HESA HEI User Group

Wednesday 7 December 2011 UUK, Woburn House, London

Present: Emma Woollard, (BUFDG) Ian Carter, (ARMA) Jenny Patchitt, (AGCAS) Lucy Hodson, (AUA, National Planners Group) Peter Tinson (UCISA) Ruth Drysdale (JISC) Russell Roberts, (SROC) Ruth Adams, University of Strathclyde (Scottish Planning Group) Sue Holmes, Leeds Metropolitan University (AUDE)

Apologies: Alison Allden, Chief Executive (Chair) Catherine Benfield, Head of Business Development Jackie Hood, Secretary to HEI User Group Jane Wild, Director of Operations

In Attendance: Adrian Graves (AHUA) Denise Thorpe, University of Anglia Ruskin (UHR) Sue Grant, University of Hertfordshire (ARC)

Action

1. Welcome and introductions

Alison Allden, Chief Executive of HESA welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.

2. Minutes from the previous meeting and Matters Arising

The minutes from the previous meeting were agreed by the User Group subject to a minor amendment to the wording - as detailed below.

4.1 HE Information Landscape and Information Flows (para 4)

The Group observed that the vision was very compelling and positive as the ability to cross-reference data is a very useful activity. There were some concerns, for example, more regular HESA returns could be problematic, especially along with SLC collections, NSS etc. and this would be a significant amount of work if not rationalised. This rationalisation was at the core of the project.

The actions from the previous meeting were discussed:

Actions from this meeting:

Page 1 of 6 Document5

Higher Education Statistics Agency Ltd is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England at 95 Promenade, Cheltenham, GL50 1HZ. Registered No. 2766993. Registered Charity No. 1039709. Certified to ISO 9001 and ISO 27001. The members are Universities UK and GuildHE.

The actions from the previous meeting had all been dealt with.

3. User Group ‘Round Table' updates

3.1 Sue Holmes (AUDE) Association of University Directors of Estates

AUDE has had a significant input into EMS review. It will be proposed that new health and safety information be collected along with further information on emissions will go out for sector consultation in the New Year. Alison Allden reported that the HESA Board had raised some concerns about the additional burden collecting this new data would place on the sector. Sue reported that AUDE also had some concerns about the H&S data in relation to the quality and potential publication. It had therefore been agreed that this data would not be published for the first year; the data would be reviewed and a decision taken thereafter.

The EMS Review Group was meeting at HESA the next day and will agree definitions and common data sets. There has also been an opportunity to review historical data records which are no longer used and this will assist in reducing the burden to the sector. Freedom of information is also a topical issue in the estates community with press interest in buildings not in use or in poor condition.

The AUDE Executive committee will also meet tomorrow and are expected to commission a piece of work to produce a report on the published data. IPD will be responsible for this and it will be interesting to see what impact, if any, this has on the future of the record.

AUDE have also been having some useful dialogue on benchmarking with partnering bodies in USA, Australia and South Africa. There is not a lot of value in international benchmarking although it does not specifically look at EMS methodology, sharing best practice and areas of excellence such as green buildings and timetabling is of interest.

Ruth Drysdale (JISC) Joint Information Systems Committee

Work on the courses data programme has reached the end of stage 1 with a good response from institutions. It is hoped that approximately 70 will take part in stage 2. External data needs are being looked at as well as how to create a KIS data feed.

Andy Youell, HESA has been working closely with JISC on course definitions with publication of the report anticipated very soon. The next stage will be to build on the business intelligence and improve the commonality of definitions as well as look at the high level mapping of processes.

The programme of work to create digital literacy between staff and students has commenced and requires some more in-depth work. Further information can be found on the JISC website.

The JISC toolkit has been published on info net and improvements to course data should be realised in due course. A new area of work is the transformation programme with a small amount of money available to look at existing resources and see how it can be used to implement changes. There are many other projects currently being run by JISC and Ruth encouraged support from the peer groups with shared services being high on the Agenda and of particular interest to the User Group members.

There is currently a fundamental review of JISC in progress looking at whether JISC should reinvent itself and be a company in its own right. Alison Allden is a member of the Transition Group undertaking this review.

3.2. Lucy Hodson (AUA National Planners Forum) Association of Universities Administrators

Lucy reflected on discussions at a recent Planners Group meeting and the need to have a better understanding of the rich data source that HESA data offers. This was also felt by a number of colleagues around the table. It was also felt that institutions should be making better use of the data supply files available during the data collection process. It was agreed that running an event or participating at an event such as SROC would be a good

Page 2 of 6 Document5 opportunity to showcase the HESA data and this will be taken forward. It was also acknowledged that there is a huge amount of training information provided by HESA and it may be that some relevant information could be extracted from the manuals to provide some guidance to colleagues. Continual change creating additional data burden was also an issue for planners however it is felt that the changing funding regime may present an opportunity to challenge such requirements and only collect information that is essential. However the different requirements from the devolved administrations need to be taken into consideration. Catherine Benfield pointed out that in 2005 the Better Regulation Taskforce commissioned a review, field by field across all of the records, with the conclusion at that stage being that there was very little that could be removed.

