Collaboration Archives - Engineering Professors Council

Home
Toolkits
Collaboration

Author: Professor Michael Ward, CEng, FIMechE, FIET (University of Strathclyde).

Topic: Defining and understanding complex systems.

Title: The role of Wicked Problems thinking to help understand the extent of engineering involvement in complex systems.

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary; Wicked problems; Collaboration; Climate change; Decarbonisation; Research; Complexity framework; Scaffolded development framework.

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.

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (University College London); Dr. Mohammad Hassannezhad (University College London); Dr. Manoj Ravi (University of Leeds).

Topic: Complex systems competencies.

Title: Understanding complex systems competencies required in engineering graduates.

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Systems thinking; Problem-solving; Critical thinking; Digital literacy; Modelling and simulation; Design; Project management; Life cycle; Risk; Collaboration; Communication; Professional conduct; Social responsibility.

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.

Learning and teaching resources:

Glossary: This article refers to many concepts and terms which are more fully described and explained in this companion resource.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4).

Premise:

This article outlines the core competencies required for engineering students to effectively engage with complex systems. Such systems involve a range of technical and non-technical components that interact in non-linear and unpredictable ways. Working effectively with such complex systems requires collaboration across engineering disciplines, as well as other fields and stakeholder groups.

Within AHEP4, complex problems are referred to as those which “have no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs that can be addressed through creativity and the resourceful application of engineering science” (p.26). The ability to work productively with complex systems is therefore essential for engineers and helps them address problems increasingly experienced in business and society, which have many interdependent components and lack clear or stable solutions.

The aim of this article is to provide a foundational framework that integrates the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for undergraduate and graduate engineering students to navigate complexity. In so doing, it serves educators, curriculum designers, and students seeking to develop the mindset and skills required to tackle the challenges of the 21st century within an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world (SEFI, 2025).

This knowledge article, informed by the INCOSE Competency Framework for Systems Engineering (INCOSE, 2018), categorises complex systems competencies into eight core competencies. These competencies encompass mindset and foundations, technical methods and tools, management and delivery, and attributes and behaviours. The description of each competency references learning outcomes (LOs) outlined in AHEP4 (Engineering Council, 2025) and the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Attributes (2021) to establish a common baseline for all engineering graduates (see Appendix for mapping).

The eight core complex systems competencies:

1. Systems thinking and problem framing

The ability to take a holistic approach, to consider a problem from multiple perspectives and to understand how a system’s parts interact to produce emergent behaviour.

Students must be able to understand what makes a system ‘complex’ and move beyond narrow problem-solving to identify root causes. This involves understanding fundamental Systems thinking concepts including hierarchies and interfaces (structural dimension), holism and cause-effect (dynamic dimension), lifecycles (time dimension), and multiple perspectives (perception dimension).

Systems thinking enables engineers to anticipate ripple effects, emergent behaviours, and trade-offs, designing solutions that remain robust under uncertainty. AHEP4 requires students to “formulate and analyse complex problems to reach substantiated conclusions” (LO2) and to “apply an integrated or systems approach to the solution of complex problems” (LO6).

2. Critical thinking

The ability to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, apply logical reasoning, and justify decisions based on reasoned arguments and evidence.

Navigating complex systems involves working with a variety of (often conflicting) goals, information, and data types from across discipline and stakeholder groups. Critical thinking is thus necessary to enable engineers to identify biases, avoid oversimplification and flawed reasoning, and to make ethical, transparent and evidence-informed decisions with consideration for unintended consequences. AHEP4 requires graduates to “critically evaluate technical literature and other sources of information to solve complex problems” (LO4).

3. Simulation, modelling and data literacy

The ability to apply scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles to model, test, and improve complex systems.

Working with complex systems involves a range of resources including people, data and information, tools and appropriate technologies. Students must be able to create, apply and validate system models (as physical, mathematical, or logical representation of systems) and demonstrate competence in simulation and data literacy to address uncertainty and complexity at scale. This may involve using models and data to justify assumptions, explore scenarios, predict the consequences of actions, solve difference equations, conduct sensitivity and stability analysis, and predict the probability of risk.

This aligns with several AHEP4 outcomes: “apply mathematics, statistics, and engineering principles to solve complex problems” (LO1); “apply computational and analytical techniques while recognising limitations” (LO3); and “select and critically evaluate technical literature and other data sources” (LO4).

4. Design for complexity and changeability

The ability to design adaptable, robust, and resilient systems across their lifecycle.

Changes (both planned and unplanned) are inherent in complex systems. Long-term success of a system therefore requires design for resilience to first hand/internal (by the system), second hand/external (to the system) or third hand (around the system) change. Design for complexity and changeability ensures systems can evolve and integrate new capabilities across their lifecycle.

AHEP4 requires engineers to be able to innovatively “design solutions that meet a combination of societal, user, business and customer needs” (LO5). This may involve designing systems that deliver required functions over time, including evolution, adaptability, and integration across subsystems (capability engineering), and supports evaluation of alternatives, balance competing objectives, and justify transparent decisions (decision management).

5. Project and lifecycle management

The ability to plan and deliver engineering activities across the system lifecycle, ensuring outcomes are delivered on time, on cost, and with integrity.

Complex systems involve many subsystems with various purposes and lifecycles. This necessitates effective coordination and delivery processes and a focus on early planning and lasting systemic impacts. Project and lifecycle management allows for concurrent engineering (parallelisation of tasks), and verification and validation of tasks in dynamic environments. Graduates must “apply knowledge of engineering management principles, commercial context, project and change management” (AHEP4, LO15).

This aligns with the Engineering Attribute of Project Management and Teamwork and the INCOSE Framework competencies in Lifecycle Processes, Integration, and Project Management, emphasising coordinated delivery and long-term value creation across socio-technical systems. Lifecycle awareness prevents short-term optimisation and emphasises aspects such as maintainability, whole-life value delivery and total expenditure (TOTEX) thinking, all of which support efforts towards sustainability and net-zero.

