ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Original Satement (version 2018)Proposed amendments / additions (for version 2024)Remarks
2
DocumentPageNo-DocumentPageNo
3
N/AN/A-000 Part 1iDate: 30 December 2010 (2nd Version 12 July 2018) (3rd Version xxxxx 2024)Addition
4
-iiTable Of Contents
5
-iii - ixGlossary Of Key Terms For Engineering Education Accreditation
6
Organizational Acronyms
7
xIER - The Institution of Engineers, Rwanda
8
xiENZ - Engineering New Zealand (formerly known as IPENZ, Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand)
9
10
21ACCREDITATION CRITERIA TEMPLATE FOR ACCREDITATION AGENCIES000 Part 211.0THE FEIAP ENGINEERING EDUCATION ACCREDITATION SYSTEM MODEL FRAMEWORK FOR ENGINEERS
11
The FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers incorporate a model framework for the accreditation system and are adaptive to the needs of member economies. The Engineering Education Model framework for engineers will guide the development of an engineering program accreditation system that focuses on delivering assured engineering graduate outcomes appropriate to a particular economy at a particular stage in development. The following phased development sequence is projected:
- Engineering graduate capabilities appropriate to a period of ‘nation building’;
- Engineering Graduate capabilities benchmarked against FEIAP Education Guidelines for Engineer or Washington Accord under the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) or other equivalent systems.

The FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineers will guide the development of accreditation system documentation such as an engineering graduate outcomes specification; specific accreditation criteria and associated performance indicators and expectations; self-review submission requirements, accreditation processes and governance.
12
21.1Graduate Outcomes Specification11.1Graduate Outcomes Specification
13
2Para 1
Engineering involves the application of mathematics, natural and physical sciences, and a substantive body of knowledge to the solution of complex problems within broad and often uncertain contexts. Engineering practice needs to be carried out responsibly and ethically, manage risks and be accountable for the entire life cycle of a solution and its effects. Engineering practice must consider economic, public health, safety, legal, social, environment and sustainability factors and engineering practitioners must have the skills and attributes to communicate and work in teams with professionals in wide ranging fields.
1Para 1
Engineering involves the application of mathematics, natural and physical sciences, and a substantive body of knowledge to the solution of complex problems within broad and often uncertain contexts. Engineering practice needs to be carried out responsibly and ethically, manage risks and be accountable for the entire life cycle of a solution and its effects. Engineering practice must consider economic, public health, safety, legal, social, environmental and sustainability factors and engineering practitioners must have the skills and attributes to communicate and work in teams with professionals in wide-ranging fields.
14
2Para 2
Engineering practice skills and knowledge development is a lifelong process, and begins very much with a foundation education qualification. The fundamental purpose of this educational foundation is to build knowledge capabilities, attributes, skills and values which equip the graduate for entry to practice in the career category of engineer. The second stage of formative development occurs as the new graduate works for a period of time, under supervision as a member of the engineering team, and develops the mature competencies for independent practice and registration as an engineer.		1Para 2
Engineering practice skills and knowledge development is a lifelong process, and begins very much with a foundation education qualification. The fundamental purpose of this educational foundation is to build knowledge capabilities, attributes, skills and values which equip the graduate for entry to practice in the career category of engineer. The second stage of formative development occurs as the new engineering graduate works for a while under supervision as a member of the engineering team and develops the mature competencies for independent practice and registration as an engineer. In parallel with continuing professional development, the foundation education qualification provides the required educational basis for independent practice and registration.
15
2Para 3
The prime objective of an accreditation system is to evaluate the educational experiences and assessment processes being provided in the foundation education program, and to pass judgment on the appropriateness and quality of the graduate outcomes that are projected as a consequence of the educational experiences. Outcomes-based accreditation criteria will address wide ranging factors that influence the standard of graduate outcomes, and these will include inputs and processes, as well as direct observation of certain outcomes.		1/2Para 3
The prime objective of an accreditation system is to evaluate the engineering educational experiences and assessment processes being provided in the foundation engineering education program, and to pass judgment on the appropriateness and quality of the engineering graduate outcomes that are projected as a consequence of the engineering educational experiences. Outcomes-based accreditation criteria will address wide-ranging factors that influence the standard of engineering graduate outcomes, and these will include inputs and processes, as well as direct observation of certain outcomes.
16
2Para 4
To facilitate such an evaluation it is critical that the accreditation body is able to provide a benchmark statement of expected graduate outcomes in the particular career category. Such a statement will provide a key reference for both education developers as well as those involved in developing and implementing the accreditation criteria and processes. The benchmark statement of expected graduate outcomes will most certainly comprise a generic component that is applicable to all fields of practice. It may well also provide some discipline specific graduate outcome guidelines which address the underpinning skills and knowledge, specialist technical competence and engineering application abilities within designated fields of practice. This level of detail in the outcomes specification is more likely however to be the responsibility of the educational provider in consultation with stakeholders, as the educational design process unfolds for a particular program within a nominated discipline.		2Para 4
To facilitate such an evaluation the Engineering Education Accreditation Body must be able to provide a benchmark statement of expected engineering graduate outcomes in the particular career category. Such a statement will provide a key reference for both engineering education developers as well as those involved in developing and implementing the accreditation criteria and processes. The benchmark statement of expected engineering graduate outcomes will most certainly comprise a generic component that is applies to all fields of practice. It may well also provide some discipline-specific graduate outcome guidelines which address the underpinning skills and knowledge, specialist technical competence and engineering application abilities within designated fields of practice. This level of detail in the outcomes specification is more likely however to be the responsibility of the engineering educational provider in consultation with stakeholders, as the educational design process unfolds for a particular engineering program within a nominated discipline.
17
2Para 5
Any foundation education program must be based on a defined graduate outcomes specification that sets out the capability targets for graduates in the particular career category as clear, succinct, assessable statements that cover underpinning knowledge and skills, technical competencies, engineering application capability as well as personal and professional attributes, capabilities, values and attitudes. Such a specification for an individual education program must be demonstrably compliant with the corresponding benchmark statement of graduate outcomes set out by the accreditation body if the program is to be considered for accreditation within the economy of the accreditation body. The benchmark statement of graduate outcomes set by the accreditation body thus drives the processes of educational design and program accreditation.		2Para 5
Any foundation engineering education program must be based on a defined graduate outcomes specification that sets out the capability targets for engineering graduates in the particular career category as clear, succinct, assessable statements that cover underpinning knowledge and skills, technical competencies, engineering application capability as well as personal and professional attributes, capabilities, values and attitudes. Such a specification for an individual education program must be demonstrably compliant with the corresponding benchmark statement of engineering graduate outcomes set out by the engineering education accreditation body if the program is to be considered for accreditation within the economy economies of the engineering education accreditation body. The benchmark statement of engineering graduate outcomes set by the engineering education accreditation body thus drives the processes of educational design and program accreditation.
18
3Para 6
In order to ensure the substantial equivalence of graduates from programs which arise across the boundaries of accreditation economies, it is essential that the benchmark statements of graduate outcome expectations set up by various accreditation bodies satisfy a common point of reference or standard. To help facilitate this, the Educational Accords under the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) have published a Graduate Attributes Exemplar Statement for Engineer (Appendix 1). These Statements set out a generic knowledge profile as well as generic attributes which are expected to characterise graduates within a particular career category. The Exemplar Statements provide a template or framework for Education Accord signatories as they in turn establish localised benchmark statements of graduate outcome expectations. The Exemplar Statements thus assist in achieving substantial equivalence of graduate outcome expectations across education programs and across accreditation economies. The economy’s benchmark statement of outcomes is naturally tuned to the needs of engineering practice within the geographic economy of the Accord signatory, and subsequently provides a framework for education providers as they devise the detailed specification of graduate outcomes for an engineering education program in any particular discipline.		2Para 6
To ensure the substantial equivalence of engineering graduates from engineering programs which arise across the boundaries of accreditation economies, the benchmark statements of engineering graduate outcome expectations set up by various engineering education accreditation bodies satisfy a common point of reference or standard. To help facilitate this, the Washington Accord under the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) has published a Graduate Attributes & Professional Competencies Version 4: 21 June 2021 (Appendix 1). This document sets out a generic knowledge profile as well as generic attributes which are expected to characterise engineering graduates within a particular career category. The document provides a template or framework for Engineering Education Accord signatories as they in turn establish localised benchmark statements of engineering graduate outcome expectations. The document thus assists in achieving substantial equivalence of engineering graduate outcome expectations across education programs and across accreditation economies. The economy’s benchmark statement of outcomes is naturally tuned to the needs of engineering practice within the geographic economy of the Accord signatory and subsequently provides a framework for engineering education providers as they devise the detailed specification of graduate outcomes for an engineering education program in any particular engineering discipline.
19
3Para 7
The Graduate Attributes Exemplar Statements for Engineer published under the IEA are commended as a useful guideline reference for established and emerging accreditation bodies within FEIAP. These Statements provide a generic standard for the knowledge profile and the attributes against which graduates must be able to perform. Each Exemplar Statement is generic in nature and so is universally applicable to all engineering disciplines. Each knowledge and attribute element has a common stem with separate range qualifiers set out to identify the appropriate outcomes for engineer. The range qualifiers differentiate the nature of problem solving and engineering activities in each of these career categories. The International Engineering Alliance has published a companion Exemplar Statement for the mature practitioner in each career category, to assist with the achievement of substantial equivalence within the registration/licensing process. These Statements are each titled – ‘Professional Competency Profile’ and each mirrors the corresponding ‘Graduate Attributes Exemplar’ in the particular career category.		3Para 7
The IEA Graduate Attributes & Professional Version 4 is commended as a useful reference for established and emerging accreditation bodies within FEIAP. This document provides a generic standard for the knowledge profile and the attributes against which engineering graduates must be able to perform. Each Exemplar Statement is generic in nature and so is universally applicable to all engineering disciplines. Each knowledge and attribute element has a common stem with separate range qualifiers set out to identify the appropriate outcomes for engineer. The International Engineering Alliance has published a companion Exemplar Statement for the mature practitioner, to assist with the achievement of substantial equivalence within the registration/licensing process. This Statement is titled – ‘Professional Competency Profile’ and mirrors the corresponding ‘Graduate Attributes Exemplar’.
20
4The specification of graduate outcomes is thus formalised at three levels as shown in the Figure 1.1. 3Replaced table
21
51.2Accreditation Criteria31.2Accreditation Criteria
22
5Para 1
An outcomes-based accreditation system must evaluate the educational experiences and assessment processes set out in the foundation education program, and pass judgment on the appropriateness and quality of the graduate outcomes that are projected as a consequence of the educational experiences. Such an evaluation needs to be systematic and referenced to clearly defined criteria which address wide ranging factors that influence the standard of graduate outcomes. An outcomes-based evaluation will require a holistic judgment of overall performance against the accreditation criteria.		3Para 1
An outcomes-based accreditation system must evaluate the educational experiences and assessment processes set out in the foundation engineering education program, and pass judgment on the appropriateness and quality of the engineering graduate outcomes that are projected as a consequence of the educational experiences.
23
4Para 2
Such an evaluation needs to be systematic and referenced to clearly defined criteria which address wide-ranging factors that influence the standard of engineering graduate outcomes. An outcomes-based evaluation will require a holistic judgment of overall performance against the accreditation criteria.
24
5Para 2
Many of the elements of the evaluation will be subjective in nature. By definition, the process cannot be distilled down to simple objective measures testing compliance against prescribed requirement thresholds. The task is to consider inputs and processes as well as some outcome observations as collective data for predicting the satisfactory attainment of prescribed graduate outcomes.		4Para 3
Many of the elements of the evaluation will be subjective. By definition, the process cannot be distilled down to simple objective measures testing compliance against prescribed requirement thresholds. The task is to consider inputs and processes as well as some outcome observations as collective data for predicting the satisfactory attainment of prescribed graduate outcomes.
25
5Para 3
A core requirement is for the education provider, to establish the program objectives and to develop a specification of targeted graduate outcomes, covering generic and discipline specific capabilities, knowledge, skills, attributes and values for each program under consideration. The determination of this specification should be undertaken in conjunction with industry stakeholders and should drive the educational design phase, where the learning outcomes from individual activities or program modules systematically aggregate to deliver the targeted graduate outcomes. Individual assessment tasks undertaken throughout the study program need to systematically map against the delivery of the individual elements within the graduate outcomes specification. This then provides a fundamental reference for systematically tracking attainment of outcomes in each individual graduate.		4Para 4
A core requirement is for the engineering education provider, to establish the engineering program objectives and to develop a specification of targeted graduate outcomes, covering generic and discipline specific capabilities, knowledge, skills, attributes and values for each program under consideration. The determination of this specification should be undertaken in conjunction with industry stakeholders and should drive the engineering educational design phase, where the learning outcomes from individual activities or program modules systematically aggregate to deliver the targeted graduate outcomes. Individual assessment tasks undertaken throughout the study program need to systematically map against the delivery of the individual elements within the graduate outcomes specification. This then provides a fundamental reference for systematically tracking attainment of outcomes in each engineering graduate.
26
5Para 4
The publication of clear accreditation criteria is an essential foundation for an outcomes-based accreditation system. The criteria must evaluate, rather than prescribe – curriculum, educational methodology, policies, processes and practices. The criteria must be widely understood, be evident from first principles, informed by stakeholders and maintained against international benchmarks. There must be an underlying quality cycle to ensure consistency and fairness, as well as closure of the loop on accreditation processes and practices. Evaluation processes must be documented and auditable.		4Para 5
The publication of clear accreditation criteria is an essential foundation for an outcomes-based accreditation system. The criteria must evaluate, rather than prescribe – curriculum, educational methodology, policies, processes and practices. The criteria must be widely understood, be evident from first principles, be informed by stakeholders and be maintained against international benchmarks. There must be an underlying quality cycle to ensure consistency and fairness, as well as closure of the loop on accreditation processes and practices. Evaluation processes must be documented and auditable.
27
5Para 5
Educational providers must be required to have in place their own systems for educational development, industry engagement, determining performance measures and for continuing quality improvement.		4Para 6
Engineering educational providers must be required to have in place their own systems for educational development, industry engagement, determining performance measures and for continuing quality improvement.
28
5Para 6
The accreditation criteria must identify the key factors that will influence the delivery of appropriate graduate outcomes. A graduate outcomes benchmark reference is the key basis for the criteria and provides a generic template for educational providers to establish the detailed, customised specification of graduate outcomes that underpin each individual program.		4Para 7
The accreditation criteria must identify the key factors that will influence the delivery of appropriate engineering graduate outcomes. An engineering graduate outcomes benchmark reference is the key basis for the criteria and provides a generic template for engineering educational providers to establish the detailed, customised specification of engineering graduate outcomes that underpin each program.
29
5Para 7
Outcomes-based accreditation criteria accommodate innovation and diversity in educational design and in learning and assessment processes, but ensure graduates are equipped with a comprehensive specification of knowledge, capabilities, attributes, skills and values.		4Para 8
Outcomes-based accreditation criteria accommodate innovation and diversity in educational design and in learning and assessment processes but ensure engineering graduates are equipped with a comprehensive specification of knowledge, capabilities, attributes, skills and values.
30
6Para 8
Accreditation criteria must under all circumstances embrace:

