Will Web 2.0 be the tool set we need to change the world?

marcosten's picture

The idea for this online discussion results from a recent thread on the UK Riders list. The UKRider thread was started by David Wilcox who shared a bit about Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everyone. In the book Shirky makes the following statement regarding Web 2.0.

 

"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."

 

So the question we are using to start the online discussion is - Will Web 2.0 be the tool set we need to change the world?

nikilambropoulos's picture

I think it is not the tool as such becasue Web 1.0 aimed the same, to work people together. it will be the mentality, a state of mind which is now absent.  

not sure what everyone else thinks.. 

cynicaleng's picture

The controversial bit of Shirky's pronouncement is

 "For the first time in history, we have tools that truly allow for this."

 I don't see anything I can do today that I couldn't do 1,2,5 or 10 years ago. It may have got a bit easier, though getting here to post this suggests otherwise, and the critical mass of users / contributors / readers may have been reached, but I haven't seen a quantum leap in terms of the tools available.

 Web 2.0 is nowhere near the same as replacing the horse with the tractor or the scythe with the threshing machine.

marcosten's picture

OK....I hear ya cynicleng, but then why are so many people saying that Shirky is right.....that it is about the tools and that now we have them?

You comment that you haven't seen a quantum leap in terms of the tools available. I'm not sure a lot of folks out there would agree. They would in fact point to the proliferation of self proclaimed web 2.0 tools as massive....right. Check out http://www.go2web20.net/ for example.

So let's assume for the moment that the tools are there. There is still something very wrong with the calculus on all this.

We have the tools...

We know that strategy matters most...

We have lots of history in social movements to know what does and doesn't work in regards to social action tactics

...but we keep losing all the big social movement fights...even though the tools are all there!

What gives?

<><><><><><><><><><>

Marc Osten

Summit Collaborative

www.summitcollaborative.com

<><><><><><><><&

cynicaleng's picture

"They would in fact point to the proliferation of self proclaimed web 2.0 tools as massive"

No doubt, that is somewhat in the nature of self proclamation. Fact remains I could stick a video on the web in 1996 or have a discussion in a forum or Usenet group or whatever so it isn't about the tools at all.

 

"but we keep losing all the big social movement fights...even though the tools are all there"

a losing argument in fancy fonts and moving pictures remains a losing argument. Web 2.0 may also be talking to itself ( a self selecting homogeneity perhaps ?) while the world passes by across the street.

 

 

 

tmolloy's picture

It seems to me that it's not the 'new' toolset per se either, but what the toolset can now enable that couldn't be done prior to it existing. Web 2.0 opened the door to simple and easy creation of online communities and communications which in turn allowed previously isolate individuals & groups to engage with each other with ease (even on a global scale).

alan dawson's picture

Web2.0 ( as an general evolutionary stage in the process of interconnecting people/machines that has been happening since before 1996 as cynicaleng points out ) is allowing more people to participate in social action than before. But this is probably just a result of increasing penetration and drop in cost of the tools to access "the network" together with general useability improvements.

For me though the utopian view of this ignores the increasing corporatisation/privatisation of civil society that is happening in parallel to this.

Google may promise to "do no evil" but they are beholden to their shareholders and profit first. As we give more of our personal information to Nokia, Facebook, Microsoft, seduced by the dubious pleasures of open air pillow fights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillow_fight_flash_mob we need strong tools to protect privacy, individuality and autonomy, for those who chose to opt out of the brave new world being sold to us.

marcosten's picture

Alan - I think this is right on. It is almost as if we in the sector forget that the other elements in society...for-profit, government, etc. aren't also trying to, and in many cases are, using the same tools to forward their agendas.

--

<><><><><><><><><><>

Marc Osten

Summit Collaborative

www.summitcollaborative.com

<><><><><><><><&

sam_vonne's picture

Do you recall the first mobile phones? Suitcase battery type fellows that were clunky and cumbersome …. but today! On the other side of the coin, what about those ‘virtual reality’ gaming headset and glove sensor things that allowed the wearer of the apparatus to become immersed in a game? One technology flew, one floundered.
Sometimes it’s difficult to predict, but my opinion of Web 2.0 is that it has elements of advancement which may be of fantastic use, but it is getting too big for its boots if it thinks it can change the world.
If we accept that Web 1.0 was all about static information being available for us to view and make use of and that Web 2.0 sees the potential for interactive use of the web (in all its forms) then there is certainly potential.
I believe the greatest benefits will be from ‘web networks’ of the type that use uniform embedded toolbars to group together associated organisations with relative menus and links etc. These systems are fast developing to offer document handling, group conferencing, forums and so on. All in one ‘online network’. Now that’s useful.
But social networking and blogs are very individual focussed and I think are developing simply because of a need in society today to have the 15 mins of fame. ‘I am online, therefore I am’.
If I want to reach like-minded professionals, am I interested in reading the thoughts and twitterings of countless blogging individuals to do this? No way. Perhaps I could visit their virtual market place to learn more? Not a chance!
If I want to join people to change the world, I want succinct, accessible information made readily available to tell me if you share my direction. I.E. just like a good website in fact! I don’t want to know what you had for breakfast nor am I interested in getting a picture of your breakfast e-transported to my mobile phone, nor does it matter to me how many 'friends' you have!

joshhoole's picture

My question to the forum is with such a vast volume of people, ideas, information and nonsense on the web, how can charities (read: all VCOs) find the people online they need to communicate with in order to change the world?

The communities may already be set up online and talking together, in which case how do we hop on that group?
If you have to set the group yourself, how do you get people onto it? If you build it, will they come?

Steve Dixon's picture

Having worked on a community IT grant project for the past two years, my questions always revolve around the small issues that stop beneficiaries taking in and focusing on the bigger picture.

Many of my clients have had little or no direct experience of developing IT resources and it is often a long time before they reach a point of understanding about the potential - and even then, other barriers can remain in their way - time, more money, logistics, staffing. Things we all face from time to time.

But going back to the basic point of disseminating information about key tools, I find it frustrating getting across that potential for IT to change people's lives.

Here's the best and simplest way of describing it:

I was at a birthday BBQ a couple of weeks back and this trouble-shooting project manager looked me in the eye told me his tale on this same theme.

He called it the “favourite album” story where you give someone something you believe is totally amazing and they are just bemused and not very receptive.

“Here, borrow my LP, it’s amazing and track 7 will just blow your mind”, “Gee, thanks, I will sometime.” And they put it down and go back to what they were doing.

For me, developing the potential of Web 2.0 is about moving on from stagnating old habits and routines and embracing the new - and in some cases in the charity and voluntary sector, that means shutting people in a room for a couple of days with a trainer and no diaries and no distractions!

Essentially, hands on training focuses on Web 2.0's benefits and is, I believe, the most effective way to get the changes in place.

And for those that might be casually curious and cast a glance over the changes, I think services such as RSS feeds and other tools have to be simpler and more immediately accessible for a wider audience. Big, simple Skype style buttons and branding are required.

Having digested all of this and pausing for reflection, I am pleased to recall that a couple of my groups have recently just started doing some amazing things, like live big screen links to India, producing service user guides for the Over 50s, etc.

Steve Dixon

cynicaleng's picture

Hey Marc, do you have a meaty example to illustrate your point that...

"...but we keep losing all the big social movement fights...even though the tools are all there!"

can you show us how something that was lost in the past continues to be lost despite the "new" armoury of tools ?

marcosten's picture

Of course! A prime example might be the fight against mass media consolidation. For decades...longer, progressive have fought to limit consolidation of mass media (print, television, etc) machines into fewer and fewer hands. Today that fight goes on but with little positive result. I could go deeper and/or provide other examples if needed. My basic point is that tools rarely make the difference and in fact I think that the tools often distract us from what we need to pay more careful attention to in social movements.

Now nobody can accuse me of being a anti-tech or tool - I love the stuff, am excited and curious about how it can help us to be more mission effective BUT I'm really concerned about how we are framing this stuff. The question - 'how can we use Web 2.0 tools to help us be more successful in our social movement work' is how I most often hear things framed. I think we need some different angles into the discussion so we don't end up chasing our tails like we have with technology and social change through the decades.

Robert_Leming's picture

It is not simple - but things ARE changing.

I took my first IT job back in 1976. These are truly magic boxes we are holding this discussion through. And we should never forget that we are standing on shoulders that represent a whole lot of work, work that way-predates these technologies in fact!

