Journal of Engineering Education Transformations ,

Volume 38 , No.1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707

10.16920/jeet/2024/v38i1/24181

A Comprehensive Analysis on Effectiveness of Parameters in

NIRF India Rankings 2023 for Top 100 Engineering Institutes

Ajit M. Hebbale1, A.N. Parameswaran 2, Niranjan N Chiplunkar 3, Shrinivasa Rao B.R 4

1
Nitte (Deemed to be University), NMAM Institute of Technology (NMAMIT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nitte,
Karnataka,574110, India
2
Nitte (Deemed to be University), NMAM Institute of Technology (NMAMIT), Department of Civil Engineering, Nitte,
Karnataka,574110, India
3
Nitte (Deemed to be University), NMAM Institute of Technology (NMAMIT), Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Nitte, Karnataka,574110, India
4
Nitte (Deemed to be University), NMAM Institute of Technology (NMAMIT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nitte,
Karnataka,574110, India
1
ajit.hebbale@gmail.com
2
director.iic@nitte.edu.in
3
principal_nmamit@nitte.edu.in
4
coe.nmamit@nitte.edu.in

Abstract : The National Institutional Ranking score. Consequently, Institutes must focus on
Framework (NIRF), evaluates universities and enhancing these parameters to enhance their total
institutions based on key parameters such as score and position in the NIRF rankings. The analysis
"Teaching, Learning, and Resources (TLR)," of histograms and descriptive statistics reveals that
"Research and Professional Practices (RPP)," 75% of ranked institutions score below 60% in RPP
"Graduation Outcomes (GO)," "Outreach and and PR parameters, indicating suboptimal
Inclusivity (OI)," and "Perception (PR)." The study performance in perception and research aspects. The
examines the top 100 Engineering institutes of NIRF study also highlights the importance of prioritizing
2023, focusing on their major parameter categories efforts to improve RPP and PR scores to enhance the
and their effectiveness in ranking processes. The overall performance and rankings of engineering
study will be useful to the engineering institutes to institutions in NIRF, as TLR, GO, and OI show
clearly understand the areas of improvement and to relatively consistent performance.
have an action plan for better rankings. Descriptive
statistics reveal that among five major categories RPP Keywords: NIRF 2023, TLR, RPP, GO, OI, PR,
& PR and in the sub-parameters Financial Resources Descriptive statistics, Histogram.
and their Utilisation (FRU), Footprint of Projects and
Professional Practice (FPPP), Metric for Number of 1. Introduction
Ph.D. Students Graduated (GPHD), and
Economically and Socially Challenged Students It was in the early 20th century that university
(ESCS) have the lowest effectiveness among others, rankings began in the United States, and US News and
indicating their minimal contribution in the total World Report became the first organization to publish
institutional rankings in the country in 1983 [1-3].
These rankings have become an important tool for
universities to market themselves and create
perceptions about their quality. Boulton [4] has noted
that a university's ranking can influence funding and
Ajit M. Hebbale project priorities, leading many to prioritize high
Nitte(Deemed to be University),NMAM Institute of Technology rankings for positive publicity. The main goal of
(NMAMIT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nitte, implementing a ranking system is to enhance the
Karnataka,574110, Indiaajit.hebbale@gmail.com overall quality of education, teaching & research.
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707 137

