EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research

Insights from ECAR

CIC Presidents’ InstituteNaples, FL

January 6, 2003

Richard Katz, Dr. Robert Kvavik& John Voloudakis

www.educause.edu/ecar/

Page 2

The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR)

Established in 2002 with Seed Capital from EDUCAUSEA Network of Research FellowsFocus on Applied Research for Decision Makers in Higher

EducationFocus on Information Technologies AND their useFunding through College and University Subscriptions and

Sales and via Corporate Sponsorships and SalesSponsors include Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Datatel, Hewlett

Packard, Microsoft, PeopleSoft, SCT, and WebCT

Page 3

ECAR Products

Research Bulletins (25 per year)Research Studies (4 per year)Case Studies (10-15 per year)Symposia

Page 4

ECAR Studies - Research Goals

Assess the current state and rate of implementation of key technologies in higher education

Look in detail at problems and solutions associated with these technologies in different institutions

Assemble information necessary to answer key management and technology questions:­ Where­are­we­now?­ Where­are­we­going?­ What­have­we­learned?

Page 5

Research Methodology

Quantitative and qualitative research for comprehensive picture of an IT activity

Online surveys of institutions Detailed phone/e-mail follow-up interviews conducted with

representative institutionsPersonal onsite visits and discussions conducted with

institutions previously interviewed in depthFormal case studies prepared

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research

Wireless Technology in Higher Education

Page 7

Wireless - Respondent Demographics Two-thirds of the respondents are from the Baccalaureate, Masters,

and Doctoral categories Response rates for these categories run from 25% to 30% (28%

average)

N=392

Carnegie CategoryEducause Members Respondents

% of Members

% of Responses

Doctoral 240 80 17% 20%Masters 387 99 28% 25%Baccalaureate 285 88 20% 23%Professional­Specialty 49 11 3% 3%Associate 287 48 20% 12%All­Other 153 36 11% 9%Canada 30 8%Total­ 1401 392 100% 100%

Page 8

Why Implement Wireless?

11%

21%

21%

24%

30%

35%

38%

41%

43%

43%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

%­of­respondents­rating­factor­8-10­importance­(scale­of­1-10)

Student­anytime­access

Grow th­ability

Classroom­access

Faculty­anytime­access

Solve­specific­problem/app.

Leading­edge­perception

Commuter­student­access

Easier­move/add/change

Savings­over­installing­w ired

Competitive­pressures

Operating­cost­savings/w ired

Better access to the network is the key factor in driving wireless network implementations

Operational issues and cost savings are of lesser importance

N=370

Page 9

60 % of respondents have moved forward with wireless networking, although implementation is usually in stages­ The­rate­is­highest­in­Doctoral­(75%)­and­“other”­(79%)

Almost all other institutions are planning wireless or intend to implement wireless

Smaller institutions (<10,000 FTE) are more likely to have a campus-wide implementation

Wireless Implementation Rates

N=392

Page 10

A Very Recent Phenomenon Three-quarters of those implementing wireless networks have done so

since the start of 2001 (includes those with pilot implementations)

N=299

Page 11

Campus-w ide23%

Specific­buildings53%

Specif ic­building/­location23%

Other1%

What is the Scope of Implementation? Most current wireless implementations are in specific buildings

­ The­larger­the­institution­(FTE),­the­more­likely­it­is­to­have­a­specific­location­implementation­­

Of the institutions that have location-specific implementations today, half plan to expand to campus-wide

The implication is that institutional roll outs are phased

N=299

Page 12

16% 24%

16% 26%

27% 16%

32% 31%

46% 33%

57% 31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%­of­respondents­mentioning­coverage

Dormitories

Research­centers

Other

Administrative

Classrooms/lecture­halls

Library

2001 2003

Wireless Coverage

N=299

Libraries have the highest coverage of all building types, with coverage planned by most respondents in 24 months

