Accreditation Decision

The process leads to one of the following results:

    1. Accredited
    2. Not Accredited

The program is accredited, and this accreditation is for the total period of 7 years:

The program demonstrates that meet the evaluation criteria of Acredita CI. The program contemplates in its design the graduate attributes, which are incorporated through their own graduate profile. It has continuous improvement mechanisms for the achievement of committed training having evidence that policies and mechanisms are known and applied systematically showing results that are reviewed periodically. The program demonstrates that the graduate profile is achieved.

The program is accredited but shows some weaknesses valuated as Does not met – In development:

The program will be visited in three years. In this case it meets the evaluation criteria of Acredita CI, being able to present some criteria with weaknesses in the category «does not meet-in development». The program contemplates in its design the graduate attributes, which are incorporated through their own graduate profile. The program demonstrates that the graduate profile is achieved. However, the evidence is recent, lacking to verify its permanence over time.

When it is necessary to visit at 3 years because it has some criteria as Does not met – In Development:

  1. Prior to the expiration of the term granted in the 3-year accreditation, the process contemplates, by definition, that the program presents a report to the Agency with substantive evidence that the detected weaknesses have been overcome. The report will be submitted within six months prior to the expiration date.
  2. In the Report, the program must also present evidence that those criteria that were considered as met in the original evaluation are maintained and projected to continue at that level of fulfillment.
  3. From the review of this report, the Technology Council will determine if it is necessary to visit the program in the field to verify the progress or the evidence presented in the report is sufficient to decide, based on the documentary review.
  4. In any of these cases and verifying progress in overcoming weaknesses and that all the criteria are met, the accreditation of the program will be extended in 4 years.
  5. If the weaknesses are not overcome, the accreditation will not be extended to the program, losing its accredited status and it must be submitted to the process again in two years from that date.
  6. If it is verified that the weaknesses have been overcome, but there is evidence that any of the criteria that were met in the original process, has lost that condition, Acredita CI will grant the program two additional years to present evidence that all the criteria are fully met. Once the term has elapsed, Acredita CI will request that explicit evidence from the program on those elements that should be resolved that demonstrate that the weakness has been overcome, in which case the accreditation will be maintained. Otherwise, and if evidence is found that this is not the case, the program will lose its accreditation.
  7. If the program does not present the Report before the six months indicated in point a. precedent or simply does not present it yet at the request of the Agency, loses its accredited status.

The program is not accredited.

The program does not accredit when it has one or more evaluation criteria with weaknesses in the category «Does not meet – Non-existent», because it presents defects in its design, does not contemplate all the graduate attributes or does not have formal or systematic policies or mechanisms in its training process, or there are only statements, but without evidence of its application, or there is evidence that the graduate profile is not achieved.