Communication Archives - Page 4 of 5 - Engineering Professors Council

Home
Toolkits
Communication

Author: Andrew Avent (University of Bath).

Keywords: Assessment criteria; Pedagogy; Communication.

Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum, or into module design and learning activities. It describes an in-class activity that is appropriate for large sections and can help to provide students with opportunities to practise the communication and critical thinking skills that employers are looking for.

Premise:

Encouraging students to engage with the ethical, moral and environmental aspects of engineering in any meaningful way can be a challenge, especially in very large cohorts. In the Mechanical Engineering department at the University of Bath we have developed a debate activity which appears to work very well, minimising the amount of assessment, maximising feedback and engagement, and exposing the students to a wide range of topics and views.

In our case, the debate comes after a very intensive second year design unit and it is couched as a slightly “lighter touch” assignment, ahead of the main summer assessment period. The debate format targets the deeper learning of Bloom’s taxonomy and is the logical point in our programme to challenge students to develop these critical thinking skills.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.” New York: David McKay Co Inc.

This activity addresses two of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) fourth edition: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.

The debate format:

Several weeks prior to the unit starting, academic staff are asked to submit ideas for technical engineering conundrums as topics for debate; the topics need to be current and include ethical, moral, environmental and technical feasibility aspects.
The cohort is divided into randomly formed groups (aiming for six members in each). An even number of groups is essential (half being pro vs half being anti).
Each pair of groups is assigned a debate topic, with odd numbered groups arguing in favour of the statement, even numbered groups arguing against.
Each group then spends a couple of weeks researching the topic (we weave this in around Easter so the precise timings vary). Studio/tutorial sessions are used by the groups to (a) clarify the scope and intent of the question posed, (b) try out their arguments, and (c) obtain differing perspectives from academic support staff.
We provide supporting lectures covering environmental considerations and commercial imperatives; there is scope to include ethical issues within this.
On debate day the cohort is further divided so that we can run four concurrent debate sessions and keep the timings reasonable.
Each debate room is set up with the two teams in a “v” formation facing each-other and the audience. The typical timings of a debate session are provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Timings for technical feasibility debate. There is plenty of scope to alter these timings
and allow a healthy debate from the floor and further exploration of the key arguments.

The audience is asked to vote (using a QR code unique to each session) and the winning team is declared. The votes are revealed in real time and are displayed, adding an element of theatre.
There are no marks on the debate at this stage; attendance is notionally compulsory but in fact we have near full attendance. In any event, the sense of anticipation, duty to one’s team and a desire to eavesdrop on colleagues’ debate tactics (arguments) drives the activity. Staff from across the department are invited to attend those sessions related to their interests and research; they often chime in with questions from the floor and provide an interesting perspective for the students to take into the final deliverable – a six-minute video presentation of their argument.
The videos are marked by a panel of three academics (a number greater than three and there tends to be an inevitable dilution of marks at the extreme ends of the spectrum).
Following marking, the videos are made available to the rest of the cohort (in our case, hosted on Panopto) so that they can further engage in topics of their choosing and understand why they were allocated the mark they were.

Some key points to bear in mind:

The students do not get the opportunity to choose a topic or indeed which side of the argument they are required to argue. This is presented to the students by asking them to imagine they were a defence counsel at court, having to defend a notorious criminal; in order to ensure the safety of the conviction they would have to acquaint themselves with every weakness, every potential flaw in the prosecution’s case and to anticipate the “killer questions”. Take for example a team of engineering undergraduates who are all keen F1 enthusiasts and are placed in a position of having to take the negative position and argue against F1 as a sport (the actual debate topic is shown below).

The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies.

For clarity, the term “Affirmative” means they are arguing for the proposal, “Negative” implies they are arguing against the proposal. The Negative argument includes the bracketed word in all cases.

Equally the team given the “affirmative” position to argue in favour of the sport, needs to be certain of their arguments and to fully research and anticipate any potential killer questions from their opponents.

It will be seen that this challenges the students and indeed the audience (staff included) to confront some uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, exposing those present to the deeper research undertaken by the students in preparation for the debate as well as to the broader contexts of engineering and its macroethical implications.
Asking for a video submission a few days after the debate forces the students to assimilate the counter arguments and update or revise their presentation and indeed potentially their entire approach.
The first time this debate format was trialled was as an entirely online (remote) activity (forced upon us by the pandemic). Thanks to the sterling work on the requisite IT/AV side by colleagues (acknowledged below) it worked very well in this format and was universally acclaimed as a success by staff and students alike (receiving positive feedback and high unit evaluation scores). In this format it was a gruelling three and a half hour exercise, but it allowed students, who had hitherto been isolated from their wider cohort, to engage in the banter and atmosphere from afar. There was an element of student voting in this first iteration of this exercise and a real sense of healthy competition and energy.

Discussion points for improvements:

The use of microphones in front of each team and for the session chair/MC would improve engagement from the entire audience.
An element of peer marking might heighten engagement further but might also be problematic with students influencing the actual unit marks of their peers.
Directly linking academic research and teaching material to the topics for debate might encourage a more engaged and critical cohort in later units and might also potentially send the students out on placement better prepared and more aware.

We felt that our experience with what has become known as the Technical Feasibility Debate was worth sharing with the wider higher education community, and hope that readers will learn from our experience and implement their own version.

Acknowledgements:

Dr Joseph Flynn – unit convener and co-originator of the debate format.
Dr Ed Elias – for his excellent lecture providing the students with some insight into the commercial imperatives impacting their arguments.
Dr Rick Lupton – for his excellent lecture and supporting material giving the students an environmental and lifecycle analysis perspective to their arguments.
Dr Nathan Sell – for his technical, IT and AV contribution (including the voting system) which made the new format possible.
Dr Elies Dekoninck – as head of the design group in Bath for her encouragement and support in trialling these new approaches.

Appendices:

Typical list of debate topics:

Gas turbines are (not) a dying technology for aircraft propulsion.
Cumbrian super coal mine: there is (no) justification for accessing these fossil fuel reserves.
Metal additive manufacturing, 3D Printing, is (not) a sustainable technology.
Mining the Moon/asteroids for minerals, helium, etc. should (not) be permitted.
Electrification of lorries via hydrogen fuel cell technology is (not) preferable to changing the road infrastructure to include overhead power lines (or similar).
Electrification of road vehicles is (not) preferable to using cleaner fuel alternatives in internal combustion engine cars.
The use of single use plastic packaging is (not) defensible when weighed up against increases in food waste.
The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies.
Solar technologies should (not) take a larger share of future UK investment compared to wind technologies.
Tidal turbines will (never) produce more than 10% of the UK’s power.
Wave energy converters are (never) going to be viable as a clean energy resource.
Commercial sailing vessels should (not) be used to transport non-perishable goods around the globe.
We should (not) trust algorithms over humans in safety-critical settings, for example autonomous vehicles.
Inventing and manufacturing new technologies is (not) more likely to help us address the climate emergency than reverting to less technologically and energy intense practices
Mechanical Engineering will (not) one day be conducted entirely within the Metaverse, or similar.
The financial contribution and scientific effort directed towards fundamental physics research, for example particle accelerators, is (not) justified with regard to the practical challenges humanity currently faces.
A total individual annual carbon footprint quota would (not) be the best way to reduce our carbon emissions.
The UK power grid will (not) be overwhelmed by the shift to electrification in the next decade.
We are (not) more innovative than we were in the past – breakthrough innovations are (not) still being made.
Lean manufacturing and supply chains have (not) been exposed during the pandemic.

