University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Buy or build? A transaction cost economics view of university student record processing services

(USC Thesis Other)

Buy or build? A transaction cost economics view of university student record processing services

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 1
BUY OR BUILD? A TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS VIEW OF UNIVERSITY
STUDENT RECORD PROCESSING SERVICES

by

James M. Feigert

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 James M. Feigert

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 2
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank all of my mentors and supervisors who have encouraged,
inspired, motivated, and allowed me to pursue my education while maintaining my
professional responsibilities throughout the years. Sandi Bolivar and Mark Mitchell
deserve my gratitude for supporting my interest in admissions and student affairs work.
Melora Sundt and Kim West will always be fondly thought of when I look back on my
education in Education for pushing, supporting, and guiding me through the difficult and
not-so-obvious moments of graduate study. Carol Schmitz deserves special recognition
for not letting me give up on myself and always being an encouraging yet realistic voice
as well as an inspiration as to the type of career I wish to have. Finally, to Kenneth
Servis, Douglas Shook, Matt Bemis, and especially Robert Morley from the University of
Southern California Office of Academic Records and Registrar. Without their support,
approval, flexibility, guidance, and expertise, none of this would be possible.
My thematic group-mates: Donna Lewis, Jennifer Panagos, Michael Thomas,
Ilene Ivins, Acacia Warren, Ryan Eisenberg, Veronica Obregón Solis and Jason
Kuncewicki; I thank them for putting up with my demands, my quirks, my sense of
humor, and I especially thank them for their encouragement and sharing their
experiences and tremendous expertise in the important work they all do…we made it! I
also wish to thank committee members, Dr. Patricia Burch and Dr. Katharine Strunk for
their patience, feedback, and support of a rather focused case study of thin interest
outside my rather narrow professional endeavors. I especially thank my chair, Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke, for his guidance, expertise, motivation, persistence, and
benchmarking to keep me on task.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 3
To my parents: Linda Ferri, Norbert Kubilus, James Feigert, and Joann Feigert;
thank you for instilling in me the value of education, hard work, and respect for others
and those who educate. Your support – physical, emotional, and financial – has made
this journey so much easier to tread.
Last, I want thank my beautiful and supportive wife, Liz, who has had to find
other means of occupying herself during my long nights of class, writing, and studying.
She has been my inspiration and my reason for pursuing this endeavor in the first place.
Had she not been the most supportive partner a man could ever wish for, none of this
would have been possible. I love her more than any man could ever wish to love.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
Abstract 6
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 8
Background 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the study 13
Key Terms 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18
The Role of Credentials in Education 18
Electronic Data Exchange 20
Electronic Data Interchange 22
Extensible Markup Language 23
Portable Document Format 24
Transaction Cost Economics 29
Summary 33
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 35
Population and Sample 35
The Firm 35
The Vendor 36
Instrumentation 37
Piloting the protocol 41
Data Collection and Analysis 43
Data Collection 44
Data Analysis 44
Limitations 45
Summary 48
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 50
Organization of Data Analysis 50
Respondents 51
Report of the Findings 53
Research Question One: What factors are considered when deciding whether to
out-source or build a university’s record delivery system, how are they measured,
and how are they valued or weighted? 53
Research Question Two: What are the characteristics of the market for record
delivery services as reflected by the number and variety of organizations that utilize
and vendors that provide the services? 55
Research Question Three: What factors were considered which led the University of
Southern California to choose to use a vendor for their transcript services? 64
Research Question Four: What factors were considered which led to the decision
for USC to choose Parchment Exchange as their transcript vendor? 65
Summary 67
Conclusion 67
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 69
Cost and Efficiency of Document Fulfillment 69
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 5
Vendor cost 72
Services, Functionality, and Product 74
Electronic Document Exchange 75
Suggestions for Future Research 78
In-house Ability To Process Orders 78
Student Information System 79
Fee Structure and Cashiering 81
Vendor Characteristics and the Future 83
Closing 84
References 85
Appendix A 91
Appendix B 103
Appendix C 110
Appendix D 165

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 6
Abstract
In order to give students and alumni the best possible opportunities to secure the best
jobs in an increasingly global, competitive, and green job and graduate school market,
institutions can look to their record ordering and delivery processes for ways to
efficiently and securely verify their students’ degrees and credentials. The electronic
delivery of student records has proven to be a viable option for alleviating inefficiencies.
This study used Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) to investigate the decisions
universities make as to whether to build their own records delivery processes or to
purchase them from a vendor. What factors go in to the decision-making process and
what market characteristics are considered when making these decisions are two
important questions considered in investigating the sample institution, the University of
Southern California (USC), and its decision to out-source its record ordering services to
a vendor, Parchment Exchange™.
This was a qualitative study utilizing in-depth interview methods conducted at USC in
order to investigate its buy vs. build decision process as well a survey protocol
distributed to other colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada
in order to determine which schools utilize electronic record delivery, whether they use a
vendor, and why they did or did not use one. Findings from this study indicate that the
speed, efficiency, and functionality that vendors can offer institutions are key factors in
the decision to buy or build. Of particular interest are the ability to process credit card
payments and other cashiering functions as well as the ability to fulfill a large number of
requests. While many schools, particularly smaller schools and schools that do not
utilize electronic document exchange, have not chosen to utilize the services of vendor,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 7
larger schools and many of those delivering records electronically do use a vendor and
consider the above factors when deciding which vendors to choose.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background
Universities serve many functions: conducting and producing research, educating
students, raising money, and serving the community within which they exist, (Black,
2013). With so many high profile tasks and functions, it is often difficult to also focus on
and excel at other seemingly lower-profile and lower importance tasks (Gupta, Herath,
& Nathalie, 2005). Many of these tasks, though, are still vital to aspects of university
operations and relations. Maintenance, processing, and delivery of student records are
such tasks. Student transcripts are essential records of the student academic
performance and experience and, as such, their maintenance, security, and delivery are
important not only to the students, graduates, and recipients of the records, but,
subsequently, to the reputation, prestige, efficiency, and clout of the university. Trust,
respect, and reputation play important factors in universities’ abilities to raise money,
attract quality students, land lucrative and prestigious research projects, and assist their
graduates with job placement (Northouse, 2012). Having such a reputation, in turn,
helps attract quality students who will help conduct said prestigious and relevant
research, land lucrative jobs, and give back financially, socially, and with their time to
the university. So, while there seems to be tremendous logic in focusing efforts and
resources on the vital and high profile functions of the university, it is easy to see how
something so seemingly mundane as document maintenance and delivery may not
necessarily receive the attention of a university’s resources or development expertise.
Though the purpose of the higher education sector has been to teach and to
conduct research, and this has held true for centuries, the manner in which it operates
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 9
has changed (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005). The college experience has expanded from a
simple “sage-on-a-stage” to a full enterprise akin to a country club resort complete with
all the amenities. In addition to an education, students search for other marks of quality:
safe and up-to-date residence halls, state-of-the-art facilities, and the latest offerings in
technology. The costs of offering, operating, and maintaining these services for
students, in addition to an education, are growing astronomically (Comm & Mathaisel,
2005). Additionally, as tuition increases, students and their families demand more
return on their investment (Comm & Mathaisel).
Kilpatrick (2003) suggested that waste accounts for 95% of all costs in
businesses. As such, ways to eliminate waste in processes are vital. Such “lean”
processes provide a way to do more with less - less human effort, less equipment, less
time, and less space - while coming closer to providing customers with what they really
want (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005). Womack and Jones (1996) explained that lean theory
provides a way to specify value, line up value-creating action in the best sequence,
conduct these activities without interruption whenever someone requests them, and
perform them more effectively. Lean thinking is achieved by remaining focused on the
customer and the core competencies that the customer values from an organization
such as an institution of higher education (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005). When
implemented correctly, lean should result in the elimination of waste and more efficient
processes that provide better value to the customer. This will ensure more strategic
deployment of resources to allow the university to continue to economically thrive and
focus on core missions and functions (Comm & Mathaisel, 2005).
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 10
Statement of the Problem
Higher education institutions specialize in educating, research, fundraising, and
service, but also have other important needs that do not fall under their traditional realm
of expertise. As such, it is important that institutions of higher education maximize their
abilities to serve other student service functions efficiently. As the cost of attending
college rises, so too, do the expectations of service from students, parents, and alumni.
They expect convenient, fast, quality, thorough, hassle-free professional service, and
expect it delivered securely and utilizing the latest technology (Black, 2013). So, with
their focus on core university functions, it becomes more important for institutions to
achieve lean and efficient processes for their front-facing customer services. In a
struggling economy and competitive job market, students and alumni look to their
universities to afford them any and all opportunity to gain a leg up in their job searches
(Altbach, Reisberg & Rumbley, 2010). Reputation of the school, degrees earned, GPA,
research endeavors, and extra-curricular activities are all part of the graduate profile
that may be considered by potential employers and graduate school programs
(Stenstrom, Curtis, & Iyer, 2013). These are, generally, factors that students affect by
either choosing a particular school or by performing at a specific academic level. Out of
the students’ control are the processes of the university that could affect their future.
With graduates facing off against many other qualified applicants from around the
region, country, and world in a highly-contested job and graduate school application
market, factors outside of the students’ control can make a difference in hiring
decisions. One such factor is the time for delivery, convenience, and appearance of
their student record or transcript (Black, Reilly, Stanfield, & Torres, 2013).
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 11
Universities can affect the hiring processes in unforeseen negative ways by
utilizing inefficient or wasteful transcript processes. Likewise, lean and efficient record-
ordering processes can assist graduates by presenting credentials quickly, effectively,
efficiently, and professionally. Kilpatrick (2003) described waste as the cause for much
inefficiency and stated lean practices can affect tremendous improvements in cost and
efficiency. As such, and given that record maintenance, processing, and delivery are
not functions typically associated with the core mission of universities nor one of their
strengths, is it worth spending time and resources, both financial and human, that
normally would be allocated toward primary university functions on finding more efficient
document delivery methods (Gupta, Herath, & Nathalie, 2005)? Adding a degree of
uncertainty to this question, Comm and Mathaisel (2005) asserted that there are no
commonly agreed upon metrics for institutional efficiency, though this is an issue that
has been addressed, in part, by Womack and Jones (1996), who asserted that “lean”
practices are a way to decipher the value added activities from those that are waste .
These types of issues are at the heart of Transaction Cost Economics, an economic
theory that investigates an institution’s decision to build its own solution or service or to
contract the services out to a vendor that may be better capable of performing the
service (Williamson, 1985). A vendor that focuses in a specialized function may have
access to better technology, practices, personnel, connections, and expertise in
performing the function; so much better that it could prove less costly in the long term to
hire the outside service than to develop the service on their own, thus helping the
institution achieve lean and efficiency (Williamson, 1985).
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 12
Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009) described the burgeoning globalization
of the economy and higher education system and the unique challenges it presents in
regards to accommodating disparate global educational systems, credentialing, degree
and course verification, and document delivery to an increasingly mobile student body.
This increasingly global education market and mobile student, employer, and graduate
school population necessitates that universities re-evaluate their credential and records
delivery practices in order to accommodate students and alumni living or working
nationwide and abroad. The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers (AACRAO) made this topic of globalization a priority. For example,
at the 2013 annual AACRAO conference, University of Texas at Austin Registrar,
Shelby Stanfield commented that student mobility is extremely important, nationally and
internationally (personal communication, April 15, 2013).
In 2012, education leaders from China, India, Italy, Russia, Norway, The
Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and the USA signed The
Groningen Declaration stating that the signatories recognize a need to establish a more
complete and far-reaching delivery of digital student data due to a growing awareness in
large parts of the world’s politics and academics as well as to public opinion (Groningen
Declaration, 2012). Groningen exemplifies a newfound focus placed on the
international portability of student records. Stanford University Registrar, Tom Black
(2013), a Groningen contributor, explained that “in short order” there will be one million
foreign students studying in US universities and countless others of our US students
studying abroad. This global focus makes the digital exchange of student records more
important than ever (Black, Reilly, & Stanfield 2013). Further, White (2007) wrote about
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 13
the pressures for change that educational institutions face as a result of globalization.
Some of these changes are the expectation of global competitiveness, living in an age
of convenience, and a global expectation of practical competence (White, 2007).
This phenomenon of educational globalization is of particular interest for the
university at the focus of this study, the University of Southern California (USC). USC
has manifestly emphasized its role as a “global institution” in its mission statement and
in addresses and statements by its presidents over the past 20 years (e.g. “The Role
and Mission of the University of Southern California”, 1993; Nikias, 2010, 2011, 2012)
and long before the inception, writing, and signing of the Groningen Declaration.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to determine the factors considered by universities
when deciding what records delivery system to utilize. Through a brief survey
investigation of transcript processing procedures at several colleges and universities
throughout the United States and Canada and one in-depth investigation of the
University of Southern California, this study sought to answer the following research
questions:
1. What factors are considered when deciding whether to out-source or build a
university’s record delivery system, how are they measured, and how are they
valued or weighted?
2. What are the characteristics of the market for record delivery services as
reflected by the number and variety of organizations that utilize and vendors that
provide the services?
a. What vendors are there?
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 14
b. What are the dimensions of the services?
c. Are documents delivered electronically (as EDI, XML, or PDF)?
d. Are security and encryption assured?
e. Is the vendor abreast and fluent in FERPA and PESC standards?
3. What factors were considered which led the University of Southern California to
choose to use a vendor for their transcript services?
4. What factors were considered which led to the decision for USC to choose
Parchment Exchange as their transcript vendor?
Investigating the answers to these research questions provided an analysis of the
multiple factors that affect the decisions regarding transcript processing services and
took into account the culture of the institution, its organizational structures and the
characteristics of decision makers within the institution.
To investigate these research questions, this research consisted of a qualitative
case study of the implementation of records processing services at several colleges
throughout the United States. Differences among various institutional factors create a
degree of variance that allows for an in-depth study of how these factors relate to the
decision to utilize vendor services for transcript delivery or build the service in house.
The major qualitative techniques in this study included a semi-structured interview of a
key registrar staff member as well as informational surveys administered to colleges
through a listserv of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers (AACRAO). Patton (2002) indicated that a qualitative investigation of programs
is warranted when a deep understanding of the interplay between multiple factors is
needed and cannot be evaluated through the mere aggregation of quantitative data.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 15
The areas identified in the research questions call for an in-depth investigation of the
ways in which individual and organizational factors affect one another and how these
relate to the overall implementation of online education. Maxwell (2013) suggested
qualitative research is appropriate for understanding how processes influence decisions
or how those processes play a role in a particular outcome or decision.
Key Terms
1) Student Records: Collection of academic, disciplinary, and demographic data
relating to students of a particular institution of education. Transcripts, diplomas,
and enrollment verifications are some examples of frequently accessed records.
2) Transcripts: History of academic performance for a student (AACRAO).
3) FERPA: The Family Education Right to Privacy Act: Established in 1974,
sometimes referred to as The Buckley Amendment (AACRAO).
4) Electronic Data Exchange (EDX): Any technology used to electronically
exchange information between two computer systems (AACRAO).
5) Electronic Transcripts:
a. EDI: Electronic Data Interchange. A standardized electronic exchange of
data between organizations.
b. XML: Extensible Markup Language is a markup language that defines a
set of rules for encoding documents in a format that is both human-
readable and machine-readable.
c. PDF: Portable Document Format (PDF) is, in effect, simply an electronic
picture of a paper document; originally developed and trademarked by
Adobe Systems Inc. (AACRAO).
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 16
6) Rights Management: The ability to control the security and accessibility features
of a document (Parchment Exchange).
7) AACRAO: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers.
8) SPEEDE: Standardization of Postsecondary Education Electronic Data
Exchange committee. Part of AACRAO and was developed to aid colleges and
universities to exchange student and other data electronically (AACRAO).
9) PESC: Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council. PESC promotes the
implementation and usage of data exchange standards, PESC does not set
(create or establish) policies related to privacy and security as established by
FERPA (AACRAO).
10) Open Source: A service (typically software or online program) that is available to
anyone; often without a fee, but sometimes with a fee (opensource.com).
11) SIS: Student Information Systems. The system by which a school stores and
manages its student records and information (AACRAO).
12) ANSI: American National Standards Institute. Oversees the development of
voluntary consensus standards for products, services, processes, systems, and
personnel in the United States. The organization also coordinates U.S. standards
with international standards so that American products can be used worldwide
(AACRAO).
13) ASC: Accredited Standards Committee. A group of standards supported by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ASC creates consistent standard
data elements for healthcare transactions such as: claims and encounters,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 17
eligibility inquiries and responses, claim status inquiries and responses, referrals
and prior authorizations, and healthcare payment and remittance advice
(AACRAO). Prior to the creation of PESC, ANSI was the collaborating
committee AACRAO members partnered with to establish electronic education
record standards.
14) Sheepskin effects: refer to gains in earnings associated with the completion of a
diploma or degree, controlling for years of schooling (Bailey & Bellfield, 2011).

