The number of schools switching MIS is at an all-time high and this trend looks set to continue (check out this previous blog for the reasons why and the movement we can expect to see in the future).

As schools are taking on new MIS all the time, it’s important for all suppliers of all school management software – be that the MIS itself or any one of the hundreds of products which sit alongside it – to understand what’s most important to schools when looking at alternatives.

In Spring 2021, The Key sent a survey to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England on the subject of MIS which produced some fascinating insights, including (amongst other things):

• What’s most important to schools when looking for an MIS, and how likely are they to move supplier
• How effective are MIS at saving schools time, and how well are schools supported
• How intuitive are MIS solutions for new users, and do they give schools the right tools for the job in terms of collaboration and data?

The Key sent out a similar survey in Spring 2022 so, using these results, we’ve been able to compare how opinions on MIS have changed and gain some insight into what schools might do in the future.

What it is that schools look for in a new MIS: what’s most important to them?

The surveys asked schools across England to prioritise what they felt was the most important factor in terms of price, support, functionality, integration, partnership and reputation when looking for a new supplier. The results are outlined below:

As you can see, the trend of what’s most important to schools is broadly unchanged but there are a couple of notable things here:

• Even in a world of huge budgetary pressure on schools, price has not scored as highly as last year. It’s still the second most important factor, but it’s interesting to see that functionality has not only remained the most important factor by far, but the percentage has increased too.

• Being a trusted procurement partner has become more important and has (only just!) overtaken reputation in terms of importance. This could well be a reflection of the way in which MATs prefer to work, as they often use trusted procurement partners to help select their school management software and technology. There are also a number of frameworks in place to help schools and MATs through the procurement process e.g. G-cloud, Everything ICT

How satisfied are schools with their MIS compared to last year?

In both 2021 and 2022, the survey asked respondents to rate how satisfied they were with their MIS, on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 10 being extremely satisfied. This graph shows that there are actually fewer schools towards the ‘Extremely satisfied’ end of the chart, and more are rating their satisfaction at 5 or lower (You can find the full results plus analysis by supplier on The Key’s blog here).

What could be causing schools to report that they are less satisfied than last year? There are a few possible explanations:

• Given so many schools have moved or are on the move at the moment, it’s likely that a number of respondents are in the MIS transition period which is always the most nerve-wracking time where the least satisfaction is felt.

• It’s possible that schools are feeling unhappy with their existing supplier if the contract and support terms have changed as this often puts them under pressure.

But it may be that this is an accurate reflection of how schools are feeling about MIS in the current environment, in which case it’s all suppliers should take note!

Ultimately, if schools are citing functionality as the main thing they look for in a new MIS, how confident are MIS suppliers that their functionality is truly meeting the needs of schools? Aside from the basics, what makes one stand out from the other?

What do you think users are looking for in their MIS?

What does it mean when we talk about MIS solutions being intuitive? The concept of something being ‘intuitive’ often gets mistaken for ‘basic’; there’s a belief that something is intuitive to use because it’s not rich functionally, but this is simply not the case. The smartphones we use today are some of the most sophisticated tech consumers have ever carried around – and they don’t come with instructions. We know how to use them because we’ve grown up with the more basic mobiles; one of the reasons we find them intuitive to use is because we learnt the old stuff the hard way!

Also, companies (in particular gaming companies) have identified ways to make it easy for us to use their systems using clever software such as WalkMe; the goal is to reduce friction and allow users to play games or use systems starting with the most basic flows, then introducing you to the more complicated features later.

It’s a similar story with MIS, but the idea that something will be hard to learn still holds people back when it comes to looking at alternatives – especially if their recollection of learning the existing system was painful.

It’s rarely the case though, and a good analogy here is that of learning to drive. You don’t have to re-take your driving test every time you get a new car.  You know how to drive already; you just need to find out what’s different in the new car and get used to using it.  It’s easy, and the new stuff is usually the best stuff (hello sat nav and park assist!)

