The 2011 Enterprise Application Market in Higher Education

The 2011 Enterprise Application Market in Higher Education Research Report June 2012 Susan Grajek, Vice President for Data, Research, and Analytics, EDUCAUSE Leah Lang, Senior IT Metrics and Benchmarking Analyst, EDUCAUSE David Trevvett, Information Systems Consultant, EDUCAUSE Executive Summary This ECAR report focuses on EDUCAUSE Core Data Service survey results related to the enterprise application landscape in higher education. The expansion of the CDS survey in 2011 has provided data to answer a range of application-related questions: Which applications are dominated by a handful of solution providers, and which have an almost bewildering range of choice? When is open source a common option? Which are the most frequently outsourced applications, and which are most likely to be managed by system offices? What types of applications are more and less widespread in higher education? Key Findings Almost every college and university (>95%) delivers a set of six core applications: student information, HR/payroll, finance, e-mail (for faculty and staff and for students), learning management, and IT help desk trouble ticketing. Learning/course management systems is the most homogeneous application area, with 94% of institutions using one of only five solution providers. Open-source options are more widespread in LMS and CMS than other application areas. Grants-management solutions both for pre-award and for post-award application are the most commonly homegrown tools among the application areas in our study. Introduction Applications might be the most visible, relevant, and diverse services IT provides to faculty, staff, and students. Students use applications to select and take courses and monitor tuition and financial aid; faculty use them to apply for and manage grants, teach, conduct research, and engage in scholarship; alumni use them to stay connected to their alma maters; and administrators use applications to manage institutional finances, hire and pay staff, manage buildings, purchase goods and services, make data-driven decisions, and promote the institution. Applications are also the largest part of the IT budget in higher education. Information-systems staff accounted for 19% of central IT staff in 2011, 1 and applications also require additional resources from support services, infrastructure, and data centers. There are also significant hardware and licensing costs associated with application implementation and maintenance 2012 EDUCAUSE and Susan Grajek, Leah Lang, and David Trevvett. CC by-nc-nd

Application diversity has a fractal quality: Just as there are many different types of applications, so, too, are there many different solutions for any given application type. What does the application landscape look like in higher education? Which applications are dominated by a handful of solution providers, and which have an almost bewildering range of choice? When is open source a common option? Which are the most frequently outsourced applications, and which are most likely to be managed by system offices? And what types of applications are more and less widespread in higher education? The expansion of the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service (CDS) survey in 2011 has provided data to answer these questions. The survey asked institutions for information about 16 application areas: Financial Student information HR/payroll Alumni/advancement/development Library Course/learning management system (LMS) Grants management (pre-award) Grants management (post-award) Facilities management Portal Administrative data warehouse/business intelligence Web content management (CMS) Faculty/staff e-mail Student e-mail IT service/help desk trouble ticketing Customer relationship management (CRM) The information in this report was based on 2011 data from the optional Information Systems and ERP module of the CDS. A total of 635 institutions, or 77% of all CDS contributors, completed the module. Findings Almost every college and university (>95%) delivers a set of six core applications: student information, HR/payroll, finance, e-mail (for faculty and staff and for students), learning management, and IT help desk trouble ticketing. Another four applications are widespread, reported by more than three-quarters of all institutions: alumni/advancement/development, library, web content management, and help desk ticket system. Common but not as widespread are facilities management (at 66% of institutions) and administrative data warehouse/business intelligence (62%). Not surprisingly, fewer than half of institutions deliver applications to manage grants, either preaward (38% of institutions) or post-award (40%). Relatively new to higher education are stand-alone customer relationship management applications, which are reported by only 35% of institutions. Vendor Diversity Anyone considering replacing or acquiring an application knows that a wide selection of solutions offers greater choice and greater confusion. We assessed diversity by examining the total number of solution providers and the percentage of the market served by the top-five providers (see Figure 1). Course/learning management system, e-mail for faculty and staff, student information, and alumni/advancement/development were by far the most homogeneous applications. With only 24 different LMS providers in use at CDS-contributing institutions, five providers (including two open source) account for 94% of the LMS market. Institutions choices for faculty and staff e-mail are similarly consistent, with the top-five vendors providing 89% of institutions with faculty/staff e-mail.

