There’s been a huge amount of change in the school MIS sector in the last 5 years. The make-up of MIS market share is completely turning on its head, and the landscape continues to move towards one where academisation dominates and the number of maintained schools gets smaller each year.

 

It can feel like a scary time for a lot of teams; over the years some have ceased to exist as they just weren’t sustainable for their local authorities. Others have grown and gotten stronger, sometimes joining up with neighbouring teams or striking out on their own as separate commercial entities. The school support market continues to be an exciting market with lots of opportunities – something many private equity companies can see as they acquire in this sector.

 

We’re often asked what’s next for support teams, so in this blog, we’ve outlined what to avoid and what to try and focus on instead.

While it may not be possible to make all these changes immediately, it’s worth having a plan for what the edtech and school management landscape might look like in 3-5 years’ time. What will your value and unique offer be as a team? Will your revenue be dependent on certain suppliers and, if so, what are the potential consequences?  Owning your own destiny is about ensuring your revenue is not tied to suppliers, but instead to all the value your offer outside of product support.

Try not to be too dependent on financial incentives that come from suppliers for signing your schools up to their products.

 

Being able to achieve revenue from school management suppliers via favourable licence deals, rebates and referral fees has been the traditional model for some time. However, it’s a risky strategy for support teams in the future:

 

• They can be pulled very easily by the supplier once you’ve got all your schools on their product – many support teams will likely have experienced something like this. Incentives provide a revenue stream in the short term, but it can easily be threatened.

 

• A big part of your uniqueness and value as a Support Team is that you’re independent and trusted, but this standpoint can be challenged on ethical grounds if you suggest one solution above all others based on financial kickbacks/incentives.

 

• Being a support partner for solutions can often result in a financial rebate from the supplier (in the case of MIS this is usually around 20% of the annual subscription price for all those with support partner programmes in place) but what happens if this arrangement is pulled in the future? What you offer schools is far more than just product support. You support the processes, not the products, and your SLAs and services can really focus on the additional value you provide over and above user support in a way that supplier SLAs cannot.

 

So how will you adapt your team and your business to be a truly agnostic and independent partner to your schools? Here are our ideas:

 

1. Continue to advocate on behalf of your schools and seek the best value for them.

 

As a support team, you are still your schools’ no. 1 point of contact for most things and will often have a close relationship with them spanning many years (or even decades!). This is so important to schools; these strong relationships are built on trust and there are many ways you can ensure their best interests are at the centre of what you do:

 

• Helping coordinate aggregated purchases means you can access discounts for your schools which can be passed back directly to the schools, ensuring they get the best value.

 

• Being the provider of support for those solutions means you can offer an enhanced SLA to schools which is much more than just product support; it helps them use the solution as part of their overall SDP which provides them with far better value.

 

• Support teams are able to help schools navigate the procurement process which might feel daunting for schools on an individual level. Helping your schools through a well-thought-out procurement process can make a huge difference to them—both financially, by releasing cashable savings, and by maximizing social benefits for your schools and the wider community.

 

 

2. Look for more ways to add value, new ways to help your schools and create additional partnerships.

 

It’s hard to survive as a team if you only offer IT support, even harder if your support is limited solely to MIS. There are tons of technology-enabled systems and services required by schools and only a fraction of these is usually delivered within an MIS (see below):

Original image courtesy of Chris Kirk, CJK Associates

 

Consider:

• Are there other staff-related areas you could support such as HR or payroll? If so, have you considered a partnership with an excellent software solution such as Fusion/SAM People?

 

• Are there other operational school management areas you could support such as safety and compliance? Have you considered creating a channel partnership with a supplier such as iAM Compliant to add value for your schools?

 

• Could the range of school management-related services be extended if you were to work in partnership with other support teams across the country? We’re seeing more and more teams work together in order to be able to deliver a personalised service to their local schools, but also to the MATs they support which often span the width and breadth of the UK. Teams such as OSMIS and SCOMIS do just this to provide an exceptional level of support to their schools and help them use their MIS to truly improve outcomes.

