Funded by the: Jisc e-Learning programme.

Lead Institution: Staffordshire University.

Learner Provider Type: Higher Education

Project Duration: January 2012 - March 2013

Key Words: Course Data

 

Case study tags: course data, process improvement, enterprise architecture (ea), course information, change management, stakeholder engagement, staffordshire university 

Note: This is an abridged version of this project's final report.  The full version is available here.

 

Project Summary

Staffordshire University has embedded the improvement of the management of course related information within its Learning and Teaching strategy. This recognises that the changing nature of HE and the changing expectations of students means we must engage our students as partners in the learning process and become increasingly customer led, where prospective students are provided with clear and consistent information about our courses and are able to influence course development. Drivers within this include the changes in fee structure, the need for increased transparency from Quality Assurance agencies, and the benefits gained from enabling students to be better informed and therefore able to choose the right course for them.

 

The Stage 2 Course Data Project aimed to improve the University’s ability to manage these challenges by reviewing, adapting and streamlining the appropriate internal processes around course management to provide an automated and sustainable source of course advertising information, initially for Postgraduate (PG) Certificate, PG Diploma, and PG Masters level awards, but providing a model that is expandable for all types of awards.

The key objective was to produce an XCRI-CAP feed with COOL URI for these initial courses. Although the project was not complete at the time of writing the key benefits anticipated at the point of completion are:

 

• a reduction in the duplication of course data management activity, enabling more cost effective working practises and use of resource to be considered
• manual processing, verifying and handling of course information lessened
• re-sourcing, re-purposing and re-writing of information multiple times reduced
• provision of a “single source of truth”
• to draw consistent and accurate course data from (whereby although some data existed, course data has been stored in a range of formats and disparate sources across the university) through new process design and cultural change
• use of a standardised XCRI-CAP data format
• that can be made available to both internal and external aggregators (ranging from providing this information to create an electronic prospectus to external bodies such as UCAS and Prospects)
• Developed within the standardised structure enables it to be aggregated with the feeds of other institutions, resulting in a critical mass of data - that demonstrates great potential and opportunities offered to both Universities/HEI’s and other external bodies such as UCAS and Prospects.

 

Like many other Higher Education Institution’s (HEI’s) the scale and complexity of the task has not been without challenges.

 

At the point of writing this report (Feb 2013)

• migration, creation and amalgamation of data (to provide as complete as possible XCRI-CAP feed) was in process with the majority of “core” content being stored within the University’s existing Student Record System – Thesis.
• a single “Public Information” course Database (PID) had been designed based on the user requirements and was being created. It is designed to take a feed from Thesis (and later Tribal SITS) to create course profiles that pulled through the core course data (enabling adefinitive portfolio to be viewed) – in addition to storing additional “marketing/publically available” course information and content.
• The additional “Marketing” content had been located and migration from multiple documents and storage points was underway to support in the creation of “end to end” profiles of each course that would be able to be viewed universally within the institution.
• The XCRI –CAP feed was in place but no testing had been done at this stage until the data was in place to take an accurate view of the quality and completeness.
• The type of license was under review to fully understand the implications upon copyright.

 

Review of data completeness and quality, testing, training and implementation are anticipated to be completed by the end of April 2013.

 

What did we learn?

There has been a vast number of lessons learnt throughout this project - the summary of which have tried to be encapsulated in the project evaluation video which can be found on the blog

www.staffs.ac.uk/projects or via YouTube  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz4dVuA96_M

 

Key themes over the project lifecycle of the project hold synergy with the experiences of many institutions, but namely include:

• Readiness – of the institution, departments and managers to contribute time to projects
• Resourcing – adequate and realistic for project size, scale and scope to increase involvement and ensure delivery is more effective than via a limited few
• Appetite – hunger of the team to persevere and succeed, and of the organisations openness to change
• Training and tools – willingness to up skill staff to work more effectively in project roles and in teams and positive effect it has on morale – enabling people
• Releasing potential of staff that may not be obvious choices for project teams but have may skills that would enable increased contribution
• Structure and co-ordination to deliver projects, understanding methodologies and governance required for them to be delivered effectively
• Scale and complexity of managing and re-structuring data and the related processes to support and maintain it on an on-going basis is difficult
• Pressure points – often the same staff/departments being required to supply information/data and the impact on morale and ability to deliver (i.e. in many cases faculty or academic staff)

 

A break down some of the key lessons have been learnt from the project.

