Awareness about

Accreditation and
OBE
Dr.K.Sree Latha
M.Tech., Ph.d
Professor
Department of EEE
St.Peter’s Engineering college
Hyderabad
What Is NBA & Its Constitution
• NBA Stands for NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION
• NBA is Totally Independent Body which Accreditates programme
from Diploma level to Post Graduate level in Engineering
and Technology, Management, Architecture, Pharmacy, Hospitality
and Mass Communication
• Established in the year 1994 under Section 10 (u) of AICTE Act.
• NBA became Autonomous in January 2010 and in April 2013 the
Memorandum of Association and Rules of NBA were amended to
make it completely independent of AICTE, administratively as well as
financially.
• NBA now independent in its functioning: decision making as well as
financially.
• Does not receive any grant either from the government or from any
regulatory body of technical and higher education

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 2

What Accreditation for Institute
• If your programmes are accredited by NBA, you will
– Be able to identify your programmes with excellence in
technical education.
– Be assured of conformity to good practices
and benchmarks of global requirements.
– Be able to rate your programmes on a national platform to
attract better student intake.
– Be able to appraise yourself vis-à-vis performance.
– Be a satisfied vendor of human capital to world-class
employers and other stakeholders.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 3

Goals Of NBA
• To develop a Quality Conscious system
of Technical Education where Excellence relevance
to market needs and participation by all stake
holders are prime and major determinants.
• NBA is dedicated to building a technical education
system that will match the national goals of growth
by competence contributions to economy through
competitiveness and compatibility to societal
development.
• NBA will provide Quality bench marks targeted at
Global and National Stockpile of human capital in
all fields of technical education

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 4

GENERAL POLICY ON ACCREDITATION
•The following general policies are the guiding principles for
the accreditation of programs:

1. Programs, and not Educational Institutions, are considered for

accreditation.

2. Programs to be accredited should be offered by an educational

Institution which has been formally approved as an educational
Institution by the concerned regulatory authority.

3. Programs from which at least two batches of students have

graduated will be considered for accreditation.

4. Programs are considered for assessment and accreditation only at

the written request of the educational institution and after
agreeing to abide by the NBA’s accreditation manual, rules,
regulations and notification issued from time to time.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 5

 AICTE Approval Vs Accreditation
APPROVAL
• Credibility of Management
provider
• Assessment of Promise
• Based on Physical, financial
and infrastructure resources
• Based on Detailed Project Report
• Quantitative assessment
• Straightforward
decision (Yes/No)
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha
• ACCREDITATION
 Actual performance based on
input and output
 Assessment of Performance
 In addition, includes availability
• and quality of human resources
 Based on self assessment
questionnaires and a SWOT analysis
 Qualitative assessment
 Depends on Quality Systems
6
Significance of Accreditation
• For the Parents and Students
– it signifies that their child goes through a teaching-learning environment as per accepted
good practices, and that the student has entered an institution, which has the essential
features
of Quality Professional Education.
• For the alumni
– it signifies attachment through the pride of passing out of an institution with high credentials.
• For the employers.
– It signifies that the institutional performance is based assessment through a competent body
of Quality assessors, with of strengths Weaknesses emanating as a feedback for policy-
making.
• For the Institution
– it signifies its strengths, weaknesses and opportunity for future growth.
• For the industry infrastructure Sectors
– it signifies, identification of quality of institutional capabilities and skills and knowledge.
• For the Country
– it signifies confidence in the suitability for sustaining stockpiles of market sensitive human
capital and a pragmatic national development perspective.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 7

Benefits of Accreditation
 Demonstrates accountability to the public.
 Demonstrates the commitment to excellence.
 Strengthens consumer confidence.
 Facilitates continuous Quality Improvement.
 Improves staff morale.
 Recognizes the achievements/innovations.
 Facilitates information sharing.
 Priority in getting financial assistance
 Helps the Institution to know its strengths, weaknesses and opportunities.
 Initiates Institutions into innovative and modern methods of pedagogy
 Gives Institutions a new sense of direction and identity.
 Provides society with reliable information on quality of education offered.
 Promotes intra and inter-Institutional interactions.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 8

Outcome Based Accreditation
 Till recently NBA was for input – output based
accreditation, now it has switched over to
outcome based accreditation.

 Outcome based education is student centered

learning method that focus on measuring student
performance i.e. outcomes. Outcomes may include a
range of skills and knowledge.

 Outcome based accreditation – focus remains on

evaluation of outcomes of the Program, though Input
and Output parameters are also looked into.
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 9
 Input-Output Based Education
Measureable Input Measurable Outputs

Financial resources
No. of students graduating
Lab equipment

Infrastructure facilities Programme quantitative grades of

/Institution students
No. of Teaching Faculty
success rate of students
No. of quality of
students

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 10

OBE in a nut Shell
 What do you want the students to have or able to do?
 Knowledge, Skill, Affective

 How can you best help students achieve it?

 Student Centred Delivery

 How will you know what they have achieved it?

