Quality Assurance in Engineering Education: A Comparison of EC-2000 and ISO-9000, by S. Sarin, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 89, No. 4, October 2000, pp. 495-501.

Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, 11/24/00

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology's (ABET) new Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC-2000) is currently undergoing a three-year phased implementation, beginning with the Fall 1998 visit cycle, with full implementation planned for Fall 2001. A key feature of EC-2000 is its emphasis on outcomes assessment-based improvement of engineering programs. In particular, it demands that academic programs be engaged in cycles of continuous improvement based on assessment data. … The objective of this paper is to establish EC-2000 as a vehicle for quality assurance in engineering education. The connection between EC-2000 and quality assurance is made by demonstrating the strong resemblance between EC-2000 and ISO-9000, the most widely used standard for quality assurance in industry. … Based on the ISO-9000 experience, suggestions are provided for effective implementation of the current criteria."

"The ISO quality standard does not refer directly to the products or services delivered, but rather to the production and administrative processes that produce them. … Specifically, the standard focuses on the need for organizational structure, well-documented procedures, and management's commitment of resources to implement quality management. …"

"The new ABET Criteria represent a major shift in the philosophy behind accreditation of engineering programs. The traditional requirements of the old ABET criteria are still present (with decreasing emphasis on bean counting). These include curriculum requirements (mathematics, basic sciences, engineering topics and general education), faculty qualifications, adequate classroom, laboratory, library and computing equipment, overall institutional support, and financial resources. …"

"A major change from older criteria … is Criteria 3 of EC-2000, which requires academic programs to define and measure desirable outcomes of their graduates. … Academic programs will be required to document an assessment program that shows that (i) data are collected to assess, minimally each one of the … outcomes, and (ii) the results of the data collection are directed to the further development and improvement of the program. In this context, ABET evaluators will look for evidence such as student portfolios, including design projects; nationally-normed subject content examinations; alumni surveys that document professional accomplishments and career development activities; employer surveys; and placement data of graduates. More importantly, ABET evaluators will be interested in what academic programs do with this data in terms of providing feedback to the educational processes at the institution."

"A graduate of an ABET accredited program is not guaranteed to be successful in engineering practice; yet it is likely to be a successful engineer. EC-2000 advocates that program faculty and administrators concentrate on key processes of engineering education, without specifying arbitrary thresholds of student performance. … Clearly, the two standards are equivalent on a broad basis… Although there exist differences between the two…, the differences are primarily because of the unique nature of educational institutions. …"

"… Lessons learned from ISO-9000 registration practice may provide useful guidance to the implementation of the new ABET criteria; these are summarized below.

A.     Pay Attention to Documentation, but not at the Expense of Real Educational Reforms …

B.      Need for More EC-2000 Training Opportunities and Expert Advice …

C.     Consider Providing Pre-Assessments …

D.     Institute Teaching Training Programs …

E.     Change Faculty Recognition and Reward System … The relationship between EC-2000 and faculty jobs is not so clear. Most faculty recognition and rewards systems are weighted towards research accomplishments. College deans expect faculty to be good teachers, but are generally inclined to reward faculty only on the basis of research productivity. Promotion and tenure decisions hinge on research, rarely on teaching. Furthermore, educational research has not been elevated to the same status as fundamental research in the engineering disciplines. It is not surprising, then, that faculty involvement in EC-2000 activities is less than enthusiastic. This must change or EC-2000 will never fully achieve its intended purpose."

 

"ISO-9000, the worldwide quality assurance standard was developed in response to a need for providing a level playing field for businesses. The EC-2000 criteria answer a long-standing demand from the general population at large and the funding agencies (state legislature, etc.) that academia be held accountable for the performance of its students. … In drawing parallels between ISO-9000 and EC-2000, it can be seen that EC-2000 provides a systematic tool for quality assurance in engineering education. … This faculty buy-in is impressive if EC-2000 is to realize its intended purpose. Some of the lessons learned in the ISO-9000 field are extended to engineering education and EC-2000. These include focusing on the processes instead of the inputs and outputs, importance of documentation and training, and a need to reevaluate faculty reward systems."

[Readers who are interested in this article are encouraged to read the original paper in its entirety. Other summary notes on faculty reward systems are available on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu under the heading "Summaries of Papers ..."]