Before approving a Salesforce project, charity trustees should understand why the investment is needed, what outcomes it will support, what it will cost, which risks have been identified and how success will be measured. They do not need to become Salesforce experts, but they do need enough information to make and record a properly informed decision.
A significant CRM project can affect a charity’s finances, employees, supporters, beneficiaries, information and reputation. It should therefore be considered as an organisational change programme, not simply an IT purchase.
Why should trustees be involved in a Salesforce decision?
The level of trustee involvement should be proportionate to the project’s cost, complexity and risk.
Trustees may not need to approve every configuration decision. They should, however, have appropriate oversight where the project involves substantial expenditure, sensitive data, changes to important services or significant operational risk.
Charity Commission guidance says trustees should make sufficiently informed decisions, consider the costs, risks and benefits of the available options, and keep an accurate record of how decisions were reached. A Salesforce project may engage several of those responsibilities at once.
What problem is the project intended to solve?
The business case should explain the current problem in practical terms.
For example:
- Fundraising information is fragmented
- Teams cannot see the complete supporter relationship
- Volunteers are coordinated through spreadsheets
- Reporting is slow or unreliable
- Website and donation information must be transferred manually
- Employees do not trust the current CRM
- Legacy technology is difficult to maintain
- Leaders lack the information required to make decisions
Trustees should be able to understand what happens if the charity does nothing. That might include continued inefficiency, higher operational risk, poor supporter experiences or an inability to scale important services.
How does the project support the charity’s mission?
The proposal should connect technology investment with the charity’s objectives.
Salesforce should not be approved because other charities use it or because it offers impressive functionality. The case might instead be that the new CRM will:
- Give fundraisers more time to develop relationships
- Help volunteer teams coordinate people safely and effectively
- Improve the quality of information available to service teams
- Strengthen reporting to funders and trustees
- Reduce avoidable administrative costs
- Improve the charity’s understanding of supporters
- Provide a more reliable foundation for future growth
The clearer this connection is, the easier it becomes to evaluate whether the proposed investment represents appropriate use of charitable resources.
SPT’s approach to Salesforce for charities and nonprofits is built around this principle: technology should support the mission and help people deliver more impact, rather than become another system the organisation has to battle with.
Have the alternatives been considered?
Trustees should understand which other options were evaluated.
These might include:
- Improving the existing system
- Simplifying internal processes
- Using a different CRM
- Implementing Salesforce in phases
- Delaying part of the project
- Retaining some specialist systems and integrating them
- Taking no action
Considering alternatives does not mean every option requires a full procurement exercise. It means the recommended approach should be explainable and supported by relevant evidence.
What will the project really cost?
The total cost may extend beyond Salesforce licences and the implementation proposal.
Trustees should ask whether the budget covers:
- Discovery
- Software licences
- Configuration
- Data cleansing and migration
- Integrations
- Testing
- Training
- Change management
- Internal staff time
- Temporary support or backfill
- Ongoing administration
- Maintenance and optimisation
- Connected applications
- Contingency
Eligible charities may receive donated or discounted Salesforce licences, but implementation and ongoing ownership still require time, skills and budget. The organisation should understand the likely cost over several years, not only the amount required to launch. SPT’s guide to the real cost of Salesforce’s nonprofit licences provides a fuller breakdown of these considerations.
What are the principal risks?
The project team should maintain a clear risk register and explain how the most important risks will be managed.
Relevant risks may include:
- Poor-quality legacy data
- Migration errors
- Uncontrolled scope
- Delays in internal decision-making
- Insufficient employee availability
- Weak user adoption
- Integration failure
- Inappropriate access to sensitive information
- Supplier dependency
- Costs increasing after discovery
- Reporting disruption during transition
- Loss of organisational knowledge
The objective is not to eliminate all risk. It is to understand it, assign responsibility and make a proportionate decision.
How will sensitive information be protected?
Charities may hold information about donors, volunteers, employees, members, beneficiaries or vulnerable people.
Trustees should ask:
- What information will Salesforce contain?
- Is all of it necessary?
- Who will be able to access it?
- How will permissions be designed and reviewed?
- Which external systems will receive or supply information?
- How will test environments be managed?
- What is the retention approach?
- How will security incidents be handled?
- What supplier and integration risks have been assessed?
Where the charity works with children or adults at risk, safeguarding implications should be considered alongside technical security.
Is the proposed scope realistic?
Trustees should be cautious if the project attempts to transform every department and process simultaneously.
A phased approach can reduce risk and allow the charity to learn from early delivery. The first phase might focus on the processes causing the greatest operational difficulty or those creating a foundation for later work.
Trustees should ask:
- What is essential for the first launch?
