|
(:toc*:) This documents the results of a workshop held with the tertiary Provider Reference Group on 12 December 2003. Summary of key pointsPut as much money as possible into Probe/NGI to ensure the online pipes are big enough. Not sure we want a system-wide architecture, unless it acknowledges the separate nature of tertiary institutions and the systems we operate. More information is not necessarily better — not if it means more information requests. Take account of the full cost of compliance, both monetary and in people’s time. The word “framework” has negative connotations, arising from the tertiary sector’s past experiences of things called frameworks. Current information-related problemsWe provide a lot of information, but get little back. Symptoms include:
The NZAPEP makes a lot of good information available — almost too much. We swap information informally amongst ourselves when we need to; we neither need nor want formal information exchanges. Students are responsible for providing documentary evidence needed for credit transfers. They have to initiate information transfer. We only confirm public information, that a student completed a particular qualification on a particular date.
Our information environment changes all the time and the changes often create problems. New information formats, for example arising from the introduction of NCEA, can lead to a less useful standard of information provision. Agency system changes, such as the recent upgrade to WINZ Studylink, can create new problems. Since the upgrade, half the information on the Verification of Study screen gets cut off. WINZ says it’s our problem, but it was fine before the upgrade. What testing happens out in the sector during upgrades? There is a real need to work together and manage the impacts on others.
It’s hard for us to use the TEC web site. Finding information is not easy; for example the Statement of Service Objectives is not where you expect it to be. Submitting forms, such as setting up a new qualification, doesn’t give you any tangible confirmation — you press “Save” and think the transaction has gone through, only to find out later that it hasn’t.
We make the bold assumption that the internet is alive and well, that the pipes are big enough. We assume it can all happen online, but access depends on load at the site you are visiting, at our institution, at government. There are capacity differences and mismatches among institutions. We rely on the internet for access and a slow response creates frustrations. Processes assume certain time windows, but these make no allowances for peak loads. We rely on staff goodwill and it’s unreasonable to ask staff to work night shifts because systems are overloaded during the day. We don’t have any choice — we are required to do everything electronically.
It’s very important that we get told if there are problems. The Ministry is very good about this, but others aren’t. There are issues around compatibility between technologies. If you are Mac-based, this causes problems, as many people design systems assuming that others uses the same technology they do.
Future information-related opportunitiesReduce the amount of information we have to provide. We are providers — teachers and researchers — don’t ask for information that is of doubtful value. Learners want to deal with the institution, not central government. The KiwiQuals model is great and learners love it. You go somewhere central to find where a particular type of course is offered, then go to the institution for more information. The individual autonomy and identity of an institution is very important; we each have our own culture and focus.
In an ideal information world:
Where is the evidence that compliance costs and regulations result in students getting a better education? It feels as if institutions are accused of being inefficient. Not true! We focus on the learner, which means research and professional development. Yet we are constantly having to divert resources into systems work, on the premise that we are inefficient and hence must provide more and more information to prove we aren’t. We are all monitored closely on account of a few poor performers.
The impact of changes in compliance requirements is not recognised. We used to be able to satisfy the SDR with one collection exercise, which was a by-product of the enrolment process. Now we have to wait to get some information from another process, eg that related to student disabilities. So we incur a double handling cost. We should be aiming for a minimum standard of compliance that you have to reach, and avoid continuous ongoing costs of keeping up to date with new requirements.
Most of the SDR information we would collect anyway, but we wouldn’t keep more than about half of it ourselves. For example, to complete our annual budgets, we only need about 2½% of the SDR data. There is a significant cost to validate the SDR content and get it into the required format. This gives us an incentive to “game” the process — making sure that returns and forecasts match.
← Education Review Office | Requirements | School Trustees Association → |
Quick Links Principles
|