A COMPETENCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL LEARNING

APPROACH FOR FACTORIES OF THE FUTURE

A Result of the FP7-FoF Project ActionPlanT

Dimitris Kiritsis

, Ahmed Bufardi

, Dimitris Mavrikios

, Thomas Knothe

, Hadrien Szigeti

and Anirban Majumdar

EPFL, STI-IGM-LICP, ME A1 396, Station 9, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation, University of Patras, Patras 26500, Greece

Fraunhofer Institut für Produktionsanlagen und Konstruktionstechnik, Pascalstasse 8-9, D-10587 Berlin, Germany

DASSAULT SYSTEMES, 10 rue Marcel Dassault, CS 40501, 78946 Velizy Villacoublay Cedex, France

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.

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

 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

+ w

S + w

(1)

P: overall IL Action Performance Value

A, Κ, S, C : overall value of the respective ILPE

performance criterion (attitude, knowledge, skills,

competences)

i=A,K,S,C

: weight assigned to the respective ILPE

performance criterion (IL action specific), Σw

= 1

A = w

PIA1

PIA

PIA2

PIA

+ … +w

PIAn

PIA

(2)

A : overall Attitude Performance Value

PIAi=1,…, n : performance indicators of Attitude

(A)

wi=PIA

,…,PIA

: 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

- 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 ?

38%

62%

5-Very high

1-Very low

A2 – How would you rate the business potential of the introduced

business principles and supporting technologies after this ILPE ?

25%

50%

5-Very high

25%

1-Very low

Mean rate before IL action: 2,625

Mean rate after IL action: 4,00

PIA

- 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 ?

38%

62%

5-Very high

1-Very low

A2 – How would you rate the business potential of the introduced

business principles and supporting technologies after this ILPE ?

25%

50%

5-Very high

25%

1-Very low

Mean rate before IL action: 2,625

Mean rate after IL action: 4,00

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

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

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

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=

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

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