NAAC and AICTE Reports from Your ERP: The Data You Should Already Have

By Founder, Eduvy · Published 7 Sep 2026 · Updated 8 Sep 2026 · For Colleges · Editorial policy

Almost every number an accreditation body asks for is a by-product of something your college already does every day - marking attendance, entering internal marks, issuing a fee receipt, appointing a lecturer, recording an offer letter. Accreditation reporting feels like a separate project only because those records live in registers, in departmental spreadsheets and in individual staff members' laptops rather than in one system. This article maps the main frameworks to the underlying records, says what a well-built ERP export should look like, and names the gaps that consistently cost colleges marks.

NAAC: know which framework you are on

NAAC is in transition, so get this right before planning anything. The Revised Accreditation Framework - the seven criteria with a CGPA and letter grades from A++ down to D - is the framework that governs most accreditation today. A Binary Accreditation Framework and a Maturity-Based Graded Levels system have been announced following the Radhakrishnan Committee's recommendations, and NAAC has issued notices on both, but institutions have been allowed to remain on the existing framework during the changeover. Check naac.gov.in for your institution's current position rather than acting on a vendor's summary, including this one.

The seven criteria, and the records behind each

Criterion	Records that feed it	Usually kept in
I. Curricular Aspects	Programme and course structures, syllabus revision history, elective enrolments, feedback from students, teachers, employers and alumni	Academic section, IQAC files
II. Teaching-learning and Evaluation	Student enrolment and category-wise demographics, faculty positions filled against sanctioned, attendance, internal assessment marks, examination results, evaluation grievance records	ERP, examination cell, HR
III. Research, Innovations and Extension	Publications, projects and grants, patents, consultancy income, extension and outreach activity, MoUs	Departments, R&D cell
IV. Infrastructure and Learning Resources	Classrooms and labs, library holdings and usage, IT infrastructure, expenditure on maintenance and augmentation	Accounts, library, estate
V. Student Support and Progression	Scholarships and fee waivers, capability-building activities, placement and higher-study progression, competitive-exam qualifiers, student council and alumni contributions	Placement cell, accounts, alumni office
VI. Governance, Leadership and Management	Governance structure, faculty development programmes, appraisal system, financial audits, IQAC activity	Administration, HR, accounts
VII. Institutional Values and Best Practices	Gender-equity activity, energy and waste initiatives, inclusion, code of conduct, best practices, institutional distinctiveness	IQAC, administration

The pattern is worth noticing. Criteria II, IV and V are almost entirely ERP data. Criteria III and VII are almost entirely evidence documents. The first group should be a report you run; the second is a document repository you maintain all year. Colleges that treat both as a document-collection exercise three months before submission are doing four times the work.

The IQAC and the annual report

NAAC requires accredited institutions to run an Internal Quality Assurance Cell and to file an Annual Quality Assurance Report each year, and it publishes AQAR guidelines separately for universities, colleges, health sciences, legal, Sanskrit and teacher-education institutions. The practical point is that the AQAR is annual. If your ERP can produce criterion-relevant counts on demand, the AQAR becomes a review exercise. If it cannot, it becomes an annual crisis, and the same numbers get recomputed differently each year - which is exactly what the data-validation stage is designed to catch.

AICTE: the mandatory disclosure is a public document

AICTE-approved institutions must publish a mandatory disclosure on their own website, in the format set out in the Approval Process Handbook. The 2024-27 format runs through the following, in order: institution identity and contacts; the trust, society or company and its trustees; the principal or director's credentials; the affiliating university; governance structure including student grievance redressal, the anti-ragging committee, the online grievance system, the Internal Complaint Committee, the SC/ST cell and IQAC composition; approved programmes with duration, sanctioned intake, admission criteria, fee schedule and any foreign collaboration; faculty composition metrics; detailed faculty profiles with qualifications, tenure, experience and research output; fee waivers and scholarships; three years of enrolment by category; selection procedure and testing agency; admission weightage; applicant rosters and selection outcomes; infrastructure; placement data; and research initiatives.

