NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION INDIA INTRODUCTION

Introduction to NBA, Accreditation Process, Role of Chairman and
PEVs, Do’s & Dont’s
by Dr. Anil Kumar Nassa, Member Secretary, NBA

ACCREDITATION
• Accreditation is a process of quality assurance
and improvement, whereby a program in an
approved Institution is critically appraised to
verify that the program 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 program fulfills desired standards.

NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION
NBA is committed to provide:
1. Credible System of Accreditation
2. Transparent & Accountable System
3

4
C redible System of Accreditation
• Strength and credibility of accreditation process largely lies in the
integrity, honesty, expertise and professionalism.
• Evaluators – face of NBA.
• Transparency-
– Report discussed in the meetings of EAC in presence of all team chair
– Recommendations of EAC are considered in Sub-committee of AAC
– Copy of the report is sent to the Institution
– Change in decision communicated to the institution with reasons
– 360 degree feedback

WASHINGTON ACCORD
• The membership of Washington Accord is an international
recognition of the quality of undergraduate engineering
education offered by the member country and is an avenue to
bring it into the world class category. It encourages and
facilitates the mobility of engineering graduates and
professionals at international level.
• India became Permanent Signatory status in June, 2014 and
again in 2020 got the Permanent Signatory status of
Washington Accord for a further period of six years. In the
Washington Accord, India is represented by National Board of
Accreditation(NBA).

❑ Not to find faults with the institution but to assess the status- ante
of the performance.
❑ Not to denigrate the working style of the institution and its
programs but to provide a feed back on their strengths and
weaknesses.
❑ Not to demarcate the boundaries of quality but to offer a
sensitizing process for continuous improvement in quality
provisions.
❑ Not to select only institutions of national excellence but to provide
benchmarks of excellence and identification of good practices.
WHAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF
ACCREDITATION

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 foraccreditation.
2. Programs from which at least two batches of
students have graduated are considered for
accreditation.

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.

Program Outcomes (POs)-Present
1. Engineering knowledge: Apply the knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering
fundamentals, and an engineering specialization to the solution of complex engineering
problems.
2. Problem analysis: Identify, formulate, review research literature, and analyze complex
engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics,
natural sciences, and engineering sciences.
3. Design/development of solutions: Design solutions for complex engineering problems and
design system components or processes that meet the specified needs with appropriate
consideration for the public health, safety, and the cultural, societal, and environmental
considerations
4. Conduct investigations of complex problems: Use research-based knowledge and research
methods including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of
the information to provide valid conclusions.
5. Modern tool usage: Create, select, and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern
engineering and IT tools including prediction and modeling to complex engineering activities
with an understanding of the limitations.
6. The engineer and society: Apply reasoning informed by the contextual knowledge to assess
societal, health, safety, legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to
the professional engineering practice.

Program Outcomes (POs)-Present
7. Environment and sustainability: Understand the impact of the professional
engineering solutions in societal and environmental contexts, and demonstrate the
knowledge of, and need for sustainable development.
8. Ethics: Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and
responsibilities and norms of the engineering practice.
9. Individual and team work: Function effectively as an individual, and as a member
or leader in diverse teams, and in multidisciplinary settings.
10. Communication: Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering community and with society at large, such as, being able to
comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective
presentations, and give and receive clear instructions.
11. Project management and finance: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of
the engineering and management principles and apply these to one s own work, as
‟
a member and leader in a team, to manage projects and in multidisciplinary
environments.
12. Life-long learning: Recognize the need for, and have the preparation and ability to
engage in independent and life-long learning in the broadest context of
technological change.

