COMMITTEE ON ENGINEERING ACCREDITATION ACTIVITIES (CEAA)
Hyatt Regency Hotel—Denver, Colorado
14-15 January 2011
Draft Meeting Summary
Members Present: Ken Cooper (chairman), Lew Brown, Joe Hughes, Richard Lilly, Jim McDonald, Mike
McQuade, Victor Nelson, Rich Painter, Bryan Riley, Cheryl Schrader, Mark Smith,
Ex-Officio Member Present: Mike Lightner
Staff Present: Chuck Hickman, Laurie Policastro
1. Call to Order and Introduction—Cooper
Ken Cooper welcomed meeting observer Lance Hoboy of ABET. Cooper also reported that; 1) Mani
Soma has agreed to assume new duties as chair of the CEAA Training Subcommittee in 2011-12; and 2)
IEEE has been allocated two additional seats on the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission for
2011-12. EAC alternates Lew Brown and Jim McDonald have accepted invitations to fill these positions.
ACTION
2. Approval of July 2010 Meeting Summary—Cooper
The summary of the July, 2010 meeting was approved without change. (Agenda Attachment 3a)
3. Action Register Review—Cooper
Committee members and staff reported on the status various action register entries. (Agenda
Attachment 3b)
4. Election of 2011-12 Chair—Schrader
Committee members voted to recommend to the Accreditation Policy Council that Cooper serve a
second term as chair of the committee in 2011-12. (Agenda Attachment 3c)
5. Election of 2011-12 Members—Schrader
The Committee voted to recommend that Pat Daniels serve another one-year term as program
evaluator coordinator in 2011-12, and that Sarah Rajala and Ed Jones continue to serve as back-up
coordinators. At-large members Richard Lilley, Victor Nelson, Bryan Riley and Mark Smith are all
recommended for new terms. John Attia, Sam Formby, Kathleen Kramer and Claire McCullough are
recommended to the APC to fill vacant at-large positions. William Boley, Gerald Bernham, Jeffrey Froyd
Page 1 of 6
, James Komiak and Richard Rikoski are recommended to the APC to serve as CEAA alternate members.
(Agenda Attachment 3d)
6. Proposed Revisions to Committee Charter--Hughes
After recapping initial CEAA experience with the “streamlined” roster adopted last year, Joe Hughes
proposed additional amendments to the CEAA charter and other changes in committee operations.
Noting that future committee chairs will most likely be drawn from the pool of recent EAC members,
Hughes said the charter should be changed to: 1)make the chairman position a single two-year term,
instead a one-year term with a two term limit; 2)create the new position of chair-elect, who would be
elected to serve a one-year term beginning in July of odd-numbered years; 3) create the position of
past-chair, who would serve a one-year term starting in even-numbered years; and 4)eliminate the
current CEAA seat reserved for a IEEE representative serving on the EAC Executive Committee. Hughes
said this structure would: help assure that new CEAA chairs have needed prior experience on the both
the Committee and the EAC; allow incoming chairs time to re-familiarize themselves with CEAA issues
and operations; contribute to committee stability by retaining the outgoing chair for an additional year;
and maintain existing limits on the number of voting members of the committee. To implement the
plan, Hughes proposed that it be submitted for action to the APC in February, and—assuming
approval—that the Nominating Committee propose candidates for the chair-elect position that can be
voted upon by the CEAA and APC via phone or e-mail ballot during the spring. The chair-elect would
then assume his/her role on July 1 along with other committee members. In subsequent discussion,
Hughes remarked that current IEEE members of the EAC should be represented on the CEAA Nominating
Committee (since they are most familiar with the work of their peers). Mike Lightner noted, however,
that no Nominating Committee member is eligible for nomination to serve as committee chair. (Agenda
Attachment 3e)
Committee members discussed the implications of the proposed changes at some length, and then
voted to recommend them to the APC.
7. Proposed Revisions to Operations Manual--Cooper
Hughes observed that the CEAA Operations Manual has not been updated to reflect recent changes in
committee structure, ABET’s assumption of primary responsibility for PEV training, as well as changes in
the external environment, and that it also contains some content more appropriate for the committee
charter. Cooper said he will work with staff on necessary updates, and present them to the Committee
for approval in July. (Agenda Attachment 3f)
8. Program Evaluator Extensions—Daniels
Daniels presented a set of recommendations concerning the potential renewal of 75 members of the
current EAC PEV pool. Committee members discussed several specific situations, and voted to renew 67
of the individuals listed. (Agenda Attachment 3g)
Page 2 of 6
9. Selection of EAC Program Evaluators—Cooper
The committee reviewed rankings of 29 potential new PEVs, and voted to forward selected candidates
to ABET for acceptance. (Agenda Attachment 3h)
DISCUSSION
10. Chairman’s Remarks—Cooper
Cooper said that membership on various CEAA subcommittees will remain the same until July, but that
the transition process from Brown to Soma as chair of the Training Subcommittee will begin at once.
