ACED Annual Conference
30th and 31st October 2014
SESSION 5: Update from JBM
Stephen Garrity CEng, MICE, FIStructE, FCIHT
Chair, Joint Board of Moderators
and
Hoffman Wood Professor of Architectural Engineering,
University of Leeds
PART 1: Preamble
PART 2: Update from the JBM
Preamble
To set the scene:


A few slides summarising the role of the JBM, its
general philosophy and its current and future
challenges
Perhaps of benefit to conference delegates who
may not be familiar with the JBM ?
Source:
Session 3 presentation by S W Garrity
Joint ICE/IStructE/ACED Annual Meeting,
ICE HQ, 23rd April 2014
Accreditation: what is it?
“Accreditation is the process of reviewing an engineering degree
programme to judge whether or not it meets the defined standards set
(source: The Engineering Council)
by the Engineering Council”

The Engineering Council is “the UK regulatory body for the engineering
profession”

The standards are defined in the UK Standard for Professional Engineering
Competence (UK-SPEC)

The JBM makes accreditation decisions and develops policy (and guidance)
for HE providers to meet the standards defined in UK-SPEC.

UK-SPEC is outcomes-based (similarities shared with ABET’s outcomes
based education and Washington Accord’s Graduate Attributes).

The JBM’s accreditation process complies with that defined in UK-SPEC (see
The Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes or AHEP)
The JBM
...... makes decisions about the accreditation of higher education programmes on
behalf of its 4 member PEBs (which act under licence from the Engineering
Council)

The Joint Board consists of 12 academic members + 12 industrial members +
a chair + the secretariat.

The chair is appointed for a 3 year period and alternates between an
academic and an industrial member, e.g. David Nethercot → Richard
Haryott → Jim Croll → John Hill → Gerry Parke → John Roberts →
Steve Garrity.



The chair must be a member of both ICE and IStructE.

Members are nominated by 1 (or more) of the 4 member PEBs.
Members normally serve a 3 year term but can serve up to 2 consecutive 3
year terms.
Past members of the JBM often join the Panel of Moderators (to assist with
accreditation visits; not full Board members)
The JBM
...... also develops policy and guidelines for accredited programmes with further
explanation in the annexes, guidance notes and good practice guides

JBM’s consistent philosophy over many years: to avoid over-prescription in
its accreditation guidelines.

Never been any intention to develop a “national curriculum for civil
engineering”.

JBM guidelines consist of a “framework” of 3 core subjects (geotechnics,
materials and structures) + 2 more university-defined construction industryrelated core subjects + curriculum threads of design, health and safety risk
management and sustainability. Supplemented by guidance on field courses;
mathematics; surveying; digital technologies; industrial contributions, etc).

Onus on the University (or other HE provider) to demonstrate how their
graduates meet the UK-SPEC output standards within the JBM requirements.

The “framework” has evolved over many years through academic and
industrial input via the Board and the 4 member institutions.
The JBM

The JBM has 3 specialist sub-committees:
Further Learning Sub-Committee;
International Sub-Committee;
Higher Level and Technician Qualifications Sub-Committee

Working groups are also established, when needed, to develop policy
proposals, update guidelines, develop or update good practice guides, etc.
NOTES

JBM does not charge for an accreditation visit (unlike many other accrediting
bodies).

Cost? Shared between the 4 member PEBs - seen as an investment in the
future.

