presentation slides


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

presentation slides

  1. 1. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Insights from ECAR CIC Presidents’ Institute Naples, FL January 6, 2003 Richard Katz, Dr. Robert Kvavik & John Voloudakis
  2. 2. The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) <ul><li>Established in 2002 with Seed Capital from EDUCAUSE </li></ul><ul><li>A Network of Research Fellows </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on Applied Research for Decision Makers in Higher Education </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on Information Technologies AND their use </li></ul><ul><li>Funding through College and University Subscriptions and Sales and via Corporate Sponsorships and Sales </li></ul><ul><li>Sponsors include Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Datatel, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, PeopleSoft, SCT, and WebCT </li></ul>
  3. 3. ECAR Products <ul><li>Research Bulletins (25 per year) </li></ul><ul><li>Research Studies (4 per year) </li></ul><ul><li>Case Studies (10-15 per year) </li></ul><ul><li>Symposia </li></ul>
  4. 4. ECAR Studies - Research Goals <ul><li>Assess the current state and rate of implementation of key technologies in higher education </li></ul><ul><li>Look in detail at problems and solutions associated with these technologies in different institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Assemble information necessary to answer key management and technology questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where are we now? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where are we going? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What have we learned? </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Research Methodology <ul><li>Quantitative and qualitative research for comprehensive picture of an IT activity </li></ul><ul><li>Online surveys of institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Detailed phone/e-mail follow-up interviews conducted with representative institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Personal onsite visits and discussions conducted with institutions previously interviewed in depth </li></ul><ul><li>Formal case studies prepared </li></ul>
  6. 6. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Wireless Technology in Higher Education
  7. 7. Wireless - Respondent Demographics <ul><li>Two-thirds of the respondents are from the Baccalaureate, Masters, and Doctoral categories </li></ul><ul><li>Response rates for these categories run from 25% to 30% (28% average) </li></ul>N=392
  8. 8. Why Implement Wireless? <ul><li>Better access to the network is the key factor in driving wireless network implementations </li></ul><ul><li>Operational issues and cost savings are of lesser importance </li></ul>N=370
  9. 9. <ul><li>60 % of respondents have moved forward with wireless networking, although implementation is usually in stages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The rate is highest in Doctoral (75%) and “other” (79%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Almost all other institutions are planning wireless or intend to implement wireless </li></ul><ul><li>Smaller institutions (<10,000 FTE) are more likely to have a campus-wide implementation </li></ul>Wireless Implementation Rates N=392
  10. 10. A Very Recent Phenomenon <ul><li>Three-quarters of those implementing wireless networks have done so since the start of 2001 (includes those with pilot implementations) </li></ul>N=299
  11. 11. What is the Scope of Implementation? <ul><li>Most current wireless implementations are in specific buildings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The larger the institution (FTE), the more likely it is to have a specific location implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Of the institutions that have location-specific implementations today, half plan to expand to campus-wide </li></ul><ul><li>The implication is that institutional roll outs are phased </li></ul>N=299
  12. 12. Wireless Coverage <ul><li>Libraries have the highest coverage of all building types, with coverage planned by most respondents in 24 months </li></ul><ul><li>Classrooms/lecture halls will also have very high coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Research center coverage is highest at Doctoral universities (60% expected in 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Three-quarters of implementers are planning outdoor use </li></ul>N=299
  13. 13. Who Uses Wireless Networks? <ul><li>Undergrads are the greatest users of wireless networks, followed closely by faculty </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use by all categories of users is highest at doctoral universities, including 80% use by grad students/researchers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Percent use across all categories decreases successively for Carnegie MA, BA, and AA institutions </li></ul></ul>N=299 *Graduate Students Includes researchers
  14. 14. Which Departments Use Wireless? <ul><li>Institutions using wireless say Computer Science, Physical Science and Business are the leading departments using wireless </li></ul><ul><li>Doctoral Universities have the highest percentage of use by most departments; Associates colleges often have the lowest </li></ul>N=299
  15. 15. What are the Challenges Faced? <ul><li>Security and end-user support challenges are most frequently cited. (1.7 cited on average). BA institutions enforce encryption/authentication least often </li></ul>N=299
  16. 16. Wireless is Meeting Expectations <ul><li>Wireless communications has exceeded or met the expectations of nearly 90% or the respondents who have implemented it </li></ul><ul><li>But benchmarking is a challenge, especially since wireless is often viewed as supplemental rather than core </li></ul>N=299
  17. 17. Conclusions/Implications <ul><li>Satisfaction with the investment in wireless is high </li></ul><ul><li>Adoption rate cascades by educational segment </li></ul><ul><li>Smaller institutions may be using wireless as a competitive differentiator </li></ul><ul><li>The expansion of wireless and wired networks continues in parallel (inconvenience vs. disaster) </li></ul><ul><li>Phased rollout, with installing, learning, and revising seems the way to go </li></ul><ul><li>Wireless standards will continue to be a challenge, especially when it comes to security </li></ul>
  18. 18. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research The Promise and Performance of Enterprise Systems
  19. 19. The study addresses four questions: <ul><ul><ul><li>What is ERP and why should universities invest in it – the business case? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What is the current status of ERP implementation nationally? What were the perceived benefits and costs? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What lessons were learned? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>And lastly, what is next? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. The survey respondents were mostly CIOs and other IT professionals 43% of respondents have been in their positions for five or more years 62% of respondents have been with their institution for five or more years N=480
  21. 21. The majority of respondents participated in the entire ERP project in a significant role When Did Respondents Join the Project? 78% of respondents indicated that they played a significant role on the project, either as an executive sponsor, project leader, management team member, or functional / technical specialist N=257
  22. 22. Identifying who implemented ERP for purposes of this study <ul><li>Gartner described ERP systems as having the following attributes. This definition was adopted for purposes of this study. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple in scope, tracking a range of activities including Human Resources Systems (HR), Student Information Systems, and Financial Systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrated, meaning when data is added in one area, information in all areas and related functions, also change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modular in structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industry specific solutions that enhance standard systems by providing best practices for key business processes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In addition, this study bounded survey responses with the following criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutions had to have implemented at least one vendor-supplied Finance, HR, or Student module </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementations must have been completed after July 1, 1995 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>256 of 480 (54%) institutions responding to the survey implemented ERP, according to these criteria </li></ul>BA institutions were slightly over represented in the sample versus EDUCAUSE membership and all Carnegie class institutions (+25%)
  23. 23. The largest number of implementations were reported in the 1998 – 2000 timeframe N= 646 total implementations BA institutions were earlier to adopt ERP solutions. Along with doctoral extensive institutions, percentage-wise, they were more likely to adopt an ERP solution
  24. 24. SCT (30%), PeopleSoft (25%) and Datatel (19%) installed the most modules for our respondents N= 646 total implementations BA institutions were more likely to purchase from Jenzabar (most sales, especially private institutions), Datatel, and SCT
  25. 25. What combination of modules were installed? Of those who have not implemented all three modules but planned to install additional modules in the future, 56% say they are following a phased implementation plan, and haven’t finished yet 33% 96 All three 2% 5 HR and Student 10% 28 Financial and Student 25% 71 Financial and HR 24% 68 Student only 1% 4 HR only 6% 17 Financial only Percent Number Module combinations
  26. 26. Six primary reasons emerged for package selection decisions Why did institutions pick a particular vendor? Respondents were asked to “pick all that apply” Note that this does not necessarily mean that these were the most important reasons packages were selected – just that they played a role in the decision
  27. 27. The primary reason institutions implemented ERP was to replace aging legacy systems Weighted Mean of Factors Identified Respondents were asked to gauge the importance of each of these factors, with “1” being “most important” Frequencies of factor identified as “most important” Respondents were asked to select one of these as the primary reason they implemented an ERP system The pattern of responses was similar across Carnegie Classes
  28. 28. 46% of our respondents had not implemented ERP systems Reasons Institutions Did Not Purchase an ERP System <ul><li>However, 5% are currently implementing </li></ul><ul><li>Another 5% indicated they will implement within one year </li></ul><ul><li>25% believe they may implement within 1-3 years </li></ul><ul><li>10% indicate that they may implement within 3-5 years </li></ul><ul><li>51% are not considering ERP at this time </li></ul>
  29. 29. Cost of ERP and viability of legacy systems are the most important factors preventing wider adoption of packaged software Respondents were asked to “select all that apply”
  30. 30. ERP implementations were more difficult than other large technology projects, particularly around process change Difficulty compared to other large technology projects Respondents were asked to assess overall difficulty on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being “Very Easy”, 3 being “About the Same”, and 5 being “Very Difficult”
  31. 31. The largest obstacles to ERP implementations were internal to the institutions Respondents were asked to select the three largest obstacles to implementing each system. Responses are ranked by weighted means
  32. 32. CIOs and business officers were most involved with ERP implementations Respondents were asked to assess overall difficulty on a 1-4 scale, with 1 being “Not At All”, and 4 being “Active Involvement”. Figures represent weighted means At BA institutions Presidents were more likely to be the main advocate for an ERP solution. BA institutions also involved deans and faculty to a greater degree than other Carnegie Class institutions
  33. 33. Consultants played a role in a significant number of implementations Consultant Support For Implementation Activities Figures represent rank order of percentage of project team comprised of consultants <ul><li>2/3 of respondents used consultants for at least one aspect of their implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Consultants were used more frequently for Student implementations </li></ul><ul><li>90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that consultants helped the institution achieve its implementation objectives </li></ul><ul><li>2/3 of respondents felt their consulting dollars were well spent. However, 50% indicated concern with prices that exceeded estimates, or fees that were not tied to achieving milestones </li></ul>BA institutions were least likely to use outside consultants in their implementations 9 9 9 Process redesign 7 8 8 Technical implementation 5 5 7 Project planning 6 7 6 System design 1 4 5 System selection 3 2 4 Ongoing support 8 3 3 Project management 4 6 2 Upgrades 2 1 1 Training Student HR Financial Project Activity
  34. 34. Most implementations were reported to be finished on their original timeline and budget 60% of respondents indicated their modules went live within 1-2 years after planning Planning and purchasing took under 1 year at 80% of institutions On average, Financial systems went in the quickest, and Student the slowest Implementations at BA institutions were faster, but there were not large differences in scheduled time to completion. BA institutions had, on average, the least expensive implementations in the sample 5% 3% 4% Over budget by more than 50% 27% 24% 28% Over budget by up to 50% 68% 73% 68% On or under budget Student HR Financial Budget/System
  35. 35. “Plain vanilla” was the preferred implementation strategy, and most institutions came close <ul><li>Customization was found to be the most statistically significant variable affecting project outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Doctoral institutions were the most likely to customize, across all modules </li></ul><ul><li>Overall, Student systems were the most heavily customized </li></ul><ul><li>HR Systems in private institutions showed by far the least degree of customization </li></ul>BA institutions were the least likely to customize their ERP software, especially in HR, and especially in private institutions
  36. 36. No major project management issues were apparent, although the responses show room for improvement Responses represent a 1-4 scale, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree”, and 4 being “Strongly Agree”. Figures represent weighted means <ul><li>Full-time project managers were assigned at 55% of institutions </li></ul><ul><li>75% of project managers were internal, 10% external, and 15% joint internal and external </li></ul><ul><li>54% of the project managers had no previous experience implementing ERP, and 75% had not implemented the chosen package before </li></ul>BA institutions were more likely to use part-time project managers
  37. 37. For the majority of institutions, desired project outcomes were mostly achieved We asked our respondents whether they achieved their intended project outcomes. 124 or 51% answered yes, 112 or 46% partially, and only 6 or 3% answered no The reported alignment between ERP and institutional vision was best at BA institutions, and least aligned at Doctoral Ext. institutions
  38. 38. However, the benefits of ERP are not immediate in many cases, and may require institutional change to achieve <ul><li>54% of respondents indicated that their institutional productivity dropped immediately after the implementation </li></ul><ul><li>70% indicated that their productivity has improved today </li></ul><ul><li>69% indicated that the workload at both the central and departmental level has increased </li></ul><ul><li>66% believe the nature of the work performed by the institution’s employees has changed significantly </li></ul>22% 49 Over one year 24% 55 Within six months to one year 18% 39 Within three to six months 15% 34 Within three months 21% 48 Immediately Percent Frequency How long to achieve desired outcomes?
