Colleges run on spreadsheets more than they admit, and for a lot of departmental work they are adequate. The breakdown happens at the boundaries — when data has to cross departments, or be reproduced for someone outside.
Where it works, honestly
A single faculty member tracking marks for their own class. A department maintaining its own timetable. Small, self-contained data with one owner and one consumer.
Replacing that with a system nobody wants to use is a downgrade, and it is how ERP projects lose the goodwill they need.
Where it stops working
Attendance that must aggregate
Attendance is recorded per class by different faculty in different files. The question that matters is at student level across all subjects — for eligibility, for detention, for parent communication.
Answering it means consolidating dozens of files with inconsistent formats, and it has to happen repeatedly, under deadline, with a rule about what counts as a class.
Internal marks feeding a final result
Components collected separately, weighted, combined with externals. Each handover between spreadsheets is an opportunity for a transcription error, and an error in a published result is a serious problem that is difficult to correct cleanly.
Accreditation and regulatory data
This is where the cost becomes undeniable. Accreditation frameworks ask for data spanning years and departments: student progression, results, faculty qualifications and research, infrastructure, placement records.
If it lives in departmental spreadsheets, preparation becomes a months-long reconstruction exercise, with senior faculty diverted from teaching to assembling numbers — and the numbers frequently cannot be reconstructed accurately for earlier years because nobody was capturing the fields.
A system capturing the underlying data as it happens turns that into a report. This single consideration justifies most college ERP purchases.
Anything a student asks for
Transcripts, bonafide certificates, migration certificates, attendance records. Each requires assembling data from several places, and the student waits.
The transitional pattern that works
Faculty continue to work in a familiar format — often a spreadsheet template — and the system ingests it. Central data is consistent; nobody is forced into an unfamiliar interface for their daily work.
This is a pragmatic middle ground, and it is how most successful college implementations actually run in the first year. Insisting that every faculty member enter marks directly on day one is where adoption fails.
Sequencing
- Student master. One authoritative record, cleaned. Everything else depends on it.
- Fees. Clear value, clear owner, contained scope.
- Attendance. Once a workable capture process is agreed with faculty.
- Examinations. Timed to a semester boundary.
- Accreditation reporting. Which by now largely assembles itself.
The order matters more than the pace. Starting with examinations, before the student master is trustworthy, produces results tied to unreliable identities.
About the author. Kislay Chandan has worked with schools since 2014. Rather than gathering requirements from the outside, he worked inside a school to see what actually goes wrong day to day, and built what he found into the software. He still works with Shemrock Glitters in Patna — most changes to the product start with something that came up there.
Gallery
