www.nbaind.

org

Manual for Accreditation of

Postgraduate Engineering Programs

National Board of Accreditation

New Delhi
 Manual
for Accreditation of
Postgraduate Eng ineering Programs

National Board of Accreditation (NBA)

New Delhi
Address: National Board of Accreditation, NBCC Place, 4th Floor, East Tower, Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi 110003; Ph: +91(11)24360620-22; Fax: +91(11) 43084903;
E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.nbaind.org
Vision Mission

To stimulate the quality of teaching,

To be an accrediting agency of
self-evaluation and accountability
international standard by ensuring
in the higher education system,
the highest degree of credibility in
which help institutions realize their
assurance of quality and relevance
academic objectives and adopt
to professional education and come
teaching practices that enable them
up to the expectations of its
to produce high-quality
stakeholder’s viz., academicians,
professionals and to assess and
corporates, educational institutions,
accredit the programs offered by the
government, industry, regulators,
institutions imparting technical and
students and their parents..
professional education.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1-3

1.1 National Board of Accreditation 1

1.2 Objectives 1
1.3 Governance Structure 2
1.4 Washington Accord 3
2. Accreditation Policy 4-6
2.1 General Information on Accreditation 4
2.2 Outcome-based Education and Accreditation 6
3. Accreditation Criteria 7-11
3.1 Terminology in Accreditation 7
3.2 Program Outcomes (POs) and Program-specific Outcomes (PSOs) 8
3.3 Accreditation Criteria 8
3.4 Accreditation Criteria Marks Distribution 11
4. Accreditation Process 12-24
4.1 Accreditation Stages 12
4.2 Award of Accreditation 21
4.3 Appeal 22
4.4 Accreditation Fee 23
4.5 Reconsideration of Program 24

ANNEXURES

I) Fee Structure
II) Pre-qualifiers
III) Self-Assessment Report (SAR)
Documents regarding Visit of Experts
IV) Visit Schedule
V) List of Documents to be Verified during the Visit
VI) Evaluation Guidelines
VII) Chairperson’s Visit Report (Part A and C)
VIII) Evaluator’s Visit Report (Part A, B and C)
IX) Certificate of Participation (to be filled-in by the Chairman of the Visiting Team)
X) Certificate to be filled by Institution
XI) Feedback to be filled by Institution
XII) Feedback to be filled by the Visiting Team regarding the Service Provider
PART - I
 PG Engineering

1.0 Introduction

1.1. National Board of Accreditation

The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) was set-up in September 1994 by the AICTE to
assess the qualitative competence of the programs offered by technical and professional
educational institutions from diploma level to post-graduate level in engineering and
technology, management, pharmacy, architecture and related disciplines, which are
approved by appropriate statutory regulatory bodies.

NBA came into existence as an independent autonomous body with effect from 7th January
2010 with the objectives of assurance of quality and relevance to technical education,
especially of the programs in technical disciplines, i.e., Engineering and Technology,
Management, Architecture, Pharmacy and Hospitality etc., through the mechanism of
accreditation of programs offered by technical and professional institutions. The
Memorandum of Association and Rules of NBA were amended in April 2013, to make it
completely independent of AICTE, administratively as well as financially. NBA conducts
evaluation of programs of technical institutions based on evaluation criteria and parameters
laid down by its Committees and Council.

NBA works closely with all the stakeholders to ensure that the programs serve to equip
graduates with sound knowledge of fundamentals of the discipline and to develop in them
an acceptable level of professional competence that would meet the needs of profession and
be adequate for the responsible fulfilment of professional assignments.

1.2. Objectives

Major objectives of the NBA for engineering education are as follows:

 To assess and accredit the engineering education programs at diploma, degree and post-
graduate level;

 To evolve standards and parameters for assessment and accreditation in line with the
parameters laid down by the appropriate statutory regulatory authority for co-
ordination, determination and regulation of standards in the concerned field of technical
education;

 To promote excellence through a benchmarking process, which is helpful in determining

whether or not an institution is able to achieve its mission and broad-based goals, and
in interpreting the results of the outcomes assessment process;

 To promote quality conscious system of technical education where excellence, relevance

to market needs and participation by all stakeholders are prime and major determinants.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 1

 PG Engineering

 To build a technical education system as facilitator of human resources, that will match
the national goals of growth by competence, contribution to economy through
competitiveness and compatibility with societal development;

 To set the quality benchmarks targeted at global and national stockpile of human capital
in all fields of technical education;

 To conduct evaluation of self-assessment of technical institutions and/or programs

offered by them on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it; and

 To contribute to the domain of knowledge in quality parameters, assessment and

evaluation.

