Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNDERSTANDING STUDENT INFORMATION
SYSTEMS IN KANSAS COMMUNITY
COLLEGES
being
A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty
of the Fort Hays State University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Liberal Studies
by
William E. Genereux
B.S., Kansas Wesleyan University
Date_____________________ Approved__________________________________ Major Professor
Approved__________________________________ Chair, Graduate Council
i
ABSTRACT
Implementing a new student information system is complicated and costly, whether
it is for a large university or a small community college. Computerized student information
systems have evolved over time beyond simple record keeping systems into extremely
complex enterprise management systems that institutions are dependent upon for their very
existence.
With ever tightening budgets a reality, higher education institutions are always on the
lookout for new ways of stretching dollars. Consolidation of data management systems is an
approach some institutions are using for savings on information technology expenditures.
While examples of centralized data systems exist elsewhere, in Kansas each public institution
is left to find its own way when it comes to implementing this technology. However, one
private-school consortium in Kansas has had success in sharing a system among six
independent institutions for nearly forty years.
The implication of pooling resources and utilizing a shared administrative system
among Kansas community colleges is enormous. The potential annual cost savings are in the
millions. The benefit of sharing a standardized system results in reduced strain on IT
departments and an aggregation of expertise that increases productivity at all levels.
However, the development and implementation of such a system will require overcoming
the tremendous resistive forces that have built the current status quo.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to all of the individuals who contributed
their time and insight to forming this thesis. There was a time a few years ago when I felt I
knew it all about computers and technology, but as I grow in knowledge and wisdom I
realize there is far more that I will never know in the field than there is what I will know.
Count among those who know more than I do about student information systems: Ray
Brown, Gavin Doughty and Jerod Prothe, Associated Colleges of Central Kansas; Soon
Merz, Director of Institutional Research Kansas Board of Regents; Monty Neilson,
Registrar, Kansas State University; Don Williamson, Vice President of Information
Technologies, Colorado Community College System; Don Hossler, Associate Vice President
for Enrollment Services, Indiana University; and Jean Leon, Former Registrar, Cloud County
Community College.
A special thank you goes to Mark Bannister, Stephen Schleicher, and Kevin Schaffer,
my advisors. And thank you to my colleagues at Cloud County Community College. Without
your encouragement, leadership and patience, this work would not have ever been
completed.
I would especially like to thank by beloved wife Wendy for her patient support in
this effort and my children Emily Fay and Thomas Everett for whose benefit this hard work
is intended.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES................................................................................................................viii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
HISTORY OF STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS ..........................................................3
Early Computerized Systems ................................................................................................3
Custom Developed Software ..................................................................................3
Mass Produced Software..........................................................................................4
Recent Software Trends.........................................................................................................5
REVIEW OF SEVERAL SIS APPROACHES..............................................................................7
The Open Approach ..............................................................................................................7
The Standardized Approach .................................................................................................7
Kansas Board of Regents Data Warehouse ..........................................................8
Georgia Standards.....................................................................................................8
The Centralized Approach ....................................................................................................9
The Colorado Community College System...........................................................9
Alliance of Community Colleges for Electronic Sharing (Iowa) .....................11
Associated Colleges of Central Kansas................................................................12
iv
OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPING CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS..........................................16
Competition Among Institutions .......................................................................................16
Executive Vision and Leadership.......................................................................................17
Training ..................................................................................................................................17
Jean Leon’s Self Training .......................................................................................18
Political Realities ...................................................................................................................19
COSTS OF OPERATING A STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM ................................20
Upgrading Systems in Kansas Higher Education ............................................................20
NORED Report......................................................................................................21
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................22
STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS SURVEY .................................................................23
The End User Survey...........................................................................................................23
The System Director Survey ...............................................................................................24
Director System Satisfaction .................................................................................25
Director Vendor Support Satisfaction .................................................................25
SIS Budgetary Costs ...............................................................................................26
SIS Staff Requirements and Salaries.....................................................................27
Cost Per Full Time Equivalent .............................................................................28
System Satisfaction ...............................................................................................................29
System Strengths and Weaknesses........................................................................32
The Centralization Question...............................................................................................33
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................35
Future Research ....................................................................................................................35
v
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................37
APPENDIXES ..................................................................................................................................39
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Student Information System Age & Software Lifecycle........................................................46
2. SIS Support Staff Size & 2003 Staff Salaries ...........................................................................47
3. SIS Costs As A Percentage Of 2003-04 Operating Budget ..................................................48
4. Percent Of Budget Used For SIS Software By Vendor With FTE Served ........................49
5. SIS Implementation Costs & Maintenance Fees ....................................................................50
6. SIS Costs Per FTE ......................................................................................................................51
7. System Satisfaction - User Survey .............................................................................................52
8. System And Vendor Satisfaction – System Directors............................................................53
9. Average System & Vendor Rating – Director Survey............................................................54
10. Director & User Satisfaction / System Cost Ratio Correlation Data..................................55
11. Director & User Satisfaction / System Cost Ratio Correlation Data (Modified) ..............56
12. System Satisfaction By Vendor – User Survey........................................................................57
13. Average System Satisfaction By Vendor – User Survey ........................................................57
14. SIS Strengths And Weaknesses Summary - Director & User Surveys ................................58
15. Centralized System Interest – Director Survey .......................................................................59
16. Centralized System Interest – User Survey..............................................................................60
17. SIS Areas Of Strength – Director & User Surveys ................................................................61
18. SIS Areas Of Weakness – Director & User Surveys..............................................................67
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. System Vendors in Kansas Community Colleges...................................................................24
2. User System Satisfaction With FTE/Cost...............................................................................30
3. Modified User Satisfaction & FTE/Cost ................................................................................31
viii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix Page
A. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms .....................................................................................39
B. Survey Instruments...............................................................................................................41
C. Data Tables............................................................................................................................46
D. SIS Vendors In Kansas Community Colleges..................................................................73
1
INTRODUCTION
Finding a suitable system for managing student information in higher education
seems to be a widespread pursuit. Colleges and universities everywhere are actively engaged
in assessing current systems, planning future upgrades to systems, or implementing entirely
new systems.
Student information systems, or SIS can also be known as administrative systems,
Enterprise Resource Planning or ERP systems, student records systems, and so forth, but
the primary area of interest for this thesis is the computer software systems used to record
and maintain information related to students attending Kansas community colleges. These
systems feature a database of some sort at the core, with various sets of attached software
packages designed to accomplish a specific task in management of the higher education
institution.
This topic is important because implementing and maintaining a quality student
information system represents a significant challenge for institutions of higher learning at all
levels, from the largest university to the smallest community college. With the explosive
growth of the Internet, and today’s student’s level of comfort with technology, higher
education as a whole is scrambling to keep up with the demand for quality student
information. However, where challenges exist so do opportunities.
The fundamental question to be addressed is whether or not Kansas community
colleges are currently operating information systems in the most desirable and in the most
efficient ways. Do significant challenges exist among Kansas community colleges with regard
to student information systems and are there opportunities for improvement?
2 Original qualitative and quantitative research has been conducted in the nineteen
Kansas community colleges as well as additional pertinent sources to determine the answer
to these questions. Opinions regarding existing administrative systems have been sought and
obtained from offices of Information Technology (IT), Registrars, Admissions, Institutional
Research as well as other administrators and staff. The scope of this study has been limited
to Kansas community colleges and does not include the four-year institutions or the
technical schools because community colleges are a somewhat homogenous group with
similar needs and mission. Any conclusions reached are limited to this group only.
Many respondents indicated overall satisfaction with systems currently in place, while
others are hopeful that improvements can be made. It is my hope that this document might
serve as a catalyst for future technology planning in the state of Kansas, as well as serve as a
source of information for anyone researching student information systems.
3 HISTORY OF STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Student record keeping, prior to computerization was a time-consuming, labor-
intensive task. According to Jean Leon, former registrar of Cloud County Community
College, in the days before automated record keeping, student records were maintained with
typewriters, calculators and paper and pencil. Each May at graduation time, a mad scramble
would happen in the records office, with staff working late hours calculating GPA’s to
ensure graduation eligibility. (J. Leon, interview, April 6, 2004)
Early Computerized Systems
Custom Developed Software
In the 1960’s, institutions of higher learning began widely implementing computer-
automated systems of administrative record keeping. These systems were typically built using
the mainframe technology of the day, and were often custom developed by full-time
programming personnel employed by each individual institution. (Katz, 2001) Cloud County
Community College was one such institution interested in automation during this period. It
initially outsourced all of the computer processing work, but eventually implemented a
mainframe system and hired a programmer to operate and maintain an in-house system. (J.
Leon, interview, April 6, 2004)
Because each institution’s computerized student records programs were a custom fit
and the resultant time savings were so enormous when compared with the previous paper-
based record keeping systems, the people involved with using these systems were typically
very pleased to be doing so. One Kansas community college, Labette recently reported that
it continues to operate a custom built system that was originally implemented in 1980. (See
4 Table 1) Twenty-four years of operating the same computer system stands as a testament to
the advantages of running software that has been tailor-made for an institution.
Ms. Leon recalls that at Cloud County the first automation effort began with the
student records department and the generation of transcript reports.
Using the keypunch system was quite a jump from using a paper-based system, even though there was no actual computer on campus in the early days. We would use the keypunch machine to enter data, and then send a stack of punch cards thirty miles to Beloit for processing. The administration dragged their feet a little bit at the additional cost of automating, but they really liked getting those accurate reports. (J. Leon, interview, April 6, 2004)
Mass Produced Software
Before the onset of the industrial age, the clothing that people wore was custom
made for each individual, but with the arrival of massed produced factory clothing, only the
wealthiest continued the comfortable, yet inefficient practice of wearing tailor-made clothes.
Custom made clothing offered a better fit, but required much greater quantities of time and
resources to produce. Just as the industrial age brought mass-produced clothing, so has the
information age brought us mass-produced software. Software makers began to produce
information systems for the masses that previously were available only through custom
software development efforts.
One early software vendor recalls, “Customers were often willing to make some
changes to their business practices so they could take advantage of the lower cost of using
our software. But every sale that we lost was because the customer had decided that they
would be better off doing it themselves rather than buy a software package.” (Johnson,
1997)
5 Eventually, the idea of buying third-party developed software caught on. “I no
longer had to invest in the time-consuming process of educating the customers about the
advantages of using off-the-shelf software.” (Johnson, 1997) Economically, it began to make
sense for organizations and institutions to purchase a looser fitting “off-the-shelf” package
rather than continue to pay full-time software developers for custom fitted software.
Recent Software Trends
As personal computers became popular in the 1980’s, a general trend in computing
began to decentralize computing resources from the back room mainframe to the desktop
PC. Client/server systems replaced mainframes, and pre-programmed student information
systems began replacing custom-built software applications. “The movement from
centralization to decentralization was based on the ability of the end users to purchase and
install their own system and the inability of IT to meet demands.” (Brown, W., 2002)
Ironically, the trends are beginning to come full circle again as distributed,
client/server computing is starting to lose ground to centralized computing once again. “The
shift back to centralization has been driven by several factors. One of the factors is the high
cost of IT support. IT equipment, salaries, and the shortage of qualified personnel drive
expenditures ever higher.” (Brown, W., 2002)
In any case, students have come to expect online access to course information as
well as their academic and administrative records. (Graves, 2002) Across the nation,
institutions of higher learning are widely engaged in an effort to secure the best possible
student information system to meet the ever increasing demands. “Virtually all of the Big 10
schools are involved with some stage of implementing a new system.” (D. Hossler,
interview, March 8, 2004)
6 Within Kansas, the two largest institutions of higher education are busily installing
new systems. University of Kansas is in the process of implementing a Peoplesoft solution
while Kansas State University is working with Oracle on building a student information
system. (M. Nielson, interview, February 13, 2004) Additionally, over a quarter of all Kansas
community colleges reported having plans to replace their existing systems within the next
few years. (See Table 1)
One does not need to look very hard or very long to find that the subject of student
information systems is on the short list of important issues that higher education institutions
are facing currently.
