Managing Consistency and Accuracy

The draft recommendations for an approach to managing consistency and accuracy of HECoS are as follows.

Please comment on matters such as priority, relevance, clarity, and sufficiency.

Recommendation 17
While the HECoS governing body should play a key role in monitoring the accuracy and consistency of coding, it is not recommended that the governing body should monitor the standard of coding in HESA returns or police institutional coding inconsistencies, other than for the purpose of ensuring the quality of the HECoS vocabulary itself.

Recommendation 18
The HECoS governing body should focus specifically on ensuring that HECoS structures, support and guidance are sufficient to enable a high level of consistency and accuracy of coding across the sector, and on gathering evidence of where change may be required.  The monitoring process should aim to identify problems and inconsistencies in definitions and scope notes, requirements for changes to navigational structures, the need for new terms to be adopted or obsolete terms deprecated.

Recommendation 19
Monitoring the consistency and accuracy of HECoS coding should be a routine administrative task.  It is envisaged that a thorough and comprehensive monitoring process would be required during the first 1-2 years of HECoS adoption.  After this period a lightweight monitoring process should be established to monitor coding consistency and accuracy every 2-3 years.


 

This is one of a set of pages seeking comment on the draft Governance Model.

Advertisements

One thought on “Managing Consistency and Accuracy

  1. We welcome this attempt to ‘audit’ the use of the HeCos vocabulary and agree with other stakeholders that ensuring the accuracy and consistency of coding is a significant priority. We would question who is to monitor the standard of coding and how would this be achieved? Without some consideration of this then one of the key consistency issues identified in the past will remain.

    We welcome the importance placed on ensuring that HECoS structures, support and guidance are in place but as above wonder how ‘problems and inconsistencies in definitions and scope’ or ‘requirements for changes to navigational structures’ will be identified without some form of audit process.

    If, as I think is being, importance is placed on this as a tool for external bodies to interrogate and use the data reported then serious consideration needs to be given to how this is monitored, It should be seen as a continuous process and not one which requires only ‘thorough and comprehensive monitoring process would be required during the first 1-2 years’.

    If a lightweight approach is being taken centrally then some thought and proposals are needed on how institutions will ensure the monitor the accuracy and consistency themselves.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s