Every decision in a candidature, on the record.
Thesis and dissertation management where registration, supervision, drafts, examiner decisions and the final result sit on one record. When someone asks how a degree was awarded, the answer is a record rather than a recollection.
The problem
The thesis exists. The record of how it was approved does not.
Supervision happens in inboxes and corridors. Drafts sit on personal drives with names like final_v7. Examiner comments arrive on paper, the defence date is agreed by phone, and the result travels to records as an email. The degree is sound. The proof that it was awarded properly is scattered across four people and two mailboxes.
Three failures repeat. Progress is nobody's single job, so slippage surfaces when a candidate is already late. The audit trail is assembled after the fact, so integrity is asserted rather than evidenced. And the result is re-keyed, so the transcript depends on somebody reading the right email.
What changes
Four outcomes, and the mechanism behind each one.
Research degrees are judged on whether the process holds up, whether candidates finish, whether supervisors can supervise rather than chase, and whether the result lands cleanly. The mechanism is named under each claim so you can test it.
Integrity you can evidence, not assert.
Every version is retained, every piece of feedback is attached to the version it refers to, and every approval carries a person, a role and a date. An appeal or an external review is answered from the record instead of from memory.
Candidates finish, because slippage shows early.
Milestones carry target dates and owners, so a candidature that is drifting appears on a dashboard in the month it starts drifting rather than in the term it becomes a problem. Reminders go out without anyone maintaining a list.
Supervisors supervise instead of chasing.
One workspace per candidature holds the current draft, the history, the outstanding actions and the feedback thread. Reviewing a submission and approving a stage happen in the same place, with no file naming conventions to police.
The result reaches the record once.
Evaluation runs against a rubric, the result is approved by the people who are meant to approve it, and the approved outcome posts to the student record. Nobody re-types a grade, and nothing waits on a forwarded message.
One record, start to award
A candidature, and what each stage fixes on the record.
The same six stages run for a masters dissertation and a doctoral thesis, with different milestone models underneath. What matters is that each stage leaves something behind.
Register
A candidature opens with topic, abstract, programme and term, and routes for approval.
Fixed hereThe candidature exists, with a dateAssign supervision
A supervisor is assigned by department, specialisation or availability, proposed or allocated by rule.
Fixed hereWho supervises, from whenApprove the proposal
The proposal and outline are reviewed by the advisor or committee before work proceeds.
Fixed hereWhat was approved, by whomSupervise
Milestones carry dates, drafts arrive as versions, and feedback is recorded against the version it concerns.
Fixed hereEvery draft and every commentExamine
Internal and external examiners are appointed, the defence is scheduled, and evaluation follows a rubric.
Fixed hereWho examined, and on what basisAward
The result is approved, posted to the student record, and a completion certificate is issued.
Fixed hereThe outcome, and its authorityNothing here is retrospective. Each stage records what it decided at the moment it decided it, which is the difference between a file you assemble for a review and a record a review can simply be shown.
What is in it
Six areas of capability.
Six areas, described by the job they do. If you are building a requirements matrix, ask for the datasheet: it carries the full list, feature by feature, with configuration notes.
Registration and supervision
Opening a candidature and putting the right academic beside it, with the assignment on record from the start.
Proposal and timeline
Agreeing the plan, then tracking it against dates without a spreadsheet in the middle.
Drafts and feedback
The working part of a research degree, kept in one place instead of across two inboxes and a shared drive.
Examination
The part that has to withstand scrutiny: who examined, when, and against what.
Result and award
Closing the candidature cleanly, so the outcome reaches the student record once.
Oversight and reach
What the graduate school sees across programmes, and what the candidate sees of their own progress.
Configuration, not code. Milestone models, approval routes and rubrics differ by programme and by campus, and are set by your team. The full feature list lives in the datasheet rather than on this page, so ask for it during an evaluation and it comes with the configuration notes attached.
What provable means here
Four questions a review can ask, and where each answer comes from.
Research integrity is usually described as a policy. In practice it is whether four specific questions can still be answered years after the award, without asking the people involved to remember.
Originality checking runs through the plagiarism tool you already licence, and the report is filed against the version it was run on. The software organises the evidence and enforces the route. The academic judgement stays with your examiners.
Go deeper
From the Creatrix library.
Blogs, whitepapers and case studies for the people who run graduate research: graduate deans, research administrators, supervisors and examiners.
Frequently asked
What graduate schools ask first.
Does this replace our student information system for the final grade?
No. The result is recorded and approved in the thesis record, then posted to the student record or degree audit. The transcript stays where it is today.
Can masters and doctoral candidates follow different processes?
Yes. Milestone models, approval routes and rubrics are configured per programme, and one institution can run undergraduate, masters and doctoral processes across different campuses.
Does it work with the plagiarism tool we already use?
Yes. Originality checking runs through your existing tool, and the report is attached to the version it was run against rather than filed somewhere separate.
Can external examiners take part without a full account?
Yes. Examiners are given access to what they need in order to evaluate, and their evaluation is held against the submission it refers to.
What happens if supervision changes mid-candidature?
The change is recorded with its dates, so the record shows who supervised which phase rather than only who supervised last.
Can we run Thesis Management on its own?
Yes. It runs standalone, and it connects into the Academic Operating System when you are ready for the wider lifecycle.
BRING ONE PROGRAMME
Bring one programme and one cohort. We will run a candidature end to end.
A tailored proof session uses your milestone model, your approval routes and your examination rules, not a canned demo. Leave with a named, dated next step.