Purchasing new software is rarely just a matter of comparing features or pricing. In higher education, successful implementation depends just as much on people, process, timing, and institutional readiness as it does on the technology itself. Before moving forward, it helps to step back and consider a few foundational questions that will shape not only implementation, but long-term adoption and impact.

Ownership, Buy-In, and Bandwidth

One of the first things to think about is ownership. Who will actually operate the system once it is live? In some cases, software lives primarily with system administrators. In others, it requires active participation from faculty, staff, and administrators alike. When multiple groups are expected to engage with a platform, meaningful buy-in becomes essential. Without shared understanding and commitment, even well-designed systems can struggle to gain traction.

Closely tied to ownership is bandwidth. Implementing complex systems such as assessment, planning, or accreditation software takes time and sustained attention. Institutions often underestimate the internal effort required to build out structures, prepare data, and support users through new workflows. When that effort is not adequately resourced, implementation timelines can stretch, momentum can fade, and confidence in the system can erode.

It can be helpful to pause and ask:

• Who will own and manage the system day to day?
• Do stakeholders across campus understand how the software supports their work?
• Has sufficient time and staffing been allocated to implementation?
• Data Readiness and Process Alignment

Data readiness is one of the most important and most overlooked aspects of implementation. Nearly every vendor will say the same thing: what you put into the system is what you will get out of it. Messy or inconsistent data inevitably leads to messy or inconsistent reporting.

Before implementation begins, institutions should consider what format their data is currently in, what format it needs to be in, and whether it is accurate, consistent, and up to date. One effective approach is to think backward. Start with what you want to see at the end, whether that is reports, dashboards, or evidence for decision-making, and then work in reverse to determine the steps needed to get your data into a shape that supports those outcomes.

Just as important as the data itself is the process behind it. Implementing new technology without clear, repeatable processes often leads to confusion and frustration. Software can support good practice, but it cannot create it on its own.

Procurement, Funding, and Institutional Readiness

Even when there is excitement and readiness across campus, procurement logistics can slow progress. Contracting delays, unclear approvals, or misaligned funding timelines can stall momentum and impact adoption.

Aligning early with procurement teams, confirming budget allocations, and understanding contracting timelines can help keep the process moving forward smoothly and prevent unnecessary delays once a decision has been made.

Technology Ecosystem and Integrations

It is also essential to think about how a new system fits into your existing technology ecosystem. The word “integration” can mean very different things depending on the context, so clarity matters. Be explicit about what integration means to your institution and ensure your vendor defines it the same way.

Conversations should include how data moves between systems, whether through APIs or import and export processes, who is responsible for maintaining those connections over time, and what level of involvement is expected from IT. While APIs can be powerful, some institutions prefer more controlled or stable data-transfer methods that require less long-term upkeep. Institutional policies vary, so confirming requirements and approvals early can prevent surprises later.

Learning From Past Challenges

Past experience can be just as informative as future plans. If your institution has implemented similar software before and struggled, that history is valuable. Being open about what did not work allows vendor partners to better understand your campus culture and apply strategies that support adoption and sustainability. Reflecting honestly on previous challenges also makes it easier to put safeguards in place to avoid repeating the same pitfalls.

Understanding Development and Enhancement Cycles

Another important, and often overlooked, consideration is how a vendor approaches product development. New features do not appear overnight, and institutions are sometimes surprised by how much time, research, testing, and iteration go into meaningful development.

When evaluating a software partner, it is worth asking clear questions about what the development cycle looks like. How are new ideas gathered? How are feature requests evaluated and prioritized? What steps are involved between an idea being raised and a feature being released into production? Understanding this process helps institutions set realistic expectations internally and avoid frustration when requests cannot be implemented immediately.

In higher education, growth and consistency are not competing priorities. They are deeply interconnected goals that depend on an institution’s ability to innovate while maintaining a reliable, mission-aligned framework. Increasingly, technology has become the bridge that connects forward-thinking ideas with sustainable, day-to-day practices. When implemented thoughtfully, the right platform creates a unified environment where planning, assessment, and accreditation work in harmony rather than in isolation.

At the National University of Natural Medicine (NUNM), this balance is essential. As a specialized institution deeply committed to holistic education, NUNM operates in a space where mission and methodology must be tightly aligned. Like many concentrated or niche institutions, they face the challenge of needing structure and flexibility in equal measure. Their team, led by leaders such as Chief Operations Officer Iris Sobottke, sought a framework that would strengthen accountability, clarify alignment, and foster a culture of continuous quality improvement. SPOL became the solution that allowed them to bring all of these needs into one integrated system.

