During the approval phase, checks and balances are put in place to ensure the credential(s) are of quality. These build trust in the credential among all constituents, such as learners, employers, faculty, academic advisors, and quality assurance entities.
How are different groups involved in the development? How are faculty involved? How are industry representatives involved? Who else is involved? How is input collected? How is consensus developed? What are the qualifications of those involved in developing and providing the credential(s)? Who will be delivering the credential(s)? What are their qualifications?
What standards and metrics were used in developing the credential(s)? What are the standards for the field or industry? What accreditation standards should be followed?
How are quality and trust ensured in the credential(s)? How is their relevance determined? How do you incorporate different stakeholders’ perspectives of the credential(s)’ value? How do you ensure alignment among various aspects of the credential(s), including needs assessment, what is produced, how it is assessed, its learning outcomes, and the nature of learners’ field experiences?
What is the approval process? Who reviews the proposal before submission for approval? Where and how is it submitted for approval? Who is involved in the approval process, and who has ultimate approval authority?
How will information on the credential be made available? Is it easily discoverable and understandable? Transparent and reliable? How will the credential(s) be communicated and marketed to constituents?
How will the credential(s) be evaluated over time? What are the mechanisms for improvement? How will the credential(s) remain current and relevant? How well does the credential(s) meet its purpose? Is there a follow-up review process, such as a five-year review where outcomes will be examined? What is its retirement process, if needed?