Ministry of Education, Culture, Research andTechnology of Republic of Indonesia

Republic of Indonesia
Project for the Establishment ofIndonesian Accreditation Board forEngineering Education (IABEE)
Project Completion ReportAugust 2023
Japan International Cooperation Agency
JABEE
HM

JR
23-033

<Table of Contents>
1. Project Completion Report･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････1
I. Basic Information of the Project･････････････････････････････････････････････････････1
II. Results of the Project･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････4
III. Results of Joint Review･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････20
IV. For the Achievement of Overall Goals after the Project Completion･･････････････････････29
2. Attachments
ANNEX 1: Results of the Project
ANNEX 2: List of Products (Report, Manuals, Handbooks, etc.) Produced by the Project
ANNEX 3: PDM (All versions of PDM)i

1. Project Completion ReportPM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Project Completion Report
I. Basic Information of the Project
1. Country
Indonesia
2. Title of the Project
Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(IABEE)
3. Duration of the Project (Planned and Actual)
Planned: From November 2014 to September 2019
Actual: From November 2014 to August 2023
First Amendment: From November 2014 to August 2021
Date of Amendment: 10 July 2019
Reason: Amendment of Project Purpose due to the revision of the Rules and Procedures ofthe Washington Accord (WA) “from provisional member to signatory.” One of thenominators for a provisional member shall be appointed by the Accord as an Accord Mentor
until the provisional member has become a signatory. JABEE was a nominator and was
appointed by the WA as an Accord Mentor. Initially, the Project Purpose was to get IABEE’s
provisional status in the WA. This goal was achieved in June 2019. IABEE needed
continuous support from JABEE as an Accord Mentor until getting a signatory status in the
WA. Accordingly, the final project goal needed to be modified to a signatory status in theWA.
Second Amendment: From November 2014 to August 2022
Date of Amendment: 10 October 2020
Reason: Due to COVID-19, all WA reviews in 2020 including the Verification Review to
IABEE were postponed. The earliest scenario for IABEE becoming a signatory of the WA
will be in June 2022.
Third Amendment: From November 2014 to August 2023
Date of Amendment: 17 November 2021
Reason: Due to COVID-19, the Washington Accord decided to divide the Verification
Review to IABEE into two stages; Virtual review in 2021 and On-site review in 2022 (After

1

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

the COVID-19 convergence). Therefore, the Verification Review Team’s visit to Indonesia
would not take place in 2021 but in 2022. The earliest scenario for IABEE becoming asignatory with full privileges (right of vote and substantial equivalency under the WA ofprograms accredited by IABEE) would be in June 2023.
4. Background (from Record of Discussions(R/D))
4-1 Current situation of development of higher education in Indonesia and its issues
Although Indonesia’s economy has been smoothly developed, its population and economic
activities are too much concentrated in Java and Bali Islands.

To have better balanced

economic development within the country, the Government of Indonesia set up the Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia's Economic Development (MP3EI), in
which the social infrastructure and economic connectivity among 6 economic corridors in
the country have to be strengthened towards 2025 and for this goal the science andtechnology human resources development has been urged. In particular, both quantitativeand qualitative increases of engineers, who will support diversified and high-level
infrastructure, are urgently needed. MP3EI was, at a later stage of IABEE development,
updated to National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2020-2024. The number ofprofessionally fostered graduates from engineering educational programs at bachelor levelis required to be increased from 57,000 in 2015 to 163,500 in 2025 (reference: Persatuan
Insinyur Indonesia (PII) - The Institution of Engineers Indonesia, Country Report at
AEESEAP General Assembly in 2012)
4-2 Justification of the proposed project vis-à-vis the Indonesian higher education
development policy
The Government of Indonesia targets an equal distribution of development in “Long Term
National Development Plan (RPJP: 2005-2025)”, and raised, as development issues, thenecessity of leveling up science and technology human resources and of creating jobs in“Midterm National Development Plan (RPJM: 2010-2014). The “National Strategic Planfor Education (RENSTRA: 2010-2014)” of Ministry of Education and Culture (hereinafterreferred to as “MOEC”) targets, among others, high quality higher education without
regional gaps but with competitiveness, and through providing higher education, theMOEC expects the improvement of quality of education and its access and as a result
professional labors will be increased.
As regards a framework of national-wide quality assurance of higher education, theNational Education System Act in 2003 made the accreditation by National Accreditation
Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT) of all higher education programs and institutions

2

PM Form 4 Project Completion Reportcompulsory. Presently, the system is functioning well, but is overburdened, largely due toits emphasis on the accreditation of programs. This has created an overwhelming volume ofreviews that the agency must undertake each year across more than 3,600 public andprivate Higher Education Institutions. For program accreditation, BAN-PT employs asingle strategy and instrument which is concentrated only to academic thus neglecting
professional focus. An improvement of program accreditation needs to be made by active
participation of professional associations. It is important that BAN-PT, Higher Education
Institutions, and the professional associations participating in the accreditation processbuild the capacities necessary to ensure the development of a transparent, accountable,
integrated and dynamic accreditation system. The Higher Education Act enforced in August2012 separated the program accreditation from BAN-PT and the program accreditation
shall be implemented by independent agencies (LAM-PS), which shall be set up in
different fields of profession. The establishment of accreditation agencies, which shall be
independent from the government, will be assessed by BAN-PT for approval by the
Minister of MOEC. The guideline of the assessment will be published in August 2014.
Taking consideration of the above Indonesian plans and regulations, the proposed project
aims at the establishment of an independent accreditation agency for engineering education.
In the accreditation for engineering education, there exists an international framework
named the Washington Accord, which recognizes the substantial equivalency of education
programs accredited by the signatories of the Accord and promotes educational
improvement to respond to the needs of the society. One of the paradigm shifts ofeducation, which the Washington Accord aims, is the change from “input-based teaching”
to “outcomes-based learning”.
The proposed project will establish the Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering
Education (IABEE) and will assist IABEE in becoming a provisional member of the
Washington Accord. The overall goal is through accreditation to level up engineering
education throughout the country.
5. Overall Goal and Project Purpose (from Record of Discussions(R/D))
Overall Goal:
Engineering education at bachelor level provided by universities and institutes in Indonesia
are changed from input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning, responding to the needsof the society. The level of the engineering education is recognized by the internationalsociety as substantially equivalent to that of the jurisdictions (countries and regions) of the
Washington Accord signatories.

3

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Project Purpose:
Initial Project Purpose: An accreditation system is established to change engineering
education from input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning, and IABEE becomes aprovisional member of the Washington Accord.
Amended Project Purpose: An accreditation system is established to change engineering
education from input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning, and IABEE becomes asignatory of the Washington Accord.
Date of Amendment: 10 July 2019
Reason: Same as the reason for First Amendment of Project Duration
6. Implementing Agency
The Ministry of Education and Culture, Research and Technology (MOECRT)(When the project started in 2014, the Implementing Agency was the Ministry of Education
and Culture (MOEC) and from 2016 to 2020, the Implementing Agency was the Ministry of
Research, Technology and Higher Education (MORTHE))
II. Results of the Project
1. Results of the Project1-1 Input by the Japanese side
(1) Amount of input by the Japanese side
378 million Japanese Yen(2) Experts dispatch
29 short-term experts from JABEE and 6 short-term experts from the Washington Accord
signatories were dispatched to Indonesia.
Please see ANNEX 1 (1-1-a, b ~ 1-4-a, b).
(3) Short-time training in Japan and third countries
8 IABEE executives and 3 secretariat staff were trained in Japan by JABEE.
44 program evaluator candidates were trained in Japan by JABEE.
16 program evaluator candidates were trained in USA by ABET.
3 IABEE executives were trained in China by CAST.
3 program evaluator candidates were trained in Australia by EA.
Please see ANNEX 1 (4-1 List of training and 4-2 Evaluator Trainer Training in Japan 2015

4

PM Form 4 Project Completion Reportand 2016).
(4) Equipment provision
One color copying machine (874,646 Japanese Yen)
3 PC laptops (455,874 Japanese Yen)
Please see ANNEX 1 (5 List of equipment)
Please see ANNEX 1 (6 List of Property Lending)
It is not equipment but there was software development of Website and Digital Evaluation
System (22,614,000 Japanese Yen). The software was transferred to IABEE in October
2019. A Jakarta based Indonesian IT company, which has been involved in the developmentfrom the beginning, continues the maintenance and improvement under IABEE budget.
Please see
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1i3tFFMYX2faiNTOoVVGpcp8I6kxIStrq?usp=sharing(5) Oversea activities
From 2015 to 2019, IABEE executives accompanied by the Chief Advisor attended IEA
Meetings as follows.
The Chair of Steering Committee and the Chair of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee
attended the Annual IEA Meeting held in Istanbul in June 2015.
The Chair of Steering Committee and the Chair of International Committee attended theIEA Interim Meeting held in Kuala Lumpur in June 2016.
The Deputy Chair of Executive Committee and the Chair of International Committee
attended the IEA General Meeting held in Anchorage in USA in June 2017.
The Chair of International Committee and the Secretary-General attended the IEA General
Meeting held in London in June 2018.
The Chair of Executive Committee, the Chair of International Committee and theSecretary-General attended the IEA General Meeting held in Hong Kong in June 2019.
Please see ANNEX 1 (7 International Engineering Alliance)
1-2 Input by the Indonesian side
(1) C/P assignment and IABEE experts
Director-General of Higher Education, Research and Technology of Ministry of Education
and Culture, Research Technology (MOECRT) as C/P Director and his staff as C/Pmanager5PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Please see ANNEX 1 (2-1 List of Government Counterpart)
IABEE Executives members; Evaluation & Accreditation Committee members andprogram evaluators joined IABEE in a voluntary basis without honorarium.
Please see ANNEX 1 (2-2 List of IABEE Executives)(2) Provision of office
From November 2014 to September 2019 and from May 2020 to September 2021, C/Pprovided IABEE with a free office space in DIKTI building.
Because of self-sustained financial situation of IABEE, IABEE could rent an office with
IABEE budget and moved in January 2023 to a new building of PII (The Institution ofEngineers Indonesia).
(3) C/P budget
C/P provided cost for holding IABEE Committees’ meetings, cost for holding seminars andcost for holding evaluator trainings until certain time. C/P also provided IABEE
Committees’ members with internal travel costs to attend IABEE Committees meetings’
seminars and evaluator training. When the submission of the application for the provisional
status in the Washington Accord was approaching, IABEE declined to receive any
government subsidies, as only NGOs not receiving any government subsidies are eligible
to be signatories of the Washington Accord.
C/P provided study programs applying for IABEE accreditation with subsidies. The total
amount of subsidies from 2016 to 2020 was Rp.1,668M and 77 study programs were
beneficiaries.
1-3 Activities (Planned and Actual)
Planned activities

Achieved activities

1-1 Identifying IABEE

Executive Committee (EXC) is the highest decision-making committee

General Assemblyin IABEE that is made up of high-level stakeholders and experts. The

members and Board

first Steering Committee for IABEE Preparation (SC), which was amembers. Involving

predecessor of EXC, was held on 14 November 2013.

engineering societies

SC members of 12th meeting of SC on 11 December 2014 were as

as major players offollows.

IABEE activities.

-

Dr. Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro, JICA Advisor

6

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report-

Prof. Tresna Soemardi, Universitas Indonesia (UI)-

Ir. Dwi Sutjipto, President & CEO of Pertamina-

Prf. Danang Parikesit, Secretary-General of PII-

Dr. Yasuyuki Aoshima, Chief Advisor of JICA IABEE ProjectIn 2015, IABEE was established within PII as an autonomous institute.
A MOU was signed by Director-General of Learning and Students
Affairs (Belmawa) and PII President at PII Annual Conference on 11
October 2016.
Please see ANNEX 2 (1-1 MoU PII Belmawa and 1-2 Signing
Ceremony Belmawa-PII 2016)
On 3 March 2018, JICA, IABEE, C/P co-organized IABEE Inauguration& International Seminar.
Please see ANNEX 2 (2 IABEE Inauguration and International Seminar2018)
1-2 Drawing up andIn 2017, IABEE set up the evaluation fee and the annual maintenancereviewing midterm

fee. In 2018, the evaluation fee was modified.

activity plan andfinancial plan of
IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the

As IABEE does not have a regal entity but is an institute within PII,

Charter of IABEE.

there is no need of having the Charter.

1-4 Recruiting

A Secretary-General, a secretary and 2 clerks were hired under projectsecretariat staff

budget until October 2019.
All secretariat staff has been hired under IABEE’s budget sinceNovember 2019.

1-5 Inaugurating

IABEE secretariat had been provided its office space by DIKTI until

IABEE Office

September 2019 and from May 2020 to September 2021.
In January 2023, IABEE secretariat moved to PII’ new building.

1-6 Submitting to

As IABEE is not a LAM-PS*, there was no need to submit the document

BAN-PT the document

to BAN-PT.

for establishment of
IABEE.

*LAM-PS= Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri-Program Studi (Independent
Accreditation Body-Program Study)

1-7 Training key

In 2015, 8 IABEE executives were trained in Japan.

7

PM Form 4 Project Completion Reportpersonnel (executives

In 2016, 2 secretariat staff were trained in Japan.

and committee

In 2017, Secretary-General was trained in Japan.

members) andsecretariat staff inJapan and inIndonesia.
2-1 Establishing a

Website and Digital Evaluation System were developed and transferred

homepage for

to IABEE in October 2019. IABEE continues the maintenance andpublicizing thefurther improvement.

documents of

URL of IABEE’s website is https://iabee.or.id/

accreditation criteria

In addition, operation manual for Website and Digital Evaluation Systemand of evaluation ofwere also developed.

education programs.
Setting up a databasefor evaluation related
dossiers.
2-2 Drawing up

In 2015, the Criteria Committee drew up the Accreditation Criteria andaccreditation criteria in

the Criteria Guide in English.

English.
2-3 Translating the

In 2015, accreditation criteria documents in English were published inaccreditation criteria

IABEE Website.

into Indonesian

There is IABEE policy that the accreditation criteria documents inlanguage and“English” are master documents.

publicizing on

URL of IABEE’s website is https://iabee.or.id/

homepage.

Please see ANNEX 2 (4 Accreditation-Criteria-ENG-Version-2020) for
English.
For Indonesian texts can be seen in the template of Self-Evaluation
Report, which programs applying for evaluation should submit to
IABEE.
Please see ANNEX 2 (3 LED-Engineering-siklus-2023-2024) for
Indonesian.

2-4 Drawing up

In 2016, the Evaluation & Accreditation Committee drew up the

documents relating to

documents.

evaluation (R&P,
guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the

In 2016, evaluation documents in English were published in IABEE

8

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

documents relating to

Website.

evaluation into

URL of IABEE’s website is https://iabee.or.id/

Indonesian language

As the evaluation documents are primarily used by program evaluators,

and publicizing on

who are strong in English. Therefore, IABEE has not translated thehomepage.

documents into Indonesian.

2-6 Organizing

In 2015, 2016 and 2017, 44 program evaluator candidates in total weretraining courses fortrained in Japan by JABEE.

evaluator trainers in

In 2015, 2016 and 2017, 16 program evaluator candidates in total wereJapan.

trained in USA by ABET.
In 2016, 3 executives were trained in China by CAST.
In 2016, 3 program evaluator candidates were trained in Australia by
EA.
Please see ANNEX 1 (4-1 List of training).

2-7 Organizing

The Evaluation & Accreditation Committee organized a series oftraining courses forevaluator training in Indonesia. Those who were trained in Japan, USA,evaluator in Indonesia.

China and Australia played a role of trainers.
Evaluator training are organized for newly recruited program evaluators.
Refresher training for those who participated in that year’s evaluation
are organized.
127 program evaluators were pooled.
A special Working Group established within Evaluation & Accreditation
Committee (EAC) has developed the protocols necessary to conduct
virtual evaluation due to COVID-19.
Online refresher trainings were conducted in August and September
2020 to disseminate the protocols for virtual evaluation.
Online refresher trainings were conducted twice in 2021 for evaluators
involved in virtual evaluations in 2021.
Documents developed in activity 2-1, 2-2 and 2-4 were utilized in the
training courses.

3-1 Organizing

52 seminars were organized in different cities.

advocacy seminars for

Please see ANNEX 1 (3-1 Socialization Seminar).

educational institutions
on accreditation forengineering education
based on outcome
evaluation.

9PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

3-2 Providing

26 consultation services were provided to educational institutions.

educational institutions Please see ANNEX 1 (3-2 Consultation Services to Educationalwith consulting

Institutions)services for
preparation ofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing

In 2014, 2015 and 2016, 4 pilot evaluations were conducted by JABEE

some pilot evaluations

Evaluation Teams.

to test the

Appropriateness of accreditation criteria of evaluation was validated

appropriateness ofthrough the pilot evaluations.

accreditation criteria
and R&P ofevaluation.
3-4 Revising the

IABEE observed the pilot evaluation and revised the documents relating

documents relating toto Accreditation and Evaluation.

accreditation andevaluation if
necessary.
3-5 Implementing

As on 1 April 2023, 99 engineering programs in total were accredited.

evaluations for real

The breakdown by year is as follows:

accreditations.

2 programs in 2016
3 programs in 201727 programs in 2018
10 programs in 201914 programs in 2020
9 programs in 2021
32 programs in 2022
2 programs in 2023 (these were accredited in 2022 but the effective dateof accreditation is on 1 April 2023)
were accredited.
Please see ANNEX 1 (5 IABEE Eng. general-accreditation 2016-2022)
Please also see the list of accredited programs in IABEE website.
https://evaluation.iabee.or.id/#/accreditation/summary/search

4-1 Attending IEA

From 2015 to 2019, IABEE executives accompanied by the Chiefmeetings for updating

Advisor attended IEA Meetings as follows.

information and

The Chair of Steering Committee and the Chair of Evaluation and

10PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

lobbying towards

Accreditation Committee attended the Annual IEA Meeting held inprovisional

Istanbul in June 2015.

membership.

The Chair of Steering Committee and the Chair of International
Committee attended the IEA Interim Meeting held in Kuala Lumpur inJune 2016.
The Deputy Chair of Executive Committee and the Chair ofInternational Committee attended the IEA General Meeting held in
Anchorage in USA in June 2017.
The Chair of International Committee and the Secretary-Generalattended the IEA General Meeting held in London in June 2018.
The Chair of Executive Committee, the Chair of International
Committee and the Secretary-General attended the IEA General Meeting
held in Hong Kong in June 2019.

4-2 Submitting to the

In 2018, PII/IABEE submitted the document.

Washington Accord a

Please see ANNEX 2 (6-1 Application for WA provisional status)

document requesting

Washington Accord signatories unanimously approved the provisional

for the provisional

status.

status.

Please see ANNEX 2 (6-2 PPT at the time of application for provisional
status)PII/IABEE received a letter from WA that PII had been granted aprovisional status. When IABEE executives started attending WA
meetings, WA signatories recognized IABEE as a future applicant forprovisional status. Later, IABEE became an institute within PII, which isa legal entity to be eligible to be a member of WA. To avoid
misunderstanding and confusion, WA continued using the name of
PII/IABEE and gradually use the name of PII.
Please see ANNEX 2 (6-3 Group Photo of IABEE-JABEE-ABET
Provisional Admission 2019).
Please see ANNEX 2 (6-4 Letter to Indonesia (PII-IABEE) dated 20
June 2019).
JABEE was appointed to an Accord mentor for PII/IABEE towards thesignatory status.

5-1 Attending IEA

Due to COVID-19, IABEE executives could not physically attend themeetings for updating

IEA meeting but attended virtually the online meetings of the11PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

information andWashington Accord Closed Session in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

lobbying towards thesignatory membership.
*This activity wasadded by R/Damended on 10 July
2019.
5-2 Submitting to the

In 2020, PII/IABEE submitted the document.

Washington Accord a

Please see ANNEX 2 (7-1 Appl-1 Report analysis against R&Ps

document requesting

requirements for Schedule B2).

for the signatory

JABEE submitted a mentor’s report.

status.

Please see ANNEX 2 (7-2 JABEE Mentor's Report for PII-IABEE).
In June 2020, Washington Accord signatories unanimously approved the*This activity wasformation of a Verification Review Team to PII/IABEE.

added by R/DPlease see ANNEX 2 (7-3 PPT at the time of application for signatory

amended on 10 Julystatus).

2019.

However, due to COVID-19, all Accord reviews of 2020 were postponed
to further years.
In 2021, JABEE submitted the second mentor’s report.
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-4 Mentor's Report for IABEE 2021 by JABEE).
IABEE submitted Self-Assessment Report (SAR)
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-5 Self-Assessment Report (SAR) PII-IABEE).
In 2021, the Verification Review Team conducted a virtual review to
PII/IABEE.
In July 2022, Washington Accord signatories unanimously approved thesignatory status but with partial privileges. PII became the 23rd
signatory.
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-6 IEA Website WA page-screenshot 2022)
In January 2023, one reviewer of the same Verification Review Teamphysically visited Indonesia to re-affirmed the outcomes of their virtual
review of 2021.

12

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

In June 2023, Washington Accord signatories unanimously re-affirmed
the signatory status with full privileges (right of vote and substantial
equivalency under the WA of programs accredited by IABEE).
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-7 IEA Website WA page-screenshot 2023).
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-8 Group Photo of IABEE-JABEE Signatory
Admission 2023).
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-9 Photo of Ceremony of 13 July 2023).
2. Achievements of the Project2-1 Outputs and indicators
Output 1: IABEE is established. [Mostly achieved as planned]
Indicators

Achievement

1-1. The establishment of IABEE is approved

As IABEE is not a LAM-PS, there was noby the Ministry of Education and Culture.

need of the Ministry’s approval for theestablishment.

1-2. Human resources, infrastructure and[Achieved as planned]

financial resources required for the

The Ministry has been continuously

functioning of IABEE are provided.

supporting IABEE.
JICA and C/P provided IABEE with humanresources, infrastructure and financial
resources until the 3rd Phase. IABEE is now
financially self-sustained.

1-1. The establishment of IABEE is approved by the Ministry of Education and Culture.
As IABEE is not a LAM-PS, there was no need of the Ministry’s approval for theestablishment.
1-2. Human resources, infrastructure and financial resources required for the functioning of
IABEE are provided.
The Ministry has been continuously supporting IABEE. JICA and C/P provided IABEE withhuman resources, infrastructure and financial resources until the 3rd Phase. IABEE is now
financially self-sustained.
Output 2: The accreditation documents are developed, and evaluators are trained. [Mostly
achieved as planned]

13

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Indicators

Achievement

2-1. 4 documents relating to accreditation[Achieved as planned]

criteria are developed in English andAll necessary documents have been

Indonesian languages.

developed and are published in IABEE
Website both in Indonesian language and in
English.

2-2. 8 documents relating to evaluation are[Mostly achieved as planned]

developed in English and Indonesian

All necessary documents have been

languages.

developed and are published in IABEE
Website in English.

2-3. 200 evaluators for evaluation of[Partially achieved]

engineering education programs are trained.

44 IABEE experts were trained as evaluator“trainers” from 2015 to 2017.
IABEE program evaluations started in 2016.
At the completion of the project, the number
is 127, which is less than the targeted numberof 200..

2-1. 4 documents relating to accreditation criteria are developed in English and Indonesianlanguages.
All necessary documents have been developed and are published in IABEE Website inEnglish.
Please see ANNEX 2 (4 Accreditation-Criteria-ENG-Version-2020) for English.
There is IABEE policy that as it is an international level accreditation, IABEE considers thecriteria documents in English are “Master documents” and publishes only English version in
IABEE Website. Having said that, IABEE publish the Indonesian Version in the template of
Self-Evaluation Report, which programs applying for accreditation should submit to IABEE.
Please see ANNEX 2 (3 LED-Engineering-siklus-2023-2024) for Indonesian.
2-2. 8 documents relating to evaluation are developed in English and Indonesian languages.
All necessary documents have been developed and are published in IABEE Website inEnglish.
There is IABEE policy that as it is an international level accreditation, IABEE considers the
documents relating to evaluation in English are “Master documents” and publishes only
English version in IABEE Website. Additionally, IABEE program evaluators wellunderstand English and they do not need Indonesian version.

14

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report2-3. 200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering education programs are trained.
Evaluator training were conducted step by step as following:
44 IABEE experts were trained in Japan by JABEE in 2015, 2016 and 2017, among whom
16 were trained in USA by ABET in 2015, 2016 and 2017, 3 in China by CAST in 2016 and3 in Australia by EA in 2016 as evaluator “trainers”. The above experts completed IABEE
evaluator training and were pooled in evaluator list. They trained other evaluator candidates
at IABEE evaluator training.
IABEE program evaluations started in 2016. The following table shows the number of
evaluators trained by years.
Year

No. of newly trained evaluators

2016

7

2017

24

2018

55

2019

31

2020

0

2021

10

2022

0

2023

0

Total

127

Due to COVID-19, IABEE could not conduct training for evaluator candidates as planned.
IABEE has needed to focus on refresher trainings targeted at evaluators in charge of eachyear’s evaluation. This is because IABEE decided to conduct virtual evaluation due to
COVID-19, and had to disseminated guideline for virtual on-site visit, which IABEE
urgently developed.
The number of evaluations in 2022 was much bigger than IABEE’s expectation. To
overcome the situation, the evaluators accepted the multiple assignments to more than 2
programs’ evaluations.
IABEE, however, decided not to recruit new evaluators in 2023 as the number of programs
applying for new accreditation is estimated not as big as in 2022 and that 127 evaluators will
be sufficient to conduct evaluations without multiple assignments in evaluations. IABEE also
considers that too rushed recruitment may risk pooling of unqualified evaluators.
IABEE estimates that the number of evaluations in 2024 may increase and will resume

15

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

recruiting new evaluators from 2024.
Output 3: Some education programs are accredited. [Achieved beyond the plan]
Indicators

Achievement

3-1. 50 education programs are accredited[Achieved beyond the plan]

including pilot accreditations.

99 education programs are accredited inaddition to 4 pilot accreditations.

3-1. 50 education programs are accredited including pilot accreditations.
99 education programs are accredited in addition to 4 pilot accreditations.
Please see list of accredited programs in IABEE website mentioned in 1-3 Activities(Planned and Actual), 3-5 Implementing evaluations for real accreditations.
Output 4: IABEE's request for provisional status is submitted to the Washington Accord.
[Achieved as planned]
Indicators

Achievement

4-1. The Washington Accord approves the[Achieved as planned]

provisional status of IABEE.

In 2019, the Washington Accord approved
the provisional status of PII, who is themother organization of IABEE.

4-1. The Washington Accord approves the provisional status of IABEE.
In 2019, the Washington Accord approved the provisional status of PII, who is the motherorganization of IABEE.
The reason why the indicator “IABEE” became “PII” is explained in 1-3 (4-2).
The following is a chronological explanation: When the project started in 2014, IABEE wasaimed to being a provisional member of the Washington Accord. In 2018, an MOU was
signed between C/P Director and PII President that IABEE would be established within PII.
As only an NGO having a legal entity is eligible to be a member of the WA, the application
document for the provisional status stated that Indonesia would be represented by PII. The
WA admitted PII as a provisional member in 2019.
Output 5: IABEE's request for signatory status is submitted to the Washington Accord.
[Achieved as planned]

16PM Form 4 Project Completion Report*This output was added by R/D amended on 10th July 2019.
Indicators

Achievement

5-1. The Washington Accord approves the[Achieved as planned]

signatory status of IABEE.

In 2022, the Washington Accord approved
the signatory status of PII with partial
privileges.

5-1. The Washington Accord approves the signatory status of IABEE.
In 2022, the Washington Accord approved the signatory status of PII with partial privileges.
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-6 IEA Website WA page-screenshot 2022).
In 2023 the Washington Accord re-affirmed the signatory status of PII with full privileges.
Please see ANNEX 2 (7-7 IEA Website page-screenshot 2023)

2-2 Project Purpose and indicators
As mentioned in I. Basic Information of the Project, 5. Overall Goal and Project Purpose(from Record of Discussions(R/D)), Project Purpose was amended by R/D on 10 July 2019.
Indicators of Project Purpose was also amended following the amendment of Project
Purpose at the same time. Project Purpose, indicator and achievement at the end of the
project completion is as follows.
Project Purpose: An accreditation system is established to change engineering education atbachelor level from input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning, and IABEE becomes asignatory of the Washington Accord. [Achieved as planned]
Indicators
1. Among 2,371 engineering education

Achievement[Achieved beyond the plan]

programs provided by public and private

99 programs are accredited by IABEE at theuniversities and institutes, 50 programs

time of the completion of the project.

(2%) are accredited by IABEE.
2. IABEE is accepted as the signatory
member of the Washington Accord.

[Achieved as planned]
In 2022, the Washington Accord approved
the signatory status of PII with partial
privileges.
In 2023 the Washington Accord re-affirmed
the signatory status of PII with full17

PM Form 4 Project Completion Reportprivileges.

3. History of PDM Modification
3-1. First Amendment
Based on the approval at JCC held on 20 March 2019, the extension of the project duration
and amendment of project purpose were decided. These modifications were reflected in
PDM version 2. Amendment of R/D including PDM version 2 was singed on 10 July 2019.
The reason of the amendment is the revision of the Rules and Procedures of the WA on“from provisional member to signatory.” One of the nominators for the provisional member
shall be appointed by the Accord as a mentor until the provisional member has become asignatory. In case of IABEE, JABEE and ABET were the nominators. IABEE requested
JABEE to be a mentor and the extension of the project until 2021 so that JABEE could
continue mentoring IABEE towards signatory status. JICA welcomed the extension of the
project.
Main points of amendment of PDM are as follows.
Project Purpose
Version 1

Version 2

An accreditation system is established to

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education at bachelorchange engineering education at bachelor

level from input-based teaching tolevel from input-based teaching tooutcomes-based learning, and IABEE

outcomes-based learning, and IABEE

becomes a provisional member of the

becomes a signatory member of the

Washington Accord.

Washington Accord.

Outputs and Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Version 1

Version 2[Objectively Verifiable Indicators for Output [Objectively Verifiable Indicators for Output
3]

3]
25

education

programs

including pilot accreditations.

areaccredited 50

education

programs

including pilot accreditations.

18

are

accredited

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report[Output 5]
IABEE's Request for signatory status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.
[Objectively Verifiable Indicators of Output
5]
The Washington Accord approves thesignatory status of IABEE.
Activities
Version 1

Version 2
5-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards thesignatory membership.
5-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the signatory status.

Duration of the Project
Version 1

Version 2

November 2014 to October 2019

November 2014 to August 2021

(5 years)(6 years and 10 months)

3-2. Second Amendment
The extension of the project duration was decided and reflected in PDM version 3.
Amendment of R/D including PDM version 3 was singed on 10 October 2020.
The reason of extension of the project duration is COVID-19 pandemic. The PII/IABEE’s
application documents for the signatory status in the WA and JABEE’s mentor’s reportwere reviewed at the Washington Accord Closed Session held in a form of videoconference
on 22 June 2020. The signatories unanimously approved the formation of a Washington
Accord Verification Review Team to IABEE. However, due to COVID-19, the Washington
Accord decided to postpone all Accord Reviews (including the review to PII/IABEE) to2021. Therefore, the Verification Review Team’s visit to Indonesia will not take place in2020 but in 2021. The earliest scenario for IABEE becoming the signatory will be in June
2022.
Main point of amendment of PDM is as follows.

19

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Duration of the Project
Version 2

Version 3

November 2014 to August 2021

November 2014 to August 2022

(6 years and 10 months)(7 years and 10 months)

3-3. Third Amendment
The extension of the project duration was decided and reflected in PDM version 4.
Amendment of R/D including PDM version 4 was singed on 17th November 2021.
The reason of extension of the project duration is COVID-19 pandemic. Due to COVID-19,
the Washington Accord decided to divide the Verification Review into two stages; Virtual
review in 2021 and On-site review in 2022 (After the COVID-19 convergence). Therefore,
the Verification Review Team’s visit to Indonesia will not take place in 2021 but in 2022.
The earliest scenario for IABEE becoming the signatory will be in 2023.
Main point of amendment of PDM is as follows.
Duration of the Project
Version 3

Version 4

November 2014 to August 2022

November 2014 to August 2023

(7 years and 10 months)(8 years and 10 months)

All PDMs attached to monitoring sheet are included in ANNEX 3.
4. Others
4-1 Results of Environmental and Social Consideration
Not applicable for this project4-2 Results of Considerations on Gender/Peace Building/Poverty Reduction, Disability, Disease
infection, Social System, Human Wellbeing, Human Right, and Gender Equality.
Not applicable for this project
III. Results of Joint Review
1. Results of Review based on DAC Evaluation Criteria
1-1. Relevance(1) Consistency with Development Policy
The Government of Indonesia set up the Master plan for Acceleration and Expansion of20

PM Form 4 Project Completion ReportIndonesia's Economic Development (MP3EI) in 2011, in which the social infrastructureand economic connectivity among 6 economic corridors in the country have to bestrengthened towards 2025 and for this goal the science and technology human resources
development has been urged.
As regards a framework of national-wide quality assurance of higher education, the Higher
Education Act enforced in August 2012 separated the program accreditation from National
Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT) and the program accreditation shallbe implemented by independent agencies (LAM-PS), which shall be set up in different
fields of profession. The establishment of accreditation agencies, which shall be
independent from the government, will be assessed by BAN-PT for approval by the
Minister of MOEC.
Taking consideration of the above Indonesian plans and regulations, this project aims at theestablishment of an independent accreditation agency for engineering education. In theaccreditation for engineering education, there exists an international framework named the
Washington Accord, which recognizes the substantial equivalency of education programs
accredited by the signatories of the Accord and promotes educational improvement to
respond to the needs of the society. One of the paradigm shifts of education, which the
Washington Accord aims, is the change from “input-based teaching” to “outcomes-basedlearning”
This project established the Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(IABEE) and assisted IABEE in becoming a signatory member of the Washington Accord,
which is highly relevant to development policy.
(2) Consistency with Development Needs
In the National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2020-2024, the President
established five main directives as a strategy carrying out the nine point development
program and in achieving the objectives of Indonesia’s Vision 2045. The five directives
include human resource development and infrastructure development. However, according
to RPJMN 2020-2024, the number of science and technology human resources is still
limited. The vast majority of university students and graduates study social sciences andhumanities, while those majoring science and engineering remain limited. In addition,
RPJMN 2020-2024 points out that study program offered by universities have notresponded to the needs of market(s) and industry(ies). On the other hand, RPJMN
2020-2024 states that infrastructure development to support basic services, economic
development, and cities is to be prioritized in the period of 2020-2024. Those descriptions
indicates that Indonesia needs to increase the number of high-quality engineers.

21

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

1-2. Coherence(1) Collaboration with JICA's other projects
In parallel with this technical cooperation project, Development of Bandung Institute ofTechnology (3) (ODA Loan Project), The Project for Research and Education Development
on Information and Communication Technology in Surabaya Institute of Technology,
Phase 2 (Technical Cooperation Project) implemented at the beginning of this project. In
addition, ASEAN University Network / Southeast Asia Engineering Education
Development Network（AUN/SEED-Net）Project has been targeted above educational
institutions with University of Indonesia and Gadjah Mada University.
Bogor Agricultural University, Islamic University of Indonesia, Bandung Institute ofTechnology and University of Indonesia were selected for pilot evaluation under JICA
project and accredited by JABEE. Professors and lecturers belonged to those universities
have played important roles in this project such as members of EXC and EAC as well as
program evaluators. Over half of engineering education programs accredited by IABEE are
from those most competitive universities.
(2) Collaboration with other projects
During the period of preparation of the project in 2014, IABEE had a meeting with aproject team for LAM-PS for Health Sector, which was sponsored by the World Bank.
There were no further discussions between IABEE and this Health project.
(3) Consistency with global frameworks
The engineering education should match not only the country needs but also should bemade in alignment with the international engineering framework. Programs accredited by
IABEE should be recognized as equivalent to those in different countries. The Washington
Accord is an ideal international framework for the recognition of substantial equivalency ofaccredited programs. The project was designed so that IABEE would be a member of the
Washington Accord (Project Purpose and Output 4 and 5).
1-3. Effectiveness(1) Degree of the achievement of the project purpose
As described in II. Results of the Project, 2-2 Project Purpose and indicators, two
indicators of project purpose have been achieved. Accomplishment of the Project Purpose
may have been caused by the produced outputs because IABEE was established through22

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

the Project and its capacity have been built through the Project.
All the Outputs have been achieved except Output 2 as described in II. Results of the
Project, 2-1 Outputs and indicators. There are three indicators of Output 2 “theaccreditation documents are developed, and evaluators are trained”. While two indicators
related to the accreditation documents have been achieved, another indicator “200evaluators for evaluation of engineering education programs are trained” has not been fully
achieved. 127 evaluators were pooled after evaluators training at the completion of the
project.
1-4.

Efficiency
The project period was from November 2014 to August 2023 (8 years and 10 months),
compared to the original plan of November 2014 to October 2019 (5 years), resulting in
177% of the plan. The project cost was 378 million yen against the planned estimate of 390
million yen (based on the ex-ante evaluation paper), which is 97% of the plan.
The project period has been extended three times. First extension was due to amendment of
the Project Purpose and add Output 5. The reason of the amendment is the revision of theRules and Procedures of WA on “from provisional member to signatory.” One of thenominators for the provisional member shall be appointed by the Accord as a mentor until
the provisional member has become a signatory. In case of IABEE, JABEE and ABET
were the nominators. IABEE requested JABEE to be a mentor and the extension of the
project until 2021 so that JABEE could continue mentoring IABEE towards signatory
status. To secure the necessary period for the activities, the project period was extended for
1 year and 10 months.
Second extension was due to COVID-19 pandemic. The PII/IABEE’s application
documents for the signatory status in the WA and JABEE’s mentor’s report were reviewed
at the Washington Accord Closed Session held in a form of videoconference on 22 June
2020. The signatories unanimously approved the formation of a Washington Accord
Verification Review Team to IABEE. However, due to COVID-19, the Washington Accord
decided to postpone all Accord Reviews (including the review to IABEE) to 2021.
Therefore, the Verification Review Team’s visit to Indonesia will not take place in 2020 but
in 2021. The earliest scenario for IABEE becoming the signatory will be in June 2022. To
secure the necessary period for the activities, the project period was extended for one year.
Third extension was due to COVID-19 pandemic as well. Due to COVID-19, theWashington Accord decided to divide the Verification Review into two stages; Virtual
review in 2021 and On-site review in 2022 (After the COVID-19 convergence). Therefore,

23

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

the Verification Review Team’s visit to Indonesia will not take place in 2021 but in 2022.
The earliest scenario for IABEE becoming the signatory will be in 2023. To secure thenecessary period for the activities, the project period was extended for one year.
Those extensions of the project period have allowed the project to provide IABEE withstronger mentoring and with advices for sustainability.
1-5.

Impact
The project has given positive impact to universities and institutes towards
international-level accreditation by IABEE. The speed in increase of the number ofaccredited programs is much higher than expected by the project, who targeted 25
accredited programs at the time of application for the provisional status in the WA in 2019
and 50 accredited programs at the time of application for signatory status in 2021.
The project also has given positive impact to the Government. The Ministry recognized theimportance of Indonesia’s signatory status in the Washington Accord. To encourage study
programs to be accredited by IABEE, the Ministry provided study programs applying for
IABEE accreditation with subsidies of Rp30M to 40M per program from 2016 to 2020,
totaling Rp1,686M. After 2020. The subsidies continue with a similar but a slightly
different mechanism. It is not the scope of the project but it is worthwhile mentioning thatat the request of the Ministry, IABEE is preparing for a provisional status in the Sydney
Accord (for Engineering Technologist Education).
The Ministry considers IABEE accreditation (International but optional) as equivalent toexcellent rank of LAM-Teknik (national and mandatory).
Please see ANNEX 2 (8-1 MoECRT Regulation No.5 in 2020 (in Indonesian Language andtranslation to English in blue)).
LAM-Teknik exempts programs accredited by IABEE from the next LAM-Teknik
accreditation.
Please see ANNEX 2 (8-2 LAM-Teknik Regulation N0.10 in 2022 (in Indonesian
Language) and 8-3 Translation LAM Teknik Decision No. 10 of 2022).
In terms of change from input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning, engineering
education in Indonesia made substantial progress because IABEE become a signatory ofWashington Accord. To become a signatory, it is essential to accredit education programs
which meet criteria of outcomes-based learning. Increase in the number of education
program accredited by IABEE means spread of outcomes-based learning in engineering
education in Indonesia. As mentioned above, the Ministry has supported application fee for
IABEE’s program accreditation and regarded IABEE accreditation (international but
optional) as equivalent to excellent rank of LAM-Teknik (national and mandatory). It is

24

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

likely that the Ministry will continue such policy for the foreseeable future since there is nosign of policy change by the Ministry at the time of project completion. Therefore, it islikely that outcomes-based learning in engineering education in Indonesia will steadily
spread after the project completion.
1-6.

Sustainability
Policy and system: IABEE accreditation is spreading in whole country with the support of
the Ministry. The Ministry recognized the importance of Indonesia’s signatory status in the
Washington Accord. The Ministry considers IABEE accreditation (International but
optional) as equivalent to excellent rank of LAM-Teknik (national and mandatory). Please
see ANNEX 2 (8-1 MoECRT Regulation No.5 in 2020 (in Indonesian Language andtranslation to English in blue)). LAM-Teknik exempts programs accredited by IABEE fromthe next LAM-Teknik accreditation. Please see ANNEX 2 (8-2 LAM-Teknik Regulation
N0.10 in 2022 (in Indonesian Language) and 8-3 Translation LAM-Teknik Decision No. 10
of 2022).
The Ministry and LAM-Teknik are likely to continue current policy unless external
conditions are changed.
Organizational aspects of the implementing agency: IABEE is established within PII as
an autonomous institute. PII is the most prominent professional organization representing
engineering society in Indonesia and as IABEE under the umbrella of PII could beprotected against any risk of incidents or crisis, at which a small NGO may be infected. In
half of the jurisdictions (countries and regions) of the WA signatories, Institution ofProfessional Engineers or Council of Engineers have an accreditation department.
As is the case of other WA signatories, the secretariat is relatively small.

IABEE

executives, Committee members and program evaluators are not employees of IABEE.
They are all volunteers, who accept the roles without honorarium (this is the WA
philosophy that the participation as a peer reviewer in the accreditation of education is theengineers’ social responsibility).
5 secretariat staff of IABEE have been hired under IABEE’s budget since November 2019.
Financial aspect: IABEE’s incomes are from accreditation fee and annual maintenancefee. Price is as follows.
Currency: IDR
General Accreditation

Provisional Accreditation

75.000.000

25.000.000

Accreditation fee *25

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Annual maintenance fee

5000.000* Excluding interim evaluation fees, if required.
IABEE does not disclose its income and expenditure although IABEE has a financial audit
by PII. IABEE could present its financial report to Washington Accord Verification Teambut would like to avoid disclosing it. When the Washington Accord Verification Review
Team examined IABEE system, IABEE showed IABEE’s 3-year consecutive financial
reports to demonstrate IABEE financial sustainability. The Verification Team evaluated
IABEE’s financial sustainability was good enough for signatory status of the Washington
Accord. In addition, IABEE has been trying to build a strong financial foundation.
Technical aspects of implementing agency: The quality of IABEE experts (IABEE
executives, Committees’ members and program evaluators) have gained a good reputationfrom universities and institutes. PII’s signatory status in WA stems from good quality ofaccreditation by IABEE.
Such good reputation might stem from the following activities by the project.


44 IABEE experts who has developed as evaluator trainers has well-trained by several
trainings provided by the project (Activity 2-6). Those experts have played key rolesin IABEE.



The project has carefully selected evaluator candidates in terms of expertise ofengineering field (e.g. civil engineering, chemical engineering) and personality (e.g.
decency, enthusiasm for involving in evaluation, integrity).

The performance evaluation of program evaluators is conducted with 360 degrees
assessment (from study programs, Chair of evaluation team and among evaluators of
the same team).



Evaluators, who have been assigned to the said year evaluations, shall participate in
the refresher training to update their knowledge.

Social Environmental Aspect: Not applicable
Preventative Measures to risk: Not applicable
Status of Operation and Maintenance: A Digital Evaluation System was developed toenable the study program evaluation in a paperless form by the Project. The system enabled
IABEE to conduct virtual program evaluations under COVID-19 and accept virtual
verification review to Indonesia by Washington Accord. This system has been steadily

26

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

operating. In addition, IABEE will be able to maintain the system with support fromIndonesian IT company which has been involved in development of the system.
In terms of policy, organizational, financial and technical aspects mentioned above, there
might be no factor in preventing steady operation of IABEE at the time of projectcompletion. Therefore, it is likely that IABEE will be steadily operate as an organizationfor engineering education accreditation after the project completion.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
Logic tree of the project design might be appropriate for the project. Amendment of Project
Purpose from becoming a provisional member of Washington Accord to a signatory of that
due to the changes of Rules & Regulations of the Washington Accord might be acontributing factor for ensuring IABEE’s signatory status of Washington Accord andstrengthening spread of outcomes-based learning in engineering education in Indonesia.
Regarding the implementation process, the following two factors might contribute to the
Outcomes of the project. One factor is the amendment of Project Purpose as mentioned
above. Another factor is strong encouragement to the project activities by the Ministry,
which JABEE has provided appropriate advice for.
3. Evaluation on the results of the Project Risk Management
Regarding plan of the project, the project was strongly affected by the revision of the Rules
and Procedures of the WA on “from provisional member to signatory.” As mentioned in 3.
History of PDM Modification, one of the nominators for the provisional member shall be
appointed by the Accord as a mentor until the provisional member has become a signatory.
In case of IABEE, which is an organization provided Japanese experts to the project, JABEE
and ABET were the nominators. Japanese experts had developed good relationship with
IABEE and C/P Directors through attending almost all meetings of IABEE Executive
Committee and regular face-to-face meeting with C/P Directors until that time. As a result of
that, IABEE requested JABEE to be a mentor and the extension of the project until 2021.
JICA welcomed the extension of the project. It enabled JABEE to continuously mentor
IABEE towards signatory status. Moreover, amendment of Project Purpose might havepositive impact to signatory status of IABEE. A provisional member of WA is not guaranteed
becoming a signatory of WA. Some countries, which become a provisional member before
IABEE, still remains at a provisional member.
Regarding the process of the project implementation, it was strongly affected by COVID-19.
Under COVID-19, in 2020 the Washington Accord decided to postpone all Accord reviews
including the verification review to PII/IABEE. In the second year of COVID-19, there was27

PM Form 4 Project Completion Reporta risk that the Washington Accord would decide once again to postpone all Accord reviewsof 2021. Against the current R&P that verification reviews for new applicants for thesignatory status should be “physically” conducted, JABEE made a motion at the Washington
Accord Session to tentatively suspend the R&P and to conduct 2-step verification reviews(virtual and physical). The motion passed with just 2/3 majority. As a results, for the firsttime in the history of the Washington Accord, virtual verification reviews were conducted.
C/P and JICA agreed to extend the project duration twice and thanking to those decisions, in
2022 PII was admitted as the 23rd signatory with partial privileges and in 2023 the signatory
status was re-affirmed with full privileges. If the 4th term had not been launched, JABEE
would not have made that motion and PII’s signatory status would have been delayed formore years. IABEE executives and the Chief Advisor appreciated the supportive decisions
made by C/P and JICA.
4. Lessons Learnt
The project was not designed to just import (or copy) JABEE system to Indonesia. The
project aimed at establishing the most advanced accreditation system. Other Washington
Accord signatories, in particular, ABET of USA, assisted JABEE and IABEE.
For international developing project, the recipient country’s ownership is the mostchallenging issue. The success of this project owes to the strong ownership of IABEE people.
The project thanks to key IABEE executives to have involved motivated (with highaspirations) people to IABEE.
5. Performance
The Chief Advisor attended all meetings of IABEE Executive Committee (86 meetings)
either physically on mission basis or online during COVID-19. There were frank discussions
and debates between IABEE executives and the Chief Advisor. There were mutual
understanding, respect and trust.
IABEE executives, Committees’ members and program evaluators joined IABEE in avoluntary basis without honorarium. They have high aspiration to a national mission. They
feel strong ownership to this project.
The Chief Advisor also regularly met C/P Directors, who have been supporting the project.
6. Additionality
All IABEE Committees’ meetings were held in a paperless form. Committees’ members canhave access to meeting documents through the member page set in the Website. Thanking tothis paperless arrangement, online meetings were easily held during COVID-19.

28

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

A Digital Evaluation System was developed to enable the study program evaluation in apaperless form. Thanking to this System, IABEE could smoothly conduct virtual program
evaluations under COVID-19. When the Washington Accord conducted a virtual verification
review to Indonesia (the first virtual review in the history of the Washington Accord), theReview Team could conduct virtual review without any problem. The Review Team
congratulated IABEE for having such an advanced system.
The project was not designed to just import (or copy) JABEE system to Indonesia. The
project aimed at establishing the most advanced accreditation system. Other Washington
Accord signatories, in particular ABET, of USA, assisted JABEE and IABEE.
IV. For the Achievement of Overall Goals after the Project Completion
1. Prospects to achieve Overall Goal
Overall Goal: Engineering education provided by universities and institutions in Indonesia
are changed from input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning, responding to the needsof society. The level of the engineering education is recognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countries of the Washington Accord signatories.
Indicators
1. Among 2,371 engineering education

ProspectOverall Goal including an indicator was set

programs provided by public and private

to be achieved in 10 years after completion ofuniversities and institutes, 240 programs

the project.

(10%) are accredited by IABEE.

99 programs are accredited by IABEE at thetime of the completion of the project.
It is expected that 150~180 programs will beaccredited by IABEE in 3 years after thecompletion of the project and more than 240
programs will be accredited by IABEE
within 10 years after the completion of the
project.

Overall Goal of the project including an indicator was set to be achieved in 10 years after
completion of the project although Overall Goal is usually expected to be achieved in about
3 years after completion of the project.
There are two positive factors to be achieved Overall Goal in the future as follows.
The first factor is that 8% of engineering education programs provided by public and private
universities and institutes (which is 190 programs) are accredited by BAN-PT or

29

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

LAM-Teknik with rank “Excellent”, among the half of which were accredited by IABEE atthe completion of the project. “Excellent” rank accredited by BAN-PT or LAM-Teknik is theeligibility of programs’ application for IABEE accreditation. It means that the overall goal’s
number of programs accredited by IABEE depends on the speed of national mandatory
accreditations. As national mandatory accreditation is not fully outcomes-based, theprograms even ranked as Excellent need time to change their education to fit IABEE
outcomes-based accreditation criteria.
The second factor is that Acting Director-General of Higher Education, Research andTechnology stated at the 5th JCC held on 14 July 2023 that soon a Ministerial Decree will be
issued. There will be a message to study programs that LAM-PS（LAM-Teknik forengineering） accreditation provides a minimum performance indicator and all programs areencouraged to go beyond, which is the international-level accreditation. IABEE considers
such a message will accelerate IABEE accreditations.
2. Plan of Operation and Implementation Structure of Indonesia side to achieve Overall
Goal
The Indonesian Government is fully aware of the needs of the paradigm shift from
Input-based teaching to outcomes-based learning and of the value of international-levelaccreditation for engineering education. Essential system to achieve Overall Goal has beendeveloped through the project.
There might be no need to propose a plan of operation to achieve Overall Goal.
3. Recommendations for Indonesia side
It is expected that the Government of Indonesia particularly the Ministry of Culture and
Education, Research Technology and The Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) for keepon continue support and effort on the following
1. PII/IABEE is expecting to improve the values of quality of engineering education for
global recognition. It is an essential for the Government of Indonesia to continue thesocialization of Outcome Base Education (OBE) learning method for Engineering
Education, considering of the disparity/gap of quality of engineering education in theIndonesia regions and also within the developing countries.
2. PII/IABEE need to consider increasing activity for education forum to the public,
government level (Central or Regional) in term of socialization of OBE and international
accreditation. The scheme of socialization could be implemented through focus group
discussion/symposium/seminar in national and international level.
3. PII/IABEE will conduct the IABEE Engineering Education Outlook Symposium on

30

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

July 13, 2023 at the first time. We are expecting this symposium could become one of
agenda of PII/IABEE that could be continued in every year and get support from the Line
Ministries and Industries.
4.

PII/IABEE also can published newsletter about IABEE activity and program including

the achievement of quality graduates of IABEE Accredited Program study as one of the
Public Relations programs and also published in the media social such as Facebook and or
Instagram to make people aware and recognize the importance of international
accreditation of IABEE.
4. Monitoring Plan from the end of the Project to Ex-post Evaluation
An Ex-post evaluation will be conducted in 3 years after the end of project.
ANNEX 1: Results of the Project(List of Dispatched Experts, List of Counterparts, List of Trainings, etc.)
ANNEX 2: List of Products (Report, Manuals, Handbooks, etc.) Produced by the Project
ANNEX 3: PDM (All versions of PDM)
ANNEX 4: R/D, M/M, Minutes of JCC (copy) (*)
ANNEX 5: Monitoring Sheet (copy) (*)(Remarks: ANNEX 4 and 5 are internal reference only.)31

PM Form 4 Project Completion Report

Abbreviation list
ABET

Former name was Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology in
USA

AEESEAP

Association for Engineering Education in Southeast Asia and the Pacific

BAN-PT

National Accreditation Board

CAST

China Association for Science and Technology

DGHE

Directorate General of Higher Education

DIKTI

Directorate General of Higher Education, Research and Technology

EA

Engineers Australia

EAC

Evaluation & Accreditation Committee

EXC

Executive Committee

IABEE

Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education

IEA

International Engineering Alliance

JABEE

Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

LAM-PS

Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri-Program Studi (Independent Accreditation
Body-Program Study)

LAM-Teknik

Independent Accreditation Body for Engineering Program

MOEC

Ministry of Education and Culture

MOECRT

Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology

MORTHE

Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

MP3EI

Master plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia's Economic
Development

OBA

Outcomes-based Assessment

OBE

Outcomes-based Education

PII

Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (The Institution of Engineers Indonesia)

R&P

Rules and Procedures

RENSTRANational Strategic Plan for Education

RPJMN

National Medium Term Development Plan

RPJPLong Term National Development PlanSC

Steering Committee for IABEE Preparation

WA

Washington Accord

32

2. Attachments

ANNEX 1: Results of the Project第2年次（2015.10-2017.3）

Dispatched Experts (1st Phase)
Name

Associated Task

Yasuyuki AOSHIMAManagement/
Project Operation1

Mitsunori MAKINO

Accreditation Criteria
Documents Preparation1/
Evaluation Document2/
Homepage & Database
Development1/

Nubmer of travel

Task Contents

Affiliated Organization

9

Accompanied on-site missions of the experts (Indonesia).
On-site missions for attending number of IABEE committees meetings such as, EXC,
Criteria committee and EAC.
Conducted arrangement and coordination with Indonesian counterpart.
Attended IEAM 2015 for information collection and lobbying for IABEE to admit in the
Washington Accord as a provisional member

JABEE

5

On-site missions (Indonesia) for preparation of framework for the accreditation criteria andglossary.
On-site mission (Indonesia)to design and build IABEE homepage and database.
Studying and preparing documents for IABEE committee (domestic).
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.

JABEE

2

On-site missions (Indonesia) for attending EAC.
On-site missions (Indonesia) for preparation of evaluation documents.
Studying and preparing documents for IABEE committee and half a month of preparation
work for designing the on-line module for training materials (domestic).
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
Lecturer for IABEE evaluator training seminar and preparation of its training materials
held in Indonesia.

JABEE

Yukihiko SATO

Evaluation Documents
Preparation1/
Pilot Accreditation1/
Socilization Seminar2

Yusuke HONJO

Evaluator Training1/
Socialization Seminar1

2

Masayuki SUZUKI

Project Operation2

1

Akiko TAKAHASHI

Accreditation Criteria
Documents Preparation2

2

On-site missions (Indonesia) for preparation of framework for the accreditation criteria andglossary.
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.

JABEE

Hideshi ISHII

Pilopt Accreditation2

1

On-site mission (Indonesia) for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

JABEE

A month preparation work for designing the on-line module for training materials(domestic).
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission for the IABEE secretariat Training (Indonesia).
IABEE secretariat training held in Japan.
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing guidance on the program anticipated to apply forevaluation .

JABEE

JABEE

Shunji FUJII

Pilot Accreditation2/
Evaluator Training2/
Evaluation Document3

3

Lecturer for IABEE evaluator training seminar and preparation of its training materials
held in Indonesia.
A month preparation work for designing the on-line module for training materials(domestic).
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

Tadatsugu TANAKA

Pilot Accreditation4

1

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Hiroshi FUJISAKI

Pilot Accreditation5

1

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Hiroyuki SHIMIZU

Pilot Accreditation6

1

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Michael Milligan

Sicialization Seminars3

1

A peaker at Socislization Seminars

ABET

Junko HAZU

Homepage & Database
Development2

1

On-site mission (Indonesia)to design and build IABEE homepage and database.

JABEE

業務従事者の従事計画 /実 績表
監督職 員確認 印 :梅 宮直樹

契約件名 イ ン ドネ シアエ ンジ エ ア リンゲ教育調申機構 (lABEE)設 立 プロジェク ト(第 2年 次)
1.現 地業務
担 当業務

格 付

氏名

渡航
回数

計画

青 島泰 之総括 /組織運営 1

17

2

2015
10

18

11

12

1

■

■

(10)

(10)

(10)

(10)

■
(10)

5‑14
実績

2016

1

7‑25

5‑16

1

7‑22

2

8‑16

日

■

■

日

■

10

9

12

6

9

2017

3

4
■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

日

(10)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(12)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(5)

4‑22

21‑31

司‑14

6‑21

7‑1 5

日

4‑9
23‑28

27‑30

■

15‑21

■

■■

■

日

日

9

11

8

6

■
4

14

6

9

10‑18
30,31

日■

9, 2

5

6

7

8

2‑8
16‑22

1‑8

30,31

日

■■

1‑5
■

8

■

5

1

7, 7,

10

9

1,

6

11

12

1

1

2

日数
合計

人月
合計

167

5 57

159

5.30

7

0.23

5

0.17

7

0 23

6

0 20

21

0 70

9

0.30

7

0 23

13

0.43

3

2
計画

■
1

(7)

高橋 明子

組織運営 2

4

1

実績

1

8‑22
日

5

牧野光則

基準書類
整備 2

■

計画

1

実績

1

(7)

3

16‑21

■
6

計画

石井英志

審 査 員研
修 2‑3

高橋 明子

■

■

■

(7)

(7)

(7)

24‑26

16‑21

■

日

3

6

3
実績

計画

審査 員研
修 2‑1

2

2

2

4
実績

2

■

■

(7)

(7)

2‑8

16‑21

■

■

7

6

印

様式 1
計画

佐藤 之彦

審査 員研
修 2‑2

(7)

3

25‑30
実績

計画

高橋 明子

審査 員研
修3

杉 山俊幸

猪股宏

1

日

6

2

■
25‑30

実績

1

■
1

(7)

3
実績

1

29‑30

1‑3

■

日

2

3

1

7

0 23

8

0.27

7

0 23

8

0.27

7

0 23

5

0.17

7

0 23

5

0,17

7

0 23

7

0 23

7

0.23

7

0 23

7

0 23

7

0 23

7

0.23

7

0 23

,2

■

1

4

計画

審査 員研
修5

1

(7)

計画

審査 員研
修4

■
1

,2

■

日

6

2

■
1

(7)

3

13‑1 7

実績

日

1

5
計画

■
1

(7)

福 田敦

試行審査 1

3

5‑11
実績

1

■
7

計画

1

(7)

藤原章正

試行審査 2

3

5‑11
実績

1

■
7

若井明彦

試行審査 3

■

計画

1

実績

1

(7)

3

5‑11

日
7

佐渡 ― 広

日

計画

1

実績

1

(7)

試行審査 4 3

5‑11

■
7

様式 1
計画

■
1

(7)

本間寛 臣

試行審査 5

3
実績

計画

2

6‑11

18‑21

■

日

6

4
■

1

(7)

本間寛 臣

試行審査 6

3
実績

計画

1

2 7‑30

1

■

■

4

1

試行審査 7

3

1

実績

0 23

10

0 33

7

0.23

5

0 17

7

0.23

5

0 17

7

0.23

6

0.20

7

0.23

5

0.17

7

0 23

6

0 20

7

0 23

6

0 20

7

0.23

6

0.20

■
1

(7)

藤井俊 二

7

1

8‑22
日
5

計画

■
1

(7)

長坂徹 也

試行審査 8

3
実績

計画

1

27‑30

1,2

■

■

4

2

日
1

(7)

神保至

試行審査 9

3
実績

計画

小林憲正

試行審査
10

1

27‑30

1

日

日

4

刊

■
1

(7)

3

4‑9
実績

1

■
6

計画

猪股宏

試行審査

■
1

(7)

3

11

4‑9
実績

1

■
6

計画

高村岳樹

試行審査
12

■
1

(7)

3

4‑9
実績

1

■
6

様式 1
計画

田名部
元成

(7)

試行審査
13

3
実績

計画

笹 口裕 昭

■
1

試行審査
14

1

2 7‑30

1

日

日

4

1

■
1

(7)

3

7

0 23

5

0.17

7

0 23

6

0.20

7

0 23

6

0,20

7

0 23

6

0.20

7

0 23

9

0 30

7

0 23

6

0 20

42

1 40

24

0 80

4‑9
実績

■

1

6
計画

本城 勇介

試行審査
15

■
1

(7)

3

6‑11
実績

■

1

6
計画

杉山俊幸

試行審査
16

■
1

(7)

3

6‑11
実績

日

1

6
計画

■
1

(7)

本 間寛 臣

試行審査
17

7.8
23.24

3
実績

3

■■

2,2

新 田洋 司

試 行審査
18

7‑11

■
5
■

計画

1

実績

1

(7)

3

6‑11

■
6

牧野光則

ホームペー
ジ・データ 3
ベース
1

計画

6

実績

5

■

■

■

■

(7)

(7)

(7)

(7)

1

■
(7)

9‑25

13‑1 7

8‑22

22‑24

■

■

日

■

日

7

5

5

3

4

1

1

(7)

8‑21

様式 1
計画

羽豆順子

ホームペー
ジ・データ 3
ベース 2

2

■

■

(7)

(7)

14

0,47

11

0 37

5

017

5

017

5

0.17

4

013

5

0 17

5

0.17

5

017

4

013

計画

439

14.57

実績

386

12.88

19‑24
25(自 社負

実績

2

担

)

■

13‑1 7

日
5

7
計画

木村雄

プログラム
指導 2

3

計画

小島博光

■
(3)

30,3
実績

プログラム
指導 3

■
(2)

1

1

1

1‑3

日

日

2

3

■
1

(5)

3

3‑6
実績

■

1

4
計画

石井英志

プログラム
指導 4

3
実績

鈴木雅行

プログラム
指導 5

■

■

(2)

(3)

30,31

1‑3

日

■

2

3

1

1

■

計画

1

実績

1

(5)

3

3‑6
■

4

現地 業務小計様式 1

2.国 内業務
担 当業務

格 付

氏名

2015
10
計画

青 島泰 之総括
組織運 営 1
国内研修

2
実績

計画

牧野光則

基準書類
整備 1

佐藤之彦

審査 員研
修1

1

■

■

■

■

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

1,2,

4‑6
26‑27

1‑3,

25‑27

17.18

15,25
26,28

日

日

日

5

5

5

,29

日
5

4

5

3
■

■

■

日

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

1,4,5
22,23

1‑3,

9‑12

8‑10,

1,2

20,27

9,19

5‑9
12‑14

3

23

4,5,7
11,13

1‑3

7.8

14,15
20‑22

7‑20

6‑8

15,16
19,20

日

日

日

■

■

■

日

■

■

■

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

8

5

5

6

審査 員研
修4

7

10

9

1

11

■
(5)

■

■

■

■

■

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

12

22

■
5

1

13

25,26
■
3

2

日数
合計

人月
合計

85

4 25

83

4.15

5

0 25

0

0

25

1 25

0

0

20

1.00

5

0 25

0

0

5

0 25

0

0

5

0,25

3

3.6
■
2

3
実績

3
実績

■
(10)

(10)

5‑6

8‑1 0

日

日

2

3

計画

杉山俊幸

8

2

実績

計画

藤井俊 二

12

2017

3

計画

審査書類
整備 1

11

2016

2,3,

3

8‑10
実績

日
5

計画

猪股宏

審査 員研
修5

2,6,

3

9‑11
実績

日
5

1表

計画

本城 勇介

審査 員研
修6

3
実績

佐藤之彦

■
(10)

5‑6

8‑10

■

日

2

3

日

計画

審査 員研
修7

■
(10)

(10)

3

式1

20

1.00

5

0.25

10

0.50

2

010

5

0 25

5

0 25

5

0 25

5

0 25

5

0 25

5

0.25

5

0 25

5

0 25

5

0 25

5

0 25

5‑6
日

実績

2

■

計画

福 田敦

試行審査 1

3

(5)
1

6‑20
日

実績

5

田

計画

藤原章正

試行審査 2

(5)

3
1

6‑20
■

実績

5

■

計画

若井明彦

試行審査 3

(5)

3
1

6‑20
日

実績

5

■

計画

佐渡 ― 広

試行審査 4

(5)

3
1

6‑20
日

実績

5

■

計画

本間寛 臣

試行審査 5

(5)

3
1

実績

6‑20
■
5

様式 1
計画

■
(5)

本間寛 臣

試行審査 63
実績

計画

15‑1 912‑1 6

日

日

5

5

■
(5)

長坂徴也

試行審査 83
実績

計画

15‑1 912‑1 6

日

日

5

5

■
(5)

神保至

試行審査 9

3
実績

計画

小林憲正

試行審査
10

3

計画

猪股宏

11

3
実績

計画

高村岳樹

試行審査
12

3
実績

計画

田名部
元成

試行審査
13

12‑1 6

日

日

5

5

■
(5)

実績

試行審査

15‑1 9

3
実績

22‑26

12‑1 6

■

■

5

5

■
(5)

22‑26

12‑1 6

■

日

5

5

■
(5)

22‑2 6

12‑1 6

日

■

5

5

■
(5)
15‑1 912‑1 6

日

■

5

5

5

0.25

10

0.50

5

0 25

10

O.50

5

0 25

10

0.50

5

0 25

10

0.50

5

0 25

10

0 50

5

0 25

10

0 50

5

0 25

10

0 50

様式 1
■

計画

(5)

笹 口裕 昭

試行審査
14

3
実績

22‑26

12‑1 6

■

■

5

5

■

計画

本城 勇介

試行審査
15

(6)

3

5

0 25

10

0.50

6

0.30

5

0.25

6

0.30

5

0 25

7

0 35

4

0 20

6

0.30

5

0 25

75

0 38

7

0.35

1,4,5
22,23

実績

■
5

■

計画

杉山俊幸

試行審査
16

(6)

1,4.5
22,23

3
実績

日
5
日

計画

本間寛 臣

試行審査
17

(7)

3
1

7‑20
■

実績

4
■

計画

新 田洋 司

試行審査
18

(6)

1,4,5
22.23

3
実績

日
5

計画

牧野光則

審査 員研
修8

3
実績

■

■

(5)

(25)

1,2,8
21,22

24‑25

■
5

■
2

様式 1
計画

佐藤之彦

審査 員研
修9

■

5

(5)

1,2,8
21,22

3
実績

24‑26

■

■

鈴木雅行

審査 員研
修 10

0 40

3

5
計画

■
(5)

1.2,8
21,22

3
実績

0 25

日

5

0.25

5

0.25

5

0.25

23

1

75

0 38

16

0 80

5

0 25

4

0.20

5

0.25

4

0 20

15

0 75

11

0.55

5
計画

石井英志

審査 員研
修 11(国
内研修 )

3
実績

計画

高橋 明子

審査 員研
修 12(国 内
研修 )

■
(5)

12

9

25‑27

16‑1 9

2,3
8‑10

9,18

■

■

日

■

5

5

5

5

1‑3

実績

(25)

■

22‑26

24‑26

6‑8

■

■

■

5

3

3

■

計画

組織運営 2

15

3

(5)

5

高橋 明子

■

■
1,2,8
21,22

4

6‑8

(5)

5‑8

4

日

実績

4
■

計画

鈴木雅行

組織運営 3

(5)

5‑8

3

■

実績

4

牧野光則

計画
ホームペー
ジ・データ 3
ベース
実績
1

■

■

■

(5)

(5)

(5)

28‑30

26‑27

5

2

13‑1 5

1

■

■

■

■

日

■

3

2

1

1

3

1

様式 1

羽豆 順 子ホームペー
ジ・データ 3
ベース 2

計画

実績

日

■

■

(5)

(5)

(5)

28‑30

25‑2 7

5

2

3

■

日

日

■

■

3

3

1

1

1

15

0 75

9

0 43

0

0

10

0 50

計画

325

16 26

実績

326

16 28

計画

前 田親 男

ホームペー
ジ・データ 3
ベース 3
実績

5

2

日

日

1

1

4‑8
12‑14
■

8

国内業務小計凡例 :業務従事 実績

業務従事計画報告書等〓〓〓〓呂〓

合計

自社 負担

△

△

△

IC/R

PR/R

F/R

つ
アノ
国内のそれ
依 現地業務期間 Fま と β、国内業務報歯 tよ即 β翻 能 た数手 〃i数点夕 下″ ♂2
ムfナ スガ￨ま'θ
産 ´〃現地業務 と国内業務の療占え/ま スガ事彦 て″ ,ご とととする/̲勤 、口数
Fこ端数力楷 るの端数rよ目内業務の β数 で調整 ナうごととι、ロ
変更 ιなと'ご と。
・業務従 事をつ各露置期閲の 下/̲ 欣 β数 を活弧書 きで記入 ナ5ご とっ
"tご
着 ♂ノ奮
た イノ葉″ /̲ つ ιiては各EE朝 筋の房跨 β、藩 アβを配載 ナうごとっすナ
留 /̲ つ ιiて1よ記入不島ても籠載 するごとDガ 」ノ通訳 つι〕『=こ:なだ δノ ヨンサル タン た業務従事月デkガ 寂握μガ以降 つ ′葉務π事テだ β瘤レ ど:″ デπユきて露載 ナうご′の 瀞 翡 碑 とナれ
=ど

̀=。

計画

30 83

実績

29 16

第2年次（2015.10-2017.3）

Dispatched Experts (2nd Phase)
Name

Associated Task

Number of travel

Yasuyuki AOSHIMAManagement/
Project Operation1

18

Akiko TAKAHASHI

Project Operation2/
Evaluator Training12/
Evaluator Training3/
Evaluator Training2-1

4

Mitsunori MAKINO

Accreditation Criteria
Documents Preparation1/
Homepage & Database
Development1/
Evaluator Training8/
Accreditation Criteria
Documents Preparation2

Hideshi ISHII

Evaluator Training2-3
Evaluator Training11
Program Guidance4

2

Yukihiko SATO

Evaluation Documents
Preparation1/
Evaluator Training7/
Evaluator Training9/
Evaluator Training2-2

1

Toshiyuki SUGIYAMA

Evaluator Training4
Pilot Accreditation16

2

Hiroshi INOMATA

Evaluator Training5
Pilot Accreditation11

Atsushi FUKUDA

7

Task Contents
Affiliated Organization
Accompanied on-site missions of the experts (Indonesia).
On-site missions for attending number of IABEE committees meetings such as, EXC,
Criteria committee and EAC.
Conducted arrangement and coordination with Indonesian counterpart.
Attended IEAM 2016 for information collection and lobbying for IABEE to admit in the
Washington Accord as a provisional member and also attended IEAM 2019 to witness
JABEE
IABEE's provisional application in the Washington Accord.
Accompanied with IABEE candidates to observe CAST, China accreditation visit to theprogram and had lecture and meeting session with CAST executives.
Engaged tasks in Japan 5 days per month including Evaluator Trainer Training seminarwhich requires on-site visit observation of JABEE program evaluation.
On-site mission for the IABEE secretariat Training (Indonesia).
IABEE secretariat training held in Japan.
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
Accompanied with IABEE candidates to observe CAST, China accreditation visit to the
JABEEprogram and had lecture and meeting session with CAST executives.
Accompanied with IABEE candidates to observe Engineers Australia accreditation visit to
the program and to visit Engineers Australia headquarter.
On-site mission (Indonesia) for preparation of training materials for evaluator training.
On-site missions (Indonesia) for preparation of framework for the accreditation criteria
and glossary.
On-site mission (Indonesia)to design and build IABEE homepage and database.
Studying and preparing documents for IABEE committee (domestic).
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
Lecturer for IABEE evaluator training seminar and preparation of its training materials
held in Indonesia.
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing guidance on the program anticipated to apply forevaluation.
On-site missions (Indonesia) for attending EAC.
On-site missions (Indonesia) for preparation of evaluation documents.
Studying and preparing documents for IABEE committee and half a month of
preparation work for designing the on-line module for training materials (domestic).
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
Lecturer for IABEE evaluator training seminar and preparation of its training materials
held in Indonesia.
Accompanied with IABEE candidates to observe Engineers Australia accreditation visit to
the program and to visit Engineers Australia headquarter.
Accompanied with IABEE candidates for participating ABET Program Evaluator Training
Seminar held in USA.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

JABEE

JABEE

JABEE

2

Accompanied with IABEE candidates for participating ABET Program Evaluator Training
Seminar held in USA.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Pilot Accreditation1

1

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Akimasa FUJIWARA

Pilot Accreditation2

1

Akihiko WAKAI

Pilot Accreditation3

1

Kazuhiro SADO

Pilot Accreditation4

1

Hiroomi HOMMA

Pilot Accreditation5
Pilot Accreditation6
Pilot Accreditation17

6

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site missions (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
Lecturer for IABEE evaluator training seminar and preparation of its training materials
held in Indonesia.
A month preparation work for designing the on-line module for training materials(domestic).
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE
JABEE
JABEE
JABEE

Shunji FUJII

Pilot Accreditation11

1

Tetsuya NAGASAKA

Pilot Accreditation8

1

Itaru JINBO

Pilot Accreditation9

1

Kensei KOBAYASHI

Pilot Accreditation10

1

Takeji TAKAMURA

Pilot Accreditation121

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Motonari TANABU

Pilot Accreditation13

1

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

Hiroaki SASAGUCHI

Pilot Accreditation14

1

Yusuke HONJO

Evaluator Training6
Pilot Accreditation18

1

Youji NITTA

Pilot Accreditation18

1

Junko HAZU

Homepage & Database
Development2

2

On-site mission (Indonesia)to design and build IABEE homepage and database.

JABEE

Yuji KIMURA

Program Guidance2

1

On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing guidance on the program anticipated to apply forevaluation .

JABEE

Hiromitsu KOJIMA

Program Guidance 3

1

On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing guidance on the program anticipated to apply forevaluation .

JABEE

Masayuki SUZUKI

Project Operation3/
Evaluator Training10
Program Guidance5

1

On-site mission for the IABEE secretariat Training (Indonesia).
IABEE secretariat training held in Japan.
Preparation for training materials for evaluator trainer training seminar held in Japan.
On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing guidance on the program anticipated to apply forevaluation .

JABEE

On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
A month preparation work for designing the on-line module for training materials(domestic).
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.
On-site mission (Indonesia)for the pilot accreditation of the Indonesian program which
requires prior examination of the program review report.

JABEE

JABEE
JABEE
JABEE

JABEE

JABEE

JABEE

様式1 別添1

業務従事者の従事計画／実績表
契約件名：インドネシア国インドネシアエンジニアリング教育認定機構（IABEE)設立プロジェクト(第3年次)
氏名

担当業務

渡航
回数

格付
計画

青島泰之

総括/組織運営1

2

高橋明子

組織運営2

4

岸本喜久雄

Andrew Wo

Alex Chan

Kai Sang Lock

Lincoln Wood

牧野光則

牧野光則

牧野光則

佐渡一広

組織運営3

組織運営4

組織運営5

組織運営6

組織運営7

審査員研修1

基準・審査書類
整備1

ホームページ・
データベース 1

審査員研修2

審査員研修9

30

実績

25

計画

13

実績

13

計画

1

実績

1

計画

1

実績

1

計画

1

実績

1

計画

1

実績

1

計画

1

実績

1

計画

1

実績

1

計画

2

実績

2

計画

3

実績

3

計画

1

実績

1

計画

2

4

5

6

7

(7日)
5-14

(7日)
16-24

(8日)
18-25

(7日)
12-21

(10日)

(9日)

(8日)

(10日)

(5日)
10-14

(5日)
17-21

(5日)

(5日)

2017年
8

監督職員確認印：【三浦

9

10

(7日)
20-25

(7日)
6-15

(7日)

(6日)

(10日)

(4日)

11

12

1

(7日)

(7日)
5-14

(7日)

(10日)

(7日)

28-31 1-3

(3日)

(5日)

2

24-30

(5日)
5-8

20-24

(5日)

4

5

6

(7日)

(7日)
10-13

(7日)
13-16

(8日)

7-16

(13日)

(4日)

(4日)

(7日)

(7日)
27-28 1-3

(2日)

(7日)

23-29 3-15

9(7日)
5-7 10-17

(7日)
16-30
(15日)

(12日)

26-30

(5日)
1-5

(13日)

(11日)

11-16

(5日)
10-15

(5日)
12-15

(6日)

(4日)

(5日)

佳子】

印

2019年
8

(6日)

(5日)

(4日)

第3期契約期間
2018年
7

3

10

11

12

(7日)
1-12

(7日)
6-9

(7日)
4-12

(5日)

(5日)

(4日)

6-9
(4日)

7

8

9

(5日)
9-13

(6日)
9-14

(6日)
9-13

(5日)
21-24

(3日)

(10日)

(5日)

(6日)

(5日)

(4日)

(3日)

19-22

(4日)
10-13

(4日)
21-24

(4日)

(4日)

2

3

4

(7日)

(7日)

(7日)
13-22

(9日)
(5日)
7-10

6

1

(5日)

(4日)

(4日)

5

(4日)

3

11-14

(4日)
(4日)

3

12-14

(3日)
(4日)

3

12-14

(3日)
(4日)

3

12-14

(3日)
(4日)

3

11-15

(5日)
(6日)
27-30

3

1-2

(4日)

(2日)
(4日)

3

(4日)
8-15

3-11

(8日)

(9日)

(4日)

3

(4日)

(4日)

12-14

17-19

(3日)

4-8

(3日)

(5日)

(6日)
4-9

3

(6日)
(4日)

3

(4日)

日数
合計

人月
合計

195

6.50

204

6.80

63

2.10

65

2.17

4

0.13

4

0.13

4

0.13

3

0.10

4

0.13

3

0.10

4

0.13

3

0.10

4

0.13

5

0.17

6

0.20

6

0.20

8

0.27

17

0.57

12

0.40

11

0.37

6

0.20

6

0.20

8

0.27

9

0.30

8

0.27

5

0.17

40

1.33

4

0.13

4

0.13

3

0.10

6

0.20

6

0.20

10

0.33

7

0.23

21

0.70

50

1.67

3

0.10

6

0.20

実績

Stuart H.
Zweben
現
地
猪股宏
業
務

計画

暫定加盟のための推薦人

3

審査員研修10

3

本格審査

実績

1

計画

2

実績

1

計画

8

28-30 1-6

(3日)
(4日)

(6日)

(4日)
6-10
(5日)
(15日)

3

(10日)

(15日)

実績
計画

牧野光則

本格審査1

3

本間寛臣

本格審査2

3

実績

10-13

1

(4日)

計画
実績

15-18

1

(4日)

計画

本間寛臣

本格審査3

3
実績

28 1-2

1

(1日)

(2日)

計画

本城勇介

本格審査4

3
実績

10-15

1

(6日)

計画

藤井俊二

本格審査5

3
実績

3-8

1

(6日)

計画

本城勇介

本格審査6

3
実績

19-28

1

(10日)

計画

藤井俊二

本格審査7

3
実績

16-22

1

(7日)

計画

本間寛臣

未定

本格審査8

プログラム指導
4-9

3
実績

1

計画

9

(5日)

3

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

16-19,23-26

1,7-11,17-19

(8日)

(9日)

(5日)

(5日)

4-7
(4日)
(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

実績
計画

本間寛臣

プログラム指導1

3

岸本喜久雄

プログラム指導2

3

実績

13-15

1

(3日)

計画
実績

1-6

1

(6日)

計画

木村雄二

プログラム指導3

3
実績

1-5

1

5

(5日)

現地
業務
小計

計画

青島泰之

総括/組織運営1

(5日)
17-21

2
実績

(5日)
(5日)
11-12、29-31
12-16

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

計画

高橋明子

審査員研修3

4

(5日)
(5日)
(5日)
5-7 24-25 14-16 28-29 4,19,20 26,27(5日)
4,15-18

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(10日)

(10日)

(5日)
4-6,14-18

10,14-1828-31

実績

(10日)

4-8

25-29

(10日)

審査員研修5

3

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

25-27 5, 7-9,11

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)
4-6 18,19
(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

17-19 23,24 3

20,21,23,24

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)
6-7

10-12

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

15-17,22,23 14-16,26,27

13,14,17-19

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)
21-25

(5日)
4-6,14,15(5日)
4-6,11,12

(5日)
1-5

(2日)
9,13

(2日)
6，28

(2日)

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(5日)

(2日)

(2日)

(3日)

134

6.70

(3日)
7,19

29-31

(2日)

(1日)
(1日)

3

4
(1日)

計画
4

(1日)

計画

(3日)

3

134

6.70

25

1.25

28

1.40

1

0.05

1

0.05

1

0.05

1

0.05

1

0.05

1

0.05

1

(1日)

3
実績

審査員研修4

(5日)

4

実績

審査員研修819-20 26-28 2,3

(5日)

(1日)

計画

藤井俊二

(5日)
5-9

(5日)

(1日)

実績

審査員研修7

(5日)
15-19

13.87

4

実績

本城勇介

(5日)

13.86

416.00(1日)

3

計画
審査員研修6(5日)

27-29 1,4 18-20

(5日)

416

実績

(8日)

計画

牧野光則
国
内
佐藤之彦
業
務

(5日)
6-7

0.17

計画

0.05

1

0.05

3

0.15

166
166

8.30
8.30

実績

凡例：

業務従事計画業務従事実績

計画

国内
業務小計

自社負担

実績
計画

22.16

実績

22.17

合計

報告書等

△

△

△

△

△

△

△

△

事業計画書

Work Plan
Monitoring
6

Monitoring 7

中間報告書
Monitoring
8

Monitoring 9

中間報告書
Monitoring
10

Monitoring 1告書

注１）各業務従事者の現地、国内のそれぞれの人月は、現地業務期間は30日、国内業務期間は20日で除した数字の小数点以下第３位を四捨五入して算定してください。
注２）現地業務と国内業務の振替えは人月単位で行うため、日数に端数が出ますが、端数は国内業務日数で調整してください。
注３）各業務従事者の各配置期間の下には、日数を括弧書きで記入してください。
注４）実績については各配置期間の開始日、終了日を記載してください（計画については記入不要です）。
注５）通訳についても記載してください。
注６）自社負担による業務従事期間が発生する場合、自社負担による業務従事期間を明確に区別できるよう表記してください。

業務完了報Dispatched Experts (3rd Phase)
Name

Associated Task

Nubmer of travel

Yasuyuki AOSHIMAManagement/
Project Operation 1

25

Akiko TAKAHASHI

Project Operation 2/
Evaluator Training 3

13

Task Contents
Accompanied on-site missions of the experts (Indonesia).
On-site missions for attending number of IABEE committees meetings such as, EXC, EAC,
finance committee, IC and Public Affairs Committee.
Conducted arrangement and coordination with Indonesian counterpart.
Attended IEAM 2017 and 2018 for information collection and lobbying for IABEE toadmit in the Washington Accord as a provisional member and also attended IEAM 2019 towitness IABEE's provisional application in the Washington Accord.
Lecturer for Evaluator Trainer Training seminar and accompanied with on-site visit
observation of program evaluation held in Japan.
Lecturer for IABEE secretariat training session held in Japan.
On-site missions (Indonesia).
On-site missions for attending number of IABEE committees meetings such as, EXC, EAC
and IC.
Preparation for Evaluator Trainer Training seminar and accompanied with on-site visit
observation of program evaluation held in Japan.
Facilitated IABEE secretariat training sessions both held in Japan and in Indonesia.

Affiliated Organization

JABEE

JABEE

Kikuo KISHIMOTO

Project Operation 3/
Program Guidance 22

Attended IABEE inauguration ceremony and provided keynote speech during seminar heldin conjunction with ceremony as a representative from the Washington Accord signatoryorganization. Also attended meeting with Ministry executives, IABEE executives and PII
executives.
On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing consultation and guidance to the university/
program.

Andrew Wo

Project Operation 4

1

Attended IABEE inauguration ceremony and provided keynote speech during seminar held
Institute of Engineeringin conjunction with ceremony as a representative from the Washington Accord signatory
Education Taiwan
organization. Also attended meeting with PII executives.

Alex Chan

Project Operation 5

1

Attended IABEE inauguration ceremony and provided keynote speech during seminar heldin conjunction with ceremony as a representative from the Washington Accord signatoryorganization. Also attended meeting with PII executives.

Kai Sang Lock

Project Operation 6

1

Attended IABEE inauguration ceremony and provided keynote speech during seminar held
Institution of Engineers,in conjunction with ceremony as a representative from the Washington Accord signatory
Singaporeorganization. Also attended meeting with PII executives.

Lincoln Wood

Project Operation 7

1

Evaluator Training 1/
Accreditation Criteria &Evaluation Documents
Preparation 1/
Evaluator Training 5/
Homepage & Database 1

7

Kazuhiro SADO

Evaluator Training 2

1

Accompanied with IABEE candidates for participating ABET Program Evaluator Training
Seminar held in USA.

JABEE

Stuart H. Zweben

Nominator for Provisional
Admission to the
Washington Accord

1

Observation on System of IABEE including evaluation and accreditation through the onsite visit to the education. program for IABEE to satisfy meeting the Washington Accord
applicant requirement of having 1 of 2 nominators.

ABET

Hiroshi INOMATA

Evaluator Training 10

1

On-site missions (Indonesia) for providing guidance on Evaluator Trainer Training
Seminars.

JABEE

Hiroomi HOMMA

Program Guidance 1/
Evaluation 2/
Evaluation 3/
Evaluation 8

4On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing consultation and guidance to the university/
program.
Accompanies IABEE On-site Evaluations to provide advice on judgment.

JABEE

2

Facilitator for Evaluator Trainer Training seminar held in Japan.
Accompanies IABEE On-site Evaluations to provide advice on judgment.

JABEE

2

Facilitator for Evaluator Trainer Training seminar held in Japan.
Accompanies IABEE On-site Evaluations to provide advice on judgment.

JABEE

1

On-site mission (Indonesia) for providing consultation and guidance to the university/
program.

JABEE

Mitsunori MAKINO

Yusuke HONJO

Shunji FUJII
Yuji KIMURA

Evaluator Training 7/
Evaluation4 /Evaluation6
Evaluator Training 8/
Evaluation 5 /Evaluation7
Program Guidance 3

Attended IABEE inauguration ceremony and provided keynote speech during seminar heldin conjunction with ceremony as a representative from the Washington Accord signatoryorganization. Also attended meeting with PII executives.
Accompanied with IABEE candidates for participating ABET Program Evaluator Training
Seminar held in USA.
On-site mission (Indonesia) for assisting preparation on glossary of Accreditation Criteria
and Evaluation Documents.
Lecturer for Evaluator Trainer Training seminar held in Japan.
On-site missions (Indonesia) for the modification of Homepage and Database.

JABEE

Hong Kong Institutionof Engineers

Engineers Australia

JABEE

別添1

第4年次（2019.10-2023.8）
調達管理番号（18a00327）170138
様式－3

業務従事者の従事計画／実績表
監督職員確認印：【岩崎

契約件名：インドネシア国インドネシアエンジニアリング教育認定機構（IABEE)設立プロジェクト
氏名

青島泰之

現
地
業
務

高橋明子

担当業務

格付
計画

業務主任者/
組織運営1

2

組織運営2

4

3

実績

3

計画

1

実績

1

1

1

4

2

10

2019年
11

2020年
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

2022年

2021年
7

8

9

10

11

12

1

3

2

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

11

12

1

2

3

4

実地審査

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

2023年
5

6

7

印

(8日)

(6日)

8

日数
合計

人月
合計

61

2.03

70

2.33

10
(6日)
24-29

(3日)
(6日)
29-31 1, 12-16

(6日)

(3日)

(6日)

(7日)
15-23

12-18

(6日)
30

(7日)
1-8,18-31

(7日)

(1日)

(22日)

(6日)
21-22,23-26,27-28

11-12,13-14,15-16

11-18

10

5

2

1

1

4

2

1

4

(6日)

(9日)

計画

2

2

実績

2

2

(4日)

(4日)

(8日)

24
(5日)
12-16

(6日)

(7日)
15-23

(5日)

本間寛臣

昭宏】

第4年次契約期間

2019年 2020年 2021年 2022年 2023年
全渡航
度渡航 度渡航 度渡航 度渡航 度渡航
回数
回数
回数
回数
回数
回数

11-18

31

1.03

9

0.30

9

0.30

(8日)

(9日)

(9日)
13-16, 24-28

3

0.80

(6日)

23-31

(9日)

(9日)

計画
実績

計画

94

3.13

実績

110

3.66

34

1.70

29

1.45

現地業務小計

計画

青島泰之
国
内
業
務

業務主任者/組織
運営1

2

(2日)
9
31

(2日)
20, 22

(2日)
4, 19

(1日)
20

(2日)
6, 22

(1日)
10

(1日)
14

(2日)

(2日)

(2日)

(1日)

(2日)

(1日)

(1日)

(1日)
4

(1日)
25

2

(1日)
11

19,22,31

19,26

(1日)
28

(1日)
14,16,21,23,25

16

2

19

(1日)

(1日)

(1日)

(4日)

7,16 17,27-30 14,18-20,25-27,31

実績

v
(1日)

(1日)

(2日)
1,2 4,12

(4日)

(2日)

(4日)

(2日)
1,2 4,12

21

(1日)
27,28

9,10,18

(1日)

(2日)

(2日)

(1日)
30 1

(1日)
2,6,8

(1日)
8, 26

1, 6-8

(1日)

(1日)
7

(2日)
23,24

8

(1日)

(1日)

(1日)

(1日)

(1日)
8

8

(1日)

(1日)

17-20

(1日)
12

23

(2日)
19-21 24-28

22

計画

髙橋明子

組織運営2

4

14,18-20,25-27,31

(1日)
21

(2日)
28

(1日)
9-10

1

9,10,18

(2日)
2,6,8

1

(1日)

(2日)
23,24

19

(1日)
12

(2日)
23

16

0.80

計画

56

2.80

実績

45

2.25

実績
(4日)

(2日)

(1日)

(2日)

(1日)

(2日)

(1日)

1.10

(2日)

(1日)

国内業務小計凡例：

業務従事計画業務従事実績

自社負担

計画

5.93

実績

5.91

合計

報告書等

△

△

△

△

△

△

△

業務計画書
Work plan

Monitoring 12

Monitoring 13

中間報告書

Monitoring 14

Monitoring 15

中間報告書 Monitoring 16

注１）各業務従事者の現地、国内のそれぞれの人月は、現地業務期間は30日、国内業務期間は20日で除した数字の小数点以下第３位を四捨五入して算定してください。
注２）現地業務と国内業務の振替えは人月単位で行うため、日数に端数が出ますが、端数は国内業務日数で調整してください。
注３）各業務従事者の各配置期間の下には、日数を括弧書きで記入してください。
注４）実績については各配置期間の開始日、終了日を記載してください（計画については記入不要です）。
注５）通訳についても記載してください。
注６）自社負担による業務従事期間が発生する場合、自社負担による業務従事期間を明確に区別できるよう表記してください。

△

△

△

Monitoring 17

Monitoring 18△
事業完了報告書

備考別添5
第4年次（2019.10-2022.8）

Dispatched Experts (4thName

Associated Task

Number of travel

Yasuyuki AOSHIMAManagement/
Project Operation 1

10

Akiko TAKAHASHI

Project Operation 2

4Hiroomi HOMMA

Evaluation2

List of Government C/P
PeriodMinistry

C/P Director

C/P Manager

2014-2016

Ministry of Education and Culture

Prof. Joko Santoso

Dr. Illah Sailah

2016-2018

Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Prof. Intan Ahmad

Prof. Aris Junaidi

2018-2020

Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Dr. Patdono Suwingnjo

Dr. Totok Prasetyo

2020- present

Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology

Prof. Nizam

Dr. Ridwan/ Dr. Lukman

APPENDIX A – Short CV of IABEE Executive
Committee Members
Misri Gozan
Chair of Executive Committee
Dr. Misri is a professor of chemical engineering. In August 2018, he’s elected as the Chair of IABEE Executive
Committee. He obtained his Dr.-Ing. degree from Technical University of Dresden, Germany in 2004, and M.
Tech. degree from Massey University, New Zealand.
Since 2007, he has been serving as assessor/evaluator
for the National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT). He was involved in the preparation of
IABEE establishment in 2014, and the development of
IABEE afterwards. He is a lecturer and researcher at Bioprocess Engineering Program, Chemical Engineering
Department, Universitas Indonesia. He is also the Director of Research Centre for Biomedical Engineering, atUniversitas Indonesia. He has research interests in thefield of bioprocess engineering and biochemical products
from biomass. He joined the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) in 2004 and registered as IPU (Prominent
Professional Engineer) in 2016.

Muhammad Romli
Chair of International Committee
Dr. Romli is an agro-industrial senior engineer and professor of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB). He received his master’s degree in biotechnology and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of Queensland, Australia.
Romli has been working for Bogor Agricultural University
with more than 30 years lecturing experience in the areasof industrial pollution control and management, cleaner
industrial production, and industrial ecology. He hasserved many positions in the university, including Head
Division of Environmental Engineering and Management(1993-2000), Director of Center for Development of Safe
Agro-industrial Processes (1997-2000), and Head Department of Agro-industrial Technology (2000-2008). He
is also an active member of PII, serving as Chair of PII
Chapter for Agroindustry in 2015. Romli has an extensive
experience as auditor in quality assurance of education,
quality and environmental management systems (ISO
9001 and 14001), and as assessor of National Committee of Accreditation for Research and Development Institution (KNAPPP).

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro
Chair of Accreditation Council
Emeritus Professor in Mechanical Engineering, Institut
Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Dr. Satryo is the President of
the Indonesian Academy of Sciences. He has a long anddistinguished academic and public service career. He
was a faculty member of the Mechanical Engineering Department of ITB than 30 years since 1980. He has served
many positions in ITB including Chairman of the Department (1992-1995) and Vice Dean of Academic Affairs(1995-1998). From 1999-2007 Satryo served as Director
General of Higher Education of the Ministry of National
Education, Indonesia. He obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at
Berkeley in 1985. His research areas include tribology,
fracture mechanics, finite element analysis, mechanicaldesign, and higher education development and policy.
He is a Fellow of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences
since 2008. He served also as visiting professor in mechanical engineering at Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan. In April 2018 he was appointed as Special
Advisor to Coordinating Minister of Maritime Affairs, Republic of Indonesia. He was the former Chair of IABEE
Steering Committee in 2015-2016.

Sudjarwadi
Chair of Appeal Board
Emeritus Professor Dr. Sudjarwadi was a civil engineer
in construction industry in 1970 to 1972. In 1974 he returned to his alma mater, Gadjah Mada University(UGM), to become a lecturer. After 37 years conducting
research and teaching, in 2012 he retired as professor
emeritus of civil engineering. He currently teaches aspart time professor in UGM and Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) at Yogyakarta. He has long and distinguished career, both in academic and public service. He
was an assistant director for UGM’s Inter University Center for Engineering in 1988-1991. In 1991 he served as
Assistant Dean of Faculty of Engineering. In 1994 to1999 he was appointed as Secretary of Directorate General of Higher Education. Returning to UGM he served
as the Dean and subsequently the Vice Rector for Academic Affairs. In 2007 was appointed as the Rector of
UGM. After retirement, in 2013 he supervises a board forIndonesian International Education Foundation andserves as Independent Commissioner in PT Sri Rejeki
Isman Tbk, a textile company considered as the best integrated textile industry in Southeast Asia. He assisted
the Ministry of Education and Culture as chair of Education Committee in 2019. He was a key member of Steering Committee that contributes to IABEE during the initial
phase of establishment.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Tjipto Kusumo

Chair of Finance Committee
Engineer Tjipto graduated from ITB with a degree in Engineering Physics in 1974. He has an extensive professional experience, starting in Elnusa company where heserved as Manager of Instrument & Control Division. He
moved to Tripatra Engineering company and retired fromit in 2005, after serving several positions, including Technical Development Director, Off-Shore Projects Marketing Director, and Operation Senior Director. Later heserved as Advisor for EPC companies and presently heis a commissioner for Java Energy Semesta, a CNG operation company. He also has academic related activities, including 6 years as practitioner lecturer forEngineering
Physics Department of ITB. He also amember of Advisory Board of ITB Engineering Physics
Program and Environmental Engineering Program of Islamic University of Indonesia Yogyakarta. He is also an
active member of PII, where he co-founded PII Chapter
for Engineering Physics in 1997. He was also the Headof the Chapter and the Head of Certification Committee
as well as Continual Professional Development Committee. His professional titles as engineer include PII’s IPM(Professional Engineer), APEC Engineer, as well as
ASEAN Engineer

Arief Syaichu Rohman
Chair of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee
Dr. Arief obtained his bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB). He received an M.Eng.Sc. degree in Systems & Control fromthe University of New South Wales. He finished his Ph.D.
in the same field in 2005 from the University of Newcastle, Australia. He worked for the Research & Development Division at PT IPTN, the Indonesian aircraft industry, in 1990 to 1992. Since 1992 he joined ITB and has
been teaching undergraduate and graduate courses
in Electrical Engineering at the School of Electrical Engineering & Informatics. He was the Chair of the Undergraduate Program in 2011-2015 and is currently the
Chair of Quality Control Circle in the school. He joined
PII and awarded IPM (Professional Engineer) title in2017. He is also an active member of FORTEI (Indonesia
Higher Education Forum in Electrical Engineering) where
he served as Vice Chair in 2012-2014 and Chair in 20142016). He attended program evaluator training in JABEE
Japan in 2015 and both IDEAL and PEV training in ABET
USA in 2017, respectively. He is a member Control System Society of IEEE. He joined IABEE in 2015 and presently serves as EAC Chair of IABEE.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Tjokorde Walmiki Samadhi
Chair of Criteria Committee
Dr. Samadhi is an associate professor in Chemical Engineering at the Faculty of Industrial Technology at Institut
Teknologi Bandung (ITB). He served as the Chemical
Engineering Undergraduate Program Chair in 20122015, Vice Dean of Academic Affairs in 2015-2020, andcurrently as the Chemical Engineering Graduate Program Chair. He presided as Undergraduate Curricular
Section Coordinator of the Indonesian Association ofChemical Engineering Higher Education (APTEKIM) in
2012-2015, during which he coordinated the formulationof national core curriculum recommendations for undergraduate chemical engineering programs in Indonesia.
He has been a member of the IABEE Evaluation and Accreditation Committee and Program Evaluator since2015. Dr. Samadhi received his Bachelor’s and Master
degrees in Chemical Engineering from ITB, and PhD in
Ceramic Science from Alfred University in New YorkState, USA in 2003. His academic interests include thedevelopment of oxide materials, utilization of inorganic
waste materials, high-temperature thermochemical systems, and statistical experimental design and analysis.
He received the distinction of 3rd Place in National Most
Achieved Program Chairs in 2013 from the Ministry of
Education and Culture for implementing outcome-based
education and thorough improvements of the Chemical
Engineering Program at ITB, which led to ABET accreditation in 2010.

Heru Dewanto
PII President, IABEE Executive Committee member
Dr. Heru is the current President of Indonesia Institute ofEngineers (PII). He is a civil engineer by training. He received bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Gadjah Mada University (UGM), an M.Sc.Eng. degree intransport planning and engineering from the University ofLeeds, and doctoral degree in strategic managementfrom Graduate School of Economics of the University ofIndonesia (UI). He also holds Senior Professional Engineer (IPU) title from PII. He has more than 21 years ofexperiences in infrastructure investment and businessdevelopment, ranging from power, toll roads, railways,
light rapid transit, wastewater treatment, clean watersupply, terminals to housing in various global corporations and national enterprises. He is currently the President Director of PT. Cirebon Energi Prasarana, an independent power producer for 1x1000 MW ultra-supercritical clean coal technology to be firstly applied in Indonesia. Prior to serving PII as president, he was PII Vice
President in 2015-2018.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Illah Sailah
Chair of Public Affairs Committee
Dr. Illah is associate professor in agroindustrial process
technology at Bogor Agricultural University (IPB). She received bachelor’s degree in prost-harvest technology
from IPB (1981), master’s in chemical engineering fromITB (1986), and doctoral degree in chemical engineeringfrom University of Queensland (1994). Apart from academic career, she has served various managerial positions in the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC).
She was a key person and one of the initiators of the establishment of IABEE during her tenure as Director of
Learning and Student Affairs of the MoEC in 2011-2014.
She was also the first IABEE Chair of Executive Committee from 2015 to 2018. In addition to engineering, Dr. Illah pays a considerable interest in higher education development and research. She played a significant role inthe development of Competence-based National Curriculum for undergraduate programs; a national project of
the MoEC in 2005.

Tresna Soemardi

Executive Committee member
Dr. Tresna is professor in mechanical-biomechanical,
product innovation, design, prototyping and development
at Universitas Indonesia (UI). Apart from his academic
career, he also serves as a consultant for PLN, the stateowned electricity generating company, in 2009-2012. He
was also a commissioner for Commission for Supervision of Business Competion in 2007-2011. Tresna holds
two bachelor’s degrees, i.e. in mechanical engineeringfrom ITB and economics/financial management from UI.
He also has a M.Sc. degree in environmental studies,
environmental science–human ecology and environmental economic from UI. His Ph.D. is in the field of appliedmechanics and advanced composite material. Tresna isalso a member of several professional associations, including ASME, SAE, SME-CME, and SAMPE

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Faizal Safa
PII Executive Director,
IABEE Executive Committee member
Engineer Faizal is the Chairman of Immara Infoglobal, anational management consultant company headquartered in Jakarta. He is an industrial engineer by training,a senior professional engineer (IPU), and active memberof PII. He has been serving PII for various positions, including Vice Chair for Continuous Professional Development committee, member for Industrial Company Development task-force under the PII Chapter for Industrial
Engineers, and the most recent appointment as PII Executive Director. He is also the chair of Industrial Management and Engineering Graduates Association.

Sri Hartati
Executive Committee member
Dr. Sri Hartati is professor in computer science at Facultyof Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gadjah Mada University (UGM). She received bachelor’s degree in computer science from UGM in 1986. Her master’s and doctoral degrees were obtained from University of New
Brunswick, Canada, also in the field of computer sciencein 1990 and 1996, respectively. Her research interests
cover the fields of intelligent systems including
knowledge-based system, reasoning system, expert system, fuzzy system, pattern recognition, decision support
system, medical computing, and software computation
using ANN, fuzzy logic, and genetic algorithm. Besides
teaching and conducting research, she is also active inseveral professional associations, including Computer
Science, Electronics and Instrumentation Support Society, Indonesian Physics Society, Indonesian Mathematical Society, and APTIKOM, which is National Higher Education Association for Informatics and Computer Science. She represents APTIKOM in IABEE Executive
Committee to pave the way for IABEE’s future membership in Seoul Accord.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Berlian Kushari
Secretary-General
Engineer Berlian is a civil engineer by training and a registered professional engineer of PII. He received hisbachelor’s engineering degree from Gadjah Mada University in 2001 and master’s degree (M. Eng.) from
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, in 2005. He served
as a consultant to the Ministry of Public Works, Directorate General of Highway Administration for various
road safety and pavement management projects in2007-2017. He also contributed to the development ofprovincial and national transportation systems planning
conducted by the Ministry of Transportation in 20112012. He has an academic position in the Faculty of Civil
Engineering and Planning of the Islamic University of Indonesia in Yogyakarta and was appointed secretary ofUndergraduate Civil Engineering Program in 2014-2018.
In 2015, Berlian joined IABEE Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. He was appointed to serve as IABEE
Secretary-General since 2019.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Socialization Seminars
14-15 August 2017, University of Surabaya（37 名）
15-16 August 2017, Hasanuddin University（35 名）
21-22 August 2017, Batam Politech（29 名）
22-23 August 2017, Telkom University（44 名）
23-24 August 2017, Jakarta 周辺大学（32 名）
11 September 2017, UIN Sunan Kalijaga（74 名）
28-29 September 2017, North Sumatra University（61 名）
29 November 2018, Telkom University, Bandung（35 名）
12 February 2019, Surabaya Institute of Technology、Surabaya（43 名）
14 February 2019, Sriwijaya University, Palembang（37 名）
14 February 2019, LLDIKTI 3 (KOPERTIS 3), Jakarta（66 名）
18 February 2019, University of Udayana, Bali（42 名）
22 February 2019, Brawijaya University, Malang（38 名）
20 March 2019, Yogyakarta State University（36 名）
30 April 2019, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta（62 名）
21 May 2019, PJ University, Tangerang（72 名）
17 July 2019, Trisakti University, Jakarta（28 名）
22 July 2019, Janabadra University, Yogyakarta（53 名）
15 November 2019, Lampung University (25 名)
21 November 2019, APTIKOM, Branch of West Jawa Province (50 名)
23 November 2019, Brawijaya University (30 名)
30-Nov to 1-Dec 19 2019, Jember University, Faculty of Agricultural (40 名)
5 March 2020, Ciputra University (21 名)
12 March 2020, Maranatha Christian University（30 名）
30 April 2020, IABEE (267 名) Online
6 May 2020, IABEE (129 名) Online
19 June 2020, Hasanuddin University (20 名) Online
25 June 2020, Lampung University (25 名) Online
16 July 2020, Institute Technology of Bandung (30 名) Online
1 August 2020, Jember University, Faculty of Engineering (22 名) Online
5 August 2020, Electrical & Mechanical Eng. Programs (40 名) Online
22 August 2020, Syiah Kuala University (25 名) Online
27 August 2020, Universitas Indonesia (156 名) Online
13 February 2021, APTEKIM (Teknik Kimia) (90 名)
6 March 2021, BKSTI (Teknik Industri) (94 名)
11 March 2021, Forum Program Studi Teknik Pertanian dan Biosistem (100 名)
16 March 2021, BKSTM (Teknik Mesin) (157 名)
18 March 2021, APTIKOM（67 名）
20 March 2021, Badan Musyawarah Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Sipil Indonesia (BMPTTSSI)
12 August 2021, Trunojoyo University, Madura (35 名)
6 September 2021, Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Jakarta, Faculty ofEngineering (15 名)
14 September 2021, Universitas Yarsi, Jakarta (80 名)

7-8 October 2021, Quality Assurance, University of Riau (30 名)
5 October 2021, Politeknik Negeri Bengkalis (40 名)
19 November 2021, Universitas Kristen Petra (25 名)
20 November 2021, Universitas Andalas, Faculty of Engineering (35 名)
25 November 2021, Quality Assurance, University of Riau (25 名)
5 January 2022, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jawa Timur, Faculty ofComputer Science (30 名)
18 January 2022, Forum Direktur Politeknik Negeri Se-Indonesia/FDPNI (119 名)
26 January 2022, Forum Studi Transportasi Antar Perguruan Tinggi/FSTPT (174 名)
18 March 2022, IABEE Awareness Seminar (150 名) Online
20 March 2023, Universitas Multimedia Nusantara, Tangerang, Bante (170 名)

Consultation Services to Educational Institutions
19 March 2018, Sebelas Maret University (UNS), Surakarta
20 March 2018, University Atmajaya Yogyakarta
21 March 2018, University Diponegoro, Semarang
25 March 2018, Trisakti University
28 March 2018, Sumatera Utara University (USU), Medan
10 April 2018, Andalas University, Pad
19 April 2018, Surabaya University (UBAYA)
2 May 2018, University of Muhammadiyah Surakarta
27 August 2018, Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta University
21 November 2018, Brawijaya University, Malang
13 December 2018, Mercu Buana University, Jakarta
15 January 2019, Sebelas Maret University (UNS), Surakarta
13-16 March 2019, Petra University, Surabaya
23-25 March 2019, Tri Sakti University, Jakarta
25-28 March 2019, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh
21-24 November 2019, Faculty of Engineering, Jember University (30 名)
25-28 February 2020, Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java (30 名)
14-17 April 2020, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro (30 名)
23-26 June 2020, Different universities (17 名)
26-29 August 2020, Jember University (for non-engineering (38 名)
21-22 September 2020, Udayana University (32 名)
9-12 November 2020, Quality Assurance Office, Lambung Mangkurat University, West
Kalimantan (35 名)
23-26 November 2020, Quality Assurance Office, Lambung Mangkurat University, West
Kalimantan (35 名)
7-9 and 12 April 2021, Quality Assurance Office, Sanata Dharma University,
Yogyakarta (35 名)
15-18 November 2021, Quality Assurance, Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Maulana
Malik Ibrahim Malang, East Java (35 名)
22-25 August 2022, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah (14 名)

List of training
Beneficiaries

Number of beneficiaries

Year

Country and by whom

IABEE Executives

8

2015

In Japan by JABEE

IABEE Secretariat staff

32026 and 2017

In Japan by JABEE

Program evaluators candidates as trainer

44

2015, 2016 and 2017

In Japan by JABEE

16

2015, 2016 and 2017

In USA by ABET

3

2016

In China by CAST

3

2016

In Australia by EA

Newly recruited program evaluators candidates

Every year

In Indonesia by IABEE

Refresher training of program evaluators

Every year

In Indonesia by IABEE

別添2

契約番号：

170138

貸与物品管理者：Mr.Berlian Kushari

IABEE事務局長

貸与物品リスト
List of Property Lending
業務名称 (Name of Project)：インドネシアエンジニアリング教育認定機構（IABEE)設立プロジェクト
対象国 (Country)：インドネシア国
事業担当部課 (Division in Charge)：人間開発部 高等教育・社会保障グループ 高等・技術教育チーム
取得価格 (Purchase Price)
日本円換算
物品名称
規格・品番
個数
取得価格
取得価格
通貨
(Name of Property)(Standard, Part Number) (Quantity)(In Japanese(Purchase Price) (Currency)
Yen)
ノートパソコン（Microsoft

office含む）

ノートパソコン（Microsoft

office含む）（2022年11月現在）(As of Nov., 2022)
検査合格日(Date ofInspection
Passed)

配置場所(Location)

現況(Current State)

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
L50 B10 BX

118,400,000 IDR

151,064

2015/10/7 IABEE事務所

故障中

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
L50 B10 6X

1

17,750,000 IDR

160,460 2016/12/14 IABEE事務所

故障中

1

6,501,000 IDR

55,454

2016/3/7 IABEE事務所

故障中

プロジェクター

HITACHI
EX301NPROJECTOR

カラーコピー複合機

Canon

IR-ADVC3330

1

102,850,000 IDR

874,636

2016/4/4 IABEE事務所

稼動中

ノートパソコンNOTEBOOKASUS K550VX-KX275D

1

16,735,000 IDR

144,3232017/2/9 IABEE事務所

故障中（Microsoft

office含む）

CP-【以下、JICAから貸与されている物品 (Property Lent by JICA)】

備考(Remarks)
二年次購入、精算済み
JICA事務所の許可を得てIABEE事務局が処分
二年次購入、精算済み
JICA事務所の許可を得てIABEE事務局が処分
二年次購入、精算済み
JICA事務所の許可を得てIABEE事務局が処分
二年次購入、精算済み
IABEE事務局が管理
二年次購入、精算済み
JICA事務所の許可を得てIABEE事務局が処分

事業終了後の取扱い(After Completion of
Project:
Handover/Return)

IABEE

別添2

契約番号：

170138

貸与物品管理者：Mr.Berlian Kushari

IABEE事務局長

貸与物品リスト
List of Property Lending
業務名称 (Name of Project)：インドネシアエンジニアリング教育認定機構（IABEE)設立プロジェクト
対象国 (Country)：インドネシア国
事業担当部課 (Division in Charge)：人間開発部 高等教育・社会保障グループ 高等・技術教育チーム
取得価格 (Purchase Price)
日本円換算
物品名称
規格・品番
個数
取得価格
取得価格
通貨
(Name of Property)(Standard, Part Number) (Quantity)(In Japanese(Purchase Price) (Currency)
Yen)
カラーコピー複合機

Canon

IR-ADVC3330【以下、JICAから貸与されている物品 (Property Lent by JICA)】

1

102,850,000 IDR

874,636（2023年7月現在）(As of July, 2023)
検査合格日(Date ofInspection
Passed)

配置場所(Location)

2016/4/4 IABEE事務所

現況(Current State)

稼動中

備考(Remarks)
二年次購入、精算済み
IABEE事務局が管理

事業終了後の取扱い(After Completion of
Project:
Handover/Return)

IABEE

International Engineering Alliancehttps://www.ieagreements.org/

Educational Accords

Competence Recognition/
Mobility Agreements

Washington
AccordSydneyAccordDublinAccordInternational
Professional
Engineers
AgreementInternational
Engineering
Technologist
Agreement

Agreement forInternational
Engineering
Technicians

APEC
Agreement

Professional
Engineers

Engineering
Technologists

Engineering
TechniciansProfessional
Engineers

Engineering
Technologists

Engineering
TechniciansProfessional
Engineers(Regional
Agreement)© JABEE 2020

1

Washington Accord membership
ABET (USA)Engineers Canada
ECUK (UK)EA (Australia),
EI (Ireland)
EngNZ (New Zealand)© JABEE 2023

1

ANNEX 2: List of Products (Report,
Manuals, Handbooks, etc.)
Produced by the ProjectPERHATIAN: Lembar kerja ini hanya digunakan untuk membantu Program mempelajari dan mempersiapkan pengisian Laporan Evaluasi Mandiri Program(LED). Template LED yang resmi, yang dapat diunggah kembali ke Sistem Evaluasi Online IABEE, hanya bisa diperoleh/diunduh dari Sistem tersebut dengan
akun Wakil Program (Program Representative) setelah tahap Registrasi Program selesai dan proses Evaluasi Akreditasi dimulai. Isi kolom (5), (6), dan (7)hanya pada baris-baris yang berwarna putih. Baris-baris berwarna ungu dan kuning tidak perlu diisi.

Kriteria

Sub-Kriteria

Sub-sub Kriteria

Item Evaluasi

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Untuk digunakan mulai Siklus Akreditasi 2023/2024

1

DESKRIPSI KRITERIA/ITEM EVALUASI (Program TEKNIK)

(5)

KLAIM
PEMENUHANDESKRIPSI EVALUASI DIRI PROGRAM STUDIREFERENSI

Beri tanda "X" jika
dianggap
memenuhi dan"XX" jika dianggap
melampaui
Kriteria/Item
Evaluasi

Deskripsikan bagaimana Program Studi memenuhi tiap
Item Evaluasi yang ditanyakan (pada sel tidak
berwarna). Argumen yang disampaikan harus
berdasarkan pada bukti-bukti faktual (evidence-based
description). Tim Evaluasi IABEE akan memeriksa
deskripsi ini dan bukti-bukti pendukungnya

Berikan daftar referensi/bukti-bukti yangmendukung argumentasi yang
disampaikan pada kolom Evaluasi
Mandiri Program Studi. Unggahreferensi/bukti-bukti tersebut secara
terpisah, sebagai file-file lampiran dari
Laporan Evaluasi Diri ini

(5)

(6)

(7)

ORIENTASI KOMPETENSI LULUSAN[ORIENTATION OF THE GRADUATE COMPETENCE ]1.1

Program harus menetapkan profil lulusan yang digagaskan untuk menjadi para Profesional
Mandiri, dengan mempertimbangkan potensi sumberdaya, budaya, kebutuhan maupun
kepentingan Negara[The Program shall define the profile of graduates to be envisaged as Autonomous
Professionals by considering country’s potential resources, cultures, needs and interests ]Paparkan Profil Profesional Mandiri Program yang ditetapkan sebagai sasaran-sasaran kependidikan
Program, yang mempertimbangkan sumberdaya, kearifan, kebutuhan, serta kepentingan lokal
dan/atau nasional, serta misi Institusi Pengelola Program (POI).
[Describe the Program's Profile of Autonomous Professionals to be fostered as its educational
objectives, which takes into account local and/or national resources, wisdoms, needs and interests, aswell as vision and mission of the Program-Operating Institution (POI)]

Paparkan proses yang diselenggarakan oleh Program untuk menyusun dan mengkaji ulang secara
berkala Profil Profesional Mandiri, dengan melibatkan para pemangku kepentingan Program.
[Describe the process maintained by the Program for establishing and periodically reviewing theProfile of Autonomous Professionals, which includes the involvements of its stakeholders ]1.2

Program harus menginformasikan Profil Profesional Mandiri yang telah ditetapkan kepadamahasiswa, dosen, dan masyakat umum
[The Program shall inform its students and faculty of the envisaged Autonomous Professional
Profile and widely publicize it ]<contoh>(1.1) Naskah Akademik Pengembangan
Kurikulum XXXX hal. 13-18(1.2) Laporan Workshop Pengembangan
Kurkulum XXXX
(1.3) Statuta Universitas XXXX pasal X
Visi & Misi

<contoh>(1.4) Peraturan Universitas No. XX tahun
XXXX tentang Peninjauan dan
Pengembangan Kurikulum, pasal. X(1.2) Laporan Workshop Pengembangan
Kurikulum XXXX
(1.5) Laporan Tracer Studi tahun 2018hal. 30-35

Jelaskan bagaimana Program menyebarluaskan Profil Profesional Mandiri tersebut secara memadai
kepada para mahasiswa, dosen, dan masyarakat umum
[Describe how the Program disseminates its Profile of Autonomous Professionals adequately to
students, faculties, and the general public ]1.3

Program harus menetapkan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang terdiri dari kemampuan
memanfaatkan pengetahuan, keterampilan, sumber daya dan sikap sebagaimana dimaksuddalam Kriteria Umum 1.3 pada butir (a) hingga (j) untuk dikuasai oleh para mahasiswa padasaat menyelesaikan studi.
[The Program shall establish its expected Learning Outcomes which consist of abilities toutilize knowledge, skills, resources and attitudes as described in the following (a) to (j)graduate competences to be acquired by students at the completion of their study]
1.3.1

Program harus menetapkan dan mengkomunikasikan Capaian Pembelajaran Program (dikenal
juga dengan istilah Luaran Lulusan, Student Outcomes, atau sejenisnya), yang terdiri darikemampuan memanfaatkan pengetahuan, kecakapan, sumberdaya, serta sikap seperti
tercermin dalam kompetensi-kompetensi lulusan butir (a) hingga (j) berikut, yang harus
dikuasai oleh para mahasiswa pada saat menyelesaikan studi.
[The Program shall establish and communicate its Program Learning Outcomes (known also
as Graduate Outcomes, Student Outcomes, or the like), consists of the ability to utilize
knowledge, skills, resources, and attitudes as reflected in the graduate competences from (a)to (j), which shall be acquired by the student at the time of completion of the study]
Berdasarkan Suplemen Tabel A1, paparkan bagaimana Capaian Pembelajaran Program diturunkan
berdasarkan pada pernyataan Profil Profesional Mandiri Program[Based on Supplementary Table A1 , describe how all Program Learning Outcomes are establishedto support Program's Autonomous Professional Profile statement]
Berdasarkan Tabel Suplemen A2, jelaskan apakah seluruh standar kompetensi lulusan butir (a)hingga (j) telah dicakup di dalam Capaian Pembelajaran Program.
[Based on Supplementary Table A2 , explain whether all graduate competency standards fromitems (a) to (j) have been covered in Program Learning Outcomes](a) "Kemampuan menerapkan pengetahuan matematika, ilmu pengetahuan alam dan/atau material,
teknologi informasi dan keteknikan untuk mendapatkan pemahaman menyeluruh tentang prinsipprinsip keteknikan". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup kompetensi butir (a)tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.a.1 dan 1.3.a.2.
[(a) "An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or materials sciences, information
technology and engineering to acquire comprehensive understanding of engineering principles".
Explain the Program Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (a) by referring toCriteria Guide document, articles 1.3.a.1 and 1.3.a.2.](b) "Kemampuan mendesain komponen, sistem dan/atau proses untuk memenuhi kebutuhan yangdiharapkan di dalam batasan-batasan realistis, misalnya hukum, ekonomi, lingkungan, sosial, politik,
kesehatan dan keselamatan, keberlanjutan serta untuk mengenali dan/atau memanfaatkan potensi
sumber daya lokal dan nasional dengan wawasan global". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Programyang mencakup kompetensi butir (b) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria
Umum butir 1.3.b.1 dan 1.3.b.2.
[(b) "an ability to design components, systems, and/or processes to meet desired needs withinrealistic constraints in such aspects as law, economic, environment, social, politics, health and safety,
sustainability as well as to recognize and/or utilize the potential of local and national resources with
global perspective". Explain the Program Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item(b) by referring to Criteria Guide document, articles 1.3.b.1 and 1.3.b.2]<contoh>(1.6) website Program:
https://www.abc.ac.id/tk/profilprof(1.7) Buku Panduan Akademik
Mahasiswa tahun XXXX Halaman 5

(c) "Kemampuan mendesain dan melaksanakan eksperimen laboratorium dan/atau lapangan serta
menganalisis dan mengartikan data untuk memperkuat penilaian teknik." Jelaskan Capaian
Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup kompetensi butir (c) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada
dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.c.1 dan 1.3.c.2.
[(c) "an ability to design and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data to strengthen the engineering judgment." Explain the Program Learning
Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (c) by referring to Criteria Guide document, articles
1.3.c.1 and 1.3.c.2](d) "Kemampuan mengidentifikasi, merumuskan, menganalisis dan menyelesaikan permasalahan
teknik yang kompleks". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup kompetensi lulusan
butir (d) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.d.1 dan
1.3.d.2.
[(d) "an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems".
Explain the Program Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (d) by referring toCriteria Guide document, articles 1.3.d.1 and 1.3.d.2](e) "Kemampuan menerapkan metode, keterampilan dan piranti teknik yang modern yang diperlukan
untuk praktek keteknikan". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup kompetensi butir(e) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.e.1.
[(e) "an ability to apply methods, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering
practices" Explain the Program Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (e) byreferring to Criteria Guide document, articles 1.3.e.1](f) "Kemampuan berkomunikasi secara efektif baik lisan maupun tulisan". Jelaskan Capaian
Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup kompetensi lulusan butir (f) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada
dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.f.1, 1.3.f.2, dan 1.3.f.3.
[(f) "an ability to communicate effectively in oral and written manners". Explain the Program Learning
Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (f) by referring to Criteria Guide document, articles
related 1.3.f.1, 1.3.f.2, and 1.3.f.3](g) "Kemampuan merencanakan, menyelesaikan dan mengevaluasi tugas didalam batasan-batasanyang ada". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup kompetensi lulusan butir (g)tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.g.1 dan 1.3.g.2.
[(g) "an ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given constraints". Explain the Program
Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (g) by referring to Criteria Guide
document, articles items 1.3.g.1 and 1.3.g.2](h) "Kemampuan bekerja dalam tim lintas disiplin dan lintas budaya". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran
Program yang mencakup kompetensi lulusan butir (h) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen
Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 1.3.h.1, 1.3.h.2, dan 1.3.h.3.
[(h) "an ability to work in multidisciplinary and multicultural team". Explain the Program Learning
Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency item (h) by referring to Criteria Guide document, articles
items 1.3.h.1, 1.3.h.2, and 1.3.h.3.](i) "Kemampuan untuk bertanggung jawab kepada masyarakat dan mematuhi etika profesi dalammenyelesaikan permasalahan teknik". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang mencakup
kompetensi lulusan butir (i) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir
1.3.i.1.
[(i) "an ability to be accountable and responsible to the society and adhere to professional ethics insolving engineering problems". Explain the Program Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate
competency item (i) by referring to Criteria Guide document, article 1.3.i.1]

(j) "Kemampuan memahami kebutuhan akan pembelajaran sepanjang hayat, termasuk akses terhadap
pengetahuan terkait isu-isu kekinian yang relevan". Jelaskan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yangmencakup kompetensi lulusan butir (j) tersebut, dengan mengacu pada dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria
Umum butir 1.3.j.1 dan 1.3.j.2.
[(j) "an ability to understand the need for life-long learning, including access to the relevant knowledgeof contemporary issues". Explain the Program Learning Outcome(s) that cover graduate competency
item (j) by referring to Criteria Guide document, articles 1.3.j.1 and 1.3.j.2]
Apakah Capaian Pembelajaran Program juga telah mencakup capaian-capaian pembelajaran
tambahan yang disyaratkan di dalam Kriteria Disiplin yang relevan (bila ada)?
[Have the Program Learning Outcomes included additional learning outcomes stipulated in therelevant Discipline Criteria (if any)?]
1.3.2.