Accreditation and ranking agencies worldwide offer healthy competition among institutions, leading to an
global ratings & rankings, with India's autonomous overall improvement in the quality of education and
bodies like NAAC, and NBA, assessing institutions research in India. The ranking has also helped students
and granting accreditation for institutions and also for and parents make informed decisions about choosing
specific programs. The rankings, published by non- the right institution for higher education. However,
academic media, aim to improve education, there are certain limitations to the NIRF ranking
scholarship, and research standards. However, their methodology. One criticism is that it primarily focuses
limited participation and focus on admission on research output and neglects other essential aspects
campaigns make them questionable [5-7]. The higher of higher education, such as teaching quality and
education system in a country is influenced by its student experience. Another criticism is that the
history and vision, impacting its functioning and ranking methodology is subjective, and the perception
ranking. International university ranking systems parameter is given undue weightage, which may not
have faced criticism for their methodology and bias accurately reflect the quality of an institution. Despite
towards certain cultural factors [8-10]. The Indian these limitations, the NIRF ranking has had a
government introduced the National Institutional significant impact on the Indian higher education
Ranking Framework (NIRF) in 2015 to improve system. The ranking has encouraged institutions to
higher education quality, despite accreditation focus on research and innovation, leading to a
agencies monitoring it. The Ministry of Human substantial increase in research output and patents
Resource Development focuses on human resources filed. The ranking has also led to increased funding for
development, infrastructure improvement, and institutions that have performed well, leading to
expanding access to higher education. The NIRF further improvements in their overall performance.
ranking methodology assesses institutions using five The NIRF ranking has also been beneficial in
categories of parameters namely Teaching, Learning promoting inclusivity and diversity in the Indian
and Resources (TLR)," "Research and Professional higher education system. The outreach and inclusivity
Practices (RPP)," "Graduation Outcomes (GO)," parameter of the ranking evaluates institutions' efforts
"Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)," and "Perception (PR) to promote diversity and inclusion in their admission
[11]. The NIRF ranking in India improves policies and student body. This has led to an increase
competition, education, and research quality, aiding in the representation of marginalized communities in
students, and parents in selecting institutions. higher education institutions. Another notable impact
However, it may overlook teaching quality and of the NIRF ranking is the increased focus on
student experience. industry-academia collaboration. The ranking has
incentivized institutions to engage with industry
In response, the Indian government introduced the partners to promote research and innovation and to
National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in develop industry-relevant curricula. This has led to an
2015, despite the presence of multiple accreditation increase in industry-academia partnerships, leading to
agencies tasked with monitoring the quality of higher improved employability for students [13,14].
education within the country. The Ministry of Human
Resource Development (MHRD) in India is Several researchers are discussing how research
responsible for developing human resources and performance plays a role in ranking universities. It
improving basic infrastructure through policy and mentions that previous studies have shown the
planning, with a specific focus on expanding access to importance of research performance as an indicator
higher education and improving its quality. The NIRF for university rankings. The research article on
ranking methodology evaluates institutions based on comparative studies of international academic
five parameters: teaching, learning and resources ranking of universities, points out that four selected
(TLR), research and professional practice (RPP), international rankings contained an indicator of
graduation outcomes (GO), outreach and inclusivity research quality, which was the most important
(OI), and perception (PR). Each parameter has a indicator of international university ranking [15]. The
specific weightage, with TLR and RP accounting for various studies conducted on the National
30% each, GO accounting for 15%, OI accounting for Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in India.
15%, and PR accounting for 10%. The ranking is One study found that the parameters used in NIRF are
based on a composite score calculated by assigning comparable to world ranking systems like Times
weights to each parameter and sub-parameter [12]. World University Ranking and QS Ranking. Another
The NIRF ranking has been instrumental in promoting study identified that research output is the major
138 Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707

parameter that influences the NIRF ranking, and there engineering institutions ranked in the NIRF-2023,
is a positive correlation between capital expenditure focusing on the parameters and sub-parameters that
and national ranking score. The NIRF ranking system significantly influence their rankings. A descriptive
has encouraged universities to improve their research cross-sectional research approach is used, and data is
performance, resulting in exponential growth in sourced from the official NIRF website [6]. Minitab
publication count and citations of top-ranked software is used to derive meaningful insights and
universities [16]. The article also outlines the trends. The results of the current work can be used to
objectives and methodology of a new study focused classify and prioritise important metrics as institutions
on the top 100 universities in NIRF-2020, which aims attempt to improve their rankings. Through the use of
to identify the key parameters that determine the focused approaches in the NIRF assessment, it is
ranking of universities and their correlation with possible to improve rankings and improve overall
research output and library expenditure. The NIRF performance. As shown in Table I, there are five prime
ranking serves as a significant initiative in enhancing parameters and sub-parameters for analysing
the quality of higher education and research within engineering ranking metrics.
India. Its positive influence is observed in
encouraging institutions to prioritize research, In the current work, descriptive statistics of the
innovation, inclusivity, and collaboration between composed data are analysed, and the percentage of
academia and industry. Despite certain limitations in effectiveness is calculated by using (1). This
its methodology, the ranking system has effectively percentage helps as a valued metric, revealing the
spurred healthy competition among institutions, degree of influence that each parameter has on its
thereby contributing to the overall advancement of respective score.
education and research quality in the country. This
Mean value
study examines the effect of sub-parameters on the % of Effectiveness = Maximum score attained
× 100 (1)
five prime parameters and their collective effect on the
total score of the NIRF 2023 ranking. 3. Discussion and Analysis:

2. Methodology: A. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of

Category TLR:
This research study analyses the top 100
Table 1 :Parameters And Sub-parameters of The TLR parameter assesses engineering
Engineering Ranking (NIRF 2023) [6]. institutions' efforts towards the improvement of
Parameters / Category Sub-Parameters quality educational, by considering factors such as
Student Strength including Doctoral Students
(SS) faculty-student ratio, Ph.D qualified faculty, full-time
Faculty-student ratio with emphasis on faculty members, financial resources and student
1. Teaching, Learning permanent faculty (FSR)
& Resources (TLR) Combined metric for Faculty with PhD (or
strength. The best educational opportunities,
equivalent) and Experience (FQE) innovative teaching techniques, and adequate
Financial Resources and their Utilisation resources for student growth and development are
(FRU)
Combined metric for Publications (PU) prioritized by institutions that excel in this parameter.
Combined metric for Quality of Publications
2. Research and
(QP)
Professional Practice
IPR and Patents: Published and Granted (IPR) Table II presents the descriptive statistics of the
(RPP)
Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice sub-parameters of TLR, along with the corresponding
(FPPP)
Combined metric for Placement and Higher
effectiveness percentages. The percentage of
Studies (GPH) effectiveness of the four sub-parameters of TLR in
3. Graduation Metric for University Examinations (GUE) Engineering Institutes at NIRF 2023 ranges from
Outcomes (GO) Median Salary (GMS)
Metric for Number of Ph.D. Students 44.18% to 66.40%. Based on the percentage of
Graduated (GPHD) effectiveness, it can be concluded that Financial
Percentage of Students from other
States/Countries (Region Diversity RD) Resources & their utilization (FRU) (44.18%) are the
Percentage of Women (Women Diversity least effective sub-parameters in TLR among other
4. Outreach and WD)
Inclusivity (OI) Economically and Socially Challenged
sub-parameters & indicate that they contribute the
Students (ESCS) least in TLR score. Therefore, it is evident that more
Facilities for Physically Challenged Students attention and effort should be directed towards
(PCS)
Peer Perception: Employers & Academic Peer improving the FRU score. That is enhancing annual
5. Perception (PR)
(PR) capital expenditure per student (excluding
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707 139

expenditure on new building construction) and annual

operational expenditure per student (excluding hostel
maintenance and related services). The action plan
includes more funding to improve library facilities, to
upgrade existing laboratories& workshops with
industry collaboration, to encourage more seminars
&conferences, and professors of practice & to
enhance faculty members' salary in alignment with
state/central government scale of pay.
Table2:Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of TLR
Sub- % of
N Mean St. Dev. Min. Max.
parameters Effectiveness
SS 20 13.28 4.01 2.89 20.00 66.40
Fig.1 : Shows an overlaid histogram of
FSR 30 25.30 4.35 15.12 30.00 84.33 the TLR sub-parameter.
FQE 20 15.10 2.28 9.23 19.48 77.52
FRU 30 12.99 4.91 4.12 29.40 44.18 Table 3:Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of RPP
Sub- % of
N Mean St. Dev. Min. Max.
The overlaid histogram in Fig. 1 presents the data parameters Effectiveness
distribution for four sub-parameters: SS, FSR, FQE, PU 35 16.51 7.70 0.49 35.00 47.17
and FRU. The X-axis represents the score of sub- QP 40 18.32 8.21 1.84 38.72 47.31
parameters, while the Y-axis represents the number of IPR 15 4.99 3.83 0.00 15.00 33.27
institutes. FRU has an average score of 12.99 and a
FPPP 10 1.97 1.97 0.04 10.00 19.70
standard deviation of 4.91, indicating variability in the
performance of institutes in this area. SS has an
average score of 13.28 and a standard deviation of Ta b l e I I I d i s p l a y s R P P s u b - p a r a m e t e r s
4.01, displaying a range of performance levels among effectiveness percentages for evaluating engineering
institutes. FQE and FSR show relatively good scores institute performance. By analyzing the data in Table
across ranked institutes, with minor variations in III, the effectiveness percentages in the table range
mean scores, suggesting more consistent performance from 19.70% to 47.31%, representing the extent of
among institutions. The mean score of FRU is 12.99, influence these sub-parameters have on the respective
achieved by 17 out of 100 ranked engineering score. Among the sub-parameters of RPP, FPPP
institutes, making it crucial to improve FRU. exhibits the lowest effectiveness percentage
Therefore, it is recommended to prioritize efforts (19.70%), suggesting that it contributes the least to the
towards improving sub-parameters of FRU to RPP score. Therefore, based on the information
improve the TLR category score in the NIRF provided in Table III, it is evident that more attention
rankings. and effort should be directed toward improving the
FPPP score. Improving average annual research
B. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of funding earnings per faculty and average annual
Category RPP: consultancy amount per faculty is crucial for
improving the FPP score. This necessitates creating a
The Research and Professional Practice (RPP) conducive research ecosystem through the
parameter of NIRF engineering institutions evaluates identification of research-inclined faculty members,
research output and professional practices, conducting structured training programs, augmenting
identifying strengths and weaknesses in research research infrastructure, strengthening the research
output and their development. It helps enhance policies & encouraging inter & intra-disciplinary
research & consultancy quality. The parameter is research collaboration. The above initiatives will
divided into four sub-parameters: Combined metric encourage faculty members to acquire more external
for Publications (PU), Combined metric for Quality of research grants, and consultancy projects and to
Publications (QP), IPR and Patents: Published and improve the FPPP score. This, in turn, leads to an
Granted (IPR), and Footprint of Projects and improvement in the overall RPP score for engineering
Professional Practice (FPPP). institutes.
140 Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707

graduates for the real world, emphasizing practical

skills, industry exposure, and entrepreneurial spirit.

Table IV shows effectiveness percentages for GO

sub-parameters, ranging from 30.65% to 97.07%,
evaluating engineering institute performance. GPHD
has the lowest effectiveness percentage, suggesting
more attention and efforts should be directed towards
improving its score. To achieve this, focus on
recruiting competent research faculty, forming
partnerships, increasing research stipends,
establishing scholarships, investing in modern
facilities, and offering research support services such
Fig.2:Shows an overlaid histogram of as research methodology workshops, data analysis
RPP sub-parameters. assistance, and grant application support.

Fig. 2 shows a histogram showing sub-parameter Table 4:Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of GO.
scores for RPP, showing over 60% of top-ranked Sub-
N Mean St. Dev. Min. Max.
% of
parameters Effectiveness
engineering institutes have scores below 2 in FPPP.
GPH 40 30.00 5.57 9.75 38.72 77.48
The mean and standard deviation align with the
GUE 15 14.56 0.91 9.87 15.00 97.07
overall score distribution. However, only a limited
MS 25 14.93 3.95 8.72 25.00 59.72
number of institutions have achieved a commendable
score in FPPP. For the sub-parameter IPR, the mean GPHD 20 6.13 4.55 0.15 20.00 30.65

score is comparatively lower than that of QP and PU.

