2.1. Competency-based and Adaptive learning

Competency-based education (CBE) emphasises the integration of conceptual understanding, procedural skills, and professional judgement into demonstrable abilities (Reference ErautEraut, 1994; Reference IllerisIlleris, 2007). In the context of CAD/PLM training, this approach highlights the importance of learning activities that link software functions to meaningful engineering tasks.

Reference KolbKolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle offers an additional perspective: learners progress through concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation. When applied to digital design tools, this involves modelling realistic components, analysing the outcomes of actions and iteratively refining strategies.

Furthermore, Reference ErautEraut (1994, Reference Eraut2000) emphasises that much professional learning occurs informally through guided participation, feedback and workplace practice. Reference IllerisIlleris (2007) builds on this by demonstrating how the cognitive, social and emotional dimensions interact during the development of skills.

Together, these frameworks suggest that effective CAD/PLM training should be flexible, context-specific and practical. Rather than following fixed lesson sequences, learners should be given the opportunity to progress at their own pace, reflect on complex workflows and integrate new competencies into real-world situations.

2.2. Procedural knowledge and situated learning in design practice

A critical dimension of engineering expertise is procedural knowledge, which is defined as the know how embedded in actions and methods rather than declarative descriptions (Reference AndersonAnderson, 1982). In CAD/PLM environments, procedural competence includes modelling strategies, naming conventions and workflow coordination. These routines form the backbone of design consistency and interoperability. However, this knowledge is rarely explicit, often being transmitted through mentoring, shared artefacts and societal interaction (Reference ErautEraut, 2000).

Adopting the situated learning perspective proposed by Reference Lave and WengerLave and Wenger (1991), learning occurs through participation in a community of practice. Rather than learning through abstract instruction, newcomers learn by engaging with authentic tasks under the guidance of experts. In the context of CAD/PLM transitions, for example, designers acquire competence by working on real models, observing expert practices and progressively taking responsibility for processes. Consequently, learning becomes inseparable from the professional context in which it occurs.

2.3. Guidelines as mediating artefacts in learning and standardisation

From a socio-cultural perspective, Reference VygotskyVygotsky’s (1978) concept of ‘mediating artefacts’ refers to tools and symbols that facilitate interaction between individual cognition and collective activity. In engineering design, guidelines fulfil this role by making tacit knowledge explicit, codifying shared conventions, and providing a structured reference for design procedures.

As boundary objects, they help to align diverse professional groups, such as engineers, managers, IT specialists and educators, by offering a common framework for interpreting modelling practices. This is particularly important in globally distributed organisations, where shared guidelines minimise ambiguity, reduce inconsistent interpretations and support coordinated work in multicultural, multilingual teams.

In learning contexts, these artefacts guide learners as they explore new software, helping them connect the functionalities of the tools with established engineering practices. Their dual role as standardisation instruments and cognitive supports makes them invaluable for training key users during software transitions. As such, guidelines can be assessed not only by learning outcomes, but also by how widely they are adopted and reused, and the role they play in fostering collective practice.

2.4. Integrative perspective

Combining these theories suggests that successful learning during software transitions depends on aligning competency-based objectives, situated practice and mediating artefacts. Guideline-based training offers a practical approach to achieving this alignment by structuring experiential learning (Reference KolbKolb, 1984), facilitating workplace adaptation (Reference ErautEraut, 1994) and encouraging reflection-in-action via shared artefacts (Reference VygotskyVygotsky, 1978). This integrated framework forms the basis of the case study presented in the next section, which looks at how key users developed procedural and adaptive competencies through guideline-centred instruction during a CAD/PLM transition.

3.1. Context of the software transition

The study was conducted within a global company that operates in the food, beverage, and pharmaceutical industries. The organisation initiated a worldwide transition to a new, integrated CAD/PLM environment to improve interoperability between design and data management systems, as well as benefit from the unified support provided by a single software vendor.

This transition necessitated the redefinition of modelling practices and the adoption of a consistent approach to product data management across multiple regions. As the deployment affected design teams on different continents, it was essential to achieve consistent standards and shared workflows. Key users, experienced designers recognised for their expertise in specific domains, were therefore identified as central contributors. Their responsibilities included drafting guideline content within their area of expertise, validating methodological choices, and ensuring that the new practices could be transferred across global teams.