Program harus menetapkan prosedur untuk melaksanakan kaji-ulang berkala terhadap
Capaian Pembelajaran Program[The Program shall establish procedures to conduct periodic review of the Learning
Outcomes ]Paparkan proses yang diterapkan Program dalam prosedur kaji-ulang berkala terhadap Capaian
Pembelajaran Program, dengan melibatkan para pemangku kepentingan Program.
[Describe the process maintained by the Program in its procedure of reviewing the Program Learning
Outcomes periodically, which includes the involvements of its stakeholders]
Paparkan bagaimana Program mengkomunikasikan secara memadai Capaian Pembelajaran Program
kepada para mahasiswa dan dosen, serta masyarakat umum
[Describe how the Program disseminates adequately the Program Learning Outcomes to students andfaculty members, and how it discloses them to the general public].

2

IMPLEMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN[LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION ]2.1

KURIKULUM [CURRICULUM ]2.1.1

Kurikulum Program harus mencakup bidang-bidang kajian berikut:a) Matematika dan sains dasar yang sesuai dengan disiplin Programb) Ilmu kerekayasaan dan teknologi yang sesuai dengan disiplin Programc) Teknologi informasi dan komunikasid) Rancangan kerekayasaan dan kajian eksperimental berbasis permasalahane) Pendidikan umum, yang mencakup kajian moralitas, etika, sosial-budaya, lingkungan, danmanajemen[Curriculum of the Program shall include the following subject areas:a) Mathematics and discipline-specific natural sciencesb) Discipline-specific engineering science and technologyc) Information and communication technologyd) Engineering design and problem-based experimentse) General education, which includes morality, ethics, socio-culture, environment andmanagement]

Berdasarkan Tabel Suplemen B1, paparkan bagaimana kurikulum Program dapat mencakup semua
bidang kajian dalam Butir 2.1.1 di atas, terlepas dari nama matakuliahnya, dan bagaimana kurikulum
memberikan penekanan dan alokasi beban pembelajaran yang memadai bagi setiap bidang kajian
secara konsisten dengan Capaian Pembelajaran Program. Kurikulum tersebut harus mencakup(dinyatakan sebagai persentase terhadap beban SKS total selama masa studi) minimum 20%
matematika level perguruan tinggi dan sains dasar dan/atau sains material yang sesuai dengan disiplin
Program, minimum 40% topik-topik kerekayasaan yang mencakup sains rekayasa dan desain
rekayasa yang sesuai dengan disiplin Program, serta maksimum 30% pendidikan umum yangmelengkapi muatan keteknikan dari kurikulum. Pemenuhan alokasi bidang kajian di atas merujuk pada
dokumen Penjelasan Kriteria Umum butir 2.1.1.1 hingga 2.1.1.6.
[Based on Supplementary Table B1 , Describe how the Program curriculum covers the subject
areas listed in 2.1.1., regardless of the titles of the courses, and how the curriculum devotes
adequate attention and learning time to each component, consistent with the Program Learning
Outcomes. The curriculum must include (expressed as percentage of total coursework load insemester credits (SKS)) a minimum of 20% of a combination of college level mathematics and basic
sciences appropriate to the Program discipline, a minimum of 40% of engineering topics consisting ofengineering sciences and design appropriate to the field of study, and a maximum of 30% of general
education subjects that complement the technical content of the curriculum. Attainment of the subject
area allocation above refers to articles 2.1.1.1 to 2.1.1.6 of the Criteria Guidelines document. ]2.1.2.

Pengembangan kurikulum hendaknya mempertimbangkan masukan dari para pemangku
kepentingan Program[Curriculum development shall consider input from Program stakeholders]
Paparkan bagaimana Program mengembangkan dan mengkaji-ulang kurikulumnya secara berkala
melalui kebijakan dan prosedur yang terdokumentasikan, sistematik dan efektif, yang menjaminterpenuhinya kebutuhan masyarakat, industri dan profesi, dan bahwa kurikulum tersebut konsisten
dengan misi Institusi, kebutuhan para pemangku kepentingan, dan kriteria akreditasi ini.
[Describe how the Program develops and periodically reviews its curriculum using documented,
systematic, and effective policies and procedures which ensure that the requirements of the society,industry, and professional fields are met, and that the curriculum is consistent with the institutional
mission, stakeholders' needs, and these accreditation criteria]

Paparkan bagaimana kebijakan dan prosedur di atas melibatkan para pemangku kepentingan
Program untuk mendiskusikan relevansi kurikulum.
[Describe how the abovementioned policies and procedures provide sufficient involvement for
Program stakeholders to discuss curriculum relevance.]
2.1.3.

Kurikulum harus menunjukkan hubungan struktural dan kontribusi masing-masing matakuliah
dalam membangun Capaian Pembelajaran Program. Dokumen kurikulum dengan silabus
lengkap harus ditetapkan dan dilaksanakan untuk menjamin proses pembelajaran dapat
diimplementasikan secara terkendali.
[The Curriculum must indicate the structural relationship and contributions of the subject
courses to fulfill Learning Outcomes. Curriculum, including complete syllabus, shall beestablished and documented to ensure the expected learning process can be implemented ina controlled way].

Berdasarkan Tabel Suplemen B2 dan dokumen kurikulum program, paparkan bagaimana muatan
dan struktur kurikulum yang ditetapkan diselaraskan untuk memungkinkan pembelajaran sistematis
dan pemetaan asesmen untuk menjamin penguasaan Capaian Pembelajaran Program oleh paramahasiswa dalam masa studi yang diharapkan.
Sertakan contoh salinan (scanned-copy) transkrip nilai dari 2 (dua) orang lulusan Program perangkatan selama 4 (empat) tahun terakhir untuk keperluan analisis.
[Based on Supplementary Table B2 and Program's curriculum document, describe how thecurricular content and structure are aligned to enable systematic learning and assessment mapping
to ensure the attainment of Program Learning Outcomes by students within the intended period ofstudy.
I l d
l
ft
i t(
d
i ) f 2 (t )d t f
h b t h f th l t 4
Paparkan bagaimana persyaratan-persyaratan khusus di setiap bidang topik kurikuler dalam Kriteria
Umum dan Kriteria Disiplin dapat dipenuhi, baik dalam hal beban dan kedalamannya.
[Describe how specific requirements of each curricular area in Common Criteria and Discipline Criteria
are met, both in terms of load and depth.]
Paparkan bagaimana dokumen silabus (identitas mata kuliah, beban SKS, CPMK dan hubungannya
dengan CPP, konten/bahan kajian beserta metode pembelajaran dan alokasi waktu serta referensi)
telah dipersiapkan untuk semua matakuliah yang dirancang untuk memenuhi persyaratan-persyaratan
bidang kajian dalam kurikulum dan dipastikan kesesuaiannya.
[Describe how the syllabus (course identity, credits, course outcomes and its relationship with
Program Learning Outcomes, content with its delivery method and time allocation as well as
references) for all courses designed to satisfy curriculum area requirements are properly established.]

Paparkan tentang portofolio matakuliah (atau dokumen sejenisnya) yang menjelaskan bagaimana
Program melaksanakan kegiatan-kegiatan pendidikan bagi para mahasiswa untuk mencapai Capaian
Pembelajaran Program. Portofolio matakuliah minimal mencakup silabus lengkap, soal-soal asesmen
capaian pembelajaran mata kuliah dan jawaban yang diharapkan, termasuk contoh jawabanmahasiswa yang dinilai baik, cukup, maupun kurang baik.
[Present course portfolio that explains how the Program carries out educational activities for students
to achieve Program Learning Outcomes. The course portfolio includes at least a complete syllabus,
problem sets for assessing course learning outcomes and expected answers, including examples ofstudent answers that are considered good, fair, or not good.]
Paparkan bagaimana Program mengkomunikasikan kurikulum kepada para dosen dan mahasiswa
secara memadai.
[Describe how the Program adequately inform the faculty members and students about the
curriculum.]2.1.4.

Kurikulum harus menjamin bahwa mahasiswa memperoleh pengalaman praktik kerekayasaan
dan proyek rekayasa utama yang mencakup standar-standar teknik dan kendala-kendalamajemuk yang realistis, berdasarkan pengetahuan dan kecakapan yang diperolehnya dalamperkuliahan sebelumnya.
[The Curriculum shall ensure that students are exposed to engineering practices and major
design project experience which incorporates engineering standards and multiple realistic
constraints based on knowledge and skills acquired in preceding coursework ].

Paparkan bagaimana kurikulum memastikan para mahasiswa dapat memiliki kompetensi dalam
aplikasi praktis kerekayasaan, yang menggabungkan teori dan pengalaman, serta penggunaan ilmu
dan kecakapan-kecakapan lain yang relevan. Pelatihan dalam praktik kerekayasaan dapat didukung
oleh beberapa matakuliah (atau topik bahasan), yang bermuara pada suatu proyek desain utama.
Proyek utama ini berperan sebagai pemuncak (capstone) bagi Program, yang mengharuskan
mahasiswa untuk mengintegrasikan pengetahuan dan kecakapan yang dihimpun dalam perkuliahan
sebelumnya.
[Describe how the curriculum ensures the students to develop competence in practical application ofengineering skills, which combines theory and experience along with the use of other relevant
knowledge and skills. Training in engineering practices may be supported by several courses(subjects) but should culminate in a major design project. This major project serves as a capstone for
the Program, which requires students to integrate knowledge and skills acquired in earlier
coursework]
Paparkan bagaimana kurikulum memastikan mahasiswa mendapatkan pengalaman praktik dalam
penerapan topik kajian terkait di lingkungan kerja yang nyata.
[Describe how the curriculum ensure students acquire practical experience in implementing the
subjects in an actual working environment]
2.1

DOSEN [FACULTY ]2.2.1.

Program harus menyediakan dosen dengan jumlah, kualifikasi dan kompetensi yang memadai
untuk menyelenggarakan proses pembelajaran, yang mencakup perencanaan, pengajaran,evaluasi, dan perbaikan berkelanjutan terhadap efektivitas perkuliahan untuk menjaminpenguasaan Capaian Pembelajaran oleh mahasiswa.
[The Program shall provide necessary number, qualification and competence of faculty
members for performing learning process, including planning, delivering, evaluating, andcontinually improving its effectiveness in order to achieve the Learning Outcomes ]Berdasarkan informasi Suplemen Tabel B3 dan B4 serta riwayat dosen (Suplemen B5), paparkan
kecukupan jumlah, kualifikasi, dan kompetensi para dosen untuk melayani semua bidang kajian
kurikuler dan untuk memenuhi kriteria lainnya yang berlaku. Paparan ini hendaknya mencakup pulaintensitas keterlibatan dosen dalam berinteraksi dengan mahasiswa, memberikan pembimbingan
akademik, serta dalam penjaminan mutu Program.
[Based on Supplementary Tables B3 and B4 and faculty curriculum vitae ( Supplementary Table
B5 ), describe the adequacy of quantity, qualifications and competence of faculty members to cover
all curricular areas and to meet any applicable criteria. This description shall include the extent andquality of faculty member involvement in interactions with students, student advising, and oversight of
the Program]
Paparkan bagaimana Program merencanakan dan memberi dukungan terhadap pengembangan
profesi dosen .
[Describe how Program plans and supports professional development activities for faculty member]

2.2.2

Program harus menjamin bahwa para dosen sadar akan relevansi dan pentingnya peran serta
kontribusi mereka terhadap Capaian Pembelajaran Program[The Program shall ensure that faculty members are aware of the relevance and importance of
their roles and contributions to the Learning Outcomes ]Paparkan peran dosen dalam penciptaan, perbaikan, dan evaluasi matakuliah, serta dalampenyusunan, revisi dan pemenuhan Capaian Pembelajaran Program.
[Describe the role of Program faculty members with respect to course creation, modification, andevaluation, and Learning Outcomes formulation, revision and attainment]
Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur yang digunakan Program untuk mengembangkan dan mengevaluasi
secara institusional kegiatan akademik dosen, serta pelaksanaannya.
[Describe the policies and procedures by which the Program institutionally develops and evaluates
faculty academic activities]

Paparkan bagaimana Program memfasilitasi komunikasi antar dosen untuk mengembangkan
kerjasama yang erat terkait penyelenggaraan perkuliahan, untuk meningkatkan penguasaan Capaian
Pembelajaran Program.
[Describe how the Program facilitates communications among faculty members for close
collaboration associated with courses in the curriculum to improve attainment of Learning Outcomesby students]
2.3

MAHASISWA DAN SUASANA AKADEMIK [STUDENTS AND ACADEMIC ATMOSPHERE ]2.3.1

Program harus menetapkan dan menjalankan standar seleksi untuk mahasiswa baru maupun
pindahan, serta pengalihan atau pengakuan kredit.
[The Program shall define and implement entry standards for both new and transfer students,
as well as transfer of credits]
Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur yang dijalankan atau diikuti oleh Program dalam penerimaan
mahasiswa, yang mencakup penetapan persyaratan dan proses seleksi mahasiswa baru.
[Describe the policies and procedures implemented or observed by the Program in student
admission, which cover the requirements and the process for accepting new students into theProgram]
Paparkan bagaimana Program memastikan bahwa mahasiswa yang akan diterima memenuhi
persyaratan, dan bagaimana menangani kasus-kasus ketika persyaratan tersebut tidak terpenuhi.
[Describe how the Program ensures that incoming students are meeting prerequisites and how it
handles cases where prerequisite are not met.]
Paparkan kebijakan dan proses yang dijalankan Program untuk menerima mahasiswa pindahan(transfer student) dan pengalihan atau pengakuan kredit.
[Describe the Program's policy and process for accepting transfer students and transfer credits.]

2.3.2.

Program harus menetapkan dan menjalankan pemantauan kemajuan studi dan evaluasi kinerjamahasiswa. Prosedur penjaminan mutu ditetapkan untuk memastikan bahwa kecukupan
standar tercapai dalam semua asesmen.
[Program shall define and implement ongoing monitoring of student progress and evaluationof student performance. Procedures of quality assurance shall be established to ensure that
adequacy of standards is achieved in all assessments]
Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur yang diterapkan oleh Program untuk secara efektif memantau
kemajuan akademik dan kinerja para mahasiswa.
[Describe policies and procedures implemented by the Program to effectively monitor students’
academic progress and performance]
Paparkan bagaimana Program mendokumentasikan proses pemantauan kinerja mahasiswa tersebut
di atas.
[Describe how the Program documents the process by which student performance is monitored.]

2.3.3.

Program harus membangun dan memelihara suasana akademik yang kondusif bagi
pembelajaran yang berhasil[The Program shall create and maintain good academic atmosphere conducive to successful
learning]

Paparkan bagaimana Program menyelenggarakan atau memfasilitasi kegiatan-kegiatan pendukung
untuk mewujudkan dan memelihara suasana akademik yang kondusif untuk pembelajaran, seperti
penyediaan layanan pembimbingan mahasiswa dan konseling untuk permasalahan akademik maupun
non-akademik.
[Describe how the Program provides supporting activities to create and maintain good academic
atmosphere for learning, such as student guidance and counseling on academic as well as nonacademic issues.]
Paparkan bagaimana Program menjalankan atau memfasilitasi kebijakan dan prosedur untuk
pembimbingan/perwalian akademik dan karir bagi para mahasiswa; hal ini mencakup misalnya
frekuensi pembimbingan mahasiswa, serta siapa yang melaksanakan pembimbingan tersebut.

2.3.4[Describe how the Program implements or facilitates policies and procedures for academic advisingand career guidance for students; this includes, for example, how often students are advised, and who
provides the advising.]
Program harus mendorong kegiatan-kegiatan ko-kurikuler untuk membangun karakter dan
meningkatkan kesadaran mahasiswa tentang kebutuhan negerinya.
[The Program shall promote co-curricular activities for character building and enhancing thestudents’ awareness on the country’s needs]
Paparkan bagaimana Program mewujudkan dan memelihara kegiatan-kegiatan ko-kurikuler untuk
meningkatkan kecakapan non-teknis (soft-skills) mahasiswa, seperti kuliah umum/studium generale,
pelibatan mahasiwa dalam penelitian dosen, partisipasi dalam forum ilmiah.
[Describe how the Program creates and maintains co-curricular activities to improve the student soft
skills, such as studium generale, involvement in faculty research projects, participation in scientificforums.]Paparkan bagaimana Program berupaya menumbuhkan jiwa kewirausahaan mahasiswa yang dicirikan
antara lain dengan kesadaran akan tujuan yang kuat, ketekunan, daya nalar, keterbukaan pemikiran,serta semangat untuk belajar.
[Describe how the Program nurtures students' entrepreneurial spirit as characterized by a deep senseof purpose, perseverance, resourcefulness, open-mindedness, and eagerness to learn.]

2.4

FASILITAS [FACILITY ]2.4.1

Program harus menjamin ketersediaan, aksesibilitas, dan keselamatan fasilitas demi
berjalannya proses pembelajaran yang efektif dan pemenuhan Capaian Pembelajaran Program.
[Program shall ensure the availability, accessibility, and safety of facilities for effectivefunctioning of the learning process and attainment of the Learning Outcomes]

Paparkan fasilitas-fasilitas fisik yang disediakan untuk mendukung penguasaan Capaian Pembelajaran
Program oleh mahasiswa dan untuk menyediakan suasana akademik yang kondusif. Fasilitas-fasilitas
ini mencakup, misalnya, perkantoran (misalnya kantor tata usaha, kantor dosen, sekretariat, danasisten perkuliahan) dan perlengkapan terkait, ruang kelas dan perlengkapannya, laboratorium
termasuk laboratorium lapangan (sepanjang diperlukan), perangkat keras dan lunak yang tersedia
beserta piranti dan perlengkapan yang mendukung pengajaran, sumberdaya komputasi (workstation,
server, penyimpan data, jaringan komputer termasuk perangkat lunak pendukung), layanan
perpustakaan, dan sebagainya.
Sertakan tabel daftar yang berisi semua peralatan utama, instrumen, piranti keras/lunak untuk
menunjang kegiatan akademik di laboratorium pengajaran dan/atau studio[Describe the physical facilities to support the attainment of the Learning Outcomes and to provide
conducive academic atmosphere. These facilities include, for example, offices (such asadministrative, faculty, clerical, and teaching assistants) and any associated equipment, classrooms
and associated equipment, in house laboratory facilities including those containing computers(describe available hardware and software) and the associated tools and equipment that support
instruction, field laboratory (whenever necessary), computing resources (workstations, servers,
storage, networks including software), library services, etc.
Provide also a table that lists all main equipment, instruments, hardware/software tools foreducational activities that are kept in teaching laboratory and/or studio.
Paparkan hasil asesmen Program mengenai kecukupan fasilitas tersebut untuk mendukung kegiatan
akademik dan profesional mahasiswa dan dosen, dalam mendukung pemenuhan Capaian
Pembelajaran Program .
[Provide the Program's assessment on the adequacy of these facilities to support the scholarly andprofessional activities of the students and faculty in supporting the attainment of Learning Outcomesby the students]
Paparkan bagaimana Program menjalankan suatu manajemen keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja dan
lingkungan (K3L) untuk memastikan keselamatan dan ketepatan pemanfaatan fasilitas pembelajaran
seperti piranti, peralatan, sumberdaya komputer, laboratorium, serta fasilitas fisik lainnya.
[Describe how the Program manages safety, health, and environment to ensure safe and appropriate
utilization of tools, equipment, computing resources, laboratories, and other physical facilities]

2.4.2.

Program harus menetapkan kebijakan dan prosedur untuk pemeliharaan dan pemutakhiransarana dan prasarana.
[Program shall establish policy and procedure for maintaining and upgrading equiment andinfrastructures]
Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur Program untuk memelihara dan memutakhirkan piranti, peralatan,
sumberdaya komputer, laboratorium, perpustakaan, dan fasilitas-fasilitas lainnya yang digunakan olehmahasiswa dan dosen.
[Describe the Program's policies and procedures for maintaining and upgrading the tools, equipment,
computing resources, laboratories, library and other facilities used by students and faculty members.]

2.5

TANGGUNGJAWAB INSTITUSI [INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ]2.5.1

Program harus menetapkan dan mengelola proses penyediaan layanan pendidikan, mencakup
perancangan pendidikan, pengembangan dan pelaksanaan kurikulum, serta asesmen
pembelajaran.
[The Program shall define and manage the process for the provision of the educational
service, including education design, curriculum development and delivery, and assessment oflearning ]Paparkan tata kelola yang menjamin keterlibatan pimpinan secara efektif dalam pengambilan
keputusan yang berdampak kepada mutu dan keberlanjutan Program.
[Describe the governance which ensures an effective involvement of the leadership in decisions
affecting quality and continuity of the Program.]
Paparkan bagaimana Institusi Pengelola Program menerapkan kebijakan dan prosedur anggaran yangmenjamin keberlanjutan program dan layanan pendidikan termasuk penyediaan fasilitas.
[Describe how the Program Operating Institution (POI) implements budgetary policies and procedures
which ensure the continuity of the Program and education services including provision of facility]

Paparkan dukungan bagi kegiatan pengajaran oleh Institusi Pengelola Program, melalui penyediaantenaga asisten penilai, asisten perkuliahan, lokakarya pengajaran, dan sebagainya.
[Describe the support for teaching activities by the POI by provision of graders, teaching assistants,
teaching workshops, etc.]
Paparkan bagaimana institusi pengelola program menyediakan tenaga kependidikan/staf pendukung(administratif, instruksional, maupun teknis) dan layanan kelembagaan yang memadai bagi Program.
[Describe how the POI provides adequate staffing (administrative, instructional, and technical) andinstitutional services for the Program.]
2.5.2

Institusi Pengelola Program harus melaksanakan upaya-upaya untuk mengalokasikan
sumberdaya, layanan-layanan pendukung, dan kerjasama dengan para pemangku kepentingan
dalam bidang pendidikan, penelitian, dan/atau pengabdian kepada masyarakat, dengan
mempertimbangkan sumberdaya lokal.
[The Program Operating Institution (POI) shall make efforts to establish resources, supporting
service and cooperation with stakeholders on research, education and/or service tocommunity with due consideration to existing local resources ]Paparkan kemitraan dengan lembaga-lembaga eksternal (industri, pusat penelitian, lembaga
masyarakat, dan sebagainya) yang difasilitasi oleh POI untuk mengembangkan aspek Tridharma
Perguruan Tinggi.
[Describe partnership with external institutions (industry, research centers, community entities, etc.)
facilitated by the POI to foster Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi (education, research, and community
engagement)]
Paparkan bagaimana POI memfasilitasi peningkatan proses pembelajaran mahasiswa melaluiinteraksi dengan kalangan akademik, dunia usaha, dan/atau pemerintahan dalam pengembangandaerah setempat, dengan memanfaatkan sumberdaya lokal.
[Describe how the POI facilitates the improvement of the students’ learning process through theengagement of academia, business, and/or the government in the development of local region, andby the utilization of local resources]

3

ASESMEN CAPAIAN PEMBELAJARAN[ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNING OUTCOMES ]3.1

Program harus memastikan bahwa suatu proses asesmen Capaian Pembelajaran yangdidasarkan pada indikator-indikator kinerja yang rinci dijalankan dan dipelihara pada interval
waktu yang telah direncanakan, dengan menggunakan metode-metode yang tepat.
[The Program shall ensure that an effective assessment process of Learning Outcomes basedon established performance indicators is implemented and maintained at planned intervals
using appropriate methods ]3.1.1

Program harus menetapkan indikator kinerja dan metode asesmen yang tepat untuk setiap
Capaian Pembelajaran Program sebagai dasar untuk mengukur ketercapaian indikator
tersebut.
[The Program shall define, for each of its Learning Outcomes, the relevant performanceindicators and appropriate assessment method as the basis for measuring achievements ofthese indicators.]
Berdasarkan Tabel Suplemen C1, paparkan indikator kinerja yang ditetapkan oleh Program untuk
setiap butir Capaian Pembelajaran Program, dan metode asesmen yang tepat sebagai dasar untuk
mengukur ketercapaian indikator-indikator kinerja tersebut.
[Based on Supplementary Table C1, describe the performance indicators established by the
Program for each Program Learning Outcome, and appropriate assessment methods as the basis formeasuring attainment of these indicators ]3.1.2

Metode dan prosedur untuk mengukur pemenuhan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yangterdokumentasi dengan lengkap dan jelas harus ditetapkan.
[A complete and clearly documented method and procedure for measuring the achievement of
Learning Outcomes shall be established.]
Lampirkan dokumen milik Program yang memuat metode dan prosedur pengukuran bagi pemenuhan
setiap butir Capaian Pembelajaran Program[Attach Program's own document which describes the method and procedures for measuring theachievement of each Program Learning Outcome]

3.1.3

Asesmen setiap Capaian Pembelajaran Program harus dilakukan secara berkala mengikuti
rencana[The assessment of each Program Learning Outcome shall be conducted at planned interval]
Paparkan rencana asesmen secara berkala (menggunakan Tabel Suplemen C2) untuk mengukur
pemenuhan Capaian Pembelajaran Program yang diterapkan oleh Program.
[Describe periodic assessment plan (based on Supplementary Table C2 ) to assess Program
Learning Outcomes attainment implemented by the Program]
Lampirkan dokumen Progam yang memuat hasil asesmen terhadap semua butir Capaian
Pembelajaran Program.
[Attach Program's document which describes the results of assessment of all Program Learning
Outcomes]

3.2

Program harus menjamin bahwa setiap lulusannya telah memenuhi seluruh Capaian
Pembelajaran Program yang diharapkan[The Program shall ensure that graduates of the program achieve all expected Learning
Outcomes ]3.2.1

Program harus menetapkan kebijakan dan prosedur yang efektif untuk menjamin setiap
lulusan memenuhi setiap persyaratan kelulusan.
[The Program shall maintain effective policy and procedures to ensure that its graduates meetall graduation requirements.]
Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur yang diterapkan oleh Program untuk memastikan pemenuhan
semua persyaratan kelulusan oleh para lulusannya.
[Describe effective policies and procedures maintained by the Program in confirming the attainment of
all graduation requirements by its graduates]3.2.2

Proses dan hasil dari kajian pemenuhan persyaratan kelulusan harus terdokumentasi danterekam dengan baik sebagai bukti setiap lulusan telah dievaluasi dan seluruh Capaian
Pembelajaran Program terpenuhi.
[The process and results of graduation requirement review shall be documented, and therecords are maintained as evidence that all graduates have been evaluated and that all
Program Learning Outcomes have been fulfilled.]
Paparkan bagaimana Program memastikan bahwa semua Capaian Pembelajaran Program telah
dicapai oleh semua lulusannya. Proses dan hasil dari kaji-ulang persyaratan kelulusan ini
terdokumentasi secara resmi, dan disimpan sebagai rekaman tetap sebagai bukti.
[Describe how the Program ascertains that all Program Learning Outcomes are attained by all of its
graduates. The process and results of this graduation requirement review shall be documented andthe records are maintained permanently as evidence]

3.2.3

Program harus memiliki kebijakan dan prosedur untuk menangani mahasiswa berkinerja
kurang baik dan memberhentikan mahasiswa yang tidak mampu menyelesaikan studinya.
[The Program shall have written policies and procedures on how to handle non-performing
students and how to terminate students who are not able to complete their study.]

Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur untuk menangani mahasiswa berkinerja kurang dan untuk
memberhentikan mahasiswa yang tidak mampu menyelesaikan studi mereka.
[Describe the policies and procedures implemented or observed by the Program to handle nonperforming students, and to terminate students who are not able to complete their study]
4

PERBAIKAN BERKELANJUTAN[CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT ]4.1

Berdasarkan hasil-hasil asesmen Capaian Pembelajaran Program, Program harus
melaksanakan evaluasi berkala dalam interval yang terencana, yang menghasilkan keputusankeputusan untuk meningkatkan efektivitas proses dan sumberdaya pembelajaran.
[Based on Program Learning Outcomes assessment results, the Program shall perform an
evaluation at planned intervals with output in the form of decisions to improve theeffectiveness of the educational process and resources ]4.1.1

Untuk menjamin perbaikan berkelanjutan, Program harus menjalankan aktivitas pendidikannya
dengan mengimplementasikan sistem penjaminan kualitas yang mengikuti siklus P-D-C-A
sebagaimana dijelaskan dalam Preambul/Pembukaan Kriteria Akreditasi[To ensure the continual improvement, the Program should run its educational activities byimplementing a quality assurance system follows the P-D-C-A cycle as described in thePreamble section of the Accreditation Criteria.]
Paparkan sistem penjaminan mutu akademik berdasarkan siklus P-D-C-A (atau setara) yangdijalankan oleh Program untuk memastikan perbaikan berkelanjutan terhadap pemenuhan Capaian
Pembelajaran Program.
[Describe the academic quality assurance system based on the P-D-C-A cycle (or equivalent)
implemented by the Program to ensure the continual improvement of its educational processes]

4.1.2

Evaluasi harus berdasarkan pada asesmen pemenuhan Capaian Pembelajaran Program.
Luaran evaluasi harus mencakup rekomendasi tentang perbaikan material pembelajaran,
metode pembelajaran, proses pembelajaran, kesesuaian dan kecukupan Capaian
Pembelajaran dengan memperhatikan kebutuhan Pemangku Kepentingan dan sumber daya.
[The evaluation shall be based on assessment of the Program Learning Outcomes attainment.
The output of the evaluation shall contain recommendations on the improvement of learningmaterials, methods of delivery and other educational processes, suitability and adequacy of
the Learning Outcomes with regards to the needs of stakeholders, and resources.]

Lampirkan dokumen yang memuat analisis hasil asesmen terhadap semua Capaian Pembelajaran
Program untuk mendapatkan akar permasalahan dan rekomendasi perbaikan yang diperlukan(misalnya terhadap materi ajar, metode pembelajaran, metode asesmen, sumberdaya, Capaian
Pembelajaran Program, dan Profil Profesional Mandiri lulusan)[Attach the document which describes the analysis of assessment results of all Program Learning
Outcomes to obtain root causes of problems and improvement recommendation (such as learningmaterials, delivery methods, assessment method, resources, Program Learning Outcomes andAutonomous Professional Profile)]
4.1.3

Evaluasi harus dilakukan pada interval terencana mengikuti metode dan prosedur yang telahdiberitahukan kepada dosen Program. Metode dan prosedur evaluasi harus dirancang agar
dapat mengidentifikasi hambatan dan akar masalah dan karena itu menghasilkan peluang
perbaikan.
[The evaluation shall be carried out at planned intervals following a method and procedure
made well-known to the faculty. The evaluation method and procedure should be designed toenable the identification of constraints and root causes of problems, and therefore resulting
in opportunities for improvement.]
Jelaskan bagaimana evaluasi Program dilaksanakan menurut interval waktu yang terencana, danmengikuti metode serta prosedur yang dikomunikasikan secara memadai kepada para dosen.
[Explain how the evaluation has been carried out at planned intervals following a method andprocedure made well-known to the faculty members]

4.2

Program harus memelihara dokumen dan rekaman terkait dengan pelaksanaan evaluasi, hasilhasil yang diperoleh, serta tindak lanjutnya.
[The Program shall maintain documents and records related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results and their follow-up ]4.2.1

Prosedur terdokumentasi untuk implementasi evaluasi Program harus ditetapkan.
[A documented procedure for the implementation of Program evaluation shall be established.]
Paparkan kebijakan dan prosedur Program untuk mendokumentasikan proses penjaminan
mutu/perbaikan mutu berkelanjutan terhadap Capaian Pembelajaran Program secara lengkap dan
konsisten.
[Describe the Program's policies and procedures for the comprehensive and consistent
documentation of its continuous quality assurance/quality improvement process]

4.2.2

Dokumentasi implementasi evaluasi, hasil dan tindaklanjutnya harus dipelihara dan dapat
diakses oleh dosen. Rekaman tersebut merupakan bukti bahwa evaluasi telah dilaksanakan,
hasilnya telah diimplementasikan, dan perbaikan berkala telah dilakukan yang menandakan
terlaksananya siklus P-D-C-A.
[The documentation of evaluation implementation, its results and its follow-up shall bemaintained and accessible to the faculty. These records provide evidence that evaluation has
been conducted, the results have been implemented and periodic improvement has beenachieved, thereby signifying the implementation of P-D-C-A cycle.]Paparkan bagaimana dokumentasi di atas dapat diakses oleh para dosen, sesuai dengan kebutuhan
terhadap perbaikan mutu Program.
[Describe how the abovementioned documentation is made accessible to the faculty members as
pertinent to their shared interests for the quality of the Program. ]Jelaskan bagaimana dokumentasi di atas mengindikasikan bahwa evaluasi berkala Program yangdijalankan telah mencerminkan penerapan suatu siklus P-D-C-A (atau setara) secara utuh.
[Describe how the abovementioned documentation indicates that periodic Program evaluations havebeen conducted to signify the implementation of a complete P-D-C-A cycle?]Accreditation Criteria
for Engineering
Programs
Developed according to the
Graduate Attribute Exemplars of
the Washington Accord

Version 2020

Common Criteria
Criteria Guide
Discipline Criteria

Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
an autonomous subsidiary of the Institute of Engineers Indonesia (PII)

w: iabee.or.id
e: info@iabee.or.id

1Document Control

The International Common Criteria and Criteria Guide version 2020 for Engineering Programs
have been approved by IABEE Executive Committee on 16 January 2020.
This 2020 version document replaces the version published in 2015. Changes made in thisversion are as follows:oOverall grammatical checks and revisions,oInclusion of definition of parallel Programs in accordance to the PSDKU (Program Studi diLuar Kampus Utama) scheme,oAddition of the modifier 'complex engineering problem' in graduate competence
criterion point (d),oSimplification of Criteria Guide for sub-criterion 2.3.2.,oAddition of facility safety aspect in the description of sub-criterion 2.4.,oEditorial restructuring of Criteria Guide for sub-criterion 3.1., ando

Editorial restructuring of Criteria Guide for sub-criterion 3.2.

2

Contents

Common Criteria …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3

Preamble……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3

1.
2.
3.
4.

Orientation of the Graduate Competence…………………………………………………………..
Learning Implementation ……………………………………………………………………………………
Assessment of the Learning Outcomes ………………………………………………………………
Continual Improvement………………………………………………………………………………………

3
4
5
5

Criteria Guide ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

6

0.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Preamble ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Orientation of the Graduate Competence …………………………………………………………
Learning Implementation ……………………………………………………………………………………
Assessment of the Learning Outcomes ……………………………………………………………….
Continual Improvement ……………………………………………………………………………………..

6
8
12
19
20

Discipline Criteria…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

21

Agricultural and/or Bio-Systems Engineering in Bachelor Programs ………………………….

21

Agro-Industrial and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………

22

Chemical, Biochemical, and Similarly-named Engineering Programs …………………………

23

Civil and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………………………

24

Earth and Energy Engineering Programs ……………………………………………………………………

25

Electrical, Computer, Communications, Telecommunication and Similarly-named
Engineering Programs ………………………………………………………………………………………………

26

Engineering Physics and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………

27

Environmental and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………

28

Geodetics, Geomatics, and Similarly-named Engineering Programs……………………………

29

Industrial and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………………

30

Materials, Metallurgical and Similarly-named Engineering Programs…………………………

31

Mechanical and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ……………………………………………

32

Nuclear and Similarly-named Engineering Programs …………………………………………………

33

Ocean and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ……………………………………………………

34

General Engineering Programs ………………………………………………………………………………….

35

3

Common Criteria

Preamble
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) builds this set of
Criteria using outcome-based education approach. All engineering education programs
seeking international accreditation from IABEE shall fulfill the following Criteria.

1. Orientation of the Graduate Competence
1.1. Program shall define the profile of graduates to be envisaged as autonomous
professionals by considering country’s potential resources, cultures, needs andinterests.
1.2. Program shall inform its students and faculty with the envisaged autonomous
professional profile and widely publicize it.
1.3. Program shall establish its expected Learning Outcomes which consist of abilities toutilize knowledge, skills, resources and attitudes as described in the following (a) to (j)items to be acquired by the student at the time of completion of the study:(a)an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or materials sciences,
information technology and engineering to acquire comprehensive
understanding of engineering principles,(b)

an ability to design components, systems, and/or processes to meet desiredneeds within realistic constraints in such aspects as law, economic, environment,social, politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as to recognize and/or
utilize the potential of local and national resources with global perspective,(c)an ability to design and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data to strengthen the engineering judgment,(d)an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering
problems,(e)an ability to apply methods, skills and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices,(f)an ability to communicate effectively in oral and written manners,(g)an ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given constraints,(h)an ability to work in multidisciplinary and multicultural team,Common Criteria

4

(i)

an ability to be accountable and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems, and(j)an ability to understand the need for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues.

2. Learning Implementation
2.1. Curriculum
2.1.1.

Curriculum shall include the following subject areas:(a)Mathematics and discipline-specific natural sciences(b)Discipline-specific engineering science and technology(c)Information and communication technology(d)Engineering design and problem based experiments(e)General education, which includes morality, ethics, socio-culture,environment and management

2.1.2.

Curriculum development shall consider input from Program stakeholders.

2.1.3.

Curriculum shall indicate the structural relationship and contributions of thesubject courses to fulfill Learning Outcomes. Procedures, including syllabus,
shall be established and documented so that the expected learning process canbe implemented in a controlled way.

2.1.4.

Curriculum shall ensure that the students are exposed to engineering practices
and major design project experience using engineering standards and multiple
realistic constraints based on knowledge and skills acquired in precedingcourse work.

2.2. Faculty
2.2.1.

The Program shall provide necessary number, qualification and competence of
faculty members for performing learning process, including planning,delivering, evaluating, and continually improving its effectiveness in order toachieve the Learning Outcomes.

2.2.2.

The Program shall ensure that faculty members are aware of the relevance andimportance of their roles and contributions to the Learning Outcomes.

2.3. Students and Academic Atmosphere2.3.1.

The Program shall define and implement an entry standard for both new andtransfer students, as well as transfer of credits.

2.3.2.

Program shall define and implement ongoing monitoring of student progressand evaluation of student performance. Procedures of quality assurance shallbe established to ensure that adequacy of standards is achieved in allassessments.

2.3.3.

The Program shall create and maintain good academic atmosphere conducive
to successful learning.

5

2.3.4.

The Program shall promote co-curricular activities for character building andenhancing the students’ awareness on the country’s needs.

2.4. Facilities
Program shall ensure the availability, accessibility, and safety of facilities for effectivefunctioning of the learning process and attainment of the Learning Outcomes.
2.5. Institutional Responsibility
2.5.1.

The Program shall define and manage the process for the provision of theeducational service, including education design, curriculum development anddelivery, and assessment of learning.

2.5.2.

The Program Operating Institution shall make efforts to establish resources,
supporting service and cooperation with stakeholders on research, education
and/or service to community with due consideration to existing local
resources.

3. Assessment of the Learning Outcomes
3.1. The Program shall ensure that an effective assessment process of Learning Outcomesbased on established performance indicators is implemented and maintained atplanned intervals using appropriate methods.
3.2. The Program shall ensure that graduates of the program achieve all expected Learning
Outcomes.

4. Continual Improvement
4.1. Based on Program Learning Outcomes assessment results, the Program shall perform
an evaluation at planned intervals with output in the form of decisions to improve theeffectiveness of the educational process and resources.
4.2. The Program shall maintain documents and records related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results and their follow-up.

6

Criteria Guide

0. Preamble
The Indonesian Accreditation
Board for Engineering Education(IABEE) establishes this set of
Criteria using outcome-based
education approach. All
engineering education programs
seeking international
accreditation from IABEE shallfulfill the following Criteria.

0.1. IABEE Common Criteria (CC) are established as aframework to perform accreditation of higher
education programs. These CC comprise ofelements that must be fulfilled by the Study
Program to be accredited.
0.2. Programs to be accredited are four-yearengineering Bachelor Programs or other higher
education programs which IABEE considers as
equivalent.
0.3. The Program is not restricted to single Programs
operated by a Department or Faculty. A Program
may be formed and/or operated by multiple
Departments / Faculties. Programs may include
matriculated learning activities outside of its home
campus, in conjunction with other higher
education institutions.
0.4. In cases where a Program is offered as parallelclasses, evaluation by IABEE shall encompass allparallel classes. In cases where multiple Programsof the same nomenclature are offered in multiple
locations by the same Program-Operating
Institution (such as Programs establishedaccording to the Program Studi di Luar Kampus
Utama (PKSDU) scheme as defined by theIndonesian Ministerial Regulation of Peraturan
Menteri Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi
No. 1/ 2017), evaluation by IABEE shall treat theparallel Programs as separate entities.
0.5. The Program shall define the profile ofautonomous professionals to be fostered, anddefine the knowledge, skills, and attitudes as
Learning Outcomes that graduates are expected tomaster upon completion of their study.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

7
0.6. The Program should promote self-reliance,
welfare, advancement, fairness and justice for thenational and global community in general, basedon science, technology, culture and sustainableutilization of natural resources.
0.7. The Program is required to design the curriculum
systematically to ascertain the achievement of
Program Learning Outcomes. Student and faculty
should be aware of these Learning Outcomes.
0.8. The Program must disclose its Learning Outcomesto the public. The Program is also required toengage in continual improvement and at the sametime to consider the sustainability of operation.
0.9. Common Criteria consist of 4 elements, following
the management approach of PDCA (Plan-DoCheck-Act) continual improvement cycle. Criterion
1 describes the orientation of the graduate
competence, Criterion 2 explains the learning
implementation, Criterion 3 explains theassessment of the expected Learning Outcomes,
and Criterion 4 explains the continual
improvements.
0.10. In addition to these Common Criteria, Program
seeking for accreditation shall fulfill also theCategory and Discipline Criteria, as well as
eligibility requirements and accreditation policies
stipulated in the Rules and Procedures of
Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA).

8

1. Orientation of
the Graduate
Competence
1.1. The Program shall define
the profile of graduates tobe envisaged as
Autonomous Professionals
by considering country’s
potential resources,
cultures, needs andinterests.

1.1.1. The Program is required to define the Profile of
the Autonomous Professionals intended tofoster as its educational objectives, by taking
account of:(1) Local and/or national resources, such as
human and physical resources.
(2) Local and/or national wisdoms,(3) Local and national needs and interests(4) Traditions, vision and mission of theeducation institution
1.1.2. The Program should demonstrate the processof establishing and periodic reviewing of theAutonomous Professional Profiles, including the
involvements of the stakeholders.

1.2. The Program shall inform its
students and faculty of theenvisaged Autonomous
Professional Profile andwidely publicize it.

1.2.1. The envisaged Autonomous Professional Profile
shall be informed to students and faculty andmade accessible to the general public.

1.3. The Program shall establish
its expected Learning
Outcomes which consist ofabilities to utilize
knowledge, skills, resources
and attitudes as describedin the following (a) to (j)graduate competences tobe acquired by the student
at the time of completion of
the study.

1.3.1. The Program shall establish its own Program
Learning Outcomes based on the Autonomous
Professional Profile to be acquired. The Learning
Outcomes shall cover all graduate competencesfrom (a) to (j) as referred to in Common Criteria 1(3), which are expressed in such a way to provide
flexibility to Program. It is important to note that
the Learning Outcomes shall also include
Category and Discipline Criteria

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

1.3.2. The Program shall establish procedures to
conduct periodic review of the Learning
Outcomes.

9
1.3.a. Ability to apply knowledgeof mathematics, natural
and/or materials sciences,
information technology
and engineering to acquirecomprehensive
understanding ofengineering principles.

1.3.a.1. Engineering Principles refers to ideas, rules
and concepts to be considered when solving
an engineering problem. The set of principles
may vary among engineering disciplines
depending on the uniqueness of systems,
problems, ethical issues, and problem-solving
methods of the discipline.

1.3.b. Ability to designcomponents, systems,
and/or processes to meetdesired needs withinrealistic constraints in suchaspects as law, economic,
environment, social,politics, health and safety,
sustainability as well as torecognize and/or utilize
the potential of local andnational resources with
global perspective.

1.3.b.1. The ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes is the hallmark competenceof engineering education. Design implies theability to utilize multidimensional thinking
with knowledge of global perspective todevelop components, systems, and/or
processes to achieve specific objectives. It is
not limited to drawing a plan, but also refers
to the synthesis of various academic
disciplines and technologies to pursue
practicable solutions to a problem that does
not necessarily have one correct answer.

1.3.c. Ability to design andconduct laboratory and/or
field experiments as wellas to analyze and interpret
data to strengthen theengineering judgment.

1.3.c.1. This competence refers to the design andapplication of laboratory and/or field
experiments within the broad context ofengineering practice such as problem
identification, testing of potential solution
ideas, solution implementation plan, andother design-related activities.

1.3.a.2. Attainment of comprehensive understandingof engineering principles is indicated bymastery of mathematics, basic sciences (suchas physics, biology, chemistry) andinformation technology relevant to thediscipline of the Program, and the ability toutilize the aforementioned knowledge.

1.3.b.2. Design also involves a process of optimization
which considers multiple realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, and sustainability
as well as utilization of the knowledge ofculture, society and available resources.

1.3.c.2. Experiments may include activities in physicallaboratories, computer simulations, and field
experiments.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

10
1.3.d. Ability to identify,
formulate, analyze, andsolve complex engineering
problems.

1.3.d.1. Engineering problem solving involves iterative
activities incorporating the definition of the
problem,developmentofsolutionalternatives, selection of best alternative,
application of solution, evaluation andvalidation of solution against multiple
problem constraints, and revision of solution.
1.3.d.2. This competence should include the ability to:• utilize techniques and methods for
performing engineering works comprisingsurvey, data analysis, planning, design,operation and maintenance.
• apply the engineering logical thinking forhandling both of the design andtroubleshooting context.
• utilize creative/innovative thinking andknowledge creation/co-creation skills.

1.3.e. Ability to apply methods,
skills and modern
engineering tools
necessary for engineering
practices

1.3.e.1. The Program shall have a clear definition of
the methods, skills, and modern engineering
tools appropriate for its level of study andengineering discipline, and how these arelearnt throughout the curriculum. Thisdefinition shall include:• ability to select a method and tools with
their strength and limitation characteristics
for a given problem• ability to utilize and adjust the method andtools to suit specific problems

1.3.f. Ability to communicate
effectively in oral andwritten manners

1.3.f.1. This competence indicates the need of active
and effective communication skills; sociocultural perspective should be considered forthe acceptability and workability of theimplementation of engineering works.
1.3.f.2. These oral and written communications
should include the use of engineering
standards.
1.3.f.3. The Program shall ensure that a measurable
portion of the oral and/or written
communications involve the use ofinternationally recognized languages.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

11
1.3.g. Ability to plan,
accomplish, and evaluate
tasks under given
constraints

1.3.g.1. This competence refers to the ability to plan,
accomplish, and evaluate tasks associatedwith any curricular activity deemed
appropriate by Program for its assessment andevaluation. The assessment should focus moreon the students’ task management skills
rather than the substantial outcome of thetask itself.

1.3.h. Ability to work in
multidisciplinary andmulticultural teams

1.3.h.1. This competence refers to the ability to work
collaboratively with people from different
technical disciplines, fields and cultural
backgrounds.
1.3.h.2. Multicultural concerns such as tolerance,
mutual understanding, appreciation ondifferences in building a synergy, areimportant considerations for the success of ateamwork.
1.3.h.3. Multidiscipline circumstances may coverdisciplines within engineering and nonengineering disciplines.

1.3.i. Ability to be accountable
and responsible to thesociety and adhere toprofessional ethics insolving engineering
problems

1.3.i.1. This competence refers to the understandingon the following issues and the ability toelaborate, discuss, present argument, and/or
respond accordingly:•••

1.3.j. Ability to understand theneed for life-long learning,
including access to therelevant knowledge ofcontemporary issues

the impact of technology of related
engineering fields on public welfare,environmental safety and sustainable
development
the engineering ethics and regulations
the engineering history and standard &code philosophy in design.

1.3.j.1. The Program is required to assist students tobecome accustomed to independent andcontinuous learning through lectures,
research, experiments, practical training,
exercises and assignment.
1.3.j.2. This competence refers to understanding
the necessity of continuous professional
development, an ability to acquire updated
information and knowledge, and anawareness of the importance of sharing
knowledge.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide12

2. Learning
Implementation
2.1. Curriculum
2.1.1. Curriculum of the Program
shall include the following
subject areas:a) Mathematics anddiscipline-specific naturalsciencesb) Discipline-specificengineering science andtechnologyc)Information andcommunication
technologyd) Engineering design andproblem-based
experimentse) General education, which
includes morality, ethics,
socio-culture,environment andmanagement

2.1.1.1. The Program shall ensure that the curriculum
meets the abovementioned subject areas
appropriate to engineering regardless of thesubject/course names. The Program mustensure that the curriculum devotes adequate
attention and time to each component,
consistent with the Program Learning
Outcomes, which include (expressed aspercentage of total coursework load insemester credits (SKS)):• A minimum of 20% of a combination ofcollege level mathematics and basic
sciences (some with experimental
experience) appropriate to the discipline.
Basic sciences are defined as courses suchas biological, chemical, or physical sciences.
• A minimum of 40% of engineering topics,
consisting of engineering sciences andengineering design appropriate to thestudent's field of study. The engineeringsciences have their roots in mathematics
and basic sciences but carry knowledge
further toward creative application. Thesestudies provide a bridge between
mathematics and basic sciences on the one
hand and engineering practices on theother. Engineering design is the process ofdevising a system, component, or process
to meet desired needs. It is a decisionmaking process, in which the basic
sciences,mathematics,
andtheengineering sciences are applied to convert
resources optimally to meet the statedneeds.
• A maximum of 30% general education
components that complement thetechnical content of the curriculum and areconsistent with the Learning Outcomes.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

13
2.1.2. Curriculum development
shall consider input from
Program stakeholders.

2.1.2.1. The Program should demonstrate on how todevelop the curriculum and to assure therequirement of the society, industry andprofessional fields.
2.1.2.2. There must be a documented, systematicallyutilized, and effective procedure describing
the way to meet the need of stakeholders andto review the curriculum periodically to ensure
its consistency with the institutional mission,
the stakeholders needs, and these criteria.
2.1.2.3. The Program should provide sufficient
opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss
Program educational objectives/Profile ofAutonomous Professionals, and to foster
closer collaboration.

2.1.3. The Curriculum must
indicate the structural
relationship andcontributions of thesubject courses to fulfill
Learning Outcomes.
Procedures, including
syllabus, shall beestablished anddocumented so that the
expected learning process
can be implemented in acontrolled way.

2.1.3.1. The Program shall describe how thecurriculum content and structure are aligned
to enable the attainment of Program Learning
Outcomes by students.
2.1.3.2. The Program should describe how specificrequirements of each curricular area in
Common Criteria or Discipline Criteria can be
met, both in terms of load and depth of thecurricular content.
2.1.3.3. The Program shall establish syllabi for all
courses designed to satisfy mathematics,
science, and discipline-specific requirements
or any applicable criteria.
2.1.3.4. The Program is required to implement
educational activities for students to achieve
its Program Learning Outcomes.
2.1.3.5. The Program is required to systematicallydesign curriculum to enable students toachieve the expected Program Learning
Outcomes within the intended period ofstudy.
2.1.3.6. The Program is required to adequately informthe faculty and students through various
means such as guidebooks, orientation
programs etc. about the curriculum, and how
the Program Learning Outcomes will beattained through the learning process.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

14

2.1.4. The Curriculum shallensure that students are
exposed to engineering
practices and major design
project experience which
incorporates engineering
standards and multiple
realistic constraints basedon knowledge and skills
acquired in precedingcoursework.

2.1.4.1. The Program must provide opportunity tostudents to develop competence in practicalapplication of engineering skills, combining
theory and experience along with the use ofother relevant knowledge and skills. Training
in engineering practices may be supported byseveral courses (subjects) but should
culminate in a major design project. This major
project serves as a capstone for the program
which requires students to integrateknowledge and skills acquired in earlier
coursework.
2.1.4.2. The Program shall define curriculum subjects
to optimally support mainstream discipline
specific requirements and to provide
opportunity for students to acquire practicalexperience in implementing the subjects in an
actual working environment.

2.2. Faculty
2.2.1. The Program shall provide
necessary number,qualification andcompetence of faculty
members for performing
learning process, including
planning, delivering,evaluating, andcontinually improving its
effectiveness in order toachieve the Learning
Outcomes.

2.2.1.1. The Program shall describe qualifications of
the faculty and their adequacy to cover all
curricular areas and to meet any applicable
criteria.

2.2.2. The Program shall ensurethat faculty members areaware of the relevanceand importance of theirroles and contributions to
the Learning Outcomes.

2.2.2.1. The Program shall describe the role played by
the faculty with respect to the course creation,
modification, and evaluation, and with respect
to the definition, revision and attainment of
the Learning Outcomes.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

2.2.1.2. This description should include thecomposition, size, experience and the extent
and quality of faculty member involvement ininteractions with students, student advising,and oversight of the Program.
2.2.1.3. The Program shall provide detailed
descriptions of professional development
activities for each faculty member and how
activities such as sabbaticals, travel,
workshops, seminars, etc., are planned andsupported.

15
2.2.2.2. The Program shall have a method toinstitutionally develop and evaluate faculty
educational activities.
2.2.2.3. The Program shall define and set up
communication network among faculty
members for close collaboration among thecourses set in the curriculum to obtain better
educational results.
2.3. Students and Academic
Atmosphere2.3.1. The Program shall define
and implement an entry
standard for both new andtransfer students, as wellas transfer of credits.

2.3.1.1. The Program shall establish written policies on
student admission, covering the requirements
and the process for accepting new students
into Program, including information on how
Program ensures and documents thatstudents are meeting prerequisites and how it
handles cases where prerequisite have notbeen met.
2.3.1.2. The Program shall describe the requirements
and process for accepting transfer students
and transfer credits.

2.3.2. Program shall define andimplement ongoing
monitoring of student
progress and evaluation of
student performance.
Procedures of quality
assurance shall beestablished to ensure that
adequacy of standards isachieved in allassessments.

2.3.2.1. The Program shall establish policies andprocedures to monitor students’ progress andperformance

2.3.3. The Program shall create
and maintain goodacademic atmosphereconducive to successful
learning.

2.3.3.1. The Program shall develop supporting
activities to create and maintain goodacademic atmosphere for learning, such as byproviding student guidance and counseling on
academic as well as non-academic aspects andcareer guidance.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

2.3.2.2. The Program shall document the process bywhich student performance is monitored.

16
2.3.3.2. The Program shall describe the process foradvising and providing career guidance tostudents, how often students are advised, andwho provides the advising.
2.3.4. The Program shallpromote co-curricular
activities for characterbuilding and enhancing
the students’ awarenesson the country’s needs.

2.3.4.1. The Program shall create and maintain various
co-curricular activities particularly to improve
the student soft skills, such as conducting
studium generale, involving student in faculty
research projects, and participating inscientific forums.
2.3.4.2. An entrepreneurial spirit as characterized by a
deep sense of purpose, perseverance,
resourcefulness, open-mindedness, andeagerness to learn should be emphasized in
the learning process.

2.4. Facilities
2.4.1. Program shall ensure theavailability, accessibility,
and safety of facilities for
effective functioning of
the learning process andattainment of the Learning
Outcomes.

2.4.1.1. The Program shall describe the facilities interms of their ability to support theattainment of the Learning Outcomes and toprovide an atmosphere conducive to learning,such as:• offices (such as administrative, faculty,
clerical, and teaching assistants) and any
associated equipment,• classrooms and associated equipment,• in house laboratory facilities including
those containing computers (describe
available hardware and software) and theassociated tools and equipment that
support instruction, and field laboratorywhenever necessary• computing
resources(workstations,servers, storage, networks including
software)• library services.
2.4.1.2. The Program shall describe and assess theadequacy of these facilities to support thescholarly and professional activities of thestudents and faculty.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

17
2.4.1.3. The Program shall describe how students areprovided with appropriate guidance regarding
the use of tools, equipment, computing
resources, laboratories, and other physicalfacilities to enable the utilization of thesefacilities in a safe and appropriate manner.
2.4.1.4. The Program shall also describe the policies
and procedures for maintaining and upgrading
the tools, equipment, computing resources,
laboratories, library and other facilities usedby students and faculty.
2.5. Institutional Responsibility
2.5.1. The Program shall define
and manage the process
for the provision of theeducational service,including education
design, curriculum
development and delivery,
and assessment oflearning.

2.5.1.1. The Program shall describe the governance ofthe program and its adequacy to ensure thequality and continuity of the program and how
the leadership is involved in decisions that
affect the Program.
2.5.1.2. The Program shall describe the process used
to establish the program’s budget and provide
evidence of continuity of institutional support
for the program, including the sources offinancial support for both permanent(recurring) and temporary (one-time) funds.
2.5.1.3. The Program shall describe how teaching is
supported by the institution in terms ofgraders, teaching assistants, teachingworkshops, etc.
2.5.1.4. The Program shall describe the adequacy ofthe staff (administrative, instructional, andtechnical) and institutional services provided
to the Program.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

18
2.5.2. The Program Operating
Institution (POI) shallmake efforts to establish
resources, supporting
service and cooperation
with stakeholders on
research, education
and/or service tocommunity with due
consideration to existing
local resources.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

2.5.2.1. The POI shall make efforts to develop
partnership with external institutions such asindustry, research centers, and community
units to foster the Tridharma (learning,
research, and community engagement).The
institution hosting the Program shalldemonstrate the support to these efforts.
2.5.2.2. The improvement of the students’ learning
process through the engagement of academia,
business, and/or the government in thedevelopment of local region through the useof local resources is viewed as a particularadvantage of the Program.

19

3. Assessment of
the Learning
Outcomes
3.1. The Program shall ensurethat an effective
assessment process ofLearning Outcomes basedon established performanceindicators is implemented
and maintained at plannedintervals using appropriate
methods.

3.1.1. The Program shall define for each Learning
Outcome the relevant performance indicators
and appropriate assessment method as thebasis for measuring achievements of these
indicators.
3.1.2. A complete and clearly documented method
and procedure for measuring the achievementof Learning Outcomes shall be established.
3.1.3. The assessment of each learning outcome shallbe conducted at planned interval.

3.2. The Program shall ensurethat graduates of the
program achieve all
expected Learning
Outcomes.

3.2.1. The Program shall maintain effective policy andprocedures to ensure that its graduates meet all
graduation requirements.
3.2.2. The process and results of graduation
requirement review shall be documented andthe records are maintained as evidence that all
graduates have been evaluated and that all
Program Learning Outcomes have been
fulfilled.
3.2.3. The Program shall have written policies andprocedures on how handle non-performing
students and how to terminate students who
are not able to complete their study.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

20

4. Continual
Improvement
4.1. Based on Program Learning
Outcomes assessment
results, the Program shallperform an evaluation atplanned intervals with
output in the form ofdecisions to improve theeffectiveness of theeducational process andresources.

4.1.1. To ensure the continual improvement, theProgram should run its educational activities byimplementing a quality assurance systemfollows the P-D-C-A cycle as described in thepreamble.
4.1.2. The evaluation shall be based on assessment of
the Program Learning Outcomes attainment.
The output of the evaluation shall containrecommendations on the improvement oflearning materials, methods of delivery andother educational processes, suitability andadequacy of the Learning Outcomes withregards to the needs of stakeholders, andresources.
4.1.3. The evaluation shall be carried out at plannedintervals following a method and procedure
made well-known to the faculty. The evaluation
method and procedure should be designed toenable the identification of constraints and root
causes of problems, and therefore resulting inopportunities for improvement.

4.2. The Program shall maintaindocuments and records
related to theimplementation ofevaluation, the results andtheir follow-up.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

4.2.1. A
documented
procedure
forthe
implementation of Program evaluation shall beestablished.
4.2.2. The
documentationofevaluation
implementation, its results and its follow-up
shall be maintained and accessible to thefaculty. These records provide evidence that
evaluation has been conducted, the results
have been implemented and periodic
improvement has been achieved, thereby
signifying the implementation of P-D-C-A cycle.

21

Discipline Criteria

Discipline Criteria for Agricultural and/or BioSystems Engineering in Bachelor Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Teknik Pertanian Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTP PII) – PII
Chapter for Agricultural Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “agricultural engineering”,“bio-system engineering,” “bio-production engineering”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide fundamental knowledge of engineering principles, agriculture
and/or biosystem related sciences and ability to apply them to analyze, interpret, identify
alternative solutions, and implement experiments for enhancing the performance agricultural
systems or solution of common problems in agriculture and/or biosystem.
The learning and educational process articulating in the curriculum must be conducted in such
away to ensure that the graduates have sufficient knowledge, skill and attitude in the process
to identify, analyze, formulate, design, use and control of machinery, structure and systems
to solve engineering problems as required in the production of plant and animal, processing
and handling the agricultural and/or biological materials.
The curriculum content that be considered as “educational components of mathematics,
natural sciences and technologies” appropriate to the field shall include systematic subject
clusters related with mathematics and natural sciences (focusing on multiple subjects suchas, physics, chemistry, biology, or geography), and area of agricultural meteorology, irrigation,
drainage and reclamation engineering (agricultural civil and environmental engineering),
and/or area of agricultural machinery & automation, and/or area of agricultural work systemand safety, and/or area of agricultural/biological production system, and/or area ofagriculture/biological and environment information.
To conduct the learning and educational process the program shall be considered as “toprovide a sufficient number of faculty members able to realize the curriculum withapplicable educational methods and to improve the educational result of the program, andshall provide the faculty with institutional support.”

Discipline Criteria

22

Discipline Criteria for Agro-Industrial and
Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Industri Pertanian Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKIP PII) – PII
Chapter for Agro-Industrial Engineerso Forum Komunikasi Program Studi Industri Pertanian Indonesia (FKPSIP) These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “agro-industrial” andsimilar modifiers in their titles
Curriculum
The curriculum prepares graduates with ability to design, develop, implement, control,
evaluate, and improve the system performance of sustainable agroindustry, through an
integrated approach of transformation process, system engineering, industrial management,
and environmental aspects to increase the added value of agricultural/bio-based resources
and their derivatives.
Faculty
Faculty members are required to have a combined expertise in the aspects of transformation,systems engineering, industrial management, and environment for developing sustainable
and integrated agro-industrial system.

Discipline Criteria

23

Discipline Criteria for Chemical, Biochemical,
and Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Asosiasi Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Kimia Indonesia (APTEKINDO) – Association ofIndonesian Higher Education Programs in Chemical Engineeringo Badan Kejuruan Kimia Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKK PII) – PII Chapter for
Chemical Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “chemical”,“biochemical”, “bioprocess“, “bioenergy”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide a firm grasp in basic sciences which include chemistry andchemistry-related sciences, physics, and/or biology with some reference to local context asappropriate to the objectives of the Program. The curriculum must include the engineering
application of these basic sciences to the design, analysis, and control of chemical, physical,
and/or biological processes and the design and development of products, including the
economics and hazards associated with these processes and products.
The learning process articulating this curriculum must be conducted in such a way to ensurethat the graduates have sufficient knowledge, skills, and attitude in the process design,
analysis, and control, and product design and development. The learning process must alsoenable students to apply research-based knowledge and research methods to identify,
formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Discipline Criteria

24Discipline Criteria for Civil and Similarly-named
Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Teknik Sipil Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTS PII) – PII Chapter for
Civil Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “civil engineering” andsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in applied mathematics and naturalsciences relevant to civil engineering, in a minimum of three recognized major civilengineering areas (namely structural, project management, geotechnical, water resources,
environmental, and transportation), in conducting civil engineering experiments andanalyzing and interpreting the resulting data, and in designing and integrating all professional
components of the curriculum. The program shall also prepare graduates to explain basic
concepts in management, business, public policy, and leadership, and explain the importanceof ethics and professional licensure.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses on design should have either certification of professional
engineer or qualification through experience in engineering design and practices.

Discipline Criteria

25

Discipline Criteria for Earth and Energy
Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kejuruan Teknik Kebumian dan Energi PII – PII Chapter for Earth and Energy
Engineerso

Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia – Association of Geological Experts IndonesiaoHimpunan Ahli Geofisika Indonesia – Association of Geophysical Experts Indonesia

Curriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in applied mathematics and naturalsciences relevant to earth and energy engineering, such as geological engineering,
geophysical engineering, or other scope related to earth and energy engineering mapping, inconducting earth and energy engineering data acquisition, data processing and interpretationfor experiments and research toward design and planning of engineering or exploration
purpose, in which it integrates all professional components in the curriculum. The program
shall also prepare graduates to explain basic concepts in management, business, public policy,
and leadership, and explain the importance of ethics and professional licensure.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses should have either certification in related earth and energy
engineering profession, or professional engineer or qualification through experience inengineering practice.

Discipline Criteria

26

Discipline Criteria for Electrical, Computer,
Communications, Telecommunication and
Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oForum Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Elektro Indonesia (FORTEI) – Indonesian Forum forHigher Education in Electrical EngineeringoBadan Kejuruan Elektro Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKE PII) – PII Chapter forElectrical Engineers

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical”,“electronic(s),” “computer,” “communication(s),” “telecommunication(s),” or similar
modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum specifies subject areas appropriate to engineering and must include:
a. one year of a combination of university level mathematics and basic sciences (onewith experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline.
b. one and one-half years of engineering topics, i.e. engineering sciences andengineering design, appropriate to the title of the program.
Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a
major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work tomeet desired needs within realistic constraints.
The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range ofengineering topics implied by the title of the program.
The curriculum must include probability and statistics, with applications appropriate to theprogram name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; basic sciences andengineering topics (including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex
electrical/electronic devices or systems containing hardware and/or software components.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical,” “electronic(s),”“communication(s),” or “telecommunication(s)” in the title must include advanced
mathematics, such as differential equations, linear algebra, and complex variables.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include
discrete mathematics.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “communication(s)”“telecommunication(s)” in the title must include topics in communication systems.

orThe curriculum for programs containing the modifier “telecommunication(s)” must include
design and operation of telecommunication networks for services such as but not limited tovoice, data, image, and video transport.

Discipline Criteria

27

Discipline Criteria for Engineering Physics andSimilarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kejuruan Teknik Fisika Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTF PII) – PII Chapter forEngineering Physics

These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “engineering physics” andsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to engage in the development of the forefront oftechnology, such as and not limited to, instrumentation & control, built environment andenergy systems, material design and processing, renewable energy
The curriculum must provide strong fundamentals on mathematics, physics, engineeringsciences and engineering design. The curriculum should cover the capability to thrive in
professional and industry sectors, such as engineering economics, project management andcore competences of the forefront technology.
Faculty
The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that areprimarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of educationand experience or professional licensure.

Discipline Criteria

28

Discipline Criteria for Environmental and
Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Teknik Lingkungan Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTL PII) – PII
Chapter for Environmental Engineerso Ikatan Ahli Teknik Penyehatan dan Lingkungan Indonesia (IATPI) – Indonesian
Association of Experts in Sanitation and Environmental Engineeringo Badan Kerja Sama Perguruan Penyelenggara Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Lingkungan(BAKERMA-TL) – Association of Higher Education Programs in Environmental
Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “environmental” andsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics and basic
sciences; introductory level knowledge of environmental issues associated with air, land, andwater systems and associated environmental health impacts; conduct laboratory
experiments and analyze and interpret the resulting data in more than one major
environmental engineering focus area, (e.g., air, water, land, environmental health);
performing design of environmental engineering systems; understanding in advanced
principles and practice relevant to the program objectives. The curriculum must prepare
graduates to understand concepts of professional practice, project management, and theroles and responsibilities of public institutions and private organizations pertaining toenvironmental policy and regulations.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty teaching courses that areprimarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional
licensure, board certification in environmental engineering, or by education and equivalentdesign experience.

Discipline Criteria

29

Discipline Criteria for Geodetics, Geomatics,
and Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oForum Ketua Jurusan dan Program Studi Teknik Geodesi-Geomatika se-Indonesia –Indonesian Forum for Higher Education in Geodetic-Geomatics Engineering

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “surveying,” “geodetic,”“geomatics”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences
and statistics in Geodetics/Geomatics engineering field, complete task related to spatial dataacquisition using modern measurement tools, perform geospatial data processing using
industry-standard software, and also perform standard analysis and design in at least one of
the recognized technical specialties within surveying/geodetics/geomatics technology,
include boundary and/or land surveying, geographic and/or land information systems,
engineering project surveying, photogrammetry, remote sensing, mapping and geodesy, andother related areas.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty members are qualified toteach engineering courses by education, equivalent design experience or board certificationof a surveyor professional/geomatics engineering.

Discipline Criteria

30Discipline Criteria for Industrial and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kerja Sama Penyelenggara Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Industri Indonesia (BKSTI)– Indonesian Association of Higher Education in Industrial EngineeringoBadan Kejuruan Teknik Industri Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTI PII) – PII Chapter
for Industrial Engineers

Curriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in design, improve, and implement
integrated systems that include people, materials, equipment, energy and information. To
meet these needs, the curriculum must provide adequate knowledge about the applicationof mathematics, statistics and probabilistic theory as well as analysis and design engineering
as well as knowledge with regard to social sciences. The education program should ensure
the provision of an integrated system design experiences to students. The curriculum must
include in depth instruction to accomplish the integration of systems using appropriate
analytical, computational and experimental practices.
Faculty
Faculty members must understand the professional practice and maintain currency in theirrespective professional areas. Faculty members must be responsible and able to make thedefinition, evaluation, implementation and improvement on the achievement of Learning
Outcomes in the framework of an continuous improvement of the study program.

Discipline Criteria

31

Discipline Criteria for Materials, Metallurgicaland Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kejuruan Teknik Material Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia – PII Chapter for
Material EngineersoBadan Kejuruan Teknik Metalurgi Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia – PII Chapter for
Metallurgical Engineers

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs including “materials,” “metallurgical,”“ceramics,” “glass”, “polymer,” “biomaterials,” and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply advanced science (such as chemistry, biology
and physics), computational techniques and engineering principles to materials systems
implied by the program modifier, e.g., ceramics, metals, polymers, biomaterials, composite
materials; to integrate the understanding of the scientific and engineering principles
underlying the four major elements of the field: structure, properties, processing, andperformance related to material systems appropriate to the field; to apply and integrateknowledge from each of the above four elements of the field using experimental,
computational and statistical methods to solve materials problems including selection anddesign consistent with the program educational objectives.
Faculty
The faculty expertise for the professional area must encompass the four major elements ofthe field.

Discipline Criteria

32

Discipline Criteria for Mechanical and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kerjasama Teknik Mesin Seluruh Indonesia (BKSTM) – Indonesian Associationof Higher Education in Mechanical Engineeringo Badan Kejuruan Mesin Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKM PII) – PII Chapter for
Mechanical Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to all engineering programs that include “mechanical” orsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must require students to apply basic sciences, mathematics (including
multivariate calculus and differential equations) and principles of engineering sciences; tomodel, analyze, design, and apply physical systems, components or processes; and prepare
students to work professionally in either thermal or mechanical systems.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses on design should have either certification of professional
engineer or qualification through experience in engineering design and practices.

Discipline Criteria

33

Discipline Criteria for Nuclear and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o

Himpunan Masyarakat Nuklir Indonesia (HIMNI) – Indonesian Association for Nuclear
Society

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering program that include “nuclear”, “radiological”,“radiation”, or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide strong fundamentals on advanced mathematics, science,engineering science and engineering design related to the objectives of the program. The
curriculum must include the application of atomic and nuclear physics, and the transport ofradiation and its interaction with matter, for nuclear power generation, medical, industrial,
and agricultural areas; to perform nuclear engineering design; to measure nuclear andradiation processes. The program shall ensure that the curriculum must comply withinternational and national nuclear regulations by emphasizing the requirements for nuclear
safety, non-destructive inspection, security and safeguards.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members are qualified to teach nuclear
engineering courses by education, equivalent design experience or board certification of aprofessional engineer depending on the program needs.

Discipline Criteria

34

Discipline Criteria for Ocean and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Himpunan Ahli Pengelola Pesisir Indonesia (HAPPI) – Indonesian Association ofExperts in Coastal Managemento Himpunan Ahli Teknik Hidraulik Indonesia (HATHI) – Indonesian Association ofExperts in Hydraulics Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “coastal”, “ocean”,“marine”, “naval architecture”, or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to have the knowledge and the skills to apply theprinciples of fluid and solid mechanics, dynamics, hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, probability
and applied statistics, oceanography, and water waves, to engineering problems and to workin groups to perform engineering design at the system level, integrating multiple technicalareas and addressing design optimization.
Faculty
Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revised,
implement, and achieve the program objectives

Discipline Criteria

35Discipline Criteria for General Engineering
Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (PII) – The Institute of Engineers Indonesia
These criteria is applicable only for programs having no available Discipline Criteria and wish
to be evaluated solely by the Common Criteria.
Curriculum
No additional requirement beyond those required by the Common Criteria
Faculty
No additional requirement beyond those required by the Common Criteria

Discipline Criteria

0123ÿ56ÿ78598 2ÿ 813ÿÿÿ1ÿ3ÿ315ÿ 3958ÿ56ÿ !ÿ#$ÿ8ÿ3ÿ 813315
37ÿ56ÿ% !&'ÿ())!*+&+,-ÿ.12ÿ123ÿ ÿÿÿ5/0231ÿ1231ÿ719ÿ5ÿ3ÿ61382ÿ 313ÿ658ÿ352519ÿ78752:6A?6 IGJ6
HGA? KLAF8A6794

34567686794:68;<ÿ>?9@?AB

C75D7EF74G:6A685MNOPQPRPÿTUVPWNQWNÿXYZYV[XYZYVÿ\ZVQ]R^PRVW^_NQ̀UVOQPab_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿMO^Wf
MNeYNUOQWÿ[MO^WfQ]_NQ̀UVOQPaÿYmÿMNeYNUOQWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿMO^Wf
MNeYNUOQWÿ[MO^WfQ]_NQ̀UVOQPaÿYmÿMNeYNUOQWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿMNeYNUOQW[_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿMNeYNUOQWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿMNeYNUOQW[_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿMNeYNUOQWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿXQNW
uROWNPWVWÿ[XQNRO_NQ̀UVOQPab_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWsÿyWeW
[_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWs
yWeWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿXQNW
uROWNPWVWÿ[XQNRO_NQ̀UVOQPab

cUdNQdÿTUVPWNQWNÿeWN
XQYOQOPUfÿ[\ZVQ]R^PRVUÿWNe
XQYOaOPUfÿgNZQNUUVQNZb\ZVQ]R^PRVW^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijk hihl

cUdNQdÿnQoQ^ÿ[pQ̀Q^
gNZQNUUVQNZbpQ̀Q^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijk hihl

gN`QVYNfUNPW^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijl hihr

psUfQ]W^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijl hihh

psUfQ]W^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijl hihh

cUdNQdÿnQoQ^ÿ[pQ̀Q^
gNZQNUUVQNZbpQ̀Q^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihr

cUdNQdÿMNeROPVQÿ[MNeROPVQW^gNZQNUUVQNZb

MNeROPVQW^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihl

cUdNQdÿMNeROPVQÿ[MNeROPVQW^gNZQNUUVQNZb

MNeROPVQW^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihz

_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWsÿyWeW cUdNQdÿg^UdPVYÿ[g^U]PVQ]W^[_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWs
gNZQNUUVQNZbyWeWbg^U]PVQ]W^{ÿpYfoRPUV{pYffRNQ]WPQYNO{
cU^U]YffRNQ]WPQYN
gNZQNUUVQNZg^U]PVQ]W^{ÿpYfoRPUV{pYffRNQ]WPQYNO{
cU^U]YffRNQ]WPQYN
gNZQNUUVQNZ

cUdNQdÿqQNZdRNZWN[gN`QVYNfUNPW^gNZQNUUVQNZbcUdNQdÿXQYoVYOUO[XQYoVY]UOOÿgNZQNUUVQNZbcUdNQdÿtQfQWÿ[psUfQ]W^
gNZQNUUVQNZb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWsÿyWeW cUdNY^YZQÿMNmYVfWOQ[_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWs[MNmYVfWPQYNÿgNZQNUUVQNZb
yWeWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWsÿyWeW
[_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿwWexWs
yWeWb_NQ̀UVOQPWOÿ|QoYNUZYVY[|QoYNUZYVYÿ_NQ̀UVOQPab\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihl\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihl

cUdNQdÿwUY^YZQÿ[wUY^YZagNZQNUUVQNZb

gWVPsÿWNeÿgNUVZagNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihl

cUdNQdÿtQfQWÿ[psUfQ]W^
gNZQNUUVQNZb

psUfQ]W^ÿgNZQNUUVQNZ\]]VUeQPUe hijv hihl

}58 ~ÿ3372~315-1 -58-1 8133152 82 8ÿ 3ÿ56ÿ525~ÿ//ÿ~~

KJ76
HGA?

01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ855 88
!14"82432ÿ#$ÿ
!14"82432ÿ#$
!14"82432ÿ%4 18 
%4 18 ÿ!14"8243&
01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ855 88
!14"82432ÿ#$ÿ
!14"82432ÿ#$01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ855 88
!14"82432ÿ#$ÿ
!14"82432ÿ#$
!14"82432ÿ%4 18 
%4 18 ÿ!14"8243&!14"82432ÿ#$ÿ
!14"82432ÿ#$
!14"82432ÿ#$ÿ
!14"82432ÿ#$01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ855 88
!14"82432ÿ01 1824
!14"82432ÿ01 1824
!14"82432ÿ882
83ÿ882ÿ83!14"8243&

789149ÿ384ÿ384
1 418841 

384ÿ1ÿ8354
1 418841

8438  789149ÿ594ÿ58
1 418841 

58ÿ1 418841

8438  789149ÿ8241ÿ814
1 418841 

814ÿ1 418841

8438  789149ÿ'44ÿ(84
1 418841 (84ÿ1 418841

8438  )789149ÿ44ÿ(4"41 418841 (4"4ÿ1 418841

8438  )789149ÿ*4249ÿ1 418841+&242

1 418841 ÿ+&242

8438  )789149ÿ*4249ÿ1 418841+&242

1 418841 ÿ+&242

8438  )789149ÿ015234ÿ015234
1 418841 

015234ÿ1 418841

8438  ,789149ÿ#8 824ÿ#8 834
1 418841 #8 8342ÿ1ÿ#8 342
1 418841

8438  ,789149ÿ8241ÿ814
1 418841 

814ÿ1 418841

8438  ,789149ÿ+891ÿ"438358-81ÿ1 418841

8438  ,789149ÿ8241ÿ814
1 418841 

814ÿ1 418841

8438  ,789149ÿ015234ÿ015234
1 418841 

015234ÿ1 418841

8438  ,

./01234ÿ677894::3;<=0<7>/?@><A33@/1@>B:C:<2213B>7<7>/?:90DD<1E:93<126ÿ
F<73ÿ/GÿB/H?=/<B4ÿIJKILKMIMNÿIO4PQ4PI

01234562786ÿ8 8 ÿ8 8 412ÿ228ÿ 428
01234562786ÿ8 8 8 8 12144521
16727!7ÿ41""2$48%868ÿ&8%872ÿ#2"#81 !1ÿ16727!7
12144521
41""2ÿ#81 !116727!7ÿ41""2ÿ(4)!!
*")4+45ÿ16727!7
412ÿ4621ÿ48128
41""2ÿ(4)!!
12144521
*")4+45
01234562786
412ÿ4621ÿ48128
85!818858
12144521
01234562786
85!818858
01234562786ÿ-2)"14"5" 412ÿ(2)2ÿ232-2)"14"5"ÿ012345627% 12144521
16727!7ÿ41""2ÿ(4)!! 412ÿ.21!181*")4+45ÿ16727!7
1325"14178
41""2ÿ(4)!!
12144521
*")4+4512ÿ.21!181
01234562786ÿ-2)"14"5" 4

1
178
-2)"14"5"ÿ012345627% 1321254"415421
01234562786ÿ1 "14628
412ÿ(2)2ÿ232
01234562786ÿ1 "14628 12144521

 428ÿ12144521

54 274 

 428ÿ12144521

54 274 '48128ÿ12144521

54 274 ,48128ÿ12144521

54 274 

232ÿ12144521

54 274 

1325"14178ÿ12144521

54 274 ,

1325"14178ÿ12144521

54 274 

232ÿ12144521

54 274/ 

54 274/ 

54 274/ 

54 274/ 

475280ÿ")!7450
"!12872"16044"!12872"1
12144521
475280ÿ")!7450
"!12872"16044"!12872"1
12144521
475280ÿ")!7450
"!12872"16044"!12872"1
12144521

01234562786ÿ1 "14628
01234562786ÿ1 "14628

412ÿ")!745
")!745ÿ12144521

01234562786ÿ#58128%8
012345627%ÿ"2ÿ#58128%8412ÿ475"ÿ47528
12144521

01234562786ÿ#218*!6817858ÿ#21!6012345627%

(2674ÿ")!745
")!745ÿ12144521

16727!7ÿ41""2ÿ(4)!!
*")4+45ÿ16727!7
41""2ÿ(4)!!
*")4+45412ÿ(2674ÿ3458)881
85214ÿ12144521

4481ÿ12144521

54 274/ 

01234562786ÿ1 "14628
01234562786ÿ1 "14628

412ÿ.21!181
1325"14178
12144521

1325"14178ÿ12144521

54 274/ 

56789:;ÿ=>>?@;AA:BCD7C>E6FGECH::G68GEIAJAC998:IE>C>E6FA@7KKC8LA@:C89=ÿ
MC>:ÿ6NÿI6OFD6CI;ÿPQRPSRTPTUÿPV;WX;WP

01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ855 88
01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ855 88
$14%82432ÿ882#83ÿ882ÿ#83$14%8243&$14%82432ÿ01 1824
$14%82432ÿ01 1824

789149ÿ8531ÿ81
1 418841 

81ÿ1 418841

8438 !

789149ÿ712 324ÿ"53
#418ÿ712 3341
1 418841 

81ÿ1 418841

8438 !

789149ÿ44ÿ'84
1 418841 '84ÿ1 418841

8438 !

789149ÿ#8354ÿ1#384ÿ#835&ÿ1#3842ÿ1 418841 #384ÿ1ÿ#8354
1 418841

8438 !

01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ855 88ÿ01234353
789149ÿ(8 )4249
3ÿ1ÿ18&(8 &24ÿ1 418841  1 4188417891 4ÿ855 88834*ÿ' 538*$14%82432ÿ12789149ÿ893ÿ834 ' 5143412*
788514341
12ÿ$14%8243&1 418841 
1 418841789149ÿ"41 951 1$14%82432ÿ,21541 1%41813
1%41813ÿ1 418841
1 418841 
01234353ÿ7891 4.89&2ÿ/83141-151 ÿ01234353
 4535ÿ1 418841   4535ÿ1 4188417891 4ÿ-151 
834*ÿ' 538*' 5143412*
78
9
1
4
9
ÿ

8
9
3

ÿ


8

3

4


$14%82432ÿ,21541 1 418841 
788514341
1 4188419149ÿ44ÿ'4%4$14%82432ÿ,21541 78'4%4ÿ1 418841
1 418841 
789149ÿ"41 951 1$14%82432ÿ12
1%41813ÿ1 418841
1%41813
12ÿ$14%8243&1 418841 
$14%82432ÿ5&
789149ÿ44ÿ'84
'84ÿ1 418841
$14%8243&ÿ)ÿ5& 1 418841 
$14%82432ÿ742934
789149ÿ015234ÿ015234 015234ÿ1 418841
742934ÿ$14%8243&1 418841 

0123456ÿ899:;6<<5=>?2>9@1AB@>C55B13B@D<E<>4435D@9>9@1A<;2FF>3G<;5>348ÿ
H>95ÿ1IÿD1JA?1>D6ÿKLMKNMOKOPÿKQ6RS6RK

8438  !
8438  +8438  !
8438  +8438  !
8438  !
8438  +8438  !
8438  !

01234562786ÿ58 288
012345627ÿÿ58 288
01234562786ÿ58!88
012345627ÿÿ58!88412ÿ21181
13251417812144521 132514178ÿ12144521
412ÿ"16752ÿ"167528 "167528ÿ12144521
12144521
412ÿ2118101234562786ÿ526872
132514178
132514178ÿ12144521
526872ÿ012345627
12144521
47528%ÿ&$745%
01234562786ÿ#2$145 412ÿ475ÿ47528 &1287216%
44128721#2$145ÿ012345627 12144521
12144521
12ÿ2$2ÿ&232
01234562786ÿ'45ÿ818 4&232ÿ12144521
12144521
01234562786ÿ78ÿ(8812ÿ2$2ÿ&232)88578ÿ01234562786 4&232ÿ12144521
1
2144521
78ÿ(88ÿ)88578
47528%ÿ&$745%
01234562786ÿ"68412ÿ475ÿ47528 &1287216%"114628ÿ"682
44128721012345627ÿÿ"114628 12144521
12144521
01234562786ÿ78ÿ(8812ÿ"16752ÿ"167528 "167528ÿ12144521
)88578ÿ01234562786 4
78ÿ(88ÿ)88578 12144521
"167277ÿ412
412ÿ'47852'874528ÿ81ÿ'478528
811ÿ"167277

'4
7
8


5

2

8

ÿ
1

2
1
4
4
5
2
1


12144521
412ÿ811
01234562786ÿ"68412ÿ'4621ÿ'4,8128 '4,8128ÿ12144521
"114628ÿ"682
012345627ÿÿ"114628 12144521
01234562786ÿ"114628
412ÿ-458$881ÿ.838 /481ÿ12144521
01234562786ÿ"114628 5,274754
47528%ÿ&$745%
01234562786ÿ4412ÿ475ÿ47528 &1287216%
44128721
4ÿ012345627
12144521
12144521
01234562786ÿ4412ÿ02628ÿ12144521 12144521ÿ-,626
4ÿ012345627
-,626
01234562786ÿ"114628
412ÿ"16752ÿ"167528 "167528ÿ12144521
01234562786ÿ"114628 12144521

1234567ÿ9::;<7==6>?@3?:A2BCA?D66C24CAE=F=?5546EA:?:A2B=<3GG?4H=<6?459ÿ
I?:6ÿ2JÿE2KB@2?E7ÿLMNLONPLPQÿLR7ST7SL

54274  54274  54274  54274  54274  54274 * +54274 * +54274 * +54274 * +54274 * +54274 * +54274 * +54274 * +54274 * 834ÿ 538 5143412
788514341
1 418841834ÿ 538 5143412
788514341
1 41884101234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 

789149ÿ7889514924
788514341
1 418841 

1482432ÿ 4!ÿ"5

789149ÿ893ÿ834
1 418841 

1482432ÿ1

789149ÿ44ÿ44
1 418841 

44ÿ1 418841

8438  

1482432ÿ01 18241482432ÿ01 1824

789149ÿ893ÿ834
1 418841 

834ÿ 538 5143412
788514341
1 418841

8438  $

1482432ÿ789789ÿ148243
01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 

789149ÿ015234ÿ015234
1 418841 

015234ÿ1 418841

8438  $789149ÿ4842
484ÿ1 418841 484ÿ1 418841

8438  #01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 

789149ÿ781 ÿ%42349
834ÿ& '8
1 418841 

834ÿ 538 5143412
788514341
1 418841

8438  #

1482432ÿ538
3ÿ148243ÿ(
538ÿ31482432ÿ"349&!1 1
&!1 1ÿ3! 4148243
01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 
1482432
751 1482432
751 01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 
01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 

789149ÿ"44ÿ!84
1 418841 

!84ÿ1 418841

8438  #789149ÿ"44ÿ!84
1 418841 

!84ÿ1 418841

8438  

789149ÿ"44ÿ!84
1 418841 

!84ÿ1 418841

8438  

789149ÿ44ÿ44
1 418841 

44ÿ1 418841

8438  $)892ÿ"8!5311
* 823ÿ1 418841  4535ÿ1 418841

8438  #789149ÿ015234ÿ015234
1 418841 

015234ÿ1 418841

8438  #+,-./01ÿ34456177089:-94;,<=;9>00=,.=;?7@79//.0?;494;,<76-AA9.B7609./3ÿ
C940ÿ,Dÿ?,E<:,9?1ÿFGHFIHJFJKÿFL1MN1MF

8438  
8438  #01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 
1482432ÿ4 18 4 18 ÿ1482431482432ÿ"8#82$83ÿ"8#82ÿ$83
148243
01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 
1482432ÿ"8#82$83ÿ"8#82ÿ$83
148243

789149ÿ41 951 1
1418131 418841  141813ÿ1 418841

8438  789149ÿ8 824ÿ 8 834
1 418841 

8 8342ÿ1ÿ8 342
1 418841

8438  !

789149ÿ$8241ÿ$8%14
1 418841 $8%14ÿ1 418841

8438  !

789149ÿ&8531ÿ'81
1 418841 '81ÿ1 418841

8438  789149ÿ"44ÿ(441 418841 (44ÿ1 418841

8438  !

01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 

789149ÿ893ÿ834
1 418841 

834)ÿ( 538)( 5143412)
788514341
1 418841

8438  01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 
1482432$5%4%"593ÿ1482432$5%4%"593

789149ÿ"44ÿ(441 418841 (44ÿ1 418841

8438  789149ÿ015234ÿ015234
1 418841 

015234ÿ1 418841

8438  !

1482432ÿ&42381ÿ*83 789149ÿ893ÿ834*83ÿ(%42341
1 418841 
148243834)ÿ( 538)( 5143412)
788514341
1 418841

8438  +$8%14ÿ1 418841

8438  01234353ÿ*83141ÿ  ÿ 4535148243

789149ÿ$8241ÿ$8%14
1 418841 
789149ÿ015234ÿ*83141
 4535ÿ015234
1 418841  415234ÿ1 418841

8438  

1482432ÿ1

789149ÿ893ÿ834
1 418841 

834)ÿ( 538)( 5143412)
788514341
1 418841

8438  +(44ÿ1 418841

8438  +

1482432ÿ1

01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ"855%, 8#8ÿ01234353
789149ÿ"44ÿ(447891 4ÿ"855%
1 418841 , 8#8

-./0123ÿ566783992:;</;6=.>?=;@22?.0?=A9B9;1102A=6;6=.>98/CC;0D982;015ÿ
E;62ÿ.FÿA.G><.;A3ÿHIJHKJLHLMÿHN3OP3OH

01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 

789149ÿ4249ÿ1 418841
242

1 418841 ÿ242

8438  

1482432ÿ4ÿ5

789149ÿ4!4ÿ"8!41 418841 "8!4ÿ1 418841

8438  

789149ÿ&8 !349
&8 !342ÿ1 418841 &8 8342ÿ1ÿ&8 !342
1 418841

8438  01234353ÿ7891 4ÿ8#55
$ #8!%8ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ8#55
$ #8!%8
01234353ÿ7891 4
151 ÿ01234353
7891 4ÿ151 
1482432ÿ*4# 18 
*4# 18 ÿ148243
1482432ÿ42381ÿ83
83ÿ"42341
148243
1482432ÿ.818 84!1ÿ1482432.818ÿ 84!1

'1(8!81ÿ)892
1 418841 ÿ'1 8!813 015234ÿ1 418841

8438  

789149ÿ89#1ÿ$438358+81ÿ1 418841

8438  ,789149ÿ4#4ÿ"44
1 418841 "44ÿ1 418841

8438 - 

789149ÿ4#4ÿ"44
1 418841 "44ÿ1 418841

8438 - /012345ÿ7889:5;;4<=>1=8?0@A?=B44A02A?C;D;=3324C?8=8?0@;:1EE=2F;:4=237ÿ
G=84ÿ0HÿC0I@>0=C5ÿJKLJMLNJNOÿJP5QR5QJWA19CA-4.2

IEA MEETINGS, KOWLOON EAST, HONG KONG
Washington Accord - Closed Session
Application for Provisional Status - Indonesia (IABEE)

Contents
1. Application Document
2. IABEE Report (Schedule B1)
3. Annex A – Nomination Letters (ABET & JABEE)
4. Annex B – CV IABEE Executive Committee
5. Annex C – Accreditation Criteria
6. Annex D – Rules and Procedures (Evaluation)
7. Annex E – Rules and Procedures (Accreditation Committees)
8. Annex F – Template Programme Profiles
9. Annex G – IABEE Online System
10. Annex H – MOU of IABEE Establishment
11. Annex I – MOU JABEE-PII

2
38
42
57
64
92
124
139
168
173
177

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

APPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP OF
THE WASHINGTON ACCORD

submitted to
IEA SECRETARIATWASHINGTON ACCORD
International Engineering Alliance
IPENZ, Engineers New ZealandGround Floor, 158 The Terrace
PO Box 12 241, Wellington 6144

by
THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA/INDONESIAN ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR
ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII/IABEE
Jl. Bandung No.1 Menteng
Jakarta Pusat 10310, Indonesia

February 08, 2018

CONTENTS

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 3
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Indonesia at a Glance ....................................................................................... 4
1.2. The Need for Internationally Recognized Accreditation Body ............................ 5
1.3. Proposal Objectives .......................................................................................... 6
2. ABOUT IABEE ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1. IABEE Vision, Mission, and Purpose ................................................................. 7
2.2. Organizational Structure .................................................................................... 8
3. EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDONESIA ................................................................. 11
3.1. Overview ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2. Primary and Secondary Education .................................................................. 13
3.3. Tertiary/Higher Education ................................................................................ 13
3.4. Accreditation of Higher Education ................................................................... 14
3.5. Engineering Programs ..................................................................................... 15
3.6. Experience of International Accreditation ........................................................ 16
4. ENGINEERING COMMUNITY ............................................................................... 18
4.1. Engineering Practice in Indonesia ................................................................... 18
4.2. Role of Accreditation in Registration ................................................................ 19
4.3. Degree of Participation in Accreditation ........................................................... 20
5. IABEE ACCREDITATION SYSTEM ...................................................................... 21
5.1. Development of Accreditation System and its Maturity .................................... 21
5.2. Accreditation Criteria ....................................................................................... 23
5.3. Accreditation Types and Eligibility ................................................................... 24
5.4. Evaluation Process for Accreditation ............................................................... 25
5.5. Evaluation Team ............................................................................................. 26
5.6. Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report .................................................... 27
5.7. Ethics and Code of Conduct ............................................................................ 27
5.8. Accreditation Decisions ................................................................................... 28

1

5.9. Evaluator Trainings ......................................................................................... 29
6. CURRENT STATE OF ACCREDITATION ............................................................. 31
6.1. List of Accredited Programs ............................................................................ 31
6.2. Schedule of Upcoming Evaluations ................................................................. 33
6.3. Accreditation Target ........................................................................................ 34

ANNEXES
Annex A : Nomination Letters
Annex B : CV of IABEE Committee Members
Annex C : Accreditation Criteria
Annex D : Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA)
Annex E : Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC)
Annex F : Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report Templates
Annex G : IABEE Online Evaluation System
Annex H : Memorandum of Understanding on IABEE Establishment
Annex I

: Memorandum of Understanding between PII and JABEE

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is an accreditation
agency for higher education programs in engineering. IABEE is established as anautonomous department of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII), a nongovernmental organization of multi-disciplinary engineering professionals in engineeringand technology. The main mission of IABEE is to promote continual quality improvementof engineering higher education through voluntary program accreditation to produce
autonomous professionals appropriate to the needs of stakeholders.
In the preparation phase, IABEE is assisted technically by JABEE through a 5-year
project from 2014-2019 by forming the necessary committees, including Steering
Committee, Criteria Committee, and Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. IABEE’s
Accreditation Criteria are formulated after studying most of the accreditation criteria of
the Washington Accord (WA) signatories. The Evaluation and Accreditation Committee
then prepared accreditation rules and procedures, developed the evaluation system andinstruments and prepared the program evaluators. After going through several trials, atthe end of 2016 IABEE has successfully implemented 2 program accreditation activities
using IABEE's own accreditation criteria and rules and procedures. In the accreditation
cycles of 2017 and 2018, IABEE has accredited 3 programs and 27 programs in a row.
One of the preparatory steps to becoming a part of WA, since 2014 IABEE has actively
sent its delegation at the annual International Engineering Alliance Meeting (IEAM) to
get to know its members and to study various aspects of WA, including rules andprocedures for becoming a WA member. In 2017 at the IEAM meeting in Alaska, IABEE
through the Global Reach Initiative forum, officially expressed its intention to join WA and
expected support from the members. At the 2018 IEAM meeting in London, IABEE has
followed up with more concrete steps, by asking the IEA Secretariat about all therequirements that must be prepared to become provisional members of WA.
This document is prepared as an application for provisional signatory membership of
IABEE to the Washington Accord. It provides information about IABEE, Indonesia andthe context of engineering, national education system and particularly various aspects ofhigher engineering education, IABEE relationship with the engineering community andpractices, role of accreditation, as well as IABEE accreditation system and operation. To
fulfill one of the application requirements, IABEE has proposed JABEE and ABET to be
its nominators. We are very grateful that both respected organizations have accepted
our request.
On behalf of PII/IABEE,

Prof. Dr-Ing. Misri Gozan,
Chair of IABEE Executive Committee3

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Indonesia at a Glance
The Republic of Indonesia is the largest archipelago in the world comprising 17,500 large
and small islands, situated between the continents of Asia and Australia and between
the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It lies across the equator and spans a distanceequivalent to one-eighth of earth’s circumference. Its islands can be grouped into
Sumatera, Java, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi; Bali, Nusa Tenggara and a chain of islands
that runs eastward through Timor; and Maluku islands and Papua (Figure 1).
Indonesia is a tropical country with a wet, hot, and humid climate the entire year. The
temperature is fairly constant, averaging 28°C in the coastal plains and between 23-26°C
in the inland and mountain regions. There are two major seasons, hot dry season fromMarch to September and rainy monsoon season from September to March. It is blessedwith the most diverse landscape, from fertile ricelands on Java and Bali to the luxuriant
rainforests of Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi, to the savannah grasslands of the
Nusa Tenggara islands to snow-capped peaks of West Papua. It is the habitat of wildlife
ranges from Komodo to Orang Utan and Java Rhino, to the Sulawesi Anoa, to birds like
Cockatoo and the Bird of Paradise. Also, it is the habitat of Rafflesia, the world’s largest
flower, wild orchids, an amazing variety of spices, aromatic hardwood, a large variety oftropical fruit trees, as well as thousands of species of colorful coral and tropical fish.
The capital, Jakarta, is located near the northwestern coast of Java with local timeUTC+7. Currently, Indonesia has a total population of more than 267 million people from
more than 300 ethnic groups, making it the most populous country in Southeast Asia andthe fourth in the world. Nearly 90% of the Indonesian population professes Islam, andthe rests are Christian, Buddhism, and Hinduism. The national motto, “Bhinneka Tunggal
Ika” (“Unity in Diversity”), makes reference to the extraordinary diversity of Indonesian
peoples, languages and cultures. The national language is Indonesian (Bahasa
Indonesia). Indonesia has 34 provinces, the largest subdivisions of the country and thehighest tier of the local government.
Indonesia has the largest economy in Southeast Asia and is one of the emerging market
economies of the world. It is the seventh largest in terms of GDP (PPP) after China, USA,
India, Japan, Germany and Russia. It is contributed by agricultural sector (13.9%),
industry (40.3%) and services (45.9%). Indonesia is a member of G-20 major economies
and classified as a newly industrialized country. Indonesia's important agriculturalcommodities are palm oil, natural rubber, cocoa, coffee, tea, cassava, rice and tropical
spices. Palm oil production is important to the economy as Indonesia is the world's
biggest producer and consumer of the commodity, providing about half of the world's
supply. Indonesia is the world's largest tin market. Although mineral production
traditionally centered on bauxite, silver, and tin, Indonesia is expanding its copper, nickel,
gold, and coal output for export markets.

4

Figure 1.

Indonesian map showing the position and size relative to neighboring countries

Since independence the government has placed great emphasis on primary, secondary,and higher education for all people and by the early 21st century the great majority ofIndonesians were literate. Responsibility for education is centered in the Ministry of
National Education, but other government bodies also administer extensive educational
programs. The national educational system involves six years of primary education,
beginning at age seven, followed by six years of secondary education, which are divided
into two three-year blocks. Since the early 1990s the first nine years have been
compulsory. Higher education includes dozens of public institutions and thousands ofprivate postsecondary schools. Enrollment is about evenly distributed between men andwomen. While a number of universities offer postgraduate education, many students go
abroad, especially to North America, Europe, Japan and Australia to pursue master anddoctoral degrees.

1.2. The Need for Internationally Recognized Accreditation Body
As described before, Indonesia has a variety of unique natural resources that provide
great opportunities to be managed for the welfare of society. To do this innovation
becomes a very important requirement. Innovation requires people with certain skills andspecialties that are combined with the ability to work together across disciplines.
Engineers play dominant roles in enhancing economic values of resources. Higher
engineering education, therefore, has a strategic and central role to carry out thisagenda. It is the main producer of skilled and talented human resources that generate
new ideas and practices. With various complexities in utilizing natural resources forequitable and environmentally friendly economic development, and with the challengesof tight global competition, engineering education is required to produce adequate quality
human resources.
Quality assurance systems of an education program play a pivotal role to ascertain
education quality. The systems can be developed internally or externally. External quality

5assurance usually carried out through accreditation. So far, the accreditation of higher
education is carried out by the National Accreditation Board of Higher Education
Institution (BAN-PT), which is mandatory. The accreditation criteria used are input-based
and are generally applicable to all fields of education. With the issuance of Law No.
12/2012 on Higher Education, BAN-PT will only be given the mandate to carry out
institution accreditation, while program accreditation will be carried out by anindependent accreditation institution in accordance with its educational field of study.
After studying various models of accreditation systems in the world today, it is concluded
that Indonesia needs to have an accreditation body for engineering higher education thatcan ensure its graduates are in accordance with what is needed by users, internationallyrecognized, and which supports the mobility of professionals. Moreover, sinceaccreditation is a means for quality improvement, the accreditation should be conducted
on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the mutual recognition agreement of the Washington
Accord (WA) is viewed as the most appropriate framework for Indonesia to join, and forthis reason, an independent accreditation body called the Indonesian Accreditation
Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is established.
The importance to have a good accreditation system is also justified by the need forsignificant numbers of engineering graduates towards the year of 2045, a century afterIndonesian independence. In fact, with the current economic growth rate, towards 2025,
Indonesia is estimated to have a shortage of engineering graduates reaching 10,000
graduates/year. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the fulfillment of the needs ofthe number of engineering graduates is also balanced with adequate graduate quality.

1.3. Proposal Objectives
Based on the description above, this Proposal is prepared to provide background,context and justification about IABEE's intention to join and become part of the
Washington Accord (WA) membership. After briefly introducing the country, theeducation system and the existing accreditation system, the following chapters will
explain in more detail about the IABEE organization and management, the engineering
higher education system and international accreditation experience, IABEE relations withthe engineering professional community, and more specifically about IABEE
accreditation system and implementation. In writing this Proposal, we refer to the Accord
Rules and Procedures (1st July 2017 version), especially The Criteria for Admission to
Provisional Signatory Status of Schedule B1 and the Guidelines of Section C.2, so thatthe important aspects requested in the Rule and Procedure have been addressed as far
as possible.

62. ABOUT IABEE
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is an accreditation
agency for higher education programs in engineering. IABEE is established as anautonomous department of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII), a nongovernmental organization of multi-disciplinary engineering professionals in engineeringand technology. PII was founded in 1952 in Bandung and currently headquartered in
Jakarta. It has more than 50,000 members in 23 engineering disciplines (chapters). PII
has a mission to make engineers who are competitive and who give high added values
to the welfare and prosperity of the nation. PII is currently a member of WFEO (World
Federation of Engineering Organizations), AFEO (ASEAN Federation of Engineering
Organizations), FEISEAP (Federation of Engineering Institute South East Asia andPacific), AEESEAP (Association of Engineering Education South East Asia and Pacific),
as well as APEC Engineer Agreement.
The first step in establishing IABEE was the formation of a Steering Committee in
November 2013 as a realization of the Indonesian government's request to the Japanese
government to assist Indonesia in establishing an internationally recognizedaccreditation institution for engineering education. After signing cooperation between the
Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) of the Ministry of Education and Culture(MoEC) 1 and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 2014, JICA made acontract with JABEE to prepare and implement a 5-year technical cooperation projectfrom 2014 to 2019. One of the targets set out for the project is for IABEE to obtain aprovisional status in the Washington Accord in 2019.
The Steering Committee formed the organizational organs needed to implement the
project, including the Criteria Committee and the Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee, and drafted an MoU so that IABEE could become part of the PII. IABEE wasthen established as an autonomous department within PII on October 11, 2016 andinaugurated on March 13, 2018. MoU of IABEE Establishment is provided in Annex H.

2.1. IABEE Vision, Mission, and Purpose
The followings are IABEE vision, missions, and purposes.
VisionAs a reformer and stimulator for accelerating the progress of engineering higher
education in Indonesia to produce innovative human resources and engineering
innovation for improving human welfare.

1 In 2015, new Presidential Administration of Indonesia took out higher education affairs from the

Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) and tasked it to a newly formed Ministry of Research,
Technology, and Higher Education (MoRTHE).

7

Mission(1) Promote quality improvement of engineering higher education through accreditation
to produce autonomous professionals appropriate to the needs of stakeholders,(2) Facilitate development of engineering higher education systems that emphasizes
on continual quality improvement towards global quality standards,(3) Encourage communication and partnerships between engineering higher education
institutions and stakeholders to effectively utilize local resources and wisdom for thewelfare of the community, and(4) Support dissemination of innovations on advancement of engineering higher
education.
Purpose(1) IABEE accreditation is a tool for programs to ensure the implementation of outcomebased education that meets international standards and qualifications throughcontinual quality improvement.
(2) IABEE contributes in preparing Indonesian workers who are able to develop
synergies in line with the global mobility of engineering practitioners.

2.2. Organizational Structure
As described before, IABEE is an autonomous department within PII. The position of
IABEE within PII organization is considered appropriate and in line with Engineering Law
No. 11/2014 that gives a mandate and strategic role to PII to ensure good quality ofengineer services. This mandate can be implemented by PII, among others through therole of IABEE, which ensures that engineering higher education graduates have beenequipped with adequate knowledge, skills and attitudes as provisions to become
qualified professional engineers. The organization structure of IABEE is depicted in
Figure 2.
The followings are concise explanation on the roles and responsibilities of IABEE
committees depicted in Figure 2.
Executive Committee is the highest decision-making board in IABEE that is made upof high-level stakeholders and experts. This board sets up the directions and guidanceon key issues such as IABEE’s policy and objectives, resource allocation, budgetarycontrol and decision, and marketing strategy. The main role of this board is to ensure
successful mission and purpose of IABEE. The executive committee is chaired by a
Chair of Executive Committee with members including representatives PII, academics,
industry, and observers from government. The Executive Committee nominates themembers of the Criteria Committee, Evaluation & Accreditation Committee, FinanceCommittee, International Committee, Public Affairs Committee, Accreditation Council, as
well as the Appeal Board. Important decisions made by these committees are to be8

reported for approval of the Executive Committee. The Chair of the Executive Committee
shall be accountable to the Board of PII.
Secretariat is chaired by a Secretary General, who is the official entrusted withadministrative duties, maintaining records, and performing other secretarial duties.

Figure 2.

IABEE organizational chart

Accreditation Council is a board of officials in charge of validating the results ofaccreditation. They work to ensure that the accreditation evaluation process has been
carried out according to established rules and procedures.
Appeal Board is a board of officials that are appointed to hear appeals. They judge
whether an evaluation/accreditation decision was right or wrong, when the party(program, education institution) affected by it thinks that it was wrong.
Criteria Committee is a committee consists of academics from leading universities,
professional organizations and industry practitioners, who are responsible to establish
the White Paper, the Accreditation Criteria, namely Common Criteria and Criteria Guide,
and approve the Discipline Criteria proposed by the professional societies. These criteria
form the basis for the program evaluation. The committee is also in charge of conducting
periodic reviews and revisions of the Accreditation Criteria based on the input fromstakeholders and the existence of circumstances that require the criteria to be revised.
Evaluation and Accreditation Committee is responsible for developing IABEE’s Rules
and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA), evaluation instruments, and
IABEE’s Online Evaluation System (OES). This committee is also responsible to plan,
conduct and monitor the program accreditation processes in an accreditation cycle,
including appointment of the evaluation team, monitoring the online review and on-site
evaluation, and post evaluation activities, such as harmonization and reporting. The

9committee shall recommend accreditation status to the Accreditation Council. In addition
to that, the committee also develops training programs and materials and conducts a
series of training for program evaluators.
Finance Committee has the main duty to maintain a continuing review of the financial
affairs and make appropriate recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding
financial matters for the annual budget and the business plan. The committee also
authorizes investment policy, accounting and disbursement procedures for all funds
under the authority of IABEE.
International Affairs Committee is responsible for managing IABEE’s international
activity, such as developing partnerships and collaborations, building international profile
through presence at international events, meetings and forums, hosting visits bydelegations from international bodies, preparing documents for application of WA
membership and international agreements.
Public Affairs Committee has responsibility to build, develop and manage a good
relationship between IABEE and its stakeholders, by providing factual information andlobby on issues that could impact upon IABEE’s ability to operate successfully.
The list and short CV of the Executive Committee members as well as other key personsof IABEE is given in Annex B. Further explanation for some committees directly related
to evaluation and accreditation actions is given in the Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC) in Annex E.

10

3. EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDONESIA
3.1. Overview
According to the Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System, national education
functions to develop capabilities and form a dignified character and national civilizationin order to educate the nation's life, aiming at the development of people’s potency to
become human beings who believe and fear God Almighty, noble, healthy,knowledgeable, competent, creative, independent, and a democratic and responsible
citizen.
The path of education consists of formal, non-formal, and informal education that cancomplement and enrich each other. The level of formal education consists of primaryeducation, secondary education, and tertiary/higher education. The types of education
include general, vocational, academic, professional, religious and special education. The
path, level and type of education can be realized in the form of educational units
organized by the government, regional government, and/or the community.
The implementation of national education adheres to the following principles:(1) is carried out in a democratic, fair and non-discriminatory manner by upholding
human rights, religious values, cultural values, and national pluralism;(2) is held as a systemic unit with an open and multi-meaning system;(3) is held as a process of civilizing and empowering students that lasts a lifetime;(4) is held by giving exemplary, building willingness, and developing students' creativity
in the learning process;(5) is held by developing a culture of reading, writing and calculating for all citizens; and(6) is organized by empowering all components of society through participation in theimplementation and quality control of education services
To ensure quality national education, the government establishes National Education
Standards, i.e. the minimum criteria for the education system in the entire jurisdiction of
the country. These standards serve as the basis for education planning, implementationand supervision. The standards consist of standards of content, process, competency ofgraduates, education staff, facilities and infrastructure, management, financing, andassessment of education. The development of standards and monitoring and reportingof their achievements nationally is carried out by a body of standardization (BSNP). The
standards are refined in a planned, directed and sustainable manner in accordance withthe demands of changes in local, national and global life.
The curriculum at all levels and types of education is developed with the principle ofdiversification in accordance with educational units, regional potential, and students. The
curriculum is prepared in accordance with the level of education within the framework of
the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia by taking into account:11(1) increased faith and piety;(2) increase in noble character;(3) increase the potency, intelligence, and interests of students;(4) diversity of regional and environmental potency;(5) demands for regional and national development;(6) labor market demands;(7) the development of science, technology and art; religion; dynamics of global
development; and(8) national unity and national values
Accreditation is carried out to determine the feasibility of programs and educational units
in the formal and non-formal education paths at every level and type of education. The
accreditation is carried out by the Government and/or independent institutions inauthority as a form of public accountability. The accreditation is based on open criteria.
Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of the national education system that covers
education levels (primary, secondary and tertiary/higher education), length of study, typeof education, and its relation to the national qualification framework.

Figure 3.

National Education System showing Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Levels and theircorresponding National Qualification Framework123.2. Primary and Secondary Education
Early childhood (pre-school) education is a coaching effort aimed at children from birth
to the age of six years which is carried out through giving educational stimuli to help
growth and physical and spiritual development so that children have readiness inentering the primary education level. This education can be organized through formal,
non-formal, and/or informal education paths. Early childhood education in formal
education paths is carried out in the form of kindergarten or other forms of equal. That in
the non-formal education is carried out in the form of playgroups, child care centers, orother forms of equal. Early childhood education in the informal education paths take theform of family education or education organized by the environment.
Primary education is in the form of elementary school (6 years) and junior high school (3years). Every citizen aged seven to fifteen years, according to the Law, is obliged toattend primary education. Meanwhile, secondary education is in the form of high school(3 years) which can be either general high school or vocational high school.
Primary and secondary education curriculum must contain: religious education, civic
education, language, mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, art and culture,physical education and sports, skills/vocational, and local contents.
The fundamental framework and structure of the primary and secondary education
curriculum is determined by the government, whereas the curriculum is developed
according to its relevance by each group or education unit and school committee.
Public education institutions dominate the education system, particularly at primary andjunior secondary levels. However, the private sector also plays a significant role,accounting for around 48% of all schools, 31% of all students, and 38% of all teachers.
Government administration for managing primary and secondary education is carried out
by the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC).

3.3. Tertiary/Higher Education
Tertiary/higher education is a level of education after secondary education which
includes diploma (D) education programs, bachelor (S1), master (S2), specialist, anddoctoral degrees (S3) held by higher education institution.
In the implementation of education and scientific development in higher education
institutions, academic freedom and freedom of academic forum and scientific autonomy
apply. Higher education institutions have the autonomy to manage the institution
themselves as the center for organizing higher education, scientific research, andcommunity service. They can obtain funding from the community whose management isbased on the principle of public accountability.
The basic framework and structure of the higher education curriculum as well as thecurriculum are developed by the higher education institutions concerned with reference13

to the national education standards for each study program. The higher education
curriculum must include religious education, civic education, and language.
Higher education institution can take the form of academies, polytechnics, colleges,
institutes, or universities (Table 1). A higher education institution is obliged to organize
education, research, and community service, and can hold academic, professional
and/or vocational programs. The first two are specialize in vocational type of education,
while the last three are more comprehensive and allowed to offer all type of education.
Table 1.

Types of Higher Education Institutions

Type of
Institution
Universitas(university)

Politeknik(polytechnics)

Akademi(academies)
Sekolah Tinggi(colleges)
Institut(institutes)

Type of Program
University provides education at the bachelor’s level (called Sarjana-1, or S1, inIndonesian language). This type of program has a nominal length of 4 years.
University also provides education service at post-graduate levels: master’s (S2) anddoctoral (S3) levels.
Politeknik mainly provides Diploma (vocational) programs, ranging from D1 to D3,
and very rarely D4 programs. This type of education provides a vocational
qualification. However, their graduates can also continue on to higher-level
education with some requirements. The curriculum is very practical in nature, with aminimum of 45% of the program being devoted to practices (including simulations)and training.
It is relatively small institution offering a single specialization up to D2 and D3 levels.
This institution usually comprises of a single faculty with only a few hundred students
and provide both Diploma (D1 to D4) and S1 levels.
Institute usually provides education in a single specialization, at both Diploma andS1 level. Some institutes also provide education at post-graduate levels (S2 and S3).

Unlike the 12-year basic education which is decentralized to district and provincial
governments under the coordination of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC),
the higher education system is centrally managed by the Ministry of Research,
Technology, and Higher Education (MoRTHE). Public universities also have to comply
with the prevailing regulations applied for all governmental units, including regulations
on financial management issued by the Ministry of Finance and regulations on personnel
management issued by the National Civil Service Agency (BKN).

3.4. Accreditation of Higher Education
Higher education accreditation in Indonesia is not new. The Higher Education Law No.
12/2012 emphasizes the implementation of the national quality assurance system forhigher education which includes external (accreditation) and internal systems to be
implemented by individual institutions. Systematic effort aims to implement quality
assurance should basically be an internally driven initiative. Therefore, all institutions areto establish their own quality assurance unit.
Prior to the Law No. 12/2012, government regulations stipulate that every higher
education program and institution shall conduct accreditation. This compulsory

14

accreditation has been carried out by the National Accreditation Board for Higher
Education (BAN-PT), which has begun to accredit programs in 1996, starting with S1
programs, then S2 and S3. In academic year of 2001/2002, BAN-PT accreditation was
extended to Diploma programs. The first accreditation results were published in 1998.
BAN-PT is a non-structural, non-profit, and independent agency under the MoRTHE withthe main functions to assist and support the ministry in assessing the adequacy of higher
education institutions to the national standard of education. BAN-PT adopts two
accreditation models, namely program accreditation and education institution
accreditation. BAN-PT website (banpt.or.id) contains an overview of all higher education
programs, with their current accreditation status (categories A-D); A is very good, B isgood, C is satisfactory, and D is unsatisfactory (not accredited).
The government continues to improve policies and regulations in higher education. With
the issuance of the Higher Education Law No. 12/2012, BAN-PT is now given the
mandate to carry out only accreditation at institutional level, while program accreditation
is to be carried out by an Independent Accreditation Agency (LAM-PS) for each field of
education, using accreditation criteria in accordance with the field of education. LAM-PS
can be formed by the government or by the community. Once a LAM-PS for a field ofstudy has been established, BAN-PT would cease to accredit the programs in that field
and let the LAM-PS conduct it.
In the context of Indonesia, the national compulsory accreditation of a program is directly
related to its legal status, to its registration in the Higher Education Database (PDDIKTI)
maintained by the MoRTHE, and to its operational permit as required by law. IABEE is
not the LAM-PS in engineering field as viewed from lens of the Law No. 12/2012,
because its accreditation is voluntary. IABEE, however, is recognized by the MoRTHE
as an institution responsible for the accreditation of selected engineering programs
seeking international recognition. Accreditation by IABEE is optional for programs thathave been accredited nationally at a certain (i.e. the highest) rank. IABEE accreditationis, therefore, a complement to the national accreditation as an excellent tool for highquality engineering programs to seek international recognition.
As LAM-PS in engineering is still in absence, IABEE has recently been asked by
MoRTHE through its offices of Directorate General of Institution Affairs and Directorateof Quality Assurance to play role in its establishment. Due to the nature of a compulsory
accreditation system, future LAM-PS in engineering shall accredit a very large numberof engineering programs with wide range of quality. IABEE, in this case, will still maintainits policy of accrediting only the top-tier programs who voluntarily seek for internationalrecognition.

3.5. Engineering Programs
Engineering programs admit prospective students who have completed their secondary
education in a General or Vocational High School and passed the National Examination
for secondary education. Higher education institutions, especially those offeringengineering programs, would conduct a student admission system to recruit new15

students. This admission system normally applies certain passing criteria inmathematics, natural sciences, and language proficiency to assess potential candidates.
The number of nationally accredited engineering programs at bachelor’s level is currently
2500 programs. Of this figure, 23% are carried out by public higher education institutions,while the other 77% by the private institutions.

3.6. Experience of International Accreditation
In addition to the application of compulsory accreditation as mentioned above, somehigher education institutions have been very active in encouraging their respective highquality programs to seek international recognition by applying regionally or internationallyrecognized certification or accreditation systems. Some program operating institutions,for example, have adopted a regional quality assurance system that is recognized by the
ASEAN University Network – Quality Assurance framework (AUN-QA), while others haveapplied for international accreditation from ABET, JABEE, and others. Table 2 enlists
some programs accredited by various foreign accreditation agencies. This indicates thatoffering internationally recognized programs has been perceived as a growing need,
especially for the top-tier higher education institutions in Indonesia.
Table 2.

Some Programs accredited by various international accreditation agencies in the fields ofengineering and technology

HE Institution
Institut Teknologi
Bandung (ITB)

Institut Pertanian Bogor(IPB)
Universitas Gadjah
Mada (UGM)
Universitas Indonesia(UI)
Bina Nusantara
University (Binus)
Universitas Islam
Indonesia (UII)

ProgramAccredited by

Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Engineering Management
Engineering Physics
Environmental Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Informatics and Computer Science
Metallurgical Engineering
Mining Engineering
Ocean Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
Agro-Industrial Technology
Mechanical and Biosystem Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Geodetic Engineering
Chemical Engineering

ABET
ABET
ABET
ABET
ABET
ABET
ABET
ABET
JABEE
ABET
ABET
ABET
ABET
JABEE
IchemE
ABET
ABET
JABEE

Civil Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Civil Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Chemistry

ABET
ABET
JABEE
ABET
RSC

16

This trend of acquiring international accreditation or recognition is, in fact, not only limited
to engineering field of study, but is also seen in several other fields such as accounting,business and economics, public health, and natural sciences. In support of this trend,
the government has an “internationalization policy” through its mandatory institutional
accreditation system. The system has incorporated a special performance indicatorwhich measures the degree of international recognition of an institution by, among
others, considering number of internationally recognized programs it operates.

