Evidence in order, quality monitoring that stays up to date
We work with quality units, vice rectorates and degree coordinators so that the documentation of each programme has an owner, a place and a review date, and so that the next report starts from what is already recorded.
A bespoke evidence and quality portal for your institution, built around the criteria of the agency that evaluates you. It is delivered as working software, not only as a diagnostic report.
The result we work towards: one evidence map per criterion, with a named owner and a review date for each item, so that preparing a report becomes a review of what already exists instead of a search.
Three modules
01
Evidence repository
Documents organised by criterion, each with a named owner, a review date and version history.
02
Assigned review tasks and status
Who has to review what and by when, with the state of each item visible to the quality unit.
03
Traceable export
An export of the evidence set for a report or a visit, showing where each item came from and when it was reviewed.
First scope
One review or accreditation process and one team. The portal goes live for that scope, with real documentation, before anything is extended.
Acceptance criteria
Every criterion of the selected degree appears in the map, with evidence attached or explicitly marked as missing.
Each item of evidence has an owner and a review date agreed with the unit.
Each indicator sheet names a single data source accepted by the unit that produces it.
The quality unit can run the review workflow once, on its own, during the handover session.
Scope, price and calendar are agreed in writing before the pilot starts, based on the degree chosen, the agency that evaluates it and the state of the documentation we receive.
What we need from you
The criteria or guide of the agency that applies to the selected degree.
Access to the documentation of that degree as it is today, in whatever state it is.
One contact person in the quality unit and one in the degree coordination.
A short session with whoever produces the indicators today.
Next step
Tell us which degree or process comes next in your calendar and who leads it. We reply with a scoped fit discussion.
The agency criterion the institution has to answer
02
Evidence
The document or figure that supports it, with its owner
03
Review
The quality unit validates and records the version
04
Report
The report is assembled from what is already validated
If you continue: implementation
If the pilot convinces the institution, implementation extends the same structure to the rest of the catalogue, at the pace the teams can absorb.
Extension of the evidence model to the remaining degrees, faculty by faculty.
Connection with the systems already in use, where they expose the data.
Roles and permissions for quality unit, coordinators and reviewers.
Training of the teams and follow up of adoption during the first cycle.
Maintenance and the updates that changes in the criteria impose over time.
What already exists and what is built for you
Existing building blocks
Patterns we have already built and operate: structured repositories, review workflows and multilingual content.
Configuration and adaptation, subject to fit
Configuration to your agency criteria and connection to the systems you already use, subject to a technical fit check.
Custom development
The evidence model, roles and exports specific to your institution are developed for this project.
Cost depends on the number of users, the integrations required, data migration, languages and support. The proposal confirms price and calendar before any work begins.
Example of application
Where artificial intelligence could help
These are custom developments we can propose, not features already deployed. In all of them a person reviews and approves before anything is used.
Proposing a classification of evidence
A model suggests which criterion each document relates to. The quality unit accepts or corrects the proposal. Nothing enters the file without that step.
Flagging inconsistencies before submission
Differences between the report, the annexes and the indicator sheets are listed for a person to check, not corrected automatically.
Drafting descriptive sections
First drafts of descriptive text built only from validated evidence, which the unit then rewrites and signs.
Related references
Universitas tool
Institutional self diagnosis
An online self diagnosis for leadership teams that reviews the institution's starting point in European projects, quality assurance and programme design, and returns a structured reading of the options available.
A comparison tool that places an institution's position in European programmes next to reference data, used to prepare strategic conversations with rectorates and research offices.
No. The pilot works on the documentation as it is today. Any connection with existing systems is proposed afterwards, and only where those systems expose the data.
Does this guarantee a favourable accreditation result?
No, and we do not present it that way. The decision belongs to the agency. What the work provides is documentation that is organised, traceable and ready for review.
Who owns the result?
The institution. The structure, the documents and the definitions stay with you, and we agree in writing what happens with any tool at the end of the engagement.
Is personal data involved?
Only if the institution decides so. We agree the legal basis and the minimisation measures at the design stage and record them in the project documentation.
The process involved: accreditation, teaching, projects or institutional data.
Who leads it inside the institution and who has to review the result.
The systems already in use and the timeline or deadline you work with.
What happens next
1A scoped fit discussion: we look at the process, who owns it and whether a pilot makes sense.
2A written scope and quote, with the calendar, before any work starts.
3The pilot runs and is accepted against the criteria agreed in that document.
Prepare a short brief
The brief is prepared locally on this page. The button opens a draft in your own email application, ready for you to review and send. This page does not submit anything to our systems. Please do not include personal data.
Summary
Client type: Quality and academic leadership
Type of institution: University
Need: Evidence and quality assurance
Timeline: Within three months