L’Industria e la Società richiedono una nuova specie di Ingegnere che abbia conoscenze disciplinari integrate con competenze personali, interpersonali e capacità sperimentate di Conceive/Ideare –Design/Progettare – Implement/Implementare – Operate/Operare (CDIO) prodotti e sistemi ingegneristici a valore-aggiunto, in organizzazioni basate su gruppi di lavoro.

1. Re-ingegnerizzare
Ingegneria
CDIO Project
Claudio G. Casati
Agosto 2009 (Rev. Ott09)

2. Executive Summary
L’Industria e la Società richiedono una nuova specie di Ingegnere
che abbia conoscenze disciplinari integrate con competenze
personali, interpersonali e capacità pratiche di sviluppo prodotti e
sistemi ingegneristici.
Much of the current view of what constitutes engineering funda-
mentals was shaped by what is commonly termed the “engineering
science revolution”. The intended consequence was to offer
students a rigorous, scientific foundation that would equip them to
address unknown future technical challenges: this was good.
The unintended consequence was a cultural shift in engineering
pedagogy that substantially diminished the perceived value of
industry-experienced key skills and attitudes that had previously
been the hallmark of engineering education: this was not good.
The CDIO™ Initiative is an innovative educational framework for
producing the next generation of engineers. It provides students
with an education stressing engineering fundamentals set in the
context of Conceiving - Designing - Implementing - Operating real-
world systems and products (www.cdio.org).
2

3. Citazione
Questa presentazione è un assemblaggio di materiali tratti da:
CDIO “Ready to Engineer” at graduation, ASME 2009
Engineering Education：Challenges and Strategies, Research
Center for Science, Technology & Education Policy, Zhejiang
University,China, 2009
Progetto DIAlumni, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale,
Politecnico di Milano, 2009
CDIO - Integrating engineering competencies in engineering
education, Kristina Edström, KTH, October 21, 2008
Convegno “Le imprese cercano, gli ingegneri ci sono? Domanda e
offerta a confronto nel panorama europeo” Assolombarda e
Politecnico di Milano, 24 gennaio 2008
SP1: System Requirements and Teamwork, Unified Engineering
Spring 2004, Charles P Coleman, MIT
The CDIO Syllabus, A Statement of Goals for Undergraduate
Engineering Education, Edward F. Crawley, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, 2001
3

4. Contenuti
L’Industria richiede una nuova specie di Ingegnere
La situazione italiana
CDIO Initiative
4

5. Le funzioni essenziali di un
Ingegnere
Gli ingegneri laureati dovrebbero avere
le capacità di
ideare–progettare–implementare–operare
ideare–progettare–implementare–
complessi sistemi ingegneristici
a valore-aggiunto, in moderni ambienti
valore-aggiunto,
basati-su-
basati-su-team.
5

6. L’Industria e la Società richiedono
una nuova specie di Ingegnere

7. Problemi attuali
The goal of Engineering Education is making
scientists but not engineers.
Engineering Education is lack of practices,
which is the soul of engineering
Engineer qualification system is not fully
established
7

8. La sfida: formare Talenti Ingegneristici
per le Industrie del con un futuro
High-tech and new Research work
technology are booming (knowledge production)
day by day. It shortens the is playing an important
period of role more than ever
before.
commercialization.
esplicit knowledge vs tacit
Nanoscience & knowledge
Nanotechnology arts & science vs
Life Science & Engineering professions
Material Science & Disciplines infiltrate into
Engineering each other and are
CIT & Information System obviously influenced by
Manufacturing Engineering the development of
& System technology.
8

9. Engineering Science Revolution
Much of our current view of what constitutes engineering
fundamentals was shaped by what is commonly termed the
“engineering science revolution”, which was spawned by the
technology needs during and immediately following World War II
and later promoted by the infusion of massive government funding
for university research.
In the so‐called Golden Age of the 1950’s and 60’s, engineering
was taught by a balance of older industry‐experienced faculty and
the new, younger research faculty.
Through the ensuing decades, the industry‐experienced faculty
retired and were replaced by researchers to form the Research
University. Thus the pendulum of engineering pedagogy swung
from a practice‐based curriculum to an engineering science‐based
model.
Engineering faculty moved from teachers who had real, working
engineering experience to faculty engaged almost totally in
research and having no practical engineering experience. 9