The work of the Board (including the chair), Panel of Moderators and the
Visiting Teams is voluntary.
Future Challenges 1
The perpetual challenge = Maintaining a “sense of proportion and
balance”
Recognising that:
Not all universities are the same (and “we” don’t want them to be the same).
The construction industry is diverse.
Graduates need a range of transferable/employability skills.
Graduates are not the “finished article”.
Some knowledge and skills are best developed in industry (during the period of
Initial Professional Development)
Seeking to:
Avoid over-prescription but provide some guidance.
Provide universities with some flexibility to allow them make use of their expertise.
Provide universities with sufficient opportunity and encouragement to bring their
cutting edge research into the student experience.
Continue to encourage, inspire and enthuse students.
Meet the changing needs of the construction industry.
Future Challenges 2 (Short-term)
1. Helping universities to understand & recognise the significant differences in
ethos between IEng and CEng level degree programmes; understanding the
very strong synergy between research and Masters level learning.
(More universities with experience of running IEng level degrees are seeking to
run JBM-accredited MSc and MEng programmes without understanding the
differences?)
2. Providing support and advice, where necessary, whilst maintaining the JBM’s
accreditation role (again a question of balance).
(A small number of universities seem to struggle to understand the JBM’s
philosophy and guidelines?)
3. Coping with increasing levels of international activity (franchised programmes;
UK universities with overseas campuses) set against backdrop of limited
resources.
4. Updating JBM website; encouraging more academics to gain an appropriate
professional qualification; implementing revisions to UK-SPEC (AHEP – to be
issued in May 2014); being aware of possible changes in the international
accreditation scenario (and reacting accordingly).
“Update” - Main Contents
1.
AHEP3 (Raising awareness)
2.
JBM Working Groups
3.
Results: Survey of universities visited by
the JBM in 2013/14
AHEP3

“AHEP3” = Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes 3rd
Edition, May 2014

AHEP3 is part of UK-SPEC which informs JBM accreditation activities
and guidelines (JBM is licensed to accredit by the Engineering Council)

3rd (current) edition of UK-SPEC was launched in January 2014.
Supporting/associated documents (e.g. AHEP3) published thereafter

Note key EngC documents including the revised “Engineering Council
Registration Code of Practice (Registration Code)” and the “Guidance
Note on Academic Accreditation”

New suite of UK-SPEC 3rd edition documents: Recommended (even
essential) reading for programme leaders and others involved in
programme design and development

See www.engc.org.uk/professional-registration/standards/uk-spec
AHEP3 – Implications?


May 2014 to September 2016 represents the “transition phase” between
AHEP2 and AHEP3
JBM requires all universities undergoing an accreditation visit from
1/9/2016 to demonstrate that their programmes align with AHEP3

In the transition phase (i.e between now and 1/9/16) alignment to AHEP2
is OK but JBM visiting teams will explore progress towards the
implementation of AHEP3 with CE staff.

Implications? Currently preparing for internal validation, new programme
development, etc? – suggest you map your curriculum design and
programme Learning Outcomes to AHEP3
AHEP3 (continued)

AHEP has been revised (and rationalised): Relatively few changes from the
previous edition

Now output standards given separately for
Bachelors/Bachelors(Hons) degrees for IEng
Bachelors(Hons) degrees for CEng,
Integrated Masters (MEng)
+ “Other Masters.

Output standards now defined for 6 key areas of learning:
Science and mathematics; Engineering analysis; Design;
Economic, legal, social, ethical and environmental context;
Engineering practice; Additional general skills

Other changes
Statistical methods added to Mathematics
Reference to “an integrated approach to problem solving”
Computational methods referred to for CEng degrees
Design “strengthened” for IEng degrees

See: “Accreditation of HE Programmes (AHEP) 3rd edition 2014: Summary of
key changes from the previous edition”
JBM Working Groups
New Provision
Working
Group
Guidelines
Working
Group
Documentation
Working Group
JBM Working Groups
Guidelines
Working
Group
New Provision
Working
Group
Documentation
Working Group
Principal role: To review and update the current
guidelines, improving clarification where
necessary.
To ensure compliance with EngC AHEP3,
Registration Code of Practice & Guidance Note on
Academic Accreditation
Principal role: To provide guidance to HEIs
developing new provision in CE including those
with experience of delivering IEng accredited
programmes seeking to develop CEng provision
(MSc, MEng)
Principal role: To provide guidance to HEIs
preparing a JBM accreditation submission
Question?
New Provision WG is considering including guidance such as:
a).
“Expectations” in terms of curriculum and/or learning outcomes for the
List A core subjects (geotechnics, materials and structures).
Important Note: NOT the JBM’s intention to provide or create a model syllabus!
Detailed programme design is your responsibility not that of the JBM!
b).
Suggested items of laboratory equipment to support teaching and
learning in the List A core subjects
Principal target: HEIs developing new civil engineering provision (BUT each may
serve as a helpful aide-mémoire for HEIs with existing CE provision?)
What do you think?
JBM Working Groups
New Provision
Working
Group
Guidelines
Working
Group
Documentation
Working Group
All WG developments informed by:
 ACED feedback obtained at joint ACED/JBM meeting held on
7/2/14
 Further feedback from joint ICE/IStructE/ACED annual meeting
on 23/4/14
 and the recent JBM survey …….
JBM Survey
Survey of 19 HEIs who had some form of JBM accreditation visit in
2013/14

