A COMPETENCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL LEARNING
APPROACH FOR FACTORIES OF THE FUTURE
A Result of the FP7-FoF Project ActionPlanT
Dimitris Kiritsis
1
, Ahmed Bufardi
1
, Dimitris Mavrikios
2
, Thomas Knothe
3
, Hadrien Szigeti
4
and Anirban Majumdar
5
1
EPFL, STI-IGM-LICP, ME A1 396, Station 9, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2
Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation, University of Patras, Patras 26500, Greece
3
Fraunhofer Institut für Produktionsanlagen und Konstruktionstechnik, Pascalstasse 8-9, D-10587 Berlin, Germany
4
DASSAULT SYSTEMES, 10 rue Marcel Dassault, CS 40501, 78946 Velizy Villacoublay Cedex, France
5
SAP research center, Chemnitzer Strasse 48, 01187 Dresden, Germany
Keywords: Industrial Learning, Competence Development, ICT for Manufacturing, Factories of the Future.
Abstract: In this paper we propose a generic competence-based approach for Industrial Learning. The approach is
composed of (i) an Industrial Learning model which serves to represent and understand competence-based
learning, and (ii) a methodology which implements through a number of steps the Industrial Learning
actions defined using the Industrial Learning model in industrial organisations. Both the model and the
methodology are presented in details. A metrics-based method for evaluating the implementation of the
approach is also described.
1 INTRODUCTION
The research project ActionPlanT is co-funded by
the European Commission under the Private-Public
Partnership (PPP) “Factories of the Future” initiative
of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for
research and technological development (Grant
Agreement Number 258617). ActionPlanT aims to
develop a vision on the short, medium, and long
term role of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) in the European manufacturing
industry. The research project started in June 2010
and will end in May 2012.
For Europe to hold on to its global leadership
and excellence in manufacturing, it is imperative
that improvements at both the technological and the
awareness level are made for ICT-enabled
manufacturing processes. ActionPlanT is set out to
address the improvement in this respect of the short,
medium and long term role of ICT in the
manufacturing industry. On a more holistic level,
ActionPlanT will outline the vision of the future role
of ICT in manufacturing for the European
Commission’s FP8/CSF. Moreover, it will explore a
concept of disseminating knowledge and future
requirements through a well-established platform
consisting of manufacturing and ICT experts from
both academia and industry.
In summary, the two main activities of
ActionPlanT are:
Establishing an ICT-enabled manufacturing
vision for use cases and services of the future using
this analysis as a basis. This vision will pave the way
for a detailed roadmap which will prioritize and
schedule most promising topics for the upcoming
work program for Research and Innovation of
Framework Programme 8 (FP8) ;
Developing and validating a concept for
Industrial Learning (IL), extensively piloted via
Industrial Learning Pilot Events (ILPEs) and
workshops amongst stakeholders in industry,
academia, and the European technology platforms
alike.
These two parallel work streams “Vision &
Roadmap” and “Awareness & industrial Learning”
of ActionPlanT project are depicted in Figure 1.
28
Kiritsis D., Bufardi A., Mavrikios D., Knothe T., Szigeti H. and Majumdar A..
A COMPETENCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL LEARNING APPROACH FOR FACTORIES OF THE FUTURE - A Result of the FP7-FoF Project ActionPlanT.
DOI: 10.5220/0003902300280039
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 28-39
ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
Figure 1: ActionPlanT Parallel Work streams.
The approach presented in this paper relates to
the second work stream “Awareness & industrial
Learning”.
2 RATIONALE FOR INDUSTRIAL
LEARNING
Promoting excellence in manufacturing emerges as a
strategic goal in the years to come, both for industry
and society.
Manufacturing education is expected to be a
major driver to achieving this goal. To respond to
this role, manufacturing education should follow a
new approach to prepare industry for the next-
generation innovation and support its growth
(Manufuture, 2006). More specifically, it should
focus on:
promoting synergy between the academia
stakeholders and industry; the comprehension of the
needs of the manufacturing industry for training and
education, the joint definition of the content, the
pedagogic approach and the delivery mechanisms
for future curricula, as well as the integration of
research and innovation with education and
training activities, are considered as the main
priorities;
developing the ICT for manufacturing skills
required by the manufacturing labour force to face
new professional needs; the adaptation of
educational content and its delivery mechanisms to
the new requirements of ICT-based manufacturing,
the provision of integrated engineering
competencies, including a variety of soft skills, and
the promotion of innovation and entrepreneurship
spirits, are considered as major priorities.
In order to achieve these objectives, manufacturing
education has to address several challenges in the
years to come. As far as the IL aspect of
manufacturing education is concerned, some major
challenges are discussed hereafter.
New skills are required by the future generations
of “knowledge workers”. To that direction, an
adaptation of the educational content and its delivery
mechanisms to the new requirements of knowledge-
based manufacturing is required. Manufacturing
strategy with focus on digital business, extended
production and virtual enterprises should be greatly
considered. On the other hand, there is a growing
need for expanding the technological aspect of
education, with an extension to the ‘soft skills’.
The development of educational curricula has not
kept pace with the growing complexity of industry,
technology and economy. Moreover, research
outcomes of educational institutions are typically
presented to the scientific community without being
directly accessible to industry. Within this context, it
is difficult for industry to comprehend and to adapt
to the technological advances in a direct way.
In the industrial context knowledge is generated
by Universities and Research institutes and
implemented in Industries as illustrated by the
Knowledge Triangle concept in Figure 2
(Westkämper, 2008). ActionPlanT covers the area
within the marked (green) border. This figure
illustrates the sources of knowledge to be transferred
to Industry using the ActionPlanT IL Model.