17

4. ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
4.1. Engineering Practice in Indonesia
According to Engineering Law No. 11/2014, the scope of engineering practices inIndonesia covers seven bodies of knowledge and seven fields of work. These bodies ofknowledge include: earth and energy, civil and built environment, industry, conservationand natural resource management, agriculture and agricultural products, marine andnaval technology, and aeronautics and astronautics. The fields of work include:
education & training; research & development and commercialization; consulting,design, and construction; industrial engineering and management, manufacturing, andprocessing; mineral resources exploration and exploitation, natural resources extraction,
plantation, and breeding; as well as asset development, operation, and maintenance.
To ensure the competence and professionalism in engineering services, 3 standards ofengineering profession need to be established. These consist of: (1) standards ofengineer’s services, (2) standards for engineer’s competence, (3) standards forengineer’s profession program. The Law mandates the Institution of Engineers Indonesia(PII) to develop these standards to be established by the government.
Engineering societies through PII Chapters play role in developing standards ofengineer’s services and competence, A chapter is an organic part of PII which unifies
people and societies working in the same engineering discipline. Currently PII has 23
Engineering Chapters including, among others, Civil, Electrical, Chemical, Mechanical,
Physics, Industrial, Geodetic, Environment, Earth and Energy, Agriculture, Agroindustry,
Forestry, Mining, Aeronautics, Marine, Materials, Metallurgical, Earth and Energy, andPetroleum.
A graduate of a Bachelor Engineering Program who wants to be licensed as professional
engineer should first join an enrichment program, namely engineer profession program,organized in collaboration between PII, mandated higher education institutions, and theindustry. The enrichment program encompasses knowledge of engineering ethics,
professionalism, occupational health, safety and environment, as well as experience ofindustrial internship, which may be fulfilled through portfolio assessment (recognition ofparticipant’s prior learning). Successful accomplishment of the program will award theparticipant with an Engineer title. The engineer who will perform engineering practices
must obtain a certificate of engineer registration (STRI) from PII based on his/her levelof competence. PII recognizes 3 levels of competence of a professional engineer, i.e.
Junior Professional Engineer (or in Indonesian language: Insinyur Profesional Pratama– IPP), Professional Engineer (Insinyur Profesional Madya – IPM), and Senior
Professional Engineer (Insinyur Profesional Utama – IPU).
Graduates of bachelor’s program in science and in engineering education may also join
the engineering profession program to become an engineer after passing equivalency
requirements, i.e. 3 years of experience in supervised engineering practices.

18

In order to obtain a work permit in Indonesia, a foreign engineer must have the certificate
of engineer registration from PII. The certificate is obtainable either through PII’srecognition of registration certificate from his/her respective country of origin, or throughPII standard mechanism for obtaining STRI.
As an exceptional case, a foreign engineer who provides engineering services in disastermanagement or incidental consultation matters does not require a work permit, however
notification to the relevant ministries must be provided.
For a foreign engineer who does not have an engineer registration certificate orcompetency certificate in accordance with the law of his/her country, the foreign engineer
must have an Engineer Competency Certificate issued by PII, after passing theCompetency Test carried out by professional certification institutions in accordance withthe stipulations of legislation.

4.2. Role of Accreditation in Registration
As described above, PII is mandated by the Law to conduct engineer’s registration as arequirement for practice licensing recognized in Indonesia. As mobility in engineering
profession continues to become a critical issue, there is a growing need for internationalrecognition of registered engineers. To foster engineer’s mobility in Indonesia, since2004, PII has joined APEC Agreement that recognizes the substantial equivalence ofcompetence standards for professional engineers within the APEC Economies. To
become an APEC Engineer, a graduate from Indonesian bachelor’s engineering
program must fulfill the following three conditions:(1) graduated from accredited programs,(2) has a sufficient working experience, and(3) maintains Continual Professional Development (CPD).
In the absence of an accrediting body in Indonesia that has signatory membership in the
Washington Accord, currently, under special agreement, APEC recognizes engineering
programs accredited by BAN-PT ranked “A” or “B” as a fulfillment of the first condition.
By becoming a Washington Accord member, IABEE accreditation can fulfill the above
requirement. Furthermore, as IABEE is a part of PII, membership in WA will be an
important enabling factor for PII to enter into larger mobility agreements of professional
engineers. In this regard, IABEE accreditation will play a major role for strengthening
Indonesian engineers’ mobility across world economies.
In national context, after IABEE has been accepted as a Washington Accord signatory,
PII is expected to modify the conditions of becoming a registered engineer by giving
special considerations for candidates graduated from IABEE accredited programs aswell as programs accredited by other signatory members of the Washington Accord.

194.3. Degree of Participation in Accreditation
In only 3 accreditation cycles conducted by IABEE since 2016, there have been 33
programs voluntarily applied to be evaluated for accreditation2. In addition, institutions
whose programs have been accredited by international or foreign agencies, and still
holding validity, have also shown their interests of applying IABEE accreditation after thevalidity becomes expired. This shows a high degree of participation in voluntaryaccreditation offered by IABEE, aside of the compulsory national accreditation.

2 IABEE offers General and Provisional Accreditations (see further Section 5.3). In 2016, 2017,and 2018 accreditation cycles, 33 programs in total have been evalutedevaluated for General
Accreditation. In 2017 and 2018 cycles, 24 programs in total have been evaluated for Provisional
Accreditation.

20

5. IABEE ACCREDITATION SYSTEM
5.1. Development of Accreditation System and its Maturity
Development of IABEE accreditation system took place in 2013 to 2016. The system
consists of three main parts, namely: accreditation criteria, rules and procedures for
program evaluation and accreditation, as well as an online evaluation system.
At the end of 2013, IABEE Criteria Committee (CC) was formed by the Steering
Committee3 and tasked to formulate the Accreditation Criteria, especially the Common
Criteria and Criteria Guide. In doing so, Criteria Committee studied accreditation criteria
used of Washington Accord signatories then. Indonesian national values and interests
were also considered in the criteria formulation. In the later process, the committee
involved representatives of various Chapters (Engineering Disciplines) of PII indeveloping the Discipline Criteria of accreditation.
The first draft of IABEE Common Criteria was completed in mid-2014 and subsequently
tested by the committee members (who acted as shadow evaluators) during JABEE
evaluation visits in late 2014 and 2015 to Bogor Agriculture University (IPB) and Islamic
University of Indonesia (UII), respectively. Following the tests, the draft criteria werediscussed among the committee and JABEE experts and got improved. An
accompanying document called the Criteria Guide was developed, among others, as aresult. Common Criteria of accreditation were approved by the Executive Committee inAugust 2015 and firstly published in the following October through the websites of PII
and MoRTHE (at that time IABEE website was still under development).
In March 2015, Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) was formed and tasked
to develop a set of rules and procedures based on the criteria formulated previously by
the CC, as well as to develop an online evaluation platform to enable the implementationof accreditation system. EAC also assisted CC and PII Chapters in development of
Discipline Criteria for various engineering disciplines, and in finalizing Criteria Guide.
Members of EAC were professionals in engineering teaching and practice recruited from
reputable Indonesian universities, professional associations, as well as from PII. About
one-fourth out of 31 newly recruited EAC members were professors whose programs
are already accredited by ABET and JABEE. To strengthen the awareness andknowledge among EAC members regarding outcome-based accreditation and mattersrelated to the Washington Accord, all members were sent, in 3 batches, to join theTraining of Trainers and Knowledge Co-Creation Program conducted in Japan under
JABEE system environment. In total, 44 EAC members and recruited evaluatorcandidates participated this training. In addition, 16 selected EAC members in total werealso sent to join ABET PEV Training as practicing observers. Also 3 members (EAC and3 IABEE Steering Committee is transformed as the Executive Committee in a later development

21

CC combined) were sent to observe CAST accreditation system in China, and other 3
members to Engineers Australia.
EAC members were then divided into 8 Working Groups that worked in parallel todevelop IABEE public website and online evaluation website, documents of rules andprocedures of evaluation and accreditation, instruments of evaluation, evaluator
recruitment and training program, ethics and code of conduct, as well as advocacy andsupporting services. A second type of accreditation, namely Provisional Accreditation
was also introduced and developed by EAC. This type was considered necessary inenabling gradual shifting from input-based to outcome-based education for the majority
of Indonesian engineering study programs. In mid-2016, the final draft of rules andprocedures, as well as instruments of evaluation were ready to implement.
End of 2016 marked two evaluation teams set out to conduct pilot accreditation for
Mechanical and Biosystems Engineering Program of IPB and Civil Engineering Programof UII, who volunteered after they were successfully accredited by JABEE. Each teamconsists of 3 evaluators (with 1 being the team chair) and observers. JABEE experts
observed the on-site visit to both programs closely as well as subsequent EAC meetings
discussing the results of evaluation. Both programs were eventually granted
accreditation status by IABEE Accreditation Council for 6 years4.
In 2017, IABEE run another accreditation cycle. This time, Environmental Engineering
Program of UII, which was granted a 6-year accreditation status from ABET in 2016,
volunteered to be evaluated by IABEE. Eventually the program was also accredited by
IABEE for 6 years. Year of 2017 also witnessed 3 other programs accredited in General
Accreditation and 6 programs accredited in Provisional Accreditation. As IABEE gets
more recognition in the country, more institutions show interest for their respective
programs to be accredited by IABEE. This results in 28 programs evaluated for General
Accreditation and the other 18 for Provisional Accreditation. For a complete list of
programs accredited by IABEE until the end of 2018 accreditation cycle, please see
Section 6.
To implement program evaluation, IABEE recruited and trained new evaluators in
addition to existing EAC members. In 2016 and 2017 IABEE managed to send evaluatorcandidates to join JABEE training in Japan as well as ABET PEV training in USA. In 2017and 2018, EAC conducted in-house trainings for evaluators. New evaluators as well as
evaluators who have participated JABEE and ABET trainings joined these in-housetrainings, in which IABEE’s own set of criteria were taught. Three in-house evaluator
trainings were conducted in three different Indonesian major cities during the period.
Until mid-2018 IABEE has already had a pool of 86 evaluators, coming from 12
engineering disciplines, representing both professionals in engineering practice andengineering teaching.

4 In the first 3 accreditation cycles, IABEE granted accredited status with 6-year validity. Since

2019 cycle, the validity is changed to 5 years.

22

IABEE is fully aware of the importance of having good quality and sufficient number of
evaluators. As degree of participation in accreditation is growing, IABEE plans to conduct
a series of evaluator recruitment and training in 2019 and years to come.
To create and foster a wide public awareness about IABEE and its mission andpurposes, a series of awareness seminars were conducted in 2015 to 2017 period inseveral Indonesian major cities, including Jakarta, Batam, Bandung, Surabaya,
Yogyakarta, and Makassar. The seminars were attended by representatives of various
public and private universities which offer engineering programs and featured national(IABEE key persons) as well as international speakers from Japan (JABEE), USA(ABET), and other countries. The series of seminars were culminated in the Inaugurationof IABEE in Jakarta, which took place on March 13, 2018, supported by PII, JABEE, theMinistry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education, as well as the Ministry ofIndustry. The inauguration ceremony witnessed the handover of accreditation certificatesfor programs successfully accredited by IABEE in 2017 accreditation evaluation cycle.
As explained previously, one of the targets set out in the IABEE Establishment project is
to apply and obtain a provisional membership in the Washington Accord in 2019. To
realize the target, IABEE has requested JABEE and ABET to become its two nominators
to meet the requirement of Schedule C.2.1.7. Two nomination letters are attached to this
proposal in Annex A.

5.2. Accreditation Criteria
Accreditation Criteria adopted by IABEE follow an outcome-based accreditation model
which ensures the students achieve certain learning outcomes (knowledge, skill, andattitudes) needed to the practice of engineering profession upon graduation.
The criteria applicable for a bachelor-level engineering program are classified into two
categories, namely Common Criteria and Discipline Criteria. The Common Criteria areelaborated further in the Criteria Guide and are composed with the intention of assuring
the quality of engineering education and to foster a systematic continual quality
improvement that satisfies the need of its constituencies in a dynamic and competitiveenvironment.
Common Criteria and Criteria Guide are applicable for all engineering disciplines. The
Discipline Criteria, on the other hand, provide specific requirements in the area of
curricular topics and faculty qualifications for the interpretation of the baccalaureate levelas applicable to a given engineering discipline. An engineering study program seeking
accreditation from IABEE shall clearly demonstrate the fulfillment of all applicable criteria.
Common Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline Criteria are referred to as the
Accreditation Criteria. The Accreditation Criteria document of IABEE can be seen in
Annex C.
The Common Criteria consists of 4 elements, following the management approach of PD-C-A (Plan-Do-Check-Act). The Common Criteria are:23

Criterion 1. Orientation of the Graduate CompetencexxProfile of Graduates as Autonomous Professionals
Program Learning Outcomes

Criterion 2. Learning Implementation
x
x
x
x
x

Curriculum
Faculty
Students and Academic Atmosphere
Facility
Institutional Responsibility

Criterion 3. Assessment of the Expected Learning Outcomes
Criterion 4. Continual Improvement
In addition to the Common Criteria, currently there are 12 Discipline Criteria for thefollowing programs:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering and similarly named
engineering programs
Environmental engineering and similarly named engineering programs
Ocean engineering and similarly named engineering programs
Agricultural and/or biosystem engineering
Civil engineering and similarly named engineering programs
Electrical, computer, communications, telecommunication engineering andsimilarly named engineering programs
Engineering physics and similarly named engineering programs
Geodetic, geomatics engineering
Industrial engineering and similarly named engineering programs
Materials, metallurgical engineering and similarly named engineering programs
Mechanical engineering
Nuclear engineering and similarly named engineering programs

5.3. Accreditation Types and Eligibility
IABEE offers two types of accreditation, i.e. Provisional Accreditation (PA) and General
Accreditation (GA). PA is particularly intended for programs newly adopting an outcomebased education system and have not produced graduates under the system. A program
which applies for evaluation of PA will be evaluated to observe its potentials of meeting
the Accreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (2-4 years). General Accreditation(GA), on the other hand, is applicable for a program seeking to be accredited by IABEE
and get international recognition.

24

Table 3 enlists eligibility requirements for programs wishing to be evaluated inProvisional and General Accreditation according to IABEE Rules and Procedures for
Evaluation and Accreditation.
Table 3.

Eligibility requirements for programs applying evaluation of Provisional and General Accreditation
General Accreditation(1) The associated Program Operating Institution(POI) has obtained National Accreditation for
Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.
(2) The Program has obtained National
Accreditation status ranked “A”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in
an engineering discipline with a curricularstudy period of four years, and with a total
course-load of a minimum of 144 credit units.
(4) The Program is at least in the 4th year ofcontinuous Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
implementation.
(5) The OBE shall include assessment andevaluation of the Learning Outcomes of thestudents.
(6) By the time of the on-site visit evaluation, theProgram has produced at least one graduate
under its OBE system.
(7) The Program has established and publicized
the Autonomous Professional Profilestatement formulated as its educational
objectives.

Provisional Accreditation(1) The associated Program Operating
Institution has obtained National
Accreditation for Institution status with aminimum rank of ‘B’.
(2) The Program has obtained National
Accreditation status at least ranked “B”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in
an engineering discipline with a curricularstudy period of four years, and with a total
credit of a minimum of 144 credit units.
(4) The Program has implemented OutcomeBased Education (OBE) at least for one year
before applying for the evaluation.
(5) The Program has established and publicized
the Autonomous Professional Profilestatement formulated as its educational
objectives.
(6) The Program has established and publicized
its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning
methods(8) The Program has established and publicized
its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning
methods.

5.4. Evaluation Process for Accreditation
As IABEE offers two types of accreditation, consequently it also carries out two different
evaluation processes, i.e. evaluation process for General Accreditation (GA) and that for
Provisional Accreditation (PA). The main difference between the two lies in number ofsteps they undergo, and number of program evaluators involved in each process.
Evaluation process for GA involves 3 program evaluators for each program, with one
being the team chair, meanwhile only one evaluator is involved in PA evaluation. In termsof number of steps, evaluation for GA involves 30 steps, while PA only has 22 steps.
Despite the above difference, both types of evaluation start and finish at the same datein an accreditation cycle and share almost the same sequences. Sequences of anevaluation for accreditation include the following:

25

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Account registration for Program Representative (PR) and Program Operating
Institution Representative (POIR) in the IABEE Online Evaluation System.
Request for evaluation (or re-evaluation in the case where a GA status is nearly
expired; re-evaluation is not applicable for PA).
Submit Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report
Review and on-site visit planningOn-site visit
Draft evaluation report
30-day response (not applicable in PA)
Final evaluation report
Accreditation decision
Appeal and reconsideration (not applicable in PA)

Detailed steps of evaluation for accreditation are provided in the Rules and Proceduresfor Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA) in Annex D.
The entire evaluation process for accreditation from application, payment, document
submissions, review and reporting, as well as announcement of accreditation decision isundertaken solely through the IABEE Online Evaluation System. The system also
provides and records all communications between representative of a program being
evaluated and its evaluation team chair, as well as between team chair and members ofevaluation team. IABEE Online Evaluation System at a glance is provided in Annex G.

5.5. Evaluation Team
Evaluation of accreditation application is conducted by an evaluation team, which usuallyconsists of 2 academics and 1 practitioner. The team is responsible to review all
documents submitted by an applying program, including its Program Profile, SelfEvaluation Report, and the accompanying evidences. It also conducts on-site visit andproduces evaluation report in which program’s compliance level against all items
required by the Accreditation Criteria and RPEA is measured.
Discipline Chair of the Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) appoints threemembers for an evaluation team, with one of them being the team chair. Selection of themembers shall be based on academic competence, training qualifications, and absenceof potential conflict of interest with the program to be evaluated.
During on-site visit, evaluation team may be accompanied by observers. Observers may
be IABEE evaluators-in-training, IABEE staff members, or other persons approved by
IABEE to observe the visit. Before official designation, applying program will have an
opportunity to express conformity to all appointed evaluation team members, including
the evaluators and observers, in accordance with IABEE policy on conflict of interest.
All IABEE evaluation team members accept and sign the IABEE code of conduct.
Requirements to become program evaluator and evaluation team chair, as well as26

evaluator’s ethic and code of conduct is described in Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC) document in Annex E.
IABEE Secretariat conducts feedback surveys to evaluate the performance of evaluationteam and other aspects related to IABEE accreditation system and its implementation.

5.6. Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report
Program evaluation for accreditation is conducted based, in part, on the two documents
submitted to IABEE Online Evaluation System. These documents are Program Profile
and Program Self-Evaluation Report (SER).
Program Profile template is available for download from IABEE website. Meanwhile, SER
template is coded in the Online Evaluation System in a spreadsheet form and can be
downloaded through Program Representative’s registered account, worked on, anduploaded back to the online system.
SER template is structured in a way that expects the program to deliberate how it
complies to each criterion and review item, and to enclose, or to provide links to, proofsof the compliance. The proofs or evidences of the compliance are to be gatheredsystematically in PDF format and uploaded as attachments to the SER. IABEE Online
Evaluation System allows a program to attach 6 files sizing 30 Mbytes each toaccompany Program Profile and SER submission.
Annex F provides the template of Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report worksheet.

5.7. Ethics and Code of Conduct
IABEE demands that all personnel involved in carrying out the mission of IABEE
demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism, honesty and integrity. The
services provided by IABEE demand impartiality, justice and equality, so that every
person must carry out their duties with the highest standards of ethical behavior.
The types of services provided by IABEE are vulnerable to conflicts of interest that canaffect the objectivity of the accreditation process, and thus the credibility of IABEE.
Therefore, IABEE expects that all personnel involved in IABEE activities to hold strong
ethical principles and professionalism to avoid potential conflicts of interest as much as
possible so as to guarantee objectivity of services.
IABEE upholds ethics in conducting all activities of its members and organizing staff, andrequires that they exhibit highest standards in professionalism, fairness, and integrity.
Information disclosed by programs undergoing evaluation, and information generated byreview and discussion activities during the evaluation process shall be treated withconfidentiality and shall not be divulged without specific written authorization by IABEE
and the program being evaluated.
For more information regarding the ethics and code of conduct, please refer to Annex E.

27

5.8. Accreditation Decisions
In evaluation for General Accreditation, the degree of program compliance to specificAccreditation Criteria item is determined from evaluation results as follows:x Acceptable (abbreviated as ‘A’), which means that the evaluated item complies withthe associated Accreditation Criteria item.
x Concern (abbreviated as ‘C’), which means that the evaluated item complies to theassociated Accreditation Criteria item, but with a possibility of changes in pertinentconditions in the future which may compromise the compliance.
x Weakness (abbreviated as ‘W’), which means that the evaluated item indicates aninsufficiently strong compliance to the associated Accreditation Criteria item. This
shortcoming requires corrective actions to strengthen the compliance of the specificevaluation item to the appropriate Accreditation Criteria item.
x Deficiency (abbreviated as ‘D’), which means that the Program is unable to comply
with the particular Accreditation Criteria item.
The final “A-C-W-D” scores shall determine the accreditation status given to the program
applying General Accreditation evaluation, as follows:x Accredited. This status implies that the Program meets all criteria and rules as
outlined in the Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA. This accreditation status is valid
for a period of five years5.
x Accredited with Interim Evaluation without Visit. This status implies that the Programindicates unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ category (“W” score). These
shortcomings are such that visit is not deemed necessary to assess future corrective
actions. Validity of the status is two years, after which the Program must undergo an
Interim Evaluation based on desk study.
x Accredited with Interim Evaluation with Visit. This status implies that the Programindicates unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ (“W” score) category. These
shortcomings are such that a visit is deemed necessary to assess future corrective
actions. Validity of the status is also two years, after which the Program must undergo
an Interim Evaluation which includes desk study and on-site visit.
x Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program fails to substantially comply to
IABEE Accreditation Criteria as indicated by unresolved shortcomings in the‘Deficiency’ category (“D” score) and Rules and Procedures for Accreditation and
Evaluation (RPEA).

5 As previously mentioned, in 2016 to 2018 cycles IABEE gave 6-year validity period. Startingfrom 2019 cycle validity period is shorten to 5-year. Also, from 2019 Accredited with Interim
Evaluation (either with or without visit) is valid only for two years, whereas previously may worth
for 3 years.

28Subsequent decision for accreditation status requiring Interim Evaluation, either with orwithout On-Site Visit, shall be taken based on the results of the Interim Evaluation as
follows:x If the Interim Evaluation results indicate program shortcomings of the previous‘Weakness’ category (“W” score) remain unresolved, then the Program receives the“Not Accredited” final status. The Program may apply for new evaluation for General
Accreditation after one evaluation cycle has passed since the last Interim Evaluation.
x If the Interim Evaluation results indicate that the Program has managed to rectify
Accreditation Criteria and RPEA compliance shortcomings in a satisfactory mannersuch that all the criteria and RPEA items are met, then the Accredited with Interim
Evaluation status from the last Evaluation for General Accreditation (EGA) is changed
to Accredited status, with a validity period of five years from the submission of
Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report documents in the last EGA process.
Accreditation decision is decided by the Accreditation Council (AC) after reviewing therecommendation made by Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. In the case where
the decision made by IABEE AC is “Not Accredited”, a program may submit an appeal if
it thinks that the decision is inappropriate. More on this can be found in the RPEA.
In the first 2 years of operation, the government was represented in AC membership only
to make sure that none of the national policies related to evaluation and accreditation ofa program is violated and IABEE process is in line with the policies. From 2018 onwards,
no government representative is given membership in the Accreditation Council. Further
explanation related to AC membership is to be found in the RPARC in Annex E.

5.9. Evaluator Trainings
As previously discussed, evaluator training is very critical in the implementation of IABEE
accreditation system. IABEE understands that evaluators are IABEE’s face seen directly
by programs and institutions. A number of trainings have been conducted since early
establishment phase of IABEE to ensure that sufficient high-quality evaluators areavailable to undertake program evaluation in various engineering discipline. Table 4
below enlists several trainings that have been conducted by IABEE.
Anticipating growing awareness, more recruitment and training series will be conducted
in 2019 onwards. The target is to have 200 evaluators by the time IABEE propose asignatory membership to the Washington Accord.
The design of IABEE candidate evaluator training follows the conceptual diagram as
depicted in Figure 4. A person interested to become program evaluator must first makean application through IABEE Online Training Center website. After a successful
application, he/she is invited to learn about IABEE Accreditation Criteria, RPEA andevaluation process for accreditation through the online training module. Completing themodule, he/she shall subsequently attend the face-to-face training session. EAC shall29

conduct performance evaluation of the candidate and consider him/her to be assigned
as observer (evaluator-in-training) in the evaluation process. Only upon a satisfying
performance as observer, he/she can be appointed as an evaluator in the subsequentaccreditation cycles.
Table 4.

Evaluator trainings conducted in 2016 to 2018

No.

Activity

Place

Year

Trainer

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Training of Trainers
Program Evaluator Training
Training of Trainers
Training of Trainers
In-house Evaluator Training
In-house Evaluator Training
In-house Evaluator Training

Japan
USA
China
Australia
Jakarta, Indonesia
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Bandung, Indonesia

2015 to 20172015 to 2017
2015
2015
2017
2018
2018

JABEE
ABET
CAST
EA
IABEE
IABEE
IABEE

Figure 4.

No. ofparticipants
44
16
3
3
11
35
25

Diagram of candidate evaluator training process

The face-to-face training session is conducted in 2 days, covering simulation ofevaluation process including self-evaluation report review, on-site visit and its planning,interview with program stakeholders, compliance assessment against the Accreditation
Criteria (scoring and writing comments), as well as drafting exit statement. The session
also introduces to the candidate the IABEE Online Evaluation System and how to workwith it throughout the evaluation process. For more information on the training pleaserefer to the Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC) in
Annex E.

30

6. CURRENT STATE OF ACCREDITATION
6.1. List of Accredited Programs
IABEE has thus far conducted three accreditation cycles, starting from 2016 with pilot
evaluation. Evaluation for General Accreditation in the first 2 cycles was conducted on 5
programs, resulting in accredited status for all of them. In 2018 cycle, 28 programs were
evaluated for General Accreditation (GA), resulting in 10 programs accredited, 7
programs accredited with interim evaluation without on-site visit, 10 programs accreditedwith interim evaluation with on-site visit, and 1 program not accredited. Validity period ofaccreditation status for 2018 cycle was still decided according to the previous RPEA, i.e.
6 years for accredited and 2-3 years for accredited with interim evaluation, either with orwithout on-site visit.
Table 5 shows the distribution of accredited programs evaluated in 2016, 2017, and 2018
across fields of discipline. The table also include numbers of programs accredited inProvisional Accreditation (PA). The 24 programs currently provisionally accredited are
expected to apply for General Accreditation evaluation from 2020 onwards.
Table 5.

Distribution of accredited programs by fields of discipline
Type of
Accreditation
GA
PA

Fields of Discipline
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering and similarly named engineering
programs

62

Environmental engineering and similarly named engineering programs

4

2

Ocean engineering and similarly named engineering programs

1

1Agricultural and/or biosystem engineering

1

1

Civil engineering and similarly named engineering programs

4

2

Electrical, computer, communications, telecommunication engineering and similarly
named engineering programs

2

7Engineering physics and similarly named engineering programs

2

1

Geodetic, geomatics engineering

1-

Industrial engineering and similarly named engineering programs

4

5

Materials, metallurgical engineering and similarly named engineering programs

1

2

Mechanical engineering

5

1

Nuclear engineering and similarly named engineering programs

1

-

32

24

Total
Remarks: GA is General Accreditation, while PA is Provisional Accreditation

Table 6 below reports the identity of the accredited programs under General
Accreditation evaluation. All accredited programs are also listed in the IABEE public
website at https://iabee.or.id/.

31

Table 6.

No.

1.

2.

List of Accredited Program in 2016, 2017, and 2018 accreditation cycles under General
Accreditation

Institution
Name
Institut Pertanian
Bogor (Bogor
Agricultural
University)
Universitas Islam
Indonesia

3.

Universitas
Indonesia

4.

Universitas
Indonesia

5.

Universitas Islam
Indonesia

6.

Universitas
Diponegoro

7

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

8
9
10
11
12
13

Institut Teknologi
SepuluhNopemberInstitut Teknologi
Bandung
Universitas
Gadjah Mada
Universitas
Diponegoro
Institut Teknologi
SepuluhNopember
Universitas
Gadjah Mada

14

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

15

Institut Teknologi
SepuluhNopember

16

Universitas
Diponegoro

17

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

Program Name
Teknik Mesin dan
Biosistem (Mechanicaland Biosystem
Engineering)Teknik Sipil (Civil
Engineering)
Teknologi Bioproses(Bioprocess
Engineering)Teknik Kimia(Chemical
Engineering)Teknik Lingkungan(Environmental
Engineering)Teknik Kimia(Chemical
Engineering)Teknik Kimia(Chemical
Engineering)Teknik Kimia(Chemical
Engineering)
Rekayasa Hayati(Bioengineering)Teknik Sipil (Civil
Engineering)Teknik Sipil (Civil
Engineering)Teknik Fisika(Engineering Physics)
Teknik Fisika(Engineering Physics)
Teknik Geologi(GeologicalEngineering)Teknik Lingkungan(Environmental
Engineering)Teknik Lingkungan(Environmental
Engineering)Teknik Geodesi(Geodetic
Engineering)

Discipline
Criteria

Accreditedin

tmb.ipb.ac.id

AgriculturalEngineering

2016

civil.uii.ac.id

Civil
Engineering

2016

che.ui.ac.id

ChemicalEngineering

2017

che.ui.ac.id

ChemicalEngineering

2017

environment.uii.ac.id

Environmental
Engineering

2017

tekim.undip.ac.id

ChemicalEngineering

2018

chemeng.ugm.ac.id

ChemicalEngineering

2018

www.its.ac.id/tkimia/

ChemicalEngineering

2018

Program Website

rh.sith.itb.ac.id
tsipil.ugm.ac.id
sipil.undip.ac.id

ChemicalEngineering
Civil
Engineering
Civil
Engineering

2018
2018
2018

www.its.ac.id/tfisika

Engineering
Physics

2018

tf.ugm.ac.id

Engineering
Physics

2018

geologi.ugm.ac.id

Environmental
Engineering

2018

www.its.ac.id/tlingkungan

Environmental
Engineering

2018

lingkungan.ft.undip.
ac.id

Environmental
Engineering

2018

geodesi.ugm.ac.id

Geodetics
andGeomatics
Engineering

2018

32

No.

Institution
Name

18

Universitas
Diponegoro

19

Universitas
Sebelas Maret

20

Institut Teknologi
SepuluhNopember

21

Universitas
Diponegoro

22

Institut Teknologi
SepuluhNopember

23

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

24

Universitas
Tarumanagara

25

Universitas
Indonesia

26
27

Universitas
Gadjah Mada
Institut Teknologi
SepuluhNopember

28

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

29

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

30

Universitas
Gadjah Mada

31

Universitas Bina
Nusantara

32

Universitas Bina
Nusantara

Program Name
Teknik Industri(Industrial
Engineering)Teknik Industri(Industrial
Engineering)Teknik Material dan
Metalurgi (Material andMetallurgicalEngineering)Teknik Mesin(MechanicalEngineering)Teknik Mesin(MechanicalEngineering)Teknik Mesin(MechanicalEngineering)Teknik Mesin(MechanicalEngineering)Teknik Mesin(MechanicalEngineering)Teknik Nuklir (Nuclear
Engineering)Teknik Perkapalan(Naval Architecture)
Teknologi Informasi(Information
Technology)
Teknik Elektro(ElectricalEngineering)Teknik Industri(Industrial
Engineering)Teknik Industri(Industrial
Engineering)Teknik Sipil (Civil
Engineering)

Program Website

Discipline
Criteria

Accreditedinindustri.undip.ac.id

Industrial
Engineering

2018

industri.ft.uns.ac.id

Industrial
Engineering

2018

www.its.ac.id/
tmaterial

Material andMetallurgicalEngineering

2018

mesin.undip.ac.id

MechanicalEngineering

2018

www.its.ac.id/tmesin

MechanicalEngineering

2018

dtmi.ft.ugm.ac.id

MechanicalEngineering

2018

ft.untar.ac.id

MechanicalEngineering

2018

mech.eng.ui.ac.id

MechanicalEngineering

2018

tf.ugm.ac.id

NuclearEngineering

2018

www.its.ac.id/tkapal

Ocean
Engineering

2018

www.te.ugm.ac.id

ElectricalEngineering

2018

www.te.ugm.ac.id

ElectricalEngineering

2018

dtmi.ft.ugm.ac.id

Industrial
Engineering

2018

ie.binus.ac.id

Industrial
Engineering

2018

civil-eng.binus.ac.id

Civil
Engineering

2018

6.2. Schedule of Upcoming Evaluations
Evaluation for accreditation in 2019 has been planned by the EAC (see Table 7 for theplanned timetable). An evaluation for accreditation cycle normally covers a period of
twelve calendar months, starting on 1 April of the current year and ending on 31 March33

of the following year. Evaluation process for General Accreditation (EGA) and Provisional
Accreditation (EPA) commences and ends at the same date, although detailed steps ofthe process are different. In 2019 there will be no Interim Evaluation conducted since allaccredited programs in 2016 and 2017 hold 6-year validity of their respective
accreditation status.
Table 7

Planned schedule of upcoming 2019 Accreditation Cycle

Step
no.

Activity

Evaluation
Type*)
EGA, EPA

Period or Completion
Deadline

EGA, EPA

1-15 April

2

Program Representative (PR) & Program
Operating Institution Representative (POIR)
registration
PR & POIR registration verification

3

Application for Program evaluation

EGA, EPA

1-15 April

4

Program eligibility verification

EGA, EPA

1-15 April

5

Evaluation scheduling

EGA, EPA

20 April

6

Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

EGA, EPA

21 April

7

EAC Discipline assignment

EGA, EPA

15-20 April

8

Evaluation Team members selection

EGA, EPA

15-20 April

1

1-15 April

9

Evaluation Team Chair assignment

EGA only

15-20 April

10

Approval of evaluation observers

EGA only

15-20 April

11

Evaluation Team acceptance

EGA, EPA

8 May

12

Final Evaluation Team confirmation

EGA, EPA

8 May

13

Completed Program Profile & SER submission

EGA, EPA

30 June14

Full payment reception

EGA, EPA

1 May

15

Program First Review

EGA, EPA

31 July16

Program Second Review

EGA only

15 August

17

Program First Response

EGA, EPA

15 September

18

Program Third Review

EGA Only

30 September

19

On-Site Visit Planning

EGA, EPA

7 October20

On-Site Visit

EGA, EPA

7 November

21

Exit Meeting

EGA, EPA

7 November

22

Program First Evaluation

EGA

7-14 November

23

Program Second Response

EGA

14 November

24

Program Second Evaluation

EGA

28 November

25

Program Final Response

EGA

28 December

26

Program Final Report

EGA, EPA

15 January

27

EAC Discipline Harmonization

EGA, EPA

31 January

28

EAC Plenary Meeting

EGA, EPA

1 February

29

Accreditation Decision

EGA, EPA

15 March

30

Accreditation Announcement

EGA, EPA

31 March

6.3. Accreditation Target
As mentioned earlier, IABEE accreditation is eligible only to those programs having
accredited with the highest rank (i.e. rank “A”) in the national compulsory accreditation.
As of 2018, MoRTHE notes that there are 2,500 accredited bachelor’s engineering

34

programs in Indonesia. Among these programs, only 222 programs (9%) have achieved
rank “A” and, therefore, are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation. Of these programs,
139 are offered by 24 public institutions while the other 83 by private institutions.
Considering the current and future resources projected to be available, IABEE puts
forward the figures shown in Table 8 as accreditation target. These figures are used in
the mid-term financial plan for 2016 to 2026 period. Figures of 2019 onwards (in italics)
are projections.
Table 8.

Accreditation target as part of IABEE Mid-term financial projection 2016-2026

Type of
Accreditation
Evaluation
New evaluation for
GeneralAccreditation

Number of Program in each Accreditation Cycle
2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2

3

28

22

24

24

24

24

22

22

22

2

3

49

23

23

Re-evaluation for
GeneralAccreditation
Accumulated
Program in
GeneralAccreditation
Evaluation for
Provisional
Accreditation

2

5

32

54

78

102

126

150

172

194

216

6

18

17

17

17

17

15

15

15

15

35

Schedule B1: Criteria for Admission
to Provisional Signatory Status in an
Accord (also required for Admission
to Full Signatory)
1

The accrediting agency has the following
characteristics:a) Is non-governmental;

Report analysis against Rules and Procedures
requirements
Meets
Criteria?
Yes/NoYesb) Is legally incorporated in its homejurisdiction;

Yesc) Is the uncontested accreditation
agency of the engineeringcommunity in the jurisdiction; or, if
circumstances in the jurisdiction
allows multiple accreditation
agencies, the applicant must be theprominent authority in accreditationof programmes;d) Is a statutory or professionallyrecognised authority to accredit
programs satisfying academic
requirements for admission topracticing status (e.g. licensing,registration) in a jurisdiction;Yese) Accredits programmes at institutions
that have legal authority to confer
higher education degrees
qualifications;

Yes

f)

Yes

Has policies to set, approve,
evaluate and execute accreditation
criteria and procedures;g) Is independent of the educational
providers delivering accredited
programmes in its jurisdiction;

Yes

Yes

Evidence provided/Comments

IABEE is an autonomous, not-for-profit
organization under The Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII), which is a NGO of multidisciplinary engineering professionals associationin Indonesia.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the
Directorate General for Student and Learning
Affairs of the Ministry of Education and theInstitution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) to establish
IABEE as an autonomous department within PII
provides the legal basis for IABEE (Annex H).
Being part of PII, which is given the authority by theEngineering Law No. 11/2014 as a representativeof the engineering profession, IABEE is theuncontested agency for voluntary program
accreditation in engineering in Indonesia.

PII is the institution that administers the registrationand licensing for practicing engineers. Graduate ofany national compulsory accredited engineering
program is so far eligible to attend the exam tobecome a professional engineer, as one of therequirements to get registered. Since only
programs with A-rank (the highest rank) of national
compulsory accreditation are eligible for IABEE
General Accreditation, the academic requirementsof IABEE’s accredited program are accordingly
satisfied.
With the enactment of B-rank status from national
compulsory institutional accreditation (by BAN-PT)
as the minimum eligibility criterion for program
implementing institutions to be accredited by
IABEE, this ensures the legal authority of theinstitutions that provide higher education degree
qualifications (Annex D, Section 2.3.1 Eligibility
Requirements for General Accreditation point (1)).
As stated in RPEA (Annex D Section 2.4), Criteria
Committee has produced the Accreditation Criteria,
comprising the Common Criteria and the Discipline
Criteria. Common Criteria are further elaborated by
the Criteria Guide. The Accreditation Criteria
together with the RPEA provide the basis for
program evaluation. As mentioned in the
document of Application for Provisional
Membership of The Washington Accord, Section
2.2 on Organizational Structure, the Criteria
Committee is also responsible of conducting
periodic reviews and revisions of the Accreditation
Criteria based on the input from stakeholders andthe existence of circumstances that require thecriteria to be revised.
The organizational structure of IABEE within the PII(document of Application for Provisional
Membership of The Washington Accord, page9) indicates its independence of the educational
providers. Also, evaluators involved in the processof evaluation must adhere to the ethical principles
stated in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 and policy andh) Has autonomy to make accreditation
decisions independent of
stakeholder influence.

2.

The accrediting agency has an
operational accreditation system with
documented procedures and practices
conforming to the following principles:a) The accreditation criteria andprocedures are documented,
publicized, and applied inaccordance with set policies;

Yes

Yes

b) The system accredits programmes
or coordinated groups of individually
identified programmes;

Yesc) Programme assessors are academic
and industry peer reviewers;

Yesd) There are mechanisms anddocumentation for training the
programme assessors;

Yese) Programme evaluation requires aself-evaluation and site visit;

Yes

f)

Yes

Periodic re-evaluation is required tomaintain accreditation;

procedure to avoid conflict of interest of Section 8.1
and 8.2 of RPARC (Annex E).
Accreditation decisions are fully the autonomy of
the Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC)
and the Accreditation Council (AC). The
independence of EAC is ascertained by applying
the policy and procedure regarding the evaluator
code of ethics and the conflict of interest. The ACon the other hand, although consists ofrepresentatives from academics, professionals andindustry, has a specific role namely ensuring thatthe accreditation process has been carried out
consistently in accordance with the establishedrules and procedures, code of ethics, the principleof confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts ofinterest. The council does not conduct a technicalreview so that it repeats what has been done by
the EAC (Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of RPARC, Annex
E)

The IABEE Accreditation Criteria (Annex C) havebeen documented and publicized on the website(iabee.or.id). Policy and procedures to apply thecriteria have been explained in the Rules andProcedures for Evaluation and Accreditation(RPEA) document (Annex D). RPEA is alsoavailable for download from the website.
IABEE accredits programs, not institution. This is
made clear in the statement written in thePreamble of IABEE Common Criteria and Criteria
Guide (Annex C).
The Rules and Procedures for Accreditationrelated Committees (RPARC) document (Annex E)
explains in Section 3 on Pool of Program
Evaluators that the evaluation team consists ofacademic and industrial practitioner. It further
details the requirements for program evaluatorcandidates.
The document of Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC)(Annex E) explains the mechanism of evaluator(assessor) training (Section 6), which includes
Awareness Training, Modular Online Training,
Face-to-Face Training, and Observation in Actual
On-Site Visit.
The Rules and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) document (Annex D)
explains the requirement for Program to submit
Self-Evaluation Report (Section 2.5.2) and whensuch a document is to be submitted (Section 2.5.4,
Table 1, Activity 14). Section 2.5.4 in Table 1 also
explains about On-Site Visit Planning and On-Site
Visit (Activity 19 and 20), which is further explainedin EGA-19 and EGA-20 (pp. 15 to 16). Policies on
conducting On-Site Visit are explained in section
2.9 (pp. 29-30).
The RPEA document (Annex D) explains thevalidity period of “Accredited” status of General
Accreditation, which is 5 years, and “Accreditedwith Interim Evaluation” either with or without visit,
which is 2 years (Section 2.6.1 Decisions in
Evaluation for General Accreditation). To maintainaccreditation, Program shall submit re-evaluation
with respect to the above validity periods.

g) Individual program evaluation isconducted in confidence;Yesh) Mechanisms for addressing conflictof interest at all stages of theprocess exist;

Yes

i)

Yes

j)

3.

A list of accredited programmes ispublished;
An appeal process exists.

Yes

The accreditation agency’s criteria for
accreditation include requirements for:a) Programme outcomes that areconsistent with the purpose of the
programme. Note: Programmeoutcomes in item 3a are notexpected to conform fully to the
Graduate Attribute exemplars at thisstage.

Yesb) A curriculum providing a broad basis
for engineering practice;Yesc) A suitable environment to deliver the
programme;

Yes

The Rules and Procedures for Accreditationrelated Committees (RPARC) document (Annex E)
in Section 9 explains the confidentiality policies andprocedures to ensure that individual program
evaluation is conducted in confidence.
The Rules and Procedures for Accreditationrelated Committees (RPARC) document (Annex E)
in Section 8 explains the conflict-of-interest (COI)
policies and procedures to ensure that evaluation
process at all stages is free of COI.
All programs accredited by IABEE are listed andpublished in IABEE website (iabee.or.id).
The RPEA document (Annex D) explains about
appeal procedure against “Not-Accredited”
decision (Section 2.8.2). Further, the RPARC
document (Annex E) explains about Appeal Board
and Appeal Committee (Section 5).
References for this section forward are the IABEE
Accreditation Criteria (Annex C) which consist ofCommon Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline
Criteria.
Criterion 1 on Orientation of the Graduate
Competence states that Program shall define theprofile of graduates to be envisaged as
autonomous professionals by considering country’s
potential resources, cultures, needs and interests.
Further, it states that Program shall establish its
own expected learning outcomes which consist ofabilities to utilize knowledge, skills, resources andattitudes as described in the (a) to (j) items and any
additional requirement in its Discipline Criteria (ifany) to be acquired by the student at the time ofcompletion of the study. The (a) to (j) items arelearning outcomes criteria developed by IABEE
referring to the Graduate Attribute exemplars.
Criterion 2.1 on Curriculum asks Program toensure that the curriculum includes proportionallysubject areas of mathematics and disciplinespecific natural sciences, discipline-specificengineering science and technology, informationand communication technology, engineering
design and problem-based experiments, as well as
general education [Article (1)]. It also asks
Program to consider inputs from Program’s
stakeholders in the process of curriculum
development [Article (2)]. It further asks Programthat the curriculum shall indicate the structural
relationship and contributions of the subject
courses to fulfill learning outcomes. Procedures,
including syllabus, shall be established anddocumented so that the expected learning process
can be implemented in a controlled way [(Article(3)]. Lastly, the criterion on curriculum asks theprovision of exposure for the students toengineering practices and major design projectexperience using engineering standards andmultiple realistic constraints based on knowledge
and skills acquired in preceding course work[(Article (4)].
Criterion 2.3 on Students and Academic
Atmosphere, in article (3) asks Program to create
and maintain good academic atmosphereconducive to successful learning. Further in
Criterion 2.3.4 on Facility, Program is asked toensure the availability and accessibility of facilities
for effective functioning of the learning process andattainment of the learning outcomes.

d) Adequate leadership for the
programme;

Yese) Suitably qualified engineering
practitioners teaching in the
programme;

Yes

f)

Yes

Appropriate entry and progression
standards; andg) Adequate human, physical andfinancial resources for the
programme.

Yes

Criterion 2.5 on Institutional Responsibility asks
Program to define and manage the process for theprovision of the educational service, including
education design, curriculum development anddelivery, and assessment of learning. Criteria
Guide of this article further asks Program todescribe its governance and its adequacy toensure the quality and continuity of the programand how the leadership is involved in decisions that
affect the program.
Criterion 2.2 on Faculty demands Program toprovide necessary number, qualification andcompetence of faculty members for performing
learning process, including planning, delivering,evaluating, and continually improving its
effectiveness in order to achieve the learning
outcomes. Further, each Discipline Criteria would
normally address more specific requirements on
the qualification of faculty teaching in the Program.
Criterion 2.3 on Students and Academic
Atmosphere asks Program to define andimplement an entry standard for both new andtransfer students, as well as transfer of credits.
Also, the criterion asks Program to define andimplement ongoing monitoring of student progressand evaluation of student performance. Proceduresof quality assurance shall be established to ensurethat adequacy of standards is achieved in allassessments.
Adequacy of physical resources is addressed inCriterion 2.4 on Facility. Meanwhile, humanresources adequacy is addressed in Criterion 2.2
on Faculty. Financial resource adequacy isaddressed in Criterion 2.5 on Institutional
Responsibility.

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX ANOMINATION LETTERSAPPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEE͹ǡʹͲͳͻ
 

ͳʹʹͶͳ͸ͳͶͶ
ǡ   ȋ Ȍ ǤǤǡǡ 
  ȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ
 Ǥ
 ǤǯǤ   ͳ    
  Ǥ ǯ 
  Ǥ    Ǥǡ  Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Report to ABET on
Readiness for Provisional Status in the Washington Accord of theIndonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Submitted by Stu Zweben
October 23, 2018
Introduction
The Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) has requested that ABET
nominate them for provisional status to the Washington Accord. I was asked to assess IABEE’s
readiness for provisional status. This report is a summary of that assessment. It is based onmaterials obtained from IABEE’s website (https://iabee.or.id/en/) and from the IABEE
secretariat, and on a visit to Indonesia that involved meeting in Jakarta with IABEE executives
and observing an IABEE evaluation visit to Gadjah Mada University (UGM) in Yogyakarta. The
meetings in Indonesia also were attended by experts from the Japan Accreditation Board forEngineering Education (JABEE), who is mentoring IABEE and is being asked to be the othernominator of IABEE’s provisional status. JABEE provided logistics support for travel and otheradministrative functions to facilitate my visit.
Assessment
The assessment is organized in accordance with the International Engineering Alliance’s
Criteria for Admission to Provisional Signatory Status in an Accord, as outlined in Schedule B1of the Accord Rules of Procedure.
1. The accrediting agency has the following characteristics:a) Is non-governmental;
There is a Memorandum of Understanding among IABEE, the Indonesian
Ministry of Education Directorate General for Student and Learning Affairs(DIKTI) and the Indonesian Engineers Institution (PII) that made IABEE an
autonomous, not-for-profit organization under PII. PII functions as an umbrella
professional organization for engineers in Indonesia.
b) Is legally incorporated in its home jurisdiction;
It appears that the above-mentioned MOU provides this legal basis.
c) Is the uncontested accreditation agency of the engineering community in thejurisdiction; or, if circumstances in the jurisdiction allows multiple accreditation
agencies, the applicant must be the prominent authority in accreditation ofprogrammes;
The PII is mandated by Indonesian law as the country’s engineering professional
association. This law assigned to PII the task of providing standards forengineering education programs, in collaboration with universities, as well asother activities such as continuing professional education, registration ofengineers, and implementation of a code of ethics. PII members come from bothacademia and industry. It has a variety of chapters, each covering a particularengineering discipline. Since PII and the Indonesian government (through DIKTI)
are signatories to the MOU referenced above, which established IABEE as anautonomous entity under PII, IABEE appears to have authority as theaccreditation agency of the engineering community.
1Indonesia also has a national compulsory accreditation agency known as theBoard of National Accreditation for Higher Education (BAN-PT) that accredits
both institutions and programs, and provides ratings A, B and C (Very Good,
Good, Fair, respectively) for the accreditation. As its name suggests, BAN-PT
does accreditation in virtually all disciplines offered at universities.
IABEE only accepts for eligibility programs from institutions that have received A
or B ratings from BAN-PT. Furthermore, programs applying for generalaccreditation from IABEE (see below) must have had A rating for their program
accreditation from BAN-PT in order to be eligible to apply for IABEE evaluation.
According to IABEE, out of 2,727 total engineering programs in the country, only
220 have BAN-PT rank A.
IABEE also mentioned that there are plans for the BAN-PT evaluations ofengineering programs to cease to exist and to be replaced by a different
compulsory accreditation organization called LAM-PS. A similar situation
apparently already exists in the health area. The plan is for LAM-PS to be a
separate accrediting body within PII that will do compulsory engineering
accreditation. IABEE would continue to do the voluntary accreditation using thehigh standards of eligibility based on the compulsory accreditation.
Those programs that will be candidates for the Washington Accord mutual
recognition will be only those that are accredited by the IABEE process that is thebasis for the Washington Accord application. They would not include otherprograms accredited by BAN-PT or LAM-PS. Thus, even in future years, theaccreditation by IABEE is expected to carry prominence with respect toengineering programs in Indonesia.
Since IABEE accreditation is voluntary, its defined scope of accreditation islimited to engineering, technology and computing, it only accepts as applicants
for its accreditation those programs that have high BAN-PT ratings, and its
processes and standards were designed with the intention of being recognizedas substantially equivalent to those in the broad international community, it ispossible to conclude that IABEE accreditation carries prominence with respect tothe accreditation of engineering programs in Indonesia. IABEE’s application forprovisional membership in the Washington Accord should clarify its standing as
the prominent authority in the face of the compulsory program-level accreditation
required in Indonesia.
d) Is a statutory or professionally recognised authority to accredit programs
satisfying academic requirements for admission to practicing status(e.g.licensing, registration) in a jurisdiction;
All persons who carry out engineering practices in Indonesia must have an
Engineering Registration Certificate. One of the requirements for that certificate
is to be a Professional Engineer. Professional Engineer status is administeredthrough PII. The academic requirements for being allowed to sit for the first exam
on the path to Professional Engineer are just graduation from an engineering
program. It does not matter what quality rating the program has from BAN-PT.
Thus, the accreditation from IABEE exceeds the academic requirements of PII
for admission to practicing status.

2e) Accredits programmes at institutions that have legal authority to confer higher
education degrees qualifications;
All institutions whose programs are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation musthave at least a B-accreditation rating (i.e., Good or Very Good) from Indonesia’s
compulsory institutional accrediting agency BAN-PT. Re-evaluations of an
institution’s accreditation take place every 5 years.
f) Has policies to set, approve, evaluate and execute accreditation criteria andprocedures;
IABEE’s Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) was responsible fordeveloping its Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA),
evaluation instruments, and an online evaluation system. The EAC also
developed and conducts training programs for the program evaluators. The
Common Criteria are developed by IABEE’s Criteria Committee. Discipline
Criteria are developed by Chapters of the PII and other leading engineeringsocieties (e.g., there is such a society in electrical engineering). Evaluations
provide the degree of compliance with each criterion, rated as Acceptable,
Concern, Weakness or Deficiency. The definitions of these terms is similar to thelike terms used by ABET.
g) Is independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programmes
in its jurisdiction;
The autonomy of IABEE through the above-referenced MOU, and its
organizational structure within the Indonesian Engineers Institution (PII) appears
to give IABEE independence of the educational providers. Evaluators represent
IABEE in their evaluations; they don’t represent their educational institutions.
h) Has autonomy to make accreditation decisions independent of stakeholder
influence.
Although persons involved in evaluations and decision making come fromindustry and academic institutions, program evaluators are required to behave
ethically and professionally by upholding a Code of Ethics (sometimes called
Code of Conduct) for Evaluators and avoiding conflicts of interest. The RPEA
indicates that the Code of Ethics is available on the IABEE website; however, it
was not available on the website, but was provided in the form of a powerpoint
document that included the roles of evaluators, conflict of interest policy andcode of ethics. This material should be posted publicly so that it is consistent withthe reference in the RPEA, and the name of the Code should be consistently
used in references.
IABEE receives fees for its accreditation services from the programs applying foraccreditation, as well as annual maintenance fees from those programs that are
accredited.
During startup, IABEE’s offices are housed in space provided in Ministry building,but a new building is being built for PII that is expected to provide space in about
2 years. The Ministry apparently also currently provides some incentive funding
to programs, on a competitive basis, for seeking accreditation by IABEE,
although no funding goes to IABEE. Not all programs that apply for IABEE
accreditation receive this funding; only half did in 2018. It is not known how long
this funding opportunity is likely to continue.
Japan’s International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has been providing startup
assistance to IABEE since its inception, and this support continues through 2019.
3

This includes the international accreditation expertise of key personnel from
JABEE and administrative support for this mentorship.
All accreditation evaluations and accreditation decisions are made by IABEE.
Initial accreditation actions are recommended by the evaluation teams and final
actions are recommended by the EAC after the review and a harmonization
process to help ensure consistency of application of the criteria. The EAC’s
recommended actions are then given to IABEE’s Accreditation Council for
ratification. The Accreditation Council’s role appears to be one of process review
to ensure that appropriate processes were followed in the conduct of theevaluation. There does not appear to be any undue influence on the process ofevaluation and recommendation of final action. The most recent Accreditation
Council membership, however, included the Director General of Institution,
Science, Technology and Higher Education, the Chairman of BAN-PT, and the
JICA Advisor, as well as one person from PII.
The application for provisional membership in the Washington Accord should
clarify any support it receives from the Indonesian Ministry of Education and any
influence the Ministry has on its accreditation decisions given the constituency of
the Accreditation Council. The application also should delineate the plan for
independence from any continued support from JICA/JABEE, so that IABEE canfunction as a financially independent entity.
2. The accrediting agency has an operational accreditation system with documented
procedures and practices conforming to the following principles:a) The accreditation criteria and procedures are documented, publicized, andapplied in accordance with set policies;
The IABEE website contains its Rules and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) as well as the accreditation criteria. There are Common
Criteria that apply to all engineering programs, which are further elaborated in a
Criteria Guide also published on the website. Discipline Criteria address
requirements specific an engineering discipline, and also are published on thewebsite. The applicable criteria in a program’s evaluation are those in the
Common Criteria as elaborated in the Criteria Guide, and the appropriate
Discipline Criteria (if any).
b) The system accredits programmes or coordinated groups of individually
identified programmes;
IABEE’s scope is accreditation of individual undergraduate engineering,
technology and computing programs at the four-year Bachelor’s level that have aminimum of 144 semester credit units. To date IABEE has focused only on
accreditation of engineering programs, although accreditation in computing is
beginning in 2018.
Two categories of accreditation are offered: General Accreditation andProvisional Accreditation. General Accreditation requires that the program has
implemented an outcome-based education system and has produced graduatesby the time of the evaluation process. Provisional Accreditation also requires thatthe program has implemented an outcomes-based education system and that atleast the first year students have completed learning within that system. Only
programs accredited under General Accreditation would be relevant to the4Washington Accord. The IABEE website clearly distinguishes the two sets ofprograms.
To date, IABEE has accredited five engineering programs at three institutions for
General Accreditation and six programs at three institutions for Provisional
Accreditation. No re-evaluations have yet taken place, and all of the programs
accredited under General Accreditation previously had been accredited by otherinternational accreditors based on criteria related to outcomes-based education.
IABEE’s goal is to have 25 accredited programs by the time it applies forprovisional membership in the Washington Accord, which is anticipated in 2019.
There are 28 programs undergoing evaluation for General Accreditation, and 17
for Provisional Accreditation, in 2018.
c) Programme assessors are academic and industry peer reviewers;
All PEVs must be members of PII, and must be certified as either professional
educators or professional engineers. IABEE reports a pool of 86 program
evaluators, 12 of whom are from industry. Each evaluation team for the General
Evaluation of a program consists of a team chair and two program evaluators.
There also often are observers to the program evaluation, especially since new
PEVs must observe an on-site evaluation as part of their training. The team chairand observers are appointed by the EAC Chair, while the appropriate EAC
Discipline Chair assigns PEVs. A single overall Team Chair is assigned when
multiple programs are being evaluated at the same institution. A Provisional
Evaluation of a program is done by a single EAC-assigned program evaluator.
d) There are mechanisms and documentation for training the programme
assessors;
IABEE reports organizing 3 training seminars from 2017-2018 at which 70
evaluators were trained. A total of 66 trainers were themselves trained by JABEE(44), ABET PEVC Training (16), CAST (3) or Engineering Australia (3). All PEV
candidates undergo a modular online training (which includes tests forunderstanding), facilitated 2-day face-to-face training, and observe an on-site
visit. Observers are asked to provide judgment to the team and may conduct
some interviews if the team chair approves. Refresher training (one-half day)also is given to evaluators who are selected for assignments during a given year.
Each PEV is evaluated according to competency criteria after training and after
each assigned evaluation. At present, there does not appear to be any special
training for team chairs other than experience as evaluators and positive
feedback from evaluations.
e) Programme evaluation requires a self-evaluation and site visit;
All candidate programs must complete a Program Profile and Self Evaluation
Report. This report is reviewed and is used in an on-site visit by the IABEE
evaluation team. Each of the criteria is examined by the team and is evaluatedusing the A, C, W, D ratings mentioned earlier. An on-line system supports theevaluation process broadly, including the submittal of the self-evaluation, itsreview by the team, interaction among team members prior to the on-site visit
and interaction between the team chair and the program to clarify information in
the self-evaluation, the on-site evaluation of each criterion, and production of theexit statement read to the program and the institution leadership. There is a 30day due process period during which the program can provide information on
additional actions taken to satisfy shortcomings reported at the on-site
evaluation. This also is supported by the on-line system. Finally, there is“harmonization” of application of the criteria over all of the programs evaluated in5

a given cycle prior to final action recommended by the EAC for ratification by the
Accreditation Council. The harmonization of the Common Criteria takes place by
the EAC and the harmonization of the Discipline Criteria is done by each
Discipline Chair.
The implementation of the process on-site was similar to that done by ABET.
There is an initial get-together the evening before the team goes to campus, atwhich each team is briefed by the overall team chair on the logistics andexpectations (such as confidentiality) of the teams. The individual teams thenhad brief conversations about their particular programs so that everyone on theteam had an understanding of those elements of the criteria that were in question
going into the next day’s evaluation (the teams already had on-line interaction
about their preliminary evaluation prior to coming to campus). There were two fulldays on campus for information gathering, beginning with the Dean of the Facultyof Engineering providing an overview of the institution and the Faculty ofEngineering to the entire group of evaluation teams, and followed by theindividual teams interviewing the program’s faculty, students, support staff, andsome alumni and employers and touring the program’s facilities. One of thesenior evaluators from the group was assigned to interview members of various
offices that provide institution-level support for students, assessment, etc. Eachevening, the teams re-combined in a joint session to report on findings, Theevening meeting between the first two days also included a report from theevaluator who interviewed administrative offices that provided support to all
programs, and included discussion to help harmonize interpretation of similar
observations by different programs, as well as providing advice for what
additional information might help solidify the evaluation of criteria that appeared
to have shortcomings. The final evening meeting included further discussion toharmonize interpretation of the criteria, and a read-out of the draft statementsthat would be read to the program and institution the following morning.
Until this year, the programs evaluated by IABEE for General Accreditation did
not appear to have any significant shortcomings. All were accredited for the
maximum period of six years (this maximum period is to be reduced to five years
effective in 2019 to better dovetail with the five-year re-evaluation required for
BAN-PT accreditations). This likely is related to their having been evaluated andaccredited previously by other international accrediting bodies. This year,
however, the situation is different. The six programs collectively had
shortcomings at all levels. An impending deficiency in one of the programs wasfollowed up with the Vice Dean of the Faculty of Engineering the next morning, toprovide an opportunity for the team to get additional information and perspectivethat would enable a fair evaluation of the issue prior to the team having to makeits final decision. The matter was handled sensitively by the team during thatmeeting, which I observed.
Some of the team chairs had responsibilities for more than one program, whichmeant that they could not be present for all interviews in either of the programs.
Many evaluators also were doing multiple visits during the year’s cycles (the 28
evaluations were split into two evaluation cycles, each of which has a due
process and EAC overall evaluation meeting). This increased workload on thevolunteers likely is a consequence of the rapid ramp-up in the number ofprograms being evaluated from the previous years, and the fact that the training
6

of new PEV candidates requires observing an on-site evaluation. The on-line
system afforded communication to keep the team chairs up to speed, and all of
the interviews that I observed were performed competently, but this doesn’t
appear to be an ideal situation. With many new PEV candidates observing visits
this year, the pool of evaluators available to be PEVs on future cycle visits should
be increased and hopefully will preclude the necessity of this demanding
schedule in future years. It would be helpful if the application commented on theavailability of a sufficient pool of evaluators to accommodate growth.
f) Periodic re-evaluation is required to maintain accreditation;
The maximum period of General Accreditation before a re-evaluation is requiredis stated as 5 years in the RPEA (as noted earlier, the accreditation periods for
General Accreditation were 6 years for those accredited prior to 2018, but this isbeing modified to conform with the 5-year period of institutional accreditation by
BAN-PT). The maximum period of accreditation is granted when the program has
no deficiencies or weaknesses. The re-evaluation is a General Accreditation
evaluation that examines all elements of the criteria. When a General Evaluation
results in a weakness but no deficiency, accreditation is granted for a shorter
period, after which an Interim Evaluation (through either a report review or an onsite evaluation) is required. The RPEA says that this shorter period is “notexceeding three years”. It is not clear on what basis the possibly varying numberof years is decided. This should be be clarified in IABEE documents, taking into
account the implication on an institution’s evaluation schedules of giving different
programs at the same institution differing number of years of accreditation wheneach of them has only weaknesses but no deficiencies.
An Interim Evaluation is focused on the shortcomings reported during theGeneral Accreditation Evaluation. If suitable actions have been taken to address
the shortcomings, accreditation is extended to the next General Evaluation. If theinterim evaluation fails to meet criteria requirements, the accreditation status isterminated, according to the RPEA. This can be because there is a deficiency ora weakness observed, whether or not these are associated with the previously
identified weaknesses. The program must then apply for a new General
Evaluation, after at least two cycles have passed since the interim evaluation.
The description of the Interim Evaluation in the RPEA was at odds with a flow
diagram presented by IABEE that purported to capture the possible outcomes ofan accreditation evaluation. The flow diagram suggested that only a weakness
that was present at two consecutive reviews resulted in a not-accredited decisionin the Interim Evaluation. The flow diagram also suggested that a not-accredited
action required more than one deficiency when a currently accredited program
undergoes a subsequent General Evaluation, while a single deficiency results in
an Interim Evaluation. Such possibilities are not present in the RPEA.
These inconsistencies need to be corrected. The possible decisions should apply
the concepts of weakness and deficiency in a consistent, defensible manner.
Provisional Accreditation is granted when an evaluation determines the
POTENTIAL of the program to meet all of the requirements of the accreditation
criteria. Provisional Accreditation is available only to new applicants, and is
granted for a period of 4 years (based on the IABEE website statement on the“accreditation evaluation and decision” page) after which the program must7

demonstrate that it meets all requirements for General Accreditation (through thenormal General Accreditation Process) or else the accreditation is terminated.
The RPEA states that a program granted Provisional Accreditation is “deemed
potentially capable of meeting all criteria within a period of not exceeding three
years.” The apparent discrepancy between this RPEA statement and the four
year validity period on the website’s “accreditation evaluation and decision” pageshould be clarified and corrected as necessary.
A program is given only one opportunity to apply for Provisional Accreditation.
Though feedback is given to the program on the extent to which each element of
the criteria used in a General Evaluation are met, the decision on Provisional
Accreditation appears to be based largely on whether or not the program has afunctioning outcomes-based education and assessment system, even if it is onlyin place for one year.
g) Individual program evaluation is conducted in confidence;
The RPEA has a statement of confidentiality concerning the information
generated and discussed as part of an evaluation. All evaluators are expected toadhere to this. IABEE does not disclose programs that receive a not-accredited
action.
h) Mechanisms for addressing conflict of interest at all stages of the process
exist;The RPEA has a statement about avoiding conflicts of interest. The RPEA
indicates that PEVs are assigned to avoid potential COI situations, and theprogram reviews and approves the assigned team; if there is a COI identified, theprogram is not expected to approve the person in question.
There is some detail about COI policies in the IABEE Code of Ethics. As
mentioned earlier in this report, the material in the Code of Ethics needs to be put
into a suitable publicly available document posted on the IABEE website. The
document would be strengthened if it further delineated situations that can cause
COIs, and contained a procedure to be followed if there is an allegation thatsomeone has violated the Code of Ethics.
i) A list of accredited programmes is published;
The IABEE website contains the list of programs that have been accredited either
by General Accreditation or Provisional Accreditation. The length of accreditation
is not published.
j) An appeal process exists.
Only not-accredited actions may be appealed. The organizational structure of
IABEE provides for an Appeal Board under the IABEE Executive Committee (thegroup that sets overall direction for IABEE). However, the RPEA indicates thatthe appeal is made to the EAC (the body that previously made the accreditation
action recommendation), and that it is reviewed by the Accreditation Council (thebody that took the final action on that recommendation). The RPEA doesn’t
explicitly state who makes the final decision about the appeal.
This process description should be strengthened. The process should maintainappropriate independence of those involved in the appeal decision from those
who were involved in the original accreditation action decision, while providing
those involved in the appeal decision with the necessary information from boththe program and those involved in the original decision.
8

3. The accreditation agency’s criteria for accreditation include requirements for:a) Programme outcomes that are consistent with the purpose of the programme
Programs eligible for General Accreditation must have implemented an outcomebased curriculum for at least three years, and programs eligible for Provisional
Accreditation must have done so for at least one year. Programs must define andpublish an “autonomous professional profile” that appears to be akin to ABET’s
PEOs. Programs also must establish Learning Outcomes based on this profile,which are the basis for the preparation of its curriculum and learning methods.
The Learning Outcomes must cover all competencies expected of graduates ofthe program that are part of the “Common Criteria” (those applicable to programsfrom all engineering disciplines). These consist of abilities generally consistent
with the IEA Graduate Attributes WA1-12. IABEE has offered a mapping of theoutcomes in its criteria to these IEA Graduate Attributes. Discipline-specificcriteria may further refine the methods, skills and modern engineering tools
appropriate for practice in that discipline. Discipline-specific criteria exist for 13
engineering disciplines.
The Learning Outcomes are expected to be assessed periodically based on“established performance indicators” using “appropriate methods”. The programis expected to ensure that “graduates of the program achieve all of the expected
learning outcomes.” The assessment results are expected to be used “to improvethe effectiveness of the educational process, the suitability of the learning
outcomes related to the needs of stakeholders, and resources.” Documentationof the assessment and follow-up implementation also is expected.
b) A curriculum providing a broad basis for engineering practice;
The Common Criteria require a “structural relationship” of the courses to theoutcomes. They require students to be “exposed to engineering practices” andhave a “major design experience using engineering standards and multiple
realistic constraints based on knowledge and skills acquired in preceding course
work”. Discipline-specific criteria may refine the engineering science andtechnology requirements appropriate for that discipline. The curriculum isrequired to include mathematics and discipline-specific natural sciences,discipline-specific engineering design and technology, information andcommunication technology, engineering design and problem based experiments,
and general education.
c) A suitable environment to deliver the programme;
The Common Criteria require creation and maintenance of a “good academic
atmosphere conducive to successful learning” and also require “availability andaccessibility of facilities for effective functioning of the learning process andattainment of the learning outcomes.” This includes academic counseling andadvising, and effective facilities including classrooms, labs and associatedequipment.
d) Adequate leadership for the programme;
The Common Criteria require that the program shall “define and manage theprocess for the provision of the educational service, including education design,
curriculum development and delivery, and assessment of learning.” The Criteria
Guide further elaborates on this to say that the program “shall describe thegovernance of the program and its adequacy to ensure the quality and continuityof the program and how the leadership is involved in decisions that affect the
program.”9e) Suitably qualified engineering practitioners teaching in the programme;
The Common Criteria require that the program have the “necessary number,qualification, and competence of faculty members for performing learning
process, including planning, delivering, evaluating, and continually improving its
effectiveness in order to achieve the learning outcomes”. Discipline-specificcriteria may refine this as appropriate.
f) Appropriate entry and progression standards;
The Common Criteria require that the program “implement an entry standard forboth new and transfer students, as well as the transfer of credits”, that it “define
and implement an ongoing monitoring of student performance, and progress andevaluation of student performance”, that “an effective assessment process oflearning outcomes based on established performance indicators is implemented
and maintained at planned intervals using appropriate methods”, and thatappropriate procedures are established “to ensure that adequacy of standards isachieved in all assessments.” The Common Criteria also require that the
program “ensure that graduates of the program achieve all expected learning
outcomes.”g) Adequate human, physical and financial resources for the programme.
In addition to the aforementioned criteria about faculty and facilities, the Common
Criteria require that the institution “make efforts to establish resource, supporting
service and cooperation with stakeholders on research, education and/or service
to community with due consideration to existing local resources.”
Summary
For an organization that was formed in 2015 and for which initial planning only began in 2013,
IABEE has progressed well. The basic elements appear to be in place and functioning. It isclear that JABEE was very hands-on in its mentorship of IABEE, and they have provided a very
good foundation for IABEE’s success as a potential signatory of the Washington Accord.
The following elements appear to need attention and/or careful explanation to ensure successof the application for Provisional Membership in the Accord.
x
x

x
x
x

Clarify IABEE’s standing as the “prominent authority on accreditation of engineering
programs in Indonesia in the face of compulsory program-level accreditation ofengineering programs by another organization.
Ensure that the Conflict of Interest policy and Code of Ethics for Evaluators is publicly
available on the IABEE website, and its title and location are consistent with thereferences in the RPEA and elsewhere on the website. Consider strengthening thismaterial by further delineating situations that can cause conflicts of interest, and byincluding a procedure to be followed when there is an allegation of a violation of theCode of Ethics.
Clarify any support IABEE receives from the Indonesian Ministry of Education and any
influence the Ministry may appear to have on accreditation decisions given theconstituency of IABEE’s Accreditation Council.
Delineate the plan for independence from continued support by JICA/JABEE so that
IABEE can function as a financially independent entity.
Comment on how IABEE will ensure the availability of an adequate pool of evaluators in
the face of rapid growth.

10

x

x

x
x

Clarify the basis for possible differing lengths of accreditation (i.e., “not exceeding three
years”) when there are one or more weaknesses but no deficiency in the evaluation. The
decision-making process should consider the effect on an institution’s accreditation
schedules if different programs at the institution receive different number of years ofaccreditation before their Interim Evaluation.
Correct inconsistencies between the RPEA and flow diagram in the explanation of thedecisions that can be made in an Interim Evaluation when deficiencies and/or
weaknesses are present, particularly as they affect possible termination of accreditation.
Ensure that these decisions consistently apply the concepts of weakness and deficiency
as defined by IABEE.
Further describe the process of appealing “not-accredited” decisions, ensuring that thereis appropriate independence of those involved in the appeal decision from those
involved in the original accreditation action decision.
Clarify the apparent discrepancy relative to the period of Provisional Accreditation
between the “not exceeding three years” language used in the RPEA and the “fouryears” validity period used in the IABEE website. This may not be as important to the
Washington Accord application, as provisionally accredited programs would not be partof the mutual recognition, but it would be helpful if this timetable was expressedconsistently in the IABEE documents.

Most of these issues were discussed at one time or another during the visit with IABEE and/or
JABEE officials, and each appears solvable. The JABEE officials in fact received a copy of thebullets above prior to my sending this report to ABET. They should be of particular interest when
ABET reviews the draft application for Provisional Membership.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to all personnel associated with the visit to Indonesia, from IABEE,JABEE, and UGM. Everyone was helpful and welcoming. Special thanks to Ms. Akiko
Takahashi, Manager of International Affairs at JABEE, who saw to all of the travel arrangements
for me, and was incredibly responsive to any questions I had. She also was present inIndonesia during my visit. Also special thanks to Dr. Yasuyuki Aoshima of JABEE, Prof. Mizri
Gozan and Dr. Berlian Kushari of IABEE, who collectively provided me with significant
knowledge of the two organizations and their work together. Dr. Kushari also acted as myinterpreter during the evaluation of UGM, and Dr. Gozan was the team chair for the Chemical
Engineering program evaluation that I observed closely and for the overall IABEE evaluationteam doing the UGM on-site visit.
APPENDIX
List of Key Personnel
IABEE

Dr. B. Kushari, Acting General Secretary, also served as interpreter
Prof. M. Gozan, Chair, Executive Committee and TC of UGM evaluation
Prof. M. Romli, Member, Criteria Committee
Dr. A.S. Rochman, Chair, Evaluation and Accreditation Committee

JABEE
11

Dr. Y. Aoshima, Executive Managing Director
Ms. A. Takahashi, Manager of International Affairs
Prof. K. Kishimoto, Observer to UGM visit
UGM

Prof. Ir. Nizam, Dean, Faculty of Engineering

12

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX BCV OF IABEE COMMITTEEMEMBERSAPPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEESHORT CV OF IABEE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMEMBERSMISRI GOZAN
Chair of Executive Commitee
Misri is a professor of chemical engineering. In August 2018,
he’s selected as the Chair of IABEE Executive Committee. He
obtained his Dr.-Ing. degree from Technical University ofDresden, Germany in 2004, and M. Tech. degree from Massey
University, New Zealand. Since 2007, he has been serving asassessor for the National Accreditation Agency for Higher
Education (BAN-PT). He was involved in the preparation of
IABEE establishment in 2014, and the development of IABEE
afterwards. He is a lecturer and researcher at Bioprocess
Engineering Program, Chemical Engineering Department,
Universitas Indonesia. He is also the Director of ResearchCentre for Biomedical Engineering, at Universitas Indonesia. He
has research interests in the field of bioprocess engineering andbiochemical products from biomass. He joined the Institution ofEngineers Indonesia (PII) in 2004 and awarded IPM(Professional Engineer) title in 2014.

MUHAMMAD ROMLI
Executive Committee member andChair of International Committee
Romli is an agroindustrial engineer and professor of the Facultyof Engineering and Technology, Bogor Agricultural University(IPB). He received his master’s degree in biotechnology and
Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of
Queensland, Australia. Romli has been working for Bogor
Agricultural University with more than 30 years lecturingexperience in the areas of industrial pollution control andmanagement, cleaner industrial production, and industrial
ecology. He has served many positions in the university,
including Head Division of Environmental Engineering andManagement (1993-2000), Director of Center for Developmentof Safe Agroindustrial Processes (1997-2000), and Head
Department of Agroindustrial Technology (2000-2008). He is
also an active member of PII, serving as Chair of PII Chapter for
Agroindustry from 2015 to date. Romli has an extensive
experience as auditor in quality assurance of education, quality
and environmental management systems (ISO 9001 and
14001), and as assessor of National Committee of Accreditation
for Research and Development Institution (KNAPPP).

SATRYO SOEMANTRI BRODJONEGORO
Executive Committee member
Emeritus Professor in Mechanical Engineering, Institut
Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Satryo is also the President of theIndonesian Academy of Sciences. He has a long anddistinguished academic and public service career. He was afaculty member of the Mechanical Engineering Department of
ITB than 30 years since 1980. He has served many positions in
ITB including Chairman of the Department (1992-1995) andVice Dean of Academic Affairs (1995-1998). From 1999-2007
Satryo served as Director General of Higher Education of the
Ministry of National Education, Indonesia. He obtained his Ph.D.
in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at
Berkeley in 1985. His research areas include tribology, fracture
mechanics, finite element analysis, mechanical design, andhigher education development and policy. He is a Fellow of theIndonesian Academy of Sciences since 2008. Currently heserves also as visiting professor in mechanical engineering at
Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan. In April 2018 he
was appointed as Special Advisor to Coordinating Minister ofMaritime Affairs, Republic of Indonesia. He was the former
Chair of IABEE Steering Committee in 2015-2016.

SUDJARWADI
Executive Committee member
Chair of Criteria Committee
Sudjarwadi was a civil engineer in construction company in1970 to 1972. In 1974 he returned to his alma mater, Gadjah
Mada University (UGM), to become a lecturer. After 37 years
conducting research and teaching, in 2012 he retired as
professor emeritus of civil engineering. He currently teaches aspart time professor in UGM and Islamic University of Indonesia(UII) at Yogyakarta. He was long and distinguished career, bothin academic and public service. He was an assistant director for
UGM’s Inter University Center for Engineering in 1988-1991. In
1991 he served as Assistant Dean of Faculty of Engineering. In
1994 to 1999 he was appointed as Secretary of Directorate
General of Higher Education. Returning to UGM he served as
the Dean and subsequently the Vice Rector for Academic
Affairs. In 2007 was appointed as the Rector of UGM. Afterretirement, in 2013 he supervises a board for IndonesianInternational Education Foundation and serves as Independent
Commissioner in PT Sri Rejeki Isman Tbk, a textile company
considered as the best integrated textile industry in South East
Asia. He also still assists the Ministry of Research, Technology
and Higher Education as chair of Education Committee.

TJIPTO KUSUMOExecutive Committee member
Chair of Finance Committee
Member of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee
Tjipto graduated from ITB with a degree in Engineering Physics
in 1974. He has an extensive professional experience, startingin Elnusa company where he served as Manager of Instrument& Control Division. He moved to Tripatra Engineering company
and retired from it in 2005, after taking several positions,
including Technical Development Director, Off Shore Projects
Marketing Director, and Operation Senior Director. Later heserved as Advisor for EPC companies and presently he is acommissioner for Java Energy Semesta, a CNG operationcompany. He also has academic related activities, including 6
years as practitioner lecturer for Engineering Physics
Department of ITB. He also a member of Advisory Board of ITB
Engineering Physics Program and Environmental Engineering
Program of Islamic University of Indonesia Yogyakarta. He is
also an active member of PII, where he co-founded PII Chapter
for Engineering Physics in 1997. He was also the Head of the
Chapter and the Head of Certification Committee as well as
Continual Professional Development Committee. His
professional titles as engineer include PII’s IPM (Professional
Engineer), APEC Engineer, as well as ASEAN Engineer

ARIEF SAICHU ROHMAN
Executive Committee member
Chair of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee
Arief obtained his bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineeringfrom Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB). He received M.Eng.Sc.
degree in Systems & Control from the University of New South
Wales. He finished his Ph.D. in the same field in 2005 from the
University of Newcastle, Australia. He worked for the Research& Development Division at PT IPTN, the Indonesian aircraft
industry, in 1990 to 1992. Since 1992 he joined ITB and has
been teaching undergraduate and graduate courses inElectrical Engineering at the School of Electrical Engineering &Informatics. He was the Chair of the Undergraduate Program in
2011-2015 and is currently the Chair of Quality Control Circle inthe school. He joined PII and awarded IPM (Professional
Engineer) title in 2017. He is also an active member of FORTEI(Indonesia Higher Education Forum in Electrical Engineering)where he served as Vice Chair in 2012-2014 and Chair in 20142016). He attended program evaluator training in JABEE Japan
in 2015 and both IDEAL and PEV training in ABET USA in 2017,
respectively. He is a member Control System Society of IEEE.
He joined IABEE in 2015 and recently serves as EAC Chair of
IABEE in 2018.

BERLIAN KUSHARI
Secretary General
International Affairs Committee member
Evaluation and Accreditation Criteria Committee member
Berlian is a civil engineer by training. He received bachelor’s
engineering degree from Gadjah Mada University in 2001 andmaster’s degree (M. Eng.) from Chulalongkorn University,
Thailand, in 2005. He has been serving as a consultant toMinistry of Public Works, Directorate General of Highway
Administration in various road safety and pavement
management projects. He was also involved in the developmentof recent provincial and national transportation systems
planning conducted by the Ministry of Transportation. He serves
as associate professor for the Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Planning of the Islamic University of Indonesia. He is an active
member of the Indonesian Inter-University Transportation
Studies Forum, where he served as its First Secretary in 20162018. He is also a member of Indonesian Transportation
Society (MTI) and Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies (EASTS). In 2015, Berlian joined IABEE as a member
of its Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. He received
training as a program evaluator in Japan (by JABEE) and in the
USA (by ABET) in 2015 and 2017, respectively. In November
2018, he was appointed to serve as IABEE Secretary-General
after 3 months serving the position as acting-official.

NANANG UNTUNG
Executive Committee member
Nanang graduated from the Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)
with a degree in Chemical Engineering in 1982. He has anextensive experience in LNG and gas business, including inArun LNG, Natuna Project, Badak LNG, Donggi Senoro Project
and Pertamina as professional engineer and serving
managerial positions. He has experience of serving several
executive positions, including COO of PT Badak LNG, SVP of
Gas Pertamina, CEO of PT Badak LNG, CEO of Badak Arun
Solusi and currently works as Fellow Consultant at PT Rinder
Energia. His is also an active member of PII, where he served
as Chairman of Chemical Engineering Chapter in 2010 to 2017.
Also, he is a member of Engineering Ethical Council of PII. In
engineering education, he becomes a member of the advisoryboard for ITB Chemical Engineering Department. He is currently
a member of IABEE Executive Committee.

HERU DEWANTO
Executive Committee member
Heru is the current President of Indonesia Institute of Engineers(PII). He is a civil engineer by training. He received bachelor’s
degree in civil engineering from Gadjah Mada University (UGM),
M.Sc.Eng. degree in transport planning and engineering fromthe University of Leeds, and doctoral degree in strategic
management from Graduate School of Economics of the
University of Indonesia (UI). He also holds Senior Professional
Engineer (IPU) title from PII. He has more than 21 years ofexperiences in infrastructure investment and businessdevelopment, ranging from power, toll roads, railways, lightrapid transit, waste water treatment, clean water supply,
terminals to housing in various global corporations and national
enterprises. He is currently the President Director of PT.
Cirebon Energi Prasarana, an independent power producer for
1x1000 MW ultra-supercritical clean coal taechnology to be
firstly applied in Indonesia. Prior to serving PII as president, he
was PII Vice President in 2015-2018.

FAIZAL SAFA
Executive Committee member
Faizal is the Chairman of Immara Infoglobal, a national
management consultant company headquatered in Jakarta. He
is an industrial engineer by training, a professional engineer,
and active member of PII. He has been serving PII in various
positions, including Vice Chair for Continuous Professional
Development committee, member for Industrial Company
Development task-force under the PII Chapter for Industrial
Engineers, and the most recent appointment as PII Executive
Director. He is also the chair of Industrial Management andEngineering Graduates Association.

TRESNA P. SOEMARDI
Executive Committee member
Tresna is professor in mechanical/biomechanical, productinnovation, design, prototyping and development at Universityof Indonesia (UI). Apart from his academic career, he also
serves as a consultant for PLN, the state-owned electricity
generating company, in 2009-2012. He was also a
commissioner for Commission for Supervision of Business
Competion in 2007-2011. Tresna holds two bachelor’s degree,i.e. in mechanical engineering from ITB and economics/financial
management from UI. He has a M.Sc. degree in environmental
studies,
environmental
science–humanecology andenvironmental economic from UI. His Ph.D. is in the field of
applied mechanics and advanced composite material. Tresna isalso a member of several professional associations, including
ASME, SAE, SME-CME, and SAMPE.

SRI HARTATI
Executive Committee member
Sri Hartati is professor in computer science at Faculty ofMathematics and Natural Sciences, Gadjah Mada University(UGM). She received bachelor’s degree in computer sciencefrom UGM in 1986. Her master’s and doctoral degrees wereobtained from University of New Brunswick, Canada, also in thefield of computer science in 1990 and 1996, respectively. Her
research interests cover the fields of intelligent systems
including knowledge-based system, reasoning system, expert
system, fuzzy system., pattern recognition, decision support
system, medical computing, and software computation using
ANN, fuzzy logic, and genetic algorithm. Besides teaching andconducting research, she is also active in several professional
associations, including Computer Science, Electronics andInstrumentation Support Society, Indonesian Physics Society,Indonesian Mathematical Society, and APTIKOM, which is
National Higher Education Association for Informatics andComputer Science. She represents APTIKOM in IABEE
Executive Committee to pave the way for IABEE’s future
membership in Seoul Accord.

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX CTHE ACCREDITATION CRITERIACOMMON CRITERIA & CRITERIA GUIDEDISCIPLINE CRITERIA for
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering and similarly named
engineering programs,
Environmental engineering and similarly named engineering programs,
Ocean engineering and similarly named engineering programs,
Agricultural and/or biosystem engineering,
Civil engineering and similarly named engineering programs,
Electrical, computer, communications, telecommunication engineering andsimilarly named engineering programs,
Engineering physics and similarly named engineering programs,
Geodetic, geomatics engineering,
Industrial engineering and similarly named engineering programs,
Materials, metallurgical engineering and similarly named engineering programs,
Mechanical engineering, andNuclear engineering and similarly named engineering programs.

APPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEE

IABEE International Common Criteria
Preamble
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) builds this setof Criteria using outcome-based education approach. All engineering education
programs seeking international accreditation from IABEE shall fulfill the following
Criteria.
Criterion 1: Orientation of the Graduate Competence
1.

Program shall define the profile of graduates to be envisaged as autonomous
professionals by considering country’s potential resources, cultures, needs andinterests.

2.

Program shall inform its students and faculty with the envisaged autonomous
professional profile and widely publicize it.

3.

Program shall establish its expected learning outcomes which consist of abilities toutilize knowledge, skills, resources and attitudes as described in the following (a) to(j) items to be acquired by the student at the time of completion of the study:(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or materials sciences,
information technology and engineering to acquire comprehensive
understanding of engineering principles.
(b) an ability to design components, systems, and/or processes to meet desiredneeds within realistic constraints in such aspects as law, economic,
environment, social, politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as torecognize and/or utilize the potential of local and national resources with global
perspective.
(c) an ability to design and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data to strengthen the engineering judgment.
(d) an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve engineering problems.
(e) an ability to apply methods, skills and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices.
(f) an ability to communicate effectively in oral and written manners.
(g) an ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given constraints.,(h) an ability to work in multidisciplinary and multicultural team.
(i) an ability to be accountable and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems.
(j) an ability to understand the need for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues.

1Criterion 2: Learning Implementation
2.1 Curriculum(1) Curriculum shall include the following subject areas:(a) Mathematics and discipline-specific natural sciences(b) Discipline-specific engineering science and technology(c) Information and communication technology(d) Engineering design and problem based experiments(e) General

education,

which

includesmorality, ethics,

socio-culture,environment and management(2) Curriculum development shall consider input from Program stakeholders.
(3) Curriculum shall indicate the structural relationship and contributions of thesubject courses to fulfill learning outcomes. Procedures, including syllabus,
shall be established and documented so that the expected learning process
can be implemented in a controlled way.
(4) Curriculum shall ensure that the students are exposed to engineering practices
and major design project experience using engineering standards and multiple
realistic constraints based on knowledge and skills acquired in precedingcourse work.
2.2 Faculty(1) Program shall provide necessary number, qualification and competence of
faculty members for performing learning process, including planning, delivering,evaluating, and continually improving its effectiveness in order to achieve thelearning outcomes.
(2) Program shall ensure that the faculty members are aware of the relevance andimportance of their roles and contributions to the learning outcomes.
2.3 Students and Academic Atmosphere(1) Program shall define and implement an entry standard for both new andtransfer students, as well as transfer of credits.
(2) Program shall define and implement an ongoing monitoring of student progressand evaluation of student performance. Procedures of quality assurance shallbe established to ensure that adequacy of standards is achieved in allassessments.
(3) Program shall create and maintain good academic atmosphere conducive to
successful learning.
2(4) Program shall promote co-curricular activities for character building andenhancing the students’ awareness on the country’s needs.
2.4 Facility
Program shall ensure the availability and accessibility of facilities for effectivefunctioning of the learning process and attainment of the learning outcomes.
2.5 Institutional Responsibility(1) Program shall define and manage the process for the provision of theeducational service, including education design, curriculum development anddelivery, and assessment of learning.
(2) Institution shall make efforts to establish resource, supporting service andcooperation with stakeholders on research, education and/or service tocommunity with due consideration to existing local resources.
Criterion 3: Assessment of the Expected Learning Outcomes
3.1 Program shall ensure that an effective assessment process of learning outcomesbased on established performance indicators is implemented and maintained atplanned intervals using appropriate methods.
3.2 Program shall ensure that graduates of the program achieve all expected learning
outcomes.
Criterion 4: Continual Improvement
4.1 Based on the assessment results, Program shall perform an evaluation at plannedintervals with output in the form of decisions to improve the effectiveness of theeducational process, the suitability of the learning outcomes related to the needs ofstakeholders, and resources.
4.2 Program shall maintain documents and records related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results and their follow-up.
---- ooo000ooo ----

3

International Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

Preamble
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) builds this set of
Criteria using outcome-based education approach. All engineering education programs
seeking international accreditation from IABEE shall fulfill the following Criteria.


IABEE Common Criteria (CC) are established as a framework to perform accreditation ofhigher education programs. These CC comprise of elements that shall be fulfilled by the
Program.

Program shall define the profile of autonomous professionals to be fostered and define theabilities and knowledge as learning outcomes that the graduates are expected to acquire at
the time of completion of the study.

Program should promote self-reliance, welfare, advancement, fairness and justice for thenational and global community in general, based on science, technology, culture andsustainable utilization of natural resources.

x

Programs to be accredited are four-year bachelor of engineering programs or other higher
education programs which IABEE considered as equivalent.



Program is required to design the curriculum systematically to ascertain the achievement of
the learning outcomes. Student and faculty should be aware of the learning outcomes.



It is important for Program to broadly publicize the learning outcomes to the society.
Program is also required to engage in continual improvement and at the same time toconsider the sustainability of operation.

Program is not necessarily limited to the case where a department offers a single program. It
is allowed for multiple departments to jointlyform a program, and for a department to operate
multiple programs as long as the program has a well-defined body of knowledge. Program
may include some subjects to be learnt off home campus in cooperation with other higher
education institutions.



The Common Criteria consist of 4 elements, following the management approach of PDCA
(Plan Do Check Act). Criterion 1 deals with the orientation of the graduate competence,
Criterion 2 explains the learning implementation, Criterion 3 explains the assessment of the
expected learning outcomes, and Criterion 4 explains the continual improvements.

In addition to these Common Criteria, Program seeking for accreditation shall fulfill also theCategory and Discipline Criteria.

1Criterion 1: Orientation of the Graduate CompetenceProgram shall define the profile of graduates to be envisaged as autonomous
professionals by considering country’s potential resources, cultures, needs and interests.
Program is required to define the profile of the autonomous professionals intended to fosteras its educational objectives, by taking account of :(1) Local and/or national resources, such as human and physical resources.
(2) Local and/or national wisdoms,(3) Local and national needs and interests, and(4) Traditions, vision and mission of the education institution.
Program should demonstrate the process of establishing and periodic reviewing of theautonomous professional profiles, including the involvements of the stakeholders.


Program shall inform its students and faculty with the envisaged autonomous
professional profile and widely publicize it.
The envisaged autonomous professional profile shall be informed to students and facultyand made accessible to the general public.
Program shall establish its expected learning outcomes which consist of abilities to utilize
knowledge, skills, resources and attitudes as described in the following (a) to (j) items tobe acquired by the student at the time of completion of the study:x

Utilization of resources such as rich and unique biodiversity as a comparative advantage
should be equipped with human resources with necessary knowledge, skill and attitude toachieve competitive advantage.

Program shall establish its own learning outcomes based on the autonomous professional
profile to be acquired. The learning outcomes shall cover all graduate competences from (a)to (j) as mentioned in Common Criteria 1 (3), which are expressed in such a way to give
flexibility to Program. It is important to note that the learning outcomes shall take into
account also the Category and Discipline Criteria.

Program shall define appropriate performance indicators and associated assessment
method for each learning outcome.
(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or materials sciences,
information technology and engineering to acquire comprehensive understanding ofengineering principles.

2Engineering Principles refers to ideas, rules and concepts to be considered when solving anengineering problem. The set of principles may vary among engineering disciplines
depending on the uniqueness of systems, problems, ethical issues, and problem solving
methods of the discipline.

Attaining comprehensive understanding of engineering principles is indicated by acquisitionof :1) Mathematics, basic sciences (such as physics, biology, chemistry) and information
technology in the engineering field of Program.
2) An ability to utilize the aforementioned knowledge.
(b) an ability to design components, systems, and/or processes to meet desired needs
within realistic constraints in such aspects as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as to recognize and/or utilize thepotential of local and national resources with global perspective.

The ability to design components, systems, and/or processes is the hallmark competence ofengineering education. Design implies the ability to utilize multidimensional thinking withknowledge of global perspective to develop components, systems, and/or processes toachieve specific objectives. It is not limited to drawing a plan, but also refers to the synthesisof various academic disciplines and technologies to pursue practicable solutions to a
problem that does not necessarily have one correct answer.



It involves also a process of optimization by taking into account some realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social, politics, health and safety, and sustainability as
well as utilization of the knowledge of culture, society and available resources.
(c) an ability to design and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data to strengthen the engineering judgment.

This competence refers to the design and application of laboratory and/or field experiments
within the broad context of engineering practice such as problem identification, testing ofpotential solution ideas, solution implementation plan, and other design-related activities.



Experiments may include activities in physical laboratories, computer simulations, and field
experiments.
(d) an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve engineering problems.



Engineering problem solving involves iterative activities incorporating the definition of the
problem, development of solution alternatives, selection of best alternative, application ofsolution, evaluation and validation of solution against problem constraints, and revision ofsolution.
3This competence may include the ability to
9 utilize techniques and methods for performing engineering works comprising survey,
data analysis, planning, design, operation and maintenance.
9 apply the engineering logical thinking for handling both of the design and trouble
shooting context.
(e) an ability to apply methods, skills and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices.



Program shall have a clear definition of the methods, skills, and modern engineering tools
appropriate for its level of study and engineering discipline, and how these are learnt
throughout the curriculum.

An ability to select a method and tools with their strength and limitation characteristics for agiven problem.

An ability to utilize and adjust the method and tools to suit specific problems.
(f) an ability to communicate effectively in oral and written manners.

This competence indicates the need of active and effective communication skills; sociocultural perspective should be considered for the acceptability and workability of theimplementation of engineering works.



These oral and written communications should include the use of engineering standards.

Program shall ensure that a measureable portion of the oral and/or written communications
involve the use of internationally recognized languages.
(g) an ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given constraints.

This competence refers to the ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks associatedwith any curricular activity deemed appropriate by Program for its assessment andevaluation. The assessment should focus more on the students’ task management skills
rather than the substantial outcome of the task itself.
(h) an ability to work in multidisciplinary and multicultural team.

This competence refers to the ability to work collaboratively with people from different
technical disciplines, fields and cultural backgrounds.



Multicultural concerns such as tolerance, mutual understanding, appreciation on differencesin building a synergy, are important considerations for the success of a team work.

Multidiscipline circumstances may cover disciplines within engineering and non-engineering
4disciplines.
(i)An ability to be accountable and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems.

This competence refers to the understanding on the following issues and the ability to takeaction accordingly.
9 the impact of technology of related engineering fields on public welfare, environmental
safety and sustainable development
9 the engineering ethics and regulations
9 the engineering history and standard & code philosophy in design.
(j)

an ability to understand the need for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues.

Program is required to assist students to get accustomed to independent and continuous
learning through lectures, research, experiments, practical training, exercises andassignment.

This competence refers to
9 Understanding the necessity of continuous professional development.
9 an ability to acquire updated information and knowledge.
9 an awareness of the importance of sharing knowledge.
Criterion 2: Learning Implementation
2.1 Curriculum(1) Curriculum shall include the following subject areas:(a) Mathematics and discipline-specific natural sciences(b) Discipline-specific engineering science and technology(c) Information and communication technology(d) Engineering design and problem based experiments(e) General education, which includes morality, ethics, socio-culture, environment
and management

Program shall ensure that the curriculum meets the above mentioned subject areas
appropriate to engineering regardless the subject/course names. The program must ensurethat the curriculum devotes adequate attention and time to each component, consistent withthe learning outcomes, which include:
9 A minimum of 20% of a combination of college level mathematics and basic sciences(some with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline. Basic sciences aredefined as courses such as biological, chemical, or physical sciences.
5

9 A minimum of 40% of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences andengineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences
have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward
creative application. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic
sciences on the one hand and engineering practices on the other. Engineering design isthe process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a
decision-making process, in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineeringsciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet the stated needs.
9 A maximum of 30% general education components that complement the technicalcontent of the curriculum and are consistent with the learning outcomes.
(2). Curriculum development shall consider inputs from Program stakeholders.


Program should demonstrate on how to develop the curriculum and to assure therequirement of the society, industry and professional fields.



There must be a documented, systematically utilized, and effective procedure describing theway to meet the need of stakeholders and to review the curriculum periodically to ensure its
consistency with the institutional mission, the stakeholders needs, and these criteria.

Program should provide sufficient opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss Programeducational objectives and to foster closer collaboration.
(3) Curriculum shall indicate the structural relationship and contributions of the subject
courses to fulfill learning outcomes. Procedures, including syllabus, shall be establishedand documented so that the expected learning process can be implemented in acontrolled way.

Program shall describe how the curriculum content and structure are aligned to attain thelearning outcomes.

Program should explain how the specific requirements of each curricular area addressed in
the Common Criteria or Discipline Criteria can be met, both in terms of load and depth of thematerial.

Program shall establish a syllabus for each course used to satisfy the mathematics, science,and discipline-specific requirements or any applicable criteria.

Program is required to implement educational activities for students to achieve its learning
outcomes.

Program is required to systematically design curriculum to enable students to achieve thelearning outcomes within the allocated academic years.

Program is required to adequately inform the faculty and the students through various
means such as guidebooks, orientation programs etc. about the curriculum and how the6learning outcomes will be realized through the learning process.
(4) Curriculum shall ensure that the students are exposed to engineering practices andmajor design project experience using engineering standards and multiple realistic
constraints based on knowledge and skills acquired in preceding course work.
Program must provide opportunity to students to develop competence in practicalapplication of engineering skills, combining theory and experience along with the use ofother relevant knowledge and skills. Training in engineering practices may be supported byseveral courses (subjects) but should culminate in a major design project. This major project
serves as a capstone for the program which requires students to integrate knowledge andskills acquired in earlier coursework.

Program shall define curriculum subjects to optimally support main stream of discipline
specific requirements and to provide opportunity for students to acquire practical experiencein implementing the subjects in an actual working environment.
2.2 Faculty(1) Program shall provide necessary number, qualification and competence of faculty
members for performing learning process, including planning, delivering, evaluating,and continually improving its effectiveness in order to achieve the learning outcomes.

Program shall describe the qualifications of the faculty and their adequacy to cover all
curricular areas and also to meet any criteria apply.

This description should include the composition, size, experience and the extent and qualityof faculty member involvement in interactions with students, student advising, and oversightof Program.

Program shall provide detailed descriptions of professional development activities for eachfaculty member and how activities such as sabbaticals, travel, workshops, seminars, etc.,
are planned and supported.
(2) Program shall ensure that the faculty members are aware of the relevance andimportance of their roles and contributions to the learning outcomes.

Program shall describe the role played by the faculty with respect to the course creation,
modification, and evaluation, and with respect to the definition, revision and attainment of
the learning outcomes.

Program shall have a method to institutionally develop and evaluate faculty educational
activities.



Program shall define and set up communication network among faculty members for close
7

collaboration among the courses set in the curriculum to obtain better educational results.
2.3 Students and Academic Atmosphere(1) Program shall define and implement an entry standard for both new and transfer
students, as well as transfer of credits.
Program shall establish written policies on student admission, covering the requirements
and the process for accepting new students into Program, including information on how
Program ensures and documents that students are meeting prerequisites and how it
handles the situation when a prerequisite has not been met.

Program shall describe the requirements and process for accepting transfer students andtransfer credits.
(2) Program shall define and implement ongoing monitoring of student progress andevaluation of student performance. Procedures of quality assurance shall beestablished to ensure that adequacy of standards is achieved in all assessments.

Program shall describe the process by which student performance is evaluated and student
progress is monitored.

Program shall document the processes for regularly assessing and evaluating the extent towhich the learning outcomes are being attained. It should also describe how the results ofthese processes are being utilized to perform continual improvement of the program.



Assessment is defined as one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare the datanecessary for evaluation.



Evaluation is defined as one or more processes for interpreting the data acquired throughthe assessment processes in order to determine how well the learning outcomes are being
attained.

The process should include
9 a listing and description of the assessment processes used to gather the data uponwhich the evaluation of each learning outcome is based, for example specific examquestions, student portfolios, project presentations, oral exams, focus groups, industrial
advisory committee meetings, or other processes that are relevant and appropriate to
the program,
9 the frequency with which these assessment processes are carried out,
9 the expected level of attainment for each of the learning outcomes,
9 summaries of the results of the evaluation process and an analysis illustrating the extent
to which each of the learning outcomes is being attained, and9 how the results are documented and maintained.

8

(3) Program shall create and maintain good academic atmosphere conducive to
successful learning.
Program shall develop supporting activities to create and maintain good academic
atmosphere for learning, such as by providing student guidance and counseling on
academic as well as non-academic aspects and career guidance.

Program shall describe the process for advising and providing career guidance to students,
how often students are advised, and who provides the advising.
(4) Program shall promote co-curricular activities for character building and enhancing
the students’ awareness on the country’s needs.

Program shall create and maintain various co-curricular activities particularly to improve thestudent soft skill, such as conducting studium generale, involving student in faculty research
projects, and participating in scientific meeting and competition.

Spirit of entrepreneurship as characterized by a deep sense of purpose, perseverance,
resourcefulness, open-mindedness, and eagerness to learn should be emphasized in thelearning process.
2.4 Facility
Program shall ensure the availability and accessibility of facilities for effectivefunctioning of the learning process and attainment of the learning outcomes.

Program shall describe the facilities in terms of their ability to support the attainment of thelearning outcomes and to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning, such as
9 offices (such as administrative, faculty, clerical, and teaching assistants) and any
associated equipment,
9 classrooms and associated equipment,
9 in house laboratory facilities including those containing computers (describe available
hardware and software) and the associated tools and equipment that support instruction,and field laboratory whenever necessary
9 computing resources (workstations, servers, storage, networks including software)
9 library services.



Program shall describe and assess the adequacy of these facilities to support the scholarly
and professional activities of the students and faculty.

Program shall describe how students are provided with appropriate guidance regarding theuse of tools, equipment, computing resources, laboratories, and other physical facilities so
as to enable the utilization of these facilities in a safe and appropriate manner.

Program shall also describe the policies and procedures for maintaining and upgrading the9tools, equipment, computing resources, laboratories, library and other facilities used by
students and faculty.
2.5 Institutional Responsibility(1) Program shall define and manage the process for the provision of the educational
service, including education design, curriculum development and delivery, andassessment of learning.
Program shall describe the governance of the program and its adequacy to ensure thequality and continuity of the program and how the leadership is involved in decisions that
affect the program.

Program shall describe the process used to establish the program’s budget and provide
evidence of continuity of institutional support for the program, including the sources offinancial support for both permanent (recurring) and temporary (one-time) funds.



Program shall describe how teaching is supported by the institution in terms of graders,teaching assistants, teaching workshops, etc.

Program shall describe the adequacy of the staff (administrative, instructional, and technical)
and institutional services provided to the program.
(2) Institution shall make efforts to establish resources, supporting service andcooperation with stakeholders on research, education and/or service to community
with due consideration to existing local resources.



Program shall make efforts to develop partnership with external institutions such as industry,
research centers, and community units to foster the Tridharma (learning, research, andcommunity engagement).The institution hosting the Program shall demonstrate the support
to these efforts.



The improvement of the students’ learning process through the engagement of academia,
business, and/or the government in the development of local region through the use of local
resources is viewed as a particular advantage of the Program.
Criterion 3: Assessment of the Expected Learning Outcomes
3.1 Program shall ensure that an effective assessment process of learning outcomes basedon established performance indicators is implemented and maintained at plannedintervals using appropriate methods.

This criterion is an explanation of the key word of Check in the PDCA cycle. A complete andclearly documentedmethod and procedure for monitoring student progress and measuring
the achievement of learning outcomes shall be established.

Program shall develop relevant performance indicators for each learning outcome so as to10enable an effective measurement of the achievability.
Program shall establish the method and procedure of student assessment that show the
way to collect valid data using the established performance indicators.



The assessment of each learning outcome shall be conducted at planned interval.
3.2 Program shall ensure that graduates of the program achieve all expected learning
outcomes.

Program shall state the level of learning outcomes as graduation requirements and explain
how to measure the achievement.

The process and results of assessment shall be documented and the records aremaintained. The document should contain explanation on resources, source of learning,delivery methods and procedures of examination in particular andof assessment ingeneraland therefore can be used as evidence that all graduates have been directly or
indirectly evaluated and that all-sets of learning outcomes have been fulfilled.

Programs shall have written policies and procedures on how to deal with non-performing
students and how to terminate students who are not able to complete their study.
Criterion 4: Continual Improvement
4.1 Based on the assessment results, Program shall perform an evaluation at plannedintervals without put in the form of decisions to improve the effectiveness of theeducational process, the suitability of the learning outcomes related to the needs ofstakeholders, and resources.



To ensure the continual improvement, Program should run its educational activities byimplementing a quality assurance system follows the PDCA cycle as described in thepreamble.

The evaluation shall be based on assessment of the learning outcomes attainment. The
output of the evaluation shall contain recommendations on the improvement of learningmaterials, methods of delivery and other educational processes, suitability and adequacy ofthe learning outcomes with regards to the needs of stakeholders, and resources.



The evaluation shall be carried out at planned intervals following a method and procedure
made well-known to the faculty. The evaluation method and procedure should be designed
so as to enable of identifying constraints, root cause of obstacles, and therefore resulting inopportunities for improvement.
4.2 Program shall maintain documents and records related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results and their follow-up.

11

A documented procedure for the implementation of Program evaluation shall be established.

The records of evaluation implementation, its results and its follow-up shall be maintained
and accessible to the faculty. These records provide evidence that evaluation has been
conducted, the results have been implemented and periodic improvement has been effected
and therefore signifying implementation of PDCA.

12

Disicpline Criteria for Chemical, Biochemical, and Similarly Named
Engineering Programs
Leading Society:x Asosiasi Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Kimia Indonesia (APTEKINDO) – Association of Indonesian Higher
Education in Chemical Engineeringx Badan Kejuruan Kimia Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKK PII) – PII Chapter for Chemical Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “chemical”, “biochemical”,“bioprocess“, “bioenergy”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Currriculum
The curriculum shall provide a firm grasp in basic sciences which include chemistry and chemistryrelated sciences, physics, and/or biology with some reference to local context as appropriate to theobjectives of the Program. The curriculum must include the engineering application of these basic
sciences to the design, analysis, and control of chemical, physical, and/or biological processes and thedesign and development of products, including the economics and hazards associated with theseprocesses and products.
The learning process articulating this curriculum must be conducted in such a way to ensure that thegraduates have sufficient knowledge, skills, and attitude in the process design, analysis, and control,
and product design and development. The learning process must also enable students to apply
research-based knowledge and research methods to identify, formulate, and solve engineering
problems.

1Disicpline Criteria for Environmental Engineering and Similarly Named
Engineering Programs
Leading society:x Badan Kejuruan Teknik Lingkungan Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTL PII) – PII Chapter for
Environmental Engineers
x Ikatan Ahli Teknik Penyehatan dan Lingkungan Indonesia (IATPI) – Indonesian Association ofExperts in Sanitation and Environmental Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “environmental” and similar
modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics and basic sciences;introductory level knowledge of environmental issues associated with air, land, and water systems
and associated environmental health impacts; conduct laboratory experiments and analyze andinterpret the resulting data in more than one major environmental engineering focus area, (e.g., air,water, land, environmental health); performing design of environmental engineering systems;
understanding in advanced principles and practice relevant to the program objectives. The curriculum
must prepare graduates to understand concepts of professional practice, project management, andthe roles and responsibilities of public institutions and private organizations pertaining toenvironmental policy and regulations.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty teaching courses that are primarily
design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional licensure, board
certification in environmental engineering, or by education and equivalent design experience.

2Discipline Criteria for Ocean and Similarly Named Engineering Programs
Leading Society:x Himpunan Ahli Pengelola Pesisir Indonesia (HAPPI) – Indonesian Association of Experts in Coastal
Management
x Himpunan Ahli Teknik Hidraulik Indonesia (HATHI) – Indonesian Association of Experts in
Hydraulics Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “coastal”, “ocean”,“marine”,“naval architecture”, or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to have the knowledge and the skills to apply the principles
of fluid and solid mechanics, dynamics, hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, probability and applied statistics,
oceanography, and water waves, to engineering problems and to work in groups to perform
engineering design at the system level, integrating multiple technical areas and addressing design
optimization.
Faculty
Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revised, implement, andachieve the program objectives

3

Discipline Criteria for Agricultural and/or Bio-system Engineering in
Bachelor Programs
Leading Society:
Badan Kejuruan Teknik Pertanian Persatuan Insiyur Indonesia (BKTP PII) – PII Chapter for AgriculturalEngineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “agricultural engineering”, “biosystem engineering,” “bio-production engineering”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide fundamental knowledge of engineering principles, agriculture and/or
biosystem related sciences and ability to apply them to analyze, interpret, identify alternative
solutions, and implement experiments for enhancing the performance agricultural systems or solutionof common problems in agriculture and/or biosystem.
The learning and educational process articulating in the curriculum must be conducted in such away
to ensure that the graduates have sufficient knowledge, skill and attitude in the process to identify,
analyze, formulate, design,use and control of machinery, structure and systems to solve ngineering
problems as required in the production of plant and animal, processing and handling the agricultural
and/or biological materials.
The curriculum content that be considered as “educational components of mathematics, naturalsciences and technologies” appropriate to the field shall include systematic subject clusters relatedwith mathematics and natural sciences (focusing on multiple subjects such as, physics, chemistry,
biology, or geography), and area of agricultural meteorology, irrigation, drainage and reclamationengineering (agricultural civil and environmental engineering), and/or area of agricultural machinery& automation, and/or area of agricultural work system and safety, and/or area ofagricultural/biological production system, and/or area of agriculture/biological and environment
information.
To conduct the learning and educational process the program shall be considered as “to provide a
sufficient number of faculty members able to realize the curriculum with applicable educational
methods and to improve the educational result of the program, and shall provide the faculty withinstitutional support.”

4

Disicpline Criteria for Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Programs
Leading Society:
Badan Kejuruan Teknik Sipil Persatuan Insiyur Indonesia (BKTS PII) – PII Chapter for Civil Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “civil engineering” and similar
modifiers in their titles.
Currriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in applied mathematics and natural sciences
relevant to civil engineering, in a minimumof three recognized major civil engineering areas (namely
structural, project management, geotechnical, water resources, environmental, and transportation),in conducting civil engineering experiments and analyzing and interpreting the resulting data, and indesigning and integrating all professional components of the curriculum. The program shall also
prepare graduates to explain basic concepts in management, business, public policy, and leadership,and explain the importance of ethics and professional licensure.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses on design should have either certification of professional engineer
or qualification through experience in engineering design and practices.

5

Discipline Criteria for Electrical, Computer, Communications,
Telecommunication and Similarly Named Engineering Programs
Leading society:x Forum Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Elektro Indonesia (FORTEI) – Indonesian Forum for Higher
Education in Electrical Engineeringx Badan Kejuruan Elektro Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKE PII) – PII Chapter for ElectricalEngineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical”, “electronic(s),”“computer,” “communication(s),” “telecommunication(s),” or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum specifies subject areas appropriate to engineering and must include:
a. one year of a combination of university level mathematics and basic sciences (one withexperimental experience) appropriate to the discipline.
b. one and one-half years of engineering topics, i.e engineering sciences and engineering design,
appropriate to the title of the program.
Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major
design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work to meet desiredneeds within realistic constraints.
The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering
topics implied by the title of the program.
The curriculum must include probability and statistics, with applications appropriate to the program
name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; basic sciences and engineering topics(including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex electrical/electronic devices
or systems containing hardware and/or software components.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical,” “electronic(s),” “communication(s),”or “telecommunication(s)” in the title must include advanced mathematics, such as differential
equations, linear algebra, and complex variables.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include discrete
mathematics.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “communication(s)” or “telecommunication(s)”in the title must include topics in communication systems.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “telecommunication(s)” must include design andoperation of telecommunication networks for services such as but not limited to voice, data, image,and video transport.

6

Discipline Criteria for Engineering Physics and Similarly Named
Engineering Programs
Leading society:
Badan Kejuruan Teknik Fisika Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTF PII) – PII Chapter for Engineering
Physics
Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to engage in the development of the forefront of technology,
such as and not limited to, instrumentation & control, built environment and energy systems, material
design and processing, renewable energy
The curriculum must provide strong fundamentals on mathematics, physics, engineering sciences andengineering design. The curriculum should cover the capability to thrive in professional and industry
sectors, such as engineering economics, project management and core competences of the forefront
technology.
Faculty
The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that are primarily designin content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of education and experience orprofessional licensure.

7

Discipline Criteria for Geodetics-Geomatics Engineering
Leading society:
Forum Ketua Jurusan dan Program Studi Teknik Geodesi-Geomatika se-Indonesia – IndonesianForum for Higher Education in Geodetic-Geomatics Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “surveying,” “geodetic,”“geomatics”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences andstatistics in Geodetics/Geomatics egineering field, complete task related to spatial data acquisition
using modern measurement tools, perform geospatial data processing using industry-standard
software, and also perform standard analysis and design in at least one of the recognized technicalspecialities within surveying/geodetics/geomatics technology, include boundary and/or land
surveying, geographic and/or land information systems, engineering project surveying,
photogrammetry, remote sensing, mapping and geodesy, and other related areas.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty members are qualified to teachengineering courses by education, equivalent design experience orboard certification of a surveyor
professional/geomatics engineering.

8

Disicpline Criteria for Industrial and Similarly Named Engineering
Programs
Leading society:x Badan Kerja Sama Penyelenggara Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Industri Indonesia (BKSTI) –Indonesian Association of Higher Education in Industrial Engineeringx Badan Kejuruan Teknik Industri Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTI PII) – PII Chapter for Industrial
Engineers
Currriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in design, improve, and implement integrated
systems that include people, materials, equipment, energy and information. To meet these needs,
the curriculum must provide adequate knowledge about the application of mathematics, statistics andprobabilistic theory as well as analysis and design engineering as well as knowledge with regard tosocial sciences. The education program should ensure the provision of an integrated system design
experiences to students. The curriculum must include in depth instruction to accomplish the
integration of systems using appropriate analytical, computational and experimental practices.
Faculty
Faculty members must understand the professional practice and maintain currency in their respective
professional areas. Faculty members must be responsible and able to make the definition, evaluation,
implementation and improvement on the achievement of learning outcomes in the framework of ancontinuous improvement ofthe study program.

9

Discipline Criteria for Materials, Metallurgical Engineering and Similarly
Names
Leading society:x Badan Kejuruan Teknik Material Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia – PII Chapter for Material Engineersx Badan Kejuruan Teknik Metalurgi Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia – PII Chapter for MetallurgicalEngineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs including “materials,” “metallurgical,”“ceramics,” “glass”, “polymer,” “biomaterials,” and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply advanced science (such as chemistry, biology andphysics), computational techniques and engineering principles to materials systems implied by the
program modifier, e.g., ceramics, metals, polymers, biomaterials, composite materials; to integrate
the understanding of the scientific and engineering principles underlying the four major elements ofthe field: structure, properties, processing, and performance related to material systems appropriate
to the field; to apply and integrate knowledge from each of the above four elements of the field using
experimental, computational and statistical methods to solve materials problems including selection
and design consistent with the program educational objectives.
Faculty
The faculty expertise for the professional area must encompass the four major elements of the field.

10Discipline Criteria for Mechanical Engineering Programs
Leading society:x Badan Kerjasama Teknik Mesin Seluruh Indonesia (BKSTM) – Indonesian Association of Higher
Education in Mechanical Engineeringx Badan Kejuruan Mesin Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKM PII) – PII Chapter for MechanicalEngineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to all engineering programs that include “mechanical” or similar
modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must require students to apply basic sciences, mathematics (including multivariate
calculus and differential equations) and principles of engineering sciences; to model, analyze, design,
and apply physical systems, components or processes; and prepare students to work professionally ineither thermal or mechanical systems.

Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses on design should have either certification of professional engineer
or qualification through experience in engineering design and practices.

11

Discipline Criteria for Nuclear Engineering and Similarly Named
Engineering Programs
Leading society:Himpunan Masyarakat Nuklir Indonesia (HIMNI) – Indonesian Association for Nuclear Society
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering program that include “nuclear”, “radiological”,“radiation”, or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide strong fundamentals on advanced mathematics, science, engineeringscience and engineering design related to the objectives of the program. The curriculum must include
the application of atomic and nuclear physics, and the transport of radiation and its interaction withmatter, for nuclear power generation, medical, industrial, and agricultural areas; to perform nuclear
engineering design; to measure nuclear and radiation processes. The program shall ensure that the
curriculum must comply with international and national nuclear regulations by emphasizing therequirements for nuclear safety, non-destructive inspection, security and safeguards.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members are qualified to teach nuclear engineeringcourses by education, equivalent design experience or board certification of a professional engineer
depending on the program needs.

12

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX DRULES AND PROCEDURES FOREVALUATION AND
ACCREDITATION (RPEA)APPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEEINDONESIAN ACCREDITATION BOARD
FOR EN GINEERING EDUC ATION (IABE E)

RULES AND PROCEDURES FOREVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION(RPEA)VERSION 2018-

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND, VISION, AND MISSION............................................................................ 3
1.1. Background .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2. Vision ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Mission .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Identity & Recognition ............................................................................................................. 4

2. ACCREDITATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ................................................................ 5
2.1. Confidentiality & Conflict of Interest ........................................................................................ 5
2.1.1. Confidentiality of Information ...................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Code of Ethics ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1.3. Conflict of Interest ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2. Scope of Accreditation ............................................................................................................. 5
2.3. Eligibility for Evaluation............................................................................................................ 6
2.3.1. Eligibility Requirements for General Accreditation....................................................... 6
2.3.2. Eligibility Requirements for Provisional Accreditation .................................................. 7
2.4. Accreditation Criteria ............................................................................................................... 7
2.4.1. Common Criteria and Criteria Guide ............................................................................ 7
2.4.2. Discipline Criteria.......................................................................................................... 7
2.5. Program Evaluation Process ..................................................................................................... 8
2.5.1. Program and Institution Representatives ..................................................................... 8
2.5.2. Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report ................................................................. 8
2.5.3. General Description of the Evaluation Process............................................................. 9
2.5.4. Evaluation for General Accreditation ......................................................................... 10
2.5.5. Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation ............................................................. 19
2.5.6. Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation..................................................................... 19
2.6. Accreditation Decisions......................................................................................................... 25
2.6.1. Decisions in Evaluation for General Accreditation...................................................... 25
2.6.2. Decisions in Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation ................................................ 26
2.7. Public Disclosure of Accreditation Status .............................................................................. 26
2.8. Evaluation Process Feedback and Appeals ............................................................................ 28
2.8.1. Evaluation Process Feedback...................................................................................... 28
2.8.2. Appeal against Accreditation Decision ....................................................................... 28
2.9. Policies on Conducting On-Site Visit ...................................................................................... 29

3. INDICATIVE SCHEDULE OF ACCREDITATION EVALUATION CYCLE.................................. 31

2

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

1. BACKGROUND , VISION , AND MISSION

1 .1 . B AC KG R OU N D
The ever-evolving challenges faced by the engineering profession in the globalization era
highlight the absolute necessity of managing the quality of engineering higher education
outcomes within the framework of an internationally recognized quality standards and practices.
Another key paradigm in engineering higher education is the relevance of academic programs
operated by higher education institutions to the needs of the profession and the industry.
Quality and relevance issues are paramount to the effectiveness and competitiveness ofengineering higher education institutions in the future, and as such should form the frameworkof a higher education quality management system in Indonesia.
The aim of this education quality management system is to improve the quality of engineering
education in a sustainable manner. Essential to the achievement of this aim are the principle ofautonomy of higher education institutions as a driving force for a more dynamic and accountablesystem, and an accreditation system to ensure the quality of graduates and the implementationof an effective continuous engineering learning process improvement system which in turnensures that improvement decisions are based on real, accountable information.

1 .2 . V IS ION
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is a reformer andstimulator for accelerating the progress of engineering higher education in Indonesia to produce
innovative human resources and engineering innovation for improving human welfare.

1 .3 . M IS SI ON
To attain the above vision, IABEE upholds the following missions:(1) to promote quality improvement of engineering higher education through accreditation to
produce autonomous professionals appropriate to the needs of stakeholders,(2) to facilitate development of engineering higher education systems that emphasizes oncontinual quality improvement towards global quality standards,(3) to encourage communication and partnerships between engineering higher education
institutions and stakeholders to effectively utilize local resources and wisdom for the welfareof the community, and(4) to support dissemination of innovations on advancement of engineering higher education.

3

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

1.4 . ID E N TI TY & R E C O G N IT I ON
IABEE is an independent, non-profit organization founded as a part of the Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII), to develop and foster quality culture in the management of engineering higher
education. This is achieved by assurance that the Study Programs (or referred as Programs
henceforth) are operated in compliance to minimum standards, and by encouraging continuous
quality improvement in engineering higher education institutions.
The IABEE Headquarters is located at the following postal address:
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
c/o Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (The Institution of Engineers Indonesia)
Jalan Bandung No. 1, RT 13/RW 5, Menteng, Jakarta 10310
Phone: (+62) 0811 939 0909
e-mail: info@iabee.or.id
The address of IABEE public website is https://iabee.or.id/
The official logo of IABEE is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Official logo of IABEE
IABEE is recognized in Indonesia by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education(MoRTHE) as an institution responsible for the accreditation of Programs that grant academic
degrees in engineering disciplines. Program accreditation by IABEE applies substantiallyequivalent and internationally recognized accreditation criteria. It is voluntary and optional forundergraduate (bachelor-level) programs that have been accredited nationally at a certain (i.e.
the highest) rank. In the context of Indonesia, accreditation of a program at national level iscompulsory and directly related to its legal status, registration in the Higher Education Database(PDDIKTI) maintained by the MoRTHE, and to its operational permit as required by law. National
accreditation is currently conducted by National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education(BAN-PT). In this regards, IABEE accreditation complements the national accreditation by
providing an excellent tool and opportunity for high quality programs to seek internationalrecognition.
4

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

2. ACCREDITATION POLICIES AND PR OCEDURES

2 .1 . C ON F ID E N T I AL I TY & C ON F L IC T O F IN TE R E S T

2.1.1. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATIONIABEE upholds ethics in conducting all activities of its members and organizing staff and requiresthat each Member and Organizing Staff exhibits highest standards in professionalism, fairness,and integrity. Information disclosed by Programs undergoing evaluation, and information
generated by review and discussion activities during the evaluation process shall be treated withconfidentiality and shall not be divulged without specific written authorization by IABEE and theProgram being evaluated.