Program Outcomes (POs)-Proposed
1. Engineering knowledge: Apply the knowledge of mathematics, natural science,
computing and engineering fundamentals, and an engineering specialization to the
solution of complex engineering problems.
2. Problem analysis: Identify, formulate, review research literature, and analyze complex
engineering problems reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of
mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering sciences with holistic consideration for
sustainable development.
3. Design/development of solutions: Design solutions for complex engineering
problems and design system components or processes that meet the identified needs
with appropriate consideration for the public health and safety, whole-life cost, net zero
carbon, as well as resource, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations.
4. Conduct investigations of complex problems: Conduct investigations of complex
problems using research-based knowledge and research methods including design of
experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information to
provide valid conclusions.
5. Engineering Tool usage: Create, select, adapt and apply appropriate
technologies/techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools, including
prediction and modelling, to complex engineering problems, with an understanding of the
associated limitations

Program Outcomes (POs)-Proposed
6. Impact of Engineering on Society and the environment: analyze social and
environmental aspects of engineering activities. Such abilities include an understanding of
the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and
cultural aspects of society; the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the
concepts of sustainable design and development.
7. Ethics: Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and
norms of engineering practice and adhere to relevant national and international laws.
8. Individual and team work: Work effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader
in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary, face-to-face, remote and distributed settings.
9. Communication Skill: Communicate effectively complex engineering concepts within
the profession and with society at large. Such abilities include reading, writing, speaking
and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design
documentation, and to give and receive clear instructions.
10. Project management and finance: Apply knowledge and understanding of engineering
management principles and economic decision-making and apply these to one’s own work,
as a member and leader in a team, and to manage projects and in multidisciplinary
environments.
11. Life-long learning: Identify and to address needs in a changing world, adapt new and
emerging technologies, develop critical thinking approach in the context of technological
change by engaging themselves in independent and life-long learning.

NBA Outcome Based Accreditation
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.

❑ VISIT
• During the two and a half day visit, the team
has discussions with
1. The Head of the institute/Dean/Heads of
Department /Program and course coordinators
2. A member of the management (to discuss how
the program fits into the overall strategic
direction and focus of the institution and
management support for continued funding and
development of the program)
3. Faculty members
4. Alumni
5. Students
6. Employers
11

Marks Comparison of SAR of UG Engineering
Tier-I & Tier II (First Cycle)
S.No. Criteria
UG Engineering
Tier-I Tier-II
1. Vision, Mission and Program Educational Objectives 50 60
2. Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes 100 120
3. Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes 175 120
4. Students’ Performance 100 150
5. Faculty Information and Contributions 200 200
6. Facilities and Technical Support 80 80
7. Continuous Improvement 75 50
8. First Year Academics 50 50
9. Student Support Systems 50 50
10. Governance, Institutional Support and Financial Resources 120 120
TOTAL 1000 1000

Tier – I Grades
❖ ≈75% & Above ‘Y’
❖ ≈ 60% and <75% ‘C’
❖ ≈ 40% and <60% ‘W’
❖ <40% ‘D’

Award of Accreditation-Tier-I (UG)
Full Accreditation for Six years will be accorded to a program on
fulfilment of the following requirements :
• There should not be any “Deficiency” or “Weakness” in any of the criteria and at least
seven criteria must be fully compliant with only “Concerns” in the remaining criteria.
• Number of available Ph.D. 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).
• The admissions in the UG program should be more than or equal to 60 per cent,
averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e. Current Academic
Year Minus One (CAYM1), Current Academic Year Minus Two (CAYM2) and Current
Academic Year Minus Three (CAYM3).
• Faculty Student Ratio in the department 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 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor (on regular basis)
with Ph.D. degree should be available in the respective department for two
academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year
Minus One (CAYM1).
• HoD of the program under consideration should possess Ph.D. degree in the
Current Academic Year (CAY)
#Y shall be >=7, #W and #D shall be Zero (0), where the symbol #
has been used to indicate the count.

Accreditation for Three years will be accorded
to a program on fulfilment of the following
requirements:
• “#Y” shall be greater than or equal to 04
averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e. Current Academic Year
Minus One (CAYM1), Current Academic Year Minus Two (CAYM2) and Current Academic
Year Minus Three (CAYM3).
• At least 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor (on regular basis) with Ph.D.
degree should be available in the respective department for two academic years i.e.
Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).
• The faculty student ratio in the department under consideration should be less than or
equal to 1:25 averaged over three academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY),
Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current Academic Year Minus Two
(CAYM2)

• Number of available Ph.D. in the department should be greater than or
equal to 20 per cent of the required number of faculty averaged over two
Minus One (CAYM1).
• HoD of the program under consideration should possess Ph.D. degree in the
Current Academic Year (CAY).
• In case of a “D” in any of the criteria, the program is not considered for
accreditation.

