Colleges preparing for accreditation under Revised NBA SAR 2025 must completely rethink their approach. This isn’t just a minor update—it’s a major shift in how institutions will be evaluated.
This part of the series will help you understand:
✔ The key differences between SAR 2015 and SAR 2025
✔ What’s new, what’s removed, and what’s changed
✔ How NBA’s evaluation criteria have been restructured
Contents in this Article
Back to The Definitive 9-Part Series on Revised NBA SAR 2025 for Tier-I Engineering Colleges – Click here to access the full guide and explore all sections.
Understanding these changes is critical for colleges planning to apply for accreditation in the coming years.
Broad Overview of Changes in Revised SAR 2025 for Tier-I Institutes
Aspect | SAR 2015 (Old Format) | SAR 2025 (New Format) |
Evaluation Focus | Documentation-heavy | Practical, evidence-based evaluation |
Program Outcomes (POs) | Fixed & outdated | Revised, globally benchmarked |
Knowledge & Attitude Profiles (WK) | Not defined | 9 profiles introduced |
Outcome-Based Education (OBE) | Basic implementation | Strict implementation & monitoring |
CO-PO Mapping | Often theoretical | Must be data-backed |
Faculty Research | No strong focus | Industry-relevant research mandatory |
Industry Collaboration | MoU’s were enough | Must show measurable impact |
Employability Focus | Not a priority | Strong evaluation metric |
Sustainability & Ethics | Limited | Integrated across multiple criteria |
Interdisciplinary Learning | Encouraged | Mandatory for accreditation |
Faculty Requirements | SFR-based compliance | Ph.D. %, research output, and stability count |
The key message? NBA accreditation is no longer about compliance.
It is about transformation.
No Shortcuts. No Paper-Based Compliance. Only Real Excellence.
If you are looking for shortcuts, this guide is not for you.
Tier-I engineering institutions must embrace academic honesty, research culture, and real innovation.
NBA SAR 2025 is not just a checklist. It’s a roadmap to real excellence.
This is just the beginning.
Key Differences: SAR 2015 vs. Revised NBA SAR 2025 – What’s New for Tier-I?
The revised SAR 2025 for Tier-I engineering institutions brings significant structural and philosophical changes in the way NBA assesses accreditation.
The focus has shifted from process-based compliance to outcome-driven education. Here’s a broad overview of the major changes:
1. Stronger Emphasis on Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
Old SAR (2015) focused more on vision and mission alignment of programs.
New SAR (2025) redefines this as Outcome-Based Curriculum, ensuring that every course contributes directly to measurable student outcomes.
Institutions must now prove that the curriculum leads to practical skills, problem-solving ability, and industry readiness.
2. Teaching & Learning Process Now Fully Outcome-Driven
Previously, teaching methodologies were evaluated based on faculty experience and pedagogy.
Now, Outcome-Based Teaching Learning ensures that teaching effectiveness is measured by student learning attainment.
This change forces institutions to shift from traditional lectures to project-based learning, flipped classrooms, and real-world applications.
3. Assessment is No Longer Just a Formality
The Old SAR (2015) measured Course Outcomes (CO) and Program Outcomes (PO) mapping without strong accountability.
New SAR (2025) introduces Outcome-Based Assessment, where institutions must validate how effectively students meet POs through measurable attainment metrics.
The focus has shifted from pass rates and grades to skill acquisition, employability, and real-world competency.
4. Students’ Performance Gets Higher Weightage
The Students’ Performance criteria remain, but with higher expectations.
Now includes multiple parameters like graduation rate, placement quality, and higher education progression.
Institutions must showcase longitudinal student success data rather than just final-year results.
5. Faculty Information Split into Two Key Areas
Earlier, faculty details and contributions were merged under one category.
Now, they are separated into:
- Faculty Information – Evaluating faculty strength, qualifications, and retention.
- Faculty Contributions – Measuring research impact, patents, and industry engagement.
Institutions must ensure faculty not only teach but also contribute to research and industrial collaborations.
6. Facilities Must Directly Support Learning Outcomes
The Old SAR (2015) assessed infrastructure and technical support as a standalone factor.
New SAR (2025) ties Facilities and Technical Support directly to how they improve student learning outcomes and research activities.
Institutions must show how labs, smart classrooms, and library resources enhance learning engagement.
7. Continuous Improvement is Now Tied to Measurable Gains
Previously, continuous improvement was more about policy and documentation.
Now, institutions must show clear evidence of iterative enhancements in curriculum, faculty development, and student performance.
NBA now tracks year-on-year improvements to ensure real progress, not just documentation changes.
8. First-Year Academics Merged into Continuous Improvement
The First-Year Academics criterion in Old SAR (2015) has been absorbed into Continuous Improvement.
Now, institutions must focus on early interventions for students, bridge courses, and foundational learning strategies.
The expectation is to reduce dropouts and improve student retention.
9. Student Support & Governance Become One Unified Criteria
Student Support Systems and Governance & Financial Support were separate in Old SAR.
