ACCREDITATION MANUAL

FOR

POST GRADUATE

ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

National Board of Accreditation

4th

Floor, Eastern Tower

NBCC Place

Bhismam Pitamah Marg

Pragati Vihar, Lodhi Road

New Delhi – 110003

CONTENTS

Foreword

Introduction

National Board of Accreditation

Vision

Mission

Objectives of NBA

About this Manual

Self Assessment Report (SAR)

Abbreviations

Declaration

CRITERIA – I TEACHING AND RESEARCH FACILITIES

CRITERIA – II HUMAN RESOURCES: STUDENTS

CRITERIA – III HUMAN RESOURCES : FACULTY

CRITERIA – IV EVALUATION AND TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS

Foreword

All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE )was set up to oversee the growth and quality of technical education of our country. AICTE established National Board of Accreditation (NBA) in September 1994. NBA is entrusted with the task of evolving a procedure for quality assessment in the technical education sector. Education sector, especially, technical education sector is growing at a rapid pace in India. The growth in quantity has to be matched with the developments on quality front. It is with this objective of enhancing the quality of technical education NBA has set up an agenda to improve the quality through the accreditation process. The ISO standardization in the industrial scenario and the standardization of technical education all over the world have highlighted the need for accrediting technical education programs. In this context, NBA has decided to bring out an Accreditation Manual for Post Graduate Engineering Programs. It is hoped that this manual will provide the Institutes( Offering Post Graduate Engineering Programs ) a comprehensive information about the Accreditation policy, criteria, procedure and guideline. This manual is not only meant for the Engineering Institutes offering Post Graduate programs but also for all the stake holders of the academic system such as teachers, students, parents, employers and the society at large. NBA provides a meaningful benchmarking among the competing educational programs. NBA has constituted several individual committees comprising renowned academicians in various disciplines to prepare draft documents for accreditation process. These inputs provided by all the committees are taken into consideration while compiling this document. Under the guidance of Dr B.C.Mazumdar, Chairman, NBA and with the unstinting support of Dr D.K. Paliwal, Member secretary the members of this committee have prepared the document. This document is open to suggestions from all the stakeholders for bringing any further improvements in the efforts of NBA to provide an efficient and effective methodology of Accreditation process for Technical Education in India.

Introduction

Background Indian higher education system is the 3rd largest system in the world. Expansion of higher

education sector is imperative. During the past two decades, education sector in India has seen

phenomenal growth and development. The number of Institutions has multiplied exponentially,

from the 30 odd colleges in 1950-51, to more than 20,000 odd colleges and from 20 universities to

more than 500 universities awarding degrees, which include all types of Institutions, namely,

central, state, private, govt. aided, deemed to be universities and Institutions of national

importance. The challenge is to ensure its quality to the stakeholders along with the expansion. To

meet this challenge, the issue of quality needs to be addressed, debated and taken forward in a

systematic manner.

There are debates across continents as to who sets the standards for quality. The accreditation

system prevailing in various countries provides a measure of educational quality. Accreditation is

the principal means of quality assurance in higher education and reflects the fact that in achieving

recognition, the Institution or program of study is committed and open to external review to meet

certain minimum specified standards and also seeks ways to enhance the quality of education.

There is a great deal of discussion in the country about the various approaches to quality

measurement, especially, in the context of unprecedented expansion of higher educational

Institutions and programs, introduction of newer disciplines, entry and operation of foreign

Institutions in a variety of forms, and desire for global recognition through international accords

(WTO/ Mutual Recognition, Washington Accord and Other National Protocols). With significant

expansion of higher educational Institutions in India, both publicly and privately funded, a

mandatory and robust accreditation system is required that could provide a common frame of

reference for students and other stakeholders to obtain credible information on academic quality

across Institutions.

Through the accreditation process, an agency or its designated representative evaluates the

quality of a higher education Institution as a whole or of a specific educational program, in order to

formally recognize it as having met certain predetermined minimal criteria or standards. The result

of this process is usually the awarding of a status of recognition.

