Nonprofit Software Decisions
My dad used to say, "Buy right the first time and you only cry once." What he meant was that buying nice things was usually painful at the beginning because of the cost, but generally paid off and saved a lot of pain in the long run because of the quality. I've seen time and again how my children's cheap plastic toys get broken within days, if not hours, while the better quality toys have provided years of enjoyment. Knowing that the cheap plastic toys will only have a limited lifespan, why do I still consider buying them for my children at all?
This process of deciding between "settling" for a "good enough" solution and getting the best solution is one that nonprofits face when addressing their technology needs. Should nonprofit organizations with very limited funds look for "good enough" software to limitedly meet the immediate needs, or should they do what it takes to find the best software possible to address longer term needs?
A publication recently put out by the Rotman School of Management provides some thoughts relevant to nonprofit organizations as they consider implementing software. The publication contained an article about our "want self" and our "should self." Essentially, the "want self" looks for short-term pleasures and gratifications, while the "should self" is considerate of long-term interests. When making decisions, individuals (and I would add organizations) will tend to decide based on responses to the "want" or "should" self. However, the decision making process can be greatly influenced by a few factors, namely, value and timing, which may harm or help the process.
Short versus Long-Term Value
When organizations are considering new software, they must consider both the immediate and long-term value of the software. The immediate value of a software program may be the ability to keep case notes in a computerized format. The long-term value or "future utility," however, may be to create required compliance reports. In some cases, it may be easier to see and buy into the immediate value of the software than the long term value. The real problem here, however, is that decisions may also be based solely on considering the immediate value. In such a situation, an organization may make a decision that meets their needs today, but will not be able to meet their needs tomorrow. In the computer world, systems that cannot keep up with the times are known as "legacy systems," and generally require replacement.
One great example comes to mind. A client of ours recently indicated that our ClientTrack product actually lowers the total long-term cost of managing client information. The observation caught me off guard, but is a great example of considering short-term versus long-term value. As I thought through our client's comment, it made more sense. Managing a single client's information (collecting, using, and reporting) from beginning to end comes at a cost to the organization. From the secretary who is paid to take information on the phone, to the case worker's time, to the administrator's time compiling data and creating reports, there is a monetary cost of services to that one client. An organization should be able to say "On average, it costs [X] dollars to collect, use, and report data for each client." Consider the total cost of managing information if it were to reflect time spent filling out paper forms, duplicated information gathering, manual information gathering, and reports completed by hand in a spreadsheet computer program. In contrast, consider the total cost of managing client information if many of these same processes were automated (for example, from 20 hours a month putting reports together to 20 minutes, as our clients have said). It should be readily apparent that the long-term value of an automated software would outweigh the short term value, in monetary terms.
The key here is to carefully consider short-term AND long-term value, and to weigh them out appropriately.
Short versus Long-Term Time
A second factor that can affect decision making is time. When time is limited, individuals are more likely to satisfy their "want self" than their "should self." The implications of this are significant. Consider, for example, a program director who intends to only be with an organization for a few more months or even years. Or, think about the organization that only has one month to make a software decision based on price. Under these time-limited circumstances, the tendency may be to seek the solution that will meet the immediate needs, that is, to match the tenure of the program director, or go with the lease expensive program (given that money may be a significant immediate factor). When considering the overall benefit of a program--as compared to the benefits that meet immediate needs--the time provided to make a decision becomes critical. Without sufficient time, consideration of the overall benefits (i.e, the future utility) are not carefully considered, and decisions generally revert to meet the immediate needs. The key here is to provide yourself with enough time to carefully consider your immediate and long-term needs before rendering a decision.
In summary, organizations must decide between a "good enough" solution, or the "best solution" possible. Short term and long term values and benefits must be considered under both scenarios. Returning to my kids' toys, maybe it really won't matter a year from now that their new plastic toy will be sitting in a landfill somewhere. And, in the same breath, it may matter in 25 years when my grandchildren can play with the same durable toys their parents played with. So, is "good enough" really "good enough," or does it need to be the "best"? What are your thoughts?