The need for The Solution Owner role when implementing CRM systems

 

For many years, I have discussed and promoted the need for a Project Manager (PM) for organisations who are implementing new fundraising databases and CRM systems. But I've been very aware that, sometimes for mid-size installations and definitely for large implementations, that there is an additional role - or skill-set - which is required and which goes beyond what a traditional PM would normally offer, although sometimes it falls on the PM. Which is the need for someone to become a central 'hub' to the project in terms of understanding the holistic solution - not the PM aspects. i.e. The Solution Owner.

The key thing for such a role is that it should be someone who understands (or can learn to understand) not only the charity's requirements and strategies but fundraising/charity requirements more generally, as well as CRM, software and technology. The reason for this is because the implementation of sophisticated, flexible (and often expensive) CRM software systems is of course not just about the software but about building/configuring and using it with the people and processes in mind - and understanding the whole approach, design, dependencies and implications of design. Something I discuss constantly.

This means that when someone on the project, or a user or manager in the charity, has a question as to how the solution will work or how something fits in, or queries what will happen if we change something or what it will mean if something is left out and so on, then that person can be in a position where they can provide an answer - or know who they should ask in order to get an answer. It's a key need.

Ultimately, the role provides the charity with a central point of contact for design understanding and fundamental decision making and would usually also help provide requirements information.

Clearly this is not just Project Management. Historically, when I have done all this, I have called myself a 'Project Manager Plus'. But the more I have worked on implementing larger fundraising databases and with the new 'CRM' systems, the more I have realised just what a critical role this 'Plus' bit is in any such implementation (whoever does it!).

Recently, whilst working on one project, this specific role - the 'plus' bit - was described to me as The Solution Owner, and this struck a cord with me - it is indeed what I think such projects need. (On top of the project manager, business analysts, trainers etc, as appropriate, depending on project size and complexity).

One thing I should emphasise is that this is not a technical role, not a Solution Architect, nor a post-implementation Solution Owner (a role you do sometimes see advertised for), where it is more likely that it will need someone who is closer to the technical aspects of the system.

And as I stated above, the principle thing is that such a role should ideally be someone who understands the business - fundraising - and technology too. That way, they can help the charity and advise them on specific options as the project progresses.

I've also come to the conclusion that this is an especially indispensable role when implementing the (new) CRM systems where you can do so much with such systems and where it is not just a matter of configuring an existing vertical sector solution (such as a fundraising or membership package) - although it is by no means exclusively a requirement for CRM. Without such input, there is a real danger that you could go off down one route without understanding the implications, that you could over-customise a system too much when a simpler, alternative option could have been better, or you could lose track of just what is dependent on what and what interacts with what, which a central resource should be able to resolve. And the project team, client-side and supplier-side, will not have a single point of reference to help co-ordinate central requirements.

The Solution Owner is, IMHO, becoming a pivotal role for CRM and database implementations and is only likely to become more so.

CRM Dynamics template market for membership solutions already refining itself

 

I did some work recently for a membership organisation who wanted to buy a new database and they decided that Microsoft Dynamics CRM was the right solution for them. However, having decided that and having looked at one vendor of a Dynamics membership solution, their trustees asked them to review if there were other companies who could also provide a suitable membership system on Dynamics. Which, when I looked, was an interesting experience.

Just before I go on to what the outcome was, I should say that I think this sort of situation may start to become more common in the charity and membership sector. It may be that some organisations even choose a platform before even talking to a reseller - a practise which is certainly done in the commercial sector - but even if an organisation looks at 'traditional' package suppliers and CRM providers and plumps for CRM, then it will become far more common for them to be comparing at least 2 such business partners, or even more. And as long as we do this ethically and openly then this is no bad thing.

What my client wanted was a supplier who already had a membership "template" built on Dynamics for a UK organisation. They weren't a large or complex organisation so it made sense. And so I talked to a number of suppliers who I knew had or were planning to have such templates. And what I found was the number of options had shrunk considerably in the last 12 months.

For a start, several companies who used to sell such templates don't now. And I got some interesting feedback  from those companies as to why this is the case (NB I am paraphrasing here):

• We moved out of the sector - fair enough I suppose, although disappointing for the organisations who had already bought into them;
• We found that a template couldn't support everyone's needs - understandable from one angle but I'm not convinced that should matter so much if you have a good foundation and a solid approach. There is nothing wrong with starting with the basics and developing each installation differently and appropriately for each client;
• And even: Our solution wasn't as good as others on the market so we stopped selling it. Honest at least!
• There was also more than one who, tellingly, never got back to me when I tried to email or phone them…

Which means the market has shrunk to about 1/3 of the options I knew of a year ago, and I was left with only 3 suppliers who still sell UK membership "templates" for Dynamics: Excitation, Pythagoras and Silverbear. Additionally, m-hance offer a "modular" approach where they don't exactly have a template but do have different, appropriate modules they could provide for a membership solution; a perfectly sound approach too. Plus there were a couple of others who are still developing theirs.