2.1.2. CODE OF ETHICS
Code of ethics upheld by all members and organizing staff is stipulated in detail in document
called Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC).

2.1.3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Service as IABEE committee members and organizing staff presents the possibility of various
situations that may result in conflict of interest, or doubt with regard to the objectivity, fairness,and credibility of the accreditation process. IABEE requires all of its personnel to act in a
professional and ethical manner, and to inform of any real or perceived conflict of interest in
their activities. Further details of IABEE policies on conflict of interest are described in Rules andProcedures for Accreditation-Related Committee (RPARC) document.

2 .2 . S C OP E OF A C C R E D IT AT I ON
The Indonesian Higher Education Act No. 12/2012 defines a Program as an educational andlearning unit which implements a specific curriculum and learning methods, in the context of a
type of academic, professional, and/or vocational education. Evaluation and accreditation by
IABEE are aimed at bachelor-level academic Programs in engineering disciplines. These Programs
grant Bachelor of Engineering degrees (Sarjana Teknik in Indonesian terminology) byimplementing curricula which stipulates a study period of four academic years, with a minimum
total course-load of 144 semester-credit units (SKS in Indonesian terminology).
Programs are operated by Program Operating Institutions (POI). POIs are academic institutions
operating at range of organizational level from Faculty, School, or equivalent units and up to
5

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

University, Institute, or equivalent units. POIs are accredited by National Accreditation Agency
for Higher Education (BAN-PT). IABEE does not accredit POIs.
IABEE offers two types of accreditation, i.e.
Accreditation (PA).

General Accreditation (GA)andProvisional(1) General Accreditation (GA) is intended for programs seeking international recognition
through IABEE accreditation. Program wishing to apply for evaluation of GA must comply
with eligibility requirements stipulated in Section 2.3.1. of this document.
(2) Provisional Accreditation (PA) is intended for programs newly adopting an outcome-based
education system and have not yet produced graduates under the system. A program
applying for PA will be evaluated to measure its potentials of meeting the Accreditation
Criteria within a foreseeable future (2-4 years). Eligibility requirements for a program
applying PA evaluation is specified in Section 2.3.2. of this document.

2 .3 . E L IG IB IL I TY F OR E VAL U AT I ON
The followings are eligibility requirements for Programs seeking to be evaluated according to thetypes of accreditation offered by IABEE (See Section 2.2). Eligibility status must be proven by the
Program by making a self-claim and providing a set of documents supporting the claim during
the application process. Application procedures are further explained in Section. 2.5.

2.3.1. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL ACCREDITATION
Programs eligible to apply evaluation for General Accreditation (GA) are those which meet thefollowing requirements.
(1) The associated Program Operating Institution (POI) has obtained National Accreditation for
Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.
(2) The Program has obtained National Accreditation status ranked “A”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering discipline with a curricular study
period of four years, and with a total course-load of a minimum of 144 credit units (or SKS).
(4) The Program is at least in the 4th year of continuous Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
implementation.
(5) The OBE shall include assessment and evaluation of the Learning Outcomes of the students.
(6) By the time of the on-site visit evaluation, the Program has produced at least one graduate
under its OBE system.
(7) The Program has established and publicized the Autonomous Professional Profile statement
formulated as its educational objectives.
(8) The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning methods.

6

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

2.3.2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION
Programs wishing to apply evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (PA) must fulfill the following
requirements.

(1) The associated Program Operating Institution has obtained National Accreditation for
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Institution status with a minimum rank of ‘B’.
The Program has obtained National Accreditation status at least ranked “B”.
The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering discipline with a curricular study
period of four years, and with a total credit of a minimum of 144 credit units (or SKS).
The Program has implemented Outcome-Based Education (OBE) at least for one year before
applying for the evaluation.
The Program has established and publicized the Autonomous Professional Profile statement
formulated as its educational objectives.
The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning methods.

2 .4 . A C C R E D IT AT I ON C R I TE R IA
IABEE Criteria Committee has produced a number of criteria categories for conducting
accreditation evaluation, comprising the Common Criteria and the Discipline Criteria. Common
Criteria are further elaborated by the Criteria Guide. The Common Criteria, the Criteria Guide,
and the Discipline Criteria are referred to as the Accreditation Criteria.

2.4.1. COMMON CRITERIA AND CRITERIA GUIDEThe Common Criteria are intended to assure the quality of engineering education conducted by
Program and to foster a systematic continual quality improvement that satisfies the need of its
stakeholders in a dynamic and competitive environment. The Common Criteria and theirelaboration in the Criteria Guide address requirements for all disciplines of engineering Programs
to be accredited by IABEE. The Common Criteria and the Criteria Guide are available fordownload at the IABEE website at https://iabee.or.id.

2.4.2. DISCIPLINE CRITERIA
Discipline Criteria address program-specific requirements within engineering areas of
specialization. These criteria have been developed by Chapters of the Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII) and other supporting professional societies, coordinated by IABEE Criteria
Committee. The Discipline Criteria are available for download at IABEE website
https://iabee.or.id. For application of evaluation, a Program is required to select one engineering
discipline which best describe its body of knowledge.
7

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

2 .5 . P R OG R A M E VA L U AT I ON P R OC E S S
The entire process of application, payment, document submission, evaluation for accreditation,
and announcement of accreditation decision is undertaken solely through the IABEE Online
Evaluation System. Therefore, individuals representing a Program and its Institution must first
become registered member of the system. This section explains recognition of individuals
representing a Program and its Institution, general principles of evaluation against accreditation
criteria, and evaluation process for General Accreditation and Provisional Accreditation.

2.5.1. PROGRAM AND INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVESIABEE acknowledges two officials per Program to represent and be in communication with IABEE
Secretariat and Program Evaluation Team Chair throughout application and evaluation process
through IABEE Online Evaluation System. One of these is assigned as Program Representative(PR), while the other as Program Operating Institution Representative (POIR). Official recognized
by IABEE to become a PR is normally the Program Chair (Ketua Program Studi) or other appointed
by the Program Operating Institution, while a POIR is normally the Dean of the Faculty or otherofficial ranked above Program Chair. PR and POIR should have a good understanding of thegeneral requirements and processes of Program outcome-based evaluation and accreditation.
In a case where more than one Programs within an Institution apply for evaluation, all those
Programs may share the same POIR, but each shall have its own PR.

2.5.2. PROGRAM PROFILE AND SELF-EVALUATION REPORTThe Program evaluation process is conducted based, in part, on the two documents submitted
to IABEE Online Evaluation System. Program can only submit the documents to the systemthrough its PR account. These documents are Program Profile and Program Self-Evaluation
Report (SER).
Program Profile (Ikhtisar Program Studi in Indonesian terminology) template is available fordownload from IABEE website at https://iabee.or.id. Meanwhile, SER (Laporan Evaluasi Diri inIndonesian terminology) template is coded in the Online Evaluation System in a spreadsheet
form and can be downloaded through PR’s registered e-mail account, worked on, and uploaded
back to the online system.
The SER template is structured in a way that expects the Program to deliberate how it complies
with each criterion and review item, and to enclose, or to provide links to, proofs of thecompliance. The proofs or evidences of the compliance are to be gathered systematically in afile(s) (in PDF format) and uploaded as attachment(s) to the SER. To assist the Program incompleting the Program Profile and SER, IABEE openly publishes a Program Profile and Self-

8

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Evaluation Report Preparation Guidelines as can be found under the section of Obtaining
Accreditation in IABEE website, https://iabee.or.id.

2.5.3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION PROCESSThe Program evaluation process is in general undertaken by a thorough desk study of Program
Profile, Self Evaluation Report (SER) including its evidences submitted to IABEE Online Evaluation
System, as well as through on-site visit.
Depending on the accreditation categories (Section 2.2) and the accreditation decisions (Section
2.6), IABEE implements four types of Program evaluation, namely:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Evaluation for General Accreditation,
Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation with On-Site Visit,
Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation without On-Site Visit, andEvaluation for Provisional Accreditation.

Evaluation for General Accreditation evaluates the compliance of the Program to RPEA and all
evaluation items contained in the Accreditation Criteria for the accreditation cycle. Interim
Evaluation measures the compliance to a portion of the evaluation items in the Accreditation
Criteria, which may be undertaken with or without on-site visit. An Interim Evaluation (No. 2 or
3) is an evaluation to be conducted following a certain accreditation decision in General
Accreditation (see further Section 2.6). Lastly, Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation measures
the potential for compliance of the Program to the Accreditation Criteria.
Programs applying for their initial evaluation may select either Evaluation for General
Accreditation or for Provisional Accreditation, in accordance to the eligibility requirements
explained in Section 2.3. The type of evaluation for Programs applying for re-evaluation shall bebased on their previous accreditation status. Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation is notallowed for Programs applying for re-evaluation.
In the case of Evaluation for General Accreditation, the degree of Program compliance to specificAccreditation Criteria item is determined from evaluation results documented in the IABEE
Online Evaluation System. The terminology used to declare the degree of compliance to each
item is as follows:
Acceptable (abbreviated as ‘A’), which means that the evaluated item complies with theassociated Accreditation Criteria item.
• Concern (abbreviated as ‘C’), which means that the evaluated item complies with theassociated Accreditation Criteria item, but with a possibility of changes in pertinent conditionsin the future which may compromise the compliance.
• Weakness (abbreviated as ‘W’), which means that the evaluated item indicates aninsufficiently strong compliance to the associated Accreditation Criteria item. This•

9

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-shortcoming requires corrective actions to strengthen the compliance of the specificevaluation item to the appropriate Accreditation Criteria item.
• Deficiency (abbreviated as ‘D’), which means that the Program is unable to comply with theparticular Accreditation Criteria item.
In addition, evaluation may also provide an Observation, i.e. comments that are not directly
related to accreditation criteria and actions but are offered to assist the program in conducting
continual quality improvement; and the Statement of Strength, which is a very effective andprominent condition or practice that is above the norm and has a positive effect on the Program.
The final “A-C-W-D” judgement shall determine the accreditation status given to the Program in
the case of General Accreditation (see further Section 2.6 for explanation on accreditation
decision).
Meanwhile, in Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation, the degree of Program compliance tospecific Accreditation Criteria item is determined from evaluation results documented in the
IABEE Online Evaluation System. Based on the evidences studied by assigned Program Evaluator,
a score either “Yes” or “No” would be used to mark each Criteria item as a conclusion whether
or not, from the Evaluator’s viewpoint, the Program has a solid potential to meet the item withina foreseeable future (4 years or less). See further Section 2.6 for explanation on accreditation
decision

2.5.4. EVALUATION FOR GENERAL ACCREDITATION
Table 1 presents the activity diagram of the Evaluation for General Accreditation process. All
documentation resulting from these activities are recorded in the IABEE Online Evaluation
System.
Table 1. Steps in the Evaluation for General Accreditation
Actor(s)
EGA
Step
no.

Activity

1

Registration of Program Representative(PR) & Program Operating Institution
Representative (POIR)

3

2

PR & POIR registration verification

3



3

Application for Program evaluation







4

Program eligibility verification

3



3

5

Evaluation scheduling

3



3

6

Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

3



7

Full payment reception

3

8

EAC Discipline assignment

9

Evaluation Team members selection

IABEE
Secretariat

Accred.
Council

EAC
Chair

Program

EAC
Discipl.
Chair

Team
Chair

Program
Evaluator

Program
Rep.
3

3




10

3

3





3

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Actor(s)
EGA
Step
no.

IABEE

Activity
Secretariat

Accred.
Council

EAC
Chair

Program

EAC
Discipl.
Chair

Team
Chair

Program
Evaluator

ProgramRep.

10

Evaluation Team Chair assignment

3

11

Approval of evaluation observers

3



12

Evaluation Team acceptance



3

13

Final Evaluation Team confirmation

3

3



14

Completed Program Profile and SelfEvaluation Report (SER) submission15

Program First Review

16

Program Second Review

17

Program First Response

18

Program Third Review

3

19

On-Site Visit Planning

3

20

On-Site Visit

3

3

3

21

Exit Meeting

3

3

3

22

Program First Evaluation3

23

Program Second Response

24

Program Second Evaluation

25

Program Final Response

26

Program Final Report

27

EAC Discipline Harmonization

28

EAC Plenary Meeting

29

Accreditation Decision30

Accreditation Status Announcement

3

3
3
3
3
3


3

3
3
3
3
3
3

The following is a concise description of each step of Evaluation for General Accreditation (EGA)
outlined in Table 1.
Step EGA-1. PR & POIR Registration
Officials appointed by Program Operating Institution as PR and POIR are required to register as
members of IABEE Online Evaluation System in advance. Registration is made through the IABEE
website at https://iabee.or.id by choosing the Menu “IABEE ku – login” (in Bahasa Indonesia
version) or “My IABEE – login” (in English version) and creating a free user account. Uploading
appropriate proof of authority is required as attachment to account registration.
Step EGA-2. PR & POIR Registration Verification
The IABEE Secretariat examines the credentials of the PR and POIR upon their registration
through the IABEE website. Upon confirmation of the validity of the PR and POIR, a notificatione-mail shall be sent to the officials.

11

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EGA-3. Application for Program Evaluation
The Program Representative or POI Representative applies for Program evaluation by submitting
proofs of eligibility requirements. In the case of Evaluation for General Accreditation, theserequirements include a copy of documents indicating:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

the national accreditation status of the Program and the Program Operating Institution,
when the program was firstly established,when OBE was implemented for the first time,
the statement of Program’s Autonomous Professional Profile as its educational objective,
the statement of Program’s Learning Outcomes,
number of graduates produced since OBE was adopted, or expected number of graduates
under OBE system by October of the evaluation year, and(7) a sample of Learning Outcomes assessment results.
Step EGA-4. Program Eligibility Verification
The Secretariat and EAC Chair examine the data entered in the Program Eligibility Form andcheck it against the eligibility criteria listed in Section 2.3.
Step EGA-5. Evaluation Scheduling
The EAC Chair compiles the results of Program eligibility verification for the Accreditation Cycle.
An evaluation schedule plan for the cycle is then defined based on the list of eligible Programs,
and availability of appropriate Program Evaluators (PEVs). The schedule for each Program shall
include deadlines for all evaluation steps. If there are more than one Program of the same
discipline are deemed eligible for evaluation, then the schedule shall be defined on a first comefirst served basis.
Step EGA-6. Notice of Evaluation Kick-off & Invoicing
Upon the confirmation of Program eligibility and the evaluation schedule of each Program, theSecretariat through IABEE Online Evaluation System sends a notification e-mail to each Program
Representative, which contains notice of initiation of the evaluation process and important
deadlines throughout the evaluation process. The Secretariat will also upload onto the online
system an invoice for all evaluation fees, including information on payment method anddeadline. The system will notify Program Representative regarding the invoice.
Step EGA-7. Full Payment Reception
No later than the payment deadline stipulated in the invoice, the Program must complete thefull payment of evaluation fees in accordance to the invoice. Outstanding payment may cause
suspension of evaluation process.

12IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EGA-8. EAC Discipline Chair Assignment
Upon the definitive of the annual evaluation schedule, the EAC Chair examines the list of
Programs to be evaluated and assigns the appropriate Discipline Chair for each engineering
discipline involved in the accreditation cycle.
Step EGA-9. Evaluation Team Members Selection
The assigned Discipline Chair selects the member for the Program Evaluation Team, based on
available PEVs. The selection of the members shall be based on academic competence, training
qualifications, and potential conflict of interest with the Program to be evaluated. Requirements
to become program evaluator is described in Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-Related
Committees (RPARC) document.
Step EGA-10. Evaluation Team Chair Assignment
The EAC Chair assigns one Team Chair for each Evaluation Team. In the case where more than
one Program in an Institution are to be evaluated simultaneously, some or all Evaluation Teams
involved may share the same Team Chair.
Step EGA-11. Approval of Evaluation Observers
As part of the requirements to become a program evaluator, IABEE may assign candidates ofprogram evaluator to observe a real program evaluation as evaluator-in-training. Also, IABEE
welcomes non-IABEE members to become observer of the evaluation process. As the entire
evaluation process in conducted through IABEE Online Evaluation System, before becoming anobserver one must register a personal user account in the system. The EAC Chair assigns andattaches observer(s) to the appropriate Evaluation Team based on best match to his/heracademic background or engineering discipline. The involvement of observer(s) shall beapproved by the Program.
Step EGA-12. Evaluation Team Acceptance
The Program is expected to examine the acceptability of the Evaluation Team initially proposedby IABEE, and to send their approval through IABEE Online Evaluation System. If the Program
does not approve the Evaluation Team members due to a valid reason (e.g. a conflict of interest),
the EAC Chair shall re-assign a new Evaluation Team.
Step EGA-13. Final Evaluation Team Confirmation
Upon acceptance of the Evaluation Team by the Program, the EAC Chair confirms the Team Chair
and Evaluation Team members through notification to the Program via the IABEE Online
Evaluation System, issuance of an official Letter of Assignment, and provision of access to theOnline System as Evaluation Team members.
13

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EGA-14. Completed Program Profile and SER Submission
No later than the deadline shown on the related step in IABEE Online Evaluation System, theProgram is expected to complete and submit the Program Profile and the Self-Evaluation Report(SER) including its necessary attachments to system. IABEE Online Evaluation System provides
upload and submit procedure separately. It is to be noted that upload button is used only tostore all the document files in the IABEE server. To send it as a submission, Program
Representative must click the submit button. The Program can no longer amend the Program
Profile and SER online documents after submit button has been used.
A Program may submit a total of six files, sizing 30 Mbytes each, to contain Program Profile andall SER attachment files (e.g. compendium of proofs/evidences), in addition to the SER itself. The
SER itself is written separately in a dedicated spreadsheet template and uploaded onto thesystem by letting the system read and copy the data prepared in the template (see also Section
2.5.2).
Step EGA-15. Program First Evaluation
In the Program First Evaluation, Evaluation Team members review the submitted Program
Profile, Self-Evaluation Report, and all additional documents. Each member independently
assigns the ‘A-C-W-D’ score and provide comments for each evaluation item in the Program
Evaluator worksheet template downloaded from the IABEE Online Evaluation System. An
observer (evaluator-in-training) may also review the documents submitted by the Program, but
his/her judgment is not accounted for in the evaluation (only for training purposes). At this step,
only Team Chair can see all evaluation results (i.e. A-C-W-D scores and comments on each criteria
item). Evaluation results are not yet accessible by Program Representative.
Evaluation Team members are also expected to notify the Team Chair on the need for any
additional information, data, or explanation from the Program to ensure accurate evaluation.
IABEE Online Evaluation System provides internal message board facility to allow communication
among Evaluation Team members and its chair.
Step EGA-16. Program Second Evaluation
The Team Chair collects the Program First Evaluation results from the Evaluation Team members.
Subsequently, he/she prepares the Program Second Evaluation by assigning the ‘A-C-W-D’ scoreand provide comments for each evaluation item in the Team Chair worksheet based on the
results collected from his/her team member, his/her own judgement, and considering any
different opinion between the individual Evaluation Team members. The Team Chair also
compiles the list of required additional information, data, or explanation from the Program. The
Program Second Evaluation results are then uploaded and submitted to the IABEE Online
Evaluation System.

14

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EGA-17. Program First Response
Upon submission of the Program Second Evaluation results to the IABEE Online Evaluation
System by the Team Chair, the Program Representative will get a notification e-mail from thesystem. The Program is expected to respond to the request for any additional information, data,or explanation. The additional information is to be submitted through IABEE Online Evaluation
System. At this step, Program Representative can only see the Team Chair’s comments on each
evaluation or criteria item. No “A-C-W-D” score is accessible to the Program.
The system again provides a space to upload three attachment files sizing 30 Mb at maximum
for each file, in addition to SER improvement.
To facilitate smooth communication, IABEE Online Evaluation System provides external message
board facility that can be used only by Program Representative and the Evaluation Team Chair.
The deadline for this Program First Response is made known to the PR/POIR by the system.
Step EGA-18. Program Third Evaluation
The Team Chair collects the additional information provided by the Program in the Program First
Response. Together with the results of the Program Second Evaluation, this information is thenused to formulate the Program Third Evaluation, which contains the tentative ‘A-C-W-D’ scoresof each evaluation item. This report shall also contain a list of items to be further elaborated
during the On-Site Visit. At this step, Program Representative can only see the Team Chair’scomments on each evaluation or criteria item. No “A-C-W-D” score is accessible to the Program.
Step EGA-19. On-Site Visit Planning
Upon the completion of the Program Third Evaluation, the Team Chair prepares an On-Site Visit
Plan via the IABEE Online Evaluation System. This plan contains the visit dates, a detailed list ofdaily activities to be undertaken by the Evaluation Team during the visit, including groups ofpeople from Program stakeholders they wish to meet, as well as logistical matters related to thevisit. Team Chair shall propose the visit dates to the Program and shall discuss further with
Program Representative which of the options is the most suitable one to undertake the visit.
Step EGA-20. On-Site Visit
The On-Site Visit will be undertaken by the Evaluation Team on the agreed-upon dates. The visit
shall include the following activities:• Interview of faculty members, students, support staff, as well as alumnae and otherstakeholders to obtain a comprehension on the compliance of the Program to RPEA andAccreditation Criteria items, and to identify specific issues arising from the review of Program
Profile and Self-Evaluation Report, as well as from the On-Site Visit activities.
• Examination on the following specific aspects:

15

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

o

o

o

o

o
o

o

Version 2018-

Physical facilities: The Evaluation Team shall verify whether the learning atmosphereprovided by the Program through the utilization of various facilities is sufficient, andthat the facilities may be utilized in a safe manner for their intended purposes.
Learning materials: The Evaluation Team shall examine examples of course materials
including course description and syllabi, textbooks, assignments and tests, andexamples of student works which include works receiving borderline to very highmarks.
Proof that the Autonomous Professional Profile envisaged by Program’s educational
objectives and the Learning Outcomes declared by the Program has consideredvision and mission of the POIR as well as the needs of Program Stakeholders.
Proof of the implementation of a process that is documented and effectively utilized,with involvement of Program Stakeholders, for the periodic review of theAutonomous Professional Profile.
Proof of the undertaking of learning assessment, evaluation, and attainment of
Program Learning Outcomes.
Proof of the undertaking of actions to continually improve the quality of the Program.
Support functions for the students, to ensure the adequacy of student services inaccordance to the mission of the Institution, the Autonomous Professional Profile,and Program Learning Outcomes.
The process for monitoring the completion of study and conferral of academic
degree for each student.

Throughout the On-Site Visit, Program Evaluators are expected to re-evaluate the level ofcompliance of the Program to each evaluation item as temporarily scored during the desk studyof its Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report and to take note of Observations.
IABEE upholds certain codes of conduct in undertaking an On-Site Visit to make sure the activity
achieves its intended objectives effectively and to prevent any conflict of interest. Please see
Section 2.9. for the related Codes of Conduct.
Step EGA-21. Exit Meeting
An Exit Meeting shall be held at the end of the On-Site Visit, in which the Evaluation Team Chair
shall verbally communicate findings observed by the Evaluation Team to the Program Operating
Institution’s highest executive officer of his/her representative, and other official(s) that thehighest executive officer wishes to include in the meeting. The meeting concludes the On-Site
Visit by reading out the Exit Statement. Prior to Exit Meeting, the Evaluation Team shall normallycommunicate the findings to the Program Representative and his/her team in a debrief session.
This session is conducted to reach common understanding between the Evaluation Team and
the Program about the findings and their consequences.
Exit Meeting is essentially a one-way communication. No discussion of the results shall beentertained during the meeting. The Evaluation Team shall not leave any written copy of Exit
Statement document with the Program and Program Operating Institution since the statement
16IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

shall be made available at the IABEE Online Evaluation System. The Program may inspect thesefindings in the IABEE Online Evaluation System after the conclusion of the Exit Meeting at theProgram First Evaluation step.
Step EGA-22. Program First Evaluation
Program First Evaluation is produced by the Evaluation Team and sent by the Team Chair to
IABEE Online Evaluation System. It consists of evaluation results and findings read out during theExit Meeting.
A definite deadline is set for the Team Chair to complete the Program First Evaluation, which isapproximately two weeks after the Exit Meeting date. The Program First Evaluation is accessibleby the Program Representative and Program Operating Institution Representative. At this step,
Program Representative can see the Team Chair’s comments on each evaluation or criteria item
and a draft Exit Statement. No “A-C-W-D” judgement is accessible to the Program.
Step EGA-23. Program Second Response
Upon the disclosure of the findings in the IABEE Online Evaluation System, the Program is given
7 days to submit amendments only to factual errors or omissions, if such errors or omissions are
identified in the online system entries. The period is initiated in the system right after Team Chair
submits Program First Evaluation. Example of factual errors include errors in quoting names,
identities, figures, locations, etc. related to the Program and its Institution. If the Program finds
no factual error in the Program First Evaluation, its Program Representative may notify the Team
Chair and let the 7-day period pass automatically.
Step EGA-24. Program Second Evaluation
Upon the expiration period of Program Second Response, the Team Chair thoroughly examines
the evaluation results documented in the IABEE Online Evaluation System to amend factual
errors pointed out by the Program, if any. The Team Chair then proceeds to prepare the Program
Second Evaluation report in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. After submission of Program
Second Evaluation by the Team Chair, Program Representative can see the “A-C-W-D”
judgements, the Team Chair’s comments on each evaluation or criteria item and a final Exit
Statement.
Step EGA-25. Program Final Response
Upon the completion of the Program Second Evaluation by the Team Chair, the Program Final
Response is triggered to commence in the IABEE Online System. In this period, the Program isgiven 30 days to follow up on shortcomings identified in the evaluation process to date. The
Program is encouraged to upload report and proofs of corrective actions and/or improvements
undertaken to address the shortcomings, until the 30-day deadline.
17

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EGA-26. Program Final Report
After the deadline of the 30-day response period has passed, the Team Chair prepares theProgram Final Evaluation document in the IABEE Online Evaluation System, by consideringcorrective actions and/or improvements reported by the Program to date. The report shall
include a description of the Program, its areas of strength, identified shortcomings, andconstructive Observations, and a summary of its compliance to the Accreditation Criteria as
indicated by the ‘A-C-W-D’ judgements of evaluation items. The report is submitted through theonline system to the respective EAC Discipline Chair and EAC Chair.
Step EGA-27. EAC Discipline Harmonization
The EAC Discipline Chair receives the Program Final Report from the Team Chair and holds an
EAC Discipline Harmonization meeting to discuss and harmonize any inconsistency between therespective Evaluation Teams within the same discipline, and inconsistencies with past evaluation
results of similar Programs. Results of the Discipline Harmonization are documented in the IABEE
Online Evaluation System.
Step EGA-28. EAC Plenary Meeting
After the Discipline Harmonization is completed, the EAC Chair organizes an EAC Plenary Meeting
to discuss and harmonize any inconsistency with past and current evaluation results of Programs
operated under different institutions. EAC Plenary Meeting then recommend the final
accreditation decision to the IABEE Accreditation Council.
Step EGA-29. Accreditation Decision
Final decision of the accreditation status of a Program is taken by the IABEE Accreditation
Council, with due consideration to the recommendation from the EAC Plenary Meeting. The
decision shall be kept in IABEE’s permanent records.
Step EGA-30. Accreditation Announcement
After the final decision has been reached, the IABEE Secretariat conducts the publicannouncement of the decision. The Not-Accredited status shall not be publicly declared, but
directly communicated to the corresponding Program Representative (PR) and Program
Operating Institution Representative (POIR). Other status shall be declared in the IABEE Website
and communicated to the PR and POIR. Program Accreditation Evaluation Report andaccreditation decision shall be saved in the IABEE Online Evaluation System and shall beaccessible by the Program.

18

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

2.5.5. INTERIM EVALUATION FOR GENERAL ACCREDITATIONThe Interim Evaluation is implemented if unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ category
are identified at the conclusion of a preceding Evaluation for General Accreditation. The Interim
Evaluation shall focus on evaluation items exhibiting the shortcomings in the preceding
evaluation, although other evaluation items may also be included. As outlined in Section 2.5.3,
there are two types of Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation, namely Interim Evaluation
with On-Site Visit and Interim Evaluation without On-Site Visit. The appropriate type of Interim
Evaluation is determined in the final decision of the preceding evaluation. Both types of Interim
Evaluation require the Program to submit a Self-Evaluation Report.
New Concern, Weakness, and Deficiency shortcomings that arise during the Interim Evaluation
may be reported. Evaluation process steps in an Interim Evaluation are identical to those
implemented in the Evaluation for General Accreditation (see Section 2.5.2), except that inInterim Evaluation only one Program Evaluator shall be assigned by IABEE.
Decision of accreditation status upon the completion of an Interim Evaluation is explained in
Section 2.6 on Accreditation Decision.

2.5.6. EVALUATION FOR PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION
Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation is provided as an option for Programs that have neverbeen evaluated and have yet to commit to apply for evaluation for General Accreditation. A
Program is only allowed to undergo this evaluation once. The evaluation reviews all parts of theAccreditation Criteria, except for those related to continual improvements based on learning
outcomes assessment. This evaluation and is conducted by one Program Evaluator.
Table 2 presents the activity diagram of the evaluation process. All documentation resulting fromthese activities are recorded in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. Following Table 2 is a concise
explanation of each Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (EPA) step outlined in the table.
Table 2. Steps in the Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (EPA)
Primary Actor(s)
EPA
Step
No.

Activity

1

Registration of Program Representative (PR)& Program Operating Institution
Representative (POIR)

2PR & POIR registration verification

3

IABEE
Secretariat

Accred.
Council

EAC Chair3Application for Program evaluation





4

Program eligibility verification





3

5

Evaluation scheduling





3

3



Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

19

Program
Evaluator

Program
Rep.
3

3


6

Program
EAC
Discip.
Chair

3


IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Primary Actor(s)
EPA
Step
No.

IABEE

Activity
Secretariat

7

Full payment reception

8

EAC Discipline assignment

Accred.
Council3

EAC Chair

Program
EAC
Discip.
Chair

Program
Evaluator

Program
Rep.
3


3


3



9

Program Evaluator (PEV) selection

10

PEV acceptance11
12

Final PEV confirmation
Completed Program Profile and SelfEvaluation Report (SER) submission

13

Program First Evaluation

14

Program Response

15

Program Second Evaluation

3

16

On-Site Visit Planning

3

3

17

On-Site Visit

3

3

18

Exit Meeting

3

3

19

Program Final Report

3

20

EAC Plenary Meeting

21

Accreditation Decision

22

Accreditation Status Announcement

3

3



3

3





3
3
3

3
3

Step EPA-1. PR & POIR Registration
Officials appointed by Program Operating Institution as PR and POIR are required to register as
members of IABEE Online Evaluation System in advance. Registration is made through the IABEE
website at http://iabee.or.id/ by choosing the Menu “IABEE ku – login” (in Bahasa Indonesia
version) or “My IABEE – login” (in English version) and creating a free user account. Uploading
appropriate proof of authority is required as attachment to account registration.
Step EPA-2. PR & POIR Registration Verification
The IABEE Secretariat examines the credentials of the PR and POIR upon their registration
through the IABEE website. Upon confirmation of the validity of the PR and POIR, a notificatione-mail shall be sent to the officials.
Step EPA-3. Application for Program Evaluation
The Program Representative or POI Representative applies for Program evaluation by submitting
proofs of eligibility requirements. In the case of Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation, theserequirements include a copy of documents indicating:(1) the national accreditation status of the Program and the Program Operating Institution,(2) when the program was firstly established,(3) when OBE was implemented for the first time,20

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-(4) the statement of Program’s Autonomous Professional Profile as its educational objective, and(5) the statement of Program’s Learning Outcomes.
Step EPA-4. Program Eligibility Verification
The Secretariat and EAC Chair examine the data entered in the Program Eligibility Form andcheck it against the eligibility criteria listed in Section 2.3.
Step EPA-5. Evaluation Scheduling
The EAC Chair compiles the results of Program eligibility verification for the Accreditation Cycle.
An evaluation schedule plan for the cycle is then defined based on the list of eligible Programs,
and availability of appropriate Program Evaluators (PEVs). The schedule for each Program shall
include deadlines for all evaluation steps. If there are more than one Program of the same
discipline are deemed eligible for evaluation, then the schedule shall be defined on a first comefirst served basis.
Step EPA-6. Notice of Evaluation Kick-off & Invoicing
Upon the confirmation of Program eligibility and the evaluation schedule of each Program, theSecretariat through IABEE Online Evaluation System sends a notification e-mail to each Program
Representative, which contains notice of initiation of the evaluation process and important
deadlines throughout the evaluation process. The Secretariat will also upload onto the online
system an invoice for all evaluation fees, including information on payment method anddeadline. The system will notify Program Representative regarding the invoice.
Step EPA-7. Full Payment Reception
No later than the payment deadline stipulated in the invoice, the Program must complete thefull payment of evaluation fees in accordance to the invoice. Outstanding payment may cause
suspension of evaluation process.
Step EPA-8. EAC Discipline Chair Assignment
Upon the definitive of the annual evaluation schedule, the EAC Chair examines the list of
Programs to be evaluated either for General Accreditation or Provisional Accreditation andassigns the appropriate Discipline Chair for each engineering discipline involved in theaccreditation cycle.
Step EPA-9. Program Evaluator (PEV) Selection
The assigned Discipline Chair selects a Program Evaluator based on available PEVs. The selectionof Program Evaluator shall be based on academic competence, training qualifications, andpotential conflict of interest with the Program to be evaluated. Requirements to become21IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

program evaluator is described in Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-related Committees(RPARC) document.
Step EPA-10. Program Evaluator (PEV) Acceptance
The Program Representative (PR) or Program Operating Institution Representative (POIR) is
expected to communicate their consent or objection to the Program Evaluator proposed by EAC
Discipline Chair through IABEE Online Evaluation System. In case where a reasonable objection
is stated by the PR or POIR, a different PEV shall be proposed by the EAC Discipline Chair.
Step EPA-11. Final Program Evaluator (PEV) Confirmation
Upon the acceptance of the PEV by the PR or POIR, EAC Chair makes confirmation of PEV
assignment in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. IABEE Secretariat shall follow the step byproducing an official Letter of Appointment to the PEV.
Step EPA-12. Completed Program Profile and Self Evaluation Report (SER) Submission
No later than the deadline shown on the related step in IABEE Online Evaluation System, theProgram is expected to complete and submit the Program Profile and the Self-Evaluation Report(SER) including its necessary attachments to system. IABEE Online Evaluation System provides
upload and submit procedure separately. It is to be noted that upload button is used only tostore all the document files in the IABEE server. To send it as a submission, Program
Representative must click the submit button. The Program can no longer amend the Program
Profile and SER online documents after submit button has been used.
A Program may submit a total of six files, sizing 30 Mbytes each, to contain Program Profile andall SER attachment files (e.g. compendium of proofs/evidences), in addition to the SER itself. The
SER itself is written separately in a dedicated spreadsheet template and uploaded onto thesystem by letting the system read and copy the data prepared in the template (see also Section
2.5.2).
Step EPA-13. Program First Evaluation
In the Program First Evaluation, Program Evaluator reviews the submitted Program Profile, SelfEvaluation Report, and all additional documents. The Program Evaluator for the first time shallassign the ‘Yes-No’ score and provide comments for each evaluation item in the Program
Evaluator worksheet template downloaded from the IABEE Online Evaluation System. Program
Evaluator shall notify the Program Representative on the need for any additional information,
data, or explanation from the Program to ensure accurate evaluation. IABEE Online Evaluation
System provides a message board facility to allow communications between Program Evaluatorand Program Representative.

22

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EPA-14. Program Response
The Program Representative is expected to respond to the request for additional data or
explanation from the Program Evaluator, if any. This respond is to be documented and submitted
as the Program First Response. At this step, although “Yes-No” scores as well as evaluationcomments have been inputted by Program Evaluator for each criteria item, but Program
Representative can only see the comments section. IABEE Online Evaluation System provides
additional space for uploading a maximum of 3 files in PDF format sizing maximum 30 Mbyes
each.
Step EPA-15. Program Second Evaluation
Based on the First Program Response, the Program Evaluator prepares a Program Second
Evaluation report, which is essentially an improvement of Program First Evaluation based on
additional evidences submitted by the Program, if any, during the Program Response step. This
report shall contain the initial evaluation of the Program, and a list of items to be inquired further
during the On-Site Visit.
Step EPA-16. On-Site Visit Planning
The Program Evaluator prepares a detailed On-Site Visit plan, which includes visit schedule anditinerary, list of persons to be interviewed, list of items to be inquired further, as well as logisticalmatters related to the visit. The Program Representative shall be notified through e-mail by
IABEE Online Evaluation System right after Program Evaluator has posted the visit plan in thesystem. Program Representative may discuss with Program Evaluator to agree on the visit dateand plan.
Step EPA-17. On-Site Visit
The On-Site Visit will be undertaken by Program Evaluator on the agreed-upon date. The visit
shall include the following activities:• Interview of faculty members, students, and support staff to obtain a comprehension on thecompliance of the Program to Accreditation Criteria items, and to identify specific issues
arising from the review of Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report, as well as from the OnSite Visit activities.
• Examination on the following specific aspects:o Physical facilities: The Evaluator shall verify whether the learning atmosphereprovided by the Program through the utilization of various facilities is sufficient, andthat the facilities may be utilized in a safe manner for their intended purposes.
o Learning materials: The Evaluator shall examine examples of course materials
including course description and syllabi, textbooks, assignments and tests, andexamples of student works which include works receiving borderline to very highmarks.
23

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

o Proof that the Autonomous Professional Profile envisaged by Program’s educational
objectives and the Learning Outcomes declared by the Program has consideredvision and mission of POIR, as well as the needs of Program Stakeholders.
o Assessment plan of Program Learning Outcomes.
o Support functions for the students, to ensure the adequacy of student services inaccordance to the mission of the Institution, the Autonomous Professional Profile,and Program Learning Outcomes.
o The process for monitoring the completion of study and conferral of academic
degree for each student.
Throughout the On-Site Visit, Program Evaluator is expected to re-evaluate the level ofcompliance of the Program to each evaluation item (i.e. the chance of meeting each criteria itemby the time the Program is expected to apply Evaluation for General Accreditation) as
temporarily scored during previous step as well as to take note of Observations.
IABEE upholds certain codes of conduct in undertaking an On-Site Visit to make sure the activity
achieves its intended objectives effectively and to prevent any conflict of interest. Please see
Section 2.9. for the related Codes of Conduct.
Step EPA-18. Exit Meeting
An Exit Meeting shall be held at the end of the On-Site Visit, in which the Program Evaluator shallverbally communicate findings to the Program Representative and Program Operating
Institution Representative, including other official(s) if any. The meeting concludes the On-Site
Visit by reading out the Exit Statement. The Evaluator will not leave any written copy of Exit
Statement document with the Institution since all the material shall be made available at the
IABEE Online Evaluation System. The Program may inspect these findings in the IABEE Online
Evaluation System after the conclusion of the Exit Meeting at the Program First Evaluation step.
Step EPA-19. Program Final Report
Based on the Program Second Evaluation and results from the On-Site Visit, the Program
Evaluator prepares the Program Final Report, which contains an evaluation of the current statusof the Program and, if Provisional Accreditation Status is deemed appropriate, areas wherecompliance improvements are expected within 4 years. The report is submitted to the EAC Chair.
The report shall include a description of the Program, its areas of strength, identified
shortcomings, and constructive Observations, and a summary of its compliance to theAccreditation Criteria as indicated by the ‘Yes-No’ scores of evaluation items
Step EPA-20. EAC Plenary Meeting
The EAC Chair brings the Program Final Evaluation reports to the EAC Plenary Meeting forthorough review of the accreditation status decision-making.

24

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Step EPA-21. Accreditation Decision
The IABEE Accreditation Council makes the final decision for Provisional Accreditation. For
explanation regarding Accreditation Decision, please see further Section 2.6.
Step EPA-22. Accreditation Status Announcement
The IABEE Secretariat informs the Program Representative and Program Operating Institution
Representative of the final evaluation decision. A “Not Accredited” status shall not be publicizedin the IABEE website, but a “Provisional Accreditation” status shall be publicized. The PA-status
notification shall also include instructions on the proper use of IABEE PA status by the Programand Program Operating Institution. Program Accreditation Evaluation Report and accreditation
decision shall be saved in the IABEE Online Evaluation System and shall be accessible by the
Program.

2 .6 . A C C R E D I T AT I ON D E C I SI ON S
Accreditation decisions following General and Provisional Accreditation Evaluations are taken by
IABEE Accreditation Council (AC) in AC Meeting by considering EAC Chair’s report. To take any
decision, the AC Meeting shall be attended by at least 2/3 of its members. The meeting isnormally conducted annually at the end of the accreditation cycle. Role and responsibility, as
well as membership of the Council are explained in the RPARC document.
Based on the Program’s evaluation type and compliance to Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA,
the Program shall receive one of the following final status, as explained in Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.2
for General Accreditation and Provisional Accreditation, respectively.

2.6.1. DECISIONS IN EVALUATION FOR GENERAL ACCREDITATION
Evaluation for General Accreditation for a Program ultimately finalizes in one of the following
status:• Accredited. This status implies that the Program meets all criteria and rules as outlined in the
Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA. This accreditation status is valid for a period of five years.
• Accredited with Interim Evaluation without Visit. This status implies that the Program indicatesunresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ category (“W” score). These shortcomings are
such that visit is not deemed necessary to assess future corrective actions. This status is valid
for a period of two years, after which the Program must undergo an Interim Evaluation basedon desk study.
• Accredited with Interim Evaluation with Visit. This status implies that the Program indicatesunresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ (“W” score) category. These shortcomings are
25

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-such that a visit is deemed necessary to assess future corrective actions. This status is valid
for a period of two years, after which the Program must undergo an Interim Evaluation which
includes both desk study and on-site visit.
• Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program fails to substantially comply with IABEE
Accreditation Criteria as indicated by unresolved shortcomings in the ‘Deficiency’ category(“D” score) and Rules and Procedures for Accreditation and Evaluation (RPEA).
Subsequent decision for accreditation status requiring Interim Evaluation, either with or without
On-Site Visit, shall be taken based on the results of the Interim Evaluation as follows:• If the Interim Evaluation results indicate that Program shortcomings of the previous‘Weakness’ category (“W” score) remain unresolved, then the Program receives the “Not
Accredited” final status. The Program may apply for new Evaluation for General Accreditation
after one evaluation cycle has passed since the last Interim Evaluation.
• If the Interim Evaluation results indicate that the Program has managed to rectify
Accreditation Criteria and RPEA compliance shortcomings in a satisfactory manner such that
all the criteria and RPEA items are met, then the Accredited with Interim Evaluation statusfrom the last Evaluation for General Accreditation (EGA) is changed to Accredited status, witha validity period of five years from the submission of Program Profile and Self-Evaluation
Report documents in the last EGA process.

2.6.2. DECISIONS IN EVALUATION FOR PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION
Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation for a Program ultimately finalizes in one of the following
status:• Provisionally Accredited. This status implies that the Program has the potentials of meeting
the Accreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (i.e. 4 years). Given eligibility
requirements are fulfilled, a program accredited in Provisional Accreditation is expected toapply evaluation for General Accreditation within a period of four years.
• Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program has substantially low potentials to meet
all Accreditation Criteria and RPEA items within 4 years.

2 .7 .

P U B L IC D ISC L OSU R E O F A C C R E D I T AT I ON S TA TU S

Accreditation by IABEE holds an unambiguous recognition that an undergraduate engineering
Program is planned, operated, and managed in accordance to international quality standards foroutcome-based engineering higher education. These standards are defined as IABEE
Accreditation Criteria (AC) and Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA). An
26

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-accredited status by IABEE does not imply any ordinal ranking between one Program and others
that are also accredited by IABEE.
IABEE shall not publicize the identity of Programs that receive NA (Not-Accredited) status.
Final decisions status from Evaluation for General Accreditation and Interim Evaluation for
General Accreditation process recognized as accredited status are Accredited, Accredited with
Interim Evaluation without Visit, and Accredited with Interim Evaluation with Visit. Each Program
has the right for public disclosure of the accreditation status by IABEE according to the following
rules:(1) The accreditation validity period of each accredited Program shall be made accessible to thegeneral public through the IABEE website. The Program and/or Program-Operating
Institution may not publicly disclose the accreditation validity period.
(2) IABEE shall provide an electronic file of official “accreditation logo” for Programs that havebeen accredited.
(3) The accreditation logo is different from the IABEE institutional logo and contain the starting
year of the accredited status. Under no circumstances shall the Program and/or ProgramOperating Institution be allowed to apply the IABEE institutional logo in all public
disclosures.
(4)

The official accreditation logo electronic file must not be altered or edited by any means(adding color and/or shade gradation, shadow, text, and frame, inserting the logo intoanother design, overlapping with other image, and other alterations), except resizing toadjust to specific media to which it is to be applied; the resizing must not change the aspectratio of the logo. A minimum logo dimension of 1.5 cm (measured along the longer axis of
the image) is required.

(5) The public disclosure of non-official IABEE institutional logo and/or IABEE accreditation logo
is strictly prohibited; the Program and/or Institution is obliged to prevent such disclosure
and, if undertaken by parties not associated with the Program / Institution, to publicly
declare their non-association. IABEE is not responsible for any misuse, deliberate orotherwise, of the IABEE institutional logo and/or accreditation logo.
(6) The public disclosure of official IABEE accreditation logo by the Program and/or its
Institution is allowed within the validity period of the Program’s accredited status.
(7) Public declaration of the accredited status in any media, whether or not involving the useof the IABEE accreditation logo, must be accompanied by a clear and unambiguousreference to specific Programs that are accredited by IABEE.
(8)

The application of official IABEE accreditation logo is allowed for the following public
disclosure and official documentation media:
a. in official website of the Program and/or the associated Program-Operating
Institution
27

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-b. in official letterheads, faculty member business cards, brochures, and other official
institutional printed matter, except apparelc. in promotional matter published in electronic or print media, such as the internet,
television media, newspapers, magazines, etc.
d. in degree-granting certificate or diploma (ijazah), academic transcripts, and Letterof Reference Accompanying Diploma (Surat Keterangan Pendamping Ijazah, SKPI)(9) Violation to the above rules shall result in the revocation of the Program’s rights to public
disclosure of its accreditation status. This revocation shall be made public by IABEE and shallbe effective until the necessary corrective actions have been taken by the Program and/or
Program-Operating Institution.

2 .8 . E VAL U AT I ON P R OC E S S F E E D B AC K AN D A P P E AL S

2.8.1. EVALUATION PROCESS FEEDBACK
In accordance with IABEE’s vision as a reformer engineering higher education quality assurance
body that operates in an independent and fair manner, IABEE solicits feedback from Programs
that have undergone the evaluation process. This feedback shall be utilized for the improvementof internal business processes, evaluation process, and assessment instruments anddocumentations. The Program Representative and Program Operating Institution
Representative may submit the feedback to IABEE Secretariat.

2.8.2. APPEAL AGAINST ACCREDITATION DECISION
The Program shall be given an opportunity to file an appeal to IABEE if an accreditation decision
is deemed unfair. The appeal must include a clearly written rationale for the appeal, withreference to specific AC and/or RPEA items associated with the appeal. Only final decision of
Not-Accredited (NA) status in General Accreditation may be appealed for. No appeal can be filled
against NA status in Provisional Accreditation.
Procedure for handling an appeal is outlined as follows:(1) Submission of official letter of appeal from the Program Institution highest executive officer
to the IABEE Chair of Executive Committee, to be received no later than 60 calendar days
from the official notification of accreditation decision. This submission must include thereasons for appeal with detailed evidences.
(2) Upon the receipt of an appeal submission, IABEE Chair of Executive Committee shall request
Chair of Appeal Board to form an Appeal Committee for the particular appeal case.

28

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

Membership requirements of an Appeal Committee are stipulated in Rules and Proceduresfor Accreditation-Related Committee (RPARC).
(3) IABEE Secretariat shall notify the Program Representative upon the formation of the Appeal
Committee and request him/her to submit the documents deemed necessary to support its
appeal within 30 calendar days. Upon submission of the documents, Secretariat shall deliver
them to Chair of Appeal Committee.
(4) Chair of Appeal Committee shall request EAC Chair to submit written materials forclarification of its position.
(5) The Appeal Committee members shall conduct a meeting to review the submitted materials.
Only written materials which have been submitted as part of documents in the process ofthe disputed accreditation decision shall be considered. Representatives of theProgram/Institution may not attend the meeting. The Appeal Committee is expected to takedecision within 90 days.
(6) The decision taken by the Appeal Committee is limited to the accreditation decision options
available in Section 2.6.1 of RPEA document. The decision shall be reported to the Chair of
Appeal Board.
(7) Chair of Appeal Board shall report the decision of the Appeal Committee to the Chair of
Executive Committee. This decision shall be the IABEE final decision on the matter.
(8) IABEE Secretariat shall communicate the final decision to the Program Representative. Finaldecision that affects the previous accreditation status shall immediately be made public in
the IABEE website.

2 .9 .

P OL IC IE S ON C ON D U C T IN G ON - S I TE V IS I T

The following are general policies for implementing an on-site visit:(1) On-site visit activities are arranged so as not to interfere with the routine activities ofProgram personnel and carried out during working hours, not causing overtime work,(2) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not cover accommodation andtransportation costs for evaluators,(3) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not give evaluators gifts of any kind,(4) Programs or Program Operating Institutions have no obligation to provide pick-up toevaluators from the airport to the hotel/place of accommodation and vice versa,(5) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not provide entertainment reception toevaluators of any kind, including:a. putting up banners/billboards/posters/welcome videotrons, moreover loading thenames and photos of the evaluators,b. giving a dinner party, andc. providing opportunities for social traveling or recreation.
29

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-(6) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not take photos or videos that involve
evaluators during the on-site visit,(7) For the purposes of efficiency and time effectiveness of on-site visits, Programs or Program
Operating Institutions are permitted, by maintaining the principle of simplicity:a. provide pick- up evaluator facilities from the hotel/accommodation to the campus anddelivery from the campus back to the hotel/accommodation place, andb. provide lunch (working lunch) on the days of on-site visits(8) In addition to the above policies, Programs or Program Operating Institutions are notallowed to make public exposure regarding on-going evaluation of accreditation until adefinitive accreditation decision has been announced.

30

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION

Version 2018-

3. INDICATIVE SC HEDU LE OF ACCRED ITATION EVALUA TION CYCLE
Table 3 outlines the typical timetable of an Accreditation Evaluation Cycle. An evaluation for
accreditation cycle covers a period of twelve calendar months, starting on 1 April of the current
year and ending on 31 March of the following year. Evaluation processes for General
Accreditation (EGA), Provisional Accreditation (EPA), and Interim Evaluation (IE) commence andend at the same date, although detailed steps of each process are different.
Table 3. Typical timetable of an Accreditation Evaluation Cycle
Step no.

Activity

Evaluation Type*)
EGA, EPA, IE

Period or Completion Deadline

PR & POIR registration verification

EGA, EPA, IE

1-15 April

Application for Program evaluation

1-15 April

Program eligibility verification

EGA, EPA, IE
EGA & EPA

Evaluation scheduling

EGA, EPA, IE

20 April

6

Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

7

EAC Discipline assignment

EGA, EPA, IE
EGA, EPA, IE

15-20 April

8

Evaluation Team members selection

EGA, EPA, IE

15-20 April

9

Evaluation Team Chair assignment

15-20 April

10

Approval of evaluation observers

EGA Only
EGA Only

11

Evaluation Team acceptance

EGA, EPA, IE

8 May

12

Final Evaluation Team confirmation

EGA, EPA, IE

8 May

13

Completed SER submission

EGA, EPA, IE

30 June14

Full payment reception

EGA, EPA, IE

1 May

15

Program First Evaluation

EGA, EPA, IE

31 July16

Program Second Evaluation

EGA only

15 August

17

Program First Response

EGA, EPA, IE

15 September

18

Program Third Evaluation

EGA Only

30 September

19

On-Site Visit Planning

EGA, EPA, IE-V

7 October20

On-Site Visit

EGA, EPA, IE-V

7 November

21

Exit Meeting

EGA, EPA, IE-V

7 November
7-14 November

1

PR & POIR registration

2
3
4
5

1-15 April

1-15 April
21 April

15-20 April

22

Program First Evaluation

EGA, IE-V

23

Program Second Response

EGA, IE-V

14 November

24

Program Second Evaluation
Program Final Response

EGA, IE-V
EGA, IE

28 November

25
26

Program Final Report

EGA, EPA, IE

15 January

27

EAC Discipline Harmonization

31 January

28

EAC Plenary Meeting

EGA, IE
EGA, EPA, IE

1 February

29

Accreditation Decision

EGA, EPA, IE

15 March

30

Accreditation Announcement

EGA, EPA, IE

31 March

28 December*) EGA = Evaluation for General Accreditation, EPA = Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation, IE = Interim Evaluation(either with or without visit), IE-V = Interim Evaluation with On-Site Visit

31

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX ERULES AND PROCEDURES FOREVALUATION AND
ACCREDITATION-RELATEDCOMMITTEES (RPARC)APPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEEINDONES IAN ACCR EDITA T ION BOARD
FOR ENGINEERING EDUC ATION (IABE E)

RULES & PROCEDURES FOR
ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES(RPARC)VERSION 2018-

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

CONTENTSCONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4

2.

EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE ........................................................ 4
2.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Chair and Membership ..................................................................................................... 4

3.

POOL OF PROGRAM EVALUATORS .............................................................................. 5
3.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Requirements for Program Evaluator Candidates ............................................................ 54.

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL ........................................................................................... 6
4.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Membership ..................................................................................................................... 65.

APPEAL BOARD AND APPEAL COMMITTEE .................................................................. 7
5.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Membership ..................................................................................................................... 7

6.

TRAINING .................................................................................................................... 7
6.1 Overview of Training Program .......................................................................................... 7
6.2 Awareness Training .......................................................................................................... 7
6.3 Modular Online Training................................................................................................... 8
6.4 Face-to-Face Training ....................................................................................................... 8
6.5 Observation in Actual On-Site Visit................................................................................... 8
6.6 Evaluator Refresher Training ............................................................................................ 9
6.7 Expected Evaluator Competence...................................................................................... 9
6.8 Evaluator Performance Evaluation ................................................................................. 11
6.9 Training Organizer .......................................................................................................... 117.

CODE OF ETHICS........................................................................................................ 12
7.1 IABEE Values ................................................................................................................... 12
7.2 Evaluator’s Ethical Principles .......................................................................................... 12

8.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................. 13

2

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

8.1 Policy on Conflict of Interest........................................................................................... 13
8.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 13

9.

CONFIDENTIALITY...................................................................................................... 14
9.1 Policy .............................................................................................................................. 14
9.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 14

3

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

1.

Version 2018-

INTRODUCTI ON

The purpose of this document of Rules and Procedures of Accreditation-Related
Committees (RPARC) is to define the rules and procedures for operating IABEE
committees that are directly related to the evaluation and accreditation process of a
Program. These consist of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC), Pool of
Program Evaluators, Accreditation Council and Appeal Board.

2.

EVALUATION AND ACCRE DITATI ON COMMITTEE

2 .1 R OL E S AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITYThis committee is responsible to conduct the accreditation evaluation of Programs. The
activity includes planning and scheduling, appointing the evaluation team, implementing
and monitoring the evaluation process, conducting post evaluation activities, including
harmonization, making recommendation on accreditation decision based on the
Accreditation Criteria and Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPPEA),
and reporting.
2 .2 C H A IR AN D ME MB E R SH IP

EAC is led by an EAC Chair and a Vice Chair. For the first time, its members consist of theexperienced academics from reputable universities and representing various engineering
disciplines, and the professional communities. The number and composition of members
can be adjusted to the evaluation workload and the variety of engineering disciplines
covered. All members of the Committee are voting members.
The Chair leads all meetings and is responsible for the conduct of the EAC roles. The Vice
Chair provides general assistance to the Chair as assigned and, in the absence of the
Chair, will assume the Chair's duties.
The EAC Chair designates, for every engineering discipline, a Discipline Chair among the
EAC members according to his/her educational background. The function of the Discipline
Chair is to propose the names of prospective evaluators who will serve in an accreditation
evaluation process and lead the discipline-level harmonization process before
accreditation decision making.
4

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

3.

Version 2018-

POOL OF PRO GRA M EVA LUATORS

3 .1 R OL E S AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITY
Program evaluators are responsible for conducting independent and systematic
evaluations from the preparatory, implementation and reporting stages to the post-site
visit activities. Program evaluators must provide an appropriate evaluation, in accordancewith the level of conformity of the program to the IABEE’s Accreditation Criteria and
RPEA.
Program evaluators are required to behave ethically and professionally by upholding theCode of Ethics of Evaluators and avoiding conflicts of interest on evaluatedinstitutions/programs.
As stated in the RPEA, an accreditation evaluation of programs is conducted by anevaluator team consists of usually two academics and one industrial practitioner. The
evaluation team is led by a Team Chair. The competencies of evaluator team members
and the Team Chair are explained in Section 6.7.

3 .2 R E Q U I R E ME N TS F OR P R O G R A M E VAL U A T O R C AN D ID A TE S
The recruitment process to become a candidate for IABEE’s program evaluators is carriedout in coordination with the respective Discipline Chapters of PII (BK-PII). The
requirements are as follow:(1) Demonstrates interest and commitment in improving the quality of higher
engineering education.
(2) Has a good professional and ethical reputation.
(3) Has a commitment to improve his/her professional development (lifelong learning).
(4) Has good skills in working online and with word processing programs and data.
(5) Graduated from reputable university and has a good academic qualification in theappropriate field (for domestic university with national accreditation of Programrank-A by BAN-PT, or for foreign university with reputable recognition by Minister ofResearch and Technology and Higher Education).
(6) Has certificate as professional educator and at least 10 years lecturing experienceand or certification as professional engineer with minimum level of Professional
Engineer (IPM).
(7) Registered as member of PII.
5

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

A candidate who has been assessed as fulfilling the above requirements must thenundertake a series of IABEE candidate evaluator training programs. See Section 6 forfurther information on IABEE Evaluator Training Program.

4. A C C R E D I T A T I O N C O U N C I L

4 .1 R OL ES AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITY
Accreditation Council is a board of officials in charge of taking the final accreditation
decision, based on the final results of accreditation recommended by the EAC Plenary
Meeting. The main role of the council is to ensure that the accreditation process has
been carried out in accordance with the established rules and procedures, code of ethics,
the principle of confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The council does
not conduct a technical review so that it repeats what has been done by the EAC but
rather on ensuring that all accreditation procedures have been carried out consistently
and also emphasizing philosophical and strategic considerations if deemed necessary.
If any doubt arises concerning the recommendation of EAC, the Council has the right torequest the EAC to re-examine the evaluation process for ensuring a justified
accreditation decision.
4 .2 ME MB E R SH IP
The Council has 5-7 members consisting of representatives from academics, professionalsocieties, and industry. Only in the initial period of IABEE’s establishment, there weremembers of the Council representing government with the aim of ensuring that IABEE'svision and mission were aligned with national laws and policies. After IABEE becomesfully independent, representation from the government is no longer needed. The
members and the Chair of Accreditation Council are appointed by the Executive
Committee in yearly basis.

6

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

5. A P P E A L B O A R D A N D A P P E A L C O M M I T T E E

5 .1 R OL E S AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITY
Appeal is a facility provided to a Program if a final accreditation decision of NotAccredited is deemed inappropriate. Appeal Board and Appeal Committee are board of
officials that are appointed to hear appeals. They judge whether the accreditation
decision was right or wrong, when the program or institution affected by it thinks that it
was wrong. This judgement shall be the IABEE final decision on the matter.
Upon request of the Chair of Executive Committee, Appeal Board shall form an Appeal
Committee who will conduct the entire process of resolving an appeal case.
5 .2 ME M B E R SH IP
The Appeal Board constitutes of Chair and Vice Chair who are appointed by the Executive
Committee. An Appeal Committee formed by the Appeal Board consists of threemembers comprising at least an experienced Program Evaluator and a representative of
associated engineering discipline. No member of the committee shall be involved as aTeam Chair in the evaluation cycle during which the appealing Program is evaluated.
Chair of Appeal Board shall appoint one of the members to be the Chair of Appeal
Committee.

6. T R A I N I N G

6 .1 O VE R V IE W OF T R A I N IN G P R OG R AM
Participants selected to take part in the IABEE Evaluator Candidate Training need toundergo a series of training programs, namely Awareness Training, Modular Online
Training, Face-to-Face Training, and Observation in an On-Site Evaluation. Evaluator
Refresher Training will also be given to evaluators who get assignments in the particularyear.
6 .2 AW AR E N E S S T R A I N I NG
This training is carried out by Chapters of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (BK-PII),
with instructors from IABEE with the aim of recruiting IABEE evaluator candidates. The
7

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

purpose of this training is to:(1) introduce IABEE and give an understanding to evaluator candidates about therelationship between educational institutions and industry in the context of Outcome
Based Education (OBE), and(2) Introduce evaluator candidates on the concept of outcome-based accreditation,
IABEE Accreditation Criteria, and Rules and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) and the roles of evaluators.
6 .3 M OD U L A R ON L IN E T R AIN IN G
This is a regular yearly training conducted by IABEE with the following objectives:(1) to give understanding of the basic aspects of the entire IABEE accreditation process,and(2) to provide experience in preparing a program visit by giving several assignments
pertinent to it.
The modules consist of introduction to IABEE; accreditation concepts; Accreditation
Criteria; RPEA; roles and duties of evaluators; improvement of learning quality;
evaluation judgment and accreditation decision making. This is a prerequisite training forevaluator candidate to be eligible to participate in the following Face-To-Face Training.
6 .4 F AC E - TO- F AC E T R A IN IN G
This is a 2-day interactive training program that is designed to simulate a real activity of
program visit. It is designed for two purposes:(1) to give participants a picture of the real situation and activities that occurs during a
campus visit. The workshop is designed based on the online training materials thathave been completed by participants, and(2) to give participants the opportunity to demonstrate their competence as evaluators.
This training is guided by instructors and facilitators who function to guide participantsin the learning process.
6 .5 O B S E R V A T ION IN AC TU A L ON - SI TE V I SI T
After successfully completing the series of evaluator training programs, IABEE will include
the candidates in IABEE’s Pool of Program Evaluators. However, assignment as a program
evaluator can only be done after the candidate has direct experience in a

8

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

program evaluation activity. For this purpose, a candidate who has passed the series oftraining programs will be involved in an internship as an observer (evaluator-in-training)in an actual program evaluation activity.
The purposes of this observation are to:(1) to improve the competence of evaluator candidates through direct involvement in
the implementation of program evaluation, starting from document review (Program
Profile, Self-Evaluation Report/SER), preparation of visits, interviews andobservation, assessment, and report writing, and(2) to demonstrate that the evaluator has the competence to evaluate the program.
Observer tasks include:(1) observing the implementation of a program evaluation,(2) practicing interview (with permission from the Team Chair), and(3) practicing to give judgment.

6 .6 E V AL U A T OR R E F R E S H E R TR A IN IN G
This training is specifically conducted for evaluators who will get the task of evaluating a
program in that particular year. The objectives of this training are to:(1) Recall evaluation processes and procedures(2) Inform the latest developments in Accreditation Criteria and RPEA(3) Share experiences (taking lessons) from the previous period evaluation processThis is half day training and held before the implementation of the current year
evaluation process.
6 .7 E X P E C TE D E V AL U A T O R C O MP E TE N C E
After going through the series of training programs and after having adequate evaluation
experience, a program evaluator is expected to have the following knowledge, skills andattitudes.
Technically current:• Demonstrates required technical credentials for the position• Engaged in lifelong learning and current in their field

9

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

Effective communicator:• Easily conducts face-to-face interviews• Writes clearly and succinctly• Presents focused, concise oral briefings
Interpersonally skilled:• Friendly and sets others at ease
• Listens and places input into context• Remains open-minded and avoids personal bias
• Forthright, doesn't hold back what needs to be said
• Skillful at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in non-confrontational
Team-oriented:• Readily accepts input from team members• Works with team members to reach consensus• Values team success over personal success
Professional:• Conveys professional appearance and demeanor• Is committed to contributing and adding value to the evaluation process• Considered a person with high integrity and ethical standards
Organized:• Is focused on meeting deadlines• Focuses on critical issues and avoids minor detail• Displays take-charge initiative• Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision
For a Team Chair, additional competencies are required, particularly those related toleadership quality and capability to manage an evaluation team. These include:
Leadership••••

Takes responsibility, facilitating constructive discussion and fostering closure
Exhibits adaptability and sound judgment
Fosters a team environment that is cohesive and well organized
Builds trust within the team and between the team and the institution

10

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

Good team manager:• Able to build team cohesion and effectively manage team meetings and activities• Able to bring the team to consensus, exhibiting skill in finding common ground andfostering cooperation• Able to diplomatically manage an effective exit meeting
6 .8 E V AL U A T OR P E R F OR MA N C E E V AL U A T I ON
The performance evaluation of evaluator candidates during training, and team memberof evaluators as well as team chair in conducting program evaluation is based on theevaluator competence described in point 6.7. This evaluation is primarily intended as ameans for professional development of evaluators.
The evaluation of evaluator candidates is conducted by the Training Facilitators and Peers.
The evaluation of evaluators is conducted by Institutions/Programs, Team Chair and Peers
after each visit, and the evaluation of Team Chair is conducted by Institution/Program,
Evaluators and EAC.
Evaluation instruments containing evaluation criteria and scoring system for evaluatorcandidates, evaluators, team chairs and training implementation are described in the
IABEE training center website.
6 .9 T R A IN IN G O R G AN I ZE R
The training organizer has the following duties and responsibilities:(1) plan, schedule and carry out training activities(2) preparing training materials, instructors and facilitators(3) assessing evaluator candidates(4) evaluate the implementation of training,(5) make continuous improvements of training programs
Training Instructors are EAC members who have the following qualifications.
(1) Technical accreditation evaluation knowledge obtained through successful
completion of overseas and IABEE’s evaluator trainer training programs and recent
accreditation evaluation experiences.
(2) Combination of adult-education delivery experience and knowledge of principles
obtained through at least 10 years delivery experience or successful completion of
an instructor training program based on adult learning principles.

11

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

(3)

(4)

Version 2018-

Have sufficient knowledge about the concept of Outcome-Based Education,
Quality Improvement of Education, IABEE matters, IABEE’s Accreditation Criteria
and RPEA, and IABEE’s Code of Ethics.
Have the ability to create positive learning environments and adheres to the
instructional design.

Training activities also involve several Facilitators who have the following tasks and roles:(1) Assist in managing the flow and training time(2) Helping participants to understand training materials(3) Helping the success of group learning during program visit simulations
All members of EAC are eligible to become training facilitators.

7. C O D E O F E T H I C S
7 .1 I AB E E V AL U E S
IABEE demands that all personnel involved in carrying out the mission of IABEE
demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism, honesty and integrity. The services
provided by IABEE demand impartiality, justice and equality, so that every person mustcarry out their duties with the highest standards of ethical behavior.
7 .2 E V AL U A T OR ’S E TH I C AL P R IN C IP L E S
The followings are evaluator’s ethical principles:(1) Evaluators must work objectively based on the Accreditation Criteria and RPEA
regardless of the program reputation.
(2) Evaluators are not permitted to express personal opinions on behalf of IABEE.
(3) Evaluators are not permitted to request or accept gifts of any kind that should besuspected of having a bearing on / affecting the results of accreditation evaluation.
(4) Evaluators are required to follow the applicable legal rules in Indonesia regarding
gratification.
(5) Each evaluator must make every effort to avoid providing evaluations or comments
on matters not included in the scope of Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA.
(6) Evaluators should not compare the conditions of study program being evaluatedwith the conditions in the institutions of origin of evaluators or other institutions
because each study program has the flexibility to determine the outcome standardsof its graduates in accordance with the vision, mission and conditions of its resources.
12IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

8.

Version 2018-

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

8 .1 P OL IC Y O N C ON F L IC T OF IN TE R E S T
The types of services provided by IABEE are vulnerable to conflicts of interest that canaffect the objectivity of the accreditation process, and thus the credibility of IABEE.
Therefore, IABEE expects that all personnel involved in IABEE activities to hold strong
ethical principles and professionalism to avoid potential conflicts of interest as much as
possible so as to guarantee objectivity of services.
The following policies and procedures regarding conflict of interest are established withthe aim of:(1) maintaining credibility in the accreditation evaluation process and confidence indecisions,(2) ensuring fairness and impartiality in decision making,(3) disclosing real or perceived conflicts of interest, and(4) acting impartially and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
8 .2 P R OC E D U R E S
The following conflict of interest procedures address situations and circumstances inwhich personal interests of IABEE personnel are - or can appear to be - in conflict with
the IABEE's interest:(1) Individuals representing IABEE must not participate in any decision-making capacity
if they have or have had a close, active association with a program or institution
being evaluated. Close, active association includes but is not limited to:a. Current or past employment as faculty, staff, or consultant by the institution or
program;b. Current or past discussion or negotiation of employment with the institution or
program;c. Attendance as student at the institution;
d. Receipt of an honorary degree from the institution;e. An institution or program where a close family relative is, or was, a student or
employee; or,f. An unpaid official relationship within the past 10 years with an institution, e.g.
membership on the institution’s governing board or advisory board.
g. Any reason that the individual cannot render an unbiased decision.
(2) The members of the evaluation team must not establish a close or active association
with the institution or program under evaluation, until the entire accreditation
13

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2018-

evaluation has been completed and accreditation decision has been publicly
announced.
(3) All individuals representing IABEE must sign a conflict of interest and confidentiality
statement indicating that they have read and understand these policies.
(4) Individuals must absent themselves from any portion of IABEE meeting in which
discussions or decisions occur for which they have a real or perceived conflict ofinterest.

9. C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y

9 .1 P OL IC Y
IABEE upholds ethics in conducting all activities of its members and organizing staff, andrequires that they exhibit highest standards in professionalism, fairness, and integrity.
Information disclosed by programs undergoing evaluation, and information generated byreview and discussion activities during the evaluation process shall be treated withconfidentiality, and shall not be divulged without specific written authorization by IABEE
and the program being evaluated.
9 .2 P R OC E D U R E S(1) Evaluators must maintain the confidentiality of every information/document as wellas the evaluation results except to IABEE.
(2) Evaluators may not use the information provided by the program for the purpose ofevaluation for the benefit of themselves or other parties other than IABEE(3) Even though the evaluation process is transparent, all the documents submitted by
the study program to the evaluator as well as the results of the evaluation are
confidential which are entrusted by the program to IABEE. Each evaluator must
maintain this trust by not providing information from the document and the resultsof the evaluation to any party other than IABEE.
(4) The evaluator is also not allowed to take advantage of the use of data andinformation submitted by the program to IABEE both in the form of documents andthe facts of the field.

14

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX F

PROGRAM PROFILE AND SELFEVALUATION REPORT (SER)
TEMPLATESAPPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEE

Version 2018-

PROGRAM PROFILE<NAME OF PROGRAM OPERATING INSTITUTION><NAME OF PROGRAM>

Accreditation Type
<General/Provisional>

Engineering Discipline<eg. Chemical Engineering/Electrical Engineering/Mechanical Engineering….>
Evaluation Type
<New/Interim/Renew>

Version of Accreditation Criteria<Year->

Date of Document Upload<Year-Month-Date>

This document is a complement to the Program’s Self Evaluation Report (SER) worksheet that must be
uploaded to the IABEE Online Evaluation System as one of the SER attachments. Before uploading, please
convert this document into a PDF file format and make sure not exceeding 30 Megabytes.

Version 2018-

1. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1.

PROGRAM INFORMATION

1.1.1. Name of Program Operating Institution:
1.1.2. Name Program:
1.1.3. Graduate Degree:
1.1.4. Address of Program Website:
1.1.5. Contact Information:
1.1.5.1.

Program Operating Institution Representative for IABEE(a) Name:(b) Position:(c)

Postal Address:(d) Phone No.:(e) Fax No.:(f)

1.1.5.2.

E-mail Address:

Program Representative
(a)

Name:

(b)

Position:(c)Postal Address:(d)

Phone No.:(e)

Fax No.:(f)E-mail Address:

Version 2018-

1.2.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM PROFILE

Write a brief summary of program profile approximately 3-4 pages that describes:
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

1.3.

History of the program, which explains the time of establishment, the time when
its first graduate was produced, number of student bodies, current curriculum,
and history of program accreditation (national and other accreditatiosn evertaken). If already obtained accreditation from IABEE, indicate when the lastevaluation was conducted.
Career relationships of graduates with the autonomous professional profiles
expected by the program
Characteristics and benchmarking of the Program Learning Outcomes
Program relations with other similar or related programs
Characteristics of the curriculum
Other typical characteristics of the program implementation such as, limited only
to regular classes, evening classes exist, learning using an online system. If so,
explain for each type the number of students is involved.

LATEST EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT

Briefly explain when and how the program conducted a self-evaluation based on thelevel of achievement of the Program Learning Outcomes and the reflection on thesocietal and environmental changes and explain the results of the improvement. If the
program considers there are no educational / learning activities need to be improved at
this time, provide reasons for justification. If in the previous accreditation evaluation
cycle there were weaknesses (W) and concerns (C), explain what kind of improvements
had been made.

1.4.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SELF EVALUATION REPORT (SER)

Write down the summary of program's SER and provide a brief explanation of whether
the program considers it has met every element of the IABEE Accreditation Criteria.
Give information on certain elements which are considered to have exceeded thecriteria requirements.

Version 2018-

2. FORMULATION OF AUTONOMOUS PROFESSIONAL
PROFILE
Provide an explanation of the formulation of the Program’s Autonomous Professional
Profile as its educational objectives including:(1) How the profile considers national and local potential resources, needs and values(2) How the profile is linked to the institutional vision and mission.
(3) Systems and procedures used to establish and evaluate the profile in accordancewith the development of the job market, industry, economy and environment.
(4) When the last time the review process of the profile carried out and if there werechanges or adjustments whether it had involved stakeholders.
(5) How the profile is published, if the website is used give its URL.

Version 2018-

3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROGRAM LEARNINGOUTCOMES AND IABEE’S CRITERIA OF LEARNINGOUTCOMES (SUB-CRITERION 1.3)
Give a sign "XX" in the Program Learning Outcomes matrix (A, B, C, etc.) that is highly
compatible with the knowledge / skills / attitudes required by sub-criterion 1.3 (items (a)to (j)). Give a sign "X" if the relationship is not very strong. Leave it blank if there is no
relationship. The matrix can be modified as needed, for example, if the Program defines
Learning Outcomes and Sub-Learning Outcomes, the column can be formatted into A1, A-2, A-3, ..., B-1, B-2, ... etc.
Knowledge/Skill/ Attitudeof Sub- Criterion 1.3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

Program Learning
Outcomes

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
…
…
…

List the complete satements of of the Program Learning Outcomes under the matrix.
(A) ….
(B) ….
Also, explain how the achievement of the Program Learning Outcomes supports theachievement of the designated Autonomous Professional Profile.

Version 2018-

4. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND METHOD OFPROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES MESUREMENT
Reproduce the table below to explain the performance indicators and methods used tomeasure each of the Program Learning Outcomes or Sub-Learning Outcomes as well
as planning about when and how often the evaluation is carried out, for example every
semester, every year, etc.

Program
Learning
Outcomes(PLO)

Sub-PLO (*)

Relation
between
PLO /Sub-PLO
andCriteria (a)to (j)(A)(A-1)(a) XX

Performance
Indicators

PI-1 (A-1) ______

Measurement Method of
Learning Outcomes

Measurement
Schedule of Learning
Outcomes(A-1): _____

PI-2 (A-1) ______
(A-2)
(B)

(a) X

PI-1 (A-2) ______(A-2): ____(a) XX

PI-1 (B) ______(B): ____(b) X

PI-2(B) ______
PI-3(B) ______

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(*) This column may or may not be required depending how Program defines its Learning OutcomesVersion 2018-

5. CURRICULUM DESIGN
Give an explanation of the curriculum design that characterizes uniqueness of theProgramVersion 2018-

6. ROAD MAP OF LEARNING OUTCOMES ACHIEVEMENT
THROUGH COURSE STRUCTURE
Show the structure or road map for achieving each Program's Learning Outcomesthrough courses as designed in the curriculum, including co-curricular activities if exist.
The following is only an example of the road map in question.
Program
Learning
Outcomes /Sub-LO

Course Name, Course Block/Semi-Block, Activity Name (if co-curricular)Year 1
Sem. 1

Year 2
Sem. 2

Course A

Course D

Course B

Course E

Sem. 1

Course F

Year 3
Sem. 2

Sem. 1

Course G

Year 4
Sem. 2

Sem. 1

Course H

Sem. 2

Course I(A)

Course A(C)….

Course H

Course L

Course K

Course M

Course J(B)

Course D

Course O

Course G

Course N

Course P

Course R

Course Q

Course S

Course U
Course V

Course W

Version 2018-

7. PROGRAM CURRICULUM
Fill in the list of courses in the current curriculum in the following table

No

Code and Name of
Course/Block Course

Type ofCourse/Block:
Compulsary(C) or Elective(E)

Implemented
by theProgram itself(P) or otherprogram (OP)Mathematics
and basic
sciences

Course Group (Credit)
Engineering
Information
Engineeringscience andTechnology
Design andand
Problemtechnology
Communication
based
Experiment

The list of subjects is sorted
per semester starting fromthe earliest semester until
the last semester
Total Credits
Credit percentage to total
IABEE’s requirement

Min. 20%

Min. 40%

General
Education(moral, ethics,
socio-culture,
management,
andenvironment)

Maks. 30%

Version 2018-

8. LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION ON ENGINEERING DESIGN
Briefly describe the learning process that provides experience to students in design
ability of their fields, by explaining the following:• State and briefly explain the subjects or practical works or other forms of learning thatgive students experience to integrate various knowledge, skills and attitudes obtained
throughout the curriculum.
• Explain how the program provides experience to students to practice their abilities inreal conditions.

Version 2018-

9. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM’S QUANTITATIVE DATA
Provide the numeral data related to student body, faculty, and curriculum as requested
below.
Academic Year (at least past 4 years)
Number of new students accepted at the faculty level
where the program is locatedNumber of new students accepted by the Program
Information on
students

Number of transfer students from other programs andfrom outside the institution
Number of active students (including those working on
final/senior projects)
Total number of graduates
Number of graduates under OBE system
Number of Program’s permanent faculty

Information on
faculty andsupport staff

Number of Program’s non-permanent faculty
Number of Program’s faculty assistants
Number of support staff members
Minimum total credits for applying graduation

Information on
curriculum(*) The ratio of design courses load to the total
curriculum load(*) The ratio of group/team-type learning (such as
Problem-based Learning, or Project-based learning) toindividual-type learning

Fill in the quantitative data requested in the table above. Additional explanations can begiven separately below the table if needed, for example a list of subjects with problem /project based learning activities. Prepare documentation related to the learning activities
during on-site visit(*) The ratio here can be calculated in credits or in hours

Version 2018-

10. SAMPLE OF ACADEMIC TRANSCRIPTThis section is only needed for Programs that apply for General Accreditation for the
first time or re-accreditation.
Include in this section, a scanned copy of transcript of 2 (two) OBE graduates in eachgraduation period. Additional samples may be requested by the evaluator team if
needed.

Version 2018-

11. SUMMARY OF FACULTY MEMBERS DATA
Fill in the data of Program’s permanent and non-permanent faculty members in the following table, and complete thecurriculum vitae of each faculty member in Annex 1.
Last
Education

Name

Academic
Position

Professional
Certificate(lecturer orothers)Working Experience(in Year)Industry Lecturing
This
Institution

Level of Involvement(L=low, M=Moderate, H=High)
Professional
Industrial
Professional
Organisation Consulting Development

Fill into the following table the faculty member (permanent and non-permanent) activities for the last academic year
Work Load Distribution (in Credits)*
Name

Name of Course Taught(odd and evensemester)

Teaching

Research andCommunity
Development

Institutional
Management

Outside oftheProgram

Time Dedicated for
Program
Total%
Creditsin theProgram*) expressed in Full-Time Teaching Equivalent. Research includes student final project supervision. Institutional Management includes activities
such as guidance and counseling, supervision of student activity, lab coordinator, student internship supervision, program organization
management. Activity outside the program includes teaching and supervising post graduate students, or assigned as structural officer outside theprogram. Percentage of distribution is determined per semester.

Version 2018-12. SAMPLE OF SYLLABI AND / COURSE SEMESTERLEARNING PLAN
Include a sample of syllabus and semester learning plan from one of core courses
showing:• Name and course code, semester, number of credits;• Course learning outcomes mandated by the curriculum to fulfill the program learning
outcomes;• Course content related to capabilities to be achieved;• Learning methods;• Time allocation for each course content;• Student learning experience in the forms of assignment, exam, or others;• Criteria, indicators and assessment weights; and• List of references used.
The full course syllabi will be examined in the on-site visit.

Version 2018-13. SAMPLES OF EXAM QUESTIONS / ASSESSMENT OF
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES, STUDENT ANSWERSHEET, AND ASSESSMENT RESULT
Include a sample of exam questions/course learning outcome assessment from one of
the core courses, student answer sheets, and results of assessment by the lecturer.
Include samples of answer sheets that are considered good, sufficient, or not good.
During on-site visit, a portfolio of all required subjects must be prepared for theevaluation process.

Version 2018-

14. FACILITY
Make a list of equipment that is owned and used for learning activities both in thelaboratory, studio or elsewhere. Briefly explain the system of operation andmaintenance of the equipment including the calibration process of measuring
instruments and software licenses. State the specifications and quantity and location of
the equipment.

Version 2018-

APPENDIX 1
CURRICULUM VITAE OF FACULTY MEMBERS
1. Name2. Background of Education: level, field of study, place of study, year of graduation
3. Academic experience - academic position (specify the year of appointment), structural
positions (lab coordinator, head of program, etc. and year of appointment)
4. Non-academic experience if any (position, organization / company name, time of
appointment)
5. Professional certification (engineering, or other profession)
6. Membership in professional organizations and positions
7. Awards obtained (name and year for the last 3 years)
8. Community services involvement, such as giving training, counseling, etc. (name and year
for the last 3 years)
9. List of publications (last 3 years), both as the main or co-author
10. Briefly explain the professional development obtained in the last 3 years (training,

workshops, courses, consulting and engineering practices, etc.).

SELF-EVALUATION REPORT TEMPLATE
Note: This template is freely downloadable from IABEE Public Website. It serves only as practicing sheet for the Programs wishing to learn how to preparea Self-Evaluation Report (SER). The official SER sheet is obtainable through Program Representative's account in the IABEE Online Evaluation Systemonce the Program has been registered for evaluation in the System.

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
ORIENTATION OF THE GRADUATECOMPETENCE

1DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Program shall define the profile ofgraduates to be envisaged as
autonomous professionals by consideringcountry’s potential resources, cultures,
needs and interests

1.1.

Does the Program establish a clearly defined
profile of Autonomous Professionals, taking
into account local and/or national protential[1] resources, wisdoms, needs, and interests,
and considering traditions, vision, andmission of the institution operating theProgram?

Does the Program implements an effective
system or procedures for establishing and[2] reviewing the envisaged profile ofAutonomous Professionals, which involves
the stakeholders of the Programs?
Program shall inform its students andfaculty with the envisaged profile ofautonomous professionals and widely
publicize it

1.2.

[1]

Are Program students and faculty members
knowledgeable of the profile of Autonomous
Professionals, and is the profile accessibleby the general public?

[Example]:[R1-1] University Charter - article
XX on Vision and Mission[R1-2] program website at
http://chemeng.ft.xx.ac.id/profil Statement of Autonomous
Professional Profile[R1-3] List of participant, minutesof meeting on Curriculum
Development 2016
[R1-4] Curriculum Development
White Paper, Ch. 1 page 13 on
Envisaged Autonomous
Professional Profile as Program
Educational Objectives

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Program shall establish its expected
Learning Outcomes which consist ofabilities to utilize knowledge, skills,
resources and attitudes as described inthe (a) to (j) items of the Common Criteria
to be acquired by the student at the timeof completion of the study.

1.3.

1.3.1

[1]

Has the Program established its own
Learning Outcomes, taking into account theenvisaged profile of Autonomous
Professionals?
Do the Program Learning Outcomes
include the standard competences, item(a) to (j), in a clearly identifiable manner?

1.3.2(a) ability to apply knowledge ofmathematics, natural and/or materials[1] sciences, information technology andengineering to acquire comprehensive
understanding of engineering principles(b)ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes to meet desired needs
within realistic constraints in such aspects aslaw, economic, environment, social, politics,[2]
health and safety, sustainability as well as torecognize and/or utilize the potential of local
and national resources with global
perspective(c) Ability to design and conduct laboratory
and/or field experiments as well as to[3]analyze and interpret data to strengthen theengineering judgment[4](d) Ability to identify, formulate, analyze, andsolve engineering problems(e) Ability to apply methods, skills and[5] modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices(f) Ability to communicate effectively in oral
[6]
and written manners(g) ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate[7]
tasks under given constraints(h) ability to work in multidisciplinary and[8]multicultural team

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)(i) ability to be accountable and responsible[9] to the society and adhere to professional
ethics in solving engineering problems(j) ability to understand the need for life-long[10] learning, including access to the relevant
knowledge of contemporary issues

Program shall establish its expected
Learning Outcomes which consist ofabilities to utilize knowledge, skills,
resources and attitudes as described inthe (a) to (j) items of the Common Criteria
to be acquired by the student at the timeof completion of the study

1.3.3

Has a set of relevant performance indicators
and assessment methods been appropriately[1]established for each Program Learning
Outcome?

2[2]

Do the Learning Outcomes take into accountthe Discipline Criteria and Category Criteria ?

[3]

Are students and faculty members
knowledgeable of the Program Learning
Outcomes, and are the Learning Outcomes
accessible to the general public ?
LEARNING IMPLEMENTATIONCURRICULUM

2.1

2.1.1

Curriculum shall include the following
subject areas:(a) Mathematics and discipline-specificnatural sciences(b) Discipline-specific engineeringscience and technology(c) Information and communication
technology(d) Engineering design and problem
based experiments(e) General education, which includes
morality, ethics, socio-culture,environment and management

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Does the curriculum include a minimum of
20% of a combination of college level
mathematics and basic sciences (e.g.
biology, chemistry, or physics), a minimum of
40% of engineering topics, consisting of[1]
engineering sciences and engineering
design, and a maximum of 30% general
education components that complement thetechnical content of the curriculum and areconsistent with the Learning Outcomes?

[2]

Does the curriculum sufficiently cover, bothin terms of load and depth, all educational
contents as defined in the Common Criteria
and Discipline Criteria?
Curriculum development shall consider
input from Program stakeholders

2.1.2.

Does the Program maintain an effective
process to develop and review its curriculum
periodically, to ensure its consistency with
the institutional mission, stakeholders' needs[1] (including the society, industry, andprofessional fields), and Accreditation
Criteria (which includes Common Criteria
and Criteria Guide, Discipline Criteria, andCategory Criteria)?
Do the policies and procedure mentioned in
2.1.2.(1) above provide sufficient opportunity[2] for the stakehoders to discuss Program
Educational Objectives and to foster closer
collaboration?
Curriculum shall indicate the structural
relationship and contributions of thesubject courses to fulfill Learning
Outcomes. Procedures, including
syllabus, shall be established anddocumented so that the expected learning
process can be implemented in acontrolled way

2.1.3.

[1]

Does the curriculum have a clear roadmap
which describes the structural relationshipand contribution of sets of subject courses toattain the Learning Outcomes?

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)Is the curriculum systematically designed for[2] student to achieve the Learning Outcomes
within the allocated academic years?
Are the students and the faculty wellinformed on how each component of the[3] Learning Outcomes will be realized throughthe learning process as described in the
curriculum?
Is syllabus for each subject course preparedin accordance with the curriculum, with clear
descriptions of its position in the curriculum,[4] course load, educational components andmethods, course learning outcomes,
performance indicators, and assessment
methods?
[5]

Is the syllabus made well-known to thestudents and the faculty?

Are learning activities implemented and[6] assessed in accordance with the course
syllabus?
Curriculum shall ensure that the students
are exposed to engineering practices andmajor design project experience using
engineering standards and multiple
realistic constraints based on knowledge
and skills acquired in preceding coursework

2.1.4.

Does the curriculum include major design
project(s) (capstone design or otherequivalent terms) to provide an opportunity tostudents for developing competence in[1]practical application of engineering skills,
combining theory and experience along withthe use of other relevant knowledge andskills?

[2]

2.2.

Does the curriculum provide sufficient
exposure for students to acquire practicalexperience in implementing their knowledge
and skills in an actual working environment?
FACULTYDESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Program shall provide necessary number,qualification and competence of faculty
members for performing learning process,including planning, delivering, evaluating,and continually improving its
effectiveness in order to achieve theLearning Outcomes

2.2.1.

Does the Program establish a clear
description of qualifications and competencelevel of its faculty members to cover all
curricular areas and to meet all applicable[1] Accreditation Criteria? The description shall
include composition, number, experienceand the extent and quality of faculty
involvement in interactions with students,
student advising, and oversight of Program?
Does Program recruit the members of its[2] faculty in accordance to the abovementioned
description?
Is sufficient number of faculty members
provided to implement learning process(including planning, delivering, evaluating,[3]and continually improving its effectiveness)in order to achieve of the Learning
Outcomes?
Does the Program promote and facilitate /provide Professional Development (PD) for[4]
its faculty to continually improve faculty's
educational abilities?
Program shall ensure that the faculty
members are aware of the relevance andimportance of their roles andcontributions to the Learning Outcomes

2.2.2.

Does the Program maintain effective policies
and procedures which regulate faculty
members' role in course creation,[1]
modification, and evaluation with respect tothe definition, revision, and attainment of the
Learning Outcomes?

[2]

Does the Program maintain effective policies
and procedures to institutionally evaluate
faculty members' educational activities inorder to improve the learning process?

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Does the Program facilitate and maintain an
effective network of communication among[3] faculty members which enables close
collaboration in teaching to improve theattainment of Learning Outcomes?
STUDENTS AND ACADEMIC
ATMOSPHERE

2.3.

Program shall define and implement anentry standard for both new and transfer
students, as well as transfer of credits

2.3.1.

Does the Program maintain effective, clearly
defined, and publicly accessible policies andprocedures to ensure the admission of new[1] students with a level of academic
qualifications consistent with the Programcurriculum designed to achieve the Learning
Outcomes?
Does the Program maintain effective &publicly accessible policies and proceduresfor the transfer of credits of courses taken[2] outside of the Program (this may also include
equivalency of work experience and othernon-matriculated activities in terms ofcredits)?
Does the Program maintain effective, publicly
accessible policies and procedures for the[3] admission of transfer students, including
evaluation methods for the acknowledgmentof prior study achievements?

Program shall define and implement
ongoing monitoring of student progressand evaluation of student performance.
Procedures of quality assurance shall beestablished to ensure that adequacy ofstandards is achieved in all assessments

2.3.2.

[1]

Does Program maintain effective quality
assurance policies and procedures tomonitor and evaluate student performance inattaining the Learning Outcomes?

[2]

Are activities of monitoring and evaluation of
student performance implemented inaccordance with the policies andprocedures?

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Are the results of monitoring and evaluation[3] of student performance utilized to perform
continual improvement of the program?
Program shall create and maintain goodacademic atmosphere conducive to
successful learning

2.3.3.

Does Program provide student guidance and[1] counseling services on academic as well as
non-academic matters and career guidence?
Program shall promote co-curricular
activities for character building andenhancing the students’ awareness on the
country’s needs

2.3.4.

[2]

Does the Program facilitate and promote cocurricular activities for character building andto enhance students' awareness of thenation's needs?

Is the spirit of entrepreneurship ascharacterized by a deep sense of purpose,preserverance, resourcefulness, open[3]mindedness, and eagerness to learnemphasized in students' character building
activities?
2.4.

FACILITY

2.4.1.

Program shall ensure the availability andaccessibility of facilities for effectivefunctioning of the learning process andattainment of the Learning OutcomesIs the education institution that operates
Program equipped with the facilities such as
offices, classroms and associated[1] equipment, laboratories, computing
resources, library services, etc. necessary for
effective functioning of the learning process
and attainment of the Learning Outcomes?
Are the students made well-known regarding
the use of tools, equipment, computing
resources, laboratories, and other physical[2]
facilities so as to enable the utilization ofthese facilities in a safe and appropriatemanner?

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Does Program maintain effective policies
and procedures for maintaining and[3] upgrading the tools, equipment, computing
resources, library and other facilities used by
the students and faculty?
2.5.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSILBILITY

2.5.1.

Program shall define and manage theprocess for the provision of theeducational service, including education
design, curriculum development anddelivery, and assessment of learning
Does the Program maintain an effective[1] process to ensure the quality and continuityof the program?
Are efforts made by the institution hosting the
program to ensure necessary financial
resources to maintain, improve, and operate[2] the educational environment and educational
services, including education design,
curriculum development and delivery, andassessment of learning?

2.5.2.

Institution shall make efforts to establish
resources, supporting service andcooperation with stakeholders on
research, education and/or service tocommunity with due consideration toexisting local resources
Are efforts made by the institution hosting the
program to develop partnership with external
parties such as industry, research centers,[1]and community units to foster the Tridharma(education, research, and community
services)?

3

Are partnership activities mentioned above[2] used, among others, to improve students'
learning process?
ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTEDLEARNING OUTCOMESDESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Program shall ensure that an effective
assessment process of Learning
Outcomes based on establishedperformance indicators is implemented
and maintained at planned intervals using
appropriate methods

3.1.

Does the Program establish clearly definedpolicies and procedures for the assessmentof Learning Outcomes attainment which[1] include specific assessment methods using
the established performance indicators andplanned interval for conducting assessments?
Are the policies and procedures referred to in
3.1.(1) effectively utilized in the Learning[2] Outcomes assessment of the Program,
resulting in actionable improvement
measures?
Program shall ensure that graduates ofthe program achieve all expected
Learning Outcomes

3.2.

[1]

Does the Program maintain an effective andwell-documented process to ensure that all
graduates of the Program have achieved all
expected Program Learning Outcomes ?

Does the Program maintain clearly defined,
effective & accessible (by student andfaculties) policies and procedures to deal
[2]
with non-performing students and toterminate students who are unable tocomplete their study?
4

CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT
Based on the assessment results,
Program shall perform an evaluation atplanned intervals with output in the formof decisions to improve the effectivenessof the educational process, the suitabilityof the Learning Outcomes related to theneeds of stakeholders, and resources

4.1.

[1]

Does the Program maintain an effective
quality assurance process for the periodic
evaluation of Learning Outcomes based on
direct and indirect assessment results?

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

Evaluation item

Sub-sub-criterion

CRITERION

Sub-criterion

SELF-CLAIM

DESCRIPTION OF CRITERION /EVALUATION ITEM

(1)
Are the Program stakeholders[2] knowledgeable and involved in the Learning
Outcomes evaluation process?
Are the Learning Outcomes evaluation
results effectively utilized to formulate[3] decisions to improve the learning process,the suitability of Learning Outcomes tostakeholders' needs, and resources ?
Program shall maintain documents andrecords related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results and their follow-up

4.2.

Does Program maintain effective policies
and procedures for maintaining documents[1]
and records related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results, and their follow-up?
[2]

Are these documents and records accessible
to the faculty?

DESCRIPTION OF SELFEVALUATIONREFERENCES

Provide list of evidences
supporting the corresponding
Describe concisely (within 250
description in column (3).
Mark with "X"words) how the Program meet each
Compile the evidences infor goodevaluation item. Description must be attachment files in PDF format tocompliance orbased on evidences. Evaluation
be uploaded to IABEE Online"XX" forteam shall consider only evidence- Evaluation System. A file may be
above
based argument. Answer only thesized up to 30 Mb. Program maysatisfactory
cells with no color. Leave the colored upload up to 5 files of compiled
compliancecells blank.
evidence, save 1 slot for
uploading Program Profile
document.
(2)

(3)

(4)

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX G

IABEE ONLINE EVALUATIONSYSTEM (EOS)APPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEE

IABEE Online Evaluation System
at a glance (1/4)

Internet

Program &Institution
Representatives• Application• Payment• Evaluation documents
submission• Progress monitoring• Evaluation results• Communicate with Team Chair

IABEE Web Server••••

Mobile Notification Apps

IABEE Online Evaluation System
IABEE Mobile Applications(Notification Apps for Android
and IOS)
IABEE Public Website
IABEE Online Training Center

Team chair &evaluation team

IABEE Secretariat
EAC Chair &Discipline Chairs• Accreditation cycle
preparation andsettings• Approval of new
system users• Invoice & payment• Monitoring andadministering theprocess• Databasemaintenance• Evaluation teamformation• Progress
monitoring• Recommendationof Accreditation
Decisions

MobileNotification
Apps• Review and evaluate
Evaluation documents• On-site visit planning• Evaluation reports
submission• Communicate with theprogram (TC only)

A conceptual diagram of the IABEE
Online Evaluation System, depicting
main parties involved in evaluation
process and their respective roles inthe system.

IABEE Online Evaluation System
at a glance (2/4)

Log-in page of the IABEE Online
Evaluation System. A Program
representative or a new
evaluator/observer shall firstcreate a personal account andget verified by the Secretariat
before access to log in as asystem member is given

Dashboard page showing acomplete list of menus asaccessible from a superuser
account. Only limited menus
shall appear in other types ofuser role

A view from Secretariat
account featuring Menu
Settings. In this menu, all stepsof evaluation for accreditation
are arranged, starting fromapplication, evaluation teamarrangement, self-evaluation
report, down to EAC
harmonization and plenary
meetings, as well as recordingof accreditation status andcertificate.

IABEE Online Evaluation System
at a glance (3/4)
A view from a superuser
account featuring Menu Team
Structures. In this menu, EAC
Chair or Discipline Chair canassign evaluation team to a
program whose application has
been declared eligible bySecretariat.

A view from a superuser
account featuring Menu
Evaluations and Sub-Menu
Evaluation History. The table inthis sub-menu enlists history of
all evaluation conducted on all
programs

A view from a superuser
account featuring Menu
Evaluations where evaluation
progress of a program ismonitored. Progress status of a
step may be “completed”, “ongoing”, or “not-yet”. Each stepbox also contains the player(s)of that step, the name of thestep, as well as start-date andend-date of the step.

IABEE Online Evaluation System
at a glance (4/4)
A view from a superuser
account featuring Menu
Evaluations where Program
Self-Evalation Report (SER) is
submitted and reviewed. The
SER takes a tabular form. In
addition, this interface provides
6 slots for a program to upload
files of evidences as well as its
Program Profile

A view from a superuser
account featuring Menu
Evaluations in Sub-Menu
Evaluation List. Secretariat andEAC Chair can monitor thewhole progress within theaccreditation cycle using thetable provided in this submenu.

A view from a superuser
account featuring Menu
Evaluations in Sub-Menu
Evaluation History. Clicking afinished evaluation of aprogram brings a summary
table featuring program
identity, accreditation decisionand validity, as well as number
and electronic copy of its
accreditation certificate

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX HMEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING ON IABEEESTABLISHMENTThe MoU is written in Bahasa Indonesia, signed by Prof. Intan Ahmad in his capacity as the
Director General of Learning and Students Affairs (BELMAWA) of the Ministry of Research,
Technology, and Higher Education and Dr. Hermanto Dardak in his capacity as the Presidentof the Insitution of Engineers Indonsia (PII). Signed on October 2016, the scopes of the MoU
include (Article 1): (a). developing quality education in engineering recognized at international
level, (b). facilitating PII as a profession association to take part in engineering program
accreditation in accordance with the law, (c). implementation of engineering program
accreditation accteptable by international standards which shall be conducted by IABEE, and(d). continual improvement of IABEE as an organization. The MoU is valid until IABEE has
been accepted as a provisional member of the Washington Accord (Article 3).

APPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEE

PERSATUAN INSINYUR INDONESIAThe Institution of Engineers Indonesia

ANNEX IMEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEENJABEE AND PIIAPPLICATION FORPROVISIONAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE WASHINGTON ACCORD
2019

THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS INDONESIA / INDONESIANACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION – PII / IABEEApplication for Provisional Status
in the Washington Accord
The Institution of Engineers Indonesia/
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(PII/IABEE)
Hong Kong, 12 June 2019

Prof. Muhammad Romli
Chair of IABEE International
Committee

1Annual GDP

1015.4B

USD

GDP/capita
USD

3,876

Land

Total Area

35 %5M km2Sea

65 %EEZ Area

7.8M km2

The Republic of Indonesia

Jakarta

34

Provinces

267M
Population

300+

Ethnic Groups
2

Edu. Expenditure

National
Education
System

USD

30.845B

HEIs [public]

3267[3.73%]
Eng. Programs

Primary,
Secondary, andTertiary levels
and thecorresponding
NQF

5017

Bachelor Eng.
Programs

2882

Eng. Students

1,023,2513

Establishment of IABEE
Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII)

Agriculture, Aeronautics,
Chemical, Civil, Electrical,
Materials, Mechanical, …..
Other Societies,. .
Expert Assoc,
Industry.

Permanent Bodies
Discipline
Criteria

MoU

The onlyeligible
programsfor IABEE
voluntary
accred.

Programs.
Associations.

QA throughaccreditation

IABEE
establishedwithin PIIProgram
Evaluators

19
Engineering
Chapters

Ministry of
Research,
Technology andHigher Education

Policy on
int’l
recognition

Internal
QAS
National
Accreditation
Agency for HE

Mandatory
Accred.

HE Institutions
A

B

Institutions

C

Bachelor Eng. Programs

A

233
programs

B

854
programsC

1795
programs

Programs

4

Our Journey thus far…

2013Ͳ142014Ͳ152015Ͳ16

Earlyestablishment Development#1 Development#2
9SteeringCommittee
9Criteria
Committee

9Evaluation &Accreditation
Committee

9Online Evaluation
System9Dev’t of RPEA

9O’seas Evaluator
Training

9Dev’t of Common 9O’seas Evaluator
Training
Criteria forengineering
9Awarenessprograms
Seminars

9Discipline Criteria

9Establishment
within PII
9Awareness Sem.

2016Ͳ17
Startaccreditation2018Ͳ192020Ͳbeyond

Accredit&recognize Furtherrecognition

9Run Accreditation
9O’seas and IABEE 9IABEE Inauguration
cycles
Evaluator Training 9IABEE Evaluator Tr.
9Pilot Accreditation 9General Accred. (28P) 9Submit proposal
for WA signatory
Evaluation
9Provisional Accred.
status
9General(18P)
9Receive WA
Accreditation (5P)
9Submit proposal forverification team
9Provisional
WA provisional status(2020)
Accreditation (6P)
9Awareness Sem.
9Awareness Sem.

The Accreditation Criteria
C

1

3
D

4
A

COMMON
Criteria

2

Specific LO, Faculty, Curriculum
Requirements in ENG Disciplines:

Agricultural &Biosystem

Agroindustrial

Chemical,
Biochemical,
BiomolecularOcean

1. Curriculum & Syllabus
2. Faculty: quality, quantity, role in student learning
3. Students & Academic Atmosphere
4. Facility: adequacy, proper & safe operations
5. Institutional Responsibility

2

1
P

DISCIPLINE
Criteria

1. Autonomous Professional Profile as PEO
2. APP Publicity & Review System
3. Program Learning Outcomes3

1. Effective Assessment of Learning Outcomes
2. Assurance of LO Attainment by Graduates

4

1. Continual Improvement based on LO Assessment
2. Maintenance & Access of Documents & Records

Civil

Earth &
EnergyElectrical, Computer,
Communications,
Telecomunications

Environmental

Engineering
Physics

NuclearMechanicalMaterials,
MetallurgicalGeodetic,
Geomatic

Industrial

6 General

Program Evaluation
Procedures
Evaluation for GA & Renewal

Evaluation for PA

Interim Evaluation
with Visit

Interim Evaluation
without Visit

On-Site Visit &Exit Statement
Initial Reviews &Responses
July toSeptember

Submission of SelfEvaluation Report& Program Profile

October toearly
Novembermid ofApril

until end of
DecemberJanuaryFebruary

end of June

Program
Registration &Eligibility Check

Due Processes & Final
Evaluation Report

Evaluation
Cycle

FebruaryMarch

Discipline
Harmonization & EAC
Plenary Meetings

Accreditation
Council Decision,& Announcement
7

Online Evaluation System• System Development• System Maintenance• Preparation ofevaluation cycle• User accounts
management• Invoice & payment• Process monitoring• Databasemanagement• Evaluation Team
formation• Progress monitoring• Recommendation ofaccreditation decision• Review & evaluate
Program’s documents• On-site visit planning• Reports submission• Communicate with
Prog. Representative• Registration &application• Payment notice• Submission of PP,
SER & evidences• Progress monitoring• Communicate with
Chair of Eval. Team• Accreditation results
and decision8

Program Evaluators
Trained overseas: 44 PEVs by JABEE, 16 by
ABET, 3 observed CAST, 3 visited EA.
Trained and re-trained at home: 71 PEVs in 3
training programs conducted in 2017 & 2018.
Currently 86 PEVs in total, representing 12
engineering disciplines.

IABEE PEV Training:

Application& Eligibility
Check

PERFORMANCEEVALUATION

OnlineModularTraining

2-day
Face-toFace
Training

PERFORMANCEEVALUATIONPERFORMANCEEVALUATION

Assignment
as Observer

Appointment
as Evaluator9

Accredited Programs
IPB University
Diponegoro
UniversiySepuluhNopemberInstitute ofTechnology

Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Mechanical Engineering

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

Chemical Engineering
Engineering Physics
Environmental Engineering
Material and Metallurgical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Naval Architecture

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

Islamic
University ofIndonesia

University ofIndonesia

Tarumanagara
University

Mechanical and Biosystem Engineering

2016

Civil Engineering

2016

Environmental Engineering

2017

Bioprocess Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering

2017
2017
2018

Industrial Engineering
Civil Engineering

2018
2018

Mechanical Engineering

2018

Chemical Engineering

2018

Civil Engineering

2018

Private Institution
Public Institution

Institut
Teknologi
Bandung
SebelasMaret
University

Bioengineering

Industrial Engineering

Gadjah Mada
University

2018

2018

Engineering Physics

2018

Geological Engineering

2018

Geodetic Engineering

2018

Mechanical Engineering

2018

Nuclear Engineering

2018

Information Technology

2018Electrical Engineering

2018

Industrial Engineering

2018

10

Thank you© 201911

Application for Provisional Status
in the Washington Accord
The Institution of Engineers Indonesia /Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (PII / IABEE)
Hong Kong, 12 June 2019
Prof. Muhammad Romli
Chair of IABEE International Committee

The Republic of Indonesia

Jakarta34

267M

Population

300+
Ethnic Groups

Annual GDP

GDP/capita

Total Area

Provinces1015.4B

USD

USD

3,876

5M km2

Land

35 %

Sea

65 %

EEZ Area

7.8M km2 2

National Education System
Edu. Expenditure
USD

30.845B

HEIs [public]

Duration

3-4
yrs

2 yrs

TERTIARY EDUCATION
Academic path

Vocational path

Doctor (S3)Sub-Specialist

Lv. 9

Master (S2)Specialist

Lv. 83267[3.73%]
Eng. Programs

4 yrs

Profession

Lv. 7

D4

D1

Lv. 6
Lv. 5
Lv. 4
Lv. 3

Vocational High School

Lv. 2

Bachelor (S1)5017

Bachelor Eng.
Programs

D3

D2

SECONDARY EDUCATION

2882

3 yrs

Eng. Students

3 yrs

Junior High School

6 yrs

PRIMARY EDUCATION

1,023,251

INQF

General High School

Lv. 1
3

IABEE Establishment
Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII)

PII
independentbodiesRegistration and licensing for practicing
engineers (Engineering Law No. 11/2014)19 Engineering
Chapters

Discipline Criteria,
Program evaluators

Agriculture,
Aeronautics,
Chemical, Civil,
Electrical,
Materials,
Mechanical, …

Societies,
Expert Assoc.,
Programs
Industry
Associations

voluntary, int’l-levelaccreditation

The only
programs
eligible for IABEE
accreditation

A

2016
MoU
IABEE
IA
ABE
BEE
E
establishedwithin PII,
aimed to be
WA signatory
member

Ministry of Research,
Technology & Higher
Education
National
Accreditation
Agency for HE
Internationalrecognition
policyQuality assurance
through mandatory
accreditation

HE Institutions
ons
nssInternal QualityemmAssurance System

Bac
BachelorEng. Progra
Programs
854
233
B
programs
programs

A

C

B

C

IInstitutions
In

1795
programs

Programs

4

IABEE Organizational Chart
Criteria
Committee

Board of PII

establishes and approves the
Accreditation Criteria which form thebasis for the program evaluation.

In charge of conducting periodic reviews andrevisions of the Accreditation Criteria

Auditors

develops RPEA & RPARC,

Appeal Board

Executive Committee

Secretariat

Accreditation
Council

Criteria
Committee

Evaluation &Accreditation
Committee

Sub-Committee for
Washington Accord

Evaluation &Accreditation evaluation instruments, Online
Committee Evaluation System

FinanceCommittee

It also plans, conducts and monitors the program
accreditation processes, and recommends
accreditation status to the Accreditation Council.
Accreditation validates the results ofCouncil
accreditation and ensures that

PublicAffairs
Committee

Sub-Committee forSeoul Accord

International
Committee

the right process has been carried out

Appeal Board

appointed to hear appeals; judges

whether an evaluation/accreditation decision wasright or wrong, when the party affected by it thinksthat it was wrong

5

Our journey so far…

2013-142014-152015-16

2016-17

Establishment

Development #1

Development #2

Start accreditation

Accredit & recognize Further recognition

9SteeringCommittee

9Evaluation &Accreditation
Committee

9Online Evaluation
System9O’seas and IABEE
Evaluator Training

9IABEE Inauguration

9Discipline Criteria

9Pilot Accreditation
Evaluation

9General Accred. (28P) 9Submit proposal
for WA signatory
9Provisional Accred.
status(18P)
9Receive WA
9Submit proposal forverification team
WA provisional status(2020)
9Awareness Sem.
6

9Criteria
Committee
9Dev’t ofCommonCriteria forengineering
programs

9Dev’t of RPEA

9O’seas Evaluator
Training
9O’seas Evaluator
Training
9Establishment
9AwarenessSeminars

within PII

9Awareness Sem.

9General Accr. (5P)
9Provisional
Accreditation (6P)
9Awareness Sem.

2018-19

9IABEE Evaluator Tr.

2020-beyond
9Run Accreditation
cyclesThe Accreditation Criteria: Common Criteria
C

3
D

4
COMMON
CO
OMMO
ON
Criteria
Ca2

2

1. Curriculum & Syllabus
2. Faculty: quality, quantity, role in student learning
3. Students & Academic Atmosphere
4. Facility: adequacy, proper & safe operations
5. Institutional Responsibility

3

1. Effective Assessment of Learning Outcomes
2. Assurance of LO Attainment by Graduates

4

1. Continual Improvement based on LO Assessment
2. Maintenance & Access of Documents & Records

A

1
P

1

1. Autonomous Professional Profile as PEO
2. APP Publicity & Review System
3. Program Learning Outcomes

Common Criteria & Criteria Guide are available for download from https://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/accreditationcriteria/common-criteria/ and https://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-guide/7

The Accreditation Criteria: Discipline Criteria
DISCIPLINE
Criteria

Specific Learning Outcomes, Faculty,
and/or Curriculum Requirements in
ENG Disciplines:

Agricultural& Biosystem

Ocean

NuclearAgroindustrial

Chemical,
Biochemical,
Biomolecular

Civil

Earth &
EnergyElectrical, Computer,
Communications,
Telecomunications

Environmental

Engineering
Physics

Geodetic,
Geomatic

MechanicalMaterials,
MetallurgicalIndustrial

GeneralDiscipline Criteria are available for download fromhttps://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/accreditationcriteria/discipline-criteria/
8IABEE Learning Outcomes Criterion vis-à-vis
Graduate Attribute Exemplar(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or materials sciences,
information technology and engineering to acquire comprehensive understandingof engineering principles(b) an ability to design components, systems, and/or processes to meet desiredneeds within realistic constraints in such aspects as law, economic, environment,social, politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as to recognize and/or
utilize the potential of local and national resources with global perspective(c) an ability to design and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data to strengthen the engineering judgment(d) an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve engineering problems(e) an ability to apply methods, skills and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices(f) an ability to communicate effectively in oral and written manners(g) an ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given constraints(h) an ability to work in multidisciplinary and multicultural team(i) an ability to be accountable and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems(j) an ability to understand the need for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues

1. Engineering Knowledge
ge a
2. Problem Analysiss devel
elo ment ofo
3. Design/developmentb
Solutionsc
4. Investigationti
5. Modern Tool Usage
Usa e e
6. The Engineer
gine andSociety i
7. Environment
men andSustainabilityy b
8. Ethics i
9. Individual
idual
dual and Team
Workk h10. Communication
muni
n f
11. Project Management
age
ge
gem
ge
emen
g
and Financee
12. Life-long Learningij9

Accreditation Rules and Procedures
RPEA

Rules and
Procedures for
Evaluation andAccreditation

 Background, Vision, & Mission
 Accreditation Policies &Procedureso Confidentiality and Conflict ofInteresto Scope of Accreditationo Eligibility for Evaluationo Accreditation Criteriao Program Evaluation Process
o Accreditation Decisionso Public Disclosure
o Feedback and Appealso Policies on Conducting OnSite Visit Indicative Schedule for
Accreditation Evaluation Cycle

RPARC

Rules and
Procedures for
Accreditationrelated Committees

 Introduction
 Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee
 Pool of Program Evaluators
 Accreditation Council
 Appeal Board & Appeal
Committee
 Training Code of Ethics
 Conflict of Interest
 Confidentiality

To beaccredited, aprogram mustsatisfy the
Accreditation
Criteria &RPEA

RPEA and RPARC are
available for download fromhttps://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/
rules-and-policies-for-evaluationand-accreditation/

10

Program Evaluation
Procedures

Evaluation/reevaluation for GA

Evaluation for PA

Formation of freeCOI PEV Team

Program
Registration

Interim Evaluation
without Visit

On-Site Visit &Exit Statement

Initial Reviews &Responses
Submission of SelfEvaluation Report& Program Profile

Interim Evaluation
with Visit

Julyy toSeptemberembe
erOctober toNovemberr

June
ne

Due Processes & Final
Evaluation Report
DecemberDiscipline
Harmonization & EAC
Plenary Meetings

May
April

Evaluation
Cycle

March

Accreditation
Council
Decision, &Announcement11ram & POImt

P ro gIT Dep

Se
cr
eta
r

ia t
EAC

Secretariat

IT Dept• System development& maintenanceevaluation.iabee.or.id• Preparation ofevaluation cycle• User accounts &data management• Invoice & payment• Process monitoring& Discipline Chairs

PEV Team
EAC & DCs
• PEV Team formation• Progress monitoring• Decision recommendation• Program evaluation• On-site visit planning• Reports submission• Communication with
Program

t
lu a
a
v
E

ion

a
Te

Program & POI• Registration• PP & SER submission• Progress monitoring• Communication with
Evaluation Team• Receive results

Online Evaluation System

12

Program Evaluators
 Currently 86 PEVs in total, 85% academic & 15% industry
 40 more PEVs to be recruited and trained in 2019
 Overseas training & observation: 44 PEVs trained by JABEE,
16 PEVs by ABET, 3 observed CAST, and 3 visited EA
 Since 2017, 3 domestic PEV training programs have been
conducted
 Mechanism of PEV Training is available in RPARC

Registration &Eligibility
Check

IABEE PEV
Training

Inviting
candidates

Performance
evaluation

OnlineModularTraining

2-day
Face-toFace
Training
Performance
evaluation

https://training.iabee.or.id/

Performance
evaluation

PEV
Assignment
A

Assignment
as Observer13Accredited Programs
Diponegoro
UniversiySepuluhNopemberInstitute ofTechnology

Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Mechanical Engineering

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

Chemical Engineering
Engineering Physics
Environmental Engineering
Material and Metallurgical Eng.
Mechanical Engineering
Naval Architecture

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

IPB University

Mechanical and Biosystem Eng.

2016

Islamic
Universityof Indonesia

Civil Engineering

2016

Environmental Engineering

2017

Bioprocess Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering

2017
2017
2018

Industrial Engineering
Civil Engineering

2018
2018

Mechanical Engineering

2018

Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Engineering Physics
Geological Engineering
Geodetic Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Information Technology
Electrical Engineering
Industrial Engineering

2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018

University ofIndonesia

Tarumanagara
University

Private Institution
Public Institution
Institut
Teknologi
Bandung

Bioengineering

2018

SebelasMaret
University

Industrial Engineering

2018

Published in https://evaluation.iabee.or.id/#/accreditation/summary/search

Gadjah Mada
University

14

Thank you

20 June 2019
Mr. Berlian KUSHARI
Secretary-GeneralIndonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
c/o Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (The Institution of Engineers Indonesia)
Jalan Bandung No. 1, RT 13/RW 5, Menteng, Jakarta 10310
Indonesia
Sent by email to: berlian.kushari@iabee.or.id; mrgozan@gmail.com; mromli@hotmail.com;
satrio1@indo.net.id; takahashi@jabee.org; aoshima@jabee.org
Dear Mr Berlian KUSHARI
Provisional Signatory Status of the Washington Accord
We are pleased to confirm the decision of the Signatories of the Washington Accord toaccept the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) as a Provisional Signatory to the
Washington Accord effective from June 2019. The decision meeting was held during IEAM
2019 in Hong Kong.
In becoming a Provisional Signatory, the Institution of Engineers Indonesia has accepted theobligations detailed in Section B.2.3 of the Accord Rules and Procedures, a copy of which is
attached for your information.
We would like to take this opportunity to express our congratulations on your success. We
look forward to working with you as you prepare towards becoming a Signatory. Yourattention is drawn to the relevant parts of the Accord Rules and Procedures: B.2.2 andSchedule B2 as well as paragraphs C.3 and C.4 of the guidelines.
Should you have any further questions or issues, please do not hesitate to contact the IEA
Secretariat.
Yours sincerely

Em Prof Elizabeth Taylor
Chair, Washington Accord

Professor Kai Sang LOCK
Deputy Chair, Washington Accord‘Working Together to Advance Benchmarking and Mobility in the Engineering Profession’Schedule B2: Criteria for Admission to Full
Signatory Status in an Accord
4

The agency’s accreditation system and processes
conform to the Accord accepted practice as
exemplified by:a) High standards of professionalism, ethics andobjectivity;b) All involved in programme evaluation arecompetent in the agency’s accreditation system,
and are of high standing as educators orpractitioners in the profession;

Report analysis against Rules and Procedures
requirements
Meets Criteria?
Evidence provided/Comments
Yes/NoYes

Yes

x Establishment of IABEE accreditation
system involves key committees, namely
Executive Committee (EXC), Criteria
Committee (CC), Evaluation andAccreditation Committee (EAC),
Accreditation Council (AC), and Appeal
Board, each assumes different andspecific roles and responsibilities Refer tohttps://iabee.or.id/en/aboutiabee/organization/
x Policies and procedures on Code of
Ethics, Conflict of Interests, andConfidentiality are established andmaintained. Refer to Rules andProcedures of Accreditation-related
Committee (RPARC) Chapters 7, 8, and 9,
as well as Rules and Procedures of
Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA)
Chapter 2.1, Both, RPARC and RPEA
documents can be found athttps://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/rulesand-policies-for-evaluation-andaccreditation/
x Evaluation are conducted by Program
Evaluators from academic and industrial
background who have fulfilled eligibility
requirements. Refer to RPARC Chapter 3.
x High standards of recruitment and training
processes are established to ensurecompetent evaluators. Refer to RPARC
Chapter 6. The information is alsoavailable athttps://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/requirem
ents-to-be-evaluators/
x Program evaluation processes aresupported by Online Evaluation System(OES) managed by competentadministration staff. IABEE OES isaccessible throughhttps://evaluation.iabee.or.id/. A valid pairof username and password is required toget access.
x Technical meeting inviting all
representatives from programs to beevaluated is convened at the beginning ofan evaluation cycle to ensure theprograms’ correct understanding ofaccreditation system and its requirements,
as well as smooth evaluation processes.
Evidence related to convened technicalmeetings (e.g. attendance list,
photographs) is provided upon visit.
x Refresher training inviting all evaluators
assigned for current evaluation cycle isconvened to strengthen evaluators’competency and share any recent update.

Refer to RPARC Chapter 6.6. Evidence
related to convened refresher trainings(e.g. attendance list, photographs) is
provided upon visit.
x Evaluation system includes feedback from
evaluated programs to improve evaluators’
performance and overall accreditation
system. Refer to RPEA Chapter 2.8.1. The
feedback mechanism is included in IABEE
OES. Evidence related to the feedback isprovided upon visit.

c) The defined evaluation standards and processes
are applied consistently and fairly;

Yes

x Mechanism exists to improve program
evaluators’ competency based on previous
performance and feedbacks. Refer to
RPARC Chapter 6.8
x Evaluation standards and processes are
outlined in RPEA Chapter 2.5. Consistencyof application of standards and processesof accreditation system is ensured closely
by related committees and secretariat, andby taking advantage of the use of On-line
Evaluation System with pre-defined andclear schedulex Referring to RPEA Chapter 2.5, theprocesses include harmonization
mechanisms conducted within and acrossengineering disciplines. These ensure
objectivity, fairness, and consistency for
accreditation decisions
x Referring to RPEA Chapter 2.8.2, anappeal mechanism is provided to ensure
fair accreditation decisions. Establishmentof an Appeal Committee by the Appeal
Board is outlined in RPARC Chapter 7.
x For fairness and transparency, evaluation
standards and processes are documented
and disclosed for general public through
IABEE website
x Recently IABEE has also published
Evaluation Guide for Programs and
Evaluators, which is available for downloadfrom the link:
https://iabee.or.id/wpcontent/uploads/2020/
02/Evaluation-Guide.pdfd) The accreditation report records and justifies
accreditation recommendations in sufficientdetail to support decision-making and clearly
differentiates recommendations fromrequirements.

Yes

x The accreditation report is structured insuch a way to include sufficiently detailed
information on the level of fulfilment (score
and comments) against each criterion to
support accreditation decision-making. The
report includes introductory part about the
program, its strengths, shortcomings
found, and observations. In this way, thereport clearly differentiates between
requirements and recommendations. Refer
to RPEA Chapter 2.5.4, especially undersub-section Step EGA-26 Program Final
Report.
x Rules are established to lead toaccreditation decisions. Fulfilment to all
criteria results in “Accredited” status,
whereas any deficiency results in “Not-e) The decision making body demonstrates
capacity to make difficult decisions in a way
likely to be beneficial to the engineeringcommunity in the longer term.