Over 25 institutions have obtained scores below 5 in Fig. 3 shows a histogram of GO sub-parameters,
IPR, indicating below-average performance in this with the X-axis representing scores and Y axis
aspect, with only a few institutions managing to attain representing the number of institutes. Most
a good score. In terms of PU and QP, the scores are institutions have scores below 50% for GPHD, while
widely scattered across a range of 0.5 to 38 among the MS has a normal distribution pattern, indicating a
top 100 institutions in NIRF 2023. This signifies more balanced score distribution. Over 85% of
significant variation in the performance of these sub- institutions have achieved favorable scores in GUE
parameters, with some institutions scoring very low and GPHE sub-parameters, indicating higher
and others achieving relatively higher scores. Overall, performance. The histogram in Fig. 3 suggests
Fig. 2 highlighted the variation in the performance of focusing on improving GPHD sub-parameters. A
the top-ranked engineering institutes, in the sub- significant number of institutions are not scoring well
parameter FPPP. It underscores the need for in GPHD, indicating the need for targeted efforts and
improvement in the FPPP score to enhance the overall interventions. Prioritizing initiatives to improve
RPP score for better rankings of the institutions. GPHD can help institutions achieve a more balanced
and higher overall score in the GO domain.
C. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of
Category GO:

Graduation Outcomes (GO) is a crucial NIRF

engineering parameter that evaluates graduating
students' employability-related skills and success in
placements, higher education pursuits, and
entrepreneurship initiatives. It includes sub-
parameters like Combined metric for Placement and
Higher Studies (GPH), Metric for University
Examinations (GUE), Median Salary (GMS), and
Metric for Number of Ph.D. Students Graduated
(GPHD). GO focuses on the effectiveness of
Fig. 3 : Shows overlaid histogram
education and training programs in preparing of sub-parameters of GO.
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707 141

D. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-parameters of

Category OI:

The 'Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)' parameter in

NIRF engineering institutions evaluates an
institution's efforts to promote inclusivity in education
and engage with diverse communities. It considers
factors such as Regional Diversity (RD), Women's
Diversity (WD), Economic and Socially Challenged
Students (ESCS), and facilities for Physically
Challenged Students (PCS). An institution's sub-
parameters, which represent its dedication to offering
assistance and equal opportunities to students from
diverse backgrounds, regulate its inclusiveness and Fig.4: Shows an Overlaid Histogram
outreach focus. of Sub-parameters of OI.
However, over 95% of institutions achieve favorable
Table 5 : Descriptive Statistics of
scores in the PCS sub-parameter, indicating higher OI
Sub-parameters of OI.
performance. Fig. 4 shows that ESCS sub-parameter
Sub- % of
parameters
N Mean St.Dev. Min. Max.
Effectiveness improvement is crucial for institutions to enhance
RD 30 15.16 6.35 0.36 25.66 59.08 support and inclusivity for economically and socially
WD 30 19.28 5.86 8.99 30.00 64.27
ESCS 20 4.85 3.33 0.00 12.68 38.25
challenged students. Targeted interventions can
PCS 20 19.78 2.00 0.00 20.00 98.90 improve overall OI domain scores, promoting a more
supportive educational environment.
Table V shows descriptive statistics and
effectiveness percentages of OI sub-parameters, E. Perception (PR):
assessing engineering institute performance. The
percentages range from 38.25% to 98.90%, indicating Perception (PR) is a valuable parameter in the
the influence these parameters have on scores. Among NIRF ranking of engineering institutions. It directs on
the sub-parameters of OI, ESCS has the lowest the perception of an institution amongst different
effectiveness percentage among OI sub-parameters, stakeholders, including students, parents, alumni, and
contributing the least to the overall score. To improve industry experts. The perception of an institution
the ESCS score, more focus and effort are required, as shows a vital role in deciding its reputation and image.
shown in Table V. Educational institutions can help It indicates how the institution is perceived in terms of
students facing economic and social challenges by its academic environment, research output, faculty
offering financial aid and scholarships to make quality, industry collaborations, infrastructure, and
education more accessible. They can also create overall performance. The objective of the perception
outreach initiatives like career counselling, parameter is to capture the subjective viewpoints and
workshops, and mentorship programs. Collaborations
with local schools, NGOs, and community groups can
help identify talented students who may need extra
support. This approach promotes diversity and
inclusivity in the student community.

