AceRPL
Automating Credit Transfer Workflows
Turning a 48-hour credit transfer process into a system that runs in minutes, serving 1,000+ users across two education institutions.
Digitised, Not Improved
While supporting internal teams using Monday.com to manage credit transfer requests, I started hearing the same frustration from educators: "Why is this process so complicated?"
At first glance, the system appeared modern. The organisation had moved away from paper forms and digitized the workflow. But when I looked closely, it became clear the process had only been digitised, not improved.
Educators were spending hours manually reviewing submissions, verifying unit equivalencies, correcting incorrect mappings, and communicating with students and providers outside the system. Finance teams had to be notified manually for every single case. Processing a single credit transfer could take 24–48 hours.
What if the problem wasn't the tool, but the process itself?
Pain Points Identified
Manual submission review
Educators reviewing every application line-by-line for correctness
Unit equivalency verification
Cross-referencing unit codes between institutions with no central database
Incorrect student mappings
Students frequently selecting wrong units, requiring manual correction before review
Out-of-system communication
Conversations with providers and students happening via email, then re-entered for compliance
Manual finance notifications
Finance teams notified individually for each case to adjust fees
24–48 hrs
per credit transfer application
A Pattern Emerged
To understand the full scope, I ran stakeholder interviews with educators and admin staff, mapped the entire workflow in Miro, and consulted the legal team on compliance requirements for the Australian VET sector and Higher Education.
What initially looked like a simple workflow turned out to be a complex decision tree involving multiple stakeholders and validation steps. But a crucial pattern emerged: many decisions educators were making manually followed repeatable rules.
If unit codes matched between providers, credit transfer could often be granted. Common equivalencies appeared repeatedly across applications. This meant a large portion of the work could be automated through structured logic and a mapping library.
Discovery Process
Stakeholder Interviews
Spoke with educators and admin staff to find where time was being lost and which steps frustrated them most
Workflow Mapping
Mapped the full credit transfer process in Miro, from submission to approval, exposing redundant steps
Compliance Research
Worked with the legal team to understand eligibility rules and evidence verification requirements
Automation Opportunity
Identified that repeatable rule-based decisions could be automated with predefined mapping logic
Key Insight
Many validation decisions followed repeatable rules, opening the door to automation via predefined rules and a mapping library.
Three Design Principles
The goal of AceRPL was simple: reduce manual administrative work while maintaining compliance. Instead of patching the Monday.com workflow, we designed a dedicated system built specifically for credit transfer management.
I focused the product strategy around three principles that would guide every feature decision and architectural choice.
Design Principles
Automate Repetitive Decisions
Use predefined rules and a unit mapping library so the system can validate routine applications automatically, freeing educators for exception cases only.
Guide Students Through Applications
Structure the application flow to prevent incorrect unit selections at the source, dramatically reducing submissions that require manual correction.
Design for Scalability
Build a multi-tenant platform from day one so additional institutions can integrate without re-architecting. Separate data environments, shared infrastructure.
Building AceRPL
I worked closely with both the development and design teams to translate the process into a functioning product. My responsibilities spanned writing product requirements, defining workflow automation logic, collaborating on MySQL database architecture, and managing backlog prioritisation.
AceRPL introduced several capabilities designed specifically for credit transfer workflows, each one mapped directly to pain points uncovered during discovery.
Platform Capabilities
Mapping Library
Central database storing unit equivalencies between institutions, enabling automatic validation of routine applications
Role-Based Access
Secure workflows for students, educators, and administrators with appropriate permissions
Automated Evidence Requests
Auto-generated emails to previous providers requesting verification with relevant documentation attached
Interactive Dashboard
Real-time application status, processing progress, and workflow insights inspired by Power BI dashboards
Course & Unit Management
Flexible course codes, unit structures, and mapping relationships adaptable per institution
Automated Notifications
Status updates at every stage: submission, review progress, and final decisions for both students and educators
Measurable Results
AceRPL was implemented across two institutions: one Higher Education provider and one VET provider. Both used the multi-tenant architecture, allowing separate data environments on shared infrastructure.
Beyond product delivery, I supported rollout by training staff, writing user manuals, creating system documentation, and hosting knowledge resources on a structured SharePoint site.
Impact Metrics
24 to 48 hrs → Minutes
Credit transfer processing time
1,000+
Users across students and educators
400+
Successful credit transfer applications processed
750+ hrs
Saved per year in administrative work
What I Learned
Digitisation ≠ Improvement
Simply moving a process online doesn't improve efficiency. Without rethinking the workflow itself, you just get the same bottlenecks on a screen instead of on paper.
Process Discovery Is Critical
Mapping the end-to-end workflow revealed automation opportunities that weren't obvious from surface-level observation. The insight came from understanding the decision tree, not just the steps.
Compliance Must Be Integrated Early
Working with legal teams from the beginning ensured automation didn't compromise regulatory requirements. Retrofitting compliance is always harder than building it in.