Designing for Civil Society

New jobs in nonprofit e-learning and innovation

I've come upon a couple of interesting projects and jobs ... the Cass Business School in London has spent the last three years putting together plans and funding for an innovative programme to provide online learning for people in community and voluntary organisations who might not go down the route of the usual courses. Details here, including a chief exec post at £50,000.

We are looking for a dynamic individual to lead and direct the entire project, working closely with the Trust and Project Board to create a commercially viable and well-used e-knowledge network.
Your knowledge of the voluntary sector, social networking, e-knowledge transfer and experience of successfully developing and implementing start-up projects will give you the expertise needed to ensure the project’s success and to lead and motivate a team of people working with you. In addition, you will manage all marketing and advertising activities associated with the project.

Over at NCVO they are looking for a Sustainable Funding Enterprise and Innovation Officer.

You will lead on developing a programme of work to enable voluntary and community organisations to identify, develop, and value innovation. You will lead on establishing links and forming relationships with organisations that work around innovation and enterprise.
With a strong understanding of funding and finance issues in the voluntary and community sector, you should have experience in enterprise and innovation, and the ability to plan, manage and deliver projects. This post is a one year contract.

There is always a certain amount of bureaucratic overhead in these situations. Each job, in different ways, should test out how far it is possible to deploy new ways of doing things in the third sector. good to see those opportunities emerging.

Nonprofit chief executives get some encouragement to start blogging

Blogging about the voluntary and community sector in the UK can be rather unrewarding because few senior figures write about their work - or, I suspect, read blogs. There's not much blogosphere buzz. Maybe that's going to change now that Stephen Bubb, chief executive of the organisation for nonprofit chief executives acevo has got going with Bubb's blog.

Governance magazine can't resist a rather patronising piece highlighting the sectoral politics that it perceives between the lines:

In the olden days, before the internet was born, even Very Important People generally had to wait to be invited by editors for the opportunity to tell their public what they were thinking.
Not so today. With the advent of Web 2.0, anybody can set up a blog and share their innermost with the world. Which seems to suit Stephen Bubb, chief executive of acevo (pictured), to a T.
On Bubb’s new blog, at http://www.bloggerbubb.blogspot.com/, the chief executives’ chief executive promises readers will be treated to “the inside track of a third sector leader influencing in Whitehall, championing professionalism and causing a stir”.
He then goes on to treat readers to an intimate rundown of his week, complete with namechecks of Ed Miliband, Phil Hope, John Hutton, and even The Queen. It also contains a couple of glimpses into his private life.
He makes thinly-veiled digs at the NCVO (“Whilst others are debating whether to broaden out to civil society, acevo has always recruited members from housing associations, unions, and political parties”) and at Richard Gutch’s Futurebuilders, of which he is soon to become chair (“I need to do a good job steering Futurebuilders back on to track in supporting service delivery through the third sector”).
He congratulates Miliband and Hope on the work they did behind the scenes on gift aid to secure “a good Budget” for charities, and advises: “I do hope the sector will show appreciation for this instead of what we often do – whinge. Whinging has its place. However, so does thanks for a job well done.”
And on a personal note, he reveals that he is thinking of getting a dog, and that he has just been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Because of this (the diabetes, not the dog), he has to “get a grip on a proper diet and do some exercise”. How this will affect his notoriously busy networking schedule remains to be seen. What is certain, though, is that thanks to Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s marvellous invention, we shall undoubtedly be kept informed.

Governance say of their print magazine that it is:

.... the essential resource for charity trustees. It provides comprehensive yet concise coverage of all the issues trustees need to be aware of, and offers practical advice to help boards implement clear, well thought-out strategies that will ensure their charity’s success.

No blog or feeds on their site, or commenting. Old-style come to us, we speak, you listen.
So I think that it is splendid that Stephen has taken the plunge, and in doing so is able to speak directly to others in the sector. Can it be long before Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, feels he should join in?
If Stephen is looking for some blogger friends, there's a list of blogs and wikis in the non profit social media field on the social media wiki.

Meanwhile let's pop over to his place with a welcome to the blogosphere and a few encouraging tips. Every blogger needs an audience: let's start building one for Stephen.

Helping funders find you online

One of the other people running a workshop at the recent Circuit Riders conference was US-based consultant John Kenyon, who wrote afterwards:

It was exciting to hear about the different experiences of these consultants with nonprofit/charity organizations. As always when meeting with nonprofit consultants I am struck by the thread of commonality that connects us all. We all face similar challenges in communicating and marketing our services, creating work agreements, doing investigations, collecting data, determining the best intervention and helping organizations with managing change. Our clients also face similar challenges with internal capacity, improving their capabilities and especially in getting funding for technology initiatives.

During a break, I asked John about some of the US-UK differences he found. He explained that while there is less Government funding for nonprofits in the US, there are more foundations. Increasingly these are not responding to funding proposals, but going out and finding organisations that they wish to choose to support. That make online presence even more important.

John says you have to be up to date, with good content. That could be strong stories from those the organisation aims to serve. However, content is not enough ... you need to have a personal presence as well.
People don't just relate to content, people relate to people.
Previously: Reality checks on using Web 2.0 for social change

Technorati Tags: nonprofit, nptech, nptechuk, circuit riders

Reality checks on using Web 2.0 for social change

Is the potential for social media to change the world over-hyped, or are social change organisations too slow in seeing the potential? If change is coming, will nonprofits be by-passed as we start to organise without old-style organisations? Does it all depend upon context?

A new book, and recent conference sessions, raised these questions for me yet again.

Clay Shirky's book Here Comes Everybody leaves us in no doubt about his view of the potential for Web 2.0 to change the world:

Everywhere you look, groups of people are coming together to share with one another, work together, or take some kind of public action. For the first time in history, we have tools that truly allow for this.
In the same way the printing press amplified the individual mind and the telephone amplified two-way conversation, now a host of new tools, from instant messages and mobile phones to weblogs and wikis, amplify group communication. And because we are natively good at working in groups, this amplification of group effort will change more than business models: it will change society.

It's another step on from Charles Leadbeater's We-Think ... We-Act together, differently. I've been reading the book, and Clay's blog, at the same time that I'm editing some video from the recent Circuit Riders conference. There's a big gap between Clay's vision for the future, and what I heard from people who are currently providing front line technology support to nonprofits that are in the business of social change. Who is more realistic? There's a video of Clay speaking recently here, and you can see him in person at the RSA on March 18.
Here's the videos from the opening session of the conference, where Circuit Riders talk about the reality of using new technology tools on the front line. The session were skillfully facilitated by Marc Osten from Summit Collaborative, and I asked him to provide me with a recap on the two questions he posed... firstly about whether Web 2.0 tools are available to change the world, and then whether Circuit Riders have the skills to satisfy the organisations they serve.

If you have problems with video play back, they are on YouTube here

Here then is video of the first session, where the question was whether tools are available. Some people felt they were, and were being used - giving as an example the recent Parliament roof protest where protestors used a mobile phone to talk to the world directly via news media. Others were more sceptical.

