Common use of THE REVIEW OR EVALUATION PROCESS Clause in Contracts

THE REVIEW OR EVALUATION PROCESS. The Evaluation and Review processes are described in the Rules and Procedures. You should familiarise yourself with both the Rules (section B) and the guidelines (section C). The conduct of Evaluations for upgrade to Authorised Member or of Review of an existing Authorised Member may be slightly different but the overall purpose is to determine that: a. the relevant graduate attribute statements and competence profiles applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated are substantially equivalent with those specified in the IEA document “Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies” available on the IEA website under the heading “Graduate/professional competence profiles”; b. the governance, written procedures and standards of the jurisdiction being reviewed meet all the requirements detailed in the relevant Agreement c. the assessment system applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed as demonstrated in the approved assessment statement, sample applications, other documents submitted, and as observed during any review or evaluation visit that may take place, follow robust procedures that enable it to make reliable decisions; d. those who are granted entry to the jurisdiction section of the relevant international register by the jurisdiction have gained at least seven years practical experience after graduation including two years in responsible charge of significant engineering work and maintained their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level. As an Evaluator or Reviewer you will be one of a team of three appointed by the appropriate Committee. The team will normally include at least one member experienced in engineering education and one from an industrial or professional background. A Team Leader will be nominated by the Committee. The process in which you have been invited to participate will be one of the following: a. Evaluation – Provisional Member seeking to become an Authorised Member; b. Periodic Review – Authorised Member receiving its six-year review; c. Out of cycle Review – Authorised Member that has made substantial changes to its assessment processes; d. Joint Periodic Review for more than one Agreement; Prior to the review visit you will receive from the IEA Secretariat the documents that have been submitted by the Jurisdiction under review as specified in Section C Guidelines Section 5.2. If you require further information or clarification on the documentation provided, you should seek this in consultation with your fellow Review Team members through the IEA Secretariat. In establishing the extent of Review or Evaluation activities to be carried out on the ground in the jurisdiction the Review or Evaluation Team is expected to take into account: a. whether the jurisdiction is a signatory of the relevant Accord, and b. the extent to which the Authorised Member has previously been visited by a review team, and c. the quality and sufficiency of information supplied by the Authorised Member under review to confirm that the relevant standards, systems, and processes conform to the requirements and exemplars, and d. Whether there have been substantial changes to education criteria or competence assessment standards, processes or systems of the Authorised Member since it was last reviewed. Nevertheless, when you and your fellow Review or Evaluation Team members have considered all the documentation provided you may, in consultation with the Committee, decide that a review visit it not necessary. This must be a unanimous decision and the relevant sections of the Review or Evaluation Report are required to reflect this fact. Possible questions that may assist the reviewers are contained in Appendix A. It is expected that the Team Leader will coordinate the preparation of the Evaluation or Review Report in consultation with all Review Team members. The accuracy of the facts in the final report should be checked with the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated, signed by all members of the Review or Evaluation Team and the signed report submitted to the Committee. If the accuracy of the facts in the final report cannot be agreed with the jurisdiction under review, the Jurisdiction‟s comments in this regard must be recorded in the Review Report. After the Review Report is distributed to all Authorised Members you are expected to ensure that your jurisdiction‟s representatives at the next IEAM are fully briefed and capable of informed contribution to the debate and decision in your absence, but also for quality control purposes. You may not communicate or discuss the report with any other person or organization other than through the IEA Secretariat. If you require clarification on the above procedures and requirements please do not hesitate to seek guidance from the Executive Committee or the Secretariat.

