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.

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.