This week I, along with my colleagues Jonathan Waller, Teresa Tocewicz and Adam Hiles delivered a workshop on Business Intelligence in Higher Education. We offered to write up the findings for delegates and this is it….
Background
Thirty Five delegates from institutions and agencies associated with further and higher education were asked to consider three questions and to write responses (as many as they wish) from their individual perspectives on ‘Post-It Notes’. These Notes were then stuck to the relevant section of the large piece of flipchart paper provided to each table and on which they had previously been asked to draw a giant ‘H’.
Delegates were asked to consider each of these questions in the order shown below and were given 10 minutes for each one:
How effective BI currently helps you in your role, or How you believe it could and should? (“the desired state”)
What organisational, or other, factors are preventing your institutions from delivering the kind of benefits previously surfaced? (“the barriers”)
What needs to happen within your institution to overcome the issues that are holding you back and preventing you from achieving the successful vision of BI you have articulated? (“ideas generation”)
Following completion of the 3rd ‘ideas generation’ exercise. Each delegate was given three ‘sticky dots’ and given five minutes to read all the ideas that had been suggested by other members of their group and to ‘vote’ for the one, or ones, which they felt had the most merit. All three votes/dots could be allocated to one idea, or spread around multiple ideas, based on their own strength of feeling for a particular idea(s).
Resources from Jisc to help with BI when back in the office
http://bit.ly/aua-2014-bi
Slides from the Session
http://bit.ly/biataua2014
Keeping in touch
Subscribe to the Jisc / HESA BI Project Jiscmail list to receive updates from the team. We’ll set up a blog site soon and announce it there
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/JISC-HESA-BUSINESS-INTEL
JISC-HESA-BUSINESS-INTEL@jiscmail.ac.uk
The rest of this document is a transcription of each table’s Post it Notes and votes. As promised, this is now available to those who took part and other interested parties as a record of the discussions and views of those present and will also be considered by Jisc and HESA as part of the preparations for the new BI National Shared Service that is currently being planned.
Table 1
The desired state | The barriers | Ideas generation |
Share milestones through dashboards Define base data Very powerful systems Fire people up to make decisions Accurate data Informed decision making Clear limitations Timely |
User training Multiple systems Data ownership No end user consultation Time and resources Part of staff role? |
Resources Clear objectives Engagement from all levels Lead from executive |
Table 2
The desired state | The barriers | Ideas generation |
Provide data that academics recognise and trust Time saving in long run GIves consistent info and doesn;t make assumptions about what you need Accurate data that can be manipulated to repurpose Effectively displays results, simpl dashboards Properly resourced planning team Staff training Easy to access and use the basics For everyone – staff, students, other stakeholders Timeliness of information Comparibility |
Inconsistent interpretation Cost and resource issues Intelligence to understand systems and results Data dispersed in different systems Politics of access to certain data Cost of a reporting tool Lack of flexibility Understanding managers Ownership Lack of commitment |
Commitment from senior managers and resources Support and money for capacity and development Collaborative working across whole organisation Technical ability to convert existing data into accessible format by a central system |
Table 3
The desired state | The barriers | Ideas generation |
Team to provide and clean and monitor data Access to research reports Access to performance data Quickly find detailed complex information Mapping research income and student numbers year on year Benchmarking against competitor university departments Understanding departmental performance against plans Corporate student satisfaction reports (KIS and NSS)
|
Not knowing what data is available to use or where to get it from Resources Lack of consultation with end users Different databases produce different statistics Too much time spent in populating reports Glacial decision making processes Lack of access to staff members, often restricted to senior managers Planning department slow to produce information Multiple dashboards unconnected Accuracy of data Lack of communication |
Access to planning tools on several levels; senior management, faculty, school, department Willingness to change and move forward Planners to communicate what data is available and from where Guidance as to which statistics should be monitored Integrated systems Better training Better knowledge of existing systems and capabilities |
Table 4
The desired state | The barriers | Ideas generation |
Student performance identifying areas for development Student demographics User friendly to all staff Staff information Visualisation of data Quick retrieval Organise data / decisions made Consistency across the organisation Partnership making Well funded One click results Quick Drill downable Easy access Identifes student performance and programme, school and institutional level and identify trends |
System restrictions Lack of systems knowledge Handling non digitised information Definition of progression and retention Inconsistency between programmes Departments competing against each other Too many systems not connecting |
Management support IT support Expertise One vision of data needs redesign of infrastructure Sharing of knowledge Data quality management Consistency of definitions Real time simple reporting |
Table 5
The desired state | The barriers | Ideas generation |
Greater initial cost outline diminishing as efficiencies occur One repository for data vs multiple spreadsheets Helps to improve processes – helps to improve planning / designing Gives only relevant information i.e. no extras Customisable – access all fields for user generated reporting Make decisions on which grant giving bodies to approach for research income Surfaces data to help with wider business planning More scope for visualisation How close are we to reaching targets Live data Make decisions on which industry sectors to approach for collaborations Insight into tracking of deliverables Mapping student conversion rates from enquiries to registrations Understanding distinction between data at he micro (departmental) level and macro (institutional) Benchmarks against previous years
|
Individuals control on data note easily relinquished Cost of data systems Lack of connection between planners / analysts and rest of institution Time delay in data People don;t understand how important BI is to their role Inaccurate and old data Not sure who to approach for the relevant data Time lag on data No synergy between existing data systems Poor interpretation of data, not understanding the business No support for collecting and analysing data
|
Better relationships between planners and users of data Consult the end users not assume what is needed Thorough training Sharing of data and collaboration across stye sector Exploring how BI is related to wider horizon scanning by Jisc Central data warehouse |