Licensing:This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The work on which this project has been based was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK through the UK FIRES Program (EP/S019111/1) and the Future Electrical Machines Manufacturing Hub (EP/S018034/1). Earlier work supported by High Value Manufacturing Catapult has also been essential in developing the basis for this work.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating complex systems in engineering education.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness.A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking and Critical Thinking INCOSE competencies.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems).
Premise:
Engineering is crucial to achieving imperatives such as decarbonisation. Yet engineering typically addresses specific, well-defined challenges rather than broad, ambiguous ones. Education and practice reinforce this approach, with even postgraduate and academic engineers often focusing on problem depth over breadth. While this produces deep technical insights and tangible technological capability, it risks delaying uptake and impact unless multidisciplinary teams are involved. Recognising this gap between aspirations and execution suggests a role for structured frameworks and tools to trigger bridging activity. Wicked problem thinking is a way to understand complex problems and systems thinking, and it is related to situations which are ambiguous, contested, sometimes lacking an end state, evolving over time, requiring collaboration, adaptability, and inherently cross-disciplinary.
Background:
Climate change is a helpful case in illustrating the gap between global ‘wicked’ problems, and the work of the engineer. Engineering’s success, by underpinning industrialisation and thereby enabling mass consumption, can also be seen as its biggest failing in contributing to climate change (Datea & Chandrasekharana, 2022) and other environmental impacts. Going forward, engineers must help mitigate it, through better deployment of existing technologies and creation of new ones. Clearly climate change is complex, spanning scientific, technological, behavioural, and political dimensions, and this complexity limits what can be achieved solely from engineering consideration. Conventional engineering methods, though highly effective at the project and programme level, risk drifting away from the original issue and producing isolated solutions with limited systemic effect.
Wicked problems thinking:
Global challenges like climate change are sometimes labelled “super-wicked” problems—time-limited, caused partly by the problem-solvers, lacking central authority, and often deferred (Levin et al.). In engineering, wicked problems present a risk, because engineers are inherently tasked with addressing a part of the wider problem and often via particular approaches. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that engineers are trained for structured problems with clear solution methods (Schuelke-Leech, 2021). Unfortunately such approaches are rarely transferable directly to wicked contexts, except when problem structure and solution approaches align unusually well. Education reinforces this, as engineering curricula focus on well-defined challenges (Lönngren, 2017).
At the research level, problems are often entangled, requiring both high-level perspective and detailed work. Sustainable engineering science (Seager et al., 2012) calls for ethical awareness, adaptive methods, and “interactional expertise” drawn from other disciplines. While this opens opportunities to measure cause and effect across scales, tangible short-term indicators often dominate.
A structured approach to Wicked Problems:
Alford & Head’s (2017) typology places problems on a spectrum from “Tame” to “Very Wicked.” Most engineering projects are tame, even when complex, because specification and management processes reduce ambiguity. Issues like decarbonisation-related engineering research, however, often involves wicked characteristics. This framework has recently been extended (Fehring, 2025) to allow consideration of a wider range of engineering research scenarios, Figure 1.
Figure 1. A framework for categorising complexity of engineering research scenarios (Fehring)
Each of the identified scenario types is somewhat distinctive, as follows:
Tame: Challenge of delivery and execution within known (but potentially challenging) parameters.
Analytically complex: Known and accepted performance gaps with corrective actions not obvious.
Communicatively complex: Multiple elements being brought together at the discretion of different parties.
Complex: Major external influences drive the need for fundamental change.
Cognitively complex: All agree on the need for action, but the nature of the action is unclear.
Politically complex: A known technological challenge, which can only be addressed collaboratively via multiple parties.
Conceptually contentious: Many indicators of impending change and the need to respond, but response is open to interpretation.
Politically turbulent: Major competing factions exist, promoting alterative interpretations to global problems.
Very wicked: All that is known for certain is that there is a tangible basis for concern and no obvious route to resolution.
Supportable opportunity: An area where research is interesting and sufficiently well aligned to available funding models to be well supported.
Provocation: A general issue is raised as a burning platform for action, without any consideration of potential mitigations.
Challenging opportunity: An area with potential for development, but not well aligned to themes supported by funders.
Realisation: Evidence of the issue is presented and published without any proposal or speculation on solutions.
Paradigm shift: An area of potential Research and Development and potential major breakthrough which is contrary to accepted thinking.
Call to Action: A call to adopt a solution which is available but for the most part unacceptable at the human or social level.
Ignored Issues: Situations that only become problems because they are not discussed based on their taboo nature or unacceptability of discussion in an area.
Conclusions:
Engineers can often be drawn into issues and challenges which can require multidisciplinary approaches.
A structured framework, such as the one described here, can be helpful in allowing the nature of a particular situation to be understood and the applicability of different approaches considered.
Pure engineering approaches are most applicable in scenarios closest to Tame Problems.
Multidisciplinary approaches seem most essential in cases closest to Very Wicked Problems.
Engineering research extends to a wider range of scenarios than those considered problems per se, and these have been added to the categorisation framework. This extension of the framework, while not problem specific, is helpful in providing a logical means of extending the consideration to wider research situations.
One of the primary areas of potential in this form of analysis is to demonstrate the degree of separation that can exist between focused and engineering R&D and the system level problem which drives it.
References:
Alford, J and Head, B. W. ‘Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework’, Policy and Society, 36:3, (2017) 397-413, DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634
Datea, Geetanjali. and Chandrasekharana, Sanjay., ‘Beyond Efficiency: Engineering for Sustainability Requires Solving for Pattern’, Engineering Studies, 10, 1, (2022), 12–37
Fehring, F. ‘A wicked and complex problem-based analysis framework applying wicked problem thinking to the supply chain and engineering research domain’, Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis, University of Strathclyde, (2025)
Lönngren, J., ‘Wicked Problems in Engineering Education : Preparing Future Engineers to Work for Sustainability’ PhD dissertation, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola), (2017)
Schuelke-Leech, Beth-Anne., ‘A Problem Taxonomy for Engineering’, IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society’, 2, .2, pp.105-105, (2021)
Seager, T., Selinger, E. and Wiek, A., ‘Sustainable Engineering Science for Resolving Wicked Problems’, J Agric Environ Ethics 25, (2012), 467–484, DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Licensing:This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. It is based upon the author’s 2025 article “A Simulation Tool for Pinch Analysis and Heat Exchanger/Heat Pump Integration in Industrial Processes: Development and Application in Challenge-based Learning”. Education for Chemical Engineers 52, 141–150.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking, Systems Modelling and Analysis and Critical Thinking INCOSE competencies.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses the themes of Science, mathematics and engineering principles; Problem analysis; and Design.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim:To equip learners with the ability to model, analyse, and optimise pathways for industrial decarbonisation through a complex-systems lens – integrating technical, economic, and policy dimensions – while linking factory-level design decisions to wider value-chain dynamics, multi-stakeholder trade-offs, and long-term sustainability impacts.
Learning and teaching notes:
This teaching activity explores heat integration for the decarbonisation of industrial processes through the lens of complex systems thinking, combining simulation, systems-level modelling, and reflective scenario analysis. It is especially useful in modules related to energy systems, process systems, or sustainability.
Learners analyse a manufacturing site’s energy system using a custom-built simulation tool to explore the energy, cost and carbon-emission trade-offs of different heat-integration strategies. They also reflect on system feedback, stakeholder interests and real-world resilience using causal loop diagrams and role-played decision frameworks.
This activity frames industrial heat integration as a complex adaptive system, with interdependent subsystems such as process material streams, utilities, technology investments and deployments, capital costs, emissions, and operating constraints.
Learners run the simulation tool to generate outputs to explore different systems integration strategies: pinch-based heat recovery by heat exchangers, with and without heat pump-based waste heat upgrade. Screenshots of the tool graphical user interface are attached as separate files:
The learning is delivered in part, through active engagement with the simulation tool. Learners interpret the composite and grand composite curves and process tables, to explore how system-level outcomes change across various scenarios. Learners explore, using their generated simulation outputs, how subsystems (e.g. hot and cold process streams, utilities) interact nonlinearly and with feedback effects (e.g., heat recovery impacts), shaping global system behaviour and revealing leverage points and emergent effects in economics, emissions and feasibility.
Using these outputs as a baseline, and exploring other systems modelling options, learners evaluate trade-offs between heat recovery, capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating costs (OPEX), and carbon emissions, helping them develop systems-level thinking under constraints.
The activity embeds scenario analysis, including causal loop diagrams, what-if disruption modelling, and stakeholder role-play, using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to develop strategic analysis and systems mapping skills. Interdisciplinary reasoning is encouraged across thermodynamics, economics, optimisation, engineering ethics, and climate policy, culminating in reflective thinking on system boundary definitions, trade-offs, sustainability transitions and resilience in industrial systems.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Analyse non-linear interactions in thermodynamic systems.
