| | March - 20199Of course, reality does not always align with vendor claims. It is true that federated identity management has opened the door to more universal single sign-on opportunities that can ease the user experience desiring yet another niche product. But the often-expected data integrations can take time, be complex and need on-going attention. Vendor promises for universal integration have yet to be realized. So, what is the best way forward? The first consideration is to stay the course with the institution's current SIS at least for the present or perhaps simply extend functionality instead of pursuing a rip-and-replace strategy. Maybe consider an upgrade to a more modern and intuitive user interface with the current product, perhaps adding CRM, advising, co-curricular tracking or student life tools to further extend its life. The grass is not always greener in the SIS space to be certain. The best product combination in 2018 and the best in 2019 may not be the same. The evolving combination of SaaS, vendor-hosted options and best-of-breed ancillary systems is a far cry from just a decade ago when just 3-4 players owned much of the market. It is against this moving backdrop that many institutions must do `more with less' and the pressure on higher education leaders to produce added efficiencies has never been higher. But that does not mean an institution should change just for the sake of change. But for those situations where the need for significant SIS change is obvious, gaining consensus as to what problem needs solved is a great place to start. An inability to find such consensus can be very telling and may signal that a hiatus is warranted while further self-study is conducted. Is there general agreement that the loss of key staff, the need for IT staff to be redeployed on other priorities or maybe the pending major expenditure for a hardware upgrade is enough of a problem that a new SIS is warranted? Cases in which the current SIS' core functionality simply no longer meets the needs of the institution are the most challenging. This includes cases in which the current SIS vendor abandoning the institution's product or is failing to update the look-and-feel to meet user expectations. Institutions will want to be careful not to rush the decision when abandoning their current system. Traditional SIS vendors are taking varied approaches to emerging SaaS and cloud-hosted era, trying hard to gain new customers and perhaps even harder not to lose current ones. But SaaS is also opening the door to new vendors and systems and it will take time for them to mature. In both cases, a little delay could be of benefit. It is early in the game to know which of these will prove to be the best long-term choice for an individual institution. As always, the best choice for an institution with 25,000 students will likely not be the best for one with 1,500 students. But there are issues beyond core SIS functionality and company stability warranting much consideration. "How broad is the vendor's partner catalog?", "How robust is the integration platform?" and "How well can an institution create its own integrations without the vendor's involvement?" are just three of the critical questions. Finally, institutions will likely want to find a customer that "looks like them" who is already successfully in production with the proposed system prior to signing up with any solution. One lower-risk key to success can probably be found with choices that are both "modern and mainstream". Traditional SIS vendors are taking varied approaches to emerging SaaS and cloud-hosted era, trying hard to gain new customers and perhaps even harder not to lose current ones
< Page 8 | Page 10 >