Seoul Accord

发布：悉尼协议研究院　　点击：

A.1  Seoul Accord Guiding Principles

·       The Accord is based on mutual respect for the autonomy of its signatories.

·       There will be transparency to the accreditation systems of the signatories and to the educational systems to which the accreditation systems are oriented.

·       The signatories will be autonomous and free from governmental or other external influence on the accreditation processes.

·       The Accord should avoid any perception that it is arbitrary and capricious in its practices and policies, including admitting members and applying rules of membership.

·       The Accord should work to become recognized as the international authority on quality assurance for education in the computing and IT-related professions.

·       The Accord will promote and develop best practices for the improvement of education in computing and IT-related disciplines.

·       The Accord should continually review its policies and procedures to ensure that they are relevant and reliable indicators of the future of computing and IT-related technologies.

·       The members of the Accord will be accreditation agencies, not countries.

A.2  Seoul Accord Agreement

Recognition of Equivalency of Accredited Academic Programs Leading to a Degree in a Computing or IT-related Discipline

The signatories have exchanged information on, and have examined, their respective processes, policies and procedures for   granting accreditation to academic computing and IT-related programs, and have concluded that these are comparable. Through the Seoul Accord, which comprises this Agreement, the Rules and Procedures and the Graduate Attributes, the signatories recognise the equivalence of such programs in satisfying the academic requirements for preparation to enter computing or IT-related practice at the professional level.

·       Accreditation of academic computing and IT-related programs is a key foundation for the practice of a computing or IT-related discipline at the professional level in each of the countries or territories covered by the Accord.  The signatories therefore agree:

a. that the criteria, policies, and procedures used by the signatories in accrediting academic computing and IT-related

    programs are comparable;
b. that the accreditation decisions rendered by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories, and that those

    signatories will so indicate by publishing statements to that effect in an appropriate manner;
c. to identify, and to encourage the implementation of, best practice, as agreed from time to time amongst the signatories,

    for academic preparation for computing and IT-related practice at the professional level;
d. to continue mutual monitoring and information exchange by whatever means are considered most appropriate, including:

i.   regular communication and sharing of information concerning their accreditation criteria, systems, procedures,
ii.  manuals, publications and lists of accredited programs;
iii. invitations to observe accreditation visits;
iv. invitations to observe meetings of any boards and/or commissions responsible for implementing key aspects of the
v.  accreditation process, and meetings of the governing bodies of the signatories.

·       Each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that any bodies responsible for registering or licensing computing and IT-related professionals to practice in its country or territory accept the equivalence of academic computing and IT-related programs accredited by the signatories to this agreement.

·       The admission of new signatories to the Accord will require the approval of the existing signatories according to procedures specified in the Rules and Procedures of the Accord, and will be preceded by a prescribed period of provisional status, during which the accreditation criteria and procedures established by the applicant, and the manner in which those procedures and criteria are implemented, will be subject to comprehensive examination.

·       Appropriate Rules and Procedures for the Accord will be established by the signatories to ensure that this Agreement can be implemented in a satisfactory and expeditious manner.

·       There shall be general meetings of the representatives of the signatories, as specified in the Rules and Procedures, to review the Rules and Procedures and other documents relative to the Accord, effect such amendments as may be considered necessary to the documents, deal with applications for provisional status and for admission, and consider other matters relative to effective operation of the Accord in achieving its objectives.

·       The administration of the Accord will be facilitated by a secretariat established and operated in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made under the provisions of this Agreement.

·       Any signatory wishing to withdraw from the Accord must give at least one year's notice to the secretariat. Removal of any signatory may occur only as specified in the Rules of Procedure.

·       The Accord will remain in effect for so long as it is acceptable and desirable to the signatories.

B.1 Definitions

The following definitions of terms apply within these Foundation Documents.  These definitions apply to the operational purposes of the Accord as specified in these documents, and no meaning within another context is intended.

Applicant: An organisation that has applied for provisional status within the Accord. Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the academic institutions delivering programs that may be accredited by the organization.

Committee: The Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Accord acting as a managing committee of the Accord.  In these roles the office-holder acts for the Accord and cannot represent a Signatory of the Accord.
 
Conditional status:  The status to which a Signatory organisation is downgraded if, as an outcome of a Review, other Signatories consider that the organisation’s accreditation system has significant deficiencies requiring immediate attention.  Organisations holding conditional status do not have the right to vote, and the rights of graduates for the years during which conditional status is in place are suspended.
 
Education provider:  A tertiary (post-secondary) education teaching establishment such as a university, polytechnic, vocational teaching college or similar establishment.
 
Jurisdiction:  The territory, country, economy, or region in which an organisation undertaking accreditation is based, and within which the organisation has authority to conduct accreditation/recognition processes.

Meetings:

·       General Meetings of the Accord are held every two years (in odd-numbered years) at a time and place agreed by the Accord Signatories.

·       Mid-term Meetings of the Accord may be held in even-numbered years to cover urgent business matters by the process set out in the Rules and Procedures. 

·       Special Meetings of the Accord may be called at any time by the process set out in the Rules and Procedures.

·       In this document a “meeting” of Accord Signatories refers to a General, Mid-term, or Special Meeting.

 
Meeting method:  General and Mid-term Meetings will normally be held face to face, but business also may be conducted under urgency through teleconference or other active method of communication, or electronic polling (a meeting method in which Signatories either vote to agree or disagree with a proposal put to the vote).
 
Mentee:  An organisation being mentored because of its commitment to gain Provisional status or to become a Signatory of the Accord.
 
Mentor:  A Signatory assigned by the Committee to act on behalf of the Accord and work with an applicant through a program of visits and advice in order to assist the applicant with its progress to Provisional status and/or to becoming a Signatory subsequently.  The term “Mentor” may also refer to a mentoring team appointed by the Committee.  The mentoring team will consist of two or three representatives from full Signatories of the Accord.  Note: a Mentor can act as a Nominator but not as a Reviewer.
 
Mentoring:  A process by which an appointed mentoring team provides support and guidance to an accreditation body that wishes to apply for Provisional status or to become a Signatory to the Accord.  The mentoring role will focus on providing advice and guidance on the accreditation policies and procedures and education standards of the Mentee so that the Mentee is given every opportunity, on application, to gain Provisional status or become a Signatory of the Accord.
 
Nominator:  A Signatory that has detailed knowledge of an applicant’s accreditation system and states that that in its opinion the applicant’s accreditation system meets the criteria for admission to Provisional status.  In support of its nomination it shall supply other Signatories with information on how its appraisal that led to the decision to nominate was performed.
 
Provisional status:  An applicant will achieve Provisional status having demonstrated that the accreditation system for which it has responsibility appears to be conceptually similar to those of other Signatories of the Accord.  By conferring Provisional status, the Signatories have indicated that they consider that the applicant has the potential capability to be a Signatory.  Award of Provisional status in no way implies any guarantee of becoming a Signatory.  Recognition of the equivalence of the academic computing and IT-related programs concerned shall normally become effective from the date on which the new Signatory is admitted.
 
Requirements:  The requirements for admission as a Signatory of the Accord, defined as the substantial equivalence of characteristics, criteria and outcome standards.
 
Review (or Verification):  The process by which a Signatory or an organisation with Provisional status is evaluated to determine whether the accreditation system of the Signatory or organization with Provisional status is Substantially Equivalent, as defined by the Accord, to the accreditation systems of the (other) Accord Signatories.
 
Reviewer:  A Signatory, or Signatory representative, appointed by the Committee to the Review Team that visits and reports to the Signatories on the equivalency of the accreditation system of an organisation with Provisional status as part of the evaluation of the applicant’s Review towards becoming a Signatory.  Note: A Reviewer shall not have been either a Mentor or Nominator for this applicant. Reviewers recommend to the Signatories whether they are of the opinion that the requirements for becoming a Signatory are met. 
 
Secretariat:  An entity providing administrative support to the Committee, with the delegated authority to give advice, but not to make decisions, under the Rules and Procedures.
 
Signatory:  An organisation entitled to fully participate in the Accord, enjoying the same rights and obligations as all other Signatories.  Signatories must be independent of the academic institutions delivering programs that they may accredit or recognize. They are typically authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the computing and IT-related professions and which have statutory powers or recognized professional authority for accrediting programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for entry into the professional computing and IT-related community.
 
Substantially Equivalent:  Producing results that are equally effective in determining whether graduates of a computing or IT related program satisfy the Graduate Attributes given in Section D.  

B.2 Admission

B.2.1 Provisional status

·       Applicants for Provisional status are recommended to follow the advice stated in the guidelines given in Part 2 of Section C.

·       Applicants must provide all the information stated in Part 2.2 of the guidelines set out in Section C.

·       Applications must be provided in the English language.

·       Applications must be received by the Secretariat no later than 120 days before the commencement of a meeting of the Accord at which the application is to be considered.

·       Applications must be accompanied by written statements of nomination from two Signatories, each nomination containing a declaration that the Mentor considers that the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system meets the requirements for Provisional status.

·       The Secretariat must distribute the application to all Signatories no later than 90 days before the commencement of the Accord meeting at which the application will be considered.

·       Any Signatory may provide written questions to the Secretariat no later than 60 days before the Accord meeting, in which case the applicant has until 30 days prior to the meeting to provide written answers to the Secretariat for distribution of both the questions and answers to all Signatories so that they can be considered before the Accord meeting.

·       An applicant’s representative must appear in person at the Accord meeting to formally present the application and answer questions.

·       An applicant must meet all the direct costs of making its application, including but not limited to funding any reasonable actions required by potential Mentors to evaluate the systems of the applicant.

·       The Signatories must consider each application at the meeting at which it is presented and must decide one of the three following actions:

a. that the applicant be granted Provisional status (provided that there is a two-thirds majority), or
b. that the application be declined (in which case reasons would normally be stated), or
c. that the decision on the application be deferred (in which case the reasons must be stated).

·       The Signatories may agree to consider a deferred application by a suitable meeting method prior to the next scheduled face to face meeting if there is a reasonable expectation that information that will allow the application to be decided will be available, but no such meeting may occur sooner than 60 days after the applicant or a Mentor provides the necessary information to the Secretariat.

·       Prior to the award of Provisional status, applicants must undertake to cooperate in the conduct of, and to fund the direct costs of, an evaluation of the suitability and effectiveness of accreditation/recognition criteria, policies, and procedures established by the applicant for the purpose of becoming a Signatory.

·       Provisional status is normally granted for a period of four years, but may be extended for one or more periods of two further years if in the view of Signatories, as attested by a two-thirds majority vote at a meeting, sufficient progress towards becoming a Signatory is being made.

B.2.2 Becoming a signatory

·       Organisations holding Provisional status and applying to become a Signatory are recommended to be cognizant of the guidelines given in Section C.

·       Organisations holding Provisional status must give formal written notice on the organization’s letterhead of at least one year (prior to the Accord meeting at which they will request that upgrade of their status be considered) to the Committee and the Secretariat of their request to be reviewed.

·       No later than 30 days from receiving a Review request the Committee must assign three Reviewers, each drawn from a different Signatory.  The qualifications of these Reviewers is the same as for the Review of a Signatory and are given in Section C Guidelines.

·       The organisation making the Review request must provide the Reviewers with reasonable notice of, and opportunity to observe, visits to a range of education providers, and to observe the accreditation/recognition process for a range of decisions in the period leading up to 90 days prior to the Accord meeting at which the organisation wishes the Review request for becoming a Signatory to be considered. (More specific guidelines are presented in Part 4 of Section C.)

·       The Reviewers will furnish a written report to the Signatories no later than 90 days prior to the Accord meeting at which the Review recommendation will be considered, unless a shorter period (of at least 30 days) is agreed by the Committee to be sufficient under the circumstances.

·       The Signatories must consider each set of Review recommendations at the meeting at which it is presented and must decide one of the four following actions:

a. that the organisation holding Provisional status be made a Signatory with a designated jurisdiction, which requires the

    unanimous approval of the Accord Signatories excluding recusals, in which case the date at which recognition by the

    other Signatories of the academic computing and IT-related programs concerned shall become effective is stated (this

    would normally be the date on which the new Signatory is admitted), or
b. that the organization holding Provisional status be declined becoming a Signatory, but that Provisional status be

    extended for a further period (in which case reasons must be stated), or
c. that the organization holding Provisional status be declined becoming a Signatory and that Provisional status not be

    extended (in which case the reasons must be stated), or
d. that the decision on the Review recommendations be deferred  (in which case the reasons must be stated).

·       During consideration of a Review recommendation each Signatory which chooses not to support the recommendation from the Reviewers must provide to all other Signatories its reasons.

·       When the decision on Review recommendations is deferred, the Signatories may agree to reconsider the Review recommendations by a suitable meeting method prior to the next scheduled face to face meeting if there is a reasonable expectation that information that will allow the application to be decided will be available, but no such meeting will occur sooner than 60 days after the organisation holding Provisional status or the Reviewers provides the necessary information to the Secretariat.

B.3. Review of Signatories

B.3.1 Rolling review program

·       Each Signatory shall be subject to comprehensive Review and report by representatives of the other Signatories at intervals of not more than six years.  An extension of the interval to the next Review of up to three years for a Signatory may be approved by the Signatories for appropriate reasons, such as to align Review cycles with other accords or to delay Review because of substantial disruptive events.  The initial interval for a Signatory agency begins at the end of the meeting at which Accord membership for the Signatory is approved.

·       The Committee must establish and the Secretariat publish annually, no later than 1 July, a schedule for the programme of Review activities, this schedule covering at least the upcoming six years.  This schedule will be tabled as a standard agenda item at each annual meeting of the Accord for approval.

·       Upon receipt of the schedule each Signatory must immediately inform the Committee whether it wishes to be reviewed by the normal Review procedure (designated Procedure A) or by the continuing international participation model (designated Procedure B).  In the event that a Signatory does not select a procedure then Procedure A is assumed to have been selected.  Under Procedure B, the Signatory under Review may elect to have the Accord Review Team member fulfill a dual role, that of Accord Reviewer and an accreditation panel member.  This election is contingent upon the availability of Accord Reviewers able to fulfill the dual role of accreditation panel member and Accord Reviewer (see also 3.2 below).  Signatories contemplating Procedure B will be responsible for consulting with the Secretariat regarding the availability of dual role members.

·       The type of procedure to be used for any individual Signatory must be approved by the Signatories via a suitable meeting method prior to the commencement of any Review actions.

·       Any Signatory that effects a substantial change to its accreditation criteria, policies or procedures is obliged to report such a change to the Committee via the Secretariat and thereby to provide the other Signatories with the opportunity to require that the scheduled Review and report be brought forward. 

B.3.2 Nomination of Persons to Form Teams

Upon request from the Secretariat, each Signatory must provide as soon as possible one or more names of persons to form part of the panel from which Review Teams (Procedure A) or Accord Review Teams (ARTs) under the continuing international participation model (Procedure B) may be drawn. In determining the suitability of proposed team members Signatories may identify panel members able to fulfill a dual role, firstly as accreditation panel members and secondly as Accord Reviewers.  No Signatory shall be required to provide more than one such representative in any calendar year unless approved by the Signatory.  General requirements for Reviewers are given in Section C, Guidelines.

B.3.3 Procedure

·       Each Signatory to be reviewed must receive a notice from the Secretariat no less than six months prior to the year of the Review Team activities being undertaken.  For Procedure B, reviewing will be continuous for the first five years of a six-year period, and then, if required, in the sixth year there may be confirmatory actions.

·       Three representatives from different Signatories, one of whom will be designated the team leader, must be selected by the Committee to form the Review Team; the Secretariat must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the individuals selected through this process has had any substantial prior involvement in or commitment to the accreditation system being reviewed.

·       The Signatory responsible for the accreditation system to be reviewed must be advised by the Secretariat of the proposed composition of the Review Team, and invited to show cause why any member of the Review Team is not suitable. In the event that such an objection is lodged, the Secretariat must advise the Committee to take such steps as are necessary and appropriate to resolve the situation.  If unable to achieve consensus, the Committee must consult all Signatories before confirming the membership of the Review Team.

·       The Signatory whose accreditation system is to be reviewed shall be invited to propose a suitable process, timetable and administrative support mechanism for consideration by the Review Team. The Review process must include accreditation visits to educational providers offering academic computing and IT-related programs and to the meetings at which the outcomes of such visits are discussed and decided.

·       All discussions concerning Reviews must be held in confidence by the Review Team. At the conclusion of each Review activity, the Review Team must forward its report and recommendations to the Secretariat as soon as reasonably practicable. A copy of that report must be furnished to each Signatory through the Secretariat.

·       The recommendations open to the Review Team are as follows:

a.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of six years, as leading to outcomes Substantially Equivalent to the Signatories’ systems known to the Review Team in preparing graduates to enter a computing or IT-related profession; or

b.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of not more than two years subject to the responsible Signatory providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other Signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address the specific issues identified by the Review Team; or

c.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question has serious deficiencies, that the Signatory be downgraded immediately to conditional status, and that urgent and specific assistance be provided by the other Signatories to help address the deficiencies.

B.3.4 Consideration of Recommendations and Requests for Reconsideration

·       Recommendations from Review activities under either Procedure A or Procedure B are considered by the other Signatories in committee at each General or Mid-term meeting of the Accord Signatories.  There will be a standing agenda item at each annual Accord meeting to consider any outstanding recommendations.

·       If a Signatory has demonstrated equivalence under Procedure B to the satisfaction of all Signatories without the need to form an ORT, the Signatory will be deemed to have had its accreditation/recognition system be accepted as Substantially Equivalent for a further six-year term from the date of the meeting.

·       Otherwise, the Signatories may resolve only one of the following:

a.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of six years; or

b.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the Signatory in question  providing, within six months from which the decision was made, a report which satisfies the other Signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address specific issues; or 

c.      that the Signatory revert immediately to a non-voting conditional status for a period of no more than two years, and that specific requirements to be addressed be stated

·       A resolution for (a) or (c) shall require support from two-thirds of the Signatories, and in the absence of that majority the outcome shall be (b) in which case the specific issues to be addressed must be stated.

·       The subject Signatory may, within 60 days of notification of a decision, request reconsideration of a decision imposing conditional status (c), and request independent reconsideration of its case.  Requests for reconsideration must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

a.      that there was a failure to follow these Rules, and/or

b.      that there were substantial errors of facts in the report considered by the Signatories which were likely to have affected the decision reached by the Signatories, and/or

c.      that the report considered by the Signatories did not include relevant information, and had that information been placed before the Signatories there was a reasonable likelihood that a different decision would have been made

·       If a reconsideration is requested, the Committee must ensure that within six months after the decision was made, a reconsideration panel, which is established in the same manner as a Review Team using Procedure A but with no membership in common with the original Review Team(s), is established and reports its outcomes.

·       While a reconsideration is in progress the Signatory will continue to enjoy the full benefits of being a Signatory.

·       The reconsideration panel shall determine the procedures and criteria under which it operates, but at all times its procedures must be consistent with these Rules and Procedures as far as this is reasonably possible.

·       The full costs of any such reconsideration must be borne by the subject Signatory.

·       The right to request reconsideration may be exercised only once for each six-year Review cycle.

·       The recommendations of a reconsideration panel must be considered by the Signatories by a suitable meeting method as soon as reasonably possible, and one of the following decisions made:

a.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of six years; or

b.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the Signatory concerned providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other Signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address specific issues; or

c.      that the Signatory revert immediately to a non-voting conditional status for a period of no more than two years, and that specific requirements to be addressed be stated

B.3.5 Upgrade from or Continuation of Conditional Status

·       Where conditional status is imposed by the other Signatories the Committee must provide, in writing within 30 days of the decision, the specific requirements to be addressed by the organisation downgraded to conditional status, and state the process by which assessment of whether the requirements have been met will be made.

·       The assessment will normally involve written reports submitted by the organisation holding conditional status at intervals of six months to the Review Team that conducted the review, or ORT in the case of Procedure B, may involve a visit by one or more members of the Review Team or ORT, and will involve reporting by the Review Team or ORT at six-monthly intervals to the Committee on progress.

·       When, in the view of the Committee, the most recent report from the Review Team or ORT indicates that the requirements have been satisfactorily addressed, the Committee must immediately call a meeting of the signatories by a suitable meeting method to consider the reinstatement of the organization back to being a signatory, and to decide whether graduates from accredited programs during the years in which conditional status was in place should receive rights of recognition under the Accord.

·       In the event of re-instatement to being a signatory, voting rights are immediately restored.

·       In the event that an organisation is re-instated from conditional to being a signatory graduates from accredited programmes in the year in which re-instatement occurs shall enjoy the rights of recognition under the Accord.

·       Where the signatories are satisfied that an organisation holding conditional status is making good progress towards once again being a signatory, but that at the end of the period of conditional status has not fully met the requirements, the signatories may agree to extend the period of conditional status for no more than two further years.

·       The costs incurred by members of the Review Team or ORT must be borne by the organisation holding conditional status.

B.4. Resignation, Downgrading and Termination

B.4.1 Resignation

·       A Signatory may resign from the Accord by giving at least one year’s written notice to all other Signatories.  The period in which the organization was a Signatory will be deemed to end on 31 December of the year after that in which notice was given.  During its period of notice the resigning Signatory must continue to fulfill its obligations as a Signatory, but loses its right to vote on matters related to applications for Provisional status, Review recommendations for becoming a Signatory, Review reports on Signatories, and any matter relating to the changes to the Accord, Rules and Procedures or Guidelines.  For the avoidance of doubt, in such circumstances the Signatory that has given notice of resignation will be excluded when determining the total number of votes available to be cast.

·       Provided the resigning Signatory provides to all other Signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee, a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a Signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the Signatory was active in the Accord will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other Signatories.

·       An organisation holding Provisional status may resign from that Provisional status at any time by giving 6 months written notice to all Signatories

B.4.2 Downgrading for Failure to Demonstrate Ongoing Equivalence

·       Where a Signatory has been downgraded from Signatory to conditional status for failure to meet the necessary standard of equivalence of recognition or accreditation, and the organisation fails to satisfy the Signatories within the period of time allowed that it has met the specific requirements, and the Signatories are unwilling to continue the period of conditional status, the organisation shall lapse from conditional status to Provisional status.

·       Provisional status shall be granted in these circumstances for no more than two years, the specific time being selected by the Committee so that the end of the term coincides with a scheduled general meeting of the Accord Signatories.

