skip to Main Content
+91-80-42047573 / 42292041 / 42100925 / 9880050979 support@kramah.com Enquiry / Request Info Feedback
PRE-REQUISITES

 

FOLLOWING ARE THE PRE-REQUISITES WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE AN INSTITUTION APPLIES FOR ACCREDITATION OF THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME [MBA] IN A DEPARTMENT:

** At least two batches of Management program [MBA] should have graduated.

** At least 33% of the faculty associated with the Management Program [MBA] should have a Ph.D. Degree and the remaining with Master’s Degree in the related areas.

** The minimum number of faculty in the Management program [MBA] is 8 for a batch of 120 students.

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

 

Sl. No  
Criterion
Max. Points
1. ORGANIZATION’S MISSION, GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP  120
 
2. INPUT [ENABLERS]
 360
2.1. Students
2.2. Faculty
2.4. Physical Infrastructure
2.5. IT Infrastructure
2.6. Library
2.7. National and Global Input
2.8. Quality Assurance Policy
2.9. Finance
3. PROCESSES
 360
3.1. Academic Assessment Process
3.4. Placement Process
3.5. Research and Development Process
3.6. Leadership and Governance
3.7. MDPs Consultancy Process and Industry Interaction
3.8. Faculty Appraisal and Promotion Policy
3.9. Internationalization Process
3.10. Staff Appraisal, Development and Promotion Process
4. OUTCOME [RESULTS]
 360
4.1. Academic Results
4.2. Placement
4.3. Value and Ethics Centric Outcomes
4.4. Entrepreneurship and Job Creation
4.5. Industry Interaction
4.6. MDPs
4.7. International/Global Linkages
4.8. Research and Innovation
4.9. Sake Holders Satisfaction
4.10. Contribution to Society
    TOTAL [1+2+3+4] 1200

 

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION

 

  • Checklist is to be read in conjunction with reference to all items and norms of evaluation.
  • The score for non-performance of any dimensions, in all cases, will be zero.
  • With credible evidence in each case [Low, Medium, High] the numerical evaluation will be in the interval of next to higher bond of preceding level and higher bond of the current level.
  • Fractional marking should be avoided.
ACCREDITATION CRITERIA

 

  • The program gets the status ‘Accredited’ for next 5 years from the date of issue of the letter from NBA, if it gets a minimum score of 900 points and scores minimum qualifying 60% marks in each of the criterion specified.
  • The program gets the status ‘Provisionally Accredited’ for next 2 years from the date of issue of the letter from NBA, if it gets a minimum score of 720 points and scores minimum qualifying 45% marks in each of the criterion specified.The Institution may apply after overcoming the weaknesses/ deficiencies to upgrade their status to ‘Full Accreditation’ of the program.
  • The Program gets the status ‘Not Accredited’ if it gets the score less than 720 points.

 

Parameters for NIRF

 

Teaching, Learning & Resources

Research and Professional Practice

Graduation Outcomes

Outreach and Inclusivity

Perception

 

Why NIRF?

 

1) Accreditation VS Ranking

  • Accreditation is a 5-year comprehensive assessment of the institution as a whole.
  • Ranking is a yearly affair.
  • Accreditation gives absolute grade, ranking is relative to the other institutions similarly placed.

2) Since there is already accreditation, should there be ranking too?

  • Accreditation is a one-time (5 year) event. Accredited Institutions can slip in their yearly performance.
  • Stakeholders are interested in knowing whether the institution is doing better or worse at the end of each year
  • Ranking is an Annual Report Card to the Nation and to the stakeholders on what has been done by the institution in the last one year, on the given performance.
  • Very few institutions have got the accreditation, whereas ranking is open to all!
  • It is due to this reason that across the Countries, there is both accreditation and ranking.

3) Can an institution which had a bad accreditation grade get a good rank and vice versa?

  • It is possible. The institutions can slip or do better after they got their accreditation. Ranking is a reflection of the yearly performance

4) Is the score shown against each institution reflective of their performance?

  • This score is a relative score, not absolute. Therefore a statement that ‘The institution with fail marks is ranked in the top 100’, is incorrect. This is NOT an absolute score.
  • In each parameter, percentile score using the log-function has been derived, which gives – where the Very few institutions have got the accreditation, whereas ranking is open to all!
  • It is due to this reason that across the Countries, there is both accreditation and ranking.

5) Can an institution which had a bad accreditation grade get a good rank and vice versa?

