International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)

ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018

A Review of NBA Accreditation for Undergraduate

Engineering Programmes (TIER-II)
Sachin Patil, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, RYMEC, Ballari-India.
sachinpatil.akruthi@gmail.com
Amrutha G E, Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
RYMEC, Ballari-India. geamrutha@gmail.com

Abstract-The higher education system in India has witnessed a remarkable growth, particularly in the last two decades,
to become the third largest system in the world. The number of institutions in the country has increased from around
30 in 1950 to more than 20,000 colleges. The number of universities has increased from around 20 to more than 500
universities awarding degrees. The challenge is to ensure its quality along with expansion. To meet this challenge, All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has established National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in the year
1994, for periodic evaluations of technical institutions and programs according to specified norms and standards as
recommended by AICTE council. India which was a provisional member of Washington Accord since 2007, became a
permanent member in 2014. This paper focuses on Accreditation process of Undergraduate Engineering Programmes
under TIER-II.

Keywords — Accreditation, NBA, Outcome Based Education, Program outcomes, SAR, TIER II.

I. INTRODUCTION Parliament in 1987. National Board of Accreditation (NBA)

There is debate in the country about the various approaches
to measure the quality, especially in the context of
unprecedented expansion of higher education institutions
and programs, entry and operation of foreign institutions in
variety of forms, and desire for global recognition through
the international accords. A mandatory and robust
accreditation system is required that could provide a
common frame of reference for students and other
stakeholders to obtain credible information on academic
quality across institutions[1]. Through the process of
accreditation, an agency evaluates the quality of a specific
educational program of an higher education institute, in
order to formally recognize it as having met standards. The
result of this process is usually the awarding of a status of
recognition to conduct educational programmes within a
time-limited validity. Presently there are two central bodies
responsible for accreditation, the National Accreditation
Assessment Council (NAAC) and the National Board of
Accreditation (NBA). This Process of Accreditation is an
effort in this direction, to meet quality goals in
education[1].
II. NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION
The New Education Policy of 1986 perceived the need for a
Statutory Body at the National level responsible for
commanding the growth and quality of Technical Education
in the country. Accordingly, All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) was established by an Act of
was originally constituted in September 1994, in order to
assess the qualitative competence of educational institutions
from Diploma level to Post-Graduate level in Engineering
and Technology, Management, Pharmacy, Architecture,
and related disciplines. NBA conducts evaluation of
programs of technical institution on the basis of laid down
norms. NBA in its present form has come into existence as
an autonomous body with effect from 7th January 2010,
with the objective of assurance of quality and relevance of
technical education through the mechanism of accreditation
of programs offered by the technical institutions[1]. The
NBA works very closely with faculty, educational
institutions, government, industries, regulators,
management, recruiters, alumni, students and their parents
to ensure that the programmes serve to equip their
graduates with sound knowledge of fundamentals and to
develop an adequate level of professional competence in
them, such as would meet the needs of the technical
profession locally as well as globally. The objective of the
NBA is to assess and accredit professional programmes
offered at various levels by the technical institutions on the
basis of norms prescribed by the NBA. The NBA became a
provisional member of the Washington Accord (WA) in
2007. The Washington Accord is an international
agreement among bodies responsible for accrediting
engineering degree programmes. It recognizes the
substantial equivalency of the programme accredited by
those bodies and recommends that graduates of the
programmes accredited by any of the signatory bodies be

199 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717 © 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.

 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
recognized by the other bodies as having met the academic
requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. To
become a signatory member of the WA, a robust
accreditation system was implemented by the NBA, New
Delhi, with support from all the stakeholders and as a result
NBA, India has become the permanent signatory member
of the Washington Accord on 13th June 2014.
III. ACCREDITATION OF UNDERGRADUATE
ENGINEERING PROGRAMMES
A. Need of Accreditation
NBA accreditation is quality assurance for technical
institutions, wherein an approved institution is appraised to
corroborate that the programme or institution continues to
make up to standards set by AICTE from time to time.