7 REVIEW OF SEVERAL SIS APPROACHES
Several approaches to operating student information systems exist, each with its own
unique set of advantages and disadvantages. A comparison of the different methods of
maintaining and operating higher education SIS will help gain insight into these advantages
and disadvantages.
The Open Approach
One approach to SIS operation, the method traditionally used in Kansas higher
education, is the open approach. In Kansas, there historically have been no standardized
system requirements or guidelines established, other than to satisfy the data reporting
requirements for the state and federal governments. It has been left to the discretion of each
individual institution to determine what software solution would best meet its student data
needs.
While this approach provides the greatest flexibility and freedom for each institution,
it can tend to be rather chaotic and inefficient. The institutions that have access to greater
resources and the institutions that have placed a higher emphasis on using technology tend
to fare better than the institutions that have fewer resources or have historically been less
focused on technology. Success with the open approach often hinges upon funding and
available technical talent. Coordination of statewide data collection and research efforts can
be extremely difficult due to disparities among institutional data definitions.
The Standardized Approach
A second approach to student information systems is the standardized approach.
With this approach, a set of system standards is emplaced that each institution must follow.
The state of Kansas has begun moving away from a completely open approach to a more
8 standardized approach. The Kansas Board of Regents recently implemented a data
warehouse project that requires standardized data definitions for each institution in the state.
Kansas Board of Regents Data Warehouse
According to Soon Merz, Director of Institutional Research for the Kansas Board of
Regents, it has been a challenge getting all of the data definitions to be consistent among
institutions. Merz noted for example that one community college reported having a graduate
student. She suggests this is most likely how the college internally records students that have
already earned a baccalaureate degree who return for additional training. However reporting
such a designation to the state can cause data inconsistencies, as community colleges do not
offer graduate degree programs. Most community colleges refer to these students as “Over
64 hrs/Special” students rather than “graduate” students. With data definition standards in
place, such inconsistencies will be reduced. (S. Merz, interview, February 17, 2004)
The standardized approach can extend beyond the level of simply standardizing data
definitions and into the realm of standardizing the complete student information system
software package to be used. Joint purchasing has historically been one method of
successfully implementing standards and consistency.
Georgia Standards
According to John Graham, Executive Director of Enterprise Application Systems,
the State of Georgia has put into service a standardized Banner system for student records
and a standardized Peoplesoft solution for Human Resources, but each institution maintains
its own stand-alone system. As a result of these stand-alone systems, there are some
inconsistencies as each institution makes personalized changes to its system, however
Georgia continues to strive for a converging of standardized software and data models. In
9 effect, Georgia’s method strives to provide a standard to follow, yet permits flexibility at
each institution. (J. Graham, personal correspondence, April 22, 2004)
The Centralized Approach
The most cost-effective but perhaps also the most restrictive approach to student
information systems is utilizing a centralized approach. With this method, several institutions
elect to pool resources sharing a common student data system.
Two examples of community college systems following this approach are the
Colorado Community College System (CCCS), as well as the Alliance of Community
Colleges for Electronic Sharing, or ACCES. The ACCES project is a remarkable example of
a shared data system serving eight community colleges spread over a large geographic area in
two states of Iowa and Illinois. (Olsen, 2001)
The Colorado Community College System
The Colorado Community College System currently serves around 110,000 students
from thirteen separate institutions across the state of Colorado. Each institution is retains its
distinct identity, but they all share a common connection through the Colorado Community
College System (CCCS) office in Denver. The central office currently operates and
administers a student information system for each of the community colleges in the state,
but this has not always been the case.
According to Don Williamson, Vice President of Information Technologies, in the
late 1980’s there were ten separate-functioning systems on ten different campuses. These
systems were typically homegrown systems and were fast becoming limited in ability to meet
the growing information needs of each institution.
10 After careful analysis, an executive decision was made to move in the direction of
consolidating the data system into a centrally managed system. Eventually, each institution
willingly accepted the plan because of the tremendous cost savings benefits expected.
Williamson emphasized the importance of strong executive influence to move forward with
this radical change in operational practices in the Colorado community colleges. “It is critical
to have strong leadership from the heads of the organizations. Without strong buy-in with
the presidents, you can't go anywhere with an idea like this.” (D. Williamson, interview,
March 22, 2004)
With the general consensus reached that the data systems used should be uniform
and consistent, a project was set in motion and a search for a modern system capable of
handling the information needs of the ten community colleges began. Eventually, the
Colorado Community College System concluded that SCT’s “Series Z” system would best
serve the needs of the institutions. However there was a small problem with the plan; there
was no money available to implement the solution. Accepting some risk in exchange for the
expected dividends, the CCCS borrowed around 2 million dollars to purchase a hardware
and software solution, repaying the loan amount over a five year period. (D. Williamson,
interview, March 22, 2004)
In 1994, the five-year loan was paid off and a budget called the “Gizmo Fund” was
established for future enhancements using the money that was formerly the loan payment.
That same year, the CCCS dropped the SCT maintenance agreement, believing that future
development of this particular product would be lacking, and invested the $250,000 per year
in additional development staff.
“We built a centralized data warehouse and shut down six remote site data centers. Software updates to the system software weren't being
11 consistently applied, so centralizing has helped avoid these inconsistencies. Some of the displaced IT staff in those locations were used for other IT support duties such as network support.” (D. Williamson, interview, March 22, 2004)
The CCCS central office currently has approximately forty full-time IT staff persons
with another three programmers in a remote Pueblo, Colorado site. In addition, there are
seventeen IT staffers strategically placed on the thirteen college campuses for system
support. The efforts of the IT staff have made possible such technical advancements as the
centralized data warehouse and an OCR document imaging system.
The Colorado system is continually evolving and improving. With the “Series Z”
system nearing its lifecycle end, the CCCS is looking towards a system replacement in the
near future, with SCT Banner as a likely replacement candidate.
“Whether or not the system is centrally managed, having common data definitions
and data elements is critical. Having a central system, we have a common set of reports; a lot
of efficiencies.” (D. Williamson, interview, March 22, 2004)
Alliance of Community Colleges for Electronic Sharing
According to Janice Murray, Director of Administrative Computing for the ACCES
consortium in Iowa, the centralized approach to data processing makes sense from a cost
savings perspective, but the approach is often politically charged and a challenge to
implement. She mentions a consistently recurring theme that “If you do not have people in
the highest levels of management that are committed to sharing, it is very hard to get it to
work.” (J. Murray, personal communication, May 10, 2004)
Murray says that ACCES capably serves eight institutions with a full time staff of
nine programmers and a project manager. Although the data is housed in a central location,
12 each institution has a separate instance of the database, keeping institutional information
completely isolated.
Murray estimates that the annual savings for one institution in the consortium could
be in the neighborhood of one million dollars per year. However, part of these savings may
not continue to be realized in the future because the group is beginning to move away from
the centralized approach and more towards the standardized approach.
ACCES is in the process of replacing a legacy system by implementing a Datatel
solution, and the change has not been without controversy. Murray says some of the schools
in the consortium decided they wanted more local control. Four of the schools purchased
locally operated servers and maintain local support, while still using the programming
expertise and collective buying power of the group. Such a shift will most likely require more
staff to be hired and some of the economies of centralization to be lost, but it will grant
greater local control to each institution. According to Murray, “The biggest obstacle has
been new upper administration at the colleges that do not understand ACCES, how it
functions or how it saves them money.” (J. Murray, personal communication, May 10, 2004)
From the ACCES case, we can see that many times the politics of a situation can
play a larger role than do the technological possibilities.
Associated Colleges of Central Kansas
Perhaps one of the oldest examples of a centralized system is found within the state
of Kansas. The private school consortium Associated Colleges of Central Kansas, or ACCK
was formed in the late 1960’s with a primary purpose of centralizing data processing for six
small, private colleges in Kansas. According to Ray Brown, Executive Director of the
ACCK, the six colleges realize a joint annual savings of approximately $500,000 by sharing a
13 Jenzabar CX system instead of if each college were to run the same system independently.
Brown says that there are forces at work that occasionally try to split up the consortium, but
it hasn’t happened yet because each institution eventually realizes that the cost savings are
real and to go it alone would be significantly more expensive. (Brown, R., interview,
February 20, 2004)
Those involved with using centralized systems attest that the greatest cost savings
usually comes from the sharing of technical staff. (Olsen, 2001) However, some of the
greatest benefits of a shared staff are less apparent than cost savings, yet just as real. Gavin
Doughty, a programmer/analyst at ACCK suggests a centralized system can afford to
develop experts that focus solely on a small area of expertise, whereas a small institution
operating independently might not be able to afford a technical staff that can devote all of
their attention to solving one specific set of problems.
If you think about trying to run a comprehensive system for an entire college with, let’s pick a number, two people, it’s very difficult because you can’t get people that know intimately Financial Aid, Development, Accounting, and so forth. You’ve got to be a computer expert on top of that. You have to not only know your stuff with regard to computer logic, programming skills, design skills and all of that, but you also have to know these areas. So you end up saying, well if the software will do it, fine and if it won’t, tough! Or pay $50,000 to the software people and let them develop it and give it to you. So you just can’t do any kind of an adequate job with a couple of people. With what we’re doing, we can have five or six people working in different areas and do a reasonable job. (G. Doughty, interview, February 20, 2004)
At ACCK, the five programmer/analysts concentrate on working primarily with one
or two modules and have a high level of expertise with their particular part of the system;
however a single institution might only have one or two staff members that must work on all
areas of the data system and never reach the level of competency of a dedicated analyst.
14 With the average number of technical staff working on student information systems
in Kansas community colleges being 1.7 people, (see Table 2) Doughty’s appraisal seems to
be right on the mark. Perhaps if a consortium of Kansas community colleges were to adopt
the ACCK centralized model, an office could be established with several programmer
/analysts focused on specific areas and becoming experts on their respective modules and
freeing up existing on-campus IT personnel to address other pressing issues.
Doughty explains, “With a larger staff, you can feed off of each other. If one person
gets stuck with a problem, maybe someone else can help you out. It’s that sort of sharing
that’s built upon the fact that you can have the separate expertise; the total expertise is even
more of a synergy effect.” (G. Doughty, interview, February 20, 2004)
Another problem centralization addresses is the issue of traditionally uncompetitive
salaries paid in community colleges that often result in high turnover rates. A consortium
approach provides a repository of knowledge that remains, even when turnovers occur. If an
institution functions on its own, when a key person moves on it can often take several years
before the new person is functioning at the level of the predecessor.
There is a common conversation and sense of community that gets built up in a consortium when a new person comes in a development or admissions office; there’s an automatic network of people that they can talk to about how to do their job. There’s probably not anyone on campus that knows how to do their job because the last person that left took all of the learning with them. (Brown, R., interview, February 20, 2004)
For those concerned about level of service or lack of flexibility within a
shared, centralized system, Ray Brown assures that in the ACCK system there is
really no difference with being 30 miles from the user’s campus or in the basement
of the same building they are in. All service requests are handled in the order that
they are received, and with a larger staff than a single institution would typically have,
15 they are usually handled in a professional and timely fashion. (Brown, R., interview,
February 20, 2004)
“In this economic development crazy age, a community would probably
finance the cost to build a building or remodel an area of a community college for
the centralized system. Gaining 20 IT jobs would be a significant coup.” (M.
Bannister, personal correspondence, June 16, 2004)
These examples demonstrate that a centralized student information system is
possible to create and operate, but doing so is not without significant ongoing
challenges. The benefits of following this system model must outweigh the
shortcomings, and at least for some following the centralized approach, it seems to
be the case.
