The AMS product purchase decision remains one of the largest and most strategically important decisions associations make. 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.  

There is no single AMS product that is the best choice for every association. The leading providers have many satisfied customers who are successfully using those products, and all of these products provide solutions for the most common association operations and needs. What is the best choice for a given association is a combination of a match of functional requirements, of culture and style that will likely result in a strong working relationship, and of course cost. Excluding the cost of data migration which can be significant, start-up costs can range from a few thousand dollars for a SaaS offering to hundreds of thousands of dollars for licensing and customization.

Satisfaction Ratings

Association contacts give moderate satisfaction ratings, ranging from a high mean ratings of about 7.0 for stability, reliability and response time, to just 5.3 for overall e-commerce capabilities and options for third-party integration and modification without involving the vendor. The means are based on a 10-point satisfaction rating scale.

Perhaps more telling is the proportion of respondents that assign a top rating of 8, 9 or 10 to each item. For the highest rated item, Stability and Reliability,  only 56% of respondents gave it one of the top ratings, and only five items approached or exceeded 50%. For the lowest rated items, less than 30% assigned a top rating.  

Satisfaction around e-commerce have been consistently low since the first Study in 2006 and the need for more capable e-commerce functionality is the only item cited as a top purchase reason by both those who implemented new AMS products and those who upgraded existing products. The 2009 Study will include more detailed questions about e-commerce needs and satisfaction.

The good news is that the newer AMS products receive significantly higher ratings than those that have been place for 5 years or more. As the following chart shows, Overall Satisfaction, Satisfaction with e-Commerce Capabilities, and the Average Satisfaction ratings have all increased by a full point.

Market Share

Advanced Solutions International (ASI) and its iMIS product has the largest number of customers in the $2M+ association market with an overall share of 38% and is especially strong in the $2-10M range. TMA Resources and ASI share the lead among associations with over a budget of $10M or higher, each with approximately one-third of the installed base. Above $25M, TMA Resources takes over the lead position.

The three largest companies account for more than three-quarters of all installed products, but a few other providers appear to be starting to make inroads into the market, even within the tier of larger associations. In addition, the full impact of emerging SaaS services on this market will only become evident as the cycle of AMS purchase decisions works its way through the market. Avectra has been a highly visible player and has been aggressively expanding its market to include smaller associations for whom the low-cost per seat SaaS pricing has great appeal. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the other two leading providers, ASI and TMA Resources, are exploring options to add a SaaS offering.

The Purchase Decision

Associations embark on a major upgrade or a new product installation on average every five years and the selection and implementation process runs between 6 and 18 months.

A significant proportion – as high as 80% for larger associations – of associations who are running one of the three leading products, have chosen in the past several years to upgrade that product rather than move to a new product. While the avoidance of cost and disruption remain top reasons, we are now seeing evidence that for at least two of the leading providers, the working relationship with the company and an overall satisfaction with the existing product also rank highly as reasons to upgrade. Apparently the work by these companies to strengthen customer relationships and support services is paying off.

Most associations, nearly two-thirds, who upgrade their existing product say they never seriously considered moving to a new product and provider. And yet, many of these associations still undertake a full AMS RFP and evaluation process. This is often justified as a way to “see what’s out there” and “test the market”. It may also be a tactic to push their current provider to more favorable pricing. While staying abreast of new products and trends in the marketplace is important, we believe that these RFP processes are an inefficient way to accomplish that and may actually result in a less effective solution.

A better approach in our view is to make the upgrade decision first. It seems reasonable to assume that to seriously consider upgrading an existing product, an association must believe that a majority of its needs are currently being met by the product and provider. The process of deciding whether to upgrade is one then that focuses exclusively on those areas where association needs are not being fully met to determine whether an upgrade can solve those issues. In contrast, an evaluation that includes new product options must include document all needs and requirements at a high level of detail. If the association does in fact upgrade – as the majority apparently do – a significant part of the time and resources applied to the decision process will produce little or no improvement in outcome. In fact, it may actually detract from the focus on those items that need to be addressed in an upgrade. If a decision is reached that an upgrade will provide the required functionality and services, the process moves to implementation. If the decision is to not upgrade, the decision process can be expanded at that point to include all requirements and focus exclusively on evaluations of other new products.

The AMS product purchase decision is a critical one for associations. The cost to acquire and implement an AMS product is significant, the decision is likely to determine the AMS product the association uses for 8-10 years, and the strategic role the product plays to organizational success is critical. Meeting current needs is of course essential. However, over the life of the product, the development direction, upgrade path, and working relationship with the company are likely to be primary determinants of success. In addition to a current capabilities and fit 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.