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The Role of Credentials in Education
On average, people who earn college degrees and other postsecondary
certification are paid more than people who only achieve a high school diploma — a lot
more (Barton, 2008). Economists refer to this as the wage premium (Barton, 2008).
Ferrer and Riddell (2008) refer to the “sheepskin effect” with regard to earnings.
Sheepskin effect refers to gains in earnings associated with the completion of a diploma
or degree, controlling for years of schooling (Bailey & Bellfield, 2011) as opposed to
simply learning new skills, which also commands a wage premium, though not as high a
premium as degree or credential completion (Schneider & Yin, 2012; Tyler, Murnane, &
Willett, 2000). Another way of interpreting sheepskin effects is the value of program
completion – the difference in earnings between those having earned a diploma versus
non-completers with the same amount of schooling (Barton, 2008). The earnings of
college-educated as compared to high school-educated workers have risen steadily for
almost three decades.
After three decades of sustained increases, the return to skills as typically
measured by the earnings ratio of college graduates relative to high school graduates is
at a historic high (Autor, 2010). Additionally, college attendees work more hours per
week and more weeks per year than high school graduates, spend less time
unemployed, and receive a disproportionate share of nonwage fringe benefits, including
sick and vacation pay, employer-paid health insurance, pension contributions, and safe
and pleasant working conditions. These gaps in nonwage benefits between high and
low-education workers have each grown over the past several decades (Autor, 2010).
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 19
Barrow and Rouse (2005) also found that this so-called wage premium has risen since
1980, although the rate of increase slowed in the mid-1990s. Research overwhelmingly
shows that workers with at least a bachelor’s degree earn more than those without
(Haskins & Kemple, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2010). An ever increasingly-global
society and economy necessitate the most educated workforce possible. There are
many social scientists and policy-makers who argue that a globalizing labor market
requires a more skilled labor force. Because of this, students may be compelled to
attain particular educational credentials, like bachelor’s degrees, for more skilled jobs or
for jobs that did not require them in the past decades (Goyette, 2008).
The 2007 economic crisis led to a tremendous increase in the unemployment
rate. With so many people out of work and so few jobs available, the businesses that
were hiring could and needed to be more particular about the credentials of the
employees they were hiring (Lau, Lau, Alhasani, & Williams, 2011). Prior to the
downturn, with the market flush with jobs and short on candidates, credentialing was not
nearly as essential as it is today. At the same time, the seemingly desperate economic
situation led to desperate measures by many candidates. Measures such as falsifying
credentials became more common (Gollin, Lawrence, & Contreras, 2010). This was
illustrated not only by candidates simply claiming they had a legitimate degree from a
legitimate institution, but it was also aided by the proliferation of businesses specializing
in fraudulent, yet realistic-appearing, educational credentials such as transcripts and
diplomas. The need for verification of secure, official university credentials became
paramount to employers, government agencies, and universities alike (Gollin,
Lawrence, & Contreras, 2010). Businesses like diploma mills, businesses that sell
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 20
bogus degrees to customers in search of easy credentials, were an unfortunate
response to the market forces that link education and personal economic advantage
(Gollin, Lawrence, & Contreras, 2010) – a market made even more evident in an
economy and job market in decline. Torres (2013), in his remarks to AACRAO regarding
the Groningen Declaration, asserted that credential fraud has risen to a $2.5 billion
international business, necessitating cooperation among education institutions, entities,
and nations to establish a secure credentialing and data exchange relationship.
The increased globalization of education placed and extra burden on
credentialing. Speakers at the 2013 AACRAO conference spoke to this when
explaining their interest in the Groningen Declaration (T. Shelby Stanfield, personal
communication, April 16, 2013). Additionally, with the numbers of foreign students
studying in America about to reach one million, the need to exchange student data and
records for credentialing, verification, and certification purposes is greater than ever
(Black, 2013). This number is likely dwarfed by the number of American students
studying abroad, either part-time or permanently (T. Black and T.S. Stanfield, personal
communication, April 16, 2013).
Electronic Data Exchange
Electronic Data Exchange (EDX) is a technology using structured data formats
and software translators to communicate information between two computer systems
(AACRAO). Partners exchanging data agree to use the standard data formats and
program their computers to audit documents, transmit them electronically to one
another, and notify senders of received documents. Though EDX has been used for
more than fifty years, it is a relatively new tool in higher education. Most of the research
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 21
in the arena focuses on electronic record maintenance, medical records specifically, but
not very much has been written about electronic data delivery of student records in the
field of higher education. This is potentially due to early hesitations to implement such
technology by institutions (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). Despite
universities’ traditionally being leaders in research, technology, and innovation, the
research in this area has not been heavily published. Not surprisingly, though, it is the
higher education community that has produced much of what little research is available.
This research has been done primarily through the Standardization of Postsecondary
Education Electronic Data Exchange (SPEEDE) committee of the American Association
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). SPEEDE coordinates and
leads the development of these national exchange standards by representing
postsecondary education in the appropriate standards-setting bodies. These bodies
include the Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council (PESC), the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), and the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) (AACRAO,
2013).
The globalization of higher education, combined with increased expectations of
service from an increasingly tech-savvy student body and alumni base, increased tuition
and the expectations of services that go with it, and overall expectations of instant
service in a “digital world” all mean that universities can no longer effectively serve
students with paper documents (Black, 2013). Increased costs and the more complex
student needs raise expectations and the need for services to a point that paper
requests, processing, and delivery of records are simply no longer feasible in a global
and fraud-ridden society (Black, 2013; Torres, 2013). Three generally accepted formats
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 22
of EDX for education records were reviewed and had standards established by PESC:
Electronic Data Interchange, Extensible Markup Language, and Portable Document
Format (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011).
Electronic Data Interchange
With the advent of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) technology in 1996 came a
structured transmission of data between organizations via electronic means (Harris,
Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). EDI allows one computer to send data to another
computer, which, in turn, can process the data and present or interpret it. It is
considered “open-source” in that any organization can send or receive data via EDI
transmission. EDI requires a predefined format or standard that precisely defines the
elements of the electronic message. The standard permits both the sender's computer
and the receiver's to understand each other without additional human intervention. Data
must be in coded format and the receiver's computer must be told, in advance, what
data to expect and in what format. The data must then be transmitted in that specific
manner in order to be read and understood by the receiving computer (Harris, Hannah,
Stones, & Morley, 2011). EDI is a widely used method for distributing student transcript
data between schools, agencies, and other parties that utilize common technology for
automated data reception and processing (Harris et al., 2011).
Given its history, having been around since 1996, EDI is still often a preferred
method of delivery for many, since more institutions are familiar with and equipped to
handle EDI data (Do, 2010). While newer formats may have some display, delivery,
and technical advantages, the ability and know-how to exchange data via an already
established EDI network has advantages as opposed to possibly needing additional
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 23
training and/or software to implement other forms of data exchange. In short, there are
already a few thousand schools capable of utilizing EDI technology. As such, an
argument can be made for its use as opposed to a technology that far fewer schools
may be capable of utilizing (Holmes, 2013).
Extensible Markup Language
Extensible Markup Language (XML) is also an open-source format commonly
available (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). XML is increasingly incorporated
into college student information systems and other software. XML is identified with web
compatibly, easy (plain text) formatting, and compatibility with most programming
languages and software packages because XML parsing is already included in their
frameworks. For these reasons, XML is potentially significantly less expensive and,
increasingly, is the preferred language over EDI for peer-to peer electronic delivery (Do,
2010).
EDI or XML delivery are the most appropriate formats for sending documents for
schools that send large volumes of transcripts to one or more other colleges or higher
education agencies. Likely EDI/XML usage scenarios are community colleges and
institutions with a large number of students who transfer to other institutions, as records
are transmitted in that specific manner in order to be read and understood by the
receiving computer (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). These institutions may
belong to state systems, partnerships, consortia, or other groups whose members
frequently exchange data with each other. EDI/XML can easily be incorporated into this
routine secure exchange of data securely (Black, 2013). This can greatly reduce the
overhead involved with receiving, transcribing, and handling paper documents
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 24
transmitted in that specific manner in order to be read and understood by the receiving
computer (Harris et al.)
EDI and XML are also the appropriate formats for schools that receive many
transcripts from one or more other colleges (Bemis, Do, & Holmes, 2013). Examples
include admissions offices that routinely receive thousands of college or high school
transcripts from applicants. As with the sending institutions, being a part of a state
system or consortium increases the ability of the recipient schools to normalize the
procedures and implement a common software used to decode the EDI and XML data
and integrate it in to the school’s student information system (SIS) and other
administrative systems. Information Technology (IT) resources are required for
implementation, but the specialized knowledge needed for support of EDI/XML is
increasingly available (AACRAO, 2013).
Portable Document Format
Portable Document Format (PDF) is, in effect, simply an electronic picture of a
paper document (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). This format provides ease
of delivery via email attachments over the internet or as web hosted unique objects
(URLs) that can be accessed through web browsers and easily uploaded into imaging
systems such as job application sites, college admissions sites, and personal web
pages. These transmitted images are then easily read and understood by the recipient
(Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). Since it is essentially an electronic image of
a paper document, the PDF is the format that renders the student record most
recognizable as the traditional paper transcript. There are generally three models for
PDF transcript delivery (Black, 2013; Harris et al., 2011)
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 25
1) Internal creation. The school generates PDF transcripts and transmits them to
the designated recipient via secure web service (https) using unique URL and Password
combination emailed to the recipient. It is only official “as delivered” and not for
subsequent copying, or other uses.
2) “Virtual” Mail-box/Exchange Partnerships. The school establishes that its
vendor has a partnership arrangement with a listed school/agency to which the
transcript is to be delivered. A PDF transcript is securely delivered to a virtual mail-box
maintained by the vendor for that recipient school. Employees, or systems, of that
recipient school either upon email notice from the vendor or routinely, check the mail-
box and retrieve contents and then route the PDFs internally as needed (Harris,
Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011).
3) Direct distribution to individuals. The school generates the transcript and
delivers it, along with the email address of the recipient, to a vendor. The vendor
notifies the recipient that a transcript is waiting, usually separating the unique URL for
the PDF from the password needed to open it.
Any of these solutions can accommodate PDFs that are digitally signed – where
proprietary technology embeds security features and permissions within the data stream
of the individual PDF so that its authenticity can be confirmed and any alterations can
immediately be apparent or cause the PDF to be unreadable (Harris, Hannah, Stones,
& Morley, 2011). This ability to add and control the security of the document is a major
factor in the appeal of all EDX methods, but highlights the PDF specifically as a viable
delivery method. Traditional paper transcripts also contain security measures such as
watermarked and/or copy resistant paper, heat-sensitive security strips embedded
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 26
within the stock, and tamper-evident/proof envelopes. Some institutions also seal and
stamp transcript envelopes across the back with markings such as the Registrar’s
signature, the university seal, or an “unofficial if opened” stamp (AACRAO). The
security features possible with PDFs mimic those utilized with the paper transcripts, but
the PDFs are considered more reliable and authenticity can be determined more quickly
and confidently (Harris et al, 2011). Consider the scenarios of the traditional paper
transcript that gets lost in delivery without the sending institution or the recipient ever
becoming aware. Lost transcripts have the potential to become altered transcripts or
intercepted personal information. PDFs with embedded rights management allow the
sending institution to deactivate or revoke the document, an option not available to
traditional delivery. Transcripts with colored backgrounds and/or foregrounds can be
replicated with color printers. Signatures and stamps can be replicated by any savvy
user of a scanner and desktop publishing software. Even security envelopes can be
defeated simply with an old-fashioned steam iron (Do, 2010).
PDF solutions are most appropriate for schools sending large volumes of
transcripts to individuals, usually prospective employers or the students themselves.
The technology needed to accept, retrieve, and view the PDF is simply a computer with
an internet connection (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). Any computer with
PDF viewing software is capable of utilizing PDF technology. This is what makes PDF
the ideal EDX technology for schools needing to send to individuals. Very few individual
students, businesses, or organizations will have the knowledge, equipment, or ability to
receive, decode, and view EDI or XML documents, but everyone can view the
document sent as a PDF. Additionally, the PDF can be delivered as an accompaniment
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 27
to graduate school applications, job applications, and résumés where individual
receivers and reviewers of the documents are likely to wish to view them all side by
side. The PDF can be easily utilized this way and, better still, can be saved along with
other electronic documents for subsequent viewing, sharing, and retrieval (Harris et al,
2011).
It should be noted as well that EDI, XML, and PDF technologies are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Some schools, such as Stanford and BYU, combine
technologies by sending secured PDF transcripts with XML data embedded within
(Black & Leishman, 2013). This allows for clicking on sections of the PDF and bringing
up the XML in a readable format that can display data such as course descriptions,
syllabi, instructor information, student CV, and numerous other possibilities (Black &
Leishman, 2013). Additionally, the usefulness of PDF and PDF-embedded technology
has implications for the emerging arena of electronic student portfolios (Black & Chen,
2013).
Early hesitations. Norris and Olson (1997) wrote about higher education’s
having a “disappointing” beginning with regards to the use of EDX delivery as compared
to the progress that commercial and corporate enterprises made in embracing EDI
technology. Norris and Olson speculated that traditions and the generally risk-averse
nature of universities were the main causes for a slow adoption of EDX technologies,
rather than any particular flaw with EDI technology. Do (2010) stated that perceived
“threats” of EDX included inability or lack of desire by lawyers and users to understand,
implement, and incorporate the technologies involved. The involvement of lawyers
primarily was discussed as they factored in to the interpretation of what effect the
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 28
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) had on the integrity and privacy of
information exchanged (Do). FERPA is not media specific, but, rather, is concerned
with what data is maintained, how it is maintained, and how and to whom it is released.
Another way of stating this is to say that FERPA is media neutral. The key with regards
to FERPA is to look at the processes regardless of the method of exchange (Do, 2010).
Additionally, Wermers (1997) wrote that there are two potential road-blocks that impede
EDI progress. One is the need for a critical mass of participants to realize a return on
investment in developing EDI. EDI is an electronic development of a type different from
campus independent innovations that many institutions may have been used to. Unlike
such developments as automated registration and automated degree summaries, EDI
can be valuable and cost-effective only if other campuses have EDI capability and are
able and willing to use it. Said another way, if there are no trading partners, the
technology is useless (AACRAO Transcript Taskforce, 2010). This is necessary to
assure a volume of exchange that will make it financially feasible to implement. In this
sense, EDX is no different from telephone or fax installation, that is, if you have the only
one, there is no one with whom to communicate. Also like telephones and fax, the
more EDI installations in existence, the greater their utility and the more efficient and
viable a solution EDI becomes. One problem with this critical mass concept, though,
was that institutions may have been tempted to wait until many other trading partners
exist with EDI capability before investing in its development.
Wermers (1997) described the second roadblock as being a very familiar one.
Inherent with each proposal for a new computer application is a degree of difficulty in
having the proposal accepted by the decision makers on campus. Wermers (1997)
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 29
suggested two major factors contributed to that difficulty: 1) the perceived number of
people/offices involved in implementing the systems and 2) the high implementation
cost.
Weighing the cost of implementing any EDX method versus the costs of not
utilizing EDX and/or the cost of processing student records via traditional methods (e.g.,
paper, toner, postage, labor, time) necessitates that analysis of these decisions be
measured through the lens of Transaction Cost Economics.
Transaction Cost Economics
According to Williamson (1985), Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) focuses on
transactions and the costs incurred via completing transactions by one institutional
mode rather than another. The transaction, a transfer of a good or service, is the unit of
analysis in TCE, and the means of affecting the transaction is the principal outcome of
interest (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). Through TCE practice, transactions are
conducted such that the costs involved in carrying them out are minimized. TCE also
suggests that the costs and difficulties associated with market transactions sometimes
favor hierarchies (in-house production, A.K.A. “build”) and sometimes favor markets
(outsourcing, A.K.A. “buy”). Proponents of outsourcing in the business world recognize
that the vendors can often provide services more efficiently and at lower cost than can
the public sector (Jefferies, 1996). Also, many proponents of outsourcing often point
out that outsourcing to a vendor can reduce the institution’s labor and benefits costs,
provide a single point of accountability, and provide predictable costs (and also costs
can be kept to a minimum level); the resulting savings allow the institution to focus more
resources on its core educational operations – teaching and research (Ender & Mooney,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 30
1994). Black (2013) advocated for the use of vendors for many university functions
because vendors perform a single function and need to focus on performing that single
function very well in order to stay in business, whereas universities perform many
functions and have a tendency to become mired in inefficient bureaucracies. As the
Registrar at the University of Chicago and, at the time of this study, at Stanford
University, Black has been on the cutting edge of electronic data exchanges and how
best to utilize vendor services for this (R. Morley & M. Pittinsky, personal
communication, April 14, 2013).
TCE asks, for example, what do registrars pay for paper, printers, postage, and
labor to print and manually receive transcript requests? Analyzing practices through the
lens of TCE may also lead registrars to investigate whether what they pay by utilizing
electronic request and delivery methods might pay vendors, instead, for their services?
Also, the institutions may direct those costs to the students or alumni as a convenience
fee. Registrars need to carefully weigh their budgets, current expenses, including labor,
and the volume of transcripts they produce against the fees charged by vendors and
how much of the cost students should bear (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005).
Many, if not all organizations must, at some time, decide whether to build their
own processes and services or buy them from another company or provider. This is
also true of higher education institutions. Gupta, Herath and Mikouiza (2005)
recognized that there had been a very limited amount of data or statistics about
outsourcing in higher education and that the need for such data was growing as more
institutions turned to outsourcing to provide many of their services. Their work
suggested that outsourcing secondary activities such as dining, housing, bookstores,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 31
grounds-keeping, janitorial services, and employee compensation allows institutions to
concentrate their efforts more on their core mission of educating students, conducting
research, and developing skills necessary for graduates to find good jobs and to be
meaningful contributors to society (Gupta, Herath and Mikouiza).
The idea of transaction costs was first proposed to explain why firms choose to
make some components and purchase others. Thouin, Hoffman, and Ford (2009)
described the cost for a firm to produce a product or service internally as termed the
production cost, while the cost of purchasing a product or service is termed a
transaction cost. Firms produce a product or service internally (build) when it is
economically more cost effective than purchasing the same product or service on the
open market (buy). Purchasing a product or service involves an additional cost: that of
conducting the transaction. Transaction costs depend on three factors: the frequency of
the transaction, uncertainty, and the asset's specificity (Thouin, Hoffman, & Ford, 2009).
TCE makes two primary assumptions about human behavior. The first is that
decision makers are bounded rationally. Because they do not have perfect market
information, they may sometimes have to make do with simply having enough
information in order to feel comfortable completing a transaction. The second
assumption is that some people engage in opportunistic behavior, and it may be
necessary for a firm to monitor the other party's performance, which adds to the cost of
conducting a transaction (Thouin, Hoffman, & Ford, 2009).
Transactions that have a high frequency of occurrence typically have lower
transaction costs. Conversely, a high degree of uncertainty contributes to higher
transaction costs (Thouin, Hoffman, & Ford, 2009). Uncertainty includes the cost
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 32
associated with searching for information in the market and can represent a significant
portion of overall transaction cost as complete information on all prices and products at
any given time is impossible. People use satisficing behaviors, choosing the best
alternative from the readily available solutions given the information available (Thouin,
Hoffman, & Ford, 2009). Simon (1983) defined satisficing as choosing that which might
not be optimal but which will make one happy enough. People and, thus, organizations
use satisficing behaviors because uncertainty about the future and costs in acquiring
information in the present limit the extent to which agents can make a fully rational
decision (Simon, 1983). A “good enough” decision can be the result of an
organization’s leaders needing a solution now but not having the time, resources, or
knowledge to conduct a thorough investigation of all the options available. As such,
they may do some research, look at some options, and choose the best one they find
that will meet their needs at this time. This, at its core, is satisficing behavior (Thouin et
al., 2009).
From a college and university perspective, student records have a very high
occurrence of exchange. Hundreds of thousands of students graduate every year and
millions more remain enrolled at schools. All of these students have some need at
some time for their records to be ordered, delivered, and exchanged. Thouin, Hoffman,
& Ford’s (2009) work would characterize this high frequency of exchange as a
transaction with low transaction costs. Though the frequency of the exchange may
lower transaction cost, the medium used, time spent on task, and money spent on
materials and labor can not only increase the material costs of the actual document
processing transactions, but also bottleneck the process and prevent more transactions
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 33
from being completed (Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley, 2011). The fewer
transactions that are completed, the higher the transaction cost (Thouin et al., 2009). It
then follows that, whatever can be done to reduce the bottlenecks, allowing for an
increase in transactions - would reduce the transactions costs (Thouin et al., 2009). If,
while reducing transaction costs, a school can also reduce the material costs by
eliminating the need for transcript stock, security envelopes, postage, printer toner, and
other supplies, the cost of the transaction is greatly reduced while providing superior
customer service to the school’s students, alumni, and transcript trading partners. EDX
is a way to replace paper forms, stock, and envelopes with electronic delivery and
exchange of information. EDX trading partners realize the numerous benefits: time
savings in getting information from the sender to the destination institution; increased
accuracy of data; elimination of data entry at the destination institution; data transmitted
from the sender is exactly equal to the data received at the destination; cost savings as
manual systems are replaced by electronic ones; and improved data integrity when
used in conjunction with a data encryption software (AACRAO SPEEDE, 2013). Each of
these benefits aids in reducing material costs (Harris et al.) while also increasing the
number and frequency of transactions that can be processed; thus reducing transaction
costs (Thouin, et al., 2009).
Summary
Based on the literature relating to credentials, EDX and TCE, institutions can look
to EDX as a viable means for providing increasingly efficient, accurate, and secure
student record delivery while greatly reducing the material and transaction costs of their
record delivery processes. In addition, the need for fast, efficient, electronic delivery
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 34
has become increasingly vital with an ever-increasing focus on global education. This
study, then, focused on how to determine the best way to provide that delivery service.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 35
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This is a case study of the relationship between firm and vendor and the factors
and decisions involved that lead to a contracting decision for student document delivery
services. This analysis will offer insight to other universities when analyzing their
document delivery services as well as to vendors when planning and implementing their
future business models and/or service enhancements and upgrades and/or service
enhancements and upgrades.
Population and Sample
The Firm
The University of Southern California (USC) is a private, not-for-profit, research
university located in central Los Angeles, California. USC was founded in 1880, making
it California's oldest private research university. The institution has historically educated
a large number of the city's and state’s business leaders and professionals. The
university has also leveraged its location in Los Angeles to establish relationships with
research institutions throughout Asia and the Pacific Rim. Reflecting the status of Los
Angeles as a global city, USC has the largest number of international students of any
university in the United States. USC has a total enrollment of 42,000 students; 17,500
undergraduate and 24,500 graduate and professional students. USC enrolls students
from all 50 US states, has graduated students from every country and currently has
over 300,000 living alumni. Due to USC’s international presence and international
student enrollment, many of USC’s alumni live internationally.
Annually, USC processes approximately 55,000 student transcripts. Processing
transcripts involves collecting the order, searching for the record, retrieving student data
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 36
from the university’s student information system (SIS), printing the transcript, and
delivering the document to the requested destination. Prior to 2008, only traditional
paper transcripts were available and could only be delivered through US mail or picked
up in person. Transcript requests were collected via fax, US mail, and walk-in requests.
Additionally, USC partnered with the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) for web-
based transcript fulfillment. In an effort to provide better service to its students, more
efficient processing by the registrar staff, and to cut down on the amount of paper
utilized in order to comply with the university’s eco-friendly green campaign, the Office
of Academic Records and Registrar (AR&R) investigated means by which to deliver
student records electronically. Several decisions then followed: a) which method of
electronic transcript delivery to use; b) design and build the process, system, and
module themselves or use a vendor; c) if using a vendor, which vendor to use. After
reviewing the various types and methods of electronic transcript delivery, USC decided
that a) PDF transcript delivery was the best choice at the time, b) to utilize the services
of a vendor to provide this service, and c) the vendor chosen was Parchment
Exchange™.
The Vendor
Parchment Exchange is a software-as-a-service (SAAS) company which offered
the only real-time, fully integrated service that supported document ordering, PDF
generation, certification, rights management and secure delivery of electronic transcripts
as well as other high-stake documents. Parchment Exchange hosted and maintained its
patent-pending Authentic Document Delivery Service (+ADDS™) for leading institutions
nationwide. As of May 2012, Parchment Exchange partners with 32 universities to
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 37
produce and deliver secured PDF documents. Parchment Exchange’s product allows
institutions the flexibility of producing PDF documents that look identical to their paper
transcripts (Parchmentexchange, 2013). In addition, the ability to manage the rights,
security, and certification of the document is provided through Parchment Exchange’s
services.
In October, 2012, Avow Systems merged with Parchment Inc.™, the company
behind the Docufide™ transcript delivery product (Parchmentexchange, 2013).
Docufide was the largest producer and deliverer of electronic high school transcripts,
serving over 9,000 schools (Parchmentexchange,). Docufide was a web-based solution
for institutions to deliver, track, and report on the sending of transcripts and related
admissions documents. The solution is intended to eliminate the often costly and time-
consuming steps of fulfilling student requests for transcripts manually, allowing schools
to replace manual and paper-based processes, including payment collection with
electronic and automated alternatives. The newly merged combination of Avow and
Docufide is now known as Parchment Exchange™. This merger was completed in
October, 2012. Going forward in this study, the firm is referred to as Parchment
(Parchmentexchange).
Instrumentation
The data for this study was collected using a survey (Appendix B) and an
interview (Appendix A). The interview was conducted using open-ended questions,
carefully crafted and ordered to garner detailed descriptions from the respondent. Fink
(2013) emphasizes the importance of pilot testing both interview and survey questions
in order to decide which questions and methods should be used. Piloting also helps to
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 38
improve the response rate because it can eliminate poorly worded or irrelevant
questions. As such, both the interview and survey questions were pilot tested in
advance of being administered. The questions were designed to help this researcher
interpret the decision-making process through which higher education institutions
choose their method of student record delivery.
The survey was created and administered using Survey Monkey and was
distributed via the Registrar-L listserv; comprised of 1,340 registrars and registrar staff
across the United States, Canada, and Caribbean. There is also a SPEEDE listserv
consisting of schools participating in the AACRAO SPEEDE committee in some fashion,
but utilizing that listserv would limit responses to institutions already using EDX in some
way, thus contaminating the data by skewing the responses in an undesirable direction.
For this reason, the distribution was limited to the Registrar-L list and was not sent to
the SPEEDE list.
The interview was conducted with Mr. Robert Morley, a senior member of the
registrar staff at the University of Southern California. Mr. Morley was selected based
on his role in the process leading to the decision to implement the transcript delivery
system at USC. Mr. Morley was interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol;
there were pre-determined questions in a pre-determined order, but allowed for follow-
up to any responses provided with prodding and supplemental questions stemming from
those responses. The participant was given a summary of the purpose of the
investigation that included information on his voluntary participation in the research. In
addition, information was provided on the potential benefit to the institution. Statements
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 39
indicating that the data gathered from individual participants was kept confidential were
also provided. The interview lasted about thirty five minutes.
The protocol was originally designed such that most of the questions were open-
ended for the respondent to freely answer questions with little constraint (Fink, 2013).
This is ideal for an interview, allowing for the respondents to drive the conversation and
provide answers to questions that, perhaps, were not included. However, needing to
know specific answers to specific questions, such as whether the respondent actually
knows what services are offered, in what format, and if they are outsourced,
necessitates some closed questions (Fink, 2013).
The interview and survey questions were designed to answer the research
questions as follows:
1. What factors are considered when deciding whether to out-source or build a
university’s transcript delivery system, how are they measured, and how are
they valued or weighted? (Appendix A, questions 2-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20;
Appendix B, questions 1-3, 6, 13-17, 19-20). This question was designed to
assist in understanding record ordering services through the lens of TCE.
The protocol questions helped answer this by determining what vendors are
and are not used and why or why not. Additionally, it helped in ascertaining
what institutional factors may influence the decision. For example, do smaller
schools have different needs and consider different factors than do larger
ones? Do schools that take longer to deliver records consider these factors
differently than schools that may be processing requests at a faster pace?
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 40
2. What are the characteristics of the market for transcript delivery services as
reflected by the number and variety of organizations that utilize and vendors
that provide the services? (Appendix A, question 7-9, 12, 14, 18; Appendix B,
question 7-9,12-13, 16-19).
a. What vendors are available?
b. What are the dimensions of the services?
c. Are documents delivered electronically (as EDI, XML, or PDF)?
d. Are security and encryption assured?
e. Is the vendor abreast and fluent in FERPA and PESC standards?
Question number two and its sub-questions were intended to help understand
what the market for record delivery is: not only what vendors are available,
but also what services they offer and subsequently how those services can
assist the institution in decreasing transaction and material costs. The
method of document delivery, security options, and FERPA compliance are
all factors universities need to consider when choosing a record delivery
method, whether or not they use a vendor (AACRAO, 2013).
3. What factors were considered which led the University of Southern California
to choose to use a vendor for their transcript services? (Appendix A, question
13, 16-19, 21-22).
This question focused specifically on the sample institution and its specific
process for deciding to utilize a vendor for its record delivery services. As it
deals with the focus institution, this question is the driving factor for a
significant portion of this research.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 41
4. What factors were considered which led to the decision for USC to choose
Parchment as their transcript vendor? (Appendix A, question 13-19, 21).
This question was intended to help investigate what specific characteristics
the focus institution values and deems as important with regards to its record
delivery services. While many vendors may offer the same or similar services
and characteristics, it may be a unique combination that one particular vendor
offers (e.g., cost, delivery format, customer service, products, etc.) that makes
them the best decision over others. This same combination may not be as
appealing to other schools
Piloting the protocol
After the interview protocol was developed independently, copies of the initial
protocol were shared with fellow Ed.D. colleagues. The colleagues were not versed on
the technical aspects of EDX nor were they familiar with student record processing
terminology and processes. As such, their feedback led to changes to the interview
questions as to make them more specific and descriptive, so those without record
delivery or EDX knowledge would understand them. While it is true registrar staff and
people familiar with student record processes would be surveyed, it could not be
assumed that everyone uses the same terminology or has the same organizational
structure or procedural policies. Piloting the questions with colleagues brought this to
light (Maxwell, 2013). Further, the interview questions were piloted by testing them with
a professional registrar colleague at another university. The pilot was conducted via
telephone and lasted approximately 45 minutes. The questions, as amended from the
first pilot with Ed.D. colleagues, were presented and the responses were recorded
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 42
utilizing the Evernote software for iPad. This test interview resulted in the addition of
questions 1 and 6 (Appendix A based on the respondent’s elaboration of the previous
questions relating to vendor utilization as well as questions 2 and 3 being moved to the
beginning. Originally, they were numbers 5 and 6 but were moved based on the flow of
the pilot interview.
No other interviews were conducted. The researcher determined that, based on
Mr. Morley’s role as the decision maker in the vendor decision process, that he was the
expert in this area. Further, as will be described in chapter four, Mr. Morley’s responses
indicated that he had the knowledge necessary to fully and sufficiently answer the
interview questions. Mr. Morley’s supervisor, USC’s Dean of Academic Records and
Registrar, tasked him with the research, communication, and negotiations of the buy-
make decision and only provided the final approval and contract signatures. For this
reason, no interview of the USC Registrar was conducted. Further, Mr. Morley’s
membership and involvement with both the PESC and SPEEDE committees, afforded
him the knowledge and expertise to determine the appropriate EDX technology for USC
as well as to ascertain to the amount of IT support needed to implement it as well as
any barriers that may have been presented. For this reason, no interviews of IT staff
were conducted.
Survey questions (Appendix B) were piloted separately from the interview
questions. Though all questions in the survey protocol also originally existed in the
interview protocol, the actual survey itself was piloted by administering it to two
professional colleagues in the registrar field. These pilot surveys yielded the
recommendation to provide fewer “text box” answers and offer more selectable answer
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 43
choices in the survey. The feeling was that, the easier it was for respondents to
answer, the more likely they would be to respond and the more relevant the answers
would be to this study (Maxwell, 2013). Thus, several questions that previously had
only been open-ended were offered as multiple choice with an open ended “other” field
that could be used for respondents not finding a suitable answer among the options
offered.
The main difference between the protocols is that, while the survey questions
were designed to gather basic demographic and factual data, the interview questions
went deeper by asking for more detail as to the thought process behind decisions and
for descriptions of the delivery processes (e.g., Appendix A, questions 4, 5, 11). Given
the focus of this study to investigate, in depth, the decision process of USC, the
interview questions asked of USC’s registrar staff needed to be in-depth and thorough.
Alternatively, the survey was designed to reach a vast number of respondents in order
to acquire a wide array of data from a wide range of various institutions. As such, the
questions were intended to gather information necessary to ascertain how schools
process student records, what methods they use, and their respective demographics
(e.g., institution size, number or records managed, and number of record requests
received and processed).
Data Collection and Analysis
This qualitative case study was conducted utilizing the interview and survey
protocols listed in appendices A and B.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 44
Data Collection
The interview was audio recorded with the approval by the respondent. The
recording was transcribed utilizing the Voice Base transcription software.
The survey was created using the Survey Monkey online survey system
(www.surveymonkey.com) and distributed via the Registrar-L listserv. This is a listserv
comprised of over 1,340 registrars and their staff across the United States, Canada, and
the Caribbean. There is also a SPEEDE listserv consisting of schools participating in
the AACRAO SPPEDE committee in some fashion, but utilizing that listserv would limit
responses to institutions already using EDX, potentially skewing the responses and
would not provide data appropriate for the purposes of this study. While utilizing the
SPEEDE listserv would provide useful data regarding why schools using EDX have
made that decision, it would not provide any data from schools not utilizing EDX. For
this reason, only the Registrar-L listserv was used in this study.
Information regarding the purpose of the study, the importance of respondent
integrity in responding to the questions, confidentiality of the survey results, and
procedures for completing and submitting the surveys was provided to each survey
recipient as consistent with research of human subjects as outlined in the IRB process
with the University of Southern California (UP-13-00224).
Data Analysis
Respondents’ interview and survey data were coded using the qualitative
research software known as NVivo (QSR International, 2013) and analyzed via the
software, looking for key factors, trends, and other important analytics based on the
interviewee responses in the transcriptions of the audio media as well as the survey
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 45
responses. NVivo analyzes and organizes data and can interchange information
between NVivo and other applications like Microsoft Word and Survey Monkey, making
it easier to understand what the data portrays by searching for an exact word or words
that are similar in meaning to quickly test theories or to direct the researcher to the
areas that need further analysis (QSR International, 2013).
Limitations
A limitation of this study was that the qualitative investigation was focused on one
individual on campus, though efforts were made to ensure that the investigation was
focused on those most knowledgeable of and influential in the records delivery systems
decision and implementation process. Though, as mentioned previously, Robert
Morley’s knowledge, role, and invested trust made him the logical choice at USC to
interview, he was still only one voice at one institution. This, of course, constitutes a
non-trivial limitation of this case study in that triangulation of the data to corroborate the
veracity of Mr. Morley’s statements as they apply to the buy-make decision for record
services of higher education institutions in general is lacking. Further validation of this
information could be gathered through additional data collection from other sources
(e.g., IT. staff, transcript staff, the university Registrar, and Bursar staff), Further, USC is
not all other institutions. It is, actually, not ANY other institution. Conducting a case
study of the buy-make decision of college student record delivery systems based on the
choices of one individual at one school may limit the generalizability of the study. USC
is a large, private, highly-selective, academically rigorous, relatively old (founded in
1880), and tuition-dependent university. Finally, with respect to traits more closely tied
to transcript delivery, USC charges a registrar-collected, per document fee for student
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 46
records, offers EDX delivery via PDF technology, and utilizes an old (dating to 1980)
home-grown (non-proprietary) student information system (SIS). This combination of
traits makes for a study site that is perhaps not indicative of the student record
environment of schools in general. USC shares some characteristics with some other
institutions, but not all other institutions. As such, the factors contributing and important
to USC for their vendor decisions may not be the same as those for other schools given
the differences in institutional culture, student and alumni population, funding streams,
record trading partners, and staff size. An inherent limitation with this study was that
little attention was paid to the relationships between this limited set of USC
characteristics of record processing management and characteristics of buy-make
decision criteria in general.
Another limitation rested in the survey responses. Though the survey was
distributed to 1,340 users of the Regist-L listserv, only 80 usable responses were
returned. Since desired response rate is often entirely subjective, based on the purpose
of the survey, the size of the responded pool, and the type of data sought, (Fink, 2013),
this six percent return is not necessarily an insurmountably low rate. When used as
supplemental triangulation data, as opposed to a primary data-collection protocol, lower
rates may be more acceptable providing the cross-section of respondents provides a
representative data-set indicative of the market in general. However, two major factors
with the survey did lead to a high degree of limitation. First, what response bias was
observed based on why and how the respondents chose to respond? Were the
respondents inherently more likely to respond because they have vested interest in the
survey? If these were individuals closely involved with buy-make decisions of record
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 47
services at their schools, they may have been more likely to respond than listserv users
who may not be involved with such decisions, even if they were student record
professionals. Second, the survey was administered to users of the Regist-L listserv,
which is not limited only to users whose functions are student record related. Registrar
staffs perform a variety of functions and many users may have performed different
registrar functions other than student record processing (e.g., registration, classroom
scheduling, degree progess, transfer credit, graduation, and curriculum design). The
survey was administered to all users, with no differentiation made as to what role the
users played within their respective registrar offices. Further, user activity on the
listserv varies. Of the 1,340 users, it is unknown how many actually read, follow, and
respond to the listserv, or when they are likely to respond. Perhaps, when the survey
was administered in early fall of 2013, work or personal obligations were sufficiently
high as to preclude a higher response rate. Little attention was paid to analyzing the
characteristics of the institutions that responded to the survey to ascertain the degree
and form of response bias. Third, the variables associated with the buy-make decision
of record delivery were not significantly addressed through the survey. Basic
demographic data and limited short-answer responses may not have been sufficient to
parse out the variables and characteristics of the institutions as they relate to buy-make
decisions. Clearly, there is a great deal unknown about both the respondents as well as
the non-respondents. Further how the 80 respondents differ from the non-respondents
is also unknown. As such, it is difficult to determine the generalizability of the
responses provided by the respondents to the ideas, decisions, and factors that would
be or would have been considered by non-respondents.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 48
While survey data was collected from many institutions throughout the United
States and Canada, this study’s primary focus was on the decisions and process of one
institution through the use of an in-depth interview. Lacking the in-depth information
that interviewing respondents at several institutions may provide made it difficult to
determine whether the record delivery industry has reached a tipping point at which the
majority is now in favor of electronic data exchange. Also inherent here is an
assumption that records management can be framed in a buy/make decision view. This
may or may not be true. The methodology of this study aids in determining whether
buy/make is a valid frame and how leadership, economics, and organizational factors
may affect record delivery systems implementation in a way that may allow the results
to be used to better situate a campus for the implementation process.
Summary
The methodology, as outlined here, describes the important components of this
study, such as its research questions, protocol, and data collection and analysis
methods. This chapter introduces the research design, which is a qualitative case
study. The population and sample of the study describes the population and the
research site that was selected to participate in the study. Protection of human subjects
and ethical issues are discussed. This chapter specifically outlines the process of the
development of the data collection instruments: interview and survey. Finally, this
chapter also brings to light limitations of the study, including but not limited to, the
survey response rate, limited interview participants, unknown demographics of the
listserv participants and the potential for user bias based on the participants’ decision to
answer the survey.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 49