Out of a reported 24 different vendors/open-source groups delivering student information applications, five constitute 87% of the market. The market for alumni/advancement/development was similar, with 85% of the market provided by 5 out of 33 total vendors. The most diverse markets are found for web content management (with 89 reported solution providers), facilities management (90), and IT help desk trouble ticketing (77). For these applications, the top-five vendors or open-source groups accounted for half or less than half of the market. Figure 1. Enterprise Applications Market Diversity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LMS 24 94% Faculty/staff e-mail Student information 22 24 87% 89% Alumni/advancement/development 33 85% Student e-mail 37 85% Financial 31 82% HR/payroll 47 79% Library 58 79% Portal Data warehouse CRM 32 31 34 56% 56% 58% Grants (post-award) 34 52% Help desk ticketing 50% 77 Facilities management 47% 90 Grants (pre-award) 34 45% Web content management 37% 89 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of market owned by top-five providers Total vendors and open-source groups

The so-called long tail is another measure of diversity: the percentage of solution providers reported by very few institutions. This measure echoes the patterns above (see Table 1). Application Table 1. Enterprise Applications Market Diversity Percentage of Solution Providers at Fewer Than Four Institutions Number of Solution Providers at Fewer Than Four Institutions Faculty/staff e-mail 59% 13 Portal 59% 19 Financial 61% 19 Data warehouse/business intelligence 65% 20 Customer relationship management (CRM) 65% 22 Student e-mail 65% 25 Course/learning management system (LMS) 67% 16 IT service/help desk trouble ticketing 68% 52 Grants management (pre-award) 71% 24 Web content management (CMS) 73% 65 Alumni/advancement/development 76% 25 Grants management (post-award) 76% 26 Student information 79% 19 Facilities management 80% 72 HR/payroll 81% 38 Library 88% 51 Open Source and Homegrown Open-source options are more widespread in LMS and CMS than other application areas. Two opensource options (Moodle and Sakai) are among the top-five LMS solutions (see Figure 2). Drupal is the second most common CMS solution deployed in higher education institutions. COEUS and Kuali are both in the top-five of pre-award grants management solutions. Three other application areas have one open-source group in the top five: portal (JASIG uportal), IT help desk trouble ticketing (Best Practical, perhaps better known as RT or Request Tracker), and post-award grants management (COEUS). By a wide margin, grants management solutions both for pre-award and for post-award application are the most common homegrown tools among the application areas in our study, with roughly one-third of respondents saying they use applications developed in-house. Portals and data warehouses (both at 16%) were the only other application areas reported as using homegrown solutions at more than one institution in eight.

Figure 2. Sourcing of Enterprise Applications: Open Source and Homegrown CRM Alumni/advancement/development 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 5.8% Student information HR/payroll 0.2% 0.2% 7.5% 9.2% Data warehouse 0.3% 16.3% Facilities management 0.5% 11.9% Financial Library Faculty/staff e-mail Student e-mail 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 2.3% 1.3% 6.2% 5.3% 7.5% Grants (post-award) 6.0% 30.7% Help desk ticketing 5.8% 11.3% Grants (pre-award) 10.4% 33.8% Portal 12.0% 16.0% Web content management 11.1% 25.6% LMS 1.3% 25.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Homegrown Open source

Limitations of These Data These data provide estimates of the solutions used for higher education enterprise applications, but they come with caveats. Respondents entered the names of the vendors and products they use, as opposed to selecting names from lists. (They were also asked to specify whether solutions were open source, homegrown, or vendor products.) We recoded the data to normalize the many variations in product and vendor names and spellings and to collapse product-vendor solutions into a concise yet still informative set of solutions. We opted not to preserve product versions in the recoding, for example. An illustration of the recoding is shown below: Original Vendor Original Product Recoded Vendor Recoded Product Oracle Campus Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle Campus Solutions Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle Oracle Campus Solutions 9.0 People Soft Campus Soultions Oracle Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle PeopleSoft 8.9 Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle PeopleSoft 9.0 Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle Oracle Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solution Peoplesoft Campus Solutions PS Campus Solutions Oracle Oracle Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions PeopleSoft Campus Solutions PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle PSFT Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions oracle/peoplesoft Campus Solutions Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions oracle/peoplesoft Campus Solutions 9.0 Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions We found many data-entry and classification errors, ranging from benign misspellings to confusion about whether solutions were open-source or vendor to which vendor provided a particular product. Ongoing mergers and acquisitions also lend complexity to these analyses. When these data were analyzed, for example, Datatel and SunGard were separate companies. Many solutions were installed before vendors were acquired. Many respondents continued to use the old names, likely because they have not updated solutions, while other respondents used the new names. Another limitation of these data is that the application categories themselves do not always map cleanly onto a single solution. One example is e-mail: Some respondents specified the e-mail server product (e.g., Microsoft Exchange), while others specified the e-mail client product (e.g,. Microsoft Outlook). We opted to treat these as separate products rather than combine them, and so some of the resulting lists may seem like apples-to-oranges comparisons.

