AnnexureII PREVISITEVALUATIONREPORT <<INSTITUTENAME>> <<PROGRAMME>> <<VISITDATE>> For all accreditation criteria, the findings shall be Y Compliance, C Concern, W Weakness

s and D Deficiency. No cells are to be left blank. Justification is required for C Concern, W Weakness and DDeficiency.Pleaseprovidethejustificationbelowthetable. Criteria Compliance Observationandremarks forNonCompliance

Crirterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives Vision of the institute and department should be futuristic and the mission helps to achieve. Defined PEOs must reflect the career and professional accomplishmentsofthegraduatesandalsomeasurable ProgramCurriculumandotherattributesmustcontributetothe achievementofstatedPEOs. Administrative system must help in the assessment and attainmentofPEOs. Assessment tools and processes must be appropriate and sufficientformeasuringtheattainmentofPEOs. The questions in the survey questionnaires must elicit required information from the stakeholders to measure the attainment ofPEOs. List the identified documents/evidences which are to be verifiedforevaluatingtheattainmentofPEOs. Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes DefinedPOsmustaddressalltheGAsofNBA. Established correlations among PEOs, POs and COs must be appropriateandmeaningful. EachPOshouldbeaddressedbyoneormorecourseoutcomes. Adaptedcontentdeliverymethodsmustcontributeinachieving COs. Course assessment tools and mechanisms must be appropriate formeasuringtheattainmentofCOs. Curriculum improvements brought in must be significant for improvingtheattainmentofPOs. List the identified documents/evidences which are to be verifiedforevaluatingtheattainmentofPOs. Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum The programme curriculum must satisfy the program specific criteriaconsidered. The curricular components must contribute to the attainment ofarticulatedPEOsandPOs.

Curriculum design and development process must fulfill the requirementsofstakeholders. IndustryinstituteinteractionmustfacilitateinachievingPOs. Criterion4:StudentPerformance Number of students admitted against the approved intake over the3academicyearsmustbeeithermaximumorincreasing. Placement/higher studies information provided must be ConsistentwithSI&API? Statedprofessionalactivitiesmustbeappropriateandsufficient inachievingPEOsandPOs. List the documents to be verified to assess the programmes claimvisavisinplacementandhigherstudies. List the documents/evidences to be verified for confirming the entriesmadeinSIandAPI? Criterion5:FacultyContributions Observations made on STR, FQI, Faculty Cadre Ratio, FRP, Faculty interactions outside world, and patents filed must complywiththeprogrammerequirements. Programme under accreditation must have faculty competency statedinSAR. Faculty publications must be located in internet with DOI/PublisherandreflectingtheentriesmadeinFRP. List the documents to be verified to ensure the entries for STR, FCR,FQI,FRPI,FRP,FIPR&FIP? Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport Lecture hall, tutorial halls, seminar halls and laboratory etc., statedmustsatisfytheprogrammerequirements. Programme must havequalifiedandadequatetechnicalstaffto conductthelaboratorycourses. Criterion7:AcademicSupportandTeachingandLearningprocess Number of faculty and their qualifications must be adequate to handle the first year courses of all programs offered by the institute. Laboratories listed in the SAR for first year courses of the instituteincludinglanguagelaboratorymustbesufficient. TeachingLearningprocessadoptedinFirstyearcoursesasper SARmustmeettheoutcomebasededucation. Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalSupportandFinancial Resources Campus infrastructure, administrative setup, etc., must be as pertheprogrammerequirements. Budget allocation must be adequate to run the programmes offeredbytheinstitute. List the documents/evidences to be verified for confirming the entriesmadeinSAR Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Newlycreatedfacilitiesintheprogrammustcontributetowards attainmentofPEOs/POs. Overall improvements made for the programme since last accreditationmustbesignificant.

 AnnexureIII CHAIRPERSONEXECUTIVESUMMARY
<<INSTITUTENAME>> <<PROGRAMME>> <<VISITDATE>> 1.OVERVIEW 1.1VisitofInformation

The visiting team of National Board of Accreditation (NBA) conducted a three day accreditation visit to <insert name of institution/university>, to evaluate <number > programmes from_____to______. During the visit, the visiting team met with Head of the Institution/Dean. The briefing on the institution was given by and on programmes were given by the respective Head of the Departments/Programme Coordinators. The respective programme evaluatorsalsovisitedthevariousfacilitiesoftheprogrammes.Apartfromcomprehensivereviewof documental evidences pertaining to various accreditation criteria, the visiting team also held meetingsandinterviewswithallthestakeholderssuchasfaculty,staffmembers,alumni,employers, parentsandstudents. ThevisitingteamofNBAcomprised: <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <programmetitlewithabbreviation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <programmetitlewithabbreviation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <programmetitlewithabbreviation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <programmetitlewithabbreviation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <programmetitlewithabbreviation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation> <name,affiliation,contactinformation>

VisitingTeamChairperson ProgrammeEvaluator1 ProgrammeEvaluator2 ProgrammeEvaluator1 ProgrammeEvaluator2 ProgrammeEvaluator1 ProgrammeEvaluator2 ProgrammeEvaluator1 ProgrammeEvaluator2 ProgrammeEvaluator1 ProgrammeEvaluator2

1.2PreviousAccreditationDetails Programmetitle Firstaccredited Numberof Witheffect years/Grade from Lastaccredited Numberof Witheffect years/Grade from

1.3InstitutionalInformation NameoftheInstitution/University Address YearofEstablishment NameofHeadoftheInstitution/Dean NumberofDepartments/Faculties NumberofUndergraduateProgrammes NumberofPostgraduateProgrammes Ph.Ddegreeprogrammesoffering,ifapplicable IntakeDetails:UG/PG/Ph.D NumberofTeachingfaculty Numberofsupportingstaff AnySpecialrecognitione.g:aprominentpublicresearch center,strongindustryinvolvement 1.4Summaryoffindings ProgrammeTitle1<Nameoftheprogramme> Strength: Concern: Weakness: Deficiency: ProgrammeTitle2<Nameoftheprogramme> Strength: Concern: Weakness: Deficiency: ProgrammeTitle3<Nameoftheprogramme> Strength: Concern: Weakness: Yes/no

 Deficiency: ProgrammeTitle4<Nameoftheprogramme> Strength: Concern: Weakness: Deficiency: ProgrammeTitle5<Nameoftheprogramme> Strength: Concern: Weakness: Deficiency: SignatureoftheChairperson

 AnnexureIV CHAIRPERSONREPORT <<INSTITUTENAME>> <<PROGRAMME>> <<VISITDATE>> Forallaccreditationcriteria,thefindingsshallbeYCompliance,CConcern,WWeaknessandD Deficiency.Nocellsaretobeleftblank.JustificationisrequiredforCConcern,WWeaknessandDDeficiency. Pleaseprovidethejustificationbelowthetable. ProgrammeTitle<NameoftheProgramme> ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance

Crirterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives The published PEOs should reflect the professional and career accomplishments of graduates and be in line with the mission Administrative system should be in place to monitor the processofattainingPEOs There should be documented process to assess the attainment ofPEOs Published PEOs must be achieved through the attainment of POs There must be a documented and effective process for the periodicreviewandrevisionofthesePEOs CommentsoftheChairperson

 ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance

There must be a documented process in place to measure the attainmentofdefinedPOs ThedefinedCOsmustcontributetotheattainmentofPOs Attainment of defined POs with respect to the Graduate Attributes(GAs)ofNBA 1.EngineeringKnowledge 2.ProblemAnalysis 3.Design/developmentofsolutions 4.Conductinvestigationsofcomplexproblems 5.Moderntoolusage 6.Theengineerandsociety 7.Environmentandsustainability 8.Ethics 9.Individualandteamwork 10.Communication 11.Projectmanagementandfinance 12.Lifelonglearning Appropriate content delivery and assessment methods/tools shouldbeemployedinattainmentofPOs Curricular delivery and assessment methods should be amendedbasedontheattainmentofPOs Each PO must contribute significantly to achieve at least one of thePEOs There must be a documented and effective process for the periodicreviewandrevisionsofthesePOs CommentsoftheChairperson

Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes

 ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance

The structured curriculum must address programme specific criteria Components of the curriculum must sufficiently address these definedPOs/COs Outcomes of the core engineering courses must help the graduate to acquire the professional competence, knowledge andskills. The process must have the feature of justifying the requirements for improvement in courses, curriculum, content deliveryandassessmentmethods The programme must have the participation/involvement of relevantindustriesincontentdeliveryandcurriculumdesign. CommentsoftheChairperson

Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum

 ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance Compliance

Success rate, Academic performance, Placement and Higher Studies and Professional activities which include entrepreneurship initiative, product design, innovations etc., mustbeinconsistentwithattainedPOsandPEOs. CommentsoftheChairperson

Criterion4:StudentPerformance

ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Criteria Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance

ProgrammeEvaluator 2

Criterion5:FacultyContributions Faculty strength, qualification, cadre and competencies must helpthegraduatestoattainthedefinedCOsandPOs Research activities of faculty including consultancy and knowledge transfer must contribute for better content delivery andprojectworktowardstheattainmentofCOsandPOs CommentsoftheChairperson

 ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance Compliance

Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport Facilities provided to faculty and students including teaching aids, lecture halls, faculty rooms, engineering laboratories, equipment etc. and competent technical staff must be helpful to enhance and innovate the teaching learning process towardstheattainmentofPOs CommentsoftheChairperson

ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Criteria Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance

ProgrammeEvaluator 2

Criterion7:AcademicSupportandTeachingandLearningprocess Academic support units such as basic science/engineering laboratories, language laboratory, etc., must fulfill the perquisiteofcoreandoptionalengineeringcourses Teaching learning process including tutorial classes, mentoring system, feedback analysis, scope for selflearning, career guidance etc., must be functionally in place to impart knowledge and inculcate skills and attitudes in relation to basic science,mathematicsandengineering. CommentsoftheChairperson

 ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance

Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalSupportandFinancial Resources Campus Infrastructure and other related facilities as library, internet, safety equipments, counselling and emergency medical care facilities must satisfy the requirements of the programme Budget allocated and utilized must be adequate to run the programmeandauditedstatementsmustbemadeavailablefor stakeholders Governing body, functional administrative structure, policies and procedures, decentralization of power, delegation of financial power, grievance redressal mechanism etc., must satisfy the requirements/norms of concerned regulatory authoritiesandhelpfultoprogresstowardsvision. CommentsoftheChairperson

 ProgrammeEvaluator 1 Observation and remarksfor Non Compliance Compliance Criteria ProgrammeEvaluator 2 Observation andremarks forNon Compliance Compliance

Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Improvements/attainments in SI, API, STR, FQI, FRP etc., must beappreciable Efforts made by the faculty towards continuing education, new facility created and overcoming the shortcomings listed during the last accreditation/since the inception of the programme mustbeevident CommentsoftheChairperson

AnnexureV
PROGRAMMEEVALUATORSUMMARY <<INSTITUTENAME>> <<PROGRAMME>> <<VISITDATE>> 1.OVERRVIEW The visiting team of National Board of Accreditation (NBA) conducted a three day

accreditation visit to <insert name of institution/university>, to evaluate UG programme <name of theprogramme>from_____to______.Theprogrammeof<nameoftheprogramme>offeredin . A Day 0 meeting was held on at to exchange of findings among evaluationteammembers,basedonreviewofSelfAssessmentReport(SAR)submittedby andtheprevisitevaluationreports.DuringtheDay0meeting,alistofquerieswasconsolidatedto seek further clarification and understanding on the programme in addition to the discussion of identifiedcommonissuestoallprogrammes. During the visit, the visiting team met with Head of the Institution/Dean The

briefingontheinstitutionwasgivenbyandontheprogrammewasgivenbythe respective Head of the Department/Programme Coordinator. The respective programme evaluators alsovisitedthevariousfacilities,,oftheprogramme.Apartfromcomprehensivereviewof documental evidences pertaining to various accreditation criteria, the visiting team also held meeting and interviews with all the stakeholders such as faculty, staff members, alumni, employers, parentsandstudents. The Programme Evaluation Team found a number of deficiencies, related primarily to non

compliance with criteria, and. Further, there are significant weaknesses in criteria,and. 2.GENERALINFORMATION The<nameoftheprogramme>wasfirststartedinTheprogrammeisofferedas

afulltimeprogrammeforfouryearsdurationforapplicantswithqualification.The totalnumberofstudentsintheprogrammeis.Thetotalnumberoffacultymemberswith theprogrammeis.Theprogrammeis

3.GENERALOBSERVATIONS Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducationalObjectives The <name of the institution> and the <name of the department/school> have well

defined vision and mission statements. The defined vision statements are futuristic and aspirational and mission statements are the means of attaining the vision. The PEOs are reflecting the professional and career accomplishments of the graduates after 4 to 5 years of graduation and also they are contributing to achieve the vision and mission of the department. Moreover, these PEOs addresstheneedsoftheprogrammestakeholders. There is no welldefined process and support administrative setup for assessment and evaluation of PEOs. There was no evidence of assessment and evaluation process for assessment of attainment of PEOs. There are no formal mechanisms in place to receive feedbacks from practicing engineers and local industry for evaluating the attainment of PEO. There is no department level industryadvisorycommitteefortheprogrammeoffered. The broad curriculum components of the programme are not sufficient to support the

achievementofPEOs.ThereisnoprocessforreviewingandredefiningofthePEOs. ThemajorshortcomingsisassessmentandEvaluationofPEOsisnotthere. Evaluation of Criterion 1 is a prime criterion for outcome based accreditation process. The programmeevaluationteamfoundadeficiencyintheachievementofthiscriterion.

Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Programme Outcomes are well defined and they are in line with the NBA graduate attributes. All the POs are helpful to achieve the PEOs. All Course Outcomes are written in higher order blooms taxonomy. These COs are sufficient enough to achieve the Programme Outcomes. The methods of delivery of the courses are not suitable to achieve Course Outcomes as well as Programme Outcomes. There is large gap between the theory and laboratory work. Student projectsarenotsuitablefortheattainmentofPOs.Thequalityoflaboratoryexperimentsispoor. There was no effective mechanism to assess the attainment of COs and also the

documented process visvis the results of attainment of each PO was not properly illustrated. The faculty interviewed during the accreditation visit was ignorant of the concept of COs and POs. Thecourseassessmenttoolsandmechanismsarenotappropriateformeasuringtheattainmentof COs. The major shortcomings are i) Assessment and Evaluation is not there and ii) Delivery is of coursesisnotsatisfactory The programme evaluation team determined that the programme has a

deficiency/weaknessindemonstratingtheachievementofthiscriterion.

Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum The curriculum is developed <name of the programme> satisfies the applicable program

criteria specified by < Professional society>. The curriculum documentation is satisfactory with all theinformationlikeprerequisitesetc. Studentsarerequiredtocompleteunitsofcreditforgraduation.Eachcoursecarries

credit units. The final year project carries credit units. Credit exemption is four. The total numberofcreditsallocatedforlaboratoryare(distributionoftheoryandlaboratoryinterms ofpercentage). Core engineering subjects and their relevance to programme outcomes are well illustrated.

Therewerelittle evidencesprovidedtodemonstratetheindustrysparticipationin theprogramme . There was no documented evidence of continuous improvement of courses and curriculum. The statedindustryinstituteinteractionisnotfacilitatinginachievingPOs. The major shortcomings are i) The curriculum components are not suitable for the attainment of PEOs ii) No industry involvement is in the curriculum design, iii) The content is not sufficient in some of the courses for the attainment of POs and iv) The design experience is not sufficientforattainingtheProgramOutcomesbandc. The programme evaluation team determined that the programme has a deficiency/weaknessindemonstratingtheachievementofthiscriterion. Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Student input quality is good and consistent. The success rate of students and academic performancearegood. The placement and higher studies information provided are not reflecting the attainment of POs. There is no proper document to assess the genuine of the programmes claim visvis in placementandhigherstudies. The involvement of students in professional activities is not sufficient for the attainment of

some of the POs defined. The student publications and organization of technical events are also average. There is no student magazine/news letter in the department for dissemination of various activities in the department. No innovative product designs/ Projects and entrepreneurship initiativesareevidentbythestudentsinthedepartment. The major shortcomings are i) Poor placement and higher studies record and ii) No innovativeproductdesign.

Criterion5:FacultyContributions Thefacultycompetenciesarenotcorrelatingtoprogrammespecificcriteriadefined.ButSTR

isaspertheAICTEnorms.FacultycadreratioisnotaspertheAICTEnorms.Facultyqualificationsare average. Faculty participations in faculty development and training activities are poor. Faculty retention is average. No IPRs and no funded R&D projects. Faculty interaction with outside world is poor. R&D Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport Lecture halls, tutorial halls, seminar halls, laboratories and other teaching facilities are generally adequate to support the basic needs of the programme. However, the collection of books and reference materials in the department library is good. Laboratory facility may be further improvedandtoallowmoreaccessibilitytostudents. It is noted that inadequate qualified technical supporting staff are there for program The major shortcomings are i) Competencies of faculty are not suitable to PSC and ii) Poor

specific laboratories. The major shortcomings are i) Laboratory facilities needs improvement and ii) Inadequate

qualifiedtechnicalstaff Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeachingLearningProcess The number of faculty members and their qualifications are adequate to handle the first

yearcoursesofallprogrammesofferedbytheinstitute.Thelaboratoryfacilitiesforfirstyearcourses oftheinstitutearesufficient.However,thelanguagelaboratorymayfurtherbeimproved. There is no scope for selflearning in the teaching learning process adopted in first year

courses. The provision for tutorial classes is not in time table. There is no evidence of feedback mechanismandremedialclasses.Thecentralcomputingfacilitiesneedimprovement. Themajorshortcomingsarei)Feedbackmechanismisnotthere,ii)Remedialclassesarenot conductedforweakstudentsandiii)QualityofFirstyearlabexperimentsispoor Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalSupportandFinancialResources Allcommitteesareconstitutedasperthestatutorybodiesregulations. Institutional supportsystemisadequatefortheprogramme.Thefinancialresourcestosupporttheprogramand department aresufficient.Butthereisnopropermechanismintheinstitutionforbudgetproposal, approvalandprocurement.

ThemajorshortcomingsisPoorbudgetplanningmechanism Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement

The improvement in the success index, academic performance and STR is good. But improvement in faculty qualification index is average. No improvement is seen in R&D. Continuing educationactivitiesareveryless. ThenewlycreatedfacilitiesintheprogrammearenotcontributingtoattainofPOs. Overallimprovementsmadefortheprogrammesincelastaccreditationarepoor. The major shortcomings are i) No improvement in the faculty qualifications and ii) R&D improvementispoor 4.AREASFORIMPROVEMENTS a)PEOandPOassessmentandevaluationprocessneedtobedefinedandimplemented b)ContinuousimprovementbasedontheassessmentofPEOs,POsandCOs c)Feedbackandfollowupactionmechanismneedimproveteachingandlearning d)Usemodernteachingaids e)Coursedeliveryneedsimprovement 5.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The NBA Evaluation Team would like to thank <name of the institute> for their cooperation

forsmoothconductingofevaluation. 6.PROGRAMMEEVALUATIONFORM The observations of the NBA Evaluation Team for consideration of the Programme relating

to various criteria are contained in Appendix 1: Programme Evaluation worksheet A and Appendix 2:ProgrammeEvaluationworksheetB

AnnexureVI
PROGRAMMEEVALUATIONWORKSHEETPARTA Institution

Nameofinstitution/university Nameofaffiliatinguniversity (ifapplicable) AddresswithPhoneandemail Programmeforaccreditation

Nameoftheprogramme (asitappearsongraduatescertificate) AbbreviationofProgramme NameoftheDepartment/School Yearofstartingoftheprogramme Expirydateoflastaccreditation (ifapplicable) EvaluationTeam

Name,designationandaffiliationof VisitingTeamChairperson Name,designationandaffiliationof ProgrammeEvaluator1 Name,designationandaffiliationof ProgrammeEvaluator2 Datesofthepresentaccreditationvisit

For all accreditation criteria, the findings shall be Y Compliance, C Concern, W Weakness and D Deficiency. No cells are to be left blank. Justification is required for C Concern, W Weakness and DDeficiency.Pleaseprovidethejustificationbelowthetable. Criteria Compliance Observationand remarksforNon Compliance

Crirterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives The published PEOs should reflect the professional and career accomplishments of graduates and be in line with the mission Administrative system should be in place to monitor the processofattainingPEOs There should be documented process to assess the attainment ofPEOs Published PEOs must be achieved through the attainment of POs There must be a documented and effective process for the periodicreviewandrevisionofthesePEOs Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes There must be a documented process in place to measure the attainmentofdefinedPOs ThedefinedCOsmustcontributetotheattainmentofPOs Attainment of defined POs with respect to the Graduate Attributes(GAs)ofNBA 1.EngineeringKnowledge 2.ProblemAnalysis 3.Design/developmentofsolutions 4.Conductinvestigationsofcomplexproblems 5.Moderntoolusage 6.Theengineerandsociety 7.Environmentandsustainability 8.Ethics 9.Individualandteamwork 10.Communication 11.Projectmanagementandfinance 12.Lifelonglearning Appropriate content delivery and assessment methods/tools shouldbeemployedinattainmentofPOs Curricular delivery and assessment methods should be amendedbasedontheattainmentofPOs Each PO must contribute significantly to achieve at least one of thePEOs There must be a documented and effective process for the periodicreviewandrevisionsofthesePOs Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum The structured curriculum must address programme specific criteria Components of the curriculum must sufficiently address these

definedPOs/COs Outcomes of the core engineering courses must help the graduate to acquire the professional competence, knowledge andskills. The process must have the feature of justifying the requirements for improvement in courses, curriculum, content deliveryandassessmentmethods The programme must have the participation/involvement of relevantindustriesincontentdeliveryandcurriculumdesign. Criterion4:StudentPerformance Success rate, Academic performance, Placement and Higher Studies and Professional activities which include entrepreneurship initiative, product design, innovations etc., mustbeinconsistentwithattainedPOsandPEOs. Criterion5:FacultyContributions Faculty strength, qualification, cadre and competencies must helpthegraduatestoattainthedefinedCOsandPOs Research activities of faculty including consultancy and knowledge transfer must contribute for better content delivery andprojectworktowardstheattainmentofCOsandPOs Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport Facilities provided to faculty and students including teaching aids, lecture halls, faculty rooms, engineering laboratories, equipment etc. and competent technical staff must be helpful to enhance and innovate the teaching learning process towardstheattainmentofPOs Criterion7:AcademicSupportandTeachingandLearningprocess Academic support units such as basic science/engineering laboratories, language laboratory, etc., must fulfill the perquisiteofcoreandoptionalengineeringcourses Teaching learning process including tutorial classes, mentoring system, feedback analysis, scope for selflearning, career guidance etc., must be functionally in place to impart knowledge and inculcate skills and attitudes in relation to basic science,mathematicsandengineering. Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalSupportandFinancial Resources Campus Infrastructure and other related facilities as library, internet, safety equipments, counselling and emergency medical care facilities must satisfy the requirements of the programme Budget allocated and utilized must be adequate to run the programmeandauditedstatementsmustbemadeavailablefor stakeholders Governing body, functional administrative structure, policies and procedures, decentralization of power, delegation of financial power, grievance redressal mechanism etc., must satisfy the requirements/norms of concerned regulatory authoritiesandhelpfultoprogresstowardsvision. Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Improvements/attainments in SI, API, STR, FQI, FRP etc., must

beappreciable Efforts made by the faculty towards continuing education, new facility created and overcoming the shortcomings listed during the last accreditation/since the inception of the programme mustbeevident. PROGRAMMEEVALUATIONWORKSHEETB

For all accreditation criteria, the findings shall be Y Compliance, C Concern, W Weakness and D Deficiency. No cells are to be left blank. Justification is required for C Concern, W Weakness and DDeficiency.Pleaseprovidethejustificationbelowthetable. Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducationalObjectives Points PointsAwarded Max.Points

Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

1.1 1.2 1.3

MissionandVision 1.1.1VisionandMissionstatementsofthe InstituteandDepartment 1.1.2PublishingandDisseminationofVisionand Missionstatements 1.1.3ProcessfordefiningVisionandMissionof thedepartment ProgrammeEducationalObjectives 1.2.1DescriptionofPEOs 1.2.2PublishingandDisseminationofPEOs 1.2.3Stakeholdersoftheprogrammeandtheir relevance 1.2.4ProcessforestablishingthePEOs 1.2.5ConsistencyofPEOswithMission AttainmentofProgrammeEducational Objectives 1.3.1Justificationsforcontributionsof programmecurriculumtowardsattainmentof PEOs 1.3.2Administrativesystemhelpsinensuringthe attainmentofthePEOs AssessmentofattainmentofProgramme EducationalObjectives 1.4.1ToolsandProcessesusedinassessmentof theattainmentofthePEOs 1.4.2EvidencesfortheattainmentofthePEOs ResultsofassessmentofachievementofPEOs

5 1 2 2 15 2 2 1 5 5 30 15

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion1.1>

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion1.2> <overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion1.3>

1.4 1.5

15 40 10 30 10

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion1.4> <overalllevelofcompliancefor

usedforredefiningPEOs Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Points

subcriterion1.5> Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

2.1 2.2

DefinitionandValidationofCourseOutcomesand ProgrammeOutcomes 2.1.1ListCOsandPOs 2.1.2PublishingandDisseminationofPOs 2.1.3ProcessemployedfordefiningofthePOs 2.1.4POsalignmentwithNBAGraduate Attributes 2.1.5Establishmentofthecorrelationbetween thePOsandPEOs AttainmentofProgrammeOutcomes 2.2.1IllustrationofCOscontributiontothePOs 2.2.2Descriptionofmodesofcoursedelivery helpinginattainmentofthePOs 2.2.3Indicationoftoolsusedtoassesstheimpact ofdeliveryofcourse/coursecontentcontribute towardstheattainmentofCOs/POs 2.2.4Justificationfortheextenttowhichthe laboratoryandprojectworkcontributingtowards theattainmentofthePOs AssessmentofattainmentofProgramme Outcomes 2.3.1Descriptionofassessmenttoolsand processesusedforassessingtheattainmentof eachPO 2.3.2ResultsofattainmentofeachPOs Useofassessmentresultstowardsimprovement ofprogramme 2.4.1ResultsofassessmentofPOsusedfor curricularimprovements 2.4.2ResultsofassessmentofPOsusedfor improvementofcoursedeliveryandassessment 2.4.3Processusedforrevising/redefiningthePOs

30 2 3 5 10 10 40 10 10 10

PointsAwarded

Max.Points

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion2.1>

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion2.2>

10

2.3

125 25

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion2.3>

2.4

100 30 5 10 15

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion2.4>

 Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Points PointsAwarded Max.Points Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

3.1 3.2

Curriculum 3.1.1DescriptionoftheStructureofthe Curriculum 3.1.2Prerequisiteflowchartofcourses 3.1.3Justificationfortheprogrammecurriculum satisfyingtheprogrammespecificcriteria Curriculumcomponentsandrelevanceto ProgrammeOutcomesandProgamme EducationalObjectives Coreengineeringcoursesandtheirrelevanceto ProgrammeOutcomesincludingdesign experience Industryinteraction/internship CurriculumDevelopment 3.5.1Theprocessfordesigningtheprogramme curriculum 3.5.2Illustrationthemeasuresandprocesses usedtoimprovecoursesandcurriculum CourseSyllabi

20 5 5 10 15

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion3.1>

3.3

60

3.4 3.5 3.6

10 15 5 10 5

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion3.5>

 Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Points PointsAwarded Max.Points Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Successrate Academicperformance Placementandhigherstudies Professionalactivities

20 20 20 15 3 3 3 3 3

4.4.1Professionalsocieties/chaptersand organisingengineeringevents 4.4.2Organisationofpapercontests,design contests,etc.andachievements 4.4.3Publicationoftechnicalmagazines, newsletters,etc. 4.4.4Entrepreneurshipinitiatives,product designs,andinnovations 4.4.5Publicationsandawardsininterinstitute eventsbystudentsoftheprogrammeofstudy Criterion5:FacultyContributions

