Opening: Quick alignment before we dig in

• Tell me about the leadership team you expect to involve in this evaluation, including titles and decision authority
• In plain terms, what single institutional problem are you aiming to solve first with a new LMS Options: Improve performance at scale, Fix mobile experience, Close accessibility gaps, Simplify integrations with SIS/publishers, Improve analytics for accreditation, Other
• How would you describe the provost's three measurable priorities tied to student success and accreditation
• When would you consider this evaluation a success from the CIO's perspective, in concrete, measurable terms Options: Signed contract within 90 days, Pilot complete with acceptance, Proof of concept showing X% performance improvement, Vendor provides required SLAs and data terms, Other
• Select the roles that must approve the final decision Options: CIO/IT leadership, Provost/Academic affairs, Faculty senate or committee, Accessibility office, Registrar, Procurement/Finance

Where leadership really stands on risk and change

• If your CIO or provost could change one thing about the current LMS immediately, what would they do and why
• Describe a recent leadership conversation where the LMS was identified as a risk to enrollment, retention, or accreditation
• What single governance or stakeholder gap would immediately stop this project if it is not resolved
• Which stakeholders are most likely to push back on change, and what do they say their top objection will be Options: Faculty leaders, Department chairs, Accessibility office, IT operations, Registrar, Procurement
• How often do your executive sponsors meet to make decisions about learning technology strategy Options: Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Ad hoc

Where the current LMS breaks trust with faculty and students

• When finals week arrives, what exactly breaks in the current LMS and who ends up firefighting the issue
• Walk me through the last time a faculty pilot or course rollout failed to meet expectations, including consequences for students and instructors
• Which user-facing problems show up most often in support tickets, and which generate the highest political heat Options: Performance outages, Grade sync failures, Broken LTI tools, Mobile UX issues, Accessibility violations, Other
• If you had to stay with the incumbent for another contract period, estimate the measurable impact on retention, support costs, or accreditation reporting
• How frequently do accessibility findings require remediation before a course can open Options: Every course, Many courses, Some courses, Rarely, Never
• Provide an example artifact that demonstrates a recurring issue, such as a support ticket excerpt, error log entry, or syllabus note

What a pilot must prove to change minds

• If the pilot demonstrates the target metrics your team needs, what would make procurement sign the contract within 30 days
• List the pilot courses you plan to run, including department, enrollment, delivery mode (online/hybrid/in-person), and faculty lead
• Select the acceptance categories that must pass for the pilot to be considered successful Options: Performance and scalability, Mobile user experience, Accessibility compliance (WCAG 2.1 AA), SIS grade sync and roster accuracy, LTI 1.3 integrations, Early-alert analytics
• Which failed acceptance criterion would cause you to stop the evaluation entirely Options: Accessibility failure, Critical integration cannot be completed, Unacceptable performance under load, Grades not syncing reliably, Other
• How will you measure student experience during the pilot, both quantitatively and qualitatively
• Please identify the person who will coordinate pilot logistics, instructor onboarding, and the post-pilot report, including role

The other options you are actively weighing

• If the evaluation ended today, which alternative would your team most likely keep using and why
• Select the alternatives currently under consideration Options: Renew incumbent LMS, Buy from another vendor, Build internal integration layer, Consortium/shared platform, Delay decision/no change
• What would have to be true about your current approach for you to stay with it instead of switching
• Has anyone internally proposed building or heavily customizing an internal LMS or middleware instead of buying; who proposed it and what is the suggested timeline Options: Yes, IT has proposed it, Yes, faculty has proposed it, No internal build proposal, Unsure
• Which stakeholder currently leans hardest toward keeping the incumbent Options: Procurement/Finance, CIO/IT leadership, Faculty senate or committee, Accessibility office, Registrar

What practical constraints could stop this before it starts

• Which single technical or governance constraint, if unresolved, would force you to pause or stop the project
• Which third-party systems must integrate for the pilot to run, select all that apply Options: Student Information System (SIS), LTI publisher tools, Single sign-on/Identity provider, Library systems, Assessment proctoring, Analytics/BI platform
• Are APIs and named technical contacts available for each required integration, and if not, which systems lack access Options: All APIs and contacts available, Some APIs available, some missing, Most APIs missing, Unsure
• How many full-time equivalent staff can you commit to configuration, testing, and support during pilot and deployment Options: <1 FTE, 1-2 FTEs, 3-5 FTEs, More than 5 FTEs
• Describe your data readiness for course rosters, grade syncs, and user profiles, including known quality issues
• Select which approvals or legal gates must clear before a pilot can begin Options: Data processing agreement, Accessibility signoff, Procurement approval, Institutional review board, Export control review, Other

