FIS 008 and the Access extract

Home Forums Data issues FIS 008 and the Access extract

This topic contains 16 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Chris, SFA 5 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author

  • Anonymous

    FIS 008 for 2014/15 appears to include a revised Access mdb extract which truncates (not rounds) all the values to whole pounds, so that (say) an OPP which appears in in the SQL server database as 73.8480 is held in the mdb as 73.00. The corresponding fields are LearningDelSFAFundPeriod. OnProgPayment_ACMn in the SQL server database and ILR1415_LearningDelSFAFundPeriod. OnProgPayment in the mdb; it’s the latter field which is truncated.

    I’ve mailed the Service Desk, but thought other FIS users might wish to know this.


    Martin West

    Yes I can confirm they have screwed it up again with this unannounced release of update 008.
    What can you say except to remind them again to test the software before they release it?


    Caspar Verney

    Many thanks to Luke for this heads up.

    Isn’t user testing part and parcel of how this works?

    Anyway thanks to the agile development programme we can expect this to be resolved within 2 weeks, if not sooner.


    Simon Cruddace

    It looks to me like a lot of other tables have had the same change applied where before numeric fields had 5 decimal places, a lot of them now have 0. ILR1415_LearnerEFAFunding for example all the uplifts and payment amounts are affected.


    Martin West

    Yes I found that this issue was common to all EFA and SFA funding.
    I would have expected the SFA to have responded to this issue as it is fundamental to funding reporting from the mdb.


    Simon Cruddace

    They’ve added a new task in the manifest.xml to create the tables. There are 25 extra sql scripts in a schema folder under the extract data\access section of the component set files.
    Before they just did a “select * into …” which created the tables, now they create them then “insert into…”
    They’ve not specified any scale on the decimal fields in the create scripts so they get zero decimal places, these are the tables/fields affected


    5 AreaCostFact1618Hist DECIMAL,
    6 Block1DisadvUpliftNew DECIMAL,
    8 PrvDisadvPropnHist DECIMAL,
    9 FullTimeEquiv DECIMAL,
    15 NatRate DECIMAL,
    16 OnProgPayment DECIMAL,
    19 ProgWeightHist DECIMAL,
    20 ProgWeightNew DECIMAL,
    23 PrvRetentFactHist DECIMAL,
    24 RetentNew DECIMAL,


    7 ALBSupportPayment DECIMAL,
    8 AreaUpliftBalPayment DECIMAL,
    9 AreaUpliftOnProgPayment DECIMAL,


    10 ALBCode DECIMAL,
    12 AreaCostFactAdj DECIMAL,
    13 AreaCostInstalment DECIMAL,
    19 WeightedRate DECIMAL,
    21 ALBSupportPayment DECIMAL,
    22 AreaUpliftBalPayment DECIMAL,
    23 AreaUpliftOnProgPayment DECIMAL,


    4 OnProgPayment_ACM1 DECIMAL,
    5 OnProgPayment_ACM2 DECIMAL,
    6 OnProgPayment_ACM3 DECIMAL,
    7 OnProgPayment_ACM4 DECIMAL,
    8 OnProgPayment_ACM5 DECIMAL,
    9 OnProgPayment_ACM6 DECIMAL,
    10 OnProgPayment_ACM7 DECIMAL,
    11 OnProgPayment_ACM8 DECIMAL,
    12 OnProgPayment_ACM9 DECIMAL,
    13 OnProgPayment_ACM10 DECIMAL,
    14 OnProgPayment_ACM11 DECIMAL,
    15 OnProgPayment_ACM12 DECIMAL,
    16 OnProgPayment_EFY DECIMAL,


    14 AchieveFullLevel2Pct DECIMAL,
    15 AchieveFullLevel3Pct DECIMAL,
    41 CompleteFullLevel2Pct DECIMAL,
    42 CompleteFullLevel3Pct DECIMAL,


    7 AchieveElement DECIMAL,
    9 AchievePayPctPreTrans DECIMAL,
    10 AchPayTransHeldBack DECIMAL,
    17 AimValue DECIMAL,
    18 AppAgeFact DECIMAL,
    22 AppFuncSkill1618AdjFact DECIMAL,
    27 ApplicUnWeightFundRate DECIMAL,
    28 ApplicWeightFundRate DECIMAL,
    30 AreaCostFactAdj DECIMAL,
    31 BaseValueUnweight DECIMAL,
    32 CapFactor DECIMAL,
    34 DisUpFactAdj DECIMAL,
    36 EmpOutcomePctHeldBackTrans DECIMAL,
    37 EmpOutcomePctPreTrans DECIMAL,
    43 LargeEmployerSFAFctr DECIMAL,
    45 LTRCUpliftFctr DECIMAL,
    46 NonGovCont DECIMAL,
    48 OnProgPayPctPreTrans DECIMAL,
    53 PropFundRemain DECIMAL,
    54 PropFundRemainAch DECIMAL,
    57 SpecResUplift DECIMAL,
    58 StartPropTrans DECIMAL,
    63 AchievePayment DECIMAL,
    64 AchievePayPct DECIMAL,
    65 AchievePayPctTrans DECIMAL,
    66 BalancePayment DECIMAL,
    67 BalancePaymentUncapped DECIMAL,
    68 BalancePct DECIMAL,
    69 BalancePctTrans DECIMAL,
    70 EmpOutcomePay DECIMAL,
    71 EmpOutcomePct DECIMAL,
    72 EmpOutcomePctTrans DECIMAL,
    74 LearnSuppFundCash DECIMAL,
    75 OnProgPayment DECIMAL,
    76 OnProgPaymentUncapped DECIMAL,
    77 OnProgPayPct DECIMAL,
    78 OnProgPayPctTrans DECIMAL,




    6 AchievePayment DECIMAL,
    7 AchievePaymentExclTF DECIMAL,
    8 AchievePayPct DECIMAL,
    9 AchievePayPctTrans DECIMAL,
    10 BalancePayment DECIMAL,
    11 BalancePaymentExclTF DECIMAL,
    12 BalancePaymentUncapped DECIMAL,
    13 BalancePct DECIMAL,
    14 BalancePctTrans DECIMAL,
    15 EmpOutcomePay DECIMAL,
    16 EmpOutcomePayExclTF DECIMAL,
    17 EmpOutcomePct DECIMAL,
    18 EmpOutcomePctTrans DECIMAL,
    21 LearnSuppFundCash DECIMAL,
    22 OnProgPayment DECIMAL,
    23 OnProgPaymentExclTF DECIMAL,
    24 OnProgPaymentUncapped DECIMAL,
    25 OnProgPayPct DECIMAL,
    26 OnProgPayPctTrans DECIMAL,
    27 TotalPayment DECIMAL,




    Perhaps this helpful reference would help them …


    Martin West

    No response from the SFA on this issue so assume they are all at the AOC conference.


    Chris, SFA

    Hi all

    A change was made to the FIS specification that inadvertently introduced an error into one area of the FIS export. The latest update to FIS passed our standard regression testing process, but this particular area of failure was not identified as a required part of the test pack for this update. We are updating our testing processes to minimise the potential of a reccurrence of this type of event.

    We have revisited the specification and we are now in the process of retaining the major parts of the FIS update whilst rolling back on the FIS export MDB issues.

    We plan to roll out a further update to FIS, and new learning aims data, to support the R04 collection which will open tomorrow, Thursday, 20 November.

    Best wishes



    Caspar Verney

    Hi Chris,

    This sounds like great news that it is being fixed quickly. Will this resolve all of the LARS issues identified at , please?

    Many thanks,



    Has anyone managed to download either FIS 8 or FIS 9. Both fail with the usual meaningless message!



    I am currently at “Downloading file 275 of 546” on component set 009


    Simon Cruddace

    I’ve just got 009 plus updates to LARS and the postcodes. I’ve checked the manifest and they’ve reverted to using “select * into …” so the numeric columns should be okay in the export again


    Martin West

    Hi Simon,
    I have only found one issue in the mdb, table ILR1415_LearnerEmpStat where ESMtype_SME has been changed to ESMType_SEM other than that all seems ok now.


    Simon Cruddace

    Hi Martin
    Thanks for the info, they love randomly renaming fields, don’t they!


    Simon Cruddace

    Hi Martin

    just came across another change! The ALS field in LearnerDVs that they renamed to HiNeedsStud has been renamed again to HighNeedsStud… A pointless cosmetic change that broke an automated routine of mine over the weekend as I use that field in a few reports.


    Chris, SFA

    Good morning

    Just to note that all of these changes are listed in the latest version of the FIS release guide

    There are a number of new fields which have been added to support the delivery of reports, and the developers took the opportunity to correct a couple of typos.

    Best wishes


Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.