Accreditation gives assurance that the institution or
programme achieves their aims and objectives honestly.
Accreditation assures the programmes to produce
competent professionals that not only meet the local
industry requirements but are also acceptable in the global
job markets by transforming the raw student admitted to the
programme into a capable professional in the chosen
specified field. NBA accreditated institutions will be
favored by funding agencies for releasing grants for
research benefiting the institution. Accreditation also
benefits student as institutions delivers quality professional
education which satisfies the need of corporate world. Due
to accreditation from NBA, the Institution’s systems and
procedures get aligned with the Institution’s Mission and
Vision. Therefore, NBA acts as a catalyst for the
Figure 1: NBA Accreditation Process
200 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018
Institutions planning to acquire International Accreditation.
B. Accreditation Process
The NBA has two-tier accreditation system for
undergraduate engineering programmes. It was decided to
make two separate manuals for each tier after having
discussed with stakeholders. The TIER-I document is
applicable for programmes offered by academically
autonomous institutions and by university departments and
constituent colleges of the universities, whereas, the Tier-II
documents is for the non-autonomous institutions, i.e.,
those colleges and technical institutions which are affiliated
to a university. In both TIER-I and TIER-II documents, the
same set of criteria have been prescribed for accreditation.
In the TIER- I document, the criteria which are based on
outcome parameters have been given more importance,
whereas, in the TIER-II document, the importance for
outcome-based criteria has been reduced, significantly,
thereby enhancing the focus on the output-based criteria.
The accreditation process, whether for a first-time
accreditation or re-accreditation, broadly involves the
following activities.
1. The institution submits the Pre-qualifier for the
programmes applied for accreditation along with
10% fee.
2. If the programme complies with the qualifiers, the
institution submits the SAR for the programmes
applied for accreditation along with remaining 90%
fee.
© 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
3. NBA constitutes the Evaluation team which
comprises one Chairperson and 2 evaluators for each
of the programme.
4. Based on the SAR, Chairperson and evaluators
prepare the Pre-visit report. Visit will be conducted
on scheduled dates and the committee submits the
visit report based on the guidelines for the purpose
of formulation of their views about strengths,
weakness, concerns, deficiency, and observations
etc. about the programme concerned.
5. NBA receives the Pre-visit report and Visit reports
along with the comprehensive report of the
Chairperson and sends it to Moderation Committee.
6. Moderation Committee for the sake of consistency
initially prepares a draft report based on reports
submitted by the Evaluation Team and sends the
same to the institution and Chairperson.
7. Institution submits its response to factual errors, if
any, in draft report within 14 days to NBA.
8. Moderation Committee prepares a Comprehensive
Report in line with the feedback from the institution,
Pre-visit, Visit report and along with the report of
the Chairperson of the visiting team and submits to
Evaluation and Accreditation Committee.
9. Evaluation and Accreditation Committee which in
turn deliberates over the Moderation Committee’s
Comprehensive Report and submits its
recommendation to Sub Committee of Academic
Advisory Committee.
10. Sub Committee of Academic Advisory Committee
takes decision on grant of the Accreditation to a
particular programme and is conveyed to the
institution.
11. If the institution is not satisfied with the decision of
Accreditation, then the institution can make an
appeal against the decision.
12. The appeal will be placed before the Appellate
Committee which examines and evaluates the appeal
and submits evaluation report to Academic Advisory
Committee.
13. Academic Advisory Committee considers the
evaluation report and makes decision.
IV. CRITERIA OF ACCREDITATION
NBA’s Accreditation Criteria is based on the concepts of
total quality management. These concepts are assessment of
the quality of programmes using qualitative and
quantitative parameters, objectively measuring the quality
of inputs, processes and outputs against national
benchmarks, continuous improvement in the performance,
networking with stakeholders, working in teams, problem-
solving and problem prevention, transparency in
functioning, quality assurance, value addition, participation,
self-assessment and peer assessment, innovations according
to requirements of the external environment, feedback from
201 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018
students and stakeholders, adopting best practices, taking
corrective measures and so on.
