Beyond Academics

Busy doing Nothing – The Dirty Secret of Implementation Consultants

Take it from a guy who has led some of the largest SIS implementations in the country (in a past life).

The the hard truth: Activity ≠ Productivity

Just because a project is active doesn’t mean it’s productive. Just watch this video and see that while there is activity, there is little productivity on this guy’s part.

For years, higher ed institutions have poured millions into implementations, logging endless hours of meetings, configuration sessions and “workstreams.”  But fast forward to go-live—what do we see? A system that’s incomplete, untested, and far from what was promised. 

  • Testing? Barely done with any level of confidence.
  • Functionality? Half-baked.
  • Campus expectations? Nowhere near met.

Unfortunately at this late stage, everyone’s enthusiasm—from the project manager to the implementation team—has fizzled, and everyone resorts to frustration and finger-pointing.  

We often hear this phrase: “Let’s just cut it over.”

And then comes the spin to campus leadership: “We’ll need more effort after go-live to really make this system work.”

Wait, what?!

What were you doing for the past 12–18 months? Sure, there were meetings. Sure, people filled out configuration workbooks. But was any of it meaningful? Were deliverables actually delivered? Often, the answer is no. Why? Because the accountability just wasn’t there.

This is the broken cycle of implementation: schools spend $10M, $40M, sometimes $100M, only to end up with vague explanations about why things fell short. The narrative shifts to “post-go-live optimization” as if that wasn’t the plan all along. Funny, that wasn’t part of the sales pitch when you signed up for this massive investment, was it?

Think about it—if you dedicated 2,000 hours to anything – be it learning to fly kites or becoming a home chef, you can accomplish a lot in that amount of time. Yet, this is what schools are spending per staff member and per consultant just to complete configurations. 5 consultants at $200-400 per hour is $1,000 to $2,000 PER HOUR invested. What exactly are you getting in that hour? And who is accountable for the countless hours billed within the 2,000 hour year where your consultants were looking busy, active but no really productivity to the project outcomes?

“But Matt, there’s so much involved! We have to wait for decisions.” Says the implementation partner. 

Okay, but here’s the question: are you getting paid to wait on schools to make decisions, or to design, configure, and deploy the system? If you’re waiting, then why burn implementation time on it? Why wasn’t the school prepared with these decisions before? Where did you drop the ball in preparing them. 

Here’s the somewhat sinister question “Is it almost better for you (the implementation partner) for schools NOT to be prepared, so that you can twiddle your thumbs billing $400+ a hour while they scramble to get answers and decisions? 

This is exactly why alignment, decision-making, and architecture must be finalized before launching an implementation. Without this foundation, all that time and effort is wasted. But implementation parties and software vendors are NOT equipped to do this work. 

Here’s a breakdown of why this scenario keeps repeating itself across the industry:

  1. No real accountability. Sure you have weekly project stand up meetings, everything is spun as productive. Was it really?  The reality is there were no metrics to validate outcomes, and no oversight on daily, weekly, or monthly results to measure that progress aligns with expectations and capabilities.
  1. Certified implementors do not have the bench to do the proper pre-work to prepare you. Pick a certified partner in the market, let’s go through their staff assigned to your project, and we’ll clearly demonstrate that to be true. Their people are certified to implement technology. Few, if any, have worked on the client side managing an office or leading an implementation. They don’t have the higher ed context to create alignment, get buy-in on decisions, anticipate future needs, architect to a future-ready state, or even anticipate the domino effect of one decision on the 100 other areas it impacts across campus. They just take your decisions and roll with it. 
  1. Vendors & certified implementors are not transformation experts – no matter how much they might disagree with this statement, it is pure FACT. Just look at the track record of the countless ongoing stabilization efforts and post-go-live struggles over the past few years, they speak for themselves. Let’s be honest—these players don’t care if your campus truly transforms. Their priority is selling software licenses and reaching go-live so they can declare success and move to the next client who they can bill. 

