Ten CRM Case Studies for Charities

On the tenth day of Christmas, my truelove gave to me... Ten Useful Case Studies of How NFPs Are Using CRM Systems

Case studies are a useful way to see how charities and the NFP sector have implemented fundraising and CRM systems. The following are ten such examples (in alphabetical order):

• Access Group: Access thankQ CRM - Essex Herts Air Ambulance 
• Advanced Computer Software: Care NG - Woodland Trust
• Advantage NFP - Birmingham Royal Ballet 
• ASI Europe: iMIS20 - Rethink Mental Illness
• Blackbaud: Raiser's Edge - University of Glasgow 
• CiviCRM - Bloodwise (ex-LLR)
• Donorfy - Central London Samaritans
• Harlequin Software - Greatwood
• Microsoft Dynamics CRM - Midlands Air Ambulance
• Salesforce - Camfed

NB For clarification: this list in no way indicates that these are the ten best or the only ten systems you should consider. There are many more and you can see a more comprehensive list of Fundraising Software and CRM Systems on my website.

My Predictions for NFP CRM Systems in 2015

 

It's that time of year when people predict what's going to happen in the next 12 months and so I thought I would join in. So here goes: these are my predictions for what will happen in the arena of UK NFP fundraising databases and the CRM market in 2015:

1. The increasing adoption of Salesforce and Microsoft CRM Dynamics - especially for the larger charities looking for a new system. In the last 12-18 months, for the tenders for fundraising databases that I know of amongst larger charities, more have been won by a company selling Salesforce or Dynamics - and I think this pattern will continue at the moment. Blackbaud CRM will also be in the mix but it has not been as successful of late here in the UK (outside the Higher Education sector) and ACS's CareNG does not seem to be competing at the same level as the others right now.

So at the moment, for larger charities who are also looking for a development platform, I believe Dynamics and Salesforce will top the sales.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or two larger charities implementing CRM systems for fundraising find it tough going. There are still very few sizeable UK charities using such systems for their dedicated fundraising database and I think some may find it takes longer and/or costs more than they expect.

• As a 'sub-division' prediction on this, I also think that 'templated' versions of Salesforce and Dynamics will grow in popularity - i.e. offerings from third-party suppliers with some built-in charity functionality such as Direct Debit management, Gift Aid etc - both in terms of client adoption and new templates being developed by more companies. Plus Salesforce's own NGO Connect adaptation could be interesting to watch if it is developed for the UK market.

2. The mid-size charity market for fundraising systems will see a battle between Raiser's Edge NXT and Access thankQ CRM. Both Blackbaud and The Access Group are bringing out new products in 2015 as successors to their existing Raiser's Edge and thankQ systems and it will be interesting to see which moves ahead. It looks like The Access Group will release their new offering first so that could give them a head start, but Blackbaud's new technology and financial clout should see them pick up new clients later in the year.

That said, Raiser's Edge NXT still has some questions hanging over it as I have highlighted before in another blog post, so it will be very interesting to see how that does develop.

I also believe that CiviCRM will win deals amongst mid-size charities but it needs one or two more significant implementations in the UK to really get it to be more widely adopted. (And of course Salesforce and Dynamics will also be an option for this level, but for those organisations with 'pure fundraising' needs there would need to be a good reason to be building from 'vanilla' for such systems - hence, again, my prediction for the growth of CRM fundraising templates.)

•  I also think that Blackbaud's existing Raiser's Edge 7 is not going to disappear for some time. It (like other similar products) still provides solid functionality for charities' operational fundraising requirements, so despite its age and shortcomings it will probably continue to sell for at least this year, and carry on being used for at least the next few years by many existing clients.

3. Extensibility will be increasingly more important. In terms of system flexibility, adaptation and development, charities are now moving on from accepting the limitations that the more traditional fundraising databases have offered historically. The goals, wishes and requirements of fundraisers (and therefore the database team too) means that such restrictions are almost certainly no longer acceptable for mid-size/large NFPs.

Thus the need for the increased power and flexibility of system extensibility has come to the fore. Charities want to be able to change forms and screens, insert entities and fields and add data integrity/business rules etc more easily than they have been able to in the past. And they want to be able to do this themselves, without having to be technical geniuses. But they also want to at least have the option of being able to get down-and-dirty with programming code if they desire to do that and if they are capable of doing so, and to be able to use such code so that they can extend the database beyond what it was originally developed for - but in such a way so that it won't break it in the future when new standard upgrades are released.

The CRM systems are leading the way in this but the new products from Blackbaud and thankQ are catching-up in some (if not all) areas and some degree of extensibility will no longer be a nice-to-have for new implementations.

4. Charities will want to integrate their fundraising/CRM database with their website and other data sources more tightly and with more automation… but they will still find it hard. This fundamental need is not new of course; and my point here is really a bit of an 'anti-prediction' in that although I predict the increasing desire for such integration, I still think it is going to be hard for more automated integration apart for those charities who have a decent budget and good in-house technical skills, or for the more 'common' data sources such as JustGiving.

Ironically, from the point of view of attempting to be Nostradamus, I hope I am wrong about this prediction.

