Blueprints for Teaching Ecodesign and Sustainability to University Students

Abstract

There can be little doubt that if ecodesign and sustainability principles are going to be adopted, a great accelerator would be fundamental curriculum reform in engineering degree-granting institutions across the globe. But for most individuals involved with institutions of higher education, daunting hurdles exist at all levels – departmental, college, university, as well as accreditation by certification agencies. And because of the work burdens extant in academic jobs, most individual faculty members do not have the time to jump through the procedural hoops that would result in real change. Additionally, because of the lack of widespread acceptance of the basic principles of product life cycle management, or the need to take valuable real estate from other topics, most efforts in curricular change end up bogged down. There are a rapidly increasing number of programs that offer some complement of sustainability courses at the graduate level, and some nascent efforts at the undergraduate level. However, the largest problem with single-course offerings is that they effectively pigeonhole “green” engineering into a vanishingly small part of the curriculum, where what really needs to happen is a systemic overhaul of all classes so that ecodesign and sustainability become systemic in the way that engineers operate themselves.

But in order for this to happen, some type of framework must be established that allows both students and professors a larger, more coherent approach to the field. Such a model is presented in this chapter. This approach is both inclusive and extensive. After presentation of the model, this chapter offers the educational practitioner some examples of application of the model – one is a model for curriculum reform primarily at the undergraduate level, with examples for potential from the USA, Europe, and India. The other is a template for two more typical sustainability courses that would be offered at the graduate level.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

The origins of this work began with the Dassault Systems Ecodesign Fellowship project. This was launched in 2007 with the appointment of the first author to develop a framework for a coordinated ecodesign curriculum to share across European and US institutions. An assessment of ecodesign education best practices over the past decade indicated that education and dissemination of best practices continued to lag behind method development in this field. For example, a 2001 analysis of the state of implementation of ecodesign in Europe found that ecodesign education was mainly taught at universities in postgraduate education courses.¹ Most technical, design, and business programs failed to provide basic ecodesign education in undergraduate programs. Even further behind lagged smaller academies and schools. The exceptions were large, design-centered technical universities in leading countries, such as the Netherlands, Austria, UK, Australia, and Germany.

Similarly, the state of ecodesign education within North America is fragmented and lacks avenues for dissemination. There are many examples of innovative design educators integrating ecodesign into courses,² but engineering education continues to play catch-up. Industry demands for first-year engineers with product life cycle management skills (PLM) continue to grow, particularly in light of the global environmental regulatory environment, such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directives of the European Union, that will restrict markets to producers who can successfully satisfy the engineering and life cycle requirements in the year 2011.

At the outset of this project, ecodesign education was still playing catch-up. In fact, many of the familiar pockets of innovation were not being disseminated to the wider global engineering education community (see Fig. 2.1). With this in mind, an ecodesign social network in Europe was developed. In order to build a common understanding, a number of practitioners and academics pose the following questions:

• What is ecodesign?

• What is driving ecodesign?

• What is the role of ecodesign in industry, education, government, and research groups?

• What are the barriers to innovation in industry and education, and what are the success stories?

• How do we move toward integration of these areas in order to

  • Improve ecodesign education?

  • Move industry from compliance to innovation?

• What, specifically, can we do as a community of educators, and university-industry partners, to address these problems?

Fig. 2.1

Moving toward integration

2 Background

In the preliminary stages, the current leaders in the field were identified, from both academia and industry, to collaborate on the development of an inclusive ecodesign framework to aid faculty, programs, and institutions in the process of integrating ecodesign into the undergraduate curriculum. Leading institutions served as models to guide the process because they have the highest percentage of specialized education courses, graduate and undergraduate programs, cutting-edge ecodesign research, and university-industry partnerships to support curriculum template development for both existing and emergent programs.

The benefits of an integrated curriculum are twofold: ecodesign and sustainability education in engineering is necessary (1) to make engineering graduates of the future “ecodesign ready” so that they can fill the needs of our future students’ employers and (2) to provide the professional development and collaborative opportunities for companies so that industry managers clearly see the benefits of implementing ecodesign and sustainability practices throughout the entire value chain.

2.1 Method

For this project, a survey of institutions and industry partners included collecting sample curricula, video interviews, and casestudies and was compiled in an online electronic-portfolio format.³ University partners included Delft University of Technology, Technical University of Vienna, Technical University of Denmark, University of Technology Sydney, ETH Zurich, and Washington State University. Industry partners included Priestman-Goode, UK, InterfaceFlor, USA, Engel, Austria, Avaloop, Austria, and OMODO, Germany (see Fig. 2.2).

