1989–2014
Celebrating international engineering
education standards and recognition

Acknowledgements
The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Washington Accord acknowledge the many
contributors whose competence and commitment contributed to the success of the
Washington Accord:•

The founding signatories•

The signatories and their delegates over the years for their contribution
to meetings, forums, workshops and working groups between meetings•

Our predecessors as Chairman and Deputy Chairman•

The various Secretariats:•

Engineers Canada (1993–1997)•

Engineers Australia (1997–2001)•

Abet Inc (2001–2007)•

The IEA Secretariat provided by IPENZ (2007 – present)•

The IEA Governing Group since 2007•

Some 60 reviewers who have served on visit teams to assess applications
for signatory status and periodic review of signatories•

Our colleagues in the other IEA constituent agreements.

How do we build mutual understanding
among nations about the quality ofengineers who enter the globallyconnected workplace?
George Peterson, Washington Accord Secretariat, 2001–2007

Neil CaugheyContents
Foreword _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4
Role of the International Engineering Alliance������������������������������������������������������ 6
Overview _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8
A Brief History________________________________________________________________________________________________10
Signatories ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12
Graduate Attributes_________________________________________________________________________________________14
Perspectives___________________________________________________________________________________________________18
Other Accords and Agreements_________________________________________________________________________ 20
IEA Accord Signatories and Agreement Members__________________________________________________22

25 Years of the Washington Accord3

Foreword
Basil Wakelin, Chair, IEA Governing Group
The Washington Accord is a constituent of theInternational Engineering Alliance (IEA) which
comprises educational accords for professional
engineers, engineering technologists andengineering technicians plus two professional
engineering and one engineering technologist
competency agreements. The IEA is concernedwith engineering education and competence
across the whole spectrum of engineering.
As a founding member and the most senior of theconstituents, the Washington Accord has set thefoundation and standards for graduate attributes and accreditation of programmes anddefines the educational basis for the International Professional Engineers Agreement
and APEC Engineers Agreement on competency.
The international recognition and portability of both educational qualifications andprofessional competency is becoming increasingly important in this age of global
interdependence but unbalanced global development, which requires movement ofengineering skills around the world. We cannot afford to waste engineering resources
or engineering education and it is now widely recognised that the Washington Accord
has made a considerable impact on improvements in engineering education.
We are indeed grateful for the substantial but largely voluntary contributions of many
Washington Accord members to the development and maintenance of the standards
and processes to date. However, the future educational challenges are still considerable
and will continue to depend on the engineering profession to maintain the momentum
and standards.

4

Professor Hu Hanrahan, Chair, Washington Accord
For 25 years the Washington Accord has provided
a mechanism for mutual recognition of graduatesof accredited programmes among its signatories.
This period has seen significant change inthe world of engineering work in engineering
education. National accreditation systems andthe Accord itself have evolved to meet changing
needs building on the vision of the original six
signatories in 1989. The 1990s saw great debate
about engineering education in many countries,
culminating in a remarkable consensus tomove from input-focused accreditation criteria
to an output-based specification. By 2005 the Washington Accord, then with eightsignatories and soon to expand significantly in Asia, had developed its Graduate
Attributes, summarised in this brochure. These provide an exemplar of an outcomesbased specification for programmes that provide the educational base for professional
engineers. The outcomes approach affords education providers freedom in the designof programmes. Best practice in accreditation has been captured in the Accord Rules
and Procedures. The Washington Accord, and the associated Sydney and Dublin
Accords, are committed to providing the benchmarks for graduates and accreditation
practice as globalisation intensifies.
The ongoing development and operation of the Washington Accord rely criticallyon the signatories’ delegates who participate in meetings and working groups aswell as the reviewers who make up the teams that evaluate applicants for signatory
status and conduct periodic monitoring of signatories. Their valuable contribution
is greatly appreciated.