5. Software companies and salespeople will continue to push Mobile/Social Media/Cloud as their innovations. Which is hardly a radical prediction, is it! After all, this is already happening. And of course these technologies do offer the potential of great benefits and the ability to interact with our fundraising/CRM systems.

But why I have highlighted this area is because I want to add that you shouldn't follow these trends blindly and you shouldn't be buying a new system just because it offers such capabilities. Instead, work out why or how such technologies could be used with your database. For example, it is not just a matter of recording tweets in your CRM system (I mean, are fundraisers really going to look through hundreds of tweets on a fundraising database?); it is not just about seeing a supporter's Facebook page from within the CRM (although that can offer some speed of access); and it's not just about accessing your database from your mobile/tablet without a good business reason, no matter how flashy the salespeople make that look. Although, yes, mobile access for event fundraisers at an event, for development staff visiting alumni, for member access - absolutely, that sounds good. So do it where it's right to do so - but not just for the sake of it.

---

A final note on this: I should add that there are of course many more fundraising databases available (AdvantageNFP, Harlequin, KISSS etc) and CRM systems (Workbooks, SugarCRM etc) - see the itforcharities website for such lists - and my references to the systems above do not mean that they are necessarily right for you or your particular project. If you do look for a new database then you need to do a proper analysis and procurement exercise and select whichever system and supplier is right for your organisation.

Raiser's Edge NXT: My Initial Thoughts (Part 2)

Last week, Blackbaud announced details of Raiser's Edge NXT. In the first part of this blog, I gave the facts of what I currently understand NXT to be. In this second part, I will say a bit more about what I personally think of the system and the implications for current RE7 users/potential new NXT users. As such, I should add a great big caveat at the start which is that this is my own personal opinion and so you can blame me for anything I am ultimately wrong about (or, hopefully, right!), but I hope that this post is at least a fair and open narrative.

What's Good about NXT?
The good news is there is lots to look forward to about NXT. It's interface and UX is undeniably very slick and far more user-friendly than RE7. There are definitely better features such as the approach to dashboarding, the work centre, the summaries users can easily see and the far more flexible way of displaying information. It looks good and that will certainly help user adoption. (Of course, that is only one aspect of any software, but it's a great start).

The different role-based views are promising and although that might add some extra support to database administrators to maintain them, I would still vote for and want that flexibility.

It supports REST API technology which means that using its API should be a far better experience compared to RE7's API which many people didn't like. What this means in practise is that your technical staff, or Blackbaud or third-parties should be able to integrate NXT more easily with other systems and get data in and out of the database better using such tools.

The conversion approach (which I detailed in part 1 of this blog) is clever in itself, although I have reservations too for the initial implementers (c.f. below).

And for those of you who want a cloud-based fundraising database it could be a great option.

Of course, the above sub-heading means I need another which says there might be stuff I think is not so good…
So what are my concerns/questions about NXT?

• In the short-term (although that actual timescale is currently unknown), I am not sure how the approach to using RE7 and NXT at the same time will be received. You can look at it on the positive side and say that it is of course great that some users will get earlier access to NXT, or even that some users will have an option of which system to use, but I think there are issues that may need to be resolved.
  
  I would think it could be harder to explain to users who should be using which version to see what; and administrators will need to support both systems. And as more NXT functionality comes on board, so testing, training and internal documentation will need to be kept up-to-date on those aspects. There's some potential 'hidden costs' there in terms of internal staff time/effort. And although some existing RE7 clients might accept all that, it will be interesting to see how that is seen by potential new customers. (NB I realise that the software interface is simply one aspect of any procurement decision, but it's quite a significant one in this case).

• I'll be interested to see how Attributes are ultimately managed in NXT. As I understand it, at the moment Attributes will simply be migrated from RE7 'as is', and that is probably a good thing for ease of migration and for initial adoption.
  
  But if Blackbaud are promoting NXT as a great UX and with their role-based views, then if users can only still see all Attributes all in one list and then have to work out from there which are relevant for them, then I don't personally believe that is taking a step forward in that aspect of the UI. I know many organisations who have dozens (many dozens) of Attribute categories. That said, I think users may be able to filter the Attributes list in some ways so that is going to help.

• When RE was originally released, attributes were a very clever way to enable non-technical users to be able to add their own 'fields'. And they are of course still very easy to add. But today's CRM systems (Blackbaud's competitors) offer charities the ability to add 'standard' fields very easily, simply through using a GUI and still without the need for any specialist technical knowledge.
  
  Again, I know that this is a very specific point but I personally believe it is an ever-increasing example of user-friendliness with power which NXT might need to catch-up with. I also acknowledge that at some point, if users want this capability a lot then they should maybe consider Blackbaud CRM, but that doesn't really address the NXT needs.

A few things we don't know yet but will start to do so
We don't yet have a timescale for a full implementation of NXT so that it replaces all of RE7. The only thing we know is that it won't be a matter of just a few months. So the 'hybrid' approach will be here for a while.

And as the pricing won't be based on user numbers then I assume it will either be based on record numbers and/or online storage requirements. How this works out will depend on Blackbaud's final cost model.

