As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
> As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm > considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise > of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is > there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of > the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not the) key element of our offering.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org<mailto:sonny.clow...@npowerny.org>> wrote: As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts without Accounts
Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us to control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a true B2C model in use some day.
-Matt
Matt Kaufman MK Partners, Inc. 310.652.0686 mkauf...@mkpartners.com www.mkpartners.com
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Breckenridge Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not the) key element of our offering.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core CRM model to fall back on.
It’s better to work with the usual type of Account called Members, another called Donors, Supporters… supported with appropriate record types for workflow automation.
This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could be a bit more non-profit functionality based on an “affiliate process” to enrich contact management.
The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and really streamlined for all purposes.
Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds and even is confusing.
A better variation on this could have been Household Account implemented as an organization with appropriate household contact roles pre-populated.
Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model for non-profits, and I don’t see why a personal account is such a necessity.
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Breckenridge Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:35 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not the) key element of our offering.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
I thought it was still the case that a Contact without an Account was still considered "private", even though you can control sharing on non-private contacts independently of the account (assuming you've set your sharing rules that way.) Is that not the case?
I'm interested to talk about person accounts. Personally, the stock I put in them waned the more I considered that for most of our clients, only some fraction of contacts would fit the person account model. Some work for orgs we care about, and make more sense as a contact linked to a traditional account. Others are in families/couples, and would need opps linked to the family, not just the individual. Yet others are truly solo as far as we're concerned. I could see that data model getting really complex, and confusing for users.
Plus there are a number of exceptions that I've spotted in the documentation: this or that doesn't work if you're using person accounts. (For example, I saw that certain aspects of contacts sharing don't work even for non-person-account contacts if you have person accounts enabled.) Maybe we should try to amass as complete a list of those limitations as we can.
M.
Matthew Scholtz ONE/Northwest
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts From: Matt Kaufman <mkauf...@mkpartners.com> To: npsf@googlegroups.com Date: 03/11/2008 9:49 AM
> I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
> Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts > without Accounts
> Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us > to control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via > their Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just > Contacts (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
> I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a > true B2C model in use some day.
> -Matt
> Matt Kaufman > MK Partners, Inc. > 310.652.0686 > mkauf...@mkpartners.com <mailto:mkauf...@mkpartners.com> > www.mkpartners.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Bryan Breckenridge > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > Person Accounts
> I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if > not the) key element of our offering.
> *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steve Andersen > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > Person Accounts
> Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if > you're interested in having this discussion.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward > <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org <mailto:sonny.clow...@npowerny.org>> wrote:
> As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm > considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the > promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit > development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to > discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call > (which is when?)?
I agree, Levent. This has largely been my stance on this issue all along. We've implemented Person Accounts for only one org, and it was at the insistence of a salesforce employee who was on the group's Board when Person Accounts first came out and before we got involved. It has been problematic to say the least.
If we decide to cover this topic on the call, I could ask the client to participate to give their direct experience, now many months into working with it.
Meghan
Levent Korkmaz <levent.kork...@be-cause.be> wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core CRM model to fall back on.
It’s better to work with the usual type of Account called Members, another called Donors, Supporters… supported with appropriate record types for workflow automation. This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could be a bit more non-profit functionality based on an “affiliate process†to enrich contact management.
The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and really streamlined for all purposes. Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds and even is confusing.
A better variation on this could have been Household Account implemented as an organization with appropriate household contact roles pre-populated.
Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model for non-profits, and I don’t see why a personal account is such a necessity.
---------------------------------
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Breckenridge Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:35 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not the) key element of our offering.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote: As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
> I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
> Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts without > Accounts
> Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us to > control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their > Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts > (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
> I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a true > B2C model in use some day.
> -Matt
> Matt Kaufman > MK Partners, Inc. > 310.652.0686 > mkauf...@mkpartners.com > www.mkpartners.com
> ------------------------------ > *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of > *Bryan Breckenridge > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person > Accounts
> I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not > the) key element of our offering.
