HESA Institution profile 2013/14
Introduction to check documentation
Version 1.0 Produced 2014-05-02
This is a guide to the C13041 check documentation. This documentation should be used in conjunction with the C13041 coding manual.
Contents: Introduction | What to do if you find issues with your check documentation | Campus | AcademicCostCentres | CCANALYSIS
Introduction to check documentationBack to top
A successful TEST_COMMIT/COMMIT transaction will generate several reports containing management information that institutions will need to review to assess data quality. The check documentation is the most substantial of these reports. A template of the check documentation workbook for C13041 can be downloaded from C13041.
Check documentation takes the form of an Excel workbook containing a series of tables which present much of the returned data to enable institutions to ensure that their submission represents their institution as expected. In part, check documentation provides a preview of some of the onward uses of the data. Therefore, review of the check documentation should be undertaken by institutions to verify the submitted data.
Within the check documentation there are tabs named Campus, AcademicCostCentres and CCANALYSIS that are intended to be checked by both institutions and HESA. However, colleagues are reminded that primary responsibility for data quality rests with them. Colleagues within institutions are in an excellent position to recognise more detailed anomalies within their data, using local knowledge of the intricacies of their own institutions, and are strongly encouraged to closely scrutinise the check documentation reports. The check documentation is also used by HESA to conduct data analysis and quality assurance of a data submission. Queries raised on these items form the basis of any data quality queries fed back to institutions through the Minerva data quality database.
This guide details each of the items in turn, providing details of the fields used in their creation along with guidance on interpreting the item and tips detailing common issues. Note that this guide is not exhaustive and institutions are advised to extensively review the check documentation for their own purposes.
Data Supply: This report is available after a successful TEST_COMMIT/COMMIT provides back the submitted data in flat file and xml formats. This can then be used to analysis the submitted data locally and recreate the items used by HESA in the check documentation. The derived fields are also included within the Data supply file. These fields are identifiable as those that begin with 'X'. Details of the derived fields used in the C13041 record can be downloaded from Derived field specifications.
Item priorities:
Each check documentation item covered in this guide has been allocated a priority based on the data concerned (including minimum data quality standards acceptable to HESA's Statutory Customers), the knock-on effects, and common issues. However, the assigned priorities should be treated with caution as these are general estimates. Depending on the submitted data the actual severities assigned to data quality queries raised in Minerva may differ for individual institutions. These priorities will be denoted in Minerva through the following icons.
| Priority | Minerva icon |
| Critical |  |
| Major - high priority |  |
| Major - low priority |
 |
| Minor | n/a |
What to do if you find issues within your check documentationBack to top
Where anomalies are found you should record them on any relevant Minerva queries raised by HESA and set the queries to be fixed on resubmission. The institution should then contact [email protected] to request that the data is decommitted in order that the necessary amendments can be made and the data resubmitted.
CampusBack to top
PRIORITY: Major-High
| FIELDS USED: |
Campus.CAMPID, Campus.CAMPNAME, Campus.COUNTRY, Campus.POSTCODE, Campus.EASTING, Campus.NORTHING |
DESCRIPTION: This consists of two items, displaying last year’s and this year’s campus data. Check for any changes between years. Figures are provided for both the current and previous reporting year to provide a comparison between 2012/13 and 2013/14.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the details are as expected. All differences between years should be explained as necessary in Minerva.
AcademicCostCentres Back to top
PRIORITY: Major-High
| FIELDS USED: |
AcademicCostCentres.TIER1, AcademicCostCentres.TIER2, AcademicCostCentres.DEPARTMENT, AcademicCostCentres.ACCENTRE, AcademicCostCentres.PROPACC, AcademicCostCentres.PROPDEPT |
DESCRIPTION: This consists of two items, displaying last year’s and this year’s Academic Cost Centres data. Check for any changes between years. Figures are provided for both the current and previous reporting year to provide a comparison between 2012/13 and 2013/14.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the details are as expected. All differences between years should be explained as necessary in Minerva.
CCANALYSISBack to top
PRIORITY: Critical
| FIELDS USED: | AcademicCostCentres.ACCENTRE |
DESCRIPTION: This sheet provides comparative analysis between the Staff record, Student record and Finance Statistics Return data for 2012/13 against the 2013/14 institution record cost centre data.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the details are as expected. All differences between years should be explained as necessary in Minerva.
Need help?
Contact Liaison by email or on +44 (0)1242 388 531.