Yes Please!

Totally agree and strongly support this.
In large enterprise environments like public higher ed, changing database views isn't just an isolated database update, it’s a massive technical dependency nightmare, especially right now when almost every department is trying to move their own tools to the cloud at the same time.

When you have admin turnover, the incoming tech team inherits a deeply entangled web of hybrid architecture. They aren't just learning NXT but they are trying to map out how these specific database views feed into legacy on-prem systems, custom campus data warehouses, and external SaaS platforms all mid-migration. Running multiple parallel cloud migrations across separate campus siloes means the target environment is constantly moving. When team is given a short timeline, they simply don't have enough runway to accurately predict the downstream impact. One wrong assumption can easily break active API pipelines, data syncs, or custom ETL scripts that campus operations rely on.

Also, add in the strict data privacy auditing required for cloud data transit, plus the fact that you can't touch anything during high-stakes academic windows like registration, and a rushed timeline becomes a massive liability. Giving teams a full year after the final NXT unified view rollout is the only realistic way to let new technical staff safely inventory integrations, coordinate with other cloud project teams, and execute a stable migration.

Totally agree 100%

Yes please!

100% agree! Cindy also has summarized the issues here very, very well, and I really hope Blackbaud pays attention to this feedback. I think the idea of grandfathering those of us who have database view (even if new clients don't receive access to database view) is a great one. I'm the only data person at my organization, and so testing workflows with half-built functionality in web view is extremely difficult and time consuming. Just about every time I try to move a process fully into web view, I run into some piece of it that can only be done in DB view.

I would very much like to see someone from Blackbaud respond to this idea and show that these concerns are being listened to. Based on the progress of web view so far, I don't see how it will be possible to move all processes to web view before the planned cutoff date, which likely means spending a LOT of time on the phone with support to get these things ironed out. Multiply that by all the organizations using RE and it seems like giving us sufficient time to test and move processes will be easier for everyone.

I'd like to raise a related point about the difference between new clients and long-term clients who already use database view.

I understand new clients just starting their subscription may only be offered web view. That would make sense since they have no established processes in database view to unwind. But many of us have been using database view for 15 years or more. Our workflows, training, reporting, and daily operations were built around DB view. The most detailed and intensive work is still done there today. Some tasks have already shifted to web view because they were removed from DB view.

Moving away from something so deeply embedded is not a simple transition. It is especially challenging for small organizations with limited staff to manage, troubleshoot, and document all the changes. Literally almost everything will be different. Even basic naming conventions have changed, and small details like these require relearning too. It is like moving to a new CRM platform, only without the need for data migration.

Given all of this, I would prefer to see current database view users grandfathered in for continued access long term. Grandfathering would allow each organization to transition to web view only once they are truly ready, based on their own size, staffing, and complexity, not a set deadline.

If grandfathering isn't feasible, I suggest a minimum access window of two years, preferably more, after full functionality is released in web view. Users have been informed that functionality will continue to be released in web view into 2027, the same year database view access is set to end. This leaves less than a full year of DB view access after full functionality is released. For organizations that have relied on database view for over a decade, extending access matters more than I can say.

Ultimately, I cannot stress enough how important it is to have more time. The needs of long-time clients should be made a priority in this transition. We have supported this platform and grown alongside it for 15+ years. A rushed timeline puts our daily operations at real risk. I hope these factors will be considered carefully before finalizing an end date for database view.

I cannot agree more.

Agree with all the below and would appreciate a response from Blackbaud to confirm all these responses have been read and acknowledged, and shared with upper management.

We do all we can to plan processes in webview, but not knowing what month core functionality will be Finished (not just an initial release that often has major issues or functionality that was expected but ends up not being deemed 'essential'), is critical to a timeline. We really do need 12 months after full functionality has been moved across to webview before dbv is removed so we can create a 12 month plan for the transition that works for us and matches the functionality that will actually exist.

I also echo the comments which cite how frustrating it is to see Blackbaud developer time being spent on 'new' unfinished functions like Recognition and AI which have such limited use compared to major processes like import, mail merge, the entire volunteering module etc., and is making us think BB doesn't actually understand the work of most non-profits. We are strongly considering moving away due to this.

I support this idea and wanted to add two thoughts.

First, the timeline updates we're seeing show why this request matters. On the EFT idea (https://renxt.ideas.aha.io/ideas/RENXT-I-9369), EFT file creation was originally planned for before BBCON 2026. It's now expected in Q2 2027, following recurring batches and AGT in Q1 2027. I appreciate the update, though it would help to understand what changed from the original timeline and whether any support or accommodations are planned for organizations affected by the delay. As it stands, a core payment process may arrive just a few months before database view is retired, with the credit card piece still being worked out. For processes that affect donors directly, that's a very short window. Starting the one-year countdown once functionality is fully delivered would give organizations the time to transition carefully.