Now, they have been merged into a single criterion – Student Support & Governance.
The new framework ensures that institutions provide holistic student support, including:
- Career guidance & mentoring
- Entrepreneurship incubation
- Student wellness & mental health initiatives
- Strong institutional leadership & policy frameworks
A Must-Read for Every Faculty Member: "Outcome-Based Education – A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers"
Revised NBA SAR 2025 is a game-changer, and if your institution isn’t already deep into Outcome-Based Education (OBE), you’re already behind.
For years, institutions have struggled to understand how to design and implement an outcome-based curriculum, map COs to POs, and assess learning effectively.
That’s exactly why I wrote "Outcome-Based Education – A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers 2."
✅ Trusted by 1000+ campuses across India
✅ The most practical resource on OBE implementation
✅ Explains curriculum design, teaching, and assessment strategies in depth
✅ Now more relevant than ever with SAR 2025 reforms
If your institution has not yet purchased this book, I highly recommend doing so now.
This book will help you navigate the new SAR expectations and design a truly outcome-driven learning experience for students.
Don’t just chase accreditation—build real academic excellence.
Make sure your faculty members have the right tools to succeed.
What This Means for Institutions?
No more passive compliance – Institutions must now actively demonstrate learning outcomes.
Faculty must evolve – Teaching cannot be static; research & industry engagement are key evaluation factors.
Industry & Global Readiness are crucial – Graduates must be future-proofed for an AI-driven, global economy.
What’s Changed? A Criterion-Wise Comparison of SAR 2015 vs. SAR 2025 for Tier-I Institutions
Criterion 1: Outcome-Based Curriculum
What is the Change?
In Old SAR (2015), the first criterion focused on Vision, Mission, and Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) and carried a weightage of 50 marks.
In New SAR (2025):
This has been merged into Criterion 1.1 under Vision, Mission, and PEOs but with reduced weightage (35 Marks).
A new sub-criterion (1.2.4 - Strategies for Education Reforms) has been introduced with a weightage of 5 Marks.
The overall focus has shifted from merely defining the Vision and Mission to actively integrating Outcome-Based Curriculum.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
In the past, many institutions stated their vision and mission but failed to connect them to real educational outcomes. The new approach forces colleges to:
Show how their curriculum drives measurable student learning.
Align their teaching strategies with global education reforms.
Ensure their academic framework is dynamic and evolving, not just a document in accreditation files.
The NBA wants colleges to move beyond just stating ideals. Institutions must now demonstrate how their curriculum transforms students into skilled professionals.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
To comply with New SAR (2025), institutions must:
Maintain documented proof of how their curriculum aligns with Outcome-Based Education (OBE).
Track changes in curriculum design, especially in response to industry needs and technological advancements.
Establish a reform strategy (for Criterion 1.2.4) that shows how the institution is implementing education innovations like:
AI-driven learning models
Interdisciplinary projects
Sustainability-focused education
Provide minutes of Board of Studies (BoS) meetings showcasing curriculum revisions.
Maintain feedback reports from industry, alumni, and employers validating that the curriculum is relevant and outcome-driven.
Impact on Accreditation Compared to Old NBA Process?
Institutions that relied on generic Vision and Mission statements without proof of implementation will struggle.
Colleges must now prove that their curriculum evolves with changing industry trends.
No more static curriculum approvals—institutes must show continuous updates and structured reforms.
Institutions that actively reform their curriculum and have strong documentation will score higher.
NBA is now tracking real implementation, not just policy documents.
Criterion 2: Outcome-Based Teaching Learning
What is the Change?
In Old SAR (2015), Criterion 2 primarily focused on Teaching-Learning processes with an emphasis on faculty delivery and course attainment.
In New SAR (2025), this criterion is now fully Outcome-Based, with an emphasis on: Practical student engagement rather than traditional teaching methods.
Industry exposure, self-learning, and real-world problem-solving.
A major shift in weightage from Course Attainment (was 75 marks, now reduced to 25) to new assessment methods.
Key sub-criteria added or revised:
✔ Quality of Student Capstone Project (25 Marks) – Focus on the depth, innovation, and research contribution in final-year projects.
✔ Internship/Industrial Training (10 Marks) – More emphasis on data-driven evaluation rather than just participation.
✔ Seminar and Mini/Micro Projects (10 Marks) – Tracking student engagement in small-scale problem-solving exercises.
✔ Case Studies and Real-Life Examples (10 Marks) – Ensuring real-world application of theoretical knowledge
.✔ SWAYAM/NPTEL/MOOC/Self-Learning (10 Marks) – Recognizing students who take up online courses for continuous learning.
✔ Solving Complex Engineering Problems Incorporating Sustainability Goals (20 Marks) – Mandatory inclusion of sustainability and green engineering principles in student projects.