• the educational environment;
• the program outcomes specification, educational design, structure, content and assessment processes;
• the underpinning quality systems.		4/5Para 9
No changes
31
6Para 9
FEIAP has published model criteria as a resource for member economies embarking on the development of an outcome based accreditation system. This model will include sample performance indicators and guideline material. 		5Para 10
FEIAP has published FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Criteria as a resource for member economies embarking on the development of an outcome-based accreditation system. This model will include sample performance indicators and guideline material.
32
6Para 10
As a guide, the three aspects of the accreditation criteria could contain elements such as those listed below.

EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT:
- Organisational and management structure – commitment to engineering education;
- Faculty and support staff profile;
- Academic leadership and educational culture; faculty engagement with outcomes-based educational design and delivery;
- Facilities and physical resources;
- Funding model;
- Strategic management of student profile.

PROGRAM DESIGN, STRUCTURE, CONTENT AND ASSESSMENT PROCESSES:
- Specification of program objectives and educational outcomes and compatibility with the graduate outcomes benchmark reference template defined within the accreditation system;
- Program title consistent with objectives and designated graduate outcomes;
- Mapping of learning design and assessment processes against delivery of specified graduate outcomes;
- Compliance with any program structural requirements or discipline-specific templates;
- Tracking individual student performance against graduate outcomes;
- Exposure of students to professional engineering practice, sustainability and good governance.

QUALITY SYSTEMS:
- Quality Policy ensuring commitment to the Quality Systems;
- Engagement with external constituencies – input to setting reviewing and assessing attainment of graduate outcomes;
- Feedback and stakeholder input to continuous improvement cycle;
- Processes for setting and reviewing objectives and the graduate outcomes specification;
- Approach to educational design and review;
- Approach to assessment and performance evaluation;
- Benchmarking practices;
- Governance processes and structure;
- Student administration systems. 		5Para 11
As a guide, the three aspects of the accreditation criteria could contain elements such as those listed below.

EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT:
No change

PROGRAM DESIGN, STRUCTURE, CONTENT AND ASSESSMENT PROCESSES:
- Specification of program objectives and educational outcomes and compatibility with the graduate outcomes benchmark reference template defined within the accreditation system;
- Program title consistent with objectives and designated graduate outcomes;
- Mapping of learning design and assessment processes against delivery of specified graduate outcomes;
- Compliance with any program structural requirements or discipline-specific templates;
- Tracking individual student performance against graduate outcomes;
- Exposure of students to professional engineering practice, ethics, sustainability and governance.

