1. The Shape of CRM in Higher Education Kate Jackson
(Administrative Officer, CRM Network &
CRM Manager, Nottingham Trent University)

2. Overview Introduction CRM System Adoption Integration
Impact – process, practice and staffing
Return on investment
Final thoughts

3. Introduction

4. Survey Objectives Objectives:
To provide a benchmark of sector CRM maturity and competency levels.
Demonstrate the CRM journey HEIs are on – you’re not alone!
Identify where the network can best make an impact.
50 respondents to survey representing 31% of HEIs in UK

5. CRM System
ADOPTION

6. Sector Adoption: CRM Systems
Nearly all HEI respondents indicated they use a CRM system.
Those that don’t are currently considering purchasing one to support activity across the institution.
(Base: 50)

7. Number of CRM Systems by HEI
69% have more than one CRM system.
(Base: 48)
(Base: 33)

8. Which CRM systems are used?
Raisers Edge continues to dominate alumni management.
Hobsons Connect / Campus Management, closely followed by MS Dynamics are the most widely used systems.

9. Departments owning a CRM system to support activity
CRM systems are predominately being used for student recruitment / admissions activity.
(Base: 48)

10. CRM system maturity
Across all departments the most common amount of time a CRM system has been implemented is more than 5 years (40%).
There is greater focus on managing relationships with students through CRM systems rather than business to business activity.

11. Perceived level of success of CRM system implemented by function
Across all departments, the most common level of perceived success of the CRM system is “good” or “very good” (48%).
Business to business activity is perceived as having more moderate levels of success.

12. The perceived CRM skill level by function
Across all departments, the most common perceived CRM skill levels are advanced (33%) and intermediate (30%).

13. Which methods do CRM systems use to support communications?
Overall all departments use their CRM systems to drive communications.
Student recruitment, Admissions and Student Communications teams use CRM for multi channel communications.
Business to business communications are mainly by (50%) and phone campaigns (8%)
(Base: 44)

14. Integration

15. Sharing data with… Student Information Systems
The majority (83%) of CRM systems share data with their student information system and the data is shared by a scheduled data load
(Base: 48)

16. Sharing data with… your website
The majority (56%) don’t share data with their website.
Of the few that do, this is shared in real-time.
(Base: 48)

17. Sense check … Maturity is dependent of function adoption.
More traditional communications channels are being utilised.

18. IMPACT

19. Impact on process and practice
The majority of institutions identified an impact on processes and practice as a direct result of implementing a CRM system.
(Base: 44)

20. As a direct result of CRM system implementation, process/practice has become:
(Base: 44)

21. As a direct result of CRM system implementation, time spent on process/practice has become:
(Base: 44)

22. Staffing changes
Implementing a CRM system is having a direct impact on process and roles.
Just over half of respondents stated that more staff are involved in processes.
(Base: 48)

23. Has implementing a CRM system resulted in change in institutional policy?
(Base: 48)

24. Data used for institutional planning?
The majority (65%) use the data for institutional planning. Mainly for student recruitment planning and event management.
(Base: 48)

25. Maturity check … Functional dependencies on business processes.
High responses of ‘Don’t knows’ regarding impact of CRM on ease and speed of process.
Department adoption V cultural shift

26. Return On
INVESTMENT

27. acceptances and decisions.
Demonstrating ROI
Higher engagement on s, more enquirers becoming applicants and then becoming enrolled students.
Only 29% can demonstrate a return on investment
Success of individual campaigns and events - ongoing monitoring of results on applications,
acceptances and decisions.
Mapping of prospect engagement and response to various campaigns. Being able to track
engagement from initial contact through to enrolment and various touch points during this.
CRM has supported increased open day registration and attendance. Conversion pilots have improved acceptance and deposit payment rates.

28. Challenges in demonstrating ROI
The major challenge is that there are too many additional factors influencing an accurate assessment.
Not enough longitudinal data to demonstrate ROI
Not measurable yet … too early to say

29. Blockers in maximising the use of CRM technologies
(Base: 45)
Other:
Politics
Integration issues caused by mismatch between product roadmap and how institutions operate

30. Maturity check… 74% too many influencing factors
53% level of reporting not available

31. Final Thoughts …

32. Working together as a Network
Regular, systematic resource benchmarking:
Structure
Roles
Responsibilities
Skills
Knowledge
Working together as a Network
Business Process Automation:
Leveraging technology to automate service processes task management
Slower (12%) / more complicated (7%) V
Quicker (34%) Easier (49%)
(and lots of don’t knows)
Metrics model:
Justifying ROI through measurable business benefits.
Vendor / Provider provision and support:
Work together more as a sector to influence software system roadmaps.
Developing a framework for consultant interactions.

33. Questions for you!
Do you have a clearly articulated vision for CRM as a concept underpinned by system roadmap?
Do you have the right resources, roles, structure to match scope?
Are multiple CRM systems undermining single holistic view of data and the benefits / opportunitites?
Are multiple CRM systems making GDPR compliance difficult to achieve?
Are you fully capitalising on student recruitment opportunities that exist if B2B relationships are managed more holistically?