Staff record 2014/15
Check documentation guide
Version 1.0 Produced 2015-06-25
This document is a guide to the Check documentation. This documentation should be used in conjunction with the Coding manual and the Check documentation definitions and notes.
Contents: Introduction | What to do if you find issues with your check documentation | Onward use of the Staff data | Institutional information | Checkdoc_I | Checkdoc_II | Checkdoc_III | Checkdoc_IV | CCANALYSIS_1 | Exception report
Introduction to check documentationBack to top
A TEST_COMMIT/COMMIT transaction will generate several reports containing management information that higher education providers (HEPs) will need to review to assess data quality. The check documentation is the most substantial of these reports. A template of the check documentation can be downloaded from the Coding manual.
Check documentation takes the form of an Excel workbook containing a series of tables which present much of the returned data to enable HEPs to ensure that their submission represents their Institutional profile record as expected. Review of the check documentation should be undertaken by HEPs to verify the submitted data.
Within the check documentation is an 'Institutional_information' tab. This section of the check documentation includes Items 1 to 8 which contain information for institutional analysis. The items held within this tab are provided for institutional purposes and may highlight useful internal planning/data management areas. A work sheet labelled CCANALYSIS_2 (Item 9) is also provided for HEPs' benefit. This sheet provides a breakdown of academic employment function and activity by cost centre for both standard and atypical contracts. HESA does not scrutinise check documentation Items 1 to 9.
All other tabs within the Excel workbook are designed to be checked by both HEPs and HESA. HEPs are in an excellent position to recognise more detailed anomalies within their data, using local knowledge of the intricacies of their own HEPs, 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 issues form the basis of any data quality queries fed back to HEPs through the Minerva data quality database.
This guide details each of the items in turn, providing details of the populations and 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 HEPs are advised to extensively review the check documentation.
Further tools to assist in checking your data:
Data Supply: The derived fields (identifiable as those that begin with 'X') used for each check documentation item are listed within this help guide. The derived field specifications and populations can be downloaded from the 'Data Supply' icon that is available following a commit. These are designed to provide the Person, Contract and Activity tables as downloadable .csv or XML files during the data collection process and so enable HEPs to replicate the populations used in the check documentation. The files can also be exported to HEPs' local systems to act as a basic data management tool.
The Data supply page also contains information and guidance on creating pivot tables with the data.
Checkdoc compare: To assist HEPs in locating differences between transactions the data collection system will provide a second version of the check documentation for every re-commit/test-commit processed by a HEP. This version of the check documentation presents a colour shaded version of the Excel spreadsheet with number variances being highlighted.
Each check documentation item is allocated an anticipated priority. These priorities are based on the knock-on effects, the data concerned, and common issues. However, the assigned priorities should be taken with caution as these are only anticipated priority. Dependent on the inserted data the actual severities assigned to data quality queries raised in Minerva may differ. For example, Item 16 is classified as Major-low, however if a HEP with a medical school returned their data with no clinical academics this would inevitably increase the severity of the query raised.
Item priorities:
| 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 as 'Will fix by last submission'. Your HEP should then contact Institutional Liaison to request that the data is decommitted in order that the necessary amendments can be made and the data resubmitted. Once the data has been resubmitted the HEP should update the query in Minerva to 'Ready to be checked'; this will indicate to HESA that you are ready for the data to be checked.
Onward use of the Staff dataBack to top
Staff data is used in the Statistical First Release - Staff at Higher Education Providers in the United Kingdom, in the Resources in Higher Education Providers HESA publication, through heidi and in data enquiries handled by the HESA Bespoke Data Service team. Data is also passed to HESA's Statutory Customers for their own onward analyses.
Institutional informationBack to top
Within the check documentation is an 'Institutional_information' tab. This section of the check documentation includes Items 1 to 8 which contain information for institutional analysis. The items held within this tab are provided for institutional purposes and may highlight useful internal planning/data management areas. A work sheet labelled CCAnalysis_2 (Item 9) is also provided for heps' benefit. This sheet provides a breakdown of academic employment function and activity by cost centre for both standard and atypical contracts. HESA does not scrutinise check documentation Items 1 to 9.