But web 2.0 does represent a remarkable shift. My kids are 27 & 23 and have been using FaceBook since almost its inception.

This represents a new kind of "mesh" - that allows them to be aware of their broad community of friends and acquaintences without getting swamped. The emegence of micro-donations in each others names, as small gifts in this community is one example of hte kind of innovations that are on the move.

My theory about the way forward for justice & peace (to clarify, I see it in this order: Love, Justice, Peace - with Fairness as a simple alternative to Justice) is through networks of networks of trust. With the end goal being to develop the ability to marginalize the big, cruel world - and to make viable the close-knit loving one. (no Eutopia here - still horros and hardships in the mix , but, a vibrant culture ...)

I think we are all in the midst of knitting these networks together day in and day out - and have been doing the work to preserve and mend our traditional "nets".

My take, Web 2.0, can help us manage the ocean of informationa and possible connections and to develop conscious, strong personal/family (in the big sense) networks of trust that are beginning to link in action.

Lem
Philadelphia

--
The Wind and the waves favor the skilled sailor

eleland's picture

Well web 2.0 technologies are indeed more tools we can use for social action. But as we all know tools do not build a house...

With that said, the emergence of the blog really transformed the web for many of my smaller advocacy clients. None of them actually needed a blog precisely, but for the first time it really hit home the sense that, "yeah, I should be able to maintain my website with ease, and connect with people through it." It brought a lot of people out of the area of customization and into toolsets that helped them focus on social advocacy more, and maintaining technology less. This is just one story, but to me there are certaintly gains in efficiency in communications through web 2.0 technologies.

I do see these tools helping movements have more efficacy, but its the power of the movements themselves that forms the real yardstick for success here.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leland Design
http://www.lelanddesign.com

ahi-va's picture

So why have we failed to change the world so far? Is it because we didn't have the tools? All the tools that have been invented so far have landed us where we are now.

A good craftsman doesn't blame his tools for poor work... to make a better society depends on people's vision and motives, education, not just having the latest tools. To a certain extent Web 2.0 facilitates new kinds of 'mesh' communities, but corporations also will be looking to exploit and harness Web 2.0 technologies to enhance business agendas and make more profits. So in the longer term, who gains, what has changed?

Doesn't the problem lie inside human hearts? Technology is just an outer apparatus; the driving force for change requires people to look inside their hearts and minds.

David Wilcox's picture

I suggest that online tools are one set of methods that may be used within a process of change. However, first it helps to think about the purpose, the people and the context. There's a diagram of that here - please add it to the post if useful.
On the other hand Tom Steinberg of mySociety argues - here for example - that carefully chosen and focussed tools are the best way to get change in some circumstances.
I don't think it is either or.
How about "in what circumstances, used by what people, to what end, and over what time, are Web 2.0 tools most likely to change the world?"
I think most technologies change things - but it is pretty difficult to see quite how they will in advance!

marcosten's picture

I definitely felt like I was on the hotseat yesterday. Three simple reasons, all that tie directly into what the hotseat topic is:

1. Bad Instructions - The day started off with me screwing up and violating one of the most basic rules of online organizing...make darn sure folks understand the step by step instructions they need to follow to join the online engagement. Apologies to the 2,000+ people out there yesterday that I didn't serve with proper instructions.

2. Difficult Access - The process for folks to register and then log-in, though apparently easy, really isn't. Actually the process isn't hard but finding an easy way to do so is.

3. Careful what you wish for - There was a barrage of insightful comments, questions, issues and points of view shared by many people who jumped in to the conversation. That required me to really keep an eye on the conversation all day.

What is the thread for me on all this? Know thy stakeholders, constituents, online community members - whatever you want to call folks!

So my question for today therefore is:

????? What do we have to do to ensure that we know thy stakeholders, constituents, online community members, offline community we want to engage online, whatever?

ahi-va's picture

"A state of mind which is now absent"... I'm still not sure whether Web 2.0 tools can change people's state of mind on their own. I attend steering group meeting of local community groups, and it's there that decisions are made. Many of the most influential participants are not computer literate at all. Those that are don't necessarily have much to say.

AndyDearden's picture

I want to go back to this question about the tools we might need to "change the world"

We need to be clear about what parts of the world we want to change, and in what ways. The triangle diagram that David Wilcox shared (http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/Triangle) is helpful here. The overarching change I am hoping for is to create a fairer world, but that is broken down into little steps, and these are oriented to different groups.

* Content management tools and blogs certainly can help groups focus on their message, rather than managing the website IT, but we still need to work hard to attract the attention of the audience (whether the audience is passive supporters, activists, the general public or whatever)

* This kind of discussion forum makes it easier to catch up on the conversation than trawling back through a pile of emails, but it still needs us to commit time to listening to what others say (or write), and then making constructive contributions. IN this way the tools may improve our ability to learn and improve our long term impact.

* Wiki's allow us to work on bids together, but we still need to come up with a convincing case for funding.

* New mesh networks may help us find partners to work with, but we still need to co-ordinate our voices if we are going to shift centres of political and economic power.

So, for me, the tools are interesting, but discussing things at this very abstract level. We need to think more specifically about the different functional aims we might have with different bits of technology. Ann Light & I have written a paper about this, which I've shared at: http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/node/638

It is a draft model at present, and feedback is welcome.

Andy

conches's picture

There is a clear thread here that states that the tools are not enough. Additionally, there is a thread that states that the tools could enable connection and communication that could catalyze a better world. What is missing is the greater context of social action. Ultimately, what I want is irrelevant. What tools I use are irrelevant. How ever, what we want is critical and what tools we use are critical. My individuality is only important in ti's context as a member of my community(s). And in that context, it is critical.

There is a fantastic artical by Monica Sharma of the UN (http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/backissue/f2007/personal-planetary.shtm...) where she describes a model where self holds (sources) all action. It is a concentric circle diagram but it is best understood as each lager circle holding the circles within it. The diagram moves from the largest (or all encompassing, source) circle is self which holds the next circle that is systems which holds the next circle which is transactions. (http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/bm~pix/sharma_fig2~s600x600.jpg) For planetary change to occur, we must source are actions from self, through systems, with tools. None of these circles are less important than another. Change cannot happen with out, in Ms. Sharma's words, a Full Spectrum approach.

So, the question, will web 2.0 be the toolset that we will use to change the world is interesting, but, far too abstract to be useful. What if we root the question is something that needs to be done.

Pick a milenium goal.

Pick a broken global system (Pharmaceuticals, Defense/Arms, Trade, Agrofood Industry, ...).

Pick a global issue (Fisheries Depletion, Water, Education for all, Illegal Drugs, Intellectual Property rights, International labor and migration rules,...)

And now ask if web 2.0 tools will be game changing. That is an interesting question but only in the conext of other questions that are something like: Will we/I find the strength, will, common purpose, desire, ganas, source, ground, perch to create this change? What is the structure of the system that perpetuates the problem? What are the believes of the players that perpetuate the problem? What is the win? What does the future look like? And, what tools do we need to deploy to understand the problem, engage the stakeholders, create, monitor and sustain change.

How many times have you hammered in a nail with a wrench or the heel of a shoe. Tools morph to fit context. Our tools are better. Our problems or worse. Our resonance is fading.

AndyDearden's picture

You have hit the nail on the head! (with whatever tool you were using ;-)
When you phrase things in this very specific way: pick a millennium goal or pick a global issue, then ask how does the availability of web 2.0 change the terms of trade, then it is hard to see how any one tool will change things. So we end up getting back to 'how can web 2.0 help us organise better / communicate more effectively / get stronger'.

One interesting example to consider is Martus (www.martus.org) - here the ability to get information about human rights abuses beyond the clutches of the abusers does change the terms of trade. On the other hand, the fact that so many web 2.0 tools are bandwidth hungry reinforces divides between the haves & have nots.

Floss4Good's picture

I appreciate your viewpoint. Web 2.0 is connection, but connection without direction doesn't get us anywhere.

Web 2.0 as a tool may or may not change the world. However, Web 2.0 as an idea, as a social phenomenon that has increased mainstream comfort with digital interaction, is a thought environment that accelerates the innovation and production of other tools. Its social impact, combined with the focus on usability, makes it a powerful innovation/production engine for groups of people with relatively little time, resources, or technical knowledge.

