It means choosing one focused use case to explore first. For example, you could examine how advisors identify students who may need support and prepare the right context for outreach. Starting small lets your team review the signals, rules, and staff workflow before considering a broader rollout.
Your institution chooses the approved signals. These could include missed assignments, changes in course performance, attendance, LMS activity, advising history, or referrals to student-support services. Access should be limited to the information needed for the selected workflow.
No. It can help organize signals and prioritize cases using criteria defined by your institution. Advisors and other authorized staff remain responsible for interpreting the information and deciding what support is appropriate.
Not by default. The CampusMind workflow is designed around advisor review and human follow-up. If your institution wants to introduce automated messages or routing, the rules, approvals, and escalation points would be defined separately.
The first step is understanding where the relevant information currently lives, such as your SIS, LMS, advising platform, or other approved systems. CampusMind can then help define how the workflow should use that information without assuming your current systems need to be replaced.
Your institution determines which information the workflow can use, who can access it, and how long it should be retained. The pilot should begin with the minimum information needed and be reviewed through your institution’s privacy, security, and student-data governance processes.
Your institution controls which student signals are used, how cases are prioritized, who can view student information, and when an advisor should become involved. Role-based access, activity records, defined agent rules, scoped permissions, and human review help keep student-support decisions with authorized staff.
Available review materials include:
The applicability of each framework depends on the student information involved, the selected deployment, and your institution’s requirements.
Evaluate whether the workflow surfaces useful information, helps staff prioritize outreach, preserves human judgment, and fits the way advisors already work. The pilot should provide evidence your team can use to decide whether the workflow is worth improving or expanding. It should not promise a specific increase in retention.