10. Ripensare la Formazione Ingegneristica
The intended consequence of the “engineering science
revolution” was to offer students a rigorous, scientific foundation
that would equip them to address unknown future technical
challenges. This was good.
The unintended consequence was a cultural shift in engineering
pedagogy that substantially diminished the perceived value of
key skills and attitudes that had previously been the hallmark of
engineering education. This was not good.
Today, this shift has resulted in tension created by the difference
of opinion with respect to outcomes between engineering
educators and the broader engineering community that ultimately
employs engineering graduates.
Dr. Charles Vest, current president of the US National Academy
of Engineering (NAE), summarized the situation very well in his
support of CDIO: “Along the way, something got lost. We need to
rethink engineering education and find a new balance”.
10

11. Le Industrie necessitano di una
nuova specie di ingegnere ...
Present focus Desired focus
Context: Context: product and system
Engineering science development (products and
Reduced, “pure” systems in a wide sense)
problems Systems view, problems go
(with right and across disciplines, are
wrong answers) complex and ill-defined, and
Design phase contain societal and business
aspects
Individual effort
Understand the whole cycle:
Conceive, Design,
Implement, Operate
Teamwork, communication
11

12. Boeing List of
“Desired Attributes of an Engineer”
A good understanding of Good communication skills
engineering science Written & Oral
fundamentals Graphic
Mathematics & statistics Listening
Physical & life sciences High ethical standards
Information technology An ability to think both
A good understanding of design critically and creatively -
& manufacturing processes independently &
(i.e. understands engineering) cooperatively
A multi-disciplinary, systems Flexibility. The ability and
perspective self-confidence to adapt to
A basic understanding of the rapid or major change
context in which engineering is Curiosity & a desire to learn
practiced for life
Economics & business A profound understanding of
practice the importance of teamwork
History Global awareness
The environment (one more foreign language
Customer and societal needs other than English)
12

13. Rinnovare la Formazione
Ingegneristica
Return to engineering
practice ! •• Pratica (Learning
Pratica (Learning
Face real problems in by doing)
by doing)
the real world ! •• Integrazione
Integrazione
Break barriers between disciplinare
disciplinare
disciplines ! ((IntegratedCourse
Integrated Course
Block)
Block)
Call for systematic •• Competenze
Competenze
change of engineering Personali e Inter-
Personali e Inter-
education ! personali integrate
personali integrate
Innovation through •• Sviluppo
Sviluppo
integration ! Imprenditorialità
Imprenditorialità
13

14. Strategie
To establish new engineering discipline
To restructure engineering discipline
To explore new methods of teaching and learning
To layout new approach of engineering education
To broaden boundary of engineering education
To bring up talents for nation competitiveness
To build engineering education research capabilities
14

15. La situazione italiana

16. La situazione italiana - il contesto
Le lauree in ingegneria sono da tempo al centro dell’attenzione e
dell’interesse del mondo industriale
La evoluzione del profilo culturale e professionale dell’ingegnere
è considerata un tema strategico per la tenuta competitiva del
capitale umano delle imprese
Lo scenario della competizione economica è sempre più
caratterizzato da fattori come la conoscenza, la circolazione
dell’informazione, la rapidità dell’innovazione, la convergenza
tecnologica, che esprimono competenze nuove per rispondere a
nuove esigenze.
Nelle imprese italiane, soprattutto nelle loro dimensioni medio-
piccole, vi è una forte domanda inevasa di profili tecnici:
disegnatori, progettisti, informatici, esperti di processi,
responsabili di produzione.
16