The accreditation process generally involves three steps with specific activities:

(i) a self-evaluation process conducted by the faculty, the administrators and the staff of the

Institution or academic program, resulting in a report that takes as its reference set of standards

and criteria of the accrediting body; (ii) a study visit, conducted by a team of peers, selected by the

accrediting organization, which reviews the evidence, visits the premises and interviews the

academic and administrative staff resulting in an assessment report, including a recommendation

to the accrediting body; and (iii) examination of the evidence and recommendation on the basis of

the given set of criteria concerning quality and resulting in a final judgment and the communication

of the formal decision to the Institution and other constituencies, if appropriate.

The Eleventh Plan approved by the National Development Council (NDC) provides a three point

agenda with regard to accreditation, namely; introduction of a mandatory accreditation system for

all higher educational Institutions; creation of multiple rating agencies with a body to rate these

rating agencies; department-wise ratings in addition to Institutional rating. Presently, accreditation

is not mandatory and there is no law to govern the process of accreditation. There are two Central

bodies involved in accreditation of Institutions; the National Accreditation Assessment Council

(NAAC) and the National Board of Accreditation Board (NBA). NAAC was set up in 1994 by the

University Grants Commission (UGC) to make quality an essential element through a combination

of internal and external quality assessment and accreditation. NBA was constituted by All India

Council for Technical Education (AICTE), as an autonomous body, under section 10(u) of the

AICTE Act, 1987. It is expected that with the passage of the legislation to provide for accreditation

of higher educational Institutions and to create a regulatory authority for the purpose, many of the

quality issues will be resolved.

The spirit of continuous improvement is a prerequisite for any quality initiative. Educational

Institutions are no exception to this. Always there is a room for further improvement.

National Board of Accreditation

The New Education Policy of 1986 recognized the need for a Statutory Body at the National level

responsible for overseeing the growth and quality of Technical Education in the country.

Accordingly, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was established by an Act of

Parliament in 1987. As a part of its programs and activities, AICTE set up National Board of

Accreditation (NBA) in September 1994, in order to assess the qualitative competence of

educational Institutions from Diploma level to Post-Graduate level in Engineering and Technology,

Management, Pharmacy, Architecture and related disciplines. NBA conducts evaluation of

programs of technical Institution on the basis of laid down norms.

NBA in its present form has come into existence as on autonomous body with effect from 7th

January 2010, under the aegis of AICTE, with the objective of assurance of quality and relevance

of education, especially in technical disciplines through the mechanism of accreditation of

programs offered by the technical Institutions.

Vision

“To be a World Class Accrediting Organization by ensuring highest degree of credibility in

assurance of Quality and Relevance of Professional Education and Training to all Stake-holders

such as Academicians, Business Houses, Educational Institutions, Government, Industry,

Regulators and Students and their Parents.”.

Mission

“To stimulate the quality of teaching, self evaluation and accountability in higher education, which

help Institutions realize their academic objectives and adopt teaching practices that enable them to

produce high quality professionals and to assess and accredit the programs offered by colleges

and/or Institutions imparting Technical and Professional Education.”

Objectives of NBA

The following are the broad objectives of NBA

• To periodically conduct evaluation of technical Institutions or Programs on the basis of guidelines, Norms and Standards specified by it.

• To develop quality conscious systems of technical education where excellence, relevance to market needs and participation by all stake holders are prime and major determinants.

• To dedicate for building a technical education system, as facilitators of human resources, that will match the national goals of growth by competence, contribution to economy through competitiveness and compatibility with societal development.

• To provide the quality benchmarks targeted at Global and National Stockpile of human capital in all fields of technical education.