Classrooms/lecture halls will also have very high coverage Research center coverage is highest at Doctoral universities (60%

expected in 2003) Three-quarters of implementers are planning outdoor use

Page 13

Who Uses Wireless Networks?Undergrads are the greatest users of wireless networks,

followed closely by faculty ­ Use­by­all­categories­of­users­is­highest­at­doctoral­universities,­including­80%­use­by­grad­students/researchers

­ Percent­use­across­all­categories­decreases­successively­for­Carnegie­MA,­BA,­and­AA­institutions

6%

44%

53%

73%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

%­of­respondents­mentioning­category

Undergraduates

Faculty

Administration

Graduate­students*

Other

N=299

*Graduate Students Includes researchers

Page 14

Which Departments Use Wireless? Institutions using wireless say Computer Science, Physical Science and

Business are the leading departments using wireless Doctoral Universities have the highest percentage of use by most

departments; Associates colleges often have the lowest

N=299

Page 15

What are the Challenges Faced?Security and end-user support challenges are most frequently

cited. (1.7 cited on average). BA institutions enforce encryption/authentication least often

13%

11%

16%

18%

43%

69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

%­of­respondents­mentioning

Security­issues

End-user­support

Cost­more­than­expected

Support­for­printing

Interoperability/wired

Other

N=299

Page 16

Wireless is Meeting ExpectationsWireless communications has exceeded or met the

expectations of nearly 90% or the respondents who have implemented it

But benchmarking is a challenge, especially since wireless is often viewed as supplemental rather than core

N=299

Page 17

Conclusions/ImplicationsSatisfaction with the investment in wireless is highAdoption rate cascades by educational segmentSmaller institutions may be using wireless as a competitive

differentiatorThe expansion of wireless and wired networks continues in

parallel (inconvenience vs. disaster)Phased rollout, with installing, learning, and revising seems the

way to goWireless standards will continue to be a challenge, especially

when it comes to security

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research

The Promise and Performance of Enterprise

Systems

Page 19

The study addresses four questions:

•What is ERP and why should universities invest in it – the business case? •What is the current status of ERP implementation

nationally? What were the perceived benefits and costs? •What lessons were learned?•And lastly, what is next?

Page 20

The survey respondents were mostly CIOs and other IT professionals

243

25

95

7

65

16 11 18CIO (or equivalent)

Vice President / Vice Provost

Dir. AdministrativeComputing Project Manager

Other IT Management

Other Admin. Management

Other Academic Mgmt.

Didn't Answer

43% of respondents have been in their positions for five or more years62% of respondents have been with their institution for five or more years

N=480

Page 21

The majority of respondents participated in the entire ERP project in a significant role

In position beforeplanning for ERPBeganIn position afterplanning but beforeimplementation beganHired during theimplementation

Hired after theproduct wasimplemented

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

Page 22

Identifying who implemented ERP for purposes of this study

Gartner described ERP systems as having the following attributes. This definition was adopted for purposes of this study.­ Multiple­in­scope,­tracking­a­range­of­activities­including­Human­Resources­Systems­(HR),­Student­Information­Systems,­and­Financial­Systems

­ Integrated,­meaning­when­data­is­added­in­one­area,­information­in­all­areas­and­related­functions,­also­change

­ Modular­in­structure­ Industry­specific­solutions­that­enhance­standard­systems­by­providing­best­practices­for­key­business­processes

In addition, this study bounded survey responses with the following criteria:­ Institutions­had­to­have­implemented­at­least­one­vendor-supplied­Finance,­HR,­or­Student­module

­ Implementations­must­have­been­completed­after­July­1,­1995

256 of 480 (54%) institutions responding to the survey implemented ERP, according to these criteria

BA institutions were slightly over represented in the sample versus EDUCAUSE membership and all Carnegie class institutions (+25%)

Page 23

Implementation by period and Carnegie Class

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

1980- 94 1995- 97 1998- 2000 2001-Year Implemented

% o

f Mod

ules

Im

plem

ente

dIn

Eac

h Pe

riod AA

BAMADr. Ext.Dr. Int

The largest number of implementations were reported in the 1998 – 2000 timeframe

N=­646­total­implementations

BA institutions were earlier to adopt ERP solutions. Along with doctoral extensive institutions, percentage-wise, they were more likely to adopt an ERP solution