No Accreditation of the program:
If the program fails to meet criteria for award
of accreditation for 3 years, the program will
not be considered for accreditation.

Award of Accreditation-Tier-II (UG)
Full Accreditation for Six years will be accorded to a program
on fulfilment of the following requirements:
• Program should score a minimum of 750 points in aggregate out of 1000 points
with minimum score of 60 per cent in mandatory fields (i.e. Criteria 4 to 6).
• Number of available Ph.D. 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).
• The admissions in the UG program should be more than or equal to 50 per
cent, averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e. Current
Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1), Current Academic Year Minus Two
(CAYM2) and Current Academic Year Minus Three (CAYM3).

• Faculty Student Ratio in the department 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 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor (on regular basis)
with Ph.D. degree should be available in the respective department for two
Minus One (CAYM1).
• HoD of the program under consideration possesses Ph.D. degree in the Current
Academic Year (CAY).

Accreditation for Three years will be
accorded to a program on fulfilment of the
following requirements:
• Program should score a minimum of 600 points with atleast 40 per cent marks
in Criterion V (Faculty Information and Contributions).
• The admissions in the UG program should be more than or equal to 50 per
cent, averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e.
Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1), Current Academic Year Minus
Two (CAYM2) and Current Academic Year Minus Three (CAYM3).
• At least one Professor or one Associate Professor on regular basis with Ph.D.
degree is available in the respective department for two academic years i.e.
Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).

• The faculty student ratio in the department under consideration should be
less than or equal to 1:25, averaged over three academic years i.e. Current
Academic Year (CAY), Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current
Academic Year Minus Two (CAYM2).
• Number of Ph.D. available in the department should be greater than or equal
to 10 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).

If the program fails to meet criteria
for award of accreditation for 3
years, the program will not be
considered for accreditation.

S.N. Pre Visit Qualifiers Current Status Compliance
Status
Complied/Not
Complied
Essential qualifiers
1 Vision, Mission & PEOs
i. Are the Vision & Mission of the
Department stated in the Prospectus /
Website?
ii. Are the PEOs of the Program listed in
the Prospectus / Website?
2 Whether approval of AICTE for the programs
under consideration has been obtained for
all the years including current year
3 Whether admissions in the undergraduate
programs under consideration has been more
than or equal to 50% (including lateral entry)
average of the CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3.
% Admission
Pre-Qualifiers (TIER-II UG Engineering)

4 Whether faculty student ratio in the
department under consideration is better
than or equal to 1:25 average of CAY,
CAYm1 and CAYm2.
SFR
5 Whether at least one Professor or one
Associate Professor on regular basis with
Ph.D. degree is available in the respective
Department during CAY and CAYm1.
6 Whether number of available Ph.Ds. in the
department is greater than or equal to 10%
of the required number of faculty average
of CAY and CAYm1.
7 Whether two batches have passed out in
the programs under consideration

S.N. Pre Visit Qualifiers
(Average of Assessment years)
Current Status Compliance
Status
Complied/Not
Complied
Essential qualifiers
1 Vision, Mission & PEOs
i. Are the Vision & Mission of the
Department stated in the Prospectus /
Website?
ii. Are the PEOs of the Program listed in the
Prospectus / Website?
2 Whether approval of the competent authority
(Approval of AICTE/ UGC/ BoG of Universities/
Deemed Universities etc.) for the programs
under consideration has been obtained for all
the years including current year
3 Whether admissions in the undergraduate
programs under consideration has been more
than or equal to 60% (including lateral entry)
average of the CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAYm3.
.
% Admission
4 Whether faculty student ratio in the department
under consideration is better than or equal to 1:25
averaged over CAY, CAYm1 and CAYm2
SFR
Pre-Qualifiers (TIER-I UG
Engineering)

