Your Challenge

Many enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in higher education need an update. Most student information systems (SIS) are 15 years old. (Ménard, Justin. “Some Data Context on ‘[SIS] Difficulties Frustrate Universities.’”)

The ERP replacement will often outlast the tenure of the CIO who initiates the project.

The risk of a poor implementation can cost the institution millions of dollars.

Common Obstacles

The higher education industry is lagging in its modernization and many IT departments lack the experience to implement modern systems.

The market has been slow to provide a modern SIS system that meets the requirements of most institutions, in comparison to other ERP modules.

The ERP replacement is very costly and many institutions are reluctant to expend resources on a project that doesn’t directly support student experience.

Info-Tech’s Approach

Review five approaches to address the challenge of ERP renewal in Higher Education: single vendor, best of breed, data ecosystem, shared data platform, or deprioritize the ERP.

A straight ERP replacement is not always the best approach. A consideration of not only IT’s capability but also the institution’s maturity is of utmost importance.

Work with Info-Tech to decide on what approach your institution should take for ERP renewal.

• Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems facilitate the flow of information across business units. An ERP allows for the seamless integration of systems and creates a holistic view of the institution to support decision making.
• In many institutions, the ERP system is considered the lifeblood of the enterprise. Problems with this key operational system will have a dramatic impact on the ability of the enterprise to survive and grow.

• Automates processes, reducing the amount of routine manual work.
• Integrates with core modules, eliminating the fragmentation of systems.
• Centralizes reporting information from multiple parts of the value chain to a single point.

ERP

Higher Education ERP

• Lack of flexibility to respond to the needs of the institution
• Lack of strategic thinking
• Unwillingness to change
• Reactive rather than proactive

Info-Tech Insight

The CIO needs to assess the maturity of the institution to determine the most effective approach. The best approach for a less mature institution may be less advanced.

• Dedicated forward planning
• Agile decision making
• Prioritization of specific initiatives such as a strong online presence
• Cost cutting and nimbleness
• Shared governance to support timely, flexible decision making
• Ability to maintain operations without a mass layoff

(Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education. Navigating Uncertainty and Building Resilient Colleges.)

average implementation time for an ERP in Higher Education

Info-Tech Insight

An institution can modify processes to suit the ERP or customize the ERP to suit its processes. ERP customization increases implementation costs and ultimately causes the demise of the system due to the complexity of upgrades.

Resiliency relies less on the systems and technology and more on the IT department’s ability to support the institution.

IT CAPABILITY

Can IT implement the solution to the satisfaction of its stakeholders, and can IT support those systems once implemented?

INSTITUTIONAL MATURITY

Does the institution have the maturity of governance and strategy to benefit from the potential of these solutions?

(Source: Ménard, “ERP / SIS Implementations Times in Higher Education.”)

• It is common for the implementation of systems to begin consecutively. There is usually overlap, with one implementation beginning while the previous one is ending.
• Implementation often begins with the financial system because that system is involved in both payroll and tuition and underpins both the HR and student information systems.
• The RFP process usually begins two to three years before implementation, bringing the entire ERP project duration to seven to ten years. (Ménard, “SIS Investments Doubled in 2021.”)

Info-Tech Insight

The CIO who starts an ERP replacement is rarely the one who finishes it.

• Improved student self-service capabilities, resulting in increased utilization and student satisfaction.
• Automation of repetitive, rule-driven administrative and technical work re-focuses administrative roles to higher-order work.
• Automation of recruiting and admissions processes, saving countless hours previously spent on labor-intensive tasks.
• Facilitation of course transfer between institutions within a university system: this can lower time-to-degree rates and facilitate a more seamless experience for students.

• Less need for IT support in operating the systems and increased self-service in the business processes.
• A shift in IT toward strategy and vendor management and away from operations.
• It is wise to train IT resources into different roles while a modern system is being implemented. Training after implementation will cause constraints.
• The goal should not be to cut jobs but to redeploy IT resources to areas where they can offer value to the institution.

SINGLE VENDOR

BEST OF BREED

DATA ECOSYSTEM

SHARED DATA PLATFORM

DEPRIORITIZE THE ERP

Who is this approach for?

Those who wish to improve the constituent experience of their IT department.

It’s a one-size-fits-none strategy, but it allows IT to focus on maturing other aspects of their organization.

Single Vendor

• The most straightforward approach to ERP resilience is to select a reputable vendor and use their solutions to meet all the institutional requirements.
• The primary benefit of going with an established vendor is that both IT and the institution can rely on their expertise of best practices within the Higher Education sector.
• This is to the benefit of an IT department that is still developing the maturity of their core processes and capabilities. The department can rely on the vendor’s expertise to deliver standard functionality without the need for integration and development on the part of the department.
• It may be necessary for the institution to modify its business processes to the design of the vendor. While this can cause consternation, IT can compensate by providing greater service support in other areas of need.
• With the appropriate vendor, the IT department can feel confident they will have the support for more sophisticated cloud and analytics-based solutions in the future.

