Jordan Banks commented, 14 April 2025 09:28

Hi Su, We use it too and have a smaller provision than that.  I've seen some demonstrations of alternatives over the years, and whilst some have nice features, I've not seen anything that makes me want to switch away.   It is a system that is capable of doing a lot more than we use it for so some areas are more complex and long winded than I'd like, but all our users get on with it fine - including those who just use it for viewing dashboards or processing forms. We use the form capture feature to obtain our learning agreements and change requests including obtaining signatures remotely.  We use the surveys to send periodic requests to learners and employers.  We use dashboards to monitor our KPIs and QAR, though I would like to see some development in this area to make it more powerful.  We use the reporting feature (including scheduled reports) pretty much constantly and this is powerful with good options for filters and the ability to export every (I think) field.  The reconciliation tools to check the indicative reports, period end reports and QAR are a huge time-saver. There are small frustrations with each thing, something we can't quite do the way we want it, but usually find work-arounds and development on the system is pretty good.   The biggest selling point for me is their service desk.  Probably the best support I've experienced in my 26 years across a few industries, who have helped me utilise the system with queries on QAR, funding, reconciliations - pretty much everything I've thrown at them. Feel free to ask anything else.. Many thanks  

1. OneAdvanced LMS - PICS

Hi Su, We use it too and have a smaller provision than that.  I've seen some demonstrations of alternatives over the years, and whilst some have nice features, I've not seen anything that makes me ...

Jordan Banks commented, 04 February 2025 10:09

My dashboard now shows data for R05 (updated 21/01/25).  Still no employer or apprentice feedback figures though and the QAR still shows the same data, though if I click on the "NEW" button in the QAR tile I get to see my QAR from 22/23 broken down..  It's something I guess..

1. Accountability Framework Dashboard - still R14

My dashboard now shows data for R05 (updated 21/01/25).  Still no employer or apprentice feedback figures though and the QAR still shows the same data, though if I click on the "NEW" button in the ...

Jordan Banks commented, 09 January 2025 11:09

My dashboard shows data from the same period as you, I raised a query on the Customer Help Portal yesterday and they replied today with: We have checked this with the team and they have advised that there is a planned update at the end of the month for QAR. However, they are not sure when the whole dashboard will be updated for 24-25 yet - don’t have any specific dates or timescales yet. But Providers will be updated as soon as we have further information about this.  

1. Accountability Framework Dashboard - still R14

My dashboard shows data from the same period as you, I raised a query on the Customer Help Portal yesterday and they replied today with: We have checked this with the team and they have advised th...

Jordan Banks commented, 05 March 2024 16:58

I got the exact same response and drew the same conclusion. It's disappointing to see that second paragraph, especially in a blanket email - it would take 20 seconds to look at the formulas on the OTJ calculator and realise that it doesn't do what they say it does (it rounds weekly hours, overall duration in weeks, and statutory leave).

1. OTJT hours calculator

I got the exact same response and drew the same conclusion. It's disappointing to see that second paragraph, especially in a blanket email - it would take 20 seconds to look at the formulas on the ...

Jordan Banks commented, 22 February 2024 17:04

I have also raised this with the ESFA help-desk asking to confirm the other rounding rules.  The guidance states statutory leave should not be rounded, but on the calculator it is (but only in the final formula).  The calculator also rounds working hours per week to the nearest whole number but I cannot see that in the guidance either. The rounding of statutory holiday does result in minimum hour calculation discrepancies for programmes where sometimes the guidance will be higher than the calculator, and sometimes not (i.e. programmes of length 382 to 388 days, 424 to 430 days, 480 to 486 days - it gets worse after 580 days).  [Edit - changed "working hours" to "working hours per week" in first paragraph]

1. OTJT hours calculator

I have also raised this with the ESFA help-desk asking to confirm the other rounding rules.  The guidance states statutory leave should not be rounded, but on the calculator it is (but only in the ...