17. Il gap di competenze penalizza
produttività e crescita della economia
“Riconosciamo ai giovani usciti dalle facoltà di ingegneria
italiane un buon bagaglio di conoscenze teoriche di tipo tecnico-
disciplinare, ma al contempo rileviamo una insoddisfacente
capacità di tradurre i saperi acquisiti in comportamenti e
prestazioni professionali.
In particolare, dovrebbero essere meglio sviluppate alcune
competenze-chiave che le imprese ritengono irrinunciabili, quali
quelle di tipo gestionale-organizzativo e comportamentale, oltre
a un maggior orientamento alla dimensione economica e
commerciale della tecnologia”
Alberto Meomartini, Consigliere incaricato di Assolombarda per
scuola, formazione e università (Milano, 24 gennaio 2008 –
Convegno “Le imprese cercano: gli ingegneri ci sono? Domanda
e offerta a confronto nel panorama europeo”).
17

18. Il laureato italiano
L’employability del laureato italiano in ingegneria, ovvero la sua
capacità di essere competitivo in un mercato del lavoro in
costante evoluzione e sempre più globale, trova il proprio leit-
motiv nel concetto di “competenza”, inteso come: sapere, saper
fare, saper essere.
Le soft-skill di tipo trasversale - abilità sociali e relazionali la cui
importanza viene ancora troppo spesso sottovalutata dalle
istituzioni formative e dagli stessi giovani – hanno una sempre
maggiore attenzione da parte del mercato del lavoro (ved.
"descrittori di Dublino“)
Il tasso di prosecuzione molto elevato alla laurea magistrale ha
come risultati, non certo positivi, l’età media avanzata dei neo-
ingegneri italiani che si affacciano sul lavoro e il mismatch tra le
aspettative individuali dei giovani laureati e le reali potenzialità
e caratteristiche del mercato del lavoro, che richiede ingegneri
competenti e non scienziati.
18

19. "descrittori di Dublino"
Enunciati di competenze, in termini di “risultati attesi di
apprendimento”, che devono essere conseguiti al termine di un
percorso di istruzione terziaria:
1. Conoscenza e capacità di comprensione (knowledge and
understanding);
2. Conoscenza e capacità di comprensione applicate
(applying knowledge and understanding);
3. Autonomia di giudizio (making judgements);
4. Abilità comunicative (communication skills);
5. Capacità di apprendere (learning skills).
L'Italia ha recepito i descrittori di Dublino nell'ambito del decreto
270/2004 di revisione delle classi, richiedendo alle università di
esplicitare gli obiettivi formativi dei nuovi corsi in termini di
risultati di apprendimento attesi (competenze).
19

20. Criticità
Il numero di ingegneri mediamente assunti in un anno nel contesto
italiano (14.184) risulta notevolmente inferiore rispetto a quello di
Francia (33.756) e Germania (56.379). L’Italia mostra cifre
notevolmente più basse anche qualora si consideri l’intensità di
assunzioni di ingegneri rispetto allo stock di addetti: 1,01 ingegneri
assunti ogni 1.000 addetti nel nostro Paese rispetto ai 2,41 della
Francia e ai 2,71 della Germania.
Dopo quasi 10 anni dall’introduzione del modello formativo
universitario “3+2” rimane irrisolto il complesso rapporto tra saperi
tecnico-scientifici di base e saperi specialistici di tipo
professionalizzante, e il “come” e “quando” questi due tipi di
conoscenze debbano trovare spazio lungo la filiera formativa
costituita dal “3+2”.
L’università italiana, alla quale è richiesto un nuovo sforzo di
cambiamento per effetto del processo di riforma degli ordinamenti
didattici, dovrebbe aprirsi maggiormente alle imprese, per riflettere
su come dare risposte efficaci alla domanda di professionalità
qualificata che perviene dal sistema produttivo.
20

22. CDIO Initiative – The Founders
The CDIO approach was first developed in a 2000-06
project funded by Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
FOUNDERS
Chalmers KTH Linköping MIT
Sweden Sweden Sweden USA
Currently (April 2009), CDIO is a multinational
organization, numbering 37 universities in 16 countries
as collaborators
22