In my own efforts to leverage those changes with Floss4Good, I've been working on a process that doesn't tackle the problem of "What tool set will change the world." It tackles the problem of "How can nonprofits quickly and inexpensively find and adapt those tool sets for their specialized needs?" (Even if those tools aren't web 2.0 themselves)

I guess you could say that the goal I picked is how to accelerate nonprofit progress toward all of the other goals. How can nonprofits adapt web 3.0 and 4.0 for their needs, faster and with less effort, then do the same for nanotech 1.0 (whatever that will be) or any new technology. Many of the theories and research that my work is based on weren't available prior to web 2.0, not because the tools changed recently, but because people and ideas are changing.

I won't be able to respond to this since I'm getting ready for a flight and will be disconnected for the next week and a half. I wish I could though. Good discussion. Excellent link for Dr. Sharma too. Thanks.

Johanna.Bates's picture

I believe there is a shift taking place in the zeitgeist right now. Web 2.0, to me, is a continuation of change that communications technology has been brining for decades, starting with the telephone--more people are able to affordably connect across towns, countries and continents, personally and professionally. I think there is an increased awareness of our connection to others that is facilitated by 2-way (bloggers posting cell phone videos of events as they unfold), 24-hour news.

That said, I agree very strongly with the arguments many have made here--that the tools are just tools. I firmly believe that. We can use them well, or badly. If I have a poorly constructed message, the ability for me to communicate more quickly with more people at any hour of the day will not magically fix anything.

I am more interested in the way that Web 2.0 tools connect us shift our perceptions of our world--of other people, of other cultures, etc.

And of course... I only had time to come over to this discussion because Twitter is down! ;)

marcosten's picture

Well if there is one thing that is clear from the past few days it is that there is general broad agreement that the tools are simply not enough and that there are a variety of other issues that drive the use of the tools. Yesterday AndyDearden for example states, "We need to be clear about what parts of the world we want to change, and in what ways." Conches follows up with, "What tools I use are irrelevant. How ever, what we want is critical and what tools we use are critical." Johanna.Bates closes yesterday with a strategic communications issue when she writes, "If I have a poorly constructed message, the ability for me to communicate more quickly with more people at any hour of the day will not magically fix anything."

Several folks also comment that they want the discussion us to move from the larger abstract question we started with, "Will Web 2.0 be the tool set we need to change the world?" to more concrete ways of questioning the relevance and strategic role that Web 2.0 tools play in social movements.

AndyDearden also reminds us that the triangle diagram that David Wilcox shared (http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/Triangle) is instructive as it asks us to think about "* The purpose - what are you trying to achieve, * The people - what attitudes, skills, motivation, * The context - what is the culture, history of the situation... and only then, what process and methods will be appropriate."

Assuming we are clear on purpose, people, context, culture, etc. AND we have common purpose and desire, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK TO APPROPRIATELY AND EFFECTIVELY USE WEB 2.0 TOOLS AND STRATEGIES?

I ask that you try to be very specific with the questions you add to the list and then maybe on Thursday, Friday and next week we can try to answer some of the questions. I promise to then pull it together into a usable resource/tool any of use can use to be more strategic. That would definitely be a move from 'abstract' to concrete. I'll get us started.

Question: How do you identify and then NARROW down what tools make sense to deploy?
Question: How do you align with your capacity and/or your organisation's capacity to deploy the tool?

REMEMBER - Let's try today to just generate the question and hold off on answers. Thanks, Marc

gailwatt's picture

Have been following discussion with great interest. Take a look at
http://www.d2d.nu and you'll see why. In preparation of our 2:nd book
to be published in the beginning of June, we have had a year's long
discussion within our group on the following questions related to the
Swedish system of democracy:

1)When we say that we have a democracy where the individual citizen
has nearly no influence at all, what is the influence we actually are
missing?

2) Facebook, bloggs, wikis -Web 2.0 - and other internet interaction
-can these tools give us a democratic society with greater influence?

3)If now politicians and their government administrations will not
give us individual citizens more influence, how can we citizens get
more influence?

Often we Swedes often feel we get such positive accolades on our form
of government and social systems, while we ourselves are less than
fully content. And so it probably should be in a democracy that
constantly has to be guarded, worked on, and improved if it is to be
viable over time. Please feel free to help us with our answers to the
three questions. All of us in the D2D group (with members from the
far left to the far right) think we need a great deal of help even
from non-Swedes.

cynicaleng's picture

Q: Who is your target audience for "change" - are you holding a massive conversation with yourself or with an elective homogeneity while your target audience is oblivious to your efforts ?

Q: If you believe you're looking to change something that is controlled and regulated by people who do not engage with Web 2.0 - say World Trade for example - at what stage do you break off from using Web 2.0 to build a momentum and have to use ye olde methods to engage with the suits in charge ? Or are you just going to arrange a cannon fodder flash mob for the next WTO meeting ?

Mike Veitch's picture

Well hi Marc,

After a long journey I have made to your discussion. Before I take a seat and say my piece, let me grab a coffee and a cake and organise my thoughts.

Mike

--
It's still capitalism stupid

AndyDearden's picture

Question: Where do you look for reliable information about the capacity you are going to need to deploy tool X?

Question: Where do you look for reliable information about the merits of different tools for a given objective?

Mike Veitch's picture

Question: How are the benefits of the transaction distributed amongst the tool purchaser; the tool user; the tool maker and the tool evangalists?

--
It's still capitalism stupid

AndyDearden's picture

Don't forget the benefits to the capital provider who may claim ownership of something they like to call intellectual property

Paula Graham's picture

$64,000 question . . .

IanRuneckles's picture

Following on from Marc and cynicaleng:

What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?

While I'm here might be worth flagging up the conversation we had at the UK Circuit Rider Conference back in February when we "spectrogrammed" this issue - http://www.ukriders.info/conference/welcome

Ian R @ Lasa, London

marcosten's picture

Keep it coming folks......this is great stuff! Your questions spur me to add a couple more:

Question: How do you determine if and/or when and/or how to integrate the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies with your other online and/or offline engagement strategies and tactics.

Question: How do balance the need to perfectly target the right tool for the right job with the need to stay comfortable with experimentation and learning as you go?

AndyDearden's picture

Question: How do you manage the proliferation of communication channels (print, email, web 2.0, phone, face2face events, ...) and still keep your diverse constituency working in coordinated way?

Mike Veitch's picture

Question: Web x.y makes use of global communications networks owned by others. What happens when this permission to use is withdrawn - do we have a Plan B?

--
It's still capitalism stupid

AndyDearden's picture

Agreed - we should be quite clear that "we" DON'T "have the tools". The tools are being provided to us by others on a variety of terms. This recent story from Egypt explains how the government owned ISP recently blocked an opposition Web 2.0 site. http://allafrica.com/stories/200805140025.html

Johanna.Bates's picture

Question: What Web 2.0 tools *aren't* being used by the people you are trying to reach with your work, and *why* aren't they using them? Is it because they cannot access them? Or is it because the tools don't serve their needs? If they don't have tools they need, or the tools for them need to be better/different, how can we address that gap in our work?

AndyDearden's picture

I think this is related to Kutoma's comment (below) about tool fatigue.
I wonder whether the rate of change of communication tools is increasing (or whether I'm just getting older). I notice that my parents are not particularly keen on any new communication possibilities. They tend to say 'what I am doing works fine, why should I learn to use a new technology?'. And as a bit of a Luddite myself, I tend to question how long I'm prepared to spend trying to learn new communication practices - I want to know what benefit I'm going to get, and I want to see fairly prompt returns on my time investment.
And then there is the question of digital exclusion.
* To what extent do different Web 2.0 tools amplify (or reduce) the inequalities that always exist. How many of our favourite tools work well at 56kbs (or less)?
* To what extent do we think "if it's not on-line, it doesn't exist/matter"?

David Wilcox's picture

Hi Marc - all
As a practical way of thinking about what tools, in what circumstances, for what purpose, some of you may be familiar with the workshop game developed by Drew Mackie and I - played at some PRADSA events.
I recently did a couple of versions for communications and fundraising, which you can find here
http://socialmedia.wikispaces.com/Communications+game
Creative Commons Share Alike - so do download, use, amend - whatever.
Haven't yet done a multi-player online version, though ... in case there are some games developers here, interested

marcosten's picture

David - I love the game. Just for the sake of ease, could you post here in this space the questions that emerge in the game...only of course if they are sitting in a single file that it is easy to cut and paste from. If not I'll go ahead and unpack the list myself. Thanks.