Yes

Accredited”. Weakness against any
criterion results in “Accredited with Interim
Evaluation” either with or without on-site
visit. Refer to RPEA Chapter 2.6 on
Accreditation Decisions.
x Accreditation Council is IABEE’s decision
making body, whose membership consistsof 5-7 intellectual and influential members
representing academics, professionalsocieties, and industries. They do not haveconflict of interest with programs and are
not evaluators in that academic year. Refer
to RPARC Chapter 4.
x Accreditation statistics from 2016 to 2019cycles show a total of 45 programs havebeen evaluated. About 38% of programs
evaluated for the first time received“Accredited” status with full validity period,
while most programs (56%) are required toundergo Interim Evaluation. There is also 3
cases (7%) where a program received “Not
Accredited” status. This, to a certain
extent, reflects the capacity of IABEE todeal with difficult situations and to come up
with decisions beneficial to the engineeringcommunity in the longer term.

5.

The graduate outcomes standard applied for
accreditation is substantially equivalent to the
Accord as exemplified by the Graduate Attributeexemplars as reflected in:a) The agency’s documented programme outcome
standard;b) The standard required of accredited programs inpractice.

6.

The agency and its accreditation system aresustainable and adequately managed as indicated
by:

Yes

Yes
(partially)x IABEE criteria on Program Learning
Outcomes items (a) to (j) cover all required
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that aresubstantially equivalent to the Accord’s
Graduate Attribute exemplars. Refer to thereport of Analysis of Substantial
Equivalence with the 2013 Version 3
Graduate Attributes – Washington Accord
submitted by PII/IABEE
x IABEE accreditation criteria gives freedom
to programs to establish their own learning
outcomes by taking account of theirrespective institution’s values, visions andmissions, their resources, stakeholders’needs, and other considerations. However,
IABEE criteria on Program Learning
Outcomes items (a) to (j) shall besatisfactorily covered by programs’learning outcomes. IABEE Criteria Guide
on Criterion 1.3 states that, “Program shallestablish its own learning outcomes basedon the autonomous professional profile tobe acquired. The learning outcomes shallcover all graduate competences from (a) to(j) as mentioned in Common Criteria
1.3(3), which are expressed in such a way
to give flexibility to Program”
x Discussion has started within PII torecognize IABEE graduates and to give
special treatment towards becoming
licensed professional engineersa) Data from institutions offering educational
programs that have sought accreditation in thejurisdiction;

Yes

x IABEE makes use of the BAN-PT (national
agency conducting national compulsory
accreditation) database on Program
Operating Institutions/Higher Education
Institutions.
x Institutions offering engineering bachelor
programs in Indonesia that have sought
accreditation until 2019 cycle amount to 11
institutions, composed of both public andprivate institutions.

b) Data regarding programs that have sought
accreditation in the jurisdiction;

Yes

x Annual Awareness Seminars conducted inseveral major cities from 2014 to 2019
witnessed participants from more than 30
different institutions. Most of them
expressed an interest in seeking foraccreditation from IABEE for theirrespective programs.
x Engineering bachelor programs inIndonesia that are eligible to seek for
IABEE accreditation are those ranked A by
the National Accreditation Agency forHigher Education (BAN-PT). These
currently amount to 233 programs. Of
these, 45 programs have sought General
Accreditation (GA) until 2019 cyclex Apart from GA, IABEE offers Provisional
Accreditation (PA) started from 2018 cycle.
Substantial number of programs applying
for PA so far (50 programs) indicates highdemand for IABEE accreditation, and thus
its sustainability.

c) The extent to which programs have gone
through a full accreditation cycle and been reevaluated;Yesd) The depth of considerations observed during theaccreditation visit and decision making meeting
enabling appropriate accreditation outcomes tobe achieved for a range of evidence ofprogramme quality;

Yes

x Growing number of eligible programs dueto governmental support on improving
internal quality assurance and policy onachieving international recognition throughaccreditation is also anticipated to increasesustainability.
x Re-evaluation cycle was of 6-year period
but has now been modified to 5-year from2019. The first re-evaluation of programs
granted for 6-year accreditation will takeplace in 2022 (2 programs).
x Accreditation visit serves as a medium toverify the level of fulfilment to eachcriterion previously reviewed based onprogram’s Self Evaluation Report and its
supporting evidences. Evaluation team isgiven enough time (2.5 days) to observe
on-site evidences including relevant
documents and records, interview key
persons and program stakeholders, checklearning facilities and environment in order
to confirm and improve the accuracy ofpreviously made judgement. Furthermore,
post-visit chances are still given to
program under evaluation to make
improvements on identified shortcomings
to the extent possible. Any improvement
effort backed up by reasonable evidences
will be considered in the Final Evaluation
Report.

x To improve consistency of judgement,
Final Evaluation Reports of all programs
evaluated in the same accreditation cycle
are harmonized within and acrossengineering disciplines before final
recommendations on accreditation
decision are made.

e) Mechanisms for the periodic review ofaccreditation policies, criteria and procedures;

Yes

f)

Yes

The depth of training of programme assessors;x Finally, a decision making meeting by
Accreditation Council is convened toensure that all processes have been
conducted according to the rules andprocedures and to take final decision on
accreditation status.
x Review of accreditation criteria, policies,
and procedures can be conductedperiodically or when emerging issues
arise. Matters related to accreditation
criteria are discussed by Criteria
Committee, while those related toaccreditation policies and procedures aretaken care by Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee. Review results recommended
by these committees are brought to
Executive Committee meetings for further
discussions and approval. Refer tohttps://iabee.or.id/en/aboutiabee/organization/
x High standards of recruitment and training
process are established to ensurecompetent evaluators recruited from bothacademics and industrial practitioners.
x Recruitment of evaluators is conducted byconsidering the needs of various
engineering disciplines. Candidate
evaluators shall fulfill eligibility
requirements before invited to join the
training series.
x The training series include: (1) Online
Modular Training focusing on knowledge ofaccreditation system and processes; (2) 2day Face-to-face Training focusing on
gaining skills necessary to conduct on-site
visit and to work as a part of an evaluation
team; (3) assignment as observer(evaluator-in-training) to give anexperience in a real on-site visit
evaluation; and (4) Refresher Training
focusing on sharing experiences,discussing emerging issues, and updating
information regarding criteria and rules andprocedures for on-going evaluation cycle.
x A mechanism is established to evaluate
the performance of candidate evaluators
along the training series. This serves as
the basis for considering the candidate’s
appointment as program evaluator.
x Survey system is established during each
evaluation cycle involving 360 degrees
feedback to improve evaluators’
performance and overall accreditation
systemx More information on Program Evaluator
Training is provided in Refer to RPARC
Chapter 6.
g) The accreditation programme is led bypersonnel with appropriate expertise inengineering education, engineering practice andeducational quality assuranceYesh) Separation of policy making from accreditation
decision making

Yes

i)

Mechanism exists to make consistentaccreditation decisions sustainably;

Yes

j)

The agency’s history of involvement (if any) withother Education Accords under the International
Engineering Alliance with evidence of general,consistent conformance with publishedaccreditation policies and procedures.

Not yetx In terms of organization, IABEE
committees are led by committee chairs
who have high expertise in engineering
education, engineering practice, andquality assurance. As for evaluation teams,
each team is led by a team chair withexpertise in education, practice, andquality assurance and long experience inprogram evaluation.
x IABEE organization clearly distinguishes
the roles and responsibilities for policy
making and accreditation decision making.
The former are conducted by Executive
Committee, while the later are by
Accreditation Council, which isautonomous. Refer tohttps://iabee.or.id/en/aboutiabee/organization/
x Consistent accreditation decisions are
ensured to be made sustainable by thefollowing mechanism: (1) evaluation reportsubmitted by all evaluation teams aredisclosed, discussed, and harmonized in
two harmonization steps, i.e. within
discipline and across disciplines in EAC
meetings. (2) in the case of multiple teams
assigned to an institution, harmonization ofevaluation results between programs
within the institution is made prior to
submitting report; (3) recommendations ofaccreditation decisions by EAC arebrought to Accreditation Council meetingsfor verification to ensure that all processes
leading to recommendations have been
implemented according to the Rules andProcedures. Having verified, AC will makefinal accreditation decisions.
x Washington Accord is the first Education
Accord under IEA applied by IABEE. In
near future, IABEE plans to seek formembership in other accords, such as
Sydney Accord, Dublin Accord, and Seoul
Accord.

RECOMMENDATION TO SIGNATORIESJABEE, who has been mentoring IABEE since 2013, endorses the readiness of IABEE
application for the signatory status in the Washington Accord and therefore recommends a verification team to be formed on the basis of IABEE compliance with Schedule B2 and askes WA signatories to consider voting for support as defined in the B.2.2.3d) of the Accords Rules and Procedures.
The recommendation of the mentor is based on evidence collected during numbers of
on-site visits to IABEE, including observations of more than dozen accreditation visits
to around 30 programs as well as observation of accreditation decision-making meetings for the accreditation cycles 2016-2019 within JABEE mentoring period concurrent
with JABEE assistance for IABEE under ODA which originally started in 2013.

- B-1 CONFIDENTIALEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the period of 2016-2019 of 4 accreditation cycles, JABEE conducted a review
and monitored IABEE accreditation processes in accordance with Schedule B1 & B2of the Accord.
At the request of the Indonesian Government to the Japanese Government to assist Indonesia in establishing an internationally recognized accreditation agency for engineering education, an ODA project to establish IABEE was approved and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) entrusted JABEE to implement the project.
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is an accreditation body for higher education programs in engineering. IABEE is established as anautonomous department of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII), a non-governmental organization of multi-disciplinary engineering professionals in engineering andtechnology. PII was founded in 1952 in Bandung and currently headquartered in Jakarta.
IABEE started by the formation of a Steering Committee for IABEE Preparation in2013.
The concept of accreditation is nothing new in Indonesia. The National Accreditation
Board (BAN-PT) has been accrediting both institutional and program accreditations. In
2012, the Indonesian Government issued Higher Education Act that the program accreditations are to be carried out by independent accreditation agencies of respective
fields and those field-oriented accreditation agencies are collectively called LAM-PS.
As of today, LAM-PS for engineering has not been established yet. Accreditations by
BAN-PT and/or LAM-PS are mandatory by law. Their accreditation criteria are regulated by the Government. BAN-PT and LAM-PS have started outcomes-based evaluation however, their levels do not meet the standard as required by the Washington Accord. IABEE is not a LAM-PS since it is voluntary and intended to pursue internationallevel accreditation, however, the Government recognizes the level of IABEE accreditation higher than that of national accreditation. The number of nationally accredited
engineering programs at bachelor’s level is approximately 2,500, 10% of which are
ranked A by BAN-PT. Only those 10% are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation.
As in February 2020, IABEE has accredited 42 programs.
At the beginning phase of IABEE, all the activities including committees’ meetings arefinancially supported by the Indonesian Government and JICA through JABEE. After
IABEE has started evaluation and accreditation by application of their own preparedaccreditation criteria, IABEE gradually started financing those activities by the income
from accreditation fees. As of today, IABEE is completely independent from the Government in terms of finance, and IABEE secretariat administrates logistics related tothe accreditation activities and runs committee meetings as well as hold seminars toincrease qualified evaluators (e.g. evaluator training, refresher seminar etc.) and potential programs to be accredited in the future. As of today, pool of evaluators has reached
117.
Based on observations of and evaluations on IABEE activities comprehensively during
mentoring process, JABEE is confident to confirm IABEE’s accreditation visit process
as well as accreditation system processes are substantially equivalent to those of WA
signatories and in accordance with accord requirements.

- B-2 CONFIDENTIAL

IABEE has continuously been holding awareness seminars all over Indonesia for dissemination of outcomes-based education and importance to be in line with international
standard. The number of seminars held from 2013 to 2019 is more than 40. After
IABEE provisional admission to the Accords, 7 awareness seminars were held. Remarkably, the majority of which are held at the request of HEIs. This shows that IABEE
provisional admission has given impact to HEIs in Indonesia.
IABEE started its own evaluation of programs in 2016. 2 programs in 2016, 3 programsin 2017, 27 programs in 2018 and 10 programs in 2019 totaling 42 programs have been
accredited for general accreditation. Among 42, 17 programs were granted a full accreditation and 25 were granted an interim accreditation.
2 programs evaluated in 2019 were not accredited. However, accreditation may be
granted if those two programs will take immediate remedial actions for the items
pointed out as shortcomings and if EAC confirms its improvement and the Accreditation Council approves.
JABEE concludes that IABEE complies with the criteria for admission of signatory
status documented in Schedule B2 of the Rules and Procedures and the standard of thegraduates of IABEE accredited programs are substantially equivalent to the graduatesof other WA signatories.

- B-3 CONFIDENTIALACKNOWLEDGEMENTSz

Dr Yasuyuki AOSHIMA
Ex-Executive Managing Director of JABEE. Currently he is an advisor of International Affairs. He has been mentoring IABEE before IABEE establishment to as oftoday. His mentoring begun from year 2013. He resided in Jakarta, Indonesia for
one year from October 2013 to September 2014 in order to prepare ODA-JICA
project and to establish network of Indonesian exerts and encourage them to be apart of the project. Participating in all major committees especially the Criteria
Committee, Dr Aoshima provided guidance on Accreditation Criteria of almost allof WA signatories. JICA project started in November 2014. Since then, he has visited Indonesia almost every month until today as a project manager His mentoring
is not mere single activity but it is more comprehensive support and it covers fromassistance on creating IABEE Accreditation Criteria and its related evaluation andaccreditation documents, assists setting up necessary committees to operate the accreditation body, advises how to effectively structure IABEE own systems while
complying Accord requirements. The most remarkable contribution as mentor was
to negotiate with the Indonesian Government to recognize IABEE as uncontested
non-governmental organization eligible to apply for the Washington Accord. Since
governmental program accreditation agency pre-existed in Indonesia, it was important that the Government recognizes IABEE international-level accreditation as
superior to national accreditation. As a result of his continuous efforts on negotiation and having numbers of discussion with Government officials, IABEE acquireda status higher than national accreditation.

z

Prof. Yukihiko SATO
Member of JABEE BOD and Chair of the Evaluation and Accreditation Coordination Committee. He, at the beginning phase, highly engaged to disseminate conceptof Outcomes-based Education and its Evaluation which are practiced and recognized internationally to the HEIs across the Indonesia, assisting educators and thestudy programs to get acquainted with the idea at the same time encouraging themto accelerate shifting their education from Input-based to Outcomes-based. He also
served as lecturer for training for trainer of evaluator in Japan in three consecutive
years, intended to increase people who can train program evaluator in Indonesia toeffectively increase its total numbers.

- B-4 CONFIDENTIALz

Prof. Yusuke HONJO
Vice-President of JABEE and Chair of the International Affairs Committee. He
mentored IABEE by accompanying some accreditation visits implemented by
IABEE and told how to interpret GA and reflect it to IABEE criteria at the time of
judgment when it is necessary (e.g. making judgment on difficult issue). He also
shared his point of view from his experiences as experienced program evaluator toguide and betterment of IABEE accreditation activities. He was one of trainer offor training for trainer of evaluator in Japan in three consecutive years. Providing
practical guidance on appropriate rationale to be apply in the process of outcomesbased evaluation to the trainees.

zProf. Mitsunori MAKINO
Member of JABEE BOD and Chair of the Criteria Committee. At the beginningphase of IABEE establishment, he greatly assisted IABEE to create Accreditation
Criteria and associated documents. He attended numbers of Criteria Committee
meetings and provided guidance on how to interpret Graduate Attributes and theconcept of Outcomes-based education reflecting them into IABEE Accreditation
Criteria. Based on his professional expertise, he supported IABEE to created digital/online evaluation system which allows IABEE to keep track of whole cycle ofaccreditation activities from the application until issuing certificate of accreditation
to the program all by online. He accompanied to the numbers of IABEE accreditation visits and provided advices and guidance when necessary. He was also a trainer
for train the evaluator trainer seminar held in Japan.

z

Dr Shunji FUJII
Member of JABEE BOD and Chair of the Public Affairs Committee. He accompanied with numbers of IABEE accreditation visits since IABEE beginning phaseas a mentor and provided advices and guidance from the perspectives of Outcomesbased evaluation. He also served as trainer for train the evaluator trainer seminar
held in Japan in 3 consecutive years.

z

Prof. Hiroomi HOMMA
He has served as professor of Toyohashi University of Technology in Japan and atthat time he participated JABEE activities as an evaluator at numbers of occasions.
After retirement, he moved to Indonesia and works as professor at Indonesian universities. He permanently lives in Indonesia and is knowledgeable about outcomesbased education and evaluation from the perspectives of JABEE Accreditation Criteria as well as IABEE Accreditation Criteria, he accompanied with IABEE accreditation visits to numbers of programs starting from IABEE pilot accreditation.
As experienced program evaluator, he provided advices on critical points on evaluation.
- B-5 CONFIDENTIALz

Ms. Akiko TAKAHASHI
Visited Indonesia 20 time until today including visit prior to the official launch of
IABEE project in 2014. Soon after IABEE Criteria Committee was established in2013, she attended its committee and investigated accreditation criteria and its related documents of existing WA signatories and prepared committee documents
while considering structure of each organization in order for IABEE to be able toconsider what is the most appropriate figure of their own Accreditation Criteria tobe created. From the point of view of the manager of JABEE International Affairs
Division, she supported IABEE International Committee to get familiar with Accord Rules & Procedures and assisted preparation of IABEE application to provisional and signatory status in the Accord. When JABEE held training for evaluator
trainer in Japan, she was in charge of translation of set of Self-review Reports ofstudy programs, accompanied on-site visit. Also, she oversaw logistics of the training.
Note:
In total 25 JABEE experts including, professors, practitioners and JABEE secretariat staff, involved activities related to IABEE. Contribution includes mentoringat on-site visit of IABEE, assisting IABEE to create their systems from micro to
macro such as training for secretariat administration, creating online systems, assisting consistency check of flow of evaluation and how to systematically operate
IABEE not only accreditation-oriented issues but also well-formed and functioning
organization. Additionally, most of experts have served mentoring activity morethan once.

- B-6 CONFIDENTIAL

1.1

Purpose and Objectives

At the request of the IABEE, JABEE examined and now reports on the applicant andmakes a recommendation to WA signatories. This report documents the observations,assessment, and recommendation resulting from the mentoring process.
1.2

Approach and Methodology

The monitoring review of IABEE was undertaken in accordance with the Washington
Accord and mentoring visits took place in numbers of occasions.
During the period of 2016-2019 of 4 accreditation cycles, JABEE conducted a review
and monitored IABEE accreditation processes in accordance with Schedule B1 & B2of the Accord.
At the request of the Indonesian Government to the Japanese Government to assist Indonesia in establishing an internationally recognized accreditation agency for engineering education, an ODA project to establish IABEE was approved and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) entrusted JABEE to implement the project.
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is an accreditation body for higher education programs in engineering. IABEE is established as anautonomous department of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII), a non-governmental organization of multi-disciplinary engineering professionals in engineering andtechnology. PII was founded in 1952 in Bandung and currently headquartered in Jakarta.
IABEE started by the formation of a Steering Committee for IABEE Preparation in2013.
As one of autonomous departments of the PII, IABEE Executive Committee, former
Steering Committee, has authority substantially equivalent to BOD of other WA Signatories. Criteria Committee, Evaluation & Accreditation Committee, International
Committee are administrated under the Executive Committee.
Scope of IABEE accreditation is engineering programs at bachelor level that award a
Bachelor’s degree through 4-years academic curriculum implementation with a minimum total load of 144 credits. In Indonesia, Primary education is consisted of 6 yearsof elementary and 3 years of junior high school education are required in addition of 3
years of general high school education for secondary education. That would make 16
years of duration of academic formation to be awarded bachelor degree and in the reality, in order to complete 144 credits in the tertiary education takes more than 4 years inmany cases.

- B-7 CONFIDENTIAL

The concept of accreditation is nothing new in Indonesia. The National Accreditation
Board (BAN-PT) has been accrediting both institutional and program accreditations. In
2012, the Indonesian Government issued Higher Education Act that the program accreditations are to be carried out by independent accreditation agencies of respective
fields and those field-oriented accreditation agencies are collectively called LAM-PS.
As of today, LAM-PS for engineering has not been established yet. Accreditations by
BAN-PT and/or LAM-PS are mandatory by law. Their accreditation criteria are regulated by the Government. BAN-PT and LAM-PS have started outcomes-based evaluation however, their levels do not meet the standard as required by the Washington Accord. IABEE is not a LAM-PS since it is voluntary and intended to pursue internationallevel accreditation, however, the Government recognizes the level of IABEE accreditation higher than that of national accreditation. The number of nationally accredited
engineering programs at bachelor’s level is approximately 2,500, 10% of which are
ranked A by BAN-PT. Only those 10% are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation.
As in February 2020, IABEE has accredited 42 programs.
At the beginning phase of IABEE, all the activities including committees’ meetings arefinancially supported by the Indonesian Government and JICA through JABEE. After
IABEE has started evaluation and accreditation by application of their own preparedaccreditation criteria, IABEE gradually started financing those activities by the income
from accreditation fees. As of today, IABEE is completely independent from the Government in terms of finance, and IABEE secretariat administrates logistics related tothe accreditation activities and runs committee meetings as well as hold seminars toincrease qualified evaluators (e.g. evaluator training, refresher seminar etc.) and potential programs to be accredited in the future. As of today, pool of evaluators has reached117.
IABEE Accreditation Criteria was set up based on the studies of accreditation criteriaof WA signatories. JABEE assisted IABEE to fully take account of all IEA Graduate
Attributes to be covered when IABEE defined student outcomes, in IABEE terminology “Orientation of the Graduate Competence”, while guiding IABEE to consider essence unique to Indonesia in order to reflect country needs. The Criteria Committee
held more than 30 meetings over 3 years, all of which JABEE attended to give advices.
JABEE’s mentoring started at the conceptional phase of IABEE establishment. JABEE
involved in recruiting Indonesian experts. JABEE assisted IABEE experts providing
guidance on abstract of IEA, WA, Graduate Attributes, Accord Rules & Procedures andintroducing Accreditation Criteria of WA signatories so that allowed IABEE to compare and select the one most referential to create their own.
JABEE deeply engaged in the preparation process to make sure that IABEE fully takes
account of and includes essential keys into their Accreditation Criteria, Criteria Guide,
Rules & Procedure for Evaluation and Accreditation. As for Evaluation Guide, referential information was shared during evaluator training seminars and during awarenessseminars to study programs. Recently Evaluation Guide has been published on IABEE
Website.

- B-8 CONFIDENTIAL

JABEE provided IABEE with guidance and mentored for practically all IABEE activities such as, guidance on making appropriate judgment on evaluation items of which
critical decision are required during accreditation visits on over 30 different occasions,practical attitude toward harmonization process at the Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee meetings and accreditation final decision-making meetings. At every stepof evaluation process, JABEE explained to IABEE not only WA basic philosophy but
also practical understanding shared amongst WA signatories.
Based on observations of and evaluations on IABEE activities comprehensively during
mentoring process, JABEE is confident to confirm IABEE’s accreditation visit process
as well as accreditation system processes are substantially equivalent to those of WA
signatories and in accordance with accord requirements.
This report shows IABEE’s organizational growth in a long term. Regarding the matureness in accreditation activities, JABEE witnessed not only one-time but also number of accreditation visits over the years with providing guidance and assistance.
IABEE strived to adhere good practices on WA signatories and what IABEE haslearned by participating in evaluator training seminars or on-site visits of some signatories and immediately reflected to their own training and accreditation activities updating their procedures to better suits for the level as equivalent to the international
practice.
Major update which JABEE would like to note is the improvement of IABEE Accreditation Criteria after receiving feedback to explicitly state “Complex Engineering Problem” from some signatories at the time of IABEE provisional admission to the Accord
in HK in June 2019. “Complex Engineering Problem” is now explicitly mentioned inCommon Criteria.
As IABEE was first initiated from the ODA project, the large parts of their financial
needs were supported by the project. Currently, IABEE is financed by accreditation
fees. The accumulated investment reserve is estimated to decline until 2023, howeverfrom 2024 a large number of programs is expected to renew their accreditation status.
In addition, the programs previously accredited under the provisional accreditation are
expected to seek for the general accreditation. Therefore, the accumulated investment
reserve shall increase from then on. IABEE’s efforts to seek for stronger support suchas from industry are recommended. Setting up a mechanism of supporting membershipto IABEE with annual membership fees would be a solution.
IABEE has continuously been holding awareness seminars all over Indonesia for dissemination of outcomes-based education and importance to be in line with international
standard. The number of seminars held from 2013 to 2019 is more than 40. After
IABEE provisional admission to the Accords, 7 awareness seminars were held. Remarkably, the majority of which are held at the request of HEIs. This shows that IABEE
provisional admission has given impact to HEIs in Indonesia.
JABEE conduced JABEE evaluations to a program of Bogor Agricultural University in2014, a program of the Islamic University of Indonesia in 2015 and a program of University of Indonesia and a program of Bandung Institute of Technology in 2016. Those
4 JABEE evaluations are so-called “pilot evaluations for IABEE” in which IABEE executives and experts participated as observers.

- B-9 CONFIDENTIAL

IABEE started its own evaluation of programs in 2016. 2 programs in 2016, 3 programsin 2017, 27 programs in 2018 and 10 programs in 2019 totaling 42 programs have been
accredited for general accreditation. Among 42, 17 programs were granted a full accreditation and 25 were granted an interim accreditation.
6 programs in 2017, 21 programs in 2018 and 28 programs in 2019, totaling 55 programs have been accredited for provisional accreditation (including 5 programs for
Computing). These programs are expected to apply for general accreditation after 2020.
This backs up high plausibility of maintaining consistent number of potential programs
based on programs high interest and voluntary attitude toward outcomes-based accreditation.
JABEE concludes that IABEE complies with the criteria for admission of signatory
status documented in Schedule B2 of the Rules and Procedures and the standard of thegraduates of IABEE accredited programs are substantially equivalent to the graduatesof other WA signatories.
The timelines of main activities of the mentor are shown below:
Date
Activity
Oct. 2013 to Sep. 2014 Dr Aoshima stayed in Jakarta, Indonesia for one year to prepare upcoming 5-year ODA project to establish IABEE.
Jan. 2014
With the assistance of Dr Aoshima and Ms. Takahashi, 1st
IABEE Criteria Committee was held and started to prepare
IABEE Accreditation Criteria. Firstly, the Committee studied
accreditation criteria of WA signatories and Graduate Attributes of IEA. The Criteria Committee held more than 30 meetings over 3 years to finalize Indonesian-oriented one.
From Nov. 2014 to As a project manager of IABEE establishment, Dr Aoshima
Oct. 2019
undertook missions to Indonesia practically every month. In
total of 25 JABEE experts undertook missions to Indonesia
during the period to accompany with major activities.
Feb. 2015
Invited 7 IABEE executives to Japan to learn framework of
JABEE organization, principle of evaluation and its rules &Procedures to reflect to their own system by attending lecture
session by JABEE professors, skill practice with JABEE accredited programs and visiting IPEJ and observation of JABEE Evaluation & Accreditation Coordination Committee.
April 2015, April & 13 times of awareness seminars were held. Not only sending
May 2016, Aug. & JABEE, Prof. Sato and Dr Aoshima as lecturers, Dr Michael
Sep. 2017
Milligan, CEO of ABET had served as lecturers in five different cities.
April to May 2015, Sent in total 16 IABEE experts as participating observer to2016 & 2017 (twice ABET PEV Training for them to be a trainer for evaluator in
per year)Indonesia. JABEE experts accompanied with each group for
assistance.

- B-10 CONFIDENTIALMay & Sep. 2016

Sent 3 IABEE executives to CAST, China in May 2016 and3 other experts to EA, Australia in Sep. 2016 for them to be a
trainer for evaluator. Both cases, had meeting with executivesof CAST and EA and observed their accreditation visits.
Oct., 2015, Nov., 2016 In total 43 IABEE potential Evaluator Trainers observed JA& Oct. 2017
BEE accreditation visits based on studying JABEE Accreditation Criteria and Evaluation Methods separately so that participants could practice outcomes-based evaluation.
2014-2016
JABEE conduced JABEE evaluations in 2014, 2015 and2016. Those 4 JABEE evaluations are so-called “pilot evaluations for IABEE” in which IABEE executives and experts
participated as observers
July to Oct., 2017
Sent JABEE experts to IABEE on-site evaluations visits in 8
different HEIs to provide advice.
Jan. 2015 to Oct. 2019 By showing JABEE online evaluation system, Prof. Makino,
Dr Aoshima and 2 JABEE secretarial staff took initiative for
IABEE to create more advanced system by comprehensively
including whole activities occur one accreditation cycle; application submission to issuing accreditation certificate. In order to digitalize everything, all information related to evaluation were compiled into database. Assessment on evaluatorand roster of the candidates are also embedded.
1.3

Scope of the Report

This report covers the mentor’s findings based on review and observation of all necessary documentation to satisfy the requirements of Schedule B2 of the Educational Accords General Rules and Procedures.
1.4

Confirmation of Criteria for Admission

Checklists for B1 and B2 as well as for Gap Analysis duly completed by the Mentor
are attached in the Annexes.
1.5

Concluding Remarks

I find that IABEE is ready to be considered for Full Signatory status in the Washington
Accord.

2

RECOMMENDATION TO SIGNATORIES- B-11 CONFIDENTIAL

JABEE, who has been mentoring IABEE since 2013, endorses the readiness of IABEE
application for the signatory status in the Washington Accord and therefore recommends a verification team to be formed on the basis of IABEE compliance with Schedule B2 and askes the WA signatories to consider voting for support as defined in the
B.2.2.3 d) of the Accords Rules and Procedures.

- B-12 CONFIDENTIAL

IEAAccordRequirementsforSignatoryStatuschecklist

RequirementsforSignatoryStatusChecklist
VisitReportanalysisagainstRulesandProcedures
requirementsScheduleB1:CriteriaforAdmissiontoProvisional
SignatoryStatusinanAccord(alsorequiredfor
AdmissiontoFullSignatory)

Meets
Criteria?

1


Theaccreditingagencyhasthefollowingcharacteristics:a) IsnonͲgovernmental;

Yes/NoYesb) Islegallyincorporatedinitshomejurisdiction;

Yes



c) Istheuncontestedaccreditationagencyoftheengineeringcommunityinthejurisdiction;or,if
circumstancesinthejurisdictionallowsmultiple
accreditationagencies,theapplicantmustbethe
prominentauthorityinaccreditationofprogrammes;

Yes



d) Isastatutoryorprofessionallyrecognisedauthorityto
accreditprogramssatisfyingacademicrequirements
foradmissiontopracticingstatus(e.g.licensing,
registration)inajurisdiction;

Yes



e) Accreditsprogrammesatinstitutionsthathavelegalauthoritytoconferhighereducationdegrees
qualifications;

Yes



f) Haspoliciestoset,approve,evaluateandexecute
accreditationcriteriaandprocedures;
g) Isindependentoftheeducationalprovidersdelivering
accreditedprogrammesinitsjurisdiction;h) Hasautonomytomakeaccreditationdecisions
independentofstakeholderinfluence.

Yes




2.

Yes
Yes

Theaccreditingagencyhasanoperationalaccreditation
systemwithdocumentedproceduresandpractices
conformingtothefollowingprinciples:a) Theaccreditationcriteriaandproceduresare
documented,publicized,andappliedinaccordance
withsetpolicies;b) Thesystemaccreditsprogrammesorcoordinated
groupsofindividuallyidentifiedprogrammes;

Yes



c) Programmeassessorsareacademicandindustrypeer
reviewers;

Yes



V1.0asat24.6.19



Yes

Evidence provided/Comments/anychanges
overtime?

IABEEisanNPO/NGOorganizationestablishedasanautonomousdepartmentundertheInstitutionofEngineersIndonesia(PII),whichisthemostprominentNGOrepresenting
professionalengineeringcommunityinIndonesia.
PIIisregallyincorporated.IABEE,asan
autonomousdepartmentofPII,isalso
automaticallylegallyincorporated.
IABEEistheonlyagencywhichvoluntary
accreditsengineeringeducationprograms.
IABEEisapartofPIIandPIIisgiventhe
authoritytorepresentengineeringprofession
bytheengineeringlaw,therefore,IABEEisa
prominentauthorityinengineeringeducation
accreditation.
IABEEasapartofPIIaccreditstoevaluate
whethertheprogrammeetsacademic
requirements.PII,asanumbrellaorganization,
regulatesandimplementslicensingand
registrationsundergivenauthority.
StudyprogramsaccreditedwithrankͲAbythe
NationalAccreditationAgencyforHigher
Education(BANͲPT),whichisanational
mandatoryaccreditationagency,isonly
eligibletoapplyforIABEEevaluation.
DefinedinRPEAdocuments.
IABEEisindependentfromeducational
providers.
IABEEisestablishedunderPIIasautonomous
departmentandRPEAdocumentdefines
detailsofindividualswhoshouldnotinvolvedecisionmakingproceduresineverylevelsofevaluationactivitiesinordernottointerfere
independentaccreditationdecision.


IABEEpublishesevaluationandaccreditation
relateddocumentsontheirwebsitebasedon
theirregulationsat:
https://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/rulesͲandͲ
policiesͲforͲevaluationͲandͲaccreditation/
IABEEhasmodularonlinetraining,FaceͲtoͲ
Facetrainingandobservationofaccreditation
visitasstepͲbyͲsteptrainingforevaluator
candidateswhichJABEEinvolvedtoestablish
itssystem.
AsJABEEintroducedprogramevaluation
implementedamongstAccordsparticipatingmembersarepeerreviewmadeupof
academiaandindustry.IABEEhasbeenPage1of5

IEAAccordRequirementsforSignatoryStatuschecklist







d) Therearemechanismsanddocumentationfortrainingtheprogrammeassessors;

Yes



e) ProgrammeevaluationrequiresaselfͲevaluationand
sitevisit;

Yes



f) PeriodicreͲevaluationisrequiredtomaintainaccreditation;

Yes



g) Individualprogramevaluationisconductedin
confidence;

Yes



h) Mechanismsforaddressingconflictofinterestatall
stagesoftheprocessexist;

Yes




i) Alistofaccreditedprogrammesispublished;
j) Anappealprocessexists.

Yes
Yes

3.





Theaccreditationagency’scriteriaforaccreditation
includerequirementsfor:a) Programmeoutcomesthatareconsistentwiththe
purposeoftheprogrammeb) Acurriculumprovidingabroadbasisforengineeringpractice;
c) Asuitableenvironmenttodelivertheprogramme;d) Adequateleadershipfortheprogramme;

Yes



e) Suitablyqualifiedengineeringpractitionersteachingintheprogramme;

Yes



f) Appropriateentryandprogressionstandards;and

Yes



g) Adequatehuman,physicalandfinancialresourcesfor
theprogramme.

Yes




Yes
Yes
Yes

strivingtokeepapoolofevaluatorsinbalance.
Asmentionedabove2.b)andc),IABEEhas
mechanismsandtherelateddocumentsare
uploadedontheIABEEwebsiteasmentioned
in2.a)
ItisdefinedinRPEAdocument.Aspartofevaluationprocess,astudyprogramisto
submitaselfͲevaluationreportviaonline
system.
IABEEfirstdecidedforaprogramgrantedafullaccreditationtobereͲevaluatedin6Ͳyear
cycletomaintainaccreditationstatus.From
2019,reͲevaluationforcontinuousevaluation
willbecarriedoutin5Ͳyearinterval.IABEE
alsohassystemofInterimevaluationwithor
withoutonͲsitevisit(deskauditͲbasis)fora
programwith“weakness”.
Confidentialityandimplementationof
evaluationinconfidentaredefinedinRules
andProceduresforAccreditationͲRelated
Committees(RPARC)documentanditsactual
implementationwereconfirmedbyJABEE’sobservationofonͲsitevisitforyears.
IABEEpublishesRPARCdocumentwhich
includespoliciesofconflictofinterestand
triestheirbesttoavoidcaseofsuch.
ItispublishedonIABEEwebsite
ItisalsoincludedintheRPARCdocumentas
mentionedin2h).
Definedincriterion1ofOrientationofthe
GraduateCompetenceDefinedincriterion2.1ofcurriculum
IABEEcriterion2.3.3inStudentsandAcademicAtmosphereand2.4Facilityrequireprogramstoensureappropriatelearningenvironment
forachievementoflearningoutcomesbythestudents.
Itisdefinedincriteria2.5ofInstitutional
Responsibility
2.2FacultyofIABEEcriteriarequires
appropriatenumbers,qualificationsand
competenceinitsmembers.
2.3StudentsandAcademicAtmosphereof
IABEEcriteriadefinesadmissionandtransferofstudentsanditshandling.
2.2,2.3and2.4mentionedaboveand2.5
coveradequateeffortsfortheprogramto
maintainappropriateresourcestoimplementtheprogram.

ScheduleB2:CriteriaforAdmissiontoandMaintenanceof
SignatoryStatusinanAccordV1.0asat24.6.19



VisitReportanalysisagainstRulesandProcedures
requirementsPage2of5

IEAAccordRequirementsforSignatoryStatuschecklist

Meets
Criteria?
Yes/NoEvidenceProvided/Comment/anychanges
overtime?

Accreditationagenciesunderreviewmust:
1. Continuetosatisfytherequirementdefinedin
ScheduleB1:and
2. Satisfycriteria4,5and6below
Theagency’saccreditationsystemandprocesses
conformtotheAccordacceptedpracticeasexemplifiedby:a) Highstandardsofprofessionalism,ethicsand
objectivity;









Yes



b) Allinvolvedinprogrammeevaluationarecompetent
intheagency’saccreditationsystem,andareofhighstandingaseducatorsorpractitionersinthe
profession;

Yes



c) Thedefinedevaluationstandardsandprocessesare
appliedconsistentlyandfairly;

Yes



d) Theaccreditationreportrecordsandjustifies
accreditationrecommendationsinsufficientdetailto
supportdecisionͲmakingandclearlydifferentiates
recommendationsfromrequirements.

Yes



e) Thedecisionmakingbodydemonstratescapacityto
makedifficultdecisionsinawaylikelytobebeneficialtotheengineeringcommunityinthe
longerterm.

Yes

5.

Thegraduateoutcomesstandardappliedfor
accreditationissubstantiallyequivalenttotheAccordas
exemplifiedbytheGraduateAttributeexemplarsas
reflectedin:a) Theagency’sdocumentedprogrammeoutcomestandard;



6.7“Expectedevaluatorcompetence”and7
“CodeofEthics”definesitsstandardintheRulesandProceduresforAccreditationͲ
relatedcommittees(RPARC).Theformerfor
expectedqualityinevaluatorandthelatterforethicalprinciplesfortheevaluators.
Inordertomakesurethelevelsofunderstandingsharedamongstappointed
evaluators,andrequiretogothroughonͲlinetrainingprovidedthroughIABEEwebsite
priortoattendIABEEcandidateevaluator
workshopsandtrainingsessions,2daysfaceͲtoͲfacesession,aswellasevaluator’s
refresherworkshops.Also,requirementsto
beevaluatoraresetandpublishedonIABEE
websitetokeephighlevelofeligibilityand
qualification.Assessmentofevaluators,as
prescribedin6.8“Evaluatorperformance
Evaluation”ofRPARC,whohaveservedas
evaluatorsandobservers(intraining)in
2019,isbeingimplementedforthefirsttimeandtheresultswillbeusedfortheselection
ofevaluatorsfortheaccreditationcycle
beyond2020.
EvaluationGuideispublishedonIABEE
Websiteat:https://iabee.or.id/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/EvaluationGuide.pdf
Evaluationreportsinallphasesand
harmonizationresultsbasedonitsreportsat
Evaluation&AccreditationCommittee(EAC)
arefiledatOnlineEvaluationSystem.
Accreditationrecommendationsmadeby
EACareexaminedbytheAccreditation
Council(AC),whichisIABEE’sfinaldecisionͲ
makingcommittee.TheAChasbeenheld
properlysinceaccreditationcycle2016.
4.2ofIABEERPARC“membership”ofAC
definesthemembersshouldbefrom
academics,professionalsocieties,and
industry.Nomembersshallhaveconflictofinterestswithstudyprogramsevaluatedin
theyearofaccreditation.




4.







b) Thestandardrequiredofaccreditedprogramsinpractice

V1.0asat24.6.19



Yes

Not(yet)

Items(a)to(i)ofCriterion1.3,“Orientation
oftheGraduateCompetence”,ofCommon
CriteriaaredefinedbyfullytakingaccountofGraduateAttributeexemplarstobe
substantiallyequivalent.
BasedonIABEE’ssuggestion,theInstitution
ofEngineersIndonesia(PII),whichisIABEE’sparentorganization,hasstartedthePage3of5

IEAAccordRequirementsforSignatoryStatuschecklist

6





Theagencyanditsaccreditationsystemaresustainableandadequatelymanagedasindicatedby:a) Datafrominstitutionsofferingeducationalprograms
thathavesoughtaccreditationinthejurisdictionb) Dataregardingprogramsthathavesoughtaccreditationinthejurisdiction;




Yes
Yes



c) TheextenttowhichprogramshavegonethroughafullaccreditationcycleandbeenreͲevaluated;

Yes



d) Thedepthofconsiderationsobservedduringtheaccreditationvisitanddecisionmakingmeetingenablingappropriateaccreditationoutcomestobe
achievedforarangeofevidenceofprogramme
quality;

Yes



e) Mechanismsfortheperiodicreviewofaccreditation
policies,criteriaandprocedures;

Yes



f) Thedepthoftrainingofprogrammeassessors;

Yes



g)Theaccreditationprogrammeisledbypersonnelwith
appropriateexpertiseinengineeringeducation,
engineeringpracticeandeducationalquality

Yes

V1.0asat24.6.19

discussiontodifferentiatebetweenIABEE
graduatesandnonͲIABEEgraduates
IABEEfullyusesthedatabaseofBANͲPTon
HEIs.
IABEEonlyevaluatesengineeringprograms
ofHEIswhicharerankedAbyBANͲPT.Since
IABEEhasbeenaccreditingstudyprograms
in2016cycle,numberofaccredited
programshasbeensustainablyincreasing2
in2016,3in2017,27in2018and10in
2019.Notingthattherearenumbersof
provisionallyaccreditedprograms,intotalof
50,andallofwhichmostlikelyseekfor
generalaccreditationafterproducing
graduates.
AprogramgrantedafullaccreditationshallbereͲevaluatedwithin6years.The6Ͳyear
cyclewillbechangedto5Ͳyearfrom2020
accreditation.IABEE’sfirstreͲevaluationtoa
programgrantedafullaccreditationin2016
willoccurin2022.
EvaluationisimplementedbasedontheevidencecollectedfromSelfͲstudyreportandatonͲsitevisit.
EvaluationGuideisuploadedonIABEE
Websitetoexplaintheevidencesofprogram
quality.
IABEERulesandProceduresforEvaluation
andAccreditation(RPEA)aredefinedbythe
Evaluation&AccreditationCommittee(EAC)
andAccreditationCriteriabytheCriteria
Committee(CC)however,bothcorrelate
and/orcomplementeachothersoone
decidedtorevise,thentheotheralsoneedtoreviseaccordingly.Thefinaldecisionover
itsrevisionismadebytheExecutive
Committee(EXC).BoththeChairofEACandCCaremembersofEXC.Thereisno
scheduledchangeofIABEEevaluationand
accreditationdocumentssofarsinceIABEE
isfairlyneworganizationbutminor
modificationhasalreadybeenmadefor
clarificationi.e.,inserting“Complex
EngineeringProblem”intoCommonCriteria.
IABEEfirststartedtotrainIABEEexecutivestojoinABETPEVtrainingin6timesin3
consecutiveyears,observedaccreditation
visitsofEAandCASTtolearnthepractical
judgementmadeatthesceneofaccreditationexerciseandjoinedJABEE
conductedmockevaluationofJABEEactualprogramsincludingonͲsitevisits.IABEEexpertsparticipatedin4JABEE’sevaluationsasobservers.AllofthosearetotrainIABEEevaluatorsandfortheirmaturity.Basedon
thoseknowledgeandexperience,IABEE
createdgradualtrainingscheme;onͲlinetraining,faceͲtoͲfaceͲtraining,andobserverͲ
inͲtraining.Detailsaredefinedin6.1to6.6
ofRPARC.
IntheIABEEDisciplineCriteria,eachfieldofdisciplinedefinesexpectedexpertise.Page4of5

IEAAccordRequirementsforSignatoryStatuschecklist








assuranceh) Separationofpolicymakingfromaccreditation
decisionmaking



Yes

i) Mechanismexiststomakeconsistentaccreditation
Yes
decisionssustainably;
j) Theagency’shistoryofinvolvement(ifany)with
Not(yet)
otherEducationAccordsundertheInternational
EngineeringAlliancewithevidenceofgeneral,
consistentconformancewithpublishedaccreditation
policiesandprocedures.

PolicymakingofIABEEisfullyinhandofEXC
whichissimilartothedivisionsubstantiallyequivalenttoBODoftheWAsignatories
whereas,asdefinedin4.1&4.2ofPRARC,
accreditationfinaldecisionismadeby
AccreditationCouncil,whichreviewsalltheevaluationprocedureshavebeencarriedout
withconsistency,withmembersappointed
bytheChairofEXCannuallyjustforthatoccasionbyavoidingconflictofinterest.No
membersarefromEAC,whichfunctionsas
harmonizationprocessofevaluatedstudy
programsintheapplicableaccreditation
cyclepriortomakefinaldecisionbythe
AccreditationCouncil.
RPARCinEnglishandEvaluationGuideare
publishedonIABEEWebsite.
PII/IABEEisinterestedinparticipatinginthe
SydneyandDublinAccordsoncesuccessfully
admittedassignatoryintheWashington
Accord.AppraisalofVisitReport
Othermatters
C.2.3.

TheGuidelinesstate:
Ultimately,theapplicantmustdemonstratethatthelevelandcontentofthestudiesofaccredited/
recognisedprogrammesaresubstantiallyequivalenttothoseofthecurrentsignatories.
Therefore,theprogrammemustbeofferedatan
appropriatetertiaryͲlevelinstitution.
Thedurationofacademicformationwillnormallybeatleastsixteenyears(WashingtonAccord),
fifteenyears(SydneyAccord),and
thirteenyears(DublinAccord).

Educationalstandingrefer:WashingtonAccordAgreement(p6)
Para2
Eachsignatorywillmakeeveryreasonableeffortto
ensurethatthebodiesresponsibleforregisteringorlicensingprofessionalengineerstopracticeinits
countryorterritoryacceptthesubstantial
equivalenceofengineeringacademicprogrammes
accreditedbythesignatoriestothisagreement.

Sectionofreport(p)
Mentorreportp.
BͲ7




Comment
AsspecificallymentionedonIABEEwebsite,
ScopeofIABEEaccreditationisengineering
programsatbachelorlevelthatawarda
Bachelor’sdegreethrough4Ͳyearsacademic
curriculumimplementationwithaminimum
totalloadof144credits.InIndonesia,
Primaryeducationisconsistedof6yearsofelementaryand3yearsofjuniorhighschool
educationarerequiredinadditionof3years
ofgeneralhighschooleducationfor
secondaryeducation.Thatwouldmake16
yearsofdurationofacademicformationto
beawardedbachelordegreeandinthe
reality,inordertocomplete144creditsinthetertiaryeducationtakesmorethan4
yearsinmanycases.
AstheparentorganizationofIABEE,PIIshall
startthediscussion.V1.0asat24.6.19



Page5of5Education Accord Report: Analysis of Substantial Equivalence with the 2013 Version 3 Graduate Attributes
WASHINGTON ACCORD
Accrediting Agency: Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia / Indonesian Accreditation Board forEngineering Education (PII/IABEE)
Contact Person:
Washington Accord Graduate Attribute (WA1Elements of Accrediting Agency’s Standard
WA12) with supporting knowledge profile
corresponding to Graduate Attributes andstatement (WK1-WK8) or level of problem
range/level information
solving (WP1-WP9) (Version 3: June 2013)
WA1: Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3.
science, engineering fundamentals and an Program shall establish its own learning outcomes
engineering specialization as specified in WK1 based on the autonomous professional profile to be
to WK4 respectively to the solution of complex acquired. The learning outcomes shall cover all
engineering problems.
graduate competences from (a) to (j) as mentioned
Where the knowledge profile elements referred to in in Common Criteria 1 (3), which are expressed inthis and other attribute statements are:such a way to give flexibility to Program. It is
WK1: A systematic, theory-based understanding important to note that the learning outcomes shallof the natural sciences applicable to the take into account also the Category and Discipline
discipline
Criteria
WK2:
Conceptually-based
mathematics,
numerical analysis, statistics and formal Criterion 1.3. item (a): an ability to apply
aspects of computer and information science knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or
to support analysis and modelling applicable tomaterials sciences, information technology andthe disciplineengineering to acquire comprehensive
WK3: A systematic, theory-based formulation ofengineering fundamentals required in the understanding of engineering principles
engineering discipline
WK4: Engineering specialist knowledge that Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (a)provides theoretical frameworks and bodies of x Engineering Principles refers to ideas, rules andconcepts to be considered when solving anknowledge for the accepted practice areas inengineering problem. The set of principles may
the engineering discipline; much is at thevary among engineering disciplines depending
forefront of the discipline.

See WA3 for WK5
See WA5 for WK6
See WA6 for WK7
See WA4 for WK8

on the uniqueness of systems, problems, ethicalissues, and problem solving methods of thediscipline.
x Attaining comprehensive understanding ofengineering principles is indicated by acquisitionof:
1. Mathematics, basic sciences (such as
physics, biology, chemistry) and information
technology in the engineering field of
Program.

Date of Gap Analysis:

Accrediting Agency’s self-assessment of
substantial equivalence of its standard andthe Graduate Attributes and range/level
information
In general, WA1 corresponds to the IABEE
Learning Outcomes Criterion item (a). Further
requirements as requested by WK1 through WK4have also been met by the IABEE Common
Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline Criteria, as
explained below:
x The requirements requested by WK1 and
WK2 are sufficiently stated in the Criteria
Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (a), namely thenecessity to use mathematics, basic science
relevant to the scientific disciplines, andinformation technology to provide solutions tocomplex engineering problems. In addition,
Criterion 2.1 concerning the curriculum also
requires the fulfillment of a minimum of 20%of the combination of college-level
mathematics and basic sciences appropriate
to the discipline to ensure adequate handlingof the problem.
x The WK3 requirements are satisfied byCriteria 2.1 on Curriculum, where a minimumof 40% of the curriculum must containengineering topics encompassing engineeringsciences and design appropriate to thedisciplines. The engineering sciences arerooted in mathematics and basic sciences,
but at the same time deliver to the knowledge
and skills of creative application. Thus, thissection provides a bridge between

1Date of Comment: 21 Feb. 2020

Mentor Comments
WA 1 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (a) “an ability toapply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or
materials sciences, information technology andengineering to acquire comprehensive
understanding of engineering principles.”, and (a)to (e) of Criterion 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 of “Curriculum”
are backed up by the Discipline Criteria.
“Complex Engineering Problem” is now explicitly
mentioned in Common Criteria.

2. An ability to utilize the aforementioned
knowledge.
Criterion 2.1. Curriculum, item (1)Curriculum shall include the following subject
areas:
a. Mathematics and discipline-specific naturalsciencesb. Discipline-specific engineering science andtechnology
c. Information and communication technology
d. Engineering design and problem based
experimentse. General education, which includes morality,
ethics, socio-culture, environment andmanagement

mathematics and basic science on the one
hand and engineering practice on the other.
x In addition to the Common Criteria, which
apply to all engineering disciplines, IABEE
also establishes the Discipline Criteria thatmust be met by the engineering discipline
concerned. The Discipline Criteria, in thiscase, mainly regulate further elaboration oflearning outcomes and curricula that areappropriate to the field, as expected by therespective engineering societies. Thisanswers WK4.

Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1. Curriculum,
item (1)Program shall ensure that the curriculum meets theabove mentioned subject areas appropriate toengineering regardless the subject/course names.
The program must ensure that the curriculum
devotes adequate attention and time to eachcomponent, consistent with the learning outcomes,
which include:x A minimum of 20% of a combination of college
level mathematics and basic sciences (somewith experimental experience) appropriate to thediscipline. Basic sciences are defined ascourses such as biological, chemical, or physicalsciences.
x A minimum of 40% of engineering topics,
consisting of engineering sciences andengineering design appropriate to the student's
field of study. The engineering sciences havetheir roots in mathematics and basic sciences
but carry knowledge further toward creative
application. These studies provide a bridge
between mathematics and basic sciences on the
one hand and engineering practices on theother. Engineering design is the process ofdevising a system, component, or process tomeet desired needs. It is a decision-making

2

process, in which the basic sciences,mathematics, and the engineering sciences areapplied to convert resources optimally to meetthe stated needs.
x A maximum of 30% general education
components that complement the technicalcontent of the curriculum and are consistent withthe learning outcomes.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1.(3) on
Curriculumx Program should explain how the specificrequirements of each curricular area addressedin the Common Criteria or Discipline Criteria canbe met, both in terms of load and depth of thematerial.
x Program shall establish a syllabus for eachcourse used to satisfy the mathematics, science,and discipline-specific requirements or any
applicable criteria.
WA2: Identify, formulate, research literature and Criterion 1.3. item (a): an ability to apply
analyse complex engineering problems knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or
reaching substantiated conclusions using first materials sciences, information technology andprinciples of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering to acquire comprehensive
engineering sciences. (Refer to WK1 to WK4)
understanding of engineering principles

The WA2 requirements are directly related to the
IABEE Learning Outcomes Criteria item (d). This
item requires graduates to be able to identify,
formulate, analyze, and solve engineering
problems. As explained further in related Criteria
Where:
Guide, this competency demands the ability toComplexEngineering
Problems
have Criterion 1.3. item (d): an ability to identify,
use techniques and methods to performcharacteristic WP1 and some or all of WP2 to formulate, analyze, and solve engineering problem. engineering work, including planning, surveys
WP7:(including literature and field surveys), and data
WP1: Cannot be resolved without in-depth
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (d)analysis.
engineering knowledge at the level of one x Engineering problem solving involves iterative
or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8
The level of engineering problems referred to in
activities incorporating the definition of thewhich allows a fundamentals-based, first
item (d) are complex, as are the characteristics
problem, development of solution alternatives,principles analytical approachmentioned in the related section of the Criteria
selection of best alternative, application of
WP2: Involve wide-ranging or conflicting
Guide, namely those involving iterative activities
solution, evaluation and validation of solution
technical, engineering and other issues
to obtain the solution, including:against problem constraints, and revision of
WP3: Have no obvious solution and require- problem definition,
solution.
abstract thinking, originality in analysis to x This competence may include the ability to- development of alternative solutions andformulate suitable models
selection of the best alternative (WP3),
 utilize techniques and methods for performing
WP4: Involve infrequently encountered issues- apply logical thinking to handle the design andengineering works comprising survey, data
WP5: Are outside problems encompassed bytrouble-shooting (WP3),
analysis, planning, design, operation andstandards and codes of practice for- application of solutions,maintenance.
professional engineering

3

WA2 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (a) “…knowledgeof mathematics, natural and/or materials
sciences, information technology and engineering
to acquire comprehensive understanding ofengineering principles” and by criterion 1.3 (d)“an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, andsolve engineering problems”.

WP6: Involve diverse groups of stakeholders
with widely varying needs
WP 7: Are high level problems including many
component parts or sub-problems

 apply the engineering logical thinking forhandling both of the design and troubleshooting context.

The problems above clearly require in-depth
engineering knowledge to develop alternatives
and to arrive at the best solution. IABEE Common
Criteria 2.1 on Curriculum and IABEE Discipline
Criteria ensure that the WK3 and WK4
requirements are fully covered. In addition, IABEE
Learning Outcomes Criteria items (e), (i), and (c)each meets the requirements of WK5, WK6, andWK8, respectively. Therefore, the complex
engineering problems that are characterized by
WP1 are met.

WA3: Design solutions for complex engineering Criterion 1.3. item (b): an ability to design
problems and design systems, components or components, systems, and/or processes to meetprocesses that meet specified needs with desired needs within realistic constraints in suchappropriate consideration for public health and aspects as law, economic, environment, social,safety, cultural, societal, and environmental politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as
considerations.
to recognize and/or utilize the potential of local and(Refer to WK5)
WK5: Knowledge that supports engineering
design in a practice area

- evaluation and validation of solutions againstproblem constraints (WP2), and- revision of the solution.

national resources with global perspective

Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (b)x The ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes is the hallmark competence ofengineering education. Design implies the ability
to utilize multidimensional thinking withknowledge of global perspective to develop
components, systems, and/or processes toachieve specific objectives. It is not limited to
drawing a plan, but also refers to the synthesisof various academic disciplines andtechnologies to pursue practicable solutions to a
problem that does not necessarily have one
correct answer.
x It involves also a process of optimization bytaking into account some realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, and sustainability as
well as utilization of the knowledge of culture,society and available resources.

The IABEE Learning Outcomes Criteria (b) andits elaboration in the Criteria Guide are in fullcompliance with WA3 requirements.
Knowledge that supports engineering design as
required by WK5 is fulfilled by Criterion 2.1 onCurriculum and its explanation in the relevant
Criteria Guide section.

4

WA3 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (b).

Criterion 2.1. Curriculum, item (4)Curriculum shall ensure that the students are
exposed to engineering practices and major design
project experience using engineering standards
and multiple realistic constraints based on
knowledge and skills acquired in preceding course
work.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1. Curriculum,
item (4)x Program must provide opportunity to students todevelop competence in practical application ofengineering skills, combining theory andexperience along with the use of other relevant
knowledge and skills. Training in engineering
practices may be supported by several courses(subjects) but should culminate in a major
design project. This major project serves as acapstone for the program which requires
students to integrate knowledge and skills
acquired in earlier coursework.
WA4: Conduct investigations of complex problems Criterion 1.3. item (c): an ability to design andusing research-based knowledge and research conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well IABEE Learning Outcomes Criteria (c) and its
elaboration in the Criteria Guide confirm WA4
methods including design of experiments, analysis as to analyze and interpret data to strengthen therequirements.
and interpretation of data, and synthesis of engineering judgment
information to provide valid conclusions.
Engagement with selected knowledge in the(Refer to WK8)
discipline research literature (WK8) is
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (c)WK8: Engagement with selected knowledge in thesatisfactorily covered in the Criteria Guide forx This competence refers to the design andresearch literature of the discipline
Criterion 1.3. item (d), which requires the ability toapplication of laboratory and/or field
utilize techniques and methods for conducting
experiments within the broad context ofsurveys, including literature surveys, to support
engineering practice such as problem
identification, testing of potential solution ideas, the investigation (formulation, researchsolution implementation plan, and other design- methodology, and analysis) of complex problems.
related activities.
x Experiments may include activities in physicallaboratories, computer simulations, and field
experiments
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (d)x Engineering problem solving involves iterative
activities incorporating the definition of the
problem, development of solution alternatives,

5

WA4 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (c) and (d).

selection of best alternative, application ofsolution, evaluation and validation of solution
against problem constraints, and revision ofsolution.
x This competence may include the ability to utilize techniques and methods for performing
engineering works comprising survey, data
analysis, planning, design, operation andmaintenance.
 apply the engineering logical thinking forhandling both of the design and troubleshooting context.
WA5: Create, select and apply appropriate Criterion 1.3. item (e): an ability to apply methods,

techniques, resources, and modern engineering skills and modern engineering tools necessary for
and IT tools, including prediction and modelling, to engineering practices.
complex engineering problems, with anunderstanding of the limitations.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (e)(Refer to WK6)
x Program shall have a clear definition of the
WK6: Knowledge of engineering practicemethods, skills, and modern engineering tools(technology) in the practice areas in theappropriate for its level of study and engineeringengineering discipline
discipline, and how these are learnt throughout the
curriculum.
x An ability to select a method and tools with theirstrength and limitation characteristics for a given
problem.
x An ability to utilize and adjust the method and tools
to suit specific problems.

Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1. Curriculum,
item (4)x Program shall define curriculum subjects tooptimally support main stream of discipline
specific requirements and to provide opportunity
for students to acquire practical experience in
implementing the subjects in an actual working
environment
WA6: Apply reasoning informed by contextual Criterion 1.3. item (i): An ability to be accountableknowledge to assess societal, health, safety, and responsible to the society and adhere tolegal and cultural issues and the consequent professional ethics in solving engineering problems.
responsibilities
relevant
toprofessional
engineering practice and solutions to complex Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (i):engineering problems.

WA5 requires graduates to have an adequatelevel of use of modern engineering tools, ranging
from applying the tools that are already available,choosing the tools that are appropriate with anadequate understanding of their strengths andlimitations, and creating, modifying, or adjusting
the tools to meet specific needs. The capabilities
described in WA5 must be supported by therequired knowledge (WK6) of engineering
practice gained from practical experience.

WA5 is covered by 1.3 (e) and 2.1.4.

These WA5 and WK6 requirements are
sufficiently addressed in the Criterion 1.3 item (e),which is further described in the related section of
the Criteria Guide. Also, the Criteria Guide forCurriculum explicitly require the program toprovide opportunities for students to gain practicalexperience in the actual work environment tosupport them mastering WK6.

WA6 requirements are met by IABEE Learning
Outcomes (i) and (j) criteria items simultaneously.
The application of contextual knowledge-based
reasoning, as required by WA6, is possible if one
has access to relevant knowledge about
contemporary problems.

(Refer to WK7)6

WA6 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (i) and (j).

WK7: Comprehension of the role of engineering This competence refers to the understanding on thefollowing issues and the ability to take action
in society and identified issues in engineering
accordingly.
practice in the discipline: ethics and thex the impact of technology of related engineering
professional responsibility of an engineer tofields on public welfare, environmental safety andpublic safety; the impacts of engineering
sustainable development
activity: economic, social, cultural,x the engineering ethics and regulations
environmental and sustainability
x the engineering history and standard & code
philosophy in design.

Criterion 1.3. item (j): an ability to understand theneed for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (j):x Program is required to assist students to get
accustomed to independent and continuous
learning through lectures, research, experiments,
practical training, exercises and assignment.
x This competence refers to- Understanding the necessity of continuous
professional development.
- an ability to acquire updated information andknowledge.
- an awareness of the importance of sharing
knowledge

WA7: Understand and evaluate the sustainability Criterion 1.3. item (b): an ability to design
and impact of professional engineering work in components, systems, and/or processes to meetthe solution of complex engineering problems desired needs within realistic constraints in suchin societal and environmental contexts.
aspects as law, economic, environment, social,(Refer to WK7)
politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as
to recognize and/or utilize the potential of local andnational resources with global perspective

WA7 requirements have been fulfilled by the IABEE
Learning Outcomes (b) and (i) criteria items
simultaneously. The first emphasizes sustainability
as one of the key issues in professional engineering
work, while the second involves the ability tounderstand the impact of engineering solutions insocial and environmental contexts.

Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (b)x The ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes is the hallmark competence ofengineering education. Design implies the ability
to utilize multidimensional thinking withknowledge of global perspective to develop
components, systems, and/or processes toachieve specific objectives. It is not limited to
drawing a plan, but also refers to the synthesisof various academic disciplines andtechnologies to pursue practicable solutions to a7

WA 7 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (b) and (i).

problem that does not necessarily have one
correct answer.
x It involves also a process of optimization bytaking into account some realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, and sustainability as
well as utilization of the knowledge of culture,society and available resources.
Criterion 1.3. item (i): An ability to be accountable
and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (i):This competence refers to the understanding on thefollowing issues and the ability to take action
accordingly.
x the impact of technology of related engineering
fields on public welfare, environmental safety andsustainable developmentx the engineering ethics and regulations
x the engineering history and standard & code
philosophy in design.
WA8: Apply ethical principles and commit to Criterion 1.3. item (i): An ability to be accountableprofessional ethics and responsibilities and and responsible to the society and adhere tonorms of engineering practice.
professional ethics in solving engineering problems.

(Refer to WK7)

Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (i):This competence refers to the understanding on thefollowing issues and the ability to take action
accordingly.
x the impact of technology of related engineering
fields on public welfare, environmental safety andsustainable developmentx the engineering ethics and regulations
x the engineering history and standard & code
philosophy in design
WA9: Function effectively as an individual, and as a Criterion 1.3. item (h): an ability to work inmember or leader in diverse teams and in multi- multidisciplinary and multicultural team.
disciplinary settings.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (h)This competence refers to the ability to work
collaboratively with people from different technicaldisciplines, fields and cultural backgrounds.

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (i) and its
elaboration in the related section of the Criteria
Guide demonstrates compliance with WA8
requirements.

WA 8 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (i).

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (h) and its
elaboration in the relevant section of the Criteria
Guide show the fulfillment of WA9 requirements.
In addition, criterion (h) adds consideration ofmulticultural aspects in teamwork ability as areflection of the diversity of Indonesian culture.

“Individual” is covered by Criterion 1.1“autonomous professionals”, and“diversity and multi-disciplinary settings” arecovered by Criterion 1.3 (h).

8x Multicultural concerns such as tolerance, mutual
understanding, appreciation on differences inbuilding a synergy, are important considerations forthe success of a team work.
x Multidiscipline circumstances may cover disciplines
within engineering and non-engineering disciplines.
WA10: Communicate effectively on complex Criterion 1.3. item (f): an ability to communicate
engineering activities with the engineering effectively in oral and written manners.
community and with society at large, such as
being able to comprehend and write effective Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (f):reports and design documentation, make This competence indicates the need of active andeffective presentations, and give and receive effective communication skills; socio-culturalclear instructions.
perspective should be considered for the acceptability
and workability of the implementation of engineering
works.
x These oral and written communications should
include the use of engineering standards.
x Program shall ensure that a measurable portion of
the oral and/or written communications involve theuse of internationally recognized languages
WA11:Demonstrate knowledge and understanding Criterion 1.3. item (g): an ability to plan,of engineering management principles and accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given
economic decision-making principles and constraints.
apply these to one’s own work, as a member andleader in a team, to manage projects and in Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (g):This competence refers to the ability to plan,
multidisciplinary environments.
accomplish, and evaluate tasks associated with any
curricular activity deemed appropriate by Program for
its assessment and evaluation. The assessment
should focus more on the students’ task management
skills rather than the substantial outcome of the task
itself.
WA12: Recognize the need for, and have the Criterion 1.3. item (j): an ability to understand the
preparation and ability to engage in need for life-long learning, including access to the
independent and life-long learning in the relevant knowledge of contemporary issues.
broadest context of technological change.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (j):x Program is required to assist students to get
accustomed to independent and continuous
learning through lectures, research, experiments,
practical training, exercises and assignment.
x This competence refers to Understanding the necessity of continuous
professional development.

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (f) and its
elaboration in the relevant part of Criteria Guide
confirm the requirements of WA10.

WA 10 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (f).

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (g) and its
elaboration in the relevant part of Criteria Guide
confirm the requirements of WA11.

WA 11 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (g).

Application of these managerial skills in a
teamwork is also related with IABEE Learning
Outcomes criteria item (h).

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (j) and its
elaboration in the relevant part of Criteria Guide
confirm the requirements of WA12.

9

WA 12 is covered by Criterion 1.3 (j).

 an ability to acquire updated information andknowledge.
 an awareness of the importance of sharing
knowledge
Expected Duration of Programme Meeting WA Criteria Guide Preamble
Graduate Attributes
Programs to be accredited are four-year bachelor of
A programme that builds this type of knowledge and engineering programs or other higher education
develops the attributes listed is typically achieved in programs which IABEE considered as equivalent

4 to 5 years of study, depending on the level ofstudents at entry

IABEE requires that programs applying foraccreditation under the WA shall be four-yearbachelor of engineering programs or other higher
education programs which IABEE considered as
equivalent. As a matter of fact, the study period offour years for bachelor’s level programs has become
the norm in Indonesian Higher Education System.

10

IABEE defines duration expected in study
programs which come under the scope of IABEE
accreditation is 4 years with 144 credits. So theduration could be longer than the 4 years andnever less than 4 years.
(refer:https://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/accrediationscope/ , 1st second lines of the section describes“Accreditation Scope”)

The Institution of Engineers Indonesia/
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(PII / IABEE)

Application for
Signatory Status in the
Washington Accord
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Romli
IABEE Chair of International Committee

IEA Online Meeting / WA Closed Session
22 June 2020

Outlines

Fulfillment of the requirements for
WA signatory application
Response to ABEEK’s inquiry
Follow-up to comments in 2019
IEAM at Hong Kong
Readiness to be verified

2

Fulfillment of
the requirements
for WA signatory
application

In February 2020 PII/IABEE has
submitted:
Self-Study Report using B1 and B2
templates showing fulfillment for
WA signatory requirements
Gap Analysis against the Accord
Graduate Attributes
Accreditation statistics and info
JABEE, as mentor, has submitted
Mentor’s Report substantiating
IABEE application for signatory
status in the WA33

We thank ABEEK for its questions about IABEE,
and are grateful to our mentor, JABEE, forproviding the explanations in consultation with us

Response to
ABEEK’s inquiry

1795

54
854

Number of programs accredited bynmandatory National Accreditation
System in 2019 (ranked A, B, and
d C)

Pro
Programs
ogra
rams
ms eligible
eligib for
IABEE
IAB
BEE General
Accreditation (rank A)
28

22

20

15

15
10
Number of programs
applying for IABEE
Accreditations since2016 (first cycle)

5

0

2

0

3

6

6

A

B

C

30
25

233
233

12

60

2016 2017 2018-1 2018-2 2019
General Accreditation
Provisional Accreditation

20
0

86

45

40
3

117

120 Number of
100 trained
Program
80 Evaluators30
152015 2016 2017 2018 20194

Follow-up tocomments madein 2019 IEAM at
Hong Kong

A comment was raised during 2019 WA Closed Session: IABEE
Criteria of Learning Outcomes should be distinguishable offitting the WA requirements, not SA or DA, especially related tothe ability to solve complex engineering problems

Thank you for the comment! The previous
LO criteria already has the requirements toapply knowledge and skills for complex
problem solving, but the word “complex” was
not used
The criteria have been amended to include
explicitly the word “complex”:(d) an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve
complex engineering problems

The amended criteria is applicable from2020 Evaluation Cycle onward

5

Readiness to beverified

We are ready to be verified!
Even during the challenging time,
19 programs have already appliedfor General Accreditation evaluation
Planned activities for 2020
Evaluation Cycle:
Dates

Activity

13 November to
8 December 2020

On-Site Visits25-26 February 2021

Evaluation & Accreditation
Committee meeting to recommend
accreditation status

11 March 2021

Accreditation Council meeting todecide accreditation status
6

The Institution of Engineers Indonesia/
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(PII / IABEE)

Thank you,
Terima kasih

International Engineering Alliance
Accord Self-Assessment Report

Prepared by:

Institution of Engineers Indonesia / Indonesian
Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(PII / IABEE)
For the Purpose of:Application for Full Signatory
under the Washington Accord

Dated:
15 September 2021

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

1

Contents
1. Introduction

3

2. Organization

6

3. Education

13

4. Engineering Community

22

5. Role of Accreditation / Recognition26

6. Accreditation/Recognition System

34

7. Response to Schedule B1

54

8. Response to Schedule B2

59

APPENDICES & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX A – Short CV of IABEE Executive Committee Members
APPENDIX B – Accreditation Criteria for Bachelor Engineering
Programs
APPENDIX C – Rules and Procedures of Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA)
APPENDIX D – Rules and Procedures of Accreditation-related
Committees (RPARC)
APPENDIX E – Evaluation Guide
APPENDIX F – Analysis of Substantial Equivalency with the 2013
version 3 Graduate Attributes of the Washington
AccordSelf Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

2

1. Introduction
1.1. Jurisdiction
The Republic of Indonesia is the largest archipelago in the world comprising
about 17,500 large and small islands, situated between the continents of Asia
and Australia and between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It lies across theequator and spans a distance equivalent to one-eighth of earth’s circumference.
Its islands can be grouped into Sumatera, Java, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi;
Bali, Nusa Tenggara and a chain of islands that runs eastward through Timor;
and Maluku islands and Papua (Figure 1.1).
The capital, Jakarta, is located near the northwestern coast of Java with local
time UTC+7. Currently, Indonesia has a total population of more than 267 million people from more than 300 ethnic groups, making it the most populous
country in Southeast Asia and the fourth in the world. Nearly 90% of the Indonesian population professes Islam, and the rests are Christian, Buddhism, andHinduism. The national motto, “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika” (“Unity in Diversity”),
makes reference to the extraordinary diversity of Indonesian peoples, languages and cultures. The national language is Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia).
Indonesia has 34 provinces, the largest subdivisions of the country and thehighest tier of the local government.

Figure 1.1

Indonesian map showing the position and size relative to neighboring countries

Indonesia has the largest economy in Southeast Asia and is one of the emerging market economies of the world. It is the seventh largest in terms of GDP(PPP) after China, USA, India, Japan, Germany and Russia. It is contributed byagricultural sector (13.9%), industry (40.3%) and services (45.9%). Indonesia
is a member of G-20 major economies and classified as a newly industrializedcountry. Indonesia's important agricultural commodities are palm oil, natural

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

3rubber, cocoa, coffee, tea, cassava, rice and tropical spices. Palm oil production
is important to the economy as Indonesia is the world's biggest producer andconsumer of the commodity, providing about half of the world's supply. Indonesia is the world's largest tin market. Although mineral production traditionallycentered on bauxite, silver, and tin, Indonesia is expanding its copper, nickel,
gold, and coal output for export markets.
Since independence in 1945, the government has placed great emphasis on
primary, secondary, and higher education for all people and by the early 21st
century the great majority of Indonesians were literate. Responsibility for education is centered in the Ministry of National Education, but other government
bodies also administer extensive educational programs. The national educational system involves six years of primary education, beginning at age seven,followed by six years of secondary education, which are divided into two threeyear blocks. Since the early 1990s the first nine years have been compulsory.
Higher education includes dozens of public institutions and thousands of private
postsecondary schools. Enrollment is about evenly distributed between men
and women. While a number of universities offer postgraduate education, asizeable number of students go abroad, especially to North America, Europe,
Japan and Australia to pursue master’s and doctoral degrees.
1.2. Engineering Context
According to Engineering Law No. 11/2014, the scope of engineering practices
in Indonesia covers seven bodies of knowledge and seven fields of work. Thesebodies of knowledge include:(1) earth and energy,(2) civil and built environment,(3) industry,(4) conservation and natural resource management,(5) agriculture and agricultural products,(6) marine and naval technology, and(7) aeronautics and astronautics.
Meanwhile, the fields of work include:(1) education & training,(2) research & development and commercialization,(3) consulting, design, and construction,(4) industrial engineering and management,(5) manufacturing, and processing,(6) mineral resources exploration and exploitation, natural resources extraction, plantation, and breeding, and(7) asset development, operation, and maintenance.
To ensure the competence and professionalism in engineering services, threestandards of engineering profession are established by the Law. These consist

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

4

of standards of engineer’s services, standards for engineer’s competence, andstandards for engineer’s profession program. The Law mandates the Institutionof Engineers Indonesia (PII) to develop these standards, which are to be established as Government Regulation.
Engineering societies through PII Engineering Colleges (Badan Kejuruan, or
BK in short) play role in developing standards of engineer’s services and competence. A College or Chapter is an organic part of PII which unifies people andsocieties working in the same engineering discipline. Currently, PII has 23 Engineering Colleges.
PII is mandated as the registering body of engineers in Indonesia. Before performing engineering practices, one must obtain an Engineer Registration Certificate (Surat Tanda Registrasi Insinyur, or STRI) from PII. STRI recognizes
three levels of competence, i.e., IPP (Junior Professional Engineer), IPM (Senior Professional Engineer), and IPU (Prominent Professional Engineer). Engineering Law regulates that an STRI is valid for a period of 5 years and shall be
re-registered every 5 years given all related requirements are fulfilled.
Foreign engineers may also practice engineering in Indonesia under a work
permit issued by the Government. To obtain the work permit, a foreign engineer
must first have a STRI from PII. The certificate is obtainable either through PII’srecognition of registration certificate from his/her respective country of origin, or
through PII standard procedures. A foreign engineer who does not have an engineer registration certificate or competency certificate in accordance with thelaw of his/her country must obtain a STRI issued by PII. This is given upon
passing the Competency Test carried out by professional certification institutions in accordance with the stipulations of legislation.
Exemption from work permit requirement is given to foreign engineers who provide engineering services in disaster management or incidental consultation
matters. However, notification to the relevant ministries must be provided.
More information about engineering context in Indonesia is described in Chapter 4.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

5

2. Organization
2.1. Introduction to IABEE
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is an accreditation agency for higher education programs in engineering. IABEE is as
an autonomous body of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII), a non-governmental organization of multi-disciplinary engineering professionals in engineering and technology.
PII was founded in 1952 in Bandung. Currently headquartered in Jakarta, PII
has regional representatives in all provinces in Indonesia. Transforming frommerely a professional association, PII has been given the mandate by the Engineering Law No. 11/2014 to be the registering body for engineering professions. The mandate gives PII an important role to ensure good quality of engineering services. By having IABEE as one of its autonomous bodies, PII helps
to ensure that engineering higher education graduates are equipped with adequate knowledge, skills, and attitudes as provisions to become qualified professional engineers
2.2. Key Information
Name
Trading Name
Address
Phone
WebsiteKey Contact/s: Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education: IABEE: Graha Rekayasa Indonesia, 5th floor. Jln Halimun Raya
No. 39, Setiabudi, South Jakarta 12980: +62 21 22083150, +62 21 83700663, +62 21 22833451: https://iabee.or.id/: (1) Prof. Dr-Ing. Ir. Misri Gozan (Chair of Executive Committee),(2) Prof. Dr. Ir. Muhammad Romli (Chair of International
Committee), and(3) Ir. Berlian Kushari (Secretary-General)

Email Address : info@iabee.or.id
Short curriculum vitae of IABEE Executive Committee members is given in Appendix A.
2.3. History and Governance of IABEE
2.3.1. History
Higher engineering education has a strategic and central role to produce skilled
and talented human resources that generate new ideas and practices. Withvarious complexities in utilizing natural resources for equitable andSelf Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

6

environmentally friendly economic development, and with the challenges oftight global competition, engineering education is required to produce adequate
quality human resources.
Quality assurance systems of an education program play a pivotal role to ascertain education quality. The systems can be developed internally or externally. External quality assurance is usually carried out through accreditation.
Although accreditation of study programs in Indonesia is not new (since 1996),
and even mandatory, the system was heavily input-based and not yet tailoredto specific fields of study; one set of criteria to fit all fields. With the enactmentof the Higher Education Law No. 12/2012, there was a growing need in thefields of engineering to establish a second accreditation system that is fieldspecific, voluntary, outcome-based, and able to ensure engineering graduatesattaining international recognition to support the mobility of professionals.
The importance of having a good accreditation system is also justified by theneed for significant numbers of engineering graduates towards the year of2045, a century after Indonesian independence. In fact, with the current economic growth rate, towards 2025, Indonesia is estimated to have a shortage ofengineering graduates reaching 10,000 graduates/year. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the fulfillment of the needs of the number of engineering
graduates is also balanced with adequate graduate quality.
In 2013, Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) formed a task force to establish future accreditation
system for engineering fields of study. Having various models of accreditation
systems in the world today studied, it was concluded that the mutual recognition
agreement of the Washington Accord (WA) is viewed as the most appropriate
framework for Indonesia to join, and for this reason, an independent accreditation body called the Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education(IABEE) is to be established.
In November 2013, the task force was formalized to become the Steering Committee as a realization of the Indonesian government's request to the Japanese
government to assist Indonesia in establishing an internationally recognized accreditation institution for engineering education. Having the agreement of cooperation between the DGHE of the MoEC and Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) signed in 2014, JICA made a contract with JABEE to prepare
and implement a 5-year technical cooperation project from 2014 to 2019.
Under the mentorship of JABEE, the Steering Committee formed the organizational organs needed to implement the project, including the Criteria Committee
and the Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. Having the committees
formed, Steering Committee later dissolved itself to become the Executive
Committee. The complete version of IABEE organizational structure can beseen in Section 2.3.3.
With full awareness that IABEE must have a non-governmental organization
status if it is to apply a membership in the Washington Accord, the Steering
Committee drafted an MoU between DGHE of MoEC and PII to establish IABEE

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

7

under PII as one of its permanent bodies. Subsequently, the MoU was signedby both parties on October 11, 2016. IABEE was jointly inaugurated to engineering higher education communities and the public in general by DGHE of
MoEC and PII on March 13, 2018, supported by National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), Ministry of Trade, and other parties.
2.3.2. Governance and Oversight
As one of the permanent bodies of PII, IABEE is regulated by the Charter of PII.
Article 24 of the Charter states that a permanent body is formed by PII National
Governing Body to carry out the mandates and duties of PII in national development as well as international cooperation. Article 24 further states that organizational structure and membership of a permanent body is determined and appointed by PII President. A permanent body is responsible to report to PII President.
IABEE, in this matter, is a special permanent body due to its formation under
PII being a result PII MoU with the MoEC. Other permanent bodies include, forexample, Center for Engineering and Industrial Policy Studies (CEIPS), Engineer Competency Certification Agency (LSKI), and Accreditation Board for Engineering Expertise Associations (LA-HKK).
Detailed further in article 42 of PII Organizational Regulations, as an autonomous body, the governance of IABEE is self-managed by IABEE Rules andProcedures. R&Ps of IABEE are established by the Executive Committee as
the highest decision-making organ within IABEE. Related to undertaking its
main function, there are 2 IABEE R&P documents, i.e., Rules and Proceduresfor Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA) and Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC). Both documents are attached to this report.
To strengthen its commitment to quality services and continual improvement,
IABEE Executive Committee has recently decided to implement the ISO Quality
Management System 9001:2015 in near future. Currently, a special workgroupis developing the required quality documents.
2.3.3. Organization Structure
The organization structure of IABEE is depicted in Figure 2.1. Concise explanation on the roles and responsibilities of the committees is provided below.
Executive Committee (EXC) is the highest decision-making board in IABEE
that is made up of high-level stakeholders and experts. This board sets up thedirections and guidance on key issues such as IABEE’s policy and objectives,
resource allocation, budgetary control and decision, and marketing strategy.
The main role of this board is to ensure successful mission and purpose of
IABEE. The EXC is chaired by a Chair of Executive Committee with members

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

8including representatives from PII Governing Body, academics, and industry.
The Executive Committee nominates the members of the Criteria Committee,
Evaluation & Accreditation Committee, Finance Committee, International Committee, Public Affairs Committee, Accreditation Council, as well as the Appeal
Board. Important decisions made by these committees are to be reported forapproval of the Executive Committee. The Chair of the Executive Committee
shall be accountable to the Board of PII appointed by PII President.

Figure 2.1.

IABEE Organizational Chart

Secretariat is chaired by a Secretary General, who is the official entrusted withadministrative duties, maintaining records, and performing other secretarial duties.
Accreditation Council (AC) is a board of officials in charge of validating theresults of accreditation. They work to ensure that the accreditation evaluation
process has been carried out according to established rules and procedures.
Appeal Board is a board of officials that are appointed to hear appeals. They
judge whether an evaluation/accreditation decision was right or wrong, when
the party (program, education institution) affected by it thinks that it was wrong.
Criteria Committee (CC) consists of academics from leading universities, professional organizations and industry practitioners, who are responsible to establish the White Paper, the Accreditation Criteria, namely Common Criteria
and Criteria Guide, and approve the Discipline Criteria proposed by the professional societies. These criteria form the basis for the program evaluation. The
committee is also in charge of conducting periodic reviews and revisions of theAccreditation Criteria based on the input from stakeholders and the existenceof circumstances that require the criteria to be revised.
Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) is responsible for developing IABEE’s Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA),

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

9evaluation instruments, and IABEE’s Online Evaluation System (OES). This
committee is also responsible to plan, conduct and monitor the program accreditation processes in an accreditation cycle, including appointment of theevaluation team, monitoring the online review and on-site evaluation, and post
evaluation activities, such as harmonization and reporting. The committee shallrecommend accreditation status to the Accreditation Council. In addition to that,the committee also develops training programs and materials and conducts a
series of training for program evaluators.
Finance Committee (FC) has the main duty to maintain a continuing review ofthe financial affairs and make appropriate recommendations to the Executive
Committee regarding financial matters for the annual budget and the businessplan. The committee also authorizes investment policy, accounting, and disbursement procedures for all funds under the authority of IABEE.
International Committee (IC) is responsible for managing IABEE’s international activity, such as developing partnerships and collaborations, building international profile through presence at international events, meetings and forums, hosting visits by delegations from international bodies, preparing documents for application of WA membership and international agreements.
Public Affairs Committee has responsibility to build, develop and manage agood relationship between IABEE and its stakeholders, by providing informationand lobby on issues that could impact upon IABEE’s ability to operate successfully.
2.3.4.

Strategic Goals: Vision, Mission & Objectives

IABEE has established a set of vision, missions, and purposes as follows.
VisionIABEE sees itself as a reformer and stimulator for accelerating the progress ofengineering higher education in Indonesia to produce innovative human resources and engineering innovation for improving human welfare.
Missions(1) Promote quality improvement of engineering higher education through accreditation to produce autonomous professionals appropriate to the needsof stakeholders,(2) Facilitate development of engineering higher education systems that emphasizes on continual quality improvement towards global quality standards,(3) Encourage communication and partnerships between engineering higher
education institutions and stakeholders to effectively utilize local resources
and wisdom for the welfare of the community, andSelf Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

10(4) Support dissemination of innovations on advancement of engineering
higher education.
Purpose(1) IABEE accreditation is a tool for programs to ensure the implementation ofoutcome-based education that meets international standards and qualifications through continual quality improvement(2) IABEE contributes to preparing Indonesian workers who can develop synergies in line with the global mobility of engineering practitioners.
2.3.5.

Affiliation and Collaboration

As the parent organization of IABEE, PII is currently a member of WFEO (World
Federation of Engineering Organizations), AFEO (ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations), FEISEAP (Federation of Engineering Institute South
East Asia and Pacific), AEESEAP (Association of Engineering Education South
East Asia and Pacific), as well as APEC Engineer Agreement.
As a member of Washington Accord with provisional signatory status, IABEE is
now a full member of the NABEEA (Network of Accreditation Bodies of Engineering Education in Asia) since June 2021. Also, IABEE has just been accepted as a member of Seoul Accord with provisional signatory status in June
2021. Seoul Accord is a multilateral agreement for program accreditation incomputing and IT-related fields.
2.3.6.

Interaction with Government

As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, the Government of Indonesia through DGHE of
the MoEC was the initiator of IABEE back in 2013. In a later development,
DGHE signed a MoU with PII in October 2016 to establish IABEE as a nongovernmental organization by forming it as an autonomous and permanent
body under PII. As the initiator, DGHE supported IABEE establishment process
through tying a bilateral agreement with JICA under which JABEE was asked
to be the mentor for IABEE. One of the initial targets set out for the establishment project was for IABEE to obtain a provisional status in the Washington
Accord (WA) in 2019. The target was successfully met by full acceptance ofWashington Accord signatories during the WA Closed Session in the 2019 International Engineering Alliance Meeting in Hong Kong. The agreement has
now been extended, due to appointment of JABEE as the WA Mentor for
IABEE, until IABEE is admitted as a signatory of the WA.
Program accreditation conducted by IABEE is voluntary. As a form of recognition to IABEE and improving the quality of study programs, since 2016 the government has been providing a competitive grant to support programs wishing
to apply for IABEE accreditation. In 2020, the government fortified its policy ofinternational recognition for institutions and programs in all fields of study. Having been accepted as provisional signatory member of the Washington Accord

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

11

in 2019, IABEE is listed among the international accreditation agencies recognized by the government for bachelor programs in the fields of engineering.
Despite the role as initiator and the recognition given to IABEE, the government
has no influence in the whole accreditation evaluation processes, including the
culminating accreditation status decision-making meeting.
2.3.7.

Involvement with Industry

The position of IABEE within PII organization is considered fit and appropriate.
Engineering Law No. 11/2014 gives a mandate and strategic role to PII to ensure good quality of engineer services. This mandate can be implemented by
PII, among others through the role of IABEE, which ensures that engineering
higher education graduates have been equipped with adequate knowledge,
skills, and attitudes as provisions to become qualified professional engineers.
As a permanent and autonomous department of PII, IABEE interacts very
closely with all Engineering College (Chapters) of PII. As previously mentioned,
a college is an organic part of PII which unifies people and societies working inthe same engineering discipline. Apart from involving national study programassociations, IABEE through Criteria Committee discusses and consults its accreditation criteria, mainly the discipline criteria, with relevant industry via colleges of PII. IABEE also recruits and trains program evaluators from among thecolleges representing industry.
2.3.8.

Other Bodies

In Indonesia, accreditation of both study program and program operating institution is mandatory by law. This accreditation has been traditionally conductedby National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT). Since theLaw of Higher Education No. 12/2012 was legislated, however, BAN-PT accreditation is limited to the institutions of higher education. The Law stipulates
that program accreditation is to be conducted by autonomous independent accreditation agencies formed for each field of study. Only in the absence of suchan independent agency, program accreditation is still carried out by BAN-PT.
In 2020, PII, IABEE as its permanent body, and a group of engineering programassociations took the initiative of founding an independent national accreditation agency for engineering programs of all strata called National Accreditation
Agency for Engineering Programs (LAM Teknik). Using IABEE as precedence,
LAM Teknik is proposed as an autonomous and permanent body under PII.
MoEC approved the LAM Teknik proposal in 2021. The new agency under PII
is currently in preparation to conduct national mandatory accreditation for engineering programs of all strata in 2022. As with BAN-PT previously, programs
accredited by IABEE will be recognized by LAM Teknik as accredited with thehighest status. In contrast, only programs accredited by LAM Teknik with a certain minimum status are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation to get international recognition.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

123. Education
3.1. Education System in Indonesia
3.1.1. Overview
According to the Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System, national
education functions to develop capabilities and form a dignified character andnational civilization in order to educate the nation's life, aiming at the development of people’s potency to become human beings who believe and fear God
Almighty, noble, healthy, knowledgeable, competent, creative, independent,
and a democratic and responsible citizen.
The path of education consists of formal, non-formal, and informal educationthat can complement and enrich each other. The level of formal education consists of primary education, secondary education, and tertiary/higher education.
The types of education include general, vocational, academic, professional, religious, and special education. The path, level and type of education can berealized in the form of educational units organized by the government, regional
government, and/or the community.
The implementation of national education adheres to the following principles:(1) is carried out in a democratic, fair, and non-discriminatory manner by upholding human rights, religious values, cultural values, and national pluralism,(2) is held as a systemic unit with an open and multi-meaning system,(3) is held as a process of civilizing and empowering students that lasts a lifetime,(4) is held by giving exemplary, building willingness, and developing students'
creativity in the learning process,(5) is held by developing a culture of reading, writing, and calculating for all
citizens, and(6) is organized by empowering all components of society through participationin the implementation and quality control of education services.
To ensure quality national education, the government establishes National Education Standards, i.e., the minimum criteria for the education system in theentire jurisdiction of the country. These standards serve as the basis for education planning, implementation, and supervision. The standards consist of standards of content, process, competency of graduates, education staff, facilities
and infrastructure, management, financing, and assessment of education. The
development of standards and monitoring and reporting of their achievements

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

13

nationally is carried out by a body of standardization (BSNP). The standards
are refined in a planned, directed, and sustainable manner in accordance withthe demands of changes in local, national, and global life.
The curriculum at all levels and types of education is developed with the principle of diversification in accordance with educational units, regional potential,
and students. The curriculum is prepared in accordance with the level of education within the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia byconsidering:(1) increased faith and piety,(2) increase in noble characters,(3) increase the potency, intelligence, and interests of students,(4) diversity of regional and environmental potency,(5) demands for regional and national development,(6) labor market demands,(7) the development of science, technology and art, religion, dynamics ofglobal development, and(8) national unity and national values
Accreditation is carried out to determine the feasibility of programs and educational units in the formal and non-formal education paths at every level and typeof education. The accreditation is carried out by the Government and/or independent institutions in authority as a form of public accountability. The accreditation is based on open criteria.
3.1.2. Primary and Secondary Education
Early childhood (pre-school) education is a coaching effort aimed at children
from birth to the age of six years which is carried out through giving educational
stimuli to help growth and physical and spiritual development so that children
have readiness in entering the primary education level. This education can beorganized through formal, non-formal, and/or informal education paths. Early
childhood education in formal education paths is carried out in the form of kindergarten or other forms of equal. That in the non-formal education is carriedout in the form of playgroups, childcare centers, or other forms of equal. Early
childhood education in the informal education paths take the form of family education or education organized by the environment.
Primary education is in the form of elementary school (6 years) and junior highschool (3 years). Every citizen aged seven to fifteen years, according to theLaw, is obliged to attend primary education. Meanwhile, secondary education
is in the form of high school (3 years) which can be either general high schoolor vocational high school.
Primary and secondary education curriculum must contain religious education,
civic education, language, mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, art

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

14

and culture, physical education and sports, skills/vocational, and local contents.
The fundamental framework and structure of the primary and secondary education curriculum is determined by the government, whereas the curriculum isdeveloped according to its relevance by each group or education unit andschool committee.
Public education institutions dominate the education system, particularly at primary and junior secondary levels. However, the private sector also plays a significant role, accounting for around 48% of all schools, 31% of all students, and
38% of all teachers. Government administration for managing primary and secondary education is carried out by the Ministry of Education and Culture(MoEC).
3.1.3. Tertiary/Higher Education
Tertiary/higher education is a level of education after secondary education
which includes diploma (D) education programs, bachelor (S1), master (S2),specialist, and doctoral degrees (S3) held by higher education institution.
In the implementation of education and scientific development in higher education institutions, academic freedom and freedom of academic forum and scientific autonomy apply. Higher education institutions have the autonomy to manage the institution themselves as the center for organizing higher education,scientific research, and community service. They can obtain funding from thepublic whose management is based on the principle of public accountability.
The basic framework and structure of the higher education curriculum as wellas the curriculum are developed by the higher education institutions concernedwith reference to the national education standards for each study program. The
higher education curriculum must include religious education, civic education,and language.
Higher education institution (HEI) can take the form of academies, polytechnics,
colleges, institutes, or universities (Table 3.1). A higher education institution is
obliged to organize education, research, and community service, and can holdacademic, professional and/or vocational programs. The first two are specialize
in vocational type of education, while the last three are more comprehensive
and allowed to offer all type of education. Distribution of HEIs by types andownership are given in Figure 3.1.
Unlike the 12-year basic education which is decentralized to district and provincial governments, the higher education system is centrally managed by the
MoEC. Public universities also must comply with the prevailing regulations applied for all governmental units, including regulations on financial management
issued by the Ministry of Finance and regulations on personnel management
issued by the National Civil Service Agency (BKN).

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

15

Table 3.1. Types of Higher Education Institutions
Type of Institution

Type of Program

Universitas(university)

University provides education at the bachelor’s level (called Sarjana-1, or S1, in Indonesian language). This type of program has a nominal length of 4 years. University
also provides education service at post-graduate levels: master’s (S2) and doctoral(S3) levels.

Politeknik(polytechnics)

Politeknik mainly provides Diploma (vocational) programs, ranging from D1 to D3,
and very rarely D4 programs. This type of education provides a vocational qualification. However, their graduates can also continue on to higher-level education withsome requirements. The curriculum is very practical in nature, with a minimum of
45% of the program being devoted to practices (including simulations) and training.

Akademi(academies)

It is relatively small institution offering a single specialization up to D2 and D3 levels.

Sekolah Tinggi(colleges)This institution usually comprises of a single faculty with only a few hundred students
and provide both Diploma (D1 to D4) and S1 levels.

Institut(institutes)

Institute usually provides education in a single specialization, at both Diploma and S1level. Some institutes also provide education at post-graduate levels (S2 and S3).

Figure 3.1.

Number and Distribution of HEIs by types and ownership (Source: MoEC, 2020)

Figure 3.2 below shows a schematic diagram of the national education systemthat covers education levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary/higher education), length of study, type (or path) of education, and their relations to the national qualification framework. The two paths of academic and vocational, show
the routes available for students to access engineering professions.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

16

Figure 3.2

National Education System diagram showing Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary levels andtheir corresponding National Qualification Framework levels.

3.1.4. Accreditation of Higher Education
Higher education accreditation in Indonesia is not new. The Higher Education
Law No. 12/2012 emphasizes the implementation of the national quality assurance system for higher education which includes external (accreditation) andinternal systems to be implemented by individual institutions. Systematic effort
aims to implement quality assurance should basically be an internally driven
initiative. Therefore, all institutions are to establish their own quality assurance
system.
Prior to the Law No. 12/2012, government regulations stipulate that every
higher education program and institution must be accredited. As previously
mentioned in Section 2.3.8, this mandatory accreditation has been carried out
by BAN-PT, which began to accredit programs in 1996. The first accreditation
results were published in 1998.
BAN-PT is a non-structural, non-profit, and independent agency under the
MoEC with the main functions to assist and support the ministry in assessing
the adequacy of higher education institutions to the national standard of education. BAN-PT adopts two accreditation models, namely program accreditationand education institution accreditation. BAN-PT website (banpt.or.id) contains
an overview of all higher education programs, with their current accreditation
status (categories A-D); A is very good, B is good, C is satisfactory, and D isunsatisfactory (not accredited). With the new accreditation criteria introduced in

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

172019, the status of accreditation now becomes Excellent, Very Good, Good,and Unsatisfactory.
The government continues to improve policies and regulations in higher education. With the issuance of the Higher Education Law No. 12/2012, BAN-PT is
now given the mandate to carry out only accreditation at institutional level, while
program accreditation is to be carried out by independent accreditation agency(LAM) for each field of education, using accreditation criteria that are suitable
to the characteristics of the field of education.
In the context of Indonesia, the national mandatory accreditation of a study program is directly related to its legal status, to its registration in the Higher Education Database (PDDIKTI) maintained by the MoEC, and to its operational permit as required by law. IABEE is a not a LAM because its accreditation is voluntary, not mandatory. IABEE, however, is recognized by the MoEC as anagency responsible for the accreditation of engineering programs seeking international recognition. Accreditation by IABEE is optional for programs thathave been accredited nationally at a certain status. IABEE accreditation is,therefore, a complement to the national accreditation and a tool for high quality
engineering programs to seek international recognition.
As abovementioned in Section 2.3.8, PII, including IABEE, and several engineering program associations took the initiative of proposing the establishmentof National Accreditation Agency for Engineering Programs (LAM Teknik). Engineering Deans Forum (FDTI) was also among the supporting parties to theinitiative. Using IABEE as precedence, LAM Teknik is also proposed as one of
the autonomous and permanent bodies of PII.
MoEC approved LAM Teknik proposal in 2021. In 2022, LAM Teknik is estimated to start its function as accreditation agency. As with BAN-PT previously,
programs accredited by IABEE will be recognized by LAM Teknik as accreditedwith the highest status. In contrast, only programs accredited by LAM Teknik
with a certain minimum status are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation to
get international recognition. Mandatory national accreditation conducted by
LAM Teknik will cover more than 5300 engineering programs from all strata,
including diploma, academic, applied, and professional engineers’ programs.
IABEE, in this case, maintains its policy of accrediting only the top-tier bachelor
engineering programs (S1) that voluntarily seek for international recognition under the Washington Accord.
3.2. Engineering Education
Engineering programs admit prospective students who have completed theirsecondary education in a General or Vocational High School and passed the
National Examination for secondary education. Higher education institutions,especially those offering engineering programs, would conduct a student admission system to recruit new students. This admission system normally applies certain passing criteria in mathematics, natural sciences, and language
proficiency to assess potential candidates.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

18

Opportunity is given to admit mature students, although it is rarely used. Policyof admitting mature students also varies across education institutions. Someinstitutions welcome students from abroad to study at their bachelor engineering programs. They do this by either setting up a special international classwithin a program or just welcoming them in regular classes. In fact, MoEC and
BAN-PT have recently been using percent of foreign student enrolled in an HEI
as one of the key performance indicators in the institution accreditation (notprogram accreditation).
The number of nationally accredited engineering programs at bachelor’s levelis currently 2548 programs. Some 23% of this figure are operated by public
higher education institutions, while the other 77% by the private institutions.
Ministry of Education and Culture sets certain minimum requirements for establishment of a new study program, including that of engineering. The requirements include matters related to number and qualification of the faculty, program operating institution, and curriculum. Fulfillment of the minimum requirements will lead the program to obtain the lowest national accreditation status tolegally produce graduates. Program operating institution should then make its
best effort to increase the status of accreditation.
Although it is mandatory, national accreditation remains a fairly effective means
to maintain and improve the quality of education and as a reinforcement to theinternal quality assurance system required by the MoEC for study programs.
Many universities in Indonesia have also implemented the ISO 9001 quality
management system.
For monitoring purposes, the Ministry of Education and Culture requires all program implementing institutions to upload their program academic data every
semester to the National Higher Education Database (PDDIKTI). The data includes new student enrollment, curriculum and courses offered, student grades,
student graduations, etc. The Ministry has a policy that limits the maximum
length of study. For undergraduate level, students must be able to complete
their studies within 7 years (14 semesters).
A graduate of a Bachelor Engineering Program is awarded an academic title
called “Sarjana Teknik” or S.T., in short. The title is equivalent to the widely
known Bachelor of Engineering title. If the graduate wishes to become a professional engineer, he or she must first acquire early experience in supervisedengineering practices for a minimum of 2 years and join one-year enrichment
program, namely Professional Engineer Program (PPI). The program is organized in collaboration between PII, HEIs as program-operating institutions, andthe industry to form engineering competence.
Successful accomplishment of the program will lead the participant awarded
Engineer title (Ir), which is a professional title. With the professional title and theexperience in engineering practice, he/she will have to apply an Engineer Registration Certificate (STRI) to PII. Related PII College will examine and approve
the application.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

19

3.3. Relevant Statistics
Distribution of HEIs across Indonesia is uneven, reflecting the distribution ofnational population. As seen in Figure 3.3, Java Island hosts the most of HEIs
followed by Sumatera and Sulawesi. The figure also shows HEI distribution in
34 provinces of Indonesia.

Figure 3.3.

Number of Higher Education Institutions by Province on Each Island (Source: MoEC,
2020)

Programs in the fields of engineering represent the second largest cluster ofstudy programs after education. Figure 3.4 presents the distribution of numberof programs based on fields of study. The figures cover all strata, from vocational, academic, to profession and specialist programs.

Figure 3.4

Number of programs based on Fields of Study (Source: MoEC, 2020)

As shown in Figure 3.5, engineering students represent the fourth largest(16.2%) enrolled student population by fields of study. Meanwhile, based on the

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

20education strata, students of bachelor programs are the largest by far (83.9%).
Figure 3.6 further shows the distribution of new students (2020 batch) by gender and education stratum.

Figure 3.5

Number of enrolled students based on education stratum (left) and fields of study (right)(Source: MoEC, 2020)

Figure 3.6

Number of new entrants based on gender (left) and education stratum (right) (Source:
MoEC, 2020)

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

21

4. Engineering Community
4.1. Context
In Indonesia, the profession of engineers is seen in the context of Indonesia’s
National Qualification Framework (I-NQF). The I-NQF itself recognizes 9 levelsof qualification that can be achieved by means of 4 dimensions of human capitaldevelopment. Achieving the qualification levels through formal education, i.e.,
secondary and tertiary education, is a dimension that has been described in
Figure 3.2. The other dimensions include profession, industry, and recognitionof self-taught or past learning. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1.

Engineer Professional Program and the Indonesia’s National Qualification Framework

There are three qualification levels of professional engineer. Junior Professional Engineers (IPP) are professional engineers who are able to carry out
professional engineering duties independently under the guidance of an IPM or
IPU. Senior Professional Engineers (IPM) are professional engineers who areable to independently carry out professional engineering tasks and more complex engineering activities that require creativity and/or innovation. IPM is generally achieved by an engineer who has more than 7 years of work experience.
Prominent Professional Engineers (IPU) are professional engineers who arecapable of carrying out complex engineering professional executive duties. IPU
is generally achieved after 15 years of work experience. IPP, IPM, and IPU are
qualified as level 7, 8, and 9 in the I-NQF, respectively.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

22

PII has Engineering Colleges or Chapters (Badan Kejuruan, or BK) that examine the experience, role, and level of difficulty of practicing engineers applying
for professional engineer certificate. As stated previously, the BKs are the organizational units of PII as a forum for the gathering of engineers based on
similarities in engineering disciplines and practices. The BKs also conduct theassessment of continuous professional development (CPD). Currently, there
are 23 BKs in PII:
(1) College Architectural Engineering(2) College Electrical Engineering(3) College Engineering Physics(4) College Geodetic Engineering(5) College Earth and Energy Engineering(6) College Urban and Regional Engineering(7) College Industrial Engineering(8) College Chemical Engineering(9) College Mechanical Engineering(10) College Environmental Engineering(11) College Petroleum and Geothermal Engineering(12) College Mining Engineering(13) College Civil Engineering(14) College Material Engineering(15) College Forestry Engineering(16) College Metallurgical Engineering(17) College Agricultural Engineering(18) College Husbandry Engineering(19) College Agro-Industrial Engineering(20) College Informatics Engineering(21) College Aeronautics Engineering(22) College Marine Engineering(23) College Railway Engineering
4.2. Engineering PracticeEvery engineer who performs engineering practice must have an Engineer
Registration Certificate (Surat Tanda Registrasi Insinyur, or STRI in short) issued by PII and valid for 5 (five) years and re-registered every 5 (five) years.
STRI application can be submitted online through the Professional Engineer
Management Information System (SIMPoNI). STRI is given to engineers whoalready have an Engineer Competency Certificate (Sertifikat Kompetensi Insinyur, or SKI), Professional Engineer Certificate (Sertifikat Insinyur Profesional, or SIP), and are legally recognized to carry out engineering practices.
Engineer Competency Certificate (SKI) is written evidence given to engineers
who have passed the competency test that assesses the level of engineering
competence in a measurable and objective manner with reference to engineer
competency standards. The standards set the criteria for assessing the experience, role, and level of difficulty of practice in engineering. As abovementioned,

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

23

the test is conducted by Competency Test Council (Majelis Uji Kompetensi, or
MUK), which is an assessor panel formed by the chair of PII’s BKs. BKs of PII
hold the authority for the application and development of the field of engineeringin order to manage, develop, and improve the quality of professional engineers
in engineering practice and continuous professional development (CPD). Continuous Professional Development is requirements for renewal of Engineer
Registration Certificate.
The competency standards consist of mandatory and optional ones. Mandatory standards include:(1) the code of ethics of Indonesian engineers and professional ethics of engineering,(2) skills in professional engineering work,(3) engineering planning and design, and(4) management of engineering work and communications.
Elective standards consist of:(1) education and training,(2) research, development, and commercialization,(3) engineering consultancy and/or construction/installation works,(4) production/manufacturing,(5) materials and components,(6) business management and marketing, and(7) management of development and asset maintenance.
Each standard is then further elaborated into more detailed elements. Each element will be given a score, with the mandatory standard being given a weightof 70% and the optional of 30%, then the scores are added up. The minimumscores for IPP, IPM, and IPU are 600, 3000 and 6000, respectively. This competency assessment system has received equivalence recognition, among others from Australia and New Zealand (1997), APEC Engineer Register for IPM(2003), and ASEAN Engineer Register (AER) for IPM (2004), and ACPEASEAN Charter Professional Engineer for IPM (2015).
As explained earlier, to obtain the professional degree of engineer, a graduate
must follow the Professional Engineer Program (PPI) to form engineering competence, a program conducted as a collaboration between universities, ministries, PII, and industry. This program is primarily designed to provide opportunities for graduates to gain professional work experience under the guidance ofprofessional engineers, in addition to enriching materials such as professionalism, ethics, occupational health and safety, and the environment. Those whohave followed this program will have qualifications one level higher than undergraduate, namely level 7 in Indonesia's national qualifications framework (Figure 9)
To conduct its mandate on registration and licensing, PII formalizes its competency assessment system and develops the necessary supporting tools. Although Engineering Law has been legislated since 2012, PII only formally

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

24

started conducting its mandate in 2019, after the Government Regulation No.
25/2019 was enacted. The GR serves as the organic regulation to implement
the Law. The current statistics on number of registered professional engineers
is given in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2.

Number of registered professional engineers by competence levels (Source: PII, 2021)

4.3. Relationship to Jurisdictional Licensing & Registration
By being a permanent and autonomous body of PII, IABEE enjoys a strategic
relationship with other bodies of PII responsible for registration and licensing.
Since accepted as Provisional Signatory member of the Washington Accord inJune 2019, IABEE has been working together with PII Governing Body and the
Association of Professional Engineer Programs (FKPSPPI) to discuss the roleof IABEE accreditation in the career path to become a professional engineer.
Recently, in September 2021, an agreement has been reached regarding thespecial treatments to be given to graduates of IABEE-accredited programs intheir way to become professional engineers. The treatments are divided into 2
parts, one is related to the Professional Engineer Program which will be in theform of credit waiver, and the other is related to APEC Engineer’s registrationin the future. These will be explained more in Chapter 5.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

25

5. Role of Accreditation / Recognition
5.1. Role of Accreditation in Registration
As described above, PII is mandated by the Law to conduct registration of engineers as a requirement for practice licensing recognized in Indonesia. As mobility in engineering profession continues to become a critical issue, there is a
growing need for international recognition of registered engineers. To foster engineer’s mobility in Indonesia, since 2004, PII has joined APEC Agreement thatrecognizes the substantial equivalence of competence standards for professional engineers within the APEC Economies. To become an APEC Engineer,a graduate from Indonesian bachelor’s engineering program must fulfill the following three conditions:
(1)
(2)
(3)

graduated from accredited programs,
has a sufficient working experience, andmaintains Continual Professional Development (CPD).

In the absence of an accrediting body in Indonesia that has signatory membership in the Washington Accord, under special agreement, APEC recognizes
Indonesian engineering programs accredited by BAN-PT with “A” or “B” ranks
as a fulfillment of the first condition. Having been accepted as a Washington
Accord member, IABEE accreditation can fulfill the above requirement. Furthermore, as IABEE is a part of PII, membership in WA will be an important enabling
factor for PII to enter larger mobility agreements of professional engineers. In
this regard, IABEE accreditation will play a major role for strengthening Indonesian engineers’ mobility across world economies.
Having IABEE accepted as a Washington Accord member, PII is now expected
to modify the conditions of becoming a registered engineer by giving special
considerations for candidates graduated from IABEE accredited programs aswell as programs accredited by other Washington Accord signatories.
Section 3.2 above describes how the transition from graduates of bachelor engineering program to practicing engineers is to take place in general context.
The transition requires the graduates to obtain a professional title of Engineer(Ir.) by completing 1-year Professional Engineer Program. Very recently in early
September 2021, PII Governing Body, IABEE as PII permanent body in chargeof accreditation under the Washington Accord, and Association of Professional
Engineer Programs have come to a mutual understanding on special treatments to be given to graduates of IABEE-accredited programs in their ways ofobtaining the Engineer title.
The special treatments related to obtaining Ir. title are as follows:(1) Graduates of IABEE-accredited bachelor’s engineering program can haveless than 2-year experience of supervised engineering practice to enroll toan Engineer Profession Development Program.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

26

(2) Experience of study at the previous bachelor’s engineering program can berecognized by the Engineer Profession Development Program as credit
waivers for the following courses:a. Occupational Health, Security, and Safety (2 credits)b. Capstone Design Case Study (4 credits)c. Seminar and/or Workshop (2 credits)
In addition to the above, a special treatment is also given in relation to APEC
Engineers registration conducted by PII. A new policy of PII Governing Body is
to be issued, in which application of APEC Engineers registration by Indonesian
engineers graduated from a bachelor’s engineering program in 2016 onwards
can only be submitted by those graduated from IABEE-accredited programs.
5.2. Degree of Participation in Accreditation
As will be described in Section 6.1 and 6.5, IABEE offers two accreditation
types, namely General Accreditation (GA) and Provisional Accreditation (PA).
GA is the accreditation designed to be substantially equivalent under the Washington Accord, while PA is an option to help review the readiness level of aprogram wishing to be fully accredited in the future. Provisional Accreditation
helps the program with feedbacks on their efforts in fully adopting an outcomebased education system.
Unlike the national accreditation, which is mandatory, IABEE accreditation ofboth GA and PA are voluntary. However, there have been good signs that degree of participation in IABEE accreditation are relatively high. As previously
mentioned in Section 3.2, there are currently 2548 bachelor engineering programs operated in Indonesia. Only less than 10% (about 250 programs) are
eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation due to their national accreditation status. In only 6 evaluation cycles conducted by IABEE since 2016, a total of 83
programs have voluntarily applied for General Accreditation evaluation. So far,
until the completion of 2020 evaluation cycle, 57 of these programs have been
accredited. In addition, institutions whose programs have been accredited byinternational or foreign agencies previously, and still holding validity, haveshown their interests of obtaining IABEE accreditation after the validity becomes expired. This shows a high degree of participation in voluntary accreditation conducted by IABEE.
Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation has been participated by 77 programs
in total, since PA was introduced in 2017. There are also cases where programswith a provisionally accredited status and newly produced graduates have applied for General Accreditation (GA). Other programs accredited provisionallyare waiting to produce graduates before they could apply for General Accreditation.
IABEE also conducts interim evaluation to programs accredited in GA but still
have some weaknesses in fulfilling the accreditation criteria. In total, 22 interim
evaluations have been conducted to date.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

27

Figure 5.1 shows the number of requests for both types of accreditations (PAand GA) since the first evaluation cycle conducted by IABEE in 2016. Further,
Figure 5.2 shows the distribution of requests by engineering disciplines. So far,
IABEE has been able to conduct evaluation for all programs requesting accreditation. Both, GA and PA evaluation require on-site visit as a part of the evaluation processes, only the length of visit is different. Interim evaluation may require visit, depending on the characteristics of the weakness found previously.

Figure 5.1.

Number of requests for evaluation of IABEE accreditation; total (left) and annual distribution(right)Figure 5.2

Total number of requests for IABEE accreditation by engineering discipline in 2016-2021

Table 5.1 presents some key information about the 57 programs accredited sofar (until the completion of 2020 evaluation cycle on 31 March 2021) in General
Accreditation category. Until 2021, there has been no case of program reaccreditation. This is due to 6-year validity of accreditation status which was

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

28adopted by IABEE in the 2 earliest evaluation cycles, which was curtailed to 5
years afterwards. The first program reaccreditation is expected to take place in2022 evaluation cycle. Figure 5.3 illustrates the geographic distribution of accredited programs across the jurisdiction.
IABEE publishes its accreditation activities and outcomes through its website
at https://evaluation.iabee.or.id/#/accreditation/summary/search, which is accessible publicly. Important documents need to be understood by programs
wishing to apply for accreditation, such as Rules and Procedures, Accreditation
Criteria, Evaluation Schedule, etc., are also accessible from IABEE public website.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

29

Table 5.1.

List of programs accredited by IABEE in General Accreditation (GA) in 2016 – 2021 evaluation cycles#

Program Name

Discipline Criteria

1

Teknik Pertanian dan Biosistem (Agricultural andBiosystem Engineering)2

Rekayasa Hayati (Bioengineering)3

Rekayasa Pertanian (Agricultural Engineering)

4

Teknik Fisika (Engineering Physics)

Agricultural, biosystems engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering
Agricultural, biosystems engineering
Engineering physics

5

Teknik Geofisika (Geophysical Engineering)

6

Teknik Kelautan (Ocean Engineering)

7

Teknik Kimia (Chemical Engineering)

8

Accredited in

Program-operating HEI

2016

Institut Pertanian Bogor
(IPB)

2018

No. of graduates sinceaccredited

Bogor, West Java

509

Bandung, West Java

79

Bandung, West Java

23

2018

Surabaya, East Java

399

Earth and energy engineering

2020

Surabaya, East Java

54

2019

Surabaya, East Java

*

2018

Surabaya, East Java

498

Surabaya, East Java

393

Surabaya, East Java

351

10

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)Teknik Material dan Metalurgi (Material and Metallurgical Engineering)Teknik Mesin (Mechanical Engineering)

Ocean engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering
Environmental engineering
Materials, metallurgical engineering
Mechanical engineering

2018

Surabaya, East Java

562

11

Teknik Perkapalan (Naval Architecture Eng.)

Ocean engineering

2018

Surabaya, East Java*

12

Teknik Sistem Perkapalan (Marine Engineering)

Ocean engineering

2019

Surabaya, East Java

119

13

Teknik Transportasi Laut (Sea Transp. Eng.)Surabaya, East Java

99

Teknik Elektro (Electrical Engineering)

Padang, West Sumatera

51

15

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)

Padang, West Sumatera

21

16

Sistem Komputer (Computer Engineering)17

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)

Ocean engineering
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Environmental engineering
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Industrial engineering

2019

14

18

Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta

90

Teknik Elektro (Electrical Engineering)

2019

Malang, East Java

343

20

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)

Civil engineering
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Environmental engineering

2018

19

Malang, East Java

47

9

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

2020

Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)

Location

2018
2018

2020
2020
2019
2018

2020

Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember (ITS)

Universitas Andalas(UNAND)
Universitas Bina Nusantara (UBINUS)
Universitas Brawijaya(UB)

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta*

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta

282

30

#

Program Name

Discipline Criteria

21

Teknik Elektro (Electrical Engineering)

22

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)

23

Teknik Kimia (Chemical Engineering)24

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Industrial engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering
Environmental engineering

25

Teknik Mesin (Mechanical Engineering)

26

Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)27

Teknik Elektro (Electrical Engineering)28

Teknik Fisika (Engineering Physics)

29

Teknik Geodesi (Geodetic Engineering)30

Teknik Geologi (Geological Engineering)

31

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)

32

Teknik Kimia (Chemical Engineering)34

Teknik Mesin (MechanicalEngineering)Teknik Nuklir (Nuclear Engineering)

35

Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)36

Teknologi Informasi (Information Engineering)

33

37

Teknik Elektro (Electrical Engineering)

Accredited in

Location

No. of graduates sinceaccredited

2020

Semarang, Central Java

21

2018

Semarang, Central Java

371

2018

Universitas Diponegoro(UNDIP)

Semarang, Central Java

415

2018

Semarang, Central Java

266

Mechanical engineering

2018

Semarang, Central Java*

Civil engineering
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Engineering physics
Geodetic, geomatics engineering
Earth and energy engineering

2018

Semarang, Central Java

395

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

505

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

262

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

307

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

307

Industrial engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

278

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

449

Mechanical engineering

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

394

Nuclear engineering

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

81

Civil engineering
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

320

2018

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

240

2018

Universitas Gadjah Mada
(UGM)

2020

38

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental engineering)

Environmental engineering

2020

39

Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)

Civil engineering

2020

40

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)Teknik Kimia (Chemical Engineering)

Industrial engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering

2020

41

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Program-operating HEI

2017

Universitas Hasanuddin(UNHAS)
Universitas Indonesia(UI)

Makassar, South Sulawesi
Makassar, South Sulawesi
Makassar, South Sulawesi
Depok, West Java

26
47
94
*

Depok, West Java

736

31

#

Program Name

42

Teknik Komputer (Computer Engineering)

43

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)

44

46

Teknik Mesin (Mechanical Engineering)Teknik Metalurgi dan Material (Teknik Metalurgi
dan Material)
Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)47

Teknologi Bioproses (Bioprocess Engineering)

48
49

45

Discipline Criteria
Electrical, computer, communications, telecomm. engineering
Environmental engineering

Accredited in

Program-operating HEI

Location

No. of graduates sinceaccredited

2019

Depok, West Java

127

2019

Depok, West Java

107

Depok, West Java

423

2018

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)

Mechanical engineering
Materials, metallurgical engineering
Civil engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering
Environmental engineering

Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)

Civil engineering

2016

2019

Universitas Indonesia
(UI)

2019
2017
2017

50

Teknik Sipil (Civil Engineering)

Civil engineering

2020

51

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)

2018

52

Teknik Kimia (Chemical Engineering)

53

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)

54

Teknik Kimia (Chemical Engineering)

Industrial engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering
Industrial engineering
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering

55

Teknik Mesin (Mechanical Engineering)

Mechanical engineering

2018

56

Teknik Industri (Industrial Engineering)

Industrial engineering

2020

57

Teknik Lingkungan (Environmental Engineering)

Environmental engineering

2020

2019
2020
2020

Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII)
Univ. Mercu Buana(UMB)
Universitas Sebelas
Maret (UNS)
Universitas Surabaya(UBAYA)
Universitas Tarumanagara (UNTAR)
Universitas Trisakti(USAKTI)

Depok, West Java173

Depok, West Java

235

Depok, West Java

295

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

528

Sleman, DI Yogyakarta

791

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta

204

Surakarta, Central Java

205

Surakarta, Central Java108

Surabaya, East Java

40

Surabaya, East Java

37

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta

135

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta

83

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta

79* to be provided

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

32

Figure 5.3.

Geographical distribution of accredited programs (GA) and program-operating HEIs as of September 2021

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

33

6. Accreditation/Recognition System
6.1. Overview of Accreditation/Recognition System
As described in the previous section, development of IABEE accreditation system mostly took place in 2013 to 2016, under the mentorship of JABEE. The
system essentially consists of accreditation criteria, rules and procedures for
program evaluation and accreditation, online evaluation platform, as well as
program evaluators. Development of the system and other milestones that indicate the maturity of the system are summarized in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1.