Checkdoc_IBack to top
The items contained within Checkdoc_I consider fields returned in the Person entity and as such refer to the personal characteristics of the hep's staff body.
Item 10a - Number of staff (excluding atypical) by legal sex and age as at 1 December
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | XPOPP01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.SEX |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XAGRPB01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item displays a HEP's staff numbers by age and legal sex for non-atypical staff as at the 1 December. Figures are given for both the current and previous reporting year to provide a comparison.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the numbers are as expected, that there is an even distribution of ages across listed age bands and sexes, and that the pattern is comparable to the previous year's data. If there is a dramatic change against any age grouping, consider whether this is accurate; the change may be genuine and the result of staff moving from one age grouping to the next.
TIPS:
- Check that the Male/Female split is reasonable and compares to the previous year's data.
- Check for a similar spread of ages compared to the previous year.
Item 10b - Number of academic staff with only atypical contracts during the reporting year by legal sex and age
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | XPOPPA01 = '1' and XACMRK01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.SEX |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XAGRPB01, XACMRK01 |
DESCRIPTION: The item displays academic atypical staff numbers by age and legal sex. Figures are given for both the current and previous reporting year.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: The checks carried out in Item 10a also apply here.
TIPS:
- If there is a dramatic change against any age grouping, consider whether this is accurate; the change may be genuine and the result of staff moving from one age grouping to the next.
Item 11 - Staff FPE (excluding atypical) by previous employment
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | XPOPP01 = '1' (Staff (excluding atypical) as at 1 December), XPOPPA01= '0' and DATEFHEI > '31-Jul-20YY' (New (excluding atypical) starters) |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.PREVEMP, Person.DATEFHEI, Contract.ACEMPFUN |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XPOPPA01, XSFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item displays the spread of previous employment types for academic and non-academic staff (excluding atypical) as at 1 December and new starters.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: This item will not be scrutinized by HESA as 'unknowns' will be raised by an exception rule Person.PREVEMP.Exception.2 and highlighted in item 13.
TIPS:
- Person.PREVEMPs of value "Not known" (code '99') will be raised by Person.PREVEMP.Exception.2.
- It is anticipated that the number of unknown values will decrease year-on-year through staff turnover and through improved processes.
- It is expected that Person.PREVEMP information will be recorded for new starters.
Item 12 - Number of staff (excluding atypical) by disability as at 1 December
PRIORITY: MAJOR - HIGH
| POPULATION: | XPOPP01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.DISABLE |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | N/A |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a count of staff by disability as at 1 December.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: It is expected that there will be disabled staff at every HEP and it is expected that reported disabilities will normally be spread across the categories. It is required that HEPs survey all staff members about disability. Data should be checked and verified if figures are only appearing in the 'No known disability' and 'Information refused' rows.
TIPS:
- Exception Warning Person.DISABLE.Exception.3 will trigger where there is more than 99% of staff with 'No known disability'; this is to inquire whether the HEP is asking the question.
- It is expected that the majority of staff members will not have a disability and will be coded as 00.
Item 13a and 13c - Unknown values for staff with non-atypical contracts as at 1 December/new starters
PRIORITY: MAJOR - HIGH
| POPULATION: | XPOPP01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.NATION, Person.ETHNIC, Person.HQHELD, Person.PREVEMP, Person.LOCLEAVE, Person.ACTCHQUAL, Person.ACTLEAVE |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | N/A |
DESCRIPTION: Provides data for the number and percentage of staff with unknown values in nationality, ethnicity, teaching qualification/highest qualification, previous employment, activity after leaving, and location after leaving. Figures are given for both the current and previous reporting year to provide a comparison.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: The level of unknown values should not exceed the thresholds shown in the table below.
| Fields | Threshold |
| Academic teaching qualification (Person.ACTCHQUAL) | 10.0% |
| Nationality (Person.NATION) | 7.5% |
| Ethnicity (Person.ETHNIC) | 7.5% |
| Highest qualification held (Person.HQHELD) | 15% |
| Previous employment (Person.PREVEMP) | 15% |
| Location after leaving (Person.LOCLEAVE) | 20% |
| Activity after leaving (Person.ACTLEAVE) | 20% |
All levels of unknowns above these thresholds should be addressed and/or explained as necessary.