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion4.4>

Points Max.Points

Compliance Without concern Withconcern

Non Compliance Weakness

Deficiency

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10

Studentteacherratio Facultycadreratio Facultyqualifications FacultycompetenciescorrelationtoProgramme SpecificCriteria Facultyasparticipants/resourcepersonsinfaculty development/trainingactivities Facultyretention Facultyresearchpublications Facultyintellectualpropertyrights FacultyR&DandConsultancy(FRDC)work Facultyinteractionwithoutsideworld

20 20 30 15 15 15 20 10 20 10

Points

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport Points PointsAwarded Max.Points Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

6.1

Classrooms 6.1.1Adequatenumberofroomsforlectures (core/electives),seminars,tutorials,etc.,forthe program 6.1.2Teachingaidsmultimediaprojectors,etc. 6.1.3Acoustics,classroomsize,conditionsof chairs/benches,aircirculation,lighting,exits, ambience,andsuchotheramenities/facilities Facultyrooms 6.2.1Availabilityofindividualfacultyrooms 6.2.2Roomequippedwithwhite/blackboard, computer,Internet,andsuchother amenities/facilities 6.2.3Usageofroomforcounselling/discussion withstudents Laboratoriesincludingcomputingfacility 6.3.1Adequate,wellequippedlaboratoriesto meetthecurriculumrequirementsandthePOs 6.3.2Availabilityofcomputingfacilitiesinthe department 6.3.3Availabilityoflaboratorieswithtechnical supportwithinandbeyondworkinghours 6.3.4Equipmenttorunexperimentsandtheir maintenance,numberofstudentsper experimentalsetup,sizeofthelaboratories, overallambience,etc. Technicalmanpowersupport 6.4.1Availabilityofadequateandqualified technicalsupportingstaffforprogrammespecific laboratories 6.4.2Incentives,skillupgrade,andprofessional advancement

20 10

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion6.1>

5 5

6.2

15 5 5

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion6.2>

6.3

5 25 10 5 5 5

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion6.3>

6.4

15 10

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion6.4>

 Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeachingLearningProcess Points PointsAwarded Max.Points

Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

7.1

AcademicSupportUnits 7.1.1AssessmentofFirstYearStudentTeacher Ratio(FYSTR) 7.1.2AssessmentofFacultyQualification TeachingFirstYearCommonCourses 7.1.3Basicscience/engineeringlaboratories (adequacyofspace,numberofstudentsper batch,qualityandavailabilityofmeasuring instruments,laboratorymanuals,listof experiments) 7.1.4Languagelaboratory TeachingLearningProcess 7.2.1Tutorialclassestoaddressstudent questions:sizeoftutorialclasses,hoursper subjectgiveninthetimetable 7.2.2Mentoringsystemtohelpatindividuallevels 7.2.3Feedbackanalysisandreward/corrective measurestaken,ifany 7.2.4Scopeforselflearning 7.2.5Generationofselflearningfacilities,and availabilityofmaterialsforlearningbeyond syllabus 7.2.6CareerGuidance,Training,Placement,and EntrepreneurshipCell 7.2.7CocurricularandExtracurricularActivities 7.2.8GamesandSports,facilities,andqualified sportsinstructors

35 10 15 8

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion7.1>

7.2

2 40 5

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion7.2>

5 5 5 5

5 5 5

 Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalSupportandFinancialResources Points Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern PointsAwarded Withconcern Max.Points Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

8.1 8.2

CampusInfrastructureandFacility 8.1.1Maintenanceofacademicinfrastructureand facilities 8.1.2Hostel(boysandgirls),transportation facility,andcanteen 8.1.3Electricity,powerbackup,telecomfacility, drinkingwater,andsecurity Organisation,Governance,andTransparency 8.2.1Governingbody,administrativesetup,and functionsofvariousbodies 8.2.2Definedrules,procedures,recruitment,and promotionalpolicies,etc. 8.2.3Decentralisationinworkingincluding delegationoffinancialpowerandgrievance redressalsystem 8.2.4Transparencyandavailabilityof correct/unambiguousinformation BudgetAllocation,Utilisation,andPublic Accounting 8.3.1Adequacyofbudgetallocation 8.3.2Utilisationofallocatedfunds 8.3.3Availabilityoftheauditedstatementsonthe instituteswebsite ProgrammeSpecificBudget Allocation,Utilisation 8.4.1Adequacyofbudgetallocation 8.4.2Utilisationofallocatedfunds Library 8.5.1Libraryspaceandambience,timingsand usage,availabilityofaqualifiedlibrarianand otherstaff,libraryautomation,onlineaccess, networking,etc. 8.5.2Titlesandvolumespertitle 8.5.3Scholarlyjournalsubscription 8.5.4DigitalLibrary 8.5.5Libraryexpenditureonbooks,

10 4 2 4 10 2 2 3

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion8.1>

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion8.2>

8.3 8.4 8.5

3 10 4 5 1 10 5 5 20 5

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion8.3> <overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion8.4> <overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion8.5>

4 3 3 5

8.6 8.7

magazines/journals,andmiscellaneouscontents Internet SafetyNormsandChecks

5 5 1 1 1 2 5

8.7.1Checksforwiringandelectricalinstallations forleakageandearthing 8.7.2Firefightingmeasurements 8.7.3Safetyofcivilstructure 8.7.4Handlingofhazardouschemicalsandsuch otheractivities CounsellingandEmergencyMedical 8.8 CareandFirstaid Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement

<overalllevelofcompliancefor subcriterion8.7>

Points PointsAwarded Max.Points

Compliance NonCompliance Withoutconcern Withconcern Weakness

Deficiency

No.

Criteria

Brief statement detailing evidence usedto determine C,Wor D

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8

ImprovementinSuccessIndexofStudents ImprovementinAcademicPerformanceIndexof Students ImprovementinStudentTeacherRatio EnhancementofFacultyQualificationIndex ImprovementinFacultyResearchPublications, R&DWorkandConsultancyWork ContinuingEducation NewFacilityCreated OverallImprovementssincelastaccreditation,if any,otherwise,sincethecommencementofthe programme

5 5 5 5 10 10 15 20

 PreparedandsubmittedbyProgrammeEvaluationTeam Name Signature

Chairperson Evaluator1 Evaluator2

AnnexureVII

DAYWISEPROGRAMMEAUDITSHEETS
<<INSTITUTENAME>> <<PROGRAMME>> <<VISITDATE>>

Day1
Time 07:0008:00 08:0009:00 09:0009:15 09:1510:15 ProgrammeEvaluator BreakfastatHotel MovetotheUniversity/Institute NBAvisitingteamtobereceivedbyUniversity/Institutionalrepresentatives PresentationonUniversity/Institutionbydean/headoftheinstitution Overviewongovernance,organizationalstructure,academicinfrastructure Institutionalfinancialresourcesandtheireffectiveutilizationforcontinuous qualityimprovement Academicsupportunitsandtheircontributionstotheprograms Overviewonrecentdevelopmentsineducationdelivery,mentoringand learningfacilities Q&AontheissuescommontoallProgrammes Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalsupportandFinancialResources Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeachingLearningProcess Tourofbasicscienceandengineeringlaboratories,languagelaboratoryandcareer guidancefacilitiesbyTeamA* Touroflibrary,hostelfacilities,sportsfacilitiesandotheramenitiesbyTeamB* Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalsupportandFinancialResources Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeachingLearningProcess *TeamAandTeamBareconstitutedbyTCwithonePEfromeachprogramandTC canbememberofanyteam RemarksandObservations

