Mostly I have lots of questions and concerns that the firms won’t be able to address until the merger is completed — if then. My main questions are about product strategies. (How) will this affect Convio’s online marketing suite? Common Ground? Luminate? NetCommunity? Sphere? Raiser’s Edge? eTapestry? (How) will this affect Blackbaud’s plans for, or ability to build, implement, and support Enterprise CRM? Will Blackbaud continue to develop on both the Salesforce and Infinity platforms? Will they really be willing and able to maintain all of these products and codebases?

While I generally think vendor consolidation is bad for the nonprofit world (unless the vendor being absorbed wasn’t a strong player to begin with), I’m less concerned about the impact on small nonprofits. There are tons of choices out there for small and mid-sized organizations. Idealware’s Consumer’s Guide to Low Cost Donor Management Systems reviewed 30 systems, the majority of which don’t come from Convio or Blackbaud. I’ve also been compiling a list of every donor database I come across at https://socialsourcecommons.org/toolbox/show/1661

I’m more concerned about the top end of the market. There were few full solutions designed for large nonprofits to begin with. Blackbaud has already bought Team Approach and PIDI, and (assuming this goes through) Luminate will join that club. On the recent NTEN community call someone asked the panel to name 5 vendors (other than Blackbaud and Convio) to whom we’d send a CRM system RFP for a $100 million nonprofit. It’s a real struggle to come up with five that can handle:

• Millions of records and hundreds of users
• Complex family, social, business, corporate, and financial relationships
• Provides robust, flexible support for all forms of fundraising, membership, marketing, and communications
• Support advocacy, volunteer management, complex events, electronic communications, content management, online payments, and merchandise sales
• Provide strong reporting and analytic tools
• Has an intuitive user interface for casual users
• Supports streamlined, high-volume data entry tools
• Provide data integrity tools to keep the data clean
• Has an open API and flexible import and export tools
• Has strong role-based security as well as strong protection against hackers
• Supports multiple locations or chapters, multiple currencies, multiple languages, and multiple character sets.

In addition, the vendor or consultant needs to understand nonprofit best practices, workflows, reporting needs, fund accounting, and unique requirements like giving societies, membership benefits, fair market donation values and tax benefits, soft credits, gifts that are split between funds or sources, auction gifts and purchases, and how to provide donor recognition credit for gifts that have no tangible value. Finally, the system needs to be backed by strong implementation practices, training, and ongoing product development and user support.  Software alone seldom gets the job done.

I’m also concerned about the confusion this will cause in the industry. I’m currently working with clients that are considering Blackbaud and Convio’s database products (among others). They don’t want to choose a product that won’t get the full resources of the merged company, or could even be killed off. Some independent consultants who implement Common Ground have questioned whether my clients even want to consider that product until the dust settles. (I’ve also heard from competitors that are expecting to pick up new clients because of the confusion).

And I’m concerned about confusion at Blackbaud. My experience with past acquisitions was that it took months or years for sales reps to figure out where their products stood. Sometimes they would pitch competing Blackbaud products against each other. Other times they would refuse to show us a product that a client was interested in because of an internal decision to promote product A over product B.

Although Blackbaud has bought companies and immediately killed off their products, (e.g., Fund-Master and GiftMaker Pro), of late, they’ve acquired companies and kept their products going (Team Approach, eTapestry, PIDI, Kintera). However, in most cases I haven’t seen evidence that they have invested in the future of these products. In some cases (like Team Approach), clients have been told that there won’t be any future product enhancements.

I expect that it will be many months before we have any clarity about what this merger will mean and years before anything significant happens. But it’s hard for me to believe that Blackbaud will be able to support all of these products. I expect that some clients will be given notice that they should make other plans. It’s also hard to imagine that established products will be killed off — at least not any time soon. I’m more concerned about newer products, or those with smaller customer bases.

I do expect that this will create opportunities for existing systems. If nothing else, many nonprofits won’t be able to wait for months or years to see which products will survive. But those companies will need to be able to provide the tools and support that nonprofits need, and have the marketing muscle to get the word out.

It could also open the door to an open source project. During the NTEN call we discussed Tessitura, the performing arts fundraising and ticketing system as an example of a successful effort. But that product started out with development and support from a major organization (the Metropolitan Opera). The Met was able to form a separate company to invest in and support the product, and it’s been a huge success.
 

