Assessment Criteria

Criteria to assist the information authority in filtering change requests

There is no particular order or sequence to these assessment criteria. Change requests which are clearly failing in any one area are likely to be declined.

1. Change must be submitted on the information authority change request form: The information authority change request form has been designed to aid the assessment process. Requests for change submitted by any means other than the information authority form will be declined.

2. Change request has not been rejected previously: Change requests that have been considered by the information authority previously and rejected will not be considered again unless the request contains significant new information or there is new business need.  

3. Change request is well defined with a robust business rationale: The change request must make the overall aim clear and explain the rationale and benefits of this change to the FE system.

4. Change request supports a key sector target or goal: The information authority board may support particular priorities for the forthcoming year. For instance, the 2008/09 ILR specification required many changes to enable Demand-Led Funding. There may be other years where the board will only support changes to the specification if they are legally required.

5. Change request is supported by the relevant stakeholder organisation: There needs to be support for the change from an appropriate senior representative. The information authority will work with the change owners to identify contacts within relevant organisations if necessary (organisations may be asked to prioritise their requested changes).

6. The ILR is the best collection method: There are a variety of data collections and so it needs to be clear that the ILR is the most appropriate mechanism for collecting the data needed.

7. Benefit of collection outweighs the burden: The benefit of the data collected must outweigh the effort needed by providers to gather the data, i.e. the change supports a key initiative or will produce other efficiencies in the system.

8. Costs can be accommodated: An estimate has been made of the costs that providers will incur due to this change, such as the costs to make changes to their MI systems, training staff, or any other costs associated with gathering the data. This estimated cost would need to be justified by the benefits of the change.

9. Changes can be delivered in time: If the change request involves major change, then there needs to be sufficient time for consultation and amendment to providers' MI systems.

10. Data collected is robust enough to meet the business goal: The expected data collected needs to be of sufficient quality to meet the needs set out in the business goal. For example, if the data gathered is likely to produce a sufficient proportion of ‘don't knows', then it may be deemed that there is no merit in changing the ILR.

11. Change is consistent with data standards: Any data classifications being proposed should be in line with existing data standards where possible.

12. The addition, removal or amendment of a field takes into account any related existing policies: The change will need to accommodate any existing and continuing use of the field.