As part of the Complex Systems Toolkit, supported by Quanser, we will be exploring the ACE-Box and agentic engineering workflows.
This free webinar introduces practical engineering workflows, from requirements capture through to verification and validation. These concepts will be demonstrated using the ACE-Box, a low-cost, hands-on engineering learning platform, alongside MATLAB and Simulink to illustrate key stages of the workflow.
The webinar will also explore the emerging role of agents in engineering workflows. Through practical examples and demonstrations, it will show how agent-enabled approaches can support engineers in solving problems more effectively.
Dr. James Pickering (Harper Adams University), who will be delivering the webinar along with Dr. George Amarantidis (MathWorks), explains what to expect:
“Most of us have used Large Language Models (LLMs) to solve an engineering problem by copying code back and forth, fixing issues manually, and with a hope that AI understands.
Using MATLAB and Simulink, this talk will explore the use of agentic AI and LLMs in engineering workflows. By connecting LLMs to MATLAB and Simulink through the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and emerging agentic toolkits, engineers can begin to develop AI-supported workflows that do more than generate suggestions, they can help write code, build models, run simulations, analyse results, respond to feedback, and support iterative refinement as part of a wider human-led engineering process.
Alongside George Amarantidis from MathWorks, I am pleased to be speaking at the upcoming Engineering Professors’ Council CPD-certificated webinar, where I will share how this work is being applied in the classroom at Harper Adams University.
We will demonstrate typical engineering workflows, from requirements capture through to validation, using a low-cost hardware platform I have developed, known as the ACE-Lab (www.ace-lab.co.uk). We will explore how we can leverage AI agents to support solving engineering problems.
From an educational perspective, this raises new and important questions about how we assess engineering students in the classroom. If AI can support modelling, analysis, testing, and refinement, then future assessment must place greater emphasis on process, judgement, and validation.
If future engineers are expected to use AI tools, then greater emphasis needs to be placed on their ability to capture requirements clearly, evaluate outputs critically, justify design decisions, and validate results.”
During this webinar we will also be launching a new call providing you with an opportunity for your content to be featured in the Complex Systems Toolkit.
Attendees will gain:
An understanding of practical engineering workflows, from requirements capture through to verification and validation.
Insight into how the ACE-Box, MATLAB, and Simulink can support each stage of the engineering workflow.
An introduction to the emerging role of agents in supporting engineering practice.
Perspectives on future directions in digital engineering, workflows, and engineering education.
CPD certification:
Attendees will be eligible for certification for 1.5 CPD hours. Please tick the box to request certification when you register.
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.
Dr. Manoj Ravi, with the support of colleagues and students, reflects on the outcomes of a hackathon between students from the University of Leeds and NTU Singapore which explored solutions to sustainability challenges as well as fostering interdisciplinary and intercultural collaboration.
Experiential learning is vital for preparing engineers to tackle sustainability challenges that cannot be solved in isolation. By enabling engineering students to work in intercultural and interdisciplinary settings, we foster systems thinking skills, where working alongside peers from diverse disciplines help further understand the interconnections between the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. Such collaboration reflects the reality that sustainable solutions must also bridge cultural perspectives across countries and local communities, emphasising the collaborative mindset and skills required to design solutions that are globally relevant, equitable and impactful.
How was it done?
Drawing inspiration from this idea, the University of Leeds (UoL) and Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU Singapore) organised a year-long student sustainability hackathon. We brought together 10 student teams, each with four members — two from UoL and two from NTU Singapore. The students were first- and second-year undergraduates, working in interdisciplinary groups that combined chemical engineering, bioengineering, and environmental sciences. They were asked to address open-ended problem statements focused on two critical themes for the context of Singapore and Leeds: sustainable transportation and retrofitting. Each problem statement was mapped onto the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring the work aligns with global sustainability priorities while giving students experience in addressing real-world challenges.