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The following chapter presents data collected as part of this qualitative study on
student record delivery outsourcing. This study examined the relationship between
colleges and universities (firms) and record delivery service providers (vendors). An in-
depth focus on one school, the University of Southern California, was supplemented by
secondary data collected from 80 other institutions across the United States and
Canada. Examination of the decision an institution makes in deciding to contract
delivery services was explored through an interview with the key student record
decision maker at USC as well as through secondary and supplemental data collected
from surveys of registrars and their staff at other institutions across the US Canada.
Organization of Data Analysis
This chapter includes a presentation of the results of the research questions
presented in chapter one and how those results relate to and answer the four research
questions.
The following research questions guide the reporting of results in this chapter:
1. What factors are considered when deciding whether to out-source or build a
university’s record delivery system, how are they measured, and how are they
valued or weighted?
2. What are the characteristics of the market for record delivery services as
reflected by the number and variety of organizations that utilize and vendors that
provide the services?
a. What vendors are there?
b. What are the dimensions of the services?
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 51
c. Are documents delivered electronically (as EDI, XML, or PDF)?
d. Are security and encryption assured?
e. Is the vendor abreast and fluent in FERPA and PESC standards?
3. What factors were considered which led the University of Southern California to
choose to use a vendor for their transcript services?
4. What factors were considered which led to the decision for USC to choose
Parchment as their transcript vendor?
As stated previously, two data collection techniques were utilized to answer
these questions. An in-depth interview of Robert Morley, Associate Registrar in charge
of student records at USC, was conducted. As the primary focus of this paper is the
relationship between one firm and one vendor, the USC interview is the main data set
utilized here. In addition, a tailored survey was administered to just over 1,300 users of
the Regist-L listserv. These data are utilized as supplemental information for the
purpose of providing support to the non-USC-related questions as well as to serve as
secondary validation to the USC questions.
Respondents
The individual interview was conducted on-site with Robert Morley, the individual
responsible for directing USC records delivery efforts as well as researching the
expansion of services and the implementation of vendor-driven record services. Mr.
Morley is also a former and founding member of the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Standardization of Postsecondary
Education Electronic Data Exchange (SPEEDE) committee and serves on the
Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council (PESC) advisory board. Additionally, he is
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 52
the university’s resident Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA) liaison and
expert. As such, his experience, expertise, and position at USC uniquely qualify him as
the best interview candidate to assist with answering the research questions, both as
they relate to USC and to record delivery in general.
The survey respondents were users of the Regist-L listserv. This listserv
consists of approximately 1,300 registrars and registrar staff from colleges, universities,
and application centers through the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean. The
survey data was used to provide context within which to interpret the interview data. It
is important to understand that the directive of this dissertation was to address the
decision of one firm with one vendor. As such, the surveys assisted with this directive
by providing rich data for research questions one and two as well assisting with the
establishment of triangulation of data for all four questions (Maxwell, 2013). Since
questions three and four are specific to USC, and not to institutions in general, the
survey responses strictly serve as backup and triangulation data for them. Maxwell
(2013) described triangulation of data as using different methods as a check on one
another, and reviewing whether methods with different strengths and limitations all
support a single conclusion. This reduces the risk that conclusions will reflect only the
biases of a single method.
Eighty three survey responses were received but only 80 of them were usable,
as three respondents only answered survey questions one and two, making their
responses unusable, in this researcher’s opinion.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 53
Report of the Findings

