Verity for universities
Research funding carries obligations most administration never sees until an audit. Verity holds the grant conditions, the spend against them and the evidence they require.
Verity handles administration. Teaching, assessment and research itself stay where they are.
Verity / Institution
LiveActive grants
184
Underspent grants
31
Reports due 60 days
46
Faculty above norm
38
Needs attention
Illustrative figures. Verity shows your own institution in this shape.
How the business runs
Universities run teaching, research, student services, facilities and commercial activity simultaneously, across faculties that operate with real autonomy. Each generates its own records, and the institution is nonetheless accountable as a single entity to funders, regulators and accreditors.
Research funding is the sharpest case. A grant carries a spending profile, permitted cost categories, reporting dates and conditions of continuation, and it is administered by a principal investigator whose primary work is not administration. Thirty-one grants materially underspent is money that may be reclaimed at close, and eleven unstarted reports are conditions of continued funding.
The second is faculty workload, which includes teaching, supervision, administration and research and is governed by norms. Thirty-eight above the norm while fourteen are below it is an equity issue and a compliance one.
The third is accreditation and regulatory reporting, where the institution must produce evidence about itself that exists in six departmental formats.
The fourth is that a student interacts with admissions, academics, hostel, fees, library and services as one institution and is recorded separately by each.
Verity holds grants and their conditions, faculty allocation against norms, and the evidence the institution has to produce.
What Verity calls these things
What gets in the way
University difficulties come from independent units generating records that the institution must answer for as one.
Grant conditions live with the investigator
Spending profiles, permitted categories and reporting dates sit in an award letter held by the person least able to administer them.
In Verity Conditions, profile and report dates are records on the grant with owners and reminders.
Grants underspend and funds are reclaimed
Spend lags the profile and the shortfall becomes visible near the close, when it cannot be corrected.
In Verity Spend against profile is tracked continuously, so underspend surfaces while it can still be used.
Faculty workload is uneven against norms
Teaching, supervision and administration accumulate unevenly and are reviewed when someone complains.
In Verity All allocation types are recorded against faculty and measured against norms before terms begin.
Accreditation evidence exists in departmental formats
The institution must describe itself using data every faculty holds differently.
In Verity One record model across faculties, so a submission is an extract rather than a reconciliation.
Students exist separately in every service
Academics, hostel, fees, library and services each hold their own version of the same person.
In Verity One person record referenced by every service.
Reporting deadlines are met individually and missed collectively
Each funder report is somebody’s responsibility and nobody has the institutional view.
In Verity Report dates across all grants form one pipeline with owners.
The complete system
One record model across faculties, grants and services.
Work
Each grant is work with a funder, award, spending profile, permitted categories, conditions, report dates and an investigator.
Why it matters here A grant is a set of obligations, and it is usually administered from an award letter.
In practice Forty-six reports due within sixty days, eleven not started.
Workflows
Grant conditions, spend approvals, ethics and regulatory approvals and submissions move through defined steps.
Why it matters here Conditions of continuation are the reason grant administration matters.
In practice A condition deadline raised with an owner ahead of the date.
Workforce
All allocation types are recorded against faculty and measured against workload norms.
Why it matters here Supervision is invisible in most workload systems and material in practice.
In practice Thirty-eight faculty above norm including supervision, while fourteen are below.
People
Every person is one record referenced by academics, services, hostel, fees and research.
Why it matters here The duplicate person record is the root of most university administrative cost.
In practice A research student existing once across supervision, fees and services.
Records
Accreditation and regulatory evidence is held once with completeness as a reportable state.
Why it matters here The institution must produce evidence about itself on demand.
In practice Accreditation data assembled as an extract rather than across six formats.
Locations
Units roll into the institution with people, grants, work and reporting following the same structure.
Why it matters here Faculty autonomy is real and institutional accountability is also real.
In practice Grant performance and workload comparable across faculties.
Relationships
Funders, industry partners and alumni carry their history, agreements, commitments and engagement.
Why it matters here Funding relationships extend beyond a single grant.
In practice A funder’s history across grants and departments, in one place.
Control
One permission model and one audit trail, with spend authority and access set by role and unit.
Why it matters here Public and grant funds require attribution on every commitment.
In practice Grant spend above threshold routed for approval with the category checked.
Reports and analytics
Spend against profile, report compliance, workload against norms, evidence completeness and student service load come from the records.
Why it matters here The institution’s obligations are all measurable and usually assembled by hand.
In practice Spend against profile across the grant portfolio.
