The Washington Accord: History, Development, Status and Trajectory
Hu Hanrahan
School of Electrical and Information Engineering
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
h.hanrahan@ee.wits.ac.za
Professional Engineering Development in a Global Environment
The development of a professional engineer to the level required for independent practice or
licensure consists of two essential processes. First, a set of predominantly educational
requirements are satisfied through an accredited engineering education programme. Second,
the would-be engineer follows a process of training, experience and further learning that
develops the competence required for registration. The academic education phase builds
fundamental scientific and engineering knowledge, knowledge specific to a discipline and
develops essential attributes including problem solving, communication, assessing the impact
of engineering activity and the ability to continue learning. The period of training and
experience further develops the graduate’s abilities to analyse problems, investigate,
synthesise and design solutions, evaluate the impacts and outcomes of engineering solutions
and take responsibility for decisions. To do all these at a professional level, the engineer
must have well-developed management and communication skills and must be able to deal
with ethical, social, economic, environmental and sustainability considerations.
This long established and widely practised model for the development of engineering
professionals represents a division of functions in an agreed way between the education and
practical training phases. The agreed role of the educational phase is encapsulated in the
criteria for accredited engineering programmes defined by national accrediting bodies. The
training and experience phase builds on the educational outcomes, emphasising those
required for professional practice. Engineering is practised on a global basis with companies
working across national boundaries, engineering services being sourced internationally and
graduates being increasingly mobile. An expected development is therefore the
establishment of mechanisms for benchmarking among national engineering education
standards and mutual recognition of engineering degrees across accreditation jurisdictions.
The Washington Accord1 is an agreement dating from 1989 that provides for the mutual
recognition of engineering education programmes that are accredited by its signatories. This
paper describes the underlying premises and mechanisms of the Washington Accord, its
history and development, its current status and its trajectory. The types of partnerships that
the WA supports are reviewed.
The Washington Accord
The Washington Accord (WA) is concerned with degree programmes that provide the
academic foundation for the practice of engineering at the professional level2. The
educational qualification, together with a period of post-graduation training and experience
builds the competence required for professional registration. When this competence has been
demonstrated, a designation such as Professional Engineer or Chartered Engineer is awarded,
together with rights to practice. Because academic education is the key foundation for
developing professional engineers, most jurisdiction have or aspire to have a system for
accrediting degree programmes as meeting acceptable standards.
The signatories to the WA are national accrediting bodies for engineering programmes. The
Accord reflects agreement between signatories on several principal matters. First, signatories
accept that the criteria, policies and procedures used by fellow signatories are comparable.
Comparability is verified before a new signatory is admitted and existing signatories are
monitored periodically for continuing equivalence. Second, signatories agree that decisions to
accredit programmes by other signatories are acceptable. A graduate of a programme
accredited by one signatory as meeting the academic requirements toward professional
registration is therefore recognised by other signatories. Third, signatories agree to exchange
information on their respective criteria, policies and procedures and to encourage the
implementation of best practice. For example, observation of other signatories’ accreditation
processes is encouraged outside the formal monitoring visits. Fourth, in several countries, the
registering and accrediting bodies are distinct. Such WA signatories undertake ensure that the
separate registering body or bodies accept the accredited programmes of other signatories.
Comparability of accreditation systems and mutual recognition of graduates is based on the
principle of substantial equivalence. Substantial equivalence means that two educational
programmes, while not meeting a single set of criteria in detail, are both acceptable as an
education base that prepares their respective graduates to enter training and experience
toward registration in a jurisdiction. Substantial equivalence relates to the output of degree
programmes rather than their detailed internal structures. Initially, substantial equivalence of
criteria across jurisdictions was established by an exchange of information, observation of
accreditation systems in action and experience of graduates. Subsequently, a formal
monitoring system was adopted that requires each signatory’s accreditation system to be
evaluated while in operation at intervals no longer than six years. The monitoring team
consists of nominees of three signatories. The members of the monitoring team form a
judgement on whether the criteria and procedures are substantially equivalent to those of
other signatories and report to the general meeting of signatories.
Development of the Washington Accord
The WA was signed in 1989 by the original six signatories*: ABET Inc (USA), Engineers
Australia, Engineers Canada, Engineers Ireland, Engineering Council UK and Institution of
Professional Engineers New Zealand. The six bodies had similar traditions of engineering
education, had become familiar with each other’s criteria, policies and procedures and
through experience, accepted that graduates of their respective accredited programmes were
substantially equivalent. The admission of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers in 1995
and the Engineering Council of South Africa in 1999 signalled the start of a significant
expansion of the Accord. By 2007, signatories from Japan, Singapore, Korea and Chinese
Taipei had been admitted, as shown in Table 1. With five further accrediting bodies holding
provisional status in the Accord, the number of signatories is expected to grow steadily from
the twelve at present.
Initially, the Accord was able to operate with little formality. The signatories held bi-annual
meetings in odd-numbered years. The Accord was supplemented by a simple set of rules and
procedures. The awakening interest from many countries to become signatories indicated
that more structure and formality would be needed in future. Rules and procedures were
enhanced and a single set was developed to govern the Washington, Sydney and Dublin
Accords2.
*
The signatories’ current names are used.
Proliferation of Engineering Recognition Agreements
As the tenth anniversary of the Washington Accord approached, a number of related
engineering agreements were developed. Over the period 1999 to 2001, the Sydney Accord
(SA) was developed to support the mutual recognition of engineering technologist education
programmes. This was followed closely by the Dublin Accord for the recognition of
engineering technician education programmes, signed in 2002. Both new accords were
modelled on the WA. In parallel, two agreements to aid movement at the professional level
were developed: The Engineers Mobility Forum3 (EMF) in 1997 and the Engineering
Technologist Mobility Forum (ETMF) in 2001. The APEC Engineer Agreement was entered
into from 2000 by a number of countries belonging to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC). The EMF and the APEC Engineer Agreement operate special registers that provide
benefits in the form of recognition of experienced, registered professional engineers who seek
registration in another jurisdiction.
Table 1: Signatories of Educational Accords and Mobility Fora at June 2007
Body and Jurisdiction
WA
ABET Inc (USA)

Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea
(ABEEK)

Canadian Council for Professional Engineers (CCPE)

Canadian Council for Technicians and Technologists (CCTT)
SA
DA
EMF ETMF APEC






Chinese Taipei APEC Engineer Monitoring Committee

Engineers Australia


Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA)





Engineering Council United Kingdom (EC UK)*





Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)




Institution of Engineers, Ireland (Engineers Ireland)*






Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan (IEET)
Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ)

Institution of Engineers, Singapore (IES)






Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (IESL)

Institution of Professional Engineers Japan (IPEJ)

Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE)


Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM)






Korean Professional Engineers Association (KPEA)


Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia

Professional Registration Board (Philippines)

Council of Engineers Thailand
United States Council for International Engineering Practice



* EC UK and Engineers Ireland are partners in the European EUR-ACE project
Table 1 shows that considerable overlap exists in the membership of the various agreements.
In many cases a single body within a jurisdiction may be a signatory to multiple accords. In
other cases, jurisdictions have separate co-operating bodies belonging to related agreements:
the Washington Accord and the EMF; and the Sydney Accord and the ETMF. The majority
of EMF signatories also belong to the APEC Engineer agreement. Part of the EMF and APEC
Engineer requirements are educational and a Washington Accord degree or one that is
substantially equivalent meets this requirement. Similarly, the educational requirement for
the ETMF is a Sydney Accord accredited programme or substantial equivalent.
In view of the overlap in membership and mutual interests of the educational accords and
professional recognition agreements, the bodies have, since 2001, co-located and coordinated their bi-annual general meetings. Individual agreements were administered by one
of the signatories who took on the secretariat for a number of years. As the agreements grew,
so did the administrative load. The six agreements therefore signed an agreement to set up a
joint secretariat to provide ongoing support for activities such as periodic monitoring,
admission of new signatories and the organisation of general meetings and other events.
Following a tender process in 2007, IPENZ was awarded the contract to operate the
Secretariat. At present, the group of agreements styles itself the International Engineering
Alliance† (IEA).
Common meeting arrangements provided the signatories of the various agreements with a
forum for interaction and reflection on important questions underpinning the ongoing
evolution of their operation. One such question is “What are the consensus attributes of a
graduate of a programme recognised under the Washington Accord?” The response to this
question is discussed below. Similar questions were posed about the Sydney and Dublin
Accord graduates. With the professional level agreements in the same grouping, the question
of consensus competency statements for professional engineers, technologists and technicians
arose. From 2004, the signatories held bi-annual workshops to discuss problems such as these
as well as formulate policy in preparation for the general meeting of signatories.
Capturing the Attributes of the Washington Accord Graduate
The Washington Accord operates on the principle of substantial equivalence, thus avoiding
the need for a single prescriptive standard for accredited programmes. During the 1990s,
several signatories decided to adopt outcomes-based criteria for their respective accredited
programmes. They engaged with questions relating to the educational foundation for the
professional engineer such as the following. What must a graduate be able to do? Should
content be specified, and if so, how? How must the accreditation evaluation system change in
response to new criteria? In 2001, it was proposed that the Washington Accord signatories
work towards defining the consensus attributes of the Washington Accord Graduate. By the
2003 meeting an initial draft of a set of outcome statements that explored common ground
between the outcomes already defined by many the signatories. By that time, bodies also
belonging to the Sydney and Dublin Accords were considering outcomes-based specifications
for technologist and technician education programmes. The benefit of an approach that would
be consistent with the WA graduate attributes was generally recognised. In particular, IPENZ
drew up a set of exit-level outcomes for engineer, technologist and technician education that
reflect the distinctive roles that each plays in the engineering team. A set of outcomes
