Musing of a Technology Nut

Challenge the Status Quo... Changing Process

2012-01-26T11:13:00.002-05:00

Lately, I've been thinking about how the proposal and payment process takes place at Database Sherpa. Currently, I am using this model:

Collect requirements from the client
Write proposal based on the collected requirements
Client accepts proposal
Start project
Bill at milestones defined in proposal
End project
Bill last amount

I'm just not satisfied with this current model. Why? It's not that I'm uncomfortable with figuring out my worth or uncovering the requirements of the client. What bothers me is that the model is about getting it right from the start. Here is what I mean:

gathering the requirements at the start
getting the hours in the proposal based on the requirements
figuring out any contingency up front
sending bills out at the correct times, which means that the milestones are pre-scheduled or defined well enough to bill
ending the project at a specific time

I have often struggled at finding that fine balance between the proposal and requirements. I venture to say, most of my consultant friends struggle with this as well. This model often brings me great unhappiness and, I imagine, clients frets about it as well. What I see is missing is the room for compassion or fun. The rigid and inflexible focus of the beginning of the process, to me, is the main point of unhappiness. The more I think about this model, the more frustrated I become. So, I am embarking on a journey to see what else can be done. Something new and fun with the compassion at the core.

Being a person who likes to contemplate, I started thinking about the process of requirement changes in the current model. Here is an example, my client has learned something new about their organization. They didn't realize when we first started collecting the requirements and I neglected to ask. My first step is to discuss the finding with them, document the change and the impact on the original requirements, create a change order that explains the impact and figure out how much time it will take to modify the requirements to meet the change. I would then give said change order to the client with new amounts attached. They would sign the changes and ONLY THEN would we proceed. This just doesn't feel right.... my brain kept going back to thinking that we should be celebrating the learning and acknowledging it in a fun way. How could we make this less about the document and more about the learning? What would that look like?

So, you see, I would like to turn this model on it's head, and find a better way to work with our clients. Thus, I have begun researching other ways and the path has lead me to the PWYL (Pay What You Like) or PWYW (Pay What You Want) model. This model allows the customer to pay what they like, including zero, for products that a company provides. This is a very flexible and participatory model which is guided more by the customer.

One big, frightening issue with this model is that I can't work for zero! That's just not feasible as I need to put food on the table. But, I do like the theory and what it could do to the current process. So, I'll wander down this path for a bit and see what comes up.

I am aware that changing the current process at Database Sherpa means that change will occur in myself and my clients. Since a change like this can be difficult and stressful, I realize that I need to research ideas that are being implemented by others first. So here I will share what I have found thus far and will continue to write other blog posts as I experiment and learn.

What I have learned and read so far is that the PWYL model it's not about what you CAN pay as much as is it about what you would LIKE or WANT to pay. It is about WORTH or VALUE for the service received. A great example, that most of us follow, is tipping a server at a restaurant. We will either tip 15% or 20% for great service or only 5% or 10% for really poor service. Sometimes, we may tip even less. Again, we are paying what we WANT for the VALUE of the service. Not what we CAN pay.

My first connection was through a friend, Emily, who sent me a link to this blog post written by Tara Joyce (TJ). As a result, I began an email dialogue with TJ about her experiments with this PWYL model. She's been experimenting with this model in her service based business and here is what she shared with me via email:

If you can design, communicate and supply your service/product in those terms (unique, exclusive), it may be a good system for you to use.

What I've found using it is that it's a good system to use if you are confident in:
your self and your business worth
communicating your worth effectively
how clearly you've identified how you are of service
how clearly you have identified your ideal client

When I place Database Sherpa against the backdrop she has outlined, I find it's a great fit. I'm very confident in the business process and the worth to the client and am working with a great firm (see my previous blog post about fear) to communicate that worth effectively. The ideal client is one willing and able to take their time and learn on their own. Self-starters and people who desire something different.

Now, I need to figure out what something new would look like. That means that I needed to do a bit more research. So, I decided to look specifically at how the PWYL model has or has not worked for others and read some academic papers on this topic.

I started with reading some academic papers as I wanted to ground myself in some theory. I started with a paper that TJ referenced in her blog post. This paper gave me two very specific finding related to the consumer (or client, in my case). They:

need an internal reference point for pricing a product.
base the final price on: fairness, satisfaction, market price, awareness and net income.

This paper also does a great job of explaining, in wonderful mathematical detail, how the PWYL model can work and for what types of firms. What I learned is that the model is most profitable for risk neutral companies AND that the company should be unique enough to differentiate itself from the rest of the market.

What I found lacking with this paper is research based on a service based business. The entire paper focused on the consumer purchasing a product. But, if I take broad latitude and replace consumer with client and product with service, this paper provided me some great insights. The main point of an internal reference point for pricing a service gives me pause. Why? Well, most organizations don't have a reference point for pricing Database Sherpa projects.

The other place that gave me pause relates to net income. Many of our clients are nonprofit organizations that have no net income. How would they be able to base a final price on something they don't have?

Challenges! I love those. I imagine they can be overcome with thoughtfulness and purpose. So, let's keep digging!

So, with some academic theory and TJ's practical experience, I started on the next trek, looking at companies that have experimented with the PWYL model. I found a few that piqued my interest (note, none were service based businesses):

Panera's "Pay what you like" model for their Community Cafes.

Customers are given a receipt that shows full retail price of their food.
Since the cafes are nonprofits, a donation can be made for the food in an anonymous donation box. They accept cash only.
Bottom Line: 20% leave more money and 20% leave less. 60% pay what is on the receipt.

Roller coaster experiment with PWYL.

Focuses on selling photos to individuals after they have ridden on a coaster. One coaster offers a traditional PWYL model the other will give money to a charity based on what the individual pays for the photo.
Bottom Line: Individuals will pay a higher fee in a PWYL model if a charity is attached.

Game Proun PWYL experiment:

Proun game was provided to customers with the PWYL model. Yes, some could pay $0.
Bottom Line: PWYL model was great for the exposure and generating buzz around the game, but not for the money (he said it was good money for a hobby, but not for a full time job). PWYL continues but with a lower limit set at $1 rather than $0.

iPad Stylus PWYL with Kickstarter experiment.

Used Kickstarter (which is a way to generate funds for a project by offering rewards to the funder, read more at Kickstarter's web site) and PWYL.
They clearly defined some key parameters: wanted $50,000 collected by 3,000 people (about $16.67 per person). If the project was fully funded, the iPad Stylus would cost $25.
Bottom Line: iPad Stylus was fully funded.

After mulling these around my head a bit and wandering through the Wikipedia site and Freakonomics site, I found myself yearning for more. Still, here are a few of my thoughts:

It's disappointing that research and documentation on service based businesses using a PWYL model is lacking. I would love to see some academic research as well as some practical application of the PWYL model in service based businesses. Thanks to TJ for being so willing to share her results with me. It's a start! I wonder if there is more research that I just haven't found?

The "internal reference point" for a client has me thinking. Even those that were successful, in the mind of the seller, had set a reference point for the client. For example, Panera gave a receipt to the consumer. The iPad Stylus had base price of $25 and with Kickstarter gave a lower price of $16.67. And the software game has now set a lower limit of $1 rather than $0. This probably take the stress out of the process of figuring out the worth from the consumers perspective. But, how would one tackle this in a service based business?

Attaching a charity to the price seems exploitative, but it seems to work for the product in the roller coaster experiment. Might there be a way to do this but in a non-exploitative feeling way? I wonder....

I can't work for free... that still keeps coming back to me. While I love the idea of changing this model to fit the compassionate model of Database Sherpa, I wonder if it's possible. Could I be trying to do something that just isn't possible?

I still need to do more digging around to find more resources and read more information. I feel like the process with trying this model will be:

Read idea -> Think about it for Database Sherpa -> Experiment -> Learn -> Try Again

This iterative process may help in defining the proposal process at Database Sherpa... the story will unfold as the business grows in compassion.

Facing fear... fighting back

2011-12-26T15:21:00.001-05:00

I have always been a very cautious and practical person. It's not my nature to run into things full bore without having a plan in place. I always looked at this as being fearful. Fear of failure.

During yoga, I find myself coming back to that feeling. Fear of failure. So, I try that handstand, but I can't get up. It's not so much what others think of me, but what I think of myself. I can get into that self-loathing place quickly. That fear keeps me from trying or pushing myself forward.

Then, the question becomes: How can I ask my Sherpa clients to be fearless if I cannot do it myself? That's a really good question. What can I do to face my fears? Another good question. One way I have faced my fears is to fully embrace the Database Sherpa model, to the point of being a little nutty about it (if you meet me, be prepared to hear about it!). Another thing I've done is to hire a company -- DVQ Studio -- to help me brand and develop the model (more will be unveiled as it is developed). Finally, my good friend, Veronica Waters, is now an advisor to this work. So, I've put my reputation, money and friendship on the line.Why? Because, I'm not going to hide from my fear anymore, I'm facing it head on! Is the fear gone? No! I see it from time to time, visiting me again and again. I let it sit for a bit and then blow it away. Goodbye for now, I'm sure you'll be back!

This way of fighting back is a process, but one that will better equip me to help the Sherpa clients fight their fears. And it's already working on changing me and how I work with my Sherpa clients. The most current Sherpa project brought me to the place of learning about resources available to use after the project ends. This particular client was given specific work to accomplish using the Google Group, to find answers to very specific questions. They were tentative and fearful at first, but I explained that I only wanted them to look and find. So, with that knowledge, they faced their fear of the unknown.

