Comprehensive Guide - Internal Stakeholders
Internal to the Organization
Executive Director / CEO: Final decision-maker and budget authority
Goals:
Ensure the organization’s mission delivery is not disrupted
Make a financially sound investment decision
Build organizational capacity for the long term
Challenges:
May not have deep enough technical context to evaluate the decision confidently
Balancing this initiative against competing organizational priorities
Owning the outcome if the migration goes poorly
Questions to Ask:
What is driving the interest in migrating now?
What would a successful outcome look like for the organization?
What level of disruption to operations and staff is the organization prepared to absorb during the migration?
What does the organization need to have in place before committing to this project?
CFO or Finance Lead: Owns budget approval and cost/ROI analysis
Goals:
Understand the full cost of the migration, including licensing, implementation, training, and ongoing support
Ensure there is a clear return on investment or organizational justification
Protect the organization from financial surprises mid-project
Challenges:
Technology costs are often underestimated in initial proposals
Difficulty comparing the true cost of staying on NPSP versus migrating
May not have context for what “good” looks like in a Salesforce implementation budget
Questions to Ask:
What budget has the organization set aside for this project, and does it account for implementation, training, and ongoing support?
What financial metrics or thresholds would make this investment feel justified to you?
What would you need to see in order to feel confident approving this level of expenditure?
COO or Operations Lead: Responsible for process change and organizational impact
Goals:
Ensure day-to-day operations are not disrupted during the migration
Identify process improvements that the new platform could enable
Make sure staff are supported through the transition
Challenges:
Migration timelines often conflict with organizational busy seasons like fundraising or program cycles
Process documentation is frequently incomplete or out of date, making migration planning harder
Change management is often underfunded and underestimated in project scopes
Questions to Ask:
What periods of the year would be most disruptive for a major technology transition, and which would be most manageable?
How well documented are the organization’s current processes, and who owns that documentation?
What does the organization have in place to support staff through a significant system change?
Development Director or Fundraising Lead: Heavy NPSP user, most directly affected by migration
Goals:
Maintain uninterrupted access to donor data, giving history, and fundraising workflows
Understand what Agentforce Nonprofit offers that NPSP does not, and whether it solves real pain points
Ensure campaigns, appeals, and acknowledgment processes continue without gaps
Challenges:
NPSP was built largely around fundraising needs; any regression in functionality is a serious risk
May have deeply embedded workflows, reports, and third party integrations that need to be rebuilt or replaced
Migration timing is high stakes. A disruption during a major campaign or year-end can have real revenue consequences
Questions to Ask:
What fundraising workflows, reports, or integrations are you most dependent on, and what would it mean if any of them were unavailable during the migration?
Are there pain points in your current setup that you are hoping this migration would solve?
What time of year would be most damaging for a disruption to your fundraising operations?
What tools do you use and why?
Grants Manager: Distinct reporting and data needs tied to funder requirements
Goals:
Ensure grant tracking, reporting, and compliance workflows survive the migration intact
Understand whether Agentforce Nonprofit improves or complicates grant management capabilities
Maintain continuity of funder relationships and reporting deadlines during the transition
Challenges:
Grant reporting structures are often highly customized and fragile
Funder deadlines do not pause for a migration – data must be accurate and accessible throughout
May rely on third party grant management tools that need to be evaluated for Agentforce Nonprofit compatibility
Questions to Ask:
What grant reporting deadlines fall within the anticipated migration window, and how would you manage if data was temporarily inaccessible?
How much of your grant tracking and reporting lives in Salesforce versus other tools, and how are those connected?
Are there any funder requirements that dictate how grant data must be stored or reported that the migration team needs to understand?
What fundraising workflows, reports, or integrations are you most dependent on, and what would it mean if any of them were unavailable during the migration?
Are there pain points in your current setup that you are hoping this migration would solve?
What tools do you use and why?
Program Staff / Program Director: Largest user group, highest change management risk
Goals:
Continue serving constituents without interruption during and after the migration
Have tools that actually match how program work gets done day to day
Be heard in the process rather than handed a finished system to adapt to
Challenges:
Often the last group consulted during planning but the first to feel the impact
Program data models in NPSP can be highly customized and vary widely across organizations, making migration complex
Staff turnover during a long migration can mean institutional knowledge is lost mid-project
Questions to Ask:
What does your day-to-day use of Salesforce look like, and what would break your workflow if it changed or disappeared?
