Balanced Scorecard Based Performance Analysis of Accreditation for Engineering Education

Ju, Yonghan;Sohn, So Young;Ahn, Jinsook;Choi, Jin Young

  • Received : 2014.02.20
  • Accepted : 2014.03.04
  • Published : 2014.03.30


The number of students graduating from accredited programs has been increasing annually since the first students graduated from accredited engineering programs in Korean universities in 2004. In this paper, we evaluate the effect of engineering education accreditation by the Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK). We developed performance evaluation indices based on the balanced scorecard concept and applied the proposed indicators to graduates, faculty, and industry employers to see if there are significant differences between accredited and non-accredited groups. Overall, regardless of survey object, engineering education accreditation was perceived to contribute to the elevation of engineering and science and the level of national growth. However, the differences between accredited and non-accredited groups for some key performance indicators were statistically insignificant. The results of this paper are expected to provide crucial feedback information for the improvement of engineering education accreditation in Korea.


ABEEK;Engineering Education;Accreditation;Performance;BSC


  1. Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea (2005), Criteria for accrediting engineering programs (KEC2005), kr/en/data/KEC2005_120329(rev8).pdf.
  2. Ale Ebrahim, N., Rashid, A., Hanim, S., Ahmed, S., and Taha, Z. (2011), The effectiveness of virtual R&D teams in SMEs: experiences of Malaysian SMEs, Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 10(2), 109-114.
  3. Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., Gomez-Romero, J., and Lopez, E. (2009), A semantic fuzzy expert system for a fuzzy balanced scorecard, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 423-433.
  4. Bull, S., Gardner, P., Ahmad, N., Ting, J., and Clarke, B. (2009), Use and trust of simple independent open learner models to support learning within and across courses. In: Houben, G. J. et al. (eds.), User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 42-53.
  5. Bullen, F. and Silverstein, J. (2005), Linking local attributes to global accreditation, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference Frontiers in Education, Indianapolis, IN, F2D-1.
  6. Chen, M. Y., Huang, M. J., and Cheng, Y. C. (2009), Measuring knowledge management performance using a competitive perspective: an empirical study, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8449-8459.
  7. Butler, A., Letza, S. R., and Neale, B. (1997), Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy, Long Range Planning, 30(2), 242-153.
  8. Campbell, C. A. and Brigman, G. (2005), Closing the achievement gap: a structured approach to group counseling, Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 30(1), 67-82.
  9. Carman, J. G. (2007), Evaluation practice among community- based organizations research into the reality, American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 60-75.
  10. Chen, L. S. (2011), Special issue section: using TRIZ techniques to new product function development of smart phones, Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 10(3), 179-184.
  11. Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., and Shiau, J. Y. (2006), The application of balanced scorecard in the performance evaluation of higher education, The TQM Magazine, 18(2), 190-205.
  12. Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., and Bjorklund, S. A. (2000), Grouping in the dark: what college students learn from group projects, Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60-83.
  13. Engineering Council UK (2007), UK-SPEC baseline project, ECUK Final Report 37, Engineering Council UK, London.
  14. Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. (2003), Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria, Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7-25.
  15. Felder, R. M. and Hadgraft, R. G. (2013), Educational practice and educational research in engineering: partners, antagonists, or ships passing in the night? Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 339-345.
  16. Geiger, R. L. (1990), Organized research units: their role in the development of university research, Journal of Higher Education, 61(1), 1-19.
  17. Halbo, L., Lund, K., and Froystein, H. A. (2005), Quality management education over the internet, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 10(3), 116-120.
  18. Huang, H. C. (2009), Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: a balanced scorecard perspective, Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (1), 209-218.
  19. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996), Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system, Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85.
  20. Johnson, K., Bryant, D., Rockwell, D., Moore, M., Straub, B. W., Cummings, P., and Wilson, C. (1999), Obtaining active parental consent for evaluation research: a case study, American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 239-249.
  21. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. P. (2013), Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  22. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992), The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
  23. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001a), The Strategy- Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. MA.
  24. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001b), Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I, Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87-104.
  25. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001c), Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part II, Accounting Horizons, 15(2), 147-160.
  26. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2004), Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  27. Lattuca, L. R., Strauss, L. C., and Volkwein, J. F. (2007), Getting in sync: faculty and employer perceptions from the national study of EC2000, International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 460-469.