Market Shares The appendix to this report provides the solutions used for each of the 16 application areas. Each area contains a chart visually depicting the most common solutions and a table listing further detail of the same data. In each of the charts, the size of each section is proportional to the market share; red sections indicate homegrown solutions, shades of blue represent vendor products, and green sections represent open-source solutions. Table 2, which contains an overview of each application area s diversity and delivery, can be used as a guide for the data in the appendix. Application Table 2. Application Area Overview Percentage of Institutions Reporting Use of This Application Outsourced Ranking Supported by System Office Ranking Percentage of Market Owned by Top-Five Providers Student information 99% (n = 630) 14 6 87% Financial 99% (n = 628) 13 1 82% HR/payroll 98% (n = 625) 7 2 79% Faculty/staff e-mail 98% (n = 621) 6 15 89% Student e-mail 97% (n = 618) 1 14 85% Course/learning management systems 97% (n = 615) 3 10 94% IT service/help desk trouble ticketing 95% (n = 604) 8 11 50% Alumni/advancement/development 86% (n = 547) 9 12 85% Library 86% (n = 548) 4 3 79% Web content management 81% (n = 515) 10 16 37% Portal 75% (n = 476) 11 13 58% Facilities management 66% (n = 419) 5 8 47% Data warehouse/business intelligence 62% (n = 392) 15 7 56% Grants management (pre-award) 38% (n = 240) 12 4 45% Grants management (post-award) 40% (n = 251) 16 5 52% Customer relationship management 35% (n = 225) 2 9 56% Conclusion and Recommendations This is the first time ECAR has collected, analyzed, and reported data about solution providers and products used for higher education enterprise applications. Ongoing improvements to the Core Data Service will correspondingly improve the data, and in future years we will have the ability to analyze trends in addition to point-in-time data. Most important to the ongoing development of CDS is understanding how you use the data and which means of analysis and display of the data will best enable you to make decisions about enterprise applications. The higher education application market is extremely diverse and complex. This report provides a very high-level summary of that market, offering both the benefits and the pitfalls of a big-picture view. In a relatively brief glance, we have shown the diversity and patterns of solution providers in

enterprise applications. We intentionally did not assess patterns within institutional type or clusters of solution providers or solution use across applications. Although those analyses would supply additional insights, the big picture brings its own value, providing readers with a convenient summary and ongoing reference. Institutions that participated in this year s CDS can find additional analysis and benchmarking tools for CDS data posted on the EDUCAUSE CDS website (http://www.educause.edu/coredata). About the Authors Susan Grajek (sgrajek@educause.edu) is Vice President for Data, Research, and Analytics for EDUCAUSE. Leah Lang (llang@educause.edu) is Senior IT Metrics and Benchmarking Analyst with EDUCAUSE. David Trevvett (detrevvett@gmail.com) provides consulting services in the areas of information systems, business and IT process analysis, IT financial analysis/ structure, and IT organization to institutions of higher education. Citation for This Work Grajek, Susan, Leah Lang, and David Trevvett. The 2011 Enterprise Application Market in Higher Education (Research Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, June 2012, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar. Note 1. Grajek, Susan, and Pam Arroway. The EDUCAUSE 2011 Core Data Service Report: Highlights and Insights into Higher Education Information Technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, January 2012, available from http://www.educause.edu/coredata.

Appendix: Market Share Data for IT Service Areas Student Information Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 99% (630) Outsourced ranking: 14 of 16 System office ranking: 6 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 87% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Student Information Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 8% 2% 9% Open source 0.2% 0.2% Vendor 77% 13% 2% 91% SunGard Higher Education 38% 2% 1% 41% Banner Student (36%) (2%) (1%) (39%) PowerCAMPUS (2%) (2%) Matrix, PLUS, Other (0.5%) (0.2%) (1%) Oracle 15% 10% 0.3% 25% Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions (14%) (9%) (0.3%) (24%) Oracle other (1%) (0.5%) (1%) Datatel Colleague Student 13% 1% 14% Jenzabar 6% 6% EX (3%) (3%) CX (2%) (2%) Jenzabar Other (1%) (1%) SAP Student Lifecycle Management (SLCM) 1% 1% Technology One 0.5% 0.5% Aptron 0.3% 0.3% Blackbaud 0.3% 0.3% Callista 0.3% 0.3% Three Rivers Systems 0.3% 0.3% Other vendor 2% 2% Grand Total 84% 14% 2% 100%

