ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Societal goals have been shifting over the last seventy years towards global sustainability concerns, diversity, and equity. As the goals have shifted, societal demands on engineers and organizations have been shifting. This has implications for how we educate engineers. Sustainable engineering leadership and management consider the organizational aspects of the development and operation of complex designs in a sustainable manner with safety and risk management being key elements of sustainable design, operation, and management of engineering projects. This work explores the intersection of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the current outcomes based engineering education accreditation framework, and risk based process safety management. It further elaborates on how these elements can be integrated into a structured case study approach to connect the role of the underlying values, ethics, assumptions, and beliefs of people who lead, manage, and work in complex engineering projects towards the enactment of a sustainability culture or a safety culture or both. The proposed case study structure reinforces engineering education outcomes, the United Nations sustainable development goals, and Risk Based Process Safety (RBPS) management in order to further develop technical and professional skills in undergraduate and graduate students better preparing them for their future roles in a world demanding sustainable solutions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
35
(2021)
37–46
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
jo
ur
nal
home
page:
www.elsevier.com/locate/ece
Sustainable
leadership
and
management
of
complex
engineering
systems:
A
team
based
structured
case
study
approach
Marnie
V.
Jamiesona,,
Lianne
M.
Lefsruda,,
Fereshteh
Sattaria,
John
R.
Donaldb
aDepartment
of
Chemical
and
Materials
Engineering,
Faculty
of
Engineering,
University
of
Alberta,
Canada
bUniversity
of
Guelph,
Canada
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
14
September
2020
Received
in
revised
form
22
November
2020
Accepted
25
November
2020
Available
online
15
December
2020
Keywords:
Engineering
education
Process
safety
Risk
management
Sustainable
development
goals
Graduate
attributes
Case
study
Engineering
leadership
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Societal
goals
have
been
shifting
over
the
last
seventy
years
towards
global
sustainability
concerns,
diver-
sity,
and
equity.
As
the
goals
have
shifted,
societal
demands
on
engineers
and
organizations
have
been
shifting.
This
has
implications
for
how
we
educate
engineers.
Sustainable
engineering
leadership
and
management
consider
the
organizational
aspects
of
the
development
and
operation
of
complex
designs
in
a
sustainable
manner
with
safety
and
risk
management
being
key
elements
of
sustainable
design,
oper-
ation,
and
management
of
engineering
projects.
This
work
explores
the
intersection
of
the
UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals,
the
current
outcomes
based
engineering
education
accreditation
framework,
and
risk
based
process
safety
management.
It
further
elaborates
on
how
these
elements
can
be
integrated
into
a
structured
case
study
approach
to
connect
the
role
of
the
underlying
values,
ethics,
assumptions,
and
beliefs
of
people
who
lead,
manage,
and
work
in
complex
engineering
projects
towards
the
enactment
of
a
sustainability
culture
or
a
safety
culture
or
both.
The
proposed
case
study
structure
reinforces
engi-
neering
education
outcomes,
the
United
Nations
sustainable
development
goals,
and
Risk
Based
Process
Safety
(RBPS)
management
in
order
to
further
develop
technical
and
professional
skills
in
undergraduate
and
graduate
students
better
preparing
them
for
their
future
roles
in
a
world
demanding
sustainable
solutions.
©
2021
Institution
of
Chemical
Engineers.
Published
by
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.
1.
Introduction
Sustainable
engineering
leadership
and
management
considers
the
organizational
aspects
of
the
development
and
operation
of
complex
designs
in
a
manner
consistent
with
sustainability
princi-
ples
(Jamieson
and
Donald,
2020).
Safety
and
risk
management
are
key
elements
in
sustainable
design,
operation,
and
management
of
engineering
projects
(Crowl
and
Louvar,
2019).
The
engineer-
ing
programs
at
many
universities
list
process
safety
as
a
program
objective
and
a
few
include
it
as
either
a
core
or
elective
stand
alone
course
in
their
program
but
more
often
it
is
included
in
existing
courses
(Amaya-Gómez,
2019).
Recognizing
that
a
safety
culture
does
not
develop
on
its
own,
but
is
a
product
of
management’s
intent
and
consistent
reinforcement
(Fleming
et
al.,
2018;
IAEA,
1986),
case
studies
may
help
students
to
understand
and
reflect
on
the
leadership
values
and
management
beliefs
that
can
lead
to
sustainability,
inherently
safer
designs,
and
a
supportive
orga-
Corresponding
authors.
E-mail
addresses:
mvjamies@ualberta.ca
(M.V.
Jamieson),
lefsrud@ualberta.ca
(L.M.
Lefsrud).
nizational
culture.
Using
case
studies
to
connect
incident
stories
to
engineering
safety,
culture,
and
risk
management
can
help
stu-
dents
examine
the
enacted
values,
underlying
values,
assumptions,
and
beliefs
that
may
contribute
to
major
incidents
(Guldenmund,
2000;
Kerin,
2018;
Shallcross,
2013b).
Further,
the
education
of
engineers
as
empowered
leaders
who
understand
the
implications
of
their
own
underlying
values,
assumptions,
and
beliefs
and
their
subsequent
connection
to
the
sustainable
design
and
operation
of
complex
systems
enhances
societal
sustainable
development.