Fig. 2.2

Project partner network map

The data was evaluated across formats. For example, video “mashups” were created from individual footage to answer community questions. Curricula were laid out side by side to compare core competencies, structure, and sequence. Finally, case-study analyses provide a backdrop for understanding the current and future goal state of ecodesign in engineering education and a foothold of inspiration. Finally, a conceptual framework and example curriculum templates from Europe and the United States were developed from the data.

2.2 The Basic Framework

In order to innovate ecodesign and sustainability education, one must first understand what it is. And while there are many potential taxonomies, what we discovered was that often when one talked about participating in either ecodesign or sustainability education, the subject areas were usually one of four categories. These four categories are as follows:

• 1. Core science, such as the search for a new eco-friendly material.

• 2. Facilitative strategies, which were often computer tools that made making an eco-friendly choice more likely, or an easier digestion of design trade-offs.

• 3. Canonical ecodesign philosophy, which offers the designer or engineer a more complete methodology for designing an eco-friendly or sustainable product.

• 4. Conceptual knowledge, which takes into account that often major innovations in eco-friendliness may occur outside the ecodesign/sustainability framework. For example, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner was not designed at the start to be an eco-friendly aircraft. However, by reducing fuel consumed per passenger mile by 20%, the resultant reduction of CO₂ emissions from a fleet of aircraft stands to be enormous (see Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.3

Ecodesign framework

The following are examples of each category collected during our visits across Europe:

• 1. Search for a working fluid that fits a Rankine cycle process that can be used for small biomass facilities. This is basic science in that understanding the basic thermodynamics and chemistry are important for developing a system that will promote sustainable behavior on the part of people interested in power generation (Fig. 2.4).

• 2. Development of tools that will aid in developing a Super-Light car, being completed at the TU-Darmstadt in Germany. This work integrates tools into a conventional Product Life cycle Management system that enables engineers to make decisions that affect sustainability on-the-fly during the design process (Fig. 2.5).

• 3. Establishing a process to measure environmental impacts based on all phases of a product’s life cycle, by developing systematic ways of looking at use or raw materials, the designed object and its manufacture, its actual use, and (Fig. 2.6). Work being completed at the TU- Wien in Austria is some of the leading-edge work on this in the world.

• 4. Back-engineering breakthrough products, such as the Boeing 787, that use 20% less fuel than a typical aircraft per passenger mile, and attempting to apply such lessons across other object/consumer good categories (Fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.4

Basic science advances

Fig. 2.5

Tool development

Fig. 2.6

Developing ecodesign and sustainability design processes for consistency

Fig. 2.7

Breakthrough products and back-engineering

2.3 Examples and Modifications

European curricula vary wildly as far as actual ecodesign curricula implementation. However, what we found at even the leading institutions was that ecodesign was mostly relegated to graduate level study. The following figures show what we propose as modifications to the post-Bologna accords B.S./M.S curriculum.

Though there is the perception that Europe is far ahead of the USA in adopting ecodesign, that was not the case. In many interviews and conversations with colleagues, the same level of rigidity as far as changing the undergraduate experience as in the USA was present.

Because of this, modification must occur in actual orientation of the classes within the same basic list of subject matter. What this means is examples, and context inside the standard classes must be changed to reflect an update in design philosophy that favors sustainability. While it might be intellectually desirable to start with a ground-up perspective, this is simply unrealistic in the context of current faculty governance and university administration structures.

The following tables show curriculum modification for a sample US curriculum (Washington State University – Table 2.1), a sample European curriculum (TU – Wien – Table 2.2), and a sample Indian curriculum (derived from the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India, Department of Mechanical Engineering – Table 2.3), as well as a description of one of the only extant Ecodesign/Sustainability curricula from the Denmark Technical University (Table 2.4). Courses not modified (such as introductory calculus, dynamics, physics courses) are still, of course, required, but are not listed.

Table 2.1 US Mechanical Engineering Curriculum (Sample taken from Washington State University, School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering)

Table 2.2 Indian Mechanical Engineering Curriculum, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India, Department of Mechanical Engineering

Table 2.3 European Mechanical Engineering Curriculum (sample taken from the TU Wien, AT)

Table 2.4 Denmark Technical University, Ecodesign Curriculum

There is also no way to, in one short book chapter, lay out an exhaustively structured ecodesign/sustainability curriculum. Rather, the following three tables are more intended to stimulate discussion for how one might start the change process. Please note – these changes have not been implemented, and no representation to that effect is intended. Rather, these three curricula were selected because of the independent experience of the authors with these universities, and their in-depth knowledge of how these curricula function. The final table is reconstructed from an interview and documentation provided by Professor Timothy McAloone, Associate Professor of Product Development in the Department of Management Engineering, Section of Engineering Design & Product Development, and once again is intended to show the thought process of designing an ecodesign/sustainability curriculum – not the verbatim description itself.

3 Graduate Level Study

Graduate level study in ecodesign and sustainability occurs around the world and is voluminous in nature. Because of the inherent flexibility of graduate education – the universal emphasis on a thesis or dissertation, no governing bodies that can dictate particular content, and the rapidly growing interest in the field – the task of designing applicable coursework becomes much more tractable.

A larger discussion on all the potential coursework to be done in graduate education is beyond the scope of this chapter. In fact, an independent course could probably be implemented for every chapter of this handbook. But in the interest of providing templates for universities wishing to implement a course, or courses in sustainability at the introductory graduate level, two case studies, with syllabi, are offered. The first course presents a top-down perspective toward understanding life cycle assessment and sustainability. The second course discusses a bottom-up approach on these same issues.

Earlier in the chapter, various strategies for infusing sustainability topics within existing courses were discussed, particularly at the undergraduate level. If it is possible to include one or two additional courses on sustainability, the key objectives should be:

• (a) Understanding the needs and challenges of sustainability in a product life cycle from a systems perspective

• (b) Understanding the strategies adopted for systems design for sustainability

• (c) Getting familiar with the broad sets of metrics and tools for sustainability evaluation

• (d) Gaining in-depth knowledge of a few metrics and tools

• (e) Understanding how to achieve trade-offs between conflicting objectives in making design decisions

The emphasis should not be on delivering all the available information to the students. Much of the knowledge is not only extensive but also domain-specific. The emphasis should be on creating a solid foundation and providing direction for the students to promote self-discovery. In other words, the emphasis should be on “Learning to Learn.” The case studies listed below are the results of these efforts.

3.1 Case Study 1: Systems Design Approaches for Sustainability (Top-Down Approach)

The contents of this course are suitable for an entry-level graduate course or a senior-level undergraduate course. The key segments within the course include:

• 1. System Life cycle: In this first segment of the course, the students are familiarized with the systems design process and the phases in a system life cycle. The systems engineering Vee model is covered. Specific topics within this segment include requirements management, system architectures, and interfaces. This segment provides the necessary foundation for the students to think about the system-wide issues rather than focusing on individual issues in isolation. Tools for systems modeling such as SysML can be included in this segment.

• 2. Classification of different sustainability efforts: In this segment, the students are educated about the systemic needs and challenges associated with sustainable design. A variety of efforts for addressing sustainability are introduced. These include environmental engineering, pollution prevention, environmentally conscious design and manufacturing, design for environment, life cycle design, industrial ecology, and sustainable development. In this segment, the focus is on making the students aware of the scale and scope of different efforts and relationships between them. The focus is not on providing the details of each effort.

• 3. Strategies for systems design for sustainability: In this segment, the focus is on providing details of a few approaches for sustainable design. Specific guidelines and steps are discussed. Examples include product system life extension, material life extension, material selection, reduced material intensiveness, process management, efficient distribution, and improved management practices. This segment can be linked to a project or an assignment. Specific decisions and associated trade-offs are identified.

• 4. Metrics and Indicators: Within the context of sustainable design decisions, this segment focuses on metrics and indicators for quantifying the impact of different design alternatives on different environmental factors. Frameworks such as Eco-Indicator 99 and ISO 14031 Indicator Framework are discussed in detail.

• 5. Specific sustainability tools: The emphasis in this segment is on core tools used in sustainability such as Life cycle Analysis (LCA) and Life cycle Cost Analysis (LCC). These tools are covered due to their breadth and domain-independence. The students either can use these tools for their projects or can include an assignment.

• 6. Multi-attribute decision-making frameworks: Since systems-level sustainability decisions are invariably associated with trade-offs, the role of systematic multi-attribute decision making is significant. In this segment, decision-making frameworks such as Utility Theory⁶ are covered. The students are educated about mathematically rigorous ways of modeling preferences, alternatives, and attributes. Systematic accounting of uncertainty within design decisions is a key aspect of this segment.

