1. AUA-SPA Applicant Experience Network
25 June 2013
Janet Graham, Director of SPA and Network Co-ordinator and
Nick Bhugeloo, Head of Applicant Services, Kingston University

2. What is SPA?
 Set up in 2006 following the Schwartz Report Fair Admissions to
Higher Education: Recommendations for Good Practice 2004
“ The Group recommends the creation of a central source of
expertise and advice on admissions issues. Its purpose would
be to act as a resource for institutions who wish to maintain and
enhance excellence in admissions. Such a centre could lead the
continuing development of fair admissions, evaluating and
commissioning research, and spreading best practice.”
 UK’s independent, fully funded (generally free at the point of
delivery) and objective voice on fair HE admissions
 Small team, but with relevant practical and strategic experience

3. “Equal opportunity for all
individuals, regardless of
background, to gain
admission to a course
suited to their ability and
aspirations.”
What is Fair Admissions?
1. be transparent
2. enable institutions to select students who are able
to complete the course as judged by their
achievements and their potential
3. strive to use assessment methods that are reliable
and valid
4. seek to minimise barriers to applicants
5. be professional in every respect and underpinned by
appropriate institutional structures and processes

4. Who delivers the applicant experience?
Pre-application
enquirers
potential applicants
Outreach/ WP
Application
study choices
Post-application
selection; offers
accepted applicants
unsuccessful applicants
Transition
confirmation
induction
enrolment
Retention and graduation
?
Student Services
Teaching & Learning
Admissions
Schools’ and Colleges’
Liaison
WP/Outreach
Marketing
Student Records
Planning

5. The applicant experience www.spa.ac.uk/applicant-experience
 Built under four broad stages
 Adopted a behavioural view of ‘experience’
Interactive participation and engagement,
not a passive journey
 Linked and underpinned through effective
information, advice and guidance
pre-
application
application
post-
application
transition
sing

6. The applicant experience
A good applicant experience
 is mutually beneficial to both the
applicant and the higher education
provider
 prepares, informs and provides
equality of opportunity to enter
higher education
 should accurately match the
student’s aims, abilities and
aspirations with the character of the
institution.
 therefore improves student retention
and enhances the strategic mission
of the institution
A poor applicant experience
 is inherently detrimental to both the
applicant and the higher education
provider – both lose out
 perpetuates barriers to entry
 disengages potential applicants and
their advisors
 risks incongruence between student
expectations and institutional character
 therefore embeds an enrolment strategy
leading to unfulfilled potential and
increased drop-out

7. The Applicant Experience: collaborative integrated strategy
monitor
measure
institution mission
and values
strategic aims policies
pre-application stage
processes
application stage
processes
post-application
stage processes
transition stage
processes
key
interactions
linking
interactions
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
key
interactions
key
interactions
key
interactions
linking
interactions
linking
interactions
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
IPG integrated
practitioner
groups /
communities
enablers (staff; systems; funds)

8. The Applicant Experience Strategy
 Strategic leadership in admissions is integral to an institution’s learning
and teaching strategy, management and planning.
 SPA’s view is that an applicant experience strategy underpins the student
experience, it supports the management and processes of both academic
and professional staff.
 The benefits for the institution should be
 more integrated ways of working, with possible efficiency gains
 enhanced staff professionalism and understanding of strategy
 improved quality practices and procedures which may give competitive
advantage, enhance reputation and aid retention
 ability to take advantage of external changes quickly
 The benefits for the applicant: transparency, a better experience

9. Welcome
9

10. Content
Part 1 – Paperless
Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
10
Something you might find interesting.....

