REFLECTIVE DIARY

BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE AND DATA VISUALISATION

23064673

1. Introduction
This reflective report outlines the group project undertaken for the Business Intelligence and
Data Visualization module, focusing on the analysis of the Twelve-Year Guardian League
Table data. The project aimed to create a Tableau dashboard, visualizing and analyzing data
to inform key stakeholders: the Vice Chancellor, prospective students, and prospective staff.
The report will detail the project's scope, the group's approach, individual contributions, and
challenges encountered.

2. Project Overview
The project involved a comprehensive analysis of the Twelve-Year Guardian League Table
dataset. The primary objective was to develop a Tableau dashboard that would provide
valuable insights to different stakeholders. To achieve this, our group identified key questions
relevant to each stakeholder group and designed visualizations to answer them.

3. Group Dynamics and Roles

Our group comprised four members: Muhammad Kevan Akif, Sohail Ahmad, Sehel Khan,
and Umer Ayub. From the outset, we established clear communication channels and agreed
upon a collaborative approach. Tasks were divided based on individual strengths and
interests.
My role in the project encompassed the creation of visualizations to address specific
stakeholder questions. These included developing donut charts to represent student
satisfaction across courses, teaching, and feedback, as well as visualizations demonstrating
UWE's performance compared to its subjects over time and UWE's performance compared to
its competitors.

4. Milestones
4.1. Milestone 1: Initial Data Exploration

Upon first encountering the dataset, I was struck by its large size with tons of numbers spread
across multiple sheets and complex structure, containing both numerical and categorical data.
The dataset was organized across multiple sheets, necessitating careful integration for
comprehensive analysis. We had to figure out what each sheet was about and what all the
numbers meant.

The first big challenge was cleaning up the mess. There were loads of missing values,
especially for a column called 'Continuation' which wasn't even there for the early years. We
couldn't just ignore them, so we replaced the missing bits with zeros for now, knowing this
might cause trouble later. We also had to make sure all the numbers were in the right format
and that everything matched up correctly across the different sheets.

I used some clever Python tricks to get a clearer picture of what was going on with the data. It
helped us spot where the missing values were hiding and how to fix them. Tableau also came
in handy for getting a feel for the data and seeing how things were connected.

With the data looking a bit tidier, we were ready to dig deeper and see what stories it can tell
us.

Understanding the Dataset

Initial Impressions

Upon first encountering the dataset, I was struck by its large size (over 1 million rows) and
complex structure, containing both numerical and categorical data. The dataset was organized
across multiple sheets, necessitating careful integration for comprehensive analysis.

Dataset Structure

The dataset comprised six distinct sheets:

1. Institution Level Data

This sheet contained aggregated data for each university, providing an overview of
key performance indicators. Columns included year, overall university rank, student
satisfaction metrics (course, teaching, feedback), resource allocation (student-staff
ratio, spend per student), entry requirements (average entry tariff), value-added score,
career outcomes (career after 15 months, continuation rate), and overall Guardian
score. Further explanation of the Columns is listed below:
o Year: The academic year to which the data corresponds.
o Rank: The overall university rank based on the Guardian League Table.
o Institution: The name of the university.
o Satisfied with Course: Percentage of students satisfied with their course.
o Satisfied with Teaching: Percentage of students satisfied with teaching
quality.
o Satisfied with Feedback: Percentage of students satisfied with the feedback
process.
o Student to Staff Ratio: The ratio of students to academic staff.
o Spend per Student: The amount of money spent on each student.
o Average Entry Tariff: The average entry qualification points for students.
o Value Added Score: A measure of how much value the university adds to
students' qualifications.
 o Career after 15 months: Percentage of graduates in employment or further
study 15 months after graduation.
o Continuation: Percentage of students continuing their studies at the same
institution.
o Guardian Score: The overall Guardian League Table score for the institution.
2. Subject Level Data
This sheet delved into subject-specific performance, offering a granular view of each
university's subject strengths. Columns mirrored those in the Institution Level Data
sheet, with the addition of subject information. Further explanation of the Columns is
listed below:
o Year: The academic year to which the data corresponds.
o Rank: The subject-specific rank based on the Guardian League Table.
o Subject: The name of the subject.
o Institution: The name of the university offering the subject.
o Satisfied with Course: Percentage of students satisfied with their course.
o Satisfied with Teaching: Percentage of students satisfied with teaching
quality.
o Satisfied with Feedback: Percentage of students satisfied with the feedback
process.
o Student to Staff Ratio: The ratio of students to academic staff for the subject.
o Spend per Student: The amount of money spent on each student for the
subject.
o Average Entry Tariff: The average entry qualification points for students in
the subject.
o Value Added Score: A measure of how much value the university adds to
students' qualifications for the subject.
o Career after 15 months: Percentage of graduates in employment or further
study 15 months after graduation.
o Continuation: Percentage of students continuing their studies at the same
institution for the subject.
o Guardian Score: The Guardian League Table score for the subject.
3. Years: A simple reference sheet containing a list of years covered in the dataset
(2011-2022).
4. Institutions: A reference sheet listing all universities included in the dataset.
5. Subjects: A reference sheet containing all subject areas covered in the dataset.
6. Competitor Institutions: A sheet identifying competitor universities for UWE, and
categorizing them as either shortlist or longlist competitors.

This dataset structure provided a robust foundation for exploring university performance,
identifying trends, and benchmarking against competitors.

Data Cleaning and Preparation

Our initial focus was on preparing the data for analysis. We encountered several challenges
during this phase.

 Missing Values: A significant hurdle was addressing missing values. The

'Continuation' metric, introduced in 2019, resulted in numerous empty cells for earlier
years. Initially, we considered dropping these rows but realized this would severely
limit our dataset. As a temporary solution, we replaced missing 'Continuation' values
with zeros, understanding the potential impact on subsequent analysis. we used
Tableau built-in-function for data cleaning and pre-processing which is pretty good at
ignoring missing bits, which was a relief.
 Data Consistency: Ensuring data consistency across different sheets and columns
was crucial. We standardized date formats, corrected inconsistencies in categorical
data, and verified data types to maintain data integrity.
 Data Integration: Combining data from multiple sheets required careful
consideration of key identifiers. We established relationships between sheets based on
shared columns (e.g., 'Year', 'Institution', 'Subject') to create a unified dataset for
analysis.

 Data Connections in Tableau: To make sense of all the different data, we had to
connect the dots in Tableau. We linked the 'Institution Level Data' and 'Institutions' to
the 'Competitor Institutions' sheet to see which university was which. Then we
connected 'Institution Level Data' to the 'Years' sheet to see the data over time. We
also connected 'Subject Level Data' to 'Institutions' and 'Subjects' to see which
universities offered which subjects. This helped us explore the data much easier in
Tableau.

Milestone 2: Understanding Business Requirements and Identifying Stakeholders

Identifying Key Stakeholders and Their Information Needs

To effectively utilize the dataset and ensure that our analysis delivers actionable insights, we
embarked on a comprehensive process of identifying key stakeholders and their information
needs. We Identified three primary stakeholder groups which emerged as crucial beneficiaries
of the project: the Vice Chancellor, prospective students, and prospective staff.