> *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of > *Steve Andersen > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person > Accounts
> Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're > interested in having this discussion.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> > wrote:
> As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm > considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise > of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is > there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of > the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone up to speed on Person Accounts and willing to talk about it? I'd > love to get an implementer with an in-the-trenches take on this.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Matt Kaufman <mkauf...@mkpartners.com> > wrote:
> > I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
> > Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts without > > Accounts
> > Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us to > > control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their > > Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts > > (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
> > I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a true > > B2C model in use some day.
> > -Matt
> > Matt Kaufman > > MK Partners, Inc. > > 310.652.0686 > > mkauf...@mkpartners.com > > www.mkpartners.com
> > ------------------------------ > > *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf > > Of *Bryan Breckenridge > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM > > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > > Person Accounts
> > I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if > > not the) key element of our offering.
> > *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf > > Of *Steve Andersen > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM > > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > > Person Accounts
> > Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're > > interested in having this discussion.
> > Steve
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward < > > sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
> > As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm > > considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise > > of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is > > there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of > > the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
I too have implemented PAs once, but it sounds like with much fewer issues than have been articulated in this thread. Sounds like we have a hot topic on the next call.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote: > Great Meghan, it will be nice to hear your experience.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyone up to speed on Person Accounts and willing to talk about it? I'd > > love to get an implementer with an in-the-trenches take on this.
> > Steve
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Matt Kaufman <mkauf...@mkpartners.com> > > wrote:
> > > I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
> > > Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts > > > without Accounts
> > > Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us > > > to control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their > > > Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts > > > (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
> > > I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a > > > true B2C model in use some day.
> > > ------------------------------ > > > *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On > > > Behalf Of *Bryan Breckenridge > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM > > > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > > > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > > > Person Accounts
> > > I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if > > > not the) key element of our offering.
> > > *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On > > > Behalf Of *Steve Andersen > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM > > > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > > > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > > > Person Accounts
> > > Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if > > > you're interested in having this discussion.
> > > Steve
> > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward < > > > sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
> > > As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm > > > considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise > > > of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is > > > there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of > > > the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
We're going to try and get some PA experts from our internal prof services team and possibly the product mgr on this call as well.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 3:44 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Great Meghan, it will be nice to hear your experience.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com<mailto:gok...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Anyone up to speed on Person Accounts and willing to talk about it? I'd love to get an implementer with an in-the-trenches take on this.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Matt Kaufman <mkauf...@mkpartners.com<mailto:mkauf...@mkpartners.com>> wrote: I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts without Accounts
Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us to control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a true B2C model in use some day.
________________________________ From: npsf@googlegroups.com<mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com> [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com<mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Bryan Breckenridge Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM
To: npsf@googlegroups.com<mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com> Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not the) key element of our offering.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com<mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com> [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com<mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com<mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com> Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org<mailto:sonny.clow...@npowerny.org>> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
Yes I am interested. Esp in what you've been doing with that model.
Future calls;
The consequences of lack of dev of the NP template may also be a discussion topic in itself. What are the implications to us / our clients? is there a way that as a group of consultants we could / should drive direction? What other projects are out there to build out managed templates, such as NW for Good.
Jenny
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
The real driver in wanting to explore PAs further is three fold:
- Direct Contact to Contact relationships and Multiple Contact to Organization relationships (which can be done through Partners with PA) - I'm still (after all these years) Skeptical of the Account>Contact>Opportunity (via Contact Role) Data model. I think it works for soft credits (joint gifts,tributes, honor, memorial), but its a model that doesn't gel with my fundraising background. - The catch-all Accounts (be it clients, members, individuals) has, again, never sat with me well. I think PA model offers up the only option to get away from this work around (perhaps this causes more confusion and complications with larger more complex organizations).
Both Matthew and Levent bring up some very interesting issues with PAs that I had not fully thought through, namely:
- Households - does Partners work or is a Custom Object/Household Account necessary? - Joint gift making (which I've done with soft crediting spouses through contact roles)
Just a couple thoughts...look forward to the ensuing conversation.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Council <Je...@netcorps.org> wrote: > Yes I am interested. Esp in what you've been doing with that model.
> Future calls;
> The consequences of lack of dev of the NP template may also be a > discussion topic in itself… What are the implications to us / our clients? > is there a way that as a group of consultants we could / should drive > direction? What other projects are out there to build out managed > templates, such as NW for Good.
> Jenny
> ------------------------------
> *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of > *Steve Andersen > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person > Accounts
> Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're > interested in having this discussion.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> > wrote:
> As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm > considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise > of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is > there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of > the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
You bring up a good point. In our meeting after Dreamforce we discussed breaking up the different components of the NonProfit Template into a series of Managed Packages. Subscribers to each Managed Package could then meet on a regular basis to discuss ideas/change requests, have those requests added to the package and automatically pushed to subscribers.
MK Partners would be happy to host/manage one or more of these Managed Packages and facilitate the regular discussions, however, I don't know if there are a lot of existing customers that would be willing to do the upfront migration work in exchange for the free administration and losing total control over configuration.
What do you think?
-Matt
Matt Kaufman MK Partners, Inc. 310.652.0686 mkauf...@mkpartners.com www.mkpartners.com
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Council Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:53 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Yes I am interested. Esp in what you've been doing with that model.
Future calls;
The consequences of lack of dev of the NP template may also be a discussion topic in itself. What are the implications to us / our clients? is there a way that as a group of consultants we could / should drive direction? What other projects are out there to build out managed templates, such as NW for Good.
Jenny
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient or recipients named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this message or any attachments to this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from all computers.
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sonny Cloward Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:48 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
I too have implemented PAs once, but it sounds like with much fewer issues than have been articulated in this thread. Sounds like we have a hot topic on the next call.
~S
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote:
Great Meghan, it will be nice to hear your experience.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone up to speed on Person Accounts and willing to talk about it? I'd love to get an implementer with an in-the-trenches take on this.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Matt Kaufman <mkauf...@mkpartners.com> wrote:
I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts without Accounts
Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us to control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a true B2C model in use some day.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Breckenridge Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM
To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not the) key element of our offering.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
> The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the personal
> and confidential use of the designated recipient or recipients named above
> and may contain confidential or privileged information. If the reader of
> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
> have received this message in error and that any review, re-transmission,
> dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any
> action in reliance upon this message or any attachments to this message, is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from all
> computers.
> _____
> From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Sonny Cloward
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: npsf@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person
> Accounts
> I too have implemented PAs once, but it sounds like with much fewer issues
> than have been articulated in this thread. Sounds like we have a hot topic
> on the next call.
> ~S
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great Meghan, it will be nice to hear your experience.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Steve Andersen <gok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone up to speed on Person Accounts and willing to talk about it? I'd love
> to get an implementer with an in-the-trenches take on this.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Matt Kaufman <mkauf...@mkpartners.com>
> wrote:
> I'd actually like to see this discussion expanded to:
> Contacts on Individual Account vs. Person Accounts vs. Contacts without
> Accounts
> Enhancements to the sharing model were made a while back to enable us to
> control sharing directly on Contacts instead of indirectly via their
> Accounts and custom report types now enable us to report on just Contacts
> (instead of Contacts and Accounts).
> I've yet to implement this for a client, but I would love to see a true B2C
> model in use some day.
> From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Bryan Breckenridge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:35 AM
> To: npsf@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person
> Accounts
> I'd like to see this discussion happen. The core datamodel is a (if not
> the) key element of our offering.
> From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Steve Andersen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 AM
> To: npsf@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person
> Accounts
> Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're
> interested in having this discussion.
> Steve
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org>
> wrote:
> As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering
> once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person
> Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone
> else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two
> approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
Yes we might have to start considering our own solutions and resources. I'm reticent, because I feel that the resource to underpin the product should be coming from SF, and it will be a weaker product if we go off on our own with our limited resource and time. But knowing who can offer what is valuable nonetheless - along with the benefits and pitfalls - so definitely a good suggestion to put into the mix. Thanks Matt.
Jenny
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Kaufman Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 17:41 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Jenny,
You bring up a good point. In our meeting after Dreamforce we discussed breaking up the different components of the NonProfit Template into a series of Managed Packages. Subscribers to each Managed Package could then meet on a regular basis to discuss ideas/change requests, have those requests added to the package and automatically pushed to subscribers.
MK Partners would be happy to host/manage one or more of these Managed Packages and facilitate the regular discussions, however, I don't know if there are a lot of existing customers that would be willing to do the upfront migration work in exchange for the free administration and losing total control over configuration.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Council Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:53 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Yes I am interested. Esp in what you've been doing with that model.