19 HEIs were surveyed

13 HEIs replied (those that had a full visit)

No replies: 5 HEIs with review (rather than full) visits + 1 with an EAB
visit
Thank you to those of you who
took part in the survey
JBM Survey Results
Question
Did you have contact with the JBM Secretariat for assistance with
completion of the documentation or details of the forthcoming visit?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Question
Did you attend a pre-visit briefing session organised by the JBM?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Question
You will be aware that these pre-visit sessions have been discontinued but
we are considering their introduction. Should pre-visit briefing sessions be
re-introduced?
Answer
54% (7 replies): YES
46% (6 replies): NO
Comments on what should be covered if briefing
sessions were to be re-introduced & general feedback (1)

Useful to have the whole process explained. Opportunity to meet and discuss
with staff from other universities about to go through the same process. Possibly
include input from someone who has recently been through the process?.

Advice on changes in regulations. Reminder of the key issues the accreditation
teams have encountered at other institutions

More on design, professionalism, sustainability and health and safety across the
course.

Pre-briefing visit - really useful. Answered some general questions, but also
allowed us to ask questions. Useful to meet with staff from other universities.

Able to gather all the information needed from the website and from active
involvement in ACED meetings at which JBM was often represented.

Don’t think we need a specific pre-visit session, so long as JBM continues to
provide information and presence in the meetings already organised in
ICE/IStructE.

Not required unless there were significant changes to the accreditation visit
process
Comments on what should be covered if briefing
sessions were to be re-introduced & general feedback (2)
Other comments raised (not specifically related to the question):


Visiting Team spent little time on general curriculum review

Time with all staff was very poorly focused and seemed to be of no particular
benefit either to the staff or to the visiting Team.

Team appeared to have read very little information in advance of the meeting
leaving it difficult for them to assimilate information over the day and a half.
Team seemed to focus on a small number of “minor relatively inconsequential
items”.
JBM Survey Results
Question
Views on new accreditation visit timetable introduced from 1/10/2013 ?
Answers/Views
100% agreed that extended timetable was easy to arrange;
100% agreed that 08.30 progress meeting with Head of School/Dept on
day 2 was useful
69% (9 replies) – not difficult to arrange students to meet with Team 15.0016.00 day 1 (31%, 4 replies – disagreed)
Question
Was the informal feedback at the end of the visit clear and useful?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Question
Should the JBM team (in the final session) outline any conditions and
recommendations for action?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
JBM Survey Results
Question
Were the next steps after the accreditation visit clearly explained?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Question
Was the accreditation visit well organised and conducted?
Answer
100% (13 replies): YES
Question
Did the visit run to time?
Answer
100% (13 replies): YES
Question
Was the JBM team constructive and helpful?
Answer
100% (13 replies): YES
JBM Survey Results
Question
Did you feel that the JBM visit was worthwhile?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Further comments on the visit experience:

The visit was quite skewed to particular strengths and experience of team
members leaving large parts of the course only very lightly reviewed.

Guidance on what is necessary and what is optional in course content is very
ambiguous and seems to depend on team individual’s opinion rather than
clear independent guidance from the JBM.