But the real question is: are you successful?

What’s missing is true, bold, strong leadership that demands more than just “activity.” But this requires understanding of what should be accomplished.  

Understand this: Every hour spent on your project needs to have clear, measurable outcomes. Vendors and their certified partners should be driving success, not making excuses or blaming the school. If they can’t deliver while acknowledging and overcoming the unique “challenges of change” within higher education, they need to take accountability for not making you successful or they shouldn’t be leading you.

This is the problem with every implementation. No one truly takes on the responsibility of overseeing the entire process. The reality is that it requires deep expertise in every aspect of an implementation and a rooted experience in running offices in higher education —not just the step-by-step of installing software. Time and again, this old antiquated software implementation approach has proven to be flawed as it should be implementation of transformation.

Don’t allow people to look busy while burning through your budget. Start holding every consultant, vendor, client team member and project leader accountable for delivering results—not just spinning stories. Ask Beyond to oversee this outcome if needed.

Higher ed, it’s time to wake up. If you’re investing $10M+ in transformation, demand nothing less than actual transformation.

It’s your campus. Own it.

Is there malpractice in Higher Education? Say it ain’t so.

If you went to a doctor to address an issue and they advised you, without sound rationale, to undergo an unnecessary procedure that put you at greater risk and discomfort, many would call it negligence.

Now, if that same doctor who was warned that this procedure puts patients at risk but because they benefit still performed it, placing their patients in greater danger, this could be classified as willful negligence.

In both cases, this could be justified as malpractice, where their license is revoked, and they are no longer able to practice. They could also be asked to pay monetary damages in a lawsuit.

As we continue to see schools embark on projects that are easily recognized as doomed to fail, with the negative outcomes now apparent, there seems to be a sense of negligence in higher education.

Many campuses are now feeling the brunt of the consequences. So, who is to blame? Who should be held accountable for the unmet promises and the risk placed on campuses to maintain systems that have brought very little transformation yet have now handcuffed institutions into survival mode?

This is real, and all you need to do is ask the non-sponsors of these projects. The end users and folks who are trying to keep the ship afloat can tell you the moments they realized the iceberg was in front of them.

If we are going to address the negligence of how campuses spend funding meant to address their issues, only to be put in a position of survival, we must consider accountability.

Sure, blame could go around the three parties in the bias triangle: 
the vendor (1) who over-promised, the SI (2) who consumed funding by burning 
hours, and the sponsored analyst (3) who claims neutrality but whose opinions 
often read like sales pitches for the vendors.

We may not be able to hold these parties directly accountable, but we can hold campus leaders responsible for ignoring the clear signs. The evidence is right in front of them, yet many choose ignorance to pursue grander ambitions or simply disregard the warnings, which amounts to negligence.

Why call it Malpractice?

Higher education is funded by public tax dollars, alumni, and tuition dollars from students, so we should take a hard look at the negligence that is going on and hold individuals accountable for malpractice in their use of these funds.

In the 1990s, implementation failures were commonplace, largely due to a lack of understanding about the complexity of software implementation and what it took to succeed. As ERP systems came to market, we witnessed major failures, but at that time, blame was hard to assign—everyone was learning as they went. Fast forward three decades, and we’re still following the same roadmap, focusing only on installing software. Have we not yet learned that transformation is about more than just configuring systems?

After 3 decades, campus stakeholders and funding bodies should no longer tolerate:

  1.  Budget overruns exceeding 25%.
  2. Paused projects due to unforeseen issues emerging mid-implementation.
  3. New promised functionality not meeting expectations—where campuses realize too late that their needs aren’t being met.
  4. Costly project extensions that drag implementation far beyond the original timeline.
  5. Stalled or abandoned projects.
  6. Stabilization periods lasting more than a year post-go-live.
  7. Unanticipated third-party software needs.
  8. Workarounds to cover gaps in required functionality not available in the software.