·       Provided the downgraded Signatory provides to all other Signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a Signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the Signatory was a Signatory in the Accord (including the year in which downgrading to conditional status occurred) will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other Signatories.  Any graduates completing their programme during the period of conditional status will not enjoy the privileges of graduates of Accord Signatories.

B.4.3 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory

·       If in the view of a two-thirds majority of other Signatories, a Signatory is failing to meet its reasonable obligations under the Accord, the other Signatories may give notice to that effect to the Signatory concerned.  Such notice must state the specific nature of the concerns.

·       Any Signatory that receives notice of failure to meet obligations as a Signatory from the other Signatories shall have one year from the date of the notice in which to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action and has recommenced the fulfillment of its obligations.

·       If, after a year, two-thirds of other Signatories agree that significant improvement has been made, but not sufficient to remove doubt that the Signatory in question is fulfilling its obligations, the period for demonstrating improvement shall be extended by either six months or one year as the Signatories may decide.

·       If, in the view of at least two-thirds of other Signatories, a Signatory that has been given notice under 1, 2 and 3 above has not taken sufficient corrective actions within the specified period the Signatory is deemed to have been removed from being a Signatory.  The date of removal shall be the end of the calendar year in which the decision to terminate was made. 

·       Provided the terminated Signatory provides to all other Signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee, a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a Signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the Signatory was active in the Accord will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other Signatories.

B.4.4 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory

·       At each General Meeting of the Accord the Signatories must review the length of period for which Provisional status has been granted to each organization holding that status (which period is normally four years but which may be extended by up to a further four years).

·       If in the view of a two-thirds majority of Signatories, an organization holding Provisional status is making insufficient progress towards becoming a Signatory or is failing to meet its reasonable obligations under the Accord, the Signatories may give notice to that effect to the organisation concerned.  Such notice must state the specific nature of the concerns.

·       Any organisation holding Provisional status which receives notice from the Signatories shall have one year from the date of the notice in which to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action and has recommenced the fulfillment of its obligations and progress towards becoming a Signatory.

·       If, after that year, the majority of the Signatories agree that significant improvement has been made, but not sufficient to remove doubt that the Signatory in question is fulfilling its obligations, the period for demonstrating improvement must be extended by one year.

·       If, in the view of a majority of Signatories, determined by a suitable meeting method, an organisation holding Provisional status which has been given notice under 2, 3 and 4 above has not taken sufficient corrective actions within the specified period the organisation is deemed to have been removed from Provisional status.  The date of removal must be immediate from the date of notice to that effect.

B.5. Conduct of Meetings, Rights of and Obligations on Signatories and Organisations Holding Provisional Status

B.5.1 Meetings

Unless otherwise set out in the Rules and Procedures, the following provisions shall apply.

·       A General Meeting of the Signatories must be held every two years at a time and place selected by the previous General Meeting, or if not possible, as soon after as possible by the Committee following appropriate consultation with the Signatories.  The time and place of the General Meeting must, so far as practicable, be such as to minimise overall travel costs for those representing the Signatories. Where convenient, the General Meeting may be arranged to follow or precede a major international conference or similar event.

·       At every General Meeting, Signatories and organizations holding Provisional status must present a report on accreditation-related matters within their jurisdiction according to any guideline agreed by the Signatories.

·       At every General Meeting, and at any other time the Signatories decide, there will be a session closed to observers at which Signatories can raise in confidence any issue pertaining to the operation of the Accord, seeking resolution in a constructive manner.  Organisations holding Provisional status may be invited to attend this session if the Signatories agree to this prior to the commencement of the session.  The Signatories may agree to a set of guidelines for conduct of such sessions.

·       If two or more Signatories request a Special Meeting of the Accord in relation to a particular matter, the question of whether to hold a Special Meeting shall be decided under urgency, and if so agreed the meeting shall be held at a venue to be decided by the Committee no sooner than 90 days and no later than 180 days after the decision to hold the Special Meeting is notified to all Signatories and organizations holding Provisional status.

·       At every General Meeting the Signatories shall decide whether there is sufficient business to warrant a Mid-term Meeting.  If the need for a Mid-term Meeting is not clear, the Signatories may delegate the decision on a Mid-term Meeting to the Committee and may also specify criteria for the decision.

·        A draft agenda must be circulated to all Signatories at least 180 days prior to a General or Mid-term Meeting and 90 days prior to a Special Meeting of the Accord.

·       Notice of items for the agenda should be notified to the Chair through the Secretariat at least 90 days prior to the meeting.

·        Items for discussion at a General or Mid-term Meeting and all necessary background papers should be submitted to the Committee via the Secretariat at least 60 days prior to the meeting.  The Committee reserves the right to not admit late items. 

·       The agenda and business papers will be approved by the Chair and normally be distributed to the Signatories by the Secretariat at least two months prior to the meeting.

·       Each Signatory will arrange for at least one representative to attend a General, Mid-term, or Special Meeting and will commit to being briefed on the matters to be raised and to engage fully in the business of the meeting.  Signatories may bring more than one representative to such meetings but are obligated to restrict the number of people in its delegation to the number reasonably needed to fulfill their obligations to participate fully in the meeting.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair of the Accord may restrict the number in any delegation. 

·       Organisations holding Provisional status are required to accept the same commitment to interaction and exchange as the Signatories.  They will receive copies of appropriate correspondence and reports (other than those papers relating to admission, termination, Review requests and Review of Signatories), and are invited to send representatives to all meetings of the Signatories. They are obligated to restrict the number of people in its delegation to the number reasonably needed to fulfill their obligations to participate fully in the meeting.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair of the Accord may restrict the number in any delegation.

·       At an Accord meeting, each Signatory will have one vote, and the Chair shall have a casting vote.

·       A simple majority will suffice for a decision on any matter, unless otherwise specified in the governing Agreement or in these Rules and Procedures.  Any casting vote will normally be regarded as cast for the status quo on any matter requiring two-thirds or greater majority.

·       Representatives of organisations holding Provisional status will have the right of audience except when excluded under a resolution by the Signatories to move into committee (also known as closed session) and debate at such meetings, but are not permitted to vote.

·       With the agreement of the Chair, organizations with interests in the Accord may be invited to be in attendance (as “observers”) for parts of the meeting as may be decided by the Chair.  The right to attend does not confer the right to speak unless so invited by the Chair.  Unless otherwise prescribed by the Chair the maximum number of people in the delegation of any observer will be three.

·       Signatories and organizations holding Provisional status must declare any conflict of interest on any agenda item in advance of that item being discussed, and if so requested by the Chair must leave the meeting during discussion of that item.

·        Minutes of each meeting of the Accord must be recorded by the Secretariat and at each General or Mid-term Meeting the minutes of the previous General or Mid-term Meeting of a like nature and any Special Meeting held since the previous General or Mid-term Meeting must be submitted to the meeting for approval and then signed by the Chair before any other business is transacted.  Draft minutes prepared by the Secretariat for each meeting will be reviewed for correctness by the Committee prior to their dissemination to all Signatories for their comment.  Such dissemination should occur within 60 days of the meeting and comment should be made within 90 days of the date of the meeting.  The Committee will review comments received and within 120 days of the date of the meeting approve that the Secretariat circulate to all Signatories and organisations holding Provisional status “minutes for approval”.

·       The meeting method may be varied from face to face to any other means enabling open discussion between representatives (e.g. teleconference) provided that there is a two-thirds majority of the Signatories in favour of such a proposal.

·       Urgent matters (decided to be urgent by either a previous meeting, or by the Committee on the basis that undue delay would unreasonably penalize an affected party) may be decided out of session from meetings by an electronic polling meeting method as follows:

a.      The written proposal setting out the motion, the rationale supporting it, and the reasons for urgent consideration of that proposal are circulated to all Signatories in writing.

b.      Each Signatory has 60 days to make a response in two parts – agreeing to consider the matter urgently, and recording its votes on the motion.  Votes are to be provided directly to the Secretariat and the Committee.

c.      The Secretariat will issue reminders after 30 and 45 days to those Signatories who have not responded.

d.      The matter shall be determined by the Committee as passed if there is the necessary majority for the matter concerned both for the vote to consider the matter urgently, and for the motion itself.

e.      For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee may require any Signatory to provide a faxed signed confirmation of its vote to validate that vote.

f.       The Committee must announce the result without undue delay, and the outcome will apply from the date of announcement.

g.      The matter is regarded as ratified by approval of the accuracy of documentation of the decision making process (as if that documentation was minutes of a meeting), by Signatories at the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord.

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving a particular matter.  In the event that further changes to the proposal are made during a meeting the Chair must exercise the proxy consistently with the intention of the Signatory concerned, and if in doubt must abstain the proxy on the matter. 

·       The Signatories, organizations holding Provisional status and observers are required to meet a fair share of the costs of staging a meeting of the Accord in addition to their own costs for attendance at such meetings. 

·       The chair of any meeting may choose to conduct the meeting with a minimum of formality provided that the proceedings are conducive to the fair hearing of all matters and the agreement of outcomes.  However if, of his/her own volition or on request of some of those present at the meeting, the Chair deems it necessary to formalize the meeting, he/she may apply some or all of the following standing orders as is considered reasonable and necessary for effective conduct of the meeting: 

a.      At each meeting of the Accord, the Chair, or in his or her absence the Deputy Chair, shall take the chair.

b.      In the above cases if the specified officers are not present a meeting shall elect its own Chair. 

c.      Except as otherwise agreed by the meeting the order of business will be as set out on the agenda paper.   

d.      Each motion or amendment not seconded shall lapse without discussion and shall not be recorded in the minutes except by the permission of the meeting. 

e.      After each motion or amendment has been moved and seconded it shall not be withdrawn without the permission of the meeting. 

f.       Except with the permission of the meeting no motion or amendment shall be proposed which in the opinion of the Chair is the same in substance as any motion or amendment which during the same meeting has been resolved in the affirmative or negative. 

g.      Where no specific procedure is laid down the Chair shall refuse to accept a motion to rescind any resolution or other vote if he or she considers that insufficient notice has been given to members. 

h.      Before putting each motion or amendment to the vote the Chair shall ensure that the motion or amendment is understood by all meeting participants. 

i.       A motion may be amended by leaving out words; by leaving out certain words and substituting other words; by inserting words; or by adding words. 

j.       Each amendment shall be relevant to the original motion. 

k.      No amendment may be accepted that produces a direct negative of the motion. 

l.       Amendments to a motion may be moved without notice. 

m.    Amendments may be moved in any order considered satisfactory by the Chair. 

n.      When an amendment has been carried, such amendment shall become the substantive motion and shall be open to amendment accordingly. 

o.      At the discretion of the Chair amendments to an amendment shall be allowed. 

p.      The Chair may restrict the number of times and the length of time that each meeting participant may speak on a matter. 

q.      All questions of order or procedure not provided for in these Standing Orders shall be decided by the Chair. 

B.5.2 Workshops

·       The Signatories of the Accord may choose to hold a workshop at any time for the purpose of dialogue aimed at developing recommendations for consideration at a meeting of the Accord. 

·       In general, organizations holding Provisional status would be invited to attend only if the Signatories consider they can contribute effectively to advancement of the issues to be discussed. 

·       Observers would not normally be invited to attend workshops, and an exception would be granted only if the Signatories are collectively of the view that observers can contribute effectively to advancement of the issues to be discussed. 

·       The Chair shall decide the maximum number in each delegation from Signatories to such workshops. In general, delegations should be as small as possible. 

·       In the event that organizations holding Provisional status are invited to participate, the Chair of the Accord shall decide the maximum number in each delegation and rights of participation. 

·       If observers are allowed to attend, the Chair of the Accord shall decide the maximum number in the delegation and rights of participation. 

·       During any such workshop, the chair of any session may exclude all but Signatories for any particular item. 

·       In the interest of effective interchange at workshops, the protocols and procedures will be consistent with these Rules and Procedures, but decision making will be by consensus.  No votes will be taken, but informal polling to determine the level of support for particular proposals may be performed.

B.5.3 Other Obligations of Signatories

·       Each Signatory should maintain a listing of accredited programs according to the following guiding principles.  Additional guidance is given in section C (Guidelines).

a.      The principles of mutual respect and autonomy apply to the listing of programs and the Review processes that are used to establish and maintain confidence in the listings.

b.      The currency of the listing should be identified with the latest publication date identified along with an indicative frequency of update.

c.      The listing should be comprehensive, showing all currently accredited programmes with their accreditation start date.

d.      The listing should be available in a web-based version to maximise access, and should provide users with the ability to search by education provider, geographical region, computing or IT discipline, or Accord agreement if more than 100 programmes are listed. Ideally, programmes accredited under different accords should be maintained in discrete listings or sections.  However, if a combined listing is used, users should be able to search for programmes recognised under a particular accord. Web-based versions should be clearly linked from the home page of the host Signatory’s website. It is recommended that the listing also include links to the website of the provider of each accredited programme.

e.      Where a Signatory accredits programmes that are recognised under different accords, and/or programmes that are not recognised under any of the accords, there should be clear differentiation of programmes, clearly indicating recognition status under particular accords.  The listing should have a clear introductory section that introduces the relevant accord, explains the status of the host Signatory and sets out the obligations of other Signatories under the accord.

f.       The listing should also provide clarity over the scope of (or limitations to the scope of) accreditation.

g.      Where accreditation with conditions or provisions is accorded, such programmes should be clearly identified and the implications of this for the recognition of graduates should be stated.

h.      In Signatory jurisdictions where a licensure/certification process for computing and IT related disciplines exists, those Signatories should provide clarity to individuals applying for a license/certification as to how their Seoul Accord recognized program will be recognized by the licensure/certification body.

·       Each Signatory should provide a service whereby inquiries as to whether specific graduates of a computing or IT related program in the Signatory’s jurisdiction are recognized under the Seoul Accord.
 

B.6. Changes to Accord Agreement, Rules and Procedures, and Guidelines

B.6.1 Changes to Accord Agreement

·       Changes to the Accord Agreement requires the unanimous approval of all Signatories, originally determined by a vote, but then signified by the written signature of their representative to a document to be regarded as an addendum to the Accord.  Until all Signatories present at the time of the vote have signed in this manner the change shall be inoperative.  Signatories voting by proxy may sign at a later time and this will not delay the implementation of the change.   

·       Proposals for change may be made by one or more Signatories, but must be provided to the Committee and Secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The Secretariat must circulate the proposals to all Signatories and those organizations holding Provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting.   

·       If further changes to the proposal are proposed during a meeting of the Accord, and if in the view of at least two Signatories the changes affect the intention or substance of the proposal, any Signatory may require that the matter be deferred, requiring a further 120 days’ notice before the matter can be further considered. 

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed change.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the further changes. 

B.6.2 Changes to Rules and Procedures

·       Changes to the Rules and Procedures of the Accord requires the two-thirds majority approval of all Signatories, determined by a vote.  The new Rules and Procedures will be deemed to be operative immediately following the end of the meeting at which they are approved. Notwithstanding this, for matters in progress that commenced under earlier Rules and Procedures may continue to proceed to completion under those Rules and Procedures if in the view of the Committee application of the changed Rule or Procedure would impose unreasonable additional burdens on those affected by the matter.  

·       Proposals for change may be made by one or more Signatories, but must be provided to the Committee and Secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The Secretariat must circulate the proposals to all Signatories and those organizations holding Provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting. 

·       If further changes to the proposal are suggested during a meeting of the Accord, and if in the view of at least two Signatories the changes affect the intention or substance of the proposal, those Signatories may require that the matter be deferred, requiring a further 120 days notice before the matter can be further considered. 

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed change.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the further changes.

B.6.3 Changes to the Guidelines

·       Changes to the Guidelines of the Accord requires the two-thirds majority approval of all Signatories, determined by a vote.  The new guidelines will be deemed to be operative immediately following the end of the meeting at which they are approved. Notwithstanding this, for matters in progress that commenced using earlier guidelines may continue to proceed to completion using those guidelines if in the view of the Committee application of the changed guideline would impose unreasonable additional burdens on those affected by the matter. 

·       Proposals for change may be made by one or more Signatories, and should be provided to the Committee and Secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The Secretariat must circulate the proposals to all Signatories and those organizations holding Provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting.

·       Further changes to the proposal may be suggested during a meeting of the Accord, and may be approved by a two-thirds majority of Signatories voting for the changes. 

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed change.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the further changes.

B.6.4 Voting

·       Matters on which a required majority is not stated in the Accord Agreement or Rules and Procedures must be decided by a simple majority vote of Signatories present at the time of the decision. 

·       A casting vote by a chair shall be deliberative in situations where only a simple majority is required, but in situations where a majority of two-thirds or more is required the casting vote must be made to retain the status quo. 

·       Voting may be by a show of hands unless a secret ballot is required.  In addition to the requirements of the Rules and Procedures, a secret ballot is required whenever requested by a Signatory of the Accord.

B.7. Officers

·       The officers of the Accord shall be the Chair and the Deputy Chair who must be elected from nominations made by the Signatories. 

·       The officers act for the Accord, and may not simultaneously represent or vote on behalf of any Signatory on any matter.  For the avoidance of doubt, officers are not included in the headcount of delegations from their home Signatory. 

·       A person may hold office for no more than two terms, each term of two years (defined as the time between biennial General Meetings) unless specifically agreed by a unanimous vote of all Signatories present at a General Meeting.  A term is completed at the end of the General Meeting at which an election is held. 

·       The Deputy Chair shall undertake the duties of the Chair if the Chair is unavailable for any length of time, or has declared a conflict of interest on any matter, and has temporarily stood down from the chair whilst that matter is considered. 

·       At least 120 days in advance of a General Meeting, the Secretariat will send all Signatories the invitation to make nominations for Chair and Deputy Chair positions. 

·       To be eligible for nomination a person must be affiliated with a Signatory and have the support of that Signatory.  By supporting a person affiliated with a Signatory, the Signatory agrees to pay the expenses of the nominee, if elected, to attend meetings of the Accord. 

·       Nominations must be moved and seconded by two different Signatories, and the nomination, second, and acceptance by the nominee and the nominee’s Signatory must be received by the Secretariat no later than 30 days prior to the General Meeting at which the election will be held. The Secretariat will distribute the nominations to the Signatories no later than 20 days before the General Meeting at which the election will be held. 

·       No person may be elected to a position that was immediately before held by a person affiliated with the same Signatory. 

·       If there is not at least one candidate nominated for an office according to (7) above, then additional nominations may be accepted during a General Meeting by procedures that are approved without dissent by the Signatories present at the meeting. 

·       Voting will be held by secret ballot during a General Meeting, and will be supervised by two independent scrutineers appointed by the General Meeting. 

·       In the event that there are more than two candidates and no candidate achieves more than 50% of the votes cast in the ballot, the lowest polling candidate will be eliminated and a further poll held.  This process will be repeated as many times as is necessary.  In the event of a tie in respect of eliminating a candidate the candidate to be eliminated will be established by the drawing of lots by the scrutineers.  In the event of a tie on the last poll the Chair will exercise a casting vote. 

·       The election of the Chair will be conducted prior to election of the Deputy Chair.  A candidate for Chair who is not elected may then become a candidate for Deputy Chair with the approval of the candidate’s Mentor and second, the candidate’s Signatory, and the candidate, subject to the conditions in (3) above. 

·       In the event that the Chair is unable to complete his or her term for any reason, the Deputy Chair shall temporarily hold the position until the next General Meeting.  Such service shall not be counted against the term of that person in the role of Chair. 

·       In the event that the Deputy Chair is unable to complete his or her term for any reason, the Chair shall decide whether the position may remain vacant (if the remaining part of the term is less than 180 days), or whether to call for nominations, and hold an election using the process for deciding matters under urgency.  Service of a person elected under urgency shall not be counted against the term of that person in the role of Deputy Chair. 

·       If required, elections may be conducted urgently as follows:

a.      The ballot papers must be distributed to all Signatories in writing.

b.      Each Signatory has 60 days to record its vote.  Votes are to be provided directly to the Secretariat.

c.      The Secretariat will issue reminders after 30 and 45 days to those Signatories who have not responded.

d.      For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee may require any Signatory to fax a signed confirmation of its vote to validate that vote.

e.      The Secretariat shall be responsible for counting the votes and arranging scrutineering by at least two independent persons.

f.       The Chair must announce the result without undue delay, and the outcome will apply from the date of announcement.

g.      The matter is regarded as ratified by approval of the accuracy of documentation of the decision making process (as if that documentation was minutes of a meeting), by Signatories at the next general meeting of the Accord. 

B.8. Accreditation/Recognition Outside of Jurisdiction

Normally the accreditation/recognition of programs offered by a provider in a jurisdiction of an Accord Signatory will be the responsibility of an Accord Signatory for the jurisdiction.  However, allowed exceptions and modifications of this guideline are defined below. In any case where an Accord Signatory undertakes accreditation of a program outside the Signatory’s jurisdiction, the Signatory should obtain approval of any relevant authority for the program’s jurisdiction before undertaking the accreditation process.

·       Program implemented without differentiation in two different jurisdictions, each with Accord Signatories that accredit the program type, by a provider headquartered in one of the two jurisdictions.

Accreditation of the program offered outside the program headquarters jurisdiction will be undertaken on a collaborative basis, initiated by the Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the program is headquartered.  To be listed as recognized under the Accord by the Signatory in the headquarters jurisdiction, the program not in the program headquarters jurisdiction must be accredited by both Signatories.

·        Different programs implemented in two different jurisdictions, each with accrediting bodies that are Signatories to the Accord, by a provider headquartered in one of the jurisdictions:

If there is an Accord Signatory of the non-headquarters jurisdiction that accredits the program type, accreditation of the program outside the program headquarters jurisdiction must be undertaken by a Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the program is delivered in consultation with the Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the provider is headquartered.  Accreditation of the program outside the program headquarters jurisdiction may also be undertaken by the Signatory in the headquarters jurisdiction at the request of the provider.

·       Program offered within a non-Accord jurisdiction by a provider headquartered in an Accord jurisdiction:

Accreditation of the program should be undertaken by a Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the program is headquartered.  Accreditation by other Accord Signatories may be undertaken at the request of the provider in collaboration with any Signatory of the headquarters jurisdiction that accredits the program.

·       Program offered within a non-Accord jurisdiction by a provider headquartered in a non-Accord jurisdiction:

Accreditation/recognition of the program may be undertaken by any Signatory as requested by the provider. 

