Bridging The Gap in Sustainable Engineering Education: Expert-Driven Redesign of an Open LCA Tool For Industry-Aligned Learning

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Shinde, R., & Josa, I. (2025). Bridging The Gap in Sustainable Engineering Education: Expert-Driven Redesign of an Open LCA Tool For Industry-Aligned Learning. 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.17631425. 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. BRIDGING THE GAP IN SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING EDUCATION: EXPERT-DRIVEN REDESIGN OF AN OPEN LCA TOOL FOR INDUSTRY-ALIGNED LEARNING R Shinde a, 1 , 2 , I Josa b a KLH Sustainability, London, UK, 0000-0003-3435-3202 b Irene Josa, University College of London, London, UK, 0000-0002-1538-4567 Conference Key Areas: Sustainability and society in engineering, Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Sustainability, Excel-based tool, Curriculum redesign, Industry-expert interviews ABSTRACT This paper presents an expert-informed evaluation and redesign of an open, Excelbased Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool initially developed to address critical gaps in sustainability education through an Excel-based LCA tool evaluated with academic and industry expert feedback. While proprietary LCA software dominates industry practice, its cost and opacity limit effective pedagogical application. The presented tool—implemented in TEDI-London “Ecological Design” module—employs transparent, scaffolded calculations within a project-based learning framework, enabling students to analyse real-world case studies like building renovations. Through mixed-methods research involving workshops with 10 industry professionals and interviews with 3 academic experts, this study identifies the tool’s strengths in fostering conceptual understanding through step-by-step transparency, interdisciplinary collaboration, and industry-aligned documentation. However, experts highlighted key areas for improvement, including enhanced support for diverse learners through inclusive design (e.g., multimodal tutorials), streamlined terminology, and hybrid modules bridging manual calculations with proprietary software workflows. Findings demonstrate how open educational tools can balance pedagogical clarity with professional preparedness, offering a replicable model for integrating LCA into engineering curricula while addressing equity, industry relevance, and scalable feedback mechanisms. The study concludes with a phased redesign strategy prioritizing terminology simplification, EDI enhancements, and structured transitions to industry-standard tools. 1 R Shinde [email protected] 2 Previous affiliation (basis of this study) – TEDI-London 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The increasing urgency to integrate Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) within engineering curricula has highlighted significant challenges and opportunities for educators. Central to sustainable engineering education is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, a critical approach that evaluates environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle of products and services. LCA provides comprehensive insights into environmental impacts and supports informed decision-making crucial for sustainability education in engineering (Hauschild, 2018; Kamp, 2006; Piekarski, N., Araújo, Barros, & Salvador, 2019). However, common proprietary tools (e.g., Simapro 3 , GaBi 4 , Umberto 5 , OpenLCA 6 ) often restrict educational accessibility due to licensing and costs (Viere, et al., 2021). Despite its importance, effective integration of LCA education is hindered by the complexity and proprietary nature of existing tools, which often operate as "black boxes," limiting transparency and student understanding. Research indicates transparent, inquiry-based tools enhance conceptual learning and practical application (Biggs & Tang., 2011; Charlton, Magoulas, & Laurillard, 2012). To address this challenge, an open, Excel-based LCA tool was previously developed and implemented in an undergraduate "Ecological Design" module at TEDI-London. The initial Excel-based tool developed by author addressed these barriers, allowing students to understand LCA through transparent manual calculations aligned with realworld project contexts (Shinde, 2024). The tool guides students through the entire LCA process, from defining goals and scope to analysing embodied and operational emissions and finally evaluating end-of-life scenarios. The tool had following key features: ● Project-based learning (PBL): By integrating real-world case studies in a PBL framework i.e. the sustainable renovation of a large event venue space to office workspace, the tool bridges theoretical knowledge with practical application, fostering deeper engagement and understanding. ● Interdisciplinary context: Also, the tool was designed iteratively, aligning with a T-shaped learning model (Ninan, Hertogh, & Liu, 2022; Saviano, Polese, Caputo, & Walletzký, 2016)- combining deep disciplinary expertise (e.g., mechanical engineering for operational emissions) with broad interdisciplinary skills (e.g., environmental engineering for lifecycle impacts). This enabled collaboration across mechanical, environmental, and civil engineering disciplines, mirroring the collaborative nature of professional sustainability projects. ● Scaffolded learning: The Excel-based LCA tool incorporated a structured workflow, organized into nine distinct sheets, each corresponding to a critical stage of the LCA process—from defining goals and scope, compiling life cycle inventories, and calculating embodied emissions to validating operational