THE REVIEW OR EVALUATION PROCESS. The Evaluation and Review processes are described in the Rules and Procedures. You should familiarise yourself with both the Rules (section B) and the guidelines (section C). The conduct of Evaluations for upgrade to Authorised Authorized Member or of Review of an existing Authorised Authorized Member may be slightly different but the overall purpose is to determine that: a. the a) The relevant graduate attribute statements and competence profiles applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated are substantially equivalent with those specified in the IEA document “Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies” available on the IEA website under the heading “Graduate/professional competence profiles”; b. the b) The governance, written procedures and standards of the jurisdiction being reviewed meet all the requirements detailed in the relevant Agreement c. the c) The assessment system applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed as demonstrated in the approved assessment statement, sample applications, other documents submitted, and as observed during any review or evaluation visit that may take place, follow robust procedures that enable it to make reliable decisions; d. those d) Those who are granted entry to the jurisdiction section of the relevant international register by the jurisdiction have gained at least seven years practical experience after graduation including two years in responsible charge of significant engineering work and maintained their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level. As an Evaluator or Reviewer Reviewer, you will be one of a team of three appointed by the appropriate Committee. The team will normally include at least one member experienced in engineering education and one from an industrial or professional background. A Team Leader will be nominated by the Committee. The process in which you have been invited to participate will be one of the following: a. a) Evaluation – Provisional Member seeking to become an Authorised Authorized Member; b. b) Periodic Review – Authorised Authorized Member receiving its six-year review; c. c) Out of cycle Review – Authorised Authorized Member that has made substantial changes to its assessment processes; d. d) Joint Periodic Review for more than one Agreement; Prior to the review visit you will receive from the IEA Secretariat the documents that have been submitted by the Jurisdiction under review as specified in Section C Guidelines Section 5.2. If you require further information or clarification on the documentation provided, you should seek this in consultation with your fellow Review Team members through the IEA Secretariat. In establishing the extent of Review or Evaluation activities to be carried out on the ground in the jurisdiction the Review or Evaluation Team is expected to take into account: a. whether the jurisdiction is a signatory of the relevant Accord, and b. the extent to which the Authorised Member has previously been visited by a review team, and c. the quality and sufficiency of information supplied by the Authorised Member under review to confirm that the relevant standards, systems, and processes conform to the requirements and exemplars, and d. Whether there have been substantial changes to education criteria or competence assessment standards, processes or systems of the Authorised Member since it was last reviewed. Nevertheless, when you and your fellow Review or Evaluation Team members have considered all the documentation provided you may, in consultation with the Committee, decide that a review visit it not necessary. This must be a unanimous decision and the relevant sections of the Review or Evaluation Report are required to reflect this fact. Possible questions that may assist the reviewers are contained in Appendix A. It is expected that the Team Leader will coordinate the preparation of the Evaluation or Review Report in consultation with all Review Team members. The accuracy of the facts in the final report should be checked with the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated, signed by all members of the Review or Evaluation Team and the signed report submitted to the Committee. If the accuracy of the facts in the final report cannot be agreed with the jurisdiction under review, the Jurisdiction‟s comments in this regard must be recorded in the Review Report. After the Review Report is distributed to all Authorised Members you are expected to ensure that your jurisdiction‟s representatives at the next IEAM are fully briefed and capable of informed contribution to the debate and decision in your absence, but also for quality control purposes. You may not communicate or discuss the report with any other person or organization other than through the IEA Secretariat. If you require clarification on the above procedures and requirements please do not hesitate to seek guidance from the Executive Committee or the Secretariat.

THE REVIEW OR EVALUATION PROCESS. The Evaluation and Review processes are described in the Rules and Procedures. You should familiarise yourself with both the Rules (section B) and the guidelines (section C). The conduct of Evaluations for upgrade to Authorised Authorized Member or of Review of an existing Authorised Authorized Member may be slightly different but the overall purpose is to determine that: a. the The relevant graduate attribute statements and competence profiles applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated are substantially equivalent with those specified in the IEA document “Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies” available on the IEA website under the heading “Graduate/professional competence profiles”; b. the The governance, written procedures and standards of the jurisdiction being reviewed meet all the requirements detailed in the relevant Agreement c. the The assessment system applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed as demonstrated in the approved assessment statement, sample applications, other documents submitted, and as observed during any review or evaluation visit that may take place, follow robust procedures that enable it to make reliable decisions; d. those Those who are granted entry to the jurisdiction section of the relevant international register by the jurisdiction have gained at least seven years practical experience after graduation including two years in responsible charge of significant engineering work and maintained their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level. As an Evaluator or Reviewer Reviewer, you will be one of a team of three appointed by the appropriate Committee. The team will normally include at least one member experienced in engineering education and one from an industrial or professional background. A Team Leader will be nominated by the Committee. The process in which you have been invited to participate will be one of the following: a. Evaluation – Provisional Member seeking to become an Authorised Authorized Member; b. Periodic Review – Authorised Authorized Member receiving its six-year review; c. Out of cycle Review – Authorised Authorized Member that has made substantial changes to its assessment processes; d. Joint Periodic Review for more than one Agreement; Prior to the review visit you will receive from the IEA Secretariat the documents that have been submitted by the Jurisdiction under review as specified in Section C Guidelines Section 5.2. If you require further information or clarification on the documentation provided, you should seek this in consultation with your fellow Review Team members through the IEA Secretariat. In establishing the extent of Review or Evaluation activities to be carried out on the ground in the jurisdiction the Review or Evaluation Team is expected to take into account: a. whether the jurisdiction is a signatory of the relevant Accord, and b. the extent to which the Authorised Authorized Member has previously been visited by a review team, and c. the quality and sufficiency of information supplied by the Authorised Authorized Member under review to confirm that the relevant standards, systems, and processes conform to the requirements and exemplars, and d. Whether there have been substantial changes to education criteria or competence assessment standards, processes or systems of the Authorised Authorized Member since it was last reviewed. Nevertheless, when you and your fellow Review or Evaluation Team members have considered all the documentation provided you may, in consultation with the Committee, decide that a review visit it not necessary. This must be a unanimous decision and the relevant sections of the Review or Evaluation Report are required to reflect this fact. Possible questions that may assist the reviewers are contained in Appendix A. It is expected that the Team Leader will coordinate the preparation of the Evaluation or Review Report in consultation with all Review Team members. The accuracy of the facts in the final report should be checked with the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated, signed by all members of the Review or Evaluation Team and the signed report submitted to the Committee. If the accuracy of the facts in the final report cannot be agreed with the jurisdiction under review, the Jurisdiction‟s Jurisdiction’s comments in this regard must be recorded in the Review Report. After the Review Report is distributed to all Authorised Authorized Members you are expected to ensure that your jurisdiction‟s jurisdiction’s representatives at the next IEAM are fully briefed and capable of informed contribution to the debate and decision in your absence, but also for quality control purposes. You may not communicate or discuss the report with any other person or organization other than through the IEA Secretariat. If you require clarification on the above procedures and requirements please do not hesitate to seek guidance from the Executive Committee or the Secretariat.

