Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Mariam Makramalla, PhD, FRSA (New Giza University).

Topic: Integrating complex systems learning outcomes in engineering curricula.

Title: How to scaffold complex systems learning outcomes across a curriculum.

Resource type: Guidance article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Learning outcomes; Pedagogy; Curriculum; Curriculum map; Critical thinking; Problem-solving; Life cycle; Decision-making. 

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

Downloads:

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate complex systems topics into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.   

 

Premise:  

Teaching and learning engineering carries with it a double layer of complexity. On the one hand, this complexity is connected to the growing interdisciplinary nature of engineering itself. On the other hand, the complexity is connected to the growing diversity of engineering students that are often present in one project team. This multifaceted complexity requires a re-envisioned understanding of the role and purpose of the engineering educator.  

With the growing trend of a global classroom reality, we often find that learners in the classroom are representing different cultures, which in turn are rooted in them unconsciously carrying historical and socio-cultural baggage relating to these cultures. Thus, it becomes crucial to unpack the challenge and potential that such a diverse collective intelligence can offer to an engineering learning experience.  

As our understanding of the engineering discipline gets more rooted and interconnected with the precarious reality that our world is witnessing today, it becomes essential that the engineering education community would take up a proactive role in actively contributing to the formation of engineering citizenship. In other words, every engineering student should be educated as a citizen that has mastered the engineering cross-cutting fields in such a way that they are free to create and solve problems of the present and the future.  

With this in mind, it becomes very clear that the one-size-fits all model of a single discipline engineering classroom can no longer sustain itself. It does not factor in the richness that a diverse student body can offer, and it dilutes the value and potential of an engineering learner to think clearly or solve problems. It is therefore imperative that engineering educators grasp the complex reality of an integrated engineering discipline and address it in a way that fosters scaffolding of diverse knowledge. Some students might specialise in one core technical discipline. Yet, future projections for most students showcase the need to have a wide level of exposure to broader competency development. Students need to learn to understand the field of engineering at large and to develop system thinking skills that enable them to exist, challenge and have an impact on the system that they are a part of.  

 

How to scaffold learning outcomes in a complex engineering curriculum:

The below table has been designed for embedding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across an engineering curriculum. It maps against competencies and suggests scaffolding techniques across educational levels. It is also important to note, that efforts need to be made to align to the relevant AHEP requirements or other accreditation standards. Table 1 presents the different strands of the Complex Systems Engineering Curriculum, colour coded in line with the INCOSE Competency Framework outline (INCOSE, 2025). Table 2 presents a practical guide for educators to scaffold Complex Systems learning outcomes across a curriculum. The intention is for the scaffolding framework to compare the trade-offs between different elements of the competency group. For example, system modelling and analysis as an element from the core competency and planning from the management competency. The table suggests activities that would integrate different competencies together in a scaffolded approach.  

Table 1. Competency Areas for Complex Systems (INCOSE, 2025).

Table 1 presents Competency Areas for Complex Systems. As mentioned, the skills range to include a wide variety of competencies, thereby enabling a solid and grounded systems thinking approach for students. As students approach their learning, they go through a series of development stages that gradually build up student level of expertise until they reach the stage of what the INCOSE competency framework refers to as a lead practitioner role. Building on the competencies of the complex system toolkit presented in Table 1, Table 2 presents a potential outline for a scaffolding framework that maps varying threads of the framework in a way that enables scaffolded activities at every developmental stage for learners. Depending on the learning context and educational level, educators can choose which level of attainment is appropriate to their curriculum.  

Table 2. Scaffolding Complex Systems Learning Outcomes across the curriculum 

 

Discussion and next steps:

As we are approaching the fuzzy front end to complexity in engineering pedagogy, as educators we need to be constantly toggling between devising frameworks, being informed by literature, contextualising ideas, validating these in our classrooms and repeating this cycle to continually fine-tune our complex teaching navigational complexity framework. The invitation is open for all educators who would like to connect as we continue to explore different ways of developing responsible engineers who leave a lasting and sustainable mark transforming their stationed realities.  

 

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.  