3.2. Collaborative and participatory development of the guidelines

It should be noted that, when the guidelines were drafted, the systems had not yet been fully implemented. This means that certain issues could be discussed during the drafting process, and those issues would then be addressed in the guidelines and adopted for implementation.

The development of the guidelines followed a structured and iterative process involving close collaboration between the company’s internal project team and an external consulting group specialising in CAD/PLM consulting, training and e-learning. Initially, the internal project lead proposed a list of themes, each of which would correspond to a future guideline. These themes covered the CAD and PLM domains, as well as several cross-disciplinary topics that bridged both areas. Preliminary objectives were then outlined for each theme to clarify the intended scope and expected outcomes.

In a subsequent phase, this list was jointly reviewed with the external consulting team. Drawing on their extensive experience in industrial training and software implementation, the consultants suggested adjustments and refinements. The final set of topics therefore addressed both technical aspects, such as modelling conventions, feature structures and data management, and organisational dimensions, including workflow coordination, version control and inter-departmental communication.

The external team then prepared an initial version of each guideline, which was first discussed with the key user or users responsible for the relevant topic. During these discussions, the key users were able to benefit from the editorial team’s expertise. The editorial team’s prior involvement in similar projects meant they could provide relevant examples and best practices to facilitate software adoption and cross-site collaboration.

These discussion meetings also ensured that the proposed procedures were compatible with local working practices and the range of products. They fostered a participatory learning environment, turning the guidelines into living documents rather than top-down instructions. Through dialogue and negotiation, key users provided examples from their day-to-day work, identified ambiguous cases and confirmed the relevance of the recommendations.

Once the initial drafts had been validated, the guidelines were distributed to all key users for review. Feedback and improvement suggestions were collected and consolidated through several rounds of exchanges between the editorial team and the contributing and responsible key users. This iterative review process resulted in documents that combined the precision of formal guidelines with the contextual sensitivity of operating procedures. These documents served as both reference standards and learning artefacts, striking a crucial balance between strict standardisation, which would have limited flexibility, and purely descriptive procedures, which would not have ensured coherence across the organisation.

The process concluded with a plenary session involving all key users, the external editorial team and the internal project team leaders. This meeting was held to finalise the content, resolve any remaining ambiguities and formally adopt the guideline versions to be made available across the organisation.

Figure 1 illustrates the structured workflow of the guideline development process. It outlines the successive phases, from theme definition to final adoption, and shows how the different teams are involved at each stage. This workflow provides a structural reference for the collaborative and participatory process described earlier, in which the content of the guidelines was progressively defined, drafted, reviewed and validated through the coordinated contributions of the various stakeholder groups.

Figure 1.

Workflow of the collaborative guideline development process

3.3. Methodological approach

This study can be characterised as having an action-oriented design research methodological orientation (Reference Blessing and ChakrabartiBlessing & Chakrabarti, 2009; Reference WieringaWieringa, 2014). Rather than testing hypotheses in isolation, this approach examined the processes of learning and knowledge construction as they unfolded during implementation. Data were gathered through project documentation, meeting notes, participant observations and informal interviews with members of the key user network and the drafting team. Qualitative analysis focussed on how the creation and discussion of guidelines contributed to the development of competence, the establishment of a shared understanding, and the alignment of design practices.

This methodological framework enabled the study to capture both the organisational dimension of the transition, namely collaboration between internal and external stakeholders, and the pedagogical dimension, as in learning through artefact creation and negotiation. The next section describes how the guideline-based training was implemented in practice and its impact on the learning experience of key users.

3.4. Data collection and evaluation criteria

The guideline-based training was evaluated using qualitative and descriptive indicators collected during the implementation phase. Data sources included:

• • Structured feedback provided by key users during guideline review cycles;

• • Observations recorded during online workshops and review meetings;

• • Documented revisions of guideline content resulting from some user feedback;

• • Comparative reflections reported by participants based on previous software transition using a different training approach.

A total of twelve (12) key users from business units in four (4) different countries and three different continents participated actively in the evaluation process. Two (2) members of the internal project team provides additional feedback during the guideline review cycles. The remaining nine (9) members of the editorial team – those who did not prepare the discussed guideline – took part in discussions during online workshops and review meetings, proposing suggestions based on their experience of other projects. Feedback was collected continuously over a three-month period and included both positive assessments and critical remarks. Although the study did not aim to produce statistically generalisable results, triangulation of multiple data sources enabled robust interpretation of the perceived cognitive, operational and organisational effects.