We then moved on to the second question - whether Circuit Riders had the skills needed to satisfy their client organisations.

This second question brought a rich discussion about the need for both technology skills and those necessary to help organisations plan and change. I think the discussion gives us some insights into ways we can address the questions I posed at the beginning - and consider whether they are the right questions.
Much of Clay's book is about how people who may not not have operated together before can use the Net for a whole range of purposes. Almost all the Circuit Riders discussion was about how to help existing groups adopt technology which is often unfamilar to them and may not have immediately obvious benefits.
I'm sure we will see more and more of the organising without organisations that Clay describes. At the same time, people will continue to organise by meeting and working together using a range of old and new communication tools. The issue is perhaps what works for whom, and in what circumstances.
I also ran a workshop at the conference with Laura Whitehead and Nick Booth. There's an excellent conference round-up from Laura here, and reports on the workshop from Paul Henderson and Beth Kanter, who joined us by video from Boston.
I also posted an item to The Membership Project, where I'm developing a new site, with others, to explore how the social web and other factors are changing the ways in which we may belong to groups and organisations. My posted was triggered by hearing at the conference one Circuit Rider say, a little ruefully, "The committee won't go for it". I guess the key issue then is whether you think we will continue to need committees or not. Even The Tuttle Club, where Lloyd Davis is organically growing a social media cafe, is getting a bit more formal with a move towards incorporation. Will there be virtual Board meetings?

Technorati Tags: nonprofit, nptech, nptechuk, puppy

Challenges and opportunities for civil society (or whatever we may be called)

Just what to call yourself if you are organising to do good stuff for social benefit is quite confusing these days ... but at least we know what challenges and opportunities lie ahead thanks to a summary from NCVO Third Sector Foresight. Pestilence, famine and war are there in various guises, but so too are the potentially positive uses of technology, and different ways of organising. More on those later.
First to what doing good should be called. The other day Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of NCVO, the umbrella organisation for UK nonprofits, was musing about a change of name for what is currently known as the voluntary and community sector. These organisations may also be known as the third sector (as in not public or private). Some are charities (about the only term widely recognised by those not in the business), and the more entrepreneurial are social enterprises. It can be difficult to spot the difference between charities that have an entrepeneurial trading arm, and socially responsible businesses that may have an associated charity.
Charity Finance reported:

NCVO chief executive Stuart Etherington has ambitions to augment the power of the voluntary sector voice by harnessing the whole of civil society, not just charities and social enterprises.
In an interview with Charity News Alert, Etherington outlined his future agenda for the organisation and the sector – “I would hope they are parallel” – and signalled his desire to boost the sector’s influence over public policy by widening its net to include all of civil society and by establishing a 50-member civil society assembly.
Etherington refused to be drawn on whether he could foresee a day when the NCVO would rename itself the ‘National Council of Civil Society Organisations’, but confirmed the organisation was “keen to encourage a debate about how the sector defines itself”.
“I prefer the term civil society because it is more inclusive and defines us in relation to those we work with and for, rather than to government or business.”
He also admitted to seeing merit in recasting the Office of the Third Sector as the Office for Civil Society, an idea first proposed by the Conservatives as long ago as 2001.
An early indication of the new agenda has emerged in the name of the 2008 Almanac – the NCVO’s annual study of the state of the third sector. Instead of ‘Voluntary Sector Almanac’, this year’s edition is to be renamed the ‘Civil Society Almanac’, and will for the first time include data from organisations such as trade unions, universities, housing associations and political parties.
The NCVO also plans to establish a 50-member assembly that will debate civil society’s response to pressing public policy issues. The assembly will mostly comprise representatives from within the voluntary sector, nominated and then elected by NCVO members, but provision has been made for ten of the 50 to be co-opted.

I believe that the idea of an assembly is a response to NCVO-member pressure more involvement in policy and direction, and I'll be interested in how it turns out. It's a fairly old-style mechanism of representation which might lead to the usual problems of uncertain governance, where people aren't sure whether the assembly, forum, council or whatever it may be called is the focus, or the board of trustees. Maybe it will be OK if Stuart and NCVO staff see their organisation as a network which is permeable rather than closely-bounded, and encourage continual conversations between members, staff, assembly-members and others as well as having some formal meetings.
As I mentioned above, the challenges and opportunities facing whatever we may be called have been highlighted by the foresight unit at NCVO. Megan Griffith reports on a seminar at the NCVO annual conference where a panel of speakers debated the ‘burning issues’ of climate change, bridging communities and the ways in which young people are associating.The session began with a presentation from Lenka Setkova, who took everyone through the findings of the Carnegie UK Trust’s Inquiry into the future of civil society in the UK and Ireland. You can download the report here. It is a terrific piece of work, but unfortunately only available, a far as I can see, as pdfs, which rather stifles online conversation because it is difficult to link or quote.
All the more useful then that Stuart Etherington invited seminar participants to discuss the presentation, and then assemble their own set of messages as risks/challenges/threats, opportunities, questions, and calls to action. You can see the whole list here, but here's the interesting calls to action:

• Civil society should define and exemplify new models and patterns of growth. Growth is not always good. Extra extra extra is neither equitable or sustainable – let’s look for ‘infragrowth’. The negawatt (energy saved) rather than megawatt (energy generated).
• Civil society needs to embrace online spaces more effectively, more often, mainstream it.
• VCS must revisit history and become the advocates for our liberties.
• If we could make growing older a positive experience we would at the same time find universal solutions for social coherence.

I'm glad to see a potentially positive role for technology and the online world in there, and I'm look forward to exploring that further with Megan and colleagues, who I've worked with before. I'm also taking some comfort from Stuart's renaming process that this blog's title may have increasing relevance. It was all a bit of an accident, as you can see here.
Previously

• Creating futures for the common good
• Foresight site offers strategic insight
• Nonprofit leadership means networking, socially and openly
• Re-inventing membership online and off

Technorati Tags: foresight, ncvo

Pitch up for social innovation camp

Paul Miller, Dan McQuillan and Christian Albert have given us first news of their plans for Social Innovation Camp in London, when ideas people, geeks, mentors and sponsors will gather for a weekend of intensive co-creation on April 4-6:

Innovation happens when diverse groups of people get together - individuals who can bring something different to the mix and help each other to look at problems in a new light.
We’re interested in creating unexpected collaborations between people, organizations and networks. The Social Innovation Camp will be an opportunity for all participants to meet people who think about things differently to them.
The weekend will be designed with this principle in mind. Social Innovation Camp will bring some of the best of the UK’s web designers and developers together with those at the sharp end of social problems. Throw in some people with the business and organisational knowledge needed to make things happen and we’re hoping to come out with some innovative solutions to enable social change.