We
propose
a
case
study
analysis
structure
developed
to
connect
the
role
of
the
underlying
values,
ethics,
assumptions,
and
beliefs
of
people
who
lead,
manage,
and
work
in
complex
engineering
projects
towards
the
enactment
of
a
sustainability
culture
or
a
safety
culture
or
preferably
both.
The
proposed
case
study
struc-
ture
reinforces
and
integrates
engineering
education
outcomes,
the
United
Nations
sustainable
development
goals
(UNSDG),
and
Risk
Based
Process
Safety
(RBPS)
management
in
order
to
further
develop
requisite
technical
and
professional
skills
in
undergradu-
ate
and
graduate
students
better
preparing
them
for
their
future
roles
in
a
world
demanding
sustainable
solutions.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.11.008
1749-7728/©
2021
Institution
of
Chemical
Engineers.
Published
by
Elsevier
B.V.
All
rights
reserved.
M.V.
Jamieson
et
al.
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
35
(2021)
37–46
1.1.
Motivation
Engineering
education
must
equip
graduates
with
an
under-
standing
of
the
role
of
engineering
in
society
and
the
complex
interactions
of
engineering
designs
with
the
environment,
people,
organizations,
and
society
(Jamieson
and
Shaw,
2019)
aligned
with
the
2030
UN
Agenda
for
Sustainable
Development
(UN,
2015,
2020).
Further,
engineering
and
project
management
are
being
influenced
by
artificial
intelligence,
climate
change,
work
methods
(includ-
ing
COVID-19
impacts),
and
the
location
of
emerging
economic
growth
centers
(PMI,
2019,
2020a;
Wellingtone,
2020).
Currently,
only
50–55
%
of
projects
are
completed
on
time
and
on
budget
with
almost
50
%
experiencing
scope
creep
(PMI,
2017)
with
these
fac-
tors
being
exacerbated
in
companies
with
limited
commitment
to
core
project
management
skills
(PMI,
2019,
2020b).
To
meet
these
new
challenges
and
current
schedule/scope/budget
issues,
stake-
holder
engagement,
risk
management,
and
planning
are
the
most
useful
and
easiest
to
embed
in
project
management
processes
by
practicing
professionals
(Wellingtone,
2020).
In
addition,
process
safety
incidents
are
still
occurring
globally
at
a
rate
similar
to
past
decades;
process
safety
culture
deficiency
is
the
leading
cause
with
emergency
preparedness
and
mechanical
integrity
tied
for
second
place
(Bhusari
et
al.,
2020).
In
sum,
these
complex
emerging
and
existing
challenges
affect
how
we
operationalize
‘sustainable
lead-
ership’
for
engineering
management.
To
create
educational
programs
to
equip
engineers
for
this
complex
environment,
program
accrediting
bodies,
such
as
the
Canadian
Engineering
Accreditation
Board
(CEAB)
and
the
Accred-
iting
Board
for
Engineering
Technology
(ABET),
have
introduced
a
broad
array
of
technical
and
non-technical
outcome-based
gradu-
ate
attributes
(ABET,
2019;
Engineers
Canada,
2018).
Process
safety
education
is
a
necessary
part
of
engineering
education
and
can
be
integrated
into
the
technical
and
fundamental
core
curriculum
(Dixon
and
Kohlbrand,
2015).
In
this
paper,
we
argue
that
sustain-
able
design
and
sustainable
operation
of
complex
systems
requires
specialized
technical
engineering
knowledge
and
skills
combined
with
engineering
leadership
and
management
skills
in
the
orga-
nizational
context.
This
requires
that
programs
develop
integrated
learning
activities
across
these
graduate
attributes,
which
can
be
challenging
given
an
already
hectic
curriculum.
In
addition,
despite
the
inclusion
of
process
safety
from
an
accreditation
perspective
the
inclusion
of
process
safety
material
may
be
limited
by
program
constraints
and
the
availability
of
process
safety
management
pro-
fessors
(Amaya-Gómez,
2019).
We
further
argue
that
employing
integrative
case-based
learning
activities
can
be
an
effective
and
efficient
mechanism
to
effectively
fulfill
educational
requirements
across
the
engineering
graduate
attributes
and
support
ongoing
fundamental
technical
skill
development.
Finally,
to
provide
a
basis
for
constructing
case
study
learning
activities,
we
define
a
structured
case
study
model
demonstrably
grounded
in
the
key
frameworks
of
sustainability,
safety
and
risk
management.
1.2.
Engineering
leadership
and
management
connections
Historically,
engineering
leadership
curricula
tend
to
use
more
experiential
approaches,
while
business
school
leadership
curric-
ula
tend
to
take
a
case
study
approach
(Klassen
and
Donald,
2018).
We
propose
that
mixing
experiential
approaches
and
case
stud-
ies
supports
student
learning
with
respect
to
practice
and
context
of
complex
system
engineering
design,
management,
and
sustain-
ability.
Many
engineering
projects
are
designed,
operated,
and
decommissioned
in
a
context
with
potentially
conflicting
busi-
ness
motivations,
social
orders,
and
power
structures
that
cause
variance
between
technical
intentions
(what
is
designed)
and
orga-
nizational
action
(what
is
implemented)
(Stackhouse
and
Stewart,
2017).
