Transcript Document

Managing Information Across Partners:
progress and prospects
Collect once, use many times, used by all
Professor Robin Sibson, Chief Executive, HESA
Deborah Talbot, Data Manager, MIAP
SROC Conference, University of Warwick
Tuesday 27 March 2007
Acronym & timeline
Updates in colour, like this
 Managing Information Across Partners
 DfES-led initiative since 2002, varying levels of
involvement from devolved administrations
 Wales and NI fully involved, but some timelines may differ from those in
England, Scotland has own linked initiative
 Programme delivery responsibility transferred to LSC
during 2005Q4
 PWC appointed as client-side contractors, developing a
definition for a supply-side contract
 LogicaCMG awarded supply-side contract December 2006
Objectives
 Build infrastructure to facilitate interworking between
different post-14 educational data collections (school,
exams, LSC, UCAS, HESA)
 Promote business change to achieve migration to the
infrastructure
 Thereby achieve improved data useability for current users
and increase efficiency
 Develop an interface to allow learner, and hence provider,
access
Infrastructure
 Common Data Definitions (led by HESA)
 Unique Learner Number and registration service (led by
LSC)
 UK Register of Learning Providers (led by DfES,
implemented by UfI)
 Data sharing agreement checklist, legal gateways, data
protection and freedom of information issues
CDD outline
 Large amount of exploratory/consultative work by David
Mason and Oakleigh
 Tranche 1 technical implementation (to level of XML
schemas) carried through by Boynings, delivered 2006Q1
 Tranche 2 implementation delivered 2006Q2
 Integration with GDSC
 Alignment study against (schools) Common Basic Data Set
carried out by Boynings for MIAP
 MIAP CDD technical group being established
CDD sample issues
 Names – the character set problem
 Addresses – BS7666/PAF conflict
 Countries – ISO3166 and the NSHG adaptation for the UK
 Courses – achieving a common terminology to support
detailed standards
ULN
 Why not an existing identifier such as NINo?
 Technical format issues – format definition implemented




numeric identifier requirement
modulus-11 error detection
alignment but non-overlap with NHS number
embedding of Scottish Candidate Number
 Registration/access service, relation to Shibboleth
 Service integration unlikely
 Pre-population
 can obstacles to use of National Pupil Database be overcome?
UKRLP
 A register of providers not a register of provision, an
authoritative reference not an accreditation
 Operational (www.ukrlp.co.uk) but still developing
 Valuable resource, about 17,000 providers now registered and
issued with UK Provider Reference Number
 Some further work needed over maintaining currency of records,
fully reflecting location of provision, and showing provider ‘status’
 Relation to other needs
 Position over REP/immigration still not clear
 No connection yet to ‘listed bodies’ orders
 Work on these issues believed to be in hand in DfES/HO
 UfI contract now novated to LogicaCMG
ISB
 DfES is establishing an Information Standards Board




Working Group in existence for over a year
Board likely to be established formally 2007Q3
PT independent Chair to be sought
Technical Subgroup being set up
 ISB will cover whole DfES remit




Children’s services
Schools
FE/L&S sector
HE
 Close working relationship with MIAP
Procurement through Competitive
Dialogue
Advantages
 Immediate start on contract award

Functional specification issued only 5 weeks after contract award
 Supplier understood the culture of the programme and vice versa
 Programme got to know the team and formed relationships
 Material minor changes to the schedules identified



Solution availability SLA’s and clarification on the Service credits regime
Further information added about UAT and Authority responsibilities
Changed time-scale for notice of invocation
 Minor Changes to the schedules identified




Service requirements
Benchmarking
Disaster Recovery & Business Continuity
Compensation & Termination
Disadvantages
 Time Consuming
 Requires significant commitment from both programme and bidders
 Costly process
On balance, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages
MIAP Service Availability Plan
Phase 1a – Sep 07

User Management

Full Registration Services

Tests and Trials of Data Sharing
Services and Query
MIAP Service Availability Plan
Phase 1b – Nov 07

User Management

Full Registration Services

Tests and Trials of Data Sharing
Services and Query

Systems Interfaces (SDK Tools and API
Access)

Continued Tests and Trials of Data
Sharing Services and Query
MIAP Service Availability Plan
Phase 2 – Mar 08

User Management

Full Registration Services

Tests and Trials of Data Sharing
Services and Query

Systems Interfaces (SDK Tools and API
Access)

Continued Tests and Trials of Data
Sharing Services and Query

Learner Access to MIAP

Learner Record Made Available

Data Query/Extract Services Available
to Customers
MIAP Service Availability Plan - Future
Vision













User Management
Full Registration Services
Tests and Trials of Data Sharing
Services and Query
Systems Interfaces (SDK Tools and API
Access)
Continued Tests and Trials of Data
Sharing Services and Query
Learner Access to MIAP
Learner Record Made Available
Data Query/Extract Services Available
to Customers
Wider Data Services
Further Sector Wide Unique Keys
Extensions to CDD
4 Country Use
Access by Approved 3rd Party Users
MIAP Learner Record Prototype –
Summary Sheet
This slide is illustrative only and reflects comments received. It DOES NOT reflect the actual design of the learner record which will be developed by
LogicaCMG as part of their design activities.
MIAP Learner Record Prototype –
Achievement Details
This slide is illustrative only and reflects comments received. It DOES NOT reflect the actual design of the learner record which will be developed by
LogicaCMG as part of their design activities.
MIAP Learner Record Prototype –
Participation Details
This slide is illustrative only and reflects comments received. It DOES NOT reflect the actual design of the learner record which will be developed by
LogicaCMG as part of their design activities.
MIAP ULN Register Record
- Content
• Core Record Content:
– ULN
– Family Name
– Given Name
– Gender
– Date of Birth
– Consent
• Supporting Information:
• Improving Identification:
– Last Know Address & Postcode
– Last Known Address & Postcode Date
– Last Known Email Address
– Last Known Email Address Date
• Operational Information:
– Scottish Candidate Number (if issued)
• Other
– Title
– MIAP Operational Notes
– Maiden Name
(Free text for operators and Org Users to add notes around
the record – e.g. Merge identified not the same as ULN
nnnnnnnn etc. Not visible to the learner or not read only)
– Previous Family Name
– Family Name at Sixteen
– Place of Birth
• Secret Questions (illustrative):
– Nationality
– Mother’s Maiden Name
– Secondary School:
– Pet’s Name
(for NPD will default to Last Known School)
– Other…
MIAP ULN Register Record
- Create and Search
Minimum Create Criteria
• Mandatory:
Minimum Search Criteria
• Without ULN:
– Family Name
– Family Name
– Given Name
– Given Name
– Gender
– Gender
– Date of Birth
– Date of Birth
– Consent
• And AT LEAST one of:
– Place of Birth
• With ULN:
– Family Name
– Secondary School
– Given Name
or
– Contact Address with PostCode
– Date of Birth
MIAP Business Change
Objectives
 To stimulate demand for MIAP Services (as defined by the scope of the
procurement) and to ensure MIAP benefits, processes and opportunities
are fully understood by stakeholders
 Working through Sector Change Managers to ensure that MIAP services
and benefits are seen as key to the success of partners’ strategic
programmes and integrated accordingly
 To ensure key partners (DfES, LSC, QCA, HEFCE/HESA) routinely scan
their respective horizons to ensure that new initiatives/policy
developments understand the potential fit with MIAP and take that into
account in their policy thinking and impact assessment
 To stimulate future demand for MIAP services (yet to be
defined/procured) through robust benefit realisation and key partner
adoption, supported by Sector Change Managers
MIAP Business Change to date –
Business Change Management
The business change workstream has a comprehensive schedule of activity and a clear approach,
crucial to the success of the programme ……..
MIAP Business Change to date
– Comms
Communications plays a key role in promoting the work of the programme, supporting the board, and
getting the right MIAP messages to stakeholders
•11 Events and Conferences
•Formalised planning process
with robust plan
•Website
•Proactive & responsive
communications function
•Stakeholder Liaison
MIAP Business Change to date –
Stakeholder Engagement
A focus on key stakeholders across the sector has been the approach to stakeholder engagement to
date ……..
•
•
•
Signed off Stakeholder Engagement Approach
Prioritised contact strategy
Stakeholder Engagement Database delivered holding details of:
• 64 face to face appointments since Jan 07
• 134 Stakeholder Contacts
• 50 Stakeholder Organisations
•
Ability to produce detailed reports on:
• an individual, with outstanding actions
• an organisation, with all contacts listed
• ad hoc requests through standard MS Access query builder
Business Change to date – Benefits
Management
Devising a robust benefits management strategy and framework has built solid foundations for the
programme……..
•
Working with Sector Change Managers to identify owners, investigate adoption plans, define
targets and methods to track realisation
•
Set up of Benefits Working Group – ToR defined
•
Engagement with test and trial participants to further understand benefit challenges
Logica scope –
to be confirmed
Business Change plan– immediate next
steps
Implications for HE – short term
 HESA Student Record revised for 2007/08
 uses UKPRN – but you can’t forget about the HESA institution
number just yet, and schools don’t have a UKPRN
 provides for collection of the ULN as it becomes available – but
HUSID will have to remain the primary key for a lengthy period
 CDD compliant, both structurally (explicit data model not CDD
mandated but natural, use of XML is part of CDD) and semantically
(CDD definitions used throughout, but don’t cover everything in the
record – such as HE qualification aim – and need detailed
adaptation – such as country codes for nationality/domicile)
 Other individual-level HESA records will follow the same
path, but no timetable defined yet
Implications for HE – longer term
 Ambition to make HESA student data into a ‘data bin’
accessible through the MIAP learner service
 Issues to be addressed include
 timeliness – current uses for HESA data are met by a retrospective
collection, and even if speeded up this may not provide what is
wanted for learners to access
 accuracy/currency – current fitness-for-purpose is defined in terms of
statistical usage, not individual-level accuracy and currency which
would make much greater maintenance demands
 coverage – current record does not cover items of individual interest
such as degree title
 These issues have made it inappropriate to include HESA
data initially; how can they be worked round or overcome?