What is the definition of a successful project?

It’s very easy to glibly say a database or CRM project (or any IT project come to that) is or is not successful. Is success really just measured using “the obvious”: being on scope, on budget and on time? No – what really measures the success of a project is the value of the project, the benefits you get out of it. That's how to define and assess a successful project.

Because even if a project is under budget then what does that mean, how does that really help if you don’t get any value out of it! If a budget is run on time when if it has taken 2 years to do it but any other similar project would take 4 months, then is that really successful? Did you even define the scope in the first place or have you just got what you thought was right?

Make sure you know why you are doing the project in the first place, what benefits you really expect to get and how you are going to measure them. And if that sounds like it has come from the book of the bleedin’ obvious then I’m delighted that you think that! Because trust me, there are so many projects that aren’t run that way that if you do manage your project with such abilities then you are half way there already to making it a success.

What you shouldn’t do when someone says: We need to replace our Database

 

If you’ve spent any time working in or with databases, fundraising or marketing then I’ll bet you’ve heard someone say at least once (and probably several times…): "You know what, we really need to replace our database system". So the next time this happens, if you are the person who is expected to take action on this, then this is my advice on what you shouldn’t do…

Immediately agree! Okay, you might (secretly) agree, but before you openly do so, do the following: ask Why. And then ask Why again. And again… you get the picture. My point being that it may well be that it is not the database which is causing the problems. It could be your data – maybe it is not recorded consistently, maybe not recorded at all, maybe it isn’t being used, maybe no-one understands it, and maybe a hundred other data issues too. Or it could be your hardware or IT infrastructure: if your database runs r  e  a  l  l  y   s-l-o-w-l-y, then is it the database’s fault or is your hardware out of date or your internet connection overloaded? Or maybe your business processes have not been re-visited for years, maybe your staff have not been trained appropriately (at all…) or maybe you aren’t using the software in its best way. All these issues can be underlying causes of why that someone thinks your current database "isn't working".

Just blame the software. This follows on from the above. If you find you can’t produce the reports you want or the mailings you need, is this definitely because the software can’t do it? Or is it because you aren’t recording the data appropriately or your staff don’t know how to produce the reports/letters? If someone tells you the database can’t do what they need it to do, then is that definitely the case? Of course, it might be – it might be that your operations or requirements have changed so much since you bought the database that the system genuinely is not right for your needs any more, but don’t take that at face value. And if it turns out that the software does have faults, then try talking to the supplier and other users and see if it can be changed, if there are other modules you didn't know about or if there are third-party options you can use.

Just blame the supplier. This follows on from the above… It is very easy to say that the software supplier is no good, they don’t have a roadmap, their support is rubbish and a dozen other criticisms. But is that definitely the case? If they have other customers and they are happy or can use the database, then what is it about your organisation which means this is not so? Why are you different?



Of course, there will certainly be occasions when the person who said, "we need a new database" may well be right! But if you can do all the above first and as a result prove that really is the case, then that will be the first solid step on the way to a new procurement process.

But don’t let bad internal processes, misunderstood perceptions and poor data hide any underlying issues which you would have whatever database you were using. Get your foundations right first. Your database sits on top of that. And that’s what makes a successful system.

The Need for Cross-Team Knowledge in a CRM Implementation

 

If you have never implemented a fundraising database before – or even if you have - it can be difficult to apply the workings of a new software package to your fundraising, CRM and charity's ‘business’ requirements. The database supplier will of course have their views, knowledge and experience and some of your charity’s staff might have similar know-how, but there is a real risk that you won’t be able to apply all this joint knowledge to create what you really foresaw when you purchased the new system.

Why? Because to implement a new CRM system takes more than just "knowing the software" - you need to understand and to be able to apply the software to a charity's requirements. And yet it takes more than just "knowing what the charity needs" - you need to be able to envisage how the charity's data and processes can be set-up in a database software package and how that can bring the benefits they envisaged. It obviously helps to have people from both sides of the spectrum on a project team, but without clear leadership on the project, without direction, you as the client may not end up with what you really want.

So, enter The Bridger.

A Bridger is somewhat of a specialist (and sadly a rare person): someone who understands and can speak not only "technology-talk" but "business-talk" too, and who can sit between and communicate between the two ‘sides’ of such an implementation. i.e. someone who knows about databases and technology but who is equally at home in talking to a major donor fundraiser or direct marketer. As such, these people can really help in a new fundraising/CRM database implementation.

Interestingly, with the recent rise of the more generic CRM systems (i.e. Salesforce, CRM Dynamics etc), such expertise is probably more important now than ever before.

