When drafting the first issue of this document it sometimes felt like I was manoeuvring a small canoe through a highly viscous fluid of conservatism and complacency, with everybody bogged down by today's thinking, preparing next Tuesday's nine o'clock lecture, aiming for the best learning experience by optimising teaching and assessment. The issues of the day are about the "how next week", not about the "what next year", let alone the "why in the next decade". After publicising I was happy to discover that I had been somewhat mistaken in my impression. Many people in universities, industries and research institutes across the globe informed me they are with me in my canoe, or want to be. That they want to rethink higher engineering education and help initiate change to enhance the effectivity of engineering study programmes and professional training. Like me, they are concerned about as well as challenged by the technological revolution that will rock the foundations of engineering education in the coming decades. The first edition inspired many conversations about "The Future Engineer" at my home university and many partner universities and institutes abroad. The "Free Spirits" Think Tank of the 4TU.Centre of Engineering Education in the Netherlands, which investigates the rise of new engineering profiles in the coming 10 to 15 years and develops matching scenarios for campus education in 2030, has taken my vision as a source of inspiration. The numerous meetings and workshops I attended between engineering academics, industries and engineering consultancies in the Netherlands and abroad, and the conferences and panels of the global CDIO Initiative and the World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) in Florence (2015) all discussed the subject of the engineer and industry of the future. They addressed the impact of the changing global economy, the fast pace of change, the Foreword to the Second Revised Edition limited shelf life of specialist knowledge, the university's role in innovation, the need for an interdisciplinary mind-set, the global interconnectedness, the rise of machine intelligence and the use of open standards. These are all aspects that shape the rapidly changing world in which we live and in which we educate tomorrow's engineers, who might be a different breed than the ones we have been educating over the past 50 years. These factors set the scene for the "why" and "what" of our future education.

@en

Some times call for a change, some require consolidation. The question is: in which time do you live? Staring into the future doesn’t help, focusing too much on the past neither. It requires ‘reading the past to predict the future’. For that an open mind is needed, a critical assessing of the current and the past. For more than a decade, Ir. Aldert Kamp has done so. While in charge of the educational programmes of TU Delft’s Aerospace Engineers, he constantly scanned the world for clues on how to educate young engineers. Aldert consistently made a plea for outward looking: “open the windows and look around in the world; let the world flow in”. And so he did, travelling around, visiting the leading conferences and being a well-respected key note speaker, recognized by the great institutions like MIT. Aldert Kamp organised think tanks, free spirits to discuss the future of engineering education. He talked to the major industries trying to understand in what direction they were moving and what that meant for the education of the next generation (aeronautical) engineers. His ideas took shape more and more into the direction of real change. The current times are times of fast change, of greater uncertainty. Consolidation is no longer an option. Sure, engineers need engineering skills. But that will not suffice. Additional skills are needed and they cannot all be put in the heads and minds of each individual student. That made Aldert Kamp come up with various roles for different engineers. Roles that have one thing in common: they are connected to other roles and areas. Working in splendid isolation and then passing on the work to the next engineer is out. Team work, with multiple disciplines in each team, socially responsible engineering, entrepreneurial thinking, innovator roles, system thinkers and sustainability: those are the new ways of the world. In this book, Aldert has put together all the ideas, knowledge that he gained over the years. Read it! Even if you are not convinced that we are living in rapidly changing times. The timing of the book, now that the world is in turmoil due the corona virus couldn’t be better. Changing times, that’s what we are facing. And we have to find answers to cope with this. In this book you will find food for thought and inspiration from one of the current thought leaders in engineering education. @en

European societies change due to the impact of new technologies and developments in the economy and in society at large. The digital transformation changes every part of engineering, science and technology in a yet unknown intensive way. Soon everybody will have access to practically infinite data, practically infinite processing power, at practically infinite speeds. Universities play an important role, preparing students for a labour market that is undeniably moving towards the use of emerging technologies. There can be no doubt that these institutions are not keeping up with these rapid technological, societal and economic changes. In the 21st century, 20th century solutions and thinking are not going to get the job done.@en