One of the things we will need to know is how Blackbaud will allow and manage client-created and third party API developments. Current RE7 hosting has limitations on third-party APIs so will that be the same on NXT? I believe that existing add-on functionality built on RE7 using RE7's API functionality will also be replicable on NXT, but it isn't completely clear to me how that will happen. Will it only be for API apps built by Blackbaud on RE7 or by third-parties/clients too? This is especially pertinent given that Blackbaud are launching a Partner Network in November this year.

There was talk on Twitter during the Blackbaud conference announcement that there could be a private cloud option. In which case, that would seem to offer more functionality for control of performance management and flexible use of the future API.

So how would I summarise all this?
Although I know RE7 is still selling fine and fundamentally it provides solid operational functionality for fundraising, it is difficult to argue against the view that it looks a bit long in the tooth, it is based on older technology and it is more difficult to integrate with. And all that whilst (some of) Blackbaud's competitors have surged ahead in terms of technology and an open approach to integration, and are already challenging on fundraising functionality.

NXT will address this. That's good news for the sector in terms of software options. Especially for small to mid-size charities already using or considering Raiser's Edge, which is where I suspect NXT will do well.

But it still won't be available until the middle of 2015 and even then it won't be replacing 100% of RE7 functionality. The time Blackbaud take to develop NXT further could have a significant impact on its adoption. And as I say above, I remain to be convinced as to how the 'hybrid' approach to using RE7 and NXT will be received by some users.

I also don't know if the cloud-only approach will alienate some organisations? It shouldn't do in terms of cloud security although there are of course some people who are still wary of cloud systems - but the management of client/third-party APIs could be important here too.

But as a one sentence summary? I think NXT will put Blackbaud back in the game (if they were ever out of it…)

Raiser's Edge NXT: My Initial Thoughts (Part 1)

 

Last week, Blackbaud announced their roadmap and upgrade path for The Raiser's Edge v7: Raiser's Edge NXT. My post here summarises what this means to existing RE7 users and potential NXT users. I've split it into two parts: first the facts and second what I think the implications are for RE users ¹.

First, just the facts ma'am
So what do we know about NXT:

• Raiser's Edge NXT (oh, and that's pronounced En Ex Tee - not next or n'xt- although I'm not sure how long that will last…) is a cloud only solution. No more on-premise software.
• All clients will have unlimited users and instead the cost will be subscription based pricing (exact pricing TBC).
• It will be device independent and run on desktops, tablets and mobile devices, the interface being a responsive design.
• The whole user experience (UX) is very different from RE7 and is "tile-based" rather than tab-based, which can be setup differently for different users (c.f. Roles below) and the tiles can even be moved around easily. (You can see several example screenshots on Blackbaud's website, such as https://www.blackbaud.com/image/renxt-desktop-1.jpg)
• The fundamental UX is designed so that it is more focused on different user Roles; e.g. a view for a fundraising manager, one for prospect researchers, another for alumni relationship officers etc. This means that each such role will have a different view of data and records oriented to how those people work.
• It will support the REST API architecture. And, as it says on Blackbaud's website: "Raiser’s Edge NXT will ultimately have an Open API".
• There is a new approach to list building which is oriented towards users who don't need to know something as sophisticated as the current RE:Query tool (and is more akin to filters found in other contemporary/cloud CRM systems).
• And there are some other nice new features and functions too such as better dashboards and summaries, a work centre, a constituent "timeline" which shows interactions/mailings etc for a constituent in a 'graphical' view - and I expect many more.
• Upgrades/enhancements will be automatically rolled out when they become available, a la any similar Cloud solution. (i.e. no more going round all your PCs with a CD!)

And the planned release date is middle 2015. But: in the first instance, NXT will not have 100% of RE7 functionality. Instead, more functionality will be added over time. That will mean the first organisations using NXT will also need to carry on using RE7 for some of their staff/requirements. (c.f. Data Conversion below). In practise, the initial launch will provide the NXT interface for users more involved with one-to-one type fundraising (major donors, trusts, prospect researchers etc) but much of the central operational functionality of Raiser's Edge will remain in RE7 (e.g. direct debit claims, exports, database admin).

And for existing RE7 users there will be no data conversion process…

So how will current RE7 users 'convert' to NXT?
Although there is no 'formal' data conversion process, it is perhaps better thought of as an "invisible" conversion (or 'behind the scenes'). It will work like this:

• First, if you are a RE7 user who wants to upgrade to NXT then Blackbaud will move you to their hosting platform (if you're not already on it).
• That platform will then provide you with full access to RE7 (as per their current hosting option) but also present NXT access. But the data will synch between the two versions so that all users are of course accessing the same data. All this will be done automatically by Blackbaud's systems.
• Thus we can see that data from RE7 will start to be migrated to NXT and as Blackbaud bring on more functionality to NXT so more data will move across to that.

You can read my thoughts on the implications of that in the second part of this post.

And don't forget Blackbaud CRM and eTapestry
If you are an existing RE7 user then you should also remember that NXT will be just one option for an upgrade path. For larger organisations, Blackbaud CRM could be more appropriate, or for smaller organisations you could even consider eTapestry. Talk to your Blackbaud account manager for more information (as the PR might say…!)

So what does all this really mean to Raiser's Edge v7 users? How good is RE NXT?
I will address that in my next blog, later this week.

