Table 3.

Criteria and information used in selecting a software system (n = 88) and satisfaction with existing system

CategoryCriteriaa,bExtremely or very important (%)
Functionality (8)Reporting capabilities90.28
 Ease of use86.12
 Ability for faculty to input own information75.35
 Customizable75.00
 Single system for all accreditation reporting66.66
 Speed to implement system60.56
 Other college/university systems compatibility46.48
 Ability to use university-wide27.53
Financial (2)Initial system cost80.56
 Ongoing (Annual) cost77.78
Vendor (1)Responsiveness of company81.95
Peer (1)System used by other institutions36.11
Information used in systemb selection
Vendor demonstration33.33
Colleague(s) referral27.64
Ability to use university-wide27.53
Prior data management system experience21.14
Accreditor’s representative recommendation9.76
Online reviews8.13
Software system satisfaction 
Would select same platform (n = 75)Likely to change platform (n = 77)
Faculty research system76.0Faculty research system27.3
Faculty sufficiency system74.7Faculty sufficiency system23.4
AOL system44.3AOL system29.7

Notes:

a Five-point Likert scale “extremely important” to “not important at all.” b Respondents could select multiple items

[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options