After visiting the Google Group and finding the answers, they looked around further (you know how that happens when you are searching on the Internet). What they got was so much more than mere answers to questions (which had been my hope). At one point in our conversation one of them voiced, "I could even answer some questions." My immediate response was, "go ahead and respond next time; see what happens." She giggled with delight at that suggestion and said, "oh, now I get it - I can get involved and help too. They need me and my time as well." Now, she faced her fear, saw what she could do and now feels empowered to do something about it. WOW, that was pretty awesome.

With the support of my good friends at DVQ Studio and my special advisor, Veronica Waters, my confidence level has been given a boost and I feel like a better Sherpa.

Who knows what will come next?!

Practicing Compassion

2011-12-01T15:16:00.000-05:00

Being a database consultant has given me the opportunity to see organizational change up close. Change can be very difficult for the individual, which, in turn, can greatly impact the organization. I've been advocating for a fundamental change in consulting that will incorporate yoga principles with database development. As I've mentioned in previous posts, I intend to share my thoughts on how this weaving might work best.

Most recently, in my yoga class, my mind wandered (what else is new) and I realize that if someone took a snapshot of our room during a specific pose, it would look like a picture of my ballet recital when I was three years old. We'd all be expressing the pose in our own way. That's the beauty of the practice of yoga. Expressing your uniqueness is not wrong, it's beautiful. Why? Because each person is in their own place in their practice. But, we all come together. Work together. Support each other. How wonderful and spectacular.

My dream is we could see this about database development as well. Your organizational readiness for a database is not necessarily going to be the same as another organizations. Just because you hear that an organization is using a donor database or Salesforce.com, doesn't mean the database will work for you. Heck, a DATABASE might not work for you at all... (oops, did I say that?!) Okay, I'll say it again:

no database

NO DATABASE

Isn't there a saying:

"you are perfect just the way you are"

Maybe, just maybe, there is a case for keeping your systems the way they are, no change. In my experience, before you jump into the pool with everyone else, ask yourself these two simple questions:

Will this database be created because I need to measure or do something required by someone else? For example, if you find that your main reason for creating the database is because a funder has asked you to report on a specific data point regarding your clients, then it is the outside force that is driving the decision to create the database. It might be just as easy to modify an existing spreadsheet to collect those data points rather creating a database which is being driven because of this funder (an outside force). Outside forces drive the decision.
Will this database be used to track specific requirements to help with making decisions about my organization or help me with the operations of the organization? For example, your organization is trying to make a strategic decision about the individuals whom you serve. Your existing system of collecting data doesn't provide the information needed to make these key decisions that will drive programming and volunteer needs. Decisions come from within.

Do you see the key here? It has to do with whether the decision is coming from inside or outside. It's much better to allow systems to grow organically, through critical thinking and decision making. Growing from the inside and making decisions based on actual need will make for the best systems - those that are embraced by everyone in the organization. These systems will succeed and thrive.

If you see an organization with a database (donor, client management, etc.), don't presume that you need one too (remember, those outside forces?!). Like, when I look my neighbor who can get into a headstand in the middle of the room. I look in admiration at the skill and ability of this yogi. I don't attempt to do a headstand in the middle of the room (okay, maybe I do, once, but then never again...). Seriously, the outside force doesn't get me to do the headstand, instead, it was my body telling me "I'm ready". You've got to be willing to listen to your organization to hear "I'm ready" -- because my decisions are coming from within.

Don't look at your peers who have a highly functional database with jealousy. Realize that they worked hard to get there. Appreciate where they came from and where they are now. Look at them with admiration and love! Yes, with LOVE, this is the compassionate sector, right?!

Change your organization from the inside with love, appreciation and admiration for yourself and your peer organizations. That's the only true way change can be embraced in your organization.

Facebook changes .. welcome to the cloud

2011-09-21T22:38:00.000-04:00

I've been leaving my blog for the work that I'm doing related to databases, but I've seen something that has made me wonder... hmmmm... we're going to have to get used to change with technology. It seems, every time Facebook makes a major upgrade or "improvement" to their system, a lot of my friends get really upset. I see things like, "why change a good thing" or "just when I was getting used to the system" or "it's doing something new that it didn't do before". Then, a period of time passes. The new becomes old. And, it changes again! Oh my, how could they change it?!

Well, I guess with my yogic mentality, I think change keeps us awake and less likely to accept the norm. But, as I understand it, change is not easy (although, for some reason, I actually like change. Keeps me feeling alive, but I'm a strange bird, I realize that after a few years of therapy). Most will tell me, change for the sake of change isn't worth it, but I say, why not. It's good to change it up a bit. Look at this in a new light with a new lens. It's how we can make sure we don't accept the norms in society.

Anyway, this really isn't a post about change, it's a post about the new features in Facebook that I've been looking forward to. Finally, a way to keep my friends closer and my acquaintances... well, not farther, just less noise on my Facebook wall. This means I can have more friends and still be able to see my close friends' posts.

Most of this stuff you'll see here can be found under the arrow on the very right side (next to the Home link). Click on Privacy Settings to see these options.

One thing I like, that was actually something released earlier, is that I can control the tags in which I appear. I think this is a fantastic setting that allows me to make sure I'm really in a picture or that I want to be tagged in a post. This can be found in the section How Tags Work. I have turned off the Tag Suggestions and the Check In functions entirely.

The privacy and security of Facebook has really come a long way. I'm very happy with how certain posts can be hidden or shown to certain friends. I also like how I can control my posts so that only my friend can see the post and not friends of friends. This is a wonderful feature that helps me to keep things for just my friends. This Facebook FAQ does a pretty good job of explaining it (that would be my one complaint, the lack of good help in Facebook). Anyway, there is also a setting for under How You Connect where you can lock down things even further. For example, I have it set so that only my friend can look me up by name, can send me Facebook messages, can post on my wall and can see wall posts by others on my profile. Only friends of friends can send me friend requests. I like that feature a lot. Why let anyone send me requests?!

This page does a pretty good job of explaining the latest changes. I say pretty good as it's not the best and quite short without any screenshots. Read carefully, it's not well written.

I think the privacy controls settings and such are fantastic. I have been keeping Facebook as a friends only place for so long and removing "friends" from time to time. My idea was this: twitter for friends and colleagues; Facebook for family and friends; Linked In for colleagues. Now, the lines are blurring a bit. Some say that's not good, and I personally don't like it, but that doesn't mean you have to do it. I have *not* signed on for the subscribe feature... yet.... I'm not seeing the value to the greater social world. Who cares about my mundane life other than my friends and family? If you're not sure what I'm talking about, then don't worry about it. You don't have to have subscribers and you most certainly don't have to subscribe to anyone. Here are the details, if you're interested. Keep in mind, it's a Facebook help, not the best in the world. By default, you are "subscribed" to all your friends and they are to you, BUT no one else can subscribe to your posts UNLESS you Allow Subscribers. And, you can control what they can see... again, not sure why I would do this at this point in my life, but who knows. It's a feature I might desire in the future.

Now, back to the subscribe with your friends. There is a feature to allow it so you can subscribe to a friends updates at different levels. Right now, most of your friends are set to Most Updates. There might be some friends you want to change to All Updates or Some Updates. So, it's clear what All Update means, but what about Some and Most? What do those mean? This is not entirely clear, but it is clear you can select what type of updates you wish to have (life events -- marriage, baby, etc as updated in your profile; status updates; photos; games -- if you never want to see another farmville updates, uncheck this!!; comments and likes; other activities -- not sure about this one). You can even unsubscribe entirely and you won't see anything from this person, but you can remain friends with them (why you would do that is beyond me, but hey, it's there for you to use). Now, rather than going to each friends page and making these changes, you can wait until they show up on your feed. Click on the down arrow to the right of the feed item and select your update frequency. If you want to dig deeper, click on their name and go to the profile page. It will take time if you have a lot of friends, but well worth it! I wish they had a quicker way (like a list of friends down one and a check box where you can turn things on and off, that's more of a data entry thing).

So, that's what I've learned in playing with it for a few hours... not bad and pretty easy to figure out!

I can tell you that more changes are on the way. Expect new features in Facebook in the coming months. To keep up with those changes, check out the Facebook Blog and read up on what's coming. They have a place where you can post your ideas and even a place to voice our concerns (others might provide you help you need to understand the modifications coming).

All in all, I think the changes are inevitable. Some say it's because competitors have pushed it (isn't that a good thing?!). This blog post does a great job of getting various thoughts on this new Facebook features. Frankly, I do believe in this world of cloud based systems like Google Apps, Facebook, Twitter, etc. we are all going to have to get used to change. So, I leave you with this quote on change:

"They must often change, who would be constant in happiness or wisdom." -- Confucius

UPDATE September 25

I've got some recommendations for folks on getting your security settings going. I'd highly recommend you do this now before the new timeline feature takes hold, which is an entire new face on your Facebook page. More on that later, here is what I did to quickly get my friends in the right category and Facebook working for me.

First, you'll want to categorize your friends as acquaintances or close friends. Basically, take those you want to keep in close touch with, know all about their changes in their life, put them in the close friends category. The rest, put them in acquaintances. You can always move friends in and out of these categories, but you need to start so you can see what will happen. The quickest way I found to categorize friends was to pull up the list and hover over the Friend button and then select Close Friend or Acquaintance (or other categories).

