Custom Software (Part 3): Custom Process vs Best Practice

"Our needs are very unique, most systems won't work for us."
"We have a complicated model and process, it is hard to explain."
"We are too busy, we need to hire more staff to keep up."

Yesteryear

Back in the 1980's, I used my first operations software. We all knew who, or more correctly, what was in charge. The software dictated how we used it. When we wanted to decide the best way to do things, we look at the software manual or asked support how the software worked. Software was built based on the most common functions and best practices (or at least the best practices of the software company).

We would all complain about how the software worked.  But the software choices were limited, so we didn't have much of a choice. Plus our use of the software was focused on record keeping. So when we wanted more from our technology, we had to go custom. Custom was the only other choice. If you wanted to do something different you had to build it yourself.

Flash forward to today

Technology has changed, as have our expectations. Today we expect flexibility with our technology, it should adapt to our unique needs easily. Don't give us a canned solution constrained to work the same way for everyone. Personalization. Customization. Consumerization. And any other ization you can think of which makes it all about me and how unique I am (or as unique our org is).

Enter the cloud. Today platforms exist which give you the freedom to configure the software to match you process without customization. You simply make some choices on features, configure workflows, redesign screens, add fields and make it your own. Amazing capability, flexibility, adaptability and any other ility you want to add all with clicks not code by almost any user without IT help.

But we haven't changed our process to select, implement or leverage these new tools.  We run our demos and selection process telling the vendor to only show us the "out of the box" functionality.  But when it is a platform configured to match your process, what does "out of the box" even mean? Whose box? Think outside the box. And the choice is no longer build or buy (you can rent and rearrange). Now your demos, selection and implementation processes rely on your understanding of your process, needs and capability. Comparing features won't cut it.

Custom Process vs Best Practice

In my new role I have heard more and more people ask how Best Practices are integrated, enforced or implemented in the technology. They want someone to tell them the best way to do a process based on their expertise in the solution and in their industry. So it seems like we have come full circle, lets get back to software with controls built around best practice? I have always, always, always hated the term best practice. I mean seriously, best for who? by who? in what scenario? ugh. I always preferred the term model practice, meaning here is a model that has worked for others.

So let me get this straight. In yesteryear we complained that software was too limited by function. Today we complain that software needs to have more "out of the box" functionality. What? I think the real problem is a lack of understanding our own business process. period.

Yesteryear's software dictated business process. Today's software allows you to configure to match your process. But are we ready for that responsibility?

So what?

So far this post seems to be a way for Steve to get on a soap box, relive his history and just generally rant.  Well it is my blog.... (insert smiley emoticon or something)

But seriously. I think this conversation focuses on the software too much. At some point a nonprofit has to take responsibility balancing wanting more flexibility in software with their own ability to define their process and ability to act on it.  It all comes down to knowing who you are as an organization,  how you work and your capacity. The technology is not the problem, nor should it be the focus.

The more flexible a software is the more you will need to know your process and the more tech skills it will require. The more "out of the box" functionality the more the software will dictate your process and lessen your need for internal tech skills. Way over generalized and inaccurate in a number of scenarios, but you get the idea.  And I am not saying one is better than the other.  There are countless examples where the "out of the box" solution is the best choice.

Where I Would Start

Define you processes. Not enough nonprofits take time to document and define their processes.  And if you don't have time or capacity to do this, stick with solutions with pre-built model practices. If you can't define your process, flexible software will exaggerate the lack of definition, so just don't do it. I don't mean to imply that lacking the time and capacity is a bad thing, it is just important to acknowledge where you are.

Then before you choose software, take time to understand the type of solution best fits your org's skills, needs and capacity, then do a first selection round on match. Then when you do the second round, tell the vendors your biggest struggles, what you hope to accomplish with the solution and what success looks like.  Then ask them to demonstrate how they would address it, rather than feature comparison.

 This post is a part of a series of posts, to get more context read the first post.

Custom Software (Part 2): Custom Software = Custom Problems

INTRO- This post is the second of three about custom software. You can read the opening post here.

Custom software is built to meet your exact needs! How can you go wrong?!?

But before I go too far, I do want to say there is a right time for custom software, but with new choices available today I think those times are minimal.  To help you think through if custom software is right, I would read this post on when to build your own solution. I would also like to add that when I talk about custom software in this post, I am talking about true software development from scratch, not configuring or personalizing an existing platform. Anyway....