At Polytechnics design & engineering students are taught about state-of-the-art technical knowledge. Students become qualified engineers and learn to innovate artifacts related to their domain. Not taught is how to develop new engineering knowledge within a multidisciplinary context of stakeholders, companies and regulations. In short, students don't learn to innovate technology. What is taught today is the result of a technological innovation of yesterday. This is not sufficient for industry to innovatively deal with society's grand challenges. The paper describes a project that aims to educate all TU Delft graduate students in the verb of innovating technology, that is, the development of new technologies from inventions in the labs to full- fledged application in business. Such along three dimensions: technical, human and business. The educational portfolio consists of three modules in line with growth along Bloom's taxonomy and online materials on theoretical backbones. All modules apply the notion of technological innovation journeys (Tijo's). Tijo's are rich descriptions of the developmental journey of new technology and are based on inventions from the university's own labs. @en

The topic of this paper is the CDIO Standards, specifically the formulation of CDIO Standards version 3.0. The paper first reviews the potential change drivers that motivate a revision of the Standards. Such change drivers are identified both externally (i.e., from outside of the CDIO community) and internally. It is found that external change drivers have affected the perceptions of what problems engineers should address, what knowledge future engineers should possess and what are the most effective teaching practices in engineering education. Internally, the paper identifies criticism of the Standards, as well as ideas for development, that have been codified as proposed additional CDIO Standards. With references to these change drivers, five areas are identified for the revision: sustainability, digitalization of teaching and learning; service; and faculty competence. A revised version of the Standards is presented. In addition, it is proposed that a new category of Standards is established, “optional standards”. Optional Standards are a complement to the twelve “basic” Standards, and serve to guide educational development and profiling beyond the current Standards. A selected set of proposed optional Standards are recommended for further evaluation and possibly acceptance by the CDIO community @en

Technological innovation happens on a daily basis all around us. Yet, in our educational programs there is rarely any attention paid to what this is and how this unfolds over time in real life. This is not at all surprising, since there is not one unified and widely accepted body of knowledge on technological innovation that is grounded enough, meaning, knowledge based on research of technological innovation practice. The CDIO-framework is implicitly addressing innovation from the perspective of existing technological knowledge and therefore is not yet equipped enough for the purpose of tech-innovation. This paper therefore aims to initiate a discussion on what technological innovation is and how this could fit within the CDIO-framework. We will provide a definition of technological innovation based on innovation theoretical framework which reaches its readiness when practice is able to apply the new technology to design, engineer, build, maintain and dispose the objects that apply that particular technology. This lens will be used to analyze a well-documented case that reports on the development of a new structural aircraft material that is now widely used in the Airbus A380, hence a technological innovation. It will be shown in this paper that the research activities that support the development of the new technology, follow the logic of innovating as a generic and natural phenomenon. The paper ends by proposing a possible path to bring the subject of technological innovation within the confines of our educational curricula, without too much cutting on the subjects that we are teaching. Its base comes from the idea that what we are teaching today is the result of a technological innovation process of yesterday.@en

In this paper, we present a vision on how engineers can play different roles in future society 2030. First we predicted how society in the Netherlands (in relation to Europe and the rest of the world) is going to develop and how future engineers will behave, act and take their position in this future world. We used the ‘Vision in Design’ methodology to unravel the complexity of future society step-by-step and to understand the diversity of engineer(ing)-behaviour: 260 relevant future conditions for 2030 were derived from 10 interviews with visionaries in society, experts in the field of engineering education and from literature search. Clustering these factors into ten driving forces helped us to discover three independent determining dimensions, defining eight possible engineer-behaviours in 2030. As a result of this rich contextual research, these eight roles are further illustrated with accompanying skills and pathways to support role development. The vision and roles have been developed in co-creation and validated in a series of workshops with a wide variety of people within and beyond academia and within the professional world of engineering.@en

