I wish I could vote on this multiple times! We NEED the extra time to create SOPs for our team!

This is a no-brainer! I still need both open to do the simplest of things. Once everything is functional in WebView, then give us a year-long countdown.

And I second this comment: My biggest concern is not learning a new system. It is being asked to plan a complete operational transition while significant parts of the replacement are still being developed. We cannot fully document, test, troubleshoot, and train on processes that do not yet exist in their final form.

I also agree with extending support of database view for a full year AFTER functionality has been set up in WebView.

If today's webinar has reinforced anything it is that we need additional time once all the features are implemented in RE NXT to ensure we can smoothly transition over from database to RE NXT.

I wholeheartedly agree to extending support for a full year after functionality has been established in webview. It is preposterous to propose less time for working out the details and establishing a workflow. Blackbaud should appreciate their customers who haven't jumped to other products, but yet are paying higher prices than ever.

Agreed with this post and all the comments... it is ridiculous that they would announce the end of Database View and support for it before they even switch over all the functionality that we need... to piggyback on someone's comment

My biggest concern is not learning a new system. It is being asked to plan a complete operational transition while significant parts of the replacement are still being developed. We cannot fully document, test, troubleshoot, and train on processes that do not yet exist in their final form.

Ditto on all of the comments. Please extend database ending date. It's going to be stressful enough!

While I understand that DB view can't last forever, it is extraordinarily difficult to be on a plane that is being built as it flies, so to say. Functionality for webview features is going to be going into "first half 2027". The end of database view is immediately after, in September 2027. A sunset date of a year when a fully functional webview is available is reasonable; however, that is not the reality, the reality is, a fully functional webview will not be available until summer 2027.

I strongly agree to keep database view 1 year after September 2027.

I would like to see it last for the extra year. I would also be open to a shorter BBCON version or extra day of BBCON for some type of hands-on issues Q&A; where those that have found the glitches can work with the developers on what is going on...

Strongly agree to keep database view through the next year!

I strongly agree. Not only have they not all been built, we will need time to get used to each one and it will critically impact our work to not have sufficient time.

I support this request

I strongly support extending Database View access for at least one full year after all planned functionality is available and stable in Unified View.

I am very supportive of moving toward NXT and modernizing our processes, but at this point, many of the functions I rely on most heavily in my role are either not yet available in Unified View or are not developed enough for us to confidently rebuild our existing workflows around them. Imports, exports, security, complex querying, global changes, and other database management functions are not edge cases for advancement operations. They are core pieces of our daily work.

My biggest concern is not learning a new system. It is being asked to plan a complete operational transition while significant parts of the replacement are still being developed. We cannot fully document, test, troubleshoot, and train on processes that do not yet exist in their final form.

A full year of overlap after the complete functionality is released would also allow organizations to test processes that only occur annually. That is especially important in advancement, where year-end, fiscal-year transitions, audits, reporting cycles, and other critical processes may only get one real-world test before Database View is no longer available as a fallback.

I want Unified View to succeed, and I want to be able to confidently move our work there. Providing a meaningful period in which both the completed Unified View and Database View are available would make that transition much safer and much more likely to succeed.

Your customers should have full access to all functionality of DBV for sufficient time to identify and fix issues BEFORE DBV is sunset since DBV is where DBAs go to fix things that Unified View cannot do or doesn't do as well/accurately as DBV.

It is unfair to add full functionality of so many core database functions and to give us less time for recreating and learning new processes while we are actively managing the busiest quarter of the year.

Here's a link to a similar idea/sentiment expressed in 2023, when the deadline to discontinue database view was set for 2024: https://renxt.ideas.aha.io/ideas/RENXT-I-5696?fbclid=IwVERDUAUG49xwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHmI4VWgujtrvVL4NUUuoo3iQxQKyDcsNJgIHVVdp7geVytGE2kCsl_rPDuKv_aem_yvub8MKMwbtMHvmg7Pc_uw

These looming cutoff dates, year after year, have been a continuous stressor for us in systems/data roles. I understand database view is extra overhead for BB. But the continuous announcements, then adjustments to cutoff dates has been unnecessary. Ensuring NXT is a complete product that works well for fundraisers, admin, and systems roles alike should be the focus, instead of driving on a cutoff date.