(Agenda Attachment 4a)
11.
ABET Issues
Lightner summarized activities of the ABET Board of Directors. Elements of his presentation included: 1)
concerns over proposed changes to the accreditation policy and procedures manual. IEEE
representatives and others were unhappy about procedures used to collect, acknowledge and
incorporate input from societies in the updated document, as well as passages in the revised version
that lessen the Board’s oversight role on selected issues. These passages in the APPM have been
revised again to make the Board’s oversight duty more explicit. The APPM also includes proposed
“editorial” changes that some members of the ABET Board viewed as setting new policy. Lightner said
these changes were approved to allow for timely conduct of accreditation work in the year ahead, but
will be subject to further review and amendment; 2) creation of an academic advisory council. Lightner
said this step is potentially positive for ABET, but added there is concern about the absence of
representation from “top ten” programs; 3) ABET global strategy. Lightner said the most recent
explanation of these plans assumes a role by the ABET Foundation that the Board (led by IEEE
representatives) explicitly rejected in a prior vote. Committee members discussed various aspects of
ABET’s global outreach. Rich Painter reported that the APC adopted a policy in October which excludes
applicants from outside the U.S. from serving as PEVs through IEEE. He declared that ABET needs a
more complete global vision and strategy, and that efforts of member societies to constructively
support ABET in this sphere of activity are highly problematic in the meantime. (Agenda Attachment
4b1)
Hughes provided a brief summary of recent EAC activity, with emphasis on plans to implement the
harmonized criteria project in fall, 2011. ABET will provide expanded training for team chairs to help
implement the harmonized criteria.
Hughes also discussed the “editorial” change in program criteria for electrical and computer engineering
programs that was approved by the EAC in July, 2010. Cooper asked Hughes to propose changes in the
instructions provided to IEEE PEVs that will help them apply the new program criteria. (Agenda
Attachment 4b3)
Page 3 of 6
Hughes summarized a discussion at the October APC meeting about development of a human rights
policy that IEEE might subsequently propose to ABET as guidance in determining what circumstances
would cause it not to offer accreditation services to an institution. He said the APC also discussed
proposing a non-discrimination policy regarding the assignment of PEVs to relevant nations and
institutions, but came to no consensus. CEAA members observed the difficulty in forming a policy
consistent with IEEE’s own activities in selected locations, the apparent absence of similar policies
among other societies belonging to ABET, and the privilege provided by ABET to applicant programs to
reject proposed visit team members without explanation. Cooper declared that the CEAA will not
devote further time to this issue. Lightner and Painter indicated the subject will continue to be
monitored by the APC.
The Committee reviewed a five-year projection of PEV needs that was produced by ABET last fall.
Daniels said the report may portray a larger demand than actually occurs, based on assumptions it
makes about interest in ABET accreditation by programs outside the U.S. (Agenda Attachment 4b5)
Chuck Hickman reported that ABET has provided no response to a March, 2010 letter proposing changes
in the PEV application form. Hoboy expressed regret about this oversight, said a formal response will be
sent shortly, and pledged to explore alternate approaches aimed at meeting IEEE’s particular needs.
12. Training Subcommittee Report—Brown
Brown described the extensive efforts of the subcommittee to create new and update existing case
studies, to build awareness of this resource among new and experienced PEVs, and to ease access to the
webpage. He posed questions for the CEAA about whether to reduce the number of cases on the site in
order to draw greater focus to those that remain, how to measure the relative effectiveness of this
activity, whether lessons can be drawn from the PEV training efforts of other large ABET member
societies, and why the same shortcomings in accreditation applications continue to occur, even though
the current system of ABET accreditation is no longer new. (Agenda Attachment 4c, 4c1)
To draw additional attention to the website, Lightner suggested allowing public access to the site.
However, additional copy would need to be posted emphasizing that the cases are for PEV training
purposes, and not to offer interpretations of criteria to programs seeking accreditation. Cooper added
that an electronic link to the site ought to be sent to every department chair, especially those preparing
for accreditation review. He also advocated sending a message to every newly extended PEV concerning
this resource, asking them to review its content before 2011-12 visit assignments are made. Mark Smith
spoke in favor of keeping a large number of cases on the site, though Copper then asserted that the site
navigation should be designed to draw attention to “the top five” cases. Other discussion included the
need to add examples of exit statements to the case studies. Hickman will facilitate discussion between
Brown and relevant ASME and ASCE staff about their PEV training activities.