---

Notes
1: This information has been gathered from Blackbaud's own website and from Blackbaud's announcement of NXT at their US conference last week.

Is Microsoft Dynamics Emerging as a Leader for Higher Education CRM?

UCISA, the Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association, which represents higher education in the provision and development of academic, management and administrative information systems, has recently published the results of a software survey they did amongst their members. And this shows that Microsoft CRM Dynamics is the most popular choice in their "CRM" category. The survey is carried out annually by UCISA and provides a simple snapshot of the core corporate information systems in use by UCISA members and although the previous year's results showed that Dynamics was already fairly well used, the usage has increased again this year.

Now, it should be said that the list of products in the survey's CRM category is fairly wide-ranging. Dynamics on the one side, which could cover a number of areas; The Raiser's Edge and thankQ as other examples, which manage fundraising and alumni relations; Hobsons, which is more about admissions communications; and even Agresso, which is an ERP system which could be used for finance through to HR and Payroll. Plus a number of other systems of various ilks.

As such, it is difficult to really compare like-for-like or to say that one system is actually stronger than another for a specific application. And it could even come down to what a survey respondent defines as "CRM". For example, the survey also shows The Raiser's Edge with only 12 users and thankQ with 2, when Blackbaud and The Access Group certainly have more than that number of clients in Higher Education establishments. There is also no mention of any Salesforce users at all (although my understanding is they do have Higher Ed UK clients which one would think would be classed as CRM).

But what it does show is that Dynamics is certainly on the uptake. If you look at the UCISA results over the last 4 years then it shows a steady but distinct increase. It is a flexible system (like other CRM solutions) and as such could be being used for anything from fundraising and alumni relations through to general contact management, specific student record management/communications and so on.

This probably reflects what is happening the charity sector too. Several years ago, Dynamics was starting to find its feet in fundraising and other charity CRM applications, but now in 2014 it is starting to make waves.

Interesting times lay ahead…

The 3 top reasons why you should still consider traditional fundraising software

 

So much is written now - by myself included! - about the (now not so) new CRM systems (I.e. MS CRM Dynamics, Salesforce et al) that you could be forgiven for forgetting that there are still other options. But the good ol' traditional fundraising database package is of course still going strong (e.g. Raiser's Edge, thankQ, CareNG, Advantage Fundraiser etc), and it is still selling well (out-selling CRM?) and there are clear benefits for at least considering it if you are looking at a new fundraising database solution.

These are my top three reasons why you should still consider the fundraising database package:

• The built-in fundraising functionality: this has to be number one. These guys have been selling fundraising databases before Salesforce was a twinkle in Marc Benioff's eye. And as such they have rich and comprehensive built-in functionality for fundraising. It's why they were created in the first place. And even the more thorough templates/apps which are now available for Dynamics and Salesforce are hard-pressed to match all the fundraising functions which the fundraising packages can offer - and some don't even claim to be more than a starting point. Some of them are getting closer of course...
• The suppliers themselves: This is almost as critical as the functionality - in fact, sometimes I would put it above the functionality for a reason as to why you should consider fundraising packages. Because the suppliers have years and years of knowledge of working with charities; they have staff who will have hundreds, even thousands of hours of experience which they have gleaned from the NFPs they have worked with; they have the heritage of working with the sector; and many have hundreds, even thousands of existing charity customers who already use the software, have provided feedback (good and bad) and who, believe it or not, may actually even like the software!
• Reduced risk of the implementation itself: Some of the more critical aspects of a fundraising database implementation are aspects such as direct debits, marketing selection processes, finance/donation structure, gift aid and so on, and these are the areas which the packages already have ticked and, as importantly, have implemented many times in many different environments. Even the better CRM systems still have limited exposure to such areas and are still learning. This does reduce risk. Equally, the wider functionality already available means you have a structure to the system and the implementation, you will be able to run your processes in proven ways and you won't just forget some functionality. Plus, the suppliers have done it all before many times and it's even quite feasible that some of your staff will even know the new system from other places they have worked.

All that said, and to keep things in perspective, I do realise that some of these benefits I am promoting could equally be seen as downsides by CRM suppliers, and some CRM suppliers could quite rightly point to their successes; so do remember I am just saying here why the traditional packages should at least still be considered...

Why now may be the wrong time to be investing in Fundraising Software for larger charities

These are interesting times for large charities and their fundraising database needs. They are being stretched like never before in terms of delivering technological support to the fundraising teams and they are being asked to do things they didn't have to consider a few years ago - and being expected to deliver it.

But if that means that they - you - are considering replacing your existing fundraising database right now, then I would encourage you to think twice just at this moment.

Why? Well because the suppliers to this market are all in somewhat a state of flux. Take the 'traditional fundraising database' suppliers: Blackbaud are still selling The Raiser's Edge 7, which, although still provides solid functionality, is showing its age, and Blackbaud know they need to release some sort of replacement - or replacements - whether that is called RE8 or something else. But that's unlikely to happen quickly. Yes there is also Blackbaud CRM but that is probably still just for the largest users and still to really make in-roads into the UK market.