Future calls;
The consequences of lack of dev of the NP template may also be a discussion topic in itself. What are the implications to us / our clients? is there a way that as a group of consultants we could / should drive direction? What other projects are out there to build out managed templates, such as NW for Good.
Jenny
_____
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org> wrote:
As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
~S
-- ............................................................ Sonny Cloward CRM Project Manager NPower NY www.npowerny.org
I would like to offer a little pushback on this. Essentially, there is no way that the foundation can staff up to manage development on the product for the entire nonprofit sector and it is not the business model for which salesforce.com is designed.
We have a longtail model that requires us 1) create an extensible platform 2) develop and support a vibrant ecosystem of developers. Because of this model, the only sustainable path is to define a very basic nonprofit template and an ecosystem of appexchange modules.
What we can commit to at the foundation is staffing up to own and maintain a new nonprofit base template and providing community support (project management and liason to the company) for the ecosystem of modules that will work with the base template.
Steve Wright Director of Innovation Salesforce.com Foundation
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Council Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:05 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Yes we might have to start considering our own solutions and resources. I'm reticent, because I feel that the resource to underpin the product should be coming from SF, and it will be a weaker product if we go off on our own with our limited resource and time. But knowing who can offer what is valuable nonetheless - along with the benefits and pitfalls - so definitely a good suggestion to put into the mix. Thanks Matt.
Jenny
________________________________ From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Kaufman Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 17:41 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Jenny,
You bring up a good point. In our meeting after Dreamforce we discussed breaking up the different components of the NonProfit Template into a series of Managed Packages. Subscribers to each Managed Package could then meet on a regular basis to discuss ideas/change requests, have those requests added to the package and automatically pushed to subscribers.
MK Partners would be happy to host/manage one or more of these Managed Packages and facilitate the regular discussions, however, I don't know if there are a lot of existing customers that would be willing to do the upfront migration work in exchange for the free administration and losing total control over configuration.
What do you think?
-Matt
Matt Kaufman MK Partners, Inc. 310.652.0686 mkauf...@mkpartners.com<mailto:mkauf...@mkpartners.com> www.mkpartners.com
________________________________ From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Council Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:53 PM To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts Yes I am interested. Esp in what you've been doing with that model.
Future calls;
The consequences of lack of dev of the NP template may also be a discussion topic in itself... What are the implications to us / our clients? is there a way that as a group of consultants we could / should drive direction? What other projects are out there to build out managed templates, such as NW for Good.
Jenny
________________________________ From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:04 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
Next call is 3/27. Can anyone comment on this topic? Speak up if you're interested in having this discussion.
Steve On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Sonny Cloward <sonny.clow...@npowerny.org<mailto:sonny.clow...@npowerny.org>> wrote: As development on the NP Template continues to be ambiguous, I'm considering once again (with some prodding from a fellow NPSFer) the promise of Person Accounts for the base data model for nonprofit development. Is there anyone else out there that would like to discuss the pros and cons of the two approaches in our next call (which is when?)?
It's exciting to see all the perspectives people on bringing on the
Contact-Person-Account question. The issues being raised may be
getting broader than the scope of one phone call, but I think it's
great to get it all on the table.
I'm working in the Israeli non-profit sector, which is highly
internetworked. Many of our contacts are active with several
organizations in sequence or simultaneously and we depend heavily on
multiple Contact-Account links. I was using the Contact Connector App
but would love to see somthing "more native."
I'd also be interested in helping develop more robust householding,
and thinking about how householding interacts with Opportunities.
Almost all of our contacts are individuals, and almost all of our
donations are from two or more people (i.e. a household). This makes
the Mail and Email merge from Opportunities (and probably Campaigns,
too, although I haven't used them heavily yet) time-consuming as we
have to manually add the second contact's information for each thank-
you letter, follow-up, etc. I've toyed with adding "Household" info
fields to all contact objects which would auto-populate from the
related household (using apex) so that all Contacts in the XXX
household would have the needed merge fields, but that seemed very
redundant, denormalized, and inefficient. What strategies are others
using?