Ideas for your innovative project have to be in by March 7, and you are told by March 17 whether you are successful. These projects are then developed collaboratively over the weekend:

Pitch your prototype. We’re hoping that by the end of the weekend you’ll be part of a group with a basic working model for a new venture. The event will close with a pitching process which will include some prizes for the winning pitches.
Start your venture. Social Innovation Camp is all about creating the relationships needed to start new projects and we hope your ideas won’t end with the weekend. We’re currently thinking about the best way to help you pursue your venture – or if it’s more appropriate, find someone to take it on for you. More on how this will work coming soon.

I think we are now seeing several different approaches emerging on how nonprofit organisations may use social technology (building on old structures) ... or how we can collaborate to do good stuff using new stuff (which is likely to mean developing new structures).
These different - maybe complementary - approaches were evident last year at the Newman Arms get together which I reported here. Some people were interested in enhancing the capability of existing community and voluntary sector organisations, others felt a new direction was needed. Dan McQillan - of the social innovation camp team - made it clear he felt charities are broken and later trailed the innovation camp idea.
Meanwhile there's still a lot to do helping existing organisation deal with the basics of computer and internet use. I'll be hearing more about that when I run a workshop with Laura Whitehead, Nick Booth and others at the UK Circuits Riders conference at the end of this month. Circuit Riders provide tech support to small organisations.
Earlier this week I went to a new Forum for Circuit Riders in London organised by London Champion Miles Maier. Unfortunately I couldn't stay for the whole session, but from the interesting stories of what life is like on the front line I got confirmation that there is a big stretch between the visions emerging from Web 2.0 social innovators, and groups still struggling to network their office computers. Are they left to struggle on their own as funding for technical support from Circuit Riders becomes more problematic - as seems likely? Should they just budget tech costs in with phones, print, rent and other overheads - and concentrate on convincing funders of the need for this in core costs? Should Circuit Riders pitch some innovative ideas to social innovation camp? Maybe time for a Newman Arms session.

Technorati Tags: nptech, nptechuk, sic

New UK initiative for web-enabled social innovation starts in the pub

A new UK initiative for web-enabled social innovation was born yesterday evening in the time honoured way: some inspiration from our friends in the US, mixed with beer and sandwiches in the upstairs room of a London pub.

The result was a decision to set up Netsquared in the UK, loosely based on the US Netsquared conference and community, which has now led to a host of meetups and other activities through which geeks and activists find common cause and do good stuff for social benefit.

As I wrote earlier, there has been quite a bit of activity in recent months in the UK on social media for nonprofits. Last night's event stemmed from Dan McQuillan's ideas for a European Netsquared, and matching enthusiasm from the chief executive of the Charity Technology Trust William Hoyle, who had also been to the States and met the N2 folk.
William took Dan's earlier call to action one step further by offering us free refreshments in the Newham Arms, Fitzrovia. Among familiar faces were bloggers Nick Booth, Steve Bridger, Steve Moore,  Michael Ambjorn, Paul Miller and Simon Berry - remarkably fresh after his recent 1230-mile ride. So no shortage of ideas. We talked about organisating an event, running competitions to stimulate innovative projects, informal meetups and much more.
After a futile attempt to capture conversation in the hubbub of the room, I pulled William off to the pub kitchen, where he provided a very coherent summary.

Click To Play or view here

The focus of discussion  was not just about how nonprofits could use Web 2.0: in fact Dan - who has recently left an international charity - went so far as to say "the Third Sector is broken" ... I think. I'm sure he'll correct me if that's an overstatement.  While some people felt social media could help in fixing, others of us were more interested in the new set of values and ways of doing things bubbling up around social media, unbounded by historic notions of public, private and nonprofit sectors. We talked about whether the focus should be on enabling organisations, supporting causes, promoting new methods and processes of innovation. Hopefully all of them.
The gender-balance was a bit better than my initial list of bloggers suggests. I'm looking forward to finding more about Nathalie McDermott's Onroadmedia - a social enterprise that "delivers training in podcasting, video blogging and social networks to marginalised groups and organisations so that they can have their say about the issues at the heart of their communities", but there's some way to go on balance. Why is it different in the US - where Beth Kanter, Michele Martin, Britt Bravo - to mention only a few - do such wonderful stuff? Maybe Devon-based Laura Whitehead, who wrote recently on this, would have been along if she were in town. (Which raises another point ... how not to be London-centric. We came around to "N2 in the UK" as a working name - a sort of initial convening brand - to suggest N2-ish activities could pop up anywhere in the UK and and hopefully elsewhere in Europe. Just like the Web - these days people and organisations are seldom just in one place.)
Notwithstanding the desire not to be too London, there was a feeling that this is a hot place for technology innovation at the moment. Paul Miller was lyrical about the experience of the School of Everything crew at Seedcamp. Steve Moore reckoned we could stage something next year in London to equal or better the Reboot or Lift conferences.
I got the feeling that N2 in the UK has legs ... not just because of the ideas developed, but because of the style and spirit emerging from those present ... open, generous, and unbounded. William's beer and sandwiches helped a lot. I particularly liked the fact that he chose the Newman Arms because that was where, some years back, he met his wife when she was supporting her studies by working behind the bar. A bit of real life rooting.
When I left, discussion about next steps was focussed around what the Facebook group will be called. I'll post an update ... but if you are in FB with any friends in the field, I've little doubt you'll get an invite. Do find me there. Otherwise I'm sure William would be glad to hear from you at CTT. There's also an earlier n2eu wiki with more background on Dan's ideas, and a mailing list.
Update: There's now a Facebook group Netsquared - Newman Arms

Technorati Tags: innovation, n2eu, n2uk, netsquared, nptechuk

Foresight site offers strategic insight

I've always found Karl Wilding and Megan Griffith at the NCVO Third Sector Foresight unit full of wisdom about UK nonprofits - insightful about the here-and-now, as well as thoughtful about the future**. I was impressed when they let me know about their new website which provides a very understandable route into strategic planning for nonprofits, offering among other things a database of the main drivers for change likely to impact on organisations.  It's a pretty comprehensive list of everything from multiculturalism and multinationals, to human rights, the rise of radicalism, the long tail, work/life balance, climate change, volunteering ... Umm. A bit daunting on second look.
What's needed in these circumstances, of course, is some interpretation ... a bit of news, chat, comment ... just the sort of thing a blog can provide. And, surprise! it's there. Karl and Megan profess to be reluctant techies, so I didn't expect a lot of activity when I revisited the news section. But not only are they busy adding to content produced by Natalie Williams (whose main job it is), they've also pulled in Veronique Jochum with an item on "Is the information society a community catalyst or community liability?" This picks up on a publication by Edward Andersson of Involve on ICT and localism, and particularly the issue of bridging online and offline participation.
In case this seems a bit "welcome to the blogosphere" patronising, I'd say that I think it is really quite tough to be motivated to blog in the UK nonprofit sector. It's probably not seen as a priority by senior staff, and there aren't many general purpose nonprofit blogs out there yet, so you don't get much attention and reward from comments or links.
So how appropriate for the Foresight team to be exploring how to use social media in practice, as well as in their excellent publications on the subject.
** Disclosure: the Foresight team did fund me to write an A-Z of social media, but I'd say it anyway.