✔ Steps Taken for Enhancing Industry-Institute Partnerships (15 Marks) – Institutions must prove their real industry collaborations and their impact on students.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
The NBA realized a major gap in the previous accreditation model—students were being evaluated on theory-heavy, passive learning, while industries demanded hands-on, real-world experience.
The new model ensures that:
Final-year projects are not just copy-paste work but innovative, research-driven capstones.
Internships & industry exposure actually result in employable skills.
Mini-projects, case studies, and sustainability goals are actively incorporated into learning.
Students engage in self-learning rather than just classroom teaching.
Industry-institute partnerships are not just MoUs on paper but create a real impact.
This shift forces colleges to ensure that students are job-ready and capable of solving real engineering problems, rather than just passing exams.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
To align with New SAR (2025), institutions must:
Capstone Project Evaluation Reports – Institutions must track and document:
Problem statement originality.
Research and innovation components.
Industry mentorship and funding received for student projects.
Internship/Industrial Training Data – Maintain:
Industry certificates.
Student reports on outcomes.
Company feedback on interns.
Percentage of students placed through internships.
Mini/Micro Projects, Case Studies, and Real-Life Examples – Colleges must:
Maintain structured assignments and project reports.
Ensure faculty incorporate case studies into syllabi.
SWAYAM/NPTEL/MOOC Learning Data – Track:
Number of students completing online certifications.
Integration of self-learning courses into assessments.
Sustainability-Focused Engineering Projects – Maintain:
Evidence of sustainability-based project integration in coursework.
Impact analysis on environmental/social problems.
Industry-Institute Partnership Documentation – Show:
How collaborations lead to student skill development.
Live projects conducted with industrial partners.
Industry mentor engagement and project funding records.
Impact on Accreditation Compared to the Old NBA Process?
Institutions that only focus on classroom teaching and lack practical exposure will struggle.
Data-backed internship outcomes are now necessary for accreditation.
Course attainment marks have been reduced—colleges must adapt to new parameters.
More weightage to practical, research-based, and self-learning initiatives.
Institutes with strong industry collaborations will gain a competitive edge.
Colleges focusing on sustainability-driven engineering will be rewarded.
The NBA is making Outcome-Based Teaching-Learning a reality.
Classroom lectures alone won’t get your college accredited anymore.
Real-world learning, hands-on projects, and self-driven student engagement are now essential.
Criterion 3: Outcome-Based Assessment
What is the Change?
✔ In the old SAR, outcome-based assessment was primarily focused on attainment calculations and quality assurance in assessments.
✔ The new SAR shifts this focus towards real impact, ensuring that assessments are not just well-structured but also lead to meaningful student learning and success.
✔ The marks for attainment of Program Outcomes and Program Specific Outcomes have been significantly reduced from 75 to 25.
✔ This indicates that NBA now expects institutions to go beyond just mapping outcomes and focus more on how assessments contribute to measurable student growth.
✔ The marks for processes followed to ensure the quality of teaching and learning have been increased from 15 to 20.
✔ This suggests a stronger emphasis on institutional mechanisms that enhance learning effectiveness.
✔ The weightage for assessment processes, quality, and output has been raised from 15 to 30.
✔ This shift highlights the need for colleges to focus on output-driven assessment rather than just structuring the evaluation.
✔ Laboratory work and workshops now receive greater attention.
✔ The accreditation framework requires institutions to demonstrate how practical learning experiences directly contribute to student skill development.
✔ Apart from capstone projects, the overall evaluation of student projects has evolved to emphasize quality output.
✔ NBA now expects institutions to track how projects translate into tangible learning outcomes, including industry applications, patent filings, and research contributions.
✔ A major addition is the introduction of a new criterion, evidence of addressing sustainable development goals.
✔ This ensures that institutions embed sustainability, environmental awareness, and social responsibility into their engineering programs.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
NBA has recognized that many institutions were meeting accreditation requirements by focusing on documentation rather than actual student outcomes.
The earlier model allowed colleges to score high by simply aligning course objectives with program outcomes without demonstrating real-world learning impact.
The reduction in weightage for attainment calculations means NBA now expects institutions to move away from formula-driven assessments.
Instead, they must prove how their assessment framework leads to career readiness, higher-order thinking skills, and employability.
The increased marks for assessment process quality and output emphasize that assessment is not just about examinations.
Institutions must show that students are evaluated through diverse methods like research projects, case studies, hands-on lab work, and industry-driven assignments.
Laboratory work and workshops have been given more weightage because real engineering skills develop in practical environments.
Colleges must ensure that students apply theoretical knowledge to hands-on projects rather than merely writing lab reports.
The inclusion of sustainable development goals reflects the growing importance of ethical engineering.
NBA is now encouraging institutions to integrate sustainability principles into projects, problem-solving approaches, and research initiatives.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
Institutions must maintain detailed documentation of their assessment strategies.
This includes evaluation rubrics, faculty training on advanced assessment methods, and reports showcasing the effectiveness of assessments in improving student learning.
For quality of teaching and learning, colleges need to present evidence of faculty mentoring, peer reviews, assessment redesign workshops, and student feedback mechanisms.
