Many thanks to all who responded to my hasty survey.
Here is the report which I promised, and delivered to the HESA review group
on Friday, since when I have 2 further responses - thnak you - which were
consistent with it:
Summary of responses to email questions on the use of the HESA Staff record
in institutions
By 21 March there had been 10 responses from the admin-planning JISCMail
list and from four personnel contacts nominated by UCEA.
Q1: Do you use the HESA Staff Record data?
If so, which series?
If not, have you considered doing so and decided against?
What were the man considerations against?
Mostly institutions did not use the staff record. They generally found their
internal sets more useful, although some had plans for, or were considering,
trying to use the data for comparisons with other institutions. However, a
majority of the number who responded noted that the FTE 0.25 cut-off made
the data very hard to use for this purpose - as professionals from outside
the sector were employed in smaller fractions to teach on
professionally-orientated programmes. Some use HEMS and had used the HESA
Data Provision Service for staff statistics tailored to their requirements.
Examples given included: comparative SSRs, and research income per member of
staff. One commented "easier to start from scratch". Noted that the RRAA
made use much more likely in this specific context. This is a live issue
now.
Q2: Are you using the Staff Record data in returning to the funding
councils Human Resource (or similar) Strategies?
Generally not.
Q3: Do you use the data to help inform your academic staff recruitment?
Generally not.
Q4: What main deficiencies in the data would you want to see repaired?
One suggested that staff numbers by institution and grade could be useful.
The reason for analysis by cost-centre is understood, but the data have
reduced usefulness as a consequence. Otherwise, respondents said that little
use means little comment. Internal systems are seen as more versatile and
flexible. Potential exists for benchmark and trend information for the
sector as a whole but this would need expansion to issues such as sickness
and turnover rates, salaries and detailed recruitment information; and it is
noted that some institutions would be reluctant to share this kind of
information.
Thanks again for very useful feedback.
Best wishes
David Young
Policy Adviser, Universities UK, Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square LONDON
WC1H 9HQ tel +44 (0) 20 7419 5484 fax +44 (0) 20 7383 4236
**********
This message is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you should not copy or disclose this message to anyone but should kindly notify the sender and delete the message. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message which do not relate to the official business of Universities UK shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. No contracts shall be concluded by means of this email. Neither Universities UK nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan this email and any attachments. Universities UK reserves the right to access and disclose all messages sent over its email system.
|