The overlaid histogram in Fig. 4 shows that 90% of

ranked institutions have scores below 75% for the
ESCS sub-parameter, indicating poor inclusivity and
support for economically and socially challenged
students. The histogram also shows a scattered
distribution pattern for regional diversity (RD) and
women diversity (WD). This suggests that the
institutions' performance in diversity and inclusion
varies, with some demonstrating stronger efforts.
Fig.5 : Shows a histogram of perception.
142 Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707

perspectives of individuals involved in the field of and RPP exhibit the lowest effectiveness percentages
engineering education with regards to the quality and among the parameters, signifying their minimal
reputation of the institution. The assessment of the PR contribution to the overall NIRF 2021 score.
parameter is conducted through the administration of
surveys and the collection of feedback from various
individuals, including students, alumni, industry
professionals, and other stakeholders. These gathered
opinions and perceptions are then thoroughly
analysed in order to assess the institution's standing
and reputation. The scores obtained in this particular
parameter serve as an indication of the overall
perception of the institution and its ability to
positively influence both students and the industry.

Perception analysis evaluates institutions'

perceptions by stakeholders. The mean score is 24.71,
with over 80% of NIRF 2023 ranked institutes having
scores below 75% of the total perception parameter. Fig.6 : Shows overlaid histogram of
Fig. 5 shows this disparity. Most institutes have NIRF 2021 Engineering Parameters.
potential for improvement in their brand image and
stakeholder perception. To improve rankings and Figure 6 presents a histogram analysis of NIRF
perception scores, they should prioritize building a 2021 engineering parameters. The illustration reveals
positive brand image through communication, that a significant majority, approximately 80% of the
academic achievements, collaborative research ranked institutions, have achieved scores below 60%
contributions, industry partnerships, and community for parameters PR and RPP, indicating suboptimal
outreach. This will help them achieve higher scores in performance in perception and research domains.
perception parameters in future assessments. Conversely, the histogram depicts comparable
distribution patterns for parameters TLR, GO, and OI,
F. NIRF rankings on five prime Parameters of with slight variations in mean scores. This implies a
Engineering Institutions: consistent performance across the ranked institutions
in these specific parameters.
The NIRF ranking system uses five parameters to Table 8 : Descriptive Statistics of NIRF 2022:
rank engineering institutions: TLR, RPP, GO, OI, and TLR, RPP, GO, OI, Perception.
Perception. Each parameter is weighted differently, Sub- N Mean St. Dev. Min. Max. % of
parameters Effectiveness
and rankings are assigned based on performance TLR 100 65.49 10.21 38.30 94.61 69.22
relative to others. A comparison on NIRF 2021, 2022 RPP 100 38.36 20.42 5.32 97.66 39.27
and 2023 is carried out. GO 100 64.34 10.36 44.02 90.13 71.38
OI 100 57.14 7.34 41.34 79.48 71.89
Table VI presents the descriptive statistics and
PR 100 25.17 21.34 1.60 100 25.17
effectiveness percentages for the parameters utilized
in NIRF 2021 for the assessment of engineering
institute performance. The effectiveness percentages Table VII exhibits the descriptive statistics and
range from 25.39% to 72.84%, illustrating the impact effectiveness percentages pertaining to the parameters
of each parameter on its respective score. Notably, PR employed in the evaluation of engineering institute
Table 6 : Descriptive Statistics of NIRF 2021: performance within the NIRF 2022 framework. The
TLR, RPP, GO, OI, Perception. data spans a range from 25.17% to 71.89%, reflecting
Sub- N Mean St. Dev. Min. Max. % of the impact of each parameter on its respective score.
parameters Effectiveness Notably, among these parameters, PR and RPP
TLR 100 65.76 9.765 39.72 95.47 68.88
demonstrate the least effectiveness percentages,
RPP 100 35.45 20.67 3.02 96.43 36.76 implying their minimal contribution to the overall
GO 100 63.37 10.77 38.54 90.74 69.83 NIRF 2022 score.
OI 100 55.86 7.142 39.40 76.68 72.84
PR 100 25.39 22.41 0.00 100 25.39 Figure 7 illustrates a overlaid histogram analysis of
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707 143

on enhancing PR and RPP scores. Implementing

measurable actions, such as refining research policies,
fostering collaborative interdisciplinary projects, and
strengthening industry partnerships, can contribute to
improvements. Additionally, introducing academic
incentives, such as credits for student publications in
indexed journals, is advised. These strategic
initiatives address specific areas highlighted in the
respective sections, aiming to elevate overall rankings
in the NIRF engineering assessments.