Continuous improvement tracking will be essential to score well in this area.
Assessment process and output must be supported by data.
Colleges should maintain performance analytics of students, comparative performance trends across batches, and evidence of competency-based assessments replacing traditional rote learning evaluations.
For laboratory work and workshops, institutions should document hands-on experiments, interdisciplinary collaborations, and industry-relevant training.
Data must be maintained on student exposure to real-world problem-solving using lab-based learning.
In student projects, institutions should track the number of high-quality research projects, industry-sponsored initiatives, and innovation-driven outcomes.
Maintaining proof of patents, publications, and startup initiatives emerging from student projects will add significant value.
For sustainable development goals, institutions need to establish clear integration strategies.
They should track how student projects align with global sustainability challenges, maintain records of energy-efficient campus initiatives, and demonstrate how engineering solutions proposed by students contribute to long-term social impact.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Colleges that previously relied on theoretical attainment calculations without real assessment innovation will now struggle.
Institutions must move beyond standardized tests and focus on diverse evaluation techniques that assess practical problem-solving and conceptual application.
Labs and workshops must no longer be treated as supplementary activities. Institutions must now show that hands-on learning contributes to skill development and engineering competence.
With the addition of sustainability as an assessment metric, colleges will be required to demonstrate environmental responsibility in engineering education.
NBA is aligning itself with global accreditation bodies that expect engineers to work towards sustainable solutions.
Colleges that implement a well-structured assessment process, integrate real-world applications into student projects, and focus on sustainable development initiatives will be in a stronger position to secure long-term accreditation.
Criterion 4: Students’ Performance
What is the Change?
✔ In the old SAR, student performance was evaluated through multiple separate sub-criteria, including the success rate of students with backlogs.
✔ In the new SAR, this has been streamlined.
✔ The success rate of students with backlogs has now been merged into a single criterion, 4.2 - Success Rate of the Students in the Stipulated Period of the Program.
✔ This means NBA is no longer treating backlog students as a separate evaluation metric but instead focusing on overall program completion rates.
✔ A major shift is the introduction of Criteria 4.7.2 - Student’s Participation in Professional Events, which carries 10 marks.
✔ This acknowledges the importance of student engagement in conferences, technical competitions, and industry events.
✔ Another important addition is Criteria 4.7.4 - Student Publications, which has been introduced with 5 marks.
✔ This encourages undergraduate students to actively participate in research, technical paper writing, and publishing in reputed journals or conferences.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
The previous model focused heavily on student pass rates but did not account for the quality of student engagement beyond academics.
NBA has recognized that merely graduating students is not enough. Engineering graduates must also be professionally active and research-oriented.
By merging backlog student success into the overall completion rate, NBA ensures that institutions focus on reducing dropout rates and improving overall graduation efficiency rather than managing backlog recovery separately.
The introduction of professional event participation encourages institutions to expose students to real-world engineering challenges beyond the classroom.
In an era of hackathons, tech fests, and industry networking, this change pushes colleges to promote experiential learning opportunities.
The inclusion of student publications as a formal evaluation metric signifies a stronger push towards undergraduate research.
NBA wants institutions to develop a research culture even at the undergraduate level, rather than limiting it to postgraduate programs.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
For success rate tracking, institutions must now maintain:
Year-wise graduation rate data, including first-attempt pass percentages.
Evidence of interventions to improve completion rates, such as remedial programs and mentoring initiatives.
Alumni tracking records, showing career outcomes of graduating students.
For student participation in professional events, institutions should maintain:
Records of students participating in external technical conferences, hackathons, and industry summits.
Certificates, event brochures, and photos documenting participation.
Impact assessment reports on how participation enhances student learning and career prospects.
For student publications, colleges need to track:
Number of papers published by undergraduate students in indexed journals and conferences.
Institution-supported research initiatives and faculty mentorship programs that help students engage in technical writing.
Collaborations with industry and research bodies to promote student-led innovation.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Institutions that previously focused only on pass percentages without actively monitoring student engagement in professional events will find it harder to score high in this criterion.
Colleges must now prove that their students are not just completing courses but also actively contributing to professional and research communities.
The inclusion of student publications means institutions must embed research opportunities in the undergraduate curriculum.
This will push colleges to improve their technical writing training and industry collaboration efforts.
Institutions that lack structured processes for tracking graduate success and student engagement will need to build stronger data management systems to stay competitive in accreditation.
Engineering is not just about getting a degree. NBA now expects colleges to create industry-ready professionals and research-driven graduates.
Colleges must move beyond academic performance tracking and start mentoring students for professional success.
Criterion 5: Faculty Information
What is the Change?
✔In the old SAR, Faculty Information and Contributions were combined under a single criterion with 200 marks.
The revised SAR splits this into two separate categories:
Criterion 5: Faculty Information
Criterion 6: Faculty Contributions
✔ With this split, the total marks for faculty-related evaluation have been increased from 200 to 220.
