Challenges for heads of Corporate Systems departments

I write a briefing for the Exhibitors at the UCISA CISG Conference which focuses on the challenges the Conference delegates are facing and highlights the current issues in the sector. The briefing is below….

Challenges for CISG delegates
1. A blended approach to service delivery

IT service departments have long been in the position where they have had to support an increasing number of systems and services without a commensurate increase in resources. This has led to increased adoption of outsourced services for some aspects of the service whilst retaining a core of services in house. It is rare that the reason for outsourcing a service is to reduce costs. More often it is to improve the service offered, to free up resource within the IT department so that it can be redeployed on projects more closely aligned with the institutional mission, or to address skills shortages. The move to a blended delivery model has its challenges; integrating services from a range of providers is not cost free and institutions have to ensure that any outsourced service has at least comparable resilience to those provided in house. There is still some uncertainty amongst senior university management about the role cloud services may have in providing IT services and storage, particularly with regard to managing research data. This uncertainty is reflected in a continued trend to build data centres rather than procure cloud services.

2. Business intelligence, analytics and data/information governance

The volatility in student numbers over the past two years has resulted in increased use of business intelligence and analytics to model potential scenarios to assist planning. Analytics are also being used to improve retention by using data from a variety of sources to identify those students at risk of dropping out and we are starting to see more attention being paid to the potential for learning analytics to assist students in making their module and course choices. This has, along with the implementation of the Key Information Set (KIS), highlighted the variable quality of data within institutions and has brought greater focus on information and data governance. The need for strong information governance has been highlighted by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills in its briefings on cyber security. Although primarily focused on ensuring that sensitive research is adequately protected, they have resulted in a greater attention being paid to managing information, securing data and ensuring compliance with legislation within an environment where open access, particularly to publicly funded research, is encouraged. The growth in the use of portable devices such as laptops, tablets and smartphones both on and off campus to access corporate information and to possibly store personal information and university records presents a new challenge in preventing data protection breaches and ensuring an institution’s data are not compromised. CISG are running an event on information management and governance in January which may be of interest.

3. Skills shortages

One of the reasons institutions have cited for moving to a managed service has been to address skills shortages. A number of institutions are facing skills shortages in key areas. This is partly as a result of year on year budget and staffing cuts which have meant that there is no flexibility in managing staff resource, and partly because internal role evaluation exercises have led to the salaries for technically focused posts being unattractive for suitably qualified personnel. This may see an increase in the use of external agencies to deliver projects and an increase in the use of managed services, either for service provision or for specialist IT support.

The current HE landscape

The 2013 admissions cycle closed with a more positive outlook for the sector as a whole. The number of undergraduate admissions returned close to the 2011 levels after the expected dip in numbers in 2012 and many universities achieved their target numbers. However, there remain concerns about the drop in postgraduate, part-time and mature student numbers and the impact of the Home Office rhetoric on immigration continues to be felt with international students proving harder to attract.

Although many universities budgeted for a drop in student numbers in 2012, few anticipated how far short of achieving their targets they would fall. This has resulted in institutions cutting budgets further whilst still looking to continue to invest in improving the student experience. The recovery in student numbers, whilst welcome, does not signal a significant improvement in the ongoing financial position for institutions. There are growing pressures on research funding and with requirements for open access to resources and long term storage of data, institutions are having to do more with, at best, the same but in many instances, less. The same is true of fee income. Undergraduate student fees are not increasing with inflation and so are falling in real terms, whilst the costs of teaching continue to rise. Consequently the focus on efficiencies and modernisation remains. Institutional initiatives are supported by national programmes to improve efficiency, notably by driving savings through better procurement. There will be many institutions that will look to modernise their processes by implementing new IT systems. However, IT is only part of the solution; the introduction of a new IT system needs to be supported by process improvement and, in many instances, a change in culture. The recent UCISA publication Strategic challenges for IT departments highlights the complexities of successfully embedding IT systems and services to deliver successful business goals.

The White Paper Students at the heart of the system, published in 2011, recognised the need for reducing the reporting burden on universities. The HEDIIP programme has been instigated to attempt to reduce this burden and looks to enhance the arrangements for the collection, sharing and dissemination of data and information about the UK higher education system. The Director of HEDIIP, Andy Youell, spoke about the Programme on Wednesday afternoon.

You can view the presentations from the conference from the link on the conference web page.

HEAR, HEAR….

Progress with adopting the Higher Education Achievement Record (HEAR) rather contracts with that made in the MIAP programme. The HEAR has been trialled in a number of institutions and is now being piloted in a total of thirty HEIs. Those involved in the initial pilot are now scaling up use of the record in their institutions. With nearly a quarter of institutions involved and with support from the National Union of Students it is likely that the HEAR will become something that is universally adopted across the sector in a fairly short timeframe as a de facto standard if not formally adopted.