With
years
of
technical
design
training,
engineering
gradu-
ates
can
be
confused
by
such
inconsistencies.
Sometimes
they
are
left
wondering:
Why
is
a
design
not
being
used
as
intended?
or
why
is
a
design
or
process
issue
not
being
corrected?
Understand-
ing
how
and
why
engineering
projects
may
not
be
implemented
or
operated
as
designed
is
integral
for
engineering
students
to
successfully
recognize
and
respond
to
contextual
challenges.
To
overcome
these
drawbacks,
case
studies
are
particularly
well
suited
to
the
study
of
organizational
decision-making.
For
example,
understanding
the
social,
market,
and
regulatory
context
of
orga-
nizations
and
to
examine
the
impact
of
social
order
and
power,
which
can
frustrate
technical
decision-making
processes
(Suddaby
and
Lefsrud,
2010).
Case
studies
are
a
subset
of
problem-based
learning
(PBL)
(Duch
et
al.,
2001)
and
have
been
foundational
to
undergraduate
curriculum
transformation
in
medicine
(Allen
et
al.,
2011).
There
is
significant
evidence
that
PBL
is
effective
(Allen
et
al.,
2011;
Duch
et
al.,
2001;
Mandeville
and
Stoner,
2015)
and
is
a
rec-
ommended
method
to
incorporate
and
support
sustainability
and
a
move
to
a
more
wholistic
educational
paradigm
that
promotes
a
systems
thinking
approach
(Guerra
and
Smink,
2019).
Incident
case
studies
are
a
more
specific
PBL
approach,
which
are
typically
used
to
develop
student
presentation
skills
(Crowl
and
Louvar,
2019)
and
incident
recall
(Shallcross,
2013a;b).
However,
these
may
also
lead
students
to
oversimplify
the
situation
and
con-
clude
that
the
incident
may
have
been
easily
foreseen
and
thus
avoided
had
one
decision
been
changed
(hindsight
bias).
To
fully
understand
the
context
of
the
incident,
it
is
important
for
a
student
to
consider
not
just
the
technical
viewpoint,
but
also
the
leader-
ship
and
management
context
in
which
decisions
are
made.
This
can
provide
insight
beyond
the
technical
into
how
engineers
can
influence
a
culture
of
safety
and
sustainability
within
their
orga-
nizations.
Ideally
this
equips
and
empowers
engineers
to
better
understand
and
enact
their
professional
responsibilities
ensuring
that
protection
of
the
public
is
paramount.
2.
Background
Engineering
work
and
systems
are
multidimensional
thus
engi-
neering
education
is
required
to
develop
engineers’
ability
to
take
on
engineering,
management,
and
leadership
roles.
As
engineer-
ing
education
has
evolved,
new
methods
for
developing
engineers
have
been
proposed
yet
gaps
still
exist.
Important
aspects
are:
1)
understanding
the
roles
of
engineers
in
society
and
sustainability
objectives,
2)
redefining
the
role
of
engineering
education
to
better
support
societal
objectives,
including
protection
of
the
public,
and
3)
the
benefits
of
further
implementing
integrative
active
learning
strategies
like
case
studies.
All
of
these
aspects
underlie
and
support
sustainable
development.
2.1.
The
engineering
role
in
organizations
and
society
The
design
and
operation
of
a
complex
system
requires
engi-
neering
work
and
engineering
oversight
as
key
inputs
(Engineers
Canada,
2012).
Engineers
do
not
design
or
operate
complex
systems
on
their
own
or
outside
a
regulatory
framework.
Rather,
complex
systems
are
operated
by
corporate
entities
within
a
government
regulatory
framework
that
considers
economic,
environmental,
and
safety
implications
with
respect
to
society
as
a
whole.
In
other
words,
engineers
are
subject
to
the
formal
and
informal
interaction
dynamics
of
bureaucracy
and
institutions
(Blau,
1964;
Suddaby
and
Lefsrud,
2010).
Engineers’
roles
and
responsibilities
are
typically
embedded,
most
often
as
organizational
employees,
in
these
business
and
technical
aspects
(Meiksins,
1988).
Depend-
ing
on
their
organizational
position
and
role,
engineers
may
or
may
not
have
direct
input
into
the
formal
organizational
structure
of
the
firm,
the
definition
of
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
posi-
38
M.V.
Jamieson
et
al.
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
35
(2021)
37–46
tions
within
the
organization,
or
the
allocation
of
resources.
As
a
result,
the
same
individual
may
not
hold
decision-making
author-
ity
and
design/operation
responsibility.
The
Challenger
explosion
(Vaughan,
1996),
Brumadinho
dam
collapse
(Santamarina
et
al.,
2019)
and
many
other
incidents
(Cooke
and
Rohleder,
2006)
resulted
from
a
misalignment
of
decision-making
authority
and
design/operation
responsibility.
Corporations
and
regulatory
entities
are
typically
large
institu-
tionalized
organizations
and
include
non-engineering
individuals
who
have
diverse
skills,
beliefs,
values,
and
motivations
for
their
work.