✔ This signals NBA’s growing emphasis on faculty quality, stability, and their role in shaping student learning outcomes.
✔ A major change is in faculty retention, where a new formula has been introduced.
Under this:
Faculty with less than 1 year of experience at the institution will not earn any marks.
Faculty with more than 4 years of service will receive the highest weightage.
This criterion now carries 10 marks.
✔ The student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) has become even more important, with its marks increased from 20 to 30.
✔ Institutions must now ensure that faculty strength remains consistent and sufficient to meet student needs.
✔ The weightage for faculty qualifications has increased from 20 to 25 marks.
✔ This means NBA is rewarding institutions that hire highly qualified faculty, especially PhDs.
✔ Similarly, marks for faculty cadre proportion have been increased from 20 to 25 marks.
✔ This reinforces the importance of maintaining the right balance of Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors in departments.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
NBA has observed that many institutions have relied on short-term, contractual faculty hiring to meet accreditation requirements.
This resulted in high faculty turnover, which negatively impacted teaching quality, research output, and student mentorship.
The new faculty retention formula ensures that institutions prioritize long-term hiring rather than appointing faculty just before an accreditation visit.
Colleges must now demonstrate faculty stability as a key measure of quality.
By increasing marks for SFR, qualifications, and cadre proportion, NBA is ensuring that institutions:
Maintain a stable faculty base rather than relying on adjunct appointments.
Hire highly qualified educators instead of filling positions with minimum eligibility faculty.
Retain a structured academic hierarchy where senior faculty play a leadership and mentoring role.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
For faculty retention tracking, institutions must maintain:
HR records proving faculty tenure at the institution.
Employment contracts and payroll records to establish faculty continuity.
Attrition reports detailing faculty joining and exit trends over multiple years.
For student-faculty ratio evaluation:
Institutions must ensure their faculty strength is consistently aligned with student enrolment.
Regular faculty must be prioritized over adjunct or visiting faculty to meet ratio compliance.
For faculty qualification tracking:
Maintain updated faculty databases showing the number of PhDs, MTechs, and other qualifications.
Evidence of faculty pursuing higher qualifications through doctoral research programs should also be documented.
For faculty cadre proportion compliance:
Colleges must ensure the correct mix of Professors, Associate Professors, and Assistant Professors.
Maintain clear organization charts and department-wise distribution of faculty.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Institutions that depended on last-minute faculty hiring for accreditation compliance will struggle under the new framework.
The faculty retention criterion eliminates temporary recruitment tactics. Colleges must now build long-term academic teams to maintain high scores in accreditation.
With an increased focus on faculty qualifications and cadre balance, institutions must actively recruit and retain PhD holders to remain competitive.
The Student-Faculty Ratio carries higher weightage, meaning colleges must be careful about maintaining an optimal faculty size relative to student strength.
The NBA is now rewarding stability, long-term faculty retention, and academic excellence.
Hiring faculty just for accreditation visits will no longer work. Institutions must commit to long-term faculty development and prioritize quality hiring over short-term fixes.
Criterion 6: Faculty Contribution
What is the Change?
✔ Faculty contributions were previously assessed under Criterion 5 in the old SAR but have now been separated into a dedicated Criterion 6 in the new SAR.
✔ This highlights the growing emphasis on faculty engagement beyond teaching.
Several new sub-criteria have been introduced, while some existing categories have undergone mark redistribution to ensure a more balanced evaluation of faculty contributions.
New additions:
Memberships in Professional Societies at National/International Levels (5 Marks) now encourage faculty to actively participate in engineering communities.
Faculty Development Programs (FDP) and Short-Term Training Programs (STTP) (30 Marks) have been given increased importance, including a new criterion for FDP/STTP organized by the department.
Faculty Support in Student Innovative Projects (10 Marks) now measures faculty mentoring of student-driven innovations.
Faculty Internships, Training, and Industry Collaboration (10 Marks) emphasize faculty exposure to industry trends and upskilling.
Ph.D. Student Details (5 Marks) have been introduced to track faculty engagement in doctoral research supervision.
Institutional Seed Money or Internal Research Grants (5 Marks) encourage institutions to financially support faculty research initiatives.
Marks reductions in some areas:
Academic Research reduced from 20 Marks to 10 Marks.
Development Activities reduced from 15 Marks to 10 Marks.
Sponsored Research reduced from 20 Marks to 15 Marks.
Consultancy Work reduced from 20 Marks to 15 Marks.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
NBA has observed that faculty engagement in research, industry, and student mentorship directly correlates with the quality of graduates produced.
However, many institutions have been relying solely on journal publications and research papers to showcase faculty contributions.
The new SAR ensures that:
Faculty engagement in professional societies is recognized, promoting networking and collaborative research.
More weightage is given to faculty training and continuous learning through FDP/STTPs.
Faculty are actively involved in mentoring student projects and innovation-driven research.
Real industry exposure for faculty is encouraged, ensuring they stay updated with current trends.
