Have enterprise vendors come of age? The new generation of enterprise solutions is learning from past mistakes. (Technology).

Software vendors have been offering administrative systems to colleges and universities for more than 40 years, and thousands of institutions are now using commercial, software, at least at the core of their campus systems. But by all accounts, most of these adoptions have been difficult, to say the least. Apart from the "normal" turbulence generated by such a major institutional change, we have also seen plenty of disasters (even a couple in the multimillion-dollar range): projects that went so far over budget and past deadlines that they had to be completely discarded; software companies that were sued; users who were left disappointed and cynical; and at least one investigation by a state inspector general. It's no surprise, then, that some institutions are wondering whether they should undertake the implementation of an integrated enterprise system at all, and (especially having survived the Y2K transition) whether taking on such risk is warranted. There are signs, though, that we may finally be coming out of all this turmoil with a new awareness on both the vendors' and the institutions' parts about what it takes to complete a successful, integrated enterprise solution.

FEWER, BUT SMARTER

The vendors themselves, while shrinking in number, seem to be getting smarter. After several years of an extremely volatile marketplace shakeout (and the shakeout may not be over), the vendors that remain today are taking a wiser approach to both the selling process and, more importantly, to the actual implementations. SCT (Systems and Computer Technology; www.sct.com) and Datatel (www.datatel .com) are the oldest of the lot (both date their origins back to the late 1960s), and probably because of that, the wisest. SCT, it should be noted, recently acquired the student information system business of Sallie Mae Solutions (which, not long ago, had acquired it from Exeter), as well as ABT's PowerCampus (www.abtcampus.com). PeopleSoft (www.peoplesoft .com), another major player and a relative newcomer to higher education, had some very visible early project disasters but has learned a great deal in the past few years about some of the pitfalls of large-scale implementation projects in educational settings. The company's recent installs seem to be more successful. The fourth company often found in the finalist group of an institution's system selection is Jenzabar (www.jenzabar.com), an evolving amalgamation of the former companies know as CARS, Quodata, CMDS, and CampusAmerica. Further down the list is SunGard (sungard.com), with its expertise in other industries, but which now has the broadly functional combination of Business System Resources, BiTech, and Software Research Northwest under its wing.

There are a few others, and a few more that serve just certain parts of an institution, such as alumni/development. What makes a selection especially difficult is that all of these vendors have their strengths and weaknesses--and there is no such thing as a perfect system.

SUCCESS FACTORS

With the likelihood of a small college spending a million dollars on a full system, and very large universities spending $50 million and even more, it's obvious that the institution needs to make sure that this investment pays off in major ways. No matter which enterprise technology vendor a school selects, there are two key factors in a successful implementation.

Realistic expectations. The first factor is that everyone involved, including the vendor, must have a clear and realistic set of expectations. These kinds of projects are hard and long; everyone needs to be prepared for that. No single system addresses 100 percent of an institution's needs--certainly not at first. Canisius College (NY) has just gone through a full-scale SCT Banner implementation that looks, at least so far, to be very successful. But as Joel Cohen, the associate vice president for library and information services at Canisius, says, "If anyone believed we would get a new system simply by turning it on after its arrival, he has been painfully enlightened. This is hard work!" It's been about 30 months since Canisius first signed its contract with SCT; most of the modules went live in 2001.

Participation, collaboration, and inclusion. The second success factor: "Selecting and implementing an integrated enterprise solution needs to be a collaborative effort by all of those who know the most about the business processes at the institution," says Cohen. At Canisius, the same team both evaluated and supported the implementation. The group comprised the following individuals: the registrar (who served as the team chair), controller, director of Personnel, VP/Business and Finance, VP/Academic Affairs, deans of Students and Enrollment Management, director of Information Technology, Technical Computing administrator, associate director of Technology for Administrative Computing, assistant director of Technology for Network Services, director of Development, and a faculty member/representative.

In fact, the only way a project of this magnitude can work is if it is a true partnership between the users and the IT staff, with top administration (VP/Academic Affairs and VP/Finance, for instance) closely linked in, as well

THE PERFECT VENDOR

Implemented properly, an integrated enterprise solution can be one of an IHE's most valuable assets. A good system will increase efficiency, provide a wealth of information for decision making, and support all kinds of new student services (such as around-the-clock access to both personal and academic information; job and internship search support; degree audits and "what-ifs" for changing majors; and links to class management and participation opportunities, just to name a few). But if your institution is looking for the perfect vendor--the one with the best system and an unblemished implementation record--your search will be in vain. For one thing, there is no "best" system; it is a matter of a system fitting an institution's needs, culture, and objectives. That's why it is imperative to undertake this kind of careful self-assessment before vendor/product evaluation begins. The same individuals who will be managing product evaluation and selection are the individuals who should make up this self-assessment team.

Then, when it comes to scrutinizing vendor candidates, remember that each vendor also has its own implementation style and process--and some of these are only better than others in terms of how well they suit an individual college's needs. These needs may not be limited to the size of the institution, but rather to the level of service and support a vendor offers, and whether or not that support is offered directly by the vendor itself, or by a third party. After all, some schools will need more support; some, less. And some don't want to deal with the potential for finger-pointing by using a vendor with third-party implementers. Understand, though, that every single vendor out there has its own horror stories and negative references. It's up to your team to weigh them against each other, and against the positive aspects and references.

Still, the enterprise vendors have all learned a lot in recent years, and we're now beginning to hear more and more about successful implementations and schools that are happy with the results.

The University of Wisconsin has evidently been quite happy with its PeopleSoft implementation. A UW PowerPoint presentation can be found at www.educause.edu/asp/doclib/abstract .asp?ID=CMR0022, and more information about the project itself is avlable at www.isis.wisc.edu.

At Wabash College (IN), the individual most responsible for the success of the Datatel implementation is William Doemel, the school's IT director. According to Doemel, "In selecting the product, the users--not the computing leadership--must make the decision. This was the most important factor in our success."

And at St. Edward's University (TX), the university registrar, Lance Hayes, reports, "In student registration, we're on the cutting edge with our CARS system [now Jenzabar]. Our students love it, and we do, as well. I'd say that it was a successful project largely due to the team effort that went into it; our IT people worked very closely with us and with the other administrative offices to make the enterprise project happen."

Yes, there are still horror stories out there, but the numbers of successful implementations are growing, and many university administrators report that the investment was definitely worth it. Heed their advice: Do your homework carefully, and do it in a collaborative and participative manner. Only in that way can you make sure that the vendor you select is fully prepared to be a partner in your success.

Linda Fleit is the president of Edutech International (www.edutechint.com), a technology consulting firm.