A LF is a learning environment imitating processes and technologies of an industrial site used for education, training, and research. It can be classified as a real-world laboratory for manufacturing or production. The associated didactical concept usually focuses on experimental and problem-based learning (Abele et al. 2015). The continuous improvement philosophy is facilitated by learners’ own (inter)actions and interactive involvement (IALF n.d.). As production-related workflows are often focus of LF trainings, engineers and process planners frequently constitute the target audience (Tisch et al. 2016); however, they can also be beneficial for other groups and roles such as managers.

Zancul et al. (2020) and Durão et al. (2024) claim that LFs are able to support TAs, but do not indicate a related training program. Further references to TAs in relevant literature about LFs (Abele et al. 2019, 2024) could not be identified by the authors, which implies that there are likely no explicit training courses available on this subject.

While LFs are discussed as suitable environments for supporting technology assessment, explicit TA training formats in learning factory settings have so far not been reported. This gap motivates the integration of TA into a LF course and the development of the training module presented in this article.

The LEAD Factory (‘lean management, energy efficiency, agile operations, and digitalization’) is a LF operated by the Graz University of Technology. It is a small-scale real-life training manufacturing site that offers easy access to hands-on training experience in realistic production scenarios (Ramsauer et al. 2024a, 2024b). Its mission is to create a knowledge hub that encourages the exchange of ideas and promotes the adoption of new technologies and processes. Several sequential workstations replicate value-creating activities (Fig. 1a) enabling learners to develop technical, organizational, and problem-solving competencies relevant to state-of-the-art production. Additionally, the LEAD Factory serves as a technology demonstrator as well as a collaborative platform where students, researchers, and company partners can work together. Its flexible setup allows participants to analyze, optimize, and apply solutions directly on-site. Due to the LF’s laboratory nature, interventions in the setting can be made without any risk, unlike in an actual factory or production line.

Although small-scale and simplified in certain aspects, the LEAD Factory allows students and professionals to tackle real-world industrial challenges, primarily concerning (the assembly of) a physical product (a scooter, Fig. 1b).

Originating as a lean production training site, it has evolved to address other trending subjects in the field of industrial engineering, such as ergonomics (Wolf et al. 2019), digitalization (Hulla et al. 2022), energy efficiency (Ketenci et al. 2022), and carbon accounting (Wolf et al. 2023; Rüdele and Wolf 2024).

In general, all of the LEAD Factory’s training modules adhere to the same didactical concept: After short theoretical sessions covering the fundamentals of a specific concept, participants directly return to the LEAD Factory and apply what they have learned. The aim is to actually implement newly acquired knowledge and immediately experience the impact of the learned methods. Based on the principle of learning by doing, learners gain new and lasting skills and can easily transfer these capabilities to similar situations.

The aim is to actually implement newly acquired knowledge and immediately experience the impact of the learned methods.

The Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at TU Graz does not offer a dedicated course on TA, despite its importance for prospective engineers dealing with emerging technological developments. To address this gap and to sensitize and educate students about TA, a dedicated half-day training module on TA using the LEAD Factory was developed.

To operationalize TA for educational purposes, the training module follows the structured phases defined in VDI 3780: problem definition and structuring, impact analysis, evaluation, and decision-making (VDI 2000). This framework provides a clear methodological sequence that enables students to actively apply TA concepts within a limited time frame.

The intended learning outcomes for which the module was designed are that, after completing the module, students will be able to explain and discuss core concepts of TA, including:

In addition, one objective of the module, which reflects the characteristics of the LF, is for students to apply TA by working through all phases of a technology assessment, analyzing and evaluating impacts, and developing and communicating their own recommendations for action.

The module was initially conducted in March 2025 as part of a four-day course with 16 students, mostly enrolled in mechanical engineering study programs at the master’s level. Given the already mentioned absence of a dedicated TA course prior knowledge on the topic among participants can largely be ruled out. Furthermore, students were not informed in advance (nor in the course description) that TA would be part of the class, to avoid any kind of self-selection.

