Module 1 (V2.1)
Module 1 (V2.1)
Module 1 (V2.1)
Introduction
The Global Standards need to reflect the requirements of 2030 SDGs in the graduate
attributes and competency, so that to guide the transform of engineering for
sustainability.
Council Members
Full Members
Associate Members
Observers
Mission
• To set a standard for the accreditation of engineering programs.
• To accredit/recognize local and foreign programs.
Demonstrate
out-standing competence
Demonstrate good
competence
Conduct Prog.
Evaluation
Retraining ET Member
Observe Prog.
Evaluation
ET Observer
PEV Training
OBE Training
Engineers from
Academics
Industry 13
Composition of Evaluation Team
An Evaluation Team consisting of a Chairperson and two members. The Chairperson will be a senior academic or a practicing
professional in a relevant engineering discipline with adequate experience in the accreditation process. At least one of the members
will be from the industry.
The members of the Evaluation Team will be drawn from the following:
• Academic institutions of repute
• R&D laboratories and establishments
• The government
• Corporation/industry.
Industry Program Evaluators will be drawn from the domain areas relevant to the program. The Chairperson must not be below the
rank of professor (or equivalent in the case of industry) and should have significant experience through previous participation as a
program evaluator.
• Significant teaching and research experience in the university and good standing in their respective disciplines
• Demonstrable expertise in engineering education and/or a specific engineering discipline through publication and/or technology
development
• Good knowledge and skills for conduction program evaluations, obtained through training by BAETE or other accreditation bodies
• A Ph.D. or equivalent as the highest academic degree
• Significant industrial experience, generally not less than 10 years of considerable engineering/managerial experience
• Demonstrable expertise in the specific engineering discipline of the program to be evaluated for accreditation
• Good knowledge and skills for conducting program evaluation, obtained through training by BAETE or other accreditation bodies
• A rank equivalent to senior manager or higher, preferably with post-graduate qualifications
Program Yes
declares CoI
No
Conflict of Interest policy of IEB-
BAETE guides all involved in
ET is finalized accreditation decision making
A new program may ask the BAETE to evaluate its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities for
and concerns for future accreditation when its most senior cohort is in its second year.
The Evaluation Team will identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and concerns in its
report without expressing approval or disapproval of the program.
Pre-evaluation is NOT an accreditation decision, but helps the program to glide through a
future accreditation process successfully.
1. Submits
5. Informs 4. Notifies
BAETE Board
2. Appoints
Consistency
Check
Dissemination of
decisions
• Appeal is a process completely independent from the process involved in making the
decisions.
• Appeal is the last process to resolve a dispute.
• The Appellate Committee is an independent committee consisting of three members,
including the Chair.
• Its members are selected from among the former Board members, former Sectoral
Committee members, and former Evaluation Team Chairs and are appointed by the IEB
President after discussion with the Chair of the IEB Ethics Committee. The tenure of the
Appellate Committee is three years.
• The application must be accompanied by an SAR, which should include an account of the shortcomings
identified by the previous Evaluation Team and the extent to which these shortcomings have been
addressed.
• Significant improvements that have been achieved since the last accreditation visit, particularly through the
continuous quality improvement mechanism, should be highlighted.
• All other processes, including the on-site visit and the decision-making process, shall be the same as noted
for the first accreditation.
• It is all about maintaining a continuity. Has the program applied for a renewal at a right time?
• It is all about measuring the improvement of the system, since the last accreditation visit.
• Were you not a member of the past team? Does it matter? – Benchmarks of all judgements are similar – we need
to be rational.
• Is it a simpler process than evaluating a new program?