16 OBSTACLES TO DEVELOPING CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
While the benefits of establishing a statewide-centralized student data system are
great, the obstacles to developing such a system may be even greater. Political, technical and
logistical impediments are plentiful.
Competition Among Institutions
One thing that can serve as an impediment to developing a shared data system
between institutions is rivalry and competition. When institutions must compete to attract
students, one way to be distinguished from the competition is to have a superior student
information system. According to John Camp, Chief Information Officer at Wayne State
University, students are beginning to walk away to competitors if it is difficult to do business
with a given institution. (Camp, 2004) William H. Graves of Eduprise echoes this sentiment
by suggesting that the modern student expects convenient online access to both academic
and administrative services, without regard to their status as a traditional or distance learner.
(Graves, 2001)
When asked about a centralized, shared data system for all Kansas institutions of
higher learning, Kansas State University Registrar Monty Neilson opines, “There is such a
competition between KSU and KU that any competitive edge that our respective systems
provide for gaining and serving students would be lost.” (M. Neilson, interview, February 13,
2004)
On a much smaller scale, the institutions of the ACCK are also fierce competitors,
with all of the member schools within a forty-mile radius. Somehow they are able to
compete with one another, yet cooperate when it comes to sharing a centralized data system.
17 It is the great responsibility of the ACCK staff to maintain the separateness of the individual
institution’s information. (G. Doughty, interview, February 20, 2004)
Executive Vision and Leadership
According to Don Hossler, Associate Vice President for Enrollment Services,
Indiana University, the Indiana University system has been in the process of implementing a
multi-campus administrative system, and it has adopted a unique approach that epitomizes
the cooperative spirit. In order to minimize costs while implementing the new system, a
freeze was placed on all new program revisions throughout the university system for an
entire year and a half! Because the student information system was being implemented in
phases, it was critical that academic programs did not change in the middle of the
implementation process. (D. Hossler, interview, March 8, 2004)
“For the most part, the “no academic structure change” policy has worked and
people have been very cooperative. The deans were privy to the costs involved with
implementing the system, so we have heard few requests for changes.” (D. Hossler,
interview, March 8, 2004)
A key concept that experts agree upon is the idea that “You should also have
administrators committed for the long-term. If a major force in moving a project forward
leaves, there could be troubles.” (D. Hossler, interview, March 8, 2004) “What makes this
kind of thing work is executive leadership that is committed to the concept of cooperation.”
(Brown, R., interview, February 20, 2004)
Training
One factor that if neglected can limit the success of any SIS project, centralized or
otherwise is the issue of training. Overlooking the benefits of good training has a
18 tremendous cost in time and productivity. Don Hossler suggests that administrators
understand we need technology, but very frequently they don’t have a good understanding
of what it takes to make it work. They are under the misperception that, “You buy software,
put it in and forget it.” (D. Hossler, interview, March 8, 2004) Support staff and training
needs don’t always get considered as priorities. (D. Hossler, interview, March 8, 2004)
Jean Leon’s Self Training
Former Cloud County Registrar Jean Leon recalls:
I remember when our dean of instruction returned from a seminar on computers and told me “The computer can’t think, you still have to do the work!” That was the extent of my computer training! In the early days, we used a punch card system. It was a long, two year struggle with no formal training to master the key punch machine, spending many late nights practicing, but eventually the hard work paid off. I was really proud of my accomplishment, and I thought computers were wonderful! Our transcripts looked so nice and accurate reports could be made so easily! (J. Leon, interview, April 6, 2004)
Just imagine how much more quickly Ms. Leon might have become proficient with
her new system if her employer had invested in only a few hours of training for her! Instead,
she taught herself; an admirable, but sometimes rare trait when it comes to people mastering
technology.
Ray Brown of ACCK describes it in this way:
You need long-term leadership at some level. Given the nature of our colleges and being in Kansas where people always want to get by on the minimum dollar, our folks here at ACCK historically have not invested in training and that’s been a big, big issue. People are willing to buy new hardware. They’re willing to step up when the software company says, ‘we’re doubling your maintenance fees,’ they sort of grouch but they pay. But when you come at them and say ‘hey, we really need to spend money on training, we really need your people on your campus to devote a day or two a month to learn things,’ it’s just really hard for organizations to invest in training, and it’s critical! If it doesn’t happen, it’s not as efficient as if we would do that and we all know that, but it’s hard to get groups to do it. (Brown, R., interview, February 20, 2004)
19 Political Realities
Soon Merz of the Kansas Board of Regents suggests that she is aware of major
differences in the way the different community colleges operate and approach data
collection. Merz argued that implementing a centralized system would require overcoming
many obstacles. Among them would be deciding “who would operate such a system and
who would change their business practices?” (S. Merz, interview, February 17, 2004)
Her question is not without merit as we will soon see when the results of the
Director and End User surveys are analyzed. While some respondents are willing to consider
the possibilities of a centralized approach, others are completely uninterested in the notion.
The current KBOR database is a data warehouse project, not a transactional database
developed for reporting analysis and decision making. Ms. Merz doesn’t envision KBOR
ever getting into the business of providing a transactional system, partly because the state
office currently does not have the staff or the space to provide that service. She suggests that
building the database in its current form has been challenging enough without adding the
complexities of trying to compel everyone to operate the same software. (S. Merz, interview,
February 17, 2004)
20 COSTS OF OPERATING A STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
There is no question, student information system software is expensive, but it has
also become a necessity. Modern students have lived their whole lives immersed in the digital
age, with technology pervading throughout their existence. (Tapscott, 1998) Typical college
freshmen arrive at college fully aware of what technology is capable of, and frustrated if their
chosen school doesn’t deliver.
However, technology is improving, and so are the services that are offered to today’s
higher education consumer. “Institutions are discovering that what’s necessary -- and
convenient -- for the totally online student is also convenient for, and in demand by, the
more traditional, residential student.” (Graves, 2002)
Missteps can be expensive and time consuming when implementing these student
systems. In 1997, The University of Hawaii system partnered with an independent software
developer to create a system for its ten campuses for 4.7 million dollars, but by 1998 the deal
had fizzled and Hawaii had lost its investment. (AP State & Local Wire, May 21, 2002)
Upgrading Systems in Kansas Higher Education
Several Kansas community colleges reported being in the process or planning stages
of changing software companies for their student information system. (See Table 1) The
costs of a major system overhaul are typically very high and often long overdue, increasing
the pressure of the situation. Any existing data must be converted to the new system
structure. Software licenses and maintenance agreements must be purchased. Usually the
system hardware must be updated or replaced. The people maintaining and using the system
must relearn how to do their jobs.
21 Following good project management practices and considering advice given by those
who have gone before can help institutions implementing new systems avoid common
pitfalls such as going over budget. (Camp, 2004)
Open, standardized, or centralized approaches to implementing student information
systems each have unique benefits and drawbacks. Clearly, the centralized approach holds
much promise for the benefits of cost savings as well as the more intangible benefits of
collaboration among institutions, but only if the powerful forces working to oppose
cooperation can be overcome.
NORED Report
In fact, it is interesting to note that in a 2001 report prepared for the Kansas Board
of Regents by the Northwest Education Research Center, or NORED, a recommendation
was made to establish in Kansas a comprehensive higher education data management system
that would be vigorously encouraged and adequately funded.
Interest in a statewide higher education data system was expressed by many people at all levels in Kansas. Presently, the state does not have a comprehensive higher education data or management information system, although the creation of one is both called for in SB 345 and a planning goal of high priority for the Regents. We experienced problems associated with the presence of disparate and distributed data sets during the preparation of this report. Ideally, such a system should support both the data needs of the state and those of the individual institutions. (Northwest Education Research Center, 2001)
What are the prospects for developing centralized, shared student data systems in
Kansas higher education? As the ACCK has demonstrated for nearly forty years, such
systems are possible with the right combination of leadership, vision, and financial necessity.
What is less clear is if such systems are likely to be formed and succeed in Kansas’ public
institutions of higher learning.
22
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The review of literature and history of student information systems presents the
following research question: Null Hypothesis 1: There is no support among users and
administrators of student information systems for a centralized student information system
for Kansas community colleges.
Additionally, the following ancillary question is raised: Null Hypothesis 2: There is
no correlation between the operational costs of a system and the satisfaction of the system
users in Kansas community colleges.
Some additional questions to be considered include: What are the operational costs
of operating these systems? What size of staff is being used for the operation and
maintenance of student systems? What features are the most helpful, or would be so if they
were not lacking? All of these questions will be examined through the use of opinion surveys
collected from the nineteen Kansas community colleges.
23 STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS SURVEY
The researcher utilized two web-based surveys to gather opinion data from the
nineteen Kansas community colleges; one for end users of student information systems and
one for the directors that supervise the operation of student information systems. Each
participant was provided the opportunity to name the greatest strengths and weaknesses of
the system they utilize on a regular basis. A system director has the unique ability to view the
system as a whole, whereas the end user typically views the system from how well it aids in
doing a specific task. Both survey instruments were the same, asking questions pertaining to
the satisfaction with the system itself and the vendor providing support, but the director
survey contained additional questions pertaining to the operation and maintenance of
student information systems that end users would be unable to answer.
The End User Survey
For the SIS user survey, the population sampled was limited to potential SIS users
and employed in Kansas Community Colleges by using email addresses that were gleaned
from Kansas community college websites. The request for opinions went to all 19
community colleges to personnel working in offices of admissions, advising, student records,
information technology, institutional research, and administrative offices.
Because the request for responses was not paper based, and the researcher asked for
referrals to interested parties, it is impossible to accurately gauge the actual number of
persons that received an invitation to participate. However, the researcher sent over 200
emails directly to SIS directors and end users. Some of the SIS directors forwarded the
requests on to appropriate end users at their respective institutions. Ultimately, fifty-two end
users completed the online survey, with seventeen of the respondents originating from the
24 researcher’s home institution Cloud County Community College. To view the end user
survey form, refer to Appendix B.
The System Director Survey
For the System Director survey, the population was limited to the persons directly
responsible for the acquisition, operation and maintenance of the nineteen Kansas
community college student information systems. Seventeen of the nineteen institutional
directors participated in the survey; nearly a 90% participation rate. To view the system
director survey form, refer to Appendix C. On the original survey, there was no provision
for specifying which version of Jenzabar software the institution operates, so after the initial
data was collected, the researcher contacted each Jenzabar institution by e-mail to learn
which specific package was in operation.
In the nineteen Kansas community colleges, there are currently seven different
software packages being used for student information systems, with an eighth system,
Datatel, in the process of being implemented.
Figure 1. System Vendors in Kansas Community Colleges Spring 2004
01234567
Banne
r
CAMS
Homeg
rown
Jenz
abar
CX
Jenz
abar
PX
Jenz
abar
TX
SCT PowerC
AMPUS
Figure 1 reflects the distribution of software packages in Kansas community colleges
as of March 2004. Two institutions are currently in the process of changing system software
25 packages. Garden City is dropping Jenzabar CX and implementing Datatel while Colby is
leaving Jenzabar PX and installing SCT PowerCampus. (See also Table 1)
Director System Satisfaction
According to the director survey results, out of seventeen system director responses,
ten of the systems “perform well” and five of the systems “perform adequately”. The two
systems that were rated as “sometimes performing adequately” belong to the two previously
mentioned colleges that are in the process of replacing the current system; Garden City and
Colby. (Table 8) On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being a perfect system, the average system
rating given by system directors is 3.471 with a standard deviation of 0.717. This would seem
to indicate that in general, most Kansas community college system directors are fairly
satisfied with the student information system that is being utilized.
