A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH FOR PREPARING THE

TECHNICAL PROGRAMMES FOR NBA ACCREDITATION

A. Abudhahira, K. Kalidasa Murugavela, S. Baskarb, A. Koteswara Raoc ,

S.Raja Karunakaran d
a
National Engineering College, K.R. Nagar, Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India
c
V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
d
Kalasalingam University, Krishnan Koil, Tamil Nadu, India.

Abstract: National Board of Accreditation (NBA), New Delhi has changed its accreditation
criteria/process at par with other International accreditation agencies such as Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Accreditation Board for Engineering
Education of Korea (ABEEK) etc. NBA accredits the technical programs based on the
compliances of that program with the stipulations of each criterion. Of the nine criteria of
NBA, first three criteria namely Programme Educational Objectives, Programme Outcomes
and Programme Curriculum are very new to the Indian scenario. The technical institutions,
willing to go for NBA accreditation, are facing lot of difficulties in preparing the Self
Assessment Report (SAR). Sans implementing the Outcome Based Education for the
programmes of technical institutions, it is not at all possible for them to go for Outcome
Based accreditation process. Hence, this paper discusses a systematic procedure of
implementing Outcome Based Education, which facilitates the programs offered in the
technical institutions in India to prepare them for NBA accreditation. Providing of relevant
information under sub and sub-sub criteria of NBA’s SAR for first three criteria and last
criterion is also discussed in a detailed manner with simple illustrations.

Key words: Outcome based education, Accreditation, Accreditation criteria.

1. INTRODUCTION

Accreditation, vis-à-vis technical eduction, is the process of evaluating the quality of

institution/programme(s) by the external peer members against well-defined criteria
standardised by an accreditation agency. Both the agencies namely, National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC), Bangalore, and NBA, New Delhi established in 1994
respectively under University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE), have been accrediting the universities/institutions and technical
programmes (undergraduate engineering, post graduate engineering, diploma engineering,
pharmacy, Master of Computer Applications etc) respectively in India [1-2]. Most of the
technical institutions are going for NBA’s programme accreditation whereas non-technical
institutions, which include universities offering arts and science degree programmes, prefer
NAAC’s institutional accreditation. Since from its inception, NBA has been accrediting the
technical programmes based on the different versions of accreditation manual released
in1994, 2004, 2009, 2011and 2013. The 1994 and 2004 version manuals are based on input-
output based accreditation model whereas later versions are based on outcome model [1].

The NBA became provisional signatory member of Washington Accord (WA) in 2007
as its first step towards adding international recognition to academic awards (degrees) of
Indian students who graduated from the accredited programmes offering by the technical
institutions. Since then, it has been taking tireless efforts vis-à-vis becoming permanent
signatory member of WA. Albeit, the 2011 version accreditation document was prepared
based on outcome based model for undergraduate engineering degree programmes, it was
substantially modified in such a way that the stipulations of accreditation criteria/sub-
criteria/sub-sub criteria are articulated very clearly and also they are at par with their
international counterparts. The NBA published two different accreditation manuals namely,
Tier – I and Tier – II documents. Both the modified documents Tier – I and Tier - II, so-
called 2013 version accreditation manuals, have 9 major accreditation criteria. For the non-
autonomous colleges/institutions which are affiliated to university the Tier – II manual is
more appropriate in the sense that no sub-criterion either in the Programme Outcomes or in
the Programme curriculum criterion does not stipulate the design of curriculum whereas Tier
– I is the best suited for the autonomous institutions. It is quite possible for the technical
institutions in India to prepare their programmes for NBA’s accreditation based on the 2013
version accreditation manual only after 5 to 7 years from the time of implementation of
outcome based education. Since this 2013 outcome based accreditation document is new to
Indian scenario, this paper discusses a systematic approach for preparing the technical
programmes for NBA’s accreditation [1].
2. TRADITIONAL EDUCATION AND ACCREDITATION MODELS

The major deficiencies of traditional education are a) provides students with a

learning environment with little attention to whether or not students are ever learning the
material. b) Students are given grades and ranking compared to each other, students become
exam oriented or CGPA driven, c) Graduates are not completely prepared for the workforce,
d) Lack of emphasis on soft skills needed in jobs e.g. communication skills, human
relationships skills and e) The involvement of stakeholders is minimized. The traditional
education process is shown in Fig.1.

