can be supported by PESTLE and SWOT analysis, systems diagrams, or similar techniques.
Activity: envision a scenario where two cities, like in the case study, collaborate on a large construction project. Outline the key challenges, benefits, and potential strategies for success.
Discussion: how can different stakeholders work together to mitigate unintended burdens in construction projects?
Discussion: what are some effective strategies for cross-city collaboration on sustainability initiatives?
Discussion: how can construction projects contribute positively to their local communities while addressing environmental concerns?
The above questions and activities call for the involvement of cross-disciplinary teams, requiring expertise not only in engineering but also in planning, policy, and related fields. Ideally, in the classroom setting, students with diverse knowledge across these disciplines can be grouped together to enhance collaboration and address the tasks proposed. In cases where forming such groups is not feasible, the educator can assign specific roles such as engineer, planner, policymaker, etc., to individual students, ensuring a balanced representation of skills and perspectives.
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: Self-awareness; Normative. 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 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.
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking to apply an approach of teaching with case studies in order to reveal the links between ethics and sustainability. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for.
As environmental pressures mount, the world demands not just engineering solutions, but sustainable ones. This shift presents profound challenges and opportunities for engineering educators. How can we equip future engineers with the ethical frameworks and critical thinking skills needed to navigate the complex trade-offs inherent in green solutions?
This article provides a guide for integrating ethical considerations into engineering education by using case studies. By fostering awareness of sustainability principles and promoting responsible decision-making through real-world examples, we can empower students to become stewards of a more equitable and resilient future.
The interplay of ethics and sustainability:
At its core, sustainability goes beyond environmental impact. It encompasses social responsibility, economic viability, and intergenerational equity. Ethical engineering aligns with these principles by:
Prioritising transparency and honesty: Green solutions shouldn’t mask potential downsides or mislead stakeholders.
Respecting all stakeholders: Engineers must consider the needs and voices of local communities, indigenous populations, and future generations.
Envisioning long-term consequences: Solutions conceived with short-term gain in mind can have unforeseen environmental and social repercussions.
Integrating ethical considerations into engineering curricula presents several challenges:
Balancing economic pressures: Sustainable solutions don’t always align with immediate cost-effectiveness. Educators must help students navigate these complex trade-offs and advocate for long-term benefits.
Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration: Sustainability demands diverse perspectives. Educators can encourage partnerships with ecologists, sociologists, and other experts to enrich student understanding.
Staying updated with evolving technologies: The sustainability landscape is dynamic. Educators must themselves embrace continuous learning to ensure their curriculum reflects the latest developments and potential ethical dilemmas.
Learning from a case study:
The sprawling Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert, initially celebrated as a beacon of clean energy, now casts a complex shadow on the region’s ecological landscape. While harnessing the sun’s power to electrify millions, its concentrated solar technology inadvertently unleashed unintended consequences. The intense heat generated by the mirrors tragically claimed thousands of birds, particularly desert tortoises, a threatened species. Drawn to the shimmering light, they would collide with the mirrors or structures, falling victim to a technological mirage. This stark reality challenged the “green” label of a project originally intended to combat climate change.
Unforeseen costs of progress:
Ivanpah’s case highlights the hidden costs of even well-intentioned renewable energy projects. It sparks critical questions for students to grapple with:
Sustainability beyond carbon emissions: While reducing carbon footprint is crucial, broader ecosystem impacts must be considered. Can technological advancements mitigate harm to vulnerable species and habitats?
Balancing energy needs with ecological needs: How can we find the sweet spot between harnessing renewable energy and preserving biodiversity? Can alternative technologies or site selection minimise ecological disruption?
Engaging stakeholders in ethical decision-making: How can local communities and ecological experts be meaningfully included in planning and mitigation strategies to ensure equitable outcomes?
