Choosing the right measurement software

We came into the Pathfinder Pilot understanding that social purpose organizations frequently face one or more of the following challenges with the software they use for different aspects of impact measurement and reporting:

• Redundant or inconsistent reporting requirements lead to burdensome, often repetitive data entry into multiple systems
• SPOs can’t use their preferred indicators if their chosen software doesn’t support them (e.g. no place for qualitative data)
• SPOs are required to populate funders’ software, which takes time, but these softwares do not offer benefit the to SPOs themselves.
• SPOs struggle to integrate data across several software tools or systems (and sometimes several spreadsheets) because no software does all the things they need.
• SPOs change software frequently due to changing funder requirements, staff turnover, and technological change and/or obsolescence.
• Software vendors are not always well-equipped to coach SPOs on their evaluation strategy, and evaluation coaches are not always well-equipped to help SPOs choose or use software. SPOs must figure out a lot of things for themselves.

We did hear from many SPOs that they would be enthusiastic to use software that made impact measurement easy. Many SPOs are innovative and early adopters of new tools and technologies because of the complexity of the problems they are trying to solve.

The Pathfinder Pilot participants have taught us about how SPOs wish to use software to support their impact measurement practices and the attributes that make software most useful to them.

Enthusiasm to adopt software

What we found was that where Pathfinder Pilot participants already managed their impact data in something resembling a database (e.g. Airtable, a CRM, a farm management tool, a case management tool), they were only somewhat willing to try using software specifically designed for impact measurement and reporting. Their first choice was to find a way to align their current software (whatever it was) to the Data Standard to save them the cost and effort of onboarding to new software and to allow them to keep managing their information in one place while meeting reporting needs for multiple audiences.

Inflexible pricing options

We are learning more about how SPOs make software purchasing decisions. With software focused on the impact measurement needs of funder or investor-type clients, there is not often a license tier designed for purchase by an individual SPO. And so, even if the software does meet the SPO’s impact measurement needs, the license price is often prohibitive for them. These insights broadened the scope of the type of software that Common Approach is looking to engage with and invite to align with the Common Impact Data Standard. Based on what we have learned, we are eager to include more sector-specific tools, such as software for managing small farms or for managing social services case data.

Inflexible approaches built into software

We also found that many software products primarily focused on impact measurement and management are designed with a funder or investor client in mind. These types of software, which we call “portfolio-type” software, are intended for purchase by a funder/investor who shares access to the software across their portfolio of grantees/investees. All the organizations they support report into their system, often using a set of fixed indicators chosen by the funder. In the Pathfinder Pilot, we are seeing in greater detail how key software features are often related to funder priorities (such as efficient data aggregation and analysis, especially for comparing organizations) more than SPO priorities (such as ease of data input, integrating data from different sources, learning about why and how impact happens, or creating custom metrics or reports for a variety of internal and external audiences).

Overcoming the software challenge

We believe the key to overcoming the software challenge is to enable funders and SPOs to each choose their preferred software—without requiring that the software be the same software. We do this by aligning a large number and variety of software products with the Common Impact Data Standard. We are actively looking to recruit more softwares. The software products that are strong candidates for alignments are those that:

• allow users some flexibility in their choice of metrics and indicators
• offer features designed with the information collection, analysis, and reporting needs of SPOs foremost
• offer licenses intended, and priced, for purchase by individual SPOs
• already include objects and fields in its data structure that correspond to the objects and fields in the Common Impact Data Standard
• are sector-specific softwares (e.g. farm management, retail logistic) keen to add impact measurement into their existing functionality

We are continuing to work with “portfolio-type” impact measurement and software vendors. These softwares, while not always a fit for SPOs, can be important tools for funders and investors who want to align with the Common Approach Standards, so they can get the impact measurement data they need without imposing additional burdens on the organizations they are supporting.