E-mail
1. Systems need to be intuitive. This means that while I wholeheartedly support the support of complex relationships between contacts/orgs/etc, the presentation and manipulation of this needs to be clear and easy. I've seen CRM projects completely fail user adoption because products were modeled for the ultimate scenario making the most common usage scenarios really a chore to deal with.
2. Support for events. Many Orgs. I've worked with lately have started down the path of leaving Filemaker or whatever they are using because they have a need to do online signups for an event which they may or may not charge for. The ability to sell tickets is a key way to get their consituents to use their website. Additionally, they need a way for office staff to sell the same events over the phone or by mail to the same people. Many existing commercial systems fail on this last part badly. Events are a key driver in moving people from relating to their constituency using desktop apps. to the web.
3. Orgs need to be able to leverage their constituency to reduce operational costs. In other words, many Orgs. get desktop fundraising/CRM-type software which simply increases the burden and costs of their operations because they have no way to push the management of the data out to the owners (i.e. you login and update yourself because of some action I want you to take). Additionally, when they engage piecemeal solutions for event signups or donations, they have a new data management problem (you already know that I'm sure). So, the idea of letting an org push out its work and let the owners of the data manage themselves is also key to adoption. This gives an Org. the cost justification to switch to better software solutions.
4. Work from anywhere. A CRM solution needs to allow staff and volunteers to work from anywhere. This is key in gettings Orgs. to leverage their constituency in other ways than just asking for money and eliminates physical and resource constraints from engaging volunteers. Volunteers, however, should have more limited abilities than staff members. I have one client whose board would like to participate in fundraising activities but it has to happen from their homes.
5. Tools should encourage Orgs. to "open-source" themselves. In other words, if orgs can collaborate and/or if the constituents of orgs can collaborate with each other, the the Org. can be effectively larger. Traditional CRM-type tools are designed for hierarchical management style organizations. While this has worked with limited success, this idea constrains organizations. So, can CRM tools be built with this in mind?
So, I just thought I would throw this into the ring at the start and am happy to lend any perspective I can with regards to non-political organizations which is who I am mostly working with.
John Lorance
Compumentor/TechSoup