HR/Payroll Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 98% (625) Outsourced ranking: 7 of 16 System office ranking: 2 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 79% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

HR/Payroll Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Homegrown 2% 5% 0.3% 8% Total Open source 0.2% 0.2% Vendor 70% 15% 7% 92% Oracle 18% 11% 0.5% 30% PeopleSoft HCM (13%) (10%) (0.3%) (24%) Human Capital Management (4%) (1%) (0.2%) (5%) PeopleSoft Campus Solutions (1%) (1%) SunGard Higher Education 26% 1% 1% 28% Banner HR (25%) (1%) (1%) (27%) PowerCAMPUS, PLUS, Other (1%) (0.2%) (1%) Datatel Colleague HR 11% 0.3% 11% Jenzabar 4% 0.2% (4%) CX (2%) (2%) EX (1%) (1%) Other (0.5%) (0.2%) (1%) ADP PayForce/HRMS/eTIME/PC/Payroll/Other 1% 0.3% 4% 6% SAP Human Capital Management 2% 1% 3% PeopleStrategy (Integral) Human Resources Management System 1% 0.3% 1% Talent2 Alesco 1% 1% Multiple Sources 0.5% 0.2% 1% Ceridian 0.5% 0.5% Accero 0.5% 0.5% Lawson 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% Aurion 0.3% 0.3% Kronos Workforce 0.3% 0.3% Aptron 0.3% 0.3% Technology One/Finance One 0.2% 0.2% Other vendor 4% 0.5% 1% 5% Grand Total 72% 20% 8% 100%

Financial Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 99% (628) Outsourced ranking: 13 of 16 System office ranking: 1 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 82% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Provided by: Financial Institution System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 3% 4% 0.3% 7% Open source 1% 1% Kuali 1% 1% Open source (not specified) 0.3% 0.3% Vendor 74% 16% 1% 91% SunGard Higher Education 28% 1% 1% 30% Banner Finance (27%) (1%) (1%) (29%) PowerCAMPUS, PLUS, Other (2%) (0.2%) (2%) Oracle 18% 12% 0.5% 31% PeopleSoft Financials (13%) (9%) (0.3%) (22%) Financial Management (5%) (2%) (8%) Other or N/A (0.2%) (1%) (0.2%) (1%) Datatel Colleague Financials 13% 0.3% 13% Jenzabar 5% 5% EX (2%) (2%) CX (2%) (2%) Other (1%) (1%) SAP ERP Financials 2% 1% 3% Microsoft Dynamics AX, GP, SL, Other 2% 2% Blackbaud Financial Edge 1% 1% Technology One/Finance One 1% 1% CGI Advantage 0.3% 0.3% 1% Lawson Financial Management 0.5% 0.2% 1% SunGard Public Sector IFAS, Other 0.5% 0.2% 1% College Board PowerFAIDS 0.3% 0.3% Software AG FRS Plus 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Other vendor 3% 0.2% 0.2% 3% Grand Total 78% 21% 2% 100%

Faculty/Staff E-mail Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 98% (621) Outsourced ranking: 6 of 16 System office ranking: 15 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 89% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Faculty/Staff E-mail Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 1% 1% Open source 2% 2% Cyrus 1% 1% Multiple Products 0.3% 0.3% Other open source 1% 1% Vendor 82% 5% 10% 97% Microsoft 60% 2% 2% 64% Exchange Server (54%) (2%) (1%) (57%) Outlook or Express (4%) (4%) Live@edu/Office 365/WinLive/BPOS (1%) (0.2%) (1%) (2%) Other (0.3%) (0.3%) Google 4% 0.5% 7% 11% Gmail (2%) (0.2%) (3%) (5%) Apps for Education (1%) (0.3%) (4%) (6%) Novell GroupWise 6% 6% VMware Zimbra 5% 0.5% 5% Oracle Communications Suite/JES/Sun Java/Messenger 3% 0.2% 3% IBM Lotus Notes/Domino 2% 0.3% 2% Critical Path Mirapoint Message Server, Other 1% 1% 2% Multiple Products 1% 0.2% 1% Other vendor 2% 0.2% 0.2% 2% Grand Total 86% 5% 10% 100%

