You can now view the recording of the ACE-Lab and agentic engineering workflows webinar, as part of the Complex Systems Toolkit, supported by Quanser. The webinar was live on Monday 29th June 2026, 11am-1pm BST.
This free webinar introduces practical engineering workflows, from requirements capture through to verification and validation. These concepts are demonstrated using the ACE-Lab, a low-cost, hands-on engineering learning platform, alongside MATLAB and Simulink to illustrate key stages of the workflow. The webinar also explores the emerging role of agents in engineering workflows. Through practical examples and demonstrations, it shows how agent-enabled approaches can support engineers in solving problems more effectively. During this webinar we also launched a new call providing you with an opportunity for your content to be featured in the Complex Systems Toolkit.
During this webinar we also launched a new call for contributions, providing you with an opportunity for your content to be featured in the Complex Systems Toolkit.
For more about the webinar, including the event programme and speaker bios, click here.
To enable closed captions on Vimeo, click the CC button in the video player.
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.
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.
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).
Educational level: Intermediate; Advanced.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Apply systems engineering principles to understand interdependencies between design, manufacturing, and performance.
Use CAD software (e.g. Autodesk Fusion 360) to model and iterate heat sink designs for additive manufacturing.
Explore simulation tools such as Thermal Analysis (Fusion 360) for predicting performance before fabrication.
Engage in design–build–test cycles, fabricating prototypes using metal additive manufacturing and evaluating them experimentally.
Collect and analyse real-time data using LabVIEW and data acquisition systems, linking digital design to physical performance.
Develop collaborative and communication skills through team-based design projects and peer review sessions.
Reflect on sustainability considerations in advanced manufacturing processes.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce students to complex systems thinking through practical, problem-based, experiential learning activities.
Demonstrate the integration of digital tools and physical testing in a closed-loop design process.
Guide learners in using industry-standard software for design and simulation, reinforcing professional practice.
Facilitate iterative design processes, encouraging students to analyse trade-offs and optimise performance.
Incorporate structured prompts, rubrics, and feedback mechanisms to support critical thinking and design evaluation.
Promote reflection and uncertainty management as part of assessment, linking technical outcomes to systemic insights.
Align activities with INCOSE competencies and AHEP4 themes, ensuring relevance to accreditation and professional standards.
Foster peer learning and collaboration through group work and discussion-based sessions.
Materials and tools required:
This activity utilises both computational design tools and an experimental thermal testing facility to establish a complete system feedback loop:
CAD software (Autodesk Fusion 360) for 3D modelling and design iteration.
Additive manufacturing equipment (metal 3D printer) for prototype fabrication.
Thermal Analysis Tool (Fusion 360) or other CFD simulation software (optional – for design simulation).
Data acquisition system and testing equipment.
The experimental facility integrates the following components:
K-type thermocouples calibrated to ASTM E230 (0–100°C, ±1°C).
Data Acquisition System: NI USB-6210 with custom LabVIEW interface.
Thermal paste: DOWSIL 340 for improved thermal contact.
Computer interface for real-time data recording and analysis.
Learning and teaching resources:
Pre-reading includes literature on additive manufacturing, design for manufacture, and systems thinking in engineering. Students can review the references listed below to learn the fundamentals of heat sinks, guidance on heat sink design, and important considerations.
This teaching activity introduces students to complex systems thinking by having them design, fabricate, and experimentally evaluate additively manufactured heat sinks. It can form part of an advanced manufacturing module, in which learners apply systems engineering principles to understand the interdependencies among design, manufacturing, and performance. The activity demonstrates how complex systems principles—such as feedback, emergence, and uncertainty—manifest in physical engineering systems. Students are guided to see the design–test–evaluate cycle as an iterative, data-driven process that links digital design environments with real-world performance outcomes.
Activity description:
The experiential learning activity links digital design, manufacturing, and physical evaluation using a complex systems framework. Students iterate designs, fabricate prototypes, and measure thermal performance, reflecting on interdependencies and feedback loops.
Session 1: Introduction:
Students are introduced to complex systems and additive manufacturing principles. Variables affecting heat sink performance – geometry, material, surface finish – are identified. The session frames these variables as part of an interconnected thermal management system.
Notes for educators:
Discuss the role of thermal management in high-performance systems.
Provide resources (journal articles, books) for further reading.
Map out factors affecting heat sink efficiency and their systemic relationships, along with the limitations in additive manufacturing.
Introduce complex design thinking concepts, including feedback loops, trade-offs, and uncertainty.
Provide an overview of digital tools (e.g. CAD and simulation software) that support iterative design.
Session 2*: Design and manufacture:
Teams create CAD models in Fusion 360 and prepare designs for metal additive manufacturing. Students analyse trade-offs between thermal performance, printability, and material efficiency, applying complex design thinking to balance competing requirements. Feedback from earlier simulations informs iterative design refinement.
Notes for educators:
Prerequisite knowledge:
Students are expected to be familiar with additive manufacturing processes, including basic 3D printing principles and design-for-manufacture considerations. This ensures that the session focuses on systems thinking and optimisation rather than on manufacturing fundamentals.
Provide design constraints:
Clearly state the size limitations for the heat sink and the capacity of the metal 3D printer, including:
Maximum build volume (e.g. 100 mm × 100 mm × 50 mm).
Minimum wall thickness (e.g. 1.5 mm).
Minimum spacing between fins (e.g. 2 mm).
Provide a design prompt (e.g. “Optimise heat sink geometry for maximum heat dissipation under given constraints”).
Share an evaluation rubric that assesses the following: design rationale, manufacturability, thermal performance, and discussion/reflection, including consideration of environmental and societal impacts.
Encourage peer-review sessions in which teams critique one another’s designs before fabrication.
*Advanced option:
Academics may incorporate Thermal Analysis Tools within Fusion 360 or CFD simulations (e.g. ANSYS Fluent) to evaluate design performance and refine heat sink geometry for optimal efficiency.
Session 3: Experimental set-up and evaluation:
Each prototype is tested using the dedicated testing facility, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Schematic of the experimental facility for heat sink testing.