Jordan Banks commented, 06 December 2023 16:04

Hi, I can't see the equivalent in the 23/24 rules, but for the 22/23 employer rules, guidance for what happens with a change of provider is: E289 Both the employer and new main provider must:  E289.1 Negotiate a new price, as set out in these funding rules. If funded by a transfer, both the sending and receiving employers will need to agree the new apprenticeship in the apprenticeship service; and  E289.2 Update the apprenticeship service with the new price, new main provider and effective date.  E289.3 If funded via reserved funds you must contact the apprenticeship service support desk.  The technical funding guidance (rules 241 to 245) confirm that you should account for what's been claimed by the previous provider.  Thus the only requirement I see is that the total claim between all providers cannot exceed the maximum.  No requirement to consider prior RPL at the outset. We follow the same process as for new starts.  Complete an RPL assessment to determine OTJ and calculate the base price from there.  We attempt to ensure this doesn't exceed the maximum funding band by either confirming the original TNP with the employer or assuming maximum claim from the previous provider.  But if you can't do this and do go over, your month end reports should tell you how much over the max funding band you are, and then you can re-negotiate a price with the employer based on that (otherwise they will have to pay the difference as you say).  If the learner was behind schedule with the previous provider, then yes, we will likely take a small hit with funding. @Sue: In terms of the Apprenticeship Service, has the employer transferred the original record to the new provider, or created a brand new record?  This webinar (https://youtu.be/P1uwaLYLg38?t=2747) indicates that after a transfer, you only need enter a start date and new price, but it may be outdated or the provider end may differ. Hope this helps..

1. RPL - Transfer from another provider

Hi, I can't see the equivalent in the 23/24 rules, but for the 22/23 employer rules, guidance for what happens with a change of provider is: E289 Both the employer and new main provider must:  E28...

Jordan Banks commented, 06 December 2023 13:17

The collection requirements in the ILR specification for this field do not require it to be completed for Funding Model 99: https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/23-24/ilr/entity/LearningDelivery/field/AchDate It doesn't explain the why though.  But to eliminate the errors I would assume you just don't enter an achievement date. The logic behind the rule itself can be viewed here: https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/23-24/ilr/appendices  On the Learning Delivery Rules tab, row 190.  This confirms that entering an achievement date for an apprenticeship that started after 31/07/2015 with a funding model of 99 will trigger the error.

1. Unfunded Completion

The collection requirements in the ILR specification for this field do not require it to be completed for Funding Model 99:https://guidance.submit-learner-data.service.gov.uk/23-24/ilr/entity/Learn...

Jordan Banks commented, 06 December 2023 12:17

Hi, The funding rules require a price reduction where training content is omitted from the training plan (rule 29).  If there's no reduction in OTJ, then there's no need to reduce the price for this reason.  If there's no reduction in OTJ, then on the Apprenticeship Service you would select "No" to the RPL question. You can still proceed with the £60 discount, as prices can be negotiated with the employer, but the justification can't be linked to a reduction in training.  As you point out, on a 12 month programme there cannot be any reduction in OTJ otherwise the minimum duration requirement will not be met (there are 4 exceptions to the minimum duration requirement stated in rule 66 but this situation is not one). Our shortest apprenticeship is 13 months, so we don't run into this issue ourselves.  If a learner has too much RPL for that 13 month course, then it no longer becomes suitable for them and we look at the higher level version.  We also have a fixed method for determining starting prices and course durations: 1) An RPL assessment determines amount of OTJ hours required to be delivered.  Programmes elements are broken down into hours and those required are totalled to determine overall OTJ (this has to be over 278, see rule 73.3) 2) The OTJ requirement is used to calculate the total price as per rules 29.2.1 and 29.2.2 (deduct half of the RPL percentage from the funding band maximum).  This is the maximum funding price for the apprenticeship that is the basis for rest of the negotiation. 3) Determine the duration of the course by dividing the total hours by how much OTJ the learner can complete each week.  Ensure that minimum durations are met and that the amount of OTJ given per week by the employer is at least 20% of their working hours (capped at 30). Hope this helps..

1. RPL - 12 Month Apprenticeship

Hi, The funding rules require a price reduction where training content is omitted from the training plan (rule 29).  If there's no reduction in OTJ, then there's no need to reduce the price for thi...