Document Number: ACC-MAN-04
Version Number: 3.0
Effective Date: 01 July 2024

---

ACCREDITATION PROCEDURE

---

1.0 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document presents the accreditation procedures for engineering programs by the Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical Education (BAETE) of the Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh (IEB).

2.0 SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The document is applicable for accreditation visits of engineering programs in Bangladesh.

3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Higher Educational Institution/Programs

Prepares the program Self-assessment report using ACC-TMP-04-04 (V2.1, V3.0) and submits the accreditation application to the BAETE.

Submits an Institutional Response using ACC-TMP-04-07 V2.1, V3.0 upon receiving the Evaluation Team Report.

3.2 The Board

Constitutes and approves program evaluation teams following the guidelines provided in ACC-MAN-05.

Makes accreditation decisions based on the Evaluation Team Report and Sectoral Committee Report. The decision matrix can be found in ACC-SOP-04-03.

3.3 The Evaluation Team

Performs pre-visit activities, accreditation visits and post-visit activities as per sections 5.5 to 5.7 of this document (ACC-MAN-04).

Prepares an Evaluation Team using ACC-TMP-04-05 (V2.1, V3.0) and submits it to the BAETE.

3.4 The Quality Assurance Cell

Moderates the Evaluation Team Report by consistency checks with BAETE policy and benchmark requirements.

Submits the Quality Assurance Cell Report using ACC-TMP-04-06 (V2.1, V3.0).

3.5 The Sectoral Committees

Review the Evaluation Team Reports, the Quality Assurance Cell Report and the Institutional Response and recommend to the Board using ACC-TMP-04-08 (V2.1, V3.0).

4.0 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

See ACC-MAN-06 for definitions and acronyms.

5.0 ACCREDITATION PROCEDURE

5.1 Introduction

Application for accreditation of an engineering program must be made formally through the head of the institution. The application must be accompanied by a SAR duly completed in the format described in ACC-TMP-04-04 (V2.1, V3.0). The accreditation process commences upon verification of the accreditation fee payment and receipt of the SAR. The accreditation decision is made by the Board following a rigorous evaluation process involving a review of the SAR, an on-site visit by the Evaluation Team, and a review of the QAC-moderated Evaluation Team report by the Sectoral Committee.

5.2 Steps in the Accreditation Process

The steps involved in the accreditation process are as follows.

1. Submission of the application
2. Formation of the Evaluation Team
3. Communication with the institution about the formation of the Evaluation Team
4. Communication of the institution's reservations about any member of the Evaluation Team, if any
5. Review of the SAR
6. On-site visit
7. Submission of Evaluation Team report
8. Moderation by the Quality Assurance Cell
9. Response of the institution to factual matters
10. Recommendation of the Sectoral Committee
11. Decision of the Board
12. Communication of the decision to the institution

ACC-FLW-04-09 provides a schematic flow chart of the steps. BAETE typically organizes two different rounds of accreditation cycles in a year. The proceedings start in January (Round 1) and July (Round 2). Following the full cycle, the Board finally makes the accreditation decisions through Accreditation Decision Meetings (ADMs) in July (Round 1) and in January of next year (Round 2). The following table presents the detailed schedule of the BAETE accreditation cycle.

Table 5.2.1: Complete cycle of accreditation activities

5.3 Application and Submissions

The institution must submit separate applications in the prescribed format for accreditation for each eligible program. The application must accompany a completed SAR and other information/documents following ACC-TMP-04-04 (V2.1, V3.0) . If a program’s accreditation is about to expire, the institution should apply for re-accreditation by applying at least six months before the current accreditation expires.

5.4 Formation of the Evaluation Team

The BAETE shall form an Evaluation Team consisting of a Chairperson and two members as per the timeline given in Section 5.2 of this document. The Chairperson shall be a senior academic or a senior practicing professional in a relevant engineering discipline with adequate experience in the accreditation process. At least one of the members shall be from the industry. The Chairperson and team members shall be selected from a pool of approved evaluators. Upon notification of the formation of the Evaluation Team, the institution may express reservations in writing about any member who may have a conflict of interest, as per Section 16.0 of ACC-MAN-01, preferably within one (1) week. The specific reason must be cited. The Evaluation Team members must declare possible conflicts of interest with the program and the institution, if any, and abide by the code of confidentiality and professional conduct.

5.5 Pre-visit Activities

The Evaluation Team shall first review the submitted Self-Assessment Report (SAR). If the SAR indicates that the program does not meet the eligibility criteria, the Evaluation Team may decide not to recommend the program for accreditation without performing the on-site visit. When the SAR indicates that the program is eligible for accreditation, the Chairperson of the Evaluation Team shall contact the institution through the BAETE Secretariat to arrange the accreditation visit.

5.6 Accreditation Visit

The Evaluation Team shall conduct a three-day visit within twelve (12) weeks of its formation.

5.6.1 The on-site visit allows the Evaluation Team to assess factors related to the accreditation criteria that may not be adequately described in the SAR and to obtain further clarifications from the educational institution. Although it is not possible to adequately describe all the factors to be assessed during the on-site visit, some common factors include the following:

1. Objectives and outcomes of the education provided
2. Quality assurance processes, including internal reviews
3. Assessment of program outcomes
4. Student activities and work
5. Entry standards for admission and student selection
6. Faculty members’ qualifications and activities
7. Facilities
8. Industry participation, etc.