Student E-mail Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 97% (618) Outsourced ranking: 1 of 16 System office ranking: 14 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 85% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Student E-mail Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 1% 0.2% 1% Open source 5% 0.2% 5% Cyrus 1% 1% SquirrelMail 0.6% 0.6% Multiple Products 1% 0.2% 1% Other open source 2% 2% Vendor 52% 5% 37% 93% Google 10% 4% 21% 34% Gmail (7%) (3%) (12%) (22%) Apps for Education (2%) (1%) (8%) (12%) Microsoft 25% 1% 14% 40% Live@edu/Office 365/WinLive/Hotmail (7%) (1%) (12%) (20%) Exchange Server (17%) (1%) (18%) Outlook or Express (1%) (0.3%) (1%) Other (0.3%) (0.3%) (1%) VMware Zimbra 5% 0.2% 1% 5% Oracle Communications Suite/JES/Sun Java/Messenger 4% 0.2% 4% Novell GroupWise, Other 2% 2% CommuniGate Systems CommuniGate Pro 1% 1% Critical Path Mirapoint Message Server, Other 1% 0.2% 1% SunGard HE Luminis 1% 1% IBM Lotus Notes/Domino 0.5% 0.5% Multiple products 1% 1% 2% Other vendor 3% 0.5% 3% Grand Total 58% 5% 37% 100%

Course/Learning Management System Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 97% (615) Outsourced ranking: 3 of 16 System office ranking: 10 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 94% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Course/Learning Management System Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 1% 0.2% 0.3% 1% Open source 21% 1% 4% 26% Moodle (Moodle Trust) 14% 0.2% 1% 16% Moodle (MoodleRooms) 1% 2% 3% Moodle (Remote-Learner) 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Sakai (Sakai Foundation) 5% 0.5% 1% 6% Sakai (rsmart) 0.5% 0.2% 1% Other open source 0.2% 0.2% (0.3% Vendor 52% 11% 10% 73% Blackboard 46% 8% 7% 60% Learn (32%) (5%) (4%) (40%) Learn Angel Edition (4%) (2%) (0.5%) (7%) Learning System Vista (5%) (0.5%) (1%) (6%) Learning System CE (2%) (0.3%) (2%) Unspecified (4%) (0.2%) (1%) (5%) Desire2Learn D2L Learning Environment 2% 3% 2% 7% Jenzabar e-racer 1% 1% Oracle PeopleSoft Enterprise Learning Management 0.5% 0.5% Pearson 0.5% 1% 1% Other vendor 1% 0.2% 0.3% 2% Grand Total 74% 12% 14% 100%

IT Service/Help Desk Trouble Ticketing Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 95% (604) Outsourced ranking: 8 of 16 System office ranking: 11 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 50% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

IT Service/Help Desk Trouble Ticketing Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 9% 2% 0.2% 11% Open source 6% 0.2% 6% Best Practical Solutions Request Tracker (RT) 3% 0.2% 3% OTRS Help Desk 1% 1% Spiceworks 1% 1% Other open source 1% 1% Vendor 71% 6% 6% 83% BMC Software 29% 1% 0.2% 31% Numara Footprints (10%) (0.3%) (10%) Numara Track-It! (8%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (8%) Remedy (7%) (1%) (8%) Service Desk Express (4%) (0.2%) (4%) Other or unspecified (1%) (1%) FrontRange Solutions HEAT 7% 1% 8% MacsDesign Studio Web Help Desk 5% 0.2% 5% ServiceNow 3% 0.2% 1% 4% Symantec Altiris ServiceDesk 2% 0.2% 2% IssueTrak 1% 1% 2% SunGard HE & Service-Now 0.2% 0.2% 2% 2% HP Service Manager 1% 0.3% 2% SchoolDude IT Help Desk, Other 1% 1% 2% Dell KACE (KBOX) 2% 2% isupport, c.support 2% 2% Computer Associates (CA) Service Desk Manager, Other 1% 0.2% 1% Kayako Infotech Fusion, Other 1% 0.2% 1% Zoho Corporation ManageEngine Service Desk Plus 1% 0.2% 1% Cherwell Service Management 1% 0.2% 1% Help Desk Technology (HDTIC) HelpSTAR 1% 1% Parature Customer Service 1% 0.3% 1% LANDesk Software Service Desk 1% 0.2% 1% Atlassian JIRA 1% 1% GroupLink ehelpdesk 1% 1% TechExcel ServiceWise 1% 1% Microsoft 0.3% 0.3% Multiple products 1% 0.2% 1% Other vendor 8% 0.5% 1% 10% Grand Total 86% 8% 6% 100%