Fig.1 Traditional Education Process

“Outcome-Based Education (OBE) means clearly focusing and organizing

everything in an educational system around what is essential for all students to be able to do
successfully at the end of their learning experiences. This means starting with a clear picture
of what is important for students to be able to do, then organising the curriculum,
instruction, and assessment to make sure that this learning ultimately happens.” (Spady,
1994) [3]. OBE involves the restructuring of curriculum, assessment and reporting practices
in education to reflect the achievement of high order learning and mastery rather than
accumulation of course credits. Both structures and curricula are designed to achieve those
capabilities or qualities. It discourages traditional education approaches based on direct
instruction of facts and standard methods. It requires that the students demonstrate that they
have learnt the required skills and content. The outcome educational process is shown in
Fig.2.
Accreditation involves a set of procedures designed to gather evidence to enable a
decision to be made about whether the institution or programme should be granted accredited
status. The set of procedures differs from one model to another. The following are the popular
accreditation models.
 Fig.2 Outcome Based Educational Process

2.1 Minimal Model

This model ascertains basic characteristics of the institution and programme. In
general, this model is numeric and law-based. This model ascertains the existence of
infrastructure, size and qualification of the faculty, coverage of basic topics in the curriculum.
Further, it provides a prescription for a minimal core and general parameters for the rest of
the curriculum. The minimal model is easy to implement and maintain as long as it adheres to
the “minimal” philosophy. One of the major drawbacks of this model is that it does not
encourage continuous improvement in curriculum, teaching learning process and faculty
competency other than qualification.

2.2 Input-Output Model

This model strictly adheres to the core curriculum. It gives direct prescriptions of
curriculum and faculty composition. It also specifies parameters for the rest of the
curriculum. It makes the accrediting process uniform and potentially fair. The criteria of this
model are unambiguous and often numeric. But, it is difficult to establish and update. This
model is relatively easy to maintain as it is adhered to clear rules. However, there is no scope
for innovation and creativity in the curriculum.

2.3 Outcome Based Model

This model prescribes a minimum core and basic requirements. It focuses on the goals
and objectives of the programme. But, tt does not specify the specific goals of the program.
This provides significant diversity in setting up goals and objectives. It makes that this model
is very different from other models. This model requires evidence of measurements to feed a
quality improvement process. It is sophisticated and hard to evaluate as it requires a lot of
responsibility and risk in the hands of the program leaders. Outcome based model is ‘Learner
Centric’, rather than the traditional ‘Teacher Centric’.

3. KEY COMPONENTS OF OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

3.1 Vision and Mission

Mission statements are essentially the means to achieve the vision of the institution.
For example, if the vision is to create high-quality engineering professionals, then the mission
could be to offer a well-balanced programme of instruction, practical experience, and
opportunities for overall personality development. Vision is a futuristic statement that the
institution would like to achieve over a long period of time, and Mission is the means by
which it proposes to move toward the stated Vision.

3.2 Programme Educational Objectives (PEOs)

Programme educational objectives are broad statements that describe the career and
professional accomplishments that the programme is preparing graduates to achieve. PEOs
should be measurable, appropriate, realistic, time bound and achievable.

3.3 Graduate Attributes

Graduates Attributes (GAs) form a set of individually assessable outcomes that are
the components indicative of the graduate’s potential to acquire competence to practice
at the appropriate level. The GAs are exemplars of the attributes expected of a graduate
from an accredited programme. The Graduate Attributes of the NBA are Engineering
Knowledge, Problem Analysis, Design/development of Solutions, Conduct Investigations
of Complex Problems, Modern Tool usage, The Engineer and Society, Environment and
Sustainability, Ethics, Individual and Team Work, Communication, Project M anagement
and Finance, and Life-long Learning [4-6].

3.4 Programme Outcomes

Programme Outcomes (POs) describe what students should know and be able to do at
the end of the programme. They are to be in line with the graduate attributes of NBA. POs
are to be specific, measurable and achievable. POs transform the PEOs into specific student
performance and behaviours that demonstrate student learning and skill development.

3.5 Programme Specific Criteria

In addition to the General Criteria, each programme must satisfy a set of criteria
specific to it, known as Programme Specific Criteria which deal with the requirements for
engineering practice particular to the related sub-discipline. The stipulations in the
Programme Specific Criteria chiefly concern curricular issues and qualifications &
competencies of faculty. The programme curriculum is to be provided in correlation with the
programme specific criteria. The NBA is intended to adopt the programme specific criteria
specified by appropriate American Professional societies such as ASME, ASCE, IEEE etc.
The institution shall provide evidence that the programme curriculum satisfies the
programme specific criteria, and industry specific criteria and industry
interactions/internship.

