Wisdom from a Complex Software Selection Project
Selecting a CRM for a statewide nonprofit network
In 2024, the Living at Home Network (LAHN) undertook a transformative project: replacing disparate, antiquated data management systems with a shared software platform.
This could be a challenging endeavor even for a single organization. But the Network is a diverse group of independent nonprofit organizations of various sizes, in urban and rural communities across Minnesota. All share the goal of helping older adults thrive while living independently, but each offers slightly different programs that are tailored to local needs and capacity. Finding one software platform they could all agree on and share? Not an easy task.
Here I will share some background on the project, along with quotes and audio clips from my conversation with LAHN’s executive director, Kristin Rigg. I worked with her and Network members to provide structure to the software selection process and help LAHN research and evaluation options.
When I started the project, one of the first things I wanted to understand was why they were seeking to share a software platform.
A federated, cloud-based CRM for cost savings and data aggregation
More than 20 years ago, the Network collaborated to build a custom Access database. They had a common funding source, and this database met the grant’s tracking and reporting requirements. Having a system they could load onto a disk, then install and run locally, made sense at a time when many Network members lacked a fast internet connection. Few affordable off-the-shelf options existed.
Fast forward to 2024, when several things had changed:
Funding sources and reporting requirements were more diverse.
Working remotely became more typical, especially after the Covid pandemic.
Finding an affordable, qualified source of support for Microsoft Access was difficult.
Software-as-a-service had become the standard for business applications.
All LAHN members gained access to high-speed, reliable internet.
“I think that the tool was helpful at the time. They had a local Access database to track their services, and their events and programs. And then they got stuck with it. Twenty years later when I joined the organization, they said help us get something better, because we spend so much time trying to get our data together and aggregated for all of the different government funders and foundations. And so the Living Home Network Board and I set that as a priority.” ~ Kristin
LAHN wanted to help individual members replace the old Access database with updated software. But they also saw advantages in working together, such as:
Cost savings through a group contract.
The opportunity to aggregate program metrics from across the state, without a laborious process of manually exporting, normalizing, and combining data. This aggregated data is extremely valuable to LAHN’s advocacy work.
Mutual support and learning opportunities.
They decided to explore options for a federated system. LAHN would own and manage the contract with the software provider, with costs passed on via membership fees. Each member would have private access to their own dataset within the shared system. A LAHN administrator would have access to roll-up reporting across all members.
To choose our shared software platform, we needed input from the users.
Success factors: flexibility, commitment, and trust
We invited a small group of members to form a software selection committee. This committee met weekly for about three months. Some of the characteristics that helped us work together effectively were:
Clarity about our goals
Willingness to reroute when we hit a dead end
Curiosity and growth mindset–not everyone on the committee was tech-savvy, but all were willing to learn
Commitment to showing up and doing the homework
Confidence from Network members who were not on the committee–who trusted this group to represent them
A thoughtful selection process
Our software selection process included:
Understanding needs and goals
Researching options
Demonstrations and test drives
Due diligence
Frequent stakeholder updates
One lesson we learned was that the process cannot be rushed. Thorough discovery and requirements gathering pay off when it’s time to evaluate projects. This approach instills confidence that the chosen product will actually meet your needs.
“One thing I learned was the selection process isn't something that you skimp on. I've worked on projects in other organizations where that part of the project has gone very quickly. You got us to take the time in setting the requirements and those weekly meetings.
After each product demo we would meet to say: Let's talk now about it, while it's fresh in our minds, what are our initial thoughts? What do we think? Our pros and cons, the barriers? What are the things that we love about it? That was really helpful for everybody to take that extra time after each of those meetings.” ~ Kristin
Diverse needs and contexts
LAHN members have a similar mission, but each organization is unique. We knew it was essential to engage and include them.
“We're not just a Metro organization, we have members who are working in some very rural areas and it’s important for not just our members but other community-based organizations to have a voice in some of the decisions that are being made around healthy aging and healthcare in Minnesota.” ~ Kristin
Kristin and I, along with LAHN’s membership coordinator Aja McCullough who joined the team a few months into the project, made several road trips so we could visit each member in person. Whether we drove five or five hundred miles, they received us with gracious hospitality. This gave us a more nuanced understanding of their individual needs and concerns.
“I think sometimes they feel very far away. We always try to communicate to them how important they are, and traveling to them is one of the ways that we do that.” ~ Kristin
We also knew that this software change would place demands on already-taxed nonprofit leaders.
Lessons for other nonprofit networks
We learned it’s important to honor what is unique about each organization, and allow the project to move at their pace.
“Each organization has its own culture…you're not going to necessarily know all of the things that make up that culture. But I think coming at it with a lens of humility and curiosity about what makes them special, what makes them good at what they do, trusting that they're the experts in what they do is really important.” ~ Kristin
Another lesson: People can tolerate uncertainty and deviation from the original plan, as long as they understand the ultimate goal.
“I learned a lot about pacing too, especially from the implementation, we had to adjust our approach to that. At first we thought that we could do implementation in batches and waves of organizations. That turned out to not be feasible at all. I'm glad that we were able to change our approach without too much distress. Without a lot of blowback from the organizations involved, either. They just kind of rolled with things and it was amazing how flexible everybody was.” ~ Karen
“I think they understood that our [mid-project] change of approach was around giving them better service. It was necessary for technical reasons, but it was also about not rushing them.” ~ Kristin
The benefits of reflection
Dissecting this process with Kristin was fun! Reflecting on this and other software selection projects helps me fine-tune my approach as a nonprofit technology consultant. I follow a time-tested methodology and adjust it to the nuance of each client’s situation. It was a pleasure to support LAHN, and I hope to have many more opportunities to guide organizations through technology initiatives.