defining the competencies of engineers, technologists and technicians required for
registration were also drawn up.
This approach was taken up by the signatories to the agreements. The significant contribution
of this work was a recognition that the same basic outcomes such as problem solving, use of
knowledge, design and communication would apply in all three cases provided that level of
†
See http://www.ieagreements.org
performance is adequately differentiated between the three types of qualification. Rather than
specify detailed levels of performance for each outcome, it was recognised that the required
level of problem solving defines the level of performance against several outcomes. Figure 1
attempts to capture the thinking underlying the Graduate Attributes.
Three related attributes, the abilities in problem analysis, synthesis of solutions and
evaluation of the impact of the solutions, define the basic processes of engineering, including
design and investigation. The process is shown in a highly schematic form in Figure 1,
operating on problems of a defined level of demand. Supporting these we have the use of
mathematical, natural science and engineering knowledge – both fundamental and specialist applied to problem solving at the exit level of the degree. Contextual knowledge is required
to support problem solving and, in particular, to evaluate the social, economic and
environmental impacts of solutions. The ability to manage projects, communicate, to work in
teams and to work across disciplinary boundaries is essential to problem solving. The reader
is referred to the Graduate Attributes definition for detail4.
Core Process of Design or Investigation
Problem Analysis
Solution Synthesis
Level of
Problem
Engineering Specialities
Engineering Sciences
Natural Sciences
Evaluation
Contextual
Know ledge
Social, Cultural,
Legislation,
Health & Safety,
Environment,
Sustainability
Project
Management
& Finance
Communication,
Teamw ork,
Ethics
Mathematical Sciences
Know ledge Base and Abilities
Figure 1: A conceptual model underlying the Graduate Attributes
Two statements capture, for each type of programme, the level of problem solving and the
level of engineering activity, the latter being more relevant at the professional level. For
example, at the exit level of an engineer education programme the graduate must analyse and
synthesise solutions to problems that have leading level descriptors: problems have no
obvious solution and require abstract thinking, originality in analysis to formulate suitable
models; solutions requires in-depth knowledge that allows a fundamentals-based first
principles analytical approach; problems involve infrequently encountered issues; and
problems are outside those encompassed by standards and codes of practice. Problems of this
level are described as complex engineering problems. Corresponding level descriptors are
given for the engineering technologist and engineering technician education.
The Graduate Attributes do not specify the content of engineering programmes other than the
need to bring mathematics, natural sciences, engineering sciences and contextual knowledge
to bear on engineering problems. The total volume of learning is indicated by the statement
that a Washington Accord programme of study is typified by four years or more of postsecondary study. Current indications are that some signatories are looking to volumes of
learning beyond the minimum of four years. The principal contribution of the Graduate
Attributes to a common understanding of engineering education requirements is the twelve
attributes describing generally accepted outcomes of an engineering programme that provides
the educational base toward registration as a professional engineer.
The status of the Graduate Attributes is as an exemplar of the outcomes of a programme that
is substantially equivalent to a programme accredited by a Washington Accord signatory2.
The Graduate Attributes are increasingly perceived as a benchmark. The Washington Accord
signatories do not promote the Graduate Attributes as a mandatory standard. Rather, the GA
provide guidance to signatories who are developing outcomes-based criteria for accredited
programmes within their jurisdictions and for accrediting bodies that aspire to become
signatories.
The Washington Accord’s Roles in Partnerships
The WA is a form of partnership between signatories that provides benchmarking of
standards and a mechanism for recognition of graduates of accredited programmes across
signatory jurisdictions. The original agreement restricted recognition to programmes
conducted within the national boundaries of the accrediting signatory. Programmes that are
be evaluated by signatories in non-signatory countries are therefore not recognised under the
Accord. Similarly, the signatories recognise that it would be wasteful and problematic if a
signatory visits and accredits programmes of a provider domiciled in another signatory’s