Reconcile conflicting demands (e.g. energy savings vs costs vs emissions vs technical feasibility) using data generated from real system simulation.
Model and interpret feedback-driven process systems using pinch analysis, heat recovery via heat exchangers, and heat upgrade via heat pump integration.
Explore emergent behaviour, trade-offs, and interdisciplinary constraints.
Navigate system uncertainties by simulation data analysis and scenario thinking.
Understand the principles of heat integration using pinch analysis, heat exchanger networks, and heat pump systems, framed within complex industrial systems with interdependent subsystems.
Evaluate decarbonisation strategies and their performances in terms of energy savings, CAPEX/OPEX, carbon reduction, and operational risks, highlighting system-level trade-offs and nonlinear effects
Develop data-driven decision-making, navigating assumptions, parameter sensitivity, and model limitations, reflecting uncertainty and systems adaptation.
Explore ethical, sustainability, and resilience dimensions of engineering design, recognising how small changes or policy shifts may act on leverage points and produce emergent behaviours.
Analyse stakeholder dynamics, policy impacts, and uncertainty as part of the broader system environment influencing energy transition pathways.
Construct and interpret causal loop diagrams (CLDs), explore what-if scenarios, and apply multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), building competencies in feedback loops, system boundaries, and systems mapping.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Embed systems thinking and complex systems pedagogy into energy and process engineering, using real-world simulations and data-rich problem-solving.
Introduce modelling and scenario-based reasoning, helping students understand how interactions between process units, energy streams, and external factors affect industrial decarbonisation.
Facilitate exploration of design trade-offs, encouraging learners to consider technical feasibility, economic sustainability, and environmental constraints within dynamic system contexts.
Support students in identifying leverage points, feedback loops, and emergent behaviours, using tools like CLDs, composite curves, and stakeholder role play.
Assess complex problem-solving capacity, including students’ ability to model, critique and adapt industrial systems under conflicting constraints and uncertain futures.
Proprietary Simulator for Pinch Analysis & Heat Integration. Freely available for educational use and can be accessed online through a secure link provided by the author on request (james.atuonwu@nmite.ac.uk or james.atuonwu@gmail.com). No installation or special setup is required; users can access it directly in a web browser.
About the simulation tool (access and alternatives):
This activity uses a Streamlit-based simulation tool, supported with process data (Appendix A, Table 1, or an educator’s equivalent). The tool is freely available for educational use and can be accessed online through a secure link provided by the author on request (james.atuonwu@nmite.ac.uk or james.atuonwu@gmail.com). No installation or special setup is required; users can access it directly in a web browser.The activity can also be replicated using open-source or online pinch analysis tools such as OpenPinch, PyPinchPinCH, TLK-Energy Pinch Analysis Online. SankeyMATIC can be used for visualising energy balances and Sankey diagrams.
Pinch Analysis, a systematic method for identifying heat recovery opportunities by analysing process energy flows, forms the backbone of the simulation. A brief explainer and further reading are provided in the resources section. Learners are assumed to have prior or guided exposure to its core principles. A key tunable parameter in Pinch Analysis, ΔTmin, represents the minimum temperature difference allowed between hot and cold process streams. It determines the required heat exchanger area, associated capital cost, controllability, and overall system performance. The teaching activity helps students explore these relationships dynamically through guided variation of ΔTmin in simulation, reflection, and trade-off analysis, as outlined below.
Introducing and prioritising ΔTmin trade-offs:
ΔTmin is introduced early in the activity as a critical decision variable that balances heat recovery potential against capital cost, controllability, and safety. Students are guided to vary ΔTmin within the simulation tool to observe how small parameter shifts affect utility demands, exchanger area, and overall system efficiency. This provides immediate visual feedback through the composite and grand composite curves, helping them connect technical choices to system performance.
Educators facilitate short debriefs using the discussion prompts in Part 1 and simulation-based sensitivity analysis in Part 2. Students compare low and high ΔTmin scenarios, reasoning about implications for process economics, operability, and energy resilience.
This experiential sequence allows learners to prioritise competing factors (technical, economic, and operational), while recognising that small changes can create non-linear, system-wide effects. It reinforces complex systems principles such as feedback loops and leverage points that govern industrial energy behaviour.
Data for decisions:
The simulator’s sidebar includes some default values for energy prices (e.g. gas and electricity tariffs) and emission factors (e.g. grid carbon intensity), which users can edit to reflect their own local or regional conditions. For those replicating the activity with other software tools, equivalent calculations of total energy costs, carbon emissions and all savings due to heat recovery investments can be performed manually using locally relevant tariffs and emission factors.
The Part 1–3 tasks, prompts, and assessment suggestions below remain fully valid regardless of the chosen platform, ensuring flexibility and accessibility across different teaching contexts.
Educator support and implementation notes:
The activity is designed to be delivered across 3 sessions (6–7.5 hours total), with flexibility to adapt based on depth of exploration, simulation familiarity, or group size. Each part can be run as a standalone module or integrated sequentially in a capstone-style format.
Part 1: System mapping: (Time: 2 to 2.5 hours) – Ideal for a classroom session with blended instruction and group collaboration:
This stage introduces students to the foundational step of any heat integration analysis: system mapping. The aim is to identify and represent energy-carrying streams in a process plant, laying the groundwork for further system analysis. Educators may use the Process Flow Diagram of Fig. 1, Appendix A (from a real industrial setting: a food processing plant) or another Process Diagram, real or fictional. Students shall extract and identify thermal energy streams (hot/cold) within the system boundary and map energy balances before engaging with software to produce required simulation outputs.
Key activities and concepts include:
Defining system boundaries: Focus solely on thermal energy streams, ignoring non-thermal operations. The boundary is drawn from heat sources (hot streams) to heat sinks (cold streams).
Identifying hot and cold streams: Students classify process material streams based on whether they release or require heat. Each stream is defined by its inlet and target temperatures and its heat capacity flow rate (CP).
Building the stream table: Students compile a simple table of hot/cold streams (name, supply temperature, target temperature and heat capacity flow CP).
Constructing energy balances and Sankey Diagrams: Students manually calculate energy balances across each subsystem in the defined system boundary, identifying energy inputs, useful heat recovery, and losses. Using this information, they construct Sankey diagrams to visualise the magnitude and direction of energy flows, strengthening their grasp of system-wide energy performance before optimisation.
Pinch Concept introduction: Students are introduced to the concept of “the Pinch”, including the minimum heat exchanger temperature difference (ΔTmin) and how it affects heat recovery targets (QREC), as well as overall heating and cooling utility demands (QHU & QCU, respectively).
Assumptions: All analysis is conducted under steady-state conditions with constant CP and no heat losses.
Discussion prompts:
What insights does the Sankey diagram reveal about energy use, waste and recovery potential in the system? How might these visual insights shape optimisation decisions?
Why might certain streams be excluded from the analysis?
How does the choice of ΔTmin influence the heat recovery potential and cost?
What trade-offs are involved in system simplification during mapping?
How can assumptions (like steady-state vs. transient) impact integration outcomes?
Student deliverables:
A labelled system map showing the thermal process boundaries, hot and cold streams.
A structured stream data table.
Justification for selected ΔTmin values based on process safety, economics, or practical design and operational considerations.
A basic Sankey diagram representing the energy flows in the mapped system, based on calculated heat duties of each stream.
Part 2: Running and interpreting process system simulation results (Time: 2 to 2.5 hours) – Suitable for lab or flipped delivery;only standard computer access is needed to run the tool (optional instructor demo can extend depth):
Students use the simulation tool to generate their own results.The process scenario of Fig. 1, Appendix A, with the associated stream data (Table 1) can be used as a baseline.
Tool-generated outputs:
Curves: Composite and Grand Composite (pinch location, recovery potential).
Scenario summary: QREC, QHU, QCU; COP (where applicable); CAPEX/OPEX/CO₂; payback period for various values of system levers (e.g., ΔTmin levels, tariffs, emission factors).
Heat Pump (HP) tables: Feasible pairs, Top-N heat pump selections (where N = 0, 1, or 2); QEVAP, QCOND, QCOMP, COP. All notations are designated in the simulator’s help/README section.
Learning tasks:
1. Scenario sweeps Run different scenarios (e.g., different ΔTmin levels, tariffs, emission factors, and Top-N HP selections). Prompts: How do QREC, QHU/QCU, HX area, and CAPEX/OPEX/CO₂ shift across scenarios? Which lever moves the needle most?
2. Group contrast (cases A vs B: see time-phased operations A & B in Appendix A) Assign groups different cases; each reports system behaviours and trade-offs. Prompts: Where do you see CAPEX vs. energy-recovery tension? Which case is more HP-friendly and why?