4.1. Training structure and process

The training was conducted entirely online to accommodate the company’s geographically dispersed teams. Each key user received access to the full set of guidelines and was invited to study them progressively for three months. Rather than following a predefined sequence, users could determine their own order of study depending on their business unit’s priorities and the design topics most relevant to their work. This flexible structure reflects the project’s adaptive learning philosophy (Reference IllerisIlleris, 2007) and the principles of adult self-directed learning (Reference Knowles, Holton, Robinson and SwansonKnowles et al., 2020). It promotes autonomy and ownership of the learning process.

During this period, each key user was instructed to apply the content of every guideline to at least one example from their own work, typically an existing model, assembly or workflow used in current projects. As the key users had simultaneous access to the existing software systems and the forthcoming CAD/PLM platform, they could compare the two directly and assess how well the proposed recommendations aligned with real design needs. This approach embodied Reference KolbKolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle, encouraging cycles of experimentation and reflection within authentic work contexts.

4.2. Integration of guidelines in daily practice

The guidelines acted as mediating artefacts (Reference VygotskyVygotsky, 1978) connecting conceptual understanding with procedural performance. Rather than being conceived as prescriptive rules, they were seen as reference frameworks to be tested, adapted and discussed. By applying them to specific design tasks, users transformed written standards into practical knowledge. This process mirrored the situated learning dynamic described by Reference Lave and WengerLave and Wenger (1991) and elaborated upon through the notion of communities of practice (Reference WengerWenger, 1998), whereby knowledge develops through legitimate participation and social negotiation.

Testing the guidelines in a real work environment had two benefits: it validated the technical feasibility of the proposed specifications and revealed inconsistencies or ambiguities that might not emerge during a traditional training session. Thus, the learning and standardisation processes became intertwined; learning served to refine the guidelines and the guidelines structured the learning (Reference TynjäläTynjälä, 2008).

4.3. Feedback and iterative improvement

To facilitate ongoing communication, a dedicated email address was set up where participants could submit their comments, questions and suggestions for improvements. Messages sent to this address were received by both the internal project leaders and the external editorial team, enabling prompt and coordinated responses. The feedback covered a wide range of topics.

Based on this ‘feedback’, the editorial team revised several guidelines to better reflect the working practices observed during the testing phase. Once the updated versions had been distributed, key users expressed high levels of satisfaction, noting that the guidelines had helped them to maintain a familiar workflow dynamic while improving data consistency and modelling quality. Overall, the outcome confirmed the value of collaborative revision as a mechanism for collective learning and organisational adaptation (Reference ErautEraut, 2000).

4.4. Structure and examples of guidelines

Each guideline document begins with a front cover, followed by an introductory page providing essential contextual and administrative information (see Figure 2). This page includes the title of the guideline, its version number, the date of the last review, the accountable manager, the owner and the scope of application. By clearly identifying responsibilities and applicability, the guideline establishes itself as a controlled and maintained reference document. A short purpose statement summarises the intent of the guideline and the design or workflow issue it addresses, enabling users to swiftly determine its relevance before consulting the detailed content.

Figure 2.

Example of a guideline introductory page (Hidden information is deliberately concealed.)

Figure 3 illustrates the variability of guideline content, combining three (3) representative examples. Some guidelines are intentionally concise, addressing a narrowly defined topic and providing targeted recommendations for quick reference during daily work. Others are more extensive, covering broader engineering domains and structuring their content into multiple chapters ranging from fundamental principles to detailed implementation aspects. A third category focusses on workflows and usage, combining steps, responsibilities, and interactions between CAD and PLM. All guidelines follow a common logic, regardless of their length or structure. This allows them to function as learning and standardisation resources while remaining adaptable to the complexity of the topic.

Figure 3.

Examples of guideline structures illustrating variability in scope, length, and content

4.5. Transition to broader learning phases

Following the completion of the initial phase, the key users, who were now equipped with validated practices and a deeper understanding of procedures, were established as multipliers within their respective teams. Their role shifted from that of learners to facilitators of learning, supporting the adoption of the new systems by end users. A subsequent phase of the programme involved providing structured training sessions for the wider user base, building on the experiences and materials developed during the initial phase with the key users (Reference Ngahane Nana, Arslan, Adamczyk, Bahcaci, Cobanoglu and SalianNgahane Nana et al., 2026).

The next section presents the results of this training phase, focussing on observable outcomes in terms of skill acquisition, data consistency and the development of a shared modelling culture across the organisation.