Subject: The race to standardise the Internet

Title: How Internet Standards Grew: A Bar Chart Race of RFC Publication by Technology Domain (1969–2025) 

Data source: RFC Editor

 

 

What are RFCs? 

Requests for Comments (RFCs) are the technical documents that define how the internet works. Published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1969, the RFC series now contains over 9,700 documents covering everything from the foundational TCP/IP protocols to modern security standards like TLS 1.3 and post-quantum cryptography. 

Every time you load a webpage, send an email, connect to Wi-Fi, or make a video call, you are relying on technology defined in RFCs. They are freely available to anyone at rfc-editor.org: a core principle of the open internet. 

 

About this visualisation 

The animated bar chart race shows the cumulative number of RFCs published over time, classified into nine technology domains based on keyword analysis of each RFC’s title. The bars rank and re-sort dynamically as leadership shifts between domains, revealing how the priorities of internet standardisation have evolved over five decades. 

Data: Per-year publication totals are exact figures from the RFC Editor’s official statistics page. Topic classification is derived from keyword frequency analysis of the complete rfc-index.txt file (~9,900 entries), mapped to IETF Area categories. 

 

Final frame: The state of Internet standards in 2025 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Cumulative RFCs by technology domain as of 2025. Data: RFC Editor (rfc-editor.org/rfcs-per-year/). 

 

2025 rankings by technology domain 

Rank  Technology domain  Cumulative RFCs  Share  Examples 
1  Security & Cryptography  1,809  18.6%  TLS, IPsec, OAuth, DKIM 
2  Routing & Switching  1,359  14.0%  BGP, OSPF, IS-IS, MPLS 
3  Network Management  1,312  13.5%  SNMP, YANG, NETCONF 
4  Web & Applications  1,277  13.2%  HTTP, QUIC, SIP, JSON 
5  Core Protocols  1,204  12.4%  TCP, UDP, IP, ICMP 
6  Other / Process  941  9.7%  IETF process, April 1st 
7  Transport & File Transfer  688  7.1%  FTP, TFTP, NFS 
8  Email & Messaging  640  6.6%  SMTP, IMAP, MIME 
9  DNS & Naming  475  4.9%  DNS, DNSSEC, RDAP 

 

 

Key findings for educators 

 

Data sources  

 

 

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.  

How digital technical standards keep our connected world working, and why engineers should understand them.

 

Why standards matter

Every time a video is streamed, a message is sent, or a contactless payment terminal is used, digital technical standards are at work. These shared rules and specifications determine how devices such as phones, routers, and computers, as well as software applications and networks, communicate and interact, regardless of manufacturer or country of origin. Without these standards, the seamless operation of the connected world would not be possible. 

Yet for many engineers and computing professionals, especially those early in their careers, the world of standards development remains unfamiliar. Who writes these rules? How are decisions made? And why should it matter to someone studying engineering in the UK? 

The reliability of digital infrastructure is maintained by a global digital standardisation ecosystem, comprising organisations that develop and uphold the technical foundations of modern systems. Familiarity with this ecosystem is now essential for engineering graduates, as highlighted in UK accreditation frameworks such as the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP).

 

What is a digital technical standard?

A digital technical standard is a documented specification that defines the operational requirements of a technology. Examples include communication protocols, which establish rules for data exchange between devices; data formats, which specify how information is organised; and interfaces, which outline methods for system connectivity and interaction. These standards are generally developed through collaborative, consensus-driven processes involving engineers, researchers, companies, and, in some cases, societal stakeholders and governments. 

Most digital standards are voluntary, allowing manufacturers and developers to decide whether to implement them. However, strong market forces typically drive widespread adoption, as products that do not comply with prevailing standards lack commercial viability. In certain cases, legislators and regulators reference these standards in legal frameworks, such as the UK’s Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, thereby making compliance mandatory. 

 

Key insight 

Standards drive interoperability, but they also enable innovation, shape markets, and underpin regulation. Understanding how they are developed is a professional skill increasingly expected of engineers.