25 Years of the Washington Accord

5Role of the International
Engineering Alliance
The International Engineering Alliance (IEA) is an umbrella organisation for six
multi-lateral agreements which establish and enforce amongst their members internationally-benchmarked standards for engineering education and what is termed“entry level” competence to practise engineering. The Alliance, which currently has
lead engineering organisations from 23 nations as members (including five G8 and
11 G20 nations), is expanding steadily with China being the latest to apply.
The IEA’s vision is to:
Improve the global quality, productivity and mobility of engineers by being an acceptedindependent authority on best practice in standards, assessment and monitoring ofengineering education and professional competence.
The Washington Accord sits under the IEA alongside the Sydney and Dublin Accords.
Quality engineers are developed with an accord-recognised degree or equivalent,through experience after graduation to develop both professional and personal
maturity, and by meeting an agreed competence typically measured by evaluation
against 13 elements.
The IEA’s core activities:•

Consistent improvement of standards and mobility•

Defining standards of education and professional competence•

Assessment of education accreditation and evaluation of competence•

Participation in activities that are driven from the engineering profession.

6

The first andsubsequentmeetings werecharacterisedby a visionary
attitude andmutual respect.
Dr Finbar Callanan,
Former Director General,
The Institution of Engineersof Ireland

Virandra Babu

OverviewThe development of a professional engineer to the level required for independentpractice or licensure/registration has two stages. The education stage, normallyprovided by an externally accredited programme of four or five years post-secondary
school, is followed by a period of supervised training while gaining experience inengineering practice. The individual may then have his or her competence assessed,and be eligible for recognition as a competent individual engineering practitioner.

Education and Training in the Formation of a Practising Engineer
Meet standardof engineering
education

Meet standard
for professional
competency

ACCREDITEDPROGRAMME

Graduate Attributes:
indicate that programme
objectives are satisfied

8

TRAINING AND
EXPERIENCE

Observe codeof conductand maintaincompetence

PRACTICEThe Washington Accord is a self-governing, autonomous agreement between nationalorganisations (signatories) that provide external accreditation to tertiary educational
programmes that qualify their graduates for entry into professional engineering
practice. The signatories undertake a clearly-defined process of periodic peer review
to ensure each other’s accredited programmes are substantially equivalent andtheir outcomes are consistent with the published professional engineer graduate
attribute exemplar.
Signatories agree to grant (or recommend to the relevant national registration body,
if different) graduates of each other’s accredited programmes the same recognition,rights and privileges as they grant to graduates of their own accredited programmes.
By these provisions, the Accord facilitates mobility of graduates between signatory
jurisdictions and deeper understanding and recognition of their engineering education
and accreditation systems. Amongst the signatories’ educational providers, adherence
to local accreditation requirements that are consistent with the professional engineer
graduate attribute exemplar contributes to international benchmarking of programmeoutcomes.
There are currently 15 signatories to the Washington Accord that together deliver over
7,000 programmes producing graduates that are significantly similar in competencies.
This booklet outlines the history and development of the Washington Accord, as theleading international educational agreement for professional engineering qualifications
and as the inspiration for further educational accords and professional competenceagreements that collectively work together as the IEA.

The education stage is followed
by a period of supervised training
while gaining experience inengineering practice.

25 Years of the Washington Accord

9

A Brief History
In 1989 the six foundation signatory organisations from Australia, Canada, Ireland,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom and United States observed that their individual
processes, policies, criteria and requirements for granting accreditation to university
level programmes were substantially equivalent. They agreed to grant (or recommend to registering bodies, if different) the same rights and privileges to graduatesof programmes accredited by other signatories as they grant to their own accredited
programmes.
The signatories committed to: continue to share relevant information; allow theirrepresentatives to participate in each other’s accreditation processes and attend
relevant meetings of their organisations; and to make reference to this agreementin publications listing accredited programmes.
After rather informal operation in its early years, with bi-annual meetings in oddnumbered years and simple rules and procedures, the growth in interest by otherorganisations indicated the need for more structure and formality. Formal rules andprocedures were developed for a six-year peer-review of signatories and for admissionof new signatories, following a period in provisional status.
The Sydney and Dublin Accords for engineering technologists and engineering
technicians were initiated in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Together with the threeagreements for engineering practitioners, the IEA was formed in 2007, and the IEA
Secretariat was created to assist with the administration of the accords and agreements and their development.