 

Toolkit: Complex Systems Toolkit.

Author: Dr. Ewa Ura-Binczyk (Warsaw University of Technology).

Topic: Rail accident investigation and material failure analysis using systems thinking.

Title: Using fault tree analysis in a rail failure investigation.

Resource type: Teaching – Case study.

Relevant disciplines: Mineral, metallurgy & materials engineering; Civil engineering.

Keywords: Public health and safety; Risk; Fault tree analysis; Failure; Ethics; Public trust; Stakeholders; Trade offs; Uncertainty.

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

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, Ethics and Professionalism, Technical Leadership and Critical Thinking INCOSE Competencies.

AHEP4 mapping: This resource addresses several of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4):  Analytical Tools and Techniques (critical to the ability to model and solve problems), and Integrated / Systems Approach (essential to the solution of broadly-defined problems). In addition, this resource addresses AHEP themes of Design, Ethics and Communication. 

Educational level: Intermediate; Advanced.

 

Learning and teaching notes:

The case is built around 3 × 90-minute sessions and independent report writing. A suggested breakdown of the activities can be seen below. 

Learners have the opportunity to: 

Teachers have the opportunity to: 

 

Downloads: 

 

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Session  Focus  Suggested activities and timing 
1  Introduction and problem framing  20 min: Introduce case scenario and system context; 30 min: Group discussion on initial impressions, key stakeholders, and potential causes; 40 min: Begin Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) construction using initial evidence. 
2  Investigation and analysis  30 min: Continue FTA construction and data evaluation; 30 min: Peer review of other groups’ fault trees; 30 min: Consolidate findings and prepare draft report outline. 
3  Reporting and reflection  30 min: Present findings to a simulated stakeholder panel; 30 min: Discuss feedback and defend conclusions; 30 min: Individual reflection on complexity, uncertainty, and assumptions. 

 

Summary of the system or context:

Rail transport systems consist of thousands of interdependent components, including rails, fasteners, sleepers, signalling systems, and maintenance processes. Failures in a single component can cascade, affecting: 

 

Complex system features: 

 

Narrative of the case:

On a cold January morning, a commuter train was halted after inspectors discovered a fractured rail joint component. Services were disrupted for several hours, stranding thousands of passengers. The media quickly picked up the story, raising questions about safety and reliability. 

The rail operator urgently commissioned an engineering consultancy (the students) to investigate the failure. Their findings will inform both the safety authority’s decision on whether the line can reopen and the legal proceedings to determine liability. 

 

The dilemma: 

As consultants, students face incomplete evidence: some lab tests are missing, inspection logs are inconsistent, and eyewitness accounts conflict. They must use Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) to map possible causes, evaluate data, and produce an expert opinion report — knowing that their conclusions could influence legal outcomes and public safety decisions. 

Groups: 3–5 students per group; 3-4 groups can run in parallel. 

Materials required: case narrative handouts, sample inspection log, example FTA, whiteboards/flipcharts, sticky notes for FTA mapping. 

Activity flow: 

1. Introduce case and assign roles. 

2. Construct initial fault trees using evidence. 

3. Peer-review across groups. 

4. Draft expert report and present to simulated stakeholder panel. 

5. Individual reflection on complexity and uncertainty. 

 

Why use Fault Tree Analysis (FTA):

FTA is a structured approach to trace a failure from an observed event back to potential causes, including technical, human, and organisational factors. 

FTA is particularly suitable for this case because it allows students to structure complex, uncertain information in a logical and transparent way. It helps them trace the chain of causes behind the rail component failure, linking material, human, and organisational factors into one coherent framework. By visualising how small events combine into system-level failures, FTA encourages learners to think critically about interdependencies, data gaps, and assumptions. It also mirrors real-world engineering investigations, where professionals must justify conclusions under uncertainty and demonstrate clear reasoning to stakeholders such as regulators or courts. 

