Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking, Systems Modelling and Analysis, Configuration Management, Requirements Definition, Communication, Verification, and Validation INCOSE Competencies.
AHEP4 mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4):Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses the themes of Sustainability and Communication.
Educational level: Advanced.
Learning and teaching notes:
Overview:
This multi-part case study guides students through the complex systems challenges of Prince Edward Island, Canada’s ambitious 100% renewable energy transition by 2030. Students will experience how technical, social, and economic factors interact through emergence, feedback loops, and multi-scale dynamics that traditional engineering analysis alone cannot capture.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Identify complex systems characteristics (emergence, feedback loops, nonlinearity) in real energy systems.
Apply multiple modelling approaches (ABM, system dynamics, network analysis) to analyse system behaviour.
Evaluate how technical decisions create emergent social and economic consequences.
Synthesise insights from different modelling approaches to inform policy recommendations.
Communicate complex systems concepts and uncertainties to non-technical stakeholders.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Demonstrate complex systems concepts through hands-on modelling.
Facilitate discussions on emergence and system-level behaviours.
Evaluate learners’ ability to apply systems thinking to engineering problems.
Connect technical modelling to real-world policy and social implications.
Overview: Energy transition as a complex systems challenge:
Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada’s smallest province, aims to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Its small grid, dependence on imported power, and growing renewable infrastructure make it a natural laboratory for systems thinking in energy transitions.
This case invites students to explore how technical, social, and policy decisions interact to shape renewable integration outcomes. Using complexity-science tools, they will uncover how local actions produce emergent system behaviour, and why traditional linear models often fail to predict real-world dynamics.
The complex challenge: Traditional engineering approaches often treat energy systems as predictable and linear, optimising components like generation, transmission, or storage in isolation. However, energy transitions are complex socio-technical systems, characterised by feedback loops, interdependencies, and emergent behaviours.
In PEI’s case, replacing stable baseload imports with variable wind and solar generation creates cascading effects on grid stability, pricing, storage demand, and social acceptance. The island’s bounded geography magnifies these interactions, making it an ideal context to observe emergence and system-level behaviour arising from local interactions.
PEI currently imports about 75% of its electricity via two 180 MW submarine cables, while 25% is produced locally through onshore wind farms (204 MW). Plans for offshore wind, community solar, and hydrogen projects have triggered debates around stability, affordability, and social acceptance.
Taking on the role of an engineer at TechnoGrid Consulting, students are tasked to advise Maritime Electric, the island’s utility, on modelling strategies to guide $2.5 billion in renewable investments.
Competing goals:
Maintain grid reliability while replacing fossil baseloads.
Achieve policy targets without increasing public resistance.
Balance economic cost, environmental benefit, and technological feasibility.
Discussion prompt:
In systems terms, where do you see tensions between policy, technology, and society? How might feedback loops amplify or mitigate these tensions?
While Maritime Electric’s engineering team insists the project scope should stay strictly technical, limited to grid hardware, generation, and storage, policy advisors argue that social behaviour, market pricing, and community engagement are part of the system’s real dynamics.
Expanding boundaries makes the model richer but harder to manage; narrowing them simplifies computation but risks missing the very factors that determine success.
Temporal boundaries: timescales from milliseconds (grid response) to decades (infrastructure).
Organisational boundaries: stakeholders, regulations, and markets.
Discuss how including or excluding elements (e.g., electric-vehicle uptake, community cooperatives, carbon policy) changes the model’s focus and meaning.
Learning insight:
Complex systems cannot be fully understood in isolation; boundaries are analytical choices that shape both perception and leverage. Every inclusion or exclusion reflects an assumption about what matters and that assumption determines which complexities emerge, and which stay hidden.
Part three: Modelling the system: Multiple lenses of complexity:
(a) Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) with NetLogo:
Students construct simplified models of households, businesses, and grid operators:
Household agents: decide to adopt rooftop solar based on payback time and neighbour influence.
Technology providers: adjust prices in response to market demand.
Grid operator: balances reliability and cost.
Emergent patterns such as adoption S-curves or network clustering illustrate how simple local rules generate complex collective dynamics.
(b) System Dynamics (SD) with Vensim:
Students then develop causal loop diagrams capturing key feedbacks:
Adoption–Learning Loop: installations ↓ costs ↓ encourage more adoption.
Cost–Acceptance Loop: higher bills ↓ public support ↓ investment capacity.
This provides a macroscopic view of feedback, delay, and leverage points.
(c) Network Analysis with Python (NetworkX):
Students model actor interdependencies: how households, utilities, industries, and regulators interact. Network metrics (centrality, clustering, connectivity) reveal where resilience or vulnerability is concentrated.
Reflection prompt:
Which modelling approach offered the most insight into system-level behaviour? What were the trade-offs in complexity and interpretability?
Part four: Scenario exploration: Pathways to 2030:
Students explore three transition scenarios, each with distinct emergent behaviours:
A. Distributed Solar + Community Storage
300 MW solar, 150 MWh batteries
Decentralised coordination challenges and social clustering effects.
B. Offshore Wind + Grid Enhancement
400 MW offshore wind, new 300 MW interconnection
Weather-dependent reliability and cross-border dependency.
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: Systems thinking; Problem-solving; Critical thinking; Digital literacy; Modelling and simulation; Design; Project management; Life cycle; Risk; Collaboration; Communication; Professional conduct; Social responsibility.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Learning and teaching resources:
Glossary: This article refers to many concepts and terms which are more fully described and explained in this companion resource.
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 article outlines the core competencies required for engineering students to effectively engage with complex systems. Such systems involve a range of technical and non-technical components that interact in non-linear and unpredictable ways. Working effectively with such complex systems requires collaboration across engineering disciplines, as well as other fields and stakeholder groups.
Within AHEP4, complex problems are referred to as those which “have no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs that can be addressed through creativity and the resourceful application of engineering science” (p.26). The ability to work productively with complex systems is therefore essential for engineers and helps them address problems increasingly experienced in business and society, which have many interdependent components and lack clear or stable solutions.
The aim of this article is to provide a foundational framework that integrates the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for undergraduate and graduate engineering students to navigate complexity. In so doing, it serves educators, curriculum designers, and students seeking to develop the mindset and skills required to tackle the challenges of the 21st century within an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world (SEFI, 2025).
This knowledge article, informed by the INCOSE Competency Framework for Systems Engineering (INCOSE, 2018), categorises complex systems competencies into eight core competencies. These competencies encompass mindset and foundations, technical methods and tools, management and delivery, and attributes and behaviours. The description of each competency references learning outcomes (LOs) outlined in AHEP4 (Engineering Council, 2025) and the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Attributes (2021) to establish a common baseline for all engineering graduates (see Appendix for mapping).
The eight core complex systems competencies:
1. Systems thinking and problem framing
The ability to take a holistic approach, to consider a problem from multiple perspectives and to understand how a system’s parts interact to produce emergent behaviour.