In line with the above, NBA has the mandate to fulfill the following specific objective of assessing

and accrediting the academic programs. Assessment and accreditation shall be based on various

criteria. This may include but not limited to Institutional mission and objectives; Organization and

governance; Infrastructural facilities; Quality of teaching and learning; Curriculum design and

review; Support services (library, laboratory, instrumentation, computer facilities etc.); and any

other aspect as decided by the General Council (G.C.) and/or Executive Committee (EC)

The main objectives of assessment and accreditation shall be to:

a. Assess and grade the courses and programs offered by institutes/colleges their various

units, faculty, departments etc.

b. Stimulate the academic environment and quality of teaching and research in these

Institutions;

c. Contribution to the sphere of knowledge in its discipline;

d. Motivate colleges and/or Institutions of technical and professional education for research,

and adopt teaching practices that groom their students for the innovation and development

of leadership qualities;

e. Encourage innovations, self evaluation and accountability in higher education;

f. Promote necessary changes, innovations and reforms in all aspects of the working of

colleges/ Institutions of technical and professional education for the above purpose; and

g. Help Institutions realize their academic objectives.

NBA shall ensure that the criteria referred to above for assessment and accreditation are:

i) Reviewed periodically, revised and updated, as and when considered necessary, on the

basis of experiences gained through their application and accordingly the techniques and

modalities used for assessment are modified;

ii) Objective and, to the extent possible, quantifiable; and

iii) Publicized widely, particularly, in the academic community.

NBA will facilitate to enhance the quality of technical education and help in establishing relevancy

of technical education as per the needs of the industry and society at large.

About this Manual

This manual essentially deals with the accreditation process of Post Graduate Engineering

Programs. There are three separate documents have been annexed with this documents, they are

namely,

1. Self Assessment Report ( SAR )

2. Evaluation – Guidelines

3. Evaluation- Report

Attempts have been made to explain these documents as far as possible in this accreditation

manual . Most of these documents are quite straightforward and quantifiable, however, there are

few criteria / sections are subjective in nature. For these criteria the perception, experience,

knowledge and judgment of an individual plays the most significant role.

The document titled as “ Self Assessment Report “ is basically for the Institutions. Institutions

offering Engineering Programs in Post Graduate level need to prepare the report as per the format

of the SAR. The blank format of the SAR as appended at the last part of this document needs to be

filled up by the institutions according to the information asked for. No deviation from this format will

be accepted. No change in order or modification of the format will be entertained.

The document titled as “Evaluation-Guidelines” is essentially a guideline for the Evaluators. In this

document attempts have been made to frame a guideline for the evaluation of the SAR submitted

by the Institutions.

The document titled as “ Evaluation – Report “ is the blank report format for the evaluators. Once

the SAR is evaluated, the evaluators will place the scores in the blank report format along with their

observations.

Self Assessment Report (SAR)

SAR is having four parts.

Part I essentially deals with the Institutional summary. Part I contains Criteria I, II and III.

Part II deals with Department / Program Summary. Part II contains Criteria IV to X.

Part III deals with Curriculum, Syllabi, Program Educational Objectives and Outcomes of the

degree program.

Part IV contains the list of documents / records to be made available during the visit.

Abbreviations :

CAY -- Current Academic Year e.g., __2010 – 11___

CAYm1 --- Current Academic Year minus one e.g., __2009 – 10___

CAYm2 --- Current Academic Year minus two e.g., __2008 – 09___

LYG -- Latest Year of Graduation e.g., __2007 – 08___

LYGm1 --- Latest Year of Graduation minus one e.g., __2006 – 07___

( The word graduation means completion of studies for which degree is conferred , it could be UG

studies or PG studies, as applicable )

CFY -- Current Financial Year e.g., __2010 – 11___

CFYm1 --- Current Financial Year minus one e.g., __2009 – 10___

Notes :

1. The UG program of the Department, to which the PG program belongs, should have been

accredited.

2. At least two batches of the concerned PG program should have graduated.

3. At least 33% of the faculty associated with the concerned PG program should have a PhD

degree and the remaining with M.Tech / M.E in the same, or in the related areas. The

minimum number of faculty in the program is 4 for a batch of 18 students.

4. The number of registered students in a batch should not be less than 5.

5. It would be greatly appreciated if precise and specific details, as requested in this format,

are provided in tabular form and/or using bullets as far as possible. No detailed description

should be included anywhere; do not include any detail/information which is not asked for.

In case, you wish to add any data/information which is not asked for, kindly add in the

annexure.