3.6 Course Outcomes

Course Outcomes (COs) are clear statements of what a student should be able to
demonstrate upon completion of a course. They should be assessable and measurable
knowledge, skills, abilities or attitudes that students attain by the end of the course.

3.7 Correlation
It is the process of representing, preferably in matrix form, the correlation among the
parameters. It may be done for one to many, many to one, and many to many parameters. All
courses in a particular programme would have their own course outcomes. These course
outcomes are designed based on the requirement of the programme outcomes (POs). Each
course outcomes are correlated to a relevant PO and they are correlated to the programme
educational objectives (PEO).
The correlation of PEO, PO and CO is given in Fig. 3. The framework of outcome
based education is given in Fig.4
 Fig.3 Correlation of PEO, PO and CO

Fig.4 Framework of Outcome Based Education

4. Overview of NBA’s New Accreditation Criteria

The assessment and evaluation process of accreditation of an engineering programme

is based on nine broad criteria [1].
Criterion 1- Vision, Mission and Programme Educational
Objectives (PEOs)
Each engineering programme to be accredited or re-accredited should have i)
published department vision and mission, and programme educational objectives that are
consistent with the mission of the educational institution ii) the PEOs should be assessable
and realistic within the context of the committed resources. The comprehensive list of various
stakeholders, who have been involved in the process of defining and redefining the PEOs of
the programme, and relevance are to be provided. The institution shall provide the required
information for assessment, evaluation and review methods to evaluate the attainment of the
PEOs as per the format given in the SAR.

Criterion 2- Programme Outcomes

The POs formulated for each programme by the institution must be consistent with
the NBA’s Graduate Attributes. The POs must foster the attainment of the PEOs. The
programme shall indicate the process involved in defining and redefining the POs. It shall
also provide how and where the POs are published and disseminated. It should also describe
the process that periodically documents and demonstrates that the POs are based on the needs
of the stakeholders of the programme. The extent to which and how the POs are aligned with
the Graduate Attributes prescribed by the NBA shall be provided. The correlation between
the POs and the PEOs is to be provided as per the format given in the SAR in order to
establish the contribution of the POs towards the attainment of the PEOs. The attainment of
POs may be assessed by direct and indirect methods. The results of the assessment of each
PO shall be indicated as they play a vital role in implementing the Continuous Improvement
process of the programme. The institution shall provide the ways and means of how the
results of the assessment of the POs improve the program in terms of curriculum, course
delivery and assessment methods and processes of revising/redefining the POs.

Criterion 3- Programme Curriculum

Programme curriculum that leads to the attainment of the PEOs and the POs must be
designed. The programme shall provide how its curriculum is designed, published, and
disseminated. The structure of the curriculum, which comprises course code, course title,
total number of contact hours (lecture, tutorial and practical) and credits is to be provided.
Flow diagram that shows the prerequisites for the courses shall also be provided. The
relevance of curriculum components, including core engineering courses to the POs shall be
given. In addition to the General Criteria, each programme must satisfy a set of criteria
specific to it, known as Programme Specific Criteria which deal with the requirements for
engineering practice particular to the related sub-discipline. The institution must ensure that
the programme curriculum that was developed at the time of inception of the programme has
been refined in the subsequent years to make it consistent with the PEOs and the POs. The
institution shall provide the required information for assessment, evaluation and review
methods to evaluate the attainment of COs.

Criterion 4 - Students’ Performance

The institution shall provide the required information for three complete academic
years for admission intake in the programme, success rate, academic performance, placement
and higher studies and professional activities as per the format given in the SAR.

Criterion 5 - Faculty Contributions

The institution shall provide the required information for three complete academic
years for Student-Teacher Ratio (STR), Faculty Cadre Ratio, faculty qualifications, faculty
retention, Faculty Research Publications (FRP), Faculty Intellectual Property Rights (FIPR),
Funded R&D Projects and Consultancy (FRDC), faculty interaction with outside world,
faculty competence correlation with programme specific criteria and faculty as
participants/resource persons in training and development activities as per the format given in
the SAR.

Criterion 6 - Facilities and Technical Support

The institution must provide adequate infrastructural facilities to support the
achievement of the programme outcomes. The institution shall provide the required
information for class rooms in the department, faculty rooms in the department, laboratories
in the department to meet the curriculum requirements as well as the POs, and technical
manpower in the department as per the format given in the SAR.

