By Shannon Doherty, Prospect Researcher, Wilfrid Laurier University
This was my first APRA International Conference and, as a relatively new prospect researcher (two years in the field), I was very eager to meet fellow prospect researchers. I wanted to have conversations about where I could compare notes, and get ideas to tweak certain processes in my research office.
I was not disappointed. I made valuable connections with American and Canadian researchers who shared several anecdotal examples of how their shops operated, and what processes they used for best results.
Keynote Speaker: Jon Duschinsky
What a great way to kick off the conference! Jon’s inspiring keynote address about changing the way we, the researchers, think in order to change the world. Sounds hard to believe, or a little ‘out there’ – right? I thought so too, until he started to explain how researchers help to “make sense of the world” (for fundraisers). He commented that “fundraisers need to stop asking research to find a donor’s sock size, and ask for real business intelligence.” I started to get the point. We have to pick and choose the research that results in concocting strategic plans, which inevitably leads to achieving development goals.
Enter: “Dynamic Portfolios: A Research Perspective” session presented by Andillon Hackney, Director of Development Research at UC San Diego. Andillon did a fantastic job of presenting how her prospect research team implemented and oversaw portfolio reviews for every development officer at UC San Diego. These reviews consisted of one or two research officers regularly sitting down with each development officer and reviewing their portfolios by looking at who should be released from their portfolio, who needs stewardship, and who should be called.
Andillon did not provide a concrete process of how to go about doing this; she made it clear that there is no one size fits all approach to implementing portfolio reviews. It all depends on the politics within each shop, and how to go about implementing this process that will in the end, benefit the entire team.
She outlined the following reasons why she felt it was necessary to start the reviews at UC San Diego:
- The prospect pipeline was stuck. She described it as “fractured, bloated, & clogged.”
- The senior management team was unwilling to give a push that some development officers need in order to engage the long list of prospects that the research office had found.
- Legacy portfolios– development officers clinging to prospects for far too long, and unwilling to give them up.
- Languishing prospects – lack of follow up, stewardship.
- Missing synergy – the dots were not being connected, leading to connections being lost/missed.
Andillon stressed that portfolio reviews help the research office “stay relevant,” as research and prospect management roles are merging into one.
The research team is really taking control, and to me, this all ties back to Jon Duschinsky’s keynote address. This is the researchers’ chance to make use of all of knowledge they have gained through the hours tirelessly spent identifying and researching prospects. They can have meaningful conversations with development officers that will help the fundraisers do their job by establishing a relationship where each side can come to the table, discuss strategy, and next steps that might not have been discussed before. It gives the researcher even more opportunity to, as Jon Duschinsky put it, “make sense of the world.”