Moving to the Paperless Admissions Office€¦ · Moving to the Paperless Admissions Office ... effectiveness of ... Please complete the session evaluation form using the AACRAO Mobile

Moving to the Paperless

Admissions Office

Presented by: Mike Burke, Harvard University

Erika McDonald, Harvard University

John Nordmeyer, Middlebury College

Tuesday, April 1, 2014, 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM

Session ID 1946

AACRAO - Denver 2014 Session ID: 1946

Session Rules of Etiquette

• Please turn off your cell phone/pager

• If you must leave the session early, please do so as

discreetly as possible

• Please avoid side conversation during the session

• Please complete the session evaluation

Thank you for your cooperation!

IntroductionConsiderations for moving to a paperless

admissions office

• Why bother?

• Benefits & Challenges

• Financial Aspects

• Technology

• Experiences at two schools:

• Middlebury College

• Harvard Kennedy School of Government


Learning Outcomes of this session:

• Hear about the rationale for going paperless

• Understand cultural implications of doing so

• Gain an overview of the vendor landscape

• Learn the organizational and technological impact on

resources

• Discover pitfalls

• Get more information

3/28/2014

Middlebury College

John NordmeyerManager of Admissions Information Systems

[email protected]

A Global Liberal Arts Institution for the 21st Century


Paperless Admissions• PAPER

• Where does it come from?

• Where do we put it?

• WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE PAPER?

• Application readers note and record

• WHERE DOES THE PAPER GO??


PAPER• The world is already becoming paperless

• 2011: More than ½ of the documents already electronic

• 2014: 90% of documents received are electronic

• How/where to store this paper?• Many vendors in the marketplace

• Nolij/Perceptive/ImageNow

• How will this affect those who use the paper?• 2 monitors

• Workstation changes


What do we do with the paper?• File

• In a specific order

• Write notes

• With specific codes/colors

• Reader Card

• A project within a project



Imaging Software (Nolij)• Common App delivering 90% of documents

• Teacher recs recently included

• Encourage submission of electronic documents• Reduce/discourage faxed documents

• General mailbox for e-mailed documents

• Train readers on Nolij• Workstations/monitors already in place

• User acceptance very high


Where does the paper go?• Critical step that should be mapped out in advance

• Needs executive level support

• Mini-crisis for Middlebury

• Department-level administrators need to be on board

• They need to be using it at the beginning of our cycle

• Who gets what?

• On many campuses, this is not clearly defined


Project Timeline• 2009: Admissions decides to go paperless

• General plan spec’d out

• 2010: RFP/Vendor selection gets bogged down

• Admissions: Do the reader card now

• 2011: NolijWeb software purchasedReader Card replacement implemented

• 2012: NolijWeb Live in admissions

• Computers/monitors already in place

• 2013-14: Waiting on Workflow!

3/28/2014

Harvard Kennedy School

Mike BurkeRegistrar of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Erika McDonaldAssociate Registrar of the Faculty of Arts and

Science

- Both formerly of Harvard Kennedy School

One of ten professional schools at Harvard University

Does this look familiar?


Does this look familiar?• Tripping over

mail bins

• Paper cuts

• Data entry

• Carrying folders home

• Lost folders


Rationale

Efficiency

Cost

Self service

Convenience

Expectations


Evolution; not Revolution

Electronic Data Upload

Test scores Applicant data

Supporting Documents

Recommendations Transcripts

Online Application

Also paper apps Manual data entry



Scanned All Paper Documents

Scanned Shredded

Decision Emails

Started with paper & email Then only admits

Paper Application Discontinued

No longer printed Did not accept old ones



Online Review and Ratings

Ratings Review

Discontinued Paper Applicant Files

No more printing/filing Printed students only

Discouraged Paper Documents

Instructions Suggested priority

Before and After…

Prospect ManagementBefore

• Prospect cards-data entry

• Lack of applicant

“lifecycle” tracking

• No way to evaluate

effectiveness of

recruitment

After

• Online form feeds

electronic mailing list

• Inquiries stored in Access

database

• Way after: inquiry

tracking feature in app

management system

3/28/2014

ApplicationBefore

• Preliminary data sheet

• Accepted online and

paper versions of

application

• Lots of manual data entry

After

• No more preliminary data

sheet

• Online application only!

• Data upload: sophisticated

and all encompassing

3/28/2014

Supplemental Materials

Before

• Paper, paper, and more

paper!

• Slow evolution

• Essaysrecommendations

test scorestranscripts

After

• Technology began to match

needs: ETS; Scrip-Safe

• No paper alternative

• Applicants encouraged

when guaranteed speedier

processing speed

3/28/2014

(Transcripts, recommendations, scores, essays)

Application ProcessingBefore

• 10-15 min per application

• Many, many bins of mail

• Complicated paper filing systems

• Lots of data entry

• Multiple locations for missing materials

• Paper processing checklists

• Antiquated applicant & recommender communication methods

After

• 5-8 min per application

• Minimal mail processing

• No paper=no filing systems

• Improved data upload

• Everything uploaded together

• Electronic checklist in SIS

• Communication via online applicant portal

• Recommender receive confirmation instantly

3/28/2014

Review ProcessBefore

• Paper files with complicated

tracking system

• “Bin”-based pick-up/drop-

off committee process

• Ratings tracked on

spreadsheets and manually

entered into SIS

After

• Complete applications swept

into online review system

• Files assigned and ratings

submitted electronically

• Ratings and comments stored

in system and uploaded into

SIS

3/28/2014

Decisions and ResponsesBefore

• Paper letters for all

• Increased room for error

with manual labeling and

envelope stuffing

• Paper admit packets

• Paper response forms

• Difficult for many admits to

pay the deposit via check

After

• Emailed decisions; paper letter for admits

• Accurate decision lists merged from SIS

• New admit web portal

• Responses through the application vendor

• Pay by credit card

3/28/2014

ArchivingBefore

• Constantly shifting files

around office to make room

• Prepping files for archives

• Separate storage of rating

sheets and files

• Time lag in obtaining files

After

• Files archived on shared

drive

• Easily accessible and

comprehensive

• No more consulting old

spreadsheets to find a file

3/28/2014


Resources Needed

People

• Fewer people

• Different skills

Software

• Scanning software

• Document management

Equipment

• Scanners, monitors,

• Database and file servers


Resources Needed

IT Partners

• Joint planning and decision-making

• Partnership

• Trust

Money

• Equipment

• Development

• Infrastructure

• Fewer staff; higher skilled


Culture

• Admission Committees

• Staff skills and reluctance

• IT relationships, expectations, decision-making

Customer Service

• Self service environment; help expectations

• Knowledge base; self help vs. direct support

Vendors

• New development

• Uptime requirements

• Who helps applicants and recommenders?

Beware the Pitfalls!


Vendor landscape

• Started in 1999 with application vendor—weak on prospect management, no review tool

• What made us choose Embark? Processing of fees?

• Trade-offs—prospect management not critical; built review tool in house

• Many vendors focused on one component, few comprehensive products that tied it all together

• Challenge of making all components talk to one another—SIS, online review system, applicant portal

• Problems with reporting directly from app system—difficult to make updates to data, so it became stale.

Back then…


Vendor landscape

• More comprehensive products that span entire process

• Nice to have method to communicate directly with applicants in real time

• Increased awareness in vendor landscape of the need for “soup-to-nuts” product

• Still come to game really good at a couple of things, but in development in other areas

• Ex: excellent review product, but wanted us to pilot the online application system and reporting tools

Now…


Vendor landscape

• College Net

• Slate Technolutions

• Embark

• Hobson’s Apply Yourself

• Banner

• Matchbox

Example Vendors…


Vendor landscape

• Does the company cater to a university with your

needs? Size? Population? Structure?

• What’s most important to you? Willing to be a

pioneer in certain areas? Build in-house systems?

• How well does the out-of-the-box product fit

you? Are they willing to customize? How well?

Considerations…


Summary• Can be time, labor, and cost efficient

• Evolution or revolution

• Vendor landscape is narrow but growing

• Need people with right skills, attitude, and commitment

• Depending on scale, may only need modest investment; savings over time

• Know thyself and thy school’s culture


So what are you going to do

with all those mail bins?


Questions?

• Questions

• Discussion

• Suggestions


Thank You!Mike Burke, [email protected]

Erika McDonald, [email protected]

John Nordmeyer, [email protected]

Please complete the session evaluation form using the AACRAO Mobile App or the paper form provided in

your conference bag.

Session ID 1946