Report on ABET Board of Directors Meeting

Report on ABET Board of Directors Meeting

November 3, 2007

Roger M. Zimmerman, Ph. D., P.E., FNSPE

The fall meeting of the ABET Board of Directors was held at the Hyatt Regency in Lake Tahoe, NV on November 3, 2007. It is my practice to make a trip report when the President of NSPE does not attend the ABET meeting. I will highlight several topics thought to be of interest to NSPE.

A major topic of interest was the revelation that there was going to be a shortfall of approximately $350,000 at the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year, which ended September 30. This shortfall was uncovered late in the year. I am a member of the finance committee and we did not know of it on August 24, 2007. ABET traditionally has surges in billing and accounts receivable and, during the implementation of a new accounting system, the problem was not discovered when it should have been. The finance committee met with the ABET leadership on November 2, 2007 and addressed the problem. The following is the synopsis that was presented and accepted by the board on November 3:

1. ABET’s reserves ($191,000) are precariously low.

2. The market for ABET’s accreditation services is growing both domestically and internationally.

3. ABET’s five-year budget forecast shows that the organization will achieve its goal of 30% reserves within three years.

4. The Board Executive Committee, Finance Committee, and senior ABET staff are intent on managing the fiscal year 2008 budget to ensure that the reserves are built by $177,000 this year.

5. Toward this end, $355,000 in expense reductions and billed revenue changes with respect to the budget have been identified, which will allow ABET to achieve its goal.

6. The Finance Committee will evaluate monthly reports and revise forecasts of income and expenditures when appropriate. Reports will be posted on the Board of Directors Resource Site (community.abet.org).

No changes in dues of member societies are anticipated to address this financial problem.

Changes are occurring on the international scene. I am a member of the International Activities Council (INTAC) and have seen these changes first hand. The substantial equivalency practice is being phased out and international institutions are being invited to apply for ABET accreditation instead. This is part of the loss of revenue experienced this last year and it will continue into the next. Beyond that, there is a demand for ABET accreditation from many international institutions. Another loss of revenue has been the discontinuing of the Engineering Credentials Evaluation Institute (ECEI). ABET is discontinuing this service while NCEES is picking it up. The impact of this transition to boards of licensure remains to be seen. Finally, ABET continues to enter into mutual recognition agreements with the international education community. Engineering programs relate to the Washington Accord. This last summer, ABET applied for technician and technologist program recognition by the Sydney and Dublin Accords. Thus ABET will be fully integrated into those international programs that provide batch accreditation for groups of individuals based on the academic programs presented rather than try to provide individual credentialing services.

A subject not discussed at the meeting was Dual Level Accreditation. This topic was not on the agenda. I talked to ABET past-president Dick Seagrave, who has tried to collect thoughts and opinions on this topic and asked for a status report. He said that he had received some responses and this data has been turned over to the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC). ABET does not have a policy against Dual Level Accreditation, as the Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC) allows it. The EAC does not allow it. Dick did not know the reporting schedule for the EAC. It is known that there are two groups who oppose this action. One is the organization representing Engineering Deans. Essentially they want accreditation at the BS level and the freedom to offer a wide variety of MS programs that support their research and graduate instruction needs without requiring accreditation. Some schools are worried that if Dual Level Accreditation were allowed, then some states would require that the accreditation be at the MS level and this would complicate their graduate programs. Another group that opposes this are many representatives from industries that produce products for profit. These are the “money generators” of the engineering community and they represent a large number of engineering practitioners. The licensing community obviously supports this action and NSPE’s position is well known. If the desires of the licensing community are to be fulfilled, it is my opinion that that community will have to convince at least one of these other two communities of the merits of the proposal before the EAC will get motivated to take further action.

There were items in the reports from the four commissions that I wanted to bring to your attention. In one case, you will be pleased to know that Doug Bowman, PE, the NSPE commissioner to the EAC who followed me, has been elected as Chair-elect of that body. This is a feather in his cap and to the society that brought him to the commission.

The Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) report discussed the international changes. Also, it was mentioned that DeVry Institute has expressed an interest in expanding ABET accreditation. This is a large private educational organization that has been producing technicians and technologists for some time. They are involved in on-line instruction and seek to find how this might fit into the ABET structure.

The chair of the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) reported that he the University of Phoenix is looking at ABET accreditation in the computing areas. This university is a large university that specializes in on-line education and distance learning techniques. Internet education is a coming event and this gives ABET the stimulus to look at this more seriously. One of the sustaining values of the ABET process is to conduct a visit to a program requesting accreditation. Distance education needs may challenge this value.

One of the important new thrusts that ABET is doing is to upgrade the competencies of program evaluators (PEVs) and team chairs (TCs) under the Partnership to Advance Volunteer Excellence (PAVE) project. Important benchmarks under the PAVE project are developments of PEV and TC Competency Models. These models provide guidance to the commissions (EAC, TAC, etc.) on the training for these activities. Competency models emphasize three factors: Desired Competency, Desired Proficiency, and Application During a Campus Visit. Also, ABET is also working on developing a competency model that defines the roles and responsibilities for PEV training facilitators. It is my understanding that the NSPE education effort for PEVs is tuned into this process and this is good.

ABET requires ethical conduct by each volunteer and staff member engaged in fulfilling the mission of ABET. The code details the ethical standards under which ABET operates. Each of the board members signed a statement indicating adherence to the code.

The board approved of the application of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) for ABET membership. This application will be distributed to the member societies. I have not reviewed the application, but I have been involved in advising INCOSE members on the needs for the application. I believe that they can add value to the education process and recommend that, if there is nothing in the application that is conflicts with NSPE policies and procedures, it be given a favorable recommendation.

One of the strong points of ABET is that it considers change and tries to position itself for future needs. ABET has a list of strategic issues and has selected the following three for further evaluation:

(1)  Governance: Challenges to the governance structure based on changing priorities of constituents.

(2)  Globilization: Challenges for providing authentication portability of educational experiences of for individuals on a global basis.

(3)  Educational Delivery: Challenges of ABET’s traditional processes in light of internet education programs, private educational providers, and non-traditional instructional methodologies and laboratory experiences.

This is my last year as the NSPE representative to the ABET Board. It has been my pleasure and privilege to serve for 5 years on the EAC and now 7 years on the ABET board. I have witnesses many changes in the ABET process and am still impressed with the quality and competencies of the volunteers. ABET has proved to be the best venue for engineers across the spectrum of practice to come together and solve problems important to the offering of education to future engineers. I wish that the interaction could be much broader because engineering professionals need this. Licensure has not proved to be the catalyst that it could be. Licensure is recognized as being important to the “build” part of the community and the non-licensed engineers recognize this priority and need. In my ABET experiences, I have seen some in the licensing community alienate the non-licensed community and this is unfortunate. This makes the mission and goals of NSPE more difficult. My successor will be working in this environment and he or she should recognize this problem. If requested, I will be pleased to help prepare this person for a functioning role on the ABET board.

Through you, I thank NSPE for the opportunity to have this unique experience. I believe in the education of future engineers and I hope I have contributed in some small way to this end through the past 11 years of service.

1