Kayza's Blog

Just because you can, does not mean you should

2010-02-22T21:24:00.000-08:00

There are many many things we can do with technology, but it's always wise to think twice before starting something new with technology. It's one thing to just change the way you do something to be more effective or efficient. It's another thing to take on a whole new project or start doing things you have never done before.

A perfect, and fairly scary, example is the mess at the Lower Merion School District. If you are not aware of what the issue there is, the short story is that the school issued laptops with anti-theft software on it. The problem is that the software can do more than locate the computer via GPS or the IP it's logging onto the internet with. It can remotely activate the webcam and take pictures of whoever is in range of the camera, regardless of whether they are using the computer. And, they "forgot" to tell students or parents.

This much is clear and undisputed by the school.

It's turned into a bit of a nightmare for the school, since not only have they been sued by a family, but the FBI is now involved (see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61L5R520100222.) The parents claim that that an Assistant Principal called their son into his office and accused him of serious misconduct at home. (Apparently he claimed that the boy had been taking and selling drugs. The boy says he was eating candy, not pills.) The AP then allegedly pulled out a photo taken by the webcam as proof that the accusation was accurate. The school denies that this ever happened. But, lots of folks are asking how the parents knew about this program that the school admits it didn't tell the student body about, if this did not happen? The FBI seems to be among them. And, since the people potentially being photographed are minors who tend to have their laptops in their bedrooms, you can see why the next step would be an investigation.

Now, at this point, we only know three things for a fact. 1. The school deployed this technology, which has a huge potential for abuse and legal problems, without informing the affected students or their parents. 2. The school has been sued and has retained counsel to fight the suite. 3. The FBI is investigating.

Of course, if they actually abused the system by actually spying on teenagers in their homes and even bedrooms, then the answer to "should they have done it" is obvious. But, what if they didn't abuse the technology? What if had really only been deployed for the purposes claimed, and that it had never been used for any other purpose? Should they have done it?

I suspect that no on thought to ask that question before deploying the technology. It seems to me that someone decided that it would be a really good idea to use this technology to do something they had never been able to do before and that no one considered the question "Why not?" Maybe someone brought it up and was ignored or maybe no one even brought it up. In any case, I simply cannot believe that if anyone had seriously thought about "why not" they would have failed to realize that they ran the risk of exactly this happening.

The best outcome I can see for the school at this point is lots of very bad publicity, serious disruption in school, a serious loss of respect and trust by the student and parent body, and some fairly big expenses. And, all this if they really never misused the cameras. It's not a very enticing scenario. And, it should have been foreseen.

I also can't help thinking that if someone in a decision-making capacity had thought about the ethical aspects of this decision, this would never have happened. Someone should have realized that even in the unlikely event that they could get away with this, they should not. It's simply wrong.

The bottom line is that when you want to start a new project, think about the real benefit. And think about whether you really should do it. Think about the ethical ramifications. And then think about the issues that might come up if you get found out or things go wrong. If you do that, you are likely to only implement projects that you should do, not just that you can.

Data collection, data opennes, advocacy and improving services

2010-02-01T18:58:00.000-08:00

I was recently talking to a friend about a project she was doing. She was trying to figure out how much of government assistance is accessed via community organizations vs direct application to the government. Unfortunately, we couldn't think of any good source for this kind of information.

If you were faced with the possibility that a program you work with was going to be changed would you know exactly what the choke points are? Would you be able to prove it with data, whether yours or that of other organizations? Do you know how long it really takes to get an application through the process? Does anyone know what percentage of applications go through community organizations vs direct applications? Could anyone find out how what percentage of applications are incorrectly denied, much less figure out if there is a difference between applications filed directly vs through a community organization?

This is where data collection and openness becomes important. If you collect data on your assistance, you know how long it takes for your clients. If organizations doing something similar collect the same kind of data, then you have a basis of comparison. Equally important, when you aggregate all this data, you get a good idea of the broader picture. But, there are some things you can't do by yourself or even with other agencies. For instance, you can't compare organization outcomes vs direct interaction with the government agencies. Which also means that you can't really get a full picture.

That's where data openness comes in. Even if government agencies collect the data, if they don't open it to the public, then it may as well not exist. Of course, if the data is not flattering it's no surprise that an agency might not want the data made public. That's not what they are going to say, of course, but that's a reality. And, it's really important reason, in my opinion, to push for open data. As long as there is no light on this information, agencies can hide the data and pretend that all is well. But, when the data is out in the open, then agencies can't pretend so easily. They have only one choice to deal with embarrassing data: Improve the process!

The bottom line is that data collection is a great advocacy tool. And open data is a good way to keep public organizations honest and operating at their best.

How does information access affect us?

2010-01-25T18:31:00.000-08:00

Access to huge amounts of information and educational material has the potential to be a game changer. Some organizations will benefit and some won't. Some agendas will benefit, and other won't. Here are some of the potential effects I see.