As soon as NBA declares an institution to be eligible, the
institution should commence the process for preparation of
a Self-Assessment Report (SAR). In drafting the SAR, the
institution should refer to relevant NBA standards and
criteria. SAR should be based on self-introspection and
should not be promotional in nature. This process facilitates
the institute to judge the overall effectiveness of its own
processes. It should be careful in compiling data,
information and its interpretation.
The SAR consists generally three parts namely Part-A,
Part-B and Part-C as shown in figure 2. Part-A mainly
seeks general information about the institute and
department/programme. Part-B seeks information based on
10 broad criteria developed through a participatory process
involving experts from reputed national-level technical
institutions, industries, R&D organizations, and
professional bodies. Each criterion relates to a major feature
of institutional activity and its effectiveness. Part-C seeks
declaration of the institution and annexures.
PART A
Institutional Information
PART B
Program Level Criteria
Criteria Criteria Summary
1 Vision, Mission and Program Educational Objectives
2 Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes
3 Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes
4 Students’ Performance
5 Faculty Information and Contributions
6 Facilities and Technical Support
7 Continuous Improvement
Institute Level Criteria
Criteria Criteria Summary
8 First Year Academics
9 Student Support Systems
10 Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources
PART C
Declaration by the Institution & Annexures
Figure 2: SAR contents
The definitions of the terms used in SAR are as follows:
Mission and Vision statement - Mission statements are
essentially the means to achieve the vision of the institution.
Vision is a futuristic statement that the institution would
like to achieve over a long period of time, and Mission is
the means by which it proposes to move toward the stated
Vision.
Programme Educational Objectives (PEOs) – Programme
educational objectives are broad statements that describe
the career and professional accomplishments that the
programme is preparing graduates to achieve.
Programme Outcomes (POs) – Programme Outcomes are
narrower statements that describe what students are
© 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
expected to know and be able to do upon the graduation.
These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behavior that
students acquire in their matriculation through the
programme.
Course Outcomes (COs) - Course Outcomes are narrower
statements that describe what students are expected to
know, and be able to do at the end of each course. These
relate to the skills, knowledge, and behavior that students
acquire in their matriculation through the course.
Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes, carried
out by the institution, that identify, collect, and prepare data
to evaluate the achievement of programme educational
objectives and programme outcomes.
Evaluation – Evaluation is one or more processes, done by
the evaluation team, for interpreting the data and evidence
accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation
determines the extent to which programme educational
objectives or programme outcomes are being achieved, and
results in decisions and actions to improve the programme.
Mapping – Mapping is the process of representing,
preferably in matrix form, the correlation among the
parameters. It may be done for one to many, many to one,
and many to many parameters.
The criteria have been formulated in terms of parameters,
including quantitative measurements that have been
designed for maximally objective assessment of each
feature. The technical programme to be accredited will have
to satisfy all the following criteria during the full term of
accreditation.