Technorati Tags: foresight

Government looks inwards for nonprofit innovation

The Cabinet Office has chosen a Government-funded unit to lead development on the Third Sector Innovation Exchange. This is the project where a group of us tried to be innovative by running an open process to develop the project, and were shortlisted for plans for an Open Innovation Exchange.
Work on the £1.2 million project will now be led by the Innovation Unit. Press release and advert for the £60,00 a year job of director here.
The Unit was set up in 2002 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair  to promote innovation in education, and is now funded by the Department for Education and Skills. Their partners are the voluntary sector chief executives' body ACEVO and social software developers Headshift, who created the award-winning site for Demos.
I don't want to sound a note of sour grapes here. This is clearly a very strong and competent consortium. However,  I feel that innovation among nonprofit organisations (and elsewhere, as I wrote here) is most likely to come from open, collaborative processes, not just from inside. Of course, the innovation unit may well be planning something really innovative here. Maybe they could now post their winning bid. You can see our (failed) one here, as well as the process by which we developed it.
We haven't given up on open source innovation, and will now be developing an exchange focussing on new media. I do sincerely offer congratulations to the winning consortium, and have no doubt my friends at Headshift will do them another whizzy site ... so we'll certainly be able to see what's happening.

Technorati Tags: openinex

Minister urges nonprofits to campaign for policy change

The new Minister for the Third Sector, Phil Hope, got off to a good start with his constituency of voluntary organisations tonight when he urged them to campaign more strongly - without fear that it might jeopardise their grants.
He was speaking a couple of weeks into his new job at a reception on the eve of a conference on Futures for Civil Society, organised by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Carnegie UK Trust.
The Minister said that the message from the new Government, under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was that community and voluntary organisations should not only help provide a voice for the most disadvantaged, but aim to change the policies of local and central government where necessary.

Click To Play Also at Blip.tv

"People should not be worried whether they should campaign or not if they receive some sort of grant, or have some sort of contract with the State in all its various forms. The reason why we give grants and contracts to people in the Third sector is to give that voice ... is to say those words ... is to have that campaigning zeal."

After Stuart Etherington introduced Phil Hope, I shot some video of the Minister's speech, which you can see above: warning - it is about 14 minutes long. You can find the campaigning quote about eight minutes in. However, the video is a bit dark and shaky, and fortunately Mr Hope was very happy to come out on to the the balcony and give me a short version below.

Click To Play Also at Blip.tv

Afterwards I spoke to Liz Cleverley, Performance Improvement and Information Manager at Community Matters, the national federation for community organisations.

Click To Play Also at Blip.tv
Liz had no doubt that encouragement for campaigning in the speech was welcome. Groups often felt inhibited when they were receiving a grant ... and local councils could feel challenged when groups spoke up.
Phil Hope once worked at NCVO, and has been a consultant in the voluntary sector - so people felt he knew what he was talking about. It also helped that he sounded as if he had written the speech himself ... or rather, didn't need to write it because it clearly came from the heart. I hope he can campaign successfully in central and local government to create the more open culture he is advocating.

Technorati Tags: nonprofit, campaigning

Re-inventing the RSA: official and unofficial views

More information about the re-invention of the 250-year-old RSA, with a stronger role for its 26,000 Fellows, emerges from the blog of chief executive Matthew Taylor, and an independent report of an online discussion and poll. I think the two taken together highlight the need for the RSA to open up the process. In Farewells and the Future Matthew Taylor writes:

Work for the Fellowship re-launch is gathering pace. Our focus groups have confirmed that Fellows really are up for a more challenging and rewarding role.   

I've also just received a full report of the independent online discussion among Fellows that I reported here. Thirty five registered, 14 took part in a Virtual Coffeehouse Challenge. It clearly isn't representative, but perhaps raises some issues that might not surface so readily in an open meeting. Catherine Shovlin, who carried out the Synthetron exercise, writes:

Although 82% of the participants were reasonably happy with the RSA, The discussion highlighted three key concerns:
1. POTENTIAL ENERGY: Under-realisation of the potential of the Fellowship (a wasted resource)
2. CONNECTIVITY: Greater scope for improved connectivity between Fellows (for personal social benefits and more global / societal gain)
3. BROKEN CIRCUITS: A disconnect between the “official” RSA (staff) and the Fellows – even going as far as a suspected conspiracy for a significant minority, and undermining goodwill.

I think that the challenge facing the RSA is relevant to many other organisations trying to rethink what they can offer - and gain - from members in an age when there are lots of other ways of connecting with people who may have shared interests. Earlier RSA items here. In his blog item Matthew continues:

We've had fantastic pro bono support from the agency ?What If!, who have both forced us to think though exactly what we are trying to achieve and offered us some great new ideas. We are also hoping we can draw on the innovation expertise and support of NESTA.   
The new Fellowship model will have much in common with the best examples of the Coffeehouse Challenge.   
As the CHC gathers pace I have been thinking about what makes an event successful and what this tells us about the kind of Fellows' networks we want to develop in the future.   
In essence it's all about connecting three key links in the chain.   
First, creating the right networks of people - sharing commitment and values but bringing different skills and perspectives.   
Second, it's about clarity in thinking - what do we want to achieve and how can we go about it?   
Third, it's turning intentions into actions in a way that is effective but realistic, given all the other demands on people's energies and time.   
Getting groups of people to work together to achieve real benefits to wider society is part science part art. It involves good process, clear thinking and soft skills such as communication and empathy.   
I hope that through the CHC and the new plans for the Fellowship the RSA can develop strong insights into how to make this happen. Insights that we can then share across the Fellowship and more widely.   

Moving on 
I have been having some very useful discussions about the RSA's future.   
Last week I was at a large and enthusiastic gathering of Fellows in Birmingham and earlier this week it was the staff that gathered to brainstorm the RSA's role in social progress.   I told all our staff that I want them to become Associate Fellows. They don't get the letters after their names, or voting rights, but it means that apart from their work they can participate in emerging RSA networks in their neighbourhoods or areas of interest.   
The team here is really keen to get going. 

Here's more of the summary of the online discussion (pictured above), filling out the main concerns highlighted above:

Any comment here has at least two-thirds of the group’s support, those in bold have 90-100% support.

POTENTIAL ENERGY:
There is a high level of agreement around this topic and shared sense of frustration that the RSA does not add up to the sum of its parts, let alone more than that:
• not utilising the power of the fellowship
• really about under-optimised as a resource of fellowship
• It is an organisation with huge potential
• a feeling of potential but not yet realised
and there is a clear call to action:
• engage the Fellows. that is the strength and play to it

CONNECTIVITY:
When asked what they love about the RSA, and what they would recommend to others, the social benefits play a strong role:
• meeting people who are interested in big issues facing us
• the cafe is so casual and easy, other people are so interesting
and the perceived barriers to connecting with other Fellows show up as a source of frustration:
• I feel like a passive participant - not sure how to meet and make things happen with other fellows - can't work out the 'rules' - have met other fellows socially which is very pleasant but would like to take part in more working groups or project groups
• Why can't we have an open, networky process of developing?
• not enabling access to other fellows easily
though they also have some constructive ideas:
• the fellows have to lead and direct rather than wait and respond
• more opportunities for informal gatherings - a bar from 6-7pm say (for those in London), or a permanent Fellows Table in the restaurant
• I like the “Virtual RSA” idea - indeed it is something that I, as a remote rural Fellow, have advocated for more than a decade. I welcome this attempt to engage Fellows in disciplined conversations.