Page 24

SCT (30%), PeopleSoft (25%) and Datatel (19%) installed the most modules for our respondents

43

3213

58

4

65

23

37

158

58

4

55

25

45

321

47

0

82

16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Financal HR StudentERP Module

ERP module by vendor

OtherSCTSAPPeopleSoftOracleJenzabarDatatel

N=­646­total­implementations

BA institutions were more likely to purchase from Jenzabar (most sales, especially private institutions), Datatel, and SCT

Page 25

What combination of modules were installed?

Module combinations Number Percent

Financial only 17 6%HR only 4 1%Student only 68 24%Financial and HR 71 25%

Financial and Student 28 10%

HR and Student 5 2%

All three 96 33%

Of­those­who­have­not­implemented­all­three­modules­but­planned­to­install­additional­modules­in­the­future,­56%­say­they­are­following­a­phased­implementation­plan,­and­haven’t­finished­yet­

Page 26

Six primary reasons emerged for package selection decisions

Factor Frequency Percent

Features/ functionality best fit requirements 193 20%Architecture best fit with IT strategy/goals 127 13%Vendor's reputation 126 13%Vendor's ability to provide a complete solution 124 13%Price 110 12%Vendor product/v ision 99 10%Advice from peers 67 7%Previous experience with vendor 41 4%Part of larger purchasing group that selected product 38 4%Advice from consultant/ industry analyst 28 3%

Why did institutions pick a particular vendor?

Respondents­were­asked­to­“pick­all­that­apply”

Note­that­this­does­not­necessarily­mean­that­these­were­the­most­important­reasons­packages­were­selected­–­just­that­they­played­a­role­in­the­decision

Page 27

The primary reason institutions implemented ERP was to replace aging legacy systems

Weighted Mean of Factors Identified

Respondents­were­asked­to­gauge­the­importance­of­each­of­these­factors,­with­

“1”­being­“most­important”

Frequencies of factor identified as “most important”

Respondents­were­asked­to­select­one­of­these­as­the­primary­reason­they­implemented­an­ERP­system

The­pattern­of­responses­was­similar­across­Carnegie­Classes

Page 28

46% of our respondents had not implemented ERP systems

Reasons Institutions Did Not Purchase an ERP System

However,­5%­are­currently­implementing

Another­5%­indicated­they­will­implement­within­one­year

25%­believe­they­may­implement­within­1-3­years

10%­indicate­that­they­may­implement­within­3-5­years

51%­are­not­considering­ERP­at­this­time

Page 29

Cost of ERP and viability of legacy systems are the most important factors preventing wider adoption of packaged

software

What would need to change Frequency Percent ­ Significant drop in price of software/cost of maintenance 79 20% Insurmountable problem with current system 71 18% Costs and risks of implementation drop significantly 64 16% Other competing priorities are addressed 48 12% Strong success stories in industry 34 9% Strong project champion emerges 33 8% Vendors make significant changes to software 8 2% Not answered 52 13% Respondents­were­asked­to­“select­all­that­apply”

Page 30

ERP implementations were more difficult than other large technology projects, particularly around process change

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Financial HR Student

Difficulty of InitialImplementationTechnical Difficulty

Process & Org.ChangeSupport

Difficulty compared to other large technology projects

Respondents­were­asked­to­assess­overall­difficulty­on­a­1-5­scale,­with­1­being­“Very­Easy”,­3­being­“About­the­Same”,­and­5­being­“Very­Difficult”

