Posted on Mon, May 14, 2012 @ 10:40 AM
By Jeff Williams, App-X
Big Data is so hot right now.
I remember the first time I heard the now ubiquitous term ‘big data’ - it was 2009 and Bryce Roberts (@bryce) of OATV was explaining to me why OATV had invested in what is still today one of my favorite companies - TripIt. In short the investment thesis was actually around data exhaust -- massive data sets that were being generated (or could be generated), but were being stored in ridiculous formats or not even being consumed. In the case of TripIt, the exhaust came in the form of email confirmations from travel companies. We’ve all done it -- you book a flight and a hotel for your upcoming trip, the airline and the hotel each send you an email confirmation, which you print off, and you’re on your way. But think of all the interesting data that process generates and all of the interesting things that data could tell us!
Why should you still be reading this? Here’s why: Think of all of the interesting data exhaust you and your organization generate. Whether it’s in the form of hard copy term sheets, financial statements, capital account statements and partnership agreements, or it’s buried in excel workbooks and other electronic formats - most of it is not telling you anything because it’s not organized in a format that’s usable!
Big data is about putting the data together to tell a story and predict patterns, and though we’re talking about a much smaller scale than ‘big data’ - there are plenty of stories for you to tell, and plenty of trends to identify.
For example, what if you knew all of the liquidation preferences for each of the deals you’ve looked at over the last 15 years? I know what you’re saying - ‘I do, and I have it in all of those term sheets...’ Okay, but what good is that? What if that data was instead stored in data sets that you could use to cross-reference those deal terms with the valuations of each of those companies, and then looked only at Silicon Valley-based companies that were pre-revenue? That’s a pretty interesting data set that would on one hand make your LPs think you’re really smart when you share it with them at your annual meeting, and on another serve as interesting identifiers of certain trends that help you make better investment decisions.
In my prior life in private equity, I was fascinated with data. That was taken to another level when the firm I worked for implemented AIM because the data we historically produced as exhuast was transformed into workable, structured data sets that told us things we never knew about our portfolio and the investment opportunities we evaluated. As AIM’s Product Manager, I now see the potential for organizations to leverage fund management software to see their data (and their data exhaust) in ways that I couldn’t imagine 18 months ago.
Posted on Thu, May 10, 2012 @ 01:43 PM
By Jill Montera, App-X
It is difficult to understate the significance of executive sponsorship in the implementation of fund administration software. Without the right people backing the decision and driving the implementation in the right direction, even the best-fitting software system can fall flat and wind up a useless tool in a year.
Typically during the sales process, we deal with a small group of decision makers that likely includes the CEO, managing partner, or someone else on the executive level. Naturally, they do extensive research into which tool is the best fit for their business and they thoroughly vet the company doing the implementation. Then when they make a purchase decision, they all too often toss the responsibility to lower-level employees with a “here, implement this” sort of directive.
A couple of things usually happen at this point. First, the employees making design decisions are too low level and so they end up guessing at what information should be tracked and how the system should be configured. Then when the executives who made the buying decision see the system for the first time, they’re disappointed to see that they system only meets, say, 75% of the needs they hoped it would. So they suggest additional fields that need to be added.
By then an internal team has likely spent hours importing data into their new system according to the fields they established initially. So when fields are added retroactively, that data needs to be exported, amended, and re-added to the system which takes time. If the data for the new fields isn’t added, we end up going through training with incomplete data and it’s more difficult for the team to see the potential for their new system if there is no data in it, which means they are less likely to use the system right away and less likely to learn how to use it effectively.
So who needs to be involved? We recommend having a senior-level champion at the top of the organization to guide the process and lend support. The second person who should be involved should be a mid-level employee who does more of the dirty work but is still senior enough in the organization to really understand how their business processes work. This person must know what data needs to be tracked and he or she must also who have enough authority within the organization to effectively engage senior executives for feedback.
Posted on Tue, May 08, 2012 @ 09:52 AM
By Beth Busenhart, App-X
From CSRwire www.csrwire.com
As the PULSE product manager, I frequently receive inquiries from impact investors, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other entities that start with a tongue-twisting question: “We’d like to start using PULSE-GIIRS-IRIS to track our impact and show the benefits in a measurable way. Where do we begin?”
