Data Service Data Collections – Strategic Replacement Program
October 18, 2010 in The Data Service Blog by fazia
The Data Service has started to scope the requirements for replacing the current Data Collection Systems which include OLDC, POL, iPOL, LIS, PIMS, and LAD.
We would like to consult with the sector on this and welcome any suggestions on improvements and functionality, for us to consider. This project is subject to budget. Please can you let us have your suggestions by Tuesday 30 November 2010.
break
An improvement to the OLDC would be that we could upload an ILR at any time until the close date. It would also be an improvement if, having uploaded an ER ILR on the day of the close date, the PFR we received back was relevant to the ILR uploaded and not to the next return.
I can only rememebr using PIMS once and then it re-directed me to Edubase? So I am not clear as to the purpose here. OLDC seems to have fulfilled its purpose. POL and IPOL mean nothing to me. The LIS has been absolutely vital to colleges (as well as being the bane of our lives!) because there have sometimes been errors in the LIS and colleges have had to (help) trace them. It has been essential that colleges can export data from the LIS to understand what is going on. This all suggests that (1) it should remain locally accessible (ie we have a copy and it uses common software (MS Access at present)) (2) algorithms should be publicly available in a timely fashion and in a reasonably readable format (we don’t all use SPSS!). Most of us download the LAD into our own systems and this requirement will not go away. The timeliness and accuracy of the data are of course a huge problem at present.
I hope this is not change for changes sake. We use the LAD in our MIS system (TERMS) and they are looking towards an XML version BUT we incurred the cost of upgrading our database and foresee others having to do the same. The LIS export database is very useful to us because we use the data in a reporting application that allows to generate any report we need. I echo prnudd’s comment also (see above). Please don’t implement some huge costly IT system that will have to be replaced within a short space of time (remember PAMS?). My preference would be to get what we already have to function as we need it. If it must happen please take plenty of time to implement it correctly and consult us.
If anybody is having a problem posting a comment, I used Firefox because IE8 didn’t work.
I also echo pmudd’s comments.
OLDC works so I can’t see much of a need to change it. The LAD is a disaster area – totally out of date and the documentation of the underlying structures is poor. This is one major area where we need change.
I’m going to tackle this in several posts as it’s quite complex.
We have the LAD and QANs same thing slightly different formats and purpose. They also inform the PLR. We have already seen the arrogance of Una Bennet in saying that all Art (and CDT and Home Ec) are the same thing because of the QAN number. This is unacceptable. Think of recruiting to College, it makes a big difference if somebody doing Health and Social Care has done Home Ec(Food Science) or Home Ec(Child Development). Same thing for somebody going to Uni for an Art Photography Course. The Uni needs to know exactly what Art subject they have.
So, we need to merge QAN and LAD to get a joined up system that works. A system that informs both funding and the PLR.
Next point, the LIS.
This really comes in two flavours – the LIS export and the funding reports. The problem is documentation or rather the lack of it.
The LIS export is invaluable for doing all sorts of custom reporting. But ultimately we need to know what is in the reports.
We all know that the reports can be analysed by a) examining the report definition files to get at the data sources and the fields used and b) by examining the actual LIS database and breaking down how the queries work.
However, this is still some confusion in the sector as to how to do both. I came into MIS from a computing background and am reasonably fluent in Access, SQL and report definition files. It would be so much easier if all of this was properly documented. That’s the biggie.
Final point PDSATs and Analysis Software e.g. Pro Ahieve.
Nobody has mentioned this and it’s an interesting one. Both rely on the LIS export to get their data. Both are vital tools. We need to be sure that they continue to work.
PDSATs raises an interesting point as well. Those of us who have use it for some time remember how it suddenly stopped working. Then we got the message that we had to install a generic printer.
This was all down to a decision by Microsoft to change the programming interface of Excel to give a degree of security.
Part of the problem will have to be making sure that we use totally standard methods of working and don’t rely on “clever code”.