Marking rubric:

Criteria	5	4	3	2	1
1. Organisation and Clarity:  Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way.	Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.	Completely clear and orderly presentation.	Mostly clear and orderly in all parts.	Clear in some parts but not overall.	Unclear and disorganised throughout.
2. Use of Argument:  Reasons are given to support the resolution.	Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.	Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout.	Many good arguments given, with only minor problems.	Some decent arguments, but some significant problems.	Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems.
3. Presentation Style:  Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. Neatly presented and engaging slides, making use of images and multimedia content.	Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.	All style features were used convincingly.	Most style features were used convincingly.	Few style features were used convincingly.	Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly.

References:

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

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

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

Author: Professor Manuela Rosa (Algarve University).

Keywords: Societal impact; Equity; Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI); Design; Justice; Equity; Communication; Global responsibility.

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate social sustainability, EDI, and ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help to prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.

Premise:

The Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on 9 December 1975, stipulated protection of the rights of people with disabilities. The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity, demands that all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, must recognise that the dignity of the human person is fundamental and so the development of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals must meet all segments of society in a way that “no one will be left behind”.

In relation to engineering, The Statement of Ethical Principles published by the Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2005 and revised in 2017, articulates one of its strategic challenges to be positioning engineering at the heart of society, enhancing its wellbeing, improving the quality of the built environment, and promoting EDI. To uphold these principles, engineering professionals are required to promote social equity, guaranteeing equal opportunities to access the built environment and transportation systems, enabling the active participation of all citizens in society, including vulnerable groups. The universal design approach is one method that engineers can use to ensure social sustainability.

The challenges of universal and inclusive design:

Every citizen must have the same equality of opportunities in using spaces because the existence of an accessible built environment is fundamental to guarantee vitality, safety, and sociability. These ethical values associated with the technical decision-making process were considered by the American architect Ronald Lawrence Mace (1941-1998) who defined the universal design concept as “designing all products, buildings and exterior spaces to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible” (Mace et al., 1991), thus contributing to social inclusion.

Universal accessibility according to this universal design approach is “the characteristic of an environment or object which enables everybody to enter into a relationship with, and make use of, that object or environment in a friendly, respectful and safe way” (Aragall et al., 2003). It focuses on people with reduced mobility, such as people with disabilities (mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive dimensions), children and elderly people. Built environment and transport systems must be designed considering this equity attribute which is associated with social sustainability and inclusion.

The Center for Universal Design of the North Carolina State University developed seven principles of universal design (Connell et al., 1997):

1. Equitable use

2. Flexibility in use

3. Simple and intuitive use

4. Perceptible information

5. Tolerance for error

6. Low physical effort

7. Size and space for approach and use.  

These principles must always be incorporated in the conception of products and physical environments, so as to create a ‘fair built’ environment, where all have the right to use it, in the same independent and natural way. This justice design must guarantee autonomy in the use of spaces and transport vehicles, contributing to the self-determination of citizens.

The perceptions of the space users are fundamental to be considered in the design process to achieve the usability of the built environment and transport systems. Pedestrian infrastructure design and modal interfaces demand user-centred approaches and therefore processes of co-design and co-creation with communities, where people are effectively involved as collaborators and participants.

Achieving an inclusive society is a great challenge because there are situations where the needs of users are divergent: technical solutions created for a specific group of people are inadequate for others. For example, wheelchair users and elderly people need smooth surfaces and, on the contrary, blind people need tactile surfaces.

Consequently, in the process of universal design, some people can feel excluded because they need other technical solutions. It is then necessary to consider precise inclusive design when projecting urban spaces for all.

Universal design is linked with designing one-space-suits-almost-all, and inclusive design focuses on one-space-suits-one, for example design a space for everyone (collective perspective) versus design a space for one specific group (particular perspective). As the built environment must be understandable to and usable by all people, both are important for social sustainability. Universal design contributes to social inclusion, but added inclusive design is needed, matching the excluded users to the object or space design.

In order to promote social inclusion and quality of life, to which everyone is entitled, universal and inclusive co-design of the built environment and the transportation systems demands specific approaches that have to be integrated in engineering education:

Universal and inclusive co-design aims at considering human diversity and that “it is normal to be different”.
Universal and inclusive co-design requires strong collaborative approaches, through surveys, face to face interviews, walking with people with disabilities, elderly people, and other vulnerable groups.
Universal and inclusive co-design must consider different components of the built environment and transportation systems, and requires connectivity and a strategic value chain approach.
Universal and inclusive co-design demands cross-sectorial and interdisciplinary work, in transdisciplinary approaches.
Universal and inclusive co-design benefits all the population.
Universal and inclusive co-design is a fundamental tool for sustainable design.

Conclusion:

Universal and inclusive co-design of the built environment and transportation systems must be seen as an ethical act in engineering. Co-design for social sustainability can be strengthened through engineering acts. Ethical responsibility must be assumed to create inclusive solutions considering human diversity, empowering engineers to act and design justice.

There is a strong need for engineers to possess a set of skills and competencies related to the ability to work with other professionals (for example from the social sciences), users, or collaborators. In the 21st century, beyond the use of technical knowledge to solve problems, engineers need communication skills to achieve the sustainable development goals, requiring networking, cooperating in teams, and working with communities.

Engineering education must consider transdisciplinary approaches which make clear progress in tackling urban challenges and finding human-centred solutions. Universal and inclusive co-design must be incorporated routinely into the practice of engineers and assumed in Engineering Ethics Codes.

References:

Aragall, F. and EuCAN members, (2003) European Concept for Accessibility: Technical Assistance Manual. Luxemburg: EuCAN – European Concept for Accessibility Network.

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M. and Vanderheiden, G. (1997) The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. USA.

Mace, R. L., Hardie G. J. and Place, J. P. (1991) ‘Accessible environments: Toward universal design,’ in W.E. Preiser, J.C. Vischer, E.T. White (Eds.). Design Intervention: Toward a More Human Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 155-180.

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. (1975). Proclaimed by G/A/RES 3447 of 9 December 1975.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015, New York.

Additional resources:

RAEng/Engineering Council Statement of Ethical Principles

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

Case Enhancement: Choosing to install a smart meter

Activity: Technical integration – Practical investigation of electrical energy.

Author: Mr Neil Rogers (Independent Scholar).

Overview:

This enhancement is for an activity found in the Dilemma Part two, Point 1 section of the case: “Technical integration – Undertake an electrical engineering technical activity related to smart meters and the data that they collect.”

This activity involves practical tasks requiring the learner to measure parameters to enable electrical energy to be calculated in two different scenarios and then relate this to domestic energy consumption. This activity will give technical context to this case study as well as partly address two AHEP themes:

AHEP: SM1m – A comprehensive knowledge and understanding of scientific principles and methodology necessary to underpin their education in their engineering discipline, and an understanding and know-how of the scientific principles of related disciplines, to enable appreciation of the scientific and engineering context, and to support their understanding of relevant historical, current and future developments and technologies.
AHEP: EA1m – Understanding of engineering principles and the ability to apply them to undertake critical analysis of key engineering processes.

This activity is in three parts. To fully grasp the concept of electrical energy and truly contextualise what could be a remote and abstract concept to the learner, it is expected that all three parts should be completed (even though slight modifications to the equipment list are acceptable).

Learners are required to have basic (level 2) science knowledge as well as familiarity with the Multimeters and Power Supplies of the institution.

Learners have the opportunity to:

solve given technical tasks relating to the operation of electronic circuits (AHEP: SM1m);
assess the performance of a given electronic circuit (AHEP: EA1m).