And two of their main competitors, thankQ and what was IRIS, have both relatively recently been acquired by other companies: thankQ by the Access Group, and IRIS by Advanced Computer Software (ACS). I think, in the long run, both acquisitions should be good news for their clients and prospective clients, but we are still in the early days of both takeovers, and they are still finding their feet in terms of business approach and in terms of their own next generation of software.

Which surely then means that the new (generic) CRM solutions should be the right thing to consider? Well maybe, but maybe not. They too are going through a few changes. Yes, they are growing their customer base (not quickly for fundraising applications, but steadily), but they both have their own challenges in terms of applying their technology and platforms to fundraising needs, and there is also the question of knowing which reseller or partner one should use if one does want to buy one of these systems.

Because there are a lot CRM partners out there. You could go for one of the big consulting firms, many of which have an arm specialising in, say, Salesforce and who have huge development skills and CRM backgrounds, but what is their experience of fundraising and working with charities? So think instead of a smaller, specialist partner, who knows, say, Dynamics and who also (says they) know fundraising. Could be good if you choose the right company but there are so many around and even those with some sort of track record in the sector still have minimal experience of implementing these CRM systems compared to the likes of Blackbaud, thankQ and ACS.

And we are all still learning about the CRM systems' true capabilities as of today - and what developments in CRM systems really means for us tomorrow as a large charity in terms of commitment, resources and budget.

So what do you do if you are a large, or even mid-size charity and you do need to replace your fundraising database now? Well, if you genuinely have a burning platform then you of course need to get moving. Or if there are other, genuine risks to the continued use of your existing system or you can positively show that your fundraising income is being hurt by using your current system (and I mean really show that - not just maybe, sort of just think that because it, say, can't "do social media"), then yes, again, you should start planning.

But if not, if you just think you might need to be moving soon, or you've heard that someone else has replaced their database with X or Y, then I would caution you to consider. I think that in another 12 to18 months, some of the above questions will be ironing themselves out. Blackbaud should hopefully be able to publicly give some timescales for their next steps, we will know more about the acquisitions of thankQ and ACS, and Salesforce and Dynamics should have more live sites up and running and actually doing their fundraising on their platforms.

Of course, in 12 to 18 months time, some other great unknown will raise its head and I'll be saying wait until… Nah, surely not.

If GOSH don't keep The Raiser's Edge, what would they buy?

A piece of news which was first announced a week or so ago in various press items is that Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) are reviewing how/whether they continue to use their CRM/fundraising system – i.e. The Raiser's Edge.There are two reasons for my interest in this: one specifically surrounds The Raiser’s Edge and one a wider point.

First, it was interesting to see and be reminded by The Guardian that GOSH’s current database is a "decade old" system and IT News Online calls it an "ageing" system (a little harsh?!) "that struggles with 35,000 transactions per day". We all know that Raiser’s Edge version 7 has been around for some time now (although I think that some of those 10 years must have been with its predecessor too, v6), but it’s a timely reminder that (a) it has reached a point where GOSH feel they need to review their options because they are “feeling the limitations of [their] current system”, but at the same time, (b) The Raiser's Edge is still going, so in one way it could be applauded for that. And of course in terms of timeliness we can add (c) the recent Blackbaud/Convio (potential) purchase which has caused discussion all round the web as to which system will be the dominant one or whether they will both continue.

But whatever GOSH do, it seems that some of RE v7’s functionality might not be cutting the mustard for them anymore. That said, I should emphasise that GOSH are saying that "the charity's directors will consider enhancement of the Raiser's Edge system as an option, as well as buying or building a replacement", so it’s not necessarily as simple as saying RE isn’t right for them anymore. And they appear to be doing that in a structured way, using a third-party "software engineering" company to help them analyse and review the system, which should be good news.

However, if The Raiser's Edge isn’t doing it for GOSH anymore, then I'm minded to wonder what are other big charities considering at the moment?

Which leads me on to my second and wider question – and one which is not just aimed at larger charities who are using The Raiser’s Edge: If you are a large UK NFP at the moment, using one of the main traditional, proprietary fundraising databases (e.g. Raiser’s Edge, Care, Ascent, maybe even ProgressCRM or Alms.net…) and you are considering looking again at the marketplace, then who else do you look to?

The answer is probably/possibly: one or two of those same options above (including the same companies’ enterprise versions) plus one or two of the ‘new’ generic CRM systems such as Salesforce and Microsoft CRM... and, well, that might be that. If you are just below the level of a big charity then there are some other very good mid-size fundraising database solutions, and yes, back at the largest level, Cancer Research UK are implementing Siebel but there can’t be too many other UK charities big enough to do that. All of which means a small set of possible solutions for a large UK NFP. 

(BTW, I realise this is a terribly sweeping statement to make! Clearly there could be all sorts of reasons for large NFPs to look at all sorts of options, and I am very much writing this quick overview from a simplistic, top-level, fundraising-centric view of the market...)

So is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do we want more choice? Or is the fact that the market is consolidating on the one hand and diversifying out of its traditional routes to new and wider options on the other hand actually beneficial to charities?

I think in general the answer is that less options won’t do any harm for the larger charity as long as they are good options. And I think that Salesforce and Microsoft CRM (and maybe CiviCRM) are and will challenge and push the traditional fundraising database suppliers to improve their offerings: to hopefully enhance flexibility and functionality, improve their technology and in particular integration, to consider their business strategies/approach, and to maybe even consider their pricing strategies (not necessarily being cheaper in terms of TCO, but perhaps in terms of the existing software licenses/professional services split) – and in general it will provide large charities with far more scalable, modern and sophisticated systems.