THE REVIEW OR EVALUATION PROCESS. The Evaluation and Review processes are described in the Rules and Procedures. You should familiarise yourself with both the Rules (section B) and the guidelines (section C). The conduct of Evaluations for upgrade to Authorised Member or of Review of an existing Authorised Member may be slightly different but the overall purpose is to determine that:‌ a. the The relevant graduate attribute statements and competence profiles applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated are substantially equivalent with those specified in the IEA document “Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies” available on the IEA website under the heading “Graduate/professional competence profiles”; b. the The governance, written procedures and standards of the jurisdiction being reviewed meet all the requirements detailed in the relevant Agreement c. the The assessment system applied by the jurisdiction being reviewed as demonstrated in the approved assessment statement, sample applications, other documents submitted, and as observed during any review or evaluation visit that may take place, follow robust procedures that enable it to make reliable decisions; d. those Those who are granted entry to the jurisdiction section of the relevant international register by the jurisdiction have gained at least seven years practical experience after graduation including two years in responsible charge of significant engineering work and maintained their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level. As an Evaluator or Reviewer Reviewer, you will be one of a team of three appointed by the appropriate Committee. The team will normally include at least one member experienced in engineering education and one from an industrial or professional background. A Team Leader will be nominated by the Committee. The process in which you have been invited to participate will be one of the following: a. Evaluation – Provisional Member seeking to become an Authorised Authorized Member; b. Periodic Review – Authorised Authorized Member receiving its six-year review; c. Out of cycle Review – Authorised Authorized Member that has made substantial changes to its assessment processes; d. Joint Periodic Review for more than one Agreement; Prior to the review visit you will receive from the IEA Secretariat the documents that have been submitted by the Jurisdiction under review as specified in Section C Guidelines Section 5.2. If you require further information or clarification on the documentation provided, you should seek this in consultation with your fellow Review Team members through the IEA Secretariat. In establishing the extent of Review or Evaluation activities to be carried out on the ground in the jurisdiction the Review or Evaluation Team is expected to take into account: a. whether the jurisdiction is a signatory of the relevant Accord, and b. the extent to which the Authorised Authorized Member has previously been visited by a review team, and c. the quality and sufficiency of information supplied by the Authorised Authorized Member under review to confirm that the relevant standards, systems, and processes conform to the requirements and exemplars, and d. Whether there have been substantial changes to education criteria or competence assessment standards, processes or systems of the Authorised Authorized Member since it was last reviewed. Nevertheless, when you and your fellow Review or Evaluation Team members have considered all the documentation provided you may, in consultation with the Committee, decide that a review visit it not necessary. This must be a unanimous decision and the relevant sections of the Review or Evaluation Report are required to reflect this fact. Possible questions that may assist the reviewers are contained in Appendix A. It is expected that the Team Leader will coordinate the preparation of the Evaluation or Review Report in consultation with all Review Team members. The accuracy of the facts in the final report should be checked with the jurisdiction being reviewed or evaluated, signed by all members of the Review or Evaluation Team and the signed report submitted to the Committee. If the accuracy of the facts in the final report cannot be agreed with the jurisdiction under review, the Jurisdiction‟s Jurisdiction’s comments in this regard must be recorded in the Review Report. After the Review Report is distributed to all Authorised Authorized Members you are expected to ensure that your jurisdiction‟s jurisdiction’s representatives at the next IEAM are fully briefed and capable of informed contribution to the debate and decision in your absence, but also for quality control purposes. You may not communicate or discuss the report with any other person or organization other than through the IEA Secretariat. If you require clarification on the above procedures and requirements please do not hesitate to seek guidance from the Executive Committee or the Secretariat.