Sharing Data

Okay, here is something for the wow factor! I tried to embed the original in this post but it didn’t want to work today for me.  But here is the link to a demo of Photosynth software.

Enjoy wrapping your brain around the implications of the technology and how it might be used.

Thanks to As The Table Turns for pointing me to this.

Control vs Enablement

In “enablement” even a word?  Hmmm. 

I recently ran into the wall (again) regarding the issue of control of how donations are “collected” and how donors are acknowledged.  I am a little puzzled by the response but I do understand it in a way. 

A donor recently set up a fundraising page using FirstGiving.  The donor and her spouse were off to run a marathon and thought it would be a great way to raise money for their favorite cause.  I would hazard a guess that many readers are quite familiar with FirstGiving and similar sites.   Their goal was a modest $3,000 and I think to-date they have raised about $2,500.  The event was in early May.  (A minor critique of FirstGiving – I didn’t know the donor had done this until the first check arrived.  FG should set a notification system to help charities be aware of what is being done on their behalf.)

So now we have money coming in, opportunity to respond to the supporters of this couple, but I am trapped in procedure.  Our Finance staff is concerned with how we account for the fees that are taken by FirstGiving.  Our legal office is concerned about the lack of a formal agreement between us and FirstGiving for facilitating the activity.  There is the question of FirstGiving being a “paid fundraiser” for us since they are taking a fee for “raising money”.  And a couple others are asking why we can’t set up our own similar service through our website.

Now, I am not saying that these are not valid questions to ask.  The issue has more to do with perspective than with the questions themselves.  I have tried to explain that FirstGiving is not the entity making “the ask”.  It is the individual who sets up the page.  They are just using the technology that FirstGiving supplies.  However, this seems to be falling on deaf ears. 

I offer this case study as a lesson for others.  While most of us understand how we can take advantage of this kind of web technology, there are others who are focused on “typical fundraising”.  Be aware that you will run into the occasional wall or resistance to new things.  Build your case for why this new technology is a good thing.  Focus on the advantages for donors and secondarily on the benefits to your organization.  Point out the relationship building that can be done with donors by allowing (facilitating) them to help you. 

One other thing.  Think through the issues about acknowledging donors to a fundraising activity organized by one of your donors.  Remember that they are supporting their friends and may not be connected to you at all.  You probably don’t want to automatically put them on your mailing list.  But you do want to offer them the opportunity to be involved with your organization if they choose.  Provide enough information to interest them and maybe raise their curiosity.  Then let them choose how they want to interact with you.

Project SharePoint

One of the challenges that we face (and I am sure we are not alone) is the rapidly changing “project status” reports.  For those that deal with gathering information and writing status reports for funders, you will probably shout a loud “Amen” to this challenge.  The challenges often come from two sources:

• different information received from different project sources
• different information needed by various funders (i.e. individuals vs foundations vs organizations, etc)

So a couple of us started brainstorming quite a while ago about how we best manage the information that we have at our fingertips and the reports that are generated by our creative team.  We started with a simple document library concept thinking that if we put our reports in folders organized by subject we would be able to cut and paste as needed.  We quickly learned that this wasn’t going to work.  So we continued to limp along a little while.

We began to realize that one of our biggest problems was not the accumulation of reports.  That was easy.  The hard part was the gathering (and dissemination) of consistent, accurate information.  Often, if one staff member called their source for an update about a particular project, they received one packet.  If a different staff member called a different source, they might get a different packet and not even realize that a) information was already available and b) what they were just given might be different from what the first person received.  (Okay, I realize that this may point to a much large systemic issue that we will get to later.  But for now stick with me.)

Then, thanks to the blogging of some of my peers such as Michele at Bamboo Project and Beth at Beth’s Blog, the light bulb came on.  Why not use a wiki to manage the information?  After setting some simple rules for how information is formatted when it is added to a page in the wiki, we should be off and running.  The fluidity of a wiki is really perfect for keeping track of the most recent information about the various projects that we have at any given time.  In addition, it allows the staff who write reports to gather the information that they need quickly and share new information with other staff just as quickly.

So then the question became – what platform?  So I went to our IT team to see what help I might get for a hosted solution.  Being somewhat familiar with what is available I knew we could get something that would work well for us.  But I received a rather surprising response – “Why not try Microsoft’s SharePoint?”  Not knowing much about it other than conceptually I agreed to at least consider it.   After spending some time in quick review, I realized that we may have stumbled on a great solution!  (Notice I didn’t go so far as to say the “p” word . . . perfect.)

