For many nonprofit organizations selecting new tools and technology is not a common occurrence. A fundraising application or general ledger can endure for 10 (or more) years. Digital engagement or marketing tools may have a shorter shelf-life, but they are still expected to demonstrate a return before they are replaced. The infrequency of system replacements places a lot a pressure on the selection team to make the right decision for meeting immediate needs while also anticipating future requirements.

In this post we will look at common selection approaches. We will also look at different varieties of each to help you determine which approach might help your organization choose the right tools and technology for the job.

Common Selection Approaches

There are an almost infinite number of approaches to selecting tools and technology and there are an equal number of firms (this one included) that offer their own flavor of selection services. For this purpose, we will look at three common approaches: needs analysis; validation; and external communication such as an RFP (Request for Proposal) or RFI (Request for Information) process.

1. Needs Analysis

It is not uncommon that an organization is unable to clearly define what their needs are. Are current challenges related to tools and technology? Or business process? Or simply a need for more training?

If this sounds like your organization, it would be wise to conduct a needs analysis prior to bringing new tools or technology into the picture. It is very possible you do not have a technology problem or at least not only a technology problem. Bringing in new tools without understanding the issues first tend to replicate these same issues in the new environment.

One of the first questions I ask an organization considering a technology change is what is not working for them today. Often the challenges are rooted in business process, limited training or user adoption, or service expectations from an existing partner. These are problems that may be solved without a systems change. Of course, these issues may just be symptoms of a larger problem driving the change, in which case this analysis becomes an important input to the selection effort.

2. Solution Validation or Gap Analysis

An organization that is generally happy with their vendor’s tools and services may simply seek validation before extending their contract or upgrading to the latest version. Validation may occur annually or at the end of the existing services agreement.

3. External Requests

Two common external requests are a Request for Proposals (RFP) and a Request for Information (RFI). An RFP typically provides a detailed summary to potential vendors and requests an equally detailed response. When your needs are well-defined, an RFP is typically the vehicle to ensure potential vendors can meet those needs. An RFI is typically a more general appeal to the market. An RFI may be useful if the organization has not narrowly defined their need, and would prefer vendors bring new thinking to solving the problems generally described within.

See also – “A Well-Built RFP“

Open, Closed or Limited Invitation

Your organization can choose how inclusive the process will be regardless of the selection approach. An open process may encourage the entire market to respond. A closed process may seek to validate a single solution. Or, a limited process may attempt to quickly narrow the focus to those solutions that can demonstrate viability.

Characteristics of each include:

Open: An open process may be intended to generate the greatest volume of responses. New, unknown vendors are likely to respond. This process can require the most effort as the number of vendor responses to evaluate can be substantial. However, the benefit is that the organization may have an opportunity to see what the broader market has to offer.

I have had the opportunity to be both at the giving and receiving end of a number of open processes. A wide-open process is often a requirement of funding, board mandate or an internal procurement requirement. What started as an inclusive effort often became a war of attrition as many vendors simply declined to be one of many respondents and focused their energy elsewhere. The process can become a measure of the size and sophistication of the sales team.

Closed: At the other end of the spectrum, a closed process may limit responses to just a few, invited vendors (or validate a single solution). A closed approach is most likely beneficial to highly specialized organizations with sufficient market awareness or organizations looking to narrowly validate a continuation of existing technology. A closed process is likely to be the least labor intensive. Though, the downside is that it puts a lot on the organization to know the best solutions available to them and does not necessarily solicit new ideas.

I had an opportunity to work with an organization that had chosen Salesforce as their organization-wide technology platform. Salesforce was well-established as a solution to customer service needs and for inventory management. Though, there were questions as to how robust the fundraising offering was. The organization conducted an extensive gap analysis. This closed process was sufficient for them, as the larger organization-wide decision narrowed the focus to a single option. The intent was to move forward with Salesforce unless the gap analysis demonstrated significant gaps in functionality that could not be resolved.

Another client had spent many years on Blackbaud solutions. They were comfortable with the services offered and generally were happy with the company as a service provider. Though, they had outgrown the original solution and were considering moving to Blackbaud’s enterprise offering. Continuing the relationship was the priority. Their process would be closed and focus solely on validating the new solution to confirm it was sufficient to meet their needs.

Limited: An organization may want to avoid the time-intensive nature of an open process while also avoiding the risks of having a closed process. A limited selection effort can provide a balanced option between open and closed approaches. By providing a pre-vetting step, an organization may cast a fairly wide net initially and then make an early round of cuts that will shorten those vendors that will be brought through a more comprehensive selection effort. The level-of-effort may also be more attractive to respondents and therefore attract a larger number of responses.

I recently assisted a large nonprofit with a selection effort that would replace their Philanthropy CRM. They had spent more than two decades with the same vendor and wanted to hear new ideas, though were also weary of spending a substantial amount of time on non-viable options. The solution was to create an initial vetting process that required potential vendors describe core functionality and provide references to organizations operating their system at comparable size and sophistication. A smaller group of vendors quickly emerged from the early process and became the focus of the deeper analysis provided through a comprehensive RFP process.

Summary & Conclusion

The option right for your organization is entirely up to you. However, my recommendation is that every organization complete a needs analysis before changing systems. The groundwork of a needs analysis can confirm if a technology change is needed and (if so) can provide valuable input to project planning efforts.

I also typically recommend organizations run a limited RFP process. Cast a wide-net initially. System changes occur so infrequently it is worth understanding what has changed in the market since your last systems change before committing to an extended contract. While an RFP tends to be a fairly heavy lift, a “well-built RFP” should give you the confidence to make the capital investment required of a major systems change.