In a CDIO programme, the CDIO syllabus, standards, and self-evaluation model constitute the core components of the programme’s quality assurance system.
At the same time, CDIO programmes are also evaluated by national standards. A CDIO programme needs a quality assurance system which also fulfils these national requirements, and that is able to produce the evidence and documentation needed for a national evaluation with minimal additional effort. Efficient execution of this task requires understanding of the similarities and differences between the CDIO and national quality assurance systems.
In this paper, we consider the emerging European standards for accreditation of engineering programmes, the EUR-ACE standards. We account for a comparison between the CDIO syllabus and the EUR-ACE counterpart, the programme outcomes, and by the CDIO standards and EUR-ACE accreditation criteria, identifying similarities and differences. A discussion is conducted on the pros and cons of a rating scale-based system for continuous improvement and a threshold-based accreditation model.
The paper concludes that:
• The CDIO syllabus reflects a more encompassing view of engineering than EUR-ACE’s, by considering the full product/system/process lifecycle, including the implementing and operating life phases. The proficiency levels of the CDIO and EUR-ACE are, however, difficult to compare.
• The EUR-ACE accreditation requirements are extensive and include elements not addressed in the CDIO framework, eg concerning financial resources and decisionmaking. The CDIO standards provide “solutions” on how to work with about ¾ of the issues raised in a EUR-ACE accreditation.
• Four of the CDIO standards (4, 5, 7, and 8) define educational elements which are not explicitly discussed in EUR-ACE accreditation requirements.
• An evaluation process based on a rating scale, such as the CDIO self-evaluation model, is more useful for continuous improvement than a threshold value scale, such as used in a EUR-ACE accreditation.