It’s the same when you change your Management Information System.  You don’t need to go on lengthy training courses or re-learn from scratch. You know how to use an MIS already; you just need to find out what’s different in the new system and get used to using it.

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools asked, amongst other things, how intuitive their MIS is for new users.  The pie chart below summarises the responses:

The vast majority of respondents (38.15%) fell into the satisfied category which is good to see, with a further 25.34% taking the middle ground saying they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. However, what’s surprising here is that over a quarter of respondents (25.39%) said they were either dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied when asked how intuitive their MIS is for new users. It’s a worrying stat as no MIS supplier sets out to make a solution that’s prohibitively difficult to use.

According to the Interaction Design Foundation, members of the interdisciplinary research group Intuitive Use of User Interface offer the following definition of intuitive use:

“A technical system is—in a specific context of a user goal—intuitively usable to the degree the user is able to interact with it effectively by applying knowledge unconsciously.”

Based on this definition, there are a few reasons why respondents might not feel like their MIS is intuitive for new users:

• If the MIS you use now is the MIS you’ve always used, it’s likely that you may not consider it to be intuitive as you remember your first learning curve.
• Newer, SaaS MIS may be perceived as more intuitive as their users have used something previously so ‘know how to drive’ and won’t find it a challenge.
• Equally, solutions based on more recent technology will likely be easier to work with as they don’t have the old legacy-system hang-ups of having to navigate out of one module and into another. It will undoubtedly be an easier and more seamless experience.
• For brand new users, solutions built on more recent technology tend to require minimal training and are easier to learn. Older systems involved attending courses – which often made them all the more difficult to roll out to teaching staff given the time required.

The graph below shows a breakdown of the survey results for the ‘Big 5’ who, between them, they make up 96% of school market share² (namely Arbor, Bromcom, RM Integris, ScholarPack and SIMS):

Ultimately, how intuitive an MIS solution is perceived to be is down to a combination of things:

• How easy the solution is to access, and how quick it is to navigate
• How confident the user is with technology as a whole?
• How experienced the user is with MIS and the concepts of records, data dependencies and analysis
• How the user was introduced to the solution in the first place. For example:
  • Did they start the role when it was already in place, so they ‘had’ to use it? If so, what sort of intro did they have to the system?
  • Were they part of a team where the school started using a system for the first time? If so, what was their introduction to the MIS like?
• How well supported they are throughout, and the source of the support (local team, colleagues, provider, someone else?)

But most importantly of all, the concept of a solution being intuitive or not comes down to how well the product managers, designers and developers know their users, and how much time they spend listening and understanding.

The point is MIS users already know how to use intuitive software.  If they don’t have a basic understanding of how to use the MIS software by playing around with it for a few minutes then, as an MIS supplier, you’ve sadly missed the mark.  But if you work alongside your users on what’s important to them (and avoid the pitfall of developing something clever and technical just because you can), you can deliver a solution that users can take to without having to hesitate and wonder how they can execute an action.

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

²Market share statistics are sourced from two excellent blogs: Graham Reed’s Omega Pegasus https://www.omegapegasus.com/mischallenge and Josh Perry’s Bring More Data https://bringmoredata.blogspot.com/

One of the biggest changes to happen to the world of school MIS was the introduction of academies, starting back in the 2000s under the then Labour government, and becoming widespread following the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition Academies Act in 2010. The concept of schools becoming their own entities as academies and leaving Local Authority control had an effect on their MIS and support choices (which we’ve touched on in a previous blog), but it also created a whole new set of stakeholders: the Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) central team.

MAT central teams need certain things from an MIS which have not really been required before. It’s always been possible to aggregate data through feeds (this happens between schools and LA teams all the time) but MAT leaders need something completely different. They need a complete view of students and staff across the trust to enable collaboration, streamline communication and effectively target resources.

As a result, MIS suppliers have started to build MAT-focused functionality into their solutions and now offer a range of resources and dashboards aimed at making the lives of the MAT central teams easier.

