Engineering Institute of zambia
International Engineering Alliance
IEA Schedule B1: Criteria for Admission to Provisional Signatory Status in an Accord
1. Characteristics of the Accrediting Agency
| S/No. | IEA Schedule B1 Requirement | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Is non-governmental | EIZ is a statutory professional body established under the Engineering Institution of Zambia Act, 2010, but operates independently as a professional-led organization rather than a direct government entity. The Policy on Ethics and Conflict of Interest (page 5) describes EIZ, through its EAC, as "an independent statutory and professional body, legally and operationally distinct from all Higher Education Institutions." This aligns with industry-led accreditation, similar to delegation models in other jurisdictions See the files listed below |
|
| b | Is legally incorporated in its home jurisdiction | EIZ is legally established and continued as a body corporate under Section 3 of the Engineering Institution of Zambia Act, 2010 (pages 1-4). The Act provides for its constitution, functions, and governance, ensuring full legal recognition in Zambia. See the files listed below |
|
| 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 | EIZ is the sole statutory authority for accrediting engineering programs in Zambia, as mandated by the Engineering Institution of Zambia Act, 2010 (e.g., Section 4 on functions, including accreditation fees and inspections on page 8). The Policy on Accreditation (E-01-POL, pages 16-17) confirms EIZ's empowerment under the Act to conduct evaluations, grant/withdraw accreditation, and enforce standards and lists of accredited degrees (E-20-P) are maintained exclusively by EIZ. | |
| 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; | EIZ is a statutory authority under the Engineering Institution of Zambia Act, 2010 (Sections 4, 8-9, 12-13), responsible for accrediting programs that meet educational requirements for registration as Graduate, Associate, or Professional Engineers. The List of Degrees Accredited (E-20-P, page 1) explicitly states accreditation for registration purposes. The Policy on Accreditation (E-01-POL, pages 15-17) links accreditation to professional categories and mutual recognition agreementss See the files listed below |
|
| e | Accredits programs at institutions with legal authority to confer degrees | EIZ accredits programs at legally recognized higher education institutions, such as the University of Zambia (UNZA), which is chartered under Zambian law. The Accreditation Visit Report (pages 1-4) details an evaluation at UNZA, and the Policy on Accreditation (E-01-POL, pages 20-23) requires programs to comply with the Higher Education Act and Zambia Qualifications Framework (ZQF). Provisional and regular accreditation processes (E-11-P, pages 12-15) ensure institutional eligibility.s See the files listed below |
|
| f | Policies to set, approve, evaluate, and execute criteria/procedures | EIZ has comprehensive policies and procedures, including the Policy on Accreditation (E-01-POL, entire document, e.g., pages 15-59 outlining criteria, processes, and decisions); Criteria for Accreditation (E-03-CRI-P, pages 4-21 defining standards and graduate attributes); and Accreditation Process Definition (E-11-P, pages 9-35 detailing timelines, teams, and evaluations). These are approved by the Council and Education Committee (E-01-POL, page 22), with execution via accreditation teams and committees.s See the files listed below |
|
| g | Independent of educational providers | EIZ maintains independence from providers, as affirmed in the Policy on Ethics and Conflict of Interest (pages 5-6), which states the EAC is "legally and operationally distinct" from HEIs and requires members to declare conflicts. The Accreditation Process (E-11-P, page 15) mandates conflict-of-interest checks for team members. The Act (page 25) ensures impartial disciplinary and decision-making processes.s See the files listed below |
|
| h | Autonomy in accreditation decisions without stakeholder influence | EIZ's Education Committee has delegated autonomy from the Council to make accreditation decisions (E-01-POL, page 22), free from external influence. The Policy on Ethics (page 6) emphasizes independence, with safeguards like composition rotation and conflict rules. Decisions are based solely on criteria (E-03-CRI-P), and appeals are handled procedurally (E-16-P, implied in policy references). The Act (page 31) supports autonomous regulation.s See the files listed below |
2.Principles of Operational Accreditation System
| S/No. | IEA Schedule B1 Requirement | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Has documented accreditation criteria and procedures that are applied consistently according to defined policies | EIZ has documented criteria in E-03-CRI-P (e.g., graduate attributes, curriculum, assessment) and procedures in E-11-P (e.g., timelines, team selection, site visits). These are applied per the Policy on Accreditation (E-01-POL, Sections 6-8), which ensures consistency through peer review and Education Committee oversight. Standards are publicized on the EIZ website (www.eiz.org.zm) and linked to international accords like the Washington Accord. See the files listed below |
|
| b | Accredits individual programmes or coordinated groups of programmes | EIZ accredits individual programmes or groups based on provider requests (E-01-POL, Section 8.1; E-11-P, page 12). For example, multiple programmes at one institution can be evaluated in a single visit, with coordinated teams (E-11-P, Appendix A/B timetables). See the files listed below |
|
| c | Evaluations are conducted by academic and industry peer reviewers | Accreditation teams consist of peers from academia and industry, registered as Professional Engineers or equivalent (E-01-POL, Section 9.1). Teams include 3-4 members with balanced expertise (E-11-P, page 15; E-17-CRI-P, page 5 emphasizes high professional standing). See the files listed below |
|
| d | Has documented mechanisms for evaluator training | Mandatory training for new team members and refresher training for leaders (E-01-POL, Section 9.4; E-11-P, page 12 specifies training 12 weeks before accreditation). E-14-TEM-P implies trained evaluators through report guidelines. See the files listed below |
|
| e | Evaluation of a programme requires self-evaluation by the provider and a site visit by the accreditation team | Providers submit Self-Evaluation Reports (SER) per E-12-P (detailed requirements, e.g., programme structure, assessment). Site visits are mandatory for regular/provisional accreditations (E-11-P, Sections 5-6; timetables in Appendices A/B include on-site interviews, facility tours). Cycle is 5 years (E-01-POL, Section 7). See the files listed below |
|
| f | Has provision for periodic re-evaluation of a programme to maintain its accreditation | Regular re-evaluation every 5 years (E-01-POL, Section 7.1; E-11-P, page 11). Interim reports or visits if deficiencies persist (E-01-POL, Section 7.4; E-16-P for appeals). Expiry leads to reminder and potential withdrawal (E-01-POL, Section 8.6). See the files listed below |
|
| g | Evaluations are conducted in confidence | Confidentiality enforced via Code of Ethics (E-17-CRI-P, page 6: mandatory for all involved; breaches lead to removal). EIZ Code of Ethics (page 7) requires upholding integrity and avoiding disclosure. | |
| h | Has mechanisms for conflict of interest identification and management | Dedicated Policy on Ethics and Conflict of Interest (E-17-CRI-P, pages 5-6: declarations required; withdrawal if conflict). E-11-P (page 15) mandates checks during team appointment; E-01-POL (Section 9.2) ensures impartiality.. See the files listed below |
|
| i | Publishes a list of accredited programmes | E-20-P maintains and publishes the List of Degrees Accredited (updated post-decisions;). Includes current and historical accreditations (E-01-POL, Section 12.2). See the files listed below |
|
| j | Has an appeal process | Procedure for Managing Appeals (E-16-P: appeals within 2 weeks of decision; independent panel reviews). E-01-POL (Section 12.5) aligns with EIZ Act appeals provisions. See the files listed below |
3. Requirements for the Accreditation Agency’s Criteria
| S/No. | IEA Schedule B1 Requirement | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | The accreditation criteria require the program outcomes to be consistent with the purpose of the program, including preparation for practice in the field of engineering at the appropriate professional or technician level | Program outcomes are defined through 11 Graduate Attributes in E-02-PE (pages 18-26), aligned with the Washington Accord for professional engineering practice at ZQF Level 7. E-03-CRI-P (Criterion 2, pages 12-14) requires assessment to ensure graduates meet these attributes, with exit-level evaluations confirming preparation for complex engineering activities. E-01-POL (Section 7.4.2, page 27) mandates evidence of consistency with program purpose. See the files listed below |
|
| b | The accreditation criteria require the curriculum to provide a broad basis for practice in the engineering field | Curriculum requirements in E-02-PE (pages 17-18) specify minimum credits across knowledge areas: Mathematical Sciences (56), Natural Sciences (56), Engineering Sciences (168), Design/Synthesis (56), Complementary Studies (56), and discretionary content (168), ensuring a balanced foundation for engineering practice. E-03-CRI-P (pages 4-5, 9) references curriculum content classification and knowledge profile for broad preparation. E-01-POL (Section 6.8, page 24) enforces compliance through provider evidence.. See the files listed below |
|
| c | The accreditation criteria require a suitable environment to deliver the program | E-03-CRI-P (Criterion 4, page 17) evaluates the program's delivery environment against sub-criteria, including available and committed resources (facilities, infrastructure) for startup and sustainability. E-01-POL (Sections 8.9-8.10, pages 37-37) addresses distance/online programs, ensuring equivalent environments with considerations for laboratory access and support. Alignment with HEQSF and ZQF ensures institutional suitability. See the files listed below |
|
| d | The accreditation criteria require adequate leadership for the program | Leadership is covered in E-03-CRI-P (Criterion 3, page 14), requiring staff responsible for program leadership, planning, and management to be professionally and technically qualified, with links to institutional equity plans. E-01-POL (Section 7.4.2, page 27) includes key questions on governance and leadership in accreditation evaluations. See the files listed belows |
|
| e | The accreditation criteria require suitably qualified engineering practitioners to teach and facilitate learning | Teaching staff qualifications are addressed in E-03-CRI-P (Criterion 3, pages 14-15), mandating professional registration, technical competence, and ongoing development for faculty. E-01-POL (Section 6.8, page 24) requires evidence of staff suitability, with E-02-PE (page 9) emphasizing knowledge areas taught by qualified practitioners> See the files listed below |
|
| f | The accreditation criteria require appropriate entry and progression standards | Entry standards are defined in E-02-PE (Section 14, page 18), assuming minimum learning in place (e.g., proficiency in math, sciences) without prescribing prerequisites. Progression is ensured through assessment processes in E-03-CRI-P (Criterion 2, page 13), with methods for exit-level achievement and consequences for non-satisfaction. E-01-POL (Section 7.4.2, page 27) evaluates entry and progression in accreditation decisions. See the files listed below |
|
| g | The accreditation criteria require adequate human, physical, and financial resources | Resources are evaluated under E-03-CRI-P (Criterion 4, pages 15-17), requiring allocation of funds, human resources policies, and infrastructure consistent with Schedule 2, integrated into institutional planning. Provider must demonstrate commitment for startup and ongoing needs. E-01-POL (Section 6.8, page 24) places onus on providers to evidence resource adequacy. See the files listed below |