A. Criterion 1: Vision, Mission, and Program
Educational Objectives
This criteria has 5 parameters and is for 60 marks as
shown in table 1
Table 1: Criterion 1
Sl no Parameter
1 5
State the Vision and Mission of the Department and Institute
2 State the Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)
Indicate where and how the Vision, Mission and PEOs are
3 10
published and disseminated among stakeholders
State the process for defining the Vision and Mission of the
4 25
Department, and PEOs of the program
5 Establish consistency of PEOs with Mission of the Department
Total
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 Appropriate/relevant Vision & Mission statements of
the Department should be published and must be
consistent with Institute statements
 Program Educational Objectives (3 to 5) of the program
under consideration should also be published
 Stated PEOs must be adequate in respect of publication
& dissemination among stakeholders
 Process involved in dissemination among stakeholders
and the extent of awareness of Vision, Mission & PEOs
202 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018
among the stakeholder should be projected
 Process involved in defining the Vision, Mission of the
Department and the PEOs of the program should be
projected
 Process involved in establishing matrix of PEOs and
elements of Mission statement of the programme and
Justification for each of the elements mapped in the
matrix should be projected
B. Criterion 2: Program Curriculum and Teaching-
Learning Processes
This criteria has 2 parameters and is for 120 marks as
shown in table 2
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 Implementation of process which ensures
mapping/compliance of University Curriculum with the
POs & PSOs, Identification of appropriate gaps, if any
for the attainment of defined POs & PSOs.
 There should be effective participation of internal and
external department stakeholders with effective process
implementation
 Steps should be taken to get identified gaps included in
the curriculum by communicating to university/BOS
 Delivery details of content beyond syllabus and
mapping of content beyond syllabus with the POs &
PSOs should be made available
 Academic Calendar based on University academic
calendar should be made available
Table 2: Criterion 2
Sl no Parameter Marks
1 Program Curriculum
State the process used to identify extent of compliance of the
a
University curriculum for attaining the Program
10
Outcomes(POs) & Program Specific Outcomes(PSOs), mention
the identified curricular gaps, if any
State the delivery details of the content beyond the syllabus
b 10
for the attainment of POs & PSOs
Marks 2 Teaching-Learning Processes
Describe the Process followed to improve quality of Teaching
a 25
Learning
5
Quality of internal semester Question papers, Assignments
b 20
and Evaluation
c Quality of student projects 25
d Initiatives related to industry interaction 15
e Initiatives related to industry internship/summer training 15
15
Total 120
60
 Pedagogical initiatives such as real-life examples,
collaborative learning, ICT supported learning,
interactive classrooms etc should be implemented
 Methodologies to support weak students and encourage
bright students should be implemented
 Quality of classroom teaching should be enhanced to
keep students engaged
 Quality of laboratory experience with respect to
conducting, recording observations, analysis should be
upgraded
 Continuous assessment in the laboratory should be done
© 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
in the form of Internal Semester examination and
internal marks, Practical record books, each experiment
assessment, final marks should be based on assessment
of all the experiments and other assessments.
 Student feedback in appropriate format on teaching
learning process should be taken frequently, analyzed
and necessary actions should be taken
 Effective process for internal semester question paper
setting and evaluation should be implemented by
ensuring questions from outcomes/learning levels
perspective
 Assignments should promote self-learning and should
be relevant to COs
 Appropriate methodology for identification of projects
and allocation to Faculty Members should be
implemented
 Projects should be classified considering factors such as
environment, safety, ethics, cost, standards etc which
contributes towards attainment of POs and PSOs
 Continuous monitoring and evaluation should be done
to assess individual and team performance and also to
assess quality of completed projects/working prototypes
so that quality papers are published and awards are
received by projects
 Industry Institute interaction should be achieved by
installing industry supported laboratories and by
involving industry in the program design and partial
delivery of any regular courses for students
 Initiation for Industrial training/tours, Industrial
/internship /summer training of more than two weeks for
students should be taken and post-training Assessment,
its impact analysis, and student feedback should be
documented for this initiation
C. Criterion 3: Course Outcomes and Program
Outcomes
This criteria has 3 parameters and is for 120 marks as
shown in table 3
Table 3: Criterion 3
Sl no Parameter
1 Establish the correlation between the courses and the POs & PSOs
