Donor CRM & Relationship Management Systems Improvement · Data Sheet
Donor CRM & Relationship Management — Financial Results
The configured solution footprint, licence-utilisation control and delivery chronology of a retained donor-CRM replacement.
Problem to result
What the retained work required at each stage
Scroll table sideways →
| Element | Recorded position | What the retained work required |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | Seven core operating failures in the incumbent donor CRM | Diagnosis across donor communications, donation capture, relationship history, categorisation, user experience, licence use and provider performance |
| Expertise required | Process, commercial, platform, data and change disciplines | Provider evaluation, requirements translation, workflow and data design, testing, training, implementation control and migration support |
| KuTh retention | Formal chargeable mandate approved at executive level | Independent client-side responsibility for structuring the solution, coordinating specialist capability and governing delivery to outcome |
| Operational result | Donor CRM ready for go-live and client signed off | Configured donor relationship model, user acceptance, training, go-live readiness and post-sign-off data preparation and import |
Configured solution footprint
What was built
Scroll table sideways →
| Component | Count |
|---|---|
| Custom fields — business-specific data structure | 70 |
| Workflows — automated operating rules | 15 |
| Validation rules — data-quality control at capture | 20 |
| Reports | 20 |
| Dashboards | 5 |
Also within scope: approvals, record types, role-based profiles, custom page layouts, donor and organisation records, donations, pledges, recurring giving, gifts in kind, campaign and lead processes, web capture, tax-receipt functionality, reporting and user enablement.
Licence utilisation control
The additional financial benefit
Scroll table sideways →
| Control | Before | After / result |
|---|---|---|
| Paid user licences | 32 | 17 retained after observed-use review |
| Users with no recorded login | — | 15 across the three-month review |
| Review window | — | Three months of observed usage |
| Annual licence cost index | 100 | 54.7 |
| Annual licence cost reduction | — | 45.3% |
The 45.3% is measured on annual licence cost, not on seat count. The licence review followed the operating intervention: once the replacement CRM and user model had been defined, three months of usage tested whether the paid licence base still reflected actual need.
Delivery chronology
March to July 2019
Scroll table sideways →
| Date | Delivery position |
|---|---|
| 19 Mar 2019 | Formal chargeable mandate approved, after the operating problem and four strategic solution routes were set out |
| Apr – Jun 2019 | Requirements, configuration, user-acceptance testing, reporting, training and implementation governance progressed |
| 1–2 Jul 2019 | Replacement environment confirmed ready for go-live; client signed the engagement off as completed |
| 2–18 Jul 2019 | KuTh remained involved after sign-off for data export, cleaning, sorting and import, so the configured system could be populated and used |
Result interpretation
The retained service solved the donor relationship-management and workflow problem first. The 45.3% annual licence-cost reduction was a further commercial benefit, created by applying the same evidence-led discipline to actual platform usage — it is not the definition of the service.
The post-sign-off data work matters: the implementation supplier’s scope excluded migration, import and clean-up, so without it the client would have held a configured system with no usable data in it.