Thanks,
Benj
On Mar 11, 7:12 pm, "Levent Korkmaz" <levent.kork...@be-cause.be>
wrote:
> Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core CRM model to fall back on.
> It's better to work with the usual type of Account called Members, another called Donors, Supporters... supported with appropriate record types for workflow automation.
> This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could be a bit more non-profit functionality based on an "affiliate process" to enrich contact management.
> The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and really streamlined for all purposes.
> Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds and even is confusing.
> A better variation on this could have been Household Account implemented as an organization with appropriate household contact roles pre-populated.
> Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model for non-profits, and I don't see why a personal account is such a necessity.
We've made Households nearly invisible through the use of Apex.
- Every Contact gets a Household when you create it - The Home Address on the Contact stays in sync with the Address on the Household - The Household Name and Household Greeting (Bob and Sue Smith, Bob and Sue) are present on the Contact and stay in sync with the Household - Adding a Contact to an existing Household changes the name and greeting of the Household to reflect the Contacts in it
The net effect is:
- We can use the default Contact creation form in Salesforce--Household is added behind the scenes - We don't do any "with Household" reports anymore. We can do Opps with Contact Roles and have the HH name, greeting and address for thank you letters - Much, much easier to train users. I can't overstate this part. Crazy easier to understand.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Benj <benj.encoun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's exciting to see all the perspectives people on bringing on the > Contact-Person-Account question. The issues being raised may be > getting broader than the scope of one phone call, but I think it's > great to get it all on the table.
> I'm working in the Israeli non-profit sector, which is highly > internetworked. Many of our contacts are active with several > organizations in sequence or simultaneously and we depend heavily on > multiple Contact-Account links. I was using the Contact Connector App > but would love to see somthing "more native."
> I'd also be interested in helping develop more robust householding, > and thinking about how householding interacts with Opportunities. > Almost all of our contacts are individuals, and almost all of our > donations are from two or more people (i.e. a household). This makes > the Mail and Email merge from Opportunities (and probably Campaigns, > too, although I haven't used them heavily yet) time-consuming as we > have to manually add the second contact's information for each thank- > you letter, follow-up, etc. I've toyed with adding "Household" info > fields to all contact objects which would auto-populate from the > related household (using apex) so that all Contacts in the XXX > household would have the needed merge fields, but that seemed very > redundant, denormalized, and inefficient. What strategies are others > using?
> Thanks,
> Benj
> On Mar 11, 7:12 pm, "Levent Korkmaz" <levent.kork...@be-cause.be> > wrote: > > Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and > incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core CRM model > to fall back on.
> > It's better to work with the usual type of Account called Members, > another called Donors, Supporters... supported with appropriate record types > for workflow automation.
> > This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could be a bit > more non-profit functionality based on an "affiliate process" to enrich > contact management.
> > The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and really > streamlined for all purposes.
> > Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds and > even is confusing.
> > A better variation on this could have been Household Account implemented > as an organization with appropriate household contact roles pre-populated.
> > Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model for > non-profits, and I don't see why a personal account is such a necessity.
From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Andersen Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:57 To: npsf@googlegroups.com Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person Accounts
We've made Households nearly invisible through the use of Apex.
* Every Contact gets a Household when you create it * The Home Address on the Contact stays in sync with the Address on the Household * The Household Name and Household Greeting (Bob and Sue Smith, Bob and Sue) are present on the Contact and stay in sync with the Household * Adding a Contact to an existing Household changes the name and greeting of the Household to reflect the Contacts in it
The net effect is:
* We can use the default Contact creation form in Salesforce--Household is added behind the scenes * We don't do any "with Household" reports anymore. We can do Opps with Contact Roles and have the HH name, greeting and address for thank you letters * Much, much easier to train users. I can't overstate this part. Crazy easier to understand.
Steve
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Benj <benj.encoun...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's exciting to see all the perspectives people on bringing on the Contact-Person-Account question. The issues being raised may be getting broader than the scope of one phone call, but I think it's great to get it all on the table.
I'm working in the Israeli non-profit sector, which is highly internetworked. Many of our contacts are active with several organizations in sequence or simultaneously and we depend heavily on multiple Contact-Account links. I was using the Contact Connector App but would love to see somthing "more native."
I'd also be interested in helping develop more robust householding, and thinking about how householding interacts with Opportunities. Almost all of our contacts are individuals, and almost all of our donations are from two or more people (i.e. a household). This makes the Mail and Email merge from Opportunities (and probably Campaigns, too, although I haven't used them heavily yet) time-consuming as we have to manually add the second contact's information for each thank- you letter, follow-up, etc. I've toyed with adding "Household" info fields to all contact objects which would auto-populate from the related household (using apex) so that all Contacts in the XXX household would have the needed merge fields, but that seemed very redundant, denormalized, and inefficient. What strategies are others using?
Thanks,
Benj
On Mar 11, 7:12 pm, "Levent Korkmaz" <levent.kork...@be-cause.be> wrote:
> Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and
incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core CRM model to fall back on.
> It's better to work with the usual type of Account called Members, another
called Donors, Supporters... supported with appropriate record types for workflow automation.
> This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could be a bit
more non-profit functionality based on an "affiliate process" to enrich contact management.
> The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and really
streamlined for all purposes.
> Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds and even is confusing.
> A better variation on this could have been Household Account implemented
as an organization with appropriate household contact roles pre-populated.
> Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model for
non-profits, and I don't see why a personal account is such a necessity.
It's now possible to appexchange Apex, but I haven't looked into it to see if it's even possible.
Apex is a bit scary because you can immobilize your sf.com instance if you have bad code. Also, our Apex template requires a ton of fields and a few objects, so it would be tricky to install in anything but a blank instance.
When I get some time, I'll try to package everything up and see if it's possible, with the goal of letting people try it out in a Dev instance.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jenny Council <Je...@netcorps.org> wrote: > Steve, are you planning to AppExchange this?
> J > ------------------------------
> *From:* npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of > *Steve Andersen > *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:57 > *To:* npsf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. Person > Accounts
> We've made Households nearly invisible through the use of Apex.
> - Every Contact gets a Household when you create it > - The Home Address on the Contact stays in sync with the Address on > the Household > - The Household Name and Household Greeting (Bob and Sue Smith, Bob > and Sue) are present on the Contact and stay in sync with the Household > - Adding a Contact to an existing Household changes the name and > greeting of the Household to reflect the Contacts in it
> The net effect is:
> - We can use the default Contact creation form in > Salesforce--Household is added behind the scenes > - We don't do any "with Household" reports anymore. We can do Opps > with Contact Roles and have the HH name, greeting and address for thank you > letters > - Much, much easier to train users. I can't overstate this part. > Crazy easier to understand.
> Steve
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Benj <benj.encoun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's exciting to see all the perspectives people on bringing on the > Contact-Person-Account question. The issues being raised may be > getting broader than the scope of one phone call, but I think it's > great to get it all on the table.
> I'm working in the Israeli non-profit sector, which is highly > internetworked. Many of our contacts are active with several > organizations in sequence or simultaneously and we depend heavily on > multiple Contact-Account links. I was using the Contact Connector App > but would love to see somthing "more native."
> I'd also be interested in helping develop more robust householding, > and thinking about how householding interacts with Opportunities. > Almost all of our contacts are individuals, and almost all of our > donations are from two or more people (i.e. a household). This makes > the Mail and Email merge from Opportunities (and probably Campaigns, > too, although I haven't used them heavily yet) time-consuming as we > have to manually add the second contact's information for each thank- > you letter, follow-up, etc. I've toyed with adding "Household" info > fields to all contact objects which would auto-populate from the > related household (using apex) so that all Contacts in the XXX > household would have the needed merge fields, but that seemed very > redundant, denormalized, and inefficient. What strategies are others > using?
> Thanks,
> Benj
> On Mar 11, 7:12 pm, "Levent Korkmaz" <levent.kork...@be-cause.be> > wrote:
> > Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and > incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core CRM model > to fall back on.
> > It's better to work with the usual type of Account called Members, > another called Donors, Supporters... supported with appropriate record types > for workflow automation.
> > This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could be a bit > more non-profit functionality based on an "affiliate process" to enrich > contact management.
> > The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and really > streamlined for all purposes.
> > Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds and > even is confusing.
