Skip to main content

A new architecture for the information landscape.

The next talk today was by Andy Youell of HEDIIP.  You may know that the University has to provide information about our students and staff to a number of statutory bodies, such as HESA, UCAS, SFC and a host of accreditation bodies for different professions (e.g. actuaries, social workers, nurses, etc). These data returns take a lot of time to produce each year.  From my point of view they are also quite disruptive because the statutory bodies keep changing their requirements, often at short notice, and we have to respond quickly when the latest set of changes comes through.
 
If you look at the whole higher education sector, the situation is more complicated still.  There are 523 separate HE data collections (i.e. institutions) providing information to over 93 different organisations. Each of these organisations has their own data definitions and requirements.  

In 2011 the government agreed a requirement to redesign the information landscape in order to reduce duplication and meet the  needs of a wider group of users.  HEDIIP is the organisation that we created to do this and they have been working towards a standard lexicon and ideally a standard set of definitions.  They have agreed the creation of a Unique Learner Number to identify each student and a Personal Learner Record with some basic fields.  There is far more to do but at least some steps are being made.

In Scotland, we already have a student identifier for the SFC, so HEDIIP are working with the SFC to try and define a mapping between the two.

HEDIIP are also working towards a revised set of subject codes, which will be based on a detailed requirements analysis which will be published this month.

In response to a question about ownership of data, Andy explained that HEDIIP are following the bottom-up, consultative model that was used by NHS Scotland in a previous exercise.  He contrasted this with the well-publicized problems of the top-down exercise attempted by the NHS in England

There is a long way to go because there is not yet any agreement between the various agencies regarding the data definitions that they use, even though there is a considerable overlap between the different agencies.  If HEDIIP can make this work, it would certainly simplify the work we have to do.  The scheme would require governance to manage data changes; apparently the FE world have similar governance structure in place.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Presentation: Putting IT all together

This is a presentation I gave to an audience of University staff: 

In this seminar, I invite you to consider what the University’s online services would be like, if we worked together to design them from the perspective of the student or member of staff who will use them, instead of designing them around the organisational units that provide them. I’ll start with how the services might appear to that student or member of staff, then work back from there to show what this implies for how we work, how we manage our data, and how we integrate our IT systems. It might even lead to changes in our organisational structure.

Our online services make a vital and valued contribution to the work of our students and staff. I argue that with better integration, more consistent user interfaces, and shared data, this contribution could be significantly enhanced.

This practice is called “Enterprise Architecture”. I’ll describe how it consults multiple organisational units and defines a framework …

Service Excellence, Digital Transformation and Enterprise Architecture

Our University Secretary has sponsored a major review of the University’s administrative processes, coining the banner “Service Excellence”.  The aim is to look at the services we provide to staff and students with a fresh eye, making them more effective, more efficient, and focussed on the user rather than administrative convenience.

Our CIO is sponsoring a similar programme called “Digital Transformation”. This will replace old paper-based processes, starting with the question of what would processes look like if we designed them afresh for the modern connected world.  The aim is to make processes that are more focussed on the user and hence more effective and efficient.

Both of these ambitious programmes will need an effective enterprise architecture, if they are to succeed.  Digital Transformation is intrinsically about using opportunities provided by new technology to improve services and, as such, it requires effective technology services to make data available when needed, to pro…

Not so simple...

A common approach to explaining the benefits of Enterprise Architecture is to draw two diagrams: one that shows a complicated mess of interconnections, and one that shows a nicely layered set of blocks. Something like this one, which came from some consultants:


I've never felt entirely happy with this approach.  Yes, we do want to remove as much of the needless complexity and ad-hoc design that litters the existing architecture.  Yes, we do want to simplify the architecture and make it more consistent and intelligible.  But the simplicity of the block diagram shown here is unobtainable in the vast majority of real enterprises.  We have a mixture of in-house development and different third-party systems, some hosted in-house, some on cloud infrastructure and some accessed as software-as-a-service.  For all the talk of standards, vendors use different authentication systems, different integration systems, and different user interfaces.

So the simple block diagram is, basically, a l…