Design with ABET in View
An alignment guide for faculty, sponsors, and student teams.
ABET accredits educational programs. This independent site is not an accreditor, an ABET-endorsed service, or a guarantee of compliance. Faculty must use the criteria and discipline-specific program requirements applicable to their review cycle.
The major design experience
The 2026–2027 Engineering Accreditation Commission criteria require a culminating major design experience using earlier knowledge and skills, relevant engineering standards, and multiple constraints. Senior design is an important setting for demonstrating this integration. See Criterion 5 in the official EAC criteria.
From requirements to student work
The following is a proposed evidence map. It does not prescribe ABET forms, require every outcome to be assessed in capstone, or replace a program’s assessment plan.
| EAC student outcome, summarized | Possible senior design evidence |
|---|---|
| 1 · Solve complex engineering problems | Problem formulation, assumptions, calculations, model checks. |
| 2 · Design within needs and broader considerations | Requirements, alternatives, tradeoffs, safety and impact analysis. |
| 3 · Communicate effectively | Sponsor briefings, drawings, reports, accessible explanations. |
| 4 · Exercise ethical and professional judgment | Documented ethical decisions, limitations, risk escalation. |
| 5 · Work effectively on a team | Team charter, responsibilities, planning and contribution records. |
| 6 · Experiment and interpret evidence | Test design, calibrated measurements, uncertainty, conclusions. |
| 7 · Learn and apply new knowledge | A documented learning need, source evaluation, and application. |
These summaries refer to Criterion 3. Criterion 4 calls for documented assessment, evaluation, and use of findings for improvement. Consult the full official wording.
Our proposed alignment method
Before the project: Faculty screen technical depth, standards, constraints, feasibility, and opportunities to observe learning. Agree on which outcomes will be assessed and which artifacts support them.
During the project: Use review feedback to identify gaps while students still have time to improve. Keep individual explanations and contributions visible alongside team products.
After the project: Faculty apply their rubrics, evaluate results, and record actionable changes. Retain representative work under university rules, with appropriate permissions and access controls.
A project can meet a sponsor’s immediate need while exposing weaknesses in student learning. Conversely, a prototype that falls short can still provide valuable learning evidence if students analyze failure rigorously. Product performance and outcome attainment require distinct judgments.
Standards must influence the design
Listing a standard in a report is not enough for a useful design record. Identify relevant provisions, explain applicability, translate them into requirements, and show how decisions and verification address them. Obtain authorized access to standards; this website does not reproduce their protected texts.
Discipline and cycle matter
Mechanical, electrical, civil, and other programs have additional applicable program criteria. Engineering technology programs use a different commission’s criteria. Faculty should verify current requirements rather than reuse this guide unchanged across disciplines or review cycles.
Download the requirements matrix or visit testing and assessment.