6. Risk and uncertainty management

The ability to identify, assess, and manage technical, social, environmental, and ethical risks at multiple levels of complex systems.

Complex systems are inherently uncertain, with cascading risks that must be anticipated and managed proactively. Risk management enables students to quantify source and impact of uncertainties where possible and apply precaution where uncertainty is irreducible, ensuring safety, sustainability, and governance.

AHEP4 requires graduates to “use a structured risk management process to identify, evaluate and mitigate risks (the effects of uncertainty)” (LO9), ranging from project-specific challenges to systemic threats, which need to “adopt a holistic and proportionate approach to the mitigation of security risks” (LO10).

7. Collaboration and communication

The ability to work effectively across disciplines, boundaries, and cultures, while conveying complex insights clearly to technical and non-technical audiences.

Complex systems challenges cannot be solved by individuals alone and include consideration for stakeholders across industry, policy and society. Such collaborative processes involve participatory problem-solving, learning from others, inclusive communication, and negotiation and persuasion strategies, all of which necessitate emotional intelligence.

AHEP4 expects graduates to “function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader of a team, being able to evaluate own and team performance” (LO16). They must be able to influence stakeholder decisions, foster alignment, and shape outcomes across industry, policy, and society (AHEP4, LO17).

8. Professional responsibility

The ability to apply professional and societal responsibilities in decision-making, with awareness of ethical implications and long-term impacts and unintended consequences of engineered systems.

Engineers increasingly work on complex systems that shape lives, societies, and ecosystems. Ethical responsibility ensures that technical competence aligns with social good and involves consideration for trade-offs between factors including environmental impact, affordability and social acceptance. This aligns with AHEP4, IEA, and INCOSE principles on ethics, professionalism, and leadership, ensuring engineers act responsibly within complex systems and contribute positively to society and sustainability. AHEP4 requires graduates to “identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct” (LO8) and “evaluate the environmental and societal impact of solutions to complex problems” (LO7).

Conclusions:

This article defines a set of eight integrated competencies that prepare engineering graduates to navigate complex systems. Together, they combine knowledge (what graduates must know), skills (what they can do), and attitudes (how they behave and think). Embedding these competencies requires project-based learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and reflective exercises, while assessment should include portfolios, teamwork, and scenario analysis. Employers and professional bodies can reinforce these competencies through mentoring, internships, and early career development.

By aligning with INCOSE, AHEP4, and IEA GA frameworks (see Appendix for mapping), this guidance provides an internationally consistent foundation that can be adapted to local contexts, equipping engineering graduates to address complex, interdependent challenges of the 21st century with competence, integrity, and resilience.

Appendix:

Mapping between Eight Core Competencies and Standard frameworks

Proposed Core Competency	INCOSE *	AHEP4 **	IEA GA ***
Systems Thinking & Problem Framing	ST	LO2, LO6	WA2
Critical Thinking	CT	LO4	WA4, WA11
Simulation, Modelling & Data Literacy	IM, SM	LO1, LO3, LO4	WA1, WA4, WA5
Design for Complexity & Changeability	CP, DM, DF	LO5	WA3
Project & Lifecycle Management	LC, PL, CE, CP	LO15	WA10
Risk & Uncertainty Management	CE, PL, RO	LO9, LO10	–
Collaboration & Communication	CC, TD, TL, EI	LO16, LO17	WA8, WA9
Professional Responsibility	EI, EP	LO7, LO8	WA6, WA7

* INCOSE Competency Framework, 2nd edition (2018)

** AHEP4 Learning Outcome (LO) (2025)

*** International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Attributes (GA) (2021)

CC = Communications

CE = Concurrent Engineering

CP = Capability Engineering

CT = Critical Thinking

DF = Design For …

DM = Decision Management

EI = Emotional Intelligence

EP = Ethics and Professionalism

IM = Information Management

LC = Life Cycle

LO = Learning Outcome

PL = Planning

RO = Risk and Opportunity Management

TD = Team Dynamics

TL = Technical Leadership

SM = Systems Modelling and Analysis

ST = Systems Thinking

WA = Washington Accord

References:

Engineering Council (2025) Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP), 4.2 edn (Minor revisions March 2025) [online]. London: Engineering Council. Available at: https://www.engc.org.uk/media/isdl1tem/the-accreditation-of-higher-education-programmes-ahep.pdf [Accessed 15 Oct. 2025].

INCOSE (2018) Systems Engineering Competency Framework, 2nd edn [online]. International Council on Systems Engineering. Available at: https://www.incose.org/publications/products/competency-framework [Accessed 15 Oct. 2025].

SEFI (2025) Complementing the Conventional: Engineering Competencies and Skills for an Uncertain Future [online]. European Society for Engineering Education. Available at: https://www.sefi.be/2025/03/27/sefi-launches-2025-position-paper-on-engineering-skills/ [Accessed 15 Oct. 2025].

International Engineering Alliance (2021) Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies [pdf]. Available at: https://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/IEA-Graduate-Attributes-and-Professional-Competencies-2021.1-Sept-2021.pdf [Accessed 15 Oct. 2025].

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Milan Liu, Ph.D. Candidate (Cranfield University); Dr. Lampros Litos (Cranfield University).

Topic: Towards circular economy: development of systems-based interventions in complex systems.

Title: Improving metal recycling and recycled content intake.

Resource type: Guidance article.

Relevant disciplines: Any; Production and manufacturing engineering.

Keywords: Recycled materials; Circular economy; Socio-technical systems; Waste management; Life cycle; Sustainability.

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

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 of higher education looking to highlight the connection between complex systems and sustainability within engineering learning.

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, Life Cycles, Capability Engineering, Systems Modelling and Analysis, and Design 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 AHEP themes of Materials, equipment, technologies and processes, and Sustainability.

