Part 3: Newly Added Requirements in NBA SAR 2025 – What Tier 2 Colleges Must Know
- Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran
- Apr 27
- 23 min read
Updated: Apr 29
In the previous two parts of this series, we laid a strong foundation for colleges navigating the new NBA SAR 2025 format:
In Part 1, we decoded the Pre-Qualifier changes, explaining eligibility recalculations, student-faculty ratio adjustments, and allied department integrations.
In Part 2, we dived into the criterion-by-criterion comparison between NBA SAR 2015 and NBA SAR 2025, highlighting marks restructuring and strategic shifts in evaluation weightage.
If you missed Part 1 or Part 2, you can find them here:
Contents
What We Cover in This Part
Part 3 focuses exclusively on the newly added criteria, sub-criteria, and focus areas introduced in NBA SAR 2025 — requirements that did not exist in the 2015 SAR structure.
We will systematically explain:
What the new criterion/sub-criterion is all about
Why it was added (context behind NBA's new expectations)
How colleges should prepare their systems, processes, and documentation
Who the stakeholders are (faculty, students, employers, industry partners, community) for each criterion
How NBA assessors will interpret and evaluate this during visits
A document evidence checklist for each newly introduced parameter
How to Read This Part
For each newly introduced requirement, the structure will be:
What is This Criterion About?
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges
Stakeholder Involvement Needed
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared
Each new item will be treated clearly and practically, so that any Tier 2 college team member reading this can immediately translate theory into action.
Criterion 1: Outcome-Based Curriculum (120 Marks)
1.2.1 Program Curriculum Structure (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This sub-criterion requires institutions to explicitly present the overall structure of the program curriculum — semester-wise course distribution, core/elective categorization, credit allocations, and program duration.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure curriculum design is transparent, credit-based, and aligned with national guidelines (like AICTE Model Curriculum and NEP 2020). It brings more visibility into whether the curriculum structure enables outcome attainment.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Clearly map each semester’s course load.
Categorize courses into Core, Electives, Open Electives, MOOCs, etc.
Show total credits at program level matching AICTE/University norms.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Department Curriculum Committee
Board of Studies (BoS) members
Academic Council approval
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will verify logical flow and balance of credits across semesters.
Will check if structure supports Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and multidisciplinary exposure.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Semester-wise Curriculum Table (Credits, Type of Courses)
BoS and Academic Council Approval Minutes
Comparison Table with AICTE Model Curriculum
1.2.2 Components of Program Curriculum (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This sub-criterion focuses on listing the key components making up the curriculum — such as foundational courses, program core, interdisciplinary electives, internships, projects, and value-added courses.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
NBA wants to ensure that a curriculum is not just collection of technical subjects, but offers holistic learning pathways, aligned with industry demands and lifelong learning goals.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Identify and tag each course by component (Core/Interdisciplinary/Internship/Research Project).
Structure curriculum to include open electives, humanities, entrepreneurship, internships, and capstone projects.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Dean/Head of Academics
Industry Experts for reviewing electives
Students for feedback on open elective options
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will verify the diversity of learning opportunities offered.
They will check if there is a balanced exposure to technical, managerial, and societal contexts.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Component-Wise Curriculum Table
Mapping of Courses to Program Learning Components
Internal Memos/Notes on Curriculum Design Philosophy
1.3.1 POs and PSOs (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
Institutes are expected to clearly define the Program Outcomes (POs) and Program Specific Outcomes (PSOs) that the curriculum aims to achieve — based on NBA’s Graduate Attributes (for POs) and program specialization needs (for PSOs).
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To shift focus from broad departmental goals to concrete, measurable graduate capabilities — enabling effective outcome-based assessment.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Define standard 12 NBA POs precisely (critical thinking, communication, ethics, etc.).
Formulate 2–4 PSOs specific to the department/program specialization.
Ensure POs and PSOs are published, disseminated, and mapped.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty Mapping Committee
Industry/Academic Experts for PSO framing
Students for awareness and feedback
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Check whether POs/PSOs are program-relevant and achievable.
