Whilst school and MAT leaders carefully explore such areas a functionality, data security, training, support, analytics etc. when considering a change of MIS, how many also explore the financial and economic standing (EFS) of the potential MIS providers?
Our friend, Phil Sanders, recently looked into the EFS of the three leading UK MIS providers (ESS SIMS, Arbor and Bromcom) and has kindly given his permission for us to use his article here.
When assessing the EFS of companies, there are two sets of guidance that underpin vendor selection:
- Government Commercial Function Guide: Assessing and Monitoring the Economic and Financial Standing of Bidders and Suppliers (June 2023).
- G-Cloud & Crown Commercial Services (CCS) Framework Agreement Buyer Guide: Tests for Economic and Financial Standing.
Using these guidance notes, schools and MATs should take into consideration such factors as liquidity of the provider, profitability, cash flow resilience and working capital trends when assessing potential MIS providers.
Surprisingly, when assessing the EFS risks against the government commercial function metrics, only Bromcom are rated as ‘Low Risk’ across all eleven EFS areas. In contrast, ESS SIMS have two areas rated as ‘Medium Risk’ whilst Arbor have three areas rated as ‘High Risk’:
Under the four G-Cloud and CCS Framework EFS metrics, Arbor is assessed as failing in all four areas, with both ESS SIMS and Bromcom scoring highly in all metrics:
Obviously, both ESS SIMS and Arbor are also part of groups of educational companies – ESS SIMS as part of ParentPay (Holdings) Ltd and Arbor as part of The Key Group, so it is also important to look at the EFS for these two groups when considering an MIS procurement and, once again, both seem to fall short.
Under the same government commercial function EFS metrics, The Key Group are rated as ‘High Risk’ across six areas whilst ParentPay (Holdings) Ltd are rated as ‘High Risk’ in four areas:
The pattern continues under the four G Cloud and CCS Framework EFS metrics too, with The Key Group failing in two areas and ParentPay (Holdings) Ltd failing in one area:
What does all the above mean for schools and MATs when considering a new MIS provider?
Well, it means that they should, at the very least, explore the latest EFS metrics for any potential provider and take these into account when making their procurement decisions. It does not necessarily mean that any provider is unreliable or risky, but it is one further set of considerations that should be assessed when making significant procurement decisions.
The assessments discussed above are based on the default threshold metrics in the gov.uk template for a ‘Gold’ contract. The classification of a contract as Gold, Silver or Bronze is based on criteria such as the value, complexity and level of risk. Contracts involving sensitive information, health and safety, and critical operational control are frequently classified as ‘Gold’ due to their high-risk nature. Since a school MIS handles sensitive student data, including health information, and are absolutely critical for school operations, a Gold classification is appropriate. This is even more so for MATs and Local Authorities who manage large numbers of students and therefore large amounts of such sensitive student data, as well as relying on the MIS for central operational control.