Increased organizational transparency: Whether organizations like it or not, it's a lot less easy to hide things anymore. True, not everything is open, but the reality is that when documents like your 990 are easily found on-line, it becomes much harder to keep things secret.

The potential to improve the education of any group, inexpensively: Whether we want materials that are engaging enough to help people learn to read, or truly help them understand a subject not well covered by textbooks, or give them the information they need to navigate some type of situation, it's almost certainly out there. Whatever issues may stand in our way, lack of materials can no longer be a reason or excuse.

A better educated constituency: For the organization who wants to work with its community, to give people tools, to be an enabler, this is a great opportunity. Not such good news for the organization that just wants to "do for" its community, and be the gatekeeper of growth and development.

The ability to match advocacy with actual facts: If you have an agenda that is not backed by the facts, that's very bad news. But, if your agenda actually reflects the real world, then this is great, since you can now prove your point much more easily. (You still need to tell a compelling story, get the word out and provide reasonable solutions, but at least you have first base covered.)

I'm sure there is more. What do you think?

Some More information resources

2010-01-18T14:04:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the amount of literature and information that is available "out there". What I discussed is a drop in the bucket, really. The Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/index.php) contains not only the texts from the Library of Congress, but a full library (70,000 books) from Cornell University, Project Gutenberg, the Open Content Alliance and other collections. Pubmed.gov (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/) provides access to a vast collection of medical articles. In some cases, only abstracts are available. Generally, you can get the full article, frequently for free. In fact, the National Institutes of Health is working on providing electronic access to all articles published by NIH researchers, which will increase access to medical information. Another example of a search-able collection of articles is ERIC (http://www.eric.ed.gov/), which provides search-able access to thousands of education related articles, many for free.

Collections of articles and texts are not the only thing available. There are many other search-able databases with a wide variety of information, some more complete than others. Even the less complete ones, show the potential of these efforts. For instance, Drugs@FDA (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/Scripts/cder/DrugsatFDA/index.cfm) is meant to provide the information that the FDA has on each medication that has been approved by the FDA. Unfortunately, this is not as complete as one would like. While every drug can be found, not all of the information that the FDA is actually available on line. Once you've done a search, though, it's easy to see how useful this could get. Drugs.com provides information from the consumer section of the Physicians desk Reference and Information from the FDA (in fact, in some cases, it shows more information than the FDA's own web site.) EDGAR (http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) is the SEC database of public information and filings of publicly traded companies. And, Guiestar (www.guidestar.org) makes it easy to find a wealth of information about a vast number of non-profits in the US. Much of that information overlaps what is available in many states, such as New York State's Charities Bureau website (http://www.charitiesnys.com/home.html)

There is a vast amount of really valuable information in various forms on the internet. Lets make sure to use it.

Using synergy, and interesting medical advances

2010-01-11T19:19:00.000-08:00

I was just reading an article (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143286/Researchers_Nano_cocktail_could_target_kill_cancerous_tumors?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2010-01-07) on potential use of nanotechnology for treating cancer. It is really interesting, and if they can make it work, it really seems to hold out hope for just about any type of cancer, because the basic concept would apply to all sort of cancer. Of course, it would have to be tweaked for each type of cancer, but the ability to really precisely target jut the cancer cells is a huge step forward in our ability to get at this disease. I hope it works out!

What is interesting to me about this area of research is that what they are trying to do is to use several different materials together. No one of the materials is going to do the trick by itself, but by using the strengths of the each material separately, but in conjunction you potentially get a synergy that does what hasn't been possible before.

I think that similar synergies can be used in many areas of non-profit management. I know that the word has been over-used to the point of ridiculousness, but nevertheless it's something to think about.

Broadening access to information

2010-01-04T18:00:00.000-08:00

Google Books (available at http://books.google.com/books) has generated quite a bit of controversy. There are some legitimate issues here. But, on the other hand, the positive potential of easy access to hundreds of thousands of books in the public domain, many of them genuine classics, is staggering. Which makes the Library of Congresses' Mass digitization project (http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2009/December/20091223172644xlrennef0.264187.html) so interesting and exciting. 60,000 books, going back 300 years is nothing to sneeze at. This is a collection that is all in the public domain, much of it of genuine historical value, either because of the content or because of the light it sheds on the era, is nothing to sneeze at.

This, in my opinion, is the kind of thing that must make dictators very, very nervous. The truth is that even stuff like a current offer by the National Geographic of every single issue published - for the grand total of $70 (http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/product/magazines/national-geographic-magazine/the-complete-national-geographic-on-6-dvd-roms) is amazing. While it's not free it's pretty amazing for two reasons. Firstly, you are looking at about nine (9) large boxes worth of magazines in a small case smaller than the typical binder with pockets carried by school kids. Secondly, it's inexpensive enough that it can easily be distributed. If a philanthropist wants to get a huge amount information to a lot of kids (or adults) something like this is a great idea. And the advantage is that it doesn't need a high speed internet connection, which can be a problem in some areas. Of course, the National Geographic is not the only such item (The WorldBook Encyclopedia, for instance, has similar offers, but I can't link it just now, because there seems to be a problem with their site.) Thebig advantage, in my opinion, to something like the National Geographic is that it brings not just current value, but a look at decades of research and can provide a huge amount of information on how society has changed, and not just the societies profiled by the magazine.