The experimental set-up used for evaluating the heat sink performance consists of a DC power supply (i.e. Velleman LABPS3003 30V, 3A), a polyimide-insulated flexible heater (i.e. OMEGA KHLVA-202/40), thermocouples (i.e. K type), a data acquisition system (i.e. NI USB-6210), and a computer for data recording, as shown schematically in Figure 1. A flexible heater is mounted beneath the heat sink, powered by a DC supply to simulate heat generation in microprocessors. Thermocouples are positioned at the heat sink base and calibrated to ASTM E230. A DOWSIL 340 thermal paste layer ensures optimal thermal contact. This enables accurate measurement of the thermal performance of fabricated heat sinks under controlled heat flux conditions.
Session 4: Data analysis and comparison:
A custom LabVIEW interface is developed to acquire, visualise, and log temperature and power data in real time, thereby providing a digital bridge between the physical test rig and the data analysis environment. Temperature and power data are acquired using LabVIEW with the NI USB-6210 DAQ card.
The evaluation and comparison of thermal performance among heat sink geometries designed by various student groups are conducted by recording the base temperature of each configuration as a function of time under a constant heat flux and identical ambient conditions. The transient temperature response, illustrated in Figure 2 (a), provides insight into the rate at which each design approaches steady state, whereas the steady-state base temperature indicates its overall heat dissipation capability. This procedure can be applied to any heat sink to assess and compare its thermal behaviour.
Figure 2: (a) Transient base temperature variation with time for the reference and three heat sink configurations. (b) Enhanced heat dissipation relative to the reference block, illustrating the method used to compare thermal performance across different designs.
Students compare results and interpret the impact of geometry on heat dissipation. They connect observed variations to systemic dependencies between design, manufacture, and experimental performance.
The computed enhancement values, shown in Figure 2 (b) allow direct comparison of heat dissipation efficiency among the different designs. By examining both the temperature–time response and the enhancement ratio, the effect of geometric modification on thermal performance can be quantitatively assessed within a unified experimental framework.
The experimental facility thus forms a closed digital loop connecting design, fabrication, and performance evaluation. The data acquired through LabVIEW and the DAQ system feed back into the design process, enabling iterative optimisation of heat-sink geometry and thermal-management strategies.
Session 5: Reflection:
Teams map out interdependencies between process variables, performance metrics, and uncertainties. They construct feedback diagrams (flowcharts) using Microsoft PowerPoint SmartArt, linking design iterations, measurements, and outcomes to identify emergent system behaviour.
Assessment and reflection:
The assessment can comprise a reflective report and a presentation.
Reports should include:
Interpretation of experimental data and comparison of thermal performance across designs.
Evaluation of system feedback mechanisms, showing how design decisions influenced outcomes.
Discussion of uncertainty management, including:
Identifying sources of uncertainty (e.g. measurement errors, material properties, environmental conditions).
Explaining how these uncertainties were considered during design iterations and testing.
Reflecting on strategies to mitigate uncertainty (e.g. calibration, repeated trials, simulation validation).
Considering the impact of uncertainty on decision-making and overall system performance.
Presentations should summarise:
The design evolution and rationale for changes.
System mapping to illustrate interdependencies and feedback loops.
Insights into complex systems behaviour, including how uncertainty shaped design choices.
Additional image:Heatsink fabricated using a metal 3D printer.
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.
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, Integration, and Technical Leadership 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).
Educational level: Beginner; Intermediate.
Learning and teaching notes:
Modern engineering is increasingly digital, interconnected, and system oriented. To prepare students for this evolving landscape, the Automatic Control Engineering (ACE) Model offers a systems-driven, application-focused framework for practical control engineering education. Developed through a MathWorks-funded project launched in the summer of 2025, the ACE-Model unifies three complementary components that together cultivate systems thinking and model-based systems engineering competence:
ACE-Box: The Toolkit
ACE-CORE: The Processes
ACE-Apply: Real-World Application
Learners have the opportunity to:
Engage with the entire ACE-CORE (Comprehend – Operate – Refine – Engineer) framework.
Experience a welcoming and accessible introduction to ACE, without an early overemphasis on mathematics. This stands in contrast to the traditional approach, where topics such as Laplace transforms are introduced early on, often creating unnecessary barriers to engagement (Abou-Hayt and Dahl, 2023).
Develop systems awareness and motivation.
Develop confidence, engagement, and curiosity.
Gain the technical knowledge and systems integration mindset required to thrive in the complex, adaptive landscape of digital engineering.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce control theory topics in a way that addresses the concern of students finding it difficult to link abstract control theory with the world of control engineering practice(Rossiter, 2022; Badau, et al., 2024).
Introduce industry-standard systems processes such as the V-diagram and model-based design workflows.
Progressively link theory to practice.
Support AHEP4 expectations for developing graduates who can apply integrated systems approaches to solving complex problems and the INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency areas of systems thinking, integration, and technical leadership.
What does the ACE-Model consist of?:
Figure 1:The ACE-Model: Integrating the Toolkit (ACE-Box), with the Processes (ACE-CORE), to Lead to the Real-Life Application (ACE-Apply) to build a progressive mastery in Automatic Control Engineering (ACE).
The ACE-Model is closely aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy, see (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001)and Figure 2(a) providing a structured pathway for students to progress through the cognitive hierarchy, while developing capabilities across multiple levels of system abstraction. Figure 2(b) offers a schematic view of the three stages of the ACE-Model, as introduced in Figure 1. An initial overview of the ACE-Model is presented here, with further details provided in the following sections.
The ACE-Box is a portable, self-contained hardware tool that brings ACE to life beyond the traditional costly, full-scale laboratories. All that is required is a laptop and the ACE-Box. Designed to support the ACE-CORE methodology, ACE-Box can be set up on a desk, in a classroom, or even at home. MATLAB and Simulink serve as the primary platforms for model-based design, enabling system modelling, control system development, and the deployment of control algorithms to physical hardware (e.g. Arduino Uno) through code generation tools.