Figure 2: The Knowledge Triangle in industrial education
(Westkämper).
The need for integrating the cornerstones of the
knowledge triangle (Figure 2) into a single
framework for supporting manufacturing education,
has given rise to a number of learning paradigms and
mechanisms.
ACOMPETENCE-BASEDINDUSTRIALLEARNINGAPPROACHFORFACTORIESOFTHEFUTURE-AResultof
theFP7-FoFProjectActionPlanT
29
3 STATE OF THE ART AND GAP
ANALYSES
The state of the art analysis (see list of references)
reveals that the existing learning methodologies
suffer from the following weaknesses:
The definition of professional competencies is
based on company internal needs analysis which
excludes new ICT for manufacturing competencies
defined from knowledge assets created from other
sources such as research & innovation projects, best
practices, etc.;
Most of existing learning methodologies focus
on the transfer of “mature” knowledge (e.g.,
knowledge developed several years ago);
The existing learning approaches are type-
specific (e.g., vocational training, technology
transfer, etc.) and vary from one type to the other,
due to the different learning goals;
Most of the existing approaches are customized
according to the learning content;
Despite their potentiality for competence
development, Living Labs are mainly considered at
the R&D level (e.g. open innovation platforms,
exposing test bed applications to the users, etc.) and
have not been systematically used for training so far;
Most of the reported applications of the Teaching
Factory paradigm focus on academic training rather
than on IL;
The emerging ICT-based learning formats, such
as collaborative learning environments, game-based
learning, virtual reality environments, etc. appear so
far only in prototype software applications or highly
specialized applications addressing a narrow range
of learning cases.
The ActionPlanT IL approach is developed in a way
to fill most of the gaps of existing approaches.
Among its main characteristics we can quote:
Using ActionPlanT IL model, the new
professional competencies are created from the
recent achievements of research and innovation
actions in the domain of “cutting edge” ICTs for
manufacturing;
Based on the “extended” Teaching Factory
concept, the ActionPlanT framework suggests the
integration of research and IL activities, which
brings “cutting edge” knowledge in the learning
process;
The ActionPlanT IL approach that addresses all
the cognitive range of IL, from attitude building to
competence development is generally applicable and
may be adjusted to the needs of each specific
learning activity;
The ActionPlanT IL methodology is generally
applicable and consequently it can accommodate
learning content from a big range of challenging
topics on “ICT for Manufacturing”;
ActionPlanT framework suggests Living Labs as
a major tool for competencies development;
ActionPlanT suggests an extended Teaching
Factory concept as a basis for the IL framework;
The ActionPlanT framework integrates the
emerging ICT-based learning formats, such as
collaborative learning environments, game-based
learning, interactive multi-media training, etc., in a
systematic approach that addresses all the cognitive
range of IL, from attitude building to competence
development;
The evaluation scheme in the ActionPlanT IL
methodology considers relevant sets of metrics for
impact measurement of the training activities for:
attitude, knowledge, skills and competence.
4 COMPETENCE BASED
LEARNING
The ActionPlanT model / methodology provides
answers to the following questions:
What are the cognitive / learning aspects to be
addressed by the IL activities on ICTs for
manufacturing?
How should these aspects be addressed, namely
how should IL on ICTs for manufacturing be
delivered?
4.1 Competence Development in the
ActionPlanT framework
The aim would be to address training needs for a
systematic, but also visionary, use and exploitation
of knowledge and skills for innovating industrial
products and processes. Training would address
issues such as understanding of opportunities,
combining different pieces of new knowledge and
developed skills to solve problems, promoting
creativity and innovative spirit, etc.
In this framework, IL actions in ActionPlanT
should be designed along the three main dimensions:
Knowledge, Skills and Attitude:
Transfer of Knowledge: focus on “Industrial
Communities of Practice” using Synchronous
(webinars, teaching factory, summer school, etc.)
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
30
and Asynchronous (e-learning, virtual factory, etc.)
learning methods and tools;
Development of Skills: Focus on dissemination
in "Vocational Training" audience;
Influence of Attitude: Focus on dissemination
& awareness raising in society in general and
specific target groups (i.e. high schools).
This is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Building blocks of the learning process.
In the ActionPlanT context we have to do with
the development and implementation of new
professional competencies created by recent
achievements of research and innovation actions in
the domain of ICT for Manufacturing.
4.2 Building Blocks of Learning
In this subsection, we describe the 4 building blocks
of learning: attitude, knowledge, skills and
competence (Figure 3). They are part of the learning
process and considered in the learning programs and
actions of ActionPlanT IL.
“Attitude” is a hypothetical construct that
represents an individual's degree of like or dislike
for an item. Attitudes are generally positive or
negative views of a person, place, thing, or event.
In the industrial context attitude is the actual
perception of manufacturing and related ICT
activities by the society in general and the interest
that this perception generates for the relevant
societal characteristics: job creation, attractiveness
of manufacturing activities, will to work in an
industrial environment, contribute to “create”
something, etc.
“Knowledge” is the outcome of the assimilation
of information through learning. Knowledge is the
body of facts, principles, theories and practices that
is related to a field of work or study.
Knowledge can be seen as the higher level of
competence and needs to be continuously updated
with new achievements of research and innovation
as illustrated in the Knowledge triangle presented in
Section 2. The main goal of IL here is the Transfer
of Knowledge from research and innovation results
to concerned industrial stakeholders.
“Skills” means the ability to apply knowledge
and use know-how to complete well defined tasks.
Skills may be cognitive (involving the use of logical,
intuitive and creative thinking) or practical
(involving manual dexterity and the use of methods,
materials, and tools).