Verify if POs and PSOs are reflected in curriculum, COs, and project outcomes.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
List of POs and PSOs Published (Handbooks, Website)
Mapping Matrix (Courses to POs and PSOs)
Awareness Campaign Reports (Orientation Programs, Displays)
Criterion 2: Outcome-Based Teaching Learning (120 Marks)
2.4. Seminar and Mini/Micro Projects (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates whether students are engaged in department-level seminars and small-scale project activities that build foundational research, presentation, and hands-on skills.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To encourage continuous and iterative learning instead of one final project, and to build soft skills (like communication and research orientation) early in the program.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Schedule micro-projects in early semesters tied to subject-specific skills.
Organize technical seminars, encourage paper presentation & poster design.
Maintain systematic logs for seminar topics and evaluation rubrics.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Subject faculty mentors
Internal evaluators and industry co-panellists (optional)
Students presenting to peers
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will check how seminars/projects are mapped to COs/ POs.
They’ll want to see student participation across batches, not isolated activities.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
List of mini/micro projects per course/year
Seminar schedules, rubrics, and sample evaluation sheets
Photos, certificates, attendance, and feedback forms
2.5. Case Studies and Real-Life Examples (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
It assesses the integration of real-world problem scenarios and case studies into classroom teaching to promote application-based learning.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure teaching is not theoretical but grounded in practical engineering, industry problems, and community relevance.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Identify case studies aligned with each course’s outcomes.
Train faculty in designing and delivering case-based pedagogy.
Link cases to ongoing societal, technological, or business challenges.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty for course planning
Alumni or industry mentors for sourcing real problems
Students as active participants in problem-solving
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors look for actual case execution, not mention in syllabus alone.
They’ll ask to see how cases influenced student understanding or outcomes.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Course files with embedded case studies
Sample student submissions and reflections
Mapping case studies to COs/POs
Faculty FDP participation in case-based learning (optional)
2.6. SWAYAM/NPTEL/MOOC/Self Learning (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This encourages students and faculty to take up certified MOOCs or structured online learning as part of academic enrichment and credit-based learning.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To align with the NEP 2020 vision of flexible, multi-disciplinary, self-paced learning, and to bring world-class courses into Indian classrooms.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Promote awareness and registration for SWAYAM/NPTEL courses.
Allow MOOC credit transfer where university regulations permit.
Maintain a portal/log for tracking student and faculty MOOC completions.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty mentors
SWAYAM local chapter coordinators
Students choosing relevant electives
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
They will check MOOC completion certificates and integration into curriculum.
Emphasis will be on percentage of students and faculty participating, not just policy.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
SWAYAM/NPTEL certificates with course details
Student-wise completion tracking sheet
List of courses mapped to department specialization
Any university order on MOOC credit acceptance
2.7. Solving Complex Engineering Problems Incorporating Sustainability Goals (20 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates how well students are engaged in solving interdisciplinary, real-world engineering problems tied to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To drive socially responsible engineering, systems thinking, and ensure students are prepared for 21st-century global challenges like energy, water, equity, and digital ethics.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Assign final-year projects or electives with SDG themes.
Link COs and POs to SDGs explicitly.
Conduct ideation challenges and hackathons on sustainability.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty project guides
NGOs/Industry/Community partners for real-world problems
Students proposing solutions
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will verify if problems solved have depth, complexity, and societal value.
SDG alignment should not be superficial — documentation must justify the linkage.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Final year project list with SDG tags
Mapping sheet (Problem → SDG → PO/CO)
Student presentations, demos, or models
MOUs with NGOs/CSR/Incubators (if applicable)
2.8. Steps Taken for Enhancing Industry Institute Partnerships (15 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This captures structured efforts by the department to establish collaborative relationships with industry, beyond internships — like co-teaching, problem statements, FDPs, or labs.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure the institute is not operating in isolation and is actively leveraging industry inputs for teaching, learning, and innovation.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Formalize partnerships via MoUs
Invite industry for capstone mentoring, guest lectures, or FDPs
Conduct collaborative events: industry weeks, bootcamps, etc.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Placement cell, IIC (Institution’s Innovation Council)
HODs and Department Coordinators
Industry mentors or alumni entrepreneurs
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will verify if partnerships have real deliverables, not just MoUs.
They may ask for proof of engagement in classrooms, projects, or co-designed activities.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
MoUs and activity logs
Event photos, certificates, outcome reports
Guest lecture schedules and student feedback
Co-developed project topics or patents (if any)
Criterion 3: Outcome-Based Assessment (120 Marks)
3.2. Evaluation of Semester End Exam (SEE) Question Paper (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates whether semester-end exam questions are well-structured, balanced in cognitive levels (Bloom’s taxonomy), and mapped to Course Outcomes (COs).
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure SEE papers are not set randomly but are deliberately designed to assess specific COs and student thinking levels.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
All SEE papers must show CO mapping per question.
Maintain a blueprint or question mapping matrix for each course.
Review cognitive level coverage (K1–K6) for balance.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Course faculty
Question Paper Review Committee
Academic Audit Team
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will pick random SEE papers and verify question-to-CO tagging.
They’ll evaluate if paper design aligns with course objectives.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
SEE question paper samples with CO tags
Question paper blueprint/sample matrix
Instructions issued to faculty for question paper setting
3.3. Evaluation of Laboratory Work and Workshop (Continuous and SEE) (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates how lab work and workshop sessions are assessed — both continuously (during sessions) and in final evaluations.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To promote structured, continuous evaluation of hands-on learning rather than treating labs as check-box exercises.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Maintain rubrics for each lab experiment.
Ensure lab manuals include CO mapping.
Implement a process for mid/lab end assessments (e.g., viva, demonstrations).
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Lab instructors/technicians
Internal examiners
Students for execution and record maintenance
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
They’ll check how labs are evaluated practically and if records are maintained properly.
Look for continuous engagement vs. one-time marking.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Lab manuals with CO mapping
Lab performance rubrics
Internal lab test records and sample mark sheets
Attendance and logbooks
3.4. Evaluation of Industrial Training/Internship (Continuous and SEE) (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This looks at how internships or industrial training undergone by students are assessed continuously and summatively (presentation, report, viva).
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure internships result in measurable outcomes, not just certificates — and promote structured supervision.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Develop an internal internship monitoring and evaluation process.
Require students to maintain a learning diary/logbook.
Conduct post-internship evaluations (report/presentation/viva).
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Internship coordinator
Industry supervisor (if possible)
Internal faculty evaluators
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors want to see learning outcomes from internship, not just letters.
Evaluation mechanism must be clear, structured, and rubric-based.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Internship logbook formats and samples
Evaluation rubrics
Reports and viva records
Feedback from industry (if applicable)
3.5. Evaluation of Projects (20 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This assesses how final year projects are evaluated — in terms of problem identification, solution design, innovation, societal relevance, and link to COs/POs.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To formalize capstone project evaluation as a structured academic effort — not just judged by report or demo.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Define multi-dimensional rubrics (problem clarity, methodology, outcome, report, presentation).
Maintain CO-PO mapping per project.
Introduce interim evaluation checkpoints.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty guides
Internal/external evaluators
Students with team roles clearly defined
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors want to see project-to-PO alignment, real innovation, and team effort.
Evaluator remarks and feedback must be visible.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Final year project list with title and domain
Evaluation rubrics and score sheets
CO/PO mapping for each project
Photos, presentation records, and internal review reports
3.6. Evidence of Addressing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
It checks if your curriculum or projects actively integrate and contribute to SDGs — such as clean energy, gender equality, digital inclusion, etc.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To align technical education with global sustainability imperatives and foster socially aware engineers.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Map existing projects, case studies, or electives to specific SDGs.
Introduce SDG awareness in induction/orientation.
Organize sustainability-themed events or community projects.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty project evaluators
NSS/NCC/Extension coordinators
NGOs or industry CSR partners
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will verify authentic engagement, not token mentions.
Expect direct questions about impact and relevance to specific SDG goals.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Mapping sheet (Project/Event → SDG)
Documentation of student involvement
Reports, posters, presentations, outcomes
SDG-linked assessment rubrics (if any)
Criterion 4: Students’ Performance (120 Marks)
4.7.4. Student Publications (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates the extent to which students are actively involved in publishing their research work in recognized journals, conferences, symposiums, technical magazines, or department-level publications.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To cultivate a research mindset among undergraduate and postgraduate students early in their academic life, aligning with the vision of building innovation-driven campuses under NEP 2020.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Encourage students to undertake research-based mini-projects and final year projects.