jurisdiction. Signatories agreed to desist from making such visits. With the
internationalisation of engineering, cases arose where it would be necessary to accredit
programmes offered across national boundaries. Several arrangements for cross-border
recognition of programmes2 have evolved that support three types of partnerships.
First, education providers within WA jurisdictions increasingly operate offshore campuses
that offer engineering education programmes that may be identical to or different from those
at its home campus. If the offshore campus is within the jurisdiction of another signatory, and
if the programme is undifferentiated on the degree certificate and transcript from the home
jurisdiction programme, the evaluation of the offshore programme is undertaken on a
collaborative basis between the two signatories. The programmes must satisfy the
requirements of both home and offshore jurisdictions. If the programmes are differentiated in
the degree designation and transcript, the signatory of the jurisdiction in which the
programme is delivered must evaluate and accredit the programme. The home and offshore
programmes are subject to different accreditation processes in this case.
The second case is where an offshore programme is offered within a non-signatory
jurisdiction by a provider whose home campus is in a signatory country. Here, the accrediting
body of the home jurisdiction must evaluate and accredit the offshore programme.
Programmes in cases one and two are mutually recognised under the Accord.
In the third type of partnership, the WA has a mechanism for assisting established or
intending accrediting bodies to progress to signatory status. This may involve the
establishment of an accreditation system or further development of an existing system. The
Washington Accord provides advice to such signatories and a two step process toward
becoming a signatory. Once an accreditation system meeting basic requirements exists, an
accreditation agency may be admitted to provisional status. The Accord appoints three
signatories as mentors to assist the body develop to meet the requirements for comparable
accreditation criteria and process to attain signatory status.
The fourth type of partnership arises from recognition by the WA that, in the coming years, a
number of developing countries will wish to attain Signatory status. Such countries may have
or be developing programmes that are potentially equivalent to WA programmes. Cases arise
when countries have no body to take on the accreditation function and have little prospect of
establishing or sustaining such a body. This would typically be true in a country with a low
population and only one or a few universities offering engineering programmes. The
programmes may nevertheless be of a quality that is substantially equivalent to WArecognised programmes or could develop to this level. The signatories were faced with the
question: how then do such programmes achieve mutual recognition?
The educational accords adopted a rule that allows an education provider in a non-signatory
jurisdiction that is unable to sustain an accrediting body to request a signatory to evaluate
and, if the criteria are fulfilled, to accredit the offered programmes. If this arrangement has
prior approval of the WA signatories, programmes so accredited are recognized under the
Accord.
While the developing country may not be able to support an accrediting agency initially, the
accrediting signatory may mentor and assist the developing country toward establishing its
own body and ultimately gaining signatory status.
These provisions are intended to assist developing countries that can not sustain an
accreditation agency. The presumption is that, if a non-signatory country has or could
potentially sustain an accreditation agency, it should work toward attaining provisional status
and ultimately become a signatory of the Accord. Signatories are generally willing to assist
agencies working toward provisional status.
The educational accords’ rules and procedures recognize that signatories undertaking
accreditation outside their home jurisdictions must observe the sovereignty of the country in
which the programme is offered and must comply with local statutory requirements.
Important potential partnerships for the WA, and the SA and DA, are with existing regional
accreditation arrangements. In engineering, the most significant of these is the EUR-ACE
project5, a partnership that has set up an accreditation system for European engineering
education programmes. These programmes conform to the Bologna first- and second-cycle
degree model as well as integrated programmes. EUR-ACE accreditation is an additional
quality label that could be added to the national accreditation of the programme if the EURACE criteria are satisfied. The accreditation evaluation is performed by national accreditation
agencies against common criteria set by EUR-ACE. A set of Framework Standards6 has