It was felt that queries to institutions via Minerva can be very detailed and time-consuming for colleagues. However Jane Wild pointed out that there is actually nothing different about the level of queries in the data quality process with Minerva being a more efficient method, as previously contact was by emails and proved to be a lengthy audit trail, whereas the intelligence is now all captured in one place. The additional burden this year may have been due to the late AAB policy which resulted in the need to compare historic data and current data and this proved to be a timely exercise as sector colleagues found it very difficult to recreate the algorithms. This is an issue that HESA will be following up with HEFCE and it would be useful if User Group members could obtain feedback from their respective groups about their experience regarding this. It was felt that FAQs or a clear definition on the HEFCE website would also have been helpful.

There was also a discussion about government requirements for more data transparency however it was acknowledged that this brings with it a risk from third party use.

Actions:

User Group members provide feedback in relation to the submission of AAB data to Jane Wild for further consideration at the next User Group meeting.

HESA to consider a workshop or an event (potentially with HEFCE input) which would enable planners to better understand the HESA data and the files made available during the data collection process.

3.3 Ruth Adams (Scottish Planners)

Ruth focused on KIS (Key Information Set) explaining that Scotland was way behind the rest of the UK with an understanding on what was going to be required and with SFC providing very little guidance to date. Scottish institutions are going to need further assistance and Catherine Benfield said that HESA would do all it could to provide more information and guidance.

Scottish Planners are also interested in the Spending Review and the need for the to bridge the funding gap between England and Wales. There will be a stronger need to rely on HESA data as it will be used to measure the Scottish Government Outcome Agreements which will become a condition of funding. The fees imposed on the rest of the UK will have an impact on Scottish institutions (particularly Edinburgh and St Andrews) and the situation was being closely monitored as fee levels shifted.

Scottish institutions are also looking at the learner journey and the possibility of a greater number of Scottish students who have completed a 6th year at school entering higher education directly into the second year to remove duplication.

There is also new teaching funding methodology emerging which will no longer be based on headcount but will be validated against the TRAC model. This is a cause for concern until the two different systems migrate to the new process and discussions will need to take place to understand how this will work.

Ruth was grateful to HESA for putting in place the web service which enabled SFC to present final figures during the data collection to Scottish institutions. This will be further developed for next year and expected to be in place at the start of the data collection process.

Page 3 of 6 Document5 Ruth was also interested in the Review of Information Landscape project (as referred to in the circulated paper) which has the potential for improving the data collection process.

3.4 Jenny Patchitt (AGCAS) Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Service

Jenny felt that the Review of DLHE had gone very well. She welcomed the work which was being done by Warwick University to produce a 5th digit to enable the mapping of occupational classifications.

The DLHE survey is of continual interest to the careers group. It was acknowledged that the LongDLHE sample survey numbers is too small and therefore not a lot can be learned from the information provided at institution level. Jenny reflected on the ‘wellbeing' questions which are being proposed and the personal questions which some students are refusing to answer although are required in relation to equal opportunities. There may also be more data protection issues in the future as students have to agree to their data being made available. There is also concern about the employability questions and how these might be used. Jenny asked whether HEFCE had given any indication to HESA as to whether they were planning to release or use this information. If so how or whether we could get confirmation that this data would be closed for the first collection to check the robustness and quality of information supplied.

Alison informed the group about a Ministerial meeting she had attended which resulted in a sub group meeting proposed to discuss employability information and will investigate whether AGCAS could be invited to the next meeting.

Note subsequently added: This meeting is scheduled for 24 January with AGCAS representation present. (Anne Marie Martin)

3.5 Peter Tinson (UCISA) Universities Information Systems Association

Peter explained that KIS was also high up on UCISA's agenda with suppliers unsure as yet as to what they are delivering. There is already a burden placed on institutions trying to manage different systems and UCISA are pleased that the KIS format will be consistent across the UK. Suppliers are also interested in the UCAS system review and what the impact might be for them. UCISA is heavily involved in the UCAS review and encouraged User Group members to also get involved. Work on phasing in HEAR (Higher Education Achievement Record) is also underway. Peter and Andy Youell, HESA are discussing common data standards and the need for alignment where possible with the ISB/JISC Special Interest Steering Group. They are engaging with suppliers who need to take on board what needs to be done to achieve this. Discussions are also underway with UKBA (UK Borders Agency) and further thought will need to take place to see if heidi could be the vehicle for releasing management information.