By delving into the Ivanpah case (and others like it*), students can develop critical thinking skills to analyse the long-term implications of seemingly green solutions. They learn to consider diverse perspectives, advocate for responsible design practices, and prioritise environmental stewardship alongside energy production.
As educators, we hold the power to shape the ethical compass of future engineers. By integrating ethical considerations into the fabric of our curriculum, we can equip them with the tools and knowledge necessary to:
Make informed decisions: Students should learn to analyse solutions through the lens of ethics, considering environmental impact, social responsibility, and economic viability.
Engage in open dialogue: Cultivating a culture of critical thinking and open communication is crucial for addressing diverse perspectives and mitigating potential ethical concerns.
Collaborate ethically: Students should understand the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, respecting diverse expertise and working towards shared goals that benefit all stakeholders.
Conclusion:
The pursuit of a sustainable future demands ethical engineers, engineers who can not only innovate, but also act with integrity and responsibility. By equipping students with the knowledge and skills necessary to grapple with complex ethical dilemmas, we can empower them to become transformative agents of change, shaping a world that thrives for generations to come.
References:
Delong, D. (2012). ‘Sustainable engineering: A comprehensive introduction’. John Wiley & Sons.
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: Emma Crichton CEng MICE and Dr Jonathan Truslove MEng PhD (Engineers Without Borders UK).
Topic: How to talk about sustainability in engineering education.
Tool type: Guidance.
Relevant disciplines: Any.
Keywords: Advocacy; Collaboration; Global responsibility; Sustainability; Systems change; Climate change; AHEP; Higher education; Pedagogy.
Sustainability competency: Self-awareness; Strategic; Critical 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 13 (Climate action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindset development.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.
Who should read this article? This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate sustainability into curriculum design. It’s especially useful in helping educators, heads of departments and deans to engage in a constructive or uncomfortable conversation if you don’t see yourself as a sustainability expert.
Premise:
“To not have conversations because they make you uncomfortable is the definition of privilege. Your comfort is not at the centre of this discussion. That’s not how it works. We have to be able to choose courage over comfort, we have to be able to say, ‘Look, I don’t know if I’m going to nail this but I’m going to try because I know what I’m sure as hell not going to do is stay quiet.’” Brene Brown
Some of the best conversations you can have in life are not comfortable to initiate:
Saying “I love you” for the first time to someone you don’t know will say it back.
Asking for a pay rise for the first time and having to describe why you are valuable.
Saying “I don’t know” when you’ve positioned yourself as an expert.
Talking about your grief. Talking about life. Talking about death.
Talking about the future. Talking about the past.
Think about a time you’ve participated in a meaningful conversation. These are not easy conversations, but they can also be the ones we look back to as very powerful, even if they took courage to initiate. And sometimes in a conversation, especially a constructive conversation, people disagree. People debate. People have different perspectives. And that’s the beauty of conversation and the beautiful rich diversity of people. It would be so boring if we all had the same life experiences, expertise and thoughts. If we only wanted to hear our own perspective, you can do that in a voice note to yourself, in your journal or by talking to the mirror.
There can also be different conversations depending on the values of those having the conversation. What they see as important, scary or what environment they live in helps form their core understanding. But despite our differences, humans are hard-wired for connection, to listen and talk with others. We discuss ideas in order to find common ground, and/or to learn about an experience we didn’t have ourselves. Difficult, constructive conversations build relationships, while avoiding them leads to a less deep connection.
Why talk about sustainability?
Educators,you have permission to start and facilitate a conversation about something you don’t know much about or are not an expert in. Just be honest about what you know and be driven to learn more.
This relates to conversations around the topic of sustainability. When we talk about how we can live within our planetary limits, whilst meeting the needs of all people, questions about justice, inequality and fairness often crop up. We don’t have one right answer here, we don’t have a magic fix or one person to blame. No one is an expert here. Sure, some know more about the science, others more about people’s lived experiences and others can feel they don’t know enough. But we all have a right to participate in conversations about our collective humanity. For example, conversations you could have with students about sustainability could cover:
Views on a particular podcast, TED talk or news article.
