On 15 Feb 1995, ES gave a quality response to Richard's inquiry about
development software.  To it, I would like to add the following:
 
I have had a goodly amount of experience with FoxPro and a FoxPro-based
software package for managing both a small and a rather large, multifaceted,
contributor/membership/planned giving database.  These are not user friendly
software situations. In both instances I found myself uncomfortably
dependent on the programming expertise of inhouse personnel.  I also found
myself longing for a Windows version of something...almost anything.
 
The computer person who is well qualified to do the kind of design and
custom report writing, etc. required of a not-so-user-friendly program is
worth their weight in gold.  This caliber of professional is in high demand
and not often attracted and/or held by the salaries paid by NPO's.
 
If you are fortunate enough to have a happy, dedicated and well-ensconced
computer person with all the requisite talents to serve as your MIS czar,
then go the do-it-yourself route and develop a customized program that
serves your specific needs.  Also, be sure your MIS person is in good
health, relatively happy and adequately paid...or become a computer expert
yourself.  On the other hand...
 
My recommendation would be to take a look at as many packaged programs as
you can.  A good one like Raiser's Edge is costly, however a true
cost/benefit analysis should justify the expense.  The key to making such a
program work is to discipline your development effort to operate within the
program's parameters.  By this I mean live within the standards set by the
software.  Use all of the standard report-generating power the program has
to offer and avoid customization unless it is absolutely necessary (even
then, sleep on it for a while).  This kind of approach will keep your
development effort light on its feet and very adaptable to change.
 
The realm of customization is the bane of institutions that have extremely
sophisticated and highly defined development efforts. Generally, such
efforts evolved from a less-computer-dependent era. Such an evolutionary
process probably caused some of the experienced staff to be dragged kicking
and screaming by *newbies* to one computer/software demo after another.
Often, the result was the cramming of a battleship-size development effort
into a destroyer-size program.  Rather than streamline the former, all work
was devoted to customizing the latter to make everything fit.
 
Customization is not another word for creativity.  Nor is it synonymous with
change.  Customizing is often a way of hanging onto the old without
committing fully to the new.
 
The flipside to all of this is the tendency to mistakenly not utilize fully
the program at your disposal.  Instead a "designer" approach to using
development software (changing to whatever seems to be in vogue at the
time)is adopted.  This is a dangerous practice because of the errors that
are made in managing the donor database and the inconsistent methods of
communicating with potential and existing contributors.  There's something
to be said about the personality of an institution that is projected by its
development effort.
 
Now that you've been swamped by this response on top of ES's, I have one
word for you...
COMMUNICATIONS.
 
That's the expertise we all need to have on staff pretty soon if not now.
Our MIS people are going to have to know how to talk to the telephone
company, fiancial institutions, ATM manufacturers, hardware and software
suppliers, online donors and funding sources, the IRS, the accounting
department and others.  A development effort that's light on its feet and
very maneuverable will be in the best position to take advantage of the
opportunities and efficiencies that accompany new technologies.
 
Lessening hardware, software and personnel dependencies are good priorities
to have these days...right after we make sure that our staff MIS wizards are
comfy.
 
                                    * * * * *
 
PS:  I think the product Black Baud marketed 5 years ago was called
something other than Raiser's Edge.  Isn't Raiser's Edge the year-old
Windows version of their widely distributed DOS-based program?
 
 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rich Jones                              Governing Board For:
Development Director                    Carter House Natural Science Museum
Shasta Natural Science Association      Redding Arboretum By The River
[log in to unmask]              SNSA Environmental Resources Center