impacts and evaluating end-of-life scenarios. This step-by-step framework ensured students systematically develop their understanding while performing hands-on 3 https://simapro.com/ 4 https://sphera.com/product-sustainability-software/ 5 https://www.ifu.com/umberto/ 6 https://www.openlca.org/ calculations. The tool’s design accommodates learners at varying levels, from secondary education to undergraduate studies, with adjustable complexity and scaffolded guidance adapted from literatures e.g. (Taber, 2018). Figure 1 Elements of Excel-based LCA tool (Shinde, 2024) Initial implementation of the Excel-based LCA tool yielded valuable insights from student feedback, highlighting both successes and areas for refinement. Students praised the tool’s transparency and stepwise approach, which deepened their understanding of LCA principles compared to proprietary "black-box" software. Collaborative use in group projects further demonstrated its practicality. While student feedback has proven instrumental in refining the tool’s usability, it also revealed broader gaps in sustainability education that demand a more systemic approach. The challenges students faced—such as navigating complex data sources (e.g., prioritizing among vastness of emission factors for similar products) and reconciling theoretical LCA principles with industry applications—point to a critical question: How can an Excel-based LCA tool, co-developed with academia and industry, restructure sustainability educationto bridge the gap between classroom learning and professional practice? While this work aligns with broader goals in LCA education, the scope of this paper focuses specifically on the development and evaluation of a transparent Excel-based tool embedded in a project-based learning curriculum. This question reflects the need for a redesigned curriculum that not only improves the digital tool but also aligns sustainability education with evolving industry standards. To ensure the tool’s robustness and long-term relevance, deeper engagement with experts—including sustainability practitioners, engineering educators, and curriculum designers—is essential. 2 METHOD While student feedback provided valuable insights for initial refinements, their perspectives, are inherently limited by their novice experience with LCA tools and methodologies. Thus, a more comprehensive review process was implemented to ensure the tool's continued development aligned with both educational objectives and industry practices. This shift recognized that while student perspectives are crucial for usability, incorporating expert viewpoints from academia and industry would offer a more holistic assessment of the tool's pedagogical effectiveness and professional relevance. Interviews were conducted with a diverse group as follows: ● Industry Experts (10 professionals): Ranging from junior graduates to senior directors, providing insights on practical industry requirements and tool applicability. ● Academic Educators (3 educators from University College London): Experts in responsible innovation, structural and safety engineering, and sustainable construction, offering theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. The data collection process around the workshops and interviews employed a mixedmethods approach to ensure comprehensive feedback. Participants reviewed the existing Excel-based tool through (semi-)structured discussions addressing strengths, areas for improvement, and recommendations for alignment with professional practice. Workshops were conducted in 2 small groups of 4 and 6 participants each (based on their seniority in industry) to foster interactive discussions, with author guiding thematic breakout sessions focused on specific aspects of the tool's design and application. Complementing these group discussions, one-on-one interviews were held with 3 academic experts to delve deeper into individual perspectives and specialized knowledge; these sessions were recorded with participant consent for subsequent thematic analysis. Following data collection, the author systematically synthesized the feedback into actionable insights, which were then prioritized based on their potential impact and feasibility for implementation in the tool's redesign. The following subsections list the guiding questions and themes discussed during the workshops and interviews, respectively. 2.1 Workshop guiding questions and themes Tool review & comparative analysis ● What has been your experience working with Excel-based LCA tools compared to proprietary software (e.g., One-Click LCA, SimaPro)? ● What advantages or disadvantages do you see with this Excel-based approach, particularly in educational settings? ● How does transparency in manual calculations impact learning versus reliance on automated outputs from commercial tools? Practical application & industry adaptation ● How could an organization like yours integrate this / excel based LCA tools into its workflows? ● What are the advantages of open, flexible tools like this for training purposes? ● Are there specific functionalities that would make it more useful for industry practitioners? Usability & interaction design ● Which parts of the Excel-based tool are challenging, unintuitive, or unclear for professional or educational users? ● How could the interface be improved (e.g., navigation, data input, visualization)? ● Are there features that should be added or streamlined to reduce cognitive load? Scalability & interdisciplinary use ● How well does the tool support interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., between civil, mechanical, and environmental engineers)? ● What barriers exist in applying it to different project types (e.g., buildings vs. infrastructure)? 