5.6.2 To assist the Evaluation Team in its assessment, the educational institution should arrange the following:

a. Meetings with:

1. The Head of the institution, the Dean, and Head of the Department, and relevant program and course coordinators
2. A member of the senior administration/management, preferably the Head of the institution, to discuss how the program fits into the university’s overall strategic direction and focus and the management support available for the continued resourcing and development of the program
3. A group of faculty members
4. A group of supporting staff
5. Heads of the support/service departments
6. A group of employee representatives
7. A group of alumni
8. A group of students

b. Availability of the following documents for examination:

1. Curriculum vitae of all program faculty members
2. Evidence that the results of the course and program outcome assessment are being used to review the program and ensure ongoing improvement
3. Lists of publications by all program faculty members
4. Sample teaching materials
5. Sample examination papers, quizzes, and class tests for all subjects
6. Sample examination scripts, including at least three excellent, three good, and three marginal pass for each examination
7. Transcripts of immediate past graduates, including those granted advanced standing and those who were in the part-time program if applicable
8. Sample student project and design reports (excellent, good, and marginal pass)
9. Sample student feedback
10. Results of other internal or external reviews of the program, department, and faculty
11. Quality assurance review results
12. Records of meetings of committees relevant to the program
13. Records of meetings with stakeholders
14. Graduates’ employment records
15. Any other documents that the Evaluation Team may request

c. Visits to:

1. Classrooms
2. Laboratories, especially those used for undergraduate courses
3. The library
4. IT facilities
5. Career/placement center, co- and extra-curricular facilities, medical facilities
6. Other relevant facilities

5.6.3 At the end of the on-site visit, the Evaluation Team shall hold an exit meeting to present its preliminary findings to key personnel of the educational institution, including the Head of the institution and the Head of Department/Chair of School for the program being evaluated.

5.7 Post-visit Activities of the Evaluation Team

The Evaluation Team shall submit its evaluation report to the BAETE within two weeks of the visit. In finalizing its report with findings and recommendations, the Evaluation Team may consider additional submissions requested from the institution during the on-site visit. The Evaluation Team shall make a holistic quality judgment of each criterion against the benchmark requirements stipulated in this manual in terms of compliance, concern, weakness and deficiency. These terms are defined as follows.

Compliance: Compliance indicates that a program currently satisfies the BAETE benchmark requirements of a criterion, policy or procedure.

Concern: A concern indicates that a program satisfies the BAETE benchmark requirements of a criterion, policy or procedure, but the potential exists for the situation to change, resulting in future non-compliance.

Weakness: A weakness indicates that a program lacks the strength of compliance with a criterion, policy, or procedure, compromising the program's quality.

Deficiency: A deficiency indicates that a criterion, policy, or procedure either does not exist or is in the elementary stage.

The findings and recommendations of the Evaluation Team must be supported with evidence. Although the Evaluation Team should not prescribe the details of the corrective measures to be taken, some broad-level recommendations and requirements are required. The evaluation report may briefly highlight the strengths of the program and the institution as encouragement and recognition of good practices.

5.8 Scrutiny by the Quality Assurance Cell

The Evaluation Team’s report shall be moderated for consistency and procedural discrepancies by the Quality Assurance Cell as per the timeline. If the Quality Assurance Cell identifies areas of inconsistency or procedural discrepancies, the Evaluation Team shall be asked to provide clarification and/or revise the report.

5.9 Response of Institution

The moderated report shall be shared with the institution, which may submit a written response regarding any factual error in the report within one (1) week, providing appropriate evidence if applicable. The educational institution does not have the right to require a change in the report but may note any statement that may be incorrect or provide comments.

5.10 Review by the Sectoral Committee

The relevant Sectoral Committee shall review the institution’s response along with the Evaluation Team’s report and the Quality Assurance Cell Report within a week and provide its recommendations and requirements to the BAETE Secretariat to table for decision-making at the next BAETE board meeting. The Evaluation Team shall receive a copy of the moderated report, the institution’s response, and the Sectoral Committee’s recommendation.

5.11 Decision Process

The Board shall make the final decision in an Accreditation Decision Meeting following the schedule stipulated in Table 5.2.1 of this document regarding the application for accreditation primarily based on findings and recommendations of the Evaluation Team, with moderation by the Quality Assurance Committee and review by the relevant Sectoral Committee. In making its decision, the Board shall adhere to the accreditation manual and ensure consistency across the programs and institutions. The accreditation decision shall be communicated to the concerned institution.

5.12 Follow-up Action as a Requirement for Accreditation

If follow-up action is required as a condition for accreditation, the Board shall require the educational institution to submit a report within a specified period. The specified period shall vary depending on the nature of the requirement and whether the follow-up actions can be developed and implemented within a short time frame. The Board may also require a follow-up visit to review the actions taken by the educational institution. The educational institution must provide a fee and meet all direct costs of the follow-up visit.

5.13 Dispute Resolution

An institution may appeal the decision not to accredit a program in writing within two (2) weeks of receiving the decision and paying a prescribed fee. An appeal may include a request for reconsideration or a revisit and should be accompanied by a report to substantiate the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the Appellate Committee for deliberation.
The Appellate Committee may invite the institution filing the petition and the members of the Evaluation Team to present their positions. The Appellate Committee itself shall determine its methods of operation, giving due consideration to the substance of the appeal petition. The Appellate Committee may ask the BAETE to consider the appeal based on the SAR submitted by the institution. BAETE should respond to its recommendations within one (1) month. The Appellate Committee shall make the final decision within three (3) months after receiving the appeal petition. If the petition is denied, the Appellate Committee shall provide the institution with reasons for the denial.

6.0 THE BAETE ACCREDITATION MANUAL, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES, TEMPLATES, FLOWCHARTS, SCHEDULE, AND WORK INSTRUCTIONS

See ACC-MAN-00 for details.

7.0 REVISION HISTORY