Building an Enrollment Infrastructure Plan

By Kristin Hildebrandt, University Registrar, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Joel P. Spiess, AACRAO ASCEND Cohort 7 and Chief Enrollment Operations Officer, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, we faced a challenge that many registrars and enrollment leaders know well. Our Registrar’s Office was managing major technology implementations, responding to growing campus and systemwide demands, supporting strategic enrollment priorities, and balancing all of it against finite staff capacity. We weren’t struggling to generate ideas. We were struggling to prioritize them. We needed a way to communicate our priorities to campus partners, align resources to those priorities, and create a framework for deciding what work should move forward and what work should wait.

The Enrollment Infrastructure Plan emerged from a growing recognition within the Division of Strategic Enrollment Management & Student Success that our enrollment systems, policies, and workflows had become increasingly fragmented. Many core enrollment and academic processes relied on disconnected workflows, manual intervention, and technology solutions that had evolved independently over time. The need for coordinated modernization became evident as we sought to improve the student experience while advancing the goals of strategic enrollment management planning and other institutional plans.

Recognizing the Need for an Enrollment Infrastructure Plan

Under the leadership of University Registrar Kristin Hildebrandt, the Registrar’s Office began framing enrollment infrastructure not as a collection of individual projects but as an interconnected ecosystem. Because the Registrar’s Office administers and integrates major institutional systems for student information, degree audit and graduation clearance, classroom scheduling, and more, it was uniquely positioned to identify operational inefficiencies, compliance requirements, and opportunities for technological improvement across the student lifecycle. We saw a need to balance institutional priorities with emerging best practices in higher education. 

Rather than proposing isolated technology upgrades, we developed the EIP as a three-year roadmap focused on initiatives that support student success, advising effectiveness, operational efficiency, and data-informed decision-making. Throughout the planning process, several themes consistently emerged: reducing administrative burden, improving transparency for students, increasing process automation, and maximizing the value of existing and new technologies. These principles became the criteria against which all proposed work would be evaluated. 

Building a Framework for Prioritization and Capacity Management

We initially thought we were creating a project plan. What we actually created was a decision-making framework. One of the most valuable outcomes of the EIP has been the conversations it creates. When new ideas or issues emerge, we evaluate them against existing priorities and available capacity. Rather than asking whether a proposed project is worthwhile, we ask where it fits relative to our current commitments. In many cases, the answer is not “no.” It is “not yet.” That distinction has helped us build trust with campus partners while protecting staff from the competing priorities that often accompany institutional change.

The framework also helped us distinguish between projects that were important and projects that were foundational. We evaluated initiatives based on both institutional impact and scope, prioritizing projects that benefited the broader student population over those serving more limited audiences. Several institutional priorities, including academic planning, advising modernization, graduation readiness, and statewide implementation of Core General Education Requirements (CGER), depended on strengthening the underlying enrollment infrastructure first. Initiatives such as expanding Stellic, implementing electronic forms, developing academic maps, and updating academic scheduling policies were not pursued as standalone projects. They were selected because they advanced multiple institutional goals simultaneously and created capacity for future work.

Perhaps most importantly, the EIP shifted conversations from individual projects to institutional outcomes. Discussions increasingly focused on how proposed work would improve the student experience, support academic advising, reduce administrative complexity, or strengthen compliance and operational effectiveness. The result was a more transparent approach to prioritization and a shared understanding of why certain initiatives moved forward before others.

As development of the plan matured, it evolved into more than a technology roadmap. It became a statement about how enrollment infrastructure supports institutional effectiveness. 

Collaboration, Governance, and Institutional Alignment

The EIP emphasizes collaboration among the Registrar’s Office, advisors, faculty, academic leaders, and other administrative units. Success requires coordinated governance, process redesign, and adoption of new tools across the university. While the Registrar’s Office maintains and coordinates much of the enrollment infrastructure, success ultimately depends on partnerships with academic affairs, advising leaders, information technology, faculty governance, and enrollment management colleagues across campus. The plan became a shared roadmap rather than a departmental agenda.

Looking back, our most important insight was that institutions do not always need another strategic plan. Sometimes they need a mechanism for connecting existing priorities, clarifying ownership, and making intentional decisions about capacity. While every institution’s priorities are different, many face the same challenge of balancing innovation with finite capacity. For us, the Enrollment Infrastructure Plan has become the mechanism that connects strategy, resources, and accountability. It has provided a common language for discussing priorities, strengthened collaboration across campus, and helped ensure that limited resources remain focused on the work with the greatest institutional impact.

Ultimately, the Enrollment Infrastructure Plan was created to guide UWM’s transition from a collection of manual and disconnected processes to a more integrated, secure, and student-centered enrollment environment. The plan reflects the Registrar’s Office’s commitment to innovation, compliance, operational excellence, and a seamless student experience from admission through graduation.