Card, mobile credential, payment and security
By Tom Bell, Vice President, Commerce Industry Relations, Blackboard
At a recent seminar, campus executives were asked how they planned their card system and if their plan was strategic. All referred to the planning as “detailed;” and said it involved partner research, equipment evaluation, software testing and a variety of other important steps. As much as they wanted it to be, however, none considered it strategic, let alone ongoing.
I think we may all have known that feeling. Planning is often detailed but rarely strategic. In fact, many campus transaction systems result from reactionary decisions. These reactions are driven by immediate needs, such as updating point-of-sale equipment, adding access control or controlling some kind of campus crisis.
Scheme, Scope and Scale
A transaction project, like any enterprise system, should not end with deployment. In fact, that may just be the beginning. As campuses tend to discover, innovative ideas and applications will bubble up the longer the system operates on campus and as more departments become familiar with its capabilities.
Ideally, a rolling three to five-year plan should blend system objectives with a campus’s mission and strategic plans. That may be ambitious given the challenges of a modern university environment; still, an ongoing process that tackles both current challenges and long term direction will go a long way toward increasing the value of your investment.
Imagine any of the following situations. (If you’re campus is typical, it won’t be difficult.)
Any or all of these can be the starting point, a milestone or distant outlier for a strategic planning effort. Even in its most limited implementations, the transaction system will touch almost every department and division of the university in some way, and very often the surrounding community as well. For that reason, it is essential that campus decision-makers recognize that transaction system planning is an institution-wide project, not a departmental one.
Teams Make The Difference
How well your transaction system strategy is aligned with the mission and strategies of the university may do more to determine its return-on-investment than almost anything else. These systems must be capable of adapting, integrating, and expanding as mission, strategies and constituencies change, so maintaining that alignment should be an ongoing process. Trying to deal with those situations listed above individually, as each arises, under short deadlines and shrinking budgets is a prescription for “sub-optimizing” (at least!). Unfortunately, this is where many campuses find themselves when they fail to look at the larger and long-term picture?
A better solution is to create planning committees from representative campus groups. These groups should set objectives based upon the larger organizational vision, and they should provide direction to a campus implementation task force, whose job it is to keep the project on schedule.
Very important: Comprehensive education should be provided to everyone on these teams so that old and outdated technology doesn’t contaminate the final product.
Once implemented, a transaction solution will present a new way of doing business and a new method for providing services to the university community. Forming cross-campus strategy teams will help ensure that key decisions satisfy and will be embraced by all (or at least most) constituencies. For example, one important consideration will be how to access the systems—card, PDA, website or a combination. You’ll want to find the right fit for everyone, both for today and tomorrow. The end result is a true Networked Transaction Environment where all members of the campus community are able to access information, services and facilities using a single account.
The Game Plan: X’s And O’s
What should be covered in a strategic plan? Among other specific considerations it should:
In addition to aligning with the university’s mission, systems planning must be consistent with—if not driven by—campus-wide operational plans and strategies, at least for near- and mid-term objectives. For example, business goals for a given year might call for improvements in efficiency. Technology will certainly play a key role in any such effort, therefore aspects of the transaction system plan might focus on issues such as its use as a systems integration platform, automating reporting or speeding services.
The Ongoing Value of Strategic Planning
The transaction system is a unifying platform for so much campus activity that in perhaps no other area will ongoing planning provide greater return on the effort. As more and more users experience the advantages of the transaction system platform, campuses that have made the change inevitably see new ideas rising up from across campus. Experience shows that this change will happen gradually, but it will happen, and that’s exactly the kind of situation that can benefit most from good strategic planning.
In 2006 a great new feature section will appear in each and every issue of CR80News. Our new Physical Security Corner will explore key issues related to the changing security landscape. Physical security is no longer a standalone “silo” within a campus … it is a vibrant, essential component with enterprise-wide implications.
Key themes running through this recurring feature article will be identity and convergence. That is because these are among the most significant defining features of the modern security landscape. Thus it seems fitting that we explore these two concepts for this inaugural installment of our Physical Security Corner.
Identity and physical security …
The concept of physical security assumes adequate identity management, but unfortunately this has not been the case. To explain this idea, an understanding of the identity management process is necessary.
Identity management can be thought of as a set of processes used to identify an individual within an organization and grant access to a defined set of privileges based on that individual’s unique status. Certainly from the traditional concept of physical security, identity management seemed obvious … we create a badge and the badge holder swipes or presents it to a card reader and is granted or denied access.