10:1511:15

11:3012:00

Observelectureandtutorialinprogress Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum PresentationonDepartmentOverviewandUG(.)programmebyHeadofthe Department/ProgrammeCoordinator ProgrammeEducationalObjectives,participationofconstituents,levelof implementation OverviewonCoursecontentdelivery,Courseoutcomeassessmentand evaluationmethods OverviewonAssessmentandEvaluationofProgrammeOutcomes Curriculumdesignandrevision,andProgrammespecificcriteria Academicperformanceofstudents,participationinprofessionalactivities andtheirachievements Facultydevelopmentandresearchactivities Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducationalObjectives Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Criterion5:FacultyContributions Lunch Touroflaboratoryfacilities,computingfacilities,departmentlibraryetc.relevantto theprogramme Interviewwithconcernedfaculty/stafftoevaluate: Thelaboratoryfacilitiestoconductthecurricularpracticalcourses Availabilityofadequatetechnicalsupportingstaff Adequacyofwellfurnishedlecture/tutorial/seminarhallstorunthe programme Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport ReviewofFinalyearprojectreporttoevaluatetheirrelevancetoProgramme Outcomes Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Interviewwithstudentstoevaluate, effectivenessofContentdeliveryandassessmentmethods participationinprofessionalsocietyactivities/Clubactivities

12:0013:00

13:0014:00 14:0015:00

15:0015:30

15:4516:30

16:3018:00

18:0019:00 19:0020:30 20:3022:00

AnyotherissuesidentifiedbythePEsrelatedaccreditationcriteria Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion4:StudentsPerformance MeetingwithProgrammeCoordinator,CourseCoordinatoretc. EvaluationofContentdeliverymethodsandCourseoutcomestowards attainmentofPOs Improvementsinthecoursecontent,deliveryandassessmentmethods basedonlevelofattainmentofCOsandPOs Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum MovebacktoHotel TeamDinner Teammeeting:ChairedbyTCatHotel ExchangeanddiscussabouttheissuesofDay1evaluation DiscussionbetweenPEsandTCtomaintainconsistencyacrossall programmes SubmitDay1draftevaluationreporttoTC

Day02
Time 07:0008:00 08:0009:00 09:0009:15 09:1510:45 ProgrammeEvaluator BreakfastatHotel MovetotheUniversity/Institute NBAvisitingteamtobereceivedbyHeadoftheDepartment/ProgrammeCoordinator Interviewwithfacultymemberstoevaluate: Facultycompetencyagainstprogrammespecificcriteria Updatingoffacultydomainknowledge Facultyresearch,consultancyandKnowledgetransfer Documentspertainedtofacultyprofile,facultycontributionsetc. AnyotherissuesidentifiedbythePEsrelatedaccreditationcriteria Criterion5:FacultyContributions Criterion9:ContinuousImprovements Meetingwithprogrammecoordinator/HeadoftheDepartment Documentspertainedtostudentacademicperformance,student accomplishmentsetc. Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Criterion9:ContinuousImprovements RemarksandObservations

10:4511:30

11:4512:30

12:3001:00

13:0014:00 14.0014.45

14.4516.30

16.3017.30

17.3018.00 18:0019:00 19:0020:30

Interviewwithfaculty/Boardofstudies/advisoryboardtoevaluate Levelofinvolvementofstakeholdersintheprogrammedevelopment ConsistencyofPEOswiththemissionofthedepartment LevelofContributionsofindustrytoprogramme Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducationalObjectives Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Interviewwithsampledstudents(academicperformance)toevaluate, Levelofattainmentofknowledgeskillsandattitudes Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Lunch MeetingwithAlumnioftheprogramme (graduatesconsideredfortheattainmentofPEOs)toevaluate: levelofparticipationintheprogrammeafterthegraduation levelofattainmentofPEOs Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducationalObjectives MeetingwithProgrammeCoordinator/HeadoftheDepartmenttoevaluate: Checkonremediationofshortcomings/improvementsfromprevious accreditationvisit AppropriatenessofassessmenttoolsusedforPOsandPEOs LevelofattainmentofPOsandPEOs CheckallthedocumentsandevidencesrelevanttotheattainmentofPOsand PEOs Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducationalObjectivesCriterion2: ProgrammeOutcomes PrivatemeetingofPEs DiscussionamongPEsforsummarizingtheobservationsmadeduring evaluationofday1andday2visvisaccreditationcriteria Meetingwithprogrammecoordinator/HeadoftheDepartmentforanyfurther clarifications MovebacktoHotel TeamDinner

20:3022:00

Teammeeting:ChairedbyTCatHotel ExchangeanddiscussabouttheissuesofDay2evaluation DiscussionbetweenPEsandTCtomaintainconsistencyacrossallprogrammes SubmitDay2draftevaluationreporttoTC

Day3
Time 07:0008:00 08:0009:00 09:0009:15 9.1510.30 10.3011.30 11.301.00 1.002.00 ProgrammeEvaluators BreakfastatHotel MovetotheUniversity/Institute NBAvisitingteamtobereceivedbyHeadoftheInstitute/Dean PreparetheexitmeetingstatementbyPEsandTC ExitmeetingchairedbyTC.Readtheexitmeetingstatementsofalltheprogrammes Submitvisitreportandclosethevisitactivity Lunch RemarksandObservations

AnnexureVIII VisitSchedule >>InstituteNameandplace<<

>>DateofVisit<<
Day0
Time 17:00 18:3020:00 ProgrammeEvaluators(PEs) ArrivalatHotel Teammeeting:ChairedbyTCatHotel ReviewofprevisitevaluationreportsofallProgrammes IdentifyanddiscussissuescommontoallProgrammes TeamChairperson(TC) Introductions:PEandTCatHotel Collateprevisitevaluationreportsofallprograms Finalizethescope/purposeofmeetingsscheduled BriefingtoPEsonevaluationprocessduringvisit followedbyQ&Asession

20:0021:30

TeamDinner

Day1
Time 07:0008:00 08:0009:00 09:0009:15 09:1510:15 ProgrammeEvaluators(PEs) TeamChairperson(TC) BreakfastatHotel MovetotheUniversity/Institute NBAvisitingteamtobereceivedbyUniversity/Institutionalrepresentatives PresentationonUniversity/Institutionbydean/headoftheinstitution Overviewongovernance,organizationalstructure,academicinfrastructure Institutionalfinancialresourcesandtheireffectiveutilizationforcontinuousqualityimprovement Academicsupportunitsandtheircontributionstotheprograms Overviewonrecentdevelopmentsineducationdelivery,mentoringandlearningfacilities Q&AontheissuescommontoallProgrammes Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalsupportandFinancialResources Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeachingLearningProcess Tourofbasicscienceandengineeringlaboratories,languagelaboratoryandcareerguidancefacilitiesbyTeamA* Touroflibrary,hostelfacilities,sportsfacilitiesandotheramenitiesbyTeamB*