a Course Outcomes
b CO-PO/PSOs matrices of courses
Program level Course- PO/PSOs matrix of ALL courses
c 10
including first year courses
2 Attainment of Course Outcomes
Describe the assessment processes used to gather the data
a
upon which the evaluation of Course Outcome is based
Record the attainment of Course Outcomes of all courses with
b 40
respect to set attainment levels
3 Attainment of Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes
Describe assessment tools and processes used for assessing
a 10
the attainment of each of the POs & PSOs
b Provide results of evaluation of each PO & PSO 40
Total
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 COs must be defined for every course
 Mapping of CO-PO/PSOs of courses should be done
203 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018
 Program level Course-PO/PSOs matrix of all courses
including first-year courses should be prepared
 The quality/relevant assessment processes & tools
should be used to gather the data upon which the
evaluation of Course Outcome is based
 The attainment of Course Outcomes of all courses with
respect to set attainment levels should be recorded
 The quality/relevant assessment processes & tools
should be used for assessing the attainment of each of
the POs & PSOs
 Results of evaluation of each PO & PSO should be
analyzed and necessary actions should be taken
D. Criterion 4: Students’ Performance
This criteria has 6 parameters and is for 150 marks as
shown in table 4
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 Enrollment ratio of students enrolled at the first year
level on average basis during the previous three
academic years starting from current academic year
should be at least 50%
 Success rate of students of the program without
backlogs in any Semester/year of study Without
Backlog and Success rate of students of the program
with backlogs in stipulated period should be improved
 Efforts for improving Academic Performance of
students of the program in Second Year and Third Year
should be done
Table 4: Criterion 4
Sl no Parameter Marks
1 Enrolment Ratio 20
2 Success Rate in the stipulated period of the program
Success rate without backlogs in any Semester/year of study
a Without Backlog means no compartment or failures in any 25
semester/year of study
b
Success rate with backlogs in stipulated period (actual
15
duration of the program)
3 Academic Performance in Third Year 15
4 Academic Performance in Second Year 15
5 Placement, Higher studies and Entrepreneurship 40
Marks 6 Professional Activities
Professional societies / chapters and organizing engineering
a 5
5 events
5 b Publication of technical magazines, newsletters, etc. 5
Participation in inter-institute events by students of the
c program of study (at other institutions) 10
Total 150
10  Percentage of students of the program placed, admitted
to Higher studies and into Entrepreneurship should be at
least 40%
 Students of the program should involve in activities of
professional societies/chapters and organize engineering
events at institute
120
 Students of the program should publish technical
magazines, newsletters, etc.
 Students of the program should participate in inter-
institute, inter-state events
© 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018

E. Criterion 5: Faculty Information and Contributions programme

This criteria has 9 parameters and is for 200 marks as  Provision of Visiting /Adjunct/Emeritus faculty etc.
shown in table 5 With Minimum 50 hours per year interaction should be
made in the programme
Table 5: Criterion 5
Sl no Parameter Marks F. Criterion 6: Facilities and Technical Support
1 Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) 20 This criteria has 5 parameters and is for 80 marks as shown
2 Faculty Cadre Proportion 25
in table 6
3 Faculty Qualification 25
4 Faculty Retention 25 Table 6: Criterion 6
5 Innovations by the Faculty in Teaching and Learning 20
Sl no Parameter Marks
Faculty as participants in Faculty development /training
6 15 Adequate and well equipped laboratories, and technical
activities /STTPs 1 30
manpower
7 Research and Development Additional Facilities created for improving the quality of
a Academic Research 10 2 25
learning experience in Laboratories
b Sponsored Research 5 3 Laboratories: Maintenance and overall ambience 10
c Development Activities 10 4 Project laboratory 5
d Consultancy (From Industry) 5 5 Safety measures in laboratories 10
Faculty Performance Appraisal and Development System
8 30 Total 80
(FPADS)
9 Visiting/Adjunct/Emeritus Faculty etc. 10
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
Total 200  Adequate well-equipped laboratories to run all the
program-specific curriculum with adequate and
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria qualified technical supporting staff should be
 Student-faculty ratio must be between 1:15 to 1:25 established
 Cadre wise number of faculty required as per AICTE  The laboratories must be equipped with computing
guidelines should be available in the programme resources, equipments, and tools relevant to the
 Appropriate Faculty Qualification as per AICTE programme. The equipments of the laboratories should
guidelines should be available in the programme be properly maintained, upgraded and utilized so that
the students can attain the programme outcomes.