With two community colleges in the process of implementing new systems, and
several others planning new systems in the near future, it is interesting that there are no
other recent system changes reported. The next newest system being used is the five-year-
old Banner system being used in Seward County Community College, and the average age of
Kansas community college student information systems is 12 years.
Director Vendor Support Satisfaction
Satisfaction with vendor support, on the other hand, is not as widely agreed upon as
the performance ability of the systems being sold and supported. On a scale from zero to
five, where five is “excellent support” and one is “impossible support” the average rating is
3.625 but the standard deviation is 1.258. Ten of the directors rated the vendor support as
“excellent” or “good” while six rated vendor support as “adequate” or “impossible.”
26 The question regarding satisfaction with vendor support was included on both the
director survey and the end user survey; however it was the director survey results that
yielded the most insightful information. Because a large majority of end users either left the
question blank or indicated that they had no experiences with vendor support, it became
evident that typical student information systems users do not typically deal directly with
software vendors. Therefore, only the responses of system directors regarding vendor
support will be considered here.
Two directors using the Jenzabar PX system explicitly praised the support received
from the third party support provider Educational Systems Products (ESP) of Tulsa, OK in
the survey comments section, but one director expressed dissatisfaction with the support
received from Jenzabar itself before ESP recently took over the support responsibilities. (See
Table 17 & 18)
Jenzabar PX, which is supported by ESP, received the highest vendor satisfaction
ratings with an average rating of 4.6. Banner was a close second with an average vendor
satisfaction rating of 4.3. The lowest vendor satisfaction ratings belong to CAMS and
Jenzabar CX with an average rating of 1 and 2 respectively. (See Table 9)
SIS Budgetary Costs
To estimate total SIS operational costs for each institution, system directors were
asked to provide information about the salaries of staff supporting the student data software,
as well as any annual maintenance fees paid. Incomplete data were received about initial
startup costs, so this factor was ignored when computing operational costs. (See Table 5)
One system director expressed concern that it is difficult to make accurate cost
comparisons between institutions with regard to these systems, because even if two
27 institutions happen to operate software from the same vendor, they could be running
different software versions and have different supplemental modules installed. (T. Erwin,
personal communication, April 11, 2004) However, a basic comparison of reported
operational costs can provide us with a feel for what percentage each institution allocates to
student information systems out of it’s total operational budget.
The average percentage of the yearly institutional budget expended for student
information systems, including support staff salaries and annual maintenance fees, in Kansas
community colleges is approximately 0.9%. (See Table 3 & 4) Some institutions expend
more than 1% of their yearly budgets on SIS operation. A notable example is Seward
County, which expends approximately 1.72% of its operational budget on its SCT Banner
system. Some institutions spend significantly less on SIS operation. Cloud County and
Hutchinson expend approximately .34% and .35% of their respective operational budgets
annually, however it should be noted that Cloud County intends to make a system change in
the near future and Hutchinson has been using its Jenzabar PX system for twenty-five years
and is almost certainly leveraging its position as a loyal customer. (See Table 3)
SIS Staff Requirements and Salaries
A question that may be of interest to many system directors and personnel managers
is the question of the number of staff required to operate student information systems in
Kansas community colleges. Neosho County, Cloud County and Highland each reported
having less than one full-time person working with student information systems in the IT
department. The average number of full time staff working with student information systems
in Kansas community colleges is 1.68. The college that reported the largest staff supporting
28 the SIS was Butler County Community College, with a total of seven full time employees
dedicated to the operation of the Banner system. (Table 2)
This figure was significantly larger than the other institutions reporting staff sizes, so
the researcher contacted Tim Allen, the director of the Butler system for elaboration.
According to Allen, there are seven full time staff members that work on the Banner system,
including a full time system trainer to teach users to use the Banner software. Butler County
is committed to optimizing the use of the Banner system so training is a key factor. There is
a dedicated computer lab with eight machines for the sole purpose of training system users.
(Allen, T., interview, March 23, 2004)
The least amount reported spent on support salaries for SIS systems was $25,000 per
year, at Neosho County and Cloud County, and the most spent on salaries was at Butler
County at $275,000 per year. (Table 2) The average amount spent in Kansas community
colleges on SIS support salaries is $65,471 per year.
It is important to understand that the staff size and salary figures are merely
estimations given by system directors, when trying to compare between institutions. It was
left to the individual system director to determine exactly what constituted an SIS support
staff person, and therefore which salaries to include in the estimation.
Cost Per Full Time Equivalent
One of the primary purposes of SIS is to keep track of credit hour information. A
different way to compare the costs of SIS systems is to look at the costs as a function of
credit hours generated by an institution. A more expensive system will cost more per full
time equivalent (FTE) student than a less expensive system will.
29 The FTE/Cost Ratio was computed based on the estimated annual operational costs
(salaries & maintenance fees) supplied by the SIS directors for each institution and the
school’s FTE data was provided by the Kansas Board of Regents. The Cost/FTE ratio is a
rough estimate of the annual SIS operational costs divided by the school’s Full Time
Equivalent (FTE). Institutions with higher FTE/Cost ratios pay more for student
information systems per credit hour generated than do institutions with a lower FTE/Cost
ratio. (For detailed information see Table 6.)
Again, Seward County has the distinction of paying the highest operational costs of
$87.21 per FTE for its Banner system, while Cloud County pays the least at $12.24 per FTE
to operate its CAMS system. (See Table 6) The state average cost is approximately $42.32
per FTE student. It should be noted that on a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being a “Perfect
System,” Seward County users have an average system satisfaction rating of 4, while Cloud
County users only rated their system an average of 2.4. (See Table 7)
An interesting observation is that while Barton County has by far the largest reported
SIS staff and largest salary costs, it pays only $53.96 per FTE for its Banner system. While
this is above the state average, it is still far from being the most expensive system when
viewed in this manner. (Table 6)
System Satisfaction
One might expect that the satisfaction of system end users and system directors with
the student information system used would roughly correlate to the amount of funding given
to a particular system. However, the ideal system for the average community college in
Kansas will satisfactorily meet the needs of the people using the system, yet is also
affordable.
30 Figure 2 shows the average system satisfaction for each institution as compared to
the system cost per FTE. An average system rating was established for each institution based
on the feedback received from system directors and users.
Figure 2. User System Satisfaction with FTE/Cost
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Allen C
ounty
Barton
Cou
nty
Butler
County
Cloud C
ounty
Coffey
ville
Cowley
Cou
nty
Fort S
cott
Garden
City
Hutchin
son
Pratt
Seward
Cou
nty
Ave
. Rat
ing
0102030405060708090100
FTE/
Cos
t Rat
io
System SatisfactionCost Ratio
Notice that while Cloud County experiences significant cost savings with the CAMS
system, the average system satisfaction rating suffers accordingly. It is also interesting to note
that Garden City reported a below average satisfaction rating, but one of the higher costs per
FTE running the Jenzabar CX system. Both of these institutions are in the process of
replacing these student systems.
The correlation coefficient between reported satisfaction levels and the cost ratio is
0.3265. (Table 10.) This does not indicate a strong correlation between the cost of a system
and the satisfaction of end users and directors, but perhaps some relationship.
There are a few instances that do not seem to fit the notion that higher satisfaction
levels are related to higher costs. In the case of Seward County, a high satisfaction level is
reported, but the system cost per FTE is much higher than the average system for
31 community colleges in Kansas. In other words, Seward County has passed a point of
diminishing returns, since it is not possible to expect a proportional gain in satisfaction for
the additional system costs.
The other apparent data outlier is the case of Garden City, where the system costs
are higher than average but the satisfaction rating is lower than average. If the Seward
County and Garden City data points are removed when computing a correlation coefficient
for cost/satisfaction relationship, the modified correlation coefficient is 0.5290. (Table 11)
Figure 3 shows the relationship between cost and satisfaction with Garden City and
Seward County removed from consideration.
Figure 3. Modified User Satisfaction & FTE/Cost
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Allen C
ounty
Barton
Coun
ty
Butler C
ounty
Cloud C
ounty
Coffeyv
ille
Cowley C
ounty
Fort Sco
tt
Hutchins
onPrat
t
Ave.
Rat
ing
0102030405060708090100
FTE
/Cos
t Rat
io
System SatisfactionCost Ratio
The cost of a system does appear to have some impact on how satisfied SIS users are
with the systems they use so we reject Null Hypothesis 2.
There is a need for more research to be able to draw any strong conclusions here. It
would be better to have a larger sampling of end users at each institution. However, while
higher system operating costs appear to be somewhat related to higher satisfaction levels, it
32 seems that it is possible to have acceptable user satisfaction levels paired with lower
operational costs in some cases. Considering the data that is available, the institutions with a
Jenzabar PX system appear to have above average satisfaction levels with a below average
costs of operation. Jenzabar PX is the most widely implemented system, currently used on
six Kansas community college campuses. (See Figure 1 & Table 1)
According to the system directors, the systems with the highest satisfaction levels are
Banner and PowerCampus systems, with an average satisfaction rating of “4” on a one to
five scale. (See Table 9) According to the end users, the system with the highest average
satisfaction level is the PowerCampus“4” rating; with Banner and Jenzabar PX also rating a
very high “3.7” average. (See Tables 12 & 13)
System Strengths and Weaknesses
Survey participants submitted very good responses to the questions asking for
specific examples of system strengths and weaknesses. The researcher used an admittedly
subjective method of reviewing each response in an attempt to consolidate them into some
broader categories that could be quantified. Each survey response was reviewed, looking for
similarities with other responses. A general category was assigned to each response and it
was counted. On occasion, a response seemed to fit under multiple categories, so the count
for each category was incremented. Because the method of counting and quantifying these
responses is so subjective and non-scientific, all of the original comments submitted are
included in Tables 17 & 18.
Now that the aforementioned disclaimer has been noted, the following findings can
be examined. System users and directors mentioned the following strengths most frequently
in their comments: Report generation, Web and online features, System features/Usability/
33 Training, Enrollment/Registration features, Integration between system modules, and
Budget/Accounting/Payroll features. The following weaknesses were most often mentioned
in the survey comments: Lack of System Features/Usability/Training, Lack of Web/Online
Features, Report generation shortcomings, and Lack of Advising/Degree Audit features.
It is interesting that several items considered strengths by some were the weaknesses
mentioned by others. It seems that common themes such as system usability, training, online
features, and good report generation are priorities among system users. When these system
traits are present and considered strengths, they are appreciated. When these traits are
lacking or absent and are considered weaknesses, they are conspicuously noticed. (See Table
14 for further details)
Perhaps when considering system strengths and weaknesses, as well as the
satisfaction of system users it is helpful to note the musings of John Camp, who said:
I’ve been in this business long enough to know that if you simply go to any college or university campus and ask how well the information systems satisfy needs, you’re going to get complaints as well as positives. I don’t expect that we’ll ever get to the state where our information systems will satisfy all of our needs. Higher education changes and hence needs and expectations change. The important role of IT is to help colleges and universities achieve their strategic visions by enhancing teaching, learning, research and service. (Camp, 2004)
The Centralization Question
Five of the seventeen responding SIS Directors rated themselves as either
“interested” or “very interested” in consolidating into a centralized system. Another four
rated themselves as “somewhat interested” in centralizing. Eight rated themselves as having
little or no interest in such an effort. (See Table 15)
34 Twenty-four end users reported being “interested” or “very interested” in
consolidating into a centralized system. Twelve additional users indicated having “some
interest” in a centralized system. Fourteen users reported little or no interest in centralizing.
(See Table 16)
Because five of the nineteen directors and twenty-four of fifty users of Kansas
community college student information systems indicated they were “interested” or “very
interested” in a centralized data system, we can reject Null Hypothesis 1: There is no support
among users and administrators of student information systems for a centralized student
information system for Kansas community colleges.
