Issuing of Duplicate/Customised Certificates
AnsweredFurther to my request (#116427) and the reply received, I would like to make a formal request regarding the issuing of Duplicate/Customised Certificates (for full qualifications and/or Statements of Attainment).
To be clear, I have proposed that the obvious solution is that clients have the option to either manually enter their own (customised) Certificate Number OR use the (current) automated number generated by the aXcelerate platform.This would not only enable the seemless re-issue of certificates (people do sometimes lose them).
While we cannot pretend to understand the complexities behind such a change, it is essentially simply giving the option to either use customised numbers or the SAME auto generated number that was used at the time of issue. The RTO is require to sign certificates - thus, the burden of complience is on the RTO.
Please help - the status quo is providing several layers of manual handling. I am happy to have a discussion to explain this more fully. Please help.
Ashleigh who managed my request, advised that "a senior member of the team, they have informed me that the reason that the system does not apply the same certificate ID to newly issued certificates is for compliance-related features that are implemented within the system." I could find NO ASQA prescript governing the formatting of certificate numbers and, where the RTO elects to use customised features such as numbering, branding, etc, they are free to do so, provided they adhere to AQF prescripts governing the issue of certificates/duplicate certificates.
-
Official comment
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the feedback. I have arranged for a leading member of our team to make contact with you early next week to delve into this one.
Have a great weekend and we look forward to chatting with you.
BrendenComment actions -
Hi Tom. No we don't want the date of re-issue reflected as thet would definitely create a compliance issue. We have switched from a manual system (using the certificate number generated by aXcelerate) to creating a branded certificate template with QR code in aXcelerate. Previous certificates issued therefore do not have our college branding. Thus, reprinting is not an option. Alternatives include the one that I suggested (easiest option) OR creatining a new sub-option for re-issue. Of course the certificate previously issued could be cancelled and a new one issued, BUT this would generate a new number. If previously reported, this would add multiple layers to notify the state (if funded), and amend the USI transcript.
-
I think the certificate numbers should be linked to the enrolment rather than the copy of the certificate that is issued. We have a similar issue when we issue a digital copy of a certificate (including branding from in aXcelerate) and a print copy (on pre-printed certificate paper). Although both copies are the same certificate for the same enrolment, they have different numbers.
-
This is a brilliant idea and will go a LONG way towards cutting out time and duplication. I, for one, try to study aX for different ways and methods of making life easier and automating processes. Currently, we are doing it manually and it is a real hassle. It's much easier for mistakes to creep in that way also. Small things like putting in a wrong space or having Caps Lock on. I am in no way a computer expert so these things do happen to me. If we can automate the process this way it will solve many issues.
Another example is that we previously didn't use the QR code function. Recently we started doing it and it makes the verification process a whole lot smoother. It would be great to be able to re-issue older certificates with the QR code on it. Yes, this can be done by deleting the original etc, but then there are so many layers of people that needs to be informed that it is just not worth the time and effort. Any new things aXcelerate might come up with in the future will lead to this exact same thing. We would like to re-issue certificates with the latest and greatest. Not just the plain old thing it was ten years ago.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments