Vendor Landscape Higher Education ERP The old dogs

Vendor Landscape: Higher Education ERP The old dogs are (finally) producing some new tricks. Info-Tech Research Group 1

Introduction Higher education ERP is all about linking constituent (e. g. faculty, staff, and students) management with financial management. This Research Is Designed For: This Research Will Help You: ü Medium-sized universities and colleges that need a ü Understand what’s new in the higher education single solution for their HR, financial, and student management. ü Their ERP use case may include: • Institutions that want to implement self-service and mobile solutions for constituents. • Institutions that need a comprehensive financial solution that integrates fundraising and grants management. ERP market. ü Evaluate higher education ERP vendors and products for your enterprise needs. ü Determine which products are most appropriate for particular use cases and scenarios. • Institutions with complex facilities and assets that need a management solution. • Institutions that want to integrate their Learning Management System with their ERP. Info-Tech Research Group 2

Market Overview How it got here • Universities struggle with consolidated management of all of their constituents: students, alumni, donors, and faculty. • Early ERP solutions weren’t appropriate for education. ERP traditionally dealt with materials while education is about people. People. Soft emerged to address that difference. • Data management specialists, such as Datatel and Jenzabar, brought database solutions to manage student information. Eventually these became add-on modules for ERP solutions. • The result of this evolution has lead to two types of higher education ERPs: student-focused and facilitiesfocused. • IT managers need to carefully assess which solution is most appropriate for their needs. Where it’s going • The higher education specific market is still in flux. Continued acquisitions and re-platforming are shaking up the market. This has lead to difficulties in directly comparing the ERP offerings. • No one vendor provides a comprehensive solution that allows management of all constituent and financial activities. Each vendor is inherently a specialist. • The solutions offered as a whole are incomplete. A key for customers is deciding which features they are willing to purchase as add-ons to the core ERP product. These add-ons complicate both the selection cycle and budgets. • The large gaps remain in faculty management, grants management, and constituent communication. • The complex relationships between resources (faculty and students) and budgeting has led vendors to focus on data integration. As the market evolves, capabilities that were once cutting edge become default, and new functionality becomes differentiating. Integrated SIS and e-learning integration has become a Table Stakes capability and should not be used to differentiate solutions. Instead focus on faculty-specific modules and the extent of the core modules to get the best fit for your requirements. Info-Tech Research Group 3

Higher Ed ERP Vendor Landscape selection / knock-out criteria: Market share, mind share, and market consolidation • This market is maturing at an uneven pace, with vendors still attempting to understand the needs of different segments of the market. The landscape is dominated by People. Soft for large institutions. Many viable educationspecific competitors exist at all levels. Included in the Vendor Landscape: • For this Vendor Landscape, Info-Tech focused on those vendors that have • Management a range software solutions built on Microsoft technology. It among is dedicatedsmall to the education a. Campus strong marketoffers presence and/or reputational presence to mid industry. -sized enterprises. • Datatel is a pioneer of higher education solutions. It continues to focus on supporting new teaching and learning methods. • Jenzabar is a relatively new player to higher education ERP. Jenzabar offers flexible ERP solutions on three different technology platforms. • Oracle People. Soft Campus Solutions is the marketplace leader and the founder of this specific segment of ERP market. • Sun. Gard Higher Education was built on open source. Its modular design accommodates a range of institution sizes. • UNIT 4 Business Software is a new player to higher education ERP. Agresso Education provides solutions with holistic planning and choices in mind. Info-Tech Research Group 4

Higher Education ERP Criteria & Weighting Factors Product Evaluation 25% Features The solution provides basic and advanced feature/functionality. Usability The solution’s dashboard and reporting tools are intuitive and easy to use. Architecture Features 55% 15% The delivery method of the solution aligns with what is expected within the space. 50% Viability Vendor is profitable, knowledgeable, and will be around for the long-term. Strategy Vendor is committed to the space and has a future product and portfolio roadmap. Reach Vendor offers global coverage and is able to sell and provide post-sales support. Info-Tech Research Group Architecture Product Vendor Evaluation Channel Usability Vendor Viability Channel 30% 25% 30% 15% Strategy Reach Vendor channel strategy is appropriate and the channels themselves are strong. 5

Table Stakes represent the minimum standard; without these a product doesn’t even get reviewed The Table Stakes What Does This Mean? Feature Description Student Information System Online course calendar and student selfservice portal. Human Resource Controls Basic HR tools. All vendors in this VL have segmentation and document attaching capabilities for tracking employees. E-Learning Integration The ability to attach and integrate at least one e-learning system into the SIS. Business Suite Basic financial tracking and monitoring. All vendors had some level of analytics. Constituent Relationship Management Basic CRM function including information tracking specifically related to financial relationships. The products assessed in this Vendor Landscape. TM meet, at the very least, the requirements outlined as Table Stakes. Many of the vendors go above and beyond the outlined Table Stakes, some even do so in multiple categories. This section aims to highlight the products capabilities in excess of the criteria listed here. If Table Stakes are all you need from your ERP solution, the only true differentiator for the organization is which relationship/resource, financial or students, is most important. Otherwise, dig deeper to find the best price to value for your needs. Info-Tech Research Group 6

Advanced Features are the market differentiators that make or break a product (1 of 2) Scoring Methodology Advanced Features Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features offering as a summation of their individual scores across the listed advanced features. Vendors were given one point for each feature the product inherently provided. Some categories were scored on a more granular scale with vendors receiving half points (see appendix for Partial functionality criteria). Feature What We Looked For E-Learning Full point given for an integrated e-learning solution that is linked visible to the CRM and financial users for long-term planning. Minimal points given for a dedicated linkage to a separate learning management solution. Self-Service Specific self-service portal for all users: employees (faculty, administrators, staff) and students (prospective, current, alumni). Mobility and Communications A mobile platform that allows all users role-based access. Minimal points were given for student self-service apps, campus-wide communications, or mobile-optimized web portals. Modules and features that required additional purchase were given minimal credit. Separate HR and SIS A separation of Human Resources and student databases to ease maintenance and search of databases. Minimal points were given for expanded SIS search options such as keyword search. Performance Analytics A flexible analytics platform that can be used to compare and align student information with financial planning. Full points given for integrated platforms that have a UI that casual users can customize based on their role. Info-Tech Research Group 7

Advanced Features are the market differentiators that make or break a product (2 0 f 2) Scoring Methodology Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features offering as a summation of their individual scores across the listed advanced features. Vendors were given one point for each feature the product inherently provided. Some categories were scored on a more granular scale with vendors receiving half points (see appendix for Partial functionality criteria). Modules and features that required additional purchase where given minimal credit. Info-Tech Research Group Advanced Features Feature What We Looked For Administrative Solutions Specific module for integration of Registrar and student services to monitor and evaluate the student population. Full points were awarded for solutions that provide automation of simple advancement towards degree and course requirements. Advanced CRM Education specific pre-customized with core constituents based on faculty type, current students, prospective students, donors, and alumni. This includes integration of financial planning and donor/alumni giving for long-term planning. Faculty Development Ability to track and support the professional development of faculty members. Full points for a dedicated module. Grant Management Ability to track and implement controls based on grantor requirements. Fundraising Ability to track who is donating and prospecting for additional money from the alumni and parents through integration of student databases and CRMs. Facilities/Asset Management Integrated approach to allow financial planning, student admissions, and supply chain decisions to be made at a high level. Supply Chain Ability to manage maintenance, repair, and operation functions for infrastructure (e. g. buildings, laboratories, etc. ) in the context of shifting budgets; a common issue for higher education institutes. 8

Appendix • Vendor Evaluation Methodology – Partial Scoring Criteria for ERP Info-Tech Research Group 9

