COMMITTEE ON ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION ACTIVITIES
July 18-19, 2009
Arlington, Virginia
DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
1.
Call to Order and Introductions – Tredennick
See Summary Attachment #1 for attendance listing.
2.
Review and Adoption of Agenda – Tredennick
The agenda was amended to add a few topics, and then approved.
3.
Approval of January Meeting Summary -- Tredennick
The summary of the January meeting was reviewed and approved. Agenda Attachment #
4.
Action Register – Tredennick
The Committee reviewed the current action register and determined that all listed items had been completed. Agenda Attachment #
5.
Changes to CEAA Operating Process -- Tredennick
Nick Tredennick asked the Committee to read more carefully his proposed changes to CEAA operating processes that are included in the Operations Manual. A vote to approve these items was deferred until January, 2010. Agenda Attachment #
6.
Nominations Committee Report – McCullough
The Nominations Committee presented two candidates to fill an IEEE seat on the ABET EAC, which will be vacated in 2010 by Larry Kendrick. Vance McCullough was chosen to fill the position. This recommendation will be forwarded to the EAB for final approval. Current EAC members Bechta-
Dugan, Orr, Noel, Hughes, Dodd, Kuckertz, Meredith, Rover and Vian were reelected for one-year terms in 2010. The Committee also selected Lewis Brown and Mike McQuade to join Cheryl
Schrader in serving as EAC alternates.
7.
Chair’s Report -- Tredennick
Nick Tredennick did not provide a Chair’s Report.
8.
APC Report – Painter

Rich Painter introduced himself as the new chair of the Accreditation Policy Committee, summarized his lengthy prior service as an IEEE volunteer in accreditation activities, and reported briefly on the recent Educational Activities Board meeting.
9.
ABET Board of Director’s Report – Painter
Rich Painter provided a brief overview of current ABET policy and operating issues, on behalf of
Bruce Eisenstein. In response, committee members said the CEAA should be more systematic in communicating with IEEE technical societies, so that it can better anticipate efforts to create specific accreditation criteria in new and/or emerging technical fields. Agenda Attachment #
10.
PEV Training – Meredith
John Meredith presented a draft version of instructions and a self-evaluation quiz that will be provided to IEEE PEVs assigned to site visits where IEEE is the lead society. Ensuing discussion included the degree to which IEEE PEVs actually read and comprehend the training materials provided, the need to update training materials each year to reflect changes in criteria and trends/issues emerging from actual campus visits, and the possible need for training regarding unusual circumstances (e.g.: a single department that offers more than one degree program, with the respective programs meeting accreditation criteria to different degrees). Committee members agreed that enhanced efforts are needed to encourage PEVs to utilize program-specific training materials, and also discussed other visit “best practices,” such as the team chair convening a call of relevant PEVs to plan aspects of the visit prior to arrival on campus. Agenda Attachment #
11.
Visit Assignments – Daniels
Pat Daniels presented a summary of PEV assignments for the 09-10 visit cycle. She noted that more than one-quarter of the 108 scheduled visits involve programs outside the United States. This trend has implications for PEV training and selection, as well as for the types of profile information collected and stored about members of the PEV pool. To this end, the Committee directed staff to discuss with ABET personnel the possibility of integrating the respective PEV data bases of the two organizations, so that current and consistent information can be accessed more easily, and perhaps reducing administrative efforts and costs. The Committee will also give further consideration to sending a letter to current IEEE PEVs aimed at gathering additional background information on their knowledge and experience relative to engineering programs outside the U.S. The Committee also discussed the potential future need to include IEEE members from outside the U.S. in its own activities. Agenda Attachment #
12.
Awards – Dugan
Joanne Dugan expressed a high level of frustration and disappointment that none of the three individuals nominated for the Meritorious Achievement in Accreditation Award had been selected by the EAB Awards Committee. Lengthy discussion ensued concerning award selection criteria, membership of the EAB Awards Committee, nominating procedures, possible recourse on this