Institutions financially invest in faculty research, fostering an ecosystem of continuous innovation.
The redistribution of marks ensures that faculty efforts are evaluated holistically, rather than giving excessive weightage to a single aspect like publications.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
For professional society memberships, colleges must maintain:
Membership certificates and proof of active participation.
Records of faculty involvement in conferences, leadership roles, or technical committees.
For FDP/STTP participation and organization, institutions should maintain:
Certificates of participation and completion for each faculty member.
Reports and event records of training programs organized by the department.
Details of internal faculty development initiatives.
For faculty mentoring in student innovation projects, data tracking should include:
List of student projects guided by faculty, with innovation outcomes.
Patents, prototype development, and industry validation records.
Documentation of student participation in innovation challenges and competitions.
For faculty internships and industry collaborations, institutions must maintain:
Details of faculty undergoing industrial training or collaboration.
MoUs with companies where faculty have been placed for exposure.
Impact reports on how faculty industry training has influenced curriculum improvements.
For research funding and internal grants, colleges must track:
Seed money provided to faculty members for research projects.
Reports on funded faculty research and its outcomes.
Institutional policies on internal research grants.
For Ph.D. student details, institutions must maintain:
Data on the number of Ph.D. students supervised by faculty members.
Thesis progress tracking and publications emerging from doctoral research.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Colleges that previously focused only on faculty publications and research papers will now need to diversify faculty engagement.
Institutions must ensure that faculty are:
Actively involved in student mentorship, industry training, and professional networking.
Pursuing continuous learning through structured FDP/STTP participation.
Encouraged to take part in industry collaborations to enhance teaching methodologies.
Receiving internal research funding to support innovative projects.
The redistribution of marks reduces over-reliance on research publications as the primary metric for faculty contributions.
Instead, NBA now rewards practical engagement with students, industry, and institutional growth.
Faculty excellence is no longer measured by papers alone.
NBA now expects faculty to mentor, train, collaborate, and innovate beyond their traditional roles.
Colleges must create an ecosystem where faculty continuously develop their skills, engage with industries, and guide students in real-world applications.
Criterion 7: Facilities and Technical Support
What is the Change?
✔In the old SAR, the Facilities and Technical Support criterion primarily focused on the availability and maintenance of infrastructure.
✔The new SAR shifts the focus towards quality, safety, and research-driven enhancements.
Several new elements have been introduced:
Additional Facilities for Improving the Quality of Learning Experience in Laboratories (20 Marks) ensures that institutions are actively upgrading lab infrastructure beyond the mandatory AICTE norms.
Safety Measures in Laboratories (10 Marks) is a new addition that mandates proper protocols, safety training, and compliance with industry safety standards.
Project Laboratory/Research Laboratory/Centre of Excellence (7.5) now requires institutions to align their research labs with the AICTE and UGC-defined parameters for Centers of Excellence rather than just setting up generic project labs.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
NBA recognized that many institutions were meeting only the minimum infrastructure requirements without making real improvements in lab learning experiences.
The new criteria ensure that:
Laboratories are continuously upgraded with modern equipment and digital learning resources.
Lab safety is no longer an afterthought but an essential part of engineering education.
Research labs contribute meaningfully to industry collaborations, funded projects, and student innovation.
This shift moves institutions from infrastructure compliance to infrastructure excellence.
NBA is now rewarding continuous improvements in labs and research ecosystems rather than just setting up equipment to fulfill accreditation norms.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
For additional facilities in laboratories, colleges should maintain:
Upgradation records showing new instruments, software, and emerging technologies introduced in labs.
Proof of impact – such as improved lab performance, student feedback, and lab-based project outputs.
Integration of virtual labs, simulation tools, and industry-aligned software.
For safety measures in laboratories, institutions must document:
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for lab safety.
Availability of fire extinguishers, first-aid kits, and emergency exits.
Training records of students and staff on lab safety protocols.
Audit reports on compliance with safety regulations.
For Project Laboratory/Research Laboratory/Centre of Excellence, institutions must provide:
Proof of AICTE/UGC compliance for their Centres of Excellence.
Evidence of funded research projects, patents, or consultancy work.
Industry collaborations resulting in joint research, internships, or technology transfer.
Details of students actively using research labs for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Colleges that only focus on fulfilling minimum lab requirements will now struggle.
NBA now expects:
Continuous investment in lab infrastructure upgrades to enhance student learning.
Strict safety compliance in all laboratory environments.
Stronger alignment of research labs with industry and academic excellence.
Institutions that previously maintained basic project labs with minimal research activities must now prove that these labs contribute to knowledge creation, innovation, and external collaborations.
NBA no longer views labs as just rooms with equipment.
They are now seen as centers of learning, innovation, and industry collaboration.
Colleges must focus on quality upgrades, research-driven lab environments, and strong safety policies to excel in accreditation.
Criterion 8: Continuous Improvement
What is the Change?
