Leaders ability to track member outreach, circumstances

[winwardut]

Having worked in sales and client management, I find it interesting that there is no way to input ward member contact data. Meaning, inputting notes of when you spoke to a member and capturing the jest of the interaction, etc for future leaders to see.
When a new set of leaders is called, it's a challenge understanding what type of interaction has transpired with a member over the years. I've been in a ward outside of Utah for two years, luckily I have a counselor who has lived in the general area for decades. Otherwise, I would stumbling around trying to figure some of this out and possibly offending people in the process. I understand we should and are guided by the spirit, but part of doing the right thing involves being informed and having some background or history.

[eblood66]

As far as I know there is no official answer about why this kind of thing doesn't exist. So this is just my personal speculation (which may very well be wrong). But my guess is that the church is very concerned about conforming to privacy laws in the many different jurisdictions it functions in. If any kind of free form notes were allowed in a membership record the church would have a hard time ensuring that is conforming with some of those laws, particularly in areas with much more strict laws than the US has. Even if it provided training on the appropriate kinds of information to enter, it would be hard to enforce, potentially leaving the church open to significant legal or civil liability.

Even disregarding legal issues, there is potential for very bad PR problems. If local leaders enter information on personal hardships, moral issues or or other private information, critics could frame it as the church creating a database of private information on members. Even though the local leaders would generally do it just to better minister to them, many outside the church (and possibly many inside the church) could see it as inappropriate (or even sinister).

There are very often efficiency trade offs that have to be made because of privacy and security. My guess is that this is one of those cases.

[tonynocchi]

Having worked in sales and client management, I find it interesting that there is no way to input ward member contact data. Meaning, inputting notes of when you spoke to a member and capturing the jest of the interaction, etc for future leaders to see.
When a new set of leaders is called, it's a challenge understanding what type of interaction has transpired with a member over the years. I've been in a ward outside of Utah for two years, luckily I have a counselor who has lived in the general area for decades. Otherwise, I would stumbling around trying to figure some of this out and possibly offending people in the process. I understand we should and are guided by the spirit, but part of doing the right thing involves being informed and having some background or history.

I have mentioned adding something like you are talking about. No idea why the church won't add features that we need to effectively administer at the stake and ward level but they apparently won't and there is zero communication. So instead of keeping potentially sensitive information locked down to those who have a need to know based on their calling we are recreating pseudo-LCR functionality in Google Sheets and Google Docs that are administered by people who don't have a clue what security is and in many times either wide open or when restricted not kept current. I have about 10 different documents I have to keep up with because some stuff is bishopric only, some stuff is full ward council, some stuff is bishopric and EQ/RS presidents only, some stuff is wide open, some stuff is bishopric + stake presidency, and so on.... Today I've updated three different spreadsheets and three different Google Docs (two of which are still open on my other screen). Additionally, I manage or help manage three different Google Drives with these documents in them.

[mdigi]

I'm also not privy to the reasons behind the church's LCR design decisions, but my observations largely match those @eblood66 highlighted.

My take:
Legal-
Data privacy laws may have many far reaching [and often unintended] consequences. These laws are not uniform, frequently change, and can differ greatly between country, state, and even sub-jurisdictions.

The church directs that confidential information must not be stored outside the church's systems. That isn't a suggestion, it's an instruction. Any choosing to violate that directive are potentially exposing themselves [and any who provided data] to personal lawsuits. Keep in mind the definitions of personal and confidential information can vary greatly [between privacy law jurisdictions] and often don't align/ are broader than what the typical member would consider to be personal or confidential information.

Often, storing [even potentially] sensitive information is not worth the risk to the organization storing it.

Spiritual-
Members, circumstances, hearts, leaders, change.
Following the Spirit is always the best plan. If you're a new leader, meeting the member will help you understand the present state. Chatting with the ministering Brothers/Sisters before the visit can also be helpful.

[tonynocchi]

I'm also not privy to the reasons behind the church's LCR design decisions, but my observations largely match those @eblood66 highlighted.

My take:
Legal-
Data privacy laws may have many far reaching [and often unintended] consequences. These laws are not uniform, frequently change, and can differ greatly between country, state, and even sub-jurisdictions.

The church directs that confidential information must not be stored outside the church's systems. That isn't a suggestion, it's an instruction. Any choosing to violate that directive are potentially exposing themselves [and any who provided data] to personal lawsuits. Keep in mind the definitions of personal and confidential information can vary greatly [between privacy law jurisdictions] and often don't align/ are broader than what the typical member would consider to be personal or confidential information.

Often, storing [even potentially] sensitive information is not worth the risk to the organization storing it.

Spiritual-
Members, circumstances, hearts, leaders, change.
Following the Spirit is always the best plan. If you're a new leader, meeting the member will help you understand the present state. Chatting with the ministering Brothers/Sisters before the visit can also be helpful.

The church enables some confidential information to be attached to a record but that is only viewable at a very high level. The problem is you have just about every auxiliary and bishoprics operating outside of the church system because they have no real choice to operate with any level of efficiency outside of the church system. I guarantee you if you go to any EQ/RS/YW/SS presidency or bishopric where there is a good level of information sharing going on they are operating on Google Drive (or something similar, but most likely Google Drive because it's free and wide-spread). Even personal emails are outside the church system.