 

Corporate Level

• Senior level Stakeholder support is key to project success which this project had. Clear project governance required from the outset with commitment to attend relevant meetings required to ensure clear ownership and direction prior to project beginning. This latter element has been a challenge to date and has caused further stalling in some areas affecting communication.
• Continuity of project management/allocation of resource (team and project admin support) needs to be confirmed prior to project start to avoid delay in project starting. The hand over period if a project is phased should not be underestimated as knowledge transfer and learning for the PM takes time.
• Timing of activity affecting same areas of the business at any one time (KIS, restructure, implementation of the project, SSP activity) and impact assessment on staff and level/ability to absorb multiple change messages simultaneously has resulted in less of a wide-scale communications approach. This has also been a benefit due to the challenges along the way which have also led to pauses to the project at different points.
• Standardisation of project documentation and file naming standards to ensure version control and effective handover and communication required in project start-up/initiation phases with awareness training for project team members in the importance of this. This is not the way the University currently works so has been a cultural change for many project team members as this was introduced and implemented from the start of the project.
• Huge value in liaising with the Learning Development and Innovation team on previous project experience, challenges and results to inform approaches with this project. This has included understanding where other projects have had success and reasons, where there may have had limited success/uptake and what could be done differently, positive engagement examples when working across a broad number of areas. This resource has been historically undervalued and would benefit as performing the role of “critical friend” for many projects.

 

Programme Level within the University

• Benefit to having the Head of Projects on the Project Board. This has ensured the project is aligned, has contextual input and updates about the wider context of activity within the changing internal environment.
• Linkages to a “Programme office” prior to project start-up/initiation ensures that any projects being started fits with a wider plan of activity in line with corporate objectives (and the interdependencies and impact on IT, Human resources, training requirements, messaging and internal comms etc). The original project timings if adhered to would have avoided to some extent the resourcing issues – however the legacy elements of KIS also supported in the Project Team’s learning.
• Creating a repository of documents/reports relating to previous projects to be able to source records of “lessons learnt” to support knowledge sharing needs to be available to project managers in the University rather than only relying on informal routes of discussion and discovery on an ad hoc basis.
• Register/record of project staff that have a range of skill sets should be drawn upon to support a range of projects based on knowledge and experience within the university would be beneficial. Assessment of project team staff skill and knowledge base had to be done through the lifecycle of the Project manager having not worked with the team before
• A repository of up to date organisational structures/relationship mapping and support staff (in light of the re-structure) would be valuable with Project Manager access to timelines of corporate activity that may impact upon a project being accessible would enable a more co-ordinated approach to cross university communication.

 

Project Level

• Project readiness and assessment of pre-requisites required to start the project needs to be carried out in quick succession to the start of the project. There was a significant the delay in this activity which has led to significant personnel changes, loss of knowledge/skill in the organisation and a change in the institutions operational landscape which has been time consuming to re-define roles and adequate resource to undertake the project which had a significant delay to the start of stage 2 – losing momentum gained in Stage 1.
• Identification of project staff should be based on known skill set – not on day to day job role in isolation. Many Managers may be defined as work package leads due to Seniority but have time/availability challenges. Previous projects I have worked on have worked on a basis of a minimum of 2 days per week for a given time or on a secondment basis to support the prioritisation of activity and focused periods of time to make headway and work specifically on project tasks
• Multi site working can make it difficult to get the “team” mentality going – the use of a defined “project space” would enable project teams and team members to move away from day to day areas for agreed periods to support closer and more effective working relationships. This would require a physical location and supporting IT to enable hot desking but would be beneficial in terms of project outputs and staff development.

 

Immediate Impact

Please see the evaluation video to get a greater sense of the direct and immediate impact.

 

Before the Course Data project, there was little awareness or open discussion about the way in which information and data was being managed – although frustrations were voiced in pockets of the institution.

 

The immediate impact includes:

• Greater awareness and willingness to understand more about why inaccuracies occur and how they can be fixed.
• Greater level of cross departmental working to tackle challenges jointly rather than in isolation.
• Increased consideration of cross over and duplication of activity. This has seen more conversations and checks taking place across a network of key central department staff to co-ordinate activity more effectively.
• Senior stakeholder awareness and growing interest in how the management of course data and the processes – and the use of technology will enable the business to reach its key objectives.
• Marketing and PR teams willingness to look for and trial new ways of working
• Wider desire to use technology and interoperable systems to remove/reduce the manual processing of information.
• UG 2014 prospectus production using a database to store content – this is the first time the University has trialled storing course content in a database format which has enabled the 2014 Prospectus to be created and bespoke brochures by being able to access and collate information more effectively.
• Desire of senior stakeholder to champion and support activities and projects such as this that will in turn benefit staff, customers and productivity to enable innovation to be the focus.
• This project has created a core group of people within the central functions that are focusing on the way we manage data – further internal communication and faculty engagement is required. This was not achieved as fully as had been anticipated due to faculty re-structure, implementation of KIS and launch of the Student Systems project to implement the new SITS system – all of which were key corporate messages that needed to take priority (as advised by the Board) as this project has progressed.
• Up-skilling of Staff in BPMN standard Business Analysis techniques though 3 Day training course (10 staff which included Marketing and PR, Business Applications, Admissions and SSP staff) through bespoke training funded through the Jisc Project
• Up-skilling of staff in Change Management from the Course data Project team (including I.S, Quality, a Change Manager and Marketing and PR)

