10 Ways to Get Users to Buy-In To Your Fund Management Software

As we often say to our clients (and on this blog), the success any organization has with new fund management software is directly related to the buy-in that organization gets from users throughout the firm. Here at Altvia, we’ve been fortunate to have a pretty high success rate with new organizations implementing AIM and while buy-in isn’t the only factor in a successful implementation, we’ve found it to be critical enough that we’ve come up with a number of tactics for improving buy-in if clients don’t have it already. Below is a list of just a few of the ways we help clients ensure the success of their new system:

  • Get executive sponsorship – We’ll put this first since its most important. A software implementation that doesn’t have support from the top is most likely doomed to fail.
  • Make tasks easy – There are a lot of ways that good fund manager software can streamline tasks such as report creation. If the system is built with a button that creates your Monday morning report, you can bet that the analyst whose job it is to create that report is going to use the system rather than do it manually.
  • Provide proper training – In-depth training, specifically on-site, face-to-face training not only results in trainees being more attentive and engaged, but in addition to answering
    the technical question of “how do I use the system?”, it spurs more theoretical questions like “how does this change my business process?”
  • Show them where to get help – (shameless plug) With our support desk, for example, help is available via the web, email (info@108.61.87.4), or phone (800.914.9120×1).
  • Make sure they understand the “why” – Sometimes people don’t understand the reason behind new software and what it’s supposed to fix; they just know we bought a shiny new toy. But if everyone understands the problem they’re solving, it makes using the system seem so much more reasonable and critical to the business’ success.
  • Make it your own – Even small customizations to a new system such as using your own firm’s vernacular to describe deal stages or fundraising stages can make the system feel more suited to users’ needs and make them more likely to use it.
  • Involve everyone in the design – Even if only a couple team members are actually doing the design of the system, we encourage them to involve the rest of the team and talk about what they have designed DURING the process instead of waiting until it’s finalized.
  • Have a champion – A lot of our clients benefit from having one person in the firm who is responsible for the system. This might include monitoring who has logged in or making sure meeting notes or other interactions are logged. And this doesn’t have to be a Partner in the firm–sometimes admins make the best champions.
  • Make getting data in easy – Good systems need good data. So leverage tools like e2sf, Dragon Dictation, or email integration to make getting data in as easily as possible.
  • Train for real life use cases – I like to provide a system overview to the entire group and then split groups (depending on size) into roles. We then hit on key things each role might do. In other words, analysts might do more reports and analysis. MDs might want more high level information to see the overall direction of the organization.

AIM fund administration software lets you streamline processes for entering data, collecting information, and reporting on insights gained from data all while having the support you need from a company that understands your business. Contact us today for a free demo to see for yourself.

A traditional crm was built for general ‘customer’ scenarios

Software platforms have made the world a better place by making work a better place. Indeed the world is better off when people enjoy their jobs even marginally more, and workplace applications on big CRM platforms like Salesforce.com have done that and much more.

But the potential that platforms like these offer presents diminishing returns: once the platform provider has engineered too many industry specific components into its platform, its usefulness for other industries begins to be threatened, and with that so do the usefulness of the component tools built into the platform.

So it is with the CRM category that Salesforce.com has defined: it is generic enough to work for many industries, and yet still offers the potential for others to round off the edges and nail more vertically-oriented and extremely tailored software solutions.

Private capital markets are actually a great demonstration of this dynamic. Where generic CRM platforms simplify — appropriately so — to assume there’s a business, a customer, a sale, and service of that customer, there are a few industry-specific pieces that are missing.

Take for example, that investors become customers by investing through legal entities the GP raises. It’s a subtle but important nuance that just doesn’t make sense at a platform-as-a-service level (because it’s overly complicated for a simple one-time sale that many industries require), but which can easily be added without 10 years or software engineering. Once provided, the rest of the platform’s components become tremendously powerful again and you’re set to take over the world.

As a traditional CRM in our pillars methodology, these nuances must be present to properly account for investors in these legal entities, potential target companies and which are owned by these entities, the context of all interactions with these parties (as well as the appropriate overlap, ie co-investments), and how you’re arriving at finding these opportunities on both sides of the equation, such that you’re able to piece together what’s effective and what’s not. Not just because we say so, but because these are the very relationships and data that are key to the motivation behind a CRM in any industry.

It’s critical, too, that the valuable publicly-available information that helps to enrich CRM systems and save users painful steps of entering it themselves is fully-integrated at the platform level.

Again, look no further than the 3,000+ pre-built integrations that Salesforce.com — the creator of the CRM platform concept — has at a platform level to do so, and which only exists by way of holding just short of overly-specifying certain industry workflows that would present challenges to properly integrate.

Stakeholder reporting and communication (investor relations) draws on a range of datasets

The traditional “customer service” model of CRM systems once again makes overly-simplified assumptions about the customer relationship when applied to private capital markets.

In fifteen years I personally have yet to hear the terms “warranty” or “service call” in this market because it’s just not the same. But make no mistake, as uncomfortable as it may be to say aloud, customer service is more important now than ever and it’s constantly happening; the industry is, after all, considered to be a financial “service”.

As it turns out, that service is primarily information-based — it’s driven by data and takes the form of reports and analysis that drive decisions, and then end up again in investor-facing reports and analysis.

The foundational elements of a private capital markets CRM must be built such that they accommodate this data (like we discussed above), but so too that it can accommodate additional supporting data that investors (customers!) need in the context of service.

Oftentimes this supporting data — financial metrics and time-based values, for example — is believed not to meet the traditional definition of CRM and the natural thought is “well, better do this in Excel!”.

While I happen to believe Excel is still the greatest software application ever built, its introduction to this value chain we’ve discussed herein actually creates the problem many firms suffer from: key data needed to provide customer service (again: effectively the entirety of a firm’s reports and analysis) is now in disparate systems and detached.

Both of those dynamics are important and distinct: not only is this supplemental data disparate, but when brought together there is no logical association that can be made between the two data sets.

Allow me, then, to make the point very simply: not only can this financial and time-based value data (you may be thinking about is as “portfolio monitoring” or “accounting”) be a part of a CRM, it is arguably the most important part of a CRM because it’s at the core of what providing service to the customer entails — information that comes out of data!

Firms need a digital method to engage stakeholders (ie investor portals)

Investor portals are not new; in fact, for many of us — including myself — they conjure up horrifying nightmares in which we’re aimlessly guessing at folders to find the newest document we need.

So in lies the opportunity: not only have the portals we’ve come to hate not simplified the process of acquiring information, they’ve failed to create an entirely new experience that is “customer service” driven.

To be fair, this is not a B2C market where you’d be long out of business for not having focused on customer service and thus the customer’s technology-driven experience. But don’t expect to be around too much longer if you aren’t thinking about this shift.

Today’s institutional investors increasingly expect this same consumer-like experience, and a massive opportunity is being missed by not providing it. It’s not about providing them the experience they desire; it’s more about the ability to measure engagement that is had in return.

Put simply: what’s keeping the market from providing this experience is the availability of the information that’s required to create the service that provides the experience.

If you’ve hung in this long, you know that by focusing on your CRM, you have the data that’s required to manage the customer relationship and the technology-driven experience through which that information is shared to create a differentiated and opportunistic customer experience.

fundraising software