Alumni/Advancement/Development Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 86% (547) Outsourced ranking: 9 of 16 System office ranking: 12 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 85% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Alumni/Advancement/Development Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 4% 1% 5% Open source Vendor 84% 7% 5% 95% SunGard Higher Ed 33% 2% 1% 36% Banner Advancement (20%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (21%) Advance (11%) (1%) (1%) (13%) PowerCAMPUS, Other (1%) (0.2%) (1%) Blackbaud 27% 3% 3% 33% Raiser's Edge (25%) (2%) (2%) (30%) CRM/ECRM/eTapestry/Other (2%) (0.2%) (1%) (3%) Datatel Colleague Advancement/Benefactor 8% 8% Sage Millennium 4% 1% 5% Jenzabar 3% 3% Jenzabar CX, Other (2%) (2%) Jenzabar EX (2%) (2%) Oracle PeopleSoft Campus Solutions/Contributor Relations 3% 0.4% 3% Campus Management Talisma Fundraising (Donor2) 1% 0.2% 0.2% 1% Agilon One Donor Management 1% 1% Donor Perfect 0.4% 0.2% 1% Other vendor 3% 1% 1% 5% Grand Total 87% 7% 5% 100%

Library Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 86% (548) Outsourced ranking: 4 of 16 System office ranking: 3 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 79% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Library Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 2% 3% 1% 6% Open source 1% 1% LibLime Koha 0.4% 0.4% Other 1% 1% Vendor 63% 17% 12% 93% Ex Libris 18% 11% 4% 33% Voyager (12%) (4%) (2%) (18%) Aleph (4%) (5%) (2%) (11%) Other (2%) (2%) (0.2%) (4%) Innovative Interfaces Inc. 25% 2% 3% 30% Millennium (16%) (1%) (1%) (19%) Innopac (3%) (0.2%) (3%) Other or N/A (6%) (1%) (1%) (8%) SirsiDynix 11% 2% 1% 14% Horizon (2%) (0.2%) (2%) Symphony (1%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (2%) Unicorn (2%) (2%) Unspecified (5%) (2%) (1%) (8%) OCLC Worldcat, WMS, Other 0.5% 0.2% 1% 1% VTLS Virtua 1% 0.2% 1% COMPanion Corporation Alexandria 1% 1% Multiple Sources 2% 1% 1% 3% Other vendor 5% 1% 3% 9% Grand Total 66% 20% 14% 100%

Web Content Management Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 81% (515) Outsourced ranking: 10 of 16 System office ranking: 16 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 37% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Web Content Management Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 10% 0.4% 0.4% 11% Open source 23% 1% 1% 26% Drupal 10% 1% 0.4% 11% WordPress 4% 0.4% 4% Joomla 1% 0.2% 1% Squiz Matrix CMS 1% 1% DotNetNuke 1% 1% Reason CMS 1% 1% dotcms 2% 0.2% 2% Plone 1% 1% Typo3 0.4% 0.4% Umbraco CMS 0.4% 0.2% 1% FarCry Core CMS 1% 1% Multiple sources 0.2% 0.2% Other open source 2% 0.2% 2% Vendor 58% 2% 3% 63% Hannon Hill Cascade Server 11% 0.2% 0.2% 11% Adobe 6% 0.2% 6% Contribute (4%) (0.2%) (4%) CQ5, Other (2%) (2%) Microsoft SharePoint, Other 4% 4% OmniUpdate OU Campus 3% 0.2% 1% 4% OpenText Web Site Management 4% 0.2% 4% PaperThin CommonSpot 3% 3% Ektron WCM, CMS400 3% 0.2% 3% Ingeniux CMS 3% 3% Sitecore CMS 3% 3% SunGard Higher Ed 2% 0.4% 3% Luminis, LCMS (1%) (0.2%) (2%) Other (1%) (0.2%) (1%) Datatel WCMS, Active Campus, Other 2% 2% Serena Collage 1% 0.2% 2% Percussion CM System or CM1 1% 1% TerminalFour Site Manager 1% 1% Oracle 1% 0.2% 1% Barracuda Networks Web Filter 0.4% 0.4% CareTech Solutions CareWorks CMS 0.4% 0.4% Intrafinity SitePublish CMS 0.4% 0.4% Roxen CMS 0.4% 0.4% Multiple products 2% 0.2% 2% Other vendor 8% 1% 1% 10% Grand Total 92% 3% 5% 100%