• Reduction of integration points and interfaces in contrast to a best-of-breed approach.
• Easier to move a single vendor to the cloud than multiple vendor solutions.
• Easier to train and to support because of the coherence to the architecture. This extends to the responsibility of any problems that may arise, since there can be no question of whose product is to blame.
• The product from a stronger vendor can offer a “one-stop shop” for the end user.

• The department will be trusting that this vendor will continue to meet the needs of the institution over the next decade.
• The institution is somewhat beholden to the vendor, which can result in lower negotiating power.
• The solution provided will likely not be the first choice of IT’s stakeholder constituents and many will resist changes to their business processes. IT will need the full support of the president or chancellor to gain reluctant acceptance from many parts of the institution.

• A formal RFP is essential when pursuing a single vendor approach.
• With greater commitment to a single vendor over a decade, the choice of vendor carries substantial risk.

Who is this approach for?

Mature IT departments who need to address specific issues of certain business systems while leaving other modules alone.

Best of Breed

Second approach

Does IT want to take on the challenge of pleasing everyone?

• The best-of-breed approach has expanded. It still refers to the selection of systems and platforms from different vendors. However, it now also refers to the modes of deployment, whether on-prem, cloud, or SaaS.
• The primary benefit of selecting from different vendors is that the business units can be more involved in the selection process and take greater ownership of the solution.
• Selecting the best mode of deployment is new for IT, but it is a decision that has important financial implications. IT needs to develop its ability to forecast the costs associated with different modes of deployment when deciding how a solution will be hosted.
• A case in point is overspending on server capacity for the SIS. The SIS needs to accommodate massive capacity for the beginning of each semester. This capacity lies mostly unused for most of the year. Being able to match server capacity dynamically to fluctuations in demand is an important financial consideration.

• Offers flexibility around which modules to implement. This means institutions can hold off on changing their SIS.
• Gives greater negotiating power to the department because the institution isn’t as strongly tied to one vendor.
• Cloud benefits for SIS because there are only specific periods in the academic year when the SIS needs capacity.

• Vendor management increases with the number of vendors IT deals with.
• The number of integrations and interfaces makes for greater complications.
• The IT department will need to have a higher level of competence with their application development and maintenance capability.
• The security perimeter is more fragmented, increasing risk.

• The best-of-breed approach is often adopted without strategic consideration. Business units might insist that a system needs to be replaced, or the primary vendor sunsets one module, requiring replacement from another vendor.
• A successful best-of-breed approach is taken intentionally when the IT department feels confident in its stakeholder service and in its integration capabilities.

Who is this approach for?

For presidents, provosts, and deans who want to make data-informed decisions.

Data Ecosystem

Third approach

Is IT confident in the institution’s current data management practices?

• This approach questions whether the ERP needs to be replaced or whether the issue is a concern around data and analytics that can be addressed through a data lake and micro-services.
• This approach to ERP resilience doesn’t require ERP renewal. Some institutions are taking this approach in conjunction with ERP renewal, while others are doing this instead of ERP renewal.
• The first component to the approach is the data lake, which houses all data in one place regardless of the system – ERP, student retention, or LMS.
• The second component is the API or microservices that automate the process of data transport through an agreed upon protocol.
• To effectively deliver this approach, IT requires high confidence in the data. It requires robust data governance where everything passes an approval process that considers data standards, the data model, and the data dictionary.
• The benefits of this approach is that the institution’s data becomes fully actionable, allowing leadership to make informed strategic decisions.

• Provides leadership with the data they need to make informed decisions for institutional planning.
• Data on student behavior can point to the early identification of at-risk students.
• Data on campus car traffic can inform where to develop a parking lot.

• Implementing a data lake is not easy or cheap.
• There is an added security risk because all the data is vulnerable to a single breach of the data lake.
• IT will need staff who can conduct the micro-services. If they can’t find the staff, then this capability would need to be hired out.

• Before embarking on this approach, IT should prioritize its data governance and identity access management protocols.
• Beyond governance, the university should have strong data management practices and successful data integration environments.
• There should also be trustworthy business intelligence tools on top of these environments.

Who is this approach for?

University systems that want to increase flexibility for students to take courses between the cohort of institutions.

Shared Data Platform

Fourth approach

What are the priorities of the university system?

