The Hard Ones First.

Your faculty and designers author your courses, working in dialogue with CMP. CMP supports them and keeps the record of how each course was built.

Nothing reaches a learner without a human decision from a designated reviewer, and that decision is recorded with a name and a date. If that approval path is slow at your institution, CMP will be slow in the same places, by design.

You do. Content produced in CMP belongs to the institution, and authorship is recorded at the level of each course and each revision. Faculty keep their own material and their own voice; what they inherit from the program is the alignment, not the content.

Some will, at first, and that is a reasonable starting position. The useful answer is not reassurance but scope: CMP takes on the record-keeping around curriculum work: what a course was built against, which version is current, and who approved it. It does not remove the judgment, and it cannot approve anything on a faculty member's behalf. The fastest way through this objection is to run a working session with faculty in the room on one of their own courses.

Course-level defaults pass down through institution, school, department, and program, and any level can lock a field that must not be changed beneath it. Content level, credit unit and credit hours, citation style, assessment settings, grade weights, source recency, and the approved publisher list are set where the decision belongs and inherited by the courses below. An institution standard takes precedence over a course-level instruction, a conflicting note is rejected at input, and an unlocked conflict is flagged for review. Consistency stops being a matter of individual diligence and becomes a property of the system your departments work inside.

Yes. Each published change is captured with its author and description, and prior versions are retained, so a course can be produced as its design, outcomes, and materials actually stood on a given date rather than approximated from the current version. That one property is what carries transfer documentation, prior learning assessment, teach-out obligations, and any question about what was taught when. See what the record holds.

Few institutions can answer this, and we are not going to answer it for you with a figure we invented. The obligation turns on four things you already know: the size of your catalog, the review window your own policy sets, the effort one review honestly takes, and what that time is worth fully loaded. Those four multiply rather than add, which is why the total surprises people. Set it against the reviews you actually completed last year and the distance between the two is what a finding gets written about. The drivers, laid out.

No, and we would not claim to. CMP records what each course inherits: the requirements, program outcomes, materials, and review dates it was built against. Each program carries its own review interval, and CMP shows which courses are due for review. The trigger comes from your institution updating the requirement or the calendar; what CMP supplies is the record of what each course answers to and the report of what is due, which is the part that fails when it is done from memory. The triggers.

No. When a review comes due, your faculty and instructional designers revise the course in CMP and the earlier version stays on the record. The decision to accept, edit, or reject the revision belongs to a designated person at your institution, and CMP cannot make it for them. Once it is approved, the course redeploys by the path your platform supports. If a reviewer decides no change is needed, that decision goes on the record too, which is itself the evidence that the review happened. See the loop.

Pricing is quoted against the size and shape of your catalog. On return, we do not publish a savings percentage and we do not cite another institution's results as a forecast of yours. The ROI page sets out the argument across six foundations: strategic plan attainment, institutional capacity, currency, speed, hard costs, and risk mitigation. The model itself is worked out in person, from your own figures. If it does not clear your hurdle rate on conservative inputs, that is a useful answer.

That mismatch is the single most common reason a catalog investment fails to get funded. The record makes cost attributable by institutional area, so the areas that benefit, among them compliance, HR, IT, accreditation, records, and enrollment, can be asked to participate rather than benefit silently. The institutional areas table is built for this conversation.

No. That is a management framing, not an accounting policy position, and whether any portion of course development meets your capitalization threshold under GAAP is a question for your controller and your external auditor. What CMP supplies is the underlying record any such conversation would require: cost, authorship, approval, version, review date, and disposition. Most institutions cannot produce it today.

No, and we would usually advise against starting there. The highest-value first project is normally bringing what you already own under the record: inventory it, check it against the outcomes and requirements you supply, assign an owner and a review date, and see where the gaps actually are. Building comes after you know that. See bringing an existing catalog under the record.

Both are first-class citizens in the record. Adopted material is governed the same way authored material is: aligned to your outcomes, approved by your reviewer, versioned when it changes, and dated. The record cares about what a course is accountable to, not where the material originated.

It is a re-version. Outcomes and alignment stay fixed as the anchor, your faculty revise materials and module structure against them, and the earlier version stays on the record. The same mechanism handles a fifteen-week course becoming eight weeks, or sixteen modules becoming twelve. See reshaping a course you already run.

No. CMP deploys by the path your platform supports: directly to Canvas and Moodle, and to other learning platforms through standard course formats. Because the design record lives outside the LMS, a future platform change becomes a redeploy rather than a rebuild.

Word and PDF for the design and content documents, and IMS Common Cartridge, SCORM, cmi5, and xAPI for platforms that take a package. CMP connects directly to Canvas and Moodle. The Record page shows what each one is used for.

Course design and governance records. Not grades, not enrollment, not student records. Those stay in your LMS and SIS where they already live and are already governed. The small data surface is deliberate and it is usually the first thing a CIO asks about.

Open export formats, and you leave with the record: content, versions, approvals, and alignment. A vendor should be re-earned each year, not hold your records hostage. If that is not true of a system holding your catalog, the catalog is not really yours.

Onboarding takes one to two weeks once we have your onboarding sheet. From there we load your material and set up your institution's own CMP, configured to your mission, student population, program outcomes, and requirements. What takes longer is not the software; it is the decisions your institution needs to make about who approves what.

CMP does not represent itself to any accreditor and does not interpret a standard on your behalf. What it does is record how the catalog was designed, reviewed, approved, changed, and deployed, all of it dated, versioned, and accumulated as the work happened rather than reconstructed under deadline. Whether that satisfies a particular standard is your accreditation lead's judgment, working from evidence that exists rather than evidence that has to be manufactured. See Show your work.

It does not assess student learning, hold student records, produce assessment results, deliver instruction, or make an approval decision. Those belong to your LMS, your SIS, your assessment system, and your people. CMP holds the design and governance record for what you teach. That is a narrower claim than the category usually makes, and it is the one we can support.