been published by EUR-ACE. The accreditation criteria contain a set of Programme
Outcomes for the first- and second-cycle degrees.
The only overlapping membership between the WA/SA and EUR-ACE is the Engineering
Council UK and Engineers Ireland. The IEA and EUR-ACE therefore represent two major
but largely distinct groupings of accrediting agencies. The form of engineering education and
accreditation in the IEA economies has evolved over time to its present from: four-year
engineer programmes, three year technologist programmes and two year technician
programmes meet the various engineering requirements. The Graduate Attributes capture the
consensus programme outcomes. The first- and second-cycle programmes of the Bologna
Accord have been driven by top-down political forces to create one model for all disciplines.
For example, all programmes, irrespective of discipline, must conform to the Dublin
Descriptors. EUR-ACE works within the constraints of the Bologna model to define
outcomes for engineering programmes.
The IEA pattern of engineering qualifications provides parallel development paths for
engineers, engineering technologists and engineering technicians. The EUR-ACE programme
outcomes are defined for the first- and second-cycle as a serial education process without
reference to particular engineering roles, for example the theoretically oriented engineer and
the practice-oriented engineer accommodated by FEANI in the EurIng register7.
Reading across the WA and SA Graduate Attributes and the EUR-ACE Programme
Outcomes does not lead to self-evident statements of equivalence. The IEA has
commissioned a study to determine the degree of alignment between the WA/SA and the
first- and second-cycle programmes. This study is in progress. An initial finding is that
common terminology, or agreed synonyms, would be helpful.
Conclusion
The Washington Accord is two decades old and its membership has spread across significant
economies. It has also become one of a family of related accords; its consensus standards are
calibrated across the engineering team at educational level and with the requirements for
professional engineering registration. The Washington Accord is likely to attract further
signatories over time. It will also continue to contribute to the understanding of standards for
engineering education and best practice in education. Important debates underway in the IEA
at present include:
 What is the fundamental purpose of engineering education, training, professional
registration and practice, currently and in the longer term?
 What are the effects of changes in national educational systems, in particular the
introduction of two-cycle structures, and changes in national engineers’ formation
requirements on educational accords and mobility fora?
The Washington Accord will continue to evolve to meet emerging needs and contribute both
in the areas of mutual recognition as well as promotion of a common understanding of
standards best practice. For example the Graduate Attributes provide a common
understanding of the educational requirements within the professional development process
and undergo revision as shared understanding develops. The Washington Accord is therefore
a key player in building capacity to support a vibrant global economy through sustainable
accreditation policy and practice in developed and developing nations. With its close linkages
to the Sydney and Dublin Accords and the professional engineer mobility agreements, the
Washington Accord is uniquely positioned to play a global role.
Bibliography
1. W. M. Phillips, G. D. Peterson and K. B. Aberle, Quality Assurance for Engineering Education in a Changing
World, Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 97-103, 2000
2. International Engineering Alliance: Rules & Procedures: International Educational Accords, Washington
Accord 1989, Sydney Accord 2001, Dublin Accord 2002, http://www.ieagreements.org/Rules-andProcedures-Aug-2007.pdf, Accessed 10 Sept 2008.
3. Engineers Mobility Forum: The International Register of Professional Engineers, Constitution, Revised June
2007. http://www.ieagreements.org/., Accessed 10 Sept 2008.
4. International Engineering Alliance, Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies, Ver 1.1 - 13 June
2005, http://www.ieagreements.org/, Accessed 10 Sept 2008.
5. G. Augusti, Transnational recognition and accreditation of engineering educational programmes in
Europe: perspectives in a global framework, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No.
3, June 2006, 249–260
6. EUR-ACE (2005): Framework Standards for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes, Final version,
http://www.feani.org/, Accessed 10 Sept 2008.
7. FEANI, A FEANI Contribution: Competence of Professional Engineers/EUR ING, European Federation of
National Engineering Associations, April, 2005, http://www.feani.org/, Accessed 10 Sept 2008.