Question #1 - who will support it when it breaks?

If you build something no one else has, who will you ask for help? It is like buying a custom built car that runs on garbage and flies, then expecting any mechanic to fix it. How will they know what parts to use? You will either need to hunt down the person that built it, good luck finding them McFly. Or you will need to find someone who understands garbage powered flying cars and then let them take the time to learn how your car is setup... every time it needs repairs, not to mention improvements.

A custom software will have custom problems no one has seen before. There won't be a user group to turn to, documentation on how other's solved it or FAQs. You will be the first to ask.

Question #2 - how will you keep it fresh?

How many movies start with someone finding an ancient, super powerful technology, but no one knows how it works? Often custom software is awesome when it is launched.  But then process changes, technology changes, users change, leadership changes and time passes. No one remembers why it was built the way it was, no one remembers what the key development decisions were or what the purpose was. So a new team comes in, finds the custom software and looks at it like the apes in 2000 a Space Odyssey.

Question #3 - who will support the users?

If you build custom software, there should be a plan to have experts on hand to support it, plus a back up plan if that expert resource disappears.  Because people who like to build new, cool software are typically not the same people who like to stick around to help users. They will often move on to the next cool project. So you will need a couple types of experts, people to fix it, expand it, support it, document it, train users, support users, etc.... You might get lucky to find the one person that can do it all, but we all know where that ends in burnout (not to mention what happens when you replace the custom software).

Question #4 - how will you course correct?

Custom software relies on someone understanding the processes to be built, data to be collected, problems to be solved, reporting needs, user needs and so much more.  There is bound to be something built, implemented and later found to not meet the intended purpose.  Often this is where work-arounds built with spreadsheets start to grow. But as this happens people rely on the data in the work-arounds more than the system because they control it and know how it works.

So once the custom software is built but isn't working, you will have a new custom problem to address. Who is watching for these issues, does the analysis, creates the process map, designs the solution, implements it and then trains the staff (plus supports it).  These course corrections will not stop, things change and developers don't always get it right (especially if the original request wasn't clear).

Custom software is built to meet your exact needs! How can you go wrong?!?

Things will go wrong or change with software. With custom software is your custom problem. But hey, if you really are solving a new problem

Addendum: Custom Software vs Configured Software
I know this post seems very negative on Custom Software, which frankly it is (sorry if it was snarky). I will restate that I do think there are situations which demand innovation and outweigh the risks of custom software. But I would stress exploring new cloud platforms which allow configuration (click not code) to meet your needs, plus allow for code. This allows personalizing to meet your orgs needs, but keeps you in a sustainable environment. You will have flexibility within limits but still get updates, support, enhancements and be in a community. Today's solutions provide you the tools to customize many parts of the system as an administrator through wizards and user interfaces to make changes without code.

Side thought...
This post really could apply to custom websites or any custom code really.

The next post will focus on Custom Process vs Best Practice.

This post is a part of a series of posts, to get more context read the first post.

Custom Software (Part 1): Complicated or Complex?

INTRO- This post is the first of three about custom software. You can read the opening post here.

"Our needs are very unique, most systems won't work for us."

"We have a complicated model and process, it is hard to explain."

If you have worked for a nonprofit, you have heard (and probably said) these statements. But before dig into what I think lies behind these statements, lets agree on my definitions of Complex versus Complicated.

Complicated - difficult to analyze, understand, explain, etc. (from reference.com) I interpret this to mean the methods are not clear, defined or purposeful enough to be explained. 

Complex - so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with (from reference.com) I interpret this to mean there are many defined, intricate parts aligned to meet a need requiring multiple solutions to address.

Not sure I have expressed my thoughts on the distinction clearly. Basically, I think we over complicate many things as nonprofits (and companies and personally, not unique to nonprofits).  We build our process over time, tailored to staff, tied to grant\funder requirements and to meet our immediate needs. We react. This creates complicated process. Difficult to explain, because it is cobbled together. Difficult to understand, because it was designed to meet a range of needs instead of focusing on the process. Difficult to analyze, because there is no purposeful pattern or outcome.