ACE-CORE guides learners through successive levels of Bloom’s framework:
Comprehend aligns with Remember and Understand on the Bloom Taxonomy, enabling students to grasp the applications of control engineering before advancing.
Operate corresponds to Apply on the Bloom Taxonomy, as students engage directly with control systems, supported by Stage 2, making use of the ACE-Box (hardware or virtual).
Refine maps to both Analyse and Evaluate on the Bloom Taxonomy, where learners diagnose performance, compare outcomes, and adapt solutions to meet stakeholder requirements.
Engineer extends this process to system-level design and synthesis, making use of modelling and simulation tools such as MATLAB and Simulink. At this stage, students revisit the full cycle (Remember through to Evaluate), but at a higher level of integration with the use of control theory, again supported by the ACE-Box.
At each stage of CORE, learners move from recognising system components to synthesising complex interactions, mirroring the systems engineering lifecycle from requirement capture through verification and validation. This alignment supports AHEP4’s emphasis on analytical and problem-solving competence and INCOSE’s System Definition and Integration competencies.
Finally, learners progress to Create, the highest stage of Bloom’s Taxonomy, by applying their knowledge to design complete control systems for real-world applications such as drones, vehicles, and automation systems. In this way, the ACE-Model scaffolds learning in parallel with Bloom’s progression, from foundational comprehension to advanced problem-solving, design and innovation.
Together, these three pillars form a cohesive learning ecosystem: the toolkit, the process, and the application.
Figure 2:Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001)(a) and the ACE-Model Three Stages (b).
Collaborative community:
The ACE-Model ‘sits’ within the ACE-Lab, a collaborative community of academics and industry professionals committed to developing, validating, and disseminating open-access systems education resources. The ACE-Lab approach embodies complex adaptive systems principles, where the community evolves through continuous feedback, iteration, and co-design. Membership to the ACE-Lab is open to anyone who shares our vision of advancing control engineering teaching tools and practices. Through this approach, the ACE-Model equips graduates with the knowledge and hands-on skills required to excel in modern ACE careers. Find out more about the ACE-Lab through the following website:www.ace-lab.co.uk
As an evolving community, ACE-Lab continually expands its open-access content through the active contributions of its members. New materials are regularly developed and shared, ensuring the resources remain current and relevant. Through this dynamic, collaborative approach, embodied in the ACE-Model, students not only gain technical knowledge but also develop the capacity to understand, navigate, and work effectively with complex, interconnected engineering systems.
ACE-Box: The toolkit:
The ACE-Box is based on the early development work of Control-Lab-in-a-Box(Pickering, 2023; 2025). CLB integrates sensors, actuators, and microcontroller to allow students to experience dynamic behaviour, and feedback control.
For now, two ACE-Box kits have been developed:
1. Base and sense
2. Actuate
The ACE-Box (base and sense) is illustrated in Figure 3, with the 15 key components labelled, along with an exploded view of the main parts in Figure 4. The ACE-Boxesintegrate the essential microcontrollers, electronics, sensors, and actuators needed to design, implement, and test elements of digital control algorithm development, e.g. control algorithms in real time. It bridges the gap between theory and practice, allowing learners to see how abstract concepts behave in physical systems. The ACE-Box is also available as an open-access resource, with laboratory exercises included, with details provided later in this article. The ACE-Box (labelled (1) in Figure 3) and the tray (labelled (2) in Figure 3) are manufactured using 3D printing, with the necessary files available on the project website referenced above. A list of the required components and their sources is also provided on the project website, corresponding to labels (3) to (15) in Figure 3. Due to the open-source design of ACE-Lab, the library of exercises will continue to expand, supported by contributions from both academia and industry. The ACE-Box (Actuate) is illustrated in Figure 5, with the key actuator components detailed in (a), along with some typical lab set-ups (b, c and d). Figure 6 illustrates both the ACE-Box (Base + Sense) and also ACE-Box (Actuate).
Figure 3:The ACE-Box (Base and Sense).
Figure 4: Assemble of the 3D Printed ACE-Box (Base and Sense).
Figure 5:The ACE-Box (Actuate).
Figure 6:ACE-Box (Actuate) Alongside the ACE-Box (Base + Sense).
ACE-CORE: The methodology:
ACE-CORE is a four-step framework designed to scaffold learning from components to system-of-systems understanding:
Comprehend: Recognise the interdependencies between components within a feedback control system.
Operate: Discover how to operate a control system from understanding system requirements to testing and validation.
Refine: Diagnose, analyse, and optimise performance using feedback principles; students apply system verification and validation approaches.
Engineer: Apply mathematics and modelling to synthesise control algorithms and architectures that achieve desired system behaviours.
The methodology explicitly develops systems thinking, and integrationcompetencies, core to both AHEP4 and INCOSE frameworks.
ACE-CORE is intentionally designed to offer a scaffolded learning experience, allowing students to build confidence step by step as they deepen their understanding. Due to its flexible structure, students can also follow a completely practical route, i.e. avoiding the modelling and simulation. The emphasis is not on rote memorisation of theory, but on progression through understanding the fundamentals of control engineering, e.g. the components that form a feedback control system.These routes enable learners to apply concepts in practical control engineering contexts and develop genuine competence.
ACE-Apply: Real-world application:
ACE-Apply is the project stage, where the skills and knowledge gained from ACE-Box and ACE-CORE are consolidated by tackling authentic challenges aligned with the expectations of industry and professional engineers, see Figure 2(b). At this stage, learners prove their mastery by addressing engineering application problems that reflect the standards of industry practice. The focus is on:
Applying the ACE-CORE methodology to practical control application challenges across domains such as robotics, automotive systems, drones, and industrial automation.
Bridging theory, simulation, and hardware with confidence and agility using industry standard tools and processes.
This stage reinforces AHEP4 Themes 3 and 5, particularly:
Applying integrated systems approaches to complex, real-world problems.
Managing system lifecycle activities including requirements capture, design, testing, and validation.
It also strengthens INCOSE competencies in System Realisation, Integration, and Technical Project Management, encouraging students to act as systems integrators capable of managing interfaces and dependencies across mechanical, electrical, and software domains.
By bridging theory, simulation, and hardware using industry-standard digital tools, ACE-Apply nurtures the ability to navigate complex adaptive systems, anticipate emergent behaviour, and work collaboratively within multidisciplinary engineering ecosystems.
ACE-Box activities:
Upon visiting the ACE-Lab website (www.ace-lab.co.uk), under the tab ‘ACE-Box’, the following tabs exist (with the links provided):
The “What is the ACE-Box?” page introduces educators and students to the ACE-Box platform, outlining its purpose, key features, and practical considerations such as sourcing components and 3D-printing enclosure parts.
The “Prior Exercises” page provides essential onboarding material designed to help users become familiar with MATLAB and Simulink. This includes links to the relevant OnRamp courses, guidance on installing the required software packages, and short tutorial videos that introduce the MATLAB and Simulink graphical user interfaces (GUIs).
The “Base + Sense” section contains a set of introductory tutorial exercises that use the ACE-Box (Base + Sense configuration). These activities help users get started with Simulink code generation for the Arduino Uno, while working with a range of basic sensors and electronic components.
Finally, the “Base + Sense + Actuate” section builds on the previous material by introducing actuation hardware. Using both the Base + Sense and Actuate modules, students and educators learn how to interface with and control devices such as DC motors, servomotors, and stepper motors. This section is designed to familiarise users with actuator integration and reinforce practical control engineering workflows.
Example use of ACE-Box (Base + Sense):
To demonstrate the use of the ACE-Box (Base + Sense), an introductory activity is provided, i.e. the on-off blinking of an LED. Prior to this activity, through ACE-CORE, students should receive a short introduction to microcontrollers covering key concepts such as digital input/output pins, analogue pins, and pulse-width modulation (PWM). Once students are familiar with these fundamentals, they progress to the initial exercise detailed here, which is aligned with defined learning outcomes.
Since MATLAB and Simulink are the primary software tools used with the ACE-Box, students are first guided through installing the Simulink Support Package for Arduino Hardware. After the hardware and software setup is complete, they assemble a simple circuit, see Figure 7(a), and configure a Simulink model for the first exercise, see Figure 6(b). This initial activity requires students to control the state of a digital output pin on the Arduino, switching it on and off. The Simulink model, provided in Figure 7(b), enables students to quickly build the exercise using a visual programming approach. To run the activity, they follow a sequence of steps that includes code generation, which compiles the Simulink model into embedded C code and deploys it onto the Arduino Uno microcontroller. Once completed, the LED connected to the circuit blinks on and off according to the settings of the Simulink pulse generator. A visual of the complete set-up for this initial exercise can be found in Figure 8. At this stage, students are encouraged to experiment with the pulse generator parameters in real-time, observing how changes to the signal properties immediately affect the LED’s behaviour. Scopes can also be used (see Figure 7(b)) to visualise the pulse generator’s square-wave output, including its amplitude, period, and pulse width. This hands-on interaction reinforces the link between the initial set-up and hardware implementation while deepening their understanding of microcontrollers.
Figure 7:LED Simple Circuit (a) and Simulink for Code Generation for the on-off Blinking of an LED.
Figure 8:LED Simple Circuit Set-Up using Simulink for Code Generation for on-off Blinking of an LED.
The initial exercise is designed to familiarise students with the ACE-Box and the use of Simulink’s code generation tools. This type of activity is typical for introducing students to a new software and hardware environment. The next exercise involves using pulse width modulation (PWM) to vary the brightness of the LED. This exercise involves using additional blocks in Simulink, see Figure 8, where multiple scopes are used to visualise the signals in real-time. Once students understand the fundamental building blocks of Simulink, they can quickly progress to developing feedback control systems that meet a variety of application requirements. In the authors’ view, student familiarity with Simulink makes it a more accessible platform for designing advanced control algorithms, particularly when working with sub-systems.
Figure 9:LED Simple Circuit Set-Up using Simulink for Code Generation Varying Brightness of an LED using Pulse Width Modulation (PWM).
Building on this foundation, a wide range of laboratory exercises can be developed using the electronic components involved in ACE-Box (Base + Sense), as illustrated in Figure 3, with the option to expand further by incorporating additional components. Examples of extended exercises include:
Analogue sensing and calibration with a temperature sensor
LDR characterisation and linearisation using a voltage divider
Analogue sensing and calibration with a potentiometer sensor
Digital sensing using an ultrasonic sensor
Distance-reactive LED control with proportional feedback (human-in-the-loop plant)
Closed-loop brightness control using LDR feedback and LED PWM
LED–LDR plant control experiments
In addition to sensing activities, the ACE-Box (Actuate) provides four actuators: a servomotor, a DC motor with encoder, a stepper motor, and a DC motor fan. This unit can be used independently or in combination with the Base and Sense ACE-Box to enable more advanced control experiments, such as DC motor speed control or motor control based on light intensity measurements from an LDR.
The flexibility of the ACE-Box system ensures that the number of possible exercises is effectively unlimited, as new experiments can be designed by combining existing sensors and actuators or by integrating additional measurement devices. This also allows unique coursework assignments to be created.
Summary:
The ACE-Model provides a systemic and holistic framework for practical control engineering education that:
Fosters systems thinking and model-based design literacy aligned with INCOSE and AHEP4 competencies.
Connects abstract control theory to complex, real-world systems through accessible hands-on experiences.
Encourages progression from component-level comprehension to system integration.
Builds confidence and motivation through authentic engagement with digital and physical systems, preparing graduates for engineering practice in a complex, interconnected world.
Acknowledgements:
Dr James E. Pickering gratefully acknowledges the support from MathWorks, whose funding made this project possible. He also extends his sincere thanks to Hari Sudeskkumar for his exceptional engineering design contributions and 3D-printing work. The authors would like to thank the Project Advisory Group (PAG) for their valuable guidance throughout the development of this work.