Teachers have the opportunity to:

introduce concepts related to electrical circuit theory;
develop learners’ practical abilities and confidence in the use of electronic equipment;
develop learners’ mathematical skills in a practical context.

Suggested pre-reading:

To prepare for these practical activities, teachers may want to explain, or assign students to pre-read articles relating to electrical circuit theory with respect to:

Voltage and Current Power
Energy

Learning and teaching resources:

Bench Power Supply Unit (PSU) & multimeters;
High intensity LEDs and incandescent lamps (and associated data-sheets);
Energy monitor/plug in Power Meter (240V) and stopwatch;
Access to a kettle, fan heater and dishwasher or washing machine.

Activity: Practical investigation of electrical energy:

Task A: Comparing the energy consumed by incandescent bulbs with LEDs.

1. Power in a circuit.

By connecting the bulbs and LEDs in turn to the PSU with a meter in series:

a. Compare the wattage of the two devices.

b. On interpretation of their data sheets compare their luminous intensities.

c. Equate the quantity of each device to achieve a similar luminous intensity of approximately 600 Lumens (a typical household bulb equivalent).

d. now equate the wattages required to achieve this luminous intensity for the two devices.

2. Energy = Power x Time.

The units used by the energy providers are kWh:

a. Assuming the devices are on for 6 hours/day and 365 days/year, calculate the energy consumption in kWh for the two devices.

b. Now calculate the comparative annual cost assuming 1 kWh = 27p ! (update rate).

3. Wider implications.

a. Are there any cost-benefit considerations not covered?

b. How might your findings affect consumer behaviour in ways that could either negatively or positively impact sustainability?

c. Are there any ethical factors to be considered when choosing LED lightbulbs? For instance, you might investigate minerals and materials used for manufacturing and processing and how they are extracted, or end-of-life disposal issues, or fairness of costs (both relating to production and use).

Task B: Using a plug-in power meter.

1. Connect the power meter to a dishwasher or washing machine and run a short 15/30 minute cycle and record the energy used in kWh.

2. Connect the power meter to a ½ filled kettle and turn on, noting the instantaneous power (in watts) and the time taken. Then calculate the energy used and compare to the power meter.

3. Connect the power meter to the fan heater and measure the instantaneous power. Now calculate the daily energy consumption in kWh for a fan heater on for 6 hours/day.

4. Appreciation of consumption of electrical energy over a 24 hour period (in kWh) is key. What are the dangers in reading instantaneous energy readings from a smart meter?

Task C: Calculation of typical domestic electrical energy consumption.

1. Using the list of items in Appendix A, calculate the typical electrical energy usage/day for a typical household.

2. Now compare the electrical energy costs per day and per year for these three suppliers, considering how suppliers source their energy (i.e. renewable vs fossil fuels vs nuclear etc).

	Standing charge cost / day	Cost per kWh	Cost / day	Cost / year
A)	48p	28p
B)	45p	31p
C)	51p	27p

3. Does it matter that data is collected every 30 minutes by your energy supplier? What implications might changing the collection times have?

4. With reference to Sam growing marijuana in the case, how do you think this will show up in his energy bill?

Appendix A: Household electrical devices power consumption:

Typical power consumption of electrical devices on standby (in Watts).

Wi-Fi router	10
TV & set top box	20
Radios & alarms	10
Dishwasher	5
Washing machine	5
Cooker & heat-ring controls	10
Gaming devices	10
Laptops x2	10

Typical consumption of electrical devices when active (in Watts) and assuming Gas central heating.

TV & set top box (assume 5 hours / day)	120
Dishwasher (assume 2 cycles / week)	Use calculated
Washing machine (assume 2 cycles / week)	Use calculated
Cooking (oven, microwave etc 1 hour / day)	1000
Gaming devices (1 hour / day)	100
Laptop ( 1 hour / day)	70
Kettle (3 times / day)	Use calculated
Heating water pump (2 hours / day)	150
Electric shower (8 mins / day)	8000

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

Theme: Collaborating with industry for teaching and learning

Authors: Prof Lucy Rogers (RAEng Visiting Professor at Brunel University, London and freelance engineering consultant) and Petra Gratton (Associate Dean of Professional Development and Graduate Outcomes in the College of Engineering, Design and Physical Science at Brunel University London, and Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering)

Keywords: Industry, Interview, Video, Real Life, Engineers

Abstract: A number of short videos that can be re-used in teaching undergraduate modules in Engineering Business, instead of inviting guest presentations. The interview technique got each individual to talk about their life experiences and topics in engineering business that are often considered mundane (or challenging) for engineers, such as ethics, risks and regulation, project management, innovation, intellectual property, life-cycle assessment, finance and creativity. They also drew attention to their professional development.

Project outcomes

The outcomes of this project are a number of short videos that were used, and can be re-used, in teaching delivery of an undergraduate module in Engineering Business in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Brunel University London instead of having guest presentations from invited speakers. Lucy’s interview technique got the individuals featured in each film to talk about their life experiences and topics in engineering business that are often considered mundane (or challenging) for engineers, such as ethics, risks and regulation, project management, innovation, intellectual property, life-cycle assessment and finance; and drew attention to their professional development.

The shorter videos were inspirational for students to make videos of themselves as part of the assessment of the module, which required them to carry out a personal professional reflection exercise and report upon what they had learned from the exercise in a simple 90-second video using their smartphone or laptop.

Having used the videos with Brunel students, Lucy has made them available on her YouTube channel: Dr Lucy Rogers – YouTube. Each of the videos are listed in the following table:

Topic	Who	Video Link
Creativity in Engineering: Your CV	Reid Derby	https://youtu.be/qQILO4uXJ24
Creativity in Engineering: Your CV	Leigh-Ann Russell	https://youtu.be/LJLG2SH0CwM
Creativity in Engineering: Your CV	Richard Hopkins	https://youtu.be/tLQ7lZ3nlvg
Corporate Social Responsibility	Alexandra Knight (Amey Strategic Consulting)	https://youtu.be/N7ojL6id_BI
Ethics and Diversity	Alexandra Knight (Amey Strategic Consulting)	https://youtu.be/Q4MhkLQqWuI
Project Management and Engineers	Fiona Neads (Rolls Royce)	https://youtu.be/-TZlwk6HuUI
Project Management – Life Cycle	Paul Kahn (Aerospace and Defence Industry)	https://youtu.be/1Z4ZXMLRPt4
Ethics at Work	Emily Harford (UKAEA)	https://youtu.be/gmBq9FIX6ek
Communication Skills at Work	Emily Harford (UKAEA)	https://youtu.be/kmgAlyz7OhI
Client Brief	Andy Stanford-Clark (IBM)	https://youtu.be/WNYhDA317wE
Intellectual Property from Artist’s Point of View	Dave Corney (Artist and Designer)	https://youtu.be/t4pLkletXIs
Intellectual Property	Andy Stanford-Clark (IBM)	https://youtu.be/L5bO0IdxKyI
Project Management	Fiona Neads – Rolls Royce	https://youtu.be/XzgS5SJhiA0

Lessons learned and reflections

We learned that students generally engaged with the videos that were used. Depending which virtual learning environment (VLE) was being used, using pre-recorded videos in synchronous online lectures presents various challenges. To avoid any unplanned glitches, in future we know to use the pre-recorded videos as part of the teaching-delivery preparation (e.g. in a flipped classroom mode).

As part of her legacy, Lucy is going to prepare a set of simple instructions on producing video interviews that can be carried out by both staff and students in future.