Washington Accord
signed by sixorganisations

1989

28 September
10

Development offormal peer review
processes

New
accords andagreements

1990s

1997–2002

onwards

Development ofgraduate attributeexemplars

2001

onwards

The admission to the Washington Accord of the accreditation organisations in Hong
Kong China and South Africa in the late 1990s and Japan, Singapore, Chinese Taipei,
Korea and Malaysia took the number of signatories to 11 by 2009. Since that year,
the accrediting organisations in Turkey and Russia have become signatories. Currently there are also five organisations with provisional status. Many of the newand provisional signatories were mentored by established ones as they developed
their systems.
The adoption of graduate outcome specifications in tertiary education was paralleledby the development of the specification of consensus graduate attributes for theaccords. Version 3 was adopted by the accords in 2013 as the exemplar of the educational requirements to be met by signatories.
Whilst accord recognition strictly applies only to education programmes offered withina signatory’s territorial boundaries, the need to accommodate developments in crossborder education has required development of rules for out-of-territory accreditation
and recognition. The rules agreed to in 2008 also allow for assistance to emerging
economies that may be too small to operate their own accreditation system. The rules
are currently under review.
The Accord recognises that the members of the European Network for Accreditationof Engineering Education (ENAEE) operate similar accreditation processes to similar
standards within Europe, and its authorised members provide the Eur-ACE label toaccredited programmes. Four of the Accord members are also authorised members of
ENAEE. There is a formal mechanism between the IEA and ENAEE to maximise mutual
understanding and potential benefits of the two organisations.

IEA
Secretariat
established2007

Development of rules fortrans-national accreditation
and Accord recognition

2008

onwards

25 Years of the Washington Accord

Washington
Accord signatories
reach 15

2012

Relationshipwith ENAEE

2013

onwards11

Signatories
The signatory for each jurisdiction is the recognised organisation for accreditationof professional engineering qualifications. They are listed by jurisdiction, in orderof admission to the Accord, with the current operating name of the accreditingorganisation.
Australia

Engineers Australia

CanadaEngineers Canada

IrelandEngineers Ireland

New ZealandInstitution of Professional Engineers New ZealandUnited Kingdom

Engineering Council United Kingdom

United States

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

1995

Hong Kong China

The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

1999

South Africa

Engineering Council of South Africa

2005

Japan

Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education

2006

Singapore

Institution of Engineers Singapore

2007

Korea

Accreditation Board for Engineering

1989

		

Education of Korea

Chinese Taipei

Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan

2009

Malaysia

Board of Engineers Malaysia

2011

TurkeyMUDEK (Association for Evaluation and		Accreditation of Engineering Programs)

2012

Association for Engineering Education of Russia

RussiaThere are currently 15 signatories to the
Washington Accord that together deliver
over 7,000 programmes.

12

The Accord requires a body that wishes to become a signatory to first apply forprovisional status. The body must demonstrate it has an accreditation system thatmeets basic requirements. To proceed to signatory status the body must demonstrate
substantial equivalence of its standards and processes in a review by a team drawn
from the signatories, and be approved by unanimous agreement of the signatories.
The following organisations hold provisional status:
Bangladesh

Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical Education

China		

China Association for Science and Technology

India		

National Board of Accreditation

Pakistan

Pakistan Engineering Council

Philippines

Philippine Technological Council

Sri Lanka

Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka

CanadaUnited States

RussiaUnited Kingdom
Ireland

Japan
Korea

TurkeyChinese Taipei
Hong Kong
Singapore

South Africa

Malaysia

Australia

New Zealand

25 Years of the Washington Accord

13

Graduate Attributes
The graduate attributes adopted by the Washington Accord signatories are generic tothe education of professional engineers in all engineering disciplines. They categorise
what graduates should know, the skills they should demonstrate and the attitudes theyshould possess. The graduate attributes have been refined over more than a decadeand in 2013 were adopted by the signatories as the exemplar (or reference point)
against which substantial equivalence of their own accreditation requirements are to
be assessed. In addition, the graduate attributes are intended to assist signatories andprovisional members to develop outcomes-based accreditation criteria for use by theirrespective jurisdictions.
The key features of the graduate attributes are summarised in the following tables. A
defining characteristic of professional engineering is the ability to work with complexity and uncertainty, since no real engineering project or assignment is exactly the sameas any other (otherwise the solution could simply be purchased or copied). Accordingly,
the attributes place as central the notions of complex engineering problems andcomplex problem solving.
The Washington Accord Graduate Attribute Profile has 12 elements, supported bya Knowledge Profile, WK1-WK8, and a definition of the Level of Problem Solving,
WP1-WP7, both given below:
Engineeringknowledge

WA1: Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering
fundamentals and an engineering specialisation as specified in WK1 to
WK4 respectively to the solution of complex engineering problems.