BROKEN CIRCUITS:
There is general concern about “our RSA” or “their RSA” – and a clear sense of “us and them” on the part of the Fellowship
• there's the sense of a favoured circle ... it's not clear how things are developing.
• There is a “personality cult” at work here - not a good thing for the future of the Society unless its ambition is to be an Establishment stronghold - a sure recipe for extinction!
• not sure how people 'get chosen' but certainly misses out on a lot of contributors - and very good ones - rather the favoured few
This also affects the look and feel of the organisation and prompts statements about a less than inclusive attitude
• feels rather elitist while preaching the reverse
• feels a bit self important
• very smug
• paternalistic culture
• really hate that it is so damn worthy and that I get treated like a kid- patronised in the lectures

SUGGESTED ACTIONS

Despite the concerns explained above, there is a lot of positive energy around Fellowship – the sense is of making points in order to help the organisation have more impact, rather than just griping. There is recognition that changes are already happening:
• there are a huge range of new ideas abounding at the moment to encourage fellows to participate in issues which they feel strongly about I welcome that and hope that the energy can become focused and productive.

And further suggestions with widespread support include:
• please feed results back to RSA - chairman and CE need to hear this as they don’t seem to know!
• employ someone specifically to help fellows network within similar interests or skills
• combine discussion and informal networking for fellows around key themes
• moving from hierarchical staff-led processes to more open collaborative process by enabling Fellows to converse, contribute, act together
• we don't have to wait for the rsa if we want to talk to each other. Set up a group in Facebook and invite Fellows to join, and start talking

There are also signs of the beginning of a sense of empowerment, that the Fellows can be part of the change and work with the “official” organisation rather than just waiting for it to happen:
• what can we do as fellows of the rsa - the rsa doesn't exist - if you mean the elite management of the rsa then what should they do to assist us to change the issues
• we need to be that change - we need to be active in the areas to ensure we don't typify the smugness

I'm definitely one of those who feels there is enormous potential in the RSA Fellowship - though I'm not too happy with the term. Since no-one (that I can discover) gets turned down, it really means member. However, I strongly believe that dealing with the concerns raised above, and releasing that potential, is best done by running an open re-launch process on the general lines I was writing about last week. This is underlined by part of Catherine's analysis:

Appetite for change: this group is certainly ready to see some changes. They have one of the highest levels of difference we have seen in a discussion group (other than a bank in the middle of a change process where the staff were concerned that the management were in denial of the crisis and the need for improvement). Based on this debate, there will not be much resistance to change, so long as it is improving those issues they see as needing adjustment – namely the active involvement of Fellows with “management” in the running of the RSA and with each other in the achievement of the RSA goals.

... and the key conclusions

• There is an appetite for change
• There is a lot of potential to be harnessed within the Fellowship
• There is a desire for more information and more involvement in the changes, and a hope that a more Fellowship led structure will emerge, including using this kind of tool to engage and listen to dispersed groups.

I think it is excellent that Matthew Taylor is giving the chief executive's view. How many other Third Sector or association CEOs do that in the UK? Now, how about an open blog or forum on the main RSA site for members, potential members, and well-wishers? Or would it be more healthy for RSA members to set something up themselves? I certainly think another Synthetron session with more people involved would be interesting.
There's an independent group meeting next week to discuss various ways that social media could benefit the RSA, so drop a comment below if you are interested, or mail me. Meanwhile I'll carry on with the social reporter role.

Technorati Tags: membership, rsa

New media innovation exchange, anyone?

As I wrote earlier, there's a lot of buzz around social media in the UK nonprofit world, but not yet much joining up. These days that needn't mean formal coalitions - just a preparedness to share knowledge and help those new to the field. How might we do that?  Perhaps through an innovation exchange for the use of new media among nonprofits.  I've just posted this over at the Open Innovation Exchange.

I've been looking through the nominations for the New Statesman New Media Awards**, and I'm blown away by the range of interesting online initiatives there, ranging from the governmental to the small group and individual.
The Open Innovation Exchange has been nominated, and of course we are all hopeful that we'll get recognition for the open process we used to bid for the Cabinet Office contract, even though we failed. (No official news of the winner, though I did hear unconfirmed rumblings that the lead within the third sector may be ACEVO rather than NCVO).
The aim of the awards is to "celebrate UK new media projects that benefit society, government or democracy," and this year the categories are Contribution to civic society; Modernising government; Elected representative; Education Information and openness; Advocacy; Young Innovator. You can see last year's winners here.
I know some of those nominated - but not about many others, even though I try and scan the field and write about it here. It strikes me that awards are great for flushing out interesting initiatives, and rewarding them after they have achieved something. However, awards aren't generally designed to encourage start-ups, or help them learn from more experienced initiatives. To do that we would need .... ummm ... an innovation exchange!
The main Third Sector Innovation Exchange, once established, will no doubt provide an excellent service across the major activities of nonprofits in the UK. However, I believe that the sector could do with a special boost in it's use of new media, where in my experience there is a big gap between the type of innovations featured in the New Statesman Awards and many of the rest. Maybe a New Media Innovation Exchange could help make some links between the various European and UK initiatives now emerging, and open up learning to a wider audience.
How would we get that going? Why, run an open process of invention, of course. Anyone interested, please drop a comment below.
** I'm on the awards judging panel, but not for the Modernising government section where the Open Innovation Exchange has been nominated.

Apologies if this appears to be shameless lobbying for the role of open innovation. I know my fellow judges will be totally dispassionate, rightly suspecting we may well do it whether or not we get an award.

