Accreditation Requires a Fully Implemented and Evaluated Certificate Program

Many applicants seeking ANSI/ASTM E2659 accreditation mistakenly believe that a certificate program still in development or partially piloted can be assessed. However, accreditation requires clear, documented evidence of a fully implemented and operational program—or a complete simulation (pilot) that has been thoroughly evaluated. This article clarifies what “fully implemented” means and what evidence is required to meet accreditation standards.

To be eligible for accreditation under ANSI/ASTM E2659, a certificate program must be fully operational or have undergone a comprehensive pilot simulation that mirrors the final program in every aspect. Accreditation is not granted based on plans, intentions, or partial implementations. The program must be complete, delivered as designed, and evaluated using real participant data.

What Does “Fully Implemented” Mean?

A fully implemented program includes:

A complete delivery environment
Actual participants who represent the intended audience
Full execution from start to finish
Evidence of alignment between design and delivery
Evaluation of whether the program meets its stated objectives

This means the program must be running—not just documented. Assessors look for real-world evidence of participant engagement, delivery fidelity, and outcome achievement.

What About Pilots?

Programs that are not yet public may conduct a pilot to simulate the full program. However, the pilot must:

Be a complete simulation of the final program
Include all components (content, assessments, delivery methods)
Have any identified issues resolved and adjustments implemented before submission
Be evaluated as if it were the final version

The evaluation of the pilot will likely identify needed changes in the program, especially if it is the first pilot conducted. Changes to a certificate program can range from inconsequential to substantive, and it is important to understand the difference.

Inconsequential changes—such as correcting typos, adjusting font colors, or making minor grammatical edits—are cosmetic or editorial in nature and do not affect the program’s content, delivery, or assessment.
Substantive changes—such as adding, removing, or revising instructional content; changes to item stems and options; inserting new examples or case studies; modifying delivery methods; or changing assessment strategies—on the other hand, alter the scope, depth, or effectiveness of the program.

Any change that affects what is taught, how it is taught, or how learning is evaluated directly impacts the participant experience. As such, these substantive changes require the program to be re-implemented and re-evaluated in its updated form to ensure it still meets accreditation standards.

Common Misunderstandings

Some applicants mistakenly submit a program still under development or a pilot with unresolved issues or missing components. These do not meet the accreditation requirements. For example, if a pilot reveals technical issues (e.g., choppy audio), low learner satisfaction (e.g., survey scores below target), or flawed assessments (e.g., incorrect answer keys), these must be identified and reviewed by the Advisory Group for recommended actions, addressed by Management, and then re-evaluated before accreditation can proceed.

Required Evaluation Evidence

Whether from a live program or a full pilot, evaluation must include:

Learner feedback and satisfaction ratings
Assessment performance data (e.g., form reliability and item analysis)
Evidence that program objectives are being met
Documentation of advisory group and management review of findings

For example:

Learners report audio issues in online delivery
Course satisfaction scores average 2.2 out of 5, below the target of 3
Assessment data shows flawed or ambiguous test items

These findings must be reviewed, corrective actions recommended, and changes implemented before accreditation can be considered.

Conclusion

Accreditation under ANSI/ASTM E2659 is only possible when a program is fully implemented and evaluated—either through a live offering or a complete, validated pilot. Programs still in development, or pilots with unresolved issues, are not yet eligible to be assessed for accreditation. Understanding this requirement is essential for a successful accreditation process. If your certificate program isn’t fully operational yet, focus on completing and evaluating it thoroughly before applying.