Smooth the Path to a New System

In their combined 40-plus years in the college store industry, Kim Madden and Steven Westenbroek have experienced eight different systems. Despite some bumps along the way, they both survived their most recent installations and lived to tell the tale in the CAMEX100 education session, Keys to a Successful System Migration.

Madden, director of college store operations, Frederick Community College, Frederick, MD, and Westenbroek, director College of Saint Mary Campus Store, Omaha, NE, shared their successes and regrets with session facilitator Lara Konick, who first outlined these basic steps to system transition:

• Review: internal needs, external needs, timeline, funding.
• Select: process, functional assessment, cost
• Implement: plan, execute, go live.

Madden was under time pressure to get a new system up and running due to the store’s rapidly declining equipment and impending end of the current contract. “Unfortunately, we didn’t look ahead,” she recalled. Out of eight registers, only “one and a half were running,” she said, and they had to swap out parts on the obsolete machines.

“I recommend looking ahead as soon as you can. Where are you in the contract if you have one?” she said. “Give yourself more time at the front.”

Westenbroek was in the opposite situation. “It took us about a year. We took time to do it right rather than rushing,” he said. He was able to give the IT department six months’ notice of the project, which helped ensure the project could get on their schedule without getting bumped by other needs.

The Campus Store’s advisory committee actually got the ball rolling. “The push came from the alumni department,” Westenbroek said. “They wanted to do more tracking of purchases of students,” something his old system couldn’t handle effectively. Complicating the project a bit, Westenbroek also decided to switch digital course materials providers at the same time.

While he stressed that IT was a partner throughout the system selection process, “the biggest part of the process in choosing a system was that I didn’t have to rely on IT all the time,” Westenbroek said. “I did pretty much everything myself and I’m no IT genius.”

Madden also worked with campus IT throughout the process, as well as the bursar’s office, which was concerned about third-party billing. “We were looking at integration for the first time,” she said, noting that many of the available system features were very attractive but would require a change in procedures.

The IT department at Frederick was stretched thin and just one or two people there were available to work on the system project. “I got buy-in initially from IT,” Madden said. But well into the process she discovered the school had made some customizations to the system, something that might have halted the process earlier if she had known. “Our equipment was failing. We had no choice but to go forward with something,” she said.

“Sometimes IT will support rather than take over,” Konick noted. “For a lot of college stores, there’s a real disconnect between campus IT, especially if you run your own shop. It’s an opportunity to build relationships with groups on campus where they don’t exist.” She shared a list of external needs that stores should consider:

• Store functionality: input from store staff, feedback from customers.
• Campus integration: financial aid, department charges, employee charges, SIS course and customer data.
• Product categories: outsourced course materials or in-house, multiple retail locations.
• System architecture: single or multi-store, integrated e-commerce, cloud-based or on-premises.

Madden realized she needed to crack the whip occasionally on the cross-departmental group working on the system project, because people who had committed to certain tasks weren’t completing them on time, despite the weekly check-in meetings.

“I assumed everybody was going to do their job. Don’t do that; they need a nudge,” she said. “I found out along the way I really needed to be in everybody’s business and be that project manager that would really stay on top.”

Ordinarily, Madden would have had to set up a request for proposals (RFP) for a system purchase, but in this case was able to source directly because the selected system provider was already installing a smart locker system for the store.

Westenbroek also could shop for a system directly. “We did not thankfully have to go through an RFP process. It seems like a nightmare process,” he said.

Konick suggested it’s possible to go through an RFP process with a sole-source mentality to ensure the store ends up with the right system. “I advise you have a very early conversation” to determine the type of process, she said. “Often vendors will provide wording for you to put in an RFP, what to specify, what you need to give the biggest selection of options.”

When it’s time to size up how well a system under consideration will fulfill the identified needs, Konick said a demonstration should take into account these factors: store functionality, campus integration, external partners, payment options, and data migration. Stores should check references by calling stores that have used the same system or even visiting them to see the system in action.

Westenbroek said he researched systems while at CAMEX and by talking and visiting other managers in the industry. “Having that network was the best thing. It made the process much better,” he said.

“I agree with networking,” Madden said. She also recommended including the IT and finance people in system demonstrations, “though not necessarily at the same time,” she said. “For us, the demos were strictly for store staff and I regret that.”

In developing a budget, Konick advised keeping one-time charges for hardware replacement, implementation, and initial training in mind along with recurring expenses for maintenance, subscription, payment options, and more training. Madden ended up only spending about two-thirds of the budgeted amount. Westenbroek struggled to keep costs within budget when other departments started requesting extra capabilities for the system.

Migrating data from the old system to the new one is a critical point. Madden was able to transfer data to her system, although the staff also took time to rename some product classifications. “I’m glad we did it,” she said.

Westenbroek also decided to migrate data directly into the new system “but what we found was a lot of information that came from the old system was messed up,” he said. Months later they were still trying to fix problems that popped up. “When you’re on an old system, you get used to it. But then you go to the cloud and realize this is a new world,” he said. If he had it to do all over, they would do a fresh input to ensure clean data.

Konick listed several recommendations for data migration: take your time, update naming conventions, rethink product classification, remove old or discontinued items, and review pricing models. In training staff, don’t overwhelm them with too much information at one time. Record training sessions if possible so that employees can review them as needed.

Other things to take into consideration in acquiring a new system:

• In scheduling a go-live date, be sure to be aware of other IT projects on campus as well as timelines for external partners.
• Think about how the capabilities of the new system may affect employee tasks and responsibilities. You may need to update job descriptions.
• The new system may call for changes in the physical layout of the store due to the number or size of checkout stations or the functionality now available.
• In addition to IT and finance, you may want to bring student services into the project.