Theme: Knowledge exchange, Universities’ and businesses’ shared role in regional development, Collaborating with industry for teaching and learning, Research

Author: Prof Sa’ad Sam Medhat (IKE Institute)

Keywords: Innovation Benchmarking, Innovation Portfolios, Innovation-driven Leadership, ISO 56002, Industrial Collaboration, Growth

Abstract: The Institute of Innovation and Knowledge Exchange works closely with business and industry as well as with universities (e.g. City of Birmingham, Plymouth, Westminster). The case study will feature the application of the Investor in Innovations Standard (Aligned to the ISO 56002 Innovation Management System) within the Research, Innovation, Enterprise and Employability (RIEE) Directorate of Birmingham City University (BCU). The Case Study will look at six key areas: 1. Strategy and Alignment; 2. Organisational Readiness; 3. Core Capabilities and Technologies; 4. Industry Foresight; 5. Customer Awareness; and 6. Impact and Value.

Introduction

This case study draws upon the work and outcomes of the Investor in Innovations (I3) ISO56002 Standard programme Birmingham City University’s (BCU) Research, Innovation, Enterprise and Employability (RIEE) department undertook with IKE Institute to benchmark their existing innovation capabilities, identify gaps and provide an action plan for future improvement in innovation and knowledge exchange (KE).

The validation and benchmarking work conducted with BCU RIEE used a six category standard framework (see fig. 1): strategy and alignment, organisational readiness, core capabilities, technologies and IP, industry foresight, customer awareness and impact and value.

Fig. 1 Investor in Innovations ISO56002 Standard Framework

Aim

The aim of the case study was to examine each of these categories to assess how knowledge exchange methodologies, practices, tools and techniques were being used to support the university’s innovation ambitions, and ultimately, to drive up value and impact.

Innovation and knowledge exchange are inextricably linked (see fig. 2). Innovation needs knowledge exchange to fuel every stage of its process, from listening and discovery, through design and experimentation to implementation and measurement. Conversely, knowledge exchange needs innovation to create a focus for engagement. Innovation gives knowledge exchange its creative, entrepreneurial spirit. The two are required to work in unison if an organisation is to achieve higher levels of innovation maturity.

Fig. 2 The link between the innovation process and knowledge exchange

Enabling innovation and knowledge exchange to work concurrently was shown to be a central theme within RIEE, exemplified, particularly, through their STEAMhouse project (see fig. 3). A collaborative innovation campus which provides product and service innovation and knowledge exchange to business.

Fig 3. BCU RIEE’s STEAMhouse project

Strategy and alignment

The critical aspect of this category was to examine BCU’s Innovation Strategy and how well aligned this was to the overall 2025 Strategy for the university. An underpinning element of the innovation strategy, was reviewing, supporting and improving their innovation ecosystem partners (both business and industry and academic), widening and growing their STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics) communities of practice, and supporting direct knowledge exchange through the roll-out of commercialisation policies, training, capital and digital infrastructure to support more students and entrepreneurs.

Organisational readiness

This category assessed BCU’s innovation culture, creative capabilities and the structures, processes and governance in place to support innovation developments. When examined through the knowledge exchange lens, these areas translated into BCU’s ability to use KE to spark discussion, curiosity and inspire creativity accelerating the build up of a virtuous growth mindset. BCU have engaged with over 2,500 businesses, and formally assisted 1,425 to start, grow or innovate since 2017/18. BCU demonstrated their ability to leverage this landscape to create powerful sub-networks within their wider ecosystem for greater knowledge exchange, thus, generating a force multiplier at every stage of their innovation process. Internally, dissemination of innovation wins and promotion of ideas sharing has ramped up the institution’s innovation knowledge base and underpinned a sustainable innovation pipeline of activities.

Core capabilities, technologies and IP

For an institution like BCU, this category focused on building capacity in expertise and resource. Rapid access to external knowledge sources within RIEE’s ecosystem helped to reflect different perspectives from SMEs, larger businesses, other academic stakeholders and industrial representatives from associations and learned societies. Development of 100 innovation ambassadors within RIEE has brought greater access to the ambassadors’ own communities of practice and collaborative networks. The use of crowdsourcing mechanisms such as innovation challenges, have helped build momentum around specific product, service or societal problems. Use of collaborative knowledge STEAM tools such as STEAM Sprints, have enabled greater creative problem solving and refinement of selected ideas.

Industry foresight

At the heart of this category is knowledge exchange. Through analysis and synthesis, information becomes intelligence supporting innovation directions. Within RIEE, long-established and engrained partnerships with external stakeholders and engagement on industry forums have been utilised to acquire sectoral knowledge and key market intelligence informing and shaping the exploration and exploitation of new scientific, technological and engineering discoveries. The university’s representation on key regional advisory boards positioned them as thought leaders and led to sculpting regional strategies and plans.

Customer awareness

BCU’s Public and Community Engagement Strategy forms the basis for mechanisms to drive productive knowledge exchange. This category focused on understanding the needs of the customer and involving them in the innovation development process. RIEE demonstrated its ability to use collaborative networks and customer ecosystems to identify challenges. They harnessed co-creation practices and funding – e.g. Proof of Concept Support Fund for Staff – to then deliver innovative solutions.

Effective knowledge exchange requires coherent, relevant and accurate data. Through BCU’s CRM, segmentation and narrow-casting has been achieved. This targeting of specific information through BCU’s online platforms and social media channels has encouraged 13,591 connections with businesses and proliferated greater knowledge exchange with over 2,500 engaged relationships.

Impact and value

This category’s focus ensured that a structured approach to implementation was adopted to maximise commercial success, and measurement of the innovation process meets organisational objectives. In this context, BCU’s community engagement and knowledge exchange through multiple pathways helped to underpin continual improvement of RIEE’s innovation process. The positive impact of knowledge exchange for RIEE has been defined by the development of STEAMhouse project – phase 2, and the creation of BCU Enterprises, to further drive the impact of RIEE, including research, experimentation, exploitation, and commercialisation of product IP and service know-how in STEAM disciplines.

Outcomes

Gaps were identified across all six of the I3 Standard framework categories. The key improvements in KE included:

Identifying methods to activate critical behaviours in staff, students and ecosystem partners, to encourage greater sharing and knowledge exchange;

Clustering innovation activities around key technology domains and IP assets, enabling more targeted knowledge exchange with partners, suppliers and customers within the innovation ecosystem;

Developing a more systematic way to communicate and engage with innovation partners yearly, to assess change in customers’ ecosystems, curate priorities of demand and increase BCU’s innovation maturity level;

Identifying more targeted KPIs to measure RIEE’s activities, thus determining progress and success, return on innovation investment and yield value.

Theme: Collaborating with industry for teaching and learning, Graduate employability and recruitment

Author: James Ford (University College London)

Keywords: Civil Engineering Design, Building Information Modelling, BIM, Digital Engineering, Industry, Collaboration

Abstract: This project, developed jointly with industry partners at Multiplex, allowed Civil Engineering students at UCL to develop their understanding and technical skills around the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) on civil engineering projects and related software. Students worked on a model of an emergency shelter (designed by UCL alumnus) and were required to consider the relevant parties involved (technical and non-technical), the information they require and how to utilise the model to organise and communicate this information effectively.

Background

Digital engineering tools and Building Information Modelling (BIM) are increasingly becoming important features of modern construction projects. The design teaching team in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (CEGE) at University College London (UCL) recognised the need to embed this practice into parts of the design teaching delivery for students on the Civil Engineering undergraduate programmes.

