At a university, “soon” can mean six months. Adam Przymusiała on the work behind digital change
Adam Przymusiała travelled to meet a university representative. The conversation went well, and the two were soon on first-name terms. At the end, the man said they could work together “soon”. Adam asked when. The answer was: in six months.
After a decade with startups and B2B companies, that timetable was hard to accept. Yet, in his conversation with Krzysztof Kosman, he allows that the slower pace serves a purpose for universities. They need time to assess a supplier, consider risk and decide whether that supplier will still be there later. That does not make the wait painless for someone selling technology. It changes the question they need to ask: who, exactly, must trust the new system?
One system, several decision makers
In smaller businesses, Przymusiała often dealt directly with the owner. It was easier to establish who made the decision, what result they wanted and when. At a university, a registrar's office employee may use a tool, someone else may manage procurement, and another person may approve the purchase. Others will care about security and whether the system can be supported for years.
A positive reaction from a future user does not mean the university will buy. Adam advises talking to several people, learning what each of them needs and finding someone inside the institution who can help move the discussion forward. He remembers returning to one university after a year and hearing something like, “Oh, you're still here.” He took it as a sign that he was no longer just an unknown vendor.
There is also the cost of the procedure itself. In his experience, the paperwork for a contract worth 30,000 złoty can be similar to that for a much larger project. That is not an argument against procurement rules. It helps explain why even a small purchase need not be quick.
When a bot looks like a replacement
Adam recounts a story he heard second-hand about a bot for a registrar's office. Staff had been cooperating on the project. Late in the work, however, they became worried that the tool would replace them, and the project stopped. For Adam, the missing part was a conversation about what would happen to the jobs of the people helping to build it.
A bot could answer recurring student questions and point them towards documents. Staff might then have more time for cases that require their expertise. That is one possible way to reorganise work, not a guarantee that automation will replace nobody. Krzysztof presses him on that point, and the conversation does not yield an easy answer. It does show why a promise to “free up time” is insufficient. The institution needs to decide in advance what that time is for.
Adam finds a related problem in complaints about existing software. One person says the tool does not work. Only after speaking to others does he discover that part of the trouble lies in a process that no longer fits the work. A chancellor, dean, bursar and procurement team may describe the same procedure differently. Before drawing up a list of features, the supplier needs to find out where the work actually gets stuck.
Electronic diplomas will test more than the printer
The issue becomes tangible with electronic diplomas. Poland's Ministry of Science and Higher Education says that from 1 January 2027, electronic form will be the primary and mandatory form for newly issued diplomas. The repository opened on 30 June 2026, with a transition period through the end of the year. Paper copies will remain possible alongside electronic ones.
Adam expects data consistency to be one of the first difficulties. A diploma and its supplement draw on information collected throughout a student's studies. Universities will need to check those records against data previously reported to the national POL-on system. A changed surname, a missing entry or information kept only in a spreadsheet may come to light when the final document has to be issued.
That is his forecast, not an assertion that every university already has the same problem. The new process also forces useful questions about the records: who enters them, when they are updated and how discrepancies are found. According to the ministry, the diploma will be registered in a national repository, making it easier for graduates to access and for others to verify its authenticity. Previously issued paper diplomas do not cease to exist because new ones are issued differently.
Fewer features, more understanding
Przymusiała describes a change in his own work, too. As a former programmer, he could keep adding features to his product. Now he tries to say “no” more often. Building a feature may be relatively easy; maintaining it, fitting it into the rest of the system and making it useful to a person all take further work.
He recalls presenting an admissions system to a specialist university. His team had modelled faculties, courses and requirements, only to learn that the institution did not need digital help with assessing applicants. The discussion moved forward when they asked about the protocols, decisions and official correspondence still prepared by hand. The painful step was elsewhere than the supplier had assumed.
That is why a flexible system might first accommodate the current process and help change it later. Adam does not claim this is risk-free: a temporary workaround can become permanent. But a university may need time to see for itself what ought to change. A supplier has to judge when to adapt the tool and when to reopen the conversation about the work.
Near the end of the interview, Adam says how he would recognise real progress in university digitisation. He would not count PDFs. He would look for a process in which a document no longer circulates by email between several people, and a case can be completed electronically, securely and with a clear record of decisions. That is less showy than another feature in a product demo. Inside a university, it may matter more.