·       Program offered within an Accord jurisdiction desiring accreditation/recognition by an Accord Signatory in another jurisdiction:

a.      Where the Accord Signatory in the program jurisdiction accredits the program type:

The program must first be accredited/recognized by an Accord Signatory in the program’s jurisdiction. Additional accreditation/recognition by other Signatories may be undertaken in collaboration with the jurisdiction Signatory by request of the provider and approval of the jurisdiction Signatory. Recognition under the Accord will be given only if the Signatory in the home jurisdiction also accredits that program.

b.      Where no Accord Signatory in the program jurisdiction accredits the program type:

The program does not need to be accredited by an Accord Signatory in the program’s jurisdiction. The program should be free to seek accreditation from any other Signatory that accredits that program type. 

·       If a program is accredited by an Accord Signatory outside the Signatory’s jurisdiction under a provision in 1-5 above, and b) during the period of accreditation the conditions of the provision change such that the conditions no longer apply, then the accreditation of the program and any recognition under the Accord will continue until the next scheduled review of the program.  At the time of the next scheduled review, the conditions that exist at that time will apply in determining the applicable procedures for accrediting the program and for recognizing the program under the Accord. 

·       Each signatory must include in its biennial report a list of all programs accredited/recognized outside its jurisdiction and an indication of which of these programs it intends to designate as recognized under the accord. 

a.      Any signatory may request that a program listed by a signatory as accredited/recognized outside the signatory’s jurisdiction and intended for recognition under the Accord be considered for recognition separately by all signatories.

b.      Recognition will be granted to all programs listed unless recognition is considered by the full Accord and fails to receive a vote of acceptance by 2/3 of all signatories.

An intent of the Seoul Accord is to foster cooperation among its Signatories.  For each of the defined exception cases, the Signatory undertaking accreditation outside its jurisdiction must observe the sovereignty of the jurisdiction in which the program is delivered, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements of that jurisdiction.
 

B.9. Programs Recognized Under the Accord

·       Each Signatory will designate its accredited/recognized programs within its jurisdiction to be recognized under the Accord.  This designation is subject to the requirements of 5.3 above and the associated Guidelines, and will be reviewed as part of the periodic Review process. 

·       Recognition of programs accredited outside the jurisdiction of a Signatory will be determined as specified in 8.7 above.

B.10. Secretariat

·       The Signatories shall appoint an organisation, normally affiliated with a Signatory, to provide a secretariat for the Accord.  (This organisation shall be referred to as the provider of secretariat services.)  Upon request by the provider of secretariat services or if desired by the Signatories, a new provider of secretariat services will be appointed. 

·       The Secretariat has no decision making power, but acts in the best interests of the Accord by faithfully implementing the Rules and Procedures and the Guidelines, including referring matters to the Chair or Committee for decision. 

·       The Secretariat must maintain a record of the deliberations and decisions at each Accord meeting, must facilitate and record exchanges of information between the Signatories, maintain a relevant website, and must seek to advise Signatories and others as to the policies and procedures to be adopted to give effect to the terms of the Accord. 

·       The Secretariat will be paid a fee for the provision of a schedule of services that may be agreed from time to time by a General Meeting of the Accord. 

·       The performance of the Secretariat will be monitored by the Committee to ensure that the Secretariat serves the Accord effectively and in good faith.

B.11. Contribution to Costs

·       The general principle that underpins the Accord is that Signatories, organisations holding Provisional status and those expressing interest in the Accord should be responsible for meeting their own costs of becoming involved, and then maintaining their involvement. 

·       Signatories are expected to make reasonable and equitable (taking into account the resources available to the Signatory and its size) contributions of staff or volunteer time, without charge, for participation in the affairs of the Accord including, but not limited to, participating in meetings, correspondence and submissions on issues, development of policies and procedures, and provision of people to undertake Review visits. 

·       Assessed on a long term basis, all Signatories and those holding Provisional status are expected to make fair contributions to the costs of operating a secretariat. 

·       Prospective and actual Signatories and those seeking or holding Provisional status are expected to meet the direct costs (e.g. travel, accommodation, meals) of those involved in processes required or recognised (e.g. mentoring and Reviews) under this Accord for gaining or maintaining either Signatory or Provisional status.  

·       Such costs shall be reimbursed via the organisations with whom the person is affiliated or, with the agreement of the organisation, directly to the person.   

·       Arrangements shall be made by the host acting in agreement with the person travelling. 

·       Normally the cost basis shall be that air travel may be by economy class except that flights exceeding 8 hours duration shall be by business class, and that accommodation shall be at least fully serviced 3 Star plus to 4 Star level. 

C.1 Computing and IT-related Programs Within the Scope of the Accord

Section D, Seoul Accord Graduate Attributes, describes the profile of graduates of the computing and IT-related programs within the scope of the Seoul Accord. The attributes document may be modified from time to time as deemed important according to the procedures for modifying Guidelines specified in the Rules and Procedures.

C.2 Applying for Provisional Status

C.2.1 Preliminary Steps Prior to Making Application

·       An applicant wishing to become a Signatory should first contact the Secretariat.

·       The Secretariat will provide the necessary documentation on procedures and will invite the applicant to provide preliminary documentation on its accreditation/recognition system.  The applicant will be informed that mentoring may be available.   (See 3.2.)

·       The Secretariat will provide the preliminary documentation to the Committee for evaluation.  If in their opinion it does not appear to be compatible with the Requirements, the Committee will advise the applicant that its system differs from the Requirements in certain fundamental respects (to be indicated) and determine whether the applicant wishes to undertake the major development work and pursue its application further when it believes the issues identified have been addressed.

·       If the documentation appears to the Committee to be compatible with the Requirements and, if it is the wish of the applicant, the Committee may assign a team of two or three Signatories to act as Mentors to assist the applicant in progressing towards Provisional status.

·       When the applicant chooses to proceed with its application for Provisional status, having worked or not with Mentors, it will request two of the existing Signatories to act as Nominators.  

·       When potential Nominators consider the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system approaches and has the potential to achieve the Requirements, they should inform the applicant that they are prepared to act as Nominators.

·       There is no obligation on applicants to ensure that all Signatories are familiar with the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system.  However, in addition to the Mentors up to three further Signatories should have had the opportunity to become familiar with the accreditation/recognition system prior to consideration of the application.

C.2.2 Documentation in Support of Applications

The applicant must meet all the requirements set out in the Rules and Procedures (Section B).  The documentation provided on the accreditation/recognition system should include the following sections:

     I.   ACCREDITING/RECOGNISING ORGANIZATION
; Provide the name of the organization. List the names of the officers of the organization with brief CVs. Define the applicable jurisdiction for the organization, and describe the affiliations of the organization with other computing and IT-related bodies, government, and industry within the jurisdiction.

II.         INTRODUCTION
; Provide general information about the jurisdiction and the context of computing and IT.

III.         EDUCATION
; Provide a description of primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Describe the nature of programmes, including admission standards. Provide the number and type of institutions offering computing and IT-related programmes. Indicate whether the institutions are public or private.

IV.         STRUCTURE OF THE COMPUTING AND IT-RELATED COMMUNITY
; Describe the context of computing and IT-related practice and the degree of regulation (i.e., registration or licensing). Describe if there is a protected title and scope of practice. Describe any differing categories of computing and IT-related practitioners and their academic requirements. Describe the relationship of the organization to licensing, registration, or certifying agencies, and the extent to which the organization can influence the acceptance of accreditations/recognition by those agencies.

V.         ROLE OF ACCREDITATION/RECOGNITION
; Describe the role of accreditation/recognition within the jurisdiction.  Given that accreditation is normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.

VI.         ACCREDITATION/RECOGNITION SYSTEM
; Describe the development of the accreditation/recognition system and its maturity. Provide a description of the accreditation/recognition board including its composition and authority. List the objectives of accreditation/recognition. Provide the criteria for accreditation/recognition (general, program specific; curriculum content – technical and non-technical; incorporation of practical experience; length of the program; naming of the program; faculty requirements). Provide details for conducting the accreditation/recognition evaluation and making the accreditation/recognition decision; include relevant documentation (initiation of visit; self-evaluation questionnaire; selection of evaluation team; organization of the visit; due process). Provide a list of currently accredited/recognised programs and a schedule of upcoming evaluations. Describe relationships with external computing and IT-related organizations including any agreements.
 

C.2.3 Guidelines to Assist in Evaluation of Applications

Assessing equivalence of professional preparation is a complex matter.  The experience of the existing Signatories is that an assessment based on documentation is only a first step – necessary but not sufficient.  Confidence can be achieved only through a detailed evaluation, including close interaction and planned visits to observe accreditation/recognition procedures.
 
In particular, it is difficult to define on paper the standard to which graduates must be able to exercise the required attributes.  The same words can embrace a wide range of standards.  Documentation can describe criteria and procedures; but standards can be reliably judged only by experienced people through live interaction.  Therefore applicants must give the opportunity for the Mentors, and some other Signatories, to be present at key decision points where the quality of student learning is evaluated against accreditation/recognition criteria.
 
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 in preparing graduates to enter a computing or IT-related profession. Therefore, the program must be offered at an appropriate tertiary-level institution.  The duration of academic formation will normally be at least sixteen years.
 
Accreditation/recognition systems should adhere to the following general characteristics:

·       The signatories to the Accord are authorities, agencies, or institutions that are representative of the computing and IT-related community and that have statutory powers or recognized professional authority for accrediting/recognition programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for professional computing and IT-related practice within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region).

·       Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programs within their jurisdiction and should also be free from influence or control over accreditation/recognition decisions by other organizations.

·       An accreditation/recognition system must be in place with well-documented accreditation/recognition procedures and practices. Accreditation/recognition of programmes is expected to conform to generally accepted principles such as:

a.      The system must operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity;

b.      The process must be transparent and consistent and the activities in relation to individual programs must be conductedin confidence;

c.      Those involved in the accreditation/recognition process must have access to knowledge and competence in matters related to computing and IT-related accreditation/recognition, computing and IT-related education and computing and IT-related practice.

d.      Accreditation/recognition is of individual programmes or of coordinated groups of programmes quality-assured as a whole.

e.      Evaluations of programs are conducted by peer reviewers and include a self-evaluation and site visit.

f.       The criteria for accreditation/recognition should include requirements for:

i.   a suitable environment to deliver the program;

ii.  adequate leadership for the program;

iii. suitably qualified computing and IT-related professionals teaching in the program;

iv. a curriculum providing a broad basis for computing and IT-related practice;

v.  appropriate entry and progression standards;

vi  adequate human, physical and financial resources to support the program.

g.      The process should include periodic re-evaluation to maintain accreditation/recognition status.

C.3 Mentoring

Accord members may provide support, advice, and guidance through voluntary mentoring to jurisdictions that are anticipating making formal application for Provisional or full member status to the Accord.

C.3.1 Consultants

Accreditation/recognition bodies sometimes contract the services of a consultant to provide them with support in the development of accreditation/recognition systems and qualification standards.  These consultants are paid a fee for their services and are not recognised as representatives of the Signatories of the Accord.  If a professional/ accreditation/recognition body chooses to contract the services of a consultant they must do so at their own risk.  If a Signatory is providing consultancy support to an accreditation/recognition body it must inform other Signatories so as to declare any pecuniary interest.

C.3.2 Mentoring provided by individual Signatories

Accreditation/recognition bodies may approach Signatories directly to request support through a mentoring arrangement. If Signatories accept this request then they must inform the Secretariat so that other Signatories are made aware of the mentoring arrangement. The Accord, as a whole, cannot be responsible for the quality of advice and support provided through such a mentoring arrangement. 

C.4  Applying to Become a Signatory 

·       During the period of Provisional status, it shall be open to all Signatories to visit the applicant at their own cost, but this is not a requirement nor part of the Review process. 

·       As stated in Section 2.2 of the Rules and Procedures, when the applicant requests, the Committee will assign three Signatories as Reviewers to examine and report on the applicant system and to recommend to the Signatories, when they are satisfied that the requirements for becoming a Signatory are met.   The qualifications of the Reviewers are the same as for a Review of a Signatory, and are given in Section C.5 below. 

·       The Reviewers will normally evaluate the systems of the applicant in a similar fashion to that stipulated as Procedure A for the conduct of a periodic Review visit of an existing Signatory.  However, the Review process may be modified as appropriate for applicants that can document an evaluation by an external body that meets the expectations of the Accord Reviewers.  Such modification will normally be limited to applicants that are Signatories of similar accords. 

·       In addition to the criteria set out in Procedure A, the Reviewers must consider whether

a.      the accreditation/recognition system is well established (normally with at least one program having gone through a full accreditation/recognition cycle and being re-evaluated) and 

b.      a substantial proportion of its programmes offered have been evaluated under the system as described.  

c.      organisations holding Provisional status may seek guidance from their Mentors (if any) and the Committee as to how soon during their granted period of Provisional status they might apply for Review.  

·       The Reviewers must ensure that they observe visits to a representative cross-section of institutions, and also observe the accreditation/recognition process for a range of decisions, unless there is documentation of such observation by an appropriate external body, such as Reviewers from a similar accord, providing sufficient information for a recommendation by the Reviewers. 

·       The expected characteristics of an accreditation/recognition system and criteria for accreditation/recognition, including the attributes expected of computing and IT-related graduates, are set earlier in Section C. If an applicant’s system appears on paper to be Substantially Equivalent to those of the Accord, tests of the system in operation might then be:

a.      Is the accreditation/recognition system similar in methods and means of delivery to the systems of other Signatories?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      Has a clear definition of academic quality in the context of its mission.

2.      Is non-governmental.

3.      Accredits/recognises programs at institutions that have legal authority to confer higher educational degrees/qualifications.

4.      Has official, written policies and procedures that are available to the institutions and to the public.

5.      Has a process that includes a self-evaluation by the institution and the program seeking accreditation/recognition.

6.      Has an on-site review by a visiting team comprised of peers.

7.      Demonstrates independence from any parent organization or entity in its policy-setting and decision-making process.

8.      Requires a periodic review of accredited/recognised programs.

9.      Publishes or makes available to the public a list of accredited/recognised programs.  

b.      Is there a clearly defined and published scope of activity for the organisation?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      What degree programs/qualifications are recognized (undergraduate, graduate)?

2.      Are there geographic bounds?

3.      What disciplines (computing, engineering, etc.) and computing and IT-related sub-disciplines (computer science, information systems, information systems, informatics, etc.) are recognized?  

c.      Does the organisation demonstrate the use of appropriate and fair procedures in decision making?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      Is the organisation subject to interference from professional organisations, societies, special interest groups or government?

2.      Within the accrediting/recognising organization, is there a separation of those who establish accreditation/recognition policy and those who make accreditation/recognition decisions?

3.      Has written standards, criteria, policies and procedures for the evaluation of programs.

                   i.         Are these publicly available?

                  ii.         Is there a process for public comment or review?

4.      Accreditation visits are conducted in accordance with the documentation.

5.      Applies standards and criteria in a consistent and fair manner from institution to institution, program to program and year to year.

6.      Provides a written report to the institution that clearly distinguishes between actions required for accreditation/recognition and actions recommended for academic program improvement.

7.      Visit reports provide sufficient detail for the accreditation/recognition board (or equivalent) to make informed decisions whether or not to accredit particular programs, or to impose conditions.

8.      The board demonstrates a capacity to make difficult decisions in a way likely to be beneficial to the computing and IT-related community in the longer term.

9.      Has a process for appealing adverse accreditation/recognition decisions.

10.   Has a clear conflict of interest policy for all involved in the accreditation/recognition process including visiting teams, accreditation/recognition decision-makers and policy-makers.

11.   Are the procedures capable of addressing unusual circumstances in a perceptive way, and is this illustrated in practice?

d.      Does the organisation have the capacity to conduct accreditation/recognition activities on an ongoing basis?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      Has sufficient staff and financial resources to conduct and sustain an effective accrediting/recognising process.

                   i.         How is the organisation financed?

                  ii.         What is the outlook for financial viability?

2.      Has an effective process for the recruitment, selection, training & evaluation of program evaluators/visitors.

                   i.         How are evaluators selected?

                  ii.         Are there written training materials?

                 iii.         What is process for evaluation?

                 iv.         Does the visiting team pool include computing and IT-related practitioners as well academicians?

3.      Conducts periodic self-review to improve its standards, criteria, policies and procedures.

e.      Does the operating documentation focus attention on the fundamental criteria for accreditation/recognition?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      The required graduate attributes are documented in a way that is clearly evident to the educational provider concerned, and the required attributes are Substantially Equivalent to the Accord exemplar.

2.      The criteria translate into procedures that evaluate in depth the outcomes of each program and how they are assured.

f.       Ultimately, as an overarching test, is the outcome standard, as evaluated by existing Signatories during live observation and interaction, consistent with that represented by the Accord?

C5. Reviews

C.5.1 Procedure A: Normal Review

·       Review teams must embody a range of expertise and should include at least one academic and one industrial representative. According to the Accord Rules and Procedures, the Committee must select at least three members for the Review Team and normally at least two team members will physically take part in visits.

·       In selecting the Review Team, the Committee as well as the Secretariat must be cognisant of any activities that may impede individuals from participating due to conflict of interest.

·       The chair of the Review Team must be appointed by the Committee at the time of notification of the team composition.

·       Confirmation of substantial equivalency should be based on visits to at least two educational providers including a total of at least two programs relevant to the Accord undergoing evaluation. The programs should be representative of the diversity among program types and educational provider characteristics when practical. In addition, at least one team member shall observe a meeting of the accreditation/recognition board or other body responsible for final accreditation/recognition actions.

·       Design of a typical visit: In order to make most efficient use of time and to ensure timely production of the report, the following procedures should be adopted:

a.      A copy of the most recent Review report will be made available to the Review team. 

b.      Prior to the first visit, the review team should review data, determine aspects to be examined in more detail, outline the report structure, allocate individual team member responsibilities and communicate with the host Signatory to obtain background information and clarify the accreditation/recognition systems and the visit programme. 

c.      The visit or visits accompanying the accreditation/recognition panels shall take place in accordance with the protocols in 5.1.6 below.

d.      A post-visit team review to structure the report and if possible prepare it in outline.

e.      The review team should visit the headquarters office of the agency administering the computing and IT-related accreditation/recognition process.

·       In general the protocols to be observed by the review team during the visit should be:

a.      The team members should be non-participatory observers.

b.      The team members should refrain from making comments on the procedures or outcomes during the visits and only comment to the accreditation/recognition panel when requested to do so, after visits have been concluded and the intended recommendations made known to the universities concerned.

c.      Where appropriate and necessary and in order to achieve complete coverage the team may split to accompany accreditation/recognition sub-panels according to the individual specialization of the team members.

d.      The team members may participate in the discussions with students as their questions in these forums may assist the team to understand the educational culture and student perceptions. This is judged to not unduly influence the accreditation/recognition process.

e.      A draft team report must be submitted to the accreditation/recognition agency being reviewed to ensure correctness as to matters of fact.

C.5.2 Procedure B: Continuous Review

·       The Committee will nominate the Signatories from which Accord Review Teams (ARTs) may be drawn.

·       For each of not less than two accreditation visits within a five-year period, the Signatory being reviewed will indicate to the Secretariat that it wishes an Accord Review Team (ART) to be formed for that visit.

·       The ART will be formed by the Committee and Signatory being reviewed jointly, ensuring that a proportion of accreditation visit panel members but not less than one per visit must be from the panel set up for this purpose.  The Committee will designate one of the ART as the team leader.

·       The Signatory being reviewed must ensure that at least one member of the ART, in the last two years of the period, meets with the accreditation/recognition agency, reviews the accreditation/recognition procedures with the agency and observes an accreditation/recognition board decision meeting.

·       At least fifteen months prior to the end of the six-year period the Secretariat will circulate all Review Reports from the previous five-year period to all Signatories.

·       If no objections to the acceptability of the Review Reports as sufficiently demonstrating equivalence are received by the Secretariat twelve months prior to the end of the Review period, the accreditation/recognition procedures and practices of the subject organisation shall be deemed to comply and the Review is complete.  The process will then restart in the next six year Review period should Procedure B continue to apply.

C.5.3 General protocols applying to both procedures

·       Protocols to be observed for non English speaking organisations where the review team members are not fluent in the language of the jurisdiction being reviewed:

a.      English translations shall be provided of the key parts of the pre-visit documents for each visit that is to be observed and must include sufficient information for the observers to become familiar with the observed institutions, programs, and visiting teams.

b.      For Procedure A: Normal Review, a single translator at each visited program shall be provided.  The selection of translators is an important issue.  The accreditation/recognition organization being observed should be responsible for that selection, but should select individuals who, in addition to having good language skills and a knowledge of the accreditation/recognition process, agree to hold a neutral position with regard to the observation process.

c.      When multiple programs are to be observed at the same institution, it is recommended that the review team members remain with their translator, but that they time-share their participation among the multiple visiting panels.

d.      For Procedure B: Continuous Review, translators must be provided for each panel on which there is an international Reviewer.

·       At the conclusion of a visit to a given Signatory, the review team shall prepare a report with recommendations for the Secretariat that, in turn, shall be distributed to the other Signatories.  For Procedure A in all cases, and in Procedure B in cases when an Overall Review Team was appointed, the report shall be submitted no less than 90 days prior to the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord Signatories.

·       The Final Report shall include:

a.      An executive summary outlining major system characteristics and citing recommended action with the appropriate action statement. 

b.      An overall introduction to the accreditation/recognition system under Review and its standards.

c.      Information on accreditation/recognition policies/procedures and criteria for the system under Review, including a comprehensive analysis of how the accreditation/recognition process addresses marginal, difficult conditional actions.

d.      A brief description of the educational provider and a listing of the programmes and results in order set the context for the Review.

e.      Information on the conformity of the system with its own published accreditation/recognition policies and procedures.

f.       Indications of any stated or observed substantial change to the accreditation/recognition criteria, policies or procedures of the system under Review and the rationale for the change.

g.      A statement as to whether the standard of the graduates of accredited/recognised programs are Substantially Equivalent to graduates of other Accord Signatories in preparation for a computing or IT-related profession.

h.      Any statement of weakness or deficiency.  A weakness indicates that the accreditation/recognition system is satisfactory but lacks the robustness that assures that the quality of the system will not be compromised prior to the next general Review.  A deficiency indicates that the processes, policies and procedures for granting accreditation/recognition to programmes have been examined and found not to be Substantially Equivalent to comparable practices of other Signatories that assess the quality of programmes.  This action changes the Signatory's status to that of conditional as defined in Part 1 of Section B.

i.       Recommended action to the Accord Signatories in accordance with Part 3.6 of the Rules and Procedures.