Learning and teaching resources:

Systems Dynamics Society Pedagogical Tools

Resource	Type	Best for	Quick classroom use	URL
Insight Maker	Web-based modelling tool	Building stock-and-flow models and simple simulations	Convert the aluminium CLD into stocks/flows and run a scenario	https://insightmaker.com
Loopy	Interactive causal-loop diagram app	Fast, visual CLDs and in-class demonstration of loop behaviour	Live demo of reinforcing vs balancing loops; students toggle link polarities	https://ncase.me/loopy
Vensim PLE	Free desktop system-dynamics software	Introductory quantitative modelling and sensitivity runs	Short lab: implement simplified aluminium-recycling model and compare policy scenarios	https://vensim.com/free-download/
Leverage Points (Meadows)	Concept primer on leverage points	Framing where to intervene in systems	Assign as required reading; students map which leverage points the CLD targets	https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverages-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/
MIT System Dynamics materials	Course notes and lecture videos	Structured curriculum and worked examples for deeper study	Use selected lectures and problem sets for follow-up or flipped classroom	https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-871-introduction-to-system-dynamics-fall-2013/

Premise:

Several sustainability challenges, such as transitioning to a circular economy, are embedded in complex socio-technical systems. A circular economy is an economic model that replaces the linear take-make-dispose pattern with systems that keep materials and products in use for longer through designing for durability, reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling, while minimising waste and regenerating natural systems (Rizos, Tuokko, and Behrens, 2017).

Complex systems like these exhibit feedback loops, delays, non-linear change, path dependence and emergent behaviour (Sterman, 2000; Meadows, 2008). This article introduces the idea of systems-based interventions using the example of aluminium recycling systems. It is designed for engineering educators who plan to provide learners with a baseline understanding of complexity and practical entry points for designing and developing and evaluating interventions that can move a system towards sustainability.

Complexity of aluminium recycling systems:

Aluminium is infinitely recyclable, yet achieving truly closed material loops at scale remains a challenge. Most of today’s recycling occurs in situations where post-consumer scrap is collected from a wide variety of end-of-life products and the boundaries of the recycling system are difficult to define and control. This creates high variability in both the composition and the quality of recovered aluminium, since different products contain different alloys and levels of contamination (IRT M2P, 2023). At the same time, the volume of available scrap is difficult to predict, as it depends on product lifespans and consumer behaviour. These fluctuations make it harder for producers to plan and optimise secondary aluminium output, particularly when industries rely on consistent standards or just-in-time manufacturing.

The recycling system is also shaped by broader economic and regulatory forces. On the one hand, demand for low-carbon materials and the cost advantage of recycled over primary aluminium are powerful drivers of growth. On the other hand, the system faces constraints from volatile scrap prices and shifting global trade dynamics, such as U.S. tariffs on aluminium imports. Meanwhile, new policy instruments are adding further complexity. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is set to reshape trade flows and investment patterns, while the forthcoming Digital Product Passport (DPP) will transform how information is shared across the value chain. Together, these forces influence technologies, markets and business models, underscoring the dynamic and interconnected nature of aluminium recycling.

These interconnected factors highlight aluminium recycling as a complex socio-technical system, in which technological capabilities, market incentives, policy frameworks, and global trade are deeply interconnected. For educators, this makes aluminium an effective example for teaching students how multiple forces interact to create both opportunities and challenges for sustainable engineering.

Intervention from systems perspective:

System Dynamics (SD), first formalised by Forrester (1968), has proven to be a highly valuable approach for understanding and managing complex resource and recovery systems. SD is an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from psychology, organisational theory, economics, and related fields (Sterman, 2000). More supporting information about SD pedagogical tools and techniques can be found through the System Dynamics Society and Insight Maker.

From a systems perspective, interventions are not isolated events but strategic effort to influence system behaviour by targeting its structure and dynamics. A key concept here is leverage points – places within a complex system where small changes can lead to significant, systemic effects (Meadows, 1999). Meadows identified twelve types of leverage points, ranging from adjusting parameters to transforming the system’s underlying goals and paradigms, proving a conceptual framework for identifying impactful intervention.

Figure 1. Donella Meadows’ leverage points (Source: based on Meadows (1999); credit: UNDP/Carlotta Cataldi; reproduced from Bovarnick and Cooper (2021))

Exploration of potential leverage points:

System Dynamics (SD) tools such as Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) can help explore leverage points. CLDs can help visualise main components of a system and their interdependencies, making complex dynamics easier to understand. Besides, the process of building a CLD or more computational SD model encourages practitioners to clarify system boundaries, relationships, and drivers, laying the foundation for identifying leverage points.

For example, a CLD of aluminium recycling might capture how classification and sorting processes influence scrap quality, which then affects remelting efficiency and ultimately market uptake of recycled alloys (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2. The causal loop diagram for auto aluminium recycling (Liu et al., 2025)

By tracing these circular cause-and-effect relationships, learners can see where interventions may ripple through the system. Highlighting reinforcing loops, balancing loops, and delays also shows why some interventions produce limited short-term results but more substantial long-term effects.

Leverage points can also be examined through the lens of information, rules, and goals. Improved information flows, such as those enabled by the Digital Product Passport, could reshape how scrap is sorted and valued. Rules, such as alloy specifications or trade tariffs, determine what types of recycled material can enter the market. At a deeper level, the goals of the system, whether to maximise throughput or to retain material value, fundamentally shape behaviour. Here too, CLDs are valuable because they allow users to visualise how changes to information, rules, or goals can shift system dynamics, providing a clearer picture of where interventions might be most effective.

Implication for educators:

This article equips educators with a focused, practical pathway to teach systems thinking through the example of aluminium recycling. Students can gain both conceptual understanding and hands-on skills to map feedback loops, identify delays, and design interventions that account for short-term trade-offs and long-term system behaviour. Teaching a single clear CLD followed by one modelling or scenario activity produces measurable learning gains while keeping the task accessible for beginners.