Verity AI
Verity AI answers from the university’s own administrative records, respects permissions and unit boundaries, and can create assigned follow-ups.
Why it matters here Cross-faculty questions are what departmental systems cannot answer.
In practice "Which grants are underspent against profile?" returns thirty-one with owners.
Communication
Funder correspondence, approvals and institutional notices attach to the grant, person or unit they concern.
Why it matters here Grant correspondence is evidence and is needed at audit.
In practice A funder’s approval of a variation, on the grant record.
Orders
Commitments and spend are recorded against grants and categories with approvals.
Why it matters here Spend outside permitted categories is the most common grant finding.
In practice A commitment checked against permitted categories before approval.
Work in motion
These already happen across faculties. On one model they become institutional.
Capturing conditions from the award letter is the step that makes the rest possible.
Underspend discovered near close is money reclaimed; discovered early it is money used.
The institutional view of report dates is the one nobody currently has.
Supervision load is real and usually invisible in allocation.
This is the test of whether institutional administration is data or paper.
Verity AI
Verity AI reads the same grant, workload, student and evidence records the institution creates as it operates. It answers within permissions and unit boundaries, and can turn an answer into assigned work.
Verity / Ask
Verity AI only returns what the person asking has permission to see.
Without chasing
Each runs from the institution’s own records at the point the condition is met.
When
Grant spend diverges from profile
When
A funder report date approaches
When
A commitment falls outside permitted categories
When
Faculty load exceeds the norm
When
Accreditation evidence is missing
What you can understand
Institutional obligations from records faculties create as they work.
Verity holds administrative records. Teaching, assessment, research data and library systems continue as they are.
One system, different ways of seeing it
Everyone works from the same records within their unit and permissions.
Vice-chancellor or registrar
Are our obligations being met?
Grant spend and reporting, workload compliance, accreditation readiness, faculty comparison.
Dean or head of department
Is my faculty allocated and compliant?
Workload against norms, grant performance in unit, evidence gaps, staffing.
Principal investigator
Where is my grant?
Spend against profile, conditions and reports due, permitted categories, approvals.
Research office
What is at risk across the portfolio?
Underspend, reports not started, conditions approaching, variations required.
Administration
What is stalled?
Evidence exceptions, approvals pending, student service duplication, allocations outstanding.
Where it is used
Spending profiles, permitted categories, conditions and report dates as records with owners rather than an award letter in a folder.
Spend against profile tracked continuously, so a shortfall surfaces while the funds can still be used rather than reclaimed at close.
All funder report dates as one pipeline with owners, which is the view no individual investigator has.
All allocation types measured against norms before terms begin, making supervision load visible.
One record model across faculties, so producing evidence about the institution is a query rather than a reconciliation.
Students and staff existing once across academics, services, fees and research.
Grant commitments checked against permitted categories before approval, addressing the most common audit finding.
Getting there
Teaching, assessment, research data and library systems continue and are mapped during implementation. Grants with conditions and profiles, faculty allocations, students and evidence requirements are brought across.
Implementation runs about four weeks: discovery and mapping, configuration, migration, then an ongoing operations partnership.
Questions
No. Teaching, assessment, research data and library systems remain where they are and are mapped during implementation. Verity handles administration — grants and their conditions, workload, evidence, services and the reporting across them.
Verity AI answers administrative questions from the institution’s own records: which grants are underspent against profile, which funder reports are due and unstarted, which faculty are above workload norms, what accreditation evidence is missing. Each answer can become assigned administrative work.
Because funds unspent against the profile may be reclaimed at close. Discovered early it is money that can still be used; discovered near the end it is money returned, and the research it would have funded does not happen.
Conditions, permitted categories, spending profiles and report dates are recorded on the grant with owners and reminders, rather than living in an award letter held by an investigator whose primary work is not administration.
Teaching, supervision and administrative allocations are all recorded against faculty and measured against norms before terms begin — supervision in particular is material in practice and invisible in most allocation systems.
The institution runs on one record model across faculties, so producing evidence about itself becomes an extract with completeness reportable, rather than a reconciliation across departmental formats.
Faculties and departments are units with their own people, grants and reporting, and permissions follow that structure — while the institution retains the consolidated view it is accountable for.
About four weeks for a defined scope: discovery and mapping of grant administration and workload norms, configuration, migration of grants, allocations and people, then an ongoing operations partnership.
Underspend and unstarted reports are both visible now and expensive later. Tell us how grants are administered today.