3. Curve reading Use the Composite & Grand Composite Curves to identify pinch points and bottlenecks; link features on the curves to the tabulated results. Prompts: Where is the pinch? How does ΔTmin change the heat-recovery target and utility demands?
4. Downstream implications Trace how curve-level insights show up in HX sizing/costs and HP options. Prompts: When does adding HP reduce utilities vs. just shifting costs? Where do stream temperatures/CP constrain integration?
5. Systems lens: feedback and leverage Map short causal chains from the results (e.g., tariffs → HP use → electricity cost → OPEX; grid-carbon → HP emissions → net CO₂). Prompts: Which levers (ΔTmin, tariffs, EFs, Top-N) create reinforcing or balancing effects?
Outcome:
Students will be able to generate and interpret industrial simulation outputs, linking technical findings to economic and emissions consequences through a systems-thinking lens. They begin by tracing simple cause–effect chains from the simulation data and progressively translate these into causal loop diagrams (CLDs) that visualise reinforcing and balancing feedback. Through this, learners develop the ability to explain how system structure drives performance both within the plant and across its broader industrial and policy environment.
Optional extension: Educators may provide 2–3 predefined subsystem options (e.g., low-CAPEX HX network, high-COP HP integration, hybrid retrofit) for comparison. Students can use a decision matrix to justify their chosen configuration against CAPEX, OPEX, emissions, and controllability trade-offs.
Part 3: Systems thinking through scenario analysis (Time: 2 to 2.5 hours) – Benefits from larger-group facilitation, a whiteboard or Miro board (optional), and open discussion. It is rich in systems pedagogy:
Having completed simulation-based pinch analysis and heat recovery planning, learners now shift focus to strategic implementation challenges faced in real-world industrial settings. In this part, students apply systems thinking to explore the broader implications of their heat integration simulation output scenarios, moving beyond process optimisation to consider real-world dynamics, trade-offs, and stakeholder interactions. The goal is to encourage students to interrogate the interconnectedness of decisions, feedback loops, and unintended consequences in process energy systems including but not limited to operational complexity, resilience to disruptions, and alignment with long-term sustainability goals.
Activity: Stakeholder role play / Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Students take on stakeholder roles and debate which design variant or operating strategy should be prioritised. They then conduct a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), evaluating each option based on criteria such as CAPEX, OPEX savings, emissions reductions, risk, and operational ease.
Stakeholders include:
Operations managers, focused on ease of control and process stability.
Investors and finance teams, focused on return on investment.
Environmental officers, concerned with emissions and policy compliance.
Engineers, responsible for design and retrofitting.
Community members, advocating for sustainable industry practices.
Government reps responsible for regulations and policy formulation, e.g. taxes and subsides.
The team must present a strategic analysis showing how the heat recovery system behaves as a complex adaptive system, and how its implementation can be optimised to balance technical, financial, environmental, and human considerations.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Before constructing causal loop diagrams (CLDs), learners revisit key results from their simulation — such as ΔTmin, tariffs, emission factors, and system costs — and trace how these parameters interact to influence overall system performance. Educators guide this transition, helping students abstract quantitative outputs (e.g., changes in QREC, OPEX, or CO₂) into qualitative feedback relationships that reveal cause-and-effect chains. This scaffolding helps bridge the gap between process simulation and systems-thinking representation, supporting discovery of reinforcing and balancing feedback structures.
Activity: Construct a causal loop diagram (CLD) Students identify at least five variables that interact dynamically in the implementation of a heat integration system (e.g. energy cost, investment risk, emissions savings, system complexity, staff training). They must map reinforcing and balancing feedback loops that illustrate trade-offs or virtuous cycles.
Where could policy or process changes trigger leverage points?
How could delays in response (e.g. slow staff adaptation to new technologies) affect outcomes?
How might design choices affect local energy equity, air quality, or community outcomes?
What policy incentives or ethical trade-offs might reinforce or hinder your proposed solution?
Instructor debrief (engineering context with simulation linkage): After students share their CLDs, the educator facilitates a short discussion linking their identified reinforcing and balancing loops to common dynamic patterns observable in the simulation results. For instance:
Limits to growth: As ΔTmin decreases, heat recovery (QREC) initially improves, but exchanger area, CAPEX, and controllability demands grow disproportionately — diminishing overall economic benefit.
Shifting the burden: Installing a heat pump may appear to improve carbon performance, but if low process efficiency remains unaddressed, electricity use and OPEX rise — creating a new dependency that shifts rather than solves the problem.
Tragedy of the commons: Competing units or stakeholders optimising locally (e.g. for their own OPEX or production uptime) can undermine total system efficiency or resilience.
Success to the successful: Design options with early financial or policy support (e.g. high-COP heat pumps) attract more investment and attention, reinforcing a positive but unequal feedback loop.
This reflection connects quantitative model outputs (e.g. QREC, OPEX, CAPEX, emissions) to qualitative system behaviours, helping learners recognise leverage points and understand how design choices interact across technical, economic, and social dimensions of decarbonisation.
Activity: Explore “What if?” scenarios
Working in groups, students choose one scenario to explore using a systems lens:
What if gas prices fluctuate drastically?
What if capital funding is delayed by 6 months?
What if a heat exchanger fouls during peak season?
What if CO₂ emissions policy tightens?
What if current electricity grid decarbonisation trends suffer an unexpected setback?
What if government policies now encourage onsite renewable electricity generation?
Each group evaluates the resilience and flexibility of the proposed integration design. They consider:
System bottlenecks and fragilities.
Leverage points for intervention.
Need for redundancy or modular design.
Educators may add advanced scenarios (e.g. carbon tax introduction, supplier failure, or project delay) to challenge students’ resilience modelling and stakeholder negotiation skills.
Stakeholder impact reflection:
To extend systems reasoning beyond the technical domain, students assess how their chosen design scenarios (e.g., low vs. high ΔTmin, with or without heat pump integration) affect each stakeholder group. For instance:
Operations managers assess control complexity, downtime risk, and maintenance implications.
Finance teams evaluate CAPEX/OPEX trade-offs and payback periods.
Environmental officers examine lifecycle emissions and regulatory compliance.
Engineers reflect on reliability, retrofit feasibility, and process safety.
Community members or regulators consider social and policy outcomes, such as visible sustainability impact or energy equity.
Each team member rates perceived benefits, risks, or compromises under each design case, and the results are summarised in a stakeholder impact matrix or discussion table. This exercise links quantitative system metrics (energy recovery, emissions, cost) to qualitative stakeholder outcomes, reinforcing the “multi-layered feedback” perspective central to complex systems analysis.
Learning Outcomes (Part 3):
By the end of this part, students will be able to:
Identify systemic interdependencies in industrial energy systems.
Analyse how feedback loops and delays influence system behaviour.
Assess the resilience of energy integration solutions under different future scenarios.
Balance multiple stakeholder objectives in complex engineering contexts.
Apply systems thinking tools to communicate complex technical scenarios to diverse stakeholder audiences.
Use systems diagrams and decision tools to support strategic analysis.
Instructor Note – Guiding CLD and archetype exploration:
Moving from numerical heat-exchange and cost data to CLD archetypes can be conceptually challenging. Instructors are encouraged to model this process by identifying at least one reinforcing loop (e.g. “energy savings → lower OPEX → more investment in recovery → further savings”) and one balancing loop (e.g. “higher capital cost → reduced investment → lower heat recovery”). Relating these loops to common system archetypes such as “Limits to Growth” or “Balancing with Delay” helps students connect engineering data to broader system dynamics and locate potential leverage points. The activity concludes with students synthesising their findings from simulation, systems mapping, and stakeholder analysis into a coherent reflection on complex system behaviour and sustainable design trade-offs.
Assessment guidance:
This assessment builds directly on the simulation and systems-thinking activities completed by students. Learners generate and interpret their own simulation outputs (or equivalent open-source pinch analysis results), using these to justify engineering and strategic decisions under uncertainty.
Assessment focuses on students’ ability to integrate quantitative analysis (energy, cost, carbon) with qualitative reasoning (feedbacks, trade-offs, stakeholder dynamics), demonstrating holistic systems understanding.
Deliverables (portfolio; individual or group):
1. Reading and interpretation of simulation outputs
Use the outputs you generate (composite & grand composite curves: HX match/area/cost tables; HP pairing/ranking; summary sheets of QHU, QCU, QREC, COP, CAPEX, OPEX, CO₂, paybacks) for a different industrial process (from the one used in the main learning activity) to:
Identify the pinch point(s) and explain what the curves imply for recovery potential and bottlenecks.
Comment on QHU/QCU/QREC and how they change across the scenarios you run (e.g., ΔTmin, tariffs, emission factors, Top-N HP selection).
Interpret trade-offs among energy, CAPEX, OPEX, emissions, using numbers reported by the simulator. No calculations beyond light arithmetic/annotation.