Page 31

The largest obstacles to ERP implementations were internal to the institutions

Obstacles Ranked by ERP System Financial

Rank HR

Rank Student

Rank Resistance to change 1 2 1 Data issues 5 4 2 Customization 7 6 3 Lack of understanding of software capabilities 4 3 4 Lack of internal expertise 2 1 5 Alignment between software and business practices 3 5 6 Conflicts with other priorities 8 7 7 Quality of software 6 10 8 Lack of consensus among business owners 11 9 9 Technical issues 9 11 10 Scope creep 10 8 11 Lack of financial resources 13 12 12 Inadequate training 12 13 13 Project schedule 14 14 14 Lack of consensus among senior management 17 16 15 Inadequate communication strategy 16 17 16 Issues with external consultants 15 15 17 Respondents­were­asked­to­select­the­three­largest­obstacles­to­implementing­­each­system.­­

Responses­are­ranked­by­weighted­means­

Page 32

CIOs and business officers were most involved with ERP implementations

Respondents­were­asked­to­assess­overall­difficulty­on­a­1-4­scale,­with­1­being­“Not­At­All”,­and­4­being­“Active­Involvement”.­­Figures­represent­weighted­means

At BA institutions Presidents were more likely to be the main advocate for an ERPsolution. BA institutions also involved deans and faculty to a greater degree than other

Carnegie Class institutions

Page 33

Consultants played a role in a significant number of implementations

Project Activity Financial HR StudentTraining 1 1 2Upgrades 2 6 4Project management 3 3 8Ongoing support 4 2 3System selection 5 4 1System design 6 7 6Project planning 7 5 5Technical implementation 8 8 7Process redesign 9 9 9

Consultant Support For Implementation Activities

Figures­represent­rank­order­of­percentage­of­project­team­comprised­of­consultants•2/3­of­respondents­used­consultants­for­at­least­one­aspect­of­their­implementation•Consultants­were­used­more­frequently­for­Student­implementations•90%­of­respondents­agreed­or­strongly­agreed­that­consultants­helped­the­institution­achieve­its­implementation­objectives•2/3­of­respondents­felt­their­consulting­dollars­were­well­spent.­­However,­50%­indicated­concern­with­prices­that­exceeded­estimates,­or­fees­that­were­not­tied­to­achieving­milestones

BA institutions were least likely to use outside consultants in their implementations

Page 34

Most implementations were reported to be finished on their original timeline and budget

Modules/ Schedule

Earlier On Schedule Over by up to 50%

Over by more than

50% Financials­(222)­

2%­ 72%­ 18%­ 4%­

HR­(184)­ 3%­ 66%­ 22%­ 7%­SIS­(201)­ 2%­ 63%­ 25%­ 7%­­

Budget/System Financial HR

Student

On or under budget 68% 73% 68%Over budget by up to 50% 28% 24% 27%Over budget by more than 50% 4% 3% 5%

60%­of­respondents­indicated­their­modules­went­live­within­1-2­years­after­planningPlanning­and­purchasing­took­under­1­year­at­80%­of­institutions

On­average,­Financial­systems­went­in­the­quickest,­and­Student­the­slowest

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

Page 35

“Plain vanilla” was the preferred implementation strategy, and most institutions came close

•Customization­was­found­to­be­the­most­statistically­significant­variable­affecting­project­outcomes•Doctoral­institutions­were­the­most­likely­to­customize,­across­all­modules•Overall,­Student­systems­were­the­most­heavily­customized•HR­Systems­in­private­institutions­showed­by­far­the­least­degree­of­customization

BA institutions were the least likely to customize their ERP software, especially in HR, and especially in private institutions

Page 36

No major project management issues were apparent, although the responses show room for improvement

Implementation assessment Mean ­ ­Excellent­budgeting/financial­management­ 3.00­Excellent­software­rollout­strategy­ 2.99­Scope­of­project­was­well­defined­ 2.96­Provided­timely­training­for­ERP­system­users­ 2.95­Excellent­job­managing/assessing­data­conversion­ 2.88­Excellent­executive­engagement­ 2.82­Excellent­job­identifying­project­outcomes­ 2.77­Project­had­an­excellent­written­strategy­ 2.73­Exemplary­job­communicating­goals/status/changes­ 2.66­Training­provided­users­with­understanding­of­system's­capacities­ 2.57­Broad­agreement­on­benchmarks­for­the­project­ 2.53­Excellent­job­measuring­and­communicating­project­outcomes­ 2.52­ Responses­represent­a­1-4­scale,­with­1­being­“Strongly­Disagree”,­and­4­being­“Strongly­Agree”.­