Advantages in this case: 

 

Questions and activities: 

Prompt  Expected insight / reflection 
What technical, human, and organisational factors might have contributed to this failure?  Students identify multiple interacting factors, illustrating interdependencies and emergent risks. 
How does Fault Tree Analysis help structure uncertainty in this investigation?  Learners recognise FTA’s role in visualising cause-effect pathways and clarifying assumptions. 
Which assumptions are you forced to make, and how might they affect your conclusions?  Students reflect on data gaps, biased observations, and ethical implications of assumptions. 
How do different stakeholders’ interests shape urgency and framing of your analysis?  Learners understand trade-offs, pressures from conflicting priorities, and the precautionary principle. 
What are the risks of issuing a preliminary report under time pressure?  Students explore implications for safety, liability, professional integrity, and public trust. 

 

Activity  Focus  What “good practice” looks like  Facilitator notes / tips 
1. FTA construction  Collaborative problem analysis  Teams discuss evidence openly, question assumptions, and co-create a logical tree linking technical, human, and organisational causes.   Encourage each group to identify at least one “human/organisational” branch and to label any data gaps explicitly. 
2. Peer review  Critical reflection and systems perspective  Groups provide constructive critique, highlighting hidden assumptions, missing branches, or unclear logic. Dialogue stays professional and evidence-based.  Provide coloured sticky notes or digital comments to record feedback; model how to frame critique as questions (“Have you considered…?”). 
3. Report writing (in-class drafting)  Synthesis and professional communication  Drafts show a clear, defensible reasoning chain from evidence to conclusion. Teams justify assumptions and note uncertainties.  Remind students to separate “facts” from “interpretations.” Encourage use of structured headings (Findings – Analysis – Conclusions). 
4. Simulation role-Play  Perspective-taking and communication under pressure  Presentations are concise (≤5 min), factual, and adapted to stakeholder roles. Learners respond respectfully and clearly to challenging questions.  Provide role cards for the panel (operator, regulator, manufacturer, public). Rotate students if possible. 
5. Reflection  Metacognition and learning from uncertainty  Students identify what surprised them, what they found ambiguous, and how their view of engineering judgment evolved.  Offer prompts like “What would you do differently next time?” or “Where did your reasoning feel uncertain?” 

 

Further challenge:

Instructors may choose to introduce a second “reveal” phase: a new metallurgical test result or a whistle-blower statement emerges halfway through the case. Students must revise their fault tree and defend whether and how their conclusions change. This highlights the evolving nature of complex systems investigations. 

 

Assessment opportunities:

 

 

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. Rebecca Margetts (Nottingham Trent University).

Topic: The importance of teaching and learning about complex systems.

Title: The real world is a complex system.

Resource type: Knowledge article.

Relevant disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Problem solving; Feedback loops; Decision-making; VUCA; Optimisation; Public health and safety; Risk; Sustainability; Ethics; Responsible design; Life cycle; Societal impact; Enterprise and innovation.

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

Downloads: 

Learning and teaching resources:

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: 

We live in a complex world. Complexity is a key challenge, captured in leadership terms by the VUCA framework: volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (Lanucha 2024). Engineers have the privilege of creating products and processes for humans to use in this landscape. Each of these likely has numerous parts which interact, as well as interacting with the environment, people, and needing to meet a host of safety, quality, sustainability, ethics, and financial obligations. Traditionally, engineers analyse problems by breaking them down into simple parts. This helps understanding and makes calculations feasible, but it’s easy to lose understanding of the whole system. Any change can easily create a problem elsewhere. From a technical viewpoint, engineers need to understand this interconnectedness in order for their creations to work. In a wider sense, ‘systems thinking’ is a skill central to engineering quality and management techniques, which seek to rationalise the complexity of entire organisations and their ever-changing market pressures.  

 

The case for understanding systems: 

Systems is perhaps one of the most misunderstood words in engineering. It is often found combined with mathematical modelling or control – topics often perceived as challenging – and is used in other fields like Computer Science, where tools and models are different. In all cases, the idea revolves around a group of interacting or interrelated elements which form a unified whole. Those elements can be physical or information, hardware or software, or any combination of mechanical, electrical, and other engineering domains. Thinking in terms of systems can therefore be thought of as a holistic approach.  