But with this information, we can now see the concerns voiced earlier by KBOR’s
Soon Merz. “Who will change their business practices?” Clearly, eight of the nineteen
community college SIS directors and fourteen of fifty SIS users would have no part of a
centralization effort given a choice. However, nine directors and thirty-six users are at least
open to the idea.
Perhaps one possibility for a joint data processing effort in Kansas community
colleges is to form a voluntary consortium of institutions. It may be that several of the
smaller schools that struggle with budget and staffing requirements might be able to pool
resources to develop a shared system that works well for all involved. There seems to be
enough initial interest in the idea to warrant further investigation.
35 CONCLUSION
The independent institutions of the ACCK have been able to see beyond intense
rivalries that exist to form a shared data system that has operated nearly forty years for the
common good. Could it be possible that some Kansas community colleges might be able to
follow an example that has already been set in their own state?
The time to look into the possibilities is now. The Kansas Board of Regents is in the
process of developing a set of data standards for each institution to follow. Most of the
community colleges report having data systems that are in the middle of their life-cycles.
Several are changing systems right now, or are hoping to change systems in the near future.
Within the next ten years, most of the nineteen Kansas community colleges will be in
the market for major SIS upgrades or replacements. If the trends around the country can be
used as an indicator, eventually every Kansas community college will be looking for a new
student information system that will be better able to meet the needs of the institution. A
little long-range planning that begins now may be all it takes to start to see the very real
advantages of sharing a robust data system between community colleges in the future.
Future Research
This work serves as a starting point for many future research possibilities. An
ongoing study tracking the progress of Kansas Community College student information
systems would be interesting and beneficial. Expanding the research to include all of Kansas
public higher education would make sense. Research could also be expanded into a regional
or even national effort to attempt to discover the costs and benefits of operating these
student information systems.
36 The implication of pooling resources and utilizing a shared administrative system
among Kansas community colleges is enormous. The potential annual cost savings are in the
millions. The benefit of sharing a standardized system results in reduced strain on IT
departments and an aggregation of expertise that increases productivity at all levels.
However, the development and implementation of such a system will require overcoming
the tremendous resistive forces that have built the current status quo.
37 REFERENCES
Allen, T. (2004, March 23). Personal interview. AP State & Local Wire (May 21, 2002) UH hires PA software company to create student
information network. Retrieved 1/12/2004 from the world wide web: Lexis Nexis Bannister, M. (2004, June 16). Personal correspondence. Brown, R. (2004, February 20). Personal interview. Brown, W. (2002). Centralizing information technology in a distributed system. Proceedings
of the 30th annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services (pp. 222 – 225)
Camp, J. (2004). Integrated Information Systems for the Campus. [Electronic version] Syllabus February 2004 pp. 11-15. Retrieved 4/5/2004 from the world wide web: http://www.syllabus.com/print.asp?ID=8865
Doughty, G. (2004, February 20). Personal interview.
Graham, J. (2004, April 22). Personal correspondence.
Graves, W. (2001). The new challenges of e-learning. Retrieved 3-24-2004 from the world wide web: http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/w_graves_2.html
Hossler, D. (2004, March 8). Personal interview.
Johnson, L. (1997). From Not-Invented-Here to Off-The-Shelf. Retrieved 7/20/2004 from the world wide web: http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/Johnson2.html
Kansas Board of Regents (2003). Public two-year community colleges: Full/part-time and
resident/nonresident headcount enrollment and enrollment FTE totals fall 2003. Retrieved 7/20/2004 from the world wide web: http://www.kansasregents.org/research/KHEER/fall2003/cc/CCT1FA2003.html
Kansas Board of Regents (2003). Public two-year community colleges: Full/part-time and
resident/nonresident headcount enrollment and enrollment FTE totals spring 2004. Retrieved 7/20/2004 from the world wide web: http://www.kansasregents.org/research/KHEER/spring2004/cc/CCT1SP2004.html
Katz, S. N. (2001). In Information Technology, Don't Mistake a Tool for a Goal. [Electronic version] The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 15, 2001 pg. B7 Retrieved 3-24-2004 from the world wide web: http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v47/i40/40b00701.htm
Leon, J. (2004, April 6). Personal interview.
38 Merz, S. (2004, February 17). Personal interview. Nielson, M. (2004, February 13). Personal interview. Northwest Education Research Center. (2001, November). A new horizon: Kansas
postsecondary education planning study: governance and missions (p. 52) Olympia, Washington.
Olsen, F. (2001). 8 community colleges collaborate to lower information-technology
expenses . Retrieved 3-24-2004 from the world wide web: http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v47/i46/46a02901.htm
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Williamson, D. (2004, March 22). Personal interview.
39 APPENDIX A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
ACCES Alliance of Community Colleges for Electronic Sharing. A consortium of
two year colleges in Iowa and Illinois. ACCK Associated Colleges of Central Kansas. A consortium of small, private four
year institutions that have used a shared data system for nearly forty years. Banner SIS System software from SCT CAMS Comprehensive Academic Management System SIS software from Three
Rivers Systems. CCCS Colorado Community College System Client/Server System of distributed computing with part of the processing performed in a
central server and part of the processing done by a remote client. Database A collection of related records, managed by an electronic database
management software package. The database is the foundation of all student information systems.
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning. Generic term used for a management
software system used across the enterprise; applies to both academic and private industry systems.
ESP Educational Systems Products. Third party support vendor for Jenzabar PX
system. FTE Full Time Equivalent. A way of converting the all part-time and full-time
credit hours generated by an institution into the equivalent of full time students. Fifteen hours a semester or thirty hours a year is considered to be one full time equivalent student.
IT Information Technology Jenzabar SIS Systems software vendor: Offers Jenzabar PX, Jenzabar CX, and
Jenzabar TX SIS software. KBOR Kansas Board of Regents Mainframe Early form of centralized computing with one centrally shared CPU and
several remote terminals NORED Northwest Education Research Center. Consulting firm hired to study and
recommend improvements to higher education in Kansas.
40 Peoplesoft Database management system and software vendor. SCT SIS Systems software vendor: Systems and Computer Technology (recently
acquired by SunGard). Maker of Banner, PowerCampus, and Series Z. SIS Student Information System
41 APPENDIX B: Survey Instruments System User Student Information Systems Survey Kansas Community College Student Information Systems
Student Information System definition: A system of record keeping that contains student information. This typically includes but is not limited to courses and transcripts, billing, demographic information, and so forth.
Please complete and submit this survey by March 19, 2004.
Please select your school None
In what area of the institution do you work?
Academic Services / Faculty
Administrative Services
Advisement
Business Office
Distance Learning
Library
Registrar
Student Services
Business Office
IT Department
Other
Rate your level of satisfaction with your current student information system.
It barely functions as needed; very difficult to use
It is sometimes adequate but often difficult to work with
Adequate for most needs, but room for improvement
Performs well most of the time, only occasional minor glitches.
Perfect system. Easily does everything needed.
Rate your level of satisfaction with vendor technical support.
No vendor involved. Does not apply
Nearly impossible to get timely support. Very difficult to have problems resolved.
Support is sometimes adequate but often must wait for support.
Adequate for most events, but room for improvement
Support is good and timely most of the time, with only occasional delays.
Excellent and timely support.
42 List two features of your current system that are the most helpful in completing your job:
(eg. Recruiting system, Billing features)
List two features your current system lacks that would help in completing your job:
(eg. No support for online grades, Poor degree auditing)
List two features of your system that are the most beneficial to your institution as a whole:
(eg. Online Registration, Alumni tracking)
List two features your current system lacks that would be beneficial to your institution:
(eg. No support for online grades, Poor degree auditing)
Consider the following scenario: A consortium of Kansas community colleges forms to purchase and/or develop a high quality student information system where the costs of operation and maintenance are jointly shared among members. Assuming that the project is well designed and planned, with expected savings to each institution in salaries and annual maintenance fees that are nearly $100,000 less than a similar system would cost operating independently. How interested would you be in having your institution participate in the consortium?
No interest whatsoever
Very little interest
Somewhat interested
Interested
Very interested
Clicking Submit will permanently save your answers. If you are satisfied with your answers please click:
Submit
Contact Bill Genereux at 785-243-1435 or [email protected] for more information
43 Director/Administrator, Student Information Systems Survey
Kansas Community College Student Information Systems
This survey is intended for the person directly responsible for the acquisition, operation and maintenance of the college student information system or his/her qualified designee. Please submit only one "Director Survey" per institution. All other survey participants should complete the "End User Survey."
Please complete and submit this survey by March 19, 2004.
Please select your school None
What is your job title?
What student information system do you currently use?
Banner Jenzabar
Datatel Peoplesoft
Oracle Home-grown
Other
How long have you used this particular system/vendor? (Include all time using older systems that have been upgraded, renamed or acquired by new vendors)
What was the approximate initial implementation cost of the currently used system, excluding salaries?
What are the recurring annual support/maintenance fees paid for use of the system, excluding salaries?
How many Information Technology support staff people do you employ to keep the system maintained and operational? (example: if three IT staff spend half of their time supporting your student system, answer 1.5 people. Don't include end users in this count)
What is the approximate annual salary expenditure for IT support of your student information system?
44
How many end users of the system are supported?
Where do you feel your current system is within its lifecycle?
It will definitely be replaced with a major upgrade within the next 12 months.
It is starting to show its age and replacement will probably happen within the next 1 - 3 years.
It is neither new nor out of date
It has been in place for at least a year and the bugs are starting to be worked out
It has only recently been implemented and will be used in its current form for many years.
Rate your level of satisfaction with your current student information system.
It barely functions as needed; very difficult to use
It is sometimes adequate but often difficult to work with
Adequate for most needs, but room for improvement
Performs well most of the time, only occasional minor glitches.
Perfect system. Easily does everything needed.
Rate your level of satisfaction with vendor technical support.
No vendor involved. Does not apply
Nearly impossible to get timely support. Very difficult to have problems resolved.
Support is sometimes adequate but often must wait for support.
Adequate for most events, but room for improvement
Support is good and timely most of the time, with only occasional delays.
Excellent and timely support.
List two definite areas of strength with your current student information system:
(eg. Admissions, Billing)
List two definite areas of weakness with your current student information system:
45
Consider the following scenario: A consortium of Kansas community colleges forms to purchase and/or develop a high quality student information system where the costs of operation and maintenance are jointly shared among members. Assuming that the project is well designed and planned, with expected savings to each institution in salaries and annual maintenance fees that are nearly $100,000 less than a similar system would cost operating independently. How interested would you be in having your institution participate in the consortium?
No interest whatsoever
Very little interest
Somewhat interested
Interested
Very interested
Clicking Submit will permanently save your answers. If you are satisfied with your answers please:
Submit
Contact Bill Genereux at 785-243-1435 or [email protected] for more information
46 APPENDIX C: Data Tables
Table 1: STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM AGE & SOFTWARE LIFECYCLE
School System System Age Software Lifecycle
Allen County Jenzabar CX 16 neither new nor out of date
Barton County Banner 8 neither new nor out of date
Butler County Banner 6 neither new nor out of date
*Cloud County CAMS 6 replaced in 1 - 3 years
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX 12 running for at least 1 year
*Colby Jenzabar PX 12 replaced within a year
Cowley County Jenzabar PX 13 neither new nor out of date
Dodge City Jenzabar TX 7 neither new nor out of date
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX 17 neither new nor out of date
*Garden City Jenzabar CX 14 replaced within a year
Highland PowerCAMPUS 14 neither new nor out of date
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX 25 neither new nor out of date
*Independence Jenzabar TX 10 replaced in 1 - 3 years
Johnson County Banner N/R N/R
Kansas City KS Jenzabar PX N/R N/R
Labette Homegrown 24 neither new nor out of date
*Neosho County Jenzabar TX 10 replaced in 1 - 3 years
Pratt PowerCAMPUS 8 neither new nor out of date
Seward County Banner 5 neither new nor out of date
Average system age: 12 years
*System change planned in near future N/R – No Response
47 Table 2: SIS SUPPORT STAFF SIZE & 2003 STAFF SALARIES
College System Staff Size 2003 Salaries
Allen County Jenzabar CX 1 $48,000
Barton County Banner 2.5 $85,000
Butler County Banner 7 $275,000
*Cloud County CAMS .75 $25,000
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX 1.5 $50,000
*Colby Jenzabar PX 1 $30,000
Cowley County Jenzabar PX 1 $70,000
Dodge City Jenzabar TX 3 $90,000
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX 1 $43,000
*Garden City Jenzabar CX 1.5 $75,000
Highland SCT PowerCAMPUS .75 $32,000
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX 1.25 $35,000
*Independence Jenzabar TX 1 $40,000
Johnson County Banner N/R N/R
Kansas City KS Jenzabar PX N/R N/R
Labette Homegrown 1.75 $70,000
*Neosho County Jenzabar TX .5 $25,000
Pratt SCT PowerCAMPUS 1 $30,000
Seward County Banner 2 $90,000
Total 28.5 $1,113,000
Average 1.68 $65,471
*System change planned in near future N/R – No Response
48
Table 3: SIS COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET
College System FTE 03-04 SIS Costs Budget 03-04 % of Budget
Allen Jenzabar CX 1534 $107,000 $7,311,062 1.46%
Barton Banner 3025 $165,000 $19,957,682 0.83%
Butler Banner 5549 $375,000 $36,957,682 1.01%
*Cloud CAMS 1558 $36,500 $10,612,383 0.34%
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX 1082 $95,000 $10,802,017 0.88%
*Colby Jenzabar PX 1254 $71,000 $9,016,355 0.79%
Cowley Jenzabar PX 3268 $106,162 $18,820,704 0.56%
Dodge City Jenzabar TX 1164 $140,000 $12,098,997 1.16%
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX 1555 $80,000 $8,744,099 0.91%
*Garden City Jenzabar CX 1474 $157,889 $14,995,932 1.05%
Highland PowerCAMPUS 1527 $72,000 $8,920,030 0.81%
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX 2515 $90,000 $25,688,200 0.35%
*Independence Jenzabar TX 753 $70,000 $6,951,652 1.01%
Johnson Banner 10054 N/R $105,630,650 N/R
Kansas City Jenzabar PX 3161 N/R $31,224,347 N/R
Labette Homegrown 1252 $81,500 $7,803,875 1.04%
*Neosho Jenzabar TX 1088 $55,000 $6,997,092 0.79%
Pratt PowerCAMPUS 945 $56,000 $8,462,223 0.66%
Seward Banner 1070 $182,000 $10,552,811 1.72%
Ave. Percent of Budget: .90%
*System change planned in near future N/R – No Response
49
Table 4: PERCENT OF BUDGET USED FOR SIS SOFTWARE
BY VENDOR WITH FTE SERVED
Vendor Institutions FTE Served Ave. Budget Percent
Banner 4 33,740 1.19%
Jenzabar CX 2 4,935 1.26%
Jenzabar PX 6 23,424 0.70%
Jenzabar TX 3 5,233 0.99%
Other 2 4,483 0.69%
PowerCAMPUS 2 4,812 0.74%
All Systems 19 43,828 0.90%
** Institutions that did not respond to SIS cost questions are not included in the average budget percentage calculations, but are included in the institution and FTE count figures on this table.
50 Table 5: SIS IMPLEMENTATION COSTS & MAINTENANCE FEES
College System Year Impltd. Impl. Cost Maint. Fees
Allen County Jenzabar CX 1988 N/R $59,000
Barton County Banner 1996 $300,000.00 $80,000
Butler County Banner 1998 $500,000.00 $100,000
*Cloud County CAMS 1998 $80,000.00 $11,500
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX 1992 $250,000.00 $45,000
*Colby Jenzabar PX 1992 N/R $41,000
Cowley County Jenzabar PX 1991 $306,000.00 $36,162
Dodge City Jenzabar TX 1997 $200,000.00 $50,000
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX 1987 N/R $37,000
*Garden City Jenzabar CX 1990 $460,496.00 $82,889
Highland PowerCAMPUS 1990 N/R $40,000
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX 1979 N/R $55,000
*Independence Jenzabar TX 1994 $500,000.00 $30,000
Johnson County Banner N/R N/R N/R
Kansas City KS Jenzabar PX N/R N/R N/R
Labette Homegrown 1980 $30,000.00 $11,500
*Neosho County Jenzabar TX 1994 $176,000.00 $30,000
Pratt PowerCAMPUS 1996 $35,000.00 $26,000
Seward County Banner 1999 $750,000.00 $92,000
Total Annual Maintenance Fees: $827,051
Ave. Annual Maintenance Fee: $48,650
*System change planned in near future N/R – No Response
51 Table 6: SIS COSTS PER FTE
College System Operating Costs FTE 2003-04 Costs/FTE
Allen County Jenzabar CX $107,000.00 2778 38.52
Barton County Banner $165,000.00 3058 53.96
Butler County Banner $375,000.00 10146 36.96
*Cloud County CAMS $36,500.00 2982 12.24
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX $95,000.00 1693 56.11
*Colby Jenzabar PX $71,000.00 2250 31.56
Cowley County Jenzabar PX $106,162.00 6140 17.29
Dodge City Jenzabar TX $140,000.00 1923 72.80
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX $80,000.00 2339 34.20
*Garden City Jenzabar CX $157,889.00 2157 73.20
Highland PowerCAMPUS $72,000.00 3095 23.26
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX $90,000.00 5108 17.62
*Independence Jenzabar TX $70,000.00 1466 47.75
Johnson County Banner N/R 18449 N/R
Kansas City KS Jenzabar PX N/R 5894 N/R
Labette Homegrown $81,500.00 1501 54.30
*Neosho County Jenzabar TX $55,000.00 1844 29.83
Pratt PowerCAMPUS $56,000.00 1717 32.62
Seward County Banner $182,000.00 2087 87.21
*System change planned in near future N/R – No Response
52 Table 7: SYSTEM SATISFACTION – USER SURVEY
College System Ave Sys Rating Respondents
Allen County Jenzabar CX 4 2
Barton County Banner 3.7 8
Butler County Banner 3.7 3
*Cloud County CAMS 2.4 17
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX 4 1
Cowley County Jenzabar PX 4 3
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX 3.5 2
*Garden City Jenzabar CX 2.2 5
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX 3 1
Johnson County Banner 3 1
Pratt PowerCAMPUS 4 2
Seward County Banner 4 6
Average Rating: 3.471 3.625
System Rating Scale: 5 – Perfect System, 4 – Performs well, 3 – Adequate, 2 – Sometimes Adequate, 1 - Barely functions
Vendor Rating Scale: 5 – Excellent Support, 4 – Good Support, 3 – Adequate Support, 2 – Sometimes Adequate Support, 1 – Impossible Support, 0 – No Vendor Involved.
*System change planned in near future
53 Table 8: SYSTEM AND VENDOR SATISFACTION – SYSTEM DIRECTORS
College System System Satisfaction Vendor Satisfaction
Allen County Jenzabar CX 4 3
Barton County Banner 4 5
Butler County Banner 4 4
*Cloud County CAMS 3 1
Coffeyville Jenzabar PX 4 4
*Colby Jenzabar PX 2 4
Cowley County Jenzabar PX 4 5
Dodge City Jenzabar TX 4 4
Fort Scott Jenzabar PX 4 5
*Garden City Jenzabar CX 2 1
Highland PowerCAMPUS 4 3
Hutchinson Jenzabar PX 3 5
*Independence Jenzabar TX 3 4
Labette Homegrown 3 0
*Neosho County Jenzabar TX 3 3
Pratt PowerCAMPUS 4 3
Seward County Banner 4 4
Average Rating: 3.471 3.625
System Rating Scale: 5 – Perfect System, 4 – Performs well, 3 – Adequate, 2 – Sometimes Adequate, 1 - Barely functions
Vendor Rating Scale: 5 – Excellent Support, 4 – Good Support, 3 – Adequate Support, 2 – Sometimes Adequate Support, 1 – Impossible Support, 0 – No Vendor Involved. *System change planned in near future
54 Table 9: AVERAGE SYSTEM & VENDOR RATING – DIRECTOR SURVEY
System Ave. System Rating Ave. Vendor Rating # Responses
Banner 4 4.3 3
CAMS 3 1 1
Homegrown 3 0 1
Jenzabar CX 3 2 2
Jenzabar PX 3.4 4.6 5
Jenzabar TX 3.3 3.7 3
PowerCAMPUS 4 3 2
System Rating Scale: 5 – Perfect System, 4 – Performs well, 3 – Adequate, 2 – Sometimes Adequate, 1 - Barely functions
Vendor Rating Scale: 5 – Excellent Support, 4 – Good Support, 3 – Adequate Support, 2 – Sometimes Adequate Support, 1 – Impossible Support, 0 – No Vendor Involved.
55 TABLE 10: DIRECTOR & USER SATISFACTION / SYSTEM COST RATIO
CORRELATION DATA
School Satisfaction Cost Ratio School Satisfaction Cost Ratio Allen County 4 38.52 Coffeyville 4 56.11 Allen County 4 38.52 Coffeyville 4 56.11 Allen County 4 38.52 Colby 2 31.56 Barton County 3 53.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Barton County 4 53.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Barton County 3 53.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Barton County 4 53.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Barton County 4 53.96 Dodge City 4 72.80 Barton County 4 53.96 Fort Scott 4 34.20 Barton County 4 53.96 Fort Scott 3 34.20 Barton County 4 53.96 Fort Scott 4 34.20 Barton County 4 53.96 Garden City 2 73.20 Barton County 3 53.96 Garden City 2 73.20 Butler County 4 36.96 Garden City 4 73.20 Butler County 3 36.96 Garden City 2 73.20 Butler County 4 36.96 Garden City 2 73.20 Butler County 4 36.96 Garden City 1 73.20 Cloud County 2 12.24 Highland 4 23.26 Cloud County 2 12.24 Hutchinson 3 17.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Hutchinson 3 17.62 Cloud County 1 12.24 Hutchinson 3 17.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Independence 3 47.75 Cloud County 2 12.24 Labette 3 54.30 Cloud County 1 12.24 Neosho County 3 29.83 Cloud County 4 12.24 Pratt 4 32.62 Cloud County 3 12.24 Pratt 4 32.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Pratt 4 32.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 2 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 3 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 5 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 3 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 3 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 2 12.24 Seward County 4 87.21 Cloud County 2 12.24 Cloud County 2 12.24 Cloud County 1 12.24
Cloud County 3 12.24 0.3265397 Correlation Coefficient
56 TABLE 11: DIRECTOR AND USER SATISFACTION / SYSTEM COST RATIO
CORRELATION DATA (Modified)
School Satisfaction Cost Ratio School Satisfaction Cost Ratio Allen County 4 38.52 Cloud County 5 12.24 Allen County 4 38.52 Cloud County 3 12.24 Allen County 4 38.52 Cloud County 3 12.24 Barton County 3 53.96 Cloud County 2 12.24 Barton County 4 53.96 Cloud County 2 12.24 Barton County 3 53.96 Cloud County 2 12.24 Barton County 4 53.96 Cloud County 1 12.24 Barton County 4 53.96 Cloud County 3 12.24 Barton County 4 53.96 Coffeyville 4 56.11 Barton County 4 53.96 Coffeyville 4 56.11 Barton County 4 53.96 Colby 2 31.56 Barton County 4 53.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Barton County 3 53.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Butler County 4 36.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Butler County 3 36.96 Cowley County 4 17.29 Butler County 4 36.96 Dodge City 4 72.80 Butler County 4 36.96 Fort Scott 4 34.20 Cloud County 2 12.24 Fort Scott 3 34.20 Cloud County 2 12.24 Fort Scott 4 34.20 Cloud County 2 12.24 Highland 4 23.26 Cloud County 1 12.24 Hutchinson 3 17.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Hutchinson 3 17.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Hutchinson 3 17.62 Cloud County 1 12.24 Independence 3 47.75 Cloud County 4 12.24 Labette 3 54.30 Cloud County 3 12.24 Neosho County 3 29.83 Cloud County 2 12.24 Pratt 4 32.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Pratt 4 32.62 Cloud County 2 12.24 Pratt 4 32.62 Cloud County 3 12.24
0.52900684 Correlation Coefficient
57
Table 12: SYSTEM SATISFACTION BY VENDOR – USER SURVEY
System Satisfaction Rating # Responses
Banner 4 13
Banner 3 5
CAMS 5 1
CAMS 4 1
CAMS 3 3
CAMS 2 10
CAMS 1 2
Jenzabar CX 4 3
Jenzabar CX 2 3
Jenzabar CX 1 1
Jenzabar PX 4 5
Jenzabar PX 3 2
PowerCAMPUS 4 2
Table 13: AVERAGE SYSTEM SATISFACTION BY VENDOR – USER SURVEY
System Satisfaction Rating # Responses
Banner 3.7 18
CAMS 2.4 17
Jenzabar CX 2.7 7
Jenzabar PX 3.7 7
PowerCAMPUS 4 2
Rating Scale: 5 – Perfect System, 4 – Performs well, 3 – Adequate, 2 – Sometimes Adequate, 1 - Barely functions
58 TABLE 14 SIS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES SUMMARY
DIRECTOR & USER SURVEYS
Strengths Responses Weaknesses Responses
Reporting 21 Features / Usability / Training 26
Web / Online Features 20 Web / Online Features 22
Features / Usability / Training 19 Reporting 18
Enrollment / Registration 18 Advising / Degree Audits 15
Integration 17 Budget / Accounting / Payroll 9
Budget / Accounting / Payroll 15 Financial Aid / Scholarships 7
Advising / Degree Audits 11 Enrollment / Registration 6
Admissions / Recruiting 8 Support 6
Support 6 Admissions / Recruiting 5
Financial Aid / Scholarships 5 Integration 5
Communications 3 System Maintenance 4
Cost 3 Development / Alumni 2
Development / Alumni 1 Cost 1
59 Table 15: CENTRALIZED SYSTEM INTEREST – DIRECTOR SURVEY
School No
Interest Little
Interest Somewhat Interested
Interested Very
Interested
Allen County 1 Barton County 1 Butler County 1 Cloud County 1 Coffeyville 1 Colby 1 Cowley County 1 Dodge City 1 Fort Scott 1 Garden City 1 Highland 1 Hutchinson 1 Independence 1 Labette 1 Neosho County 1 Pratt 1 Seward County 1
Totals 2 6 4 3 2
60 Table 16: CENTRALIZED SYSTEM INTEREST – USER SURVEY
School No Interest Little InterestSomewhat Interested
Interested Very Interested
Allen County 1 Allen County 1 Barton County 1 Barton County 3 Barton County 2 Barton County 2 Barton County 1 Butler County 2 Butler County 1 Cloud County 2 Cloud County 1 Cloud County 4 Cloud County 9 Coffeyville 1 Cowley County 1 Cowley County 2 Fort Scott 1 Garden City 1 Garden City 1 Garden City 2 Hutchinson 1 Johnson County 1 KC Kansas 1 Pratt 1 Pratt 1 Seward County 1 Seward County 1 Seward County 3 Seward County 1
Totals 5 9 12 12 12
61
Table 17: SIS AREAS OF STRENGTH – DIRECTOR & USER SURVEYS
School Office strengths Allen County Business Office financial reporting Allen County Business Office budgeting Allen County Business Office enrollment reporting Allen County Business Office billing Allen County MIS Director Customizable Allen County MIS Director Reporting Allen County President Business Office reports are very good Allen County President Does not require the MIS staff to complete most
reports Allen County President Budgets are easy to check Allen County President Reports are fairly easy to access - enrollment report Barton County Administrative Services scheduling Barton County Administrative Services Retrieving studnet information Barton County Administrative Services student tracking Barton County Administrative Services Posting grades Barton County Admissions Schedules Barton County Admissions Billing Barton County Admissions Admissions Barton County Admissions Enrollment Barton County Admissions/Marketing Unknown Barton County Admissions/Marketing Admissions application process Barton County Advisement students abillity to check grades, major, etc Barton County Advisement online transcript Barton County Advisement online records Barton County Banner Contact Relational database, good technical support Barton County Financial Aid Sophisicated level of performance Barton County Financial Aid Integrated system Barton County Financial Aid Awarding/Verification Process Barton County Financial Aid Disbursement Process Barton County IT Department functionality, my module heads are very intelligent
people and understand their jobs which helps them in turn understand BANNER and get out of it what they need to
Barton County IT Department accurate, stable, secure Barton County Registrar Little or no modifications to forms Barton County Registrar Registration tracking/audit forms Barton County Registrar Online Options/Web Degee Audit Barton County Registrar Online faculty grading Barton County Student Services Students ability to get grades, etc. on-line
62 School Office strengths
Barton County Student Services Data retrieval for research Barton County Student Services campus wide use Barton County Student Services Finance module - budgets Barton County Student Services Student modules - advising Barton County Student Services records all actions Barton County Student Services campus wide use Butler County CIO Administration support Butler County CIO Full Time Trainer / Dedicated Lab for training 9 stationsButler County Student Services We are able to enter multiple contacts ,both phone and
paper.Total history is at finger distance for us. Butler County Student Services Online capabilities, enrollment etc. Butler County Student Services Recruiting features Butler County Student Services recruitment files are easily entered and material easy
to retrieve. Butler County Student Services Admissions Butler County Student Services Online Registration Butler County Student Services We can generate letters, e-mails, and phone contacts
at our request. Butler County Student Services Remote access Butler County Student Services report stats are at finger tip. Tracking ready and
available Cloud County Academic Services Easy to print class rosters Cloud County Academic Services Some student information is available. Cloud County Academic Services database is better than paper system Cloud County Academic Services It is easier than pulling paper files. Cloud County Academic Services I had no idea that CAMS is involved..unless it is the
procurement system Cloud County Academic Services transcripts Cloud County Academic Services Can get Class Rosters Cloud County Academic Services It is cheap. Cloud County Academic Services student phone numbers are accessible Cloud County Academic Services Easy to print student schedules Cloud County Academic Services I really have no idea. Cloud County Academic Services Our IT person is very knowledgeable about it. Cloud County Academic Services transcripts Cloud County Academic Services None other Cloud County Academic Services Keeps track of student transcripts & course informationCloud County Administrative Services If it would not kick me out after doing repeated
applications Cloud County Admissions The ability to see what prospects have done Cloud County Admissions ?? Cloud County Admissions Applicant reports Cloud County Advisement current semester schedule
63 School Office strengths
Cloud County Advisement Transcripts Cloud County Advisement transcripts on line Cloud County Business Office Reports Cloud County Business Office Student Records Data Cloud County Business Office Financial Data Cloud County Business Office Billing Statements Cloud County Distance Learning Easy to learn how to use Cloud County Distance Learning Easy to learn for a first time user Cloud County Distance Learning Easy access to current student information Cloud County Payroll/Human
Resources able to view information from other departments
Cloud County Payroll/Human Resources
common database
Cloud County Payroll/Human Resources
see above
Cloud County Registrar Note feature on checking transcript requests Cloud County Registrar Export information to Excel Cloud County Student Services accessing canned reports on student population Cloud County Student Services None Cloud County Student Services None Cloud County Student Services NO Cloud County Student Services NOTHING Cloud County Student Services accessing transcripts and grade reports Cloud County Vice President For
Administrative Servies Installed and functioning
Cloud County Vice President For Administrative Servies
Inexpensive
Coffeyville Advisement Graduation Reports Coffeyville Advisement Having everything in one system, sharing data Coffeyville Director of Technology Registration Coffeyville Director of Technology Accounts Payable Cowley County Data collection for specific groups Cowley County Online registration Cowley County Enrollment system Cowley County Campus Connect online student information system Cowley County Dean of Research and
Technology Support from Jenzabar terrible/Support from ESP outstanding (we switched in the last year)
Cowley County Dean of Research and Technology
Ease of use/affordable - We can generate reports in minutes that WSU and KSU cannot do at all
Cowley County Distance Learning student grades Cowley County Distance Learning student enrollment information Cowley County Distance Learning enrollment information Cowley County Distance Learning database queries
64 School Office strengths
Cowley County Registrar registration system Cowley County Registrar student access on line Cowley County Registrar registration system Dodge City Dean of
Students/Director of Financial Aid
It is migrating to the web
Dodge City Dean of Students/Director of Financial Aid
It has been constantly improved over time
Fort Scott Awarding financial aid to students Fort Scott The ease of transmitting a student's financial aid to the
Business Office Fort Scott Poise is used by all departments on campus. Able to
transmit information to other departments. Fort Scott Administrative Services Billing Fort Scott Administrative Services Billing Fort Scott Administrative Services Entering enrollment and student information Fort Scott Administrative Services Registrar records Fort Scott Director Information
Systems Billing
Fort Scott Director Information Systems
Registraion
Garden City Academic Services Class Rosters by division or instructor Garden City Academic Services Student information lookup Garden City IT Department I personally was happy with CARS, it did have some
issues. I haven't fully developed an opinion of Datatel. Garden City IT Department GCCC is in the process of converting from Jenzabar-
CX (CARS) to Datatel Colleague. We officially started in January 2004, so I doubt if GCCC would be interested in another system.
Garden City Student Services COM100 -- Communications Management for correspondence
Garden City Student Services Auto loading of ISIRs from Department of Education into our system
Garden City Student Services Faculty grade entry via the web Garden City Student Services COM100 system used to generate contact letters &
track documents Highland Co-Director of
Information Systems On-Line enrollment/payment (IQ Web)
Hutchinson Director of Information Services
A legacy systemthat has proven the test of time accross multiple offices
Hutchinson Director of Information Services
Support from ESP (Educational Systems Products) Tulsa, OK
Hutchinson Student Services Our IS staff is our strength. They are involved in all institutional decisions and are extremely helpful.
Hutchinson Student Services Our IS staff is our strength. They are involved in all
65 School Office strengths
institutional decisions and are extremely helpful. Hutchinson Student Services Network tracking of accounting information. Hutchinson Student Services The advising/assessment system Hutchinson Student Services Our current system does have flexibility that allows us
to create most reports. Hutchinson Student Services Our current system does have flexibility that allows us
to create most reports. Hutchinson Student Services The advising/assessment system Independence MIS Coordinator Registration Independence MIS Coordinator Financial Aid Johnson County
Business Office Cash receipt work flow including integrated credit card processing
Johnson County
Business Office Online registration
Johnson County
Business Office Billing features
KC Kansas Registrar Access to statistics KC Kansas Registrar Generating reports KC Kansas Registrar Campus Connect KC Kansas Registrar Enrolling/Campus Connect Labette Director Computer
Services Very inexpensive to operate
Labette Director Computer Services
Tailored to local needs
Neosho County Director of Technology Services
registration
Neosho County Director of Technology Services
business office
Pratt Advisement can't answer Pratt Advisement Student Database Pratt Advisement Class database Pratt IT Director Billing Pratt IT Director Academic Records Pratt Student Services Course identification Pratt Student Services Alumni Tracking Pratt Student Services Availability of Data Seward County Administrative Services Web components Seward County Administrative Services Efficiency and ease of the financial side both for
student purposes and budget tracking. Seward County Administrative Services Real time information Seward County Administrative Services Online enrollment, scheduling, grades, transcripts,
assessment and placement scores are available. Seward County Administrative Services Ability to utilize via the Web Seward County Administrative Services Real time information
66 School Office strengths
Seward County Administrative Services Excellent reporting features are available. Seward County Administrative Services The fact that our system is totally integrated. I have
access to every faction that I need. Seward County Development & Alumni It's an integrated system so it saves times on data
input across campus. Seward County Development & Alumni All the online functions are great. Seward County Development & Alumni The integration of the modules is great. I can link a
scholarship fund with the foundation to a scholarship code in financial aid and get a list of scholarship recipients.