10:1511:15

11:3012:00

12:0013:00

13:0014:00 14:0015:00

Criterion8:Governance,InstitutionalsupportandFinancialResources Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeachingLearningProcess *TeamAandTeamBareconstitutedbyTCwithonePEfromeachprogramandTCcanbememberofanyteam InterviewwithFacultyofmathematics,basicsciences Observelectureandtutorialinprogress andengineeringsupportingtheprogrammesunder accreditation Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeaching Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum LearningProcess Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes PresentationonDepartmentOverviewandUG(.)programme Interviewwithofficersconcernedtoevaluate: byHeadoftheDepartment/ProgrammeCoordinator academicinfrastructureandfacilities ProgrammeEducationalObjectives,participationof budgetallocationandutilization constituents,levelofimplementation practicesofOrganizationandGovernance OverviewonCoursecontentdelivery,Courseoutcome Criterion8:Governance,Institutionalsupportand assessmentandevaluationmethods FinancialResources OverviewonAssessmentandEvaluationofProgramme Outcomes Curriculumdesignandrevision,andProgrammespecific criteria Academicperformanceofstudents,participationin professionalactivitiesandtheirachievements Facultydevelopmentandresearchactivities Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Criterion5:FacultyContributions Lunch Touroflaboratoryfacilities,computingfacilities,department Checkandevaluatethedocumentspertainingto: libraryetc.relevanttotheprogramme Admissionsquality Interviewwithconcernedfaculty/stafftoevaluate: Academicsupportunits Thelaboratoryfacilitiestoconductthecurricularpractical Teachingandlearningprocess courses Availabilityofadequatetechnicalsupportingstaff Criterion7:AcademicSupportUnitsandTeaching Adequacyofwellfurnishedlecture/tutorial/seminarhalls LearningProcess

15:0015:30

15:4516:30

16:3018:00

18:0019:00 19:0020:30 20:3022:00

InterviewwithControllerofExaminations:Assessment andEvaluationpractices,Auditingprocess,Grievances andRedressalsystem Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Evaluatesupportingsystemsvisvistrainingand Interviewwithstudentstoevaluate, effectivenessofContentdeliveryandassessmentmethods placementandCareerGuidance Criterion4:StudentsPerformance participationinprofessionalsocietyactivities/Club activities AnyotherissuesidentifiedbythePEsrelatedaccreditation criteria Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion4:StudentsPerformance MeetingwithProgrammeCoordinator,CourseCoordinatoretc. Make a survey visit to programme to ensure consistency and to answer any uncommon EvaluationofContentdeliverymethodsandCourse issues raised during programme specific outcomestowardsattainmentofPOs evaluation. Improvementsinthecoursecontent,deliveryand assessmentmethodsbasedonlevelofattainmentofCOs Meet with Dean/Head of the Institution to discussthefindingsofDayIevaluation. andPOs Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum MovebacktoHotel TeamDinner Teammeeting:ChairedbyTCatHotel TCchairsthemeeting: ExchangeanddiscussabouttheissuesofDay1evaluation ProvidegeneralguidelinesfordecisiontoPEs Checktheconsistencyforalltheprogrammes DiscussionbetweenPEsandTCtomaintainconsistency acrossallprogrammes SubmitDay1draftevaluationreporttoTC

toruntheprogramme Criterion6:FacilitiesandTechnicalSupport ReviewofFinalyearprojectreporttoevaluatetheirrelevanceto ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes

Day02
Time 07:0008:00 08:0009:00 09:0009:15 09:1510:45 ProgrammeEvaluators(PEs) TeamChairperson(TC) BreakfastatHotel MovetotheUniversity/Institute NBAvisitingteamtobereceivedbyHeadoftheDepartment/ProgrammeCoordinator Interviewwithfacultymemberstoevaluate: Meetingwiththeofficialsconcernedtoevaluatethe Facultycompetencyagainstprogrammespecificcriteria effectivefunctioningof: Updatingoffacultydomainknowledge IndustryInstituteinteractionBoard Facultyresearch,consultancyandKnowledgetransfer InstitutionlevelQualityMonitoringandAssurance Documentspertainedtofacultyprofile,faculty contributionsetc. AnyotherissuesidentifiedbythePEsrelatedaccreditation Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement criteria Criterion5:FacultyContributions Criterion9:ContinuousImprovements Meetingwiththeofficialsconcernedtoevaluatethe Meetingwithprogrammecoordinator/HeadoftheDepartment effectivefunctioningof: Documentspertainedtostudentacademicperformance, studentaccomplishmentsetc. InstitutionlevelQualityMonitoringandAssurance Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Criterion9:ContinuousImprovements Interviewwithfaculty/Boardofstudies/advisoryboardto MeetingwithGoverningBodymemberstoevaluate evaluate Governance,Organisationanddecentralization Levelofinvolvementofstakeholdersintheprogramme Criterion8:Governance,Institutionalsupportand development FinancialResources ConsistencyofPEOswiththemissionofthedepartment LevelofContributionsofindustrytoprogramme Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Meetingwiththeofficialsconcernedtoevaluatethe Interviewwithsampledstudents(academicperformance)to effectivefunctioningof: evaluate, AcademicCouncil Levelofattainmentofknowledgeskillsandattitudes Criterion3:ProgrammeCurriculum Criterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Criterion4:StudentsPerformance Lunch

10:4511:30

11:4512:30

12:3001:00

13:0014:00

14.0014.45

14.4516.30

16.3017.30

17.3018.00 18:0019:00 19:0020:30 20:3022:00

MeetingwithAlumnioftheprogramme (graduatesconsideredfortheattainmentofPEOs)toevaluate: levelofparticipationintheprogrammeafterthe graduation levelofattainmentofPEOs Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives MeetingwithProgrammeCoordinator/HeadoftheDepartmentto evaluate: Checkonremediationofshortcomings/improvements frompreviousaccreditationvisit AppropriatenessofassessmenttoolsusedforPOsand PEOs LevelofattainmentofPOsandPEOs Checkallthedocumentsandevidencesrelevanttothe attainmentofPOsandPEOs Criterion9:ContinuousImprovement Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational ObjectivesCriterion2:ProgrammeOutcomes PrivatemeetingofPEs DiscussionamongPEsforsummarizingtheobservations madeduringevaluationofday1andday2visvis accreditationcriteria Meetingwithprogrammecoordinator/HeadoftheDepartment foranyfurtherclarifications MovebacktoHotel TeamDinner Teammeeting:ChairedbyTCatHotel ExchangeanddiscussabouttheissuesofDay2evaluation DiscussionbetweenPEsandTCtomaintainconsistency acrossallprogrammes SubmitDay2draftevaluationreporttoTC

Meetingwithpotentialemployer/industrytoevaluate: levelofparticipation performanceofthegraduatesintheirorganization Criterion1:Vision,MissionandProgrammeEducational Objectives Make a survey visit to programme to ensure consistency and to answer any uncommon issues raisedduringprogrammespecificevaluation.