There is also a big drive on shared services. Warwick University are leading on a project which is looking at the work that goes on behind the system from postgraduate admissions through to registry operations. There are also informal discussions taking place about international benchmarking but it is apparent that the data systems are very different from the UK.

3.6 Russell Roberts (SROC) Student Record Officers Conference

Russell explained that the organisation for the 2012 SROC conference is well underway. A joint ARC/SROC (Academic Registrars Council and Student Record Officers Conference) KIS session has taken place with Catherine Benfield in attendance. Conference sessions are planned for UKBA issues; Post Graduate Admissions; Change Management; ‘Can HESA be stress free'; Business Intelligence and data output and the legal issues surrounding the student voice.

Russell was interested in the earlier reference to ‘shared services' and the opportunity to avoid carrying out the same activity twice e.g. collecting the same date for different purposes and welcomed the information landscape project which will encourage the ‘collect once, use many' approach.

Page 4 of 6 Document5 Emma Woollard (BUFDG) British Universities Finance Directors Group

BUFDG‘s main concern is the delay in the HEFCE FSR and other data collections review, the usefulness of the data and the enormous amount of duplication that is required by institutions in submitting three financial returns. Emma also felt that the headings on the FSR are not easy to understand although acknowledged that this is largely historical. It is hoped that the Regulatory Framework will allow for a more fundamental review and with BUFDG's influence should result in reduced burden to the sector. It was agreed that Jane Wild would contact Karel Thomas in relation to BUFDG providing some finance training to assist HESA colleagues with the return.

Ian Carter (ARMA) Association of Research Managers and Administrators

TRAC (Transparent Approach to Costing) and REF (Research Excellence Framework) are very much the focus of ARMA colleagues. It is hoped that TRAC data will be more aligned with other data requirements and realise some information gains within the sector.

Institutions are getting to grips with the new REF requirements and it is hoped that the HESA data will be able to be used in a more meaningful way. It was anticipated that the new REF was going to be less burdensome on the sector but this is looking unlikely.

Freedom of information is also high on the agenda with pressure to provide access to data and the concerns that this raises. The sharing of data is also becoming topical with institutions now challenging this as what was once collaborative is now potentially competitive in the new funding regime and open market.

Alison informed the group that HESA has taken advice in relation to the sharing of information could be restrictive by Competition Law however the advice received had been reassuring that the data could be shared responsibly. Alison also reflected that the HESA Board had some concerns about the use of HESA data in the future REF exercise and this issue is still under discussion.

Alison Allden thanked the User Group members for their input and the value of sharing information with one another and it was interesting to identify where colleagues had similar issues. It was also acknowledged that all User Group members are conscious of the implications that the changing funding regime might bring.

4. HESA update

The group were in receipt of the two previous Chief Executive's Reports which Alison had prepared for the HESA Board meetings on 28 September and 2 December respectively. There was no time left to discuss these papers however it was acknowledged that most of the items contained within the reports had arisen during the course of the discussions.

One issue which had arisen as the result of a HESA internal audit was in relation to understanding risks that institutions might face pre-data collections. It was agreed that three or four risk assessment questions would be shared with the User group for consideration and feedback. These would then be circulated to the institutions in June in advance of the collections to see what responses these elicit and what measures could be put in place to aid any institutions that have identified problems.

Action: Risk assessment questions to User Group

5. Annual HESA Feedback Reports and relationship management

The User Group had been provided with two fictitious sample reports to give colleagues a sense of how these might look. It was agreed that some amendments would be made and then recirculated for feedback on wording and content. These will be used as a tool between HESA and the institution as a driver to improving the quality of data submitted at an earlier process in the data collection schedules.

Page 5 of 6 Document5 There was some discussion about who in the institution should be sent this report and a decision was reached that for the first year it should be a pilot only and it will be the record contact only with a subsequent review carried out before future circulation is agreed but it might then be appropriate to send it to the Vice Chancellor or Principal.

Action: User Group to provide feedback on draft reports. Agreed that HESA would send User Group revised reports explaining the content in more detail for the group to respond to.

6. Any other business

There being no other business Alison brought the meeting to a close.

7. Date of next meeting

Dates will be canvassed for a meeting next year.

Actions from this meeting:

1. User Group members provide feedback in relation to the submission of AAB data to Jane Wild for further consideration at the next User Group meeting. - User Group

2. HESA to consider a workshop or an event (potentially with HEFCE input) which would enable planners to better understand the HESA data and the files made available during the data collection process. – HESA

3. Risk assessment questions to be sent to User Group – HESA

4. User Group to provide feedback on draft Institutional Feedback Reports. Revised Reports have been circulated and feedback sought. - User Group

5. Date of next meeting to be sought – HESA

Page 6 of 6 Document5