  39. 39. The majority of respondents indicated their institutions received major benefits from ERP <ul><li>The respondents were asked to assess the impact the ERP had on management, students, staff, and faculty </li></ul><ul><li>87% perceived significant benefit for management, 85% for staff, 78% for students, and 68% for faculty </li></ul><ul><li>85% of respondents indicated that their implementation was worth the cost </li></ul>
  40. 40. The majority of respondents indicated they would take a similar approach again, with some improvements <ul><li>The respondents were asked whether they would build or buy if they were to do it again. 88% would buy, 7% would build, and 5% had no opinion. </li></ul><ul><li>Two-thirds of the respondents would use a similar approach if they were to do an ERP project again. 46%, of the non-ERP schools would continue with their current approach. </li></ul>
  41. 41. Support costs went up in many instances Responses represent a 1-7 scale, with 1 being “Increased Significantly”, 5 being “Did not Change”, and 7 being “Decreased Significantly” Responses are ordered by weighted means While the numbers are proportionate, BA institutions reported higher post-ERP staffing and infrastructure costs than other Carnegie Class institutions
  42. 42. ERP implementations are ongoing, with new components being added at many institutions
  43. 43. Many institutions and vendors envision an adaptive future-state technical architecture Telephone/Call Center Role-based Presentation Personalized Web Browser Application Layer Data Layer Data Warehouse Institutional Content User Preferences Operational Data Store(s) User Data Wireless Devices Portal Anytime Anywhere Access Security Single Sign-On Enterprise Directory Role-Based VPN Role-Based Personalization Cross-Platform Cross-Application Students Staff Faculty Alumni Prospects Community Suppliers Affiliates Network LAN Internet WAN Wireless EAI Analytics/ OLAP Ad-Hoc Query “ Canned” Reports Report Server Reporting Data Mapping Messaging Shared Applications: Calendaring, Content Mgmt, eMail, Knowledge Mgmt, Payment Processing, Search Engine, User Support Tools, etc. Academic Advising Course Mgmt Library Research Administrative Financial Aid Admissions Financials HR Fundraising Grants Mgmt Procurement Student Records Registration Pres. Layer Connectivity Layer Smart Cards Handhelds
  44. 44. Excerpts from Smith College’s ERP implementation experience – Unique attributes of implementing at a small liberal arts college <ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>The ERP system allowed Smith to provide better, more personalized service to their students, a key tenet of the institution’s strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Departmental users felt empowered that their role on the implementation team would make a difference; that their voices would be heard </li></ul><ul><li>Simple, centralized administrative structure made it easier to successfully implement ‘vanilla’, and to make other decisions along the way </li></ul><ul><li>Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Members of Smith’s project team felt that the ERP packages on the market were designed for much larger organizations, and this caused some issues in making the institution’s business processes conform to the system </li></ul><ul><li>Smith felt that it did not have an adequate number of staff to dedicate to the project team, as compared to larger institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Smith faced issues of expectations management with its alumni, as they showed a strong interest in this project </li></ul>
  45. 45. Questions <ul><li>Contact Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Richard Katz [email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr. Robert Kvavik [email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>John Voloudakis [email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To purchase the full study, or for more information, see </li></ul>