QUALITY SYSTEMS:
No change
33
72.0THE ACCREDITATION SYSTEM MODEL FRAMEWORK2.0Item 2.0 removed
34
72.12.1Item 2.1 removed
35
92.22.2Item 2.2 removed
36
112.3Accreditation Process61.3Accreditation Process
37
11The accreditation body must publish appropriate policies and procedures to provide clear and sufficient information as guidance for programs seeking accreditation. These policies and procedures should include at least the following elements:6The Engineering Education Accreditation Body The accreditation body must publish appropriate policies and procedures to provide clear and sufficient information as guidance for programs seeking accreditation. These policies and procedures should include at least the following elements:
38
11(1) Documents to be provided by programs
The accreditation body must require programs seeking accreditation to conduct and a full self-review process and submit a report documenting outcomes of the self-review. The self-review process must answer whether the program fulfils requirements set out by the accreditation body. Specifically, the program must provide sufficient evidence, through appropriate and diverse assessment means, to demonstrate that it fulfils the accreditation body’s requirement on graduate outcomes. The accreditation team will deliver preliminary findings from reviewing the report and verify their findings through the accreditation visit. The self-review submission must include the following:		6(1) Documents to be provided by engineering programs
The Engineering Education Accreditation Body must require engineering programs seeking accreditation to conduct a full self-review process and submit a report documenting the outcomes of the self-review. The self-review process must answer whether the engineering program fulfils the requirements set out by the accreditation body. Specifically, the engineering program must provide sufficient evidence, through appropriate and diverse assessment means, to demonstrate that it fulfils the accreditation body’s requirement on engineering graduate outcomes. The accreditation team will deliver preliminary findings from reviewing the report and verify their findings through the accreditation visit.
39
11/12(2) Composition of accreditation team
The accreditation team should consist of at least two persons, preferably more, representing a balance of relevant experience and expertise as well as employment orientation, academics or industry. All members of the accreditation must be sufficiently trained and competent for conducting the review process. Conflict of interest is a critical issue in the accreditation process and must be taken into account in assembling the accreditation team. Each member of the accreditation team must submit a statement indicating partiality prior to his/her nomination		6(2) Composition of accreditation team
The engineering education accreditation team should consist of at least two persons, preferably more, representing a balance of relevant experience and expertise as well as employment orientation, academics or industry. All members of the accreditation must be sufficiently trained and competent for conducting the review process. Conflict of interest is a critical issue in the accreditation process and must be taken into account in assembling the engineering education accreditation team. Each member of the accreditation team must submit a statement indicating partiality before his/her nomination.
40
12(3) Duration of accreditation visit
The accreditation visit should last at least two days to allow sufficient time for documentation review and the interviews.		6(3) Duration of accreditation visit
No Changes
41
13(4) Structure of the accreditation visit
The accreditation visit should include the following elements:
1. Preliminary meeting of the accreditation team prior to the visit to identify what information is to be obtained during the visit;
2. Meeting with educational institution’s administrators;
3. Meeting with head of program;
4. Meeting with academic staff members;
5. Meeting with support staff members;
6. Meeting with students;
7. Meeting with alumni;
8. Meeting with employers/industry/professional engineering organisation’s representatives;
9. Visit of facilities;
10. Review of project work, final papers and other documents (with regard to the standards and modes of assessment as well as to the learning outcomes of the students);
11. Feedback of the accreditation team at the end of the visit.		6/7(4) Structure of the accreditation visit
No Changes
42
12(5) Verification and validation of the report by the accreditation agency/commission
The accreditation body must provide a written report to the program at the conclusion of the accreditation process. This report should state clearly the findings of the accreditation team in terms of concerns, weakness, and deficiency of the program. This information will not only support the delivery of accreditation decision but also directions for continuous improvement of the program.		7(5) Verification and validation of the report by the accreditation agency/commission
The engineering education accreditation body must provide a written report to the engineering program after of the accreditation process. This report should state clearly the findings of the accreditation team in terms of concerns, weakness, and deficiencies of the engineering education program. This information will not only support the delivery of accreditation decision but also directions for continuous improvement of the engineering education program.
43
12(6) Decision on accreditation
The accreditation body must have a fair process to deliver accreditation decisions. The decision-making process needs to be transparent and those who are involved in the process must make informed decisions based on findings of the accreditation teams. The accreditation decision must clearly define the period of validity (the duration of which should not exceed a maximum of six years) and whether it refers to year of entry or year of graduation. After the limited validity of the accreditation has expired, the program must be submitted for re-accreditation. The accreditation decisions must be communicated clearly in written statement to the program.		7(6) Decision on accreditation
The engineering education accreditation body must have a fair process to deliver accreditation decisions. The decision-making process needs to be transparent and those who are involved in the process must make informed decisions based on findings of the accreditation teams. The accreditation decision must clearly define the period of validity (the duration of which should not exceed a maximum of six years) and whether it refers to year of entry or year of graduation. After the limited validity of the accreditation has expired, the program must be submitted for re-accreditation. The accreditation decisions must be communicated clearly in written statement to the program.
44
12(7) Publication of accreditation decisions
The accreditation body must make the accreditation decisions available to the public, normally through publishing list of accredited programs on its website or on printed materials. Programs fail to received accredited status are normally not published.		7(7) Publication of accreditation decisions
The engineering education accreditation body must make the accreditation decisions available to the public, normally through publishing list of accredited engineering education programs on its website or on printed materials. Engineering education programs fail to received accredited status are normally not published.
45
138) Procedures of appeals
seeking accreditation when error in facts and/or error in procedures happen which causes the programs receive unfavorable decisions. Appropriate conflict of interest procedures must be considered during the appeal process.		78) Procedures of appeals
The engineering education accreditation body must have policies and procedures of appeals to ensure the rights of the engineering programs seeking accreditation when error in facts and/or error in procedures happen which causes the engineering programs receive unfavorable decisions. Appropriate conflict of interest procedures must be considered during the appeal process.
46
132.4Governance of the Accreditation Body71.4Governance of the Accreditation Body
47
13(1) Official Status
The accreditation body must be authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering community and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined economy (e.g. country, jurisdiction, geographical region).		7(1) Official Status
The engineering education accreditation body must be authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the engineering community and which have statutory powers or recognised professional authority for accrediting engineering programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for admission to practicing status (e.g. licensing, registration or certification) within a defined economy (e.g. country, jurisdiction, geographical region).
48
13(2) Mission Statement
The accreditation body must have clear and explicit goals and objectives for its work, contained in a publicly available statement. Specifically, the statement should declare that the accreditation process is a major activity of the accreditation body and that there exists a systematic approach to achieving its goals and objectives.		7/8(2) Mission Statement
The engineering education accreditation body must have clear and explicit goals and objectives for its work, contained in a publicly available statement. Specifically, the statement should declare that the accreditation process is a major activity of the engineering education accreditation body and that there exists a systematic approach to achieving its goals and objectives.
49
13(3) Activities
The accreditation body must undertake the accreditation activities (at program level) on a regular basis. It should declare the career categories associated with programs/qualifications (Engineer) and disciplines that are recognised (electrical, civil, chemical, mechanical, computing, etc.) as well as geographical bounds of accreditation activities. The accreditation body should also have effective process for the recruitment, selection, training & evaluation of program evaluators.		8(3) Activities
The engineering education accreditation body must undertake the accreditation activities (at the program level). regularly. It should declare the career categories associated with programs/qualifications (Engineer) and disciplines that are recognised (electrical, civil, chemical, mechanical, etc.) as well as geographical bounds of accreditation activities. The engineering education accreditation body should also have an effective process for the recruitment, selection, training & evaluation of program evaluators.
50
13(4) Resources
The accreditation body must have adequate and proportional resources, both human and financial, to enable planning, operation and development of the entire accreditation activities in an effective and efficient manner.		8(4) Resources
The engineering education accreditation body must have adequate and proportional resources, both human and financial, to enable the planning, operation and development of the entire engineering education accreditation activities effectively and efficiently.
51
13(5) Leadership and Management
The accreditation body must have sustainable leadership and management structure to provide confidence and accountability of its accreditation activities. Individuals who hold leadership and management roles must possess credentials and expertise in relevant disciplines. The accreditation body should exercise in accordance with appropriate governance policies during leadership and management changes to enable stability at all times.		8(5) Leadership and Management
The engineering education accreditation body must have a sustainable leadership and management structure to provide confidence and accountability of for its accreditation activities. Individuals who hold leadership and management roles must possess credentials and expertise in relevant disciplines. The engineering education accreditation body should exercise by appropriate governance policies during leadership and management changes to enable stability at all times.
52
13(6) Independence
The accreditation body must be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for its operations and that the accreditation decisions it made cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries, legislatures, or other stakeholders.		8(6) Independence
The engineering education accreditation body must be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for its operations and that the accreditation decisions it makes cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries, legislatures, or other stakeholders.
53
13/14(7) Accountability and Integrity
The accreditation body should have in place procedures for its own accountability and to maintain its integrity. These procedures enable the accreditation body to operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics, and objectivity. Specifically,

1. The accreditation body has in place, and enforces, a non-conflict-of-interest mechanism that governs the work of its staff and its evaluators;

2. The accreditation body has in place internal quality assurance procedures which include an internal feedback mechanism (i.e. means to collect feedback from its own staff and council/board); an internal reflection mechanism (i.e. means to react to internal and external recommendations for improvement); and an external feedback mechanism (i.e. means to collect feedback from experts and reviewed institutions for future development) in order to inform and underpin its own development and improvement.