 

Future Impact

Once implemented the PID will be used to facilitate:

• Digital publications
• Suite of bespoke brochures and prospectuses beyond the standard annual one – due to increased accessibility and ability to manipulate information
• Consideration of future phases of development to further enhance the functionality and types of Marketing content stored
• Identification of multi-platform opportunities to display course related content

 

The key stakeholders that will be impacted will be:

• Customers
• Faculty staff
• Quality teams
• Admissions
• Marketing and PR
• Enquiries Team
• International recruitment
• UK recruitment team
• Open Day and events team

 

A benefits matrix included in the final report highlights the anticipated benefits and potential future benefits that may be realised also once the new SITS system is in place.Further discussion and insight into how these can be tracked need to be considered.

 

Conclusions

General conclusions

• This project has been a key driver for change within the organisation – although the momentum to engage teams at the beginning was slow.
• There is appetite (indicated through the Business Analysis Training survey...) within teams delivering change to develop skills further in the following areas:
• Cost benefit analysis
• benefits realisation
• further support to now apply and use documenting and diagramming techniques based on new found knowledge
• Managing changing requirements further (this was included in the 4 day course option)

 

Staffordshire University is not unique in the challenges it faces on managing data and information of this scale. This project has almost just been the start of the journey to examining the way technology can support more effective ways of working and managing data, but also recognising that the IT infrastructure – and interoperability needs to be carefully planned to future proof any investments made.

 

By aligning this with key business objectives more closely the goals and objectives that have been set within the strategic plan can become a reality but require this level of granularity and examination of key pieces of data, information and processes and the roles, ownership and accountability required to maintain course related information in order to change the way the University is working.

 

Conclusions relevant to the wider community

The journey that the Project Team has been on over the last 10 months has been similar in many of the other institutions taking part in stage 2. In light of the project being delivered at a time when the institution was undertaking wide scale organisational change, faculty restructuring and re-organisation of staff, implementation of KIS and a new Student Record System (SITS), synergy and alignment to future proof the approach will have been achieved.

Common data requirements were identified to not only include the Course data Project, but also:

• the University’s Online Applications Project
• The Student Systems Project (implementation of SITS)
• work on fees and fee setting
• portfolio management
• part fulfilment of some of the UCAS Course Collect requirements

 

Common themes also re-occurred within the conversations at Programme meetings with others involved in Stage 2 projects that resonated with the position within Staffordshire University. These included:

 

• The complexity, diversity, ambiguity and silo’d approaches used within institutions when managing course data. The reliance on paper based processes that were often slow and inefficient- often not supportive in terms of creating a transparent view of the information and issues around duplication, version control and impact on quality (Dr Gill Ferrell: Feast of Famine Presentation and report - Jisc programme Meeting January 2013)
• Language used within documents and appropriateness for the customer – how this may be tackled and how some institutions (namely University of Sunderland) had taken the plunge by changing the guidance, format and writing style used in award planning and validation documents – challenging the myths and pre-conceptions that these documents need to be written in such a way that would require reworking/translation by Marketing and teams of copywriters for other purposes. Doing it once and doing it right with leadership and commitment to implement was central to the progress they were making in this area.
• Multiple entry points, “work arounds” that have become embedded as common practise/processes and lack of ownership of information and data has been acknowledged as impacting on the quality of information being presented across multiple platforms to the customer.
• Enterprise Architecture (EA) – utilising this approach to identify the way in which data is stored and managed, system interoperability and interactions across different departments is an effective approach to asses activity and take a broader “helicopter” view to support re-designing systems and processes and to support the achievement of strategic business objectives.

 

Conclusions relevant to Jisc

The understanding of methodology such as Enterprise Architecture has enabled the project to be delivered in a way that had not been considered by the Project Manager (as this was a new area of development and learning). Sessions to support project teams in areas such as Change Management have been invaluable. Further workshops or sessions on effective evaluation would also be a key area that would have been beneficial to develop skills and techniques to quantify the benefits achieved.

 

Programme meetings have been extremely valuable in creating a network of support beyond each institutions immediate team – sharing best practise and insights in approaching and tacking similar challenges is a real enabler for change.

 

Further work is required, potentially by Jisc to include/involve senior stakeholders in the updating and sharing of developments. Direct communications, invites to programme meetings may serve to re-enforce beyond initial letters of commitment) to reassure and champion the value of such activities that can often go un-recognised within the wider context and volume of activities often taking place.