TIPS:
- HEPs are encouraged to strive to reduce unknown values as far as possible.
- Exception Warning Person.ACTCHQUAL.Exception.2 will trigger if > 40% of staff are coded as '99 - No academic teaching qualification held'.
- Exception Warning Person.ACTCHQUAL.Exception.3 will trigger if > 5% of staff are coded as '09 - Other UK accreditation or qualification in teaching in the higher education sector'.
- Unknown values impact onwards analysis of the data.
- Sector averages are provided for information and should not be viewed as the target.
- It is recognised that it can be difficult to obtain leaving destination information. Exit surveys and interviews can assist in this data capture.
Item 13b - Unknown Values for staff with atypical contracts only/new starters
PRIORITY: CRITICAL
| POPULATION: | XPOPPA01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.NATION, Person.ETHNIC |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | N/A |
DESCRIPTION: These items provide the number and percentage of atypical staff with unknown values in nationality and ethnicity. Figures are given for both the current and previous reporting year to provide a comparison.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: The level of unknown values should not exceed the thresholds shown in the table below.
| Fields | Threshold |
| Nationality | 20% |
| Ethnicity | 20% |
All levels of unknowns above these thresholds should be addressed and/or explained as necessary.
TIPS:
- HEPs are encouraged to strive to reduce unknown values are far as possible.
- Unknown values impact onwards analysis of the data.
- Sector averages are provided for information and should not be viewed as the target.
Item 13d - Number of unknown and information refused values for national identity - For Welsh HEPs only
PRIORITY: MAJOR - HIGH
| POPULATION: | N/A |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.NATIOND |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | N/A |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a count of 'unknown' and 'information refused' for national identity.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that there is not greater than 5% 'unknown' or 'information refused'; this threshold has been set by the Welsh government.
All levels of unknowns above these thresholds should be addressed and/or explained as necessary.
TIPS:
- HEPs are encouraged to strive to reduce unknown values as far as possible.
- Unknown values impact onwards analysis of the data.
Item 13e - FPE for staff (excluding atypical) in SOC2010 major groups 1, 2 or 3 by previous employment and activity after leaving for staff who have left this year
PRIORITY: MAJOR - HIGH
| POPULATION: | XACTSOC01 = '1', '2', '3' and Person.DATELEFT > 31-Jul-20YY |
| FIELDS USED: | Person.ACTLEAVE, Person.PREVEMP |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XSFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item shows a profile of where staff members have come from and where they are going in terms of employment.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that there is a reasonable spread over the codes.
Checkdoc_IIBack to top
Item 14 - Staff FPE (excluding atypical) by levels and academic employment function
PRIORITY: CRITICAL
| POPULATION: | XPOPP01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.LEVELS, Contract.ACEMPFUN |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XSFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a breakdown of staff (excluding atypical) by contract level, and by academic employment function.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the expected number of contracts have been returned for UCEA level 5A. Assess the split between research only and teaching only contracts.
TIPS:
- Level refers to the contract and not the person. The UCEA definition of Level 5A is 'Senior Academic appointments which may carry the title of Professor but which do not have departmental line management responsibilities' and is therefore not expected that the number of contracts in level 5A will match the number of professors.
- Contract.LEVELS = 'E1' (UCEA level 4A) May include professors who head departments/research centres
- We would expect that the majority of Contract.LEVELS = 'F1' (UCEA level 5A) will be in the first three rows (ACEMPFUN = '1', '2', '3')
Item 15a - FTE by contract levels and SOC2010 major group
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | N/A |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.LEVELS |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XACTSOC01, XSFTE01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item shows a breakdown of contract levels by major SOC2010 groups.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that there is a general trend of higher Contract.LEVELS with the highest level SOC2010 major groups.
