When To Buy A "Size Up" In Tech

Mallory Erickson reached out and asked me: "Is there ever a time that you would recommend an organization make a purchasing decision to buy more than they currently need or can use?" While tech should be sized to current scale and need most of the time, there are times when I would recommend buying a size up. Here are the factors I would look at IN AGGREGATE to make that determination.

Factor 1: If Their Current Fit Is Significantly Undersized

In our work there are 6 vital signs of digital health, three that are Tech Stack and three that are Human Stack. The most critical Tech Stack vital is Solution Fit solution here is mostly backend systems, but if front end systems integrate, they count as well. The first question I'd want to know is if their current system fits them well enough for where they are and where they anticipate being in the next 18 months. This is NOT aspirational, it's practical (so if the strategic plan has membership growing by 200% per year, but the actual numbers aren't even close to that, size for the actual numbers). If their current system is significantly undersized and can't grow with their needs I would put a pin in it and move to the second factor. Undersized would show up as making decisions about which contacts not to include in marketing segments because of marketing subscription constraints - if are on a 10,000 constituent plan and have 10,500 constituents on their email list. If automations aren't able to handle complexity and the complexity is necessary is another way to see if the fit is too small.

Factor 2: Data Quality

Unless the data is clean, moving to a new system will just be expensive. So even if the fit is too small, they should stay were they are until the data is cleaned up. This has more caveats, so let's say it a bit differently. Data quality is actually a measure of data management. If they aren't able to accomplish data management in the current system, then the underlying behavior is an issue which must be addressed before migrating. If their data is high quality and staff trust it, move to the next factor: Digital Strategy.

Factor 3: Digital Strategy

Digital Strategy is a human stack factor that indicates they have a plan that aligns with their strategic goals. The plan doesn't have to be fancy; it just needs to be shared with executives and directors and written in a form that creates visual expectations for who, what, and when. Ok, now that I look at that maybe it does need to be a little bit fancy. This is a roadmap and it allows an organization to know what the longer term plan is. It's also critical for whomever got voluntold to manage the system to be able to align their efforts with the future. If there is a roadmap and Upgrading Systems is on it, then move to the last factor: Accountability.

Factor 4: Accountability

Accountability is the highest weighted vital for the Human Stack. More than digital strategy or continuous improvement, Accountability is the social structure that triggers belonging in humans and will most rapidly adjust behavior. There are three types of accountability: ignoring (the worst), policing (still not great, but better), and recognition (the best). If the organization demonstrates an ability to recognize tech efforts in a structural way and it's part of the culture then a team might survive upsizing their system. Leaving just one more factor: growth.

Factor 5: Growth

If all four other factors are present then growth and scale becomes the deciding vote. If the data and systems are as good as they would need to be considering the four other factors, then growth projections should be able to point to clear patterns of growth in the organization that would require systems that are significantly better and larger than the current stack.

Do organizations ever meet all of these factors? Absolutely but it's rare.

What happens if an organization buys a size up without these factors?

So what happens if an organization does get more than they need on the Tech Stack? There's very different levels of what could happen, and in some cases maybe they would be fine. But here are the things that go wrong.

System Failure: They hit high change saturation levels that leave staff traumatized and the negative experience creates negative emotions. The frustration is resolved by the team reaching for tools they understand (spreadsheets) and all of the benefits of integrated data systems are missed because the true work is being done out of system.

The System Doesn't Work: The system seems like it's not working, and in some sense it isn't because humans are part of the system. So if a human doesn't login for weeks and then says, the system doesn't work, they are correct, BUT it seems like it's because of the Tech Stack (and that's not accidental).

Staff Leave: The base code of the Tech Stack is accuracy ("True/False"). The base code for The Human Stack is Belonging ("in/out"). Mallory Erickson talks about isolation of fundraisers and this is a great frame of reference for tech staff too. When staff are tasked with setting up the new system they work closely with a consulting firm. If there isn't a culture of recognition (accountability) for the work being done on the system, it creates isolation and staff leave to feel like they belong somewhere.

Big Multi Year Contracts For Unused Systems: Check the fine print too, because some platforms require payment up front for ALL licenses even if it will take 8 months to build out. Upgrading systems before an organization is ready is an expensive undertaking.

Last Word On This

When it is time to upgrade, take it like the Tortoise, not the Hare. Humans can only change so fast, so make sure you're doing all the behavior work before you dive into digital upgrading so that your staff are ready for it. Yes, this might delay things and that's fine. We need to slow down and move at the speed of The Human Stack or there's no point anyway.