From factors to operations
In the previous phase of this work, we delivered a minimum valuable product (MVP) for displaying calculation factors within data-driven allocation statements.
While calculation factors provide useful context, they do not explain the mathematical process used to generate final values. Providers could see the data being used but could not always understand how those values combined to create the final allocation.
Our next challenge was to make calculations easier for providers to understand by displaying the mathematical operations behind them (for example +, -, x, ÷) whilst maintaining a data-driven approach, consistency across funding streams, and minimum operational effort.
Exploring how calculations should be displayed
Showing mathematical operations
The most significant design challenge was determining how mathematical operations should be displayed. We explored several approaches before prioritising a vertical calculations pattern.
This approach presents calculations in tables using separate columns for:
- calculation descriptions
- mathematical operations
- values
The design mirrors the way calculations are often presented in spreadsheets and aligns closely with existing digital funding statement patterns. We decided on this approach because it:
- uses existing GOV.UK design system components
- aligns with patterns already familiar to users
- is technically feasible to implement using a data-driven approach
- creates a clear relationship between inputs, operations and outputs
Exploring approaches to grouping and hierarchy
We also needed to determine how much calculation detail to show. Some more complex funding streams contain many levels of calculations over multiple funding lines, but we were unsure on the level of detail needed by users. A longer list of calculations could provide more transparency, but this would need to be balanced with usability.
In round 1 of user research, we tested 2 approaches:
- a minimal view showing first-level calculations beneath each funding line
- a more detailed view showing both first and second-level calculations
In round 2, we tested how easy it was for users to understand the hierarchy of calculations by introducing a deliberate error, and a task to find it.
Rather than testing multiple structural approaches across the 2 rounds, we focused on simple grouped tables organised by funding line, building on previous research that showed the value of presenting information in this structure.
Research showed that providers understood both versions and could follow the relationship between funding lines and supporting calculations. However, participants consistently asked for more detail rather than less and preferred information to reflect the structure and content of existing allocation statements.
Some stakeholders also suggested introducing stronger visual grouping and hierarchy through additional grouping treatments, for example enhanced table styling and greater visual separation between calculation tables.
However, testing found no evidence of a user need for additional styling. Providers could easily follow calculation relationships using the existing table structure. We therefore decided that additional grouping and styling would increase technical complexity and introduce scalability challenges without delivering meaningful user benefits.
Testing calculations across funding streams
A key goal was to ensure our calculations pattern worked beyond the adult funding allocations we previously focused on. To do this, we selected two funding streams outside of adult for testing.
User research round 1: 16 to 19
We selected the 16 to 19 funding stream because it provided a particularly challenging test case. The funding methodology contains multiple layers of calculations, serves a wide variety of provider types and uses a non-digital allocation statement (PDF).
This gave us an opportunity to understand whether users could successfully interpret calculation operations within large and detailed funding statements.
User research round 2: pupil premium
For our second round of research, we tested the pattern with pupil premium providers. This allowed us to understand whether the same design principles would support a completely different funding methodology and a different group of users. The existing allocation statement presents information for multiple providers at once. Multiple versions are issued with different data for local authorities, multi-academy trusts and providers.
Consistent findings across funding streams
Across both rounds of research, we found consistent user needs. Providers wanted:
- confidence in how allocations had been calculated
- clear visibility of supporting calculation data
- access to downloadable information for analysis and reporting in internal systems
- transparency when investigating discrepancies or unexpected outcomes
Usability findings of our calculations approach were primarily positive. Providers were able to:
- understand how allocations had been calculated
- correctly interpret mathematical operations
- identify relationships between different calculation stages
- use the information to validate funding decisions
No significant usability concerns were identified during testing. As a result, our vertical calculations approach was adopted as the design pattern for displaying calculations in digital allocation statements.
Downloadable calculations
Throughout this project, research consistently shows that data managers work with allocation data in their own systems, supporting them with budgeting, forecasting and reporting processes.
We therefore also provided a downloadable version of the statement data, to allow them to easily export the information. We used an Open document spreadsheet format (ODS) which allows providers to open the spreadsheet in whichever software they use.
We designed the spreadsheet to mirror the structure of the digital statement. The calculation breakdown is presented within a separate tab, showing calculation tables that contain the same information and follow the same hierarchy as the on-screen experience.
This approach creates consistency between channels and allows users to move easily between the digital statement and downloaded spreadsheet without needing to learn a different structure.
We also considered automatically formatting spreadsheets, for example by including grid lines, as the ODS format would allow us to. However, research showed that providers are generally comfortable working with raw exports and frequently import the data into local systems and work with it there. We therefore chose to keep exports largely unformatted, preserving the underlying data structure, avoiding unpredictable display issues and reducing extra technical complexity.
The downloadable format tested well, with one participant in particular commenting on the ease of exporting data compared to their current PDF experience.
Refining the pattern for operational ownership
As the work moved from design into implementation, our focus shifted to ensuring the pattern could be consistently applied and owned by Funding Operations teams.
As allocation statements are generated from templates, the success of the calculations feature, and data-driven experience as a whole, depended not only on the front-end interface, but also on operational teams understanding how the template configuration would affect the final provider experience.
Working with Funding Operations, the user centred design team, business analysts and developers, we established a set of rules governing how funding lines, calculations and mathematical operations should be configured and displayed. These rules covered:
- which funding lines would appear in the detailed and calculation breakdowns
- how parent and child calculations are structured
- how mathematical operations are added and displayed
- how different types of funding line (payment and information) should be treated
Making the pattern visible
The relationship between template configuration and the resulting provider experience was not always obvious. Small changes made in a template can significantly affect how funding lines, calculations and operations appear on the final allocation statement.
To address this, we developed a visual diagram with supporting guidance that mapped the relationship between:
- rules for displaying data in the pattern
- template configuration
- funding line and calculation hierarchy
- the final allocation statement experience
This diagram, along with the written guidance on the rules and funding line and calculation naming formed the key documentation for our handover to Funding Operations.
Supporting sustainable adoption
By helping Funding Operations understand how their template-building decisions influence the final user experience, we were able to move ownership of the calculations pattern closer to the teams responsible for creating and maintaining funding allocations. This will give Funding Operations greater confidence and control over how information is presented to providers. It will also reduce development effort for the MYESF product team in the future, establishing a sustainable model for rollout across all funding streams.
Outcome and next steps
We have delivered a scalable calculation feature for the data-driven statement pattern that provides benefit for providers, and internal operations and product teams.
The next steps are for:
- technical teams to complete development and build of the solution ready to move into the live service
- product and UCD teams to continue work on the roll out of the data-driven pattern to the remaining funding streams