·       Review reports may be not be communicated to any Signatory except through the Secretariat except that the draft reports may be submitted by the Reviewers to their home organisations for the purposes of quality assurance and advice and to the agency being reviewed, but solely to ensure factual accuracy.

·       In Procedure B, the ORT Report shall additionally focus on the remedial actions taken by the Signatory to address the deficiencies or weaknesses cited by the earlier Accord Review Teams and shall be submitted to the Secretariat.

·       Conditional status of a Signatory means that: the Signatory must upgrade its policies and procedures to meet the Accord requirements within a specified period.

a.      the Review report will specify what further report or visit will be required to confirm the satisfactory upgrading of policies and procedures.

b.      these reports shall be received before the end of the defined period.

c.      graduates who complete academic degrees during the period of conditional status will not be recognized.

d.      the status as a Signatory will be revoked unless the upgrading requirements are met.

·       Costs of Reviews

a.      The direct costs of Reviews, either under Procedure A or Procedure B will be borne by the Signatory under Review. Such costs will include travel costs of Reviewers, preparation of Review documents by the Signatories and other associated costs. Further, these direct costs will be governed by the policies, procedures and practices of the Signatory under Review. A signatory may send observers on a review visit with the agreement of the reviewed signatory and the review team provided that all costs for the observer’s participation are borne by the observer or observer’s signatory.     

C.5.4 Qualifications of a Reviewer

·       The following would normally be requirements for a Reviewer nominated by a Signatory:

a.      Thorough knowledge of, and experience in, the current practices and procedures for evaluating whether a program satisfies the nominating Signatory’s requirements for accreditation. This would normally include service as a member of at least three review teams (or panels) for programs that are relevant to the scope of the Seoul Accord, with service that is sufficiently recent to provide currency and with some experience as chair of a review team.

b.      Thorough knowledge of, and experience in, the nominating Signatory’s procedures for determining accreditation actions on programs that are relevant to the scope of the Seoul Accord. This would normally include the equivalent of service for at least two years on the nominating Signatory’s unit (board, commission, etc.) that makes accreditation decisions based on the reports from review teams.

c.      Knowledge and understanding of the processes and support needed by an accreditation organization to manage and conduct accreditation procedures for programs that are relevant to the scope of the Seoul Accord.

d.      An understanding that effective educational preparation for entry into a computing and IT-related profession can be provided in many different ways. Specifically, it is important to recognize that appropriate characteristics for professional preparation may be affected by such things as 

1. the qualifications and preparation of students who begin the educational preparation,

2. the cultural context in which the educational preparation is provided,

3. the objectives of the educational preparation.

e.      Fluency in written and spoken English, and the ability to use word processing software, email, etc. in preparing and reviewing reports and in communicating with review team members and contacts at the reviewed organization.

The nominating Signatory should interpret the intent of requirements a, b, and c as appropriate within the nominating Signatory’s context.

·       Desirable Requirements for Nominated Reviewers

Depending on the Reviewer’s home country and the country of the organization to be reviewed, the following may be desirable additional characteristics for a nominating Signatory to consider:

a.      Experience visiting, and interacting with colleagues from, countries other than the Reviewer’s home country.

b.      An understanding of the validity of cultural differences and the importance of conducting professional education in a way that is appropriate to its cultural context.

c.      The advantages of having some ability in the native language of the reviewed organization’s country.

·       Reviewers nominated by a Signatory must normally complete any required training that has been established by the Accord in order to qualify for service on a review team.

C.6 Fulfillment of Accord Obligations

C.6.1  Biennial Reporting by Signatories

·       The Accord places obligations on Signatories, including that Signatories will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing members to practice in its jurisdiction accept the equivalence of programs accredited by the Signatories to the Accord.

·       Accordingly, at each biennial General Meeting of the Accord, each Signatory is required to submit a written report on fulfillment of its obligations. This report must be submitted to the Secretariat at least 90 days prior to the meeting. The report shall include:

a.      Updated contact information

b.      Updated key personnel

c.      Updated accreditation/recognition information

            i.     Any changes in the scope of accreditation/recognition

           ii.     Changes in accreditation/recognition standards/criteria

          iii.     Number of currently accredited/recognised programs recognized under the Accord

         iv.     Overview of the accreditation/recognition visit programme – frequency of visits and scope of programme for the next six years

d.      Any recent major activities

e.      Any changes in operating environment

f.       Updated statement of fulfillment of Signatory obligations to other Signatories

            i.     Any changes in the structure of the licensing/registration/regulatory system for provision of computing and IT-related services within the jurisdiction of the Signatory

           ii.     Changes in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies 

          iii.     Changes in the relationship of the Signatory with the relevant licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies 

         iv.     Credit given to graduates of programmes accredited/recognised by the Signatory in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

          v.     Credit given to graduates of other Accord Signatories in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

         vi.     A copy of a statement that can be widely publicised by other Signatories stating the level of recognition that the relevant licensing/registration/regulatory/ membership bodies are presently providing to graduates of programmes of other Signatories

g.      The experiences of graduates of programmes accredited by the Signatory in seeking recognition of their computing and IT-related education within the jurisdictions of other Signatories.

h.      A list of all programs accredited/recognized outside the Signatory’s jurisdiction since the previous report, and an indication of which of those programs the Signatory intends to designate as recognized under the Accord.    

C.6.2 Biennial Reporting by Organizations Holding Provisional Status

·       At each biennial General Meeting of the Accord, organizations holding Provisional status are required to submit a written report. This report must be submitted to the Secretariat 90 days prior to the meeting. The report shall include:

a.      Updated contact information

b.      Updated key personnel

c.      Updated accreditation/recognition information

            i.     Any changes in the scope of accreditation/recognition

           ii.     Changes in accreditation/recognition standards/criteria

          iii.     Number of currently accredited/recognised programs (as of 30 June in the year of the General Meeting)

         iv.     Number of other accredited programs to which Accord recognition does not apply 

          v.     Overview of the accreditation/recognition visit programme – frequency of visits and scope of programme for the next six years (comprehensive and provisional accreditation/recognition)

d.      Any recent major activities

e.      Any changes in operating environment

f.       Updated statement on the potential ability to fulfil obligations to Signatories if admission as a Signatory was to occur in the future:

            i.     Any changes in the structure of the licensing/registration/regulatory system for provision of computing and IT-related services within the jurisdiction of the Signatory

           ii.     Changes in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies

          iii.     Changes in the relationship of the Signatory with the relevant licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies

         iv.     Credit given to graduates of programmes accredited/recognised by the Signatory in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

          v.     Credit already given to graduates of Accord Signatories within the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

C.6.3  Review of Biennial Reports

·       Biennial reports will be distributed by the Secretariat to Accord members promptly and prior to the General Meeting.

·       Any Signatory may raise questions or concerns about any Biennial report within 60 days of the report being distributed by the Secretariat.

·       The Signatory submitting the report in question will have 30 days to respond to these questions or concerns via the Secretariat

·       Any Signatory member not satisfied with the response may request the matter to be brought forward at the next Accord General Meeting. Such requests must have a second. This process does not preclude the provisions of B.5.1.3.

C.6.4  Listing of Programs

·         Introductory information on the Accord should be clearly accessible. The introduction should, at a minimum:

a.      introduce the Accord and its purpose,

b.      include a link to the Accord web page,

c.      advise the date from which the host jurisdiction became a Signatory to the Accord,

d.      explain the obligations of other Signatory jurisdictions to recognise graduates from accredited programmes, taking account of key dates.

e.      The following generic introductory statement is provided and Signatories are encouraged to adapt it to their own situation:

Programmes listed below have been accredited by [host Signatory organisation] and are recognised as meeting the initial academic requirements for [computing roles] in [country/jurisdiction/territory]. International recognition of these programmes is provided through the Seoul Accord, which was established in 2008. 
Signatories to the Seoul Accord have undertaken to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing [computing role] to practise in its country or territory mutually recognise the substantial academic equivalence of computing academic programmes accredited by other Accord Signatories.
[Host Signatory organisation] became a Signatory to the Seoul Accord in [year] and other Signatories are under no formal obligation to recognise the graduates of accredited programmes prior to tha year. Individual Accord Signatories recognise [host Signatory organisation] accredited programmes prior to [year] at their own discretion.
Further details about the Seoul Accord and details of all current Signatories with links to their web sites can be found at: www.seoulaccord.org.

·       The introductory information should also include any interpretive statements necessary to explain terminology and assist in interpretation (see below).

·       It is essential that users of the listing can readily identify programmes that are accredited by the Signatory body within its jurisdiction, and can differentiate programmes that are recognised under a particular accord from those that are not.

·       Listings of accredited programmes should be maintained in discrete listings, discrete sections, or in a combined listing that enables searching by accord.

·       Users also need sufficient certainty over whether programmes of study that may be differentiated in some way are covered by the scope of accreditation. Examples of this may be:

a.      programmes offered at multiple campuses within the jurisdiction,

b.      programmes offered within the jurisdiction and at campuses external to the jurisdiction,

c.      programmes offered in multiple delivery modes,

d.      programmes that may be awarded both with and without honours or other distinguishing designation.

·       In general terms, Signatories are encouraged to list accredited programmes at the level of differentiation shown on the graduate’s qualification documents.

·       Where programmes offered by the same provider at different campuses within the accreditation jurisdiction are not differentiated on the qualification documents and are accredited on the basis that all pathways to award of the qualification have been assessed and accredited, a single listing for the provider would typically be shown. 

·       Where multiple pathways to the award of a programme qualification exist and are covered under the scope of a single undifferentiated accreditation, a general clarifying statement to this effect should be provided. The following generic wording is suggested for adaptation by Signatories to the specific jurisdiction:

Unless explicitly stated, accreditation, and recognition under the Seoul Accord, extends to the award of listed programmes based on delivery across any {jurisdiction/country name] campus operated by the provider or in any delivery mode through which the programme is offered.

·       Where programmes offered by the same provider at different campuses are differentiated on the qualification documents and can be accredited on an individual basis, separate listings of accreditations by campus would typically appear.

·       Where multiple pathways to the award of a qualification exist (i.e. multiple campuses or modes of delivery) and some pathways have not been accredited, then accredited pathways must be explicitly stated on the accreditation listing and there must be sufficient differentiation on the qualification documents to enable proper interpretation by the user.

·       The first date from which accreditation applies to graduates should be clearly stated. The listing should provide clarity over whether the dates relate to the year of programme enrolment, completion or graduation.

C.6.5  Issue Resolution

·       In cases where it comes to the attention of a particular Signatory that graduates of programmes accredited by that Signatory have not been accorded the same level of recognition by a licensing/registration/regulatory/membership body within a jurisdiction as graduates from programmes accredited/recognised by the Signatory within that jurisdiction then the Signatory concerned must notify the Signatory responsible for the jurisdiction within which the lack of recognition has occurred, and request the latter to undertake actions to resolve the issue.

·       If, in the view of the aggrieved Signatory, reasonable opportunity has been given but the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved, then the aggrieved Signatory may request an issue resolution session, open only to Signatories, where issues on implementation of the Accord can be raised in a solution-focused environment. Prior to an issue being accepted for discussion, it must be demonstrated via a formal written report that substantive discussions leading up to the meeting were undertaken but issues were not able to be resolved. Both individual cases and trends or systemic issues may be raised.

·       Requests for an issue resolution session, with supporting documentation, shall be submitted to the Committee at least 60 days prior to an Accord meeting, and the Committee, after communicating with both Signatories concerned must make a decision as to whether to proceed to hold the session at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The Secretariat shall circulate the notice of the session and the relevant documentation immediately after the Committee has decided to schedule the issue resolution session. In instances where the Signatory is not the licensing or registration body, the Signatory is expected to provide evidence of procedures and processes that it has undertaken to encourage full implementation of the Accord in their jurisdiction.

·       If a number of Signatories can provide substantive evidence of failure of a Signatory to meet its Accord obligations, they may choose to invoke the provisions under Rule 4.3 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory.        

C.7 Principles of Good Practice for Accord Signatories Working Internationally

These principles are intended to provide a generally accepted framework for undertaking reviews in jurisdictions where there is no organisation that is a Signatory of the Accord. They are intended to strengthen the international stature of the Accord Agreement, strengthen the working relationship among Accord Signatories and international quality assurance agencies, and encourage and enhance ongoing cooperation and communication.
 
Principle 1. Considerations for Accord Signatories When Determining to Undertake Quality Assurance Evaluations in another Jurisdiction covered by no member of the Accord
 
Accord Signatories will:

·       Affirm their organizational capacity to undertake a review (e.g., language, trained staff and evaluators, budget, experience, basic information about the jurisdiction); 

·       Clarify the relationship of international review activity to the priorities of the accrediting organization; 

·       Communicate with other Accord Signatories about international review activity; 

·       Promulgate a clear statement of the scope of the evaluation and the use of the recognition status by an institution or program in another jurisdiction, especially with regard to transfer of credit and degree and qualifications equivalency; 

·       Assure clear understanding of the relationship of the review to any international agreements that address quality assurance.

Principle 2. Expectations for Conduct of Evaluation Reviews Abroad
 
Accord Signatories will:

·       Inform jurisdiction quality assurance agencies in jurisdictions where reviews are undertaken and, where appropriate, seek information, guidance, and concurrence from these agencies; 

·       Communicate with rectors and other college and university officials at institutions where they are conducting reviews; 

·       Assure that staff and evaluators are adequately informed about higher education and quality assurance in the jurisdictions in which they are conducting reviews to preclude the appearance of cultural insensitivity; 

·       Communicate fully and clearly about costs and currencies associated with a review.

Principle 3. Quality Assurance of Online and Web-based Instruction and programs
 
Accord Signatories will:  

·       Work as closely as possible with their institutional and programmatic exporters of online and web-based education to assure quality as offerings are made available in a variety of jurisdictions, especially when the offerings involve instructional strategies that are unfamiliar to the host jurisdiction; 

·       Urge that these exporters review language, literacy and study skills levels of the target audience for these offerings, preparing separate or supplemental material to meet special needs if appropriate.

Principle 4. Responsibilities to Students and Colleagues 
 
Accord Signatories will:

·       Work with the appropriate agencies in non-Signatory jurisdictions to provide the most comprehensive and accurate information available about educational services and programs to avoid the export of diplomas of questionable quality offered for a fee; 

·       Develop, in coordination with international colleagues, the appropriate protocol to assist non-Signatory jurisdictions in reviewing educational imports from questionable provenance

D.1 Introduction

The role of professionals who innovate, design, implement and maintain computers, computing systems, and computing applications has become essential to both the economic development of, and the provision of services to, society. Typical computing activities require several roles that are named and recognized in different ways in many jurisdictions.¹  These roles, with a degree of overlap among them, are defined by their respective distinctive competencies.

The development of a computing professional is a continuous learning process. The first stage may be the attainment of an accredited educational qualification, the graduate stage. The second stage, following a period of training and experience, may lead to professional registration, licensure, or some other professional recognition, depending on the country or jurisdiction. In addition, computing professionals are expected to engage in life-long learning in order to maintain and enhance competency throughout their working lives.

Because of the universally essential nature of computer applications and the mobility of professionals across jurisdictional boundaries due to globalization, there is a real need to identify academic programs that adequately prepare graduates for entry into a computing profession based on generally recognized knowledge and abilities across country and other jurisdictional boundaries. Toward this end, the Seoul Accord is established as a mechanism for recognizing the equivalence of accredited educational qualifications in the development of computing professionals. The Seoul Accord provides for mutual recognition of graduates of accredited programs²  among the signatories of the accord. This accord is based on the principle of equivalence of educational preparation for entry to a computing profession, rather than on exact correspondence of content and outcomes of accredited programs. This document, Seoul Accord Graduate Attributes (SAGA), presents the accord signatories’ consensus on the generally-accepted attributes of graduates for programs included in the accord.

Section 2 of this document provides background, scope, limitations, and the contextual interpretation for the graduate attributes (presented in Section 5). Section 3 provides a number of definitions that form a common basis for understanding the general applicability of the attributes. General range statements are presented in Section 4, and the graduate attributes themselves are provided in Section 5.
 

D.2 Background for the Graduate Attributes

D.2.1 Purpose of Graduate Attributes

The graduate attributes are intended to define the scope and standards for programs that are recognized by the Seoul Accord, as well as to assist accord signatories and provisional members in developing outcomes-based accreditation criteria for use in their respective jurisdictions. Also, the graduate attributes guide bodies that are currently developing their accreditation systems with a goal of seeking to become signatories of the accord.

Graduate attributes form a set of individually-assessable outcomes that are indicative of a graduate's potential competency. The graduate attributes are exemplars of the attributes expected of a graduate from an accredited program. Each attribute is a succinct statement of an expected capability, qualified, if necessary, by a range indication appropriate to the type of program. The attributes identify the characteristics of graduates of all computing programs that fall within the scope of the Seoul Accord. A signatory may identify additional attributes that differentiate specific programs accredited by the signatory.

D.2.2 Limitation of Graduate Attributes

Each signatory defines the criteria against which computing educational programs are evaluated for accreditation. The accord is based on the principle of substantially equivalent qualification. That is, programs are not expected to have identical outcomes or content, but rather are expected to produce graduates who are prepared to enter professional careers in computing. The graduate attributes provide a point of reference for accreditation bodies to describe the outcomes of a substantially equivalent qualification. The graduate attributes do not represent “international standards” for accreditation.

D.2.3 Scope and Organization of Graduate Attributes

In defining the attributes, it is useful to distinguish among various types of post-secondary educational preparation. In conformance with corresponding terminologies employed by the International Educational Accords³ , the graduate attributes contrast the differences among the educational preparation for what will be called the computing professional, the computing technologist, and the computing technician. Each of these categories is unique in the range of problem solving skills and professional competency, and the categories are generally typified by successively less formal educational requirements. For each attribute name, characteristics or abilities relative to the attribute that should be obtained through formal education or training are listed for each of the roles of computing professional, computing technologist, and computing technician. The scope of the Seoul Accord encompasses only those academic programs that are accredited by accord signatories as preparing graduates for roles as computing professionals.

Each of the attribute statements is formulated for the professional, technologist, and technician using a common stem, with varying additions appropriate to each educational track. For example, for the Knowledge for Solving Computing Problemsattribute:

Common Stem: Apply knowledge of computing fundamentals, knowledge of a computing specialization, and mathematics, science, and domain knowledge appropriate for the computing specialization …

Computing Professional Range: … to the abstraction and conceptualization of computing models from defined problems and requirements.
Computing Technologist Range: … to defined and applied computing procedures, processes, systems, or methodologies.
Computing Technician Range: … to a wide variety of practical procedures and practices.

The resulting statements are shown below for this example:

The range qualifier in several attribute statements uses the notions of complex computing problems, broadly-defined computing problems, and well-defined computing problems or the notions of complex activities, broadly-defined activities, and well-defined activities. These designators for different levels of problem complexity and professional activity are defined in Section 4, and the full set of graduate attribute definitions is given in Section 5.

D.2.4 Contextual Interpretation

The graduate attributes are stated generically and are applicable to all computing disciplines. In interpreting the statements within a disciplinary context, each individual statement may be amplified and given particular emphasis, but in doing so its substance must not be altered and its individual elements must not be ignored.

D.3 Definitions Associated with the Graduate Attributes

The practice area of a computing professional, computing technologist, or computing technician is defined both by the area of computing knowledge and skills, and by the nature of the activities performed.

A computing problem in any domain is one that can be solved by the application of computing knowledge, skills, and generic competencies.

Solution means an effective proposal for resolving a problem, taking into account all relevant technical, legal, social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues and respecting the need for sustainability.

D.4 Common Range and Contextual Definitions Associated with the Graduate Attributes

D.4.1 Range of Problem Solving

D.4.2 Range of Computing Activities

D.5 Graduate Attributes

The following table provides profiles of graduates of three types of postsecondary educational computing programs. See Section 4 for definitions of complex, broadly-defined, and well-defined computing problems and activities. Note that the Seoul Accord applies only to the Computing Professional graduate, and that the columns for Computing Technologist and Computing Technician are included for comparative and clarification purposes only.

D.6 Conclusion

Judgments on the standards of academic qualifications are often subjective. Only in the formal accreditation process is evidence judged against defined criteria. These criteria have become increasingly aligned through international accords, driven by globalisation of computing practice and the accompanying mobility of computing graduates and professionals. The Graduate Attributes listed here comprise a definition by the Seoul Accord of a set of outcomes that typify potential competency and performance on the part of graduates of computing programs within the scope of the accord. The Graduate Attributes will undoubtedly be refined as the computing discipline and the criteria of the accord signatories evolve.

D.7 Acknowledgement

This document is an adaptation of a similar document that is used by the Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, and Dublin Accord for engineering, engineering technology, and engineering technician, respectively (see http://www.washingtonaccord.org/). The work of the developers of the engineering attributes is gratefully acknowledged as the basis for this document.

The term computing is used in this document as a discipline in a broad sense, and it includes many other general terms such as informatics, computing and IT-related, and information and communication technology that may be used elsewhere. It is recognized that different terminology is used in different countries, and that specific titles or designations may have differing legal empowerment or restrictions within individual jurisdictions.

The term program is used in this document to indicate the academic qualification that prepares a graduate for entry into a computing profession. Other terms for the same thing, such as course, may be used in some educational systems.

The International Educational Accords are comprised of the Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, and Dublin Accord (see http://www.washingtonaccord.org/)

A.1  Seoul Accord Guiding Principles

·       The Accord is based on mutual respect for the autonomy of its signatories.

·       There will be transparency to the accreditation systems of the signatories and to the educational systems to which the accreditation systems are oriented.

·       The signatories will be autonomous and free from governmental or other external influence on the accreditation processes.

·       The Accord should avoid any perception that it is arbitrary and capricious in its practices and policies, including admitting members and applying rules of membership.

·       The Accord should work to become recognized as the international authority on quality assurance for education in the computing and IT-related professions.

·       The Accord will promote and develop best practices for the improvement of education in computing and IT-related disciplines.

