June 12, 2005
June 12, 2005
June 15, 2005
10.115.1 - 10.115.12
ABET Criteria and Continuous Process Improvement David Elizandro, Jessica Matson, and Jane Fraser Tennessee Technological University/Colorado State University--Pueblo
The ABET 2000 Criteria shifted accreditation emphasis from prescribing a curriculum to articulating characteristics of a strategic management processes to administer programs and a minimum set of Program Outcomes for accredited programs.
There have been broad interpretations of the ABET 2000 Criteria by programs seeking accreditation. Similarly, governing professional societies have taken different approaches to articulating Program Criteria. The recently approved 2005-06 Criteria reflect the first iteration in continuous improvement of the ABET 2000 continuous improvement process. Specifically, the most significant improvements are clarification of the relationship between Program Objectives and Program Outcomes and the definition of engineering topics.
Although these clarifications are an improvement, there are other issues related to the ABET Criteria that may be addressed. For example, another area where ABET may choose to clarify is Criterion 8 which addresses the governing societies’ role in the strategic planning process. This paper examines current Program Criteria for several programs, proposes revisions to General Criterion 8, and presents sample Program Criteria for industrial engineering.
The ABET 2000 Criteria shifted accreditation emphasis from a prescribing a curriculum to articulating characteristics of strategic management processes to administer programs and a minimum set of Program Outcomes for accredited programs. As with the ABET 2000 Criteria, the recently approved ABET 2005-06 Criteria1 require that a program is administered using well defined processes for each criterion and that constituents are an integral part of the planning process. In the Self-Study Questionnaire2, the ABET definition of well-defined processes necessary to administer engineering programs is:
Processes for all elements of criteria are quantitatively understood and controlled; clearly tied to mission, program objectives, and constituent needs; seen as benchmarks by other institutions.
Participants in the strategic planning process include ABET, professional society(ies), university, college, faculty, alumni, industry representatives, and students. The importance of the faculty’s ability to manage the strategic planning process is documented in ABET criterion 5. Therefore faculty must be actively involved in every aspect of the process. ABET, governing societies, the university, and the college have regulatory authority in the process. Other constituents volunteer time and effort to the process. As discussed by Elizandro and Matson3, typical program differences within a discipline reflect constituent differences characterized by, but not limited to:
Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2005, American Society for Engineering Education
Matson, J., & Elizandro, D., & Fraser, J. (2005, June), Abet Criteria And Continuous Process Improvement Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--14564
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2005 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015