The bottom line, to me, though, is that technology has made it possible to give everyone access to huge amounts of information at low cost, or even for free. And it takes away the excuses to limit access. It's no longer "impractical" to give the public access to rare documents. And it's no longer "expensive" to give kids access to huge libraries of books, rather than the limited textbooks in use in so many schools.

Do you "Never mind the facts, just do something!"

2009-12-13T11:12:00.000-08:00

I was just reading this very sobering blog post (http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2009/12/show-me-data.html) I can't really comment of what would work in the Congo, as this totally not my area of expertise. What caught my attention, though, was a broader issue that he was addressing in the context of the serious violence in the Congo. His point was that there are activists who are pushing a theory of the violence that is not backed by the facts and data at hand.

So, who cares?! We have to do something! Right? Well, maybe, wrong. Why? Because anything we do is liable to have negative repercussions to someone innocent. If we can stop the violence, that's one thing. But if we are going to do something that's not going to help, but will hurt people, what's the sense? Worse, these policies could divert necessary attention and resources from action that might actually help. How can we justify it?

What's the relevance to all of us who are not involved with the Congo? No matter what the problem you are addressing, you need to make sure that the solution you propose is supported by real information. Simple answers are attractive, but they are not always the right answers. Better to take some time to study an issue, if you can, or to start putting in place partial answers that you know are going in the right direction.

So, if you are ever tempted to do something just because you can't sit by and watch, ask yourself whether you want to take a chance on making the situation worse. Would you do surgery based on this level of information? If not, then you shouldn't be doing much more that raisig consciousness of the problem, and push for more information.

Is free worth what you pay for it? Part II

2009-10-26T14:19:00.000-07:00

As organizations continue to struggle with increasing need and decreasing or stagnant budgets, the allure of free becomes very strong. On the other hand, many people strongly believe the adage "you get what you pay for." As I've noted in my post on GMail, I'm sometimes one of them. So, what's a cash strapped organization to do?

I think that very often, that adage is true, and that makes it risky fr organizations to make acquisitions based solely on purchase price. A cheap computer may be cheap, which creates costs in terms of lost productivity, increased service costs, and reduced morale. On the other hand, that computer may be "cheap" because it is missing features - but features that you really do not need. So, just as you may get what you pay for, it's important to only pay for what you need.

On the other hand, sometimes things are free, yet they don't seem to fit that adage. Are they really worth your time, or are you jut missing the hidden catch. Sometimes, you are missing a hidden catch, and it can be significant. For instance, in evaluating a software acquisition, I discovered that the one product has both a free and non-free version. Of course, I was expecting to find some limitations on the free version, so I was not surprised to find that to be the case. But, a really significant issue was that it was not possible to get any professional level support for the product - not even for a fee. As we knew that we were going to need implementation support, I knew that we were going to have to look elsewhere. This was just too significant an issue. Sometimes, the hidden catch just is not significant enough to be a problem. If you need to roll out a dozen copies of an office suite, and you are not eligible for a TechSoup discount on MS Office, you may want to look at Open Office. Yes, you will have to pay for support if you need if, and it does not have the new "ribbon" style interface. Considering that you get little real free support from Microsoft, these limitations are not significant, and free should be very, very attractive. Of course, there may be there "gotchas" that apply to you. So, always analyze the situation for your organization.

Just realize, that sometimes free really does work. And sometime, it does not. You need to decide on a case by case merit.

Swine flu again

2009-10-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

I have been following the progress of the swine flu (H1N1). While I am not ready to go into a panic about it, I am somewhat more worried about it than I was. Do I think the country is going to shut down? No, I don't. But, based on what the CDC has to say about the matter (http://cdc.gov/h1n1flu/), I think we are looking at a far more serious flu season that we have seen in a long time, and this could affect our organizations and constituencies.

One quirk is that this strain seems to hit young people far more that other strains of the flu. This is an issue that is particularly important for organizations that serve youth. But, it is also important for organizations whose work force has a large number or parents, especially in single parent households. After all if a youngster comes down with the flu, someone is going to have to stay home to care for the child.

It seems to me that organizations need to look at both measures to minimize the spread of illness withing the organization, and to mitigate the effects of illness as well.

Lots of luck! And, I hope those measures wind up being un-needed.

Influencing big companies.

2009-09-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

I just read an interesting article on CNET (Opening up in self-interest of Google, Microsoft) The bottom line is that both Microsoft and Google are opening up in ways that seem counter to the self interest of each company. Why would they do it? Mostly, because it's good business.