·       The Accord should continually review its policies and procedures to ensure that they are relevant and reliable indicators of the future of computing and IT-related technologies.

·       The members of the Accord will be accreditation agencies, not countries.

A.2  Seoul Accord Agreement

Recognition of Equivalency of Accredited Academic Programs Leading to a Degree in a Computing or IT-related Discipline

The signatories have exchanged information on, and have examined, their respective processes, policies and procedures for   granting accreditation to academic computing and IT-related programs, and have concluded that these are comparable. Through the Seoul Accord, which comprises this Agreement, the Rules and Procedures and the Graduate Attributes, the signatories recognise the equivalence of such programs in satisfying the academic requirements for preparation to enter computing or IT-related practice at the professional level.

·       Accreditation of academic computing and IT-related programs is a key foundation for the practice of a computing or IT-related discipline at the professional level in each of the countries or territories covered by the Accord.  The signatories therefore agree:

a. that the criteria, policies, and procedures used by the signatories in accrediting academic computing and IT-related

    programs are comparable;
b. that the accreditation decisions rendered by one signatory are acceptable to the other signatories, and that those

    signatories will so indicate by publishing statements to that effect in an appropriate manner;
c. to identify, and to encourage the implementation of, best practice, as agreed from time to time amongst the signatories,

    for academic preparation for computing and IT-related practice at the professional level;
d. to continue mutual monitoring and information exchange by whatever means are considered most appropriate, including:

i.   regular communication and sharing of information concerning their accreditation criteria, systems, procedures,
ii.  manuals, publications and lists of accredited programs;
iii. invitations to observe accreditation visits;
iv. invitations to observe meetings of any boards and/or commissions responsible for implementing key aspects of the
v.  accreditation process, and meetings of the governing bodies of the signatories.

·       Each signatory will make every reasonable effort to ensure that any bodies responsible for registering or licensing computing and IT-related professionals to practice in its country or territory accept the equivalence of academic computing and IT-related programs accredited by the signatories to this agreement.

·       The admission of new signatories to the Accord will require the approval of the existing signatories according to procedures specified in the Rules and Procedures of the Accord, and will be preceded by a prescribed period of provisional status, during which the accreditation criteria and procedures established by the applicant, and the manner in which those procedures and criteria are implemented, will be subject to comprehensive examination.

·       Appropriate Rules and Procedures for the Accord will be established by the signatories to ensure that this Agreement can be implemented in a satisfactory and expeditious manner.

·       There shall be general meetings of the representatives of the signatories, as specified in the Rules and Procedures, to review the Rules and Procedures and other documents relative to the Accord, effect such amendments as may be considered necessary to the documents, deal with applications for provisional status and for admission, and consider other matters relative to effective operation of the Accord in achieving its objectives.

·       The administration of the Accord will be facilitated by a secretariat established and operated in accordance with the Rules and Procedures made under the provisions of this Agreement.

·       Any signatory wishing to withdraw from the Accord must give at least one year's notice to the secretariat. Removal of any signatory may occur only as specified in the Rules of Procedure.

·       The Accord will remain in effect for so long as it is acceptable and desirable to the signatories.

B.1 Definitions

The following definitions of terms apply within these Foundation Documents.  These definitions apply to the operational purposes of the Accord as specified in these documents, and no meaning within another context is intended.

Applicant: An organisation that has applied for provisional status within the Accord. Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the academic institutions delivering programs that may be accredited by the organization.

Committee: The Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Accord acting as a managing committee of the Accord.  In these roles the office-holder acts for the Accord and cannot represent a Signatory of the Accord.
 
Conditional status:  The status to which a Signatory organisation is downgraded if, as an outcome of a Review, other Signatories consider that the organisation’s accreditation system has significant deficiencies requiring immediate attention.  Organisations holding conditional status do not have the right to vote, and the rights of graduates for the years during which conditional status is in place are suspended.
 
Education provider:  A tertiary (post-secondary) education teaching establishment such as a university, polytechnic, vocational teaching college or similar establishment.
 
Jurisdiction:  The territory, country, economy, or region in which an organisation undertaking accreditation is based, and within which the organisation has authority to conduct accreditation/recognition processes.

Meetings:

·       General Meetings of the Accord are held every two years (in odd-numbered years) at a time and place agreed by the Accord Signatories.

·       Mid-term Meetings of the Accord may be held in even-numbered years to cover urgent business matters by the process set out in the Rules and Procedures. 

·       Special Meetings of the Accord may be called at any time by the process set out in the Rules and Procedures.

·       In this document a “meeting” of Accord Signatories refers to a General, Mid-term, or Special Meeting.

 
Meeting method:  General and Mid-term Meetings will normally be held face to face, but business also may be conducted under urgency through teleconference or other active method of communication, or electronic polling (a meeting method in which Signatories either vote to agree or disagree with a proposal put to the vote).
 
Mentee:  An organisation being mentored because of its commitment to gain Provisional status or to become a Signatory of the Accord.
 
Mentor:  A Signatory assigned by the Committee to act on behalf of the Accord and work with an applicant through a program of visits and advice in order to assist the applicant with its progress to Provisional status and/or to becoming a Signatory subsequently.  The term “Mentor” may also refer to a mentoring team appointed by the Committee.  The mentoring team will consist of two or three representatives from full Signatories of the Accord.  Note: a Mentor can act as a Nominator but not as a Reviewer.
 
Mentoring:  A process by which an appointed mentoring team provides support and guidance to an accreditation body that wishes to apply for Provisional status or to become a Signatory to the Accord.  The mentoring role will focus on providing advice and guidance on the accreditation policies and procedures and education standards of the Mentee so that the Mentee is given every opportunity, on application, to gain Provisional status or become a Signatory of the Accord.
 
Nominator:  A Signatory that has detailed knowledge of an applicant’s accreditation system and states that that in its opinion the applicant’s accreditation system meets the criteria for admission to Provisional status.  In support of its nomination it shall supply other Signatories with information on how its appraisal that led to the decision to nominate was performed.
 
Provisional status:  An applicant will achieve Provisional status having demonstrated that the accreditation system for which it has responsibility appears to be conceptually similar to those of other Signatories of the Accord.  By conferring Provisional status, the Signatories have indicated that they consider that the applicant has the potential capability to be a Signatory.  Award of Provisional status in no way implies any guarantee of becoming a Signatory.  Recognition of the equivalence of the academic computing and IT-related programs concerned shall normally become effective from the date on which the new Signatory is admitted.
 
Requirements:  The requirements for admission as a Signatory of the Accord, defined as the substantial equivalence of characteristics, criteria and outcome standards.
 
Review (or Verification):  The process by which a Signatory or an organisation with Provisional status is evaluated to determine whether the accreditation system of the Signatory or organization with Provisional status is Substantially Equivalent, as defined by the Accord, to the accreditation systems of the (other) Accord Signatories.
 
Reviewer:  A Signatory, or Signatory representative, appointed by the Committee to the Review Team that visits and reports to the Signatories on the equivalency of the accreditation system of an organisation with Provisional status as part of the evaluation of the applicant’s Review towards becoming a Signatory.  Note: A Reviewer shall not have been either a Mentor or Nominator for this applicant. Reviewers recommend to the Signatories whether they are of the opinion that the requirements for becoming a Signatory are met. 
 
Secretariat:  An entity providing administrative support to the Committee, with the delegated authority to give advice, but not to make decisions, under the Rules and Procedures.
 
Signatory:  An organisation entitled to fully participate in the Accord, enjoying the same rights and obligations as all other Signatories.  Signatories must be independent of the academic institutions delivering programs that they may accredit or recognize. They are typically authorities, agencies or institutions which are representative of the computing and IT-related professions and which have statutory powers or recognized professional authority for accrediting programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for entry into the professional computing and IT-related community.
 
Substantially Equivalent:  Producing results that are equally effective in determining whether graduates of a computing or IT related program satisfy the Graduate Attributes given in Section D.  

B.2 Admission

B.2.1 Provisional status

·       Applicants for Provisional status are recommended to follow the advice stated in the guidelines given in Part 2 of Section C.

·       Applicants must provide all the information stated in Part 2.2 of the guidelines set out in Section C.

·       Applications must be provided in the English language.

·       Applications must be received by the Secretariat no later than 120 days before the commencement of a meeting of the Accord at which the application is to be considered.

·       Applications must be accompanied by written statements of nomination from two Signatories, each nomination containing a declaration that the Mentor considers that the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system meets the requirements for Provisional status.

·       The Secretariat must distribute the application to all Signatories no later than 90 days before the commencement of the Accord meeting at which the application will be considered.

·       Any Signatory may provide written questions to the Secretariat no later than 60 days before the Accord meeting, in which case the applicant has until 30 days prior to the meeting to provide written answers to the Secretariat for distribution of both the questions and answers to all Signatories so that they can be considered before the Accord meeting.

·       An applicant’s representative must appear in person at the Accord meeting to formally present the application and answer questions.

·       An applicant must meet all the direct costs of making its application, including but not limited to funding any reasonable actions required by potential Mentors to evaluate the systems of the applicant.

·       The Signatories must consider each application at the meeting at which it is presented and must decide one of the three following actions:

a. that the applicant be granted Provisional status (provided that there is a two-thirds majority), or
b. that the application be declined (in which case reasons would normally be stated), or
c. that the decision on the application be deferred (in which case the reasons must be stated).

·       The Signatories may agree to consider a deferred application by a suitable meeting method prior to the next scheduled face to face meeting if there is a reasonable expectation that information that will allow the application to be decided will be available, but no such meeting may occur sooner than 60 days after the applicant or a Mentor provides the necessary information to the Secretariat.

·       Prior to the award of Provisional status, applicants must undertake to cooperate in the conduct of, and to fund the direct costs of, an evaluation of the suitability and effectiveness of accreditation/recognition criteria, policies, and procedures established by the applicant for the purpose of becoming a Signatory.

·       Provisional status is normally granted for a period of four years, but may be extended for one or more periods of two further years if in the view of Signatories, as attested by a two-thirds majority vote at a meeting, sufficient progress towards becoming a Signatory is being made.

B.2.2 Becoming a signatory

·       Organisations holding Provisional status and applying to become a Signatory are recommended to be cognizant of the guidelines given in Section C.

·       Organisations holding Provisional status must give formal written notice on the organization’s letterhead of at least one year (prior to the Accord meeting at which they will request that upgrade of their status be considered) to the Committee and the Secretariat of their request to be reviewed.

·       No later than 30 days from receiving a Review request the Committee must assign three Reviewers, each drawn from a different Signatory.  The qualifications of these Reviewers is the same as for the Review of a Signatory and are given in Section C Guidelines.

·       The organisation making the Review request must provide the Reviewers with reasonable notice of, and opportunity to observe, visits to a range of education providers, and to observe the accreditation/recognition process for a range of decisions in the period leading up to 90 days prior to the Accord meeting at which the organisation wishes the Review request for becoming a Signatory to be considered. (More specific guidelines are presented in Part 4 of Section C.)

·       The Reviewers will furnish a written report to the Signatories no later than 90 days prior to the Accord meeting at which the Review recommendation will be considered, unless a shorter period (of at least 30 days) is agreed by the Committee to be sufficient under the circumstances.

·       The Signatories must consider each set of Review recommendations at the meeting at which it is presented and must decide one of the four following actions:

a. that the organisation holding Provisional status be made a Signatory with a designated jurisdiction, which requires the

    unanimous approval of the Accord Signatories excluding recusals, in which case the date at which recognition by the

    other Signatories of the academic computing and IT-related programs concerned shall become effective is stated (this

    would normally be the date on which the new Signatory is admitted), or
b. that the organization holding Provisional status be declined becoming a Signatory, but that Provisional status be

    extended for a further period (in which case reasons must be stated), or
c. that the organization holding Provisional status be declined becoming a Signatory and that Provisional status not be

    extended (in which case the reasons must be stated), or
d. that the decision on the Review recommendations be deferred  (in which case the reasons must be stated).

·       During consideration of a Review recommendation each Signatory which chooses not to support the recommendation from the Reviewers must provide to all other Signatories its reasons.

·       When the decision on Review recommendations is deferred, the Signatories may agree to reconsider the Review recommendations by a suitable meeting method prior to the next scheduled face to face meeting if there is a reasonable expectation that information that will allow the application to be decided will be available, but no such meeting will occur sooner than 60 days after the organisation holding Provisional status or the Reviewers provides the necessary information to the Secretariat.

B.3. Review of Signatories

B.3.1 Rolling review program

·       Each Signatory shall be subject to comprehensive Review and report by representatives of the other Signatories at intervals of not more than six years.  An extension of the interval to the next Review of up to three years for a Signatory may be approved by the Signatories for appropriate reasons, such as to align Review cycles with other accords or to delay Review because of substantial disruptive events.  The initial interval for a Signatory agency begins at the end of the meeting at which Accord membership for the Signatory is approved.

·       The Committee must establish and the Secretariat publish annually, no later than 1 July, a schedule for the programme of Review activities, this schedule covering at least the upcoming six years.  This schedule will be tabled as a standard agenda item at each annual meeting of the Accord for approval.

·       Upon receipt of the schedule each Signatory must immediately inform the Committee whether it wishes to be reviewed by the normal Review procedure (designated Procedure A) or by the continuing international participation model (designated Procedure B).  In the event that a Signatory does not select a procedure then Procedure A is assumed to have been selected.  Under Procedure B, the Signatory under Review may elect to have the Accord Review Team member fulfill a dual role, that of Accord Reviewer and an accreditation panel member.  This election is contingent upon the availability of Accord Reviewers able to fulfill the dual role of accreditation panel member and Accord Reviewer (see also 3.2 below).  Signatories contemplating Procedure B will be responsible for consulting with the Secretariat regarding the availability of dual role members.

·       The type of procedure to be used for any individual Signatory must be approved by the Signatories via a suitable meeting method prior to the commencement of any Review actions.

·       Any Signatory that effects a substantial change to its accreditation criteria, policies or procedures is obliged to report such a change to the Committee via the Secretariat and thereby to provide the other Signatories with the opportunity to require that the scheduled Review and report be brought forward. 

B.3.2 Nomination of Persons to Form Teams

Upon request from the Secretariat, each Signatory must provide as soon as possible one or more names of persons to form part of the panel from which Review Teams (Procedure A) or Accord Review Teams (ARTs) under the continuing international participation model (Procedure B) may be drawn. In determining the suitability of proposed team members Signatories may identify panel members able to fulfill a dual role, firstly as accreditation panel members and secondly as Accord Reviewers.  No Signatory shall be required to provide more than one such representative in any calendar year unless approved by the Signatory.  General requirements for Reviewers are given in Section C, Guidelines.

B.3.3 Procedure

·       Each Signatory to be reviewed must receive a notice from the Secretariat no less than six months prior to the year of the Review Team activities being undertaken.  For Procedure B, reviewing will be continuous for the first five years of a six-year period, and then, if required, in the sixth year there may be confirmatory actions.

·       Three representatives from different Signatories, one of whom will be designated the team leader, must be selected by the Committee to form the Review Team; the Secretariat must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the individuals selected through this process has had any substantial prior involvement in or commitment to the accreditation system being reviewed.

·       The Signatory responsible for the accreditation system to be reviewed must be advised by the Secretariat of the proposed composition of the Review Team, and invited to show cause why any member of the Review Team is not suitable. In the event that such an objection is lodged, the Secretariat must advise the Committee to take such steps as are necessary and appropriate to resolve the situation.  If unable to achieve consensus, the Committee must consult all Signatories before confirming the membership of the Review Team.

·       The Signatory whose accreditation system is to be reviewed shall be invited to propose a suitable process, timetable and administrative support mechanism for consideration by the Review Team. The Review process must include accreditation visits to educational providers offering academic computing and IT-related programs and to the meetings at which the outcomes of such visits are discussed and decided.

·       All discussions concerning Reviews must be held in confidence by the Review Team. At the conclusion of each Review activity, the Review Team must forward its report and recommendations to the Secretariat as soon as reasonably practicable. A copy of that report must be furnished to each Signatory through the Secretariat.

·       The recommendations open to the Review Team are as follows:

a.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of six years, as leading to outcomes Substantially Equivalent to the Signatories’ systems known to the Review Team in preparing graduates to enter a computing or IT-related profession; or

b.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of not more than two years subject to the responsible Signatory providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other Signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address the specific issues identified by the Review Team; or

c.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question has serious deficiencies, that the Signatory be downgraded immediately to conditional status, and that urgent and specific assistance be provided by the other Signatories to help address the deficiencies.

B.3.4 Consideration of Recommendations and Requests for Reconsideration

·       Recommendations from Review activities under either Procedure A or Procedure B are considered by the other Signatories in committee at each General or Mid-term meeting of the Accord Signatories.  There will be a standing agenda item at each annual Accord meeting to consider any outstanding recommendations.

·       If a Signatory has demonstrated equivalence under Procedure B to the satisfaction of all Signatories without the need to form an ORT, the Signatory will be deemed to have had its accreditation/recognition system be accepted as Substantially Equivalent for a further six-year term from the date of the meeting.

·       Otherwise, the Signatories may resolve only one of the following:

a.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of six years; or

b.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the Signatory in question  providing, within six months from which the decision was made, a report which satisfies the other Signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address specific issues; or 

c.      that the Signatory revert immediately to a non-voting conditional status for a period of no more than two years, and that specific requirements to be addressed be stated

·       A resolution for (a) or (c) shall require support from two-thirds of the Signatories, and in the absence of that majority the outcome shall be (b) in which case the specific issues to be addressed must be stated.

·       The subject Signatory may, within 60 days of notification of a decision, request reconsideration of a decision imposing conditional status (c), and request independent reconsideration of its case.  Requests for reconsideration must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

a.      that there was a failure to follow these Rules, and/or

b.      that there were substantial errors of facts in the report considered by the Signatories which were likely to have affected the decision reached by the Signatories, and/or

c.      that the report considered by the Signatories did not include relevant information, and had that information been placed before the Signatories there was a reasonable likelihood that a different decision would have been made

·       If a reconsideration is requested, the Committee must ensure that within six months after the decision was made, a reconsideration panel, which is established in the same manner as a Review Team using Procedure A but with no membership in common with the original Review Team(s), is established and reports its outcomes.

·       While a reconsideration is in progress the Signatory will continue to enjoy the full benefits of being a Signatory.

·       The reconsideration panel shall determine the procedures and criteria under which it operates, but at all times its procedures must be consistent with these Rules and Procedures as far as this is reasonably possible.

·       The full costs of any such reconsideration must be borne by the subject Signatory.

·       The right to request reconsideration may be exercised only once for each six-year Review cycle.

·       The recommendations of a reconsideration panel must be considered by the Signatories by a suitable meeting method as soon as reasonably possible, and one of the following decisions made:

a.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of six years; or

b.      that the accreditation/recognition system in question be accepted by the other Signatories, for a period of not more than two years, subject to the Signatory concerned providing, within six months, a report which satisfies the other Signatories that adequate steps are being taken to address specific issues; or

c.      that the Signatory revert immediately to a non-voting conditional status for a period of no more than two years, and that specific requirements to be addressed be stated

B.3.5 Upgrade from or Continuation of Conditional Status

·       Where conditional status is imposed by the other Signatories the Committee must provide, in writing within 30 days of the decision, the specific requirements to be addressed by the organisation downgraded to conditional status, and state the process by which assessment of whether the requirements have been met will be made.

·       The assessment will normally involve written reports submitted by the organisation holding conditional status at intervals of six months to the Review Team that conducted the review, or ORT in the case of Procedure B, may involve a visit by one or more members of the Review Team or ORT, and will involve reporting by the Review Team or ORT at six-monthly intervals to the Committee on progress.

·       When, in the view of the Committee, the most recent report from the Review Team or ORT indicates that the requirements have been satisfactorily addressed, the Committee must immediately call a meeting of the signatories by a suitable meeting method to consider the reinstatement of the organization back to being a signatory, and to decide whether graduates from accredited programs during the years in which conditional status was in place should receive rights of recognition under the Accord.

·       In the event of re-instatement to being a signatory, voting rights are immediately restored.

·       In the event that an organisation is re-instated from conditional to being a signatory graduates from accredited programmes in the year in which re-instatement occurs shall enjoy the rights of recognition under the Accord.

·       Where the signatories are satisfied that an organisation holding conditional status is making good progress towards once again being a signatory, but that at the end of the period of conditional status has not fully met the requirements, the signatories may agree to extend the period of conditional status for no more than two further years.

·       The costs incurred by members of the Review Team or ORT must be borne by the organisation holding conditional status.

B.4. Resignation, Downgrading and Termination

B.4.1 Resignation

·       A Signatory may resign from the Accord by giving at least one year’s written notice to all other Signatories.  The period in which the organization was a Signatory will be deemed to end on 31 December of the year after that in which notice was given.  During its period of notice the resigning Signatory must continue to fulfill its obligations as a Signatory, but loses its right to vote on matters related to applications for Provisional status, Review recommendations for becoming a Signatory, Review reports on Signatories, and any matter relating to the changes to the Accord, Rules and Procedures or Guidelines.  For the avoidance of doubt, in such circumstances the Signatory that has given notice of resignation will be excluded when determining the total number of votes available to be cast.

·       Provided the resigning Signatory provides to all other Signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee, a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a Signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the Signatory was active in the Accord will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other Signatories.

·       An organisation holding Provisional status may resign from that Provisional status at any time by giving 6 months written notice to all Signatories

B.4.2 Downgrading for Failure to Demonstrate Ongoing Equivalence

·       Where a Signatory has been downgraded from Signatory to conditional status for failure to meet the necessary standard of equivalence of recognition or accreditation, and the organisation fails to satisfy the Signatories within the period of time allowed that it has met the specific requirements, and the Signatories are unwilling to continue the period of conditional status, the organisation shall lapse from conditional status to Provisional status.

·       Provisional status shall be granted in these circumstances for no more than two years, the specific time being selected by the Committee so that the end of the term coincides with a scheduled general meeting of the Accord Signatories.

·       Provided the downgraded Signatory provides to all other Signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a Signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the Signatory was a Signatory in the Accord (including the year in which downgrading to conditional status occurred) will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other Signatories.  Any graduates completing their programme during the period of conditional status will not enjoy the privileges of graduates of Accord Signatories.

