Teasing Out the Timeless Question: Single vs. Multi-Org

The below piece is an op-ed from my POV. My goal with this post (as it is with anything I publish) is for it to be easy-to-read and informative, with a sprinkle of my two cents and a splash of humor and fun. I hope you enjoy!

If you ask 100 Salesforce / Salesforce.org admins how to do something, you’ll get 300 answers: in #highered, it’s more like 500. For better or for worse, in a relational database model that prioritizes declarative programming, this is a Fact of Salesforce Life. Similar to the different ways you can configure and customize Salesforce, there are different org strategies that guide the implementation of Salesforce within an organization. This is no exception in higher education; in fact, it may be even more complex due to a variety of factors.

There is no one, right answer when it comes to a Salesforce org strategy; however, it is an important foundational factor to get right due to the increased pressure institutions are under and higher expectations their constituents have of their interactions and experience with the organization. Investments in CRM technology are increasing across higher education, and institutions are thinking about the strategic value of these investments to the broader enterprise. 

When it comes to defining an org strategy, it seems most can agree that there are four areas of consideration for an org strategy: culture, business, technical, and support (or, operations).

“Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution” (Ross et al) provides an excellent starting point that transcends technology and industry for enterprise architectural strategy. When CRM is added to the foundational model, there are four org strategies that emerge:

We don’t often see "Replication" in higher ed use cases because it typically found in business models like franchises. "Unification" (AKA single org), "Coordination" (AKA multi-org), and "Diversification" (also multi-org, but what I like to call the “Wild West”) are the different org strategies you see play out in higher education. When you narrow in on the single versus multi-org strategies and the reality of the cultural, business, technical, and operational considerations in higher ed, we end up seeing more options than two.

There is not shortage of blogs and documents out there that outline the benefits and drawbacks to #singlevsmultiorg. At a high level, I’ve outlined the areas of relative strengths and weaknesses for single versus multi-org strategies below:

Usually, a university ends up with a multi-org approach by accident because CRM began organically before taking on an enterprise strategy; however, we are seeing more universities approach their CRM org strategy from an enterprise scale and perspective out of the gate. There are two multi-org strategies we’re seeing emerge as the most widely used within higher education.

1.      Hub and Spoke

While most universities who aspire to have a multi-org strategy aim to accomplish a Hub and Spoke model for a variety of reasons, we have not seen it play out in reality very often. I believe the reason for this goes back to my initial point around needing to have a purposeful enterprise strategy. Additionally, although it doesn’t necessarily have to be true, the Hub and Spoke model implies hierarchy, which is often not well received in higher education.

A Hub and Spoke model is most seen to fruition by way of a Parent / Child(ren) org structure, or what’s called a Reporting org structure. The Hub (or Reporting) org is used to support universal data aggregation and core ownership functionality. However, the argument can be made whether this is the best path forward for Hub and Spoke models with the capabilities Tableau serves.

Spokes in a Hub and Spoke model can be diverse. They can be domain-based, persona-based, unit-based, disparate individual orgs from a previous “Wild West” strategy, and/or ancillary support use cases.

2.      X-Driven

X-Driven is a term I came up with because we historically saw multi-org strategies being primarily domain-based. Common domains may be recruitment and admissions, student success, advancement, and institutional operations.

However, over the years, I’ve seen several other X-driven approaches pop up that follow similar models.

• Campus-Driven: Each campus within a university system having an org.
• Unit-Driven: Each department, or unit, within a school or college having an org.
• Persona-Driven: Each persona within a university having an org.
• Domain-Driven: We started to see enterprise approaches at universities organize around domains (e.g. recruitment and admissions, student success, advancement, institutional operations); however, with the release of the new Education Cloud, I'm curious to see if we see this org strategy continue at institutions, or if it will go by the way side in favor of Capability-Driven approaches.
• Capability-Driven: With the release of the new Education Cloud, I think we’ll see more institutions approach their org strategy based on capability. (See my previous post on the new Education Cloud and shift from Solution to Capability for more information.)

An X-Driven approach is the most versatile for institutions, especially once you overlay the business, technical, operational, and political realities of each organization. However, this multi-org approach is also the one that is most likely to spin off into a “Wild West” strategy if it is not approached thoughtfully across all considerations listed in the chart above.

Institutions approaching a multi-org strategy from an enterprise perspective, whether it’s from the get-go or as a “happy accident”, there needs to be significant thought and process put into place around the determination factors and intake process for consideration of a new org in a multi-org landscape versus adding a unit onto an existing org.

There are folks in the ecosystem who believe institutions should have "one org to rule them all" because that's how some industries and businesses have been able to accomplish this. Others in the ecosystem think that institutions should always begin with a single org until there becomes a reason to expand to multiple orgs. From a technical perspective, this makes the most sense, especially if you’re beginning your CRM journey collectively and holistically. In reality, most institutions have several orgs at-play before they begin their enterprise journey, and/or the reality of their political, operational, and/or business culture does not allow for a single org. The most important thing is to have a strategy – any strategy – to avoid org proliferation and work as a collaborative institution to invest in the right areas to insure you’re able to accomplish the coveted 360-degree constituent view while providing your end-users and constituents a seamless experience.

#digitaltransformation #CRM #crmjourney #highereducation #singleorg #multiorg