League Table of MIS systems

[pcstru]

The data migration at Bromcom isn't automated, it is a real guy (Mike) and his team, they test it, pass the majority of the data back to a school to test, then while they are playing with that we complete the migration of data and finally update the system with it all once they want to go 'live.' -

I've been through the Bromcom process. Your description of it now is better than your first stab - which was "Migrating data should be as easy as giving one MIS provider access to the database and they just swap it over for you, that's how we do it at Bromcom". Good to see you agree that the process you do use is hardly "just swap it over"

I agree, it is a bit of a dream to have a fully automated system, until all MIS suppliers have the same formats.

Then you didn't understand the my point about Data Quality. If having the same format was all that counted, ASC would be a button press at particular point in the year.

I think that should be the aim, along with all the admin and 'back-end' work, you should only need a quick word with helpdesk to get the answers you need. Obviously not one MIS system is there yet, but we can work on that!!

[/color]

You might like to think how long people have been working on that and then ponder why they haven't managed to achieve it. I'd say that it is not a software issue, it is a peoples issue.

[pcstru]

As someone that has sat on both sides of the fence during an MIS migration (MIS supplier and school employee), I can 100% say that the cost of change far outweighs the invoiced £££ paid. I recall saying exactly this here about 4 years (and amazing to see that certain individuals who are now agreeing with that point were less open minded then!).

I think if you throw stuff like that in (i.e "certain individuals"), you should elaborate and be specific - otherwise that kind of rhetoric just looks like self congratulatory chest beating but worse, you are not giving the person you are referring to a fair chance to respond.

Edited March 16, 2017 by pcstru

[Banjo]

As someone that has sat on both sides of the fence during an MIS migration (MIS supplier and school employee), I can 100% say that the cost of change far outweighs the invoiced £££ paid. I recall saying exactly this here about 4 years (and amazing to see that certain individuals who are now agreeing with that point were less open minded then!).

 

As has been stated, it can be the most fantastic efficient and cost saving product in the world, but if no bugger can use it or wants to use it then it isn't a good deal.

 

I think this topic is wandering slightly with some proliferation of advertising of services... Somewhat ironic for me of all people to say! That said, I also feel that some points raised about the market and/or suppliers are somewhat outdated or playing on the headlines of old...

 

 

But a lot of HT/SLT/governors do not factor in this cost of change - they just look at the initial cost saving from licensing.

 

Capita charge £1200+ per day for onsite training as an example. Costs can easily mount up.

[hiphopamus]

But a lot of HT/SLT/governors do not factor in this cost of change - they just look at the initial cost saving from licensing.

 

Capita charge £1200+ per day for onsite training as an example. Costs can easily mount up.

 

There are significantly cheaper training options out there...

[GREED]

But a lot of HT/SLT/governors do not factor in this cost of change - they just look at the initial cost saving from licensing.

 

Agreed. You could give away the MIS (or any system for that matter) for free, but if it is a huge undertaking to get staff up to speed, where is the cost saving?

 

I should say I do not advocate in any direction for moving or staying, not up for playing that often fun game. What I have always believed and promoted is there is a right system for everyone, whether it is a new system or your existing one. Look at the market and see what is there, but also look at what you have now and see if you are using it best for the money you have paid. Moving for the sake of moving, or for the sake of a ham and shiny bells, is bluntly - stupid. You should not feel forced to move from one system doing x to another system also doing x for just one or two reasons, and certainly not for the less zeros on an invoice. But, if those are part of an overall reason to move, then they are the collective bonuses that add up to a single good deal.

 

OK my soapbox is but away now...

[bigdannyb79]

But a lot of HT/SLT/governors do not factor in this cost of change - they just look at the initial cost saving from licensing.

 

Capita charge £1200+ per day for onsite training as an example. Costs can easily mount up.

 

But thats why a teacher, albeit a senior one shouldn't be making uninformed decisions on an area outside of their expertise. Schools need to invest in quality staff to support their information systems and critical decision making including whether their current MIS is best fit for their needs.

[Banjo]

But thats why a teacher, albeit a senior one shouldn't be making uninformed decisions on an area outside of their expertise. Schools need to invest in quality staff to support their information systems and critical decision making including whether their current MIS is best fit for their needs.

 

I agree, there should be a detailed project plan listing all the MIS functions and then all the staff that carry them out. From this matrix you can build up an understanding of any future training needs that can be costed and built into the procurement process. From experience this is usually an un-costed after thought.

[pcstru]

But thats why a teacher, albeit a senior one shouldn't be making uninformed decisions on an area outside of their expertise.

That almost implies it would be OK for them to make uninformed decisions within their area!

 

Schools need to invest in quality staff to support their information systems and critical decision making including whether their current MIS is best fit for their needs.

 

I agree but it is also important that the final say so is at the appropriate level. Those high quality staff do not want to be seen to be the decision makers further down the line when the gripes start (and they will!).

 

Here there is now some grumbling from Senior Management about our choice and it would be really uncomfortable for someone to be holding the "I made that decision" baby. IMO the grumbling is unwarranted and stems from them not actually knowing what they want, rather than a systems inability to deliver that.

 

As is often the case in these things, our job is to make sure the decision makers are properly informed so they can make good, rational decisions based on high quality evidence. Whether they then do make good decisions, is beyond our control.

[bigdannyb79]

If your investing in quality staff they will be at a level where they are happy to make a decision and be accountable for it. And then drive the processes following that decision to ensure successful delivery of the initial objections.

 

but yeah if I didn't have an appropriate position in the hierarchy I wouldn't be comfortable being accountable for the choice but then I would be surprised if they were letting me 'own' the decision if that were the case.

[pcstru]

If your investing in quality staff they will be at a level where they are happy to make a decision and be accountable for it. And then drive the processes following that decision to ensure successful delivery of the initial objections.

No. They might (and should) make recommendations but an MIS has consequences beyond any support role and the final decision (and responsibility) for such a critical change rests with the head. That is true even if you have someone who is dedicated to supporting all aspects of the MIS and who is as knowledgeable and skilled as it is possible to be in the domain of MIS's.

 

If you looked at it in terms of a PRINCE2 project, your skilled MIS expert might take the role of "senior user" (or perhaps even suppliers in that they supply business services) but the executive role should be the Head or a member of SLT who is acting with the delegated authority of the head.

[bigdannyb79]

yes I agree Head has final decision on all things but I believe that executive voice should be someone who fully knows both the business/school and their area of decision making. Most schools just haven't caught up with realising how critical MI/BI can be and how having someone who has the strategic and technical oversight can best lead an organisation in this area - just in the same way other SLT members do. They they have their areas of responsibility and understanding and they are expected to drive their specific area in a direction that helps deliver the ultimate aims of the organisation. Only problem is most schools dont have this person yet ....

[matt40k]

I think we'll return to this topic in another 5 years and look at the process.

 

Going off topic, if I was going to try and fix the world, I'd think I'd fix the exams system. AQA etc cost waaaaay too much money. But I digress...

[Keith-Johnson]

This is of course for England only!!

 

And unfortunately state schools only, so some important suppliers are not mentioned.