6. Include data for three consecutive years, unless otherwise specified.

7. Information sought is mostly meant to be the “Average” over last 3 years, as applicable.

8. In this manuscript, “Institution” is used interchangeably for college/Institute/ University and

“Head of the Institution” for Principal/Director/Vice-Chancellor.

Declaration

This Self Assessment Report (SAR) is prepared for the Current Academic Year (__________) and

the Current Financial Year (_________) on behalf of the Institution.

I certify that the information provided in this SAR is extracted from the records and to the best of

my knowledge, is correct and complete.

I understand that any false statement/information of

consequence may lead to rejection of the application for accreditation for a period of two or more

years. I also understand that the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) or its sub-committees will

have the right to decide on the basis of the submitted SAR whether the Institution should be

considered for an accreditation visit.

If the information of consequence was found to be wrong during the visit or subsequent to grant of

accreditation, NBA has right to withdraw the accreditation granted, if any, and no accreditation will

be allowed for a period of next two years or more.

Place: Signature, Name, Designation of the

Date: Head of the Institution with Seal

CRITERIA – I

TEACHING AND RESEARCH FACILITIES [200 Points]

Minimum Qualifying Points: 130

I.P.1. LIBRARY BUDGET (over & above for the UG program) [50 Points]

(a) Journal Subscription Budget [35 Points]

Year Budget for Journal subscription

for the program

Expenditure incurred for Journal

Subscription

for the program

CFY

CFYm1

CFYm2

CFYm3

Average expenditure incurred for journal subscription ≥ Rs 5 lacs per year per program

Assessment = 35 Points

Otherwise, assessment will be prorated accordingly.

Here the institutes should provide the budget and the actual expenditure incurred for journal subscription for the

program for the last three financial years. They may list these journals with duration of subscription in the

annexure.

(b) Book Subscription Budget [15 Points]

Year Budget for Book subscription

for the program

Expenditure incurred for Book

Subscription for the program

CFY

CFYm1

CFYm2

CFYm3

Average expenditure incurred for book subscription ≥ Rs 0.5 lacs per year per program

Assessment = 15 Points

Otherwise, assessment will be prorated accordingly.

Here the institutes should provide the budget and the actual expenditure incurred for the purchase of the books for

the program for the last three financial years. They may list these books in the annexure.

I.P.2. COMPUTING & INTERNET FACILITIES IN THE DEPARTMENT [50 Points]

(a) Number of computers and computing facility available for PG students in the department (based on

Sanctioned Strength of Students) [30 Points]

Name of the Laboratory Number of Computers

Available for PG Students

Computing Facility

Available

Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the computing facilities provided to PG students in the department. The institutes need to

specify the number of computers available in different laboratories to the PG students which h are exclusively for

their use.

(b) Internet Connectivity [20 Points]

Internet Connectivity Details:

Assessment is based upon the widespread availability & quality of internet connectivity.

Assessment =

This criteria evaluates the internet connectivity based on availability, accessibility, speed and duration.

I.P.3. LABORATORY SUPPORT FOR TEACHING [50 Points]

Name of the

Laboratory

Space

Available

Equipments

in Working

Condition

Average

Recurring Budget

in the Last 3

Financial Years

Average Recurring

Expenditure in the

Last 3 Financial

Years

Assessment will be based upon adequacy and quality of laboratories available in the department for the program.

Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the quality of laboratories available in the department for the program. The laboratories

should be equipped with relevant equipment / machines / computers which are in working condition. Institutes

must mention here the budget and actual expenses incurred for the recurring expenses.

I.P.4. BUDGET FOR R&D [30 Points]

YEAR Budget

Allocated

for R&D

Items for

which

Budget was

Allocated

Expenditure

Incurred

Item for which

Expenditures

were Incurred

Non-

utilization

of

Allocated

Budget, if

any

Reason

for Non-

utilization

CFY

CFYm1

CFYm2

CFYm3

This criterion evaluates the budget allocated to the R & D activities for the Department / Program over the last three

financial years. It also seeks information about the expenditure details as well as justification for non utilization, if

any.

