User Group Meeting notes 26/05/2020

@Ian Jarvis

The team are well and working remotely. We have a new customer signed up and they will join in next User Group.

@Ian Jarvis

We have extended:

• QA screen to accommodate uploads

• Added Pending status,

• Added SLAs

• EPAs to have multiple managers,

• Outcome and Actions to assessment results,

• Added in OAuth, so you can now login to EPAPro via Microsoft and Google

• Added the ability to generate a Record of Achievement and Completion with functionality to be done in bulk and accessible by Apprentice,

• Back Into Learning updates

• Extending Zoom,

• New reports and extended fields.

@Ian Jarvis

Zoom Alternatives: We were looking at an alternative to Zoom due to the security concerns, however since the security patches and lack of response from alternative video conferencing software, we were unable to offer an alternative.

Maps and Direction functionality: This has been re-prioritised due to the need and value of this functionality reducing significantly during lockdown.

@Ian Jarvis

• QA Risk percentage for Standards and Specialisms

• Results adjustment – needed delayed so audit work done first, as the result adjustment will be audited

• Improve visibility of QA and publishing results

• Forecasting still likely

• Gateway Date Management – allowing Providers to request dates

@Ian Jarvis

Currently, our focus is around extending functionality around preferred dates for booking planning meetings and assessment components, extending the Assessment Centre functionality and to implement cohort booking.

The current idea is to have a screen that allows the user to select the Standard/Specialism, then the date and then the cohort of Apprentices and available EPAs.

There was a discussion on how best to partition the cohorts and we are happy to look at cohort IDS, that have flexibility. It was agreed that it would be something the provider sets. The question of the Cohort ID to be an arbitrary number was raised and was found that yes it could be and that it could also link to different areas – there is a need for flexibility in this area.

@Ian Jarvis

There was a discussion around when the Results should be published as each AO is different.

It was flagged that some standards may have a dependence on previous result, and have a second check on them currently ie. Standards with multiple components that are linked. This is mainly around around final grade/overall certification, and so an extra step in publishing may not be necessary.

It was also flagged that it would be useful to get have the action of publishing results recorded and date stamped to show in both the improved audit log and through reporting.

We’ll need to go back to other customers to discuss further as we’re quite happy with the way it works currently, and we require more feedback

@Ian Jarvis

This is really important to test as we have upgraded the underlying infrastructure to PHP7 and Laravel v6, which gives us advantages in terms of newer tech for the platform, better security, cleaner functionality and a speedier experience. We haven’t done any official testing however we are seeing this to be 2-3 times faster. Really positive performance so far, it is a big change and impacts every action and screen. Whilst we’ve tested everything, customers find brand new ways of testing so please test your processes and workflows against the UAT/QA accounts.

We test things to pass, rather than to fail so would love feedback.

We have also slowed down our release cycle to do monthly releases, so no more bombarding, still same work rate and volume but uploaded to sites once a month. We will monitor and make sure it’s working. Bug fixes will then be remedied a lot slower but hot fixes will remain the same.

@Ian Jarvis

It was asked if there was an appetite amongst the User Group for assigning IQAs to Apprentices, so that the QA user would have a caseload? This would specifically be beneficial for those who employ freelance QA and for those who perform QA in batches. This prompted a discussion around how this could work and it was agreed that this should be investigated further.

@Ian Jarvis

The situation where flexibility was applied to an Apprentice completes earlier than scheduled but not with the ESFA was flagged. This was agreed that we could probably tie it to something in the backlog to revisit how we manage Gateways, works more like assessment schemas and can be much more easy to create Gateway schema and Gateway specifications.

There was also a discussion around adding Functional skills at a later date, and how we could implement, as it is currently a manual process for users. Ideas included a switch, a tick-box and a report against outstanding components/elements, and we would need to consider a safety net to not be submitted to ESFA prematurely.

It was also discussed that there should be an additional Gateway Status marked ‘Incomplete’ for Functional Skills, so the Gateway Specification Identifies this. The counterpoint to this was that statuses are very far reaching and will be difficult to manage a process at a later date - might be one we have to balance off against additional benefits beyond this. Happy to consider.

@Ian Jarvis

It was requested that EPAPro usage rates across AOs to be shared out amongst the group, out of interest. We could do this, however we will need to have unanimous approval and agreement from the group before we share.