­Figures­represent­weighted­means•Full-time­project­managers­were­assigned­at­55%­of­institutions•75%­of­project­managers­were­internal,­10%­external,­and­15%­joint­internal­and­external•54%­of­the­project­managers­had­no­previous­experience­implementing­ERP,­and­75%­had­not­implemented­the­chosen­package­before

BA institutions were more likely to use part-time project managers

Page 37

For the majority of institutions, desired project outcomes were mostly achieved

Outcomes Mean ­ ­ERP­participants­gained­from­experience­professionally­ 3.30­Added­new­services­for­students,­faculty,­and­staff­ 3.29­Improved­services­to­students,­faculty,­and­staff­ 3.25­Easier­to­take­advantage­of­new­technologies­ 3.22­Management­information­is­more­accurate­and­accessible­ 3.12­Enhanced­regulatory­compliance­ 3.11­Improved­institutional­processes­ 3.04­Increased­institutional­accountability­ 3.03­Enhanced­institution's­business­performance­ 3.02­Reduced­business­risk­ 2.97­Enhanced­support­of­academic­mission­ 2.92­Enhanced­primary­users'­knowledge­and­skills­ 2.91­Increased­stake­holder's­confidence­in­institution­ 2.79­Less­costly­to­integrate­than­previous­system­ 2.56­Less­costly­to­upgrade­than­previous­system­ 2.16­Removed­some­services­that­students,­faculty,­and­staff­valued­ 2.15­Less­costly­to­operate­and­maintain­that­previous­system­ 2.01­­We 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 noThe reported alignment between ERP and institutional vision was best at

BA institutions, and least aligned at Doctoral Ext. institutions

Page 38

However, the benefits of ERP are not immediate in many cases, and may require institutional change to achieve

How long to achieve desired outcomes?

Frequency Percent

Immediately 48 21%Within three months 34 15%

Within three to six months 39 18%

Within six months to one year 55 24%

Over one year 49 22%

•54%­of­respondents­indicated­that­their­institutional­productivity­dropped­immediately­after­the­implementation•70%­indicated­that­their­productivity­has­improved­today•69%­indicated­that­the­workload­at­both­the­central­and­departmental­level­has­increased•66%­believe­the­nature­of­the­work­performed­by­the­institution’s­employees­has­changed­significantly

Page 39

The majority of respondents indicated their institutions received major benefits from ERP

The respondents were asked to assess the impact the ERP had on management, students, staff, and faculty

• 87% perceived significant benefit for management, 85% for staff, 78% for students, and 68% for faculty

• 85% of respondents indicated that their implementation was worth the cost

Page 40

The majority of respondents indicated they would take a similar approach again, with some improvements

•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.

•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.

What would you change? Frequency ­ ­Communications­ 112­Process­redesign­ 102­Training­process­ 90­Project­schedule­ 88­Project­budget­ 71­Project­governance­ 61­Internal­team­structure­ 58­Software­customizations­ 52­Project­manager­ 50­Project­scope­ 48­External­consultants­ 43­Software­ 41­Technology­infrastructure­ 29­

Page 41

Support costs went up in many instances

Support cost Mean

% decreased or stayed the same

% increased up to 25%

% increased over 26%

­ ­ ­ ­ ­Packaged­software­ 3.25­ 25%­ 26%­ 49%­Data­base­ 3.44­ 31%­ 29%­ 40%­Training­ 3.72­ 27%­ 25%­ 48%­Staff/personnel­ 3.84­ 35%­ 33%­ 32%­Hardware­and­infrastructure­ 3.97­ 38%­ 26%­ 36%­Desktop­products­and­services­ 4.13­ 52%­ 24%­ 24%­Help­desk­&­user­support­ 4.17­ 46%­ 33%­ 27%­System­operations­and­management­ 4.24­ 46%­ 29%­ 35%­Consulting­ 4.28­ 57%­ 23%­ 20%­Internal­applications­and­code­ 4.95­ 66%­ 23%­ 11%­­

