Formerly from Blackbaud and based on the former MicroEdge FIMS product, FIMS is a software solution used to manage requests, approvals, and declinations for grantmaking and scholarships.
N/A
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Score5 out of 10
N/A
The PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform is a talent management platform designed for Higher Education and Government organizations, now from PowerSchool (acquired August, 2018). Modules include analytics, applicant tracking, position management, onboarding, records management, and performance management.
N/A
Pricing
FIMS
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
FIMS
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Features
FIMS
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Onboarding
Comparison of Onboarding features of FIMS and PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Feature
FIMS
-
Ratings
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
7.7
8 Ratings
6% above category average
New hire portal
00 Ratings
9.07 Ratings
Manager tracking tools
00 Ratings
7.07 Ratings
Compliance tracking and reporting
00 Ratings
7.07 Ratings
Performance and Goals
Comparison of Performance and Goals features of FIMS and PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Feature
FIMS
-
Ratings
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
5.8
3 Ratings
23% below category average
Corporate goal setting
00 Ratings
7.03 Ratings
Subordinate goal setting
00 Ratings
7.03 Ratings
Individual goal setting
00 Ratings
7.03 Ratings
Line-of sight-visibility
00 Ratings
6.03 Ratings
Performance tracking
00 Ratings
2.03 Ratings
Performance Management
Comparison of Performance Management features of FIMS and PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Feature
FIMS
-
Ratings
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
2.7
3 Ratings
87% below category average
Performance plans
00 Ratings
4.02 Ratings
Plan weighting
00 Ratings
2.02 Ratings
Performance improvement plans
00 Ratings
2.02 Ratings
Review status tracking
00 Ratings
4.03 Ratings
Rater nomination workflow
00 Ratings
2.02 Ratings
Review reminders
00 Ratings
4.02 Ratings
Workflow restrictions
00 Ratings
1.02 Ratings
Multiple review frequency
00 Ratings
4.02 Ratings
Reporting
00 Ratings
1.03 Ratings
Succession Planning
Comparison of Succession Planning features of FIMS and PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
Feature
FIMS
-
Ratings
PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
7.3
4 Ratings
7% above category average
Create succession plans/pools
00 Ratings
6.33 Ratings
Candidate ranking
00 Ratings
7.04 Ratings
Candidate search
00 Ratings
9.04 Ratings
Candidate development
00 Ratings
7.03 Ratings
Recruiting / ATS
Comparison of Recruiting / ATS features of FIMS and PeopleAdmin Higher Ed Platform, from Powerschool
It is a very robust system and with the various modules you can accomplish much of what is needed for traditional transaction US-based grantmaking. If you have more complicated grantmaking, deal with foreign currencies or want to have tighter alignment of finance and budget numbers, GIFTS may not meet your needs. Additionally, some of their core projects have limited accessibility in terms of various mobile devices or access from outside the organization's network.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Organizations who have very few applications and/or very few positions posted are probably less likely to benefit as high from PeopleAdmin. Large organizations who have several positions and/or several applications/applicants can definitely benefit from this product. This product is not as well suited for performance management as I had hoped because there is not a lot of freedom to creating and designing different evaluations for different position types in the system when you have an organization that has thousands of different employees and types.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Applicant tracking was a good use of this tool for our department. I think it could use a few more customization features but overall it was a good tool to weed out applicants who were not qualified for the position.
The system has some canned reporting tools that also worked well for our department and management needs.
It was a great place to house our position descriptions and provided a readily accessible source for hiring managers to make requested updates and changes and for employees to see and have access to their position descriptions.
While GIFTS Classic is the most barren interfaces of all MicroEdge products, there are some simple capabilities I wish GIFTS could still perform such as better email integration from outlook to a GIFTS request, more efficient requirement reminders, and a wider use of Microsoft Office and other external product integration (GuideStar).
It's disappointing that you have to purchase an additional "Customizer Module" or "Budget Module" in order to access basic functions of a GMS. This seems like a basic system function that MicroEdge takes advantage of, unfortunately.
The online application module (IGAM) is still quite antiquated and you have to be knowledgeable of basic HTML in order to really customize your organization's online application. More flexibility and design functions would be greatly appreciated with the online application function, especially since this is a public document and represents your organization.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
PeopleAdmin's internal report writer needs work. Currently, in version 7, reporting can only be done requisition number by requisition number. The report writer needs to be modified so it can create reports enterprise-wide.
PeopleAdmin's Data Mart product needs substantial modification. In version 5.8, on a monthly basis, PeopleAdmin provided us with an Microsoft Access database containing our historical data up to that period end. In version 7, the "Data Mart" contains our historical data. The Data Mart consists of over 300 files. These files are not database table downloads nor is it parts of a database data dump. Rather, the files appear to be scrapes from html pages. They contain html codes and other character data that needs to be cleaned before they can be uploaded. The files are not in a table-by-table format. Any one file can contain data from two or more tables. The format of the Data Mart makes it difficult to load the data into a database and format it in a table structure that is comparable to the Access database provided with version 5.8.
We are evaluating our options as it relates to PeopleAdmin. We are likely to renew as we can not find another product that gives us the functionality we have with PeopleAdmin 5.8 in the area of Position Description. Outside of that, we would likely be close to finding another product solution.
I typically receive a response to an inquiry within an hour or two, if not sooner. Most tech support people are knowledgeable about our problems, and if not, they will escalate to the proper person.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
It is really a matter of priority. I can see situations where GIFTS Classic is a very strong option! Once an organization determines its priorities then it should definitely consider GIFTS to see how well it compares with mission critical functionality.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
I've used both Target Recruit and HR Smart. When working with Target Recruit it quickly became apparent it was not the right solution for us. Another solution we examined prior to selection PeopleAdmin was iCIMS. iCIMS is a very social system but was not as familiar with the Higher Education recruitment processes as was PeopleAdmin.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Reporting was difficult on GIFTS - often we had to place data into Excel by hand since we could not create simple customized reports. This increased time spent on tasks GIFTS was supposed to streamline.
GIFTS did not alert us to duplicated organization records, so often it was difficult to reflect an organization's full grant history to our Board of Directors, leading to employees spending time searching through paper records to make sure all information was properly reported.
GIFTS created duplicate contact records, meaning it was difficult to find out which contact was related to which organization and cluttered our data. This caused decreased processing and response time to "new" contacts who turned out to be previous contacts or contacts whose information was tied to previous organizations. Even when contact information was updated for a new organization, sometimes the program would revert to the first organization contact information, several times leading to checks cashed to incorrect organizations---the very worst consequence of using GIFTS to our organization. Thankfully, the money was recovered upon the few times that error occurred, but it led to me and other employees reading through out 800+ checks before issue to make sure the correct organization was in fact being rewarded.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info