Technorati Tags: awards, innovation, nptech, openinex

Social media for UK nonprofits beginning to buzz

There's a real buzz developing around social media for nonprofits in the UK at present. Today Dan McQuillan followed up his call for the European equivalent of the US-based Netsquared conference and community with an n2eu wiki and mailing list to get things moving over here. 
Earlier in the week we heard from Third Sector magazine that CharityComms is being launched as a communications institute, thanks to the efforts of Joe Saxton, chair of the Institute of Fundraising and founder of research company NfpSynergy. They have 15 charities signed up to subscribe £3000 each, but as Third Sector reports, have attracted some criticism from PR and fundraising groups saying they don't need another kid on the block.
This echoes rumblings that I reported here after Bertie Bosrédon, head of new media at Breast Cancer Care,  suggested others with his passion for the potential of new media in nonprofits might like to get together. Then too it was "we've already got a group ... it should be tied in with fundraising" ... and "new media is a minority interest among nonprofits". Maybe, but it shouldn't be.
Bertie tell me he is pressing ahead with plans for nfp.org.uk, and it sounds as if that will have a "how do you do this stuff" focus that will complement the planned role of CharityComms as a professional body.
There's also some continuing activity on the academic-practitioner network Technology and Social Action funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of its Designing for the 21st Century programme. All that's as well as the long-standing mailing list for charity web managers, that for UK Circuit Riders, and emint for online community managers. Please let me know of any others.
There's a group forming around the role of new media in re-inventing the RSA, and other organisations, that I wrote about here, so far just in Facebook. Look me up there for more.
However, the best buzz for me was the Collaborate|2007 event yesterday organised by my friends at Ruralnet|UK. I won't try and report it until the presentations and papers are online, except to say that the most exciting developments I saw had been put together by Brian Rich, Paul Henderson and their tech team to move their systems into the Web 2.0 era.   
Instead of building some costly all-in-one new system, they have been using a mix of free or low-cost tools to do this, based on their I-See-T experiments.. The xPRESS Digest news service is available on a blog and as an email newsletter, compiled through speedy clipping of RSS feeds. As this item explains, the Inforurale database has been shifted from Filemaker Pro into a site fed by del.icio.us bookmarks.
Not ground-breaking, but sensible application of the tools now available to anyone. What's more interesting is what the team are going to do with their very successful Experts Online project. If you are a subscriber to the main services you can post a question to experts covering everything from business planning to childcare, computers to legal issues, and get a personal reply. The Q and As build up into a searchable archive.
In the past that has run on a FirstClass-based system that doesn't really integrate with the Web 2.0 world. What's now coming is a system running on a Drupal  site under a single login, with Q and A offered through an RSS feed. This means that Ruralnet can offer Experts Online to other organisations as a single service, as well as a bundle. It can be mixed in with other services. You could login to a mix of free and paid-for information services on your own organisation's site ... some provided by Ruralnet, some by your own organisation.

Click To Play and at Blip.tv
It really needs a presentation or video to explain properly, and I'm sure that will be coming from Ruralnet. Meanwhile, I was able yesterday to interview David Head - who organised the collaborate|2007 event - and Paul Henderson, who has been working on the tech side.

The lesson I take from the various initiatives above is that it is pointless these days to get into squabbles about organisational territory. The technology is showing us how to join-up wherever we are - provided, as I wrote here, and David Head confirms, you are prepared to be open and innovative.

Technorati Tags: newmediaawards, nonprofit, socialmedia

Another role for Facebook - re-inventing membership organisations

The 250-year-old Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is continuing its very welcome re-invention process with the help this week of the innovation agency ?Whatif!.  As you'll see below, I think it is time to open the process up. Maybe the rapidly-growing Facebook can help with the RSA re-invention, and similar processes to engage members of other organisations more fully. If they don't embrace social networking, organisations may find their members don't need them.
(For an intro to the importance of Facebook, see Bill Thompson at the BBC. He has previous remarked in his links feed "There’s an RSA vibe going… maybe it can be FaceBook for our offline time?")
As a Fellow of the RSA (aka member) I got a call from a researcher asking what I liked or not about the RSA, and then yesterday afternoon an invitation to participate a few hours later in an online chat. I'm assuming the two are linked because of the short notice.

The system provide by Synthetron was interesting. As well as contributing discussion points, we were asked to vote on those raised by other people as we went along, and to expand points. The screen shot shows discussion before moving sliders across to options: oppose, somewhat oppose, not useful, kind of agree, agree. The moderator then does some synthesising. I don't know if that was played back to us, because my battery collapsed and everything was shut down by the time I returned. I feel it's OK to quote the discussion because it was anonymised. As you can see from the screen shot the final points were as follows:

I have noticed a definite change in the RSA approach to topical issues over the last year. Talks, discussions, debate and more involvement. This is great! What we would truly benefit from is more contribution and joint action?
enable fellows to generate ideas and follow them through
Us each having the courage to own the RSA and share responsibility to ask the awkward questions for meeting that potential
let the sum be more than the parts
There is huge potential for the future of the RSA with an assortment of talents, experience and professional expertise just waiting to be tapped and wanting to influence - surely that is the most important thing for the future of the RSA
i think MatthewTaylor needs to get into the mix not stand on the stage

That's rather hard on chief executive Matthew Taylor, who does at least have a blog - but I think it is a useful metaphor for the Society which is somewhat trapped in its heritage, with a very fine lecture hall totally inappropriate to the more conversational events we need for many topics.
The general tone of the online discussion was that there is enormous potential to harness the collective intelligence of the 26,000 Fellows, but some frustration about how this might be achieved.
Disclosure: I may be helping with the re-invention process, leading up to a major event in November. I'm not sure whether this item will help my chances of involvement or not, but hey,  I'm advocating an open process so why hold back? None of this is confidential as far as I can see.
Which leads me to another point. The anonymity of yesterday's discussion enabled people to contribute freely online, but it meant we didn't know each other, and couldn't carry on. A lot of the chat was about the need for Fellows to take a lead - "it's our RSA" - but that's hardly possible unless you can find others interested, and can start to organise. The private areas of the RSA web site are not yet configured that way, although I know there's a lot of work in progress.
The key issue for me is the level of engagement offered to Fellow during the re-invention process. If the process (surveys, focus groups, online discussion, ?whatif!, major event) is mainly designed and run at arms-length by RSA staff it will not lead to the sense of ownership that I believe Fellows in last night's discussions wanted. Incidently, there was no one in the discussion last night to explain what was already happening, so it became rather negative. Another example of why the focus group approach isn't appropriate for co-creation.
If you really believe in co-creation you have to involve your co-creators openly from the start. In my experience that's really difficult for organisations that have in the past been hierarchical. We demonstrated a different approach with the Open Innovation Exchange - which by the way, isn't over yet despite not winning the bid. More soon.
Fortunately these days social media allow the punters (aka Fellows) to start their own bottom-up processes.  There were a few mentions of Facebook during the discussion last night. Is it time for a Friends of the RSA group there for current and potential Fellows, where we could ask RSA staff to join us, rather than the other way around?
Comments welcome below, or join me in Facebook  where I'll put this on my wall shortly. Friends requests readily accepted.
Apply to join the RSA here, though it will take considerably longer, and cost £135. Another reason membership organisations should be worried about Facebook, if they don't embrace it - and also show how they can offer additional benefits. I know the RSA can ... but I think it is time to open up on how we can develop those benefits together.

Technorati Tags: collaboration, rsa

Open Innovation Exchange shortlisted for Cabinet Office project

As the xPRESS Digest reports - “Naked bid” group shortlisted for Innovation Exchange - our consortium bid has made it through to interviews next week.