2. Systems mapping and scenario reasoning
A concise system boundary sketch and a simple stream table.
A Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) highlighting key feedbacks (e.g., tariffs ↔ HP use ↔ grid carbon intensity ↔ emissions/cost).
A short MCDA (transparent criteria/weights) comparing the scenario variants you test; include a brief stakeholder reflection.
3. Decision memo (max 2 pages)
Your recommended integration option under stated assumptions, with one “what-if” sensitivity (e.g., +20% electricity price, tighter CO₂ factor).
State uncertainties/assumptions and any implementation risks (operations, fouling, timing of capital).
Students should include a short reflective note addressing assumptions, feedback insights, and how their stakeholder perspective shaped their recommendation.
Appendix A: Example process scenario for teaching activity:
Sample narrative: Large-scale food processing plant with time-sliced operations
The following process scenario explains the industrial context behind the main teaching activity simulations. A large-scale food processing plant operates a milk product manufacturing line. The process, part of which is shown in Fig. 1, involves the following:
Thermal evaporation of milk feed.
Cooking operations after other ingredient mixing and formulation upstream.
Oven heating to drive off moisture and stimulate critical product attributes.
Pre-finishing operations as the product approaches packaging.
In real operations, the evaporation subprocessoccurs at different times from the cooking/separation, oven and pre-finishing operations. This means that their hot and cold process streams are not simultaneously available for direct heat exchange. For a realistic industrial pinch analysis, the process is thus split into two time slices:
Time Slice A (used for scenario Case A): Evaporation streams only.
Time Slice B (Case B): Cooking/separation, oven and pre-finishing streams only.
Separate pinch analyses are performed for each slice, using the yellow-highlighted sections of Table 1 as stream data for time slice A, and the green-highlighted sections as stream data for time slice B. Any heat recovery between slices would require thermal storage (e.g., a hot-water tank) to bridge the time gap.
Fig.1. Simplified process flowsheet of food manufacturing facility.
Note on storage and system boundaries:
Because the two sub-processes occur at different times, direct process-to-process heat exchange between their streams is not possible without thermal storage. If storage is introduced:
Production surplus heat at time slice A can be stored at high temperature (e.g., 80 °C) and later discharged to preheat time slice B cold streams.
The size of the tank depends on the portion of hot utility demand of sub-process B to be offset, the temperature swing, and the duration of the sub-process B.
Table 1. Process stream data corresponding to flowsheet of Fig. 1. Yellow-highlighted sections represent processes available at time slice A, while green-highlighted sections are processes available at time slice B.
Appendix B: Suggested marking rubric (Editable):
Adopter note: The rubric below is a suggested template. Instructors may adjust criteria language, weightings and band thresholds to align with local policies and learning outcomes. No marks depend on running software.
1) Interpretation of Simulation Outputs — 25%
A (Excellent): Reads curves/tables correctly; uses QHU/QCU/QREC, COP, CAPEX/OPEX/CO₂, payback figures accurately; draws clear, defensible trade-offs.
B (Good): Mostly accurate; links numbers to decisions with some insight.
C (Adequate): Mixed accuracy; limited or generic trade-off discussion.
D/F (Weak): Frequent misreads; cherry-picks or contradicts generated data.
2) Systems Thinking & Scenario Analysis — 30%
A: Clear CLD with at least one reinforcing and one balancing loop; leverage points identified; scenarios coherent; MCDA with explicit criteria, weights, and justified ranking; uncertainty acknowledged.
B: Reasonable CLD; scenarios sound; MCDA present with partial justification.
C: Superficial CLD; scenarios/MCDA incomplete or weakly reasoned.
D/F: Little or no systems view; scenarios/MCDA absent or not meaningful.
Atuonwu, J.C. (2025). A Simulation Tool for Pinch Analysis and Heat Exchanger/Heat Pump Integration in Industrial Processes: Development and Application in Challenge-based Learning. Education for Chemical Engineers 52, 141-150.
Oh, X.B., Rozali, N.E.M., Liew, P.Y., Klemes, J.J. (2021). Design of integrated energy- water systems using Pinch Analysis: a nexus study of energy-water-carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production 322, 129092.
Rosenow, J., Arpagaus, C., Lechtenböhmer, S.,Oxenaar, S., Pusceddu, E. (2025). The heat is on: Policy solutions for industrial electrification. Energy Research & Social Science 127, 104227.
Bale, C.S.E., Varga, L., Foxon, T.J. (2015). Energy and complexity: New ways forward. Applied Energy 138, 150-159.
Atuonwu, J.C. (2025). Proprietary Simulator for Pinch Analysis & Heat Integration. Private reviewer access available on request (demo video or temporary login).
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Keywords: Problem solving; Feedback loops; Decision-making; VUCA; Optimisation; Public health and safety; Risk; Sustainability; Ethics; Responsible design; Life cycle; Societal impact; Enterprise and innovation.
Who is this article for?: Thisarticle should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating complex systems in engineering education.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking andCritical 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.
Kastens, K., Manduca, C., Cervato, C., & Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L., Mogk, D., Spangler, T., Stillings, N., Titus, S. (2009). How Geoscientists Think and Learn. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 90. 10.1029/2009EO310001.
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.
“A new report from the National Engineering Policy Centre about resource efficiency and demand reduction for critical materials to support the UK’s existing Net Zero Strategy.
This report provides an overview of the underutilised policy options for achieving reductions in demands for critical materials and dependency on imports of scarce materials.
It presents a range of policy and engineering interventions around three main areas of demand-side resource management. These include: infrastructure and technology planning, design and design skills and circular economy.
The report concludes with 25 recommendations for policymakers which will help the UK cut its critical material footprint. Lead recommendations from the report call for: an integrated materials strategy, a National Materials Data Hub, infrastructure planning for material sustainability, and a new target to halve the UK’s material footprint.
The report also makes specific recommendations for targeted action, such as committing to the ban on single-use vapes, and improving repair and recycling of electronics to reduce e-waste.
Without intervention, the UK risks not achieving its Net Zero strategy and exposure to future economic uncertainty.” – The Royal Academy of Engineering
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: Dr Gill Lacey, SFEA, MIEEE (Teesside University).
Topic: Calculating effects of implementing energy-saving standards.
Keywords: Built environment; Housing; Energy efficiency; Decarbonisation; AHEP; Sustainability; Higher education; Pedagogy.
Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Critical thinking; Integrated problem-solving.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and the following specific themes from Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
F1.Apply knowledge of mathematics, statistics, natural science and engineering principles to broadly defined problems.
F4.Select and use technical literature and other sources of information to address broadly defined problems.
F6.Apply a systematic approach to the solution of broadly-defined problems.
F7. Evaluate the environmental and societal impact of solutions to broadly-defined problems.
Related SDGs: SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production); SDG 13 (Climate Action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Active pedagogies and mindsets; More real-world complexity.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Educational level: Beginner / intermediate. Learners are required to have basic (level 2) science knowledge, and ability to populate a mathematical formula and use units correctly.
Learning and teaching notes:
This activity allows students to consider the dilemmas around providing housing that is cheap to heat as well as cheap to buy or rent. It starts with researching these issues using contemporary news and policy, continues with an in-depth study of insulation, together with calculations of U values, heat energy and indicative costs.
Learners have the opportunity to:
solve given technical tasks relating to insulation properties (AHEP: SM1m)
assess the heating requirement of a given house (AHEP: EA1m)
research a contemporary issue using websites and guided material
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce concepts related to heating and energy theory
develop learners’ mathematical skills in a practical context.
Structure a task around a sustainability issue and recognise the economic, social and cultural issues, as well as the technical ones
Supporting resources:
To prepare for these activities, teachers may want to explain, or assign students to pre-read articles relating to heating a house with respect to:
Provide the stimulus to motivate the students by considering the dilemma: How do we provide affordable housing whilst minimising heating requirement? There are not enough homes in the UK for everyone who needs one. Some of the houses we do have are expensive to run, poorly maintained and cost a fortune in rent. How do we get the housing builders to provide enough affordable, cheap to run housing for the population?
One possible solution is adopting Passivhaus standards. The Passivhaus is a building that conforms to a standard around heating requirements that ensures the insulation (U value) of the building material, including doors, windows and floors, prevents heat leaving the building so that a minimum heating requirement is needed. If all houses conformed to Passivhaus standards, the running costs for the householder would be reduced.
Teaching schedule:
Provide stimulus by highlighting the housing crisis in the UK:
How many houses are needed, now and in the future?
How many people currently live in temporary accommodation, and is this number expected to change?
Are developers required to add affordable housing to their plot? Should they be?
People requiring affordable housing for rent are likely to be among the poorest, so how many people are in ‘fuel poverty’?
