CRP Analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to understand the consumption patterns of our CRP partners. Since there is not much renewal data, and those who have had decision points renewed at near 100%, we are more interested in understanding how these partners use our services.

Methodological Considerations

  1. Since decisions have not been the kind of time point we can center around, as we have in other analyses, I’m using ‘Contract Years’: 1st year of a contract, 2nd year, and so on. This way, we still have 12 month increments.
Impact Interaction Volume Histogram

  1. Impact interaction volume is very high - mean is roughly 27.

  2. There are some seriously heavy users. We will take a look to see what they tend to consume later on.

  3. There are a decent number of accounts in the lower utilization (<10) area.

  1. Most of these instances come from the first year of the contract - Pepperdine, Texas Tech, SUNY Buffalo, UNC, etc.

Do II change over the course of a contract?

  1. As mentioned above, most of the lower impact interaction volume is clustered in Year 1.

  2. We also see a decent number of high utilizers in Year 1.

  3. Year 2 and 3 show a nice positive trend, in that more consumption

  4. Year 4 - scant data, and a bunch are recently year 4: Bentley, University of Kentucky

Do higher research partnerships pre-CRP lead to more engagement?

  1. Many of the CRPs had 4-5 partnerships prior to joining.

  2. Looks like many of the lower utilization data points come from this group. As do some of the highest.

  3. Very few instances of straight to CRP sales.

Same Chart as above, limited to first year of contract

  1. This is where you would expect depth of research portfolio to have the biggest effect - year one utilization.

  2. Instead, we see a lot of variation without a clear pattern.

Looking at averages by which programs schools had before CRP

  1. Mostly, partnerships prior to CRP do not affect impact interaction consumption.

  2. EMF, FF, HESF are slightly above the other forums.

Avg Impact Interactions Given Pre CRP Forum Memberships
AAF HESF BAF SAF EMF ITF PAE AF FF URF
29.3 32.2 29.2 28.9 33.8 30.6 29.9 31.5 32.9 30.2

Programmatic Consumption

  1. PAE, HESF, AAF top the list of impact interactions used.

  2. FF and URF reside at the bottom of the list.

Impact Interactions by Program
Program n
PAE 753
HESF 725
AAF 609
AF 558
BAF 404
SAF 336
ITF 297
Global Public 295
EMF 205
URF 181
FF 135
Strategic Advisory Services 48
NA 5

Looking at who is engaging

  1. Looks like it takes a couple of years to get to 50% of President’s engaged. But there doesn’t appear to be much increase from there.

  2. Provosts on the other hand keep increasing in penetration; same with VPEMs.

  3. Very high utilization for Other CXOs, VPs, and Deans, Directors, and AVPs.

Penetration by Title
Contract_Yr President Provost VPEM CBO_CFO Other_CXO VP Dean_Direct_AVP Other
Year One 28.3% 46.7% 16.7% 25.0% 60.0% 80.0% 76.7% 81.7%
Year Two 47.1% 70.6% 27.5% 33.3% 88.2% 98.0% 98.0% 94.1%
Year Three 48.5% 87.9% 42.4% 30.3% 84.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Year Four 57.1% 57.1% 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Average Number of Interactions w/ Engagement by Titles

Which Title Engages the Most

  1. You see the highest # of interactions when the President or VPEM are involved.

  2. Provost and other CXO are the second tier.

  3. Then every other title.

Avg Impact Interactions Given Title Engagement
President Provost VPEM CBO_CFO Other_CXO VP Dean_Direct_AVP Other
42.4 38.2 42.8 38.9 36.2 33.1 33.5 33.1

President Impact Interactions by Program

  1. From a content perspective, HESF is the leader. Is this a factor of how we log?

  2. AAF and AF are not a close second, although they are the only other programs with a pulse.

  3. Then a very small and longish tail for the rest of the programs.

President Impact Interactions by Program
Program n
HESF 151
AAF 32
AF 15
PAE 3
Strategic Advisory Services 3
BAF 2
EMF 1
Global Public 1
SAF 1
URF 1