Organize workshops on technical writing, research methodology, and publication ethics.
Provide funding and mentoring support for paper submissions to reputed conferences/journals.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Project guides and research mentors
Department Research Committee
Library support for journal access and formatting workshops
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will verify quality, not just quantity — preference to peer-reviewed, reputed publications over predatory outlets.
They will expect evidence that students are not just co-authors in faculty papers but are primary contributors in their own right.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
List of student publications with title, conference/journal name, and authorship details
Copies of papers, conference certificates, journals
Proof of student research seminars organized internally
Institutional policy on promoting student research and publications
Criterion 5: Faculty Information (100 Marks)
No Newly Added Requirements — colleges just need to handle Faculty Qualification, Faculty Cadre Proportion, and Faculty Retention smartly under the restructured marks.
Criterion 6: Faculty Contributions (120 Marks)
6.1.1 Memberships in Professional Societies at National/International Levels (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates how many faculty members are actively registered in professional bodies like IEEE, ASME, ISTE, ACM, SAE, and others.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To promote faculty exposure to global academic standards, research updates, and continuous professional development.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Encourage faculty to obtain memberships.
Reimburse membership fees where possible.
Link membership renewal to faculty appraisal/promotions.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty individually
IQAC/HR Department for tracking memberships
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will check active, valid memberships — not expired or honorary.
Preference for memberships aligned with program specialization.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Membership Certificates/ID cards
Professional body fee payment receipts
Membership tracking sheet (Faculty Name – Organization – Validity)
6.1.2 Faculty as Resource Persons or Participants in STTPs/FDPs (15 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates faculty involvement as either participants or resource persons in Short-Term Training Programs (STTPs) and Faculty Development Programs (FDPs).
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure faculties are upgrading and disseminating their knowledge beyond routine teaching.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Identify and nominate faculty for STTPs/FDPs regularly.
Organize in-house training sessions and workshops.
Create incentives for acting as resource persons in events.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
HODs and Academic Coordinators
FDP coordinators / Organizing Committees
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will differentiate active contributions (speaking/training) vs. passive participation (attendance).
Preference to AICTE-recognized or reputed FDPs.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
FDP/STTP Certificates (Attendance + Resource Person)
Event Brochures mentioning faculty contribution
FDP Impact Summary Reports (Optional)
6.1.3 Faculty Certification of MOOCs through SWAYAM, NPTEL, etc. (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
It checks the number of faculty completing certified MOOCs via SWAYAM, NPTEL, Coursera, EdX, etc.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To institutionalize continuous online learning for faculty aligned with NEP 2020 goals.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Encourage faculty to enroll in at least one MOOC every semester.
Maintain a repository of completed certificates.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty individually
Academic coordinators/SWAYAM Local Chapter mentors
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Focus on completion certificates, course relevance, and certification grades.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
MOOC Completion Certificates (Faculty wise)
Course titles and institution offering the MOOC
Summary Report for MOOC Participation (Batch wise)
6.1.4 FDP/STTP Organized by the Department (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This tracks the organization of FDPs/STTPs by the department for internal and external audiences.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To push departments to create learning ecosystems, not just attend external events.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Plan at least 1 FDP/STTP per academic year at department level.
Get AICTE/ISTE sponsorship where possible.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
FDP/STTP Conveners
IQAC/HR Department
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will verify event organization quality (brochures, participant diversity, impact).
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
FDP/STTP Brochures
Event Reports with photos and feedback forms
Attendance Sheets and Certificates Issued
6.1.5 Faculty Support in Student Innovative Projects (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This measures how faculty mentor and guide students in pursuing innovative and entrepreneurial projects beyond routine curriculum.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To promote early-stage research, innovation, and entrepreneurship among students.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Nominate faculty as project guides for innovation cells, hackathons, startup clubs.
Allocate internal seed money or technical support.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Innovation Council (IIC)
Startup Cell, E-Cell Mentors
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will check active guidance, mentorship certificates, and project outcomes.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Faculty-wise Student Innovation Project List
Photos, Concept Notes, Competitions Entered
Innovation Achievements Summary
6.1.6 Faculty Internship/Training/Collaboration with Industry (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This tracks faculty undergoing internships, short-term consultancy, or collaborative research with industry.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To bridge the gap between academic delivery and real-world industrial requirements.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Plan faculty internships during summer/winter breaks.