1.3. Governance Structure

The NBA is empowered by its Memorandum of Association (MoA). The governance of NBA
is effected through the following three statutory committees enshrined in its MoA:

i) The General Council (GC)

ii) The Executive Committee (EC)
iii) The Academic Advisory Committee (AAC)

Details of the constitution, functions and responsibilities of the above Committees are
provided in the MoA of NBA and are available at
http://www.nbaind.org/files/moa-rules-of-society.pdf

All these committees are chaired by the Chairman, NBA.

Member Secretary is the Member Secretary of these committees. Member Secretary is the
Executive Authority of NBA.

Besides, the NBA also have the following other committees and sub-committees:

 Sub-Committee of AAC of Engineering & Technology functions separately to evolve

standard for assessment and accreditation, to form assessors’ panels, to lay down
guidelines for assessors, to evaluate and approve the recommendations of the
Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC).

 Evaluation and Accreditation Committee (EAC) of Engineering & Technology reviews

the reports of the evaluation team and submits its recommendations on accreditation to
the Sub Committee of AAC.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 2

 PG Engineering

 Appellate Committee considers the appeal applications made by the institutions against
the decision on accreditation of a program by NBA and gives its recommendations to
the Academic Advisory Committee (AAC).

1.4. Washington Accord

The Washington Accord is an international and multi-lateral agreement among bodies

responsible for accrediting undergraduate engineering degree programs, originally signed
among six countries in 1989. It recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs
accredited by bodies that are its signatory and recommends that graduates of programs
accredited by any of the signatory bodies be recognized mutually as having met the
academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering in the area of their
jurisdiction. The NBA became a provisional member of the Washington Accord (WA) in
2007 and was given the status of permanent signatory on 13th June 2014. Signatory status is
subject to the condition that only programs with Tier I institutions accredited by NBA are
eligible for mutual recognition under the Washington Accord. However, post graduate
programs accredited by NBA of Tier -I institutions are not eligible for mutual recognition
under Washington Accord.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 3

PART - II
 PG Engineering

2.0 Accreditation Policy

2.1. General Information on Accreditation

The following general policies are the guiding principles for accreditation of programs
offered by various technical institutions:

i) NBA accredits technical Programs of institutions and not the Institution or its
Departments/Centres as a whole.

ii) Institutions are required to apply for accreditation through eNBA portal as per norms
prescribed by NBA from time-to-time.

iii) Programs to be accredited should be offered by an educational Institution, which has

been formally approved by the AICTE or the concerned regulatory authority.

iv) Programs from which at least two batches of students have graduated are considered
for accreditation. The program should continuously be running without break with
approval of the concerned regulatory authority during the whole duration of last two
batches (for example: 3 years for PG engineering, etc.).

v) The institution is required to pay accreditation fee as prescribed by NBA from time-
to-time. The application fee is payable in two phases – 10 per cent at the time of
submission of Pre-Qualifiers and balance 90 per cent fee at the time of submission of
SAR once the Pre-Qualifiers are approved.

vi) The institution must submit Self-Assessment Report (SAR) online through e-NBA
portal in the prescribed format in respect of each program proposed for accreditation.

vii) The title of a program to be accredited must be the same as shown on the graduating
student’s degree and the approval letters of the concerned regulatory authority.

viii) Visiting Team, while evaluating the programs, should ascertain overlapping of
resources and faculty for programs in an institution where AICTE has granted
approval for 1st shift and 2nd shift.

ix) Part-time programs are not considered for accreditation.

x) Programs are evaluated in accordance with the accreditation criteria as specified by

NBA.

xi) Institutions are required to represent the accreditation status of each program

© NBA, NEW DELHI 4

 PG Engineering

accurately and without ambiguity. If accreditation is withdrawn or discontinued or

expires, the institution should no longer refer to the program as accredited.

xii) A two/three day’s onsite visit is a part of the accreditation process. A Visiting Team
appointed by the NBA carries out the evaluation of the program. The institution is
required to propose such sets of dates for the visit when the regular classes and all
academic activities of the program applied for, are going on.

xiii) Institutions have the option of withdrawing a program during the exit meeting of the
visit. The institution shall handover a written request to the Team chair during the exit
meeting. No communication regarding withdrawal will be accepted after the visiting
team has left the institution. No fee would be refunded in such cases.

xiv) The final decision made by the NBA is communicated to the educational institution,
together with comments detailing strengths, weaknesses and scope for improvement.

xv) A copy of the report of the visiting team is sent to the institution along with the
accreditation status in order to maintain the transparency. In the event of change of
the decision from the visiting team to the decision-making team, the reasons for
changes are also conveyed along with the visiting team report.

xvi) If an institution is not satisfied with the decision of NBA regarding accreditation
status, it may appeal against the decision to the Appellate Committee (AC) of NBA
within 30 days of receipt of the communication.

xvii) Commencement of Accreditation Period:

 In case visit of the Expert (Visiting) Team to an Institution is conducted between

1st July - 31st December, the Period of accreditation would commence from the on-
going academic year (i.e. with effect from 1st July of the on-going academic year).