Students must be able to understand what makes a system ‘complex’ and move beyond narrow problem-solving to identify root causes. This involves understanding fundamental Systems thinking concepts including hierarchies and interfaces (structural dimension), holism and cause-effect (dynamic dimension), lifecycles (time dimension), and multiple perspectives (perception dimension).
Systems thinking enables engineers to anticipate ripple effects, emergent behaviours, and trade-offs, designing solutions that remain robust under uncertainty. AHEP4 requires students to “formulate and analyse complex problems to reach substantiated conclusions” (LO2) and to “apply an integrated or systems approach to the solution of complex problems” (LO6).
2. Critical thinking
The ability to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, apply logical reasoning, and justify decisions based on reasoned arguments and evidence.
Navigating complex systems involves working with a variety of (often conflicting) goals, information, and data types from across discipline and stakeholder groups. Critical thinking is thus necessary to enable engineers to identify biases, avoid oversimplification and flawed reasoning, and to make ethical, transparent and evidence-informed decisions with consideration for unintended consequences. AHEP4 requires graduates to “critically evaluate technical literature and other sources of information to solve complex problems” (LO4).
3. Simulation, modelling and data literacy
The ability to apply scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles to model, test, and improve complex systems.
Working with complex systems involves a range of resources including people, data and information, tools and appropriate technologies. Students must be able to create, apply and validate system models (as physical, mathematical, or logical representation of systems) and demonstrate competence in simulation and data literacy to address uncertainty and complexity at scale. This may involve using models and data to justify assumptions, explore scenarios, predict the consequences of actions, solve difference equations, conduct sensitivity and stability analysis, and predict the probability of risk.
This aligns with several AHEP4 outcomes: “apply mathematics, statistics, and engineering principles to solve complex problems” (LO1); “apply computational and analytical techniques while recognising limitations” (LO3); and “select and critically evaluate technical literature and other data sources” (LO4).
4. Design for complexity and changeability
The ability to design adaptable, robust, and resilient systems across their lifecycle.
Changes (both planned and unplanned) are inherent in complex systems. Long-term success of a system therefore requires design for resilience to first hand/internal (by the system), second hand/external (to the system) or third hand (around the system) change. Design for complexity and changeability ensures systems can evolve and integrate new capabilities across their lifecycle.
AHEP4 requires engineers to be able to innovatively “design solutions that meet a combination of societal, user, business and customer needs” (LO5). This may involve designing systems that deliver required functions over time, including evolution, adaptability, and integration across subsystems (capability engineering), and supports evaluation of alternatives, balance competing objectives, and justify transparent decisions (decision management).
5. Project and lifecycle management
The ability to plan and deliver engineering activities across the system lifecycle, ensuring outcomes are delivered on time, on cost, and with integrity.
Complex systems involve many subsystems with various purposes and lifecycles. This necessitates effective coordination and delivery processes and a focus on early planning and lasting systemic impacts. Project and lifecycle management allows for concurrent engineering (parallelisation of tasks), and verification and validation of tasks in dynamic environments. Graduates must “apply knowledge of engineering management principles, commercial context, project and change management” (AHEP4, LO15).
This aligns with the Engineering Attribute of Project Management and Teamwork and the INCOSE Framework competencies in Lifecycle Processes, Integration, and Project Management, emphasising coordinated delivery and long-term value creation across socio-technical systems. Lifecycle awareness prevents short-term optimisation and emphasises aspects such as maintainability, whole-life value delivery and total expenditure (TOTEX) thinking, all of which support efforts towards sustainability and net-zero.
6. Risk and uncertainty management
The ability to identify, assess, and manage technical, social, environmental, and ethical risks at multiple levels of complex systems.
Complex systems are inherently uncertain, with cascading risks that must be anticipated and managed proactively. Risk management enables students to quantify source and impact of uncertainties where possible and apply precaution where uncertainty is irreducible, ensuring safety, sustainability, and governance.
AHEP4 requires graduates to “use a structured risk management process to identify, evaluate and mitigate risks (the effects of uncertainty)” (LO9), ranging from project-specific challenges to systemic threats, which need to “adopt a holistic and proportionate approach to the mitigation of security risks” (LO10).
7. Collaboration and communication
The ability to work effectively across disciplines, boundaries, and cultures, while conveying complex insights clearly to technical and non-technical audiences.
Complex systems challenges cannot be solved by individuals alone and include consideration for stakeholders across industry, policy and society. Such collaborative processes involve participatory problem-solving, learning from others, inclusive communication, and negotiation and persuasion strategies, all of which necessitate emotional intelligence.
AHEP4 expects graduates to “function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader of a team, being able to evaluate own and team performance” (LO16). They must be able to influence stakeholder decisions, foster alignment, and shape outcomes across industry, policy, and society (AHEP4, LO17).
8. Professional responsibility
The ability to apply professional and societal responsibilities in decision-making, with awareness of ethical implications and long-term impacts and unintended consequences of engineered systems.
Engineers increasingly work on complex systems that shape lives, societies, and ecosystems. Ethical responsibility ensures that technical competence aligns with social good and involves consideration for trade-offs between factors including environmental impact, affordability and social acceptance. This aligns with AHEP4, IEA, and INCOSE principles on ethics, professionalism, and leadership, ensuring engineers act responsibly within complex systems and contribute positively to society and sustainability. AHEP4 requires graduates to “identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct” (LO8) and “evaluate the environmental and societal impact of solutions to complex problems” (LO7).
Conclusions:
This article defines a set of eight integrated competencies that prepare engineering graduates to navigate complex systems. Together, they combine knowledge (what graduates must know), skills (what they can do), and attitudes (how they behave and think). Embedding these competencies requires project-based learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and reflective exercises, while assessment should include portfolios, teamwork, and scenario analysis. Employers and professional bodies can reinforce these competencies through mentoring, internships, and early career development.
By aligning with INCOSE, AHEP4, and IEA GA frameworks (see Appendix for mapping), this guidance provides an internationally consistent foundation that can be adapted to local contexts, equipping engineering graduates to address complex, interdependent challenges of the 21st century with competence, integrity, and resilience.
Appendix:
Mapping between Eight Core Competencies and Standard frameworks
Proposed Core Competency
INCOSE *
AHEP4 **
IEA GA ***
Systems Thinking & Problem Framing
ST
LO2, LO6
WA2
Critical Thinking
CT
LO4
WA4, WA11
Simulation, Modelling & Data Literacy
IM, SM
LO1, LO3, LO4
WA1, WA4, WA5
Design for Complexity & Changeability
CP, DM, DF
LO5
WA3
Project & Lifecycle Management
LC, PL,CE, CP
LO15
WA10
Risk & Uncertainty Management
CE, PL, RO
LO9, LO10
–
Collaboration & Communication
CC, TD, TL, EI
LO16, LO17
WA8, WA9
Professional Responsibility
EI, EP
LO7, LO8
WA6, WA7
* INCOSE Competency Framework, 2nd edition (2018)
** AHEP4 Learning Outcome (LO) (2025)
*** International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Attributes (GA) (2021)
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.