(a) Budget Allocation [15 Points]

Assessment is based upon the adequacy of the budget allocated for R&D

activities over the past 3 years.

Assessment =

(b) Budget Utilization [15 Points]

Assessment is based upon the proper utilization of the allocated budget.

Assessment =

I.P.5. FACULTY ROOM & PG STUDENTS’ ROOM [20 Points]

ITEM Available ( Yes / No) Facilities

Separate Faculty Room

PG Students’ Room

Assessment is based upon:

i) Availability of separate faculty room with PC, internet, desk, rack

and space for discussion with students.

ii) Availability of room for PG students.

Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the availability of the rooms for Faculty as well as for PG students. The Institutes should

mention the facilities available in these rooms.

CRITERIA – II

HUMAN RESOURCES: STUDENTS [150 Points]

Minimum Qualifying Points – 100

II.P.1 ADMISSION [40 Points]

YEAR Sanctioned

Strength of

the Program

Number of

Students

Admitted

Percentage of

seats filled

Number of

Students

Admitted

with Valid

GATE Score

Percentage of

Students

with Valid

GATE Score

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

CAYm3

Average Percentage of seats filled through approved procedure =

Average Percentage of Students Admitted with Valid GATE Score =

YEAR Number of Students Admitted API = Academic Performance

Index

= Average CGPA or Average

Marks on a Scale of 10

(Compiled from the

Graduation Records)

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

CAYm3

Average API =

(a) Number of seats filled through the admission procedure approved

by the University [15 Points]

Assessment will be based on average percentage of seats filled through approved

procedure and to be prorated accordingly.

Assessment =

(b) Quality of students as judged from their complete graduation records.

[15 Points]

Assessment = 1.5× Average API

(c) Number of students admitted having a valid GATE score [10]

Assessment = 10× (Average percentage of students admitted with valid GATE score)

This criterion evaluates the admission process as well as the quality of the students admitted to the program.

II.P.2. SUCCESS RATE OF GRADUATION [15 Points]

GI = Graduation Index

= (Number of students graduated from the program) /

(Number of students joined the program)

YEAR Number of Students

Graduated from the

Program

Number of Students

Joined the Program

GI

LYG

LYGm1

LYGm2

Average GI =

Assessment = 15× Average GI

This criterion evaluates the success rate of the students joined the program.

II.P.3. PERFORMANCE IN COURSE WORK [40]

API = Academic Performance Index

= Average CGPA or Average Marks

on a Scale of 10

YEAR Number of Students

in the Batch

API

LYG

LYGm1

LYGm2

Assessment = 4× Average API

This criterion evaluates the the performance of the students in the course work for the last three batches..

II.P.4. THESIS WORK [40]

YEAR Number of Papers

Presented

In Seminar /

Conference

Number of Papers

Submitted

to / Accepted in

Journals

IPRs Filed

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

CAYm3

This criterion evaluates the quality of thesis work. The institutes need to report the number of paper

presented in Seminar/ conference, also number of paper submitted to / accepted in journals and

also IPRs fielded out of these thesis works.

(a) Papers presented in Conferences, submitted to / accepted

in journals / IPR files [20]

Assessment is based on the involvement of the students in these

activities and their achievements.

Assessment=

(b) Quality and the relevance of the work done. A good number of thesis projects should be done in house. [20]

YEAR Number of Students

in the Batch

Number of Thesis

Conducted in house

LYG

LYGm1

List 1

List of 5 Conference / Seminar Papers Published by Students

during Last 3 Years

List 2

List of 5 Journal Papers Submitted to / Accepted in journals by

the Students during the Last 3 Years

List 3

List of the 5 Titles of the Thesis Work Conducted by the Students

During the Last 3 Years

Assessment is based on the relevance and quality of the above mentioned work.

Assessment =

II.P.5. CAREER GUIDANCE AND PLACEMENT [15 Points]

(a) Availability and Effectiveness of the Career Guidance Service [5]

Assessment is based upon the nature, extent and effectiveness of the

career guidance service available in terms of students’ satisfaction level.