 

The eight key standards development organisations

The digital standards landscape is shaped by a range of organisations, each specialising in particular technology domains. The DTS Toolkit focuses on eight Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) that are central to the UK’s digital infrastructure: These include formal international bodies based on national delegation (ISO, IEC, ITU), global organisations with direct membership (IEEE, IETF, W3C), and European standards organisations recognised by the EU (ETSI). 

SDO  Scope  Key Standards  Membership & Participation Model  Website 
ETSI  European (global reach)  Telecoms, radio, cyber  Organisational membership  etsi.org 
3GPP  Global partnership  Mobile: GSM, UMTS, LTE, 5G NR  Via 7 regional Organizational Partners (ETSI is one)  3gpp.org 
IETF  Global, open  Internet: TCP/IP, HTTP, DNS, TLS  Individual participation  ietf.org 
W3C  Global  Web: HTML, CSS, WCAG, APIs  Organisational + invited  w3.org 
IEEE  Global  Wi-Fi, Ethernet, IoT  Individual and organisational membership  ieee.org 
ITU;R  UN agency (global)  Radio spectrum, broadcasting  National delegations  itu.int 
ITU;T  UN agency (global)  Telecoms infrastructure  National delegations  itu.int 
ISO/IEC JTC 1  International  IT: security, data, AI  National standards bodies  jtc1.org 

 

How can these differing governance, participation models, and development practices best enable interoperability across the global digital ecosystem? 

 

Standards by domain

Mobile and telecommunications 

3GPP is a partnership of seven regional telecommunications standards bodies, including ETSI in Europe. It produces the specifications behind each generation of mobile communications. From GSM to LTE, and today’s 5G NR and emerging 5G-Advanced, 3GPP sets radio interfaces, core network architecture, and service capabilities. ETSI is both a 3GPP partner and a standards body in its own right, recognised by the EU as a European Standards Organization (ESO), producing standards across telecommunications, cybersecurity, and radio equipment. ETSI has also developed some of the most comprehensive educational materials for higher education in this space. 

 

Internet infrastructure 

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) develops the protocols that make the Internet function. Its output, published as Requests for Comments (RFCs), of which there are now over 9,900, includes foundational standards such as TCP/IP (data transmission), HTTP (web communication), DNS (domain name resolution), and TLS (encryption). The IETF is distinctive for its open participation model: anyone can join a working group and contribute. As its informal motto puts it, the IETF believes in “rough consensus and running code.” 

 

 The web platform 

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops the standards that enable the modern web. W3C defines HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and CSS (Cascading Style Sheets), the foundational languages for structuring and styling web pages. It also produces the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which help make web content usable by people with disabilities, and a broad range of Web APIs (Application Programming Interface), which are protocols for building and interacting with web applications. W3C operates as a public interest, non-profit organisation and adopts a royalty-free patent policy to ensure free implementation of its standards. ISO/IEC 40500:2025 adopted W3C’s WCAG 2.2 standard, demonstrating how web standards increasingly intersect with formal international standardisation. (IPR policies across all SDOs are discussed in detail in the Standards, Law, and Intellectual Property section below.) 

 

Wireless networking and electronics 

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is the world’s largest technical professional organisation. Its standards arm, the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA), produces widely adopted standards including IEEE 802.11 (Wi;Fi), IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet), and standards for IoT, smart grid, and AI enabled autonomous systems, including socio-technical standards to support technology governance. IEEE also publishes the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), a key reference for computing education. IEEE SA operates under both an individual participation modelwhere anyone can contribute to standards projects such as Wi-Fi and Ethernet without requiring organisational membership—and an entity model for other programmes. 

 

International and formal standards 

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a United Nations specialised agency with two key sectors for digital standards. ITU;R manages global radio spectrum allocation and sets performance requirements for wireless technologies (including defining what qualifies as “5G”). ITU;T develops standards for fixed;line telecommunications infrastructure, including optical transport networks and numbering plans. Participation in the ITU operates through national delegations, reflecting its intergovernmental character. 

ISO/IEC JTC 1 (the Joint Technical Committee of the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission) produces international standards for information technology. Its work covers information security (the ISO/IEC 27000 series), AI governance, cloud computing, and data management. Participation occurs through national standards bodies ;in the UK, this is the British Standards Institution (BSI). 