It becomes instantly clear from these first contacts that there is a lot of confusion in the impact investment marketplace around what PULSE, GIIRS, and IRIS each bring to the table, how they work together, and how they are different.
To read the entire article on CSRwire, click here.
Posted on Mon, May 07, 2012 @ 10:36 AM
By Kevin Kelly, App-X
It’s a scenario we encounter a lot. A fund manager brings on Salesforce to manage their fundraising or investing, they had heard that it does everything, that it will solve all of their problems as soon as they turn it on, and 6 months after implementation it sits virtually idle. New users are frustrated, they vow to get to it soon, maybe management decides to renew for a month, maybe there's an intern who can take a stab at it. At this point, it’s unlikely that this organization will ever be successful using Salesforce without changing course, but getting rid of Salesforce altogether isn't the only option.
The reality in this case is that it’s not really Salesforce's fault. By its very nature, Salesforce is infinitely customizable so when people hear it does "everything," that's not too much of a stretch. Nor is it the fault of the fund manager who selected Salesforce--when we built AIM, we decided to do it using the Salesforce platform because it was so flexible, it offers so much functionality, and the resources that Salesforce puts into improving the platform are second to none in the cloud computing space.
So our recommendation for a fund manager at this inflection point might sound heretical in the business world: throw good money after bad. The likely reason for why the system isn't working probably has more to do with a hasty implementation and not thinking through the process thoroughly enough than it does with a poor software choice. Taking a step back and investing some time and effort (and yes, probably more money) can pay huge dividends to fund managers who do it right.
How do you do it right? Go back to square one. Think about why you implemented in the first place. What issues were you trying to solve the first time around? Are the drivers for your decision still valid? Did you get users' input on how to configure the system? Every fund manager is different and the problems each wants to solve are different. So if someone simply “turned on” a software solution, these are steps that they likely overlooked, yet they are steps that can greatly improve the effectiveness of your system, especially if the implementation team understands your business processes and can align the system with the goals you are trying to accomplish.
It’s also important to ask if you had sufficient buy-in from executive sponsors the first time around. Without it your project is doomed. And finally, acknowledge that getting strong user adoption requires changing people's behavior and will likely involve significant change management efforts.
Ultimately, thinking through the implementation and having buy-in from management and from users are as important to the long-term success of your software as the functionality it offers.
Posted on Tue, May 01, 2012 @ 05:58 PM
Colin goes over perhaps the first thing every AIM user needs to know: how to submit a support request.
Posted on Mon, Apr 30, 2012 @ 05:12 PM
By Beth Busenhart and Charlie Kuhn, App-X
One of the questions we hear most often from impact investors, foundations, and non-profits that are searching for an impact tracking tool is "How are other organizations tracking metrics?" It's certainly understandable in a relatively new industry such as impact investing to be curious about how competing organizations are faring and what tools they are using. But for organizations new to metric tracking, "What is everyone else doing?" is not the question you should be asking.
Unfortunately for those looking to just copy industry leaders, the methods those organizations use to track metrics are particular to their business and part of what makes each of them unique (and what should make you unique as well). So it may be easy for us to tell you a metric or definition that someone else uses but it likely doesn't have any relation to your business. And any given metric tracking solution isn't going to tell you which metrics to track. So the ways that an organization ends up tracking metrics is a result of their unique business model.
The path we recommend when searching for a metric tracking tool starts a few steps before asking how other people are doing it. Before any organization considers adopting a metric tracking tool, they should know which indicators are going to drive their theory of change. From there, they should determine the metrics they are going to track and they should have proven methodologies for collecting data on those metrics. At this point, its logical to bring on a metric tracking tool to help you continue to do the things you have been doing but to help you organize, track, and report on the data that is already being collected--in short, to do what you're already doing, but BETTER.
Do if you aspire to track metrics or use the IRIS taxonomy but you don't know where to begin? Keep an eye out for a future post that outlines how to get started.
Posted on Tue, Apr 24, 2012 @ 04:29 PM
By Jill Montera, App-X
Historically, being a board member for an impact investor or a non-profit has often been an honorary position or perhaps a chance to network with other board members. Today, with an increasingly limited amount of capital available for investment and the development of technology tools, board members are asking more of the organizations which they oversee.
