Executive Sponsors

• Dana German, Interim Vice President and Chief Information Office
• Brie Gertler, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
• Robyn S. Hadley, Vice President and Dean of Students, Chief Student Affairs Officer


• Past Sponsor: Virginia Evans, Vice President & Chief Information Officer

Co-Chairs

• Michelle Bell, Associate Director, Career Center
• Laura Hawthorne, Associate Vice Provost and University Registrar, Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost
   
• Past Chair: Nicole Eramo, Assistant Vice President and Chief of Staff, Office of the Vice President & Chief Student Affairs Officer, Dean of Students 

Project Managers for the Committee

• Katie Densberger, Provost’s Office
• Sam Waddell, ITS

Members

• James Bland, Director, Center for Diversity in Engineering
• Leah Blue, Senior Transfer Counselor, Provost’s Office
• Matthew Burgess, Director, Learning Technology Services
• Amanda Crombie, Assistant Dean for Academic Programs, Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy
• Dudley Doane, Director, International Studies, Summer & Special Academic Programs
• Heather Downs, Associate Athletics Director for Academics and Student Development
• Catrina Garland, Assistant Dean, Office of Admission
• Mike Holian, IT Supervisor, Student Financial Services
• Tom Horton, Associate Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
• Jessica Humphreys, Director of Information Technology, Housing and Residence Life
• Alex Johnston, Associate Director, Virginia College Advising Corps
• Courtney MacMasters, Accessibility Specialist, Student Disability Access Center
• Julia May, Associate Professor and Academic Administrator, BIS
• Sarita Mehta, Presidential Fellow
• Tracy Missett, Director of Undergraduate Programs, School of Education and Human Development
• Rachel Most, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Academic Programs and Professor, College of Arts and Sciences
• Danielle Muriel, Student Affairs Fellow, Multicultural Student Services
• Tracy Pettit, Director, Enterprise Applications
• Benjamin Raske, Director for Student Data and Information, McIntire School of Commerce
• Donald Reynard, Assistant Vice President, Custom Applications & Consulting Services
• Kyle Sturgeon, Assistant Dean, School of Architecture
• Kristin Wentland, Student Success Specialist, School of Nursing
• Brian Wright, Assistant Professor and Director of Undergraduate Programs, School of Data Science

A: Committee membership is drawn from more than 20 offices around Grounds. Members include a range of expertise, positions, and experience. We have been meeting monthly as a group since July 2022, and sometimes more frequently, for discussions around more specific topics or to review platforms. We started our work together by reflecting on our experiences working with students and on the needs of our faculty and staff colleagues. We then identified key priorities for potential platforms. These included: intuitiveness of the platform; simplification of tasks, planning processes and access to information; a people- and relationship-centered product; self-service functionality; accessibility with respect to users’ varying technical abilities and physical needs, and design features of the platform’s user interface; improving access to information and the visibility of support services.

A. The Committee is seeking a platform that can foster a collaborative approach to advising across Grounds and across siloes at the University. Whichever platform is eventually selected, the Committee hopes that it will accomplish several things: make it easier for students to connect with advisors in UVA’s many support offices; help advisors to communicate with advisees and to refer them to other advisors; and help advisors and administrators identify and connect with students who may need support. Specific tasks a selected platform is likely to perform include: advisor note-taking and note sharing; appointment scheduling; student course planning and enrollment; referrals; and advisor-advisee messaging. (Other functions are possible, but these are the most “core” and most likely to be included.)

A. The short answer is that we hope all undergraduates, all faculty and staff who are assigned as academic advisors or work to support students across academic departments, dean’s offices, Student Affairs, and other key offices around Grounds will use the selected platform.

Since we are seeking to foster collaboration, we intend that all undergraduate students will utilize the platform to connect with their advisors—both those who are assigned as well as those students seek out or are referred to. Many of the platforms reviewed so far would also allow students to plan their courses and enroll (without going to SIS), which we believe would both make it more likely that students would use the platform regularly and would provide advisors with good information so that they can best serve their advisees. Ideally, the platform would be used not only by assigned academic advisors but also more broadly by all faculty and staff who work with students, across departments and student support offices. For example, students should be able to connect with their pre-major academic advisor, favorite Career Center counselor, and the coordinator for their prospective major all in one place. Each of the platforms reviewed offers tools for administrators as well.

A. While there is broad agreement among Committee membership about the need to share information insofar as it helps us to connect students with the right support and information, there are also shared concerns about privacy and controls around information sharing. We have asked vendors to be thorough in their descriptions of options for controlling access to information and platform functions by role, unit, and information type, as well as for options that would help students to understand who can see their information. The Committee has also noted that it will be vital for leaders in student support units and central offices to develop guidelines and expectations associated with information sharing.

A. In August, the Committee viewed brief demonstrations and other documents from five vendors. We used these demonstrations to help refine the list of functionalities that we would like to see in a platform. This list was the basis for our Request for Information (RFI), which we submitted to all five vendors. We will receive their responses in mid-November. Those responses will provide us with a wealth of information about how each of these platforms works and the tasks each can and cannot perform. After the Committee reviews those responses, we will consider which of the five vendors’ platforms meet enough of our high-priority criteria to warrant further consideration. Vendors who rate the highest will be invited to provide longer demonstrations in January.

A. The Committee is eager to hear from stakeholders around Grounds, and we are looking forward to inviting our colleagues into this process. Vendors that the Committee determines to be finalists will give longer demonstrations of their platforms in January. There will likely be 2-4 vendors invited to participate in this round of demonstrations. While the specifics of these plans will be worked out over the next few months, we anticipate that each vendor will give several demonstrations, each intended for a different audience (students, advisors, etc.). The Committee will invite participation through broad channels, and members will reach out directly to colleagues and students from their own spheres to take part in these demonstrations and to provide feedback. Information about how to participate will be available on the Committee’s website as well. That information will become available as vendors and dates are finalized, probably in the second half of December.

A. The Committee’s proceedings are part of an official process for procurement, and the guidelines for that process dictate what information can be communicated publicly. Five vendors were invited to participate in the RFI process (Request for Information). We do not yet know which of these 5 will participate in the rest of the selection process. Once the Committee has reviewed responses to the RFI and determined which vendors will be finalists, those vendor names will be shared and stakeholders around Grounds will be invited to provide feedback.

A. The Committee will consider the feedback received from stakeholders and Committee members. This feedback will be compiled into a report which considers how well each vendor’s platform performs key tasks and aligns with our criteria and values. The Committee will weigh each platform’s pros and cons in a report to be delivered to the Provost on March 1, 2023. After that, the Provost, the Committee’s executive sponsors (Dana German [CIO], Brie Gertler [VPAA], and Robyn Hadley [VPSA]), and other University leaders will make a final decision regarding purchase and a timeline for implementation. The timeline for implementation will be tied to factors related to practical and technical preparations as well as forthcoming plans around the Advising Task Force’s other recommendations.