1. Administrative Systems RFP
Fostering Collaboration
Administrative Systems RFP
SLG Update
November 16, 2016

2. Agenda Why this Project? Why with the Consortium?
What has happened so far?
Findings
Guiding Principles
Vendor Selection
Possible Outcomes
What happens next?
Potential Timeline
Q & A

3. Why this Project? Why on Consortium Level?
Middlebury:
Has to transition to Banner XE eventually
Given ineffectiveness of current business processes, move to Banner XE will require re- implementation
If re-implementation – worth the money and effort?
Champlain & Saint Michael’s:
Use Colleague – even older structure than Banner with high yearly $ increases
Almost impossible to integrate with other software
Ineffective business processes
Consortium:
All three schools in similar boat, so look for solution together which also
Allows for combined purchasing (lowering cost)
Supports shared services implementation (lowering cost)
Increases quality of service due to newer systems and better business processes

4. What has happened so far? 2016 Timeline
April
May
/June
June
/July
Sept
October
Nov
Dec
Kick Off Meeting
With Steering Committee & Functional Leads
Listening
Sessions
3 days at each campus with > 100 participants each
Develop RFP with input from functional leads
Selection of Vendors
Vendor
Discovery
Demos
& Finalists selection
Evaluate Next
Steps

5. Common Findings from Listening Sessions at All Institutions
Inability to forecast student, finance, HR, Advancement needs
Limits ability of college leadership to make informed decisions
Reporting requires manual process and data manipulation
Limits ability of users to do their job effectively
Limited functionality
Resulting in purchase of many third party systems
Limited integration of current system with add-on systems
Resulting in significant manual data entry
Inadequate user support and training
Technology purchases made with very little business case justification, user input or planning
Lack of effective IT governance and user input results in purchases of overlapping, redundant or inadequate IT software / applications

6. Guiding Principles for RFP & Vendor Selection
Maintain institutional identities
Increase services without increasing staffing
Improve functionality
Decrease financial and human resource requirements in the long-term
Use best practice business processes
Standardize business processes across all departments/colleges
Implement Shared Services HR
Finance
Training & Support
IT Services

7. Vendor Selection 7 ERP Proposals, 6 Advancement Proposals
CampusWorks conducted evaluative scoring process
Steering Committee reviewed proposals, discussed and narrowed vendors
4 ERP Semi-Finalists (Campus Management, Unit4, Workday, Oracle)
3 Advancement Semi-Finalists (roundCorner/Salesforce, Blackbaud, Oracle)
What does it mean that Ellucian was not chosen?
Did not submit Advancement proposal
For HR/Finance/Student suggested for each school to stay on current platform and to do shared services via integrations
No proposal of how to move to XE (and what that would cost)
Not willing to understand that Colleges need deficiencies be addressed
However, they have stated to be supportive to the very end

8. Finalist Criteria Criterion Rank
Feature/functionality best fit requirements
Ongoing support
Completeness of solution
Roadmap
Vendor’s reputation/client satisfaction
Price
Implementation track record
Each Steering Committee ranked criteria from 1 to 7
All stated feature / functionality as No. 1
Will ask functional leads to rank as well
Steer

9. Scenarios & Considerations
Purchasing timing
None now
HR/Finance and Advancement now, Student later
All three systems now
Purchasing what
Master contracts from which colleges can purchase at preferred rates independently
1-3 systems together (HR/Finance - Advancement - Student)
Implementation timing
Together, Phased or Separate
Shared Services – yes/no and which ones?
Considerations
What scenarios are most financially sustainable for the colleges in the long-term?
How much control are the colleges willing to relinquish in favor of resource flexibility?
What role does time play in the decision?

10. Financial Sustainability & ControlH A S H A H S A S H A H S A H S
All on their own A H S
Control A H S A H S
Advancement together only A H S A H S A H S
Advancement & HR/Finance together, 2 vendors; student on their own A H S A H S A H S A S H
Advancement & HR/Finance together, 1 vendor; student on their own
All together but Advancement 1 vendor, HR/ Finance & Student other vendor A S H A S H
Green=CC, Blue=Midd, Purple=SMC
A=Advancement, H=Human Resources & Finance, S=Student (Recruiting, Admissions, Fin Aid,
Billing, Registration/Records, Advising)
Savings
Advancement, HR/Finance & Student together, 1 vendor

11. Next big steps Nov. 10 Nov. 14 Week Nov. 22 Dec. 2
Advancement and HR/Finance/Student (ERP) demos ended
Nov. 14 Week
Follow up with Advancement and ERP vendors
Updates to cabinets/SLG
Meeting with Functional Leads to gather input for ranking
Nov. 22
Apples-to-Apples comparison presentation and total cost of ownership
Choice of Finalists (2 for HR/Finance/Student, 2 for Advancement)
Dec. 2
Recommendations from Steering Committee to Presidents and GMHEC Board

12. Possible Timeline (Calendar Year)
Go Live
HR, Fin, Adv
Go Live
Student
Q1 17
Q2 17
Q3 17
Q4 17
Q1 18
Q2 18
Q3 18
Q4 18
Q1 19
Q2 19
Q3 19
Q4 19
Q1 20
Q2 20 HR
Negotiate Contract with Vendor
Negotiate Shared Services
Business Process Review
HR Implementation
Fin.
Finance Implementation
Fixed Assets, Parts of Grants
Adv.
Bus. Review
Advancement Implementation
Stu
Student Implementation
Student Planning aligned with HR/Fin/Adv.
1/1/17
4/1/17
10/1/17
7/1/18
10/1/18
4/1/19
4/1/20