Affordable housing needs to be built in such a way as to minimise the heat needed to keep the house warm. What categories of people are especially vulnerable?
What features/standards must a Passivhaus satisfy? How does this standard address the problems?
Students can work in groups to work on the extent of the problem from the bullet points provided. This activity can be used to develop design skills (Define the problem)
1. Get the engineering knowledge about preventing heat leaving a house:
If you can prevent heat leaving, you won’t need to add any more, it will stay at the same temperature. Related engineering concepts are:
Newtons law of cooling
U values
Heat transfer
2. Task:
a. Start with a standard footprint of a three-bed semi, from local estate agents. Make some assumptions about inside and outside temperatures, height of ceilings and any other values that may be needed.
b. Use the U value table to calculate the heat loss for this house (in Watts). The excel table has been pre-populated or you can do this as a group
With uninsulated materials (single glazing, empty cavity wall, no loft insulation.
With standard insulation (double glazing, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation.
If Passivhaus standards were used to build the house.
c. Costs
Find the typical cost for heating per kWh
Compare the costs for replacing the heat lost.
d. Final synoptic activity
Passivhaus costs a lot more than standard new build. How do housebuilders afford it?
Provide examples of the cost of building a Passivhaus standard building materials and reduced heating bills.
Suggest some ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ that could be used to make sure housing in the UK is affordable to rent/buy and run.
3. Assessment:
The spreadsheet can be assessed, and the students could write a report giving facts and figures comparing different levels of insulation and the effects on running costs.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Keywords: Decarbonisation, Housing, Built environment; Net zero, Carbon emissions; Energy efficiency; Sustainable energy; Local community; Curriculum; Higher education; Sustainability; Assessment.
Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Anticipatory; Collaboration; Self-awareness; Normative.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy); SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure); SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindsets; Authentic assessment.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Educational level: Beginner.
Learning and teaching notes:
The purpose of this exercise is to encourage students to think in a socio-technical perspective of delivering extreme low carbon housing (e.g. Passivhaus), in order to support the occupants in adapting to new technologies and low-carbon lifestyle, shifting the paradigm from building isolated energy efficient homes to forming low-carbon communities.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Practice stakeholder engagement;
Consider physiological and ecological effects of engineering design and technology;
Practice communication in multiple modes;
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Integrate technical learning on energy-efficient buildings such as emerging technologies and sustainability analysis;
Highlight the effects that engineering design and technology has on human behaviour;
Informally evaluate collaboration, critical thinking, and communication.
Before beginning the activity, teachers and learners will want to become familiar with the following concepts.
Performance gap:A performance gap is a disparity that is found between the energy use predicted and carbon emissions in the design stage of buildings and the energy use of those buildings in operation.
Rebound effect: The rebound effect deals with the fact that improvements in efficiency often lead to cost reductions that provide the possibility to buy more of the improved product or other products or services (Thiesen et al., 2008).
Adaptive comfort:The adaptive approach to thermal comfort recognises that people are not passive with regard to their thermal environment, but actively control it to secure comfort. Thermal comfort can thus be seen as a self-regulating system, incorporating not only the heat exchange between the person and the environment but also the physiological, behavioural and psychological responses of the person and the control opportunities afforded by the design and construction of the building (Humphreys & Nicol, 2018).
Energy behaviour: Energy behaviour denotes behaviour or behavioural patterns related to energy use. Research has stressed the important role occupants play in determining the energy use of buildings (Janda, 2011).
Usability and control: This presents how accessible and user-friendly the control systems are in a building. For instance, where the control panels are located, how easy it is to open a window, or to understand the control panel. (Stevenson et al., 2013).
Resident engagement plan:A resident engagement plan or strategy maps out a path to communicate and support residents for general or specific tasks. Examples can be found here (Home Upgrade Hub, 2022 p20 and p30; Social Housing Retrofit Accelerator, n.d.)
Activity overview:
Students will role-play the post occupancy stage of inhabiting a Passivhaus home by playing different characters with different priorities (and personalities). Students will need to learn what new technologies and features are included in Passivhaus and what difficulties/problems the residents might encounter, and at the same time familiarise themselves with contemporary research on energy behaviour, performance gap, rebound effect, as well as broader issues in decarbonisation transition such as social justice and low carbon community building. Through two community meetings, the community manager needs to resolve the residents’ issues, support the residents in learning and adapting their behaviours, and devising an engagement plan to allow the residents to form a self-governed low-carbon community.
Step one: Preparation prior to class:
Provide a list of reading materials on ‘performance gap’, ‘rebound effect’, ‘adaptive comfort’, energy behaviour, usability and control literature, as well as on Passivhaus and examples of low-carbon features and technologies involved to get a sense of what difficulties residents might encounter.
To prepare for the role-play activity, assign students in advance to take on different roles (randomly or purposefully), or let them self-assign based on their interests. They should try to get a sense of their character’s values, lifestyle, priorities, abilities. Where no information is available, students can imagine the experiences and perspectives of the residents. Students assigned to be community managers or building associations will prepare for the role-play by learning about the Passivhaus system and prepare ways to support occupants’ learning and behaviour adaptation. The goal is to come up with an engagement plan, facilitate the residents to form their own community knowledge base and peer support. (Considering 1. Who are you engaging (types of residents and their characteristics); 2. How are you engaging (level of engagement, types of communication; 3. When are you engaging (frequency of engagement)
Step two: In class, starting by giving prompts for discussions:
Below are several prompts for discussion questions and activities that can be used. Each prompt could take up as little or as much time as the educator wishes, depending on where they want the focus of the discussion to be.
Discuss what support the residents might need in post occupancy stage? Who should provide (/pay for) the support? For how long? Any examples or best practice that they might know? Does support needs to be tailored to specific groups of people? (see extra prompts at the end for potential difficulties)
Discuss what the risks are involved in residents not being sufficiently supported to adapt their behaviour when living in a low-carbon house or Passivhaus? (reflect on literature)
Discuss what are the barriers to domestic behaviour change? What are the barriers to support the residents in changing behaviour and to build low-carbon community?
Step three: Class 1 Role Play
Prior to the Role Play, consider the following prompts:
Consider the variety of residents and scenarios:
Their varying demographics, physical and mental abilities, lifestyle and priorities. The following characters are examples. Students can make up their own characters. Students can choose scenarios of
1) social housing or;
2) private owner-occupier
Social housing tenants will likely have a more stretched budget, higher unemployment rate and a bigger proportion of disabled or inactive population. They will have different priorities, knowledge and occupancy patterns than private owner-occupier, and will be further disadvantaged during decarbonisation transition (Zhao, 2023). They will need different strategies and motivations to be engaged. The characters of residents could be chosen from a variety of sources (e.g. RIBA Brief generator), or based on students’ own experiences. Each character needs to introduce themselves in a succinct manner.
Other stakeholders involved include:
Developer/ housing association/ council
Passivhaus designer/architect
Engineer
Community/property manager
They are role-specific characters that don’t necessarily need a backstory. They are there to listen, take notes, give advice and come up with an engagement plan.
Consider the post occupancy in different stages:
Prior to move-in
Move-in day
The initial month
Change of season
Quarterly energy audit meeting
Consider the difficulties the residents might encounter:
Where is the thermostat?
Where is the radiator?
How do I increase the temperature in the room?
It’s very stuffy and hot in the south-facing bedroom
What does the MVHR do?
Why is the MVHR so noisy?
Does PV panel supply electricity to my washing machine? When should I put my washing on?
Do I get paid from the electricity generated from the PV panel?
Why is my energy bill higher than expected?
Consider the different engagement levels of the residents:
20-60-20: 20% very engaged, 60% follows, 20% not engaged
How do you ensure the maximum level of satisfaction from all residents, including the ones not so engaged?
How to encourage the residents to take ownership and responsibility?
The role-play consists of two community meetings over two classes. The first meeting is held at two weeks after move-in date. The second meeting at 6 months of occupancy. The meeting should include a variety of residents on one side, and the ‘chair’ of the meeting on the other. (Consider the accessibility and inclusivity of the meetings as when and where those will be held). In the first meeting, residents will get to know each other, ask questions about house-related problems occurred in the first two weeks, voice concerns. Community managers/council members will chair the meeting, take notes and make plans for support. The teacher should act as a moderator to guide students through the session. First the teacher will briefly highlight the issue up for discussion, then pass it to the ‘chair’ of the meeting. The ‘chair’ of the meeting will open the meeting with the purpose of the meeting – to support the residents and facilitate a self-governed low carbon community. They then ask the residents to feedback on their experience and difficulties. At the end of the first meeting, the group of students will need to co-design an engagement plan, including setting agendas for the second meeting in a 6-month interval (but in reality will happen in the second class) and share the plan with the residents and the class. The teacher and class will comment on the plan. The group will revise the plan after class so it’s ready for the second meeting.