References:
Abou-Hayt, I. and Dahl, B., 2023. A Critical Look at the Laplace Transform Method in Engineering Education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 67(4), pp.542-549.
Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R., 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc..
Badau, N.E., Popescu, T.M., Mihai, M., Dulf, E.H. and Muresan, C.I., 2024. Bridging the gap between control theory and practice: From simple controller design to a practical microcontroller implementation. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(26), pp.124-129.
Pickering, J.E., 2023. Control-Lab-in-a-Box: Bridging the Gap between Control Theory and Engineering Practice. In UK and Ireland Engineering Education Research Network Conference Proceedings 2023.
Pickering, J.E., 2025. Leveraging Control-Lab-in-Box (CLB) to Teach Control Engineering on Future Vehicle Technologies MSc. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 59(7), pp.31-35.
Rossiter, J.A., 2022. Future trends for a first course in control engineering. Frontiers in Control Engineering, 3, p.956665.
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. The work on which this project has been based was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the UK through the UK FIRES Program (EP/S019111/1) and the Future Electrical Machines Manufacturing Hub (EP/S018034/1). Earlier work supported by High Value Manufacturing Catapult has also been essential in developing the basis for this work.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who are seeking an overall perspective on teaching approaches for integrating complex systems in engineering education.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness.A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking and Critical Thinking INCOSE competencies.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems).
Premise:
Engineering is crucial to achieving imperatives such as decarbonisation. Yet engineering typically addresses specific, well-defined challenges rather than broad, ambiguous ones. Education and practice reinforce this approach, with even postgraduate and academic engineers often focusing on problem depth over breadth. While this produces deep technical insights and tangible technological capability, it risks delaying uptake and impact unless multidisciplinary teams are involved. Recognising this gap between aspirations and execution suggests a role for structured frameworks and tools to trigger bridging activity. Wicked problem thinking is a way to understand complex problems and systems thinking, and it is related to situations which are ambiguous, contested, sometimes lacking an end state, evolving over time, requiring collaboration, adaptability, and inherently cross-disciplinary.
Background:
Climate change is a helpful case in illustrating the gap between global ‘wicked’ problems, and the work of the engineer. Engineering’s success, by underpinning industrialisation and thereby enabling mass consumption, can also be seen as its biggest failing in contributing to climate change (Datea & Chandrasekharana, 2022) and other environmental impacts. Going forward, engineers must help mitigate it, through better deployment of existing technologies and creation of new ones. Clearly climate change is complex, spanning scientific, technological, behavioural, and political dimensions, and this complexity limits what can be achieved solely from engineering consideration. Conventional engineering methods, though highly effective at the project and programme level, risk drifting away from the original issue and producing isolated solutions with limited systemic effect.
Wicked problems thinking:
Global challenges like climate change are sometimes labelled “super-wicked” problems—time-limited, caused partly by the problem-solvers, lacking central authority, and often deferred (Levin et al.). In engineering, wicked problems present a risk, because engineers are inherently tasked with addressing a part of the wider problem and often via particular approaches. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that engineers are trained for structured problems with clear solution methods (Schuelke-Leech, 2021). Unfortunately such approaches are rarely transferable directly to wicked contexts, except when problem structure and solution approaches align unusually well. Education reinforces this, as engineering curricula focus on well-defined challenges (Lönngren, 2017).
At the research level, problems are often entangled, requiring both high-level perspective and detailed work. Sustainable engineering science (Seager et al., 2012) calls for ethical awareness, adaptive methods, and “interactional expertise” drawn from other disciplines. While this opens opportunities to measure cause and effect across scales, tangible short-term indicators often dominate.
A structured approach to Wicked Problems:
Alford & Head’s (2017) typology places problems on a spectrum from “Tame” to “Very Wicked.” Most engineering projects are tame, even when complex, because specification and management processes reduce ambiguity. Issues like decarbonisation-related engineering research, however, often involves wicked characteristics. This framework has recently been extended (Fehring, 2025) to allow consideration of a wider range of engineering research scenarios, Figure 1.
Figure 1. A framework for categorising complexity of engineering research scenarios (Fehring)
Each of the identified scenario types is somewhat distinctive, as follows:
Tame: Challenge of delivery and execution within known (but potentially challenging) parameters.
Analytically complex: Known and accepted performance gaps with corrective actions not obvious.
Communicatively complex: Multiple elements being brought together at the discretion of different parties.
Complex: Major external influences drive the need for fundamental change.
Cognitively complex: All agree on the need for action, but the nature of the action is unclear.
Politically complex: A known technological challenge, which can only be addressed collaboratively via multiple parties.
Conceptually contentious: Many indicators of impending change and the need to respond, but response is open to interpretation.
Politically turbulent: Major competing factions exist, promoting alterative interpretations to global problems.
Very wicked: All that is known for certain is that there is a tangible basis for concern and no obvious route to resolution.
Supportable opportunity: An area where research is interesting and sufficiently well aligned to available funding models to be well supported.
Provocation: A general issue is raised as a burning platform for action, without any consideration of potential mitigations.
Challenging opportunity: An area with potential for development, but not well aligned to themes supported by funders.
Realisation: Evidence of the issue is presented and published without any proposal or speculation on solutions.
Paradigm shift: An area of potential Research and Development and potential major breakthrough which is contrary to accepted thinking.
Call to Action: A call to adopt a solution which is available but for the most part unacceptable at the human or social level.
Ignored Issues: Situations that only become problems because they are not discussed based on their taboo nature or unacceptability of discussion in an area.
Conclusions:
Engineers can often be drawn into issues and challenges which can require multidisciplinary approaches.
A structured framework, such as the one described here, can be helpful in allowing the nature of a particular situation to be understood and the applicability of different approaches considered.
Pure engineering approaches are most applicable in scenarios closest to Tame Problems.
Multidisciplinary approaches seem most essential in cases closest to Very Wicked Problems.