A groundbreaking bid for a prestigious government contract, developed in open forum on the internet, has been shortlisted for interview next week by the Office of the Third Sector. A group led by RNUK Ltd’s CEO, Simon Berry, developed their bid to run the £1.2 million Innovation Exchange for the Office of the Third Sector, in the open and online, so that everyone interested could contribute ideas and comment; even competitors could see the bid develop at www.innovationexchange.net More than 500 people read the different elements of the bid as it developed and around 90 contributions were made and incorporated into the final submission.The approach has been praised by both contributors and observers alike, as an innovative, inclusive and open way to build a tender for an innovation project. The Office of the Third Sector has welcomed the resulting document as  "very impressive" and the process has been nominated for the New Statesman's Modernising Government Award.

We now need to find out who else has been shortlisted. Anyone know? ... and also start rehearsing for the interview. That will involve a team meeting, but we also thought it might be in the spirit of things to do some of that in public too. More follows shortly.
Previously:

• Open Innovation bid delivered
• Modernising government - from outside as well as in

Update: we've started rehearsing for the interview - in public

Technorati Tags: open source, openinex

Open Innovation bid delivered

As you can see here, Simon Berry delivered our open source bid for the £1.2 million Innovation Exchange to Cabinet Office today. After a few weeks of mostly virtual work it seemed appropriate to drop some in hard copies as well as send pdfs to John Craig and colleagues, so Simon took the bike and train from Warwickshire, my son Dan and I turned up to provide some support and shoot a video. We'll have that edited soon.
To recap, a few weeks back a group of us decided to form a consortium to bid for the Third Sector Innovation Exchange contract, let by Government, and aimed to improve ways nonprofits deliver public services. We believe a lot of innovation comes from open collaboration (as do the authors of Wikinomics) ... so why not write the proposal in public, and ask anyone interested to join in? Dan set up the Open Innovation Exchange on a Drupal site, and we opened up not knowing quite what would happen. As one of the other consortium members, Ed Mitchell, writes, thankfully it went well:

This was just too good an idea to resist and a bunch of exceptional people and organisations jumped onboard the first open source bid to UK government ever. I offered a small piece on my favourite area (multi-domain knowledge exchange and the development of trust in communities across time), which I hope was of use, and was completely wow-ed by the level of collaboration that all the participants displayed.
From a cold standing start. It was gob-smacking. And public - which I think is the most impressive part - that all of us were happy to share our ideas, pool our knowledge and say "anyone can read what we think" - genuinely turning the pitch process on its head.

Simon Berry writes on the Open Innovation Exchange site:

Here's the proof. The bid on its way from bike to bid reception. I bumped into John Craig in reception which was nice. I am sure it was a coincidence or maybe it was because we were causing a bit of concern setting up to film outside! But it felt good anyway.
He was friendly and, reading between the lines, I think he's been really interested in the approach we've taken. They are expecting "a number" of bids and I got the impression that it was number about halfway-ish between 15 and 25. So, as we breath a sigh of relief and can get our lives back, the hard work starts for them.

You can download the final bid (4M pdf) without figures because that would breach tender rules, and also see how we got there with earlier drafts.
We aren't stopping now. The site will remain open to gather further ideas, and also - we hope - to meet other people interested in open collaborations, whether for bids or other projects. Come on over. You can register and get blogging rights, or just comment.
Oh yes, bid competitors welcome too. If you want to go naked at this late stage we'll happily feature your proposals too.
Update: video is up now.

Technorati Tags: collaboration, innovation, nptech, nptechuk, open source, openinex

Open Innovation Exchange starts to buzz

Since starting the Open Innovation Exchange a couple of days ago we've had a really gratifying response to our experiment in developing an open source bid for a £1.2 million Government contract. The aim is two-fold: first, to create an exception proposal for ways in which nonprofit can share knowledge, and improve public service delivery. Secondly, to demonstrate that it is possible to collaborate in a competitive situation, and so improve upon public procure processes. As I wrote previously:

The difficulty in tendering for complex and challenging projects is that you know your proposals may well turn out to be inadequate because there's no way of figuring out in advance  what will work. Ideally the solutions have to be worked out with those who are "the problem". But if you do go in with a proposal full of co-creation workshops with stakeholders, there's a danger you will be seen as fuzzy. It's all too easy to end up either in tacit collusion between consultants and funders to do something rather inadequate, or acrimonious disputes about failure to "deliver".

Quite a few people seems to agree, and are blogging and commenting on the site with enthusiasm. If you have a moment, do take a look, and join in. Simon Berry has put together a first model for our proposal, and will shortly be posting the work packages that will deliver this. We are exploring collaboration with a number of people and organisation, and would welcome more.  The site seems to be providing a further benefit - a space to talk about the general issues of collaboration, knowledge sharing, process evaluation and more. That's another lesson - if you open up, good stuff happens.

Technorati Tags: innovation, knowledgesharing, nonprofit, openinex

No 2.0 could be the reality check on Innovation Exchange

While I was attending and presenting at the UK nonprofits technology conference Pathways to success yesterday, the UK government announced the invitation to bid for a £1.2 million programme to help third sector organisations innovate by exchanging experience online and off. This further fuelled coffee-time conversations about what might be needed to support any technology-related change. General conclusion:  culture shift before tech adoption ... so keep it simple, small steps, focussed on real needs.
The conference was organised by the ICT Hub, which is one of six hubs funded by government under the ChangeUp programme. Others cover finance, governance, performance, volunteering, and workforce.
There were great workshops in the morning, and as the day went on I rather regretted agreeing to keynote after lunch on the role of social media. As I said in my presentation, I much prefer workshops, and chatting in groups, to from-the-podium presentation. More in line with the conversational benefits of social media too.
Anyway, you can see the presentation here, and come the time I enjoyed giving it. I'm not entirely sure how it went down with the audience, because there was such a wide range of experience in the room - some people familiar with blogs, wikis, social networks and so on, and others much less aware.

One of the slides was an update on this post which asked Are you Yes 2.0 or No 2.0 ...

Yes 2.0

• A human voice
• Willing to share
• Open source thinking
• Share responsibility
• Basics covered
• Ready to experiment
• Tell good stories

No 2.0

• Official voice
• Anxious to control
• We own it
• Central vetting
• Audience not online
• Unwilling to invest time
• Publish reports

.... the point being that if were No 2.0 then you probably wouldn't get on with social media. One chief exec who was present responded by saying that she want to be Yes 2.0, but the climate in which she and her organisation operated meant she has to compete for funding, keep tight control on operation, doesn't have any slack, and has to satisfy a not-Web 2.0 set of interests. It provided a very honest reality check.
I had based some of my presentation on the excellent Third Sector Foresight report on how nonpropfits can best use social media and social networking, which was helpfully available on people's seats. At the end of the conference I was able to bring together report author Megan Griffith with Head of the ICT hub, Nicola Thompson, and Paul Webster, who works on ICT support at the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action.
I asked them how - from different local, national and future perspectives - they saw nonprofit use of social media. They all reckoned there was great potential, but as Megan in particular emphasised the challenges will come as senior staff in organisations consider how far they want to control messages centrally, and how collaborative they can be in a competitive environment. Nicola and Paul said that many organisation were still struggling with the basics - though they could make progress once this was fixed and they saw the benefits. Click the  thumbnail to play in Quicktime, or here at Google video.
This led me to think more about the proposed Innovation Exchange, which ties in with the Government's desire to see third sector organisations delivering more public services, set out last December in a Cabinet Office action plan. The invitation to tender summarises the requirement:

The innovation exchange will pilot new approaches to fostering, exchanging and replicating third sector innovation, ensuring that public services benefit from the approaches they pioneer. The innovation exchange will seek to connect innovators to one another, to those who might benefit from their work, including public service, commissioners and third sector organisation, and others who might invest in their work.