Educational approach:

Prioritise structure before solutions: have students map feedback loops and delays before proposing fixes.

Use one classroom-ready CLD as the anchor activity and one hands-on modelling task to test interventions.

Emphasise leverage thinking: move from parameter tweaks to information, rules, goals and paradigms as students mature.

Keep language simple and concrete: avoid jargon, introduce terms with examples, and reuse the same CLD across activities.

Use open-access tools (Insight Maker, Loopy, Vensim PLE) so students can visualise and experiment without software barriers.

Focus assessment on reasoning about system behaviour and predicted long-term effects rather than exact numerical answers.

Potential related learning outcomes within this topic:

Define stocks, flows, feedback loops, delays, reinforcing and balancing loops.

Explain why aluminium recycling is a complex socio-technical system influenced by technology, markets, policy, and information.

Construct a simple CLD for an aluminium recycling pathway and identify at least two reinforcing and one balancing loop.

Identify two leverage points and justify which one to prioritise, citing anticipated short- and long-term system effects.

Translate the CLD into a basic stock-and-flow sketch in an open-access tool and run one scenario to compare outcomes.

Further resources:

European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Environmental and socio-economic impacts of the circular economy transition in the EU cement and concrete sector – Analysing plastics material flows with life cycle-based and macroeconomic assessment models, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/6579506

The Complexity and Interconnectedness of Circular Cities and the Circular Economy for Sustainability — analysis of research themes and networked interactions relevant for urban/material systems; useful for teaching complexity and cross-sector links. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.2766

Systems Dynamics Society Pedagogical Tools

References

Bovarnick, A. and Cooper, S. (2021) “From what to how: rethinking food systems interventions,” Agriculture for Development. Edited by K. Hussein, 22 April, pp. 49–53.

Forrester, J.W. (1968) “Industrial Dynamics—After the First Decade,” Management Science, 14(7), pp. 398–415. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.7.398.

IRT M2P (2023) Market Development for Secondary Casting Alloys beyond Motor Blocks – Study on casting alloy market and recycling, International Aluminium Institute. Available at: https://international-aluminium.org/resource/current-and-future-secondary-casting-alloy-market-in-europe/ (Accessed: February 27, 2024).

Liu, M., Schneider, K., Litos, L., Salonitis, K., 2025. Enhancing Secondary Aluminium Supply: Optimising Urban Mining Through a Systems Thinking Approach, in: Edwards, L. (Ed.), Light Metals 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 1273–1279.

Meadows, D.H. (1999) Leverage Points – Places to Intervene in a System, The Sustainability Institute.

Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Rizos, V., Tuokko, K., and Behrens A. (2017). The Circular Economy: A Review of definitions, processes, and impacts. CEPS Energy Climate House. https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/rr2017-08_circulareconomy_0.pdf

Sterman, J. (2000) “Business Dynamics, System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.” Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/102741 (Accessed: September 4, 2025).

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Nafiseh M. Aftah, PhD Candidate (University of Kansas).

Topic: Why integrate complex systems in engineering education?

Title: Complex systems in a transformational era.

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Interdisciplinarity; Problem-solving; Problem-based learning; Active learning; Professional development; Collaboration; Real world; Artificial Intelligence; Trade offs.

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.

Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.

This resource relates to the Systems Thinking and Critical Thinking INCOSE competencies.

AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4):  Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems).

Premise:

Engineering education is undergoing a fundamental transformation. The convergence of technological, social, and environmental challenges demands that future engineers move beyond procedural problem-solving toward complex thinking – a mindset capable of navigating uncertainty, interdependence, and dynamic change. This shift has been accelerated by advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), which have redefined both the nature of engineering practice and the competencies students must develop to thrive in it.

For scientists and engineers, understanding complex systems is critical for the ability to apply knowledge and techniques across diverse contexts. This is particularly visible in fields such as bioengineering, which depends on advances in chemistry, physics, computing, and other engineering disciplines. Such integration requires designing subsystems where engineering expertise can be meaningfully applied. Complex systems also involve human interaction, introducing unpredictability, feedback loops, and uncertainty. Modern AI-enabled systems—ranging from autonomous vehicles to smart grids and biomedical devices—cannot be fully understood through a single traditional discipline. These systems are not simply complicated; they are interconnected, dynamic, and often nonlinear (Jakobsson, 2025).

What this means for engineering education and educators:

Across the globe, educators have turned to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as a central strategy for cultivating systems-oriented thinking. For instance, Tauro et al. (2017) and the case study conducted at Tishk International University demonstrate that integrating PBL within mechatronics education enhances students’ ability to connect theory with practice, encouraging collaboration and creativity in addressing multifaceted engineering problems. Similarly, Watters et al. (2016) show that industry–school partnerships transform classrooms into real-world laboratories, reinforcing the value of experiential learning and knowledge transfer between academia and professional practice. These initiatives reflect a broader movement toward authentic, interdisciplinary engagement, a necessary foundation for understanding and designing complex systems.

However, adopting PBL and interdisciplinary methods is not only a pedagogical improvement but also an epistemological necessity. As Stegeager et al. (2024) emphasise, educators themselves must evolve from instructors to facilitators, cultivating reflective and adaptive learning environments that mirror the complexity of professional engineering contexts. Mynderse et al. further highlight that when students are given responsibility for solving open-ended problems, they report higher satisfaction and deeper conceptual integration. These outcomes suggest that active learning approaches foster the kind of complex, interconnected reasoning required for contemporary engineering practice.

In parallel, the AI-driven classroom is transforming the educational landscape. Emerging evidence shows that generative AI tools support personalised learning and immediate feedback, freeing educators to focus on mentorship and creativity (Jaramillo, 2024). Yet this technological advancement also underscores the limits of automation. Machines can model and predict, but they cannot interpret ethical implications, reconcile trade-offs, or integrate human and ecological perspectives. This is where complex thinking becomes indispensable: it enables learners to understand AI not merely as a computational tool but as a component within broader sociotechnical systems.