Think of a community you love. What would you like life there to be like in 2050?
What sustainability-related questions or topics would you like to explore?
What do the Sustainable Development Goals mean to you? How might they connect to community-driven initiatives?
What does the future of work look like for engineering?
How do we all acknowledge the burden of shifting the norm in engineering to address sustainability challenges?
Is there an extra pressure on future engineering generations? How does that feel?
How might we recognise that those who are most impacted by the climate crisis may not be the ones whose actions are responsible for it?
After all, sustainability is about imagining our future: One where we have less impact on our safe climate and biodiversity and less inequality. But we may see that future world differently. We may worry about the impact any change might have on our lives and the things we value most. Some may struggle with the idea of repurposing golf courses to address our housing crisis, others may struggle with the idea of policies stopping people from flying frequently (but they might be okay with this being imposed on those with private jets). Others may despair at the slow levels of change, where we don’t move from our default trajectory and risk climate breakdown.
On our current trajectory, we are looking at living in a world where our climate exceeds 1.5 degrees of warming, where there is mass migration, sea level rise, etc. This world may be worse, where more people suffer. But would you change how we engineer to make it better or play a role in another way to shift our trajectory?
How to initiate conversations about sustainability in engineering education:
To not have these important conversations means we don’t see any role for ourselves or the organisations we work for in creating change – and that’s not true, since sustainability requires systemic change to how we engineer AND to how we educate. For example, we asked hundreds of engineering educators and educationalists what they hope to see as the future of engineering education. Their responses are visualised below:
Discussing your opinions about these responses could be one way to start a conversation with a colleague.
It is also really important to engage in regular conversations about sustainability with students as a feature of their university education. Be a role model for how to participate in constructive conversations respectfully. Help them practise how to hold and present themselves in these spaces.
So, with this in mind, what can you do?
Initiate the conversation. Prepare to do so. Here are some tips and tricks.
Open questions are generally your friend; avoid yes/no questions that don’t allow the responder to share their insights.
Have clarity on what you will do if you don’t know the answer. Could a person in the room go away, research and come back with a more informed response?
Create a space for people to open up.
Bring in people who can facilitate this type of environment and learn from them. It is not incumbent on individual educators to create all learning content and deliver that to students.
Be humble! Learning from others is key. Degrees can be designed so that students can frequently hear and learn about different perspectives and develop the ability to speak with economists, social scientists, scientists, humanities experts, ecologists, and those with expertise gained through lived experience. Be willing to learn from others and acknowledge that it’s okay they don’t have all the answers either. In our experience, students usually respect this attitude of humility.
It can be helpful to work with those with experience. Recognise who is leading changes and creating ways for educators to feel safe in leading and making change. Sometimes all it takes is the offer of a coffee with a colleague to form a connection and get a shared understanding of how to move forward.
Seek (and give) advice and share your experience. Share resources, barriers, insights and position initiatives to support in an organised and collaborative way.
Work in partnership with students. Students also have a critical role to play in this shift, not just because they are increasingly demanding to see more sustainability in the curriculum. For many emerging students, sustainability is the topic of their lifetime. Listen to the perspectives of international students, who can bring more diverse perspectives on global responsibility.
“Sustainability is more than a word or concept, it is actually a culture, and if we aim to see it mirrored in the near future, what better way exists than that of planting it in the young hearts of today knowing they are the leaders of the tomorrow we are not guaranteed of? It is possible.” 2021 South African university student (after participating in the Engineering for People Design Challenge during their degree course)
Useful resources to get talking:
There are some excellent resources out there that can help us get started framing and having conversations about sustainability with others:
1. The Talk Climate Changecampaign tracks climate discussions to share messages and inspire others around the world. It provides advice, conversation starters and allows you to add your discussions with family, friends, and communities about sustainability to their interactive map and explore conversations submitted by others.
