"The Department is confident that it has developed robust and flexible systems for the student allowances scheme and the student loan program (sic). The current indicators suggest that the processes and systems will be able to effectively handle the peak loads that will come onto the applications over the next two to three months."
(Ministerial Briefing Paper, released publicly 26.12.99)
This section discusses whether the design of the student loans system was effective from an organisational perspective, in terms of:
- objective
- style
- structure
- systems, and
- staff and skills.
The systems design gave rise to a number of secondary issues once the system went live at the end of 1999, which are discussed in the next sections, Issues and Solutions - Interface with Students and Institutions.
Objective
The original objective appears to be operationally focussed: to design and implement a student loans processing system, which would eventually be integrated with the student allowances processing system. An objective which recognised the interdependence of the loans delivery system and enrolment systems would probably have led to differences in style, structure, systems, staff and skills.
Recommendation 1
DWI focus the objective of student loan delivery system on enabling efficient and effective outcomes for students and institutions, based on the interdependence of the loans delivery system and enrolment systems. |
The implications of this objective are discussed in the following subsections.
Style
Consultation with Key Stakeholders
"Despite repeated advice from institutions and their own experience of allowance processing in 1999, WINZ were still not prepared for the large number of students who chose to apply just before their courses start in January/February."
"WINZ needs to realise that they are dealing with an intelligent but relatively inexperienced section of the population......The only way to deal with the process is face to face."
"there was a failure on WINZ's behalf to listen to and acknowledge the experience being offered. There was a strong attitude that WINZ would do it their way and that it was not the concern of the institutions to anticipate implementation and service delivery problems or to offer suggestions and advice on how to deal with the client base."
The way the system was designed has been characterised by institutions as "our way". DWI designed a system with little consultation or involvement by institutions who had previously been responsible for administering part of the system (loans applications), and who would now be responsible for administering part of the new system (Verification of Study, or VOS). Where advice was offered by institutions, it appeared to be ignored. A more co-operative and consultative style would have ensured the needs of students and institutions were better included in the systems design.
Recommendation 2
DWI adopt a more co-operative and consultative style with key stakeholders, including institutions and students. |
Relationship Management
DWI did not develop very extensive relationships with institutions, student bodies or other key stakeholders or seek to understand their requirements. The KPMG Quality Assurance Report (22 December 1999) noted "It is imperative for the ongoing success of the Student Loans function that the people managing it achieve and maintain pro-active working relationships with both other WINZ groups and external parties" (p.9).
The need to develop more effective relationships at more than one tier within institutions has now been recognised by DWI. However, more effective relationships also need to be developed with student bodies and other organisations. All parties need to contribute but this requires a lead from DWI. A student body representative has suggested, for example, that it would be beneficial for DWI to speak about changes to be made for the 2001 academic year at the national student association conference in September (which DWI has attended in past years). It needs to be recognised that the student loan scheme is a contentious issue for many student bodies, regardless of delays in processing.
Recommendation 3
DWI develop effective external relationships with institutions, student bodies, and other key stakeholders, and develop a sufficient understanding of enrolment systems and other stakeholder requirements to meet the objective in recommendation 1. |
Another key relationship dimension is the need to acknowledge shared responsibility for getting things right. It is clear from many of the submissions, as well as many of the letters written to the Minister, that DWI's response to errors, perceived or otherwise, is as important as the errors themselves. For example, "The endemic attitude of denial was as deplorable as it was unhelpful."
Even in situations where it is not actually DWI's "fault", a defensive attitude prevents exploration of how the situation could have been avoided. For example, a response to a letter of complaint to the Minister in fact showed that DWI had carried out all the necessary steps according to the system in place. However, what was clear was that the student was in the dark over the correspondence between the institution and DWI and therefore had no idea of their loan status. A more open approach would have explored how the student (and the institution) could have been better informed, thus avoiding the complaint. DWI need to be seen as striving to get things right for both students and institutions. The Hunn Report also sees shared responsibility as critical: "it does not matter whether others have sinned more than it has or that others must share the responsibility for some of these things" (p.5).