They
may
or
may
not
have
professional
obligations
as
engi-
neers
do
yet
they
may
be
in
positions
of
influence
or
authority
with
ability
to
impact
decision-making
and
potentially
the
employ-
ment
status
of
engineers.
This
contributes
to
the
captive
nature
of
the
engineering
profession
from
both
a
practical
and
intellectual
perspective
(Johnston
et
al.,
1996)
where
organizations
motivated
by
business
objectives
dictate
the
problems
to
be
addressed
and
the
terms
of
the
acceptable
solutions
(Goldman,
1990),
often
in
terms
of
the
profitability
of
the
venture
within
regulatory
framework
and
constructs.
Aspects
not
typically
covered
in
an
undergraduate
engi-
neering
program
leaving
graduates
underprepared
to
manage
the
organizational
realities
of
engineering
work.
Organizational
realities
include
the
requirements
for
group
cross
coordination
and
management
systems,
respecting
regula-
tory
constraints,
and
maintaining
the
safety
of
the
society
hosting
the
complex
system
for
their
collective
net
benefit.
Their
collec-
tive
assumptions,
beliefs,
values,
experience,
communication
and
management
systems
define
the
culture
(Guldenmund,
2000)
of
the
operating
or
regulatory
entity.
Professional
Engineers
are
ethi-
cally
obligated
to
consider
the
impact
of
their
work
on
society
as
a
whole
(APEGA,
Belanger
and
Pupulin,
2004).
Their
responsibility
to
the
public
and
subsequently
to
sustainable
development
principles
is
their
paramount
ethical
precept.
Yet,
besides
a
misalignment
of
authority
and
responsibility,
engineers
may
be
separated
from
the
people
whom
their
work
and
decisions
impact
(Meiksins,
1988;
Rulifson
et
al.,
2019).
Further,
the
organizational
structure
and
cul-
ture
of
an
entity
may
not
support
this
obligation,
if
the
collective
assumptions,
beliefs,
and
values
are
inconsistent
with
engineering
ethics.
Engineering
graduates
must
be
better
prepared
and
supported
in
order
to
negotiate
this
complex
organizational
and
societal
landscape
while
supporting
sustainable
development,
as
their
responsibility
to
the
public
demands
it.
Sustainability
encompasses
technical
feasibility
supported
by
economic,
environmental,
and
safety
objectives,
regulations,
and
risk
management.
“Sustainable
development
.
.
.
meets
the
needs
of
the
present,
without
com-
promising
the
ability
of
future
generations
to
meet
their
own
needs,”
Brundtland
Commission
(Andrews,
2009,
p.
359).
There
are
competing
priorities
in
the
sustainable
design,
operation,
and
decommissioning
of
complex
systems
and
they
must
be
managed
considering
societal
perceptions
(Gehman
et
al.,
2017)
and
at
times
the
global
community
as
a
whole
with
respect
to
present
and
future
needs
and
more
recently,
while
considering
and
addressing
inequities
of
the
past
(Sterling
and
Landmann,
2011).
2.2.
The
evolving
role
of
engineering
education
To
fulfill
our
role
in
organizations
and
society,
engineering
education
has
evolved
from
applied
science
roots
to
include
engineering
design
and
more
recently
engineering
leadership,
engineering
safety
and
risk
management.
Design
became
a
com-
ponent
of
the
chemical
engineering
curriculum
at
the
University
of
Alberta
in
the
middle
of
the
20th
century
(Faculty
of
Engineering
Calendar,
1955)
and
has
since
evolved
to
support
the
early
pro-
fessional
development
of
engineering
students
(Jamieson,
2016;
Jamieson
and
Shaw,
2020)
as
the
definition
of
engineering
work
has
evolved
(IEA,
2013).
Engineering
design
is
now
a
central
and
core
component
of
accredited
engineering
programs,
typ-
ically
taught
as
an
immersive,
experiential,
and
open-ended
problem-based
course,
generally
in
teams.
Engineering
education
embraces
outcome-based
engineering
graduate
attributes
(ABET,
2019;
Engineers
Canada,
2018;
IChemE,
2017;
IEA,
2013)
and
addi-
tional
facets
of
professional
practice,
such
as
engineering
leadership
and
risk
management
(an
undergraduate
requirement
at
the
Uni-
versity
of
Alberta),
are
becoming
more
prominent
in
the
learning
activities
and
characteristics
of
engineering
programs
(Amaya-
Gómez,
2019;
Anderson
et
al.,
2018;
ASEE
Workshop
report,
2014.;
Danielson,
2014;
Norval,
2015b).
Social
responsibility
aspects
of
professional
practice
have
been
developing
in
parallel
(Belanger
and
Pupulin,
2004).
The
design
of
learning
activities
to
support
the
skills
of
professional
practice
must
include
contextual
and
situational
elements
for
students
to
gain
practice
in
the
application
of
the
specialized
knowledge
of
the
engineering
profession
to
the
complex
problems
they
will
face
during
their
careers
and
empathy
for
the
social,
cultural,
and
life
cycle
impacts
of
the
solutions
they
propose
(ASEE
Workshop
report,
2014;
Matthews
et
al.,
2017).
The
legal
expectation
of
providing
adequate
occupational
and
process
safety
training
to
students
and
workers
is
increasing
(Norval,
2015b).
