Members Only Logo  
XML

or Subscribe by Email by entering your address below:


Powered by FeedBlitz
Learn about Subscriptions Follow me on Twitter!

The topics discussed here grow out of the bread-and-butter issues that confront my consulting and software clients on a daily basis. We'll talk about prosaic stuff like Membership Management, Meetings and Events Management and Fundraising, broader ideas like security and software project management, and the social, cultural, and organizational issues that impact IT decision-making.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Bread and Butter 2.0

As I've been reading the explosion of postings all over the net dedicated to "Web2.0" I'm struck by a disconnect between the advantages of the new web technologies and the business goals our users are striving to meet on the network.

Here's what I mean: John Hagel in a post last week offered a tentative definition of web 2.0 as
“an emerging network-centric platform to support distributed, collaborative and cumulative creation by its users.”
I think this really sums up the user-centric view of a lot of the discussion. But what do my non-profit users want from the internet? Now jump in and pummel me if you disagree, but I'd say you'd tell me your major concerns are
  1. Getting your message out to your community.
  2. Allowing your community to register for your events, renew their memberships, make donations, and buy your literature on-line.
  3. Allowing the use of your key business applications from multiple sites.
These are the bread and butter issues facing non-profits and associations, and most of them realize they can still improve significantly in all of these areas. I think this is the reason I instinctively identified Ajax as someting my users would care about, and why I've not been as vocal about tagging or social bookmarking, for example.

Meanwhile, somewhere in their organizations people are researching issues, writing brochures, commenting on legislations, issuing press releases - all "distributed, collaborative" tasks. But that's the problem with distributed: the work is being done with other people in other organizations or offices who are probably not going to take the time to learn the great new tool you've been experimenting with. The Senator's aide does not want to sign up for a Writely account just so you can mark up her draft in a cutting-edge way.

And probably your executive director doesn't want to either. "Why can't you just send her a doc like you did last week?" I know. I've tried. We're talking innovation here, and adopting anything new comes at a cost. Sad to say, winning buy-in from your own staff is not enough to allow the use of these new tools.

So is web2.0 simply irrelevant for most non-profits? If not, how can web2.0 be tied directly into the bread and butter issues? I think one way is to focus on these collaborative tools as a path to on-line community building for the organization's members and supporters. By making a site available to your members where people can post ideas for comment, propsect for colleagues to work on specific projects, and just plain schmooze, you can increase the sense of involvement your constituents have. There are a variety of tools you can employ to do this. You get the early adopters excited and engaged right away, and the others will be lured in at their own pace. Meanwhile, you still can still send the Senator's aide an email.

tags: ,

Comments on "Bread and Butter 2.0"

 

Blogger Mind Valley said ... (October 3, 2005 at 9:36 PM) : 

I am surprised that you doubt the business value of tagging and social bookmarking. Can you elaborate more?

Have you had a chance to check out www.blinklist.com? It is a new personal and social bookmarking and discovery engine. Our goal is to have it be an incredibly powerful tool for knowledge sharing and social learning.

If we you see big shortcomings, have big reservations, I would love to hear what they are so that we can win more users and make our product more useful so that the benefits become more clear and obvious to the mass market. Thanks for listening. Mike

 

Blogger Mubeena Mohd said ... (October 7, 2005 at 4:06 AM) : 

Any technology can work for or against the users of a group as I believe there are certain factors that play at random.

However, I think that if users are unified in the purpose of the technology and if they are trained to use it for that purpose over their own individual gain, the technology can be most beneficial. This is of course hard to do without a formalized process which orients users about why they are part of the elite group.

The technology can tear up an online group if individual members are out purely to espouse their own agenda and perspective. Knowledge sharing and social learning can only occur if people believe they are a significant part of a collective identity. This means they would have to meet all together regularly online or in person where they are made to digest all information in bits rather than have only their stuff chronically accessible in their minds.

 

Anonymous Marshall Kirkpatrick said ... (October 9, 2005 at 12:46 AM) : 

This is a very important articulation of questions of fundamental importance. I don't know how to respond on a theoretical level, and I don't want to disagree entirely with you. Perhaps I can contribute another example of a Web2.0 tool that hits home with bread and butter concerns and we can make that list longer.

RSS fits that bill, I think. Besides the advantages of other people being able to keep up with you via reading your organization's news updates or callender additions via RSS (lower commitment required to access that info via RSS than via repeat visits to website, far less likely to get lost than email)... npos themselves can get a lot out of reading RSS feeds.

Finding the right feeds to subscribe to and organizing them effectively are key. I wrote a long comment here, but decided instead to post it on my blog, titled "Getting RSS Organized." at http://marshallk.com/?p=21

 

Blogger Ruby said ... (October 14, 2005 at 2:58 PM) : 

Michael, you raise some good points here. It might be that "web 2.0" doesn't have that much impact on the day-to-day functioning of small service-oriented nonprofits, although I can still think of a lot of ways it could support and improve their work.

But I see network-strategies as essential to organizations working for any kind of social or political change. Collaboration and connection are critical to effective movement building and advocacy. To the extent that not every org does that, maybe they don't need the new stuff, but there are very few organizations who don't want to change someone's mind about something...

 

Anonymous Celeste W. said ... (October 23, 2005 at 12:00 AM) : 

As someone who has worked in nonprofit communications for many years, I think you are making some very important points. It sometimes seems that tech evangelists, including nptech evangelists, promote the latest tools as being inherently good, without due consideration of their true costs and benefits, and how they advance, in comparision to other technologies, the organization's mission and goals.

 

Blogger Graeme Attkins said ... (October 2, 2006 at 8:56 AM) : 

Web 2.0 seems to mean different things to different people. And as yet, there isn't a single definitive explanation for the term.

From a website visual user interface point of view, it's all about simplifying content, using curved boxes, tints and fewer graphics - basically a move back to content over style - and blogs have been the prime reason for this shift.

From a web development point of view, it's about creating web-based applications - and this, it seems to me, is something that has existed on the web for quite some time, albeit in a disjointed way.

At the end of the day, Flickr is still an image gallery, MySpace/Bebo are glorified contact database/bulletin board, and Digg is just a larger, more interactive version of user review systems that have gone before (think Amazon and IMDB.com).

I think the biggest danger of Web 2.0 is that a lot of people seem to associate it with AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) which provides the backbone for such sites as Google Maps and GMail.

AJAX is inherently inaccessible and should only ever be used as the cherry on top of sound, accessible website coding.

And on Marshall's point about RSS fitting the bill, I'd still opt for XML - there are two many different standards for RSS, and we're heading for a huge incompatibility issue again. XML on the other hand, is supported by a much wider range of applications, and can be used to dynamically update websites built in (X)HTML, Flash, etc.

 

post a comment