Tag: Outsourcing

  • Education Department outsourcing is unlawful, amended lawsuit claims

    Education Department outsourcing is unlawful, amended lawsuit claims

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s plans to move core programming to other agencies is illegal and harmful to K-12 and higher education students, educators and families, according to an amended lawsuit filed Tuesday.

    Brought forth by a broad coalition of school districts, employee unions and a disability rights organization, the amended complaint seeks to halt the outsourcing of Education Department programs. 

    “Taking away the services and supports students rely on will irreparably hurt children, families, educators, schools, and communities, in states across the nation,” said a Tuesday statement by Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case. “The Department of Education offers important support to educators and communities throughout the nation and the unlawful attempts to shut down the Department are nothing less than an abandonment of the future of our country.”

    In a statement emailed to K-12 Dive on Wednesday, Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Education Department, said, “It’s no surprise that blue states and unions care more about preserving the DC bureaucracy than about giving parents, students, and teachers more control over education and improving the efficient delivery of funds and services.”

    On Nov. 18, the Education Department announced it was developing interagency agreements with other federal agencies to support six programs, including with the U.S. Department of Labor to handle the management of about $28 billion in K-12 funding for low-income school districts, homeless youth, migrant students, academic support, afterschool programs, districts receiving Impact Aid and other activities.

    Another interagency agreement places about $3.1 billion in institution-based grants for postsecondary education programming at the Labor Department.

    The moves add to a partnership the Education Department created with the Labor Department earlier this year to take over the management of federal career and technical assistance programs. Democratic lawmakers, during a Nov. 19 House Education and Workforce subcommittee hearing, said several state CTE programs ran into funding delays due to a new grant management process at the Labor Department.

    While the Education Department does not yet have formal plans to move the management of special education, civil rights enforcement and federal student aid out of the agency, those options are still being explored, a senior department official said during a press call on Nov. 18.

    Even when programming shifts under the interagency agreements, the Education Department would still be the agency responsible for these programs, with the partner agencies taking on much of the daily operations.

    The Trump administration has said the continual downsizing of the Education Department is meant to reduce federal bureaucracy and give states more autonomy over spending allocations.

    During a White House press conference Nov. 20, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said there’s been a “hard reset” of the country’s educational system. “That reset was a campaign promise from President Trump to send education back to the states and end Washington’s micromanagement of education once and for all,” McMahon said. 

    Critics, however, say the disruptions from shifting agency responsibilities, along with Education Department staff reductions and delays in grant funding, is causing havoc for K-12 and higher education systems. 

    The updated complaint in Somerville v. Trump, which was consolidated with New York v. McMahon, was brought against the Education Department by groups of states, school districts and teacher unions. The Arc of the United States is now an additional plaintiff in the case.

    The cases were heard earlier this year before district and appeals courts, which issued and upheld injunctions blocking the administration’s actions. In July, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay allowing the changes at the Education Department to take place for now.

    Source link

  • Are we outsourcing our thinking to AI?

    Are we outsourcing our thinking to AI?

    Key points:

    I’ll admit that I use AI. I’ve asked it to help me figure out challenging Excel formulas that otherwise would have taken me 45 minutes and a few tutorials to troubleshoot. I’ve used it to help me analyze or organize massive amounts of information. I’ve even asked it to help me devise a running training program aligning with my goals and fitting within my schedule. AI is a fantastic tool–and that’s the point. It’s a tool, not a replacement for thinking.

    As AI tools become more capable, more intuitive, and more integrated into our daily lives, I’ve found myself wondering: Are we growing too dependent on AI to do our thinking for us?

    This question isn’t just philosophical. It has real consequences, especially for students and young learners. A recent study published in the journal Societies reports that people who used AI tools consistently showed a decline in critical thinking performance. In fact, “whether someone used AI tools was a bigger predictor of a person’s thinking skills than any other factor, including educational attainment.” That’s a staggering finding because it suggests that using AI might not just be a shortcut. It could be a cognitive detour.

    The atrophy of the mind

    The term “digital dementia” has been used to describe the deterioration of cognitive abilities as a result of over-reliance on digital devices. It’s a phrase originally associated with excessive screen time and memory decline, but it’s found new relevance in the era of generative AI. When we depend on a machine to generate our thoughts, answer our questions, or write our essays, what happens to the neural pathways that govern our own critical thinking? And will the upcoming era of agentic AI expedite this decline?