  • It is possible. The institutions can slip or do better after they got their accreditation. Ranking is a reflection of the yearly performance.

6) Is the score shown against each institution reflective of their performance?

  • This score is a relative score, not absolute. Therefore a statement that ‘The institution with fail marks is ranked in the top 100’, is incorrect. This is NOT an absolute score.
  • In each parameter, percentile score using the log-function has been derived, which gives – where the institution stands in relation to the other institutions. This is added to derive the total score.
  • We must understand the NIRF score as a reflection of where the institution is standing vis-a-vis other institutions in the similar category.

7) How good is the data on which ranking has been done?

  • The institutions have given this data certifying that it is correct. Even then, the data has been checked with reference to the data validations that have been built in. For example, if the annual fee is Rs. 10 lakh, and the institution is claiming that 80% of the students are from economically backward sections, there is an apparent inconsistency. The NIRF checks such data with the institution and other regulator data
  • Most of the data pertaining to the research, which has a large weightage, is taken from third party and authentic sources like Scopus or Web of Science. This data is certainly valid and correct.
  • We must understand the NIRF score as a reflection of where the institution is standing vis-a-vis other institutions in the similar category.

 

Methodology for Ranking of Academic Institutions in India

 

1. Salient Features

  1. Methodology is based on developing a set of metrics for ranking of academic institutions, based on the parameters agreed upon by the core committee.
  2. These parameters are organized into five broad heads, and have been further elaborated into suitable sub-heads. Each broad head has an overall weight assigned to it. Within each head, the various sub-heads also have an appropriate weight distribution.
  3. An attempt is also made to identify the relevant data needed to suitably measure the performance score under each sub-head. Emphasis here is on identifying data that the institution can easily provide or is easy to obtain from third party sources and easily verifiable, where verification is needed. This is important in the interest of transparency.
  4. A suitable metric is then proposed based on this data, which computes a score under each sub-head. The sub-head scores are then added to obtain scores for each individual head. The overall score is computed based on the weights allotted to each head. The overall score can take a maximum value of 100.
  5. The institutions can then be rank-ordered based on their scores.

2. Eligibility for Common and Discipline Specific Rankings

2.1 Learning from our experience in the 2016 Rankings, it is proposed to have the following different ways of Ranking.

2.1.1 This year, all candidate institutions, independent of their discipline or nature (comprehensive or otherwise) will be given a common overallrank1, if they satisfy one of the following criteria

The parameters have been chosen in such a manner that these are equally relevant for various kinds of educational institutions. Data format is designed to ensure that the diversity of disciplines and their separate character are accounted for. If an engineering school of a University consists of a single engineering discipline with very few students, they would not be eligible for ranking even under the discipline specific category. Thus, if the engineering faculty of a University has only the Department of Electronics Engineering as its Engineering School, it need not apply for a separate discipline specific ranking under the engineering category.

    1. They have a total of at least 1000 enrolled students (calculated on the basis of approved intake), OR
    2. The institution is a centrally funded institution/university of the Government of India.

2.1.2 Institutions will also be given a discipline specific rank as relevant.

2.1.3 Highly focussed institutions with a single main discipline (Engineering, Medical, Law, Management, Pharmacy or UG degree colleges in Arts, Science and Commerce, etc.) with less than 1000 enrolled students (as calculated on the basis of approved intake) will be given only a discipline specific rank.

2.1.4 Schools or Departments of Universities or Institutions (such as Arts, Architecture, Engineering, Health and Life Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences, Law Faculty, Medical School, Management Departments, Pharmacy etc.) will have to register separately and provide additional data (in the same common format) pertaining to the respective School or Department, if they desire to be included in the discipline specific ranking list. All institutions should seriously consider this option, if they wish to position their important Faculties/Schools at the national level. Only options available on theregistration portal will be considered for discipline specific rankings2.

2.1.5 Undergraduate Teaching institutions (including degree colleges affiliated to a university) are also invited to participate. (Some of them may have a valid apprehension that they may not score well in research-related parameters on a common ranking list, but they can still score high on may other parameters like Graduation Outcomes and Perception. In any case, they would receive a fair comparison in the separate rankings for colleges that will also be published this time, and in which the parameter weightages will be suitably modified.

2.1.6 Discipline specific ranks will be announced only in those disciplines where a significant number of institutions offer themselves for ranking, and the List includes some of the prominent institutions in that discipline, with an acceptable ranking score. The final decision on ranking of a discipline will therefore be decided by NIRF after analysing the data.