Second, you want to select what events you want to see and how often. Remember the All, Some and Most setting? Well, I just set all my friends to All Events and then toggled what I wanted to see. So, for some, it's all things they post (I removed Games from everyone), but for others, it's just life events (which will make more sense when the new Timeline is revealed). Now, as long as you did the first, you can change these lists at once. So, for example, click on the Close Friends list. Here you can turn notification on or off and also Manage the list (what do you want to see). Like I said, I've turned off Games for everyone (select Choose Update Types). I've kept the other ones one for Close Friends. For acquaintances, I've turned off quite a few items.

These steps will help you get prepared for the new timeline coming, which will rock your world. Basically, everything will change on how friends will see you on Facebook. Like, right now, when you click on the link with you name, you see the old profile, the new one will look like this:

Moving from cloud to cloud

2011-09-02T12:37:00.000-04:00

Yes, I sold my domain name -- hopper.com. I wasn't looking to sell, but an opportunity came along in which I couldn't refuse. Thus, began my transition in the cloud. I needed to move this sold domain name (hopper.com) to another domain name (databasesherpa.com), all of which was in the cloud with Google Apps.

My first step was to ask my colleague about his recommendations as well as look online at the various tools. I was hoping it was really simple. Something like this image:

So, I did learn it was not that easy. Although I was moving from one cloud to another, I was staying in the same cloud system (Google Apps). I was not moving to another online product, but rather staying with the one I already know. You might remember my previous post about the condo analogy. Basically, I was moving from one condo to another. I wasn't changing anything at all. You would think I could pack up my data (luggage and furniture) and just move!

Well, it was kind of like that, but it is not as easy as that image portrays. It's also not as difficult as it used to be either. Just so you know, it took me about 6 hours to complete the entire transition (condo move). Just to give you a sense of what I was moving, it was two email accounts & one document and calendar account.

Most of that time was waiting for files to move (maybe that's the movers I hired!), let me explain my steps (this is not a how-to guide, there are lots of those out there, it's more like what I did and what I found):

Downloaded Mozilla Thunderbird. Retrieved all the email from my account from hopper.com. Logged into the databasesherpa.com email account. Manually copied each folder (found in Thunderbird) from the hopper.com to the databasesherpa.com email account. This ran overnight as the process was quite a bandwidth hog. All my folders copied over but I left the spam alone! This process took the longest and ran a few nights with a few restarts thrown in when my computer froze.
Exported my calendar from Google Calendar (hopper.com) and imported into Google Calendar (databasesherpa.com). Easy and quick.
Downloaded my Google Docs to my hard drive (each category was exported separately to create unique folders). Expanded the zipped files into folders (the categories). Imported into my new Google Docs using the special import folder function which creates a category. Worked great except for those documents that were in multiple categories which were imported twice. Thus, I needed to clean up my newly imported data. Opened my hopper.com account and databasesherpa.com account and compared manually. Took a bit of time, but it was do-able.

Some things that I learned after the import:

A feature that I like with Google Docs is the ability to see what I have worked on recently and what I worked on a couple days ago, etc. I didn't realize how much I used that information when working with my document until I didn't have it (isn't it just like that?!). Well, when I imported the data, that information is no longer there. I'll have to build that up again. Sigh!
When exporting the Google Docs, they came to my computer as docs, excel spreadsheets, etc. When re-imported, the formatting did change a bit. Not a perfect process, but close enough.
All my special markers and such with my email came across just fine in the new email account. Thunderbird did a great job of moving files back, it just took a long time!
It was helpful to move the Sent Mail from the old account to the new account. I often had emails in that folder that were important (as I realized when digging around for an email I sent out).
I used tasks and those did not import. There is currently no way to import tasks from Google calendar, so I just printed out all my current tasks and hand entered them into the new calendar tasks. Worked okay, but I lost all my completed tasks. I really don't care about that though.

All in all, moving from cloud to cloud wasn't bad at all! I must say, I don't want to do it again anytime soon. Then again, I don't think most people liking moving in general.

Until next time friend....

Being in the Cloud.. You can take it with you!

2011-08-23T09:00:00.000-04:00

This post is really musings... ramblings... please bear with me on this, it might make sense in the end.

Just the other day I had a wonderful conversation with a new client who left the workforce after her kids were born, just during the cusp of mainframe transitioning to the client server model (she's a fellow techie. YAHOO, another female techie!!). Now, her kids have grown up (the youngest heading to college) and she looks across the IT vast land and sees something very similar to what she left.

The reality is, the cloud technology embraces both the mainframe model (centralization) and the client server model (de-centralization). It reminds me of the harmony between the muscular energy and organic energy in yoga. The balance between them makes a pose feel wonderful! Just like I've fallen in love with yoga, I'm falling back in love with technology. In particular, databases. So much more than Access or FileMaker Pro. It's just wonderful!

So, as she and I were discussing the topic, an analogy came to me as we discussed the multi-tenant model of Salesforce.com (she was quite concerned about her data being mixed up with others AND security, remember, she comes from a very centralized place) So, I had her visualize an empty condo. The rooms are all laid out: outlets, cable hook up, washer and dryer hook ups, water, etc. The layout is all there for you. Now, all you need to do is add your furniture (data) and maybe a little design (paint on the walls, rearrange things slightly), but the basic floor plans remains. The condo association maintains the building, all you do is live in your space and call when there are problems (help desk or forums). You have your own secure space with a key and lock (password and encryption). You're able to rearrange as you want and you can even change some fundamentals if you get condo association approval (adding your own code to customize and build out Salesforce). Then, when you want to move, you pack up your furniture (keep in mind, the paint stays on the wall, it's temporary anyway, as does any build out) and you find a new condo (like moving from Salesforce.com to another cloud based or maybe internal database). It's like that with Salesforce.com. Yes, you can take your data with you! You're not stuck with them forever. Can you imagine? Changing software systems that simply? Yes, it takes time to get things in order, but hey, you are not beholden to any one company! What a wonderful and freeing feeling.

So, what we have now, is the ability to do our work using the best of all worlds. The client server model (yes, I can download my data, work off my servers at the office, etc) AND the mainframe model (having access to super fast machines, centralizing the hardware maintenance for the heavy lifting, etc). And, the cherry on top is that we can MOVE SYSTEMS. I can take my data anywhere I want. This is just wonderful and feeds my yogic mentality.

NOTE: I have another post coming about moving from Google Apps to another Google Apps (different domain name) and the process that took. It was not easy, but it was do-able.

Patience is critical to learning and teaching!

2011-08-04T22:33:00.001-04:00

Recently, I had breakfast with a good friend, mentor and supporter. While we were chatting about politics, the state of our economy and other light topics (HA!), we brushed up on her organization's Salesforce.com implementation (they were in my first cohort). They've lived with this system for about 18 months and it's been serving their needs. During this time, my friend (who happens to be the executive director) has had a few ah-ha's that I think are very relevant and important to share:

Don't throw the database out with the bathwater! It's really true. She recounted an example where the Salesforce.com database did not have a specific field. During the designing phase, they were capturing the work done by the volunteer, hours and client served. No volunteer name was captured. What they learned, as the system was put into the flow of the business, is that the volunteers wanted follow up with clients but the staff couldn't find volunteers since the names were not put in the database. She laughed and said, "before, I would have said let's throw this database away. It is poorly designed!" But now, she realizes that THEY CAN FIX IT. They are empowered by being able to make the changes on their own. There is power with this sense of freedom and realization that systems are made to be flexible and fluid. Organic!

Reporting is more than just numbers. She laughed as she told me about their reporting mechanism. Someone would send a request to the system administrator who would create the report. Pretty simple, but what they realized is that they were not providing her a good definition of their needs. What they saw were that the numbers looked wrong in the reports. Now, they knew the data was entered correctly. So, as they dug deeper, they realized that it's not simply pulling numbers from the system but really understanding the basic underlying structure of the database. Here is an example of what I'm talking about: getting a list of active clients should be easy, right? It's just a list of all the contacts in the database, right? But, when the requestor is given the list of "active" clients, he/she realizes there are some "inactive" clients in the list. And, as they dig into the system to understand why the "inactive"clients show up, they realize that the definition of "active" client was not properly given to the system administrator. So, what would have been better is the following: I need a list of contacts that have had activity in the last 12 months. This gives the system administrator the ability to pull the data appropriately from the system. But, here is the thing, if the requestor doesn't understand how the system was built, they cannot even begin to know what to request. Since this organization created their database, their understanding is much deeper. The requestor and the system administrator can have a conversation in data lingo and understand each other. It's wonderful and amazing to see this growth and learning.

As she recounted these stories, I could feel myself swell with pride for this organization. I am so very proud of how far they have come with their education. The education that they have given themselves is more than I could have ever hoped for... it's simply amazing what they have managed to do themselves. It goes to show, if you give individuals the education they need and crave, they will surprise you.

This organization has come such a long way in their understanding. and it happened on their terms and in their time. That is the beauty of teaching database development in this way, it teaches you patience, persistence and focus. Through this comes knowledge and through that will come wisdom.

It's a privilege and honor to be given the opportunity to teach and learn beside these individuals. It's very humbling.

Database Principles -- do they always apply?

