Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. Ewa Ura-Binczyk (Warsaw University of Technology).

Topic: Rail accident investigation and material failure analysis using systems thinking.

Title: Using fault tree analysis in a rail failure investigation.

Resource type: Teaching – Case study.

Relevant disciplines: Mineral, metallurgy & materials engineering; Civil engineering.

Keywords: Available soon.

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, Systems Modelling and Analysis, Ethics and Professionalism, Technical Leadership 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 AHEP themes of Design, Ethics and Communication. 

Educational level: Intermediate; Advanced.

 

Learning and teaching notes:

The case is built around 3 × 90-minute sessions and independent report writing. A suggested breakdown of the activities can be seen below. 

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Downloads: 

 

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Session  Focus  Suggested activities and timing 
1  Introduction and problem framing  20 min: Introduce case scenario and system context; 30 min: Group discussion on initial impressions, key stakeholders, and potential causes; 40 min: Begin Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) construction using initial evidence. 
2  Investigation and analysis  30 min: Continue FTA construction and data evaluation; 30 min: Peer review of other groups’ fault trees; 30 min: Consolidate findings and prepare draft report outline. 
3  Reporting and reflection  30 min: Present findings to a simulated stakeholder panel; 30 min: Discuss feedback and defend conclusions; 30 min: Individual reflection on complexity, uncertainty, and assumptions. 

 

Summary of the system or context:

Rail transport systems consist of thousands of interdependent components, including rails, fasteners, sleepers, signalling systems, and maintenance processes. Failures in a single component can cascade, affecting: 

 

Complex system features: 

 

Narrative of the case:

On a cold January morning, a commuter train was halted after inspectors discovered a fractured rail joint component. Services were disrupted for several hours, stranding thousands of passengers. The media quickly picked up the story, raising questions about safety and reliability. 

The rail operator urgently commissioned an engineering consultancy (the students) to investigate the failure. Their findings will inform both the safety authority’s decision on whether the line can reopen and the legal proceedings to determine liability. 

 

The dilemma: 

As consultants, students face incomplete evidence: some lab tests are missing, inspection logs are inconsistent, and eyewitness accounts conflict. They must use Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) to map possible causes, evaluate data, and produce an expert opinion report — knowing that their conclusions could influence legal outcomes and public safety decisions. 

Groups: 3–5 students per group; 3-4 groups can run in parallel. 

Materials required: case narrative handouts, sample inspection log, example FTA, whiteboards/flipcharts, sticky notes for FTA mapping. 

Activity flow: 

1. Introduce case and assign roles. 

2. Construct initial fault trees using evidence. 

3. Peer-review across groups. 

4. Draft expert report and present to simulated stakeholder panel. 

5. Individual reflection on complexity and uncertainty. 

 

Why use Fault Tree Analysis (FTA):

FTA is a structured approach to trace a failure from an observed event back to potential causes, including technical, human, and organisational factors. 

FTA is particularly suitable for this case because it allows students to structure complex, uncertain information in a logical and transparent way. It helps them trace the chain of causes behind the rail component failure, linking material, human, and organisational factors into one coherent framework. By visualising how small events combine into system-level failures, FTA encourages learners to think critically about interdependencies, data gaps, and assumptions. It also mirrors real-world engineering investigations, where professionals must justify conclusions under uncertainty and demonstrate clear reasoning to stakeholders such as regulators or courts. 

Advantages in this case: 

 

Questions and activities: 

Prompt  Expected insight / reflection 
What technical, human, and organisational factors might have contributed to this failure?  Students identify multiple interacting factors, illustrating interdependencies and emergent risks. 
How does Fault Tree Analysis help structure uncertainty in this investigation?  Learners recognise FTA’s role in visualising cause-effect pathways and clarifying assumptions. 
Which assumptions are you forced to make, and how might they affect your conclusions?  Students reflect on data gaps, biased observations, and ethical implications of assumptions. 
How do different stakeholders’ interests shape urgency and framing of your analysis?  Learners understand trade-offs, pressures from conflicting priorities, and the precautionary principle. 
What are the risks of issuing a preliminary report under time pressure?  Students explore implications for safety, liability, professional integrity, and public trust. 