2.2 Interview guiding questions and themes Scaffolding & learning design ● How can the tool balance challenge and support to maintain conceptual clarity without over-simplifying? ● What scaffolding (e.g., tutorials, example datasets) would help students transition from basic to advanced applications? Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) ● How can the tool better support students with varying levels of mathematical or Excel proficiency? ● Are there inclusive design adjustments (e.g., alternative data visualization, guided instructions and others e.g. in (Gottschalk & Weise, 2023)) that could improve accessibility? Industry-aligned competencies ● Which LCA competencies are most critical for graduates entering sustainabilitydriven roles? ● How can the tool better simulate real-world decision-making (e.g., trade-off analysis, stakeholder communication)? Curriculum integration ● At what stage should LCA be introduced in engineering programs to maximize impact? ● How can sustainability challenges be embedded earlier in the curriculum using this tool? This expanded evaluation framework, utilizing structured expert interviews and workshops, was designed to: (1) validate usability of the tool and its impact on the sustainability educational outcomes against industry standards, (2) identify opportunities for enhanced knowledge transfer between classroom and workplace applications, and (3) strengthen the tool's ability to prepare students for real-world sustainability challenges. This dual-perspective approach ensures the tool evolves to meet the needs of all stakeholders in engineering education for sustainable development. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Positive Feedback Transparency & exploratory learning: The expert feedback revealed strong consensus on the tool’s educational value while identifying key areas for refinement. Experts unanimously praised the tool’s transparency, noting how its step-by-step calculation methodology demystified LCA processes that are typically obscured in proprietary software. The clear visibility of calculations enabled students to follow the mathematical reasoning behind sustainability decisions, fostering deeper conceptual understanding compared to conventional black-box tools. For example, as noted by one of lecturers, “With this tool, students can see exactly how the numbers change— this kind of immediate feedback is crucial for understanding cause and effect in sustainability.” This transparency was particularly valuable for exploratory learning, as students could manipulate variables and immediately observe their impacts on lifecycle assessments. The educational impact of the tool is particularly evident; by working with live construction documentation and navigating emission trade-offs, students not only gain technical calculation skills but also develop systems thinking, data literacy, and professional communication capabilities - core sustainability competencies often lacking in conventional engineering education. Interdisciplinary integration emerged as another significant strength. The T-shaped learning approach successfully bridged disciplinary divides, allowing mechanical engineers to analyse operational emissions while environmental engineers examined full lifecycle impacts. For example, one academic reviewer noted “We could see mechanical students explaining operational data while civil students worked on materials—this cross-talk is a rare and valuable learning outcome.” This structure effectively mirrored real-world sustainability teams, particularly in case studies like the building renovation project, where students collaborated across specialisations to evaluate trade-offs. Accessibility & usability: The tool’s accessibility was also highlighted, with its Excelbased platform requiring no specialized training or licenses. Its tiered complexity— ranging from basic emission calculations to advanced scenario modelling—made it adaptable for diverse learners without overwhelming novices. One of the senior environmental consultants noted that “A few of our interns really struggled with OneClick’s interface. This Excel approach would’ve helped them build foundational knowledge before jumping in.” Industry relevance was consistently affirmed by professionals, who noted that the tool’s incorporation of real construction documentation, such as Request for Information sheets (RFIs) and Bill of Quantities (BoQs), helped students develop practical "industry literacy." For example, “One industry participant noted, ‘This method simulates what we actually do with our OneClick tools, but more transparently.’ “This alignment with professional practices prepare students for early-career sustainability roles while maintaining a strong educational foundation in sustainability. 3.2 Critical Feedback and suggestions Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI): Experts identified critical areas for improvement, particularly in EDI approach. They observed gaps in supporting neurodiverse learners and those with limited Excel proficiency, recommending enhancements such as alternative data visualization options, video tutorials demonstrating workflows, and multilingual glossaries for technical terms. For example, one of the reviewers commented “Some students were overwhelmed by the numbers. A visual dashboard showing key results would go a long way.” Feedback mechanisms were another focal point for refinement. Participants advocated for automated error-checking formulas to provide real-time guidance, standardized rubrics for peer and instructor evaluations, and structured industry mentor reviews for student projects. These additions