Criterion 7- Academic Support Units and Teaching - Learning

Process
The programme must employ effective teaching-learning processes. The institution
shall provide the required information for students’ admission, Assessment of First Year
Student –Teachers Ratio (FYSTR), assessment of faculty qualification, teaching first year
common courses, academic support units and common facilities for the first year courses,
tutorial/remedial classes/mentoring, teaching and evaluation process, feedback system, self-
learning, career guidance, training, placement and entrepreneurship cell and CO curricular
and extra-curricular activities as per the format given in the SAR.
Criterion 8 - Governance, Institutional Support and Financial
Resources
The institution shall provide the required information for campus infrastructure and
facility, organization, governance and transparency, budget allocation and public accounting
(for both institutions and programme), library, internet, safety norms and checks, and
counselling and emergency medical care and first-aid as per the format given in the SAR.

Criterion 9 - Continuous Improvement

The programme must develop a documented process for the periodic review of the
PEOs, the POs and the COs. The institution shall provide the required information for
improvement in success index of students, improvement in academic performance index of
students, improvement in student teacher ratio, enhancement of faculty qualifications index,
improvement in faculty research publications, R&D and consultancy work, continuing
education, curricular improvement based on the review of attainment of the PEOs, and the
POs, course delivery and assessment improvement based on the review of the attainment of
the PEOs, and the POs, new facility created, and overall improvement since last
accreditation, if any, otherwise, since the commencement of the programme as per the format
given in the SAR.

5. PROGRAMME EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) are broad statements that describe the
career and professional accomplishments that the programme is preparing graduates to
accomplish. While framing the PEOs, the following factors are to be considered: a) The
PEOs should be consistent with the mission of the institution; b) All the stakeholders should
participate in the process of framing PEOs; c) The number of PEOs should be manageable; d)
It should be based on the needs of the stakeholders; e) It should be achievable by the
programme; f) It should be specific to the programme and not too broad and g) It should not
be too narrow and similar to the POs.

Guidelines for Establishing/redefining PEOs: a) Collect and review documents

that describe your department and its programs; b) Collect and review instructional materials;
c) List the achievements you implicitly expect of graduates in their field. Describe your
alumni in terms of such achievements as career accomplishments, societal activities, aesthetic
and intellectual involvement; d) Form a committee to establish/redesign PEOs. The
committee may consist of the Head of the Department, Programme coordinator, Senior
Faculty members, representatives from students, parents, Alumni, employers and members of
professional bodies like IEEE, ACME, ACSE. The committee considers the following such
as i) Mission and Vision of the Institution and Department; ii) Data collected from the
stakeholders; iii) Details of the current status (Student admission quality, Teaching &
Learning Process, Faculty and their research activities, other facilities) of Department; iv)
Data Collected on prospect/ potential of identified Industries (relevant to the academic
program) / Research Organizations/Higher Educational Institutions etc.; and v) Action Taken
Reports on Minutes of the Meeting. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the indicative process of
defining and redefining PEOs respectively.

Fig.5 An indicative Defining Process of PEOs

The programme shall demonstrate how the PEOs are aligned with the mission of the
department /institution and reviewed periodically. For this purpose, there should be in place a
process to identify and document relationships with stakeholders (including students) and
their needs, which have to be adequately addressed when reviewing the programme
curriculum and processes. Justifications shall be provided as to how the composition of
programme curriculum contributes towards attainment of the PEOs defined for the
programme. The PEOs are reviewed periodically based on feedback of the programme’s
various stakeholders. Also, it is expected to expound how the administrative system helps the
programme in ensuring the attainment of PEOs. There should be enough evidence and
documentation to show the achievement of the PEOs set by the institution with the help of the
assessment (indicate tools and how they are used) and evaluation process that have been
developed.

Fig.6 An indicative Redefining Process of PEOs

6. PROGRAMME OUTCOMES
Program outcomes (POs) are specific, measurable and achievable statements in line
with graduate attributes defined by NBA. These outcomes define competency of basic,
technical and soft skills to be acquired by the students during the programme. These skills are
defined for each program. These outcomes will be achieved through the course outcomes
(COs) of the different courses studied during the program. In addition to this, participation of
students in curricular and co-curricular activities will help in achieving these outcomes.
Proper assessment tools and rubrics are to be developed to evaluate the attainment of these
outcomes. For a programme, outcomes are established by an appropriate committee
comprising of different stake holders. The curriculum is framed in such a way to attain these
outcomes through course outcomes. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the indicative process of
defining and redefining POs respectively.
 Course outcomes are the skills attained by the students at end of learning each course.
These outcomes are student centric and clearly define what knowledge, skill and ability and
disposition should a student demonstrate. For each course, a set of outcomes will be defined
and mapped with program outcomes. Appropriate assessment methods will be used to
measure the attainment of each CO. For soft skill based COs, rubrics would be developed to
evaluate their attainment.

