Collection Design Project: Phase V1 Feedback

We received 28 responses to our requests for feedback on the outline proposal for a new data collection design.

Feedback is incredibly important to us and we appreciate it is a very busy time for providers, but these detailed responses will shape our design as we move to the publication of Version 2 in mid-December.

We’ve selected some key quotes from the feedback:

“A worthwhile opportunity to pull together a good breadth of knowledge from higher education”

“The design phase to date has been thorough and has provided us with some thought-provoking discussion”

“Changes are likely to be seismic for software suppliers and will require engagement with providers”

While we cannot respond to every question posed or points made, we have summarised the overriding themes across all the responses.

Reconciliation is a valid concern

Skills Requirements - HESA and Providers

With in-year collections, we need to evaluate and align the capability required from all stakeholders; providers, customers, software providers and HESA. In the provider space, it’s possible more people may be involved as part of their current responsibilities, while the significant activity of the single HESA return will reduce. 

Software suppliers

It is critically important that software providers are able to support the current requirements and to spec, design, build, test and implement new functionality to support in-year collection. The project team is in dialogue with all the suppliers with a workshop scheduled for mid-December 2016. We will publish the agenda, discussions and outcomes afterwards.

Event reconciliation

Two issues were raised: firstly, that early returned data items would be sent directly to the statutory customers; secondly, that submitted data for customer outputs may change after publication.  

To clarify, data will never be provided for a customer output until the supplying provider deems it to be of sufficient quality. We will explain the validation process in a further blog. Reconciliation is a valid concern and a proposal to resolve this will be published with Version 2 of the design.

Inappropriate onward use of data

This is linked to event reconciliation. We believe the risk will be mitigated by a very rich data dictionary and a rigorous process around how data is released to customers. More to come in Version 2.

AP involvement 

Alternative providers (AP) have voiced a concern that their part of the sector is not as well represented as traditional providers. We intend to run one of the post-Version 2 consultation workshops specifically for AP. 

Detailed impact and benefits

As with any iterative design, we understand that the level of detail in the first release was not sufficient to demonstrate the benefits outlined in the wider Data Futures programme, and to understand the impact for individual institutions. In Version 2 we will be providing a full list of events, schemas, attributes, quality assurance process and associated narrative to be followed up by consultation workshops.

Thank you, again; you will see how your feedback shapes the design when we publish Version 2 of the design collateral in December.