For principals, registrars, finance leaders and education trusts

Education ERP selection scorecard.

Make your buying committee's shortlist about evidence, not the longest feature list. Use this worksheet to compare school and college ERP suppliers against the same scenarios, costs and responsibilities.

By BharatCampus ONEUpdated 20 September 2026Free to use · no registration

Print or save this page as a PDF using your browser's Print menu. Complete one copy per supplier; do not include student or staff personal data.

Agree what success looks like before the first demo.

Name a decision sponsor, an academic or operations owner, a finance reviewer and an IT or security reviewer. Each should bring one operational problem and one observable acceptance scenario. Choose the same evaluation period and student, staff and campus assumptions for every supplier.

Schools and school groups

Try an incomplete admission, a fee adjustment requiring approval and an attendance correction with appropriate parent communication. For a group, test what a campus can see versus what the trust can see. Use the school ERP guide to refine these scenarios.

Colleges and universities

Bring a representative programme and semester, a learner record change and a finance reconciliation exception. Check the boundary between ERP, academic records, examinations and learning systems using the college ERP evaluation guide.

Set non-negotiable gates.Agree required academic workflows, access boundaries, data export and recovery evidence before scoring. A high total cannot compensate for a failed critical requirement. Mark the decision “hold” until the gap is resolved and accepted by its owner.

Rate demonstrated evidence from zero to three.

  • 0 — Unverified: not shown, unavailable or contradicted by evidence.
  • 1 — Partial: some evidence, but a material gap or unconfirmed dependency remains.
  • 2 — Meets the agreed requirement: demonstrated with the expected roles and exception handling; responsibilities are documented.
  • 3 — Strong fit: meets the requirement and shows an additional, relevant benefit your committee can substantiate.

For each row, record a score, evidence reference, open issue and accountable reviewer. Marketing statements and roadmap promises are not demonstration evidence. If a category has several requirements, use its lowest critical-item rating and note the reason.

A 100-point ERP comparison worksheet.

These are suggested weights, not an industry benchmark. Adjust them before reviewing suppliers, keep the total at 100 and use the same weights for everyone. On a small screen, scroll the table horizontally.

Suggested criteria and evidence. Score each row from 0 to 3.
CriterionWeightEvidence to requestScore / 3
Connected workflows20One fresh record through admission, student administration and fees; include a denied action and correction.____
Security and accountability15Role boundaries, privileged actions, audit evidence and an agreed incident and recovery review.____
Migration and data ownership15Sample import reconciliation, rejected-record handling, export format and exit responsibilities.____
Total cost and commercial clarity15A like-for-like written estimate with included scope, dependencies, renewals and exclusions.____
Adoption and usability10A representative user completes an agreed task; training, accessibility needs and support ownership are reviewed.____
Reporting and decision evidence10Trace a management figure to its underlying records, filters, data freshness and correction owner.____
Support and continuity10Written service hours, severity and escalation terms; fallback and recovery responsibilities.____
Institution-specific fit5Your class/section or programme/semester scenario, campus governance and retained-system boundaries.____

Calculation: row points = weight × score ÷ 3. Add all row points for a result out of 100. For example, a score of 2 on a 15-weight criterion contributes 10 points. Score 0 everywhere gives 0; score 3 everywhere gives 100.

Do not interpret a close numerical result as certainty. Review the failed gates, unresolved evidence and practical adoption risks together. Use the school ERP buyer guide for more detailed selection questions.

Compare the full operating cost, not only the licence.

Use the same period, currency and tax treatment for all quotes. Separate one-time, recurring and usage-dependent charges. Enter “unconfirmed” when a supplier has not provided a cost; a blank is not zero.

Commercial assumptions to confirm with each supplier.
Cost categoryAmount / basisIncluded scope and open questions
Subscription and renewal____________Student/campus basis, minimums, term and renewal changes.
Setup, migration and training____________Records, cleaning responsibility, sessions and extra assistance.
Integrations and usage____________Messaging, payments, storage and third-party provider charges.
Internal effort and transition____________Staff time, parallel systems, reconciliation and training cover.
Support and exit____________Service level, export assistance, retention and transition costs.

Review BCO's published pricing and total-cost assumptions as a starting point, then obtain a scoped proposal. Estimate potential benefits using your own baseline and explicit assumptions; this worksheet does not predict savings or return on investment.

Leave the meeting with a decision record.

Institution / supplier / evaluation date: ______________________________

Committee sponsor and reviewers: ______________________________

Three priority scenarios: _______________________________________

Weighted total / failed critical gates: _____________________________

Evidence references and unresolved issues: ______________________

Next action / accountable owner / decision date: ____________________

Decision: proceed to scoped pilot / request evidence / hold / decline

Before a pilot, record acceptance criteria, proposed scope, commercial terms and a go/no-go owner. The implementation readiness guide covers the handoff from selection to rollout.

About this resource: this is a BharatCampus ONE-authored procurement worksheet, not an independent supplier ranking or certification. Apply the same evidence standards to BCO and every alternative. Security or contractual conclusions need your institution's appropriate reviewers.

Bring your three priority scenarios to a fit review.

Compare the evidence in a focused conversation. Ask us to clarify what is available, configurable, dependent on an integration or outside the proposed scope.