3 Important Questions when Considering a New Technology Solution

Association and credentialing program managers tasked with achieving certain program results during the year are eventually faced with a decision: enlist the help of a technology solution, or not?

There's no doubt that adopting new technologies comes with some risk. But the natural inclination is to assume that the risks must be imminent, large, and daunting. (Think of the vaguely ominous phrase on your car's side-view mirror: Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.)

The trouble with assuming that the risks are bigger than they are is that it can paralyze you into inaction. The result is a failure to capitalize on opportunities for significant program improvement that new workflows and toolsets can provide. In other words, there is a real cost to inactivity.

But what if the paradigm was shifted? What if the statement in the mirror was really: Objects on the path in front of you are actually smaller than they appear? Would a different perspective on opportunity vs. risk give you a more action-oriented view toward adopting technologies and solutions that can provide real benefits to the organization?

If so, then it's important to develop a framework to assess the relative benefits and risks associated with technology projects. Based on our work with leading volunteer management programs, we've developed a list of three considerations that are useful when doing this preliminary assessment.

1. Does the technology offer incremental value to your organization?

This is an important question to answer because it can be the most impactful when making the case to adopt a new solution as part of your organization's technology stack.

There are many reasons to transition away from an existing system or solution to a new one, including:

• Stability of the existing platform
• Timing and quality of user support
• Total cost of maintenance

While these are all valid reasons, they are likely to represent a lateral move where you're trading like for like and simply replacing the same set of capabilities with a new vendor. In these cases, the transition may not provide the incremental value to your organization that a new solution can. Incremental value in this context refers to new benefits or previously unrealized outcomes not attainable with the prior solution. These positive benefits could include increased productivity, a higher-quality work product, and elevated member or contributor satisfaction.

For example, if your current volunteer engagement process relies on spreadsheets, word processing documents, and email communications to capture member interest and identify qualified individuals for service, you're probably spending way more organizational time and resources handling basic administrative tasks that don't produce many — if any — tangible results. Moving to a new system that doesn't improve or streamline any of these processes is not likely to win executive approval, nor should it.

When asking the incremental value question, consider how adopting an integrated technology solution can help your organization realize specific gains. Solutions that open the door to new and untapped potential for program growth, efficiency, and engagement offer a better value proposition for your organization and can make it easier to get buy-in.

2. What is the resource commitment for implementation and onboarding?

The perception of many program managers is that technology transitions are, by definition, large in scale — putting a heavy burden on overworked or understaffed IT and technology departments and inevitably resulting in protracted timelines. All such projects must require significant program management resources that have to be "borrowed" from elsewhere in the organization.

In some cases, especially with enterprise-level system migrations, this is true. But it's not necessarily the case if you're choosing a stepped approach for implementing individual components of a new technology solution.

To accurately assess the resource requirement, consider the following:

• Do you know the scope and scale of the transition?
• Do you have to migrate all program activities at the same time, or can you adopt a more progressive approach that simplifies the initial implementation and reduces the burden on internal resources?
• What kind of data migration and integration is required to begin implementation, and what data elements can be integrated over time, depending on the needs of the organization?
• What implementation and onboarding support does the technology solution provider offer, and what is the relative scope of risk associated with the resource commitment?

In going through this exercise, you may find that the perceived risk and level of effort involved with implementing a new built-for-purpose solution — including the deployment of scarce technical resources to support migration and implementation — may be much less than you originally assumed.

3. Is this an expense or an investment?

A common refrain we hear from program managers and directors who understand the positive gains that can be made from a new technology solution, but are unable to move forward, is: "We don't have the budget for that in the current fiscal year, so we'll have to postpone consideration until later."

Many organizations are committed to being cost-conscious, regularly challenging staff to find ways to reduce costs or do more with less. But in many ways, this demonstrates a mindset that looks at technology only as an expense and not as an investment.

To be clearer, an "expense" mindset doesn't attribute any real value received for the money spent, and it reflects a view that maintaining the status quo has no financial or opportunity cost (which often isn't true). On the other hand, an "investment" mindset leverages resources now to achieve something greater in the future; it's a mindset deeply steeped in the concept of value.

When we've seen program managers successfully secure organizational buy-in for technology implementations, it's often because they've asked these important follow-up questions:

Will the incremental value your organization receives as a result of productivity improvements or increased member engagement yield a positive return on investment (ROI) — meaning the benefits outweigh the costs?

Where is your organization in terms of in-year financial performance against the budget, and is there an opportunity to invest in this system due to over-performance in other areas? Budgets are important as they support financial discipline in organizations. But budgets are always created in the past and don't describe the organization's current financial situation. It's like driving down the road by only looking out your back window.

How much of the spend will your organization actually realize this year? Accounting for subscription services usually spreads the cash outlay across the term of the contract to align expenses with received value. Therefore, the in-year financial impact of the investment may be far lower than the annual rate based on how many months are left in the subscription. The net effect is that you may have more latitude for investment than you first thought.

By leading with these questions and getting thorough answers to them, you can better assess the impact of a technology transition on your association or credentialing program — and you may very well find that the risks associated with an implementation are far smaller than they originally appeared.

To learn how a partnership with Lineup can open doors to program growth and productivity gains for your organization, contact us today to schedule a demo.