University of Alaska Fairbanks Acquires a New, Integrated eLearning Application

A university can make that decision by looking beyond whether the existing application still technically works and asking whether it supports the future of the program. Many legacy systems survive because staff know how to work around them, but that does not mean they are helping the institution operate efficiently. If the application cannot integrate with newer systems, forces people into manual workarounds, and makes it harder to improve the student or staff experience, the real question is no longer whether to patch it. It is whether the institution is carrying too much operational friction just to preserve the familiar. 

That decision is easier when the university develops a clear business case instead of treating the problem as only a software replacement. Leaders need to understand what the current system is costing in time, complexity, and lost flexibility. And they should know what a better integrated future state would look like. 

In Resource Data’s case study, the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) relied on a custom FileMaker Pro application for its distance education program. However, the system could not integrate with newer technologies, including the university website and student information and course management systems. Resource Data performed a high-level functional analysis and recommended replacing several eLearning systems with one integrated application. This case study shows that the right replacement decision usually comes from evaluating operational fit and future readiness, not just software age. Benefits include less complexity, better integration, and a clearer path for long-term program improvement. 

Older custom-built education systems become a problem because they were often designed for a narrower operational moment than the one the institution faces today. As schools expand digital services, they need systems that exchange information cleanly across admissions, registration, course delivery, student communications, and public-facing web experiences. When an older tool cannot integrate with those environments, staff end up compensating with duplicate entry, manual workarounds, and disconnected processes. 

That creates more than technical inconvenience. It affects how quickly staff can work, how consistently students experience the program, and how confident leaders can evolve their digital infrastructure. A non-integrated system often becomes the point where broader modernization efforts slow down. 

In Resource Data’s case study, UAF’s FileMaker Pro application could not integrate with newer technologies. That included the university’s website and student information and course management systems. The current state also involved a complex web of manual processes, workarounds, and disparate systems. This case study shows that integration gaps are often the real reason legacy education systems stop being viable. Those issues lead to slower workflows, more staff effort, and less flexibility to modernize the broader learning environment. 

It takes a structured review of how the program operates, not just a technical inventory of the software. When a distance-education environment has grown into a patchwork of tools and workarounds, the institution needs to understand how staff move through the work, where systems fail to connect, and which tasks create avoidable friction. That usually means analyzing the current state in enough detail to see the visible software stack and the hidden human effort holding it together. 

A useful simplification effort also needs a future-state vision. Without that, teams may know what is broken but still struggle to agree on what the replacement environment should accomplish. The strongest modernization efforts define the current complexity and the desired outcome clearly enough to guide decision-making. 

In this case study, Resource Data documented the current state of UAF’s eLearning program and contrasted it with an envisioned future state. The current environment was described as a complex spiderweb of manual processes, workarounds, and disparate systems; the future state showed a streamlined, integrated system with one-third fewer components.  

This Resource Data case study demonstrates that simplification starts with making complexity visible and then designing toward a more coherent operating model. The operational impact is less duplication, clearer workflows, and a more manageable digital environment for staff and faculty. 

A university can build that alignment by involving the people who use and depend on the current system in a structured discovery process before selecting a replacement. eLearning environments often touch multiple roles, including faculty, support staff, academic administrators, and technical teams. If the university chooses a system based only on top-level assumptions or vendor promises, it risks buying something that looks modern but does not actually fit the work. 

That is why business analysis matters so much in higher education modernization. Interviews, group discussions, questionnaires, and job shadowing help uncover what people are really doing, where workflows break down, and which requirements are essential versus optional. That kind of participation also increases buy-in because stakeholders can see their needs reflected in the planning process. 

In Resource Data’s case study, Resource Data gathered business requirements through preliminary questionnaires, group discussions, individual interviews, and job shadowing with staff. This collaborative process made recommendations more tailored to the university’s actual needs and built stakeholder participation into the effort. This case study shows that internal alignment is often the difference between a successful system acquisition and a mismatch between a tool and workflow. Results include stronger buy-in, better requirements, and a more reliable path to selecting the right eLearning solution. 

A strong requirements package and future-state design are important because they help the university buy with clarity instead of buying into ambiguity. If an institution goes to market before it understands its current pain points, future goals, and workflow requirements, then vendors are forced to respond to incomplete assumptions. That makes it harder to compare solutions, harder to scope implementation realistically, and easier to select a product that solves only part of the problem. 

A well-developed RFP foundation gives the university a much stronger position. It translates internal complexity into structured requirements and helps procurement focus on outcomes that matter to the program. It also reduces the risk that the replacement project begins with a vague vision and drifts as the implementation unfolds. 

In Resource Data’s case study, one of the recommendations was to define requirements for a replacement system, which led to the creation of an RFP for eLearning supported by 29 detailed process diagrams. Resource Data also provided diagrams showing the differences between the current and envisioned future states.  

This case study shows that a thoughtful requirement and RFP process is a strategic advantage. This makes it possible to evaluate vendors better, have clearer implementation expectations, and strengthens the chance that the selected solution will support the university’s long-term eLearning goals.