INSIGHTS | ORIENTATION SOFTWARE THAT FITS YOUR INSTITUTION
Orientation Software That Fits Your Institution’s Model
Every college or university operates orientation differently.
One institution may run a series of one-day orientation sessions.
Another may operate a multi-day program.
Some connect orientation closely with academic advising.
Others separate those responsibilities.
Registration, families, student groups, schedules, communications, check-in, online preparation, campus partnerships, and surrounding systems can all be handled differently.
Even institutions that appear similar from the outside may operate very differently once the work is understood.
That creates an important question when evaluating orientation technology:
Should the institution have to change its orientation model to fit the software, or should the software be able to fit the institution?
Orientation software should begin with how the institution actually operates
Orientation programs develop around the institution.
They are shaped by student populations, staffing, policies, academic processes, campus partnerships, existing technology, and years of operational experience.
That can affect seemingly simple responsibilities.
Who is eligible to register for a particular session?
When does advising occur?
How are students assigned to groups?
Do families participate alongside students or through a separate experience?
What happens before students arrive?
Which office owns a particular communication?
Which campus system should own a particular piece of information?
There is no reason to expect every institution to answer those questions the same way.
That is why orientation software should be evaluated in the context of the program the institution already operates.
Configuration can support many institutional differences
Different orientation models do not necessarily require different software.
Often, existing technology can be configured around the institution’s process.
Registration, forms, communications, schedules, task lists, participant experiences, and other responsibilities may be set up differently depending on what the institution is trying to accomplish.
The objective is to support the orientation program the institution has decided to operate.
Existing campus systems are part of the orientation operation
Orientation professionals rarely work within one system.
Admissions, student information, advising, learning, payment, identity, communications, and other institutional systems may all participate in the student transition.
The important question is usually not:
How do we replace all of those systems?
It is:
How should these systems work together, and which system should own each responsibility?
For one institution, orientation software may need to own registration and scheduling while another system owns academic advising.
At another, the orientation platform may participate in a broader part of the student experience.
Both can be appropriate.
The right technology footprint depends on the institution.
Orientation technology should be able to work with changing needs
An institution’s orientation program does not remain static.
Programs change.
Student populations change.
Policies change.
Campus systems change.
Responsibilities move between offices.
New ideas emerge.
An institution may also begin by using orientation software for one responsibility and later decide it makes sense to support additional parts of the operation.
The institution should be able to determine where the platform fits as its orientation program evolves.
What happens when the institution needs something different?
Configuration will not address every legitimate institutional need.
An institution may introduce a new process, connect another campus system, change a policy, or identify a different way it wants orientation to operate.
The first question should not automatically be:
What new feature needs to be built?
A better question is:
What is the institution trying to accomplish?
Sometimes an existing capability already addresses the need.
Sometimes the answer is configuration.
Sometimes systems need to work together differently.
And sometimes the institution may need the technology to support something it does not already do.
The important thing is having room to respond to legitimate institutional differences without assuming that every institution should operate the same way.
The people understanding the program matter too
Technology cannot fit an orientation program well if the people supporting it do not understand what the institution is trying to accomplish.
That is why conversations about orientation technology should not begin only with features.
They may begin with questions such as:
What does your orientation program look like today?
Which student populations participate?
What happens before, during, and after orientation?
Where does advising fit?
How do families participate?
Which systems already support the work?
Which offices are involved?
What is working well?
What would you like to operate differently?
The purpose of those questions is not to redesign the institution’s orientation program.
It is to understand it.
What should colleges and universities look for in adaptable orientation software?
There is no single orientation technology model every institution should adopt.
A better evaluation begins with the work the institution already owns.
Consider:
- Can the software support the orientation program we actually operate?
- What can be configured around our existing processes?
- Can it work with the campus systems we already use?
- Which responsibilities should the orientation platform own?
- Which responsibilities should remain in other institutional systems?
- Can different student populations follow different processes?
- Can the platform support changes in our program over time?
- What happens when we have a legitimate requirement the software does not already support?
- Can we begin with a focused responsibility and expand later if that becomes appropriate?
- Will the people working with us understand the operational work behind the request?
Those questions move the evaluation beyond the size of a feature list.
They help answer a more useful question:
Can this technology appropriately support the way our institution operates?
How VZOS® fits different orientation models
VZOS® is VisualZen’s Orientation Management Platform for colleges and universities.
It can support different institutional orientation models through existing platform capabilities, configuration, integrations, and, when appropriate, technology adapted around institution-specific needs.
An institution does not need to use VZOS® for every part of orientation.
One institution may begin with registration.
Another may focus on check-in and attendance.
Another may use VZOS® for personalized schedules, pre-advising, family programs, orientation leaders, or several connected responsibilities.
The appropriate role depends on what the institution has decided the platform should support.
VZOS® is designed to adapt to different institutional operating models rather than assume every institution should operate the same way.
Your orientation model is yours
There is no universal way to operate orientation.
Institutions have different students, staffing models, programs, policies, systems, academic structures, and campus environments.
VisualZen’s role is not to decide what that model should be.
Our job is to understand how your orientation program works, determine where VZOS® can appropriately support it, and continue adapting as your needs evolve.
Your orientation model is yours.
VZOS® can fit the role your institution has decided the platform should own.
