Archive for the 'issues' Category

Exciting Times for Social Actions

Published in community and issues. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , .

I have followed the development of Social Actions over the last few years and really believe in the work that Peter, Christine and the community have done to shape a collaborative, open tool that benefits so many people and organizations in all kinds of ways.  SA is now at a very interesting time and there are some very exiting opportunities on the table!

Social Actions Transition: Request for Letters of Interest

A short six weeks ago, Peter Deitz shared our intention to find a well-resourced and mission-aligned organization, or group of organizations, to assume ownership of Social Actions’ programs. Since then, we’ve received a number of inquiries and have had several one-on-one meetings with organizations that have an interest in carrying Social Actions forward.

We’re also seeing a range of creative proposals — for example Paul Lamb’s suggestions including stewardship by open source foundations or social entrepreneur funders, and a NetSquared-type transition campaign. See the comment thread here and add your thoughts!

As a next step in this process, we’re requesting formal Letters of Interest from those who have an interest in stewarding all or some of Social Actions’ programs. We’re posting that request here not just as an update but to encourage everyone to share it and chime in with ideas and proposals.

Get the rest of the details here.

Opportunity Alert: Four Powerful Enhancements to the Social Actions API

Social Actions has a fantastic opportunity to make four powerful enhancements to the Social Actions API in the coming weeks:

  • Add the capacity for semantic analysis and weighted querying: Integrate the Zemanta API analysis, or something similar, into the Social Actions API and then fully support semantically extracted issue- and location-based querying in the Social Actions API. This feature would allow for weighted lists of topics and keywords or an emphasis parameter when external API queries are made.
  • Provide support for knowing when actions are no longer active: Currently, the Social Actions API assigns an automated expiration date. Additional enhancements could involve supporting an expiration field in the live feed from partners and/or determining if an action has expired based on the content on the destination page.
  • Integrate with other APIs and/or advanced feeds: The ability to make direct calls to open APIs and/or advanced feeds (provided they are available) to expand the number of data-points included in the aggregation.
  • Add a minimum of three (hopefully more!) new sources that are specifically focused on global development-related causes.

Learn more and support this work!

Published on August 6, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 3 Comments

Blog Redesign: A collaborative approach

Published in collaboration and issues. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , .

I’m really excited to [finally] announce that I’m going to be redesigning this blog/website. And, I hope it will come as no surprise to any of you when I say that I’m hoping to make it an open process!

Why

This website has been a great place for me to post ideas and share lessons learned, store content from presentations, and share resources. But, it was always something I had as the last bullet on the to-do list to update the CSS, to change the theme, generally “make it better.” As much as I have enjoyed all that we have been able to do together in this space, I’m much more excited about what we could do together in a more organized, easy to use space.

Right now, this blog could really be categorized as a blog. But I’d like it to be seen for what it is: there are tons of presentation resources (slides, notes, videos, etc.), books/publications, and other resources. But what’s really important to me, is that there are A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT of conversations here: there are around 500 posts and over 6,700 comments! I want to ensure that what you all are saying gets a lot more visibility.

Who

As I’ve been meaning to revamp the site for a couple years now, I knew that getting to done on this project would take more than myself! I put out on Twitter that I was looking for someone to help me redesign the site and connected with Matt Chevy:

I’m excited to be working with Amy and it’s clear that she’s established an outstanding community here. When she initially mentioned to me that she wanted to involve all of YOU in this process, I immediately bought in. In the world of online marketing and Social Media we talk about engagement and community involvement, and we hope to really emphasize this by encouraging and requesting your thoughts, suggestions and feedback from beginning to end. I couldn’t be more excited to get started; I’m thrilled to have connected with Amy, and I look forward to interacting with all of you!

Matt’s going to be doing the heavy lifting on the back end. But I can’t do a redesign without you, the readers!

How

So, how’s this open process going to work? Well, first of all, I’d love to hear what is most useful or valuable to you, why you keep reading and commenting, what you wish there was more of (or less of!) and any other feedback you have about doing a redesign of this site.