These
responsibilities
and
their
navigation
in
organizational
structures
can
be
directly
con-
nected
to
case
study
learning
activities,
as
engineering
students
review
the
management
and
leadership
implications
of
engineer-
ing
decision-making
processes
with
such
incidents.
2.3.
Case
studies
in
the
engineering
education
curriculum
Case
studies
are
used
as
an
analysis
and
research
method
to
understand
the
relationships
between
theoretical
constructs
and
practical
applications
in
many
fields
including
nursing,
medicine,
business,
law,
management,
leadership,
engineering
and
organi-
zational
studies
(Wiebe
et
al.,
2010).
The
use
of
the
case
study
method
has
found
instructional
value
in
sectors
such
as
business,
law,
and
policy,
owing
to
a
host
of
benefits
this
method
provides.
Chief
among
these
benefits,
case
studies
offer
students
a
practi-
cal
avenue
to
explore
creative
and
innovative
applications
of
the
technical
and
organizational
principles.
In
a
similar
vein,
engineer-
ing
students
can
be
exposed
to
incident
case
studies
focussing
on
root
cause
analysis
of
accidents
and
system
safety
failures.
Review-
ing
and
reading
incident
case
studies
can
empower
engineers
to
recognize
the
role
and
importance
of
human
error/failure
in
engi-
neering
design
and
the
influence
of
engineering
activities
on
society
(Condoor,
2004).
The
investigation
of
incident
case
studies
is
a
vital
component
of
the
engineering
profession
and
is
particularly
critical
in
engineering
education
(Saleh
and
Pendley,
2012)
for
under-
standing
past
failures
and
incidents.
It
can
help
students
identify
predictive
indicators,
evoke
constant
vigilance
in
monitoring
those
indicators,
develop
inherently
safer
technologies,
and
understand
systemic
and
logistical
issues.
The
real-life
nature
of
case
studies
engages
cognitive,
affective,
and
behavioural
learning
(Kolb,
1984)
dimensions
that
instruc-
tors
and
educators
may
not
be
able
to
tap
into
through
conventional
teaching
methods
and
curricula.
Case
studies,
along
with
problem
and
project
based
learning,
are
an
active
learning
approach
that
brings
the
technical,
contextual,
metacognitive,
and
professional
skill
aspects
of
engineering
practice
into
the
classroom.
Therefore,
the
inclusion
of
case
studies
into
the
teaching
and
learning
experi-
ence
is
likely
to
have
a
constructive
and
lasting
effect
on
students’
mindset
and
skillset.
This
outcome
touches
upon
a
significant
com-
ponent
of
education
beyond
the
utilitarian
model
that
includes
the
development
of
genius,
innovation,
and
a
zone
of
patience
and
con-
templation
in
the
university
(Faust,
2010)
to
prepare
engineering
students
as
agents
of
change
(Saleh
and
Pendley,
2012;
Swuste
39
M.V.
Jamieson
et
al.
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
35
(2021)
37–46
and
Arnoldy,
2003)
for
continual
improvement
and
sustainable
development.
Furthermore,
by
developing
the
cognitive,
affective,
and
behavioural
abilities
of
engineering
students,
the
case
study
method
enables
graduates
to
focus
on
the
bigger
picture
aspects
beyond
technical
considerations
and
to
work
safety
measures
and
sustainability
implications
into
their
decision-making,
regard-
less
of
their
role
in
industry,
be
it
in
a
design,
operational,
or
a
managerial
capacity
(Hale
and
deKroes,
1997).
This
development
of
a
sustainable
engineering
leadership
and
management
mindset
may
begin
to
address
the
ongoing
societal
failure
to
fix
identified
deficiencies
that
contribute
to
critical
loss
incidents
and
operational
problems.
(Saylan
and
Blumstein,
2011;
Stackhouse
and
Stewart,
2017).
Eisenhardt
(1989)
reemphasized
the
need
to
enforce
case
study-
based
learning
in
engineering
education,
noting
that
the
learning
outcomes
from
case
study
research
may
range
from
development
of
ideas,
and
frameworks,
to
postulations,
or
mid-range
theory,
owing
to
the
richly
descriptive
nature
of
case
studies.
Another
advantage
is
the
concurrent
opportunity
to
focus
on
the
ethics
component
of
engineering
education.
Many
incident
case
studies
include
a
moral
or
ethical
dilemma.
Asking
students
to
recognize
a
dilemma
and
seek
resolution
can
bring
a
positive
impact
on
moral
reasoning
and
incorporate
technical,
communication,
and
teamwork
skills
(Wilson,
2013).
In
addition,
as
an
active
learning
approach,
case
studies
require
students
to
rework
open-ended
problems
from
a
fundamental
perspective
reinforcing
their
technical
abilities
and
placing
technical
skills
in
the
context
of
real
world
engineering
work
and
practice.
In
conclusion,
discussion
and
analysis
of
incident
case
studies
as
a
part
of
the
engineering
curriculum
attends
to
two
integrated
themes
that
an
engineering
program
is
founded
upon
the
appropriate
application
of
technical
knowledge
and
skills,
for
example,
safety
principles
(safety
by
design);
and
the
integration
of
professional
and
contextual
knowledge
and
skills,
for
example,
the
organizational
and
societal
contributions
to
system
causation
and
prevention.