Some things are simply complex. Solving big problems like homelessness, poverty, education, etc is complex. My last organization, The Cara Program, had a complex program model, not complicated.  The program to return people to work had a number of elements including admissions, transformation training, professional training, personal coaching, placement, retention and advancement. Each element was intricately designed to support the overall outcome of lasting change, but each element requires unique skills, steps, metrics and management.  Trying to explain the structure in general is easy for the staff, not complicated, because everyone gets how it all works together.  But if you tried to dig in and understand how The Cara Program operates, it is complex.

Is the distinction more clear? (or at least my thoughts on the distinction-I know people will nit-pick this apart!)

What does this have to do with Custom Software?

All of this complicated process translates into a messy software selection process.  Often one of the things immediately cut or never even considered during software selection is process mapping. We jump straight to the needs assessment. We get everyone together and start listing out everything the software has to do, without even understanding why we do it or how it could be done differently. We do it now, so the software has to do it.  Therefore, our needs are complicated and none of the solutions out there will meet our needs. We must need custom software....   oy,

I would ask yourself, if there are no solutions out there which do it exactly how you do it, are you doing it wrong? Do you need to keep doing it that way? If you changed, would your outcomes change? There are times when innovation and custom software is required, but those times are limited especially with the new platforms available today.

What I would suggest you do before simply stating your needs are complicated.

Documenting your processes before selecting new software gives you a chance to figure out how you work. But it also gives you a chance to ask why and to look for what is important versus what can change.  It is easier to simplify a process when you understand it, along with how it all works together.

Understanding your process and goals helps you understand what you should simplify and what is necessitates complexity can help avoid complications. This is not about software, it is about finding the most effective way to meet your mission.

The next post will focus on Custom Software = Custom Problems.

This post is a part of a series of posts, to get more context read the first post.

Custom Software! We are so unique and complicated!

I can't count the number of times I have heard nonprofits say:

"Our needs are very unique, most systems won't work for us."

"We have a complicated model and process, it is hard to explain."

"We have limited tech experience, so we just do it all in Excel."

"We are too busy, we need to hire more staff to keep up."

There seems to be this peer pressure to brag about how unique a nonprofit's needs are. (This isn't any different than everyone bragging about how over busy they, like that is a good thing.) You aren't cool unless you are complicated. I don't get it. I know the problems nonprofits are trying to solve are massive and messy. Funders and donors exaggerate this on occasion by favoring those with a new approach, all while requiring unique reports and often not funding technology. The problems nonprofits have are real, but are we taking the time to rethink how we work to match the opportunities technology brings

Over the next few posts I will cover some of my thoughts on complicated process combined with custom solutions.

1. Complicated vs Complex
2. Custom Software = Custom Problems
3. Custom Process vs Best Practice

These ideas have been growing and changing in my head for years, but my new job has finally brought it all full circle. I finally have some close to complete thoughts on this. Which is good because some of these things have been driving me crazy for years.

Start with an Inventory - A Rule in Tech to Live by

When you go grocery shopping, first step? See what you have already.

Photo credit Kiri on Flickr

When you go on a vacation, first step? Well, I guess a list, but then you use the list to do an inventory to make sure you bring everything.

When you cook or bake, first step? Well, I guess a recipe, but then typically it is a good idea to make sure you have the ingredients. (Having been sent on last minute trips to spend too much on something we could have gotten cheaper at a time when we didn't really have the time, I can say... you want to make sure you have the ingredients...)

Bringing this back the tech now. Many, if not all, tech strategies and projects start with an inventory. Besides, my analogies were way too much of a stretch anyway.

Tech Replacement. First step in creating a technology replacement plan, take an inventory of your technology. Then use the inventory to determine what needs to be replaced and when. Then look for areas you need upgrades and expansions. Come up with a timeline and bingo. Of course it is a bit more complicated, but you get the idea.  Read this Article from TechSoup to learn more! Plus look at a tool like Spiceworks to build your inventory.

Security. Understand your current security, network, software and setup first. Best way to do that? My opinion is to get an outside security assessment, you can read more about my opinion in this post on Community IT.

Choosing Software. Most people would run out and look at the features or explore choices. But again, start with an inventory. This inventory is different though. It is no longer about a physical count. This inventory is best started with understanding your processes. Yep, good old business process mapping. You could try to jump to business requirements, but it will end up backfiring. The type of information uncovered and discovered when you document how you work is much different than jumping to how do you want the software to work.You must read this article from the Brilliant Peter S. Campbell on Idealware! Read this article from IT For Charities! Then dig through good articles on Idealware.

