Recently I was asked by my organization to do an analysis of technology platforms so that we could plan strategies for next year’s national events. Over the past year we’ve rebranded our program and are doing a lot more national promotion than in the past, so we wanted to be sure we are on a solid path.
To gather information, I sought out development and technology staff at ten large nonprofit organizations which do comparable events. Not surprisingly for the nonprofit community, I was gratified by the helpfulness I received from the people I spoke to. I asked what products they were using, what worked vs. what didn’t, and whether they would make the same choices today that they made in the past.
I wasn’t really interested in which CRM product was best, since what’s best for one organization may be not a good choice for another. However, I was curious about those organizations that chose to develop customized solutions rather than select prepackaged or hosted applications. At my current organization, we’ve struggled with multiple vendors in getting screens, processes etc. to work the way we would like them to. We’ve also heard from some constituents about user interfaces that are confusing or which otherwise make it difficult for them to participate in our programs.
As expected, many of my peers at other nonprofits have struggled to integrate online and offline data; some are doing only a partial integration; others have tried but fallen short; others have chosen to do data entry into two separate systems. I am encouraged by the new popularity of ‘open’ alternatives, but it’s too early to report on organization successes resulting from these initiatives.
Generally, organizations that have developed custom solutions reported as much satisfaction as those who have chosen the large eCRM vendors. Yet, these nonprofits also admitted that system development had been a long, expensive process. Those who stuck with hosted products explained how they’ve had to closely project manage their vendor to make sure their needs were met as much as possible (as has been my experience).
My summary recommendation to my organization was to attempt a hybrid solution: consider staying with the vendors we have now if they can adapt to our requirements or connect to customized screens / systems developed elsewhere. I won’t tell my national staff event managers they can’t have what they want but we must be able to clearly document our requirements to give to the vendor or developer. In addition, we need to be able to differentiate between items that are deal breakers vs. others that would be ‘nice to have.’
I’d like to especially thank these organizations whose staff generously gave of their time to help with my analysis: Alzheimer’s Association, American Diabetes Association, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Multiple Sclerosis Society and Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization.