 

Activity  Focus  What “good practice” looks like  Facilitator notes / tips 
1. FTA construction  Collaborative problem analysis  Teams discuss evidence openly, question assumptions, and co-create a logical tree linking technical, human, and organisational causes.   Encourage each group to identify at least one “human/organisational” branch and to label any data gaps explicitly. 
2. Peer review  Critical reflection and systems perspective  Groups provide constructive critique, highlighting hidden assumptions, missing branches, or unclear logic. Dialogue stays professional and evidence-based.  Provide coloured sticky notes or digital comments to record feedback; model how to frame critique as questions (“Have you considered…?”). 
3. Report writing (in-class drafting)  Synthesis and professional communication  Drafts show a clear, defensible reasoning chain from evidence to conclusion. Teams justify assumptions and note uncertainties.  Remind students to separate “facts” from “interpretations.” Encourage use of structured headings (Findings – Analysis – Conclusions). 
4. Simulation role-Play  Perspective-taking and communication under pressure  Presentations are concise (≤5 min), factual, and adapted to stakeholder roles. Learners respond respectfully and clearly to challenging questions.  Provide role cards for the panel (operator, regulator, manufacturer, public). Rotate students if possible. 
5. Reflection  Metacognition and learning from uncertainty  Students identify what surprised them, what they found ambiguous, and how their view of engineering judgment evolved.  Offer prompts like “What would you do differently next time?” or “Where did your reasoning feel uncertain?” 

 

Further challenge:

Instructors may choose to introduce a second “reveal” phase: a new metallurgical test result or a whistle-blower statement emerges halfway through the case. Students must revise their fault tree and defend whether and how their conclusions change. This highlights the evolving nature of complex systems investigations. 

 

Assessment opportunities:

 

 

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.

Author: Dr Raja Toqeer CEng, MIET, CMgr, FCMI, FHEA, iPEER (University of Sheffield).

Topic: Methods and tools used to embed complex systems in engineering education. 

Title: High-level overview of complex systems methods and tools.

Resource type: Guidance article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Available soon.

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

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, Systems Modelling and Analysis, and Critical Thinking INCOSE competencies. 

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

 

Downloads: Available soon.

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Premise:

From smart cities and power grids to global supply chains, complex systems undeniably form the backbone of modern engineering challenges, integrating diverse technical and human domains to deliver resilient solutions that are capable of addressing emerging global demands. Traditional engineering approaches are limited in their ability to address increasingly complex and nonlinear problems, as they often fail to consider systems holistically. Complex systems exhibit dynamic behaviours and patterns that emerge from interactions within the whole, offering insights that go beyond what can be deduced from individual components (Martin, 2025).  

However, recognising complexity alone is insufficient. To engage meaningfully with such systems, engineers and educators require systematic methods and analytical tools that make the structure, behaviour, and evolution of complex systems more transparent and tractable. Methods such as system dynamics, network analysis, agent-based modelling and causal loop mapping enable the identification of affected points, feedback mechanisms and unintended consequences providing a structured way to explore “what if” scenarios and support informed decision making. Without these tools, understanding remains largely intuitive and fragmented, limiting the capacity to model interactions, predict emergent behaviours or design resilient interventions.  

There are many different ways to model complex systems, each suited to exploring particular types of interactions, timeframes, or behaviours. The following sections outline several commonly used tools and illustrate the contexts in which they can be effectively applied within engineering education. This guidance therefore focuses on the practical application and pedagogical integration of key complex systems methods and tools, with the aim of equipping engineering educators to embed systems thinking effectively in their teaching and practice. 

 

Systems thinking and mapping tools:

Systems thinking provides a holistic perspective for students to explore the interdependencies, feedback loops, and emergent behaviours that characterise complex engineering challenges. A range of mapping and modelling tools can be used to visualise and analyse system structures and behaviours. These tools can be broadly categorised into three categories: qualitative mapping tools (such as rich pictures and influence diagrams) that support shared understanding and problem framing; causal modelling tools (such as causal loop diagrams) that reveal feedback structures and dynamic behaviour; and quantitative simulation tools (such as system dynamics models) that enable experimentation and testing of hypotheses. 

Rich pictures, influence diagrams and causal loop diagrams are adaptable for both conceptual exploration and analytical modelling in engineering education. Each offers distinct advantages and limitations. Rich pictures are highly flexible, enabling diverse stakeholders to collaboratively capture multiple perspectives of a system. Their visual and narrative style promotes inclusivity and creativity but can lack analytical precision and consistency between users. Influence diagrams provide a more structured representation by showing directional relationships between variables, supporting clearer causal reasoning and decision making. However, they do not capture feedback or temporal dynamics, which limits their use in modelling evolving systems. Causal loop diagrams offer an advantage as they explicitly map, reinforcing and balancing feedback loops, giving powerful insights into system behaviour over time. However, these can become complex and difficult to interpret without adequate guidance and their qualitative nature may oversimplify quantitative relationships. When used in sequence, these tools can scaffold students’ systems thinking skills from exploratory mapping (rich pictures), through structural reasoning (influence diagrams), to dynamic analysis (causal loop diagrams). Embedding this progression in engineering education not only enhances students’ critical and reflective capabilities but also enables them to identify leverage points, anticipate unintended consequences and design resilient solutions that respond effectively to the complexity of real-world complex systems. 

