Erp Questinnarie
Erp Questinnarie
Erp Questinnarie
Vol. 4, 2002
0
ERP Survey Questionnaire
Thank you for your participation in the EDUCAUSE study of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. The
survey is a key part of a major study on ERP in higher education in North America being done by the EDUCAUSE
Center for Applied Research (ECAR). The survey consists of nine sections. Our testing suggests that the survey
will require approximately 45 minutes to complete. We appreciate your time and candor. The length is determined by how many ERP products your institution implemented. You will skip substantial portions of the survey
if your institution did not implement an ERP product or if it only implemented one or two products.
The survey does not need to be completed at a single sitting. You can save your responses and return to it at
times that are convenient for you. You may also wish to consult with colleagues about answers to particular
questions, or if another person on your campus is better positioned to answer this survey, please forward the
survey to that person.
As thanks for your time and valuable input, every participant will receive a summary of key findings. In addition,
three survey respondents will be selected at random to receive a complimentary copy of the final report or, for
ECAR subscribers, one additional complimentary admission to the first annual ECAR Research Symposium,
November 5-7, 2002, at San Diegos landmark Hotel Del Coronado. Full ECAR studies are available either
through subscription or purchase at http://www.educause.edu/ecar/. If you have any questions or concerns,
please e-mail ecar@educause.edu
Section 1
1.
2.
Since 7/1/1995, has your institution implemented purchased Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
software for Student, Human Resources, or Financial systems?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
[If 1, then 3-5]
2. No
[If 2, then 424-450]
Vol. 4, 2002
3.
Were you in your current position during your institutions ERP implementation? Select the
answer that bests fits your circumstance:
(Single Select)
1. I was in my position before the planning for ERP began
2. I was in my position after planning, but before implementation began
3. I was hired during the implementation
4. I was hired after the product was implemented
4.
How would you describe your involvement in your institutions ERP implementation?
1. I was the executive sponsor / co-sponsor for the project
2. I was the project leader
3. I was part of the management team
4. I served as a functional or technical specialist
5. I was partially involved
6. I was not directly involved
End Section 1
Begin Section 2
Please tell us which ERP product(s) your institution has installed. If you have partially installed a
product (e.g., you have implemented most of your vendors HR module, but not Payroll), please
indicate that you have installed the package.
Financial Information System (FIS)
5.
Vendor
(Single Select)
1. Datatel
2. Jenzabar (CARS)
3. Oracle
4. PeopleSoft
5. SAP
6. SCT
7. Legacy System
8. Other (Please Fill in Below)
9. No enterprise software in use
[If one of 5.1-5.6 or 5.8, then branch to add 6-11; 37-49; 122; 160-167; 290-298; 378-391]
[If 5.7 or 5.9 then 6-11 and no additional FIS branching questions]
6.
If you answered Other to Vendor, please enter the name of the vendor
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
When did the first module of your ERP system go live (mm/yyyy)?
Vol. 4, 2002
13.
If you answered Other to Vendor, please enter the name of the vendor
14.
15.
16.
17.
Vol. 4, 2002
18. When did the first module of your ERP system go live (mm/yyyy)?
Student Information System (SIS)
19. Vendor
(Single Select)
1. Datatel
2. Exeter
3. Jenzabar
4. Oracle
5. PeopleSoft
6. SCT
7. Legacy System
8. Other (Please Fill in Below)
9. No enterprise software in use
[If one of 19.1-19.6 or 19.8, then branch to add 20-25; 73-90; 124; 176-183; 308-316; 406-418]
[If 19.7 or 19.9 then 20-25, and no additional SIS branching questions]
20.
If you answered Other to Vendor, please enter the name of the vendor
21.
22.
23.
24.
Vol. 4, 2002
25. When did the first module of your ERP system go live (mm/yyyy)?
26.
If you answered Legacy, Other, Or No enterprise software in use to any of the previous,
are you planning to implement an ERP package within the next two years for: (Select all that
apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. Human Resources
3. Student Information System
[If left blank, then branch to 29]
[If one or more of 26.1-3 selected, then branch to add 27-29]
Vol. 4, 2002
27.
