Rethinking the SIS Evaluation: Start With Outcomes, Not Features

We recently sat down with Ken Fritz, Thesis Elements’ new Director of Higher Education Strategy & Solutions, to talk about how colleges and universities can approach technology decisions differently.

With nearly two decades of experience working in higher education technology, Ken has worked closely with institutional leaders across a wide range of roles, from Presidents and Provosts to CIOs, CFOs, Registrars, and Enrollment leaders. That experience has shaped this simple belief: technology decisions in higher education are rarely just technology decisions. They are institutional decisions.

Rather than starting with software and features, Ken believes the conversation should begin with the institution itself. What is it trying to accomplish? What challenges are getting in the way? What outcomes does leadership expect from its investment? And how can technology help move the institution forward?

In his new role at Thesis Elements, Ken is bringing that perspective to how institutions evaluate technology, connect investments to measurable outcomes, and think about the value of transformation. 

Ken, you’ve recently stepped into the newly created role of Director of Higher Education Strategy & Solutions at Thesis. Why was this role created, and what are you hoping to accomplish in it?

This role really grew out of a belief that our conversations with institutions need to extend beyond product functionality. As Director of Higher Education Strategy & Solutions, part of my responsibility is to help connect an institution’s strategic priorities and challenges to the technology decisions they are considering. That means spending more time understanding where an institution is today, where its leadership wants it to go, what may be preventing it from getting there, and how technology can support that journey.

The role also gives me responsibility for leading our Solutions Consulting organization and continuing to develop how we engage with institutions throughout the evaluation process.

One of my biggest goals is to move the conversation from simply asking, “Can Elements do this?” toward asking, “What are we trying to accomplish, why does it matter to the institution, and what measurable value can we create?” If we do that well, we aren't simply helping an institution select a new SIS. We're helping its leaders build a stronger business case for transformation and make a more informed technology decision.

You’ve said that institutions shouldn’t begin a SIS conversation by asking, “What features does the system have?” What questions do you believe college and university leaders should be asking instead?

The first question should be, “What are we trying to change?”

From there, I think there are several important questions: What institutional challenges are driving this project? What outcomes does leadership expect from the investment? What does the current environment prevent the institution from doing today? Where are staff members spending time on processes that aren't creating value? What does the student experience look like? What information does leadership need that is difficult to obtain today? And what will success look like two or three years after implementation?

That changes the entire evaluation.

Instead of beginning with hundreds of features, you begin with institutional priorities. Those priorities might include enrollment, retention, student success, financial sustainability, staff capacity, data accessibility, operational efficiency, or improving the student experience.

Once those outcomes are understood, then you can evaluate whether a technology platform can support them. Features absolutely matter. But features should validate that a solution can support the institution's strategy—they shouldn't become the strategy.

One of the priorities in your new role is helping institutions connect technology investments to measurable outcomes. What does “value” really mean when a college or university is considering replacing its SIS?

Value has to be broader than simply asking whether a new system eliminates positions or automates a certain number of processes.

For some institutions, value might come from reducing the amount of staff time required to complete repetitive administrative work. For others, it could mean eliminating redundant technology, improving access to information, reducing operational risk, improving the student experience, or giving employees more capacity to focus on higher-value work.

There are also costs associated with maintaining the status quo. Legacy technology can require specialized knowledge, extensive integrations, manual workarounds, duplicated data entry, and significant institutional effort just to keep processes operating.

That's why I believe an ROI conversation should examine both quantitative and qualitative value. We can look at things like current technology costs, staff effort, third-party systems, implementation investment, ongoing operating costs, and time-to-value. But we should also consider risk reduction, staff capacity, decision-making, student experience, and institutional agility.

The goal isn't to manufacture an ROI number. It's to help institutional leaders clearly understand what they are investing in and what they expect to receive in return.

You’ve been advocating for a different approach to the traditional software demonstration. Why do you believe higher education needs to rethink the way SIS solutions are evaluated?

I think we've conditioned institutions to believe that evaluating enterprise technology means sitting through hours—or sometimes days—of software demonstrations. The problem is that a demonstration can show you a tremendous amount of functionality without necessarily telling you whether the solution will help solve the institution's most important problems. I believe we need to reverse that process.

Before we demonstrate anything, we should understand the institution. What are its strategic priorities? What challenges are driving the SIS replacement? What does its technology ecosystem look like? What are the institution's operational pain points? What outcomes are its leaders trying to achieve?

That's why we've been developing an approach that begins with institutional assessment and discovery, moves into desired outcomes and value, and then uses technology demonstrations to validate those outcomes. I'm not suggesting institutions should never see the software. They absolutely should. I'm suggesting that they shouldn't have to see everything.

Show them what matters. Demonstrate how the technology supports the outcomes they have identified. That creates a much more meaningful conversation than simply moving from feature to feature for several hours.

Looking ahead, what do you want college and university leaders to associate with Ken Fritz, Thesis, and Elements when they encounter you at a conference, read something you’ve written, or sit across the table from you?

For me personally, I hope they see someone who understands higher education, listens, asks thoughtful questions, and is willing to have an honest conversation about what an institution actually needs.

I've spent much of my career talking with colleges and universities about technology, and the longer I've done this, the more convinced I've become that our industry needs to spend less time simply selling software and more time understanding the institutional challenges the software is supposed to solve.

That's a big part of what excites me about this new role at Thesis.

When someone hears Ken Fritz, Thesis, or Elements, I want them to associate us with a different type of conversation—one centered on institutional strategy, measurable outcomes, implementation success, speed-to-value, and ultimately helping colleges and universities better serve their students.

Technology is obviously an important part of that conversation. But technology isn't the outcome. What the institution is able to accomplish with that technology is what ultimately matters.

Ken’s perspective comes down to a simple idea: technology is important, but it isn’t the outcome. What an institution is able to accomplish with that technology is what ultimately matters.

For colleges and universities considering a SIS change, that can mean asking different questions, defining success before evaluating solutions, and looking beyond features to understand the value a new system can create for the institution, its people, and its students.

If you’re thinking about a SIS change or simply want to talk through what’s driving your institution’s technology strategy, connect with Ken and the Thesis Elements team. We’d be happy to continue the conversation.