Card, mobile credential, payment and security
By Jude Kiah, Assistant Vice President of Auxiliary Services, Xavier University
The United States has entered a challenging period in the history of its workforce. For the first time, there are four generations in the workplace simultaneously. And the newest generation, the Millennials, have entered the workplace with a far different view of work than their predecessors.
There are more than 75 million of them, more than the Baby Boomers they are replacing and far more than Generation X – and Millennials are proving to be a managerial challenge unlike previous generations. Even as employers are spending increasing money and time recruiting and training them, Millennials are leaving jobs earlier and with much greater frequency. This is true across fields, and auxiliary services and card offices are no exception.
[pullquote]Even as employers are spending increasing money and time recruiting and training them, Millennials are leaving jobs earlier and with much greater frequency. This is true across fields, and auxiliary services and card offices are no exception.[/pullquote]
Even though “organizational commitment” continues to be a reliable predictor of an employee’s turnover intention, the definition of what commits an employee to a job is changing. Millennials desire more intense coaching, flexibility and quicker advancement than previous generations. Employers have a keen interest in understanding what connects Millennials to the workplace and what, if anything can reduce these higher rates of turnover.
Recently, I finished a qualitative study of Millennials to find out, from them, how their work values have shifted, what they desire in an employer and what causes them to leave with greater frequency than previous generations. I believe the results can help attract and retain new professionals to auxiliary services.
In the study, five major themes emerged highlighting Millennial values. Topping the list, achieving work-life balance evoked the most passionate responses. The theme was visceral to every participant. Regardless of the structure of their workday, all participants expressed a desire for flexibility in the job itself or that the job afforded enough flexibility outside of work.
Compensation in many forms was cited a reason to take a job, leave one or pine for a new employer, but how Millennials define compensation varies. Many of them were ardent about benefits, including health insurance, retirement accounts and flex time. They seek to rise in their profession for the appropriation of influence or added flexibility. In addition to income, all mentioned a singular focus: to pursue happiness.
Autonomy was another common goal. Not all want to be a CEO or have a corner office, but all did want the power to make decisions in their sphere. Conversely, they didn’t want their supervisors to micro-manage their decisions.
Poor management tops the list of reasons they leave employers. The definition of poor management varied, but once they deemed a supervisor to be incompetent, they report actively looking for a job nearly immediately.
Poor management was seen as a deal breaker and many report deciding almost immediately, regardless of financial sacrifice, that they could not continue to work for a boss that had values misaligned with their own. In many cases, they said supervisors had no idea they were unhappy until their resignation letter was on the desk. Whether the managers were cavalier is debatable, but it is clear that they didn’t have a grasp of what their subordinates were thinking, feeling or planning.
Millennials see the workplace differently and don’t feel that the unwritten rules apply to them. They don’t subscribe to the concept of “paying dues” feel strongly that their age should not serve as a barrier to their ideas being given credibility.
For employers, much of the last decade has been spent defining the differences between Millennials and previous generations. But as the study shows, concentrating on the differences of Millennials does not solve the turnover problem. This requires a different approach to leadership.
To be successful in reducing turnover, employers will need to spend less effort expressing disdain and confusion at what they perceive to be work values that are antithetical to their own. Instead they should make more of an effort understanding Millennials’ definitions of work values. This will have to happen to recruit and retain Millennials as the quest to find those that have work values similar to their own may prove futile.
Above all else, work-life balance will clearly need to be redefined to retain Millennials. There has been an increasing propensity in the workplace to work harder, have less personal time, and to do more with less, but Millennials are refusing to subscribe to the prior-generation’s theory of work.
Some employers see the increased need for balance among Millennials as a decrease in loyalty or work ethic. This view places work above personal life, and not alongside it as Millennials strongly assert it should be. There are many ways – flextime, telecommuting, job sharing, flexible work days, etc. – by which that balance can be struck, and where Millennials work ethic can be retained and even increased.
By Tom Stiles, Executive Director, Identification Systems Group
For students, a college dormitory is a home away from home. But for university housing departments, a residence hall or a collection of residence halls can be a management challenge equal to that of a small town. With thousands of students to serve each year, colleges are constantly scratching their heads as they look for ways to better manage these communities, including how to increase security while improving efficiency.
