Comments on: Things I learned about Salesforce.com at the NTC http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc Confessions of a Non-Profit Executive Director Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:36:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Allan Benamer http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11435 Allan Benamer Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:22:12 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11435 I don't know Phil. I think that argument is primarily a FUD argument. Until there's more news about a possible salesforce.com takeover or buyout I simply think that possibility is fairly remote. That said, salesforce.com profits were flat last year despite a strong rise in sales revenue. That seems to fuel all the talk about a buyout. I don’t know Phil. I think that argument is primarily a FUD argument. Until there’s more news about a possible salesforce.com takeover or buyout I simply think that possibility is fairly remote. That said, salesforce.com profits were flat last year despite a strong rise in sales revenue. That seems to fuel all the talk about a buyout.

]]> By: philk http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11344 philk Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:14:03 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11344 Now one issue not addressed here that is germaine, is what happens if/when salesforce is acquired by a for-profit that isn't so non-profit friendly. A one year promise of service isn't very long. Nonprofits aren't served when a service offered temporarilly for free at steeply discounted prices but then becomes too expensive to afford. When a rise in cost is reasonable, nonprofits can deal, but when it's not, they often can't and are then stuck with the costs migration. Anyone concerned about this? Now one issue not addressed here that is germaine, is what happens if/when salesforce is acquired by a for-profit that isn’t so non-profit friendly. A one year promise of service isn’t very long. Nonprofits aren’t served when a service offered temporarilly for free at steeply discounted prices but then becomes too expensive to afford. When a rise in cost is reasonable, nonprofits can deal, but when it’s not, they often can’t and are then stuck with the costs migration. Anyone concerned about this?

]]> By: philk http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11341 philk Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:07:55 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11341 One proposition that is amenable to the utility of salesforce is that the business processes of nonprofits are a subset of the business processes of for-profits, bearing a substantial resemblance to them. Where this is true, it makes sense to use tools built for for-profits and to bend them for nonprofit use. One proposition that is amenable to the utility of salesforce is that the business processes of nonprofits are a subset of the business processes of for-profits, bearing a substantial resemblance to them. Where this is true, it makes sense to use tools built for for-profits and to bend them for nonprofit use.

]]> By: Marc B http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11340 Marc B Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:43:00 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11340 Michelle, I hear what you're saying, but I think that nonprofits have this "we do things waaaay different than everyone else" mentality which, when you go to many nonprofits who do similar things, is just not true. Often there are small difference in nomenclature or business process which can be easily changed in Salesforce, or Salesforce can be plugged into something else using the API. Even when there are big changes, usually they can be accomodated fairly easily if you have a solid platform to start from. Just my .02.... Michelle,

I hear what you’re saying, but I think that nonprofits have this “we do things waaaay different than everyone else” mentality which, when you go to many nonprofits who do similar things, is just not true. Often there are small difference in nomenclature or business process which can be easily changed in Salesforce, or Salesforce can be plugged into something else using the API. Even when there are big changes, usually they can be accomodated fairly easily if you have a solid platform to start from. Just my .02….

]]> By: Michelle Murrain http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11214 Michelle Murrain Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:06:01 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11214 The one size fits most is really one size fits some. Nonprofits are pretty different - even ones that have similar missions can do things differently. What's also often true (and I've heard this numerous times from nonprofits) is that the integrated tools don't do everything as well. They might be great at one thing, and not so great at another - so a nonprofit is not really getting the best deal. Big vendors want nonprofits to go all-in-one, instead of providing open APIs so that people can integrate what they need, and pick the tools that are best for them. Sure, the integration takes support and help - but so do using the big tools - and very often the users needs aren't met there, either. The one size fits most is really one size fits some. Nonprofits are pretty different – even ones that have similar missions can do things differently.

What’s also often true (and I’ve heard this numerous times from nonprofits) is that the integrated tools don’t do everything as well. They might be great at one thing, and not so great at another – so a nonprofit is not really getting the best deal.