 

Three models of standards participation

Despite their differences, the eight SDOs fall broadly into three categories: At a fundamental level, standards organisations differ in whether individuals participate as delegates of member organisations or as independent technical experts in their own capacity. 

 

Formal international bodies (ISO, IEC, ITU):  

These are organisations composed of members from various countries. They use a national delegation model, where each country sends delegates to represent it, and decisions are made through official voting procedures. The standards developed by these organisations greatly influence regulations and purchasing requirements, but they usually take longer to develop. 

 

Industry partnerships and consortia (3GPP, W3C, ETSI, IEEE entity model): 

Driven by organisational membership, these bodies balance broad industry input with faster development cycles. They often set the standards most directly implemented in commercial products. 

 

Open technical communities (IETF, IEEE individual model):  

Individuals participate actively, follow open processes, and maintain a strong engineering focus. The IETF’s model demonstrates that voluntary, consensus-based collaboration produces globally significant infrastructure standards. 

 

Did you know? 

The distinction between “direct participation” (as in IETF and IEEE) and “national delegation” (as in ITU and ISO) is one of the most fundamental differences in how standards organisations operate. Understanding these governance models helps engineers navigate the ecosystem effectively. In organisations like the IETF and IEEE (under its individual model), anyone with relevant expertise can join a working group and contribute directly—making these among the most accessible entry points for engineers new to standardisation. 

 

How standards organisations work together

Modern digital systems span multiple technology domains, so standards bodies must collaborate. For example, a 5G smartphone relies on 3GPP specifications (Third Generation Partnership Project, for cellular radio), IEEE standards (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, for Wi-Fi connectivity), IETF protocols (Internet Engineering Task Force, for Internet communication), and W3C standards (World Wide Web Consortium, for its web browser) all within a device that must comply with ITU radio spectrum allocations (International Telecommunication Union) and may need to meet ISO/IEC security requirements (International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission). 

This interconnected environment means that standards organisations regularly coordinate their work. 3GPP’s organisational structure is built on partnerships with regional standards bodies, including ETSI. The ITU sets high-level performance targets (such as the requirements for 5G systems) that bodies like 3GPP then implement in detailed technical specifications. W3C’s WCAG 2.2 has been formally adopted by ISO/IEC, bridging the worlds of web standards and formal international standards. 

 

Standards, regulation, antitrust, and intellectual property 

Engineers need to understand three distinct ways in which standards intersect with the legal and regulatory environment. 

 

Standards and regulation

Although most digital standards are voluntary, legislators and regulators frequently reference them in legal frameworks. In the UK, the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 draws on ETSI EN 303 645. In the EU, harmonised standards support CE marking and the presumption of conformity with directives. Understanding which standards carry regulatory weight is essential for engineers designing products for domestic and export markets. 

Antitrust and competition law

Standards development inherently requires competitors to collaborate on shared specifications. Because of this, every major SDO maintains antitrust and competition law policies that govern how participants interact during standards meetings and processes. Engineers who participate in standards work need to be aware of these obligations.

 

Intellectual property

Intellectual property rights (IPR) policies play a critical role in every standards organisation. Companies contribute patented technologies to standards, so each SDO maintains policies to balance innovation incentives with fair access. The two principal approaches are FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing terms, which require patent holders to offer licences on equitable terms, and royalty-free policies, which allow patented technologies to be implemented without fees. The interaction between these IPR models and open-source software is an area of active and contentious debate. Engineers working at the intersection of technology and business gain valuable knowledge by understanding why these policies exist and how organisations differ in their approaches.  

 

Have you considered?

Have you considered how standards that seem voluntary might affect your work if referenced in legislation or procurement rules? In the UK, do you know which standards guide cybersecurity or accessibility in your sector?

 

Why this matters for UK Engineering Education

The UK’s digital economy depends on engineers who not only use standards but also understand how they are developed and can contribute to their evolution. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has identified standards engagement as strategically important for the UK’s competitiveness and innovation ecosystem. 

For engineering educators, embedding digital technical standards into curricula supports alignment with AHEP requirements and prepares graduates for careers where standards literacy is a practical professional skill. Whether a graduate enters telecommunications, cybersecurity, web development, or any digitally enabled engineering discipline, they will encounter and need to work with the outputs of these eight ISDOs. 

