PART A

Evaluator’s Visit Report

Undergraduate Engineering Program

Tier-I

Name of the Institution

Name of the Program

Visit Dates

NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION

NBCC Place, East Tower, 4th Floor, Bhisham Pitamah Marg,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi 110003
Tel: +91 112430620-22; 01124360654; www.nbaind.org
 Program Evaluator Summary

Overview
The Expert team of National Board of Accreditation (NBA) conducted a three day accreditation visit
from to _<<name of institution>> , to evaluate UG Engineering
program <<name of the program>> .

Pre visit meeting of the expert team was held on at _ to

exchange the respective findings with the evaluation team members, based on review of Self‐
Assessment Report (SAR) and the pre‐visit evaluation reports.

During the visit, the visiting team met with Head of the Institution/Dean _ .
The briefing on the institution was given by and on the program was given by
the (Name of the respective Head of the Department/Program Coordinator). The respective program
evaluators also visited the various facilities of the program. Apart from comprehensive review of
documental evidences pertaining to various accreditation criteria, the visiting team also held meeting
and discussions with the following stakeholders (kindly tick).

Faculty Alumni

Employers Parents

Staff members Students

The Program Evaluation Team found that (general findings about the program to be mentioned)

.
 Program Details

Name of the Program:

Year of
Commencement
Year Sanctioned Intake Actual Admitted (without Lateral Entry)
CAY (20_ _ - 20 _ _)
CAY m1 (20_ _ - 20 _ _)
Student CAY m2 (20_ _ - 20 _ _)
Total Students in the
Programme 1st to Final Year
Average of the CAY, CAY
m1 and CAYm2
CAY CAYm1 CAYm2
Professor
Regular Associate
professor
Assistant
professor
Faculty Professor
(Attach a Copy of Associate
faculty list compared Contractual professor
with Time Table) Assistant
professor
No. of PhD. available in the dept.
Student - Faculty ratio
(averaged over CAY, CAY m1
and CAYm2) (Refer
criteria-5.1)
No. of years
First accreditation accredited for
Previous With effect from
Accreditation
No. of years
(if any) accredited for
Previous accreditation
With effect from
CAY: Current Academic Year
CAYm1: Current Academic Year minus 1= Current Assessment year
CAYm2: Current Academic Year minus 2= Current Assessment year minus 1

Note: Consideration of Contractual Faculty means:

 All the faculty whether regular or contractual (except Part-Time), will be considered. The contractual faculty (doing away with the
terminology of visiting/adjunct faculty, whatsoever) who have taught for 2 consecutive semesters in the corresponding academic year
on full time basis shall be considered for the purpose of calculation in the Faculty Student Ratio. However, following will be ensured in
case of contractual faculty:
1. Shall have the AICTE prescribed qualifications and experience.
2. Shall be appointed on full time basis and worked for consecutive two semesters during the particular academic year under
consideration.
3. Should have gone through an appropriate process of selection and the records of the same shall be made available to the
visiting team during NBA visit

 Faculty to be calculated Department wise as per the format given in SAR; Faculty appointment letters, time table, subject allocation
file, salary statements and random interaction in person.
 No. of students calculation as mentioned in the SAR (please refer table under criterion 3.1)
 Faculty Qualification as per AICTE guidelines shall only be counted
Explicit observations about the program
(Please use additional sheets if necessary to elaborate)

Program title

Strengths:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Concerns:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Weakness/Areas of improvement:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Deficiencies:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Other Observations, if any:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
 Information for Evaluation

Y=75% or Above; C=60% and < 75%; W=40% and <60%; D<40%.

Award of Accreditation (TIER I (UG))

1. Accreditation for Six years will be accorded to a program on fulfilment of the

following requirements:
i. There should not be any “Deficiency” or “Weakness” in any of the Criteria and at least
Seven Criterion must be fully Compliant with only “Concerns” in the remaining
Criteria
Y C W D
>=7 <=3 0 0

ii. Number of available Ph.D. in the department should be greater than or equal to 30
per cent of the required number of faculty averaged over two academic years i.e.
Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).
iii. The admissions in the UG program should be more than or equal to 60 per cent,
averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e., Current
Academic Year minus One (CAYm1), Current Academic Year minus Two (CAYm2) and
Current Academic Year minus Three (CAYM3).
iv. Faculty Student Ratio in the department should be less than or equal to 1:20
averaged over three academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY), Current
Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current Academic Year Minus Two (CAYM2).
v. At least 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor on regular basis with
Ph.D. degree should be available in the respective department for two academic years
i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1)
vi. HOD of the program under consideration should possess Ph.D. degree in the Current
Academic Year (CAY)

2. Accreditation for Three years will be accorded to a program on fulfilment of the

following requirements:

i.
Y D
>=4 <=0

ii. The admissions in the UG program under consideration should be more than or equal
to 60 per cent, averaged over three academic years (including lateral entry), i.e.,
Current Academic Year minus One (CAYm1), Current Academic Year minus Two
(CAYm2) and Current Academic Year minus Three (CAYM3).
iii. At least 2 Professors or 1 Professor and 1 Associate Professor on regular basis with
Ph.D. degree should be available in the respective department for two academic
years, i.e., Current Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year minus One
(CAYM1).
iv. The faculty student ratio in the department under consideration should be less than or
equal to 1:25 averaged over three academic years i.e. Current Academic Year (CAY) ,
Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1) and Current Academic Year Minus Two
(CAYM2).
v. Number of available Ph.D. in the department should be greater than or equal to 20 per
cent of the required number of faculty averaged over two academic years i.e. Current
Academic Year (CAY) and Current Academic Year Minus One (CAYM1).
vi. HOD of the program under consideration should possess Ph.D. degree in the Current
Academic Year (CAY).
vii. In case of a “D” in Criterion – V (Faculty Information & Contributions), the program is
not considered for accreditation.

3. No Accreditation of the program

If the program fails to meet the criteria for award of accreditation for three years, it is
awarded “Not Accredited” Status.
Department/Programme Specific Criteria:

Max. Marks Grade Remarks

S. No. Criteria
Marks Awarded (Y, C, W, D)
Vision, Mission and
1. Program Educational 50
Objectives
Program Curriculum and
2. Teaching-Learning 100
Processes
Course Outcomes and
3. 175
Program Outcomes
4. Students’ Performance 100
Faculty Information and
5. 200
Contributions
Facilities and Technical
6. 80
Support
7. Continuous Improvement 75

TOTAL 780

Signature Signature
(Program Evaluator 1) (Program Evaluator 2)
Declaration of Conformity with evaluator’s report by the Team Chair

I agree with the observations of the program evaluators on each criterion.

Or
I agree with most of the observations of the program evaluators. However, I have following
comments to make on certain criteria:

Criteria Comments

Signature
(Chairperson)