3. A mandatory cyclical external review of the agency’s activities at least once every five or six years.		8(7) Accountability and Integrity
The engineering education accreditation body should have in place procedures for its accountability and to maintain its integrity. These procedures enable the engineering education accreditation body to operate at all times by high standards of professionalism, ethics, and objectivity. Specifically,

1.The engineering education accreditation body has in place, and enforces, a non-conflict-of-interest mechanism that governs the work of its staff and its evaluators;

2. The engineering education accreditation body has in place internal quality assurance procedures which include an internal feedback mechanism (i.e. means to collect feedback from its own staff and council/board); an internal reflection mechanism (i.e. means to react to internal and external recommendations for improvement); and an external feedback mechanism (i.e. means to collect feedback from experts and reviewed institutions for future development) in order to inform and underpin its own development and improvement.

3. A mandatory cyclical external review of the agency’s activities at least once every five or six years.
54
153.0MENTORING SYSTEM92.0MENTORING SYSTEM
55
15The FEAIP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer provide a structural framework for mentoring services provided under the FEAIP umbrella which will be made available to member economies. Mentoring will follow the FEIAP Engineering Education model framework for Engineer and lead to the phased development of accreditation systems and graduate outcomes that satisfy FEIAP Engineering Education requirements for Engineer and progress, leading to standards of equivalence with IEA Education Accords or other equivalent systems. The mentoring framework for Engineer will detail mentoring principles, processes for appointment of mentoring teams, reporting mechanisms, expenses, continuation and termination of the mentoring services, and guidelines for mentors.The FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers provide a structural framework for mentoring services provided under the FEIAP umbrella which will be made available to member economies. Mentoring will follow the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineer and lead to the phased development of accreditation systems and graduate outcomes that satisfy the nation-building phase; and progress, leading to standards of equivalence with FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer requirements or Washington Accord or other equivalent systems. The mentoring framework will detail mentoring principles, processes for the appointment of mentoring teams, reporting mechanisms, expenses, continuation and termination of the mentoring services, and guidelines for mentors.
56
153.1Participation92.1Participation
57
Organisations wishing to participate either as mentees or mentors must be FEIAP members. It will be the decision of the individual organisation as to whether it seeks mentoring support.

Mentoring under the FEIAP umbrella is quite separate to the mentoring services or the processes for seeking membership of other engineering education organisations such as the IEA Educational Accords. Having participated in a FEIAP mentoring relationship will not guarantee successful admission to any other international organisation.		Organisations wishing to participate either as mentees or mentors must be FEIAP members. It will be the decision of the individual organisation as to whether seeking mentoring support.

Mentoring under the FEIAP umbrella is quite separate to the mentoring services or the processes for seeking membership of other engineering education organisations such as the Washington Accord. Having participated in a FEIAP Engineering Education mentoring relationship will not guarantee successful admission to any other international organisation.
58
153.2Appointment and Qualification of Mentor9/102.2Appointment and Qualification of Mentor
59
1. Mentoring is provided by individuals representing the mentor organisations, whereas the mentee is the organisation that receives the mentoring services.
2. Organisations may formally request mentors by lodging a request with the Accreditation Steering Committee.
3. When allocating mentoring organisations the FEIAP Accreditation Committee must be cognizant of the size of the proposed mentee organisation. Cognizance should also be taken of the geographical closeness of the mentors and mentee.
4. On receipt of a formal request from an organisation for mentoring, the Accreditation Steering Committee will assign at least two member organisations recognized by FEIAP or are signatories to the appropriate educational Accord within the International Engineering Alliance or other equivalent systems. Each of these mentoring organisations will in turn nominate an appropriate representative person to serve on the mentoring team.
5. Those persons appointed to fulfil the mentoring process must be knowledgeable, with practical experience in the application of accreditation systems and the engineering education standards in place within their own economy.
6. Mentors act on behalf of the Accreditation Steering Committee, which must be informed of the agreed terms of reference of the mentoring relationship as well as when and what mentoring activities have been undertaken.
7. Mentoring relationships are arranged for a set purpose and for a set period of time. The purpose and time period should be negotiated between the mentee and the mentors and approved by the Accreditation Steering Committee.		1. Mentoring is provided by individuals representing the mentor organisations, whereas the mentee is the organisation that receives the mentoring services.
2. Organisations may formally request mentors by lodging a request with the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee.
3. When allocating mentoring organisations the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation Committee must be cognizant of the size of the proposed mentee organisation. Cognizance should also be taken of the geographical closeness of the mentors and mentees.
4. On receipt of a formal request from an organisation for mentoring, the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee will assign at least two member organisations recognized by FEIAP or are signatories to the Washington Accord under the International Engineering Alliance. Each of these mentoring organisations will in turn nominate an appropriate representative person to serve on the mentoring team.
5. Those persons appointed to fulfil the mentoring process must be knowledgeable, with practical experience in the application of accreditation systems and the engineering education standards in place within their economy.
6. Mentors act on behalf of the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee, which must be informed of the agreed terms of reference of the mentoring relationship as well as when and what mentoring activities have been undertaken.
7. Mentoring relationships are arranged for a set purpose and for a set period. The purpose and period should be negotiated between the mentee and the mentors and approved by the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee.
60
163.3Reporting102.3Reporting
61
161. Mentor to Mentee
Mentors may advise the mentee verbally and in writing. The advice is confidential to the mentors, their representing organisations and the mentee. Any release of the mentoring advice by mentors to third parties, including the Accreditation Steering Committee, must have consent of the mentee.		(1) Mentor to Mentee
Mentors may advise the mentee verbally and in writing. The advice is confidential to the mentors, their representing organisations and the mentee. Any release of the mentoring advice by mentors to third parties, including the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee, must have a consent from the mentee.
62
162. Mentor Report to the Accreditation Steering Committee
Mentors or their representing organisations must report to the Accreditation Steering Committee after the mentoring relationship becomes effective and a mentoring visit took place. Schedules of the subsequent reports are at the mentors’ judgment when significant progress or development occurs. Mentor reports shall include the following information:
• the agreed terms or reference of the mentoring relationship;
• the facts of mentor visits to the organisation of the mentee e.g. dates of visits, activities undertaken during the visit;
• a general statement as to the mentee’s progress.
The mentee is encouraged to provide feedback on the mentoring experiences. If the mentee wishes, the mentor’s report could be submitted to the Accreditation Steering Committee with the mentors’ reference		(2) Mentor Report to the Accreditation Steering Committee
Mentors or their representing organisations must report to the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee after the mentoring relationship becomes effective and a mentoring visit takes place. Schedules of the subsequent reports are at the mentors’ judgment when significant progress or development occurs. Mentor reports shall include the following information:
• the agreed terms or reference of the mentoring relationship;
• the facts of mentor visits to the organisation of the mentee e.g. dates of visits, activities undertaken during the visit;
• a general statement as to the mentee’s progress.

