NIRF Ranking Framework for Engineering Institutions 2016

Organisation : National Institutional Ranking Framework NIRF
Announcement : Ranking Framework for Engineering Institutions

Notification : https://www.entrance.net.in/uploads/9921-Ranking-Engineering.pdf
Home Page : https://www.nirfindia.org/Home

NRF Ranking Framework for Engineering Institutions

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has been accepted by the MHRD and launched by Honourable Minister for Human Resource development on 29th September 2015.

Related : NIRF Ranking Framework for Management Institutions : www.entrance.net.in/9922.html

This framework outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country.

Salient Features:
** Methodology is based on developing a set of metrics for ranking of engineering institutions, based on the parameters agreed upon by the Core Committee (CC).

** These parameters are organized into five broad heads, and have been further elaborated through suitable sub-heads. Each broad head has an overall weight assigned to it. Within each head, the sub-heads also have an appropriate weight distribution.

** An attempt is made here to first identify the relevant data needed to suitably measure the performance score under-each sub-head. The emphasis here is on identifying data that is easy to generate and easily verifiable, if verification is needed. This is important in the interest of transparency.

** 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.

** The institutions can then be rank-ordered based on their scores.

Ranking Based on Institution Categories :
** In view of the diversity in nature and quality of Engineering institutions in the Country, it is proposed that ranking be done separately across two distinct categories.

** The two caregories will be distinguished on the basis of their primary mandate as follows:
Category A: Institutions engaged in Research and Teaching.
Category B: Institutions engaged primarily in Teaching.
Category B institution may choose to be ranked in both categories.

** All institutions that have been granted academic autonomy (by the appropriate authorities) will normally be classified as a

** Category A institution. All those affiliated to a University will be classified as a Category B institution. An autonomous college, however, which is engaged primarily in teaching, may also opt for being ranked in Category B.

To elaborate, Category A would comprise of Institutions of National Importance set up by an Act of Parliament, State Universities, Deemed-to-be-Universities, Private Universities and other autonomous colleges.

Category B institutions, on the other hand, are affiliated to a University and do not enjoy full academic autonomy.

** While score computations for some of the parameters are similar for both of these categories on most counts, the benchmarks are somewhat different on a few parameters, to take into account the ground realities, which may be very different for the two categories. This creates a level playing field for both categories.

** The weights assigned to different components have been slightly adjusted to reflect the different mandates and expectations from institutions of the two categories.

** Even where the assessment metrics are similar, their computation (where percentile calculations or normalizations are involved) is based on institutions of the corresponding category for these to be relevant and fair.

** If implemented in this manner and spirit the ranking methodology will produce two separate rankings, one for each category.

Implementation Details :
A suitable Ranking Authority/Agency should be identified or formed and empowered. Instead of creating another organization, however, it may also be visualized as a Virtual Authority, authorised to outsource parts of the work (including data analytics) to various survey organizations.

The entire effort could be self- supporting if the institutions desiring to participate are charged an appropriate fee for this purpose. Initially, the ranking agency should be provided with a seed funding to roll out the process in a time-bound manner.

The Ranking Agency should invite institutions intending to participate in the ranking exercise to submit their applications in the given format by 31st December. The data should be submitted on an On-line facility created for this purpose.

The Ranking Agency will then extract the relevant information from this data and through software, compute the various metrics and rank institutions based on this data.

As mentioned earlier, both these components of work could be outsourced suitably. This process shall be completed in about 3 months, and rankings published ahead of the next year’s admission schedule.

Summary of Ranking Parameters Finalized by MHRD
Sr.No. | Parameter | Marks | Weightage
1 Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) 100 0.30
2 Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative Performance (RPC) 100 0.30
3 Graduation Outcome (GO) 100 0.15
4 Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) 100 0.15
5 Perception (PR) 100 0.10

Cumulative Sheet :

Sr. No. Parameter Weightage / Marks
1.0 Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) (Ranking Weightage = 0.30)
A. Faculty Student Ratio with Emphasis on Permanent
Faculty 30 Marks
B. Combined Metric for Faculty with Ph.D and Experience 30 Marks
C. Metric for Library and Laboratory Facilities 30 Marks
D. Metric for Sports and Extra Curricular Facilities, Activities 10 Marks

2.0 Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative
Performance (RPC) (Ranking Weightage = 0.30)
A. Combined Metric for Publications 30 Marks
B. Combined Metric for Citations 30 Marks
C. IPR and Patents: Granted, Filed, Licensed 15 Marks
D. Percentage of Collaborative Publications and Patents 10 Marks
E. Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice 15 Marks

3.0 Graduation Outcome (GO) (Ranking Weightage = 0.15)
A. Combined Performance in Public and University
Examinations 30 Marks
B. Combined Percentage for Placement, Higher Studies and
Entrepreneurship 50 Marks
C. Mean Salary for Employment 20 Marks

4.0 Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) (Ranking Weightage = 0.15)
A. Outreach Footprint (Continuing Education, Service) 25 Marks
B. Percentage of Students from Other States/Countries-
Region Diversity 25 Marks
C. Percentage of Women Students and Faculty 20 Marks
D. Percentage of Economically and Socially Disadvantaged
Students 20 Marks
E. Facilities for Physically Challenged Students 10 Marks

5.0 Perception (PR) (Ranking Weightage = 0.10)
Process for Peer Rating in Category 100 Marks