B.4.3 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory

·       If in the view of a two-thirds majority of other Signatories, a Signatory is failing to meet its reasonable obligations under the Accord, the other Signatories may give notice to that effect to the Signatory concerned.  Such notice must state the specific nature of the concerns.

·       Any Signatory that receives notice of failure to meet obligations as a Signatory from the other Signatories shall have one year from the date of the notice in which to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action and has recommenced the fulfillment of its obligations.

·       If, after a year, two-thirds of other Signatories agree that significant improvement has been made, but not sufficient to remove doubt that the Signatory in question is fulfilling its obligations, the period for demonstrating improvement shall be extended by either six months or one year as the Signatories may decide.

·       If, in the view of at least two-thirds of other Signatories, a Signatory that has been given notice under 1, 2 and 3 above has not taken sufficient corrective actions within the specified period the Signatory is deemed to have been removed from being a Signatory.  The date of removal shall be the end of the calendar year in which the decision to terminate was made. 

·       Provided the terminated Signatory provides to all other Signatories, to the satisfaction of the Committee, a comprehensive list of programmes accredited or recognised during the time as a Signatory, graduates of those programmes who graduated during the years that the Signatory was active in the Accord will continue to receive the same rights of recognition as graduates of other Signatories.

B.4.4 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory

·       At each General Meeting of the Accord the Signatories must review the length of period for which Provisional status has been granted to each organization holding that status (which period is normally four years but which may be extended by up to a further four years).

·       If in the view of a two-thirds majority of Signatories, an organization holding Provisional status is making insufficient progress towards becoming a Signatory or is failing to meet its reasonable obligations under the Accord, the Signatories may give notice to that effect to the organisation concerned.  Such notice must state the specific nature of the concerns.

·       Any organisation holding Provisional status which receives notice from the Signatories shall have one year from the date of the notice in which to demonstrate that it has taken appropriate action and has recommenced the fulfillment of its obligations and progress towards becoming a Signatory.

·       If, after that year, the majority of the Signatories agree that significant improvement has been made, but not sufficient to remove doubt that the Signatory in question is fulfilling its obligations, the period for demonstrating improvement must be extended by one year.

·       If, in the view of a majority of Signatories, determined by a suitable meeting method, an organisation holding Provisional status which has been given notice under 2, 3 and 4 above has not taken sufficient corrective actions within the specified period the organisation is deemed to have been removed from Provisional status.  The date of removal must be immediate from the date of notice to that effect.

B.5. Conduct of Meetings, Rights of and Obligations on Signatories and Organisations Holding Provisional Status

B.5.1 Meetings

Unless otherwise set out in the Rules and Procedures, the following provisions shall apply.

·       A General Meeting of the Signatories must be held every two years at a time and place selected by the previous General Meeting, or if not possible, as soon after as possible by the Committee following appropriate consultation with the Signatories.  The time and place of the General Meeting must, so far as practicable, be such as to minimise overall travel costs for those representing the Signatories. Where convenient, the General Meeting may be arranged to follow or precede a major international conference or similar event.

·       At every General Meeting, Signatories and organizations holding Provisional status must present a report on accreditation-related matters within their jurisdiction according to any guideline agreed by the Signatories.

·       At every General Meeting, and at any other time the Signatories decide, there will be a session closed to observers at which Signatories can raise in confidence any issue pertaining to the operation of the Accord, seeking resolution in a constructive manner.  Organisations holding Provisional status may be invited to attend this session if the Signatories agree to this prior to the commencement of the session.  The Signatories may agree to a set of guidelines for conduct of such sessions.

·       If two or more Signatories request a Special Meeting of the Accord in relation to a particular matter, the question of whether to hold a Special Meeting shall be decided under urgency, and if so agreed the meeting shall be held at a venue to be decided by the Committee no sooner than 90 days and no later than 180 days after the decision to hold the Special Meeting is notified to all Signatories and organizations holding Provisional status.

·       At every General Meeting the Signatories shall decide whether there is sufficient business to warrant a Mid-term Meeting.  If the need for a Mid-term Meeting is not clear, the Signatories may delegate the decision on a Mid-term Meeting to the Committee and may also specify criteria for the decision.

·        A draft agenda must be circulated to all Signatories at least 180 days prior to a General or Mid-term Meeting and 90 days prior to a Special Meeting of the Accord.

·       Notice of items for the agenda should be notified to the Chair through the Secretariat at least 90 days prior to the meeting.

·        Items for discussion at a General or Mid-term Meeting and all necessary background papers should be submitted to the Committee via the Secretariat at least 60 days prior to the meeting.  The Committee reserves the right to not admit late items. 

·       The agenda and business papers will be approved by the Chair and normally be distributed to the Signatories by the Secretariat at least two months prior to the meeting.

·       Each Signatory will arrange for at least one representative to attend a General, Mid-term, or Special Meeting and will commit to being briefed on the matters to be raised and to engage fully in the business of the meeting.  Signatories may bring more than one representative to such meetings but are obligated to restrict the number of people in its delegation to the number reasonably needed to fulfill their obligations to participate fully in the meeting.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair of the Accord may restrict the number in any delegation. 

·       Organisations holding Provisional status are required to accept the same commitment to interaction and exchange as the Signatories.  They will receive copies of appropriate correspondence and reports (other than those papers relating to admission, termination, Review requests and Review of Signatories), and are invited to send representatives to all meetings of the Signatories. They are obligated to restrict the number of people in its delegation to the number reasonably needed to fulfill their obligations to participate fully in the meeting.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair of the Accord may restrict the number in any delegation.

·       At an Accord meeting, each Signatory will have one vote, and the Chair shall have a casting vote.

·       A simple majority will suffice for a decision on any matter, unless otherwise specified in the governing Agreement or in these Rules and Procedures.  Any casting vote will normally be regarded as cast for the status quo on any matter requiring two-thirds or greater majority.

·       Representatives of organisations holding Provisional status will have the right of audience except when excluded under a resolution by the Signatories to move into committee (also known as closed session) and debate at such meetings, but are not permitted to vote.

·       With the agreement of the Chair, organizations with interests in the Accord may be invited to be in attendance (as “observers”) for parts of the meeting as may be decided by the Chair.  The right to attend does not confer the right to speak unless so invited by the Chair.  Unless otherwise prescribed by the Chair the maximum number of people in the delegation of any observer will be three.

·       Signatories and organizations holding Provisional status must declare any conflict of interest on any agenda item in advance of that item being discussed, and if so requested by the Chair must leave the meeting during discussion of that item.

·        Minutes of each meeting of the Accord must be recorded by the Secretariat and at each General or Mid-term Meeting the minutes of the previous General or Mid-term Meeting of a like nature and any Special Meeting held since the previous General or Mid-term Meeting must be submitted to the meeting for approval and then signed by the Chair before any other business is transacted.  Draft minutes prepared by the Secretariat for each meeting will be reviewed for correctness by the Committee prior to their dissemination to all Signatories for their comment.  Such dissemination should occur within 60 days of the meeting and comment should be made within 90 days of the date of the meeting.  The Committee will review comments received and within 120 days of the date of the meeting approve that the Secretariat circulate to all Signatories and organisations holding Provisional status “minutes for approval”.

·       The meeting method may be varied from face to face to any other means enabling open discussion between representatives (e.g. teleconference) provided that there is a two-thirds majority of the Signatories in favour of such a proposal.

·       Urgent matters (decided to be urgent by either a previous meeting, or by the Committee on the basis that undue delay would unreasonably penalize an affected party) may be decided out of session from meetings by an electronic polling meeting method as follows:

a.      The written proposal setting out the motion, the rationale supporting it, and the reasons for urgent consideration of that proposal are circulated to all Signatories in writing.

b.      Each Signatory has 60 days to make a response in two parts – agreeing to consider the matter urgently, and recording its votes on the motion.  Votes are to be provided directly to the Secretariat and the Committee.

c.      The Secretariat will issue reminders after 30 and 45 days to those Signatories who have not responded.

d.      The matter shall be determined by the Committee as passed if there is the necessary majority for the matter concerned both for the vote to consider the matter urgently, and for the motion itself.

e.      For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee may require any Signatory to provide a faxed signed confirmation of its vote to validate that vote.

f.       The Committee must announce the result without undue delay, and the outcome will apply from the date of announcement.

g.      The matter is regarded as ratified by approval of the accuracy of documentation of the decision making process (as if that documentation was minutes of a meeting), by Signatories at the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord.

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving a particular matter.  In the event that further changes to the proposal are made during a meeting the Chair must exercise the proxy consistently with the intention of the Signatory concerned, and if in doubt must abstain the proxy on the matter. 

·       The Signatories, organizations holding Provisional status and observers are required to meet a fair share of the costs of staging a meeting of the Accord in addition to their own costs for attendance at such meetings. 

·       The chair of any meeting may choose to conduct the meeting with a minimum of formality provided that the proceedings are conducive to the fair hearing of all matters and the agreement of outcomes.  However if, of his/her own volition or on request of some of those present at the meeting, the Chair deems it necessary to formalize the meeting, he/she may apply some or all of the following standing orders as is considered reasonable and necessary for effective conduct of the meeting: 

a.      At each meeting of the Accord, the Chair, or in his or her absence the Deputy Chair, shall take the chair.

b.      In the above cases if the specified officers are not present a meeting shall elect its own Chair. 

c.      Except as otherwise agreed by the meeting the order of business will be as set out on the agenda paper.   

d.      Each motion or amendment not seconded shall lapse without discussion and shall not be recorded in the minutes except by the permission of the meeting. 

e.      After each motion or amendment has been moved and seconded it shall not be withdrawn without the permission of the meeting. 

f.       Except with the permission of the meeting no motion or amendment shall be proposed which in the opinion of the Chair is the same in substance as any motion or amendment which during the same meeting has been resolved in the affirmative or negative. 

g.      Where no specific procedure is laid down the Chair shall refuse to accept a motion to rescind any resolution or other vote if he or she considers that insufficient notice has been given to members. 

h.      Before putting each motion or amendment to the vote the Chair shall ensure that the motion or amendment is understood by all meeting participants. 

i.       A motion may be amended by leaving out words; by leaving out certain words and substituting other words; by inserting words; or by adding words. 

j.       Each amendment shall be relevant to the original motion. 

k.      No amendment may be accepted that produces a direct negative of the motion. 

l.       Amendments to a motion may be moved without notice. 

m.    Amendments may be moved in any order considered satisfactory by the Chair. 

n.      When an amendment has been carried, such amendment shall become the substantive motion and shall be open to amendment accordingly. 

o.      At the discretion of the Chair amendments to an amendment shall be allowed. 

p.      The Chair may restrict the number of times and the length of time that each meeting participant may speak on a matter. 

q.      All questions of order or procedure not provided for in these Standing Orders shall be decided by the Chair. 

B.5.2 Workshops

·       The Signatories of the Accord may choose to hold a workshop at any time for the purpose of dialogue aimed at developing recommendations for consideration at a meeting of the Accord. 

·       In general, organizations holding Provisional status would be invited to attend only if the Signatories consider they can contribute effectively to advancement of the issues to be discussed. 

·       Observers would not normally be invited to attend workshops, and an exception would be granted only if the Signatories are collectively of the view that observers can contribute effectively to advancement of the issues to be discussed. 

·       The Chair shall decide the maximum number in each delegation from Signatories to such workshops. In general, delegations should be as small as possible. 

·       In the event that organizations holding Provisional status are invited to participate, the Chair of the Accord shall decide the maximum number in each delegation and rights of participation. 

·       If observers are allowed to attend, the Chair of the Accord shall decide the maximum number in the delegation and rights of participation. 

·       During any such workshop, the chair of any session may exclude all but Signatories for any particular item. 

·       In the interest of effective interchange at workshops, the protocols and procedures will be consistent with these Rules and Procedures, but decision making will be by consensus.  No votes will be taken, but informal polling to determine the level of support for particular proposals may be performed.

B.5.3 Other Obligations of Signatories

·       Each Signatory should maintain a listing of accredited programs according to the following guiding principles.  Additional guidance is given in section C (Guidelines).

a.      The principles of mutual respect and autonomy apply to the listing of programs and the Review processes that are used to establish and maintain confidence in the listings.

b.      The currency of the listing should be identified with the latest publication date identified along with an indicative frequency of update.

c.      The listing should be comprehensive, showing all currently accredited programmes with their accreditation start date.

d.      The listing should be available in a web-based version to maximise access, and should provide users with the ability to search by education provider, geographical region, computing or IT discipline, or Accord agreement if more than 100 programmes are listed. Ideally, programmes accredited under different accords should be maintained in discrete listings or sections.  However, if a combined listing is used, users should be able to search for programmes recognised under a particular accord. Web-based versions should be clearly linked from the home page of the host Signatory’s website. It is recommended that the listing also include links to the website of the provider of each accredited programme.

e.      Where a Signatory accredits programmes that are recognised under different accords, and/or programmes that are not recognised under any of the accords, there should be clear differentiation of programmes, clearly indicating recognition status under particular accords.  The listing should have a clear introductory section that introduces the relevant accord, explains the status of the host Signatory and sets out the obligations of other Signatories under the accord.

f.       The listing should also provide clarity over the scope of (or limitations to the scope of) accreditation.

g.      Where accreditation with conditions or provisions is accorded, such programmes should be clearly identified and the implications of this for the recognition of graduates should be stated.

h.      In Signatory jurisdictions where a licensure/certification process for computing and IT related disciplines exists, those Signatories should provide clarity to individuals applying for a license/certification as to how their Seoul Accord recognized program will be recognized by the licensure/certification body.

·       Each Signatory should provide a service whereby inquiries as to whether specific graduates of a computing or IT related program in the Signatory’s jurisdiction are recognized under the Seoul Accord.
 

B.6. Changes to Accord Agreement, Rules and Procedures, and Guidelines

B.6.1 Changes to Accord Agreement

·       Changes to the Accord Agreement requires the unanimous approval of all Signatories, originally determined by a vote, but then signified by the written signature of their representative to a document to be regarded as an addendum to the Accord.  Until all Signatories present at the time of the vote have signed in this manner the change shall be inoperative.  Signatories voting by proxy may sign at a later time and this will not delay the implementation of the change.   

·       Proposals for change may be made by one or more Signatories, but must be provided to the Committee and Secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The Secretariat must circulate the proposals to all Signatories and those organizations holding Provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting.   

·       If further changes to the proposal are proposed during a meeting of the Accord, and if in the view of at least two Signatories the changes affect the intention or substance of the proposal, any Signatory may require that the matter be deferred, requiring a further 120 days’ notice before the matter can be further considered. 

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed change.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the further changes. 

B.6.2 Changes to Rules and Procedures

·       Changes to the Rules and Procedures of the Accord requires the two-thirds majority approval of all Signatories, determined by a vote.  The new Rules and Procedures will be deemed to be operative immediately following the end of the meeting at which they are approved. Notwithstanding this, for matters in progress that commenced under earlier Rules and Procedures may continue to proceed to completion under those Rules and Procedures if in the view of the Committee application of the changed Rule or Procedure would impose unreasonable additional burdens on those affected by the matter.  

·       Proposals for change may be made by one or more Signatories, but must be provided to the Committee and Secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The Secretariat must circulate the proposals to all Signatories and those organizations holding Provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting. 

·       If further changes to the proposal are suggested during a meeting of the Accord, and if in the view of at least two Signatories the changes affect the intention or substance of the proposal, those Signatories may require that the matter be deferred, requiring a further 120 days notice before the matter can be further considered. 

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed change.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the further changes.

B.6.3 Changes to the Guidelines

·       Changes to the Guidelines of the Accord requires the two-thirds majority approval of all Signatories, determined by a vote.  The new guidelines will be deemed to be operative immediately following the end of the meeting at which they are approved. Notwithstanding this, for matters in progress that commenced using earlier guidelines may continue to proceed to completion using those guidelines if in the view of the Committee application of the changed guideline would impose unreasonable additional burdens on those affected by the matter. 

·       Proposals for change may be made by one or more Signatories, and should be provided to the Committee and Secretariat in full at least 120 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be discussed.  The Secretariat must circulate the proposals to all Signatories and those organizations holding Provisional status at least 90 days prior to the meeting.

·       Further changes to the proposal may be suggested during a meeting of the Accord, and may be approved by a two-thirds majority of Signatories voting for the changes. 

·       Any Signatory unable to be present may provide to the Chair of the Accord a written proxy either approving or not approving the proposed change.  In the event that further changes to the written proposal are suggested a written proxy will be declared as a vote against the further changes.

B.6.4 Voting

·       Matters on which a required majority is not stated in the Accord Agreement or Rules and Procedures must be decided by a simple majority vote of Signatories present at the time of the decision. 

·       A casting vote by a chair shall be deliberative in situations where only a simple majority is required, but in situations where a majority of two-thirds or more is required the casting vote must be made to retain the status quo. 

·       Voting may be by a show of hands unless a secret ballot is required.  In addition to the requirements of the Rules and Procedures, a secret ballot is required whenever requested by a Signatory of the Accord.

B.7. Officers

·       The officers of the Accord shall be the Chair and the Deputy Chair who must be elected from nominations made by the Signatories. 

·       The officers act for the Accord, and may not simultaneously represent or vote on behalf of any Signatory on any matter.  For the avoidance of doubt, officers are not included in the headcount of delegations from their home Signatory. 

·       A person may hold office for no more than two terms, each term of two years (defined as the time between biennial General Meetings) unless specifically agreed by a unanimous vote of all Signatories present at a General Meeting.  A term is completed at the end of the General Meeting at which an election is held. 

·       The Deputy Chair shall undertake the duties of the Chair if the Chair is unavailable for any length of time, or has declared a conflict of interest on any matter, and has temporarily stood down from the chair whilst that matter is considered. 

·       At least 120 days in advance of a General Meeting, the Secretariat will send all Signatories the invitation to make nominations for Chair and Deputy Chair positions. 

·       To be eligible for nomination a person must be affiliated with a Signatory and have the support of that Signatory.  By supporting a person affiliated with a Signatory, the Signatory agrees to pay the expenses of the nominee, if elected, to attend meetings of the Accord. 

·       Nominations must be moved and seconded by two different Signatories, and the nomination, second, and acceptance by the nominee and the nominee’s Signatory must be received by the Secretariat no later than 30 days prior to the General Meeting at which the election will be held. The Secretariat will distribute the nominations to the Signatories no later than 20 days before the General Meeting at which the election will be held. 

·       No person may be elected to a position that was immediately before held by a person affiliated with the same Signatory. 

·       If there is not at least one candidate nominated for an office according to (7) above, then additional nominations may be accepted during a General Meeting by procedures that are approved without dissent by the Signatories present at the meeting. 

·       Voting will be held by secret ballot during a General Meeting, and will be supervised by two independent scrutineers appointed by the General Meeting. 

·       In the event that there are more than two candidates and no candidate achieves more than 50% of the votes cast in the ballot, the lowest polling candidate will be eliminated and a further poll held.  This process will be repeated as many times as is necessary.  In the event of a tie in respect of eliminating a candidate the candidate to be eliminated will be established by the drawing of lots by the scrutineers.  In the event of a tie on the last poll the Chair will exercise a casting vote. 

·       The election of the Chair will be conducted prior to election of the Deputy Chair.  A candidate for Chair who is not elected may then become a candidate for Deputy Chair with the approval of the candidate’s Mentor and second, the candidate’s Signatory, and the candidate, subject to the conditions in (3) above. 

·       In the event that the Chair is unable to complete his or her term for any reason, the Deputy Chair shall temporarily hold the position until the next General Meeting.  Such service shall not be counted against the term of that person in the role of Chair. 

·       In the event that the Deputy Chair is unable to complete his or her term for any reason, the Chair shall decide whether the position may remain vacant (if the remaining part of the term is less than 180 days), or whether to call for nominations, and hold an election using the process for deciding matters under urgency.  Service of a person elected under urgency shall not be counted against the term of that person in the role of Deputy Chair. 

·       If required, elections may be conducted urgently as follows:

a.      The ballot papers must be distributed to all Signatories in writing.

b.      Each Signatory has 60 days to record its vote.  Votes are to be provided directly to the Secretariat.

c.      The Secretariat will issue reminders after 30 and 45 days to those Signatories who have not responded.

d.      For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee may require any Signatory to fax a signed confirmation of its vote to validate that vote.

e.      The Secretariat shall be responsible for counting the votes and arranging scrutineering by at least two independent persons.

f.       The Chair must announce the result without undue delay, and the outcome will apply from the date of announcement.

g.      The matter is regarded as ratified by approval of the accuracy of documentation of the decision making process (as if that documentation was minutes of a meeting), by Signatories at the next general meeting of the Accord. 

B.8. Accreditation/Recognition Outside of Jurisdiction

Normally the accreditation/recognition of programs offered by a provider in a jurisdiction of an Accord Signatory will be the responsibility of an Accord Signatory for the jurisdiction.  However, allowed exceptions and modifications of this guideline are defined below. In any case where an Accord Signatory undertakes accreditation of a program outside the Signatory’s jurisdiction, the Signatory should obtain approval of any relevant authority for the program’s jurisdiction before undertaking the accreditation process.

·       Program implemented without differentiation in two different jurisdictions, each with Accord Signatories that accredit the program type, by a provider headquartered in one of the two jurisdictions.

Accreditation of the program offered outside the program headquarters jurisdiction will be undertaken on a collaborative basis, initiated by the Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the program is headquartered.  To be listed as recognized under the Accord by the Signatory in the headquarters jurisdiction, the program not in the program headquarters jurisdiction must be accredited by both Signatories.

·        Different programs implemented in two different jurisdictions, each with accrediting bodies that are Signatories to the Accord, by a provider headquartered in one of the jurisdictions:

If there is an Accord Signatory of the non-headquarters jurisdiction that accredits the program type, accreditation of the program outside the program headquarters jurisdiction must be undertaken by a Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the program is delivered in consultation with the Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the provider is headquartered.  Accreditation of the program outside the program headquarters jurisdiction may also be undertaken by the Signatory in the headquarters jurisdiction at the request of the provider.

·       Program offered within a non-Accord jurisdiction by a provider headquartered in an Accord jurisdiction:

Accreditation of the program should be undertaken by a Signatory of the jurisdiction in which the program is headquartered.  Accreditation by other Accord Signatories may be undertaken at the request of the provider in collaboration with any Signatory of the headquarters jurisdiction that accredits the program.