Vice Chancellor

As the strategic leader of the university, the Vice Chancellor requires a holistic view of
UWE's performance to inform decision-making, resource allocation, and overall institutional
direction. Key information requirements include:

 Comparative Performance Analysis: Benchmarking UWE against peer institutions

across a spectrum of performance indicators to assess the university's competitive
position within the higher education landscape. This includes comparisons of overall
 rankings, subject-specific performance, and key performance indicators such as
student satisfaction, graduate outcomes, and research output.
 Subject-Level Performance: Identifying high-performing and underperforming
subject areas to inform resource allocation, curriculum development, and faculty
recruitment strategies. A granular analysis of subject-level data, including student
satisfaction, graduate outcomes, and resource utilization, is essential.
 Impact Assessment of COVID-19: Evaluating the short-term and long-term
consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the university's operations, finances,
and student experience. This includes examining trends in student enrolment,
retention, and graduation rates, as well as the impact on teaching and learning
methodologies.
 Forecast Future Trends: Visualizing forecast future trends in key performance
indicators, such as student recruitment, retention, and graduate outcomes. And how
our value-added score might change based on factors like entry tariffs and spending
per student. This involves utilizing statistical techniques to identify key drivers of
performance and to anticipate future challenges and opportunities.

Prospective Students

Prospective students are primarily concerned with the university's reputation, academic
quality, and career prospects. Their decision-making process is influenced by the following
information:

 Institutional Comparison: Evaluating UWE's performance relative to other

universities, particularly those within the South West region, based on key
performance indicators such as rankings, student satisfaction, and graduate outcomes
to inform their initial choice.
 Competitive Analysis: Comparing UWE to shortlisted and longlisted competitor
institutions to identify unique selling points and areas for improvement.
 Student Experience: Understanding the quality of the student experience, including
teaching quality, course satisfaction, and overall student well-being.
 Career Outcomes: Assessing the university's success in preparing graduates for the
job market through employment rates, graduate destinations, graduate salaries, and
industry placement.

Prospective Staff

Prospective staff are interested in the university's academic environment, its commitment to
student success, and opportunities for professional development. Key information needs
include:

 Student Satisfaction: Understanding student perceptions of the learning experience,

including teaching quality, course content, and feedback mechanisms.
 Institutional Culture and Values: Gaining insights into the university's mission,
vision, and values to assess alignment with personal career goals.
 Research Environment: Evaluating the university's research output, funding, and
collaborations to assess opportunities for research and scholarly activities.
Research Questions

Based on the identified stakeholder needs and the dataset's capabilities, we formulated a set
of research questions to guide our analysis.

For the Vice Chancellor:

 How has UWE's overall performance changed relative to peer institutions over the
past decade?
 What are the key factors driving differences in subject-level performance at UWE?
 What is the long-term impact of COVID-19 on student recruitment, retention, and
graduate outcomes?
 Can we develop a predictive model to forecast changes in value-added score based on
a combination of entry tariffs, spending per student, and other relevant factors?

For Prospective Students:

 How does UWE compare to other universities in the South West region in terms of
student satisfaction, graduate outcomes, and teaching quality?
 What are the key differentiators between UWE and its shortlisted and longlisted
competitors?
 How has UWE's performance changed over time in terms of student satisfaction and
graduate outcomes?
 What are the employment prospects for UWE graduates across different subject
areas?

For Prospective Staff:

 What is the level of student satisfaction with teaching quality, course content, and
feedback mechanisms at UWE?
 How does UWE's student-staff ratio compare to peer institutions?
 What are the opportunities for research and scholarly activities at UWE?

By addressing these research questions, we aim to provide actionable insights to each

stakeholder group, supporting evidence-based decision-making and strategic planning.

Milestone 3: Visualizing the Dataset to Answer Business Questions

Identifying Appropriate Visualizations

To effectively communicate the insights derived from the dataset, we focused on selecting
visualizations that accurately represent the data and effectively address the business questions
identified in Milestone 2.

1. For the Vice Chancellor:

 1.1. Comparative Performance: For Comparative Performance of UWE we used
Line Graphs which shows us the Guardian Score of UWE Over the Years And
Ranking Score of UWE over the Years.