It’s now been more than 10 years since the first MAT was formed so we wanted to explore how well MIS suppliers were meeting the specific needs of MATs.

A recent survey¹ asked 92 MAT central teams to rate how satisfied they were with their MIS from 1-10, where 1 is “Extremely dissatisfied” and 10 is “Extremely satisfied”. Their scores are outlined below; you can see that satisfaction is generally pretty good with the majority scoring their MIS a 7, and only a few MATs giving a score of 4 or less.

Chart: MAT Satisfaction rating of their MIS from 1-10, where 1 is “Extremely dissatisfied” and 10 is “Extremely satisfied”.

The survey asked respondents to briefly explain why they gave that rating, and the running theme amongst those who gave a perfect 10 was ease of use.

The survey delves into more detail. When asked about how satisfied they were with their MIS’ ability to provide actionable information, which is so crucial to trust central teams, they appear to be largely happy in this area. The biggest group (37.6%) responded saying were satisfied with what their MIS provides. It’s worth noting though that around 19% said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and a further 26% combined stated they were Dissatisfied or Extremely Satisfied. Would this be a reason for an academy trust to look for alternate solutions in the future? Maybe.

Question: How satisfied are you with the extent to which the MIS provides actionable information?

However, when asked how satisfied they are with the Trust-specific functionality their MIS offers, the results tell a different story. The majority of respondents said that they were Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (28.26%), followed very closely by those saying they were Extremely Dissatisfied (27.17%):

Question: How satisfied are you with the Trust-specific functionality your MIS offers?

The fact that over a quarter of all respondents said they were Extremely Dissatisfied with trust-focused functionality should set off alarm bells with MIS suppliers. Trust-focused functionality always forms a key part of the requirements when MATs go to tender for an MIS, and it feels like there’s still work to do in this area.

In a previous thought leader session Nick recorded with Rowena Hackwood, CEO at Astrea Academy Trust, they discussed this topic in more detail. Rowena’s challenge for all suppliers, not just MIS, is for them to move towards creating solutions that work for a new customer base who need a different point of view:

“Increasingly in the sector, there is a move towards stronger and more sustainable groups of schools, which isn’t a national strategy for every school to be in a MAT, but it is a national strategy for every school to be part of a more sustainable group, as it were. And it’s absolutely critical that, in your thinking, you have that in mind.

The kind of MAT dashboards that I want to be able to share with trustees align academic attainment and attendance data on the one hand, with HR, finance, governance, performance, on the other hand, and I don’t have any means at a MAT level to really draw all of those different elements in together. So my challenge, I think, to you is to move away from a school by school understanding of the English school system towards one where a huge chunk of the customer base needs a different point of view.”

Rowena Hackwood, CEO at Astrea Academy Trust

Ultimately, most of the MIS have the ability to offer reporting and insight in one way or another, using tools such as Power BI; it’s more a question of how easy and integrated these systems are, and the extent to which they provide the data the central teams need. It’s the central management issue that MATs would really like to see supported by their MIS providers, and the better they are able to help with this, the more MATs will want to work with suppliers as long-term partners across the trust.

What do you see as the main differences between what academies need vs what MAT central teams need? Do you think there’s a need for an MIS which has been built with MAT central teams in mind as the primary user (similar to IMP in creating a finance system)?

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all multi academy trusts (with two or more schools) in England, by email. These surveys were split by trusts that had just one MIS across the group of schools, and trusts that used multiple MIS suppliers. It was not sent to trusts in the independent sector. The survey was completed by central team staff such as CEOs, COOs, CFOs and others involved in MIS operations, between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

Schools are choosing to move MIS more than they ever have before. There are plenty of options out there ranging from client-based to cloud, multi-phase to age-specific, and outcome-focused to all-in-one solutions.

The reasons schools choose to move in the first place are varied. Many convert to academies and sometimes they join a trust where a different MIS is in use so they switch as part of the joining process. Other times, they’ll use their change of status to academy as an opportunity to look at the MIS options available to them now that they are no longer under LA control.

