A Dashboard approach to Engineering Curriculum Analysis

Workshop Recommended citation: Lopez Soler, F., & Correia, M. (2025). A Dashboard approach to Engineering Curriculum Analysis. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631630. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. ADVANCING CURRICULUM COMPARABILITY IN EUROPE: A DASHBOARD-BASED ANALYSIS OF IEM EDUCATION Conference Key Areas: Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering, Quality assurance and accreditation of engineering educational programs Keywords: Curriculum development, Curriculum Analysis, Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM), Dashboard Tool ABSTRACT This workshop introduces a digital dashboard developed by ESTIEM to analyse and compare Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM) curricula across European universities. Designed to support data-driven curriculum development and foster European integration in engineering education, the dashboard allows participants to explore credit allocation, interdisciplinary content, and specialization trends. Through interactive activities, participants will analyse real curricular data, provide feedback on the dashboard’s usability, and discuss how such tools can support broader initiatives like a joint European engineering degree. The session offers both a practical tool and a space for dialogue on curriculum alignment, educational standards, and international collaboration. 1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 1.1 Section 1: Background In an increasingly interconnected European academic landscape, the ability to compare and analyse engineering curricula across universities is crucial for continuous improvement and the potential harmonization of programs. These efforts can contribute meaningfully to the development of a European Degree for Engineering. This workshop introduces an interactive dashboard developed by ESTIEM (European Students of Industrial Engineering and Management), which facilitates comparison of Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM) bachelor's programs in European universities. Initiated five years ago and recently updated in 2024 with input from professors from the University of Minho, University of Porto, and Politecnico di Milano, the framework now supports a robust, structured analysis of curriculum content. The analysis is primarily based on course topics, with categories divided in scientific areas, the scope of the scientific areas, electives and number of ECTS per course. The current classification system reflects a generalized view and may not capture all national or institutional nuances. It is intended as a flexible and evolving structure open to refinement with community input. 1.2 Section 2: Rationale The methodology may be extended to other engineering disciplines, and discussions will explore its implications for broader curriculum development and potential pathways toward a joint European engineering degree. The workshop also engages participants in critical discussion around curriculum alignment, educational standards, and European educational policy goals. While this workshop focuses on content and structural analysis, future versions of the dashboard may integrate competency-based frameworks such as CDIO or the IISE Body of Knowledge to assess transversal learning outcomes. 2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES 2.1 Target audience Curriculum designers, academic staff involved in program coordination and accreditation, such as educational researchers and stakeholders interested in European engineering education reform and harmonization. 2.2 Expected learning outcomes By the end of the session, participants will: ● Understand the functionalities and structure of the ESTIEM curriculum analysis dashboard. ● Engage hands-on with comparative curriculum analysis through real data scenarios. ● Identify differences and similarities across European IEM curricula. ● Provide feedback on dashboard usability and functionality. ● Discuss broader applications in engineering education and pathways toward a harmonized European engineering degree. 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN 3.1 Time plan The workshop is structured to provide a blend of contextual understanding, practical interaction with the tool, and participant feedback to enhance usability and broader application. Table 1. Workshop time plan Run time Activity Notes 10 min Introduction Context on dashboard and methodology 10 min Dashboard Demonstration Live walkthrough and basic functionality 25 min Interactive Activity Group work using dashboard for analysis 10 min Discussion and Feedback Sharing of group findings and tool insights 5 min Wrap-up and Next Steps Conclusions and collaboration opportunities 3.2 Interactivity Participants will conduct exercises in small groups using predefined curriculum analysis scenarios, comparing cases of public curricula on university websites. Groups will present their views and discuss issues of usability, promotion and development of comparative curriculum analysis, promoting iterative feedback on the tool. This format ensures a high level of participation and creates opportunities for constructive input on the use of the dashboard and implementation in more types of engineering curricula. Fig. 1. Dashboard of the IEM Bachelors Analysis Overview by ESTIEM Fig. 2. Detailed view of the analysis of IEM Curricula of the University of Aveiro Fig. 1. Dashboard of the comparison of two IEM curriculum 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS The workshop successfully introduced the ESTIEM digital dashboard as an innovative tool for analyzing and comparing Industrial Engineering and Management (IEM) curricula across Europe. The session, which combined an introductory presentation, a live demonstration, and an interactive discussion, yielded valuable participant feedback and established a clear path for the dashboard’s refinement and broader application in curriculum development. 