The Engineering Council UK’s AHEP criteria include a systems approach: C/M6 – “Apply an integrated or systems approach to the solution of complex problems.” Several other AHEP criteria also reference complexity and complex problems, which they define as having “no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs that can be addressed through creativity and the resourceful application of engineering science. The Systems Thinking Alliance (2025) gives a broader definition of complexity as referring to “the condition of systems, objects, phenomena, or concepts that are challenging to understand, explain, or manage due to their intricate and interconnected nature. It involves multiple elements or factors that interact in unpredictable ways, often requiring significant information, time, or coordinated efforts to address.” For these, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ (Ellis 2025). This is the reality that engineers need to manage by understanding the potential effects on all parts of the system. 

In order to analyse, engineers dissect complexity into manageable components, and educators teach these simple components before moving onto more complex systems. For example, students initially learn basic electrical components, simple beams, rigid bodies, etc. before bringing these together in case studies, and then moving onto topics like mechatronic systems. Historically, engineers specialised on graduation, perhaps becoming a stress engineer or fluid dynamicist in dedicated offices and functional teams.  A design decision by one team could have unintended consequences for another, as well as additional uncertainty. The advent of cross-functional project and ‘matrix’ organisations mitigated against this, and companies have moved towards attribute teams which can consider the balance of behaviour. Even so, some uncertainty remains in the form of assumptions in calculations, changes in material properties with temperature or stress, or small variations in composition and manufacturing tolerances, which can all accumulate. Any parts which are bought ‘off-the-shelf’ or made by other companies under license must be carefully specified. Relationships can be nonlinear – or even chaotic – and contain feedback loops which can amplify changes (Kastens et al 2009). This all increases the risk of a product’s comfort, performance, and safety being impacted in ways that weren’t anticipated. Any problem that doesn’t come to light until the testing phase – late in the design process – represents costly redesigns and delays. In the unlikely event that a problem isn’t captured during testing either, the outcome could be disastrous. 

Systems engineers will bring the product together and establish these complex behaviours through models and testing. Identifying potential problems early in the design phase can save significant money and facilitate better designs. This can be challenging, especially for systems using novel materials or operating in extreme environments, which aren’t accurately captured by standard calculations. Models may be linearised, neglect external forcing, or be derived for an assumed air density or ambient temperature which may not be valid. In recent decades, the engineering industry has moved towards model-based design and virtual prototyping, facilitated by advances in computer tools. These are increasingly sophisticated, but models still need to be built by engineers with an appreciation of complexity and the mechanisms by which a problem could arise. As humans develop new materials and technologies, and explore the limits of what is possible, engineering techniques and calculations need constant revision, and software tools are frequently updated to facilitate this.  

That holistic view of problems has benefits outside of designing engineering artefacts. The manufacturing process is itself a complex system with potentially long supply chains. As is the organisation, which is comprised of numerous people operating in a landscape of financial pressures, employment law, politics and culture. Quality guru William Deming’s 14 Points for Management (Deming 2018) can be viewed as a systems approach to handling this complexity, by breaking down barriers between departments and instigating continuous improvement. Once a product is produced, it exists in a wider world and continues to interact with it. From a sustainability viewpoint, this can be the user and surrounding community, the environmental impact over a product’s lifecycle, and the financial markets which dictate whether a product is viable. It can also be the social, political, and legal landscapes: these can place direct constraints in the forms of laws governing safety and emissions (such as the UK’s legally binding target of net zero by 2050), or through embargos, tariffs, and subsidies. Each country has its own regulations, which can necessitate multiple variations of a product: a good example is cars, which need to be produced in both left- and right-hand drive, satisfy varying safety and emissions regulations, and cater for differing personal and cultural preferences for size, noise, usage and driving styles. Even when not legislated, a company might choose to support fair trade, lead the way in sustainable practices, or refuse to do business with suppliers or regimes they find objectionable – potentially making this a key part of their brand.  

