top of page

Our Quality Policies

In accordance with the Regulation on Design and Planning Education Programs Accreditation Boards, the Design and Planning Accreditation Advisory Board and OYK meet at least twice a year. One of these meetings, preferably to be held on a date that will allow for the year-end evaluation, should be held with an agenda that includes at least the following topics to ensure the evaluation of the OYK/AYK accreditation processes, impartiality, objectivity and continuous improvements, apart from the requirements arising from the administrative processes and the duties related to the legislation. is collected.

  • Records of annual accreditation application, evaluation processes, accreditation decisions, appeal, and complaint evaluation processes and results,

  • Feedback, requests, suggestions, requests and stakeholder opinions obtained through different methods,

  • The results and effectiveness of the improvement activities and corrective and preventive actions carried out throughout the year,

  • Personnel, venue, equipment, etc., adequacy of resources

  • Evaluators' performance,

  • Performance and needs of planning and design programs,

  • The effectiveness of the accreditation processes operated,

  • Evaluations of the implementation and effectiveness of the decisions taken in the previous year,

  • Suggestions and needs for improvement,

  • The results of the quality targets taken at the previous meeting,

  • Setting quality targets for the following year.

The Advisory Board and OYK record the evaluations and decisions taken during the meeting and ensure that these decisions are communicated to the relevant people. OYK is responsible for establishing other boards, commissions, and working groups to ensure the implementation of the decisions taken and supervise their work.  Boards, commissions, and working groups formed by OYK create records and prepare reports containing the scope and results of their work.

In the evaluation meeting, the main decisions regarding the accreditation calendar determined by the AYK for the next year, the accreditation application fees, and the evaluator's and staff's training are also taken. The comprehensive Performance Report and its annexes, which include the topics to be discussed at the annual evaluation meeting, are prepared by the AYK and sent to the interested parties with the meeting agenda.



Feedback consists of opinions, suggestions, requests, and requests regarding accreditation conveyed to OYK, AYK, or the Design and Planning Accreditation Association through interviews and meetings with stakeholders, surveys, e-mails, petitions, etc, and verbal notifications.

The surveys are administered, evaluated, reported, and forwarded to the OYK and the AYK by the board, commission, working groups, or chamber employees who are responsible for the implementation and evaluation of the survey. Feedback received through other methods is forwarded to OYK by the person receiving the feedback. OYK may initiate the process of taking necessary actions for feedback that requires improvement or corrective or preventive actions. OYK can establish boards, commissions, and working groups for these activities within the powers specified in the Regulation and is responsible for supervising their work.  For small-scale activities, individuals may be appointed instead of groups. Boards, commissions, and working groups formed by OYK create records and prepare reports containing the scope and results of their work. As a result of these studies, changes that will occur in the operation of the processes, documents, or other elements will be sent to the relevant persons via e-mail, official correspondence, web page announcements, etc., announced by the appropriate method.



Peer Evaluation Teams

Among the accreditation applications made in accordance with the schedule announced on the website, a preliminary evaluation is made by the OYK, and peer evaluation teams are formed for at least one-third of the accepted ones. In the case of one or two applications, a single peer evaluation team is formed. Applications to which peer evaluation teams will be assigned are tried to be selected from different samples and new applications each time.

As with the accreditation evaluation teams, peer evaluation teams are determined by the AYK to create a balanced representation from the evaluator pool per the Regulation and other relevant directives.

Co-evaluation teams review the accreditation application documents in accordance with the relevant guidelines and submit their reports. However, they do not participate in the field visit. The consistency of the findings of the original evaluation teams and the peer evaluation teams are evaluated and reported by the AYK. These reports are forwarded to OYK. OYK ensures that improvement studies and corrective and preventive actions are carried out when needed. These reports are also discussed at annual evaluation meetings.

Evaluator Trainings

Assessors receive training in accordance with the schedule determined at the annual evaluation meeting as a minimum. If necessary, training is organized outside of the annual calendar. In training, identified areas for improvement, approaches/assessments that need to be calibrated, examples of good practice, examples of bad practice, ethical principles, innovations in processes and criteria, innovations in legislation, etc. information is provided; if necessary, case studies are carried out in the form of role-plays, experiences are shared; case study workshops can be organized. Questionnaires evaluate the effectiveness of the training given.

Performance of Evaluators and Process

The performance of the evaluators is tested by questionnaires in which the lead evaluators will evaluate the evaluators, the lead evaluator, the evaluation team of the planning and design programs applying for accreditation, and the accreditation process.

In addition, the feedback received through different methods, the results of objections and complaints, and the evaluators' findings in different environments are used to determine and improve evaluator performances. These performances are discussed within the framework of annual general evaluation meetings.

bottom of page