The University of Mississippi, also known as Ole Miss, regularly evaluates products and services that can better serve its growing student population. With 40% of the institution’s 20,000 students living in on-campus housing, the Housing IT Department has a big job. In 2009 the department invested in an electronic access control and visitor registration system from TotalCard that manages access rights and privileges at all 14 residence halls and two apartment complexes.
The TotalCard campus card system enables colleges and universities to identify, validate and track students and faculty members. Students can use their ID cards for a variety of things both on and off campus including making purchases, utilizing meal plans, attending events, accessing dorm rooms and other campus facilities, tracking attendance and more. The system’s modular design allows campuses to implement features and applications one at a time, in phases or all at once, depending on specific campus needs.
Prior to implementing the electronic access system, Ole Miss students gained access to their residence hall and room with a physical key. The biggest security risk was that there was no way to deactivate lost or stolen keys. Today, cards are immediately deactivated in the system as soon as they are reported missing.
When considering options for access control, the campus was concerned with cost and ease of installation. Wireless locks helped minimize installation and wiring costs, and enabled Ole Miss to deploy electronic access to each individual room in every residence hall. Each wireless lock is battery powered and system administrators receive notifications when batteries need to be changed.
At Ole Miss, ID cards are mailed to the student’s home address during the summer. This solved the issue of long lines at the campus card office on move in day, but added a challenge. There was no way of accounting for students as they moved in, thus creating inaccurate records.
The housing department approached TotalCard for help building a solution to ensure each student officially checks in, prior to accessing their room. The company facilitated integration between the access control system and StarRez, the housing management system used by Ole Miss. StarRez is a student housing solution that includes online housing applications, such as roommate and room self-selection. The Ole Miss integration enables room numbers and access privileges to be instantly assigned as students present their card during check-in at their residence hall.
“We manage all of our student room assignments in StarRez, so we knew an integration between the two systems would help to simplify the move in process,” explains Chris Thornton, systems administrator for student housing at Ole Miss. “To check in, students present their prox cards to a reader at the front desk of their residence hall, at which time their room assignment and access privileges are activated instantly in TotalCard. This is great for us because students get fast and easy access to their rooms and we get an electronic list of who has moved in and who has not.”
[pullquote]We knew an integration between our TotalCard access system and StarRez housing management system would streamline the move-in process[/pullquote]
The campus also benefits from use of TotalCard’s electronic visitor registration system at each residence hall. Students are asked to meet their guest in the lobby of their building, at which time both the student and guest present an ID and a record of the visit is logged. The system accepts both student ID cards and driver licenses for fast enrollment and electronic reporting, giving operators easy access to information about who is coming and going in each building.
The combination of electronic door access and visitor registration adds extra security to residence halls. By implementing a fully integrated card system, a housing department benefits from the features and functionality of multiple applications without the headache of managing each system individually.
The Identification Systems Group (ISG) – a network of 32 dealers that cover the US and Canada – offers the TotalCard system. These dealers are local systems integrators, providing high quality, cost effective solutions backed by the support and strength of our Professional Services Certification program.
By: Dan Gretz, Senior Director, Market Development, Blackboard Transact
Campus credentials and their various uses represent a rapidly expanding technology aiding colleges and universities in operating more efficiently while enhancing the student experience. Today, traditional magnetic stripe and prox cards – once the standard on campus – are being replaced in favor of more secure, sophisticated contactless cards and smart phones enabled with Near Field Communication (NFC).
Contactless cards and mobile credentials contain a computer chip with a connected antenna, enabling credentials to communicate with a reader over a wireless interface. They are “contactless” because the credential and reader don’t physically touch during operation, but instead data is shared between the two using radio frequency (RF) communication.
Sharing data via RF communication is extremely common. In addition to AM and FM radio signals, RF communication makes possible many modern conveniences including broadcast and satellite television, cordless phones, mobile phones, keyless entry for automobiles, garage door openers, wireless networking and more.
In most of these examples, both the sender and receiver rely on their own power supply. Contactless cards, however, don’t typically contain an on-board power source. Instead, the card accesses the power it needs to operate from the electromagnetic field created by the reader. This process is key to the operation of a contactless identification system as it enables cards to remain idle until they come in close proximity to a compatible reader.