matter and creation of another award to recognize service to IEEE accreditation committees. In conclusion, the Committee agreed that: 1) the Chair should contact the IEEE Vice President of
Educational Activities to request input on the appointment of members of the Awards Committee;
2) that greater focus must be given to the preparation of awards nominations, with more descriptive information about the nature of activity by the nominee, and greater emphasis on the impact the person has had engineering education through accreditation.
13.
Mentoring – Soma
Mani Soma discussed PEV mentoring activities. He emphasized the growing need for additional mentors to handle the number of both new and “reentering” PEVs being assigned to visits.
Discussion also centered on the looming need to mentor PEVs located outside the U.S., when to invest further mentoring/training in a PEV whose work has not been rated highly, when to disengage from underperforming PEVs, and if/how to directly convey this message to the volunteer.
Agenda Attachment #
14.
Recruiting PEVs From Industry -- Hickman
Chuck Hickman reviewed plans developed with Ken Cooper, Jim McDonald and John Meredith to launch a new effort to recruit PEVs from industry. Actions steps will include: 1) sending a memo from Nick Tredennick to members of ECEDHA, inviting them to nominate current and recent members of their industry advisory councils for this activity; 2) contacting existing IEEE industry and government PEVs to encourage them to invite an organizational peer to apply to serve as an IEEE
PEV; 3) a mass mailing to current IEEE senior members, fellows, life members, life senior members and life fellows making them aware of opportunities for PEV service; 4) selected visits by IEEE officials to senior HR executives at firms that employ large numbers of IEEE members to discuss this need; and 5) continuation of current efforts to place articles and notice in relevant IEEE publications about service as a PEV. Agenda Attachment #
15.
ABET Harmonization Project -- Cooper
Ken Cooper said a new version of harmonized ABET criteria #4 will be offered for public comment shortly, and declared that other aspects of the effort to harmonize ABET criteria across all of the engineering disciplines are proceeding. He also reported that the ABET EAC Criteria Committee had approved a proposal to define “basic “science as including physical and life sciences, but not computer science. Finally, he noted the EAC Criteria Committee is planning to form a task force charged with developing and applying continuous improvement processes to the accreditation criteria themselves. A charter that frames this activity will be developed shortly, and presented to the ABET Executive Committee for approval in September.
16.
Software Engineering Criteria for Basic Math and Science – Dugan
Joanne Dugan declared that computer science should be more explicitly included in EAC program criteria as an engineering science, and that the CEAA should take an active role in advocating this

change. She agreed to chair a Program Criteria Review Sub-Committee that will include Ken Cooper,
Franc Noel, Jim McDonald and John Orr that will review the current program criteria (electrical and computer engineering programs), seek input from constituencies, suggest changes and forward its recommendation to the ABET EAC Criteria Committee. In addition, the sub-committee will work with CSAB (specifically through Jim McDonald) to suggest appropriate changes to the software engineering program criteria.
17.
ECEDHA – Smith
Mark Smith recapped sessions held at the March ECEDHA annual meeting that focused on ABET issues, and said that ECEDHA is collecting and synthesizing a list of “what’s broken at ABET.” He invited CEAA members to communicate their ideas and concerns to him for inclusion on the list.
Smith also reviewed responses by ECEDHA members at the annual conference to electronic polling questions about ABET, some posed by ECEDHA officials, and others derived from questions developed by the CEAA and posed at the conference by Chuck Hickman. Summary Attachment #
18.
Feedback to APC on ABET Criteria #2 and #3
Rich Painter invited committee members to review additional documents concerning ABET criteria
#2 and #3, and forward their comments/reactions to him no later than September 1. Agenda
Attachments #
19.
Committee Streamlining Proposal
In response to a proposal for “streamlining” IEEE accreditation committees put forth by Eric Tappert earlier in the year, Joe Hughes presented an alternate plan aimed at better reflecting the operating needs and realities of the CEAA. In summary, the plan includes 14 voting members (including the chair, eight at-large members, the visit assignment coordinator, APC chair, EAC representative to the
APC, an IEEE member serving on the EAC executive committee, and an IEEE member serving on the
ABET Board). The plan also permits four non-voting committee members, including the CSAB liaison, ECEDHA representative, IEEE representative to the BMES Council, and the IEEE Vice
President of Educational Activities. The plan calls for up to ten “affiliated” committee members, who would not vote, and not routinely attend CEAA meetings. These persons would most likely include EAC commissioners and alternates, former CEAA members and CEAA members “in waiting,” all of whom could provide counsel, and support—especially with PEV mentoring activities—on an
“as needed” basis. Hughes said this model would allow the CEAA to more easily “scale up” or “scale down” based on the actual level of committee activity, and better aligns membership with the specific tasks for which the committee is responsible. He added that the plan assumes CEAA membership would not be the only acceptable route to selection as an IEEE representative on the
ABET EAC. Committee members responded favorably to this proposal, and asked a variety of questions. Hughes invited everyone to offer additional feedback by September 1, so that a revised proposal can be provided at the September APC meeting. Agenda Attachment # ; Summary
Attachment #

20.
Other Business
Lewis Brown urged the Committee to consider how well positioned it is to provide PEVs in response to future growth in programs seeking dual-level accreditation. This matter will be considered at a future meeting.