Single registration process

Posted on

Outcome of discovery project

The decision was made not to go ahead with combining the DfE and provider forms due to the extent of work that would be required. It would require large changes to the service design, DfE and provider processes and registration form. It would also have implications on data due to the sensitive data that would need to be captured.

However, this discovery uncovered a number of areas of opportunity, useful findings and areas to explore.

This post is just a short round-up. Please review the playback deck for more detail.

The purpose of the discovery

There has long been a question of combining DfE and provider forms but it had not been looked into to understand if it is feasible.

We know there are pain points for users that are in part caused by the separate processes, but we wanted to investigate further to see the extent of problems and what the benefits would be.

Benefits of single registration

  • Less confusing journey for users (as all in one)
  • Easier for us to communicate the steps of applying for an NPQ to users
  • Reduce duplication of data entry for users
  • Probably reduce length of the application form for users
  • Potentially reduce mismatch of data (although this doesn’t seem a big problem)
  • Potentially increase the number of users who complete the end-to-end application process and start NPQs
  • Potentially reduce the number of users who don’t hear back from providers (we have no numbers on this)
  • DfE would have a better sight of the end-to-end process and see where there are problems and be able to fix them more easily
  • It could provide a simpler process for users wanting to change course or provider and to help prevent duplicate registrations.

Reasons against single registration

  • If users are taken from provider to DfE that could be jarring if all marketing has been from the provider and they don’t understand DfE’s part in this
  • Several providers are firmly against this change
  • Some provider application forms already auto-populate DfE information, so it wouldn’t reduce data entry for those
  • It would be a large technical piece of work
  • It would be a larger system to maintain
  • Data assessments would need to be redone
  • Data security of holding sensitive data
  • Provider feeling that there is potential risk to their commercials
  • Potential for a period of time where things are worse (due to system integration and things not going right in switchover)
  • We don’t really know if this will be ‘better’
  • Increase in requests from providers as they would be reliant on us making updates
  • All providers have a number of processes and systems that are directly linked to their application form and play a part in users successfully completing the application process, which would need to be replicated to some degree.

Other key findings

  • Application journeys differ for each provider and there is no defined order to complete the provider and DfE forms.
  • All providers chase incomplete applications.
  • Many providers do significant amounts of marketing and need to be able to track the success of this.
  • Most providers change the cohorts regularly and need the flexibility to update this at short notice.

Applicants do not always know which NPQ is most suitable for them

  • Some courses are very clear who they are aimed at and others are not.
  • About 50% of providers have expression of interest forms and these lead to 1-1 conversations with potential NPQ participants, to help them work out which course is most suitable.

Duplication of DfE registrations causes problems / extra work for providers

  • Makes it harder for them to work out drop-out rates
  • They are chasing people they don’t need to
  • This gives more evidence to support our previous suggestions to add ‘change’ links to previous registrations.

Drop out rates are largely unknown

  • We don’t track dropout on the DfE registration form
  • Many providers didn’t have this information
  • The ones that did, the dropout varied 15-27%

Needs uncovered

  • Clarify application process for users (Reduce confusion)
  • Help users work out which NPQ is right for them
  • Reduce duplication of data entry for users
  • Increase DfE understanding of dropout on forms (and then reduce dropout)
    • Dropout between DfE and provider forms
    • Dropout on provider forms
    • Dropout on DfE form
  • Increase visibility for DfE of each applicants progress (application started, completed, sponsor completion, being assessed)
  • Improve data matching (between DfE and provider)
  • Improve understanding of duplicates
  • Reduce time on manual validation
  • Improve understanding of user feeling

Next steps

We have presented our findings and run ideation sessions with policy teams and the wider programme.

  • Look further into the needs that have been uncovered
  • Explore the ideas that came out of the ideation sessions