 Assessment

 How do you close the loop

 Evaluation, Continuous Quality
Improvements
5/12/2019 11
 Traditional
Education
VS
5/12/2019
OBE
Dr K Sree Latha 12
Traditional Education
It is content oriented. Different degrees have their associated syllabi.
Relevant contents are taught and examined in the traditional approach to
teaching, the professor lectures and assigns well-defined convergent single –
discipline problems, and the students listen, take notes, and solve problems
individually.
Teachers focus on ‘covering the content’ giving much less thought to the
‘learning by the student’ & ‘teaching methodology’.
The content-driven approach to teaching has been referred to as a teacher-
centered approach.
Instructional objectives and learning outcomes are not comprehensively
planned & informed to students.
Student involvement is very Low level.
Too much technical content at the expense of a broader, liberal education.
Stress on Lower Order Thinking Skills.
Student assessment is not aligned to program outcomes.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 13

What Is Outcome Based Education
1. what the students need to learn?
2. What the students should demonstrate to the professional world?
3. Accordingly designing both curricula and delivery mechanisms(teaching
strategies) to build the required skills and competence.

1. Basic knowledge
2. Discipline Knowledge
3. Experiments and practice WASHINGTON ACCORD
AND GRADUATE
4. Engineering Tools
ATTRIBUTES (WA ONLY
5. The Engineer and Society
FOR UG ENGINEERING
6. Environment and Sustainability PROGRAMS)
7. Ethics
8. Individual and Team Work
9. Communication
10. Life-Long learning
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 14
 Key Constituents of OBE
Vision Mission

d
e
s
i
g Graduate
n Attributes

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 15

 Bloom’s Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) vs.
Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS)

5/12/2019 16
THINKING SKILLS
• LEVEL 1: KNOWLEDGE( (REMENBERING)what do the students know; what content do
they know?)
Knowledge may be defined as the ability to recall or remember facts without
necessarily understanding them.
• LEVEL 2: COMPREHENSION (UNDERSTANDING)
Comprehension may be defined as the ability to understand and interpret learned
information.
• LEVEL 3: APPLICATION (APPLYING)
Application may be defined as the ability to use learned material in new and
concrete situations, e.g. put ideas and concepts to work in solving problems.
• LEVEL 4: ANALYSIS (ANALYSING)
Analysis may be defined as the ability to break down information into its
components, e.g. look for interrelationships.
LEVEL 5: SYNTHESIS (EVALUATING)
Synthesis may be defined as the ability to put parts together to form a new whole.
LEVEL 6: EVALUATION (CREATING)
Evaluation may be defined as the ability to judge the value of material for a
given purpose, e.g. present and defend opinions; identify strengths /
weaknesses; make convincing arguments.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 17

Expectations on Students under OBE
– the Outcomes
• Be more creative, able to analyze and
synthesize information.
• Able to plan and organize tasks, able to
work in a team as a community to
propose solutions to problems and
market their solutions.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 18

ACCREDITATION

PROCESS
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 19
 TWO TIER SYSTEM
 Introduction of Two-Tier System based on Types of Institutions.

The Tier–I documents: applicable to the engineering/technology

programs offered by academically autonomous institutions and by
university departments and constituent colleges of the
universities.

Tier-II documents: for non-autonomous institutions, i.e., those

colleges and technical institutions which are affiliated to a
university.

For both: Same set of criteria have been prescribed for

accreditation.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 20

 TWO TIER SYSTEM
 Introduction of Two-Tier System based on Types of Institutions.

The Tier–I documents: applicable to the engineering/technology programs

offered by academically autonomous institutions and by university
departments and constituent colleges of the universities.

Tier-II documents: for non-autonomous institutions, i.e., those colleges and

technical institutions which are affiliated to a university.

For both: Same set of criteria have been prescribed for accreditation.
Evaluation for TIER-I institution focused on program outcomes and program
educational objectives.

 For TIER-II institution focus remains, as before, on student performance, facilities

& technical support and continuous improvement.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 21

 TIER I & TIER II
 Institutions of National Colleges
importance affiliated to
 Indian Institutes of Technology universities not
(IITs), enjoying the
privileges of academic
 Indian Institutes of Information
autonomy.
Technology (IIITs),
Deliver programs prescribed
 National Institutes of
by
Technology (NITs)
universities
 Universities / Deemed to which they are
Universities / Private affiliated.
Universities
Only universities
 Autonomous institutions empowered
toexaminthe enrolled
students for award of degree.

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 22

 NBA’S CRITERIA OFACCREDITATION
 Institutional Mission, Vision and Programme
Educational Objectives
Programme Outcome
Programme Curriculum
Students’ Performance
Faculty Contributions
Facilities and Technical Support
Academic Support Units and Teaching-Learning Process
Governance, Institutional Support and Financial
Resources
Continuous Improvement in Attainment of Outcomes

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 23

 NEW SAR TIER -II
Criteria
Criteria Mark/Weightage
No.