If you have decided not to implement packaged ERP software for one or more of your enterprise
systems, why not? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Our legacy system works
2. We have a staged implementation strategy
3. Didnt see the value
4. The ERP solutions on the market did not seem to be a good fit with our institutions needs
5. The experience of others raised red flags
6. The institution had other priorities
7. We were not ready - we had no collective agreement, and therefore, no plan to move forward
8. Unable to secure approval from senior management and/or the Board of Regents/Trustees
9. Wanted to wait for the product to mature
10. Want to wait for the product to come down in price
11. Other
28.
If you have purchased ERP software and havent implemented all the modules, why have you
waited? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. We are following a phased implementation plan, and havent installed that module(s) yet
2. We are waiting for the product to mature in a later release
3. We are seeking funding for implementation
4. We are seeking top management approval to proceed
5. We have conflicting projects / priorities and must complete them first
6. Other
29.
Over the course of the project, did you change your ERP vendor(s)?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
30.
If yes, why?
31.
Why did your institution choose the ERP vendor(s) that you did? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Product features and functionality best fit our requirements
2. Product architecture best fit with our IT strategy / goals
3. Product price
4. Vendors reputation
5. Vendor or product vision
6. Advice from our peers
7. Advice from a consultant or industry analyst
8. Previous experience with this vendor
9. Vendors ability to provide a complete solution for our needs
10. We were part of a larger purchasing group (e.g. state system) that selected the product
11. Other
Vol. 4, 2002
We would like your opinions about ERP vendors for your institution. Use the following scale to
answer these questions:
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree, 5=Dont Know, and 6=Not Applicable
32.
Overall, the ERP vendor(s) were responsive to my institutions needs during the sales process.
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
6. Not Applicable
33.
Overall, the ERP vendor(s) provided my institution with strong support after we purchased the
product(s).
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
6. Not Applicable
End Section 2
Begin Section 3
34.
35.
What was the primary reason you did you not use outside consultants?
(Single Select)
1. Previous experience(s) with consultants
2. Perceived as too expensive
3. Insufficient funds in the budget
4. Possessed the internal capability
5. Wanted to develop the internal expertise
6. Institutional policy / culture
7. Dont Know
8. Other
36.
Vol. 4, 2002
For the Financial Information System module your institution implemented, please select the type and
level of consulting support you used. The percentage indicates the approximate percentage of consultants making up the project team for that phase of the implementation, with internal resources
making up the rest. The types of firms can be defined as:
Large, General Purpose Consulting Firm - A national or international firm which provides a broad range of
services to clients in a number of industries
Specialized Consulting Firm - A firm which provides a focused range of services, such as higher education
consulting, ERP consulting, or project management
Independent Consultants - Individual contractors filling key roles on an implementation, such as technical
specialist, project manager, etc.
Vendor Consultants - Consulting practice which is owned by your software vendor
Financial Information System
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Vol. 4, 2002
44.
45.
46.
47.
Vol. 4, 2002
48.
49.
50.
51.
Vol. 4, 2002
52.
53.
54.
Vol. 4, 2002
For the Human Resource Information System module your institution implemented, please select the
type and level of consulting support you used. The percentage indicates the approximate percentage
of consultants making up the project team for that phase of the implementation, with internal resources making up the rest. The types of firms can be defined as:
Large, General Purpose Consulting Firm - A national or international firm which provides a broad range of
services to clients in a number of industries
Specialized Consulting Firm - A firm which provides a focused range of services, such as higher education
consulting, ERP consulting, or project management
Independent Consultants - Individual contractors filling key roles on an implementation, such as technical
specialist, project manager, etc.
Vendor Consultants - Consulting practice which is owned by your software vendor
56.
57.
58.
Vol. 4, 2002
59.
60.
61.
62.
Vol. 4, 2002
63.
64.
65.
66.
Vol. 4, 2002
67.
68.
69.
70.
Vol. 4, 2002
71.
72.
Vol. 4, 2002
For the Student Information System module your institution implemented, please select the type and
level of consulting support you used. The percentage indicates the approximate percentage of consultants making up the project team for that phase of the implementation, with internal resources
making up the rest. The types of firms can be defined as:
Large, General Purpose Consulting Firm - A national or international firm which provides a broad range of
services to clients in a number of industries
Specialized Consulting Firm - A firm which provides a focused range of services, such as higher education
consulting, ERP consulting, or project management
Independent Consultants - Individual contractors filling key roles on an implementation, such as technical
specialist, project manager, etc.
Vendor Consultants - Consulting practice which is owned by your software vendor
Student Information System
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
Vol. 4, 2002
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
Vol. 4, 2002
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
Vol. 4, 2002
88.
89.
90.
91.
Over the course of the project, did you change your lead consulting firm?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
92.
93.
How many total consulting firms did you work with to implement your ERP software?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5 or more
Vol. 4, 2002
94.
95.
Why did you select the consulting firm(s) that you did? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Strong expertise with the product we were implementing
2. Strong experience in higher education
3. Proven methodology
4. Availability of specific personnel
5. Cost
6. Size and proximity
7. Strategic thinking
8. Recommendation by customer
9. Worked with them previously
10. Recommended by software vendor
11. Other
Vol. 4, 2002
We would like your opinions about ERP consultants for your institution. Use the following scale to
answer these questions:
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree, and 5=Dont Know
96.
97.
My institution got the value we expected for the money spent on consulting services.
(Single Select)
1. 1
1. 1
2. 2
2. 2
3. 3
3. 3
4. 4
4. 4
5. 5
5. Dont Know
98.
99.
What did you see as the benefit of working with consultants? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Provided technical expertise unavailable internally
2. Provided product expertise unavailable internally
3. Provided project management expertise unavailable internally
4. Brought methodology or insights from previous engagements
5. Helped us meet our project timeline
6. Helped us meet our project budget
7. Allowed us to staff our project team without hiring new FTEs
8. Helped us derive additional value from our ERP system
9. Other
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
100. What aspects of working with consultants caused you the most concern? (Select all that apply)
(Single Select)
1. Costs ended up higher than originally estimated
2. Personnel were not a good fit
3. Experience was overstated
4. Knowledge was not transferred to internal resources
5. Did not work well with internal resources
6. Did not understand higher education / institutional culture
7. Trained their personnel at our expense
8. Project resources were changed midstream
9. Price was not tied to achieving milestones and/or value
10. Other
End Section 3
Begin Section 4
Below are factors that led some schools to choose an ERP solution. Please rate the importance of each
based on its influence on your institutions decision to implement an ERP product. Use the following
scale to answer these questions:
1=Very Important, 2=Important, 3=Not Important, 4=Not Relevant
101. Modernize the campus IT environment
102. Replace aging legacy systems
(Single Select)
1. Very Important
2. Important
3. Not Important
4. Not Relevant
103. Efficiency (e.g. reduce cost, improve speed of transactions / processes)
(Single Select)
1. Very Important
2. Important
3. Not Important
4. Not Relevant
104. Provide better management tools (e.g. decision-making, planning)
(Single Select)
1. Very Important
2. Important
3. Not Important
4. Not Relevant
Vol. 4, 2002
End Section 4
Begin Section 5
Use the following scale to answer these questions:
1=Very Easy, 2=Easy, 3=About the Same, 4=Difficult, 5=Very Difficult, 6=Didnt Install, and 7=Dont Know
Overall, how would you rate the difficulty of the initial implementation of your ERP product(s),
compared to other large technology projects at your institution?
Vol. 4, 2002
110. Financials
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
111. Human Resources
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
112. Student
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
Overall, how would you rate the difficulty of the technical aspects of your ERP implementation(s) of
your ERP product(s), compared to other large technology projects at your institution?
113. Financials
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
118. Student
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
How would you rate the difficulty of the support (including upgrades) tasks associated with maintaining your ERP product(s) post-implementation, compared to other large technology projects at your
institution?
119. Financials
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
120. Human Resources
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
121. Student
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Didnt Install
7. Dont Know
122. Did you finish your Financials implementation on its original schedule?
(Single Select)
1. Earlier than scheduled
2. On schedule
3. Over schedule by up to 50%
4. Over schedule by more than 50%
Vol. 4, 2002
123. Did you finish your Human Resources implementation on its original schedule?
(Single Select)
1. Earlier than scheduled
2. On schedule
3. Over schedule by up to 50%
4. Over schedule by more than 50%
124. Did you finish your Student implementation on its original schedule?
(Single Select)
1. Earlier than scheduled
2. On schedule
3. Over schedule by up to 50%
4. Over schedule by more than 50%
If your implementation did not finish on schedule, what were the factors which caused your project
to slip? (Select all that apply: 1=Financials, 2=HR, 3=Student)
125. Not Applicable
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
126. Project timeline was unrealistic
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
127. Initial project scope was expanded
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
128. Technical issues (e.g. hardware or database issues, scalability, systems integration, etc.)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
129. Organizational issues (e.g. governance issues, resistance to change, process redesign, etc.)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
Vol. 4, 2002
130. Data issues (e.g. reconciling multiple data sources, ensuring data integrity, etc.)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
131. The vendor did not deliver promised functionality in a timely fashion
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
132. Resource constraints (e.g., budget, staffing)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
133. Conflicts with other priorities (e.g., other projects, required campus activities, close of fiscal year, etc.)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
134. Training issues
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
135. Other
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
136. If Other, please specify:
137. Not applicable (we havent purchased this module)
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
What do you consider to be the most significant obstacles you had to overcome to successfully
implement this product? (Select up to 3 for each system)
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
160. How significantly did you customize your systems through changes to code for the Financials
Module?
(Single Select)
1. No Customizations
2. Minor Customization (1-10% of Code Modified)
3. Some Customization (11-25% of Code Modified)
4. Significant Customization (26-50% of Code Modified)
5. Extremely Customized (Over 50% of Code Modified)
[If 160.1-160.2, then branch to 168]
[If 160.3-160.5, then branch to add 161-167]
Why did you customize the code for the Financials Module? Please use the following scale to indicate
the degree of customization:
1=minor, 2=some, 3=significant, 4=very significant, and 5=none
161. To improve reporting capabilities
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. none
162. To improve the look & feel or usability of screens
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. none
163. To address gaps in functionality
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. none
164. To integrate the product with other systems
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. none
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
187. My institution reengineered its business processes to take advantage of the softwares capabilities
(Single Select)
1. 1
1. 1
2. 2
2. 2
3. 3
3. 3
4. 4
4. 4
5. 5
5. Dont Know
188. Who was the primary advocate for an ERP solution at your institution?
(Single Select)
1. Board of Trustees
2. President / Chancellor
3. System / District Office
4. Chief Academic Officer
5. Chief Information Officer
6. Chief Business / Financial Officer
7. Chief Human Resources Officer
8. Chief Student Affairs Officer
9. Other
189. If you answered Other, please specify:
190. Who served as the executive sponsor for the Financials module implementation?
(Single Select)
1. Board of Trustees
2. President / Chancellor
3. System / District Office
4. Chief Academic Officer
5. Chief Information Officer
6. Chief Business / Financial Officer
7. Chief Human Resources Officer
8. Chief Student Affairs Officer
9. Other
191. If you answered Other, please specify:
192. During the course of your implementation, was there a change in the executive sponsor?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
Vol. 4, 2002
193. Who served as the executive sponsor for the Human Resources module implementation?
(Single Select)
1. Board of Trustees
2. President / Chancellor
3. System / District Office
4. Chief Academic Officer
5. Chief Information Officer
6. Chief Business / Financial Officer
7. Chief Human Resources Officer
8. Chief Student Affairs Officer
9. Other
194. If you answered Other, please specify:
195. During the course of your implementation, was there a change in the executive sponsor?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
196. Who served as the executive sponsor for the Student module implementation?
(Single Select)
1. Board of Trustees
2. President / Chancellor
3. System / District Office
4. Chief Academic Officer
5. Chief Information Officer
6. Chief Business / Financial Officer
7. Chief Human Resources Officer
8. Chief Student Affairs Officer
9. Other
197. If you answered Other, please specify:
198. During the course of your implementation, was there a change in the executive sponsor?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
199. Did you allocate a full-time project manager to the implementation?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
[If 1, then branch to add 200-204]
2. No
[If 2, then branch to 205]
200. Was the project manager:
(Single Select)
1. Internal
2. External
3. Both (An internal project manager, as well as one from a consulting partner)
Vol. 4, 2002
201. Did the project manager have previous experience implementing an ERP product?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
202. Did the project manager have previous experience implementing your specific product(s)?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
203. Comments:
204. During the course of your implementation, was there a change in the project manager?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
205. Did your project have an oversight committee?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
206. What was the composition of your highest level oversight committee? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Board of Trustees
2. President / Chancellor
3. System / District Office
4. Chief Academic Officer
5. Chief Information Officer
6. Chief Business / Financial Officer
7. Chief Human Resources Officer
8. Chief Student Affairs Officer
9. Dean(s)
10. Auditor
11. Consultants (if used)
12. Vendor
13. Faculty Member(s)
14. Student Representative(s)
15. Other
How involved were the following institutional officers in the implementation? Please use the following scale:
1=Not at All, 2=MINIMAL INVOLVEMENT, 3=SOME INVOLVEMENT, 4=ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT, and 5=Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
225. Our project did an exemplary job of communicating project goals, status, and changes to our
institution
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
226. We did an excellent job managing/assessing the magnitude of data conversion
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
227. Our project had excellent executive engagement
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
228. Our project had excellent budgeting/financial management
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
229. Our project had an excellent software rollout strategy
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
230. Our institution did an excellent job of identifying project outcomes
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
231. Our institution did an excellent job of measuring and communicating project outcomes
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
232. Our institution provided timely training for all the users of our ERP system
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
233. Our training program provided users with an understanding of the full capabilities of the new
system
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
234. The ERP vision was aligned with the future vision of the university
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
235. There was broad agreement on the benchmarks and metrics for the project
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
236. The senior business officers (e.g. CFO, VP of HR) were supportive of an Enterprise solution
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
End Section 5
Vol. 4, 2002
Begin Section 6
242. Did you achieve the outcomes you expected?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
3. Partially
243. If you achieved at least some of your desired outcomes, how long after you went live did it take
to achieve these results?
(Single Select)
1. Immediately
2. Within 3 months
3. Within 3 to 6 months
4. Within 6 months to 1 year
5. Over 1 year
244. Were the outcomes you planned to achieve actually the primary benefits your institution derived
from ERP?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
245. If not, what were some of the primary benefits you achieved?
We would now like your opinions about project outcomes for your institution. Use the following
scale to answer these questions:
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree, and 5=Dont Know
246. Our new systems have reduced our institutions business risk
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
247. Our new systems have enhanced our institutions regulatory compliance
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
248. Our new systems have made management information more accurate and accessible
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
249. Our new systems have allowed us to provide improved service to our faculty, staff, and students
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
250. Our new systems have allowed us to provide new services to our faculty, staff, and students
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
251. Our new systems removed some services our faculty, staff, and students valued
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
252. Our new systems have enhanced their primary users knowledge and skills
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
253. Our new systems have increased institutional accountability
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
254. Our new systems have increased our stakeholders confidence in the institution
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
255. Our new systems have enhanced the support of our academic mission
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
256. Our new systems have enhanced our institutional processes
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
257. Our new systems have enhanced our institutions business performance
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
258. Our new systems work is among our institutions most important in the past seven years
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
259. Those participating directly in our project planning and/or implementation gained from this
experience professionally
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
260. Our new systems are less costly to maintain and operate than the system(s) that were replaced
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
261. Our new systems are less costly to enhance/upgrade than the system(s) that were replaced
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
262. Our new systems are less costly to integrate than the system(s) that were replaced
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
263. Our new systems make it easier to take advantage of new technology
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Overall, what impact did installing ERP have on your institutions productivity?
264. Immediately following the implementation, our productivity:
(Single Select)
1. Dropped Significantly
2. Dropped Somewhat
3. Stayed About the Same
4. Increased Somewhat
5. Increased Significantly
265. Today, our productivity has:
(Single Select)
1. Dropped Significantly
2. Dropped Somewhat
3. Stayed About the Same
4. Increased Somewhat
5. Increased Significantly
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
272. If the nature of the work changed, please describe up to three significant changes:
273. If you feel your productivity declined, please give up to three reasons you feel this happened:
What impact did installing ERP system(s) have on your institutions major constituencies? Please use
the following scale:
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree, and 5=Dont Know
274. Our students benefited significantly from our ERP implementation
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
275. Our staff benefited significantly from our ERP implementation
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
276. Our faculty benefited significantly from our ERP implementation
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
277. Our management benefited significantly from our ERP implementation
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
How were your project outcomes perceived by the following stakeholders? Please use the following
scale:
1=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Very Good, 6=Excellent, and 7=Outstanding
Vol. 4, 2002
278. How would you characterize the outcomes of your institutions ERP project(s)?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
279. How would your students characterize the outcomes of your institutions ERP project(s)?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
280. How would your staff characterize the outcomes of your institutions ERP project(s)?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
281. How would your faculty characterize the outcomes of your institutions ERP project(s)?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
282. How would your senior management characterize the outcomes of your institutions ERP
project(s)?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
Vol. 4, 2002
283. How would your Board of Regents/Trustees characterize the outcomes of your institutions ERP
projects?
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
284. Has implementing new ERP system(s) created any new issues for your institution?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
285. If Yes, please describe:
286. What do you feel were the most interesting or important outcomes of your implementation?
End Section 6
Begin Section 7
What was the approximate total cost (in US dollars) of your ERP project(s), from design through the
first time the system went live? Please include all costs which your institution associates with your
project, including hardware, software, personnel costs, consulting services, etc.
287. Financials
288. HR
289. Student
For the Financials module, what percentages of your costs were spent on the following, from design
through the first time the system(s) went live?
290. ERP Software
291. Other Software (e.g. Database, help desk, operating system systems management, etc.)
292. Hardware (e.g. Servers, desktop upgrades, storage, network upgrades, etc.)
293. Internal Staff (e.g. Project team, backfill for project resources, user training, etc.)
294. External Staff / Services
295. Project Overhead (e.g. Facilities & workspace, utilities, copying & printing, etc.)
296. Other
297. If Other, Please specify:
Vol. 4, 2002
298. Did you complete your implementation within your original budget?
(Single Select)
1. Under budget
2. On budget
3. Over budget by up to 50%
4. Over budget by more than 50%
5. Not Applicable
For the Human Resources module, what percentages of your costs were spent on the following, from
design through the first time the system(s) went live?
299. ERP Software
300. Other Software (e.g. Database, help desk, operating system systems management, etc.)
301. Hardware (e.g. Servers, desktop upgrades, storage, network upgrades, etc.)
302. Internal Staff (e.g. Project team, backfill for project resources, user training, etc.)
303. External Staff / Services
304. Project Overhead (e.g. Facilites & workspace, utilites, copying & printing, etc.)
305. Other
306. If Other, Please specify:
307. Did you complete your implementation within your original budget?
(Single Select)
1. Under budget
2. On budget
3. Over budget by up to 50%
4. Over budget by more than 50%
5. Not Applicable
For the Student module, what percentages of your costs were spent on the following, from design
through the first time the system(s) went live?
308. ERP Software
309. Other Software (e.g. Database, help desk, operating system systems management, etc.)
310. Hardware (e.g. Servers, desktop upgrades, storage, network upgrades, etc.)
311. Internal Staff (e.g. Project team, backfill for project resources, user training, etc.)
312. External Staff / Services
313. Project Overhead (e.g. Facilities & workspace, utilities, copying & printing, etc.)
314. Other
315. If Other, Please specify:
Vol. 4, 2002
316. Did you complete your implementation within your original budget?
(Single Select)
1. Under budget
2. On budget
3. Over budget by up to 50%
4. Over budget by more than 50%
5. Not Applicable
If your implementation came in over budget, what were the factors that caused your spending to
grow? (Select all that apply: 1=Financials, 2=HR, 3=Student)
317. Not applicable
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
318. Project budget was unrealistic
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
319. Initial project scope was expanded
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
320. Additional technology needed to be purchased to meet project goals
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
321. Project staffing was underestimated in the initial budget
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
322. Unanticipated technical or organizational issues caused additional costs
(Multiple Select)
1. Financials
2. HR
3. Student
Vol. 4, 2002
330. Database
(Single Select)
1. Increased by over 100%
2. Increased by 51-100%
3. Increased by 26-50%
4. Increased by 10-25%
5. Stayed about the same
6. Decreased by 10-25%
7. Decreased by more than 25%
331. Internal applications and code
(Single Select)
1. Increased by over 100%
2. Increased by 51-100%
3. Increased by 26-50%
4. Increased by 10-25%
5. Stayed about the same
6. Decreased by 10-25%
7. Decreased by more than 25%
332. Hardware and infrastructure
(Single Select)
1. Increased by over 100%
2. Increased by 51-100%
3. Increased by 26-50%
4. Increased by 10-25%
5. Stayed about the same
6. Decreased by 10-25%
7. Decreased by more than 25%
333. Desktop products and services
(Single Select)
1. Increased by over 100%
2. Increased by 51-100%
3. Increased by 26-50%
4. Increased by 10-25%
5. Stayed about the same
6. Decreased by 10-25%
7. Decreased by more than 25%
334. Training
(Single Select)
1. Increased by over 100%
2. Increased by 51-100%
3. Increased by 26-50%
4. Increased by 10-25%
5. Stayed about the same
6. Decreased by 10-25%
7. Decreased by more than 25%
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Is your institution participating or planning to participate in sharing ERP applications or support with
other institutions for the Financials module?
(1=Already sharing; 2=Currently in process of sharing; 3=Will share within 1 year; 4=May share in 1 to 3 years;
5=May share in 3 to 5 years; 6=Not under consideration at this time)
385. Infrastructure (ASP models, shared hosting, shared hardware contracts, etc.)
(Single Select)
1. Already sharing
2. Currently in process of sharing
3. Will share within 1 year
4. May share in 1 to 3 years
5. May share in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
386. Applications Management (System maintenance, patches, upgrades, etc.)
(Single Select)
1. Already sharing
2. Currently in process of sharing
3. Will share within 1 year
4. May share in 1 to 3 years
5. May share in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
387. Fully shared ERP management (Infrastructure and Applications)
(Single Select)
1. Already sharing
2. Currently in process of sharing
3. Will share within 1 year
4. May share in 1 to 3 years
5. May share in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
388. Help desk and user support
(Single Select)
1. Already sharing
2. Currently in process of sharing
3. Will share within 1 year
4. May share in 1 to 3 years
5. May share in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
389. Training
(Single Select)
1. Already sharing
2. Currently in process of sharing
3. Will share within 1 year
4. May share in 1 to 3 years
5. May share in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Is your institution outsourcing or considering outsourcing any components of ERP support for the
Student module?
(1=Already outsourcing; 2=Currently in process of outsourcing; 3=Will outsource within 1 year; 4=May
outsource in 1 to 3 years; 5=May outsource in 3 to 5 years; 6=Not under consideration at this time)
406. Infrastructure (ASP models, external hosting, external hardware contracts, etc.)
(Single Select)
1. Already outsourcing
2. Currently in process of outsourcing
3. Will outsource within 1 year
4. May outsource in 1 to 3 years
5. May outsource in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
407. Applications Management (System maintenance, patches, upgrades, etc.)
(Single Select)
1. Already outsourcing
2. Currently in process of outsourcing
3. Will outsource within 1 year
4. May outsource in 1 to 3 years
5. May outsource in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
408. Fully outsourced ERP management (Infrastructure and Applications)
(Single Select)
1. Already outsourcing
2. Currently in process of outsourcing
3. Will outsource within 1 year
4. May outsource in 1 to 3 years
5. May outsource in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
409. Help desk and user support
(Single Select)
1. Already outsourcing
2. Currently in process of outsourcing
3. Will outsource within 1 year
4. May outsource in 1 to 3 years
5. May outsource in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
410. Training
(Single Select)
1. Already outsourcing
2. Currently in process of outsourcing
3. Will outsource within 1 year
4. May outsource in 1 to 3 years
5. May outsource in 3 to 5 years
6. Not under consideration at this time
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
422. Over time, we are finding new and innovative uses for our ERP system, which we hadnt anticipated when we started
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
423. If I were to do it again today, I would build rather than buy
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
End Section 8
Begin Section 9
424. For what reason or reasons, has your institution not implemented a packaged ERP product since
7/1/1995? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Our existing system works
2. Didnt see the value
3. The ERP solutions on the market do not seem to be a good fit with our institutions needs
4. The experience of others raised red flags
5. The institution has other priorities
6. We were not ready
7. Unable to secure approval from senior management and/or the Board of Regents/Trustees
8. Wanted to wait for the product to mature
9. Wanted to wait for the product to come down in price
10. ERP product innovation takes too long to reach the market (e.g. Web browser access)
11. Other
425. Which of these has been the most important reason for not implementing a packaged ERP
product since 7/1/1995?
(Single Select)
1. Our existing system works
2. Didnt see the value
3. The ERP solutions on the market do not seem to be a good fit with our institutions needs
4. The experience of others raised red flags
5. The institution has other priorities
6. We were not ready
7. Unable to secure approval from senior management and/or the Board of Regents/Trustees
8. Wanted to wait for the product to mature
9. Wanted to wait for the product to come down in price
10. ERP product innovation takes too long to reach the market (e.g. Web browser access)
11. Other
Vol. 4, 2002
Vol. 4, 2002
432. Are you using any of the following approaches to extend the functionality of your existing
administrative systems? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Building web-based interfaces to replace older character or client/server based interfaces
2. Using data warehousing approaches to provide easier access to information
3. Using Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) tools to link disparate systems
4. Building or purchasing new components
5. Redesigning processes to more closely match the applications capabilities
6. Other
433. Are you using any of the following approaches to extend the life of the technical environments
of these systems? (Select all that apply)
(Multiple Select)
1. Restructuring the system to provide better maintainability and understandability by maintenance programming staff
2. Providing staff development to ensure competent maintenance programming staff for older technologies
3. Converting the underlying database technology to more supported, vendor-supplied database products
4. Re-hosting the systems to more modern hardware and software and programming language environments
5. Other
We would like your opinion on your institutions experience with choosing a non-ERP solution
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, 4=Strongly Agree, and 5=Dont Know
434. Our non-ERP solution has reduced our institutions business risk
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
435. Our non-ERP solution has enhanced institutional productivity
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
436. Our non-ERP solution has increased our stakeholders confidence in the IT Office
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
437. Our non-ERP work is among our institutions most important in the past seven years
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
438. If our institution had the opportunity to implement a non-ERP solution again today, our approach would be largely the same
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
439. Our non-ERP solution is less costly to maintain and operate than an ERP package solution would
be
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
440. Our non-ERP solution is less costly to enhance/upgrade than an ERP package solution would be
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
441. Our non-ERP solution is less costly to integrate with other systems than an ERP package solution
would be
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
Vol. 4, 2002
442. Our non-ERP solution has made it less difficult to recruit and retain IT staff than an ERP package
solution would
(Single Select)
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. Dont Know
End Section 9
Please fill out the following information:
443. Name of Institution:
444. Name of person filling out questionnaire:
445. Title:
(Single Select)
1. CIO (or equivalent)
2. Vice President / Vice Provost (Non-CIO)
3. Director of Administrative Computing
4. Project Manager
5. Other IT Management
6. Other Administrative Management
7. Other Academic Management
446. How many years have you been in your current position?
(Single Select)
1. Less than 1 year
2. 1 to 2 years
3. 2 to 5 years
4. 5 to 10 years
5. Over 10 years
447. How many years have you worked at your current institution?
(Single Select)
1. Less than 1 year
2. 1 to 2 years
3. 2 to 5 years
4. 5 to 10 years
5. Over 10 years
448. Do you wish to receive a copy of the Key Findings from this survey?
(Single Select)
1. Yes
2. No
Vol. 4, 2002
449. May we contact you by phone to obtain further insights or clarifications on your responses?
(Single Select)
1. No
2. Yes... my phone number is
450. If you have any other comments or insights about ERP implementations at your institution,
please feel free to share them with us, below.
End