What does this mean to you?

It shows that you need to take so much care when buying a new system such as this. Yes, one of the benefits of Dynamics (and similar CRM systems) is that if you do your initial implementation through company X, and then company X goes bust or you fall out with them, then at least you still have your Dynamics solution and you can go elsewhere for your support. But it’s not what you ideally want. Like any similar procurement, you want to buy into a company who is not just supplying you software but who is also going to be a good business partner for years to come, who can bring new things and ideas to the table, who gets to know how you work and who understands the membership sector. That's a real benefit.

You should also be aware of any Intellectual Property (IP) issues in such procurements. If a supplier is claiming IP on any of its software deliverables to you then what would that mean if you did want to move away from their support or if they did decide to stop enhancing their specific offering any more?

As a final caveat, I'm not suggesting templated solutions such as this are the only way to buy Dynamics for membership solutions, and I'm not endorsing the above suppliers. I can't say if they will still be selling their solutions in 12-18 months time. But the approach is certainly one option you can take. And I'm equally sure there will be other, new developments which could become good options in the future. The most important thing is to do a solid procurement and selection process and then you will be as sure as you can be that your final decision will be the right one.

How Not to Buy Software? The Astonishing Stats Provided by Capterra

Software resource portal, Capterra, has recently published a report on the findings from a survey they ran which examined how organisations make decisions when buying software - and it makes interesting and sometimes scary reading. For example, "1/3 of software buyers don’t demo any solutions before they make a purchase" and "another 22% just choose the first software they look at!" And very interestingly, "the more demos and options that software buyers considered, the less confident they were in their selection." Hmm.

And this survey included nonprofit organisations in its statistics…

Who gets involved with purchases?
The report details the types of staff involved in the buying process:

• CEO/Presidents were involved in 40% of the software purchases - and this level of person is most likely to be involved in software which includes "marketing" (read fundraising) and one of the sectors which they’re more likely to be involved in software purchases is the nonprofit sector…
• IT Personnel were involved in 55% of all software purchases. Although it does also say that one of the software solutions IT staff are most likely to be involved with is Database Management, which I hope means that more than 55% of database purchases involve IT staff to some extent…

Interestingly, the Most "Diplomatic" Software Purchases included CRM Software, where "job titles across all levels of the organization were equally represented in the software decision making process." I'm glad to hear a wider range of staff are involved in CRM purchases, but I'm not sure if I really want lots of people involved in the decision making process. (More about that in a future blog post...)

Of course, what is harder to quantify is what "involved" means for a purchasing decision. If it means being kept in touch and maybe ratification then that is very different to attending demos and making a final decision.

What do people look for in software?
One of the most interesting sections of the report is a table showing "The Most Important Factors in Software Selection". It's very interesting (some might say encouraging?) to see "Low price" and "Vendor's market share" so low in the table, and despite all the cloud-hype, "platform" is still only #9 on the list. Both "vendor responsiveness" and "software reputation" come above that - which shows how important the supplier itself is to the buyers.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, "Features/functionality" is listed as the most important factor. It's hard to get away from that. This is of course one of the downsides of "lists" like this - yes, functionality is important, and, for example, I often drone on about how it doesn't matter if software is/isn't in the cloud if it can't operationally support a charity - but I always encourage charities to consider features as just a percentage of a decision making process. Equally (more?) important are all the other issues such as supplier support, ease of implementation and so on. So it's not quite as simple as saying that the #1 factor necessarily outweighs others.

What can we learn from all this for a UK charity looking to buy new fundraising or CRM software?
Can a survey taken across a variety of industry sectors in the US also apply to CRM software selection for UK non-profits? Well, 50% of the survey's respondents have less than 100 employees in their organisation and 64% less than 500, so that's not so far off. And the "important factors" list tallies with my experience of UK charities' processes - not that that makes it right unfortunately. (And if you look at Capterra's website, then the Fundraising & Membership Software lists include names such as Blackbaud, Donor Perfect and Wild Apricot, so these are not insignificant companies).

But there is another table in the report which nicely sums up what organisations need to understand more, consider more and where they can do with help - and that is the Most Difficult Parts of the Software Selection Process table, which lists 3 key issues:

• Getting a clear picture of how well each possible software option could meet specific needs;
• Being able to make comparisons between software companies/vendors;
• Absorbing and understanding the information available about different software solutions.

This therefore shows what you need to be doing and considering when buying software. Which, I realise, can be easier said than done. Which is why I hope that posts elsewhere on my blog give guidance to how you can address such concerns. And there are other great websites with other useful resources such as LASA's Knowledge Base and TechSoup; and the various sector events held by the Institute of Fundraising, sector media and exhibition conferences, all of which can also help - look out for the free seminars at some of these. And use your peers too - the experience of other charities does help.

There are many more fascinating and enlightening stats in the report, not all of them so relevant to all the work we do in the UK fundraising/CRM software market, but still a great read!

---

You can download the full report from Capterra's website.

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.

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.