2011-07-20T20:00:00.001-04:00

During my yoga practice I try to keep an open mind. Being willing to throw out my traditional learning and try something new. Call it experimentation or being flexible or open minded. My database education began at Michigan State University (Go State!) and learning about relational database design (very traditional). Let's just say that there are very specific principles to follow (normalization, uniqueness, keys, domains, etc.). This is my traditional learning. Something engrained in my psyche. Seriously .. engrained! But, hang on, this isn't about database principles! I want to discuss the importance of these principles and understanding them for the nonprofit organizations that I've been teaching. Could it be that some of these principles don't make sense for the needs of some organizations?

I tend to find myself wandering to the normalization portion of the principles because I find it much more challenging to explain to others. Just as with yoga, we tend to focus on the poses (exercise) although yoga's basic principles are much more. Maybe it's because the results are immediately. Anyway, it's only natural to gravitate to something.

That being said, please bear with my fixation on normalization and listen to this musing... maybe there are times when normalization just doesn't makes sense. What do you think? Could this be true?

Thinking about this further, I have found the Salesforce.com platform quite solidly built. A system built with all the database principles. Organizations build on top of this solid system. So, maybe the rules don't matter. That being said, what is the big deal if they end up with three fields that say something like: Child 1, Child 2 and Child 3? Do they really need to normalize by creating a separate related table to hold each child's name? I guess the question is, are they okay with recording only up to three children? What if they need more? Are we stuck? Actually, with Salesforce.com it's not a problem. We just create another field. Yes, it's really that simple.... I would ask more questions, but I do think my purist mindset has shifted! I still struggle with this shift. My mind wants to go back to normalizing since it's my nature. But, the shift has begun as I now question myself when I start to normalize.

Another principle I've seen in action is related to duplicated data (uniqueness). I've seen some individuals at organization completely freak out about duplicated data, and that is good. This principle has been fully embraced, but I have been wondering about this principle too. Maybe we need a shift here too.

For example, what if we already have a contact in the database with their work information but we also interact with this individual at their house? The reality is that we have two separate communications to them. We want to snail mail to their house AND work with different information (think board member vs donor). So... maybe it makes sense to put their information into the database (dare I say it) TWICE. So, we duplicate their data.... BUT, the data isn't really duplicated. This person is really TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE (well, not really, they wear two different hats, but you get the picture). But, we want to know that they are the same person. How to do that? Well, Salesforce.com's Nonprofit Starter Pack offers something called Relationships. So, you can create relationships between two contacts. There, all better, right?! What do you think?

So, it's really not important to always normalize or de-dupe your data. It is important to understand the impact of your decision. In other words, how will I be able to report this information? Does this mean more updates of data? What do I need to do to import my data? Do I need to do anything special to my data to make this work?

Please note, I'm not suggesting we throw away our principles. Of course, we are building on top of a very well constructed database. One that is following the rules. I only suggest that while I try to blend my yoga and database education, maybe it makes sense to change the view a bit and rather than labeling something as a wrong, we just look at it again and see if it's truly bad or will it fit the users' requirements and make it easier for them to continue on their learning path.

So, with a yogi's open mind, I welcome all discussion on this topic of database design. I am very interested in hearing from everyone and anyone on this as my learning will expand with your input and viewpoints.

Beginning again...

2011-07-12T17:00:00.002-04:00

Being a yogi, we learn that we are constantly beginning again, thus, I begin again this blog. My musing will be focused on databases, yoga, women in technology and general thoughts about society.

So... with that, I bring you my first post for the year and hope to post on a regular basis (note, I didn't give a time frame here, so I don't box myself in.... ah the beauty of yoga).

Our lives have taken a sharp turn, and it's wonderful. A new being in our lives fills us with joy and much work. I've decided to begin a new chapter as full-time parent and part-time database consultant. As you might know, my focus has been with Salesforce.com and working primarily with nonprofit organizations. My goal is to teach rather than do the work for the organization, thus building the organization's capacity to continue to maintain and manage their own database. I would say that mostly it has been a success, by mostly I mean that sometimes I find myself going back to the place of "doing the work" rather than "teaching how to do" primarily because it's easier for me and the person doing the work at the organization. I do catch myself, which is good, and put it back on them to finish it up.

It's been at least two years since I have begun this work and there are a few things that keep popping up to me over and over again. These are some of those issues/things that have come up:

Turn over of staff: This has probably been the most challenging issue to deal with in this teaching model. I have been of the mindset of teaching two staff at the organization (thus one is a back up for the other), but have found on a couple occasions that both individuals leave the organization, leaving a gaping hole! I've had one organization actually say to me that they wished I had built it for them and then they could just have come back to me. Oh well, I guess the point is that 2 in 20 isn't bad. But turn over is an issue that I need to address somehow.... I'm still mulling this over. I'll get back to you later on this one, but I'm open to any suggestions you might have.
Understanding process: On more than one occasion, I have asked someone who works at the organization how they manage a process (whether it be intake of clients or managing events or accepting donations) and I get this blank stare and sigh. For example, when asking the person who manages events, "how do you do it?" I get the big sigh and then a stream of consciousness on how they do it. Nothing solid, a lot of ums, ahs and such. There process is called "by the seat of their pants". This is always a sign of problems for success with a database, BUT, there is always a solution. When this happens, I usually have them diagram the process for me (usually a handwritten flow chart or steps) with a detailed explanation (where I can asks tons of questions). This does get us closer to understanding their "stream of babble". And, in the process, they are helping their organization to document and clarify processes. I love this part of the design phase! It's so... so... neat and tidy. I think database people like neat and tidy (although we often get curve balls, but that's another story for another day).
Focus: In this education model, I've found that many individuals wander into other territories. What started out as a volunteer database ends up being a volunteer, donor and client management database. Which isn't a bad thing, in the long run, but NOT TO START. It's important to focus in the beginning because of the learning and doing process. Since I am a yogi, this is an important learning for me and for my friends learning with me. I always try to bring them back to the focus and remind them that the other pieces will be waiting along the sides. But, to stay focused on this for now... until you are ready to move on. And, you'll know when that time has come. But, during this beginning phase, focus.
Time: As a young yogi, I always believe there is more time, but I forget about roadblocks that might come up (such as other work, a special event, illness, etc.) thus I ALWAYS underestimate the time it takes to get through the beginning stages of learning. I am learning. I am getting better at this. After all, it's not a perfect science and we all (come on, you know you do this too) guesstimate the time.

So, these are some of the key things I have learned since beginning this journey in combining my yoga practice with database development. I am so excited to continue this path and hope you will join me on my journey!

Not Here. Not Now. Not Ever Again.

2008-08-21T10:54:00.001-04:00

On the night of August 17, the word "nigger" and a caricature face were spray-painted on the driveway of a Park Township family. This was discovered the next morning by the teenage son; one of the daughters asked her mother, "Does this mean we will be killed?" The family is shocked, hurt, and very upset. Groups like ACEH, LEDA, LAUP, churches, and other organizations and individuals are speaking out to support the family and express outrage that this has happened.

The attached pledge is being circulated for signatures. By printing or emailing your name, you are agreeing to have your name listed with others in a newspaper ad. You may receive this pledge from more than one organization; please sign or respond only once.

We need signatures representing all of West Michigan! Forward this pledge to other people that you know.

The following is the pledge and email it to admin@ethnicdiversity.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT HERE. NOT NOW. NOT EVER AGAIN.
As concerned residents of West Michigan, we extend our support to the Park Township family whose driveway was recently defaced with an offensive racial slur and picture. We want the family to know that anyone who did this does not reflect us or what we want our community to be, and we support efforts to bring the person or persons to justice. We will work to see that no other family living here now or in the future experiences the same shock and pain. A diverse and welcoming community creates economic and wonderful cultural benefits. But inclusion depends on all of us. We, the undersigned, pledge to promote justice, celebrate our diversity, and act as anti-racists in our personal and community lives.

Finally, the presentation

2008-04-24T17:48:00.004-04:00

The presentation went well, although I was quite nervous and friends who know me well were quite surprised as my voice cracked a bit. Anyway, I am glad that it is over but also sad in a way. It is the end of my Master's degree and it is a little sad to see an ending, albeit a happy ending.

My professors were happy with the results and the questions asked during the Q&A portion were very well thought out. Just a few questions that were asked:

Did I look at staff size when creating my small, medium and large sized organizations? No, I didn't look at that dimension and it would be an interesting one. I suspect that budget and size correlated, but who knows. I also would have thought an org with more revenue would spend more on their IT budget.

Did I think that IT training was lacking or training in general was lacking?
Great question! I didn't spend much time researching training in nonprofits in general, but I suspect that overall nonprofits don't spend enough time or money on educating their staff. It could be future research.... man, now I need to continue to write!

I guess since the questions were good it meant they understood the actual findings. One professor even suggested the development of a super consultant, someone who can help bridge the tactical with the strategy. Interesting concept.

I have to finish up the final edits of my research, but then, I was thinking of posting the entire research on a wiki for all to edit, so what do you think? If I created a wiki, would you come edit?

Presentation - Take II

2008-04-23T07:54:00.003-04:00

I posted another presentation on Blip.tv, check it out at http://blip.tv/file/849013 and give me your feedback (unfortunately, it's not the entire presentation, my Flip says 30 minutes, but it's more like 22 minutes). I'll post another presentation try this evening. One more day!

Practicing my presentation

2008-04-22T13:15:00.004-04:00

Review my presentation at http://blip.tv/file/845794 and let me know what you think!

Problem Question

2008-04-15T21:04:00.003-04:00

Thanks to the many comments and emails I am going to try the problem statement again.

The three main investments – infrastructure, human capital and strategic plans – are the cornerstone of success in IT implementations in for-profits. What are the challenges that nonprofits face with these three investments?

How does that sound?

Presentation Draft

2008-04-14T20:50:00.003-04:00

The thesis committee suggested focusing on the problem statement and methodology because often it is important for the audience to understand those things. So, the problem statement and research question are as follows:

Problem Statement
Nonprofit enterprises are increasingly incorporating IT into their operations (Blau, 2001; Gifts in Kind International, 2001; Finn, Maher & Forster, 2006; Peizer, 2006; Popjoy, 1992; Public Sector Consultants, Inc., 1999; Quinn, Verclas & Hoehling, 2006). The impetus can come from other nonprofits, individual donors, foundations or government requirements and accountability pressures (Saidel & Cour, 2003; Te’ein & Young, 2003). Those nonprofits seeking to grow and expand have taken a cue from the for-profits with the goal of achieving comparable efficiency gains and growth in support of their mission.

Research Question
The three main investments – infrastructure, human capital and strategic plans – are the cornerstone of success in IT implementations in for-profits. Throwing more money or resources at an IT project will not necessarily increase its success if there is no strategic plan (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000). Providing more training to staff will not help an IT project if there is no infrastructure investment (Aral & Weill, 2006; Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000; Stiroh, 2002). Clearly, this triangle of investments is critical to the project’s success, with each point on the triangle playing a vital role. But, equally important is the understanding that the bottom line in nonprofits is different than it is in for-profits and judging success of IT projects in nonprofits is far more challenging to discover.

The purpose of this research is to examine this triangle of investments and its impact on the effective implementation of IT and how it relates to nonprofit organizational effectiveness. The research design is comprised of in-depth interviews with a group of tech-savvy nonprofit leaders, a survey to those same individuals and research on available literature. The large body of research surrounding IT use by for-profits will be applied to nonprofits to reveal patterns and make recommendations.

So, what is the problem statement? The fact that nonprofits are wanting to achieve the same efficiencies as for-profits through the incorporation of IT into their operations.

The question then is about examining the triangle of investments - infrastructure, human capital & strategic plans - to see how they impact the effective implementation of IT.

Is that boiled down enough?

Cleaning it up.. and signing off

2008-04-14T20:06:00.004-04:00

Today I met with my entire committee. The feedback was mostly on my writing, I need to quit writing in passive voice and also keeping my tense consistent (like future or current). Anyway, it was an interesting conversation and I learned a lot about myself.

First, I am not the best writer in the world.... yeah, not a complete surprise, but still, it was a learning for today.

Second, I don't mind getting criticism if, and only if, it is presented in a way to show that it will make my work better. So, the entire conversation was about what things I need to change, but every one of the changes was intended to help this research.

Another exciting piece of news is that I don't have to have a final draft by April 24, PHEW! I was told that often, even with PhD dissertations, the paper itself isn't completed, but the committee signs off on the work. So, my committee members said that on April 24th they will sign off on my work. WAHOO!!! I really hope that's a good sign. I'll be working on the presentation over the next few weeks.

Human Capital Investment - Staff Time

2008-04-11T17:13:00.003-04:00

Organizations struggle to make human capital investments necessary to ensure success with IT implementation.

Lack of staff time for IT implementation related to: staff training, project management and information management.

Regarding staff training, most organizations feel there is little or no time for staff to receive training, yet they see the lack of staff training and expertise as key barriers. Often, staff is educated as they work and are unable to experiment or learn through failure. All organizations value training, but they do not provide the time or the resources to allow for the continuing education that staff require.

Project management is important for successful IT implementation, yet most of these organization do not allow for the time or resources of any staff. Often there is no one assigned to manage the project and staff are not available to answer questions.

Finally, in regards to information management, there is a feeling that staff is inundated with massive amounts of information and they are challenged to filter what is relevant. It's unclear if staff waste time or not, but it is very clear that this is a concern of all those interviewed.

Clearly, staff time plays a key role in the success of IT implementation. If staff are overwhelmed, lack tech skills and unable to manage data, IT projects are apt to fail.

Human Capital Investments

2008-04-11T16:59:00.005-04:00

So, while uncovering the results of my data, what became clear was the impact of the human capital investment to success of IT projects. Specifically, human capital challenges revolve around the following: having dedicated IT staff, using contractors effectively, staff expertise with IT and staff time.

Having dedicated IT staff appears to occur in an organization, but the key finding was that challenge these organizations have had in finding the right person. When those interviewed reflected, they realized that either an IT person is focused on the hardware and networking or the programming and database development, but it is not easy to find both. One organization's COO hired three different individuals and took 10 years before finding the right IT staff person. She found that it was important to find an individual who enjoys people, is process oriented, and is a good problem solver, traits which are difficult to find in one individual.

Another challenge is related to using contractors effectively in IT project implementation. The finding show that there is a clear distinction between how organizations use contractors and their size. Small and mid-sized organizations use contractors to provide tactical implementation of IT projects typically without guidance or support of organizational staff. Large sized organizations use contractors to as strategic partners working in collaboration with the internal IT staff. These organizations all struggle and work hard to find those contractors that they can trust.

Staff expertise is another challenge related to the human capital investment. The COO's IT skills as well as general staff skills are critical to success of IT implementation and planning. The COO plays a key role with bridging the tactical side of IT projects to the strategic vision of the organization. These individuals need to have IT training along with the ability to be strategic in their thinking to ensure successful IT implementation in the organization. None of the COOs that I interviewed had any informal or formal training. The IT position was more or less handed to them when their were first hired because of their ability to multitask well. Also, regarding general staff, none of the organizations offered continuing education for the staff. Training was more ad-hoc or offered only when the person first joined the organization. Additionally, some have noted finding it challenging to use the IT skills of staff, particularly related to the younger employees coming to the organizations.

Finally, lack of staff time is really a very large barrier for these organizations. There are three main areas of focus in this area, staff training, project management and information management. These barriers relate to lack of time available or provided to staff. Rather than going into detail here, check out the Staff Time post for more information.

Presentation date is set

2008-04-11T16:56:00.002-04:00

Presentation date is set for April 24th @ 9 am on the Allendale campus of Grand Valley State University!!!

Introduction to the Women's Technology Consortium

2008-03-25T16:51:00.002-04:00

In 2000 the Nokomis Foundation founded the Women’s Technology Consortium (WTC) with the focus of helping partner nonprofit organizations improve their use of technology because they found a large number of nonprofit organizations serving women and girls were using outdates software and hardware and having difficulty managing and maintaining equipment. The WTC is comprised of ten organizations serving women and girls in West Michigan. The original purpose was three-fold: provide members access to technological information, advice, techniques and training provided by both peers and an outside tech advisory panel; leverage the power of aggregated purchasing of hardware/software and contracted services; and create a web site highlighting activities of the consortium members.

The Nokomis Foundation was able to achieve the first of these three original purposes. Since 2000 the Nokomis Foundation has provided financial support to the WTC members with an average grant of $6,500 and the facility and facilitation for the WTC to meet on a monthly basis to discuss technology and exchange ideas. As noted by a WTC member being involved in the WTC is like “being a part of the team. Knowing I have 12-15 people I can email or meet with and ask questions. In this community, I don't think I could have built that support system.” The value of the WTC goes well beyond the funding, although that cannot be overlooked. Another WTC member said “I don’t think we’d be keeping up with our equipment rotation, keeping them from becoming obsolete” and was not alone in that opinion. Most members said they felt that being a part of the WTC helped them to not only keep up with the technology, but to begin to see the value in having technology in their organizations as noted by another member “we’ve gotten to a point where we have been up to date and have been keeping up to date long enough so that it is like part of what we do so we wouldn’t think of not doing it. I just don’t think we would have gotten to that point that quickly at all without the help of Nokomis.”

The Nokomis Foundation, by its own request for proposal (RFP) guidelines (see Nokomis Request for Proposal), provides funding for: contract services related to technology; database or website design; expanded e-mail and Internet access; hardware, including printers and other peripheral equipment; networking; software; telephone systems; and training . The RFP also requires answers to questions: organizational and contact information, IT budget information, commitment to the WTC through individual participation and board support, and current technology plan.

Organization Demographics

The WTC is comprised of ten nonprofit organizations of which eight were included in the research. One organization was entirely excluded from the research as they are a funding organization; two other organizations are excluded from parts of the research and as such are noted in the areas in which they are excluded.

WTC organizations are located in Michigan, and although the initial goal of Nokomis Foundation was to work with organizations in West Michigan (defined as Kent, Ottawa, Muskegon and Allegan Counties), there is one organization located in Petoskey (Emmet County).

Target/Sample Population

Participation in the study was voluntary, but strongly encouraged by the Nokomis Foundation, so individuals were highly motivated to engage in the research process through to completion. The individuals interviewed comprised of a single executive level staff such as Chief Operating Officer, Chief Executive Officer, President, Executive Director and Assistant Director. These staff members were all female and have worked at their organizations for 10 or more years each having a deep working knowledge of the organization.

Data Collection

Three methods of data collection were used: face to face interviews (see Interview Instrument), emailed survey (see Survey Instrument) and review of request for proposals (RFP) and response narratives since 2000 (see Organizational Overviews).