UCL and Mulitplex (civil engineering contractor) had been partnering on school outreach activities for several years. A discussion at such an event led to a realisation that there was good alignment on how these topics should be taught, with a focus on information and communication rather than modelling. Staff at UCL had already started developing a project that would involve using elements of BIM in the design development of an emergency shelter for humanitarian relief and that the project should encourage students to think about the information and communication aspects of this. The digital engineering team at Multiplex then agreed to join the project and provide technical assistance, to develop and deliver teaching materials and to provide real life examples and case studies to supplement the project.

The Brief

Students were provided with a pre-developed REVIT® model of an emergency shelter design made, predominantly, from timber. The shelter had been designed by a UCL alumnus during their time as a UCL student and agreement was granted to use it for this project. Students were presented with an imagined scenario that they were working for a charity that was planning to build 10 of these shelters in Haiti to assist with humanitarian relief effort following an earthquake. The students needed to consider which parties would need to be communicated with, what information they would need, how this information could be communicated with them and how the digital model could assist with this process.

Figure 1. Image of Emergency Shelter model in REVIT®

Students were encouraged to consider (but not limited to) included:

Design information (limits, assumptions, etc)
Commercial
Construction (programme, logistics and sequencing)
Health and safety
Environmental factors
Handover information and future maintenance requirements

Students were required to research the relevant information and populate the REVIT® model appropriately and professionally.

Requirements

Teams (of 6) were required to provide a 10xA3 page report that would run through each of the potential parties to communicated with, what information they would need and how the model would be used to enable this communication. They also needed to describe any assumptions that were made and how information was selected during the research phase. They needed to highlight the critical thinking that had been carried out in relation to sources of information and its suitability and reliability.

Figure 2. Use of model to explain construction sequence

Teams also needed to submit their completed REVIT® model files for inspection as well as an 8 min video presentation that would:

Present the completed model and show competency in finding the relevant information for different elements
Showcase how the model enhanced communication to each of the relevant parties
Explain how the team collaborated to produce a justified proposal
Discuss problems encountered and how they were overcome

Emergency Shelter Digital Design Project, A UCL / Multiplex Collaboration

Figure 3. External view of model

Delivery

Course material was delivered over 4 sessions with a final session for presentations:

Session 1: Project introduction and software introduction

Session 2: (i) Information and exporting in REVIT®. (ii) Commercial overview

Session 3: (i) Construction and Logistics. (ii) Health, safety and environmental factors

Session 4: (i) Handover requirements. (ii) Maintainable assets. (iii) Building management

Session 5: Student presentations

Sessions were co-designed and delivered by a UCL academic and a digital manager from Multiplex. The sessions involved a mixture of elements incl. taught, tutorial and workshop time that allowed students to work in their groups.

Learning / Skills Development

The project aimed to develop skills and learning in the following areas:

Improve REVIT® / software skills
Understand the benefits of BIM to a multi-party construction project particularly in relation to information and communication.
Improve construction knowledge
Recognise that digital technology isn’t a replacement for engineering knowledge and input.
Improve employability of students by equipping them with relevant and up-to-date construction tools and techniques.

Benefits of Collaborating

The first benefit was the inspirational aspect of working on a shelter design that had been produced by a former UCL student. This Alumnus contributed to the introduction session by running through their design and this helped students understand just how much had been achieved by someone in their position.

The collaboration with Multiplex’s digital team brought obvious benefits to the technical skills development but also benefitted student understanding by showing how these skills are being used on live construction sites. The process of learning from and presenting to practicing construction professionals also allowed students to develop key professional behavioural skills that help develop and enhance employability.

Reflections and Feedback

Reflections and feedback from all staff involved was that the work produced was of a high quality and that this demonstrated an understanding of the project objectives from the student perspective. It was also apparent that students were becoming adept at using REVIT® software effectively and appropriately.

Wider feedback from students in the module review was very positive about the project and that it had improved their understanding of the role of digital technologies in the construction industry. Students said in feedback “BIM has helped us to look at all aspects of the design and to figure out more stuff in the same amount of time,” and, “Doing it this way [REVIT model] means you can see what you think might be a risk to the workers more easily.”

Several students posted positively about the project on their LinkedIn profiles, possibly suggesting a link between the project and employability in the minds of the students.

2 of the students successfully applied for summer internships with Multiplex’s digital team immediately following the project and were able to build on their digital engineering skills further.

The project was featured by trade magazine BIMPlus which ran an article on the project showcasing the relative novelty and uniqueness of the approach taken.

Theme: Graduate employability and recruitment, Collaborating with industry for teaching and learning

Authors: Bob Tricklebank (Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology) and Sue Parr (WMG, University of Warwick).

Keywords: Partnerships, Academic, Industry

Abstract: This case study illustrates how, through a commitment to established guiding principles, open communication, a willingness to challenge and be challenged, flexibility and open communication, it’s possible to design and deliver a degree apprenticeship programme that is more than the sum of its parts.

Introduction

Dyson is driven by a simple mission: to solve the problems that others seem to ignore. From the humble beginnings of the world’s first bagless vacuum cleaner, Dyson is now a global research and technology company with engineering, research, manufacturing and testing operations in the UK, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. The company employs 14,000 people globally including 6,000 engineers and scientists. Its portfolio of engineering expertise, supported by a £3 million per week investment into R&D, encompasses areas from solid-state batteries and high-speed digital motors to machine learning and robotics.

Alongside its expansive technology evolution, Dyson has spent the past two decades supporting engineering education in the UK through its charitable arm, the James Dyson Foundation. The James Dyson Foundation engages at all stages of the engineering pipeline, from providing free resources and workshops to primary and secondary schools to supporting students in higher education through bursaries, PhD funding and capital donations to improve engineering facilities.

It was against this backdrop of significant investment in innovation and genuine passion for engineering education that Sir James Dyson chose to take a significant next step and set up his own higher education provider: the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology.

The ambition was always to establish an independent higher education provider, able to deliver and award its own degrees under the New Degree Awarding Powers provisions created by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. But rather than wait the years that it would take for the requisite regulatory frameworks to appear and associated applications to be made and quality assurance processes to be passed, the decision was made to make an impact in engineering education as quickly as possible, by beginning delivery in partnership with an established university.

Finding the right partner

The search for the right university partner began by setting some guiding principles; the non-negotiable expectations that any potential partner would be expected to meet, grounded in Dyson’s industrial expertise and insight into developing high-calibre engineering talent.

1.An interdisciplinary programme

Extensive discussions with Dyson’s engineering leaders, as well as a review of industry trends, made one thing very clear: the engineers of the future would need to be interdisciplinarians, able to understand mechanical, electronic and software engineering, joining the dots between disciplines to develop complex, connected products. Any degree programme delivered at the Dyson Institute would need to reflect that – alongside industrial relevance and technical rigour.

2. Delivered entirely on the Dyson Campus

It was essential that delivery of the degree programme took place on the same site on which learners would be working as Undergraduate Engineers, ensuring a holistic experience. There could be no block release of learners from the workplace for weeks at a time: teaching needed to be integrated into learners’ working weeks, supporting the immediate application of learning and maintaining integration into the workplace community.

3. Actively supported by the Dyson Institute

This would not be a bipartisan relationship between employer and training provider. The fledgling Dyson Institute would play an active role in the experience of the learners, contributing to feedback and improvements and gaining direct experience of higher education activity by shadowing the provider.

WMG, University of Warwick

Dyson entered into discussions with a range of potential partners. But WMG, University of Warwick immediately stood out from the crowd.