An engineer’s ability to appreciate and understand the wider social and business landscape is a reason why finance and management consultancy companies can often be seen recruiting engineers at student careers fairs. The Sainsbury Management Fellowship (SMF) scheme notably develops UK engineers as industry leaders, and fellows have made a major contribution to the UK’s economic prosperity (RAEng 2025). 

 

Conclusions:

Complex systems are the “real world” that engineers attempt to understand and design for. They are complicated, interconnected, changing, and uncertain. The well-known part of engineering is analysis: breaking systems into understandable parts. There needs to be a parallel operation where those parts are assembled or integrated into a whole, and that whole interacts with everything around it. This is where unforeseen problems can occur. Systems models and a holistic systems thinking approach can mitigate this risk. A systems approach and ability to manage complexity is a key skill for engineers, and positions them well for other fields like management.   

 

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.  

A series of new How-To Guides have been developed by universities across the UK as part of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s (RAEng) Diversity Impact Programme (DIP)

Supported by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, this programme funds projects that inspire change within university engineering departments and tackle unequal outcomes experienced by students from underrepresented groups.

Over the past three years, the Diversity Impact Programme has provided grants of up to £100,000 to 22 university projects. The latest phase focuses on sharing what has been learned through practical, evidence-based How-To Guides that other universities can replicate to embed inclusive practices and strengthen outcomes for all engineering students.

 

Funded awardees and their guides

Seven awardees have produced user-friendly guides on inclusive approaches within engineering education:

 

Our guide

We’re proud that our recently published guide, Integrating the Engineering Professors’ Council’s Inclusive Employability Toolkit into the Higher Education Engineering Curriculum (featured in our Inclusive Employability Toolkit), was developed in collaboration with Wrexham University, one of our Toolkit supporters alongside Canterbury Christ Church University, Equal Engineers, and The Royal Academy of Engineering. Through DIP funding, Wrexham University collaborated with us to develop a How-To Guide demonstrating how to use the Toolkit in practice, featuring real-world case studies of students and educators applying it and detailed session plans. This collaboration has enabled us to share practical, scalable strategies that advance inclusive employability within engineering education. We’re delighted to be featured alongside other outstanding contributions from Swansea University, University of Plymouth, King’s College London, University of Dundee, University of Strathclyde, and University of the West of England.

 

Explore the guides

We encourage our members and partners to explore the other awardees’ guides to see how their insights and approaches could inform your own practice. Visit the RAEng website to view all the How-To Guides by clicking here.

 

This post is also available here.

Authors: Professor Anne Nortcliffe (Wrexham University); Crystal Nwagboso (Engineering Professors’ Council).

Topic: A practical guide for educators on using the Toolkit to embed inclusive employability in teaching, illustrated with real-life case studies and step-by-step session plans.

Engineering disciplines: Any.

Keywords: Academics; Active Learning; Case Study; Employability and Skills; Curriculum or Course; Engineering Professionals; Inclusive or Responsible Design; Interdisciplinary or Multidisciplinary; Pedagogy; Problem-Based Learning; Project-Based Learning; Students; Teaching and Learning; Workshop; Collaboration; Higher Education; General and Non-Specific or Other Engineering; Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Who is this how-to guide / case study for? This guide is designed for educators, curriculum developers, and academic support staff seeking to integrate inclusive employability into engineering education. Through real-world case studies and detailed session plans, it provides practical strategies for fostering students’ professional skills, reflective practice, and meaningful engagement with industry, adaptable across diverse engineering disciplines and teaching contexts.

 

Download the How-To Guide (PDF):

English

Welsh

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

EPC Launches Inclusive Employability Toolkit to Advance Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Engineering Education 

London, 30 September 2025 – The Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) has launched a new Inclusive Employability Toolkit designed to support engineering educators and students in embedding Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles into employability learning. 

Developed with funding from the Royal Academy of Engineering Impact Fund, and in partnership with Canterbury Christ Church University, Wrexham University, Equal Engineers, and the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Toolkit addresses persistent inequities in engineering graduate outcomes and workplace progression. 