The Digital Technical Standards Toolkit, developed by the Engineering Professors’ Council and the University of Central Lancashire, with funding from DSIT, aims to make this knowledge accessible, structured, and ready for integration into teaching and learning. 

 

References and further reading

Standards development organisations 

 

Key standards and specifications 

 

UK policy and context 

 

Educational resources 

 

 

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.  

WHY 

Engineering educators face a persistent challenge: how to teach standards effectively when the topic can seem abstract, process-heavy, and disconnected from the hands-on problem-solving that students expect. Without practical classroom materials, standards teaching risks becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a meaningful part of the curriculum. Teaching Resources exist because educators need ready-made, classroom-tested tools that bring standards to life ,turning what could be a dry regulatory topic into an engaging, interactive learning experience that prepares students for professional practice. 

WHAT 

This category provides ready-to-use classroom materials including slide decks, video tutorials, interactive games, free online courses, and direct access to standards documents. Highlights include ETSI’s comprehensive 380-slide teaching pack, the IEEE Mars Space Colony Standards Game (a role-play exercise in standards development), free W3C courses via edX on web standards and digital accessibility, and open-access ITU-T Recommendations. The collection also includes 3GPP-specific teaching materials, from introductory video walkthroughs to a full graduate-level university course on 5G NR standards. 

HOW 

Browse the resources below to find materials you can adopt or adapt for your teaching. Resources are drawn from SDOs, universities, and professional bodies, covering a range of formats and levels from introductory undergraduate to advanced postgraduate. 

 

Resources: Download spreadsheet here.

 

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.  

WHY 

Embedding digital technical standards into engineering curricula requires more than content knowledge ,it requires pedagogical strategy. Educators need to understand how standards map to learning outcomes, where they fit within existing programme structures, and how to assess standards-related competencies in ways aligned with AHEP requirements and professional registration pathways. Guidance Articles exist to support this curriculum design challenge, helping educators move from awareness of standards to confident, structured integration of DTS across their teaching. 

WHAT 

This category offers pedagogical support for educators embedding DTS into their teaching, including curriculum mapping tools, assessment design guidance, and pathways to professional development. Resources include the EDU4Standards Teacher Support Tool, the IETF’s Getting Started Guide for newcomers to internet standards, ISO’s higher education initiatives, and career-context articles linking standards knowledge to professional competence frameworks such as SWEBOK and the IET’s professional registration requirements. The collection also includes navigational tools for the 3GPP specification ecosystem, from series-by-series guides to an AI-powered specification search engine. 

HOW 

Explore the resources below for practical support in designing curricula, assessments, and learning pathways that embed digital technical standards in your programmes. 

Resources: Download spreadsheet here.

 

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.  

WHY 

Digital technical standards form the invisible architecture of modern engineering; they enable interoperability, ensure safety, and promote innovation across every sector from telecommunications to cybersecurity.  

However, many engineering and computing graduates enter the profession with limited understanding of what standards are, how they are developed, or why they are important to the UK’s digital infrastructure and international competitiveness. Knowledge Articles address this gap by building foundational literacy in standards, ensuring that educators and students alike can confidently engage with the standards landscape that underpins professional practice. 

WHAT 

This category contains articles explaining key DTS concepts, the structures and processes of major Standards Development Organisations (ETSI, 3GPP, IETF, W3C, ITU-R, ITU-T, IEEE, and ISO/IEC JTC 1), and the role of standards in engineering practice. Resources range from comprehensive textbooks and SDO education portals to focused introductions on specific standards such as ISO/IEC 27001 for information security, IEC 62443 for industrial cybersecurity, and the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Together, they provide a structured knowledge base spanning the full breadth of the digital standards ecosystem, including UK-specific frameworks like UK-SPEC and BSI’s standards development guidance. 

HOW 

Use the resources below to enhance your understanding of digital technical standards, from introductory overviews suitable for undergraduate education to detailed specifications and knowledge bases for advanced study. Each link directly connects to a freely accessible or openly licensed resource. 

Resources: Download spreadsheet here.

 

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.  

