NAAC is mandatory. It is also essential for your Institute’s credentials and growth. But getting to a top grade is not easy. There are empty hurdles and barriers which make preparations to meet the criteria extremely challenging. Let us take a look at some of these:

Major Takeaways:
Leadership of the Institute wants top accreditation grade, quickly. As a Lead, when you order an audit of the fitness of your institute on various criteria, you often end-up feeling ‘low’ on your institute’s readiness.
As IQAC or Steering Committee Chairman, you could be a determined person to succeed at all cost, but won’t find enough committed faculty who can work beyond the call of duty, commit themselves to accreditation details and find a way-out of the challenges posed by each criterion.
You find that data submitted by you in the AISHE portal and to the AICTE is in variance with the actual position on ground. So, how would you submit the data for the IIQA, Extended profile and on DVV formats?. You are seriously struck! Apprehension of fudging and misrepresentation of data could haunt you.
You need requisite Professors on board but Leadership doesn’t have the appetite to hire. Since NAAC expects you to submit the data of the past 5 years on most metrics, so, even if you hire at this stage, it won’t see you through. So what would you do?
A number of NAAC metrics with significant weightage have completely surprised you, requiring you to submit data of the past 5 years. You had never anticipated that. How do you get back in time?
Outcome-based education system has not fully immersed in your Institute’s academic system. There is a superficial understanding of the system, limited to PEOS, POs, PSOs and COS but very little understanding of assessment and evaluation process. 99% institutes don’t have data and ‘know-how’ in documenting indirect assessment, including requisite survey data for the assessment of the PEOs.
Lack of crystal clarity on the system and a mammoth data collection, collation, analysis and presentation turns scary to most Deans, Heads of Departments, leading to a low degree of indulgence, and this mindset trickles down to the faculty under them, leading to low engagement for accreditation.
A dearth in the institute of high professional ‘content writers’ in replying nearly 39 qualitative metrics renders them hamstrung.