Three Cartoons With a Useful Message

On the third day of Christmas, my truelove gave to me... A few things to make me smile and yet still learn about CRM!

It's Christmas and so I feel one of my twelve tips (well maybe two, but the other post comes later...) should have some jollity. So here are three cartoons which I think are funny but they can also be used to explain a useful (serious?!) message:

1. Dilbert - my favourite cartoon series and I could use a dozen of them to emphasise different aspects of CRM procurement and implementation. But here's the one I have chosen:


(Just in case the cartoon does not embed properly, then try refreshing the page or click here to see the original).

I guess the message is pretty clear! As I often comment on this blog, it doesn't matter how good your software is: if your staff aren't trained, or if processes aren't clear or they are not followed, or if your supplier isn't paying attention to your requirements (and you haven't noticed) then you can have the best CRM System in the world and people can still be the fly in the ointment.

2. The Cloud. Ah, that wondrous and magical thing, the answer to everything. But...

It doesn't mean it is always the right thing to use for everyone every time. Yes, there are tremendous benefits from the Cloud but don't think it always has to be that way. What if you have large volumes of data? What if you already have a well structured and well supported on-premise IT infrastructure? What if the software you like isn't actually cloud-based?! Just make sure that the Cloud is considered as one of your options, not the only option.

3. Project Management. This cartoon was originally created in the 1960s and rather sadly it is still as pertinent today as it was then!

I'll leave it to you to interpret it for your future projects, but the bottom line is that you need business understanding, consistency, documentation (as you can see!) and project management structure, whatever your project management methodology is.

The new world of cloud storage - do you really need ALL your old data?!

Traditionally, when moving from one fundraising database to a new one, charities tend to migrate all their old data across - or very nearly all. Sometimes, small sub-sets of old or truly unneeded data may be left behind, but in the main, every single donation, communication, appeal record etc and every entity and every field is transferred as is to the new database.

Why? Well, understandably, fundraisers and marketing staff are worried about losing granularity of historic data, of not being able to do true and useful RFV calculations or similar analysis on summary fields, of not being able to look back at why someone responded to appeal X or came to event Y. And the thought of either not keeping their data in the most granular state possible, or even not transferring it at all, has been a complete anathema!

But recently, this is something which is being challenged. This is partly due to cloud CRM systems charging for extra storage, partly due to some performance concerns for complex processes on very large systems and partly to mitigate some of the risks and complications of data migration. And partly it is just good business practise to challenge such assumptions.

But Why?!
But just as pertinent a question for me is: Why - Why do you need ALL your old data? Really - why?! I mean, are you really going to look back at someone's communication history from ten years ago and want to see that a donor was sent a second letter because a particular acknowledgement letter didn't reach them first time? Do you really need to know that someone was invited to an event twelve years ago but didn't respond? I'm not sure if you do…

And although I completely recognise the need to keep a granular donation history for at least a set number of recent years (e.g. at least four years for gift aid claims), at what point are your fundraisers not going to use such data for segmentation and marketing analysis? Five years? Six maybe? In which case, do you really have to be able to see each individual donation for older periods as a separate financial transaction on your new system? Or actually, could a summary be acceptable? e.g. a summary by year/campaign/gift type/whatever is appropriate for you.

Of course, there are some data items you would definitely need to keep, such as first donation information, maybe upgrade details etc, but do you have to have more than that for donations over a certain age?

And if you do, if you have to or if your organisation is too paranoid not to keep such data, then maybe you can store it elsewhere for when (if!) it is needed. For example, a separate data warehouse, maybe a simple SQL Server database, even a separate marketing software system.

And what about any old data which you still have on your system but which almost no-one in your organisation trusts and so doesn't use anyway? Does that really need to be transferred? Really?! And data accuracy in general - just how good is it over a certain period anyway?

Or, Should we be asking, Why Not?
Now. One could of course ask why we shouldn't migrate all data and that's a fair question. Storage does cost but is it so much more? And contemporary systems are so much more efficient now than older systems, why shouldn't we have millions of records in our new database?

Well, maybe because more data does add extra data management, does add complexity when doing segmentation and reports/analysis, can slow down a system when running such processes, can make screens slower to load when they have lots of historic information, can make data migrations more complex etc etc.