The student-led solutions to these global challenges were developed in two phases. Phase 1 was the ideation or conceptualisation stage where students used system and design thinking approaches to brainstorm potential solutions through a mix of asynchronous (individual reflection and analytical thinking) and synchronous activities (online meetings, group brainstorming and planning). Each group then presented their ideas as elevator pitches to receive feedback from staff at both universities. In the second phase, students moved onto validating their idea and prototyping. The objective of this phase was for students to move from ‘an idea on paper’ to produce something more tangible by demonstrating feasibility in multiple dimensions including technical feasibility, economic viability and regulatory alignment. This challenged students to confront issues that might not have been envisioned during the ideation phase often requiring multiple iterations. Each group had flexibility in terms of how they wanted to present their final hackathon output. The solutions proposed included smart, low-cost retrofitting strategies such as LED lighting, daylight harvesting and motion sensors, alongside more experimental approaches involving recycled materials, including food waste-derived phase change materials and repurposed plastic panels. In all these cases, teams considered the applicability of their solutions from a socio-cultural lens reconciling differences in subsidy structures, urban densities, infrastructure constraints and public behaviour across the two countries. This necessitated students to think of sustainable solutions that bridge cultural perspectives across countries and local communities.
Student reflections
“My biggest learnings through the hackathon have been the extent to which the feasibility of an environmental solution being implemented is dependent on various local and national regulations, as well as how the economic sustainability (and hence scalability) of these solutions can differ in different locations depending on the focus of regional environmental subsidies. I should benefit from these learnings in the future in terms of being more acutely aware of how to design a change to a chemical plant, for example, in a legal and economically sustainable way.” – UoL Chemical Engineering Student
“I signed up for this hackathon because I wanted to push myself beyond my comfort zone and explore how far my creativity could take me in an open-ended environment. I have always enjoyed brainstorming ideas and thinking of alternative ways to solve problems, and this hackathon felt like a good opportunity to challenge myself to innovate in areas I was less familiar with. Reflecting on the experience, my biggest learning was understanding how important it is to balance creativity with feasibility. I learned that good ideas need to be refined, prioritised, and supported by clear reasoning in order to be impactful. Working closely with my team also taught me how to adapt quickly, manage differing viewpoints, and stay focused on the core problem despite constraints. These learnings will benefit me in the future by helping me approach complex problems more confidently, collaborate effectively across disciplines, and develop solutions that are not only innovative but also realistic and meaningful projects.” – NTU Singapore Chemical and Bioengineering student
“My thinking changed in two ways. First, brainstorming became more disciplined. Instead of chasing the most exciting idea, we compared options and asked early questions: what problem does this solve, what assumptions are we making, what would fail first, and what evidence would be needed to support it. This helped reduce ambition into something more realistic. Second, I became more focused on feasibility. Over time, I shifted from “this sounds strong/interesting” to “what is the first thing that proves this can work?”, and “what would fail first?” That meant focusing on clear steps, constraints, and what would be required for real approval and real use.” – UoL Geology student
Staff reflections
As staff involved in the design and delivery of this hackathon, we believe this international collaboration creates new pathways for collaborative curriculum development and empowering students to engage deeply with the complexity of global climate challenges. One of our key reflections from this hackathon is that challenge-based learning offers a truly unique environment for students to develop sustainability competencies. It allows for an authentic and holistic consideration of sustainability whereby core disciplinary knowledge is grounded in socio-cultural, economic, policy and environmental considerations.
We also observe that resilience and commitment are crucial for students to successfully engage in this exercise. Working across largely different time zones with fellow students who bring in different perspectives and skills requires a strong degree of commitment and being resilient in the face of challenges. Students who engaged in the hackathon also commented on how they had to pivot on ideas and make assumptions when faced with inadequate information or uncertainties in data. These are all vital skills for future engineers to thrive in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world.
In future iterations, we aspire to focus on strengthening industry engagement and developing more structured mechanisms for evaluating student learning by embedding the activity within the programme or a module of study. More broadly, this work invites educators to consider how collaborative online international learning (COIL) might be adapted within their own institutional settings to better prepare students for the complexities of global engineering practice.