Big vendors want nonprofits to go all-in-one, instead of providing open APIs so that people can integrate what they need, and pick the tools that are best for them. Sure, the integration takes support and help – but so do using the big tools – and very often the users needs aren’t met there, either.

]]> By: Allan Benamer http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11189 Allan Benamer Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:54:07 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11189 That's asking a lot for what is essentially an early release of the application. What is interesting is that we can ask salesforce.com. I think people see the potential of the platform and that has captured the imagination of the smartest developers. Smart developers hate lock-in -- why develop ONLY for RE or Convio thus limiting your marketability. With sforce, it's clear that work in the nonprofit sector does not limit your ability to switch over to the private sector if need be. It's a win-win for everyone around. I'd like to point out Peter that you CAN'T write an app from scratch with RE in its current configuration and that hurts the FUD argument you're bringing up. The incentive to change is just there when you start seeing nonprofits integrate with their CRM in meaningful and visible ways. It just takes time for this information to percolate through the sector. That’s asking a lot for what is essentially an early release of the application. What is interesting is that we can ask salesforce.com. I think people see the potential of the platform and that has captured the imagination of the smartest developers. Smart developers hate lock-in — why develop ONLY for RE or Convio thus limiting your marketability. With sforce, it’s clear that work in the nonprofit sector does not limit your ability to switch over to the private sector if need be. It’s a win-win for everyone around. I’d like to point out Peter that you CAN’T write an app from scratch with RE in its current configuration and that hurts the FUD argument you’re bringing up. The incentive to change is just there when you start seeing nonprofits integrate with their CRM in meaningful and visible ways. It just takes time for this information to percolate through the sector.

]]> By: Peter Gulka http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11181 Peter Gulka Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:40:13 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11181 It just seems odd to me that they wouldn't go out of their way to build not only templates for nonprofits, but work on foolproof porting from RE, Convio, GetActive, Kintera, etc. Make it easy for me to switch, and I'm there. Make me have to wite my own app from scratch, and I lose the incentive to change. It just seems odd to me that they wouldn’t go out of their way to build not only templates for nonprofits, but work on foolproof porting from RE, Convio, GetActive, Kintera, etc.

Make it easy for me to switch, and I’m there. Make me have to wite my own app from scratch, and I lose the incentive to change.

]]> By: Judi Sohn http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-11029 Judi Sohn Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:47:53 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-11029 I find myself really frustrated by the one-size-fits-most mentality. Why should I pay for that? If I'm in the market for a mule, then sell me the best mule you got. Don't waste my time telling me how great the cow is and selling it to me at twice the price along with a run-of-the-mill mule. I really don't mind working with multiple vendors in the Salesforce universe. Sure, you can work with consultants (and we did at first) but you don't have to. You can do just fine working directly with vendors and plugging their technology into what you already have. Even "Nonprofitforce" is so customizable that you can take what you like and what works and ignore/configure the rest. Unless something has changed in the last year, nothing is locked down. Our implementation is a mix between Nonprofitforce and bits and pieces I've picked up from other applications through the AppExchange and the default sforce installation. In the first paragraph you talk about a limitation that was quietly lifted in a recent release. Now we only go out of our way to associate organizations with donations coming from businesses. Individual donations do not have to have an organization/account attached to them, instead linking to the donor through contact roles. It was just a simple matter of toggling off "Required" for the "Organization" field on the donation page layout we use for individual donations (which we changed from the default "Account" a long time ago). Took 30 seconds. Sure, we had to change some habits at first...but I think that happens with anything new. Now a year later working in Salesforce on a daily basis (as a user/admin, not a developer) is second nature. I'm just waiting and hoping that there is some advanced integration between Convio and Salesforce and we'll be home free. I find myself really frustrated by the one-size-fits-most mentality. Why should I pay for that? If I’m in the market for a mule, then sell me the best mule you got. Don’t waste my time telling me how great the cow is and selling it to me at twice the price along with a run-of-the-mill mule.