The primary document for the syllabus, as with other university courses in German-speaking countries (Gottschick and Schäfers 2012, p. 142; Kattwinkel et al. 2021, p. 2864), is the VDI 3780 (VDI 2000). Moreover, the first part of the module utilizes the learning and teaching notes by Johri (2024). This educational material is appropriate both in content (covering the pros and cons of e‑scooters) and in terms of the educational level. It is intended for teaching engineering disciplines and focuses on competencies such as critical thinking and self-awareness within the context of sustainability. Additionally, this toolkit was marked by its up-to-date nature at the time the first course was held.

At the beginning of the training module, the flipped classroom approach was utilized. So, the students had to discover new content and material individually and before class; the class was dedicated to interactive activities. The day before, a homework assignment was distributed, which included the VDI 3780 as a reading assignment along with a video (PBS 2018). The students were also provided with supplementary materials (some of which are also recommended by Johri (2024)), including related press releases (Pyzyk 2019; Iannelli 2021; Stoyanov 2021; Delgado 2023) and scientific publications regarding urban mobility (Brunner et al. 2018; Aman et al. 2021; Schoklitsch 2023) or directly linked to the LEAD Factory (Auberger et al. 2019). The participants were informed that they should prepare themselves to (1) being able to explain the concept of TAs, and (2) being prepared for carrying out a TA via group work.

The in-class session on the following day began with students discussing some questions with their neighbors (e.g., “Can you confidently say that e‑scooters are an environmentally friendly option?”, “Would you produce e‑scooters in the LEAD Factory? Why?”). The opinions and insights were then briefly summarized in a whole-class debate. This was followed by a knowledge check (e.g., regarding purpose, value, and types of TAs) lasting about fifteen minutes, also in the style of a class forum. At the end of this theoretical part, some recent research findings (Mayntz 2014; Parolin et al. 2024) as well as pitfalls and criticisms with regard to TAs were addressed.

The LEAD Factory was then employed as a reference point for the practical exercise. Participants were asked to form three groups and conduct a TA for a technology of their choice. In addition to high-level considerations (i.e., city, region/state, country, world), the LEAD Factory should also be central to the TA. The groups also had to agree on one of the previously discussed TA types (problem-induced vs. technology-induced) as well as on the objectives. Subsequently, all phases of the TA according to VDI 3780 had to be worked through and at least one of the proposed methods (e.g., scoring method) had to be applied. Finally, the groups were to explain their results in a short presentation (seven minutes maximum), where the problem is clearly defined and the technology described. A particular focus should be on the affected parties. Assumptions, methods, alternatives, and especially actionable recommendations need to be sufficiently presented.

In this specific class, the groups decided to asses:

In addition to the required results (i.a. each group managed to specify the seven values mentioned in VDI 3780), also further outcomes such as a cost-benefit-analysis or an implementation plan were created.

While each group presented their results, the members of the other two groups provided anonymous feedback. The associated evaluation sheet included two text fields for comments (“What did you like? Which aspects/perspectives have you not considered before?”; “Where is the TA lacking? Missed but relevant aspects/perspectives?”) along with a 5-point Likert scale to rate four specific aspects (problem definition, impact analyses/evaluation, decisions/results, and creativity).

In addition, the quality of the training module itself was extensively evaluated. Therefore, a two-page training experience questionnaire based on Brent and Felder (2004) was used to gather quantitative (Fig. 2) as well as qualitative feedback from the participants. The statistical analysis suggests that the used examples have room for improvement. The incorporation of the flipped classroom concept and the LEAD Factory was generally rated positively.

Students identified the introduction to TA and the hands-on group work as the most valuable parts of the module. The question regarding the suitability of a LF (“Do you think that other training formats such as lectures, role plays, games are just as good or even better suited to teaching the content of TA?”) was answered inconsistently: About half of the students were satisfied with the format, while the others assume that alternative formats could be just as effective.

There were also some critical remarks. For instance, the reading assignments were perceived as too extensive and “a bit tedious”. A number of participants also would have preferred a more complete example of a TA (“More upfront examples”, “Do a simple TA all together”).

The overall course rating was 4.8 out of 5, which is similarly good as in previous years (Ramsauer et al. 2024b). On this occasion, one participant stated that the TA section should be given greater emphasis in future, while another stated that it should be omitted. In addition, two participants stated that the theoretical input on TA could be improved.