Engineering research extends to a wider range of scenarios than those considered problems per se, and these have been added to the categorisation framework. This extension of the framework, while not problem specific, is helpful in providing a logical means of extending the consideration to wider research situations.
One of the primary areas of potential in this form of analysis is to demonstrate the degree of separation that can exist between focused and engineering R&D and the system level problem which drives it.
References:
Alford, J and Head, B. W. ‘Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework’, Policy and Society, 36:3, (2017) 397-413, DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634
Datea, Geetanjali. and Chandrasekharana, Sanjay., ‘Beyond Efficiency: Engineering for Sustainability Requires Solving for Pattern’, Engineering Studies, 10, 1, (2022), 12–37
Fehring, F. ‘A wicked and complex problem-based analysis framework applying wicked problem thinking to the supply chain and engineering research domain’, Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis, University of Strathclyde, (2025)
Lönngren, J., ‘Wicked Problems in Engineering Education : Preparing Future Engineers to Work for Sustainability’ PhD dissertation, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola), (2017)
Schuelke-Leech, Beth-Anne., ‘A Problem Taxonomy for Engineering’, IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society’, 2, .2, pp.105-105, (2021)
Seager, T., Selinger, E. and Wiek, A., ‘Sustainable Engineering Science for Resolving Wicked Problems’, J Agric Environ Ethics 25, (2012), 467–484, DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
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; System dynamics; Built environment; Causal loop diagrams; Participatory modelling; Modelling or simulation; Health or wellbeing; Cognitive map.
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 AHEP themes of Design and Practical and workshop skills.
Educational level: Intermediate; Advanced.
Learning and teaching notes:
This activity is suitable for those having acquired some familiarity with complex systems and related concepts – especially causal loop diagrams, stock and flow diagrams, cognitive maps or participatory maps – who are looking for additional ideas for activities or who have a specific interest in participatory modelling. The activity is also useful at the point when students learn about interaction between different elements of a complex system or when they learn about the importance of human factors.
Learners have the opportunity to:
Deepen their understanding of systems thinking.
Engage with participatory modelling.
Enjoy a fun group activity.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
Introduce students to participatory modelling (i.e. more specifically to participatory system dynamics / group model-building).
Develop students’ understanding of stock-and-flow modelling in the tradition of system dynamics.
Support students’ understanding of complex interactions around urban dynamics, and if adapted also around other contexts.
This activity introduces students to a participatory systems thinking – or more specifically – participatory modelling exercise. This is an approach used in group settings to explore complex issues and represent them via models. In this activity, students assume the roles of stakeholders involved in an urban regeneration project and take part in a group model-building workshop.
It teaches students core principles of a participatory modelling method called group model-building or participatory system dynamics, but it can also be used to teach the underlying system structure of a specific phenomenon. This makes it well-suited for modules that contain elements of systems thinking and system dynamics (including causal loop diagramming and simulation modelling) or modules that contain an element on group facilitation and participatory methods.
The activity is designed to run over 1.5 to 2.5 hours and is adaptable. While the current example focuses on the phenomenon of urban dynamics around the population development in a city, the activity can be reframed using a case and model from a project management, water management, energy or other sustainability-related context.
The activity is directly aligned with systems thinking by immersing students in a participatory modelling process. It develops students’ awareness of system content and its interactions by teaching them qualitative modelling skills. It develops their skills in managing complexity and representing system elements with visual models consisting of items and their relationships depicted in causal loop diagrams and/or stock and flow diagrams. This serves to build students’ analysis skills and ability to apply systems approaches to problems. It also develops their practitioner, practical and workshop skills of collaborating with stakeholders. It does so by advancing their facilitation skills essential for collaborative systems work. This includes rules of conduct and techniques for managing a group discussion and group dynamics, making a broad range of ideas heard, prioritising them and mapping them visually.
Miro (free version available with up to three active boards)
MURAL or similar platforms (depending on institutional access)
If software or an online tool are used, these are used to collate concepts (variables suggested by students) and to build a diagram of their interactions. This will be projected to the in-person and/or online participants, replicating the participatory nature of in-person workshops.
Detailed explanation of the activity:
This activity introduces students to participatory modelling, an approach used in group settings to explore and understand complex issues and represent them via models. In this case, participatory modelling is introduced through a structured group model-building workshop, using a simplified version (Alfeld & Graham, 1976; Richardson, 2014) of Jay Forrester’s (1969) famous Urban Dynamics model, which sparked quite some debate because of its counter-intuitive insights. The session begins with a brief historical overview of urban growth and decline in major cities up to the 1980s (e.g. New York, Boston, London; see files under ‘Downloads’, above), before focusing on the London Docklands in London in 1981, as an example of an opportunity for urban redevelopment to counter the trend of population decline. Student groups are assigned stakeholder roles from that time, including the founder of the London Docklands Development Corporation (1–2 students), the Surrey Quays Housing Action Group (2–6 students), the London Chamber of Commerce (2–6 students) and the Greater London Council (2–6 students). Each student group receives a role sheet outlining their perspective and a small set of key variables relevant to their stakeholder position (see linked files). These variables are intentionally curated to align with the Urban Dynamics model and to ensure that collaboration is necessary to draw the interlinkages between the variables, i.e. the relevant system structure.
A list of variables provided to the student groups via the role sheets is included below. Note that not all variables that are necessary to draw the model are included; students need to infer a few variables to train their thinking.
London Docklands Development Corporation
Population (This is the total number of people living in the city. As the variable represents the sum of all people, it is an integral. Specific pictogram language can highlight this. In the tradition of system dynamics modelling, one would therefore put a rectangle around it, which the teacher can do after the variable has been placed on the board.)
Surrey Quays Housing Action Group
Housing Structures (Indicates the number of dwellings. Housing is important for urban development. As the variable represents the sum of all dwellings, it is also an integral, which would be depicted by a rectangle.)
Ratio of households to housing (This variable is an indicator of crowding. Ideally, there is one household per housing structure. A number above one means that some people need to live in shared places. A number below one means that there is vacant housing.)