6 Whether at least two Professors or one
Professor and one Associate Professor on
regular basis with Ph.D. degree is available
in the respective Department for CAY and
CAYm1.
7 Whether number of available PhDs in the
department is greater than or equal to 20%
of the required number of faculty averaged
for CAY and CAYm1.
8 Whether two batches have passed out in
9 Whether HODs possess Ph.D. degrees for

Guidelines for Faculty:
✓ The faculty will be counted in the respective year, if the faculty has joined on
or before 31st August of the same year and has continued at least till 30th
April of the next year. However, considering the COVID-19 situation:
▪ For Academic Year 2020-21: The joining date of faculty will be considered
as 31st December 2020 instead of 31st August 2020 only for the Academic
Year 2020-21.
▪ For Academic Year 2021-22: The joining date of faculty will be considered
as 31st December 2021 instead of 31st August 2021 only for the Academic
Year 2021-22.

 All the faculty whether regular or contractual (except Part-Time or hourly based), will
be considered. The contractual faculty appointed with any terminology whatsoever, who
have taught for 2 consecutive semesters with or without break between the two semesters
in the corresponding academic year on full time basis shall be considered for the purpose
of calculation in the Faculty Student Ratio. However, following will be ensured in case of
contractual faculty
• Shall have the AICTE prescribed qualifications and experience.
• Shall be appointed on full time basis and worked for consecutive two semesters with or
without break between the two semesters during the particular academic year under
consideration.
• Should have gone through an appropriate process of selection and the records of the same
shall be made available to the visiting team during NBA visit.

✓ The available and required number of PhD. in the department would be
calculated on the average basis for the previous two academic years
including the current academic year (i.e., CAY and CAYm1).
✓ The available and required number of PhD. in the department shall be
truncated to its nearest lower integer.
✓ If a member of regular or contractual faculty is designated as lecturer, even
though holding an M.Tech degree, the same will not be counted against the
faculty requirements.
✓ In the multidisciplinary areas (like MBA or PGDM) or specialized areas like
Biotechnology, all the qualifications relevant and purposeful to those
disciplines need to be considered, in addition to the M.Tech/MBA/PGDM
degrees.
✓ There is no age limit to the consideration for the emeritus faculty as long as
they are physically fit to take classes and engage with students, and are
employed on a full time basis.
✓ Academic year is considered from July to June.

✓ If the SAR is submitted before 30th September, then the CAY shall be the
previous academic year and if the SAR is submitted after 30th September,
then the CAY shall be the running academic year for the purpose of data
consideration and calculations.
CAY: Current Academic Year
CAYm1: Current Academic Year minus 1
CAYm2: Current Academic Year minus 2
CAYm3: Current Assessment Year minus 3
The year mentioned in the documents are just the examples; Institute has to
consider the academic years as per the definition of CAY given in the document
and according to the prevailing year.

The Student Faculty Ratio considered by NBA:
UG Engineering Programs (Tier I & Tier II):- 25:1 for the
Accreditation of 3 years and 20:1 for the Accreditation of 6 years.
PG Engineering Programs: 25:1 for the Accreditation of 3 years
and 20:1 for the Accreditation of 6 years.
Diploma Engineering Programs: 30:1 for the Accreditation of 3
years
PG Management Programs: 25:1 for the Accreditation of 3 years
and 15:1 for the Accreditation of 6 years.
UG Pharmacy: 20:1 for the Accreditation of 3 years and 15:1 for
the Accreditation of 6 years.

UG ENGINEERING SAR FOR TIER I
SECOND CYCLE ACCREDITATION
Criteria
No.
Criteria Mark/Weightage
Program Level Criteria
1. Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes 100
2. Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes 75
3. Students’ Performance 75
4. Faculty Information and Contributions 100
5. Resources 75
6. Continuous Improvement 75
Total 500

Award of Accreditation
Second Cycle Accreditation Tier-I (UG)
Full Accreditation for Six years will be accorded to a program
on fulfilment of the following requirements :
• There should not be any “Deficiency” or “Weakness” in any of the criteria and at least
five criteria must be fully compliant with only “Concerns” in the remaining criteria.
• Number of available Ph.D. 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).
averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e., Current Academic Year
minus One (CAYm1), Current Academic Year minus Two (CAYm2) and Current Academic
Year minus Three (CAYm3).