This section reports the results of the data collection from both the interview and
survey responses. The results are presented as they help support answering the four
research questions.
Research Question One: What factors are considered when deciding whether to
out-source or build a university’s record delivery system, how are they measured,
and how are they valued or weighted?
The data collected with regard to this question indicated how and at what
frequency institutions utilize vendors for record delivery and what factors are important
when deciding whether to use a vendor. The data suggested that more schools use
vendors than do not for the receipt of transcript orders. The same cannot be said for
sending student records though, as the data indicated, more schools do not use a
vendor for record delivery. However, many of those that do not utilize a vendor either
have already agreed to start using one or plan to do so soon. Further, increased
functionality, expertise, and cost were the most common factors considered when
deciding to use a vendor. Specific functionalities considered important were the ability
to process large quantities of orders quickly and efficiently and the ability to cashier and
collect credit card payments for document fees.
Both survey and interview responses were helpful in analyzing this question.
First, in response to the survey question “Do you use a vendor for receiving transcript
orders?”, 36 respondents answered yes, 25 answered no, and 20 did not respond
(Appendix B, question 11). Of note, seven of the institutions responding “no” stated that
they were in the process of procuring a vendor or plan to do so. The most common
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 54
responses to the question “If you do you use a receiving vendor, why?” were: increased
functionality (27 responses), cost (21 responses), and expertise (21 responses)
(Appendix C). Conversely, the most common response to survey question 15, “If you
do not use a vendor, why not”?, was in-house ability to collect our own orders (14
responses – 12 selected this option and two responded with “other” responses but
described an in-house ability to collect their own orders) (Appendix C).
Differentiating between the receipt of records and requests and the delivery of
the requests is important, as the responses to survey question 16 showed. In response
to survey question 16, “Do you use a vendor transcript delivery?”, 38 responded “no”,
22 responded “yes”, and 20 skipped the question. Of the institutions that responded
“no”, seven of them indicated that they are either in the process of procuring a vendor or
plan to do so. Among survey respondents, the most common responses to the question
“If you use a vendor, why?” (Appendix C, question 17) were: Increased functionality (17
responses), followed by expertise (15 responses), cost (13 responses), and
familiarity/name recognition (11 responses). Further, in response to the question, “What
are some of the positives (if any) you have experienced from using this vendor?”, the
most common responses were speed/efficiency (21 responses), customer service (18
responses), functionality (17 responses), cost (12 responses), and familiarity/name
recognition (12 responses).
Data utilized to assess why institutions might not choose to a vendor were also
investigated. In response to the question “If you do not use a vendor, why don’t you?”
(Appendix B, question 20), the most common responses were: In-house ability to collect
our own orders (19 responses) and cost (6 responses).
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 55
The USC response to this question is best utilized for answering question
number three, though Robert Morley’s responses did provide some support for question
one, as it related to universities in general as well. Of particular interest are his
responses in interview questions 13,14,16,17,21, as he described key factors of cost,
decrease of labor, IT support, overhead from the Registrar’s office having to answer
phones, track documents, respond to validation inquiries, and manage cashiering.
Research Question Two: What are the characteristics of the market for record
delivery services as reflected by the number and variety of organizations that
utilize and vendors that provide the services?
The data collected for this question supported not only what specific services and
characteristics exist in the document delivery market, but also established what vendors
are utilized and what makes them different from each other. Speed/efficiency and
customer service were specific services common to all vendors described by all survey
respondents. Further, Electronic Document Exchange is suggested here as a function
utilized and valued by institutions. The data supporting research question two was
collected from interview questions 7,9,12,12,14,15, and 18 (Appendix A) and survey
questions 16, 17, and 18 (Appendix B). These findings are presented in regard to how
they support each of question two’s five sub-questions.
What vendors are there? Survey question 16, “Do you use a vendor for
transcript delivery and if yes, which vendor?”, provided data for this sub-question. The
responses were Credentials Solutions (9 responses), Scrip/E-scrip Safe (6 responses),
Parchment (3 responses), and the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), FASTER,
and the SPEEDE server (1 response each) (Appendix B). The interview with Robert
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 56
Morley at USC identified both Parchment and the National Student Clearinghouse as
vendors used for their record delivery, but Parchment’s PDF delivery services were the
unique factor at the time of deciding on a vendor for EDX services.
Details of the services offered by the various vendors can be gleaned from
survey question number 18, “What are some of the positives (if any) you have
experienced from using this vendor?” Answers to this question provide insight as to
what services offered by the chosen vendors are valued but also shows the services
offered in general as described by the contracted institutions. Speed/efficiency and
customer service were specific services common to all vendors described by all survey
respondents. All of the mentioned vendors offer EDX delivery in PDF format, though
Parchment was the first to do so. Some vendors, such as Parchment and Credentials
Solutions, offer off-site document fulfillment. This is a service where all of the orders
are collected, processed, and fulfilled from the vendor’s physical site, as opposed to the
school’s registrar’s office. The vendor is responsible for storing all transcript stock and
envelopes, fulfilling the orders, and shipping them. This removes many of the factors
attributed to document cost (Do, 2010) from the institution and places them upon the
vendor.
The National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) began as a repository of student data
used to verify enrollment and degree data for financial aid purposes but has added on
paper transcript delivery services as well as PDF delivery of transcripts over the years
(The National Student Clearinghouse), 2014). NSC is the largest repository of student
data in the world and is the database utilized by most student loan servicers, banks,
background checkers, employers, and university admissions and financial aid offices.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 57
NSC has also recently acquired the rights to manage and service the University of
Texas SPEEDE server and all of the data and exchanges that pass through it. Since its
inception in 1995, the Texas server has enabled the secure and efficient exchange of
electronic data, free of charge, to any institution wishing to use it. It essentially serves
as a hub of data exchange between institutions that have registered and established
secure accounts.
Credential Solutions also was founded in 1997 with the introduction of a patented
online degree and enrollment verification service (Credentialssolutions, 2014). Over the
years, the organization also added transcript delivery services with both paper and
electronic format deliveries (Credentialssolutions). They hold record delivery contracts
with more institutions of higher education than any other document vendor. Credentials
offers a unique product, the patented RoboRegistrar™. This is software that resides on
user computers for managing document orders as opposed to running from a web-
based portal as some other vendors utilize. It may be more IT friendly because of its
security and the fact that it requires no changes to the school’s network or firewall, as a
web-based solution might.
Scrip-safe was founded in 1989 as a company specializing in developing and
producing document security and verification measures for transcript stock, envelopes,
and delivery best practices (Scrip-safe, 2014). Characteristics such as hidden images,
water marks, stain paper, photo sensitive images, seals, and embedded logos, are all
features either perfected or widely-adopted by Scrip-safe and its clients. Over the
years, they have included secure transcript delivery and diploma printing to their
catalogue of services. Their Transcripts on Demand™ service is an example of
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 58
FERPA-compliant collection and delivery of orders, only with no vendor storage or
dissemination of student data (Scrip-safe, 2014).
As survey and interview responses indicated that all of the vendors offer roughly
the same array of services (e.g. security, EDX, customer service functions (e.g.
cashiering), speed/efficiency), cost could become a deciding factor. Contract and fee
structures can differ from vendor to vendor or even from school to school using the
same vendor. Transcript vendor contracts with universities are generally kept private
and not available for publishing in this paper. This includes all details of the contract
between USC and Parchment. Parchment requested that portions of the contract with
USC regarding pricing and document order benchmarks be redacted or removed from
this paper as those details are unique to USC. Based on the researcher’s experiences
while attending AACRAO and regional conferences, it is unlikely that vendors or schools
are likely to share their contract details. Therefore, while the question of actual
contracted pricing agreements with the vendors was not included in the survey, the
difficulty in acquiring this data and adding this inquiry to further research endeavors may
not elicit much data.
What are the dimensions of the services? Are documents delivered
electronically? Are security and encryption assured? Is the vendor(s) abreast and
fluent in FERPA and PESC standards? Answers to this sub- question provided data
that addressed the specific services available and what the depth of functionality of the
utilized vendors is. EDX is considered a relevant service as well as the cashiering, IT
support, and customer service services that vendors may be able to provide. The data
collected here also helped to address reservations with some new functionality (e.g.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 59
PDF record authentication) and the learning curve of registrar staff and document
recipients with utilizing such functions.
Survey question 17, “If you use a vendor, why did you choose to use a vendor?”,
provided data for survey question one, but the answers also provide data toward
answering this sub-question. The relevant responses for this sub-question were
expertise, increased functionality, name recognition, and ability to collect credit card
payments/cashiering. In the survey, the selection choice “increased functionality” was
intended to indicate abilities, services, and functions vendors may provide that may not
otherwise be available or only available with lower levels of efficiency than would be
available without the use of a vendor. Some examples of increased functionality are
cashiering; customer service contact numbers, emails, and FAQs; EDX ability, technical
support, security certificates, batch ordering, and the ability to collect attachments for
inclusions in records being sent to admission clearinghouses such as the American
Medical Colleges Application Service (AMCAS), the American Association of Dental
Schools Application Service (AADSAS), the Pharmacy College Application Service
(PHARMCAS), and the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC). Name recognition is a
factor with regard to how willing customers may be to provide sensitive personal data
when ordering their records, as well as the likelihood that documents delivered by the
vendor will be accepted by the recipient. Related to this, Robert Morley stated that
recognition was an issue early on (personal communication, July 10, 2013). USC’s
Graduate Admissions Office and the School of Social Work rejected transcripts from
USC graduates because they were unfamiliar with PDF format and with the Vendor
(Parchment) sending them:
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 60
And when we first started sending out PDFs, I think you remember this, it
was interesting. The School of Social Work denied our own transcript,
because it was PDF… That was a telling thing, though, because PDF was
brand new, the market didn't know that very well. They were suspicious.
It took a while for the base to expand (personal communication, July 10,
2013).
This was a combination of both unfamiliarity with PDF technology and the
Parchment (Avow) name. More established vendors such as Credentials, Scrip-
safe, and the National Student Clearinghouse were better known and, possibly,
more likely to be accepted. Said another way, if the technology is unfamiliar,
perhaps a well-known name vendor would decrease the skepticism of accepting
the document over a lesser-known one or a document delivered with no vendor
at all.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) plays a role in
the vendor use decision and vendor selection. Institutions have to limit access to
student records and how these are distributed. An institution enlisting the
services of a vendor for student record delivery entrusts that vendor with private
and sensitive information. Any vendor retained for student record delivery
services is acting as an “agent” of the university with authority to collect and
deliver orders on the university’s behalf. An important distinction in vendor
services is what those vendors do with student data. If the institution contracts
the vendor to merely receive the student data, repackage it, and deliver, then that
is all they can do. They cannot store the data nor can they use it for any purpose
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 61
other than delivering the records. Robert Morley described the USC-Parchment
arrangement in the following exchange:
At the end of the day, what we want to get to is, having them serve
as our official and contracted agent, so that they can act on our
behalf. But before that happens, they have to agree to a number of
things, such as secure servers, encrypted deliveries, the ability to
authenticate the request, as I noted (personal communication, July
10, 2013).

JMF: And they don't actually store any of the university data, right?
Because it's being sent on call? They don't store it?

Morley: Right. They don't. They're simply transmitting what we
send them.
…That's a good point, because there are some vendors who do
keep the data.

JMF: And it's definitely a higher level of scrutiny and security than
what would be needed for that purpose? I mean, there are levels of
FERPA compliance, based on what's being shared?

Morley: Yeah, and in our case, we don't have to worry about them
storing data, so that's one less thing. We looked…we had them
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 62
assure us in writing, contractually and legally, that they were going
to abide by these conditions, acting as our agent (personal
communication, July 10, 2013).
This exchange demonstrates one school-vendor relationship with regards to how the
student data is handled and what role the vendor plays in the fulfillment process. The
USC-Parchment relationship limits Parchment’s use of the data because Parchment is
not storing it – they are merely delivering it. Other relationships may call for the vendor
actually storing the data. Such contracts would need to stipulate how the data can be
used and to whom and how it can be transmitted.
Sixty two schools responded to survey question number 7, “Do you deliver
transcripts in electronic format?” (Appendix B). Of the 62 respondents, half (31)
answered that they do deliver transcripts and half (31) responded that they do not;
however, ten of the negative respondents answered that they are either in the testing
phase or intend to be implementing Electronic Document Exchange (EDX) soon.
Portable Document Format (PDF) (23, responses), Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
(13 responses), and Extensible Markup Language (XML) (6 responses) formats were all
mentioned as formats used. It is possible to deliver records in multiple formats. For
example, USC delivers records in PDF format and some in EDI (Appendix A, question
7). The most frequent responses given for utilizing EDX were speed/efficiency (27
responses), cost savings (22 responses), student demand (18 responses), and
ecological/green reasons (17 responses). Some formats require more IT expertise and
support than others, so the formats used are relevant to consider.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 63
In contrast, the most frequent responses given for not utilizing EDX were Lack of
IT support to implement and/or maintain (16 responses) (Appendix B).
USC referenced utilizing both PDF and EDI formats during the interview
responses (Appendix A, question 7). Mr. Morley described various reasons for
choosing which EDX format to use depending on the needs and abilities of the recipient
in addition to the needs of the students and alumni base of the sending institution:
If a school is exchanging EDI or XML transcripts, that data can be
read right into the system. If it's PDF, it can be created quickly, and
sent immediately. That (need) kind of breaks with the recipient,
with the audience. If it's a school, EDI is preferred if they can
accept it, but most schools are not going to take XML yet.
Everyone else seems to like PDFs. Also, with the very high
number of international students we have as well as the global
geographic area we must deliver records to, PDF’s are very useful.
They can be delivered instantly over long distances as opposed to
paper documents which, of course, are at the mercy of postal
services of the various countries (personal communication, July 10,
2013).
Some of Robert Morley’s further responses regarding this question focused on services
the vendors provided. He mentioned aspects such as PDF, EDI, and XML (EDX)
delivery document rights, electronic signatures, cashiering, security, FERPA
compliance, and the ability to handle mass volume:
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 64
…I forget the term we used (document rights), but all of the additional
features that they had, such as…you could restrict the printing, or not to
print. Or you could restrict the life of the PDF. We started out at 30 days,
which we quickly discovered was not workable. We can also set a sunset
for the ability to move that document to another medium, like a flash drive.
Not everybody had a digital signature at the time. The ability, with an
administrative console, to see the status of the request (personal
communication, July 10, 2013).
Research Question Three: What factors were considered which led the University
of Southern California to choose to use a vendor for their transcript services?
Since questions three and four deal only specifically with USC, only the interview
responses were referenced for answering the questions.
USC utilized two vendors initially for their record fulfillment services and
described volume of orders as a major initial reason for choosing to use a vendor, The
National Student Clearinghouse. Then, when EDX technology was being considered,
Parchment was selected due to its robust and secure PDF delivery technology. This
data is illustrated by Robert Morley’s response to interview question 13 (Appendix A),
differentiated between the two vendors used:
In the case of the Clearinghouse, the number of verifications that we were
asked to react to was overwhelming. It came primarily from lenders, and
then, other related people. But it was overwhelming, it could take many
shapes; it could be asking us to complete a form. It'd be getting us on the
phone. In some cases, it still is. Walk-ups, also. And the Clearinghouse
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 65
presented an opportunity in which they would ... We would send them our
data, and they would send their verifications on our behalf. So we
eliminated a great deal of labor-intensive work at no cost to us (Appendix
A). With Parchment, we chose a vendor first, because of PDF
considerations where, even though we could create a PDF, they handled
all of the cashiering, and all of the ... They handled all of the order
requests and fulfillment, and they provided a release mechanism for the
PDF. So, basically, all that we had to do was, pull out our transcript type,
assemble it in PDF, and turn it over to them. They'd take care of both
ends, both cashiering and the delivery, which was significant. And then,
later on, we added the hard copy to that, too. Again, they handle
cashiering and they send us a file that we can run through the printer
(personal communication, July 10, 2013).
Research Question Four: What factors were considered which led to the decision
for USC to choose Parchment Exchange as their transcript vendor?
The availability to send secure PDF records with robust document rights
management and cashiering functions were major reasons for USC’s vendor selection.
For a period of time, USC utilized two separate vendors for transcript fulfillment. This
was a result of USC’s initial vendor, the National Student Clearinghouse’s (NSC), lack
of a reliable, robust, and secure PDF delivery service. In response to interview
question 19 regarding why Parchment was chosen, what Parchment’s pluses and
minuses were, and why the decision was made to consolidate to one vendor, Mr.
Morley’s relevant responses were as follows:
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 66
Well, at the time, all of the ... I forget the term we used, but all of the
additional features that they had, such as…you could restrict the printing,
or not to print. Or you could restrict the life of the PDF. We started out at
30 days, which we quickly discovered was not workable. We can also set
a sunset for the ability to move that document to another medium, like a
flash drive. Not everybody had a digital signature at the time. The ability,
with an administrative console, to see the status of the requests. The
company we now called Parchment was far, far, far ahead of anybody
else at that time (Appendix A). The Clearinghouse had a PDF service,
and ... I forget, there were two other companies: one was Credentials,
Inc.; and the third one, I forget right now, they all had PDF options,
eventually. And, in the beginning, once they had them, they were not
robust enough. They just did not have enough features for us. And we're
paying a premium price, but we feel better about it (personal
communication, July 10, 2013).
As for consolidating our transcript ordering to one vendor, as opposed to
the two we were using, it came down to consistency and confusion for the
students and cost. It was unwieldy in terms of staff labor two manage
orders from two vendors and too confusing for students. Also, we
received a per- document discount from Parchment if we made them our
exclusive transcript vendor.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 67
Summary
Institutional resources during tighter fiscal times, the needs and resources of
document recipients, increasing numbers of college graduates, increased competition in
a recovering job market, and changing student demographics (e.g. national and global
residency) are all factors making efficient student record delivery more important than
ever. Smaller budgets leading to smaller staffs make it more difficult to process record
orders efficiently. Instituting the services of a vendor may help alleviate such concerns
by providing efficient order processing at a level perhaps unattainable by a school
without vendor expertise and efficiencies. Further, the increasingly global nature of
education necessitates methods of delivering useful records that are capable of
reaching remote and far distances securely, quickly, and reliably.
Conclusion
Leaders from institutions have to determine how to best manage record delivery
systems that are fiscally affordable, efficient, and useful to consumers. Based on the
data from this research, many institutions face similar challenges with their record
delivery services, when determining how to implement, develop, and maintain student
record delivery processes. The interview and survey responses of this study show that
cost, services and functions offered, acceptability of documents, and trust and
recognition of the documents delivered and vendors used are factors considered by
schools for their record delivery processes. Further, the data collection elicited new
issues regarding how different characteristics among institutions affect the buy-make
decision, Questions relating to in-house ability to process orders, fee structure, and
cashiering policies, arose. How these additional exploratory questions arose both from
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 68
what was discovered form the data as well as what was not discovered. Chapter five
discusses and interprets how the data provides support that these factors are important,
how they are important or what additional data, if any, may be needed to fully
understand the buy or build decision process for student record processing.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 69
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This study set out to investigate what factors are important to colleges and
universities when determining whether to build their own student record deliver systems
or to purchase those services from a vendor. The data from the survey and interview
revealed what decision factors were important to the University of Southern California
as well as to other schools. Some of these factors included cost, IT support (or lack
thereof), efficiency of services, ability to handle large quantities of requests, and vendor
expertise. The data also helped to unwrap what the market for transcript delivery is and
what dimensions of the services exist. Some of these important dimensions included
electronic delivery, ability to send documents securely, cashiering, increased
functionality, and name recognition. This chapter discusses each of these factors and
dimensions and how they affect each other and student record delivery, particularly
electronic records, within institutions. These decision factors were investigated through
responses to the survey protocol distributed to the Regist-L listserv and the interview of
Robert Morley at the University of Southern California.
Findings addressing the responses obtained from the survey and interview are
discussed below. Included is a discussion of how the findings compare to any existing
research as well as findings that may have not have been addressed or written about
earlier in previous chapters.
Cost and Efficiency of Document Fulfillment
It is clear from the responses that cost is an important factor for institutions when
deciding whether to use a vendor or not for document fulfillment. Document fulfillment
constitutes receipt of a document request, processing (creation, printing, fee collection,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 70
and packaging) of the request, and delivery of the request. Many schools utilized
different facilities for the receiving portion of fulfillment from the delivery portion. This is
one reason the survey protocol separated the vendor use questions into two inquires;
one for receipt (Appendix B, question 11) and one for delivery (Appendix B, question
16).
Efficiency is a major factor in determining the cost of any service. The “lean”
theory as written by Comm and Mathaisel (2005) suggests that the more waste that can
be eliminated, the more efficient the process is. Eliminating the necessity for time and
labor-intensive processes, such as cashiering, is a good way to strip down a process to
a leaner and more efficient procedure. It is evident from both the interview (Appendix A,
question 13) and survey (Appendix B, question 17) responses that cashiering may be a
very important factor in choosing to use a vendor. University registrar offices are less
equipped to efficiently process bulk payments than transcript vendors that specialize in
processing these transactions. Robert Morley referenced this in his responses to
interview question thirteen (Appendix A, question 13). Morley suggested that handling
the cashiering is a key piece of the fulfillment process and a major factor in deciding to
use a vendor (personal communication, July 10, 2013).. This speaks to a core tenet of
TCE theory that vendors may be better suited for performing certain functions due to
their ability to hyper-focus on specific tasks and their expertise (Williamson, 1985).
The number of transactions processed is also an important TCE component.
Williamson (1985), through TCE theory, reminds us that transactions should be
conducted such that the costs involved in carrying them out are minimized. Minimizing
these transaction costs can be accomplished by increasing the number of total
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 71
transactions and decreasing the delays, or bottlenecks, in conducting the transactions
(Thouin, Hoffman, & Ford, 2009). The responses from USC and other institutions
indicate that efficiency was a factor in choosing a vendor (Appendices A & B) In
addition, the research of Harris, Hannah, Stones, & Morley (2011) suggest that the
medium used, time spent on task, and money spent on materials and labor increases
the material costs of the actual document processing transactions and, bottlenecks the
process, and prevents more transactions from being completed. These two points
suggest that vendor use is perceived as a solution to reducing transaction costs.
It may be that institution size has an effect on the buy-build decision. Of schools
that answered that they use a vendor for document delivery, 32% (7/22) responded that
they had enrollments under 5,000 students (small schools) and 32% had enrollments
over 20,000 students (large schools). Conversely, of the schools that do not use a
vendor, 47% (18/38) had enrollments under 5,000 students and only 18% (7/38) have
enrollments over 20,000 students (Appendix C). This could suggest that smaller
schools may be less likely to use or need the services of a vendor than are larger
schools. Though this suggestion is a possibility, the data collected in this study cannot
definitively support this. Further research and follow-up with the respondents is needed
here to help determine the effect institution size has on the buy-make decision of record
services. Based on the data collected and the limitations of the survey protocol, it is not
possible to confirm that institution size alone is a factor affecting the buy-make decision
independent from other institutional variables.
The suggestion that smaller firms are less inclined to utilize a vendor is
antithetical to common TCE arguments (Williamson, 1985) TCE theorists typically argue
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 72
that smaller institutions are more likely to require the use of vendor due to their smaller
size and inability to process the given function on their own (Comm & Mathaisal, 2005;
Williamson, 2010), whereas larger institutions or firms are better equipped to build that
service themselves, either by hiring staff experienced in that task or by researching,
building, and training current staff themselves (Williamson, 1985, p.176 ). Given this, it
may be worthwhile to investigate why the data showed that smaller schools are less
likely to utilize vendors (See page 71). Is there something about the student record
delivery market that leads it to behave differently than other markets to the point where
TCE theory does not tell the whole story with regard to how the buy-make decision
relates to firm size? Alternatively, is there some form of response bias being expressed
by the survey respondents? Given the limitations of the survey protocol in this study, it
is possible that the listserv users’ very nature contributed to their decision to respond.
Perhaps their personal interest in the buy-make decision process of student record
delivery at their respective institutions made them more likely to answer and/or
influenced their answers with respect to buy-make decisions. Further, it is possible that
facets of the survey itself, such as the survey description’s reference to deciding on
whether or not to utilize a vendor for their student record processing and delivery
services (Appendix B), influenced some users to respond and others to ignore or the
survey or not respond to it.

Vendor cost
Without being privy to the individual vendor contracts of each institution, it is
unknown exactly what costs each incurred by utilizing a vendor. It is known that
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 73
contract negotiations between schools and vendors can lead to various fee structures.
Some contracts can include an annual fee to the vendor while others call for a per-
document fee to the vendor. Still others require both an annual fee and a per-document
fee. Further, fee-reduction incentives for reaching certain order number thresholds may
be in place as may be a special rate for utilizing one vendor for all orders as opposed to
operating with two separate vendors (Feigert, 2013). The USC-Parchment example is
as follows:
And we are paying a premium price, but we feel better about it. As for
consolidating our transcript ordering to one vendor, as opposed to the two
we were using, it came down to consistency and confusion for the
students and cost. It was unwieldy in terms of staff labor to manage
orders from two vendors and too confusing for students. Also, we
received a per document discount from Parchment if we made them our
exclusive transcript vendor (personal communication, July 10, 2013).