2.4.
Developing
an
integrative
framework
for
engineering
education,
sustainability,
and
risk
management
consistent
with
graduate
attributes
To
design
engineering
program
learning
activities
and
experi-
ences,
including
case
based
activities,
consistent
with
achieving
the
engineering
graduate
attributes
and
the
emerging
development
of
a
sustainability
culture,
we
investigate
the
integration
of
three
frameworks:
The
CEAB
Graduate
Attribute
framework
(Engineers
Canada,
2018)
(Supplementary
Material
Appendix
A),
The
United
Nations
(UN)
Sustainable
development
framework
(UN
Sustainable
Development
Summit,
2015)
(Supplementary
Material
Appendix
B),
and
The
Risk
Based
Process
Safety
(RBPS)
management
framework
(AIChE
CCPS,
2007;
Crowl
and
Louvar,
2019)
(Supplementary
Material
Appendix
C).
These
all
suggest
that
education,
continual
improvement,
and
lifelong
learning
practices
underlie
the
long-term
success
of
sustainable
development,
engineering,
engineering
educa-
tion,
engineering
safety
and
risk
management.
In
addition,
they
are
consistent
with
professional
practice
societal
obliga-
tions.
There
is
significant
intersection
between
these
frameworks
in
the
design,
construction,
operation,
maintenance,
and
decommis-
sioning
of
complex
engineering
systems
in
the
service
of
society.
Sustainability
balances
social,
economic,
and
environmental
goals,
while
risk
management
and
process
safety
offer
approaches
to
quantify,
evaluate,
and
trade-off
the
associated
social,
economic,
and
environmental
risks.
To
prepare
for
their
future
roles,
engi-
neering
students
need:
exposure
to
identifying
hazards
and
failures
(Haluik,
2016;
Norval,
2015b)
in
the
workplace
and
in
complex
sys-
tem
design
and
management
systems
(Crowl
and
Louvar,
2019;
Mkpat
et
al.,
2018);
to
develop
skills
consistent
with
the
expecta-
tions
of
the
engineering
graduate
attributes;
to
create
and
support
designs
consistent
with
the
UN
sustainable
development
goals;
and
to
be
able
to
evaluate
new
and
existing
designs
with
a
risk
man-
agement
process.
The
integration
of
engineering
leadership
with
sustainable
development
principles
and
undergraduate
engineer-
ing
education
equips
future
engineers
with
the
skills
and
tools
to
better
address
our
global
challenges
(i.e.
clean
water
and
sanitation;
affordable
and
clean
energy;
industry,
innovation
and
infrastruc-
ture;
etc.).
From
this
intersection,
we
develop
a
case
analysis
structure
to
examine
the
technical,
business,
and
human
aspects
of
significant
incidents
from
the
perspective
of
students’
learning
and
instructors’
teaching.
The
case
analysis
structure
leverages
experiential
con-
textual
learning
activities
by
combining
team
and
problem
based
open-ended
work
and
incident
case
studies.
The
use
of
both
learn-
ing
and
teaching
perspectives
in
a
case
study
supports
peer
teaching
as
a
learning
tool
in
the
broader
context
of
engineering
educa-
tion
and
practice
(Jamieson
et
al.,
2017).
This
structure
reinforces
that
engineering
is
not
just
the
positivist
application
of
science
to
serve
business
goals
(Johnston
et
al.,
1996),
but
that
we
serve
and
protect
the
public
and,
thus
must
also
consider
the
consequences
of
our
designs
and
actions
more
broadly.
The
achievement
of
the
engineering
graduate
attributes
requires
the
development
of
fun-
damental
technical
and
contextual
knowledge
concurrently
with
professional
and
metacognitive
skills
(Jamieson
and
Shaw,
2019).
The
achievement
of
sustainable
development
requires
an
engineer-
ing
management
system.
Engineering
Safety
and
Risk
Management
(ESRM)
is
already
employed
and
considers
many
of
the
facets
of
sustainable
development.
ESRM
may
be
congruent
with
the
UN
sustainable
development
goals.
If
so,
this
allows
for
the
rapid
inclusion
of
sustainable
development
principles
and
goals
into
structured
incident
case
studies
and
the
engineering
education
cur-
riculum.
3.
Method
First
the
intersection
of
risk
management,
sustainable
develop-
ment
and
engineering
education
outcomes
was
examined.
Next,
engineering
education
outcomes
were
examined
in
the
context
of
comparing
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes
to
the
Accreditation
Board
for
Engineering
and
Technology
(ABET)
student
outcomes
both
before
and
after
the
ABET
revisions.
Then,
the
International
Risk
Governance
Council
(IRGC)
risk
governance
framework
and
the
CCPS
RBPS
structure
were
compared.
The
foundational
blocks
of
the
CCPS
RBPS
management
structure
were
mapped
to
the
(IRGC)
risk
governance
framework.
The
IRGC
framework
was
adapted
to
reflect
the
objectives
of
the
learning
process.
Our
adaptation
of
the
framework
process
reflects
the
process
required
to
prepare
stu-
dents
to
contemplate
the
UN
SD
goals
in
the
context
of
engineering
leadership
and
risk
management
while
delivering
the
CEAB
grad-
uate
attributes.