On the other hand, many organizations (and this by no applies just to nonprofits) will throw money and time at trendy projects without thinking about whether they're the right tools, with the right strategy, investment, support, or marketing behind them.  By all means, try new things.  But do it smartly.  Do your homework, test, learn from others, learn from your own failures, and get better at it over time.  And don't neglect what's already working for you.

The maxim "Fast, cheap, or good--pick two" is true.

You want the technology to be forward-looking but also want to avoid shiny object syndrome.

You want to make a reasonably quick decision but also need to get input and buy-in from stakeholders.

You want to think big but don't want to neglect operational details.

The system needs to be intuitive for fundraisers but streamlined for data entry. 

It needs to be easy to get reports from the database but it also needs to support complex selection criteria.

How can you know what you don't know (e.g., what a new database can do when you only know what your current one does--or doesn't do, what you'll need in the future)?

There are literally hundreds of choices. How do you get down to one?

Have you experienced this "analysis paralysis"?  How have you solved it (or have you)?

What the Customer Wanted

I agreed, but only to an extent. On one hand, those who decide that technology will be their vocations need to push for roles and titles that reflect what they really do. They're ready to graduate from their apprenticeships. But many accidental techies don't want to become intentional/professional/full-time techies. And some may love the tech part of their jobs, but it will remain a small, incidental (accidental?) part of what they do.

My article is meant for those who want to stop being accidental and move into a technology leadership role.  Here's what I had to say: http://www.nten.org/blog/2011/02/01/going-accidental-techie-technology-leader

We desperately need to get a new donor database and most of them are totally unaffordable!!

Looking at the Idealware Low Cost Database report, I find that there are so many considerations that it is quite complicated to make a choice. I am tending towards (system x) because it would seem to match what we need right away, and we could afford it. 

Could you please advise me as to whether this is a good choice, or whether we should consider other options as well?

Here's how I respond to questions like this:

I can't say whether (system x) would be a good fit for you. As you said, there are a lot of considerations. I'd need to spend time learning about your organization to make any kind of informed recommendation.

You said you've read the Idealware/NTEN Consumer's Guide, so you know that (system x) got a strong rating there. And many of my clients use (system x) and like it. But none of that means it will be right for you.

The only way I know of to answer your question is to go through these steps:
Write down what you need in a database, in as much detail as you can. Then identify the deal-breakers on that list. A deal-breaker is a feature you truly cannot live without. Even if the database could do everything else on your list, was easy to use, and the price was right, you couldn't use it without this one feature. For instance, you might need the ability to target direct mail (and email?) to constituents based on factors like past donations, interests, event attendance, recency of gifts, lifetime giving total, etc. Or you might have some reports that are mandatory, like a lapsed donor report.

Once you know what you're looking for you need to test vendors against those needs. You can start by sending out a Request for Information or Request for Proposals with some yes/no/maybe questions about your top needs (e.g., Can we send mass emails directly from the database? Can your system accept donations online?, etc.). I view this step as optional, but it can help you eliminate vendors that can't meet your top needs, or include vendors you didn't previously know much about.

You also need to know what it costs to get started with your system (purchase, conversion, training, etc.) and what's the 5-year cost (some systems cost a lot in year 1 but not much in subsequent years, some don't cost to get started but the annual costs can add up). This step is not optional. It might be part of the above RFP or RFI, or you might just ask about costs.

Next, you need to see the vendors demonstrate how their systems will meet your needs. Give them a list of features they need to show or steps they need to go through (e.g., show how to send a mass email, or show how to enter a donation that will be split between 3 funds, or between 3 donors).

Next, you need to get a demo copy of the database and do your own testing. How easy is it to do things you'll need to do regularly, like enter gifts, look up donors, change addresses, and run reports.

Then you need to check references. Talk to organizations with similar fundraising programs, staffing, IT support, etc. Ask each one the same questions and compare the results.

Last, you need to get a contract that shows you all of the costs, including setting up the system, converting your data, (ideally) documenting your data entry processes, and training your staff.

FYI, Idealware has a webinar on this topic coming up in September:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/957/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=61562

They also have recordings of past webinars. Here's one of mine:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/957/l/eng/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=37802

And here's one by Eric Leland, the main author of their Low Cost Database guide:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/957/l/eng/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=29015

I hope this helps.