    Cognitive function, like physical fitness, follows the rule of “use it or lose it.” Just as muscles weaken without regular use, the brain’s ability to evaluate, synthesize, and critique information can atrophy when not exercised. This is especially concerning in the context of education, where young learners are still building those critical neural pathways.

    In short: Students need to learn how to think before they delegate that thinking to a machine.

    Can you still think critically with AI?

    Yes, but only if you’re intentional about it.

    AI doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to think–in many cases, it demands even more critical thinking. AI produces hallucinations, falsifies claims, and can be misleading. If you blindly accept AI’s output, you’re not saving time, you’re surrendering clarity.

    Using AI effectively requires discernment. You need to know what you’re asking, evaluate what you’re given, and verify the accuracy of the result. In other words, you need to think before, during, and after using AI.

    The “source, please” problem

    One of the simplest ways to teach critical thinking is also the most annoying–just ask my teenage daughter. When she presents a fact or claim that she saw online, I respond with some version of: “What’s your source?” It drives her crazy, but it forces her to dig deeper, check assumptions, and distinguish between fact and fiction. It’s an essential habit of mind.

    But here’s the thing: AI doesn’t always give you the source. And when it does, sometimes it’s wrong, or the source isn’t reputable. Sometimes it requires a deeper dive (and a few more prompts) to find answers, especially to complicated topics. AI often provides quick, confident answers that fall apart under scrutiny.

    So why do we keep relying on it? Why are AI responses allowed to settle arguments, or serve as “truth” for students when the answers may be anything but?

    The lure of speed and simplicity

    It’s easier. It’s faster. And let’s face it: It feels like thinking. But there’s a difference between getting an answer and understanding it. AI gives us answers. It doesn’t teach us how to ask better questions or how to judge when an answer is incomplete or misleading.

    This process of cognitive offloading (where we shift mental effort to a device) can be incredibly efficient. But if we offload too much, too early, we risk weakening the mental muscles needed for sustained critical thinking.

    Implications for educators

    So, what does this mean for the classroom?

    First, educators must be discerning about how they use AI tools. These technologies aren’t going away, and banning them outright is neither realistic nor wise. But they must be introduced with guardrails. Students need explicit instruction on how to think alongside AI, not instead of it.

    Second, teachers should emphasize the importance of original thought, iterative questioning, and evidence-based reasoning. Instead of asking students to simply generate answers, ask them to critique AI-generated ones. Challenge them to fact-check, source, revise, and reflect. In doing so, we keep their cognitive skills active and growing.

    And finally, for young learners, we may need to draw a harder line. Students who haven’t yet formed the foundational skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation shouldn’t be skipping those steps. Just like you wouldn’t hand a calculator to a child who hasn’t yet learned to add, we shouldn’t hand over generative AI tools to students who haven’t learned how to write, question, or reason.

    A tool, not a crutch

    AI is here to stay. It’s powerful, transformative, and, when used well, can enhance our work and learning. But we must remember that it’s a tool, not a replacement for human thought. The moment we let it think for us is the moment we start to lose the capacity to think for ourselves.

    If we want the next generation to be capable, curious, and critically-minded, we must protect and nurture those skills. And that means using AI thoughtfully, sparingly, and always with a healthy dose of skepticism. AI is certainly proving it has staying power, so it’s in all our best interests to learn to adapt. However, let’s adapt with intentionality, and without sacrificing our critical thinking skills or succumbing to any form of digital dementia.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Higher education is rapidly evolving, and so are institutional approaches to online program growth. We’re consistently finding that schools are no longer interested in handing over full control to third-party vendors. Rather, they want to build and enhance the internal capabilities of their teams, maintain ownership over their data and brand, and deliver a student experience uniquely aligned with their mission.

    This approach requires a flexible partner that’s focused on enablement vs. the traditional black-box outsource model.

    The traditional OPM model is flawed

    In my conversations with institutional leaders across the country, a common theme that keeps emerging is the frustration with traditional OPMs and the diminishing viability of this model. Leaders feel boxed in by long-term contracts, inequitable financial terms, a lack of visibility into performance data, and limited control over the student experience.