Mike Veitch's picture

Question: If Web 2.0 is the tool set we need to change the world, what is wrong with the tried and tested tools we been using for the last few millenium to effect change up until now?

--
It's still capitalism stupid

gailwatt's picture

Certainly probably nothing wrong with the old tools, it's just that the new ones should and ought to be more effective. To my mind it's not the classical "capitalism" "socialism" or those sorts of "isms", but rather the operative word ought to be pragmatism.

kutoma's picture

Perhaps with all these tools comes a sense of tool fatigue? It seems to me there is a lot of hype about web 2.0 but not enough hype about what exactly we mean by changing the world and what we want to change about it.

marcosten's picture

So then gailwatt - Could I take your comment and frame it as a question that reads:

??? Are there any tools that aren't classified as Web 2.0 tools that could be helpful in us meeting our goals?

...and Kutoma, could I do the same and turn your phrase into a question that reads:

??? What tools will be practical for us to deploy in light of the tool fatique many of us experience, especially when using new tools?

Paula Graham's picture

Web 2.0 services are not just tools for VCS organisations to use, they're tools used by their providers for various purposes too. I think the Canadian University case is interesting: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080324.wrgoogle24/B.... Choice of tools for VCS organisations may entail wider issues than cost, ease of use etc. Web tools are not as ethically neutral as many seem to be suggesting. I think it's important for VCS organisations to consider carefully where online services are based and by whom they are owned. Free/open source tools on servers hosted by ethical providers within the EU should be used where possible.

larryjhs's picture

My question/comment is this--and hello everyone, I would have joined in earlier, but I have working on a big grant application for Web2.0 with a community organisation in Melbourne, so these issues are very relevant.

Assuming (and this is the big assumption, but I'll take it as 'true' for the purposes of this question--(assuming that Web2.0 does have some form of community uptake, particularly in a disadvantaged community), what do we mean by the community change that is supposed to result from this? How do we demonstrate social good? community benefit? How do we show for example, that homeless young people have better lives, or that people can access their pension benefits more easily. I'm not speaking here of different sorts of evaluation techniques, but rather, just what should we be looking for, or trying to find out, with limited budgets and time...I am asking this because it is the hard question that is posed by funders--'you want us to spend technology on your organisation, and we here lots about how great it all is, but prove to us that it actually results in social good". What are some indicators?

And remember, good qualitative research is strongly indicative--we just don't want one story, w...e want many stories that make the point

I have my own ideas...and we will be having a workshop/conference day on June 17 in Melbourne (where John Davies of IT for Communities will be speaking) to try and develop a conversation as the basis for some indepth research.

But what are your ideas?

AndyDearden's picture

Larry - you probably can't show significantly better lives as a direct result, but perhaps you can show stronger social connection to sources of support / information etc.

Could you do a comparison where you ask the young people what they would do / where they would go for information if they had a particular type of problem. Essentially, it would be looking for measures of linking social capital. Peter Day's CNA project (to be reported at Prato no doubt!) will probably provide some good ideas.

Leonie Ramondt's picture

Larry, as it happens i sat in a session yesterday on funding for the third sector and the guy from Big lottery mentioned a publication they produce called Explaining the difference your project makes. it seems to be a useful guide for determining indicators http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/index/evaluationandresearch-uk/qa_expla...

walester's picture

Question: How effective will Web 2.0 tools be for those folks who live at the edge of the network - places where connectivity is spotty, computing skills are minimal, and resources are limited? The argument is that the majority of the world lives at the edge of the network, and so for maximum effect, any Web 2.0 tools should be appropriate for them. Check out www.edgeof.net .

Bill Lester

Pamela McLean's picture

Leonie asked for a PRADSA conversation (The Ozzy Woodentops) to move over here.

During the conversation I had asked “How are we going to get my friends in Kenya and Nigeria involved in Steve Thompson style community projects? And not just because it is fun. There are serious reasons too.”

Leonie refered to the hotseat Question: How effective will Web 2.0 tools be for those folks who live at the edge of the network ....and also said
“a mate of mine has posted a vid /poem that invites dialogue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onBqm2nG8yk - and video dialogue is possible now in youtube, having nigerian people sharing their stories – folks talking real with each other – is this possible with the technology they have there now?”

So in response to Leonie here are some more or less relevant thoughts:

I know it's supposed to be really simple to do youtube. However I will confess that, as yet, I haven't got into it – and I am in the bandwidth-rich UK and I have a laptop with an inbuilt camera. How much simpler could it be, you might ask! I just hate having to find out how to use stuff, and I don't' have anyone ”at the next desk” to show me. I say this so that you will be ready to accept that it's not necessarily just a question of having the right technology.

Regarding the technology, when I first went to Nigeria I was the only person who had a digital camera, amongst the people I mixed with. I have left various cameras behind, because it seemed they would be more useful left in Africa to continue to “be my eyes”. I have got very few photos back as a result. It is a mixture of reasons, including lack of experience, distance from cybercafes, the expense of sending photos compared to text, lack of motivation and/or appreciation of what is of interest to people far away.

If people do have a camera sending the information is the problem rather than capturing it.

Regarding capturing information. People are very keen to use digital cameras, for videos or photographs, given the chance. However they do not have good models of tight editing. Most video cameramen in rural Nigeria simply edit in-camera and hand the video tape over at the end of whatever event they are recording.

There is a video on youtube of my Kenyan friends (the Nafsi Pyramid fo Peace acrobats) but it got there via a CD sent to Serbia, where someone arranged to get it on youtube.

In my experience people are very ready to talk to cameras, and much prefer that to doing any kind of written report. The main problem is getting the speakers to keep it short. Asking them to speak freely, but briefly, in response to a previously agreed structure of set questions can be very helpful – especially if they have seen some examples of other people doing a similar structured response in a given limited time. Managing to find somewhere to record without too much background noise is another problem. There is not usually sufficient light indoors, and outside you get chickens, children, motor-cycle taxis and other ambient sounds.

It is six years since I gave away my first camera, and I haven't completely given up on getting images sent back. We are planning a camera club at Fantsuam now. Someone (not me) has donated some cameras, which will do brief videos as well as stills. They are to be used by a group of young people that I have regular links with, and so the camera giver and I are hoping to develop people's skills and get a breakthrough on collecting images..

I also have a contact who is a teacher working “in the bush” outside of Ago-Are. He has a camera phone and has sent me a couple of photographs. He also uses his phone for the Internet, contributing to my Learning From each Other yahoo group and joining some related discussion in the worknets chat room, and has sadi he hopes to send me some video. However It is quite a while since I heard from him. It is very difficult for him to afford to go online. I tried to send him some money, some months back, via a chain of people I know (to avoid too much of it going to Western Union) but the money doesn't seem to have got very far on its journey yet. I hope he is okay and the money will get there and he will be in contact again before too long.

I hope this helps to answer your question Leonie. I have done a long anecdotal reply rather than a generalised one, because I cannot speak with confidence in generalisations, but I can share particular examples that I know.

--
Pamela McLean

marcosten's picture

Yesterday you developed an impressive list of questions to ask before making Wb 2.0 tool and strategy decisions. Next week we'll try to answer these questions by taking a few each day. For now I invite you to add to the list, review what is here, suggest edits, etc.

Note - I've taken the liberty in some cases of extracting questions from narratives that some of you provided. Please feel free to edit at will.

Questions shared on day 4:

walester
Question: How effective will Web 2.0 tools be for those folks who live at the edge of the network - places where connectivity is spotty, computing skills are minimal, and resources are limited?

Cynicaleng
Q: Who is your target audience for "change" - are you holding a massive conversation with yourself or with an elective homogeneity while your target audience is oblivious to your efforts ?

Q: If you believe you're looking to change something that is controlled and regulated by people who do not engage with Web 2.0 - say World Trade for example - at what stage do you break off from using Web 2.0 to build a momentum and have to use ye olde methods to engage with the suits in charge

Mike Veitch
Q: How are the benefits of the transaction distributed amongst the tool purchaser; the tool user; the tool maker and the tool evangalists? (Andy Dearden added remember benefits to the capital provider who may claim ownership to intellectual property)

Q: Web x.y makes use of global communications networks owned by others. What happens when this permission to use is withdrawn - do we have a Plan B?