·       Program offered within a non-Accord jurisdiction by a provider headquartered in a non-Accord jurisdiction:

Accreditation/recognition of the program may be undertaken by any Signatory as requested by the provider. 

·       Program offered within an Accord jurisdiction desiring accreditation/recognition by an Accord Signatory in another jurisdiction:

a.      Where the Accord Signatory in the program jurisdiction accredits the program type:

The program must first be accredited/recognized by an Accord Signatory in the program’s jurisdiction. Additional accreditation/recognition by other Signatories may be undertaken in collaboration with the jurisdiction Signatory by request of the provider and approval of the jurisdiction Signatory. Recognition under the Accord will be given only if the Signatory in the home jurisdiction also accredits that program.

b.      Where no Accord Signatory in the program jurisdiction accredits the program type:

The program does not need to be accredited by an Accord Signatory in the program’s jurisdiction. The program should be free to seek accreditation from any other Signatory that accredits that program type. 

·       If a program is accredited by an Accord Signatory outside the Signatory’s jurisdiction under a provision in 1-5 above, and b) during the period of accreditation the conditions of the provision change such that the conditions no longer apply, then the accreditation of the program and any recognition under the Accord will continue until the next scheduled review of the program.  At the time of the next scheduled review, the conditions that exist at that time will apply in determining the applicable procedures for accrediting the program and for recognizing the program under the Accord. 

·       Each signatory must include in its biennial report a list of all programs accredited/recognized outside its jurisdiction and an indication of which of these programs it intends to designate as recognized under the accord. 

a.      Any signatory may request that a program listed by a signatory as accredited/recognized outside the signatory’s jurisdiction and intended for recognition under the Accord be considered for recognition separately by all signatories.

b.      Recognition will be granted to all programs listed unless recognition is considered by the full Accord and fails to receive a vote of acceptance by 2/3 of all signatories.

An intent of the Seoul Accord is to foster cooperation among its Signatories.  For each of the defined exception cases, the Signatory undertaking accreditation outside its jurisdiction must observe the sovereignty of the jurisdiction in which the program is delivered, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements of that jurisdiction.
 

B.9. Programs Recognized Under the Accord

·       Each Signatory will designate its accredited/recognized programs within its jurisdiction to be recognized under the Accord.  This designation is subject to the requirements of 5.3 above and the associated Guidelines, and will be reviewed as part of the periodic Review process. 

·       Recognition of programs accredited outside the jurisdiction of a Signatory will be determined as specified in 8.7 above.

B.10. Secretariat

·       The Signatories shall appoint an organisation, normally affiliated with a Signatory, to provide a secretariat for the Accord.  (This organisation shall be referred to as the provider of secretariat services.)  Upon request by the provider of secretariat services or if desired by the Signatories, a new provider of secretariat services will be appointed. 

·       The Secretariat has no decision making power, but acts in the best interests of the Accord by faithfully implementing the Rules and Procedures and the Guidelines, including referring matters to the Chair or Committee for decision. 

·       The Secretariat must maintain a record of the deliberations and decisions at each Accord meeting, must facilitate and record exchanges of information between the Signatories, maintain a relevant website, and must seek to advise Signatories and others as to the policies and procedures to be adopted to give effect to the terms of the Accord. 

·       The Secretariat will be paid a fee for the provision of a schedule of services that may be agreed from time to time by a General Meeting of the Accord. 

·       The performance of the Secretariat will be monitored by the Committee to ensure that the Secretariat serves the Accord effectively and in good faith.

B.11. Contribution to Costs

·       The general principle that underpins the Accord is that Signatories, organisations holding Provisional status and those expressing interest in the Accord should be responsible for meeting their own costs of becoming involved, and then maintaining their involvement. 

·       Signatories are expected to make reasonable and equitable (taking into account the resources available to the Signatory and its size) contributions of staff or volunteer time, without charge, for participation in the affairs of the Accord including, but not limited to, participating in meetings, correspondence and submissions on issues, development of policies and procedures, and provision of people to undertake Review visits. 

·       Assessed on a long term basis, all Signatories and those holding Provisional status are expected to make fair contributions to the costs of operating a secretariat. 

·       Prospective and actual Signatories and those seeking or holding Provisional status are expected to meet the direct costs (e.g. travel, accommodation, meals) of those involved in processes required or recognised (e.g. mentoring and Reviews) under this Accord for gaining or maintaining either Signatory or Provisional status.  

·       Such costs shall be reimbursed via the organisations with whom the person is affiliated or, with the agreement of the organisation, directly to the person.   

·       Arrangements shall be made by the host acting in agreement with the person travelling. 

·       Normally the cost basis shall be that air travel may be by economy class except that flights exceeding 8 hours duration shall be by business class, and that accommodation shall be at least fully serviced 3 Star plus to 4 Star level. 

C.1 Computing and IT-related Programs Within the Scope of the Accord

Section D, Seoul Accord Graduate Attributes, describes the profile of graduates of the computing and IT-related programs within the scope of the Seoul Accord. The attributes document may be modified from time to time as deemed important according to the procedures for modifying Guidelines specified in the Rules and Procedures.

C.2 Applying for Provisional Status

C.2.1 Preliminary Steps Prior to Making Application

·       An applicant wishing to become a Signatory should first contact the Secretariat.

·       The Secretariat will provide the necessary documentation on procedures and will invite the applicant to provide preliminary documentation on its accreditation/recognition system.  The applicant will be informed that mentoring may be available.   (See 3.2.)

·       The Secretariat will provide the preliminary documentation to the Committee for evaluation.  If in their opinion it does not appear to be compatible with the Requirements, the Committee will advise the applicant that its system differs from the Requirements in certain fundamental respects (to be indicated) and determine whether the applicant wishes to undertake the major development work and pursue its application further when it believes the issues identified have been addressed.

·       If the documentation appears to the Committee to be compatible with the Requirements and, if it is the wish of the applicant, the Committee may assign a team of two or three Signatories to act as Mentors to assist the applicant in progressing towards Provisional status.

·       When the applicant chooses to proceed with its application for Provisional status, having worked or not with Mentors, it will request two of the existing Signatories to act as Nominators.  

·       When potential Nominators consider the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system approaches and has the potential to achieve the Requirements, they should inform the applicant that they are prepared to act as Nominators.

·       There is no obligation on applicants to ensure that all Signatories are familiar with the applicant’s accreditation/recognition system.  However, in addition to the Mentors up to three further Signatories should have had the opportunity to become familiar with the accreditation/recognition system prior to consideration of the application.

C.2.2 Documentation in Support of Applications

The applicant must meet all the requirements set out in the Rules and Procedures (Section B).  The documentation provided on the accreditation/recognition system should include the following sections:

     I.   ACCREDITING/RECOGNISING ORGANIZATION
; Provide the name of the organization. List the names of the officers of the organization with brief CVs. Define the applicable jurisdiction for the organization, and describe the affiliations of the organization with other computing and IT-related bodies, government, and industry within the jurisdiction.

II.         INTRODUCTION
; Provide general information about the jurisdiction and the context of computing and IT.

III.         EDUCATION
; Provide a description of primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Describe the nature of programmes, including admission standards. Provide the number and type of institutions offering computing and IT-related programmes. Indicate whether the institutions are public or private.

IV.         STRUCTURE OF THE COMPUTING AND IT-RELATED COMMUNITY
; Describe the context of computing and IT-related practice and the degree of regulation (i.e., registration or licensing). Describe if there is a protected title and scope of practice. Describe any differing categories of computing and IT-related practitioners and their academic requirements. Describe the relationship of the organization to licensing, registration, or certifying agencies, and the extent to which the organization can influence the acceptance of accreditations/recognition by those agencies.

V.         ROLE OF ACCREDITATION/RECOGNITION
; Describe the role of accreditation/recognition within the jurisdiction.  Given that accreditation is normally voluntary, describe the degree of participation.

VI.         ACCREDITATION/RECOGNITION SYSTEM
; Describe the development of the accreditation/recognition system and its maturity. Provide a description of the accreditation/recognition board including its composition and authority. List the objectives of accreditation/recognition. Provide the criteria for accreditation/recognition (general, program specific; curriculum content – technical and non-technical; incorporation of practical experience; length of the program; naming of the program; faculty requirements). Provide details for conducting the accreditation/recognition evaluation and making the accreditation/recognition decision; include relevant documentation (initiation of visit; self-evaluation questionnaire; selection of evaluation team; organization of the visit; due process). Provide a list of currently accredited/recognised programs and a schedule of upcoming evaluations. Describe relationships with external computing and IT-related organizations including any agreements.
 

C.2.3 Guidelines to Assist in Evaluation of Applications

Assessing equivalence of professional preparation is a complex matter.  The experience of the existing Signatories is that an assessment based on documentation is only a first step – necessary but not sufficient.  Confidence can be achieved only through a detailed evaluation, including close interaction and planned visits to observe accreditation/recognition procedures.
 
In particular, it is difficult to define on paper the standard to which graduates must be able to exercise the required attributes.  The same words can embrace a wide range of standards.  Documentation can describe criteria and procedures; but standards can be reliably judged only by experienced people through live interaction.  Therefore applicants must give the opportunity for the Mentors, and some other Signatories, to be present at key decision points where the quality of student learning is evaluated against accreditation/recognition criteria.
 
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 in preparing graduates to enter a computing or IT-related profession. Therefore, the program must be offered at an appropriate tertiary-level institution.  The duration of academic formation will normally be at least sixteen years.
 
Accreditation/recognition systems should adhere to the following general characteristics:

·       The signatories to the Accord are authorities, agencies, or institutions that are representative of the computing and IT-related community and that have statutory powers or recognized professional authority for accrediting/recognition programs designed to satisfy the academic requirements for professional computing and IT-related practice within a defined jurisdiction (e.g. country, economy, geographic region).

·       Any such authority, agency or institution must be independent of the educational providers delivering accredited programs within their jurisdiction and should also be free from influence or control over accreditation/recognition decisions by other organizations.

·       An accreditation/recognition system must be in place with well-documented accreditation/recognition procedures and practices. Accreditation/recognition of programmes is expected to conform to generally accepted principles such as:

a.      The system must operate at all times in accordance with high standards of professionalism, ethics and objectivity;

b.      The process must be transparent and consistent and the activities in relation to individual programs must be conductedin confidence;

c.      Those involved in the accreditation/recognition process must have access to knowledge and competence in matters related to computing and IT-related accreditation/recognition, computing and IT-related education and computing and IT-related practice.

d.      Accreditation/recognition is of individual programmes or of coordinated groups of programmes quality-assured as a whole.

e.      Evaluations of programs are conducted by peer reviewers and include a self-evaluation and site visit.

f.       The criteria for accreditation/recognition should include requirements for:

i.   a suitable environment to deliver the program;

ii.  adequate leadership for the program;

iii. suitably qualified computing and IT-related professionals teaching in the program;

iv. a curriculum providing a broad basis for computing and IT-related practice;

v.  appropriate entry and progression standards;

vi  adequate human, physical and financial resources to support the program.

g.      The process should include periodic re-evaluation to maintain accreditation/recognition status.

C.3 Mentoring

Accord members may provide support, advice, and guidance through voluntary mentoring to jurisdictions that are anticipating making formal application for Provisional or full member status to the Accord.

C.3.1 Consultants

Accreditation/recognition bodies sometimes contract the services of a consultant to provide them with support in the development of accreditation/recognition systems and qualification standards.  These consultants are paid a fee for their services and are not recognised as representatives of the Signatories of the Accord.  If a professional/ accreditation/recognition body chooses to contract the services of a consultant they must do so at their own risk.  If a Signatory is providing consultancy support to an accreditation/recognition body it must inform other Signatories so as to declare any pecuniary interest.

C.3.2 Mentoring provided by individual Signatories

Accreditation/recognition bodies may approach Signatories directly to request support through a mentoring arrangement. If Signatories accept this request then they must inform the Secretariat so that other Signatories are made aware of the mentoring arrangement. The Accord, as a whole, cannot be responsible for the quality of advice and support provided through such a mentoring arrangement. 

C.4  Applying to Become a Signatory 

·       During the period of Provisional status, it shall be open to all Signatories to visit the applicant at their own cost, but this is not a requirement nor part of the Review process. 

·       As stated in Section 2.2 of the Rules and Procedures, when the applicant requests, the Committee will assign three Signatories as Reviewers to examine and report on the applicant system and to recommend to the Signatories, when they are satisfied that the requirements for becoming a Signatory are met.   The qualifications of the Reviewers are the same as for a Review of a Signatory, and are given in Section C.5 below. 

·       The Reviewers will normally evaluate the systems of the applicant in a similar fashion to that stipulated as Procedure A for the conduct of a periodic Review visit of an existing Signatory.  However, the Review process may be modified as appropriate for applicants that can document an evaluation by an external body that meets the expectations of the Accord Reviewers.  Such modification will normally be limited to applicants that are Signatories of similar accords. 

·       In addition to the criteria set out in Procedure A, the Reviewers must consider whether

a.      the accreditation/recognition system is well established (normally with at least one program having gone through a full accreditation/recognition cycle and being re-evaluated) and 

b.      a substantial proportion of its programmes offered have been evaluated under the system as described.  

c.      organisations holding Provisional status may seek guidance from their Mentors (if any) and the Committee as to how soon during their granted period of Provisional status they might apply for Review.  

·       The Reviewers must ensure that they observe visits to a representative cross-section of institutions, and also observe the accreditation/recognition process for a range of decisions, unless there is documentation of such observation by an appropriate external body, such as Reviewers from a similar accord, providing sufficient information for a recommendation by the Reviewers. 

·       The expected characteristics of an accreditation/recognition system and criteria for accreditation/recognition, including the attributes expected of computing and IT-related graduates, are set earlier in Section C. If an applicant’s system appears on paper to be Substantially Equivalent to those of the Accord, tests of the system in operation might then be:

a.      Is the accreditation/recognition system similar in methods and means of delivery to the systems of other Signatories?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      Has a clear definition of academic quality in the context of its mission.

2.      Is non-governmental.

3.      Accredits/recognises programs at institutions that have legal authority to confer higher educational degrees/qualifications.

4.      Has official, written policies and procedures that are available to the institutions and to the public.

5.      Has a process that includes a self-evaluation by the institution and the program seeking accreditation/recognition.

6.      Has an on-site review by a visiting team comprised of peers.

7.      Demonstrates independence from any parent organization or entity in its policy-setting and decision-making process.

8.      Requires a periodic review of accredited/recognised programs.

9.      Publishes or makes available to the public a list of accredited/recognised programs.  

b.      Is there a clearly defined and published scope of activity for the organisation?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      What degree programs/qualifications are recognized (undergraduate, graduate)?

2.      Are there geographic bounds?

3.      What disciplines (computing, engineering, etc.) and computing and IT-related sub-disciplines (computer science, information systems, information systems, informatics, etc.) are recognized?  

c.      Does the organisation demonstrate the use of appropriate and fair procedures in decision making?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      Is the organisation subject to interference from professional organisations, societies, special interest groups or government?

2.      Within the accrediting/recognising organization, is there a separation of those who establish accreditation/recognition policy and those who make accreditation/recognition decisions?

3.      Has written standards, criteria, policies and procedures for the evaluation of programs.

                   i.         Are these publicly available?

                  ii.         Is there a process for public comment or review?

4.      Accreditation visits are conducted in accordance with the documentation.

5.      Applies standards and criteria in a consistent and fair manner from institution to institution, program to program and year to year.

6.      Provides a written report to the institution that clearly distinguishes between actions required for accreditation/recognition and actions recommended for academic program improvement.

7.      Visit reports provide sufficient detail for the accreditation/recognition board (or equivalent) to make informed decisions whether or not to accredit particular programs, or to impose conditions.

8.      The board demonstrates a capacity to make difficult decisions in a way likely to be beneficial to the computing and IT-related community in the longer term.

9.      Has a process for appealing adverse accreditation/recognition decisions.

10.   Has a clear conflict of interest policy for all involved in the accreditation/recognition process including visiting teams, accreditation/recognition decision-makers and policy-makers.

11.   Are the procedures capable of addressing unusual circumstances in a perceptive way, and is this illustrated in practice?

d.      Does the organisation have the capacity to conduct accreditation/recognition activities on an ongoing basis?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      Has sufficient staff and financial resources to conduct and sustain an effective accrediting/recognising process.

                   i.         How is the organisation financed?

                  ii.         What is the outlook for financial viability?

2.      Has an effective process for the recruitment, selection, training & evaluation of program evaluators/visitors.

                   i.         How are evaluators selected?

                  ii.         Are there written training materials?

                 iii.         What is process for evaluation?

                 iv.         Does the visiting team pool include computing and IT-related practitioners as well academicians?

3.      Conducts periodic self-review to improve its standards, criteria, policies and procedures.

e.      Does the operating documentation focus attention on the fundamental criteria for accreditation/recognition?  Performance indicators/key attributes:

1.      The required graduate attributes are documented in a way that is clearly evident to the educational provider concerned, and the required attributes are Substantially Equivalent to the Accord exemplar.

2.      The criteria translate into procedures that evaluate in depth the outcomes of each program and how they are assured.

f.       Ultimately, as an overarching test, is the outcome standard, as evaluated by existing Signatories during live observation and interaction, consistent with that represented by the Accord?

C5. Reviews

C.5.1 Procedure A: Normal Review

·       Review teams must embody a range of expertise and should include at least one academic and one industrial representative. According to the Accord Rules and Procedures, the Committee must select at least three members for the Review Team and normally at least two team members will physically take part in visits.

·       In selecting the Review Team, the Committee as well as the Secretariat must be cognisant of any activities that may impede individuals from participating due to conflict of interest.

·       The chair of the Review Team must be appointed by the Committee at the time of notification of the team composition.

·       Confirmation of substantial equivalency should be based on visits to at least two educational providers including a total of at least two programs relevant to the Accord undergoing evaluation. The programs should be representative of the diversity among program types and educational provider characteristics when practical. In addition, at least one team member shall observe a meeting of the accreditation/recognition board or other body responsible for final accreditation/recognition actions.

·       Design of a typical visit: In order to make most efficient use of time and to ensure timely production of the report, the following procedures should be adopted:

a.      A copy of the most recent Review report will be made available to the Review team. 

b.      Prior to the first visit, the review team should review data, determine aspects to be examined in more detail, outline the report structure, allocate individual team member responsibilities and communicate with the host Signatory to obtain background information and clarify the accreditation/recognition systems and the visit programme. 

c.      The visit or visits accompanying the accreditation/recognition panels shall take place in accordance with the protocols in 5.1.6 below.

d.      A post-visit team review to structure the report and if possible prepare it in outline.

e.      The review team should visit the headquarters office of the agency administering the computing and IT-related accreditation/recognition process.

·       In general the protocols to be observed by the review team during the visit should be:

a.      The team members should be non-participatory observers.

b.      The team members should refrain from making comments on the procedures or outcomes during the visits and only comment to the accreditation/recognition panel when requested to do so, after visits have been concluded and the intended recommendations made known to the universities concerned.

c.      Where appropriate and necessary and in order to achieve complete coverage the team may split to accompany accreditation/recognition sub-panels according to the individual specialization of the team members.

d.      The team members may participate in the discussions with students as their questions in these forums may assist the team to understand the educational culture and student perceptions. This is judged to not unduly influence the accreditation/recognition process.

e.      A draft team report must be submitted to the accreditation/recognition agency being reviewed to ensure correctness as to matters of fact.

C.5.2 Procedure B: Continuous Review

·       The Committee will nominate the Signatories from which Accord Review Teams (ARTs) may be drawn.

·       For each of not less than two accreditation visits within a five-year period, the Signatory being reviewed will indicate to the Secretariat that it wishes an Accord Review Team (ART) to be formed for that visit.

·       The ART will be formed by the Committee and Signatory being reviewed jointly, ensuring that a proportion of accreditation visit panel members but not less than one per visit must be from the panel set up for this purpose.  The Committee will designate one of the ART as the team leader.

·       The Signatory being reviewed must ensure that at least one member of the ART, in the last two years of the period, meets with the accreditation/recognition agency, reviews the accreditation/recognition procedures with the agency and observes an accreditation/recognition board decision meeting.

·       At least fifteen months prior to the end of the six-year period the Secretariat will circulate all Review Reports from the previous five-year period to all Signatories.

·       If no objections to the acceptability of the Review Reports as sufficiently demonstrating equivalence are received by the Secretariat twelve months prior to the end of the Review period, the accreditation/recognition procedures and practices of the subject organisation shall be deemed to comply and the Review is complete.  The process will then restart in the next six year Review period should Procedure B continue to apply.

C.5.3 General protocols applying to both procedures

·       Protocols to be observed for non English speaking organisations where the review team members are not fluent in the language of the jurisdiction being reviewed:

a.      English translations shall be provided of the key parts of the pre-visit documents for each visit that is to be observed and must include sufficient information for the observers to become familiar with the observed institutions, programs, and visiting teams.

b.      For Procedure A: Normal Review, a single translator at each visited program shall be provided.  The selection of translators is an important issue.  The accreditation/recognition organization being observed should be responsible for that selection, but should select individuals who, in addition to having good language skills and a knowledge of the accreditation/recognition process, agree to hold a neutral position with regard to the observation process.

c.      When multiple programs are to be observed at the same institution, it is recommended that the review team members remain with their translator, but that they time-share their participation among the multiple visiting panels.

d.      For Procedure B: Continuous Review, translators must be provided for each panel on which there is an international Reviewer.

·       At the conclusion of a visit to a given Signatory, the review team shall prepare a report with recommendations for the Secretariat that, in turn, shall be distributed to the other Signatories.  For Procedure A in all cases, and in Procedure B in cases when an Overall Review Team was appointed, the report shall be submitted no less than 90 days prior to the next General or Mid-term Meeting of the Accord Signatories.