Websites. OK now you are going to say, start with the audience! Yes agreed, the audience is a key. But a close tie here is an inventory of your content. Shouldn't there be a balance of what you want to say, who you say it to, what they want to hear and what content you already have? Another good article from TechSoup.

Email and Social Media. Too many of the social media conference sessions I have gone to jump straight to the tool, seriously the tools are just tools. A real communication plan is needed first, know what you want to say to who and what you want them to do with the info.  Best place to start? Do an inventory of your current communications. Which leads me to a point going back to the website. Why have a website without a communication plan? Without a plan to communicate, your website is probably just a brochure. Another good article on TechSoup.

This probably all sounds logical and a good idea, but it still surprises me on how many times I hear about org's who skip these steps or even blog posts who just gloss over this.

Anyway, I think you get my not so hidden thought in this post. Start with an inventory. There is a reason most people know about gap analysis and how it starts with an inventory. It is because it works. And if you don't what Gap Analysis is, you might hang around and see if I post something about it next.

Please share any other good articles you have on these topics!

Mega monster or Many monsters? (Fully integrated or Best of Breed)

I don't think I can count the number of times that I have had a conversation about software that spirals into a conversation of "we need fully integrated" versus "need the best features." This is the conversation that I have always talked about as a single database (fully integrated software) versus best of breed. Best of Breed to me means you pick the best software for each of your distinct business areas then you work to integrate them or build connections to share data.

However, this conversation has always focused on the features of the software. This article from the NTEN:Change magazine has really got me thinking about it from a different perspective, a constituent data perspective.

Data is all the rage again now that APIs are common, visual dashboards run amuck, information rules and everyone needs more numbers to build those cool infographics that we all love (to hate) (but can't stop looking at).

Anyway, here is the thought:

You think through the different types of constituents you will track and interact with, how you will need to use the data and how interrelated they are.  Here is an image that they use to help describe this.

But dont take my word for it, Go read the article from NTEN and then be sure to subscribe to NTEN:Change, the visuals are striking, but I look at it for the articles. They are always fantastic. And if you are looking for a way to convince your CEO or executive staff about the value of tech, subscribe to NTEN:Change for them. They will wonder where the emails come from but they will thank you for the wonderful information.

Software randomly creates policy where none exists & other stuff I learned

If there isnt a documented process, policies or set of standards that your organization uses to define it's best practices on how business is conducted, then by default your software may create it for you.  Software and the solutions you use will have built in policies and processes. So in lieu of you picking the best way to run your business you allow the software to do it for you. WOW! How come I had never really put that thought together in my head?

Ok, so in many cases following the rules and policies dictated by your software is a good thing. Many times these are based on regulations, business practices and audit standards.  But beyond that should you determine the most effective way to run your organization, then try to adapt those practices to your software.  Rather than seeing how the software works, then letting that dictate your process?

Slow down Steve, where is all of this craziness coming from?

I was excited to be given the chance to present my #10ntc Ignite session for a small group over at the Great Book Foundation.  My ignite session tries to relay a point about how technology staff talking about tools and solutions can kill your audience. After that I spend about 20 minutes talking all about IT Alignment stuff from the NTEN book.  Then we opened it up for some questions and answers.

There was a group of questions that revolved around determining policy, planning technology strategy and staff roles in all of this. That is when someone asked about how do you manage a multi-layer technology strategy that meets the needs of the individual staff, each department and the full organization.  If you are meeting all of those needs wouldnt that require multiple technology strategies and require those strategies to start from very different perspectives?

That lead me to try to explain how you do need to have a few parts to your IT Alignment strategy.  This goes back to John Merritt's idea of the ART of the Technology.  ART = Alignment, Relationship, Transparency.  First, have a strategy to make the technology work so well that it is transparent, second work to build relationships between IT and the rest of the org, third move technology to meeting the mission through Alignment.  So yes, it is a bunch of strategies, not just one focused on mission, but that is still the end goal.

Steve, you are so off track yet again, wasnt this post about software creating policy?  Yes, it is about that and I am trying to get back to that if you would just let me.

This then loops us back to the comment about software creating policies and practices where there are none. If you dont have a well rounded technology strategy that is focusing on all three elements Alignment, Relationship and Transparency tied to the mission it is easy to let the tools take over.

WOW! Did you see how I just tied that all together and referenced the ignite session as well? ZOINKS!