Hefce 01/27

Value for Money Initiative

The UK Value for Money Steering Group

The Management of Student Administration

A guide to good practice

Contents, foreword and executive summary (read on-line)

The complete printed document is available from HEFCE Publications.

Download

Full document
[ MS Word 566K | Adobe PDF 666K ]

Self-assessment questions
[ MS Word 122K | Zipped Word 45K | Adobe PDF 68K | Zipped PDF 56K ]

Contents

Foreword

Student administration lies at the heart of an institution’s activities.
A well-managed system operating to good practice standards provides a range of benefits, for example:

• by providing key information to help institutions improve their ability to achieve their core strategic objectives;
• to reduce errors and improve student satisfaction;
• to reduce the risk of student complaints; and
• to support, through better quality information, the formulation of strategy and policy.

Student administration involves a broad range of functions often supported by complex management information systems. It is also an area that is subject to continual change as institutions respond to the many challenges facing the sector, including increasing competition and changing stakeholder expectations. We identified a desire to seek continual improvement in service provision which this guidance is aimed at helping, if you feel that your institution can benefit from being benchmarked against the sector’s own view of good practice.

This report is therefore intended to help institutions to review their arrangements for student administration through comparison with generally recognised good practice and with specific developments and experiences in the sector. As such, it represents a starting point, highlighting areas with potential for improvement and for consultation and/or collaboration between institutions. More specifically, the report includes a self-assessment guide which institutions are encouraged to work through to assess their existing practices against identified good practice. This self-assessment tool can be tailored to your own institution’s approach to student administration by creating an action plan in response to the answers to any of the questions you wish to answer.

The report identifies a number of important themes:

• The acquisition of suitable information systems is the greatest problem facing institutions in the area of student administration and, to date, there does not appear to be one system which meets all needs. This means that institutions have a range of choices, so effective option appraisal is critical to systems development.
• Effective project management is vital when developing systems for student administration; appropriate expertise, internal or external, should be obtained from the outset. The identification and implementation of changes to rationalise the processes of student administration should be an integral part of any project.
• The information needs of all stakeholders, both internal and external, should be established as part of the specification for systems development. This is essential for effective option appraisal.
• The approach to student administration is undergoing significant change because of a range of factors. Therefore, institutions should consult widely to explore solutions that will meet their particular needs.

The report highlights principles of good practice across a range of student administration functions. These are not exhaustive, but they do provide examples of approaches to some of the more common areas, as well as specific topics such as the development of an in-house system, partnership developments, outsourcing of the management information system and enterprise resource planning systems.

Our thanks go to those institutions who participated in this study and who have allowed their particular experiences to be included in this report.

I commend the report to higher education institutions and hope that it will help managers to develop more economic, efficient and effective systems for student administration.

Professor David Wallace
Chair, UK VfM Steering Group
Vice-Chancellor
Loughborough University

Executive summary

Background

1.1 This study of the management of student administration is the sixth in a series of studies carried out under the auspices of the UK Value for Money Steering Group. The study seeks to highlight areas of good practice in the management of student administration within the sector and offer insights into future developments to improve services and achieve better economy, efficiency and effectiveness. This report covers many areas within student administration; it is a starting point for institutions to highlight the particular areas of their own systems that require more detailed attention.

1.2 The study was conducted through visits to 11 pilot institutions to review their present practices. Numerous other institutions also contributed in areas where they had particular expertise (see Annex C). A Benchmarking Working Group was also formed to develop good practice indicators for the sector in this area.

Management information systems (section 3)

1.3 The acquisition of suitable management information systems (MIS) is the greatest problem facing institutions in the area of student administration. We identified no single system that meets the needs of all institutions. To address this problem, institutions are taking a number of approaches, including:

• purchase of ‘best of breed’ systems;
• in-house system development;
• partnership developments;
• outsourcing of MIS; and
• enterprise resource planning systems.

1.4 These approaches have been examined. Their key advantages and disadvantages are highlighted through case studies.

1.5 Institutions are encouraged to ensure that, whichever approach they adopt, sound project management practices are followed, drawing on the necessary level of expertise. The original specification needs to be carefully prepared, and there should be a thorough option appraisal and later, a post-implementation review. Where the necessary expertise is not available in-house, external assistance may be needed. In any event, a large commitment of time from users and customers of the system is essential if the selected system is to meet user needs.