visualizing multi-dimensional indicators of influence in communities of practice (Youtie & Shapira, 2008). Such an approach has been used to map emerging fields of research such as synthetic biology and nanotechnology (Shapira, Kwon, & Youtie, 2017; Youtie & Shapira, 2008). Using this approach, one can track citation and social network data over time to develop a deeper understanding of the influence of the CDIO initiative on engineering education publications since its inception (i.e., the past 17 years). In this paper, bibliometric data analysiswill be used to examine how publications on the CDIO Initiative have evolved. Visualizations are presented using an open-source visualization tool, VOSViewer, and used to understand geographic distribution and co-authorship. A word frequency and co-occurrence analysis has been used to analyze title and abstract data over the same time period. Geographic author network analysis reveals continued growth in regional collaborations over the past seventeen years. Co-authorship by author name reveals a core community of researchers, which has diverged over time into dispersed collaboration groups. Word co-occurrence analysis of title and abstract data from Scopus reveals that design-implement and project-based learning activities have been the central topic of CDIO-related engineering education literature over this time period. An analysis of the terms “faculty competence” and “learning assessment” indicates that these topics are comparatively under-served in the literature, representing fertile research topics for practitioners. The benefit of this research is to provide insight to past development areas and opportunities for growth in the CDIO Initiative. @en

One of five Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), was launched in Europe in 2014 and has its focus on exploration, extraction, mineral processing, metallurgy, recycling and material substitution of raw materials. To reach the vision, where the European Union’s industrial strength is based on a cost-efficient, secure, sustainable supply and use of raw materials, a new generation of skilled people entering industry, universities and research needs to be developed. Today’s technical MSc graduates in raw materials and especially
primary resources (i.e. exploration, extraction, mining and mineral processing and metallurgy) best suits large companies where they often act as specialists and experts. For small to medium enterprises as well as for our future engineers other skills than technical are necessary. As a part of the KIC Raw Materials, the education project “The implementation of CDIO in raw material programmes” started in 2016. The project focuses, during 2016-2017, on (WP1) faculty- and (WP2) pilot case development. There are no academic institutes in Europe that have yet applied CDIO for primary resource related MSc programmes. This
paper describes an education project within the KIC Raw material and presents key outputs with implementing CDIO in mining and metallurgy related programmes@en

Over the last couple of decades the world around us has changed at a dizzying pace by the globalisation and digitalisation, the horizontalisation of the socio-economic world, and the blending of technical, economical and societal cultures. The ways we communicate, work, play, travel and do business have changed dramatically, and are expected to change at an even faster pace in the future. We have entered an era where higher engineering education has to move from content coverage to content mastery. Are our programmes good enough to absorb the changes in the world 10 to 15 years from now? This paper discusses the results of an exploration by a Think Tank of academic staff about “what future engineers should learn in higher engineering education in 2030”. Key issues are the embedding of personal development in a meaningful way - the teaching of the “whole engineer”, the creation of purposeful engineering profiles for society, keeping them specific enough to create in-depth learning. @en

When drafting the first issue of this document it sometimes felt like I was manoeuvring a small canoe through a highly viscous fluid of conservatism and complacency, with everybody bogged down by today’s thinking, preparing next Tuesday’s nine o’clock lecture, aiming for the best learning experience by optimising teaching and assessment. The issues of the day are about the “how next week”, not about the “what next year”, let alone the “why in the next decade”. After publicising I was happy to discover that I had been somewhat mistaken in my impression. Many people in universities, industries and research institutes across the globe informed me they are with me in my canoe, or want to be. That they want to rethink higher engineering education and help initiate change to enhance the effectivity of engineering study programmes and professional training. Like me, they are concerned about as well as challenged by the technological revolution that will rock the foundations of engineering education in the coming decades. The first edition inspired many conversations about “The Future Engineer” at my home university and many partner universities and institutes abroad. The “Free Spirits” Think Tank of the 4TU.Centre of Engineering Education in the Netherlands, which investigates the rise of new engineering profiles in the coming 10 to 15 years and develops matching scenarios for campus education in 2030, has taken my vision as a source of inspiration. The numerous meetings and workshops I attended between engineering academics, industries and engineering consultancies in the Netherlands and abroad, and the conferences and panels of the global CDIO Initiative and the World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) in Florence (2015) all discussed the subject of the engineer and industry of the future. They addressed the impact of the changing global economy, the fast pace of change, the Foreword to the Second Revised Edition limited shelf life of specialist knowledge, the university’s role in innovation, the need for an interdisciplinary mind-set, the global interconnectedness, the rise of machine intelligence and the use of open standards. These are all aspects that shape the rapidly changing world in which we live and in which we educate tomorrow’s engineers, who might be a different breed than the ones we have been educating over the past 50 years. These factors set the scene for the “why” and “what” of our future education. @en