[russellhltn]

While a CRM system is a great tool in business, in a church situation where you're recording personal lives along with struggles, it's a huge liability. I don't know as we'll ever see such a tool come down until the second coming. Sure, local leader will keep notes, but exactly what it contains will be a mystery for anyone contemplating a lawsuit considering there's nothing in the handbook or even standardized forms. It would be hard to hold "big church" responsible for any complaints.

While I have not heard anything, it wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the big drivers in the change to Ministering was doing away with recording what families were getting monthly attention from home and visiting teachers. The only thing being recorded now is if a internal meeting took place. A meeting where information was passed and notes may or may not have been kept. And if they were kept, they may or may not be legible and understandable to someone else.

[russellhltn]

I have about 10 different documents I have to keep up with because some stuff is bishopric only, some stuff is full ward council, some stuff is bishopric and EQ/RS presidents only, some stuff is wide open, some stuff is bishopric + stake presidency, and so on.... Today I've updated three different spreadsheets and three different Google Docs (two of which are still open on my other screen). Additionally, I manage or help manage three different Google Drives with these documents in them.

And should this all go horribly wrong because of a member who takes great offense, whoever made that decision to store information and manage it that way is likely to find themselves pushed in front of the preverbal bus. There's nothing in church instructions suggesting to do this. The church will have to distance itself from it to protect itself.

I understand why people who are used to using computers want to do it this way, but they're taking on a lot of hidden risk.

[tonynocchi]

I have about 10 different documents I have to keep up with because some stuff is bishopric only, some stuff is full ward council, some stuff is bishopric and EQ/RS presidents only, some stuff is wide open, some stuff is bishopric + stake presidency, and so on.... Today I've updated three different spreadsheets and three different Google Docs (two of which are still open on my other screen). Additionally, I manage or help manage three different Google Drives with these documents in them.

And should this all go horribly wrong because of a member who takes great offense, whoever made that decision to store information and manage it that way is likely to find themselves pushed in front of the preverbal bus. There's nothing in church instructions suggesting to do this. The church will have to distance itself from it to protect itself.

I understand why people who are used to using computers want to do it this way, but they're taking on a lot of hidden risk.

People are doing this because it's the most effective/efficient way to do it. Our weekly Bishopric meeting would probably be monthly and a lot less efficient if we didn't have the technology to meet over Zoom, share screens and documents, and make updates on the spot. We've had members of the meeting 'dial in' from work, while traveling, etc....

My wife is the RS President and they used to struggle to find a time that works to hold a monthly RS presidency meeting because two of the four had jobs. Think of how much time is being saved and how much more is being done because technology makes the administrative overhead easy so leaders can focus on the ministering aspects and spend more time with their families.

Also, think of this from the perspective of a highly-transient ward like a military ward (which mine is). Of the prior bishops my ward has had, only one of them is still in the ward (going back to 1986). Three of ten bishopric first counselors are still in the ward, no bishopric second counselors, three of the clerks (counting assistant ward clerks), and two of the executive secretaries (one of which is serving again as the executive secretary). But we also have non-military members that have been been in the ward since 1986. This is based on the Historical Information in the Unit Information.

Sure, the Church ran before computers. We had General Conference before it could be broadcast world-wide via satellite. People are going to use the tools available to try to do the best they can and the Church can either embrace this and empower members to be more effective, discourage it and hamstring their effectiveness, or sit by the wayside and let things happen. I feel like they've chose the last option when it comes to administering at the stake and ward levels while embracing it (although not very effectively) when it comes to other aspects (e.g. Circles App, Member Tools App).

[sbradshaw]

Another concern with keeping shared notes that hasn't been mentioned on this thread: What if one of those members with extensive notes becomes a leader and now sees everything that's been written about them? I hope that if wards are keeping these kind of shared notes, they're not including anything that they would be embarrassed to show to the member. And I hope it's not in a shared folder that's accessible to a large number of past and current leaders.

[tonynocchi]

Another concern with keeping shared notes that hasn't been mentioned on this thread: What if one of those members with extensive notes becomes a leader and now sees everything that's been written about them? I hope that if wards are keeping these kind of shared notes, they're not including anything that they would be embarrassed to show to the member. And I hope it's not in a shared folder that's accessible to a large number of past and current leaders.

There's a lot of hope there and I'd be willing to bet that in a lot of situations folders/documents are either wide open or they have legacy leaders with access. In our ward the bishopric and RS folders are locked down pretty well but the only reason the RS folder is locked down is because I manage it for my wife who is the RS President (I am also on the Ward Council so it's not like I'm seeing stuff I shouldn't see). If my wife had to manage it...it would probably be wide open, as she's pretty technologically challenged while my education and work was in network security (among other things).

But that's the problem I've mentioned here and in the thread about consolidating feedback for LCR. The Church is basically 'outsourcing' functionality and security to other platforms because of the limitations LCR poses to leaders. Leaders are doing the best they can and that means using other tools to collaborate. Our bishopric meeting is basically conducted on Zoom using a shared Google Doc and referencing multiple other Google Docs or Google Sheets to try to turn date from LCR into information and ultimately knowledge to guide our focus. We rarely touch LCR during our bishopric meetings unless we need something specific or we may reference a report. There's 504 members in our ward.