Summary of Development of IABEE Accreditation System and its maturity

At the end of 2013, IABEE Criteria Committee (CC) was formed by the Steering
Committee (SC) to formulate the first part of Accreditation Criteria, which consisted of Common Criteria and Criteria Guide. Criteria Committee studied the
Washington Accord Graduate Attribute Exemplars, accreditation criteria usedby all Washington Accord signatories as references. Indonesian national values
and interests were also considered during the formulation. In a later process,the committee involved representatives of various Colleges (Engineering Disciplines) of PII to develop Discipline Criteria.
The first draft of IABEE Common Criteria was completed in mid-2014 and subsequently tested to evaluate 2 programs of 2 different HEIs as pilot accreditation exercises. In 2014, JABEE evaluation visit was conducted to Mechanicaland Biosystems Engineering program of Bogor Agriculture University (IPB). A
year later, in 2015, JABEE evaluated Civil Engineering program of Islamic University of Indonesia (UII). On both occasions, IABEE Criteria Committee andSteering Committee members participated as shadow evaluators with the aimof testing the newly developed criteria. Having been tested, the Common

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

34

Criteria were then approved by IABEE Executive Committee in August 2015
and published on the websites of PII and MoEC in October of the same year.
In March 2015, Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) was formed withthe task to develop a set of rules and procedures based on the criteria formulated by the CC. EAC was also to develop an online platform to enable theimplementation of accreditation system. EAC also assisted CC and PII Collegesin development of Discipline Criteria for various engineering disciplines, and in
finalizing Criteria Guide.
Steering/Executive Committee invited 31 selected professionals in engineeringteaching and practice recruited from reputable Indonesian universities, professional associations, as well as from engineering chapters of PII to become
members of EAC. Among EAC members were professors whose programs of
their HEIs were already accredited by international accreditation agencies, suchas ABET and JABEE. Under the JICA project, 44 people including all EAC
members and additional individuals to be recruited as program evaluators weresent to join the Training of Trainers conducted in Japan under the JABEE system and environment. In addition, 16 selected EAC members in total were also
sent to join ABET PEV Training as practicing observers. Also 6 members weresent to observe CAST accreditation system in China and Australia.
EAC created 8 Working Groups working in parallel to develop public website
and online evaluation website, documents of rules and procedures of evaluation
and accreditation, instruments of evaluation, evaluator recruitment and training
program, code of ethics, as well as advocacy and supporting services. A second type of accreditation, namely Provisional Accreditation (PA) was also introduced by EAC, and later approved by EXC. PA was considered necessary toenable gradual shifting from input-based to outcome-based education for majority of Indonesian engineering programs. In mid-2016, the final draft of rules
and procedures, as well as instruments of evaluation were ready to implement.
Year 2016 also marked two evaluation teams set out to conduct the first accreditation evaluation for the 2 abovementioned programs accredited by JABEE
in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Each team consists of 3 evaluators (with 1 being the team chair) and observers. JABEE experts observed the on-site visit toboth programs as well as the subsequent EAC meetings discussing the resultsof evaluation. As a result, both programs were accredited by IABEE with thevalidity period of 6 years.
In 2017, IABEE run the second evaluation cycle, volunteered by 3 programs,
including Chemical Engineering and Bioprocess Engineering Programs of Universitas Indonesia and Environmental Engineering of UII. The last has just been
accredited by ABET in 2016. Eventually, the programs were accredited by
IABEE. Year 2017 also marked the first 6 programs evaluated under Provisional
Accreditation. As IABEE got more recognition in the country and thanks to supporting policy of MoEC, more institutions show interest to request accreditation
to IABEE for their programs. In 2018 cycle, 28 programs were evaluated forGeneral Accreditation and the other 18 for Provisional Accreditation.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE35

To implement program evaluation, IABEE recruited and trained new evaluatorsin addition to existing EAC members. In 2016 to 2018, thanks to JICA project,
IABEE was able to send its committee members and evaluators abroad to join
JABEE and ABET evaluator trainings. The experience from abroad was quickly
transformed into domestic training series. In 2017 and 2018, EAC conductedtrainings for evaluators, participated by EAC, EXC, and CC members as well
as newly recruited evaluators, based on IABEE’s own accreditation criteria andevaluation rules and procedures. Three training series were conducted in threedifferent Indonesian major cities during the period, i.e., Jakarta, Yogyakarta,
and Bandung. Until mid-2018 IABEE has populated a pool of 86 evaluators,coming from 12 engineering disciplines, representing both professionals in engineering practice and engineering teaching.
Recruitment and training of program evaluators continued in 2019 and 2020.
The last recruitment and training event in 2020 was specially conducted to get
more people from industrial practitioners aboard. IABEE recruited and trained
a series of evaluator recruitment and training in 2019 and 2020. As this reportis produced, IABEE has a total of 127 program evaluators.
6.2. Governance of Accreditation
As explained in Section 2.3.3, there are 4 different committees in IABEE whichshare the governance of accreditation. These include Criteria Committee (CC),
Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC), Accreditation Council (AC),and Appeal Board.
CC is the committee that is responsible to establish the White Paper, the Accreditation Criteria, namely Common Criteria and Criteria Guide, and approve
the Discipline Criteria proposed by the professional societies. These criteria
form the basis for the program evaluation. The committee is also in charge ofconducting periodic reviews and revisions of the Accreditation Criteria basedon the input from stakeholders and the existence of circumstances that require
the criteria to be revised.
Secondly, EAC has a wide responsibility in implementing the evaluation processes of accreditation. Firstly, it is responsible for developing Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA), evaluation instruments, and
IABEE Online Evaluation System (OES). It also plans, conducts, and monitors
program evaluation cycle, including appointment of the evaluation team andconducts post evaluation activities, such as result harmonization and reporting.
The committee shall produce recommendation of an accreditation status to theAccreditation Council. In addition to that, the committee develops training programs and materials and conducts a series of training for program evaluators.
Towards the completion of an evaluation cycle, EAC recommends accreditation
status of all programs evaluated in the cycle to AC. AC is a board of officials incharge of validating the results of accreditation. Before deciding on accreditation status, AC first ensures that the accreditation evaluation process has been

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

36carried out according to established rules and procedures. Meanwhile, Appeal
Board is a board of officials that are responsible to hear appeals and to decide
whether an evaluation or accreditation decision was right or wrong, when theparty (program and its HEI) affected by it thinks that it was wrong.
More detailed information regarding the committees related to governance ofaccreditation is explained in the Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-related
Committees (RPARC).
6.3. Strategic Objectives
Strategic objectives of IABEE accreditation are as follows:(1) IABEE accreditation is voluntary. A program requests accreditation because of its internal drive and appreciation for quality. In this way, accreditation functions as a means of improvement, not the purpose.
(2) IABEE accreditation is based on learning outcomes, which is self-determined by the program according to the vision, identity and uniqueness, resources, and user needs. Therefore, accreditation is not to rank nor to compare among programs.
(3) IABEE accreditation is a third-party evaluation; it is independent, autonomous, and non-governmental.
(4) IABEE accreditation is a means for the programs to get international recognition of substantial equivalency. This is enabled by referring to Washington
Accord graduate attribute exemplars in developing accreditation criteria.
(5) IABEE accreditation is a means of accountability to engineering society by
the programs answering the need of stakeholders through attainment oflearning outcomes by the graduates.
With the abovementioned objectives, accreditation by IABEE is expected toplay significant roles for multiple parties, including students and graduates, programs and education institutions, as well as industry, government, and stakeholders.
IABEE-accredited programs are excellent choices for prospective students togain education basics that meet global standards, in line with science and technology development, support career and professional success, and wider employment opportunities. Through IABEE voluntary accreditation, programs and
HEIs can demonstrate a commitment to provide quality education and global
recognition. Also, by means of IABEE accreditation, industry, government, andother stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide feedback on employment needs, facilitate professional mobility, and thus more accountable to thecommunity.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

37

6.4. Accreditation Criteria, Policies & Processes
IABEE Accreditation Criteria follow an outcome-based accreditation model
which ensures the students achieve certain learning outcomes (knowledge,
skill, and attitudes) needed to the practice of engineering profession upon graduation. The criteria are applicable for bachelor-level engineering programs only.
Until to date, IABEE has not developed accreditation criteria for other thanbachelor programs.
The criteria are classified into two groups, namely Common Criteria and Discipline Criteria. The Common Criteria are elaborated further in the Criteria Guide
and are composed with the intention of assuring the quality of engineering education and to foster a systematic continual quality improvement that satisfies
the need of its constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment.
Common Criteria and Criteria Guide are applicable for all engineering disciplines. The Discipline Criteria, on the other hand, provide specific requirementsin the area of curricular topics and faculty qualifications for the interpretation of
the baccalaureate level as applicable to a given engineering discipline.
An engineering study program seeking accreditation from IABEE shall clearly
demonstrate the fulfillment of all applicable criteria. Common Criteria, Criteria
Guide, and Discipline Criteria are referred to as the Accreditation Criteria (refer
to Appendix B or download from IABEE website).
The Common Criteria consists of 4 criteria as illustrated in Figure 6.2, following the management approach of Plan-Do-Check-Act (or P-D-C-A in short).

Figure 6.2.

Conceptual illustration of elements of IABEE Common Accreditation Criteria

Elements of each common criteria are as follows.
Criterion 1. Orientation of the Graduate Competence(1) Profile of Graduates as Autonomous Professionals(2) Publicity and Review of Autonomous Professional Profile(3) Program Learning Outcomes

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

38

Criterion 2. Learning Implementation(1) Curriculum(2) Faculty(3) Students and Academic Atmosphere(4) Facility(5) Institutional Responsibility
Criterion 3. Assessment of the Expected Learning Outcomes(1) Effective Assessment of Learning Outcomes(2) Assurance of Learning Outcome Attainment by Graduates
Criterion 4. Continual Improvement(1) Continual Improvement based on Learning Outcomes Assessment(2) Maintenance and Access of Documents and Records
In addition to the Common Criteria, currently there are 14 Discipline Criteria for
the following programs:
(1)
(2)
(3)

Agricultural and biosystems engineering
Agro-Industrial and similarly named engineering programs
Chemical, biochemical, biomolecular engineering and similarly named engineering programs(4) Civil engineering and similarly named engineering programs(5) Earth and energy engineering(6) Environmental engineering and similarly named engineering programs(7) Electrical, computer, communications, telecommunication engineeringand similarly named engineering programs(8) Engineering physics and similarly named engineering programs(9) Geodetic, geomatics engineering(10) Industrial engineering and similarly named engineering programs(11) Materials, metallurgical engineering and similarly named engineering programs(12) Mechanical engineering(13) Nuclear engineering and similarly named engineering programs(14) Ocean engineering and similarly named engineering programs
In addition, there is one Discipline Criteria named General Engineering, which
is applicable only for programs that are not fit within any of the above discipline.
To implement the evaluation of accreditation requests, IABEE has developed aclear set of policies and procedures to be followed by the programs. These are
written in a document called Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA). Please refer to Appendix C or download from IABEE website.
In addition to meeting the accreditation criteria, a program will be accredited if
it also meets the RPEA.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

39

The RPEA regulates the following matters:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Confidentiality and conflict of interests
Scope of accreditation
Eligibility for evaluation
Accreditation criteria
Program evaluation process
Accreditation decisions
Withdrawal and change of type
Public disclosure of accreditation status
Appeals
Policies on conducting on-site visit
Indicative schedule of accreditation evaluation cycle

IABEE also has developed a document called Evaluation Guide that is usefulfor both programs and evaluators to understand and prepare for evaluation processes and related activities. The newest version (2020a) of Evaluation Guide
has included the new protocol for conducting Live-online Evaluation Visit as atemporary replacement to on-site visit during Pandemic Covid-19. Please refer
to Appendix E or download from IABEE website. The contents of the guide areas follows:x

General information, covering: type of accreditation and evaluation; program eligibility; understanding Accreditation Criteria and RPEA; overview
of evaluation process; quality assurancex

Information for programs seeking for accreditation, covering: preparation of
Self-Evaluation Report and Program Profile documents; evaluation judgement and decisionx

Information for program evaluators, covering: competency and code of ethics; principles of evidence-based evaluation; judgement and feedbacksxLive-Online Visit, covering: principles; requirements; policies; preparing evidence; program’s integrity statement; force majeure

6.5. Philosophy
IABEE offers two types of accreditation, i.e. Provisional Accreditation (PA) and
General Accreditation (GA). PA is intended for programs newly adopting an
outcome-based education system and have not produced graduates under thesystem. A program applying evaluation of PA will be evaluated to observe its
potentials of meeting the Accreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (2-4
years). General Accreditation (GA), on the other hand, is applicable for a program seeking to be accredited by IABEE and to get international recognition.
PA is offered as an option, not necessarily a requirement prior to a program
applying GA. Table 6.1 enlists eligibility requirements for programs wishing tobe evaluated in Provisional and General Accreditations according to IABEE
Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

40

Table 6.1.

Eligibility requirements for programs applying evaluation of Provisional and General Accreditation

General Accreditation

Provisional Accreditation(1) The associated Program Operating Institution (POI) has obtained National Accreditation of Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.

(1) The associated Program Operating
Institution has obtained National Accreditation of Institution status with aminimum rank of ‘B’.

(2) The Program has obtained National Accreditation status ranked “A”.

(2) The Program has obtained National
Accreditation status at least ranked“B”.

(3) The Program is a bachelor-level programin an engineering discipline with a curricular study period of four years, and with a
total course-load of a minimum of 144
credit units.
(4) The Program is at least in the 4th year ofcontinuous Outcome-Based Education(OBE) implementation.
(5) The OBE shall include assessment andevaluation of the Learning Outcomes ofthe students.
(6) By the time of the on-site visit evaluation,
the Program has produced at least one
graduate under its OBE system.
(7) The Program has established and publicized the Autonomous Professional Profile statement formulated as its educational objectives.

(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering discipline witha curricular study period of four years,
and with a total credit of a minimum of
144 credit units.
(4) The Program has implemented Outcome-Based Education (OBE) at least
for one year before applying for theevaluation.
(5) The Program has established andpublicized the Autonomous Professional Profile statement formulated as
its educational objectives.
(6) The Program has established andpublicized its Learning Outcomes as
the basis for developing its curriculum
and learning methods(8) The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis
for developing its curriculum and learning
methods.

IABEE Criteria Guide further explains that the program is not restricted to single
programs operated by a department or faculty. A program may be formed
and/or operated by multiple departments or faculties. Programs may include
matriculated learning activities outside of its home campus, in conjunction withother higher education institutions. In cases where a program is offered as parallel classes, evaluation by IABEE shall encompass all parallel classes. In
cases where multiple programs of the same nomenclature are offered in multiple locations by the same program-operating institution (such as programs established according to the Outside-Main-Campus Programs scheme as definedby the MoEC Regulation No. 1/ 2017), evaluation by IABEE shall treat the parallel programs as separate entities.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

41

6.6. Accreditation Process Overview
IABEE conducts one cycle of accreditation process annually. The cycle starts
from April and ends in March the next year. The main processes take place inan evaluation cycle are depicted in Figure 6.3. To manage the processes
smoothly and comprehensively, IABEE uses an online platform called IABEE
Online Evaluation System (OES).

Figure 6.3.

Typical schedule of an evaluation cycle

IABEE offers two types of accreditation, General and Provisional. Each has its
own purposes as described before. Consequently, IABEE carries out two different accreditation processes. However, both share the common evaluation
cycle which starts and ends at the same time. As shown in Figure 16, bothprocesses require the programs to submit Self-Evaluation Report (SER) together with its supporting documents and evidence. Both also require on-site
evaluation visit to be carried out. However, in GA evaluation, a visit is conducted
for 3 days while in PA, it is only one day.
Evaluation for PA practically ends with an exit statement given as concluding
remarks at the completion of the visit. No due processes take place after thevisit. Program evaluator will write up the Final Evaluation Report and make report during the EAC Plenary Meeting. After which, EAC will bring evaluation
results and its recommendation to Accreditation Council for final decision. Having the decision announced in March, the evaluation processes for PA officiallyends.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

42

In the case of evaluation for GA, the program will be given an opportunity torespond to the exit statement. Exit statement represents the temporary conclusion of how the program fulfill the Accreditation Criteria. It summarizes thestrength of the program and its shortcomings in the fulfillment of the criteria,
which may take form as concerns, weaknesses, and even deficiencies. A 7-day
response is given to make correction to any factual mistakes. Subsequently,
another 30-day response is given as opportunity for the program to improve theshortcomings found during evaluation.
Only after the time for the program final responses expires, the final evaluation
report will be written by the evaluation team. In the case of GA, prior to bringing
the final report to EAC at the plenary meeting for overall harmonization, there
will be meetings conducted by each engineering discipline, led by the Discipline
Chair, to harmonize the evaluation results of programs within the respective
discipline.
Appeal or reconsideration in terms of Grace Period Improvement exist in GA
evaluation processes only. The are post-decision opportunities provided as anextension to the evaluation cycle to programs decided with Not-Accredited decision. Terms and conditions apply for taking these opportunities, such as explained in the RPEA. Section 6.10 explains more details about post-visit processes, including appeals and grace period.
6.7. Criteria
As described in Section 6.4, IABEE Accreditation Criteria are developed following an outcome-based accreditation model which ensures the students achievecertain learning outcomes needed to the practice of engineering upon graduation. The Accreditation Criteria consists of Common Criteria, its elaboration in
Criteria Guide, and Discipline Criteria. Accreditation Criteria play central rolesin IABEE accreditation as:(1) the reference for programs to conduct self-evaluation,(2) the reference for IABEE evaluators to review program’s self-evaluation report, and(3) the basis for IABEE to award accreditation status.
Criteria Committee is responsible for developing and evaluating IABEE Accreditation Criteria. Currently the criteria developed are only for bachelor engineering programs. IABEE does not have criteria that apply to other degree programs, such as diploma or master's programs.
Regarding the types of accreditation offered by IABEE, namely General Accreditation and Provisional Accreditation, both types use the same accreditation
criteria but used differently and for different purposes.
In PA, each of the 12 elements in the 4 criteria of the Common Criteria (seeFigure 6.2 and Section 6.4) is evaluated to answer whether the program has apotential of meeting the criteria within a foreseeable future (roughly 2-4 years).

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

43

A concluding “Yes” or “No” answer will be provided for each component withcomments of the evaluator. In this way, the program will get feedbacks to improve their newly adopted outcome-based education system.
On the other hand, in General Accreditation, each of the 12 elements in the 4criteria of the Common Criteria will be assessed to judge the level of fulfillment
demonstrated by the program against the criteria. Four possible judgements foreach element are: acceptable (A), concern (C), weakness (W), and deficiency(D). These will be the basis to decide the accreditation status given to the program (see further Section 6.10 and Table 6.4)
To prove that a program has met all the components of the Accreditation Criteria, it must submit Self-Evaluation Report (SER). To facilitate uniform, consistent, and systematic evaluation, IABEE prepares an SER and Program Profile templates. Program Profile template is available for download from IABEE
website. Meanwhile, SER template is coded in the Online Evaluation System ina spreadsheet form and can be downloaded through Program Representative’s
registered account, worked on, and uploaded back to the online system.
SER template is structured in a way that expects the program to deliberate how
it fulfills each criterion and review item, and to enclose, or to provide links toproofs of the fulfillment. The proofs or evidence of the fulfillment are gathered
as PDF files attached to the SER. IABEE Online Evaluation System allows a
program to attach 6 files sizing 30 Mbytes each to accompany Program Profile
and SER submission.
6.8. Evaluation Team
While evaluation for PA is conducted by an experienced program evaluator,
evaluation for GA requires a team of three evaluators led by one of the members assigned as team chair. The team is composed of 2 evaluators with academic background and 1 evaluator coming from the industry or engineering
practitioners. A GA evaluation team may include evaluator-in-training as observers, as a part of the training series to become program evaluators. The
team is responsible to review all documents submitted by an applying program,including its Program Profile, Self-Evaluation Report, and the accompanying
evidence. It also conducts on-site visit and produces evaluation report in which
program’s fulfillment level against all items required by the Accreditation Criteria
and RPEA is measured.
Formation and assignment of evaluation teams are the responsibility of EAC
Chair in consultation with the Discipline Chairs. Discipline Chairs will propose
three members for a GA evaluation team, with one of them being the team chair,and one senior evaluator for a PA evaluation. Selection of the members shallbe based on academic competence, training qualifications, and absence of potential conflict of interest with the program to be evaluated. Before official designation, applying program will have an opportunity to express conformity to all
appointed evaluation team members, including the evaluators and observers,in accordance with IABEE policy on conflict of interest.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

44

The Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC) defines the qualifications for one to be recruited as IABEE evaluators, as follows:(1) demonstrates interest and commitment in improving the quality of higher
education,(2) has a good professional and ethical reputation,(3) has a commitment to improve his/her professional development (lifelong
learning).
(4) has good skills in working online and with word processing programs anddata.
(5) graduated from reputable university and has a good academic qualificationin the appropriate field (for domestic university with national accreditationof Program rank A by BAN-PT, or for foreign university with reputable
recognition by MoEC),(6) has certificate as professional educator and at least 10 years lecturing experience and/or certification as professional engineer with minimum levelof Senior Professional Engineer (IPM), and(7) registered as member of PII.
Participants selected to take part in the IABEE Evaluator Candidate Training
need to join a series of training programs, namely Awareness Seminar (optional), Modular Online Training (knowledge aspects of accreditation), Face-toFace Training (simulation of onsite visit evaluation), and sit-in as Evaluator-intraining to observe an On-Site Evaluation (evaluation experience). Evaluator
Refresher Training will also be given to evaluators who get assignments in theparticular year.
IABEE evaluator training series is illustrated in Figure 6.4. EAC-IABEE has developed a special website to facilitate online modular training. The website
https://training.iabee.or.id/ is accessible only to trainees and registered guests.

Figure 6.4.

Illustration of IABEE-evaluator training series

After going through the series of training programs and having adequate evaluation experience, a program evaluator is expected to demonstrate themselves
as technically current, effective communicator, team-oriented, professional, organized, having good leadership, and good team manager. These are the expected evaluator competencies. Evaluation of performance is conducted during

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

45

the training, by team members and team chair in conducting program evaluation, and by the program being evaluated. This 360-degree evaluation is primarily intended as a means for professional development of evaluators.
IABEE applies code of ethics for evaluation. These policies are written in the
RPEA and detailed further in the RPARC. IABEE demands that all personnel
involved in carrying out the mission of IABEE demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism, honesty, and integrity. The services provided by IABEE
demand impartiality, justice, and equality, so that every person must carry out
their duties with the highest standards of ethical behavior.
The types of services provided by IABEE are vulnerable to conflicts of interest
that can affect the objectivity of the accreditation process, and thus the credibility of IABEE. Therefore, IABEE expects that all personnel involved in IABEE
activities to hold strong ethical principles and professionalism to avoid potential
conflicts of interest as much as possible to guarantee objectivity of services.
IABEE upholds ethics in conducting all activities of its members and organizing
staff, and requires that they exhibit highest standards in professionalism, fairness, and integrity. Information disclosed by programs undergoing evaluation,and information generated by review and discussion activities during the evaluation process shall be treated with confidentiality and shall not be divulged
without specific written authorization by IABEE and the program being evaluated. For these reasons, every time an evaluator is assigned, he or she mustsign a statement free from conflict of interest and a commitment to maintainconfidentiality.
6.9. On-Campus/Virtual Visit Procedures and Assessment
Information about typical schedule of evaluation cycle is written in the RPEA
and shared publicly through IABEE website. In this way, programs wishing tobe accredited by IABEE have learned the range of time on which the on-site
evaluation is likely to take place.
Having registration process completed in mid-April, IABEE Secretariat will inform Chair of EAC to start forming evaluation teams, assigning team members,
and finalizing evaluation schedule, including indicative dates of visits. This information will be uploaded to the Online Evaluation System (OES) and will go
to both sides, individual evaluators assigned by EAC and the programs.
The program representatives can monitor the planned schedule in the Online
Evaluation System by using their account. Facilitated by Secretariat, EAC will
convene a technical meeting participated by all program representatives to explain the evaluation processes they are going to go through until the completionof the cycle. Having all explained, the programs will have to state that theyagree with evaluation team assigned for them and the schedule of the evaluation cycle. This is done by Program Representative giving approval in the OES.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

46

On-site visits for evaluation of GA are conducted for a period of 3 calendar days(about 2 and a half day-worth of activities). The visit is mainly aimed to confirm
the fulfillment level against the criterion components that cannot be done merely
based on SER and its documented evidence. Table 6.2 provides the list of activities normally carried out on each day of the visit. Duration of each activity
may be adjusted as necessary.
Table 6.2.

Typical On-site Visit activities during a GA evaluation

Day#

Activity

Parties involved

Objectives

0Internal meeting (after
dinner)1

Courtesy visit to HEI’s
top managers

All TCs, PEVs assigned to a HEI (led byDelegation Team Chairin case of multiple
teams sent to a HEI)All TCs, PEVs, HEI
managers, Program
Representatives

Discuss and share findings withina team and between teams (related to common HEI-wide issues), discuss visit approach andstrategies
Officially start the visit evaluation,
confirm aspects related to HEI’s
vision, mission, educational objectives, stakeholders, policies, andinstitutional support to programs
being evaluated
Discuss key issues needed to be
confirmed during the visits

2

Meeting with Program
Chair and Representative
Evidence examination

TC, PEVs, Program
Representatives

Facility tour

TC, PEVs

Internal meeting (after
dinner)All TCs, PEVs assigned to a HEI (led byDelegation Team Chairin case of multiple
teams sent to a HEI)Interview with programadvisory board, faculty
members, alumnae,
student representatives, supporting staff
Internal meeting (after
dinner)TC, PEVs, and interviewees

TC, PEVs

All TCs, PEVs and Observers assigned to a
HEI (led by Delegation
Team Chair in case ofmultiple teams sent toa HEI)

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Examine evidence on-site to confirm related components of the criteria. These include, for example,
academic policies and regulation,
course portfolios, examples ofstudent’s works such as capstone
design project reports, internshipreports, etc.
Inspect and confirm the availability and other aspects (such as
safe operation, level of sophistication, accessibility, etc.) demandedby the criteria in relation to facility
provision.
Discuss and share findings ofDay-1 within and between teams(related to common HEI-wide issues), harmonize judgements andcomments, discuss visit approachand strategies for Day-2
Confirm fulfillment of the criteria
related to internal and external
stakeholders of the program
Discuss and share findings ofDay-2 within a team and between
teams (related to common HEIwide issues), harmonize judgements and comments, discuss theexit meeting statement

47

Day
#

Activity

Parties involved

Objectives

3

Debriefing with Program Chair and Program Representatives
Exit meeting

TC, PEVs, Program
Representatives

Explain the results of evaluation
as will be read during the exit
meeting
Read out the exit statements as
conclusion of the evaluation processes until completion of the visit

All TCs, PEVs, HEI
managers, Program
Representatives

On-site visits for evaluation of PA essentially follow the same path as that of
GA but are conducted only for a period of 1 day. In PA evaluation, there is nointernal meeting activity because only one program evaluator (senior and experienced PEV) is assigned to the program. Overall aim of the visit in PA evaluation is to check whether the newly adopted OBE runs on the right track andqualitatively weigh the potentials of fulfilling all components of the accreditation
criteria in near future.
In the wake of pandemic Covid-19 in early 2020, IABEE Executive Committee
decided to proceed with the 2020-2021 evaluation cycle with adjusted modeand schedule. The decision was made mainly to maintain the high momentum
and trust already gained by IABEE as international-level accreditation agency
from engineering HEIs and the government. To implement the EXC policy, EAC
subsequently developed Live-Online Visit Evaluation (virtual visit) protocols to
temporarily replace the on-site evaluation visits due to the pandemic. These
protocols are explained in the document called Evaluation Guide version 2020a(Appendix E).
Typical activities related to virtual visit in the case where the Live-Online Visit
Evaluation is activated by EAC are presented in Table 6.3. To realize a safeand healthy procedure and environment for conducting the online meetings, theduration of Live-Online Visit is arranged for 3 working days, with a maximum of
5 workhours per day and 1 hour lunch break for each day.
Table 6.3.

Day

Live-Online Visit related activities

Activity

Parties involved

Objectives

Technical meetingon Live-Online Visit(LOV)
Refresher Training
on Live-Online Visit

EAC, Program Representatives-

Preparing evidence
in a cloud storage

Program representatives-7

LOV rehearsal (oneweek prior to actual
dates of LOV)

TCs, PEVs, Program
representatives

Explaining the policies and procedures to Program Representatives toprepare Live-Online Visit evaluation
Explaining the policies and procedures to evaluation teams to prepare
Live-Online Visit evaluation
Providing evaluation teams with program’s self-evaluation supporting evidence as early as possible prior to
the dates of visit
To have common understanding on
how the LOV will be carried out
chronologically, to prevent any misunderstanding during LOV, to checkall devices and peripherals work as
intended-

EAC, TCs, PEVs

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

48

Day

Activity

Parties involved

Objectives

0

Online internal meeting (1-2 hours)

Discuss and share findings within ateam and between teams (related tocommon HEI-wide issues), discuss
visit approach and strategies

1

Courtesy visit to
HEI’s top managers(30 min)All TCs, PEVs assigned to a HEI (ledby DTC in case ofmultiple teams sent
to a HEI)All TCs, PEVs, HEI
managers, Program
Representatives

2

3

Facility tour (2.5hours)TC, PEVs

Evidence examination (2 hours)

TC, PEVs

Online internal meeting (30 minutes)

All TCs, PEVs assigned to a HEI (ledby DTC in case ofmultiple teams sent
to a HEI)TC, PEVs, and interviewees

Online interview with
program advisoryboard, faculty members, alumnae, student representatives,supporting staff (5hours with 1 hour
break)
Online internal meeting (30 minutes)

Online internal meeting within a team (asnecessary)
Online debriefing
with Program Chair
and Program Representatives (30minutes)
Online Exit meeting(30 minutes)

Officially start the visit evaluation,
confirm aspects related to HEI’s vision, mission, educational objectives,
stakeholders, policies, and institutional support to programs being
evaluated
Inspect through online cameras andreconfirm the availability and otheraspects (such as safe operation,level of sophistication, accessibility,etc.) demanded by the criteria in relation to facility provision.
Check through online cameras on evidence to confirm related components of the criteria. To reconfirm evidence that have previously been uploaded to cloud storage and examined.
Discuss and share findings of Day-1
within and between teams (related tocommon HEI-wide issues), harmonize judgements and comments
Confirm fulfillment of the criteria related to internal and external stakeholders of the program

All TCs, PEVs assigned to a HEI (ledby DTC in case ofmultiple teams sent
to a HEI)TC, PEVs

Discuss and share findings of Day-2
within and between teams (related tocommon HEI-wide issues), harmonize judgements and comments

TC, PEVs, Program
Representatives

Explain the results of evaluation as
will be read during the exit meeting

All TCs, PEVs, HEI
managers, Program
Representatives

Read out the exit statements as conclusion of the evaluation processes
until completion of the visit

Finalizing judgements and exit meeting statement

IABEE RPEA requires the policies of anonymity and objectivity implemented
during accreditation visits.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

49

6.10. Post-Visit Policies and Procedures
Post-visit activities start after the completion of exit meeting that concludes anevaluation visit. Follow up activities, in the case of GA evaluation, that will takeplace are explained in the RPEA as follows.
Program First Evaluation Report. Program First Evaluation Report is produced by the evaluation team and uploaded the team chair to IABEE OES. It
consists of evaluation results and findings read out during the Exit Meeting. The
report is to be uploaded approximately two weeks after the Exit Meeting. The
report is accessible by the program using its account.
Program 7-day Response. Upon the disclosure of the findings in the IABEE
OES, the program is given 7 days to submit amendments or omissions only tofactual errors if such errors are identified in the online system entries. The period is initiated in the system right after the Program First Evaluation Report isuploaded. Example of factual errors include errors in quoting names, identities,
figures, locations, etc. related to the program and its institution. If the programfinds no factual error in the Program First Evaluation Report, its representative
may notify the team chair and let the 7-day period pass automatically.
Program Second Evaluation Report. Upon the expiration period of Program
7-day Response, the team chair thoroughly examines the evaluation results
documented in the IABEE Online Evaluation System to amend factual errors
pointed out by the Program, if any. The Team Chair then proceeds to prepare
the Program Second Evaluation Report in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. After submission of the Report by the team chair, program representative
can see the “A-C-W-D” judgements, the Team Chair’s comments on each evaluation or criteria item.
Program 30-day (final) Response. Upon the completion of the Program Second Evaluation Report by the team chair, the Program 30-day Response is triggered to start in the IABEE Online System. In this period, the program is given
30 days to follow up on shortcomings identified in the evaluation process todate. The program is encouraged to upload report and proofs of corrective actions and/or improvements undertaken to address the shortcomings, until the
30-day deadline.
Program Final Evaluation Report. After the deadline of the 30-day response
period has passed, the team chair prepares the Program Final Evaluation Report to be uploaded to IABEE OES, by considering corrective actions and/or
improvements reported by the Program to date. The report shall include a description of the Program, its areas of strength, identified shortcomings, and constructive observations, and a summary of its fulfillment to the Accreditation Criteria as indicated by the ‘A-C-W-D’ judgements of evaluation items. The report
is submitted to the Discipline Chair and EAC Chair.
Engineering Discipline Harmonization Meeting. The Discipline Chair convene EAC Discipline Harmonization meeting to discuss and harmonize any inconsistency between evaluation teams within the same discipline, andSelf Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

50

inconsistencies with past evaluation results of similar programs. Results of theDiscipline Harmonization are documented in the IABEE OES.
EAC Plenary Meeting. After the Discipline Harmonization is completed, the
EAC Chair organizes an EAC Plenary Meeting to discuss and harmonize any
inconsistency with past and current evaluation results of programs operated
under different institutions and disciplines. EAC Plenary Meeting then recommend the final accreditation decision to IABEE Accreditation Council.
Final Evaluation Report Editing. EAC Chair is to assign Editors in this step,in which the Program Final Evaluation Report draft shall be edited to ensure
consistency between the scores and comments or narratives given by the Team
Chair and the criteria or sub-criteria items associated with the scores and narratives.
Accreditation Decision. Final decision on the accreditation status of a program is taken by the IABEE Accreditation Council, with due consideration to therecommendation from the EAC Plenary Meeting. The decision shall be kept in
IABEE’s permanent records.
Accreditation Announcement. After the final decision has been reached, the
IABEE Secretariat conducts the public announcement of the decision. The NotAccredited status shall not be publicly declared, but directly communicated tothe corresponding program representative (PR) and program-operating institution representative (POIR). Other status shall be declared in the IABEE Website
and communicated to the PR and POIR. Program Accreditation Evaluation Report and accreditation decision shall be saved in the IABEE Online Evaluation
System and shall be accessible by the program.
Table 6.4 provides the possible accreditation status of a program as the outcome of accreditation decision by Accreditation Council. As shown in the table,
Not-Accredited program may appeal the decision or take the last chance ofmaking improvement through the Grace Period.
Table 6.4.

Accreditation status of a program (General Accreditation)

Level of Criteria Fulfillment

StatusValidity

Next Step

All criterion components are scored
A (acceptable) or C (concern)

Accredited

5 yearsRe-accreditation

Unresolved weakness(es) leads to
W score(s), but visit is not deemednecessary to assess future corrective actions

Accredited

3 years

Interim Evaluation
without visit

Unresolved weakness(es) leads to
W score(s), but visit is deemed necessary to assess future corrective
actions

Accredited

3 years

Interim Evaluation
with visit

Unresolved deficiency(ies) leads to
D score(s)Not Accredited-

Appeal or take Grace
PeriodSelf Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

51

The program shall be given an opportunity to file an appeal if an accreditation
decision is deemed unfair. The appeal must include a clearly written rationale
for the appeal, with reference to specific accreditation criterion component associated with the appeal. Only final decision of Not-Accredited status in General
Accreditation may be appealed.
Program with unresolved D score in only one component of the Accreditation
Criteria may opt to ask a final grace period to rectify the associated shortcoming. The grace period will be given until no later than 31 August of the subsequent accreditation evaluation cycle. The program shall produce an evidencebased report on how it has satisfactorily rectified the shortcoming with respect
to the Accreditation Criteria.
The report is sent to IABEE Secretariat no later than 31 August of the subsequent accreditation cycle. EAC will subsequently assess the worthiness of thereport. Satisfactory improvement from the ‘D’-level shortcoming shall result inan Accredited status with interim evaluation, either with or without visit, effectivefrom 1 April of the following accreditation evaluation cycle.
6.11. Schedule of Up-Coming Accreditation Activities
The 2021-2022 evaluation cycle has been run in progress, following the schedule as presented in Table 6.5. The schedule is also published in IABEE website.
RPEA provides indicative schedule to be decided each year.
Table 6.5.

Schedule of activities of the 2021-2022 evaluation cycle (General Accreditation)

No.

Activity

Dates

1

Account sign-up for program and institution representatives

5 – 30 April 20212

Account registration verification

5 – 30 April 2021

3

Program registration for accreditation by its representative

5 – 30 April 2021

4

Program eligibility verification by Secretariat

5 – 30 April 2021

5

Scheduling and assignments by EAC~ 5 May 2021

6

Technical meeting (kick-off meeting)

8 May 2021

7

Evaluation team approval by program representative~ 7 May 2021

8

Finalizing assignments~ 10 May 2021

9

Invoicing and payments~ 8 June 2021

10

Submission of SER, Program Profile, and supporting evidence~2 July 2021

11First review by evaluation team members~ 31 July 2021

12

Second review by team chair~ 15 August 2021

13

First response by program representative~ 15 September 2021

14

Third review by evaluation team~ 30 September 2021

15

Detailed visit plan by team chair~ 7 October 2021

16

On-site/Online visit rehearsal

1 week prior to visit dates

17

On-site/Online visit period (including exit statement)

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE~ 7 November 2021

52

No.

Activity

Dates

18

First Evaluation Report~ 7 days after exit meeting

19

Program 7-day response~ 7 days after 1st Evaluation
Report uploaded

20

Second Evaluation Report~ 7 days after program response expires

21

Program 30-day (final) response~ 30 days after 2nd report uploaded, but no later than 28
December

22

Final Evaluation Report

23

Discipline Harmonization meeting

24

EAC Plenary meeting25

Accreditation Council meeting

23 February 2022

26

Accreditation decision announcement

31 March 2022

~ 15 January 2022
20 and 27 (if needed) January2022
No later than 10 February2022

6.12. External Relationships
As described earlier, IABEE is established as a permanent and autonomous
body of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII). This status enables IABEE
to interact very closely with all Engineering College (Chapters) of PII. A college
is an organic part of PII which unifies people and societies working in the sameengineering discipline. Key interactions between IABEE and PII Colleges takeform in the formulation of discipline criteria and in recruitment of candidate program evaluators with industry background. More strategic relationship is being
paved between IABEE and its parent organization, PII. A membership in the
Washington Accord can open the door for PII to entering a wider engineer mobility agreement, beyond APEC region.
The government, more specifically, Directorate General of Higher Education of
the Ministry of Education and Culture is the initiator of IABEE. However, since
MoU between DGHE of MoEC and PII was signed in 2016, IABEE has been an
independent entity from the government. Nevertheless, IABEE maintains good
mutual relationship with the government. Through its voluntary and internationally recognized accreditation system, IABEE helps the government in its mission and effort to develop high quality education, specifically in the fields ofengineering. In return, government recognition to IABEE and its policies thatencourage programs and institutions to earn international recognition throughaccreditation help IABEE playing its role in improving the quality of education,
especially in engineering.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

53

7. Response to Schedule B1
Criteria for Admission to Provisional Signatory Status
7.1. Accrediting Agency Criteria
7.1.1.

Governmental & Legal Status

IABEE is an autonomous, not-for-profit organization under The Institution ofEngineers Indonesia (PII), which is a NGO of multi-disciplinary engineering professionals association in Indonesia. IABEE is one of PII’s permanent bodies
entrusted to conduct bachelor engineering program accreditation. Since the Engineering Law No. 11/2014 was legislated, PII has been mandated to conduct
registration and licensing for practicing professional engineers in Indonesia.
With the status of a PII permanent body, IABEE is legally incorporated in Indonesia’s jurisdiction. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministryof Education and Culture and the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) in 2016
to establish IABEE as permanent and autonomous body within PII provides thefirst legal basis for IABEE. Subsequently, PII has incorporated IABEE in its
Charter and Organizational Regulation.
7.1.2.

Uncontested Agency or Prominent Authority

As a part of PII, which is given the authority by the Engineering Law No. 11/2014
to represent the engineering profession, IABEE is the uncontested agency forvoluntary program accreditation in engineering in Indonesia. In the jurisdiction,
where program accreditation is mandatory, the prominence of IABEE accreditation is also shown by the fact that programs accredited by IABEE will be recognized by the national accreditation system as accredited with the highest status. In contrast, only programs accredited nationally with a certain minimum
status are eligible to apply for IABEE accreditation to get international recognition.
7.1.3.

Recognition of Authority & Accredited Programmes

PII is the institution that administers the registration and licensing for practicing
engineers in Indonesia. Graduate of any nationally accredited engineering program is eligible by law to attend to Professional Engineering Program to become a professional engineer, and subsequently to get registered and licensed
to practice engineering. Since IABEE accreditation (GA) is eligible only to programs that have been nationally accredited with the highest rank, the academic
requirements of IABEE’s accredited programs should be more that satisfying
for admission to the path of becoming a PE.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

54

IABEE has eligibility requirements for programs wishing to request accreditation, one of which states that the program shall be operated by a nationallyaccredited HEI with minimum rank of B (RPEA Section 2.3.1). In addition, there
is also a requirement that the program itself is already nationally accredited withthe highest rank. These requirements warrant the legal authority of the HEI toconfer academic degree to the graduates of its program. As a note, in Indonesia
where national accreditation is mandatory, only accredited HEIs have the legal
authority to confer higher education degrees. Also, only accredited programs
can produce graduates legally.
7.1.4.

Policies, Procedures & Criteria

IABEE has developed policies, procedures, and criteria to conduct accreditation. Further, it has policies to set, approve, evaluate, and execute the accreditation criteria and procedures. As explained through IABEE organizational
structure, IABEE has Criteria Committee that is responsible to develop andevaluate periodically the Accreditation Criteria which consist of Common Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline Criteria. Another committee called Evaluation
and Accreditation Criteria is the one responsible to run the evaluation/accreditation cycle based on the procedures and the criteria. Both, Rules and Procedures and Accreditation Criteria documents shall be approved by IABEE Executive Committee.
7.1.5.

Independence & Autonomy

IABEE organization that is positioned under the umbrella of PII signifies IABEE
independence of the educational providers delivering programs in Indonesia. In
practice, IABEE makes sure that evaluators assigned to evaluate program accreditation requests are free from any conflict of interest.
IABEE has a full autonomy to conduct accreditation; no influence from otherbodies within PII nor from any external bodies. Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee (EAC) are given all the rights to design and oversee accreditation
evaluation processes according to the RPEA. Accreditation Council is also
given all the authority to review EAC accreditation actions and recommendations and to decide accreditation status.
The independence of EAC is ascertained by applying the policy and procedureregarding the evaluator code of ethics and the conflict of interest. The AC on
the other hand, has a specific role to ensure that the accreditation process has
been carried out consistently and in accordance with the established rules andprocedures, code of ethics, the principle of confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The council does not conduct a technical review, so it does notrepeat what has been done by the EAC.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

55

7.2.

Operational Accreditation System

7.2.1.

Documented Criteria & Procedures

The IABEE Accreditation Criteria have been documented and publicized on thewebsite (iabee.or.id). Policy and procedures to apply the criteria have been explained in the Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA)
document. RPEA is also available for download from the website.
IABEE accredits programs, not institution. This is made clear in the statement
written in the Preamble of IABEE Common Criteria and Criteria Guide. The program is not restricted to single programs operated by a department or faculty.
A program may be formed and/or operated by multiple departments or faculties.
Programs may include matriculated learning activities outside of its home campus, in conjunction with other higher education institutions. In cases where a
program is offered as parallel classes, evaluation by IABEE shall encompass
all parallel classes. In cases where multiple programs of the same nomenclature are offered in multiple locations by the same program-operating institution(such as programs established according to the Outside-Main-Campus Programs scheme as defined by the MoEC Regulation No. 1/ 2017), evaluation by
IABEE shall treat the parallel programs as separate entities.
7.2.2.

Assessor Selection & Training

The Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC) document explains in Section 3 the evaluation team consists of academic and industrial practitioner. It further details the requirements for program evaluatorcandidates. The document also explains the mechanism for of evaluator (assessor) training (Section 6), which includes Awareness Training, Modular
Online Training, Face-to-Face Training, and Observation in Actual On-Site Visit
Evaluation. Documentations of evaluator training are managed by IABEE Secretariat.
7.2.3.

Programme Evaluation

The Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA) explains
the requirement for Program to submit Self-Evaluation Report (Section 2.5.2)
and when such a document is to be submitted (Section 2.5.4, Table 1, Activity
14). Section 2.5.4 in Table 1 of the RPEA also explains about On-Site Visit
Planning and On-Site Visit (Activity 19 and 20), which is further explained in
EGA-19 and EGA-20 (pp. 15 to 16). Policies on conducting On-Site Visit are
explained in section 2.9 (pp. 29-30).
The RPEA document explains the validity period of “Accredited” status of General Accreditation, which is 5 years, and “Accredited with Interim Evaluation”
either with or without visit, which is 3 years (Section 2.6.1 Decisions in Evaluation for General Accreditation). To maintain accreditation, Program shall submit
re-evaluation with respect to the above validity periods.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

56

7.2.4.

Procedural Integrity

Procedural integrity comprises confidentiality, conflict of interest, and publication of accredited programs. IABEE accreditation processes are fully in compliance with these requirements. The Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC) document in Section 9 explains the confidentiality
policies and procedures to ensure that individual program evaluation is conducted in confidence. In Section 8, it explains the conflict-of-interest (COI) policies and procedures to ensure that evaluation process at all stages is free of
COI. Finally, all programs accredited by IABEE are listed and published in
IABEE website according to Public Disclosure of Accreditation Status policies(RPEA Section 2.8).
7.2.5.

Appeals

The RPEA document explains about appeal procedure against “Not-Accredited” decision (Section 2.8.2). Further, the RPARC document explains about
Appeal Board and Appeal Committee.
7.3.

Accreditation Criteria

7.3.1.

Programme Outcomes, Purpose & Curriculum

IABEE Accreditation Criteria (Appendix A) have the program establish program
outcomes that are consistent with the purpose of the program. Criterion 1 on
Orientation of the Graduate Competence states that Program shall define theprofile of graduates to be envisaged as autonomous professionals by considering country’s potential resources, cultures, needs and interests. Further, it
states that Program shall establish its own expected learning outcomes which
consist of abilities to utilize knowledge, skills, resources, and attitudes as described in the (a) to (j) items and any additional requirement in its Discipline
Criteria (if any) to be acquired by the student at the time of completion of thestudy. The (a) to (j) items are learning outcomes criteria developed by IABEE
referring to the Graduate Attribute exemplars of the Washington Accord.
IABEE has conducted gap analysis between IABEE Accreditation Criteria andWashington Accord Graduate Attribute Exemplars. Please refer to Appendix F.
Regarding the curriculum, IABEE Accreditation Criteria requires the program toprovide a curriculum that is able to provide a broad basis for engineering practice. Criterion 2.1 on Curriculum asks Program to ensure that the curriculum
includes proportionally subject areas of mathematics and discipline-specificnatural sciences, discipline-specific engineering science and technology, information and communication technology, engineering design and problem-based
experiments, as well as general education (Article 1). It also asks program toconsider inputs from program’s stakeholders in the process of curriculum development (Article 2). It further asks program that the curriculum shall indicate
the structural relationship and contributions of the subject courses to fulfill learning outcomes. Procedures, including syllabus, shall be established and

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

57

documented so that the expected learning process can be implemented in acontrolled way (Article 3). Lastly, the criterion on curriculum asks the provisionof exposure for the students to engineering practices and major design projectexperience using engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints basedon knowledge and skills acquired in preceding course work (Article 4).
7.3.2.

Environment for Delivery

IABEE Accreditation Criteria requires program and its operating institution toprovide suitable environment for delivery. Criterion 2.3 on Students and Academic Atmosphere, in article (3) asks program to create and maintain good academic atmosphere conducive to successful learning. Further in Criterion 2.3.4
on Facility, program is asked to ensure the availability and accessibility of facilities for effective functioning of the learning process and attainment of the learning outcomes.
7.3.3.

Leadership & Qualifications

IABEE Accreditation Criteria (Criterion 2.5 on Institutional Responsibility) asks
program to define and manage the process for the provision of the educational
service, including education design, curriculum development and delivery, andassessment of learning. Criteria Guide of this article further asks program todescribe its governance and its adequacy to ensure the quality and continuityof the program and how the leadership is involved in decisions that affect the
program.
Regarding qualification, Criterion 2.2 on Faculty demands Program to provide
necessary number, qualification, and competence of faculty members for performing learning process, including planning, delivering, evaluating, and continually improving its effectiveness in order to achieve the learning outcomes. Further, each Discipline Criteria may address more specific requirements on thequalification of faculty teaching in the program.
7.3.4.

Entry & Progression Requirements

IABEE Accreditation Criteria, specifically Criterion 2.3 on Students and Academic Atmosphere asks Program to define and implement an entry standard
for both new and transfer students, as well as transfer of credits. Also, the criterion asks Program to define and implement ongoing monitoring of student
progress and evaluation of student performance. Procedures of quality assurance shall be established to ensure that adequacy of standards is achieved in
all assessments.
7.3.5.

Resourcing

Adequacy of physical resources is addressed in Criterion 2.4 on Facility. Meanwhile, human resources adequacy is addressed in Criterion 2.2 on Faculty. Financial resource adequacy is addressed in Criterion 2.5 on Institutional Responsibility.
Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

58

Schedule B1: Criteria for Admission
to Provisional Signatory Status in an
Accord (also required for Admission
to Full Signatory)
1

The accrediting agency has the following
characteristics:a) Is non-governmental;

Report analysis against Rules and Procedures
requirements
Meets
Criteria?
Yes/NoYes

Evidence provided/Comments

IABEE is an autonomous, not-for-profit
organization under The Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII), which is a NGO of multidisciplinary engineering professionals associationin Indonesia.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the
Directorate General for Student and Learning
Affairs of the Ministry of Education and theInstitution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) to establish
IABEE as an autonomous department within PII
provides the legal basis for IABEE.
Being part of PII, which is given the authority by theEngineering Law No. 11/2014 as a representativeof the engineering profession, IABEE is theuncontested agency for voluntary program
accreditation in engineering in Indonesia.

b) Is legally incorporated in its homejurisdiction;

Yesc) Is the uncontested accreditation
agency of the engineeringcommunity in the jurisdiction; or, if
circumstances in the jurisdiction
allows multiple accreditation
agencies, the applicant must be theprominent authority in accreditationof programmes;d) Is a statutory or professionallyrecognised authority to accredit
programs satisfying academic
requirements for admission topracticing status (e.g. licensing,registration) in a jurisdiction;Yese) Accredits programmes at institutions
that have legal authority to confer
higher education degrees
qualifications;

Yes

f)

Yes

As stated in RPEA (Section 2.4), Criteria Committee
has produced the Accreditation Criteria, comprising
the Common Criteria and the Discipline Criteria.
Common Criteria are further elaborated by the
Criteria Guide. The Accreditation Criteria together
with the RPEA provide the basis for program
evaluation. As mentioned in the
document of Application for Provisional
Membership of The Washington Accord, Section
2.2 on Organizational Structure, the Criteria
Committee is also responsible of conducting
periodic reviews and revisions of the Accreditation
Criteria based on the input from stakeholders andthe existence of circumstances that require thecriteria to be revised.

Yes

The organizational structure of IABEE within the PII(document of Application for Provisional
Membership of The Washington Accord, page9) indicates its independence of the educational
providers. Also, evaluators involved in the processof evaluation must adhere to the ethical principles
stated in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 and policy andHas policies to set, approve,
evaluate and execute accreditation
criteria and procedures;g) Is independent of the educational
providers delivering accredited
programmes in its jurisdiction;

Yes

PII is the institution that administers the registrationand licensing for practicing engineers. Graduate ofany national compulsory accredited engineering
program is so far eligible to attend the exam tobecome a professional engineer, as one of therequirements to get registered. Since only
programs with A-rank (the highest rank) of national
compulsory accreditation are eligible for IABEE
General Accreditation, the academic requirementsof IABEE’s accredited program are accordingly
satisfied.
With the enactment of B-rank status from national
compulsory institutional accreditation (by BAN-PT)
as the minimum eligibility criterion for program
implementing institutions to be accredited by
IABEE, this ensures the legal authority of theinstitutions that provide higher education degree
qualifications (RPEA, Section 2.3.1 Eligibility
Requirements for General Accreditation point (1)).

h) Has autonomy to make accreditation
decisions independent of
stakeholder influence.

2.

The accrediting agency has an
operational accreditation system with
documented procedures and practices
conforming to the following principles:a) The accreditation criteria andprocedures are documented,
publicized, and applied inaccordance with set policies;

Yes

procedure to avoid conflict of interest of Section 8.1
and 8.2 of RPARC.
Accreditation decisions are fully the autonomy of
the Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC)
and the Accreditation Council (AC). The
independence of EAC is ascertained by applying
the policy and procedure regarding the evaluator
code of ethics and the conflict of interest. The ACon the other hand, although consists ofrepresentatives from academics, professionals andindustry, has a specific role namely ensuring thatthe accreditation process has been carried out
consistently in accordance with the establishedrules and procedures, code of ethics, the principleof confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts ofinterest. The council does not conduct a technicalreview so that it repeats what has been done by the
EAC (Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of RPARC)Yes

The IABEE Accreditation Criteria (Annex B) havebeen documented and publicized on the website(iabee.or.id). Policy and procedures to apply thecriteria have been explained in the Rules andProcedures for Evaluation and Accreditation(RPEA) document (Annex C). RPEA is alsoavailable for download from the website.

b) The system accredits programmes
or coordinated groups of individually
identified programmes;

Yesc) Programme assessors are academic
and industry peer reviewers;

Yesd) There are mechanisms anddocumentation for training the
programme assessors;

Yes

IABEE accredits programs, not institution. This is
made clear in the statement written in thePreamble of IABEE Common Criteria and Criteria
Guide (Annex B).
The Rules and Procedures for Accreditationrelated Committees (RPARC) document (Annex D)
explains in Section 3 on Pool of Program
Evaluators that the evaluation team consists ofacademic and industrial practitioner. It further
details the requirements for program evaluatorcandidates.
The document of Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC)(Annex D) explains the mechanism of evaluator(assessor) training (Section 6), which includes
Awareness Training, Modular Online Training,
Face-to-Face Training, and Observation in Actual
On-Site Visit.

e) Programme evaluation requires aself-evaluation and site visit;

Yes

The Rules and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) document (Annex C)
explains the requirement for Program to submit
Self-Evaluation Report (Section 2.5.2) and whensuch a document is to be submitted (Section 2.5.4,
Table 1, Activity 14). Section 2.5.4 in Table 1 also
explains about On-Site Visit Planning and On-Site
Visit (Activity 19 and 20), which is further explainedin EGA-19 and EGA-20 (pp. 15 to 16). Policies on
conducting On-Site Visit are explained in section
2.9 (pp. 29-30).

f)

Yes

The RPEA document (Annex C) explains thevalidity period of “Accredited” status of General
Accreditation, which is 5 years, and “Accreditedwith Interim Evaluation” either with or without visit,
which is 3 years (Section 2.6.1 Decisions in
Evaluation for General Accreditation). To maintainaccreditation, Program shall submit re-evaluation
with respect to the above validity periods.

Periodic re-evaluation is required tomaintain accreditation;g) Individual program evaluation isconducted in confidence;Yesh) Mechanisms for addressing conflictof interest at all stages of theprocess exist;

Yes

i)

Yes

j)

3.

A list of accredited programmes ispublished;
An appeal process exists.

Yes

The accreditation agency’s criteria for
accreditation include requirements for:a) Programme outcomes that areconsistent with the purpose of the
programme. Note: Programmeoutcomes in item 3a are notexpected to conform fully to the
Graduate Attribute exemplars at thisstage.

Yesb) A curriculum providing a broad basis
for engineering practice;Yesc) A suitable environment to deliver the
programme;

Yes

The Rules and Procedures for Accreditationrelated Committees (RPARC) document (Annex D)
in Section 9 explains the confidentiality policies andprocedures to ensure that individual program
evaluation is conducted in confidence.
The Rules and Procedures for Accreditationrelated Committees (RPARC) document (Annex D)
in Section 8 explains the conflict-of-interest (COI)
policies and procedures to ensure that evaluation
process at all stages is free of COI.
All programs accredited by IABEE are listed andpublished in IABEE website (iabee.or.id).
The RPEA document (Annex C) explains about
appeal procedure against “Not-Accredited”
decision (Section 2.8.2). Further, the RPARC
document (Annex D) explains about Appeal Board
and Appeal Committee (Section 5).
References for this section forward are the IABEE
Accreditation Criteria (Annex B) which consist ofCommon Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline
Criteria.
Criterion 1 on Orientation of the Graduate
Competence states that Program shall define theprofile of graduates to be envisaged as
autonomous professionals by considering country’s
potential resources, cultures, needs and interests.
Further, it states that Program shall establish its
own expected learning outcomes which consist ofabilities to utilize knowledge, skills, resources andattitudes as described in the (a) to (j) items and any
additional requirement in its Discipline Criteria (ifany) to be acquired by the student at the time ofcompletion of the study. The (a) to (j) items arelearning outcomes criteria developed by IABEE
referring to the Graduate Attribute exemplars.
Criterion 2.1 on Curriculum asks Program toensure that the curriculum includes proportionallysubject areas of mathematics and disciplinespecific natural sciences, discipline-specificengineering science and technology, informationand communication technology, engineering
design and problem-based experiments, as well as
general education [Article (1)]. It also asks
Program to consider inputs from Program’s
stakeholders in the process of curriculum
development [Article (2)]. It further asks Programthat the curriculum shall indicate the structural
relationship and contributions of the subject
courses to fulfill learning outcomes. Procedures,
including syllabus, shall be established anddocumented so that the expected learning process
can be implemented in a controlled way [(Article(3)]. Lastly, the criterion on curriculum asks theprovision of exposure for the students toengineering practices and major design projectexperience using engineering standards andmultiple realistic constraints based on knowledge
and skills acquired in preceding course work[(Article (4)].
Criterion 2.3 on Students and Academic
Atmosphere, in article (3) asks Program to create
and maintain good academic atmosphereconducive to successful learning. Further in
Criterion 2.3.4 on Facility, Program is asked toensure the availability and accessibility of facilities
for effective functioning of the learning process andattainment of the learning outcomes.

d) Adequate leadership for the
programme;

Yese) Suitably qualified engineering
practitioners teaching in the
programme;

Yes

f)

Yes

Appropriate entry and progression
standards; andg) Adequate human, physical andfinancial resources for the
programme.

Yes

Criterion 2.5 on Institutional Responsibility asks
Program to define and manage the process for theprovision of the educational service, including
education design, curriculum development anddelivery, and assessment of learning. Criteria
Guide of this article further asks Program todescribe its governance and its adequacy toensure the quality and continuity of the programand how the leadership is involved in decisions that
affect the program.
Criterion 2.2 on Faculty demands Program toprovide necessary number, qualification andcompetence of faculty members for performing
learning process, including planning, delivering,evaluating, and continually improving its
effectiveness in order to achieve the learning
outcomes. Further, each Discipline Criteria would
normally address more specific requirements on
the qualification of faculty teaching in the Program.
Criterion 2.3 on Students and Academic
Atmosphere asks Program to define andimplement an entry standard for both new andtransfer students, as well as transfer of credits.
Also, the criterion asks Program to define andimplement ongoing monitoring of student progressand evaluation of student performance. Proceduresof quality assurance shall be established to ensurethat adequacy of standards is achieved in allassessments.
Adequacy of physical resources is addressed inCriterion 2.4 on Facility. Meanwhile, humanresources adequacy is addressed in Criterion 2.2
on Faculty. Financial resource adequacy isaddressed in Criterion 2.5 on Institutional
Responsibility.

8. Response to Schedule B2
Criteria for Admission to and Maintenance of Signatory Status in an Accord
8.1. Conformity to Accord Practice8.1.1.

Professionalism, Ethics & Objectivity

IABEE upholds high standards of professionalism, ethics, and objectivity in all
accreditation processes and system. Establishment of IABEE accreditation system involves key committees, namely Executive Committee (EXC), Criteria
Committee (CC), Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC), Accreditation
Council (AC), and Appeal Board, each assumes different and specific roles andresponsibilities.
Policies and procedures on Code of Ethics, Conflict of Interests, and Confidentiality are established and maintained. Refer to Rules and Procedures of Accreditation-related Committee (RPARC) Chapters 7, 8, and 9, as well as Rules
and Procedures of Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA) Chapter 2.1, Both,
RPARC and RPEA documents are attached in the appendix section.
8.1.2.

Competence & Standing of Evaluators

IABEE has been putting its best efforts to make sure that all involved in programme evaluation are competent and are of high standing as educators orpractitioners in the profession. These are shown by the followings.
x Evaluations are conducted by Program Evaluators from academic and industrial background who have fulfilled eligibility requirements (RPARC Chapter 3). High standards of recruitment and training processes are establishedto ensure competent evaluators. (RPARC Chapter 6).
x Program evaluation processes are supported by Online Evaluation System(OES) managed by competent administration staff. IABEE OES is accessible
through https://evaluation.iabee.or.id/. A valid pair of username and password is required to get access.
x Technical meeting inviting all representatives from programs to be evaluatedis convened at the beginning of an evaluation cycle to ensure the programs’correct understanding of accreditation system and its requirements, as wellas smooth evaluation processes.
x Refresher training inviting all evaluators assigned for current evaluation cycle
is convened to strengthen evaluators’ competency and share any recent update (Refer to RPARC Chapter 6.6).

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

59

x Evaluation system includes feedback from evaluated programs to improve
evaluators’ performance and overall accreditation system. Refer to RPEA
Chapter 2.8.1. The feedback mechanism is included in IABEE OES.
x Mechanism exists to improve program evaluators’ competency based on
previous performance and feedbacks. Refer to RPARC Chapter 6.8.
8.1.3.

Application of Standards & Procedures

IABEE has been putting its best efforts to make sure consistent and fair application of defined evaluation standards. These are exemplified by the followings.
x Evaluation standards and processes are outlined in RPEA Chapter 2.5. Consistency of application of standards and processes of accreditation systemis ensured closely by related committees and secretariat, and by taking advantage of the use of On-line Evaluation System with pre-defined and clear
schedule.
x Referring to RPEA Chapter 2.5, the processes include harmonization mechanisms conducted within and across engineering disciplines. These ensure
objectivity, fairness, and consistency for accreditation decisions.
x Referring to RPEA Chapter 2.8.2, an appeal mechanism is provided to ensure fair accreditation decisions. Establishment of an Appeal Committee by
the Appeal Board is outlined in RPARC Chapter 7.
x For fairness and transparency, evaluation standards and processes are documented and disclosed for the public through IABEE website.
x Recently IABEE has also published Evaluation Guide for Programs and Evaluators which is available for download.
8.1.4.

Reporting & Decision Making

Accreditation report produced by IABEE justifies accreditation recommendations in sufficient detail to support decision-making. The report also clearly differentiates recommendations from requirements. The accreditation report isstructured in such a way to include sufficiently detailed information on the levelof fulfilment (score and comments) against each criterion to support accreditation decision-making. The report includes introductory part about the program,its strengths, shortcomings found, and observations. In this way, the report
clearly differentiates between requirements and recommendations. The final
editing process by the editorial team of the report manuscript is also carried out
to ensure consistency in the use of terminology. Refer to RPEA Chapter 2.5.4,
especially under sub-section Step EGA-26 Program Final Report. Rules are
established to lead to accreditation decisions. Fulfilment to all criteria results in“Accredited” status, whereas any deficiency results in “Not- Accredited”. Weakness against any criterion results in “Accredited with Interim Evaluation” eitherwith or without on-site visit (RPEA Chapter 2.6 on Accreditation Decisions).

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

60

Regarding decision making, Accreditation Council is IABEE’s decision making
body, whose membership consists of 5-7 intellectual and influential members
representing academics, professional societies, and industries. They do nothave conflict of interest with programs and are not evaluators in that academic
year. Refer to RPARC Chapter 4. Accreditation statistics from 2016 to 2019cycles show a total of 45 programs have been evaluated. About 38% of programs evaluated for the first time received “Accredited” status with full validity
period, while most programs (56%) are required to undergo Interim Evaluation.
There are also 3 cases (7%) where a program received “Not Accredited” status.
In 2020-2021 cycle which was concluded on 31 March 2021, IABEE evaluated
new accreditation request from 26 engineering programs. In conclusion, only 3
programs were accredited with full validity of 5 years, 10 programs accreditedwith interim evaluation, and 13 others not accredited. The top reason for notaccredited status was unresolved deficiency in fulfilling minimum proportion of
20% mathematics and discipline-related basic sciences in curriculum as required by the criteria.
These statistics reflects the capacity of IABEE to deal with difficult situations
and to come up with decisions beneficial to the engineering community in thelonger term.
8.2. Graduate Outcomes & Substantial Equivalence
IABEE learning outcomes criteria applied for accreditation is substantiallyequivalent to Washington Accord Graduate Attribute exemplars. IABEE has
conducted a gap analysis to conclude the substantial equivalence. Analysis of
Substantial Equivalence with the 2013 Washington Accord Graduate Attributes
has been submitted to WA Executives in 2020 and attached in Appendix F.
In practice, IABEE accreditation criteria gives freedom to programs to establish
their own learning outcomes by taking account of their respective institution’svalues, visions and missions, their resources, stakeholders’ needs, and otherconsiderations. However, IABEE criterion 1.3 on Program Learning Outcomes
items (a) to (j) shall be satisfactorily covered by programs’ learning outcomes.
IABEE Criteria Guide on Criterion 1.3 states that program shall establish its own
learning outcomes based on the autonomous professional profile to be acquired. The learning outcomes shall cover all graduate competences from (a)to (j) as mentioned in Common Criteria 1.3(3), which are expressed in such a
way to give flexibility to program.
8.3. Sustainability & Management
8.3.1. Data & Statistics
Sustainability and adequate management of IABEE and its accreditation system can be seen from statistics of institutions and programs that have sought
accreditation in Indonesia. Until 2019 when IABEE was accepted as Provisional
Signatory of the Washington Accord, there were 11 institutions (private andSelf Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

61

public) that requested accreditation for their respective programs. With the mostrecent 2020-2021 evaluation cycle, a total of 16 institutions have participatedGeneral Accreditation for their respective programs. If both, General and Provisional Accreditations are considered, by 2020-2021 evaluation cycle there are
already 35 institutions applied for IABEE accreditation.
In terms of programs, IABEE has evaluated in total 83 programs for General
Accreditation and 77 for Provisional Accreditation. These figures include programs evaluated in the on-going 2021-2022 evaluation cycle.
Every year, IABEE conduct Awareness Seminar for at least 3 times, which are
self-organized by IABEE. In addition, IABEE keeps receiving request from HEIs
and national engineering program associations throughout the year to explain
IABEE Accreditation in their events. In 2021 alone, IABEE has conducted 8
such seminars up to early September.
Growing number of eligible programs due to governmental support on improving internal quality assurance and policy on achieving international recognition
through accreditation is also anticipated to increase sustainability.
8.3.2. Re-Evaluation Cycle
Until 2021-2022 evaluation cycle there has been no program having gone
through a full accreditation cycle and been re-evaluated. Prior to 2019-2020
evaluation cycle, re-evaluation period was 6 years. But since 2019-2020 it has
been modified to 5 years. The first re-evaluation of programs is expected in
2022-2023 cycle (2 programs accredited in 2016).
8.3.3. Quality Assurance & Training
IABEE ensures the depth of considerations observed during the accreditation
visit and decision-making meeting enable appropriate accreditation outcomesto be achieved for a range of evidence of program quality.
Accreditation visit serves as a medium to verify the level of fulfilment to eachcriterion previously reviewed based on program’s Self Evaluation Report andits supporting evidence. Evaluation team is given enough time (3 days) to observe on-site evidence including relevant documents and records, interview key
persons and program stakeholders, check learning facilities and environment
in order to confirm and improve the accuracy of previously made judgement.
Furthermore, post-visit chances are still given to program under evaluation to
make improvements on identified shortcomings to the extent possible. Any improvement effort backed up by reasonable evidence will be considered in the
Final Evaluation Report.
To improve consistency of judgement, Final Evaluation Report of all programs
evaluated in the same accreditation cycle are harmonized within and acrossengineering disciplines before final recommendations on accreditation decision

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

62

are made. Finally, a decision-making meeting by Accreditation Council is convened to ensure that all processes have been conducted according to the rules
and procedures and to take final decision on accreditation status.
IABEE has established the mechanisms for the periodic review of accreditation
policies, criteria, and procedures. In fact, review of accreditation criteria, policies, and procedures can be conducted periodically or when emerging issues
arise. Matters related to accreditation criteria are discussed by Criteria Committee, while those related to accreditation policies and procedures are taken careof by Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. Review results recommended
by these committees are brought to Executive Committee meetings for further
discussions and approval.
IABEE ensures sufficient depth of training of program evaluators. This is evenstarted from applying high standards of recruitment and training process to ensure competent evaluators recruited from both academics and industrial practitioners. Furthermore, recruitment of evaluators is conducted by considering theneeds of various engineering disciplines. Candidate evaluators shall fulfill eligibility requirements before invited to join the training series. The training series
include: (1) Online Modular Training focusing on knowledge of accreditation
system and processes; (2) 2-day Face-to-face Training focusing on gaining
skills necessary to conduct on-site visit and to work as a part of an evaluation
team; (3) assignment as observer (evaluator-in-training) to give an experiencein a real on-site visit evaluation; and (4) Refresher Training focusing on sharing
experiences, discussing emerging issues, and updating information regarding
criteria and rules and procedures for on-going evaluation cycle.
A mechanism is established to evaluate the performance of candidate evaluators along the training series. This serves as the basis for considering the candidate’s appointment as program evaluator and for individual improvement purposes. A survey module has been developed in IABEE Online Evaluation System to enable survey during each evaluation cycle involving 360 degrees feedback to improve evaluators’ performance and overall accreditation system.
8.3.4. Leadership
IABEE ensures good leadership. In terms of organization, IABEE committees
are led by committee chairs who have high expertise in engineering education,engineering practice, and quality assurance. As for evaluation teams, eachteam is led by a team chair with expertise in education, practice, and quality
assurance and long experience in program evaluation.
8.3.5. Independence & Consistency of Decision Making
IABEE maintains independence and consistency of decision-making policies.
IABEE organization clearly distinguishes the roles and responsibilities for policy
making and accreditation decision making. The former is conducted by Executive Committee, while the later is by Accreditation Council, which is autonomous.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

63

Consistent accreditation decisions are ensured to be made sustainable by thefollowing mechanism: (1) evaluation report submitted by all evaluation teams
are disclosed, discussed, and harmonized in two harmonization steps, i.e.
within discipline and across disciplines in EAC meetings. (2) in the case of multiple teams assigned to an institution, harmonization of evaluation results between programs within the institution is made prior to submitting report; (3) recommendations of accreditation decisions by EAC are brought to Accreditation
Council meetings for verification to ensure that all processes leading to recommendations have been implemented according to the Rules and Procedures.
Having the recommendation verified, AC will make final accreditation decisions.
8.3.6. Wider IEA Involvement
Washington Accord is the first Education Accord under IEA applied by IABEE.
In near future, IABEE plans to seek for membership in other accords, such as
Sydney Accord. In June 2020, IABEE has been accepted as a Provisional Signatory member of the Seoul Accord – a multilateral agreement between accreditation agencies in the fields of computing and information technology.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

64

Schedule B2: Criteria for Admission to Full
Signatory Status in an Accord
4

The agency’s accreditation system and processes
conform to the Accord accepted practice as
exemplified by:a) High standards of professionalism, ethics andobjectivity;b) All involved in programme evaluation arecompetent in the agency’s accreditation system,
and are of high standing as educators orpractitioners in the profession;

Report analysis against Rules and Procedures
requirements
Meets Criteria?
Evidence provided/Comments
Yes/NoYes

Yes

x Establishment of IABEE accreditation
system involves key committees, namely
Executive Committee (EXC), Criteria
Committee (CC), Evaluation andAccreditation Committee (EAC),
Accreditation Council (AC), and Appeal
Board, each assumes different andspecific roles and responsibilities Refer tohttps://iabee.or.id/en/aboutiabee/organization/
x Policies and procedures on Code of
Ethics, Conflict of Interests, andConfidentiality are established andmaintained. Refer to Rules andProcedures of Accreditation-related
Committee (RPARC) Chapters 7, 8, and 9,
as well as Rules and Procedures of
Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA)
Chapter 2.1, Both, RPARC and RPEA
documents can be found athttps://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/rulesand-policies-for-evaluation-andaccreditation/
x Evaluation are conducted by Program
Evaluators from academic and industrial
background who have fulfilled eligibility
requirements. Refer to RPARC Chapter 3.
x High standards of recruitment and training
processes are established to ensurecompetent evaluators. Refer to RPARC
Chapter 6. The information is alsoavailable athttps://iabee.or.id/en/accrediation/requirem
ents-to-be-evaluators/
x Program evaluation processes aresupported by Online Evaluation System(OES) managed by competentadministration staff. IABEE OES isaccessible throughhttps://evaluation.iabee.or.id/. A valid pairof username and password is required toget access.
x Technical meeting inviting all
representatives from programs to beevaluated is convened at the beginning ofan evaluation cycle to ensure theprograms’ correct understanding ofaccreditation system and its requirements,
as well as smooth evaluation processes.
Evidence related to convened technicalmeetings (e.g. attendance list,
photographs) is provided upon visit.
x Refresher training inviting all evaluators
assigned for current evaluation cycle isconvened to strengthen evaluators’competency and share any recent update.

Refer to RPARC Chapter 6.6. Evidence
related to convened refresher trainings(e.g. attendance list, photographs) is
provided upon visit.
x Evaluation system includes feedback from
evaluated programs to improve evaluators’
performance and overall accreditation
system. Refer to RPEA Chapter 2.8.1. The
feedback mechanism is included in IABEE
OES. Evidence related to the feedback isprovided upon visit.

c) The defined evaluation standards and processes
are applied consistently and fairly;

Yes

x Mechanism exists to improve program
evaluators’ competency based on previous
performance and feedbacks. Refer to
RPARC Chapter 6.8
x Evaluation standards and processes are
outlined in RPEA Chapter 2.5. Consistencyof application of standards and processesof accreditation system is ensured closely
by related committees and secretariat, andby taking advantage of the use of On-line
Evaluation System with pre-defined andclear schedulex Referring to RPEA Chapter 2.5, theprocesses include harmonization
mechanisms conducted within and acrossengineering disciplines. These ensure
objectivity, fairness, and consistency for
accreditation decisions
x Referring to RPEA Chapter 2.8.2, anappeal mechanism is provided to ensure
fair accreditation decisions. Establishmentof an Appeal Committee by the Appeal
Board is outlined in RPARC Chapter 7.
x For fairness and transparency, evaluation
standards and processes are documented
and disclosed for general public through
IABEE website
x Recently IABEE has also published
Evaluation Guide for Programs and
Evaluators, which is available for downloadfrom the link:
https://iabee.or.id/wpcontent/uploads/2020/
02/Evaluation-Guide.pdfd) The accreditation report records and justifies
accreditation recommendations in sufficientdetail to support decision-making and clearly
differentiates recommendations fromrequirements.

Yes

x The accreditation report is structured insuch a way to include sufficiently detailed
information on the level of fulfilment (score
and comments) against each criterion to
support accreditation decision-making. The
report includes introductory part about the
program, its strengths, shortcomings
found, and observations. In this way, thereport clearly differentiates between
requirements and recommendations. Refer
to RPEA Chapter 2.5.4, especially undersub-section Step EGA-26 Program Final
Report.
x Rules are established to lead toaccreditation decisions. Fulfilment to all
criteria results in “Accredited” status,
whereas any deficiency results in “Not-e) The decision making body demonstrates
capacity to make difficult decisions in a way
likely to be beneficial to the engineeringcommunity in the longer term.

Yes

Accredited”. Weakness against any
criterion results in “Accredited with Interim
Evaluation” either with or without on-site
visit. Refer to RPEA Chapter 2.6 on
Accreditation Decisions.
x Accreditation Council is IABEE’s decision
making body, whose membership consistsof 5-7 intellectual and influential members
representing academics, professionalsocieties, and industries. They do not haveconflict of interest with programs and are
not evaluators in that academic year. Refer
to RPARC Chapter 4.
x Accreditation statistics from 2016 to 2019cycles show a total of 45 programs havebeen evaluated. About 38% of programs
evaluated for the first time received“Accredited” status with full validity period,
while most programs (56%) are required toundergo Interim Evaluation. There is also 3
cases (7%) where a program received “Not
Accredited” status. This, to a certain
extent, reflects the capacity of IABEE todeal with difficult situations and to come up
with decisions beneficial to the engineeringcommunity in the longer term.

5.

The graduate outcomes standard applied for
accreditation is substantially equivalent to the
Accord as exemplified by the Graduate Attributeexemplars as reflected in:a) The agency’s documented programme outcome
standard;b) The standard required of accredited programs inpractice.

6.

The agency and its accreditation system aresustainable and adequately managed as indicated
by:

Yes

Yes

x IABEE criteria on Program Learning
Outcomes items (a) to (j) cover all required
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that aresubstantially equivalent to the Accord’s
Graduate Attribute exemplars. Refer to thereport of Analysis of Substantial
Equivalence with the 2013 Version 3
Graduate Attributes – Washington Accord
submitted by PII/IABEE
x IABEE accreditation criteria gives freedom
to programs to establish their own learning
outcomes by taking account of theirrespective institution’s values, visions andmissions, their resources, stakeholders’needs, and other considerations. However,
IABEE criteria on Program Learning
Outcomes items (a) to (j) shall besatisfactorily covered by programs’learning outcomes. IABEE Criteria Guide
on Criterion 1.3 states that, “Program shallestablish its own learning outcomes basedon the autonomous professional profile tobe acquired. The learning outcomes shallcover all graduate competences from (a) to(j) as mentioned in Common Criteria
1.3(3), which are expressed in such a way
to give flexibility to Program”
x Discussion has concluded within PII on how
to give special recognition to graduates of
IABEE-accredited programs in to become
professional engineersa) Data from institutions offering educational
programs that have sought accreditation in thejurisdiction;

Yes

x IABEE makes use of the BAN-PT (national
agency conducting national compulsory
accreditation) database on Program
Operating Institutions/Higher Education
Institutions.
x Institutions offering engineering bachelor
programs in Indonesia that have sought
accreditation until 2019 cycle amount to 11
institutions, composed of both public andprivate institutions.

b) Data regarding programs that have sought
accreditation in the jurisdiction;

Yes

x Annual Awareness Seminars conducted inseveral major cities from 2014 to 2019
witnessed participants from more than 30
different institutions. Most of them
expressed an interest in seeking foraccreditation from IABEE for theirrespective programs.
x Engineering bachelor programs inIndonesia that are eligible to seek for
IABEE accreditation are those ranked A by
the National Accreditation Agency forHigher Education (BAN-PT). These
currently amount to 233 programs. Of
these, 45 programs have sought General
Accreditation (GA) until 2019 cyclex Apart from GA, IABEE offers Provisional
Accreditation (PA) started from 2018 cycle.
Substantial number of programs applying
for PA so far (50 programs) indicates highdemand for IABEE accreditation, and thus
its sustainability.

c) The extent to which programs have gone
through a full accreditation cycle and been reevaluated;Yesd) The depth of considerations observed during theaccreditation visit and decision making meeting
enabling appropriate accreditation outcomes tobe achieved for a range of evidence ofprogramme quality;

Yes

x Growing number of eligible programs dueto governmental support on improving
internal quality assurance and policy onachieving international recognition throughaccreditation is also anticipated to increasesustainability.
x Re-evaluation cycle was of 6-year period
but has now been modified to 5-year from2019. The first re-evaluation of programs
granted for 6-year accreditation will takeplace in 2022 (2 programs).
x Accreditation visit serves as a medium toverify the level of fulfilment to eachcriterion previously reviewed based onprogram’s Self Evaluation Report and its
supporting evidences. Evaluation team isgiven enough time (2.5 days) to observe
on-site evidences including relevant
documents and records, interview key
persons and program stakeholders, checklearning facilities and environment in order
to confirm and improve the accuracy ofpreviously made judgement. Furthermore,
post-visit chances are still given to
program under evaluation to make
improvements on identified shortcomings
to the extent possible. Any improvement
effort backed up by reasonable evidences
will be considered in the Final Evaluation
Report.

x To improve consistency of judgement,
Final Evaluation Reports of all programs
evaluated in the same accreditation cycle
are harmonized within and acrossengineering disciplines before final
recommendations on accreditation
decision are made.

e) Mechanisms for the periodic review ofaccreditation policies, criteria and procedures;

Yes

f)

Yes

The depth of training of programme assessors;x Finally, a decision making meeting by
Accreditation Council is convened toensure that all processes have been
conducted according to the rules andprocedures and to take final decision on
accreditation status.
x Review of accreditation criteria, policies,
and procedures can be conductedperiodically or when emerging issues
arise. Matters related to accreditation
criteria are discussed by Criteria
Committee, while those related toaccreditation policies and procedures aretaken care by Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee. Review results recommended
by these committees are brought to
Executive Committee meetings for further
discussions and approval. Refer tohttps://iabee.or.id/en/aboutiabee/organization/
x High standards of recruitment and training
process are established to ensurecompetent evaluators recruited from bothacademics and industrial practitioners.
x Recruitment of evaluators is conducted byconsidering the needs of various
engineering disciplines. Candidate
evaluators shall fulfill eligibility
requirements before invited to join the
training series.
x The training series include: (1) Online
Modular Training focusing on knowledge ofaccreditation system and processes; (2) 2day Face-to-face Training focusing on
gaining skills necessary to conduct on-site
visit and to work as a part of an evaluation
team; (3) assignment as observer(evaluator-in-training) to give anexperience in a real on-site visit
evaluation; and (4) Refresher Training
focusing on sharing experiences,discussing emerging issues, and updating
information regarding criteria and rules andprocedures for on-going evaluation cycle.
x A mechanism is established to evaluate
the performance of candidate evaluators
along the training series. This serves as
the basis for considering the candidate’s
appointment as program evaluator.
x Survey system is established during each
evaluation cycle involving 360 degrees
feedback to improve evaluators’
performance and overall accreditation
systemx More information on Program Evaluator
Training is provided in Refer to RPARC
Chapter 6.
g) The accreditation programme is led bypersonnel with appropriate expertise inengineering education, engineering practice andeducational quality assuranceYesh) Separation of policy making from accreditation
decision making

Yes

i)

Mechanism exists to make consistentaccreditation decisions sustainably;

Yes

j)

The agency’s history of involvement (if any) withother Education Accords under the International
Engineering Alliance with evidence of general,consistent conformance with publishedaccreditation policies and procedures.

Not yetx In terms of organization, IABEE
committees are led by committee chairs
who have high expertise in engineering
education, engineering practice, andquality assurance. As for evaluation teams,
each team is led by a team chair withexpertise in education, practice, andquality assurance and long experience inprogram evaluation.
x IABEE organization clearly distinguishes
the roles and responsibilities for policy
making and accreditation decision making.
The former are conducted by Executive
Committee, while the later are by
Accreditation Council, which isautonomous. Refer tohttps://iabee.or.id/en/aboutiabee/organization/
x Consistent accreditation decisions are
ensured to be made sustainable by thefollowing mechanism: (1) evaluation reportsubmitted by all evaluation teams aredisclosed, discussed, and harmonized in
two harmonization steps, i.e. within
discipline and across disciplines in EAC
meetings. (2) in the case of multiple teams
assigned to an institution, harmonization ofevaluation results between programs
within the institution is made prior to
submitting report; (3) recommendations ofaccreditation decisions by EAC arebrought to Accreditation Council meetingsfor verification to ensure that all processes
leading to recommendations have been
implemented according to the Rules andProcedures. Having verified, AC will makefinal accreditation decisions.
x Washington Accord is the first Education
Accord under IEA applied by IABEE. In
near future, IABEE plans to seek formembership in other accords, such as
Sydney Accord, Dublin Accord, and Seoul
Accord.

APPENDICES & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

APPENDIX A – Short CV of IABEE Executive
Committee Members
Misri Gozan
Chair of Executive Committee
Dr. Misri is a professor of chemical engineering. In August 2018, he’s elected as the Chair of IABEE Executive
Committee. He obtained his Dr.-Ing. degree from Technical University of Dresden, Germany in 2004, and M.
Tech. degree from Massey University, New Zealand.
Since 2007, he has been serving as assessor/evaluator
for the National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT). He was involved in the preparation of
IABEE establishment in 2014, and the development of
IABEE afterwards. He is a lecturer and researcher at Bioprocess Engineering Program, Chemical Engineering
Department, Universitas Indonesia. He is also the Director of Research Centre for Biomedical Engineering, atUniversitas Indonesia. He has research interests in thefield of bioprocess engineering and biochemical products
from biomass. He joined the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII) in 2004 and registered as IPU (Prominent
Professional Engineer) in 2016.

Muhammad Romli
Chair of International Committee
Dr. Romli is an agro-industrial senior engineer and professor of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB). He received his master’s degree in biotechnology and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of Queensland, Australia.
Romli has been working for Bogor Agricultural University
with more than 30 years lecturing experience in the areasof industrial pollution control and management, cleaner
industrial production, and industrial ecology. He hasserved many positions in the university, including Head
Division of Environmental Engineering and Management(1993-2000), Director of Center for Development of Safe
Agro-industrial Processes (1997-2000), and Head Department of Agro-industrial Technology (2000-2008). He
is also an active member of PII, serving as Chair of PII
Chapter for Agroindustry in 2015. Romli has an extensive
experience as auditor in quality assurance of education,
quality and environmental management systems (ISO
9001 and 14001), and as assessor of National Committee of Accreditation for Research and Development Institution (KNAPPP).

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro
Chair of Accreditation Council
Emeritus Professor in Mechanical Engineering, Institut
Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Dr. Satryo is the President of
the Indonesian Academy of Sciences. He has a long anddistinguished academic and public service career. He
was a faculty member of the Mechanical Engineering Department of ITB than 30 years since 1980. He has served
many positions in ITB including Chairman of the Department (1992-1995) and Vice Dean of Academic Affairs(1995-1998). From 1999-2007 Satryo served as Director
General of Higher Education of the Ministry of National
Education, Indonesia. He obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at
Berkeley in 1985. His research areas include tribology,
fracture mechanics, finite element analysis, mechanicaldesign, and higher education development and policy.
He is a Fellow of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences
since 2008. He served also as visiting professor in mechanical engineering at Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan. In April 2018 he was appointed as Special
Advisor to Coordinating Minister of Maritime Affairs, Republic of Indonesia. He was the former Chair of IABEE
Steering Committee in 2015-2016.

Sudjarwadi
Chair of Appeal Board
Emeritus Professor Dr. Sudjarwadi was a civil engineer
in construction industry in 1970 to 1972. In 1974 he returned to his alma mater, Gadjah Mada University(UGM), to become a lecturer. After 37 years conducting
research and teaching, in 2012 he retired as professor
emeritus of civil engineering. He currently teaches aspart time professor in UGM and Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) at Yogyakarta. He has long and distinguished career, both in academic and public service. He
was an assistant director for UGM’s Inter University Center for Engineering in 1988-1991. In 1991 he served as
Assistant Dean of Faculty of Engineering. In 1994 to1999 he was appointed as Secretary of Directorate General of Higher Education. Returning to UGM he served
as the Dean and subsequently the Vice Rector for Academic Affairs. In 2007 was appointed as the Rector of
UGM. After retirement, in 2013 he supervises a board forIndonesian International Education Foundation andserves as Independent Commissioner in PT Sri Rejeki
Isman Tbk, a textile company considered as the best integrated textile industry in Southeast Asia. He assisted
the Ministry of Education and Culture as chair of Education Committee in 2019. He was a key member of Steering Committee that contributes to IABEE during the initial
phase of establishment.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Tjipto Kusumo

Chair of Finance Committee
Engineer Tjipto graduated from ITB with a degree in Engineering Physics in 1974. He has an extensive professional experience, starting in Elnusa company where heserved as Manager of Instrument & Control Division. He
moved to Tripatra Engineering company and retired fromit in 2005, after serving several positions, including Technical Development Director, Off-Shore Projects Marketing Director, and Operation Senior Director. Later heserved as Advisor for EPC companies and presently heis a commissioner for Java Energy Semesta, a CNG operation company. He also has academic related activities, including 6 years as practitioner lecturer forEngineering
Physics Department of ITB. He also amember of Advisory Board of ITB Engineering Physics
Program and Environmental Engineering Program of Islamic University of Indonesia Yogyakarta. He is also an
active member of PII, where he co-founded PII Chapter
for Engineering Physics in 1997. He was also the Headof the Chapter and the Head of Certification Committee
as well as Continual Professional Development Committee. His professional titles as engineer include PII’s IPM(Professional Engineer), APEC Engineer, as well as
ASEAN Engineer

Arief Syaichu Rohman
Chair of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee
Dr. Arief obtained his bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB). He received an M.Eng.Sc. degree in Systems & Control fromthe University of New South Wales. He finished his Ph.D.
in the same field in 2005 from the University of Newcastle, Australia. He worked for the Research & Development Division at PT IPTN, the Indonesian aircraft industry, in 1990 to 1992. Since 1992 he joined ITB and has
been teaching undergraduate and graduate courses
in Electrical Engineering at the School of Electrical Engineering & Informatics. He was the Chair of the Undergraduate Program in 2011-2015 and is currently the
Chair of Quality Control Circle in the school. He joined
PII and awarded IPM (Professional Engineer) title in2017. He is also an active member of FORTEI (Indonesia
Higher Education Forum in Electrical Engineering) where
he served as Vice Chair in 2012-2014 and Chair in 20142016). He attended program evaluator training in JABEE
Japan in 2015 and both IDEAL and PEV training in ABET
USA in 2017, respectively. He is a member Control System Society of IEEE. He joined IABEE in 2015 and presently serves as EAC Chair of IABEE.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Tjokorde Walmiki Samadhi
Chair of Criteria Committee
Dr. Samadhi is an associate professor in Chemical Engineering at the Faculty of Industrial Technology at Institut
Teknologi Bandung (ITB). He served as the Chemical
Engineering Undergraduate Program Chair in 20122015, Vice Dean of Academic Affairs in 2015-2020, andcurrently as the Chemical Engineering Graduate Program Chair. He presided as Undergraduate Curricular
Section Coordinator of the Indonesian Association ofChemical Engineering Higher Education (APTEKIM) in
2012-2015, during which he coordinated the formulationof national core curriculum recommendations for undergraduate chemical engineering programs in Indonesia.
He has been a member of the IABEE Evaluation and Accreditation Committee and Program Evaluator since2015. Dr. Samadhi received his Bachelor’s and Master
degrees in Chemical Engineering from ITB, and PhD in
Ceramic Science from Alfred University in New YorkState, USA in 2003. His academic interests include thedevelopment of oxide materials, utilization of inorganic
waste materials, high-temperature thermochemical systems, and statistical experimental design and analysis.
He received the distinction of 3rd Place in National Most
Achieved Program Chairs in 2013 from the Ministry of
Education and Culture for implementing outcome-based
education and thorough improvements of the Chemical
Engineering Program at ITB, which led to ABET accreditation in 2010.

Heru Dewanto
PII President, IABEE Executive Committee member
Dr. Heru is the current President of Indonesia Institute ofEngineers (PII). He is a civil engineer by training. He received bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Gadjah Mada University (UGM), an M.Sc.Eng. degree intransport planning and engineering from the University ofLeeds, and doctoral degree in strategic managementfrom Graduate School of Economics of the University ofIndonesia (UI). He also holds Senior Professional Engineer (IPU) title from PII. He has more than 21 years ofexperiences in infrastructure investment and businessdevelopment, ranging from power, toll roads, railways,
light rapid transit, wastewater treatment, clean watersupply, terminals to housing in various global corporations and national enterprises. He is currently the President Director of PT. Cirebon Energi Prasarana, an independent power producer for 1x1000 MW ultra-supercritical clean coal technology to be firstly applied in Indonesia. Prior to serving PII as president, he was PII Vice
President in 2015-2018.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Illah Sailah
Chair of Public Affairs Committee
Dr. Illah is associate professor in agroindustrial process
technology at Bogor Agricultural University (IPB). She received bachelor’s degree in prost-harvest technology
from IPB (1981), master’s in chemical engineering fromITB (1986), and doctoral degree in chemical engineeringfrom University of Queensland (1994). Apart from academic career, she has served various managerial positions in the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC).
She was a key person and one of the initiators of the establishment of IABEE during her tenure as Director of
Learning and Student Affairs of the MoEC in 2011-2014.
She was also the first IABEE Chair of Executive Committee from 2015 to 2018. In addition to engineering, Dr. Illah pays a considerable interest in higher education development and research. She played a significant role inthe development of Competence-based National Curriculum for undergraduate programs; a national project of
the MoEC in 2005.

Tresna Soemardi

Executive Committee member
Dr. Tresna is professor in mechanical-biomechanical,
product innovation, design, prototyping and development
at Universitas Indonesia (UI). Apart from his academic
career, he also serves as a consultant for PLN, the stateowned electricity generating company, in 2009-2012. He
was also a commissioner for Commission for Supervision of Business Competion in 2007-2011. Tresna holds
two bachelor’s degrees, i.e. in mechanical engineeringfrom ITB and economics/financial management from UI.
He also has a M.Sc. degree in environmental studies,
environmental science–human ecology and environmental economic from UI. His Ph.D. is in the field of appliedmechanics and advanced composite material. Tresna isalso a member of several professional associations, including ASME, SAE, SME-CME, and SAMPE

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Faizal Safa
PII Executive Director,
IABEE Executive Committee member
Engineer Faizal is the Chairman of Immara Infoglobal, anational management consultant company headquartered in Jakarta. He is an industrial engineer by training,a senior professional engineer (IPU), and active memberof PII. He has been serving PII for various positions, including Vice Chair for Continuous Professional Development committee, member for Industrial Company Development task-force under the PII Chapter for Industrial
Engineers, and the most recent appointment as PII Executive Director. He is also the chair of Industrial Management and Engineering Graduates Association.

Sri Hartati
Executive Committee member
Dr. Sri Hartati is professor in computer science at Facultyof Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gadjah Mada University (UGM). She received bachelor’s degree in computer science from UGM in 1986. Her master’s and doctoral degrees were obtained from University of New
Brunswick, Canada, also in the field of computer sciencein 1990 and 1996, respectively. Her research interests
cover the fields of intelligent systems including
knowledge-based system, reasoning system, expert system, fuzzy system, pattern recognition, decision support
system, medical computing, and software computation
using ANN, fuzzy logic, and genetic algorithm. Besides
teaching and conducting research, she is also active inseveral professional associations, including Computer
Science, Electronics and Instrumentation Support Society, Indonesian Physics Society, Indonesian Mathematical Society, and APTIKOM, which is National Higher Education Association for Informatics and Computer Science. She represents APTIKOM in IABEE Executive
Committee to pave the way for IABEE’s future membership in Seoul Accord.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Berlian Kushari
Secretary-General
Engineer Berlian is a civil engineer by training and a registered professional engineer of PII. He received hisbachelor’s engineering degree from Gadjah Mada University in 2001 and master’s degree (M. Eng.) from
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, in 2005. He served
as a consultant to the Ministry of Public Works, Directorate General of Highway Administration for various
road safety and pavement management projects in2007-2017. He also contributed to the development ofprovincial and national transportation systems planning
conducted by the Ministry of Transportation in 20112012. He has an academic position in the Faculty of Civil
Engineering and Planning of the Islamic University of Indonesia in Yogyakarta and was appointed secretary ofUndergraduate Civil Engineering Program in 2014-2018.
In 2015, Berlian joined IABEE Evaluation and Accreditation Committee. He was appointed to serve as IABEE
Secretary-General since 2019.

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

APPENDIX B – Accreditation Criteria for Bachelor Engineering Programs

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEEAccreditation Criteria
for Engineering
Programs
Developed according to the
Graduate Attribute Exemplars of
the Washington Accord

Version 2020

Common Criteria
Criteria Guide
Discipline Criteria

Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
an autonomous subsidiary of the Institute of Engineers Indonesia (PII)

w: iabee.or.id
e: info@iabee.or.id

1Document Control

The International Common Criteria and Criteria Guide version 2020 for Engineering Programs
have been approved by IABEE Executive Committee on 16 January 2020.
This 2020 version document replaces the version published in 2015. Changes made in thisversion are as follows:oOverall grammatical checks and revisions,oInclusion of definition of parallel Programs in accordance to the PSDKU (Program Studi diLuar Kampus Utama) scheme,oAddition of the modifier 'complex engineering problem' in graduate competence
criterion point (d),oSimplification of Criteria Guide for sub-criterion 2.3.2.,oAddition of facility safety aspect in the description of sub-criterion 2.4.,oEditorial restructuring of Criteria Guide for sub-criterion 3.1., ando

Editorial restructuring of Criteria Guide for sub-criterion 3.2.

2

Contents

Common Criteria …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3

Preamble……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3

1.
2.
3.
4.

Orientation of the Graduate Competence…………………………………………………………..
Learning Implementation ……………………………………………………………………………………
Assessment of the Learning Outcomes ………………………………………………………………
Continual Improvement………………………………………………………………………………………

3
4
5
5

Criteria Guide ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

6

0.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Preamble ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Orientation of the Graduate Competence …………………………………………………………
Learning Implementation ……………………………………………………………………………………
Assessment of the Learning Outcomes ……………………………………………………………….
Continual Improvement ……………………………………………………………………………………..

6
8
12
19
20

Discipline Criteria…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

21

Agricultural and/or Bio-Systems Engineering in Bachelor Programs ………………………….

21

Agro-Industrial and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………

22

Chemical, Biochemical, and Similarly-named Engineering Programs …………………………

23

Civil and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………………………

24

Earth and Energy Engineering Programs ……………………………………………………………………

25

Electrical, Computer, Communications, Telecommunication and Similarly-named
Engineering Programs ………………………………………………………………………………………………

26

Engineering Physics and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………

27

Environmental and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………

28

Geodetics, Geomatics, and Similarly-named Engineering Programs……………………………

29

Industrial and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ………………………………………………

30

Materials, Metallurgical and Similarly-named Engineering Programs…………………………

31

Mechanical and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ……………………………………………

32

Nuclear and Similarly-named Engineering Programs …………………………………………………

33

Ocean and Similarly-named Engineering Programs ……………………………………………………

34

General Engineering Programs ………………………………………………………………………………….

35

3

Common Criteria

Preamble
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) builds this set of
Criteria using outcome-based education approach. All engineering education programs
seeking international accreditation from IABEE shall fulfill the following Criteria.

1. Orientation of the Graduate Competence
1.1. Program shall define the profile of graduates to be envisaged as autonomous
professionals by considering country’s potential resources, cultures, needs andinterests.
1.2. Program shall inform its students and faculty with the envisaged autonomous
professional profile and widely publicize it.
1.3. Program shall establish its expected Learning Outcomes which consist of abilities toutilize knowledge, skills, resources and attitudes as described in the following (a) to (j)items to be acquired by the student at the time of completion of the study:(a)an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or materials sciences,
information technology and engineering to acquire comprehensive
understanding of engineering principles,(b)

an ability to design components, systems, and/or processes to meet desiredneeds within realistic constraints in such aspects as law, economic, environment,social, politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as to recognize and/or
utilize the potential of local and national resources with global perspective,(c)an ability to design and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data to strengthen the engineering judgment,(d)an ability to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering
problems,(e)an ability to apply methods, skills and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices,(f)an ability to communicate effectively in oral and written manners,(g)an ability to plan, accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given constraints,(h)an ability to work in multidisciplinary and multicultural team,Common Criteria

4

(i)

an ability to be accountable and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems, and(j)an ability to understand the need for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues.

2. Learning Implementation
2.1. Curriculum
2.1.1.

Curriculum shall include the following subject areas:(a)Mathematics and discipline-specific natural sciences(b)Discipline-specific engineering science and technology(c)Information and communication technology(d)Engineering design and problem based experiments(e)General education, which includes morality, ethics, socio-culture,environment and management

2.1.2.

Curriculum development shall consider input from Program stakeholders.

2.1.3.

Curriculum shall indicate the structural relationship and contributions of thesubject courses to fulfill Learning Outcomes. Procedures, including syllabus,
shall be established and documented so that the expected learning process canbe implemented in a controlled way.

2.1.4.

Curriculum shall ensure that the students are exposed to engineering practices
and major design project experience using engineering standards and multiple
realistic constraints based on knowledge and skills acquired in precedingcourse work.

2.2. Faculty
2.2.1.

The Program shall provide necessary number, qualification and competence of
faculty members for performing learning process, including planning,delivering, evaluating, and continually improving its effectiveness in order toachieve the Learning Outcomes.

2.2.2.

The Program shall ensure that faculty members are aware of the relevance andimportance of their roles and contributions to the Learning Outcomes.

2.3. Students and Academic Atmosphere2.3.1.

The Program shall define and implement an entry standard for both new andtransfer students, as well as transfer of credits.

2.3.2.

Program shall define and implement ongoing monitoring of student progressand evaluation of student performance. Procedures of quality assurance shallbe established to ensure that adequacy of standards is achieved in allassessments.

2.3.3.

The Program shall create and maintain good academic atmosphere conducive
to successful learning.

5

2.3.4.

The Program shall promote co-curricular activities for character building andenhancing the students’ awareness on the country’s needs.

2.4. Facilities
Program shall ensure the availability, accessibility, and safety of facilities for effectivefunctioning of the learning process and attainment of the Learning Outcomes.
2.5. Institutional Responsibility
2.5.1.

The Program shall define and manage the process for the provision of theeducational service, including education design, curriculum development anddelivery, and assessment of learning.

2.5.2.

The Program Operating Institution shall make efforts to establish resources,
supporting service and cooperation with stakeholders on research, education
and/or service to community with due consideration to existing local
resources.

3. Assessment of the Learning Outcomes
3.1. The Program shall ensure that an effective assessment process of Learning Outcomesbased on established performance indicators is implemented and maintained atplanned intervals using appropriate methods.
3.2. The Program shall ensure that graduates of the program achieve all expected Learning
Outcomes.

4. Continual Improvement
4.1. Based on Program Learning Outcomes assessment results, the Program shall perform
an evaluation at planned intervals with output in the form of decisions to improve theeffectiveness of the educational process and resources.
4.2. The Program shall maintain documents and records related to the implementation ofevaluation, the results and their follow-up.

6

Criteria Guide

0. Preamble
The Indonesian Accreditation
Board for Engineering Education(IABEE) establishes this set of
Criteria using outcome-based
education approach. All
engineering education programs
seeking international
accreditation from IABEE shallfulfill the following Criteria.

0.1. IABEE Common Criteria (CC) are established as aframework to perform accreditation of higher
education programs. These CC comprise ofelements that must be fulfilled by the Study
Program to be accredited.
0.2. Programs to be accredited are four-yearengineering Bachelor Programs or other higher
education programs which IABEE considers as
equivalent.
0.3. The Program is not restricted to single Programs
operated by a Department or Faculty. A Program
may be formed and/or operated by multiple
Departments / Faculties. Programs may include
matriculated learning activities outside of its home
campus, in conjunction with other higher
education institutions.
0.4. In cases where a Program is offered as parallelclasses, evaluation by IABEE shall encompass allparallel classes. In cases where multiple Programsof the same nomenclature are offered in multiple
locations by the same Program-Operating
Institution (such as Programs establishedaccording to the Program Studi di Luar Kampus
Utama (PKSDU) scheme as defined by theIndonesian Ministerial Regulation of Peraturan
Menteri Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi
No. 1/ 2017), evaluation by IABEE shall treat theparallel Programs as separate entities.
0.5. The Program shall define the profile ofautonomous professionals to be fostered, anddefine the knowledge, skills, and attitudes as
Learning Outcomes that graduates are expected tomaster upon completion of their study.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

7
0.6. The Program should promote self-reliance,
welfare, advancement, fairness and justice for thenational and global community in general, basedon science, technology, culture and sustainableutilization of natural resources.
0.7. The Program is required to design the curriculum
systematically to ascertain the achievement of
Program Learning Outcomes. Student and faculty
should be aware of these Learning Outcomes.
0.8. The Program must disclose its Learning Outcomesto the public. The Program is also required toengage in continual improvement and at the sametime to consider the sustainability of operation.
0.9. Common Criteria consist of 4 elements, following
the management approach of PDCA (Plan-DoCheck-Act) continual improvement cycle. Criterion
1 describes the orientation of the graduate
competence, Criterion 2 explains the learning
implementation, Criterion 3 explains theassessment of the expected Learning Outcomes,
and Criterion 4 explains the continual
improvements.
0.10. In addition to these Common Criteria, Program
seeking for accreditation shall fulfill also theCategory and Discipline Criteria, as well as
eligibility requirements and accreditation policies
stipulated in the Rules and Procedures of
Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA).

8

1. Orientation of
the Graduate
Competence
1.1. The Program shall define
the profile of graduates tobe envisaged as
Autonomous Professionals
by considering country’s
potential resources,
cultures, needs andinterests.

1.1.1. The Program is required to define the Profile of
the Autonomous Professionals intended tofoster as its educational objectives, by taking
account of:(1) Local and/or national resources, such as
human and physical resources.
(2) Local and/or national wisdoms,(3) Local and national needs and interests(4) Traditions, vision and mission of theeducation institution
1.1.2. The Program should demonstrate the processof establishing and periodic reviewing of theAutonomous Professional Profiles, including the
involvements of the stakeholders.

1.2. The Program shall inform its
students and faculty of theenvisaged Autonomous
Professional Profile andwidely publicize it.

1.2.1. The envisaged Autonomous Professional Profile
shall be informed to students and faculty andmade accessible to the general public.

1.3. The Program shall establish
its expected Learning
Outcomes which consist ofabilities to utilize
knowledge, skills, resources
and attitudes as describedin the following (a) to (j)graduate competences tobe acquired by the student
at the time of completion of
the study.

1.3.1. The Program shall establish its own Program
Learning Outcomes based on the Autonomous
Professional Profile to be acquired. The Learning
Outcomes shall cover all graduate competencesfrom (a) to (j) as referred to in Common Criteria 1(3), which are expressed in such a way to provide
flexibility to Program. It is important to note that
the Learning Outcomes shall also include
Category and Discipline Criteria

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

1.3.2. The Program shall establish procedures to
conduct periodic review of the Learning
Outcomes.

9
1.3.a. Ability to apply knowledgeof mathematics, natural
and/or materials sciences,
information technology
and engineering to acquirecomprehensive
understanding ofengineering principles.

1.3.a.1. Engineering Principles refers to ideas, rules
and concepts to be considered when solving
an engineering problem. The set of principles
may vary among engineering disciplines
depending on the uniqueness of systems,
problems, ethical issues, and problem-solving
methods of the discipline.

1.3.b. Ability to designcomponents, systems,
and/or processes to meetdesired needs withinrealistic constraints in suchaspects as law, economic,
environment, social,politics, health and safety,
sustainability as well as torecognize and/or utilize
the potential of local andnational resources with
global perspective.

1.3.b.1. The ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes is the hallmark competenceof engineering education. Design implies theability to utilize multidimensional thinking
with knowledge of global perspective todevelop components, systems, and/or
processes to achieve specific objectives. It is
not limited to drawing a plan, but also refers
to the synthesis of various academic
disciplines and technologies to pursue
practicable solutions to a problem that does
not necessarily have one correct answer.

1.3.c. Ability to design andconduct laboratory and/or
field experiments as wellas to analyze and interpret
data to strengthen theengineering judgment.

1.3.c.1. This competence refers to the design andapplication of laboratory and/or field
experiments within the broad context ofengineering practice such as problem
identification, testing of potential solution
ideas, solution implementation plan, andother design-related activities.

1.3.a.2. Attainment of comprehensive understandingof engineering principles is indicated bymastery of mathematics, basic sciences (suchas physics, biology, chemistry) andinformation technology relevant to thediscipline of the Program, and the ability toutilize the aforementioned knowledge.

1.3.b.2. Design also involves a process of optimization
which considers multiple realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, and sustainability
as well as utilization of the knowledge ofculture, society and available resources.

1.3.c.2. Experiments may include activities in physicallaboratories, computer simulations, and field
experiments.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

10
1.3.d. Ability to identify,
formulate, analyze, andsolve complex engineering
problems.

1.3.d.1. Engineering problem solving involves iterative
activities incorporating the definition of the
problem,developmentofsolutionalternatives, selection of best alternative,
application of solution, evaluation andvalidation of solution against multiple
problem constraints, and revision of solution.
1.3.d.2. This competence should include the ability to:• utilize techniques and methods for
performing engineering works comprisingsurvey, data analysis, planning, design,operation and maintenance.
• apply the engineering logical thinking forhandling both of the design andtroubleshooting context.
• utilize creative/innovative thinking andknowledge creation/co-creation skills.

1.3.e. Ability to apply methods,
skills and modern
engineering tools
necessary for engineering
practices

1.3.e.1. The Program shall have a clear definition of
the methods, skills, and modern engineering
tools appropriate for its level of study andengineering discipline, and how these arelearnt throughout the curriculum. Thisdefinition shall include:• ability to select a method and tools with
their strength and limitation characteristics
for a given problem• ability to utilize and adjust the method andtools to suit specific problems

1.3.f. Ability to communicate
effectively in oral andwritten manners

1.3.f.1. This competence indicates the need of active
and effective communication skills; sociocultural perspective should be considered forthe acceptability and workability of theimplementation of engineering works.
1.3.f.2. These oral and written communications
should include the use of engineering
standards.
1.3.f.3. The Program shall ensure that a measurable
portion of the oral and/or written
communications involve the use ofinternationally recognized languages.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

11
1.3.g. Ability to plan,
accomplish, and evaluate
tasks under given
constraints

1.3.g.1. This competence refers to the ability to plan,
accomplish, and evaluate tasks associatedwith any curricular activity deemed
appropriate by Program for its assessment andevaluation. The assessment should focus moreon the students’ task management skills
rather than the substantial outcome of thetask itself.

1.3.h. Ability to work in
multidisciplinary andmulticultural teams

1.3.h.1. This competence refers to the ability to work
collaboratively with people from different
technical disciplines, fields and cultural
backgrounds.
1.3.h.2. Multicultural concerns such as tolerance,
mutual understanding, appreciation ondifferences in building a synergy, areimportant considerations for the success of ateamwork.
1.3.h.3. Multidiscipline circumstances may coverdisciplines within engineering and nonengineering disciplines.

1.3.i. Ability to be accountable
and responsible to thesociety and adhere toprofessional ethics insolving engineering
problems

1.3.i.1. This competence refers to the understandingon the following issues and the ability toelaborate, discuss, present argument, and/or
respond accordingly:•••

1.3.j. Ability to understand theneed for life-long learning,
including access to therelevant knowledge ofcontemporary issues

the impact of technology of related
engineering fields on public welfare,environmental safety and sustainable
development
the engineering ethics and regulations
the engineering history and standard &code philosophy in design.

1.3.j.1. The Program is required to assist students tobecome accustomed to independent andcontinuous learning through lectures,
research, experiments, practical training,
exercises and assignment.
1.3.j.2. This competence refers to understanding
the necessity of continuous professional
development, an ability to acquire updated
information and knowledge, and anawareness of the importance of sharing
knowledge.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide12

2. Learning
Implementation
2.1. Curriculum
2.1.1. Curriculum of the Program
shall include the following
subject areas:a) Mathematics anddiscipline-specific naturalsciencesb) Discipline-specificengineering science andtechnologyc)Information andcommunication
technologyd) Engineering design andproblem-based
experimentse) General education, which
includes morality, ethics,
socio-culture,environment andmanagement

2.1.1.1. The Program shall ensure that the curriculum
meets the abovementioned subject areas
appropriate to engineering regardless of thesubject/course names. The Program mustensure that the curriculum devotes adequate
attention and time to each component,
consistent with the Program Learning
Outcomes, which include (expressed aspercentage of total coursework load insemester credits (SKS)):• A minimum of 20% of a combination ofcollege level mathematics and basic
sciences (some with experimental
experience) appropriate to the discipline.
Basic sciences are defined as courses suchas biological, chemical, or physical sciences.
• A minimum of 40% of engineering topics,
consisting of engineering sciences andengineering design appropriate to thestudent's field of study. The engineeringsciences have their roots in mathematics
and basic sciences but carry knowledge
further toward creative application. Thesestudies provide a bridge between
mathematics and basic sciences on the one
hand and engineering practices on theother. Engineering design is the process ofdevising a system, component, or process
to meet desired needs. It is a decisionmaking process, in which the basic
sciences,mathematics,
andtheengineering sciences are applied to convert
resources optimally to meet the statedneeds.
• A maximum of 30% general education
components that complement thetechnical content of the curriculum and areconsistent with the Learning Outcomes.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

13
2.1.2. Curriculum development
shall consider input from
Program stakeholders.

2.1.2.1. The Program should demonstrate on how todevelop the curriculum and to assure therequirement of the society, industry andprofessional fields.
2.1.2.2. There must be a documented, systematicallyutilized, and effective procedure describing
the way to meet the need of stakeholders andto review the curriculum periodically to ensure
its consistency with the institutional mission,
the stakeholders needs, and these criteria.
2.1.2.3. The Program should provide sufficient
opportunity for the stakeholders to discuss
Program educational objectives/Profile ofAutonomous Professionals, and to foster
closer collaboration.

2.1.3. The Curriculum must
indicate the structural
relationship andcontributions of thesubject courses to fulfill
Learning Outcomes.
Procedures, including
syllabus, shall beestablished anddocumented so that the
expected learning process
can be implemented in acontrolled way.

2.1.3.1. The Program shall describe how thecurriculum content and structure are aligned
to enable the attainment of Program Learning
Outcomes by students.
2.1.3.2. The Program should describe how specificrequirements of each curricular area in
Common Criteria or Discipline Criteria can be
met, both in terms of load and depth of thecurricular content.
2.1.3.3. The Program shall establish syllabi for all
courses designed to satisfy mathematics,
science, and discipline-specific requirements
or any applicable criteria.
2.1.3.4. The Program is required to implement
educational activities for students to achieve
its Program Learning Outcomes.
2.1.3.5. The Program is required to systematicallydesign curriculum to enable students toachieve the expected Program Learning
Outcomes within the intended period ofstudy.
2.1.3.6. The Program is required to adequately informthe faculty and students through various
means such as guidebooks, orientation
programs etc. about the curriculum, and how
the Program Learning Outcomes will beattained through the learning process.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

14
2.1.4. The Curriculum shallensure that students are
exposed to engineering
practices and major design
project experience which
incorporates engineering
standards and multiple
realistic constraints basedon knowledge and skills
acquired in precedingcoursework.

2.1.4.1. The Program must provide opportunity tostudents to develop competence in practicalapplication of engineering skills, combining
theory and experience along with the use ofother relevant knowledge and skills. Training
in engineering practices may be supported byseveral courses (subjects) but should
culminate in a major design project. This major
project serves as a capstone for the program
which requires students to integrateknowledge and skills acquired in earlier
coursework.
2.1.4.2. The Program shall define curriculum subjects
to optimally support mainstream discipline
specific requirements and to provide
opportunity for students to acquire practicalexperience in implementing the subjects in an
actual working environment.

2.2. Faculty
2.2.1. The Program shall provide
necessary number,qualification andcompetence of faculty
members for performing
learning process, including
planning, delivering,evaluating, andcontinually improving its
effectiveness in order toachieve the Learning
Outcomes.

2.2.1.1. The Program shall describe qualifications of
the faculty and their adequacy to cover all
curricular areas and to meet any applicable
criteria.

2.2.2. The Program shall ensurethat faculty members areaware of the relevanceand importance of theirroles and contributions to
the Learning Outcomes.

2.2.2.1. The Program shall describe the role played by
the faculty with respect to the course creation,
modification, and evaluation, and with respect
to the definition, revision and attainment of
the Learning Outcomes.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

2.2.1.2. This description should include thecomposition, size, experience and the extent
and quality of faculty member involvement ininteractions with students, student advising,and oversight of the Program.
2.2.1.3. The Program shall provide detailed
descriptions of professional development
activities for each faculty member and how
activities such as sabbaticals, travel,
workshops, seminars, etc., are planned andsupported.

15
2.2.2.2. The Program shall have a method toinstitutionally develop and evaluate faculty
educational activities.
2.2.2.3. The Program shall define and set up
communication network among faculty
members for close collaboration among thecourses set in the curriculum to obtain better
educational results.
2.3. Students and Academic
Atmosphere2.3.1. The Program shall define
and implement an entry
standard for both new andtransfer students, as wellas transfer of credits.

2.3.1.1. The Program shall establish written policies on
student admission, covering the requirements
and the process for accepting new students
into Program, including information on how
Program ensures and documents thatstudents are meeting prerequisites and how it
handles cases where prerequisite have notbeen met.
2.3.1.2. The Program shall describe the requirements
and process for accepting transfer students
and transfer credits.

2.3.2. Program shall define andimplement ongoing
monitoring of student
progress and evaluation of
student performance.
Procedures of quality
assurance shall beestablished to ensure that
adequacy of standards isachieved in allassessments.

2.3.2.1. The Program shall establish policies andprocedures to monitor students’ progress andperformance

2.3.3. The Program shall create
and maintain goodacademic atmosphereconducive to successful
learning.

2.3.3.1. The Program shall develop supporting
activities to create and maintain goodacademic atmosphere for learning, such as byproviding student guidance and counseling on
academic as well as non-academic aspects andcareer guidance.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

2.3.2.2. The Program shall document the process bywhich student performance is monitored.

16
2.3.3.2. The Program shall describe the process foradvising and providing career guidance tostudents, how often students are advised, andwho provides the advising.
2.3.4. The Program shallpromote co-curricular
activities for characterbuilding and enhancing
the students’ awarenesson the country’s needs.

2.3.4.1. The Program shall create and maintain various
co-curricular activities particularly to improve
the student soft skills, such as conducting
studium generale, involving student in faculty
research projects, and participating inscientific forums.
2.3.4.2. An entrepreneurial spirit as characterized by a
deep sense of purpose, perseverance,
resourcefulness, open-mindedness, andeagerness to learn should be emphasized in
the learning process.

2.4. Facilities
2.4.1. Program shall ensure theavailability, accessibility,
and safety of facilities for
effective functioning of
the learning process andattainment of the Learning
Outcomes.

2.4.1.1. The Program shall describe the facilities interms of their ability to support theattainment of the Learning Outcomes and toprovide an atmosphere conducive to learning,such as:• offices (such as administrative, faculty,
clerical, and teaching assistants) and any
associated equipment,• classrooms and associated equipment,• in house laboratory facilities including
those containing computers (describe
available hardware and software) and theassociated tools and equipment that
support instruction, and field laboratorywhenever necessary• computing
resources(workstations,servers, storage, networks including
software)• library services.
2.4.1.2. The Program shall describe and assess theadequacy of these facilities to support thescholarly and professional activities of thestudents and faculty.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

17
2.4.1.3. The Program shall describe how students areprovided with appropriate guidance regarding
the use of tools, equipment, computing
resources, laboratories, and other physicalfacilities to enable the utilization of thesefacilities in a safe and appropriate manner.
2.4.1.4. The Program shall also describe the policies
and procedures for maintaining and upgrading
the tools, equipment, computing resources,
laboratories, library and other facilities usedby students and faculty.
2.5. Institutional Responsibility
2.5.1. The Program shall define
and manage the process
for the provision of theeducational service,including education
design, curriculum
development and delivery,
and assessment oflearning.

2.5.1.1. The Program shall describe the governance ofthe program and its adequacy to ensure thequality and continuity of the program and how
the leadership is involved in decisions that
affect the Program.
2.5.1.2. The Program shall describe the process used
to establish the program’s budget and provide
evidence of continuity of institutional support
for the program, including the sources offinancial support for both permanent(recurring) and temporary (one-time) funds.
2.5.1.3. The Program shall describe how teaching is
supported by the institution in terms ofgraders, teaching assistants, teachingworkshops, etc.
2.5.1.4. The Program shall describe the adequacy ofthe staff (administrative, instructional, andtechnical) and institutional services provided
to the Program.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

18
2.5.2. The Program Operating
Institution (POI) shallmake efforts to establish
resources, supporting
service and cooperation
with stakeholders on
research, education
and/or service tocommunity with due
consideration to existing
local resources.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

2.5.2.1. The POI shall make efforts to develop
partnership with external institutions such asindustry, research centers, and community
units to foster the Tridharma (learning,
research, and community engagement).The
institution hosting the Program shalldemonstrate the support to these efforts.
2.5.2.2. The improvement of the students’ learning
process through the engagement of academia,
business, and/or the government in thedevelopment of local region through the useof local resources is viewed as a particularadvantage of the Program.

19

3. Assessment of
the Learning
Outcomes
3.1. The Program shall ensurethat an effective
assessment process ofLearning Outcomes basedon established performanceindicators is implemented
and maintained at plannedintervals using appropriate
methods.

3.1.1. The Program shall define for each Learning
Outcome the relevant performance indicators
and appropriate assessment method as thebasis for measuring achievements of these
indicators.
3.1.2. A complete and clearly documented method
and procedure for measuring the achievementof Learning Outcomes shall be established.
3.1.3. The assessment of each learning outcome shallbe conducted at planned interval.

3.2. The Program shall ensurethat graduates of the
program achieve all
expected Learning
Outcomes.

3.2.1. The Program shall maintain effective policy andprocedures to ensure that its graduates meet all
graduation requirements.
3.2.2. The process and results of graduation
requirement review shall be documented andthe records are maintained as evidence that all
graduates have been evaluated and that all
Program Learning Outcomes have been
fulfilled.
3.2.3. The Program shall have written policies andprocedures on how handle non-performing
students and how to terminate students who
are not able to complete their study.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

20

4. Continual
Improvement
4.1. Based on Program Learning
Outcomes assessment
results, the Program shallperform an evaluation atplanned intervals with
output in the form ofdecisions to improve theeffectiveness of theeducational process andresources.

4.1.1. To ensure the continual improvement, theProgram should run its educational activities byimplementing a quality assurance systemfollows the P-D-C-A cycle as described in thepreamble.
4.1.2. The evaluation shall be based on assessment of
the Program Learning Outcomes attainment.
The output of the evaluation shall containrecommendations on the improvement oflearning materials, methods of delivery andother educational processes, suitability andadequacy of the Learning Outcomes withregards to the needs of stakeholders, andresources.
4.1.3. The evaluation shall be carried out at plannedintervals following a method and procedure
made well-known to the faculty. The evaluation
method and procedure should be designed toenable the identification of constraints and root
causes of problems, and therefore resulting inopportunities for improvement.

4.2. The Program shall maintaindocuments and records
related to theimplementation ofevaluation, the results andtheir follow-up.

Common Criteria and Criteria Guide

4.2.1. A
documented
procedure
forthe
implementation of Program evaluation shall beestablished.
4.2.2. The
documentationofevaluation
implementation, its results and its follow-up
shall be maintained and accessible to thefaculty. These records provide evidence that
evaluation has been conducted, the results
have been implemented and periodic
improvement has been achieved, thereby
signifying the implementation of P-D-C-A cycle.

