Rationalising your IT landscape: Stopping endless expansion of your systems
Event Archive
In reality, there is no ‘perfect’ IT landscape for non-profit organisations.
Many non-profits struggle with managing multiple systems, often resulting in siloed data across various departments. Without adequate automation or integration, these disparate tools end up with overlapping functions, leading to higher costs and increased workloads for teams simply trying to keep things running smoothly.
In our recent webinar, Catherine Wilson, IT & Digital Manager at the Home Builders Federation (HBF), and Billy Peat, Senior Business Change Consultant at Hart Square, shared practical insights on how non-profits can prevent their systems from sprawling out of control.
Throughout the session, delegates had the chance to engage with Catherine and Billy, raising questions that reflected common issues across the sector. Here, we’ve compiled and their responses, providing a resource for other organisations looking to streamline their technology landscape.
If you are looking for more information on rationalising your IT landscape, you can access the full webinar recording by completing the form on this page, or by contacting us at hello@hartsquare.co.uk.
Theme 1: Rationalising systems
Q. If an organisation has a number of systems that have been adopted over time, but don’t necessarily talk to each other but some of which work individually, how do you go about rationalising all of these systems which to keep, and which to go or chuck everything out and start over?
Catherine Wilson: Personally, I think it’s important to determine what works best for your organisation. You need a core system that handles data governance effectively. In our case, that’s the CRM, which leads the way. Everything needs to integrate with it. If a system doesn’t integrate – whether through API links or another method – then you may need to explore alternatives that do work with your CRM.
There has to be a single source of truth across the organisation. If you don’t have that, you can’t measure or manage your data properly. So, my advice would be to analyse what can fit into your CRM, and if it doesn’t, look at other solutions that can.
Billy Peat: Having a single source of truth is crucial, as Catherine mentioned. It’s also helpful to have some sort of architecture map, diagram, or spreadsheet that lays out all your different systems. The key is ensuring that, while you have a central CRM, some areas might benefit from best-in-class solutions, like for volunteering or other specific needs.
These systems don’t necessarily have to all live within your CRM, but it’s essential that they integrate well, whether through direct syncing or import/export functions. You need to ensure that all systems communicate, even if they serve different purposes. There are excellent best-of-breed systems out there that can enhance certain areas, as long as you can link that data back to your CRM.
Q. How do you balance having the best systems for the job versus having a streamlined suite of systems across the organisation? So, for example, slack might be better than teams in some ways, but teams is part of a micro suite suite of operations
Catherine Wilson: It’s difficult because I can see it from both perspectives. On one hand, you just want something that works. On the other hand, you need to ensure that governance is in place. I always tell people, “I’m not here to stop you from doing your job, but we need to make sure everything is secure and properly managed.” I don’t always know the perfect answer to that balance. Sometimes, we do need to lock things down, even though it’s not always ideal. In certain cases, you have to say no unless there’s a solid business case for it.
Billy Peat: We’ve encountered this in projects. There are best-in-class solutions that can do things better than the CRM – volunteering tools are a great example, but there are others. The key is ensuring that data can flow back into the CRM, whether through APIs for direct integration or import/export processes. It’s really about taking a sensible approach: trusting people to some extent but maintaining control and oversight, as Catherine mentioned. You need to have an honest discussion about your needs, assess those needs, and then choose the best system. But you should aim to keep everything integrated and centralised as much as possible.
The challenge is when people start using tools without telling anyone. For example, they might have a spreadsheet full of valuable data that could add a lot of value. So it’s really about understanding the full landscape, and if necessary, locking things down to maintain control.
Theme 2: Governance, resourcing and project support
Q. I think we lack sufficient governance. Who should be leading this? As we don’t have an IT manager.
Catherine Wilson: Initially, I would go to the heads of each department and ask them to review their systems and give you a clear picture of what’s happening. You really need to break it down by department because if you don’t know what’s happening at that level, it’s hard to move forward. You also need an overarching document that provides a comprehensive view of everything happening across departments. But the process needs to start at the departmental level, and then you can compile the information into a single document.
Billy Peat: Ideally, you would want someone from IT, data, or digital to lead this effort, but if that’s not possible, Catherine’s point is key – getting buy-in across the organisation is critical. You’ll find that those department heads can actually help you accomplish much more. However, you still need to be the figurehead driving the project.
It’s a collective effort, and as Catherine mentioned, you need buy-in both at the departmental level and from senior leadership, like the CEO. If you’ve got their support, it becomes much easier to achieve the outcomes you’re aiming for.
Q. So we are in a similar position to what you have described. Too many systems not connected and held together with Band-aids. How did you get the board to support spending the money? I don’t think we’re going to get the message through effectively.
Catherine Wilson: I thought I would never going get permission to spend X amount of money on a new CRM system and initially, I thought, I could probably do it myself. I looked into and thought no, this is actually too difficult because I have my day job as well.
That’s where Hart Square came in. After they conducted the audit, we had something concrete to present to the board. The GDPR concerns were a big factor as well. If we didn’t have proper data security -if we didn’t know exactly where our data was -it would have been a major issue. That was a significant concern for me. The audit really underscored the need for change, as we were at risk of something going seriously wrong. Imagine losing your entire membership list – it would be disastrous for any membership organisation.
So, we completed the audit and presented it to the board, clearly showing that our current system was no longer fit for purpose. This made it easier to get everyone on board. It’s crucial to also get your senior management team involved, as they’re the ones who can really champion the project. We were fortunate that our CEO was supportive right from the start. Once we explained what needed to be done, he immediately agreed to move forward.
Getting the right people on board is key to driving the project forward. The audit helped us highlight the risks related to data governance and the consequences of not having a secure system in place.
Theme 3: Auditing Systems and Processes
Q. We do not have documented processes. Should we have these in order to carry out an audit?
Billy Peat: Ideally, you’d want to complete business process reviews (BPRs) before conducting an audit, if you have the time and resources. Documenting your processes is fundamental. I’ve worked on several CRM projects where the starting point was a BPR, and it gave the client a solid foundation for understanding their challenges and systems.
That said, you don’t have to do a BPR before an audit. It’s not a requirement, but if you have the time and the right people, I’d definitely recommend it. It helps set the groundwork and gives you more insight before the audit. It may take some time, but the long-term benefits are invaluable for any project, not just an audit. Taking the time at the beginning pays off down the road.