All of these are preventable or addressable. Isn’t pre-vendor consulting supposed to safeguard against these issues? Aren’t software consulting firms meant to ensure this doesn’t happen?

Why are these outcomes still accepted as part of the journey to your new student system? We’re three decades into this, and it’s time to stop accepting these mishaps. Millions are being wasted.

In an era of skyrocketing tuition and mounting student debt, why aren’t campuses being more fiscally responsible? The CIOs, CFOs, COOs, campus sponsors, vendors, and system integrator all need to bear the responsibility.

Let’s be honest—someone (or several people) are responsible.

Stop treating $10–40 million investments like technology projects. When investing millions, you need to approach it with a campus transformation mindset, not just a technology transition lens. Yet most consulting firms—whether analysts, system integrator, or vendors—continue to push methodologies centered solely on tech transitions, and campus leaders don’t recognize the impending failure.

There are warning signs

Here are some common warning signs that all stakeholders should recognize before things go wrong, and they should be held accountable for not making adjustments to mitigate the challenges these signs present during an implementation.

  • Minimal pre-work and planning (see below for what SIS pre-work SHOULD look like)
  • Running the project like it’s purely an IT initiative.
  • Launching multi-million dollar projects aimed only at solving current issues.
  • Siloed, outdated designs for student services.
  • Lack of alignment to a clear vision for a modern campus.
  • Applying 1990s tech adoption approaches to what should be a transformation.
  • HR and Finance leading software decisions [Remember, student systems are three times the size and complexity of these areas combined.]
  • RFP selection firms focused solely on process checklists around the technology.

The reason 75% of these projects fail lies in the factors I’ve outlined. It’s time to acknowledge these factors and avoid putting the campus at risk.

If all these warning signs are evident and they fail to perform the necessary
 due diligence, should we not consider it malpractice?

Deferring Due Diligence

As the lead surgeon in this process, it’s essential that stakeholders conduct thorough due diligence. Similar to heart surgery, a proper assessment is crucial to determine whether the operation is necessary and if the procedure has a proven record of success. Every step must be carefully evaluated and planned to ensure the safest possible outcome.

Some may claim they’ve done their diligence, but in many cases, it amounts to deffering due diligence to others. However, in higher education, their fallback is often to rely on third-party consultants tied to software vendors or firms that still approach consulting with a 1990s mindset.

Lets clarify what does not qualify as due diligence:

  • Bringing in an RFP selection firm is not due diligence; they are there to help clarify your needs, but the real groundwork begins well before that.
  • Hading off your strategy to a software vendor doesn’t count as due diligence.
  • Trusting that their system integrator has the capability to lead the pre-work required does not qualify as due diligence.
  • Focusing solely on technology migration is also not due diligence.

It may be time to hold campus leaders accountable for their recommendations that put the campus on the path to costly, failed projects when they fail to conduct proper due diligence beyond merely listening to those within the bias triangle.

Ownership to the Outcome

Stakeholders must take full responsibility for making informed decisions with thorough planning and sound advice well before committing to a large tech software investment that could hinder your campus.

Here are the basics everyone should be promoting to you…

For those who have yet to begin this journey, this is your opportunity to take the necessary steps to prepare for success. The basics are straightforward:

  • Define the desired outcome before searching for software.
  • Develop a clear manifesto.
  • Set realistic expectations.
  • Define success to guide your efforts.
  • Define failure to steer clear of potential pitfalls.

Beyond the Basics

As our clients know, when we step in, we tell it like it is—no sugar-coating—even if they’ve been swept up in vendor pitches, chasing accolades. Those aspirations are personal; our focus needs to be on transforming the campus to better serve learners.

Our approach goes beyond typical planning, fit-gap analysis, configuration, and deployment cycles. For example, at one of our clients, we’ve identified 35+ work streams necessary to address their modernization BEFORE they even shop for an SIS vendor.

