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