Figure 1 presents a product causal loop diagram illustrating how product quality, sales, investment and profitability interact through reinforcing and balancing feedback loops. Two reinforcing loops (R1 and R2) show how profitability and product quality can drive self-sustaining growth: higher profits enable reinvestment in sales, while improved quality enhances customer satisfaction and market demand, both improving overall performance. In contrast, two balancing loops (B1 and B2) act as stabilising forces. When rapid sales growth strains production capacity, quality declines, prompting corrective investment to restore standards (B1). Meanwhile, as quality improves, it eventually reaches a maximum threshold where further gains lead to diminishing returns (B2), reflecting real-world technological and resource limits. Together, these loops demonstrate the dynamic interaction between growth and constraint in complex systems. The model highlights how feedback processes shape organisational performance and underscore the value of systems thinking for anticipating unintended consequences and supporting sustainable decision making in educational contexts where understanding system dynamics enhances learning and design practice. 

Figure 1. Product causal loop diagram (Credit: Creately)

 

System dynamics modelling:

System dynamics (SD) models simulate system behaviour over time by representing key elements such as stocks, flows, feedback loops, and time delays. This approach is particularly useful for understanding long-term patterns and testing interventions in complex contexts, such as modelling energy demand, tracking carbon emissions, or optimising supply chain dynamics. By using accessible tools like Stella, Vensim, or Insight Maker, educators can create interactive learning experiences that allow students to experiment with ‘what-if’ scenarios, deepen their understanding of dynamic behaviours, and develop the skills needed to make informed, data-driven decisions. Figure 2 illustrates a dynamic stock-and-flow diagram of a model for new product adoption. The diagram demonstrates how stock and flow structures can capture accumulations and delays within a system, providing insights into how adoption rates evolve over time in response to feedback processes. 

Figure 2. Dynamic stock and flow diagram of model New product adoption (taken from Wikipedia: model from article by John Sterman 2001 - True Software) 

 

Agent-based modelling:

Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) analyses complex systems by simulating the actions and interactions of many individual “agents” each following simple behavioural rules. Agents can represent people, vehicles, organisations or even machines depending on the context and their collective behaviour gives rise to larger system patterns that are often unexpected or counterintuitive. For example, in a traffic flow model, each car (agent) follows basic rules for acceleration, braking and lane changing. While these rules are simple in isolation, their combined effects can lead to emergent phenomena such as traffic jams or wave-like congestion patterns, behaviours not explicitly programmed into the system. Similarly, in a disease transmission model, each agent might represent a person whose movement and interactions influence infection spread across a population, providing valuable insight into intervention strategies. 

ABM is particularly useful in systems where differences among agents and local interactions matter. Whereas System Dynamics (SD) captures aggregate feedback through mathematical relationships, ABM reveals the distributional and spatial dimensions of system behaviour by modelling individual actions and decisions. Educators may choose ABM to help students see how microscale decisions lead to macroscale outcomes, reinforcing the concept that system-level order often emerges from local and uncoordinated interactions. Open-source platforms such as NetLogo provide accessible environments for teaching these principles, offering pre-built models that allow students to experiment with agent rules and parameters. Through such interactive exploration, engineering students can observe how small behavioural changes can cascade into large-scale effects deepening their understanding of emergence, adaptability and complexity in real-world complex systems. Figure 3 presents a schematic of an agent-based model, illustrating how interactions among individual agents within an artificial environment can lead to emergent system-wide patterns. 

Figure 3. Schematic of an agent-based model, showing how interactions between agents lead to emergent phenomena within an artificial world (Credit to Agent-Based Modeling and the City: A Gallery of Applications, Crooks, A., et al 2021). 

 

Network analysis and modelling:

Network analysis looks at how the pattern of connections within a system affects how it behaves, performs, and recovers from disruption. Instead of focusing on individual parts, this approach studies the relationships between elements whether they are people, machines, or data points and how these connections shape the overall outcome of the system. In network science, two important ideas help describe how a network is organised: degree distribution and clustering coefficients. Degree distribution shows how many connections (or “links”) each element, known as a node, has. If most nodes have a similar number of links, the network tends to behave in a steady and predictable way. However, if a few nodes have many more connections such as major airports in a flight network, the system can operate very efficiently but may also become more vulnerable if one of those key nodes fails. Clustering coefficients measure how connected a node’s neighbours are to each other. A high clustering coefficient means that a node’s connections are also well connected, forming strong local groups. This structure can improve communication and resilience within the network, though it may also limit flexibility or slow the spread of new information. 

By analysing these features, students learn that the way parts of a system are connected is just as important as the parts themselves. Real-world complex systems examples include power grids, transport networks, and organisational systems, where understanding connectivity helps engineers identify weaknesses and design for greater robustness. Tools such as Gephi and NetworkX make it possible to visualise and measure these network properties, helping turn complex data into clear, interpretable diagrams. Figure 4 shows the structure and properties of a technological network, illustrating how node connectivity and clustering together influence the system’s overall resilience. 

Figure 4. Composition and properties of technological network (Credit to Network Resilience: Definitions, approaches, and applications by Xiaoyu Qi and Gang Mei). 

 

Conclusion:

Understanding and managing complexity is now an essential skill for modern engineers. By gradually introducing students to different systems thinking tools from qualitative mapping to dynamic simulation and network analysis, educators can help them build a deep and transferrable understanding of how complex systems behave. Each tool offers a different perspective: mapping tools encourage exploration and shared understanding, dynamic models reveal feedback and time-based behaviour, and network analysis exposes structural patterns and resilience. Taken together, these approaches form a developmental pathway that strengthens students’ ability to think critically, reason systematically, and make informed design and management decisions. Embedding this progression within engineering education cultivates curiosity, adaptability, and a mindset equipped to tackle the interconnected social, environmental and technological challenges of the future. In doing so, educators prepare graduates not just to work with complex systems, but to improve and transform them.  

 

References: 

 

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

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. Rebecca Margetts (Nottingham Trent University).

Topic: The importance of teaching and learning about complex systems.

Title: The real world is a complex system.

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Available soon.

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

Downloads: 

Learning and teaching resources:

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: 

We live in a complex world. Complexity is a key challenge, captured in leadership terms by the VUCA framework: volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (Lanucha 2024). Engineers have the privilege of creating products and processes for humans to use in this landscape. Each of these likely has numerous parts which interact, as well as interacting with the environment, people, and needing to meet a host of safety, quality, sustainability, ethics, and financial obligations. Traditionally, engineers analyse problems by breaking them down into simple parts. This helps understanding and makes calculations feasible, but it’s easy to lose understanding of the whole system. Any change can easily create a problem elsewhere. From a technical viewpoint, engineers need to understand this interconnectedness in order for their creations to work. In a wider sense, ‘systems thinking’ is a skill central to engineering quality and management techniques, which seek to rationalise the complexity of entire organisations and their ever-changing market pressures.  

 

The case for understanding systems: 

Systems is perhaps one of the most misunderstood words in engineering. It is often found combined with mathematical modelling or control – topics often perceived as challenging – and is used in other fields like Computer Science, where tools and models are different. In all cases, the idea revolves around a group of interacting or interrelated elements which form a unified whole. Those elements can be physical or information, hardware or software, or any combination of mechanical, electrical, and other engineering domains. Thinking in terms of systems can therefore be thought of as a holistic approach.  

The Engineering Council UK’s AHEP criteria include a systems approach: C/M6 – “Apply an integrated or systems approach to the solution of complex problems.” Several other AHEP criteria also reference complexity and complex problems, which they define as having “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. The Systems Thinking Alliance (2025) gives a broader definition of complexity as referring to “the condition of systems, objects, phenomena, or concepts that are challenging to understand, explain, or manage due to their intricate and interconnected nature. It involves multiple elements or factors that interact in unpredictable ways, often requiring significant information, time, or coordinated efforts to address.” For these, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ (Ellis 2025). This is the reality that engineers need to manage by understanding the potential effects on all parts of the system. 