It seems reasonable to keep a legacy system available for a year after the replacement is released in full. This allows customers a complete fundraising cycle - including our busiest time: Giving Tuesday, winter appeals, year-end processing, then the new year transition - to work with the full, comprehensive system.

This customer base does important work, some having used RE for decades. We must be able to provide accurate, timely giving statements to our donors, reminders to pledge holders, impact reports to endowed fund holders, recognition for renewed and upgraded memberships, exports for our finance teams and auditors. These are just some examples of core functions that are not currently available in NXT.

I totally and completely agree! Discontinuing access to database view cannot happen until all planned database view functionality has been added to web view. A minimum of one year of continued access is required, if not longer. I cannot stress enough how important this is for users.

With the recent announcement of sunsetting DB view in September 2027, this concern is now both critical and urgent. Many DB view functions have not been addressed or are still in development in web view. New gaps are surfacing every week as we test web view against what DB view already handles. Core database tools like imports, exports, security rights, mail module, global changes and more are still missing or unreliable in web view. Existing database view queries are not showing up in web view, and some criteria options are not available to recreate them. These aren't optional conveniences. They are essential to daily database operations.

This transition has been in progress for many years now, and web view is still far from complete. Given that history, confidence that everything will be ready by September 2027 is low. Rather than setting a sunset date first and building toward it, I strongly encourage Blackbaud to commit to a date by which all planned functionality is fully available, and count at minimum a one-year (preferably longer) transition support window from that date.

I agree with the other comments in this thread on the need for more time to implement, test, and build new procedures before DB access is removed. Interrupting critical processes like gift entry, reconciliation and other core functions carries real risk for organizations that depend on them daily. There's still a large amount of DB view functionality missing from web view. Even when users raise concerns and ideas here, some have not been addressed, or will not be implemented, and that will seriously disrupt workflows.

As year-end approaches and gift volume increases, my organization will continue to rely on DB view for most functions, especially gift entry. Testing and transitioning to web view during this period is not realistic. We plan to begin looking more closely in the new year, though we have significant concerns about its readiness. This is a clear example of why more time and continued DB view access, only after full functionality is available in web view, is so important.

I understand Blackbaud has business goals to modernize their products. However, the functionality and workflows users actually rely on and trust in DB view today should be the main priority. Fully transitioning these DB processes over to web view needs to prioritize user impact and existing functionality.

Rather than sunsetting DB view entirely, perhaps access and use could be preserved long term for a handful of employees within each organization. This would ensure critical work can continue without disruption.

Agree! While we pay full freight for an incomplete product, which in many cases increases our workload, has significant gaps in functionality, we also have jobs to do at our organizations that aren't just transitioning to unified view. We are forced to beg our fellow users to vote for our "ideas" which are mostly just desperate pleas to let us have access to the functionality that exists in db view and access the data that we know is in there, but for some reason someone decided that we can't access it in that particular area of the platform. I would love to use web view more fully, but every time I begin to explore new functionality, I experience limitations and bugs that prevent me from utilizing it. I'm building in all sorts of new "hacks" in order to do what I need to do and feel like I'm shouting into the void asking for things like "let me include inactive funds in recognition program rules" and "let me print the Fund ID on a validation report." If a report doesn't meet our needs, I can't use it for our processes. Blackbaud wants us to start using the features in web view, but I have an actual job to do with requirements that don't include playing around in the database screwing things up.

Blackbaud should AT LEAST give us all a back-up of our database to "play" with their works in progress instead of forcing us to use a half-baked product with our real data and real donors.

Absolutely agree. The fault lies completely with Blackbaud, and not its customers, that vital needs of the customers, such as import, export, global change, batch gift entry - all things a fundraising shop truly needs a database for - have been left to the last minute as an afterthought. I do not want to train my data entry staff on an unfinished, buggy gift batch process - in a database that has existed since 1981 and that we pay top dollar for! When Raiser's Edge has been working on Webview for years now! I want my staff to have a full giving season on the new - completed, debugged, properly comparable without missing pieces gift batch entry in "Unified View" - with access to their old batches - for a full giving season before they lose access and support. That should be the very least we can ask for as clients from a reputable product company. And here we are, with batch gift entry not fully finished, my commit control report not automatically coming up, my global change not available, no news on the moving of my sustaining batches, and no promises made to the customer, just the ultimatum of the date. Disgraceful.