All vendors mentioned in this study charge a processing fee per order for paper
transcripts, but these are charged to the students or document requesters and not to the
institution the same way the contracted per-document fees are charged to the schools
(Credentials Solutions, 2014; The National Student Clearinghouse, 2014; Parchment
Exchange, 2013; Scrip-safe, 2014). Because these fees are assessed to the document
requestors and not directly to the schools, these per-order processing fees probably
should not be considered as a transaction cost to the institution.
To analyze the efficacy of a vendor solution, a comparison between the
document cost without using a vendor and the cost with using one should be made. Do
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 74
(2010) estimated the average cost of fulfilling a transcript for paper transcripts to be
approximately $15. Some factors included in that cost are the transcript stock,
envelopes, toner, labor, postage, printer depreciation, storage space, floor-space
usurped. If that cost is higher than the per-document cost utilizing a vendor, then TCE
theory may support a vendor a solution.
Services, Functionality, and Product
The services offered by the various vendors also affect institutions’ record
delivery service decisions, not only about which vendor to choose, but regarding
whether or not to use a vendor at all. Certainly, the data shows that there are
institutions that can accommodate all of their document fulfillment requests without any
outside assistance from a vendor. Nineteen institutions responded that they had the
ability to process and deliver their orders themselves without any vendor intervention.
Several factors could contribute to a school’s being able to forgo a vendor. These may
be schools with lower enrollments and/or smaller numbers of records to manage. In
support of this, 12 of the 19 schools (63%) that reported having the in-house ability to
process their own orders have enrollments of 10,000 students or fewer and 16 (84%)
received fewer than 25,000 requests for documents per year (Appendix C). Conversely,
seven of the respondents (37%) had enrollments over 10,000 and three (16%) received
more than 25,000 requests. Also, if EDX technology is not being utilized, the need for a
vendor may be lessened. Further, schools may have robust and efficient cashiering
processes of their own or they either have few enough transactions that cashiering is
easy and efficient, or they may not charge a fee for record delivery to begin with,
eliminating the need for cashiering altogether. Since asking if the institution charged a
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 75
fee for record services was not addressed in the survey, this is an area for further
research.
Electronic Document Exchange
Of the 25 schools that reported not using a vendor for receiving orders, 6 of them
responded that they do use one for document delivery. EDX is potentially one reason
for this, as 5 of those 6 schools indicated delivering documents in electronic format.
This is an indication that EDX is a reason to utilize a vendor for document delivery. This
is also supported by Robert Morley’s response to interview question 13 (Appendix A)
wherein he stated that the vendor choice was based on the fact that USC wanted to
send PDF transcripts, could not effectively do it in-house, and that Parchment (Avow at
the time) had the most robust and best product on the market for USC’s needs at the
time (personal communication, July 10, 2013). Conversely, of the 31 schools that
reported utilizing EDX, 11 stated that they do not use a vendor for delivery. These 11
schools utilize various EDX formats. Seven use PDF, five use EDI, two use XML, and
two use “other” formats (Appendix B). It should be noted here that schools can send
documents in multiple formats. Based on the need of the receiving parties, institutions
may find it beneficial to accommodate multiple formats of EDX delivery. EDI may be
preferable when the recipients are other schools, whereas PDFs are likely to be
preferred by the students themselves, private parties, employers, background checkers,
federal agencies, and applications services (Appendix A, question 9). Why and how so
many schools utilize EDX technology without using a vendor is an item potentially in
need of further research. Perhaps these schools have larger, better-skilled IT staffs.
Certainly, it is possible that schools can institute EDI delivery without the use of a
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 76
vendor. EDI technology, by its nature, requires relatively little IT support and is already
secure and encrypted when delivered through the national SPEEDE server at the
University of Texas. This is a server, provided by and housed at the University of Texas
at Austin, specifically for the use of secure student record exchange (Harris, Hannah,
Stones, & Morley, 2011). As reported in the survey responses (Appendix B), lack of IT
support was an important consideration in seeking a vendor solution for record delivery,
but, since EDI potentially requires fewer IT resources and expertise, a vendor may be
less necessary for EDI delivery. Additionally, PDF creation and delivery is available to
any computer with PDF software, such as Adobe Acrobat. The more technical and
intricate part of PDF delivery is the security concern and assignment of document rights.
This was mentioned as a key component of USC’s decision to use a vendor; however,
Robert Morley also mentioned that it is possible to create a PDF in-house, and some
schools do it (personal communication, July 10, 2013). The key difference is the
application of document rights and other security measures. Said another way, it is
feasible to create and deliver an unsecured PDF without the use of a vendor, but
securing the PDF and assigning documents rights is more difficult and more costly
without the use of a vendor. If these rights management and security features are not
important to an institution or the recipients of its documents, then the additional IT
expertise that may require the use of a vendor may also not be necessary. However, if
security and rights management are important features, then schools will be more likely
to look to vendor solutions for their PDF delivery. This is another example of
Williamson’s (1985) TCE theory that touts the specialized nature of vendors and how
taking advantage of that specialization and expertise may not only lower the cost of
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 77
transactions but, in this case, may actually facilitate the ability of a school to send a
documents (securely and with rights) when they otherwise may not have been able to
do so at all. So, the costs of the service are not only reduced by utilizing a vendor, but
providing those services is actually possible when they otherwise may not have been
without the benefit of utilizing a vendor.
The advent and proliferation of EDX technology is also an important tool in an
ever-globalizing student body and graduate population. White (2007) expressed global
competitiveness as a key factor leading to pressures of change going forward. With the
ability to deliver student data and credentials long distances in an instantaneous
manner, EDX is a tool that can assist schools in giving their students and alumni an
edge in such an increasingly globally-competitive market. As expressed by Black
(2013) and Torres (2013), paper document delivery is no longer a feasible route for
delivering records in a global society. Robert Morley’s responses regarding USC’s
ever-globalizing student body align with the research of White (2007), Black (2013), and
Torres (2013) as well as that of Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009) describing the
unique challenges that globalization presents with regards to accommodating disparate
global educational systems, credentialing, degree and course verification, and
document delivery to an increasingly mobile student body. Given the vision and
assertions of Nikias (2010, 2011, 2012) regarding USC’s place as an education leader
in the Pacific rim and globally, Robert Morley’s responses (Appendix A) concerning how
EDX assists globalization confirm the importance of document delivery in the future of
higher education (personal communication, July 10, 2013).

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 78
Suggestions for Future Research
The key findings from this case study were interesting; however, the study
presented a somewhat limited view of the decision-making process of the institutions in
that it only represented the perspectives of 80 surveyed institutions plus an interview of
one key member of the registrar staff at the University of Southern California. The
previously listed limitations of this study made it difficult to fully address the answers to
the research questions. While the data collected did address the questions to an
extent, what also developed was the discovery of new questions that the study
uncovered. So, while being a case-study of one firm and one firm vendor to address
the buy-make decision process of institutions of higher education, this dissertation can
also serve as an exploratory study that has raised new questions in addition to
answering the established research questions. Stated simply, the present study did as
much to identify and raise new questions as it did to actually answer the original ones
proposed. These new questions include those which the current study did not
conclusively answer as well has those that the study has provoked based on the
questions that id did answer.
In-house Ability To Process Orders
Since this study revealed that several institutions utilized EDX without assistance
of a vendor, it would be useful to follow up with those schools to understand how they
build those systems themselves, what their IT resources are, what level of security they
place on their records, and whether they apply any document rights management to
their records. Again, whether or not these schools charge a fee for their electronic
records is a relevant point worthy of further inquiry.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 79
Many (19) of the schools that do not use a vendor stated that they had the ability
to process the orders themselves (Appendix C). Investigation in to what exactly that
means would be important further research. What is it about those institutions that
enable them to process the orders in-house? How are they different from the schools
that do use a vendor? A number of factors could be in play in here. For example, staff
size, number of orders received, enrollment size, document fee structure (is a fee
charged, are fees billed up front and not per transactions), and student information
system (SIS) utilized are all potential factors that could affect the buy-make decision
process and could differ significantly from institution to institution.
Obviously, larger staff sizes should be more capable of processing orders than
smaller ones. Similarly, having few requests for records would also ease the ability to
process orders without the use of the external assistance of a vendor.
Student Information System
The type and age of an institution’s information system (SIS) is a factor in the
student record delivery process. A school’s SIS is the data repository for all student
data form which student records are stored, retrieved, and processed. The SIS is not
itself the student record delivery product; rather, it is the bucket from which the records
are retrieved and, sometimes, printed. Any record delivery process would need a way
of communicating with an institution’s SIS. As such, the age, capabilities, type, and
programming language in which it is written, are all factors of the SIS that may play a
role in directing a school’s buy-make decision for record delivery. Some widely-used
vendor products, such as PeopleSoft, may have more familiarity in the industry and
customer support available to assist schools wishing to consider EDX technologies for
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 80
record delivery; potentially alleviating the need for those schools to look to a vendor a
solution to implement such technology.
Conversely, the wide-spread nature of a vendor-supported product and familiarity
document delivery vendors have with a popular product such as PeopleSoft could make
implementation of a document delivery process with a vendor easier. Alternatively,
lesser-known SIS products or “home-grown” SIS may provide limitations to a document
delivery vendor’s ability to communicate with it. Still another view is that home-grown
systems tend to be the most customizable for an institution since they have the authority
and ability to program, change, and create whatever they wish to accomplish within it.
In a sense, schools using a home-grown system may not have to worry about a
document delivery system that “will not work or communicate with our SIS” because the
SIS can be changed at will and altered to accommodate whatever the institution wishes.
Suppose the record delivery vendor can only accommodate data delivered in EDI
format but the school is using a SIS that does not have EDI capability. The ability of a
home-grown system to simply program EDI data feeds gives it an advantage over pre-
packaged SIS packages which may not have the flexibility. However, home-grown
systems are only as flexible as their programmers and the age of the SIS then also
becomes an issue. At USC, for example, the home-grown SIS was developed in the
mid-1980s using 1980s technology and has changed very little since (Morley, 2013).
While flexibility may exist in that USC decides what the SIS will do and in what language
and for whom, the outdated technology and lack of programmers now available who
understand it causes limitations. This again is an example, though, of how this case-
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 81
study conducted at a unique site like USC may not be generalizable to many other
schools.
Fee Structure and Cashiering
More in-depth questioning and follow-up probing could be done with the survey
respondents. Particular follow-up questions could focus on the fee-collection structure
of the institutions. It may be the case that institutions that do not charge a fee for
records are more capable of building and maintaining their own record ordering
processes. Also, schools that do not collect fees per transaction (i.e. the university
charges an up-front document fee that is collected by the Bursar or Cashier’s office)
potentially have little need for the cashiering functionality that is a key feature mentioned
by many institutions in this study. Finding out if institutions that do not use vendors
either charge no fees or collect them up front through Bursar functions is an interesting
question that could be presented in a follow-up study.
Institutional policies regarding document fees may be an important factor in
determining the buy-make decision that is worth further investigation. Most U.S.
schools charge a per-document fee to the student for each record request (AACRAO).
USC, as an example, charges a fee of $10.00 per transcript and collects the fee at the
time of the order. Many other schools charge an upfront “records fee” at the point of
registration which is collected by the school’s cashier’s or bursar office. Then the
students may request as many records as they like with no further charges. For
example, Stanford University charges a one-time upfront fee of $200 and allows
students to order as many transcripts as they want for the rest of their life without paying
anything additional (T.Black, personal communication, April 2013). No document fees
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 82
are then collected at the time of transaction. If, as purported by Robert Morley at USC
(Appendix A) and respondents to the survey (Appendix B), cashiering was an important
consideration in the buy-make decision, then eliminating that consideration by moving it
to another department on campus and making it a one-time transaction (in terms of how
often fees are collected per student), could render a buy decision less likely. When a
key obstacle to building a system yourself is removed, thenit follows that the likelihood
of being able to provide the services without the use of a vendor of should increase.
Further investigation of the cashiering function at institutions of higher education
would be an important target for future research. Why are cashiering functions
considered an issue worthy of off-loading by registrar’s office as opposed to other
departments? Dining services, bookstores, parking, and tuition collection services are
all university functions that also collect fees. What is it about registrar’s office culture or
abilities that differ from those other departments, some of which collect their own fees?
Are those fees, in actuality not collected by those departments or do they utlize vendor
services for cashiering as well? In actuality, most departments at USC do not perform
their own cashiering transactions. USC’s Bursar’s office handles the cashiering
processes for most of the university’s departments (e.g., tuition, parking permits,
program fees, health center fees, dining plan fees, and housing fees). In a sense, these
individual departments are off-loading the cashiering function by having the Bursar
collect the fees on their behalf. From a TCE perspective, the departments are out-
sourcing a particular function (cashiering) to an organization that specializes in it. In this
case, the department is “out-sourcing” to another university department, but it is still an
example of the TCE view of buy-make ((Gupta, Herath, & Nathalie, 2005). Further,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 83
USC uses a vendor product, CashNet for online collection of credit card payments of
student fees. This is, obviously, another example of out-sourcing a service related to
other university functions. Finally, it is agaon important to understand that USC is but
one example in the population of institutions of higher education. USC’s policies and
procedures with regards to fee structure and cashiering may not be indicative of those
of other institutions of higher education in general. As such, this is another limitation in
the generalizability of the findings of this study.

Vendor Characteristics and the Future
Robert Morley (personal communication, 2013) stated that USC’s decision to
select Parchment as its transcript vendor was based on the unique service that
Parchment offered at the time with respect to its PDF product. As time has passed
since that 2008 decision, the transcript delivery market has caught up. Other vendors
also now offer similar services to each other. As such, it is worth further and deeper
investigation as to what now drives the vendor decision among institutions. Now that
other vendors offer similar PDF products as Parchment, why have they not re-visited
their vendor decision? Further, as the vendors have morphed and become very
functionally similar, what are their differences that may drive one school to use one
vendor over another?
Finally, since USC made its initial decision to choose Parchment as a vendor
based primarily on Parchment’s unique PDF service, it would be useful to monitor their
record-processing services going forward. Now that many other vendors utilize PDF
technology and offer similar functionalities and pricing tiers, perhaps USC will consider
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 84
investigating the use of other vendors. Perhaps, now that all vendors offer PDF
delivery, the other functions and services (e.g. customer service, technical support,
cashiering functions, and prices offered) of these vendors may make them better
options.
Closing
This dissertation was designed to investigate the buy-make decisions for
processing student record fulfillment requests at the University of Southern California as
well as 80 other universities that fit within several sectors of American higher education.
While the research questions were addressed, additional questions were uncovered, so
the study now also serves as an exploratory study used to investigate these additional
questions uncovered as a result of the data collection. What is not known about the
survey respondents and non-respondents, their institutions and institutional policies,
and how they differ from each other and the case institution are all important factors to
be considered when conducting future research.
Though not all institutions utilize the services of vendors, many of the schools
that do not use them have plans to do so soon. TCE guides these decisions when
schools choose processes that lower the individual cost of each transaction by
increasing the number of total transactions processed. The reasons considered for
opting to use a vendor do not vary widely, though reasons for selecting a particular
vendor may. Whatever those reasons may be, it is clear that TCE theory does guide
college registrars’ decisions to build and maintain their student record fulfillment
requests.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 85
References
AACRAO Transcript Taskforce. (2010). Taken from http://www.aacrao.org/About-
AACRAO/governance-and-
leadership/leadership/transcriptaskforce/ttffinalreport.aspx#.UXBV5Fbn85u
AACRAO SPEEDE Committee (2013). Taken from http://www.aacrao.org/About-
AACRAO/committees/speede/how.aspx#.UXxqj1bn85s
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L.E. (2010). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. UNESCO Pub..
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. (2010) A Year
Later – Electronic Transcript Panel Discussion. Retrieved from
http://handouts.aacrao.org/am10/finished/F0100p_S_Harris.pdf
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. (2013) About
AACRAO: Electronic Data Exchange. Retrieved from
http://www.aacrao.org/about-aacrao/committees/speede.aspx
Autor, D. (2010). The Polarization of job opportunities in the U.S. labor market:
implications for employment and earnings. Center for American Progress and the
Hamilton Project. Retrieved from:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/1110/CI_IncomeInequal
ity_ Autor.pdf
Bailey, T., & Belfield, C. R. (2011). Community college occupational degrees: are they
worth it?.
Barrow, Lisa, and Cecilia Rouse. “Does College Still Pay?” The Economist’s Voice,
University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 86
Barton, P. (2008). How Many College Graduates Does the U.S. Labor Force Really
Need? Change, 40(1), 16-21. Retrieved June 2, 2012, from Research Library
Core. (Document ID: 1410645381).
Bemis, W.M., Do, T.A., and Holmes, D. (2013, April). Electronic exchange of student
transcripts. Conducted at the annual meeting of the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, San Francisco, CA.
Black, T and Chen, H. (2013, April). E-portfolios and the new 21
st
century transcript.
Conducted at the annual meeting of the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, San Francisco, CA.
Black, T. and Leishman, J. (2013, April). Our latest PDF standard is a game changer:
huge leap forward for student data portability. Conducted at the annual meeting
of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers,
San Francisco, CA.
Black, T., Reilly, M., Stanfield, V.S., and Torres, R. (2013, April). Student data portability
and the Groningen declaration. Conducted at the annual meeting of the
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, San
Francisco, CA.
Comm, C., & Mathaisel, D. (2005). A case study in applying lean sustainability
concepts to universities. I, 6(2) pp. 134 – 146. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676370510589855
Credentials Solutions (2014). http://www.credentialssolutions.com/
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 87
Do, T. (2010, April). Overcoming the roadblocks to transcript electronic changes.
Presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, New Orleans, LA.
Ender, K.L. and Mooney, K.A. (1994). From outsourcing to alliances: Strategies for
sharing leadership and exploiting resources at metropolitan universities,
Metropolitan
Universities: An International Forum, 5(3), 51-60.
Ferrer, A., & Riddell, W. C. (2008). Education, credentials, and immigrant earnings.
Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 41(1), 186-
216.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Gollin, G., Lawrence, E., & Contreras, A. (2010). Complexities in Legislative
Suppression of Diploma Mills. Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev., 21, 1.
Goyette, K. (2008). College for some to college for all: Social background, occupational
expectations, and educational expectations over time, Social Science Research,
37(2), 461-484, ISSN 0049-089X,
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.02.002.(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0049089X08000197)
The Groningen Declaration (2012). Retrieved from http://www.eaie.org/home/in-the-
field/policy-advocacy/digital-student-data-portability
Gupta, A., Herath, S. K., & Nathalie, C. M. (2005). Outsourcing in higher education: An
empirical examination. The International Journal of Educational Management,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 88
19(4), 396-412. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/229172400?accountid=14749
Harris, S., Hannah, A., Stones, D., & Morley, R. (2011). Electronic Transcripts: Past,
Present and Future. College and University: Educating the Modern Higher
Education Administration Personnel, 87(2). Taken from www.aacrao.org.
Haskins, R. & Kemple, J. (2009). A New Goal for America’s High Schools: College
Preparation for All. The Future of Children, Spring 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/5/spring%20high%
20schools%20haskins/spring_high_schools_haskins
Jefferies, C.L. (1996). The privatization debate: examining the decision to outsource a
service, Business Officer, 29(7), pp. 26-30.
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Lean Principles. Retrieved from http://www.mep.org
Lau, R., Lau, L., Alhasani, N., & Williams, J. (2011, September). University Accreditation
Requirements Could Create Positive Opportunities for Increasing Professional
SPE Membership. In SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
The National Student Clearinghouse (2014) http://studentclearinghouse.org/
Nikias, C. L. M. (2010). The destined reign of Troy. Retrieved from
http://www.president.usc.edu/speeches/the-destined-reign-of-troy/
Nikias, C. L. M. (2011). A global community with a global mission. Retrieved from
http://www.president.usc.edu/a-global-community-with-a-global-mission/
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 89
Nikias, C. L. M. (2012). You can’t export American universities. Retrieved from
http://www.president.usc.edu/files/2011/07/CNN_News_Clip_NikiasFINAL.pdf
Norris, D. M., Olson, M. A., & Mae, S. (1997). Preparing for virtual commerce in higher
learning. Cause/Effect, 20, 40-44.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
OpenSource (2014). http://opensource.com
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: a third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parchment Exchange (2013) http://exchange.parchment.com/
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
The role and mission of the University of Southern California (1993). Retrieved April 4,
2013, from
https://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USCRole_and_Mission_Statement_1993.pdf
Schneider, M., & Yin, L. M. (2012). Completion matters: The high cost of low community
college graduation rates. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research.
Scrip-safe (2014). http://www.scrip-safe.com/
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Stenstrom, D. M., Curtis, M., & Iyer, R. (2013). School rankings, department rankings,
and individual accomplishments what factors predict obtaining employment after
the PhD? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 208-217.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 90
Tadelis, S., & Williamson, O. (2012). Transaction cost economics. University of
California, Berkeley. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2020176
Thouin, M. F., Hoffman, J. J., & Ford, E. W. (2009). IT outsourcing and firm-level
performance: A transaction cost perspective. Information & Management, 46(8),
463-469.
Tyler, J. H., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2000). Estimating the labor market signaling
value of the GED. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 431-468.
Wermers, D. J. (1997). SPEEDE/ExPRESS: Electronic data interchange (EDI) in
education: a nontechnical approach. Student Records Management: A
Handbook, 125.
White, G. (2007). The impact of globalization on K-12 education: a look into a cloudy
crystal ball. Retrieved from http://web1.desales.edu/default.aspx?pageid=4653
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press: New York
Williamson, O. (2010). Transaction cost economics: the natural progression, Journal of
Retailing, 86(3), 215-226.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in
your corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 91
Appendix A
Interview Protocol

Interviewer: James Feigert Date: 7/10/2013

Respondent: Robert Morley Phone:

Job Title: Associate Registrar Email:

Start Time: 2:07pm End Time: 2:42pm

Introduction:

Hello my name is Jim Feigert and I’m a doctoral student at the USC Rossier
School of Education. I’m conducting this research study for my dissertation. The
purpose of my study is to look at what factors administrators at colleges and universities
consider when deciding on whether or not to utilize a vendor for their student record
processing services.
During this conversation, I am hoping to learn more about your views and your
experiences with student records, the ability, necessity, or priority of sending records
electronically, and why and by whom those decisions are made.
I would like to tape record this interview in order to have an accurate record of
our conversation. Is that ok with you? Thank you again for allowing me to record this
interview. Everything that you share will remain completely confidential and your name
will not be used in my study unless you wish. Notes and recordings will only be shared
with USC for the purpose of this research study and with no one else.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 92
Just a reminder that your participation is voluntary and you do not have to
respond to any questions that you do not want to. Please let me know at any time if you
choose not to participate.
The interview should take approximately 30-40 minutes. Do you have any
questions before we begin?