At least, gosh, I hope so.

Database Options: Packages, Bespoke and Generic CRM (part 2)

If your organisation believes that you have a unique requirement which means you have to develop a bespoke database then this blog post challenges you to consider if this really is the case. In the first part of this post, I detailed my beliefs on the pros and cons of packages vs bespoke systems vs “Hybrid CRM” solutions. And in this second post, I lay out a process which you can use and consider if you do believe you have a unique requirement.

Find out if your requirement is really unique
First of all, you need to find out if what you think is a unique requirement really has not been addressed by other charities using alternative systems or methods. I realise this can be hard to do so here are a few ideas:

• Talk to other charities like yourselves - or even not like yourselves - but who you know went through a similar exercise
• Talk to database suppliers and consultants (email me! I’m happy to help if I can) and ask their opinions. Database suppliers in particular will probably be delighted to speak to you about what they could do to help.
• Look at not-for-profit technology resource web sites for leads and different approaches: itforcharities, TechSoup, LASA's NFP Suppliers Directory, VolResource
• Visit trade shows
• Post questions on web-site forums and email discussion lists
• Ask your employees of their experience at previous charities
• And, of course, search and browse the web

If you find your requirement is partially unique…
If this is not an oxymoron, just how unique is your requirement? Is it just different data you need to record? A handful of additional fields? One extra entity? Partially different functions? A different process?

If you find this is the case then consider the following options:

• Consider using an existing package but with customisation. Consider if a database package can help, even if it means customising/bespoking it and/or if it means almost meeting your requirements (see below).
• Consider using functionality which wasn’t initially made for your requirement – although this does come with a caveat: don’t wander too far from the original aim of the software or future developments in that package may not support you.
• Try changing your processes. Packages are often designed so that they work best with processes which work in a particular way. Ask yourself if your processes are really the only way you could do things, or could you fit them around a package’s approach?So how can you find out if a database package can do this for you? As above, get the package suppliers into your office and ask them – there’s nothing they like better than the thought of a few extra pounds/dollars for doing such work…

In fact, some database packages are pretty good even for bespoke work. Blackbaud’s Raiser’s Edge has its API module, Care from IRIS has offered web services and bespoke/customisation for years, ASI Europe have just announced new web services for their system, and Ciber UK provide Ascent which is good for customisation. And ESIT has taken ThankQ, essentially, historically a fundraising/membership package, and done some great bespoke customisations on functionality on all sorts of areas outside that; very impressive. Even at the lower end of the market (cost-wise) Redbourn have offered additional work on Advantage Fundraiser. Please do note all these are just examples and other database suppliers might also provide similar approaches.

Often, package suppliers are very happy to offer bespoke/customisation work which can form a new module for their system, so although it may start as bespoke work, it will be offered to more charities later and thus become part of their standard system. Quite a common path for many suppliers. Maybe you could even share the development cost with other organisations and/or with the developer? ITSorted and Centrepoint Computer Services are just two examples of companies who have used this approach.

“Hybrid CRM” Solutions
One of the most exciting, new options of recent years for organisations with some unique requirements are to use one of the CRM solutions such as Microsoft CRM, SalesForce, CiviCRM, Pivotal, ODM from Gallery Partnership and so on.

As discussed in the previous post, they are designed to be used across a range of industries. SalesForce’ AppExchange has proven extremely popular and Microsoft now has a similar offering and has approached its future releases with XRM (the idea that you can extend CRM significantly beyond its original goal) as one of its core ideas.

How important is technology?
I do appreciate that one issue for many organisations is that web access can offer so much benefit for integration, roll-out, remote access, home users etc that the technology platform can be extremely important. Unfortunately, some web applications are not as functionally rich as Windows packages. So if you can find a Windows package option but not a web-based solution, but that technology is key for you, then at the end of the day it will come down to business benefits. Would you gain more from having a Windows package and possibly running it across Citrix/Terminal Services, or would a web application with slightly less functionality be better for you?

If it’s really unique after all…
But if you really do find you have a unique requirement, then try asking the following: How much does it really matter? What would the impact be if you couldn’t have such a function? Or only partially have it? Is it a nice-to-have feature or really business critical? Is it for fundraising or service delivery - i.e. who does it affect – you or your clients?

Could you use a package for 80% (90% etc) of your requirements and accept that you can’t do everything perfectly for your final 20%? Does only that final 20% (10% etc) need to be managed elsewhere in other ways? Could the package still help with 50% of your unique requirements (e.g. recording contact information and contact made with those contacts but maybe not a specific issue aside from that) and could you do the other 50% on another system.

At the end of the day…
Of course, at the end of the day it is entirely feasible that you have a unique requirement and will decide that your best approach is to develop a bespoke system, in which case, go for it. But I hope that by considering the package options first you can thus rule them out and have a true business case for your development project.

The Raiser's Edge: Why does one person like it and the next hate it?