WHY 

Standards only become meaningful when students can see their real-world impact. UK engineering graduates need to understand not just what standards exist but also how they are applied in practice, shaping critical national infrastructure, enabling new technologies, and driving regulatory compliance across sectors from transport to energy. UK Industry Case Studies bridge the gap between theory and practice, grounding standards education in tangible examples drawn from the UK engineering context and demonstrating why standards competence is a career-defining skill. 

WHAT 

This category shows real-world use of digital technical standards in UK engineering. Case studies include the UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, CLC/TS 50701 for railway cybersecurity, and IET’s Electric Vehicles Guidance. This is the most active category, with more case studies planned to cover additional sectors. 

HOW 

Use the case studies below to bring real-world  context into your teaching. Each links to an authoritative source demonstrating how digital technical standards operate in professional practice. 

 

Resources: Download spreadsheet here.

 

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

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. James E. Pickering, PhD, SFHEA, MIET, MInstMC (Harper Adams University); Dr. George Amarantidis (MathWorks).

Topic: Developing competence in model-based systems engineering.

Title: Practical control engineering education through the ACE-Model.

Resource type: Teaching activity.

Relevant disciplines: Systems engineering; electrical engineering; control engineering.

Keywords: Available soon.

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

Downloads: A PDF of this resource will be available soon.

Learning and teaching resources:

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: 

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

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: 

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-Boxes integrate 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: 

The methodology explicitly develops systems thinking, and integration competencies, 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: 

This stage reinforces AHEP4 Themes 3 and 5, particularly:  

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: 

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: 

 

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:

 

 

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

The EPC’s Complex Systems Toolkit, supported by Quanser, is an open-access online resource to help engineering educators build complex systems concepts directly into their teaching and prepare future engineers for tomorrow’s challenges.

We would like to ensure that all universities with Engineering departments are aware of the toolkit and able to make use of it. To this end, we’ve produced a pack of resources that can be distributed to relevant departments and staff members such as Engineering department heads, staff and administrators, as well as Vice-Chancellors, Deans, and anyone else who may find our resource useful in teaching or curriculum development.

We would be very grateful if you could share these resources, and encourage you to explore and use them in your teaching.

Our pack of resources to help you present and promote the Complex Systems Toolkit contains the following files, and can be downloaded individually below, or as a pack from here.

 

Information on the toolkit (PDF)

 

Sample resources (PDF)

 

Promotional (PDF)

 

Images (JPG/PNG)

 

PowerPoint slides (pptx)

 

If you have any questions or comments about this resource, please contact Wendy Attwell.

 

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

The EPC’s Complex Systems Toolkit is now live, providing accessible, practical resources for embedding complex systems concepts into engineering education. The Complex Systems Toolkit is supported by Quanser.

Dive into the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of complex systems with our knowledge and guidance articles, and discover our ready-to-use teaching resources, including case studies and other classroom activities. Come along to our official launch webinar on 9th December for a live demo, and to hear directly from the creators and partners who helped shape the ToolkitRegister here. If you can’t join us for the live webinar, register anyway and we’ll send you a link to the recording as soon as it’s available.

 

Why do we need a Complex Systems Toolkit?

 

What does the Toolkit provide?

 

How was the Toolkit developed?

 

Contents

The toolkit currently includes the following, but it is a growing resource and we will be adding further content soon.

 

Our supporters

These resources have been produced by the Engineering Professors’ Council in partnership with Quanser.

 

Licensing

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

 

More to come

We are already working on expanding this Toolkit with further Knowledge, Guidance and Teaching resources. Additionally, we are looking to create ‘enhanced’ versions of each case study, including specific teaching materials such as lesson plans, presentations and worksheets. For more information, please contact Wendy Attwell.

 

This post is also available here.

 

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

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Professor Michael Ward, CEng, FIMechE, FIET (University of Strathclyde).

Topic: Defining and understanding complex systems.

Title: The role of Wicked Problems thinking to help understand the extent of engineering involvement in complex systems.

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary; Wicked problems; Collaboration; Climate change; Decarbonisation; Research; Complexity framework; Scaffolded development framework.

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: 

 

Conclusions:

 

References:

 

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

Let us know what you think of our website