The Toolkit equips the engineering higher education community to: 

 

Tackling Inequalities in Graduate Outcomes 

Despite progress, disparities remain in engineering graduate outcomes. According to the Office for Students (2024), 73% of white male engineering graduates progress into employment compared with 71.6% of female graduates, 68.7% of Asian graduates, and 69.8% of Black graduates. Inequities are also evident for LGBTQ+ students and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. 

Bias in recruitment practices can compound these issues. Research indicates that AI-based recruitment may amplify discrimination, particularly affecting women and minority candidates. Diversity, however, remains a priority for the profession: 81% of engineers say it is an important factor when considering an employer, and 82% of female applicants cite the presence of role models as significant (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2024). 

 

Impact on Students 

Early classroom use of the Toolkit has shown positive results. Academics report that it helps students develop reflective practice, engage critically with employability resources, and recognise their personal responsibility in shaping career journeys. Students have also reported improvements in collaboration and group work: 

“It has improved me… [Previously] I didn’t even think about any steps [when completing coursework or group work]. I used to just jump straight into [it]… even in our group activity.” — Level 4 CCCU Student A 

“[The Toolkit’s game activity] built quite a lot of patience in me… I could give [peers in group work] more time, explain things in more detail, and help them instead of arguing over the work.” — Level 4 CCCU Student B 

“I’m still finding my feet [at university] with interacting in a group setting… I think a lot more about other people… I’m constantly conscious [of this] in group work.” — Level 4 CCCU Student C 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit provides a practical framework to embed EDI into engineering education, helping students and educators alike to build more inclusive, equitable, and reflective learning and workplace environments. 

 

For further information, please contact: Contact: Johnny Rich Email: press@epc.ac.uk 

Phone: 07590 914666 

24 hours: 0781 1111 4292 

Website: epc.ac.uk/resources/toolkit/inclusive-employability-toolkit/

Twitter/X: @EngProfCouncil #InclusiveEmployabilityToolkit

ENDS 

 

This post is also available here.

With over 60,000 views to date (as of April 2025), it’s not surprising that awareness of the Ethics Toolkit is growing. This has also been boosted by academics and advocates including the Toolkit in their events and talks.

In the last few months, the Ethics Toolkit has been featured at recent events both home and abroad:

July 2025

June 2025

December 2024

November 2024

October 2024

July 2024

As academics know, it’s been “conference season” recently, with the usual rush of meetings and symposia and events that mark the beginning of summer. We’re pleased that the Engineering Ethics Toolkit has been featured at several of these, both home and abroad:

September 2023

Between February 2022 and April 2025 the Ethics Toolkit has had over 60,000 views, so we know you’re looking at it, but we also want to know where you’re talking about the Ethics Toolkit! Have you featured a resource in a conference presentation or meeting? Tell us about how the resources have helped you over the past year—we’d love to feature your story.

 

This post is also available here.

We’re excited to announce that we’ve been working hard behind the scenes on our brand-new Inclusive Employability Toolkit, our resource designed to help engineering educators integrate EDI principles and practices in engineering, computing, design and technology – across education, employer engagement, career preparation, and progression into the workplace.

We will be previewing the toolkit at our in-person event, EAN Congress 2025: Realising the vision, next week (Monday 9th June – Wednesday 11th June 2025), followed by the official launch on Wednesday 3rd September 2025, during our live webinar.

 

What is the Inclusive Employability Toolkit? 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit, formerly known as the EDGE Toolkit, was originally developed in partnership with Canterbury Christ Church University, Wrexham University, and Equal Engineers. Following funding from the Royal Academy of Engineering, the two universities have now collaborated with the Engineering Professors Council to relaunch the resource under its new name. This newly relaunched version has been redesigned and enhanced to improve the toolkit’s usability and ensure wider accessibility for students, educators, and employers alike. 

This toolkit is more than a set of activities – it’s a strategic resource for students, graduates, academics, employers, and managers. It provides tools to develop the employability skills needed for graduate-level roles and long-term career progression in STEM fields. 

At the heart of the toolkit is a focus on inclusion, diversity, and the power of bringing your authentic voice – especially social minority experiences – into the world of work. 

  

What’s available now? 