•Faculty Student Ratio in the department 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 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor (on regular basis)
with Ph.D. Degree should be available in the respective department for two
academic years i.e., Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year
Minus One (CAYm1).
•HoD of the program under consideration should possess Ph.D. degree in the
Current Academic Year (CAY).
#Y shall be >=5, #W and #D shall be Zero (0), where the symbol # has
been used to indicate the count.

Accreditation for Three years will be accorded to a
program on fulfilment of the following requirements:
• “#Y” shall be greater than or equal to 03
• The admissions in the UG program under consideration should be more than
or equal to 60 per cent, averaged over three academic years (including lateral
entry), i.e. Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1), Current Academic
Year Minus Two (CAYM2) and Current Academic Year Minus Three (CAYM3).
• At least 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor (on regular
basis) with Ph.D. degree should be available in the respective department for
two academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic
Year Minus One (CAYM1).
• The faculty student ratio in the department under consideration should be
less than or equal to 1:25 averaged over three academic years i.e. Current
Academic Year (CAY), Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current
Academic Year Minus Two (CAYM2)

• HoD of the program under consideration should possess Ph.D. degree
in the Current Academic Year (CAY).
• In case of a “D” in any of the criteria, the program is not considered
for accreditation.

If the program fails to meet criteria for award of
accreditation for 3 years, the program will not be
considered for accreditation.

Role & Responsibilities of Chairman
• Team Leader/Chairman:
– Lead the evaluation team
– Chair Team meetings
– Chair Exit meeting
– Spokes person for the Team
– Harmonise comments from team members while
preparing report
– Collate Team inputs from review of Self-Study-
Report and request clarification or further
information

Role & Responsibilities of Chairman
• Team Leader:
– Conduct a pre-visit meeting with all evaluators on
day zero of the visit
– Initiates discussion on the observations made after
going through SAR in the pre-visit meeting
– Prepares a list of documents to be verified,
questions to be raised and information to be
obtained from the institution/department
– Collects pre-visit report from each evaluator
– Ensures adherence of visit schedule
Contd....

– Verifies institutional record regarding constitution of
G C ,
Proceedings, Finance, List of faculty members, non-teaching
staff, their salaries, safety and security related matters etc
– C onducts a meeting of all the experts in the evening
for
sharing their observations during the day and also preparing
additional list of documents/evidences to be obtained.
– Chairs meetings with the stakeholders in the institute
– C onducts a meeting in the evening of second day
and
complete the evaluation process and finalize the report based
on the evidences collected, interaction with stakeholders and
reliable documents produced
– Sign and be responsible for evaluation report
Contd....

– C onducts exit meeting on day three with head of
the institution
– Ensures no discussion on the findings of the
outcome of accreditation
– Presents orally strengths and weaknesses of
common
facilities in the colleges while experts present details of
the respective program strengths and weaknesses
– All other aspects of the outcomes of visit
are
confidential and not to be leaked at any place
under any situation
– Provides a chance to the institute to continue with the
accreditation process or withdraw the application
for any program(s)
– In case of withdrawal, ensures that it is given in writing
by the head of the institution there itself.