Fig.7 An indicative Defining Process of POs

 Fig.8 An indicative Redefining Process of POs

7. CURRICULUM DESIGN
The curriculum structure and its design are based on programme educational
objectives and outcomes. The curriculum should cover the broad areas of the engineering
program identifying what constitute core engineering courses and what constitute as support
courses. The curriculum components can be classified into different modules based on the
program specific criteria defined by appropriate professional societies like ASME, ASCE,
IEEE etc. Set of course outcomes for each module and courses correspond to a set of course
outcomes are defined. The curriculum design process is shown in Figure 9. Finally mapping
of COs with POs will be done to verify and check the correlation of each CO with POs. A set
of COs should strongly correlate with each PO and each CO should strongly correlate with
any one PO. An indicative mapping is shown in Figure 10.
 Fig.9 A Typical Outcome Based Curriculum Design process

Fig.10 Typical correlation between course outcomes and programme outcomes. 1 for
strong correlation, 2 weak correlation and 3 for no correlation.

8. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

The continuous improvement in educational processes will take the institution in right
track to reach the vision and assure quality education to students. The overall quality
improvement is ensured by the yearly improvement in student performance, staff
performance and educational facilities. Improvement in student pass percentage, attainment
of program outcomes, placement, number of rank holder and number of students got selected
for higher studies are the indices for student performance. Faculty quality can be accessed
through performance factors such as staff student ratio, faculty qualification and cadre,
publication, research activities, research fund, consultancy work, publications, competency
level, outside interaction and collaborative works. The improvement in institution educational
facility can be measured by strategic planning process, interaction with local community,
interaction with industries, interaction with professional bodies, collaboration with other
universities, mobilization of fund for institution development through consultancy and
research, continuing education, interdisciplinary activities, alumni involvement, self
assessment, academic auditing, accreditation, and national and international reputation
gained. Regular expert team visit by accrediting agencies to the institutions ensures
continuous improvement and also gives chance to rectify the weaknesses. In NBA’s SAR, the
procedure to evaluate the continuous improvement in different criteria is provided.

9. FACULTY TRAINING

The success of OBE lies with the continuous involvement of the dedicated faculty
members in serious learning and practicing this system by acting as facilitators in Teaching-
Learning process vis-à-vis achieving the outcomes and objectives of the programme. National
Board of Accreditation (NBA) has been making continuous efforts to assist the technical
institutions/universities in improving the quality of technical education with the voluntary
support of Technical Institutions/Colleges/Universities in our country to implement Outcome
Based Education (OBE) which certainly facilitates to go for Outcome Based Accreditation
(OBA) to enhance the quality of technical education in our country on par with expected
standards of Washington Accord (WA). This endeavour will ease NBA becoming full
signatory member of WA from its present provisional member status. In order to achieve this
mission, NBA identified and inked Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with twenty plus
numbers of institutions across the country to conduct the following series of Training
Programmes through well structured workshops to disseminate the depth and breadth of
OBE&A. The training programmes are : (i) Evaluator/Resource Person Training Programme,
(ii) Faculty Training Programme, (iii) Institutional Training Programme, (iv) Academic
Administrator (BoS / Academic council members) Training Programme and (v) Management
Development Programme.

Quite a few numbers of Training Centres have also been identified under the defined
jurisdiction of each Nodal Centre for conducting the above-mentioned training programmes
concurrently throughout the country. Since our government has made accreditation as
mandatory for educational institutions, it is the right opportunity for them to prepare
themselves for Accreditation which in turn very much helpful for them progressing towards
continuous improvement. The inexhaustible list of attainable/measurable benefits to our
graduates/institution/society at large vis-à-vis Outcome Base Accreditation is: (i)
International recognition of your graduates’ degree, (ii) Global employment opportunities for
your graduates, (iii) More employable graduates with hard core and soft skills, (iv)
International/National exposure for your faculty members, (v) More innovative Graduates
with social responsibility and ethics, (vi) Better visibility and reputation of your institution
among stakeholders, (vii) Improving the commitment and involvement of all stakeholders
and (viii) Enabling your graduates to excel in their profession and career accomplishments.