Seward County Development & Alumni The newest version is web-based. I can work at home if I need to.
Seward County IT Department better tracking of information; quicker response time to data requests
Seward County IT Department Online grading, enrollment, applications, recruits, alumni, etc.
Seward County IT Department All components are fully integrated; ie Finaid to AR, or Student to Finaid
Seward County IT Department full integration Seward County IT Director All modules except maybe Payroll are excellent. The
ability to extend service via the web is a godsend. Seward County Student Services better IR numbers Seward County Student Services Student System Seward County Student Services student recruitment side of banner ie online enrollment,
billing,etc Seward County Student Services report generation for numbers Seward County Student Services online enrollment Seward County Student Services Recruiting system Seward County Student Services online recruitment information initiated by the student Seward County Student Services online registration
67 Table 18: SIS AREAS OF WEAKNESS – DIRECTOR & USER SURVEYS
School Office Weaknesses Allen County Direction of Jenzabar Allen County Business Office training is expensive Allen County Business Office alumni tracking Allen County Business Office maintenance work order system Allen County Business Office more user friendly Allen County MIS Director Direction of Jenzabar Allen County President Payroll feature is not as good as it could be Allen County President Training is expensive Allen County President I'm not aware of this area. Barton County constant upgrades and updates Barton County Administrative
Services Degree auditing
Barton County Administrative Services
auto emails
Barton County Admissions Alumni Barton County Admissions Alumni Barton County Admissions Recruiting system Barton County Admissions/Marketing The ability to have the student fill out the admissions
application on-line and have the admissions staff edit or make necessary corrections
Barton County Admissions/Marketing Unknown Barton County Advisement Degree Audit Barton County Advisement Advisee list function does not work- Program glitch Barton County Advisement ability for advisors to see their list of advisees
accurately Barton County Banner Contact constant upgrades and updates Barton County Financial Aid Requires manual entry for exceptions Barton County IT Department our administration doesn't use it enough to understand
what the end/heavy users are doing Barton County IT Department eg faculty load, our administrtaion thinks we just push a
button and it works, and it isn't that simple Barton County IT Department not enough man-power, in the tech side or the
implementaion side to get all of the pieces going. Barton County Student Services Difficult to train on because of it's specific nature Barton County Student Services degree audit has some glitches Barton County Student Services reporting very difficult Barton County Student Services degree audit Barton County Student Services reporting! Butler County Not very integrated, human resources module not well
integrated Butler County Upgrades, frequent bug fixes and patches Butler County CIO Upgrades, frequent bug fixes and patches
68 School Office Weaknesses
Butler County CIO Not very integrated, human resources module not well integrated
Butler County Student Services Upgrades to new versions time consuming and often Butler County Student Services None Butler County Student Services for admissions , maybe slight refinement in some areas
but not a major thing Butler County Student Services NA Cloud County Not webcentric Cloud County Ability of instructors to post grades online. Cloud County Ease of database use Cloud County test score database Cloud County Not intergrated with any other systems i.e. financial,
finaicial aid Cloud County System for students to obtain grades online. Cloud County Academic Services Accessibility to students and faculty. Cloud County Academic Services tracking Cloud County Academic Services No online aspects. Cloud County Academic Services no degree auditing Cloud County Academic Services Better student information. Photos, demographics, etc.Cloud County Academic Services I would rather not have to have printed rosters for my
classes. Cloud County Academic Services degree audit Cloud County Academic Services no access for students Cloud County Academic Services Online enrollment, online grades, on and on Cloud County Academic Services It does not gather information according to vocation. Cloud County Academic Services no source to report demographic information Cloud County Academic Services Online enrollment, online grades, on and on Cloud County Academic Services no online grades Cloud County Academic Services Transcripts can only be printed one at a time. Cloud County Academic Services No online features available. No grades. No
registration. No nothing Cloud County Academic Services No auditing of hours for certificates and degrees. Cloud County Admissions No On-Line Features Cloud County Admissions ?? Cloud County Admissions Financial Aid Section Cloud County Admissions System can not be accessed using a computer off
campus Cloud County Admissions There is no field for year of HS graduation Cloud County Admissions Housing Section Cloud County Advisement off campus registration Cloud County Advisement on line registration Cloud County Advisement off campus enrollment Cloud County Advisement poor degree auditing
69 School Office Weaknesses
Cloud County Business Office Student Housing Data Cloud County Business Office Financial Aid Data Cloud County Business Office Importing information from the financial aid departmentCloud County Distance Learning Faster when printing rosters Cloud County Distance Learning Allow for on-line registration for regular (not on-line)
classes Cloud County Distance Learning Allow for on-line registration Cloud County Distance Learning More automated features Cloud County Payroll/Human
Resources Cannot generate any ad hoc/temporary reports
Cloud County Payroll/Human Resources
integrated time card application
Cloud County Registrar Getting data for reports Cloud County Registrar Having to know Paradox to run most custom reports Cloud County Student Services Can't pull helpful reports; very limited! Cloud County Student Services Can't pull helpful reports; very limited! Cloud County Student Services interfacing with financial aid software Cloud County Student Services evaluating students' academic progress Cloud County Vice President For
Administrative ServiesNot webcentric
Cloud County Vice President For Administrative Servies
Not intergrated with any other systems i.e. financial, finaicial aid
Coffeyville Financial Aid Coffeyville Admissions Coffeyville Advisement Assigning Aims could be easier. The system can do
much more than we need it to do Coffeyville Director of
Technology Financial Aid
Coffeyville Director of Technology
Admissions
Colby Admissions Colby Registration Colby Computer Center
Director Registration
Colby Computer Center Director
Admissions
Cowley County It is a proprietary data base running on VMS which requires a steep learning curve for most employees
Cowley County Scholarship tracking Cowley County Dealing with Jenzabar/If you cannot get your support
from ESP then do not consider this option Cowley County Dean of Research and
Technology Dealing with Jenzabar/If you cannot get your support from ESP then do not consider this option
70 School Office Weaknesses
Cowley County Dean of Research and Technology
It is a proprietary data base running on VMS which requires a steep learning curve for most employees
Cowley County Distance Learning web-based gradebook program Cowley County Distance Learning web-based gradebook program Cowley County Registrar fair degree audit-college developed Dodge City It is complex Dodge City Dean of
Students/Director of Financial Aid
It is complex
Fort Scott We have not yet purchased the software for online enrollment.
Fort Scott Administrative Services
Reporting to students (grades, transcripts, early alerts)
Fort Scott Administrative Services
Improved Assessment Reporting
Fort Scott Administrative Services
Online student reporting
Fort Scott Administrative Services
Online enrollment
Garden City payroll is always having problems Garden City Not able to do third party billing Garden City Academic Services On-line registration Garden City Academic Services Automatically bringing stuff into a specified word
processing program or spreadsheet to enhance appearance and perform further calculations
Garden City Academic Services Ability of students to update own personal information Garden City Academic Services VEIS information Garden City Director, Information
Technology Not able to do third party billing
Garden City Director, Information Technology
payroll is always having problems
Garden City Registrar Degree audit, online registration Garden City Student Services Auto packaging of awards -- available in CARS but not
used by GCCC Garden City Student Services User-friendly report writer functionality Garden City Student Services Loan module -- availabe in CARS but not used by
GCCC Garden City Student Services Campus wide use of document imaging Hutchinson Aged - could use a data cleanup Hutchinson Jenzabar's (the parent company) direction and
management Hutchinson Director of Information
Services Aged - could use a data cleanup
Hutchinson Director of Information Services
Jenzabar's (the parent company) direction and management
71 School Office Weaknesses
Hutchinson Student Services Registration (payment) by course instead of by student.Hutchinson Student Services Sub accounts for students by function. e.g. Housing
separate from Tution and Fees Hutchinson Student Services Sub accounts for students by function. e.g. Housing
separate from Tution and Fees Hutchinson Student Services On-line enrollment and registration Hutchinson Student Services On line tracking of attendance Hutchinson Student Services Registration (payment) by course instead of by student.Independence Accounts Receivable Independence General Ledger Independence MIS Coordinator Accounts Receivable Independence MIS Coordinator General Ledger Johnson County Business Office no automation of accounts payable and PO generationJohnson County Business Office integrated system for creating financial aid checks from
student account KC Kansas Registrar Having a re-bill feature in the billing system Labette Almost all development must be done in house. Labette Lack of WEB interface (In the process of developing
though) Labette Director Computer
Services Almost all development must be done in house.
Labette Director Computer Services
Lack of WEB interface (In the process of developing though)
Neosho County admissions Neosho County development Neosho County Director of
Technology Services admissions
Neosho County Director of Technology Services
development
Pratt canned reports Pratt it is deployed in modules (each module is another
expense) Pratt Advisement Web interface (will be implemented) Pratt Advisement can't answer Pratt Advisement On-line registration (will be implemented) Pratt IT Director it is deployed in modules (each module is another
expense) Pratt IT Director canned reports Pratt Student Services Online Grades Pratt Student Services Academic Planning Pratt Student Services N/A Seward County Payroll is not as flexible as previous system. Reports
and reporting could vastly be improved.
72 School Office Weaknesses
Seward County Administrative Services
-------NONE-----------
Seward County Administrative Services
Online payment of tuition and fees.
Seward County Administrative Services
Student tracking of specific courses and programs
Seward County Administrative Services
---------NONE---------------
Seward County Development & Alumni
There is no automatic checking for possible duplicate records. This has been our biggest problem across campus. Unfortunately we are ones finding the duplicate records, but we cannot correct them. The DBMS has to do that.
Seward County Development & Alumni
I can't think of anything. It has more functionality than we need at this point.
Seward County Development & Alumni
We need more flexibility with the canned reports. The reports that are provide do not meet our needs.
Seward County IT Department Limited customization without modifying baseline (we don't modify)
Seward County IT Department a portal such as Luminus or Campus Pipeline Seward County IT Department Training issues are a bigger problem than insufficient
system resources Seward County IT Department ? Seward County IT Director Payroll is not as flexible as previous system. Reports
and reporting could vastly be improved. Seward County Student Services confusing billing statements Seward County Student Services too many codes to report
73 Appendix D: SIS VENDORS IN KANSAS COMMUNITY COLLEGES
SIS Vendor Website
Banner SunGard SCT http://www.sct.com/Education/p_b_index.html
CAMS Three Rivers Systems http://www.threerivers-cams.com
Jenzabar CX Jenzabar http://www.jenzabar.com
Jenzabar PX Jenzabar http://www.jenzabar.com
Jenzabar TX Jenzabar http://www.jenzabar.com
PowerCampus SunGard SCT http://www.sct.com/Education/p_p_index.html
Datatel Datatel http://www.datatel.com
Source: Administrative System Software Vendor List – March 2004. Compiled by Edutech International. http://www.edutech-int.com
![SNPhA [Student National Pharmaceutical Association] WELCOME PHUTURE PHARMACISTS! 08/31/2015 snpha.org.ohio-state.edu](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/56649ee55503460f94bf4667/snpha-student-national-pharmaceutical-association-welcome-phuture-pharmacists.jpg)