Continuous Improvement has always been a critical part of NBA accreditation, but SAR 2025 shifts the focus from broad, institutional-level tracking to targeted, measurable improvements.
Several key changes have been made:
Marks for Actions Taken Based on Evaluation of COs, POs, and PSOs have been increased from 30 to 40.
This indicates a stronger emphasis on how institutions act upon assessment results rather than just documenting them.
A new criterion, Improvement in Faculty Qualification/Contribution, has been introduced with 15 marks.
This ensures that colleges actively invest in faculty upskilling and development.
Another new criterion, Improvement in Academic Performance, has been added with 10 marks.
This rewards institutions for showing measurable academic progress in student learning outcomes.
The criteria for Improvement in Placement, Higher Studies, and Entrepreneurship (10 marks) has been removed.
This suggests that NBA is now evaluating these aspects under different sections rather than treating them as continuous improvement indicators.
The criteria for Improvement in the Quality of Students Admitted to the Program (20 marks) has been removed.
This indicates that NBA now expects institutions to focus on internal development rather than external student intake quality.
First-Year Academics, a standalone criterion in the old SAR, has been fully scrapped. Some of its elements have been retained as sub-criteria under different sections.
This marks a major shift in how NBA assesses institutional progress.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
NBA recognized that many institutions were treating continuous improvement as a formality, often showing repetitive documentation without genuine enhancements.
The new SAR makes the following changes necessary:
Continuous Improvement must now be backed by evidence. Institutions must show how they evaluate COs, POs, and PSOs and implement real changes in curriculum and teaching methods.
Faculty development is now a measurable factor. Colleges cannot just recruit qualified faculty; they must actively support them in improving research contributions, attending FDPs, and engaging in academic growth.
Academic performance tracking has been formalized. Rather than relying only on placements or higher studies data, institutions must now show how students perform academically over time.
First-Year Academics has been eliminated as a standalone criterion. This signals a shift in NBA’s approach, where first-year learning quality is now considered an integral part of curriculum design and assessment rather than a separate metric.
The removal of placement and student admission quality suggests that NBA is moving away from external factors and focusing more on how institutions nurture student growth once they are enrolled.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
To score well in CO, PO, and PSO evaluation-based improvements, colleges need to:
Maintain detailed assessment reports tracking student attainment levels over multiple academic years.
Show structured action plans for improving curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment tools.
Provide evidence of faculty-student discussions and feedback loops driving improvements.
For faculty qualification and contribution improvements, institutions should track:
Percentage of faculty pursuing PhDs or higher education qualifications.
Faculty participation in research, FDPs, and certifications.
Growth in faculty publications, patents, and research projects over time.
For academic performance improvement tracking, institutions must:
Compare student performance trends over different cohorts.
Demonstrate interventions like remedial coaching, mentoring programs, and skill-based courses that have improved student results.
Maintain evidence of innovative teaching practices that have contributed to better learning outcomes.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Institutions that previously showed only surface-level continuous improvement documentation will struggle.
NBA now demands measurable, data-backed improvements in curriculum, faculty, and student learning outcomes.
The removal of placement and student admission quality from continuous improvement criteria means colleges can no longer rely on external factors like high JEE rank students or strong placement records to score well.
They must prove that students actually improve during their academic journey.
With faculty qualifications now being a part of continuous improvement, institutions will have to actively support faculty upskilling, research engagement, and academic contributions.
NBA now expects real progress, not just well-documented policies.
Continuous improvement is no longer about repeating the same self-assessment reports. Institutions must prove that they are constantly evolving, improving faculty expertise, and ensuring student growth.
Colleges that focus on data-driven improvements, faculty development, and academic progress tracking will excel in this criterion.
Criterion 9: Student Support and Governance
What is the Change?
✔ In the new SAR, Student Support System and Governance have been merged into a single criterion (Criteria 9) by combining elements from Criteria 10 of the Old SAR.
✔ This reflects a shift in focus towards holistic student support, institutional accountability, and governance efficiency.
Several major structural changes have been made:
Criteria 10.1.1, which required stating the Vision and Mission of the Institute (5 Marks), has been removed.
NBA now assumes that institutions already define and publicize their vision and mission, making this criterion redundant.
Marks for Institutional Strategic Plan and its Effective Implementation and Monitoring have been reduced from 25 to 10. This suggests NBA now expects institutions to focus more on execution and tangible outcomes rather than just having a strategic plan on paper.
Library and Internet (20 Marks) has been completely removed. NBA now considers library and internet access as basic infrastructure requirements under AICTE regulations rather than an accreditation criterion.
Marks for Feedback Analysis have been reduced from 15 to 10. Instead,
NBA has introduced two new sub-criteria:
Quality of Learning Resources (5 Marks) to assess the availability of hard and soft learning materials.
E-Governance (5 Marks) to evaluate the digital transformation of administrative and academic processes.
Criteria 10.1.4 Decentralization in Working and Grievance Redressal Mechanism (5 Marks) has been removed.
