Getting Serious About a New Enrollment Program
Okay, it's finally down to the wire... we're really going to get a new web-based enrollment system. Really.
Last week, I asked 12 "volunteers" to take the system I've chosen for a test-drive. The system is called 4HOnline, and it's from a company in Texas. They have a test server, where my volunteers are "playing" right now. Let me give you some short details as I know them now, and then I'm going to turn the forum over to the Guinea Pig Group to talk about what they're finding, ask/answer questions, lalala.
4HOnline is compatible with ShoWorks, a fair management package. Just as Fair Management is now a separate county purchase, ShoWorks would also be a county decision/purchase. I've seen it, and I like it. But it's a county decision--I won't be the one using it, so won't make that decision for you.
My plan AT THE PRESENT TIME is to convert data for the Guinea Pig Group this fall, and they will do the bulk of the re-enrollment process in the new program. We'll learn from them about what works, what's different, etc. The rest of the counties would have data sometime around January, when the bulk of the re-enrollments would be done--then just use the program for the rest of the year.
We will use the program as "county-based" for at least the 2009-10 year... what that means is that county staff would still enter all data. Beginning in the fall of 2010, each county will have the option to allow their RETURNING families to re-enroll on-line, ALL families to enroll on-line, or to continue with county-based entry. There's lots more to know about that, but trust me for now.
4HOnline has an available Events Registration component. At some point in the not-so-distant future, we may set that up. But we all need to get comfortable with the enrollment portion first.
I had a group of folks in last week, and they were split about whether they'd like to start with empty datasets (entering all members in the new program) or starting with existing data. There are advantages to both. Once we see how well the Guinea Pig Group's data converts (is there still lots of clean-up going on?) we'll have more info to make that decision. I'm TOYING with the idea of giving you opt in/out choices for the data conversion. It's a flat fee--all or none, so I guess in the end it doesn't matter if some want one thing and some want another.
One teensy caveat--this is the system that I believe (TODAY) that we will be purchasing. There are still contracts to be signed and deals to be made. There is another system out there that is making a hard pitch to the state directors, so there is a teensy-weensy chance that I'm going to end up having to change my mind. Just truth in advertising.
Comments
I REALLY like the new system. I have found it to be much more user-friendly than BR. I also like that we can access it from any computer, not just the ONE computer it's on in our office. It's set up very differently than BR, but I thought it was easy to navigate and find information.
Posted by: Amanda Allen | September 24, 2009 11:14 AM
So far I really like everything that the new system has. It is MUCH different than BR but that's the good thing! The accessibility is a HUGE bonus as well as the fact that you can group members together in an easier way - under the "group" tab. I REALLY like the option of the status for each enrollment. If there is a problem or you have something come up where you can't finish it right away, it goes to the "records started but not completed". I also like the "records awaiting approval" which is for the families that enroll on line. This will be a great option for staff to check that everything is OK before there is an issue. The families that enroll online get an e-mail back once the enrollment is approved. If it's not, they get an e-mail with what it wrong and how to fix it. It has pros and cons but its something that has great potential to be useful.
Posted by: Michelle Thomsen | September 25, 2009 10:03 AM
These are observations from Janel with my answers in bold... (Becky)
• I have been involved in testing new software for previous employers & there are always some things that are tough to evaluate until you figure out how the sample data corresponds to the way tables are set up in your current software.
• The online format is nice. Are there ever issues where it is difficult to access due to server volume, etc? There haven't been those in other states, so I'm pretty confident.
• Clearly labeled and seems fairly simple to navigate. Doesn’t seem like it should be too tough to use.
• Interesting that families could have the option to enroll on-line. I am guessing that they would create their own username and password restricting them to their own records. It was difficult to get a feeling for how much information they would have access to. For instance, if they could access their awards list, this could be a problem when we are entering data for the fall awards banquet. We try to keep the recipients of some awards a surprise until that night, but it is necessary to enter them in BR before hand for reports, mailing labels, etc. in preparation for the event. The county user ALWAYS has complete control over which fields are visible to individual users.
• Yes, the family input model is backwards from our Blue Ribbon ways, but I can see where it could clean up our database. Currently in BR we link some kids to several parents (divorce, grandparents, etc.). Is this still possible? Would we instead link the “satellite” parents under the “Primary Parent” & if we did this would newsletters and other such mailings reach these sub-listed parents? We will be able to link youth to more than one family unit, just like BR.
• With such a small data set, it was difficult to fully explore the reporting & query capabilities. I couldn’t tell if their “canned reports” gave you the flexibility that Blue Ribbon’s reporting tools do. However, it appears that their Custom Reporting Module could actually give us more freedom than some of our current reports. It appears pretty user-friendly.
• Are we able to add our own projects, activities, & awards codes at the county level like we do in BR? County users will be able to add activity and award codes for their own county.
• Will projects codes be linked to the proper literature for ordering pubs like we do now? Yes
• The calendar feature it talks about sounds really cool. Especially since it can be integrated into a website, is this something that will work with the ISUE calendar? It can be linked to your county website, but not fully integrated with the ISUE calendar.
• Could be a nice feature for club leaders to be able to look up contacts, pull mailing labels, etc. Counties control whether their club leaders have access, and to what information.
Posted by: Janel Salvatore | September 25, 2009 10:33 AM