The need for complex systems understanding is especially acute in fields such as bioengineering and mechatronics, where technologies intersect with living systems and social contexts. The defining feature of complex systems is the interaction among multiple components that produce emergent, often unpredictable behaviour. For engineering students, grasping these principles means developing the ability to think beyond linear causality and to engage with feedback loops, uncertainty, and adaptive design.

The imperative to transform engineering education:

In traditional engineering education, students get topics presented in discrete classes. They get trained in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and they often forget what they have learned by the time they are at the control systems course where there is an opportunity to bring together skills from prior knowledge. This modularised model is already losing its effectiveness in preparing the students for encountering real-world problems. As the adage says, “In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not”. Understanding the role of noise, measurement errors, simplifying assumptions and computational errors play an essential role. To this end, it is crucial to centre complex system design and embrace interdisciplinarity to develop a competency that supports life-long, adaptive learning.

As an example, Aalborg University in Denmark stands as a global exemplary of systems-oriented engineering education. Its PBL model is not an add-on; it is the spine of the entire curriculum. Every semester, students tackle a new problem – often tied to societal needs such as urban planning, environmental sustainability, or healthcare. Students must identify relevant knowledge areas, work collaboratively across disciplines, and reflect on both process and outcome. Faculty report that this structure promotes holistic thinking, resilience, and a sense of professional identity early on the students’ journeys (Kolmos et al. 2008).

On the undergraduate level, capstones are a common part of engineering education which happens at the late stages of the student’s studies. At Rowan University (New Jersey, USA), Engineering Clinics provide a different but equally powerful model. Students work across all four years on interdisciplinary teams, contributing to faculty research or industry-sponsored projects. These clinics are embedded in the curriculum and require students to engage deeply with current research problems, often involving complex technical and human systems. A junior clinic project, for example, might involve the optimisation of a renewable energy system integrating mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering principles. Therefore, students learn to navigate ambiguity, collaborate with experts, and see the relevance of their disciplinary knowledge in a broader context by confronting the messy nature of real data.

These are two of many examples where systems thinking is cultivated. Students gain exposure to open-ended problems and practice seeking connection across domains as they encounter the limits of their knowledge. In this fast-moving era, crossing disciplines empowers students for lifelong adaptation, allowing them to incorporate their experiences into any new technological developments. It also encourages treating learning as a collaborative social process, rather than a solo race to secure the first job.

Educators must do more than just deliver content; they also need to act as facilitators and learn alongside their students. By redesigning the curriculum around design-oriented problems that mirror real-world changes, higher education will better prepare future engineers to face upcoming systemic global challenges.

Looking ahead:

As artificial intelligence and automation continue to reshape industry, engineering education must also evolve. Integrating complex systems into teaching offers students the opportunity to engage directly with the data-driven ecosystem they will encounter in practice. The goal is not only to produce technically skilled engineers, but also thoughtful stewards of technology who can navigate its broader social and ethical dimensions.

One ongoing challenge is that independent projects often vary in quality and can be difficult to assess. Without intentional design, students may default to trial-and-error approaches instead of drawing on knowledge from prior courses. At the same time, the pressure to cover extensive technical material can make it difficult to provide the broader systems context essential for modern engineering. Yet when learning is reinforced across the curriculum, students are better prepared for future careers that demand systems-based thinking.

Experiential, self-directed projects play a crucial role in this preparation. They allow students to choose their own path while working closely with advisors and industry partners. Whether developing a product, designing a system, or engaging with professionals, students gain a perspective that feels different from traditional coursework. This process offers them a glimpse of what it means to think and act like real engineers, fostering both confidence and adaptability as they transition from the classroom to the workplace.

References:

Jakobsson, Eric et al. (1999) ‘Complex systems: Why and what?’, New England Complex Systems Institute. Available at: https://necsi.edu/complex-systems-why-and-what (Accessed: 16 July 2025).

Jaramillo, J., Chiappe, A. (2024) ‘The AI-driven classroom: A review of 21st century curriculum trends’, Prospects. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-024-09704-w (Accessed: 1 August 2025).

Kolmos, A., Du, X., Holgaard, J., Jensen. (2008) ‘Facilitation in a PBL environment. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338698720_Facilitation_in_a_PBL_environment (Accessed: 30 July 2025)

Mynderse, James A., Shelton, Jeffrey N., (2014) ‘Implementing problem-based learning in a senior/graduate mechatronics course’, Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. Available at: https://peer.asee.org/implementing-problem-based-learning-in-a-senior-graduate-mechatronics-course (Accessed: 1 August 2025).

Stegeager, N., Traulsen, S., Carvalho Guerra, A., Telléus, P., Du, X. (2024) ‘Do good intentions lead to expected outcomes? Professional learning amongst early career academics in a problem-based program’, Education Sciences, 14(2), p. 205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020205.

Tauro, F., Cha, Y., Rahim, F., Rasul, M.S., Osman, K., Halim, L., Dennisur, D., Esner, B., Porfiri, M. (2017) ‘Integrating mechatronics in project-based learning of Malaysian high school students and teachers’, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306419017708636 (Accessed: 1 August 2025).

Watters, J., Pillay, H. and Flynn, M. (2016) ‘Industry-school partnerships: A strategy to enhance education and training opportunities. Australia’, Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/98390/ (Accessed: 30 July 2025).

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. Rhythima Shinde (KLH Sustainability).

Topic: Applying Cynefin framework for climate resilience.

Title: Managing floods in urban infrastructure.

Resource type: Teaching – Case study.

Relevant disciplines: Civil engineering; Environmental engineering; General engineering.

Keywords: Systems thinking; Climate change; Sustainability; Risk; Decision-making; Problem-solving; Disaster mitigation.

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

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).

Downloads:

A PDF of this resource will be available soon.