There are a lot of implications to that idea. Some of them are relevant, philosophically, to the way we go about our business of accomplishing our missions. But, there is also a practical issue we should think about, as well.

If you think that open data is good for you, then you should reward companies that let your data be open, by giving them more consideration than companies that make it hard to move your data around. Same for any other aspect of how a company does business. It's all very well to grumble about what a company "should" do. But, it's better, in my opinion, to actually influence companies to actually do those things, if you can. Each customer is an influence, and in some ways small customers have more influence than larger ones, because they have more flexibility to "just say no".

Also, if you TALK about those choices, especially in public forums, and places on the internet like forums, twitter etc. you magnify your influence. Be sure that the big companies follow what's being said quite closely. And if they hear that people are moving out for a particular reason or staying put for another, that will certainly factor into decisions going forward - just as it seems to have done at Microsoft and Google.

How we treat people

2009-09-07T19:00:00.000-07:00

This post (Rage Against The Assembly Line) by Chris Brogan caught my eye. His basic argument is that no matter what we do, and how poorly we may be paid, we need to treat the people we interact with as people not automatons. This is true whether we are the customer or provider. Most of the comments agreed with this general idea.

This issue relates to my last few posts on paying IT people well, how to deal with the realities of poor pay scales, and the repercussions of not getting scales in line with reality.

Whether we realize it or not, our organizational missions dictate that we treat the people we are supposed to help, properly. It's a huge mistake to think that if we are offering an important service people will flock to us, even if we treat them like so many numbers or data items in a report. How do you get your staff to treat your clients the right way? Changing the words you use to refer to them is not going to make much of a difference, in my experience.

What does work, in my experience is a mix of things. How top management treats clients is one issue. How staff are treated is at least as important. Giving people the tools they need is another thing that makes a huge difference, too. (Try to work up enthusiasm for, for instance, making half a dozen phone calls when you don't have a good phone, or making copies of 4 documents per customer when each document means a 5 minute interruption and trip to the copier, or filling out an application when each application takes 2-3 times as long as it should because your internet connection is so slow.)

So what does this have to do with IT? Well, if unreasonable pay scales are perceived as a lack of respect for the contribution or value of the staff person, you can be sure it's going to have a negative impact. If that impression is not counteracted by other ways of making your IT staff feel good about what they are doing etc. or is even strengthened by lack of support, then even a really good IT staff person is going to be less engaged and responsive. And, that has a ripple effect, because it means that IT tools are going to be less responsive to the needs of line staff. That certainly is not going to do a whole lot for how your staff interacts with program participants.

It's worth noting that this issue is not unique to IT staff. IT staff are a bit unique, though, in that although they are "back office" staff, not dealing directly with clients, they do deal directly with, and affect line staff and their interaction with clients.

Is free worth what you pay for it?

2009-09-01T14:20:00.000-07:00

(Update: I was able to get into gmail about 5 minutes after I posted this.)

I'm officially off today, but I just had to comment on today's gmail failure.

I and several family members use gmail for personal email. I love it. But, despite that, I've persistently advocated against moving organizational email to gmail. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to like about gmail for a cash strapped organization with a relatively small staff. And, if google gives you a free educational or enterprise Apps account as a nonprofit, there is even more to like. But, there are issues.

Google is pretty good about keeping people posted on what's going on, but this post: Official Gmail Blog: Today's Gmail problems doesn't really tell us much. for someone who is trying to keep an organization going, the lack of information is almost as bad as the fact that email has been down most of the day. I don't remember the last time our email servers were down this long, except possibly the blackout that took out the entire city (and at that point it didn't make that much of a difference, because most of the people who needed to access it, couldn't anyway because their internet access was down). But, in every one of the (very few) outages we've had over the last few years, the main question I keep getting from people is "when is email coming back up?" Most people are ok with a relatively short outage if they have a good idea of how long it's going to last so they can schedule themselves. If they can continue to read the emails that have already come in, and write their response or new emails, knowing that those mails will go out when the system comes back up, so much the better.

These outages, which are rare but often enough to be a real concern, are not the only issue I have with gmail. But, this is an issue that you can mitigate. If you look at the blog post I've linked to, you will notice that the web front end is down, but IMAP and POP access are still up. This is not the first time I have seen this happen. So, if you are using gmail, you can set up either IMAP or POP (or both), so that you have a better chance of being able to continue with email use while the Gmail front end is down. The only thing I would strongly suggest if you use the POP setup, is to set it up so that read messages stay on the server. This allows people to continue to access their email from multiple locations without synchronizations issues. It also gives you much better backup of email than you are likely to have on individual computers in your organization.

It's always worth periodically re-evaluating your infrastructure decisions. If and when you give a serious look at using gmail as your email platform, remember the adage that "free stuff is worth what you pay for it." That is not always true, for sure. And gmail is not junk either. But, it serves to remind us that "free" stuff may have other costs. As a decision maker or influencer, it is your job to look at all of the costs and trade-offs and decide what is the best for your organization. Just be prepared, if you decide against google, to justify it (to your board and others with a legitimate right to ask.) In a tight economy, free is very, very attractive.

Seeing only one piece of an issue

2009-08-31T22:11:00.000-07:00

This AP article about swine flu (Schools urged to prepare for swine flu absences) bothered me a bit. The article was not scaremongering, and was mostly pretty good as far as it went. But, it only touched on one part of the issue - and made it sound like this was the whole story.

It's hard to tell if the problem was with the AP's reporting or the what the Secretaries had to say. But, let's be realistic. Schools are just as likely to shut down because large parts of their staff have swine flu or have been exposed, as they because of large numbers of sick students. So, why does the article totally ignore the reality of this potential problem?

There are a variety of things that can be done to lessen the impact of staff outages. How effective they can be depends on many factors, including whether staff are out because they are ill, they need to stay home to tend to a sick family member, they need to stay away from an environment with alot of flu or some other reason. Some tactics are technology based, such as allowing non-teaching staff to work remotely, allow teaching staff to use internet technologies to disseminate information and using video conferencing type technologies to allow teachers to lecture remotely. Others are not technological, such as figuring out which classes can be combined, identifying substitute teachers, or reassigning tasks. (This list is, of course, not close to being exchaustive.)

Not every technique will work for every situation. But, just as schools need to look at the possibility of large numbers of students coming down with the flu, or being kept from school because of family infection, so too, they need to look at the issues surrounding staff outages.

Compensating for poor compensation

2009-08-24T18:14:00.000-07:00

I've been blogging about how organizations pay budget for and compensate IT staff. The bottom line is that many of the common ways that organizations decide on IT compensation lead to pay scales that are not attractive to quality IT staff, even those truly committed to non-profit work.

The problem is that sometimes you really, really cannot pay an attractive salary. What do you do then? Throwing up your hands is not an option. So, for starters, get your salary as high as you can.

That is only a starting point. What you need to do is to create other incentives for quality people to come to you. There are things that can be relatively low cost for you, but of high value for your staff. And some things are not even about money but quality of life and life balance.

Here are some things that can make a real difference - based on personal experience and observation. Consider "job sharing" - an arrangement where two people take on the responsibilities of one position. This may or may not save you money, but it may attract people who have the skills and personality you need, who want or need to work part time. Do what you can to allow for flexible work schedules. It may mean a real change in work style, but it can make all the difference to your staff. The same is true of allowing staff, especially IT staff to work remotely. And, if you provide the tools to make this practical, you may just "buy" the loyalty of highly skilled staff. The side benefit of creating that kind of infrastructure, and something that may help you "sell" it to your Board and funders, is that you will have a far more flexible and resilient infrastructure. That means that if something goes wrong at your site, or you have to deal with issues such a flue pandemic which will keep large numbers of people away from work, you will be more likely to keep at least some semblance of your operation going.

I'm sure there are more ideas. The point is that you need to be creative in finding things that are of real value to people - things that can really outweigh the negatives of a poor pay scale.

More on Budgeting for IT staff

2009-08-17T21:02:00.000-07:00

I recently blogged about the need to consider real market rates when determining pay for IT staff.

I know that some people are going to say that their budget determines what they offer. However, that's a very poor way to manage your staffing, especially in this area. A better thing to do is look at what a realistic cost is and then determine your budget. Does that mean you are going to have to adjust what you ask for when preparing grant and funding requests? Sure. Could it affect how you allocate existing funds? Obviously. But that's the reality you have to deal with. Think about this: do you decide what you are going to pay in electricity based on your budget, or do you decide your budget based on your expense? If your electrical bill is really too high, you have to look at cutting the amount of electricity you use, but you are not going to make people work in the dark, and you shouldn't try to make them work in low light. At least, not if you want your organization to survive.

When you get down to it, IT staff is not an extra you pay for if you can. It's as integral to your operation as your phone service, electricity and building. Today, people cannot get their jobs done with out computers and related peripherals. E-mail, exchange of documents in email, and the use of the internet are not voluntary (and that aspect of things is only going to increase). Maintaining access to your documents and client information is only practical with decent networks. But networks and internet access means that security needs to be taken care of as well. So does compliance with the myriad regulations that non-profits operate under.

So, if you want your organization to succeed, define your budget in terms what you need rather than the reverse. And make sure to include adequate IT support.

Lessons from a nasty experience

2009-08-10T15:45:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I had a really upsetting experience with Baltic Air. My daughter and I were booking a ticket for a friend (who does not live in the US) as a gift to her and the mutual friend she is going to visit. As usual, we used the internet to find a good price, and Baltic Air seemed to have the best price. So, my daughter went to finish up with the process. Lo and behold, when the confirmation came up, there were a whole bunch of additional charges - enough to almost double the price of the ticket. My daughter insists that the items never showed up altogether. I didn't see them, either, or we would never have completed that transaction, but I will concede that the charges were hidden on the bottom of the page - well below the bottom of the screen and below a whole bunch of irrelevant advertising.

We immediately called the airline, and one of the more annoying conversations I have had ensued. It's not just that they wouldn't void the transaction, but the way the person on the line spoke to me. She told me that they "can't" refund anything but the taxes. Baloney! Of course they could - in fact they don't need to - just void the transaction, as the money had not reached them yet. But, even if it had, they can refund whatever they want. They just do not want to. Which, as annoying as it is, it legitimate to a point. So, don't treat me like a dim-wit and tell me that you "can't" do something that you don't want to do. Then I asked to speak to a supervisor, and was told that "there is no supervisor here now." Right! I can hardly believe that any company really thinks that someone will swallow that line. Of course there is a supervisor. Obviously, however, in Air Baltic, their job is not to deal with customer relations.

After I simmered down (and called the bank to see if I can dispute the charge due to the way the transaction was handled) I started to think about what I could learn from this incident. After all, if I had to have the heartburn, at least let me get something out of it. So, here's what I came up with.

Firstly, for everyone who uses the internet to find prices and make purchases (most of us, I would think), a reminder: always remember that you need to be very, very careful in checking for the "fine print" and anything that could affect the terms of your purchase. Things may be put there in a way that makes it hard to find them. Even if it's not intentional, you don't want to get stuck with onerous terms or significant extra charges because you missed something.

Now, for the social media and marketing people, I have a thought. If you sell anything on your site, or do fund-raising on your site, make sure that the design is fairly idiot proof. You really don't want people finding themselves with charges that they didn't intend to incur. And, put a process in place to deal with the possible mistakes - one that hopefully will satisfy people, but that at least won't insult their intelligence. Bad word-of-mouth travels, and in the internet age, the risk of it traveling far more widely than you could have ever thought is a real risk. Don't think that you have nothing to worry about because your target demographic is not that social media savvy. You have no idea who their family and friends are. So, beyond the ethical considerations, you need to recognize that getting it right serves a practical purpose.

How you budget for IT

2009-08-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

I just read an excellent article on the Techcafeteria blog called "Compensating for Chaos" I was thrilled to read this - I've been saying much the same thing for years.

The basic idea that the rate you pay IT staff should not be based on what the other non-profits are paying, but on what the overall going rate for IT people of the caliber you need is. Yes, you can expect to pay a bit less - you hope to find people who are committed enough to the mission that they will sacrifice a bit - but even people with commitment can't be expected to take too much of a pay cut, or they won't stay put. Either that, or you are going to wind up with a poor IT staff.

Either alternative costs you real money, affects your operation or both. So, if you've been basing your salary decisions on the non-profit surveys, and are having issues with IT, it's time to revisit the issue of how you determine compensation. And if the issue is up for review anyway, do yourself and avoid this common mistake.

Open Source and the Disabilities Community

2009-07-27T23:20:00.000-07:00

I like Open Source. I think almost any non-profit social services IT professional probably should too. At the same time, I think it's noteworthy that the disabilities community has not really embraced Open Source.

If you think that this is kind of odd, I would agree with you. After all, so much of what many open source advocates pride themselves on - sharing, people helping and supporting each other, low cost of acquisition, should really appeal. So, what's going on?

Now, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there are two reasons for this attitude. One is something that was recently pointed out to me, and I really think it's based on a mis-perception. The fear is that Open Source will cut job / income generating opportunities for people whose disabilities have already limited their options. It's based on the assumption that you can't make money with Open Source. Although that's not really true - Red Hat is doing quite well, and IBM is not contributing to the OS community just because they are sweet guys - it is quite easy to see where that idea comes from. To hear some OS advocates go on, making money is evil. And, some of them are pretty high profile.

This is a situation that can be remedied. There are OS licenses that leave the possibility of making money with or around OS Software the same way people make money with and around proprietary software. So, the answer to this fear is education.

However, there is a more serious problem, and that is the lack of accessibility. There are proprietary soutions for a variety of screen reading, text to speech and speech text problems, for instance. They cost a pretty penny, but they are an option, and hopefully with time costs will drop. MS has done some good work around these issues, and has even built some of the technology into their software.

Where are the OS analogs? Mostly, they just do not exist. Yes, the flexibility of Linux makes it easier to configure it around some disabilities, and Firefox does a great job enlarging text. On the other hand, if you need a screen reader, Windows is your only bet. If you need dictation for any reason, or hands-free control of your computer, it's Windows or Mac, with Windows the only choice if yo need low cost.

In other words, the proprietary systems have most of the existing solutions. What will it take to change that?

Frugal or foolish?

2009-07-20T18:55:00.000-07:00

This video is rather funny but it made me think about how purchasing is sometimes done, and how it really should be done.

What I started to think about is how easy it is for us, as non-profit professionals in ever-tightening budgets, to get so caught up in saving a few dollars that we forget how to do business. The thing is that when we allow that to happen, we risk damage to our organizations. These three scenarios are a great, albeit (thankfully!) exaggerated illustration.

The guy trying to buy the video does the least damage. Yes, he managed to really annoy the clerk, and you can bet that this is one clerk who will never do him a favor. But, if the guy ever goes back in there to purchase something, he'll get whatever is in the box. He doesn't have to worry as much about the good will of the clerk, although if he ever needs something as simple as a bit of guidance or information, he probably won't get it. So, even though he doesn't do alot of damage, he doesn't really win anything, either.

The woman going for a styling and trim, though, was asking for trouble. Would you trust this hair stylist after this conversation? I don't know that I would. I certainly would not expect his best work. When I know that my chances of redoing any significant job in any short period are almost non-existent (in other words, whenever I'm involved in purchase decisions) the last thing I can afford is someone doing less than his best. Why would I take that risk. Even if I did get a small discount this way, I've just risked a much larger amount because a less well done job is more likely to need fixing or replacing sooner than a better done job. Not the most sensible tack to take.

The scenario that poses the greatest danger to your organization, though, it the restaurant diners. Not only have they thoroughly antagonized a vendor who they will never be able to use again, they are now stuck with an expense that they had not budgeted for. If you were talking about a significant project, you could be dealing with a real hole. Also, you really don't want to get a reputation as someone who doesn't pay the bills, either. Lower cost vendors won't do business with you, if that's what they hear. At best, they are going to want you to pay up front, which creates its own set of problems. In short, this scenario really has no upside, even from the purely pragmatic point of view.

I know that these videos are exaggerated. Most good humor is. But it was scary to hear some of the same buzzwords I've heard in other contexts. And the (twofold) point is seriously valid.

Firstly, never, ever take or accept goods or services that you don't intend to pay the price for. If you can't afford it either do without or find a way to fund-raise. Secondly, when you are tempted to push on price really hard, think about two things. Is squeezing and disrespecting someone who is, after all, doing something of value for you, consonant with an agenda of improving the world in some way? And, is your organization well served by the possibility of saving a small amount of money balanced against the certainty of a job not done as well as it should be?

Disabilities Community and Tech Advocaccy

2009-07-13T23:07:00.000-07:00

I blogged recently about my testimony at the NYC Committee on Technology in Government hearing on Open Data. After that hearing, I had a brief conversation about open source and handicapped accessibility which got me thinking about a few points. One of them was the strange lack of visible advocacy around technology coming from the disabilities community.

I realize that there may be a good deal of activity that flies below the radar, and the word visible to qualify my statement. But, it still seems strange to me. I've testified at a number of hearings related to technology, and attended a number of other hearings, and I don't recall a single advocate for any group with disabilities at any of them. In fact, at most (really all, if memory serves) of these hearings, if I didn't bring up the issue of handicapped access, no one did.

That's a real shame. After all, when I bring it up, it's not the focus of my testimony, just one point of several. Yet, technology - and how it is adopted and adapted by both private and public sector is a huge issue for people with disabilities. And, these hearings are part of the public record.

I'd really love some feedback on what the thinking on this is. Any takers?

Expect the unexpected

2009-07-06T22:52:00.000-07:00

No one likes when their internet access goes down. But, how would you feel if it happened because of ants? That's what happened recently to Buzzblog columnist Paul McNamara (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43113). His Verizon FIOS connection wnet down because the line was cut by ants that munched through the line!

Now, that is what I call bizarre. But it does bring up an important point.

As much as we think that technology gives us control, it's vital to remember that the unexpected happens. That means we need to realize that technology is not infallible, and the we need to have fallback plans when the unexpected happens.

I hear you saying "Huh? It's unexpected! How am I supposed to plan for the unplanned?!"

Good question. But, it's not the unexpected that you really need to plan for, but the effects. You don't have any way to know when the next strange, weird or just plain annoying occurrence will happen, nor what shape it will take. After all who would have thought to worry about ants!? But, you do know that something is going to happen one of these days. And while you don't know for sure what the effects will be, you can make some good estimates of likely issues that will result such as (but not limited to . . .) loss of internet access or other connectivity, power loss, otherwise downed systems, loss of your site, loss of key personnel. You can plan for these things, even if you can't plan for the things that cause them - like ants. Although, maybe it wouldn't hurt to talk to an exterminator....

Open Data and Good Government

2009-06-30T00:05:00.000-07:00

If Int 0991-2009 (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int%200991-2009.htm) becomes law in New York City, the city will become a pioneer in giving the population some tools for a truly participatory democracy as well as access to the information and data that they have paid for and that can be used in so many ways, from the trivial to the truly important.

Just about all the of the people testifying at the hearing (myself included) repeatedly stressed the potential benefits to such a bill. The key piece of it is not just providing packaged reports, or even responses by individual agencies to FOIL requests, but rather that in addition to the reports and summaries, the raw data that these summaries are based on should be easily accessible to the public.

The potential uses for this data range very widely, in scope and importance. The examples were based on real life attempts of the past, as well as questions that people ask on a regular basis. Whether it's an easy way to see how well a nearby eatery complies with health regulations, to research which looks at enforcement of those regulations, or information on patterns of behavior or illness, the uses are really only limited by human imagination, and it was fascinating, and very hopeful, to listen to all of these ideas, as well as the conviction inherent in most of the testimonies that "regular" people are intelligent enough to figure out what they need and how the data can be used and useful without total guidance from government bureaucrats.

Green IT

2009-06-23T20:33:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot written recently about IT and how much energy it uses. Of course, there is also a good deal of discussion about what IT leaders can do to lessen the use of energy. The problem with most of the articles, and the advice dispensed, is that it is written from the perspective of a fairly large organization with a substantial IT department. That does not generally work well for smaller organizations, especially those with substantial restrictions on how they spend money, as is common in non-profits.

Does that mean that we in the non-profit sector can do nothing? Fortunately, the answer is NO. We may not be able to make large, bold, even newsworthy moves, but we can do smaller things that can make a difference. Yes, no one thing is going to be a huge deal. But small things add up.

The first thing I always suggest is to buy energy efficient equipment. The easiest way to make sure that you are doing that is to buy equipment that has the highest "epeat" rating. (Epeat is a program that rates the energy efficiency of electronic equipment.) The cost of highly rated equipment is rarely much higher than good quality non- epeat rated equipment, and if you pay for your own electricity, you are likely to recoup the minimal difference that way, especially if you are keeping equipment for a long time.

This leads to a second, not intuitively obvious, step you can take. Buy good quality equipment. A good computer doesn't generate more waste than a cheap piece of junk - but you will put less into the landfill, because you are not putting so many computers into the trash. And less energy is used, and waste generated in the production of equipment because you are buying fewer computers. It's much like the advantage of re-usable items vs disposable.

One more idea is to give a serious look at duplexing. It doesn't always make sense. But, if you are doig a substantial amount of printing that can be printed back to back, you can save on paper - and both landfill and storage. That can be well worth a modest premium.

These are far from the only things you can do to help improve the environmental impact of your IT. I'll probably post some more tips another time. And, I'd certainly be interested in hearing what other have to say.

The most important thing is to start doing something, even something small, and go from there.

Iran Coverage as an Example of the Power of Social Media and the Internet

2009-06-15T19:09:00.000-07:00

In reading the coverage of the current unrest in Iran, I had a flashback to when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. Yes, there was coverage, but by today's standards it was extremely limited. After all, there were a limited number of news outlets that any person had access to, and a limit on what any news outlet had access to. I have very little doubt that this helped the Ayatollah and his henchmen immensely, certainly to sell a story that I think current events tell us was not entirely consistent with reality.

Today, things a very, very different. I just did a Google search for news of Iran, and I must have gotten hits from a dozen or more news outlets, many of them from outside of the US. That certainly helps provide a broader perspective. But, if I had limited myself to Google and news outlets I would be missing out on an enormous amount of really relevant content. I tried a Google blog search - almost the lazy alternative, because it's so easy to do. But, it would have been worth it even if it hadn't been so easy, as it gave me a number of excellent hits.

But, why limit yourself to Google, or any particular search engine? I didn't. I use twitter, and there are a number of good tweets on the subject. The best ones are to links, mostly to items that didn't show up high, or at all, on the Google results. Some of the posts were fascinating, either bringing in facts that most people would never otherwise encounter, or providing perspectives that go past the conventional wisdom. I don't have time to do the extensive research I would like to, but I have no doubt that if I used other social media, I'd get similarly interesting results.

Iran's government process is still far too opaque, and I doubt that anyone is ever really going to know if the election was stolen or not. But, one thing is for sure. The rulers of Iran are NOT going to be able to pretend that everyone was satisfied with the results, nor that it handled any "stray" discontent peacefully. The internet in general, and social media in particular, mean that there is too much information out there, and it cannot just be buried.

That is powerful indeed.

Cell Phone Elbow

2009-06-02T20:23:00.000-07:00

I just read a very interesting article on CNN about a new condition called "cell phone elbow". (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/02/cell.phone.elbow/index.html) This is clearly a RSI, similar to carpal tunnel syndrome. It's name makes it sound like it is solely a result of modern technology, but it's not. Truckers can develop it, and even people who spend a lot of time resting their elbows on the arms of an arm-chair are at risk.

On the other hand, heavy cell phone users are at higher risk of developing this condition, correctly called "cubital tunnel syndrome". It would be foolish to ignore that. Fortunately there are things you can do to reduce your risk. For one thing, simply changing hands fairly frequently is extremely useful. And using a head phone is another good way to keep your arm out of play.

The bottom line is that cell phones, like any other piece of technology does pose risks. However, like the best technologies, a dose of common sense, perhaps mixed with soe addition technology if you choose, can make all the difference in reducing that risk.

Safe cell phoning!