Attainment you can reproduce, from the marks you already record.
Outcome-based education that maps every assessment item to the outcomes it measures, then computes CO and PLO attainment with the working attached. One method, one policy version, one number the whole institution can defend.
The problem
The marks are recorded all year. The attainment number is assembled in a week.
Most institutions can produce a grade sheet in minutes and an attainment report in three weeks, because the two live in different places. Marks sit in a gradebook or an LMS, the outcome map sits in a spreadsheet a coordinator built, and the attainment figure is typed into a template shortly before a visit.
Three things go wrong every cycle. The mapping is done after the fact, so an item measures whatever someone decides it measured. The computation is a private method, so the number cannot be reproduced when the coordinator changes. And the result is a claim without evidence, so an accreditor asking how a figure was derived gets a rebuild rather than an answer.
The operating model
Map at creation, compute from records, keep the working.
Four design choices turn outcome-based education from an audit-season exercise into an operating layer: outcomes are governed definitions, mapping happens when the assessment is created, attainment is computed rather than assembled, and every stored figure keeps its inputs.
Outcomes are definitions, not labels
PEOs, POs or PLOs, COs, competencies and graduate attributes live as governed, versioned objects owned by curriculum, so every course, cohort and campus measures against the same statement.
Mapping happens at creation
An assessment item, question or rubric criterion is linked to the outcomes it measures when it is built, with its weight. Nothing is retrofitted, so coverage gaps show up in week three rather than at the audit.
Attainment is computed, not assembled
The engine reads the marks already recorded and applies the method, weights and threshold in your attainment policy. Recompute it a year later and you get the same figure.
Every number keeps its working
Each stored result carries its assessment items, weights, method, threshold and policy version, so proving a figure is opening a record rather than reconstructing a spreadsheet.
What it does
Five things outcome-based education needs. One engine.
The outcome framework, mapping and rubrics, attainment computation, gap analysis and closing the loop, and the evidence an accreditor asks for. Pick one to see what sits inside it.
Click any block to explore
One statement of what a graduate should be able to do.
- Programme educational objectives, programme and course outcomes
- Competencies, milestones and entrustable professional activities
- Graduate attributes and institutional learning outcomes
- Framework libraries for NBA, ABET, AACSB and MQA
- Versioned outcome statements with effective dates
- Curriculum map from course to programme outcome
- Articulation matrix with correlation levels
Every item linked to what it measures, when it is created.
- Assessment item, question and rubric criterion mapping
- Weighting per mapped outcome
- Rubric builder with performance levels and descriptors
- Blueprints for coverage across outcomes and cognitive levels
- Direct and indirect evidence types
- Course exit, alumni and employer surveys
- Coverage warnings for unmapped or over-weighted items
One method, applied the same way every time.
- Configurable attainment methods per programme
- Target levels and thresholds by outcome
- Direct and indirect blending at policy weighting
- Course outcome to programme outcome roll-up
- Cohort, section, campus and batch level computation
- Versioned attainment policy, no silent recalculation
- Recompute on demand with an identical result
Below target becomes an action with an owner and a date.
- Target against actual, by outcome and cohort
- Gap analysis at course, programme and institution level
- Continuous quality improvement actions with owners and due dates
- Trend across terms, batches and campuses
- Course and programme review packs generated from live data
- Student-level outcome profile and weak-outcome alerts
Every figure opens onto the evidence behind it.
- Drill-down from a reported number to the graded items
- Stored inputs, weights, method, threshold and policy version
- Moderation and approval record attached to each result
- Attainment reports by course, programme, cohort and campus
- Criterion-mapped evidence packs for NBA, ABET, AACSB and MQA
- Self-study and assurance-of-learning exports
- Immutable audit trail on every recomputation
Inside the product
The whole outcome cycle, in one place.
This is the application, not a diagram. Move through the surfaces your coordinators and quality office work in: the outcome map, assessment mapping and rubrics, attainment computation, the student outcome profile, gap analysis and the evidence pack.
| Outcome | Evidence | Computed from | Attainment |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO1 | Direct | CA1, final exam Q1 to Q4weights 60 / 40 | 81% |
| CO2 | Direct | CA1, CA2, final exam Q5 to Q8weights 30 / 30 / 40 | 74% |
| CO3 | Direct + indirect | Project rubric, exit survey80 / 20 blend | 72% |
| CO4 | Direct + indirect | Project rubric, vivapolicy v2023.1 | 63% |
Lifecycle or product
The lifecycle is the operating model. This is the product that runs it.