TIPS:
- Contract.LEVELS = 'A0' must exist at least once for a HEP and no more than twice. This is covered by an exception rule, Contract.LEVELS.Exception.2 (ERROR)
- There is not expected to be more than 10 or 2% (whichever is less) where Contract.LEVELS = 'B1'. This is covered by an exception rule, Contract.LEVELS.Exception.1 (WARNING)
Item 15b - Staff FTE (excluding atypical) by SOC2010 major group, mode of employment and basic salary
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | N/A |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.ACEMPFUN, Contract. MOEMP |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XACTSOC01, XSFTE01, XSALG01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item shows a breakdown of salary by SOC2010 major groups, academic and mode of employment (full-time and part-time).
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that there is general trend of high salaries for SOC2010 major groups 1-3.
TIPS:
- Item 15b - Contract.SALREF should not be between £4,900 and £11,500 for staff (excluding atypical) aged 18 and over. This is covered by an exception rule, Contract.SALREF.Exception.1. Although there are legitimate scenarios, such as apprenticeships and interns.
Item 15c - Staff FTE (excluding atypical) by SOC2010 major group, contract level, mode of employment and basic salary
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | N/A |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.LEVELS, Contract.MOEMP |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XACTSOC01, XSFTE01, XSALG01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item shows a breakdown of salary by SOC2010 major groups, contract level (Professor (F1), Other senior academic (A0, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2), Other contract levels (F2, I0, J0, K0, L0, M0, N0, O0, P0)) and mode of employment (full-time and part-time).
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: This item will not be scrutinised by HESA it is covered by exception stage quality rules.
TIPS:
- Salary should not be less than £50,000 for Contract.LEVELS = '5A', this is covered by Contract.SALREF.Exception.5
- Salary should not be more than £150,000 for any Contract.LEVELS except where it equals 'A0', this is covered by Contract.SALREF.Exception.3
Item 15d - Staff FTE (excluding atypical) by mode of employment and salary group
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | N/A |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.MOEMP |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XSFPE01, XSALPNT01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item shows a breakdown of salary groups based on the UCEA spine points by mode of employment (full-time and part-time). The table include a year on year comparison and percentage change.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the difference between years is not greater than 20%.
TIPS:
- The salary groups change year on year.
Checkdoc_IIIBack to top
Checkdoc_III includes analysis of healthcare speciality for those HEPs with clinical contracts.
Item 16 - Healthcare profession specialty of staff with Clinical status
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | XHSOCC01 = 'W', 'X' |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.HSPEC, Contract.CLINICAL |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XHSOCC01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item details the number of staff with healthcare professional specialties by clinical status and only applies to HEPs with healthcare course provision.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: For HEPs with medical schools it is expected that the majority of figures will be populated within the grey shaded boxes on the table. Check that the spread of codes returned matches the Institutional profile record.
TIPS:
- Contract.CLINICAL should be zero due to the business rule Contract.HSPEC.BusinessRule.2 which states that Contract.HSPEC must not exist where Contract.CLINICAL is not equal to '1', '2', '3' or '4'.
Item 17a and 17b - Comparison of Healthcare professional specialty/Clinical excellence award data provided by Medical and Dental Schools' Councils
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | N/A |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.HSPEC, Person.CLINARD, Contract.CLINSUB, Contract.NHSCON |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | N/A |
DESCRIPTION: The items breakdown clinical information into; healthcare professional specialty and clinical excellence award compared with the previous year's data.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: This item will not be scrutinized by HESA.
Checkdoc_IVBack to top
Check document items 18 to 21 provide FPE comparisons with the previous year.
FPE is calculated by dividing each staff member employed on 1 December of the reporting year between their different activities, in proportion to the FTE declared for each activity.
For example, a staff member is employed from 1 November to 31 Janaury of the reporting period on a half-time contract, with their work split between Biology (25%) and Chemistry (75%). Their total FTE is 0.125, however their FPE is 1. FPE is calculated as follows:
The staff member is employed on 1 December and is therefore eligible for the FPE population.
| FPE for Biology = 0.25 (25%) |
| FPE for Chemistry = 0.75 (75%) |
| FPE total = 1 |
Each staff member working on 1 December of the reporting year will have a total FPE, regardless of their individual FTE.