Assessment=

This criterion evaluates the availability and of effectiveness of career guidance service.

(b) Outcome of the Career Guidance Service [10]

YEAR Number of Students

Placed

in Engineering Jobs

Number of Students

Placed

in Non-Engineering

Jobs

Number of Students

received

Admission in the Ph.D.

Program

LYG

LYGm1

Assessment is based upon the outcome of the career guidance service

in terms of motivating students for Ph.D. program and better placements.

Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the effectiveness of the career guidance service available for the students last 2/3 batches.

Detailed records of the graduated students may be Annexed.

CRITERIA – III

Human Resources: Faculty [350 points]

Minimum Qualifying Points 230

III.P.1. Student Teacher Ratio in Parent Department [50 Points]

U1 = Number of Students in 2nd

Year

U2 = Number of Students in 3rd

Year

U3 = Number of Students in 4th

Year

P1 = Number of Students in PG 1st

Year

P2 = Number of Students in PG 2nd

Year

F = Total Number of Faculty Members in the Parent Department

S=Number of Students in the Parent Department

= U1 + U2 + U3 + P1 + P2

Student Teacher Ratio (STR) = S / F

Maximum STR = 14

Ideal STR = 10

Assessment = 50× [Ideal STR / Actual STR], subject to maximum of 50.

Year U1 U2 U3 P1 P2 S F STR Assessment

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

CAYm3

Average Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the Student Teacher Ration in the Parent Department. If STR is higher than the maximum

value ( 14:1 ) then justification may be annexed.

III.P.2. FACULTY STRENGTH IN PG PROGRAM [50 Points]

X = Number of faculty members with Ph.D available for PG Program

Y = Number of faculty members with Ph.D. / M.Tech. / M.E available for PG Program

Assessment will be done on the basis of the number of faculty members with Ph.D./M.Tech./M.E., available for the

PG program. [ Minimum number suggested: 4]

Assessment = 50× [X/Y]

Average Assessment =

This criterion essentially evaluates the faculty strength in terms of their number and qualification. A

detailed list of faculty members along with their qualification may be annexed.

III.P.3. QUALIFICATIONS OF FACULTY IN THE DEPARTMENT [35 Points]

X = Number of Faculty Members with Ph.D.

Y = Number of Faculty Members with M.Tech. / M.E.

Z = Number of Faculty Members with B.Tech. / B.E.

N = Total Number of Faculty Members in the Department

Assessment = 2× FQI

Where FQI = (18X + 9Y + 7Z) / N, subject to maximum of 35.

Year X Y Z N FQI Assessment

CAY

CAYm1

CAYm2

Average Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the qualification of the faculty over the last three academic years.

III.P.4. FACULTY RETENTION [40 Points]

Assessment will be done on the basis of records of last 5 years.

Assessment = 8×RPI/N

Where, RPI = Retention Point Index

= Points assigned to all faculty members having Ph.D. / M.Tech.

[every faculty member is assigned 1 point for each year of experience at the institute, but

not exceeding 5 points]

N = Total Number of Faculty Members

Name of

Faculty Members

Experience

in the Institute

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

Assessment =

This criterion evaluates the retention of the faculty in the institute.

III.P.5. SPONSORED R&D AND CONSULTING PROJECTS [50 Points]

Faculty should be active in securing sponsored / consultancy projects through

government / semi-government and private agencies. Quality of completed projects may

be assessed through project reports, publications / IPRs. New and continuing projects

should be assessed by amount of funding, problem relevance and interim reports submitted.

(i) Sponsored R&D Projects [35 Points]

Name of

Funding

Agency

Title of

Project

Name

of PI

Amount Status of

the

Project

Publications /

IRPs

Assessment =

(ii) Consultancy Projects [15 Points]

Name of the

Organization

Funding the

Consultancy

Projects

Name of the

Coordinator

Starting

Date &

Duration

Amount Status Publication

/ IPRs

Assessment =

III.P.6. PROGRAM-RELEVANT RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS, IPR AND

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENTS [75 Points]

Research publications and IPRs are the major indices for the growth of research.