    What many institutions seek is a partner who will deeply integrate with their teams, augmenting their talent and resource gaps. An ideal partner will enhance the institution’s strengths, not replace them. In many cases, schools have ambitions to in-source certain areas of expertise over time and need support, guidance, and best practices to achieve this.

    More simply stated, many schools are seeking an enablement partner.

    What is enablement?

    At Collegis, we define enablement as helping institutions build their own internal strengths. It’s about equipping campus teams with the data, technology, and operational expertise they need to grow. This sets them up to thrive long after our work is done.

    Instead of taking the reins, we help institutions empower themselves to take ownership and control of their future over time. That distinction matters.

    Our model is intentionally modular and tech-agnostic, allowing partners to engage only the services they need, when they need them. There are no bundles to untangle or one-size-fits-all solutions to force-fit. In practice, we integrate ourselves in lockstep with the institutional teams and work alongside them as trusted collaborators. This contrasts with other models where external vendors operate in a black box.

    For us, enablement is about delivering lasting value, strengthening internal capacity, and helping institutions move forward and own their futures.

    A real-world example of enablement in action

    When institutions embrace this model, the outcomes are real and measurable.

    One example comes from a public institution that was working with an OPM on some of its online programs. They brought Collegis in to help build a foundation they could truly own, starting with data strategy and enrollment support tailored to their internal goals.

    Throughout our partnership, we’ve worked closely with their teams to refine processes, optimize student experience, openly share best practices, and enhance internal capabilities. The outcome? A 59% year-over-year increase in new online enrollments in the programs we support.

    It’s a powerful reminder of what institutions can achieve when they choose a partner who builds alongside them, not in place of them.

    Why ownership matters

    When institutions retain ownership of their tech stack, data, and student experience, they stay agile and in control. They’re able to pivot when needed, maintain high standards for compliance and privacy, and continuously improve outcomes across the student lifecycle.

    Our job at Collegis is to make that ownership attainable. We integrate with existing systems, design transparent reporting, and support processes that campus teams can run and refine on their own. True enablement means recommending and implementing sustainable practices that align with the mission and objectives of the institution.

    Redefining “partnership” in a new digital era

    Partnership today should mean transparency, collaboration, and shared purpose. And it should be built on trust.

    When institutions evaluate potential partners, I encourage them to ask:

    • Will we retain control of our data and decisions?
    • Is this a flexible relationship or a one-size-fits-all model?
    • Does this partner strengthen our internal teams?
    • How will this approach improve and enhance the impact of our staff?
    • Will this partnership contribute to the betterment of our student experience?

    Let’s build something that lasts

    Your institution shouldn’t have to choose between doing it all alone or giving it all away. There’s a better way forward that can empower your team, adapt to changing needs, and help you thrive in a competitive, fast-moving environment.

    You deserve a partner who helps you lead on your terms with clarity, control, and confidence. That’s the path Collegis is committed to support.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Matt Lachey is Associate Vice President of Partner Solutions at Collegis Education, where he leads strategic partnerships and custom solution design to help institutions address challenges in enrollment, operations, and technology. With 16+ years of higher education experience, Matt focuses on aligning institutional goals with scalable, performance-driven strategies. He works closely with senior leaders to design programs and processes that balance innovation with practicality, helping colleges improve experience, efficiency, and growth.

    Source link

  • On the Sensibility of Cognitive Outsourcing (opinion)

    On the Sensibility of Cognitive Outsourcing (opinion)

    I am deeply worried about my vacuuming skills. I’ve always enjoyed vacuuming, especially with the vacuum cleaner I use. It has a clear dustbin, and there’s something cathartic about running it over the carpet in the upstairs hallway and seeing all the dust and debris it collects. I’m worried, however, because I keep outsourcing my downstairs vacuuming to the robot vacuum cleaner my wife and I bought a while back. With three kids and three dogs in the house, our family room sees a lot of foot traffic, and I save a lot of time by letting the robot clean up. What am I losing by relying on my robot vacuum to keep my house clean?