Program Level Criteria

1. Vision, Mission and Program Educational Objectives 60
2. Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes 120
3. Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes 120
4. Students’ Performance 150
5. Faculty Information and Contributions 200
6. Facilities and Technical Support 80
7. Continuous Improvement 50
Institute Level Criteria

8. 50
First Year Academics
9. Student Support Systems 50

10. Governance, Institutional Support and Financial 120

Resources
Total 1000

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 24

 GRADES
 ≈75% & Above ‘Y’
 ≈ 60% and <75% ‘C’
 ≈ 40% and <60% ‘W’
 <40% ‘D’

Y ---- Complied
C----Concern
W---- Weakness
D----- Deficiency

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 25

 AWARD OF ACCREDITATION
UG-TIER-I
Accreditation Status Eligibility Criteria
Full Accreditation for 5 years Condition I- Deficiency (D) -0
Weakness (W)- 0
Concerns (C)- <2
Without concern
3 months time to overcome (Y)-7
weakness(es) for full Condition II-
accreditation for 5 years Deficiency(D)-0
Weakness (W)- <2
Concerns (C)- 0
Without concern
(Y)-7
Provisional Accreditation for 2 Deficiency- > 2
years Without concern- 3 ( has full compliance)
However, a deficiency in Criterion - V (Faculty Contributions)
may not be recommended for accreditation.
In all such cases, the institute may submit a compliance report
after one year and request for a re-visit to assess
compliance.
5/12/2019
No Accreditation DeficiencyDr K -Sree
>2,Latha
Without concern- <3 26
 AWARD OF ACCREDITATION
UG-TIER-II
Accreditation Status Eligibility Criteria
Full Accreditation for 5 750 points in aggregate out of 1000 points
years with minimum score of 60% in mandatory
fields (criterion 1 and criteria 4 to 8)

Provisional The programme with a score of minimum

Accreditation for 2 600 points in aggregate
years

No Accreditation Less than 600 marks

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 27
 EVALUATION GUIDELINES—Criteria -1
Evaluation Guidelines
Sub Criteria Mark
s
1.1State the Vision and 05 Availability of the Vision & Mission statements of the A. Vision & Mission Statements
Mission of the Department (1)
B. Correctness from definition perspective
Department and Appropriateness/Relevance of the Statements (2)
Institute Consistency of the Department statements with C. Consistency between Institute and
the Institute statements (2) Department statements
1.2. State the 05 A. Listing of the Program Educational Objectives (3 to Availability & correctness of the PEOs
ProgramEducation 5) of the program under consideration (5) statements
al Objectives
(PEOs)
1.3. Indicate where and 10 A. Adequacy in respect of publication & dissemination A. Availability on Institute website under
how the (2) relevant program link; Availability at
Vision,Mission and B. Process of dissemination among stakeholders (2) department notice boards,
PEOs are Published C. Extent of awareness of Vision, Mission & PEOs HoD Chamber, department website, if
and disseminated among the stakeholder (6) Available; Availability in department
among stakeholders level documents/course of study
1.4 State the process for 25 A. Description of process involved in A. Documentary evidence to indicate the
defining the defining the Vision, Mission of the process which ensures effective
Vision and Department (10) participation of internal and external
Mission of the B. Description of process involved in defining the PEOs department stakeholders with
Department, and of the program (15) effective process implementation
PE
Os of the
program
1.5 Establish consistency 15 A. Preparation of a matrix of PEOs and elements of A. . Availability of a matrix having PEOs
of PEOs with Mission statement (5) and Mission elements B. Justification
Mission of the B. Consistency/justification of co-relation parameters of for each of the elements mapped in
Department the above matrix (10) the matrix
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 28
 EVALUATION GUIDELINES—Criteria -2
Sub Criteria Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
ks
2.1. Program Curriculum (20)
2.1.1. State the 10 A. Process used to identify
process used to extent of compliance of A. Documentary evidence to indicate
identify extent of university curriculum for the process which ensures
compliance of the attaining POs & PSOs (6) mapping/compliance of University
University B. List the curricular gaps for the Curriculum with the POs & PSOs;
curriculum for attainment of defined POs & Identification of gaps; if any. Effective
attaining the PSOs (4) participation of internal and external
Program Note: In case all POs & PSOs are department stakeholders with
Outcomes(POs) & effective process implementation
Program Specific being demonstrably met through
B. Identified Curricular gaps and its
Outcomes(PSOs), UniversityCurriculum then 2.1.2 will Appropriateness
mention the not be applicable and the weightage
identified curricular of 2.1.1 will be 20
gaps, if any
2.1.2. State the 10 A. Steps taken to get A. Documentary evidence of steps taken
delivery details of identified gaps included at regular interval B. Delivered details
the content beyond in the curriculum.(e.g. – documentary evidence for at least
the syllabus for the letter to university/BOS) one sample per assessment year to
attainment of POs & (2) be verified C. Availability and
PSOs B. Delivery details of content appropriateness of Mapping table
beyond syllabus (5) between contents delivered and
C. Mapping of content beyond Program outcomes/Program specific
syllabus with the POs & PSOs outcomes (Course outcomes)
(3)

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 29

 EVALUATION GUIDELINES—Criteria -2
2.2.Teaching-Learning Processes Documentary Evidence
(100)