 In case visit is conducted between 1st January to 30th June, the accreditation period
would be from the next academic year (i.e. with effect from 1st July of the next
academic year).

 Same rules apply for deciding the validity period of accreditation periods of
programs in appeal cases also.

xviii) If a program is ‘not accredited’ or withdrawn during the visit, a fresh application for
accreditation of the same program can be considered one year after the date of
previous visit of the Visiting Team.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 5

 PG Engineering

xix) If an institution requests postponement of the visit of the expert team after the team
has already been constituted for the purpose, an additional fee of 25% shall be required
to be paid before the visit is rescheduled. If the institution causes cancellation of the
visit after the team has already been constituted for the purpose, there would be a
cancellation fee of 25% deducted from the fees paid by the institution. In case, an
institution requests for withdrawal of the program(s) applied by it after application
has been approved by the NBA for further processing and the fee has been paid by the
institution, 10% of the accreditation fee per program may be deducted while refunding
the fee as per the request of the institution.

xx) For consideration of accreditation of a Postgraduate Engineering program, it is

mandatory that the corresponding Undergraduate engineering program should have
valid accreditation on the date of application. However, this does not apply in cases
for special PG engineering programs that may not have a corresponding UG
engineering program running in the Institution. The special PG engineering programs
will be considered on case–to-case basis.
xxi)

2.2. Outcome-based Education and Accreditation

Outcome based education is targeted at achieving desirable outcomes (in terms of

knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour) at the end of a program. Teaching with this
awareness and making the associated effort constitutes outcome based education. This
entails a regular methodology for ascertaining the attainment of outcomes, and
benchmarking these against the program outcomes consistent with the objectives of the
program.

Initially, NBA accreditation used to be based on ‘input – process – output’ model with major
emphasis on availability of resources / facilities and the outputs thereof. In the year 2009,
NBA aligned its methodology with international benchmarks and started accreditation on
the basis of outcomes. It believes that educational quality must be measured by outcomes
rather than inputs, because inputs do not necessarily correlate with quality outcomes.
Outcomes are dependent not only on inputs but also on the processes followed by an
institution to convert inputs into defined outcomes.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 6

 PG Engineering

PART - III

© NBA, NEW DELHI 9

 PG Engineering

3.0 Accreditation Criteria

3.1. Terminology in Accreditation

The assessment and evaluation process of accreditation of an postgraduate engineering

program is based on 6 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. The criteria have been formulated in terms of parameters, including
quantitative measurements that have been designed for maximal objective assessment of
each feature.

The definitions of the terms used in this manual are as follows:

(a) Mission and Vision Statement – Mission statements are essentially the means to
achieve the vision of the institution. For example, if the vision is to create high-quality
engineering professionals, then the mission could be to offer a well-balanced program
of instruction, practical experience, and opportunities for overall personality
development. 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.

(b) Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) – Program education objectives are broad
statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program
is preparing graduates to achieve.

(c) Program Outcomes (POs) – Program Outcomes are statements that describe what
students are expected to know and be able to do upon graduating from the Program.
These relate to the skills, knowledge, attitude and behaviour that students acquire
through the program. NBA has defined the Program Outcomes for each discipline.

(d) Assessment – Assessment is one or more processes, carried out by the institution, that
identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of program educational
objectives and program outcomes.

(e) 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 program education objectives or program
outcomes are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the
program.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 7

 PG Engineering

(f) 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.

(g) Rubrics: Rubrics provide a powerful tool for assessment and grading of student work.
They can also serve as a transparent and inspiring guide to learning. Rubrics are scoring,
or grading tool used to measure a students’ performance and learning across a set of
criteria and objectives. Rubrics communicate to students (and to other markers) your
expectations in the assessment, and what you consider important.

3.2. Program Outcomes (POs)

3.2.1. Program Outcomes (POs)

POs are statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do upon
graduating from the program. These relate to the skills, knowledge, analytical ability
attitude and behaviour that students acquire through the program.