Australian climate extremes and building transport network resilience (EngineeringX)

Appendix A: Facilitator’s Guide (EngineeringX)

Appendix B: Timeline touchpoints (EngineeringX)

Appendix C: Assessment form (EngineeringX)

Learning and teaching resources:

Engineering for a complex world

Royal Academy of Engineering: EngineeringX

EngineeringX: Australian climate extremes and building transport network resilience

Time required:

The teaching activity is designed for 4–6 hours of structured learning, delivered across three modules:

1. Context (1–2 hours)

2. Analysis and insights (1–2 hours)

3. Discussion and transferable learning (1–2 hours)

Materials required:

1. Open access online learning platform: Engineering for a complex world

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.

2. Case study pack: Queensland Reconstruction Authority flood response

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.

3. Facilitator’s guide: (Appendix A)

This guide equips educators to deliver the course consistently and effectively. It includes:

- Suggested orientation text and icebreakers.

- Clear learning objectives and expected outcomes.

- Instructions for accessing online modules and technical requirements.

- A breakdown of module structure, including group and individual assignments (e.g. scenario handouts, bot-based discussions).

- Guidance on hybrid delivery and interaction with digital assets.

- Strategies for collecting responses and supporting accessibility.

4. Timeline touchpoints: (Appendix B)

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.

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Mariam Makramalla, PhD, FRSA (New Giza University).

Topic: Integrating complex systems learning outcomes in engineering curricula.

Title: How to scaffold complex systems learning outcomes across a curriculum.

Resource type: Guidance article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Learning outcomes; Pedagogy; Curriculum; Curriculum map; Critical thinking; Problem-solving; Life cycle; Decision-making .

Licensing: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

Downloads:

A PDF of this resource will be available soon.

Scaffolding table: Excel spreadsheet

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate complex systems topics into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.

Premise: 

Teaching and learning engineering carries with it a double layer of complexity. On the one hand, this complexity is connected to the growing interdisciplinary nature of engineering itself. On the other hand, the complexity is connected to the growing diversity of engineering students that are often present in one project team. This multifaceted complexity requires a re-envisioned understanding of the role and purpose of the engineering educator.

With the growing trend of a global classroom reality, we often find that learners in the classroom are representing different cultures, which in turn are rooted in them unconsciously carrying historical and socio-cultural baggage relating to these cultures. Thus, it becomes crucial to unpack the challenge and potential that such a diverse collective intelligence can offer to an engineering learning experience.

As our understanding of the engineering discipline gets more rooted and interconnected with the precarious reality that our world is witnessing today, it becomes essential that the engineering education community would take up a proactive role in actively contributing to the formation of engineering citizenship. In other words, every engineering student should be educated as a citizen that has mastered the engineering cross-cutting fields in such a way that they are free to create and solve problems of the present and the future.

With this in mind, it becomes very clear that the one-size-fits all model of a single discipline engineering classroom can no longer sustain itself. It does not factor in the richness that a diverse student body can offer, and it dilutes the value and potential of an engineering learner to think clearly or solve problems. It is therefore imperative that engineering educators grasp the complex reality of an integrated engineering discipline and address it in a way that fosters scaffolding of diverse knowledge. Some students might specialise in one core technical discipline. Yet, future projections for most students showcase the need to have a wide level of exposure to broader competency development. Students need to learn to understand the field of engineering at large and to develop system thinking skills that enable them to exist, challenge and have an impact on the system that they are a part of.

How to scaffold learning outcomes in a complex engineering curriculum:

The below table has been designed for embedding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across an engineering curriculum. It maps against competencies and suggests scaffolding techniques across educational levels. It is also important to note, that efforts need to be made to align to the relevant AHEP requirements or other accreditation standards. Table 1 presents the different strands of the Complex Systems Engineering Curriculum, colour coded in line with the INCOSE Competency Framework outline (INCOSE, 2025). Table 2 presents a practical guide for educators to scaffold Complex Systems learning outcomes across a curriculum. The intention is for the scaffolding framework to compare the trade-offs between different elements of the competency group. For example, system modelling and analysis as an element from the core competency and planning from the management competency. The table suggests activities that would integrate different competencies together in a scaffolded approach.

Table 1. Competency Areas for Complex Systems (INCOSE, 2025).

Table 1 presents Competency Areas for Complex Systems. As mentioned, the skills range to include a wide variety of competencies, thereby enabling a solid and grounded systems thinking approach for students. As students approach their learning, they go through a series of development stages that gradually build up student level of expertise until they reach the stage of what the INCOSE competency framework refers to as a lead practitioner role. Building on the competencies of the complex system toolkit presented in Table 1, Table 2 presents a potential outline for a scaffolding framework that maps varying threads of the framework in a way that enables scaffolded activities at every developmental stage for learners. Depending on the learning context and educational level, educators can choose which level of attainment is appropriate to their curriculum.

Table 2. Scaffolding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across the curriculum

Discussion and next steps:

As we are approaching the fuzzy front end to complexity in engineering pedagogy, as educators we need to be constantly toggling between devising frameworks, being informed by literature, contextualising ideas, validating these in our classrooms and repeating this cycle to continually fine-tune our complex teaching navigational complexity framework. The invitation is open for all educators who would like to connect as we continue to explore different ways of developing responsible engineers who leave a lasting and sustainable mark transforming their stationed realities.

References:

INCOSE. (2025) ‘Competency Framework’. Complex Systems Engineering. Available at: URL of VLE (https://www.incose.org/publications/products/competency-framework/).

A series of new How-To Guides have been developed by universities across the UK as part of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s (RAEng) Diversity Impact Programme (DIP)

Supported by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, this programme funds projects that inspire change within university engineering departments and tackle unequal outcomes experienced by students from underrepresented groups.

Over the past three years, the Diversity Impact Programme has provided grants of up to £100,000 to 22 university projects. The latest phase focuses on sharing what has been learned through practical, evidence-based How-To Guides that other universities can replicate to embed inclusive practices and strengthen outcomes for all engineering students.