11. Part 1 – Paperless
• When?
• Why?
• How?
• Impact on applicants’ experience
11

12. Part 1 – Paperless
When?
Phased approach
2006 – Paperlite
2009 – Paperless
2011 – Paperlite confirmation
2012 – Paperless confirmation
2013 – Paperless clearing 12

13. Part 1 – Paperless
Why?
a)Statutory requirement – UCAS - This will take effect
for students commencing in Academic Year 2014-15
b)Green agenda
Consider the environmental impact of just 10 million pages:
2,500 trees
56,000 gallons of oil
450 cubic yards of landfill space
595,000 KW (kilowatts) of energy
(Data Source: www.epa.gov)
c) Financial
Cost associated with handling paper based admissions (post, printers, ink)
Human resource inputs to handle the shuffling of paper
Cost of paper
Volume of applications
13

14. Part 1 – Paperless
Why?
d) Position in the market place (ranking / application
volumes)
Areas where we could make a difference (quick fix)
Application volumes - +40,000
Vision - paying ‘customers’ and perceived expectations that come with it...
14

15. Part 1 – Paperless
Why?
e)End user/customer or applicant’ experience
The voice of the applicants ....
Nearly 80% of our applicants expect a decision within 30 working days
15

16. Part 1 – Paperless
How?
• What tools were available to us then: online application – now web-link, SRS,
electronic data transfer
• First step 2007– cut back on paper usage from the centre– no UCAS paper forms –
use of summary form (A4)
• Step 2 (2008/2009) – replacement of printed summary form with word document.
• Step 3 (2010 / 2012)– replaced word document with share-point lists – ability to
manage workflows and document management capabilities within the list.
• On-going work with Tribal to find a suitable CRM solution for the future
16

17. Part 1 – Paperless
Impact
• Applicants’ experience
• Financial
• Staff experience
• Contribution to the performance indicators
17

18. Part 1 – Paperless
Impact
• Applicants’ experience
18

19. Part 1 – Paperless
Impact
• Financial
Efficiency gains over 3 years (30% per year on paper, ink, human resource costs)
2009-10 to now – cost relating to admissions processing = null
19

20. Part 1 – Paperless
Impact
• Staff experience
Reliance on print copies & infrastructure around them
Reliance on post
Minimised risk of paper forms/summary forms getting lost
More room – less cabinets to hold paper forms
• Contribution to the performance indicators
To be covered in part 2
• Challenges?
20

21. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
• When?
• Why?
• How?
• Impact on applicants’ experience
21

22. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
22

23. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
23

24. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
When?
Managing performance of our decision times / turnaround
times from 2005
Measures include:
 % application processed at a given point by faculty and by central or
faculty decision.
% on-time decisions (Faculty / centre – interview & non-interview courses)
 Number of days to decision
24

25. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
Why?
Ensure that we are providing the best possible /
optimum service to our applicants
Our positioning does not allow us to ignore this key
indicator
It is a nice thing to do – courteousness to our
customers – they feel valued
To remain competitive
25

26. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
How?
2005 -Measure performance without any
indicators (where we are?)
2005 – 2006 Disseminate the information
Institution-wide
2006 -7 Agree turnaround times targets
2006 Monthly bulletin –providing colleagues
with an update on performance ( name and
shame? ) 26

27. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
Impact on applicants’ experience
27
What would have been the result on application numbers if we did not address the turnaround
times of decisions?

28. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
Our position V sector
28

29. Part 2 – SLA decision turnaround times
Work in progress
• The development of a CRM solution to fit the
current context
• The implementation of such solution together with
the response times would lead to an improved
conversion across all programmes at Kingston.
29

30. 30
THANK YOU
Contact details:
Nick Bhugeloo
E-mail : n.bhugeloo@kingston.ac.uk

31. Want more about the applicant experience?
 More detail on the SPA website:
www.spa.ac.uk/applicant-experience
 Share your experience or become a case study institution, working
with SPA
Talk to Dan Shaffer, Head of Professionalism in Admissions at SPA,
d.shaffer@spa.ac.uk Tel 01242 544895
 Join the SPA-AUA Applicant Experience Network:
http://www.aua.ac.uk/pigroups-1-Applicant-Experience.html