• The approach has each constituent institution in a university system use the same ERP platform. The purpose is to facilitate students’ desire to take courses from other institutions in the system and in so doing improve time to completion. Ideally the burden of the credit-transfer process should be removed and the whole process is frictionless.
• The constituent institutions maintain their own ERP systems; however, person attributes are common across universities. There is the ability to share courses in common, and all course catalogs go into one table. There are common definitions around the creation of the course catalog and a common course enrolment table.
• The individual universities still maintain their own courses, however. As well as their own financial aid.
• Governance is needed to ensure consistent process change. Specifically, a new IT governance council should be formed to address technical issues of the shared data platform approach.

• This approach will involve implementing a modern ERP system. IT will be able to leverage the increased automation capability of this system to increase IT resource efficiency.
• The perimeter would now be shared between the system and the university, allowing for greater attention on security than a single institution would be able to accomplish on its own.

• The need to have consistent process change across institutions is a considerable challenge. Each institution likely has its own individual processes. Leadership from the chancellor’s office would be necessary to bring everyone in line.
• The shared data platform solution provided by the vendor comes on top of the price paid for the solutions for each institution.
• The challenges of transitioning to a new system remain. These will depend on whether there is congruency between the new and old system.

• Institutional governance is the most challenging aspect to the shared data platform approach. The different institutions need to align themselves in terms of start-stop dates, credit hours, and financial aid considerations. The articulation agreements are particularly challenging as academics are often resistant to see equivalency between their courses and those of another institution.

Who is this approach for?

For the institution that is focusing on the digital transformation affecting teaching, learning, research, student experience, and community engagement.

Deprioritize the ERP

Fifth approach

Will ERP renewal give the institution a competitive advantage?

• This approach asks IT to assess whether there is a competitive advantage in implementing a new ERP. This is an important question because the typical mission of Higher Education is to attract students, improve research, and improve educational outcomes. The ERP has only tangential impact on these objectives.
• First, IT needs to assess whether the ERP meets the baseline requirements for institutional operations. Review each business opportunity, whether it’s the ERP or any other system, and question whether the ROI matches the institutional priorities.
• If the current ERP is adequate, then take the money that would have been invested in the ERP and use that money for initiatives that are more closely aligned with the institution.
• This is a crucial step for any institution looking to undertake a true digital transformation. A value chain evaluation will help you decide where to invest in the university beyond administrative systems.

• Focus on the mission of the institution rather than on the administration.
• By using a portfolio investment strategy, the approach offers a more prudent use of the institution’s money.
• Creates competitive advantage for the university.

• Nobody likes their ERP and everyone wants to replace it. This approach will leave certain constituents dissatisfied.
• There’s always more ideas than money; thus, it will be a challenge to get agreement on strategic priorities to drive decision making.
• IT will need to build an interface around the old ERP to help maintain it into the future.

• Is the institution clear on how it wants to compete in the marketplace? Does it have the willpower to undertake and execute a digital transformation?
• Is there leadership and commitment on the academic side to make this happen?
• There needs to be a governance process in place that balances the needs of the overall institution against the individual constituent demands.

The CIO Business Vison Survey

Info-Tech's CIO Business Vision program is a low-effort, high-impact program that will give you detailed report cards on the organization's satisfaction with IT’s core services.

Use these insights to understand your key business stakeholders, find out what is important to them, and improve your interactions.

SoftwareReviews

Use enterprise software reviews to make better decisions, faster.

Our comprehensive set of tools and services helps you make the best decision, faster, and is completely tailored to the support you need. Choose the service that is right for you.

SINGLE VENDOR

• Higher Education Student Information Systems Report
• Select a Student Information System

• Select and Implement an ERP Solution
• Build an ERP Strategy and Roadmap

BEST OF BREED

• The Rapid Application Selection Framework

• Custom Vendor Landscape

DATA ECOSYSTEM

• Build Your Data Practice and Platform
• Create a Data Management Roadmap

• Establish Data Governance

SHARED DATA PLATFORM

• Improve IT Governance to Drive Business Results
• Make Your IT Governance Adaptable

• Establish Data Governance

DEPRIORITIZE THE ERP

• Define Your Digital Business Strategy
• Digital Maturity Improvement Service

• Get the Most Out of Your ERP

Martin Bernier
Chief Information Officer
University of Ottawa

Srinivas Gotety
Executive Director - Enterprise Applications & Digital Solutions
Millersville University

Sandeep Sidhu
Chief Information Officer
Emily Carr University of Art and Design

Mark Roman
Managing Partner for Education
Info-Tech Research Group

Paul Feilmeier
Vice President of Technology Services
Northeast Community College

Chuck Lanham
Vice Provost for Information Technology and CIO
Western Washington University

Steve Di Filipo
Senior Executive Advisor
Info-Tech Research Group