2.1.7 Open Universities and Affiliating Universities (whether State or Centre approved/funded) will not normally be registered for ranking. However, if these universities have a teaching or research campus of their own, they are welcome to participate with data pertaining only to their physical campuses. Data pertaining to their function as open or affiliating universities cannot be included in the submitted data.

2.1.8 Rankings will be considered only for those institutions that have graduated at least three batches of students in some programs. If no program run by the institution satisfies this requirement, the concerned institution will not be able to register for ranking.

2.2 While score computations for the parameters are similar for both kinds of rankings (i.e., common or discipline specific) on most counts, the weights are somewhat different on a few parameters, to take into account discipline specific issues. Percentile calculations, where indicated, are done separately for the two sets of rankings.

3. Data Collection

3.1 In view of the absence of a reliable and comprehensive third-party Data-Base that could supply all relevant information (as needed for computing the said scores) it is imperative that the institutions that are desirous of participating in the ranking exercise, supply the data in the given format that is being made available on the NIRF portal, before the last date specified for this purpose. The deadlines will be separately announced on the NIRF portal.

3.2 It is required that the institutions upload the submitted data also on their own, publicly visible website in the interest of transparency. It is mandatory that institutions should host the data submitted for India Rankings 2017 on their website post the final submission and they should also provide an email address where they would receive comments and feedback. Institutions should pro-actively and objectively examine the comments and feedback received to effect corrections, if so warranted (within the time slot to be announced by NIRF on its website). All institutions have to mandatory host data submitted for India Rankings 2017 from 15th November 2016 onwards for a period of three years.

3.3 Institutions who fail to post the data submitted to NIRF on their own websites as indicated in 3.2, may not be ranked. Thus, if the submitted data is not visibleon the Institute’s own website prominently (NIRF will do a limited checking on a random basis), its registration for ranking is likely to be cancelled after an initial Notice. In case this fact comes to the notice of the NIRF after the rankings have been announced, the Institution will be taken out of the ranking list, with an appropriate noting.

3.4 The data should remain on the institution’s website in an archived form for the next 3 years to enable easy cross checking, where required. Institutions that fail to do this honestly or resort to unethical practices will be automatically debarred from participation in the future ranking surveys for a period of two years.

3.5 NIRF has been empowered to take up physical checks on the institution records and audited accounts where needed, to ensure that the principles of ethical behaviour are being adhered to. In case an institution is approached for carrying out any physical check, they are expected to co-operate. Non-cooperation may lead to debarring the institution from participation in the ranking exercise.

3.6 For some of the parameters (like Research, Patents etc.) the data will be populated from internationally available Data Bases (like Scopus, Web of Science, the Indian Science Index or other suitable sources as deemed appropriate by NIRF). Some of these are indicated in the Assessment Metrics. However, NIRF reserves the right not to use the data from any of these sources or include other sources, if so warranted. NIRF shall directly access data from these resources, or seek help from the resource publishers, as necessary.

3.7 NIRF also reserves the right to modify any of the metrics if it deems fit to do so in the interest of rationalisation necessitated by the exigencies or the nature of the data encountered. Any changes so made will be notified at the time of announcing the rankings.

4. Implementation Details

4.1 As in the previous year, the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) will continue to be the Ranking Agency on behalf of NIRF for 2017.

4.2 NIRF shall invite institutions interested to participate in the ranking exercise to register on the NIRF portal starting from 1st September 2016. The data should be submitted on an on-line facility created for this purpose latest by November 15, 2016.

4.3 NIRF, by itself or with the help of other suitably identified partner agencies will also undertake authentication of data, wherever felt necessary, and where feasible.

4.4 NIRF will extract the relevant information from this data and through software, compute the various metrics and rank institutions based on this data. This process is expected to be completed in about 3 months, and rankings published on the first Monday of April 2017.

5. Errors and Correction Policy

5.1 All efforts will be made to display the raw data on the NIRF website after due processing by NIRF for cross-checking by the institution. This is the data on which rankings would be finally computed. It will be the Institution’s responsibility to ensure that the data published by NIRF accurately reflects the submissions by it. The institution will also be invited to check out the data supplied by or taken from third sources. If the Institution does not give any comments or feedback within a specified period on the displayed data, it will be assumed that this data is accurate. No petitions for corrections will be accepted after the declared deadline, or after the rankings have been announced. If it is found that an institution has deliberately manipulated the submitted data, causing erroneous rankings, NIRF will remove the institution from the ranking list and future rankings and publish a suitable note to this effect.

Back To Top