Evidence that already exists when they ask
The hard part of accreditation was never understanding the criteria. It was proving what your institution already did. Ivake records attendance, assessment, activities, publications and outcomes as they happen — so the submission is a report you run, not a term you lose.
Why it costs a term
The data existed. It was just never kept together
Every institution facing a peer team visit does the same thing: stops normal work and reconstructs three years of records from registers, inboxes, departmental folders and somebody’s laptop.
The seminar happened. The attendance was taken. The publication was made. The activity report was written. None of it was filed against a criterion at the time, so all of it has to be found, matched and re-entered by people who should be teaching.
That is not an accreditation problem. It is a record-keeping problem that only becomes visible once every five years, which is exactly why nobody fixes it in between.
| Criterion | Data captured | Owner | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Curricular aspects | 94% | Dean, Academics | 2 BoS minutes |
| 2 · Teaching & learning | 100% | Controller of Exams | — |
| 3 · Research & extension | 71% | Dean, Research | 18 publications |
| 4 · Infrastructure | 88% | Estate Officer | AMC records |
| 5 · Student support | 96% | Dean, Students | 3 activity reports |
| 6 · Governance | 82% | Registrar | Feedback analysis |
| 7 · Institutional values | 90% | IQAC Coordinator | 1 audit report |
Each percentage links to the records behind it. Opening a gap shows exactly what is missing and who owns it.
What it covers
One set of records, every framework that asks for them
Frameworks and portals change. The underlying facts — who taught what, who attended, what they scored, what the department published — do not.
NAAC, criterion by criterion
Criterion-wise data sets and Self-Study Report support, with every figure linked to the records it came from rather than typed into a spreadsheet.
Outcome attainment for NBA
Course and programme outcomes (CO/PO/PSO) computed from the live grade book, with attainment levels, gaps and actions updating as the term runs.
AISHE, AICTE and university returns
Generated from the same student record, so the number you file matches the number in your own system.
Activities, kept whole
Seminars, NSS, extension work and MoUs with the proposal, attendance, report and outcome filed together — not scattered across four inboxes.
Student progression
Placement, higher study, entrepreneurship and dropout tracked continuously, because progression data cannot be reconstructed after the students leave.
An IQAC workspace
Owners, deadlines and the live gap against each metric, so quality assurance is a standing job with names against it rather than a committee that meets before a visit.
Where the AI helps
It tells you what is missing while there is still time to fix it
Accreditation software usually reports readiness. The useful version does the mapping and the chasing.
Maps records to criteria
Reads what you already hold — activities, publications, results, attendance — and files it against the metric it evidences, so nobody sorts it by hand.
Names the gap, and the owner
Not “criterion 3 is at 71%” but which eighteen publications are unrecorded and which dean holds them.
Chases the evidence
Follows up with the department that owes an activity report, on a schedule your IQAC coordinator sets, and stops when it arrives.
Every action is written to the audit trail with the actor and the previous value — including when the actor was Ivake.
What changed
Grades are gone. The evidence burden did not go with them
NAAC has moved to a binary outcome, and a good deal of commentary read that as a lighter process. It is not. The same underlying records are still required — what changed is that there is no longer a grade to soften a weak submission.
Institutions that keep evidence continuously find the change neutral. Institutions that assemble it in the term before a visit find it considerably less forgiving, because a binary result has no partial credit.
Where the records come from
Nothing on this page is a separate accreditation module you fill in. It is the same data your departments already generate in campus operations — attendance marked on a phone, marks entered in the grade book, activities logged when they happen.
That is the whole argument. Accreditation readiness is not a project you run. It is a by-product of recording the year properly, which is what the rest of the platform is for.
- Attainment computed from real marks, not assembled at submission time
- Evidence linked to the record it came from, so a peer team can be shown the source
- A new manual means a reporting change, not another round of collection
Accreditation frameworks and portals change. Always follow the current manual for your category of institution — this page describes how Ivake holds the underlying data, not a substitute for the manual.
Book a demo
See Ivake running on your own data
Send us a sample before the call: a term of enquiries, a fee structure, or a class list. We load it and set up your programmes, so you see your own institution on screen rather than a demo account.
- 45 minutes, your data. Not a generic tour of features.
- Migration mapped on the call. We show exactly where your current records land.
- A written rollout plan within two working days, with phases, owners and dates.
- No pressure to switch everything at once. Most schools and colleges start with one department or one intake.