There remain some questions. It is not clear whether the HEAR will be an authenticated document or whether it will remain within the student records database to be drawn on as part of a graduate’s transcript. It is not yet clear how information on extra curricula activities can be verified. As yet, there does not appear to be any standardisation in the way the HEAR has been implemented across the sector. It is important that this is established quickly in order to prevent every institution developing their own solution (or worse, every institution paying their software supplier separately to develop a solution).

UCISA is working with the JISC to look to move to a standard solution and to engage with suppliers to develop it. Although the benefits have not been completely established for the institution (there is some doubt as to whether is reduces or adds work) an accredited achievement record should be of benefit to the graduate. There is also the question of how the HEAR interfaces with MIAP’s personal learning record. It seems that implementation of the HEAR has built up a sufficient head of steam that it will be achieved within a couple of years. Whether MIAP will follow it through to successful implementation across the sector is a moot point.

MIAP eases forward

The latest meeting of the MIAP (Managing Information Across Partners) HE Advisory Board took place on Wednesday. The programme was borne out of the now defunct Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and has the general aim of improving the information flow across the whole of the education sector. Significant progress has been made in implementing aspects of the programme in the schools and further education sectors but it has had something of a hiatus over the past nine months as the benefits to the higher education sector could not be easily identified. Given that there has been a large investment of funds in the programme, there has been high level encouragement to move the programme on. The implementation team were encouraged to establish a business case for adoption in the higher education sector. A high level case has been prepared but the outlined benefits are not proven and no costings have been included. Consequently a number of pilot programmes are being established to provide the evidence for a more complete business case.

There are potential benefits for learners. The personal learning record (PLR) offers the opportunity for learners to have details stored of all their qualifications in one place, populated by their learning providers, which could then be used in applications for employment or to further study. A pilot of the PLR suggests that most learners would use a report from the system instead of their certificates from awarding bodies and nearly 90% would use the report when applying for employment. Feedback from employers also seems positive but the proof will really only come when the system is used in anger. The data needs to be timely and accurate. There is concern over accuracy as data is not directly drawn from the awarding bodies and not all qualifications are achieved within a formal learning environment (and so are entered by the learner). The latter issue is harder to address and may require a mechanism to distinguish between validated and non-validated qualifications.

There remains much for the programme to do. Engagement varies across the UK; as a priority all of the devolved administrations need to commit to it although if it was adopted in England it could, in my view, still remain viable. The planned limited release of the PLR may mean that many of the teething problems have been identified before the HE sector comes on board. The pilots have to demonstrate that the benefits can be achieved and realise cost savings for all types of institution in the sector. The work outlined takes the programme to 2012; it is probably protected from any potential change in government as it is well established in the schools and FE sectors but there remain a number of challenges it needs to meet to become established in the HE sector.

Immigration system – phase nearing completion

What will probably be the last meeting of the Tier 4 IT Working Group before the new release goes live was held yesterday (Monday). The meeting outlined the progress on the development of the Sponsor Management System (SMS) for Tier 4 of the points based immigration system. UKBA and a number of higher education staff involved advised that the user acceptance testing had largely gone well with only a few minor defects identified and some points to be fed into guidance and policy for clarification. The bulk data transfer upload was tested as part of UAT but only with sample data supplied. The first sample data files from student records systems suppliers will be tested later this week – it is hoped that there will be further opportunities to test the bulk transfer files later in the year ahead of the date when use of the SMS becomes compulsory. The bulk data transfer toolkit will be relaunched later this month and will include the validation rules used within the SMS after the file has been uploaded, sample files and the CAS lifecycle. Those involved in the testing also noted that they need to provide better guidance on the use of the system for their own staff to reflect how the entry clearance officers assessing applications will use the data entered. It is hoped that this guidance will be made more widely available to ensure that there is consistency in the data entered and less risk that applications will be rejected through poor data quality.

The plans for the next release of the SMS software, due in the first quarter of 2010 were also outlined. This release will contain the fourth bulk update (to update fee information) and a number of other enhancements identified through use of the system for Tiers 2 and 5. The release will also include improved functionality for submitting change of circumstances.

So a phase of the development is near to closing. There hasn’t been a great response to UKBA’s request for institutions to advise them whether they expect to start using the system in the trial phase but it is hoped that there will be a sufficient volume to ensure that the SMS is at least working correctly even if there has not been the opportunity to fully test the bulk data transfers between the systems. There is still work to be done but the technical aspects are probably the least of the problems. What isn’t clear is whether institutions have considered the procedures they need to implement in order to manage this process, or whether there is a consistent approach by overseas agents processing applications. The latter is something that will only be highlighted by using the system. The former was certainly flagged up at a UCISA event and I believe has been highlighted by UKBA on their roadshows. But a number of those present at the Working Group still appeared to only be focussing on the technical side…

Points based immigration – testing times

Another meeting of the IT Working Group for the implementation of the Points Based Immigration system took place today. The meeting was followed by a session for the suppliers that are developing their student records systems software to interact with UKBA’s Sponsor Management System (SMS).