What are the biggest gaps or frustrations in how the current system supports your program work?
How would you want to be involved in the migration process, and what would you need to feel prepared for the transition?
Communications or Marketing Staff: May rely on Salesforce for campaigns and constituent engagement
Goals:
Maintain continuity of email campaigns, audience segmentation, and engagement tracking
Understand how Agentforce Nonprofit affects any marketing automation tools connected to Salesforce
Ensure constituent communication does not lapse during the migration
Challenges:
Marketing integrations are often among the most complex and fragile connections to migrate
This group may have limited visibility into the migration plan until something breaks
Audience lists, campaign history, and engagement data may not map cleanly to the new data model
Questions to Ask:
What tools do you use for communications and marketing, and how are they connected to Salesforce?
What campaign or communication activity would be most at risk if your Salesforce integration was disrupted?
What data do you rely on in Salesforce to segment audiences or track engagement, and how critical is the history?
Database Manager or Data Staff: Owns data integrity and migration quality
Goals:
Ensure data is clean, complete, and accurately migrated to the new platform
Understand the differences between the NPSP and Agentforce Nonprofit data models before migration begins
Have a clear data governance plan in place before, during, and after the migration
Challenges:
Data quality issues that have been tolerated in NPSP become harder to ignore during a migration
The data model differences between NPSP and Agentforce Nonprofit are significant and require careful mapping
Often expected to do migration-related data work on top of existing responsibilities without additional capacity
Questions to Ask:
How would you describe the current state of your data quality, and are there known issues that have not been addressed?
What data governance processes does the organization have in place today, and who is responsible for maintaining them?
What additional capacity or support would you need to participate meaningfully in the data migration process?
What historical data do we need to migrate?
Internal Salesforce Admin: Inherits and maintains whatever is built
Goals:
Be involved in the migration from the start, not brought in at the end to maintain someone else’s decisions
Build skills and familiarity with Agentforce Nonprofit before go-live
End up with a system that is documented, sustainable, and manageable with available resources
Challenges:
Often under-resourced and expected to absorb migration-related work alongside existing responsibilities
May feel pressure to agree to a scope or timeline set by leadership or a consulting partner without adequate input
If the implementation is over-customized or poorly documented, they are the ones left holding it
Questions to Ask:
How involved do you expect to be in the migration process, and what would meaningful involvement look like to you?
What parts of the current implementation do you find most difficult to maintain, and what would you want done differently?
What training or ramp-up time would you need to feel confident administering Agentforce Nonprofit after go-live?
Do we have an “over-customized” NPSP instance?
How will we handle Person Accounts?
How will we train users, and what is our plan to ensure they adopt the new system?
IT Staff: Responsible for security, integrations, and infrastructure
Goals:
Ensure the migration meets organizational security and compliance requirements
Understand how Agentforce Nonprofit affects existing integrations with other organizational systems
Have a clear picture of the technical architecture before and after the migration
Challenges:
May not be consulted early enough to flag integration or security concerns before commitments are made
Integration dependencies are often underdocumented and surface as surprises mid-project
In smaller organizations this role may be a single person or a fractional resource with limited bandwidth
Questions to Ask:
What are the organization’s security and compliance requirements that any new system configuration must meet?
What systems outside of Salesforce does the organization rely on, and how are they currently connected?
What would you need from a consulting partner or implementation team to feel confident the technical architecture is sound?
Board Members: Governance and fiduciary oversight, may hold budget approval authority
Goals:
Understand the organizational risk and financial commitment before approving the investment
Be confident that leadership has done appropriate due diligence
Ensure the migration aligns with the organization’s strategic direction
Challenges:
Typically have the least technical context of any stakeholder group
Dependent on leadership to frame the decision accurately and completely
May underestimate the scope of the project or approve a budget that does not reflect true costs
Questions to Ask:
What level of detail does the board need in order to feel confident approving this investment?
What organizational risks are you most concerned about, and how would you want those communicated to you during the project?
What would you need to see in a board presentation to feel the due diligence has been done?