Portal Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 75% (476) Outsourced ranking: 11 of 16 System office ranking: 13 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 58% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Portal Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 14% 2% 16% Open source 12% 0.4% 13% Drupal 1% 1% Jasig uportal 7% 0.2% 8% Liferay Portal 2% 2% Other 1% 0.2% 1% Vendor 64% 4% 4% 72% SunGard Higher Education 24% 1% 1% 26% SunGard HE Luminis (23%) (1%) (1%) (25%) SunGard HE Other (0.2%) 0.2% (0.4%) Oracle 10% 1% 11% PeopleSoft Portal (7%) (1%) (8%) Oracle Portal (2%) (0.2%) (2%) Other or N/A (1%) (0.2%) (1%) Jenzabar JICS, other 7% 7% Datatel Portal 6% 0.2% 6% Microsoft SharePoint 6% 0.2% 6% CampusEAI mycampus Portal 3% 0.2% 2% 5% Blackboard Learn Portal/Community 3% 0.4% 0.2% 4% SAP Portal 1% 1% CampusCruiser Portal 0.6% 0.6% IBM WebSphere 0.4% 0.4% Multiple products 2% 2% Other vendor 3% 0.4% 3% Grand Total 90% 6% 4% 100%

Facilities Management Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 66% (419) Outsourced ranking: 5 of 16 System office ranking: 8 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 47% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Facilities Management Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 8% 3% 0.2% 12% Open source 0.5% 0.5% Vendor 67% 9% 11% 88% TMA Systems 11% 1% 1% 14% iservice Desk (3%) (0.2%) (3%) WebTMA (1%) (0.5%) (1%) Other or N/A (8%) (1%) (0.5%) (9%) SchoolDude Facility Management 5% 5% 10% Accruent FAMIS 8% 0.5% 1% 10% AssetWorks 6% 1% 0.5% 8% AiM (5%) (1%) (0.5%) (7%) Facility Focus (1%) (1%) IBM 5% 1% 6% Maximo Asset Management (4%) (1%) (5%) Tririga Facilities Manager (1%) (1%) MicroMain 0.5% 2% 0.2% 3% Facility Management Software (0.5%) (0.5%) FM1 Innovus (2%) (0.2%) (2%) Archibus 2% 2% CollegeNET R25 2% 0.5% 0.2% 2% Ad Astra Info Systems Astra Schedule 2% 0.2% 0.2% 2% Dean Evans & Associates EMS (Event Management) 1% 1% Oracle 1% 0.5% 1% PeopleSoft (1%) (0.2%) (1%) Other (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.5%) Datatel Colleague 1% 0.2% 1% SAP 1% 0.5% 1% Sodexo 0.2% 0.2% 1% 1% SunGard Higher Ed Banner 1% 1% Infor (EAM or EAM MP2) 1% 1% Mainsaver 1% 1% Maintenance Connection 0.5% 0.2% 1% Megamation Systems Direct Line 0.2% 0.5% 1% Siemens APOGEE 1% 1% Upturn Solutions Sprocket 1% 1% Johnson Controls Metasys 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% Mercury Computer Systems 0.5% 0.5% Sightlines 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% Multiple products 1% 1% Other vendor 13% 2% 1% 16% Grand Total 76% 13% 11% 100%

Administrative Data Warehouse/Business Intelligence Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 62% (392) Outsourced ranking: 15 of 16 System office ranking: 7 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 56% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Provided by: Administrative Data Warehouse/Business intelligence Institution System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 11% 5% 0.3% 16% Open source 0.3% 0.3% Vendor 74% 9% 1% 83% Oracle 12% 4% 16% Oracle Business Intelligence (OBI) (4%) (1%) (6%) PeopleSoft (EPM, Campus Solutions Warehouse, Other) (3%) (1%) (4%) Hyperion or Brio (2%) (1%) (2%) Other (3%) (1%) (4%) SunGard Higher Ed 15% 0.3% 1% 16% Banner ODS and/or EDW (14%) (0.3%) (1%) (15%) Other (1%) (1%) IBM Cognos 10% 1% 11% SAP 7% 1% 8% Business Objects (6%) (1%) (7%) Other (1%) (0.3%) (2%) Microsoft 4% 1% 5% SQL Server Reporting Services (3%) (3%) Other (1%) (1%) (2%) Blackboard Bb Analytics (istrategy) 4% 4% Datatel ODS/Reporting/Other 4% 4% SAS Business Intelligence 2% 1% 2% Information Builders WebFocus, others 1% 0.3% 2% Evisions Argos 2% 2% Jenzabar Capture or other 1% 1% MicroStrategy 1% 1% Tableau 1% 1% QlikTech QlikView 0.3% 0.3% Multiple Products 7% 1% 0.3% 8% Other 3% 1% 4% Grand Total 85% 14% 1% 100%

