by Camille Perlman
In many ways, purchasing a new information technology system and then bringing it online can feel like pushing a rock up a mountain. It is a huge task, and it involves a lot of people (and their time) across several departments. There can be many motivating factors that drive a department to seek out a new system, but those who have traveled this path before will warn that simple frustration with the current system should not be the primary driver of that choice. Rather, they say, the team should move toward this decision with clear heads and a clear purpose.
From the beginning, understanding what the housing department’s needs truly are, knowing what features to look for, and having the right people at the decision-making table will smooth the process of researching and implementing a new system. It’s also important to manage expectations since the more realistic staff are as they start the process the more likely it is that better choices will be made for the project as a whole. This enables project managers and team members to stay grounded with project goals, and it lets important budget guidelines and the software features most important to the department’s success remain clear in the request-for-proposal (RFP) process and throughout discussions as vendors are brought in for demonstrations. It also supports staff in making honest decisions about what software features best suit their needs. And it supports the decisions about who are the key people needed on the project team.
So when is the right time to start searching for an upgrade to the department’s information technology systems? Aaron Lucier, director of housing operations at East Carolina University, says the time to start the break-up has arrived “when the gap between what operationally works best for your students or department and what your current solution can do becomes larger than the challenge of changing solutions.”
The housing staff at Clemson University remembers when they saw the writing on the wall. It was a number of years ago when Clemson and their homegrown housing management system took their processes online. Tracy Foss, director of housing administration, notes that over time they noticed more and more limitations both inside and outside their system. At times, they couldn’t pull their own reports, and they had to request certain reports from the university’s IT staff. The housing division did not have an IT team solely dedicated to them, so in addition to relying on an external team to run reports they also could not routinely maintain or update their system or keep up with basic maintenance. And each time a new person joined the IT team, housing staff felt that the workflow slowed down because they would have to teach them what the housing department did and what they needed their system to do. When it came time to think about what their system needs were and what they would outline in an RFP, Clemson focused on solutions to their current issues and the updates they wanted. For them, two big features were a student portal and options for students to select their room.
Understanding the department’s work and specific needs can keep the team from being distracted by features and add-ons that don’t deliver the most benefit. Kenny Mauk, director of housing operations and outreach within student housing and residential life at the University of Houston, cautions that staff need to look beyond the exciting buzzwords companies may use and seek out these key features. “Look at the customer interface and self-service features for room selection, roommate matching, room transfers, billing, and electronic or digital signature abilities,” he says. “Also look at the administrative interface. It needs to include robust features for communication, billing, invoicing, reporting tools, credit card processing, and document management.” Lucier highlights the importance of the communication piece here for the profession. “We are seeing a need for a robust contact management solution that can use and track a range of communication types (text, email, phone, Messenger). It is important to be able to communicate with students and families in ways that they use most or works for the type of information, as well as to track that communication for follow up.” These features became even more important during a time when dealing with the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has tested communication channels with students and parents.
Mauk notes some other considerations. “Features for data integration with other systems (meal plans, parking, identification cards, etc.) are important as well as features around [data] architecture and support that are based on industry standard database and web technologies. This may include total cost of ownership, but ask, what are the one-time costs for software, hardware, licensing, training, and implementation? Also, what are the recurring costs for maintenance and support with escalation percentages?” He adds that “appealing user interfaces and browser independence for both desktop-based and mobile technologies” are other features to look for.
Beyond items like features and cost, Mauk says that it is important to consider the skill level of the staff to operate the software and the student experience in the decision for a new system. Foss agrees and says that as Clemson researched new systems, they relied upon the knowledge of their housing staff when determining their needs. Their staff had knowledge of and hands-on experience with software they had used at previous jobs and knowledge of products they had seen at various conferences. They were able to refine their feature choice list by using this in-house expertise. Then their knowledge was further enhanced by traveling to other campuses to meet with peers to discuss system features and implementation. And bringing their knowledge full circle, Clemson brought RAs and students into the discussions to get their input as those who would be utilizing the front end of the system. That feedback carried through to the testing process as well.
Understanding the department’s work and specific needs can keep the team from being distracted by features and add-ons that don’t deliver the most benefit.
It’s an understatement to say that it’s crucial to have staff representation from other departments and campus partners that will be affected by housing’s new system during the discussions leading up to the creation of the RFP and during vendor demonstrations. Having their feedback early on and having their voices represented in the RFP ensures that your search will guide choices to include the best system option for the entire campus’s needs and requirements. Mauk confirms this. “It is important to connect with multiple campus partners to determine how your solution will need to fit into a larger architecture. These connections and the information gained from them will help to write a better RFP. Many of these same connections can also serve as members of a well-rounded review team.” Lucier cautions that cost should not be the only factor under consideration. “We often have to really work alongside our university materials management team (purchasing department) to make sure that cost is not the only factor being measured in the process. That means building a robust specification of what the solution needs to do for your department to make sure you are getting what you need, and then cost comes into play.”
There is an additional perk to the project when staff from inside and outside of housing are involved: Questions get answered in the moment. This helps provide an immediate understanding of the information at hand, which keeps discussions on track and helps the project team make decisions later on. These partner departments may also assist housing with additional discussions with vendors about cost or supplementary products that may increase benefits for multiple departments.
It’s also important to be aware that the attitude of the core group working on the project influences the project and the people working on it from beginning to end. If they are role-modeling that they are sticking to the budget and keeping their feet on the ground when making decisions, then it’s easier to make others both inside and outside the core group accept that this is how the project will run. As leaders, they may need to reiterate that getting new software does not automatically solve problems. They may also need to steer discussions away from the mindset of “but this is how we have always done it.”
Now on the other side of the RFP process and with their new system in place, Foss says that one of the biggest upsides to their purchase is the user forum and the community they have access to now. “Their willingness to share is invaluable,” she says. She particularly notes their willingness to share downloads and screenshots and says that their team has implemented options they have seen at other institutions. It’s been a long road, but it’s clear that their hard work and focus paid off for them. And the advice she shares for getting a good start is this: “You need to keep your feet on the ground. Focus on what you need the product to do and not what is on your wish list.”
Camille Perlman is managing editor for the Talking Stick.
