Attendees:

@Ian Jarvis @Lisa Clancy @Libby Timms @Isha Ball

Angela Dhariwal
Helen Shinner
Laura Dean
Jack Emerson
Graeme Warne
Susan Vickers
Mike Warner
Samina Choudhury
Jade Davies
Tina O'Keeffe
Melanie Jones
Alessia Thompson
Nia Evans
Tomiwa Jimoh
Yvonne Bennett
Laura Topliss
Andrew Nicholls
Tanya Hill
Julie Golding
Sherryl ARELLANO
Jonathan Wrycraft
Becky Adams

22 Attendees

Distribution List:

epaPRO User Group

Overview of the last three months:

Released Development in last 3 months

• Apprentice Dashboard

• Enhancements to Assessment Milestones

• User Account Switching

• Apprentice Dashboard - option to upload against milestones

• Ofqual Reasonable Adjustments

• Redesign of Contracts Screen

Roadmap Items:-

EP-3675 epaPRO Assess

EP-3804 Accolade - General Awarding

EP-4299 Assessment Elements - ability for EPAs to accept/reject

EP-4294 Assessment Booking - New Bulk/Group Process

EP-4097 Assessment Element - Cancelled status

EP-4219 Booking attendees - allow attendees to just be notified and not invited

Welcome to new customers

epaPRO Assess - Update - demo of recent functionality.

Development for Discussion

We would like some further clarity on Ofqual Requirements for our Ofqual report. Currently the report in epaPRO is needing a certification record to exist on the system for it to appear on the report.

Excerpt from the guidelines

All EPA components undertaken by individual apprentices need to be included in the data request, regardless of whether the EPA was completed by the apprentice or not. For example, if the apprentice undertook 2 out of 3 assessment components of their EPA, only records of the 2 assessment components should be provided for the apprentice.

Questions

• We would like to clarify if this is required now for All components taken within this period of the report

• If so is it ignoring the apprentices status - what about back into learning, suspended, cancelled etc?

Based on some initial customer feedback this is interpreted to mean:-

• Show ALL assessment elements that were carried out in the date range, with one line per apprentice per component.

• Cancelled or rescheduled not included

• If it was a resit, the most recent grade should be shown, with a column to show any previous attempts.

• Back into learning and suspended are epaPRO terms and Ofqual is only concerned with the assessments that were actually carried out during the date range.

• If an apprentice completed two out of their three components during this reporting period, both of those would be submitted. Both lines of data would therefore include a completion date of 31/12/2999, as they would still be in assessment.

• The final component, which is likely to be completed in the next Ofqual submission date range would then be submitted at that point.

We also have work planned in to add :-

• assessment plan number to the Ofqual report, -2 where it is not available

• the Ofqual Qualification Number (already against standard) to the Ofqual report, -2 where it is not available

https://covalenttech.atlassian.net/browse/SD-8978

https://covalenttech.atlassian.net/jira/servicedesk/projects/SD/queues/custom/93/SD-9095

Questions for the user group

1. Discussion around the possibility of re-enabling the validation on earliest and latest registration dates against the standard, which was initially removed in- Version 5.01.0 - 11/10/2022 as raised by Innovate

https://covalenttech.atlassian.net/browse/SD-8962

The issue is that Innovate would like something that will warn a provider if they try to register an apprentice with a start date that doesn't match the standard. The system currently doesn't flag an issue until gateway. How are other customers managing this?

2. Amend Order of Notes

Query from Innovate - currently these are sorted by default based on their Priority. As notes have been mainly used as a type of CRM type function, beyond the original intention, we can see that customers may prefer the default to be Newest First?

We would like to know the groups preferences and if there are any objections to amending the default sorting on this screen to be Newest rather than Highest Priority - given that there is now a filter for Importance?

How do we give ample opportunity for customers to feedback on new development?

We have tried various methods, some involve more work to create than others :-

• Sandbox

• Clickable wireframes used for something like Accolade as it is quite involved

• Documented workflows

We are toying with creating a recorded webinar of any work that has been added to sandbox and to publish this on the Knowledgebase and email to the sandbox users.

We would also like to give a time limit on how long the work is on there rather than leaving it too open ended, For example load it for 1 month - ask for feedback at end of that month, review feedback, leave it for 1 more month and then close access down to the sandbox.

One option open for discussion is the creation of a Customer Task Force

• Look at possibly creating a Teams channel specifically to discuss new functionality.

• Any future development could be agreed and signed off by task force

• Task force Group would present back to the user group any key points or new features that they feel would add value.