Skills are mainly developed through practice and
transferred to targeted categories of personnel
through appropriate training programs. The main
target of IL here is the “Vocational Training
audience and the material would be mature hands-on
solutions ready to be introduced into industrial
practice.
“Competence” means the proven ability to use
knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or
methodological abilities. Competence is also
described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.
Competences may be considered as the interface
between the learning and the innovation processes.
As such, the ActionPlanT learning model /
methodology would address competence
development as a major requirement.
It is worth noting that ActionPlanT ILPEs are
evaluated on the basis of the improvements made
with respect to the 4 building blocks of learning.
5 THE ACTIONPLANT IL
MODEL
The ActionPlanT IL Model is composed of a
Competence Specifications Framework (the lower
block in Figure 4) and a Competence
Implementation part (the upper block in Figure 4)
which includes a sub-part (inner block) for the
identification and definition of Elements of
Competence Development (knowledge assets) in a
specific sector or, more general, in an Industrial
Community of Practice.
ACOMPETENCE-BASEDINDUSTRIALLEARNINGAPPROACHFORFACTORIESOFTHEFUTURE-AResultof
theFP7-FoFProjectActionPlanT
31
Figure 4: The ActionPlanT IL Model.
5.1 The Competence Specifications
Framework
In the context of ActionPlanT, the competence
specification framework is limited within the scope
of “ICT for Manufacturing”. The requirements and
specifications of the IL actions are gathered from
relevant research projects, best practices etc. and are
in line with the first ActionPlanT work stream of
Figure 1.
The competence specifications framework
describes the current needs for development of
competencies in terms of knowledge, skills, and
attitude for a sector or community of practice.
5.2 The Elements of Competence
Development
The progress of science and technology creates the
so called “knowledge assets” whose transfer in
applications in industrial environments create needs
and requirements for new professional situations,
which are the “Basis for” New Professional
Competencies as illustrated by the link in the lower
part of the model in Figure 4. New Professional
Competencies cover New Professional Needs, which
can be developed through an adequate learning
process which is the means to implement and realize
the transfer of the defined knowledge assets as
illustrated by the link between “New Knowledge
Learning Process” and “New Professional Needs” in
Figure 4.
5.3 Competence Implementation
The knowledge assets and associated learning
process that have been defined to cover identified
professional needs (and associated competencies)
create Learning Needs which are addressed by the
training or Human Resources departments of
industrial organisations with the design and
implementation of Learning Programs which include
a well-designed series of IL actions as illustrated by
the upper left part of the model in Figure 4.
6 THE ACTIONPLANT IL
METHODOLOGY
The ActionPlanT IL methodology aims at
implementing through a number of steps the IL
actions defined using the ActionPlanT IL model for
a specific learning situation. This includes the choice
of adequate delivery mechanisms and appropriate
evaluation tools. At each step of the methodology,
all relevant available techniques including the
emerging ones are considered in order to meet the
learning styles of the different target audiences and
the requirements of the various learning topics.
Unlike traditional IL methodologies which are
need-driven meaning that they are designed to
respond to specific needs raised by demanding
companies, the ActionPlanT IL methodology is
opportunity-driven aiming to offer for
manufacturing companies an opportunity to develop
and implement new professional competencies
created by recent achievements of research and
innovation actions in the domain of cutting edge ICT
for manufacturing.
Exploring the experience developed in training
activities of the FP6 PROMISE project (Brintrup
and Ranasinghe 2008, Matta et al. 2007) the steps
defined in Figure 5 are the main elements of the
methodology to implement IL in industrial
communities of practice.
Figure 5: The ActionPlanT IL methodology.
The order of steps in Figure 5 is specific to the
ActionPlanT training case; the order may be
different in other training situations.
The different steps of the ActionPlanT IL
methodology are described in the following sub-
sections.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
32
6.1 Step 1: ICT for Manufacturing
Competencies Analysis
The ICT for manufacturing competencies analysis is
based on the ActionPlanT IL model presented in the
previous section.
In the ActionPlanT IL model new ICT for
manufacturing knowledge assets (learning assets)
are created from various sources such as research &
innovation projects, best practices, etc. These
learning assets provide a basis for the development
of new professional competencies in the field of ICT
for manufacturing which are useful for companies to
develop new knowledge and skills in their
manufacturing domains. Indeed, the acquisition by
manufacturing companies of the most advanced ICT
developed by specialized research institutes and
their implementation are often quoted among the
main factors to improve competitiveness.
There is an interaction between ICT for
manufacturing competencies and ICT for
manufacturing knowledge assets. Indeed, the
development of an ICT for manufacturing
competence requires ICT for manufacturing
knowledge asset(s) and an ICT for manufacturing
knowledge asset defines one or more ICT for
manufacturing competencies.
6.2 Step 2: ICT for Manufacturing
Topics/Modules
This step is concerned with the identification of the
broad topic areas that should be included in the
ActionPlanT training program about ICT for
manufacturing in order to fulfil the training needs
related to the ICT for manufacturing professional
competencies.
ActionPlanT framework pursues the direct
employment of “cutting-edge” / “fresh” knowledge,
produced in recently finished or even still running
research projects, in IL activities. That approach can
speed up the innovation process.
6.3 Step 3: Preparation of ActionPlanT
IL Plan
The preparation of the ActionPlanT IL plan is based
on the analysis of the expertise and the learning
infrastructure available for the organization of the IL
activity.
In the case of ActionPlanT project, the
distribution of learning topics among the different IL
actions is based on the expertise and the learning
infrastructure available at the organizing
ActionPlanT consortium member in order to better
use the available resources for ActionPlanT IL
learning activities.