Two pages, two jobs. Read the lifecycle to understand how evaluation connects to curriculum, exams, records and accreditation; read this page to see the application your coordinators and quality office open on Monday.
One of the institutional lifecycles: the governed model for assessment patterns, exams, grading, moderation and attainment.
The application that runs outcome-based education: frameworks, mapping, rubrics, attainment, gap analysis and evidence.
How does evaluation connect to curriculum, records, quality and accreditation?
What do coordinators, heads of department and the quality office actually see and do in each screen?
The full evaluation model, including exam administration, grade entry, moderation and publication.
Outcome to evidence: frameworks, mapping, rubrics, computation, gap analysis and accreditation exports.
You are designing the operating model or comparing architectures.
See the lifecycle →
You are replacing an OBE spreadsheet or a bolt-on attainment tool.
See inside the product →
Displacement
A bolt-on computes attainment. It cannot show you where it came from.
Outcome tools that sit beside the systems of record start from an upload. Marks are exported, mapped in a second place and computed against a method held outside the institution's policy, so the figure is only as trustworthy as the last spreadsheet, and proving it means rebuilding the chain by hand.
Rebuilt in a second place, after the term.
Made when the assessment is created, on the record itself.
An assertion, computed off an upload.
A calculation that stores its working and recomputes identically.
A reconstruction project every cycle.
A view of live records, generated on request.
Good at arithmetic. Disconnected from curriculum, assessment and the evidence behind the marks.
Also part of the operating system
Outcomes & Attainment is also part of Assessment & Outcomes.
Connect it and mapping, grading, moderation and attainment run on the same records, so accreditation evidence is a report rather than a project.
Built for every role
One computation. Five views of the same evidence.
Maps items once while building the assessment, then reads attainment without assembling anything.
Grades against a rubric and the outcome evidence follows automatically, with no second data entry.
Sees which outcomes sit below target during the term, and who owns the action.
Exports criterion-mapped evidence where each figure opens onto its graded items.
Compares attainment across programmes and campuses on one method, not five spreadsheets.
What academic teams say about running outcomes on Creatrix.
Creatrix Campus has helped us centralise all student information in one reliable and intuitive system, improving efficiency and reducing errors. We use it to manage student data, schedule sessions, and automatically generate transcripts, which has simplified many of our academic processes.
Creatrix provides an excellent platform for timetabling within the School of Pharmacy, enabling teaching activities to be planned and coordinated through a clear line of sight to learning outcomes, assessments, professional competency standards, entrustable professional activities, and graduate attributes.
Go deeper
From the Creatrix library.
Blogs, whitepapers and case studies for the people who own the evidence: course coordinators, heads of department, deans and the quality office.
Frequently asked
Plain answers about outcomes and attainment.
How is CO and PLO attainment computed?
From the marks already recorded against mapped assessment items, using the method, weights and threshold set in your attainment policy.
Each stored result carries its inputs, weights, method, threshold and policy version, so the same number can be recomputed and explained months later.
Can we keep our own attainment method?
Yes. Methods, target levels, thresholds and the direct-to-indirect weighting are configurable per programme and versioned, so changing a method never silently rewrites history.
Does it handle indirect assessment such as surveys?
Yes. Course exit surveys, alumni and employer feedback are collected as indirect evidence and blended with direct assessment at the weighting your policy defines.
Direct and indirect figures are reported separately as well as combined, because most accreditors want to see both.
How does mapping work across curriculum and assessment?
PEOs, programme outcomes, course outcomes and competencies are governed definitions owned by curriculum. Curriculum mapping links courses to programme outcomes with articulation levels.
Assessment mapping links each item, question or rubric criterion to the course outcomes it measures, at the moment the assessment is created.
Does it support competency-based education and CBME?
Yes. Competencies, milestones and entrustable professional activities are governed definitions with their own rubrics and attainment rules, alongside conventional CO and PLO reporting.
What does an accreditor actually see?
Every reported figure opens onto the assessment items behind it, the mapping weights, the method, the threshold, the moderation record and the policy version in force at the time.
Criterion-mapped evidence packs export for NBA, ABET, AACSB, MQA and institutional review.
Can we run it standalone?
Yes. It runs on its own against marks imported from your gradebook or LMS, and it connects into the Academic Operating System when you are ready, so mapping and attainment run on the same records as assessment, curriculum and accreditation.
SEE IT ON YOUR OWN OUTCOMES
Bring one programme and one term. We will compute the attainment live.
A tailored proof session uses your outcome framework, your assessment plan and your attainment policy, not a canned demo. Leave with a named, dated next step.