13. Mentoring Subcommittee Report—Soma/Nelson
Page 4 of 6
Nelson provided a summary report on each PEV participating in a 2010-11 visit, the outcome of the visit,
and the mentor rating of PEV performance. Discussion ensued on problem cases, circumstances
contributing to these difficulties, and instances where PEVs assigned by IEEE had not met performance
expectations. (Agenda Attachment 4d, 4d1)
Nelson also provided an update on activities of the CEAA subcommittee. The Committee agreed that
Laurie Policastro will send a template of the PEV thank you letter to Cooper, who will then forward
appropriate versions to each mentor. PEVs who did not submit the expected written report after a
campus visit will be advised in the letter that such behavior places their future opportunity to serve at
risk. The actual thank you letter to each PEV should come from his/her mentor.
14. Criteria Subcommittee Report—McDonald
McDonald highlighted recent subcommittee activity, including: 1) planned efforts to better educate
deans and department chairs about approaches to satisfying ABET criteria 2 and 3; 2) potential changes
to criterion 3, in response to both a proposal by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) to
add several “professional practice” topics to the list of required educational outcomes, and a separate
CEAA request to consider possible changes in the same criterion ; and 3) considering possible program
criteria that recognize the emergence of new degree programs (e.g.: optical engineering,
telecommunications engineering, wireless engineering, machatronics and renewable energy
engineering) that are in IEEE’s extended fields of interest. (Agenda Attachment 4e)
McDonald said the subcommittee acknowledges the NSPE concerns, but does not favor requiring
programs to demonstrate additional educational outcomes. This position will be communicated
through future IEEE participation in the ABET EAC criteria committee. He also distributed a survey to
CEAA members asking for their feedback on other potential changes.
With respect to the potential creation of more program criteria, Mike McQuade said IEEE could: seek to
extend exiting program criteria to cover the new degree fields; develop new “stand alone” program
criteria as the lead or a cooperating society; or work through ABET to seek other structural changes in
program criteria. McDonald added that at least ten IEEE technical societies might potentially seek input
into the creation of program criteria covering the new degree fields. Lightner declared that the
appropriate method of engaging these technical societies should be considered by additional IEEE
governance levels.
15. PEV Application Scoring Tool—Love
Stan Love demonstrated for the Committee an electronic system now in use by the CTAA to collect and
combine rankings of prospective PEVs by committee members. He explained that the system also has
components that can increase the productivity of the PEV coordinator and accreditation administrator.
The committee voiced its support for this innovation and directed staff and Daniels to implement the
system for use next year. Cooper said another demonstration should be provided for new committee
members at the July meeting. (Agenda Attachment 4f, 4f1)
Page 5 of 6
16. Proposed Newsletter/Annual Report--Cooper
Cooper invited committee members to review a newsletter distributed annually by ASCE to its members
and constituents involved in ABET accreditation activity. Hughes said that faculty at his institution
would be unlikely to read such a document, and that an IEEE version would need to be something other
than a compilation of committee reports. Lightner expressed his own fatigue with both printed and
electronic newsletters, and Brown asked who would be responsible for writing and editing such a
publication. The Committee agreed not to pursue this idea further. (Agenda Attachment 4g)
17. Awards Subcommittee Report—Smith
Smith voiced frustration that recent nominations submitted by the subcommittee have not been
selected by the EAB awards committee. He indicated this situation makes it difficult to generate new
initiative to participate in this programming.
18. Updated IEEE Accreditation Webpages—Policastro
Laurie Policastro and Hickman described recent efforts to improve navigation features on the
accreditation webpages, update content, and make the site more user friendly for a variety of target
audiences. Hickman said the results of recent end-user testing provide many additional opportunities
for improvement. Committee members voiced a variety of frustrations with the current site, with
emphasis on navigation features, difficulty in using the Yahoo-based committee closed site, access to
and content of the PEV application form, and clumsy URLs.
19. PEV Coordinator Report—Daniels
Daniels provided the annual update on the PEV assignment process, trends in the distribution of PEVs to
review specific program fields, and in the affiliation of PEVs with the academic, industry or government
sectors. (Agenda Attachment 5b)
20. ECEDHA Report—Smith
Smith provided a summary of electronic polling results concerning ABET related issues at the 2010
ECEDHA department chairs conference. (Agenda Attachment 5c)
21. Industry PEV Recruitment—Hickman
Hickman reviewed efforts to attract additional PEV applicants from industry, and declared that “in
person” contact remains the most effective approach. Painter suggested contacting the individual
within each IEEE region in the U.S. responsible for industry relations to enlist their help. Smith said that
firms serving as ECEDHA corporate sponsors should also be contacted for assistance. (Agenda
Attachment 5d)
Page 6 of 6