JMF: All right, well thank you again for your time with me. I know this is out of the
normal context of the work day, but it will definitely be helpful to me and my research.
So, as I was mentioning before, the purpose of my dissertation is to evaluate why
colleges and universities make the decision to either go in-house or vendor out their
record delivery services, under the more general umbrella of using transaction cost
economics to ... That's kind of the lens that I'm focusing a little bit less on the TC
portion, and more on the details, for personal interest. But it's particularly interesting to
me, I think it’ll provide some interesting data for the schools that want to use it, and
you'll help with my dissertation, so ... USC is the model institution that I'm focusing on.
I'm also going to send out a survey to other schools, just to get some, a little bit more
generic data. And this'll be the more in-depth, study will be here at USC, to have it,
hopefully, some lesser contacts.

RMM: I've been looking for the logon to that Regist-L listserv and I just can't find it. I
think Matt is on it, he might be able to give it to you. If he can't, let me know, and I'll go
find it.

JMF: Yeah.

JMF: No problem, I'll follow up on that. Because I want to get this done first, and then, if
I'm going to conduct any other interviews, probably do those and then the survey
because they might tailor how I adjust the survey questions a little bit.

JMF: Yeah. Oh, yeah. But those are going to have to be more general, just shorter
answers. I want to try to get a little bit more in-depth with you, if I can. And if it turns out
that you are the only interview that I do here, then, I think that's fine. But if there's
anything throughout the course of the discussion that might be better directed to
someone else, please feel free to let me know, and ... I'll try to do that.

RMM: Okay.

JMF: Okay. So, this shouldn't take more than 30-40 minutes. The first few questions
are going to be just a bit more statistical, kind of more quantitative information. And
anything that you're not sure about…your best guess is fine. And again, if there's
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 93
someone else who would have the answer more appropriately, that is great; just let me
know that too, and I’ll get it. Alright?

1) Okay, the enrollment of the university?

RMM: Roughly 40,000.

JMF: Forty thousand, right. Okay.

2) And how many total student records are managed by the Registrar’s Office?

RMM: Oh, I would say, approximately 750,000.

JMF: So, the living alumni, deceased alumni, current students, everything.

RMM: Everything ranging from the online academic records, to the filmed
and microfiche records, going back to ... The early 1900s.

JMF: Okay.

RMM: Reliably.

3) JMF: Great. How many requests, again approximately, for documents does the
office receive per year?

RMM: I could only guess it. I think you might be a better person to answer
that. We say we do 50,000 transcripts. We do a number of non-charged
transcripts. We have the Clearinghouse, who has done a transaction that
we don't even see, which is tens of thousands, for verifications. I would
guess that we process, easily, over 100,000 requests for record
information.

4) JMF: Okay. You mentioned verification and transcripts. What other types of
documents might be fulfilled through the office, or would be related to that?

RMM: Transcripts, verifications ... Historic class schedules.

JMF: Class schedules?

RMM: Yeah.

JMF: Okay. Would you consider course descriptions to be part of that
group, also, as a record request?

RMM: Yeah.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 94
JMF: Doesn't belong to an individual student, necessarily, but it's a record
that a student is requesting.

RMM: Yeah, it supports the record, anyway.

JMF: Okay, okay.

5) Okay, so this is getting into little bit of nitty-gritty now, but if you could…walk me
through the document request and fulfillment process that USC now uses?

RMM: Currently?

JMF: Mm-hmm.

RMM: Currently, there are several ways that the request would find its way to our
office. It can begin as a web entry. And that can also take form in a fax request.
It can also take form, although limited, in an email request, and in-person
request. And then, there are miscellaneous other requests that come from legal
counsel and things like that.

JMF: Okay.

RMM: We also have a media relations office.

JMF: Okay, media relations. Okay, so I’ve got Web, fax, email (which is limited)
you mentioned. In-person, legal counsel, media relations, mail?

RMM: Mail, yeah. Right. That's right.

JMF: Mail.

RMM: Which I hope goes away.

JMF: Yeah, seems like … so a lot of overhead with that stuff?

RMM: Yeah, quite a bit.

JMF: I get that, I get that from other colleges as well.

6) Okay, so what is the average order processing time? So, from the time the request is
received until the time the record is sent out of the office? Call that the fulfillment
time, I suppose.

RMM: It varies upon the medium. If it's a PDF request, which is coming through
a web service, that's probably executed in 10 minutes. I'm about right. If it's a
walk-up request, it's filled within a minute or 2. If it's a fax request or an email
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 95
request, email is kind of different, but that is probably a couple of days. If it's a
mail request, I think we say 3-5 days. And, if it's a Web request for a hard copy
document, I'm going to say within 2-3 days.

JMF: Okay.

RMM: Yeah. Feel free to check me out on any of that.

JMF: Yeah, ok. Great, Thank you.

7) JMF: So you mentioned PDF, you mentioned PDF on there. A lot of what I'm going
to focus on my writing is going to be about electronic records, so I have particular
interest in that. So, if we could focus on that for a moment. Clearly there is
electronic record delivery from the university. What format or formats are
utilized? You mentioned PDF already.

RMM: PDF, hard copy, we are now testing outbound EDI-based transcripts. And
we will look at, in the future, XML-based transcripts.

JMF: And you mentioned outbound-only for EDI? Do you take anything in EDI?

RMM: Inbound, we will take EDI.

JMF: Okay.

RMM: XML has not been adopted very widely.

8) JMF: Right. Okay, so PDF, already. And this might be a question better suited for
the Admissions Office, and I’ll follow-up with them. Does the university accept
PDF transcripts?

RMM: Yeah, we do now. We did accept, I think from Docufide, they’ve been
getting high school transcripts for some time. And now, we're getting PDFs, and
we're getting EDI transcripts.

JMF: Great.

RMM: And when we first started sending out PDFs, I think you remember this, it
was interesting. The School of Social Work denied our own transcript, because it
was PDF.

JMF: Right, I think the graduate school ended up calling you ... And both of us,
and have us walk them through retrieving and opening it, so that they can be
sure that it was authentic. Really, they were sort of like … “Oh, I'm not quite sure
what to do with these.”

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 96
RMM: That was a telling thing, though, because PDF was brand new, the market
didn't know that very well. They were suspicious. It took a while for the base to
expand.

9) JMF: Right. So, to deliver records in electronic format, sort of, on the surface, this
might be a simple question. But, I mean, why? Why do that?

RMM: There's 2 reasons. If we're exchanging EDI, XML transcripts, that data
can be read right into the system. If it's PDF, it can be created quickly, and sent
immediately.

JMF: Okay.

RMM: That kind of breaks with the recipient, with the audience. If it's a school,
EDI is preferred if they can accept it, but most schools are not going to take XML
yet. Everyone else seems to like PDFs. Also, with the very high number of
international students we have as well as the global geographic area we must
deliver records to, PDF’s are very useful. They can be delivered instantly over
long distances as opposed to paper documents which, of course, are at the
mercy of postal services of the various countries.

10) JMF: So, it's the recipients that drive the decision...for the format that they want?

RMM: Yeah, that's now a choice made by the recipient.

11) JMF: Right, okay. Now, again, some of these, I already know the answer to, but I
want to walk through the process, and to double-check the ... Sort of trying to get
my data to be relevant. For the record request fulfillment, again, from the
point of receiving the request to delivery, does the university use a vendor
for that?

RMM: Yes. We use ... 2 vendors.

12) JMF: Okay, and which vendors?

RMM: Well, I guess we'll have to strike that. We're down to 1 now.

JMF: Okay. Well, we're talking about all records here, so verifications could
come in that?

RMM: Yeah, we'll say two. One is Docufide and one is the National Student
Clearinghouse.

JMF: The Clearinghouse and ...

RMM: Parchment.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 97

JMF: Parchment. Okay. And, so you use the Clearinghouse for verifications?

RMM: Right.

JMF: All verifications, or just third-party verification?

RMM: Typically, third-party verifications.

JMF: And the other vendor is Parchment; that's for transcripts?

RMM: Right, transcripts. And it can also be record owner verifications, too.

JMF: Oh, okay. So, the requests, the student requests, they get for themselves.

RMM: Right, right.

JMF: As opposed to an employer wanting to verify graduation date, degree,
those types of things?

13) JMF: Okay, so given that you use a vendor, in this case 2 vendors. Why? Why
use a vendor?

RMM: In the case of the Clearinghouse, the number of verifications that on the
part of the Clearinghouse, that we were asked to react to was overwhelming. It
came primarily from lenders, and then, other related people. But it was
overwhelming, it could take many shapes, it could be asking us to complete a
form. It'd be getting us on the phone, in some cases, it still is. Walk-ups. And
the Clearinghouse presented an opportunity in which they would ... We would
send them our data, and they would send their verifications on our behalf. So we
eliminated a great deal of labor-intensive work at no cost to us.

JMF: Okay. So that's in the case of the Clearinghouse. How about Parchment?

RMM: And again, the question was ...

JMF: It was more generic, why use a vendor? Period. I also want to get into the
specifics as to why the vendors that were chosen were chosen. But, you can
answer them both in the same answer.

RMM: Yeah, well, we chose a vendor first, because of PDF considerations
where, even though we could create a PDF, they handled all of the cashiering,
and all of the ... They handled all of the order requests and fulfillment, and they
provided a release mechanism for the PDF. So, basically, all that we had to do
was, pull out our transcript type, assemble it in PDF, and turn it over to them.
They'd take care of both ends, both cashiering and the delivery, which was
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 98
significant. And then, later on, we added the hard copy to that, too. Again, they
handle cashiering and they send us a file that we can run through the printer.

JMF: Oh, as opposed to manual entry.

RMM: Right.

14) JMF: Right. So, that touches a little bit on the next question I want to get to, which
would be, the various pluses and minuses that you've experienced by using the
vendors that were chosen. Again, responding to both vendors is great.

RMM: Well, I'll speak generally about the PDF selection. One criterion, of
course, is cost. The other was ...ease of use. Another consideration was how
universally a PDF could be distributed, in the early models. Several of the
vendors used in-house systems that they maintained. It was dynamic, you could
build on it, but you had to identify someone first, as opposed to Parchment, which
will send a PDF email any way you want. So, they were much more flexible, they
added much more value in that, out of the box, they were the only ones in the
beginning who could digitally sign the document for us.

15) JMF: But could you describe what that means? Digitally signed?

RMM: Digitally signed means that, there is a value encrypted into the document
itself, so that, if it's been tampered with, that will become apparent when you
open it up. And we can always verify that we can send the document, based
upon the digital signature. So, it's a fairly high level of authentication.

16) JMF: So, I've noticed a couple of occasions you referred to the vendor as Docufide,
you've also referred to it as Parchment. Just for clarification for my notes, are
they the same company?

RMM: They are now.

JMF: They are now. Okay.

RMM: Yeah, as of January 1st, 2013.

JMF: And also, part of what used to be Avow?

RMM: Correct, yeah.

JMF: That'll be real important to clarify that.

RMM: No, I don't know if you'd want to introduce this or not, but not everyone
chose to pursue a vendor solution.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 99
JMF: Well, right, yeah. And that's one of the things I'm looking at. I know
Michigan State, for example, and they're probably a good model to look at,
because of the size of the school. I mean, my expectation is that, smaller
schools would be less inclined to need to do that, whereas schools that are-

RMM: Yeah, they don't have the technical support to be able to do that.

JMF: Right.

RMM: Whereas Michigan State does now. There is a certain amount of
overhead, though, that comes out of the office. So that's, on the one side, you’ve
got total control, doesn't cost you anything, really. And the downside is that there
is a certain amount of overhead that you've accepted, by verifying the
authenticity of transcripts that go out. And you have to have a really good means
of tracking them; a whole system just to identify them. If we were to go to track
(USC’s document printing and transcript system within SIS), take a look at it,
they've got a little more detail in their tracking system, for PDFs.

17) JMF: Yeah. I mean, the overhead you're referring to is mostly IT overhead, though.
It isn't necessarily the university…?

RMM: ... Well, no…it is IT, but also, the Registrar's Office, because they're the
ones who get the inquiries that are seeking to authenticate the validity of the
transcript. So, you're getting a lot of calls, a lot of emails. Because, unlike a
digital signature, the people are accepting it on faith, that it came from Michigan
State.

JMF: So, they're not necessarily using any type of digital signature. It's just that,
because it's coming right directly from Michigan State, that's the authentication
they're using.

RMM: Yeah. And a tracking number, which is then used to verify it.

JMF: Is there any way ... I know PDFs, in general, allow this. But is there a way
that t Michigan State is keeping the PDF secure in any way, so that it's, in theory,
can't be tampered with, or ...

RMM: I don't know. You might want to talk to the woman there, the Associate
Registrar who manages it. I don't remember that they have any sort of additional
security features.

18) JMF: Okay. So, security is a big concern with this, obviously. And then, that would
lead me to ask you, how ...any time you're involving a vendor, someone outside
of the institution, how does FERPA come into play? How is the vendor’s
FERPA knowledge vetted so to speak, their ... What they're doing? Their
signatures or their understandings of what kind of pieces do we ask for or
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 100
look for from the vendors, or in dealing with FERPA?

RMM: Right. At the end of the day, what we want to get to is, having them serve
as our official and contracted agent, so that they can act on our behalf. But
before that happens, they have to agree to a number of things, such as secure
servers, encrypted deliveries, the ability to authenticate the request, as I noted.

JMF: And they don't actually store any of the university data, right? Because it's
being sent on call? They don't store it?

RMM: Right. They don't. They're simply transmitting what we send them.

JMF: Right.

RMM: That's a good point, because there are some vendors who do keep the
data.

JMF: And it's definitely a higher level of scrutiny and security than what would be
needed for that purpose. I mean, there are levels of FERPA compliance, based
on what's being shared?

RMM: Yeah, and in our case, we don't have to worry about them storing data, so
that's one less thing. We looked…we had them assure us in writing,
contractually and legally, that they were going to abide by these conditions,
acting as our agent.

19) JMF: Okay. Specific to the vendor, let's talk Parchment, here. You talked a little bit
about pluses and minuses of PDF selection. But, specific to Parchment, what
are both some pluses and minuses of them in particular? You can talk about it
based on at the time that the decision was made; you can talk about it currently.
Just whatever your thoughts are on that.

RMM: Well, at the time, all of the ... I forget the term we used, but all of the
additional features that they had, such as…you could restrict the printing, or not
to print. Or you could restrict the life of the PDF. We started out at 30 days,
which we quickly discovered was not workable. We can also set a sunset for the
ability to move that document to another medium, like a flash drive. Not
everybody had a digital signature at the time. The ability, with an administrative
console, to see the status of the requests. The company we now called
Parchment was far, far, far ahead of anybody else at that time.

JMF: Were there other suitable options at the time?

RMM: The Clearinghouse had a PDF service, and ... I forget, there were two
other companies: one was Credentials, Inc. And the third one, I forget right now,
they all had PDF options, eventually. And, in the beginning, once they had them,
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 101
they were not robust enough. They just did not have enough features for us. And
we're paying a premium price, but we feel better about it. As for consolidating
our transcript ordering to one vendor, as opposed to the two we were using, it
came down to consistency and confusion for the students and cost. It was
unwieldy in terms of staff labor two manage orders from two vendors and too
confusing for students. Also, we received a per document discount from
Parchment if we made them our exclusive transcript vendor.

JMF: Was the feature that you mentioned, the ability to set the expiration date or
the download date ... For the sake of my list of terms that I'm putting in the
dissertation, is that or would it fall under the element of “rights management”?

RMM: Yeah. Thanks. That's the term I was looking for.

JMF: Okay. My readers will need to know that.

20) JMF: Okay, so just in a quick synopsis. I guess, really ... not a synopsis, but the
meat of really what I want to get in to is, what goes into that decision? Why
are vendors chosen or not chosen by a school? And, from what I'm getting
from our discussion is that the volume, the demand for the number of documents
is a big reason, certainly in the case of the Clearinghouse, you mentioned that,
with the different types of forms that would need to be signed. And that type of
thing. Could you envision, with the way USC's setup is, the transcript
fulfillment being done ....with electronic delivery being done in-house?
Could you see that as a possibility?

RMM: Hmm. I'm not following.

JMF: So, you use Parchment now. Could you see, maybe, 5 years from now,
USC deciding, you don't need to use a vendor; you could do it yourselves?

RMM: Possibly. Then we have to be willing to build the structure for cashiering
and fulfillment and the tracking and a lot of things that would be significant, from
an IT perspective. And then, we also have the ongoing overhead of making it
work, whereas a vendor is required to make it work.

21) JMF: You mentioned the premium price that we pay for it. Do you get a sense,
though, that, even with that price, that it still ends up ... What it ends up costing
per document? Not necessarily what the per-document fee that the vendor
charges, but what a per-document cost that the university sees out of that?

RMM: Yeah.

JMF: I mean, I'm keeping the numbers in the contract with Parchment out of this
discussion, so ...

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 102
RMM: The desire would be, I mean, if we could send every transcript as a PDF,
we have tremendous labor savings. And we've gradually seen that now, to the
point where, we're approaching 30% of our transcript volume, is PDF. And that's
virtually no handling by us. A little oversight, handling phone calls, which is a
significant part of it. But the ability to not have to set up printers and run things
out and put them in envelopes, and all of that, that's a huge wave of savings.
Which, hopefully, we can reassign that labor to other things.

JMF: Yeah, is it your guess that the labor savings is larger than the physical cost
of paper and postage and envelopes, and that type of thing?

RMM: Yeah, oh yeah. Labor's always the biggest part.

JMF: And toner?

RMM: Yeah.

JMF: Yeah.

RMM: Labor's always the most expensive. After, that you have ... Yeah, I did,
almost as an aside...years ago, I did a cost analysis, and I did everything, I did
printer depreciation, I did floor space. I did everything, and it's expensive to print
transcripts.

JMF: Yeah, I saw the number that, I think it was Tuan Do up at San Francisco
State, came up with, I think, it was about $15 per transcript. That was, I think
2010, when he came up with that. But I'm not quite sure how he came up with
that, but ...

RMM: Yeah, his number was higher than mine, but mine, I did, like, in 1993 or
something like that, so it could be ... But, yeah, I mean, postage and handling
and labor and, like you say, toner and paper and depreciation, floor space
dedicated to it. Things like that. It's a really significant cost.

22) JMF: So, using the vendor helps, particularly with the electronic delivery, cuts down
on all of that. And then, additionally, the use of the vendor takes the owners out
of the other aspects of it, some of it, and moves it to the vendor, as opposed to
having it be-

RMM: Yeah, and again, with the printing of the transcripts, you're handling
checks; you're handling cash; all that stuff. It's significant. I’ve got Floyd here
right now. Can we break for a few minutes?

JMF: Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much for your time today.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 103

Appendix B
Survey Protocol

Hello Colleagues:

My name is Jim Feigert and I am an Assistant Registrar at the University of
Southern California and an Ed.D. student at the USC Rossier School of Education.
I am conducting this research study for my dissertation. The purpose of my study is
to look at what factors administrators at colleges and universities consider when
deciding on whether or not to utilize a vendor for their student record processing
and delivery services. I am hoping to learn more about your experiences with
student records, if you utilize electronic document delivery, and how and why those
decisions are made.

I will be collecting and analyzing your responses using the functionality within
SurveyMonkey and the NVivo software package. Everything that you share will
remain completely confidential and your name will not be used in my study. Notes
and responses will only be shared with USC for the purpose of this research study
and with no one else. If you wish to know the results and where your responses fall,
please indicate so in the survey and I will be happy to share a redacted version of
them with you.

Just a reminder that your participation is voluntary and you do not have to respond
to any questions that you do not want to. The survey should take approximately 10
minutes to complete.

Thank you again for you participation.

