NBA Accreditation Without the Spreadsheet Marathon
Every NBA accreditation cycle forces engineering departments into the same grind: manually computing CO attainment for every course, building PO mapping matrices in spreadsheets, and assembling SARs program by program. Unity + Studium automates CO-PO attainment calculation and SAR generation so faculty can focus on teaching quality and continuous improvement instead of data wrangling.
15x faster
SAR Preparation
Per-program SAR preparation drops from weeks of manual spreadsheet work to hours of validation and review with automated CO-PO attainment data.
The NBA Challenge: Why Program-Level Accreditation Is Harder Than You Think
Unlike NAAC, which evaluates the institution as a single entity, NBA accredits individual programs. This distinction creates a multiplicative problem that most universities underestimate. A university with 15 engineering programs needs 15 separate Self-Assessment Reports, each with its own set of Program Outcomes, Course Outcomes, CO-PO mapping matrices, attainment calculations, and CQI documentation.
Consider the math: if each program has 40 courses, and each course has 4-6 COs mapped to 12 POs, a single program requires 200+ CO attainment calculations from both direct and indirect assessment data before PO attainment can even be computed. Multiply that across 15 programs and you are looking at 3,000+ individual attainment calculations \u2014 each requiring raw marks data, assessment tagging, threshold application, and weighted aggregation.
In practice, this means hundreds of faculty-hours spent on spreadsheets, version-control nightmares when assessment data changes, and reconciliation errors that NBA peer teams spot immediately during visits. The manual approach does not scale, and it diverts faculty effort from the actual teaching quality improvements that NBA is designed to drive.
The Multiplicative Effect
15 programs x 40 courses each x 5 COs per course x 12 PO mappings = 36,000 mapping cells that must be defined, tracked, and reported. Add direct and indirect attainment computation for each, and the manual workload becomes unsustainable. This is why automation is not a convenience \u2014 it is a necessity for multi-program NBA accreditation.
How It Works: The Unity + Studium Approach
NBA accreditation success requires two capabilities: comprehensive academic data capture and intelligent outcome mapping. Unity and Studium divide this responsibility into two specialized pillars that work together seamlessly.
Unity ERP
The Academic Data Layer
Unity's university ERP captures the raw academic data that NBA accreditation demands \u2014 grades, internal and external assessment marks, course registrations, faculty records, and student performance data across every program. As departments use the system for daily academic operations, accreditation-relevant data is captured automatically with no separate data entry required.
- 131 KPIs tracked as byproduct of operations
- Grades & assessment marks per course per student
- Course registration and enrollment data
- Faculty qualifications, workload, and publications
- Student performance: CGPA, pass rates, backlogs
- Placement and progression statistics
- Infrastructure utilization and lab schedules
Studium Technologies
AI-Driven Accreditation Intelligence
Studium's platform takes Unity's operational data and transforms it into accreditation intelligence. The CO-PO mapping engine, attainment calculator, Bloom's taxonomy tagger, and SAR generator work together to automate the most labour-intensive parts of NBA preparation.
- CO-PO mapping engine with correlation levels
- Automated attainment: Direct (80%) + Indirect (20%)
- Bloom’s taxonomy tagging for all assessments
- SAR report generation in NBA’s prescribed format
- Multi-program dashboard for HODs and Deans
- CQI workflow tracking: Identify → Analyze → Act → Verify
- Washington Accord compliance monitoring
9 NBA Criteria: How Unity + Studium Map Every Requirement
NBA evaluates each program across 9 criteria totalling 950 points. Criterion 3 (Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes) carries the highest weight at 200 points \u2014 reflecting NBA's emphasis on outcome-based education. Below is a detailed mapping of key KPIs to each criterion.
Criterion 1: Vision, Mission & PEOs
50 ptsEvaluates the alignment between institutional vision, program mission, and Program Educational Objectives (PEOs). Requires documented evidence that PEOs are defined with stakeholder input, periodically reviewed, and mapped to institutional goals.
Key KPIs Tracked
A07 PEO Status
Tracks PEO definition, stakeholder validation, periodic review cycles, and alumni attainment surveys
Criterion 2: Program Curriculum & Teaching-Learning
120 ptsAssesses curriculum design, teaching-learning processes, and content delivery. Covers course structure, pedagogical innovation, industry relevance, and the breadth of curriculum including professional core, electives, and interdisciplinary offerings.