Reviewing the RFPs and response narratives began the data collection process. The researcher spent time organizing and creating overviews for each organization (see Organizational Overviews).

Face to face interviews were conducted by the researcher with questions (see Interview Instrument) and the organization’s overview (see Organizational Overviews) were sent prior to interview allowing interviewee an opportunity for preparation. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed by researcher with each session lasting about two hours. Some organizations required two visits while others were completed in just one.

Emailed survey closely mirrored the 1999 survey sent to a larger group of nonprofits only omitting questions related to year 2000. All surveys were returned to the researcher and included in the results for all nine organizations (these results included the organization which was unable to participate due to illness).

Literature Review

2008-03-25T16:49:00.002-04:00

Nonprofit organizations seek to achieve increased efficiency and productivity gains to support their mission. Although many surveys have been conducted to uncover nonprofits attitudes about IT, how it is adopted and what types of nonprofit adopt (Blau, 2001; Gifts in Kind International, 2001; Peizer, 2006; Popjoy, 1992; Public Sector Consultants, Inc., 1999; Quinn, Verclas & Hoehling, 2006; Forester, Jeffery J, 2006; Finn, Maher Forester, 2006) the research on organizational readiness and the impact of IT implementation on organizations and is sparse (Blau, 2001; Saidel & Cour, 2003).

Thus, this researcher has chosen to focus on the rich literature on the impact of IT on for-profit organizations (Aral & Weill, 2006; Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000; McKinsey Global Institute, 2002; Stiroh, 2002). This research shows that a triangle of investments in infrastructure, human capital and planning are critical to successful implementation of IT in an organization. The challenge with these three investments for successful implementation is that often nonprofits see these as in direct conflict with the organizations mission. The next sections look deeper at each of the investments and explain the main issues with each related to nonprofits.

Infrastructure Investment

Investment in infrastructure is often seen as taking the organization’s focus away from its mission. Nonprofits whose mission is around feeding the hungry, for example, would rather spend money to feed more individuals than purchase a new computer even if its implementation could ultimately provide additional food. The Bayer Center’s biannual study of Pennsylvania nonprofits illustrates 44% of nonprofit organizations have an IT budget (Forester, Jeffery J., 2006 and a study in Michigan reveals less than half of nonprofit organizations have a defined IT budget (Public Sector Consultants, Inc., 1999). This exemplifies the fact that nonprofits lack interest in allocating dollars for IT infrastructure investment. Saidel & Cour’s study demonstrates that there is a tricky tradeoff between spending on IT and direct service to clients, making IT spending a difficult proposition (2003).

Other funding sources, such as foundations and governmental agencies, illustrate indifference in building the organizational IT infrastructure by capping the amount of money a nonprofit can allocate on their grant application to support internal capacity or by refusing to allow any capacity support whatsoever. Whereas funding continues to support the program, there is little to sustain the internal support mechanisms of the organization upon which the program is built.

Human Capital Investment

Investment in human capital remains a challenge. Nonprofits face two predicaments: an embedded staff untrained in technology and the challenge of finding IT professionals interested in working in the nonprofit sector. A nonprofit survey in Michigan (Public Sector Consultants, Inc., 1999) reveals that less than 50% of computer managers have been formally trained. Often employees and volunteers of nonprofit organizations are passionate about the mission, but have little technical knowledge or training (Public Sector Consultants, Inc., 1999; Quinn, Verclas & Hoehling, 2006). Organizations may try to hire individuals with IT skills, but these individuals are challenging to find because IT professionals desire to stay on the cutting edge of technology to remain a commodity in their profession (Saidel & Cour, 2003).

Planning Investments

Even if dollars have been dedicated to development of IT infrastructure, organizations often lack a strategic plan on how to spend those dollars. Only 32% of nonprofits have a long-term technology plan and this number did not increase from 2000 to 2001 (Gifts in Kind, Inc., 2001). Competition between nonprofits may lead to IT purchases that do not fit the strategic needs of the organization. When some nonprofits extend their scope and enhance their services through the use of IT, other nonprofits may feel pressured to follow their lead, often without the organization’s leaders understanding the ramification of implementation (Blau, 2001).

This illustrates the importance of strategic planning - ensuring the right technology is being used for the right purpose. This is made evident by a story about an African village and a bell. A delegation of western experts on technology was invited to build communication technology for the village. The delegation spoke to the village leader about the plan for a sophisticated IT station. The village leader listened respectfully and, after hearing all the wonders of modern IT, requested a simple bell. Ring once, it’s time to gather in the village; ring twice, the well has run dry; and so on. The delegation was shocked. They had not asked first but assumed what was needed. They thought modern technology held all the answers but they failed to ask the right questions.

Planning provides the organization an opportunity to reflect and ask the right questions which allows for the alignment of the IT strategic plan with the overall strategic plan.

Measuring the Bottom Line

The nonprofit bottom lines are very difficult to measure; often the focus is around outcomes and not entirely related to the bottom line savings which may result from IT implementations. Therefore, successful IT projects are more multifaceted in nonprofits than with for-profits, who are mainly focused on the fiscal bottom line.

Secondly, it is more challenging to define a bottom line in a nonprofit organization. Nonprofits are not necessarily focused on a fiscal bottom line, which is easy to measure. These organizations are more focused on their mission, which is challenging to quantify.

Introduction

2008-03-25T16:48:00.002-04:00

Background

Information technology (IT) is "the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardware" (Information Technology Association of American defined in Wikipedia). For-profits have long recognized IT’s power to reduce costs of coordination, communication and information processing (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000) by incorporating and effectively utilizing IT to increase efficiencies in their management and operations. These efficiencies often lead to an increase in the fiscal bottom line which pleases the owners of the for-profit. The technology tools used most often include computer hardware, software and networks, including the Internet.

Technology is known to have a positive impact on the economy and productivity of organizations in the for-profit sector. A report by McKinsey Global Institute reveals that, although it is complex and varies across industries, IT enables and contributes to growth (2002). Technology gains have allowed for-profits to keep a competitive edge over their rivals, develop new products and services, realize substantial increases in output and productivity (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000), and ultimately provide fiscal savings.

Researchers Brynjolfsson and Hitt found firms achieved productivity gains and savings with IT implementation by incorporating changes in work practices, strategies and products and services. The various studies cited throughout this research also suggest IT helps increase output and productivity. The correlation between implementation of IT and increased productivity and efficiency in for-profits has been well documented (Aral & Weill, 2006; Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000; McKinsey Global Institute, 2002; Stiroh, 2002). Successful IT projects have lead to an increase in profits, making it possible for many for-profits to increase their stock market value. Based on this and other research, there is clearly a “triangle of investment” needed to succeed with IT implementations in for-profits: infrastructure, human capital and strategic planning.

First, in relation to the investment in infrastructure, research has shown that it increases profitability and organizational performance in the long term but carries high up front costs (Aral & Weill, 2006). Moreover, when organizations commit to IT infrastructure, they must be ready for the added costs, not just in the short term, but for the long haul. The need to update, upgrade and change the infrastructure is imperative to keeping the machines running smoothly.

Secondly, regarding the investment in human capital, the importance of matching organization staff’s ability with the technology capabilities is illustrated by a case study of “MacroMed”, a medical parts manufacturer. Their IT system fell short because line workers retained many elements of the obsolete work practices. These individuals were unable to let go of inherited patterns of behavior. The company needed to invest in re-training staff to achieve the savings and success desired. This organizational learning and investment in human capital is crucial to the success of IT projects (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000).

Finally, in relation to investment in planning, success of IT projects relies on alignment of the organizational and IT strategic plans. IT projects fail because they do not align with the organization’s requirements as outlined in their organizational plan.

Clearly, investments in infrastructure, human capital and strategic planning are central to the success of the IT implementation.

Problem Statement

Nonprofit enterprises are increasingly incorporating IT into their operations (Blau, 2001; Gifts in Kind International, 2001; Finn, Maher & Forster, 2006; Peizer, 2006; Popjoy, 1992; Public Sector Consultants, Inc., 1999; Quinn, Verclas & Hoehling, 2006). The impetus can come from other nonprofits, individual donors, foundations or government requirements and accountability pressures (Saidel & Cour, 2003; Te’ein & Young, 2003). Those nonprofits seeking to grow and expand have taken a cue from the for-profits. These organizations have the hopes of achieving comparable efficiency gains and growth in support of their mission. The central components of success in for-profit IT projects are often in conflict with the core values of the nonprofit whose primary objective is to support an issue for non-commercial purposes.

Research Question

The three main investments – infrastructure, human capital and strategic plans – are the cornerstone of success in IT implementations in for-profits. Throwing more money or resources at an IT project will not necessarily help it be more successful if there is no strategic plan. Providing more training to staff will not help an IT project if there is no infrastructure investment. Clearly, this triangle of investments is critical to the project’s success, with each point on the triangle playing a vital role. But, equally important is the understanding that the bottom line in nonprofits is different than in for-profits and judging success of IT projects is far more challenging to discover.

The purpose of this research is to examine this triangle of investments and its impact on the effective implementation of IT and how it relates to nonprofit organizational effectiveness. The research design is comprised of in-depth interviews with a group of tech savvy nonprofit leaders, a survey to those same individuals and literature research to identify what nonprofits view as successful and unsuccessful IT project. The large body of research surrounding IT use by for-profits will be applied to nonprofits to reveal patterns and make recommendations.