Fig.7 : Shows overlaid histogram of

NIRF 2022 Engineering Parameters.
NIRF 2022 engineering parameters. The depiction
reveals that a considerable proportion, approximately
70% of the ranked institutions, have attained scores
below 60 % for parameters PR and RPP, signifying
suboptimal performance in perception and research
domains. Conversely, the histogram demonstrates
comparable distribution patterns for parameters TLR,
GO, and OI, with slight variations in mean scores.
This suggests a consistent performance across the Fig.8 : Shows overlaid histogram of NIRF
ranked institutions in these specific parameters. 2023 Engineering Parameters.
Table 8 : Descriptive Statistics of NIRF 2023: Fig. 8 displays a histogram analyzing NIRF 2023
TLR, RPP, GO, OI, Perception.
engineering parameters. It shows that 75% of ranked
Sub- % of
parameters
N Mean St. Dev. Min. Max.
Effectiveness
institutions have scores below 60% for PR and RPP,
TLR 100 66.68 8.66 44.65 95.20
70.04
indicating inadequate performance in perception and
RPP 100 41.81 19.11 5.70 96.41 research aspects. On the other hand, the histogram
43.37
GO 100 65.64 10.73 34.86 88.99 shows similar distribution patterns for TLR, GO, and
73.76
OI 100 59.08 7.307 39.17 79.56 OI parameters, with minor variations in mean scores,
74.26
PR 100 24.71 20.66 0.40 100.00
suggesting consistent performance across ranked
24.71
institutions.
Table VIII displays the effectiveness percentages
and descriptive statistics of parameters used in NIRF The above analysis of NIRF 2021, 2022 and 2023
2023 to evaluate engineering institute performance. engineering parameters shows consistent trends
The data ranges from 24.71% to 70.04%, indicating across different years, with a majority of ranked
the influence of each parameter on its score. Among institutions scoring below 60% for PR and RPP,
the parameters, PR and RPP have the lowest indicating suboptimal performance in perception and
effectiveness percentages, making the least research domains. However, TLR, GO, and OI
contribution to the overall NIRF score. parameters show consistent performance across
institutions. The histograms highlight the need for
The tables (VI, VII, and VIII) show the improvements in perception and research aspects.
effectiveness percentages of parameters used in NIRF Institutions aiming for better NIRF engineering scores
rankings for engineering institutes in 2021, 2022, and can focus on enhancing stakeholder perception,
2023, with PR and RPP showing the lowest research activities, and creating a conducive
effectiveness percentages, indicating their limited environment for high-quality research and
contribution to overall NIRF scores. In light of these professional practice, leading to improved PR and
observations, it is recommended that institutes focus RPP parameters and enhanced rankings.
144 Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707

4. Conclusions: partnerships with industries and research

institutions are recommended.
The findings of the present study on the top 100
Engineering Institutes of NIRF 2023 rankings yield Ÿ The least effective sub-parameter in Category 4
the following conclusions: - OI is ESCS (38.25%). To improve inclusivity,
the institution should offer financial aid and
1. NIRF Rankings' complexity, encompassing scholarships to economically disadvantaged
diverse parameters and sub-parameters, makes it students. This can be achieved through funding,
impossible for a single measure to fully encompass philanthropic efforts, alumni contributions, and
the entire spectrum. industry CSR initiatives.