The POs essentially indicate what the students can do from subject-wise knowledge
acquired by them during the program. As such, POs define the professional profile of a
graduate of PG Engineering Program.

NBA has defined the following three POs for a graduate of PG Engineering Program:

i) PO1: An ability to independently carry out research /investigation and development

work to solve practical problems.

ii) PO2: An ability to write and present a substantial technical report/document.

iii) PO3: Students should be able to demonstrate a degree of mastery over the area as per
the specialization of the program. The mastery should be at a level higher than the
requirements in the appropriate bachelor program

3.3 Accreditation Criteria

3.3.1 Criterion 1- Program Curriculum and Teaching-Learning Processes

Program should describe the process that periodically documents and demonstrates how
the program curriculum is evolved considering the Program Outcomes. The structure of the
curriculum shall comprise of course code, course title, total number of contact hours
(lecture, tutorial and practical) and credits. Program curriculum grouping based on course
components such as core, elective, mini and major projects, internship/seminars, tec. shall

© NBA, NEW DELHI 8

 PG Engineering

also indicated. The process to identify the extent of compliance of the curriculum for
attaining the Program Outcomes (POs) shall be articulated.

Program should include methods followed to improve quality of Quality of end semester
examination, internal semester question papers, assignments and evaluation, Quality of
student projects, Quality of the project, Initiatives related to industry interaction including
industry internship/summer training, Participation of Industry professionals in curriculum
development, as examiners, in major projects, Quality of laboratory work given and steps
taken to ascertain the same.

The initiatives, implementation details and impact analysis for various parameters as per
the format are to be provided in SAR.

3.3.2 Criterion 2- Program Outcomes

Precise illustrations of program articulation matrix, modes of delivery of the courses, how
assessment tools are used to assess the impact of course delivery / course content, and how
laboratory and project work are contributing towards the attainment of the POs, shall be
clearly outlined in the Program.

The attainment of POs may be assessed by direct and indirect methods. Direct methods of
assessment are essentially accomplished by the direct examination or observation of
students’ knowledge or skills against measurable performance indicators. On the other
hand, indirect methods of assessment are based on ascertaining opinion or self-report.
Rubric is a useful tool for indirect assessment. A rubric basically articulates the expectations
for students’ performance. It is a set of criteria for assessing students’ work or performance.
Rubric is particularly suited to Program Outcomes that are complex or not easily
quantifiable for which there are no clear “right” or “wrong” answers or which are not
evaluated with the standardized tests or surveys. For example, assessment of writing, oral
communication, or critical thinking often require rubrics. The development of different
rubrics and the achievement of the outcomes need to be clearly stated in the SAR. The results
of assessment of each PO for two to three assessment years shall be indicated as they play a
vital role in implementing the continuous improvement process of the Program.

3.3.3 Criterion 3 - Students’ Performance

The educational institution should monitor the academic performance of its students
carefully. The institution shall provide the required information for three complete
academic years about sanctioned intake and corresponding admission in the program,
success rate in the stipulated period, placement and higher studies and professional
activities as per the format given in the SAR.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 9

 PG Engineering

3.3.4 Criterion 4 - Faculty Contributions

The faculty members should possess adequate knowledge / expertise to deliver all the
curricular contents of the Program.

The number of faculty members must be adequate so as to enable them to engage in

activities outside their teaching duties, especially for the purposes of professional
development, curriculum development, student mentoring/counselling, administrative
work, training, and placement of students, interaction with industrial and professional
practitioners.

The number of faculty members must be sufficiently large in proportion to the number of
students, so as to provide adequate levels of faculty-student interaction. In any educational
Program, it is essential to have adequate levels of faculty-student interaction, which is
possible only if there are enough faculty members.

The faculty must be actively involved in research and development. The Program must
support, encourage and maintain such R&D activities, which, in turn, provide new
knowledge to the curriculum. The student’s education is enriched by being part of such a
culture as it cultivates skills and habits for lifelong learning and knowledge on
contemporary issues.

The program shall provide the required information for three complete academic years for
Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR), Faculty competencies in the in the area of program
specialization, Involvement of faculty in faculty development/training activities and STTPs,
academic research, sponsored research and consultancy etc.

3.3.5 Criterion 5 - Laboratories and Research Facilities

The institution must provide adequate infrastructural and research facilities to support the
achievement of the Program Outcomes. The laboratories must be equipped with computing
resources, equipment, and tools relevant to the Program. The equipment of the laboratories
should be properly maintained, upgraded and utilized so that the students can attain the
Program Outcomes. There should be an adequate number of qualified technical supporting
staff to provide appropriate guidance to the students for using the equipment, tools,
computers, and laboratories. The institution must provide scope for the technical staff for
upgrading their skills and professional advancement.