Authors
Dr Manoj Ravi, School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds
Dr Vasiliki Kioupi, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds
Ericka Lionny, School of Chemistry, Chemical and Bioengineering, NTU Singapore
Samuel Edwards, School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds
Abdulbari S Binafif, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds
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.
Engineering for One Planet (EOP) advances rapid innovation in engineering education, embedding sustainability and climate literacy to prepare engineers capable of solving today’s challenges without compromising tomorrow. For Earth Day on 22nd April, as part of our Sustainability Toolkit, we share details of their newest resources.
We know that engineering students are increasingly demanding the skills to address the climate crisis. We also know that educators’ syllabi are already packed, and finding the time to develop new, high-quality climate content can be a significant hurdle.
To bridge this gap, Engineering for One Planet (EOP) — in collaboration with 18 global organisations, including ABET, ASEE, ASME, and IEEE — is proud to release a new, open-access resource:
This guide is a practical companion to the EOP Framework. It provides a “menu” of flexible, vetted teaching activities designed to integrate seamlessly into existing courses. Whether you are teaching introductory, advanced, required, or elective engineering classes, this guide provides the modular tools you need to equip students with essential climate-related competencies.
Why use this guide?
Built for efficiency: You don’t need to overhaul your course. Pick a single activity that fits your current learning objectives and time constraints.
Peer-vetted: Co-created by a cross-sector community of engineers, climate experts, and teaching faculty.
Accreditation aligned: Activities have been mapped to AHEP4 and ABET Criteria 3 Student Outcomes (by educators, independently of ABET), Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Multidisciplinary and flexible: While rooted in engineering, the activities are adaptable for any technical or non-engineering discipline and for K12 or industry applications.
Free and open access: Distributed under a Creative Commons license so you can use, share, and build upon the work freely.
Select a Topic Area: Browse the 9 EOP competency areas (Systems Thinking, Environmental Literacy, Responsible Business and Economy, Social Responsibility, Environmental Impact Assessment, Materials, Design, Critical Thinking,Communication & Teamwork).
Adapt & implement: Choose an activity level (introductory, intermediate, or advanced) that matches your student level and drop it into your next lesson plan.
As engineers and engineering educators, we have a moral and professional imperative to design, code, and build in ways that protect life on Earth. This guide is your “first step” in preparing the future workforce to lead that change.
We invite you to explore the guide and join the global community of educators making sustainability a core tenet of the engineering profession.
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.
Subject: The race to standardise the Internet
Title:How Internet Standards Grew: A Bar Chart Race of RFC Publication by Technology Domain (1969–2025)
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
Security went from almost nothing to #1. In the 1970s, security represented roughly 2% of new RFCs. By the 2020s, it accounts for 28% of new publications :reflecting the transformation of the internet from a trusted academic network to a global system requiring robust protection.
The Web emerged from nothing in 1993. Before HTTP, web-related RFCs simply did not exist. The domain now accounts for over 1,200 cumulative standards, driven by HTTP/2, QUIC, WebRTC, and application-layer protocols.
Foundational protocols are mature but still active. Core Protocols (TCP, IP, UDP) saw their highest growth in the 1970s–80s but continue to receive updates :for example, RFC 9293 (2022) formally revised the TCP specification after 41 years.
Email standards peaked early. Email was one of the first killer applications of the internet and dominated early RFC output. Its share has declined steadily as the web and security took over, though DMARC and SPF keep it active.
Routing remains the backbone. BGP, OSPF, and MPLS continue to generate significant standards activity. Routing has maintained a consistent 13–18% share across every era, reflecting its importance as the internet’s structural layer.
Category mapping: Based on IETF Area structure with title keyword matching
Animation: Generated using Python matplotlib + FuncAnimation
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).
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.
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 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.)
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.
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).
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.
DSIT Introduction to Technology Standards: Foundational overview for UK context
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Register now for the Complex Systems Toolkit ACE-Box and agentic engineering workflows: CPD-certificated webinar.