For example, board members today want to ensure that their organizations are getting to see the best investments they can. Certainly there is no shortage of organizations asking investors for money, but savvy investors are realizing that the best deals do not fall in their lap; they have to track their best sources for deals and cultivate those sources so that they consistently have access to the investments that others may be missing out on. Having a system in place to track the big players in your space, what conferences produce the most deals, and who you need to keep in touch with to generate those deals can help you do that.
Secondly, boards are asking for more thorough diligence on the investments they approve. When investment teams make recommendations to their boards, board members are now asking for more than just a recommendation; they want to see evidence as to why they should approve the investment and they want to be assured that the deal has gone through the proper due diligence—including examining financials and business plans—to make sure a grant or investment is properly vetted.
Analysis of historic investments is another step that board members are now looking for. Using current database technology, it is much easier for organizations to examine their investments over time to see new trends, topics, or themes. For example, after recent disasters in Japan and Haiti, the impact investment community saw a renewed focus on disaster relief. Analyzing historic data to forecast future trends is a capability that some organizations currently have but it often takes a long time to compile such analysis.
Also, board members are requiring organizations to be more transparent about cash flow. Many impact investors make commitments that span a number of years and the recipient has to meet certain benchmarks in order to continue to receive that money. Tracking not only the money that has been invested but also the money that has been promised in the future can be difficult and often requires more sophisticated technology to let an Executive Director determine whether the organization has the funds to make an investment.
And finally, board members are asking “so what?” There is an increasing focus on the results of social investing. How many schools were built? How many gallons of water were cleaned? How many jobs were created? Board members today realize that the most important thing to find out before making an investment in a social entrepreneur is “will it do any good?” And the best impact foundations and managers, using today’s technology, are more able to give accurate answers.
Posted on Wed, Apr 18, 2012 @ 11:29 AM
App-X support staff Colin and Rick show you how to reset a password.
Posted on Tue, Apr 17, 2012 @ 05:09 PM
By Jason Viado, App-X
-
Is your support outsourced or handled in-house? With outsourced support, you might expect a disconnect from the team that sold you the software or the team that implemented the software.
-
What is included in support? Is support included in your license agreement or is there an additional cost? Even small support questions add up to large costs if you're paying extra to contact support. Some support desks might charge a per incident cost as well.
-
Is it metered? Most companies allot a certain amount of support time for each client and if you exceed that limit you may have to pay for support at that point. It’s important to find out whether there is a limit and if so, what that limit is.
-
What are the hours for support? Is it open 24-hours or only during business hours?
-
How do I contact support? Are they accessible via email, on the phone, or through the software itself?
-
Is support multilingual?
-
Is the support team knowledgeable about the product and the industry? It’s important to understand whether you support team will be able to answer technical questions as well as questions that are specific to the private equity industry. And along those same lines, you should be aware of whether there are multiple channels for support--one for technical questions, one for industry questions, etc.--depending on your issue.
-
What is the average response time and average time to close for your support team? Most organizations will track these stats and can tell you how long you can expect to wait for an issue to be resolved.
Posted on Thu, Apr 12, 2012 @ 03:48 PM
By Ben Hendershot, App-X
With technology playing an increasingly larger part in fund management, quarterly reporting to LPs, advisory boards, and investment committees has grown more efficient and streamlined for those organizations who have embraced the change. As a result, LP expectations around reporting have changed and savvy fund managers are spending less time compiling reports.
Imagine you are an LP and you get a professional-looking quarterly report from one manager the day after the quarter ends and a hastily-compiled report from another manager 45 days later. You’re going to notice the difference and you’re going to make assumptions about how effective each manager is at managing your investment. Anymore, experienced investors see the professional and timely quarterly report as the norm rather than the exception and the appearance of a lag between quarter end and when an investor receives his quarterly report is even more apparent.
These fund managers who have embraced technology to produce more timely reports are also realizing that there is a huge time savings in clicking a button to produce quarterly reports rather than doing them manually. Anyone who is responsible for manually compiling quarterly reports knows how time consuming it is and no doubt there is a better use for a fund manager’s time. But even if the firm has admins producing reports, that model is difficult to scale if the firm intends to increase the number of investors they have participating in subsequent funds.
Ultimately, automating report generation through the use of new technology is not an inexpensive solution and it’s up to each organization to determine if it’s worth the investment. Generally, we’ve found that adopting technology is a mindset that some fund managers have and some just don’t, but for those who do embrace technology, we feel there is a massive value proposition in time savings through automating report generation.