Before adopting an integrated planning and assessment platform, NUNM experienced challenges common across many campuses. Their systems were fragmented, which led to duplication of efforts and inefficiencies across departments. Visibility into institutional priorities was limited, making it difficult to understand how goals, assessment results, and accreditation evidence connected to one another. The institution recognized a clear need for an infrastructure that could support long-term growth while ensuring that every process, from strategic planning to accreditation reporting, aligned with their mission and objectives.

Implementing an integrated platform offered exactly that. With SPOL, NUNM first focused on building out institutional goals and aligning them with department-level objectives. The use of structured approval chains encouraged accountability and reduced the siloing that often slows institutional progress. In the Assessment module, NUNM linked assessment results directly to improvement plans, ensuring that data became actionable rather than static. This same data was also connected to programmatic accreditation, creating a seamless thread from learning outcomes to compliance reporting.

The Accreditation module completed the picture by enabling consistent documentation across all standards and improving visibility through dashboards and reporting. Together, these components formed a sustainable ecosystem that supported both daily operations and long-term strategy.

The impact was immediate and meaningful. NUNM experienced greater alignment between institutional priorities and measurable outcomes. Duplication was reduced, data accuracy improved, and campus engagement grew as teams developed a deeper sense of shared ownership. Most importantly, the institution strengthened its continuous quality improvement culture through transparency, integration, and reliable data.

Several key lessons emerged from NUNM’s experience. First, scalability is not about institutional size but about fit. A system should adapt to the people and processes it supports. Second, integrated processes ensure that planning, assessment, and accreditation inform one another rather than operate independently. Third, data-driven consistency builds confidence across teams. Transparency empowers people, and empowered teams contribute to sustainable growth.

Ultimately, technology is not a replacement for institutional vision. It is the foundation that helps institutions realize that vision with clarity, consistency, and long-term success. As Sobottke shared during the session, “It’s not about the size of your institution. It’s about finding a solution that truly fits and supports everyone.”

Assessing General Education (Gen Ed) outcomes has always been one of higher education’s most intricate challenges. Institutions must gather data from dozens, sometimes hundreds, of courses, align results to broad learning outcomes, and present meaningful insights that inform continuous improvement. Without the right tools, this process can easily become fragmented, inconsistent, and overwhelming.

Across higher education, many institutions face a familiar challenge: disconnected systems that make it difficult to see the bigger picture. When assessment, planning, and accreditation processes live in separate spaces, the result is often duplication of effort, misalignment of goals, and a fragmented understanding of institutional progress.

Managing grants is often a balancing act between accountability, transparency, and alignment with institutional priorities. At the Community College of Aurora (CCA), Jasmine Bjelland and Dr. Chris Tombari have developed a creative approach that turns these challenges into an opportunity for innovation. During a recent webinar, they shared how CCA has transformed the way they track grants by leveraging the planning module in SPOL.

The landscape of higher education is shifting rapidly, and institutions must evolve to meet the demands of a changing world. In our July webinar, Dr. Jonas Prida, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, Assessment, and Accreditation at Notre Dame of Maryland University, joined us to discuss the key challenges facing colleges and universities today and the innovative strategies some are using to stay ahead. The conversation offered both insight and inspiration, centering on how higher education can remain agile, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

When Dr. Tammy Russell and Barb Murk from their institution’s Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research realized their course-level assessment model wasn’t generating usable data, it became clear that change was necessary. In a recent SPOL webinar, they shared their journey transitioning from a fragmented, inherited system to a streamlined, purpose-driven program-level assessment model and the impact it’s had across their campus.

When a large public university set out to implement SPOL as its central platform for strategic planning, its leadership knew that successful adoption wouldn’t come from top-down mandates alone. Instead, they embraced a people-first approach, building trust, cultivating buy-in, and focusing on authentic engagement with end users across campus. What followed was a large-scale, thoughtfully coordinated rollout that laid the foundation for long-term success.

Successfully implementing a new software solution requires more than just configuration—it takes thoughtful, well-executed training that equips your end users with the skills and confidence to navigate the system effectively. At SPOL, we recognize that each institution is unique, which is why we offer multiple approaches to end-user training designed to match your institution’s size, structure, and needs. Two of the most impactful training options we offer are on-site end-user training and large-scale virtual training sessions. Here’s what each of these looks like and how to decide what’s right for your team.