The language of modernization on campus should shift to include:

  • Design thinking.
  • Friction mapping.
  • Data dictionary development.
  • Workflow optimization.
  • System of systems (SOS)
  • A manifesto for a future-ready campus.
  • Mobile modernization.
  • Adaptive leadership.

This is the language your campus needs to be fluent in.

It starts by stop using outdated 1990s methodologies to transform your campus. Surgeons today use new techniques and technologies to perform operations successfully. If they kept using methods from decades ago and continued to fail, we’d call it malpractice. The same logic applies here.

It’s time to reclaim the value of your investment. It’s time to take responsibility and truly transform your campus. Like surgery, this is a serious process—taking it lightly leads to flat line outcomes. The impact is significant, and the effort required must be just as substantial.


Collaborate with me

If you are as passionate as I am and this article resonates with you, I invite you 
to connect with me and follow me on LinkedIn.

As we continue to gather the brightest minds to transform higher education and guide our clients in making their campuses future-ready, join the conversations in the BHive or in one of our virtual summits and catch me when I am on your campus or at in person conferences.

Don’t forget to subscribe to this Future X Newsletter. Share with anyone you feel would appreciate the perspective or even challenge me on what I outlined.


Published by

Matt Alex: Founder at Beyond

 

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Joe Abraham, Gabrielle Kristofich & Nate Baron who contributed their time to this article to help create the narrative that fosters the change that we all believe is needed.

Quick Help Guide: Building Your AI Governance Policy

Institutions around the world are scrambling to determine their policy toward the use of AI on campus – from students and staff, to the technology stack as a whole.

This guide was created using AI in less than 5 minutes to demonstrate the power of AI – and to encourage staff on campuses to start using it – but only after the institution has put an AI framework in place.

This guide and its related links will help you get there. Click the image below to download the pdf.

ThinkSpace #17: The Future of Ai and CoBots In Higher Education

Introduction

2022 provided a glimpse into the tremendous power and potential of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) as early disruptors like ChatGPT‘s hit the market and gained rapid worldwide adoption. According to the company, ChatGPT gained over 1 million users within 1 week of launch, and as of January 2023 receives over 10 million queries per day. That is a staggering adoption curve, and demonstrates the marketplace’s hunger for tools like it.

Needless to say, the much awaited rapid adoption of Ai at the industry and consumer levels  has evoked a range of emotions within higher education institutions, with some expressing fear and others beaming with excitement. While breakthrough  innovation and disruption have impacted  how people live and work, a majority of higher education institutions continue to operate using models that are more reminiscent of the 1990s. Bottom line? Higher education has been slow to adopt widely accepted technologies (from automation to mobile experiences), and it has cost the industry in more ways than one. It raises the question as to why this is the case, and how higher education can begin to harness the power of disruptive technologies like AI to drive transformative change that is urgently needed.

In January 2023, Beyond Academics conducted a ThinkSpace session in which we engaged with individuals from over 20 higher education institutions to get a pulse on how Ai is being perceived, and will likely be adopted in higher education. The goal of the session was to gain a deeper understanding of individual and campus perceptions and appetite for AI, as well as to identify areas where AI could have the greatest impact on campus operations and student success. Through a combination of this crowdsourced insight, and our internal research, we were able to develop a vision for how Ai will be integrated into the day-to-day lives of students, staff, and faculty on campus.

SIS and Cloud Failures – How To Avoid Them

Between 2020 and 2022, Beyond conducted a study of the market using both publicly available information, and data collected from public ThinkSpaces involving over 40 institutions. The study focused on expectations institutions have going into an ERP/Student transformation, and the outcomes after the implementation has taken place.

For those who want to read the findings document, you can download it below. However, if you prefer to listen to the content, you can enjoy an AI-Generated Podcast below as well.

The TEXT/PDF VERSION

Click the image below to view, print. or download the document.

IF CLICKING THE IMAGE ABOVE DOES NOT WORK, CLICK THE LINK BELOW.