    Not much, of course, and I’m not actually worried about losing my vacuuming skills. Vacuuming the family room isn’t a task that means much to me, and I’m happy to let the robot handle it. Doing so frees up my time for other tasks, preferably bird-watching out the kitchen window, but more often doing the dishes, a chore for which I don’t have a robot to help me. It’s entirely reasonable for me to offload a task I don’t care much about to the machines when the machines are right there waiting to do the work for me.

    That was my response to a new high-profile study from a MIT Media Lab team led by Nataliya Kosmyna. Their preprint, “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt When Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task,” details their experiment. The team enlisted 54 adult participants to write short essays using SAT prompts over multiple sessions. A third of the participants were given access to ChatGPT to help with their essay writing, a third had access to any website they could reach through a Google search engine but were prohibited from using ChatGPT or other large language models and a third had no outside aids (the “brain-only” group). The researchers not only scored the quality of the participants’ essays, but they also used electroencephalography to record participants’ brain activity during these writing tasks.

    The MIT team found that “brain connectivity systematically scaled down with the amount of external support.” While the brain-only group “exhibited the strongest, widest‑ranging [neural] networks,” AI assistance in the experiment “elicited the weakest overall coupling.” Moreover, the ChatGPT users were increasingly less engaged in the writing process over the multiple sessions, often just copying and pasting from the AI chat bot by the end of the experiment. They also had a harder time quoting anything from the essay they had just submitted compared to the brain-only group.

    This study has inspired some dramatic headlines: “ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills” and “Study: Using AI Could Cost You Brainpower” and “Your Reliance on ChatGPT Might Be Really Bad for Your Brain.” Savvy news readers will key into the qualifiers in those headlines (“may,” “could,” “might”) instead of the scarier words, and the authors of the study have made an effort to prevent journalists and commentators from overplaying their results. From the study’s FAQ: “Is it safe to say that LLMs are, in essence, making us ‘dumber’? No!” As is usually the case in the AI-and-learning discourse, we need to slow our roll and look beyond the hyperbole to see what this new study does and doesn’t actually say.

    I should state now for the record that I am not a neuroscientist. I can’t weigh in with any authority on the EEG analysis in this study, although others with expertise in this area have done so and have expressed concerns about the authors’ interpretation of EEG data. I do, however, know a thing or two about teaching and learning in higher education, having spent my career at university centers for teaching and learning helping faculty and other instructors across the disciplines explore and adopt evidence-based teaching practices. And it’s the teaching-and-learning context in the MIT study that caught my eye.

    Consider the task that participants in this study, all students or staff at Boston-area universities, were given. They were presented with three SAT essay prompts and asked to select one. They were then given 20 minutes to write an essay in response to their chosen prompt, while wearing an EEG helmet of some kind. Each subject participated in a session like this three times over the course of a few months. Should we be surprised that the participants who had access to ChatGPT increasingly outsourced their writing to the AI chat bot? And that, in doing so, they were less and less engaged in the writing process?

    I think the takeaway from this study is that if you give adults an entirely inauthentic task and access to ChatGPT, they’ll let the robot do the work and save their energy for something else. It’s a reasonable and perhaps cognitively efficient thing to do. Just like I let my robot vacuum cleaner tidy up my family room while I do the dishes or look for an eastern wood pewee in my backyard.

    Sure, writing an SAT essay is a cognitively complex task, and it is perhaps an important skill for a certain cohort of high school students. But what this study shows is what generative AI has been showing higher ed since ChatGPT launched in 2022: When we ask students to do things that are neither interesting nor relevant to their personal or professional lives, they look for shortcuts.

    John Warner, an Inside Higher Ed contributor and author of More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI (Basic Books), wrote about this notion in his very first post about ChatGPT in December 2022. He noted concerns that ChatGPT would lead to the end of high school English, and then asked, “What does it say about what we ask students to do in school that we assume they will do whatever they can to avoid it?”

    What’s surprising to me about the new MIT study is that we are more than two years into the ChatGPT era and we’re still trying to assess the impact of generative AI on learning by studying how people respond to boring essay assignments. Why not explore how students use AI during more authentic learning tasks? Like law students drafting contracts and client memos or composition students designing multimodal projects or communications students attempting impossible persuasive tasks? We know that more authentic assignments motivate deeper engagement and learning, so why not turn students loose on those assignments and then see what impact AI use might have?