Problem analysis

WA2: Identify, formulate, research literature and analyse complex
engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using firstprinciples of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering sciences(WK1 to WK4).

Design/developmentof solutions

WA3: Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design
systems, components or processes that meet specified needs withappropriate consideration for public health, and safety, cultural, societal
and environmental considerations (WK5).

14

Investigation

WA4: Conduct investigations of complex problems using research-basedknowledge (WK8) and research methods including design of experiments,
analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to provide
valid conclusions.

Modern tool usage

WA5: Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources andmodern engineering and IT tools, including prediction and modelling,
to complex engineering problems, with an understanding of the limitations (WK6).

The engineer andsociety

WA6: Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess
societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent
responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice andsolutions to complex engineering problems (WK7).

Environment andsustainability

WA7: Understand and evaluate the sustainability and impact ofprofessional engineering work in the solution of complex engineering
problems in societal and environmental contexts (WK7).

Ethics

WA8: Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics
and responsibilities and norms of engineering practice (WK7).

Individual
and teamwork

WA9: Function effectively as an individual, and as a memberor leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary settings.

Communication

WA10: Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities withthe engineering community and society at large, such as being able tocomprehend and write effective reports and design documentation,
make effective presentations and give and receive clear instructions.

Projectmanagement
and finance

WA11: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering management principles and economic decision-making and apply these to one’s
own work as a member and leader in a team, to manage projects and in
multi-disciplinary environments.

Life-long learning

WA12: Recognise the need for, and have the preparation and ability toengage in, independent and life-long learning in the broadest context
of technological change.

25 Years of the Washington Accord

15

The Washington Accord Knowledge Profile has eight elements:
WK1

 systematic, theory-based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to theAdiscipline.

WK2

 onceptually-based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics and formal aspects
Cof computer and information science to support analysis and modelling applicableto the discipline.

WK3

 systematic, theory-based formulation of engineering fundamentals required inA
the engineering discipline.

WK4

 ngineering specialist knowledge that provides theoretical frameworks and bodies
Eof knowledge for the accepted practice areas in the engineering discipline; much isat the forefront of the discipline.

WK5

Knowledge that supports engineering design in a practice area.

WK6

 nowledge of engineering practice (technology) in the practice areasKin the engineering discipline.

WK7 omprehension of the role of engineering in society and identified issues inCengineering practice in the discipline: ethics and the professional responsibility ofan engineer to public safety; and the impacts of engineering activity – economic,
social, cultural, environmental and sustainability.

WK8

Engagement with selected knowledge in the research literatureof the discipline.

Nicki Fleury

16Complex engineering problems have a range of attributes. At least some of thefollowing may be encountered within a professional engineering education
programme:
Depth of knowledge
required

WP1: Cannot be resolved without in-depth engineering knowledge
at the level of one or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8 whichallows a fundamentals-based, first principles analytical approach.

Range of conflicting
requirements

WP2: Involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical, engineeringand other issues.

Depth of analysis required

WP3: Have no obvious solution and require abstract thinking
and originality in analysis to formulate suitable models.

Familiarity of issues

WP4: Involve infrequently encountered issues.

Extent of applicable codes

WP5: Outside problems encompassed by standards and codesof practice for professional engineering.

Extent of stakeholder
involvement and needs

WP6: Involve diverse groups of stakeholders with widely
varying needs.

Interdependence

WP 7: High level problems including many component parts
or sub-problems.