London Chamber of Commerce
Business structures (Indicates the number of business units. Businesses are important to urban development. As the variable represents the sum of all business units, it is also an integral, which would be depicted by a rectangle.)
Jobs (Total number of jobs available in the city (whether filled or unfilled).
Greater London Council
Population (Repeated variable to be able to compare between groups.)
Net migration (Change in population. The simple model excludes population changes by births and deaths because of the relative larger changes by national and international migration.)
Jobs (Repeated variable to be able to compare between groups.)
Before the workshop begins, students are introduced to core concepts of participatory modelling (see linked slides), including facilitator roles (based on Richardson & Andersen, 1995) and common workshop scripts (e.g. hopes and fears, variable elicitation, voting, model building, policy option elicitation and system storytelling, as described in Scriptapedia and Andersen & Richardson, 1997).
The workshop proceeds in three main phases:
1. Variable elicitation: After a short introduction by the student playing the founder of the London Docklands Development Corporation into the setting and by the facilitator/teacher into the process, each group sketches behaviour-over-time graphs of their assigned variables (10 minutes). These are presented using a round-robin or nominal group technique, meaning one variable per group at a time only, and placed on a whiteboard/blackboard or digital canvas. The round-robin collection is a technique useful to foster inclusivity and avoid talking heads. Behaviour-over-time graphs rather than just variable names are useful because the final model is believed to explain a behavioural trend over time, linking model structure and dynamics. However, it is also possible to simplify by letting students just write the variable names on sheets of paper.
2. Voting and prioritisation: To decide on a starting point for modelling, each student votes on which variables they consider to be the most important to include in the model, e.g. giving the students as many votes as there are variables on the board and freedom of how to distribute their votes. While all variables will be included in the model, the voting activity provides a basis for reflection on different priorities and students’ personal vs. their group’s perspective, after the modelling activity.
3. Model building: The class collaboratively constructs a stock and flow diagram (see Figure 1). Stocks such as Housing Structures, Business Structures, and Population are identified, and their net rates of change are discussed. To connect the variables, some more variables need to be added such as the ratio of population to jobs, total land available, and land occupied. To help students identify these variables, the teacher can ask questions: “Population and housing are linked by a ratio. What concepts and respective variables could link the other stocks?”. Students are encouraged to identify feedback loops and classify them as reinforcing or balancing.
It is useful to pay attention to uncovering less obvious relationships, such as the spatial competition between housing and business infrastructure. Once the diagram is complete, the facilitator reviews the model with the class, highlighting key feedback structures.
After the modelling activity, students can be shown images of the Docklands after the redevelopment as well as urban population trends of London and other major cities until today, prompting discussion on the long-term impacts of different types of development and prioritisation of a business vs. housing focus. The session can conclude with a reflection on the participatory process and its relevance to real-world decision-making and the value of participatory modelling in complex policy environments.
A more comprehensive version of this activity – including a more introductory group model-building exercise that teaches basic causal loop diagramming concepts and an alternative context using project management as an example – is available: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10160261/
Figure 1: Stock and flow diagram of urban dynamics (produced with Vensim software). This figure is intended for educators and serves an illustrative purpose. It provides educators with a reference for how the model built during the activity is expected to look.
Note: The author was originally inspiredto focus on this case by the historical accounts found on the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) History Pages (http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/index.html, nowinactive).
References:
Alfeld LE, & Graham AK. 1976. Introduction to Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Andersen DF, & Richardson GP. 1997. Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review 13(2): 107–129.
Antunes P, Stave K, Videira N, & Santos R. 2015. Using participatory system dynamics in environmental and sustainability dialogues. In M. Ruth (Ed.), Handbook of Research methods and Applications in Environmental Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK: 346–374.
Deaton M, & MacDonald R. 2025. System Dynamics Learning Guide. Harrisonburg, VA: James Madison University Libraries.
Zimmermann, N. 2026 (forthcoming). Weaving participatory modelling into teaching: Purposes and practices from system dynamics education. Systems Dynamics Review.
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.
Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to highlight the connection between complex systems and sustainability within engineering learning.
Related INCOSE Competencies: Toolkit resources are designed to be applicable to any engineering discipline, but educators might find it useful to understand their alignment to competencies outlined by the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Competency Framework provides a set of 37 competencies for Systems Engineering within a tailorable framework that provides guidance for practitioners and stakeholders to identify knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours crucial to Systems Engineering effectiveness. A free spreadsheet version of the framework can be downloaded.
This resource relates to the Systems Thinking, Life Cycles, Capability Engineering, Systems Modelling and Analysis, and Design INCOSE competencies.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach(essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses AHEP themes of Materials, equipment, technologies and processes, and Sustainability.
Several sustainability challenges, such as transitioning to a circular economy, are embedded in complex socio-technical systems. A circular economy is an economic model that replaces the linear take-make-dispose pattern with systems that keep materials and products in use for longer through designing for durability, reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling, while minimising waste and regenerating natural systems (Rizos, Tuokko, and Behrens, 2017).
Complex systems like these exhibit feedback loops, delays, non-linear change, path dependence and emergent behaviour (Sterman, 2000; Meadows, 2008). This article introduces the idea of systems-based interventions using the example of aluminium recycling systems. It is designed for engineering educators who plan to provide learners with a baseline understanding of complexity and practical entry points for designing and developing and evaluating interventions that can move a system towards sustainability.
Complexity of aluminium recycling systems:
Aluminium is infinitely recyclable, yet achieving truly closed material loops at scale remains a challenge. Most of today’s recycling occurs in situations where post-consumer scrap is collected from a wide variety of end-of-life products and the boundaries of the recycling system are difficult to define and control. This creates high variability in both the composition and the quality of recovered aluminium, since different products contain different alloys and levels of contamination (IRT M2P, 2023). At the same time, the volume of available scrap is difficult to predict, as it depends on product lifespans and consumer behaviour. These fluctuations make it harder for producers to plan and optimise secondary aluminium output, particularly when industries rely on consistent standards or just-in-time manufacturing.