The course is particularly suitable for project-based learning. The students can be assigned a project at the start of the semester. Each segment can be associated with an assignment that can be scaffolded toward the achievement of goals of the project. This systems-based approach toward sustainability education equips the students with the necessary tools and provides them a foundation on which they can continue learning.

3.1.1 Tentative Course Syllabus

Weekly schedule:

• Week 1: Course overview, Design process

• Week 2: Overview of systems engineering life cycle process

• Week 3: Requirements management in system design

• Week 4: Architectures and interfaces for systems design

• Week 5: Overview of model-based systems engineering and SysML

• Week 6: Sustainability in systems realization

• Week 7: Design for environment

• Week 8: Metrics and indicators (Eco-Indicator 99)

• Week 9: Life cycle analysis (LCA)

• Week 10: Economics considerations – Life cycle cost (LCC)

• Week 11: Socially responsible design

• Week 12: Decision making in systems design, Utility theory

• Week 13: Multidimensional decision making under uncertainty

• Week 14: Research topics

• Week 15: Project presentations

3.2 Case Study: Sustainability Assessment for Engineering Design (Bottom-Up)

In this course, the focus was kept on addressing sustainability assessment at the design stage of a product. In the design stage, a product is not only planned for its use and manufacturing but also maintenance and disposal. Therefore, the basic introduction to the course should include educating the students about engineering design and planning. After laying down the basics of engineering design, the next aspect to discuss would be sustainability, its meaning, and various aspects related to it. Although sustainability is talked about as triple bottom line of economy, environment, and society, it can only be achieved by developing and utilizing the right technology in a right manner. Therefore, the triple bottom line should be viewed with a technological lens.⁷

The next step is to introduce economic, sociological, and environmental aspects. Economic aspects are taught in many undergraduate engineering design courses, so these aspects will not be discussed in this course. Environmental aspects are considered by learning about Life Cycle Assessment and discussing various labeling and regulatory standards for products. Societal aspects relating to sustainability should also be discussed. By combining economical, environmental, and societal aspects one can develop a method for sustainability assessment of a product/design. Since all of these aspects introduce new constraints on product design, these can be viewed as boundary conditions to an optimization. Therefore, the course should also include optimization techniques and effects of uncertainty on developing an optimal design of a product.

Thus, the course will consist of five core components that will be covered in the following sequence: (a) Engineering Product Design and Planning, (b) Life Cycle Assessment, (c) Standards for Sustainability, (d) Sustainability Assessment, and (e) Uncertainty and Optimization techniques.

The objectives of the course will be as follows:

• 1. Ability to consider sustainability as an integral part of the design process

• 2. Advanced knowledge of sustainable product design

• 3. Ability to perform Life-Cycle Assessment for a product

• 4. Ability to mathematically formulate optimization problems accounting for uncertainty

• 5. Gain an understanding of the state of the art in sustainability assessment of products

3.2.1 Learning Assessment

The course will consist of homework, online research and reading, minor project, and a major project. The minor project will focus on Life Cycle Assessment of a product using traditional methods available. The major project will consist of a sustainable engineering design project, where the students will consider uncertainty and optimization while solving a sustainable design problem for societal benefits.

3.2.2 Tentative Course Syllabus

Weekly Schedule:

• Week 1, 2: Engineering Product design and planning

• Week 3: Sustainability

• Week 4–6: Life-Cycle Assessment

• Week 7–8: Standards for Sustainability

• Week 9–10: Sustainability Assessment

• Week 11–12: Optimization and Uncertainty

• Week 13–14: Formulating and designing optimal sustainable product

• Week 15: Discussions and work on project

4 Conclusions

Ecodesign and Sustainability advances are being only slowly integrated into undergraduate curricula around the world. In order to improve the rate of dissemination, two things must occur: First there must be a clear taxonomy of what is actually meant by ecodesign and sustainability. Second, what must occur is that faculty in these areas must take a pragmatic approach toward adoption by re-engineering and adapting current courses to give a focus across the curriculum toward the concepts in ecodesign and sustainability, instead of working to add new courses. Finally, if the only immediate alternative for introduction of this type of material into the curriculum is the addition of another course, two potential courses are offered for discussion. This chapter is hopefully a small step forward in providing discussion jump-off points for all these larger directives.