4.1 Tool introduction and participant engagement The introductory part provided context on the dashboard's methodology, its framework for structured curriculum analysis and its potential contribution to the creation of a European engineering degree of Industrial Engineering and Management. Participants, who included curriculum designers, researchers and academic staff, displayed significant curiosity regarding the tool's underlying framework. They specifically inquired about the dashboard's relationship with established models, such as the IISE Body of Knowledge and ABET criteria, and whether the current ESTIEM’s framework could align with these alternative frameworks. 4.2 Feedback on Functionality The general reception of the dashboard was highly positive. Participants found the tool to be innovative and easy to use. They recognised its high potential value for future educational research and data-driven curriculum development. Specific suggestions for the dashboard’s next iteration were meticulously collected, focusing on enhancing data transparency and user experience: - Data validation: A request was made to improve the feature of the access to the categorisation, allowing users to check the raw data of the curricula used for the analysis, which would enhance transparency and trust in the results. - Participants requested the inclusion of more detailed information concerning the subjects within each scientific area or category, offering greater context for course content comparison. - Filtering capabilities: The ability to filter data by scientific area or category was identified as a critical functional improvement to allow for more focused comparative analysis. - User Experience: General suggestions were provided to improve the user experience and overall interface design, ensuring maximum efficiency and accessibility. 4.3 Key Findings and Next Steps for Collaboration A core objective of the workshop (to identify differences and similarities across European IEM curricula and introduce the tool) was successfully achieved during the demonstration phase. Participants expressed being particularly interested and impressed by the magnitude of the differences observed between universities and curricula across Europe, reinforcing the rationale for the project. The interactive discussion confirmed that participants shared similar professional experiences, research interests and engagement in similar curriculum projects. The consensus reached during the final segment was a clear mandate for continued collaboration. The primary outcomes for the project's next phase are: - Dashboard enhancement: A commitment to continue working to improve the dashboard by integrating the gathered feedback on functionality and user experience. - Comparative analysis: The immediate commencement of in-depth analysis focusing on the differences between curricula, universities and countries, using the dashboard as the primary analytical engine for the creation of research and new curricula. REFERENCES Alves, A. C., Moreira, F., & Lima, R. M. (2012). An analysis of knowledge areas in industrial engineering and management curriculum. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 3(2), 95–100. http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/20080 ASIIN. (2019). Subject-specific criteria for the accreditation of bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes in Industrial Engineering (Technical Committee 06). https://www.asiin.de/files/content/kriterien/ASIIN_SSC_06_Industrial_Engineering_2 019-09-20.pdf Bernard, J., Ribeiro, P., Lima, R. M., & Mesquita, D. (2019). Curriculum analysis process: analysing fourteen industrial engineering programs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Active Learning in Engineering Education (PAEE/ALE 2019). https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/66284 Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9 European Commission. (2024). European Universities Initiative: Progress report. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-01a a75ed71a1 ENAEE. (2022). EUR-ACE® Framework Standards and Guidelines. https://www.enaee.eu/eur-ace-system/standards-and-guidelines/ IISE. (n.d.). Industrial Engineering Body of Knowledge. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers. https://www.iise.org/Details.aspx?id=43631 Lima, R. M., Mesquita, D., & Flores, M. A. (2013). Industrial engineering and management curriculum profile: Developing a framework of competences. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 15(1), 36–42. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55638606.pdf Ocampo, L., & Clark, E. E. (2017). An empirical study of industrial engineering curriculum. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(8), 64–70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319007774 Todorović, M. L., & Novović, D. (2015). The T-shape dilemma in industrial engineering and management curriculum. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness, 5(1), 34–40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280211065 Wolters, K., & Sjöström, B. (2011). IESE: Industrial Engineering Standards in Europe. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:501345/fulltext01.pdf