When you go to buy something on eBay, you look at the seller’s reputation, their “Feedback Profile.” It’s that magic number that says this person is okay to buy from. What is interesting to me is that a rating of 97% is great, but you may not buy from the person if you see two people saying the same bad thing about the seller, even if there are 300 people saying the opposite same good thing about the seller.

If you’re looking at ChMS products for your church, don’t throw Fellowship One out of consideration because of one post that I’ve written.  For my church, ACS is the right solution.  For your church, Fellowship might well be the direction you need to head.  Weigh the pros and cons of each heavily before making such a spendy decision.  I write posts, good and bad, about what I know and who I’ve interacted with.  To me, not sharing what I know would be burdensome, so I hang it out there.  The decisions are always yours to make.

Please hear me well that I am not bashing Fellowship Technologies.  My interactions with them otherwise have always been positive.  They seem to be a terrific company overall.  In fact, I’ve personally recommended them to a couple of churches who have ended up purchasing the product.

I am very encouraged by the quick response of Fellowship on yesterday’s post, and I wanted to share that with you here.

Curtis Harris wrote in this morning:

Matthew, I can’t apologize enough for the blog comment that apparently came from our company.  This is nothing we would ever condone and certainly not something I would want to be a part of; for so many of us, me included, this is a chance to use our God given skills for His purpose… it is our mission field.  I am very embarrased that this type of thing has happened and prior to this took some pride that we were above all that.  Sorry again.  Curtis Harris, Co-Founder and Director of Product Strategy.

Ah, just as I’m writing this post, I noticed that Jeff Hook, the CEO of Fellowship Technologies commented on the previous one.  It’s certainly worth a read.
Read the rest of this entry »

You know me well enough now to understand that I’m pretty well-balanced. I don’t like to always operate in the negative, but I’m not at all ashamed to point it out when I see it.

Last week, I received a moderation e-mail from our church blog. Nothing seemed unusual at first glance since I receive so many of these on a regular basis. What was surprising was the contents of the message and most notably who’s IP address it came from.

A new comment on the post #185 "Vacation Bible School" is waiting for your approval
http://www.fbcbelton.org/2008/06/vacation-bible-school/

Author : Barb Jones (IP: 208.36.200.226 , mail.fellowshiptech.com)
E-mail : bjones@gmail.com
URL :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=208.36.200.226
Comment:
Why can I not register for VBS online? Let’s get with the times!

There is so much about this comment that causes curiosity. I don’t believe that the IP address was forged - it looks like it did in fact come from a computer owned by Fellowship Technologies, makers of the ChMS product Fellowship One. I’m left with three questions that I want answers to:

1. Why would a company that we don’t have a relationship with post a comment that, in effect, demeans our church and the way we do ministry?
2. Is online registration the only way to share the life-saving message of Jesus Christ? We evaluated it extensively and we have a platform that is capable of handling the registrations, but we decided that this was not the year to do it.
3. Is Barb Jones on a personal crusade or is this a common corporate practice of Fellowship Technologies? Is Barb Jones a real person?

I’m hoping that Jeff Hook, president of Fellowship, will weigh in on this post. I know he reads my blog, and he’s even commented here before.

Friends, I’m crazy about new toys. I like playing with them; I like learning them; and I like the status of having them. Some of you are with me, and some of you think I’m a little obsessive in that. Today, I watched a webinar from Profit Stars on their Remit Plus software. Our bank has been pushing us to perform a remote deposit capture, which basically means that instead of taking a group of paper checks to the bank for deposit, we would upload check images to the bank digitally. If only they’d accept scans of cash, we’d do it today.

Their software, in conjunction with a good check scanner, does some cool stuff. One thing that I really like is that you can scan the check and the software will use OCR to decipher the CAR/LAR information on it. Basically, the software reads what you wrote (in your own handwriting) in the CAR field (ie: $100.00) and the LAR field (ie: One hundred and XX/100 dollars). Then it compares those numbers. If it is certain that they match, you don’t have to process that check. If not, you have to 10-key the amount in.

This is all done in conjunction with a check scanner, possibly a Canon CR 180 (pictured at right). This particular scanner, which I would love to see in our building, scans checks and performs the analysis of them at a rate of 180 checks per minute. WOAH! So, it reads the MICR data (bank routing number, account number, and check number), scans the front and back of the check, and prints an endorsement on the back of each one at a rate of 180 per minute. Again, WOAH! Check out this video, if for no other reason, you’ve got to hear the soundtrack.

We’re currently using a Magtek MICR Image to scan checks. The beauty of that is not having to use a different piece of software. The Magtek links right in to ACS, and the check image is saved in our ACS software. We think that saving the images is important so that when disputes come in, we can show the donor their check. It has made a lot of situations smoother for us. So, we scan the check, it reads the MICR data, pulls up the associated donor, and we 10-key the amount from the check and associate it with the fund they’re donating to. The downsides of this setup, compared to the other, fancier scanner are that this model does not have a hopper, so each check must be fed individually. Also, it only scans one side, so it cannot be electronically transmitted to the bank. The physical checks still have to be deposited. Finally, we have to 10-key the amounts where the other system has OCR do everything it can.

Is the personnel time valuable enough to make the investment? I sure don’t know. We’ll see what the bank is willing to pay for to get us hooked into this. I want the toy, but it needs to be a wise investment before I’m willing to jump in. Any of you using a similar setup?

Today, I trained our staff on searching for information in ACS. It was a very basic training session, but it seemed to be helpful for those who attended. What are you doing to make sure that your staff are well trained in your Church Management System (ChMS)? I know that some of you have a dedicated training staff, some of you bring in trainers from your ChMS on a regular basis, and some of you just kind of let it ride. I’m interested to hear how you train staff on technology, specifically related to your ChMS. Are you intentional about it? For the ACS users out there, would you be interested in videos from our staff trainings?

A few days ago, I posted “The First Thing ACS Did to Really Tick Me Off.” I wanted to make sure that you see the comments section where Pattie White of ACS responded.

I also need to explain myself to you a little bit. I do not like to post negative things, but I feel like sometimes it’s an important part of getting things done. I didn’t get the answers I wanted to the questions I asked of ACS and felt that I was at a dead end, so I used my leverage and exposure to open up communication again. I fight for my church.

Hear me well, if you were starting up a new church or just looking for a new ChMS, I would wholeheartedly recommend ACS Technologies to you. I have no reservation in doing so. Every product has its limitations, ACS included. However, with our previous ChMS, I never even took the time to post anything on the blog because frankly I never had anything nice to say about their product or their support team.

Does ACS need to fix the issues with the contribution statements? Yep. Are they going to get it done by 10.0? I doubt it. What I want to hear from Pattie and others is that they will fix it and an approximate amount of time to make that happen. They have done that many times on other issues, and I have been quite spoiled by it since our previous vendor would never even attempt to do such things.

After we finished our implementation of ACS, I asked for a conference call to discuss the process. I sought to edify their company and provide constructive criticism for future customers going through the same process. Pattie was involved in that meeting, and she is WAY high up in the company. They also had two product managers, the guy who runs their implementation department, and the executive director of IT. This is a company who values feedback and responds appropriately to it. Thanks Pattie for taking the time to look deeper into this issue.