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 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:
This document aims to provide definitions of key terms regarding engineered complex systems.
There are many existing relevant glossaries (for example, the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge or SEBoK) so we have implemented a process to select a curated list of 14 common terms that are fundamental when considering the idea of complexity in engineered solutions, and therefore of importance to educators in this space. Rather than adding new definitions for each term we offer appropriate and accessible definitions from the literature, together with commentary exploring wider context and consideration where relevant.
Approach:
Some care is needed when using any definition around terms relating to complexity – because complexity itself is complex. There are multiple valid perspectives and so any one definition is unlikely to capture the totality of nuance and satisfy the variety of viewpoints. The process for selecting these terms involved collating an initial long list for potential inclusion, along with the ways in which each has been previously defined. These are provided as a supplementary annex to the main glossary. The method is further described in the following sub-section.
An initial list of potential terms to define was generated by cross-referencing existing glossaries. Terms that occurred in multiple glossaries were included in the long list. The definitions of these terms were extracted from these existing glossaries and are cited in the references. In addition, the relationship to the INCOSE Competencies is shown. The range of potential terms, and the variety of definitions that already exist, illustrate the complexity of describing complexity!
The authors used three categorisations of the definitions to help further group and classify the terms. The following categories are tagged to relevant terms in the glossary:
1. Property – whether or not the term describes a property applied to systems;
2. Principle – whether or not the term represents a principle that should be used when engineering complex situations or systems;
3. Approach – whether or not the term represents an approach, or element of an approach that should / could be used when engineering complex situations or systems.
Finally, explanatory commentary was added to most definitions to more specifically address an engineering education context.
Glossary:
Architecture
Definition: “an abstract description of the entities of a system and the relationship between those entities.” Crawley et al. (2016) System Architecture: Strategy & Product Development for Complex Systems
Boundary
#Property #Principle
Definition: “Define the system to be addressed. A description of the boundary of the system can include the following: definition of internal and external elements/items involved in realizing the system purpose as well as the system boundaries in terms of space, time, physical, and operational. Also, identification of what initiates the transitions of the system to operational status and what initiates its disposal is important.” NASA (2007) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, p304
Commentary: The boundary defines the scope of the system being considered, and by implication, what sits outside of the system. As such, it is critically important to define the boundary of the system-of-interest. When dealing with complex systems this can be a challenging task and may even benefit from acknowledging multiple boundaries (e.g. physical, spatial, functional, logical etc.). For example, the boundary of the physical elements of a system could be considered within a wider boundary of the problem space.
Complexity
#Property
Definition: “A complex system is a system in which there are non-trivial relationships between cause and effect: each effect may be due to multiple causes; each cause may contribute to multiple effects; causes and effects may be related as feedback loops, both positive and negative; and cause-effect chains are cyclic and highly entangled rather than linear and separable.” INCOSE (2019) INCOSE Systems Engineering and Systems Definitions
Commentary: Early conceptions of complexity emphasised the difficulty in understanding, predicting or verifying the behaviours of a system. A key distinction arising from this is the complicated and complex are not synonymous. This concept of the difficulty in predicting behaviours is reflected in the definitions of the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, SEBoK and ISO 24765. This is the key resultant consideration but does not describe the underlying property which causes this difficulty. While this definition relates more to complex systems than complexity, it is chosen for the way in which it goes beyond the consequences of complexity.
Coupling
#Property #Principle
Definition: “Coupling […] means to fasten together, or simply to connect things […] Coupling suggests a relationship between connected entities. If they are coupled, in some way they can affect each other […] For the system to be useful, its components have to be connected – coupled – so that they can work together. That said, putting them together arbitrarily won’t do the trick. The components have to be coupled in a way that achieves the goals of the system. Not only is coupling the glue that holds a system together, but it also makes the value of the system higher than the sum of its parts.” Khononov (2024) Balancing Coupling in Software Design: Universal Design Principles for Architecting Modular Software Systems, Ch1
Commentary: Coupling is a very important concept. It is the interconnection and interdependence that makes the system more (or less) than the sum of its parts. Standard Systems architecture advice is to minimise coupling between system elements (or between the systems in a system-of-systems). This is because high coupling correlates to higher structural complexity, reduced resilience and flexibility in the system, and introduces challenges for modularity in the system design. Lower or looser coupling means changes in one part of the system (in design or operation) are less likely to induce or require changes in another part. However, this lower coupling is not always possible and may be necessary to improve system performance (for example communication through intermediate layers in a system to reduce coupling can introduce unacceptable amounts of overhead and latency in the system). In design terms, high coupling between system elements means that those elements cannot be designed independently.
Emergence
#Principle
Definition: “As the entities of a system are brought together, their interaction will cause function, behaviour, performance and other intrinsic (anticipated and unanticipated) properties to emerge… Emergence refers to what appears, materializes, or surfaces when a system operates.” Crawley et al. (2016) System Architecture: Strategy & Product Development for Complex Systems
Commentary: It is worth noting that Crawley et al. (2014) go on to add “As a consequence of emergence, change propagates in unpredictable ways. System success occurs when anticipated emergence occurs, while system failure occurs when anticipated emergent properties fail to appear or when unanticipated undesirable emergent properties appear.” This emergence that gives rise to the difficulty in understanding, predicting or verifying the behaviours of a system (see Complexity).
Form
#Property
Definition: “The shape, size, dimensions, mass, weight, and other measurable parameters which uniquely characterize an item.” SAE International (2019) ANSI/EIA-649C
Function
#Principle #Approach
Definition: “A function is defined as the transformation of input flows, with defined performance targets for how well the function is performed in different conditions. A function usually has logical pre-conditions that trigger its operation. ”Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge v2.12 (2025)
Commentary: In general usage it is common to hear reference to ‘Form and Function’ in tandem, but it is the distinction between them and their relationship to one another that is important to engineering complex systems. Thinking in terms of functionality is a good way of abstracting the system to define what it does (or is needed to do) rather than what it is (and therefore by extension its form). Functions are normally allocated to single sub-elements of the system. Complexity arises at functional interfaces, or when different elements perform the same function. Thinking in terms of functionality encourages creativity as designers consider all the different ways in which the function could be performed – and then apply requirement constraints to choose the best/most feasible option. Thinking in terms of “objects” first constrains design by presupposing the solutions. Equally, when the solution goes wrong, thinking in terms of what function is failing and why, rather than focusing on a failed part allows identification of the true root cause. Organisations also have functions (such as Engineering, Human Resources, etc.) as a group of roles that perform a specific set of activities. This is important for considering the organisation/System that creates the engineered solution (which is itself a complex system, but secondary to the main application of the idea of function).