Responses­represent­a­1-7­scale,­with­1­being­“Increased­Significantly”,­5­being­“Did­not­Change”,­and­7­being­“Decreased­Significantly”

Responses­are­ordered­by­weighted­means

While the numbers are proportionate, BA institutions reported higher post-ERP staffing and infrastructure costs than other Carnegie Class institutions

Page 42

ERP implementations are ongoing, with new components being added at many institutions

New additions to ERP System

I mplemented or

implementing

Within 1 year

1-3 years

3-5 years or not under

consideration New modules of core applications

47% 23% 16% 14%

Add/substitute best of breed applications

19% 7% 16% 65%

Archiving/ imaging 26% 13% 28% 33% CRM 18% 6% 15% 61% Data warehousing 39% 10% 27% 23% eCommerce/eProcurement 35% 20% 24% 21% Portal 40% 14% 30% 15% Workflow 25% 16% 23% 74%

Page 43

Many institutions and vendors envision an adaptive future-state technical architecture

Pres

. Lay

er

Telephone/Call­CenterRole-based

PresentationPersonalized

Web­Browser

Con

nect

ivity

Lay

erA

pplic

atio

n La

yer

Dat

a L

ayer

Data Warehouse

InstitutionalContent

User Preferences

Operational Data Store(s)

Smart­Cards

User Data

Handhelds

WirelessDevices

Portal

AnytimeAnywhereAccess

Security

Single­Sign-On

Enterprise­Directory

Role-Based

VPN

Role-Based

Personalization

Cross-Platform

­

Cross-Application

Students StaffFaculty Alumni Prospects Community Suppliers Affiliates

Network

LAN

Internet

WAN

Wireless

EAI

Analytics/­OLA

P

Ad-Hoc­Query

“Canned”­Reports

Report­S

erver

Reporting

Data­Mapping

Messaging

Shared­Applications:­Calendaring,­Content­Mgmt,­eMail,­Knowledge­Mgmt,­Payment­Processing,­Search­Engine,­User­Support­Tools,­etc.­­

Academic

Advising

Course­Mgm

t

Library

Research

Administrative

Financial­A

id

Adm

issions

Financials

HR

Fundraising

Grants­Mgm

t

Procurement

Student­Records

Registra

tion

Page 44

Excerpts from Smith College’s ERP implementation experience – Unique attributes of implementing at a small liberal arts college

Benefits The­ERP­system­allowed­Smith­to­provide­better,­more­personalized­service­to­their­students,­a­key­tenet­of­the­institution’s­strategy

Departmental­users­felt­empowered­that­their­role­on­the­implementation­team­would­make­a­difference;­that­their­voices­would­be­heard

Simple,­centralized­administrative­structure­made­it­easier­to­successfully­implement­‘vanilla’,­and­to­make­other­decisions­along­the­way

Issues Members­of­Smith’s­project­team­felt­that­the­ERP­packages­on­the­market­were­designed­for­much­larger­organizations,­and­this­caused­some­issues­in­making­the­institution’s­business­processes­conform­to­the­system

Smith­felt­that­it­did­not­have­an­adequate­number­of­staff­to­dedicate­to­the­project­team,­as­compared­to­larger­institutions

Smith­faced­issues­of­expectations­management­with­its­alumni,­as­they­showed­a­strong­interest­in­this­project

Page 45

QuestionsContact Information

-­­Richard­Katz rkatz@educause.edu­­ Dr.­Robert­Kvavik kvavik@umn.edu­ John­Voloudakis john.voloudakis@cgey.com

To purchase the full study, or for more information, see www.educause.edu/ecar