Development Agency
Contact Sign in Get a project quote

Service

Examination platform development

For heads of assessment, exam managers and founders of revision businesses who need a question bank, exam assembly, secure timed sittings, marking and results designed around their own assessment rules rather than a quiz feature inside a course tool.

Get a project quote See the software package

The problem

What goes wrong today

Where it usually starts

Assessment that matters, whether a professional certification, an entrance exam or a revision service that promises exam-realistic practice, breaks a general-purpose quiz tool quickly.

  • The question bank is the first casualty.
  • Questions are written in documents, reviewed by email, and pasted into the tool, so when a question is found to be flawed after a sitting, nobody can say which version each candidate saw.
  • Tagging by syllabus area and difficulty lives in a spreadsheet, and assembling an exam that covers every area in the right proportion is done by a person picking questions by hand for a day.

Where it gets harder

Sittings are the second.

  • A timed exam needs a clock the candidate cannot stop, rules about moving back to earlier questions, and auto-save so a dropped connection does not lose forty minutes of answers.
  • Quiz tools offer a timer and little else.
  • Marking is the third: short-answer and numeric questions need tolerances, essay-style responses need a human marker, and two markers disagreeing need a moderator with a record of what each gave and why.
  • Results are then compiled in a spreadsheet, certificates are produced elsewhere, and the one thing the exam manager most wants, which questions are too easy, too hard or discriminating badly, is never calculated at all.

Scope of the service

What the build covers

A custom examination platform build normally covers:

  • A question bank with multiple-choice Multiple-response, short-answer and numeric types, each question carrying syllabus tags, difficulty, author, review status and a full version history so the exact wording a candidate saw can always be recovered
  • Blueprints that define an exam as proportions per syllabus area and difficulty, assembled either as a fixed paper or randomly per candidate within the blueprint
  • Scheduled sittings with a time limit Navigation rules such as no going back, question and option shuffling, auto-save of every answer and a resume path after a dropped connection
  • Marking that is automatic For objective types with tolerances for numeric answers, manual for free-text with a marker queue, and moderation where two marks differ by more than a threshold
  • Results with a breakdown by syllabus area Grade boundaries set by the exam board, certificates with verification
  • Candidate accounts Cohorts and a practice mode with explanations
  • Item statistics after each sitting showing facility and discrimination per question

We start by following one exam from the first question drafted to the last result released: authoring and review, blueprint design, scheduling, the sitting itself, marking and moderation, grading and release. Each becomes a named stage in the scope document with the people responsible for it.

Deliberately out of scope

  • Remote proctoring with webcam monitoring, which is connected from a specialist provider if required rather than built, identity verification of candidates beyond the login the organisation controls, and the authoring of the questions themselves

When the scope grows

Scoping scenario

A professional certification body wants a bank of several thousand versioned questions, exams assembled randomly per candidate from a blueprint so no two candidates see the same paper, sittings run in approved centres and remotely, double marking of written responses with moderation, and statistics after each sitting to retire weak items. The per-candidate random assembly within strict blueprint proportions and the moderation workflow are what make it a custom project.

Deliverables

What you receive

  • Discovery notes from following one exam from first draft question to released results
  • A scope document naming each stage and who holds it, with marking and moderation rules and what is out of scope
  • Design of the question editor, the blueprint builder, the candidate sitting screen and the marker queue on desktop, with the sitting screen checked on the devices candidates will use
  • The build, deployed to your hosting or ours, with roles, version history and an audit of every mark change in place
  • Migration of existing questions, tags and past results from documents, spreadsheets or the current tool, where relevant
  • Training for question authors, exam administrators and markers, with a written guide per role
  • Handover material and full ownership of the source code and your data

Process

How a project runs

Each stage maps onto the project view in your client panel. Durations are set in your proposal, never on this page.

  1. Onboarding

    Access to the current question documents, tagging spreadsheet, quiz tool and results archive, with the exam manager as day-to-day contact.

    Project stage: Onboarding

  2. Planning

    An exam walk-through with the head of assessment, a question author and a senior marker; the scope document, blueprint rules and milestone plan are agreed.

    Project stage: Planning

  3. Design

    Clickable designs of the question editor, blueprint builder, sitting screen and marker queue, with the sitting screen tested for timing and resume behaviour.

    Project stage: Design

  4. Development

    Built in stages: the question bank and versioning first, then blueprints and assembly, then sittings with auto-save, then marking, moderation and results, then statistics and practice mode.

    Project stage: Development

  5. Client review

    A full mock exam is run with staff as candidates, including a deliberately dropped connection, a marking disagreement and a grade-boundary decision.

    Project stage: Client review

  6. Revisions

    Changes from the review, particularly to navigation rules, tolerances and the moderation threshold, are made and re-checked against the scope document.

    Project stage: Revisions

  7. Ready for launch

    Question bank migrated and reviewed, a load test at the expected concurrent candidate count, first live sitting scheduled with a fallback plan agreed.

    Project stage: Ready for launch

  8. Delivered

    The platform runs live sittings; optional maintenance and hosting continue under their own agreement.

    Project stage: Delivered

Integrations

Commonly integrated

Systems this kind of business usually asks us to connect. Each integration is confirmed during discovery; none is assumed.

  • Remote proctoring providers for webcam-monitored sittings
  • Single sign-on and identity providers for candidate and staff login
  • Card payment providers for exam entry fees and practice subscriptions
  • Learning platforms where candidates study before sitting
  • Email and SMS providers for sitting reminders and results release
  • Certificate verification and digital credential services
  • Statistical tools where the organisation runs its own psychometric analysis

How we would approach it

Worked example

Concept demo

A certification body with per-candidate random papers and double marking

In this scoping scenario, a professional certification body held several thousand questions and wanted each candidate to receive a different paper assembled at random within strict proportions per syllabus area and difficulty, so that no two candidates in a centre could compare papers. Written responses were to be marked by two markers independently, with a moderator resolving any pair of marks that differed by more than a set margin, and after each sitting the body wanted facility and discrimination per question to retire weak items.

The scope we would propose: a versioned bank with review states, a blueprint engine that assembles per candidate and records the exact question versions served, a sitting screen with auto-save and resume, a double-marking queue with blind allocation and a moderation step, grade boundaries set per sitting, and an item statistics report. The reason this needs a custom build is the combination of per-candidate assembly and version recording: quiz tools shuffle questions but cannot prove afterwards which version of which item a given candidate answered, which is the record an appeal depends on.

Concept demo: a scoping scenario written to show how we would approach the work. It is not a delivered client project.

Pricing

What affects the price

Every proposal is priced on scope. These are the factors that move it most for this kind of build.

  • Question types required and the size of the bank to migrate
  • Fixed papers, random assembly per candidate, or both
  • Timed exams, practice mode, or both, and the navigation rules
  • Manual marking, double marking and moderation workflow
  • Expected concurrent candidates at peak and the load testing that implies
  • Certificates, verification and results release rules
  • Proctoring, identity and single sign-on integrations
  • Hosting choice: your own hosting or ours

Start from a package

Question bank platform package

Versioned question bank, blueprint exam assembly, timed sittings with auto-save, automatic and manual marking with moderation, results, certificates, practice mode and item statistics for exam boards, revision providers and certification bodies.

Custom build
View the package

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

When is a custom build the right choice rather than the package?

When your assembly, marking or sitting rules break the assumptions of the question bank platform package. During discovery we lay your exam walk-through against the package and say plainly whether configuration covers it or whether, for example, your per-candidate random assembly and double marking need custom work.

How many candidates can sit at once?

That depends on the hosting sized for your peak, which is why expected concurrency is a scoping question. Before the first live sitting we load-test at the agreed number and state the result in the handover; we do not quote a figure before measuring it.

Can we prove which questions a candidate saw?

Yes. Every question is versioned, and each sitting records the exact version and option order served to each candidate alongside their responses and auto-save timestamps, so an appeal or a flawed-item review can be answered from the record.

Does it include remote proctoring?

Not as a built feature. Where webcam monitoring is required we connect a specialist proctoring provider chosen with you, and the scope document states what the connection covers. Identity verification beyond login is likewise the organisation's own process or a connected provider.

Who owns the platform and the question bank afterwards?

You do. Source code, the bank with its full version history and all results are handed over at delivery; hosting and maintenance are optional, separately agreed and movable to another provider.

Get a project quote for examination and question bank software

Answer a few questions about your business, your current systems and what should change. We reply with a clear, competitive proposal.

Get a project quote Discuss a partnership
Get a project quote

Cookies on this site. Strictly necessary cookies keep the site working. Allow first-party analytics so we can see which pages lead to enquiries. No advertising, no third-party trackers, no personal data; you can change this at any time on the cookies page.

Manage preferences