How Much Time Is Too Much?

Published

I got a great question from a client recently--one I bet a lot of us have had—and for that reason it’s been on my mind to bring the question to this group for tips and tricks. I bet there’s some great advice out there, so I hope you’ll share your approach in the comments section.

Here’s the question…

"When I use the results of WealthPoint screenings, how do I know when I am “done” with prospect research and can move on?"

Personally, I struggle with spending a lot of time in ResearchPoint reviewing granular data, so I relate to this question. I am a details person and love information, so rabbit holes are a common trap for me. Knowing that about myself, I follow the lead of one of my clients and set a timer. Twenty minutes is usually enough to get a solid overview of what’s returned from the screening, confirm and reject the easiest information, maybe dig in a little on one or two intriguing data points—and I force myself to move on when the timer rings. This idea resonated with the person who asked me the question, and The Timer Rule is now part of her workflow too.

If you don’t need that much structure, good advice is simply to get in the record, get what you need, and get out. Maybe you ask yourself something like, “Is there anything that leads me to believe another 10 minutes in this record will change the way we approach this person?” If yes, few more minutes it is! If not, keep moving.

What do you do to strike the right balance between being thorough and efficient? We’re eager to hear!

News ARCHIVED | Blackbaud Target Analytics® Tips and Tricks 08/09/2016 11:45am EDT

Added by Liza Turcotte

2 Comments

Rachel Kave Nov '16

Good advice...I am printing this and hanging on my bulletin board in my office as a reminder when I am in the rabbit hole:) Will help keep me on track...thanks!

Katherine Swank Aug '16

I like the questions you have set out to ask oneself and the timer idea is great one! Details can be sexy but are they productive for your current objective? I recommend to our clients that they use a two-prong research approach - one for basic information at the qualification/discovery stages and another for more in-depth review at the cultivation/solicitation stages if warranted. Basic review might mean reviewing a checklist of items such as all hard assets worth $1,000,000 or more that are not already confirmed and only philanthropic gifts of $10,000 or higher and Who's Who. In-depth might go further into the data results: like bring the hard asset review down to $500,000 and add in review of Larkspur inclusion, philanthropic giving patterns and nonprofit/foundation affiliations. It's rare when every bit of information needs confirmation or rejection. Even in-depth research might need a timer!

Great topic Liza.