Papers published should be peer reviewed ones and conference papers should be

physically presented by one of the authors. Only published or accepted papers can be considered and not the ones

which are only communicated.

(i) Conference Publications [25 Points]

List of refereed conference presentations made by the program faculty in the

past 3 years.

Name of the

Faculty

Name of the

Conference

Title of

the

Paper

Year of the

Conference

Organizer of

the

Conference

Online

Availability

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Guidelines:

(a) 0 – 15 points in the range of 0 – 5 conference presentations.

(b) 15 – 25 points in the range of 5 – 10 conference presentations.

Assessment =

(ii) Journal Publications [35 Points]

List of refereed journal papers by the faculty members in the past 3 years.

Name

of the

Faculty

Name

of the

Journal

Title

of the

Paper

Year of

Publication

Name of

Co-author

Online

Availability

Guidelines:

(a) 0 – 20 points in the range of 0 – 5 journal papers.

(b) 20 – 35 points in the range of 5 – 10 journal papers.

Assessment =

(iii) IPR ( including books, monographs) / Product Development [15]

Details of IPR filing / product development over past 3 years may be listed here.

Guidelines:

0-15 points for 0-5 IPRs filing / product development over past three years

Assessment =

III.P.7. CONTINUING EDUCATION ACTIVITIES [50 Points]

(i) Short-term courses, workshops / seminars, conferences organized [30 Points]

The institute should support continuing education activities. Efforts should be visible through short-term courses,

workshops/seminars and conferences organized.

The institute should actively encourage and fund its faculty members to attend such

events in other institutes of repute.

Details of short-term courses organized:

Date Title Organized by Duration Number of Externally

Registered Participants

(List may be annexed)

Guidelines for Assessment:

At least one two-week long short-term courses conducted over past 3 years (singly or jointly with other programs

or in association with other institutes / professional bodies)

may be awarded 10 points.

Assessment =

Details of Workshops / Seminars Organized

Date Title Organized by Duration Number of Externally

Registered Participants

(List may be annexed)

Guidelines for assessment:

At least one 2-day workshop/seminar conducted over past 3 years (singly

or jointly with other program or in association with other institutes / professional

bodies) may be awarded 10 points.

Assessment =

Details of conferences organized:

Date Title Organized by Duration Number of Externally

Registered Participants

(List may be annexed)

Guidelines for assessment:

At least one conference conducted over past 3 years (singly or jointly

with other programs or in association with other institutes / professional

bodies) may be awarded 10 points.

Assessment =

In addition to the above guidelines it is to be noted that to qualify for

full points, 20 or more externally registered participants should be there

for short-term courses, 30 or more for seminars/workshops and 50 or more

for conferences. Events which are conducted fully with in-house participants

are to be awarded 50% points.

(ii) Participation in the event conducted outside the institute [20 Points]

Details of the events conducted outside the institute and attended by faculty

members of the program.

Date Events Conducted

Outside the Institute

Organized by Duration Name of the

Faculty Member

Guidelines:

Faculty members of the program attending 4 such events external to the institute over the past 3 years may be

awarded at most 12 points (range 0 – 12 for 0 – 4 events).

Faculty member of the program attending 10 such events external to the institute over the past 3 years may be

awarded at most 20 points (range 12 – 20 for 4 – 10 events).

CRITERIA – IV

EVALUATION AND TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS [300 Points]

Minimum Qualifying Points - 195

IV.P.1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES (POs) [35 Points]

Name of the Department Program Objectives

(POs)

Program Outcomes

(POCs)

In addition to the above list of POs and POCs, this is to be established that the

program is not designed as an extension of the undergraduate program of the parent department. The program truly

caters for a specialization of contemporary relevance.

Assessment =

IV.P.2. EVALUATION PROCESS: COURSE WORK [55 Points]

(i) Evaluation Process – Class test / mid-terms schedules and procedures for

systematic evaluation, internal assessments. [20 Points]

Assessment is based upon the efficacy of the evaluation process being followed.

