Breaking Up Is Hard To Do (Even When You Should)
In higher ed, we are incredibly loyal. Sometimes, to a fault.
I started EDCARTA after hearing a familiar chorus from colleges and universities across the country: “We’re not happy with our current service provider.” They would tell me how the provider no longer felt like a partner, or how deadlines were consistently missed, or how overseas outsourcing had created communication gaps and quality concerns. But what struck me most was not the dissatisfaction; it was the inertia. Even when other options were available, the contracts were up for renewal, and teams were visibly frustrated, institutions stayed.
And I get it. Because I’ve done the same.
Years ago, I found myself working with a provider who made all the right promises up front. They pitched alignment with our goals, offered a team with deep experience, and gave us the sense that we’d finally found the right fit. But over time, things slowly started to unravel. Project timelines slipped. Deliverables missed the mark. Feedback loops became frustratingly repetitive. Still, I held on. I made every excuse for them. I made endless excuses for them; they were scaling, they had a lot of clients, we were probably just in a rough patch. I told myself that if I just gave more direction, they’d get it right next time. What I now realize is that I wasn’t holding on to the partnership. I was holding on to the pitch.
Eventually, we broke up with that provider, but not without a lot of mental gymnastics first. We had convinced ourselves that starting over would be worse, that we had already invested too much time, and that switching vendors would take more energy than we had left. But what we found on the other side was something we hadn’t felt in a long time: clarity. The weight lifted. The excuses stopped. Our team had more momentum, because we were no longer spending time managing a partnership that had stopped serving us. There was relief, renewed control, and a sharp reminder that it is always worth realigning around what actually works.
1. “It’s what we can afford.”
This is probably the most frequent rationale I hear: the current provider offers a lower price point, and with limited budgets, switching feels risky. But focusing only on the invoice total misses the full picture. A $5,000 “savings” means very little if your internal team is spending 40+ extra hours cleaning up the work, troubleshooting systems, or fielding faculty complaints. That’s time that could be spent supporting students, innovating, or simply getting ahead. And often, the assumption that “this is the only price point we can afford” is false. Many newer or boutique providers, especially those just entering the market, are more than willing to match or come close to your current pricing. The difference is, they’re hungry to prove themselves and more likely to provide the level of attention your team actually needs. You may not need a dramatic budget increase to get dramatically better service.
2. “They’re good people.”
This one hits close to home. In higher ed, we care deeply about relationships. And when we’ve worked with a vendor for years, it’s natural to develop trust and empathy, especially when they’re kind, responsive, and trying their best. But at some point, you have to ask: does the provider feel the same urgency about your goals as you do? Are they trying to fix what’s not working, or are they coasting on the goodwill you’ve extended? Liking someone is not the same as being well-served by them. We would never tell a student to keep paying tuition for a class that wasn’t meeting their learning goals just because they liked the instructor. So why do we do it ourselves?
3. “We’ve already invested so much time.”
This is the sunk cost fallacy in action. Institutions will tell me, “We’ve already done the onboarding. We’ve trained their team. We’ve already spent a year trying to make this work.” And I understand the hesitation. Starting over feels like admitting failure. But staying in a failing relationship doesn’t save the time you’ve already spent, it just commits you to spending even more. What I’ve seen time and time again is that switching providers, while temporarily disruptive, often frees up more time than it consumes. The real drain is the constant rework, the frustration, the need to explain your goals again and again without seeing results. That is the energy-sink most teams can’t afford and it’s the one that never shows up in a spreadsheet.
4. “We just don’t have the bandwidth to look.”
This is perhaps the most understandable reason, but also the most dangerous. Teams in higher ed are stretched thin. When enrollment pressures, accreditation cycles, and day-to-day operations are pulling attention in every direction, finding a new vendor feels like one more task on an endless list. But here’s the reality of the situation: staying in a broken partnership is not neutral. It drains your team in subtler, more cumulative ways. It adds meetings, rework, frustration, and administrative burden that slowly eats into your team’s capacity. Ironically, the very lack of bandwidth that keeps you from switching is often caused by the provider you are reluctant to leave. When we finally moved on from our own misaligned partnership, we found ourselves reclaiming time that we didn’t even realize we had been losing.
So what can institutions do when they’re stuck? When they know the relationship isn’t working but can’t imagine how to make the switch? There are always options, and they do not all require overhauling everything at once. A few small moves can help regain clarity and momentum:
Start small. Test out a new provider on a single, low-risk project. It could be a course revision, a short-form faculty resource, or even a limited audit. A pilot is an easy way to compare experiences without committing to a full-scale shift.
Run a side-by-side comparison. If possible, assign a similar task to two different providers and compare the results. Don't compare just the final product, instead consider the process, responsiveness, and overall collaboration. You will learn a lot from the contrast.
Open the dialogue internally. Ask your team how they feel about the current provider. This could be a structured meeting, a quick pulse survey, or even informal check-ins. Often, staff feel the same frustrations but have been quiet about them, assuming it is “just part of the process.”
Bring in a consultant. If internal bandwidth is the issue, consider a short-term project manager or consultant to vet providers, manage timelines, or lead the transition. This is especially helpful for stretched teams that want change but do not have capacity to drive it.
Build a rubric. Create a simple evaluation framework for your current provider: Are deadlines being met? Are issues resolved promptly? Are they improving over time or staying stagnant? Putting metrics to the relationship can surface insights you might otherwise dismiss.
Give yourself permission to expect more. This is perhaps the hardest, and most important, step. You deserve a partner who listens, who improves, who aligns with your goals. Your team deserves to work with someone who makes the job easier, not harder.
Here's the harder truth: higher education models the behaviors we expect students to tolerate. We expect students to push through when systems are clunky. To wait patiently when communication breaks down. To trust that we’ll eventually get it right. But that’s exactly what we do with our service providers and it’s a pattern that trickles down. When we accept subpar service, we’re not just absorbing the burden internally, we’re passing it downstream. We are indirectly asking students to give us the same grace and patience we’ve already extended to our vendors. And we should not expect them to.
I’ve watched students walk away from institutions at the very end of their programs, fully aware that transferring would delay their graduation and increase their costs. But they left anyway. Not because they couldn’t manage the coursework, but because they refused to keep investing in a system that didn’t invest in them. They prioritized themselves (as they should).
When we stay in partnerships that no longer work, we’re not just protecting the status quo. We’re normalizing it. And we’re signaling to our students that they should do the same; that disappointment, delay, and misalignment are just part of the deal. But they’re not. Or at least, they shouldn’t be. Breaking up is hard. Starting over is hard. But staying in the wrong partnership, out of habit, fear, or misplaced loyalty, is what truly holds us back.
We can expect more. And we should. For ourselves. For our teams. And especially for our students.