Security, engagement and innovation are staples for universities when it comes to student recruitment and retention. Implementing an NFC-enabled contactless credential on campus helps universities to be at the cutting edge in those very same areas.
In addition, with more security, greater functionality, and multi-application support, institutions deploying contactless make ample strides in future-proofing their technology.
When purchasing new card stock, consider pre-printing the cards with the background elements so that only personalization data such as the cardholder photo and name are printed when issued on campus. Purchasing pre-printed card stock provides the most professional finish and also minimizes the chance of having surface imperfections resulting from the embedded chip, sometimes caused by card designs.
Other suggestions for contactless card issuance include adopting an ISO numbering scheme using a 16-digit card format with a 6-digit IIN registered with ANSI. Schools may also want to redesign or rebrand the card and card program materials to denote new functionality and leading technology. Campuses may also want to consider using their provider’s re-carding services to efficiently personalize new card stock with current cardholder information and avoid wear-and-tear on in-house card printers.
A campus-wide initiative to migrate to an NFC-enabled contactless card or mobile device requires thoughtful planning, involvement of cross-functional leaders, and changes to your overall credential program. But in making the decision to go contactless, a university will enjoy heightened security, greater interoperability and an innovative boost to campus that makes the conversion well worth the effort.
By: Todd Brooks, director of product management, ColorID
The topic of campus migrations, contactless cards and mobile credentials can seem overwhelming and present unique challenges for a university infrastructure. There seems to be as many opinions as there are options, and no one wants to be the one to make a technology decision only to find out that in a few short years the decision has already been rendered obsolete.
When contemplating a campus migration from magnetic stripes or proximity – 125 kHz Prox – cards to an advanced technology such as contactless cards or mobile credentials, there are many things that must be taken into consideration beginning with security, convenience and scalability.
The following are a few topics to keep in mind when starting this kind of project.
One of the largest issues we see within the university sector is the fractionalization that exists within institutions. Disconnects can be a common occurrence between people in the card office, housing, physical security, dining, and other key departments on campus, but decisions made by one entity will likely affect other parties on campus.
ColorID has worked with hundreds of universities to carefully navigate this migration process. Contactless migration should be a campus wide initiative, so one of the first things we recommend when starting the process is to call a meeting with all of these stakeholders. It is important that the contactless card or mobile credential must work with all of the different systems and readers on campus and therefore the best approach is to start with that end in mind.
During these stakeholder meetings, terminology is extremely important and can be very valuable. What one person thinks or understands of a technology could be entirely different from another colleague in a different department. Getting everyone on the same page early can avoid headaches, misunderstandings and costly delays down the road.
One of the most important decisions related to campus migrations is the preference of offline and/or wireless lock models. Housing typically has a very strong opinion about their residence hall locks and that will play a key role in the type of contactless technologies that are available.
Another important factor will be the Campus Card Integrator. Many of the popular integrators support specific contactless technologies and readers for their POS and other systems. Knowing answers to these questions can quickly narrow your focus to certain contactless technologies, readers and manufacturers.
Now that I have my new contactless card, there are many card issuance decisions that need to be addressed to streamline the card office operations, but these four considerations should make for a great start.
Contactless card programming: pre-encoded cards vs. encoding in a printer or at the desktop.
It is typically easier to purchase pre-encoded cards and then capture the number during the printing process, but some specific formats and number types aren’t suitable for this process. For instance, institutions utilizing randomized ISO numbers for access control may need to encode their own card data.
Encryption keys: manufacturer’s encryption key vs. custom key
Most manufacturers provide contactless cards with their standard encryption keys unless custom keys are requested. Over the last year, we have seen a trend toward institutions wanting to manage their own encryption keys versus using the manufacturer’s standard key.
Managing your own custom keys can add another layer of security to your credential, but it also brings along a management burden. What happens if you lose the key or it is compromised? Who has access to the encryption key? How is it stored and protected?
By Fred Emery, Director of Sales, Heartland OneCard
By now, most of us have heard about the “new” EMV payment cards. At least that’s the hope, as the transition to EMV in the United States is now well underway.