Next week, I’m going to be asking for lots of feedback and ideas in a series of posts. Today’s post is mostly an announcement and a heads up; next week there will be three posts asking for your ideas and preferences. That information will help Matt and I ensure that the redesign delivers on just what you want, need, and already like!

I’m really excited to update and upgrade this space and so thrilled to be working with a designer willing to work with me in this collaborative approach, keeping all of you in the process! Really hope you’ll join me next week to share your ideas.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave a comment here or email me any time.

—–

More about Matt:

Matt Cheuvront is the founder of MATTCHEVY – a Chicago-based online marketing consultancy and web design firm. With a background in advertising, marketing, e-commerce, and PR, Matt has a passion for the online medium and works with small businesses, non-profit organizations, entrepreneurs, and bloggers in improving and establishing their overall web presence.

Published on July 29, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 1 Comment

New on SSIR: It’s not about Apple – It’s about Community

Published in fundraising, issues and otherblogs. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

My latest Stanford Social Innovation Review opinion piece is up and copied below. You can read and comment on the original post here.

—–

There’s been some interesting discussion about Apple, donations and This American Life‘s iPhone application lately that I want to touch on.  Not because I’m really all that invested in either pro- or anti- Apple camp, and not because I love This American Life (which I do – and yes, I have donated).  It’s because this is another example of how our tools are defining community.  (Last month’s post focused on that topic using Causes, Ideablob and Ning as references for the conversation.)  Let’s start at the beginning…

A recent conversation sparked on the Ars Technica blog focused on the use of push-notifications by the This American Life application on iPhones – the pop-up messages asked users to make a donation to the program as, it is, like other public radio/media, listener supported.  Personally, I don’t feel impassioned by the discussion because 1. notifications, pop-ups, and the ins-and-outs of what works with apps are still being figured out, 2. the user is always in control to either turn off notifications, uninstall apps, or give feedback (all of which contributes to the developers’ learning about what works and what doesn’t), and 3. public media is all about donations.

A few days ago, Jake Shapiro’s guest post appeared on the Ars Technica blog acknowledging the conversation about push-notifications but diving deeper into the real issues around the This American Life application.  This is where things start to spark for me.  In Jake’s post, he notes that Apple is essentially denying nonprofits “the most powerful direct-payment platform in the mobile marketplace” by denying access to 1-click payments. Jake suggests:

One option would be allowing in-app donations using Apple’s payment infrastructure, but this immediately runs into the next deal-breaking issue: Apple’s 30 percent cut is untenable for charities and nonprofits, and for the donors themselves.

This is where we really start to touch on the issues around the tools we use defining how we can build and connect with our communities. Taking a 30% cut of donations seems incredible.  I can’t imagine organizations or donors feeling comfortable with that deal.  As I said before, “Market” does not equal “Community”. Here’s Jake again:

I suspect the deeper reasons for Apple’s uncharitable stance is that the nonprofit and education markets are just that—“markets” that represent hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenue to Apple in the form of computer, software, iPod, and now iPhone and iPad sales.

Part of what sparked my exploration of this topic a year ago was the way Causes left MySpace, without public notice and leaving organizations unconnected to supporters. Though I would love to see many improvements to Causes, they are getting better about connecting the benefiting organizations with the donors and campaigners supporting them.  Apple, though, seems to have a cripplingly closed system; here’s Jake:

The other issue gets to Apple’s broader competitive approach. If Apple permitted donations by users, it might have to change another restrictive policy: passing certain individual information to app owners/developers and content providers. Currently app developers get zero data from Apple about who buys and uses their apps, just a flat report of total downloads and resulting revenue if it’s a paid app.

In order for organizations to cultivate community, thank donors and supporters, and encourage deeper engagement, they need to be able to say thank you directly, provide opportunities to donate directly, and capture information, registration or other sign-ups directly.  The key here is that the platform (the phone) and the provider (Apple) do not represent hurdles that make that “direct” connection and action impossible.

The example of This American Life‘s application shows the crippling power that tools and providers can have on the way organizations want to define what community means and what kind of options for engagement organizations want to provide to their community.  It sparked Beth Kanter to question whether Apple or Andriod is more nonprofit friendly.

What does it mean to you? How are your tools defining the way you can work or the way you can engage with your community?