I have recently been talking to several charities who use The Raiser's Edge. And it seems to me that whenever you gather together a group of fundraisers, throw in a few charity DBAs (and a pinch of technology consultants), and start talking about The Raiser's Edge, then, almost inevitably, some of the group will sing its praises and others will slate it and tell you it’s rubbish. But why? It’s the same software being used at the different charities (possible version differences aside), with the same functionality (modules aside) and surely all organisations could use it the same way? So why then, if one person loves it, does the next person find it just doesn’t work for their charity.

At this point, I should offer a clarification and a caveat on this blog post: To clarify, I have used The Raiser’s Edge in the title of this blog because it is used so widely in the sector and thus you inevitably get more people discussing it and therefore liking and disliking it. It is one of the more long-standing products on the market and fundraisers have inevitably heard of it. However, most of the points in this article could equally apply to any other similar fundraising, membership or CRM database package.

Secondly, the caveat is that such a question cannot be answered truly comprehensively in a brief blog post. Each of the points below could justify their own post (or set of posts!) and far more discussion. And of course there can be specific reasons why a database does not work for a specific charity. But because I am asked this or similar questions regularly, and because I really want to encourage charities to consider and understand the fundamental issues so they don’t immediately blame Blackbaud or similar suppliers, I hope this initial post will provide a fair and useful overview and supply the start of the answer.

So here are a few suggestions as to why we love to love or have to hate The Raiser's Edge:

• Data. I have been fortunate to have done quite a few data audits of Raiser’s Edge installations and the data in the system is one of the most important factors in the success of its implementation. Data Quality (accuracy, integrity, consistency, use of look-up tables etc) is key, the data needs to be up-to-date (a classic hate for fundraisers), the breadth of data (or lack of it) within constituent records affects data quality, as does the relevance of data and the trust which fundraisers put in the data which is stored on the database – all these are vital components. Too often I hear words along the lines, “we don’t believe the data in the database is correct or up-to-date”. The time which Raiser’s Edge has been used at an organisation is another factor in this - the data may well have been excellent when it was first implemented but over the years it has deteriorated. That happens, and often it is the poor database which is blamed. Data is the foundation of all good databases and if there are problems with the data then it doesn’t matter how good or bad the database software is.

• Set-up and configuration for your charity – during initial implementation and thereafter. The Raiser's Edge is a sophisticated but quite complex database to learn, even more so to use optimally. And how you use it, how it is configured, where you store data, how you use the “cornerstone” codes and so on can seriously affect how good the implementation is. Codes such as Constituent Codes, Fund and Appeal codes, Action Types (horribly abused in some systems I’ve seen) attributes and so on all need careful attention. And continual attention – if such tables grow uncontrollably they can become unwieldy and unusable. And where you store specific data items - attributes or ‘cons codes’, Appeals tab or Actions, etc – can fundamentally affect the usability.

•  Your Raiser’s Edge Database Manager. For a starter, you need one. Don’t try without. And a good RE database manager is worth their weight in gold: a good database manager not only understands the software, how to use it, what it can do and so on, but can also understand or learn your business, operations and needs and can apply all that information to the implementation so that it bring huge benefits to your charity. I don’t believe that Raiser’s Edge database managers need to be extraordinarily technical people (although a solid technical understanding is very useful) - far more important to me is that they can apply your fundraising requirements to your fundraising software. Give me a business expert with some database knowledge who can learn the system over a ‘pure’ RE database manager.

• Training, procedures, user guides. Again, it doesn’t matter how good or bad your software is, if your users aren’t trained then how can they be expected to use the database to its best potential? And ideally, good procedures and user guides to back-up the training are a key element to the success of the database. (Anyone actually have a data dictionary..?) And please keep them up-to-date…

• Hardware and IT infrastructure. Probably one of the most common complaints I hear about The Raiser's Edge, or any database is, “It’s so slow…” Now of course this could be how the database has been designed by the software supplier, but if one implementation runs fine and the next does not, even with similar record numbers, then that is less likely. Just as likely (more likely?) is that your server or PCs are not of the recommended specification, your network performance needs investigation/optimisation or the IT infrastructure for your remote offices is not sufficient for the database.

• Applicability to your organisation. This is one area where it is feasible that The Raiser's Edge may not be the right database for you. If you are a small organisation with few records or a huge organisation with many millions of records, then The Raiser's Edge may not always be the most applicable. Blackbaud, understandably, will show that RE can help small organisations and that even RE7 can manage millions of records (although their next generation Infinity platform will be better for that), but it is feasible that other solutions could be more applicable. This is of course one point which is completely organisation-specific. It can also be the case that over the years your requirements have changed so that The Raiser's Edge may not meet your current requirements whereas it did originally.

• Blackbaud-specific likes: The Raiser's Edge is generally good quality software, it has good querying tools, and is especially useful for non-technical users; and Blackbaud offer great longevity as a company and have produced many upgrades over the years and with exciting propositions for the future. Users like the software and the company for that. It has many charities using it so you get a good user community.