Regards,

-Jim

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 104
1. For which category of institution do you work?
□Community College
□Private 2-Year
□Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
□Public Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
□Private Research University
□Public Research University
□For-profit
□Other (please specify)

2. What is the size (enrollment) of your institution?
□Under 1,000
□1,000-2,499
□2,500-4,999
□5,000-9,999
□10,000-19,999
□20,000+

3. How many total student records are managed (including alumni and legacy records)?
□More than 500,000
□250,000-500,000
□100,000-249,999
□50,000-99,999
□10,000-49,999
□Less than 10,000

4. How many documents do you receive requests for per year?
□Less than 1,000
□1,000-4,999
□10,000-24,999
□25,000-40,000
□More than 40,000

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 105
5. What is your average transcript order processing time (From the time you receive the
order until the time the record is sent)?
For mail requests For web requests For electronic (e.g.,
EDI, XML, PDF)
requests
For in-person
requests
Less than 1 hour
□ □ □ □
Between 1 hour and 4
hours
□ □ □ □
Between 4 hours and 1
business day
□ □ □ □
Between 1 and 3
business days
□ □ □ □
Between 3 and 5
business days
□ □ □ □
More than 5 business
days
□ □ □ □
N/A
□ □ □ □

6. To whom and in what approximate frequency do you send transcripts? Note: please
select only one choice as your most frequent destination. The other responses may be
used multiple times.

Our most
frequent
destination
Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never
Students/Alumni
□ □ □ □ □ □
Other
Colleges/Universities
□ □ □ □ □ □
Application Services
(AADSAS, AMCAS,
LSAC, PHARMCAS,
PASS, etc.)
□ □ □ □ □ □
Employers/Potential
Employers
□ □ □ □ □ □
Intra-University
Departments
□ □ □ □ □ □
Federal Agencies
□ □ □ □ □ □
Other (please
specify)*
□ □ □ □ □ □
*Other destination(s)
□ □ □ □ □ □

7. Do you deliver transcripts in electronic format?
□Yes
□No

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 106
8. If your answer to #7 is "yes", in what format are they delivered?
(Select all that apply)
□EDI
□XML
□PDF
□Not sure
□Other (please specify)

9. If your answer to #7 is "yes", why? (Select all that apply)
□Speed/Efficiency
□Cost savings
□Student demand
□Ecological (green) reasons
□Other (please specify)

10. If your answer to #7 is "no", why not? (Select all that apply)
□Cost
□Lack of IT support to implement and/or maintain
□Lack of interest from students
□Lack of interest/cooperation from transcript trade partners
□Not consistent/necessary with our mission and/or business needs
□Don't know what electronic delivery is
□N/A
□Other (please specify)

11. Do you use a vendor for RECEIVING transcript orders?
□Yes (please specify which vendor)
□No
Vendor(s)

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 107
12. If your answer to #11 is "yes", why did you choose to use a vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Expertise
□Cost
□Increased functionality
□Staffing concerns
□Familiarity (name recognition)
□N/A
□Other (please specify)

13. What are some of the positives (if any) you have experienced from using
this vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Customer service
□Cost
□Functionality
□Speed/efficiency
□Familiarity (name recognition)
□None
□Other (please specify)

14. What are some of the negatives (if any) you have experienced from using
this vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Cost
□Customer service
□Unfamiliarity with our business needs
□Inflexible/not customizable
□None
□Other (please specify)

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 108
15. If your answer to #11 is "no", why do you not use a vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Cost
□In-house ability to collect our own orders
□Cannot find one that meets our needs
□N/A
□Other (please specify)

16. Do you use a vendor for transcript DELIVERY?
□Yes (please specify which vedor(s)
□No
Vendor(s)

17. If your answer to #16 is "yes", why did you choose to use a vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Expertise
□Increased functionality
□Cost
□Staffing limitations
□Familiarity (name recognition)
□Other (please specify)

18. What are some of the positives (if any) you have experienced from using
this vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Customer service
□Cost
□Functionality
□Speed/efficiency
□Familiarity (name recognition)
□None
□Other (please specify)

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 109
19. What are some of the negatives (if any) you've experienced from using
this vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Cost
□Customer service
□Unfamiliarity with our business needs
□Inflexible/not customizable
□Product is unreliable
□None
□Other (please specify)

20. If your answer to #16 is "no", why don't you use a vendor?
(Select all that apply)
□Cost
□In-house ability to collect our own orders
□Cannot find one that meets our needs
□N/A
□Other (please specify)

21. In order to avoid replication of responses, please provide your email address.
Note: This address will NOT be published, revealed in the study, nor used for any
means other than to prevent data replication.I f you prefer to include only your
email domain (e.g., @usc.edu,@bu.edu,@vmi.edu,etc.) without your full address,
then you may.
Email Address:

22. Do you wish to receive the redacted results of this survey?
□Yes
□No

23. If you do wish to receive the results, please provide an email address where
you would like them sent. Note: your address will not be shared or revealed to
anyone and will only be used for the purpose of delivering the results to you.

This concludes my survey. Thank you very much for your participation!

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 110
Appendix C
Survey Responses
Question 1) For which category of institution
do you work?

Respondent Response Other (please specify)
1 Community College
2 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
3 Other (please specify) Private Liberal Arts (Master's)
4 Public Research University
5 Community College
6 Public Research University
7 Public Research University
8 Community College
9 Other (please specify) Public Liberal Arts Bachelors
& Masters
10 Public Research University
11 Other (please specify) Public Liberal Arts Bachelors
& Masters
12 Public Research University
13 Community College
14 Community College
15 Public Research University
16 Community College
17 Public Research University
18 Public Research University
19 Community College
20 Community College
21 Community College
22 Community College
23 Public Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
24 Community College
25 Community College
26 Community College
27 Other (please specify) Public State College (offers
some 4 year degrees)
28 Other (please specify) Public 4 Year
29 Other (please specify) Private Bachelor's, Master's,
PHD, Professional
30 Public Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
31 Community College
32 Other (please specify) State University
33 Public Research University
34 Other (please specify) Private Liberal Arts, AA,
BA/BS, MA, MS, PhD.
35 Private Research University
36 Private Research University
37 Other (please specify) private, non profit business
college, offering upper
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 111
division UG degrees, plus
Masters' degrees
38 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
39 Public Research University
40 Private Research University
41 Other (please specify) Private 4-year
42 Community College
43 Other (please specify) Private Liberal Arts with
Master Programs, but not a
Research University
44 Public Research University
45 Private Research University
46 Other (please specify) Private Liberal Arts- both 2
year and 4 year degrees
47 Other (please specify) Private - Associate and
Bachelor Degrees
48 Other (please specify) Master's level private
49 Private Research University
50 Other (please specify) Private 4-year + Masters
51 Private Research University
52 Private Research University
53 Private Research University
54 Other (please specify) Public 4 year
55 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
56 Private Research University
57 Other (please specify) Non-Profit University
58 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
59 Public Research University
60 Other (please specify) Private Liberal Arts-
Bachelor's and Masters
61 Other (please specify) 2-year technical college
62 Community College
63 Other (please specify) Private liberal arts, includes
bachelor's degrees and
graduate degrees
64 Private Research University
65 Public Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
66 Other (please specify) private 4 yr
bachelors/master's
67 Private 2-Year
68 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
69 Other (please specify) private, not for profit, liberal
arts+ law school
70 For-Profit
71 Public Research University
72 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
73 Other (please specify) Private, 4-yr Comprehensive
University (different than
Liberal Arts)
74 Public Research University
75 Private Research University
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 112
76 For-Profit
77 Private Research University
78 Other (please specify) Private Liberal Arts but we
also have MA in Education
and Nursing. We are not a
research university.
79 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)
80 Private Liberal Arts (Bachelor's only)

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 113

Question 2) What is the size (enrollment) of your institution?
Respondent

Response
1

10,000-19,999
2

1,000-2,499
3

2,500-4,999
4

More than 20000
5

10,000-19,999
6

5,000-9,999
7

5,000-9,999
8

10,000-19,999
9

5,000-9,999
10

More than 20000
11

10,000-19,999
12

10,000-19,999
13

More than 20000
14

More than 20000
15

More than 20000
16

More than 20000
17

10,000-19,999
18

More than 20000
19

10,000-19,999
20

2,500-4,999
21

10,000-19,999
22

10,000-19,999
23

10,000-19,999
24

10,000-19,999
25

More than 20000
26

More than 20000
27

5,000-9,999
28

5,000-9,999
29

More than 20000
30

More than 20000
31

5,000-9,999
32

10,000-19,999
33

10,000-19,999
34

2,500-4,999
35

5,000-9,999
36

1,000-2,499
37

2,500-4,999
38

1,000-2,499
39

More than 20000
40

5,000-9,999
41

5,000-9,999
42

5,000-9,999
43

2,500-4,999
44

More than 20000
45

2,500-4,999
46

Under 1,000
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 114
47

1,000-2,499
48

1,000-2,499
49

More than 20000
50

2,500-4,999
51

5,000-9,999
52

5,000-9,999
53

5,000-9,999
54

1,000-2,499
55

1,000-2,499
56

5,000-9,999
57

Under 1,000
58

1,000-2,499
59

More than 20000
60

2,500-4,999
61

2,500-4,999
62

5,000-9,999
63

2,500-4,999
64

1,000-2,499
65

5,000-9,999
66

2,500-4,999
67

5,000-9,999
68

Under 1,000
69

1,000-2,499
70

1,000-2,499
71

More than 20000
72

2,500-4,999
73

5,000-9,999
74

More than 20000
75

2,500-4,999
76

Under 1,000
77

5,000-9,999
78

1,000-2,499
79

1,000-2,499
80

1,000-2,499

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 115

Question
3) How many total student records are managed (including
alumni and legacy records)?
Respondent

Response
1

250,000-500,000
2

10,000-49,999
3

4

More than 500,000
5

More than 500,000
6

250,000-500,000
7

250,000-500,000
8

100,000-249,999
9

100,000-249,999
10

More than 500,000
11

100,000-249,999
12

250,000-500,000
13

More than 500,000
14

More than 500,000
15

250,000-500,000
16

More than 500,000
17

More than 500,000
18

19

10,000-49,999
20

21

100,000-249,999
22

250,000-500,000
23

100,000-249,999
24

More than 500,000
25

More than 500,000
26

250,000-500,000
27

100,000-249,999
28

100,000-249,999
29

250,000-500,000
30

More than 500,000
31

10,000-49,999
32

100,000-249,999
33

250,000-500,000
34

100,000-249,999
35

More than 500,000
36

Less than 10,000
37

50,000-99,999
38

10,000-49,999
39

More than 500,000
40

50,000-99,999
41

42

250,000-500,000
43

100,000-249,999
44

45

10,000-49,999
46

10,000-49,999
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 116
47

10,000-49,999
48

100,000-249,999
49

250,000-500,000
50

50,000-99,999
51

52

250,000-500,000
53

100,000-249,999
54

50,000-99,999
55

50,000-99,999
56

10,000-49,999
57

50,000-99,999
58

10,000-49,999
59

250,000-500,000
60

61

10,000-49,999
62

100,000-249,999
63

10,000-49,999
64

100,000-249,999
65

66

250,000-500,000
67

100,000-249,999
68

10,000-49,999
69

250,000-500,000
70

100,000-249,999
71

More than 500,000
72

50,000-99,999
73

100,000-249,999
74

More than 500,000
75

50,000-99,999
76

Less than 10,000
77

250,000-500,000
78

10,000-49,999
79

50,000-99,999
80

50,000-99,999

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 117

Question
4) How many documents do you receive requests for per
year?
Respondent

Response
1

10,000-24,999
2

Less than 1,000
3

4

More than 40,000
5

10,000-24,999
6

10,000-24,999
7

10,000-24,999
8

25,000-40,000
9

5,000-9,999
10

More than 40,000
11

10,000-24,999
12

10,000-24,999
13

More than 40,000
14

More than 40,000
15

25,000-40,000
16

5,000-9,999
17

18

19

10,000-24,999
20

21

1,000-4,999
22

5,000-9,999
23

25,000-40,000
24

25,000-40,000
25

10,000-24,999
26

25,000-40,000
27

5,000-9,999
28

10,000-24,999
29

25,000-40,000
30

More than 40,000
31

5,000-9,999
32

10,000-24,999
33

10,000-24,999
34

10,000-24,999
35

10,000-24,999
36

1,000-4,999
37

1,000-4,999
38

1,000-4,999
39

More than 40,000
40

1,000-4,999
41

42

43

1,000-4,999
44

45

5,000-9,999
46

1,000-4,999
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 118
47

1,000-4,999
48

1,000-4,999
49

5,000-9,999
50

10,000-24,999
51

52

10,000-24,999
53

5,000-9,999
54

Less than 1,000
55

5,000-9,999
56

10,000-24,999
57

1,000-4,999
58

1,000-4,999
59

More than 40,000
60

61

Less than 1,000
62

25,000-40,000
63

5,000-9,999
64

1,000-4,999
65

66

1,000-4,999
67

1,000-4,999
68

Less than 1,000
69

5,000-9,999
70

Less than 1,000
71

More than 40,000
72

Less than 1,000
73

74

More than 40,000
75

10,000-24,999
76

Less than 1,000
77

78

1,000-4,999
79

1,000-4,999
80

5,000-9,999

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 119
Questio
n
5) What is your
average
transcript order
processing time
(From the time
you receive the
order until the
time the record is
sent)?

Responden
t
Less than 1 hour Between
1 hour
and 4
hours
Between
4 hours
and 1
business
day
Between
1 and 3
business
days
Between
3 and 5
busines
s days
More
than 5
busines
s days
N/A
1 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For in-
person
requests

2
3
4 For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
5 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
6 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests,
in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
7 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
8 For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
9 For web
requests
For mail
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
10 For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
11

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 120
12 For in-person
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests

13 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s

14 For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s

15 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests

16
17
18
19 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For in-
person
request
s
For web
requests
20
21 For web
request
s
For mail
request
s
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
22 For in-person
requests
For mail
requests
For web
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
23
24 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s
For in-
person
request
s

25 For
electronic
(e.g., EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For web
requests
For in-
person
request
s

26 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s

27 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 121
28 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
29 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
30 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
request
s

31 For mail
request
s

32 For web
requests
For in-
person
requests
33 For web
requests
For mail
request
s
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
34 For in-
person
requests
For mail
request
s
For web
request
s
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
35 For in-person
requests
For web
request
s
For mail
request
s
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
36 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For mail
request
s

37 For in-
person
requests,
web, mail

38 For mail
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 122
39 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For mail
request
s

40 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For in-
person
requests
For mail
requests

41
42
43 For mail
requests

44
45 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
46 For in-person
requests
For mail
requests

47 For in-
person
requests

48 For mail requests For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
49 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
50 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For web
requests

51
52 For web
requests
For in-
person
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
53 For mail requests
54 For in-
person
request
s

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 123
55 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For in-
person
requests
For web
requests

56 For in-
person
requests

57 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
58 For web
requests

59 For web
requests

60
61 For mail
requests

62 For mail
requests

63 For web
requests
For in-
person
requests
For mail
requests
64 For mail,
web,
electronic
, in-
person
requests

65 For in-person
requests
For web
requests

66 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
67
68 For in-person
requests
For mail
requests

69 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For in-
person
requests

70 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For
electronic
(e.g., EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For mail
requests

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 124
71 For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For in-
person
requests
For mail
requests

72 For in-
person
requests

73 For in-person
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
For mail
requests
For web
requests
74 For in-person
requests
For web
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests
75 For electronic
(e.g., EDI, XML,
PDF) requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
76 For in-person
requests
For mail
requests
For web
requests
77
78
79
80 For in-
person
requests
For web
requests
For mail
requests
For
electroni
c (e.g.,
EDI,
XML,
PDF)
requests

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 125
Questi
on
6) To whom and in what
approximate frequency do you
send transcripts? Note:
please select only one choice
as your most frequent
destination. The other
responses may be used
multiple times.

Respon
dent
Students/Al
umni
Other
Colleges/Unive
rsities
Applicati
on
Services
(AADSA
S,
AMCAS,
LSAC,
PHARM
CAS,
PASS,
etc.)
Employers/Po
tential
Employers
Intra-
Universit
y
Departm
ents
Federal
Agencies
Other
(please
specify
)*
*Other
destinatio
n(s)
1 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequentl
y
Occasionally Occasio
nally
Occasio
nally

2
3
4 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequentl
y
Frequently Occasio
nally
Occasio
nally

5 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequentl
y
Very
frequently
Very
frequentl
y

6 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasion
ally
Frequently
7
8 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequentl
y
Frequently Occasio
nally
Frequent
ly
Freque
ntly
State and
Local
Agencies
9 Frequently Our most
frequent
destination
Rarely Very
frequently
Occasio
nally

10 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequentl
y
Frequently Frequent
ly
Frequent
ly

11
12 Very
frequently
Very frequently Frequentl
y
Very
frequently
Occasio
nally
Rarely
13 Our most
frequent
destination
Very frequently Occasion
ally
Never Rarely Rarely
14 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequentl
y
Frequently Never Occasio
nally

15 Our most
frequent
destination
Very frequently Very
frequentl
y
Frequently Rarely Occasio
nally
Freque
ntly
Embassi
es and
Consulat
es
16
17 Frequently Our most
frequent
destination
Occasion
ally
Very
frequently
Never Frequent
ly

18
19 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasion
ally
Rarely Never Never Never
20

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 126
21 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Rarely Rarely
22 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Frequently Rarely Frequently
23
24 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Never Occasionall
y

25 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Rarely Court
ordered
subpoena
26 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Occasionall
y
Never Occasionall
y

27 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Frequently Very
frequently
Frequently
28 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Frequently Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

29 Frequentl
y
Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y

30 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y
Rarely
31 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Occasionall
y
Frequently Occasionall
y

32 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Never Frequently Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

33 Frequentl
y
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

34 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasionall
y
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y
Very
frequently
Board of
Registere
d Nursing
35 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Frequently
36 Frequentl
y
Very
frequently
Frequently Occasionall
y
Rarely
37 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Our most
frequent
destination
Rarely Occasionall
y

38 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Never Rarely
39 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Frequently Rarely Very
frequently

40 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Occasionall
y
Frequently Very
frequently
Rarely Occasionall
y

41
42
43 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y
Rarely Occasionall
y

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 127
44
45 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Rarely Very
frequently
Frequently Rarely
46 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Occasionall
y
Occasionally Frequently Occasionall
y
Rarely
47 Our most
frequent
destination

48 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Frequently Occasionally Frequently Rarely Rarely
49 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Occasionall
y
Frequently Occasionally Frequently Occasionall
y

50 Frequentl
y
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequently
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y

51
52 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Occasionally Frequently Occasionall
y
Rarely Our most
frequent
destination
New York
State
Education
Department
53
54 Frequentl
y
Frequently Never Never Rarely Rarely
55 Frequentl
y
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

56 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Occasionally Frequently Very
frequently
Occasionall
y

57 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Our most
frequent
destination
Never Frequently Occasionall
y
Very
frequently

58 Frequentl
y
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasionally Very
frequently
Never Occasionall
y

59 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Occasionall
y

60
61 Our most
frequent
destination

62 Frequentl
y
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Frequently Frequently Scholarship
Opportunitie
s
63 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Occasionally Rarely Rarely Rarely Occasionall
y
High
schools,
insurance
agencies
64 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Frequently
65 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

66 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destination
Frequently Occasionally Never Frequently

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 128
67
68 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Frequently Occasionall
y

69 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Frequently Frequently Rarely Occasionall
y
Occasionally international
governmenta
l agencies
70 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Occasionall
y
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y

71 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

72 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

73 Very
frequently
Very
frequently
Frequently Our most
frequent
destination
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Occasionally Applications
as a result of
a scholarship
nomination,
subpoenas,
fraternity and
sorority
applications
74 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Very
frequently
Frequently Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

75 Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Frequently Frequently Occasionall
y
Frequently
76 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Rarely Occasionall
y
Never Never Frequently State
Agencies
(Board of
Nursing,
Dept of Ed,
etc)
77
78
79
80 Very
frequently
Our most
frequent
destinatio
n
Frequently Very
frequently
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 129

Question 7) Do you deliver transcripts in electronic format?
Respondent

Response
1

No
2

3

4

No
5

Yes
6

Yes
7

8

No
9

No
10

Yes
11

12

No
13

No
14

Yes
15

Yes
16

17

No
18

19

Yes
20

21

No
22

Yes
23

24

Yes
25

Yes
26

Yes
27

Yes
28

Yes
29

No
30

No
31

Yes
32

No
33

Yes
34

No
35

No
36

Yes
37

No
38

No
39

Yes
40

Yes
41

42

43

No
44

45

No
46

No
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 130
47

No
48

No
49

No
50

Yes
51

52

No
53

54

No
55

Yes
56

No
57

No
58

Yes
59

No
60

61

No
62

Yes
63

Yes
64

No
65

Yes
66

Yes
67

68

No
69

Yes
70

Yes
71

Yes
72

No
73

Yes
74

Yes
75

Yes
76

No
77

78

79

80

Yes

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 131
Question 8) If your answer to #7 is
"yes", in what format are
they delivered? (Select
all that apply)