The institution shall provide the required information about adequacy and equipment in
the laboratories in the area of program specialization, research facilities/centre for
excellence and access to laboratory facilities, training in the use of equipment, as per the
format given in the SAR.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 10

 PG Engineering

3.3.6 Criterion 6- Continuous Improvement

Closing the loop at Program level and Institute level ensures quality assurance of the
program. All POs attainment analysis is made to provide continuous improvement through
course delivery, assessment and curriculum.

The institution shall provide required information regarding action taken based on the
results of evaluation of each PO, Quality of projects, placement, higher studies,
entrepreneurship and quality of students admitted to the program, quality of paper
published and laboratories in relation to continuous improvement.

3.4 Accreditation Criteria Marks Distribution

Criteria Criteria Mark/Weightage

No.
Program Level Criteria

1. Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes 125

2. Program Outcomes 75

3. Students’ Performance 75

4. Faculty Contributions 75

5. Laboratories and Research Facilities 75

6. Continuous Improvement 75

Total 500

© NBA, NEW DELHI 11

PART - IV
 PG Engineering

4.0 Accreditation Process

Accreditation workflow for Postgraduate Engineering Programs is summarized in
Workflow diagram (Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b) and described below briefly.

4.1 Accreditation Stages

Eligible institutions may apply for accreditation of their programs online through the
“Accreditation Workflow Management System” https://enba.nbaind.org/ called e-NBA.
The process of accreditation can be grouped into the following four sequential stages
essentially in the same order. These stages are: i) Initial Stage; ii) Pre-Assessment Stage; iii)
Assessment Stage; and iv) Post Assessment Stage (Decision-Making). Applicant institution
must complete the previous stage, before proceeding to the next stage.

ssessment & apply again

DELHI
© NBA, NEW DELHI 12
 PG Engineering
Fig.
Assessment Stage
Download SAR from NBA Website
(http://nbaind.org/) (For Preparation)

Fill-in SAR online (eSAR) for each Program in the

Prescribed Format and Submit

Click Submit and Proceed to Pay 90% Fee

Suggest five Sets of Dates

Coordinate with NBA for Date of Visit

Visit of NBA Visiting Team

Post-Assessment Stage
Submission of Evaluation Report to
NBA by Visiting Team
Moderation Committee

Report of Moderation Committee communicated to

Institution (Institution to respond within 10 days)

Reports along with observations of the Moderation Committee

and response of Institution placed before EAC

Recommendation of EAC are placed before the Subcommittee of AAC

Accreditation Status Communicated to Institutions

Status Accepted

Fig. 1: Accreditation Workflow: Assessment and Post-Assessment Stage

3

© NBA, NEW DELHI 13

 PG Engineering

4.1.1. Initial Stage: Registration

Institutions willing to seek accreditation of their programs by NBA are required to register
with eNBA. Registration with eNBA is a one-time process. After filing the initial registration
form, user gets user-id and password to fill the Complete Registration Form. Fig.2 is screen shot
of initial registration and login interface for registered institutions.

Fig. 2: Registration of Institutions on e-NBA

Steps involved in the process of registration are as follows:

 The process of registration involves filling-in and submission of basic information of the
registering institution in the data input boxes on e-NBA Registration Interface. On
submission of basic information, the Institution receives temporary login credentials
through their registered e-mail, which become permanent user ID after submission of
one-time Registration fee (See Annexure I: Fee Structure).

 The institution is required to login using credentials received through their registered e-
mail to complete the process of registration which includes keying-in of information in
the data input boxes on e-NBA portal, such as the head of the institution, details of key
promoters, bank details, details of the programs proposed for accreditation by the
institution and uploading copies of all AICTE Approval Letters (academic year wise) or
any other appropriate regulatory authority. The copies should be duly authenticated by
the Head of the Institution on each page.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 14

 PG Engineering

 The institution is required to pay one-time registration fee to complete the process of
registration.

 The above-mentioned process should be completed within 15 working days of the

initiation of the registration failing which institutions will have to register again.

 Institutions already registered with e-NBA are not required to registration again.

4.1.2. Pre-Assessment Stage

4.1.2.1. Application for Accreditation

 Registered institution may apply online for accreditation of its programs by NBA. Login
into eNBA portal using login credentials obtained during the Registration process
mentioned above.

