Something to keep an eye on from DfE

[scholarpack]

@scholarpack You've got more schools then Bromcom who's been around longer. You're market growth for a "young" company is really good.

 

I think what the data shows is that it's key to get in at the LA level - you need to get that LA platform in first.

 

With LA's shrinking both in personnel numbers and services provided by the day that is becoming less and less the case. But yes, when we're ready, we'll certainly be tendering for LA's procuring under the IMLS Framework.

[matt40k]

You'll be surprised, LA's still have a lot of influence with schools and regardless the local authority will still have a duty of care even if the schools goes Academy or not. You guys are in a good position, LA needs to make cost savings and I can't image Capita ONE is particularly cheap and it's rare I don't hear someone moaning about it.

[scholarpack]

You'll be surprised, LA's still have a lot of influence with schools and regardless the local authority will still have a duty of care even if the schools goes Academy or not. You guys are in a good position, LA needs to make cost savings and I can't image Capita ONE is particularly cheap and it's rare I don't hear someone moaning about it.

 

Yes you are correct, I'm just talking in terms of MIS. Many schools will simply procure independently or via their academy group now, rather than through the LA. At least all of our customers do. I couldn't possibly comment about Capita One.

[matt40k]

Could also point out that if you got a single LA, you'd have doubled the number of customers that you have (at least). This is before you get the chain reaction of other LA following your flapship LA - just saying...

[matt40k]

FYI, I've put in a request to the DfE for an updated list.

[vikpaw]

FYI, I've put in a request to the DfE for an updated list.

Cheers Mr Smith That's better than mine and doesn't need cleaning up. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/which_software_schools_use_to_re_3

[BrendanR]

Actualy really interested to see what the change has been over the last while - thanks!

[matt40k]

Brief overviews of the market:

 

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 192]

[TR]

[TD=width: 64]Arbor[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]19[/TD]

[TD=width: 64, align: right]1800%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Aspen[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8[/TD]

[TD=align: right]60%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Bromcom[/TD]

[TD=align: right]41[/TD]

[TD=align: right]86%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]SIMS[/TD]

[TD=align: right]17912[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-1%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]DatabridgeMiS Census[/TD]

[TD=align: right]4[/TD]

[TD=align: right]33%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]iSAMS[/TD]

[TD=align: right]5[/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Pearson e1[/TD]

[TD=align: right]297[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-3%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]RM SMS G2[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1746[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]ScholarPack[/TD]

[TD=align: right]122[/TD]

[TD=align: right]221%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]WautonSamuel[/TD]

[TD=align: right]180[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-4%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Advanced Learning[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1212[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-6%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Other[/TD]

[TD=align: right]45[/TD]

[TD=align: right]80%[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edited January 14, 2014 by matt40k

[BrendanR]

This seems a bit out of line with the market. First, this is England only - not Wales. Also, I think that BromCom has many more clients than this list reflects? Perhaps the data is old or inaccurate?

 

What is clear it that Capita owns about 82%.

[matt40k]

It's pull from the Autumn (Oct) 2013 census return for England. I'd say it's a pretty accurate status of the current market, well as clear as we're going to get. It's not fool proof, I mean an LA could go in and edit all their schools to say they're using JediMIS or something equally as silly. Also if the school doesn't do a census return for whatever reason, or like you say are in Wales etc, or if they are mid-transfer they might elect to use the old MIS.

 

I'm planning on doing a bit more in depth analysis on it later.

[BrendanR]

Ont thing I think you'd find interesting is if you sent the MD of each of the smaller companies a copy of the report and the summary you made, and asked for them to confirm if it's accurate. They need to be seen to have as many clients as posssible for tender and credibility purposes, and may want to set the record straight?

[matt40k]

I see your point but I can't see the delay as a problem, schools don't change MIS suppliers regularly, when a school submits a census return via the new MIS system, they've 100% commit to it, you can't get a certain MIS supplier turn up and throw a spanner in the works when you sign the first agreement, normally which has a cooling off period. Also you have no way of easily validating the information is correct. As for creditability, that's the idea of the framework! You've basically been vetted by the DfE.

[GREED]

@matt40k how did you arrive at the % increase/decrease? I'd be interested to know the raw data from 2010 and 2012 to show trends.

[matt40k]

I think your maybe over thinking it, I took the first spreadsheet, ColumnA was the suppliers - ColumnB was the count from Autumn2012, ColumnC was count from the Autumn2013.

 

=(C2-B2)/ABS(B2)

 

Got no other data - 2010?? Does that exist in the public domain?

Edited January 14, 2014 by matt40k

[GREED]

Surely only needs another FOI...

[matt40k]

I think I'll need a drink or two before I put in a FOI asking for that - pretty sure that's not going to show me anything I particularly want to see lol!

[scholarpack]

Ont thing I think you'd find interesting is if you sent the MD of each of the smaller companies a copy of the report and the summary you made, and asked for them to confirm if it's accurate. They need to be seen to have as many clients as posssible for tender and credibility purposes, and may want to set the record straight?