I really don’t mind working with multiple vendors in the Salesforce universe. Sure, you can work with consultants (and we did at first) but you don’t have to. You can do just fine working directly with vendors and plugging their technology into what you already have.

Even “Nonprofitforce” is so customizable that you can take what you like and what works and ignore/configure the rest. Unless something has changed in the last year, nothing is locked down. Our implementation is a mix between Nonprofitforce and bits and pieces I’ve picked up from other applications through the AppExchange and the default sforce installation.

In the first paragraph you talk about a limitation that was quietly lifted in a recent release. Now we only go out of our way to associate organizations with donations coming from businesses. Individual donations do not have to have an organization/account attached to them, instead linking to the donor through contact roles. It was just a simple matter of toggling off “Required” for the “Organization” field on the donation page layout we use for individual donations (which we changed from the default “Account” a long time ago). Took 30 seconds.

Sure, we had to change some habits at first…but I think that happens with anything new. Now a year later working in Salesforce on a daily basis (as a user/admin, not a developer) is second nature. I’m just waiting and hoping that there is some advanced integration between Convio and Salesforce and we’ll be home free.

]]> By: Marc B http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-10995 Marc B Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:21:50 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-10995 The thing about Salesforce is that it really is becoming a "platform", rather than just a "sales process tracking" application. The vision is SF is just a database "cloud" and various apps ride on top of the platform, using the open API. I see the real key to mass nonprofit adoption is in creating easy-to-use, well-documented (and free/low cost/Foundation supported) AppExchange applications for specific NPO sectors. For example, if I'm a Social Services nonprofit, I download the "Client Tracking/Case Management" app. I don't want to pay someone tons of cash to customize SF, I want something that gives me 80% of what I need, and if I need to tweak it, then I'll either learn how to tweak by taking my free 40 hour admin class from SF, or pay someone else to do it (most decidedly not free). The thing about Salesforce is that it really is becoming a “platform”, rather than just a “sales process tracking” application. The vision is SF is just a database “cloud” and various apps ride on top of the platform, using the open API.

I see the real key to mass nonprofit adoption is in creating easy-to-use, well-documented (and free/low cost/Foundation supported) AppExchange applications for specific NPO sectors.

For example, if I’m a Social Services nonprofit, I download the “Client Tracking/Case Management” app. I don’t want to pay someone tons of cash to customize SF, I want something that gives me 80% of what I need, and if I need to tweak it, then I’ll either learn how to tweak by taking my free 40 hour admin class from SF, or pay someone else to do it (most decidedly not free).

]]> By: philk http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc/comment-page-1#comment-10985 philk Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:31:09 +0000 http://www.nonprofittechblog.org/things-i-learned-about-salesforcecom-at-the-ntc#comment-10985 I wonder how expensive or cheap it is and will be to develop needed functionality on the SF platform vs. other similar products. It still appears uncertain and perhaps highly variable how much SF functionality will be used out of the box vs require customization. These other currently common scenarios tend to have pretty high costs: a) having to pay a vendor to customize their product for you, b) a consultant who hires a vendor to customize the product, c) in house talent modifying a homegrown product or 3rd party app. I posted a few of my impressions re SF at: http://cknowledgeworks.com/blog/?p=13 . I wonder how expensive or cheap it is and will be to develop needed functionality on the SF platform vs. other similar products. It still appears uncertain and perhaps highly variable how much SF functionality will be used out of the box vs require customization.

These other currently common scenarios tend to have pretty high costs: a) having to pay a vendor to customize their product for you, b) a consultant who hires a vendor to customize the product, c) in house talent modifying a homegrown product or 3rd party app.

I posted a few of my impressions re SF at: http://cknowledgeworks.com/blog/?p=13 .

]]>