Industrial partnership was already at the heart of WMG’s model. In 1980 Professor Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya founded WMG to deliver his vision to improve the competitiveness of the UK’s manufacturing sector through the application of value-adding innovation, new technologies and skills development. Four decades later, WMG continues to drive innovation through its pioneering research and education programmes, working in partnership with private and public organisations to deliver a real impact on the economy, society and the environment.

WMG is an international role model for how universities and businesses can successfully work together; part of a Top 10 UK ranked and Top 100 world-ranked university.

WMG’s expertise in working with industrial partners meant that they understood the importance of flexibility and were willing to evolve their approach to meet Dyson’s expectations – from working through the administrative challenge of supporting 100% delivery on the Dyson Campus, to developing a new degree apprenticeship programme.

Academics at WMG worked closely with Dyson engineers, who offered their insight into the industrial relevance of the existing programme – regularly travelling to WMG to discuss their observations in person and develop new modules. This resulted in a degree with a decreased focus on group work and project management, skills that learners would gain in the workplace at Dyson, and an increased focus on software, programming and more technically focused modules.

Importantly, WMG was supportive of Dyson’s intention to set up an entirely independent higher education provider. Rather than see a potential competitor, WMG saw the opportunity to play an important part in shaping the future of engineering education, to engage in reciprocal learning and development alongside a start-up HE provider and to hone its portfolio for future industrial partnerships.

The programme

In September 2017, the Dyson Institute opened its doors to its first cohort of 33 Undergraduate Engineers onto a BEng in Engineering degree apprenticeship, delivered over four years and awarded by the University of Warwick.

Two days per week are dedicated to academic study. The first day is a full day of teaching, with lecturers from WMG travelling to the Dyson Campus to engage in onsite delivery. The second day is a day of self-study, with lecturers available to answer questions and help embed learning. The remaining three days are spent working on live engineering projects within Dyson.

The first two years of the programme are deliberately generalist, while years three and four offer an opportunity to specialise. This academic approach is complemented in the workplace, with Undergraduate Engineers spending their first two years rotating through six different workplace teams, from electronics and software to research and product development, before choosing a single workplace team in which to spend their final two years. Final year projects are based on work undertaken in that team.

The Dyson Institute enhances WMG’s provision in a variety of ways, including administration of the admissions process, the provision of teaching and learning facilities, pastoral support, health and wellbeing support, social and extra-curricular opportunities, monitoring of student concerns and professional development support.

Key enhancements include the provision of Student Support Advisors (one per cohort), a dedicated resource to manage learners’ workplace experience, quarterly Wellbeing and Development Days and the Summer Series, a professional development programme designed to address the broader set of skills engineers need, which takes the place of academic delivery across July and August.

Continuous improvement

The collaborative partnership between Dyson, the Dyson Institute and WMG, the University of Warwick did not end when delivery began. Instead, the focus turned to iteration and improvement.

Dyson Institute and WMG programme leadership hold regular meetings to discuss plans, progress and challenges. These conversations are purposefully frank, with honesty on both sides allowing concerns to be raised as soon as they are noted. An important voice in these conversations is that of the student body, whose ‘on the ground experience’ is represented not only through the traditional course representatives, but through stream and workplace representatives.

Even as the Dyson Institute has begun independent delivery (it welcomed its first Dyson Institute-registered Undergraduate Engineers in September 2021), both partners remain dedicated to improving the student experience. The current focus is on increasing WMG’s onsite presence as well as the regularity of joint communications to the student body, with a view to supporting a more streamlined approach to challenge resolution.

Authors: Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Sarah Jayne Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Professor Thomas Lennerfors (Uppsala University); Claire Donovan (Royal Academy of Engineering); Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot Watt University); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).

Topic: Low earth orbit satellites for internet provision.

Engineering disciplines: Electronics, Mechanical engineering.

Ethical issues: Respect for environment, Public good, Future generations.

Professional situations: Communication, Management, Working cultures.

Educational level: Intermediate.

Educational aim: Practise ethical analysis. Ethical analysis is a process by which ethical issues are defined, affected parties and consequences are identified, so that relevant moral principles can be applied to a situation in order to determine possible courses of action.

Learning and teaching notes:

This case is about an experienced engineer leading a team at a tech start-up. The company has been awarded a contract to produce an innovative satellite that will be used in an internet constellation. While the team was initially excited about their work, some members are now concerned about the impact of the internet constellation. While mainly focused on environmental ethics, effects on human communities are also raised in this case study.

This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.

The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, this section enables students to practise different types of analysis and to introduce aspects of environmental ethics. It highlights the challenges of making ethical decisions with global consequences, in scenarios where policy isn’t clear. Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning by focusing on the course of actions taken by an individual engineer based on the dilemma presented in Part one. The Challenge of Environmental Ethics linked below is recommended, though not required, for students engaging with this case. Additionally, throughout the case, there is the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.

Learners have the opportunity to:

identify and define positions on an ethical issue;
learn fundamental concepts of environmental ethics;
practise applying moral theories such as consequentialism and justice;
consider short- and long-term consequences of engineering and technological development.

Teachers have the opportunity to:

integrate technical content on electrical or mechanical components of communications engineering;
address approaches to professional and / or interpersonal conflict;
introduce or reinforce life cycle analysis;
Informally evaluate critical thinking and analysis.

Learning and teaching resources:

Summary:

After years of working your way up the corporate ladder, you are now Head of Engineering for a tech start-up. The company has won a contract connected to a project creating a constellation of thousands of low Earth orbit satellites. This constellation has the potential to create a reliable system of internet access for areas of the world that are hard to reach by conventional infrastructure. Your company is one of those chosen to develop and build a low-cost, lightweight, efficient satellite that can be produced at scale. This is a huge accomplishment for you, as well as for your company.

Dilemma – Part one:

A conference that brings together various project partners is met by protesters whose message is that the internet constellation has several potential negative impacts for nature and human communities. Disparaging comments have been made about your company’s participation in the project on social media. Some members of your team seem quite rattled by the protests, and you convene at a coffee shop to discuss.

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: Technical analysis – Undertake a technical activity in the areas of electronic and / or mechanical engineering related to internet constellations.

2. Activity: Position analysis – Divide students into three groups—constellation project managers; satellite engineers and protestors. Imagine how their positions are related to the internet constellation. What values might inform their positions? What knowledge might inform their position that the other groups do not have access to or understanding of?

3. Discussion: Environmental analysis – While nature cannot speak for itself, if it could, what might be its position on the internet constellation? What aspects of the natural world might be affected by this technology in both the short- and long-term? For example, are there any direct or indirect effects on the health of humans and the ecosystems around them? Should the natural world of space be treated the same way as the natural world on earth?

4. Discussion: Policy analysis – Who should make decisions about projects that affect nature on a global scale? What laws or regulations exist that govern internet constellations?

5. Discussion and Activity: Moral analysis – Use environmental ethics principles such as intrinsic value and anthropocentrism to debate the project. Beyond environmental concerns, how might other ethical approaches, such as consequentialism or justice, inform positions on the issue?

Dilemma – Part two:

You remind and explain to your team members that they, and the company, have a duty to the client. Everyone has been hired to deliver a specific project and been excited about overcoming the technical challenges to ensure the project’s success. The team agrees, but also expresses concern about aspects that aren’t in the project remit, such as how the satellite will be maintained and what will happen to it at the end of its life. They demand that you pause your work until an ethical review is conducted.