 Faculty retention should be at least 50% of required
 There should be an adequate number of qualified
Faculties during the period of assessment keeping technical supporting staff to provide appropriate
CAYm3 as base year guidance for the students for using the equipment, tools,
 Innovations that contribute to the improvement of computers, and laboratories.
student learning, which typically include use of ICT,  The institution must provide scope for the technical staff
instruction delivery, instructional methods, assessment, for upgrading their skills and professional advancement
evaluation etc must be made available on Institute  Care should be taken for maintenance, overall ambiance
Website, must also be available for peer review and and Safety measures in laboratories
critique and can be reproducible and developed further G. Criterion 7: Continuous Improvement
by other scholars This criteria has 4 parameters and is for 50 marks as shown
 Faculty should participate in Faculty development in table 7
programmes/training activities /STTPs for a period of at
Table 7: Criterion 7
least 2 days
 Faculty should involve in quality publications which are Sl no Parameter Marks
Actions taken based on the results of evaluation of each of the
referred/SCI Journals, citations, Books/Book Chapters 1
POs and PSOs
20
etc. Academic Audit and actions taken during the period of
2 10
 Encouragement should be given for the faculty with Assessment
Improvement in Placement, Higher Studies and
respect to Registering/Completing Ph.D. and also for 3
Entrepreneurship
10
guiding of research scholars while working in the Improvement in the quality of students admitted to the
4 program 10
institute
 Efforts should be made to get research funds from Total 50

outside, for at least Rs 4 lakhs
 Development activities like Product Development,
Research laboratories, Instructional materials, Working
models/charts/monograms etc should be incorporated in
the programme
 Programme should involve in Consultancy (From
Industry) to generate revenue of at least Rs 2 lakhs
 well-defined performance appraisal and development
system should be implemented effectively in the
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 Actions should be taken based on the results of
evaluation of each of the POs and PSOs by
Identification of gaps/shortfalls followed by
implementation of action plan to bridge the gap
 Academic Audit should be done on conduct and actions
taken in relation to continuous improvement
 Efforts should be done in improving Placement
numbers, quality, core hiring industry, and pay packages

204 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717 © 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.

 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
 Care should be taken for Improvement in Higher
Studies admissions for pursuing PhD. in premier
institutions and for improvement in number of
Entrepreneurs
 Efforts should be done for improvement in quality of
students admitted to the program in terms of ranks/score
in qualifying state level/national level entrances tests,
percentage Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics marks
in 12th Standard and percentage marks of the lateral
entry students
H. Criterion 8: First Year Academics
This criteria has 5 parameters and is for 50 marks as
shown in table 8
Table 8: Criterion 8
Sl no Parameter
1 First Year Student- Faculty Ratio
2 Qualification of Faculty Teaching First Year Common Courses
3 First Year Academic Performance
4 Attainment
Describe theofassessment
Course Outcomes of first
processes usedyear courses
to gather the data
upon which the evaluation of Course Outcomes of first year is
a 5
based
Record the attainment of Course Outcomes of all first year
b 5
courses
5 Attainment of Program Outcomes of all first year courses
a Indicate results of evaluation of each relevant PO/PSO
Actions taken based on the results of evaluation of relevant
b 5
Pos /PSOs
Total
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 First-year Student-faculty ratio must be between 1:15 to
1:25
 Appropriate Faculty Qualification as per AICTE
guidelines should be available in the programme based
on number of regular Faculty with Ph.D. and Post
Graduation
 First-year Academic Performance should be enhanced
based on number of successful students appeared in the
examination, where successful students are those who
are permitted to proceed to the second year
 Care should be taken for the assessment of first-year
Course outcomes by using relevant assessment tools