I think it is an interesting challenge - one I encourage you to consider!

Salesforce and Microsoft Dynamics for Fundraising: Are We Nearly There Yet?

It's been over 18 months since I last gave my 'state of the nation' view on the shape of the (now not-so) "new" CRM systems in terms of their applicability to fundraising technology needs, and a lot has happened since; so here's my latest opinions:

Who's using Salesforce and MS Dynamics for Fundraising?
It's noticeable that even in the last 6-12 months, there has been a shift in the mindset of some mid-large UK charities which, for the first time, is starting to pay dividends for the CRM suppliers. It's well known that Barnardo's are the first large UK charity to be implementing Salesforce for fundraising, Greenpeace International are now doing so too, another national UK charity is implementing Microsoft CRM Dynamics for their supporter relationship management system with another to start soon, and Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research have been using CiviCRM for a while (as have MSF outside the UK). And there are more in the pipeline for all these systems. Plus, of course, there are many more NFPs using these solutions for non-fundraising applications.

So why now for larger charities?
Although Salesforce, Dynamics et al have been adopted by charities for several years for non-fundraising solutions, and although smaller charities have been using the systems for their fundraising needs, why are we now seeing the mid-large charities start to take this route? There are probably a number of reasons:

• There are naturally less such projects for the larger charities and those organisations that are/have been looking have taken until now to have made decisions - equally, such projects are not cheap, so there are of course fewer of them.
• It has still taken until recently for the sector to truly believe, and to have it really shown to them, that these CRM systems can provide the fundraising functionality they need - for too long, suppliers had just been saying "yes, we can do it" without any real supporting evidence or suitable background to make the larger charities comfortable. They aren't all there for all areas of fundraising but there's been huge steps.
• Inevitably, some charities have waited until someone else took the initial leap into this space, but with Barnardo's, Greenpeace and others now doing so, it makes it that much easier to see the benefits and possibilities.
• It has taken some time for the resellers and business partners (implementers) - not the software suppliers themselves - to show their credibility in being able to sell and implement these systems for fundraising. Not in terms of technology but in terms of showing the charities that their in-house fundraising knowledge, and how technology can be used for fundraising, is good enough to support such implementations. That said, I think this is still a challenge.
• The acceptance of the cloud is growing every day in the NFP sector, and there is less concern over security than there used to be. This has probably never been such an issue for IT staff at charities, but it did un-nerve trustees earlier in the cloud's evolution.
• Amongst the "templated solutions", the functionality itself has improved.
• The CRM software vendors and their partners are darned good at marketing!
• And last but possibly not least, some charities have grown tired of waiting for some of the traditional fundraising database suppliers to provide viable, cost-effective new releases and versions which they need for their fundraising. And there are definitely a lower selection of viable options now from such suppliers than there were some years ago.

So are the CRM suppliers having it all their own way?
Certainly not. The traditional fundraising database suppliers for large/mid-size charities, companies such as Blackbaud, thankQ, ACS (ex-IRIS) etc, have also been selling their software, some with good volumes, and so although the CRM systems are denting their sales they still haven't overtaken them. At least not here in the UK. And on the lower end, AdvantageNFP Fundraiser, Harlequin, even KISSS still sell plenty of systems.

Similarly, it is not just Salesforce and Dynamics who are selling 'CRM' systems. CiviCRM, a "CRM" system created especially for NFPs, is definitely growing in popularity here in the UK and even more so worldwide (and I'm going to be dedicating a blog to CiviCRM in the weeks to come); Workbooks.com are becoming an interesting option having recently made several sales to the membership sector; and I hear occasional things about Zoho and vTiger, but not that much. Sadly, SugarCRM doesn't seem to have made the inroads into the sector which I thought it might do (unless anyone can tell me differently?).

What's Next?
So what does all this mean now to other charities who might be looking to replace their existing fundraising database? Is it really any different to a few years ago in terms of what they can get or expect from 'generic' CRM systems?

Well, yes and no.

Yes it is different in that they won't be trailblazing (so much) any more, and they can hear and learn about other charities' experiences. Yes, in that (some of) the resellers and partners implementing these systems are more fundraising savvy now and should offer better professional services. And yes in that the cloud (which many CRM suppliers are tied to) continues to grow in acceptance and popularity.