2. Listen to podcasts such as the Liberating Sustainabilitypodcast by Students Organising for Sustainability UK (SOSUK) who bring together leaders from student liberation movements and academia to deconstruct the exclusivity of sustainability activism and education, orAn Idiot’s Guide to Saving the World which dives into each of the Sustainable Development Goals and focuses in on ‘who is affected?’, ‘What are solutions on a global scale?’, and ‘what can I as an individual do?’.
3. Watch the presentation on ‘Imagining 2050’ from James Norman, a current educator (who will be 72 years old in 2050) and Cleo Parker, an engineering student (who will be 49 in 2050) during the Institution of Structural Engineers Annual Academics Conference 2022. You can also read the main learning points from the conference in this blog post.
4. The World Café methodology is an example of creating a space for collaborative dialogue around questions that matter and sharing insights and lessons learned. You can see an example of this by the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) who run Collaboration Cafes on Climate Resilience, here.
5. Watch the TED talksplaylists on sustainability covering key questions and visionary ideas on the question of our generation.
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: Peter Mylon MEng PhD CEng FIMechE PFHEA NTF and SJ Cooper-Knock PhD (The University of Sheffield).
Topic: Maker Communities and ESD.
Tool type: Knowledge.
Relevant disciplines: Any.
Keywords: Interdisciplinary; Education for sustainable development; Makerspaces, Recycling or recycled materials; Employability and skills; Inclusive learning; Local community; Climate change; Student engagement; Responsible consumption; Energy efficiency; Design; Water and sanitation; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education; Pedagogy.
Sustainability competency: Collaboration; 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: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation); SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); SDG 13 (Climate action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: 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.
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are curious about how maker spaces and communities can contribute to sustainability efforts in engineering education. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for.
Premise:
Makerspaces can play a valuable role in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). In this article, we highlight three specific contributions they can make to ESD in Engineering: Makerspaces enable engineering in real-world contexts; they build cross-disciplinary connections and inclusive learning; and they promote responsible consumption.
A brief introduction to makerspaces:
In recent years, a ‘makerspace’ movement has emerged in Higher Education institutions. While most prevalent in the US, there are now a number of university-based makerspaces in the UK, including the iForge at the University of Sheffield, the Institute of Making at UCL, and the Makerspace at King’s College London. So what is a makerspace, and what do they have to do with Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)?
Makerspaces are part of a larger “maker movement” that includes maker fairs, clubs and magazines. Within universities, they are “facilities and cultures that afford unstructured student-centric environments for design, invention, and prototyping.” (Forest et al., 2016). Successful and inclusive makerspaces are student led. Student ownership of makerspace initiatives deepens student motivation, promotes learning, and encourages peer-to-peer collaboration. Successful makerspaces produce thriving learning communities, through which projects can emerge organically, outside of curriculum structures and discipline boundaries.
In terms of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), this means that students can bring their passion to make a difference, and can meet other students with similar interests but complementary skill sets. With support from the University, they can then be given opportunities to put their passion and skills into practice. Below, we focus on three concrete contributions that makerspaces can make to ESD: Opportunities for applied learning; expanded potential for cross-disciplinary learning, and the chance to deepen engaged learning on sustainable consumption.
1. Maker communities enable engineering in real world contexts:
1.1 ESD rationale
ESD enables students to think critically about possible solutions to global challenges. It encourages students to consider the social, economic, and political context in which change takes place. ESD also spurs students to engage, where possible, with those beyond the university.