Over the past 10-15 years, dedicated fundraising packages have ruled the roost, and as such, one of the great things about them was that they provided good structure and a solid approach to implementing your fundraising requirements in their software. Equally, many such suppliers employ ex-fundraisers or individuals who have great experience in this area, so when they work with charities they can supply great input. (The downside of such “software structure” may of course have been lack of flexibility but that’s another question…)

But now, resellers of systems such as Salesforce, CiviCRM, Microsoft CRM and others can (probably) quite honestly say, we can configure and adjust our software in ways in which you haven’t been able to before - so tell us what you want and we can do it. (At a cost of course…)

But with that, comes the downside of flexibility and choice: how do I, as a charity user, know what I want if I haven’t done it before or had the opportunity or exposure before to other similar implementations? How can I take my business/fundraising requirements and ensure these new systems can give me what I want in the best way possible? Even more so if one considers that some/many of the resellers of these "newer" CRM systems will have less/minimal experience of fundraising and/or of implementing the systems at other charities.

It is like Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote about the known knowns and known unknowns etc. i.e. If you don't know what you can do, then how can you be sure you aren't missing out on some benefits? A dedicated fundraising database gives you some reassurance over this, but a generic CRM system may not.

My advice: have an in-house person, or bring in an in-house contractor/consultant/project manager, to be involved with and help manage - in particular - any significant generic CRM implementation. This means having someone with experience of doing that before so that they know what can be done and what you can benefit from.

That said, they need to be someone who is more than just an interlocutor. They need to be an integral part of the project team with a defined role showing clear benefits - otherwise they are just a luxury, which clearly in the charity sector is not what we want. So they probably need cross-skills in project management, client management or similar.

So: re-enter The Bridger. I think they'll become an ever-increasingly essential part of all such projects.

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.

6 reports I really want to see in a fundraising database

 

There are some reports, some information which you need out of a database, which are more complex than others; and which, because of the complexity of the data structures in the database, can mean that the best way for such reports to be produced are often for the database supplier to create such reports as ‘pre-defined’ reports within the system.

The list below details six such reports which I would like a fundraising database to be able to automatically produce ‘out of the box’: 

• Attrition report for regular givers
  This can be one of the hardest things for an ‘end user’ (or even a database manager) to be able to report on without a supplier’s input – and yet it is one of the most sought after and important metrics for a fundraising manager. Of course, it needs flexibility too - because attrition can mean different things to different managers, for different types of income and over different periods. For example, a regular donor who donates once a year may have ‘attrited’ if they don’t pay one month after their expected anniversary; whereas a monthly donor might need 2+ months of non-payment before they can truly be said to have stopped donating.

• New donors/upgrades/downgrades/re-started etc.
  A very useful overview for any fundraising manager is to be able to see a snapshot of new donors, upgrades, downgrades, stayed-the-same, lapsed and re-started. And compared by any period (usually, year by year).

• Prospect pipeline stage report
  For major donors/prospects, it is a key thing to be able to see at what stage in the cultivation process any individual is, and the pipeline for all such prospects, probably broken down for each fundraiser/team. And to know not just numbers, but how long they have been at each stage, averages, propensity for giving and so on.

• Pareto report
  The (now) classic breakdown which shows, usually in percentiles, just how much income is coming from each such percentile of our database, and which often shows Pareto's 80/20 rule. Oh, and we want to be able to then drill-down into each segment please so we can see the specific information on each donor. It's not an overly-sophisticated report in terms of data output, but it can be difficult to create for end-users.

• Cumulative income of each source/appeal, fund, campaign etc
  Most databases can tell us how much we have raised for each fund, source etc. But it is as useful to be able to see this (as a graph) over a time period, so we can see how each such fund/source has progressed over time. And to be able to compare multiple funds/sources etc on the same report/graph.

• Lifetime values
  Lifetime value calculations can be very difficult. Because although it can be a simple ‘how much has someone given’ calculation, for the more sophisticated marketer, they will want to be able to incorporate spend, time periods, maybe include/exclude particular segments, use more complex formulas. And to be able to analyse this by each source, first appeal/campaign responded to, type of donor etc. To have better knowledge like this would be so useful to many fundraising departments.

Oh – and a final wish – I want to be able to produce all the above reports looking at any segment of the database. i.e. if I decide I want to include and report on just those aged between 50 and 70 then I should be able to; if I only want people flagged as ‘members’; those in a specific geographical area; those who have responded to a specific mailshot and have a dog. Called Charlie. Because it’s all very well being able to examine the statistics I have laid out above across the whole database, but it is even more useful and powerful to be able to do so across a specific segment. That’s when I can really start to use the database to understand my donors and prospects, compare segments and to be able to truly use it as a marketing tool.

Not much to ask, is it?!

---

What reports would you like to see? Give me your wish-lists in the Comments below.

---