|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campusweb > CAMS Survey
|
CAMS Survey
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. What department at Garrett do you work in?
|
| | Housing & Hospitality |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Registrar |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Course of Study |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Registrars |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Development |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
Total: 5 |
2. Compared to Jenzabar, what are the features and functionalities of CAMS that you particularly liked?
|
| | much more user friendly by all appearances; this system incorporates what we do so we wouldn't always be grafting something onto the main system or jury-rigging something to get our charges into student accounts. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | It looks more user friendly. I like the integration of the portals as well as the integration of CMS and room scheduling. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Reports look a lot simpler to do than in Jenzabar, which is an essential part of every department. Maybe I would think differently, otherwise. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Campus web and EMS are included in this software. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Most 'new' users would relate to a Windows platform quicker then Jenzabar. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
Total: 5 |
3. Compared to Jenzabar, what are the features and functionalities of CAMS that you particularly disliked?
|
| | None |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | I don't like that finalizing registration is only a registrar function. It also looked like student information is actually stored under the admissions module which is at least slightly confusing (until you get used to it). |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | It seems that you can have only one address per person, while in Jenzabar we can have various (not that this is a big deal.) |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | The portal system for faculty/advisor interaction. Our Student web is set up to match what the faculty requested as a system. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | The report writer. Yes it seemed user friendly but not enough to convince me I would want to rewrite the numerous customized reports I use in any given day now. I would also think that it is the CAMS salesperson job to make it appear as user friendly as possible but customizations to fit our needs will always complicate matters later on. In addition, CAMS comes with reports but we will need to customize each which would mean a license for Cystal Reports would be necessary for several users. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
Total: 5 |
4. What would you see as the greatest benefits of implementing CAMS at Garrett?
|
| | Our department would be part of the whole system instead of an add-on. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Reduced cost (perhaps), better connectivity between offices as well as more functionality for offices that don't currently have it. Looks to be more user friendly, making training easier. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | It seems like it will be easier for the Business Department as they deal with fees information from many departments. Pam said all will funnel down to the "billing department." Mechelle has shared that there are issues she has to deal with, because Jenzabar is not user friendly and she doesn't get the information as it's suppose to be. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | none |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | On a personal level, I don't. This presentation was a reminder to me that I am able to do all of the necessary functions using Jenzabar and Infomaker. The thought of migrating to a new system and having to rebuild everything already in place is of no benefit. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
Total: 5 |
5. What would you see as the greatest impediments to implementing CAMS at Garrett?
|
| | Training, as always |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Converting the data. The possiblity that it does not work as well as the sales demo makes it look. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | The time frame issue and having to learn a system that is completely new. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Having the entire school with out reports and the knowledege of how to opporate our functions until we do the set-up, conversion, and rewrite and relearn all of our modules. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Data migration to CAMS most certainly would be my biggest concern - in particular as we are in the middle of a campaign. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
Total: 5 |
6. Any other comments?
|
| | I think there will be a similar presentation by Jenzebar in the near future, no? I will be interested to see if their new version is as user friendly and intuitive as this one appears to be. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | I would like to have a hands-on demo where we could actually work with the program before deciding if it is really as easy to use as it appears. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Overall I think it's a better product. That said, I will still have to attend the Jenzabar JICS to see what that has to offer. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | I prefer to stay with Jenzabar and the student web. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
| | Bottom line for me: CAMS does what Jenzabar is already doing for us - so why migrate? If there are individual users or departments who are not getting what they need out of Jenzabar then they need to be relentless in connecting to the right resources and/or get the proper training to get the job done. |
| | | 1 (20%) | |
|
|
Total: 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|