would create more robust support systems for learners. Terminology clarity also emerged as a priority, with suggestions to include tooltip explanations for industry acronyms, side-by-side comparisons of educational versus professional jargon, and concise case examples showing how LCA outputs inform real business decisions. Terminology & Industry alignment: A recurring discussion point was the balance between the usage of tool to enhance educational transparency vs professional preparation. While the tool’s manual calculations were praised for reinforcing fundamental principles, experts emphasized the need to gradually introduce students to proprietary software used in industry. Proposed solutions included adding export functions for standard industry formats like International Life Cycle Data system (ILCD) 7 and Ecospold 8 , developing modules that compare manual versus softwaregenerated results, and creating transitional exercises to tools like One-Click. Looking ahead, development priorities will focus on terminology simplification through interactive glossaries, EDI enhancements such as multimodal calculation representations, and the implementation of structured feedback systems. Additionally, new modules will be designed to bridge classroom learning with professional tools, ensuring students gain both conceptual depth and practical readiness. This phased approach addresses immediate usability concerns while strategically aligning the tool with industry expectations, preserving its core strength as an accessible and transparent educational instrument. 4 CONCLUSION The expert-driven evaluation underscores the potential of open LCA tools to democratize sustainability education while revealing critical tensions between pedagogical ideals and professional requirements. This Excel-based tool is not only a platform for transparent calculations but a structured learning pathway that scaffolds key sustainability competencies, offering replicable practices for other engineering programs.The tool’s transparency and scaffolded design successfully demystified LCA methodologies for students, as evidenced by its ability to support interdisciplinary collaboration and industry-aligned projects. However, the study identifies necessary evolutions: (1) inclusive adaptations (e.g., multilingual glossaries, alternative visualizations) to address diverse learner needs; (2) terminology harmonization to bridge academic and industry lexicons; and (3) hybrid integration of proprietary software features to ease workforce transitions. 7 https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ilcd.html 8 https://support.ecoinvent.org/ecospold2 These improvements, prioritized through expert consensus, advocate for a "best of both worlds" approach—retaining the tool’s open, inquiry-based foundation while introducing modular industry interfaces (e.g., ILCD exports, One-Click LCA comparisons). Such adaptations ensure graduates gain both conceptual mastery and practical fluency. Future work will implement these refinements and assess their impact across broader institutional contexts, with the goal of establishing open LCA tools as scalable, equitable gateways to sustainable engineering practice. By aligning educational design with dual input from academia and industry, via development and validation of a tool to enhance learnings in sustainability, this research offers a framework for developing sustainability competencies that are theoretically rigorous and pragmatically actionable. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges all industry professionals and academic experts who contributed valuable insights through interviews and workshops. REFERENCES Biggs, J., & Tang., C. (2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 1-19. Charlton, P., Magoulas, G., & Laurillard, D. (2012). Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(2), 231-253. Gottschalk, F., & Weise, C. (2023). Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of practice and policy in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 299, 1-75. Hauschild, M. Z. (2018). Life Cycle Assessment. Springer International Publishing. doi:https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3. Kamp, L. (2006). Engineering Education in Sustainable Development at Delft University of Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.036 Ninan, J., Hertogh, M., & Liu, Y. (2022). Educating engineers of the future: T-shaped professionals for managing infrastructure projects. Project Leadership and Society, 100071. Piekarski, C. M., N., P. F., Araújo, C. K., Barros, M. V., & Salvador, R. (2019). LCA and ecodesign teaching via university-industry cooperation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(6), 1061-1079. Saviano, M., Polese, F., Caputo, F., & Walletzký, L. (2016). A T-shaped model for rethinking higher education programs. Toulon-Verona Conference “Excellence in Services”, (pp. 5-6). Huelva, Spain. Shinde, R. (2024). Enhancing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): A new tool for teaching Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) in multidisciplinary engineering. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Conference of SEFI, Lausanne, Switzerland. doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14256885 Taber, K. S. (2018). Scaffolding learning: Principles for effective teaching and the design of classroom resources. Effective teaching and learning: Perspectives, strategies and implementation,, 1-43. Viere, T., Amor, B., Berger, N., Fanous, R. D., Arduin, R. H., Keller, R., & Laurent, A. (2021). Teaching life cycle assessment in higher education. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21, 511-527.