• Blackbaud-specific hates: Hmm, this really can be a favourite topic for some fundraisers and database managers! (And I’ve certainly had my own gripes over the years…)  As mentioned above, The Raiser's Edge is sophisticated but complex software (in fact, “The Raiser's Edge is so complex…” is probably the number one ‘complaint’ I hear about it) and it does need time and dedication. So if you don’t have people who can put in the time, or that is not your organisation’s requirement then it can be understandable why people don’t like it. RE7 can be quite prescriptive and in some ways it is less flexible than other companies’ offerings in terms of screen layouts, customised fields etc (unless one uses their VBA/API tools), and I personally believe that for the first time recently, RE7 is starting to show its age in that way compared to newer alternatives on the market. Equally, Blackbaud themselves are a large company and not everyone’s cup of tea, support has been up-and-down over the years (it has many clients and some users complain of feeling a small fish in a big pond) and users do relate to previous bad experiences. And it is not cheap. It certainly isn’t the most expensive solution on the market but there are very good, less costly alternatives for small organisations.

So if you are using The Raiser's Edge and you are finding it is not doing what you want it to do, then do consider the above points before you look for an alternative.

Supplier Acquisitions: Should You Buy Into Them or Say Bye?

In the last few years, acquisitions have increased in the charity database market: Blackbaud have acquired eTapestry (and before that, Fund-Master and AppealMaster), as well as ticketing and gift-aid systems; Systems Group bought Minerva, and then CSG bought Systems Group, and also Consensus and Care, and then IRIS bought CSG... Then ASI Europe acquired Fisk Brett and IRIS bought Donor Strategy. (And I've lost track of who originally sold the product now sold as Affiliate by RedSky IT). Not that this is unique to NFP suppliers of course; Oracle, for example, has acquired several direct competitors including Siebel, JD Edwards and PeopleSoft.

But what did this mean for the charities who originally bought these systems, or for those who might buy them or others in the future? Well, the positive spin from any acquisition is of course that it will improve investment, product development, support and, where appropriate, provide what is often called an "upgrade path" to a "better product". On the downside, you might find that any meaningful development ceases on the product you bought. Or you are encouraged to migrate to a different system in the new company which you did not buy, you do not buy into and which may not be so appropriate for your needs - and you might even find costs increase, whether directly or indirectly.

One reason for such procurements is when a smaller company who has initially developed a very good system simply can't afford to develop a replacement system when new technology dictates they really need to. As such, although the "upgrade path" is what Fund-Master and AppealMaster users received when Blackbaud acquired them, a migration path to The Raiser's Edge would have in the mid/long term definitely have been a benefit, although some AppealMaster users may not have believed that initially. And as The Raiser's Edge could quite easily manage the functionality of both systems, commercially for Blackbaud, it would not have made sense to continue to develop multiple systems.

IRIS, on the other hand, have continued to sell and support all the products they have bought (the same path which Oracle has taken, incidently). Thus, you can still buy Integra, Charisma, Care, Donor Strategy, Consensus and Profile Concept. I am not convinced as to whether this was the plan when all these companies were acquired by CSG but it seems to be the way IRIS are heading at the moment. To be fair to IRIS, there are different parts of the NFP sector which could benefit from (some of) the different packages in their stable; although in practise, I would consider some of them to be "more flagship" than others. And there is no doubt that there is considerable overlap in functionality across several of the databases.

Donor Strategy is an interesting acquisition because, at least historically, it has been oriented at the small-medium NFP organisation. I do hope IRIS keep selling the package as such because there is no doubt that this part of the sector needs good, cheaper solutions, and to replace it with a Care or Integra would be complete over-kill for such charities. IRIS are at least saying the right words for this, stating that it will "specifically extend its reach in the SME charity and membership market" and Donor Strategy's ex-MD, Jonathan Air saying it will "provide a safe future for our company". I hope so.

Whether IRIS do continue to sell, develop and support all their systems remains to be seen. I could personally see some of them merging more easily than others, and some would probably benefit as such. Not that it is necessarily easy for a supplier to simply migrate a group of their customers from one system to another. Some years ago, one major supplier in the market seriously considered purchasing their main competitor, but they ultimately decided against it because they realised that, at the time, they simply couldn't offer the same functionality in their existing product but they would not have wanted to continue to develop both systems.

Similarly to IRIS, ASI appear to have made a commitment to Fisk Brett's ProgressCRM. In a recent interview on NFP Techno, Robin Fisk confirmed that "Both iMIS and ProgressCRM co-exist under the ASI global brand" and "longer term, we will be able to plan development so that users of both packages can benefit from the same developments." As with Donor Strategy, I do hope that this is the case. ProgressCRM is an excellent product with a confirmed user-base and it would be a loss to the charity sector if it did not continue.

But if acquisition seems a harsh route as a user then consider users of DonorBase, AKC or any number of other smaller suppliers, all of whom went bust without any supplier-provided migration path to another system. And there are many companies still selling their systems but who are failing to really keep up with new technological developments and/or provide good quality support (or, some would say, even provide decent software).

So what if you are about to buy a new fundraising or membership database? Well, who knows whether any company will be bought tomorrow, or, worse, who will go bust? I would not have thought CSG would be bought but they were. Key to good procurement are issues such as due diligence on company information, considering access to the data/database, open standards and support contracts as well as points such as Escrow.

There are of course many independent suppliers still, such as ESIT, Redbourn, Saturn and Centrepoint. Will they remain independent? Time will tell.