And so, Project SharePoint is born.  I’ll try to post more details as we complete the setup but for now, here is a brief synopsis:

• SharePoint has built in shared document functionality
• SharePoint has a built in wiki which (so far) seems to be very easy to set up
• SharePoint runs on the corporate intranet and can also be configured for remote access
• Calendar, task, and communication duties in SharePoint can be integrated with a user’s Outlook

Much of this we are still working on so I’ll keep posting as we go. 

Change And The Complex System

I recently read this post on the Freakonomics Blog written by Stephen Dubner that got me thinking about the processes that we put into place to accomplish our work.  In his post, Stephen discusses complex systems and how they evolve due to the variety of inputs.  In his post he posits the exercise of asking ourselves, “if we were making this system up from scratch today, what would it look like?” 

I have been working on documenting procedures for a variety of activities within our department lately, and I suspect this post struck home due to this exercise.  In addition to the “process” of creating procedural documents for those that come behind, we are working with our software provider to develop new systems for how our database presents information and tracks donor relationships.  All this makes me ask the same question – if we were doing this from scratch, what would it look like?

It is a scary thing to think about demolishing our existing structures and starting from scratch.  But maybe there are times when that is a better solution than continuing to limp along doing the same things time after time and expecting different results.  I tend to think that non-profits are particularly prone to this thinking.  After all, to start from scratch demands a certain level of financial commitment and an acknowledgment that resources spent on the existing systems may be perceived as wasted.  (False perspective but that concept is for another time.)

Our organizations are complex systems in themselves.  Breaking down the organization into its component parts (Finance, HR, Information Systems, Development, Programs), we can see smaller subsets that are complex systems as well.  Realistically, any entity that involves more than one human interface is a likely candidate for defining as a complex system.  Mid to large size non-profits will be especially complex as they start to deal with a multitude of human inputs. 

Periodically asking ourselves what the system might look like if it was designed from scratch is a worthwhile exercise.  It may be that nothing new is generated.  But how often have you said to yourself, “If I was doing that I would do it this way”,  or, “If only we could handle this this way.”  I believe the concept of strategic planning is changing.  The globalization of our world, the speed at which we are forced to make decisions and operate is forcing us into a new paradigm for planning.  I believe that in the context on ongoing strategic planning we need to be asking ourselves the following questions:

• What are we doing that we need to keep doing because it is the core of who we are and what we exist to do?
• What are we doing that we need to do for a short time longer to complete and then toss it out?
• What are we doing that we should be doing differently because the original design and purpose has slipped?
• What are we doing that we should not be doing anymore because it is outside of our core mission and purpose?

Then take a look at the systems that are in place to support your activity and in light of the answers to the above questions, evaluate which systems should remain and which should go.  Which systems need tweaking and which systems are operating at best efficiency.

If you had to do it over again from scratch, what would it look like?

Job Title Inflation

One of the lessons I learned through our reorganization project recently was the power of words – especially when attached to job titles. 

In an article in the recent Knowledge@Wharton e-newsletter the author points to the value of how titles are created and the intrinsic message that is created as a result.  At the same time, there is recognition that “title inflation” may be the unintended result of the drive to create titles such as Chief Relationship Officer, Chief Development Officer, Chief Experience Officer, etc. 

However, I would hazard a guess that many of us have experienced roles that probably had a “normal” title but the work was more in the line of the new title trends.  I would suggest that we start considering a multi-level title.  The first is level is the “public” title that goes on the business card.  The second is the internal title that helps to explain what the employee actually does and may be placed as a sub-title on the business card.

Let me offer an example:

Many non-profits are starting to recognize the power of the internet and the brand/image that they project through their Web interactions.  And some, are taking that to the next level and actually assigning a staff person the duty of monitoring the traffic on the internet that relates to their organization.  This person may be a staff person on the Web team, a donor response person, a communications person, or some other “regular” role.  However, their sub-title might be Chief Web Experience Officer. 

Herein lies some danger though.  As we strive to encourage our staff and provide experiences to them that they find valuable, it is important to realize that placement and title-ing is only part of the story.  Support and resources become critical to enhancing the results.  It is not enough to provide a fancy title.  We must be prepared to allow the person to act within their role.

If you are working through job descriptions, organization charts, staffing needs, etc consider the words you use.  Not only in the titles but in the descriptions.  They may be more important than you think.

Some rambling thoughts for consideration.