6.4 Step 4: Identification of Target
Groups
Different audiences are considered in ActionPlanT
from different perspectives with regard to their role
in ActionPlanT learning process:
Professional target group including the
professional audience at various levels of the
manufacturing industry including SMEs as well as
among consultancy and relevant service providers.
Specialized training institutions, professional
chambers and their training bodies, etc.
Academic target group which includes audience
from both engineering and vocational training
schools.
Society in general will be considered with
possible focused dissemination actions at high
school audiences.
For each IL action, the target groups are identified
among the audiences mentioned above on the basis
of a set of relevant selection criteria such as
functional domain, manufacturing sector, ICT skills,
etc. Nonetheless, the priority will be given to the
industrial professionals.
6.5 Step 5: Definition of Learning
Needs of Target Groups
This step deals with the definition of the training
needs of the target groups identified in the previous
step with respect to the ICT for manufacturing topics
considered in Step 2.
Each IL action focuses on one or more learning
topics and targets specific audiences. The needs of
these audiences relate o the learning topic(s)
addressed in the IL action.
A usual technique that is commonly used to
address this problem is the “skills matrix” where the
target groups are listed in the first column of the
matrix and the ICT for manufacturing addressed in
the learning topic in the first row of the matrix, and
the cells indicate the potential training needs of the
target groups with respect to the considered ICT for
manufacturing issues. If the individuals in the group
have different capabilities regarding the ICT issues
in manufacturing topics, then the “skills matrix”
should be applied at the level of individuals.
ACOMPETENCE-BASEDINDUSTRIALLEARNINGAPPROACHFORFACTORIESOFTHEFUTURE-AResultof
theFP7-FoFProjectActionPlanT
33
6.6 Step 6: Identification of Trainers
The aim of this step is to identify the experts on ICT
for manufacturing that would provide the training
material in connection with their field of expertise to
the target audiences on the selected learning topics.
The selected trainers should have the necessary
competencies on the use of ICT tools in the training
activities and be up-to-date with the cutting-edge
ICT matters in manufacturing related to the selected
topics in order integrate them in these topics.
In the case of ActionPlanT project, the trainers
are primarily selected among the partners of the
ActionPlanT project on the basis of their expertise
with respect to the topics retained for the IL actions.
Only in the case where no expert from the
consortium can provide the training for a given
learning topic, then the appeal for experts from
outside the consortium is considered.
6.7 Step 7: Definition of Learning
Content
The learning content should be tailored to the needs
of target groups with respect to the selected topics.
This can be the improvement of existing
knowledge/skills about ICT for manufacturing or the
development of completely new knowledge/skills.
To facilitate the elaboration of the content of the
learning modules, the usual approach consists in
dividing the modules into subjects, the subjects in
sub-subjects until obtaining the elementary subjects:
the units. The rule is that the decomposition
continues until obtaining of the most elementary
elements for which it is easy to define the contents.
Indeed, it is easier to develop the content for the
concise and precise subjects than for the general
subjects which can involve numerous and varied
types of information.
The development of learning content for the
selected topics is the responsibility of the trainers
identified in the previous step.
6.8 Step 8: Definition of IL Action
Type and Delivery Mechanisms
For the delivery of the training programs, various
instruments are proposed in order to suit the
different learning styles and constraints of trainees
and the requirements of the learning topics.
The list of the delivery methods used for the
different learning topics considered in the IL actions
includes both traditional and recent methods such as
onsite: seminar / workshop / conference,
synchronized/ non-synchronized virtual classroom,
Internet-based training, webinar, serious games,
workshops at future factory, etc.
A special attention is given to human oriented
approaches, employing ICT tools to support human
interaction with the “real” environment and
application, and human-to-human interaction (e.g.
collaborative environments, etc.).
6.9 Step 9: Delivery of IL Activities
The implementation of IL occurs during the different
IL actions which are defined by using the
competence-based IL model.
6.10 Evaluation of IL Activities
The evaluation determines to what extent the
training provided through the ActionPlanT IL
approach has responded to the training requirements
of target audiences. Kirkpatrick's four levels of
evaluation model (Kirkpatrick, 1959) is very useful
to handle these issues. In ActionPlanT, we focus on
the following three levels: (i) reaction of learners:
what they thought and felt about the training, (ii)
learning: the resulting increase in knowledge or
capability, and (iii) behaviour: extent of behaviour
and capability improvement and implementation /
application.
In addition to the assessment of the level of
success achieved through the training program, the
follow up and evaluation allow to determine what
updates are needed for the knowledge content and
the delivery mechanisms in order to ensure an
efficient and effective life-long training of the target
groups.
Due to the importance of the evaluation and the
validation of the proposed approach, a whole section
(section 7) is dedicated to this issue.
7 EVALUATION AND
VALIDATION OF THE
ACTIONPLANT IL APPROACH
A set of IL actions are used for the assessment of the
effectiveness of the suggested learning approach and
knowledge delivery mechanisms. The evaluation
output will help to further improve the
implementation aspects of the suggested approach
and identify best practices in the use of knowledge
delivery mechanisms for IL.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
34
IL actions involve different S&T themes on “ICT
for manufacturing” and knowledge/training delivery
mechanisms (Table 1). They are structured around a
theoretical session for basic knowledge transfer and
a practical session for hands-on exercise. Target
groups include heterogeneous teams of engineers
coming from industry and academia.
Table 1: Initial set of IL actions.
