Keep the records, evidence and outcome attainment that accreditation asks for in one place, with each department filling in its own lists and a reviewer approving them. CO–PO, AACSB and NAAC are switched on separately, and the whole thing can run with OLT SIS or on its own.
An institution can have CO–PO only, AACSB only, NAAC only or any combination. The shared screens offer only the frameworks the institution has.
AACSB records and NAAC registers run on the same engine, so a list behaves the same way whichever framework it belongs to.
Each school, department or office has contributors who keep its lists and reviewers who approve them. A list goes from draft to submitted to approved, or is returned with comments; approval freezes the rows and the exact evidence versions.
A document is uploaded once and attached wherever it is needed. A new upload becomes a new version, an approved list keeps the version it was approved with, and confidential items can be restricted to the unit, its reviewers and the IQAC.
Every import uses the same steps: template, upload, column matching, preview and confirm. Problems are shown by row and column, uploading the same file twice changes nothing, and a change to an approved list is held for a reviewer.
Each person sees, for their own units, the lists still to fill, rows missing evidence, items waiting for their review and improvement actions due.
A workbook with one sheet per approved list and an evidence index giving each file’s version and SHA-256 fingerprint. Columns that name people are left out unless the office includes them.
Every definition that has not been confirmed against the official source is listed in one place, so a working assumption is not mistaken for the requirement.
An institution that keeps its students, subjects and marks in another system can use the accreditation modules on their own. Schools and departments, programmes, subjects, faculty and teaching assignments, students, electives, assessment items, marks, CO–PO outcomes and the accreditation lists themselves are imported from Excel or CSV in a set order, each with a preview before anything is saved. The student-records pages such an institution does not use are hidden; nothing is deleted, and they come back if the edition is switched off. HR, finance and research-office figures are imported or typed in.
Which of these are included in a deployment is set out in the proposal for that institution.
Chosen per programme: course outcomes from marks, course outcomes from rubric criteria and imported scores as well, or programme outcomes only.
Scores from a university examination or an external examiner’s result sheet, used only for attainment and never turned into a mark or grade.
Attainment by subject, term and programme, with charts, the sources used and Excel and PDF exports. A locked report does not change when marks or mappings do.
Measures, per-student scores kept apart from course grades, results against the school’s target, faculty review, improvement actions and reassessment.
A bundled set of lists for school plans, resources, faculty, curriculum, student progress, research and societal impact, which the school adjusts to its own needs.
Each teacher’s participation and qualification category from a date, with the basis and evidence, and a summary for any date.
Registers by criterion, some filled from the records the platform already holds, and metrics calculated from approved registers with the numerator and denominator kept.
Answers held apart from who responded, results withheld below a minimum group size, and the average carried into the metric.
A workshop, seminar or outreach event recorded once with its participants, supporting several standards or metrics and still counted once.
Everything the platform holds about one teacher: department, qualification status, courses taught, development, events and the accreditation rows that name them.
Every confirmed import with its counts; rejected rows can be downloaded, corrected and imported again without duplicates.
Each accreditation screen explains what it is for, what one record means, where the information comes from and what happens next.
An illustration of a typical sequence. Your own process is configured during implementation.
The office sets up schools and departments, switches on the frameworks and appoints contributors and reviewers.
The bundled lists are loaded and adjusted to the institution’s own needs.
Contributors fill their unit’s lists for the year by hand, from the platform’s records or from Excel.
Evidence is attached to each row and the list is submitted for review.
The reviewer approves it, or returns it with comments for changes.
Approved lists feed the calculated figures, reports and the export workbook.
The accreditation modules are part of the OLT SIS platform, where each institution has its own database and takes only the modules it needs. With the full platform, many lists can be filled from the programmes, subjects, teachers, results and placements it already holds.
One student record from registration to transcript, covering courses, attendance, assessment, grading and attainment reporting.
The core every institution has and fifteen optional modules, on one student record.
A question bank, quiz structures and schedules for assessing what students have learnt.
Yes. The accreditation-only edition is for an institution that keeps its students, subjects and marks in another system. Programmes, subjects, faculty, students, marks and outcomes are imported from Excel or CSV files in a set order, and the student-records pages the institution does not use are hidden. Systems such as HR, finance and the research office are not connected; their figures are imported or typed in.
CO–PO outcome attainment, AACSB for business schools, and NAAC for Indian universities. Each is switched on separately, in any combination, and the shared screens show only the frameworks the institution has. Records that serve both AACSB and NAAC, such as research papers, books, grants and consultancy, are entered once.
No. AACSB prescribes no targets, so the institution sets its own. The software calculates no NAAC score or grade. The bundled lists and suggested calculations are starting points, marked for the institution to check against the official definitions, and using the software does not by itself lead to accreditation.
It depends on the number of students, which frameworks you switch on, whether you use the full student information system or the accreditation-only edition, and the deployment model. Tell us those and we will give you a figure.
Tell us which frameworks you report against and how your departments collect data today, and the demonstration will follow that.