Step four: Homework tasks: Revising the plan
The students will use the time before the second class to revise the plan and prepare for challenges, problems occurred over the 6-months period.
Optional wild cards could be used as unpredictable events occur between the first and second meeting. Such events include:
Energy price dramatically increase (or decrease)
Heat wave
Heavy rain for three months (no solar gain)
Whole grid decarbonisation (might affect occupants with gas central heating)
Step five: Class 2 Role play
The second meeting in the second class will either be chaired by community managers/council members, or be chaired by a few residents, monitored by community managers/council members. The second meeting begins the same way. The students playing residents should research/imagine problems occurred during the 6 months period (refer to literature), and what elements of the engagement plan devised at the end of the first meeting worked and what hasn’t worked. The ‘chair’ of the meeting will take notes, ask questions or try to steer the conversations. At the end of the second meeting, the ‘chair’ of the meeting will reflect on the support and engagement plan, revise it and make a longer-term plan for the community to self-govern and grow. At the end of this class, the whole class could then engage in a discussion about the outcome of the meetings. Teachers could focus on an analysis of how the process went, a discussion about broader themes of social justice, community building, comfort, lifestyle and value system. Challenge students to consider their personal biases and position at the outset and reflect on those positions and biases at the end of the meeting.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Amer Gaffar (Manchester Metropolitan University); Dr Ian Madley (Manchester Metropolitan University); Prof Bamidele Adebisi (Manchester Metropolitan University).
Keywords: Decarbonisation; Local Energy; Skills; Economic Growth.
Abstract: Greater Manchester (GM) has committed to carbon neutrality by 2038. There is a 97m tonnes carbon emission gap between solutions currently available and a net zero budget. To bridge this innovation gap under the leadership of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority the agency brings together: Bruntwood, Hitachi, MMU, UoM, GM Growth Company, SSE and UoS to support R&D and innovation initiatives focused on customer pull to enable rapid deployment of new and emerging technologies, services and business models to meet the challenge of GM becoming a carbon neutral city-region by 2038, drive skills development and deliver economic growth.
The need for an Energy Innovation Agency
The Mayor for Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) has committed the city region to carbon neutrality by 2038. An analysis of the implications of the Paris Climate Change Agreement for Greater Manchester (GM) (Figure 1) has identified that there is a 97m tonnes carbon emission gap between solutions currently available and the actions needed to reach net zero. We refer to this as the Innovation Gap.
Figure 1 GM Net Zero Carbon Budget and implementation pathways. Source GM 5-year Environment Plan [1]
[2] Unconstrained implementation of Scatter methods Achievable implementation of Scatter methods
To bridge the GM innovation gap under the leadership of GMCA the agency brings together: Bruntwood, Hitachi, Manchester Metropolitan University, University of Manchester, SSE and University of Salford to support R&D and innovation initiatives focused on customer pull to enable rapid deployment of new and emerging technologies, services and business models (energy innovations) to meet the challenge of GM becoming a carbon neutral city-region by 2038, driving skills development and delivering economic growth.
Forming the Energy Innovation Agency
GMCA initially approached the city’s three universities to seek advice on how their academic expertise could be harnessed to help bridge the innovation gap. This quickly led to discussions between each of the universities that identified a wide pool of complementary, and largely non-competitive, areas of research expertise that could address the gap (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Research expertise by university partner – darker colour indicates a greater depth of expertise in the area.
It was also clear that the timescales needed to deliver city wide change would not fit within a traditional academic approach to research and knowledge transfer that required a public-private partnership.
At the core of this partnership approach are three key components.
Public sector influence and leadership across both city region and local authority levels that enables new ways of working to be demonstrated and quickly built into local plans, can influence national policy and regulation, and convene wider public involvement.
The business community, end-users and investors, in its widest sense, who have the need for change and can drive change by steering the development of the business and finance models that allow rapid large-scale adoption and deployment of innovation.
Academic sector able to drive the underpinning research, access to research and test facilities to validate novel innovations, TRL and IP, and develop the skilled workforce needed.
Using existing networks, a core team comprising GMCA, Bruntwood, Hitachi, MMU, UoM, SSE and UoS came together to develop the business plan for the agency and to jointly provide the funding for the first three-years of the operation of the agency.
Vision, Aims and Objectives
To accelerate the energy transition towards a carbon-neutral economy by bridging the energy innovation gap, increasing the deployment of innovative energy solutions in GM and beyond, to speed-up the reduction of carbon emissions.
Aims:
Innovation Exploitation: supporting and scaling the most promising decarbonised energy innovations to maximise the early adoption of effective carbon-neutral energy systems.
Decarbonisation: reducing Greater Manchester’s carbon emissions from energy to meet our ambitious target to be a carbon-neutral city region by 2038
Rapid Commercialisation: rapid transition of carbon-neutral energy innovations to full-scale integration.
Investment: creating and promoting investment opportunities for carbon-neutral energy innovations and projects in the city region.
Objectives:
Position Greater Manchester as a global destination of choice for those looking to create and deploy innovative net-zero energy solutions.
Create a clear entry point, managed development, and validation pathway, for innovators to test, trial, and scale their most promising energy technologies and services in Greater Manchester.
Enhance the connection between industry and academia “push” and customer “pull”, by putting innovative products, services, and projects in front of purchasers at the very earliest stage for advice and steer.
Provide a dedicated vehicle to bid for competitive funding and for industry to generate investment value, pooling the very best innovations to solve key decarbonisation challenges.
Link local investment to innovative products and projects, to enable rapid development and deployment where clear business cases are set out.
Direct alignment to local and national policy and strategy, ensuring project delivery intelligently informs policy and vice-versa.
Foster public confidence in new approaches and technologies, creating local skills and employment opportunities and improving access to cheaper, cleaner energy for all.
Scope
With a population of 2.8 million covering 1,277 km2 the ten metropolitan boroughs of GMCA comprises the second most populous urban area in the UK, outside of London. The scope and potential for the Energy Innovation Agency is huge.
Figure 3 GMCA Energy Transition Region showing local authority boundaries.
Establishing the GM-city region area as an Energy Transition Region will provide the opportunity to develop the scale of deployment necessary to go beyond small-scale demonstration projects and develop the supply chains that can be replicated as a blue-print elsewhere in urban environments across the UK and internationally.
Progress to date
Following the investment by the founding partners a management team has been established within GMCA’s subsidiary “The Growth Company”. An independent board chaired by Peter Emery CEO ENWL has also been established.
The formal launch event will take place on 28th April 2022, at which a first challenge to the innovation community to bring forward solutions to decarbonise non-domestic buildings will be set.
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: Dr Laura Fogg-Rogers (University of the West of England, Bristol).
Case-study team: Wendy Fowles-Sweet; Maryam Lamere; Prof. Lisa Brodie; Dr Venkat Bakthavatchaalam (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Abel Nyamapfene (University College London).
Keywords: Education for Sustainable Development; Climate Emergency; Net Zero; Sustainable Development Goals.
Abstract: The University of the West of England (UWE Bristol) has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency, along with all regional councils in the West of England. In order to meet the regional goal of Net-Zero by 2030, sustainability education has now been embedded through all levels of the Engineering Curriculum. Current modules incorporate education for Sustainable Development Goals alongside citizen engagement challenges, where engineers find solutions to real-life problems. All undergraduate engineers also take part in immersive project weeks to develop problem-based learning around the Engineers without Borders international challenges.
Engineering Education for Sustainable Development
The environmental and health impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss are being felt around the world, from record high temperatures, drought, wildfires, extreme flooding, and human health issues (Ripple et al., 2020). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that urgent action is required to mitigate catastrophic impacts for billions of people globally (IPCC, 2022). The UK Government has pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050, with a 78% drop in emissions by 2035 (UK Government, 2021). Following IPCC guidance, regional councils such as Bristol City Council and the West of England Combined Authority, have pledged to reach Net Zero at an earlier date of 2030 (Bristol City Council, 2019). In parallel, UWE Bristol has embedded this target within its strategic plan (UWE Bristol, 2019), and also leads the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC), an Alliance for Sustainability Leadership in Education (UWE Bristol, 2021b). All UWE Bristol programmes are expected to embed the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within curricula (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021), so that higher education degrees prepare graduates for working sustainably (Gough, 2021).
Bourn and Neal (2008) draw the link between global sustainability issues and engineering, with the potential to tackle complex sustainability challenges such as climate change, resource limitations, and extreme poverty. The SDGs are therefore particularly relevant to engineers, showing the connections between social, environmental, and economic actions needed to ensure humanitarian development, whilst also staying within planetary boundaries to support life on earth (Ramirez-Mendoza et al., 2020). The engineering sector is thus obligated to achieve global emissions targets, with the work of engineers being essential to enable the societal and technological change to reach net zero carbon emissions (Fogg-Rogers, L., Richardson, D., Bakthavatchaalam, V., Yeomans et al., 2021).