Formalize MoUs for faculty-industry joint projects.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty individually
Industry Relations/Placement Office
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will check proof of active industrial engagement — not honorary titles.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Internship/Training Certificates for Faculty
MoUs with Industry Partners
Project Completion Certificates/Reports
6.2.5 Institution Seed Money or Internal Research Grant for Faculty (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This assesses whether the institution provides internal research funding or seed grants to faculty for initiating research projects.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To kickstart a research culture internally without solely depending on external grants.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Allocate a small annual research budget for internal proposals.
Invite faculty to submit mini-research project proposals.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Research Cell
Internal Grant Committee
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will check fund disbursal records and outcomes from supported projects.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Seed Money Sanction Letters
Research Proposals Approved
Outcome Reports (Papers, Patents, Prototypes)
Criterion 7: Facilities and Technical Support (100 Marks)
No newly introduced elements — the focus remains on maintaining well-equipped labs, technical manpower, additional learning facilities, and project labs.
Colleges should just improve quality and documentation under the already existing framework — no need for new processes or stakeholder systems for this part.
Criterion 8: Continuous Improvement (80 Marks)
8.1.1 Actions Taken Based on the Results of Evaluation of the COs Attainment (20 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates whether the department analyzes Course Outcome (CO) attainment data regularly and then takes corrective actions based on gaps identified.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure CO attainment tracking is not just statistical reporting, but actively drives academic improvement cycles.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Conduct CO attainment analysis for each course after every semester.
Identify gaps between expected and achieved attainment.
Plan and implement improvement actions (teaching methods, content delivery, assessments).
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Course Coordinators and Subject Faculty
Department NBA Core Team
HODs/Academic Audit Committees
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will check if CO attainment reports have actionable follow-ups, not just numbers.
They’ll verify if actions closed gaps over time.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
CO Attainment Analysis Reports (per course)
Action Taken Reports (ATR)
Evidence of revised lesson plans, assignments, or re-teaching interventions
8.3 Improvement in Faculty Qualification/Contribution (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This measures faculty upskilling efforts — whether faculty are improving their academic qualifications (e.g., completing PhDs) or enhancing contributions (e.g., research, patents, consultancy).
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To push institutions to create a culture of faculty professional growth and scholarly output.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Motivate faculty to register for Ph.D. programs, post-docs, or certifications.
Track and reward research publications, patents, consultancy projects.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty individually
Research Cell/Faculty Development Cell
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will look for tangible evidence of qualification improvement and faculty output growth year-on-year.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Updated Faculty Qualification List
Research Publications List (Faculty wise)
Patents, Consultancy Income, Sponsored Projects List
8.4 Improvement in Academic Performance (15 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
It checks whether students’ academic performance metrics (success rate, CGPA, placement ratio) have improved over the accreditation cycle period.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure that OBE practices are actually improving student learning outcomes, not just documented for compliance.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Track student performance trends batch-wise every year.
Analyse progression rates, placement ratios, higher studies admissions.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Department Academic Monitoring Committee
Placement and Career Guidance Cell
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will check whether academic and professional indicators show positive growth and if corrective measures were implemented when needed.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Year-wise Academic Performance Data (CGPA, Pass Percentage)
Placement/Higher Studies Data
Action Plan for Academic Support (Remedial Classes, Mentoring)
Criterion 9: Student Support System and Governance (120 Marks)
9.9 Quality of Learning Resources (Hard/Soft) (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates the availability, accessibility, and quality of hard (physical) and soft (digital) learning resources provided to students.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure that institutions focus on both modern infrastructure (labs, libraries) and digital content delivery (e-books, e-journals, LMS platforms).
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Update physical libraries, labs, and technical equipment.
Subscribe to digital libraries, online journals, and deploy Learning Management Systems (LMS).
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Library Committee
IT Services Department
Academic Coordinators
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will verify quality and usability, not just availability — digital proof and real usage stats will be important.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
List of subscribed online journals/databases
Photos and catalog of new lab equipment/software
LMS usage reports (if any)
9.10 E-Governance (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This assesses the implementation of electronic governance systems for administration, academic operations, examination, feedback, and communication.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To ensure administrative transparency, speed, and technology-driven management aligning with NEP’s digital ecosystem vision.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Digitize admission, exam, attendance, and feedback systems.
Implement ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) solutions if possible.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
ERP/IT Implementation Team
Academic and Administrative Staff
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
Assessors will verify functional digital platforms with real data, not just demo versions.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Screenshots of ERP/LMS portals
Login records and screenshots for exams, marks entry, feedback submission
Vendor contracts for e-governance services (if applicable)
9.11 Initiatives and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (10 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates institutional efforts towards awareness, activities, and projects aligned with SDGs like clean energy, gender equity, climate action, etc.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To encourage colleges to create socially responsible graduates and to showcase their contributions toward global development priorities.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Run SDG awareness campaigns and integrate SDG projects into academics.
Document SDG initiatives like tree plantation, energy conservation, social equity drives.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
NSS/NCC Units, IICs, NGOs, and Faculty Clubs
Students actively participating
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will evaluate genuine participation and measurable outcomes, not superficial campaigns.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
SDG Program Calendar
Event photos, participation lists
Project reports tied to specific SDGs
9.12 Innovative Educational Initiatives and Implementation (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
It captures any innovative practices adopted for teaching, learning, evaluation, mentoring, student engagement, or administration.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To promote a culture where colleges innovate internally rather than depend entirely on external mandates.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Launch initiatives like flipped classrooms, virtual labs, interdisciplinary hackathons, entrepreneurial mentorship.
Systematically document pilots, execution, and outcomes.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Faculty Innovation Teams
Student Innovation Clubs
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will look for sustained, scalable, and impactful innovations, not one-time events.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Innovation Project Dossiers
Pilot Reports, Surveys, and Testimonials
Awards/Recognition Received (if any)
9.14 Outreach Activities (05 Marks)
What is This Criterion About?
This evaluates community service activities where students and faculty engage with society — beyond academic projects.
Why It Was Introduced in SAR 2025:
To instill social sensitivity, leadership, and civic responsibility among students.
Process and Preparation Required from Colleges:
Organize blood donation camps, rural education programs, health drives, environmental awareness campaigns.
Partner with NGOs and local governance bodies.
Stakeholder Involvement Needed:
Student Welfare Committee
NSS/NCC Units
NGOs, CSR Groups
Assessor’s Point of View During Evaluation:
NBA will look for evidence of real community engagement, with proof of sustained programs and outcomes.
Essential Document Evidence to Be Prepared:
Activity reports with dates, photos, attendance
Certificates of appreciation (from external bodies if possible)
Press/media coverage (optional but powerful)
Conclusion
With this, we complete Part 3 of our detailed series on the NBA SAR 2025 Tier 2 changes.
In Part 1, we explored the crucial Pre-Qualifier changes — the new eligibility filters and compliance expectations colleges must meet even before SAR submission.
In Part 2, we examined the criterion-by-criterion comparison between the old SAR 2015 and new SAR 2025, focusing on marks redistribution and strategic shifts.
In this Part 3, we decoded all the Newly Introduced Criteria and Sub-Criteria that NBA has added in SAR 2025 — explaining not only what has been added, but why, and how colleges must prepare with process, stakeholder involvement, assessor expectations, and documentation readiness.
We now have a complete map of the new landscape:
New project expectations,
New SDG alignment responsibilities,
New digital governance proof points,
New faculty development benchmarks, and
New societal outreach metrics.
What You Must Read Next: Part 4 Is Now Live
If you found Part 3 useful, Part 4 will take you from understanding to real execution.
I have now published: "Transitioning from NBA SAR 2015 to SAR 2025 – Step-by-Step Blueprint for Tier 2 Colleges."
In Part 4, you will learn:
How to restructure your internal NBA Committees effectively
How to realign your documentation and evidence collection as per SAR 2025
How to plan academic, administrative, and infrastructural readiness systematically
How to map a practical timeline to achieve an error-free SAR submission under the new norms
If you are a Tier 2 college aiming for NBA Accreditation under Revised SAR 2025,
Part 4 is your practical working blueprint.
Read Part 4 Here: Transitioning from NBA SAR 2015 to SAR 2025 – Step-by-Step Blueprint for Tier 2 Colleges
Stay committed — because now it's not about knowing the changes.
It’s about building the system that will survive peer team scrutiny.
How My Book Solves What Revised NBA SAR 2025 Leaves Unsaid
Let’s be honest.
The Revised NBA SAR 2025 brought some good structural changes —
but it also left a lot unsaid.
No practical handbook.
No real-world implementation guide.
No structured support to help colleges actually apply the reforms.
And in that silence, most institutions today are left guessing.
That’s exactly why I wrote my book: "Outcome-Based Education – A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers"
Published even before NBA officially launched GAPC 4.0 and the New SAR in 2024.
Built not just from theory, but from on-ground experience of working with over 1000+ campuses across India.
What’s Inside the Book That the SAR Doesn’t Cover
How to Write Real, Measurable PEOs
Most colleges still create vague, theoretical mission statements.
My book gives you format templates backed by Bloom’s levels, stakeholder integration, and clear alignment with vision-mission-goals.
How to Map COs to POs (and Now to WKs)
SAR 2025 expects CO-PO-WK mapping — but doesn't explain how.
I do.
With ready-to-use tables, logical flow, and academic sense — not guesswork.
CO-PO Attainment Calculation (with Interpretation)
Not just formulas.
I explain the logic behind the numbers, how to set target levels, how to report attainment gaps, and how to plan corrective actions.
How to Create Course Files That Actually Prove Outcomes
No more decorative files stuffed with content.
I show how to build course files that speak the language of outcomes — files that actually satisfy NBA assessors.
Faculty-Level Understanding of OBE
One big SAR 2025 risk: If your faculty can’t explain the OBE processes they are following, NBA will mark it as non-compliant.
My book helps faculty internalize OBE — not just "prepare" for the visit.
Many more frameworks, templates, and real case studies
Covering real-world academic situations, innovative assessments, rubrics, student outcome analysis, and how to integrate SDG, PBL, and MOOC-based learning.
Why This Book Matters Now More Than Ever
If you’re preparing for Revised NBA SAR 2025 and you haven't yet adopted this practical framework, you’re doing it the hard way.
You can either keep struggling with interpretations, or you can build clarity, confidence, and compliance — by following a tested system that is already battle-proven in 1000+ campuses.
Grab the book now, and transform your NBA journey from guesswork to mastery.
Outcome-Based Education – A Practical Guide for Higher Education Teachers
(Available on Amazon, Flipkart, and select academic stores)
Get 20% Discount on Author Special Copy: https://www.deepeshdivakaran.com/buybook
Bonus Article: The Most Comprehensive Guide on PO Transition (12 POs to 11 POs)
While working on the SAR 2025 changes, one of the most critical shifts colleges must manage is the transition from 12 Program Outcomes (POs) to 11 POs under the GAPC 4.0 structure.
This transition is not cosmetic — it requires a full realignment of curriculum design, CO-PO mapping, attainment calculations, and reporting.
To address this, I have already published the most comprehensive and practical guide available today on this topic.
In this guide, you will find:
Why the PO structure changed and what it really means,
Step-by-step strategy for updating CO-PO-PSO matrices,
Practical transition mapping tables,
Common mistakes colleges must avoid during PO restructuring.
Access the Complete PO Transition Strategy Guide here: PO Transition from 12 POs to 11 POs – Complete Strategy Article
If your college has not yet restructured your CO-PO mappings to align with the new NBA SAR 2025, this article is absolutely essential reading.
Thanks for diving into this article!
If it sparked something within you, let's keep this momentum going.
Curious about who I am? Get to know me better: Click here
Interested in exploring what I do? Check out my work: Click here
Love thought-provoking content? Subscribe to my website for regular inspiration: www.deepeshdivakaran.com/subscribe
Want deeper insights into Outcome-Based Education? My highly acclaimed book is now used by 1000+ institutes—grab your copy at a special author price: Buy It Here at Special Author Price
Need detailed guidance on education policies? Download my free NEP 2020 Guides Download Now
Connect with me on Linkedin: Click Here
Have questions or want to chat directly? Reach me on call or WhatsApp at +91 8086015111.
Prefer emails? I love them too! Drop a line at mail@deepeshdivakaran.com.
Your thoughts matter. Let’s shape education's future together.
Stay Inspired. Stay Informed.
Comments