The recycling system is also shaped by broader economic and regulatory forces. On the one hand, demand for low-carbon materials and the cost advantage of recycled over primary aluminium are powerful drivers of growth. On the other hand, the system faces constraints from volatile scrap prices and shifting global trade dynamics, such as U.S. tariffs on aluminium imports. Meanwhile, new policy instruments are adding further complexity. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is set to reshape trade flows and investment patterns, while the forthcoming Digital Product Passport (DPP) will transform how information is shared across the value chain. Together, these forces influence technologies, markets and business models, underscoring the dynamic and interconnected nature of aluminium recycling.
These interconnected factors highlight aluminium recycling as a complex socio-technical system, in which technological capabilities, market incentives, policy frameworks, and global trade are deeply interconnected. For educators, this makes aluminium an effective example for teaching students how multiple forces interact to create both opportunities and challenges for sustainable engineering.
Intervention from systems perspective:
System Dynamics (SD), first formalised byForrester (1968), has proven to be a highly valuable approach for understanding and managing complex resource and recovery systems. SD is an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from psychology, organisational theory, economics, and related fields (Sterman, 2000). More supporting information about SD pedagogical tools and techniques can be found through the System Dynamics Society and Insight Maker.
From a systems perspective, interventions are not isolated events but strategic effort to influence system behaviour by targeting its structure and dynamics. A key concept here is leverage points – places within a complex system where small changes can lead to significant, systemic effects (Meadows, 1999). Meadows identified twelve types of leverage points, ranging from adjusting parameters to transforming the system’s underlying goals and paradigms, proving a conceptual framework for identifying impactful intervention.
Figure 1. Donella Meadows’ leverage points (Source: based on Meadows (1999); credit: UNDP/Carlotta Cataldi; reproduced fromBovarnick and Cooper (2021))
Exploration of potential leverage points:
System Dynamics (SD) tools such as Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) can help explore leverage points. CLDs can help visualise main components of a system and their interdependencies, making complex dynamics easier to understand. Besides, the process of building a CLD or more computational SD model encourages practitioners to clarify system boundaries, relationships, and drivers, laying the foundation for identifying leverage points.
For example, a CLD of aluminium recycling might capture how classification and sorting processes influence scrap quality, which then affects remelting efficiency and ultimately market uptake of recycled alloys (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2. The causal loop diagram for auto aluminium recycling (Liu et al., 2025)
By tracing these circular cause-and-effect relationships, learners can see where interventions may ripple through the system. Highlighting reinforcing loops, balancing loops, and delays also shows why some interventions produce limited short-term results but more substantial long-term effects.
Leverage points can also be examined through the lens of information, rules, and goals. Improved information flows, such as those enabled by the Digital Product Passport, could reshape how scrap is sorted and valued. Rules, such as alloy specifications or trade tariffs, determine what types of recycled material can enter the market. At a deeper level, the goals of the system, whether to maximise throughput or to retain material value, fundamentally shape behaviour. Here too, CLDs are valuable because they allow users to visualise how changes to information, rules, or goals can shift system dynamics, providing a clearer picture of where interventions might be most effective.
Implication for educators:
This article equips educators with a focused, practical pathway to teach systems thinking through the example of aluminium recycling. Students can gain both conceptual understanding and hands-on skills to map feedback loops, identify delays, and design interventions that account for short-term trade-offs and long-term system behaviour. Teaching a single clear CLD followed by one modelling or scenario activity produces measurable learning gains while keeping the task accessible for beginners.
Educational approach:
Prioritise structure before solutions: have students map feedback loops and delays before proposing fixes.
Use one classroom-ready CLD as the anchor activity and one hands-on modelling task to test interventions.
Emphasise leverage thinking: move from parameter tweaks to information, rules, goals and paradigms as students mature.
Keep language simple and concrete: avoid jargon, introduce terms with examples, and reuse the same CLD across activities.
Use open-access tools (Insight Maker, Loopy, Vensim PLE) so students can visualise and experiment without software barriers.
Focus assessment on reasoning about system behaviour and predicted long-term effects rather than exact numerical answers.
Potential related learning outcomes within this topic:
Define stocks, flows, feedback loops, delays, reinforcing and balancing loops.
Explain why aluminium recycling is a complex socio-technical system influenced by technology, markets, policy, and information.
Construct a simple CLD for an aluminium recycling pathway and identify at least two reinforcing and one balancing loop.
Identify two leverage points and justify which one to prioritise, citing anticipated short- and long-term system effects.
Translate the CLD into a basic stock-and-flow sketch in an open-access tool and run one scenario to compare outcomes.
Further resources:
European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Environmental and socio-economic impacts of the circular economy transition in the EU cement and concrete sector – Analysing plastics material flows with life cycle-based and macroeconomic assessment models, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/6579506
The Complexity and Interconnectedness of Circular Cities and the Circular Economy for Sustainability — analysis of research themes and networked interactions relevant for urban/material systems; useful for teaching complexity and cross-sector links. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.2766
Bovarnick, A. and Cooper, S. (2021) “From what to how: rethinking food systems interventions,” Agriculture for Development. Edited by K. Hussein, 22 April, pp. 49–53.
Forrester, J.W. (1968) “Industrial Dynamics—After the First Decade,” Management Science, 14(7), pp. 398–415. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.7.398.
Liu, M., Schneider, K., Litos, L., Salonitis, K., 2025. Enhancing Secondary Aluminium Supply: Optimising Urban Mining Through a Systems Thinking Approach, in: Edwards, L. (Ed.), Light Metals 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 1273–1279.
Meadows, D.H. (1999) Leverage Points – Places to Intervene in a System, The Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Sterman, J. (2000) “Business Dynamics, System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.” Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/102741 (Accessed: September 4, 2025).
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.
You can now view the recording of the ACE-Lab and agentic engineering workflows webinar, as part of the Complex Systems Toolkit, supported by Quanser. The webinar was live on Monday 29th June 2026, 11am-1pm BST.
You can now view the recording of the ACE-Lab and agentic engineering workflows webinar, as part of the 