UWE Guardian Score Over the years

My Reflective Analysis of UWE Rank Score Trend (2011-2022)

The Guardian Score line graph for UWE reveals an overall upward trajectory from 2011 to
2022, indicating improved performance. However, year-to-year fluctuations suggest external
factors influencing the score beyond the university's control. Notable increases between
2015-2016 and 2017-2019 highlight periods of significant improvement. While a potential
impact of COVID-19 is evident in the 2019-2021 data. However, a more in-depth analysis,
considering other performance indicators and external factors, is required to fully understand
the drivers behind these fluctuations
 UWE Ranking Score Over the years

My Reflective Analysis of UWE Rank Score Trend (2011-2022)

The rank score data for UWE presents a complex trajectory over the analyzed period. While
characterized by significant fluctuations in the earlier years, a clear upward trend emerges
from 2016 to 2021, culminating in the university's best-ever ranking which is rank 21. This
sustained improvement indicates effective strategic planning and implementation.

However, the data also reveals a setback in 2022 which is rank 36, with a notable decline in
the rank score. This reversal requires further investigation to understand its underlying
causes. It is crucial to identify factors contributing to both the period of improvement and the
subsequent decline to inform future strategic direction.

Overall, while the data demonstrates a positive trajectory leading to a peak performance in
2021, the 2022 result underscores the need for continuous monitoring and adaptation to
maintain and improve the university's position in future rankings.

1.2. Subject Performance: For Subject Performance over years, we used a bar chart through
which we can easily see how each subject is doing each year. Additionally, we create two
more bar for UWE’s Top and Lowest Ranked Subjects for each year.
i. UWE’s Subjects Performance Over Period
ii. UWE’s Top Ranked Subjects Each Year

iii. UWE’s Lowest Ranked Subjects Year

1.3. Impact of COVID-19: To see the Impact of COVID-19 on our teaching We used Line
Chart to illustrate the impact of the pandemic on key performance indicators. For this
assignment purpose we Visualized only UWE’s Teaching performance before and post
pandemic.

i. Avg Satisfaction with teaching before COVID

 ii. Avg Satisfaction with teaching Post COVID

My Reflective Analysis of UWE Teaching Performance (2011-2022)

The teaching performance data for UWE presents an interesting contrast between the pre- and
post-COVID-19 periods.

Pre-COVID-19 Performance Prior to the pandemic, UWE exhibited a generally upward

trajectory in teaching performance, with scores gradually increasing from 2011 to 2019. This
suggests a sustained effort to enhance teaching quality and student experience during this
period.

Post-COVID-19 Performance The immediate post-pandemic period saw a slight increase in

teaching performance, reaching a peak in 2020. However, subsequent years have witnessed a
decline, with scores falling below pre-pandemic levels in 2022. This downturn is particularly
noteworthy given the challenges faced by higher education institutions during the pandemic
and subsequent recovery phases.
Overall Assessment While the pre-pandemic trend is encouraging, the post-pandemic
decline in teaching performance is a cause for concern. It is essential to investigate the factors
contributing to this downturn to inform targeted interventions. Understanding the specific
challenges faced by teaching staff during and after the pandemic is crucial to developing
strategies for improvement. Additionally, comparing UWE's performance to peer institutions
can provide valuable insights into the university's relative position in the higher education
landscape.

This analysis highlights the need for a comprehensive assessment of teaching practices,
student feedback, and support mechanisms to address the observed decline and restore
UWE's strong teaching performance.

1.4. Forecast Future Trends: For Forecast Future Trends we used bar charts, line Graphs
and Forecast Indicator to visualize relationships between variables and to assess the accuracy
of predictive models.

i. Spent per Student and Value-Added Score Forecast

ii. Average Tarrif and Value Added Score Forecast

My Reflective Analysis of Forecast Graphs

Spent per Student and Value Added Score Forecast

The forecast for spent per student and value-added score indicates a potential plateau in the
coming years. This suggests that the university may maintain its current level of expenditure
per student while observing a relatively stable value-added score. While this stability can be
seen as a positive indicator of consistent performance, it also implies a potential lack of
significant investment in student outcomes. To ensure continued improvement, the university
should closely monitor these metrics and consider strategies to increase spending per student
if it aligns with broader institutional goals.
Average Tariff and Value Added Score Forecast

The forecast for average tariff and value added score suggests a positive trend. The upward
trajectory in average tariff indicates potential growth in the academic profile of incoming
students. This, coupled with an increasing value-added score, suggests that the university is
effectively converting higher-caliber students into high-achieving graduates. However, it is
crucial to monitor these trends closely to ensure that the increase in average tariff does not
disproportionately impact student diversity and accessibility.