Q: If Web 2.0 is the tool set we need to change the world, what is wrong with the tried and tested tools we been using for the last few millenium to effect change up until now?-

Floos4Good
Q: How can nonprofits quickly and inexpensively find and adapt those tool sets for their specialized needs?" (Even if those tools aren't web 2.0 themselves)

conches
Q: As we consider use of Wb 2.0 tools and strategies, how do we want to root our considerations? (By mission, by program, by campaign goal, etc.)

Q: Will the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies be ‘game changing’ in regards to our efforts?

AndyDearden
Q: Where do you look for reliable information about the capacity you are going to need to deploy tool X?

Q: Where do you look for reliable information about the merits of different tools for a given objective?

Q: How do you manage the proliferation of communication channels (print, email, web 2.0, phone, face2face events, ...) and still keep your diverse constituency working in coordinated way?

IanRuneckles
Q: What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?

Johanna.Bates
Q: What Web 2.0 tools *aren't* being used by the people you are trying to reach with your work, and *why* aren't they using them? Is it because they cannot access them? Or is it because the tools don't serve their needs? If they don't have tools they need, or the tools for them need to be better/different, how can we address that gap in our work?

gailwatt
Q: Are there any tools that aren't classified as Web 2.0 tools that could be helpful in us meeting our goals?

Q: Can these tools ( Facebook, bloggs, wikis -Web 2.0 - and other internet interaction) give us a democratic society with greater influence?

Q: If politicians and their government administrations will not give us individual citizens more influence, how can we citizens get more influence?

Paula Graham
Q: What ‘wider’ issues (ethical issues, who owns services, etc.) other than cost, ease of use, etc. should be taken into consideration when making choices about tools?

Q: In what situations should free/open source be prioritized when making selections?

kutoma
Q: What tools will be practical for us to deploy in light of the tool fatique many of us experience, especially when using new tools?

marcosten
Q: How do you identify and then NARROW down what tools make sense to deploy??Q: How do you align with your capacity and/or your organisation's capacity to deploy the tool?

Q: How do you determine if and/or when and/or how to integrate the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies with your other online and/or offline engagement strategies and tactics.

Q: How do you balance the need to perfectly target the right tool for the right job with the need to stay comfortable with experimentation and learning as you go?

Q: As we proceed with the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies what do we want to measure to best understand the impact that these tools and strategies on our broader goals?

Q: What are the most appropriate ways to measure the impact of Web 2.0 tools and strategies we deploy?

Q: What type of changes will you have to help staff and external stakeholders deaL with as they use and adapt to new ways of working that Web 2.0 tools and strategies can lead to?

Q: How best can you deal with these changes?

Leonie Ramondt's picture

what are the (often serendipitous) opportunities of sharing video eg can we build and sustain conversations outside the dominant paradigm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onBqm2nG8yk and explore other "ways of being/seeing"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1o

johnlara's picture

Hello all - Acceptance of Web 2.0 tools within the non-profit sector will depend not on how neat the tools are but on what results the NPOs can expect from the technology. It seems many of us (myself included) beleive the community developed by Web 2.0 applications can make s difference to NPOs, in terms of increasing engagement, donations of money time and things and so on)...but for me the question is how long will it take to prove that out? NPOs seem very comfortable with tools like direct mail, telephone solicitation and so on, but those tools have immediate payoffs that can be measured, while Web 2.0 seems like a much longer play.

Q: How do we deploy Web 2.0 technologies in the context of current technologies in order to begin to develop metrics to justify costs?

John

AndyDearden's picture

A couple of particular things that social networking tools seem to be good for are:
a) developing peripheral awareness of what others are doing so that it is easier to see potential opportunities / create new networks to get STUFF done
b) searching to find people who might be able to help you do STUFF

One thing we are talking about in the PRADSA project is potential designs for something that we are calling PRADSAX - see http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/taxonomy/term/183 for a general description, and http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/taxonomy/term/189 for a set of user stories about the kind of application we are thinking about.

If you find the idea interesting, and you want to help us design it, you could give us more user stories, or you might want to join the Chelmsford event looking at 'Where the money comes from' http://www.technologyandsocialaction.org/node/575

Andy

Leonie Ramondt's picture

cool story in today's bbc technology section on aid agencies using google earth to get their story across
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7417665.stm

marcosten's picture

Good morning! Hope you all had a relaxing weekend.

As far as this week my suspicion is that we'll see two different tracks of discussion. one that is opened ended and one that is structured and connected to my push to have us jointly develop answers to the many questions brainstormed at the end of last week.

I'll do my best on the open-ended discussion to help support the sharing. As far as the structured discussion my plan is to 'open the floor' each day with a few questions to focus on for that day.

I hope this all makes sense. Cheers, Marc

marcosten's picture

Colleagues - I'd like to open the floor for reaction to these questions. REMEMBER my challenge to you is to share how you think an organisation or individual working for social change goes about answering the questions below. The reason to approach things this way is that we've acknowledged that every organisation and context for considering the use of Web 2.0 tools and strategies is different. And so maybe the best service we could provide to the field of practice would be to generate some real practical process suggestions so anyone engaging in the decision-making can do it strategically. Lets give it a try.

---------
QUESTIONS
---------

<> Q: In what situations should free/open source be prioritized when making selections?

<> Q: What tools will be practical for us to deploy in light of the tool fatique many of us experience, especially when using new tools?

<> Q: How do you manage the proliferation of communication channels (print, email, web 2.0, phone, face2face events, ...) and still keep your diverse constituency working in coordinated way?

<> Q: What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?

Ann Light's picture

In response to the question: What is your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools you are using?, not sure if I'm answering or wandering off into unstructured territory. Perhaps that is in the idea of the beholder. ...eBay, that major Web2.0 phenomenon, has been drawing recyclable goods away from their previously physical outlets. So car boot sales have been hit, but, more significantly here, so have charity shops. eBay, probably in answer to criticisms around this, has a means of letting you give away stuff, but charge to the receiver so that (most of) the money still goes to charity. Rather than give to the shop nearest, donors now choose from all registered non-profits: http://www.ebaygivingworks.com/ns/nonprofit-info.html. Suddenly location is irrelevant and knowing what eBay is up to is important, even if you aren't doing a big 2.0 drive yourself.

Various other things... donors could drive registration of their chosen nfp (in principle, anyway, if they can be bothered and the nfp responds)... small nfps look just like big charities who can afford shopfronts... it took me a long time to find it on eBay even though I knew the service existed (found eventually by locating this curious item: http://cgi.ebay.com/Talking-JESUS-Doll-100-Charity-Unique-Gift_W0QQitemZ...)... it's an interesting combination of marketplaces that eBay has yet again plonked itself into... in theory, any nfp can exploit this but how do they avoid suffering the fate of a million blogs, unheard in the undifferentiated morass that is the Web?... corner shops for local hospices probably work better... ironically, eBay is launching something it calls "Neighbourhoods" - 'Neighborhoods is a gathering place for fans of a certain product, team, artist, and more. Created around popular items and searches, Neighborhoods are designed for members with a very specific interest in mind'. Umm, so nothing about neighbouring then?... sometimes something Web2.0 does change the landscape, but it isn't necessarily in the hands of the people who we'd most like to implement it...

And taking a lead from the man who went off for coffee and cake, I'm off to get lunch.
--
Ann

AndyDearden's picture

On the subject of 'your target audience's capacity to engage with the tools' - there are obviously issues about personal skills and habits - are you targeting 'the facebook generation' or are you trying to get the attention of luddites like myself who don't quite get round to checking my funwall more than once a month (if that). I've noticed that different NGOs have different communication cultures - some are very email responsive, some work mainly by phone but take days to respond to an email etc. I know of a few academic voicemails that explicitly say 'or try emailing me for a quicker response'. My mobile is usually switched off.

There are also bandwidth issues in engaging with social action. The Loband project www.loband.org is built on recognising this. Big web 2.0 tools may involve huge downloads, and may require a complete refresh whenever you follow a link. An alternative design could create a thicker client (more scripts to download from the home page), but then following links could involve minimal data transfers. I don't know how different web 2.0 tools compare in this, but I know that I have usually given up before facebook has loaded a page!

Chris Bailey's picture

I would like to give a slightly different slant to question one. The development of the Internet (not just Web 2.0) poses big issues concerning the way those working on social action issues need to organise themselves. It was controversial when I raised this at a PRADSA meeting, but I think that the free software/open source movement does itself have to be seen as a social movement - promoting production based on networking, open cooperation and collaboration rather than competitive capitalist methods. As a movement specifically developed out of the potential of the Internet it has been very successful compared with many other social movements acting in the Internet age. Its organisational structures and methods of working ought to be looked at and learned from by those seeking to bring about social change.

I think the issue really is how can we adapt similar "open source" methods and structures to be able to properly take advantage of the social networking potential of the Internet and Web 2.0. Inevitably, such a change involves conflict with the existing structures we are working within. But we are too often stuck trying to operate within hierarchical and bureaucratic structures that are hopelessly outdated by Internet developments.

I will illustrate what I mean using the example of the labour movement, but I think the issues raised are relevant to all movements seeking social change. An interesting idea being particularly developed in the US is "Open Source Unionism" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_unionism ). In the use of the Internet by 500 sacked Liverpool dockworkers in the early days of the web, we empirically discovered aspects of this concept for ourselves. Instead of strikes, we called worldwide "Days of Action". We coordinated these using the Internet, but left supporters across the world to decide on and initiate their own support actions - resulting in a rich spectrum of inventive ideas in the different countries involved. The method was highly successful and brought about a rapidly growing worldwide "social action" movement in support of the dockworkers. It was sabotaged and destroyed by the dockworkers' union, who saw it as a threat to their own hierarchical and bureaucratic structures.

Pamela McLean's picture

Several things to write. I'll do them as separate postings:

One:

I've been lurking and skimming and I now have a mistake to confess.

I saw "flag this" and thought it was a way for me to highlight stuff I wanted to come back to later - like putting stars on my google mail. I started to "flag". Having flagged the first item that I really wanted to come back to I realised that the administrator gets to know about it - so it can't be something just useful for me...

I've now decided flagging is not what I hoped it was and is a Bad Thing To Have Done To A Good Post (oops - sorry Leonie). Anyone know how I undo it?

Leonie Ramondt's picture

ohhh, interesting! wasn't able to unflag. i'll mail Alan D, Pam. aren't all the flagged posts still visible tho? (at least - i can see them all ;o)

Paula Graham's picture

I agree with Chris' point that the organisational mode for free software development and open access collaboration has developed in the context of virtual collaboration and so is a kind of 'natural' starting point, but also agree that it needs adaptation for wider use in social change organising.

Like Chris, I have also found that one of the most challenging barriers to effective online collaborative organisation is resistance from those well-placed in existing heirarchies. However, my experience of free software social change collaboration is that it can develop the converse 'tyranny of structurelessness' (http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) -- particularly if there is lack of parity in resources and cultural capital.

If one is genuinely committed to using 'web 2' for social change, the organisational issues become complex and often challenging. FLOSS is a sound stepping-off point but I don't think one can develop any 'one-size-fits-all' model for the VCS.

AndyDearden's picture

I'd like to add to Chris & Paula's point here. It strikes me that there is a debate to be had about how new models of organisation are made possible by web 2.0 and open source approaches to organising.

I think feminists would claim that much of the work done in the 60s and 70s about ways of organising and behaviour in meetings etc. has had a major long-term influence on cultural norms for organising (in social action areas at least) since that time.

Is there an equivalent to be found with regard to open ways of collaborating in web2. Are there a new set of practices that can be encoded sensibly as 'the web2 way' of organising? What are those practices and what are the benefits? What are the downsides?

Just scanning the link that Paula posted (http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm) there may be some interesting clues in there. Web 2.0 and open source are not structureless. But the structures are always open to challenge, and hierarchies such as leadership of FLOSS projects is always open to challenge from others (but probably subject to the same problems of inequality as Jo Freeman mentions).

Sorry that it's more questions and no answers yet again ;-)

Chris Bailey's picture

Paula wrote:

> FLOSS is a sound stepping-off point but I don't think one can develop any 'one-size-fits-all' model for the VCS.

But FLOSS itself has certainly not developed using a 'one-size-fits-all' model. There is a wealth of different organisational models used in the different FLOSS projects. As Andy says, they are certainly not structureless, but the various projects have varying structures combining differing levels of hierarchy and openness, mostly arrived at fairly pragmatically. I am surprised that there seems to be little academic research into the various structures adopted and the relationship between these structures and the success or failure of the software projects involved.

I think such research into FLOSS organisational methods would be of relevance to considering new approaches to organising for social action in the age of the Internet. I pointed to the academic work of the people proposing "Open Source Unionism", because they do seem to be raising this issue. Against the spectrum of organisational methods adapted by FLOSS to use the new collaboration possibilities made possible by the Internet we have much less to show concerning similar developments within "social action". The main exceptions I can think of are the feminist movement at the time of and following the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing 1995, the Zapatistas, the Liverpool Dockers, Indymedia, and al-Qaeda. All of these developed new structures and methods suited to using the potential of the Internet to build the particular "social action" they wished to effect. But they are exceptions. Most social action bodies seem to think they can somehow make effective use of the Internet whilst retaining organisational structures built for a different era. When they fail they then either come to the conclusion that the Internet is useless for social action purposes or they keep looking at the "tools" involved rather than considering issues closer to home.

johnlara's picture

I think the Web2.0 model is just what NPOs ordered for the future of engagement. But Web2.0 needn't be just what we see in Flickr, Twittr, Facebook et al. I hear a lot of advice going to NPOs that recommend using those tools as their entree to Web2.0, but I think that is misguided. By forcing NPOs to use non-NPO specific tools we run the risk moving the adoption horizon further away. My belief is that we need Web2.0 tools optimized for NPO models in order for them to be more quickly justified and accepted in the NPO community. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir though...thoughts anyone? jl

marcosten's picture

With all due respect I disagree and believe there is a convincing body of evidence that indicates that the massive investments, both financially and intellectually, in development of 'nonprofit specific' tools has not proven all that beneficial.

OK - that may be a bit harsh but let me share a brief story that illustrates. In 2003 I remember sitting at the table with a group of influential funders ready to commit massive amount of resources to the building of several applications for widespread nonprofit use. When provided with evidence that new tools were far less important than educating nonprofit executives and staff about strategic use of ANY tool. When prompted to dedicate at least a small portion of the funding to support for existing or new programs to do this education work the funders paid lip service to the comment and then dedicated no one penny to the education efforts so badly needed. They didn't even dedicate funding to research the nonprofit user base to determine what barriers would have to be overcome to make deployment of the new tool successful. The results:

<> Publicity about the tool itself has actually reinforced the premise that all nonprofits need are better tools that are customized for nonprofits.

<> Use of the tool has diverted organisations attention away from the strategic thinking needed to succeed with any ICt tool.

I could cite other examples but let me shift gears.

Though I start this post with a rejection of the concept that we need 'nonprofit specific' tools, I do agree when you state that "Web2.0 needn't be just what we see in Flickr, Twittr, Facebook et al." And I am also very concerned with the, as you write, "advice going to NPOs that recommend using those tools as their entree to Web2.0." I agree that playing with some new tools can help an organisation to better understand the possibilities. Having acknowledged that I think there has to be more nuanced advice given to nonprofits so they can adequately and appropriately address the many questions raised in this forum last week.

My experience is that there is often a kneejerk reaction when these powerful tools are 'played' with. On one extreme there is the 'we can't use these tools. It's too hard' point of view. Towards the other extreme there is the 'wow...these tools are just what we are looking for to solve our problems." What we need is more balanced analysis and that more questioning. You can see me rant about this at: http://www.summitcollaborative.com/web20critique_pradsa.html.

cynicaleng's picture

I'm not convinced there's need for tools specific to NPOs. If you walk into an NPO office it may look somewhat identical to a business office and the processes and structures are often very similar, so why different tools ?

Or is it a case of window dressing something as "NPO specific" in order to gain acceptance ?

Ultimately the production of NPO-specific tools is driving up costs somewhere and increasing waste if the processes are the same.

johnlara's picture

Wow Marc, thanks for for your comments and for the link to your videos. While your post seems to indicate you think our positions are opposed, I don't see it that way. I've never been an advocate to push technology for technology's sake, in fact my focus has always been for judicious use of technology to complement and further organizational goals, with well thought out metrics to create a self-improvement feedback loops. But then again I'm a newbie in this group, so no one knows that :-)

Your points are all well taken - new technology tempts the forward edge of the bell curve to jump right in. Then a small percentage gets great results and a bunch don't. Then we look at the winners and wonder if the success can be systematized and extended to other organizations in a consistent way.

Strategic planning and goal understanding is is important for sure, and consultants in the industry are well suited to walk organizations though all that. But as you state in your videos, there needs to be an underlying non ego-protecting mindset that values risk taking and failure acceptance. While I'd rather work and I seek out the more open-minded organizations, all organizations aren't like that. What we need are tools that don't depend on that mindset but that can help all those great causes out there.

What I'm advocating are Web tools focused at core needs (read center of bell curve) of NPOs (CMS, email, etc) with integrated Web2.0 to support the community and the longevity of the support base (community building, photo sharing, meetup, degrees of separation reduction, mob coordination, multichannel communication and on and on.) With value that can expressed despite where the organization stands on the open/closed mindset - jl

marcosten's picture

From one newbie to this group to another newbie let me say....welcome! Now on to content.

You wrote:

"What I'm advocating are Web tools focused at core needs (read center of bell curve) of NPOs (CMS, email, etc) with integrated Web2.0 to support the community and the longevity of the support base (community building, photo sharing, meetup, degrees of separation reduction, mob coordination, multichannel communication and on and on.)"

I couldn't agree with you more. And the good news is that there are plenty of tools that exist. The difficult challenge is mindset. Where I think I diverge from many of my colleagues is that I haven't see tool really affect mindset from an organisational point of view. YES, I do see mindset shifts occurring for individuals who are introduced to and use certain tools. What I haven't seen is a lot of organisational adoption of tools leading to any noticeable mindset. I may be overstating this a bit but nevertheless it is generally my experience.

What I find helpful though is to identify a few key individuals in an organisation and then help them to subversively spread the mindset shift. But that is less about tools and more about change agent dynamics. Does this make sense or am I just further confusing things?

Pamela McLean's picture

I'm confused about web 2.0 – but perhaps my confusion is in itself relevant.

When I first heard the term web 2.0 I thought the difference related to how the Internet is used – rather than specific tools. I thought web 1.0 was top down and 2.0 was social and collaborative. For instance, to me the Internet was my “informal university” but at first my experience was very top down, accessing information, it was as if I was only allowed to borrow books from the library. Then I discovered various "communities of interest", where I was included in the learning community at my "university" and it stopped being top down.

A time came when I needed some specific help in learning and teaching something. I was asked to do an introductory ICT course for some teachers in rural Nigeria. I was determined to make it relevant and participative, and wanted to update my knowledge, so I set up a yahoo group to help me prepare the course. Members of the group offered suggestions and developed a wiki for me (a kind of “information cupboard” for me to use when I went to deliver the course). I introduced the Nigerian course participants to the Internet, and they joined the yahoo group (Teachers Talking) and were delighted to find people in that group, in far away countries, waiting to exchange emails with them.

Teachers Talking (TT) has been through various transformations since then, and we have used various tools to enable a continuing “rubbing of minds” through the Internet. I am a kind of information hub sometimes in UK, sometimes in Africa. As I travel physically between the UK (and my “bandwidth-rich” contacts here) and rural Nigeria or Kenya (and my “bandwidth-challenged/poor/starved' contacts there) I try to figure out the best ways to keep us all working together. Anything that helps us to collaborate effectively, to share information easily, and to learn and think together, is what I think of as Web 2.0.

It seems I have been over simplistic. I thought web 1.0 was top down, and web 2.0 was “straight across” equal exchange. I kept hearing Web 2.0 terms like social networking, and thought “yes that's us” - regularly linking across continents to get on and do things collaboratively that we could not have done before the Internet existed. I thought Web 2.0 = “the Internet enabling the development and routine use of social networking in ways that were unimaginable a few years ago” but now I think I am wrong in that. It seems there are only certain things which do count as Web 2.0, like Facebook (and other things mentioned in the discussion so far) but probably a lot of the things I value and use for regular and effective Internet enabled collaboration with my “social network” in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa simply don't count as Web 2.0 - I probably need to go back to lurking and trying to get less confused ;-)

AndyDearden's picture

Please don't feel you have to lurk, Pam.

Thinking about practices and how groups of people operate is far more important than categorising tools. "Anything that helps us to collaborate effectively, to share information easily, and to learn and think together" - is a far more important category for our research than the particular set of tools that attract the label web 2.0

johnlara's picture

Pamela, I think you described the basis of Web2.0 perfectly. What we've been discussing recently I think has to do with the nuances of medium and direction. Medium to me is what the equal exchange is centered around. For example in Flickr the medium is photographs. In Twittr it's top-of-mind what is going on right now. Direction speaks to how the activities are focused. For example, Flickr groups can be about black and white photography, photos taken only with low res cameras and so on. In Twittr, the direction can be supporting meetups, creation of flash mobs, and of course the purpose of these directions depends on the initiator.

So I think the nuances we're talking about is what medium to use that will support an NPOs initiatives and what direction we give those tools to acheive the goals of the NPOs. And that takes us back to my earlier post ... how do we direct the use of these tools to support the NPO's goals.

marcosten's picture

Speaking of Africa, I just came across an interesting example of how one organisation is mashing together some online tools. I'm going to hold off categorizing them as Web 1.0 or Web 2.0. And maybe trying to categorize is a problem in and of itself.

Take a look at the site, dive into the map and see what you think.

Maybe some of the questions, drafted last week in this forum, are simply more on point when we talk about social action and the advanced use of digital tools. Trying to categorize just may be a waste of time!

So again, take a look at the site and see if you think they asked and answered any of the following questions BEFORE they embarked on the effort. Or are they answering them as they go along, more of an action learning approach. For me that is what is most interesting. WHAT and HOW are organisation making stratgic decisions.

NOTE - I've changed the language in the questions slightly to apply them to my framing above. The thrust of the original question is the same.

Q: Who is our target audience for "change"?

Q: How can we quickly and inexpensively find and adapt those tool sets for our specialized needs?

Q: As we consider use of tools and strategies, how do we want to root our considerations? (By mission, by program, by campaign goal, etc.)

Q: Will the use of advanced digital tools and strategies be ‘game changing’ in regards to our efforts?

Q: What are the most appropriate ways for us to measure the impact of the tools and strategies we deploy?

The URL for the site is:

http://www.ushahidi.com/

AndyDearden's picture

Wow, we seem to have a whole load of different threads going now! I'd like to try to separate some of these out.

1) There is a debate about the capacity of organisations to utilise tools and services that are already out there - both user skills and strategic decision making skills, and how these may be enhanced.

2) there is a discussion about stimulating innovation and risk taking in organisations.

But I want to concentrate on a third area:

We have the question about NPO / NGO specific tools and toolsets. John Lara, Marc & others seem to agree that this is a direction that can seduce funders down dead end routes. A lot of good solutions are already available from the open-source world. There may be some activities and tasks that are specific to the non-profit sector (my favourite example is the accounting problem of moving expenditure around between budgets so that you get the maximum impact, without breaking any of the ultra-vires rules set by funders). But if the sector needs sector specific tools, each of these needs a specific business case, and the idea that the sector needs its own complete suite of web 2.0 tools looks like a mistake.

But there is something that is not about the specific tools, but about the on-line places and spaces. It is clear that the sector needs places to meet and talk with ourselves and share experiences. Whether it's a mailing lists like UKRiders or pradsa@googlegroups.com or discussion sites like here (www.technologyandsocialaction.org), or social networking sites (free.schoolofeverthing.org, change.org, gaia.org, unltdworld.org). These can be built on standard platforms.

Then there is a debate about providers.
We must always be clear that Flickr, Twitter, googledocs and all those other useful things are NOT FREE! There is a price to pay in information / advertising bandwidth / etc. and we need to understand it. We also need to think about how we want the world to develop in the next 10 / 20 / 50 years. The major IT providers like Microsoft already have very significant influence in national and international policy making. Bill Gates & Rupert Murdoch get invited to Davos more often than any of us. Google is not a democracy nor is it a public service. How much power are we prepared to cede to these big corporations to make our lives just a little easier? Do we really want to 'speak the truth to power' - in this case, we may want to say things that google/myspace/youtube/etc. may decide to censor (if not now, then in the future).

We always need to protect and develop independent platforms. This is a strong argument for supporting initiatives to provide NPO specific services based on open-source platforms. These kinds of initiative should be seen as equivalent to the network of voluntary sector infrastructure organisations.

So I would argue that, although we might not need NPO specific technologies, we may need NPO owned and operated open-source web 2.0 services.

johnlara's picture

Andy - excellent distinction made - while all the common Web2.0 enabled tools potentially carry an advertising payload, getting them on the cheap by NPOs isn't such a bargain if you open your constituents up to on-target advertising (at best) and intrusive oppositional advertising (or worse.) And of course for anti-consumerism causes the advertising is even more ridiculous. So your last line that NPO owned/operated Web2.0 sounds like a clear path to stay clear of the advertising morass - I think you've articulated perfectly what I've been trying to say without realizing it.

Also, public Web2.0 tools tend not to have data backup and reliability guaranteed...after all they are free to users and the corporate mission can change (see Here Come Everyone for more detailed description of the potential pitfalls.) For high-visibility/high-disagreement topics malicious technology attacks have occured. A for-profit would be faster to shut it down than to keep the channel open. An non-profit value-infused system would stand a better chance of better meeting the needs of NPOs - jl

marcosten's picture

Andy - Thanks for teasing this out a bit. As tomorrow is the last day I'm on the Hotseat, I'll take what you started a step further and do a post tomorrow morning to frame the different threads that emerged, both organically and not. Hopefully it'll provide a well formed list of topics for forthcoming conferences, workshops, online discussions, etc.

Wish me luck!

marcosten's picture

OOPS....I guess today is the last day....so I'll just have to post something over the weekend...I'll also email it to the PRADSA email list. Have a great weekend everyone and THANK YOU for taking part over the past two weeks and to all the folks at PRADSA for giving me the honor of sitting on the Hotseat.

Ciao, Marc

<><><><><><><><><><>><>
Marc Osten
Summit Collaborative

www.summitcollaborative.com
<><><><><><><><><><>><>

Pamela McLean's picture

Thanks Andy and John for your encouragement – I will take it as an invitation to tell you what I do and what I use at the moment and to share some dreams. (I won't add why we do things, where people are, and what information we are exchanging – because simply explaining what we do will be rather long. I won't even try to explain who “we” refers to. I am in the UK and I link up with different people in different circumstances – especially in rural Nigeria and Kenya.)

On Wednesdays I have an e-meeting using yahoo conferencing for about an hour. We work to a prepared agenda. Sometimes we circulate a discussion document beforehand. We use google docs for that. It goes the round with people adding comments in their chosen personal colour. We also communicate via email, but not using ordinary emails. We send emails through our virtual offices. We are developing virtual offices, where we can keep all the documents related to a specific project handy for everyone involved.

We are using Moodle for our virtual offices at present because, when we started to construct virtual offices, we already had Moodle to hand. We had experimented with it in connection with some course development and delivery, and understood how to arrange information and people in various ways there. Each "course" is an "office" and each "topic" is a "desk/filing drawer". We have "the usual way" of organising an office so that if you know your way round one you can easily function in another.

We use Moodle forums for our emails. We are still experimenting with that - deciding which information should be pushed out to people, and which information they simply need to be able to access at their convenience. Pushing everything creates too much noise – but it does give a good idea of who is busy with what and when. If you work alone it's quite encouraging to know that others have come in to work on their stuff too (and to sometimes take a shared virtual tea-break/kunu-break/water-cooler-break for an instant messaging catch up on the human side of working together as well).

We have had our virtual offices long enough now to have a good idea of how we like to work in them and what benefits they give us. Now we are looking again at what we do and seeing how conveniently Moodle can and can't achieve what we want. We have started to ask questions to find out what we should really be using. Apparently we need a "knowledge management system" and it might be Drupal.

We need website development too. We've been using blogs for ages as a "temporary fix", and now we are exploring the google website facility. However I saw mention of Drupal making website updates easy, so we probably need to explore that too.

By the way, we came to Moodle via a wiki, and to the wiki via a yahoo group. The yahoo group was generating useful content. The content needed to be collected up in way that would be easier for our people to find. The wiki was okay in a way for that, but we needed more structure. I think wikis are fine in their way (though cumbersome - but perhaps they are improving over time). It is useful that various people can put stuff into a wiki, and anyone who knows what they are looking for can get it out again. However a wiki did not really suit our needs. We needed something more structured, where particular people would find exactly what they needed ready prepared for them.

Another regular online group meeting facility I use is the Minciu Sodas chatroom. I lead a regular monthly discussion group there (13.00 GMT First Thursdays) connected to Learning From Each Other (LFEO). LFEO is a yahoo group which I lead within Minciu Sodas. Some of you may remember Minciu Sodas as the “home” of Pyramid of Peace (PoP) – the Internet and mobile phone initiative that grew up in response to post election turmoil in Kenya. We are about to start discussing Mohammed Yunus' book "Creating a World Without Poverty". We are currently circulating, in Kenya, six copies of the book, via PoP. Other people within LFEO have got copies, and a couple of excerpts from the book have been posted to LFEO. I'd like to experiment with capturing various aspects of that discussion for those who can't get to the chats (perhaps to share via Moodle) but that's just an idea for the moment - unless anyone knows anyone with time/money/interest to make it happen.

I use Skype a lot and have experimented with audiographic conferencing and want to take that further (I particularly like the way that participants can “chat amongst themselves” while the main speaker is talking. Then the speaker can keep scanning back over the comments in order to pick up on participants real interests and adjust the ongoing presentation in response.)

I don't make informed decisions about what tools I should use. This is mainly because although it is fun and stimulating to work in trans-national, culturally mixed, virtual communities the downside is that there is no-one “at the next desk” to give suggestions and no IT dept or training dept to call on – so I stick with what is familiar until it simply won't do any more – or until an opportunity comes my way to learn something new in a simple way.

My dream is that we will get so good at using online discussion tools and all web 2.0 stuff that we will be able to “cut out the middle man” when it comes to consultations about poverty alleviation and rural development and such like. If you came to Nigeria or Kenya with me now I could introduce you to the people who I know, who could arrange for you to meet with representatives of whatever usually excluded social group you wanted to learn about or collaborate with. (I could probably help you in Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia too – and other places as well if I started asking around.)

Take that a step further, slightly improve what we are already doing, and you needn't bother to find your anti-malarials and get hot and dusty coming to Africa – you could meet those representatives online. Fast forward – and no policy decision or funding allocation should be made without the G8, or UNICEF, or whoever, first having online consultations with the local stakeholders – the people who are living with the problems – the real experts who should be the paid consultants. It's not that difficult. It only needs a bigger team, and some money, and some good local community development people who know how to help people to “have a voice”. It seems to me that all the bits and pieces are there, they just need bringing together. That way I believe we could really speed up all kinds of good things, including the achievement of some of the Millennium Development Goals.

Pamela McLean's picture

Marc

I see you mentioned the site http://www.ushahidi.com/ which covers the post-election turmoil in Kenya. It includes some of the PoP intitiatives, such as item Reaching out to the Mungiki Naivasha Feb 1, 2008 Rachel and her team of Kikuyu peacemakers from Nairobi arrived in Naivasha at 11:30 am by public transport... and item Roadblocks removed after peace efforts Naivasha Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:09 am Rachel Wambui Kungu +254 721 626 389 is back in Nairobi, Kenya after a day ...

Connected to that I could also point you to the archive of the yahoo group emails leading up to that journey and to the chatroom meeting afterwards. We met there hoping for news of Rachel and the others getting back safely to Nairobi. They arrived and then we were all waiting for news of a truck load of displaced people who were travelling in the hope that the agreement to lift the road block would hold - it did - they got through safely.

Leonie Ramondt's picture

On behalf of Pradsa folk I'd like to thank Marc for his extraordinary efforts in hosting, facilitating and summarising this hotseat. a wonderful example of dynamic online practice. I'm aware that there are other folk like myself who've not been able to participate as frequently and in the depth we would've liked due to time demands. For this reason i anticipate that although Marc's actual hosting /facilitation ends, we'll keep this hotseat open for a few days longer, so some stragglers can still contribute. Once again, many thanks Marc, yours will be a hard hotseat to follow ;o)