2.2.1. Describe 25 A. Adherence to Academic Calendar (3) A. Availability of Academic Calendar based on University
the Process B. Use of various instructional methods academic calendar and its effective compliance
followed to improve and pedagogical initiatives (3) B. Documentary evidence to support implementation of
quality of Teaching C. Methodologies to support weak pedagogical initiatives such as real life examples,
Learning students and encourage bright collaborative learning, ICT supported learning,
students(4) interactive class rooms etc.
D. Quality of classroom teaching C. Guidelines to identify weak and bright students; post
(Observation in a Class) (3) identification actions taken; impact observed
E. Conduct of experiments (Observation D. Class room ambience; efforts to keep students engaged
in Lab) (3) (also to be verified during interaction with the students)
F. Continuous Assessment in the E. Quality of laboratory experience with respect to
laboratory (3) conducting, recording observations, analysis
G. Student feedback of teaching etc.(also to be verified during interaction with the
learning process and actions taken students)
(6) F. Internal Semester examination and internal marks
thereof, Practical record books, each experiment
assessment, final marks based on assessment of all
the experiments and other assessments; if any
G. Feedback format, frequency, analysis and actions taken
(also to be verified during interaction with students)
2.2.2. Quality of 20 A. Process for internal A. Process of internal semester question paper setting,
internal semester semester question paper model answers, evaluation and its compliance
Question setting and evaluation B. Question paper validation to ensure desired standard
papers, and effective process from outcome attainment perspective as well as learning
Assi implementation (5) levels perspective
gnments and B. Process to ensure questions from C. Mapping of questions with the Course outcomes
Evaluation outcomes/learning levels D. Assignments to promote self-learning, survey of
perspective (5) contents from multiple sources, assignment
C. Evidence of COs coverage in evaluation and feedback to the students,
class test / mid-term tests (5) mapping with the COs
5/12/2019 D. Quality of AssignmentDrand
K Sree
its Latha 30
relevance to COs (5)
 EVALUATION GUIDELINES—Criteria -2
Documentary Evidence

2.2.3. Quality of 25 A. Identification of projects and allocation A. Projects identification and guide
student projects methodology to Faculty Members (3) allocation Process
B. Types and relevance of the projects B. Projects classification (application,
and their contribution towards product, research, review etc.)
attainment of POs and PSOs(5) consideration to factors such as
C. Process for monitoring and evaluation environment, safety, ethics, cost,
(5) standards and mapping with
D. Process to assess individual and team program outcomes and program
performance (5) specific outcomes
E. Quality of completed projects/working C. Continuous monitoring mechanism and
prototypes (5) evaluation
F. Evidences of papers published /Awards D. Methodology(Appropriately
received by projects etc. (2) documented) to assess individual
contribution/understanding of the
project as well as collective
contribution/understanding
E. Based on Projects demonstration
F. Quality of place (host) where the paper
has been published /quality of
competition in which award has been
won

2.2.4. Initiatives 15 A. Industry supported laboratories (5) A. Type of Industries, Type of Labs,
related to B. Industry involvement in the program objectives, utilization and effectiveness
industry design and partial delivery of any B. Documentary evidence
interaction regular courses for students (5) C. Analysis and actions taken thereof
C. Impact analysis of industry institute
interaction and actions taken thereof (5)

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 31

 EVALUATION GUIDELINES—Criteria -2
2.2.5. Initiatives 15 A. Industrial training/tours for students (3) A. & B. Type of Industries, planned or non-
related to B. Industrial /internship /summer training planned activity, objectives clearly
industry of more than two weeks and post defined, no. of students participated,
internship/s training Assessment (4) relevant area of training, visit report
ummer C. Impact analysis of industrial training (4) documented
training D. Student feedback on initiative (4) C.& D. Impact analysis and feedback format,
analysis and actions taken (also to be
verified during interaction with students)

Total: 120

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 32

 Cos & POs (120M)—Criteria -3
Sub Mark Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
Criteria s
3.1. Establish the correlation between the courses and the POs & PSOs 20M
3.1.1. 05 A. Evidence of COs being defined for every course . Appropriateness of the statements shall be seen for
Course (5) atleast one course each from 2nd, 3rd and final year of
Outcomes study
3.1.2. CO-PO/PSOs 05 A. Explanation of table to be ascertained (5) Mapping to be verified for atleast two matrices
matrices of
courses
selected in
3.1.1 (six
matrices)
3.1.3. Program level 10 A. Explanation of tables to be ascertained (10) Mapping to be verified for atleast one course per
Course- PO/PSOs year of study; program outcomes and program
matrix of ALL specific outcomes getting mapped with the core
courses including courses are also to be verified
first year courses
3.2. Attainment of Course Outcomes 50M
3.2.1. Describe the 10 A. List of assessment processes (2) .& B. Evidence for appropriate assessment processes
assessment B. The quality /relevance of assessment processes & including data collection, verification, analysis,
processes used to tools used (8) decision making
gather the data upon
which the evaluation
of Course Outcome
is based
3.2.2. Record the 40 Verify the attainment levels as per the benchmark set . Methodology to define set levels and its compliance;
attainment of for all courses (40) data collection, verification, analysis and decision
Course Outcomes of making; details for one course per year of study to
all courses with be verified
respect to set
attainment
5/12/2019levels Dr K Sree Latha 33
 Cos & POs (120M)—Criteria -3
Sub Mark Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
Criteria s
Attainment of Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes (50M)
3.3.1.Describe 1 A. A. List of assessment tools & processes A. . List of assessment tools & processes (5)
assessment tools 0 (5) B. The quality/relevance of assessment
and processes used B. The quality/relevance of assessment tools/processes used (5)
for assessing the tools/processes used (5)
attainment of each of
the POs & PSOs
3.3.2. Provide 40 A. AVerification of documents, results and level of attainment of each A. & B. Appropriate attainment level and
results of evaluation PO/PSO (24) documentary evidences; details for POs & PSOs
of each PO & PSO B. Overall levels of attainment (16 marks) attainment from core courses to be verified. Also
atleast two POs & two PSOs attainment levels shall
be verified