You report all of this to the CEO, who reacts with disappointment and unhappiness at your team’s actions. She argues that the only thing your company is doing is building the satellite: it’s not your responsibility what happens to it afterwards. She feels that it’s your job to get your team back in line and on task. How do you approach this situation?

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion and Activity: How do you respond to this situation? What responsibilities do you have to your team, your boss, and the client? How will you balance these? Are the team’s engineers right to be concerned about the impact of their satellite within the wider constellation, or is it beyond their scope? Role-play an interaction between you and the engineering team, or between you and your boss.

2. Activity: Life cycle analysis – Research life cycles of satellites and their environmental impact.

3. Discussion and Activity: Debate if, and how, we have obligations to future generations. Is it possible to have a moral contract with a person that may never be born? How do we know that people in the future, will value the same things we do now? Both creating the internet constellation and preventing its implementation seem to potentially benefit future generations. How do we balance these ‘goods’ and make a decision on how to proceed? Who gets to decide?

4. Activity: Anatomy of an internet satellite – use the Anatomy of an AI case study as an example of a tether map, showing the inputs and outputs of a device. Create a tether map showing the anatomy of an internet satellite.

Enhancements:

An enhancement for this case study can be found here.

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

Authors: Professor Dawn Bonfield MBE (Aston University);Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).

Topic: Data centres’ impact on sustainable water resources.

Engineering disciplines: Civil engineering, Electronic engineering.

Ethical issues: Sustainability, Respect for environment, Future generations, Risk, Societal impact.

Professional situations: Law or policy, Communication, Integrity.

Educational level: Intermediate.

Educational aim: Practise ethical judgement. Ethical Judgment is the activity of thinking about whether something has a moral attribute. Judgments involve reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.

Learning and teaching notes:

This case involves a situation where environmental damage may be occurring despite the mechanism causing this damage being permissible by law. The engineer at this centre of the case is to represent the company that is responsible for the potential damage, at a council meeting. It requires the engineer to weigh up various harms and goods, and make a decision that could seriously impact their own job or career. There is also a section at the end of this case study that contains technical information providing further details about the water cooling of ICT equipment.

The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired.

Students have the opportunity to:

apply their ethical judgement to a case study relating to environmental sustainability;
judge the societal impact of a technical solution to a complex problem;
identify and analyse objective and subjective risk;
consider the concept of consensus;
communicate the risks and judgements to technical and non-technical audiences.

Teachers have the opportunity to:

introduce environmental ethics concepts related to water;
highlight the components and processes of risk analysis;
integrate technical content related to heat transfer and flow;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.

Learning and teaching resources:

Summary:

The company Data Storage Solutions (DSS) has built a large data centre on land that was historically used for agriculture and owned by a farming operation. DSS was incorporated as a subsidiary of the farming company so that it could retain the water rights that were attached to the property. This ensured access to the large amount of water needed to cool their servers. This centre manages data from a variety of sources including the local hospital and university.

When the property was used as a farm, the farming operation never used its full allocation of water. Now, the data centre always uses the maximum amount legally allotted to it. For the rainy half of the year, this isn’t a problem. However, in more arid months, the nearby river almost runs dry, resulting in large volumes of fish dying. Other farmers in the area have complained that the water level in their wells has dropped, making irrigation much more expensive and challenging.

Dilemma – Part one:

You are a civil engineer working for DSS and have been requested by your boss to represent the company at a forthcoming local council meeting where the issue will be discussed. Your employer is sending you to justify the company’s actions and defend them against accusations of causing an environmental hazard in the local area which is reducing the water table for farmers and affecting local biodiversity. Your boss has told you that DSS has a right to the water and that it does not intend to change its behaviour. This meeting promises to be a contentious one as the local Green party and farmers’ union have indicated that they will be challenging the company’s water usage. How will you prepare for the meeting?

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: Personal values – What is your initial position on the issue? Do you see anything wrong with DSS’s water use? Why, or why not?

2. Discussion: Professional responsibilities – What ethical principles and codes of conduct are relevant to this situation?

3. Activity: Define and identify the relevant data you should compile to take to the meeting. What information do you need in order to be prepared?

4. Activity: Stakeholder mapping – Who are all the characters in the scenario? What are their positions and perspectives? How can you use these perspectives to understand the complexities of the situation more fully? Examples include:

Data Storage Solutions

- Farmers’ union
- Local Green party
- Local council
- Member of the public
- Stakeholders who use DSS’s data storage services (such as the local hospital and schools)
- Non-human stakeholders – for example, the fish, birds and insects.

5. Activity: Undertake a technical activity such as civil and / or electronic engineering related to the measurement of stream flow and calculating data centre cooling needs.

Dilemma – Part two:

As you prepare for the meeting, you reflect on several competing issues. For instance, you are an employee of DSS and have a responsibility to represent its interests, but can see that the company’s actions are environmentally harmful. You appreciate that the data centre is vital for the local community, including the safe running of schools and hospitals, and that its operation requires sufficient water for cooling. Your boss has told you that you must not admit responsibility for any environmental damage or biodiversity loss. You also happen to know that a new green battery plant is planning to open nearby that will create more data demand and has the potential to further increase DSS’s water use. You know that obtaining water from other sources will be costly to DSS and may not be practically possible, let alone commercially viable. What course of action will you pursue?

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Activity: Debate what course of action you should take. Should you take the company line despite knowing about the environmental impacts? Should you risk your reputation or career? What responsibilities do you have to fellow employees, the community, and the environment?

2. Activity: Risk analysis – What are the short- and long- term burdens and benefits of each course of action? Should environmental concerns outweigh others? Is there a difference between the environment locally and globally?

3. Activity and discussion: Read Sandra Postel’s case for a Water Ethic, and consider New Zealand’s recent legislation that gives a rainforest the same rights as a human. With this in mind, does the stream have a right to thrive? Do the fish have a right to a sustainable environment? Are humans ultimately at risk here, or just the environment? Does that answer change your decision? Why?

4. Activity: Prepare a statement for the council meeting. What will you argue?

- You could take the company line and refuse to consider any compromise. After all, you have the legal right to the water.
- You could take the environmentalists’ side and go against your boss, admitting that the company is aware of the environmental damage, but that they refuse to do anything about it.
- You could work up a proposal for obtaining the water from a different source, or alternative technical solutions, despite not having the backing of your boss.
- Are there other alternatives available to you?

5. Activity: The students should interrogate the pros and cons of each possible course of action including the ethical, the practical, the cost, the local relationship and the reputational damage implications. They should decide on their own preferred course of action and explain why the balance of pros and cons is preferable to other options. The students may wish to consider this from other perspectives, such as:

- What actions are available to individuals at each level of hierarchy in DSS – for example, a junior engineer compared to a senior manager?
- What would the best outcome be if the business or cost considerations were of no consequence?
- What course of action would be taken if different perspectives were taken as the priority – for example, if the environmental perspective were the main priority what action would be taken, compared with action taken if the cost to the local economy were the main priority?
- What are the wider implications of data storage on the environment and how can these be mitigated?
- What could be other direct and indirect benefits of data centres, other than being a place to house data – for example, is there an opportunity for the waste heat from DSS to become a benefit? (Use the The city where the internet warms people’s homes article.)
- What are the possible solutions open to you?
- Are there any short-term solutions versus longer-term solutions?

6. Activity: Role-play the council meeting, with students playing different characters representing different perspectives.

7. Activity: Allow students to reflect on how this case study has enabled them to see the situation from different angles, and whether this has helped them to understand the ethical concerns and come to an acceptable conclusion.