- What can wait?
- Which assumptions remain untested?
- Does the charity have enough internal capacity?
- Are the timescales realistic?
- What decisions could delay delivery?
- How will changes to scope be approved?
A smaller, well-adopted first phase can create more value than an ambitious system that overwhelms the organisation. SPT’s Salesforce implementation service focuses on defining the right starting point and delivering useful improvements without introducing unnecessary complexity.
How was the Salesforce partner selected?
The board should understand the basis of the recommendation.
That may include:
- Understanding of the charity’s objectives
- Relevant nonprofit experience
- Technical capability
- Data and integration experience
- Delivery methodology
- Approach to adoption and change
- Security and governance
- References and case studies
- Proposed team
- Long-term support
- Cost and overall value
The cheapest proposal is not automatically the best use of charitable funds. Equally, a more expensive proposal needs to demonstrate why the additional investment is justified.
The charity can use SPT’s guide to choosing a Salesforce partner for a UK nonprofit alongside the proposal-comparison framework in this content cluster to document the reasoning behind its recommendation.
Evidence should also be relevant. The Charity Retail Association case study shows how discovery, integration, automation, training and ongoing support can work together to reduce administration. SPT’s work with a UK animal-welfare charity demonstrates how data-quality and integration improvements can return substantial time to fundraising teams.
Who is accountable for the project?
The charity should name an internal sponsor with sufficient authority to resolve priorities and remove obstacles.
Trustees should also understand:
- Who owns the business case
- Who manages delivery
- Who approves scope changes
- Who represents users
- Who owns the data
- Who accepts the system
- Who is accountable after launch
- When progress and risks will be reported to the board
The Salesforce partner can provide specialist expertise, but it cannot take ownership of the charity’s internal decisions.
How will employees and volunteers be supported through the change?
A system can meet its technical specification and still fail to improve the organisation.
Trustees should ask whether the plan includes:
- Early involvement from users
- Clear communication
- Testing by people who perform the work
- Role-specific training
- Internal champions
- Time to adopt new processes
- Support after launch
- A way to gather feedback
- Measures of adoption
If employees continue using spreadsheets and workarounds, the expected benefits may not be achieved. Adoption should therefore be treated as part of the investment case rather than a minor training activity at the end.
SPT’s guide to improving Salesforce user adoption explains how user involvement, clear ownership, relevant training and post-launch support contribute to lasting value.
How will trustees know whether the project succeeded?
The business case should contain measurable outcomes.
These could include:
- Time saved on administration
- Faster and more reliable reporting
- Fewer duplicate records
- Increased use of the CRM
- Reduced reliance on spreadsheets
- Faster processing of donations or applications
- Improved supporter-response times
- Better visibility across teams
- More reliable Gift Aid information
- Improved reporting to funders
- Reduced cost or risk from legacy systems
Trustees should receive progress information that relates to these outcomes, not simply reports that describe which features have been configured.
What should happen after launch?
Salesforce will require ownership after implementation.
The organisation should plan for:
- Administration
- User support
- Data-quality management
- Access reviews
- Salesforce releases
- Integration monitoring
- Training for new starters
- Reporting changes
- New requirements
- Ongoing optimisation
Trustees should understand whether this will be handled internally, through Salesforce Managed Services or through a combination of the two. A project is not complete simply because the system has gone live.
FAQs
Do trustees need detailed Salesforce knowledge?
No. Trustees need enough information to evaluate the need, benefits, costs, risks and governance of the decision. Technical details can be delegated to employees and advisers, but the board retains responsibility for appropriate oversight.
Should the board approve the Salesforce partner?
That depends on the charity’s governance, delegated authorities, procurement policy and project value. The decision-making route should be agreed and recorded clearly.
Should a CRM project appear on the risk register?
A significant project may create financial, operational, data, safeguarding or reputational risks. The appropriate risks and controls should be recorded and monitored according to the charity’s normal governance process.
How often should trustees receive updates?
This depends on the project’s size and risk. Updates should be frequent enough to identify material problems early without drawing trustees into routine delivery decisions.
What if costs increase after discovery?
The charity should have an agreed change-control process explaining who can approve additional expenditure, how impact is assessed and when a change needs to return to the board.
Approve the outcome, not simply the technology
Trustees do not need to decide how Salesforce should be configured.
They do need to understand why the charity is investing, how the decision supports its purposes, what the realistic costs and risks are, and how the organisation will know whether the promised improvement has been delivered.
Sweet Potato Tec helps charities approach Salesforce as an organisational improvement programme, connecting technology decisions with people, processes, data and long-term outcomes. Organisations can begin by discussing their priorities with SPT’s nonprofit Salesforce team.