Yavapai College:
Setting A Technology Strategy

The mission of Yavapai College is to provide
high quality, convenient and cost-effective learning opportunities for the diverse populations
of Yavapai County .

A copy of the final report can be downloaded (pdf) by clicking here.

(The interim online reports follow below.)

Project Purpose

Yavapai College has initiated a project to determine a software application direction that will fulfill the future needs of the College. Dickmeyer Consulting has been asked to assist Yavapai Community College in evaluating current and potential software cost, functionality, support, and satisfaction. The project encompasses four key areas:

Top

Project Design

Dickmeyer Consulting will evaluate cost, functionality, and satisfaction of current and new directions using interviews and surveys of college constituents, peer reviews, accounting information, and open forums. The project will be guided by a Steering Committee. Consultants will visit three times, spending four weeks on campus.

Phase one
Telephone interviews to focus on high priority needs

Phase two
Face-to-face interviews to evaluate functionality and satisfaction

Phase three
Gather data from peers and experts in field

Phase four
Write recommendation for strategic technology direction

Phase three: In Progress

Top

Interviews

Short telephone interviews followed by a week of face-to-face interviews were conducted with faculty, academic administrators, administrative system users, and ITS staff. Participants were asked their views on:

For more details on the results of the interviews go to:
www.DickmeyerConsulting.com/YCInterviews.htm

Top

Online Survey of Technology Needs

The Yavapai College faculty, staff and students were asked to participate in an online survey of technology needs. There were 300 responses, two-thirds of whom identified themselves as staff. The remaining third identified as faculty. There were only a handful of student responses. An analysis of the results can be downloaded in PDF form by clicking here.

The results may be summarized as:

• Respondents would favor a replacement of the student information system.
• Respondents do not want such a project to take resources from technology areas that support instruction.
• The College web site is the source of dissatisfaction.
• Third-party systems (financial aid and human resources/payroll) are working adequately.
• Online scheduling is a “hot button” area.
• There is a base of support to improve the technology of student recruiting.

Top

Key College Strategies

1. Enrollment growth

• More diversity of instructional programs
• More diversity of instructional modalities
• More academic partnerships
• Higher level of student success

2. Greater value

• Higher perceived county service
• Higher perceived student service
• Higher perceived academic quality

Top

Choices and Outcomes

The consultant's second visit to the College included interviews that helped define the administrative software options. A small set of choices defines each option.

The choices

• While the College is now enhancing its legacy administrative software system with new technology, should it completely revise the system or purchase and implement a commercially available package?
• If the development project is continued, what modules should the project include?
• If the development project is continued, should new positions and consulting time be added to the budget?
• If software is purchased, which commercial package should the College choose?

The value of an option

Under any option the College must be concerned with functionality and disruption. To make any of the choices above the College must evaluate the probability and benefit of changes in functionality and the probability and cost of disruption. There are good outcomes, as when the enhancement greatly improves functionality and causes no disruption. There are also bad outcomes.

By making the decisions above, the College commits to initial and ongoing expense levels and a set of probabilities for good and bad outcomes. Every possible combination of choices among the four decisions has a value which is a combination of the expenses of the choice, the probable benefit of resulting functionalities and the probable costs of disruption.

For each set of decisions (for each option, like buying brand X software), this phase of the project requires assessing the direct costs of that option, the probabilities that various levels of disruption and functionality will occur with that option, the costs of disruptions, and the values of various levels of resulting functionality.

Rules for setting outcome values

1. The more resources invested in the development project, the better the chance of high functionality.
2. The fewer resources invested, the higher the chance of disruption during the transition.
3. The larger the scope of the project, the higher the probability of disruption during the transition.
4. An internal project has a better chance of meeting all functionality requirements than does purchased software.
5. The cost of a disruption can be expressed in “dollar per day” terms, with the amount growing by a percentage for each day the system is down.
6. Increased functionality provides a measurable value each year.
7. Decreased functionality will likely result in a search for new options and higher costs.

Next step:

The next step of the project calls for using the rules to evaluate how much the College gains or loses as it makes choices.

Top

Contact

To discuss this project with the consultant, send an e-mail to, Nate Dickmeyer

(nate@dickmeyerconsulting.com)

About Dickmeyer Consulting