Managing Information Across Partners: progress and prospects

1

• 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

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
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?

8
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

9
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
• Childrens services
• Schools
• FE/LS sector
• HE
• Close working relationship with MIAP

10
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 SLAs 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
11
MIAP Service Availability Plan Phase 1a Sep 07

• User Management
• Full Registration Services
• Tests and Trials of Data Sharing Services and
  Query

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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)
• Mothers Maiden Name
• Pets Name
• Other

19
MIAP ULN Register Record- Create and Search

• 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

• Minimum Search Criteria
• Without ULN
• Family Name
• Given Name
• Gender
• Date of Birth
• With ULN
• Family Name
• Given Nameor
• Date of Birth

20
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

21
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
..
22
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

23
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

24
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

25
Logica scope to be confirmed
26
Business Change plan immediate next steps
27
Implications for HE short term

• HESA Student Record revised for 2007/08
• uses UKPRN but you cant forget about the HESA
  institution number just yet, and schools dont
  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 dont 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

28
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?