The mentee is encouraged to provide feedback feedbacks on the mentoring experiences. If the mentee wishes, the mentor’s report could be submitted to the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee with the mentor’s reference.
63
163. Accreditation Steering Committee reporting to the FEIAP Executive Committee
The Accreditation Steering Committee will provide a status report to the FEIAP Executive Committee at the Executive Committee meetings about the development and progress of the mentoring services.		(3) FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee reporting to the FEIAP Executive Committee
FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee will provide a status report to the FEIAP Executive Committee at the Executive Committee meetings about the development and progress of the mentoring services.
64
163.4Expenses102.4Expenses
65
Mentors are acting on behalf of the Accreditation Steering Committee, and the mentoring services are not consulting services. Therefore, mentors are strictly refrained from charging the mentee any fee for their services. However, expenses incurred as a result of the mentoring visits, such as airfare (less than five hours economy class, more than five, business class), visa application, accommodation, etc., shall be borne by the mentee.Mentors are acting on behalf of the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee, and the mentoring services are not consulting services. Therefore, mentors are strictly refrained from charging the mentee any fee for their services. However, expenses incurred as a result of the mentoring visits, such as airfare (less than five hours economy class, more than five hours, business class), visa application, accommodation, etc., shall be borne by the mentee.
66
163.5Continuation and Termination of the Mentoring Services102.5Continuation and Termination of the Mentoring Services
67
Mentors are assigned by the Accreditation Steering Committee for a set period of time. However, if the mentee wishes to continue the services with the same mentors, the services can be continued by the mentors’ consent and by informing the Accreditation Steering Committee.

Should a mentee or a mentor like to terminate the mentoring services either by the set time period or earlier, the Accreditation Steering Committee must be informed.

Written statements would be required either to continue or to terminate the mentoring services.		10/11Mentors are assigned by the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee for a set period. However, if the mentee wishes to continue the services with the same mentors, the services can be continued with the mentors’ consent and by informing the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee.

Should a mentee or a mentor like to terminate the mentoring services either by the set period or earlier, the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee must be informed.

Written statements are required either to continue or to terminate the mentoring services.
68
173.6Guidelines for Mentors112.6Guidelines for Mentors
69
1. Mentors must advise the mentees in accordance with the FEIAP Engineering Education model framework for Engineer.
2. Mentors must be familiar with and sensitive to the educational system, the culture and environment of higher education, the development of engineering programs and the engineer registration system within the mentee economy. Subsequently, mentors must be sensitive, to the mentee’s specific needs, progress plan and decision making regime.
3. Mentors must refrain from being judgmental in providing advice and must act in a professional and objective manner. In providing advice, mentors must observe the sovereignty and statutory requirements of the mentee economy.
4. The contents of mentoring reports must be objective and should provide observations and findings that clearly indicate the mentee’s progress towards the phased development of accreditation systems and graduate outcomes that will satisfy APEC base education requirements. In addition, the reports could also provide information about the mentee’s progress towards satisfying the standards equivalent to the educational accords of the International Engineering Alliance and/or other equivalent systems..
5. Mentors must be clear with their advice either in verbal or written format.
6. Mentors should encourage the mentee to become part of the community by attending engineering accreditation related meetings.
7. Members of the mentoring team are advised to work closely together with clear communication in order to maintain consistency with comment and advice.		1. Mentors must advise the mentees by the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineers.
2. Mentors must be familiar with and sensitive to the engineering educational system, the culture and environment of higher education, the development of engineering programs and the engineer registration system within the mentee economy. Subsequently, mentors must be sensitive, to the mentee’s specific needs, progress plan and decision-making regime.
3. Mentors must refrain from being judgmental in providing advice and must act professionally and objectively. In providing advice, mentors must observe the sovereignty and statutory requirements of the mentee economy.
4. The contents of mentoring reports must be objective and should provide observations and findings that clearly indicate the mentee’s progress towards the phased development of accreditation systems and graduate outcomes that will satisfy nation-building phase or FEIAP Engineering Education Guideline for Engineer/APEC Engineer/Washington Accord education requirements/other equivalent education requirements.
5. Mentors must be clear with their advice either in verbal or written format.
6. Mentors should encourage the mentee to become part of the community by attending engineering accreditation-related meetings.
7. Members of the mentoring team are advised to work closely together with clear communication in order to maintain consistency with comments and advice.
70
173.7Mentoring Provided by Individual Signatories112.7Mentoring Provided by Individual Signatories
71
Organisations may approach individual economies directly to request support through a private mentoring arrangement. If a member accepts this request then they must inform the Accreditation Steering Committee so that other members are made aware of the private mentoring arrangement. The Accreditation Steering Committee cannot be responsible for the quality of advice and support provided through this private mentoring arrangement.Organisations may approach individual economies directly to request support through a private mentoring arrangement. If a member accepts this request then they must inform the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee so that other members are made aware of the private mentoring arrangement. The FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee cannot be responsible for the quality of advice and support provided through this private mentoring arrangement.
72
184.0EVALUATION OF ACCREDITATION AGENCY123.0EVALUATION OF ACCREDITATION AGENCY
73
Para 1
Member economies having developed accreditation systems under the FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer may apply for assessment and subsequent recognition under the FEIAP framework for Engineer. Assessment of accreditation criteria, practices and processes will be undertaken by a commissioned team of appropriate member representatives in order to evaluate the integrity and robustness of accreditation processes for assuring graduate outcome standards that meet FEIAP Engineering Educational requirements for Engineer and are appropriately referenced against the exemplar standards set by the Washington Accord and/ or other equivalent systems. A judgment on a particular accreditation agency may lead to a classified recognition of an engineering education program. Two levels of recognition are available and are based on the level of maturity of the applicant agency’s accreditation system and processes, as well as the qualifications (degree, advanced diploma, diploma or certificate) of compliance with the criteria that is set out under the FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer. The first level of compliance is appropriate to the ‘nation-building’ phase of the economy. The second level of recognition is an acknowledgement of the standard of accredited programs within the applicant agency’s economy as meeting the base level education requirements for recognition under the APEC Engineer Registration System. This second level of recognition may be accorded as an outcome of a first time evaluation of the applicant agency, or may be an outcome of a second judgment taken after a period of formation, and subsequent to an earlier recognition outcome at the ‘nation building’ level.		12Para 1
Member economies having developed accreditation systems under the FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers may apply for assessment and subsequent recognition under the FEIAP Engineering Education framework for Engineers. Assessment of accreditation criteria, practices and processes will be undertaken by a commissioned team of appropriate member representatives to evaluate the integrity and robustness of accreditation processes to ensure graduate outcome standards that meet the educational requirements of APEC Engineers and are appropriately referenced against the exemplar standards set by the Washington Accord. A judgment on a particular accreditation agency may lead to a classified recognition of an engineering education program. Two levels of recognition are available and are based on the level of maturity of the applicant agency’s accreditation system and processes, as well as the qualifications (degree, advanced diploma, diploma or certificate) of compliance with the criteria that is set out under the FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer. The first level of compliance is appropriate to the ‘nation-building’ phase of the economy. The second level of to comply with the FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers to meet with the academic requirements for the APEC engineer registration. This second and third level of recognition may be accorded as an outcome of a first-time evaluation of the applicant agency or may be an outcome of a second judgment taken after a period of formation and after an earlier recognition outcome at the ‘nation building’ level.
74
Para 2
Ultimately such judgment must of course also reveal appropriateness of an accreditation agency to seek recognition under the Washington Accord or equivalent systems. FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer will provide a structured evaluation framework and will detail submission requirements, processes for appointing evaluation teams, evaluation processes, and decision making. Economies with accreditation systems already recognized under the Washington Accord or other equivalent systems would not need to submit for such evaluation when seeking FEIAP membership.		12Para 2
Ultimately such judgment must of course also reveal the appropriateness of an accreditation agency to seek recognition under the Washington Accord or other equivalent systems. FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers will provide a structured evaluation framework and will detail submission requirements, processes for appointing evaluation teams, evaluation processes, and decision-making. Economies with accreditation systems already recognized under the Washington Accord or would not need to submit for such evaluation when seeking FEIAP membership.
75
184.1Application123.1Application
76
1. An accreditation agency (subsequently referred to as the Applicant) seeking FEIAP recognition should apply to the Accreditation Steering Committee by submitting a completed Application Form and supporting documentation.
2. The application must be in English.
3. The entire application package (four paper copies and one electronic copy) must be received by the Accreditation Steering Committee no later than 120 days before the commencement of the FEIAP General Assembly at which the application is to be considered.
4. The application must be accompanied by written statements of nomination from two member economies, each nomination containing a declaration that the nominating economy considers that the Applicant’s accreditation system meets the FEIAP requirements at one of the two levels of recognition outlined above.
5. A representative of the Applicant must appear in person at the FEIAP General Assembly to formally present the application and answer questions.		1. An accreditation agency (subsequently referred to as the Applicant) seeking FEIAP recognition should apply to the Standing Committee by submitting a completed Application Form and supporting documentation.
2. The application must be in English.
3. The entire application package (four paper copies and one electronic copy) must be received by the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee no later than 120 days before the commencement of the FEIAP General Assembly at which the application is to be considered.
4. The application must be accompanied by written statements of nomination from two member economies, each nomination containing a declaration that the nominating economy considers that the Applicant’s accreditation system meets the FEIAP requirements at one of the two levels of recognition outlined above.
5. A representative of the Applicant must appear in person at the FEIAP General Assembly to formally present the application and answer questions.
77
194.2Documentation in Support of Applications133.2Documentation in Support of Applications
78
The documentation provided on the accreditation system should include the following sections:

1. Accreditation Organisation
• Provide the name of the Applicant organisation.
• List the names of the officers of the organisation with brief CVs.
• Describe the affiliation of the organisation with other engineering bodies, government and industry within the economy.		13The documentation provided on the engineering education accreditation system should include the following sections:
(1) Accreditation Organisation
• Provide the name of the Applicant organisation.
• List the names of the officers of the organisation with their brief CV.
• Describe the affiliation of the organisation with other engineering bodies, government and industry within the economy.
79
192. Introduction
• Provide general information about the economy and the context of engineering.		13(2) Introduction
• Provide general information about the economy and the context of engineering.
80
193. Education
• Provide a description of primary, secondary, and tertiary education.
• Describe the nature of programs, including admission standards.
• Provide the number and type of engineering institutions and programs, indicating whether the institutions are public or private.		13(3) Education
• Describe primary, secondary, and tertiary education.
• Describe the nature of programs, including admission standards.
• Provide the number and type of engineering institutions and programs, indicating whether the institutions are public or private.
81
194. Structure of the Engineering Community
• Describe the context of engineering practice and the degree of regulation (i.e. registration vs licensing).
• Describe if there is a protected title and scope of practice.
• Describe any differing categories of engineering practitioners and their academic requirements.
• Describe the relationship of the organisation to licensing, registration or certifying agencies, and the extent to which the organisation can influence the acceptance of accreditation by those agencies.		13(4) Structure of the Engineering Community
• Describe the context of engineering practice and the degree of regulation (i.e. registration vs licensing).
• Describe if there is a protected title and scope of practice.
• Describe any differing categories of engineering practitioners and their academic requirements.
• Describe the relationship of the organisation to licensing, registration or certifying agencies, and the extent to which the organisation can influence the acceptance of accreditation by those agencies.
82
195. Role of Accreditation
• Describe the role of accreditation in registration.
• Given that accreditation is normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.		13(5) Role of Engineering Education Accreditation
• Describe the role of engineering education accreditation in registration.
• Given that engineering education accreditation is normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.
83
196. Accreditation System
• Describe the development of the accreditation system and its maturity.
• Provide a description of the Accreditation Board including its composition and authority.
• List the objectives of accreditation.
• Provide the criteria for accreditation (general, program specific; curriculum content-technical and non-technical; incorporation of practical experience; length of the program; naming of the program; faculty requirement, etc.)
• Provide detailed policies and procedures for conducting the accreditation evaluation and making the accreditation decision, include relevant documentation (initiation of visit; self-evaluation questionnaire; selection of evaluation; organisation of the visit; due process).
• Provide a list of currently accredited programs and a schedule of upcoming evaluations.
• Describe relationships with external engineering organisations, including any agreements.		13/14(6) Engineering Education Accreditation System
• Describe the development of the engineering education accreditation system and its maturity.
• Describe the Engineering Education Accreditation Board including its composition and authority.
• List the objectives of accreditation.
• Provide the criteria for accreditation (general, program-specific; curriculum content-technical and non-technical; incorporation of practical experience; length of the program; naming of the program; faculty requirement, etc.)
• Provide detailed policies and procedures for conducting the accreditation evaluation and making the accreditation decision, including relevant documentation (initiation of visit; self-evaluation questionnaire; selection of evaluation; organisation of the visit; due process).
• Provide a list of currently accredited programs and a schedule of upcoming evaluations.
• Describe relationships with external engineering organisations, including any agreements.
84
204.3Appointment of Review Team143.3Appointment of Review Team
85
The FEIAP Accreditation Steering Committee will appoint a three-person Review Team to assess the application. Each of the reviewers will represent a different member economy. Members of the Review Team should be completely independent of the Applicant and have the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise to conduct the review. The Applicant may request that reviewers be replaced, if there is a possible conflict of interest.
The FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee will appoint a three-person Review Team to assess the application. Each of the reviewers will represent a different member economy. Members of the Review Team should be completely independent of the Applicant and have the necessary knowledge, experience and expertise to conduct the review. The Applicant may request that reviewers be replaced if there is a possible conflict of interest
86
204.4Evaluation Process143.4Evaluation Process
87
The evaluation process involves the following:
1. Evaluation of the submitted application and supporting documentation;
2. Observation and evaluation of at least two accreditation visits at cross-sectional institutions of the Applicant;
3. Observation and evaluation of the decision making process of the Applicant, in which the decisions on the observed accreditation visits are to be reached;
4. Submission of an evaluation report to the Accreditation Steering Committee recommending to the member economies whether the Applicant satisfies the FEIAP requirements for recognition at one of the following levels:
- ‘nation building’;
- educational requirements base level education requirements that might be expected under appropriate educational Accord within the International Engineering Alliance or other equivalent systems.		The evaluation process involves the following:
1.  Evaluation of the submitted application and supporting documentation;
2. Observation and evaluation of at least two accreditation visits at cross-sectional institutions of the Applicant;
3. Observation and evaluation of the decision-making process of the Applicant, in which the decisions on the observed accreditation visits are to be reached;
4. Submission of an evaluation report to the FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee recommending to the member economies whether the Applicant satisfies the FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer requirements for recognition at one of the following levels:
- ‘nation building’;
- educational requirements base level education requirements that are expected FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer / Washington Accord /or other equivalent systems.
88
204.5Evaluation Standards143.5Evaluation Standards
89
201. Accreditation Standards
The Applicant must demonstrate an appropriate standard of compliance with the requirements stipulated in the following sections of the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation Criteria Template for Engineer.
i. Graduate Outcomes Specification
ii. Education Environment
iii. Program Design, Structure, Content and Assessment Processes
iv. Quality Systems		14(1) Accreditation Standards
The Applicant must demonstrate an appropriate standard of compliance with the requirements stipulated the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineer:
i. Graduate Outcomes Specification
ii. Education Environment
iii. Program Design, Structure, Content and Assessment Processes
iv. Quality Systems
90
202. Accreditation Procedures
The Applicant must demonstrate an appropriate standard of compliance with the requirements stipulated in Section III of the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineer.
i. Documents to be Provided by Programs,
ii. Composition of Accreditation Team,
iii. Duration of Accreditation Visit,
iv. Structure of the Accreditation Visit,
v. Verification and Validation of the Report by the Accreditation Agency,
vi. Decision on Accreditation,
vii. Publication of Accreditation Decisions,
viii. Procedures of Appeals.		15(2) Accreditation Procedures
The Applicant must demonstrate an appropriate standard of compliance with the requirements stipulated in the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineer:
i. Documents to be Provided by Programs,
ii. Composition of Accreditation Team,
iii. Duration of Accreditation Visit,
iv. Structure of the Accreditation Visit,
v. Verification and Validation of the Report by the Accreditation Agency,
vi. Decision on Accreditation,
vii. Publication of Accreditation Decisions,
viii. Procedures of Appeals.
91
213. Governance of the Accreditation Body
The Applicant must demonstrate an appropriate standard of compliance with the requirements stipulated in Section IV of the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineer.
i. Official Status
ii. Mission Statement
iii. Activities
iv. Resources
v. Leadership and Management
vi. Independence
vii. Accountability and Integrity
viii. Decision Making