Iteration
#Approach
Definition: “Iteration is used as a generic term for successive application of a systems approach to the same problem situation, learning from each application, in order to progress towards greater stakeholder satisfaction.” Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge v2.12 (2025)
Lifecycle
#Property #Principle #Approach
Definition: “The evolution of a system, product, service, project or other human-made entity from conception through retirement.” ISO (2024) ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748-1:2024
Commentary: Understanding the lifecycle of an engineered artefact is very important. Issues arising in later stages (e.g. production, support/maintenance, upgrade and disposal) must be considered during the system’s initial development. In a system-of-systems or a capability system a significant source of complexity is the fact that different system elements have different lifecycles, and so may change or be changed independently of other elements with which they may interact or interdepend.
Model
#Approach
Definition: “An abstraction of a system, aimed at understanding, communicating, explaining, or designing aspects of interest of that system” Dori, D. (2003) Conceptual modelling and system architecting, p286
Commentary: An abstraction is a simplification. The selection of what to exclude, what to include, and at what level of granularity to depict it, is informed by the purpose of the model and the point of view from which it is created. Models do not have to be quantitative, nor is their purpose exclusively analytical.
Stakeholder
Definition: “A group or individual who is affected by or has an interest or stake in a program or project.” NASA (2019) NASA Systems Engineering Handbook SP-2016-6105 (Rev. 2)
Commentary: It is worth noting the potential difference between a stakeholder of the project that develops the system, and a stakeholder of the system that is developed.
System
#Principle #Approach
Definition: “A system is an arrangement of parts or elements that together exhibit behaviour or meaning that the individual constituents do not.” INCOSE (2019) INCOSE Fellows Briefing to INCOSE Board of Directors, January 2019
Commentary: There are many similar definitions of a system, each may offer a slightly different phrasing which can resonate better with different individuals. The origins of this definition is explained in the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge. In assessing complexity in engineered system, the concept of “systems” is of course of key value. There are two important aspects two consider:
1) Many schools of Systems Science argue that systems do not actually exist (apart from perhaps the complete universe) – they are defined for the convenience of consideration, and so the definition of the boundary of the “system of interest” is both important and somewhat arbitrary. As such, the system-of-interest can have multiple useful boundaries. While it might be possible to identify and articulate the physical boundary of an engineered artefact (and it should be acknowledged), it might not be the most useful boundary to consider.
2) The point of defining a “system of interest” includes being able to consider it as a system and so use the properties seen in systems (boundary, interface with outside, affected by/affecting environment, made up of parts, part of something larger, has a lifecycle, seen differently by different people (with different perspectives), are dynamic, exhibit emergence etc.) as a “framework for curiosity” (as the INCOSE SE competency framework defines systems thinking).
In engineered systems (rather than natural systems) it is important to distinguish between purpose (what those engineering or creating it want it do) and emergence (what it actually does).
Systems Engineering
#Principle #Approach
Definition: “Systems Engineering is a transdisciplinary and integrative approach to enable the successful realization, use, and retirement of engineered systems, using systems principles and concepts, and scientific, technological, and management methods.” INCOSE (2019) INCOSE Systems Engineering and Systems Definitions
Systems Thinking
#Approach
Definition: “Systems thinking is thinking about a question, circumstance, or problem explicitly as a system – a set of interrelated entities.” Crawley et al. (2016) System Architecture: Strategy & Product Development for Complex Systems
Commentary: Crawley et al (2016) go on to add “This means identifying the system, its form and function, by identifying its entities and their interrelationships, its system boundary and context, and the emergent properties of the system based on the function of the entities, and their functional interactions.”
References:
Crawley, E. Cameron, B. & Selva, D. (2016). System Architecture: Strategy & Product Development for Complex Systems, Pearson
Dori, D. (2003). “Conceptual modeling and system architecting.” Communications of the ACM, 46(10), pp. 62-65.
ISO (2024). Systems and software engineering — Life cycle management -ISO/IEC/IEEE 24748-1:2024
Khononov, V. (2024). Balancing Coupling in Software Design: Universal Design Principles for Architecting Modular Software Systems, Addison-Wesley Professional,
NASA. (2007). Systems Engineering Handbook – Revision 1. Washington, DC, USA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA/SP-2007-6105.
NASA (2016). Systems Engineering Handbook – Revision 2. Washington, DC, USA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA/SP-2016-6105 (Rev. 2)
SAE International (2019). National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management -ANSI/EIA-649C
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.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: Thisarticle should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seekingto provide students with an overall perspective on complex systems in engineering.
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).
Engineering systems today are increasingly complex, interconnected, and adaptive. To understand and manage them effectively, engineers must move beyond reductionist thinking where systems are broken into isolated parts and adopt systems thinking, which views systems as wholes made up of interacting components.
At the heart of this perspective lies emergence, a defining characteristic of complex systems. Emergence refers to properties or behaviours that arise from interactions among components but cannot be predicted or understood by examining those components in isolation. Appreciating emergence helps engineers anticipate how individual design decisions can produce system-level outcomes, sometimes beneficial, sometimes negative and unintended.
This article introduces the concept of emergence as one key characteristic of complex systems, situates it within systems thinking, and provides practical guidance for recognising and managing emergent behaviours in engineering practice.
1. What is a system?:
A system can be defined as “a set of interconnected elements organised to achieve a purpose” (Meadows, 2008). Systems possess structure (components), relationships (interactions), and purpose (function). Engineering systems such as aircraft, power grids, transport networks, or data infrastructures are composed of numerous subsystems that depend on each other.
Crucially, systems thinking emphasises interdependence and feedback. The behaviour of the whole cannot be fully explained by the behaviour of the parts alone. Properties such as resilience, adaptability, and emergence result from interactions within the system’s structure and environment. Recognising these relationships is essential to understanding how system-level behaviours arise.
Emergence describes the appearance of new patterns, properties, or behaviours at the system level that are not present in individual components. These properties are often irreducible: they cannot be explained solely by analysing each part separately (Holland, 2014).
Researchers distinguish between:
Weak emergence – behaviours that are theoretically predictable if all component interactions were known but are practically impossible to compute due to complexity (e.g. traffic flow patterns).
Strong emergence – properties that are fundamentally novel and irreducible to component-level descriptions (e.g., consciousness in biological systems).
In engineering, most emergent behaviours are weakly emergent: complex yet explainable with sufficient data and computational tools such as agent-based modelling or system dynamics.
A key caveat is that emergence depends on perspective and system boundaries. What seems emergent at one scale (e.g., the stability of a power grid) might appear straightforward when viewed at another. Therefore, engineers must define boundaries and assumptions clearly when analysing emergence.
3. Why emergence matters in engineering:
Emergence shapes how engineering systems behave, evolve, and sometimes fail. It can produce both desired outcomes (like adaptability or resilience) and undesired ones (like instability or cascading failure).
Understanding emergence enables engineers to:
anticipate how local interactions scale up to global system behaviour;
design feedback loops and architectures that promote stability; and
identify potential points for intervention when emergent behaviour becomes undesirable.