Respondent EDI XML PDF Not
sure
Other (please
specify)
1
2
3
4
5 PDF
6 PDF
7
8
9
10 PDF
11
12
13
14 EDI XML PDF
15 EDI XML PDF
16
17
18
19 EDI PDF
20
21
22 EDI
23
24 EDI XML PDF
25 EDI PDF
26 EDI PDF
27 FASTER,
SPEEDE
28 EDI XML PDF
29
30
31
32
33 FASTER
(State of
Florida
system)
34
35
36 PDF
37
38
39 EDI
40 EDI
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 132
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 EDI XML PDF
51
52
53
54
55 PDF
56
57
58 PDF
59
60
61
62 ET system
(thruogh
USM)
63 PDF
64
65 PDF
66 EDI XML PDF
67
68
69 PDF
70 PDF
71 EDI PDF
72
73 PDF
74 ETX with
National
Student
Clearinghouse
trading
partners
75 PDF
76
77
78
79
80 PDF

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 133
Question 9) If your answer to #7 is
"yes", why? (Select all that
apply)

Responden
t
Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecologica
l (green)
reasons
Other (please specify)
1
2
3
4
5 Speed/Efficienc
y
Student demand This is state mandated by fall
2014 -- we just began earlier.
6 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student demand
7
8
9
10 Speed/Efficienc
y

11
12
13
14 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
15 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student demand
16
17
18
19 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
20
21
22 Speed/Efficienc
y

23
24 Speed/Efficienc
y
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
25 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
26 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
27 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
28 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
29
30
31
32
33 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Mandated by State
34
35
36 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 134
37
38
39 We only deliver limited (less than
200 schools and organizations) in
EDI TS130 right now through our
State System. We are in process
of RFP to secure a vendor to be
able to issue all forms of
Electronic Transcripts to any
requestor or recipient.
40 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Ecological (green) reasons
51
52
53
54
55 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
56
57
58 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
59
60
61
62 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Ecological (green) reasons
63 Speed/Efficienc
y
Ecologica
l (green)
reasons
Security
64
65 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student demand
66 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
67
68
69 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecologica
l (green)
reasons
security
70 Cost
savings

71 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 135
72
73 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Ecologica
l (green)
reasons
I was asked to participate in the
pilot group several years ago.
74 Speed/Efficienc
y

75 Speed/Efficienc
y
Cost
savings
Student
demand
Ecological (green) reasons
76
77
78
79
80 Student demand

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 136
Questio
n
10) If your
answer to
#7 is "no",
why not?
(Select all
that
apply)

Responden
t
Cost Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain
Lack of
interest
from
student
s
Lack of
interest/cooperatio
n from transcript
trade partners
Not
consistent/necessar
y with our mission
and/or business
needs
Don't
know
what
electroni
c delivery
is
N/A Other
(please
specify)
1 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

2
3
4 Have been
concentratin
g on
receiving.
Will now
focus on
sending.
5
6
7
8 Cost Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain
Not
consistent/necessar
y with our mission
and/or business
needs

9 In testing
phase at this
point. Will
send in near
future.
10
11
12 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

13 N/A
14
15
16
17 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

18
19
20
21 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

22 N/A
23
24
25
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 137
26
27
28 N/A
29 Soon
30 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

31
32 We plan to
implement
this within
the next
year.
33
34 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

35 Cost Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

36
37 have not
found the
time to
implement;
will be
looking at in
the near
future
38 Cost Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

39
40
41
42
43 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

44
45 Cost
46 Cost Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

47 we are in the
process of
implementin
g the service.
48 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

49 lack of
interest from
institution
50
51
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 138
52 We are in
process of
instituting
electronic
transcripts
53
54 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

55
56 Not
consistent/necessar
y with our mission
and/or business
needs

57 Not
consistent/necessar
y with our mission
and/or business
needs

58
59 We are in the
process of
moving
forward with
electronic
transcript
delivery, but
are still
vetting
vendors and
prioritizing
resources.
60
61 Moving
toward it.
Currently not
there quite
yet.
62
63
64 Cost Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

65
66 N/A
67
68 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

69 N/A
70
71
72 Intend to
73
74
75 N/A
76 Lack of IT
support to
implemen
t and/or
maintain

77
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 139
78
79
80

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 140

Question 11) Do you use a vendor for RECEIVING transcript orders?
Respondent

Response Vendor(s)
1

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
2

3

4

No

5

No

6

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials, Parchment
7

8

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
9

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
10

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
11

12

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials Solutions
13

Yes (please specify which vendor) etran and credentials solutions
14

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials Solutions
15

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials Solutions
16

17

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
18

19

Yes (please specify which vendor)
Credentials, JST, NSLC,
PARCHMENT, script safe
20

21

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credential's Inc.
22

Yes (please specify which vendor)

23

24

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
25

Yes (please specify which vendor)

26

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credential's
27

No

28

Yes (please specify which vendor) Docufide and Credentials
29

No

30

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credential Solutions
31

32

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials Solutions
33

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credentials
34

Yes (please specify which vendor) Docufide
35

No

36

No

37

No

38

Yes (please specify which vendor) National Student Clearinghouse
39

No

40

No

41

42

43

Yes (please specify which vendor)

44

45

Yes (please specify which vendor)

46

No

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 141
47

No

48

No

49

No

50

Yes (please specify which vendor) Credential Solutions
51

52

No

53

54

Yes (please specify which vendor) National Clearinghouse
55

No

56

No

57

No

58

Yes (please specify which vendor)

59

Yes (please specify which vendor)

60

61

No

62

Yes (please specify which vendor)
Same ET system through
University of Maryland
(systems)
63

Yes (please specify which vendor)
eSCRIP-SAFE, Parchment-
Exchange, National Student
Clearinghouse
64

No

65

No

66

Yes (please specify which vendor) credentials solutions
67

68

No

69

No

70

Yes (please specify which vendor) Paradigm
71

Yes (please specify which vendor) Parchment
72

No

73

Yes (please specify which vendor)
We use two: Scrip-safe and
National Student Clearinghouse
74

Yes (please specify which vendor) National Student Clearinghouse
75

No

76

No

77

78

79

80

Yes (please specify which vendor)
Transcripts on Demand (Scrip-
safe)

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 142
Questio
n
12) If your
answer to #11
is "yes", why
did you choose
to use a
vendor? (Select
all that apply)

Responde
nt
Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)
N/
A
Other (please specify)
1 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

2
3
4
5
6 Did not choose as they are incoming.
7
8 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s

9 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

10 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

11
12 Increased
functionalit
y

13 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

14 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

15 Expertis
e
Increased
functionalit
y
Limited IT resources to build homegrown
solutions.
16
17 Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s

18
19 Expertis
e
Increased
functionalit
y

20
21 Increased
functionalit
y
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)
Efficiency, time managment, student
friendly process, much faster turn around
time to fulfill transcript orders and a large
reduction in paper processing.
22 Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s

23
24 Expertis Cos Familiarity
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 143
e t (name
recognitio
n)
25 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

26 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y

27
28 Increased
functionalit
y

29
30 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y

31
32 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y

33 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Customer service and customizability
34 Increased
functionalit
y

35
36
37
38 Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y

39
40
41
42
43 Increased
functionalit
y

44
45 Increased
functionalit
y

46
47
48
49
50 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s
outstanding customer servce
51
52
53
54 Cos
t
Staffing
concern
s

55
56
57
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 144
58 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s
Ability to collect payment online
anywhere in the world. 24-7 availability.
59 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
We use eTranscript CA mostly because
so many California Community Colleges
send through that service (which tends to
be the bulk of our transfer work), and
because they standardize the sending
format so strictly (which keeps our
systems from breaking when they get
unexpected values).
60
61
62 Cos
t

63 Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

64
65
66 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Increased
functionalit
y
Staffing
concern
s
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)
Outstanding personal service!
67
68
69
70 Expertis
e
Cos
t
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

71 Expertis
e
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

72
73 Expertis
e
Staffing
concern
s
Familiarity
(name
recognitio
n)

74 Increased
functionalit
y

75
76
77
78
79
80 Student convenience in ordering; to
avoid processing credit cards in-house.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 145

Quest
ion
13) What are some of the
positives (if any) you have
experienced from using this
vendor? (Select all that
apply)

Respon
dent

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)
No
ne Other (please specify)
1

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

2

3

4

5

6

None
7

8

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

9

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

10

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

11

12

Speed/efficiency

13

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

Credentials Solutions is the best in the
business when meeting the needs of the
customer. They have customized and trained
specifically for the institution. That is
appreciated.
14

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

15

Custome
r service

Function
ality

16

17

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

18

19

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

20

21

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

22

Custome
r service

Function
ality

23

24

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

25

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 146
ion)
26

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

27

28

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

Staffing
29

30

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

31

32

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

33

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

Consistency in service and process
34

None
35

36

37

38

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

39

40

41

42

43

None
44

45

Function
ality

46

47

48

49

50

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

51

52

53

54

Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

55

56

57

58

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

59

Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

There is a strong community of California
colleges that are involved with this service,
and I have really enjoyed attending
workshops, and being part of the steering
committee, as it allows me a strong voice in
the evolution of the service.
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 147
60

61

62

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality Speed/efficiency

63

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

This is in reference to our primary vendor,
eSCRIP-SAFE.
64

65

66

Custome
r service

Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

67

68

69

70

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

71

Custome
r service

Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

72

73

Custome
r service
Co
st
Function
ality
Speed/effic
iency
Familiar
ity
(name
recognit
ion)

74

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

75

76

77

78

79

80

Custome
r service

Function
ality Speed/efficiency

See q. 12

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 148
Questi
on
14) What are some of the
negatives (if any) you have
experienced from using this
vendor? (Select all that apply)

Respond
ent
Cost Customer service Unfamilia
rity with
our
business
needs
Inflexible/
not
customiza
ble
Non
e
Other (please specify)
1 None
2
3
4
5
6 None
7
8 None
9
10 None
11
12 None
13 None
14 None
15 We have to use a state payment gateway
instead of that supplied by our vendor. It
is very clunky and often times self-
destructs during orders.
16
17 None
18
19 None
20
21 None
22 Cost
23
24 Cost
25 None
26 None
27
28 Ability to get more schools to accept and
send via electronic methodology.
29
30 None
31
32 None
33 None
34 None
35
36
37
38 Cost Unfamilia
rity with
our
business
needs
Inflexible/
not
customiza
ble

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 149
39
40
41
42
43 None
44
45 None
46
47
48
49
50 None
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 None
59 Unfamilia
rity with
our
business
needs
The breadth of services provided by
eTran is not as great as with other
vendors. It is also frustrating that more
schools do not use the service or do not
use it sufficiently heavily.
60
61
62 None
63 None
64
65
66 None
67
68
69
70 None
71 None
72
73 Scrip-safe is more flexible than National
Student Clearinghouse
74 Inflexible/
not
customiza
ble
I don't think they're as aggressive about
developing new options and services as
a for-profit like Avow might be.
75
76
77
78
79
80 Students who mis-enter recipients have
to pay to re-order with correct
information.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 150

Question
15) If your answer
to #11 is "no", why
do you not use a
vendor? (Select all
that apply)

Respondent

Cost
In-house ability to collect
our own orders
Cannot
find one
that
meets
our
needs N/A
Other (please
specify)
1

N/A

2

3

4

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

5

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

6

7

8

N/A

9

N/A

10

11

12

13

N/A

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

N/A

22

N/A

23

24

25

26

27

In the
process of
implementing
with
Credentials.
28

N/A

29

Soon
30

31

32

33

34

N/A

35

Cost
In-house ability to collect
our own orders

36

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

37

In-house ability to collect

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 151
our own orders
38

N/A

39

We are in
RFP process
to secure and
will be
implementing
in the Spring.
40

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

41

42

43

44

45

46

Cost
In-house ability to collect
our own orders

47

we are in the
process of
impementing
the service
with eScrip-
Safe.
48

Exploring
using the
Clearinghous
e, but for
future.
49

Cannot
find one
that
meets
our
needs

50

N/A

51

52

We use the
capabilities
that come
with Banner.
53

54

55

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

56

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

We are very
efficient and
don't feel it's
necessary to
use a vendor.
57

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

65

N/A

66

N/A

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 152
67

68

In-house ability to collect
our own orders

69

Cost

we don't
charge a fee
for
transcripts.
We are in the
process of
exploring
this.
70

71

72

IN progress
73

74

75

Always have
options to
retrieve
documents
without a
specific
vendor.
76

Cost

77

78

79

80

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 153
Questi
on
16) Do
you use
a vendor
for
transcript
DELIVE
RY?
17) If your answer
to #16 is "yes", why
did you choose to
use a vendor?
(Select all that
apply)

Respond
ent
Respons
e
Vendor(s) Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Staffing
limitatio
ns
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)
Other (please specify)
1 No
2
3
4 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials Experti
se

5 No
6 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity

7
8 No
9 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

10 No
11
12 No
13 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials
Solutions,
etrans
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

14 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials
Solutions
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

15 No
16
17 No
18
19 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials
Solutions
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity

20
21 No
22 No
23
24 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials,
Parchment,
Joint
Services(milit
ary), Scrip-
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Staffing
limitatio
ns

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 154
safe
25 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Staffing
limitatio
ns
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

26 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st

27 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
FASTER,
SPEEDE
Co
st
Offered free by the state
of Florida
28 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials
Solutions
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Staffing
limitatio
ns
Customer Service
provided.
29 No
30 No
31
32 No
33 No
34 No
35 No
36 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Co
st
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

37 No
38 No
39 No
40 No
41
42
43 No
44
45 No
46 No
47 No
48 No
49 No
50 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credential
Solutions
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Staffing
limitatio
ns
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

51
52 No
53
54 No
55 Yes
(please
specify
which
eScrip-Safe Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 155
vedor(s)
56 No
57 No
58 No
59 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Credentials
Solutions
We have no ability to
collect credit card
payments from alums
ordering transcripts
except by using a vendor.
For current students,
whose payments can be
made through their
student billing account,
we do not use a vendor.
60
61 No
62
63 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
eSCRIP-
SAFE
Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Staffing
limitatio
ns
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

64 No
65 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
NSC Experti
se
Co
st
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

66 No
67
68 No
69 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
eScrip-Safe Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

70 No
71 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Parchment Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

72 No
73 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
eScrip-Safe Increase
d
functiona
lity
Familiari
ty (name
recogniti
on)

74 No
75 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
Parchment Experti
se
Increase
d
functiona
lity
Co
st

76 No
77
78
79

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 156
80 Yes
(please
specify
which
vedor(s)
eScrip-safe Increased
functionalit
y

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 157
Question 18) What are some of
the positives (if any)
you have experienced
from using this vendor?
(Select all that apply)

Respondent Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)
None Other
(please
specify)
1
2
3
4 Customer
service
Speed/efficiency
5
6 Customer
service
Functionality Speed/efficiency Credentials provides a superb
customer relationship.
7
8
9 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Exceptional customer service
10
11
12
13 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

14 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity (name recognition)
15
16
17
18
19 Customer
service
Functionality Speed/efficiency
20
21
22
23
24 Functionality Speed/efficiency
25 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

26 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

27 Functionality Speed/efficiency
28 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Client Vendor relationship is
valued, service is exceptional.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 158
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 Customer
service
Cost Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)
None No longer
costing
the
college
(we were
free and
paying
the
vendor)
and we
are now
getting
paid
51
52
53
54
55 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

56
57
58
59 Customer
service

60
61
62
63 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

64
65 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

66
67
68
69 Customer
service
Cost Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

70
71 Customer
service
Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)
Transcript
Tracker
STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 159
72
73 Customer
service
Functionality Speed/efficiency Familiarity
(name
recognition)

74
75 Customer
service
Cost Functionality Speed/efficiency
76
77
78
79
80 Functionality Speed/efficiency

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 160

Question
19) What are some of
the negatives (if any)
you've experienced
from using this
vendor? (Select all
that apply)

Respondent

Cos
t
Customer
service
Unfamiliarity
with our
business
needs
Inflexible/no
t
customizabl
e
Product
is
unreliabl
e
Non
e Other (please specify)
1

2

3

4

Frequent disruptions to
service. These are not
necessarily the fault of the
vendor, but it sometimes takes
longer to diagnose the
problem when looking at two
different systems, ours and the
vendors.
5

6

I would like to see Credentials
explore a modification of their
ordering pages.
7

8

9

None
10

11

12

13

None
14

None
15

16

17

18

19

Unfamiliarity
with our
business
needs
Inflexible/no
t
customizabl
e

very few, most of it has been
very positive. only a few things
I have not been able to
customize.
20

21

22

23

24

None
25

None
26

None
27

None
28

A few glitches with functions
has come up. However, these
have all been identified,
discussed and a mutually
acceptable solution has been
adopted. Cannot ask for any
better customer services
solutions.
29

30

31

32

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 161
33

34

35

36

Inflexible/no
t
customizabl
e

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

None
51

52

53

54

55

None
56

57

58

59

Unfamiliarity
with our
business
needs

There have occasionally been
technical issues, but this is
largely because we are on
homegrown SIS.
60

61

62

63

None
64

65

None
66

67

68

69

double entry, both in our
database and on their website,
but improvements are coming
on both sides.
70

71

None
72

73

Cos
t

74

75

Recent merger caused server
support issues
76

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 162
77

78

79

80

Students sometimes have
trouble combining the
transcript with on-line
applications.

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 163

Question
20) If your answer to #16 is
"no", why don't you use a
vendor? (Select all that apply)

Respondent

Cost
In-house ability to
collect our own orders
Cannot
find one
that
meets
our
needs N/A Other (please specify)
1

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

2

3

4

5

6

N/A

7

8

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

9

N/A

10

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

11

12

Cannot
find one
that
meets
our
needs

13

I didn't understand Question 16, the delivery of electronic
transcripts is credentials solutions and etran, but if you were
talking about paper delivery we use us postal
14

15

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

16

17

.
18

19

20

21

N/A

22

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

23

24

25

26

27

N/A

28

N/A

29

Soon
30

Cost

31

32

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

33

Cost

34

N/A

35

Cost
In-house ability to
collect our own orders

36

37

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

38

Cost In-house ability to

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 164
collect our own orders
39

In process with vendor. Started electronic by sending to the
System which maintains a server and we do this largely within
the state. Now we want to expand and are looking at all options.
We do receive electronic transcripts via several vendors and
SPEEDE.
40

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

41

42

43

Moving to using Script-Safe as our electronic transcript service.
Waiting for the interface with Eullican to be completed.
44

45

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

46

Cost
In-house ability to
collect our own orders

47

we are in the process of implementing the service with eScrip-
Safe.
48

Exploring options for future use.
49

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

50

51

52

N/A

53

54

Cost

No IT support
55

56

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

57

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

58

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

59

60

61

Working with National Student Clearinghouse to get it started
62

63

64

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

65

66

N/A

67

68

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

69

N/A

70

In-house ability to
collect our own orders

71

72

In progress
73

74

We're content to send them ourselves for now.
75

N/A

76

N/A

77

78

79

80

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 165

Appendix D

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 166

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 167

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 168

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 169

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 170

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 171

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 172

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 173

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 174

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 175

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 176

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 177

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 178

STUDENT RECORD DELIVERY 179

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In order to give students and alumni the best possible opportunities to secure the best jobs in an increasingly global, competitive, and green job and graduate school market, institutions can look to their record ordering and delivery processes for ways to efficiently and securely verify their students’ degrees and credentials. The electronic delivery of student records has proven to be a viable option for alleviating inefficiencies. ❧ This study used Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) to investigate the decisions universities make as to whether to build their own records delivery processes or to purchase them from a vendor. What factors go in to the decision‐making process and what market characteristics are considered when making these decisions are two important questions considered in investigating the sample institution, the University of Southern California (USC), and its decision to out‐source its record ordering services to a vendor, Parchment Exchange™. ❧ This was a qualitative study utilizing in‐depth interview methods conducted at USC in order to investigate its buy vs. build decision process as well a survey protocol distributed to other colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada in order to determine which schools utilize electronic record delivery, whether they use a vendor, and why they did or did not use one. Findings from this study indicate that the speed, efficiency, and functionality that vendors can offer institutions are key factors in the decision to buy or build. Of particular interest are the ability to process credit card payments and other cashiering functions as well as the ability to fulfill a large number of requests. While many schools, particularly smaller schools and schools that do not utilize electronic document exchange, have not chosen to utilize the services of vendor, larger schools and many of those delivering records electronically do use a vendor and consider the above factors when deciding which vendors to choose.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

Contracting for performance: examining the relationship between LAUSD and ALEKS using transaction cost economics

PDF

Contracting for special education: a case study of a charter school contract for special education

PDF

Special education outsourcing: district privatization of therapeutic day schools for students with severe emotional disabilities

PDF

A study of online project-based learning with Gambassa: crossroads of informal contracting and cloud management systems

PDF

The local politics of education governance: power and influence among school boards, superintendents, and teachers' unions

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

PDF

The social media dilemma in education: policy design, implementation and effects

PDF

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

PDF

Multiple perceptions of teachers who use data

PDF

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

PDF

Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs

Asset Metadata

Creator Feigert, James Michael (author)

Core Title Buy or build? A transaction cost economics view of university student record processing services

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/23/2014

Defense Date 04/22/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag EDI,EDX,efficiency,electronic data exchange,Globalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,pdf,student records,transcripts,vendor,XML

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Burch, Patricia E. (committee member), Strunk, Katharine O. (committee member)

Creator Email feigert@usc.edu,jamesfeigert@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-448027

Unique identifier UC11287056

Identifier etd-FeigertJam-2730.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-448027 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FeigertJam-2730.pdf

Dmrecord 448027

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Feigert, James Michael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA