Shared Services Study Report 1 - The current landscape of shared systems implementation and planning for administrative systems in UK FE and HE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ConclusionsEngagement in shared services 1.Over 25% of the institutions surveyed have a shared service in at least one of the nine functional areas covered by this study.2. Engagement is mostly tactical in nature and is aimed at meeting particular goals such as regional agendas.3. The overall level of engagement in both sectors is low.4. We found that the further education sector's range and level of activity is generally higher than that of higher education. Planning1.About 10% of the sample surveyed was planning shared services in the areas covered by the study.2. In strategic planning, considering shared services as an option came up either "frequently" or "sometimes" in about equal measure (around 30%).About a quarter of institutions reported that the option was never considered.3. The surveys showed that nearly two thirds of respondents knew when they were going to review their various administrative systems against the marketplace, although over a third did not.Commitment to shared services 1.It was most common to find (about 40% of survey respondents) that institutions "might" consider a shared service in the areas covered by the study.This was in accord with the information collected in the interviews.2. The level of commitment in the further education sector ranged more widely than that found in higher education.At one extreme we spoke with a college that has a strategic commitment to services sharing and at the other we found one that declared it was strategically having nothing to do with it.3. The study carried out by ECAR for Educause found that institutions could be categorised into two attitudinal types, collaborators and non collaborators, with the former having a strategic attitude towards shared services.It is clear that the UK tertiary education sector is presently predominantly of the second type. Differences between the sectors1. FE has less to spend on its CIS systems than does HE.The less well off colleges in further education are significantly worse off than the less well off in higher education.There is a greater difference between the prosperous and the less prosperous in individual sectors than between the sectors. National variations1.There are differences between the four home countries.2. In Northern Ireland, an overt shared services agenda is not evident: in FE much has been achieved and is now bedding down.Following the large scale mergers which took place a few years ago, the ANIC consortium services all the 6 Northern Irish FE colleges.In HE, the small number of institutions places the sector in a special position.3. In Wales, the agenda is being driven by the Welsh assembly which has clearly based its strategy for the public sector on collaboration rather than on competition.This provides a clear basis for the development of shared services.4. In England, the government mandate to further education to compete clashes with the ethos of collaboration, implicit within the shared services agenda.The English higher education sector does not appear to be driven by a significant political factor.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».