It goes on to explain:

The innovation exchange will be set the following objectives: (i) Enable third sector innovators to identify possible collaborators, build networks and come together to engage in collaborative development work. (ii) Bring together third sector innovators and those who might benefit from their work to develop and prototype innovations. (iii) Support the best innovations to develop their work and to grow or to spread their innovations to other areas and organisations. (iv) Help third sector innovators to access the investments they need to support their work. (v) Develop learning on how to achieve(i) to (iv) and help generate a momentum for enhancing the role of third sector organisations as catalysts in public service improvement.

It looks as if, for the Innovation Exchange to succeed on and offline, it will have to overcome exactly those cultural barriers I heard much about in conversations at the conference. It assumes that third sector innovators are naturally keen to collaborate - and move from No 2.0 into Yes 2.0.  I'm sceptical. Individuals - like the chief exec who spoke - may well be, but the current third sector climate is against them. Prior-to-contract issue for the Cabinet Office: what innovative changes might be needed in funding and other procedures to help create a more innovative environment.
(P.S. - nothing's perfect. Who wants to develop a consortium bid?)

Technorati Tags: collaboration, innovation, knowledgesharing, nonprofit, nptechuk

Social media challenges and opportunities for nonprofits

The Guardian today carries an excellent article by Megan Griffith on the importance of social networking and social media to nonprofit organisations. It raises themes dealt with in a longer report, available here, that Megan has authored for Third Sector Foresight.

People have always come together through membership of formal organisations and informal groups, whether for mutual support, to provide a service or to campaign for change. It is this coming together that is the lifeblood of civil society.
The rapid growth of the internet and its ability to connect people in new ways is impacting on the relationships that individuals have with each other and with organisations, and on the communities of which they are a part.
If the late 19th century was the golden age of mutual institutions, clubs and societies, the early 21st century is a new golden age of networks and online communities, a virtual replication of what went before. This presents new opportunities and challenges for voluntary organisations.
From the earliest email lists and bulletin boards, to the blogs and social networking sites such as MySpace which grew rapidly and gained wider coverage in 2006, the ease with which individuals can now be linked across electronic spaces mean that niche communities can be identified and their interests aggregated.
In particular, this has enabled marginalised groups to communicate, support each other and to mobilise more easily and effectively than was previously possible.

OK, I'm a little biased because I contributed to the report, but Megan has pulled complex ideas together from a wide range of sources, and in the main report looks at the potential impact of new media on membership, information management, transparency of operation, collaboration, fundraising and marketing. I'll be speaking tomorrow at the ICT Hub conference on these issues, when the report will be available. Megan adds in The Guardian:

For many voluntary organisations, online social networks such as these have the potential to be disruptive; that is, they have the power to change the model of organising upon which many voluntary organisations, and particularly membership bodies, are based.
The connections that ICT facilitates suggest that some organisations increasingly may be bypassed, and that power may shift away from top-down hierarchical organisations and towards more fluid and participative networks where there is less need for a centralised "bricks and mortar" coordinating organisation.

After quoting a number of examples, Megan highlights the importance of dialogue with, rather than broadcast communication from an organisation

The idea that it is the network that generates content - ideas, policies, advice - is in some ways what the voluntary sector has always done, and done well. But in other ways this represents a leap in the dark for organisations for whom being "on message" is seen as an important discipline.
Bertie Bosredon, head of new media at Breast Cancer Care, explains: "A charity's brand does not have the same protection as a commercial company because your supporters feel strongly about the charity they support and feel they have some ownership of the brand.
"You don't have 100% control over what they say and this can sometimes become an issue. So blogs can be powerful but they must be carefully managed and resourced."
Where organisations traditionally may have focused their communications on pushing information out from the centre, people now also expect organisations to pull in information from other sources. As such, cultures of engagement present more of a challenge than the technologies.

It's these issues of control and collaboration that I want to explore tomorrow - neatly summarised by Beth Kanter and Bev Trayner as Are you Yes 2.0 or No 2.0?

Previously: Nonprofit leadership means networking, socially and openly

Technorati Tags: nptech, nptechuk, socialmedia, socialnetworking

Nonprofit leadership means networking, socially and openly

Here's some joining up of threads about nonprofits, the web, uncollaboration, social networking, and open source politics. Just looking through my small window, I think something's going on.
Last year I wrote a piece musing about how the development of social networking might impact on the membership of associations and other nonprofit organisations.

It used to be that you joined associations because it was a way of meeting like-minded people and getting help, facilities, information and other things difficult or costly to organise for yourself. These days it is much easier to find people and resources online, and to mix and match these assets into project teams, communities of practice, and informal networks.

This is one of the themes in the forthcoming report from the NCVO ICT Foresight team:

For many VCOs (voluntary and community organisations), online ‘social’ networks have the potential to be disruptive; that is, they have the power to change the model of organising upon which many VCOs, and particularly membership bodies, are based. The connections that ICT facilitates suggest that some organisations may increasingly be bypassed and that power may shift away from top-down hierarchical organisations and towards more fluid and participative networks where there is less need for a centralised ‘bricks and mortar’ coordinating organisation.

Now Leon Benjamin, author of Winning by Sharing, offers a telling comment to my piece about Nonprofit uncollaboration. That cited Paul Caplan on how national nonprofits are less collaborative than they might be, and fail to see the potential and impact of the web.  Leon writes:

I think the problem is leadership. The reality is that leaders of VCOs and NGOs aren't equipped to lead in the 21st century's networked economy. And this isn't their fault, but they need to accept help from people who can create the conditions that enable leaders to emerge, and then step aside. This isn't their time now.
Just before he died, Peter Drucker said at Davos in Switzerland, "community-building talent is the single most precious resource in the modern world." Let me briefly explain why.
Online community service poviders like Ezboard and CommunityZero, and Bebo and MySpace, to a certain extent have created leaders who in some cases, have literally started movements, with huge numbers of supporters and advocates. EzBoard has over half a million discrete 'clubs', each with a leader, covering a vast array of subject matter.
These leaders often deliver an experience that enriches people's social and professional lives. More so than the associations and unions that are supposed to serve them.
These are our leaders of the future.

Meanwhile, a fascinating discussion breaks out between