EMV, or Europay, MasterCard and Visa, is a set of worldwide standards for a payment card technology that uses computer chips embedded in credit and debit cards (called chip cards) to enable card payments.
EMV is focused on reducing fraud at the point of sale. EMV’s fraud protection enhancements are based on the chip card technology that adds dynamic data to the transaction stream, authenticating that the card is present at the point of purchase. Dynamic data is unique to each transaction.
The older magnetic stripe technology presents only static data that, once stolen, is easy to counterfeit. Because every card contains a unique chip, EMV cards are nearly impossible to economically counterfeit.
Another primary reason for EMV is the fact that credit card fraud has been on the rise in recent years. In 2014, the increase in the number of data breaches was notable, which led some to dub 2014 as “The Year of the Breach.”
These breaches were a result of attacks on point-of-sale (POS) systems for in-person payments. To help prevent fraud at the point of sale, a liability shift became effective on October 1, 2015. On that date merchants, who are considered the “weak link,” became responsible for fraudulent transactions that were made from an EMV chip card taken from a magnetic-swipe terminal instead of an EMV payment terminal. This upgrade in technology increases payment security and reduces the likelihood of fraud occurring with transactions at the POS.
However, this deadline is now being seen as a ramp up date for most, as experts estimate that 1.2 billion payment cards will have to be updated and 12 million POS terminals will require upgrades to accept them. Transitioning to EMV is complex and includes changes to merchants’ POS devices and payment software systems, as well as the software systems of their payment processors, acquirers and card issuers.
Unlike most payment security and fraud prevention upgrades, the transition to EMV cards is highly visible to the cards’ consumers. Not only does the EMV card have a visible symbol on the card (i.e. the chip), the consumer must change habits to use the new cards, as EMV cards are “dipped,” not “swiped.”
Now, instead of quickly swiping their card through a magnetic stripe reader, the consumer inserts the EMV card into the card device and leaves it there until the transaction has completed. Due to this new consumer behavior, almost all of today’s news in the public press centers on the shift to EMV for better POS security. So, in the public’s mind EMV may come to equal payment card security.
What’s more, there is a need for additional training to help staff and consumers adapt to a new style of “dipping” instead of “swiping” their cards. And the certification process to be EMV-compliant is a lengthy one. Each unique combination of card terminal device, device firmware level, payment software, and card brand and type must be certified individually.
Nonetheless, the combined benefits of reducing financial risk, improving data security, meeting student expectations and streamlining access to newer payment methods will quickly encourage institutions to transition to chip cards and the devices and systems that interact with them.
It is predicted that as national merchants move forward with implementing EMV, smaller to midsize businesses – including higher education – will become new targets for criminals. This means that your campus could be a prime target if you haven’t made the proper upgrades.
In the long run, colleges and universities will want to make the move to EMV to benefit from a reduction in card fraud, navigate fewer disputes, realize the opportunity to adopt new payment technology, and vitally, reaffirm to students and parents that their campus remains a safe place to conduct commerce.
By: Angelo Faenza, General Manager, PERSONA and Vice President of Campus Electronic Access Control Security Solutions, ASSA ABLOY Door Security Solutions
As colleges and universities are faced with the challenges of securing their campuses, there is inevitably, and unfortunately, a need to prioritize activities based on the available budget. Though this may seem like an impossible choice to make, campuses need to ask themselves, "What is most important to protect?"
The answer is, of course, the students. While every member of a campus community is critical to the institution’s success, students are the core of the community. Students and their families trust the college or university to provide a safe and enriching environment in which they can learn and grow. As such, any discussion about security on a college or university campus must begin with the residence halls. This is the place students call home in their time on campus, and it should offer the same sense of security as any other home.
If you work at an institution of higher learning, whether large or small, urban or rural, you know that the decision to upgrade security is one that is never made lightly. In fact, the process can be truly overwhelming, one that starts with lots of questions that often lead to even more questions. Where should you start? How many buildings can be upgraded at once? Should the upgrade be campus-wide or should it be done in phases? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what sort of technology should be deployed?
Before we delve into these questions, it is important to acknowledge that every campus is unique. For that reason, there are no absolute, one-size-fits-all rules when it comes to upgrading security. There are, however, a number of guidelines used by many institutions of higher learning.
The first and often most critical step in your upgrade will be your selection of partners. As is the case with almost any purchase, any manufacturer you speak with will focus the conversation on the benefits of the products and solutions they offer. That’s his job. Your job, however, is to dig a little deeper by asking questions.
To get those conversations started, request details on the company’s support offerings. Ask for examples of challenges encountered during the installation process and how they were addressed and resolved by the company. Another important area to probe is whether or not the company will work directly with the integrator to ensure that you can quickly overcome issues as they occur.
Regardless of the question you’re asking, follow up by asking for examples. Then take it a step further and ask for references. You wouldn’t hire an employee without first speaking to people who have experienced working with the individual, and it’s not wise to select something as important as a security solution without the same degree of scrutiny.
The next area to consider is timing. It’s important to map out a comprehensive schedule, which will of course be influenced by whether you’re upgrading all at once or in phases.
Regardless, the scheduling of an upgrade has become more complex as colleges are increasingly using their residence halls to house summer conference attendees. That’s all but rendered the long summer breaks that used to be perfect for maintenance and improvement projects a thing of the past.
To make the most of the time you do have, schedule at the granular level, calculating how many locks will be installed per day. With the proper communications and respect for students’ time and space, it is even feasible to upgrade security with the students present in the resident halls.
Even though you’re just starting, now is the time to think about the upgrade path. Technology changes rapidly, more so every day. As you know by now, upgrading the security in any building is a major undertaking, one you likely don’t want to repeat in a couple of years when you discover that the technology has become obsolete. Be sure to select a solution that can support your growth and future technologies.
Walk your buildings. This is critical, since looking at one door and then assuming every door is the same is a mistake that often throws an upgrade off course. A thorough walk through will alert you to a host of issues, particularly in older buildings, that may present serious challenges and even set your project back significantly if not accounted for properly.
Finally, regardless of your security upgrade’s scope, remember that you are not just selecting a technology. You are also choosing a manufacturer and an integrator to go through the process with you, embarking on what will hopefully be a long-term and productive partnership. That’s why it’s so important that everyone shares the same objectives and works together as a team whether things are going smoothly or, more importantly, if you encounter glitches along the way. It’s those challenges that will really showcase your entire team’s commitment to the success of your upgrade. Take your time, do your due diligence and choose wisely.
By: Jeremy Earles, credentials business leader, Allegion
Smart cards are a growing trend, and we’re anticipating acceleration in their usage within the next year or two for a number of reasons.
Access control and adjacent applications on campus have been driving adoption in the past, but now there are other motives – technological and societal – that are showing value and will lead to more smart card transitions on campuses across the country in 2016.
This transition is being propelled by a number of factors, including:
The credit card industry is encountering an alarming amount of fraud – it’s in the news almost every week – and changes are evident in the fact that consumers have smart chip embedded cards designed to protect transactions and identity.
Card technology in the financial world is often an indicator of, and in many ways drives, what is and will continue to happen in access control. Credit card companies are making the switch because older technology like the magnetic stripe is not secure.
This transition to smart technology on credit cards will also push faster migrations in the access control and campus card arenas.
With the move to smart cards comes an unprecedented change: the merging of physical and logical access through system interoperability. This wasn’t previously possible with magnetic stripe technology because it lacks the functionality and security to provide a robust end-to-end system.
With most current card systems, logical and physical identities typically reside in separate systems. Cardholder roles determine their access privileges (for example, students and faculty members have different privileges), which are created and stored in the enterprise network directory. Synchronizing access privileges between logical directory and physical access control systems involves proprietary, error-prone, time-consuming and expensive manual processes.
In transitioning to system interoperability, cardholder identities will be managed from a single source, as opposed to the current standard of a separate piece of software for each of the card’s applications.
This software change and new ways of management will take a little time and adaptation, but will ultimately have great benefits.
Additionally, as campus administrators combine each of the physical pieces into one or multiple head end systems, the solution’s architecture needs to be chosen for its robustness.
The need for interoperable systems and intelligence/data sharing is being standardized by the Physical Security Interoperability Alliance (PSIA), which has developed a Physical-Logical Access Interoperability (PLAI) specification.
Released as a draft proposal in 2014, it will provide a standard way for enterprises to ensure the logical and physical access privileges associated with a cardholder’s role are always in sync. That synchronicity makes it easier and more cost effective to create solutions, such as confirming that a cardholder is physically present before permitting access to an application or database.
By Larry Delaney, VP and GM, Cashless Systems, CBORD
For more than four decades we have been working with higher education institutions to create value, convenience and automation around identity management on campus. What used to be four or five cards has since become one.
Now we’re in the midst of another sea change in this industry, one that finds our customers asking us and each other "What exactly is a card system?" and "What exactly is card service?"
That discussion starts with identity.
Over the past several years we’ve seen the creative problem solving our customers have done around identity management and access using our systems, and we’ve marveled over how they have pushed the boundaries time and again. Our customers are evolving the definition and the perception of card systems and card services along the way. For instance, they use their cards systems to:
None of these are functions that anyone has traditionally associated with a card system or card services, yet they all involve identity management. So card services personnel are right in the middle of solving problems such as: Who gets which privileges? Who can access which resources?
How identity is verified is evolving too. A university’s customers are 18–22 years old and are the early adopters of all new technology so colleges have an extra incentive, a duty even, to keep campus technology up-to-date. For 2016 this means keeping the credential up-to-date, be it a mag stripe or contactless card, a smartphone or a wristband, an iris or a thumbprint. More likely it is all of these. Systems will need to be prepared to extend the convenience of accepting any and all options to verify identity.
Much of what we think of as card services on a college campus has to do with creating a culture of convenience – giving students easy ways to do all the non-academic parts of life on campus. In fact, since the inception of modern day card programs, card services directors, managers and administrators have all measured what they do in terms of student service. Providing technologies that made things easier was simply good customer service.
In the past several of years, that thinking has adapted to focus on the student experience. What is the out-of-classroom life like? How can it be better? More fun? But in 2016 this thinking will morph further still to consider student success. What are your programs doing to help keep a student in class and engaged? We have several campuses that can point to actual data showing that what they are doing with auxiliary services is impacting retention rates – including the programs and platforms that were originally implemented with the simple intention of providing good customer service. A year from now it won’t just be a few campuses collecting this data, and five years from now everyone will be measuring every out-of-classroom touch point in terms of how it influences student success. The emerging trend of 2015 will be the prevailing convention of 2016.
Of course with any activity involving identity verification comes a host of privacy concerns. It will be debated at length in 2016: convenience vs. privacy. This isn’t specific to higher education for certain, but college campuses are in a unique position at the forefront of deciphering the fine points and leading by example when it comes to the complexities regarding identity management. They will make a considerable effort to be transparent and to use their gathered data to further positively affect student success.
Campuses understand the data is already there, but it only becomes relevant and useful via connectivity. This coming year, card program personnel will find ways to connect with other systems on campus to help create big picture specifics on what influences student retention and success. They will connect with other departments on campus to turn fanciful ideas into concrete processes. They will take the information from those connected systems and connected ideas and create enormous reams of information. Information that will influence smart decisions and affect all areas of campus life.
The future of the card system mirrors that of auxiliary services as a whole. Everything that auxiliary touches will be part of the system. All points will connect. The hub will be identity while the spokes will be conveniences. Yesterday’s card system is tomorrow’s enterprise auxiliary platform, touching all corners of campus and enhancing all aspects of campus life.
By: Kent Pawlak, Product Strategy Director, Blackboard Transact
It seems logical that students who do not attend classes will not perform as well in their academic careers. How much learning can take place in the absence of having enough discipline to attend lectures?
Many studies have been conducted to determine the impact of attendance on academic performance in higher education. Most conclude that higher attendance levels are correlated to superior performance. Superior academic success by students is then correlated to retention and persistence.
Student retention is critical for the financial vitality of a college or university. More than 40% of full-time college students fail to graduate within six years. According to Mike Reilly, executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, institutions are under pressure to boost retention rates, and that’s leading to more campus-wide policies about attendance.1
As with academic performance, student attendance in class is also directly linked to student retention. Because attendance data can be one measure of a student’s level of academic engagement, innovative colleges and universities have begun to use this data for predictive purposes. These campuses can monitor attendance and other indicators of student engagement, with intervention processes in place for students who are most at risk of leaving without a degree.
Clearly, tracking attendance can help institutions identify students in danger of underperforming academically, as well as help engage and retain students. But keeping careful attendance records also supports the institution’s compliance with Federal Financial Aid requirements for audits and in the event of a Federal Program Review.
In this era of increased financial scrutiny by federal and state government, colleges and universities are tightening their reporting standards and improving information systems to ensure strict compliance with financial aid requirements. Attendance plays a role in many of these requirements.
Taking attendance manually has proven historically burdensome and frustrating for faculty members and administrators. At many universities, the discretion for taking attendance is left up to individual departments or even individual professors. The administration may encourage attendance taking, but not mandate it. This flexibility in policy results in confusion in a number of ways:
The most common complaint from faculty is that taking attendance is time-consuming and a hassle. Some universities have attendance systems that enable a faculty member to check in students on a laptop, or print out a student roster to pass around and then later input the information into the attendance system. Both are active processes that must be heavily managed by the professor.
If a manual method is used for taking attendance, the professor must further ensure that records are complete, valid and properly maintained or delivered to the registrar in the likely event a question arises about attendance in relation to withdrawals or grades. If faculty members take attendance on paper, there is the additional complexity of centralizing and retrieving manual attendance records for use in financial aid compliance or in the event of an audit.
Many colleges and universities would benefit from an automated attendance system to make monitoring attendance as easy as possible for faculty and students. Systems should be evaluated based on ease of use, as well as the availability of this information to the enterprise. This will ensure student retention specialists can use this information for predicting at-risk students and that the institution can execute early intervention strategies or ensure financial aid administrators have up-to-date information to manage compliance.
By: Brett St. Pierre, Director of Business Development, Education Solutions, HID Global
University pilots have previewed the promise of industry advancements that enable smartphones to carry credentials. Students, faculty and staff at university campuses will be able to use a ubiquitous device to open doors and perform other tasks that require presentation of a secure credential. University administrators know that mobile phones seem to be permanently in their students’ hands, making their use for access convenient and quite natural. Much has been learned from the pilots in 2015 that will pave the way for broader deployments in 2016.
In addition to improving convenience, mobile access enables universities to reap the benefit of cost savings on credentials. Plus, students lose their mobile phones less often than they lose their cards so, ultimately, the cost for replacement credentials is reduced.
University employees also benefit from carrying credentials on their phones. They aren’t required to wear their ID cards, so they may arrive at a facility without one and have trouble gaining access. But since most carry their cell phone everywhere, the ability to gain access is a given if these phones also carry their credentials.
In addition, the latest solutions enable universities to implement mobile access on a variety of smartphones without the need for any hardware add-ons or attachments, such as having to insert a handset into a sleeve or slide if it does not support certain features. Institutions that have piloted the HID Mobile Access solution say that this improves user convenience while also giving the university a greater degree of flexibility in offering students, faculty and staff the ability to use their smartphone as their credential without incurring additional expense.
Pilot deployments have shown that a big requirement for mobile access adoption is the ability to use a broad range of phones without a sleeve, slide or other add-on accessory. University administrators have seen NFC pilots in the past but prefer a solution that doesn’t require additional hardware to work on a wide range of handsets. And when they can build on their existing infrastructure, such as an iCLASS deployment, it makes for a natural progression.
Universities are also using pilots to see if solutions are as easy to use as they sound in theory. Unless the alternative to using an existing card is as easy and convenient as mobile access, few administrators see people actually using it. They also need to be sure that the solution is secure and easy to administer.
University pilots of HID Mobile access have met these goals. Early areas of investigation have included questions about what happens to the system if the power goes out. When door access is with fail-over generators, users can still enter buildings during a power failure. Pilot participants also realize that when using a smartphone for mobile access, the device itself must have battery power in order to start the communication between the smartphone and the reader. Most testers report little to no change in battery life on devices that are supporting the HID Mobile Access App.
Reactions from pilot participants have been very positive. According to one university administrator, “they love the convenience – rather than having to dig out their ID cards they just use their phones, which in most cases are already in their hands.”