It may be tempting to think of engineering as simply a technical exercise: one in which scientific and mathematical knowledge is taken and applied to the world around us. In practice, like all other professions, engineers do not simply apply knowledge, they create it. In order to do their work, engineers build, hold, and share ideas about how the world works: how users will behave; how materials will function; how they can be repaired or disposed of; what risks are acceptable, and why. These ideas about what is reasonable, rational, and probable are, in turn, shaped by the broader social, political, and economic context in which they work. This context shapes everything from what data is available, to what projects are prioritised, and how risk assessments are made. Rather than trying to ignore or remove these subjective and context-based elements of engineering, we need to understand them. In other words, rather than ask whether an engineering process is impacted by social, political, and economic factors we need to ask how this impact happens and the consequences that it holds. ESD encourages students to think about these issues.
1.2 The contribution of makerspaces
The availability of both equipment and expertise, and the potential for practical solutions, means that makerspaces often attract projects from outside the university. These provide opportunities to practise engineering in real-world contexts, where there is the possibility for participatory design. All such projects will require some consideration of social, political, or economic factors, which are at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals.
One example of this is SheffHEPP, a hydroelectric power project at the University of Sheffield. In response to requests for help from local communities, students are designing and building small-scale hydroelectric power installations in a number of locations. This multidisciplinary project requires an understanding of water engineering, electrical power generation, battery storage and mechanical power transmission, as well as taking into consideration the legal, financial, and environmental constraints of such an undertaking. But it also requires Making – students have made scale models and tested them in the lab, and are now looking to implement their designs in situ. Such combinations of practical engineering and real-world problems that require consideration of the wider context provide powerful educational experiences that expose students to the realities of sustainable development.
There are a number of national and international organisations for students that promote SDGs through competitions and design challenges. These include:
Engineers Without Borders – an international organisation with branches at many UK universities, which runs, amongst other things, the ‘Engineering for People Design Challenge’
Shell EcoMarathon – a vehicle design competition focused on energy optimisation
Cybathlon– a platform that challenges teams globally to develop assistive technologies suitable for everyday use, with and for people with disabilities
Student engagement with such activities is growing exponentially, and makerspaces can benefit students who are prototyping ideas for the competitions. At Sheffield, there are over 20 co-curricular student-led projects in engineering, involving around 700 students, many of which engage with the SDGs. In addition to SheffHEPP and teams entering all of the above competitions, these include teams designing solutions for rainwater harvesting, vaccine storage, cyclone-proof shelters for refugees, plastics recycling, and retrofitting buildings to reduce energy consumption. As well as the employability benefits of such activities, students are looking for ways to use engineering to create a better future, with awareness of issues around climate change and sustainability increasing year on year. And none of these activities would be possible without access to maker facilities to build prototypes.
Linked to the makerspace movement is the concept of hackathons – short sprints where teams of students compete to design and prototype the best solution to a challenge. At Sheffield, these have included:
Hackcessible – an assistive technology hackathon where students work with disabled members of the community to design bespoke solutions to problems that fall outside of the scope of healthcare provision;
The Biodigester Hackathon – finding the best way to convert waste from the University’s Diamond building into energy;
The Rice Seeder Design Challenge – working with a social enterprise in Cambodia to improve the design of traditional rice seeders in order to increase productivity.
In summary, Makerspaces enable students to access multiple initiatives through which they can engage in learning that is potentially participatory and applied. These forms of learning are critical to ESD and have the potential to address multiple Sustainable Development Goals.
2. Maker communities build cross-disciplinary connections and encourage inclusive learning:
2.1 ESD rationale
Global complex challenges cannot be resolved by engineers alone. ESD encourages students to value different forms of knowledge, from within and beyond academia. Within academia, makerspaces can provide opportunities for students to collaborate with peers from other disciplines. Cross-disciplinary knowledge can play a crucial role in understanding the complex challenges that face our world today. Makerspaces also offer an opportunity for students to engage with other forms of knowledge – such as the knowledge that is formed through lived experience – and appreciate the role that this plays in effective practices of design and creation. Finally, makerspaces can help students to communicate their knowledge in ways that are understandable to non-specialist audiences. This inclusive approach to knowledge creation and knowledge sharing enables students to think innovatively about sustainable solutions for the future.