For instance, in cyber-physical systems, emergent coordination can enhance efficiency, but it may also create unpredictable vulnerabilities if feedback loops reinforce errors. Engineers therefore must not only observe emergence but learn how to influence it through design and governance.
4. Recognising and managing emergent behaviour:
Recognising emergence
Engineers can identify emergence by looking for:
System-level patterns that do not trace directly to any single component (e.g. global traffic flow or collective oscillations in a power grid).
Unexpected behaviours, such as new failure modes or self-organising phenomena.
Scale-dependent properties, where behaviour changes qualitatively as the system grows or interacts with its environment.
Adaptive or learning responses, where the system adjusts without explicit central control.
Intervening in emergent systems
Not all emergence is beneficial. Engineers often need to mitigate unwanted emergent behaviours such as instability or inefficiency while reinforcing desirable ones. Effective approaches include:
Redesigning interactions rather than individual components, focusing on how feedback and connectivity shape outcomes.
Introducing constraints or buffers to dampen runaway feedback loops.
Enhancing diversity and modularity so subsystems can adapt locally without propagating failures globally.
Monitoring system states continuously, using sensors, data analytics, or digital twins to detect emergent behaviour early.
Managing emergence requires humility: complex systems cannot be fully controlled, only influenced. The goal is to guide system dynamics toward safe and productive outcomes.
5. Illustrative examples of emergence in engineering systems:
Network systems
The Internet exemplifies emergence: billions of devices follow simple communication protocols, yet collectively create a resilient, adaptive global network. No single node dictates its performance; instead, routing efficiency and viral content propagation arise from local interactions among routers and users.
Transportation systems
Urban traffic patterns such as congestion waves, spontaneous lane formation, and adaptive rerouting emerge from individual driver behaviour and infrastructural design. Traffic engineers use simulation models to study how simple decision rules generate complex city-wide flows.
Energy systems
Electrical grids maintain frequency and voltage stability through distributed interactions among generators, loads, and controllers. Emergent synchronisation enables reliability, but loss of coordination can cause cascading blackouts showing both beneficial and harmful emergence.
Manufacturing systems
In smart factories, machines and sensors collaborate autonomously, producing system-wide optimisation in scheduling and quality control. Adaptive algorithms and feedback loops create emergent flexibility beyond what central planning alone could achieve.
6. Practical guidance for engineers and educators:
For engineers, the key is to design with emergence in mind:
focus on local rules that encourage desirable global behaviour;
incorporate feedback and sensing to detect changes early; and
use modular, diverse architectures to enhance resilience.
For educators, teaching emergence provides an opportunity to bridge theory and practice. Software such as NetLogo and Insight Maker allows students to visualise emergent behaviour through agent-based and system-dynamics models. Linking engineering examples to ecological, social, or digital systems helps learners appreciate the universality of emergence.
Conclusion:
Emergence is not an anomaly to be avoided but a natural attribute of complex systems. It challenges traditional engineering by revealing that system behaviour often arises from relationships, not components.
Understanding emergence equips engineers to recognise interdependencies, design adaptive solutions, and work with complexity rather than against it. By embracing systems thinking, engineers can create technologies that are not only functional but resilient, sustainable, and aligned with real-world dynamics.
References:
Holland, J.H. (2014). Complexity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Scribner.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Dynamics of Complex Systems. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Helbing, D. (2013). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497(7447), 51-59.
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.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate complex systems topics into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.
Premise:
Teaching and learning engineering carries with it a double layer of complexity. On the one hand, this complexity is connected to the growing interdisciplinary nature of engineering itself. On the other hand, the complexity is connected to the growing diversity of engineering students that are often present in one project team. This multifaceted complexity requires a re-envisioned understanding of the role and purpose of the engineering educator.
With the growing trend of a global classroom reality, we often find that learners in the classroom are representing different cultures, which in turn are rooted in them unconsciously carrying historical and socio-cultural baggage relating to these cultures. Thus, it becomes crucial to unpack the challenge and potential that such a diverse collective intelligence can offer to an engineering learning experience.
As our understanding of the engineering discipline gets more rooted and interconnected with the precarious reality that our world is witnessing today, it becomes essential that the engineering education community would take up a proactive role in actively contributing to the formation of engineering citizenship. In other words, every engineering student should be educated as a citizen that has mastered the engineering cross-cutting fields in such a way that they are free to create and solve problems of the present and the future.
With this in mind, it becomes very clear that the one-size-fits all model of a single discipline engineering classroom can no longer sustain itself. It does not factor in the richness that a diverse student body can offer, and it dilutes the value and potential of an engineering learner to think clearly or solve problems. It is therefore imperative that engineering educators grasp the complex reality of an integrated engineering discipline and address it in a way that fosters scaffolding of diverse knowledge. Some students might specialise in one core technical discipline. Yet, future projections for most students showcase the need to have a wide level of exposure to broader competency development. Students need to learn to understand the field of engineering at large and to develop system thinking skills that enable them to exist, challenge and have an impact on the system that they are a part of.
How to scaffold learning outcomes in a complex engineering curriculum:
The below table has been designed for embedding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across an engineering curriculum. It maps against competencies and suggests scaffolding techniques across educational levels. It is also important to note, that efforts need to be made to align to the relevant AHEP requirements or other accreditation standards. Table 1 presents the different strands of the Complex Systems Engineering Curriculum, colour coded in line with the INCOSE Competency Framework outline (INCOSE, 2025). Table 2 presents a practical guide for educators to scaffold Complex Systems learning outcomes across a curriculum. The intention is for the scaffolding framework to compare the trade-offs between different elements of the competency group. For example, system modelling and analysis as an element from the core competency and planning from the management competency. The table suggests activities that would integrate different competencies together in a scaffolded approach.
Table 1 presents Competency Areas for Complex Systems. As mentioned, the skills range to include a wide variety of competencies, thereby enabling a solid and grounded systems thinking approach for students. As students approach their learning, they go through a series of development stages that gradually build up student level of expertise until they reach the stage of what the INCOSE competency framework refers to as a lead practitioner role. Building on the competencies of the complex system toolkit presented in Table 1, Table 2 presents a potential outline for a scaffolding framework that maps varying threads of the framework in a way that enables scaffolded activities at every developmental stage for learners. Depending on the learning context and educational level, educators can choose which level of attainment is appropriate to their curriculum.
As we are approaching the fuzzy front end to complexity in engineering pedagogy, as educators we need to be constantly toggling between devising frameworks, being informed by literature, contextualising ideas, validating these in our classrooms and repeating this cycle to continually fine-tune our complex teaching navigational complexity framework. The invitation is open for all educators who would like to connect as we continue to explore different ways of developing responsible engineers who leave a lasting and sustainable mark transforming their stationed realities.
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.
