IMS Global: Is it fair to assume then that technology is a primary driver in the move toward standardized business processes?

CB: It should be. As we've evolved out of the standards that drive database and middleware and portals into the applications set, standards really need to be driven by the vertical industries themselves. For example, in healthcare we have the standard called Health Level 7 (HL7). It's a standard that defines the interface for clinical data-patients and doctors and financials, things of that nature. HL7 eliminates high cost, custom integrations. Think about the power of standardizing various core data processes that would allow institutions to drive the cost out of their back office applications topology and put that cost savings into other areas of their businesses.

IMS Global: And in the case of academia, institutions want to take that back office savings and reinvest it in the classroom, thereby increasing learning outcomes.

CB: That's why the Academic Enterprise Initiative exists. We want to see that trend evolve, and we want to play in that trend. But our strategy isn't going to be defined solely by us, because we want to work with the industry as we do with all of our products. We work very closely with our customers and the industry at large. We ask them: `what is it you need? What is it you will adopt?' In this case, we have a very clear requirement that is 10 years old around integration and that's why we're starting here.

IMS Global: It's generally believed that with regard to technology in particular, higher education has lagged behind some of the other verticals like business and healthcare in adopting innovation. Is academia catching up? Are administrators becoming more skilled at the use of technology to manage their institutions?

CB: The answer is kind of in two parts. One is: technology laggard? Maybe. I think it's more the nature of these enterprises and the way they're governed versus Citibank, for example. It could make the institutions look like they're technology laggards, but I think a lot of CIOs would argue that point and say: `No, we're not laggards. It just takes us longer on the change side to figure out how to optimize these things to serve our core businesses.'

On the other hand, we're watching our customers upgrade to PeopleSoft 8.9 across the board: HR, Financials, and Student Administration. I was talking to someone a few weeks ago who suggested that our customers must not be upgrading since not much has been heard about upgrades in the press. The truth is that we actually have hundreds of customers who are upgrading (to 8.9). The reason you don't hear anything about it is because it's going so well. We have to think about this, in part, as a maturity curve or model. Schools are savvier; they've been around the block already. They know there is no pixie dust involved here. Implementing and upgrading technology is difficult to do, but they're doing it because they know downstream that it's worth it. The ROI is there.

We're in a phase that is very exciting to me. We are mature in the ERP arena in education, certainly in North America, parts of Europe, and parts of Asia/Pacific. The countries that are moving into ERP uptake, beginning that learning curve, are going to benefit hugely from watching their peers and learning from others' mistakes. In addition, technology from the vendors continues to evolve and serve a greater number of business processes. But also you are seeing the enterprise side, the human part of the equation, learn, evolve, adapt, and find ways to leverage these technologies. A good example would be 10 years ago, institutions didn't have "customers" so they saw no need for a product like CRM. Today, they not only acknowledge that they have customers, but realize they need to manage and serve them more effectively.