Knowledge Management: Salvation
May 28, 2009 § Leave a comment
The Human Component in Fundraising Information Systems
My spouse and I went to see “Terminator: Salvation” last weekend, and it got me thinking about the merging of people and technology in fundraising knowledge management systems. When we create systems to manage the daily onslaught of information that we all face, our tendency is to focus solely on the technology and resist acknowledging that people are an integral part of the system. Information management systems are like cyborgs in that the human component is necessary for the technology to work efficiently.
Too often we think of technology as being totally evil, like when in the first Terminator, when the cyborg goes back in time to kill Sarah Connor, or totally good, like in Terminator 2: Judgment Day when the good Arnold Schwarzenegger comes back to protect her. Either way, we give technology too much power; it will either entangle data in an irretrievable mess, or it will be the magic bullet that will meet all of our information needs and be our salvation. While some tools are better than others, they are not going to solve our problems for us.
In order to save the world, we need the Terminator, but we also need Sarah Connor. It is the same with information technology tools; we need the hardware to house the data, but it is the human component that turns that data into knowledge.
Since people don’t yet have the ability to install a USB plug into our brains and do a data dump into the network, people need give shape to their organization’s knowledge management system. Whatever the role, fundraising professionals are responsible to and dependent on each other. Front line fundraisers enter their contact reports, prospect researchers enter ratings and biographical information, gift processors make sure that gift data is entered accurately, and events managers enter the latest activity. Over time, these data points become an organization’s institutional memory.
Like the cyborg, knowledge management systems are more than just hardware; the also have a human component. While than the database, hard files, and email are significant, how people communicate and facilitate relationships is equally, if not more important. It is easy to forget that the knowledge in peoples’ heads or that is shared in a conversation are also information assets. Policies and guidelines formalize relationships and how information exchanged and captured. The regular prospect meetings and formal liaison assignments within organizations are critical aspects of managing your information assets.
The knowledge management system as like a cyborg: the technical and the human are integral parts of the whole, and they don’t work well without each other. Your individual and collective success depends on it. Resistance is futile.
Slacktivism, Shmacktivism!
May 22, 2009 § 3 Comments
How Social Media Activists are Changing the World
I have seen and heard a lot of nay-saying lately in the media about social networking tools, to which I feel compelled to respond. Within the last week I’ve encountered at least three different critiques about tools the likes of Twitter and Facebook, accusing thier users of “slacktivism,” like this opinion piece by John Ridley, who says that People who use Twitter are hypocrites, or the piece in Foreign Policy which claims that the tools foster “feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact.”
To this I say “pshaw!” I can say first hand that these tools have real impact, especially when it comes to community organizing and raising awareness of issues. I work in the nonprofit world, where social benefit organizations are exploring the exploding number of communication tools available to see how they can be used to motivate people into action, whether it is getting out news, inviting people to an event, informing people of volunteer service opportunities, or encouraging folks to make charitable contributions. Getting people engaged with these tools is the whole reason they are so successful.
Last winter, I went to a rally at the Center on Halsted when Fred Phelps and his clan were in town ready to hurl their anti-gay hatred at this wonderful Chicago institution. One of the primary ways the organizers were able to get the word out was through Facebook and Twitter. Over 200 people showed up, and we successfully delivered the message to Phleps & Co that hate is not welcome here.
Right now, marriage equality activists are organizing and communicating with each other about local actions when the Supreme Court decision in California that is announced on Tuesday, May 26th. Through online tools, we are getting the word out and as a result people are going to hit the streets all over the country on Tuesday night.
Next week in San Jose, CA, people from all over the world are gathering for the NetSquared conference, which is all about the use of social technologies for progressive social change. People representing all types of nonprofit organizations that are working for environmental justice, human rights, and world peace are coming together to learn from each other and collaborate. The projects they work on include Handheld Human Rights, which uses technology tools to document human rights abuses in Burma, and PublicStuff.org, a mobile application that enables citizens to make meaningful connections with their local government leaders and hold them accountable to meet needs in their communities.
There’s also the example of the Sunlight Foundation which promotes the creation and use of online tools to improve access to government information. The Sunlight Foundation promotes tools like Filibusted, which allows users to keep track of which senators have used the filibuster to stall debate, and Know Thy Congressman, a widget that convenietly provides very useful information about any congressperson, including their voting record.
Social media is more than just Twitter and Facebook, and though those are wonderful community organizing tools, too, there are so many more under development. Activists all over the world have used and created these tools to raise visibility for their issues. These are not perfect mediums, and they are only as good as the people who use them.
Finally, as I was writing this post, I learned via Twitter that the prolific nonprofit blogger Beth Kanter wrote a post for Mashable about how social media is changing the nonprofit landscape. Her examples further illustrate the point I am making.
Nay-sayers be darned! Social media tools are helping activists change the world.
Conspicuous Generosity
May 17, 2009 § Leave a comment
Forbes recently published an article positing the question of whether or not the age of “conspicuous philanthropy” was coming to an end. Citing a trend in anonymous giving, author Judith Dobrzynski asks whether having a donor’s name in lights with a big naming gift may be a thing of the past.
Some people are motivated to give by the promise of having their name up in lights, naming a building or a scholarship in their honor, that would remain for generations. From the institution’s point of view, naming opportunities is good stewardship. It gives the donor the chance to see concretely how their dollars make a difference in the community, as well as honoring the donor’s generosity.
In my view, philanthropy is a responsibility, like the concept of tithing, and people should give as much as they are able to the causes they believe in. Even so, in our culture philanthropy is a choice, and those of in the business offundraising know that the gift has to give something to the donor. If making the gift doesn’t generate positive feelings, then there’s no motivation for the donor.
Philanthropy is always motivated by emotions and what is going to make us feel better about ourselves. Whether it is shame, love, jealousy, or good old-fashioned egotism, I think that deep down people understand that public philanthropy (call it conspicuous if you like) is simply modeling good behavior.
One of my former employers, a large, presigious university, organized a series of fundraising dinners at the homes of volunteers. These were initimate gatherings of classmates, no more than ten couples, where the host would give a presentation about the campaign. At the end of the talk, they disclose to their friends the gift they were pleding, and what influenced their decision.
At that point, the friends around the table felt compelled to also pledge, wheter it was out of competition, love for the school, or responsibility. The actions of the donors and volunteers were able to personally tap into the emotions that influenced further philanthropy from their social circle. This model had tremendous success during that campaign, cultivating new donors and volunteers for the institution.
While the age of the mega-gifts may be coming to an end, or at least a significant slow-down, I hope that anonymous giving is not a trend that will take hold. Especially in these exceptional times, philanthropists should lead by example and continue to give generously and conspicuously.
InFomentation 