    There’s another, more subtle issue with the discourse around generative AI in learning that we can see in this study. In the “Limitations and Future Work” section of the preprint, the authors write, “We did not divide our essay writing task into subtasks like idea generation, writing, and so on.” Writing an essay is a more complicated cognitive process than vacuuming my family room, but critiques of the use of AI in writing are often focused on outsourcing the entire writing process to a chat bot. That seems to be what the participants did in this study, and it is perhaps a natural use of AI when given an uninteresting task.

    However, when a task is interesting and relevant, we’re not likely to hand it off entirely to ChatGPT. Savvy AI users might get a little AI help with parts of the task, like generating examples or imagining different audiences or tightening our prose. AI can’t do all the things that a trained human editor can, but, as writing instructor (and human editor) Heidi Nobles has argued, AI can be a useful substitute when a human editor isn’t readily available. It’s a stretch to say that my robot vacuum cleaner and I collaborate to keep the house tidy, but it’s reasonable to think that someone invested in a complex activity like writing might use generative AI as what Ethan Mollick calls a “co-intelligence.”

    If we’re going to better understand generative AI’s impact on learning, something that will be critical for higher education to do to keep its teaching mission relevant, we have to look at the best uses of AI and the best kinds of learning activities. That research is happening, thankfully, but we shouldn’t expect simple answers. After all, learning is more complicated than vacuuming.

    Derek Bruff is associate director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia.

    Source link

  • Outsourcing Managed IT Services for Higher Ed: Navigating Complexity, Cost, and Control Concerns

    Outsourcing Managed IT Services for Higher Ed: Navigating Complexity, Cost, and Control Concerns

    College administrators know that technology can be a powerful tool for improving operations and boosting student success. However, given the rapid pace of technological change and the shrinking pool of qualified IT professionals, getting a real return on IT investments can be a major challenge.

    One way to deal with these challenges is to outsource IT management and operations, and explore managed IT services for higher education.

    While change can seem daunting, IT outsourcing can significantly improve overall IT management and strategic focus while mitigating risk and reducing cost. It’s about more than just maintaining IT infrastructure and operations –– it’s about using technology strategically to create better student experiences and drive institutional success.

    One of the primary concerns I hear from administrators is the perceived complexity of moving to an outsourced IT model. Such a move impacts people, processes, and technology – so if not managed thoughtfully, unintended consequences could occur.

    However, a well-structured transition plan significantly simplifies the process and minimizes risk to business operations during the transition. At Collegis, we employ a phased approach, starting with a thorough assessment of an institution’s current IT ecosystem, including resources, processes, financials, systems, infrastructure, projects, operations, etc. This assessment forms the foundation of a customized transition plan designed around the institution’s unique needs, outlining each step – from stabilization and standardization to technology optimization and, finally, transformation.

    A key element of our approach is the stabilization phase, where we address immediate pain points and ensure that systems are secure and able to support day-to-day operations with no disruptions. This initial phase creates the foundation from which to build on and, ultimately, a level of confidence that sets the stage for longer-term improvements.

    By breaking the transition into manageable phases and providing clear communication throughout the process, we alleviate much of the anxiety associated with change. Instead of a big “lift and shift,” the multi-year transition plan means current systems and processes continue to be supported. Administrators often express relief once they understand our structured approach and how it addresses their specific needs.

    For example, our managed IT services solution for Saint Francis University involved stabilizing the core technology and infrastructure, standardizing expectations through strong IT governance (including installing a virtual CIO), and optimizing business processes and infrastructure for increased efficiency. This identified $200,000 in budgetary waste that was able to be reallocated toward technology upgrades.

    Cost is, of course, a major factor in any IT outsourcing decision. Administrators are understandably concerned about the financial implications of outsourcing.

    Studies show that many higher education institutions spend more than 75% of their IT budgets on basic support and technology maintenance. This is partially due to the technology debt that accrues after years of neglect and a lack of the precise skill sets needed to address deficiencies and create more efficient and effective operations. Just think of the impact technology could make if schools could reduce this amount by 25%+ and reallocate these dollars to improving student experiences or driving institutional cost savings.

