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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Financial Sustainability & Control H 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

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 http://gmhec.org/it/erp-project-calendar/

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