Background
Complex intelligent systems, systems thinking competency, and understanding complexity are all critical to engineering in the 21st century, and when integrated holistically, complex systems in engineering teaching can align with other initiatives that promote responsible engineering. Learning approaches for integrating complex systems knowledge, skills, and mindsets in engineering supports educators in their own professional development, since many may have not learned about this topic that they are now expected to teach. Accreditation frameworks increasingly refer to complex problems and systems thinking in outcomes for engineering programmes, and yet very few resources exist that support engineering educators to integrate these into their teaching in a comprehensive and effective way or indeed to upskill educators to be able to deliver this teaching.
To address this gap, a Complex Systems Toolkitis being developed by the Engineering Professors’ Council with support from Quanser. Its development is guided by a Working Group comprised of academic, industry, and professional organisation experts.
Register your interest
Please register your interest in developing a resource by completing this form by 30th June 2025.
If you would like to suggest links to pages or online resources that we can add to our database of engineering education resources for complex systems teaching, please email Wendy Attwell: w.attwell@epc.ac.uk
The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to develop resources for inclusion in the toolkit
These resources will fit into three categories:
Knowledge articles: are resources that users can access to improve their knowledge or find more information. These are intended to provide theoretical and practical background on complex systems concepts and tools such as modelling or decision-making approaches. While guidance articles focus on “how”, knowledge articles focus on “what”.
Guidance articles: areresources that users can access to learn how to do something. These are intended to provide practical advice on subjects such as how to explain complex systems to students, or how to assess for skills and competencies in complex systems. While knowledge articles focus on “what”, guidance articles should focus on “how”.
Teaching activities: are resources that users can access to help them know what to integrate and implement. These include use cases/case studies which provide examples of complex systems which can be directly utilised in teaching with the suggested tools, as well as other classroom activities such as coursework, project briefs, lesson plans, demonstration simulations, or other exercises.
Read more about the specific content we are looking for (click on the arrows to expand the sections):
Submit a knowledge article
Submit a knowledge article
The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to write knowledge articles on the following subjects:
Why teach / learn about Complex Systems?
This should include reference to:
The increasing ubiquity of complex systems
The need to understand complexity as a concept
The need for systems thinking competency among engineers
How complex systems are related to all engineering disciplines
Why integrate Complex Systems into Engineering Education?
This should include reference to:
Why engineered systems require certain properties (e.g. resilience)
The consequences of system failures
Knock-on effects beyond engineering
Interaction with other systems (e.g. human and natural)
What are Complex Systems?
This should provide a real-world explanation and include:
Examples of engineered systems / Engineering Complexity
Examples of socio-technical systems and the wider context
These articles should also connect the why (why must teaching about complex systems be present in engineering education?) to the how (how can this be done efficiently and effectively?). Through these tools, we aim to help upskill UK engineering educators so that they feel capable of and confident in integrating complex systems into their engineering teaching.
The deadline for submitting a knowledge article is 15th August 2025.
Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a knowledge article
Guidance #1: Research Guidance #2: OverviewGuidance #3: PurposeGuidance #4: ContentGuidance #5: References and resourcesGuidance #6: Format
Research:
Knowledge articles are resources that users can access to improve their knowledge or find more information. These are intended to provide theoretical and practical background on complex systems concepts and tools such as modelling or decision-making approaches. While guidance articles focus on “how”, knowledge articles focus on “what”.
Before you begin, you should review knowledge articles that form a part of the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit, since we hope that contributions to the Complex Systems Toolkit will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone.
Knowledge articles are meant to be overviews that a reader with no prior knowledge of complex systems could refer to in order to develop a baseline understanding and learn where to look for additional information (they can reference other sources). They should be understandable to students as well: imagine that an educator might excerpt content from the article to provide their students context on a project or learning activity.
They should be approximately 500-1000 words (although they can be more in depth if necessary) and reference relevant online open-source resources.
Overview:
The articles are meant to be able to stand on their own as a piece of knowledge on a topic; they are also meant to work alongside other articles so that taken together they form a sort of complex systems in engineering handbook.
Purpose:
Each article should inform, explain, and provide knowledge on the topics. Put yourself in the perspective of an engineering educator who is new to complex systems.
Content:
The content of the article should be organised and well developed. That is, it should be presented in a logical way and thoroughly explained.
References and resources:
Where additional explanation could be given, it might point to other resources, and where information is presented from another source, it needs to be properly referenced using Harvard referencing.
Format
Knowledge articles should follow this format:
Premise;
Body of article, divided up into headed sections as necessary;
Before you submit your contribution, have you registered as a contributor? If not, please register your interest here.
Step 3: Submitting your knowledge article
The deadline for submitting a knowledge article is 15th August 2025.
Knowledge articles should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx). Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format.
To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the Toolkit resources in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, this work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence users are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that they must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.
The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to write guidance articles on the following subjects:
1. Guide to Explaining Complex Systems to students
This guidance should mirror the tone and style of resources from the Ethics and Sustainability Toolkits which provide a “how to” approach.
2. How Complex Systems relate to AHEP 4.
This should include guidance in understanding language in AHEP 4 around “complex problems” and their connection to Complex Systems.
3. How to scaffold Complex Systems learning outcomes across a curriculum
This should include good practice and examples of learning outcomes or objectives integrated in engineering curricula at different levels, either in general or in a particular engineering degree.
4. How do we assess for skills / competencies in Complex Systems?
This resource could mirror the tone and style of resources from the Ethics and Sustainability Toolkits, and could contain:
These articles should also connect the why (why must teaching about complex systems teaching be present in engineering education?) to the how (how can this be done efficiently and effectively?). Through these tools, we aim to help upskill UK engineering educators so that they feel capable of and confident in integrating complex systems into their engineering teaching.
The deadline for submitting a guidance article is 15th August 2025.
Step 1: Read the guidance for submitting a guidance article
Guidance #1: Research Guidance #2: Overview Guidance #3: Purpose Guidance #4: ContentGuidance #5: References and resourcesGuidance #6: Format
Research:
Guidance articles are resources that users can access to learn how to do something. These are intended to provide practical advice on subjects such as how to explain complex systems to students, or how to assess for skills and competencies in complex systems. While knowledge articles focus on “what”, guidance articles should focus on “how.”
Before you begin, you should review guidance articles that form a part of the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit, since we hope that contributions to the Complex Systems Toolkit will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone.
Guidance articles aim to help situate our teaching resources in an educational context and to signpost to additional research and resources on complex systems theory and tools.
They should be approximately 500-1000 words (although they can be more in depth if necessary) and reference relevant online open-source resources.
Overview:
The articles are meant to be able to stand on their own as a piece of guidance on a topic; they are also meant to work alongside other articles so that taken together they form a sort of complex systems in engineering handbook.
Purpose:
Each article should inform, explain, and provide knowledge on the topics. Put yourself in the perspective of an engineering educator who is new to complex systems.
Content:
The content of the article should be organised and well developed. That is, it should be presented in a logical way and thoroughly explained.
References and resources:
Where additional explanation could be given, it might point to other resources, and where information is presented from another source, it needs to be properly referenced using Harvard referencing.