Overall While the forecast for average tariff and value-added score is encouraging, the
projected stability in spent per student and value-added score warrants attention. A balanced
approach that considers both cost and outcome is essential for sustained institutional success.

To gain deeper insights, sensitivity analysis can be conducted to assess the impact of different
spending scenarios on value-added scores. Additionally, exploring the relationship between
average tariff, spent per student, and other relevant factors can provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the university's financial and academic performance.
2. Prospective Students

2.1 Institutional Comparison: We user Bar to indicate UWE’s Performance among South
West Region.

My Reflective Analysis of UWE's Position within the South West Region

The rank score data positions UWE Bristol significantly below its regional counterparts, Bath
and Bristol, highlighting a considerable gap in overall performance. While UWE surpasses
several other universities in the region, the substantial difference between its rank and those
of the top-performing institutions underscores the challenges in competing at the highest level
within the South West.

This analysis indicates a need for a comprehensive assessment of factors contributing to

UWE Bristol's position, including teaching quality, research output, student experience, and
graduate outcomes. Identifying areas of strength and weakness compared to peer institutions
will be crucial in developing strategies to enhance UWE Bristol's competitiveness within the
region.

2.2 Competitive Analysis: For Competitive analysis we compared UWE’s Performance

with its Shorlist Competitors based on Career after 15 months and Subjects Performance.

i. UWE vs Shortlist Career after 15 months

ii. UWE vs SHORTLIST competitors according to subject

My Reflective Analysis of UWE vs. Shortlisted Competitors

Preliminary analysis of the visualizations comparing UWE's performance to shortlisted

competitors on career outcomes after 15 months and subject-level performance indicates a
positive trend for UWE. The data suggests that UWE outperforms its shortlisted rivals in both
career outcomes and subject-specific metrics. However, a more rigorous analysis
incorporating additional factors and statistical comparisons is required to confirm this initial
assessment and to identify specific areas of strength and weakness.

3. Prospective Staff
3.1. Student Satisfaction: To analyse UWE’s student perceptions of the learning experience,
including teaching quality, course content, and feedback mechanisms. We created a
dashboard which included a hologram which shows each subjects performance over years.
We highlighted the courses with the highest satisfaction levels to give them a bit of extra
attention. The highest satisfaction courses are presented bigger than the ones that has the
lowest satisfaction. And to top it off, we also added some handy donut charts showing us
exactly how satisfied students are in different areas, like their course, their teaching, and the
feedback they're getting.

Milestone 4

To effectively communicate the insights gleaned from the data, a compelling narrative was
constructed. This narrative aimed to contextualize the findings, highlight key trends, and
inspire further exploration.

The data revealed a complex interplay of factors influencing UWE's performance. A notable
dichotomy emerged between the pre- and post-COVID-19 eras. The pre-pandemic period was
characterized by steady growth in teaching performance, suggesting a foundation of quality.
However, the post-pandemic landscape introduced new challenges, as evidenced by the
decline in teaching performance. This fluctuation underscores the need for robust
contingency planning and adaptability within higher education institutions.

UWE's position within the South West region presented a mixed picture. While
outperforming certain institutions, the university's ranking relative to top-tier competitors
highlighted areas for improvement. The data emphasized the competitive nature of the higher
education landscape and the importance of continuous self-assessment.
Forecasting models provided a glimpse into potential future trajectories. The projected
stability in spent per student and value-added score underscored the need for careful
evaluation of resource allocation and expenditure. Conversely, the anticipated increase in
average tariff offered a promising outlook for student intake quality.

