Associations expend significant resources of both time and money to implement and support the use of association management software (AMS) products. Today's AMS products are critical tools to understand and engage members, support e-business and e-marketing, power association websites, streamline business processes, and enable senior management to see beyond day to day operational reports to spot emerging trends and new opportunities. Given this strategic importance, the choice of the AMS product might well be among the most important operational decisions an association makes.

There is continued consolidation of the market of larger associations with the leading three products - iMIS, TIMSS and netFORUM - accounting for 80% of installed products, a small increase over 2006. The TIMSS product from TMA Resources is a leader among individual membership organizations while iMIS from Advanced Solutions, Inc. has a particularly strong following among trade associations. The number of associations continuing to operate custom systems is declining, and most of these conversions are to one of the three leading products.

Our research indicates that an association is making an 8-10 year commitment when they choose a new AMS product. These associations have a median of 5 years between major AMS purchase decisions. Over the past five years, an overwhelming proportion of associations running one of the top three products have opted to upgrade rather than to switch to a new product at these decision points. We expect to see this pattern continue at least through 2008. Changes in technology and industry dynamics could have an impact beyond that point. We will be watching the data closely for evidence of such shifts.

As we reported last year, satisfaction ratings on key functions and capabilities for leading AMS products are moderate, ranging from a mid-7 rating on a 10-point scale for highest rated items to a 5-6 rating for the lowest items. Ratings in 2007 are slightly lower than those recorded in 2006. While these rating levels are not altogether uncommon for enterprise level software in other industries, we believe they should still be of concern to AMS product companies.

The pattern of ratings are similar across the major products with respondents most well satisfied with the overall stability, reliability and response performance, and least well satisfied with e-commerce capabilities, and the ability to customize and integrate with third party applications without extensive vendor support. Within these similar patterns of response, however, there are differences among the products on individual items. The importance of these differences depends upon the needs of the particular association.

As was the case in 2006, the majority of these association contacts say they have little or no knowledge about leading AMS products other than their own. This is puzzling since that at any point in time, about one-quarter of these associations are actively engaged in an 12-18 month AMS decision process. While most of these will upgrade their existing product, one would expect that a decision of this magnitude would be made with greater knowledge of the alternatives than appears to be the case. We see this as an issue of concern for association executives. Are we deciding to upgrade our current software because it represents the best decision for our future success, or is it simply the path of least resistance. Indeed, the highest rated reasons for choosing to upgrade are the avoidance of the pain and cost of changing products; satisfaction with the current product and provider receive lower importance ratings as a reason to upgrade.

Given the 10-year marriage, we advise associations who are looking at AMS products to pay attention to future considerations as much as current features and capabilities. Over the long term, the development direction, upgrade path, and working relationship with the company are likely to be the greatest factors of success. In addition to the common features and fit requirements analysis, some questions to ask yourself include:

• Will the current technology platform and development direction enable the product to keep pace with the industry through smooth transitions to newer versions, or does it suggest a major product upgrade in the next few years will be required? Major product upgrades can be as costly and disruptive as a move to a new product.  

• How confident are we that the working relationship with the provider company will help us take advantage of the capabilities of the product to meet our strategic and operational goals? A key determinant of a successful product choice may well lie with the ability to work closely with your AMS partner over the long term. 

• Does our choice of software give us the flexibility to integrate with our preferred software application choices for other functions without major investments in custom programming? 

• How dependent are we upon the provider company to make changes to the installation as our association grows and changes? How much of this work can be done by our own technical staff? 

• If you have a complex membership structure, is the AMS product able to handle that complexity without extensive customization? How difficult will it be to modify it to accommodate future changes? 

• Are we allocating sufficient resources to improve our business processes as a part of the implementation, and to train and support staff as they move to the new system? Improving the workflow of flawed processes will yield disappointing results, at best. Training staff and providing good support is critical to gain maximum value from the technology investment. Our impression is that associations may under-estimate the importance and resource requirements of both of these important dimensions.