I recently had need to call Carefirst (my health insurance company) because they had made a billing error. I had paid my premium, the check was cashed (online proof from my bank) yet my account had not been credited.

I dutifully called the “Questions about your invoice?” number on my statement, and was on hold for about 15 minutes (which is typical with Carefirst, I’ve found). When I finally was able to talk with a human, she very kindly told me: “Let me check with accounting on this. May I put you on hold?”

“That’s fine,” I replied.

Two minutes later, she returned on the line to tell me “They’re very busy with a high volume of calls, and I can’t get through. I can’t wait any longer on the line with you because we also have a high volume of calls. Would you like me to put you in the queue there?”

“Thanks for nothing,” I replied, and hung up.

So let me get this straight: I hold for 15 minutes to talk to someone about my bill (Remember, I called the number specifically for help with my invoice) and then I’m told “I can’t help you but you can certainly wait some more, if you’d like.” So what I’m hearing is “My time is far more valuable than yours. Feel free to wait, but I’m going to go someone else now.”

Several days later, I called Carefirst back, again to check on this billing issue. This time, I get a recording that says “The wait time is approximately 16 minutes. You may stay on the line, or we can call you back if you give us your name and phone number” (or words to that effect). Wow! They’ll call me back?!?

So I gave it a try. Sure enough, in almost exactly 16 minutes (I timed it, you know), I got an automated call back, and within two minutes I was back on the phone with Carefirst. By this time, they had straightened out my billing problem and everything was right in the world.

I have no idea if this call-back service is brand new for Carefirst, or if it’s just the first time I encountered it, but kudos to them for implementing it. A call back is MUCH better than waiting on the phone.

There was a discussion on a users group listserver a few days ago about the pros and cons of centralized vs. decentralized data entry. The question was, should all staff be able to enter and correct data in the database, or should that function be restricted to just a few? Several people weighed in, and the majority seemed to be in favor of concentrating that work to a few people.

Centralizing data entry is the easy choice, which is why most favor it. While I see the attractiveness of concentrating the data entry management into the hands of just a few, I think it’s the wrong choice.
It’s easy because ultimately, data management is about personnel (or staff) management. That is, your data management is only as good as the people who are doing it. So if you have fewer people doing it, that’s fewer people you have to train, keep up-to-date, and check on. Simply, it’s fewer people to manage.

But I think the downside is worse. Here are just a few:

1. Data is processed more slowly. By definition, a concentration of the data entry processing is a bottleneck. For example, if I learn of an email address change today and have to forward it to the fortunate few who can make data changes, how long will it take for the change to take place? I know it’ll be a lot longer than if I had just made the change myself.
2. Non-data entry staff stop caring about the data. Ownership of the data, by definition, now belongs to the chosen few, which means those who are not responsible for data entry will eventually stop caring about the data. Or worse yet, when there are problems with the data (there always will be), guess who will get blamed?
3. Too many eggs in one basket. If you have only one or two people handling all the data entry, what do you do when those people are out sick, or worse yet, leave the company? There is little “bench strength” when data entry is centralized.

As I said, centralizing data entry is “easier” than decentralized, because in order for decentralized data entry to be effective, you have to have good documentation of business processes, good and continuous trainin, and diligent remediation with staff that aren’t “getting it.” You also have to have very clear rules about who can change what data.

I won’t kid you: It’s a lot of work. But the long-term benefits (e.g., cleaner data updated more quickly and more accurately, because fewer hands have touched it) make it worth it.

One of the most significant changes to occur over the past couple of years in database management is the idea that the database must be more customer-friendly. Prior to Al Gore inventing the internet, when associations considered which database they might use, the only audience to consider was staff. That is, how would staff interact with the database.

Of course, all of that has changed. As a result, when considering a new association management system, associations must now consider not only how the staff interacts with the database, but how members and customers will interact with it, as well.

What this means is there is a dynamic tension between making something flexible enough for staff, while making it easy enough for online customers to use the system without needing training. In my experience, some AMS vendors do this better than others, but all of them struggle with maintaining that balance.

So when evaluating new systems, you have to be aware of this tension and be sure to evaluate the system from both a staffer’s perspective as well as the perspective of your members and customers.

By show of hands, how many of you have an “IT” person on your senior management team? Is the most senior IT person in your organization part of the executive management team, or do they report to someone else who is on the executive management team?

What I see far too often is organizations will have their chief technology person (say, an IT director) reporting to the chief operating officer. The COO sits on the executive team, but not the IT director. I think this is a mistake for three reasons:

1. It sends a not-so-subtle message to the rest of staff that IT is an afterthought, or not critical to the overall functioning of the organization.
2. It keeps the IT folks out of the information loop. Let’s face it, no matter how good communication is between the IT director and the COO (for example), it’s not the same as being at the table.
3. It keeps the IT folks thinking that their job is to “serve staff” like a mechanic taking orders, rather than a diagnostician helping to solve organization problems.