Read that list as a data specification. Every item is a field somewhere. If your ERP holds faculty qualifications, appointment dates and designations, the faculty tables build themselves. If HR data lives in a separate file the academic office cannot see, someone retypes it every year - and the version on the website drifts from the version in the approval application.

NBA: outcomes have to be computed, not asserted

NBA accreditation is explicitly outcome-based - the stated aim is "achieving desirable outcomes (in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour) at the end of a program". Its Self Assessment Report requires programmes to document course outcomes for every course, map them to programme outcomes on a three-point correlation scale (1 slight, 2 moderate, 3 substantial), and then compute attainment. Programme outcome and programme-specific outcome attainment is weighted 80% to direct assessment and 20% to indirect assessment such as surveys, unless the programme justifies otherwise.

That 80% is the reason internal assessment data has to be structured. Attainment cannot be computed from a total mark; it needs marks against questions mapped to course outcomes. If your examination module stores only a final internal score per student per subject, no amount of reporting effort will produce a defensible attainment calculation. NBA also sets faculty norms - a minimum of 75% regular faculty, and faculty-student ratios such as 25:1 for a three-year accreditation and 15:1 for six years in UG engineering - which come straight from HR records.

NIRF: a weighted formula over data you submit

NIRF is the most explicitly arithmetic of the frameworks. The 2025 Engineering framework weights Teaching, Learning and Resources at 30%, Research and Professional Practice at 30%, Graduation Outcomes at 20%, Outreach and Inclusivity at 10% and Perception at 10%. Within Teaching, Learning and Resources, the sub-metrics are student strength including doctoral students (20 marks), faculty-student ratio with emphasis on permanent faculty (30), faculty with PhD and experience (20), and financial resources and their utilisation (30). Graduation Outcomes covers placement and higher studies (40), university examination results (15), median salary (25) and PhD graduates (20).

Faculty-student ratio is computed as FSR = 30 x (10 x F/N), where F counts full-time regular faculty plus eligible visiting PhD faculty at a reduced weight and N is total UG and PG students; 1:10 scores maximum and worse than 1:20 scores zero. Median salary and placement counts come from the placement cell, and if those sit in a spreadsheet per department the institution-level median is guesswork. A placement portal recording every application, shortlist and offer is the difference between a computed median and an estimated one.

The filings that run in parallel

AISHE. The All India Survey on Higher Education has been run by the Ministry of Education annually since 2010-11 and collects teachers, student enrolment, academic programmes, examination results, education finance and infrastructure, deriving indicators including Gross Enrolment Ratio, Pupil-Teacher Ratio and Gender Parity Index. Submission is through a data capture format on a separate portal; registration for 2025-26 and 2026-27 is open.
UGC public self-disclosure. UGC's guidelines on public self-disclosure, grounded in NEP 2020, require a defined set of information on the institution's own website: institutional details and audited financial statements; administration including the Ombudsperson and Internal Complaint Committee; academics and department-wise faculty details; admissions and fee, including the refund policy; research; student life including the anti-ragging and equal opportunity cells; alumni; and an information corner with the RTI officer and circulars. Accreditation and ranking status - NAAC, NBA and NIRF - is itself a disclosure item.
Academic Bank of Credits and APAAR. ABC is a Ministry of Education initiative regulated by UGC and built by Digital India Corporation, on which award-granting bodies recognised by the Ministry, UGC, AICTE, NCVET or another competent authority register and upload student credits; 1,749 institutions uploaded awards in 2024, and students cannot use ABC services without an APAAR ID. This makes your examination results table a national upload obligation, not just an internal record.