Maintained schools are switching MIS too. For many, the traditional model of them being able to buy into an LA-purchased and supported MIS is disappearing as councils no longer retain budget or mandate solutions. For some, they never participated in the LA arrangement, choosing to do their own thing and looking at the market on a regular basis anyway.

But what it is that schools look for in a new MIS? What’s most important to them?

A recent survey¹ of 2,146 schools across England asked them to prioritise what they felt was the most important factor in terms of price, support, functionality, integration, partnership and reputation when looking for a new supplier. The results are outlined below:

Functionality was identified as the most important factor at just over 57%, with price coming second and integration a close third, within a couple of percentage of each other.

It makes sense that functionality would come out as the most important factor amongst schools. Ultimately there are certain functions an MIS has to perform to be fit for purpose, such as census which they all do, but there are a huge amount of processes and insights provided by your MIS which schools rely on every day.

The fact that the amount of respondents who said that price was the most important factor to them is fairly similar to the number of respondents who said that integration with other products was the most important factor to them tells an interesting story.

Without a doubt, schools are looking for best value when it comes to MIS, but this doesn’t necessarily mean cheapest. Equally, there is a drive to consolidate systems for sure, but schools don’t want this to at the expense of losing something else they might be using which is incredibly valuable to them; they want to be able to use the best of what’s available to them on the market so integration across solutions is important to them.

(It’s interesting as a similar survey was conducted amongst MAT leaders and, in that survey, functionality scored a much higher percentage; they seemed to be even less sensitive to price and gave more weight to how the product worked – presumably as there are specific MIS needs in trusts. We’ll cover this in another blog).

So, given that the majority of schools cite functionality as the main thing they’re looking for in a new MIS, the next question is: how happy are they with their existing MIS and how likely are they to move?

The survey asked respondents to rate how satisfied they were with their MIS, on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 10 being extremely satisfied. The results are below, and the vast majority of suppliers got an average score of 6 or above:

It also asked how likely respondents are to move in the next 12 months, as outlined in the pie chart below:

Around 64% in total said they were either ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’ to move MIS in the next 12 months, so it seems almost two-thirds of schools are either happy with what they’ve got, or don’t see moving MIS as a priority in the next 12 months.

That said, 311 respondents, which is just over 14%, said they were either ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to move in the next 12 months – if this is a reflection across the whole market then we can expect lots of movement from one MIS to another in the next year or so.

Ultimately, if schools are citing functionality as the main thing they look for in a new MIS, how confident are MIS suppliers that their functionality is truly meeting the needs of schools? Aside from the basics, what makes one stand apart from the other?  We’ll be exploring this, amongst other things, in more detail in subsequent posts and would love to hear your views; what do you think users are you looking for in their MIS?

¹The data was collected by The Key from a survey that went out to all primary, secondary, special schools and pupil referral units in England, by email. It was not sent to independent schools. The survey was completed by Headteachers, Deputy and Assistant Heads, and School Business Managers / Leaders between 29 March and 27 April 2021.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked which MIS they use. The results are outlined below:

The product sells itself.  How many times have you been told this, or heard it from a manager, or even thought it yourself of the product you’ve created?  In saying this, the thinking is that the product is simply so good that once the customer sees how it works they will definitely buy it.

This is a dangerous phrase for two reasons.  Firstly, no matter how good your product is, if you as a business don’t spend the necessary time engaging with your clients and understanding what’s important to them they won’t even look at your product.  Secondly, even if your potential customer does spend some time looking at your product, they’re not going to buy it based on how it works, they’re going to make a buying decision based on what it does for them.  For example, people and businesses don’t choose to buy a piece of software based on how the buttons work, they buy it based on the fact that it improves outcomes, save time, or simplifies a difficult task.  The product doesn’t sell itself – it’s the business that sells the outcomes that using that product can achieve.

Sales strategy should not be about describing how the product works, but about communicating the value proposition – how the product is going to help your client – and you’ll find that getting this right will open the door to far more sales opportunities than a simple product overview.