SurveyMonkey Apply

Great Product, Great Price, Wonderful Customer Service

Opmerkingen: We were able to streamline both our application process as well as the 2 year grant cycle process so it is all in one platform from application through review and then any subsequent reporting requirements of our subgrantees.

Pluspunten:

I liked how the implementation specialist was willing to answer all of our questions and work with us on our incredibly complex process to make sure our end product met all of our needs.

Minpunten:

There are a few features we wished it had, but we understand our application process is far more complex than most organizations.

The Best Software You Didn't Know You Needed

Opmerkingen: My overall experience has been exceptional. I cannot imagine doing the work I do without having SurveyMonkey Apply. It has become a staple of my work life and also of my applicants. They are now quite comfortable with it and most application periods have very few issues; certainly none we can't resolve. I hope to keep using it for many years.

Pluspunten:

Above all, I love the customer service. All issues are resolved quickly. In addition, the software is easy to use for all users: applicants, reviewers, administrators. COVID-19 restrictions forced everything online. Applications and reviews were always online only, but now we have the contract with digital signatures, approvals and signatures with Finance Dept, Contract acceptance, and the grant report all online as well. It has been a life saver.

Minpunten:

If an applicant has used the software in previous years for any of my programs, all important information should auto-fill on the new application. (Name, Org, Address, Phone, Email, EIN, etc.). If a program is built in the SANDBOX, once I am finished I should be able to transfer it to the live site, instead of having to rebuild it. There should be a way to override the need to have a verified email.

User-friendly interface

Pluspunten:

SurveyMonkey Apply streamlines the application process for our applicants, ensuring user-friendliness. It proves to be highly beneficial and convenient to use.

Minpunten:

I can't really think of anything. They have good 2FA security feature that is taking time.

SurveyMonkey Apply (SMA, formerly FluidReview) has a Draconian refund policy: No refunds allowed!

Pluspunten:

There's really nothing we liked about SMA because we never got as far as being able to use the software for our grants program. During the implementation process, it became clear that there are several significant flaws in the structure of SMA. As an example, SMA/FluidReview was developed for the Canadian market. As such, the organization information form (which cannot be changed) asks for CITY and PROVINCE. There are no fields for the US market such as STATE and ZIP CODE. Yes, you can add custom fields for STATE and ZIP CODE; however, these fields will appear at the end of the form away from the rest of the address information. And adding custom fields does not remove the PROVINCE field. The implementation person we worked with suggested that we ask for a US-style address on our grant application form, thus duplicating data entry. Using work-around solutions (kludges) was the order of the day. As another example, formatting for the budget form that was created for us was chaotic and confusing. Some number fields had one decimal place, others none (and not the two decimal places we were expecting). Some fields had a US dollar symbol; others did not. Again, we were told that SMA/FluidReview was developed with French formatting conventions in mind. Early on we did not see any way SMA would produce an elegant, easy to navigate solution designed for use in the US. It was at this point that we encountered the aforementioned refund policy.

Minpunten:

The implementation process did not go smoothly for us. We were asked questions about our current grants program, which is rather simple: we use one web form hosted by Formstack. The implementation person intended to simply replicate our current grants program. This made no sense to me. We were never given the opportunity to understand what features SMA could bring to our grants process. I'm not sure how this type of implementation process would work for a foundation that is just getting started or is using an informal paper-based process. These implementation questions would be overwhelming. The biggest problem with SMA (and other similar grants software packages) is the amount of time and training expected of an administrator. These grants software packages expect that there will be one person within a foundation whose responsibility it is to administer the software. During the implementation process, it became very clear that SMA expects that administrators would devote significant time to not only training but also administrative duties. Sadly, there is no structured training program, no technical manual. So, training would be catch-as-catch can (a video here, an article there). Without someone on the foundation payroll who has a high degree of technology knowledge, SMA would be a very tough go for small foundations with few to no staff. Before you commit to SMA/FluidReview, make sure you have an administrator with a high degree of technological knowledge (and patience).

Great service from Engineers, not so much from Sales or Management.

Opmerkingen: The Positive: 1. The engineer who managed and implemented out buildout was AMAZING. He was a pleasure to work with, super friendly, knowledgeable and down to earth. I would completely trust him to do work for us in the future. 2. Because of Covid, they gave us a 6 month grace period for payment, because we would not be able to use the site as intended. 3. Engineer tossed in extra training for us, because of the negative sales experience that follows. The Negative: 1. Our initial experience with the first SMA sales contact was less positive of an experience. Our first contact, upon hearing of our needs insisted that we needed two sites to manage our work load. This was confirmed by the second sales manager for further conversations on our needs. However, upon working with the engineer to implement the site, he was suprised by that and felt that we didn't need two sites. Once we were actually able to see the SMA environment and how things could be built out, we confirmed this. We (meaning my org and the SMA engineer) reached back out to sales to re-work the contract, as we felt we were mislead in our needs assessment and signed a contract for more services (and $$$) than what was needed. "Upper Management" would not allow a refund for what we wouldn't be using. However, the sales manager tossed in the translation feature to replace the extra site we wouldn't be using. This was a compromise and had we not taken it, we'd be paying for services that we did not need.

Pluspunten:

For our organization, having the translation feature for Spanish is incredibly helpful, ability to automate most of our admin work and systemetize the work flow. Has a professional look without having to know CSS. Working with the Implementation Engineer was great.

Minpunten:

Translations only go so far. For automated emails, they don't automatically translate like the rest of the application does. However, I am not sure that this is anything that SMA can adjust, as their emails being sent out of the application system and not housed internally on the application site when people apply. Once you learn how to use that platform, it's pretty straight forward, but there is a learning curve. The user interface is not intuitive, so you need to learn how things are stored and where/why. My feeling is you need someone with moderate to advanced tech experience to manage the system and support those within your team, as those who are not tech savvy will encounter difficulties. You don't get to test out anything until you have a signed contract. This makes it really difficult to do a proper needs assessment for the platform and negatively influenced our sales experience, as we had to go with what we were told by sales and not allowed to test the platform and see what we needed before hand. Once we worked with the engineer, he gave access to a test site, which was VERY beneficial and helped us realize that the sales team had sold us services we did not need. This was not discovered until after a contract had been signed, which created a lot of frustration and continued negotiation with sales and upper management. All of this could have been avoided if we were able to test out the platform initially.