 Efforts must be done for attainment of Course
Outcomes of all first year as per the benchmark set for
the courses
 Appropriate actions must be taken based on the results
of evaluation of relevant POs /PSOs attainment level
from the COs of related first-year courses
I. Criterion 9: Student Support Systems
This criteria has 7 parameters and is for 50 marks as shown
in table 9
Table 9: Criterion 9
Sl no Parameter
1 Mentoring system to help at individual level
Feedback analysis and reward /corrective measures taken, if
2 10
any
3 Feedback on facilities
4 Self Learning
5 Career Guidance, Training, Placement
6 Entrepreneurship Cell
7 Co-curricular and Extracurricular Activities
Total
205 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 Effective mentoring system has to be developed for the
students for various purposes
 Feedback on teaching-learning process, facilities should
be taken, analyzed and corrective measures should be
taken accordingly
 Scope for self-learning should be given by improving
the facilities, materials for learning beyond syllabus,
Webinars, Podcast, MOOCs etc. and must be effectively
utilized
 Career guidance facilities should be set up by institutes
 Counseling for higher studies and Pre-placement
training should be given to students
 Entrepreneurship initiatives should be taken and
Marks
encouragement for Co-curricular and Extracurricular
5
activities like sports, cultural facilities, NCC, NSS,
5
clubs and Annual students activities should be given
10 J. Criterion 10: Governance, Institutional Support, and
Financial Resources
Following points play key role in evaluation of this criteria
 Appropriate/Relevant Vision & Mission statements of
the Institute should be published in institute level
documents and should be made available in Institute
15
website, Library, Computer Center, Principal Chamber
etc
50 Governing Body Composition, Senate, and all other
academic and administrative bodies, their memberships,
functions, and responsibilities, frequency of the meetings,
participation details of external members and attendance
therein, published service rules, policies, and procedures
with year of publication and minutes of the meetings and
action-taken reports should be documented
Table 10: Criterion 10
Sl no Parameter Marks
1 Organization, Governance and Transparency
a State the Vision and Mission of the Institute 5
Governing body, administrative setup, functions of various
b bodies, service rules procedures, recruitment and promotional 10
policies.
Decentralization in working and grievance redressal
c
mechanism
10
d Delegation of financial powers 10
Transparency and availability of correct/unambiguous
e 5
information in public domain
2
Budget Allocation, Utilization, and Public Accounting at Institute level
a Adequacy of Budget allocation 10
b Utilization of allocated funds 15
Availability of the audited statements on the institute’s
c 5
website
3 Program Specific Budget Allocation, Utilization
a Adequacy of budget allocation 10
b Utilization of allocated funds 20
Marks
4 Library and Internet
5
a Quality of learning resources (hard/soft) 10
b Internet 10
5 Total 120
5
10  Working and grievance redressal mechanism should be
5 decentralized by giving delegated powers for taking
10 administrative decisions to Principal, Heads of
50
Departments and relevant in-charges and utilization of
© 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.
 International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM)
financial powers for each of the assessment years should
be demonstrated
 Information on the policies, rules, processes,
information about student, faculty, and staff is to be
made available on website
 Quantum of budget allocation, Justification of budget
allocated, its utilization and Audited statements at
institute and programme level for assessment years is to
be made available on website
 Relevant learning resources including e-resources and
Digital Library should be made available and accessible
to students
 Internet access should be made available in labs,
classrooms, library, and offices of all Departments
V. AWARD OF ACCREDITATION
A. Full Accreditation
Full Accreditation for Six years will be accorded to a
program on fulfillment of the following requirements:
 Program scoring a minimum of 750 points in aggregate
out of 1000 points with minimum score of 60% in
mandatory fields (criteria 4 to 6)
 The number of available Ph.D. in the department is
greater than or equal to 30% of the required number of
faculty averaged for previous two academic years
including current academic year.