  28. Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., and Volkwein, J. F. (2006), Engineering Change: A Study of the Impact of EC2000, ABET Inc., Baltimore, MD.
  29. Lawrence, S. and Sharma, U. (2002), Commodification of education and academic LABOUR-using the balanced scorecard in a university setting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5-6), 661-677.
  30. Lee, J. H. and Walsh, D. J. (2004), Quality in early childhood programs: reflections from program evaluation practices, American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 351-373.
  31. Murphy, T. E., Gaughan, M., Hume, R., and Moore, S. G. (2010), College graduation rates for minority students in a selective technical university: will participation in a summer bridge program contribute to success? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 70-83.
  32. Lee, S. F., Lo, K. K., Leung, R. F., and Ko, A. S. O. (2000), Strategy formulation framework for vocational education: integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology and MBNQA education criteria, Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(8), 407-423.
  33. Lee, Y. F., Altschuld, J. W., and Hung, H. L. (2008), Practices and challenges in educational program evaluation in the Asia-Pacific region: results of a delphi study, Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(4), 368-375.
  34. Li, Q., McCoach, D. B., Swaminathan, H., and Tang, J. (2008), Development of an instrument to measure perspectives of engineering education among college students, Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 47-56.
  35. Olve, N. G., Roy, J., and Wetter, M. (1999), Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using The Bal anced Scorecard, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
  36. Patil, A. and Codner, G. (2007), Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and proposal for global accreditation, European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), 639-651.
  37. Perrin, B. (1998), Effective use and misuse of performance measurement, American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367-379.
  38. Politis, Y. and Siskos, Y. (2004), Multicriteria methodology for the evaluation of a Greek engineering department, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(1), 223-240.
  39. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Oliver, S., and Johnson, D. (2006), A systems model of innovation processes in university STEM education, Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 13-24.
  40. Qin, S. Y., Atkins, A. S., and Yu, H. (2013), Balanced scorecard approach to evaluate business performance measurement using web tools in e-Tourism, International Journal of Computing Science and Communication Technologies, 5(2), 822-828.
  41. Roach, A. T. and Elliott, S. N. (2006), The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181-194.
  42. Sohn, S. Y. and Ju, Y. H. (2011), Design and implementation of youth engineering adventure program in Korea, International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(5), 1107-1116.
  43. Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., Krassadaki, E., and Matsatsinis, N. (2007), A multicriteria accreditation system for information technology skills and qualifications, European Journal of Operational Research, 182(2), 867-885.
  44. Sohn, S. Y. and Ju, Y. H. (2010a), Conjoint analysis for recruiting high quality students for college education, Expert Systems with Applications, 37(5), 3777-3783.
  45. Sohn, S. Y. and Ju, Y. H. (2010b), Perceptions of engineering among Korean youth, International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 205-217.
  46. Sohn, S. Y. and Kim, Y. (2012), DEA based multi-period evaluation system for research in academia, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8274-8278.
  47. Sohn, S. Y., Joo, Y. G., and Han, H. K. (2007), Structural equation model for the evaluation of national funding on R&D project of SMEs in consideration with MBNQA criteria, Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(1), 10-20.
  48. Stiles, L. J. (1968), Interdisciplinary accountability for teacher education: the developing partnership between academic and professional scholars is only a beginning, Journal of Higher Education, 39(1), 23-31.
  49. Strauss, L. C. and Terenzini, P. T. (2005), Assessing student performance on EC2000 Criterion 3.a-k, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR, 1-17.
  50. Stronge, J. H. and Helm, V. M. (1992), A performance evaluation system for professional support personnel, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 175-180.
  51. Sutherland, T. (2000), Designing and implementing an academic scorecard, Accounting Education News, (summer), 11-13.
  52. Umashankar, V. and Dutta, K. (2007), Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: an Indian perspective, International Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 54-67.
  53. van Merode, G. G., Groothuis, S., and Goldschmidt, H. J. M. (1999), Workflow management: changing your organization through simulation, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 4(9-10), 438-442.
  54. Vogt, W. (2001), The German perspective of using the EFQM model in medical laboratories, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 6(9-10), 396-401.
  55. Wiratmadja, I. I., Govindaraju, R., and Setiawati, E. (2011), Analysing the influence of technology on the business performance of rattan processing SMEs in South Kalimantan, Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 10(2), 104-108.

Cited by

  1. What matters in technology leakage in small and medium enterprises: the case of Korea vol.29, pp.6, 2017,
  2. Firms’ Negative Perceptions on Patents, Technology Management Strategies, and Subsequent Performance vol.9, pp.3, 2017,
  3. Technology Credit Scoring Based on a Quantification Method vol.9, pp.6, 2017,
  4. Engineering graduate students’ views on the effective ownership of academic patents pp.1573-7047, 2017,