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 34

 Students’ Performance (150M)—Criteria -4
Sub Mark Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
Criteria s
4.1. Enrolment Ratio 2 A. A. >= 90% students enrolled at the First Year Level on A. B. & C. Data to be verified for each of the assessment
(20) 0 average basis during the previous three academic years years
starting from current academic year (20)
B. >= 80% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average
basis during the previous three academic years starting from
current academic year (18)
C. >= 70% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average
basis during the previous three academic years starting from
current academic year (16)
D. >= 60% students enrolled at the First Year Level on average
basis during the previous three academic years starting from
current academic year (14)
E. Otherwise ‘0’.
4.2.1. Success rate 25 SI= (Number of students who graduated from the Data to be verified for each of the assessment years
without backlogs in program without backlog)/(Number of students
any Semester/year of admitted in the first year of that batch and actually
study Without admitted in 2nd year via lateral entry and separate
Backlog division, if applicable) Average SI = Mean of
means success index (SI) for past three batches Success
no rate without backlogs in any year of study = 25 ×
compartment or Average SI
failures in any
semester/year of study
4.2.2. Success rate 15 SI= (Number of students who graduated from the program with Data to be verified for each of the assessment years
with backlogs in backlog in the stipulated period of course duration)/(Number of Note: if 100% students clear without any
stipulated period students admitted in the first year of backlog then also total marks scored will be
(actual duration of the that batch and actually admitted in 2nd year via lateral entry and 40 as both 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 will be applicable
program) separate division, if applicable) simultaneously.
Average SI = mean of success index
(SI) for past three batches Success
5/12/2019 rate = 15 × Average SI Dr K Sree Latha 35
 Students’ Performance (150M)—Criteria -4
Sub Ma Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
Criteria rks
4.3. Academic 15 Academic Performance = 1.5 * Average API Data to be verified for atleast one of the assessment years
Performance (Academic Performance Index)
in Third Year API = ((Mean of 3rd Year Grade Point Average
of all successful Students on a 10 point scale) or
(Mean of the percentage of marks of all
successful students in Third Year/10)) x
(successful students/number of students
appeared in the examination) Successful
students are those who are permitted to proceed
to the final year
4.4. Academic 15 Academic Performance Level = 1.5 * Average API Data to be verified for atleast one of the assessment
Performance (Academic Performance Index) API = ((Mean of years
in Second Year 2nd Year Grade Point Average of all successful
Students on a 10 point scale) or (Mean of the
percentage of marks of all successful student sin
Second Year/10)) x (successful students/number
of students appeared in the examination)
Successful students are those who are permitted to
proceed to the Third year
4.5. Placement, 40 Assessment Points = 40 × average of three years of [ Data to be verified for atleast one of the assessment
Higher studies (x + y + z)/N] where, x = Number of students years
and placed in companies or Government sector through
Entrepreneurshi on/off campus recruitment
p y = Number of students admitted to higher studies
with valid qualifying scores (GATE or equivalent
State or National level tests, GRE, GMAT etc.)
z = No. of students turned
entrepreneur in
engineering/technology N
=Total number of final year
5/12/2019 students Dr K Sree Latha 36
 Students’ Performance (150M)—Criteria -4
Sub Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
Criteria ks
4.6. Professional Activities (20)

4.6.1. Professional 05 A. Availability & activities of professional Activities Performed during the Assessment Year
societies / chapters societies/chapters (3)
and organizing B.Number, quality of
engineering events engineering events
(organized at institute) (2)
(Level -
nstitute/State/National/Inter
national)
4.6.2. Publication 05 A. Quality & Relevance of the contents and A. Documentary evidence
of Print Material (3) B. Documentary evidence - Students participation
technical B. Participation of Students from the (also to be confirmed during interaction with
magazines, program (2) the students)
newsletters, etc.
4.6.3. Participation 10 A. Events within the state (2) A.B.& C. Quality of events and documentary
in inter-institute B. Events outside the state (3) evidence
events by students of C. Prizes/awards received in such events (5)
the program of
study (at other
institutions)