    Outsourcing can free up these valuable financial resources, enabling institutions to focus on projects that drive growth and enhance the student experience. Collegis partners typically experience:

    • Predictable budgeting: We offer all standard IT management services through a clear and transparent fixed fee mutually determined for the life of the partnership so institutions know exactly what they spend for IT management every year. There are no surprises.
    • Access to top IT talent: While Collegis goes out of its way to assess existing staff and rebadge those who have the needed skill sets and cultural fit, we also bring a team of more than 185 IT professionals to our partnerships, ensuring schools have access to the right skillsets at the right time.
    • Better contract negotiations: Schools benefit from Collegis’s expertise in IT contract negotiations and cross-institutional expertise during all technology contract negotiations. We have long-term relationships with third-party vendors and can negotiate from a position of strength because we support dozens of similar institutions.
    • Lower cybersecurity costs: We handle network, application, and data security, reducing a school’s need for additional resources or security solutions. Our partnerships have also helped many schools successfully stabilize or even reduce their cybersecurity insurance premiums.
    • Elimination of consulting fees: Our model also eliminates the need for expensive consultants to fill staffing gaps or deliver strategic projects.

    Most schools find that an IT managed services partnership with Collegis either saves them money or is cost-neutral. Our economies of scale enable us to provide expert services at a lower cost than most institutions could achieve in-house. Plus, we provide clear service level agreements (SLAs) to ensure accountability.

    Beyond cost savings, outsourcing can also improve ROI by ensuring technology investments deliver their intended value. By leveraging the expertise of a dedicated IT partner, institutions can optimize their systems and ensure they are getting the most out of their technology investments.

    Some administrators worry about losing control when they outsource IT. They’re concerned about relinquishing oversight of critical systems and data. However, a well-designed outsourcing agreement includes clear governance structures and communication channels, ensuring they retain control.

    One way we’ve addressed this concern is by establishing a steering committee for IT governance that includes representatives from the institution’s leadership and fosters collaboration and shared decision-making.

    Data security is paramount, and we understand the sensitivity of institutional data. We are a SOC 2-compliant organization that undergoes regular external audits to ensure the security and integrity of the data we manage.

    Our dedicated information security officers (CISOs) work closely with each institution to implement best practices and address any security concerns. We also proactively monitor systems for potential threats, leveraging our experience working with multiple institutions to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate.

    Outsourcing IT management in higher education can be a game-changer for institutions looking to navigate the complexities of the evolving IT landscape. Working with a partner that focuses on open communication, a phased approach to transitioning, a stronger cybersecurity posture, and leveraging your technology’s true potential can eliminate concerns about complexity, cost, and control while enabling schools to achieve strategic goals.

    Finally, when considering IT outsourcing, institutions cannot underestimate the importance and value of cultural fit. Finding a partner who shares your values and can be trusted to run a critical function for your institution is just as important as any of the other considerations I’ve highlighted above.

    — Kim Fahey, CEO Collegis Education

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed IT Outsourcing | Collegis Education

    Higher Ed IT Outsourcing | Collegis Education

    College administrators know that technology can be a powerful tool for improving operations and boosting student success. However, given the rapid pace of technological change and the shrinking pool of qualified IT professionals, getting a real return on IT investments can be a major challenge.

    One way to deal with these challenges is to outsource IT management and operations, and explore managed IT services for higher education.

    While change can seem daunting, IT outsourcing can significantly improve overall IT management and strategic focus while mitigating risk and reducing cost. It’s about more than just maintaining IT infrastructure and operations –– it’s about using technology strategically to create better student experiences and drive institutional success.

    Complexity: Streamlining the Transition

    One of the primary concerns I hear from administrators is the perceived complexity of moving to an outsourced IT model. Such a move impacts people, processes, and technology – so if not managed thoughtfully, unintended consequences could occur.

    However, a well-structured transition plan significantly simplifies the process and minimizes risk to business operations during the transition. At Collegis, we employ a phased approach, starting with a thorough assessment of an institution’s current IT ecosystem, including resources, processes, financials, systems, infrastructure, projects, operations, etc. This assessment forms the foundation of a customized transition plan designed around the institution’s unique needs, outlining each step – from stabilization and standardization to technology optimization and, finally, transformation.

    A key element of our approach is the stabilization phase, where we address immediate pain points and ensure that systems are secure and able to support day-to-day operations with no disruptions. This initial phase creates the foundation from which to build on and, ultimately, a level of confidence that sets the stage for longer-term improvements.