The
UN
SD
Goals
and
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes
were
mapped
to
steps
two
to
five
of
the
adapted
process.
Step
one
of
the
process,
cross
cutting
aspects,
reflects
the
integrative
and
experiential
nature
of
engineering
design
and
practice.
Last,
the
structured
case
study
is
built
using
the
adapted
process
as
a
guide
to
facilitate
the
classroom
experience
of
engineering
practice
situations.
40
M.V.
Jamieson
et
al.
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
35
(2021)
37–46
3.1.
Mapping
the
framework
intersections
to
engineering
education
and
practice
As
complex
engineered
systems
are
designed,
constructed,
operated,
and
maintained
by
groups
of
people
(organizations);
leadership,
policies,
procedures,
management
systems
and
reg-
ulatory
frameworks
are
required
to
ensure
a
business
remains
sustainable
and
the
interests
of
societies
are
served.
The
intersec-
tion
of
the
UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals
framework
and
the
Risk
Based
Process
Safety
Management
framework
were
investi-
gated
by
mapping
common
elements.
For
example,
Sustainability
as
defined
by
the
UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals
framework
(UN
Sustainable
Development
Summit,
2015)
includes
profitable
operation
(SD
Goals
8
&
9),
which
map
to
the
RBPSM
Manage
Risk
category;
environmental
regulatory
stewardship
(SD
Goals
6,
13,
14,
&15)
map
to
elements
in
Commit
to
Process
Safety;
and
safe
operation
of
the
system
with
regard
to
the
safety
of
individuals,
the
community,
the
society;
and
the
global
environment
(SD
Goals
9,
11,
&12)
map
to
the
Understand
Hazards
and
Risk
Category.
To
meet
these
sustainability
requirements
corporations,
regulators,
engineers,
and
engineering
graduates
require
a
broad
cross
section
of
skills
beyond
their
core
technical
competency
and
capabilities
to
negotiate
the
sustainable
design
and
operation
of
complex
sys-
tems
within
society
and
our
global
environment
(Engineers
Canada,
2018;
IEA,
2013;
APEGA:
Belanger
and
Pupulin,
2004).
We
summa-
rize
mapping
the
intersection
of
CEAB
graduate
attributes
(GA)
and
UN
SDGs
with
the
RBPSM
framework
at
the
bottom
of
Fig.
1
and
include
further
mapping
data
in
the
supplementary
material.
3.2.
Mapping
the
graduate
attributes
and
student
outcomes
The
Canadian
Engineering
Accreditation
Board
(CEAB)
Gradu-
ate
Attributes
(GA)
(Engineers
Canada,
2018),
the
US
Accreditation
Board
for
Engineering
and
Technology
(ABET)
Student
Outcomes
(ABET,
2019)
and
the
International
Engineering
Alliance
(IEA)
description
of
an
engineer’s
work
(IEA,
2013)
demonstrate
the
breadth
of
the
education
required
to
negotiate
the
complex
inter-
relationships
of
engineering
designs
and
systems
with
the
people
who
build,
operate,
maintain,
decommission,
and
benefit
from
the
designs
and
systems.
As
ABET
accredits
national
and
international
programs,
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes
and
the
ABET
student
out-
comes
were
also
mapped
as
part
of
the
process.
This
mapping,
included
in
the
supplemental
material,
indicates
excellent
agree-
ment
between
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes
and
the
ABET
student
outcomes.
These
engineering
attributes
and
outcomes
are
simi-
larly
reflected
in
the
literature
of
global
accrediting
bodies.
The
Institution
of
Chemical
Engineers
(IChemE)
graduate
attributes
strongly
reflect
process
safety
education
requirements
(IChemE,
2017)
and
our
mapping
suggests
a
strong
correlation
between
the
risk
based
process
safety
management
elements
with
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes
(see
Fig.
1).
This
observation
is
noted
for
global
accreditation
related
student
outcomes
(Amaya-Gómez,
2019)
and
supported
by
the
longer
term
argument
that
risk
management
is
necessary
for
all
engineers
(Amyotte
and
McCutcheon,
2006).
Strong
technical
and
fundamental
skills
are
a
core
aspect
of
engi-
neering
and
are
necessary
for
engineering
work
(CEAB
Graduate
Attribute
1).
Analysis
of
the
graduate
attributes
indicate
that
grad-
uating
and
practicing
engineers
require
core
technical,
contextual,
metacognitive,
and
professional
skills
(Jamieson
and
Shaw,
2019)
to
satisfy
the
remainder
of
the
graduate
attributes.
Strong
profes-
sional
skills
including
leadership,
management,
and
organizational
skills
are
a
core
aspect
of
engineering
work
and
a
key
component
of
engineering
safety
and
risk
management
(Graduate
Attributes
6,7,8,9,10,11,12).
The
intersection
of
the
UN
SDG’s
and
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes
is
also
clear
and
the
sustainable
development
goals
can
provide
a
framework
for
engineering
education
and
for
practicing
professionals
as
they
execute
their
roles
in
the
context
of
global
sustainability
and
uphold
their
responsibility
to
protect
the
public.
