"The overriding concern from the polytechnic sector's point of view is the absence of trained personnel, backed up by computer access to all necessary information, on campuses to assist students."
Both institutions and students had common issues, but the following issues were more specific to institutions.
Communication on System Design and Implementation
DWI did involve institutions in the systems design to a certain extent. However, institutions did not have information on the full system design, only the external interface (although most gave DWI full structural diagrams of their own systems). This meant that they could not redesign their own enrolment and VOS interface systems with the full information of how the total system would work. For example, if an institution sent a VOS response less than 5 days after the last one (for example, because of a course change) for the same student, the DWI system would see it as an error (requiring manual intervention). This resulted in delays in processing and differences in fees payments.
Such actions by institutions were attempts to assist DWI but, under the existing business rules, effectively confused the system. Greater information sharing on DWI's systems and business rules would alleviate this problem.
Recommendation 31
DWI share information on systems design and business rules with institutions. |
Some aspects of the system were not implemented but institutions were not informed, for example, the system for part time part year students. This had implications for fees collection for these students.
A significant aspect for institutions was that a schedule was to be provided to institutions with details on those students shown as "NIL" on their payment schedules. This schedule was to show whether the student had withdrawn or had been declined a loan. Instead, a manual schedule was produced. The institutions had expected to be notified of such students immediately, as per the information matching agreement.
Recommendation 32
DWI ensure institutions are informed immediately of loans declined for part time or part year students, and are provided promptly with a detailed schedule of "Nil" payments. |
Some students declined loans are part time or part year students, who may be enrolled (or will be enrolled) in more than one institution or for only one semester at a time. Others resulted from course complications, for example one institution's Certificate of Travel at levels 2 and 4 across two different programmes: VOS picks up the highest level only even though this is a standard four year study course.
Some parts of the system which are still to be implemented may need to be reviewed and amended as it is some time since they were designed and changes may now be apparent in light of experience.
Recommendation 33
DWI keep institutions properly informed on which parts of the system have been implemented, expected times for further implementation, and review, in consultation with institutions, any subsystems yet to be implemented. |
Issues After Implementation
Verification of Study (VOS)
The VOS process is the crucial interface between DWI and institutions. Probably the most important issue was the "catch 22" of DWI not approving loans until students had been enrolled and institutions not enrolling students until their loans were approved. Variations arose from differing interpretations of the requirement under s.224 of the Education Act 1989 for students to pay (or "arrange to pay") their fees before being fully enrolled.
35 institutions, who successfully tested the system at the end of 1999, used the electronic VOS transfer, which accounted for about 80% of students, with the remainder doing VOS manually. Of the 35 institutions, 19 used the same system, Artena, which made the transfer simpler. Artena was not ready in 1999, requiring manual VOS, which had caused more issues for student allowance processing.
Most institutions introduced additional steps in their enrolment process whereby students were provisionally enrolled pending loan approval. However, because loan approvals usually came some time after courses had started, institutions had to enable students to attend classes, etc before fees were paid. Some institutions had students with unresolved loan applications, and therefore unpaid fees, as the first semester closed. This situation was worse for some institutions than others. A clear understanding between both parties is required.
Recommendation 34
DWI clarify with each institution, as part of the account management approach being developed, how the enrolment process will impact on the timing of the approval of loans, and vice versa. |