If the pilot proves the math, how fast can you get to purchase and go-live

• If the pilot hits every acceptance metric, what would stop you from signing the contract that week
• What is your target go-live window and which academic dates must we avoid for migration work
• Estimate the budget range leadership has allocated for year one, covering licensing, hosting, and implementation Options: <$100k, $100k-$500k, $500k-$1M, >$1M, Undisclosed
• Select the commercial terms procurement considers non-negotiable Options: Per-student pricing cap, Uptime SLA during registration and finals, Data residency requirements, Limitations on liability, Payment schedule constraints
• Who within procurement or finance has veto power over commercial terms and what are the bar criteria they will apply
• How quickly can your legal team turn around a standard data processing agreement Options: <2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, 1-2 months, >2 months

Confirming next steps and the decision signals we need

• What single deliverable from the seller would you need to review next to feel confident moving to a pilot Options: Detailed pilot plan with timelines, Integration runbook and API test plan, Performance and load test results, Accessibility remediation plan, Commercial term summary
• Please list the internal contacts the seller should use for pilot coordination, including role and preferred contact method
• Select the artifacts the seller should provide before pilot kickoff Options: Implementation plan, Test data schema, Integration runbook, Accessibility checklist and policy, Instructor onboarding materials, Pilot success dashboard template
• If the seller delivers a pilot report showing the agreed metrics met, what executive step will finalize the purchase Options: Procurement approves purchase order, Executive steering committee signs off, Faculty senate recommendation, Board-level approval
• When should the seller schedule a follow-up to review pilot scope and timeline Options: Within 1 week, 1-2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, After initial scoping session only

Attachments and final reflections

• Are there any existing reports, load test results, accessibility audits, or procurement templates you can attach to help scope work now Options: Yes, accessibility audit available, Yes, performance/load test available, Yes, procurement template available, No attachments available, Other
• What is your preferred success metric three months after go-live, and who will own that metric
• Finally, what concerns would you like the seller to address first in the initial scoping call

• Solution Experience — Instructor and Student Workflows

• Confirm the current state and its cost
• You confirm the demonstrated instructor workflow eliminates the manual integration and grade-sync rework you described.
• Provide a representative course roster, one sample course with instructor tasks, and 48-hour peak usage metrics from a recent finals period.
• Walk an instructor workflow end-to-end
• You confirm the student submission path and mobile experience address the accessibility and UX failures that are blocking adoption.
• Deliver a tailored instructor workflow replay using the provided course and roster data before pilot kickoff.
• Walk a student workflow and mobile experience
• List the top three integrations to validate in the pilot (SIS field mappings, primary LTI tool, and publisher content), and any existing custom connectors.
• You agree on the specific integrations and analytics signals to validate in the pilot and the acceptance criteria we will measure.
• Define three measurable pilot acceptance criteria for performance, accessibility, and analytics signals to use as decision gates.
• Demonstrate integration touchpoints and data flow
• Surface analytics use-cases and acceptance evidence
• Validate this maps to your needs

• Solution Experience — Instructor and Student Workflows
• Solution Experience Deck — Instructor & Student Workflows
• Solution Brief — Instructor and Student Workflows

• meeting
• slides
• document

• Provision platform tenant and admin accounts
• Configure role-based permissions and hierarchies
• Migrate course content and assignments
• Migrate user accounts and course enrollments
• Enable gradebook sync with student information system
• Connect LTI 1.3 tools and publisher integrations
• Enable live and asynchronous video delivery
• Enable proctored and unproctored assessments
• Deploy rubric-based grading and templates
• Deploy automated WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility checker
• Deploy early-alert and engagement analytics dashboards
• Configure hosting model and uptime SLAs

Provision platform tenant and admin accounts

• Do you need separate platform tenants for development, staging, and production? Options: Yes, No, Only production and staging
• Which administrative roles should you provision initially (for example System Admin, Course Admin, Department Admin)? Options: System Admin, Course Admin, Department Admin, Support Staff, Observer, Other
• How many platform admin accounts will you require at go-live? Options: 1-5, 6-20, 21-100, 100+
• Who will be your primary contact for tenant provisioning and what email domain should we allow for admin accounts?
• Provide the authentication methods you require for admin accounts (for example SAML single sign-on, OAuth/OpenID Connect, LDAP) and indicate whether multi-factor authentication is mandatory. Options: SAML/Single sign-on (SSO), OAuth/OpenID Connect, Password-only, LDAP/Active Directory, Other
• What onboarding documents or authorization forms will you use to validate admin account requests?

Configure role-based permissions and hierarchies

• List the faculty and staff roles you need that require custom permissions beyond the platform defaults.
• Do you require department-level hierarchies that map to your academic organization codes? Options: Yes, No, Partial — departments only
• Which permission scopes do you need audited for compliance (for example grade changes, enrollment overrides, content publish)? Options: Grade edits, Enrollment changes, Course content publish, LTI tool registrations, Other
• How will you delegate role creation and approval within colleges or schools?
• Would you like role assignments synchronized from your identity provider or SIS, or do you prefer manual assignment? Options: Yes — full sync from IdP/SIS, Yes — partial sync, No — manual assignment
• What exception workflows should you have for adjuncts or emergency elevated access during finals (for example time-limited elevation, audit trail)?

Migrate course content and assignments

• For migration, which course shells and term codes do you require migrated first (for example current semester, past two years, pilot courses)? Options: Current semester only, Current + previous semester, Past two years, Pilot courses only, Custom selection
• How many course pages, files, and media assets do you estimate need migration (please estimate by GB or page count)? Options: Less than 10 GB / 100 pages, 10–100 GB / 100–1,000 pages, More than 100 GB / 1,000+ pages
• Which content types in your current courses require special handling during migration (for example IMS Common Cartridge, SCORM packages, embedded LTI links, video timestamps)? Options: IMS Common Cartridge, SCORM package, Embedded LTI links, External video embeds, Publisher-assigned activities, Other
• Who will own content validation after migration and what specific evidence will you sign off on (for example course opens, assignment submissions succeed, sample graded items)?
• Do you require mapping of legacy gradebook columns to new gradebook categories and preservation of historical grade records? Options: Yes — preserve histories, Yes — archive separately, No — start fresh
• What timeframe and blackout windows (for example registration peak, finals week) must the migration avoid?

Migrate user accounts and course enrollments

• Which identifier should be authoritative for user matching during enrollment sync (for example institutional ID, email address)? Options: Institutional ID, Email address, Username, Other
• Provide the count of user records and active enrollments you expect for the initial migration and for any staged waves. Options: Less than 5,000, 5,000–25,000, 25,000–100,000, 100,000+
• Confirm whether historical user activity and grade history must be migrated, migrated partially (for example last N terms), archived, or omitted. Options: Migrate full history, Migrate last N terms, Archive but not import, Do not migrate
• From which system will you provide enrollment roster feeds and in what format are they (for example SIS API, CSV export, SFTP)? Options: SIS REST API, Flat file export (CSV), SFTP batch, Other
• Are there guest or observer account types (for example auditors, librarians) that require special enrollment rules? Options: Yes, No
• What obfuscation or pseudonymization requirements do you have for student data during migration for pilot privacy or research (for example replace names with pseudonyms)?

Enable gradebook sync with student information system

• Which SIS endpoints will you use for grade sync (for example REST API, flat file CSV, SFTP) during pilot and go-live? Options: REST API, Flat file export (CSV), SFTP batch, Other
• What specific grade fields must map to the SIS gradebook (for example final grade, graded components, grade override, external exam scores)?
• How often do you require grades to synchronize during pilot and production (for example real-time/API, hourly, nightly)? Options: Real-time/API, Hourly, Nightly, Manual push
• Indicate who in your organization will own reconciliation of grade discrepancies and what SLA you expect for resolution.
• What acceptance criteria will confirm the gradebook sync is successful (for example 99% field parity, less than 5-minute delay, reconciliation procedure completed)?
• Which security controls do you require for grade data in transit and at rest (for example TLS version, field-level encryption, IP allowlist)? Options: TLS 1.2+, Field-level encryption, IP allowlist, Role-based access control, Other

Connect LTI 1.3 tools and publisher integrations

• For LTI 1.3, list the tool providers and publisher platforms you plan to provision during the pilot by course or publisher.
• Do you require deep linking and LTI grade services for publisher assignments or only launch-only integrations? Options: Deep linking + grade service, Launch-only, Both, Other
• Which LTI 1.3 deployment keys and JSON Web Key Set (JWKS) endpoints will you supply, and who on your team will register those credentials?
• Estimate the number of concurrent LTI launches you expect during peak finals traffic for courses using publisher platforms. Options: Less than 100, 100–500, 500–2,000, 2,000+
• Are there publisher licensing restrictions we should know about (for example per-course seat counts or token limits)? Options: Yes, No, Not sure — need to confirm with publisher
• What test data or sandbox accounts can you provide to validate LTI grade passes and resource access?

Enable live and asynchronous video delivery

• Which video workloads do you run that we should support (for example synchronous live lectures, lecture capture, student video submissions, publisher streaming)? Options: Synchronous live lectures, Lecture capture/recorded, Student submissions, Publisher streaming, Other
• Do you prefer in-platform hosting, institutional CDN, or a third-party video provider for HLS/DASH streaming? Options: In-platform hosting, Institutional CDN, Third-party video provider, Hybrid
• What maximum concurrent video viewers must you support during peak lecture times or finals? Options: Less than 500, 500–2,000, 2,000–10,000, 10,000+
• How will you produce captions and transcripts and whose budget covers manual caption remediation for accuracy?
• Which playback features do you require for accessibility and pedagogy (for example variable playback speed, chapter markers, keyboard controls)? Options: Variable playback speed, Chapter markers, Keyboard controls, Closed captions, Transcript download
• What retention policy do you require for recorded sessions and where should recordings be archived for compliance? Options: 30 days, 1 year, Permanent archive, Custom retention period

Enable proctored and unproctored assessments

• Which assessment types do you require proctoring for (for example final exams, midterms) and which can remain unproctored? Options: Final exams, Midterms, Quizzes, Low-stakes assignments, Other
• Do you plan to use proctoring vendor integrations or LTI-based proctoring tools? Options: Proctoring vendor via API, LTI proctoring tool, No proctoring required, Hybrid
• What student ID verification methods does your academic integrity policy mandate (for example photo ID with live proctor, institutional single sign-on)? Options: Photo ID + live proctor, Biometric options, Institutional single sign-on only, Other
• Indicate who in your organization will approve assessment security settings and incident workflows for suspected academic dishonesty.
• Specify time-window constraints and whether browser lockdown is required for exams (for example timed window, 24-hour window, lockdown required). Options: Timed window, 24-hour window, Continuous access, Browser lockdown required
• What reporting and incident evidence (for example recording links, proctor notes, submission logs) must you retain for student appeals?

Deploy rubric-based grading and templates

• Which departments use rubric-based grading and how many rubric templates do you have in active use?
• Do your current rubrics include weighted criteria, competency alignments, or learning outcomes mappings? Options: Weighted criteria, Competency-aligned, Outcomes mapping, Simple point rubrics, Other
• Estimate how many rubric variants you need provisioned per course type (for example lecture, lab, seminar). Options: 1 per course type, 2–5 per course type, 6+ per course type
• Specify who will maintain and version-control rubric templates and whether departments should be allowed to edit their local copies.
• Would you like import and export of rubric templates in a shareable package (for example Common Cartridge export/import)? Options: Yes — import/export, No — manual recreate, Only export
• What acceptance evidence will demonstrate rubric-based grading functions as expected (for example sample scored assignments, gradebook rollup parity)?

Deploy automated WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility checker

• Which content types should you run automated accessibility scans on (for example static HTML pages, uploaded PDFs, images, video captions)? Options: Static HTML pages, Uploaded PDFs, Images/alt text, Video captions/transcripts, Other
• Would you like pre-publish checks for faculty and post-publish monitoring with remediation tickets, or both? Options: Pre-publish check, Post-publish monitoring, Both, None
• Which ticketing or tracking system should remediation tasks be pushed into (for example institutional ticketing system, platform remediation dashboard)? Options: Institutional ticketing, Platform remediation dashboard, Email alerts to department, Other
• List any additional accessibility standards beyond WCAG 2.1 AA that you must meet (for example Section 508, institutional policy).
• Identify who will sign off on accessibility remediation for pilot courses and who will supply test artifacts (for example accessible syllabi, alt text lists).
• What SLA for accessibility remediation turnaround do you require for high-impact materials (for example 5 business days for course readings)? Options: 3 business days, 5 business days, 10 business days, Custom

• gaps
• decision_readiness
• success_criteria
• stakeholders
• desired_state
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• gaps
• success_criteria
• desired_state
• stakeholders
• current_state
• stakeholders
• decision_readiness
• current_state
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• gaps
• success_criteria
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• gaps
• desired_state
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Master Subscription Agreement
• Order Form / Subscription Schedule
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Data Processing Agreement (DPA)
• Security & Compliance Addendum
• Pilot Acceptance & Go/No-Go Confirmation
• Exit, Data Return & Transition Addendum

• Go-live Health Check (weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (weeks 4-10)
• 90-day Realization and Incumbent Wind-down
• Integration and Performance Review (monthly then quarterly)
• Quarterly Operational Review

• Apply prioritized integration fixes in the next maintenance window and report back with post-deploy error metrics.
• Publish a read-only access and fallback policy for the retired system or confirm formal decommission date.
• Deliver a final grade reconciliation report for a sample of courses showing parity between systems or explaining variance.
• Integration health and error trends
• Reduce integration error rate toward the SIS sync success target recorded in Pilot Evaluation.
• Ensure average page load time during peak events aligns with the performance SLA agreed in Solution Scope and Pilot Evaluation.
• Update runbooks to close recurring incident patterns and shorten resolution time.
• Re-confirm success criteria and owners
• Execute a targeted load test simulating peak registration/finals traffic and publish the results.
• Revise the incident runbook to include explicit rollback steps for the top two recurring failures.
• Adoption and engagement trends
• Confirm adoption trajectory via weekly active users and advisor early-alert delivery rate and identify any required interventions.
• Agree priority and timelines for the top three enhancement requests to be addressed in the next quarter.
• Ensure accessibility compliance is improving and that high-priority issues have committed resolution dates.
• Publish the prioritized enhancement backlog for the next quarter with target delivery windows.
• Produce a ticket burn-down summary highlighting root-cause trends and proposed process fixes.
• Deliver an accessibility remediation status update showing closed versus open high-priority issues.
• Confirm the deployment completed against the migration checklist and identify any items that remain open.
• Surface and prioritize the top three operational blockers with agreed remediation windows.
• Establish the cadence and date for the First Measurement Review.
• Publish a deployment validation report including sample data checks and unresolved items.
• Create hotfix tickets for each high-severity blocker with target resolution dates and escalation path.
• Schedule the First Measurement Review between week 4 and week 10 and circulate calendar invite.
• Present first-run outcome data
• Determine the root cause for any shortfall on weekly active users and grade sync success rate and agree targeted remediation.
• Define a timebound plan to reach the acceptance readiness window specified in Pilot Evaluation.
• Confirm the data sources and owners for the metrics that will feed the Acceptance Gate documentation.
• Deliver a gap analysis listing root causes and proposed fixes for each metric not meeting Pilot Evaluation targets.
• Publish an accessibility remediation plan for high-priority items with estimated completion dates.
• Provide a schedule for follow-up integration error triage sessions until grade sync success rate meets the target.
• Outcome summary versus Pilot Evaluation targets
• Confirm whether the platform is the primary system in active use and that the incumbent has been decommissioned or placed read-only with archives complete.
• Agree closure plan and timelines for any outstanding items preventing full wind-down of the incumbent system.
• Document final data reconciliation steps required for long-term records and accreditation evidence.
• Complete the incumbent data archive and provide verification that required records are captured for retention and accreditation.
• Deployment and migration validation
• Performance metrics and peak load analysis
• Accessibility compliance status
• Incumbent system wind-down review
• Diagnose gaps and root causes
• Accessibility spot-check
• Integration and data integrity audit
• Enhancement request and backlog review
• Early adoption signals and onboarding status
• Runbook and escalation path updates
• Blockers, defects, and open issues
• Open technical backlog
• Support SLA and ticket burn-down
• Agree corrective actions and owners
• Open remediation items and closure plan
• Agree immediate remediation actions