President’s Impact Interaction Medium

  1. Presidents are largely going to engage in Events.

  2. Expert Calls and SL Led are a second grouping.

President Impact Interactions by Event Grouping
Event_Grouping n
Events 119
Expert Call 26
SL-Led Impact 24
PLW/Onsite 14
Research Interview 13
Experience 8
Service/Tool 6

Provost Impact Interactions by Program

Forum Perspective

Forum Penetration Over Contract Years

Forum Penetration Across Contract Years
Contract_Yr AF BAF PAE SAF FF HESF AAF URF ITF EMF
Year One 63.3% 50.0% 85.0% 55.0% 36.7% 63.3% 60.0% 41.7% 50.0% 48.3%
Year Two 90.2% 78.4% 94.1% 76.5% 52.9% 92.2% 88.2% 54.9% 70.6% 56.9%
Year Three 100.0% 93.9% 97.0% 90.9% 60.6% 97.0% 87.9% 54.5% 93.9% 72.7%
Year Four 100.0% 85.7% 100.0% 85.7% 28.6% 100.0% 71.4% 42.9% 100.0% 71.4%

Forum Consumption

  1. From a content perspective, AAF is the clear leader.

  2. HESF, BAF, and PAE are second tier engagement.

  3. Then a small, larger than President in volume, tail for the rest of the programs.

Provost Impact Interactions by Program
Program n
AAF 273
HESF 54
PAE 21
BAF 20
SAF 8
EMF 7
URF 7
Strategic Advisory Services 6
AF 2
FF 1

Provost Impact Interaction Medium

  1. Events are the winner, same as with Presidents.

  2. Service/Tool is more likely to be engaged than with Presidents.

  3. Expert Call and SL Led Impact - showing a taste for engaging in projects and research.

Provost Impact Interactions by Event Grouping
Event_Grouping n
Events 140
Service/Tool 80
Expert Call 59
SL-Led Impact 53
PLW/Onsite 29
Research Interview 28
Experience 10

Other CXO Impact Interactions by Program

  1. ITF the leader for other CXOs.

  2. HESF and BAF are clear second tier programmatic utilization.

  3. More utilization in general amongst this group with a smattering of programs below the top two tiers.

Other CXO Impact Interactions by Program
Program n
ITF 221
HESF 164
BAF 35
PAE 28
SAF 27
AAF 22
Global Public 17
AF 12
EMF 11
Strategic Advisory Services 8
FF 5
URF 3

Other CXO Impact Interaction Medium

  1. Events are the winner, same as with Presidents and Provosts.

  2. Expert Calls a clear second.

  3. Research Interviews are relatively high, compared to what we see elsewhere.

Other CXO Impact Interactions by Event Grouping
Event_Grouping n
Events 232
Expert Call 107
Research Interview 70
SL-Led Impact 64
PLW/Onsite 37
Service/Tool 37
Experience 6

VPEM Impact Interactions by Program

  1. Unsurprisingly, VPEMs are most engaged in EMR.

  2. Second tier program engagement focuses on AAF, SAF, and PAE.

  3. Not that much utilization in total, especially compared to the previous two titles.

VPEM Impact Interactions by Program
Program n
EMF 60
AAF 15
SAF 15
PAE 11
HESF 8
ITF 3
AF 1
BAF 1

VPEM Impact Interaction Medium

  1. Events are not the winner, although they are very close.

  2. Service/Tool and PLW/Onsite are second tier.

  3. Lower likelihood of getting an SL Led Impact interaction (despite attending events).

VPEM Impact Interactions by Event Grouping
Event_Grouping n
Events 35
Expert Call 34
Service/Tool 20
PLW/Onsite 11
SL-Led Impact 7
Research Interview 5
Experience 2

Dean/Director/AVP Impact Interactions by Program

  1. MPOC forums hold the top two spots.

  2. Second tier is more focused on higher level strategy - HESF and Global Public.

  3. Also, this is where interactions for URF and FF seem to occur.

Dean/Director/AVP Impact Interactions by Program
Program n
PAE 214
AF 173
HESF 131
Global Public 127
SAF 113
AAF 78
BAF 77
FF 75
URF 68
EMF 63
ITF 20
Strategic Advisory Services 13

Dean/Director/AVP Impact Interaction Medium

  1. Events are the winner, by far.

  2. Service/Tool and Expert Calls are second tier - again shows willingness to engage directly with research.

Dean/Director/AVP Impact Interactions by Event Grouping
Event_Grouping n
Events 594
Expert Call 191
Service/Tool 151
Research Interview 94
SL-Led Impact 75
PLW/Onsite 40
Experience 7

Sticky Services Penetration

  1. Sticky Service Penetration reaches above 30% for Market Insights and for the rest are below 30%.

  2. AIPI and RHI strong benchmarking tools.

  3. Fellowship is its own cup of tea.

Penetration of Sticky Services
FSC AIPI Enrollment_Audit Fellowship MI CS_Audit DEI RHI ES_Planner
22.6% 85.5% 1.6% 62.9% 85.5% 41.9% 14.5% 69.4% 11.3%

Avg Impact Interactions w/ and w/o Sticky Service

The next two tables clearly show that engagement in a sticky service translates to engagement in other impact interactions.

Avg Impact Interactions by Sticky Service Consumption
Contract_Yr Sticky_Service_Binary Avg_Impact_Interactions
Year One 0 12.8
Year One 1 24.1
Year Two 0 16.2
Year Two 1 35.2
Year Three 0 14.5
Year Three 1 42.2
Year Four 0 12.0
Year Four 1 21.8
Avg Impact Interactions by Sticky Service Consumption
Sticky_Service_Binary Avg_Impact_Interactions
0 14.3
1 31.7

FSC Connection to Other Impact Interactions

  1. The FSC falls into both the ‘Events’ and ‘Experience’ groupings.

  2. You see that partners who engage with this sticky service tend to engage in many of the other impact interaction groups.

  3. Research Interviews are the lowest, and even then, they are above 80% penetration.

FSC Pseduo Correlation w/ Other Impact Interactions
FSC_Binary n Events Service SL ResearchInterview PLW Experience ExpertCall
0 136 41.9% 41.9% 39.0% 41.2% 37.5% 5.1% 41.2%
1 15 86.7% 86.7% 93.3% 73.3% 86.7% 73.3% 86.7%

AIPI Connection to Other Impact Interactions

  1. Very similar to FSC.

  2. You see that partners who engage with this sticky service tend to engage in many of the other impact interaction groups.

  3. Experience is the one area where we see low results.

AIPI Pseudo Correlation w/ Other Impact Interactions
AIPI_Binary n Events Service SL ResearchInterview PLW Experience ExpertCall
0 67 50.7% 61.2% 38.8% 37.3% 41.8% 10.4% 46.3%
1 84 63.1% 61.9% 58.3% 60.7% 54.8% 13.1% 61.9%

Fellowship Connection to Other Impact Interactions

  1. More closely related penetration between consumption and not due to higher N.

  2. Still, you see that partners who engage with this sticky service tend to engage in many of the other impact interaction groups.

Fellowship Pseudo Correlation w/ Other Impact Interactions
Fellowship_Binary n Events Service SL ResearchInterview PLW Experience ExpertCall
0 89 48.3% 55.1% 38.2% 42.7% 38.2% 9.0% 43.8%
1 62 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 61.3% 59.7% 14.5% 61.3%

RHI Connection to Other Impact Interactions

  1. Similar to FSC and AIPI.

  2. You see that partners who engage with this sticky service tend to engage in many of the other impact interaction groups.

RHI Pseudo Correlation w/ Other Impact Interactions
RHI_Binary n Events Service SL ResearchInterview PLW Experience ExpertCall
0 107 52.3% 50.5% 44.9% 50.5% 46.7% 11.2% 50.5%
1 44 95.5% 95.5% 93.2% 93.2% 72.7% 13.6% 93.2%