The FPE definitions used by HESA are:
Full-person equivalent
Individuals can hold more than one contract and each contract may involve more than one activity. In published analyses and in checkdoc items 11-14 staff counts are divided amongst their activities in proportion to the declared FTE for each activity; this results in counts of full person equivalents (FPE). Staff FPE counts are calculated on the basis of contract activities that were active on 1 December of the reporting period (using the HESA staff contract population).
Further information on the difference between FTE and FPE is available at FTE vs FPE.
Atypical full-person equivalent
Individuals can hold only atypical contracts and each contract may involve more than one activity. Atypical staff FPE counts are calculated on the basis of those individuals who have only atypical contracts that were active during the reporting period (using the HESA atypical staff population).
Automated queries are used within Checkdoc_IV to highlight potentially significant changes year-on-year.
The symbol ? indicates a significant change from the previous year. This automated query will be triggered by the following degrees of change.
- one year's figure is double the other year's figure.
- one year's figure is zero while the other year's is not zero.
Where automated queries are triggered the data will need to be checked and verified.
Items 18 -20
These items provide breakdowns of the FPE population for the current and prior year by contract types. Due to the similar features of these items they have been grouped together here.
Item 18a - FPE by SOC major groups [Staff (excluding atypical) as at 1 December]
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | XPOPC01 = '1' |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XACTSOC01, XPOPC01, XPOPPA01, XSFPE01, XSAFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: Provides a breakdown of FPE by activity. It displays non-atypical data. Provides a comparison of current and previous data and percentage changes.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check that the numbers returned are comparable with those in the previous year.
TIPS:
- Some of the most notable changes between SOC2000 and SOC2010 are:
- Some managerial occupations have been relocated from Major group 1 to Major groups 2, 3 or 4 e.g. IT Managers, Sales Managers, Office Managers.
- Revision of Information technology and telecommunications occupations, mainly within Major group 2.
Item 18b - FPE by SOC major groups [Atypical staff within the reporting period]
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | XPOPPA01 = '1' |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XACTSOC01, XPOPC01, XPOPPA01, XSFPE01, XSAFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a breakdown of FPE by activity. It displays atypical data. Figures are given for both the current and previous reporting year, along with percentage changes to provide a comparison.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Check the numbers returned are comparable with those in the previous year.
Item 19 - FPE by Terms of employment of academic staff (excluding atypical)
PRIORITY: MAJOR - LOW
| POPULATION: | XPOPC01 = '1' and XACMRK01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.TERMS |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XSFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a breakdown of academic FPE by terms of employment.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Compare the data against the previous year.
Item 20a and 20b - FPE by Mode of employment of staff (excluding atypical)
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | XPOPC01 = '1' and XACMRK01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.MOEMP |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XSFPE01 |
DESCRIPTION: These items provide a breakdown of non-atypical staff FPE by mode of employment. Table 20a provides a breakdown for academic staff and Table 20b a breakdown for non-academic staff.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: Compare the data against the previous year.
Item 21a - Staff FPE by Terms of employment, Mode of employment and published groupings (non-atypical)
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | XPOPC01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.TERMS, Contract.MOEMP, Person.SEX, Person.ETHNIC, Person.DISABLE, Contract.SOBS, Contract.LEVELS, Contract.ACEMPFUN |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | XSFTE01, XSFPE01, XSAFPE01, XAGEA01, XPOPC01 |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a breakdown of non-atypical staff FPE split between academic and non-academic staff and full and part time for sex, age, ethnicity, disability, source of salary, contract levels and academic employment function.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: HESA will not scrutinize this item as it provides a summary of data, which will have been queried elsewhere.
TIPS:
- There should only be zeros in cells B84:C84
- This item provides a useful preview of how the HEP's data would appear on publication. FPE populations are commonly used in the publication of Staff record data.
