What Role Should Implementation Play When Choosing a Student Information System?

When institutions evaluate a new student information system (SIS), the focus naturally lands on whether the features and student needs align, necessary integrations are present, and whether the system will support the institution’s vision for the future. These are essential considerations. But one factor often sits uncomfortably in the conversation: implementation.

For higher education institutions, implementation feels like an expensive, time-consuming process that threatens to complicate an already difficult decision. For others, it’s treated as a checkbox: necessary, but secondary to selecting the “right” platform. In reality, implementation plays a far more nuanced role in SIS decision-making. Misunderstanding that role can put even the strongest system choice at risk.

Below we explore the role that implementation plays in the SIS selection process and how institutions can use implementation to help in their SIS decision-making process.

Implementation Shouldn't Drive the Decision, but It Shouldn't Be Ignored

Implementation should not dictate which SIS an institution selects. Institutions need a student information system that fits their academic models, supports their missions, and scales with their futures. Ultimately, choosing a system based solely on which vendor promises the fastest or easiest transition can lead to long-term misalignment.

That said, system implementation is incredibly important, and—regardless of vendor—it’s a complex process. SIS implementation requires translating how an institution actually operates into system configuration, data models, permissions, workflows, and integrations. To do this, institutions and vendors need to deal with legacy data that often reflects years of inconsistent coding, as well as policy changes that must be mapped, normalized, and validated. Informal or undocumented processes must be surfaced, clarified, and sometimes redesigned before they can be supported by the system. There’s also often an issue of siloed ownership, which means decisions about data, reporting, and integrations need to be coordinated across multiple offices.

For many institutions, staffing constraints limit how quickly this work can happen and how much change an institution can absorb at once. As a result, implementation is not a uniform experience across institutions.

The question, then, isn’t whether implementation should influence the decision. It’s how institutions should use implementation insight to make a better one.

What Implementation Really Is (and Isn't)

Much of the tension around implementation stems from a misunderstanding of what implementation actually is. Implementation is sometimes misunderstood as a service that vendors simply deliver or as an internal project that institutions manage entirely on their own. In reality, SIS implementation is a collaborative process: Vendors provide expertise, methodology, and guidance, while institutions provide the knowledge, context, and decision-making needed to configure the system successfully.

At its core, implementation is the work of translation. It involves taking years—sometimes decades—of institutional history and mapping it into a system designed to support the institution’s immediate needs as well as its future goals. Implementation as a process includes:

• Making informal or inconsistent processes explicit.
• Identifying who owns which data and why.
• Sequencing change so risk is managed rather than amplified.
• Coordinating across academic, administrative, and IT teams.
• Preparing staff to use a system and trust it.

This work is deeply operational, and it requires time, structure, and collaboration. It cannot be outsourced entirely. In fact, the quality of the vendor-institution partnership directly shapes success. A vendor with a clear methodology, structured approach, and collaborative mindset doesn’t just deliver software; they guide the institution through the complexities of the implementation process, ensuring the system is configured thoughtfully, staff are prepared, and the institution can realize the full value of its SIS.

Using Implementation as a Decision Lens

Rather than viewing implementation as a hurdle, institutions can use it as a lens for evaluating vendor partnerships.

Asking the right questions early can clarify not only what a system offers, but how well a vendor understands the realities of higher education operations. Questions about support (especially regarding limited staff capacity and technical expertise), change management best practices, and even what success “looks like” can help determine whether a student information system and a vendor is a good fit for an institution. An SIS can be a powerful piece of software, but without a thoughtful approach to implementation, institutions will never fully realize the true value of their SIS.

Why Vendor Experience Matters When It Come to Implementation

Not all implementation models are created equal. Some vendors treat implementation as a discrete project to complete as quickly as possible, often relying heavily on outsourced teams or templated approaches that may not account for the unique processes of each institution. Jenzabar, on the other hand, takes a more deliberate, methodical approach—one based around 40 years of recognizing, utilizing, and building upon industry best practices. We recognize that implementation is a multi-month partnership that requires careful sequencing, deep understanding of institutional context, and ongoing collaboration.

The difference is critical. Vendors with a proven methodology, internal expertise, and a structured process can help institutions anticipate challenges, surface undocumented workflows, and coordinate across offices.

Ultimately, choosing a vendor isn’t just about features or price—it’s also about finding a partner whose implementation approach aligns with the institution’s capacity, timeline, and ability to engage in a collaborative process. A thoughtful, well-supported implementation ensures that a new student information system goes live successfully and provides both immediate and long-term value.