Oganisational structures (section 4)

1.6 There is no ‘model’ organisational structure for delivering an effective student administration function. The report examines the advantages and disadvantages of centralised versus devolved systems. The key advantage of centralised systems is that it is easier to ensure consistent practice. However, consistency is also possible within devolved systems and there may be advantages in terms of customer services. Institutions are encouraged to define the objectives of their student administration function, to be consistent with their strategic planning objectives and to assess which model will best meet these needs.

Policies and procedures (section 5)

1.7 Institutions are encouraged to consider the different needs of the various user groups when developing their procedures. The wider availability of electronic means of communication should assist institutions in ensuring that their policies and procedures are easy to maintain and widely accessible.

Processing of student information (section 6)

1.8 The report examines key principles of good practice relating to the following areas of processing student information:

• recruitment;
• admissions;
• registration;
• student records and tracking; and
• examinations.

1.9 Institutions are encouraged to review their own practices to ensure that these key principles are satisfied.

Recruitment and admissions

1.10 In particular, institutions are encouraged to define their recruitment and admissions strategies to meet the objectives within their overall strategic plan in the most efficient way. Key principles of good practice include:

• targeting of recruitment activity;
• effective monitoring of enquiries and outcomes;
• clear focused communications with students and potential students;
• effective determination and application of admissions criteria; and
• efficient systems for controlling the clearing process.

Registration

1.11 Institutions have successfully adopted a number of strategies for streamlining registration, including fast-track/slow-track enrolment processes and provisional enrolment of continuing students in advance.

1.12 We identified no UK institutions with management information systems that will allow remote self-registration of students, but this is a likely future development. The work at Liverpool John Moores University (see section 3) is likely to result in such a system.

Student records and tracking

1.13 Wide dissemination of data to meet the needs of various users is key to avoiding duplication of effort and inefficient practices, particularly at the departmental level. Clearly this is facilitated by good management information systems. Other key principles of good practice include:

• the initial capture and maintenance of high quality data;
• capture of data once only;
• accessibility of data; and
• speed of availability of data.

1.14 Where these principles are followed, there will be a stronger sense of corporate ownership of data, which in turn encourages good maintenance practices.

Examinations

1.15 Institutions are encouraged to continue to place the students’ needs first in terms of the scheduling and conduct of examinations. The procurement of invigilators is one area where many institutions may be able to save costs, particularly if they presently use academic staff for this task. Key principles of good practice highlighted include:

• efficient timetabling arrangements;
• effective security and invigilation processes;
• effective arrangements for servicing exam boards; and
• rapid and accurate production and dissemination of results.

1.16 Good management information systems are likely to produce the most substantial efficiency gains, since automatic upload of marks and exam results can substantially reduce the amount of duplication of effort between academic and administrative departments.

Internal and external reporting (section 7)

1.17 The report examines the key reporting requirements for both internal and external purposes. Institutions are encouraged to assess their information needs, defining the user groups and the key reports to be made in order to prioritise the use of human and MIS resources and avoid duplication of effort.

1.18 Wide availability of high quality data or data sets will reduce the demand to respond to ad hoc information requests.

Customer service and communications (section 8)

1.19 Institutions are encouraged to assess customer satisfaction in order to refine procedures and policies and to eliminate any wasteful practices. Service level agreements and performance indicators, although not widely used within the sector, are possible tools for defining the service levels expected and for monitoring the effectiveness of procedures. Service level agreements can also help when comparing the cost of the service provided with possible bought in services.

1.20 Institutions are encouraged to consider the potential for increased use of electronic means of communication, and to review the nature and number of publications in this area.

Data protection issues and archiving (section 9)

1.21 This section refers institutions to the work already conducted on archiving and data protection by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). It highlights the key pitfalls in terms of student administration and the application of the 1998 Data Protection Act.

Independent review (section 10)

1.22 Institutions, monitored by their Audit Committees, are encouraged to ensure that appropriate coverage of student administration is included in the internal auditor’s audit needs assessment and value for money strategy. Follow up of any resultant recommendations and continuing periodic review of this area are also encouraged.

1.23 Other approaches to review include internal quality reviews, peer reviews and reviews by external agencies.

Self-assessment guide (section 11)

1.24 As part of this study a working group was established to develop benchmarks for student administration. The group determined a series of objectives and then prepared self-assessment questions, designed to identify good practice.

1.25 Institutions are encouraged to use the self-assessment questions to review their own systems. Numerous examples of good or innovative practices are highlighted to help institutions identify ways to improve their own practices.

1.26 The self-assessment questions have also been prepared as a stand-alone document available on the HEFCE web-site under ‘Publications’ reference 01/27.