Literature

2008-03-25T16:46:00.002-04:00

Aral, Sinan & Weill, Peter (2006, November). “IT Assets, Organizational Capabilities and Firm Performance: How Resource Allocations and Organizational Differences Explain Performance Variations.” MIT Sloan School of Management. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from
< http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=882088#PaperDownload>.

Blau, Andrew (2001, May). “More Than Bit Players: How Information Technology Will Change the Ways Nonprofits and Foundations Work and Thrive in the Information Age.” Surdna Foundation. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from < http://www.surdna.org/usr_doc/morefinal.pdf>.

Brynjolfsson, Erik, & Hitt, Lorin M (2000). "Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4): 23-48. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from SCOPUS database.

Forester, Jeffery J (2006). “Southwestern Pennsylvania Nonprofit Technology Survey.” Robert Morris University’s Bayer Center for Nonprofit Management. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from < http://www.cs.cmu.edu/tcinc/students/course_documents/assignments/BayerCtrSurveyReport2006.pdf >.

Finn, Seth, Maher, Jill K. and Forster, Jeff (2006). “Indicators of Information and Communication Technology Adoption in the Nonprofit Sector.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership 16(3): 277–295. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from Wiley InterScience Journals database.

Gifts in Kind International (2001, August). “2001 Technology Tracking Study of the Nonprofit Sector.” Gifts in Kind International. Retrieved April 21, 2003 from <http://www.giftsinkind.org/information/technologysurvey.asp>.

Information Technology. 6 April 2007. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 11 April 2007
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology>.

Jick, Todd D. (1979). "Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action." Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 602-611. Retrieved April 8, 2007 from JSTOR database.

McKinsey Global Institute (2002, November). “How IT Enables Productivity Growth.” McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from
<http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/it_prod_growth.asp>.

Peizer, Jonathan (2006). “The Dynamics of Technology for Social Change.” Lincoln: iUniverse.

Popjoy, Oveta (1992). “Information Systems Developed for Non-Profits for Profit.” Journal of Systems Management, 43(10): 25-29. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from ProQuest Computing database.

Public Sector Consultants, Inc. (1999, November). “Survey Report on Selected Nonprofits and Information Technology.” United Way Community Services and University of Michigan School of Social Work.

Quinn, Laura S., Verclas, Katrin and Hoehling, Annaliese (2006, November). “Nonprofit IT Staffing: Spending, Salaries, and an Infrastructure for Success: Executive Summary of the 2006 Nonprofit IT Staffing Survey.” NTEN. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from
< http://www.nten.org/sites/nten/files/NTEN_ITstaffing_survey.pdf >.

Saidel, Judith & Cour, Stephanie (2003). “Information Technology and the Voluntary Sector Workplace.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 32(1): 5-24. Retrieved January 12, 2007 from SAGE database.

Stiroh, Kevin (2002, January 10). “Information Technology and U.S. Productivity Revival: A Review of Evidence.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from <http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/economists/stiroh/ks_busec.pdf>.

Te’ein, Dov & Young, Dennis R. (2003). “The Changing Role of Nonprofits in the Network Economy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 3(3): 397-414. Retrieved January 1, 2007 from Sage Journals Online database.

Update Outline

2008-03-25T16:39:00.002-04:00

INTRODUCTION

Background
Problem Statement
Research Question
Organization of Thesis

LITERATURE REVIEW

Infrastructure Investment
Human Capital Investment
Planning Investments
Measuring the Bottom Line

INTRODUCTION TO THE WOMEN’S TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM

Organization Demographics
Target/Sample Population
Data Collection
Data Analysis

FINDINGS

Request for Proposal and Narrative
Information Technology Survey
Web Site and Web Master
Barriers to Technology
Future Plans
Face to Face Interviews
General Questions
Impact Questions
Resource Questions
Human Capital Questions

FINDING ANALYSIS

Request for Proposal and Narrative
Information Technology Survey

CONCLUSION

Recommendations
Nonprofits
Foundations
Recommendations for Further Study
Limitations of Study

Draft #1

2008-03-10T15:46:00.001-04:00

Additional Research

In-depth research on successful and unsuccessful IT projects to uncover further traits
Continued dialogue with other organization staff to uncover their perspectives of successful and unsuccessful IT projects

Key findings

Lack of consistent IT funding
Lack of strategic plans and over reliance on tactial IT plans
Managing IT projects based on benchmarks as standards
Challenged by the continual changing technology landscape and keeping up with it all
Lack of staff to plan and manage projects
Difficulty with software vendors
Organizations consistently budget for less than the needs of the organization
Lack of staff's technology knowledge or ability to use technology
Trouble with asking the right questions (they often don't know the right questions to ask)
Organizations desire to increase efficiency and productivity with staff

Conclusion

These organizations have adopted and embraced technology in their organizations. They have begun to reap the rewards of successful use of technology through increased staff efficiency and productivity. The triangle of investments: infrastructure, human capital and strategic planning, play a key role in the successful implementation of technology. All of the organizations desire to increase staff efficiency and productivity.

All eight of these organizations struggle to incorporate a reasonable base line budget for supporting the technology of the organization, instead, they rely heavily on outside support from the Nokomis Foundation. And, often, foundations will cap the amount of money to be spent on technology and Government grants are even worse, not allowing anything to be spent on technology. All the organizations consistently budget for less than the needs of the organization require.

With Human Capital, none of the eight organizations provided ongoing education or training to their staff. The education tended to be either at the beginning of their career with the organization or when major changes were made to a product at the organization. Lack of staff's technology knowledge or ability to use technology, although there is a generational shift, with younger employees coming to the organizations with skills, the challenge is using those individuals most effectively. Staff do not always trust the technology.

Even more challenging to the nonprofits is to have a strategic IT plan tied to their strategic plan. The main problems are the fact the organizations lacks anyone with technology skills who also knows the organization. The individual in charge is often a human services person who understand the opportunity with the use of technology, but struggles with understanding the strategic use of technology. They often get stuck in a tactical realm following guidelines and benchmarks rather than driving the technology based on the organization's needs. Projects themselves are not planned or managed, often a project is started, but no one is the true owner or manager of that project or, worse yet, the consultant manages the project. Often those in charge of the technology plan do not know which questions to ask.

These organizations defined key barriers to the effective use of technology as being funding, high level support, keeping up with technology, asking the right questions, listening for the right answers and expertise.

Through successful implementation of IT these organizations believe that they can better analyze gaps and respond to needs of their constituents.

One of the organizations referred to the Women's Technology Consortium as a team because they can support and call each other without fear of competition or being laughed at.

Research Outline

2008-03-10T15:44:00.001-04:00

Outline

Introduction to Women's Technology Consortium

Why the Nokomis Foundation?
Organization demographics
- Budget
- Revenue mix
- Expense mix (program vs. admin)
- Organization age
- Staff size
Demonstrate organization's credibility in being part of research
- Comparison of 1999 to 2008 results
  - Use the technology plan results

Information Technology
- Definition of information technology
- Use of IT in for profit vs. nonprofit
- Triangle of investments
  - Resources
  - Human Capital
  - Planning
Findings
- IT implementations
  - BizStream Portal - YWCA
    - Responding to needs
    - Tracking services
    - Social worker ratio success
- Barriers to success
  - Funding
  - High Level of Support (CEO and management support)
  - IT Expertise
    - Knowing questions to ask
    - Listening for answers
  - Client management database - WRC
  - Network implementation working with consultant - Planned Parenthood
Recommendations

Foundations
Nonprofits

Conclusion

Organizational Traits

2008-02-16T15:40:00.001-05:00

This is a listing of organizational traits I intend to collect about each of the organizations in the reserarch paper. These traits will also help me to see patterns in the results. If you see a trait that might be relevant that is missing, please let me know!

Thesis Statement

Although investments in Information Technology (IT) decrease productivity of some nonprofits, there is growing support, bolstered by research with for-profits, that the key to increasing success is having a triangle of investment in infrastructure, human capital and strategic planning.

Infrastructure

Operating budget
Revenue stream mix (ie. earned income, membership fees, govt grants, fdn grants, endowments, etc.)
Expense mix
Designated vs. undesignated grants
National affiliate vs. unaffiliated
Organization "age"

Human Capital

Administrative staff vs. Program staff
Size of executive team
Board size
Volunteer size
Staff eduation
Average age of staff
Gender

Strategic Planning

Formality of planning
Scope of planning
Staff involvement
Board involvement

SWOT Analysis

2008-02-16T15:16:00.004-05:00

On Thursday I will meet with my thesis committee and seeing as I am having difficulty starting the writing process (not surprising at all, everything I read said beginning is the toughest part), my colleague at work suggested that I begin with a SWOT analysis of each organization.

Right now I have three completed and noticed that often the Threats and Opportunities (as they are external) are often the same. The Strengths and Weaknesses (internal) are different. Interesting..... what does that mean? I'll have to think about that a bit more...

So, the organizations that are currently members of the Women's Technology Consortium whom I will be working with are:

YWCA of West Central Michigan
Planned Parenthood of West and Northern Michigan
Grand Rapids Opportunities for Women (GROW)
Witness
Center for Women in Transition (CWIT)
Safe Haven Ministries
Girl Scouts Michigan Trails
Women's Resource Center of Northern Michigan
Women's Resource Center of Grand Rapids

Please consider donating to these organization and possibly earmarking the donation for technology support!