The main issue that was discussed was testing. The timescale to submit test data to UKBA for the bulk data upload and bulk data reporting mechanisms is very short – the deadline is the end of September. After that, it is expected that the latest release of the SMS incorporating Tier 4 (students) will be live and as a result the testing environment will be decommissioned. All of which leaves the suppliers with something of a problem – if they fail to submit test data by the end of next month then they will have to rely on one of their customers to submit uploads to the live system in order to test that part of the application. Testing the bulk reporting mechanism will be even harder – although the syntax can be tested an end to end test cannot be achieved since there will not be any data in the SMS to match against.

My understanding is that UKBA are not resourced to host a test instance once the current release has gone live. I have some sympathy with the UKBA staff implementing the system – the situation is not perfect but one they have to live with. It is doubly unfortunate that, in an earlier meeting of the IT Working Group, one of the senior UKBA staff made great play of the need for student records systems to generate and handle migrant data correctly. One of the supplier representatives present today commented that ‘they (UKBA) aren’t treating us as stakeholders’. It does seem that suppliers are being recognised as partners on the one hand but are being expected to deliver a quality system without a mechanism to quality assure their own products.

UKBA looking to improve supplier engagement

Today saw another in a series of meetings of the IT Working Group to discuss the implementation of the points based immigration database. The focus at this and the previous meeting was the Sponsor Management System (SMS) and its operation rather than the bulk data transfer. However there are some aspects of the bulk data transfer that have already been implemented; it is reassuring to see this and also to report that UKBA are putting increased effort into engaging with suppliers.

There has been a change in the implementation plan in that phase three use is now voluntary – institutions may use it for students extending and switching in country only. Although this was mooted at the last meeting, it has now received Ministerial approval. Part of the reason for the change is that it allows more time for volume testing and testing of the bulk transfer capabilities before they are used in earnest in February. A number of those present indicated that they will be taking up the option of using the SMS in the Autumn; I’ll be looking to establish whether this is a true reflection of the wider community.

UKBA recognise that suppliers are key to the successful operation of the system in the wider community and as such are redoubling their efforts to engage with suppliers to ensure that this is the case. When dealing with third parties, most suppliers look to fully test interactions with other systems by using a test database. The approach UKBA are currently adopting is to focus on component testing and they will need to work with the suppliers to convince them that this will be adequate. The institutions will also need convincing – the sector gets a significant amount of income through overseas students and needs to feel confident that the immigration system will deliver. I’m pleased to report the appointment within UKBA of an individual whose focus is supplier engagement – this should ensure a consistent message and deliver those assurances.

Immigration database progress

As the implementation of the new points based immigration database progresses, the meetings of the IT working group are now more frequent. I’ve missed the last two so it was encouraging to see that progress has been made and the prototype sponsor management system continues to develop. There are always questions as institutional representatives consider how the system will operate in practice and where it is not clear how the developers have interpreted requests from the earlier meetings. This meeting was no different (and in the higher education sector there are always exceptions that break the rules) but the questions were more focused than they have been in the past when the group was still trying to understand the process.

There remain some concerns – such as the use of free format text fields for the level of the course – but these may be addressed by clearer guidance from UKBA as to what to enter. The guidance needs to be two way – it needs to go to the institutions and software suppliers to determine what is appropriate to be entered/transferred, and it needs to go to the overseas visa offices to ensure that the definitions are understood and the rules applied consistently.

The UKBA staff are about to head off on a series of regional roadshows to promulgate details about the PBS system and the processes around it. This is likely to raise more questions from those who have not been directly involved in the discussions to date. What I hope it will do is promote thought amongst the attendees about how they are going to amend their own processes to ensure controlled use of the system and generation of CAS number, to feedback data from the sponsor management system into student records systems and to manage updates to the SMS about students who withdraw, fail to progress, etc. The process changes may prove to be a bigger challenge that the technology.

Points based immigration – spreading the word

Last week UCISA ran a couple of seminars on the points based immigration system. The seminars were well attended by a mixture of admissions, registry and IT staff from higher education institutions as well as a number of representatives from suppliers. The seminars presented an opportunity to ask questions of UKBA staff as well as highlighting how the new system will work.

The key points from the meeting to be emphasised are:

• There is no expectation from UKBA for additional monitoring to be put in place to satisfy the requirements for checking that international students do not miss ten consecutive ‘expected contacts’. What an HEI should have is a policy that defines how it will identify (any) students who have ceased studying (for whatever reason).
• The mechanism for the transfer of data between the sponsor management system (SMS) and institutional student records systems is that a file is extracted from one system then uploaded into the other. It will be necessary to log into the SMS in order to extract or upload data as appropriate. Consequently each HEI will need robust processes to ensure the correct records are uploaded into the SMS, when to assign confirmation of acceptance for studies (CAS) numbers, to check on the status (and upload it) of the assigned CAS numbers and how to handle applicant withdrawals.
• UUK continue to lobby for a separate CAS status to indicate a successful visa application. Currently the status is Used whether or not the application has been successful.
• UUK continue to lobby for a different payment regime, citing the way the Criminal Records Bureau invoice for searches.

Overall I felt the seminars were a success. The UKBA staff who attended were open and honest with their answers and contributed fully to the day. The slides are up on the UCISA website and we are currently writing up the question and answer session as these will address many of the issues that HEIs will have. There is still much work to be done regarding both the implementation and communications about it but hopefully those that attended the sessions will have a clearer understanding of the direction of travel.

Points based immigration database – end in sight?

Yesterday saw a couple of meetings to discuss the implementation of the points based immigration system. In terms of defining the interfaces, we are nearly there. A few additional fields were requested and a few queried but the hope is that, within a few weeks, we will have clear specifications on the format of the files to be used for interfacing between student records systems and the Sponsor Management System. The hard work starts now to make sure that the system is in place and is fully tested and robust for February 2010.

The second meeting was with suppliers of student records systems and representatives of those institutions that have bespoke student records systems. After spending months in meetings discussing the finer points of the process, the meeting revealed that there is still a need for wide communication about how the system will be implemented and the impact it will have on processes within institutions. It is hoped that UCISA will organise an event on this in the near future. Since the creation of records and the transfer of information between the systems will not be automated, business processes will have to be amended to ensure that the data is well managed. Given the cost implications of generating confirmation of acceptance on study numbers (CASs) institutions will want to ensure they only generate records for those applicants they expect to attend. Similarly the UK Border Authority will want to see processes in place to ensure that institutions void CAS numbers of students that they know are not attending their institutions, and that they have processes in place to report on those who fail to attend or fail to progress during their course.

The additional manual processes will place an added burden on institutions, that is clear. An automated system similar to the way admissions data is transferred between UCAS and institutions would be ideal but this is certainly not going to happen in the near future. Although we are at something of a halfway house it is important to remember that we have come a long way in the last six months – the initial suggestion from the Home Office was that institutions would need to enter individual records into the sponsor management system directly. That would have placed a far greater burden on institutions than the current proposal.

Immigration database guidance progress

Another day, another meeting talking about the implementation of the points based immigration system. This time the focus was on the guidance to be issued to migrants which includes much of the detail to be included in the guidance to institutions. Again there has been progress and the members of the UK Border Authority staff present showed a willingness to address problems and attempt to move to a resolution. This was particularly evident during discussion on the contents of the visa letter to be issued to students in the period before the Sponsor Management System goes live.

The concern was that the sector was not ready to accommodate the demands laid out in the draft visa letter outlined on the UKBA website. Simply, institutions tend to record that the applicant has satisfied the entry requirements without recording the full details of what those qualifications were on their central student records systems which would be the main sources of data for the visa letter and, ultimately, the upload to the Sponsor Management System. UKBA recognised that this was a problem for the sector and those present from the sector recognised that the Border Authority had been encouraged to seek out forged documentation at the visa stage. The compromise solution identified by UKBA was that the minimum level of information that institutions could supply should be the level of qualification and the originating organisation. That would then require the local assessors (in the country of application) to establish whether or not the applicant presented valid evidence of a qualification of the level specified. This would still require a level of back filling of data for many institutions but those present accepted it as a reasonable compromise.

Acceptance in a meeting does not, however, guarantee overall acceptance. The suggestion needs to be referred back to quality assurance within UKBA for approval and it needs wider acceptance in the community. The two sides are likely to want to move in different directions but with time running out for a solution to be agreed, it is hoped that a sensible compromise can be reached.

Overall a mixed day. It was encouraging that the staff from UKBA were looking to identify solutions for the sector. It was encouraging that there is a recognition that there is a need to engage suppliers as soon as possible. I have been passing information to the suppliers on a regular basis – a possible workshop between UKBA and suppliers should take that on a further step and start to clarify some of the requirements for data flow between the Sponsor Management System and institutional student records systems. However, it is frustrating that, for all their willingness to understand the sector and identify solutions, the UKBA staff are not empowered to make binding decisions on many of the issues raised. Whilst issues continue to have to be referred back to another part of the organisation, progress will continue to be slow.