Online
💥🥂 NEW YEAR GRAND DISCOUNT — Save up to 35% on Our Services. Offer Ends at 1st week of Jan
If you hold an engineering degree that is not accredited under the Washington Accord and want professional recognition in New Zealand, the KA02 knowledge assessment is your mandatory pathway. It is administered by Engineering New Zealand. It evaluates whether your academic background and professional experience match a four-year Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) degree.
Many applicants underestimate this process. They assume qualifications alone are enough, which often leads to weak submissions and avoidable delays. The real challenge is not understanding KA02. The real challenge is presenting clear competency evidence that meets Engineering New Zealand standards. Poor structure or inconsistent examples can lead to requests for more information or rejection.
This guide explains the full KA02 writing process. It covers the 8 competency elements, 46 performance indicators, required work samples, and self-assessment method. It also highlights common mistakes that lead to negative outcomes.
Let’s break down the correct approach step by step.
Engineering New Zealand uses two knowledge assessment reports:
If your engineering degree is from a country or institution not on the Washington Accord register, which covers most graduates from South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, you need a KA02.
A positive KA02 knowledge assessment outcome is required for New Zealand Skilled Migrant Category visa applications, Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) registration, Engineering New Zealand professional membership, and participation in many government-funded infrastructure projects.
A KA02 knowledge assessment report has four core components. Missing or under-developing any one of them causes delays or outright rejection.
Your CV must present your academic background, employment history, and professional development clearly. Engineering New Zealand uses it to verify that your experience is relevant to your nominated discipline and that you have sufficient project exposure to support your self-assessment claims.
This is the technical centerpiece of the KA02. You write structured responses across 8 elements drawn from the Washington Accord Graduate Attribute profile. There is a maximum of 500 words per element, and for each element you must relate the performance indicators back to that element.
The 8 knowledge elements are:
Within those 8 elements, there are a total of 46 indicators of performance. You should be able to provide evidence for all indicators that are relevant, using examples from your technical work and the project.
You must select three to four engineering projects or study activities that collectively provide evidence across the 46 performance indicators. Each project must involve genuine technical complexity. Engineering New Zealand defines this as problems that cannot be resolved solely by applying standard codes or textbook procedures, require first-principles reasoning, and have no obvious routine solution.
For each unit of work, you cite examples of work that you yourself created: a calculation, a technical report, a design drawing, an analysis, or a simulation result. These are uploaded as evidence along with your self-assessment.
There is no CPD required with the KA02 submission. However, providing an organized CPD list (including technical training, seminars, and standards review) may assist in application. This implies continuous expertise.
CDR australiaengineer specialises in high-quality CDR, RPL and VETASSESS reports for engineers. We offer low-cost, customized and reliable services in diverse engineering disciplines.
The self-assessment is limited to 500 words per element — a constraint that forces precision, not description. The most common failure is spending all 500 words explaining the project rather than demonstrating how your knowledge addresses the performance indicators. The correct approach:
Before drafting any element response, identify every performance indicator under that element and confirm which ones your project evidence actually supports. Do not write and then try to map; the indicators must drive what you write.
Refer to the submission work samples by number and file name throughout your text. For example: “In Work Sample 3, File 2, I applied finite element analysis to model stress distribution across the column base plate under combined axial and moment loading.” This accuracy marks the difference between an authoritative self-assessment and just a story.
Just stating what you did is not enough. Explaining why you selected a particular approach, what limitations you considered, and what the technical implications were demonstrates Washington Accord-equivalent knowledge rather than task completion.
Under Element 1 and Element 2 especially, connect your work directly to ENZ’s definition of complex engineering problems. If your written response could describe routine or repetitive work, assessors will flag it as insufficient.
Once your application is submitted:
A critical detail most guides omit: the 8–10 week timeline begins only after validation is confirmed complete, not from the submission date. Incomplete applications can add 3–4 weeks before the assessment clock even starts.
Choosing projects that applied standard design codes without independent engineering judgement. Assessors check to see if you engaged in actual non-routine problems where the solution was not dictated by existing procedures alone.
The narration was about what you did, rather than how your knowledge related to the indicators. Each paragraph must relate directly to an aspect or indicator, not to project deliverables.
Self-assessment does not contain numbers or direct reference to the sample. An assessor is unable to verify a claim made if they are unable to find the evidence for it.
Chosen projects from areas nearby to your nominated engineering discipline, which are not actually closely relevant. Electrical engineer will have episodes mostly based on the work an electrical engineer would do, not mechanical.
Elements 6, 7, and 8 are consistently under-addressed. Statements like “I considered safety in my design” do not meet the performance indicators. You need specific examples of how you assessed regulatory requirements, environmental trade-offs, or ethical engineering decisions with real technical consequences.
The KA02 knowledge assessment is not a generic writing task. It is a structured evidence-based evaluation used by Engineering New Zealand to confirm whether your engineering knowledge meets the Washington Accord graduate standard. Assessors focus on how clearly you demonstrate competency through real project work and self-assessment responses.
To reduce the risks like delays and negative outcomes, many applicants rely on CDRAustraliaEngineer for structured KA02 report writing aligned with Engineering New Zealand expectations.
Before starting, always refer to Engineering New Zealand’s official KA02 guide for discipline-specific requirements.
A KA02 Knowledge Assessment is a structured technical report submitted to Engineering New Zealand by engineers whose degree is not Washington Accord-accredited. It is required for New Zealand skilled migration visa applications and Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) registration.
The KA02 self-assessment covers 8 knowledge elements based on the Washington Accord Graduate Attribute profile, spanning engineering knowledge, problem analysis, design, investigation, tool usage, societal, ethical, and sustainability considerations.
You must include three to four engineering work episodes involving genuine technical complexity: problems that required first-principles reasoning, had no standard solution, and demanded independent engineering judgement.
Work samples are engineering outputs you personally produced, such as calculations, design drawings, technical reports, simulation results, or analyses. Each must be clearly numbered and directly referenced within your self-assessment text to support specific technical claims.
A competency assessment advisor validates your application within 10 working days of submission. If complete, an assessor is assigned and typically takes 8–10 weeks to review it. For a well-prepared, complete application, the full process from submission to outcome typically runs 10–14 weeks.
KA01 applies to engineers with a Washington Accord-accredited degree. Their qualification is verified at program level rather than assessed in depth. KA02 requires a full self-assessment against 8 knowledge elements, supported by work episodes and work samples, to demonstrate that non-accredited engineering knowledge meets the Washington Accord graduate standard.
Free consultation & document collection.
ANZSCO code & category assessment.
Expert CDR writing by engineers.
Quality check & plagiarism test.
Delivery + free revisions support.
Start with a free consultation. We assess your profile at no cost and guide you every step of the way.
Scan to Connect With Our Experts ⤴︎