Grants Management (pre-award) Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 38% (240) Outsourced ranking: 12 of 16 System office ranking: 4 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 45% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Grants Management (pre-award) Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 25% 9% 34% Open source 9% 1% 0.4% 10% COEUS 5% 0.4% 6% Kuali Coeus 3% 0.4% 3.3% Other open source 1% 0.4% 1% Vendor 44% 10% 2% 56% Oracle PeopleSoft Grants or Financials 8% 6% 14% SunGard HE Banner Finance, other 12% 0.4% 13% InfoEd Global Grants & Contracts 8% 1% 10% Blackbaud Raiser s Edge 3% 3% Evisions Cayuse Research 2% 0.4% 2% Datatel Colleague 2% 2% ResearchMaster Enterprise (RME) 2% 0.4% 2% Huron Education Click Portal 1% 0.4% 2% Other vendor 7% 1% 1% 10% Grand Total 78% 19% 3% 100%

Grants Management (post-award) Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 40% (251) Outsourced ranking: 16 of 16 System office ranking: 5 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 52% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Grants Management (post-award) Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 23% 8% 31% Open source 6% 0.4% 6% COEUS 4% 0.4% 4% Kuali Coeus Foundation 1% 1% Other open source 1% 1% Vendor 52% 11% 0.8% 63% Oracle 13% 7% 20% Oracle PeopleSoft Grants or Financials (10%) (5%) (16%) Oracle Financial Management (2%) (2%) (4%) Oracle other (0.4%) (0.4%) (1%) SunGard Higher Ed 19% 0.4% 0.4% 20% SunGard HE Banner (17%) (0.4%) (0.4%) (18%) SunGard HE Other or N/A (2%) (2%) InfoEd Global Grants & Contracts 5% 0.4% 6% SAP 2% 2% Blackbaud Financial/Raiser s Edge 2% 2% ResearchMaster Enterprise (RME) 2% 0.4% 2% Datatel Colleague 2% 2% Evisions Cayuse Research 0.4% 0.4% Sungard Public Sector 0.4% 0.4% Sungard, Others 0.4% 0.4% Other 6% 2% 0.4% 8% Grand Total 80% 19% 1% 100%

Customer Relationship Management Percentage of institutions reporting use of this application: 35% (225) Outsourced ranking: 2 of 16 System office ranking: 9 of 16 Percentage of market owned by top-five providers: 56% Note: These data were recoded and summarized from free-text responses. They have limitations due to data collection, recoding, respondents interpretations of the category, variability in local implementations, and the marketplace itself. For more information, please see Limitations of These Data on page 6.

Customer Relationship Management Institution Provided by: System Office Outsourced Total Homegrown 4% 1% 0.4% 6% Open source Vendor 69% 11% 15% 94% Hobsons (EMT) Connect CRM, Other 9% 2% 6% 17% SunGard Higher Ed Banner Relationship Management 14% 1% 15% Oracle 5% 2% 2% 9% PeopleSoft Enterprise CRM (2%) (1%) (0.4%) (4%) RightNow CRM (1%) (2%) (3%) Other (Oracle, Siebel, etc.) (2%) (0.4%) (2%) Campus Management Talisma CRM 6% 2% 0.4% 8% Jenzbar CR Modules, JICS, Other 6% 6% Datatel CRM Recruiter, Other 5% 5% College Board Recruitment Plus 4% 0.4% 5% Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Other 4% 0.4% 5% Salesforce.com 1% 0.4% 2% 4% Intelliworks CRM 2% 0.4% 1% 4% Education Systems EMAS/EMAS Pro 3% 3% Admissions Lab /422 Group Enrollment Manager, CRM 1% 1% 2% Multiple products 0.4% 0.4% 1% Other vendor 7% 2% 2% 10% Grand Total 73% 12% 15% 100%