·       The Final Report shall include:

a.      An executive summary outlining major system characteristics and citing recommended action with the appropriate action statement. 

b.      An overall introduction to the accreditation/recognition system under Review and its standards.

c.      Information on accreditation/recognition policies/procedures and criteria for the system under Review, including a comprehensive analysis of how the accreditation/recognition process addresses marginal, difficult conditional actions.

d.      A brief description of the educational provider and a listing of the programmes and results in order set the context for the Review.

e.      Information on the conformity of the system with its own published accreditation/recognition policies and procedures.

f.       Indications of any stated or observed substantial change to the accreditation/recognition criteria, policies or procedures of the system under Review and the rationale for the change.

g.      A statement as to whether the standard of the graduates of accredited/recognised programs are Substantially Equivalent to graduates of other Accord Signatories in preparation for a computing or IT-related profession.

h.      Any statement of weakness or deficiency.  A weakness indicates that the accreditation/recognition system is satisfactory but lacks the robustness that assures that the quality of the system will not be compromised prior to the next general Review.  A deficiency indicates that the processes, policies and procedures for granting accreditation/recognition to programmes have been examined and found not to be Substantially Equivalent to comparable practices of other Signatories that assess the quality of programmes.  This action changes the Signatory's status to that of conditional as defined in Part 1 of Section B.

i.       Recommended action to the Accord Signatories in accordance with Part 3.6 of the Rules and Procedures.

·       Review reports may be not be communicated to any Signatory except through the Secretariat except that the draft reports may be submitted by the Reviewers to their home organisations for the purposes of quality assurance and advice and to the agency being reviewed, but solely to ensure factual accuracy.

·       In Procedure B, the ORT Report shall additionally focus on the remedial actions taken by the Signatory to address the deficiencies or weaknesses cited by the earlier Accord Review Teams and shall be submitted to the Secretariat.

·       Conditional status of a Signatory means that: the Signatory must upgrade its policies and procedures to meet the Accord requirements within a specified period.

a.      the Review report will specify what further report or visit will be required to confirm the satisfactory upgrading of policies and procedures.

b.      these reports shall be received before the end of the defined period.

c.      graduates who complete academic degrees during the period of conditional status will not be recognized.

d.      the status as a Signatory will be revoked unless the upgrading requirements are met.

·       Costs of Reviews

a.      The direct costs of Reviews, either under Procedure A or Procedure B will be borne by the Signatory under Review. Such costs will include travel costs of Reviewers, preparation of Review documents by the Signatories and other associated costs. Further, these direct costs will be governed by the policies, procedures and practices of the Signatory under Review. A signatory may send observers on a review visit with the agreement of the reviewed signatory and the review team provided that all costs for the observer’s participation are borne by the observer or observer’s signatory.     

C.5.4 Qualifications of a Reviewer

·       The following would normally be requirements for a Reviewer nominated by a Signatory:

a.      Thorough knowledge of, and experience in, the current practices and procedures for evaluating whether a program satisfies the nominating Signatory’s requirements for accreditation. This would normally include service as a member of at least three review teams (or panels) for programs that are relevant to the scope of the Seoul Accord, with service that is sufficiently recent to provide currency and with some experience as chair of a review team.

b.      Thorough knowledge of, and experience in, the nominating Signatory’s procedures for determining accreditation actions on programs that are relevant to the scope of the Seoul Accord. This would normally include the equivalent of service for at least two years on the nominating Signatory’s unit (board, commission, etc.) that makes accreditation decisions based on the reports from review teams.

c.      Knowledge and understanding of the processes and support needed by an accreditation organization to manage and conduct accreditation procedures for programs that are relevant to the scope of the Seoul Accord.

d.      An understanding that effective educational preparation for entry into a computing and IT-related profession can be provided in many different ways. Specifically, it is important to recognize that appropriate characteristics for professional preparation may be affected by such things as 

1. the qualifications and preparation of students who begin the educational preparation,

2. the cultural context in which the educational preparation is provided,

3. the objectives of the educational preparation.

e.      Fluency in written and spoken English, and the ability to use word processing software, email, etc. in preparing and reviewing reports and in communicating with review team members and contacts at the reviewed organization.

The nominating Signatory should interpret the intent of requirements a, b, and c as appropriate within the nominating Signatory’s context.

·       Desirable Requirements for Nominated Reviewers

Depending on the Reviewer’s home country and the country of the organization to be reviewed, the following may be desirable additional characteristics for a nominating Signatory to consider:

a.      Experience visiting, and interacting with colleagues from, countries other than the Reviewer’s home country.

b.      An understanding of the validity of cultural differences and the importance of conducting professional education in a way that is appropriate to its cultural context.

c.      The advantages of having some ability in the native language of the reviewed organization’s country.

·       Reviewers nominated by a Signatory must normally complete any required training that has been established by the Accord in order to qualify for service on a review team.

C.6 Fulfillment of Accord Obligations

C.6.1  Biennial Reporting by Signatories

·       The Accord places obligations on Signatories, including that Signatories will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing members to practice in its jurisdiction accept the equivalence of programs accredited by the Signatories to the Accord.

·       Accordingly, at each biennial General Meeting of the Accord, each Signatory is required to submit a written report on fulfillment of its obligations. This report must be submitted to the Secretariat at least 90 days prior to the meeting. The report shall include:

a.      Updated contact information

b.      Updated key personnel

c.      Updated accreditation/recognition information

            i.     Any changes in the scope of accreditation/recognition

           ii.     Changes in accreditation/recognition standards/criteria

          iii.     Number of currently accredited/recognised programs recognized under the Accord

         iv.     Overview of the accreditation/recognition visit programme – frequency of visits and scope of programme for the next six years

d.      Any recent major activities

e.      Any changes in operating environment

f.       Updated statement of fulfillment of Signatory obligations to other Signatories

            i.     Any changes in the structure of the licensing/registration/regulatory system for provision of computing and IT-related services within the jurisdiction of the Signatory

           ii.     Changes in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies 

          iii.     Changes in the relationship of the Signatory with the relevant licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies 

         iv.     Credit given to graduates of programmes accredited/recognised by the Signatory in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

          v.     Credit given to graduates of other Accord Signatories in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

         vi.     A copy of a statement that can be widely publicised by other Signatories stating the level of recognition that the relevant licensing/registration/regulatory/ membership bodies are presently providing to graduates of programmes of other Signatories

g.      The experiences of graduates of programmes accredited by the Signatory in seeking recognition of their computing and IT-related education within the jurisdictions of other Signatories.

h.      A list of all programs accredited/recognized outside the Signatory’s jurisdiction since the previous report, and an indication of which of those programs the Signatory intends to designate as recognized under the Accord.    

C.6.2 Biennial Reporting by Organizations Holding Provisional Status

·       At each biennial General Meeting of the Accord, organizations holding Provisional status are required to submit a written report. This report must be submitted to the Secretariat 90 days prior to the meeting. The report shall include:

a.      Updated contact information

b.      Updated key personnel

c.      Updated accreditation/recognition information

            i.     Any changes in the scope of accreditation/recognition

           ii.     Changes in accreditation/recognition standards/criteria

          iii.     Number of currently accredited/recognised programs (as of 30 June in the year of the General Meeting)

         iv.     Number of other accredited programs to which Accord recognition does not apply 

          v.     Overview of the accreditation/recognition visit programme – frequency of visits and scope of programme for the next six years (comprehensive and provisional accreditation/recognition)

d.      Any recent major activities

e.      Any changes in operating environment

f.       Updated statement on the potential ability to fulfil obligations to Signatories if admission as a Signatory was to occur in the future:

            i.     Any changes in the structure of the licensing/registration/regulatory system for provision of computing and IT-related services within the jurisdiction of the Signatory

           ii.     Changes in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies

          iii.     Changes in the relationship of the Signatory with the relevant licensing/registration/regulatory/membership bodies

         iv.     Credit given to graduates of programmes accredited/recognised by the Signatory in the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

          v.     Credit already given to graduates of Accord Signatories within the licensing/registration/regulatory/membership processes within the jurisdiction

C.6.3  Review of Biennial Reports

·       Biennial reports will be distributed by the Secretariat to Accord members promptly and prior to the General Meeting.

·       Any Signatory may raise questions or concerns about any Biennial report within 60 days of the report being distributed by the Secretariat.

·       The Signatory submitting the report in question will have 30 days to respond to these questions or concerns via the Secretariat

·       Any Signatory member not satisfied with the response may request the matter to be brought forward at the next Accord General Meeting. Such requests must have a second. This process does not preclude the provisions of B.5.1.3.

C.6.4  Listing of Programs

·         Introductory information on the Accord should be clearly accessible. The introduction should, at a minimum:

a.      introduce the Accord and its purpose,

b.      include a link to the Accord web page,

c.      advise the date from which the host jurisdiction became a Signatory to the Accord,

d.      explain the obligations of other Signatory jurisdictions to recognise graduates from accredited programmes, taking account of key dates.

e.      The following generic introductory statement is provided and Signatories are encouraged to adapt it to their own situation:

Programmes listed below have been accredited by [host Signatory organisation] and are recognised as meeting the initial academic requirements for [computing roles] in [country/jurisdiction/territory]. International recognition of these programmes is provided through the Seoul Accord, which was established in 2008. 
Signatories to the Seoul Accord have undertaken to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the bodies responsible for registering or licensing [computing role] to practise in its country or territory mutually recognise the substantial academic equivalence of computing academic programmes accredited by other Accord Signatories.
[Host Signatory organisation] became a Signatory to the Seoul Accord in [year] and other Signatories are under no formal obligation to recognise the graduates of accredited programmes prior to tha year. Individual Accord Signatories recognise [host Signatory organisation] accredited programmes prior to [year] at their own discretion.
Further details about the Seoul Accord and details of all current Signatories with links to their web sites can be found at: www.seoulaccord.org.

·       The introductory information should also include any interpretive statements necessary to explain terminology and assist in interpretation (see below).

·       It is essential that users of the listing can readily identify programmes that are accredited by the Signatory body within its jurisdiction, and can differentiate programmes that are recognised under a particular accord from those that are not.

·       Listings of accredited programmes should be maintained in discrete listings, discrete sections, or in a combined listing that enables searching by accord.

·       Users also need sufficient certainty over whether programmes of study that may be differentiated in some way are covered by the scope of accreditation. Examples of this may be:

a.      programmes offered at multiple campuses within the jurisdiction,

b.      programmes offered within the jurisdiction and at campuses external to the jurisdiction,

c.      programmes offered in multiple delivery modes,

d.      programmes that may be awarded both with and without honours or other distinguishing designation.

·       In general terms, Signatories are encouraged to list accredited programmes at the level of differentiation shown on the graduate’s qualification documents.

·       Where programmes offered by the same provider at different campuses within the accreditation jurisdiction are not differentiated on the qualification documents and are accredited on the basis that all pathways to award of the qualification have been assessed and accredited, a single listing for the provider would typically be shown. 

·       Where multiple pathways to the award of a programme qualification exist and are covered under the scope of a single undifferentiated accreditation, a general clarifying statement to this effect should be provided. The following generic wording is suggested for adaptation by Signatories to the specific jurisdiction:

Unless explicitly stated, accreditation, and recognition under the Seoul Accord, extends to the award of listed programmes based on delivery across any {jurisdiction/country name] campus operated by the provider or in any delivery mode through which the programme is offered.

·       Where programmes offered by the same provider at different campuses are differentiated on the qualification documents and can be accredited on an individual basis, separate listings of accreditations by campus would typically appear.

·       Where multiple pathways to the award of a qualification exist (i.e. multiple campuses or modes of delivery) and some pathways have not been accredited, then accredited pathways must be explicitly stated on the accreditation listing and there must be sufficient differentiation on the qualification documents to enable proper interpretation by the user.

·       The first date from which accreditation applies to graduates should be clearly stated. The listing should provide clarity over whether the dates relate to the year of programme enrolment, completion or graduation.

C.6.5  Issue Resolution

·       In cases where it comes to the attention of a particular Signatory that graduates of programmes accredited by that Signatory have not been accorded the same level of recognition by a licensing/registration/regulatory/membership body within a jurisdiction as graduates from programmes accredited/recognised by the Signatory within that jurisdiction then the Signatory concerned must notify the Signatory responsible for the jurisdiction within which the lack of recognition has occurred, and request the latter to undertake actions to resolve the issue.

·       If, in the view of the aggrieved Signatory, reasonable opportunity has been given but the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved, then the aggrieved Signatory may request an issue resolution session, open only to Signatories, where issues on implementation of the Accord can be raised in a solution-focused environment. Prior to an issue being accepted for discussion, it must be demonstrated via a formal written report that substantive discussions leading up to the meeting were undertaken but issues were not able to be resolved. Both individual cases and trends or systemic issues may be raised.

·       Requests for an issue resolution session, with supporting documentation, shall be submitted to the Committee at least 60 days prior to an Accord meeting, and the Committee, after communicating with both Signatories concerned must make a decision as to whether to proceed to hold the session at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The Secretariat shall circulate the notice of the session and the relevant documentation immediately after the Committee has decided to schedule the issue resolution session. In instances where the Signatory is not the licensing or registration body, the Signatory is expected to provide evidence of procedures and processes that it has undertaken to encourage full implementation of the Accord in their jurisdiction.

·       If a number of Signatories can provide substantive evidence of failure of a Signatory to meet its Accord obligations, they may choose to invoke the provisions under Rule 4.3 Termination for Failure to Meet Obligations as a Signatory.        

C.7 Principles of Good Practice for Accord Signatories Working Internationally

These principles are intended to provide a generally accepted framework for undertaking reviews in jurisdictions where there is no organisation that is a Signatory of the Accord. They are intended to strengthen the international stature of the Accord Agreement, strengthen the working relationship among Accord Signatories and international quality assurance agencies, and encourage and enhance ongoing cooperation and communication.
 
Principle 1. Considerations for Accord Signatories When Determining to Undertake Quality Assurance Evaluations in another Jurisdiction covered by no member of the Accord
 
Accord Signatories will:

·       Affirm their organizational capacity to undertake a review (e.g., language, trained staff and evaluators, budget, experience, basic information about the jurisdiction); 

·       Clarify the relationship of international review activity to the priorities of the accrediting organization; 

·       Communicate with other Accord Signatories about international review activity; 

·       Promulgate a clear statement of the scope of the evaluation and the use of the recognition status by an institution or program in another jurisdiction, especially with regard to transfer of credit and degree and qualifications equivalency; 

·       Assure clear understanding of the relationship of the review to any international agreements that address quality assurance.

Principle 2. Expectations for Conduct of Evaluation Reviews Abroad
 
Accord Signatories will:

·       Inform jurisdiction quality assurance agencies in jurisdictions where reviews are undertaken and, where appropriate, seek information, guidance, and concurrence from these agencies; 

·       Communicate with rectors and other college and university officials at institutions where they are conducting reviews; 

·       Assure that staff and evaluators are adequately informed about higher education and quality assurance in the jurisdictions in which they are conducting reviews to preclude the appearance of cultural insensitivity; 

·       Communicate fully and clearly about costs and currencies associated with a review.

Principle 3. Quality Assurance of Online and Web-based Instruction and programs
 
Accord Signatories will:  

·       Work as closely as possible with their institutional and programmatic exporters of online and web-based education to assure quality as offerings are made available in a variety of jurisdictions, especially when the offerings involve instructional strategies that are unfamiliar to the host jurisdiction; 

·       Urge that these exporters review language, literacy and study skills levels of the target audience for these offerings, preparing separate or supplemental material to meet special needs if appropriate.

Principle 4. Responsibilities to Students and Colleagues 
 
Accord Signatories will:

·       Work with the appropriate agencies in non-Signatory jurisdictions to provide the most comprehensive and accurate information available about educational services and programs to avoid the export of diplomas of questionable quality offered for a fee; 

·       Develop, in coordination with international colleagues, the appropriate protocol to assist non-Signatory jurisdictions in reviewing educational imports from questionable provenance

D.1 Introduction

The role of professionals who innovate, design, implement and maintain computers, computing systems, and computing applications has become essential to both the economic development of, and the provision of services to, society. Typical computing activities require several roles that are named and recognized in different ways in many jurisdictions.¹  These roles, with a degree of overlap among them, are defined by their respective distinctive competencies.

The development of a computing professional is a continuous learning process. The first stage may be the attainment of an accredited educational qualification, the graduate stage. The second stage, following a period of training and experience, may lead to professional registration, licensure, or some other professional recognition, depending on the country or jurisdiction. In addition, computing professionals are expected to engage in life-long learning in order to maintain and enhance competency throughout their working lives.

Because of the universally essential nature of computer applications and the mobility of professionals across jurisdictional boundaries due to globalization, there is a real need to identify academic programs that adequately prepare graduates for entry into a computing profession based on generally recognized knowledge and abilities across country and other jurisdictional boundaries. Toward this end, the Seoul Accord is established as a mechanism for recognizing the equivalence of accredited educational qualifications in the development of computing professionals. The Seoul Accord provides for mutual recognition of graduates of accredited programs²  among the signatories of the accord. This accord is based on the principle of equivalence of educational preparation for entry to a computing profession, rather than on exact correspondence of content and outcomes of accredited programs. This document, Seoul Accord Graduate Attributes (SAGA), presents the accord signatories’ consensus on the generally-accepted attributes of graduates for programs included in the accord.

Section 2 of this document provides background, scope, limitations, and the contextual interpretation for the graduate attributes (presented in Section 5). Section 3 provides a number of definitions that form a common basis for understanding the general applicability of the attributes. General range statements are presented in Section 4, and the graduate attributes themselves are provided in Section 5.
 

D.2 Background for the Graduate Attributes

D.2.1 Purpose of Graduate Attributes

The graduate attributes are intended to define the scope and standards for programs that are recognized by the Seoul Accord, as well as to assist accord signatories and provisional members in developing outcomes-based accreditation criteria for use in their respective jurisdictions. Also, the graduate attributes guide bodies that are currently developing their accreditation systems with a goal of seeking to become signatories of the accord.

Graduate attributes form a set of individually-assessable outcomes that are indicative of a graduate's potential competency. The graduate attributes are exemplars of the attributes expected of a graduate from an accredited program. Each attribute is a succinct statement of an expected capability, qualified, if necessary, by a range indication appropriate to the type of program. The attributes identify the characteristics of graduates of all computing programs that fall within the scope of the Seoul Accord. A signatory may identify additional attributes that differentiate specific programs accredited by the signatory.

D.2.2 Limitation of Graduate Attributes

Each signatory defines the criteria against which computing educational programs are evaluated for accreditation. The accord is based on the principle of substantially equivalent qualification. That is, programs are not expected to have identical outcomes or content, but rather are expected to produce graduates who are prepared to enter professional careers in computing. The graduate attributes provide a point of reference for accreditation bodies to describe the outcomes of a substantially equivalent qualification. The graduate attributes do not represent “international standards” for accreditation.

D.2.3 Scope and Organization of Graduate Attributes

In defining the attributes, it is useful to distinguish among various types of post-secondary educational preparation. In conformance with corresponding terminologies employed by the International Educational Accords³ , the graduate attributes contrast the differences among the educational preparation for what will be called the computing professional, the computing technologist, and the computing technician. Each of these categories is unique in the range of problem solving skills and professional competency, and the categories are generally typified by successively less formal educational requirements. For each attribute name, characteristics or abilities relative to the attribute that should be obtained through formal education or training are listed for each of the roles of computing professional, computing technologist, and computing technician. The scope of the Seoul Accord encompasses only those academic programs that are accredited by accord signatories as preparing graduates for roles as computing professionals.

Each of the attribute statements is formulated for the professional, technologist, and technician using a common stem, with varying additions appropriate to each educational track. For example, for the Knowledge for Solving Computing Problemsattribute:

Common Stem: Apply knowledge of computing fundamentals, knowledge of a computing specialization, and mathematics, science, and domain knowledge appropriate for the computing specialization …

Computing Professional Range: … to the abstraction and conceptualization of computing models from defined problems and requirements.
Computing Technologist Range: … to defined and applied computing procedures, processes, systems, or methodologies.
Computing Technician Range: … to a wide variety of practical procedures and practices.

The resulting statements are shown below for this example:

The range qualifier in several attribute statements uses the notions of complex computing problems, broadly-defined computing problems, and well-defined computing problems or the notions of complex activities, broadly-defined activities, and well-defined activities. These designators for different levels of problem complexity and professional activity are defined in Section 4, and the full set of graduate attribute definitions is given in Section 5.

D.2.4 Contextual Interpretation

The graduate attributes are stated generically and are applicable to all computing disciplines. In interpreting the statements within a disciplinary context, each individual statement may be amplified and given particular emphasis, but in doing so its substance must not be altered and its individual elements must not be ignored.

D.3 Definitions Associated with the Graduate Attributes

The practice area of a computing professional, computing technologist, or computing technician is defined both by the area of computing knowledge and skills, and by the nature of the activities performed.

A computing problem in any domain is one that can be solved by the application of computing knowledge, skills, and generic competencies.

Solution means an effective proposal for resolving a problem, taking into account all relevant technical, legal, social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues and respecting the need for sustainability.

D.4 Common Range and Contextual Definitions Associated with the Graduate Attributes

D.4.1 Range of Problem Solving

D.4.2 Range of Computing Activities

D.5 Graduate Attributes

The following table provides profiles of graduates of three types of postsecondary educational computing programs. See Section 4 for definitions of complex, broadly-defined, and well-defined computing problems and activities. Note that the Seoul Accord applies only to the Computing Professional graduate, and that the columns for Computing Technologist and Computing Technician are included for comparative and clarification purposes only.

D.6 Conclusion

Judgments on the standards of academic qualifications are often subjective. Only in the formal accreditation process is evidence judged against defined criteria. These criteria have become increasingly aligned through international accords, driven by globalisation of computing practice and the accompanying mobility of computing graduates and professionals. The Graduate Attributes listed here comprise a definition by the Seoul Accord of a set of outcomes that typify potential competency and performance on the part of graduates of computing programs within the scope of the accord. The Graduate Attributes will undoubtedly be refined as the computing discipline and the criteria of the accord signatories evolve.

D.7 Acknowledgement

This document is an adaptation of a similar document that is used by the Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, and Dublin Accord for engineering, engineering technology, and engineering technician, respectively (see http://www.washingtonaccord.org/). The work of the developers of the engineering attributes is gratefully acknowledged as the basis for this document.

The term computing is used in this document as a discipline in a broad sense, and it includes many other general terms such as informatics, computing and IT-related, and information and communication technology that may be used elsewhere. It is recognized that different terminology is used in different countries, and that specific titles or designations may have differing legal empowerment or restrictions within individual jurisdictions.

The term program is used in this document to indicate the academic qualification that prepares a graduate for entry into a computing profession. Other terms for the same thing, such as course, may be used in some educational systems.

The International Educational Accords are comprised of the Washington Accord, Sydney Accord, and Dublin Accord (see http://www.washingtonaccord.org/)