It’s a daily uphill battle, and one that is constantly being fought by Prospect Researchers everywhere. Whilst we scurry to meet urgent daily deadlines, some of the more Important tasks, notably identifying and qualifying new prospects to build a robust pipeline, is oftentimes left on the backburner.
Eight of the 14 organizations responding to a University of Calgary’s (U of C) 2011 Prospect Research & Pipeline Management (PM) survey, spent 60% to 90% of their time on reactive research. Another four, achieved an equal balance, whilst one devoted 60% on proactive work. Only one – an American university – spent a significant time - 85% - on proactive research.
The sheer volume of requests - driven by fundraisers getting out the door on donor meetings - was the primary reason for the reactive focus. All respondents, however, said they were examining ways to boost proactive work.
The two month “reconnaissance project” was undertaken by the seven member U of C research team - from designing the survey and contacting identified organizations, to analyzing results.
The aim: To see how other research shops functioned, and identify potential best practices and benchmarks that would help the team chart its own growth and direction.
The results: A comprehensive 31-page Best Practices in Prospect Research and Pipeline Management (internal) report, and a Summary Report shared with survey respondents only.
Said Lynn Van Hyfte, Executive Director, Development Services, the unit under which prospect research reports, “In addition to understanding the external landscape, the team also went through a rigorous self examination process – including garnering feedback internally from fundraisers through a questionnaire - all with an eye to identify what it does well, and areas for improvements. “
She added, “The team compared well with other institutions, and in many instances were also grappling with the same issues other institutions were facing. In some areas, we appear to be ahead of the curve, notably in prospect management and pipeline. That said, there’s always room for improvement and the final report contains 19 key recommendations covering administrative issues, processes and methodology, which will help guide our direction going forward.”
Examples include exploring new resources; conducting basic research and PM training for fundraisers; developing more dynamic and engaged fundraiser-researcher partnerships in pipeline movement and management.
Survey Findings
The survey also found that a majority of Research teams:
- Were hierarchical in structure and part of the overall Development/Advancement team;
- Produced a common core suite of products and services, with only a few unique exceptions;
- Are engaged throughout the fundraising cycle, although services provided at each stage varied substantially between institutions;
- Continue to push towards greater face-to-face interactions with development officers;
- Identified Raiser’s Edge or Advanced as their preferred databases, and used these to track research metrics;
- Identified their heaviest users as the President’s office and the Vice Presidents of External Relations, Alumni and Development/Advancement;
- Were equally split between teams which assign researchers to specific portfolios, and those that do not, with two respondents adopting hybrid models; and
- Use push technologies with caution, amongst other things.
Prospect management (PM) and clearance processes varied widely, and were at different stages of development across institutions. PM involvement in the fundraising cycle was similarly divergent, as were the types of reports generated for fundraisers.
Team Builder
Whilst the team was given the option of hiring a consultant to undertake the project, it chose not to. Juggling daily workload and project demands was a challenge, but easily solved with careful planning and overtime.
Said Jhansy Shenfield, Research Analyst and the project’s facilitator, “It was a great team-building process, helping to cement the team further in a common vision. We’re pleased to share the findings with our peers, and by doing so, hope to contribute a little towards a better understanding the Canadian prospect research landscape.”
AT A GLANCE
- Twenty organizations were identified, including six American universities and 14 Canadian institutions (3 hospital foundations, one school and 12 universities)
- Respondents comprised 10 universities - one each from British Columbia and Manitoba, six from Ontario, two from Quebec, two American universities and two Canadian hospital foundations
- External survey questions spanned six key areas: Administrative, Technology/Tools, Client Service, Products, Training/Development, and Prospect Management.
- An internal survey was sent to fundraisers to gauge service satisfaction levels on existing products/services and client servicing, and garner recommendations for improvements
- A 31-page report – Best Practices in Prospect Research and Pipeline Management, - was produced and a condensed Summary Report was e-mailed to participants only.
Susan Loh is a Senior Research Strategist at the University of Calgary where she has worked for seven years. She currently supports the university’s Principal Gifts team, including the President’s Office. Prior to that, she worked in communications in Singapore.