Program Catalog and Term Launch: Assessment and Evaluation Workflow
Don't just list your programs; place the right participant in the right term, view learning evidence in the same workflow, and make academy operations measurable.
For academy coordinators, preparing for a new term involves much more than adding a few training titles to the calendar. A corporate training program catalog brings together each program's purpose, target audience, prerequisites, capacity, format, and success criteria in a shared language. If the catalog is unclear, applications become confusing during term launch, capacity cannot be managed properly, and it becomes difficult to give a reliable answer to the question, “Who learned what?” at the end of the term.
In a well-designed workflow, the catalog, term, and assessment and evaluation do not function as disconnected modules. The program version in the catalog is carried into the term launch; eligibility rules guide selection and placement; and records of pre-assessment, exams, projects, attendance, and feedback inform the completion decision. This allows the coordinator to work through a traceable process rather than scattered spreadsheets.
With Qulak, this process can be designed by reviewing the institution's existing academy plan, user structure, and integration needs. The approach described here is not a specific technical contract or a set of automated rules that works the same way across all institutions. Which fields will be used, which approvals will be required, and how reports will be generated are confirmed in line with the institution's goals. For the platform selection aspect of the process, the corporate LMS selection guide also offers a helpful starting point.
Why is the corporate training program catalog the starting point for operations?
A corporate training program catalog is not just a showcase of training titles. It is a management layer that answers questions for each program such as: “Whose needs does this training address, how will completion be determined, and how will participants move to the next step?” This definition makes the catalog, term plan, and assessment model parts of the same design.
Shared program language
Program purpose, learning outcomes, target audience, prerequisites, format, duration, and completion criteria are standardized in individual fields.
Term visibility
Publication, application, assessment, class, and closing dates are planned by term; it is clear who approves changes.
Actionable results
Participation, success, feedback, and completion information are structured so they can be read alongside program goals.
The most practical approach for coordinators is to think of a catalog entry as a “program agreement.” Even if the training title changes, it should be determined in advance whether a new version is required if the program's purpose, learning outcomes, or passing criteria change. The same program may be offered in different terms with different instructors, schedules, or capacity; however, it should remain clear which version the assessment results belong to.
Every field in the catalog should have a corresponding function at term launch: prerequisites inform selection and placement, capacity informs allocation, learning outcomes inform assessment, and completion criteria inform reporting. With Qulak, this relationship map can be designed according to the institution's plan, and the implementation scope can be confirmed.
From catalog to term: how should a controlled launch workflow be set up?
Term launch should involve more than setting a program's status to “published.” First, determine which version will be offered; then clarify who can apply and under what conditions; and finally, define the schedule and assessment plan to be applied. The sequence below is a framework of checks that can be adapted to different academy models.
Set the program version
Review learning outcomes, content topics, prerequisites, assessment methods, and responsible roles. If there are changes, distinguish the draft version from the published version.
Define the term schedule and capacity
Set out the application window, assessment date, class or content access dates, capacity, and waitlist rules together.
Choose the eligibility and application route
Determine whether to use nomination, open application, manager approval, or invitation, and how prerequisites will be checked.
Approve selection and placement
Include a human-reviewed approval point for decisions about priority, capacity, fairness, waitlists, and exceptions.
Publish and manage changes
If dates, capacity, or assessment rules change after the term is published, apply a controlled update for affected participants and reports.
With Qulak, which steps are set up as catalog, term, user group, or assessment model can be determined according to the institution's operations. For example, some institutions launch terms on a fixed academic calendar, while others may keep programs open for applications continuously. Therefore, making rules visible and auditable is more valuable than claiming there is “one right workflow.”
Selection and placement: match suitable participants fairly and traceably
Selection and placement is not simply filling a capacity with names from a list. It should explain whether a participant is ready for the program, whether the program fits the relevant role or development path, and which criteria will apply when capacity is exceeded. Otherwise, training opportunities are distributed according to perceived priorities, and the coordinator has to explain every exception in email threads.
In a rule-based model, first check eligibility : criteria such as role, level, previous programs, a pre-test, or manager nomination may be used. Then priority comes into play: the institution can define rules such as mandatory development needs, term goals, role transitions, or candidates who have been on the waitlist before. In the final step, capacity, the waitlist, and human approval are managed together.
| Decision point | Question for the coordinator to clarify | Approach that can be designed with Qulak |
|---|---|---|
| Prerequisite | What knowledge, role, or previous-program requirement must the candidate meet? | Checks can be set up using catalog fields and user profiles; the integration scope is confirmed. |
| Capacity | What will the waitlist and priority order be when capacity is full? | Application, approval, and waitlist steps can be modeled according to the term plan. |
| Exception | Who will decide, and on what grounds, for a candidate who does not meet a prerequisite? | An exception step that includes human approval and a record of the rationale can be designed. |
| Communication | How and when will the candidate be notified of acceptance, rejection, or waitlist status? | Notification channels are clarified according to the institution's communication and integration plan. |
Fairness should not be left to an algorithm alone. It is important for candidates to understand why a decision was made, correct inaccurate profile information, and access an alternative assessment route when necessary. This approach benefits from the speed of automation while preserving the coordinator's contextual knowledge.