Funded awardees and their guides

Seven awardees have produced user-friendly guides on inclusive approaches within engineering education:

Swansea University – Representation of women engineers and outreach
University of Plymouth – Neurodivergent and disabled students and inclusive programme design
King’s College London – Black engineers’ representation and attainment
University of Dundee – Socio-economic equality and career prospects
University of Strathclyde – Socio-economic equality, mentoring, support, and outreach
University of the West of England – Underrepresented students and the Repair Café
Wrexham University – Underrepresented engineers and employability (as featured in our Inclusive Employability Toolkit)

Our guide

We’re proud that our recently published guide, Integrating the Engineering Professors’ Council’s Inclusive Employability Toolkit into the Higher Education Engineering Curriculum (featured in our Inclusive Employability Toolkit), was developed in collaboration with Wrexham University, one of our Toolkit supporters alongside Canterbury Christ Church University, Equal Engineers, and The Royal Academy of Engineering. Through DIP funding, Wrexham University collaborated with us to develop a How-To Guide demonstrating how to use the Toolkit in practice, featuring real-world case studies of students and educators applying it and detailed session plans. This collaboration has enabled us to share practical, scalable strategies that advance inclusive employability within engineering education. We’re delighted to be featured alongside other outstanding contributions from Swansea University, University of Plymouth, King’s College London, University of Dundee, University of Strathclyde, and University of the West of England.

Explore the guides

We encourage our members and partners to explore the other awardees’ guides to see how their insights and approaches could inform your own practice. Visit the RAEng website to view all the How-To Guides by clicking here.

This post is also available here.

Authors: Professor Anne Nortcliffe (Wrexham University); Crystal Nwagboso (Engineering Professors’ Council).

Topic: A practical guide for educators on using the Toolkit to embed inclusive employability in teaching, illustrated with real-life case studies and step-by-step session plans.

Engineering disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Academics; Active Learning; Case Study; Employability and Skills; Curriculum or Course; Engineering Professionals; Inclusive or Responsible Design; Interdisciplinary or Multidisciplinary; Pedagogy; Problem-Based Learning; Project-Based Learning; Students; Teaching and Learning; Workshop; Collaboration; Higher Education; General and Non-Specific or Other Engineering; Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Who is this how-to guide / case study for? This guide is designed for educators, curriculum developers, and academic support staff seeking to integrate inclusive employability into engineering education. Through real-world case studies and detailed session plans, it provides practical strategies for fostering students’ professional skills, reflective practice, and meaningful engagement with industry, adaptable across diverse engineering disciplines and teaching contexts.

Download the How-To Guide (PDF):

English

Welsh

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EPC Launches Inclusive Employability Toolkit to Advance Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Engineering Education

London, 30 September 2025 – The Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) has launched a new Inclusive Employability Toolkit designed to support engineering educators and students in embedding Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles into employability learning.

Developed with funding from the Royal Academy of Engineering Impact Fund, and in partnership with Canterbury Christ Church University, Wrexham University, Equal Engineers, and the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Toolkit addresses persistent inequities in engineering graduate outcomes and workplace progression.

The Toolkit equips the engineering higher education community to:

Empower employers and students to navigate employment challenges
Educate on employability, EDI, and allyship
Equip individuals to foster inclusive workplaces
Encourage reflection, growth, and engagement with EDI initiatives

Tackling Inequalities in Graduate Outcomes

Despite progress, disparities remain in engineering graduate outcomes. According to the Office for Students (2024), 73% of white male engineering graduates progress into employment compared with 71.6% of female graduates, 68.7% of Asian graduates, and 69.8% of Black graduates. Inequities are also evident for LGBTQ+ students and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Bias in recruitment practices can compound these issues. Research indicates that AI-based recruitment may amplify discrimination, particularly affecting women and minority candidates. Diversity, however, remains a priority for the profession: 81% of engineers say it is an important factor when considering an employer, and 82% of female applicants cite the presence of role models as significant (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2024).

Impact on Students

Early classroom use of the Toolkit has shown positive results. Academics report that it helps students develop reflective practice, engage critically with employability resources, and recognise their personal responsibility in shaping career journeys. Students have also reported improvements in collaboration and group work:

“It has improved me… [Previously] I didn’t even think about any steps [when completing coursework or group work]. I used to just jump straight into [it]… even in our group activity.” — Level 4 CCCU Student A

“[The Toolkit’s game activity] built quite a lot of patience in me… I could give [peers in group work] more time, explain things in more detail, and help them instead of arguing over the work.” — Level 4 CCCU Student B

“I’m still finding my feet [at university] with interacting in a group setting… I think a lot more about other people… I’m constantly conscious [of this] in group work.” — Level 4 CCCU Student C

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit provides a practical framework to embed EDI into engineering education, helping students and educators alike to build more inclusive, equitable, and reflective learning and workplace environments.

For further information, please contact: Contact: Johnny Rich Email: press@epc.ac.uk

Phone: 07590 914666

24 hours: 0781 1111 4292

Website: epc.ac.uk/resources/toolkit/inclusive-employability-toolkit/

Twitter/X: @EngProfCouncil #InclusiveEmployabilityToolkit

ENDS

This post is also available here.

Objectives: This activity is our guide to navigating assessment centres, offering tips and strategies tailored to empower underrepresented groups and help you be prepared, authentic self, stand out and succeed.

Introduction: Assessment centres have been a key part of graduate recruitment since the 1950s, originally developed to evaluate leadership potential in military officers. Today, they are widely used by employers to assess candidates through group tasks, interviews, and individual exercises. This activity serves as a practical guide to help you navigate assessment centres with confidence. With a focus on empowering underrepresented groups, it provides tips and strategies to help you prepare effectively, present your authentic self, and stand out in a competitive selection process.

Topic: Standing out with confidence at assessment centres: a guide to preparation, authenticity, and success.