Systems thinking and solution-finding are critical engineering habits of mind (Lucas et al., 2014), and so introducing genuine sustainability problems provides a solid foregrounding for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in engineering. Indeed, consideration for the environment, health, safety, and social wellbeing are enshrined in the UK Specification for Professional Engineers (UK SPEC) (Engineering Council, 2021). ‘Real-world’ problems can therefore inspire and motivate learners (Loyens et al., 2015), while the use of group projects is considered to facilitate collaborative learning (Kokotsaki et al., 2016). This aligns with recommendations for creating sustainability-literate graduates published by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA and Advance HE, 2021) which emphasise the need for graduates to: (1) understand what the concept of environmental stewardship means for their discipline and their professional and personal lives; (2) think about issues of social justice, ethics and wellbeing, and how these relate to ecological and economic factors; and (3) develop a future-facing outlook by learning to think about the consequences of actions, and how systems and societies can be adapted to ensure sustainable futures (QAA & HEA, 2014). These competencies are difficult to teach, and instead need to developed by the learners themselves based on experience and reflection, through a student-centred, interdisciplinary, team-teaching design (Lamere et al., 2021).
The need for engineers to learn about the SDGs and a zero carbon future is therefore necessary and urgent, to ensure that graduates are equipped with the skills needed to address the complex challenges facing the 21st Century. Lamere et al., (2021)describe how the introduction of sustainability education within the engineering curriculum is typically initiated by individual academics (early adopters) introducing elements of sustainability content within their own course modules. Full curricula refresh in the UWE Bristol engineering curricula from 2018-2020 enabled a more programmatic approach, with inter-module connections being developed, alongside inter-year progression of topics and skills.
This case study explores how UWE Bristol achieved this curriculum change throughout all programmes and created inter-connected project weeks in partnership with regional stakeholders and industry.
Case Study Methods – Embedding education for sustainable development
The first stage of the curricula transformation was to assess current modules against UK SPEC professional requirements, alongside SDG relevant topics. A departmental-wide mixed methods survey was designed to assess which SDGs were already incorporated, and which teaching methods were being utilized. The survey was emailed out to all staff in 2020, with 27 module leaders responding to highlight pedagogy in 60 modules, covering the engineering topics of: Aerospace; Mechanical and Automotive; Electrical, Electronic, and Robotics; Maths and Statistics; and Engineering Competency.
Two sub-themes were identified: ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ embedding of SDGs; direct being where the engineering designs explicitly reference the SDGs as providing social or environmental solutions, and indirect being where the SDGs are achieved through engineering education e.g. quality education and gender equality. Direct inclusion of the SDGs tended to focus on reducing energy consumption, and reducing weight and waste, such as through improving the efficiency of the machines/designs. Mitigating the impact of climate change through optimal use of energy was also mentioned. The usage of lifecycle analysis was implemented in several courses, especially for composite materials and their recycling. The full analysis of the spread of the SDGs and their incorporation within different degree programmes can seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Number of Engineering Modules in which SDGs are Embedded
Project-based learning for civic engagement in engineering
Following this mapping process, the modules were reorganized to produce a holistic development of knowledge and skills across programmes, starting from the first year to the final year of the degree programmes. This Integrated Learning Framework was approved by relevant Professional Bodies and has been rolled out annually since 2020, as new learners enter the refreshed degree programmes at UWE Bristol. The core modules covering SDG concepts explicitly are Engineering Practice 1 and 2 (at Level 1 and 2 of the undergraduate degree programme) and ‘Engineering for Society’ (at Level 3 of the undergraduate degree programme and Masters Level). These modules utilise civic engagement with real-world industry problems, and service learning through engagement with industry, schools, and community groups (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2017).
As well as the module redevelopment, a Project-Based Learning approach has been adopted at department level, with the introduction of dedicated Project Weeks to enable cross-curricula and collaborative working. The Project Weeks draw on the Engineering for People Design Challenge (Engineers without Borders, 2021), which present global scenarios to provide university students with “the opportunity to learn and practice the ethical, environmental, social and cultural aspects of engineering design”. Critically, the challenges encourage universities to develop partnerships with regional stakeholders and industry, to provide more context for real-world problems and to enable local service learning and community action (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2017).
A collaboration with the innovation company NewIcon enabled the development of a ‘design thinking’ booklet which guides students through the design cycle, in order to develop solutions for the Project Week scenarios (UWE Bristol, 2021a). Furthermore, a partnership with the initiative for Digital Engineering Technology and Innovation (DETI) has enabled students to take part in the Inspire outreach programme (Fogg-Rogers & Laggan, 2022), which brings together STEM Ambassadors and schools to learn about engineering through sustainability focussed activities. The DETI programme is delivered by the National Composites Centre, Centre for Modelling and Simulation, Digital Catapult, UWE Bristol, University of Bristol, and University of Bath, with further industry partners including Airbus, GKN Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, and Siemens (DETI, 2021). Industry speakers have contributed to lectures, and regional examples of current real-world problems have been incorporated into assignments and reports, touching on a wide range of sustainability and ethical issues.
Reflections and recommendations for future engineering sustainability education
Students have been surveyed through module feedback surveys, and the project-based learning approach is viewed very positively. Students commented that they enjoyed working on ‘real-world projects’ where they can make a difference locally or globally. However, findings from surveys indicate that students were more inclined towards sustainability topics that were relevant to their subject discipline. For instance, Aerospace Engineering students tended to prefer topics relevant to Aerospace Engineering. A survey of USA engineering students by Wilson (2019) also indicates a link between students’ study discipline and their predilection for certain sustainability topics. This suggests that for sustainability education to be effective, the content coverage should be aligned, or better still, integrated, with the topics that form part of the students’ disciplinary studies.
The integration of sustainable development throughout the curricula has been supported at institutional level, and this has been critical for the widescale roll out. An institution-wide Knowledge Exchange for Sustainability Education (KESE) was created to support staff by providing a platform of knowledge sharing. Within the department, Staff Away days were used to hold sustainability workshops for staff to discuss ESD and the topics of interest to students. In the initial phase of the mapping exercise, a lack of common understanding amongst staff about ESD in engineering was noted, including what it should include, and whether it is necessary for student engineers to learn about it. During the Integrated Learning Framework development, and possibly alongside growing global awareness of climate change, there has been more acceptance of ESD as an essential part of the engineering curriculum amongst staff and students. Another challenge has been the allocation of teaching workload for sustainability integration. In the initial phases, a small number of committed academics had to put in a lot of time, effort, and dedication to push through with ESD integration. There is now wider support by module leaders and tutors, who all feel capable of delivering some aspects of ESD, which eases the workload.
This case study outlines several methods for integrating ESD within engineering, alongside developing partnership working for regionally relevant real-world project-based learning. A recent study of UK higher education institutions suggests that only a handful of institutions have implemented ESD into their curricula in a systemic manner (Fiselier et al., 2018), which suggests many engineering institutions still need support in this area. However, we believe that the engineering profession has a crucial role to play in ESD alongside climate education and action, particularly to develop graduate engineers with the skills required to work upon 21st Century global challenges. To achieve net zero and a low carbon global economy, everything we make and use will need to be completely re-imagined and re-engineered, which will require close collaboration between academia, industry, and the community. We hope that other engineering educators feel empowered by this case study to act with the required urgency to speed up the global transition to carbon neutrality.
References
Bourn, D., & Neal, I. (2008). The Global Engineer Incorporating global skills within UK higher education of engineers.
Bristol City Council. (2019). Bristol City Council Mayor’s Climate Emergency Action Plan 2019.
DETI. (2021). Initiative for Digital Engineering Technology and Innovation. https://www.nccuk.com/deti/
Engineers without Borders. (2021). Engineering for People Design Challenge. https://www.ewb-uk.org/upskill/design-challenges/engineering-for-people-design-challenge/
Fiselier, E. S., Longhurst, J. W. S., & Gough, G. K. (2018). Exploring the current position of ESD in UK higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(2), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2017-0084
Fogg-Rogers, L., & Laggan, S. (2022). DETI Inspire Engagement Report.
Fogg-Rogers, L., Lewis, F., & Edmonds, J. (2017). Paired peer learning through engineering education outreach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1202906
Fogg-Rogers, L., Richardson, D., Bakthavatchaalam, V., Yeomans, L., Algosaibi, N., Lamere, M., & Fowles-Sweet, W. (2021). Educating engineers to contribute to a regional goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2030. Le Développement Durable Dans La Formation et Les Activités d’ingénieur. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/7581094
Gough, G. (2021). UWE Bristol SDGs Programme Mapping Portfolio.