2. The NIRF Rankings consist of five parameters and References:

seventeen sub-parameters.
[1] Wikipedia contributors. (2023). U.S. News &
3. The seventeen sub-parameters are categorized into World Report. Wikipedia.
five distinct groups based on their intrinsic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26
characteristics, namely teaching, learning, and _World_Report.
resources; research and professional practice;
graduation outcomes; outreach and inclusivity; [2] Glavic, P. University ranking using research,
and perception. educational and environmental indicators. J.
Clean. Prod., 2010, 18, 619–628.
4. The NIRF 2021, 2022 and 2023 top 100
engineering institution rankings show parameter 2 [3] Science & Engineering Indicators: The State of
- Research & Professional Practice and parameter 5 U.S. Science & Engineering. Alexandria, VA,
– Perception are the least effective. Strengthening a National Science Foundation, 2020.
conducive research ecosystem requires identifying https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/download
research-oriented faculty, implementing training s.
programs, enhancing infrastructure, and fostering
interdisciplinary collaborations and robust [4] Boulton, G. (2011). University Rankings:
industry–institute partnerships. Diversity, Excellence and the European
Initiative. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
5. Evaluation of seventeen sub-parameters S c i e n c e s , 1 3 , 7 4 – 8 2 .
effectiveness in major categories. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.006

Ÿ The sub-parameter "Financial Resources & [5] Srimathi, H., & Krishnamoorthy, A. (2020).
their Utilization (FRU - 44.18%)" in Category 1 REVIEW ON NIRF. Journal of Critical
- TLR needs improvement, focusing on R e v i e w s , 7 ( 0 4 ) .
increasing annual capital and operational https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.04.48
expenditure per student.
[6] Van der Wende, Marijk. To rank or to be ranked:
Ÿ The least effective sub-parameter, "Footprint of The impact of global rankings in higher
Projects and Professional Practice (FPPP - education. J. Stud. Int. Edu., 2007, 11, 306 – 329.
19.70%)" from RPP, should be addressed to
improve faculty research funding earnings and [7] S, Harley. The impact of research selectivity on
consultancy amounts. academic work and identity in UK universities.
Stud. High. Educ., 2002, 27(2), 187-205.
Ÿ The sub-parameter "Number of Ph.D. Students
Graduated (GPHD - 30.65%)" in Category 3 - [8] Joorel, J. P. Trivedi, K. (2021). Ranking of Indian
GO is the least effective. To address this, Research-Intensive Higher Education
strategic actions like hiring strong research Institutions using Multiple Ranking
faculty, increasing stipends, and fellowships, Methodologies a Correlation Analysis.
improving research infrastructure, establishing DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
research support services, and fostering T e c h n o l o g y .
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations , Volume 38, No. 1 , July 2024 , ISSN 2349-2473, eISSN 2394-1707 145

https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.41.1.16683 libraries: An empirical analysis. The Journal of

Academic Librarianship, 47(1),
[9] H e n k e l , M . a n d L i t t l e , B . C h a n g i n g 102264.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.10
Relationships between Higher Education and the 226
State. London, Jessica Kingsley, 1999. pp. 191-
203. [14] Gadd, E., Holmes, R. T., & Shearer, J. (2021).
Developing a Method for Evaluating Global
[10] Greenaway, D. Whither higher education? An University Rankings. Scholarly Assessment
economic perspective for the Dearing committee Reports, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.31
of inquiry. The Economic J., 1997, 107(442),
710-726. [15] Kumar, A., Singh, K., & Siwach, A. (2021). NIRF
India Rankings 2020 Analyzing the Ranking
[11] Sheeja, N. K., Mathew, K. S., & Cherukodan, S. Parameters and Score of Top 100 Universities.
(2018). Impact of scholarly output on university DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information
ranking. Global Knowledge, Memory and Te c h n o l o g y, 4 1 ( 5 ) , 3 8 5 – 3 9 0 .
Communication, 67(3), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.41.5.16452
https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-11-2017-0087
[16] Parameswaran, A., Hebbale, A. M., Sudevan, V.,
[12] MoE, National Institute Ranking Framework & Pakkala, T. (2020). Impact of Research
(NIRF). (n.d.).https://www.nirfindia.org/ Performance and Perception on Ranking of
2023/EngineeringRanking.html Universities-A study based on NIRF 2019.
Journal of Engineering Education
[13] Kumar, V., Balaji, B. P., & Monika. (2021). Transformations. https://doi.org/10.16920/
Correlates of the national ranking of higher jeet/2020/v34i1/150463
education institutions and funding of academic