This training will certainly help the institute to implement OBE in a systematic
manner and also pave a smooth platform to prepare various programmes for accreditation.
Certificates will be issued by NBA to the faculty members those who have successfully
completed the Training programmes. This NBA certification is mandatory for the faculty
members to be an associate of NBA as Evaluator/Chairman/Resource person.

Engineering Staff College of India (ESCI) – Hyderabad, and Indian Society for
Technical Education (ISTE) – New Delhi are also conducting training programmes on the
topic “NBA’s New Outcome Based Accreditation Process & Parameters” in the workshop
pattern for the faculty members of technical institutions. More than ninety percent of the
faculty members in the institutions such as National Engineering College, K.R. Nagar,
Kovilpatti, Tamil Nadu, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, V.R.
Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh and Kalasalingam University,
Krishnan Koil, Tamil Nadu, where the authors are working, have undergone this outcome
based education and accreditation training and started implementing the same in their
institutes and preparing the programmes for NBA’s outcome based accreditation (2013
version manual).

10. INVERSE PROCEDURE

In outcome based education and accreditation, the attainment of the parameters such
as COs, POs and PEOs are to be measured using appropriate direct/indirect tools. Generally
the attainment of POs and PEOs are measured at the end of the programme and quite a few
years after the graduation respectively. If PEOs, POs and COs are defined and disseminated
for 2014 admitted students and the programme is of four year period, the attainment of COs
can be measured at the end of each semester i.e., after the completion of each course and the
attainment of POs and PEOs can be measured at the end of the fourth year i.e., in 2018 and
three to five years after graduation i.e., in 2021-2023.
 On the other hand, if any institute wants to submit Self Assessment Report (SAR) for its
programmes to NBA online for accreditation based on 2013 version manual, it is inevitable
for the programmes to follow the method of looking back their outcomes in the previous
years and their attainment scores through so-called Inverse Procedure. Albeit the PEOs and
POs were not defined and informed to the stakeholders in the previous years, by conducting
employer, alumni etc survey those could be looked back into. For example, if a four year
under graduate degree programme wants to apply for accreditation this year 2014, it has to
identify the professional and career accomplishment of the graduates who were admitted in
the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 or passed out in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011and articulate
those as PEO statements. Similarly, by identifying the kind and extent of knowledge, skill
and behaviour/attitude of students who graduated in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011, the
qualities such as professional competencies and transferable skills which are certainly
expected from the graduates by the time of graduation can be put into PO statements.
Graduate Attributes of International Engineering Alliance (IEA) for undergraduate students
must be referred while articulating POs. Similarly, COs are to be articulated by the faculty
members for each course by looing back the knowledge and skill acquired by the students’
batch 2005-2009, 2006-2010 and 2007-2011at the end of the each course.

11. CONCLUSION

The detailed process and procedure of preparing the Engineering / Technology

programmes, offering by the technical Institutions / Colleges in India, have been
discussed in this paper in a systematic manner. The process of defining and redefining of
PEOs, POs and COs has been illustrated with the simple indicative flow diagrams. Also,
the correlation among the various outcomes and measuring the attainment of different
outcomes using direct and indirect tools have been presented. This paper further
briefed the nine accreditation criteria of NBA’s SAR. In addition to the first three
outcome based criteria, the remaining input-output based criteria i.e., four to nine have
also been elaborated vis-aà -vis providing the relevant data and information for making
the self assessment. In order to train the faculty members towards OBE, the information
about various training programmes / workshops that are being organized by NBA, ISTE,
New Delhi and ESCI - Hyderabad has also been provided. The inverse procedure, the
process of gathering data and information, establishing the correlation and measuring
attainment, for the institution willing to go for NBA’s accreditation has also been
outlined. The authors hope that this paper will kindle the minds of the faculty members
and other stakeholders for implementing the OBE which leads to NBA’s Outcome Based
Accreditation. We wish the quality technical programmes, which are offered by the
various institutions in India, to get NBA’s New Outcome Based Accreditation.

REFERENCES

1. National Board of Accreditation (NBA), New Delhi : www.nbaind.org

2. National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), Bangalore :
www.naac.gov.in
3. ‘William G. Spady’, “Outcome Based Education: Critical Issues”, American
Association of School Administrators, 1995
4. Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, (ABET) USA : www.abet.org
5. Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB), Singapore : www.ies.org.sg
6. Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea, (ABEEK), Korea:
– www.abeek.or.kr