Key KPIs Tracked
T12 Teaching Effectiveness
Composite score from student feedback, peer reviews, and learning outcome achievement
A06 Bloom’s Distribution
Percentage of assessments targeting higher-order cognitive levels (Analyze, Evaluate, Create)
T25 Curriculum Breadth
Diversity of courses including electives, labs, projects, and interdisciplinary offerings
Criterion 3: Course Outcomes & Program Outcomes
200 ptsThe highest-weighted criterion — the heart of NBA’s outcome-based evaluation. Measures how well each course achieves its defined Course Outcomes and how those COs contribute to the 10-12 Program Outcomes. Requires rigorous attainment data from both direct and indirect assessment methods.
Key KPIs Tracked
A01 PO Attainment
Percentage of Program Outcomes achieving Level 3 (>=60%) attainment across direct and indirect methods
A02 CO Attainment
Course-level attainment rates computed from exam scores, assignments, labs, and student surveys
A03 CO-PO Mapping Coverage
Percentage of courses with complete CO-to-PO mapping matrices at correlation levels 1, 2, or 3
A04 Direct Assessment
Attainment from examinations, assignments, lab evaluations, and project assessments (80% weight)
A05 Indirect Assessment
Attainment from course-end surveys, exit surveys, and alumni feedback (20% weight)
Criterion 4: Students’ Performance
150 ptsEvaluates academic performance, progression rates, and graduate outcomes. Covers average CGPA distribution, pass rates, higher education progression, placement statistics, and entrepreneurship outcomes for each program.
Key KPIs Tracked
S01 Avg CGPA
Program-wise and batch-wise average CGPA with trend analysis across academic years
S02 Pass Rate
First-attempt and cumulative pass rates by program and examination cycle
O35 Promotion Completion
Semester-wise promotion rates including ATKT, year-down, and dropout tracking
S10 Placement Rate
Campus placement percentages with salary data, employer diversity, and sector-wise breakdowns
Criterion 5: Faculty Information & Contributions
150 ptsAssesses faculty qualifications, adequacy, workload distribution, professional development, and research contributions. Requires data on faculty-student ratios, PhD percentages, publication records, funded projects, and FDPs attended.
Key KPIs Tracked
T12 Teaching Effectiveness
Faculty performance composite from student feedback, peer reviews, and outcome achievement
A11 Faculty Qualification Index
Percentage of faculty with PhD, industry experience, and professional certifications
A12 Research Publications
Faculty publications indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and UGC-CARE journals
S09 Faculty-Student Ratio
Department-wise and program-wise faculty adequacy ratios against NBA norms
Criterion 6: Facilities & Technical Support
50 ptsEvaluates laboratory equipment, computing facilities, library resources, classroom infrastructure, and technical support staff adequacy for each program.
Key KPIs Tracked
A14 Infrastructure Utilization
Lab, classroom, and computing facility usage rates tracked through scheduling systems
T10 Capacity Utilization
Student-to-equipment ratios and peak-hour occupancy data across labs and workshops
Criterion 7: Continuous Improvement
100 ptsAssesses whether the program demonstrates measurable improvement based on outcome attainment data. Requires evidence of the CQI (Continuous Quality Improvement) loop: identifying gaps, analyzing root causes, implementing actions, and verifying results.
Key KPIs Tracked
A08 CQI Compliance
Continuous Quality Improvement workflow completion rates and action item tracking per program
O39 Grade Anomalies
Statistical detection of unusual grade distributions indicating assessment or evaluation issues
O40 Exam Fairness
Exam moderation compliance, question paper quality audits, and evaluation consistency metrics
Criterion 8: First Year Academics
50 ptsSpecifically evaluates the academic performance and support systems for first-year students. Covers first-year CGPA distribution, pass rates, backlog tracking, bridge courses, and mentoring programs.
Key KPIs Tracked
S01-FY First-Year CGPA
Average CGPA for first-year students with program-wise and category-wise breakdowns
S02-FY First-Year Pass Rate
First-attempt pass rates for first-year courses and backlog accumulation tracking
O35-FY Backlog Tracking
Number of backlogs per student, backlog clearance rates, and remedial program effectiveness
Criterion 9: Student Support Systems
80 ptsEvaluates mentoring programs, counselling services, career guidance, grievance redressal, financial aid, co-curricular activities, and support for at-risk students.
Key KPIs Tracked
I01 Student Risk Score
Composite risk index combining attendance, grades, engagement, and behavioural indicators
S12 At-Risk %
Percentage of students identified as academically at-risk through early warning algorithms
S07 Financial Aid
Scholarship and financial aid distribution data by program, category, and merit criteria
Criterion 3 is the centrepiece. With 200 out of 950 points, Course Outcomes and Program Outcomes carry the highest weight in NBA evaluation. The CO-PO attainment calculation chain \u2014 from raw marks to PO attainment levels \u2014 must be rigorous, traceable, and automated to withstand peer team scrutiny. See the full OBE Framework →
CO-PO Attainment Workflow: From Definition to Continuous Improvement
The outcome-based education cycle follows five stages. Studium automates stages 2 through 5, while Unity provides the underlying academic data that feeds every calculation.