Format
Guidance articles should follow this format:
Premise;
Body of article, divided up into headed sections as necessary;
Are open resources or links to other toolkit materials included?
What additional resources or references have you included?
Before you submit your contribution, have you registered as a contributor? If not, please register your interesthere.
Step 3: Submitting your guidance article
The deadline for submitting a guidance article is 15th August 2025.
Guidance articles should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx). Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format.
To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the Toolkit resources in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, this work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence users are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that they must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.
The Complex Systems Toolkit Working Group seeks contributors to create teaching activities based on the following briefs:
1. Case Studies that, through a real-world situation, illustrate different types of complex systems, use cases for the tools that can be used to model / simulate these, techniques that promote development and use of systems architecture, and effects such as trade-offs, emergent properties, impacts, or unintended consequences. Case studies could also reference the implications for risk, security, ethics, sustainability, teamwork, and communication.
Case study topics could include:
Air traffic control
Smart agriculture
Autonomous driving
Robotics
Smart cities
2. Demonstrator simulations that provide examples of how systems can be modelled.
This could include:
Examples of simple, complicated, and complex systems
Interactive examples showing how well-intentioned action can lead to failure
Interactive examples showing the best approaches to handling complexity
3. Lesson plans, coursework and teaching activities that are useful in integrating learning around complexity, systems thinking, and complex systems.
These resources should promote active learning pedagogies and real-world teaching methods by showing how complex systems teaching can be embedded within technical problems and engineering practice. Through these resources, we aim to help upskill UK engineering educators so that they feel capable of and confident in integrating complex systems into their engineering teaching.
The deadline for submitting a teaching activity is 15th August 2025.
Step 1a: Read the guidance for submitting a case study
Guidance #1: Research Guidance #2: Overview Guidance #3: Authenticity Guidance #4: Complexity of issue Guidance #5: Activities and resourcesGuidance #6: Educational level & AssessmentGuidance #7: Format
Research
Teaching activities are resources that users can access to help them know what to integrate and implement. These include use cases/case studies which provide examples of complex systems which can be directly utilised in teaching with the suggested tools, as well as other classroom activities such as coursework, project briefs, lesson plans, demonstration simulations, or other exercises.
Before you begin, you should review case studies that form a part of the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit or Ethics Toolkit, since we hope that contributions to the Complex Systems Toolkit will be fairly consistent in length, style, and tone. While complex systems cases may not have the same learning outcomes, the format and approach should be similar. Remember that the audience for these case studies is educators seeking to embed complex systems concepts within their engineering teaching.
Case studies present real-world scenarios that can be used in teaching about complex systems in engineering. They provide students with opportunities to explore complex systems tools, and trade-offs, in authentic contexts, and reflect on decisions made about them.
They are usually based on a real example, although fictionalised cases are acceptable when they are grounded in realistic detail. Case studies should enable students to identify or interpret key features of complex systems (feedback loops, interdependence or emergent behaviour) and apply relevant tools or frameworks to make sense of the situation.
Case studies will vary in length depending on scope and resource, but many are around 1500-2000 words. They should reference relevant online open-source resources.
Please see the current research on good practice in writing case studies, which you may find helpful as you write, as well as our article about a recipe for writing a case study. This ‘recipe’ can guide you as you write to include or develop other aspects of the case. Both articles are from our Engineering Ethics Toolkit, but the guidance given can be adapted for complex systems cases.
Overview
The case study should be presented as a narrative about a complex systems issue in engineering.
Narrative strength: the case should be clearly structured with a compelling and coherent story. System complexity: it should explore interdependencies, multiple stakeholders and/or competing goals. Tool integration: systems tools should be mentioned or incorporated (e.g. soft systems methodology, SysML, Agent-based modelling etc). Activities and Resources: there should be questions, prompts or teaching activities to guide discussion or classroom use.
Authenticity
Case studies are most effective when they feel like they are realistic, with characters that you can identify or empathise with, and with situations that do not feel fake or staged. Giving characters names and backgrounds, including emotional responses, and referencing real-life experiences help to increase authenticity.
Complexity of issue
Many cases are either overly complicated so that they become overwhelming, or so straightforward that they can be “solved” quickly. A good strategy is to try to develop multiple dimensions of a case, but not too many that it becomes unwieldy. Additionally, complexity can be added through different parts of the case so that instructors can choose a simpler or more complicated version depending on what they need in their educational context.
Activities and resources
You should provide a variety of suggestions for discussion points and activities to engage learners, as well as a list of reliable, authoritative open-source online resources, to both help educators prepare and to enhance students’ learning. Where information is presented from another source, it needs to be properly referenced using Harvard referencing.
Educational level and Assessment
Educational level: When writing your case study, you should consider which level it is aimed at. A Beginner-level case is aimed at learners who have not had much experience in engaging with a complex problem, and usually focuses on only one or two dimensions of a challenge. An Advanced-level case is aimed at learners who have had previous practice in engaging with complex systems, and often addresses multiple challenges. An Intermediate case is somewhere in between.
Assessment: If possible, suggest assessment opportunities for activities within the case, such as marking rubrics or example answers.
Format
The case study should follow the following format:
Teaching notes (with learning objectives, time needed, materials): This is an overview of the case and its dilemma, and how it relates to AHEP4 and INCOSE competencies.
Learning and teaching resources: A list of reliable, authoritative, open-source online resources that relate to the case and its dilemma. These can be from a variety of sources, such as academic institutions, journals, news websites, business, and so on. We suggest a minimum of five sources that help to provide context to the case and its dilemmas. You may want to suggest an author flag up certain resources as suggested pre-reading for certain parts of the case, if you feel that this will enrich the learning experience.
Summary of system or context.
Narrative of the case (presenting the complexity).
Questions and activities. This is where you provide suggestions for discussions and activities related to the case and the dilemma.
Further discussion or challenge (optional). Some case studies are sufficiently complex at one dilemma, but if the case requires it you can provide further parts (up to a maximum of three).
Teaching Tools are intended to support educators’ ability to apply and embed complex systems concepts within their engineering teaching.
Educators need to quickly and easily find help with:
Adapting and integrating existing complex systems resources to their disciplinary context;
Implementing new and different pedagogies that support complex systems learning.
Structuring lessons, modules, and programmes so that complex systems skills and outcomes are central themes.
Thus, these teaching tools will provide crucial guidance for those who may be teaching complex systems-related material for the first time, or who are looking for new and different ways to integrate complex systems concepts into their teaching.
They may take the form of learning activities, project briefs, modelling or simulation activities, technical content related to complex systems, worksheets, slides, or other similar teaching materials.
Imagine that you are an engineering educator who is new to teaching complex systems concepts. You turn to this teaching tool to help you apply and embed these in your module.
Does this resource help introduce or develop concepts related to complex systems or systems thinking so that learners can engage with these topics in the context of engineering?
If not, what is needed to make this possible?
Presentation and Clarity
Depending on the resource, you may choose to provide worksheets, slides, problem sets, or narrative prompts.
Is the resource explained in such a way that someone new to teaching complex systems could understand how to use it?
Is the material clearly introduced and described?
Resources and Guidance
Depending on the topic, educators may need additional resources or guidance to support their use of the material. For instance, background information may be required or a technical topic explained.
Have you provided sufficient material so that educators can easily employ the resource?
Short description of what the resource is and what it aims to do.
States how it is related to complex systems or systems thinking, referring to external content such as INCOSE Competencies and AHEP 4.
Provides an overview of the activity, suggesting how it might be implemented and in what contexts, how long it might take, and any other relevant delivery information.
Details any specific materials or software required for the activity, as well as any modelling or simulation tools to be used.
Lists any learning and teaching resources recommended in order to undertake the activity, including suggested pre-reading or other references.
Explains the activity in as much detail as is required (this will vary depending on the type of material the resource addresses.)
If relevant, provides assessment guidance–marking rubrics, sample answers, etc.
Step 2b: Before you submit, review this checklist:
Does this resource help introduce or develop concepts related to complex systems or systems thinking so that learners can engage with these topics in the context of engineering?
Is the resource explained in such a way that someone new to teaching complex systems could understand how to use it?
Is the material clearly introduced and described?
Have you provided sufficient material so that educators can easily employ the resource?
The deadline for submitting a teaching activity is 15th August 2025.
To ensure that everyone can use and adapt the Toolkit resources in a way that best fits their teaching or purpose, this work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Under this licence users are free to share and adapt this material, under terms that they must give appropriate credit and attribution to the original material and indicate if any changes are made.
Teaching activities should be submitted in Word file format (.doc or .docx). Any corresponding images should be submitted in either .jpeg, .jpg or .png format.
If you wish to develop materials to contribute beyond this, we will be opening the next cycle in spring 2026.
If you would like to become a reviewer for the toolkit (initially between July and October 2025), please complete this form.
If you would like to suggest links to pages or online resources that we can add to our database of engineering education resources for complex systems teaching, please email Wendy Attwell: w.attwell@epc.ac.uk
Additional information
In undertaking this work, contributors will become part of the growing community of educators who are helping to ensure that tomorrow’s engineering professionals have the complex systems skills, knowledge, and attributes that they need to provide a better future for us all. Contributors will be fully credited for their work on any relevant Toolkit materials, and will be acknowledged as authors should the resources be published in any form. Developing these resources will provide the chance to work with a dynamic, diverse and passionate group of people leading the way in expanding engineering teaching resources, and may help in professional development, such as preparing for promotion or fellowship. If contributors are not compensated by their employers for time spent on this type of activity, a small honorarium may be available to encourage participation.
As part of the toolkit project, we are also developing tools for collaborating with our Working Group in-house. Stay tuned for further details.
Learn more about the Complex Systems Toolkit
Those interested in contributing to the Complex Systems Toolkit should fill out this form and we will be in touch.
Relevant disciplines: Environmental; Civil; Systems engineering.
Keywords: Sustainability; Environmental justice; Water and sanitation; Community engagement; Urban planning; Waste management; Nigeria; Sweden; AHEP; Higher education.
Sustainability competency: Systems thinking; Integrated problem-solving competency; Strategic competency.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 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation); SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); SDG 13 (Climate Action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: More real-world complexity; Active pedagogies and mindset development; Cross-disciplinarity.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Educational level: Beginner.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study juxtaposes the waste management strategies of two cities: Stockholm, Sweden, renowned for its advanced recycling and waste-to-energy initiatives, and Lagos, Nigeria, a megacity grappling with rapid urbanisation and growing waste challenges. The contrast and comparison aim to illuminate the diverse complexities, unique solutions, and ethical considerations underlying their respective journeys towards sustainable waste management.
This case is presented in parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Parts two and three develop and complicate the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case study allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities, as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Understand the role of UNSDGs in urban planning and waste management policy.
Analyse and apply diverse waste management strategies considering socio-economic and cultural contexts.
Advocate for inclusive, equitable, and environmentally conscious waste management solutions.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce concepts relating to circularity
Link real-world and systemic engineering problems with SDGs
You are a renowned environmental engineer and urban planner, specialising in sustainable waste management systems. The Commissioner of Environment for Lagos invites you to analyse the city’s waste challenges and develop a comprehensive, adaptable roadmap towards a sustainable waste management future. Your mandate involves:
Assessing the current state of waste generation, collection, and disposal in Lagos.
Evaluating the exemplar Stockholm’s waste management strategies and identifying transferable best practices.
Examining the socio-economic and cultural context of Lagos and its specific waste management needs.
Devising a holistic waste management framework that prioritises environmental sustainability, social equity, and community engagement.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Discussion: Compare and contrast Lagos’s current waste management with Stockholm’s system, considering factors like efficiency, technology, and environmental impact.
Activity: Map the various stakeholders involved in Lagos’s waste management system, identifying potential partners and challenges for collaboration.
Discussion: Explore the social and economic dimensions of waste management in Lagos. How does waste affect different communities and individuals?
Part two:
As you delve deeper, you recognise the multifaceted challenges Lagos faces. While Stockholm boasts advanced technologies and high recycling rates, its solutions may not directly translate to Lagos’s context. Limited infrastructure, informal waste sectors, and diverse cultural practices must be carefully considered. Your role evolves from simply analysing technicalities and policies to devising a holistic strategy. This strategy must not only champion environmental sustainability but also champion social equity, respecting the unique socio-economic and cultural nuances of each urban setting. You must design a system that:
Promotes waste reduction and source separation at the community level.
Empowers and integrates the informal waste sector through training and formalisation
Ensures access to safe and efficient waste collection for all, particularly underserved communities.
Leverages sustainable technologies and practices (e.g., composting, biogas) while remaining adaptable to resource constraints.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Analysing existing waste management policies
City: [Choose Stockholm or Lagos]
Existing policy: [Specify the specific policy you are analysing]
Adaptability for diverse contexts:
Can this policy be easily adapted to other cities with different socio-economic and cultural contexts?
What are the key challenges and opportunities for adaptation?
What resources and support would be needed for successful adaptation?
What technical knowledge and skills are required to enact the policy? What local industries and partners will be critical to success?
Discussion prompts:
To what extent does the existing policy prioritise environmental sustainability, social equity, and economic feasibility?
What role can communities and diverse stakeholders play in shaping and implementing waste management policies?
Part three:
While implementing your strategy, you encounter enthusiasm from some sectors but also resistance from others, particularly informal waste workers and industries whose livelihoods may be impacted. Balancing immediate socio-economic concerns with long-term environmental benefits becomes crucial.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
Discussion: Explore the ethical considerations of implementing a sustainable waste management system that might have short-term negative impacts on certain groups. How do you balance long-term benefits with potential immediate drawbacks?
Activity: Investigate real-world examples of cities transitioning to sustainable waste management and the strategies they used to mitigate negative socio-economic impacts.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.