Makeasurveyvisittoprogrammetoensure consistencyandtoansweranyuncommonissues raisedduringprogrammespecificevaluation

Meeting with Dean/Head of the Institution to discuss the findingsofDay2evaluation

TCchairsthemeeting: ProvidegeneralguidelinesfordecisiontoPEs Checktheconsistencyforalltheprogrammes

Day3
Time ProgrammeEvaluators(PEs) 07:0008:00 BreakfastatHotel 08:0009:00 MovetotheUniversity/Institute TeamChairperson(TC)

09:0009:15 9.1510.30 10.3011.30 11.301.00 1.002.00

NBAvisitingteamtobereceivedbyHeadoftheInstitute/Dean PreparetheexitmeetingstatementbyPEsandTC ExitmeetingchairedbyTC.Readtheexitmeetingstatementsofalltheprogrammes Submitvisitreportandclosethevisitactivity Lunch

AnnexureX

Form - A
Feedback Form to be filled by the Institution Regarding Accreditation Visit
Purpose
This form is designed to have a fair opinion of the team which has visited your institution. This will enable the NBA to improve its system and make it more effective. We thank you in advance for the time and effort you are investing in filling out this form.

1. Name of the Institution: 2. Programme(s) evaluated: 3. Date(s) of visit: 4. Name of Chairperson: 5. Names of Evaluators:

______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 1.__________________2.__________________3._____________________ 4.__________________5.__________________6.____________________ 7.__________________8.__________________9.____________________ 10._________________11._________________12.______________________

6. Please comment on the evaluation methodology adopted by the team during the visit.

7. Whether the evaluators have tendered any advice to improve the system? If yes, please specify. (i) (ii) Name of the Evaluator: Advice:

8. Whether any of the evaluators were specific about the relevant topics related to the programme? If no, please specify.

9. Whether the evaluators interacted with students and faculty in groups or with students and faculty in private? If yes, please specify the name of the students/faculty.

10. Whether the head of the institute or any representative of the management was also present during the interaction? If yes, please specify. (i) (ii) Name of the representative: Observation of the representative about interaction:

11. Whether evaluators have been facilitated by the institute for outdoor activity? If yes, please specify. (i) (ii) On whose insistence: What activity:

12. Whether the exit meeting met the purpose i.e., to share the visiting teams perceptions and general observations about the institution and programmes.

 13. Specify the participants of the exit meeting.

14. Please comment on the general behaviour of the visiting team (Chairperson and evaluators) during the visit? Whether hospitality was extended to the visiting team? If yes, please specify the participants and the kind of hospitality offered.

Signature of the Head of Institution

Thank you for your feedback!

Form - B
Feedback Form to be filled by the Chairperson about the Institution and Team Members
Purpose
This form is designed to have a fair opinion about the team members who have assisted you during the visit. This will enable the NBA to improve its system and make it more effective. We thank you in advance for the time and effort you are investing in filling out this form.

1. Name of the Institution: 2. Programme(s) evaluated:

______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 1.________________________2.__________________________________ 4.__________________5.__________________6.____________________ 7.__________________8.__________________9.____________________ 10._________________11._________________12.______________________

3. Date (s) of visit:

4. Name of Chairperson:

5. Name of Evaluators:

6. Please comment on the evaluation methodology adopted by the evaluators. 7. Whether the evaluator has tendered any advice to improve the system? If yes, please specify. i) Name (s) of the Evaluator: ii) Advice: 8. Whether the evaluators were specific about the relevant topics related to the programme? If no, please specify. 9. Whether the evaluator interacted with students and faculty in groups or with students and faculty in private? If yes, please specify the name of the students/faculty. 10. Whether the evaluator has been facilitated by the institution for outdoor activity? If yes, please specify. i) On whose insistence: ii) What activity: 11. Please comment on the general behaviour and etiquette of the evaluators during the visit. 12. Please comment on the general behaviour and etiquette of the Head of the Institution/other key officials. 13. Please comment on the cooperation and coordination rendered by the institution. Signature of the Chairperson

Thank you for your feedback!

Form - C
Feedback Form to be filled by the Evaluator about the Institution, Co-evaluator and Chairperson
Purpose
This form is designed to have a fair opinion about the team members who have assisted you during the visit. This will enable the NBA to improve its system and make it more effective. We thank you in advance for the time and effort you are investing in filling out this form.

1. Name of the Institution 2. Programme (s) evaluated

:______________________________________________________________ :______________________________________________________________ :______________________________________________________________ :______________________________________________________________ :______________________________________________________________ :.__________________________________________________________

3. Date (s) of visit

4. Name of Chairperson

5. Name of Evaluator 6. Name of Co-Evaluator

7. Please comment on the ability of the chairperson to resolve disputes, if any, between the evaluators. 8. Whether the chairperson has tendered any advice to improve the system? If yes, please specify. 9. Whether the chairperson has extended openness with the evaluators? If no, please specify. 10. Whether the chairperson has been facilitated by the institute for outdoor activity. If yes, please specify. i) On whose insistence: ii) What activity: 11. Please comment on the general behaviour and etiquette of the chairperson during the visit. 12. Please comment on the general behaviour and etiquette of the Head of the Institution / other key officials. 13. Please comment on the general behaviour and etiquette of the co-evaluator. 14. Please comment on the cooperation rendered by the co-evaluator. 15. Please comment on the cooperation and coordination rendered by the institution. Signature of the Evaluator

Thank you for your feedback!

Form - D
Feedback Form to be filled by the Chairperson/Evaluator(s) about Service Provider
Purpose
This form is designed to have a fair opinion about the Service Provider hired by the NBA. This will enable the NBA to improve its system and make it more effective. We thank you in advance for the time and effort you are investing in filling out this form.

1. Name of the Institution:

2. Date (s) of visit:

3. Name of the Chairperson/Evaluator*:

4. Name of the Service Provider:

Assessment of the Service Provider

I How was your overall experience with the service provider?

II

Please comment on customer service, travel management and consulting services.

III

Please comment on the travel and lodging requirements met during the visit.

IV

Please comment on your travel documentation.

Are you satisfied with the service provided by the Service Provider? If no, please specify.

*Please strike out whichever is not applicable

Signature of the Chairperson/Evaluator

Thank you for your feedback!

DECLARATION FORM
Name and Address of the Institution to be visited:

Name and Address of the Chairperson/Expert Member of the Evaluation Team:

I do hereby declare that I dont have or didnt have had a close or active association with the above institution in any of the following form:1. Iamneitheremployedcurrentlynorwasemployedinthepastasfaculty,stafforConsultant bytheinstitution; 2. I am neither engaged currently nor was engaged in the past in any discussion or negotiation ofemploymentwiththeinstitution; 3. Ihaveneverattendedtheaboveinstitutionasastudent; 4. Ihaveneverreceivedanhonorarydegreefromtheinstitution; 5. Noclose/familyrelativeofmineisastudentoremployeeoftheinstitution 6. IdonotownamembershipintheinstitutionsBoardofTrustees/IndustryAdvisoryBoard. I hereby declare that I have no conflict of interest in the proposed NBA accreditation assignment at this institution and I will follow the NBA conflict of interest Policies. I shall abide by the code of conduct and will conduct myself in professional manner and uphold the dignity and esteem of the positionbestoweduponme.

Name: Signature: Date:

26