A most ambitious
Enterprise CRM conversion
Brad Wheeler is vice president for information technology and the CIO at
Indiana University.
I
ndiana has long been a proponent of open source soft ware or creating
its own. But when IU decided to centralize the sprawling university—all
eight campuses, 107,000 students, 500,000 living alumni and the Founda-
carloads of it on campus. Th e trick is getting it
tion—into one CRM system, Wheeler and the team decided to bid the project
out of stand-alone databases, Excel spreadsheets
out. In the end, IU chose Campus Management, whose Talisma CRM system
and even hand-written fi le cards. With so many
was already in use in several departments.
disparate sources come an equivalent number of
patches to migrate to a central database. Much
Why?
data can be lost or compromised in that process.
Th e technology is not the limiting factor.
Wheeler off ers this example. With the proliferation of one-off systems, it might
People are.
be possible for an alumnus to opt out of receiving his old business school newslet-
Liz Murphy has noticed that data capture is
ter, but not know how to opt in for news from the school of music, his current
inconsistent. “Th e person on the front line to-
interest. Or he may not know how to ask to have his spouse removed from the list
day doesn’t necessarily see the value of captur-
in one place, but not have her removed elsewhere. “In such cases we look pretty
ing or entering the data. It’s not a value to him
dumb,” Wheeler observes
perhaps. However, the downstream value may
And another. “One our most devoted benefactors told me recently ‘I get
be profound.”
something from IU almost every day.’ He does not consider that a positive.”
Th e campus must also come to grips with
Th e behemoth institution was a mire of fragmented, one-off systems, and a pro-
who owns the data and who can do what to
liferation of contracts and licensing arrangements, many of which did not show up
whom. In Case 2 above, everyone wanted a
on the MIS budget. “We were spending more and having less to show for it.” Th e
piece of Dr. Goergen. Campus Management’s
need for more effi ciency in process, policy and personnel was clear. Although there
answer is enterprise confi gurability—easily
was resistance, with the economic crisis, it is politically unwise to argue that duplicate
changed rules of access and record views. “Th e
technology and staff were more effi cient than a common CRM.
soft ware should enable ‘co-opetition’ among
Of course, there is peril in such an undertaking. An institution of IU’s size
campus administrators for access to the con-
has millions of datapoints that have to be migrated from hundreds of sources
stituent,” explains Gilbert.
into a single database. More diffi cult will be the change in culture: new disci-
Who owns the constituent is the ultimate
pline, rigor and data standards. Competitive people must be taught that it is vital
question. When Trey was an applicant, the
to share information, not hoard it. Learning to coordinate timing and message
admissions offi ce owned him. But as he moves
content is also necessary.
through his lifecycle, will there be a relationship
Leadership at the university took a smart approach by forming an enterprise-
manager that tracks him, maintains the profi le,
wide VP level steering committee. Th e committee determines the policy trade-
decides when and what to say to him at vari-
off s and choices, and assures project support from the top as well as representa-
ous points, and even guide him down pathways
tion from the entire community.
benefi cial to the institution?
CIO Wheeler would not divulge the exact cost of the consolidation. He did
Murphy says lifecycle relationship manage-
off er that the new enterprise CRM license will cost less than the aggregate of the
ment is in its infancy.
previous separate arrangements. No cost for licensing and maintenance will be
In many ways, the theoretical potential of
charged back to individual schools or departments. It will take a year and a half
super-systems may outstrip the capabilities of
to fully implement.
current staff , structure and processes to manage
IU has established trust and mutual respect between enrollment manage-
such sophistication.
ment, the alumni association and the foundation, all of which are separate legal
Murphy observes that many institutions
entities. Trust is essential in preventing internal competition from destroying the
recognize they are not suffi ciently wired, and
optimal external constituent relationship.
are spending a lot of money on consultants like
Wheeler does not expect a reduction in staff head count. If anything, IU
Royall, Noel-Levitz and Maguire Associates
might have to increase staff to manage a powerful system that greatly exceeds
who understand data mining and relationship
current capabilities. Successful CRM implementation will enable many existing
management.
staff to move to higher value work.
“It’s not a numbers game,” Murphy adds.
Did IU bite off more than it can chew? An undaunted Wheeler proclaims,
“It’s not about bits and bytes and bandwidth. At
“With such a system we have hope. And to the naysayers, cynics and foot-drag-
the end of the day, you have to ask yourself ‘with
gers: “It’s considerably less awful than the alternative.”
the data at my command, did I make a better
decision?’”TC
12 T
oday’s
C
ampus subscribe at no charge at
www.todayscampus.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68