The attributes of complex engineering activities, some of which might reasonably be
encountered by a professional engineering undergraduate (eg. during capstone design
or a period of industry experience):
Range of resources

EA1: Involve the use of diverse resources (and for this purpose
resources include people, money, equipment, materials,
information and technologies).

Level of interactions

EA2: Require resolution of significant problems arising frominteractions between wide-ranging or conflicting technical,
engineering or other issues.

Innovation

EA3: Involve creative use of engineering principles
and research-based knowledge in novel ways.

Consequences to society
and the environment

EA4: Have significant consequences in a range of contexts,
characterised by difficulty of prediction and mitigation.

Familiarity

EA5: Can extend beyond previous experiences by applying
principles-based approaches.

25 Years of the Washington Accord

17Perspectives
How do we build mutual understanding among nations about the quality of engineers
who enter the globally connected workplace? The Washington Accord agreement
answered the question. Begin by building bridges toward mutual recognition of thesubstantial equivalence of engineering education. The fundamental supports for thisbridge are globally accepted attributes expected of successful engineers.
The founding signatories of the Washington Accord agreed that graduates of each other’saccredited programmes were expected to possess these attributes and therefore wereprepared to enter engineering practice. The Washington Accord model has become theinternational gold standard for mutual recognition of engineering education.
George Peterson
Washington Accord Secretariat, 2001–2007

I remember my years as chair at a time of international co-operation with like-minded
colleagues. We worked together to our mutual benefit, making a global contribution to
the competence and recognition of the global engineering profession. The importanceof this and the contribution of engineers are increasingly recognised.
There are many examples of crucial team efforts but I believe the devising andsteering through of a paid standing Secretariat was very important. The Secretariat
made all other work more effective and achievable. There were two aspects of the
Washington and other Accords and forums in the Alliance that impressed me most:the acknowledgement of each other’s cultures and the joint work to encourage newmembers to participate in the work and leadership needed. Many Asian countries went
swiftly from applicants to active participants and leaders, improving and extending ouractivities. For all these reasons I found this a most stimulating part of my career.
Dr Peter Greenwood
Washington Accord Chair, 2002–2007

18

When Professor Jack Levy convened the first meeting of representatives of the initial
six countries to discuss a possible accord, we hardly foresaw the international success itwould eventually become. I remember very well how the first and subsequent meetings
were characterised by a visionary attitude and mutual respect which greatly expedited
the early development of the Accord.
Another significant and lasting memory for me was chairing the meeting in Dublin
which welcomed Hong Kong into the Accord as the first new member after the originalsix. It was indeed a genuine pleasure and privilege to work with so many dedicatedcolleagues and good friends during those early formative years.
Dr Finbar Callanan
Former Director General, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland(Now Engineers Ireland) he Washington Accord modelT
has become the international gold
standard for mutual recognition ofengineering education.

25 Years of the Washington Accord

19

Other Accords and Agreements
The IEA is a group of self-regulating educational Accords and professional competence
recognition agreements which have a substantially equivalent view of what constitutes
an acceptable professional engineering education and professional competence.

The Sydney and Dublin Accords
The Sydney Accord was signed in 2001 to cover equivalence and international recognition for educational programmes for engineering technologists or incorporated
engineers (under the United Kingdom definition). Currently there are nine signatories
representing Australia, Canada, Ireland, Hong Kong China, Korea, New Zealand, South
Africa, the United Kingdom and United States, and one organisation with provisional
status (Chinese Taipei). Canada is represented by the Canadian Council of Technicians
and Technologists; all others are signatories to the Washington Accord. Most Sydney
Accord qualifications are degrees of three years duration post-secondary school. The
graduate attribute specification refers to broadly-defined engineering problems.
The Dublin Accord was signed in 2002 to cover equivalence and internationalrecognition of engineering technician qualifications. The current eight signatories,
for Australia, Canada, Ireland, Korea, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom
and United States, are the same organisations as the signatories to the Sydney Accord
and Washington Accord. Most Dublin Accord qualifications are diplomas of two years
duration post-secondary school. The graduate attribute specification refers to welldefined engineering problems.