In order to analyse, engineers dissect complexity into manageable components, and educators teach these simple components before moving onto more complex systems. For example, students initially learn basic electrical components, simple beams, rigid bodies, etc. before bringing these together in case studies, and then moving onto topics like mechatronic systems. Historically, engineers specialised on graduation, perhaps becoming a stress engineer or fluid dynamicist in dedicated offices and functional teams.  A design decision by one team could have unintended consequences for another, as well as additional uncertainty. The advent of cross-functional project and ‘matrix’ organisations mitigated against this, and companies have moved towards attribute teams which can consider the balance of behaviour. Even so, some uncertainty remains in the form of assumptions in calculations, changes in material properties with temperature or stress, or small variations in composition and manufacturing tolerances, which can all accumulate. Any parts which are bought ‘off-the-shelf’ or made by other companies under license must be carefully specified. Relationships can be nonlinear – or even chaotic – and contain feedback loops which can amplify changes (Kastens et al 2009). This all increases the risk of a product’s comfort, performance, and safety being impacted in ways that weren’t anticipated. Any problem that doesn’t come to light until the testing phase – late in the design process – represents costly redesigns and delays. In the unlikely event that a problem isn’t captured during testing either, the outcome could be disastrous. 

Systems engineers will bring the product together and establish these complex behaviours through models and testing. Identifying potential problems early in the design phase can save significant money and facilitate better designs. This can be challenging, especially for systems using novel materials or operating in extreme environments, which aren’t accurately captured by standard calculations. Models may be linearised, neglect external forcing, or be derived for an assumed air density or ambient temperature which may not be valid. In recent decades, the engineering industry has moved towards model-based design and virtual prototyping, facilitated by advances in computer tools. These are increasingly sophisticated, but models still need to be built by engineers with an appreciation of complexity and the mechanisms by which a problem could arise. As humans develop new materials and technologies, and explore the limits of what is possible, engineering techniques and calculations need constant revision, and software tools are frequently updated to facilitate this.  

That holistic view of problems has benefits outside of designing engineering artefacts. The manufacturing process is itself a complex system with potentially long supply chains. As is the organisation, which is comprised of numerous people operating in a landscape of financial pressures, employment law, politics and culture. Quality guru William Deming’s 14 Points for Management (Deming 2018) can be viewed as a systems approach to handling this complexity, by breaking down barriers between departments and instigating continuous improvement. Once a product is produced, it exists in a wider world and continues to interact with it. From a sustainability viewpoint, this can be the user and surrounding community, the environmental impact over a product’s lifecycle, and the financial markets which dictate whether a product is viable. It can also be the social, political, and legal landscapes: these can place direct constraints in the forms of laws governing safety and emissions (such as the UK’s legally binding target of net zero by 2050), or through embargos, tariffs, and subsidies. Each country has its own regulations, which can necessitate multiple variations of a product: a good example is cars, which need to be produced in both left- and right-hand drive, satisfy varying safety and emissions regulations, and cater for differing personal and cultural preferences for size, noise, usage and driving styles. Even when not legislated, a company might choose to support fair trade, lead the way in sustainable practices, or refuse to do business with suppliers or regimes they find objectionable – potentially making this a key part of their brand.  

An engineer’s ability to appreciate and understand the wider social and business landscape is a reason why finance and management consultancy companies can often be seen recruiting engineers at student careers fairs. The Sainsbury Management Fellowship (SMF) scheme notably develops UK engineers as industry leaders, and fellows have made a major contribution to the UK’s economic prosperity (RAEng 2025). 

 

Conclusions:

Complex systems are the “real world” that engineers attempt to understand and design for. They are complicated, interconnected, changing, and uncertain. The well-known part of engineering is analysis: breaking systems into understandable parts. There needs to be a parallel operation where those parts are assembled or integrated into a whole, and that whole interacts with everything around it. This is where unforeseen problems can occur. Systems models and a holistic systems thinking approach can mitigate this risk. A systems approach and ability to manage complexity is a key skill for engineers, and positions them well for other fields like management.   

 

References:

 

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

The Engineering Professors’ Council, with support from Quanser, has started work on a Complex Systems Toolkit, aimed at helping educators to integrate complex systems concepts into their teaching.
With our Call for Contributions now live, the Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group Co-Chairs discuss why this is a vital resource and why you should get involved.

 

 

Dr. Nikita Hari,  Head of the Teaching and Research Design Support Group at the Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford

“Engineering graduates of today are expected to design climate-resilient cities, ethically deploy AI, and weave circular-economy thinking into supply chains – and all this lives squarely in the messy realm of complex systems. Yet most engineering curricula still treat complexity as an afterthought or a niche elective. This is often misunderstood, misrepresented, or purely ignored, relegating complexity to a footnote.

The Engineering Professors’ Council’s Complex Systems Toolkit is our academic response,  aiming to bridge this gap: a freely accessible, peer-reviewed, resource hub where academics can find, curate and share ready-to-teach resources, assessment blueprints and real-world case studies mapped to AHEP learning outcomes.

By contributing, you’ll help shift ‘complexity literacy’ from the periphery to the core of engineering education, accelerate programme accreditation, and equip students with the habits of mind our profession and planet now demand.

Join us in co-authoring this collective intelligence: your lecture notes, lab briefs or reflective prompts could become the catalyst that empowers thousands of educators – and the engineers they shape – to navigate, model and steward the intricate systems that define the 21st century.”

 

Peter Martin, Director of Research and Development, Quanser

“As the UK and many countries around the world jockey for position as leaders in areas like advanced manufacturing and autonomous systems, engineers increasingly work in environments where they are required to connect different disciplines, perspectives, and skills, to understand and navigate sociotechnical systems, and to communicate complexity to diverse audiences.

The Complex Systems Toolkit is focused on supporting educators that are taking on the challenge of integrating complexity into their course modules by providing resources that cover 1) understanding complex systems, 2) the tools and techniques used by professionals, and 3) case studies that aim to bring a more holistic view to many of the Engineering disciplines.

I had the pleasure of being invited to co-chair the development team, along with several academic and industry leaders from around the UK working together to develop the toolkit for launch later this year. As the team cannot accomplish this ambitious task alone, we have recently opened a call for contributions to develop and contribute knowledge articles, guidance material, and teaching activities.

The EPC team is committed to creating a comprehensive and valuable set of resources that will accelerate the adoption of Complex Systems into modules and programmes around the world, and we would love it if you would join us in the creation and deployment of these valuable resources.”  – You can read Peter Martin’s full blog post here.

Please register your interest in developing a resource for the Complex Systems Toolkit by completing this form by 30th June 2025.

You can read more about our Call for Contributions here.

 

This post is also available here.

Background

Complex intelligent systems, systems thinking competency, and understanding complexity are all critical to engineering in the 21st century, and when integrated holistically, complex systems in engineering teaching can align with other initiatives that promote responsible engineering. Learning approaches for integrating complex systems knowledge, skills, and mindsets in engineering supports educators in their own professional development, since many may have not learned about this topic that they are now expected to teach. Accreditation frameworks increasingly refer to complex problems and systems thinking in outcomes for engineering programmes, and yet very few resources exist that support engineering educators to integrate these into their teaching in a comprehensive and effective way or indeed to upskill educators to be able to deliver this teaching.

To address this gap, a Complex Systems Toolkit is being developed by the Engineering Professors’ Council with support from Quanser. Its development is guided by a Working Group comprised of academic, industry, and professional organisation experts.

 

Register your interest

Please register your interest in developing a resource by completing this form by 30th June 2025.

If you have already registered an interest and we are expecting your submission, the deadline to submit first drafts is 15th August. Submit your Complex Systems Toolkit Contribution here. Co-authors should complete this form.

If you would like to become a reviewer for the toolkit, please complete this form.

If you would like to suggest links to pages or online resources that we can add to our database of engineering education resources for complex systems teaching, please email Wendy Attwell: w.attwell@epc.ac.uk

 

The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to develop resources for inclusion in the toolkit

These resources will fit into three categories:

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

Submit a knowledge article

Submit a knowledge article

The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to write knowledge articles on the following subjects:

  1. Why teach / learn about Complex Systems?

This should include reference to:

    • The increasing ubiquity of complex systems
    • The need to understand complexity as a concept
    • The need for systems thinking competency among engineers
    • How complex systems are related to all engineering disciplines
  1. Why integrate Complex Systems into Engineering Education?

This should include reference to:

    • Why engineered systems require certain properties (e.g. resilience)
    • The consequences of system failures
    • Knock-on effects beyond engineering
    • Interaction with other systems (e.g. human and natural)
  1. What are Complex Systems?

This should provide a real-world explanation and include:

    • Examples of engineered systems / Engineering Complexity
    • Examples of socio-technical systems and the wider context

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

The deadline for submitting a knowledge article is 15th August 2025.

 

Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a knowledge article

Guidance #1: Research Guidance #2: OverviewGuidance #3: PurposeGuidance #4: ContentGuidance #5: References and resourcesGuidance #6: Format

Research:

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

Before you begin, you should review knowledge articles that form a part of the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit, since we hope that contributions to the Complex Systems Toolkit will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone.

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

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

Overview:

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

Purpose:

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

Content:

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

References and resources:

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

Format

Knowledge articles should follow this format:

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

Step 2: Before you submit, review this checklist

  • Does the article both make sense as a single piece of content as well as fit in with the rest of the articles to be developed?
  • Would someone new to complex systems understand the information presented and would it help them?
  • Do you need to expand on any ideas or reorganise them to make them clearer?
  • What additional resources or references have you included?
  • Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
  • Are sources cited using Harvard referencing?
  • Before you submit your contribution, have you registered as a contributor? If not, please register your interest here.

 

Step 3: Submitting your knowledge article

The deadline for submitting a knowledge article is 15th August 2025.

Knowledge articles should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx). Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format.

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

You may download a PDF version of the guidelines (as outlined in Step 1) here – UPDATED JULY 2025.

Submit your knowledge article here.

 

 

Submit a guidance article

Submit a guidance article

The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to write guidance articles on the following subjects:

1. Guide to Explaining Complex Systems to students

This guidance should mirror the tone and style of resources from the Ethics and Sustainability Toolkits which provide a “how to” approach.

2. How Complex Systems relate to AHEP 4.

This should include guidance in understanding language in AHEP 4 around “complex problems” and their connection to Complex Systems.

3. How to scaffold Complex Systems learning outcomes across a curriculum

This should include good practice and examples of learning outcomes or objectives integrated in engineering curricula at different levels, either in general or in a particular engineering degree.

4. How do we assess for skills / competencies in Complex Systems?

This resource could mirror the tone and style of resources from the Ethics and Sustainability Toolkits, and could contain:

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

The deadline for submitting a guidance article is 15th August 2025.

 

Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a guidance article

Guidance #1: Research Guidance #2: Overview Guidance #3: Purpose Guidance #4: ContentGuidance #5: References and resourcesGuidance #6: Format

Research:

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

Before you begin, you should review guidance articles that form a part of the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit, since we hope that contributions to the Complex Systems Toolkit will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone.

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

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

Overview:

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

Purpose:

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

Content:

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

References and resources:

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

Format

Guidance articles should follow this format:

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

Step 2: Before you submit, review this checklist

  • Does the article both make sense as a single piece of content as well as fit in with the rest of the articles to be developed?
  • Would someone new to complex systems understand the information presented and would it help them?
  • Is the explanation clear, logically structured and technically accurate?
  • Do you need to expand on any ideas or reorganise them to make them clearer?
  • Are sources cited using Harvard referencing?
  • Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
  • What additional resources or references have you included?
  • Before you submit your contribution, have you registered as a contributor? If not, please register your interest here.

 

Step 3: Submitting your guidance article

The deadline for submitting a guidance article is 15th August 2025.

Guidance articles should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx). Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format.

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

You may download a PDF version of the guidelines (as outlined in Step 1) here – UPDATED JULY 2025.

Submit your guidance article here.

 

Submit a teaching activity

 

Submit a teaching activity/resource

The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to create teaching activities based on the following briefs:

1. Case Studies that, through a real-world situation, illustrate different types of complex systems, use cases for the tools that can be used to model / simulate these, techniques that promote development and use of systems architecture, and effects such as trade-offs, emergent properties, impacts, or unintended consequences. Case studies could also reference the implications for risk, security, ethics, sustainability, teamwork, and communication.

Case study topics could include:

    • Air traffic control
    • Smart agriculture
    • Autonomous driving
    • Robotics
    • Smart cities

2. Demonstrator simulations that provide examples of how systems can be modelled.

This could include:

    • Examples of simple, complicated, and complex systems
    • Interactive examples showing how well-intentioned action can lead to failure
    • Interactive examples showing the best approaches to handling complexity

3. Lesson plans, coursework and teaching activities that are useful in integrating learning around complexity, systems thinking, and complex systems.

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

The deadline for submitting a teaching activity is 15th August 2025.

 

Step 1a: Read the guidance for submitting a case study

Guidance #1: Research Guidance #2: Overview Guidance #3: Authenticity Guidance #4: Complexity of issue Guidance #5: Activities and resourcesGuidance #6: Educational level & AssessmentGuidance #7: Format

Research

Teaching activities are resources that users can access to help them know what to integrate and implement. These include use cases/case studies which provide examples of complex systems which can be directly utilised in teaching with the suggested tools, as well as other classroom activities such as coursework, project briefs, lesson plans, demonstration simulations, or other exercises.

