Higher Ed Owns Plenty of Technology. The Question Is Whether It’s Delivering Value.
Higher ed tech leaders face mounting pressure to modernize aging infrastructure, respond to AI, strengthen security, and improve the student experience — all while operating with tighter budgets and leaner teams.
Yet licensing costs, implementation timelines, and feature sets provide only part of the picture when evaluating technology investments. Institutions also need to consider how technology fits within the broader ecosystem, whether people will use it, what complexity it adds or removes, and what it will take to sustain it over time.
In recent conversations with higher ed tech leaders, one point came through clearly: Acquiring and implementing technology often proves easier than sustaining it for years to come. As institutions work to set technology priorities and budgets for the year ahead, now is the time to determine what to add, what to consolidate, and where to get more from existing investments.
Start With the Problem and the Experience
Before evaluating a product, define the experience or institutional problem to improve. One technology executive described beginning these governance discussions with a statement of need: What does the business area want to accomplish? What capabilities already exist within the institution’s portfolio? What alternatives did the team consider? Answering those questions first prevents institutions from adding technology before they know whether they need another product.
For student-facing technology, map a meaningful portion of the student journey, such as admission through enrollment or orientation through the first semester. Then look for points of friction and fragmentation: how many systems and logins students juggle, how many communications they receive, and how many places they visit to complete tasks or find information. Each application may work as designed while students still struggle to navigate the overall environment. Staff often overcompensate by answering routine questions, directing students to resources, and bridging gaps between systems.
Look Beyond the License Price
Total cost of ownership becomes more complicated as institutions accumulate cloud platforms, AI tools, and specialized applications. The price of a license is easy to quantify. The staff required to manage integrations, access, support, security, contracts, and training often remains hidden.
Hidden complexity frequently runs deeper than institutions realize. In working with institutions to simplify their technology environments, we’ve seen one campus uncover 11 different enterprise project management tools and another identify dozens of CRM instances across a decentralized environment. Some duplication serves a purpose, particularly when academic, regulatory, or specialized requirements differ, but institutions should understand where it exists and why.
Evaluate technology by business capability and adoption, not simply by product. Take videoconferencing: How many tools support it, and what does the institution spend to deliver that capability? The platform with extensive functionality delivers limited return when few people use it. Return on value also provides a broader measure than financial ROI alone. A cybersecurity investment may primarily reduce institutional risk, while student-facing technology may improve access to resources or engagement. Both deliver substantial value without producing a simple dollar-for-dollar return.