Define POs and COs
Each program defines 10-12 Program Outcomes aligned with graduate attributes (Washington Accord) and 3-6 Course Outcomes per course. POs describe what graduates can do; COs describe what students learn in each course.
Map COs to POs
Create the CO-PO mapping matrix for each course with correlation levels: 1 (Low — slight contribution), 2 (Medium — moderate contribution), 3 (High — substantial contribution). This matrix is the backbone of outcome-based assessment.
Design Tagged Assessments
Every assessment item (exam question, assignment, lab rubric) is tagged to specific COs and classified by Bloom’s taxonomy level. This enables automated CO attainment calculation from raw marks data.
Measure Attainment
Direct assessment (80%) + Indirect assessment (20%) = CO Attainment. CO attainment rolls up through the mapping matrix to PO Attainment. Three levels: Level 3 (>=60%, Substantial), Level 2 (50-59%, Moderate), Level 1 (40-49%, Slight).
Close the Loop with CQI
For every CO or PO below target: Identify the gap, Analyze root causes (pedagogy, assessment design, student preparation), Act on improvement measures, and Verify results in the next assessment cycle.
Attainment Level Definitions
Level 3 — Substantial
>=60%
Strong attainment. PO is well-supported by the curriculum and assessments.
Level 2 — Moderate
50-59%
Adequate attainment. CQI actions recommended to strengthen outcome coverage.
Level 1 — Slight
40-49%
Minimal attainment. Requires immediate CQI intervention and curriculum review.
OBE KPIs: The 8 Metrics That Define NBA Readiness
These eight KPIs form the quantitative backbone of outcome-based education tracking. Unity captures the raw data; Studium computes and reports each metric per program.
PO Attainment Rate
Target: >=60% of POs at Level 3
Measures the percentage of Program Outcomes that achieve Level 3 (Substantial) attainment. NBA expects the majority of POs to demonstrate strong attainment through both direct and indirect evidence.
CO Attainment Rate
Target: >=60% of students attain each CO
Tracks the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the attainment threshold for each Course Outcome. Low CO attainment triggers CQI action items for curriculum or pedagogy revision.
CO-PO Mapping Coverage
Target: 100% coverage required
Verifies that every course in the program has a complete CO-PO mapping matrix. Unmapped courses represent gaps in the outcome assessment chain that NBA peer teams flag immediately.
Direct Assessment Attainment
Target: >=60% above threshold
Aggregates attainment from examinations, assignments, lab evaluations, and project assessments. Carries 80% weight in the combined attainment calculation by default.
Indirect Assessment Attainment
Target: >=70% rating >=3/5
Measures attainment from student course-end surveys, exit surveys, and alumni feedback. Carries 20% weight and provides the self-reported complement to direct measurement.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Distribution
Target: >=40% higher-order thinking
Tracks the cognitive level distribution of assessment items across all courses. NBA expects at least 40% of questions at Analyze, Evaluate, or Create levels to demonstrate engineering competency development.
Rubric Utilization Rate
Target: 100% target
Measures the percentage of assessments evaluated using structured rubrics linked to specific Course Outcomes. Rubric-based evaluation ensures consistent, traceable, and objective CO attainment measurement.
CQI Compliance Index
Target: 100% compliance
Tracks completion of the Continuous Quality Improvement loop: gap identification, root cause analysis, action implementation, and result verification. Every low-attainment CO must have a documented CQI action.
Studium Technologies: Partner Spotlight
AI-Driven Accreditation Management Platform
Studium Technologies provides the accreditation intelligence layer purpose-built for India's NBA framework. Their platform automates the most computationally intensive parts of program accreditation \u2014 CO-PO attainment calculation, SAR report generation, multi-program dashboards, and Washington Accord compliance monitoring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between NAAC and NBA accreditation?
How does CO-PO attainment calculation work?
Can the system handle multiple programs simultaneously?
What is Bloom’s Taxonomy and why does it matter for NBA?
What is the role of Studium Technologies in NBA accreditation?
Ready to Streamline Your NBA Accreditation?
Stop drowning in CO-PO spreadsheets. Unity captures academic data as a byproduct of daily campus operations, and Studium automates attainment calculation, Bloom's tagging, and SAR generation for every program \u2014 reducing preparation time from months to weeks. Whether you have 3 programs or 30, the system scales without proportional faculty effort.
Join engineering colleges that have transformed NBA accreditation from a crisis-driven project into a continuous, data-backed quality assurance process. Schedule a demo to see how the Unity + Studium approach works with your institution's programs.