    By breaking the transition into manageable phases and providing clear communication throughout the process, we alleviate much of the anxiety associated with change. Instead of a big “lift and shift,” the multi-year transition plan means current systems and processes continue to be supported. Administrators often express relief once they understand our structured approach and how it addresses their specific needs.

    For example, our managed IT services solution for Saint Francis University involved stabilizing the core technology and infrastructure, standardizing expectations through strong IT governance (including installing a virtual CIO), and optimizing business processes and infrastructure for increased efficiency. This identified $200,000 in budgetary waste that was able to be reallocated toward technology upgrades.

    Cost: ROI Beyond the Bottom Line

    Cost is, of course, a major factor in any IT outsourcing decision. Administrators are understandably concerned about the financial implications of outsourcing.

    Studies show that many higher education institutions spend more than 75% of their IT budgets on basic support and technology maintenance. This is partially due to the technology debt that accrues after years of neglect and a lack of the precise skill sets needed to address deficiencies and create more efficient and effective operations. Just think of the impact technology could make if schools could reduce this amount by 25%+ and reallocate these dollars to improving student experiences or driving institutional cost savings.

    Outsourcing can free up these valuable financial resources, enabling institutions to focus on projects that drive growth and enhance the student experience. Collegis partners typically experience:

    • Predictable budgeting: We offer all standard IT management services through a clear and transparent fixed fee mutually determined for the life of the partnership so institutions know exactly what they spend for IT management every year. There are no surprises.
    • Access to top IT talent: While Collegis goes out of its way to assess existing staff and rebadge those who have the needed skill sets and cultural fit, we also bring a team of more than 185 IT professionals to our partnerships, ensuring schools have access to the right skillsets at the right time.
    • Better contract negotiations: Schools benefit from Collegis’s expertise in IT contract negotiations and cross-institutional expertise during all technology contract negotiations. We have long-term relationships with third-party vendors and can negotiate from a position of strength because we support dozens of similar institutions.
    • Lower cybersecurity costs: We handle network, application, and data security, reducing a school’s need for additional resources or security solutions. Our partnerships have also helped many schools successfully stabilize or even reduce their cybersecurity insurance premiums.
    • Elimination of consulting fees: Our model also eliminates the need for expensive consultants to fill staffing gaps or deliver strategic projects.

    Most schools find that an IT managed services partnership with Collegis either saves them money or is cost-neutral. Our economies of scale enable us to provide expert services at a lower cost than most institutions could achieve in-house. Plus, we provide clear service level agreements (SLAs) to ensure accountability.

    Beyond cost savings, outsourcing can also improve ROI by ensuring technology investments deliver their intended value. By leveraging the expertise of a dedicated IT partner, institutions can optimize their systems and ensure they are getting the most out of their technology investments.

    Control: Maintaining Oversight and Ensuring Security

    Some administrators worry about losing control when they outsource IT. They’re concerned about relinquishing oversight of critical systems and data. However, a well-designed outsourcing agreement includes clear governance structures and communication channels, ensuring they retain control.

    One way we’ve addressed this concern is by establishing a steering committee for IT governance that includes representatives from the institution’s leadership and fosters collaboration and shared decision-making.

    Data security is paramount, and we understand the sensitivity of institutional data. We are a SOC 2-compliant organization that undergoes regular external audits to ensure the security and integrity of the data we manage.

    Our dedicated information security officers (CISOs) work closely with each institution to implement best practices and address any security concerns. We also proactively monitor systems for potential threats, leveraging our experience working with multiple institutions to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate.

    Getting More Out of IT investments

    Outsourcing IT management in higher education can be a game-changer for institutions looking to navigate the complexities of the evolving IT landscape. Working with a partner that focuses on open communication, a phased approach to transitioning, a stronger cybersecurity posture, and leveraging your technology’s true potential can eliminate concerns about complexity, cost, and control while enabling schools to achieve strategic goals.

    Finally, when considering IT outsourcing, institutions cannot underestimate the importance and value of cultural fit. Finding a partner who shares your values and can be trusted to run a critical function for your institution is just as important as any of the other considerations I’ve highlighted above.

    — Kim Fahey, CEO Collegis Education

    Source link