This narrative serves as a foundation for deeper exploration and strategic decision-making.
By framing the data within a contextual story, we aim to facilitate stakeholder understanding
and engagement. It is essential to continue refining this narrative as new data becomes
available and the institutional landscape evolves.

Milestone 5

Reflecting on Recommendations for Future Improvements

and Enhancements
The process of analyzing UWE's performance through data visualization provided a rich
foundation for identifying potential areas for improvement. By closely examining the data, it
became evident that a strategic, data-driven approach is essential to enhance the university's
position.

Key findings from the analysis suggested a focus on building upon UWE's strengths while
simultaneously addressing areas of weakness. By capitalizing on existing strengths, the
university can establish a distinctive identity and competitive advantage. Conversely, targeted
interventions in areas of underperformance are crucial to bridge the gap with peer institutions.

The importance of data-driven decision making cannot be overstated. By leveraging data

analytics, UWE can optimize resource allocation, identify emerging trends, and make
informed strategic choices. Additionally, continuous benchmarking against peer institutions
will enable the university to stay abreast of industry best practices and identify opportunities
for improvement.

Enhancing the student experience emerged as a paramount objective. By investing in

teaching quality, student support services, and campus culture, UWE can foster a more
engaging and rewarding student journey, ultimately enhancing its reputation and attracting
top talent.

While the insights gleaned from this analysis provide a clear direction for future actions, it is
essential to recognize that implementation requires careful planning, resource allocation, and
ongoing evaluation. By adopting a systematic approach to improvement, UWE can maximize
the potential benefits of these recommendations.

Limitations of the Analysis and Methodology

While the project yielded valuable insights, several methodological limitations must be
acknowledged. Initially, a foundational understanding of Tableau software was acquired
through a LinkedIn Learning course. However, the creation of donut charts, a visualization
not natively supported by Tableau, necessitated external research. A YouTube tutorial
provided the necessary guidance to overcome this technical challenge.

Despite these efforts, the analysis is constrained by the availability and quality of the data.
Missing values, inconsistencies, and potential biases within the dataset could impact the
accuracy and reliability of the findings. Furthermore, the correlational nature of the study
precludes definitive causal inferences.

It is essential to recognize that the analysis focused primarily on a specific set of indicators
and may not capture the full complexity of UWE's performance. A broader perspective
incorporating additional factors, such as student demographics, financial performance, and
external influences, would enrich the understanding of the university's position.

These limitations underscore the need for ongoing data collection, refinement of analytical
techniques, and consideration of alternative perspectives to enhance the robustness of future
studies.

Learning Outcomes

This project provided a valuable opportunity to develop a range of skills and knowledge
related to data analysis and visualization.

Firstly, the project enhanced proficiency in data cleaning and preparation techniques,
highlighting the importance of data quality in ensuring accurate and reliable results.
Secondly, the experience of working with Tableau deepened understanding of data
visualization tools and techniques, enabling effective communication of complex
information.

Thirdly, the process of identifying key stakeholders and tailoring analysis to their specific
needs developed a strong foundation in stakeholder engagement and communication. This
project also cultivated skills in critical thinking and problem-solving as challenges were
encountered and overcome throughout the analysis process.

Finally, the experience of developing a narrative around the data emphasized the importance
of effective storytelling in data communication. This project has equipped me with a strong
foundation in data analysis and visualization, preparing me for future challenges and
opportunities.

Overall, the project provided a robust foundation in data analysis, visualization, and
communication, equipping me with the skills necessary to tackle complex data-driven
challenges in future endeavors.
References:
1. https://www.linkedin.com/learning/tableau-essential-training-22386688

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAN99tucerg&ab_channel=OneNumber-
TableauExperts