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