A# S&T Theme
Training delivery
mechanism
1
Shop floor data
processing
Teaching Factory
2 Lean Manufacturing Serious Game
3 Closed Loop PLM Best Practice Tutorial
IL actions are assessed against the achievement
of a set of goals, related with: attitude, knowledge,
skills, competencies (Table 2, Table 3). The
evaluation is based on the feedback of the trainees to
a questionnaire, which is filled-in by all IL actions’
participants/trainees, right after the end of the event.
The questionnaire itself is structured in a way to
assess the improvement of the attitude, knowledge,
skills and competence of the trainees with respect to
the introduced learning module.
Table 2: General goals of the IL actions.
IL actions general goals
Attitude
Create awareness, attract interest, increase
motivation to learn & apply
Knowledge
Create a basic technology understanding
(basics of relevant theory & SW) oriented to
industrial practice, and acquaint with
relevant ICT tools to search for further
information
Skills
Acquaint with the use of dedicated software
tools, complete a well defined task involving
processing of data with the given tools
Competencies
Build-up basic ability to combine different
pieces of knowledge, developed skills and
own understanding, to make decisions and
address real life-like use cases
The evaluation of the IL actions includes both a
qualitative and a quantitative assessment. Qualitative
assessment aims to draw conclusions, on the basis of
the statistical analysis of the trainees’ feedbacks,
about:
the improvement of the attitude, knowledge,
skills and competence of the trainees with respect to
the introduced learning module,
the actual work flow and performance of the
group, the difficulties encountered by the trainees,
their actual involvement and co-operation level,
the strong / weak aspects of the introduced
training delivery mechanism and areas of possible
improvement for the training delivery.
Table 3: Example of specific goals of an IL action (Lean
Manufacturing).
2
nd
IL action specific goals
Attitude
Create awareness and attract interest with
respect to Lean Manufacturing and the
supporting ICTs
Knowledge
Create a basic understanding about the major
principles, pillars and limitations of Lean
Manufacturing, as well as about the
manufacturing ICTs (e.g. MES, ERP, RFID
etc.) implementing the underlying principles
and enabling lean production
Skills
Apply different schemes for team work
organization and information processing in
assembly operations, including traditional
schemes, self-organization and lean
principles
Competencies
Develop the capability of addressing realistic
use cases involved in car assembly
operations, requiring decision making and
optimization of teamwork organization and
information processing
A systematic approach is also being suggested
for the quantified impact measurement of the IL
actions. It is based on the concept of the weighted
sum model (WSM), which is the best known and
simplest multi-criteria decision analysis method
(Fishburn, 1967). The overall performance of an
ILPE is calculated by taking the weighted sum of the
normalized values of the ILPE performance criteria
(building blocks of the learning process), i.e. attitude
improvement, knowledge delivery, skills delivery
and competences development (Equation 1). The
weights assigned to these performance values
depend on the relative importance of the respective
performance criteria for each ILPE. For example, an
ILPE may be focused more on practical training, e.g.
skills delivery and competence development, rather
than on theoretical aspects. Thus, higher weights
would be assigned to the respective performance
values.
A set of performance indicators is identified
referring to each ILPE performance criterion
(building block of the learning process). The
weighted sum of the normalized values of these
indicators is used to calculate the overall value of the
respective ILPE performance criterion (e.g. Equation
2 is used for Attitude). The weights assigned to
ACOMPETENCE-BASEDINDUSTRIALLEARNINGAPPROACHFORFACTORIESOFTHEFUTURE-AResultof
theFP7-FoFProjectActionPlanT
35
these values depend on the relative importance of
the respective indicator in the achievement of the
ILPE goals for the specific ILPE performance
criterion. Each performance indicator is associated
with a specific question included in the
Questionnaire used for IL actions evaluation. The
trainees’ responses will be processed appropriately,
so as to assign specific values to the performance
indicators (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Example of performance indicator estimation.
For each ILPE performance criterion (building
block of the learning process), the performance
indicators will help measuring in a quantified way
the achievement of the respective training goal
(Table 3). The performance indicators aim to capture
the “contribution” of the IL actions in improving the
attitude, knowledge, skills and competence of the
trainees with respect to the introduced learning
module. Thus, they will measure the “difference” in
the levels of attitude, knowledge, skills and
competence, before and after the IL action as
perceived by the trainees.
P = w
A
×
A
+ w
K
×
K
+ w
x
S + w
C
×
C
(1)
P: overall IL Action Performance Value
A, Κ, S, C : overall value of the respective ILPE
performance criterion (attitude, knowledge, skills,
competences)
w
i=A,K,S,C
: weight assigned to the respective ILPE
performance criterion (IL action specific), Σw
i
= 1
A = w
PIA1
×
PIA
1
+w
PIA2
×
PIA
2
+ … +w
PIAn
×
PIA
n
(2)
A : overall Attitude Performance Value
PIAi=1,…, n : performance indicators of Attitude
(A)
wi=PIA
1
,…,PIA
n
: weight assigned to the respective
performance indicator (IL action / technology
specific), Σwi= 1
8 CONCLUSIONS
The generic competence-based IL approach
presented in this paper comprises: (i) an IL model
which serves to represent and understand
competence-based learning, and (ii) a methodology
with a number of steps to implement IL in industrial
organisations.
The ActionPlanT IL model is competence-based
and is suitable for creating new knowledge assets
related to “cutting edge” ICTs for manufacturing,
identifying corresponding new professional
competencies, and defining relevant learning actions
to train workers to develop these competencies.
The ActionPlanT IL methodology is developed
on the of extensive state-of-the-art and gap analyses
in order to propose a comprehensive methodology
incorporating the most promising techniques
including the emerging ones at each of its steps. The
ActionPlanT IL methodology is developed in a way
to overcome the weaknesses and fill the gaps of
existing learning methodologies.
The novelty of the ActionPlanT IL methodology
relates to two aspects: (i) the definition of IL actions
using a competence-based IL model, and (ii) the
comprehensiveness and the content of the steps of
the methodology.
A metrics-based method is developed to evaluate
the implementation of ActionPlanT IL methodology.
The metrics aim to capture the “contribution” of the
methodology in improving the attitude, knowledge,
skills and competence of the trainees with respect to
the introduced learning topic.
During the implementation of each IL action, the
suitability of the delivery mechanism to the learning
topic is tested and evaluated and the results are used
to improve the choice of delivery mechanisms for
learning topics in the forthcoming IL activities.
PIA
2
- Improvement of business potential understanding after
attending the IL action = +27,5%
A2 – How would you rate the business potential of the
introduced business principles and supporting
technologies before this ILPE ?
2
38%
3
62%
5-Very high
0%
4
0%
1-Very low
0%
A2 – How would you rate the business potential of the introduced
business principles and supporting technologies after this ILPE ?
3
25%
4
50%
5-Very high
25%
2
0%
1-Very low
0%
Mean rate before IL action: 2,625
Mean rate after IL action: 4,00
PIA
2
- Improvement of business potential understanding after
attending the IL action = +27,5%
A2 – How would you rate the business potential of the
introduced business principles and supporting
technologies before this ILPE ?
2
38%
3
62%
5-Very high
0%
4
0%
1-Very low
0%
A2 – How would you rate the business potential of the introduced
business principles and supporting technologies after this ILPE ?
3
25%
4
50%
5-Very high
25%
2
0%
1-Very low
0%
Mean rate before IL action: 2,625
Mean rate after IL action: 4,00
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
36
Among the future research issues related to the
work presented in this paper, we can quote:
development of mechanisms and methods to
test the suitability of emerging delivery mechanisms
to advanced ICT for manufacturing learning topics
and learning constraints of the manufacturing labour
force,
definition of new ICT for manufacturing skills
related to advanced ICT for manufacturing,
development of mechanisms and methods to
define learning content for IL curricula from recent
achievements of research and innovation actions in
the domain of ICT for manufacturing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research leading to these results has received
funding from the European Union's 7th FP
(FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 258617.
The work in the ActionPlanT project is a
common effort among all its contributing partners:
Agoria, DASSAULT SYSTEMES, EPFL,
Fraunhofer IPK, Platte Consult, POLIMI, SAP,
Tecnalia, University of Patras.
REFERENCES
Abdulrasool, S., Mishra, R., Khalaf, H., 2010. Teachers'
and students' attitudes towards traditional and
computer assisted blended teaching and learning
processes in mechanical engineering subjects area. In
Proceedings - 10th IEEE International Conference on
Computer and Information Technology, CIT-2010, 7th
IEEE International Conference on Embedded
Software and Systems, ICESS-2010. ScalCom-2010,
art. no. 5577829, pp. 1436-1441.
Alptekin, S. E., Pouraghabagher, R., McQuaid, P.,
Waldorf, D., 2001. Teaching Factory. In Proceedings
of the 2001 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition,
American Society for Engineering Education.
Auto University Web Site, http://www.autouni.de/.
Azadivar, F., Kramer, B., 2007. Rewards and challenges
of utilizing university research/economic development
centers for enhancing engineering education.
American Society for Engineering Education. AC
2007-1154.
http://icee.usm.edu/icee/conferences/asee2007/papers/
1154_REWARDS_AND_CHALLENGES_OF_UTILI
ZING_UNIV.pdf
Batista, M., Álvarez, M., Sánchez-Carrilero, M., Salguero,
J., Marcos, M., 2009. CAL-CBT based virtual learning
and training in machining engineering. A case study:
CNC Lathe. In 2009 Materials Science Forum 625,
pp. 19-28.
Batra, Sanjay, Bishu, Ram R., Donohue, Brian J., 1995.
Potential of computerized interactive training in
manufacturing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society 2, pp. 1294-1298.
Brintrup, A. M., Ranasinghe, D., 2008. Organising
industrial knowledge dissemination on frontier
technology. European Journal of Engineering
Education 33(4), 471–481.
Cambel, A. B., Mock, J. E., 1995. Expediting technology
transfer with multi-media. Technological Forecasting
& Social Change 48, 1-5.
Castrillón, I. D., Cantorna, A. I. S., 2005. The effect of the
implementation of advanced manufacturing
technologies on training in the manufacturing sector.
Journal of European Industrial Training 29 (4), 268-
280.
CEDEFOP, 2009. Modernising vocational education and
training: Fourth report on vocational training research
in Europe: background report. CEDEFOP Reference
Series. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/publication
s/12892.aspx
Chen, J. C., Chen, J., 2004. Testing a new approach for
learning teamwork knowledge and skills in technical
education. Journal of Industrial Technology 20 (2),
37-46.
Chi, X., Speeding, T. A., 2007. A Web-based Intelligent
Virtual Learning Environment for Industrial
Continuous Improvement. In 2006 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Informatics, INDIN'06. art.
no. 4053544, pp. 1102-1107.
Chryssolouris, G., 2005. Manufacturing Systems - Theory
and Practice, Springer-Verlag. New York, 2
nd
edition.
Chryssolouris, G., 2006. Education for next generation
manufacturing. Keynote Paper in IMS Vision Forum
2006. 12-13 April 2006, Seoul, Korea.
Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., A novel initiative for the
Manufacturing Enterprises and Educational
Institutions of the future: The Teaching Factory,
Working Paper (2005)
Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios D., Papakostas N., Mourtzis,
D., 2006. Education in Manufacturing Technology &
Science: A view on Future Challenges & Goals.
Inaugural Keynote in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Manufacturing Science and
Technology (ICOMAST 2006). Melaka, Malaysia,
August 2006.
Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., Fragos, D., Karabatsou,
V., Pistiolis, K., 2002. A novel virtual experimentation
approach to planning and training for manufacturing
processes. International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 15(3), 214-221.
Chryssolouris, G., Mourtzis, D, 2008. Challenges For
Manufacturing Education. In Proceedings of CIMEC
2008, CIRP International Manufacturing Engineering
Education Conference. Nantes, France, October 2008.
David, B., Yin, C., Chalon, R., 2009. Contextual Mobile
Learning Strongly Related to Industrial Activities:
ACOMPETENCE-BASEDINDUSTRIALLEARNINGAPPROACHFORFACTORIESOFTHEFUTURE-AResultof
theFP7-FoFProjectActionPlanT
37
Principles and Case Study. International Journal of
Advanced Corporate Learning 2(3), 12-20.
Dizon, D. P., 2000. Making Social Sciences Relevant To
Engineering Students: The Greenfield Coalition
Experience. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE). Taipei,
Taiwan, August 2000.
Ellstrom, P.-E., Kock, H., 2009. Competence development
in the workplace: concepts, strategies and effects. In
Illeris, K. (Ed.), International Perspectives on
Competence Development. Developing Skills and
Capabilities. Routledge, London.
ENOLL - European Network of Living Labs, 2010.
http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/
Entingh, D. J., Andrews, C. J., Kenkeremath, D. C., Mock,
J. E., Janis F. T., 1987.
Guidebook for Technology Transfer Managers.
http://www.osti.gov/geothermal/servlets/purl/860712-
RnWKp2/860712.pdf
Estrada, V. F., 1995. Training in Manufacturing Continues
to Evolve. Human Resource Professional 8(3), 24-28.
Eurostat – Science, Technology & Innovation in Europe,
2008.
Fishburn, P. C. (1967). "Additive Utilities with Incomplete
Product Set: Applications to Priorities and
Assignments". Operations Research Society of
America (ORSA), Baltimore, MD, U.S.A
Folstad, A., 2008. Living Labs for innovation and
development of information and communication
technology: A literature review. Electronic Journal for
Virtual Organizations and Networks 10, Special Issue
on Living Labs.
Fürbringer, J.-M., 2010. Competence Based Education
Project, Insttitute of Mecanical Engineering, Personal
Communication. EPFL.
Hamade, R. F., Artail, H. A., Jaber, M. Y., 2011. A study
of the impact of the willingness-to-learn of CAD
novice users on their competence development.
Computers and Industrial Engineering 61(3), 709-720.
Hauge, J. B., Duin, H., Oliveira, M., Thoben, K. D., 2006.
User Requirements Analysis for Educational Games in
Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising,
p.8. Milan, Italy, June 2006.
Herat, S., 2000. Education and training for cleaner
production: A flexible learning approach. Journal of
Cleaner Production 8 (5), 361-364.
IMS2020 deliverable: D2.3b Action Roadmap on KAT5 -
Innovation, competence development and education.
Download link:
http://data.fir.de/projektseiten/ims2020/files/IMS2020
_Action-Roadmap_KAT5.pdf
Jia, D., Bhatti, A., Naliavandi, S., 2009. Design and
evaluation of a haptically enable virtual environment
for object assembly training. In 2009 IEEE
International Workshop on Haptic Audio Visual
Environments and Games, HAVE 2009 - Proceedings,
art. no. 5356130, pp. 75-80.
Kirkpatrick, D.L., 1959. Techniques for evaluating
training programs. Journal of American Society of
Training Directors 13 (3), 21 - 26.
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, 2010.
http://www.ktponline.org.uk
Kramer, B.A., Azadivar, F., 2002. Manufacturing
Learning Center: A model to enhance manufacturing
engineering education. Technical Paper, ED02-276,
Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Lamancusa, J.L., Jorgensen, J., Zayas-Castro, J., 2001.
The learning Factory: A new Approach to integrating
Design and Manufacturing in Engineering Curricula.
Journal of engineering Education 86, 103-112.
Loughner, P.D., Harvey, D.M., Milheim, W.D., 2001.
Web-based instructional methods for corporate
training curricula. In Khan, B.D. (Ed.), Web-based
training, 184-190. Educational Technology
Publications Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Manufuture High Level Group and Implementation
Support Group (2006). ManuFuture Platform -
Strategic Research Agenda, assuring the future of
manufacturing in Europe, available online at:
http://www.manufuture.org/manufacturing/?page_id=
10
Marquardt, N., Robelski, S., Jenkins, G.G., 2011.
Designing and evaluating a crew resource
management training for manufacturing industries.
Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing 21
(3), 287-304.
Matta, A. Shaw, A., Rabe, L., Bufardi, A., Folan, P.,
Moseng, B., 2007. Deriving Specifications for
Training Courses in Large Engineering Integrated
Projects: A Practical Experience. In Joint SEFI-IGIP
2007 Annual Conference. Miskolc, Hungary.
Mavrikios, D., Karabatsou, V., Fragos, D., Chryssolouris,
G., 2005. A Prototype Virtual Reality based
Demonstrator for Immersive and Interactive
Simulation of Welding Processes. International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19(3),
294-300.
Mayes, T., de Freitas, S., 2005. Review of e-learning
theories, frameworks and models. JISC e-Learning
Models Desk Study – Stage 2.
http://www.elearning.ac.uk/resources/modelsdeskreview/
Mirehei, S. M., 2009. Design and development of a
simulation game for lean administrative process
training. Master thesis, The University of Texas at San
Antonio, UMI Number: 1464009.
Munukutla, L. V., Robertson J. M., McHenry, A. L., 2001.
Contextual experience model to prepare high
technology workforce. In International Conference on
Engineering Education (ICEE). August 6-10, 2001.
Oslo, Norway.
Munukutla, L. V., Venkatanarayanan, S., 2004. Future
Semiconductor Workforce Preparation based on
Learning by Doing Using Microelectronics Teaching
Factory at Arizona State University East. In
Proceedings of the IEEE / SEMI Advanced
Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference 2004.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
38
Ng, R. C. H., 2004. Narrowing competency gaps to enable
manufacturability of new mobile communication
products - a technical training methodology. In
Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International
Engineering Management Conference, Vol. 1, 18-21
Oct. 2004, pp. 363 – 366.
OECD, 2004. Lifelong Learning. Policy Brief.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/11/29478789.pdf
O’Sullivan, D., Rolstadås, A., Filos, E., 2009. Global
education in manufacturing strategy. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, DOI 10.1007/s10845-009-
0326-2.
Paci, A.M., Lalle, C., 2008. Teaching factory for new
education in competitive sustainable manufacturing. In
Proceedings of DET2008 5th International
Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology. Nantes,
France, October 2008.
Pennathur, A., Mital, A., 2003. Worker mobility and
training in advanced manufacturing. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (6), 363-388.
Pennathur, A., Mital, A., Rajan, V., Kaber, D., Ray, P.,
Huston, R., Thompson, D., Markle, G., Pitman, M.A.,
Bishu, R., Crumpton, L., Deivanayagam, S.,
Fernandez, J., McElwee, M., McMulkin, M., Sule, D.,
1999. A framework for training workers in
contemporary manufacturing environments.
International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 12 (4), 291-310.
Pillai, S., Khan, M. H., Ibrahim, I. S., Raphael, S., 2011.
Enhancing employability through industrial training in
the Malaysian context. Higher Education, pp. 1-18.
Article in Press.
Quinn, A. S., Regan, J. A. R. C., Schoech, D., 2008.
Online synchronous audio and Video environments for
education, training, and human service delivery: A
review of three products. Journal of Technology in
Human Services 26 (1), 89-104.
Rolstadås, A., Dolinšek, S., 2006. Global Education in
Manufacturing: Basic Framework, Industrial Survey
and Possible Implementation. International Research
Journal on Managing Global Transition 4(3), 261–
278.
Rolstadås, A., Hussein, B., 2002. Hybrid Learning in
Project Management – Potentials and Challenges, In
PMI Conference. Seattle, USA, July 2002.
SAP Future Factory Initiative, http://www.sap.com/about/
company/research/livinglabs/futurefactory/index.epx
Sawzin, S. A., 1983. Design of a computer graphics
training program. IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications 3 (8), 53-57.
Schaf, F. M., Mueller, D., Bruns, F. W., Pereira, C. E.,
Erbe, H.-H., 2009. Collaborative learning and
engineering workspaces. Annual Reviews in Control
33, 246–252.
Shen, J. Y., Dunn, D., Shen, Y., 2007. Challenges Facing
U.S. Manufacturing and Strategies. Journal of
Industrial Technology 23(2), 1-10
SME, 2010. Training Programmes.
http://www.sme.org/cgi-
bin/getsmepg.pl?/gmn/data/events/corptrain/training.ht
m&&&SME&
Technische Universitaet Darmstadt, 2010.
Prozesslernfabrik CiP. http://www.download.tu-
darmstadt.de/ptw/prozesslernfabrik.de/v1/index.php
Tittagala, R., Bramhall, M., Pettigrew, M., 2008. Teaching
Engineering in a Simulated Industrial Learning
Environment: A Case Study in Manufacturing
Engineering. In Proceedings of Engineering
Education 2008. Loughborough, England, July 2008.
Universitaet Stuttgart (2010). Lernfabrik aIE.
http://www.lernfabrik-aie.de/
Westkämper, E., 2008. The potential of regional
manufacturing networks in Europe. Presentation at
Manufuture Conference. St. Etienne, France.
Wong, S. F., Yang, Z. X., Cao, N., Ho, W. I., 2010.
Applied RFID and virtual reality technology in
professional training system for manufacturing. In
IEEM2010 - IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.
art. no. 5674534, pp. 676-680.
Xiaoling, W., Peng, Z., Zhifang, W., Yan, S., Bin, L.,
Yangchun, L., 2004. Development an interactive VR
training for CNC machining. In Proceedings VRCAI
2004 - ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on
Virtual Reality Continuum and its Applications in
Industry, pp. 131-133.
Yaldiz, S., 2010. Virtual Training Centre for CNC: An
Accomplished Cooperation Case. In the 5th
International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL
2010, pp. 253-259.
Zhou, Z., Donaldson, A., 2010. Work in progress -
Project-based learning in manufacturing process. In
Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference,
FIE. art. no. 5673659, pp. T1J1-T1J2.
Zimmermann, M., 2010. On demand learning in
manufacturing processes: Implementation by
integrated multimedia streaming services. In 6th
Advanced International Conference on
Telecommunications, AICT 2010. art. no. 5489871, pp.
106-111.
ACOMPETENCE-BASEDINDUSTRIALLEARNINGAPPROACHFORFACTORIESOFTHEFUTURE-AResultof
theFP7-FoFProjectActionPlanT
39