15(3) Governance of the Accreditation Body
The Applicant must demonstrate an appropriate standard of compliance with the requirements stipulated the FEIAP Engineering Education Accreditation System Model Framework for Engineer:
i. Official Status
ii. Mission Statement
iii. Activities
iv. Resources
v. Leadership and Management
vi. Independence
vii. Accountability and Integrity
viii. Decision Making
92
21The Accreditation Steering Committee will evaluate the report of the Review Team, and decide whether or not the Applicant should be recognized at either the ‘nation building’ or appropriate educational Accord within the International Engineering Alliance or other equivalent education levels. The Applicant will be informed of the decision, and receive a final version of the report. The Applicant may ask, in writing, for further information about the decision.

If the decision is not to recognize the Applicant, the Applicant may appeal to the FEIAP Executive Council.

The maximum period of recognition is six years. Before the expiration of this period, a recognized accreditation agency should apply for re-evaluation to demonstrate ongoing compliance with requirements.		Moved to 3.6
93
153.6Decision Making
94


The FEIAP Engineering Education Standing Committee will evaluate the report of the Review Team, and decide whether or not the Applicant should be recognized at either the ‘nation building’ level; or FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer/APEC basic academic education/Washington Accord/other equivalent education level. The Applicant will be informed of the decision, and receive a final version of the report. The Applicant may ask, in writing, for further information about the decision.

If the decision is not to recognize the Applicant, the Applicant may appeal to the FEIAP Executive Council.

The maximum period of recognition is six years. Before the expiration of this period, a recognized accreditation agency should apply for re-evaluation to demonstrate ongoing compliance with requirements.
95
225.0PERIODIC MONITORING OF ACCREDITATION AGENCY
(Draft amended by Alan Bradley June 2015)		164.0PERIODIC MONITORING OF ACCREDITATION AGENCY
(Draft amended by Alan Bradley June 2015)
96
Once a member economy has attained recognition under the FEIAP system, a periodic peer monitoring process will apply. FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer will provide an evaluation framework for assessing the on-going compliance of the accreditation system and the continuing standard of graduate outcomes. FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineer will provide the monitoring framework and will detail submission requirements, processes for appointing monitoring review teams, monitoring processes, and decision making. Member economies with accreditation systems already recognized under the Washington Accord or other equivalent systems will be exempted from such periodic monitoring.Once a member economy has attained recognition under the FEIAP Engineering Education system, a periodic peer monitoring process will apply. FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers will provide an evaluation framework for assessing the ongoing compliance of the accreditation system and the continuing standard of graduate outcomes. FEIAP Engineering Education Guidelines for Engineers will provide the monitoring framework and will detail submission requirements, processes for appointing monitoring review teams, monitoring processes, and decision-making. Member economies with accreditation systems already recognized under the Washington Accord or will be exempted from such periodic monitoring.
97
225.1Submission of Documents164.1Submission of Documents
98
If the member economy under review is a non English speaking economy, English translations must be provided for the review team conducting the monitoring process. The documentation should be submitted no less than 60 days prior to the review team’s visit and should include the following sections in English:
If the member economy under review is a non-English speaking economy, English translations must be provided for the review team conducting the monitoring process. The documentation should be submitted no less than 60 days before the review team’s visit and should include the following sections in English:
99
221. Accreditation Organisation
• List the names of the officers of the organisation with brief CVs.
• Describe the affiliation of the organisation with other engineering bodies, government and industry within the economy.		16(1) Engineering Education Accreditation Organisation
• List the names of the officers of the organisation with brief CVs.
• Describe the affiliation of the organisation with other engineering bodies, government and industry within the economy.
100
222. Role of Accreditation
• Describe the role of accreditation in registration.
• Given that accreditation is normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.		16(2) Role of Accreditation
• Describe the role of Engineering Education accreditation in registration.
• Given that Engineering Education accreditation is normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.