Case
studies
make
these
connections
real,
to
engineering
students
by:
demonstrating
the
consequences
of
failures,
role-
modeling
how
engineers
learn
from
failures,
illustrating
how
that
learning
is
integrated
into
the
codes
and
standards
of
practice,
and
showing
how
organizational
roles
and
management
processes
and
procedures
influence
engineering
work
and
operations.
Case
study
learning
activities
can
also
support
professional
skill
devel-
opment
by
giving
students
the
opportunity
to
connect
the
variety
of
engineering
organizational
roles,
with
service
to
society
and
profes-
sional
responsibility,
in
a
sustainability
context.
In
addition,
RBPSM,
an
existing
and
already
in
service
engineering
management
system,
could
be
used
to
rapidly
operationalize
sustainable
development
goals
in
engineering
work
and
projects
because
of
the
intersection
observed
between
both
RBPSM
and
the
UN
SDG’s
and
the
CEAB
graduate
attributes.
3.3.
Mapping
risk
based
process
safety
management
to
the
IRGC
framework
The
twenty
elements
of
Risk
Based
Process
Safety
(RBPS)
man-
agement
(AIChE
CCPS,
2007)
fall
into
four
categories:
commitment
to
process
safety,
understand
hazards
and
risk,
manage
risk,
and
learn
from
experience,
arrayed
as
a
circular
process
at
the
top
of
Fig.
1
(following
Schweizer
and
Renn,
2019).
The
RBPSM
categories
map
directly
to
the
four
components
of
the
IRGC
risk
governance
frame-
work
(IRGC,
2017).
“For
any
incident,
experience
has
shown
that
many
of
the
20
elements
RBPS
are
involved.
Incidents
almost
always
stem
from
a
failure
of
the
management
system.
Thus,
by
improving
the
management
system,
incidents
can
be
significantly
reduced”
(Crowl
and
Louvar,
2019).
By
improving
design,
operation,
and
management
systems
deficiencies,
the
root
causes
are
addressed
and
best
practices
incorporated
into
the
organization
reducing
process
safety
incidents.
The
RBPS
management
framework
is
an
aspect
of
sustainability
as
defined
by
the
UN
sustainability
frame-
work
(Blum
et
al.,
2017;
Moldavska
and
Welo,
2019).
An
element
of
RBPS
management
is
incident
investigation
and
the
application
of
the
learning
to
prevent
future
incidents
precisely
the
purpose
and
intent
of
utilizing
either
case
histories
or
incident
case
studies
as
a
learning
activity
for
engineering
students.
The
UN
sustainability
and
RBPS
management
frameworks
intersect
with
the
CEAB
engi-
neering
education
outcomes
based
graduate
attributes
in
the
role
of
an
engineer
to
contextually
apply
scientific
principles
for
the
benefit
of
society,
typically
in
organizations
and
institutions.
In
sum,
the
framework
intersection
is
detailed
at
the
bottom
of
Fig.
1
and
the
relationship
of
the
RBPS
management
foundational
blocks
to
the
International
Risk
Governance
Council
(IRGC)
risk
gov-
ernance
adaptable
framework
(IRGC,
2020)
for
complex,
uncertain,
and/or
ambiguous
issues
(IRGC,
2017;
Renn,
2006;
Schweizer
and
Renn,
2019)
is
illustrated
at
the
top
of
the
diagram.
These
elements
are
then
rearranged
to
structure
the
circular
case
study
learning
process
(dashed
line,
with
number
showing
alignments),
consistent
with
the
learning
objective
of
preparing
students
for
engineering
practice
in
complex
and
ambiguous
situations.
4.
Results:
supporting
process
safety
culture
and
sustainable
development
A
process
safety
culture
is
defined
as
a
positive
environment
where
employees
at
all
levels
are
committed
to
process
safety.
This
starts
at
the
highest
levels
of
the
organization
and
is
shared
by
all.
Process
safety
leaders
nurture
this
process
(Crowl
and
Louvar,
2019).
Key
educational
aspects
of
the
RBPS
management
system
are
41
M.V.
Jamieson
et
al.
Education
for
Chemical
Engineers
35
(2021)
37–46
Fig.
1.
RBPS
Management
mapped
to
the
IRGC
risk
governance
framework
and
adapted
(IRGC,
2017;
Schweizer
and
Renn,
2019)
to
the
structured
case
study
approach
demonstrating
the
intersections
of
the
UN
Sustainable
Developing
Goals
(SDGs)
and
CEAB
Graduate
Attributes
(GA)
with
risk
management
objectives.
(Jamieson
et
al.,
2020).
learning
from
incident
experience,
training,
hazard
identification,
and
developing
process
safety
competency.
Incident
case
studies
integrate
the
educational
aspects
of
the
process
safety
management
categories
and
may
contribute
to
developing
process
safety
com-
petency
(Shallcross,
2013b,
2013a).
As
a
learning
activity,
incident
case
studies
can
support
the
development
of
the
engineering
gradu-
ate
attributes
and
enhance
the
UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals
while
reducing
the
risk
of
industrial
activities
to
individuals
and
communities
by
raising
the
level
of
process
safety
competency
in
graduating
engineers.
By
increasing
the
number
of
individuals
with
process
safety
competency
within
our