True this is a form of identity management, but is it “adequate identity management?” Most agree it is not. There are far too many weak points in the chain. Was the individual’s identity vetted prior to badge issuance? Was authentication conducted at the reader to ensure that the badge’s user is the person it was issued to? Is an effective system in place to revoke access rights for former users, lost cards, etc.?
Questions such as these indicate why adequate identity management must be a fundamental component of any security system. Though identity management has become a cross-industry buzzword and countless definitions are kicked about, key concepts or steps are common. Identity management consists of:
Verification
“Verification,” according to the OpenGroup, a standards and interoperability-focused consortium, “is the process of establishing identity prior to the creation of an account that can later be used as an assertion of identity.” It is the background check that ensures that the individual you are about to enroll in the system or provide a credential to access the system is indeed the person they claim to be. Verification can be lenient (e.g. “I am John Doe because I say I am”) or strict (e.g. fingerprint checks, interviews with past associates). The first requirements of HSPD-12, the new U.S. government mandate for standardized secure credentials across agencies, focus on verification of new and existing employees through extensive background checks. Interestingly, a source tells us that a number of existing employees using fake identities have already been uncovered via the process.
Authentication
The OpenGroup defines authentication as “the process of gaining confidence in a claimed identity.” It is the means by which the person claiming to be “John Doe” is tested to determine that he is indeed “John Doe.” In traditional security architectures, authentication was limited to visual checks of the credential by a guard (e.g. flash pass) or simple possession and presentment to a reader of the issued credential.
In modern identity systems, multi-factor authentication (possession of the credential combined with some combination of passwords and biometrics) is desired. Validation of the credential’s authenticity is also key.
Revocation
The other core step in the management process is the revocation of issued credentials and the subsequent notification of that revocation to impacted systems. Obviously, the days of former employees possessing still-valid credentials are past. Immediate revocation must be enabled to avoid potentially disastrous security breaches. In addition to this obvious need for revocation, many systems are purposefully revoking or suspending privileges of valid identities as a means to cyclically return to the first phase of the identity management process, Verfication. In so doing, the individual is subject to some form of re-verification, such as an updated check of criminal history files or suspected terrorist lists.
While there are many other important aspects to identity management – trust, provisioning, federation – these three cornerstones form the core of the concept. These and other concepts will underlie many of the future discussion in this Physical Security Corner.
Convergence and physical security …
As the importance of identity management was being recognized, so too was the concept that a single individual has many identities within and across an organization. At the core, many individuals have both physical access and logical (or network/data) access needs. Converging aspects of the identity management for physical and logical security affords great benefits in terms of user convenience, process redundancy, and enterprise-wide security.
The melding of the verification, authentication, and revocation processes for physical and logical security has become a major goal and challenge of modern organizations. Previously separate management and organizational structures (e.g. facilities and IT) are striving (sometimes struggling) to share this common ground.
Looking ahead to 2006 …
With these fundamental concepts in hand, we will move forward throughout the next year in our exploration of this new world of physical security. We will investigate core concepts of security systems, delve into specific issues such as maintaining databases for converging systems, and keep a constant eye on the impacts that initiatives such as HSPD-12 and global standardization efforts may have on your campus.
The editorial team at CR80News would like to thank security leader, Lenel Systems International, for the sponsorship that will enable us to bring you this dedicated feature throughout the New Year. Stay tuned.
Compare FIPS 201 ProductsVersion 4.16 of Onity’s Integra3 software solution enables campuses to support online doors via ethernet rather than modem or RS485. The solution from Onity is used by more than 200 colleges and universities in North America for online and offline door control.
ONITY UNLEASHES INNOVATIVE SOFTWARE ON INDUSTRY TO MEET EVOLVING NEEDS
OF HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES
As the first electronic locking software to fully comply with Ontario, Canada, Building Code provisions, the Integra3 Version 4.16 improves campus safety and efficiency
ATLANTA (J, 2005) — Onity, the leading provider of electronic facility control solutions, recently announced the availability of its newly enhanced Integra3 software—a popular electronic locking system used by nearly 200 North American colleges and universities to improve control and security.
Now supporting online doors via Ethernet, Version 4.16 replaces previous connections to software through either modems or hard-wired RS485 networks.
With a new Alternative Fire Code (AFC) mode, the Integra3 software is the first in the electronic locking industry to meet all the provisions of the Ontario, Canada, Building Code, Section 3.3.4.5., which requires that doors not automatically lock when a person exits the room—instead of relying on the key holder to relock the door themselves.
“Not only does the AFC mode open the doors for Ontario universities seeking more control over facility access, but it also offers a revolutionary safety feature for schools in case of fire or disaster–when students’ rooms may require easy re-entry,” said Onity’s Vice President of Business Development Adam Yapkowitz.
Helping to eliminate recoding work for housing staff and improve security, Onity’s Version 4.16 is also the first software to allow for individual expiration of access to various doors for each user to happen on different dates. For example, if a campus maintenance worker will be repairing heaters in several rooms, but only will need access to one floor a day, that can be pre-coded instead of him having to return to the Housing Office daily for recoding.
Additional features of the Integra3 Version 4.16 include: Enhanced operator password security; enhanced system administration tools, such as the ability to see which machines and users are running the software; and enhanced interface engine support.
“Our latest software is ideal for institutions that require a combination of online and offline access integrated within a single, easy-to-use software package, and for any colleges or universities looking to improve the system for access currently in place,” Yapkowitz said.
ABOUT ONITY, INC.
Since 1941, Onity has become the world leader in delivering the finest electronic locks backed by legendary service, and has a sales and service network that spans more than 115 countries. With stand-alone electronic locks installed on more than 3 million doors globally, Onity’s ever-expanding family of electronic solutions today includes Electronic locking systems, Electronic in-room safes, and Energy management solutions.
Among of the biggest questions surrounding campus card bank partnerships is whether or not to locate a branch on the campus. Of course, a branch can certainly foster a closer relationship between the bank and the future depositors (students, faculty, and staff) but it can be a significant investment for both the bank and campus. So just how is the decision made?
Certainly the student population is a major consideration. Are there enough students to warrant the upfront and ongoing expense of operating the branch? While many in the market have quietly suggested that a 10,000-student population is a range where the branch becomes feasible, most agree there is no magic number.
“Each campus has to be looked at individually,” said Whitney Bright, vice president, Campus Banking, for U.S. Bank. While she calls 10,000 the “soft number” used for feasibility, she quickly points out that they have branches on campuses with smaller populations such as the 6,000-student Xavier University.
“It depends on what type of exclusivity you have on campus,” she adds, suggesting that the mix of ATM ownership, card program partnership, and branch location is key. “If we have all the ATMS and a branch, then we’d have a higher level of success, (when compared to a situation where) two or three banks have ATMs on campus.”
In addition to the campus population and the level of exclusivity provided to the bank, another key factor is the revenue share between the campus and the bank. Because the creation of the branch requires significant cash outlay (e.g. setup, vault installation, security) and the operation entails a continued cost (e.g. rent, utilities, staffing) the economics of the relationship must be weighed. A campus that desires a branch may need to forgo some of its revenue share to get the bank partner to agree.
Trends in on-campus branches
Many campus administrators dismiss the idea of branch because of the common problem of space constraints. But, on-campus branches need not look like the traditional bank branch found in the community. Full-service branches can fit in very tight spaces. The most important thing is the quality of the location for student access … the size is secondary.
Though she stresses that 500 square feet is ideal, Ms. Bright says that U.S. Bank operates branches in as little as 125 square feet. “Our Northwestern branch is only 157 square feet (and it is) the most heavily-trafficked branch in the Chicago area.”
Another alternative to a full-service branch is the bank service center. These locations do not offer all of the functions of the branch but they can be a cost effective option when a branch is not feasible. Typically, service centers do not contain a vault and cannot accept deposits but they are staffed and enable face-to-face account establishment, assistance, education, and marketing. And by locating a full service ATM in the service center, bank staff can help students to make deposits at the ATM, in essence, circumventing the “no deposits” situation. According to Ms. Bright, a service center can be operated by one person rather than the five to six employees at a traditional branch and can cost as much as 70% less to operate.
Another trend is to encourage use of the campus branch for members of the community. This can help cost justify the expense for the bank and bring peripheral benefits to the campus such as strengthening town-gown ties and exposing the community to other services offered by the institution.
A myriad of factors influence the decision
As you can see there is no single factor that answers the ‘branch or no branch’ question. There is a matrix of contributors that must be weighed in tandem. But when student population, service exclusivity, revenue shares, space availability, service needs, and the host of other items are evaluated in a realistic manner, the right decision is likely to emerge. If that is a on-campus branch your program and your students are sure to benefit. If it does not end with a branch, however, an extremely effective and beneficial bank partnership can still be developed … it just requires a different approach.
A panel of ID industry experts provided predictions for 2006. One of these glimpses into the future will appear here each day during December.
By Fred Emery, Systems Marketing, General Meters
As we look to industry trends for 2006 we will see a greater offering of services for campus cardholders. This will include service-oriented devices such as Kiosks for ordering food as well as an increase in the ability to make purchases on-line with the campus card. We will also see an increase in service through the use of flexible handheld terminals for event validation, financial functions, security and parking as seen in the General Meters Corporation Pocket 1Card™ terminal. These handheld devices will allow campuses to extend otherwise unavailable services to students at remote locations.
We should also see the campus card used to provide additional security on campus. Through the use of products such as the General Meters Multi-Door Controller™, access control can be extended in an on-line environment to up to 32 doors from a single control unit. If wiring is a problem the Wireless Multi-Door Controller™ and Wireless Door Locks™ available from General Meters Corporation™ will again allow the campus to affordably control up to 32 doors in an on-line wireless environment. Tie this all in with the Master Security Monitor™ to monitor alarm conditions and a campus can provide a secure environment for their students. We should also see an increase in the use of biometrics to assist in creating a secure campus.
It seems that in 2006 we will also see a trend to streamline processes, which will cause campuses to look to their system provider to offer new functions as a single solution provider. This is why General Meters Corporation™ now offers the University One-Card Housing System™ to meet all the needs of the modern campus-housing environment. This includes a web based product for roommate matching, room selection, housing application, dining selection, and student surveys in addition to work orders, key tracking, room inventory, parking, event management and outside merchants.
Students of today are technologically savvy and we must stay on top of the latest technology if we are to meet their growing needs, and as an industry I think we will definitely succeed in doing just that. I know I am excited about 2006 as it should prove to be a year filled with new opportunities in campus card technology, allowing campus card administrators to offer new services and increased security.
Visit General Meters on the web at www.1card.com.
JSA Technologies Inc. has appointed Jon Gear, former Director of Ohio State’s ID card program, as Vice President of Service. Mr. Gear will oversee all service aspects of JSA’s StudentLink product, as well as focus on business development and partnership opportunities.
Jon has more than 15 years experience in the higher education market. At his most recent position as Director of BuckID Card Services at The Ohio State University, he saw web deposits double in three years. He implemented a state-of-the-art video imaging system and the Micro POS system, as well as converted the program to IP based communications and enhanced off-campus merchant reporting.
David Johnson, CEO of JSA stated, “We are very excited about Jon joining our team. He has an entrepreneurial spirit, standard of quality, and ethical standards that are hard to beat.”
Mr. Gear said: “I have found in JSA a company that embodies everything I find most important. JSA is the perfect example of how a company should operate in the higher education arena. The decision to join David and his team was easy.”
JSA Technologies Inc. provides campuses with patented web-access solutions that enhance life for students, parents and campus administrators. Since its inception in 1988, JSA has grown to serve some of the most prestigious institutions in the United States. They can be reached at 877-JSA-TECH (572-8324) or on the web at www.jsatech.com.
Editor’s note: Jon has been a great friend to CR80News and the entire campus card industry. We wish him the best in this new endeavor. Congrats Jon!
A panel of ID industry experts provided predictions for 2006. One of these glimpses into the future will appear here each day during December.
By Dave Ella, Vice President of Products, AMAG Technology
The security industry is seeing an increasing number of changes in what used to be the access control industry and is now security management. This is being driven almost entirely by technology – including smart cards, biometrics, the LAN / WAN and VPN (Virtual Private Network), digital video, and advanced video analytics among others.
The most important changes include the movement of almost all security systems to the LAN and WAN, and the new integration opportunities this has presented. Almost every access control system that AMAG sells incorporates some form of integration, whether it is with one of the leading digital video brands, intercom or intrusion panels.
Web technologies present a whole range of new opportunities. Many forward-thinking organizations are consolidating their security for all locations into a single integrated system across a VPN. AMAG allows customers to write their own integrations using secure XML web services.
Biometric technology is now mature, reliable and cost-effective. The major access control providers integrate biometric enrollment into their head-end software and smart card encoding. Customers do not want a completely separate database for biometrics.
Companies have to move very quickly to stay ahead of market expectations for new technology. Those who can stay ahead will prosper. Aggressive business models that are committed to the changing technologies will provide a road map for companies to follow. AMAG’s map for the next three years anticipates even greater changes.
Visit AMAG on the web at www.amag.com.
The pinstriped lines of barcodes past are going the way of the vinyl LP – at least for many applications. Instead of the staid black-and-white bars, you are likely to find a chaotic looking area of scrambled dots. Thanks to the advances in tracking technology, barcodes have come a long way since their introduction in the early 1950s.
The barcode’s evolution is linked with society’s need for increased security and data storage. Hot on the heels of first-generation linear barcodes, the new breed of two-dimensional (2D) barcodes are less likely to fail and are capable of holding much more information than their predecessors.
The battle in the supply chain …
But the barcode, in general, is facing competition for a more ‘advanced’ technology, RFID (radio frequency identification technology). RFID is getting the most press, because it holds the promise of improved operations via the capturing of information throughout the supply chain via wireless “readers” and tags that don’t require line-of-site scanning.
The problem with RFID remains the relatively higher cost of readers and tags. Upgraded barcode technology, on the surface, seems more financially feasible. It’s cheaper to upgrade to 2D than to RFID, and you get a system more effective, sophisticated and secure than its predecessor.
2D bar codes carry more data in the same amount of space to meet the increasing demand on the part of suppliers, distributors and retailers about products and product movement along the supply chain, says Jonathan Palmer, a professor at William and Mary College in Virginia, who studies the technology. Because they are cheaper to transition to from 1D than RFID, many companies in the retail, supply chain, shipping and tracking industries are taking them seriously.
“2D technology gives you 80% of the bang for 20% of the buck,” says Alan Melling, senior director of EPC Solutions for Holtsville, New York-based Symbol Technologies, who has 30 years’ experience working with barcode technology.
Trading pinstripes for precision isn’t free, which is why companies are wracking their brains, wondering if they should even bother with 2D. As several executives suggested, it’s at least worth a cursory investigation.
2D: “It’s not your father’s barcode”
The term “2D” doesn’t refer to a single, specific barcode symbology. Rather, it refers to a new breed of technology. Several dozen companies make their version of 2D barcodes, many of which are public domain. The most common standardized symbology is PDF417, developed by Symbol Technologies in 1990. PDF417 packs up to 1,800 characters in a small space, says a Symbol spokesman. Other sources warn, however, that while the specification suggests this number is possible, it is difficult to obtain this level of compaction – thus a number around 1,000 characters may be more realistic.
2D barcodes use a variety of methods to fit more data into that same amount of space, adds Mr. Palmer. They utilize the horizontal and vertical spaces (as opposed to the horizontal-only reads of traditional of bar codes) through smaller matrix designs to allow more data to be imprinted on the 2D barcode.
“The additional data also allows room for better error checking,” Mr. Palmer adds, “so the reading accuracy (is) enhanced.”
2D in the real world
There are many applications for which 2D barcodes have an advantage over simple linear codes. At shipping giant UPS, the need for a more sophisticated barcode grew as the shipping company expanded, says Donna Barrett, technology public relations manager for the Atlanta-based company.
About a decade ago, UPS grew so big that it needed a bigger code that could hold more and different information than the traditional barcode, Ms. Barrett says. Packages needed to have at least one omni-directional code as they moved through the package sorting facilities. So UPS introduced the “MaxiCode” – a second-generation code. The new barcodes hold up to 248 characters, and are used in conjunction with two linear barcodes on all packages that go through the supply chain. While scanning a single linear code is cheaper, “when you’re dealing with 14.1 million packages a day, redundancy is a good thing,” Ms. Barrett says.
If you’re not UPS, and readability of millions of supplies isn’t an issue, your institution may want to reconsider whether the upgrade to 2D is necessary, says Jake Jacobs, senior vice president of sales at Arthur Blank & Co., whose clients include major gift-card manufacturers.
Improvements in 1D barcodes have also occurred
Over the last two decades, 1D barcodes have enjoyed tremendous improvements, Mr. Jacobs says. Most 1D or traditional barcodes look nothing like their vintage relatives – they use much more durable, high-resolution ink and can hold a greater amount of data, adds Keith Goldstein, also of Arthur Blank & Co.
“The challenge that we all have with 2D barcode acceptance is the integration,” says Mr. Jacobs. “It’s a huge, multi-million dollar overhaul, to change readers to accept 2D barcodes and the retailers want to know if the ROI is worth it,” or whether the cost clearly outweighs the benefits.
Perhaps the biggest benefit is the fact that sticking to the tried and true doesn’t require a huge financial overhaul – you can still use existing equipment. “Because barcodes came out many years ago, there’s a very strong infrastructure that will read 1D, but not 2D,” Mr. Goldstein says. Thus, there isn’t a lot of demand for 2D barcodes among ABCO’s clients.
2D versus RFID
Is it worth it to invest in 2D when the future’s slated for RFID? That’s one of the biggest questions from those exploring new technologies in a world where keeping tabs on goods is becoming increasingly complex. The answer, it seems, depends on the needs of your particular institution.
“Both were designed to solve the problem of supply chain visibility,” Mr. Melling says. Upgrading to either will cost you money – but upgrading to RFID will cost you more, he adds.
Neither Mr. Melling nor his colleagues would provide the cost for a company to make the upgrade, although they said it may include new reader systems, software and handhelds that support 2D barcodes as well as 1D barcodes.
“The handheld scanners for 2D that I have seen range in price from $400 - $1200 and readers that would be placed on a production line start at about $2000,” says Mr. Palmer, who says he has studied the costs and benefits of the potentially competing technologies. “The printers are not much more expensive than traditional ones, starting at about $600, and the software can be had for $200 at the low end.”
The larger expense, Mr. Palmer says, is deciding what additional information is needed for the bar code and what this will mean for changing processes and databases.
Compared with RFID, printing 2D labels for packages cost just pennies. RFID tags remain significantly higher in cost, but the price comes with a major advantage – RFID doesn’t require line-of-site readers. Furthermore, if you’re working with a mass retailer that is converting to RFID, such as Walmart, you’re expected to upgrade.
The investment in RFID is worthy, says Mr. Melling, if it helps you save money in the long run. “If I can reduce holding inventory by 10%, it justifies the investment.”
Concluding thoughts …
Still, 2D is the optimum technology for a growing number of mediums because it saves time and money, and boasts increasing reliability over its predecessor. One application where 2D is beneficial is within state-issued IDs, Mr. Melling says. Driver’s licenses equipped with 2D are especially helpful to police officers. Because the barcodes hold a lot of information, officers don’t have to hold up traffic when giving out tickets or warnings. Instead, they can scan the information immediately instead of calling in a license number over a voice network.
To quell the whole RFID v. 2D debate, Mr. Melling recommends potential investors ask themselves the following question: “Do I see myself using RFID in the next five years? If so, then skip 2D.”
Following on the heels of its acquisition of Diebold’s card system business earlier this year, CBORD has acquired the merchant discount membership business from Student Advantage. Included in the purchase are the existing member base, more than 20,000 pre-arranged participating merchant relationships, and the Student Advantage name. Not included is the SA Cash payment card business which will remain with Student Advantage founder Ray Sozzi.
According to CBORD EVP Bruce Lane, “we anticipate that schools with and without (other CBORD products) will take part in the program.” We have the ability (widespread campus relationships and sales presence) to project it out into the marketplace.”
In a phone interview with the CR80News editor, Mr. Lane seemed especially excited about Student Advantage’s co-branding program. For the past year and one-half, SA has offered a program to campuses where, in return for signups, the campus gets a part of the enrollment fee for the effort.
Says Mr. Lane, “schools are usually looking at cards as outflow but the co-brand is a proven way for campuses to earn income.”
CBORD® Announces Acquisition of Student Advantage® Membership Business
Deal adds important new service offering to CBORD’s campus card product line
Ithaca, New York and Boston, November 9, 2005– The CBORD Group, Inc., one of the world’s leading suppliers of campus card, housing, and foodservice management systems to colleges and universities, today announced that it has acquired Student Advantage, LLC, a subsidiary of RVS Ventures, Inc. Student Advantage is the purveyor of the nation’s largest student discount program, serving hundreds of thousands of student cardholders. The acquisition provides CBORD with a well-known university-endorsed consumer brand to augment its campus card and closed-loop payment systems to universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad.
Bruce Lane, Executive Vice President of CBORD, said, “We are very excited to add the student marketing expertise that is the hallmark of Student Advantage to the services we offer our customers. Collectively, we will now have the added value that Student Advantage brings to students, parents, and university administrators.”
For more than a decade, hundreds of universities across the U.S. have worked with Student Advantage to market the membership program to their incoming students. Recently, Student Advantage launched a University ID co-branding initiative whereby a university can add the benefits of Student Advantage discounts directly to the University ID. CBORD will seek to provide the Student Advantage University ID program to the more than 1,000 universities it currently serves with its Odyssey PCS™ and CS Gold® campus card and housing and other management systems. In addition, Student Advantage will continue to be system neutral and available to all universities, regardless of which campus card system is being used.
Ray Sozzi, President of RVS Ventures, added, “We have seen a great demand for the University ID co-branded product from students and administrators alike, following the success of our initial launches. CBORD’s breadth and depth of relationships will allow for a dramatic acceleration in our national rollout, specifically to the more than six million students served by CBORD’s systems.”
The SA Cash off-campus payment system was not included in the transaction, and remains part of RVS Ventures.
CBORD is headquartered in Ithaca, New York, with offices in Farmington, New York; Green, Ohio; Waco, Texas; Cypress, California; and Sydney, Australia. Student Advantage, located in Boston, Massachusetts will operate as a subsidiary of CBORD.
About The CBORD Group, Inc.
The CBORD Group, Inc., founded in 1975, is marking thirty years of service to the campus-wide needs of higher-education facilities. CBORD works with a wide variety of clients and markets, providing cashless and ID card privilege control systems, housing management systems, Webfood online ordering service, and the Student Advantage discount membership program. In addition, CBORD serves thousands of chain restaurants, hospitals, universities, supermarkets, and gaming facilities with its suite of foodservice, catering, and nutrition software products. The CBORD Group has customers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, the Middle East, and Australia. To learn more about CBORD, visit us at www.cbord.com.
About Student Advantage, LLC
Student Advantage, LLC is a leading integrated media and commerce company focused on the higher education market. Student Advantage works with hundreds of colleges, universities, and campus organizations and more than 20,000 discount locations to develop products and services enabling students to make purchases less expensively around campus, across the country, and online. The Company reaches its consumer base offline through the Student Advantage Discount Card and online through its www.studentadvantage.com website.
Two years ago, CR80News conducted a quantitative survey of campus card banking partnerships in an attempt to put some numbers to trend . Our editors surveyed seven financial institutions that were determined to be actively involved in the market, offering banking services via the campus ID card. This month we endeavored to update this survey to provide a current picture of the market and investigate whether this often-discussed application is on the rise or decline.
As a whole, there has been significant growth in the number of campuses with banking partnerships. The seven surveyed institutions accounted for 58 total partnerships in 2003. This number has risen to 96 partnerships, an increase of more than 65% during the two-year period (or 30%-plus per year).
In the time that elapsed between our surveys, five of the seven financial institutions increased the number of partnerships served. The percentage increases ranged from 22% to 200% increase. Two institutions held steady with the same number of partnerships in both surveys. The following chart details the number of programs and the percentage increase by bank.
Only one partnership was ended during the period and none were traded between banking partners. Though this survey is not definitive empirical evidence, the astounding lack of turnover seems to suggest that campuses are generally satisfied with their partnerships.
One of the financial institutions, Higher One, has also added a number of campus clients that were not included on the list because they did not fit the strict definition as “campus card banking partnerships.” While these installations did offer financial services via a institution-endorsed card, it was not make use of the official campus ID card. They are, nonetheless, worthy of note. At these institutions, a separate card is issued to enable students and institutions to benefit from the electronic distribution of aid and other payments. These thirteen institutions include: Kennesaw State University, University of West Georgia, Georgia Perimeter College, Texas Woman’s University, Hillsborough Community College, University of North Carolina – Wilmington, Macon State College, Dalton State College, Gordon College, Savannah State University, Spring Arbor University, Siena Heights University, and Aquinas College.
There are a significant, though unknown, number of campuses that have banking partnerships with institutions not included in this survey. For example, Eastern Illinois University partners with First Mid-Illinois Bank & Trust and University of Kansas with Commerce Bank. Many other campuses offer banking services via their campus card in partnership with a local credit union. Thus, this survey is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of bank partnerships but rather suggest a direction and magnitude of the overall trend.
To this end, it seems that the campus card and financial institution partnerships via the ID card are continuing to grow in a positive direction. The following chart summarizes the results of the survey listing the campus card partnerships by bank. If your campus card program has a banking partner and is not included on this list, please take a moment and send us an email so that we can update the list.