21

Discipline Criteria

Discipline Criteria for Agricultural and/or BioSystems Engineering in Bachelor Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Teknik Pertanian Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTP PII) – PII
Chapter for Agricultural Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “agricultural engineering”,“bio-system engineering,” “bio-production engineering”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide fundamental knowledge of engineering principles, agriculture
and/or biosystem related sciences and ability to apply them to analyze, interpret, identify
alternative solutions, and implement experiments for enhancing the performance agricultural
systems or solution of common problems in agriculture and/or biosystem.
The learning and educational process articulating in the curriculum must be conducted in sucha way to ensure that the graduates have sufficient knowledge, skill and attitude in the process
to identify, analyze, formulate, design, use and control of machinery, structure and systems
to solve engineering problems as required in the production of plant and animal, processing
and handling the agricultural and/or biological materials.
The curriculum content that be considered as “educational components of mathematics,
natural sciences and technologies” appropriate to the field shall include systematic subject
clusters related with mathematics and natural sciences (focusing on multiple subjects suchas, physics, chemistry, biology, or geography), and area of agricultural meteorology, irrigation,
drainage and reclamation engineering (agricultural civil and environmental engineering),
and/or area of agricultural machinery & automation, and/or area of agricultural work systemand safety, and/or area of agricultural/biological production system, and/or area ofagriculture/biological and environment information.
To conduct the learning and educational process the program shall be considered as “toprovide a sufficient number of faculty members able to realize the curriculum withapplicable educational methods and to improve the educational result of the program, andshall provide the faculty with institutional support.”

Discipline Criteria

22

Discipline Criteria for Agro-Industrial and
Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Industri Pertanian Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKIP PII) – PII
Chapter for Agro-Industrial Engineerso Forum Komunikasi Program Studi Industri Pertanian Indonesia (FKPSIP) These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “agro-industrial” andsimilar modifiers in their titles
Curriculum
The curriculum prepares graduates with ability to design, develop, implement, control,
evaluate, and improve the system performance of sustainable agroindustry, through an
integrated approach of transformation process, system engineering, industrial management,
and environmental aspects to increase the added value of agricultural/bio-based resources
and their derivatives.
Faculty
Faculty members are required to have a combined expertise in the aspects of transformation,systems engineering, industrial management, and environment for developing sustainable
and integrated agro-industrial system.

Discipline Criteria

23

Discipline Criteria for Chemical, Biochemical,
and Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Asosiasi Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Kimia Indonesia (APTEKINDO) – Association ofIndonesian Higher Education Programs in Chemical Engineeringo Badan Kejuruan Kimia Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKK PII) – PII Chapter for
Chemical Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “chemical”,“biochemical”, “bioprocess“, “bioenergy”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide a firm grasp in basic sciences which include chemistry andchemistry-related sciences, physics, and/or biology with some reference to local context asappropriate to the objectives of the Program. The curriculum must include the engineering
application of these basic sciences to the design, analysis, and control of chemical, physical,
and/or biological processes and the design and development of products, including the
economics and hazards associated with these processes and products.
The learning process articulating this curriculum must be conducted in such a way to ensurethat the graduates have sufficient knowledge, skills, and attitude in the process design,
analysis, and control, and product design and development. The learning process must alsoenable students to apply research-based knowledge and research methods to identify,
formulate, and solve engineering problems.

Discipline Criteria

24Discipline Criteria for Civil and Similarly-named
Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Teknik Sipil Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTS PII) – PII Chapter for
Civil Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “civil engineering” andsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in applied mathematics and naturalsciences relevant to civil engineering, in a minimum of three recognized major civilengineering areas (namely structural, project management, geotechnical, water resources,
environmental, and transportation), in conducting civil engineering experiments andanalyzing and interpreting the resulting data, and in designing and integrating all professional
components of the curriculum. The program shall also prepare graduates to explain basic
concepts in management, business, public policy, and leadership, and explain the importanceof ethics and professional licensure.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses on design should have either certification of professional
engineer or qualification through experience in engineering design and practices.

Discipline Criteria

25

Discipline Criteria for Earth and Energy
Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kejuruan Teknik Kebumian dan Energi PII – PII Chapter for Earth and Energy
Engineerso

Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia – Association of Geological Experts IndonesiaoHimpunan Ahli Geofisika Indonesia – Association of Geophysical Experts Indonesia

Curriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in applied mathematics and naturalsciences relevant to earth and energy engineering, such as geological engineering,
geophysical engineering, or other scope related to earth and energy engineering mapping, inconducting earth and energy engineering data acquisition, data processing and interpretationfor experiments and research toward design and planning of engineering or exploration
purpose, in which it integrates all professional components in the curriculum. The program
shall also prepare graduates to explain basic concepts in management, business, public policy,
and leadership, and explain the importance of ethics and professional licensure.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses should have either certification in related earth and energy
engineering profession, or professional engineer or qualification through experience inengineering practice.

Discipline Criteria

26

Discipline Criteria for Electrical, Computer,
Communications, Telecommunication and
Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oForum Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Elektro Indonesia (FORTEI) – Indonesian Forum forHigher Education in Electrical EngineeringoBadan Kejuruan Elektro Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKE PII) – PII Chapter forElectrical Engineers

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “electrical”,“electronic(s),” “computer,” “communication(s),” “telecommunication(s),” or similar
modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum specifies subject areas appropriate to engineering and must include:a. 30 credits minimum of a combination of university level mathematics and basic
sciences (one with experimental experience) appropriate to the discipline.
b. 45 credits minimum of engineering topics, i.e. engineering sciences and engineering
design, appropriate to the title of the program.
Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a
major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work tomeet desired needs within realistic constraints.
The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range ofengineering topics implied by the title of the program.
The curriculum must include probability and statistics, with applications appropriate to theprogram name; mathematics through differential and integral calculus; basic sciences andengineering topics (including computing science) necessary to analyze and design complex
electrical/electronic devices or systems containing hardware and/or software components.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “electrical,” “electronic(s),”“communication(s),” or “telecommunication(s)” in the title must include advanced
mathematics, such as differential equations, linear algebra, and complex variables.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “computer” in the title must include
discrete mathematics.
The curriculum for programs containing the modifier “communication(s)”“telecommunication(s)” in the title must include topics in communication systems.

orThe curriculum for programs containing the modifier “telecommunication(s)” must include
design and operation of telecommunication networks for services such as but not limited tovoice, data, image, and video transport.

Discipline Criteria

27

Discipline Criteria for Engineering Physics andSimilarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kejuruan Teknik Fisika Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTF PII) – PII Chapter forEngineering Physics

These Discipline Criteria apply to bachelor programs that include “engineering physics” andsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The program must prepare graduates to engage in the development of the forefront oftechnology, such as and not limited to, instrumentation & control, built environment andenergy systems, material design and processing, renewable energy
The curriculum must provide strong fundamentals on mathematics, physics, engineeringsciences and engineering design. The curriculum should cover the capability to thrive in
professional and industry sectors, such as engineering economics, project management andcore competences of the forefront technology.
Faculty
The program shall demonstrate that those faculty members teaching courses that areprimarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of educationand experience or professional licensure.

Discipline Criteria

28

Discipline Criteria for Environmental and
Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Badan Kejuruan Teknik Lingkungan Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTL PII) – PII
Chapter for Environmental Engineerso Ikatan Ahli Teknik Penyehatan dan Lingkungan Indonesia (IATPI) – Indonesian
Association of Experts in Sanitation and Environmental Engineeringo Badan Kerja Sama Perguruan Penyelenggara Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Lingkungan(BAKERMA-TL) – Association of Higher Education Programs in Environmental
Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “environmental” andsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics and basic
sciences; introductory level knowledge of environmental issues associated with air, land, andwater systems and associated environmental health impacts; conduct laboratory
experiments and analyze and interpret the resulting data in more than one major
environmental engineering focus area, (e.g., air, water, land, environmental health);
performing design of environmental engineering systems; understanding in advanced
principles and practice relevant to the program objectives. The curriculum must prepare
graduates to understand concepts of professional practice, project management, and theroles and responsibilities of public institutions and private organizations pertaining toenvironmental policy and regulations.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty teaching courses that areprimarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of professional
licensure, board certification in environmental engineering, or by education and equivalentdesign experience.

Discipline Criteria

29

Discipline Criteria for Geodetics, Geomatics,
and Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oForum Ketua Jurusan dan Program Studi Teknik Geodesi-Geomatika se-Indonesia –Indonesian Forum for Higher Education in Geodetic-Geomatics Engineering

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “surveying,” “geodetic,”“geomatics”, and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences
and statistics in Geodetics/Geomatics engineering field, complete task related to spatial dataacquisition using modern measurement tools, perform geospatial data processing using
industry-standard software, and also perform standard analysis and design in at least one of
the recognized technical specialties within surveying/geodetics/geomatics technology,
include boundary and/or land surveying, geographic and/or land information systems,
engineering project surveying, photogrammetry, remote sensing, mapping and geodesy, andother related areas.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that a majority of those faculty members are qualified toteach engineering courses by education, equivalent design experience or board certificationof a surveyor professional/geomatics engineering.

Discipline Criteria

30Discipline Criteria for Industrial and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kerja Sama Penyelenggara Pendidikan Tinggi Teknik Industri Indonesia (BKSTI)– Indonesian Association of Higher Education in Industrial EngineeringoBadan Kejuruan Teknik Industri Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKTI PII) – PII Chapter
for Industrial Engineers

Curriculum
The program shall prepare graduates to be proficient in design, improve, and implement
integrated systems that include people, materials, equipment, energy and information. To
meet these needs, the curriculum must provide adequate knowledge about the applicationof mathematics, statistics and probabilistic theory as well as analysis and design engineering
as well as knowledge with regard to social sciences. The education program should ensure
the provision of an integrated system design experiences to students. The curriculum must
include in depth instruction to accomplish the integration of systems using appropriate
analytical, computational and experimental practices.
Faculty
Faculty members must understand the professional practice and maintain currency in theirrespective professional areas. Faculty members must be responsible and able to make thedefinition, evaluation, implementation and improvement on the achievement of Learning
Outcomes in the framework of an continuous improvement of the study program.

Discipline Criteria

31

Discipline Criteria for Materials, Metallurgicaland Similarly-named Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kejuruan Teknik Material Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia – PII Chapter for
Material EngineersoBadan Kejuruan Teknik Metalurgi Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia – PII Chapter for
Metallurgical Engineers

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs including “materials,” “metallurgical,”“ceramics,” “glass”, “polymer,” “biomaterials,” and similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to apply advanced science (such as chemistry, biology
and physics), computational techniques and engineering principles to materials systems
implied by the program modifier, e.g., ceramics, metals, polymers, biomaterials, composite
materials; to integrate the understanding of the scientific and engineering principles
underlying the four major elements of the field: structure, properties, processing, andperformance related to material systems appropriate to the field; to apply and integrateknowledge from each of the above four elements of the field using experimental,
computational and statistical methods to solve materials problems including selection anddesign consistent with the program educational objectives.
Faculty
The faculty expertise for the professional area must encompass the four major elements ofthe field.

Discipline Criteria

32

Discipline Criteria for Mechanical and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):oBadan Kerjasama Teknik Mesin Seluruh Indonesia (BKSTM) – Indonesian Associationof Higher Education in Mechanical Engineeringo Badan Kejuruan Mesin Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (BKM PII) – PII Chapter for
Mechanical Engineers
These Discipline Criteria apply to all engineering programs that include “mechanical” orsimilar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must require students to apply basic sciences, mathematics (including
multivariate calculus and differential equations) and principles of engineering sciences; tomodel, analyze, design, and apply physical systems, components or processes; and prepare
students to work professionally in either thermal or mechanical systems.
Faculty
Faculty members teaching courses on design should have either certification of professional
engineer or qualification through experience in engineering design and practices.

Discipline Criteria

33

Discipline Criteria for Nuclear and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o

Himpunan Masyarakat Nuklir Indonesia (HIMNI) – Indonesian Association for Nuclear
Society

These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering program that include “nuclear”, “radiological”,“radiation”, or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum shall provide strong fundamentals on advanced mathematics, science,engineering science and engineering design related to the objectives of the program. The
curriculum must include the application of atomic and nuclear physics, and the transport ofradiation and its interaction with matter, for nuclear power generation, medical, industrial,
and agricultural areas; to perform nuclear engineering design; to measure nuclear andradiation processes. The program shall ensure that the curriculum must comply withinternational and national nuclear regulations by emphasizing the requirements for nuclear
safety, non-destructive inspection, security and safeguards.
Faculty
The program must demonstrate that faculty members are qualified to teach nuclear
engineering courses by education, equivalent design experience or board certification of aprofessional engineer depending on the program needs.

Discipline Criteria

34

Discipline Criteria for Ocean and Similarlynamed Engineering Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Himpunan Ahli Pengelola Pesisir Indonesia (HAPPI) – Indonesian Association ofExperts in Coastal Managemento Himpunan Ahli Teknik Hidraulik Indonesia (HATHI) – Indonesian Association ofExperts in Hydraulics Engineering
These Discipline Criteria apply to engineering programs that include “coastal”, “ocean”,“marine”, “naval architecture”, or similar modifiers in their titles.
Curriculum
The curriculum must prepare graduates to have the knowledge and the skills to apply theprinciples of fluid and solid mechanics, dynamics, hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, probability
and applied statistics, oceanography, and water waves, to engineering problems and to workin groups to perform engineering design at the system level, integrating multiple technicalareas and addressing design optimization.
Faculty
Program faculty must have responsibility and sufficient authority to define, revised,
implement, and achieve the program objectives

Discipline Criteria

35Discipline Criteria for General Engineering
Programs
Lead Society(ies):o Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (PII) – The Institute of Engineers Indonesia
These criteria is applicable only for programs having no available Discipline Criteria and wish
to be evaluated solely by the Common Criteria.
Curriculum
No additional requirement beyond those required by the Common Criteria
Faculty
No additional requirement beyond those required by the Common Criteria

Discipline Criteria

APPENDIX C – Rules and Procedures of Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA)

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Rules and Proceduresfor Evaluation andAccreditation
RPEA

Version 2020

Background, Vision, andMission of IABEE
Accreditation Policies
and Procedures
Indicative Schedule of
Accreditation Evaluation Cycle

Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
an autonomous subsidiary of the Institute of Engineers Indonesia (PII)

w: iabee.or.id
e: info@iabee.or.id

1Document Control

The Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA) version 2020 has been
approved by Executive Committee on 14 February 2020. It replaces the version published in
2018. Changes made in this version are as follows:oOverall grammatical checks and revisions,oAddition of more information in Background, Vision, and Mission,oChange in IABEE postal address,oInclusion of bachelor of computing degrees in Scope of Accreditation in addition toengineering degrees,o

New way of denoting an Evaluation Cycle,oNew policy on validity of an Accredited status,oSurvey for collecting feedbacks on evaluation accreditation processes,oAddition of a new policy to treat a study program with one “D” (Deficient) score thatcannot be resolved at the Evaluation and Accreditation Committee’s Harmonization
Meeting,oEmphasis on policy of not publicizing the identity of study programs that receive NotAccredited status in both, General and Provisional Accreditation Types,oEmphasis on the meaning of a Provisional Status received by a study program.

oAddition of Final Evaluation Report Editing by assigned editors as an evaluation step
between Harmonization Meeting and Accreditation Decision Meeting for both Generaland Provisional Accreditation Evaluation processes,oAddition of an article that regulates withdrawal and change of accreditation type (fromPA to GA, or GA to PA), ando

Revision (exclusion) of an On-Site Visit policy which asked Program or Program
Operating Institution not to cover the costs of transportation and accommodation forevaluation team.

RPEA

2

Contents

Document Control ............................................................................................................ 1
Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.

Background, Vision, and Mission ................................................................................ 4
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................ 4
1.2. Vision ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3. Mission ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Identity & Recognition .............................................................................................. 52.

Accreditation Policies and Procedures ........................................................................ 6
2.1. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interests ................................................................... 6
2.3.1. Confidentiality of Information ....................................................................... 6
2.3.2. Code of Ethics ................................................................................................ 6
2.3.3. Conflict of Interests ....................................................................................... 6
2.2. Scope of Accreditation .............................................................................................. 6
2.3. Eligibility for Evaluation ............................................................................................. 7
2.3.1. Eligibility Requirements for General Accreditation ....................................... 7
2.3.2. Eligibility Requirements for Provisional Accreditation .................................. 8
2.4. Accreditation Criteria ................................................................................................ 8
2.4.1. Common Criteria and Criteria Guide ............................................................. 8
2.4.2. Discipline Criteria ........................................................................................... 8
2.5. Program Evaluation Process ...................................................................................... 9
2.5.1. Program and Institution Representatives ..................................................... 9
2.5.2. Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report ................................................. 9
2.5.3. Accreditation Evaluation Cycle ...................................................................... 9
2.5.4. General Description of the Evaluation Process ........................................... 10
2.5.5. Evaluation for General Accreditation .......................................................... 11
2.5.6. Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation ............................................. 18
2.5.7. Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation ..................................................... 19
2.5.8. Survey of Accreditation Evaluation Process ................................................ 24
2.6. Accreditation Decisions ........................................................................................... 24

RPEA

3

2.6.1. Decisions in Evaluation for General Accreditation ...................................... 24
2.6.2. Decision in Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation .................................. 25
2.7. Withdrawal and Change of Type ............................................................................. 26
2.8. Public Disclosure of Accreditation Status................................................................ 26
2.9. Appeals .................................................................................................................... 27
2.10. Policies on Conducting On-Site Visit ....................................................................... 28
3. Indicative Schedule of Accreditation Evaluation Cycle ................................................. 30

RPEA

4

1. Background, Vision,and Mission

1.1. BackgroundThe ever-evolving challenges faced by the engineering profession in the global paradigm ofsustainable development highlight the absolute necessity of managing the quality ofengineering higher education outcomes within the framework of an internationallyrecognized quality standards and practices. Another key paradigm in engineering higher
education is the relevance of academic programs operated by higher education institutions
to the needs of the profession and the industry.
Quality, relevance, and expanded opportunities are paramount to the effectiveness andcompetitiveness of engineering higher education institutions in the future. These aspects
form the framework of a higher education quality management system in Indonesia. The
ever-evolving challenges faced by the engineering profession in the globalization era highlightthe absolute necessity of managing the quality of engineering higher education outcomes
within the framework of an internationally recognized quality standards and practices.
Another key paradigm in engineering higher education is the relevance of academic programs
operated by higher education institutions to the needs of the profession and the industry.
The aim of this education quality management system is to improve the quality of engineering
education in a sustainable manner. Essential to the achievement of this aim are the principleof autonomy of higher education institutions as a driving force for a more dynamic andaccountable system, and an accreditation system to ensure the quality of graduates and theimplementation of an effective continuous engineering learning process improvement system
which in turn ensures that improvement decisions are based on real, accountable
information.

1.2. Vision
The Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE) is a reformer andstimulator for accelerating the progress of engineering higher education in Indonesia to
produce innovative human resources and engineering innovation for improving humanwelfare.

1.3. Mission
To attain the above vision, IABEE upholds the following missions:(1) to promote quality improvement of engineering higher education through accreditation
to produce autonomous professionals appropriate to the needs of stakeholders,

RPEA – Background, Vision, and Mission

5(2) to facilitate development of engineering higher education systems that emphasizes oncontinual quality improvement towards global quality standards,(3) to encourage communication and partnerships between engineering higher education
institutions and stakeholders to effectively utilize local resources and wisdom for thewelfare of the community, and(4) to support dissemination of innovations on advancement of engineering higher
education.

1.4. Identity & Recognition
IABEE is an independent, non-profit organization founded as a part of the Institution ofEngineers Indonesia (PII), to develop and foster quality culture in the management ofengineering higher education. This is achieved by assurance that the Study Programs (orreferred as Programs henceforth) are operated in compliance to minimum standards, and byencouraging continuous quality improvement in engineering higher education institutions.
The IABEE Headquarter is located at the following postal address:
Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
c/o Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia (The Institution of Engineers Indonesia)
Gedung AdMail Lt. 2, Jl. Percetakan Negara No.19, Jakarta Pusat 10570
Phone: (+62) 0811 939 0909 e-mail: info@iabee.or.id
The address of IABEE public website is iabee.or.id. The official logo of IABEE is presented in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Official logo of IABEE
IABEE is recognized in Indonesia by the Ministry of Education and Culture (KEMDIKBUD) as anindependent international accrediting body for study programs in higher education
institutions which grant degrees in engineering, technology, and computing disciplines.
Through multilateral Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs), IABEE seeks internationalrecognition of substantial equivalence of its evaluation and accreditation criteria andprocesses with those of other overseas accrediting bodies participating in a particular MRA.
At present, accreditation by IABEE for engineering programs leading to professional practiceis recognized by the Washington Accord, of which IABEE has been granted a Provisional
Signatory status in 2019. Participation and recognition by other MRAs are being pursued.

RPEA – Background, Vision, and Mission

6

2. Accreditation Policies
and Procedures

2.1. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interests
2.3.1. Confidentiality of Information
IABEE upholds ethics in conducting all activities of its members and organizing staff andrequires that each Member and Organizing Staff exhibits highest standards inprofessionalism, fairness, and integrity. Information disclosed by Programs undergoingevaluation, and information generated by review and discussion activities during theevaluation process shall be treated with confidentiality and shall not be divulged without
specific written authorization by IABEE and the Program being evaluated.
2.3.2. Code of Ethics
Code of ethics upheld by all members and organizing staff is stipulated in detail in document
called Rules and Procedures for Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC).
2.3.3. Conflict of Interests
Service as IABEE committee members and organizing staff presents the possibility of various
situations that may result in conflict of interest or doubt regarding the objectivity, fairness,and credibility of the accreditation process. IABEE requires its personnel to act in a
professional and ethical manner, and to inform of any real or perceived conflict of interest in
their activities. Further details of IABEE policies on conflict of interest are described in Rules
and Procedures for Accreditation-Related Committee (RPARC) document.

2.2. Scope of Accreditation
The Indonesian Higher Education Act No. 12/2012 defines a Program as an educational andlearning unit which implements a specific curriculum and learning methods, in the context ofa type of academic, professional, and/or vocational education. At present, scope of evaluation
and accreditation by IABEE include bachelor-level academic Programs in engineering andcomputing disciplines. Degrees granted by these Programs include Bachelor of Engineering(Sarjana Teknik), Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Sarjana Teknik), Bachelor of Science in
Computing (Sarjana Teknik or Sarjana Komputer), and Bachelor in Computing (Sarjana
Komputer), by implementing Program curricula which stipulate a study period of four
academic years, and a minimum total course-load of 144 semester-credit units (SKS in
Indonesian terminology).

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

7
Programs are operated by Program Operating Institutions (POI). POIs are academic
institutions operating at range of organizational level from Faculty, School, or equivalent units
and up to University, Institute, or equivalent units. POIs are accredited by National
Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (BAN-PT). IABEE does not accredit POIs.
IABEE offers two types of evaluation process, i.e. General Accreditation (GA) and Provisional
Accreditation (PA).
(1) General Accreditation (GA) is intended for programs seeking international recognition
through IABEE accreditation. Program wishing to apply for evaluation of GA must comply
with eligibility requirements stipulated in Section 2.3.1. of this document.
(2) Provisional Accreditation (PA) is intended for programs newly adopting an outcomebased education system and have not yet produced graduates under the system. A
program applying for PA will be evaluated to measure its potentials of meeting theAccreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (2-4 years). Eligibility requirements fora program applying PA evaluation is specified in Section 2.3.2. of this document.
Provisional Accreditation is not recognized as an accreditation status at international level.

2.3. Eligibility for Evaluation
The following are eligibility requirements for Programs seeking to be evaluated according to
the types of accreditation offered by IABEE (See Section 2.2). Eligibility status must be provenby the Program by making a self-claim and providing a set of documents supporting the claim
during the application process. Application procedures are further explained in Section 2.5.
2.3.1. Eligibility Requirements for General Accreditation
Programs eligible to apply evaluation for General Accreditation (GA) are those which meetthe following requirements.
(1) The associated Program Operating Institution (POI) has obtained National Accreditation
for Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.
(2) The Program has obtained National Accreditation status ranked “A”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering discipline with a curricularstudy period of four years, and with a total course-load of a minimum of 144 credit units(or SKS).
(4) The Program is at least in the 4th year of continuous Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
implementation.
(5) The OBE shall include assessment and evaluation of the Learning Outcomes of thestudents.
(6) By the time of the on-site visit evaluation, the Program has produced at least one
graduate under its OBE system.
(7) The Program has established and publicized the Profile of Autonomous Professionals
statement formulated as its educational objectives.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

8(8) The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning methods.
2.3.2. Eligibility Requirements for Provisional Accreditation
Programs wishing to apply evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (PA) must fulfill thefollowing requirements.
(1) The associated Program Operating Institution has obtained National Accreditation for
Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.
(2) The Program has obtained National Accreditation status at least ranked “B”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering or computing discipline witha curricular study period of four years, and with a total credit of a minimum of 144 credit
units (or SKS).
(4) The Program has implemented Outcome-Based Education (OBE) at least for one year
before applying for the evaluation.
(5) The Program has established and publicized the Autonomous Professional Profilestatement formulated as its educational objectives.
(6) The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning methods.

2.4. Accreditation Criteria
IABEE Criteria Committee has produced criteria categories for conducting accreditation
evaluation, comprising the Common Criteria and the Discipline Criteria. Common Criteria arefurther elaborated by the Criteria Guide. The Common Criteria, the Criteria Guide, and theDiscipline Criteria are referred to as the Accreditation Criteria.
2.4.1. Common Criteria and Criteria Guide
The Common Criteria are intended to assure the quality of engineering education conductedby Program and to foster a systematic continual quality improvement that satisfies the needof its stakeholders in a dynamic and competitive environment. The Common Criteria and theirelaboration in the Criteria Guide address requirements for all disciplines of engineering
Programs to be accredited by IABEE.
The Common Criteria and the Criteria Guide are available for download at the IABEE website
at iabee.or.id.
2.4.2. Discipline Criteria
Discipline Criteria address program-specific requirements within engineering areas of
specialization. These criteria have been developed by Chapters of the Institution of Engineers
Indonesia (PII) and other supporting professional and higher education societies, coordinatedby IABEE Criteria Committee. The Discipline Criteria are available for download at IABEE
website iabee.or.id. For application of evaluation, a Program is required to select one
engineering discipline which best describe its body of knowledge.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

92.5. Program Evaluation Process
The entire process of application, payment, document submission, evaluation for
accreditation, and announcement of accreditation decision is undertaken solely through the
IABEE Online Evaluation System at evaluation.iabee.or.id. Therefore, individuals representing
a Program and its Institution must first become registered member of the system. This section
explains recognition of individuals representing a Program and its Institution, generalprinciples of evaluation against accreditation criteria, and evaluation process for General
Accreditation and Provisional Accreditation.
2.5.1. Program and Institution Representatives
IABEE acknowledges two officials per Program to represent and be in communication with
IABEE Secretariat and Program Evaluation Team Chair throughout application and evaluation
process through IABEE Online Evaluation System. One of these is assigned as Program
Representative (PR), while the other as Program Operating Institution Representative (POIR).
Official recognized by IABEE to become a PR is normally the Program Chair (Ketua Program
Studi) or other appointed by the Program Operating Institution, while a POIR is normally the
Dean of the Faculty or other official ranked above Program Chair. PR and POIR should have agood understanding of the general requirements and processes of Program outcome-based
evaluation and accreditation.
In a case where more than one Programs within an Institution apply for evaluation, all those
Programs may share the same POIR, but each shall have its own PR.
2.5.2. Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report
The Program evaluation process is conducted based, in part, on the two documents submitted
to IABEE Online Evaluation System. Program can only submit the documents to the systemthrough its PR account. These documents are Program Profile and Program Self-Evaluation
Report (SER).
Program Profile (or Ikhtisar Program Studi) template is available for download from IABEE
website at iabee.or.id. Meanwhile, SER (LED or Laporan Evaluasi Diri) template is coded in theOnline Evaluation System in a spreadsheet form and can be downloaded through PR’s
registered e-mail account, worked on, and uploaded back to the online system.
The SER template is structured in a way that expects the Program to deliberate how it
complies with each criterion and review item, and to enclose, or to provide links to, proofs of
the compliance. The proofs or evidences of the compliance are to be gathered systematicallyin a file(s) (in PDF format) and uploaded as attachment(s) to the SER. To assist the Program incompleting the Program Profile and SER, IABEE openly publishes a Program Profile and SelfEvaluation Report Preparation Guidelines as can be found in IABEE website at iabee.or.id.
2.5.3. Accreditation Evaluation Cycle
IABEE denotes its accreditation evaluation cycle as two consecutive calendar years (forexample: “2020-2021 Accreditation Evaluation Cycle”). Normally, a cycle commences on 1
April of the first year and ends on 31 March of the second year of the cycle. See Table 3 at theend of this document.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

10
2.5.4. General Description of the Evaluation Process
The Program evaluation process is in general undertaken by a thorough desk study of Program
Profile, Self-Evaluation Report (SER) including its evidences submitted to IABEE Online
Evaluation System, as well as through on-site visit.
Depending on the accreditation categories (Section 2.2) and the accreditation decisions(Section 2.6), IABEE implements four types of Program evaluation, namely:(1) Evaluation for General Accreditation,(2) Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation with On-Site Visit,(3) Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation without On-Site Visit, and(4) Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation.
Evaluation for General Accreditation evaluates the compliance of the Program to RPEA andall evaluation items contained in the Accreditation Criteria for the accreditation cycle. Interim
Evaluation measures the compliance to a portion of the evaluation items in the Accreditation
Criteria, which may be undertaken with or without on-site visit. An Interim Evaluation (No. 2
or 3) is an evaluation to be conducted following a certain accreditation decision in General
Accreditation (see further Section 2.6). Lastly, Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation
measures the potential for compliance of the Program to the Accreditation Criteria.
Programs applying for their initial evaluation may select either Evaluation for General
Accreditation or for Provisional Accreditation, in accordance to the eligibility requirements
explained in Section 2.3. The type of evaluation for Programs applying for re-evaluation shallbe based on their previous accreditation status. Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation is notallowed for Programs applying for re-evaluation.
In the case of Evaluation for General Accreditation, the degree of fulfillment of Accreditation
Criterion is determined from evaluation results documented in the IABEE Online Evaluation
System. The terminology used to declare the degree of fulfillment of each evaluation item is
as follows:• Acceptable (abbreviated as ‘A’), which means that the evaluated item fulfills the associatedAccreditation Criteria item.
• Concern (abbreviated as ‘C’), which means that the evaluated item fulfills the associatedAccreditation Criteria item, but with a possibility of changes in pertinent conditions in the
future which may compromise the compliance.
• Weakness (abbreviated as ‘W’), which means that the evaluated item indicates aninsufficiently strong fulfillment of the associated Accreditation Criteria item. This
shortcoming requires corrective actions to strengthen the fulfillment of the specificevaluation item to the appropriate Accreditation Criteria item.
• Deficiency (abbreviated as ‘D’), which means that the Program is unable to fulfill theparticular Accreditation Criteria item.
In addition, evaluation may also provide an Observation, i.e. comments that are not directly
related to accreditation criteria and actions but are offered to assist the program in
conducting continual quality improvement; and the Statement of Strength, which is a very

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

11effective and prominent condition or practice that is above the norm and has a positive effecton the Program.
The final “A-C-W-D” judgement shall determine the accreditation status given to the Programin the case of General Accreditation (see further Section 2.6 for explanation on accreditation
decision).
In the Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation, the degree of Program fulfillment of
Accreditation Criteria is determined from evaluation results documented in the IABEE Online
Evaluation System. Based on the evidences studied by assigned a Program Evaluator, a scoreof either “Yes” or “No” would be used to mark each evaluation item as a conclusion whether
or not, from the Evaluator’s viewpoint, the Program has a solid potential to fulfill the item
within a foreseeable future (4 years or less). See further Section 2.6 for explanation on
accreditation decision
2.5.5. Evaluation for General Accreditation
Table 1 in the next page presents the activity diagram of the Evaluation for General
Accreditation process. All documentation resulting from these activities are recorded in the
IABEE Online Evaluation System. A concise description of each step of the Evaluation for
General Accreditation (EGA) process outlined in Table 1 follows.
Step EGA-1. PR & POIR Registration
Officials appointed by Program Operating Institution as PR and POIR are required to registeras members of IABEE Online Evaluation System in advance. Registration is made through the
IABEE website at iabee.or.id by choosing the Menu “IABEE ku – login” (in Bahasa Indonesia
version) or “My IABEE – login” (in English version) and creating a free user account. Uploading
appropriate proof of authority is required as attachment to account registration.
Step EGA-2. PR & POIR Registration Verification
The IABEE Secretariat examines the credentials of the PR and POIR upon their registration
through the IABEE website. Upon confirmation of the validity of the PR and POIR, anotification e-mail shall be sent to the officials.
Step EGA-3. Application for Program Evaluation
The Program Representative or POI Representative applies for Program evaluation bysubmitting proofs of eligibility requirements. In the case of Evaluation for General
Accreditation (EGA), these requirements include a copy of documents indicating:(1) the national accreditation status of the Program and the Program Operating Institution,(2) when the program was firstly established,(3) when OBE was implemented for the first time,(4) the statement of Program’s Autonomous Professional Profile as its educational objective,(5) the statement of Program’s Learning Outcomes,(6) number of graduates produced since OBE was adopted, or expected number of graduates
under OBE system by October of the evaluation year, and(7) a sample of Learning Outcomes assessment results.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

12
Table 1. Steps for accomplishing an Evaluation for General Accreditation
Acttorr(ss)
EGA
A
Step
no.

Activity

1

Registration of Program Representative(PR) & Program Operating Institution
Representative (POIR)

3

2

PR & POIR registration verification

3



3

Application for Program evaluation







4

Program eligibility verification

3



3

5

Evaluation scheduling

3



3



6

Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

3



7

Full payment reception

3



3

8

EAC Discipline assignment

3



9

Evaluation Team members selection



3

10

Evaluation Team Chair assignment

3

11

Approval of evaluation observers

3



12

Evaluation Team acceptance



3

13

Final Evaluation Team confirmation

3

3



14

Completed Program Profile and SelfEvaluation Report (SER) submission15

Program First Review

16

Program Second Review

17

Program First Response

18

Program Third Review

3

19

On-Site Visit Planning

3

20

On-Site Visit

3

3

3

21

Exit Meeting

3

3

3

22

Program First Evaluation3

23

Program Second Response

24

Program Second Evaluation

25

Program Final Response

26

Program Final Evaluation Report

27

EAC Discipline Harmonization

28

EAC Plenary Meeting

29

Program Final Eval. Report Editing

30

Accreditation Decision

3


31

Accreditation Status Announcement

3

IA
ABEE
Secreta-riat

Accred..
Council

EAC
Chair

Pro
ograamEAC
Discipl.
ChaairTeam
Chair

Program
Evaluatorr

Program
Rep.
3

3

3
3
3
3
3


3

3
3
3
3
3


3

3

Step EGA-4. Program Eligibility Verification
The Secretariat and EAC Chair examine the data entered in the Program Eligibility Form andcheck it against the eligibility criteria listed in Section 2.3.
Step EGA-5. Evaluation Scheduling
The EAC Chair compiles the results of Program eligibility verification for the Accreditation
Cycle. An evaluation schedule plan for the cycle is then defined based on the list of eligible
Programs, and availability of appropriate Program Evaluators (PEVs). The schedule for each
Program shall include deadlines for all evaluation steps. If there are more than one Program

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

13of the same discipline are deemed eligible for evaluation, then the schedule shall be definedon a first come first served basis.
Step EGA-6. Notice of Evaluation Kick-off & Invoicing
Upon the confirmation of Program eligibility and the evaluation schedule of each Program,the Secretariat through IABEE Online Evaluation System sends a notification e-mail to each
Program Representative, which contains notice of initiation of the evaluation process andimportant deadlines throughout the evaluation process. The Secretariat will also upload onto
the online system an invoice for all evaluation fees, including information on payment methodand deadline. The system will notify Program Representative regarding the invoice.
Step EGA-7. Full Payment Reception
No later than the payment deadline stipulated in the invoice, the Program must complete thefull payment of evaluation fees in accordance to the invoice. Outstanding payment may cause
suspension of evaluation process.
Step EGA-8. EAC Discipline Chair Assignment
Upon the definitive of the annual evaluation schedule, the EAC Chair examines the list of
Programs to be evaluated and assigns the appropriate Discipline Chair for each engineering
discipline involved in the accreditation cycle.
Step EGA-9. Evaluation Team Members Selection
The assigned Discipline Chair selects the member for the Program Evaluation Team, based on
available PEVs. The selection of the members shall be based on academic competence,
training qualifications, and potential conflict of interest with the Program to be evaluated.
Requirements to become program evaluator is described in Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-Related Committees (RPARC) document.
Step EGA-10. Evaluation Team Chair Assignment
The EAC Chair assigns one Team Chair for each Evaluation Team. In the case where more than
one Program in an Institution are to be evaluated simultaneously, some or all Evaluation
Teams involved may share the same Team Chair.
Step EGA-11. Approval of Evaluation Observers
As part of the requirements to become a program evaluator, IABEE may assign candidates ofprogram evaluator to observe a real program evaluation as evaluator-in-training. Also, IABEE
welcomes non-IABEE members to become observer of the evaluation process. As the entire
evaluation process in conducted through IABEE Online Evaluation System, before becoming
an observer one must register a personal user account in the system. The EAC Chair assigns
and attaches observer(s) to the appropriate Evaluation Team based on best match to his/heracademic background or engineering discipline. The involvement of observer(s) shall beapproved by the Program.
Step EGA-12. Evaluation Team Acceptance
The Program is expected to examine the acceptability of the Evaluation Team initially
proposed by IABEE, and to send their approval through IABEE Online Evaluation System. If theProgram does not approve the Evaluation Team members due to a valid reason (e.g. a conflictof interest), the EAC Chair shall re-assign a new Evaluation Team.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

14
Step EGA-13. Final Evaluation Team Confirmation
Upon acceptance of the Evaluation Team by the Program, the EAC Chair confirms the Team
Chair and Evaluation Team members through notification to the Program via the IABEE Online
Evaluation System, issuance of an official Letter of Assignment, and provision of access to theOnline System as Evaluation Team members.
Step EGA-14. Completed Program Profile and SER Submission
No later than the deadline shown on the related step in IABEE Online Evaluation System, theProgram is expected to complete and submit the Program Profile and the Self-Evaluation
Report (SER) including its necessary attachments to system. IABEE Online Evaluation Systemprovides upload and submit procedure separately. It is to be noted that upload button is used
only to store all the document files in the IABEE server. To send it as a submission, Program
Representative must click the submit button. The Program can no longer amend the Program
Profile and SER online documents after submit button has been used.
A Program may submit a total of six files, sizing 30 Mbytes each, to contain Program Profile
and all SER attachment files (e.g. compendium of proofs/evidences), in addition to the SER
itself. The SER itself is written separately in a dedicated spreadsheet template and uploaded
onto the system by letting the system read and copy the data prepared in the template (seealso Section 2.5.2).
Step EGA-15. Program First Review
In the Program First Review, Evaluation Team members review the submitted Program
Profile, Self-Evaluation Report, and all additional documents. Each member independently
assigns the ‘A-C-W-D’ score and provide comments for each evaluation item in the Program
Evaluator worksheet template downloaded from the IABEE Online Evaluation System. An
observer (evaluator-in-training) may also review the documents submitted by the Program,but his/her judgment is not accounted for in the evaluation (only for training purposes). At
this step, only Team Chair can see all evaluation results (i.e. A-C-W-D scores and comments
on each criteria item). Evaluation results are not yet accessible by Program Representative.
Evaluation Team members are also expected to notify the Team Chair on the need for any
additional information, data, or explanation from the Program to ensure accurate evaluation.
IABEE Online Evaluation System provides internal message board facility to allow
communication among Evaluation Team members and its chair.
Step EGA-16. Program Second Review
The Team Chair collects the Program First Review results from the Evaluation Team members.
Subsequently, he/she prepares the Program Second Evaluation by assigning the ‘A-C-W-D’score and provide comments for each evaluation item in the Team Chair worksheet based on
the results collected from his/her team member, his/her own judgement, and considering
any different opinion between the individual Evaluation Team members. The Team Chair also
compiles the list of required additional information, data, or explanation from the Program.
The Program Second Review results are then uploaded and submitted to the IABEE Online
Evaluation System.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

15
Step EGA-17. Program First Response
Upon submission of the Program Second Review results to the IABEE Online Evaluation
System by the Team Chair, the Program Representative will get a notification e-mail from thesystem. The Program is expected to respond to the request for any additional information,
data, or explanation. The additional information is to be submitted through IABEE Online
Evaluation System. At this step, Program Representative can only see the Team Chair’scomments on each evaluation or criteria item. No “A-C-W-D” score is accessible to theProgram.
The system again provides a space to upload three attachment files sizing 30 Mb at maximum
for each file, in addition to SER improvement.
To facilitate smooth communication, IABEE Online Evaluation System provides external
message board facility that can be used only by Program Representative and the Evaluation
Team Chair. The deadline for this Program First Response is made known to the PR/POIR by
the system.
Step EGA-18. Program Third Review
The Team Chair collects the additional information provided by the Program in the ProgramFirst Response. Together with the results of the Program Second Review, this information isthen used to formulate the Program Third Review, which contains the tentative ‘A-C-W-D’scores of each evaluation item. This report shall also contain a list of items to be further
elaborated during the On-Site Visit. At this step, Program Representative can only see theTeam Chair’s comments on each evaluation or criteria item. No “A-C-W-D” score is accessible
to the Program.
Step EGA-19. On-Site Visit Planning
Upon the completion of the Program Third Review, the Team Chair prepares an On-Site Visit
Plan via the IABEE Online Evaluation System. This plan contains the visit dates, a detailed listof daily activities to be undertaken by the Evaluation Team during the visit, including groupsof people from Program stakeholders they wish to meet, as well as logistical matters related
to the visit. Team Chair shall propose the visit dates to the Program and shall discuss further
with Program Representative which of the options is the most suitable one to undertake thevisit.
Step EGA-20. On-Site Visit
The On-Site Visit will be undertaken by the Evaluation Team on the agreed-upon dates. The
visit shall include the following activities:•

Interview of faculty members, students, support staff, as well as alumnae and otherstakeholders to obtain a comprehension on the compliance of the Program to RPEA andAccreditation Criteria items, and to identify specific issues arising from the review ofProgram Profile and Self-Evaluation Report, as well as from the On-Site Visit activities.

•

Examination on the following specific aspects:oPhysical facilities: The Evaluation Team shall verify whether the learning atmosphereprovided by the Program through the utilization of various facilities is sufficient, andthat the facilities may be utilized in a safe manner for their intended purposes.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

16oLearning materials: The Evaluation Team shall examine examples of course materials
including course description and syllabi, textbooks, assignments and tests, andexamples of student works which include works receiving borderline to very highmarks.

o

Proof that the Autonomous Professional Profile envisaged by Program’s educational
objectives and the Learning Outcomes declared by the Program has consideredvision and mission of the POIR as well as the needs of Program Stakeholders.

oProof of the implementation of a process that is documented and effectively utilized,with involvement of Program Stakeholders, for the periodic review of theAutonomous Professional Profile.

oProof of the undertaking of learning assessment, evaluation, and attainment of
Program Learning Outcomes.

oProof of the undertaking of actions to continually improve the quality of theProgram. Support functions for the students, to ensure the adequacy of student
services in accordance to the mission of the Institution, the Autonomous Professional
Profile, and Program Learning Outcomes.

oThe process for monitoring the completion of study and conferral of academic
degree for each student.

Throughout the On-Site Visit, Program Evaluators are expected to re-evaluate the level offulfillment of the Program to each evaluation item as temporarily scored during the desk
study of its Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report and to take note of Observations.
IABEE upholds certain codes of conduct in undertaking an On-Site Visit to make sure theactivity achieves its intended objectives effectively and to prevent any conflict of interest.
Please see Section 2.9. for the related Codes of Conduct.
Step EGA-21. Exit Meeting
An Exit Meeting shall be held at the end of the On-Site Visit, in which the Evaluation Team
Chair shall verbally communicate findings observed by the Evaluation Team to the Program
Operating Institution’s highest executive officer of his/her representative, and other official(s)that the highest executive officer wishes to include in the meeting. The meeting concludes
the On-Site Visit by reading out the Exit Statement. Prior to Exit Meeting, the Evaluation Teamshall normally communicate the findings to the Program Representative and his/her team ina debrief session. This session is conducted to reach common understanding between the
Evaluation Team and the Program about the findings and their consequences.
Exit Meeting is essentially a one-way communication. No discussion of the results shall beentertained during the meeting. The Evaluation Team shall not leave any written copy of Exit
Statement document with the Program and Program Operating Institution since thestatement shall be made available at the IABEE Online Evaluation System. The Program may
inspect these findings in the IABEE Online Evaluation System after the conclusion of the Exit
Meeting at the Program First Evaluation step.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

17
Step EGA-22. Program First Evaluation
Program First Evaluation Report is produced by the Evaluation Team and sent by the Team
Chair to IABEE Online Evaluation System. It consists of evaluation results and findings readout during the Exit Meeting.
A definite deadline is set for the Team Chair to complete the Program First Evaluation, which
is approximately two weeks after the Exit Meeting date. The Program First Evaluation isaccessible by the Program Representative and Program Operating Institution Representative.
At this step, Program Representative can see the Team Chair’s comments on each evaluation
or criteria item and a draft Exit Statement. No “A-C-W-D” judgement is accessible to theProgram.
Step EGA-23. Program Second Response
Upon the disclosure of the findings in the IABEE Online Evaluation System, the Program isgiven 7 days to submit amendments only to factual errors or omissions, if such errors oromissions are identified in the online system entries. The period is initiated in the system rightafter Team Chair submits Program First Evaluation Report. Example of factual errors include
errors in quoting names, identities, figures, locations, etc. related to the Program and its
Institution. If the Program finds no factual error in the Program First Evaluation Report, its
Program Representative may notify the Team Chair and let the 7-day period passautomatically.
Step EGA-24. Program Second Evaluation
Upon the expiration period of Program Second Response, the Team Chair thoroughly
examines the evaluation results documented in the IABEE Online Evaluation System to amend
factual errors pointed out by the Program, if any. The Team Chair then proceeds to prepare
the Program Second Evaluation report in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. After
submission of Program Second Evaluation Report by the Team Chair, Program Representative
can see the “A-C-W-D” judgements, the Team Chair’s comments on each evaluation or criteria
item and a final Exit Statement.
Step EGA-25. Program Final Response
Upon the completion of the Program Second Evaluation Report by the Team Chair, theProgram Final Response is triggered to commence in the IABEE Online System. In this period,
the Program is given 30 days to follow up on shortcomings identified in the evaluation process
to date. The Program is encouraged to upload report and proofs of corrective actions and/or
improvements undertaken to address the shortcomings, until the 30-day deadline.
Step EGA-26. Program Final Evaluation Report
After the deadline of the 30-day response period has passed, the Team Chair prepares theProgram Final Evaluation document in the IABEE Online Evaluation System, by consideringcorrective actions and/or improvements reported by the Program to date. The report shall
include a description of the Program, its areas of strength, identified shortcomings, andconstructive Observations, and a summary of its compliance to the Accreditation Criteria as
indicated by the ‘A-C-W-D’ judgements of evaluation items. The report is submitted throughthe online system to the respective EAC Discipline Chair and EAC Chair.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

18

Step EGA-27. EAC Discipline Harmonization
The EAC Discipline Chair receives the Program Final Report from the Team Chair and holds an
EAC Discipline Harmonization meeting to discuss and harmonize any inconsistency between
the respective Evaluation Teams within the same discipline, and inconsistencies with pastevaluation results of similar Programs. Results of the Discipline Harmonization are
documented in the IABEE Online Evaluation System.
Step EGA-28. EAC Plenary Meeting
After the Discipline Harmonization is completed, the EAC Chair organizes an EAC Plenary
Meeting to discuss and harmonize any inconsistency with past and current evaluation resultsof Programs operated under different institutions. EAC Plenary Meeting then recommend thefinal accreditation decision to the IABEE Accreditation Council.
Step EGA-29. Program Final Evaluation Report Editing
EAC Chair is to assign Editors in this step, in which the Program Final Evaluation Report draft
shall be edited to ensure consistency between the scores and comments or narratives givenby the Team Chair and the criteria or sub-criteria items associated with the scores andnarratives.
Step EGA-30. Accreditation Decision
Final decision of the accreditation status of a Program is taken by the IABEE Accreditation
Council, with due consideration to the recommendation from the EAC Plenary Meeting. The
decision shall be kept in IABEE’s permanent records.
Step EGA-31. Accreditation Announcement
After the final decision has been reached, the IABEE Secretariat conducts the publicannouncement of the decision. The Not-Accredited status shall not be publicly declared, but
directly communicated to the corresponding Program Representative (PR) and Program
Operating Institution Representative (POIR). Other status shall be declared in the IABEE
Website and communicated to the PR and POIR. Program Accreditation Evaluation Reportand accreditation decision shall be saved in the IABEE Online Evaluation System and shall beaccessible by the Program.
2.5.6. Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation
The Interim Evaluation is implemented if unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’
category are identified at the conclusion of a preceding Evaluation for General Accreditation.
The Interim Evaluation shall focus on evaluation items exhibiting the shortcomings in thepreceding evaluation, although other evaluation items may also be included. As outlined in
Section 2.5.3, there are two types of Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation, namelyInterim Evaluation with On-Site Visit and Interim Evaluation without On-Site Visit. The
appropriate type of Interim Evaluation is determined in the final decision of the preceding
evaluation. Both types of Interim Evaluation require the Program to submit a Self-Evaluation
Report.
New Concern, Weakness, and Deficiency shortcomings that arise during the Interim
Evaluation may be reported. Evaluation process steps in an Interim Evaluation are identical

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

19
to those implemented in the Evaluation for General Accreditation (see Section 2.5.2), exceptthat in Interim Evaluation only one Program Evaluator shall be assigned by IABEE.
Decision of accreditation status upon the completion of an Interim Evaluation is explained in
Section 2.6 on Accreditation Decision.
2.5.7. Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation
Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation is provided as an option for Programs that have neverbeen evaluated and have yet to commit to apply for evaluation for General Accreditation. A
Program is only allowed to undergo this evaluation once. The evaluation reviews all parts of
the Accreditation Criteria, except for those related to continual improvements based onlearning outcomes assessment. This evaluation and is conducted by one Program Evaluator.
Table 2 presents the activity diagram of the evaluation process. All documentation resulting
from these activities are recorded in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. Following Table 2 isa concise explanation of each Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (EPA) step outlined in
the table.
Table 2. Steps in the Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (EPA)
Priimaary Acctoor((s))
EPA
Step
No.

Activity

1

Registration of Program Representative (PR)& Program Operating Institution
Representative (POIR)

2PR & POIR registration verification

3

IA
ABEE
Secretariiat

Accred.
Council

EAC ChairrProograamEAC
Discip.
Chaair

Program
Evaluatorr

3

Program
Rep.
3



Application for Program evaluation

3






4

Program eligibility verification





3

5

Evaluation scheduling





3

6

Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

3



7

Full payment reception

3

8

EAC Discipline assignment

3

3


3


3



9

Program Evaluator (PEV) selection

10

PEV acceptance11
12

Final PEV confirmation
Completed Program Profile and SelfEvaluation Report (SER) submission

13

Program First Review

14

Program Response

15

Program Second Review

3

16

On-Site Visit Planning

3

3

17

On-Site Visit

3

3

18

Exit Meeting

3

3

19

Program Final Evaluation Report

3

20

EAC Plenary Meeting

21

Program Final Evaluation Report Editing

22

Accreditation Decision

3


23

Accreditation Status Announcement

3

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

3



3

3





3
3
3

3

3

3

20
Step EPA-1. PR & POIR Registration
Officials appointed by Program Operating Institution as PR and POIR are required to registeras members of IABEE Online Evaluation System in advance. Registration is made through the
IABEE website at iabee.or.id by choosing the Menu “IABEE ku – login” (in Bahasa Indonesia
version) or “My IABEE – login” (in English version) and creating a free user account. Uploading
appropriate proof of authority is required as attachment to account registration.
Step EPA-2. PR & POIR Registration Verification
The IABEE Secretariat examines the credentials of the PR and POIR upon their registration
through the IABEE website. Upon confirmation of the validity of the PR and POIR, anotification e-mail shall be sent to the officials.
Step EPA-3. Application for Program Evaluation
The Program Representative or POI Representative applies for Program evaluation bysubmitting proofs of eligibility requirements. In the case of Evaluation for Provisional
Accreditation, these requirements include a copy of documents indicating:(1) the national accreditation status of the Program and the Program Operating Institution,(2) when the program was firstly established,(3) when OBE was implemented for the first time,(4) the statement of Program’s Autonomous Professional Profile as its educational objective,and(5) the statement of Program’s Learning Outcomes.
Step EPA-4. Program Eligibility Verification
The Secretariat and EAC Chair examine the data entered in the Program Eligibility Form andcheck it against the eligibility criteria listed in Section 2.3.
Step EPA-5. Evaluation Scheduling
The EAC Chair compiles the results of Program eligibility verification for the Accreditation
Cycle. An evaluation schedule plan for the cycle is then defined based on the list of eligible
Programs, and availability of appropriate Program Evaluators (PEVs). The schedule for each
Program shall include deadlines for all evaluation steps. If there are more than one Programof the same discipline are deemed eligible for evaluation, then the schedule shall be definedon a first come first served basis.
Step EPA-6. Notice of Evaluation Kick-off & Invoicing
Upon the confirmation of Program eligibility and the evaluation schedule of each Program,the Secretariat through IABEE Online Evaluation System sends a notification e-mail to each
Program Representative, which contains notice of initiation of the evaluation process andimportant deadlines throughout the evaluation process. The Secretariat will also upload onto
the online system an invoice for all evaluation fees, including information on payment methodand deadline. The system will notify Program Representative regarding the invoice.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

21
Step EPA-7. Full Payment Reception
No later than the payment deadline stipulated in the invoice, the Program must complete thefull payment of evaluation fees in accordance to the invoice. Outstanding payment may cause
suspension of evaluation process.
Step EPA-8. EAC Discipline Chair Assignment
Upon the definitive of the annual evaluation schedule, the EAC Chair examines the list of
Programs to be evaluated either for General Accreditation or Provisional Accreditation andassigns the appropriate Discipline Chair for each engineering discipline involved in theaccreditation cycle.
Step EPA-9. Program Evaluator (PEV) Selection
The assigned Discipline Chair selects a Program Evaluator based on available PEVs. The
selection of Program Evaluator shall be based on academic competence, training
qualifications, and potential conflict of interest with the Program to be evaluated.
Requirements to become program evaluator is described in Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC) document.
Step EPA-10. Program Evaluator (PEV) Acceptance
The Program Representative (PR) or Program Operating Institution Representative (POIR) is
expected to communicate their consent or objection to the Program Evaluator proposed by
EAC Discipline Chair through IABEE Online Evaluation System. In case where a reasonableobjection is stated by the PR or POIR, a different PEV shall be proposed by the EAC Discipline
Chair.
Step EPA-11. Final Program Evaluator (PEV) Confirmation
Upon the acceptance of the PEV by the PR or POIR, EAC Chair makes confirmation of PEV
assignment in the IABEE Online Evaluation System. IABEE Secretariat shall follow the step byproducing an official Letter of Appointment to the PEV.
Step EPA-12. Completed Program Profile and Self Evaluation Report (SER) Submission
No later than the deadline shown on the related step in IABEE Online Evaluation System, theProgram is expected to complete and submit the Program Profile and the Self-Evaluation
Report (SER) including its necessary attachments to system. IABEE Online Evaluation Systemprovides upload and submit procedure separately. It is to be noted that upload button is used
only to store all the document files in the IABEE server. To send it as a submission, Program
Representative must click the submit button. The Program can no longer amend the Program
Profile and SER online documents after submit button has been used.
A Program may submit a total of six files, sizing 30 Mbytes each, to contain Program Profile
and all SER attachment files (e.g. compendium of proofs/evidences), in addition to the SER
itself. The SER itself is written separately in a dedicated spreadsheet template and uploaded
onto the system by letting the system read and copy the data prepared in the template (seealso Section 2.5.2).
Step EPA-13. Program First Review
In the Program First Review, Program Evaluator reviews the submitted Program Profile, SelfEvaluation Report, and all additional documents. The Program Evaluator for the first time shall

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

22
assign the ‘Yes-No’ score and provide comments for each evaluation item in the Program
Evaluator worksheet template downloaded from the IABEE Online Evaluation System.
Program Evaluator shall notify the Program Representative on the need for any additional
information, data, or explanation from the Program to ensure accurate evaluation. IABEE
Online Evaluation System provides a message board facility to allow communications
between Program Evaluator and Program Representative.
Step EPA-14. Program Response
The Program Representative is expected to respond to the request for additional data or
explanation from the Program Evaluator, if any. This respond is to be documented andsubmitted as the Program First Response. At this step, although “Yes-No” scores as well as
evaluation comments have been inputted by Program Evaluator for each criteria item, but
Program Representative can only see the comments section. IABEE Online Evaluation Systemprovides additional space for uploading a maximum of 3 files in PDF format sizing maximum
30 Mbytes each.
Step EPA-15. Program Second Review
Based on the First Program Response, the Program Evaluator prepares a Program Second
Review report, which is essentially an improvement of Program First Review based on
additional evidences submitted by the Program, if any, during the Program Response step.
This report shall contain the initial evaluation of the Program, and a list of items to be inquired
further during the On-Site Visit.
Step EPA-16. On-Site Visit Planning
The Program Evaluator prepares a detailed On-Site Visit plan, which includes visit scheduleand itinerary, list of persons to be interviewed, list of items to be inquired further, as well as
logistical matters related to the visit. The Program Representative shall be notified through email by IABEE Online Evaluation System right after Program Evaluator has posted the visit planin the system. Program Representative may discuss with Program Evaluator to agree on thevisit date and plan.
Step EPA-17. On-Site Visit
The On-Site Visit will be undertaken by Program Evaluator on the agreed-upon date. The visit
shall include the following activities:• Interview of faculty members, students, and support staff to obtain a comprehension on
the compliance of the Program to Accreditation Criteria items, and to identify specificissues arising from the review of Program Profile and Self-Evaluation Report, as well asfrom the On- Site Visit activities.
• Examination on the following specific aspects:o Physical facilities: The Evaluator shall verify whether learning atmosphere provided by
the Program through the utilization of various facilities is sufficient, and that thefacilities may be utilized in a safe manner for their intended purposes.
o Learning materials: The Evaluator shall examine examples of course materials including
course description and syllabi, textbooks, assignments and tests, and examples ofstudent works which include works receiving borderline to very high marks.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

23
o Proof that the Autonomous Professional Profile envisaged by Program’s educational
objectives and the Learning Outcomes declared by the Program has considered visionand mission of POIR, as well as the needs of Program Stakeholders.
o Assessment plan of Program Learning Outcomes.
o Support functions for the students, to ensure the adequacy of student services inaccordance to the mission of the Institution, the Autonomous Professional Profile, andProgram Learning Outcomes.
o The process for monitoring the completion of study and conferral of academic degree
for each student.
Throughout the On-Site Visit, Program Evaluator is expected to re-evaluate the level ofcompliance of the Program to each evaluation item (i.e. the chance of meeting each criteria
item by the time the Program is expected to apply Evaluation for General Accreditation) as
temporarily scored during previous step as well as to take note of Observations.
IABEE upholds certain codes of conduct in undertaking an On-Site Visit to make sure theactivity achieves its intended objectives effectively and to prevent any conflict of interest.
Please see Section 2.9. for the related Codes of Conduct.
Step EPA-18. Exit Meeting
An Exit Meeting shall be held at the end of the On-Site Visit, in which the Program Evaluatorshall verbally communicate findings to Program Representative and Program Operating
Institution Representative, including other official(s) if any. The meeting concludes the OnSite Visit by reading out the Exit Statement. The Evaluator will not leave any written copy of
Exit Statement document with the Institution since all the material shall be made available atthe IABEE Online Evaluation System. The Program may inspect these findings in the IABEE
Online Evaluation System after the conclusion of the Exit Meeting at the Program First
Evaluation step.
Step EPA-19. Program Final Evaluation Report
Based on the Program Second Evaluation and results from the On-Site Visit, the Program
Evaluator prepares the Program Final Report, which contains an evaluation of the current
status of the Program and, if Provisional Accreditation Status is deemed appropriate, areas
where compliance improvements are expected within 4 years. The report is submitted to the
EAC Chair. The report shall include a description of the Program, its areas of strength,
identified shortcomings, and constructive Observations, and a summary of its compliance to
the Accreditation Criteria as indicated by the ‘Yes-No’ scores of evaluation items
Step EPA-20. EAC Plenary Meeting
The EAC Chair brings the Program Final Evaluation reports to the EAC Plenary Meeting forthorough review of the accreditation status decision-making.
Step EPA-21. Program Final Evaluation Report Editing
Respective Discipline Chairs are assigned as Editors in this step, in which the Program Final
Evaluation Report draft shall be edited to ensure consistency between the scores andcomments or narratives given by the Team Chair and the criteria or sub-criteria items
associated with the scores and narratives.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

24
Step EPA-22. Accreditation Decision
The IABEE Accreditation Council makes the final decision for Provisional Accreditation. For
explanation regarding Accreditation Decision, please see further Section 2.6.
Step EPA-23. Accreditation Status Announcement
The IABEE Secretariat informs the Program Representative and Program Operating Institution
Representative of the final evaluation decision. A “Not Ready” status shall not be publicizedin the IABEE website, but a “Provisional status” shall be publicized. The PA-status notification
shall also include instructions on the proper use of IABEE PA status by the Program andProgram Operating Institution. Program Accreditation Evaluation Report and accreditation
decision shall be saved in the IABEE Online Evaluation System and shall be accessible by the
Program.
2.5.8. Survey of Accreditation Evaluation Process
As a means of collecting 360-degree feedbacks for continual improvement purposes, IABEE
Secretariat conducts a comprehensive survey through Online Evaluation System, which will
be available after an Exit Meeting step. The survey allows each evaluation team member andchair, services provided by Secretariat, IABEE public website, as well as Online Evaluation
System to be rated and given feedback by Institution and Program Representatives. It also
allows all team members to give ratings and feedback to each other.

2.6. Accreditation Decisions
Accreditation decisions following General and Provisional Accreditation Evaluations are taken
by IABEE Accreditation Council (AC) in AC Meeting by considering EAC Chair’s report. To takeany decision, the AC Meeting shall be attended by at least 2/3 of its members. The meeting isnormally conducted annually at the end of the accreditation cycle. Role and responsibility, as
well as membership of the Council are explained in the RPARC document.
Based on the Program’s evaluation type and compliance to Accreditation Criteria and the
RPEA, the Program shall receive one of the following final status, as explained in Section 2.6.1
and 2.6.2 for General Accreditation and Provisional Accreditation, respectively.
2.6.1. Decisions in Evaluation for General Accreditation
Evaluation for General Accreditation for a Program ultimately finalizes in one of the following
status:• Accredited. This status implies that the Program meets all criteria and rules as outlined in
the Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA. This accreditation status is valid for a period offive years.
• Accredited with Interim Evaluation without Visit. This status implies that the Programindicates unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ category (“W” score). These
shortcomings are such that visit is not deemed necessary to assess future corrective
actions. This status is valid for a period of three years, after which the Program must
undergo an Interim Evaluation based on desk study.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

25• Accredited with Interim Evaluation with Visit. This status implies that the Program indicatesunresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ (“W” score) category. These shortcomings are
such that a visit is deemed necessary to assess future corrective actions. This status is valid
for a period of three years, after which the Program must undergo an Interim Evaluation
which includes both desk study and on-site visit.
• Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program fails to substantially comply with
IABEE Accreditation Criteria as indicated by unresolved shortcomings in the ‘Deficiency’
category (“D” score) and Rules and Procedures for Accreditation and Evaluation (RPEA).
Subsequent decision for accreditation status requiring Interim Evaluation, either with orwithout visit, shall be taken based on the results of the Interim Evaluation as follows:• If the Interim Evaluation results indicate that Program shortcomings of the previous‘Weakness’ category (“W” score) remain unresolved, then the Program receives the “Not
Accredited” final status. The Program may apply for new Evaluation for General
Accreditation after one evaluation cycle has passed since the last Interim Evaluation.
• If the Interim Evaluation results indicate that the Program has managed to rectify
Accreditation Criteria and RPEA compliance shortcomings in a satisfactory manner suchthat all the criteria and RPEA items are met, then the Accredited with Interim Evaluation
status from the last Evaluation for General Accreditation (EGA) is changed to Accredited
status, with a validity period of five years from the submission of Program Profile and SelfEvaluation Report documents in the last EGA process.
An Accredited status for initial accreditation of a Program shall be effective on 1 April of thefollowing accreditation evaluation cycle, and shall expire on 31 March of the fifth calendar
year after the effective date for an Accredited status, or of the third calendar year after theeffective date for an Accredited with Interim Evaluation status.
A Program receiving ‘D’ score in one element of the Accreditation Criteria in EGA-28 step for
the General Accreditation shall be given a final grace period to rectify the associatedshortcoming. The grace period shall end no later than 31 August of the subsequentaccreditation evaluation cycle. The Program shall produce an evidence-based report on how
it has satisfactorily rectified the shortcoming with respect to the Accreditation Criteria.
The report shall be sent to IABEE Secretariat no later than 31 August of the subsequentaccreditation cycle. EAC shall assess the worthiness of the report. Satisfactory improvementfrom the ‘D’-level shortcoming shall result in an Accredited status, either with or without OnSite Visit, effective from 1 April of the following accreditation evaluation cycle.
2.6.2. Decision in Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation
Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation for a Program ultimately finalizes in one of thefollowing status:• Provisionally Accredited. This status implies that the Program has the potentials of meeting
the Accreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (i.e. 3-4 years). Given eligibility
requirements are fulfilled, a program accredited in Provisional Accreditation is expected toapply evaluation for General Accreditation within a period of four years.
• Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program has substantially low potentials tomeet all Accreditation Criteria and RPEA items within 4 years.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

26
Provisionally Accredited status of a Program shall be effective on 1 April of the following
accreditation cycle and shall expire on 31 March of the third calendar year after the effectivedate.

2.7. Withdrawal and Change of TypeA Program may voluntarily withdraw at any step of an ongoing evaluation process for any
reason, without refund of the paid accreditation fees. A Program undergoing its initial General
Accreditation evaluation process may voluntarily request change to Provisional Accreditationand vice versa, subject to eligibility of the Program (refer to RPEA Section 2.3 on Program
eligibility requirements). Request for this change of evaluation type must be submitted to
IABEE Secretariat before the conclusion of steps number EGA-6 or EPA-6. IABEE EAC shall thenmake the necessary adjustments for the remainder of the evaluation and accreditation
process steps.

2.8. Public Disclosure of Accreditation Status
Accreditation by IABEE holds an unambiguous recognition that an undergraduate engineering
Program is planned, operated, and managed in accordance to international quality standards
for outcome-based engineering higher education. These standards are defined as IABEE
Accreditation Criteria (AC) and Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPEA).
An accredited status by IABEE does not imply any ordinal ranking between one Program andothers that are also accredited by IABEE.
The identity of Programs that receive Not Accredited status in EGA or EPA will not be
publicized by IABEE. Programs accredited by IABEE with Accredited, Accredited with Interim
Evaluation without Visit, or Accredited with Interim Evaluation with Visit status have therights for public disclosure of the accreditation status according to the following rules:(1) The accreditation validity period of each accredited Program shall be made accessible to
the general public through the IABEE website. The Program and/or Program-Operating
Institution may not publicly disclose the accreditation validity period.
(2) IABEE shall provide an electronic file of official “accreditation logo” for Programs thathave been accredited.
(3) The accreditation logo is different from the IABEE institutional logo and contain thestarting year of the accredited status. Under no circumstances shall the Program and/or
Program- Operating Institution be allowed to apply the IABEE institutional logo in all
public disclosures.
(4) The official accreditation logo electronic file must not be altered or edited by any means(adding color and/or shade gradation, shadow, text, and frame, inserting the logo intoanother design, overlapping with other image, and other alterations), except resizing toadjust to specific media to which it is to be applied; the resizing must not change theaspect ratio of the logo. A minimum logo dimension of 1.5 cm (measured along the longer
axis of the image) is required.
(5) The public disclosure of non-official IABEE institutional logo and/or IABEE accreditation
logo is strictly prohibited; the Program and/or Institution is obliged to prevent such

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

27
disclosure and, if undertaken by parties not associated with the Program / Institution, topublicly declare their non-association. IABEE is not responsible for any misuse, deliberate
or otherwise, of the IABEE institutional logo and/or accreditation logo.
(6) Public disclosure of official IABEE accreditation logo by the Program and/or its Institutionis allowed within the validity period of the Program’s accredited status.
(7) Public declaration of the accredited status in any media, whether or not involving the useof the IABEE accreditation logo, must be accompanied by a clear and unambiguousreference to specific Programs that are accredited by IABEE.
(8) The application of official IABEE accreditation logo is allowed for the following public
disclosure and official documentation media:
a. in official website of the Program and/or the associated Program Operating
Institution
b. in official letterheads, faculty member business cards, brochures, and other official
institutional printed matter, except apparelc. in promotional matter published in electronic or print media, such as the internet,
television media, newspapers, magazines, etc.
d. in degree-granting certificate or diploma (ijazah), academic transcripts, and Letter ofReference Accompanying Diploma (Surat Keterangan Pendamping Ijazah, SKPI)
Violation to the above rules shall result in the revocation of the Program’s rights to public
disclosure of its accreditation status. This revocation shall be made public by IABEE and shallbe effective until the necessary corrective actions have been taken by the Program and/or
Program-Operating Institution.
It is also important to be noted that a Provisional Status does not in any way imply that a
Program is accredited by IABEE. The Program must not misrepresent this Provisional Status
to reflect any manner of accreditation given by IABEE.

2.9. Appeals
The Program shall be given an opportunity to file an appeal if an accreditation decision isdeemed unfair. The appeal must include a clearly written rationale for the appeal, withreference to specific AC and/or RPEA items associated with the appeal. Only final decision of
Not-Accredited status in General Accreditation may be appealed. No appeal can be filed
against Not-Accredited status in Provisional Accreditation.
Procedure for handling an appeal is outlined as follows:(1) Submission of official letter of appeal from the Program Institution highest executive
officer to the IABEE Chair of Executive Committee, to be received no later than 60
calendar days from the official notification of accreditation decision. This submission
must include the reasons for appeal with detailed evidences.
(2) Upon the receipt of an appeal submission, Chair of Executive Committee shall request
Chair of Appeal Board to form an Appeal Committee for the appeal case. Membership
requirements of an Appeal Committee are stipulated in Rules and Procedures for
Accreditation-Related Committee (RPARC).

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

28(3) IABEE Secretariat shall notify the Program Representative upon the formation of the
Appeal Committee and request him/her to submit the documents deemed necessary tosupport its appeal within 30 calendar days. Upon submission of the documents,
Secretariat shall deliver them to Chair of Appeal Committee.
(4) Chair of Appeal Committee shall request EAC Chair to submit written materials forclarification of its position.
(5) The Appeal Committee members shall conduct a meeting to review the submitted
materials. Only written materials which have been submitted as part of documents in theprocess of the disputed accreditation decision shall be considered. Representatives of
the Program/Institution may not attend the meeting. The Appeal Committee is expected
to take decision within 90 days.
(6) The decision taken by the Appeal Committee is limited to the accreditation decision
options available in Section 2.6.1 of RPEA document. The decision shall be reported to
the Chair of Appeal Board.
(7) Chair of Appeal Board shall report the decision of the Appeal Committee to the Chair of
Executive Committee. This decision shall be the IABEE final decision on the matter.
(8) IABEE Secretariat shall communicate the final decision to the Program Representative.
Final decision that affects the previous accreditation status shall immediately be madepublic in the IABEE website.

2.10. Policies on Conducting On-Site Visit
The following are general policies for implementing an on-site visit:(1) On-site visit activities are arranged so as not to interfere with the routine activities ofProgram personnel and carried out during working hours, not causing overtime work,(2) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not give evaluators gifts of any kind,(3) Programs or Program Operating Institutions have no obligation to provide pick-up toevaluators from the airport to the hotel/place of accommodation and vice versa,(4) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not provide entertainment reception toevaluators of any kind, including:a. putting up banners/billboards/posters/videotrons, moreover loading the names andphotos of the evaluators,b. giving a dinner party, andc. providing opportunities for social traveling or recreation.
(5) Programs or Program Operating Institutions do not take photos or videos that involve
evaluators during the on-site visit,(6) For the purposes of efficiency and time effectiveness of on-site visits, Programs or
Program Operating Institutions are permitted, by maintaining the principle of simplicity:a. provide pick-up evaluator facilities from the hotel/accommodation to the campus anddelivery from the campus back to the hotel/accommodation place, and

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

29
b. provide lunch (working lunch) on the days of on-site visits(7) In addition to the above policies, Programs or Program Operating Institutions are notallowed to make public exposure regarding on-going evaluation of accreditation until adefinitive accreditation decision has been announced.

RPEA – Accreditation Policies and Procedures

30

3. Indicative Scheduleof Accreditation
Evaluation Cycle

Table 3 outlines the typical timetable of an Accreditation Evaluation Cycle. An evaluation for
accreditation cycle covers a period of twelve calendar months, starting on 1 April of thecurrent year and ending on 31 March of the following year.
Table 3. Typical timetable of an Accreditation Evaluation Cycle
Step no.

Actiivity

Evalu
uation Type*)
EGA, EPA, IE

Period or Completion Deadlinne

PR & POIR registration verification

EGA, EPA, IE

1-15 April

Application for Program evaluation

1-15 April

Program eligibility verification

EGA, EPA, IE
EGA & EPA

Evaluation scheduling

EGA, EPA, IE

20 April

6

Notice of evaluation kickoff & invoicing

7

EAC Discipline assignment

EGA, EPA, IE
EGA, EPA, IE

15-20 April

8

Evaluation Team members selection

EGA, EPA, IE

15-20 April

9

Evaluation Team Chair assignment

15-20 April

10

Approval of evaluation observers

EGA Only
EGA Only

11

Evaluation Team acceptance

EGA, EPA, IE

8 May

12

Final Evaluation Team confirmation

EGA, EPA, IE

8 May

13

Completed SER submission

EGA, EPA, IE

30 June14

Full payment reception

EGA, EPA, IE

1 May

15

Program First Review

EGA, EPA, IE

31 July16

Program Second Review

EGA only

15 August

17

Program First Response

EGA, EPA, IE

15 September

18

Program Third Review

EGA Only

30 September

19

On-Site Visit Planning

EGA, EPA, IE-V

7 October20

On-Site Visit

EGA, EPA, IE-V

7 November

21

Exit Meeting

EGA, EPA, IE-V

7 November

22

Program First Evaluation

EGA, IE-V

7-14 November

23

Program Second Response

EGA, IE-V

14 November

24

Program Second Evaluation
Program Final Response

EGA, IE-V
EGA, IE

28 November

25
26

Program Final Evaluation Report

EGA, EPA, IE

15 January

27

EAC Discipline Harmonization

31 January

28

EAC Plenary Meeting

EGA, IE
EGA, EPA, IE

1 February

29

Program Final Evaluation Report Editing

EGA, EPA, IE

20 January – 1 March

30

Accreditation Decision

EGA, EPA, IE

15 March

31

Accreditation Announcement

EGA, EPA, IE

31 March1

PR & POIR registration

2
3
4
5

1-15 April

1-15 April
21 April

15-20 April

28 December*) EGA = Evaluation for General Accreditation, EPA = Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation, IE = Interim Evaluation (eitherwith or without visit), IE-V = Interim Evaluation with On-Site Visit

RPEA – Indicative Schedule of Accreditation Evaluation CycleAPPENDIX D – Rules and Procedures of Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC)

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEEIN DON ES IA N A CCR ED IT A T I ON B OA R D
F OR EN G IN EER IN G ED UC A T ION (IA B EE)

RULES & PROCEDURES FOR
ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES(RPARC)VERSION 2020

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

CONTENTSCONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4

2.

EVALUATION AND ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE ........................................................ 4
2.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Chair and Membership ..................................................................................................... 4

3.

POOL OF PROGRAM EVALUATORS .............................................................................. 5
3.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Requirements for Program Evaluator Candidates ............................................................ 54.

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL ........................................................................................... 6
4.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Membership ..................................................................................................................... 65.

APPEAL BOARD AND APPEAL COMMITTEE .................................................................. 7
5.1 Roles and Responsibility ................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Membership ..................................................................................................................... 7

6.

TRAINING .................................................................................................................... 7
6.1 Overview of Training Program .......................................................................................... 7
6.2 Awareness Training .......................................................................................................... 7
6.3 Modular Online Training................................................................................................... 8
6.4 Face-to-Face Training ....................................................................................................... 8
6.5 Observation in Actual On-Site Visit................................................................................... 8
6.6 Evaluator Refresher Training ............................................................................................ 9
6.7 Expected Evaluator Competence...................................................................................... 9
6.8 Evaluator Performance Evaluation ................................................................................. 11
6.9 Training Organizer .......................................................................................................... 117.

CODE OF ETHICS........................................................................................................ 12
7.1 IABEE Values ................................................................................................................... 12
7.2 Evaluator’s Ethical Principles .......................................................................................... 12

8.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................. 13

2

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

8.1 Policy on Conflict of Interest........................................................................................... 13
8.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 13

9.

CONFIDENTIALITY...................................................................................................... 14
9.1 Policy .............................................................................................................................. 14
9.2 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 14

3

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

1.

Version 2020

INTRODUCTI ON

The purpose of this document of Rules and Procedures of Accreditation-Related
Committees (RPARC) is to define the rules and procedures for operating IABEE
committees that are directly related to the evaluation and accreditation process of a
Program. These consist of Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC), Pool of
Program Evaluators, Accreditation Council and Appeal Board.

2.

EVALUATION AND ACCRE DITATI ON COMMITTEE

2 .1 R OL E S AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITYThis committee is responsible to conduct the accreditation evaluation of Programs. The
activity includes planning and scheduling, appointing the evaluation team, implementing
and monitoring the evaluation process, conducting post evaluation activities, including
harmonization, making recommendation on accreditation decision based on the
Accreditation Criteria and Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation (RPPEA),
and reporting.
2 .2 C H A IR AN D ME MB E R SH IP

EAC is led by an EAC Chair and a Vice Chair. For the first time, its members consist of theexperienced academics from reputable universities and representing various engineering
disciplines, and the professional communities. The number and composition of members
can be adjusted to the evaluation workload and the variety of disciplines covered. All
members of the Committee are voting members.
The Chair leads all meetings and is responsible for the conduct of the EAC roles. The Vice
Chair provides general assistance to the Chair as assigned and, in the absence of the
Chair, will assume the Chair's duties.
The EAC Chair designates, for every discipline, a Discipline Chair among the EAC members
according to his/her educational background. The function of the Discipline Chair is to
propose the names of prospective evaluators who will serve in an accreditation
evaluation process and lead the discipline-level harmonization process before
accreditation decision making.
4

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

3.

Version 2020

POOL OF PRO GRA M EVA LUATORS

3 .1 R OL E S AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITY
Program evaluators are responsible for conducting independent and systematic
evaluations from the preparatory, implementation and reporting stages to the post-site
visit activities. Program evaluators must provide an appropriate evaluation, in accordancewith the level of conformity of the program to the IABEE’s Accreditation Criteria and
RPEA.
Program evaluators are required to behave ethically and professionally by upholding theCode of Ethics of Evaluators and avoiding conflicts of interest on evaluatedinstitutions/programs.
As stated in the RPEA, an accreditation evaluation of programs is conducted by anevaluator team consists of usually two academics and one industrial practitioner. The
evaluation team is led by a Team Chair. The competencies of evaluator team members
and the Team Chair are explained in Section 6.7.

3 .2 R E Q U I R E ME N TS F OR P R O G R A M E VAL U A T O R C AN D ID A TE S
The recruitment process to become a candidate for IABEE’s engineering program evaluators
is carried out in coordination with the respective Discipline Chapters of PII (BK-PII). IABEE
collaborates with Association of Higher Education in Computing (APTIKOM) In case ofrecruitment for computing program evaluators. The requirements are as follow:(1) Demonstrates interest and commitment in improving the quality of higher education.
(2) Has a good professional and ethical reputation.
(3) Has a commitment to improve his/her professional development (lifelong learning).
(4) Has good skills in working online and with word processing programs and data.
(5) Graduated from reputable university and has a good academic qualification in theappropriate field (for domestic university with national accreditation of Program rankA by BAN-PT, or for foreign university with reputable recognition by Minister of
Education and Culture).
(6) Has certificate as professional educator and at least 10 years lecturing experience
and/ or certification as professional engineer with minimum level of Professional
Engineer (IPM) for candidates of engineering program evaluator, and/or professional
certificate in the field(s) of computing/IT-related for candidates of computing
program evaluator.
5

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

(7) Registered as member of PII (for candidates of engineering program evaluator) or
member of a computing/IT-related professional association acknowledged by
APTIKOM (for candidates of computing program evaluator).
A candidate who has been assessed as fulfilling the above requirements must thenundertake a series of IABEE candidate evaluator training programs. See Section 6 forfurther information on IABEE Evaluator Training Program.

4. A C C R E D I T A T I O N C O U N C I L

4 .1 R OL ES AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITY
Accreditation Council is a board of officials in charge of taking the final accreditation
decision, based on the final results of accreditation recommended by the EAC Plenary
Meeting. The main role of the council is to ensure that the accreditation process has
been carried out in accordance with the established rules and procedures, code of ethics,
the principle of confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The council does
not conduct a technical review so that it repeats what has been done by the EAC but
rather on ensuring that all accreditation procedures have been carried out consistently
and also emphasizing philosophical and strategic considerations if deemed necessary.
If any doubt arises concerning the recommendation of EAC, the Council has the right torequest the EAC to re-examine the evaluation process for ensuring a justified
accreditation decision.
4 .2 ME MB E R SH IP
The Council has 5-7 members consisting of representatives from academics, professionalsocieties, and industry. Only in the initial period of IABEE’s establishment, there weremembers of the Council representing government with the aim of ensuring that IABEE'svision and mission were aligned with national laws and policies. After IABEE becomesfully independent, representation from the government is no longer needed. The
members and the Chair of Accreditation Council are appointed by the Executive
Committee in yearly basis.

6

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

5. A P P E A L B O A R D A N D A P P E A L C O M M I T T E E

5 .1 R OL E S AN D R E SP O N SIB IL ITY
Appeal is a facility provided to a Program if a final accreditation decision of NotAccredited is deemed inappropriate. Appeal Board and Appeal Committee are board of
officials that are appointed to hear appeals. They judge whether the accreditation
decision was right or wrong, when the program or institution affected by it thinks that it
was wrong. This judgement shall be the IABEE final decision on the matter.
Upon request of the Chair of Executive Committee, Appeal Board shall form an Appeal
Committee who will conduct the entire process of resolving an appeal case.
5 .2 ME M B E R SH IP
The Appeal Board constitutes of Chair and Vice Chair who are appointed by the Executive
Committee. An Appeal Committee formed by the Appeal Board consists of threemembers comprising at least an experienced Program Evaluator and a representative of
associated engineering discipline. No member of the committee shall be involved as aTeam Chair in the evaluation cycle during which the appealing Program is evaluated.
Chair of Appeal Board shall appoint one of the members to be the Chair of Appeal
Committee.

6. T R A I N I N G

6 .1 O VE R V IE W OF T R A I N IN G P R OG R AM
Participants selected to take part in the IABEE Evaluator Candidate Training need toundergo a series of training programs, namely Awareness Training, Modular Online
Training, Face-to-Face Training, and Observation in an On-Site Evaluation. Evaluator
Refresher Training will also be given to evaluators who get assignments in the particularyear.
6 .2 AW AR E N E S S T R A I N I NG
This training is carried out by Chapters of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (BK-PII),
with instructors from IABEE with the aim of recruiting IABEE evaluator candidates. The
7

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

purpose of this training is to:(1) introduce IABEE and give an understanding to evaluator candidates about therelationship between educational institutions and industry in the context of Outcome
Based Education (OBE), and(2) Introduce evaluator candidates on the concept of outcome-based accreditation,
IABEE Accreditation Criteria, and Rules and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) and the roles of evaluators.
6 .3 M OD U L A R ON L IN E T R AIN IN G
This is a regular yearly training conducted by IABEE with the following objectives:(1) to give understanding of the basic aspects of the entire IABEE accreditation process,and(2) to provide experience in preparing a program visit by giving several assignments
pertinent to it.
The modules consist of introduction to IABEE; accreditation concepts; Accreditation
Criteria; RPEA; roles and duties of evaluators; improvement of learning quality;
evaluation judgment and accreditation decision making. This is a prerequisite training forevaluator candidate to be eligible to participate in the following Face-To-Face Training.
6 .4 F AC E - TO- F AC E T R A IN IN G
This is a 2-day interactive training program that is designed to simulate a real activity of
program visit. It is designed for two purposes:(1) to give participants a picture of the real situation and activities that occurs during a
campus visit. The workshop is designed based on the online training materials thathave been completed by participants, and(2) to give participants the opportunity to demonstrate their competence as evaluators.
This training is guided by instructors and facilitators who function to guide participantsin the learning process.
6 .5 O B S E R V A T ION IN AC TU A L ON - SI TE V I SI T
After successfully completing the series of evaluator training programs, IABEE will include
the candidates in IABEE’s Pool of Program Evaluators. However, assignment as a program
evaluator can only be done after the candidate has direct experience in a

8

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

program evaluation activity. For this purpose, a candidate who has passed the series oftraining programs will be involved in an internship as an observer (evaluator-in-training)in an actual program evaluation activity.
The purposes of this observation are to:(1) to improve the competence of evaluator candidates through direct involvement in
the implementation of program evaluation, starting from document review (Program
Profile, Self-Evaluation Report/SER), preparation of visits, interviews andobservation, assessment, and report writing, and(2) to demonstrate that the evaluator has the competence to evaluate the program.
Observer tasks include:(1) observing the implementation of a program evaluation,(2) practicing interview (with permission from the Team Chair), and(3) practicing to give judgment.

6 .6 E V AL U A T OR R E F R E S H E R TR A IN IN G
This training is specifically conducted for evaluators who will get the task of evaluating a
program in that particular year. The objectives of this training are to:(1) Recall evaluation processes and procedures(2) Inform the latest developments in Accreditation Criteria and RPEA(3) Share experiences (taking lessons) from the previous period evaluation processThis is half-day training and held before the implementation of the current year
evaluation process.
6 .7 E X P E C TE D E V AL U A T O R C O MP E TE N C E
After going through the series of training programs and after having adequate evaluation
experience, a program evaluator is expected to have the following knowledge, skills andattitudes.
Technically current:• Demonstrates required technical credentials for the position• Engaged in lifelong learning and current in their field

9

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

Effective communicator:• Easily conducts face-to-face interviews• Writes clearly and succinctly• Presents focused, concise oral briefings
Interpersonally skilled:• Friendly and sets others at ease
• Listens and places input into context• Remains open-minded and avoids personal bias
• Forthright, doesn't hold back what needs to be said
• Skillful at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in non-confrontational
Team-oriented:• Readily accepts input from team members• Works with team members to reach consensus• Values team success over personal success
Professional:• Conveys professional appearance and demeanor• Is committed to contributing and adding value to the evaluation process• Considered a person with high integrity and ethical standards
Organized:• Is focused on meeting deadlines• Focuses on critical issues and avoids minor detail• Displays take-charge initiative• Takes responsibility and works under minimum supervision
For a Team Chair, additional competencies are required, particularly those related toleadership quality and capability to manage an evaluation team. These include:
Leadership••••

Takes responsibility, facilitating constructive discussion and fostering closure
Exhibits adaptability and sound judgment
Fosters a team environment that is cohesive and well organized
Builds trust within the team and between the team and the institution

10

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

Good team manager:• Able to build team cohesion and effectively manage team meetings and activities• Able to bring the team to consensus, exhibiting skill in finding common ground andfostering cooperation• Able to diplomatically manage an effective exit meeting
6 .8 E V AL U A T OR P E R F OR MA N C E E V AL U A T I ON
The performance evaluation of evaluator candidates during training, and team memberof evaluators as well as team chair in conducting program evaluation is based on theevaluator competence described in point 6.7. This evaluation is primarily intended as ameans for professional development of evaluators.
The evaluation of evaluator candidates is conducted by the Training Facilitators and Peers.
The evaluation of evaluators is conducted by Institutions/Programs, Team Chair and Peers
after each visit, and the evaluation of Team Chair is conducted by Institution/Program,
Evaluators and EAC.
Evaluation instruments containing evaluation criteria and scoring system for evaluatorcandidates, evaluators, team chairs and training implementation are described in the
IABEE training center website.
6 .9 T R A IN IN G O R G AN I ZE R
The training organizer has the following duties and responsibilities:(1) plan, schedule and carry out training activities(2) preparing training materials, instructors and facilitators(3) assessing evaluator candidates(4) evaluate the implementation of training,(5) make continuous improvements of training programs
Training Instructors are EAC members who have the following qualifications.
(1) Technical accreditation evaluation knowledge obtained through successful
completion of overseas and IABEE’s evaluator trainer training programs and recent
accreditation evaluation experiences.
(2) Combination of adult-education delivery experience and knowledge of principles
obtained through at least 10 years delivery experience or successful completion of
an instructor training program based on adult learning principles.

11

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

(3)

(4)

Version 2020

Have sufficient knowledge about the concept of Outcome-Based Education,
Quality Improvement of Education, IABEE matters, IABEE’s Accreditation Criteria
and RPEA, and IABEE’s Code of Ethics.
Have the ability to create positive learning environments and adheres to the
instructional design.

Training activities also involve several Facilitators who have the following tasks and roles:(1) Assist in managing the flow and training time(2) Helping participants to understand training materials(3) Helping the success of group learning during program visit simulations
All members of EAC are eligible to become training facilitators.

7. C O D E O F E T H I C S
7 .1 I AB E E V AL U E S
IABEE demands that all personnel involved in carrying out the mission of IABEE
demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism, honesty and integrity. The services
provided by IABEE demand impartiality, justice and equality, so that every person mustcarry out their duties with the highest standards of ethical behavior.
7 .2 E V AL U A T OR ’S E TH I C AL P R IN C IP L E S
The followings are evaluator’s ethical principles:(1) Evaluators must work objectively based on the Accreditation Criteria and RPEA
regardless of the program reputation.
(2) Evaluators are not permitted to express personal opinions on behalf of IABEE.
(3) Evaluators are not permitted to request or accept gifts of any kind that should besuspected of having a bearing on / affecting the results of accreditation evaluation.
(4) Evaluators are required to follow the applicable legal rules in Indonesia regarding
gratification.
(5) Each evaluator must make every effort to avoid providing evaluations or comments
on matters not included in the scope of Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA.
(6) Evaluators should not compare the conditions of study program being evaluatedwith the conditions in the institutions of origin of evaluators or other institutions
because each study program has the flexibility to determine the outcome standardsof its graduates in accordance with the vision, mission and conditions of its resources.
12IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

8.

Version 2020

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

8 .1 P OL IC Y O N C ON F L IC T OF IN TE R E S T
The types of services provided by IABEE are vulnerable to conflicts of interest that canaffect the objectivity of the accreditation process, and thus the credibility of IABEE.
Therefore, IABEE expects that all personnel involved in IABEE activities to hold strong
ethical principles and professionalism to avoid potential conflicts of interest as much as
possible so as to guarantee objectivity of services.
The following policies and procedures regarding conflict of interest are established withthe aim of:(1) maintaining credibility in the accreditation evaluation process and confidence indecisions,(2) ensuring fairness and impartiality in decision making,(3) disclosing real or perceived conflicts of interest, and(4) acting impartially and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
8 .2 P R OC E D U R E S
The following conflict of interest procedures address situations and circumstances inwhich personal interests of IABEE personnel are - or can appear to be - in conflict with
the IABEE's interest:(1) Individuals representing IABEE must not participate in any decision-making capacity
if they have or have had a close, active association with a program or institution
being evaluated. Close, active association includes but is not limited to:a. Current or past employment as faculty, staff, or consultant by the institution or
program;b. Current or past discussion or negotiation of employment with the institution or
program;c. Attendance as student at the institution;
d. Receipt of an honorary degree from the institution;e. An institution or program where a close family relative is, or was, a student or
employee; or,f. An unpaid official relationship within the past 10 years with an institution, e.g.
membership on the institution’s governing board or advisory board.
g. Any reason that the individual cannot render an unbiased decision.
(2) The members of the evaluation team must not establish a close or active association
with the institution or program under evaluation, until the entire accreditation
13

IABEE – RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION-RELATED COMMITTEES

Version 2020

evaluation has been completed and accreditation decision has been publicly
announced.
(3) All individuals representing IABEE must sign a conflict of interest and confidentiality
statement indicating that they have read and understand these policies.
(4) Individuals must absent themselves from any portion of IABEE meeting in which
discussions or decisions occur for which they have a real or perceived conflict ofinterest.

9. C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y

9 .1 P OL IC Y
IABEE upholds ethics in conducting all activities of its members and organizing staff, andrequires that they exhibit highest standards in professionalism, fairness, and integrity.
Information disclosed by programs undergoing evaluation, and information generated byreview and discussion activities during the evaluation process shall be treated withconfidentiality, and shall not be divulged without specific written authorization by IABEE
and the program being evaluated.
9 .2 P R OC E D U R E S(1) Evaluators must maintain the confidentiality of every information/document as wellas the evaluation results except to IABEE.
(2) Evaluators may not use the information provided by the program for the purpose ofevaluation for the benefit of themselves or other parties other than IABEE(3) Even though the evaluation process is transparent, all the documents submitted by
the study program to the evaluator as well as the results of the evaluation are
confidential which are entrusted by the program to IABEE. Each evaluator must
maintain this trust by not providing information from the document and the resultsof the evaluation to any party other than IABEE.
(4) The evaluator is also not allowed to take advantage of the use of data andinformation submitted by the program to IABEE both in the form of documents andthe facts of the field.

14

APPENDIX E – Evaluation Guide

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEEEvaluation Guide for
Programs and
Evaluators
Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee

Version 2020a

General Information
Information for Programs
seeking for Accreditation
Information for Programand Candidate Evaluators*With additional section on Live Online Visit Protocols

Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
an autonomous subsidiary of the Institution of Engineers Indonesia (PII)

w: iabee.or.id
e: info@iabee.or.id

1Document Control

Evaluation Guide for Programs and Evaluators version 2020 is produced by Evaluation andAccreditation Committee (EAC) as supplementary document to be used from 2020 Evaluation
Cycle onwards.
A special section has been added in September 2020 to include Live Online Visit Evaluation,
which is an alternate to the standard On-Site Evaluation Visit to be utilized under certain
circumstances that prohibit its application.

Evaluation Guide for Programs and Evaluators

2

Contents

Document Control ............................................................................................................ 1
Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
A. General Information .................................................................................................. 4
A.1. Types of Accreditation and Evaluation...................................................................... 4
A.2. Program Eligibility ..................................................................................................... 4
A.2.1. Eligibility Requirements for General Accreditation ........................................ 4
A.2.2. Eligibility Requirements for Provisional Accreditation ................................... 5
A.3. Understanding Accreditation Criteria, and Rules, and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation ............................................................................................................. 5
A.3.1. Accreditation Criteria ...................................................................................... 5
A.3.2. Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation ................................ 6
A.4. Overview of Evaluation Process ................................................................................ 8
A.5. Quality Assurance .................................................................................................... 10
A.5.1. Provision of Quality Program Evaluators ...................................................... 10
A.5.2. Consistency Checks ....................................................................................... 11
A.5.3. Adoption of QMS of ISO 9001:2015 .............................................................. 11
B. Information for Programs seeking for accreditation.................................................. 12
B.1. Preparation for Self-Evaluation Report and Program Profile ................................. 12
B.1.1. Self-Evaluation Report (SER) ......................................................................... 12
B.1.2. Program Profile ............................................................................................. 13
B.1.3. Preparing Evidence ........................................................................................ 14
B.2. Evaluation Judgement and Decision ....................................................................... 14
B.2.1. General Accreditation ................................................................................... 14
B2.2. Provisional Accreditation ............................................................................... 15
C. Information for Program Evaluators ......................................................................... 16
C.1. Competency and Code of Ethics.............................................................................. 16
C.2. Principles of Evidence-based Evaluation ................................................................. 16
C.3. Judgement and Feedbacks ...................................................................................... 16
D. Live Online Visit ....................................................................................................... 18
D.1. Principles ................................................................................................................. 18
D.2. Requirements .......................................................................................................... 18
D.3. Policies ..................................................................................................................... 18
D.4. Preparing Evidence .................................................................................................. 19D4.1. Digital Evidence accompanying Self Evaluation Report (SER) ....................... 19D4.2. Digital Evidence to be confirmed during Online Visit .................................... 19D4.3. Physical Evidence ........................................................................................... 19
D.5. Program’s Integrity Statement ................................................................................ 20
D.6. Force Majeure ......................................................................................................... 20
Introduction

3

Introduction

This Evaluation Guide for Evaluators and Programs provides program management, quality
managers in higher education institutions, and IABEE Program Evaluators with a concise
reference for understanding the accreditation process and criteria, context for judgment by
Evaluators, information and documents expected to be provided by programs for theevaluation process, and supplementary information not covered in the RPEA. Through thisdocument, both the program and the Evaluators are expected to form a common qualityoriented and criteria-based understanding on the expectations associated with IABEE’s
accreditation process. For the Evaluators in particular, this guide facilitates the consistent andobjective judgment throughout the entire program evaluation process.
To meet the above-mentioned purpose, this guide is composed of the following sections:A. General Information: (1) types of accreditation and evaluation, (2) program eligibility, (3)understanding accreditation criteria, rules, and procedures for evaluation andaccreditation, (4) overview of evaluation process, and (5) quality assurance
B. Information for Programs seeking for Accreditation: (1) preparation for Self-Evaluation
Report and Program Profile and (2) evaluation judgement and decision
C. Information for Program Evaluators: (1) competency and code of ethics, (2) principles ofevidence-based evaluation, (3) judgement and feedbacks
A special section is added to explain rules and procedures for conducting Live Online Visit
Evaluation. This type of evaluation is an alternate to the normal On-Site Visit and may be
opted by IABEE in a situation where the normal On-Site procedure is not plausible toundertake.
D. Live Online Visit Evaluation: (1) principles, (2) requirements, (3) rules, (4) preparing
evidence, (5) Program’s integrity statement, (6) force majeure

A. General Information

4

A. General
Information

A.1. Types of Accreditation and Evaluation
IABEE offers two types of accreditation, i.e. General Accreditation (GA) and Provisional
Accreditation (PA).
(1) General Accreditation (GA) is intended for programs seeking international recognition
through IABEE accreditation. Program wishing to apply for evaluation of GA must comply
with eligibility requirements (see Section 2.3.1. of Rules and Procedures of Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) document).
(2) Provisional Accreditation (PA) is intended for programs newly adopting an outcomebased education system and have not yet produced graduates under the system. A
program applying for PA will be evaluated to measure its potentials of meeting theAccreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (2-4 years). Eligibility requirements fora program applying PA evaluation is specified in Section 2.3.2. of RPEA document.
A Provisional status is not recognized as an accreditation status at international level.

A.2. Program Eligibility
A.2.1. Eligibility Requirements for General Accreditation
Programs eligible to apply evaluation for General Accreditation (GA) are those which meetthe following requirements (see Section 2.3.1. of RPEA).
(1) The associated Program Operating Institution (POI) has obtained National Accreditation
for Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.
(2) The Program has obtained National Accreditation status ranked “A”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering discipline with a curricularstudy period of four years, and with a total course-load of a minimum of 144 credit units(or SKS).
(4) The Program is at least in the 4th year of continuous Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
implementation.
(5) The OBE shall include assessment and evaluation of the Learning Outcomes of thestudents.
(6) By the time of the on-site visit evaluation, the Program has produced at least one
graduate under its OBE system.
A. General Information

5(7) The Program has established and publicized the Profile of Autonomous Professionals
statement formulated as its educational objectives.
(8) The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning methods.
A.2.2. Eligibility Requirements for Provisional Accreditation
Programs wishing to apply evaluation for Provisional Accreditation (PA) must fulfill thefollowing requirements (see Section 2.3.2. of RPEA).
(1) The associated Program Operating Institution has obtained National Accreditation for
Institution status with a minimum rank of “B”.
(2) The Program has obtained National Accreditation status at least ranked “B”.
(3) The Program is a bachelor-level program in an engineering or computing discipline with acurricular study period of four years, and with a total credit of a minimum of 144 credit
units (or SKS).
(4) The Program has implemented Outcome-Based Education (OBE) at least for one year
before applying for the evaluation.
(5)

The Program has established and publicized the Autonomous Professional Profilestatement formulated as its educational objectives.

(6) The Program has established and publicized its Learning Outcomes as the basis fordeveloping its curriculum and learning methods.

A.3. Understanding Accreditation Criteria, andRules, and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation
IABEE conducts all Program evaluation and accreditation process based on a well-defined setof criteria, and documented accreditation policies, rules, and procedures. Therefore, anunderstanding of these formal framework of accreditation is critical to ensure fairness andobjectivity of the entire evaluation process, and ultimately the accreditation decision-making.
To provide an insight on the fundamental elements of the accreditation framework, thefollowing is an overview of the Accreditation Criteria, Criteria Guide, as well as Rules andProcedures for Evaluation and Accreditation.
A.3.1. Accreditation Criteria
Program evaluation process conducted by IABEE is based on specific accreditation criteria,
which is composed of: Common Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline Criteria. These
documents are to be treated as a single, cohesive framework for program evaluation andaccreditation. IABEE periodically reviews and publishes the Accreditation Criteria. The
evaluation process undertaken in an accreditation cycle adheres to the latest version.
Common Criteria are organized as a concise set of evaluation criteria that must be fulfilled by
all Programs eligible for IABEE evaluation process, regardless of their discipline. Discipline
A. General Information

6
criteria are discipline- or area-specific requirements defined by the appointed national
professional association. Criteria Guide provides concise elaborations and/or additional
details for each of the Common Criteria item. Evaluation items in the Program Evaluation
Worksheet embedded in the IABEE Online Evaluation System are based on the three criteriarelated documents. IABEE Program Evaluators conduct their evaluation based on evidences
provided by the Program against the Accreditation Criteria.

Fig. 1. Illustration of Common Criteria

Common Criteria consist of 4 criteria (Fig.1), following the management approach of PDCA
(Plan-Do-Check-Act) continual improvement cycle. The four criteria are as follows:o Criterion 1 is associated with the orientation of the graduate competence (profile ofautonomous professionals or graduate profile, and program learning outcomes).
o Criterion 2 is associated with the learning implementation, which includes curriculum,
faculty, students and academic atmosphere, learning facilities, and institutional
responsibility related to the operation and sustainability of the Program.
o Criterion 3 is associated with the assessment of the expected learning outcomes,
ensuring that the Program must regularly conduct direct and indirect assessment oflearning outcomes attainment, and that all graduates satisfy the minimum
requirements for outcomes attainment.
o Criterion 4 is associated with continual improvements, which essentially expects that
the Program effectively utilizes their outcomes assessment results to identify andpursue improvement follow-up actions.
The Common Criteria are elaborated into 12 sub-criteria (Fig. 1), which are articulated into
evaluation items listed in online evaluation worksheet used by programs and IABEE Evaluators
throughout the evaluation process. In addition, the program evaluation online worksheet has
also articulated Criteria Guide and Discipline Criteria.
A.3.2. Rules and Procedures for Evaluation and Accreditation
IABEE maintains and periodically updates the Rules and Procedures for Evaluation andAccreditation (RPEA) document. This document serves as the main reference for issues
A. General Information

7
related to rules, policies, procedures, and general timeline governing evaluation andaccreditation processes. These rules, policies and procedures are to be adhered to by boththe Programs and the Evaluators involved in the evaluation and accreditation processes.
The following are key aspects included in the RPEA, along with concise description of issues
related to each aspect.
o Confidentiality and avoidance of conflict of interest: Information provided by the
Program associated with its evaluation process is treated with confidentiality by IABEE.
Furthermore, IABEE requires its personnel to act in a professional and ethical manner,and to inform of any real or perceived conflict of interest in their activities.
o Scope and eligibility for accreditation: IABEE accredits bachelor-level academic
Programs in engineering and computing disciplines. Degrees granted by these
Programs include Bachelor of Engineering (Sarjana Teknik), Bachelor of Science inEngineering (Sarjana Teknik), Bachelor of Science in Computing (Sarjana Teknik or
Sarjana Komputer), and Bachelor of Computing (Sarjana Komputer). These degrees
are bestowed upon completion of a study period of four academic years, with aminimum total course load of 144 semester-credit units (SKS).
o Description of Program evaluation process: This section in RPEA contains a detailed
step-by-step description of the standard processes implemented by IABEE, namely: (1)Evaluation for General Accreditation (2) Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation
with On-Site Visit (3) Interim Evaluation for General Accreditation without On-Site
Visit, and (4) Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation. The reader is referred to themost up to date version of IABEE RPEA document for these process details. It is notablehere that IABEE conducts a major part of the evaluation process using an online
system. On-site evaluation is an integral part of the process.
o Types of accreditation decisions: Accreditation decisions are taken by IABEE
Accreditation Council (AC) by considering EAC recommendation. The AC meeting isnormally conducted annually at the end of the accreditation cycle. Types of decision
are based on categories of unresolved shortcomings by the end of the evaluation
process. The decisions with regards to General Accreditation are Accredited,
Accredited with Interim Evaluation without Visit, Accredited with Interim Evaluation
with Visit, or Not Accredited. As for Provisional Accreditation, the decision can be
Provisionally Accredited or Not Accredited. It should be noted and emphasized that
Provisional status is not regarded as an accredited status with substantially equivalent
implication.
o Rules on public disclosure of accreditation status by the Program: Accreditation by
IABEE holds an unambiguous recognition that an undergraduate engineering Programis planned, operated, and managed in accordance to international quality standards
for outcome-based engineering higher education. An accredited status by IABEE does
not imply any ordinal ranking between one Program and others that are also
accredited by IABEE. The reader is referred to the IABEE RPEA document for a detailed
list of approved and disapproved methods of public disclosure of an accredited status.
Violation to these rules results in the revocation of the Program’s rights to public
disclosure of its accreditation status.

A. General Information

8o Evaluation feedback and appeal procedures: IABEE solicits feedback from Programs
that have undergone the evaluation process. This feedback shall be utilized for the
improvement of internal business processes, evaluation process, and assessment
instruments and documentations. The Program shall be given an opportunity to file anappeal to IABEE if an accreditation decision is deemed unfair. The appeal must include
a clearly written rationale for the appeal, with reference to specific AC and/or RPEA
items associated with the appeal. Only final decision of Not-Accredited (NA) status in
General Accreditation may be appealed for. The reader is referred to the RPEA
document for a more detailed description of the feedback and decision appeal
procedures.
o On-site visit policies: The policies detailed in the RPEA are developed to minimize
unnecessary interactions between the Program and/or Program Operating Institution
and IABEE Evaluators, that may bias the Evaluators’ judgment and/or potentiallycreate clear or perceived conflict of interest. The reader is urged to review the details
in the RPEA document.
o Indicative schedule for General Accreditation Evaluation and Provisional Accreditation
Evaluation processes: This aspect is self-explanatory; the reader is encouraged toreview the details in the RPEA document.
Rules and policies stipulated in the RPEA apply not only during the Program evaluation
process, but also during a Program’s accredited period.

A.4. Overview of Evaluation Process
IABEE evaluation process is conducted during a 12-month Evaluation Cycle (Fig. 2) and is
implemented through IABEE Online Evaluation System (OES). The evaluation process ingeneral is described as the following.

Fig. 2. Illustration of Common Criteria

o Evaluation Team comprises of a Team Chair and 2 (two) Program Evaluators forevaluation for General Accreditation, whereas only one evaluator is assigned for
Provisional Accreditation.
o Members of evaluation team are a combination of academics and industrial
practitioners whose disciplines are related to the program under evaluation. They are
A. General Information

9
assigned by an Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) Discipline Chair or EAC
Chair. Having been assured of free of any conflict of interest and acceptable to theprogram, the evaluation team is finalized by the EAC Chair.
o The Team Chair is the only contact person for the program related to evaluation
process. Any communications between the program and evaluation team shall be
conducted through the Team Chair.
o SER, Program Profile, and related evidence submitted by the program are evaluatedby each member of Evaluation Team, after which the Team Chair is to prepare andsubmit the First Review report.
o Upon submission of the First Review, program may submit responses and additional
information and evidence through OES which would be considered by the Evaluation
Team during the subsequent evaluation processes.
o IABEE Secretariat will contact program and/or institution representatives to arrange
schedule of On-Site Visit, meanwhile Team Chair will follow up with detailed
evaluation plan to be agreed by the program. An on-site visit normally is scheduled for
3 days and takes place during October or November.
o The purpose of an On-Site Visit is to explore evidence which cannot be found or fully
understood from the submitted documents through direct observations, interviews,
and review of display materials. Throughout the On-Site Visit, Program Evaluators are
expected to revisit the judgement made during the initial review.
o An On-Site Visit ends with an Exit Statement to be read by the Team Chair. A written
report called the First Evaluation Report would elaborate the Exit Statement andwould be submitted to Program through OES. The statement contains short
description about the Program, identified strength and shortcomings. Some of theshortcomings might be rectified by the Program during the 7-day and 30-day due
processes.
o Based on First Evaluation Report and subsequent Program responses (if any), theTeam Chair will prepare the Final Evaluation Report to be discussed during Discipline
Harmonization and EAC Plenary Meetings to form the EAC recommendation on
accreditation decision. This final report is not accessible by the program.
o The purpose of Discipline Harmonization meeting is to harmonize evaluation findings
across different programs within a discipline. Meanwhile, EAC Plenary Meeting isconvened to harmonize evaluation findings across all disciplines and all programoperating institutions. EAC Plenary Meeting produces EAC recommendation on
accreditation decisions to be decided by the Accreditation Council (AC).
o AC will examine the report and recommendation presented by EAC during the AC
Meeting to ensure that accreditation evaluation has been conducted in accordance to
RPEA and, subsequently, decide accreditation decisions.

A. General Information

10

A.5. Quality Assurance
Internal quality assurance is maintained in all aspects of IABEE accreditation activities toensure consistent implementation of criteria, rules and procedures, objective review, fairaccreditation decision, and quality report as a means for program’s continual quality
improvements. Three areas of particular importance in assuring quality include provision ofquality program evaluators, consistency checks, and overall management of IABEE businessprocesses.
A.5.1. Provision of Quality Program Evaluators
Program evaluation is conducted by Program Evaluators having reputable academic and/or
industrial background. High standards of recruitment and training processes are establishedto ensure competent evaluators (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Training series towards provision of quality program evaluators

Candidates for programs evaluators must first meet eligibility requirements as stipulated in
Ch. 3 of Rules and Procedures of Accreditation-related Committees (RPARC). To become aprogram evaluator, candidate must undertake and pass a series of training, namely Online
Modular Training, Face-to-Face Training, and Observation. Online Modular Training isdesigned to provide the candidate with basic knowledge on IABEE, evaluation andaccreditation principles, role of an evaluator, accreditation criteria, and overall evaluation
process, including document review and judgement. Building up the knowledge gained fromthe online resource, the candidate will have an opportunity to simulate On-Site Visitevaluation during the 2-day Face-to-Face Training, especially on how to apply evaluation
judgment. Assignment of the candidate as an observer will give hands-on experience ofconducting real program evaluation.
In addition, a refresher training inviting all evaluators assigned for an on-going evaluation
cycle is convened as a platform for strengthening evaluators’ competency and sharing lessons
learned and any recent updates on Accreditation Criteria and RPEA.
Regular evaluation system of program evaluators includes feedbacks from evaluatedprograms to improve evaluators’ performance and overall accreditation system. Mechanism
exists to improve program evaluators’ competency based on previous performance andfeedbacks.

A. General Information

11
A.5.2. Consistency Checks
IABEE evaluation process has several built-in mechanisms to ensure consistent application ofaccreditation criteria as well as rules and procedures. Processes of accreditation system isensured closely by related committees and secretariat, and by taking advantage of the use of
On-line Evaluation System (OES) with pre-defined and clear schedule.
Consistent judgement on the extent of accreditation criteria fulfilment by a program underevaluation is ensured by collective and collegial work of the Team Chair and the members ofevaluation team throughout initial reviews, on-site evaluation, and due process period.
Consistent judgement is further ascertained by the harmonization mechanisms conductedwithin and across disciplines. Final consistency check takes place prior to the release of Final
Evaluation Report to the program, in which Editors are assigned to ensure consistency
between the judgement and the description of evaluation results in association with theaccreditation criteria.
A.5.3. Adoption of QMS of ISO 9001:2015
In a broader context of organization quality assurance, IABEE is also in the process ofestablishing a quality management system by adopting the international standard on quality
management and quality assurance of ISO 9001:2015. By adopting this standard IABEE is
expected to have better management control and reporting, better basis for continual
improvement, and to ensure that customers will consistently obtain high quality services,which in turn will bring many benefits, including satisfied customer, management, andinternal stakeholders.
These basic requirements are being prepared in documented form, namely IABEE’s Quality
Policy, Procedures, Business Process Map and Scope of the Quality Management System,
Quality Objectives, Quality Plan, and Work Instructions. After all these requirements arecompleted, IABEE’s management will start to implement the quality management system.
The level of system compliance and its implementation against the ISO 9001: 2015 standard
requirements will be checked through an internal audit program. This quality management
system is expected to be fully implemented in 2021 Evaluation Cycle onwards.

A. General Information

12

B. Information for
Programs seeking
for accreditation
B.1. Preparation for Self-Evaluation Report andProgram Profile
A program seeking for accreditation to IABEE shall prepare and submit Self-Evaluation Report(SER), Program Profile, and supporting evidence. SER is basically a collective statement madeby program seeking for accreditation claiming that its current practice has fulfilled theaccreditation criteria. Evidence is therefore of utmost importance for the program to beprepared appropriately since any claim of fulfilment of criteria by the program, as well as
evaluator judgement, shall be based upon it. Meanwhile, Program Profile is a supplementary
document to provide the evaluators with pertinent information for a quick andcomprehensive understanding about the program and its education system.
B.1.1. Self-Evaluation Report (SER)
The SER template is structured in a spreadsheet format (Fig. 4) with column (1) listing thecriteria, sub-criteria, and evaluation items related to a certain sub-criterion. The worksheet
essentially expects the program to make a claim of fulfillment in column (2), deliberate anddescribe how it fulfills each evaluation item in column (3) and, provide a list of evidence tosupport the claim and deliberation in column (4). The evidences listed in column (4) must be
provided in attachment file(s) accompanying SER submission, as described in Section B.1.3.

Fig. 4. Illustration of a SER template

B. Information for Programs seeking Accreditation

13
The official SER template will be downloadable through Program Representative’s registerede-mail account once evaluation process has started. It has to be worked on and uploaded backto the OES to store the information to the system.
B.1.2. Program Profile
The Program Profile template is available in .docx format and downloadable from IABEE
website (iabee.or.id). Information required to be provided in this document include: (1)General Information and Program Identity, (2) Summary of Program Profile, (3) Latest
Education Improvement, (4) Executive Summary of SER, (5) Formulation of Autonomous
Professional Profile, (6) Relationship between Program Learning Outcomes and IABEE’s
Criteria of Learning Outcomes, (7) Performance Indicators and Method of Program Learning
Outcomes Assessment, (8) Curriculum Design, (9) Road Map of Learning Outcomes
Achievement through Course Structure, (10) Program Curriculum, (11) Learning
Implementation on Engineering Design, (12) Summary of Program’s Quantitative Data, (13)Sample of Academic Transcript, (14) Summary of Faculty Members Data, (15) Sample of
Syllabi and/or Course Semester Learning Plan, (16) Samples of Exam Questions or Assessmentof Learning Outcomes, Student Answer Sheet, and Assessment Results, (16) List of Facility of
Learning, and (17) Condensed Curriculum Vitae of Faculty Members.
Fig. 5 depicts the cover page of Program Profile template. Upon completion, this document is
to be converted into PDF format and submitted to OES together with SER and otherdocument(s) of supporting evidence.

Fig. 5. A Program Profile template

C. Information for Program Evaluators

14
B.1.3. Preparing Evidence
Evidence provided to support a claim of fulfillment must be directly related or relevant to theevaluation item in question. Relevant evidences can assume various forms, such as
documents (e.g. institution’s policies and procedures, curriculum and syllabi, quality
assurance, tracer study reports, activity reports, etc.), records (e.g. student transcripts,
minutes of meeting, sample of student’s works, assessment results), and others (e.g.
photographs, audio-visuals, software). Due to limited file size allowance for a program, only
relevant parts of the evidence are considered sufficient to support a claim. Full or larger
volume of evidence may be inspected during On-Site Visit upon evaluator’s request.
The proofs or evidences of the fulfillment of evaluation items are to be gatheredsystematically in a file(s) (in PDF format) and uploaded as attachment(s) to the SER.
In circumstances where Live Online Evaluation has been decided by IABEE to replace On-Site
Visit during an Accreditation Evaluation Cycle, there will be additional instructions for study
programs in preparing evidence (see Section D).

B.2. Evaluation Judgement and Decision
B.2.1. General Accreditation
In an evaluation for General Accreditation, the degree of fulfillment to each accreditation
criterion of a program is determined by evaluation results documented in the OES. The
terminology used to declare the degree of fulfillment to each evaluation item is as follows:
o
o

o

o

Acceptable (abbreviated as ‘A’), which means that the evaluated item fulfills theassociated Accreditation Criteria item.
Concern (abbreviated as ‘C’), which means that the evaluated item fulfills theassociated Accreditation Criteria item, but with a possibility of changes in pertinentconditions in the future which may compromise the fulfillment.
Weakness (abbreviated as ‘W’), which means that the evaluated item indicates aninsufficiently strong fulfillment to the associated Accreditation Criteria item.
This shortcoming requires corrective actions to strengthen the fulfillment of thespecific evaluation item to the appropriate Accreditation Criteria item.
Deficiency (abbreviated as ‘D’), which means that the Program is unable to fulfill withthe particular Accreditation Criteria item.

In addition, evaluation may also provide an observation, i.e. comments that are not directly
related to accreditation criteria and actions but are offered to assist the program in
conducting continual quality improvement; and statement of strength, which is a very
effective and prominent condition or practice that is above the norm and has a positive effecton the program.
Each Accreditation Criterion consists of several sub-criteria, and in total there are 12 subcriteria to be judged. Each sub-criterion may have several evaluation items listed in the
Evaluation Worksheet. The “A-C-W-D” judgement is applicable to each of evaluation item andwill be eventually aggregated to form just 12 scores. Aggregation of evaluation item scores
into a single sub-criteria score is in general determined by the lowest item score. The final
C. Information for Program Evaluators

15
results of “A-C-W-D” judgement containing 12 sub-criteria scores shall determine theaccreditation status given to the program in the case of General Accreditation.
Upon approval of Accreditation Council, final judgement results will lead to one of thefollowing accreditation decisions:o Accredited. This status implies that the Program meets all criteria and rules as
outlined in the Accreditation Criteria and the RPEA. This accreditation status is valid
for a period of five years.
o Accredited with Interim Evaluation without Visit. This status implies that theProgram indicates unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ category (“W” score).
These shortcomings are such that visit is not deemed necessary to assess future
corrective actions. This status is valid for a period of two or three years, after which
the Program must undergo an Interim Evaluation based on desk study.
o Accredited with Interim Evaluation with Visit. This status implies that the Programindicates unresolved shortcomings of the ‘Weakness’ (“W” score) category. These
shortcomings are such that a visit is deemed necessary to assess future corrective
actions. This status is valid for a period of three years, after which the Program must
undergo an Interim Evaluation which includes both desk study and on-site visit.
o Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program fails to substantially fulfill IABEE
Accreditation Criteria as indicated by unresolved shortcomings in the ‘Deficiency’
category (“D” score) and Rules and Procedures for Accreditation and Evaluation(RPEA).
B2.2. Provisional Accreditation
In the Evaluation for Provisional Accreditation, the degree of program fulfillment to
Accreditation Criteria is determined by evaluation results documented in the OES. Based on
the evidences studied by assigned program evaluator, a score of either “Yes” or “No” would
be used to mark each evaluation item as a conclusion whether or not, from the evaluator’s
viewpoint, the Program has a solid potential to meet the requirement within a foreseeable
future (4 years or less).
Reflecting on the purpose of Provisional Accreditation, namely to measure program’s
potentials of meeting the Accreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future, the importanceof a provisional accreditation evaluation lies in the narratives or comments made by theevaluator showing shortcomings and gap analysis between the current practice and therequirement, rather than the “Yes-No” judgement itself.
Upon approval for Accreditation Council, evaluation for Provisional Accreditation for a
program ultimately finalizes in one of the following status:o Provisionally Accredited. This status implies that the Program has the potentials of
meeting the Accreditation Criteria within a foreseeable future (i.e. 4 years). Given
eligibility requirements are fulfilled, a program accredited in Provisional
Accreditation is expected to apply evaluation for General Accreditation within aperiod of four years.
o Not Accredited. This status implies that the Program has substantially low potentials
to meet all Accreditation Criteria and RPEA items within 4 years.
C. Information for Program Evaluators

16

C. Information for
Program
Evaluators

C.1. Competency and Code of Ethics
Program evaluators are the most important “face” of IABEE. They play a significant role toensure consistent implementation of criteria, rules and procedures, objective review, fairaccreditation decision, and produce quality report. A program evaluator is therefore expected
to be technically current, an effective communicator, interpersonally skilled, team-oriented,
professional, and organized. Evaluator who assumes the responsibility as a Team Chair is
expected to have a good leadership and team management skills, in addition to the abovementioned qualities.
IABEE demands that all personnel, including program evaluators, involved in carrying out themission of IABEE demonstrate the highest standards of professionalism, honesty andintegrity. The services provided by IABEE demand impartiality, justice and equality, so thatevery person must carry out their duties with the highest standards of ethical behavior, by
avoiding any potential conflict of interest, and by maintaining the confidentiality principles.

C.2. Principles of Evidence-based Evaluation
To achieve objectivity and un-biased decision, evaluation for accreditation shall be conductedbased on evidence in a strict adherence to the accreditation criteria and RPEA, regardless of
the reputation which may be associated with the program under evaluation or its operating
institution. No evaluation is to be made without the presence of supporting evidence. An
evaluator is, therefore, expected to give a maximum opportunity to the program forpresenting the evidence for every claim of fulfillment.
Upon presentation of evidence, evaluator should not compare the conditions of the program
being evaluated with the conditions in the institutions of his/her origin or any otherinstitutions, because each program has the flexibility to determine the outcome standards of
its graduates in accordance with the vision, mission, and conditions of its resources.

C.3. Judgement and Feedbacks
A program evaluator must be able to clearly distinguish between four levels of fulfillment toa given evaluation item, whether it is acceptable (A), a concern (C), a weakness (W), or a
deficiency (D), to provide appropriate statement reflecting the judgement, and to be awareof the consequences carried by each of the fulfillment levels in both determining accreditation
C. Information for Program Evaluators

17
decision and the necessary corrective measures. To realize these abilities, a considerable
proportion on the context of judgement is taught in evaluator training exercise. In addition,exchanges of opinions and viewpoints among evaluators regarding the judgement that takeplace during document review processes and On-Site Visit should enhance the ability.
In writing an evaluation report, a program evaluator must be fully aware that accreditation isa means of quality betterment. Therefore, the way the report is written should be able toassist the program in improving its education quality.

C. Information for Program Evaluators

18

D. Live Online Visit

D.1. Principles
Live online visit is an evaluation step set out as an alternative for conducting the normal onsite visit. Originally developed during the world-wide outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, this typeof visit can replace the normal visit in a situation where EAC IABEE considers it necessary.
Whenever IABEE decides to resort to a live online visit in replacement of an on-site visit, it has
to be kept in mind that the objectivity principles of an evidence-based evaluation are to be
maintained, with maximum reference to the typical on-site visit schedule and policies asmentioned in the RPEA document. While a quality face-to-face online and live meeting shouldtake place to allow for an effective evaluation, a safe and healthy procedure and environment
for conducting the meeting shall be one of primary considerations.

D.2. Requirements
IABEE will provide an online meeting platform and delegate the evaluation team/evaluator as
the host of the meeting. Program representatives and other related meeting participants will
be invited by the host. However, to enable successful and seamless live online visits, Programis required to provide the followings:(1) Sufficient and stable internet connection. A connection provided by a main internet
provider with a secondary backup provider to secure the connection is advisable,(2) Acceptable quality of audio visuals and mobile camera,(3) Cloud storage that is well structured and accessible to the evaluation team/evaluator,(4) Sufficient number of accounts registered to the online meeting platform,(5) Sufficient quality of computer performance.

D.3. Policies
In addition to the general policies governing a standard on-site visit as stated in the RPEA, thefollowing policies apply to a live online visit.
(1) Program shall provide on-campus rooms to accommodate 3 (three) functions, i.e.
meeting, evidence display, and interview. Rooms which are assigned for meeting andinterview shall be equipped with a spatial camera linked to a meeting account to show
the whole room situation.

D. Live Online Visit

19(2) Program shall organize display names so that meeting participants are easily recognizable
by evaluation team/evaluator in which group they belong to (e.g. lecturers, students,
alumnae, POIR, PR, etc.)(3) Program shall be available for rehearsal session to be arranged by evaluation team chair/evaluator well before the date(s) of online visit.
(4) Formal business dress code applies to all meeting participants.
(5) Taking photographs, screen shots, audio/video taping and recording are not allowed
during all live sessions.
(6) Publicizing accreditation evaluation process in any media is prohibited.

D.4. Preparing Evidence
Evidence to be prepared for accreditation evaluation that utilized live online visits are of twogroups, i.e. physical and digital. Evidence will be examined by the evaluation team throughout
the evaluation processes, including during desk reviews, evaluation visits, and post-visit
improvement reviews.
D4.1. Digital Evidence accompanying Self Evaluation Report (SER)
To accompany evidence provided partially in the PDF files submitted as attachments of theSER, the complete version of the evidence shall be stored in a cloud storage and wellorganized into 12 different folders associated with each of the 12 sub-criteria found in
Common Criteria, i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2. Evidence
applicable for several criteria must be duplicated in each relevant folder for easy access.
Evidence shall include recorded virtual tour of facilities, including classrooms, teachinglaboratories and lab equipment, library, student common spaces, supporting facilities,
program management offices, etc.
D4.2. Digital Evidence to be confirmed during Online Visit
Evidence prepared to be confirmed during live online visit is typical to that prepared anddisplayed for an on-site visit. The evidence includes, but not limited to learning outcome
assessment documents (including evaluation results & their improvement actions), rubric
files, portfolios for each class of all courses offered in the last academic year, organized bysubject course. In advance communication with program representative, evaluation teamchair may request additional evidence needed to confirm fulfillment of accreditation criteria.
All evidence stored in the cloud shall be organized and well-structured for easy access by
evaluator team. Any update made after exit meeting shall be written in different file name(s)and not to replace or overwrite the existing evidence in the same folder.
D4.3. Physical Evidence
Physical evidence is any evidence to accompany evidence that has already been submittedwith SER or additional evidence considered necessary to prove any fulfillment claim of an
accreditation criterion. For example: main textbooks, program handbooks, curriculum
documents, safety guidelines, examples of students lab reports, lab works modules, capstone
project reports, co-op/internship reports, university/faculty regulation and decrees, minutesof meetings of program’s faculties, with students, with stakeholders, etc. All physical evidence
shall be organized and well-structured, stored in a room dedicated for evidence display.
D. Live Online Visit

20
Physical evidence will be inspected during the live on-line visit. Program representative will
be asked to show a particular evidence to evaluation team using a live streaming camera.

D.5. Program’s Integrity Statement
Program Representative, on behalf of Program Operating Institution, related faculty,
students, alumnae, and stakeholders shall sign the Integrity Statement Form prepared by
IABEE. The form shall be submitted to IABEE along with SER submission or via IABEE
Secretariat through email.

D.6. Force Majeure
Under an unpredictable situation which cause the failure of live session(s), the evaluation
team/evaluator will reschedule the session(s) in consultation with the program. Since live
online visit is basically a replacement of on-site visit, referring to RPEA, any rescheduled
session shall take place prior to the First Evaluation step.

D. Live Online VisitAPPENDIX F – Analysis of Substantial Equivalency with the 2013 version 3 Graduate Attributes of the Washington Accord

Self Assessment Report (SAR) (2021.1 - July 2021) IABEE

Education Accord Report: Analysis of Substantial Equivalence with the 2013 Version 3 Graduate Attributes
WASHINGTON ACCORD
Accrediting Agency: Persatuan Insinyur Indonesia / Indonesian Accreditation Board forEngineering Education (PII/IABEE)
Contact Person: Mr. Berlian Kushari (IABEE Secretary General) at berlian.kushari@iabee.or.id
Washington Accord Graduate Attribute (WA1Elements of Accrediting Agency’s Standard
WA12) with supporting knowledge profile
corresponding to Graduate Attributes andstatement (WK1-WK8) or level of problem
range/level information
solving (WP1-WP9) (Version 3: June 2013)
WA1: Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3.
science, engineering fundamentals and an Program shall establish its own learning outcomes
engineering specialization as specified in WK1 based on the autonomous professional profile to be
to WK4 respectively to the solution of complex acquired. The learning outcomes shall cover all
engineering problems.
graduate competences from (a) to (j) as mentioned
Where the knowledge profile elements referred to in in Common Criteria 1 (3), which are expressed inthis and other attribute statements are:such a way to give flexibility to Program. It is
WK1: A systematic, theory-based understanding important to note that the learning outcomes shallof the natural sciences applicable to the take into account also the Category and Discipline
discipline
Criteria
mathematics,
WK2:
Conceptually-based
numerical analysis, statistics and formal Criterion 1.3. item (a): an ability to apply
aspects of computer and information science knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or
to support analysis and modelling applicablematerials sciences, information technology andto the disciplineengineering to acquire comprehensive
WK3: A systematic, theory-based formulation ofunderstanding of engineering principles
engineering fundamentals required in theengineering discipline
WK4: Engineering specialist knowledge that Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (a)provides theoretical frameworks and bodies x Engineering Principles refers to ideas, rules andconcepts to be considered when solving anof knowledge for the accepted practice areas
engineering problem. The set of principles may
in the engineering discipline; much is at thevary among engineering disciplines depending
forefront of the discipline.

See WA3 for WK5
See WA5 for WK6
See WA6 for WK7
See WA4 for WK8

on the uniqueness of systems, problems, ethicalissues, and problem solving methods of thediscipline.
x Attaining comprehensive understanding ofengineering principles is indicated by acquisitionof:
1. Mathematics, basic sciences (such as
physics, biology, chemistry) and information
technology in the engineering field of
Program.

Date of Gap Analysis: 14 November 2019

Accrediting Agency’s self-assessment of
substantial equivalence of its standard andthe Graduate Attributes and range/level
information
In general, WA1 corresponds to the IABEE
Learning Outcomes Criterion item (a). Further
requirements as requested by WK1 through WK4have also been met by the IABEE Common
Criteria, Criteria Guide, and Discipline Criteria, as
explained below:
x The requirements requested by WK1 and
WK2 are sufficiently stated in the Criteria
Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (a), namely thenecessity to use mathematics, basic science
relevant to the scientific disciplines, andinformation technology to provide solutions tocomplex engineering problems. In addition,
Criterion 2.1 concerning the curriculum also
requires the fulfillment of a minimum of 20%of the combination of college-level
mathematics and basic sciences appropriate
to the discipline to ensure adequate handlingof the problem.
x The WK3 requirements are satisfied byCriteria 2.1 on Curriculum, where a minimumof 40% of the curriculum must containengineering topics encompassing engineeringsciences and design appropriate to thedisciplines. The engineering sciences arerooted in mathematics and basic sciences,
but at the same time deliver to the knowledge
and skills of creative application. Thus, thissection provides a bridge between
mathematics and basic science on the one

1

Date of Comment/Review:

Delete inapplicable heading
Mentor Comments
Review Team Evaluation

2. An ability to utilize the aforementioned
knowledge.
Criterion 2.1. Curriculum, item (1)Curriculum shall include the following subject
areas:
a. Mathematics and discipline-specific naturalsciencesb. Discipline-specific engineering science andtechnology
c. Information and communication technology
d. Engineering design and problem based
experimentse. General education, which includes morality,
ethics, socio-culture, environment andmanagement

hand and engineering practice on the other.
x In addition to the Common Criteria, which
apply to all engineering disciplines, IABEE
also establishes the Discipline Criteria thatmust be met by the engineering discipline
concerned. The Discipline Criteria, in thiscase, mainly regulate further elaboration oflearning outcomes and curricula that areappropriate to the field, as expected by therespective engineering societies. Thisanswers WK4.

Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1. Curriculum,
item (1)Program shall ensure that the curriculum meets theabove mentioned subject areas appropriate toengineering regardless the subject/course names.
The program must ensure that the curriculum
devotes adequate attention and time to eachcomponent, consistent with the learning outcomes,
which include:x A minimum of 20% of a combination of college
level mathematics and basic sciences (somewith experimental experience) appropriate to thediscipline. Basic sciences are defined ascourses such as biological, chemical, or physicalsciences.
x A minimum of 40% of engineering topics,
consisting of engineering sciences andengineering design appropriate to the student's
field of study. The engineering sciences havetheir roots in mathematics and basic sciences
but carry knowledge further toward creative
application. These studies provide a bridge
between mathematics and basic sciences on the
one hand and engineering practices on theother. Engineering design is the process ofdevising a system, component, or process tomeet desired needs. It is a decision-making

2

process, in which the basic sciences,mathematics, and the engineering sciences areapplied to convert resources optimally to meetthe stated needs.
x A maximum of 30% general education
components that complement the technicalcontent of the curriculum and are consistent withthe learning outcomes.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1.(3) on
Curriculumx Program should explain how the specificrequirements of each curricular area addressedin the Common Criteria or Discipline Criteria canbe met, both in terms of load and depth of thematerial.
x Program shall establish a syllabus for eachcourse used to satisfy the mathematics, science,and discipline-specific requirements or any
applicable criteria.
WA2: Identify, formulate, research literature and Criterion 1.3. item (a): an ability to apply
analyse complex engineering problems knowledge of mathematics, natural and/or
reaching substantiated conclusions using first materials sciences, information technology andprinciples of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering to acquire comprehensive
engineering sciences. (Refer to WK1 to WK4)
understanding of engineering principles
Where:
ComplexEngineering
Problems
have Criterion 1.3. item (d): an ability to identify,
characteristic WP1 and some or all of WP2 to formulate, analyze, and solve engineering problem.
WP7:
WP1: Cannot be resolved without in-depth
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (d)engineering knowledge at the level of one x Engineering problem solving involves iterative
or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8
activities incorporating the definition of thewhich allows a fundamentals-based, firstproblem, development of solution alternatives,principles analytical approachselection of best alternative, application of
WP2: Involve wide-ranging or conflicting
solution, evaluation and validation of solution
technical, engineering and other issues
against problem constraints, and revision of
WP3: Have no obvious solution and require
solution.
abstract thinking, originality in analysis to x This competence may include the ability toformulate suitable models
 utilize techniques and methods for performing
WP4: Involve infrequently encountered issues
engineering works comprising survey, data
WP5: Are outside problems encompassed byanalysis, planning, design, operation andstandards and codes of practice formaintenance.
professional engineering
 apply the engineering logical thinking for
WP6: Involve diverse groups of stakeholders

The WA2 requirements are directly related to the
IABEE Learning Outcomes Criteria item (d). This
item requires graduates to be able to identify,
formulate, analyze, and solve engineering
problems. As explained further in related Criteria
Guide, this competency demands the ability to
use techniques and methods to perform
engineering work, including planning, surveys(including literature and field surveys), and data
analysis. The requirements are also supported by
Learning Outcomes Criteria item (a).
The level of engineering problems referred to initem (d) are complex, as are the characteristics
mentioned in the related section of the Criteria
Guide, namely those involving iterative activities
to obtain the solution, including:- problem definition,- development of alternative solutions andselection of the best alternative (WP3),- apply logical thinking to handle the design andtrouble-shooting (WP3),- application of solutions,3with widely varying needs
WP 7: Are high level problems including many
component parts or sub-problems

handling both of the design and troubleshooting context.

- evaluation and validation of solutions againstproblem constraints (WP2), and- revision of the solution.
The problems above clearly require in-depth
engineering knowledge to develop alternatives
and to arrive at the best solution. IABEE Common
Criteria 2.1 on Curriculum and IABEE Discipline
Criteria ensure that the WK3 and WK4
requirements are fully covered. In addition, IABEE
Learning Outcomes Criteria items (e), (i), and (c)each meets the requirements of WK5, WK6, andWK8, respectively. Therefore, the complex
engineering problems that are characterized by
WP1 are met.

WA3: Design solutions for complex engineering Criterion 1.3. item (b): an ability to design
problems and design systems, components or components, systems, and/or processes to meetprocesses that meet specified needs with desired needs within realistic constraints in suchappropriate consideration for public health and aspects as law, economic, environment, social,safety, cultural, societal, and environmental politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as
considerations.
to recognize and/or utilize the potential of local and(Refer to WK5)
WK5: Knowledge that supports engineering
design in a practice area

national resources with global perspective
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (b)x The ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes is the hallmark competence ofengineering education. Design implies the ability
to utilize multidimensional thinking withknowledge of global perspective to develop
components, systems, and/or processes toachieve specific objectives. It is not limited to
drawing a plan, but also refers to the synthesisof various academic disciplines andtechnologies to pursue practicable solutions to a
problem that does not necessarily have one
correct answer.
x It involves also a process of optimization bytaking into account some realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, and sustainability as
well as utilization of the knowledge of culture,society and available resources.

The IABEE Learning Outcomes Criteria (b) andits elaboration in the Criteria Guide are in fullcompliance with WA3 requirements.
Knowledge that supports engineering design as
required by WK5 is fulfilled by Criterion 2.1 onCurriculum and its explanation in the relevant
Criteria Guide section.

4

Criterion 2.1. Curriculum, item (4)Curriculum shall ensure that the students are
exposed to engineering practices and major design
project experience using engineering standards
and multiple realistic constraints based on
knowledge and skills acquired in preceding course
work.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1. Curriculum,
item (4)x Program must provide opportunity to students todevelop competence in practical application ofengineering skills, combining theory andexperience along with the use of other relevant
knowledge and skills. Training in engineering
practices may be supported by several courses(subjects) but should culminate in a major
design project. This major project serves as acapstone for the program which requires
students to integrate knowledge and skills
acquired in earlier coursework.
WA4: Conduct investigations of complex Criterion 1.3. item (c): an ability to design andproblems using research-based knowledge and conduct laboratory and/or field experiments as wellresearch methods including design of as to analyze and interpret data to strengthen theexperiments, analysis and interpretation of data, engineering judgment
and synthesis of information to provide valid
conclusions.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (c)(Refer to WK8)x This competence refers to the design and
WK8: Engagement with selected knowledge in theapplication of laboratory and/or fieldresearch literature of the discipline
experiments within the broad context ofengineering practice such as problem
identification, testing of potential solution ideas,
solution implementation plan, and other designrelated activities.
x Experiments may include activities in physicallaboratories, computer simulations, and field
experiments

IABEE Learning Outcomes Criteria (c) and its
elaboration in the Criteria Guide confirm WA4
requirements.
Engagement with selected knowledge in thediscipline research literature (WK8) issatisfactorily covered in the Criteria Guide for
Criterion 1.3. item (d), which requires the ability toutilize techniques and methods for conducting
surveys, including literature surveys, to support
the investigation (formulation, researchmethodology, and analysis) of complex problems.

Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (d)x Engineering problem solving involves iterative
activities incorporating the definition of the
problem, development of solution alternatives,5selection of best alternative, application ofsolution, evaluation and validation of solution
against problem constraints, and revision ofsolution.
x This competence may include the ability to utilize techniques and methods for performing
engineering works comprising survey, data
analysis, planning, design, operation andmaintenance.
 apply the engineering logical thinking forhandling both of the design and troubleshooting context.
WA5: Create, select and apply appropriate Criterion 1.3. item (e): an ability to apply methods,
techniques, resources, and modern engineering skills and modern engineering tools necessary for
and IT tools, including prediction and modelling, engineering practices.
to complex engineering problems, with anunderstanding of the limitations.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (e)(Refer to WK6)
x Program shall have a clear definition of the
WK6: Knowledge of engineering practicemethods, skills, and modern engineering tools(technology) in the practice areas in theappropriate for its level of study and engineeringengineering discipline
discipline, and how these are learnt throughout the
curriculum.
x An ability to select a method and tools with theirstrength and limitation characteristics for a given
problem.
x An ability to utilize and adjust the method and tools
to suit specific problems.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 2.1. Curriculum,
item (4)x Program shall define curriculum subjects tooptimally support main stream of discipline
specific requirements and to provide opportunity
for students to acquire practical experience in
implementing the subjects in an actual working
environment
WA6: Apply reasoning informed by contextual Criterion 1.3. item (i): An ability to be accountableknowledge to assess societal, health, safety, and responsible to the society and adhere tolegal and cultural issues and the consequent professional ethics in solving engineering problems.
responsibilities
relevant
toprofessional
engineering practice and solutions to complex Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (i):engineering problems.
This competence refers to the understanding on the(Refer to WK7)
following issues and the ability to take action

WA5 requires graduates to have an adequatelevel of use of modern engineering tools, ranging
from applying the tools that are already available,choosing the tools that are appropriate with anadequate understanding of their strengths andlimitations, and creating, modifying, or adjusting
the tools to meet specific needs. The capabilities
described in WA5 must be supported by therequired knowledge (WK6) of engineering
practice gained from practical experience.
These WA5 and WK6 requirements are
sufficiently addressed in the Criterion 1.3 item (e),which is further described in the related section of
the Criteria Guide. Also, the Criteria Guide forCurriculum explicitly require the program toprovide opportunities for students to gain practicalexperience in the actual work environment tosupport them mastering WK6.

WA6 requirements are met by IABEE Learning
Outcomes (i) and (j) criteria items simultaneously.
The application of contextual knowledge-based
reasoning, as required by WA6, is possible if one
has access to relevant knowledge about
contemporary problems.

6WK7: Comprehension of the role of engineering accordingly.
x the impact of technology of related engineeringin society and identified issues in engineering
fields on public welfare, environmental safety andpractice in the discipline: ethics and thesustainable development
professional responsibility of an engineer tox the engineering ethics and regulations
public safety; the impacts of engineeringx the engineering history and standard & code
activity: economic, social, cultural,philosophy in design.
environmental and sustainability
Criterion 1.3. item (j): an ability to understand theneed for life-long learning, including access to therelevant knowledge of contemporary issues.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (j):x Program is required to assist students to get
accustomed to independent and continuous
learning through lectures, research, experiments,
practical training, exercises and assignment.
x This competence refers to- Understanding the necessity of continuous
professional development.
- an ability to acquire updated information andknowledge.
- an awareness of the importance of sharing
knowledge

WA7: Understand and evaluate the sustainability Criterion 1.3. item (b): an ability to design
and impact of professional engineering work components, systems, and/or processes to meetin the solution of complex engineering desired needs within realistic constraints in suchproblems in societal and environmental aspects as law, economic, environment, social,
contexts.
politics, health and safety, sustainability as well as(Refer to WK7)
to recognize and/or utilize the potential of local andnational resources with global perspective

WA7 requirements have been fulfilled by the IABEE
Learning Outcomes (b) and (i) criteria items
simultaneously. The first emphasizes sustainability
as one of the key issues in professional engineering
work, while the second involves the ability tounderstand the impact of engineering solutions insocial and environmental contexts.

Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (b)x The ability to design components, systems,
and/or processes is the hallmark competence ofengineering education. Design implies the ability
to utilize multidimensional thinking withknowledge of global perspective to develop
components, systems, and/or processes toachieve specific objectives. It is not limited to
drawing a plan, but also refers to the synthesisof various academic disciplines andtechnologies to pursue practicable solutions to a
problem that does not necessarily have one

7correct answer.
x It involves also a process of optimization bytaking into account some realistic constraints,
such as law, economic, environment, social,politics, health and safety, and sustainability as
well as utilization of the knowledge of culture,society and available resources.
Criterion 1.3. item (i): An ability to be accountable
and responsible to the society and adhere toprofessional ethics in solving engineering problems.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (i):This competence refers to the understanding on thefollowing issues and the ability to take action
accordingly.
x the impact of technology of related engineering
fields on public welfare, environmental safety andsustainable developmentx the engineering ethics and regulations
x the engineering history and standard & code
philosophy in design.
WA8: Apply ethical principles and commit to Criterion 1.3. item (i): An ability to be accountableprofessional ethics and responsibilities and and responsible to the society and adhere tonorms of engineering practice.
professional ethics in solving engineering problems.

(Refer to WK7)

Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (i):This competence refers to the understanding on thefollowing issues and the ability to take action
accordingly.
x the impact of technology of related engineering
fields on public welfare, environmental safety andsustainable developmentx the engineering ethics and regulations
x the engineering history and standard & code
philosophy in design
WA9: Function effectively as an individual, and as a Criterion 1.3. item (h): an ability to work inmember or leader in diverse teams and in multi- multidisciplinary and multicultural team.
disciplinary settings.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (h)This competence refers to the ability to work
collaboratively with people from different technicaldisciplines, fields and cultural backgrounds.
x Multicultural concerns such as tolerance, mutual
understanding, appreciation on differences in

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (i) and its
elaboration in the related section of the Criteria
Guide demonstrates compliance with WA8
requirements.

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (h) and its
elaboration in the relevant section of the Criteria
Guide show the fulfillment of WA9 requirements.
In addition, criterion (h) adds consideration ofmulticultural aspects in teamwork ability as areflection of the diversity of Indonesian culture.

8

building a synergy, are important considerations forthe success of a team work.
x Multidiscipline circumstances may cover disciplines
within engineering and non-engineering disciplines.
WA10: Communicate effectively on complex Criterion 1.3. item (f): an ability to communicate
engineering activities with the engineering effectively in oral and written manners.
community and with society at large, such as
being able to comprehend and write effective Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (f):reports and design documentation, make This competence indicates the need of active andeffective presentations, and give and receive effective communication skills; socio-culturalclear instructions.
perspective should be considered for the acceptability
and workability of the implementation of engineering
works.
x These oral and written communications should
include the use of engineering standards.
x Program shall ensure that a measurable portion of
the oral and/or written communications involve theuse of internationally recognized languages
WA11:Demonstrate knowledge and understanding Criterion 1.3. item (g): an ability to plan,of engineering management principles and accomplish, and evaluate tasks under given
economic decision-making principles and constraints.
apply these to one’s own work, as a member
and leader in a team, to manage projects and in Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (g):multidisciplinary environments.
This competence refers to the ability to plan,
accomplish, and evaluate tasks associated with any
curricular activity deemed appropriate by Program for
its assessment and evaluation. The assessment
should focus more on the students’ task management
skills rather than the substantial outcome of the task
itself.
WA12: Recognize the need for, and have the Criterion 1.3. item (j): an ability to understand the
preparation and ability to engage in need for life-long learning, including access to the
independent and life-long learning in the relevant knowledge of contemporary issues.
broadest context of technological change.
Criteria Guide for Criterion 1.3. item (j):x Program is required to assist students to get
accustomed to independent and continuous
learning through lectures, research, experiments,
practical training, exercises and assignment.
x This competence refers to Understanding the necessity of continuous
professional development.
 an ability to acquire updated information andknowledge.
 an awareness of the importance of sharing

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (f) and its
elaboration in the relevant part of Criteria Guide
confirm the requirements of WA10.

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (g) and its
elaboration in the relevant part of Criteria Guide
confirm the requirements of WA11.
Application of these managerial skills in a
teamwork is also related with IABEE Learning
Outcomes criteria item (h).

IABEE Learning Outcomes criteria item (j) and its
elaboration in the relevant part of Criteria Guide
confirm the requirements of WA12.

9knowledge
Expected Duration of Programme Meeting WA Criteria Guide Preamble
Graduate Attributes
Programs to be accredited are four-year bachelor of
A programme that builds this type of knowledge engineering programs or other higher educationand develops the attributes listed is typically programs which IABEE considered as equivalentachieved in 4 to 5 years of study, depending on thelevel of students at entry

IABEE requires that programs applying foraccreditation under the WA shall be four-yearbachelor of engineering programs or other higher
education programs which IABEE considered as
equivalent. As a matter of fact, the study period offour years for bachelor’s level programs has become
the norm in Indonesian Higher Education System.

10,$%(((QJLQHHULQJ(GXFDWLRQ2XWORRN6\PSRVLXP &HUHPRQ\RI-,&$3URMHFW&RPSOHWLRQKHOGRQ-XO\
'U,U'DQLV+6XPDGLODJD3UHVLGHQWRI,QVWLWXWLRQRI(QJLQHHUV,QGRQHVLD 3,, 
3URI1L]DP$FWLQJ'*R+(57RI0LQLVWU\RI(GXFDWLRQ&XOWXUH5HVHDUFKDQG
7HFKQRORJ\
0U0DVDPL7DPXUD0LQLVWHUDQG'HSXW\&KLHIRI0LVVLRQ(PEDVV\RI-DSDQ
0U7DNHKLUR<DVXL&KLHI5HSUHVHQWDWLYHRI-,&$,QGRQHVLD2IILFH
3URI0XKDPPDG5RPOL&KDLURI,$%((([HFXWLYH&RPPLWWHH

0V$NLNR7DNDKDVKL0DQDJHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO$IIDLUV'LYLVLRQ-$%((3URI1L]DPKDQGHGRYHUWKH&HUWLILFDWHRI$SSUHFLDWLRQWR'U$RVKLPD&KLHI$GYLVRUWR-,&$3URMHFWIRU,$%((
7KDQNLQJ6SHHFKIURP'U<$RVKLPD
0RGHUDWRU3URI6DWU\R6RHPDQWUL%URGMRQHJRUR&KDLURI,$%(($FFUHGLWDWLRQ&RXQFLO
3URI.DL6DQJ/RFN&KDLURI:DVKLQJWRQ$FFRUG,QVWLWXWLRQRI(QJLQHHUV6LQJDSRUH
3URI0HJDW-RKDUL0HJDW0RKG1RRU%RDUGRI(QJLQHHUV0DOD\VLD
3URI6XGMDUZDGL)RUPHU&KDLURI,$%((&ULWHULD&RPPLWWHH

0U$NLKLUR,ZDVDNL'LUHFWRURI7HFKQLFDODQG+LJKHU(GXFDWLRQ7HDP+XPDQ'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW-,&$+4V






BERITA NEGARA
REPUBLIK INDONESIA
No.49, 2020

KEMENDIKBUD. Program Studi.
Tinggi. Akreditasi. Pencabutan.

Perguruan

PERATURAN MENTERI PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIANOMOR 5 TAHUN 2020TENTANGAKREDITASI PROGRAM STUDI DAN PERGURUAN TINGGI
5(38%/,&2),1'21(6,$('8&$7,21$1'&8/785(0,1,67(5,$/5(*8/$7,21
180%(5<($5
21678'<352*5$0$1'+,*+(5('8&$7,21,167,787,21$&&5(',7$7,21

DENGAN RAHMAT TUHAN YANG MAHA ESA
MENTERI PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
Menimbang: bahwa untuk melaksanakan ketentuan Pasal 55 ayat (8)Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2012 tentang Pendidikan
Tinggi, perlu menetapkan Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan tentang Akreditasi Program Studi dan Perguruan
Tinggi;

Mengingat: 1.

Pasal 17 Ayat (3) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik
Indonesia Tahun 1945;

2.

Undang-Undang
Kementerian

Nomor

Negara39

Tahun(Lembaran

2008

Negaratentang
RepublikIndonesia Tahun 2008 Nomor 166, Tambahan Lembaran
Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4916);
3.

Undang-Undang

Nomor

12

Tahun

2012

tentang

Pendidikan Tinggi (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia
Tahun 2012 Nomor 158, Tambahan Lembaran Negara
Republik Indonesia Nomor 5336);
4.

Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 4 Tahun 2014 tentang
Penyelenggaraan

Pendidikan

Tinggidan

Pengelolaan

Perguruan Tinggi (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-2-

Tahun 2014 Nomor 16, Tambahan Lembaran Negara
Republik Indonesia Nomor 5500);
5.

Peraturan Presiden Nomor 82 Tahun 2019 tentang
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (Lembaran
Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019 Nomor 242);

6.

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 45
Tahun

2019

tentang

Organisasi

dan

Tata

Kerja

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (Berita Negara
Republik Indonesia Tahun 2019 Nomor 1673);
MEMUTUSKAN:
Menetapkan: PERATURAN MENTERI PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAANTENTANG AKREDITASI PROGRAM STUDI DAN PERGURUAN
TINGGI.
BAB I
KETENTUAN UMUM
Pasal 1Dalam Peraturan Menteri ini yang dimaksud dengan:
1.

Akreditasi adalah kegiatan penilaian untuk menentukan
kelayakan Program Studi dan Perguruan Tinggi.

2.

Akreditasi Program Studi adalah kegiatan penilaian
untuk menentukan kelayakan Program Studi.

3.

Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi adalah kegiatan penilaian
untuk menentukan kelayakan Perguruan Tinggi.

4.

Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri, yang selanjutnya disingkat
LAM adalah lembaga yang dibentuk oleh Pemerintah atau
Masyarakat untuk melakukan Akreditasi Program Studisecara mandiri.

5.

Badan

Akreditasiselanjutnya
dibentuk

Nasional

disingkat

oleh

Perguruan

BAN-PT

Pemerintah

Tinggi,

yang

badan

yang

melakukandanadalahuntuk

mengembangkan Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi secara
mandiri.
6.

Standar Pendidikan Tinggi adalah satuan standar yangmeliputi Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi dan Standar

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-3-

Pendidikan Tinggi yang ditetapkan oleh setiap Perguruan
TinggidenganmengacupadaStandarNasional

Pendidikan Tinggi.
7.

StandarNasional

Pendidikan

Tinggiadalahsatuanstandar yang meliputi Standar Nasional Pendidikan,
ditambahdenganStandarPenelitian,danStandarPengabdian kepada Masyarakat.
8.

Standar Pendidikan Tinggi yang ditetapkan oleh setiap
Perguruan Tinggi adalah sejumlah standar dalam bidang
akademik dan nonakademik yang melampaui Standar
Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi.

9.

Perguruan

Tinggiadalahsatuanpendidikanyangmenyelenggarakan pendidikan tinggi.
10.

Program Studi adalah kesatuan kegiatan pendidikan dan
pembelajaran yang memiliki kurikulum dan metodepembelajaran tertentu dalamakademik,satu jenis

pendidikan
pendidikan

pendidikan

profesi,dan/atau

Perguruan

Tinggiadalahvokasi.
11.

Pemimpinrektorpada

universitas dan institut, ketua pada sekolah tinggi,
direkturpada

politeknik,

akademi,dan

akademikomunitas.
12.

Masyarakat adalah kelompok warga negara Indonesia
nonpemerintah yang mempunyai perhatian dan peranan
dalam bidang pendidikan tinggi.

13.

Kementerian adalah kementerian yang menyelenggarakan
urusan pemerintahan di bidang pendidikan.

14.

Pangkalan Data Pendidikan Tinggi yang selanjutnya
disebut PDDIKTI adalah kumpulan data penyelenggaraan
pendidikan

tinggiseluruhPerguruan

Tinggiyang

terintegrasi secara nasional di Kementerian.
15.

Menteri adalah menteri yang menyelenggarakan urusan
pemerintahan di bidang pendidikan.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-4-

Pasal 2
(1)

Akreditasi merupakan sistem penjaminan mutu eksternal
sebagai bagian dari sistem penjaminan mutu pendidikan
tinggi.

(2)

Akreditasi

sebagaimana

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(1)

bertujuan:a.

menentukan
Perguruan

kelayakan
Tinggi

Programberdasarkan

Studi

dan

kriteriayang

mengacu pada Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi;danb.

menjamin mutu Program Studi dan Perguruan
Tinggisecaramaupuneksternal

baik

nonakademikbidanguntuk

akademik
melindungi

kepentingan mahasiswa dan Masyarakat.
BAB II
AKREDITASI
Bagian Kesatu
Umum
Pasal 3
(1)

Akreditasi

dilakukanterhadap

Perguruan

Tinggiberdasarkan

ProgramStudi

Standardan

Nasional

Pendidikan Tinggi.
(2)

Peringkat Akreditasi Program Studi dan Perguruan Tinggi
sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) terdiri atas:
a.

Baik;

b.

Baik Sekali; danc.

Unggul.
Pasal 4

(1)

Akreditasi untuk Program Studi dilaksanakan oleh LAM.

(2)

Akreditasi untuk Perguruan Tinggi dilaksanakan oleh
BAN-PT.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-5-

(3)

Dalam hal LAM sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1)belum terbentuk, maka Akreditasi untuk Program Studi
diberikan oleh BAN-PT.
Pasal 5

Pelaksanaan Akreditasi untuk pendirian Perguruan Tinggi
oleh BAN-PT sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (2)bersamaan dengan pelaksanaan Akreditasi terhadap semua
Program Studi yang ada baik oleh LAM atau BAN-PT.
Pasal 6
(1)

Jangka waktu berlakunya Akreditasi untuk Program
Studi atau Perguruan Tinggi yang dilakukan oleh BAN-PT
selama 5 (lima) tahun.

(2)

Dalam

hal

jangkawaktu

Akreditasi

sebagaimana

dimaksud pada ayat (1) berakhir maka BAN-PT akan
memperpanjang kembali jangka waktu Akreditasi setiap 5(lima) tahun tanpa melalui permohonan perpanjangan
Akreditasi.
(3)

Perpanjangan Akreditasi sebagaimana dimaksud padaayat (2) setelah dilakukan evaluasi oleh BAN-PT, dengan
menggunakan data dan informasi yang diperoleh dari:a.

Kementerian; dan/ataub.

laporan Masyarakat;

tentangdugaanperaturanpelanggaran

terhadap

perundang-undangan

ketentuan

dalam

bidangpendidikan tinggi dan/atau penurunan mutu dalampenyelenggaraan pendidikan tinggi.
(4)

Penurunan mutu sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3)berupamenurunnya

jumlahpeminat/pendaftar

dan/atau lulusan pada Program Studi yang ada selama 5(lima) tahun

berturut-turut berdasarkan

data pada

PDDIKTI.
(5)

Peringkat Akreditasi yang telah diberikan dapat ditinjau
kembali oleh BAN-PT sebelum jangka waktu Akreditasi
berakhir apabila terdapat penurunan mutu sebagaimana
dimaksud pada ayat (4).

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-6-

(6)

Ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai peninjauan kembali
Akreditasi

sebagaimana

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(5)

ditetapkan oleh direktur jenderal terkait sesuai dengan
kewenangannya.
Pasal 7
(1)

Program Studi atau Perguruan Tinggi yang telah memiliki
Akreditasi dengan peringkat Baik dan akan menaikkan
peringkat Akreditasi ke peringkat Baik Sekali atau
peringkat Unggul dapat mengusulkan Akreditasi ulang
kepada BAN-PT sebelum jangka waktu 5 (lima) tahun
sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 6 berakhir.

(2)

Dalam hal peringkat Akreditasi ulang oleh BAN-PT
sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) tetap mendapatkan
Akreditasi dengan peringkat yang sama maka Program
Studi dan Perguruan Tinggi baru dapat mengusulkan
Akreditasi ulang kembali ke BAN-PT dalam waktu 2 (dua)
tahun

sejak

mendapatkan

penetapan

peringkat

Akreditasi ulang.
(3)

Ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dan ayat
(2) berlaku juga untuk Program Studi atau Perguruan
Tinggi yang telah memiliki Akreditasi dengan peringkat
Baik Sekali yang akan menaikkan peringkat Akreditasi ke
peringkat Unggul.
Pasal 8

(1)

Jangka waktu Akreditasi Program Studi yang dilakukan
oleh LAM ditentukan oleh LAM.

(2)

Dalam hal jangka waktu Akreditasi yang ditentukan oleh
LAM sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) berakhir maka
Akreditasi ulang wajib dilakukan oleh LAM.

$UWLFOH
(1)
 6WXG\3URJUDPKDYLQJEHHQDFFUHGLWHG
E\/$0RU%$137PD\UHTXHVWDFFUHGLWDWLRQWRUHFRJQL]HGLQWHUQDWLRQDODFFUHGLWDWLRQDJHQFLHVPasal 9Program Studi setelah mendapatkan Akreditasi dari LAM
atau

BAN-PT

dapat

mengajukan

Akreditasi

kepadalembaga akreditasi internasional yang diakui.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-7 5HFRJQLWLRQRILQWHUQDWLRQDODFFUHGLWDWLRQDJHQFLHV (2)DVPHQWLRQHGLQYHUVH LVHVWDEOLVKHGE\
WKH0LQLVWHU(3) $FFUHGLWDWLRQVWDWXVJLYHQE\WKH
LQWHUQDWLRQDODFFUHGLWDWLRQDJHQFLHVUHIHUUHGLQYHUVH  LV (4)UHFRJQL]HGHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHUDQNRI([FHOOHQWLQ>1DWLRQDO@$FFUHGLWDWLRQ 5HFRJQLWLRQDVDFFUHGLWHGZLWKUDQN([FHOOHQWDVUHIHUUHG
(1)
LQYHUVH  LVFRQGXFWHGE\/$0RU%$137LQDFFRUGDQFH
(2)
ZLWKWKHSUHYDLOLQJUHJXODWLRQV

(3)

Pengakuanatas

lembagaakreditasi

internasional

sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) ditetapkan oleh
Menteri.
Hasil Akreditasi oleh lembaga akreditasi internasional
sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) diakui setara
dengan peringkat Akreditasi Unggul.
Pengakuan setara dengan peringkat Akreditasi Unggul
sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) ditetapkan oleh
LAM atau BAN-PT sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan
perundang-undangan.
Pasal 10
Akreditasi

Program

Studi

dan

Perguruan

Tinggidilakukan dengan menggunakan instrumen Akreditasi.
Instrumen Akreditasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat
(1) terdiri atas:a.

instrumen Akreditasi untuk Program Studi; danb.

instrumen Akreditasi untuk Perguruan Tinggi.

Instrumen Akreditasi Program Studi dan Perguruan
Tinggi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) disusun oleh
LAM atau BAN-PT sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan
perundang-undangan dengan berpedoman pada Standar
Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi.
Pasal 11

Selainmenggunakan

instrumensebagaimana

dimaksuddalam Pasal 10, Akreditasi Program Studi dan Perguruan
Tinggi juga menggunakan data dan informasi pada PDDIKTI.
Bagian Kedua
Mekanisme Akreditasi
Pasal 12
(1)

LAM dan BAN-PT menyusun instrumen Akreditasi sesuai
dengankewenangansesuaidenganmasing-masing

ketentuandan

peraturanditetapkan
perundang-undangan.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-8-

(2)

Tahapan Akreditasi terdiri atas:a.

evaluasi data dan informasi;b.

penetapan peringkat Akreditasi; danc.

pemantauan dan evaluasi peringkat Akreditasi.
Pasal 13

(1)

Tahap

evaluasi

data

dan

informasisebagaimana

dimaksud dalam Pasal 12 ayat (2) huruf a meliputi:a.

Pemimpin

Perguruan

Tinggimengajukan

permohonan kepada LAM untuk Akreditasi Program
Studi dan/atau BAN-PT untuk Akreditasi Perguruan
Tinggi; danb.

LAMdan/atau

BAN-PTmelakukan

evaluasi

kecukupan atas data dan informasi Program Studi
dan/atau Perguruan Tinggi sebagaimana dimaksuddalam huruf a, dengan menggunakan data dan
informasi pada PDDIKTI.
(2)

Evaluasi

kecukupan

atas

data

dan

informasisebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf b dilakukan
oleh asesor.
Pasal 14
(1)

Tahap

penetapan

peringkat

Akreditasi

sebagaimana

dimaksud dalam Pasal 12 ayat (2) huruf b meliputi:a.

LAM dan/atau BAN-PT mengolah dan menganalisis
data dan informasi dari Perguruan Tinggi pemohon
Akreditasi, untuk menetapkan peringkat Akreditasi
Program Studi dan/atau Perguruan Tinggi; danb.

LAM dan/atau BAN-PT mengumumkan peringkat
Akreditasi Program Studi dan/atau Perguruan Tinggi
sesuai kewenangan masing-masing.
Pasal 15

Tahappemantauandanevaluasi

peringkat

Akreditasi

sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 12 ayat (2) huruf c
meliputi:

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-9-

a.

LAM atau BAN-PT melakukan pemantauan dan evaluasi
terhadap

pemenuhansyaratperingkat

Akreditasi

Program Studi dan/atau Perguruan Tinggi yang telah
ditetapkan, berdasarkan data dan informasi dari:b.

1.

PDDIKTI;

2.

fakta hasil asesmen lapang; dan/atau

3.

direktorat terkait.

peringkat Akreditasi Program Studi dan/atau Perguruan
Tinggi dapat dicabut sebelum masa berlakunya berakhir,apabilaProgramStudidan/atau

Perguruan

Tinggiterbukti tidak lagi memenuhi syarat peringkat Akreditasi.
Pasal 16
Ketentuanlebihlanjutmengenaimekanisme

Akreditasi

ditetapkan oleh LAM atau BAN-PT sesuai dengan kewenanganmasing-masing.
BAB IIILEMBAGA AKREDITASI
Bagian Kesatu
Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi
Pasal 17
(1)

BAN-PT dibentuk oleh Menteri.

(2)

BAN-PT merupakan badan nonstruktural di lingkungan
Kementerian dan bertanggung jawab kepada Menteri.

(3)

BAN-PT

memilikikemandirian

dalam

melakukan

Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi.
(4)

BAN-PT didukung oleh sekretariat yang dikepalai oleh
pejabatsetaraeselon

II

dalam

hal

pelaksanaan

operasional kegiatan.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-10-

Pasal 18
Tugas dan wewenang BAN-PT:a.

mengembangkan sistem Akreditasi Program Studi dan
Perguruan

Tinggiselarasdengankebijakan

instrumen

Akreditasi

StandarPendidikan

pengembangan pendidikan tinggi;b.

menyusundanmenetapkan

Perguruan

Tinggiberdasarkan

Tinggi;c.

melakukan Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi;d.

menerbitkan,

mengubah,atauperingkat

Akreditasi

Perguruan

mencabut

keputusan

Tinggidanmenyampaikannya kepada pihak terkait;e.

memeriksa, melakukan uji kebenaran, dan memutuskan
keberatanyang

diajukanatas

peringkat

Akreditasi

Perguruan Tinggi;f.

membangundanmengembangkan

jejaring

denganpemangku kepentingan baik di tingkat nasional maupun
internasional;g.

melakukan penilaian kelayakan pendirian LAM sebagai
dasar rekomendasi pengakuan Menteri kepada LAM;h.

mengevaluasi kinerja LAM secara berkala yang hasilnya
disampaikan kepada Menteri;i.

menyusun

instrumen

evaluasi

pendirian

Perguruan

Tinggi berdasarkan Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi
bersama dengan Menteri;j.

memberikan

rekomendasi

pemenuhan

persyaratan

minimum Akreditasi untuk pendirian Perguruan Tinggi
kepada Menteri;k.

menyampaikan

laporanhasil

Akreditasi

dilengkapi

dengan rekomendasi secara berkala kepada Menteri; danl.

menyusun instrumen evaluasi pendirian berdasarkan
StandarNasional

Pendidikan

Tinggi

Kementerian

dan/atau kementerian yang menyelenggarakan urusan
pemerintahan di bidang agama.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-11-

Pasal 19
BAN-PT memiliki susunan organ sebagai berikut:a.

Majelis Akreditasi; danb.

Dewan Eksekutif.
Pasal 20

(1)

Majelis Akreditasi memiliki susunan organisasi sebagai
berikut:a.

1 (satu) orang ketua merangkap anggota;b.

1 (satu) orang sekretaris merangkap anggota;c.

anggota; dand.

direktur Dewan Eksekutif secara ex officio sebagai
anggota.

(2)

Keanggotaan Majelis Akreditasi sebagaimana dimaksudpada ayat (1) huruf a, huruf b, dan huruf c berjumlah
gasal, paling sedikit 7 (tujuh) orang dan paling banyak 9(sembilan) orang, termasuk 1 (satu) orang anggota dariprofesional yang ditunjuk oleh Menteri.

(3)

Anggota Majelis Akreditasi sebagaimana dimaksud padaayat (1) huruf a, huruf b, dan huruf c bekerja paruh
waktu.

(4)

Direktur Dewan Eksekutif sebagaimana dimaksud padaayat (1) huruf d tidak memiliki hak suara dalampengambilan keputusan yang terkait dengan evaluasi
kinerja Dewan Eksekutif.

(5)

Keanggotaan atau proses pengambilan keputusan Majelis
Akreditasi bersifat kolektif dan kolegial.
Pasal 21

Tugas dan wewenang Majelis Akreditasi:a.

menetapkan

kebijakandanpengembangansistemAkreditasi Program Studi dan Perguruan Tinggi secara
nasional;b.

menetapkan kebijakan pelaksanaan Akreditasi Perguruan
Tinggi dengan mempertimbangkan usul Dewan Eksekutif;

2020, No.49

-12-

c.

mengesahkan rencana strategis, rencana kerja, dananggaran tahunan BAN-PT yang diusulkan oleh Dewan
Eksekutif dan menyampaikan kepada Menteri;d.

menetapkan instrumen Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi;e.

menetapkan instrumen Akreditasi Program Studi atas
usul LAM;

f.

memberikan rekomendasi atas usul pendirian LAM dari
Pemerintah atau Masyarakat kepada Menteri;g.

memantau, mengevaluasi, dan mengawasi kinerja LAM;h.

memutuskan hasil evaluasi permohonan keberatan atas
peringkat Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi;i.

memberikan

rekomendasi

kepadaMenteritentang

pencabutan pengakuan LAM berdasarkan hasil evaluasi
sebagaimana dimaksud dalam huruf g;j.

memantau, mengevaluasi, dan mengawasi kinerja Dewan
Eksekutif;k.

melakukan evaluasi dan memberi persetujuan terhadap
laporan Dewan Eksekutif; danl.

melaporkan pelaksanaan tugas kepada Menteri setiap
semester dan setiap tahun.
Pasal 22

Persyaratan anggota Majelis Akreditasi:a.

warga negara Indonesia;b.

sehat jasmani dan rohani;c.

memiliki integritas yang tinggi;d.

usia paling tinggi 64 (enam puluh empat) tahun padasaat mendaftar;

e.

tidak

pernahdihukum/sedang

menjalani

hukumankarena melakukan tindak pidana kejahatan;f.

dosen yang memiliki nomor induk dosen nasional;g.

memiliki

pengalamansebagai

pimpinan

Perguruan

Tinggi, pimpinan fakultas/pascasarjana, ketua jurusan
atau nama lain yang sejenis, pemimpin unit penjaminanmutu, dan/atau profesional yang pernah menjadi asesor
paling sedikit 5 (lima) tahun;

2020, No.49

-13-

h.

bersedia melepaskan jabatan sebagaimana dimaksuddalam huruf g setelah diangkat sebagai anggota Majelis
Akreditasi;i.

berpendidikan doktor;

j.

memiliki jabatan akademik paling rendah lektor kepala;k.

memahamidanberpengalamandalam

pengelolaan

Perguruan Tinggi;l.

memiliki

pengalamandibidangpenjaminanmutu

pendidikan tinggi;m.

tidak memiliki afiliasi dan/atau menjadi anggota partai
politik;n.

bebas dari penggunaan dan keterkaitan dengan narkotika
dan zat adiktif lainnya;o.

mendapatkan izin dari Pemimpin Perguruan Tinggi; danp.

memiliki wawasan dan komitmen pada peningkatan
mutu dan relevansi pendidikan tinggi.
Pasal 23

(1)

Anggota Majelis Akreditasi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam
Pasal 20 ayat (2) diseleksi oleh tim seleksi yangditetapkan oleh Menteri.

(2)

Tim

seleksisebagaimana

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(1)

pendaftaran

calon

anggotabertugas:a.

menyelenggarakan

Majelis Akreditasi secara terbuka;b.

melakukan seleksi calon anggota Majelis Akreditasi;danc.

mengusulkan calon anggota Majelis Akreditasi paling
banyak

2

(dua)

kali

jumlahanggota

MajelisAkreditasi yang dibutuhkan kepada Menteri.
(3)

Menterimemilihdanmenetapkan

anggota

MajelisAkreditasi berdasarkan usul tim seleksi.
(4)Masa jabatan anggota Majelis Akreditasi adalah 5 (lima)
tahun dan dapat diangkat kembali untuk 1 (satu) kali
masa jabatan berikutnya.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-14-

Pasal 24
(1)

Ketua dan sekretaris Majelis Akreditasi diangkat dan
ditetapkan oleh Menteri.

(2)

Jabatan

ketua

dan

sekretaris

MajelisAkreditasi

sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) adalah 5 (lima)
tahun, dan dapat diangkat kembali untuk 1 (satu) kali
masa jabatan berikutnya.
Pasal 25
(1)

Tugas dan wewenang ketua Majelis Akreditasi:a.

memimpindanmengoordinasikan

pelaksanaan

tugas Majelis Akreditasi; danb.

melakukan koordinasi dengan unit kerja terkait dilingkungan Kementerian dan pemangku kepentingan
lain.

(2)

Tugas dan wewenang sekretaris Majelis Akreditasi:a.

memimpin pengelolaan operasional harian Majelis
Akreditasi; danb.

membantu pelaksanaan tugas dan wewenang ketua
Majelis Akreditasi.

(3)

Tugas

dan

wewenang

anggota

MajelisAkreditasi

ditetapkan oleh ketua Majelis Akreditasi.
(4)

Dalam hal ketua dan/atau sekretaris Majelis Akreditasi
berhalangan sementara, tugas dan wewenang Majelis
Akreditasi dilaksanakan oleh anggota yang ditunjuk oleh
Anggota Majelis.
Pasal 26

(1)

Anggota Majelis Akreditasi diberhentikan karena:a.

masa jabatan telah berakhir;b.

permohonan sendiri;c.

ditetapkan

sebagaitersangka

karenadidugamelakukan tindak pidana kejahatan;d.

tidak menunjukkan kinerja, integritas, atau dedikasi
sebagai anggota Majelis Akreditasi;

e.

sakit

yang

tidak

dapat

disembuhkanyangmenyebabkan tidak dapat menjalankan tugas dan

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-15-

kewajiban, dibuktikan dengan surat keterangan dariinstansi yang berwenang; atauf.
(2)

meninggal dunia.

Anggota

MajelisAkreditasi

diberhentikan

sementarakarena diduga telah melakukan tindak pidana kejahatan.
(3)

Kinerja,

integritas,

atau

dedikasianggota

MajelisAkreditasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf ddievaluasi oleh Menteri secara berkala.
(4)

Pemberhentian

ketua,

sekretaris,

dan/atau

anggota

Majelis Akreditasi ditetapkan oleh Menteri.
Pasal 27
(1)

Apabila terjadi pemberhentian ketua dan/atau sekretaris
Majelis Akreditasi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 26
ayat (1) huruf b sampai dengan huruf f, Menteri
mengangkat dan menetapkan salah satu anggota Majelis
Akreditasi untuk menyelesaikan sisa masa jabatan.

(2)

Apabila terjadi pemberhentian anggota Majelis Akreditasi,
Menteri mengangkat dan menetapkan anggota baru
sesuai dengan urutan hasil seleksi untuk menyelesaikan
sisa masa jabatan.
Pasal 28

(1)

Dewan Eksekutif memiliki susunan organisasi sebagai
berikut:(2)a.

1 (satu) orang direktur merangkap anggota;b.

1 (satu) orang sekretaris merangkap anggota; danc.

anggota.

Keanggotaan Dewan Eksekutif sebagaimana dimaksudpada ayat (1) berjumlah gasal, paling banyak 5 (lima)orang.

(3)

Anggota Dewan Eksekutif bekerja penuh waktu dankeanggotaan dalam Dewan Eksekutif merupakan tugas
tambahan.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-16-

Pasal 29
Tugas dan wewenang Dewan Eksekutif:a.

melaksanakan kebijakan sistem Akreditasi Perguruan
Tinggi secara nasional yang telah ditetapkan oleh Majelis
Akreditasi;b.

menyusunrencanastrategis,

rencanakerja,

dan

anggaran tahunan BAN-PT untuk diusulkan kepada
Majelis Akreditasi;c.

melaksanakan rencana strategis, rencana kerja, dananggarantahunan

BAN-PT

yang

telah

ditetapkan

Menteri;d.

menyiapkan kebijakan pelaksanaan Akreditasi Perguruan
Tinggi untuk diusulkan kepada Majelis Akreditasi;e.

menjalankankebijakan

pelaksanaan

Akreditasi

Perguruan Tinggi, termasuk penilaian kembali hasil
Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi;f.

menerima dan menyampaikan usul instrumen Akreditasi
Program Studi dari LAM kepada Majelis Akreditasi;g.

menyampaikan rekomendasi pendirian dan pencabutan
pengakuan LAM kepada Menteri;h.

melakukan

pemantauandanevaluasiterhadap

pemenuhan syarat peringkat Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi
yang telah ditetapkan;i.

menyusun dan menyampaikan laporan secara berkala
kepada Majelis Akreditasi;j.

membangun,

mengembangkan,danmelaksanakan

kegiatan aliansi strategis BAN-PT dengan pihak luar;k.

menyelenggarakan kegiatan Akreditasi sesuai dengansistem penjaminan mutu Pendidikan Tinggi;l.

melakukan pengembangan sistem informasi, penelitian,dan pengembangan sistem Akreditasi;m.

mengelolaasesorpelatihandan

BAN-PT,

mulai

pengembangan

dari

serta

rekrutmen,

pemberhentian

asesor;n.

mengangkat

tim

ahli

dan

panitiaad

hocsesuaikebutuhan; dano.

menjalankan tugas teknis dan administratif.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-17-

Pasal 30
Persyaratan anggota Dewan Eksekutif:a.

warga negara Indonesia;b.

sehat jasmani dan rohani;c.

memiliki integritas yang tinggi;d.

usia paling tinggi 60 (enam puluh) tahun pada saat
mendaftar;

e.

tidak

pernahdihukum/sedang

menjalani

hukumankarena melakukan tindak pidana kejahatan;f.

dosen yang memiliki nomor induk dosen nasional;g.

memiliki

pengalamansebagai

pimpinan

Perguruan

Tinggi, pimpinan fakultas/pascasarjana, ketua jurusan
atau nama lain yang sejenis, pemimpin unit penjaminanmutu, dan/atau profesional yang pernah menjadi asesor
paling sedikit 5 (lima) tahun;h.

bersedia melepaskan jabatan sebagaimana dimaksuddalam huruf g setelah diangkat sebagai anggota Dewan
Eksekutif;i.

berpendidikan doktor;j.

memahamidanberpengalamandalam

pengelolaan

Perguruan Tinggi;k.

memiliki

pengalamandibidangpenjaminanmutu

pendidikan tinggi;l.

tidak memiliki afiliasi dan/atau menjadi anggota partai
politik;m.

bebas dari penggunaan dan keterkaitan dengan narkotika
dan zat adiktif lainnya;

n.

mendapatkan izin dari Pemimpin Perguruan Tinggi; dano.

memiliki wawasan dan komitmen pada peningkatan
mutu dan relevansi pendidikan tinggi.
Pasal 31

(1)

Anggota Dewan Eksekutif sebagaimana dimaksud dalam
Pasal 28 ayat (2) diseleksi oleh tim seleksi yangditetapkan oleh Menteri.

(2)

Tim

seleksisebagaimana

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(1)

bertugas:www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-18-

a.

merekrut dan menyeleksi calon anggota Dewan
Eksekutif; danb.

mengusulkan calon anggota Dewan Eksekutif paling
banyak 2 (dua) kali jumlah anggota Dewan Eksekutifyang dibutuhkan kepada Menteri.

(3)

Menterimenetapkan

anggota

Dewan

Eksekutif

berdasarkan usul tim seleksi.
(4)Masa jabatan anggota Dewan Eksekutif adalah 5 (lima)
tahun dan dapat diangkat kembali untuk 1 (satu) kali
masa jabatan berikutnya.
Pasal 32

(1)

Direktur dan sekretaris Dewan Eksekutif ditetapkan oleh
Menteri.

(2)

Jabatandirekturdansekretaris

Dewan

Eksekutif

sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) adalah 5 (lima)
tahun dan dapat diangkat kembali untuk 1 (satu) kali
masa jabatan berikutnya.
Pasal 33
(1)

Tugas dan wewenang direktur Dewan Eksekutif:a.

memimpindanmengoordinasikan

pelaksanaan

tugas Dewan Eksekutif;b.

melakukan koordinasi dengan Majelis Akreditasi dan
pemangku kepentingan lain dalam pelaksanaan
Akreditasi Perguruan Tinggi; danc.

menetapkan penugasan staf sekretariat yang terkait
dengan pelaksanaan proses Akreditasi.

(2)

Tugas dan wewenang sekretaris Dewan Eksekutif:a.

memimpin pengelolaan operasional harian Dewan
Eksekutif;b.

melaksanakan tugas teknis dan administratif Majelis
Akreditasi dan Dewan Eksekutif;c.

membantu pelaksanaan tugas dan wewenang ketua
Dewan Eksekutif; dand.

memantau dan mengevaluasi kinerja staf sekretariat
untuk disampaikan kepada kepala sekretariat.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-19-

(3)

Tugas

dan

wewenang

anggota

Dewan

Eksekutif

ditetapkan oleh direktur Dewan Eksekutif.
(4)

Dalam hal direktur dan/atau sekretaris Dewan Eksekutif
berhalangan sementara, tugas dan wewenang Dewan
Eksekutif dilaksanakan oleh anggota yang ditunjuk oleh
para anggota Dewan Eksekutif.
Pasal 34

(1)

Anggota Dewan Eksekutif diberhentikan karena:a.

masa jabatan telah berakhir;b.

permohonan sendiri;c.

ditetapkan

sebagaitersangka

karenadidugamelakukan tindak pidana kejahatan;d.

tidak menunjukkan kinerja, integritas, atau dedikasi
sebagai anggota Dewan Eksekutif;

e.

sakit

yang

tidak

dapat

disembuhkanyangmenyebabkan tidak dapat menjalankan tugas dan
kewajiban, dibuktikan dengan surat keterangan dariinstansi yang berwenang; atauf.
(2)

meninggal dunia.

Anggota

Dewan

Eksekutif

diberhentikan

sementarakarena diduga telah melakukan tindak pidana kejahatan.
(3)

Kinerja,

integritas,

atau

dedikasianggota

Dewan

Eksekutif sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf ddievaluasi oleh Menteri secara berkala.
(4)

Pemberhentian direktur, sekretaris, dan/atau anggota
Dewan Eksekutif ditetapkan oleh Menteri.
Pasal 35

(1)

Apabilasekretaris

terjadiDewan

pemberhentian
Eksekutif

direkturdan/atausebagaimana

dimaksuddalam Pasal 34 ayat (1) huruf b sampai dengan huruf f,
Menteri menetapkan direktur dan/atau sekretaris Dewan
Eksekutif dari salah satu anggota Dewan Eksekutif untuk
menyelesaikan sisa masa jabatan.
(2)

Dalam hal anggota Dewan Eksekutif berhalangan tetap,
Menteri menetapkan anggota baru sesuai dengan urutan

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-20-

hasil seleksi untuk meneruskan sisa masa jabatan
anggota.
Bagian Kedua
Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri
Paragraf 1
Umum
Pasal 36
(1)

LAM dibentuk oleh Pemerintah atau Masyarakat.

(2)

LAM dibentuk berdasarkan rumpun, pohon, dan/atau
cabang ilmu pengetahuan.

(3)

LAM sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dibentuk ditempat kedudukan lembaga layanan pendidikan tinggi.

(4)

Rumpun, pohon, dan/atau cabang ilmu pengetahuan
sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) ditetapkan oleh
Menteri.
Pasal 37

(1)

Tugas dan wewenang LAM :a.

menyusun

instrumen

Akreditasi

ProgramStudi

berdasarkan Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi;b.

melakukan Akreditasi Program Studi;c.

menerbitkan, mengubah, atau mencabut keputusan
tentang peringkat Akreditasi Program Studi;d.

memeriksa,

melakukanujikebenarandan

memutuskan

keberatanyang

diajukanatas

peringkat Akreditasi Program Studi;e.

membangun dan mengembangkan jejaring denganpemangku

kepentingan,baik

tingkatnasional

maupun internasional;f.

menyusun instrumen evaluasi pembukaan Program
Studi berdasarkan Standar Nasional Pendidikan
Tinggi bersama dengan Menteri;www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-21-

g.

melakukan

pemantauandanevaluasiterhadap

pemenuhan syarat peringkat Akreditasi Program
Studi yang telah ditetapkan;h.

memberikan rekomendasi pemenuhan persyaratan
minimum Akreditasi untuk pembukaan Program
Studi kepada Menteri atau PTN badan hukum; dani.

menyampaikan laporan hasil Akreditasi dilengkapi
dengan rekomendasi secara berkala kepada Menteri
dengan tembusan kepada BAN-PT.

(2)

LAM

yang

bertugas

pemenuhan

persyaratan

memberikan
minimum

rekomendasi

Akreditasi

untuk

pembukaan Program Studi kepada PTN badan hukum,
ditentukan oleh PTN badan hukum.
(3)

Dalam menjalankan tugas dan wewenang sebagaimana
dimaksud pada ayat (1), LAM dapat mengangkat tim
asesor, tim ahli, dan panitia ad hoc.
Paragraf 2
LAM Pemerintah
Pasal 38

(1)

LAM Pemerintah dibentuk oleh Menteri atas rekomendasi
dari BAN-PT.

(2)

LAM Pemerintah merupakan badan nonstruktural di
lingkungan Kementerian dan bertanggung jawab kepada
Menteri.

(3)

Dalam

melakukan

Akreditasi

ProgramStudi,LAM

Pemerintah memiliki kemandirian.
Pasal 39
(1)

LAM Pemerintah memiliki susunan organisasi sebagai
berikut:a.

1 (satu) orang ketua merangkap anggota;b.

1 (satu) orang sekretaris merangkap anggota; danc.

anggota.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-22-

(2)

Keanggotaan LAM Pemerintah sebagaimana dimaksudpada ayat (1) berjumlah gasal, paling sedikit 5 (lima)orang dan paling banyak 7 (tujuh) orang.

(3)

Anggota LAM Pemerintah diangkat dan diberhentikan
oleh Menteri.

(4)

Ketua dan sekretaris LAM Pemerintah dipilih dari danoleh anggota LAM Pemerintah untuk ditetapkan oleh
Menteri.

(5)

Masa

jabatanketua,

sekretaris,dananggota

LAM

Pemerintah sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) adalah
5 (lima) tahun, dan dapat diangkat kembali untuk 1(satu) kali masa jabatan berikutnya.
Pasal 40
Persyaratan anggota LAM Pemerintaha.

Warga Negara Indonesia;b.

sehat jasmani dan rohani;c.

memiliki integritas yang tinggi;d.

usia paling tinggi 60 (enam puluh) tahun pada saat
mendaftar;

e.

tidak

pernahdihukum/sedang

menjalani

hukumankarena melakukan tindak pidana kejahatan;f.

dosen yang memiliki nomor induk dosen nasional;g.

pakar dalam rumpun, pohon, dan/atau cabang ilmu
pengetahuan yang dibina oleh suatu Program Studi;h.

memiliki

pengalamansebagai

pimpinan

Perguruan

Tinggi, pimpinan fakultas/pascasarjana, ketua jurusan
atau nama lain yang sejenis, pemimpin unit penjaminanmutu, dan/atau profesional yang pernah menjadi asesor
paling sedikit 5 (lima) tahun;i.

bersedia melepaskan jabatan sebagaimana dimaksuddalam huruf h setelah diangkat sebagai anggota LAM;

j.

tidak menjadi anggota unit kerja yang berhubungan
dengan pembinaan dan pengembangan mutu pendidikan
tinggi;k.

berpendidikan doktor;l.

memiliki jabatan akademik paling rendah lektor kepala;www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-23-

m.

tidak memiliki afiliasi dan/atau menjadi anggota partai
politik;n.

bebas dari penggunaan dan keterkaitan dengan narkotika
dan zat adiktif lainnya;o.

mendapatkan izin dari Pemimpin Perguruan Tinggi; danp.

memiliki wawasan dan komitmen pada peningkatan
mutu dan relevansi pendidikan tinggi.
Pasal 41

(1)

Seleksi anggota LAM Pemerintah dilakukan oleh tim
seleksi yang ditetapkan oleh Menteri.

(2)

Tim

seleksisebagaimana

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(1)

bertugas:a.

menyelenggarakan pendaftaran calon anggota LAM
Pemerintah secara terbuka;b.

melakukan seleksi calon anggota LAM Pemerintah;danc.

mengusulkan calon anggota LAM Pemerintah paling
banyak 2 (dua) kali jumlah anggota LAM Pemerintahyang dibutuhkan kepada Menteri.

(3)

Menterimemilihdanmenetapkan

anggota

LAM

Pemerintah berdasarkan usul tim seleksi.
(4)Masa jabatan anggota LAM Pemerintah adalah 5 (lima)
tahun dan dapat diangkat kembali untuk 1 (satu) kali
masa jabatan berikutnya.
Pasal 42(1)

Ketua, sekretaris, dan anggota LAM Pemerintah bekerja
penuh waktu.

(2)

Tugas dan wewenang ketua LAM Pemerintah:a.

memimpin LAM Pemerintah dalam pelaksanaan
Akreditasi Program Studi; danb.

melakukan

koordinasi

denganunit

terkaitdilingkungan Kementerian dan pemangku kepentingan
lain.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-24-

(3)

Tugas dan wewenang sekretaris LAM Pemerintah:a.

memimpin

pengelolaan

operasional

harianLAM

Pemerintah;b.

melaksanakan tugas teknis dan administratif LAM
Pemerintah; danc.

membantu pelaksanaan tugas dan wewenang ketua
LAM Pemerintah.
Pasal 43

(1)

Anggota LAM Pemerintah diberhentikan karena:a.

masa jabatan telah berakhir;b.

permohonan sendiri;c.

ditetapkan

sebagaitersangka

karenadidugamelakukan tindak pidana kejahatan;d.

tidak menunjukkan kinerja, integritas, atau dedikasi
sebagai anggota LAM Pemerintah;

e.

sakit

yang

tidak

dapat

disembuhkanyangmenyebabkan tidak dapat menjalankan tugas dan
kewajiban, dibuktikan dengan surat keterangan dariinstansi yang berwenang; atauf.
(2)

meninggal dunia.

Anggota

LAM

Pemerintah

diberhentikan

sementarakarena diduga telah melakukan tindak pidana kejahatan.
(3)

Kinerja,

integritas,

atau

dedikasianggota

LAM

Pemerintah dievaluasi oleh BAN-PT secara berkala untuk
selanjutnya dilaporkan kepada Menteri.
(4)

Pemberhentian ketua, sekretaris, dan/atau anggota LAM
Pemerintah ditetapkan oleh Menteri.
Pasal 44(1)

Apabila terjadi pemberhentian ketua dan/atau sekretaris
LAM Pemerintah sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 43
ayat (1) huruf b sampai dengan huruf f, Menteri
mengangkat dan menetapkan salah satu anggota LAM
Pemerintah untuk menyelesaikan sisa masa jabatan.

(2)

Apabila terjadi pemberhentian anggota LAM Pemerintah,
Menteri mengangkat dan menetapkan anggota baru

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-25-

sesuai dengan urutan hasil seleksi untuk menyelesaikan
sisa masa jabatan.
Pasal 45
(1)

Dalam melaksanakan tugas dan wewenangnya LAM
Pemerintah dibantu oleh sekretariat.

(2)

Kepala sekretariat LAM Pemerintah ditetapkan oleh
Menteri.
Paragraf 3
LAM Masyarakat
Pasal 46

(1)

LAM Masyarakat berbentuk badan hukum nirlaba.

(2)

Badan hukum nirlaba sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat
(1) dibentuk oleh pemrakarsa yang terdiri atas organisasi
profesi dan/atau asosiasi unit pengelola Program Studi
berbadan hukum dari suatu rumpun, pohon, dan/atau
cabang ilmu pengetahuan.

(3)

Organisasi profesi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2)merupakan himpunan individu profesional dalam suatu
bidang ilmu pengetahuan atau teknologi tertentu yangbertanggung jawab atas pembinaan dan pengembangan
profesi tersebut.
Pasal 47

(1)

Persyaratan pendirian LAM Masyarakat wajib memiliki:a.

rencana sumber daya manusia yang diperlukan
untuk melakukan Akreditasi Program Studi;b.

rancanganprosedur

operasistandarAkreditasi

Program Studi;c.

sumber pendanaan paling sedikit untuk 3 (tiga)
tahun anggaran LAM Masyarakat;d.

rancangan satuan biaya pelaksanaan Akreditasi
Program Studi sesuai bidangnya;e.

sarana dan prasarana LAM Masyarakat;

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-26-

f.

rancangan sistem penjaminan mutu internal LAM
Masyarakat; dang.

rancangan mekanisme penanganan keberatan yangdiajukan atas peringkat Akreditasi Program Studi,baik dari Pemimpin Perguruan Tinggi maupun dari
Masyarakat.

(2)

Prosedur pendirian LAM Masyarakat:a.

pemrakarsa sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 46
ayat (2) mengusulkan pendirian LAM Masyarakat
kepada Menteri dilengkapi dengan studi kelayakan
untuk memperoleh pengakuan;b.

Menteri menugaskan BAN-PT untuk melakukan
penilaian terhadap studi kelayakan sebagaimana
dimaksud dalam huruf a;c.

BAN-PT memberikan rekomendasi kepada Menteri
tentang persetujuan pengakuan LAM Masyarakat;

d.

dalam

hal

Menterimemberikan

persetujuan

pengakuan

LAM

Masyarakat

berdasarkan

rekomendasi

BAN-PT,

pemrakarsa

mengajukan

pembentukan badan hukum nirlaba sesuai dengan
ketentuan perundang-undangan;e.

dalam hal Menteri tidak memberikan persetujuan
pengakuan

LAM

rekomendasi
mengajukan

Masyarakat

BAN-PT,
kembaliberdasarkan

pemrakarsa
usulandapat

pendirian

LAM

Masyarakat; danf.

LAM

Masyarakat

dapat

menjalankan

fungsinya

setelah mendapat status sebagai badan hukum
nirlaba.
Pasal 48
(1)

Studi kelayakan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 47
ayat (2) huruf a paling sedikit berisi tentang:
a.

latar

belakangdantujuanpendirian

LAM

Masyarakat;b.

visi dan misi LAM Masyarakat;c.

nama LAM Masyarakat yang akan digunakan;www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-27-

d.

rencana ruang lingkup rumpun, pohon, dan/atau
cabang ilmu pengetahuan yang dibina Program
Studi yang akan diakreditasi LAM Masyarakat;e.

bukti sumber pendanaan LAM Masyarakat paling
sedikituntuk

3(tiga)

tahun

anggaran

LAM

Masyarakat;f.

rancangan alur proses Akreditasi LAM Masyarakat;g.

rancangan tata kelola LAM Masyarakat; danh.

rancangan sistem penjaminan mutu internal LAM
Masyarakat.

(2)

Rancangan tata kelola LAM Masyarakat sebagaimana
dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf g paling sedikit meliputi:

(3)

a.

susunan organisasi;b.

sumber daya manusia serta pengembangannya;c.

sistem pengelolaan keuangan; dand.

sarana dan prasarana.

Rancangansistempenjaminan

mutuinternal

LAM

Masyarakat sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf hpaling sedikit memuat:a.

kebijakan sistem penjaminan mutu internal;b.

manual sistem penjaminan mutu internal;c.

standar dalam sistem penjaminan mutu internal;dand.

formulir dalam sistem penjaminan mutu internal.
Pasal 49

(1)

Susunan organisasi, kepengurusan, dan tata kelola LAM
Masyarakat diatur dalam anggaran dasar badan hukum
nirlaba.

(2)

Pendanaan

LAM

Masyarakat

bersumber

dari

dana

Masyarakat, sumber lain atau dapat bersumber dari dana
pemerintah

sesuaidenganketentuanperaturanperundang-undangan.
(3)

Dalam hal LAM Masyarakat memungut biaya untuk
melakukan Akreditasi Program Studi, besaran biaya
harus mendapat persetujuan Menteri.

2020, No.49-28-

Pasal 50
(1)

LAM Masyarakat menyampaikan laporan kegiatan setiap
tahun kepada Menteri melalui BAN-PT.

(2)

LAM Masyarakat diaudit oleh akuntan publik secara
berkala dan diumumkan kepada Masyarakat.

(3)

Menteri dapat mencabut persetujuan pengakuan atas
LAM Masyarakat apabila terbukti tidak menunjukkan
kinerja yang baik, melanggar integritas, atau melanggar
ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 51

(1)

Dalam pelaksanaan Akreditasi Program Studi, LAM
Masyarakat

berkoordinasi

denganunit

terkaitdilingkungan Kementerian dan pemangku kepentingan
lain.
(2)

Koordinasi

sebagaimana

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(1)

bertujuan agar pelaksanaan Akreditasi Program Studi
mampu berkontribusi secara harmonis dalam Sistem
Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi, membangun dan
mengembangkan budaya mutu pendidikan tinggi.
BAB IVPENGAWASAN
Pasal 52
(1)

Menteri melakukan pengawasan terhadap pelaksanaan
Akreditasi oleh BAN-PT.

(2)

BAN-PT melakukan pengawasan terhadap pelaksanaan
Akreditasi oleh LAM.
Pasal 53

(1)

BAN-PT secara berkala melakukan evaluasi terhadap
proses Akreditasi yang dilaksanakan oleh LAM palinglambat setiap 2 (dua) tahun.

(2)

Apabilaberdasarkan

hasil

evaluasisebagaimana

dimaksud pada ayat (1) LAM tidak melaksanakan proses
Akreditasi sesuai ketentuan, pelaksanaan Akreditasi oleh

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-29-

LAM dilakukan di bawah pembinaan dan pengawasan
BAN-PT selama 1 (satu) tahun.
(3)

Apabilasetelahsebagaimanamasa

dimaksudpembinaan
pada

oleh

ayat

(2)

BAN-PTLAM

tidak

melakukan proses Akreditasi sesuai ketentuan, BAN-PT
merekomendasikan penutupan LAM Pemerintah atau
pencabutan pengakuan LAM Masyarakat kepada Menteri.
(4)

Menterimenutuppengakuan

LAM

LAM

penyelenggaraan

Pemerintah

Masyarakat
Akreditasi

atau

dan

kepadamencabutmelimpahkan

BAN-PT

sampaidengan LAM dalam rumpun, pohon, dan/atau cabang
ilmu pengetahuan yang sama terbentuk.
(5)

LAM

Masyarakatyang

dicabut

pengakuannya

sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (4), berkewajiban
menyelesaikan seluruh tanggung jawab sesuai dengan
ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan.
BAB V
KETENTUAN PERALIHAN
Pasal 54(1)

Program

Studi

yang

minimum

Akreditasi

sudah
dan

memenuhisedangpersyaratan

menunggu

prosesAkreditasi sebelum berlakunya Peraturan Menteri ini
maka Program Studi yang bersangkutan mendapatkan
Akreditasi dengan peringkat Baik.
(2)

Program Studi dan/atau Perguruan Tinggi yang saat ini
sudah memasukkan berkas perpanjangan dan masih
menunggu

prosesAkreditasi

ulang

maka

denganberlakunya Peraturan Menteri ini peringkat Akreditasiyang terakhir dimiliki dinyatakan masih tetap berlaku
sampaidengan5(lima)

tahun

terhitungsejak

berakhirnya jangka waktu peringkat Akreditasi terakhir
ditetapkan.
(3)

Program Studi dan/atau Perguruan Tinggi yang peringkat
Akreditasinya dinyatakan masih berlaku sebagaimana

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49-30-

dimaksud

pada

ayat

(2)

tetap

dapat

mengajukan

Akreditasi ulang untuk menaikkan peringkat Akreditasi.
BAB VI
KETENTUAN PENUTUP
Pasal 55
Pada saat Peraturan Menteri ini berlaku, Peraturan Menteri
Riset, Teknologi, dan Pendidikan Tinggi Nomor 32 Tahun 2016
tentang Akreditasi Program Studi dan Perguruan Tinggi(Berita Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2016 Nomor 774),
dicabut dan dinyatakan tidak berlaku.
Pasal 56
PeraturanMenteri

ini

mulai

berlakupadatanggaldiundangkan.

www.peraturan.go.id2020, No.49

-31-

Agar

setiaporang

mengetahuinya,

memerintahkan

pengundangan Peraturan Menteri ini dengan penempatannya
dalam Berita Negara Republik Indonesia.

Ditetapkan di Jakarta
pada tanggal 24 Januari 2020
MENTERI PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN
REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
TTD.

ttdttd.

NADIEM ANWAR MAKARIM
Diundangkan di Jakarta
pada tanggal 28 Januari 20208 Januari 20205 Juli 2018
DIREKTUR JENDERALPERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGANKEMENTERIAN HUKUM DAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA
REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
ttd.

ttd

WIDODO EKATJAHJANA

www.peraturan.go.id

[TRANSLATION]DECISION LETTERENGINEERING PROGRAM ACCREDITATION AGENCY (LAM TEKNIK)
NO. 10/BATAP APK-PII/210/VI/2022
ON
GUIDES OF INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION RECOGNITION

LAM TEKNIK EXECUTIVE COMMITEE
Considering: a to b
Recalling: 1 to 8
DECIDES TO
Establish: The Decision of the Executive Committee of LAM Teknik number 10/BATAP APKPII/210/VI/2022 on the Guides of International Accreditation Recognition

FIRST:SECOND:

Recognition of international accreditation by LAM Teknik shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Study Program requesting recognition shall have been first accredited nationallywith the minimum rank of Very Good.
2. International accreditation agency awarding accreditation to the Study Program
shall be a signatory of the International Engineering Alliance in the Washington
Accord, Sydney Accord, or Dublin Accord.

THIRD:FOURTH:

Study programs which have been recognized as having Excellent rank through aninternational-level accreditation and proven to maintain its status as internationallyaccredited programs and fulfill the necessary conditions for the rank as are exemptedfrom undergoing assessment for national accreditation

FIFTH:

Decision enacted in Jakarta
On 27 June 2022
Chair of LAM Teknik Executive Committee
Prof. Misri Gozan

ANNEX 3: PDM (All versions of PDM)

Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 1
Dated December 10, 2014

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency:Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC)

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretsariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site:Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

3. Some education programs are accredited.
4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatiry.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Important Assumption

Achievement

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

The project just started lateNovember. Then, no notableachievement/issue is foundso far.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Ditto

MOEC decree for instrument forevaluation of LAM is effectuated inappropriate timing.

Ditto

Means of Verification

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・Y/N
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation are
・IABEE Databasedevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.
25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.
The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

Ditto

・IABEE Database

Ditto

・Y/N

Ditto

Remarks

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English. airports of disembarkation.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria intod) A portion of implementation costIndonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for experts' daily activities
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating to - Cost for pilot international evaluation
evaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- MOEC counterpart personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting and maintenance of website
and database- Expenses necessary for transportation
within Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as for the
installation, operation and maintenanced) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Cost for IEA meetings- Other Initial and running cost of IABEE

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>
The project just started late November.
Then, no notable achievement/issue isfound so far.

Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 2
Dated June 24, 2015

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency:Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC)

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretsariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site:Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatiry.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Means of Verification

Important Assumption

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

・The Government requests
IABEE to take care of not
only international voluntaryaccreditation but also
Indonesian government's policy onnational mandatory
Engineering Education does not change
accreditation of study
drastically.
programs of D and S.
・3 IABEE Committees havebeen discussing how to set
up comprehensive

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.
・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

Achievement

・Y/N
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
Statement

・IABEE Database

MOEC decree for instrument forevaluation of LAM is effectuated inappropriate timing.

Remarks

The total
number of study
programs will be
more than
4,000.

Ditto

・Started preparing a
document for submission for
the establishment of IABEE
as a LAM-PS with a target
date of the end of August
2015.
・2 Secretariat staff wererecruited.
・Common Criteria and theCriteria Guide have been
been established in English
and Indonesian languages.
・7 IABEE peronnel weretrained in February 2015 in
Japan. 4 IABEE personnel
were trained at ABET
Program Evaluator
Candidate Training in May
2015 in USA.
・Basic design of Web-based
program evaluation system

・Negotiation
with PII on how
to establish
IABEE isunderway.

Claud will be
used instead of
having own
server.

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.
・IABEE Database

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/NA study program wasevaluated at a pilot basis tocheck the appropriateness of
IABEE Common Criteria indraft at the time of end of2014.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Side
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forestablishment of IABEE.

a) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation
Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment- Website and database with necessary
software and servers*In case of importation, the equioment will
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and become the property of the government ofcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
Japan and in Indonesia
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianauthorities concerned at the ports and/or
airports of disembarkation.
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the
documents of accreditation crteria and of d) A portion of implementation cost
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a - Cost for experts' daily activities
database for evaluation related dossiers.
- Cost for pilot international evaluation
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
Indonesian language and publicizing on
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- MOEC counterpart personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting and maintenance of website
and database- Expenses necessary for transportation
within Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as for the
installation, operation and maintenanced) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Cost for IEA meetings- Other Initial and running cost of IABEE

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>
・C/P provided all necessary budget forcommittee meetings, seminars and pilot
evaluation held in Indonesia as well as
the cost for 2 participants in IEA
meeting.
・Claud will be used instead of having
own server.

Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 3
Dated August 7, 2015

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency:Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC)

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site:Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Means of Verification

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Important Assumption

・The Government requests
IABEE to take care of not
only international voluntaryaccreditation but also
Indonesian government's policy onnational mandatory
Engineering Education does not change accreditation of study
drastically.
programs of D and S.
・3 IABEE Committees havebeen discussing how to set
up comprehensivel ti i tt

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・Y/N
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
Statement
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Database

Achievement

MOEC decree for instrument forevaluation of LAM is effectuated inappropriate timing.

Remarks

The total
number of study
programs will be
more than
4,000.

Ditto

・Started preparing a
document for submission for
the establishment of IABEE
as a LAM-PS with a target
date of the end of August
2015.
・2 Secretariat staff wererecruited.
・Common Criteria and theCriteria Guide have been
been established in English
and Indonesian languages.
・7 IABEE peronnel weretrained in February 2015 in
Japan. 4 IABEE personnel
were trained at ABET
Program Evaluator
Candidate Training in May
2015 in USA.
・Basic design of Web-based
program evaluation system

・Negotiation
with PII on how
to establish
IABEE isunderway.

Claud will be
used instead of
having own
server.

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.
・IABEE Database

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/NA study program wasevaluated at a pilot basis tocheck the appropriateness of
IABEE Common Criteria indraft at the time of end of2014.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Side
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forestablishment of IABEE.

a) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation
Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment- Website and database with necessary
software and servers*In case of importation, the equioment will
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and become the property of the government ofcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
Japan and in Indonesia
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianauthorities concerned at the ports and/or
airports of disembarkation.
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the
documents of accreditation crteria and of d) A portion of implementation cost
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a - Cost for experts' daily activities
database for evaluation related dossiers.
- Cost for pilot international evaluation
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
Indonesian language and publicizing on
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- MOEC counterpart personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting and maintenance of website
and database- Expenses necessary for transportation
within Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as for the
installation, operation and maintenanced) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Cost for IEA meetings- Other Initial and running cost of IABEE

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>
・C/P provided all necessary budget forcommittee meetings, seminars and pilot
evaluation held in Indonesia as well as
the cost for 2 participants in IEA
meeting.
・Claud will be used instead of having
own server.

Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 4
Dated 20 May 2016

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・IABEE homepage
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional member ・Y/Nof the Washington Accord.

Achievement

Remarks

・IABEE has been
C/P decides where and how to establish established with in PII
IABEE
・2 Secretariat staff wererecruited.

・Negotiation
with PII on how
to establish
IABEE isunderway.

Important Assumption

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

3. Some education programs are accredited.
4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.
The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・IABEE homepage

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N・Common Criteria andCriteria Guide have been
publicized at PII homepage
・Discipline Criteria havebeen drafted
・Evaluator Trainer Training
in Japan, USA and China as
well as in Indonesia

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Side
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forestablishment of IABEE.

a) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation- Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment- Website and database with necessary
software and servers*In case of importation, the equioment will
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and become the property of the government ofcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
Japan and in Indonesia
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianauthorities concerned at the ports and/or
airports of disembarkation.
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the
documents of accreditation crteria and of d) A portion of implementation cost
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a - Cost for experts' daily activities
database for evaluation related dossiers.
- Cost for pilot international evaluation
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
Indonesian language and publicizing on
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting and maintenance of website
and database- Expenses necessary for transportation
within Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as for the
installation, operation and maintenanced) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Cost for IEA/Washington Accord
meetings and Seoul Accord meetings- Other initial and running cost of IABEE
including salaries of IABEE secretariat
staff

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>
・C/P provides all necessary budget forcommittee meetings, seminars and pilot
evaluation held in Indonesia as well as
the cost for 2 participants in IEA
meeting.
・Claud will be used instead of having
own server.

Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 5
Dated 25 October 2016

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・IABEE homepage
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional member ・Y/Nof the Washington Accord.

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE homepage

・MOU was signed by DG
Belmawa and President of
PII on the occasion of PII
C/P decides where and how to establish
Annual Conference in
IABEE
October 2016
・2 Secretariat staff weretrained (OJT) at JABEE

8 WGs of Evaluation &Accrditation Commettee(EAC) have been developing
eveluation procedures anddocuments.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.
The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

Two study programs agreed
to be evaluated as pilot
accreditations.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Side
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forestablishment of IABEE.

a) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation- Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment- Website and database with necessary
software and servers*In case of importation, the equioment will
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and become the property of the government ofcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
Japan and in Indonesia
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianauthorities concerned at the ports and/or
airports of disembarkation.
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the
documents of accreditation crteria and of d) A portion of implementation cost
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a - Cost for experts' daily activities
database for evaluation related dossiers.
- Cost for pilot international evaluation
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
Indonesian language and publicizing on
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting and maintenance of website
and database- Expenses necessary for transportation
within Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as for the
installation, operation and maintenanced) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Cost for IEA/Washington Accord
meetings and Seoul Accord meetings- Other initial and running cost of IABEE- Salaries of IABEE secretyrait staff

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>
・C/P provides all necessary budget forcommittee meetings, seminars and pilot
evaluation held in Indonesia as well as
the cost for 2 participants in IEA
meeting.
・Claud will be used instead of having
own server.
Offiii till t b
l dProject Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 6
Dated 12 April 2017

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・IABEE homepage
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional member ・Y/Nof the Washington Accord.

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE homepage

・MOU was signed by DG
Belmawa and President of
PII on the occasion of PII
C/P decides where and how to establish
Annual Conference in
IABEE
October 2016
・2 Secretariat staff weretrained (OJT) at JABEE

8 WGs of Evaluation &Accrditation Commettee(EAC) have been developing
eveluation procedures anddocuments.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE homepage

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N・Two study programs were
evaluated by JABEE as pilot
accreditations
・2 IABEE evaluations to
Mechanical and Biosystem
Engineering of IPB and the
Civil Engineering of UI havebeen madeInputs

Activities
The Japanese Side
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forestablishment of IABEE.

a) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation- Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment- Website and database with necessary
software and servers*In case of importation, the equioment will
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and become the property of the government ofcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
Japan and in Indonesia
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianauthorities concerned at the ports and/or
airports of disembarkation.
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the
documents of accreditation crteria and of d) A portion of implementation cost
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a - Cost for experts' daily activities
database for evaluation related dossiers.
- Cost for pilot international evaluation
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
Indonesian language and publicizing on
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting and maintenance of website
and database- Expenses necessary for transportation
within Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as for the
installation, operation and maintenanced) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings inparticular EAC and 8 WGs- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Cost for IEA/Washington Accord
meetings and Seoul Accord meetings- Other initial and running cost of IABEE- Salaries of IABEE secretyrait staff

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>
・C/P provides all necessary budget forcommittee meetings, seminars and pilot
evaluation held in Indonesia as well as
the cost for 2 participants in IEA
meeting.
・Claud will be used instead of having
own server.

Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 7
Dated 29 January 2018

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・IABEE homepage
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional member ・Y/Nof the Washington Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

・The Secretary-General of IABEE
was hired (November 2017).
・The EXC decided to hold IABEE
C/P decides where and how to establish Inauguration and International
Seminar in Jakarta on 13 March
IABEE2018 and formed the Organizing
Committee.

Remarks

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.
・IABEE homepage

3. Some education programs are accredited.

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N・ Digital evaluation system was
extended to the provisional
accreditation and was internallytested by WGs1, 2 and 7 of EAC.
・ 8 WGs established in EAC havebeen developing different
documents relating to evaluation
procedure and material evaluator
training including online module
training materials.
・6 EAC members participated in
ABET Program Evaluator
Candidate Training in April and May
2017.
・13 evaluator candidates
participated in JICA/JABEE
Evaluator Trainer Training held inJapan in October 2017.
・Evaluator Trainer Training washeld in Jakarta in September 2017.
Evaluator Training was held in・7 socialization seminars were heldin 7 cities (Surabaya, Makassar,
Batam, Bandung, Jakarta,
Yogyakarta and Medan).
・The Deputy Chair of EXC and the
Chair of International Committee
attended the 2017 IEA General
Meeting held in Anchorage in USA
in June 2017.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity- Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings inparticular EAC and 8 WGs- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 8
Dated 30 March 2018

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%) ・IABEE homepage
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・Y/N・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
・5 programs were accredited.
Engineering Education does not change ・ 6 programs were accredited as
drastically.
provisional accreditations.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

・ The Secretary-General of IABEE was
hired (November 2017).
C/P decides where and how to establish ・ IABEE Inauguration and International
Seminar were held in Jakarta on 13
IABEE
March 2018.

Remarks

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.
・IABEE homepage

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.
・IABEE homepage

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N・ Digital evaluation system was
extended to the provisional accreditation
and was internally tested by WGs1, 2
and 7 of EAC.
・ 8 WGs established in EAC have beendeveloping different documents relating
to evaluation procedure and material
evaluator training including online
module training materials.
・ 6 EAC members participated in ABET
Program Evaluator Candidate Training
in April and May 2017.
・ 13 evaluator candidates participated in
JICA/JABEE Evaluator Trainer Training
held in Japan in October 2017.
・ Evaluator Trainer Training was held inJakarta in September 2017.
・7
Evaluator
Training
was held
Jakartasocialization
seminars
wereinheld
in 7

cities (Surabaya, Makassar, Batam,
Bandung, Jakarta, Yogyakarta andMedan).
・ In 2016, 2 programs were accredited.
・ In 2017, 3 programs were accredited.
・ In 2017, 6 programs were accredited
as provisional accreditations.

・ The Deputy Chair of EXC and the
Chair of International Committee
attended the 2017 IEA General Meeting
held in Anchorage in USA in June 2017.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity- Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings inparticular EAC and 8 WGs- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 9
Dated 11 October 2018

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・IABEE homepage
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional member ・Y/Nof the Washington Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE homepage

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Due to passing away of Dr Ari(Secretary-General), the Acting
C/P decides where and how to establish Secrtary-General was hired from
September ｔo December 2018.
IABEE

・ Digital evaluation system wasrevised.
・ 8 WGs established in EAC
have been developing different
documents relating to evaluation
procedure and material
evaluator training including
online module training materials.
・ Evaluator Training was held in
Bandung on in July 2018.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE homepage

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N・ In 2016, 2 programs wereaccredited.
・ In 2017, 3 programs wereaccredited. 6 programs wereaccredited as provisional
accreditation.
・ In 2018, 28 programs forgeneral accreditation and 22 forprovisional accredtation are
under evaluation.
・ The Chief Advisor, the Chair ofInternational Committee and theSecretary-General attended the2018 IEA General Meeting heldin London in June 2018.
・ ABET expert observed IABEE
on-site evaluation to theChemical Engineering of UGM(October 2018).

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity- Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings inparticular EAC and 8 WGs- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Salaries of IABEE secretrait staffd) Subsidies to study programs for IABEE
accreditation fee

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 10
Dated 10 April 2019

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to October 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・IABEE homepage
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional member ・Y/Nof the Washington Accord.

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE homepage

C/P decides where and how to establish
IABEE

Mr Berlian (Acting Secretary-Generalfrom September to November 2018)
was confirmed to Secretary-Generalin November 2018.

Digital evaluation system was further
revised.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE homepage

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・ In 2016, 2 programs wereaccredited for general accreditation.
・ In 2017, 3 programs wereaccredited for general accreditation.
6 programs were accredited forprovisional accreditation.
・ In 2018, 27 programs wereaccredited for general accreditation.
21 programs were accredited forprovisional accredtation.

・Y/NThe application documednt for theprovisional status in the Washington
Accord accompanied by 2 supporting
letters from JABEE and ABETwas
submitted to the IEA Secretariat.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity- Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings inparticular EAC and 8 WGs- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Salaries of IABEE secretrait staffd) Subsidies to study programs for IABEE
accreditation fee

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 11
Dated 23 August 2019

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to September 2019 (5years)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

Important Assumption

Achievement

・IABEE homepage
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

R/D was signed to extend the Project
until August 2021 with an additional
goal that PII/IABEE will get thesignatory status in the Washington
Accord in June 2021.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%) ・IABEE homepage
are accredited by IABEE at international level. ・Y/N・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

Means of Verification

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

2. The accreditation documents aredevelopped, and evaluators are trained.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology and・Y/NHigher Education.
・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
・Human resources, infrastructure andStatement
financial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE homepage

C/P decides where and how to establish
IABEE

・IABEE Secretariat will be moving
to PII's new building in the near
future.
・From 29 to 31 July 2019, theSecretary-General was trained at
JABEE including a 2-day JABEE
evaluator training.

・Digital evaluation system is being
further revised to include a databaseof evaluators and evaluatorcandidates with 360 degrees
evaluation.
・On 12 and 13 July 2019, anevaluator training was organized withthe attendance of 31 evaluatorcandidates. Up to date, 117
evaluators have been trained.
・On 3 August 2019, a refresher
training was organized forevaluators, who will participate in the2019 program evaluations.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE homepage

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・2 programs in 2016, 3 programs in2017 and 27 programs in 2018,
totaling 32 programs have been
accredited for general accreditation.
The Project target has been
acheaved one year ahead.
・6 programs in 2017 and 21
programs in 2018, totaling and 27
programs have been accredited forprovisional accreditation. These
programs are expected to apply for
general accreditation in 2020 and
2021.
・For 2019, 12 study programs haveapplied for evaluation for generalaccreditation and 28 study programsfor provisional accreditation. Those
programs are under evaluation.
Evaluation Teams will be conducting
the on-site evaluation visits in
October and November 2019.
・4 awareness seminars wereorganized.

・Y/N
・PII/IABEE provisional membershiphas been approved with unanimous
support by 20 signatories at the
Washington Accord Closed Session
held on 12 June 2019 in Hong Kong.
・The International Committee has
started preparing the application
documents for the signatory status in
the WA, the deadline for submissionof which is 28 February 2020

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity- Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnel- IABEE key personnel and secretariat
staffb) Facility- Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for JICA experts-Suitable office space with necessary
furniture and equipment for IABEEc) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings inparticular EAC and 8 WGs- Cost for holding Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator trainings- Salaries of IABEE secretrait staffd) Subsidies to study programs for IABEE
accreditation fee

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues and countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）
Version 12
Dated 14 February 2020

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2021 (6 years and 10 months)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Means of Verification
・IABEE homepage
・Y/NEngineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a provisional member of the
Washington Accord.

・IABEE homepage
・Among 2,371 engineering education
・Y/N
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Project Purpose

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・Y/N・IABEE Organization Chart, Financial
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology andStatement
Higher Education.
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.
2. The accreditation documents are developped ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria ・IABEE homepage
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

Important Assumption

Achievement

Indonesian government's policy on
・R/D was signed to extend
Engineering Education does not change the Project until August 2021
drastically.
with an additional goal that
PII/IABEE will get thesignatory status in the
Washington Accord in June
2021.

Indonesian government's policy on
Engineering Education does not change
drastically.

C/P decides where and how to establish ・IABEE Secretariat could not
IABEEmove yet to PII's newbuilding due to a delay in theconstruction.

・Digital evaluation system
has been further developed
to include a database ofevaluators and evaluatorcandidates with 360 degrees
evaluation. The system wasused for the program
evaluations of the year 2019.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE homepage

・For 2019, 12 study
programs for generalaccreditation and 28 study
programs for provisional
accreditation were evaluated.
The results of evaluations
were harmonized at the EAC
of 30 January 2020 and10
programs were accredited by
the Accreditation Council(AC) of 13 February 2020.
・5 awareness seminars wereorganized.

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N・The International
Committee has completed
the application documents
for the signatory status in the
WA and is ready to submit it
to IEA Secretariat by thedeadline of 21 February2020.

Inputs

Activities
The Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly- Chief Advisor/Organization Management
members and Board members. Involving- Accreditation documents development
engineering societies as major players of- Advocacy, Training and Consultation
IABEE activities.
- Program evaluation
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity- Website and databese development
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
countries
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
- Website and database with necessary
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andsoftware and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
become the property of the government of
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing theIndonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of
insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.
d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnelb) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for holding Committee meetings
Necessary budge for the project- Cost for holding Seminars implementation is secured.
c) Subsidies to study programs for IABEE
accreditation fee<Issues and countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Education and Culture

Version 13
Dated 30 September 2020

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2021 (6 years and 10 months)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countriesof the Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a signatory of the Washington
Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

Means of Verification Important Assumption
・IABEE Website

Indonesian government's
policy on Engineering
Education does not change
drastically.

・IABEE Website
・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Indonesian government's
policy on Engineering
Education does not change
drastically.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・IABEE Organization
Chart, Financial Statement
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology andHigher Education.
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

Achievement
・R/D was signed to extend the Project until August 2021
with an additional goal that PII/IABEE will get the signatory
status in the Washington Accord in June 2021.

・IABEE Secretariat could not move to PII's new building
due to a delay in the interior work.
・C/P provides IABEE with a free office space in DIKITI
building temporarily.
 PII’s new building, named Graha Rekayasa Indonesia,
was officially inaugurated on 4 September 2020 and PIISecretariat operates there since then. IABEE Secretariat
could also be relocated. However, due to COVID-19, therelocation should better wait until COVID-19 situation has
calmed down.

Remarks

2. The accreditation documents are developped ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Website

3. Some education programs are accredited

・IABEE Website

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・A special WG established within EAC has developed theprotocols necessary to conduct virtual evaluation due to
COVID-19.

4. IABEE's provisional status in the Washington The Washington Accord approves the
Accord is approved.
provisional status of IABEE.

IEA Website

5. IABEE's signatory status is approved to the
Washington Accord.

IEA Website

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Continue further improvement

・In 2019, 2 programs for general accreditation were notaccredited, one of which accepted to take immediate
remedial actions against the deficiency and the IABEE
Evaluation Team will be re-evaluating the program forpossible accreditation. Another program did not accept thedecision of “Not accredited” and made an appeal. The
IABEE Appeal Board set up an Appeal Committee. Appeal
Committee’s recommendation to change “Not accredited”
to “Accreditation with interim” was not supported by the
EXC held on 14 August 2020. The decision was notified tothe program
・For 2020, 27 engineering programs and 3 computing
programs (in total 30) have been registered for evaluation
for general accreditation and 17 engineering programs,
which, in 2018, had been granted accreditation status withinterim, have been registered for interim evaluation. Out of
17 programs, 7 programs fall into the category of interim
evaluation without on-site visit. 9 engineering programsand 4 computing programs (in total 13) have beenregistered for evaluation for provisional accreditation. 60
programs in total are currently under evaluation.
Evaluation Teams will be undertaking “virtual” on-site visits
to 53 study programs during a period from 13 November to
8 December 2020.
・For 2020, IABEE requested DIKTI to provide 12
programs for general accreditation with subsidies of
Rp30M per program and 3 programs for provisional
accreditation with subsidies of Rp10M per program,totaling Rp390M.
4ii dCompleted
COVID-19 will calm down in
2021 so that the WA
Verification Review Team to
IABEE could visit Indonesia
in 2021.

The Washington Accord Closed Session held in a form ofvideoconference on 22 June 2020 reviewed IABEE’s
application documents and JABEE’s mentor’s report. The
signatories unanimously approved the formation of a
Washington Accord Verification Review Team to IABEE.
However, due to COVID-19, the Washington Accord
decided to postpone all Accord Reviews (including thereview to IABEE) to 2021. Therefore, the Verification
Review Team’s visit to Indonesia will not take place in2020 but in 2021.

Activities
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office

InputsThe Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation- Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document for- Website and database with necessary
establishment of IABEE.
software and servers
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
become the property of the government ofJapan and in Indonesia
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.

d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnelb) A portion of
Necessary budge for the
implementation costproject implementation is- Cost for holding
secured.
Seminarsc) Subsidies to study
programs for IABEE
accreditation feed) Provision of a free office<Issues andspace in DIKTI building

countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Education and Culture

Version 14
Dated 31 March 2021

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2022 (7 years and 10 months)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Means of Verification Important Assumption

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countries

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

・IABEE Website

Indonesian government's
policy on Engineering
Education does not change
drastically.

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a signatory of the Washington
Accord.

・IABEE Website
・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Indonesian government's
policy on Engineering
Education does not change
drastically.

Project Purpose

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・IABEE Organization
Chart, Financial Statement
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology andHigher Education.
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

2. The accreditation documents are developped ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Website

Achievement
・R/D was signed to extend the Project until August 2022
as due to COVID-19 all WA Accord Reviews of 2020
(including the Verfication Review to PII/IABEE) were
postponed.

・C/P provides IABEE with a free office space in DIKITI
building temporarily.
 PII’s new building, named Graha Rekayasa Indonesia,
was officially inaugurated on 4 September 2020 and PIISecretariat operates there since then. IABEE Secretariat
could also be relocated. However, due to COVID-19, therelocation should better wait until COVID-19 situation has
calmed down.
・Continue further improvement
・The protocols necessary to conduct virtual program
evaluations under COVID-19 has been developped.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE Website

4. IABEE's provisional status in the Washington The Washington Accord approves the
Accord is approved.
provisional status of IABEE.

IEA Website

5. IABEE's signatory status is approved to the
Washington Accord.

IEA Website

The Washington Accord approves thesignatory status of IABEE.

・The Project targeted to accredit 25 engineering study
programs at international level by the 2019. 2 programs in
2016, 3 programs in 2017, 27 programs in 2018 and 10
programs in 2019 totaling 42 programs were accredited forgeneral accreditation.
・In 2020, 2 engineering programs, which were notaccredited in 2019, were accredited and 13 newengineering programs for general accreditation were
granted.
・As of March 2021, the total of 57 engineering programs
are accredited.
・For 2020, DIKTI provides 13 programs for generalaccreditation with subsidies of Rp30M per program and 1
program for provisional accreditation with subsidies ofCompleted in 2019
COVID-19 will calm down in
2021 so that the WA
Verification Review Team to
IABEE could visit Indonesia
in 2021.

・In January 2021, the WA Chair announced thecomposition of the Verification Review Team to PII/IABEE:
they are Engineers Australia, Board of Engineers Malaysia
and Pakistan Engineering Council.
・The Washington Accord Closed Session to be held in aform of videoconference in June 2021 will decide whether
the Accord Reviews (including the Verification Review to
PII/IABEE) should be once again postponed to further
years or the Accord Reviews could be conducted in a
virtual form in 2021. Currently, a basecamp is set up to
exchange opinions among the WA signatories andprovisional members on the issue of virtual accord

Activities
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office

InputsThe Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation- Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document for- Website and database with necessary
establishment of IABEE.
software and servers
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
become the property of the government ofJapan and in Indonesia
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.

d) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment- C/P personnelb) A portion of
Necessary budge for the
implementation costproject implementation is- Cost for holding
secured.
Seminarsc) Subsidies to study
programs for IABEE
accreditation feed) Provision of a free office<Issues andspace in DIKTI building

countermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I（Revision of Project Design Matrix）

Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency: Ministry of Education and Culture

Version 15
Dated 30 September 2021

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2022 (7 years and 10 months)
Project Site: Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Means of Verification Important Assumption

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome basedlearning, responding to the needs of thesociety.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countries

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs (S1) provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE joins the Washington Accord as asignatory.

・IABEE Website

Indonesian government's
policy on Engineering
Education does not change
drastically.

An accreditation system is established tochange engineering education* from input
based teaching to outcome based learning, and
IABEE becomes a signatory of the Washington
Accord.

・IABEE Website
・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 25 programs (1%)
are accredited by IABEE at international level.
・IABEE is accepted as a provisional memberof the Washington Accord.

Indonesian government's
policy on Engineering
Education does not change
drastically.

Project Purpose

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・IABEE Organization
Chart, Financial Statement
the Ministry of Reasearch, Technology andHigher Education.
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof IABEE are provided.

2. The accreditation documents are developped ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Website

Achievement
・R/D was signed to extend the Project until August 2022
as due to COVID-19 all WA Accord Reviews of 2020
(including the Verfication Review to PII/IABEE) were
postponed.

・C/P provides IABEE with a free office space in DIKITI
building temporarily.
 PII’s new building, named Graha Rekayasa Indonesia,
was officially inaugurated on 4 September 2020 and PIISecretariat operates there since then. IABEE Secretariat
could also be relocated. However, due to COVID-19, therelocation should better wait until COVID-19 situation has
calmed down.
・Continue further improvement
・The protocols necessary to conduct virtual program
evaluations under COVID-19 has been developped.

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited

25 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE Website

・The Project targets to accredit 25 engineering study
programs at international level by the 2019.
・2 programs in 2016, 3 programs in 2017, 27 programs in
2018, 10 programs in 2019 and 15 programs in 2020 wereaccredited. As on 30 September 2021, 57 engineering
programs in total are accredited.
・For 2021, 12 new engineering programs are underevaluation for general accreditation and 8 engineering
programs, which, in 2019, had been granted accreditation
status with interim period, are under evaluation. 18
engineering programs and 4 computing programs (in total
22) are under evaluation for provisional accreditation. Due
to COVID-19, Evaluation Teams will be virtually visiting
study programs during a period from 16 October to 2
November 2021.

4. IABEE's provisional status in the Washington The Washington Accord approves the
Accord is approved.
provisional status of IABEE.

IEA Website

Completed in 20195. IABEE's signatory status is approved to the
Washington Accord.

IEA Website

・The Washington Accord Closed Session held in a formof videoconference on 23 June 2021 decided that all
Accord Reviews (including the Verification Review to
PII/IABEE) would be conducted in a virtual form in 2021.

The Washington Accord approves thesignatory status of IABEE.

Activities
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of
IABEE activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office

InputsThe Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation- Website and databese developmenta) Personnel assignment- C/P personnelb) Provision of a free office
Necessary budge for the
space in DIKTI building
project implementation issecured.

b) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document for- Website and database with necessary
establishment of IABEE.
software and servers
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
become the property of the government ofJapan and in Indonesia
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a authorities concerned at the ports and/or
database for evaluation related dossiers.
airports of disembarkation.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sided) A portion of implementation cost
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for experts' daily activities
Indonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for pilot international evaluation
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating toevaluation (R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5 Implementing
evaluations
for realaccreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education at Bachelor level<Issues andcountermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I （Project Design Matrix）
Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency:Ministry of Education and Culture

Version 16
Dated 31 March 2022

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretsariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2023 (8 years and 10 months)
Project Site:Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome based learning,
responding to the needs of the society.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countries ofthe Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established to change
engineering education* from input basedteaching to outcome based learning, and IABEE
becomes a signatory member of the Washington
Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

Means of Verification

Important Assumption

Achievement
・M/M for the Amendment of R/D was signed to extend the
project until August 2023 as due to COVID-19 all WA Accord
Reviews of 2020 (including the Verfication Review to
PII/IABEE) were postponed to 2021 (in a virutal form ) and to2022 (in a physical form).

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy
on Engineering Education does
not change drastically.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 50 programs (2%)
are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE is accepted as the signatory memberof the Washington Accord.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy
on Engineering Education does
not change drastically.

MORTHE decree for instrument ・DIKTI offers a free office space for the secretariat of IABEE.
・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・Y/N・IABEE Organization Chart, for evaluation of LAM is
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
・The interior work for the office space for IABEE in PII's new
Financial Statement
effectuated in appropriate timing.
・Human resources, infrastructure andbuilding completed in January 2022. The secretariat of IABEE
financial resources required for the functioning
expects to move to PII’s building in May 2022.
of IABEE are provided.

2. The accreditation documents are developped, ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Database・Continue further improvement

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

50 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE Database

・The Accreditation Council held on 10 February 2022
approved the interim accreditations of 9 newengineering programs for general accreditation andgranted the full accreditation status to 8 engineering
programs, which had been granted accreditation status
with interim period in 2019. 3 engineering programs
having applied for the “Grace Period” evaluation were
granted the interim accreditation.

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N・Completed in 20195. IABEE's Request for signatory status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves thesignatory status of IABEE.

・Y/N・The Washington Accord Verification Review
Team conducted a virtual review to PII/IABEE in aperiod from 14 October 2021 to 10 February 2022.

Activities
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of IABEE
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office

InputsThe Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation
Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countries

1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and - Website and database with necessary
software and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in*In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the become the property of the government of
documents of accreditation crteria and of Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a insurance and freight) to the Indonesian
database for evaluation related dossiers.
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English. airports of disembarkation.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria intod) A portion of implementation costIndonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for experts' daily activities
2-4 Drawing up documents relating to evaluation - Cost for pilot international evaluation(R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5
Implementing
evaluationsfor
real
accreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
5-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards the signatory
membership.
5-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the signatory status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education
at Bachelor level

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment-MORTHE counterpart
personnel- IABEE key personnel
and secretariat staffb) Facility- Suitable office space withnecessary
furniture and equipment for
JICA experts-Suitable office space withnecessary
furniture and equipment for
IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting andmaintenance of website anddatabase- Expenses necessary fortransportation within
Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as
for the installation, operationand maintenanced) A portion of
implementation cost
- Cost for holding
Committee meetings- Cost for holding
Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator
trainings- Cost for IEA meetings- Other Initial and runningcost of IABEE

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues andcountermesures>Project Monitoring Sheet I （Project Design Matrix）
Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency:Ministry of Education and Culture

Version 17
Dated 30 September 2022

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretsariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2023 (8 years and 10 months)
Project Site:Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome based learning,
responding to the needs of the society.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countries ofthe Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established to change
engineering education* from input basedteaching to outcome based learning, and IABEE
becomes a signatory member of the Washington
Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

Means of Verification

Important Assumption

Achievement
・M/M for the Amendment of R/D was signed to extend the project
until August 2023 as due to COVID-19 all WA Accord Reviews of2020 (including the Verfication Review to PII/IABEE) were
postponed to 2021 (in a virutal form ) and to 2022 (in a physicalform).

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy
on Engineering Education does
not change drastically.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 50 programs (2%)
are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE is accepted as the signatory memberof the Washington Accord.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy
on Engineering Education does
not change drastically.

MORTHE decree for instrument ・The interior work for the office space for IABEE in PII's new
・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・Y/N・IABEE Organization Chart, for evaluation of LAM is
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
building completed in January 2022. The secretariat of IABEE
Financial Statement
effectuated in appropriate timing. expected to move to PII’s building in the beginning of May 2022 but
・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioning
due to a too narrow space provided by PII, IABEE secretariat hasof IABEE are provided.
not moved yet. PII has agreed with IABEE to provide more space on
the 6th floor and the renovation work will start soon.

2. The accreditation documents are developped, ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Database・Continue further improvement

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

50 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE Database・For 2022, 36 new engineering programs and 3 newcomputing programs are under evaluation for generalaccreditation and 18 engineering programs are underevaluation for periodic accreditation (in total 57 in GA). 12
engineering programs and 7 computing programs are underevaluation for provisional accreditation (in total 19 in PA).
Evaluation Teams will be physically conducting on‐site visits
to above study programs during a period from 17 October to
16 November 2022.

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N・Completed in 20195. IABEE's Request for signatory status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves thesignatory status of IABEE.

・Y/N The Washington Accord Closed Session held on 1 July 2022
in a form of a videoconference unanimously voted in favor of
the Washington Accord Verification Review Report, which
recommended the signatory status of PII/IABEE. PII/IABEE
has become the 23rd signatory.
 One representative of the same Verification Review Teamwill be physically visiting Indonesia in January/February 2023
to visit one of the 2 programs, IABEE Evaluation Teams’ on‐site visits to which the Verification Review Team virtuallyobserved in 2021 and which were accredited by IABEE. The
Verification Review Team will desk audit the current
situation of the other 2 program, IABEE Evaluation Teams’
on‐site visits to which the Verification Review Team virtuallyobserved in 2021 but which were NOT accredited by IABEE.
The Verification Review Team will also review any actions orplans implemented by IABEE to address the Review Team’s
Recommendations for Improvement set out in the Phase 1
Verification Review Report based on the virtual review in2021.
 The Verification Review Team report on the basis of thephysical visit will be reviewed at the Washington Accord
Closed session to be held in June 2023. If the signatories
unanimously reaffirm their decision of 2022, the right of voteand the substantial equivalency of accredited program will
be granted to PII/IABEE.

Activities
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of IABEE
activities.
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Office

InputsThe Japanese Sidea) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation
Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countriesc) Equipment
1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document for- Website and database with necessary
establishment of IABEE.
software and servers
1-7 Training key personnel (executives andcommittee members) and sectretariat staff in *In case of importation, the equioment will
become the property of the government ofJapan and in Indonesia
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
documents of accreditation crteria and of insurance and freight) to the Indonesianevaluation of education programs. Setting up a authorities concerned at the ports and/or
airports of disembarkation.
database for evaluation related dossiers.
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English.

d) A portion of implementation cost
- Cost for experts' daily activities
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria into
- Cost for pilot international evaluation
Indonesian language and publicizing on
homepage.
2-4 Drawing up documents relating to evaluation(R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.
2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
evaluation.
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5
Implementing
evaluationsfor
real
accreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
5-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards the signatory
membership.

Pre-Conditions
The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment-MORTHE counterpart
personnel- IABEE key personnel
and secretariat staffb) Facility- Suitable office space withnecessary
furniture and equipment for
JICA experts-Suitable office space withnecessary
furniture and equipment for
IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting andmaintenance of website anddatabase- Expenses necessary fortransportation within
Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as
for the installation, operationand maintenanced) A portion of
implementation cost
- Cost for holding
Committee meetings- Cost for holding
Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator
trainings- Cost for IEA meetings- Other Initial and runningcost of IABEE

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues andcountermesures>5-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the signatory status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education
at Bachelor level

Project Monitoring Sheet I （Project Design Matrix）
Project Title: Project for the Establishment of Indonesia Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE)
Implementing Agency:Ministry of Education and Culture

Version 18
Dated 31 March 2023

Target Group: (Direct) General Assembly members (profesional engineerig societies), Board directors, Committee members, Secretsariat staff, evaluators,(Indirect) Faculty and graduates of accredited enginnering education programs
Period of Project: November 2014 to August 2023 (8 years and 10 months)
Project Site:Jakarta and the whole country
Narrative Summary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Overall Goal

Engineering education* provided by universities
and institutes in Indonesia are changed from
input based teaching to outcome based learning,
responding to the needs of the society.
The level of the engineering education isrecognized by the international society as
substantially equivalent to that of the countries ofthe Washington Accord signatories.

Project Purpose
An accreditation system is established to change
engineering education* from input basedteaching to outcome based learning, and IABEE
becomes a signatory member of the Washington
Accord.

Outputs

1. IABEE is established.

Means of Verification

Important Assumption

Achievement
・M/M for the Amendment of R/D was signed to extend the
project until August 2023 as due to COVID-19 all WA Accord
Reviews of 2020 (including the Verfication Review to
PII/IABEE) were postponed to 2021 (in a virutal form ) and to2022 (in a physical form).

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 240 programs(10%) are accredited by IABEE.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy
on Engineering Education does
not change drastically.

・Among 2,371 engineering education
programs provided by public and private
universities and instituites, 50 programs (2%)
are accredited by IABEE.
・IABEE is accepted as the signatory memberof the Washington Accord.

・IABEE Database
・Y/N

Indonesian government's policy
on Engineering Education does
not change drastically.

MORTHE decree for instrument ・The interior work for the expansion of the office space for
・The establishment of IABEE is approved by ・Y/N・IABEE Organization Chart, for evaluation of LAM is
the Ministry of Education and Culture.
IABEE in PII's new building completed in January 2023. The
Financial Statement
effectuated in appropriate timing. secretariat of IABEE moved to PII’s building in the beginning・Human resources, infrastructure andfinancial resources required for the functioningof January 2023.
of IABEE are provided.

2. The accreditation documents are developped, ・4 documents relating to accreditation criteria
and evaluators are trained.
are developped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・8 documentrs relating to evaluation aredevelopped in English and Indonesianlanguages.
・200 evaluators for evaluation of engineering
education programs are trained.

・IABEE Database・Continue further improvement

Remarks

3. Some education programs are accredited.

50 education programs are accredited
including pilot accreditations.

・IABEE Database

4. IABEE's Request for provisional status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves theprovisional status of IABEE.

・Y/N

5. IABEE's Request for signatory status issubmitted to the Washington Accord.

The Washington Accord approves thesignatory status of IABEE.

・Y/N・11 new engineering programs have been granted with 5year full period, 13 with interim accreditation with on-site visit,
3 with interim accreditation without on-site visit (in total 27). 9
engineering programs have not been accredited. 3
engineering programs having applied for evaluation under theGrace Period have been granted the interim accreditation.
One was not accredited. Therefore, in 2022, 30 newengineering programs were accredited.
・All 18 engineering programs under periodic evaluation (reevaluation) have been accredited (13 with full accreditation, 3with interim accreditation with on-site visit ad 2 with interim
accreditation without on-site visit.
・2 programs in 2016, 3 programs in 2017, 27 programs in
2018, 10 programs in 2019, 15 programs in 2020, 12
programs in 2021 and 30 programs in 2022 were accredited.
As on 31 March 2023, 99 engineering programs in total areaccredited
・Completed in 2019
・The Washington Accord Closed Session held on 1 July
2022 unanimously voted in favor of the Washington Accord
Verification Review Report, which recommended thesignatory status of PII/IABEE. PII/IABEE has become the 23rd
signatoryory.
・As the Phase 2 Verification Review, one representative of
the same Verification Review Team physically visited
Indonesia from 22 to 26 January 2023 to visit the 2 programs
which the Verification Review Team virtually observed in 2021
and which were accredited by IABEE. The Verification Review
Team also reviewed actions taken by IABEE to address the
Review Team's Recommendations for Improvement in 2022.
・ PII/IABEE.ABEE received at the end of February 2023 a
draft report to re-affirm the Verification Review Team Reportof 2022, which recommends IABEE signatory status with fullprivileges.
・The Verification Review Team Report on the basis of thephysical visit will be reviewed at the Washington Accord
Closed Session to be held on 14 June 2023. If the signatories
unanimously re-affirm their decision of 2022, the right of voteand the substantial equivalency of accredited programs will be
retroactively granted toActivities

InputsThe Japanese Side
1-1 Identifying IABEE General Assembly
members and Board members. Involving
engineering societies as major players of IABEE
1-2 Drawing up and reviewing midterm activity
plan and financial plan of IABEE.
1-3 Drawing up the Charter of IABEE.
1-4 Recruting sectretariat staff
1-5 Inaugurating IABEE Officea) Dispatch of Expert- Chief Advisor/Organization Management- Accreditation documents development- Advocacy, Training and Consultation- Program evaluation
Website and databese developmentb) Short-termTraining in Japan and third
countries

1-6 Submitting to BAN-PT the document forc) Equipment
establishment of IABEE.
1-7 Training key personnel (executives and - Website and database with necessary
software and servers
committee members) and sectretariat staff in*In case of importation, the equioment will
Japan and in Indonesia
2-1 Establishing a homepage for publicizing the become the property of the government of
documents of accreditation crteria and of Indonesia upon being delivered C.I.F. (cost,
evaluation of education programs. Setting up a insurance and freight) to the Indonesian
database for evaluation related dossiers.
authorities concerned at the ports and/or
2-2 Drawing up accreditation criteria in English. airports of disembarkation.
2-3 Translating the accreditation criteria intod) A portion of implementation costIndonesian language and publicizing on- Cost for experts' daily activities
2-4 Drawing up documents relating to evaluation - Cost for pilot international evaluation(R&P, guideline) in English.
2-5 Translating the documents relating toevaluation into Indonesian language andpublicizing on homepage.
2-6 Organizing training courses for evaluator
trainers in Japan.

Pre-Conditions

The Indonesian Sidea) Personnel assignment-MORTHE counterpart
personnel- IABEE key personnel
and secretariat staffb) Facility- Suitable office space withnecessary
furniture and equipment for
JICA experts-Suitable office space withnecessary
furniture and equipment for
IABEEc) Equipment- Hosting andmaintenance of website anddatabase- Expenses necessary fortransportation within
Indonesia of the equipment
provided by JICA as well as
for the installation, operationand maintenanced) A portion of

Necessary budge for the project
implementation is secured.

<Issues andcountermesures>2-7 Organizing training courses for evaluator inIndonesia.
3-1 Organizing advocacy seminars
foreducational institutions on accreditation forengineering education based on outcome
3-2 Providing educational institutions with
consulting
servicesforpreparationofaccreditation.
3-3 Implementing some pilot evaluations to test
the appropriateness of accreditation criteria andR&P of evaluation.
3-4 Revising the documents relating toaccreditation and evaluation if necessary
3-5
Implementing
evaluationsfor
real
accreditations.
4-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards provisinal
membership.
4-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the provisional status.
5-1 Attending IEA meetings for updating
information and lobbying towards the signatory
membership.
5-2 Submitting to the Washington Accord adocument requesting for the signatory status.
Engineering education*: Engineering education
at Bachelor level

implementation cost
- Cost for holding
Committee meetings- Cost for holding
Seminars- Cost for holding evaluator
trainings- Cost for IEA meetings- Other Initial and runningcost of IABEE