 Generate appropriate format for application by selecting Discipline, Level and Programs
from pull-down menus as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Generating Application(s) for Accreditation of Specific Program

 Upload all AICTE Approval Letter for the last five years including the Current Academic
Year or any other appropriate regulatory authority duly authenticated by Head of the
Institution.

 Institutions can apply for accreditation up to five programs through a single application
on the e-NBA portal. Management and MCA programs can be clubbed with other
programs in a single application. Applications for accreditation can be submitted any
time when an institute is fairly confident that its programs comply with the relevant pre-
qualifiers, and their system for outcome-based education and accreditation have been
put in place and well imbibed by the faculty members of the program.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 15

 PG Engineering

 Click at “Submit” button, for submission of temporary application to NBA for further
processing. Application ID gets generated on successful submission of application.

4.1.2.2. Submission of Pre-Qualifiers

After the generation of the temporary application, the institution is required to fill the pre-
qualifiers (See Annexure II) for program(s) to be accredited through eNBA portal. Login
into eNBA portal and Click at “Pre-qualifier / e-SAR” under “Application” from the Left
Navigation Panel. eNBA would display your Application No., Program and Level. Click at
“Proceed to Pre-qualifiers”. e-NBA seeks information on pre-qualifiers under six sub-heads,
namely i) Programme-specific Information; ii) Student Admissions; iii) Information on
Faculty; iv) Student Faculty Ratio; and v) Compliance Status. Fill-in all the requisite
information for the first sub-head and click at “Save and Next” to move to the next sub-
head. Screenshot of program-specific information is given below as an example in Fig. 4.

Fig.4: Screenshot of Pre-qualifier: Program-Specific Information

4.1.2.3. Submission of 10 % of Total Accreditation Fee

The institution is required to submit 10 per cent of the total applicable accreditation fee (as
prompted by eNBA portal) (see Annexure I: Fee Structure) along with duly filled-in pre-
qualifiers for further processing of the application. This first stage fee is non-refundable. If
all the pre-qualifiers applied through an application are not approved, then the application
is not processed further and the institution is informed accordingly.

All pre-assessment steps mentioned-above (4.1.2.1 to 4.1.2.3) should be completed within 30

days from the generation of the temporary application. If all these steps are not completed
within 30 days, the application needs to be regenerated and PQs needs to be filled again.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 16

 PG Engineering

4.1.3. Assessment Stage

4.1.3.1. Submission of Self-Assessment Report (SAR)

Submission of Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and Assessment by Visiting Team of NBA

involves the following steps:

 Once the Pre-Qualifiers are approved, the institution is required to fill e-SAR for the
programs whose pre-qualifiers are approved as prompted by eNBA portal.

To fill e-SAR (See: Annexure- III SAR), login into eNBA portal, click at “PQ/e-SAR”
under “Application” and start filling the e-SAR online for each program. The
information filled in Pre-Qualifier come prefilled (such as student information and
faculty details) in the e-SAR and institutions are required to fill rest of the information.
The e-SAR contains more detailed information about the programs and helps the
institution to self-assess itself on each accreditation criteria. It is an opportunity for the
institution to showcase its strengths, weaknesses etc. for evaluation and assessment
criteria of NBA. However, e-SAR is expected to be factual and not narrative.

 Once all e-SAR of individual programs are submitted, click on the final submit button
and pay the remaining 90% fees for all the programs whose e-SAR has been submitted
(See Annexure I – Fee Structure). Institution can view the submitted e-SAR online and
save it as PDF. The e-SAR submitted online is automatically forwarded to NBA for
further necessary action.

 On submission of e-SAR, institution is invited to suggest dates for the visit and prepare
itself for the visit as shown in Fig. 6. Submit five sets of dates for the visit. The institution
is required to propose such sets of dates for the visit when the regular classes and all
academic activities of the program applied for accreditation are on. NBA selects one set
of dates and communicates the same to the institution. After receiving the concurrence
of the institution, the dates of visit are fixed, and Visiting Team of NBA conducts the
visit.

Fig. 6: Propose Five Sets of Date for Visiting Team

© NBA, NEW DELHI 17

 PG Engineering

4.1.3.2. Visiting Team to the Institution for Accreditation

 Once the Institution confirms the visit date, NBA constitutes the visit team. An
accreditation visit to the institution is held for 3 days. However, visit for a single program
is held for 2 days. This excludes the pre-visit meeting, which is held on day 0 at the place
of stay. The Visiting Team consists of a Chairperson and two program evaluators for
each program.