But No, in that, at the end of the day, it still comes down to what is right for each charity depending on their needs, and the technology is just one aspect of any such decision. As I have expounded many times, there is no point buying a cloud-based solution or a whizzy CRM database just because it is that if it can't deliver what you need to support your fundraising operations. And that hasn't changed. There are still good, solid options for fundraising packages and there are good, solid reasons for charities to buy those, as well as CRM solutions.

I'm going to be blogging a lot in the coming weeks about some of these considerations, and some of the lessons I've learned when helping charities procure and implement both CRM systems and traditional fundraising databases, and those lessons are equally as important - more so? - compared to the software you ultimately use.

Finally, one last thought for now: I think the number of viable, good fundraising database solution suppliers has shrunk in recent years, especially for larger charities, and one great benefit the CRM providers have done is given charities a whole new approach which they can at least consider - and that is definitely a good thing, whatever they end up actually buying.

Should I Use The Cloud for my Charity's CRM Applications in 2011?

The Cloud is currently one of the buzzwords in the IT industry and you may well get great benefits from using it. As such, it makes complete sense for you to consider using it for your (new) database – but not blindly forsaking all other considerations. Treat it in the same way as you would any other technology consideration in your procurement process and if it turns out that your new database will be cloud-based then you will have done that in a proper, structured way.



Possible Benefits
The following list details some of the benefits of using the Cloud for a database application in particular, although as you will see, benefits often have considerations attached to them:

• No software installation (although you might still need to do some configuration on your network/PCs, firewall etc to enable your organisation to access the hosting platform);
• Thereafter, easy/automatic (invisible) upgrades, which is a great time-saver. (Although, you might want to consider if that is always a benefit if it means it happens without your knowledge and therefore if you haven’t done any regression testing on your existing system or without the ability to update end-users on changes);
• Richer functionality than has historically been possible with web-based systems: the latest generation of web-based databases are able to utilise far better technology, flexibility and customisation that is starting to really challenge traditional ‘client-based’ database applications that have historically provided richer functionality;
• Access: It will also be easy for anyone in your organisation to access the database from wherever they are (providing they have got at least a broadband connection), so it’s great for charities with multiple/remote offices and home users, and, increasingly now, for those who require mobile access.

And of course there are other benefits which stretch past the database application itself:

• In terms of your IT infrastructure, the Cloud means you don’t need your own database server and all the headaches/upgrades/licensing issues and IT management which comes with that (technological and HR), and can ultimately mean a lower Total Cost of Ownership (though not always!). You can spread the costs more evenly when hosting;
• PC specifications: for “pure” Cloud applications you may not need such high-spec clients as you would do for Windows-based applications, which in turn might mean you can keep your existing PCs for a longer period before needing to upgrade them;
• Scalability: if you need more server space then that can be added in an instant (obviously at a cost!);
• Security: although this has to be a consideration, some data centres will have far better (physical) security than your charity office ever could!

Possible Downsides
But you also need to consider possible issues:

• When thinking of charity-specific requirements, from an application/functionality point of view, you will have less choice of actual databases which are especially written for the Cloud (although you can use your client-based systems and host them off-site instead), and functionality may not be as rich as some of the better client-based/Windows packages – don’t lose sight of this point at any stage;
• Configuration and customisation: hand-in-hand with functionality, but specifically so, is the point that not all web-based solutions will provide the same level of configuration and customisation that can come with Windows packages - of course, some will, and indeed, some Windows-based databases are not that customisable, but if you need this degree of flexibiity then take note;
• Data protection and security does need to be thought through – it isn’t impossible to ensure they are managed but don’t ignore this;
• You will need excellent and fast enough communication links into the Cloud, from all the locations where you want to access the database from - there is nothing more likely to alienate users than a slow database system - and depending on its criticality to you, a high level of service commitment from your comms supplier(s) and maybe even some redundancy;
• Backups: Any good host will not only take backups but probably have mirrored servers and other technology as well to assist when servers do go down. But for good business continuity planning, I wouldn’t just assume that the host will always do back-ups, so instigate your own process even if it is not daily. Plus, if there is a disaster at the host’s site or you run into contractual issues, then you will have a copy of your data – your most valuable asset – to hand if you need it.