20The Engineers Competence Agreements
The International Professional Engineers Agreement (IPEA) was originally created in
1997 as the Engineers Mobility Forum agreement and adopted its new name in 2012.
This is a multi-national agreement between engineering organisations in the member
jurisdictions. The agreement creates the framework for the establishment of aninternational standard of competence for professional engineering, and then empowers
each member organisation to establish a section of the International Professional
Engineers (IntPE) register.
Members have full rights of participation in the agreement; each operates a national
section of the IntPE register; registrants on these national sections may receive credit
when seeking registration or licensure in the jurisdiction of another member.
The current 16 members are Australia*, Canada*, Chinese Taipei* (Chinese Institute ofEngineers), Hong Kong China*, India (Institution of Engineers India), Ireland, Japan*(Institution of Professional Engineers Japan), Korea* (Korean Professional Engineers
Association), Malaysia*, New Zealand*, Singapore*, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the United
Kingdom and the United States* (National Council of Examiners for Engineeringand Surveying). There are three provisional members from Bangladesh, Pakistan
and Russia*. Where the representative member is not indicated, it is the same as the
Washington Accord signatory. Representatives marked * are also members of the
APEC Engineer agreement which operates to the same standard of competence as
the IPEA, and has, in addition, members from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.
The APEC Engineer agreement was established in 2000 by the member economies of
the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation agreement.
The International Engineering Technologist Agreement (IETA) (formerly the Engineering
Technologist Mobility Forum) was formed by five of the foundation signatories of
the Sydney Accord to provide equivalent standards and registers for engineering
technologists. The current members represent Canada, Hong Kong China, Ireland,
New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Australia is a provisional member.

25 Years of the Washington Accord

21

IEA Accord Signatories
and Agreement Members
As at June 2013

WA = Washington Accord

SA = Sydney Accord

DA = Dublin Accord

IPEA = International Professional Engineers Agreement
IETA = International Engineering Technologist Agreement
APEC = APEC Engineer agreement= Signatory/Member= Provisional Status

Australia
WA

Engineers Australia

SA

DA

IPEA

IETA

APEC

Bangladesh
WA

Bangladesh Professional Engineers, Registration Board (BPERB)

IPEA

CanadaEngineers Canada

WA

IPEA

APEC

Canadian Council for Technicians and Technologists (CCTT)

SA

DA

IETA

China
WA

China Association for Science and Technology (CAST)

Chinese Taipei
Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan (IEET)
Chinese Institute of Engineers (CIE)

IPEA

WA

SA

APEC

Hong Kong China
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)

22

WA

SA

IPEA

IETA

APEC

IndiaNational Board of Accreditation (NBA)

WA

IPEA

Institution of Engineers India

Indonesia
Institution of Engineers

APEC

IrelandEngineers Ireland

WA

SA

DA

IPEA

IETA

Japan
WA

Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE)
IPEA

Institution of Professional Engineers Japan (IPEJ)

APEC

Korea
Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK)
Korean Professional Engineers Association (KPEA)

IPEA

WA

SA

DA

APEC

Malaysia
WA

IPEA

WA
IPEA

SA
IETA

Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM)APEC

New ZealandInstitution of Professional Engineers
New Zealand (IPENZ)		

DA
APEC

Pakistan
Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC)

25 Years of the Washington Accord

WA

IPEA

23

Philippines
WA

Philippines Technological Council (PTC)

APEC

RussiaAssociation for Engineering Education of Russia (AEER)

WA

IPEA

APEC

Singapore
Institution of Engineers Singapore (IES)

WA

IPEA

APEC

South Africa
WA

Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA)

SA

DA

IPEA

Sri LankaWA

Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka (IESL)

IPEAThailandCouncil of Engineers (COE)

APEC

TurkeyAssociation for Evaluation and Accreditationof Engineering Programs (MÜDEK)WA

United Kingdom
Engineering Council (EngC)

WA

SA

DA

IPEA

United States
Abet Inc

WA

SA

DA

National Council of Examiners forEngineering and Surveying (NCEES)

24

IPEA

APEC

IETA

IETA

International Engineering Alliance Secretariat
PO Box 12 241
Wellington 6144
New ZealandP +64 4 473 9444
F +64 4 474 8933
E secretariat@ieagreements.org

www.ieagreements.org

JUNE 2014 | REF 10175