While we continue to develop some of the toolkit’s additional features, we’re pleased to share that the core activities are ready to use now. These include a range of twelve interactive resources – including a game – labelled Activities A through L, that are ideal for embedding into session planning or curriculum development. Each activity has been thoughtfully designed to deepen your understanding and practical application of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles across a range of academic, professional, and social contexts.   

These activities are intended to challenge you to think critically, reflect on real-world scenarios, and consider your own experiences, assumptions, and behaviours through an EDI lens. Through engaging with these exercises, you will: 

We have also developed a new addition to the toolkit: a University Career Services Library, where you can find direct links to the career services of 96 EPC affiliated universities. This library serves as a valuable starting point for exploring career development support, including workshops, employment opportunities, internships, mentoring schemes, and other services available through your university. 

You can access the available activities and the University Career Services Library here.

Additionally, you can access the Inclusive Employability Toolkit homepage here.

Whether you’re just beginning to explore inclusive employability or looking to enhance your existing practices, these activities provide a strong foundation for understanding and applying EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) in your teaching or workplace environment. 

 

What’s coming next? 

We’re currently finalising the rest of the toolkit, which includes: 

This resource will be published in September, following our official webinar launch. 

 

Join us at the official launch 

Date: Wednesday 3rd September 2025 @ 1pm – 2.30pm  

Event: Webinar: Introducing the Inclusive Employability Toolkit and Launching the EPC’s DEI Community of Special Interest

At the webinar, you’ll experience a live demonstration of the Inclusive Employability Toolkit. We’ll walk through the toolkit’s design, showcase the new resources, and share insights from students and partners who helped shape it. It’s a great opportunity to learn more and ask questions. 

We’ll also introduce the DEI Community of Special Interest – a professional network committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in teaching, research, institutional systems, and engineering culture. You’ll hear more about its aims, upcoming events, and how to get involved in shaping a more inclusive future in engineering and beyond.

Click here to register for the webinar.

  

Looking ahead 

The Inclusive Employability Toolkit marks the beginning of an exciting journey. Beyond September, we’ll be adding more materials, and creating opportunities for users to contribute, collaborate, and share feedback. 

If you’d like to stay informed or get involved, you can register your interest here. We’ll ensure you’re among the first to hear when we begin accepting resources and sharing new opportunities to engage with the toolkit. We’d love to have you on board as we continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable future in engineering and technology. 

  

A shared commitment to inclusion 

At its core, this toolkit reflects our shared belief that diversity is not just an asset – it’s essential to innovation and progress. By engaging with the Inclusive Employability Toolkit, you’re not just using a resource – you’re joining a community committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion in engineering and beyond. 

We invite you to explore the activities, join our September launch, and be part of the movement. Let’s work together to build a profession – and a future – that values every voice. 

  

Please note: Discussions around discrimination, prejudice and bias are highly complex and part of a much wider national and international debate, including contested histories. As such, we have limited the scope of our resources to educating and supporting students. 

The resources that the EPC and its partners are producing in this area will continue to expand and, if you feel there is an issue that is currently underrepresented in our content, we would be delighted to work with you to create more. Please get in touch.    

 

This post is also available here.

Teaching ethics and wondering how to tie learning outcomes to accreditation criteria? Look no further!

The Ethics Learning Landscape, part of the Engineering Ethics Toolkit‘s interactive Ethics Explorer, illustrates in table form the relationship between learning outcomes, AHEP criteria, graduate attributes, and possible locations for inclusion within a course or module.  

Whilst the Ethics Learning Landscape is best viewed as part of the Ethics Explorer, which replaced the static engineering ethics curriculum map published in 2015, there is also a printable version available in PDF form, that summarises content from the interactive Explorer.

The Ethics Explorer is designed to help engineering educators navigate the landscape of engineering ethics education, finding their own path through what can sometimes seem like a wilderness. The Ethics Explorer is part of the Engineering Ethics Toolkit, an open access resource designed to help engineering educators embed ethics in their teaching.

Access our latest Ethics Toolkit content, and learn how to get involved here.

 

This post is also available here.

Let us know what you think of our website