 While constituting a Visiting Team, NBA checks for the conflict of interest, i.e., expert
must not be from the same state as of the institution and should not have any
professional relation with the institution and/or program. Declaration and Feedback
taken from the Chairman and Evaluators is enclosed as Part C of Annexure VII and VIII
respectively.

 The Complete Evaluation Process including composition of visiting team, criteria for
nomination, General Policies for Team Formation, etc. have been elaborated in Part III
of General Manual available at
https://www.nbaind.org/files/general-manual-of-accreditation.pdf

 The following Evaluation Documents that are helpful to the Visiting Team in preparing
themselves for the visit as well as guiding them on processes and procedures to be
followed are annexed in this manual:

✓ Visit Schedule (Annexure IV)

✓ List of Documents to be Verified during the Visit (Annexure V)
✓ Evaluation Guidelines (Annexure VI)
✓ Chairperson’s Visit Report (Part A & C) (Annexure VII)
✓ Evaluator’s Visit Report (Part A, B and C) (Annexure VIII)
✓ Certificate of Participation (to be filled-in by the Chairman of the Visiting Team)
(Annexure IX)
✓ Certificate and Feedback to be filled by Institution (Annexure X & XI)
✓ Feedback from to be filled by the Visiting Team regarding the Service Provider
(Annexure XII)

4.1.3.3. Accreditation Visit

The visit of the Evaluation Team is arranged to the institution seeking accreditation of its
program(s) to evaluate and validate the assessment of the institution/department through
the SAR of the program concerned as per specified accreditation criteria. Although it may
not be possible to describe adequately all the factors to be assessed during the on-site visit,
some of the common ones are the following:

i) Outcomes of the education provided;

ii) Quality assurance processes; including internal reviews;
iii) Assessment;
iv) Activities and work of the students;
v) Entry standards and selection for admission of students;

© NBA, NEW DELHI 18

 PG Engineering

vi) Motivation and enthusiasm of faculty;

vii) Qualifications and activities of faculty members;
viii) Infrastructure facilities;
ix) Laboratory facilities;
x) Library facilities;
xi) Industry participation;
xii) Organization.

In order to assist the Evaluation Team in its assessment, the educational institution should
arrange for the following:

i. Meeting with

a. The Head of the Institution/Dean/Heads of Department (HoD)/Program and

Course Coordinators
b. Member(s) of the management (to discuss how the program fits into overall
strategic direction and focus of the institution, and management support for
continued funding and development of the program)
c. Faculty members
d. Alumni
e. Employers
f. Students
g. Parents

ii. Availability of the following exhibits

a. Profile of faculty involved in the program

b. Evidence that the results of assessment of course outcomes and program outcomes
are being applied to the review and ongoing improvement of program effectiveness.
c. List of publications, consultancy and sponsored/funded research projects by the
program faculty
d. Sample materials for theory and laboratory courses
e. Sample test/semester examination question papers for all courses
f. Sample of test/semester examination answer scripts projects, assignments,
(including at least one excellent, one good and one marginal pass for each
examination) question papers and evidences related to assessment tools for COs
and POs.
g. Student records of three immediate batches of graduates
h. Sample project and design reports (excellent, good and marginal pass)by students
i. Sample student feedback form
j. Sample for industry-institution interaction
k. Results of quality assurance reviews
l. Records of employment/higher studies of graduates

© NBA, NEW DELHI 19

 PG Engineering

m. Records of academic support and other learning activities

n. Any other documents that the Evaluation Team/NBA may require

iii. Visit to

a. Classrooms
b. Laboratories pertaining to the program
c. Central and department library
d. Computer centre

The evaluation Team should conduct an exit meeting with the Management Representative,
the Head of the Institution, the Head of Department and other key officials at the end of the
on-site visit to present its findings (strengths, concerns, weaknesses and deficiencies The
institution is given a chance to withdraw one or more programs from the process of
accreditation. In this case, the Head of the Institution shall have to submit the withdrawal
in writing to the Chairperson of the Evaluation Team during the exit meeting. No request
for withdrawal shall be accepted after the exit meeting.

4.1.3.4. 360 Degree Feedback

Appraisal 360˚ works by gathering the opinions of a number of people. A series of carefully
structured questions prompt one to assess skills in a number of key areas. A number of other
people are then asked to give their perception by answering a set of questions, which are
then compiled into a feedback report. It is envisaged that such feedback will help in bringing
transparency and objectivity in the evaluation process which will help in improving quality
of the accreditation process, the cherished goal of all the stakeholders.

The 360˚ feedback is made available online to the institutions, chairperson and the
evaluators by NBA. They have the flexibility to either fill the form online or download the
form and submit the same by mail within 3 days.