The Cloud offers you constituent relationship management (CRM) software that's less expensive, easier to maintain, more accessible, more intuitive, and with greater flexibility and capacity than you've ever seen before.

How much would you pay for such a system?

Would you believe me if I told you...you can get it for free? Yup, free.

When talking about "free" software I think it's important to define the limits of free. There's free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-puppies. Defining business rules, codes, and reports, converting data, configuring screens, and training users on the new system and policies are not simple tasks. I keep hearing of small nonprofits that chose a database because it was "free," became overwhelmed, and dropped it.  Donor databases need care and feeding during implementation and throughout their lifetimes.  This often requires hiring consultants who have experience with these systems free.  "Free" can quickly become expensive.

We’ve been involved with responding to many RFPs over the years and I have a general inquiry that is in your bailiwick. I often see RFPs that are quite lengthy and well-considered, and looking for a system that has huge strategic value to an organization, but the required turn-around time to respond to the RFP is very short – often only 2 or 3 weeks.  I then see software vendors, who are already busy with other prospects, scrambling to pull together responses and often (quite frankly) not able to deliver their best because of the timeframe. Finally, I’m often witness on the client side to the returned RFP information languishing for weeks beyond their own deadlines (and/or this being characteristic of earlier deadlines in designing the RFP). What’s the thought behind requiring quick responses from the vendors? Or do the clients often not understand that vendors are working with multiple other organizations at the same time? It seems to me that if response deadlines were less compressed, vendors could craft a more appropriate response in a less stressful manner and that organizations would get higher quality and value from the responses.

My response:

Hi Keith,

You know the office proverb: "Bad planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." But if you're a vendor it often does.

In most cases I don't think nonprofits understand what they're asking of the vendors. I advise my clients to allow 2 weeks for a simple Request for Proposals and up to 6 weeks for a complex one. At the same time many nonprofits don't understand what's involved in reviewing RFP responses. They haven't thought about how they'll score each one, and may not have set aside staff time (or enough staff time) for the task. So even if the turnaround is driven by real deadlines on the client's side, they're too overwhelmed by the responses to turn them around quickly.

A more cynical possibility is the dark side of RFPs -- the winner was predetermined but the organization was required to get multiple bids. That could explain the unrealistic turnaround time--the organization knows the chosen vendor can meet the timeline (and the RFP may have even been created using a template supplied by that vendor). The delays in getting back to bidders could still be legitimate overwhelmedness. They could also mean that the other bids weren't that important to begin with so there's no rush to respond to those vendors.

What do you think?   If you're with a nonprofit, do you think your RFP deadlines are reasonable and realistic?  If you're with a vendor, how do you cope with these sometimes-artificial emergencies, and with the RFP process in general?  Are you one of the many who simply do not respond to over-the-transom RFPs?

Resources:

My article Finding the Perfect Fundraising Database in an Imperfect World includes a section called "To RFP or not to RFP"

Idealware article: The Perfect Fit: A Guide to Evaluating and Purchasing Major Software Systems

Techsoup article: The RFP Process: An Overview

Techsoup article: Nine Tips for Navigating the RFP Research Phase

What types of software should your nonprofit be using? It's hard to even know even what types exist, let alone what might work for you. Through a friendly, easy-reference format, this book helps you pinpoint the types of software that can help your organization based on your needs and your level of technology savvy, and provides user-friendly summaries to demystify all the possible options.

The 84-page Field Guide includes an overview of 35 different types of software, helping you to understand what each is, how it fits in with your needs, how much you might expect to pay, and some of the most common vendors in the area.

 

Full disclosure: I reviewed an early draft, but haven't seen the final version. It's likely to be a useful guide to nonprofits who are planning to purchase (or request donations) of a lot of software in the near future.

You can get more information and order a copy on their site.

read more

Their goal is to raise $15,000. The fund will allow Idealware "to build on (their) base of more than four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of software research to provide the new resources that nonprofits need most, like information about social media tools, mobile text messaging, constituent databases, and more." If you want to support them as well, you can do so on the Research Fund's fundraising page.

(Full disclosure: I have contributed to some of Idealware's reports, and they have even paid me for advice.)