Institutions are now expected to comply with mandatory AICTE grievance redressal norms rather than having a separate evaluation criterion.
Criteria 10.1.5 Delegation of Financial Powers (5 Marks) has been removed.
This suggests that NBA now assumes financial delegation should be an internal governance matter, not an accreditation parameter.
New elements added to reflect modern governance trends:
Initiatives and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (10 Marks) has been introduced. This ensures institutions align with global sustainability objectives and social responsibility.
Innovative Educational Initiatives and Implementation (5 Marks) has been added. Colleges must now showcase academic reforms, tech-driven learning methods, and innovative teaching strategies.
Faculty Performance Appraisal and Development System (FPADS) (10 Marks) has been shifted from Old SAR Criteria 5. This strengthens the emphasis on faculty career growth and structured evaluation processes.
Outreach Activities (5 Marks) has been newly added. Institutions will now be evaluated based on community engagement, student-driven social initiatives, and CSR efforts.
Why This Change Was Brought In?
✔ NBA has recognized that governance and student support should be impact-driven rather than policy-driven.
✔ In the past, institutions often submitted governance-related documentation without showing actual benefits to students.
The new framework ensures that:
Institutions move beyond documenting their strategic plans and actually demonstrate effective execution.
Sustainability and social responsibility become key evaluation factors. Institutions must now take steps to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Digital transformation is formally recognized.
The introduction of E-Governance ensures colleges adopt ERP systems, online student services, and paperless administration.
Learning resources are evaluated for quality, not just availability. Previously, libraries were assessed based on size and internet connectivity.
Now, NBA focuses on digital learning, open educational resources, and blended learning models.
Colleges must showcase innovation.
The addition of the Innovative Educational Initiatives criterion rewards institutions that introduce new teaching methodologies, AI-driven education, and interdisciplinary approaches.
What Process and Data Colleges Need to Maintain?
For institutional strategic planning and monitoring, institutions should:
Maintain progress reports on key strategic initiatives.
Provide evidence of academic and administrative improvements over time.
Document impact assessments of strategic goals.
For learning resources, institutions must:
Maintain catalogs of hardcopy books, digital resources, and e-learning platforms.
Provide student feedback reports on resource effectiveness.
Show initiatives to enhance learning accessibility through technology.
For E-Governance, institutions should document:
Adoption of ERP systems for academic and administrative processes.
Use of digital tools for attendance, assessments, student feedback, and governance.
Evidence of automation in financial and student management systems.
For SDG initiatives, colleges must track:
Sustainable campus policies (solar panels, waste management, water conservation).
SDG-focused student projects (green engineering, community development, social impact research).
Institutional collaborations with NGOs, government bodies, or global sustainability programs.
For faculty performance appraisal and development, institutions should:
Maintain faculty assessment reports based on research, teaching performance, and training participation.
Provide documentation of salary revisions, promotions, and faculty retention strategies.
Demonstrate faculty upskilling initiatives such as FDPs, research grants, and industry training.
For outreach activities, colleges should:
Track student participation in community service, rural outreach, and social initiatives.
Provide documentation of collaborations with non-profits and government bodies.
Show evidence of faculty and student contributions to societal impact projects.
Impact in Accreditation Policy Compared to Old NBA Process
Institutions that previously focused only on documentation without execution will struggle.
NBA now expects governance to be transparent, strategic, and actively benefiting students.
The removal of library assessment and student intake quality suggests NBA no longer evaluates colleges based on pre-existing advantages like strong admissions or large libraries.
Instead, it assesses how institutions utilize their resources effectively.
Sustainability and community engagement are now officially part of accreditation. Colleges ignoring environmental and social responsibilities will fall behind.
Digital transformation is no longer optional. Institutions must prove that they are adopting E-Governance solutions to modernize administration and learning.
Governance is no longer about creating policies—it’s about implementation and impact.
Colleges must demonstrate real execution, student-centric reforms, and institutional transparency to meet the new NBA expectations.
Institutions that embrace sustainability, digital transformation, and academic innovation will thrive under this new framework.
Back to The Definitive 9-Part Series on Revised NBA SAR 2025 for Tier-I Engineering Colleges – Click here to access the full guide and explore all sections.
Thanks for diving into this article! If it sparked some ideas or gave you value, why not take the next step?
Know More about me: Click here
Know more about my work: Click here
Subscribe to my website for more thought-provoking content and resources: www.deepeshdivakaran.com/subscribe
Buy my highly acclaimed book on Outcome Based Education, now used by 1000+ Institutes: Buy It Here at Special Author Price
Follow my NEP 2020 newsletter for exclusive insights into education reform: Subscribe Here
Download my free NEP 2020 Guides for in-depth insights into education policy: Download Now
Want to have a conversation or ask a question? You can call me or WhatsApp me directly at +91 8086015111.
Prefer email? Drop me a line at mail@deepeshdivakaran.com.
Your thoughts and feedback are always appreciated. Let's shape the future of education together!
Stay Inspired, Stay In
Comentários