 

• Could you elevate your conversations to truly understand the pain Heads and MAT leaders experience and support their School Development Plan or the MAT strategic plan? This could be through getting the best out of technology, becoming more sustainable, reducing the cost of ownership, automating processes, getting more out of the data – the list goes on.

 

Support Teams offer so much to schools, academies and Trusts in the way that they help reduce friction for them. You can do everything from uncovering awareness of needs, understanding their portfolio of all solutions and making recommendations and driving usage, to helping the procurement process, supporting transitioning and onboarding, ensuring MATs/schools are getting the greatest value from the solution and supporting schools to hit their climate and net-zero targets.

 

Owning your own destiny is about ensuring the revenue you generate is in your hands, not the hands of product suppliers. There are tons of brilliant ideas out there which will help make it a possibility; in this blog, we’ve listed just a few but we’re always happy to share best practices so get in touch if you’d like to discuss.

 

Interesting to learn today that the CMA has now confirmed they are investigating ESS SIMS on the issue surrounding 3-year contracts.

As schools will be aware, they were required to sign a new 3-year contract directly with ESS by the end of last month if they want to keep using SIMS. What ESS has also said is that there is a 6-month break clause, so if schools do want to move to another supplier then they are free to do so, they just need to let ESS know before the end of September 2022 to leave the contract.

The big question is: is this long enough to conduct the necessary market testing exercise, and go through a satisfactory procurement process, in order to decide if staying with SIMS for the next 3-years is the right thing for your school?

Many schools have told the CMA that it isn’t long enough which has prompted the formal investigation to allow them to consider this matter properly.

Realistically, when a school has used a solution for several years, it does take time to properly assess the alternatives out there. There’s so much more to it than simply ‘getting quotes’ from providers. It involves taking a fresh look at how everyone utilises their MIS:

– What we would like an MIS system to achieve?
– What are our top priorities as a school?
– Is there a way of improving how we do things?
– How have solutions innovated and improved since we last looked at the market?

It was around last Autumn when schools were made aware of the new contract arrangements. The question around the procurement process is a tricky one. Physically making the purchase can be done quickly (there are frameworks, etc. out there) but undertaking a proper market testing exercise involving all the stakeholders in school is a LOT harder.

 

Any procurement process needs to be rigorous, and any decision justifiable as it can be challenged. And, should the school choose to switch MIS, adequate time needs to be available for a successful implementation.

 

It doesn’t help that, if a school has used one system for a long time (which tends to be the case for LA schools) they’re really starting from scratch. A lot of innovation has happened in the last 10 years alone; there’s no way of understanding what’s out there until you’ve had the chance to really dig into the possibilities. Creating requirements for an MIS can be equally challenging; just because something’s “always been done that way” doesn’t mean they want to continue with that process.

 

And then there is the implementation to consider. This is an area MIS suppliers have invested in like crazy so it’s possible to get a school up and running on their system really quickly. But there does need to be a plan for how the changeover will be managed. These are systems that are not just used by one or two people in school, they are used by operational staff, teachers, SLT and parents.

 

It’s also very difficult for schools to be able to look at things on a truly like-for-like basis as so much has changed. For example, it’s pretty usual for a SIMS school to have bought into the core MIS (inc. support from their LA team) and then, over the years, purchase additional modules to meet different needs (e.g. to manage dinner money, or offer an online payment solution, or a texting solution, or an app for parents/students, etc.). The more modern MIS solutions don’t usually require all these extra modules or products to be purchased at all, they tend to be part of the core MIS as standard and the whole thing is cloud-based so it’s a seamless, complete solution.  But this means it can leave schools with an even more complex procurement ahead when they realise there are far more factors at play  – and better potential savings to be made.

 

(What’s also interesting is that, as part of its investigation, the CMA has said they will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how SIMS is being sold alongside FMS – check out our separate post on this thorny issue.)