Annex – Accompanying technical information:

ICT equipment generates heat and so most devices must have a mechanism to manage their temperature. Drawing cool air over hot metal transfers heat energy to that air, which is then pushed out into the environment. This works because the computer temperature is usually higher than the surrounding air. There are several different mechanisms for data centre cooling, but the general approach involves chillers reducing air temperature by cooling water – typically to 7–10 °C, which is then used as a heat transfer mechanism. Some data centres use cooling towers where external air travels across a wet media so that the water evaporates. Fans expel the hot, wet air and the cooled water is recirculated. Other data centres use adiabatic economisers – where water is sprayed directly into the air flow, or onto a heat exchange surface, thereby cooling the air entering the data centre. With both techniques the evaporation results in water loss. A small 1 MW data centre using one of these types of traditional cooling can use around 25.5 million litres of water per year. Data centre water efficiency deserves greater attention. Annual reports show water consumption for cooling directly paid for by the operator, so there is an economic incentive to increase efficiency. As the total energy share of cooling has fallen with improving PUEs (Power Usage Effectiveness metric), the focus has been on electricity consumption, and so water has been a low priority for the industry. However, the largest contributor to the water footprint of a data centre is electricity generation. Where data centres own and operate the entire facility, there is more flexibility for exploring alternative sources of water, and different techniques for keeping ICT equipment cool.

Related materials:

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

Authors: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).

Topic: Trade-offs in the energy transition.

Engineering disciplines: Chemical engineering, Electrical engineering, Energy.

Ethical issues: Sustainability, Honesty, Respect for the environment, Public good.

Professional situations: Communication, Bribery, Working cultures.

Educational level: Intermediate.

Educational aim: Practise ethical reasoning. Ethical reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events in order to consider, and respond to, a problem in a fair and responsible way.

Learning and teaching notes:

This case requires an engineer with strong convictions about sustainable energy to make a decision about whether or not to take a lucrative contract from the oil industry. Situated in Algeria, the engineer must weigh perspectives on environmental ethics that may differ from those informed by a different cultural background, as well as navigate unfamiliar workplace expectations. The engineer’s own financial wellbeing is also at stake, which may complicate decision-making. As a result, this case has several layers of relations and potential value-conflicts. These include values that underlie assumptions held about the environment and its connection to human life and services.

The case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired. To prepare for activities related to environmental ethics, teachers may want to read, or assign students to pre-read the following academic articles: ‘Environmental ethics: An overview’ or ‘Mean or Green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior?’

Learners have the opportunity to:

analyse value assumptions related to environmental ethics;
consider whether decisions made by an engineer are ethically acceptable or unacceptable;
undertake cost-benefit and value trade-off analysis in the context of an ethical dilemma;
practise argument and reasoning related to an ethical dilemma;
use heuristics to help ethical decision-making.

Teachers have the opportunity to:

introduce concepts related to values in environmental ethics;
informally evaluate students’ argument and reasoning skills;
integrate technical content in the areas of chemical and / or electrical engineering related to energy trade-offs;
highlight heuristics as tools for ethical decision-making;
address cultural and professional norms in different countries.

Learning and teaching resources:

Summary:

You are an electrical engineer who had a three-year contract with a charity in Algeria to install solar systems on remote houses and farms that were not yet connected to the grid. The charity’s project came to an end and you have set up your own company to continue the work. It has been difficult raising money from investors to fund the project and the fledgling business is in debt. It is doubtful that your company will survive for much longer without a high-profit project.

During your time in Algeria, you have made many local and regional contacts in the energy industry. Through one of these contacts, you learn of an energy company operating a large oil field in the region that is looking to convert to solar energy to power its injection pumping, monitoring, and control systems. In doing so, the oil field will eliminate its dependency on coal-fired electricity, increasing production while boosting the company’s environmental credentials. It also hopes to make use of a governmental tax credit for businesses that make such solar conversions.

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: What is your initial reaction to using solar energy for oil and gas production? What might your initial reaction reveal to you about your own perspectives and values?

2. Discussion and activity: List the potential benefits and risks to implementing this technology. Are these benefits and risks the same no matter which country they are implemented in?

3. Activity: Research the trend for using solar energy in oil and gas production. Which companies are promoting it and which countries are using this technology?

4. Discussion and activity related to optional pre-readings: Consider how your perspective is related to the following environmental values, and pair/share or debate with a peer.

- Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism – are humans above or a part of the environment?
- Intrinsic versus Instrumental – is nature inherently valuable or only valuable because of the use humans can make of it?
- Holism versus Individualism – are certain elements of the environment more valuable than others, or does every part of the ecosystem have equal value?
- Egoism versus Altruism – do we care about the environment as a result of what we gain from it, or regardless of human benefits?
- Obligations to future generations: Do we have a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for humans that don’t yet exist, or for an ecosystem that will eventually change?

Dilemma – Part one:

The following week you receive a phone call in your home office. It is a representative of the energy company named Sami. He asks you to bid for the solar installation contract for the oilfield. At first you are reluctant, it doesn’t seem right to use solar power to extract fuel that will contribute to the ongoing climate emergency. You explain your hesitation, saying “I got into the solar business because I believe we have a responsibility to future generations to develop sustainable energy.” Sami laughs and says “While you’re busy helping people who don’t exist yet, I’m trying to provide energy to the people who need it now. Surely we have a responsibility to them too?”

Sami then quotes a figure that the company is willing to pay you for the project work. You are taken aback at how large it is – the profit made on this contract would be enough to pay off your debts and give your business financial security moving forward. Still, you hesitate, telling Sami you need some time to think it over. He agrees and persuades you to attend dinner with him and his family later that week.

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: Have you done anything wrong by accepting Sami’s dinner invitation?

2. Discussion: Environmental ethics deals with assumptions that are often unstated, such as the obligation to future generations. Like Sami, some people find that our obligation is greater to people who exist at this moment, not to those that don’t yet exist. Do you agree or disagree with this position? Why? Can we maintain an obligation to future generations while simultaneously saying that this must be weighed against the obligations in the here and now?

3. Activity: Both cost-benefit and value trade-off analyses are valuable approaches to consider in this case. Determine the possible courses of action and undertake both types of analysis for each position by considering both short- and long-term consequences. [use the Mapping actors and processes article to help with this activity].

4. Activity: Using reasoning and evidence, create arguments for choosing one of the possible courses of action.

5. Activity: Undertake technical calculations in the areas of chemical and / or electrical engineering related to carbon offset and solar installations.

Dilemma – Part two:

When you arrive at Sami’s house for dinner you are surprised to find you aren’t the only guest. Leila, a finance manager at the oil company is also present. During the meal, she suggests they are considering investing in your business. “After all,” she points out, “many of our employees and their families could really use solar at their homes. We have even decided to subsidise the installation as a benefit to them.”

You are impressed by the oil company’s commitment to their workers and this would also guarantee you an income stream for 3-5 years. Of course, to guarantee the investment in your company, you will have to agree to undertake the oil field installation. You comment to Leila and Sami that it feels strange to be having these formal discussions over a family meal. “This is how we do business here,” says Sami. “You become part of our family too.”

Optional STOP for questions and activities:

1. Discussion: Do you accept the contract to complete the installation? Do you accept the investment in your company? Why, or why not?

2. Discussion: Is this bribery? Why, or why not?

3. Activity: Role-play the conversation between Sami, Leila, and the engineer.

4. Activity: Use heuristics to analyse possible courses of action. One heuristic is the Environmental ethics decision making guide. Another is the 7-step guide to ethical decision-making.

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

Let us know what you think of our website