A. Feedback form filled by the Head of the institution- This format mainly focuses on
the feedback on the entire evaluation team comprising the chairperson and evaluators
regarding the accreditation and evaluation process and seeking comments about the
general behavior of the evaluation team.

B. Feedback form filled by the chairperson- This format mainly focuses on the feedback
on the performance of the evaluators and also about the cooperation and coordination
rendered by the institution at the time of accreditation visit.

C. Feedback form filled by the evaluators- This format mainly focuses on the feedback
on the chairperson, co-evaluators and also about the cooperation and coordination

© NBA, NEW DELHI 20

 PG Engineering

rendered by the institution at the time of accreditation visit.

D. Feedback form filled by the chairperson / evaluators in respect of Service Provider-

This format mainly focuses on the feedback on the performance of the service
providers during the visit of accreditation.

4.1.4. Post-Assessment Stage

4.1.4.1. Processing of Evaluation Report

Processing of Evaluation Report submitted by the Visiting Team involves the following
steps:

 Once the accreditation visit is completed, the experts prepare the evaluation report and
submit it to the NBA.

 The report is first placed before the Moderation Committee. The Moderation Committee
considers the Evaluation Report and find out the borderline cases. The observations of
the Moderation Committee, for such cases are communicated to the institution for
seeking necessary clarification within 10 days of submission of evaluation report.
Response of the institution is sent to Chairperson of the Visiting Team.

 The Visits Team Report, observations of Moderation Committee and the response of the
institution are considered by the EEAC (Engineering Evaluation and Accreditation
Committee) in the presence of Chairperson of the Visiting Team.

 The recommendations of the EEAC are considered by the concerned Sub Committee of
AAC of Engineering for taking a final decision on accreditation status. The final status
of accreditation, as per the decision of Subcommittee of AAC, is communicated to the
institution by NBA.

4.2 Award of Accreditation

i) Accreditation of the Program for Six years;
ii) Accreditation of the Program for Three years; and
iii) No Accreditation of the Program

The accreditation is awarded based on the fulfilment of the following requirements:

4.2.1 Award of Accreditation for Six Years

 Program should score greater than or equal to 375 with 60 per cent in each criterion.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 21

 PG Engineering

 Number of Ph.D. available in the department should be greater than or equal to 30 per
cent of the required number of faculty, averaged over two academic years i.e. Current
Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).

 Faculty student ratio in the department under consideration should be less than or equal
to 1:20, averaged over three academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY), Current
Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current Academic Year Minus Two (CAYM2).

 At least two Professors or one professor and one associate professor on regular basis
with a Ph.D. degree having expertise in the domain of the Program under consideration
should be available for two academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY) and
Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).

4.2.2 Award of Accreditation for Three Years

 Program should score greater than or equal to 300 with 50 per cent in Criterion–IV
(Faculty Contribution).

 At least two Professors or one professor and one associate professor on regular basis
with Ph.D. qualification with expertise in the domain of the Program under
consideration should be available for two academic years i.e. Current Academic Year
(CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).

 The department should have at least two faculty having Ph.D. qualification for two
academic year i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus
One (CAYM1).

 Faculty Student Ratio in the department under consideration should be less than or
equal to 1:25, averaged over three academic year i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY),
Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current Academic Year Minus Two
(CAYM2)

4.2.3 No Accreditation of the Programs

 If the program fails to meet the criteria for award of accreditation for three years, it is
awarded “Not Accredited” status.

4.3 Appeal
If the institution is not satisfied with the NBA’s decision on the Status of Accreditation, then
the institution can make an appeal against the decision within 30 days of date of receipt of

© NBA, NEW DELHI 22

 PG Engineering

communication from NBA along with the fee given in Annexure I: Fee Structure. The appeal
is placed before the Appellate Committee and its recommendations are considered by the
Academic Advisory Committee (AAC) for taking decision on appeal.

4.4 Accreditation Fee

Any institution which applied for accreditation is required to pay the fee at various stages
as per the details given in Annexure I: Fee Structure.

4.5 Reconsideration of Programs

If a program is ‘not accredited’ or withdrawn during visit, a fresh application for

accreditation of the same program can be considered after one year from the date of
previous visit of the visiting team.

Note: - For all other general information, please refer to the General Manual for
Accreditation or contact NBA.

© NBA, NEW DELHI 23

 National Board of Accreditation
NBCC Place, 4th Floor East Tower, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi 110003
Phone: +91(11)24360620-22
Fax: +91(11) 43084903
E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.nbaind.org