 

What do you think? How long should a school allocate to procuring their school management system?

If you’ve gone through a procurement process, what’s your advice?

What options are open to schools when it comes to financial management solutions?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating whether ESS SIMS is abusing a dominant position to push schools into accepting a new 3-year contract.  What’s interesting here is that, as part of its investigation, the CMA has said they will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how SIMS is being sold alongside FMS.

 

The press release from the CMA says:

“As part of its investigation, the CMA will also consider the pricing of some ESS product packages – specifically, it will look at how ESS’s management information system product is being sold alongside its financial management software. This could encourage customers to buy both products and deter customers moving away from ESS.

The CMA is concerned that, by adopting such a pricing strategy, market players that only offer one of these services may be unable to compete, potentially leading to an uncompetitive market in future.”

How ARE schools handling what they do in terms of a finance package when they switch to a new MIS?

Product functionality and data extraction aside, one of the biggest challenges schools always used to face around FMS was how costly it was to buy it directly from ESS (then Capita) if you want to buy it as a standalone product. e.g. not bundled with the MIS via an LA-wide deal.

For many, the new total annual cost of an MIS + finance solution would simply be driven too high to justify the change so they stayed with their existing systems.

But as schools choose to move to new MIS solutions, what are they choosing as their finance system?

Is signing into a multi-year contract for your MIS a good thing?

If it’s something you’ve actively chosen to do as a school, academy or trust then, yes, it’s a great idea. It means you’ve had the chance to look at the options out there, and you’ve asked your suppliers for three-, four- or five-year pricing to guarantee a bit of budget certainty for the future.

If a multi-year contract is something you’ve had sprung on you in the small print – leaving you a very short window to either agree or cancel – well, it’s unlikely to be very popular. No one appreciates feeling like they’re being backed into a corner ☹

An unforeseen change in contract terms like this poses all sorts of questions for everyone involved in MIS:

❓ How does this affect the relationships schools have with the local support teams out there whom they’ve worked with and accessed their MIS licence through for years? It leaves Support Teams having to manage a difficult message from the MIS provider.

❓ How does this affect how Support Teams work with suppliers? More and more Support Teams have moved to be a multi-MIS support team, choosing to support their schools irrespective of the systems they use as opposed to only offering one option. All of the ‘big 5’ MIS have established Support Partner programmes (some useful links are below), as well as many of the newer entrants to the sector.

❓ How does this affect everyone (both schools and LAs) in terms of meeting procurement rules? Does everyone now need to get quotes and go through a tender process to even just stay with the MIS they already use?

❓ As academisation continues, what happens when a Local Authority maintained school is tied into a multi-year contract that converts to an academy?

Lots to think about which will hopefully become clearer soon.

 

If you’re a school, academy or trust and you’re affected by this and are wondering what to do, I’ve seen lots of posts on this already but it seems like the best advice is:

• Remember, YOU are the customer, so don’t be afraid of looking at alternatives and moving as it can all happen a lot quicker and easier than you think. Everyone is well-versed in migrating data from your system and it’s possible to be up and running very quickly.

 

• If there’s too much time pressure to look into things right now, don’t feel you have to lock in for a further three years, but do definitely contact your supplier to negotiate an alternative term length. They may be open to shorter contracts in the face of schools cancelling altogether, and this will give you time to plan for 2022.

 

• Talk to people! Get in touch with your local MIS support team if you use one, or with any of the MIS companies directly. They are all friendly and knowledgeable and will walk you through everything you need to know (or send a message to me or Nick as we’re more than happy to introduce you).

 

‘Big 5’ Support Partner programme links:

RM Integris https://www.rm.com/products/rm-integris/partner

Bromcom https://www.bromcom.com/LA-partners

Arbor https://arbor-education.com/become-a-partner/

Scholarpack https://scholarpack.com/who-we-help/support-partners/

ESS SIMS https://www.ess-sims.co.uk/products-and-services/sims-support-units