2.2 The contribution of makerspaces
Cross-disciplinary spaces
Student-led makerspaces encourage students to lead in the creation of cross-disciplinary connections. For example, at the University of Sheffield, the makerspace has primarily been used by engineering students. Currently, however, the students are working hard to create events that will actively draw in students from across the university. This provides students with a co-created space for cross-disciplinary exchange as students train each other on different machines, learning alongside each other in the space. At other times, staff from different disciplines can come together to create shared opportunities for learning.
The cross-disciplinary nature of makerspaces and the universality of the desire to create encourages a diverse community to develop, with inclusivity as a core tenet. They can often provide opportunities for marginalised communities. Makerspaces such as the ‘Made in Za’atari’ space in Za’atari refugee camp have been used to give women in the camp a space in which they can utilise, share, and develop their skills both to improve wellbeing and create livelihoods. Meanwhile, projects such as Ambessa Play have provided opportunities for young people in refugee camps across the world to learn about kinetic energy and electronic components by creating a wind-up flashlight.
Spaces of inclusive learning
Maker projects also allow students to engage with their local communities, whether creating renewable energy installations, restoring community assets or educating the next generation of makers. Such projects raise the profile of sustainable development in the wider public and give students the opportunity to contribute to sustainable development in their neighbourhoods.
ESD does not just influence what we teach and how we teach; it also shapes who we are. A central tenet of ESD is that it helps to shape students, staff, and educational communities. When this happens, they are – in turn – better able to play their part in shaping the world around them.
3.2 The contribution of makerspaces
Even before the concept was popularised by the BBC’s ‘The Repair Shop’, repair cafes had begun to spring up across the country. Such facilities promote an ethos of repair and recycling by sharing of expertise amongst a community, a concept which aligns very closely with the maker movement. Items repaired might include furniture, electrical appliances, and ornaments. Related organisations like iFixit have also helped to promote responsible consumption and production through advocacy against built-in obsolescence and for the ‘Right to Repair’.
The same principles apply to Making in textiles – sustainable fashion is a topic that excites many students both within and outside engineering, and makerspaces offer the opportunity for upcycling, garment repair and clothes shares. Students can learn simple techniques that will allow them to make better use of their existing wardrobes or of used clothing and in the process begin to change the consumption culture around them. At the University of Sheffield, our making community is currently planning an upcycled runway day, in which students will bring clothing that is in need of refresh or repair from their own wardrobes or from local charity shops. Our team of peer-instructors and sewing specialists will be on hand to help students to customise, fit, and mend their clothes. In doing so, we hope to build an awareness of sustainable fashion amongst our students, enabling an upcycling fashion culture at the university.
Conclusion:
Education for Sustainable Development plays a vital role in enabling students to expand the knowledge and skills that they hold so that they can play their part in creating a sustainable future. Makerspaces offer a valuable route through which engineering students can engage with Education for Sustainable Development, including opportunities for applied learning, cross disciplinary connections, and responsible consumption.
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: Integrated problem-solving; Strategic; Self-awareness; Normative.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 8 (Decent work and economic growth); SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities); SDG 13 (Climate action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development.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.
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to consider how to navigate tradeoffs between economic and environmental sustainability as they apply to engineering. Engaging with this topic will also help to prepare students with the soft skill sets that employers are looking for.
Premise:
In the face of the ever-growing need for economic progress and the escalating environmental crises, the engineering profession finds itself at a crossroads. Striking a delicate balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability is no longer an option but an imperative. This article delves into the pivotal role of engineering educators in shaping the mindset of future engineers, offering an expanded educational framework that fosters a generation capable of harmonising economic prosperity with environmental responsibility.
