University Accreditation Results(Results for Certified Evaluation and Accreditation for university)

Fukuoka Institute of Technology
Basic Information of the Institution
Ownership: PrivateLocation: Fukuoka, Japan

Accreditation Status
Year of the Review: 2012
Accreditation Status: accredited (Accreditation Period: April 1, 2013 – March 31, 2020)

Related Links
Fukuoka Institute of Technology: http://www.fit.ac.jp/en/Full Text of the Accreditation Results (in Japanese):
http://www.juaa.or.jp/accreditation/university/result_2012.html
Accreditation Standards, Process and other related information (in English):http://www.juaa.or.jp/en/accreditation/university.html

2

Certified Evaluation and Accreditation Results
for the Fukuoka Institute of Technology (FIT)
Notable Strengths
Educational content, methods, and outcome

It is commendable that the Fukuoka Institute of Technology (FIT) has made efforts
to enhance research and education to become the locality’s knowledge base. For
example, the institute serves as the secretariat institution responsible for educational
programs for the Consortium-Fukuoka. It offers mutually recognized (transferable)
distance-learning classes taught by faculty from other universities, satellite lecturesfrom Tokyo, and the Four University Joint Seminar, a short-term exchange
program.

Student support

It is commendable that the institute has devised a measure to support students tofind employment. In particular, the institute launched the Plus One Project, aproject approved by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science,and Technology in 2009 as its Program for Promoting University Education andStudent Support. The project supports alumni who have not yet acquired jobs a year
after graduation. The program offers seminars and several weeks of internships, andhas proven to be effective as participants in these seminars have increasinglyacquired jobs.

Social cooperation and contribution
The institute’s social cooperation and contribution activities are commendable. For
example, the FIT Techno Club works together with its member companies toconduct research, develop products, and obtain patents, with two coordinators of
the Liaison Office approaching the local community to match requests from local
companies, including member companies, with the institute’s research techniques
and ideas. In addition, the Manufacturing Center offers “summer vacation‘experience’ workshops for parents and children,” with many elementary and juniorhigh school students and their parents taking part. Furthermore, the Extension
Center provides about 300 lecture courses annually with over 2,000 participants.

Administration and financeIt is commendable that the institute has pioneered a staff development training
program that has had great impact on the staff as a whole. In particular, the FIT
Administration Staff Training (FAST) Program offers internship opportunities in
the United States to core staff members who will bear responsibility for theinstitute’s educational reforms in the future. Approximately 15 mid-career staff aredivided into small groups to spend two months interning at California State
University, East Bay. The same groups are sent for several continuous years, with
noticeable improvements in the program content and results every year. On theirreturn to the institute, these staffers make concrete proposals for reform, some ofwhich are said to be immediately implemented if excellent.

Internal quality assuranceIt is commendable that the internal quality assurance system operates effectively at

3

the institute. For example, the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle has beenfunctioning effectively by means of each Faculty, Department, Graduate School,and Administrative Office voluntarily stipulating the Action Program according tothe Master Plan (MP) to improve education and research activities. Moreover,internal quality assurance has been appropriately implemented by means of two
PDCA cycles: self-studies of the institute as a whole by means of the institute’sSelf-study Committee; and the Financial Committee’s action program, withevaluations in three stages (before, during, and after implementation), based on theMaster Plan. These two PDCA cycles evaluate the institute and give feedback toboth the units evaluated and the institute as a whole.
Suggestions for Improvement
Educational content, methods, and outcomeIn the Faculty of Information Engineering, the Department of Information andCommunication Engineering, the Department of Information and SystemsEngineering, and the Department of Systems Management policies are stipulated
for granting degrees, but they have not clarified learning outcomes at the time ofprogram completion. The policies for organizing and implementing curricula for
the institute as a whole state educational purposes and learning objectives, but theideas behind educational content and methods are not clear. The policies forawarding degrees should be clearly defined, and curricula should be organized andimplemented according to the policies clarified.

In the Faculty of Engineering, the maximum number of credits for which students
can register each year is high at 50 in the Department of Information Electronics, 50in the Department of Electrical Engineering, and 60 in the Department of Intelligent
Mechanical Engineering, while the maximum number is not set in the Departmentof Life, Environment, and Material Science. In the Faculty of Information
Engineering, the number is also high at 50 in the Department of Computer Scienceand Engineering, 50 in the Department of Information and Communication
Engineering, and 50 in the Department of Information and Systems Engineering,
while it is not set in the Department of System Management. Given the purpose ofthe credit system, these numbers should be revised.

In the Graduate School of Engineering and the Graduate School of SocioEnvironmental Studies, measures for improving education and research at thegraduate level are insufficient as they have been limited to observing classes andparticipating in idea exchange meetings at the Consortium-Fukuoka. This should beimproved.

In the Graduate School of Engineering’s doctoral program, some students complete
all the requirements except the dissertation, and leave the institute before
completing the dissertation requirement within the time limit set by the institute.
Later, when these students submit their dissertations, even though they do not haveenrollment status, they are granted doctoral degrees in the same manner as thosestudents continuously enrolled. This is inappropriate and should be corrected. The
institute should modify the ways it has addressed the problem, and, in accordancewith the purpose of having course-based doctoral programs, should create measures
to encourage degree completion within the required time frame.

Area of Serious Concern

4Enrollment
In the past five years, the average of the ratios of enrolled freshmen to the freshmanadmission cap and the ratio of enrolled students to the student enrollment cap in theFaculty of Engineering are high at 1.30 and 1.27 respectively. These numbers arehigh in its departments: 1.24 and 1.21 in the Department of Information Electronics,
1.23 and 1.31 in the Department of Life, Environment and Material Science, 1.33
and 1.25 in the Department of Intelligent Mechanical Engineering, and 1.37 and1.30 in the Department of Electrical Engineering. In the Faculty of Information
Engineering, the numbers are also high at 1.24 and 1.28 respectively. The numbers
are high in its departments: 1.28 and 1.33 in the Department of Computer Scienceand Engineering, 1.24 and 1.26 in the Department of Information and Systems
Engineering, and 1.26 and 1.34 in the Department of System Management.
When the institute underwent the previous university evaluation andaccreditation process conducted by the Japan University Accreditation Association(JUAA), the JUAA made a recommendation on the institute’s enrollment
management, and requested the institute to submit a report on improvement, but
sufficient improvement had not been made. Because of this, the JUAA asked foranother report in this university evaluation and accreditation process; however,enrollment management is not still conducted properly in the Faculties andDepartments. The institute must correct the situation as soon as possible.