Shared Services Study Report 2 - The software currently in use for administrative systems in UK FE and HE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The systems market for further and higher education is very fragmented. There are a large number of different suppliers across the range of systems we looked at. In some individual areas there are a considerable number of different suppliers. There is also remarkably little overlap of the products used between the two sectors. \n2. The nine functional areas we consider in this report show a variety of patterns of use and market share. \n3. In each of finance, student records and timetabling, the higher education market has one player significantly larger than any of the others and has a relatively small number of other players. The dominant player in each equivalent FE market has a smaller share than in HE and there are more of the smaller players. \n4. CRM is the area which shows the least maturity. More than 40% of FEIs responding indicated that they made no use of a CRM and about half of HEIs responded the same way. \n5. A large number of estates systems are in use and they typically have a low level of integration with other corporate systems. Only one product had more than a 10% share of either the FE or the HE market. A quarter of those responding from higher education said that no estates system is in use at their institution. \n6. The area of VLEs shows complete dominance of the market by Moodle and Blackboard. In further education, Moodle has just over half the market with Blackboard having a further 30%. In higher education, Blackboard
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".