The uneasy truce:
Developing nations, with burgeoning populations and aspirations for improved living standards, grapple with the paradox of rapid economic expansion at the expense of environmental degradation. This necessitates a shift in focus for engineering educators, who bear the responsibility of cultivating engineers with a foresighted perspective. Rather than demonising economic growth, the goal is to instill a nuanced understanding of its interdependence with environmental well-being. For example, in developing countries like Brazil, rapid economic expansion driven by industries such as agriculture and logging has resulted in extensive deforestation of the Amazon region. This deforestation not only leads to the loss of valuable biodiversity and ecosystem services but also contributes to climate change through the release of carbon dioxide. Similarly, in industrialised nations, the pursuit of economic growth has often led to the pollution of air, water, and soil, causing adverse health effects for both humans and wildlife.
Equipping our future stewards:
To navigate this delicate landscape, educators must move beyond traditional technical expertise, fostering a holistic approach that integrates ethical awareness, interdisciplinary collaboration, localised solutions, and a commitment to lifelong learning.
1. Ethical awareness: One potential counterargument to the expanded educational framework may be that the focus of engineering education should remain solely on technical expertise, with the assumption that ethical considerations and interdisciplinary collaboration can be addressed later in a professional context. However, research has shown that integrating ethical awareness and interdisciplinary collaboration early in engineering education not only enhances problem-solving skills but also cultivates a sense of responsibility and long-term thinking among future engineers.
2. Holistic thinking: Research has shown that interdisciplinary collaboration between engineering and social science disciplines can lead to more effective and sustainable solutions. For instance, a study conducted by the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) found that by involving sociologists and anthropologists in the design and implementation of water infrastructure projects in rural communities, engineers were able to address cultural preferences and local knowledge, resulting in higher acceptance and long-term maintenance of the infrastructure. Similarly, a case study of a renewable energy project in Germany demonstrated how taking into account the geographic nuances of the region, such as wind patterns and solar radiation, led to more efficient and cost-effective energy solutions. Presently, Germany boasts the world’s fourth-largest installed solar capacity and ranks amongst the top wind energy producers.
3. Localised solutions: Students must be required to consider the social, cultural, and geographic nuances of each project. This means moving away from one-size-fits-all approaches and towards an emphasis on the importance of context-specific solutions. This ensures that interventions are not only technologically sound but also culturally appropriate and responsive to local needs, fostering sustainability at both the project and community levels.
4.Lifelong learning: Empower students with the skills to stay abreast of emerging technologies, ethical frameworks, and policy landscapes. Recognise that the landscape of sustainability is dynamic and ever evolving. Foster a culture of continuous learning and adaptability to ensure that graduates remain true stewards of a sustainable future, equipped to navigate evolving challenges throughout their careers.
A compass for progress:
By integrating these principles into engineering curricula, educators can provide students with a moral and intellectual compass—an ethical framework guiding decisions toward a future where economic progress and environmental responsibility coexist harmoniously. Achieving this paradigm shift will require collaboration, innovation, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. However, the rewards are immeasurable: a generation of engineers empowered to build a world where prosperity thrives alongside a healthy planet—a testament to the true potential of the engineering profession.
Engineering teachers can raise a generation of engineers who can balance economic growth with environmental responsibility by embracing a broader educational framework that includes ethical awareness, cross-disciplinary collaboration, localised solutions, and a commitment to lifelong learning. Through the adoption of these principles, engineering curricula can provide students with a moral and intellectual compass, guiding them toward a future where economic progress and environmental sustainability coexist harmoniously.
References:
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2023). ‘Pathways to Carbon Neutrality: Global Trends and Solutions’, Chapter 3.
Sharma, P. (2022) ‘The Ethical Imperative in Sustainable Engineering Design’, Chapter 5.
United Nations (2021) ‘Goal 13: Climate Action. In Sustainable Development Goals: Achieving a Balance between Growth and Sustainability’. (pp. 120-135).
World Bank (2022) ‘Renewable Energy in Developing Nations: Prospects and Challenges’, pp.10-15.
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. To view a plain text version of this resource, click here to download the PDF.