 

As CEO of a newer supplier, I can tell you this data is very accurate. It's always pretty out of date for the newer suppliers because we are generally growing quite quickly compared to the big ones so for instance this has us at 122 when from our own estimations we were 132 at that point in time, and nearly over 200 now only a few months later. It's always lagging behind a bit. I'm sure Arbor, Bromcom, Isams etc are in the same boat.

 

What this data also tells you is that although the percentage reduction in SIMS is small, they have lost quite literally hundreds of schools in the last 18 months to all the other suppliers, including 'others' which is usually schools doing their own census manually.

 

Great to have this data in the public domain as far as I am concerned.

[GREED]

I agree totally Richard. It makes me nervous dealing with suppliers who are cagey or even outright lie (by a long way) about their customer base.

 

It proves a point I have been making for over a year now is that there is genuine choice now for MIS supply, and schools are starting to realise that. Great news.

Edited January 15, 2014 by GREED

[CAM]

It'd be interesting to see how this changes over the years ahead. We know Pearson e1 will drop like a stone and see who is rising in this new age of MIS choices.

 

Looks like the big three big companies worth getting to know about right now are Capita, RM and Serco/Advanced Learning.

[vikpaw]

I'd just like to say congrats to all who have managed to increase their numbers or even just stay in the market . It's great to see a wider spread in the field and the competition can only be good for schools as a whole.

 

It's no small undertaking to get a school to change MIS.

 

What the figures don't show is the flow, because I know from having spoken to some suppliers that their is movement in both directions, though for most the net result is positive. Where it is a reduction it's with the suppliers we'd have expected.

@CAM - stats is all down to interpretation, Capita is a given, but i'd have said Scholarpack and Arbor are worth looking into seeing as they are increasing their numbers so quickly.

[GrumbleDook]

Yes, the flow is very important. I am also keen to see how frequently schools are changing MIS. I know of some schools trying a different one every 3 years and ,after trying 2 or 3, have ended up back with their original provider. It is not as bad as when some schools try VLEs (a few schools I know tried up to 6 different ones in 5 years but generally a frequent change is down to poor management).

[GREED]

It'd be interesting to see how this changes over the years ahead. We know Pearson e1 will drop like a stone and see who is rising in this new age of MIS choices.

 

Looks like the big three big companies worth getting to know about right now are Capita, RM and Serco/Advanced Learning.

 

So basically the same three more or less that is always has been

 

I cannot say I agree and agree with Tony, the ones to watch are people like Scholarpack and Arbor, particularly as they are less tied to legacy systems as is inherent with the older players (AL maybe less so with Progresso, i'm keep a watchful eye there too I think this will be a big year for them).

[vikpaw]

I am also interested in how access to legacy data is affected by these changes, i know it's been covered partly in another thread with a specific supplier, but just generally as more schools change, the student records gets spliced up more and more.

 

We are looking at VLEs and most are now offering a SAAS model so if you chop and change, the work that is done on the system is lost unless you either pay to keep access or find a way to export. The data can be exported fine, but many tools are bespoke, so you can't just lift a quiz or poll or something and drop it in elsewhere. At least not with the systems we looked at.

[matt40k]

That's the killer question @vikpaw. With VLE the idea was SCORM, so you had this open-format that you could move YOUR data between platform without dataloss. With MIS systems I suspect the "answer" will be schools Interoperability Framework, Systems Interoperability Framework (UK), or SIF. However I'm not likely the idea, it's too over complicated in some regards, regardless, this will be the main turning point in the MIS market in the UK when a solution is agreed upon. I'm hoping the DfE will step forward and publish an open standard, such as extending the CTF to include alot more of the data that is actually captured at the school level - like staff details! So you have a common point for all MIS suppliers to aim for. In theory you'd end up create a "MIS system" at this point. So you could hit the export button, either look at the raw file, or import into a basic shell of a MIS - then either go back to the current MIS supplier and go hey, you're not export particular fields or go to the "board" and ask them to be add to the standard. I think the little players would support it as they wouldn't be having to bend over backwards to get data out correctly from the big 3 and the big 3 aren't having the same issue about a little MIS system.

 

Going forward would be a solution with a more module approach, so you could interconnect individual modules between different suppliers - so you could have a ScolarPack as the core, Bromcom as the e-reg, SIMS as the assessments suite and be able to inter-swap each part. But that's along way off personally - it's kinda what SIF is trying to do.

 

I think the key is a standard "export" facility that works across the board, DfE controlling this like the CTF format. If Capita was smart they would be pushing this as they could control it to a large extent.

[vikpaw]

I'm not sure the VLEs i looked at were SCORM compliant

I see where you're going and that would be good in an ideal world, not sure when we'll get there.

Can you imagine the blame game you'd get if you had scholarpack core with SIMS and bromcom plus xyz in the mix. It would be MIS-roulette.