Bias Triangle Whitepaper VF

THE AI PODCAST VERSION

To demonstrate the power of AI today, we took the content of this document and fed it to a well-known AI platform in September for 2024. In a matter of seconds, the platform ingested the content, understood it, and prepared this 2-person podcast – a whole new way to consume the same content.

As you listen to this digitally-generated content, ask yourself how this “off the shelf” technology could impact the learning experience at your institution – where students with different learning chemistry and style could consume learning in the way best suited for them. What use cases does this podcast trigger in your mind? It certainly has us innovating in our AI R&D work.

ThinkSpace #17: The Future of Ai and CoBots In Higher Education

Introduction

2022 provided a glimpse into the tremendous power and potential of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) as early disruptors like ChatGPT‘s hit the market and gained rapid worldwide adoption. According to the company, ChatGPT gained over 1 million users within 1 week of launch, and as of January 2023 receives over 10 million queries per day. That is a staggering adoption curve, and demonstrates the marketplace’s hunger for tools like it.

Needless to say, the much awaited rapid adoption of Ai at the industry and consumer levels  has evoked a range of emotions within higher education institutions, with some expressing fear and others beaming with excitement. While breakthrough  innovation and disruption have impacted  how people live and work, a majority of higher education institutions continue to operate using models that are more reminiscent of the 1990s. Bottom line? Higher education has been slow to adopt widely accepted technologies (from automation to mobile experiences), and it has cost the industry in more ways than one. It raises the question as to why this is the case, and how higher education can begin to harness the power of disruptive technologies like AI to drive transformative change that is urgently needed.

In January 2023, Beyond Academics conducted a ThinkSpace session in which we engaged with individuals from over 20 higher education institutions to get a pulse on how Ai is being perceived, and will likely be adopted in higher education. The goal of the session was to gain a deeper understanding of individual and campus perceptions and appetite for AI, as well as to identify areas where AI could have the greatest impact on campus operations and student success. Through a combination of this crowdsourced insight, and our internal research, we were able to develop a vision for how Ai will be integrated into the day-to-day lives of students, staff, and faculty on campus.

BOSI DNA Enters Higher Education

For the better of a decade, higher education thought leaders have pointed to the urgent need for administration and faculty to embrace an entrepreneurial mindset to better position for the transformation and disruption ahead in higher ed.

BOSI (acronym for Builder, Opportunist, Specialist, and Innovator) is the framework higher leaders will be able to leverage for several much-needed outcomes.:

  1. Help each employee discover their innate entrepreneurial DNA and discover the pre-wired strengths and weaknesses of that behavioral profile.
  2. Help teams and working groups identify the complementary and competing DNAs in the room so that innovation can actually take place.
  3. Help leaders identify talent within the institution, and during the recruiting process, to best align roles to the decision-making lens that drives each individual.
  4. Help managers have a better understanding of how each team member is wired to make decisions, and how they process things like opportunity, risk, ideation, and failure.
  5. Design strategy based on the unique Institutional DNA of a school, rather than falling for the fatal trap of chasing “best practices” of schools that have a completely different DNA. (Hint: Just because Arizona State or SNHU is doing something innovative doesn’t mean your school can, or should as well. If you don’t have their Institutional DNA, you will not be successful in implementing their strategies).
  6. Assign professional development pathways for individuals based on their DNA rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that borders on discriminatory and exclusionary.
  7. Provide professors and administrators with a tool to better understand each student, and their behavioral profile so that everything from course selection, to team assignments can be customized to that who that student is.

The History Of BOSI

Discovered in 2008 amidst research conducted with startup founders, the BOSI framework led to the authoring of the book Entrepreneurial DNA (McGraw Hill 2011). Over 1,000 individuals participated in the original research, and over 200,000 individuals worldwide have completed the assessment since then.

The BOSI framework is currently used in incubators, early stage companies, academic coursework, non profit organizations, and the Fortune 500.

The framework has now been adapted for Higher Education and will be available for individuals and institutions starting 2023.

Ways To Leverage BOSI

BOSI will be available publicly in several formats starting March 2023.

  1. The free 10-question assessment for individuals (mobile friendly and under 5 minutes)
  2. The Advanced Assessment for individuals that uncovers all 4 DNAs by percentage and includes a multi-page pdf report.
  3. The Team Assessment for teams of 10 to over 1,000. Plots the entire team on one BOSI quadrant for rich insight into team dynamics and innovation capacity.
  4. A certification program for individuals (2024) who will administer the assessment and coach leaders in their professional development.
  5. Ongoing thought leadership and insights delivered via the Beyond Academics blog and on Linkedin with BOSI founder Joe Abraham.
  6. ThinkSpace sessions hosted by Beyond Academics that are open to the public.
  7. The BOSI Leadership Academy (2024) where emerging leaders in higher ed will go through multi-day programming to build their leadership skills and get certified.
  8. Workshops, events, and keynotes for associations, and institutions as-requested.

As we better understand the ways higher education leaders will leverage BOSI to move their institutions forward, we will continue to innovate ways to support.

The BOSI Assessments will open to higher education on March 1st 2023.

Questions? Contact us by emailing team@beyondacademics.com

The Top 10 Things For 2023

As higher education enters a phase of early disruption seeded by the Pandemic, and now accelerated with exponential technologies like ChatGPT, it’s important to get a perspective of the road ahead.

At Beyond Academics, we spend a great deal of our time guiding clients to where higher education is going, and how to position their institution to be future-ready.

This year’s Top 10 Things for 2023 gives you our perspective for what’s ahead this year. We hope it leads to meaningful discussions, and challenging conversations within your department or institution.

These trends are not “potentially” going to happen. They are already in their early deployment, so consider how ready your institution is to adapt to each trend, so you can take full advantage of each trend in the months to come.

If clicking the image above does not work, Click Here Instead.

The State of SIS in Higher Ed: The Uncomfortable Truth

5 New Realities of Today’s SIS You Need to Know 

You’re probably sensing it’s time to break off an old partnership. 

For the past 15 years, your partner has been with you through thick and thin. At times, you’ve hated working together, while at other times you’ve been grateful for everything this partner did for you. But as of late, it is taking more time and money than ever before. 

It’s time to say goodbye to your current SIS system and look for a new one. 

Click below to see the full report:

The State of SIS in Higher Ed: The Uncomfortable Truth

Why Student Implementations Never Meet Expectations – Introduction

A Five-Part Series

Part 01: Why Student Implementations Never Meet Expectations

“Transformation!” “Modernization!” “Flexible!” “Saves Time and Money!” “Allows you to do what you need to do!” 

You’ve heard all of these promises and more from SIS vendors who meet us at conferences, send us their videos, and respond to our RFIs. You sign on the dotted line, get millions of dollars worth of funding, and find an implementation partner who promises to transform your world. You get excited to start your SIS transformation initiative. 

Fast forward to two years later.

Your implementation is nearly out of funds, and you are nowhere near going live on schedule. Even if you do go live, the new software will take years of modifications before you will even be able to support many of the critical processes you were doing in your legacy system on the day you held your first kick-off meeting. As a result, time, money, and careers are all wasted and broken, and your institution is less able to operate than it was 24 months ago.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way! So, what happened? 

Based on over 20 years of observing and studying the maker, we have identified five common reasons SIS implementations never meet expectations:

Reason 1: The Expected Transformation Is Not Clearly Defined

Reason 2: Lack of Leadership

Reason 3: Poor Decision-making 

Reason 4: Pseudo Investments 

Reason 5: SIS Implementation Driven by External Players

Over the next few days, we will dive deeper into these five reasons and some preventative steps you can take. We will close out the series with guidance on how to generate uncomfortable conversations with your SIS teams and hopefully set you on a new path toward true student-centric transformation. 

Don’t like to wait? Neither does innovation. Download the full five-part article here: