Most failed implementations trace to two causes — buying a platform when the problem was a process, and underestimating the quality of records in the outgoing system. Both are identifiable before contract if the right questions are asked.
Start by naming the problem
The most expensive procurement mistake in UK schools is buying a platform to solve a process problem.
If assessment data is inconsistent because departments disagree about what a grade means, a new system records the disagreement more efficiently. If SEND provision is not delivered because there is no time, software will not create the time. If parents are not engaged because communication is an afterthought, a parent app will be an unused parent app.
Write down, in one sentence, what will be true in eighteen months that is not true now. If the sentence is about a system rather than an outcome, stop and rewrite it.
The evaluation framework
1. Migration risk
This kills more implementations than price. Ask:
- Will you assess a real sample of our records before contract? A supplier unwilling to has told you something.
- What historical data comes across, and what is archived or lost? Be specific about assessment history and attendance history, which are the two most commonly dropped.
- Can we run in parallel for a term?
- When do you recommend starting? Any supplier comfortable with a mid-year MIS migration is prioritising the sale over your school.
2. Total three-year cost
| Cost | Question |
|---|---|
| Licence | Per pupil, per module, per school? What happens when pupil numbers change mid-year? |
| Implementation | Included, and to what standard? Who does it — your staff or subcontractors? |
| Migration | Included, or quoted after the record assessment? |
| Training | Included, or per session? What about staff joining next September? |
| SMS and messaging | Bundled or metered, and at what rate? This surprises schools. |
| Integrations | Cost per integration, and who maintains them when the other system updates? |
| Support | What is included, and what does the tier that answers the phone in the first week of September cost? |
| Exit | Cost of full export in a usable format? |
For trusts, add: what does onboarding an additional school cost, and what happens if a school leaves?
3. Evidence fit
Under a framework grading six evaluation areas, ask suppliers to demonstrate producing a specific report rather than describing capability:
- Which pupils on the SEND register received their specified provision last half term?
- Which curriculum content was taught but never assessed?
- Which pupils have participated in no enrichment this year, split by pupil premium?
- What is our suspension rate for pupils with SEND versus the whole school?
- Did this intervention improve outcomes for the pupils in it?
These are ordinary questions and most systems cannot answer them without an export and a pivot table. Ask to see them produced live.
4. Data protection
- Are you controller or processor? If they say controller, stop.
- Can we see the DPA and sub-processor list before committing?
- Where is data hosted and processed?
- Who at your company can access pupil data, and is it logged?
- Breach notification commitment, in hours?
Detail: UK GDPR.
5. AI standards
For any product with AI features, send the DfE generative AI product safety standards and ask for a written response to each. Ask first whether the product generates free-form content or is closed-loop. Detail: DfE generative AI standards.
6. Exit
- Who owns the data? The answer should be your school or trust, in writing.
- What does full export cost, and in what format?
- Is access to your own data ever contingent on renewal?
- What happens if the supplier is acquired?
Categories in the UK market
| Category | Suits | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Established MIS | Schools needing a proven statutory record | Pace of development; cost of the modules around the core |
| Cloud-native MIS | Schools wanting modern usability and integrated modules | Migration complexity; depth in edge cases |
| Best-of-breed point solutions | Schools with one specific acute problem | Integration cost, and another silo |
| Integrated platform | Schools consolidating several disconnected systems | Breadth can mean a module is shallower than a specialist |
Where Edves fits — and where it does not
Edves is an integrated platform. It suits schools and trusts consolidating fragmented systems, schools that need evidence across the Ofsted evaluation areas from one record, and trusts needing genuine comparability between schools.
It is a weaker fit in three cases, and saying so is more useful than not:
- A school whose only problem is one function. If parent communication is the sole issue, a specialist communication product will be cheaper and better at it.
- A school with a stable MIS it has no intention of changing and no appetite for a complementary layer. Running Edves alongside without consolidating anything adds a system rather than removing one.
- A school unable to release staff time for implementation. This is the real constraint far more often than budget. A school that cannot free its data manager and a SENCO for several weeks should defer.
Questions worth asking every supplier
- Show me a school of my size and phase using this, and let me visit without you present.
- How many UK schools left you last year, and why?
- Which module do schools buy and never use?
- What does support look like at 8am on the first day of the autumn term?
- Who is on my implementation team, and are they your staff?
- What does your product not do well?
- What happens to my data if your company is acquired or closes?
The last three are the ones suppliers least expect and answer most revealingly.