Where the gaps usually are

Attendance that is not computed the way the university computes it. Karnataka colleges affiliated to VTU should note clause 22OB 3.7 of the 2022 B.E./B.Tech regulations: attendance is calculated per course, the minimum is 85% in each course registered, and shortage up to 10% may be condoned by the Vice Chancellor on the Principal's specific recommendation. The Principal must also notify monthly the list of candidates falling short. A system that reports a single overall attendance percentage per student cannot support any of that.
Internal assessment stored as a total. The same VTU regulations set continuous internal evaluation at 50% weightage and require a minimum of 40% of CIE marks in a course to be eligible for the semester-end examination, with the Principal responsible for scrutinising the eligible list. Component-wise marks are needed both for that eligibility list and for NBA attainment.
Placement data held per department. Offers recorded by individual coordinators cannot produce a defensible institution-level median salary or progression count.
Faculty data split from academic data. Cadre ratios, faculty-student ratios and qualification counts appear in AICTE disclosure, NBA norms and NIRF alike. If HR and academics are separate systems, all three disagree.

What a useful export looks like

Ask a vendor to demonstrate all of these on a live instance, not in a slide:

Requirement	Why
Any report re-runnable for a past academic year, unchanged	Data validation compares your numbers across submissions
Every aggregate drillable to the underlying rows	You will be asked to substantiate a number, not just state it
Supporting documents attached to the record, not a shared drive	Evidence must be retrievable per student, per faculty, per event
Export to spreadsheet and PDF, with the generation date on it	Submissions and website disclosures need a fixed, dated version
Attendance and internal marks configurable to your university's rules	85% per course and 40% CIE eligibility are not universal defaults
Component-wise internal marks retained, not just totals	Required for outcome attainment

Frequently asked questions

Can an ERP generate our NAAC SSR automatically?

It can generate the quantitative metrics if the records are complete and were entered on time. Qualitative metrics and best-practice write-ups are institutional narrative and cannot be automated. Any vendor claiming full automation is describing the easier half.

Has NAAC moved to binary accreditation?

A Binary Accreditation Framework has been announced and NAAC has issued notices about it, alongside a Maturity-Based Graded Levels system, and institutions have been permitted to remain on the existing seven-criteria framework during the transition. Confirm your current position on naac.gov.in before planning a cycle.

What is the single highest-value record to fix first?

Attendance, computed per course exactly as your affiliating university defines it. It feeds examination eligibility, NAAC Criterion II, and any statutory attendance obligation, and it is the record most often maintained outside the ERP.

Do we need a separate accreditation module?

Not necessarily. Some vendors sell one and it can save assembly time. But a criterion-wise report over incomplete records produces a confident wrong answer. Fix data capture first.

Who should own accreditation data in the college?

The IQAC coordinator, with defined data owners per criterion and a named person in each department. Software does not create that accountability; it only makes it visible.

Eduvy's College ERP keeps admissions, students, attendance, fees and hostel on one data layer, with HRMS and placements on the same records. See the full picture for colleges.

Sources

https://naac.gov.in/index.php/en/assessment-accreditation
https://naac.gov.in/index.php/en/info-for-institutions/2-uncategorised/68-guidelines
https://naac.gov.in/index.php/en/
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2041287
https://aishe.gov.in/
https://www.aicte.gov.in/index.php/content/displaying-mandatory-disclosure-portal
https://asthaeducation.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MANDATORY-DISCLOSURE-2024-27.pdf (mirror of AICTE Approval Process Handbook 2024-27, Annexure 18)
https://www.nbaind.org/accreditation
https://www.nbaind.org/Files/sar-ug-t-ii-final-ver-06.pdf
https://www.nbaind.org/files/guidelines.pdf
https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2025/framework/Engineering.pdf
https://www.nirfindia.org/Docs/Faculty%20Student%20Ratio.pdf
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/7822003_GUIDELINES-ON-PUBLIC-SELF-DISCLOSURE-BY-HIGHER-EDUCATION-INSTITUTIONS.pdf
https://www.abc.gov.in/
https://vtu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Regulations-Clr-BE-BTECH-2022-611-02052023.pdf