I just got back from AMS Fest, and Build Partner, Kyle Haines, wanted to hear what I learned that’s informing software selections at associations. So, Kyle sat down with me and I shared what I learned and heard from other attendees, and what I’d recommend we tell an association evaluating their AMS today. Here’s that conversation, lightly edited.
What Was the Most Interesting Thing You Saw at AMS Fest?
Everyone is thinking about AI and wondering how it’s going to change everything. All of the software vendors are figuring out how AI is going to change the experience of their product.
I’d summarize some of the sentiment around the event with a comment one of the panelists made at the very first keynote. She was a CIO for an association, and she’d been through four or five AMS implementations in her career. They’d just gone through an implementation of an AMS platform. Her comment was: “I wonder if I just did the last AMS implementation I’ll ever do.” She wasn’t referring to retiring; she was referring to whether AI is fundamentally going to change what it means to have AMS systems and software.
How Did the Audience React to That?
The audience this year had heavy vendor representation — a lot of software vendors, but also some consulting vendors like us. Looking around the room, I felt there was a nervous air about what that might mean for so many of the software vendors. But they’re all already dealing with this question. They’re all already trying to figure out how AI transforms what they do, and how their product works.
What Else Were Associations and Vendors Talking About?
One thing I think was reinforced at the conference is the continued move toward CRM platforms, especially for larger organizations with more complex needs. Salesforce and Dynamics have carved out a very meaningful part of that market. There are still new solutions being built on these platforms as well. They’ve been pretty impactful for the whole sector.
I think the non-platform vendors are either competing through the functional breadth and depth of their product, which has to include more and more to compete with these platforms, or they’re competing by carving out the smaller organization niche, where it’s more feasible to be an all-in-one solution for someone without the complexity of a platform. Part of what they offer is simplicity — here’s everything you need and you don’t need a full-time admin to manage it.
There’s of course a selection bias in who’s attending, because this is a place where people go to see the latest and greatest AMSs. So you have a lot of nonprofit association leaders who are ready to make a purchase decision. I think what they’re trying to gauge is: who are the providers who are right-sized for us? Either we’re a small organization, we don’t have an IT team, we’re not going to have a full-time in-house person to manage a platform — so what’s right-sized for us? Or organizations with broader needs who are really trying to decide: do we go best of breed — systems that aren’t platforms but are specifically built to serve the AMS market — or do we go the platform route because we know we’re different in some important ways, so we’re not going to need to customize.
What Should Associations Watch For When Selecting an AMS?
I’m of two minds about AI on this. On one hand, the hype around AI has far outpaced its capabilities. I wouldn’t make that a cornerstone of any decision in 2026 about an AMS system selection. It’s premature in my opinion for most organizations to look at AI as a deciding factor in which AMS software to choose. It offers some exciting opportunities, and it’s advancing very rapidly, but one of the things we advise at Build is to select systems and software based on what they can do today, not the promise of what they’re going to add tomorrow. I’d urge a little bit of caution about going too far down the route of letting AI drive AMS selection in 2026.
That said, there are some very interesting things it looks like they’re making possible with AI in these systems — productivity enhancers. Natural language queries of your membership data. Simple things like AI-enabled help documentation search. Plugging your AI tools into an MCP server provided by the AMS. The vendors are building in some interesting AI capabilities. Just don’t overweight AI in the consideration of what the best solution is going to be for you.
The second part, very closely related: the considerations that drove a vendor selection process five years ago are the same things that should drive it today. What are you trying to do? What are your requirements as an organization? What are the unique ways you go about doing those things? Make the vendors show you how they meet those unique needs.
There is a lot of functionality that is now “table stakes” for a good AMS, too. People kind of breeze over these, but they’re vital for making organizations work more effectively. Running events, building community, online communities, handling different types of commerce, awards, certifications. The linkages between membership, revenue, and finance, and finance integration. Those are all still the core. AI is one feature among many.
Can AI Replace Human Interaction With Members and Constituents?
I didn’t hear much about that at the conference, but I’ve definitely had some client experiences recently, and experiences with third-party vendors, that inform this a lot. AI is not a substitute for human interaction — even for email interactions. You just have to be so careful how you use it.
AI isn’t the first technology to prompt this question, though. For as long as we’ve had interactive voice response systems, companies and organizations have been straddling a fine line between making this more self-serve and not driving our members or constituents away, frustrated with the hoops needed to talk to an agent or membership representative.
What would you expect to hear at the next AMS Fest
I’ll keep watching the association sector closely over the next year, because this is moving fast and the hype-to-reality ratio is going to shift. But I don’t think that means associations should sit on their hands. If you’re informing an AMS selection right now, the fundamentals I talked about above still apply: know your requirements, make vendors prove they meet your unique needs, and don’t let AI’s promise substitute for what a system can actually do today.
As for that CIO’s comment, wondering if she’d just done her last AMS implementation ever, I don’t think we’re there yet. But I understand why she’s asking the question, and I think every association should be asking some version of it too, just not as the question that drives this year’s decision.
The bigger question underneath all of this is how AMS fits into a much broader, fast-changing technology ecosystem, one where platforms, point solutions, and AI capabilities are all shifting at once. I don’t think anyone, including the vendors, has fully figured that out yet. That’s exactly why it’s worth paying attention to, and why I’d rather have that conversation now than be caught flat-footed by it later.