23. CDIO Initiative - Dissemination
NEW COLLABORATORS
Denmark Tech. U. Queen’s U., Belfast École Poly., Montréal US Naval Academy U. Auckland U. Pretoria U. Wismar
Hogeschool Gent
U. Liverpool
Singapore Poly.
Umeå U.
University of Colorado
California State U.
U. Sydney Queen’s U. Ontario
23

24. Engineers who can engineer...
The CDIO vision is to educate students who understand
how to
Conceive-Design-Implement–Operate (CDIO)
complex value-added products, processes, engineering
systems (Technical),
in a modern team-based engineering environment
(Interpersonal), and
are mature and thoughtful individuals (Personal).
24

25. CDIO Engineering Education
Conceive – define needs; develop
conceptual, technical and business plans
Design – plans, drawings, algorithms that
describe process, product or system
Implement - transform design into product
(plan, buy, make, deliver, return)
Operate – deliver the intended value
(maintaining, evolving, recycling, retiring
product)
25

26. CDIO returns engineering to its
heritage
Personal,
interpersonal
& system-
building,
Engineering
practice skills
Disciplinary Knowledge
Engineers need both dimensions
26

27. Dalla Formazione Professionale
all’Alta Formazione Scientifica
Alta Formazione
Scienziato Scientifica
Scienziato Applicativo Formazione
Ingegneristica
Ingegnere, Architetto Formazione sulle
Tecnologo Tecnologie Ingegner.
Formazione Tecnica
Tecnico
Formazione
Lavoratore qualificato Professionale
Lavoratore non-qualif. Scuola dellÊObbligo
27

28. CDIO goals (1/2)
1. Master a deep working knowledge of technical
fundamentals.
Engineering education should always emphasize
the technical fundamentals and the university is a
place where these foundations are laid.
Nothing in the CDIO approach is meant to diminish
the importance of fundamentals or the student’s
need to learn them.
2. Lead in the creation of new products, processes
and systems.
This goal recognizes the need to prepare students
for a career in engineering; that is, CDIO prepares
students for what engineers actually do.
28

29. CDIO goals (2/2)
3. Understand the importance and strategic
impact of research and technological
development on society.
Our society relies heavily on the contributions
of scientists and engineers to solve problems
and create products associated with societal
need.
Engineering students benefit from an education
set in the context of product, process and
system development.
29

30. CDIO Syllabus 2001
The building blocks of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
1. Technical knowledge and reasoning
2. Personal and professional skills & attributes
3. Interpersonal skills: teamwork & communication
necessary to
4. Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and Operating
systems in the enterprise and societal context
4. Conceiving, Designing,
Implementing & Operating
Systems in the Enterprise and
Societal Context
1. Technical 2. Personal & 3. Interpersonal
Knowledge and Professional Skills Skills: Teamwork &
Reasoning & Attributes Communication
30

31. Map of the new CDIO syllabus
Educate students who:
understand how to Process 4.CDIO
Conceive- Design-
Implement– Operate 3. Inter-
1.Technical 2.Personal
personal
complex value-added
products, processes,
engineering systems, Product
in a modern team-based Team
engineering environment,
and
Self
are mature and thoughtful
individuals.
31

32. CDIO SYLLABUS
1 TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
1.1 Knowledge of Underlying Sciences
1.2 Core Engineering Fundamental Knowledge
1.3 Advanced Engineering Fundamental Knowledge
2 PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SKILLS
2.1 Engineering Reasoning and Problem Solving
2.2 Experimentation and Knowledge Discovery
2.3 System Thinking
2.4 Personal Skills and Attributes
2.5 Professional Skills and Attitudes
3 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
3.1 Teamwork and Leadership
3.2 Communication
3.3 Communication in Foreign Languages
4 PRODUCT AND SYSTEM BUILDING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS
4.1 External and Societal Context
4.2 Enterprise and Business Context
4.3 Conceiving
4.4 Designing
4.5 Implementing
4.6 Operating 32

33. An Invitation
The book:
Crawley et al. (2007) Rethinking Engineering
Education: The CDIO Approach, Springer Verlag.
ISBN 0387382879
The International CDIO Conference Proceedings
The site www.cdio.org
33