Item 21b - Staff FPE by Terms, Mode of employment and published groupings (atypical)
PRIORITY: MINOR
| POPULATION: | XPOPPA01 = '1' |
| FIELDS USED: | Contract.TERMS, Contract.MOEMP, Person.SEX, Person.ETHNIC, Person.DISABLE, Contract.SOBS, Contract.LEVELS, Contract.ACEMPFUN DERIVED FIELDS USED: XSFTE01, XSFPE01, XSAFPE01, XAGEA01, XPOPA01 |
| DERIVED FIELDS USED: | N/A |
DESCRIPTION: This item provides a breakdown of atypical staff FPE split between academic and non-academic staff for sex, age, ethnicity and disability.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: HESA will not scrutinize this item as it provides a summary of data, which will have been queried elsewhere.
TIPS:
- This item provides a useful preview of how the HEP's data would appear on publication. FPE populations are commonly used in the publication of Staff record data.
CCAnalysis_1Back to top
Item 22 - Analysis of 2013/14 Student, Staff and Finance data by Cost Centre as well as 2014/15 Staff data by cost centre
PRIORITY: CRITICAL
POPULATION: XPSESC01 = '1'
DESCRIPTION: This sheet provides comparative analysis between the Staff record, Student record and Finance record data for 2013/14 against the 2014/15 Staff record cost centre data. 2014/15 Institutional profile record academic cost centre information has been included so that a cross check can be made to cost centres declared in the IPR record has been used consistently in the return.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR: It is generally expected that for cost centres where staff FTE is returned, there will also be student FTE and expenditure attributed to this cost centre. Any mismatches should be investigated and rectified where necessary. There are five automated query types associated with this item.
| Query 1 | Student, staff (excluding atypical) and finance last year, but zero staff this year. |
| Query 2 | Staff data (excluding non-academic atypical) for this year and none for last year or vice versa. |
| Query 3 | Staff (excluding atypical) changes by more than +/- 20% |
| Query 4 | Academic atypical changes by more than +/-50% |
| Query 5 | One or more cells has value between 0 and 0.05 |
TIPS:
- It is strongly recommended that the Staff, Student, Finance and Institution profile record contacts liaise ahead of the data submission period to ensure all four returns are completed consistently; the submitted data will be published and corrections cannot be made at a later stage.
- Where there is a small amount of Staff FTE and/or expenditure attributed to cost centre 136 Continuing Education, this may be to support non-credit bearing student activity which is excluded from the coverage of the Student record.
- Where there is zero student FTE returned to a cost centre with activity last year this may be due to the closure of a department. Conversely, staff FTE in a cost centre previously returned as zero may signal new courses at the HEP. If this is the case you will need to ensure the Student and FSR returns are completed on the same basis to return staff FTE and expenditure in the same cost centre.
- Small numbers may be displayed as zero due to rounding within the Excel spreadsheet.
Item 9: A further breakdown of cost centre analysis by Academic Employment Function and Activity is provided on the CCANALYSIS_2 sheet within the check documentation. This table displays the academic employment function and activity by cost centre for both standard and atypical contracts with comparative data from 2013/14.
Exception reportBack to top
HEPs are advised to review any warnings listed within the Exception report following a TEST_COMMIT/COMMIT transaction. Any data items listed should be examined and amended and/or explained as necessary through Minerva.
Full details of the exception stage quality rules can be found at Exception stage quality rules. HEPs should pay particular attention to records trapped by new or amended exception stage quality rules introduced in the current reporting period as you may be less familiar with these.
Exception warnings detail data that has passed validation but is highlighted because, either the data has changed from the previous year when it might be expected to remain the same, or is exceptional in some way.
Examples of this include a salary that is significantly greater than average; a part-time contract that has a high CONFTE which could suggest that the MODE may have been miscoded or, a HEP recording a higher number of professors than may be accurate.
TIPS:
- Use the 'Download exception report' link to view the totality of records triggering exception stage quality rules.
- Exception reports are retained for each processed test_commit/commit transaction to enable cross-comparison of exceptions between submissions
Need help?
Contact Liaison by email or on +44 (0)1242 388 531.