Vendor Evaluation Methodology Info-Tech Research Group’s Vendor Landscape market evaluations are a part of a larger program of vendor evaluations which includes Solution Sets that provide both Vendor Landscapes and broader Selection Advice. From the domain experience of our analysts, as well as through consultation with our clients, a vendor/product shortlist is established. Product briefings are requested from each of these vendors, asking for information on the company, products, technology, customers, partners, sales models, and pricing. Our analysts then score each vendor and product across a variety of categories, on a scale of 0 -10 points. The raw scores for each vendor are then normalized to the other vendors’ scores to provide a sufficient degree of separation for a meaningful comparison. These scores are then weighted according to weighting factors that our analysts believe represent the weight that an average client should apply to each criteria. The weighted scores are then averaged for each of two high level categories: vendor score and product score. A plot of these two resulting scores is generated to place vendors in one of four categories: Champion, Innovator, Market Pillar, and Emerging Player. For a more granular category by category comparison, analysts convert the individual scores (absolute, non-normalized) for each vendor/product in each evaluated category to a scale of zero to four whereby exceptional performance receives a score of four, and poor performance receives a score of zero. These scores are represented with “Harvey Balls, ” ranging from an open circle for a score of zero, to a filled in circle for a score of four. Harvey Ball scores are indicative of absolute performance by category, but are not an exact correlation to overall performance. Individual scorecards are then sent to the vendors for factual review, and to ensure no information is under embargo. We will make corrections where factual errors exist (e. g. pricing, features, technical specifications). We will consider suggestions concerning benefits, functional quality, value, etc; however, these suggestions must be validated by feedback from our customers. We do not accept changes that are not corroborated by actual client experience, or wording changes that are purely part of a vendor’s market messaging or positioning. Any resulting changes to final scores are then made as needed, before publishing the results to Info-Tech clients. Vendor Landscapes are refreshed every 12 to 24 months, depending upon the dynamics of each individual market. Info-Tech Research Group 10

Vendor Evaluation Methodology-Partial scoring criteria for ERP Info-Tech Research Group’s Vendor Landscape market evaluations are a part of a larger program of vendor evaluations which includes Solution Sets that provide both Vendor Landscapes and broader Selection Advice. From the domain experience of our analysts, as well as through consultation with our clients, a vendor/product shortlist is established. Product briefings are requested from each of these vendors, asking for information on the company, products, technology, customers, partners, sales models and pricing. Our analysts then score each vendor and product across a variety of categories, on a scale of 0 -10 points. The raw scores for each vendor are then normalized to the other vendors’ scores to provide a sufficient degree of separation for a meaningful comparison. These scores are then weighted according to weighting factors that our analysts believe represent the weight that an average client should apply to each criteria. The weighted scores are then averaged for each of two high level categories: vendor score and product score. A plot of these two resulting scores is generated to place vendors in one of four categories: Champion, Innovator, Market Pillar, and Emerging Player. For ERP, a more granular approach was required to account for differences in the nature of the advanced features from each vendor. Analysts then scored each advanced feature from zero to one. A score of one indicates that the feature fully met the scoring criteria as defined in the advanced feature slide, a score of 0. 2 was awarded for advanced features that are minimal, third party add-ons, or features that require upgrade. Features that had some, but not all, of the criteria, or features that are add-on modules, and can be purchased alone, were given a score of 0. 5. Advanced features that required further customization to meet the criteria, or very closely meet the criteria with the exception of one component, were given a score of 0. 75. Info-Tech Research Group 11

Info-Tech Research Group Helps IT Professionals To: ü ü ü Quickly get up to speed with new technologies ü Manage business expectations ü Justify IT spending and prove the value of IT ü Train IT staff and effectively manage an IT department Make the right technology purchasing decisions – fast Deliver critical IT projects, on time and within budget Sign up for free trial membership to get practical solutions for your IT challenges • “Info-Tech helps me to be proactive instead of reactive – a cardinal rule in a stable and leading edge IT environment. - ARCS Commercial Mortgage Co. , LP Toll Free: 1 -888 -670 -8889 Info-Tech Research Group www. infotech. com 12