 

Recommendations

Project Recommendations

The recommendations below have been made based on the observations of the current “fail points” that have continued to create inaccuracies in the data. Creating once and using multiple times is at the heart of the recommendations to increase efficiency across all staff who create, handle and manage course information.

The core recommendations from this project include:

 

The current lack of automated process and alerts on the withdrawal and creation of courses needs to be addressed. Automated alerts to identify cross departmental user groups to initiate/trigger key activities needs to be defined – even with interim solutions until SITS is in place. Without, this will continue to impact upon the accuracy and timeliness of information being provided to customers and “marketing” content across multiple touch points.

 

Differentiation of courses that are live and those that are live and recruiting using markers in Thesis/SITS will support colleagues identification of awards to take to market/available for recruitment at key periods. This would also reduce burden on faculties who are continuously asked to clarify this information throughout the year for all types of awards.

 

Further development is required in the course development process, timing of award validation, portfolio review and development, co-ordinated with the necessary timelines to take awards to market. This spans across all award types including UG and International also.

 

Establishing and re-enforcing processes and process design through training and education of staff (of both new and existing processes and defining key roles within them) to ensure data accuracy exists in the central source (Thesis and then moving to Tribal SITS) to enable the wider institution to work from an accurate view. This impacts multiple projects such as Online Applications, UCAS and Course Collect in addition to business activities such as clear offer to customers online/in print, fee setting, portfolio review and development and Clearing.

 

The 2 day rule - Commitment to deliver projects of this scale require more resource/time of the resource allocated. Line Managers involvement to support in the management of workloads to enable the staff member to contribute to projects effectively is needed. Any resource allocated needs to be able to support a project 2 days per week as a minimum to effectively drive work packages and activity forward at the rate required to deliver results. Failure to do this makes delivery, ownership and buy-in more difficult to achieve as a relative few become the “expert” drivers which also limits breadth and development of staff who gain experience and new skills by being part of projects such as this.

 

Service level agreements could be established to ensure changes to course information are done within a given timeframe to align with key decision making periods.

 

Review of the structure of documentation to initiate new courses and moving to centralised electronic storage. This should enable the information to be exported at each of the approval stages and support in version control and re-use of content.

 

Formatting, language, terminology and style of writing (with support given to staff) to enable content to be written in such a way in that can be written once and used again for multiple purposes/outputs (this include style of writing, decisions on formatting such as capitalisation which is rarely used in published marketing literature/outputs also considering Disability Discrimination Act requirements). This level of change would reduce effort to re-work and re-word content, make more efficient use of time, resource and money to enable focus on other activities to develop and enhance courses and campaigns.

 

Timeliness of course validation and portfolio approval in line with core recruitment activities/opportunities to take courses to market needs to be defined more accurately. The institution, as an example, publicises (and clearly highlights) a 2013 portfolio in 2014 prospectuses, similarly to that of fees – all of which can be subject to considerable changes that impact on customer choices and experiences of dealing with the institution.

Recommendations for Jisc

The Jisc Programme office and institutions with Stage 2 have created a supportive community and structured approach. Key recommendations for areas for consideration include:

 

Project delivery

- The role of Support Officers in the Jisc programme Office centrally (in some instances) has been somewhat unclear as referral has often been through to the Programme Manager for low level queries. More practical support/guidance from staff at this level/or role to support Project Mangers would have been beneficial as different funding bodies work differently and a more regular point of contact (not for escalation of issues but day to day management challenges) would have been beneficial.

- Further guidance, training and best practise on Evaluation techniques that may be used in projects and how to consider this within the design of projects to educate and enable team in methodologies that may be practically applied.

 

Beyond Stage 2

- Creation of a LinkedIn Group for Stage two projects (Project teams and Managers) would be beneficial to maintain a network of contacts and a group that can further develop ideas from the end of Stage 2 and beyond.

 

Uptake of XCRI-CAP

- Addressing the need to educate aggregators on the benefit of taking the XCRI-CAP feed and ensuring this is committed to by UCAS is essential within the timescales they have projected – if already in place this would have also served to provide increased momentum for projects as Stakeholders identified a direct project benefit more clearly. Communication to projects about progress, planned activities and milestones to get this commitment would also be of benefit.

 

Further details: email and contact names etc

Project Sponsor – Rosy Crehan (Executive Pro-Vice Chancellor)

Project Champion – Georgina Kelly (Director of Marketing and PR)

Project Manager Samantha Scott

Contact email s.scott@staffs.ac.uk

Project Web URL www.staffs.ac.uk/projects or http://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/coursedata

Evaluation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz4dVuA96_M