AI Simulation Platform Buyer's Guide for Provosts & Department Chairs

Who This Guide Is For

If you're a provost, department chair, or academic technology director evaluating AI simulation platforms for your institution, this guide provides a structured framework for comparison.

We've seen dozens of institutions go through this process. The ones that make good decisions ask the right questions early.

The 7 Evaluation Criteria

1. Pedagogical Alignment

Ask: Does the platform's assessment philosophy match your institution's learning outcomes framework?

What to look for:

• Rubric-aligned scoring tied to specific course outcomes
• Process-based assessment (not just final outputs)
• Coaching and feedback mechanisms that support learning
• Support for competency-based education models

Red flags: Platforms that emphasize "pass/fail" screening rather than developmental assessment. Platforms that can't align to your existing rubrics.

2. Scalability

Ask: Can this platform serve 50 students in a pilot AND 5,000 students across departments?

What to look for:

• Asynchronous access (no scheduling dependencies)
• Multi-department, multi-program deployment
• Institution-wide licensing options
• Automated assessment (not human-dependent)

Red flags: Per-session pricing that makes scaling prohibitive. Scheduling requirements that create bottlenecks. Vendor-dependent scenario creation.

3. LMS Integration

Ask: Does this integrate natively with our Learning Management System?

What to look for:

• LTI 1.3 compliance (the current standard)
• Single sign-on for students and faculty
• Automatic grade passback to the LMS gradebook
• Deep linking for assignment-level embedding
• Roster synchronization

Red flags: "We have an API" without native LMS integration. Manual grade transfer requirements. Separate student accounts.

4. Faculty Control

Ask: Can our faculty create and customize simulations without vendor involvement?

What to look for:

• Built-in authoring tools
• Custom scenario creation from course outcomes
• Rubric customization
• Simulation library management
• Intellectual property ownership

Red flags: Vendor-only content creation. Long turnaround times for custom scenarios. Unclear IP ownership terms.

5. Assessment Documentation

Ask: Does the platform produce evidence that satisfies accreditation requirements?

What to look for:

• Timestamped transcripts
• Rubric-aligned performance scores
• Objective-level mastery tracking
• Exportable documentation (PDF, LMS attachment)
• Process integrity notes

Red flags: Raw recordings without structured analysis. Assessment data that can't be mapped to learning outcomes. No export functionality.

6. Compliance & Security

Ask: Is this FERPA-compliant? Does it meet our data governance requirements?

What to look for:

• FERPA compliance documentation
• PII minimization practices
• Institutional data retention controls
• SOC 2 or equivalent security certification
• Data residency options

Red flags: No FERPA documentation. Student data stored without institutional controls. No data retention policies.

7. Total Cost of Ownership

Ask: What's the real cost at our target scale over 3 years?

What to look for:

• Per-student (not per-session) institutional pricing
• Implementation and training costs included
• No hidden fees for LMS integration or custom scenarios
• Predictable annual budgeting

Red flags: Per-session pricing that compounds with scale. Separate charges for integration, training, or support. Pricing that requires a sales call to discover.

The Evaluation Process

Phase 1: Discovery (2 weeks) Define requirements, identify stakeholders, and request demos from 2–3 platforms.

Phase 2: Pilot (4–6 weeks) Run a controlled pilot in one course with one platform. Measure student engagement, faculty experience, and assessment quality.

Phase 3: Decision (2 weeks) Compare pilot results against evaluation criteria. Present findings to procurement committee.

Phase 4: Rollout (4–8 weeks) Deploy selected platform across target programs with LMS integration, faculty training, and student orientation.

Making the Case

The most effective internal pitch combines three elements:

1. Pedagogical evidence: Improved learning outcomes with data from the pilot
2. Operational savings: Reduced grading time and integrity overhead
3. Strategic positioning: Programs that offer simulation-based assessment differentiate in a competitive enrollment market

Start with a pilot. Let the results build the case.