Managing Information Across Partners: progress and prospects

Managing Information Across Partners: progress and prospects Collect once, use many times, used by allProfessor Robin Sibson, Chief Executive, HESADeborah Talbot, Data Manager, MIAP SROC Conference, University of WarwickTuesday 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 UKProvider 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 PlanPhase 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 PlanPhase 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 • 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 • MIAP Operational Notes(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) • Supporting Information: • Title • Maiden Name • Previous Family Name • Family Name at Sixteen • Place of Birth • Nationality • Secondary School: (for NPD will default to Last Known School) • Secret Questions (illustrative): • Mother’s Maiden Name • Pet’s Name • Other…

MIAP ULN Register Record- Create and Search Minimum Search Criteria • Without ULN: • Family Name • Given Name • Gender • Date of Birth • With ULN: • Family Name • Given Nameor • Date of Birth Minimum Create Criteria • Mandatory: • Family Name • Given Name • Gender • Date of Birth • Consent • And AT LEAST one of: • Place of Birth • Secondary School • Contact Address with PostCode

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?

Managing Information Across Partners: progress and prospects