 Admissions in the UG program at the program level are
more than or equal to 75% while at the institute level,
the admissions are more than or equal to 50%, averaged
for previous three academic years including Current
Academic Year[2].
 Faculty-Student Ratio in the department is less than or
equal to 1:15 averaged for the previous three academic
years including current academic year.
 At least 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate
Professor (on a full-time/regular basis) with Ph.D.
Degree are available in the concerned department for
previous two academic years including current
academic year.
 The HOD of the program under consideration possesses
Ph.D. Degree.
 The placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship
ratio is greater than or equal to 40% averaged over
previous three assessment years[2].
B. Provisional Accreditation
Provisional Accreditation for Three years will be accorded
to a program on fulfillment of the following requirements:
 The score for the program is greater than or equal to 600
points with minimum 40% marks in Criterion V
(Faculty Information and Contributions).
 At least one Professor or one Associate Professor with
Ph.D. degree (on a full-time/regular basis) is available
in the respective Department for previous two academic
years including current academic year.
 The student-faculty ratio in the department under
consideration is less than or equal to 1:25 averaged for
previous three academic years including current
academic year.
 The number of available Ph.D. in the department is
greater than or equal to 10% of the required number of
206 | IJREAMV04I0642065 DOI : 10.18231/2454-9150.2018.0717
ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-06, Sep 2018
faculty averaged for previous two academic years
including current academic year.
 The placement, Higher Studies and Entrepreneurship
ratio is greater than or equal to 40% averaged over
previous three assessment years[2].
C. No Accreditation of the program
If the program scores less than 600 marks or less than 40%
marks in Faculty Information and Contributions (Criterion
V) or fails to meet the criteria for award of provisional
accreditation for 3 years, the program avail not be
considered for accreditation[2].
VI. CONCLUSION
Accreditation is a process of quality assurance and
improvement, whereby a programme in an approved
Institution is critically appraised to verify that the
Institution or the programme continues to meet and/or
exceed the Norms and Standards prescribed by regulator
from time to time. It is a kind of recognition which
indicates that a programme or Institution fulfills certain
standards.
The NBA accreditation is essential as it serves the purpose
of promotion and recognization of excellence in technical
education in colleges and universities. Institutions, students,
employers, and the public at large all benefit from the
external verification of quality provided through the NBA
accreditation process. They also benefit from the process of
continuous quality improvement that is encouraged by the
NBA’s developmental approach to promote excellence in
technical education.
The Washington Accord is a step forward to better the
higher-education system in India and allow Indian
graduates to compete at a global stage, but the major
drawback of getting NBA Accreditation under TIER-II is
that the NBA accredited programs offered by the TIER-I
Institutions alone are eligible for the recognition of the
programs by other signatories of the Washington Accord.
REFERENCES
[1] Manual for NBA Accreditation http://www.nbaind.org/files/general-
manual-of accreditation.pdf.
[2] Chairperson’s Visit Report for Undergraduate Engineering Program
TIER-II http://www.nbaind.org/files/chairman-report-Part-A-ug-tier-
ii-v0.pdf.
[3] Evaluation Guidelines for NBA Accreditation of Undergraduate
Engineering Programmes TIER-II, National Board of Accreditation,
June 2015, New Delhi.
[4] D. Brahadeeswaran, M. A. Abdul Hakeem, “A Review of NBA’s
Accreditation Criteria for Bachelor’s Degree Programmes in
Engineering,” J. Engg. Sc. Mgmt. Ed. Vol-5 Issue-II (475–479).
[5] Suresh D. Mane, “Accreditation of UG Engineering Programmes in
India: Enhanced Role of Teaching Fraternity,” International Journal
of Scientific Engineering and Applied Science (IJSEAS) - Volume-1,
Issue-6, September 2015.
© 2018, IJREAM All Rights Reserved.