Keywords: Problem solving; Employability and skills; Communication; Leadership or management; Collaboration; Digitalisation; Professional development; Writing Skills; Equity, Diversity and Inclusion; Neurodiversity; Inclusive or Responsible design; Recruitment; Business or trade or industry; Workplace culture; Information and Digital literacy; Artificial Intelligence.

An immersive experience

Getting startedWhat to expect An employer’s guide What are assessment centre activities?

Click on each accordion tab to explore videos that guide you through navigating assessment centres, offering tips and strategies designed to empower underrepresented groups and help you prepare, be your authentic self, stand out, and succeed.

Video summary:

This video was produced by The Careers Chat, a platform associated with Warwick University, provides an overview of assessment centres used by graduate recruiters. It discusses various tasks designed to evaluate candidates’ skills in action, offering insights into the selection process and tips for preparation.

Key insights:

🌟 Always be mindful that you’re being assessed – from the moment you arrive until you leave. Maintain a professional and approachable demeanor to leave a lasting positive impression.

🤝 View fellow candidates as collaborators, not competitors. Respect their perspectives and engage in teamwork; remember, it’s possible that everyone could be offered a role.

💼 Keep in mind that the tasks are tailored to the role you’re applying for. Be authentic, and the skills you’ve already highlighted in your application will naturally stand out.

Video summary:

Assessment centres are crucial for graduate recruitment, involving various tasks to evaluate candidates’ skills through collaborative activities.

Key insights:

🎓 Real-time evaluation: Assessment centres provide an opportunity for recruiters to observe candidates in action; skills, interpersonal dynamics and teamwork.

📅 Duration and format flexibility: Be prepared and mentally ready for either a half-day or full-day assessment face to face or online.

📝 Diverse assessment tasks: Wide range of tasks, from essays to presentations, means candidates should practice and be adaptable to showcase different skills.

🤝 Collaboration over competition: Viewing fellow candidates as collaborators rather than competitors can foster a supportive atmosphere, better outcomes for everyone.

🌈 Authenticity matters: Presenting genuine skills and authentic experiences rather than trying to fit a mould can make candidates stand out and connect with recruiters.

🚪 Professionalism is key: From the moment you arrive until you leave, maintaining a professional demeanour leaves a lasting impression, and suitability for the role.

💡 Preparation is essential: Familiarising oneself with the specific tasks related to the job application can boost confidence and performance, and draw upon relevant skills.

Video summary:
An assessment centre evaluates candidates through various exercises to assess teamwork, problem-solving, and fit within the company culture.

Key insights:

🔍 Assessment centres are designed to simulate real work environments, helping employers see how candidates fit into team dynamics and your ability to collaborate.

🧠 Psychometric tests may be retaken during the assessment, so candidates should be prepared to demonstrate their logical reasoning and numerical skills in person.

🗣️ Group exercises focus on problem-solving as a team, the process is more important than the outcome, opportunity to show your communication and leadership skills.

🎤 Presentations, whether in groups or individually, evaluate public speaking and the ability to synthesize complex information into clear solutions.

🎭 Role-play exercises test candidates’ client-handling skills and ability to provide solutions under pressure, highlighting their problem-solving approach.

🤝 Lunch and breaks are part of assessment, are an opportunity to network, and demonstrate your informal communication skills that could influence your success

📊 You need to demonstrate understanding and applying the company’s core values and meeting their desired competencies effectively throughout the process.

Resources

Access our University Career Services Library to connect with your university’s career services and take advantage of employability training opportunities, such as mock assessment centre sessions.
Thornton et al (2019) research concluded to prevent gender and race bias at assessment centres, employers must implement rigorous development and practices to counter both conscious and unconscious biases.
Assessment centre guide (Wrexham University) – easy to read useful hints, tips and examples.

Underrepresented groups preparing for virtual assessment centres

AGCAS disability task group: preparing for virtual assessment centres provides essential advice on navigating virtual assessments with a focus on accessibility and inclusivity for participants with disabilities.
AGCAS psychometric tests – a guide for disabled candidates useful guide for disabled students and employers with respect psychometric tests as recruitment tool.
Reasonable adjustments for interviews and assessments for students who are neurodiverse it is good practice for employers to ask if you need reasonable adjustment, and you can also for reasonable adjustment.

How to PASS an assessment centre UK

The video offers tailored guidance specifically for international students.

Acing virtual assessment centres: future you webinar:

As part of their Future You webinar series, Prospects hosted a session titled Acing Virtual Assessment Centres on Tuesday, 20th April 2021. The webinar offers valuable insights, practical tips, and expert guidance to help students confidently navigate virtual assessment centres. Watch the video below to gain useful strategies and boost your preparation. Aldi, Arcadis and Police Now Recruiters advice for preparing for Virtual Assessment centres.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Please note: Discussions around discrimination, prejudice and bias are highly complex and part of a much wider national and international debate, including contested histories. As such, we have limited the scope of our resources to educating and supporting students.

The resources that the EPC and its partners are producing in this area will continue to expand and, if you feel there is an issue that is currently underrepresented in our content, we would be delighted to work with you to create more. Please get in touch.

Let us know what you think of our website

A series of new How-To Guides have been developed by universities across the UK as part of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s (RAEng) Diversity Impact Programme (DIP)

Funded awardees and their guides

Our guide

Explore the guides

Download the How-To Guide (PDF):

An immersive experience

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

Resources

Underrepresented groups preparing for virtual assessment centres

How to PASS an assessment centre UK

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

Acing virtual assessment centres: future you webinar:

A series of new How-To Guides have been developed by universities across the UK as part of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s (RAEng) Diversity Impact Programme (DIP)

Funded awardees and their guides

Our guide

Explore the guides

Download the How-To Guide (PDF):

An immersive experience

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span>

Resources

Underrepresented groups preparing for virtual assessment centres

How to PASS an assessment centre UK

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start">﻿</span>

Acing virtual assessment centres: future you webinar:

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>