Relevant data may be inserted here.

Assessment =

(ii) Performance and Feedback [15 points]

Assessment is based upon effective implementation of the following activities.

o Post-semester feedback to students on their performance.

o Extra care for poor performers and remedial classes

o Comparison of mid and end semester performance

Relevant data may be inserted here

Assessment =

(iii) Mechanism for addressing evaluation related grievances [10 Points]

Assessment is based upon the efficacy of the mechanism being followed.

Relevant data may be inserted here.

Assessment =

(iv) Seminar and Presentation Evaluation [10 Points]

Assessment is based upon the methodology being followed and its effectiveness.

Assessment =

IV.P.3. EVALUATION PROCESS: THESIS [40 Points]

Details of Thesis Allocation, Evaluation and Presentation:

Year Name of

Candidate

Name of

Supervisor

Title of

Thesis

Whether Evaluation

Committee was

Constituted (Yes/No)

Name of the

External

Member

Thesis

Presentation

Dates

(a) Allocation of Students to Eligible Faculty Members (supervisors) [15 Points]

Assessment =

(b) Constitution of Evaluation Committee with at least One External Member

[15 Points]

Assessment =

(c) Schedule Showing Thesis Presentation at least twice during Semester [10 Points]

Assessment =

IV.P.4. TEACHING EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK SYSTEM [60 Points]

(a) Guidelines for Student Feedback System [20 Points]

Assessment is based upon the effectiveness of the guidelines for student feedback

system. The design and effective implementation of the guidelines are very essential

for student feedback system.

Assessment =

(b) Analysis of Feedback by HOD and the Faculty [20 Points]

Assessment is based upon the methodology being followed for analysis of feedback and its effectiveness.

Assessment =

(c) Corrective Measures and Implementation Followed [20 Points]

Assessment is based upon the effectiveness of the implementation of the corrective

measures and subsequent follow-up.

Assessment =

IV.P.5. SELF LEARNING BEYOND SYLLABUS AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES [30 Points]

(a) Workshops / Seminars [5 Points]

Date Theme of the Workshop/Seminar Organized by Duration

Assessment is based upon the participation of the students of the program in these workshops/seminars and

demonstration of its effectiveness as a self learning tool.

Assessment =

(b) Invited Lectures of Eminent Guests [5 Points]

Details of Invited Lectures of Eminent Guests:

Date Name of the

Eminent Guest

Affiliation of

the Guest

Theme of the

Lecture

Assessment is based upon demonstrating the effectiveness of these guest lectures

for self-learning.

Assessment =

( c ) Use of Audiovisual aids [5 Points]

Assessment is based upon use of audiovisual aids in the program and its effectiveness as a

self-learning tool.

Assessment =

( d ) Membership of professional societies [5 points]

Assessment is based upon the demonstration of the students’ participation in the activities of the professional

societies.

Assessment =

(e) Visits to Institutions/Industries [5 Points]

Details of Visits to Institutions/Industries:

Date Name of the Institute/Industry Address

Assessment is based upon justifying the above mentioned visits are effective

means for self learning.

Assessment =

( f ) Summer Internship [5 Points]

Assessment is based upon the demonstration of the students’ participation in undertaking Summer Internship and its

effectiveness.

Assessment =

IV.P.6. PROGRAM OUTCOMES (POCs) [80 Points]

(i) Mapping of Matrices: [60]

Program Objectives (POs)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Program Outcomes (POCs)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Assessment is based on effective mapping of POs with POCs.

Program Courses including Projects & Thesis

(a)

(b)

(c)

Assessment is based on effective mapping of program courses with POCs.

(ii) The Feedback from the Final Year Students[10]

Assessment is based on demonstrating mechanism for collecting the feedback

from the final year students and its effectiveness in fine tuning the program

outcomes (POCs).

(iii) The Feedback from Alumni and the Employers [10]

Assessment is based on demonstrating the mechanism for incorporating the feedback

from alumni and employers and its impact on the program outcomes (POCs).

Assessment=