Skip to main content


Interpreting Table 9 of the KPMG costs of QA report

When I write my "wonk report reading tips" book one chapter will focus on the need to find a table where a graph hasn't been made and make graphs of it. Often it presents an interesting counter-narrative.

In this case table 9 of this report [,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/CosttoprovidersofQApractices/Cost-to_providers_of_QA_practices.pdf] details how institutions feel that a hypothetical removal of the quality code (basically a removal of all aspects of external QA) would affect their administrative burden in particular areas. There's more data in the table, but I've just graphed where institutions overall felt there would be less burden.

This graph suggests the biggest perceived burden of the current model is not linked to cyclical review exercises but the (annual) return of data to HEFCE, HESA and others.

As the report was released to support a HEFCE consultation proposing a more data-led system of QA this is, to say the least, a little awkward.