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 37

 Faculty Information & Contribution(200M)—Criteria -5

Sub Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence

Criteria ks
5.1. Student- 20 Marks to be given proportionally from a
Faculty Ratio maximum of 20 to a minimum of 10 for
(SFR) average SFR between 15:1 to 25:1, and
zero for average SFR higher than 25:1.
Marks distribution is given as below:
< = 15 - 20 Marks
< = 17 - 18 Marks
< = 19 - 16 Marks
< = 21 - 14 Marks
< = 23 - 12 Marks
< = 25 - 10 Marks >25 ---0Marks
5.2. Faculty Cadre 25
Proportion Faculty qualification as per AICTE Norms (No promotion without qualification)

5.3. Faculty 25 A. FQ = 2.5 x [{10X +4Y}/F] where For Associate Ph.d is a must
Qualification
5.4 Faculty 25
Retention
5.5 Innovations by A. The work must be available for peer A. Availability on Institute website;
the Faculty in review and critique (4) awareness among faculty and
Teaching and B. The work must The work must be made students of the department
Learning available on Institute Website (4) B. & C. Self -explanatory
C. be reproducible and developed further D. Innovations that contribute to
by other scholars (2) the improvement of student
D. Statement of clear goals, use of learning, typically include use
appropriate methods, significance of of ICT, instruction delivery,
results, effective presentation and instructional methods,
5/12/2019 reflective critique (10)Dr K Sree Latha assessment, evaluation etc. 38
 Faculty Information & Contribution(200M)—Criteria -5
Sub Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
Criteria ks
5.6 Faculty as 15 For each year: Assessment =  Relevance of the training/development
participants in 3×Sum/0.5RF
Faculty Average assessment over last three programme
development years starting from CAYm1 (Marks  No. of days; No. of faculty
/training activities limited to 15)
/STTPs
5.7 Research and Development (30M)
5.7.1. Academic 10 A. Number of quality A. Quality of publications; publications
Research M publications in refereed/SCI copy
Journals, citations, B. Documentary evidence
Books/Book Chapters etc. (6)
B. PhD guided /PhD awarded
during the assessment period
while working in the
institute (4)
5.7.2 Sponsored 05
Research
5.7.3 Development 10 A. Product Development Project Labs ….I.e Projects done by
Activities M B. Research laboratories students and faculty
C. Instructional materials
D. Working models/charts/monograms
etc.
5.7.4. Consultancy 05
(From Industry
5.8.Faculty 30 A. A well-defined performance Personal File
Perfor M appraisal and development system
mance Appraisal instituted for all the assessment
and Development
5/12/2019 years (10) Dr K Sree Latha 39
System (FPADS) B. Its implementation and effectiveness
 Faculty Information & Contribution(200M)—Criteria -5

Sub Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence

Criteria ks
Visiting/Adjunct/E 10  Provision of Visiting
meritus Faculty /Adjunct/Emeritus faculty etc.(1) Personal File
etc.  Minimum 50hours per year
interaction (3*3 =9)
Total 200M

Faculty personal files

Standard publications with good impact factor
Projects
Expert lectures
Attending for FDPs
Interaction with out side people for guest
lectures/FDPs etc.,
E-learning material developed

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 40

 Facilities & Technical Support ( 80M)—Criteria -6

Sub Criteria Ma Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence

rks
6.1.Adequate and 30 A. Adequate well-equipped laboratories A. Adequacy; well-equipped laboratories;
well equipped to run all the program-specific utilization
laboratories, curriculum (20)
B. Availability of adequate technical Supporting staff personal files
and technical
manpower supporting staff (5)
C. Availability of qualified technical
supporting staff (5)
6.2 Additional 25 A.Availability and relevance of Utilization registers, Additional
Facilities created additional facilities(10) experiments conducted and their
for improving the B. Facilities utilization and effectiveness documentation
quality of learning (10)
experiencein C. Relevance to POs and PSOs (5)
laboratories
6.3 Laboratories: 10 Maintenance and overall ambience (10 )
Maintenance
andoverall
maintenance
6.4 Project 05 Facilities & Utilization (5) Lab manuals and records
laboratory

6.5 Safety 10 Safety measures in laboratories (10)

measures in
laboratories
Total 80
M

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 41

 Continuous Improvement ( 50M)—Criteria -7
Sub Criteria Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
ks
7.1. Actions taken 20 A. Documentation of POs and PSOs attainment A. Documentary evidence in respect of each of
based on the levels (5) the POs
results of B. Identification of gaps/shortfalls (5) COURSE FILES
evaluation of each C. Plan of action to bridge the gap and its
of the POs and Implementation (10)
PSOs
7.2 Academic Audit 10 A. Assessment shall be based on conduct Academic Audit assessment criteria,
and actions and actions taken in relation to frequency, conduct mechanism,
taken during continuous improvement (10) action plan based on audit,
the period of implementation and effectiveness
Assessment
7.3. Improvement in 10 Assessment is based on improvement in: (Refer A. B. & C. Nos. in each year of the assessment;
Placement, placement index 4.5) improvement considering CAYm3 as a base
Higher Studies and A. Improvement in Placement numbers, quality, core year
Entrepreneurship hiring industry and pay packages (5)
B. Improvement in Higher Studies admissions for
pursuing PhD. in premier institutions(3)
C. Improvement in number of Entrepreneurs (2)
(Marks to be given proportionately considering nos.
in the base year CAYm3)
7.4. Improvement 10 A. Assessment is based on improvement in terms of . A. Documentary evidence – list of
in the quality ranks/score in qualifying state students admitted; admission
of students level/national level entrances tests, authority guidelines; ranks/scores;
admitted to percentage Physics, Chemistry and comparative status considering
the program Mathematics marks in 12th Standard and CAYm3 as a base year
percentage marks of the lateral entry
students
Total: 50