Before you begin, you should review case studies that form a part of the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit or Ethics Toolkit, since we hope that contributions to the Complex Systems Toolkit will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone. While complex systems cases may not have the same learning outcomes, the format and approach should be similar. Remember that the audience for these case studies is educators seeking to embed complex systems concepts within their engineering teaching.

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

Narrative strength: the case should be clearly structured with a compelling and coherent story. System complexity: it should explore interdependencies, multiple stakeholders and/or competing goals. Tool integration: systems tools should be mentioned or incorporated (e.g. soft systems methodology, SysML, Agent-based modelling etc).  Activities and Resources: there should be questions, prompts or teaching activities to guide discussion or classroom use.

Authenticity

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

Complexity of issue

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

Activities and resources

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

Educational level and Assessment

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

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

Format

The case study should follow the following format:

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

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

  • Does it follow the correct format?
  • Narrative strength: is the case clearly structured with a compelling and coherent story?
  • System complexity: does it explore interdependencies, multiple stakeholders and/or competing goals?
  • Tool integration: are systems tools mentioned or incorporated (e.g. soft systems methodology, SysML, Agent-based modelling etc)
  • Activities and Resources: Are there questions, prompts or teaching activities to guide discussion or classroom use?
  • Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
  • Are sources cited using Harvard referencing?
  • What additional references have you included?
  • Before you submit your contribution, have you registered as a contributor? If not, please register your interest here.

 

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

Guidance #1: Purpose & outcomesGuidance #2: Research Guidance #3: Purpose Guidance #4: Presentation & clarityGuidance #5: Resources & guidanceGuidance #6: Format

Purpose & outcomes

Teaching Tools are intended to support educators’ ability to apply and embed complex systems concepts within their engineering teaching.

Educators need to quickly and easily find help with:

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

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

They may take the form of learning activities, project briefs, modelling or simulation activities, technical content related to complex systems, worksheets, slides, or other similar teaching materials.

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

Research

Purpose

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

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

Presentation and Clarity

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

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

Resources and Guidance

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

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

Format

The teaching tool should follow this format:

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

 

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

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

Step 3: Submitting your teaching activity

The deadline for submitting a teaching activity is 15th August 2025.

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

Teaching activities should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx). Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format.

You may download a PDF version of the guidelines (as outlined in Step 1) here – UPDATED JULY 2025.

Submit your teaching activity here.

 

 

Deadlines

Please register your interest in developing a resource by completing this form by 30th June.

If you have already registered an interest and we are expecting your submission, the deadline to submit first drafts is 15th August.

Submit your Complex Systems Toolkit Contribution here. Co-authors should complete this form.

If you wish to develop materials to contribute beyond this, we will be opening the next cycle in spring 2026.

If you would like to become a reviewer for the toolkit (initially between July and October 2025), please complete this form.

If you would like to suggest links to pages or online resources that we can add to our database of engineering education resources for complex systems teaching, please email Wendy Attwell: w.attwell@epc.ac.uk

 

Additional information

In undertaking this work, contributors will become part of the growing community of educators who are helping to ensure that tomorrow’s engineering professionals have the complex systems skills, knowledge, and attributes that they need to provide a better future for us all. Contributors will be fully credited for their work on any relevant Toolkit materials, and will be acknowledged as authors should the resources be published in any form. Developing these resources will provide the chance to work with a dynamic, diverse and passionate group of people leading the way in expanding engineering teaching resources, and may help in professional development, such as preparing for promotion or fellowship. If contributors are not compensated by their employers for time spent on this type of activity, a small honorarium may be available to encourage participation.

As part of the toolkit project, we are also developing tools for collaborating with our Working Group in-house. Stay tuned for further details.

 

Learn more about the Complex Systems Toolkit

Those interested in contributing to the Complex Systems Toolkit should fill out this form and we will be in touch.

Hear from our Working Group Co-Chairs on why you should get involved.

Learn more about the Complex Systems Toolkit, here.

Learn more about the members of the Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group, here.

 

 

This post is also available here.

The latest news and updates on the development of the Complex Systems Toolkit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

This post is also available here.

We’re excited to share with you that we are starting work on a Complex Systems Toolkit, aimed at supporting educators in their teaching of the subject. Toolkit development will start in early 2025. The Complex Systems Toolkit is supported by Quanser. Read on to learn more and find out how you can get involved.

WHY is the EPC developing a Complex Systems Toolkit?

WHAT is a Complex Systems Toolkit?

HOW will the Toolkit be developed?

WHO is involved in Toolkit development?

 

This post is also available here. 

Let us know what you think of our website