Second, today's Inside Track to Web View session, "AI-Guided Fundraising in Raiser's Edge NXT," focused on AI, and I share a concern others have raised. I understand AI is an important area and that Blackbaud wants to stay competitive. But with the Inside Track series centered on the move to web view, I was hoping to hear more about progress on the core functionality many of us are still waiting on, like import, gift adjustments, global changes, and every field being visible and editable in NXT (for example, comments on emails and addresses). We're being encouraged to move our work into web view, and at the same time we're being introduced to AI tools that depend on complete, well-maintained data. But for many of us, keeping that data clean and complete still requires database view. It feels a bit like two directions at once, and I think the AI features would be much more valuable, and more trusted, once the data management tools they rely on are fully available in web view.

What we're hoping for most at this stage is trust, transparency, and functionality. Organizations that want to use AI already have good options for running analysis on datasets, building automations, and drafting communications. The core database functionality is something only Blackbaud can provide, and it would mean a lot to see that prioritized.

Thank you for listening to this community's feedback.

I cannot agree more!

yes!

YES!!!!

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

PLEASE! Ensuring all functions that are needed between DB View & Unified View can't be done until ALL functions are complete in Unified View. And then it will take time to use Web View and figure out exactly what needs to be changed/added/edited. This seems like a no brainer and I don't understand why your developers would even think about removing DBview until knowing absolutely ALL functions necessary are complete. The management of this entire process has made us lose all faith in Blackbaud, which is unfortunate because our nonprofit has been customers of yours for YEARS and YEARS. The fact that this is happening to customers who are in the middle of a contract is even more frustrating. You're losing customers (which I'm sure you don't care) but word is getting around that Blackbaud is a serious issue, especially compared to the cost of what you get in comparison to other competitive platforms, and we will be transferring our services elsewhere unless Blackbaud wakes up and comes off this insane business model they are progressing with.

Dear BB Engineers and Management,

Could you please hold off on setting a firm deadline to switch to Webview-only until all of the features and functionality currently available in Database View have been fully transitioned to Webview?

I hope you can understand the anxiety and concerns reflected in the comments here. Many of us are already scrambling to figure out how to work with Webview functionality that still does not appear to be on par with Database View.

At the same time, we are being introduced to new fields and features in Webview before they are fully implemented or ready for practical use—for example, Recognition. This creates another layer of frustration when we cannot yet properly query or export the data associated with these new features.

On one hand, we are trying to adapt to functionalities that are not yet equivalent to Database View. On the other hand, we are being asked to work with new features that are not yet fully usable. This makes the transition unnecessarily challenging and creates additional uncertainty for those of us who rely on BB's products in our day-to-day work.

Please consider giving users some breathing room and avoiding additional pressure until the transition is truly complete and the new functionalities are fully implemented, tested, and ready for production use.

As a long-term supporter of BB's products, I genuinely appreciate the work your team continues to put into improving the platform. At the same time, I encourage the team to pace the execution of these changes thoughtfully and allow sufficient time for vendors and supporters to adapt without creating unnecessary stress or disruption.

Many thanks for your understanding and consideration.

To add to and echo many of the comments here: the Unified View project can't be considered complete when all the database view functionality is in NXT -- we need time to learn how to use it and to train users. Blackbaud has done well with offering change management support and resources lately, but on our end we need to have time to implement them before database view just goes away.

Ability to choose 1 day per month for recurring processing? NO

Ability to use a custom label for our default fund in online giving? NO

Receipt stacks? Making ALL fields toggle for mandatory? Global processes? Recurring gift amendment report? Being able to format dates? My list is LONG.

My other difficulty is that when they say things have moved over directly, it turns out they were dumbified in the process. I try to use web view but when I can't specify that I want "Name" to be "Last, First" (as opposed to our general name format of First Last) in a query it's crazy! Now there's extra columns, extra sorting....

Also having to check things to find out if usefulness has occurred? The amount of times I tried batch template just to see if the fields would display in the order I want them (thankfully they do now)

It is so difficult to figure out how it will work for my company based on ideas and demos, but no ability to actually try it. Some of the most important things I need and use, like Export, still not available. So many things planned with a "coming in Q3", don't actually get out in Q3. I have to figure all this out for myself for my company and can't spend all my time testing your product and then putting ideas in the Idea Bank to get something fixed/changed. I have been trying to do more things in web view, but it is frustrating when something that takes 2 minutes in DB view, takes 5 minutes in web view because the functionality is not the same. Year End is the busiest time for my organization and I will not have time to learn, test, practice and change processes for something that will not even be available t me until late 2026, early 2027. Please consider a later date, or better yet, don't plan a date until you actually have everything done and available for everyone.

Very strongly agree with all the comments stated here. Many functions that I use daily in DBV are still unavailable at the same level in webview. There shouldn't even be consideration of sunsetting DBV until we have all the capabilities in webview as well, plus the time to effectively and confidently migrate our processes. It's very concerning to our team that we are going to have to rush to transition processes that won't be released until 2027, likely with only months to do this. It feels like Blackbaud is rushing this entire process.

Emphasizing the point that there are critical processes that only happen once a year, so when much of the planned delivery timeline for essential features will happen after YEAR END, the busiest time for most nonprofits, means that we will not have a meaningful opportunity to test and implement new processes before losing access to database view.