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 42

 First Year Academics ( 50M)—Criteria -8
Sub Criteria Mark Evaluation Guidelines Documentary Evidence
s
8.1. First Year 05 For each year of assessment = (5 × 20)/ FYSFR  No. of Regular faculty calculation
Student- Faculty (Limited to Max. 5) Average of Assessment of data in CAY, considering Regular faculty definition and
Ratio (FYSFR) CAYm1 and CAYm2 fractional load; Faculty appointment
letters; Salary statements
*Note: If FYSFR is greater than 25, then assessment equal to  No. of students calculation as mentioned in
zero. the SAR
8.2. Qualification of 05 A. Assessment of faculty qualification (5x + 3y)/RF A. Documentary evidence – Faculty
Faculty Teaching B. Average of Assessment of previous three Qualification
First Year academic years including current academic year.
Common (Refer 8.2. for x, y and RF)
Courses
8.3. First Year 10 Academic Performance = ((Mean of 1st Year Grade Point Data to be verified for atleast one of the
Academic Performance Average of all successful Students on a 10 point scale) or assessment years
(Mean of the percentage of marks in First Year of all
successful students/10)) x (successful students/number of
students appeared in the examination)
(Successful students are those who are permitted to proceed
to the Second year)
8.4. Attainment of Course Outcomes of first year courses (10M)
8.4.1. Describe the 05 A. List of assessment processes (1) A. & B. Direct and indirect assessment(if
assessment B. The relevance of assessment tools used (4) applicable), tools & processes; effective
processes used compliance; direct assessment methodology,
to gather the data indirect assessment formats-collection-analysis;
upon which the decision making
evaluation of
Course
Outcomes of first
year is based
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 43
 First Year Academics ( 50M)—Criteria -8
Sub Criteria Mar Evaluation Guidelines Documentary
ks Evidence
8.4.2. Record the 05 A. Verify the records as per the benchmark set
attainment of for the courses (5)
Course
Outcomes of all
first year
courses

8.5. Attainment of Program Outcomes of all first year courses (20)

. 8.5.1Indicate results 15 A. Process of computing POs/PSOs attainment A. & B. Documentary evidence for each
of evaluation of level from the COs of related first year courses relevant PO/PSO
each relevant (5)
PO/PSO B. Verification of documents validating the above
process (10)

8.5.2. Actions taken 05 Appropriate actions taken (5) Documentary evidence for each relevant
based on the PO/PSO
results of
evaluation of
relevant
POs
/PSOs
Total 50M

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 44

 Student support system ( 50M)—Criteria -9
Sub Criteria Mark Evaluation Guidelines Document to be
s maintained
9.1. Mentoring 05 A. Details of the mentoring system that has . Mentoring system terms of
system to been developed for the students for various reference; implementation;
help at purposes and also state the efficacy of such effectiveness (also to be
individual system (5) verified during interaction
level with the students)
9.2. Feedback analysis 10 A. Methodology being followed for analysis of A. . Feedback questions, collection
and reward feedback and its effectiveness (5) process, analysis, actions taken,
/corrective B. Record of corrective measures taken (5) effectiveness
measures taken, if
any
9.3. Feedback on 05 A. Feedback collection, analysis and corrective action (5)
facilities
9.4. Self Learning 05 A. Scope for self-learning (2)
B. The institution needs to specify the
facilities, materials for learning beyond
syllabus, Webinars, Podcast, MOOCs etc.
and demonstrate its effective utilization (3)
9.5. Career 10 A. Availability of career guidance facilities (2) A. Availability, implementation,
Guidance, B. Counseling for higher studies (GATE/GRE, GMAT, etc.) effectiveness (also to be verified during
Training, (2) interaction with the students)
Placement C. Pre-placement training (3)
D. . Placement process and support (3)
9.6Entrepreneu 05 A. Entrepreneurship initiatives (1) A. Availability, implementation,
rship Cell B. Data on students benefitted (4) effectiveness (also to be verified during
interaction with the students)
9.7. Co- 10 A. Availability of sports and cultural facilities (3) A. Availability, implementation,
curricular B. NCC, NSS and other clubs (3) effectiveness (also to be verified during
and Extra- C. Annual students activities (4) interaction with the students)
curricular
Activities
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 45
Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources (120)
—Criteria -10
Sub Criteria Marks Evaluation Guidelines