Some better written guidance on expected learning outcomes or course
content and balance, to satisfy accreditation requirements, against which the
department could assess its own courses would be helpful
JBM Survey Results
Question
Was the submission document form easy to complete?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Question
Were the guidelines on the completion of the submission form helpful?
Answer
92% (12 replies): YES
8% (1 reply): NO
Question
Was the MEng guidelines document clear?
Answer
85% (11 replies): YES
15% (2 replies): NO
JBM Survey Results
Question
Was the BEng guidelines document clear?
Answer
85% (11 replies): YES
15% (2 replies): NO
Further comments on the MEng and BEng guidelines:


For universities that offer the MEng route as the gold standard there can be
difficulty in deciding what should be expected of a BEng student at
graduation.
There is some confusion over the differences between the final year of a
BEng and Year 3 of an MEng, and Year 4 of an MEng and an MSc. Some
clarification of the similarities and differences would be helpful.
Question
Was the IEng guidelines document clear?
Answer
77% (10 replies): YES
23% (3 replies): NO
JBM Survey Results
Question
Was the MSc guidelines document clear?
Answer
77% (10 replies): YES
23% (3 replies): NO
Further comments on the MSc guidelines:


Distinction between technical and nontechnical MSc needs some
clarification, "non-technical" is not a helpful label. All the guidelines could do
with some review.
In particular it would help to clarify where a document on the JBM website is
a "guideline", "useful information" or a "requirement”
Question
Are the Annexes (B Design; C Sustainability; D Health and Safety Risk
Management and E Professionalism) sufficiently clear?
Answer
100% (13 replies): YES
JBM Survey Results
Further comments about the JBM accreditation process:





JBM Team was very knowledgeable and offered assistance to the course team
with the recommendations made.
As a department we were happy with the process.
Some of the data required for the submission document takes a lot of work to
put together. Can the JBM review the submission requirements to check if
everything requested really is essential?
Could an electronic or online submission process be considered to reduce
printing and courier costs and to improve efficiency.
The guidance needs to be clearer. However it does need to strike a balance
between being too prescriptive or constraining and too vague.
JBM Survey Results
Further comments (continued):





Perhaps rather than work largely in isolation to review module content,
resources and student output it would help everyone if a JBM team member
was pre-assigned a thread of the course and spent some time with a senior
member of staff in that area - or with a small group teaching in that area - and
reviewed the course in a more mutually cooperative forum. .......
......... I can appreciate it is difficult for both staff and the JBM team to be
presented with an enormous amount of 'paperwork' in the team room with no
prior knowledge of the course. This would all take more time but the visit might
then be more beneficial to both the department and the team, leading to a
better insight.
The visit was carefully planned on both sides and was very informative and
successful
I think the accreditation process is good, and would not recommend any
significant changes. It would be useful to have more information available
when asked for 'paper submissions'. I value the rigour of the JBM process.
Both the pre-visit process and the visit itself were appropriate and it is hard to
identify ways in which they could be improved.
JBM Survey Results
Further comments (continued):






The visit was very well organised and is helpful.
Overall the visit was positive. The submission document is perhaps too long
and lacks focus. The guidance to prepare the document is spread across
several documents and could perhaps be more concise.
Volume of submission is far too big.
It would be much better to have more frequent, lighter touch visits - it would be
helpful for JBM to talk to RICS about this.
Our visit, despite the late changes to the team, went very well.
Pre-visit and visit process are in line with other institutions. In the interests of
sustainability, our preference is to provide all submission documentation
electronically..
JBM Survey Results
Further comments (continued):




The expectations of students in the new visit programme is unclear, relating to
the requirement for them to demonstrate threads within the samples of work
and answer questions relating to output. ,,,,,,
...... Students could feel that they are being 'tested'. Furthermore, the vast
majority of our student work is anonymous, and (with the exception of
projects), only samples of work are kept. For each module, these samples are
selected from different grade bands / fail and are not for any one particular
student. ,,,,,,
..... Therefore it is by chance that a student at the meeting would see their own
piece of work to answer questions on, and they can’t be expected to answer
questions on the work of another.
JBM panel and secretariat have been very helpful.
Any questions, comments or
views you would like to add?