Anyway, all of the individuals have been cooperative, helpful and brutally honest. It has been a treat to work with them and uncover their technology strengths & weaknesses, which they have been more than willing to share. I will be protecting the specifics of what they have told me while being interviewed, but will share the aggregate of the information here and in my research.

I believe the SWOT analysis will allow me to see the patterns which are hidden in these organizations. These patterns will be focused on the three main research areas: Human Capital, Planning and Infrastructure. Organizing the SWOT with a focus on my triangle of investments will help me to focus a bit further.

Keep an eye out for more information about this analysis!

Book Update

2008-02-15T21:28:00.002-05:00

Notice from Holly Ross on February 8, 2008:

Hi Ashima -
Thanks so much for your submission for the book. It was a great surprise to have so many fantastic submissions to choose from for the final book.

We were really engaged by your ideas and voice, but chose another submission for this book. However, we really did like what you have to say. Once we get the main book edited, we will turn our attention to compiling an online appendix to the book filled with essays, research and other articles. If you're amenable, we'd love to work with you this spring when that project begins.

Again - thanks so much for your time here. We know you're busy and appreciate that you took time out for the community.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Holly

I cannot say that I am not totally bummed, but maybe in the Spring we can work together. I really believe that this work will be helpful and I want to see it broadly used. Maybe blogging is the best way regardless....

Anyway, it's a bummer, but it was also my first shot. Maybe another opportunity will come.

February 21st Committee Meeting Agenda

2008-02-14T09:02:00.002-05:00

Introductions
Brainstorm basic organization traits (I've added you as a collaborator, it's a Google Doc)
Brainstorm analysis and writing plan
Discuss next steps

Official Research Approval

2008-02-01T15:01:00.001-05:00

YEAH! I just received word that I have been formally approved to begin my human subject research. It's been exempt from most of the legal issues that I normally would have had if I were to be interviewing on a touch subject. I guess technology in nonprofits isn't too bad ;-)

I have to say, Paul, the chair of the Human Research Review Committee, was so helpful. He even helped me understand what I should be telling the committee.

It's unfortunate that I haven't taken a Research Methods course, I suspect it would have helped me. I have some colleagues who are going to be getting lots of questions from me. Hopefully they don't mind!

As I said in my previous post, I've completed a preliminary report which details the movement of these organizations from 1999 to 2007. It is really quite amazing and one of the executive directors emailed me and said ..."we've come a long way baby." I have to agree.

My next steps are to interview these organizations further and begin to develop case studies. I'm not sure how that will go because I've never written a case study, but I'm game for a challenge.

Care and Feeding of my Thesis Commitee

2008-01-24T19:43:00.000-05:00

As I've begun to work with my Thesis committee, I have come to realize that it is my responsiblity to keep the committee together and to use them as I need them. So, for the care and feeding of my committee, I have this in plan:

Regular communication via email with committee - regular meaning at least once a week.
Monthly meetings with committee
Agenda sent prior to each meeting
Preparation for monthly meetings

My commitee will be meeting on:

February 21 @ 11:00 am
March 11 @ 11:00 am
March 27 @ 11:00 am
April 8 @ 11:00 am
April 22 @ 11:00 am

My final presentation should be on April 24th, time is yet to be set. I plan to invite all the women from the WTC (Women's Technology Consortium) as well. This will be a most exciting day for me to showcase my results!

Book Chapter Opportunity

2008-01-24T19:34:00.001-05:00

I've actually submitted a chapter proposal to the NTEN Tech for Good Guide. I am hopeful that this will actually be accepted and my thesis work will have a greater impact in the nonprofit sector.

The decision on the chapter will be made by February 8th, so I'll keep you posted if anything does come through. Cross your fingers for me!

Here was my submission:

Introduction of Key Concepts
Technology is known to have a positive impact on the economy and productivity of organizations in the for-profit sector. Although it is complex and varies across industries, IT enables and contributes to growth. Technology gains have allowed for-profits to keep a competitive edge over their rivals, develop new products and services, realize substantial increases in output and productivity and ultimately save money.

Firms achieved productivity gains and savings with IT implementation by incorporating IT changes in work practices, implementing strategic planning, improving products and services. The correlation between implementation of IT and increased productivity and efficiencies in for-profits has been well documented. Successful IT projects – those producing increased efficiencies - have led to improved “bottom lines” and stock market gains.

Despite these obvious benefits, organizations must integrate the plans with a long-term vision in mind. When organizations commit to IT infrastructure, they must be ready for the added costs not just in the short term, but over the long haul. Updating, upgrading and changing the infrastructure to keep machines running smoothly are extremely important. Updating, upgrading and changing the infrastructure to keep the machines running smoothly is very important. Additionally, investments in organizational learning and human capital are crucial to the success of IT projects.

Barriers and Obstacles
Components of success in IT projects for for-profits - investment in human capital and infrastructure - are often in conflict with the core values of the nonprofit whose primary objective is to support an issue for non-commercial purposes. Also, it is much more difficult to define the bottom line in a nonprofit organization. There are fiscal savings that occur, but nonprofits are not necessarily focused on the dollars; sometimes, it is just about feeding more people or getting more children off the streets. These bottom lines, which are mission-based, are far more challenging to measure.

Nonprofits are at a clear disadvantage in achieving efficiencies and productivities typically attained by for-profits. Without clear strategy, investment in human capital skill, and investment in infrastructure, just throwing more money or resources at an IT project will not necessarily help it become more successful. Providing more training to staff without the related infrastructure investment (or vice versa) does little good. So, the effective bottom line for a nonprofit remains an elusive metric – one that is very different than in the for-profit world.

Critical Success Factors
Although some investments in IT decrease productivity in some nonprofits, this decline is not directly attributed to IT itself. Rather it is why, how, and which technology was incorporated that affects the productivity. There is growing support that the key to increasing productivity is selecting the right projects and making the right investments.

Case Study
Nokomis Foundation established the Women’s Technology Consortium (WTC) in 2000 and was designed to build the technological capacity of individual organizations. The WTC also helps participants enhance their ability to collaborate, network, communicate, and advocate with peer organizations. The members of the WTC attend facilitated monthly meetings that provide technical assistance, training, and networking opportunities. Nokomis Foundation provides staff support, meeting space and funding.

These organizations will form the basis of three or four main case studies on the impact of IT investments. The cases will help the reader ascertain which IT investments enhance or diminish nonprofit organization’s productivity and effectiveness. Each of these organizations will be interviewed extensively and the information that form the Request for Proposals (RFPs) sent to Nokomis Foundation will be used as the basis of the data collection.

Basic Research Results

2008-01-07T13:09:00.000-05:00

Hopefully this won't bore you to pieces, but my research is coming along nicely. Just some background:

I will be focusing my research will be on a group of nonprofit organizations supported by the Nokomis Foundation since 1999 around technology. These ten organizations have been supported financially and through education through monthly meetings since it's inception, the organization is called the Women's Technology Consortium and is lovingly referred to as WTC by myself.

So, these organizations will be my obsession for the next few months while I finish up my writing. Thus far I have had conversations with all the WTC members (each organizations assigns a single person as the WTC liason, not always the ED either) and now I'm moving into the writing phase.

While I was researching these organizations and digging through archives of information, I found a survey that was sent out to seventy five organizations (thirty four responded) all focused on technology. While reading the results I thought it might be fun to do some comparisons of the 1999 results and what these organizations would say today, so I created another survey and began a short report. I'll post that report at a point when it is approved by my committee, but here are some of the findings in short:

In 1999, only half of the employees had email access; in 2007, eighty percent have access to email.
In 1999, little more than half of the employees had access to the Internet; in 2007, all have access.
In 1999, about forty four percent of organizations had webmasters; in 2007, ninety percent have webmasters who spend an average of 3.5 hours per month on the site.
In 1999, the barriers for enhancing technology were lack of funding, lack of staff expertise and lace of staff time; in 2007, the barriers remain the same.
Replacing hardware and staff training remain the top priorities for the next 2-3 years.

So, the more things change, the more they stay the same! I am quite surprised at the results of this survey and hope to drill into this further.

Personal Account

2007-06-09T18:56:00.001-04:00

While reading a book called Writing up Qualitative Research by Harry Wolcott, I came across a section of the book which recommended starting with writing a personal account of how and why this study is of interest to me. I took time to write up and quickly found that I had written 4 pages, free form with no grammar checking, but nonetheless, I am obviously passionate about this.

So, why is that? While working in the corporate sector as a computer programmer, I found myself wanting more in the for-profit sector, where I started my career as a CS major. I longed for doing good work in the world. To make a difference. I found myself at the edge of a new path, working in the nonprofit sector.

A good friend and mentor introduced me to this world and I’ve never turned back. The sector has a great need and a great gift to humanity and I wish to be part of that. With my mentor, we launched an organization called GrandNet, to support local nonprofit organization’s technology. I worked for NPower Michigan for sometime, helping to strengthen the IT infrastructure in various nonprofits in our State.

But, I kept running up against the same issues. The same problems. The same struggles. I kept wondering if we were forcing IT into a sector which is not prepared. Were nonprofits ready for the kind of change IT brings? I really want to unravel this mystery and see if there are any answers.

So, these challenges and opportunities have lead me to this path, the path I continue to follow.