The most successful organizations don’t just give lip service to including IT at the table; they actually have them there. What about your organization? Does IT get the respect it deserves?

When I work with my clients on the implementation of a new database, there is a tendency to focus on everything that is not working. That’s human nature, of course. We want to fix it if it is broken.

Unfortunately, all of this focus on the “broken” tends to lead people to believe that the new system doesn’t work at all, or is a failure, or is “worse than the system we had.”

Which is why you should have metrics for any project you embark upon. That is, you should have some way to measure if you’ve achieved the objectives you’ve set out for yourself.

For example, I worked with a small association recently on the implementation of a new, centralized AMS. Their previous system was a homegrown access database that was not connected to their website and did not have strong accounts receivable functionality. They implemented a new system which gave them some serious headaches throughout the process. But when the system was finally live, they had a completely integrated database with strong a/r features and tight integration with their website. The result was that in just a few short months, the vast majority of their members were joining and renewing online, something that had never happened before.

Two of their metrics for success were centralizing their data and integrating the database to their website. They succeeded on those. It wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t fun, but it was successful. But had they not had those metrics, they might have assumed, based on their other troubles, that the project was a failure.

So do you have metrics in place for your system? Can you tell if you’re being successful or not?

I recently traded emails with an association colleague of mine, an executive director of a small association, asking him how his search for a new AMS was going. (He is not a client, but chose to do this on his own.)

He has called the process “a train wreck.” Here are just some of his comments (he agreed to let me discuss this as long as I keep his name and the product name anonymous):

“Goal was to have an all-in-one system that was both all the front-end stuff (CMS, forums, social networking, etc, etc) AND have a good enough back-end (ie, to avoid a separate hardcore AMS).

So, we wanted both, and it turns out that it is kinda good at neither once you try to start bending it to your specific needs.”

In other words, what they tried to get was a system that could do really good “Web 2.0″ and still provide solid association management tools. And in the end, from his perspective, he got neither.

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon experience for a lot of organizations. We focus on some really cool or powerful features (e.g., web 2.0 tools) and neglect to determine if the basics are being taken care of (e.g., standard AMS functionality like accounts receivable).

My experience suggests that the “old school” AMS vendors (those that have been around for 10+ years) do the basics of AMS very well. And that the new kids on the block (those that started from a web- and broad-community-of-users- perspective) do the Web 2.0 stuff really well. The problem is trying to get one system that does them both well.

So far I’ve not come across any system that does both exceedingly well. But if I had to choose, I’d choose the AMS functionality over the Web 2.0 functionality, because in the end, managing the money will be most important.

The traditional AMS vendors will catch up on the Web 2.0 stuff eventually. And the new guys with their newfangled 2.0 tools will eventually have stronger AMS back-ends. But for now, it’s the classic definition of compromise: A compromise is where neither party gets what they want and neither party is happy.

I had the opportunity to sit through a lengthy demo of the Polaris product from ARC Solutions. Overall I was pretty impressed with what I saw. Their product is entirely web-based and takes advantage of all the latest technology available to web-based databases.

ARC is still a relatively young business (7 years old) and still has a relatively small client list (under 30 clients). But they’ve received some venture capital money and have developed some very nice tools. Their target market is associations in the $1 million to $25 million budget range, and I think this product will be a good consideration for these associations.

Some of the things I saw that I liked:

• The “recent items” task bar reflects more than just recent contacts (i.e., individual and organization records) but also reflects recent “objects” such as an order page or an event set up page. I think that’s cool because I find I frequently have to return to a page I was working on and the page is often NOT related to a person or org record.
• “Resend confirmation email.” This simple link resends the confirmation email for a membership join or renewal or an event registration (and probably others). A really simple function that’s missing from a lot of other AMS products.
• The system has really nice user tools that allow you to add fields and place them on many different screens. Also of note is that the users can “design” how the staff view looks and how the “member portal” (public-facing pages) look. These can look different, which is good. The downside is if you make a field change to the database, you have to remember to make a change in a couple of different places if you want that change to show on both the staff and public side. Overall, though, I think it’s net positive.

Some of the weaknesses:

• As of now, there is no Outlook integration. So any conversations had in Outlook need to be manually copied to records within Polaris.
• There are no email templates available at the individual record level. That means that if you want to send a single email to someone (say directions to your event) you’ll have to have a copy of that in Word (or somewhere else) and cut and paste it into the email within the database.

Overall, if your organization is willing to take a risk on a relative newcomer to the association, this is a product worth checking out.

Full disclosure: EDM is an independent third-party consulting firm. This means we have no financial relationship with any of the vendors mentioned in this blog. We provide unbiased opinions on what we see.

If you are an association staffer or executive, I’d appreciate it if you could answer my one question survey. It will take only a minute or two to reply. Last year at this time over 100 of your association colleagues responded to this survey, and the results were fascinating. You can read about that here: “What’s plaguing associations now?”

Take the survey here.