> > A better variation on this could have been Household Account implemented > as an organization with appropriate household contact roles pre-populated.
> > Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model for > non-profits, and I don't see why a personal account is such a necessity.
Had a conversation with Dreamfactory folks last month and was told that as soon as the APIs were available, Shapshot would be updated to duplicate not only objects and tabs, but the complete app. including s-controls and code. I have a call into them now to confirm this and will post as soon as I hear back. FYI: "SnapShot for AppExchange is the one application all Salesforce System Administrators need to have to track and manage critical changes to all field, object, schema and meta-data changes inside Salesforce. Automatically roll customizations with SnapShot!" (from AppExchange) Ben Birdsell
On Mar 13, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Steve Andersen wrote:
> It's now possible to appexchange Apex, but I haven't looked into it > to see if it's even possible.
> Apex is a bit scary because you can immobilize your sf.com instance > if you have bad code. Also, our Apex template requires a ton of > fields and a few objects, so it would be tricky to install in > anything but a blank instance.
> When I get some time, I'll try to package everything up and see if > it's possible, with the goal of letting people try it out in a Dev > instance.
> Steve
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jenny Council > <Je...@netcorps.org> wrote: > Steve, are you planning to AppExchange this?
> J
> From: npsf@googlegroups.com [mailto:npsf@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Steve Andersen > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:57
> To: npsf@googlegroups.com > Subject: [NPSF] Re: Next NPSF Phone Call topic - NP Template vs. > Person Accounts
> We've made Households nearly invisible through the use of Apex.
> Every Contact gets a Household when you create it > The Home Address on the Contact stays in sync with the Address on > the Household > The Household Name and Household Greeting (Bob and Sue Smith, Bob > and Sue) are present on the Contact and stay in sync with the > Household > Adding a Contact to an existing Household changes the name and > greeting of the Household to reflect the Contacts in it > The net effect is:
> We can use the default Contact creation form in Salesforce-- > Household is added behind the scenes > We don't do any "with Household" reports anymore. We can do Opps > with Contact Roles and have the HH name, greeting and address for > thank you letters > Much, much easier to train users. I can't overstate this part. > Crazy easier to understand. > Steve
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Benj <benj.encoun...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> It's exciting to see all the perspectives people on bringing on the > Contact-Person-Account question. The issues being raised may be > getting broader than the scope of one phone call, but I think it's > great to get it all on the table.
> I'm working in the Israeli non-profit sector, which is highly > internetworked. Many of our contacts are active with several > organizations in sequence or simultaneously and we depend heavily on > multiple Contact-Account links. I was using the Contact Connector App > but would love to see somthing "more native."
> I'd also be interested in helping develop more robust householding, > and thinking about how householding interacts with Opportunities. > Almost all of our contacts are individuals, and almost all of our > donations are from two or more people (i.e. a household). This makes > the Mail and Email merge from Opportunities (and probably Campaigns, > too, although I haven't used them heavily yet) time-consuming as we > have to manually add the second contact's information for each thank- > you letter, follow-up, etc. I've toyed with adding "Household" info > fields to all contact objects which would auto-populate from the > related household (using apex) so that all Contacts in the XXX > household would have the needed merge fields, but that seemed very > redundant, denormalized, and inefficient. What strategies are others > using?
> Thanks,
> Benj
> On Mar 11, 7:12 pm, "Levent Korkmaz" <levent.kork...@be-cause.be> > wrote:
> > Person Accounts makes the configuration unnecessarily complex and > incompatible with reporting. Nonprofits will always need the core > CRM model to fall back on.
> > It's better to work with the usual type of Account called > Members, another called Donors, Supporters... supported with > appropriate record types for workflow automation.
> > This is in line with the B2C recommendations; where there could > be a bit more non-profit functionality based on an "affiliate > process" to enrich contact management.
> > The generic Account-Contact-Opportunity model is sufficient and > really streamlined for all purposes.
> > Person-Business Account dichotomy creates unnecessary workarounds > and even is confusing.
> > A better variation on this could have been Household Account > implemented as an organization with appropriate household contact > roles pre-populated.
> > Account-Affiliate-Donation model seems to me the right core model > for non-profits, and I don't see why a personal account is such a > necessity.
|