Desirable Attributes of Chairman
• Good professional standing
• Expertise in subject matter and/or
accreditation system & process
• Professional approach
• Leadership skills
• Communication skills – Listening in
particular

Role & Responsibilities of PEV
• Team Members, including Chairman
– Evaluate programme together with Team Leader
– Familiar with accreditation system in general
– Well-versed with accreditation criteria
– Good understanding of outcomes-based system and assessment
– Go through self study report
– Thorough evaluation of criteria and outcomes
– Professional approach, unbiased, free of conflict of interest
– Committed full-time during accreditation visit, focused

Attributes of Program Evaluators
• Enthusiastic volunteer
• Technically competent
• Well-regarded
• Effective communication
• Listening skill
• Interpersonal skill
• Team-oriented
• Professional approach
• Courteous
• Time management
• Organized

C onflict of Interest
Definition of possible conflict of interest:
• have financial or personal interest in the
university/institution; or
• have or have had a close, active association with
the programme or faculty/school in the
university/institution. Close or active
association are, for example:
• Employment, as staff or consultant;
• Attendance, as student at the faculty/school;
• Receipt of honorary degree from the faculty/school;
• Membership of a board of the university or any committee
advising on the programme being accredited.

What the PEVs looks for?
• PEVs are sent to evaluate programs,
certifying that they satisfy the criteria
stipulated
• They look for evidences that the required
criteria are met
• They identify strengths, concerns,
weaknesses and deficiencies

During Campus Visit
• Discuss issues of concern
• Interview Dean, HOD, management team, faculty,
alumni and students to assess:
– Morale, attitudes and motivation
– Institutional and industry support
– Theoretical and practical aspects of curriculum
• Review of examination papers, student reports,
instruction materials
• Exit meeting –present program strengths and
weaknesses

Major focus during visit
• Quality assurance processes, including
internal reviews
• Entry standards for admission of
students
• Qualifications, enthusiasm, workload of
faculty
• Facilities
• Industry participation
• Title of a programme as shown on graduate’s
certificate and transcript

DON’Ts
• Don’t keep on talking most of the time
• Don’t waste time listening to presentation of information
already well-documented (e.g. in self-study report)
• Don’t give solutions/advices to problems identified – no
need to tell how you would have run the program
• Don’t compare with your own institution /program
• Don’t group diverse stakeholders in a joint feedback
session, e.g. employers, alumni and parents all together

DON’Ts
• Don’t group HOD, senior Professors and junior
staff in a single session for faculty feedback
• Don’t engage in non-accreditation activities
during the campus visit
• Don’t be aloof, abusive – but should be assertive
at times
• Don’t be overly fault-finding – adopt a balanced
assessment of strengths and weaknesses

DON’Ts
• Don’t engage in bean-counting – rather
look at the bigger picture & the
outcomes
• Don’t examine all thoroughly –
sufficient samples are good
enough
• Don’t engage in conflict-of-interest
activities

Guidelines
➢ The evenings of the visiting team are deliberately kept free
of activities to enable the team to complete the writing of
the report.
➢ It is extremely important to note that the visiting team
members do not indicate to the institution whether they
would accredit or not accredit the programme and that
the report is strictly confidential.
➢ After the conclusion of the exit meeting, all contacts of
the institution should be through NBA only. If
Institution contacts the team members, they should be
advised to contact NBA.

• Assessment by the Experts and the Chairperson
should be holistic and fair.
• Each cell shall be filled with any one observation
Y for compliance, C for concern, W for weakness
and D for deficiency and should be consistent with
corresponding points awarded.
• Finding must be filled in ink in each and every
cell in Program Evaluation Worksheet. If there is
any crossing, the same must be counter signed by
both the experts.
• Avoid subjectivity in awarding marks as far as
possible.

➢ NBA makes travel arrangement for the
team members including accommodation
and travel to or from the campus where the
program is delivered through the authorized
travel agencies.
➢ NBA requires every team member to exhibit
the highest standard of professionalism,
honesty and integrity.
➢ ET members must be objective and truthful
in reports, statement and testimony.

• ET member must strictly adhere to
visit schedule.
• ET
members
must avoid socializing event
during the accreditation visit.
• ET members shall not solicit/accept
gratuities from the institutions.
• The visit should be conducted in a very
polite and cordial atmosphere.
• The behavior and attitude must not
be authoritative and humiliating for the Institute.

NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION INDIA INTRODUCTION

More Related Content

Similar to NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION INDIA INTRODUCTION (20)

More from GopinathSamydurai (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION INDIA INTRODUCTION