|
[Printer Friendly Version]
An Open Letter to Nonprofit Technology Funders
By Michael C. Gilbert, March 10, 2003
Dear Grantmaker:
I apologize in advance for arrogating myself to a position of offering advice to a part of the nonprofit sector within which I have never worked as a professional. I haven't personally confronted the challenges of truly evaluating a great many proposals, the pressures of payout, the politics of foundation funding processes, or the very strange dynamics faced by being someone who gives away money in a society of scarce resources.
The field of nonprofit technology is at an awkward and challenging moment in its history. While none of us who work in this field doubt the long term transformative potential of new technology to empower the organizations we support, many are feeling the pressure of other priorities. Just yesterday, at the NTEN conference, four technology providers confided to me about their desires to get closer to direct work on the issues they are trying to support. I imagine that grantmakers are feeling the same pressures.
People are asking themselves a very blunt question: Are we pulling wires while the world goes to hell?
Obviously, I don't think we are wasting our time. I am a believer in the power of new technology, as are many of you. But if believers are feeling these pressures, we can only imagine the barriers to new technology growing among those whose priorities are already focused elsewhere.
How do we lower those barriers?
I know that there are many minds focused on this question right now. The principles proposed by the TechFunders Collaborative are fine (and I will support them), but they seem focused on convincing people, rather than lowering barriers. I worry that we don't sound very convincing, no matter what our principles.
High leverage processes and priorities might complement and lend greater impact to well crafted principles, because they might truly lower the barriers that are preventing adoption. I would like to offer three such suggestions.
1. Fund truly rigorous research and evaluation
I believe that the largest barrier to adoption is perceived risk.
The perception of risk is not a false one. There has been a lot of money wasted on technology in the last few years. Such is certainly the cost of innovation, but resource constraints are making everyone more risk averse.
The way to solve this is by enabling the nonprofit technology community to back up our assertions about new technology with real numbers, rather than anecdotes. Compiling yet another list of "best" practices or setting up yet another authority does not address the real issue of demonstrating the outcomes of our work.
Rigor does not come easily in either research or evaluation, but when it is achieved, it can truly professionalize a practice. The field is ready for this leap forward. Indeed, it desperately needs it.
2. Fund technological fertility, not monolithic "solutions"
I am deeply wary of funder driven centralized technology initiatives. There is nothing wrong with power curve distributions or "category killers". But while there are cases of such in the commercial world, they emerged through market forces, not through a focused effort by VCs to fund only one solution.
Ironically, projects that become large and monolithic through the exclusive drive of funders can be a major barrier to the adoption of the very tools that they try to promote. They tend to be less responsive to the unique communication needs of each nonprofit and so foster a very realistic skepticism. Quite critically, they also engender enormous resistance from other valuable players in the field who would otherwise contribute resources.
There is a reason why Compuserve died and the Internet thrived and it is quite critical for us to learn from that. The Internet is, as David Weinberger would say, "small parts, loosely joined". Such power emerges from interoperability, not centralization.
Market driven solutions tend to leverage enormous resources beyond those of the original investors. Funders are not the market. Nonprofits are. Foundations are in a position to build that market through good network thinking, and thus exert leadership on this field far in excess of the dollars spent. Make the market smarter, don't become the market.
For example, if there is a common problem for many thousands of nonprofit organizations that can be solved by a database (and there are many such problems), I would strongly recommend funding fifty $100,000 projects who were each required to support open and interoperable protocols and data models, rather than $5 million on one centralized system. The former is an extremely high leverage strategy that will bring in a great many other resources, such as other databases that will then be rewritten to adhere to the protocol. The latter is actually an "anti-leverage" strategy, in that it will turn collaborators into competitors.
3. Fund communication based technology planning
Many nonprofits do not know what they need. But telling them what they need is not the answer. They already have too many people doing that.
There is a recommended action in a recent report before you, which reads "for those nonprofits which request funds for technology related projects, request evidence that adequate planning has been done...." That's close.
Fund the planning that you require, with two conditions:
First, whether the planning is funded or not, require that it be communication based, not technology based. This is a very key requirement. Too much technology planning takes the form of self-referential studies in technological determinism. This is a critical part of the cycle of resistance. For example, most technology planning starts out with an assessment of the hardware and software of an organization, not their communication needs and workflow. Focusing on technology creates both perceived and genuine irrelevance and, therefore, resistance. Focusing on communication forges the crucial link between technology and mission and therefore creates technology plans that are perceived as relevant, are focused on outcomes, and that easily enroll everyone from leadership to line staff.
In many cases, I would go so far as to say that a truly relevant technology plan (based on rigorous research available from suggestion #1 and using technology nurtured by suggestion #2, of course) will go further to mobilize the adoption of new technology than the direct purchase of the technology itself.
Second, require that funded technology plans be posted publicly (at some reasonable stage, given competitive issues) on the organization's web site, and the URL sent to a clearinghouse, such as NTEN. This would make them available to a broad community of organizations, intermediaries, funders, and others for analysis, critique, and replication.
By mirroring the conditions that gave rise to the amazing innovations of the last decade, these three suggestions could work together to leverage resources and remove barriers to technological adoption. Forgive me if I have spoken from ignorance of the realities of your work, but I challenge you to incorporate these suggestions in that work, collectively, as independent foundations, and as individuals with a responsibility to lead.
Respectfully yours,
Michael C. Gilbert
Publisher, Nonprofit Online News
Founding President, Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network
Member, Advisory Council of The Internet Society's Public Interest Registry
If you found this article interesting or helpful,
please consider making a donation to Nonprofit Online News.
It will probably feel good!
|
RSS