Assessment and evaluation workflow: from the starting point to evidence
A program should not be considered complete solely because content was opened or a participant was admitted to a session. Assessment and evaluation design selects evidence required by the program goal. A short exam may be sufficient for knowledge transfer, while an assignment, project, observation, or manager evaluation may be needed to assess practical skills.
| Stage | Purpose | Example evidence | Coordination question |
|---|---|---|---|
| At the start | Understand needs and readiness | Pre-test, self-assessment, statement of goals | Does the result affect selection or personalization decisions? |
| During learning | Identify misunderstandings early | Short quiz, practical task, instructor feedback | Can the participant repeat the activity or receive support? |
| At the end of the program | Demonstrate that the learning outcome has been achieved | Exam, project, presentation, case study | Are the passing or completion criteria clear in advance? |
| Afterward | Track application in the workplace | Satisfaction, manager observation, work outcome indicator | How will the results be interpreted in the context of training ROI and business outcomes ? |
With Qulak, diagnostic assessment, exams, assignment or project submissions, surveys, and completion decisions can be designed to be handled within the same program workflow. However, each institution must separately define its policies for scoring, appeals, retakes, passing thresholds, and certification. The system does not replace the institution's assessment model; it can be configured to make that model more visible and operational.
Use the same language as the learning outcomes in the catalog to make assessment results meaningful. A “program completed” record is weak evidence on its own. When it is clear which learning outcome was assessed by which assessment and which decision was based on the result, the academy report moves from participation counts to learning evidence.
Face verification and personal data: make verification a design decision, not a default
A need to verify a participant may arise in an online exam or critical assessment. However, face verification and biometric data processing should not be treated as something that “must always be used because it is more secure.” The Personal Data Protection Authority classifies biometric data as special categories of personal data and states that such data may be processed only in the limited cases specified by law: KVKK explanation of special categories of personal data.
The announcement concerning the KVKK's principle decision dated April 29, 2026, numbered 2026/921, relates to time and attendance tracking; it is not a product rule that automatically applies to all training exams. However, the announcement emphasizes necessity, proportionality, data minimization, consideration of alternative methods, and the imbalance of power in the employment relationship when using biometric methods. Therefore, when face verification is considered, the institution's legal, information security, and academy teams should assess it together: KVKK announcement 2026/921.
- Notice and explicit consent: The purpose, method, retention, access, and withdrawal conditions should be explained clearly; the legal basis should be confirmed by the institution.
- Data minimization: Images or biometric data that are not needed to make the assessment decision should not be collected. The KVKK explanation that data processing should be related to the purpose, limited, and proportionate should be taken into account: data minimization decision.
- Alternative verification: For someone who cannot or does not wish to use face verification, a suitable verification route should be defined, such as human-supervised verification, a PIN/code, or another method.
- Human oversight: Do not rely solely on an automated decision in cases of mismatches, accessibility needs, or appeals.
- Access and retention: Permissions, retention periods, and deletion or anonymization approaches should be determined based on the institution's policies and legal assessment.
With Qulak, an assessment workflow that includes these checks can be designed; the verification method to be used, where the data will be stored, and which roles will have access are confirmed according to the institution's existing plan. This does not mean that a specific biometric integration or legal compliance is guaranteed.
Term launch checklist for academy coordinators
Before publishing the term, answer the following questions in a single review meeting:
- Are the program version, target audience, and learning outcomes in the catalog up to date?
- Are the prerequisites and selection and placement criteria clear to candidates and managers?
- Are the people responsible for capacity, waitlists, exceptions, and appeals identified?
- Which decision does each of the initial, in-process, and final assessments inform?
- Are the success, completion, and certification criteria visible at the start of the term?
- How will affected people be notified when changes occur?
- For steps involving personal data, are notice, explicit consent, minimization, and alternative verification checks defined?
- Do reports allow academy goals and business outcomes to be interpreted separately?
This list helps coordinators avoid getting lost in operational details. It also makes technology discussions more concrete: which fields will be kept in the catalog, which decisions can be automated, where human approval is needed, and which data will be reported become clear. When reviewing Qulak's API and HRIS integration approach you can consider this checklist alongside your institution's existing systems.
Design your next term in a single, traceable workflow
Review your catalog structure, term launch rules, and assessment and evaluation model together with the Qulak team. Clarify the scope, integrations, and verification steps according to your institution's plan.
Talk to QulakFrequently Asked Questions
What information should a corporate training program catalog include?
How is selection and placement managed at term launch?
Which results can Qulak track in an assessment and evaluation workflow?
Is face verification mandatory?
Can an audit trail be kept when catalog and term data change?
Related guides
Official source note: The personal data and biometric verification section is based on the Personal Data Protection Authority's explanations on special categories of personal data, the 2026/921 biometric data announcement and data minimization .