IPCC. (2022). Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – Summary for policymakers. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, WGII Sixth Assessment Report. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315071961-11
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Lamere, M., Brodie, L., Nyamapfene, A., Fogg-Rogers, L., & Bakthavatchaalam, V. (2021). Mapping and Enhancing Sustainability Literacy and Competencies within an Undergraduate Engineering Curriculum Implementing sustainability education : A review of recent and current approaches. In The University of Western Australia (Ed.), Proceedings of AAEE 2021.
Loyens, S. M. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & van Gog, T. (2015). Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002
Lucas, Bill., Hanson, Janet., & Claxton, Guy. (2014). Thinking Like an Engineer: Implications For The Education System. In Royal Academy of Engineering (Issue May). http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/thinking-like-an-engineer-implications-summary
QAA and Advance HE. (2021). Education for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.21300/21.4.2020.2
Ramirez-Mendoza, R. A., Morales-Menendez, R., Melchor-Martinez, E. M., Iqbal, H. M. N., Parra-Arroyo, L., Vargas-Martínez, A., & Parra-Saldivar, R. (2020). Incorporating the sustainable development goals in engineering education. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00661-0
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., & Moomaw, W. R. (2020). World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. In BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
UK Government. (2021). UK enshrines new target in law to slash emissions by 78% by 2035. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-enshrines-new-target-in-law-to-slash-emissions-by-78-by-2035
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2021). The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
UWE Bristol. (2019). Climate and Ecological Emergency Declaration. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/values-vision-strategy/sustainability/climate-and-ecological-emergency-declaration
UWE Bristol. (2021a). Engineering Solutions to Real World Problems. https://blogs.uwe.ac.uk/engineering/engineering-solutions-to-real-world-problems-uwe-project-week-2020/
UWE Bristol. (2021b). Sustainability Strategy, Leadership and Plans. https://www.uwe.ac.uk/about/values-vision-strategy/sustainability/strategy-leadership-and-plans Wilson, D. (2019). Exploring the Intersection between Engineering and Sustainability Education. In Sustainability (Vol. 11, Issue 11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113134
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Prof Robert Hairstans (New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering), Dr Mila Duncheva (Stora Enso), Dr Kenneth Leitch (Edinburgh Napier University), Dr Andrew Livingston (Edinburgh Napier University), Kirsty Connell-Skinner (Edinburgh Napier University) and Tabitha Binding (Timber Development UK)
Keywords: Timber, Built Environment, Collaboration, New Educational Model
Abstract: The New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, Edinburgh Napier University and Timber Development UK are working with external stakeholders to enable an educational system that will provide comprehensive training in modern methods of timber construction. A Timber Technology Engineering and Design (TED) competency framework has been derived and a UK wide student design competition will run in the 1st quarter of 2022 as part of the process to curate the learner content and enable this alternative approach to upskilling. The EPC will gain an understanding of this alternative approach to creating an educational model by means of industry engagement. This new approach has been made possible via establishing a collaborative framework and leveraging available funding streams via the partners. This will be showcased as a methodology for others to apply to their own contexts as well as offer opportunity for knowledge and value exchange.
Introduction
Edinburgh Napier University (ENU), The New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering (NMITE) and Timber Development UK (TDUK) are working with external stakeholders to enable an educational system (Figure 1) that will provide comprehensive training in modern methods of timber construction. This case study presents an alternative approach to creating this Timber Technology Engineering and Design (TED) educational model by means of industry engagement and pilot learning experiences. This new approach has been made possible by establishing a collaborative framework and leveraging available funding streams via the partners.
Figure 1 – Approach to enabling Timber TED Educational System.
Project Aims
The aim of establishing Timber TED is to provide built environment students and professionals with a comprehensive suite of online credit bearing flexible training modules to upskill in modern timber construction techniques. To align the modules with industry need the learning content is to be underpinned by a competency framework identifying the evidence-based technical knowledge and meta skills needed to deliver construction better, faster and greener. The training modules are to be delivered in a blended manner with educational content hosted online and learners assessed by ‘learning by doing’ activities that stimulate critical thinking and prepare the students for work in practice (Jones, 2007).
Uniting industry education and training resources through one course, Timber TED will support learners and employers to harness the new knowledge and skills required to meet the increasing demand for modern timber construction approaches that meet increasingly stringent quality and environmental performance requirements.
The final product will be a recognised, accredited qualification with a bespoke digital assessment tool, suitable for further and higher education as well as employers delivering in-house training, by complementing and enhancing existing CPD, built environment degrees and apprenticeships.
The Need of a Collaborative Approach
ENU is the project lead for the Housing Construction & Infrastructure (HCI) Skills Gateway part of the Edinburgh & Southeast Scotland City Region Deal and is funded by the UK and Scottish Governments. Funding from this was secured to develop a competency framework for Timber TED given the regional need for upskilling towards net zero carbon housing delivery utilising low carbon construction approaches and augmented with addition funding via the VocTech Seed Fund 2021. With the built environment responsible for 39% of all global carbon emissions, meeting Scotland’s ambitious target of net zero by 2045 requires the adoption of new building approaches and technologies led by a modern, highly skilled construction workforce. Further to this ENU is partnering with NMITE to establish the Centre for Advanced Timber Technology (CATT) given the broader UK wide need. Notably England alone needs up to 345,000 new low carbon affordable homes annually to meet demand but is building less than a third of this (Miles and Whitehouse, 2013). The educational approach of NMITE is to apply a student-centric learning methodology with a curriculum fuelled by real-world challenges, meaning that the approach will be distinctive in the marketplace and will attract a different sort of engineering learner. This academic partnership was further triangulated with TDUK (merged organisation of TRADA and Timber Trades Federation) for UK wide industry engagement. The partnership approach resulted in the findings of the Timber TED competency framework and alternative pedagogical approach of NMITE informing the TDUK University Design Challenge 2022 project whereby inter-disciplinary design teams of 4–8 members, are invited to design an exemplary community building that produces more energy than it consumes – for Southside in Hereford. The TDUK University Design challenge would therefore pilot the approach prior to developing the full Timber TED educational programme facilitating the development of educational content via a webinar series of industry experts.
The Role of the Collaborators
The project delivery team of ENU, NMITE and TDUK are working collaboratively with a stakeholder group that represents the sector and includes Structural Timber Association, Swedish Wood, Construction Scotland Innovation Centre, Truss Rafter Association and TRADA. These stakeholders provide project guidance and are contributing in-kind support in the form of knowledge content, access to facilities and utilisation of software as appropriate.
Harlow Consultants were commission to develop the competency framework (Figure 1) via an industry working group selected to be representative of the timber supply chain from seed to building. This included for example engineered timber manufacturers, engineers, architects, offsite manufacturers and main contractors.
Figure 2 – Core and Cross-disciplinary high level competency requirements
The Southside Hereford: University Design Challenge (Figure 3) has a client group of two highly energised established community organisations Growing Local CIC and Belmont Wanderers CIC, and NMITE, all of whom share a common goal to improve the future health, well-being, life-chances and employment skillset of the people of South Wye and Hereford. Passivhaus Trust are also a project partner providing support towards the curation of the webinar series and use of their Passivhaus Planning software.
Figure 3 – TDUK, ENU, NMITE and Passivhaus Trust University Design Challenge
Outcomes, Lessons Learned and Available Outputs
The competency framework has been finalised and is currently being put forward for review by the professional institutions including but not limited to the ICE, IStructE, CIAT and CIOB. A series of pilot learning experiences have been trialled in advance of the UK wide design challenge to demonstrate the educational approach including a Passivhaus Ice Box challenge. The ice box challenge culminated in a public installation in Glasgow (Figure 4) presented by student teams acting as a visual demonstration highlighting the benefits of adopting a simple efficiency-first approach to buildings to reduce energy demands. The Timber TED competency framework has been used to inform the educational webinar series of the UK wide student design competition running in the 1st quarter of 2022. The webinar content collated will ultimately be used within the full Timber TED credit bearing educational programme for the upskilling of future built environment professionals.
Figure 4 – ICE box challenge situated in central Glasgow
The following are the key lessons learned:
Collaboration is key to maximising available resources enabling ambitious programmes of work for upskilling utilising alternative educational approaches to be realised.
Challenge based learning engages students and modern digital tools foster collaboration allowing multi-disciplinary teams to form consisting of students from different Universities.
Going forward the approach requires to be captured and aligned with learning outcomes for assessment and accreditation purposes such that it can become University credit bearing.
Jones, J. (2007) ‘Connected Learning in Co-operative Education’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), pp. 263–273.
Miles, J. and Whitehouse, N. (2013) Offsite Housing Review, Department of Business, Innovation & Skills. London
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.
“A new report from the National Engineering Policy Centre about resource efficiency and demand reduction for critical materials to support the UK’s existing Net Zero Strategy.
Theme: 
