case studycost savingenrollment

Case Study: How a Community College Cut Tool Spend 40% by Consolidating Enrollment Platforms

eenrollment

2026-01-28

9 min read

How a community college cut tool spend 40% and boosted conversions—replicable playbook with interviews, savings, and ROI templates.

Hook: When too many tools cost you students and dollars

Enrollment offices waste time chasing passwords, IT teams patch fragile integrations, and finance teams wonder why monthly SaaS invoices keep growing while conversion rates stall. For many community colleges, tool-bloat is an invisible tax — until an audit reveals a 40% overspend on overlapping enrollment platforms. This case study-style template shows how one hypothetical institution cut tool spend by 40%, improved enrollment conversions, and created a repeatable playbook you can use in 2026.

Executive summary — the headline results

Riverbend Community College (hypothetical) consolidated a fragmented enrollment tech stack across admissions, CRM, scheduling, and communications. The results after a nine-month program:

40% reduction in annual tool spend (net of migration costs)
6.8 percentage point lift in application-to-enrollment conversion (e.g., from 36% to 42.8%)
25% fewer application-support tickets and a 30% reduction in manual workflows
Time-to-enroll reduced by 12 days on average
Clear governance and an ongoing vendor rationalization process to prevent tool bloat returning

Why this matters in 2026

Late-2025 and early-2026 trends amplified the urgency of platform consolidation for higher education: rising SaaS costs after post-pandemic normalization, an upswing in AI-driven enrollment tools, and stricter data-governance expectations from state regulators. Institutions failing to rationalize tools face:

Duplicate subscriptions and integration debt
Security and compliance gaps as data fragments across vendors
Operational drag as teams choose different “best-of-breed” tools for similar tasks

Consolidation is no longer just a budget exercise — it is a strategic priority for institutions seeking to scale personalized, AI-aided recruitment and onboarding without ballooning costs.

Step-by-step playbook Riverbend used (replicable template)

1. Start with a short, sharp audit (2–4 weeks)

Goal: create a single inventory of tools, spend, active users, integration points, and primary use cases.

Pull finance reports for the last 24 months and tag all vendors used for enrollment-related workflows.
Survey units (Admissions, Advising, IT, Registrar, Marketing, Financial Aid) for active users and perceived value.
Map data flows: which systems send student records, where are duplicates created, and who owns the truth of each data field?
Classify tools by impact and usage: Core (critical), Adjunct (nice-to-have), Deprecated (replace or retire).

2. Build a prioritized rationalization roadmap (4 weeks)

Goal: identify consolidation targets with highest savings and least risk.

Score each tool on cost, frequency of use, integration complexity, and student-facing impact.
Flag overlapping feature sets (e.g., multiple CRMs, two communications platforms, disparate scheduling tools).
Define quick wins versus complicated migrations. Quick wins deliver >50% of target savings with low disruption.

3. Secure stakeholder buy-in (ongoing; formalized in month 2)

Goal: align executives, IT, finance, and front-line staff around outcomes and risks.

Run short stakeholder interviews and present a one-page business case focused on cost, risk reduction, and conversion uplift.
Form a steering committee with executive sponsor (e.g., VP Enrollment) and working group (IT, Registrar, Admissions counselors, Finance).
Agree on success metrics: cost savings, conversion rate, ticket volume, and time-to-enroll.

4. Vendor assessment and selection (6–10 weeks)

Goal: choose a platform (or small set of integrated platforms) that covers multiple use cases with modern APIs and data governance.

Use a weighted scorecard with these minimum criteria:

API-first architecture and support for SSO and SCIM
Ability to support case management, CRM, communications, and forms without heavy add-ons
Evidence of measurable enrollment outcomes at peer institutions
Transparent pricing (especially for high-volume messaging)
Security and data residency compliance

5. Pilot and measure (8–12 weeks)

Goal: validate assumptions with a limited cohort and create a playbook for full migration.

Pick a high-volume, low-risk program (e.g., continuing ed) for a pilot.
Collect pre- and post-pilot benchmarks for conversion, tickets, and staff time.
Iterate on integrations and messaging sequences using AI-assisted orchestration (2026 trend: use models for personalization but keep human oversight for data privacy); incorporate governance notes from recent AI-governance playbooks like Stop Cleaning Up After AI.

6. Full migration and decommission (3–6 months)

Goal: move users, workflows, and data; retire legacy systems.

Run migration sprints by functional area (Admissions, Advising, Financial Aid).
Use phased cutovers and parallel-run periods where legacy systems remain read-only for 30–60 days.
Capture operational playbooks and train staff with mandatory role-based training; measure adoption.

7. Measure ROI and lock governance (ongoing)

Goal: demonstrate savings and prevent tool creep.

Quarterly ROI dashboards: subscription spend, FTE-hours saved, conversion improvements, and ticket volume.
Establish procurement guardrails: new vendors require a business case, security review, and data mapping; consider outcome-based procurement for strategic buys.
Annual stack reviews tied to budgeting cycles to renew the governance loop.

Hypothetical stakeholder interviews (replicable quotes and perspectives)

These quotes are illustrative templates institutions can adapt when interviewing their stakeholders.

"We were spending money on three different communication tools and two CRMs. Nobody owned the customer journey end-to-end — students bounced around and we lost them." — Enrollment VP, Riverbend CC (hypothetical)

"IT was spending 40% of our integration budget just keeping connectors alive. Consolidation allowed us to build one robust pipeline with fewer breakpoints." — Director of IT, Riverbend CC (hypothetical)

"Admissions staff gained back five hours a week because the new platform automated manual steps and gave us a single student view." — Senior Admissions Counselor, Riverbend CC (hypothetical)

"Students told us the onboarding felt simpler — one login, clearer deadlines, fewer conflicting emails. That translated directly into higher enrollments." — Student Success Advisor, Riverbend CC (hypothetical)

Quantifying the savings and conversion improvements

Here’s a simple ROI model Riverbend used. All figures are hypothetical but realistic for a mid-sized community college in 2026.

Cost side (annual)

Legacy subscriptions: $480,000 (12 vendors averaging $40,000)
Migration and one-time implementation: $120,000
Projected consolidated platform subscription: $240,000
Net first-year cost: $240,000 + $120,000 = $360,000 (25% reduction year one vs. legacy)
Net ongoing annual spend (year two+): $240,000 (50% reduction vs. legacy)

Operational savings (annual equivalent)

FTE time saved (2 FTEs at $60,000 each): $120,000
Reduced ticket handling and vendor management: $30,000
Total operational savings: $150,000

Enrollment lift (annual revenue)

Assume Riverbend's average tuition net per new student is $3,500 and annual new enrollments were 1,200.

Baseline conversion: 36% = 1,200 of applicants
Post-consolidation conversion: 42.8% (+6.8pp) = 1,428 new enrollments
Incremental enrollments: 228 x $3,500 = $798,000

First-year ROI

Net first-year cost reduction and ops savings: $480,000 (legacy $480k vs. new $360k + $150k ops saved = $510k — net effective improvement contextually shown)
Incremental tuition revenue: $798,000
First-year net benefit after migration costs: ~$438,000

Simple message: even with conservative lift assumptions, the consolidated platform pays for itself in year one and generates meaningful ongoing savings and revenue lift.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

No governance — Pitfall: tools proliferate after a successful pilot. Fix: procurement guardrails and an annual stack review.
Feature-first selection — Pitfall: buying shiny features that duplicate other tools. Fix: select for interoperability and a single student data model.
Under-investing in change management — Pitfall: staff revert to old tools. Fix: mandatory role-based training, incentives aligned to adoption metrics.
Ignoring privacy and compliance — Pitfall: rapid AI personalization without lawful bases. Fix: a data governance checklist and privacy-by-design review (2026 standard).

Actionable templates and checklists (copy-paste friendly)

Quick audit checklist

List every vendor used in recruitment & enrollment
Monthly & annual spend per vendor
Active user counts and units owning each tool
Primary data exchanged and where canonical records live
Open tickets and support hours per vendor (last 12 months)

Vendor scorecard (0–5 scale)

Core functionality coverage
API & SSO support
Security & compliance posture
Integration cost/time
Evidence of ROI at peer institutions
Pricing transparency

Stakeholder interview guide

What are your top 3 pain points with current tools?
Which tasks take the most staff time? How often?
Are students complaining about conflicting communications or multiple logins?
What data would you need in one place to do your job better?

2026 trends to leverage during consolidation

AI-assisted orchestration: use model-driven workflows to personalize outreach while retaining human review for sensitive decisions.
API-first vendors: choose platforms built for modular extensibility to reduce future integration debt.
Federated identity and privacy-first design: SSO and consent frameworks reduce friction and regulatory risk. (See identity best-practices at the Identity is the Center of Zero Trust primer.)
Outcome-based procurement: negotiate contracts tied to conversion or onboarding KPIs (rising in 2025–2026). Read vendor-play strategies like TradeBaze Vendor Playbook.

Final verdict: what other community colleges can replicate

The Riverbend playbook is repeatable: start with a short audit, score your stack, pilot a consolidated platform, and lock governance into procurement. The math is compelling — reducing subscriptions and reclaiming staff time typically funds the migration and produces incremental enrollments that compound into sustainable revenue.

Seven quick wins you can implement this month

Run a one-week SaaS inventory (finance + IT) to identify duplicate tools.
Set up a simple stakeholder steering committee with an executive sponsor.
Freeze any new tool purchases until the stack review completes.
Negotiate message-volume caps with vendors to avoid surprise bills.
Run a pilot replacing one adjunct tool with your core CRM for a single program.
Publish a one-page adoption playbook for any new platform (roles, responsibilities, timelines).
Track conversion and ticket volume week-over-week to prove impact.

Closing takeaway

In 2026, platform consolidation is both a fiscal imperative and a strategic lever for improving student outcomes. The hypothetical Riverbend case shows how a disciplined, stakeholder-driven approach can cut tool spend by 40%, lift conversions, and reduce operational complexity. With transparent procurement, modern APIs, and intentional change management, community colleges can convert tech cost into student success.

Call to action

Ready to replicate this playbook at your institution? Start with a free 2-week SaaS inventory template and a vendor scorecard. Contact the enrollment.live team to get the templates, a sample ROI calculator, and a 90-day consolidation roadmap tailored to your college.

enrollment

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.