10.1. Organization, Governance and Transparency40

10.1.1.State the 05 A. Availability of the Vision & Mission statements A. Institute Vision and Mission
Vision and of the Institute (2) statements: Availability of
Mission of statements on Institute website;
the Institute B. Appropriateness/Relevance of the Statements (3)
Availability at Central facilities
such as Library, Computer Center,
Principal Chamber etc. Availability
of one set of statements in each of
the departments; Availability in
Institute level documents
B. Correctness from definition
perspective

10.1.2. Governing 10 A. List the Governing Body Composition, senate, and

body, administrative all other academic and administrative
setup, functions of bodies; their memberships, functions, and
various bodies, responsibilities; frequency of the
service rules meetings; participation details of external
procedures, members and attendance therein (4)
recruitment and B. The published service rules, policies and procedures
promotional policies. with year of publication (3)
C. Minutes of the meetings and action-taken reports (3)
10.1.3. 10 A. List the names of the faculty members A. . B. & C. Documentary evidence
Decentralization in who have been delegated powers for
working and taking administrative decisions (1)
grievance redressal B. Specify the mechanism and composition of
mechanism grievance redressal cell (2)
C. Action taken report as per ‘B’ above (7)
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 46
Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources (120)
—Criteria -10
10.1.4. Delegation of 10 A. Financial powers delegated to the Principal, Heads of A. Circulars notifying financial powers
financial powers Departments and relevant in-charges (3) B. Documentary evidence to exhibit
B. Demonstrate the utilization of financial powers for each utilization at each levels during
of the assessment years (7) assessment years

10.1.5. Transparency 05 A. Information on the policies, rules, processes is to be A. A. & B. Website and Documentary
and availabilityOf made available on web site (2) evidence
orrect/unambiguous B. Dissemination of the information about student, faculty
information in public and staff (3)
domain
10.2. Budget Allocation, Utilization, and Public Accounting at Institute level (30)
10.2.1. Adequacy of 10 A. Quantum of budget allocation for three years (5) A. Budget formulation, finalization and
Budget allocation B. Justification of budget allocated for three years (5) approval process
B. Requirement – allocation –adequacy –
justification thereof

10.2.2. Utilization of 15 A. Budget utilization for three years (15) Balance sheet; effective utilization; random
allocated funds verification for atleast two of the three
assessment years
10.2.3. 05 A. Availability of Audited statements on website (5) Website
Availabilit
y of the
udited
statements
on the
institute’s
website
10.3. Program Specific Budget Allocation,Utilization (30M)

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 47

Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources (120)
—Criteria -10
10 A. Quantum of budget allocation for three years (5) A. Budget formulation, finalization and
10.3.1. Adequacy of
B. Justification of budget allocated for three years (5) approval process
budget allocation
B. Requirement – allocation –adequacy –
justification thereof

Balance sheet; effective utilization;

10.3.2. Utilization of 20 A. Budget utilization for three years (20) random verification for atleast two of the
allocated funds three assessment years
10.4. Library and Internet
20
 Availability of relevant learning resources including e- Availability; Adequacy; Effectiveness
10.4.1. Quality of
10 resources and Digital Library (7) (Also to be verified during interactions
learning
 Accessibility to students (3) with the faculty and students)
resources
(hard/soft)
10 A. Available bandwidth (4) Availability as per AICTE norms;
10.4.2. Internet B. Wi Fi availability (2) Adequacy; Effectiveness
C. Internet access in labs, classrooms, library and (Also to be verified during interactions
offices of all Departments (2) with the faculty and students)
D. Security mechanism (2)

TOTAL (120M)

5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 48

Why OBE?
• With the national accreditation bodies,
National Board of Accreditation(NBA) &
National Assessment & Accreditation Council
( NAAC) heavily focusing on the adoption of
OBE approach for all programmes in INDIA.
• OBE is a process that involves
assessment and evaluation practices in
education to reflect the attainment of
expected learning and showing
mastery in the program area
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 49
Why need Accreditation
A person with accredited degree may be able to work
for the government, as well as private sector.
He/she may subsequently become a Professional
Engineer/ Practitioner.
International Mobility (Washington Accord)
The Washington Accord (WA): Agreement that
establishes equivalence of other countries’ accredited
professional & engineering programs.
Accredited Engineering Graduates are recognized by
other signatory countries - Possible employment as
engineers in those countries without further
examinations.
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 50
Why need OBE
Programmes to be accredited from
2013 will have to be based on OBE
approach!
NO OBE = NO ACCREDITATION
NO ACCREDITATION = NO ADMISSION
NO ADMISSION = NO INSTITUTIONAL
GROWTH
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 51
Why need Accreditation
A person with accredited degree may be able to work
for the government, as well as private sector.
He/she may subsequently become a Professional
Engineer/ Practitioner.
International Mobility (Washington Accord)
The Washington Accord (WA): Agreement that
establishes equivalence of other countries’ accredited
professional & engineering programs.
Accredited Engineering Graduates are recognized by
other signatory countries - Possible employment as
engineers in those countries without further
examinations.
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 52
5/12/2019 Dr K Sree Latha 53