Published on June 11, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 4 Comments

From Ning to Causes to Ideablob: Why We Need a New Way of Building

Published in community and issues. 59 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Last November we saw a few alarming events taking place in this social media for social good sector: Causes left Myspace and Ideablob shut down, both without warning or community support.  In a guest post on the Tactical Philanthropy blog I started brainstorming about what was next.  Now, with the recent news from Ning that it plans to discontinue free service, I am revisiting those thoughts about “what’s really needed?” and asking myself if these events aren’t just disruptive to members and users, but also huge signs that we need a new way of building. Building networks, communities, connections, campaigns, and our work.

When I start thinking about this, I come back to three main issues with the current way we build:

1. Not All Communities Can Be Treated Equally

Grassroots, hyper-local, nonprofit, and educational communities cannot be expected to operate in the same way as commercial or sponsored communities, online or off.  These kinds of groups can’t even be expected to fall in the same kinds of rubrics for use or application of tools between each other as they are inherently unique, every time.

2. Payment Is More Than Purchase

I truly believe that when it comes to the financial requirements for tools and services in the nonprofit and larger public sector, payment is far more than a purchase, it is an investment.  We are willing to buy in to something if we can be part of shaping what it is, how we can use it, how we can improve it.

3. Investment Is More Than Money

If investment was required to get a tool, I believe many groups would be willing to participate in evaluations, provide feedback, submit user stories and help in the development of the tool.  All things that take time, which is valuable. But not money.  Many groups would much rather have an impact and involvement in the shaping of the tools they use than pay for something that others control.

So, how do we build this marketplace?

When I wrote about this back in November, I closed my post with an invitation.  I’d like to repost that invitation here and then add a next step.

Your invitation:  Join this conversation.  Tell me what the recent Causes/ideablob announcements means for our sector and for you.  And share your ideas with your friends and colleagues to further the breadth of the conversation.  The more voices the better!  Here are some places to start:

  • Evaluate your use of social media tools: do you encourage your supporters on other platforms to register on your website, ensuring you have their contact details?
  • Evaluate your community: are you reaching a diverse community or operating in a silo?
  • Evaluate your relationship with developers: are you using tools that allow you to surface suggestions, ideas, and useful functionality for development? Do you know what the plans are for the tools you are using?

I have already had creative, exciting conversations with others in this sector about how we could build a marketplace that:

  1. allows end users surface ideas for tools or new functionality for existing tools
  2. allows those ideas get support, gather feedback, get fleshed out by developers and users
  3. allows funders (whether they are foundations, organizations, VCs, companies, etc.) identify tools to fund
  4. allows developers to find work they know will be adopted and start working on tools with an active base of users
  5. maintains an expectation that these tools will continue to be available for the people, by the people.

It is the last point that I think is the most important. It isn’t about having a crazy-liberal or Utopian version of the web.  It IS about adopting tools that we feel comfortable deploying to our communities and building on, knowing they won’t close or leave without notice.

I am going to continue having this conversation, examining how a marketplace could work, and what these events mean for our sector. Please join me. Share your ideas and your experiences. Let me know how you wish we built things.  Let’s start at the vision of how we want it to work, and then build towards it.

Published on April 16, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 59 Comments

Thrivability: A Collaborative Sketch

Published in collaboration and issues. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

I’m so excited to announce the launch of Thrivability: A Collaborative Sketch – a new book curated by Jean Russell with a collection of over 60 essays crafting a topography for thriving.  I have the great honor to be included in this collection and take such pride in sharing it with all of you!

There are a few ways to dive in:

I invite you to check it out and connect with any of those that inspire you or get you thinking when you read it.  To get you started, I’ve included the introduction to the book below from Jean Russell.

Enjoy!

—–

Thrivability Introduction

Jean Russell, Thrivable.org – Chicago, IL, USA
Thank you for viewing this book. It comes alive in your gaze.  I want to introduce you to thrivability by answering some of the questions you have. I am guessing that they might be questions like – what is thrivability and who are these people contributing to it?

What is thrivability – a working definition
In the dance between the individual and humanity as a whole, there is an aliveness.  In aliveness, there is a yearning for thriving.  All living things strive to move beyond survival to truly flourish.  Even in the development of this very project, the aspiration for thriving was clear — the enthusiasm of a very diverse circle of people focused on  a simple idea: that the goal of evolving our behavior should be to thrive.   And it gives rise….to this book.

Thrivability is our path out of unsustainable practices toward a world where all people have a high quality of life, a voice, and a nurturing earth supporting them.  Using whole systems approach, we evolve our way of being together, of collaborating, so that our collective wisdom and action bring forth a flourishing world and thriving life.

Why these words and phrases?
There is no single recipe or discrete list of requirements for thrivability. However, I created several groups of words and phrases that relate to it in some powerful way.  Perhaps they reframe a perspective or engage in a critical role.  The contributors of this book refined and evolved the title words and phrases. It is an exploration they have joined me in, and I hope you will join us too.

A bit about our contributors
Our contributors are from widely different fields – from social entrepreneurship to philanthropy, from deep tech space to community activism, from neuroscience to labor and economic history, from social network analysis to storytelling. I expect that you, the viewers and participants, are a wide range of people too. Like you, the contributors are from a vast array of places in the world from Stockholm, Brussels, and London to Thailand,  Australia, and Uganda, and include Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, NYC, Los Angeles, Houston, Cleveland, Chicago, and Boston. From noted academics to get-your-hands-dirty entrepreneurs, from scientists to the tree-climber next door, we connect them together to lay out the general topography of a thrivable world.

Together we sketch our view of thrivability.  We may not all agree. However, I think you will find, as I did, that while the field of interest may be different, the core principles, values, and beliefs about thrivability come through consistently, as core words 
re-appear on other pages. Please enjoy this curated collaborative sketch of thrivability. I invite you into the conversation.

What does thrivability mean to you?
What does it mean for those of us who suffer?
Are we thrivable already, only becoming less so?
How do you apply the idea of thrivability in practice – in your life, at your work, in your community?
How is it possible to co-create a thrivable world?

“A good question sparks more questions,” says one humble,  extraordinary, and curious friend of mine. I think he is right.

In grace and with gratitude,
Jean Russell

Thrivable.org strives to equip agents of transformation in order to co-create a thrivable world. We reveal the breadth of domains and their interweaving. We enable thrive agents to know where they are and what they can do and be for collective thrivability.

Published on March 12, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 2 Comments

New on SSIR: Effects of Joining the Conversation

Published in issues, otherblogs and socialmedia. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , .

My latest post is up on the Stanford Social Innovation Review opinion blog. You can read the post and join the conversation over there – it’s also copied below.

—–

It’s not a surprise to any of us that social media is changing the way our organizations work, not just communicate. The lessons in social media are especially important for organizations working with the public, whether it’s public service or opinion. The Hatcher Group, a Maryland-based public affairs and communications firm, released a great report this past Fall called New Media & Social Change: How Nonprofits are Using Web-based Technologies to Reach Their Goals (PDF). Despite the generic title, this is a report chock full of examples, best practices and data about the effects of joining the conversation online.

The 30 participating organizations in the report are members of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a group of independent, nonprofits with a shared commitment to responsible budget and tax policies. As such, it’s easy to identify some of the goals these organizations have for using social media, including: engaging with and even influencing the general [voting] public, influencing news, engaging with and influencing politicians and legislation, and sharing data, information or viewpoints. Social media is a prominent social gathering place where these goals can definitely be met. Joining the conversation is incredibly important if these organizations expect to change policy and change minds.

Joining the conversation really means conversations.

It’s not just a phrase or some insider lingo, when I recommend organizations join the conversation, I mean just that! People are talking online and the best way to influence what they are saying or how they are thinking about issues is to talk with them. The survey found that blogging and blog outreach was the most popular social media choice.

  • 83 percent currently reach out to bloggers and the remaining 17 percent plan to in the future
  • more than 93 percent now monitor citations of their organization in the blogosphere

Many groups included in the report maintained blogs (either on their own site or elsewhere), but what the numbers above (and the effects listed below) indicate is that you don’t necessarily have to create your own blog to join the conversation. It’s already happening, so go there!

Being an active member of the conversation pays off.

  • 88 per-cent of the organizations said they had been cited in blogs as a result of their outreach efforts
  • 64 percent felt that they had successfully affected blog coverage of an issue.
  • 16 percent of the organizations were subsequently invited to submit guest-posts

Real-time is just as important.

Over half of the organizations surveyed reported that they do not use Twitter and do not intend to, with only 24% reporting use of the tool. This is a huge missed opportunity to influence public opinion, participate in the conversation, attract attention from journalists and policy makers, and more. Twitter is part of the real-time Web, meaning it enables people to communicate, share information, spread news, and distribute links in “real-time” as it happens. As more and more people join the micro-blogging platform Twitter, it becomes an even more relevant tool for organizations working on impacting legislation and connecting with voters. It’s true that with blogs, there’s a bit more time for responses to be prepared (and even approved internally) before posting. But, that should not stop organizations joining Twitter and empowering staff to leverage organizational talking points, resources and research to better information the conversations there.

One organization had particular success using Twitter to facilitate its state policy work. As the legislative session in the group’s state was winding down, things began moving at such a rapid pace that daily newspaper updates were not sufficient to inform and pro- mote its advocacy efforts.The organization found that following Twitter updates posted by reporters and advocates from the state- house was the fastest and easiest way to track legislative develop- ments.The group’s representatives were also able to update their Twitter profile to provide rapid-response statements.These short and timely statements sent out on Twitter caught the attention of local reporters, who then contacted the organization to solicit quotes for stories.

What do you think?

How has your organization joined the conversation online? Are there any tools or techniques in particular that have helped you find or contribute to the conversations taking place across the web?

(Download the full report in PDF: New Media & Social Change: How Nonprofits are Using Web-based Technologies to Reach Their Goals)

Published on February 4, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 1 Comment

The other side of the figures: Causes reaches $20 Million in Donations

Published in fundraising and issues. 14 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Earlier this week, an announcement on the Causes Application blog broke the news that over $20 Million has been donated since May 2007 via donors using the social networking application.

There’s been quite a lot of talk in the last year about the opportunities for fundraising online, generally, as well as the best practices for organizations leveraging social media for campaigns (as well as the idea to use free tools to raise money in hard economic times).  There’s also been a bit of controversy around the Causes application specifically, due to it’s decision to abandon the MySpace platform and offer it’s application/services only to the Facebook community. (You can read more about the MySpace/Facebook move here, here, and here.)

Here is the graph of donations on Causes since it launched in May 2007:

Some of the additional data provided from Causes in their announcement, includes:

  • 400,000 people have made at least one donation
  • $25 median donation amount
  • 35,000 causes have received at least one donation
  • $2.1 million raised by 2009 America’s Giving Challenge participants
  • $4.5 million raised through the Birthday Wish feature

Despite the initial awe and excitement around a number like $20 Million, I want to take a moment to think about the other side of the data.  There certainly is more to the story and I hope you’ll share your perspectives as well.

Social networks are still for engagement, not money

Fact: Of the hundreds of thousands of organizations registered as possible beneficiaries in the Causes application (Washington Post data), only 20 organizations, including the Nature Conservancy, Doctors Without Borders and St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, have raised over $100,000 using Causes.

Context: Organizations can’t assume that applications like Causes or simply the use of social networking sites like Facebook will translate into new revenue streams supporting the organization.  Yes, of course, I would advocate that organizations who are eligible ensure that they can be listed as beneficiaries of causes on Facebook (visit the FAQ here) but doing so is an enough of an action to replace your other funding work.

Fact: Causes Birthday Wishes (make a donation campaign for a charity of your choice tied to your birthday) accounted for a third of all donations in the past 6 months.

Context: Birthday Wishes are campaigns started by enthusiastic supporters.  You may not know them, and you may have never heard of them.  But you need to get to know them fast!  Be sure that you are connecting with the passionate volunteers going out and raising money for you: thank them, support them, encourage them.  And be sure to share invitations for the fundraiser and those that donate to his or her campaign to join your organization outside of facebook (on your enewsletter, your action alerts, an offline event, or something else to keep them on your list).

Fact: 400,000 users have contributed to a cause at least once.

Context: That’s a lot of people. How many fans does your organization’s Fan Page have, or how many members are in your facebook Group?  Probably not 400,000.  How many of your fans or group members are in your database, though? The most difficult part to applications like Causes is that you don’t get the data.  With so many people donating to causes, maybe only once, it’s crucial for the benefiting organizations to reach out and encourage donors to connect with the organization directly – that way they may find out more about your work, help you and take action, or even donate again.

Skewing the numbers?

Lastly, I can’t find any data to shed light on my question but I would love to understand if the numbers Causes is touting reflect only the funds raised on facebook, since they stopped allowing the users on MySpace to access the service.  I think it would be unethical and obviously skewing their own data.  I’m incredibly frustrated at the lack of transparency from Causes, especially around this issue.

What do you think?

Would love to hear your experiences, any lessons learned or best practices, and ideas.

—–
Update:

Luise asked to see the comparison of growth of facebook users during the same growth period of Causes donations so I whipped up a simple chart:

Published on January 29, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 14 Comments

Is it really about gender?

Published in issues. 6 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Christine Egger pointed me to a very thought-provoking post today that I want to stop and noodle on a bit with you.

Venessa Miemis discusses “How to be a Woman in a Man’s World” – picking up initially on a recent post from Clay Shirky, titled “A Rant About Women.”  Shirky’s post, or rant, claims women “aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would be in their best interests to do so.”  Some of this sentiment has been shared before in the blogosphere, especially in the conversations (debates?) about the lack of women on the presenting line up at conferences or other high-profile settings (especially in the tech sector).

In response to the comment danah boyd left on Clay’s post, Venessa poses the question: “What are the expectations for women (or what should they be) as we progress into an increasingly interdependent global society?”

Venessa ends her post with this great passage:

I think we’re seeing a shift in the values we find commendable in society, and it’s not about men or women being better. It’s about being co-designers of a healthy, equitable society. It’s about keeping an eye on the big picture, and trying to live up to a standard that’s captures the essence of what it means to be human. And I don’t think that’s going to be accomplished through acting like anti-social obsessives or pompous blowhards. It’s going to be through empathy, altruism, and collaboration.

You can read the full post, How to be a Woman in a Man’s World, here.

My comment to Venessa:

Hi Venessa -

I have been blogging for a few years (professionally – personal blogs for many years) and have reached enough people that I do feel I have a community of readers, though no where near your 30,000.  When I tried to contact Clay I received a response within the hour.  But unlike any of your methods, I emailed him.  I have never gotten a response from him on Twitter or elsewhere. And reading your introduction about your trials of making contact despite all your other accomplishments and accolades juxtaposed with mine, made me think:

Maybe I simply went where he was, or where he was comfortable, or where he wanted to connect.

As I read the rest of your post (incredibly thought-provoking!), I started to think about how my reaction to the first part, actually came back to me over and over again.

Maybe it’s because I’m a “Millennial” and we have as a generation rethought or redesigned so many aspects of public and “private” identity, but I think less about if the person I am trying to connect with, the community I am trying to serve (I work in the nonprofit sector), or the audience I’m trying to reach is a man or a woman, or if they are arrogant or shy.  I ask myself where do they want to go? How do they want me to connect with them?

This could very easily turn into a post of its own and maybe I’ll write something up – but, mostly, thank you for continuing to explore in this public place and inviting us to explore with you.

I know that my focus probably starts to wander from where Venessa originally intended the meat of her post to focus, but I’m curious what you think.

Is it really about gender?

Or is it about place, process, voice, or something else?  Looking forward to your ideas!

Published on January 22, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 6 Comments

Guest Post on Frogloop: Comeback lines to Collaboration Objectors

Published in collaboration and issues. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

I’m so thrilled to have a guest post up on the Frogloop blog today!  Frogloop is Care2′s nonprofit online marketing blog where you’ll find lots of great posts from Allyson Kapin and others.  My post is copied below but you can read it and join the network of readers/commenters on the Frogloop site, too!

Last year, my friend and colleague Debra Askanase posted her responses to frequently used objections to using social media that she was fielding from clients. It was a great start to conversations about what fears or misconceptions still exist about using social media in nonprofit organizations. Taking that conversation as a lead, I would love to examine objections and corresponding responses around collaboration (within organizations and across organization/sectors/geographies). Collaboration is one of my focus areas to explore this year so I hope this will be the start to an evolving conversation!

What are the objections to collaboration at your organization?

Some of the general objections that I’ve experienced firsthand and know others have heard time and again as well, include:

Collaboration is great in theory but doesn’t work in practice.

When I get this objection, it’s usually rooted in the fact that potential partners don’t share a definition of what collaboration is or how it works. There are so many buzzwords in our sector, or words that used to have a meaning but are now used so often and in so many diverse contexts that it’s hard to keep them straight. I have a definition of what collaboration means to me, but that may not be what it is to someone I’m collaborating with!

It’s incredibly important to define:

  • what your particular collaboration includes and how it operates (including the work no one wants to do, as well as accountability for all partners)
  • how it benefits partners
  • how all contributors actually contribute
  • how those benefiting (both the contributors and whomever is being served) will be informed, involved and empowered to be part of sustainability

The collaboration not working in practice all comes back to the definition and setting up a collaboration that will work in the first place!

Collaboration just means more work without any added value.

This statement is one I separate into two parts: Firstly, when anything requires that the way you work changes, sure, it can mean “more work.” The first step here is to create processes within your organization that are collaborative by nature so that when any new projects (whether they are collaborations—with other orgs, etc.— or not) emerge, doing them in a collaborative way does not actually create new/more work. The second half of the statement addresses the culture or mindset of those involved, believing that collaboration does not create a more valuable product than going it alone. Regardless of whether the project or work in question is contained within your organization, your physical community, or across the sector/world, collaborating with all those who have a stake in the outcome and the success of the project can ONLY create a more valuable outcome and process. A great voice on this subject is Hildy Gottlieb and her book, The Pollyanna Principles.

Collaboration means we’ll do the work and not get the credit.

This is a response that always goes straight to my heart. When it comes to social change and community impact work, who gets the credit for projects or successes is sadly still part of the picture. The newspaper or the blog will pick up the story when an organization or company pushes out word that they’ve done something great. Not often do you hear a story that simply says, “this place is better because of so many people coming together to make it that way!” Partly, a little, that’s okay. If there wasn’t any credit then many groups wouldn’t have that last bit of incentive to get involved. But, who gets credit can’t be what holds you back from collaborating with others to make the most, widest, deepest impact possible.

Something I like to encourage when this is a constraining issue, is for groups to create a new title that the collaboration or partnership can use to describe the work. This will get rid of the quibbles over who’s name is first, who’s logo listed at top, etc. Participating groups can unite under the shared title and the work can be credited to that name, one defined by all those contributing.

Lastly, what’s most exciting for someone that works at the intersection of social change work and technology is the emergence of many tools, platforms and online spaces that actually support collaboration.  And, like social media in general, using social tools for your collaborative work means it’s far more transparent – and all that credit is visible all the time ;)

—–

Those are just three examples to get you started – but really, this is a conversation! What are objections to collaboration that you have heard or responded to? And what’s the comeback line?

Looking forward to your ideas!

—–

Thanks again to Allyson Kapin and the Frogloop blog for providing this fun opportunity to guest post!

Published on January 12, 2010 by Amy Sample Ward. 0 Comments

Invention, Technology and Social Change: What’s driving you?

Published in interview and issues. 1 Comment

I was interviewed recently by Petra Kroon, a blogger focused on social media and entrepreneurship in The Netherlands, in which she asked some really great questions, including what I thought the trend would be for social entrepreneurship in 2010 as well as where we may be in 25 years.  The questions, and listening back to how I responded (as painful as it may be to listen/watch yourself on video!), made me think again about the open-ended topic Ashoka posed in it’s “Blog your way to Hyderabad” competition announcement: the interconnection between technology, invention and social change.

Invention, Technology and Social Change: What’s driving you?

I truly believe that invention or innovation, especially in the field of technology, is not just fueling the way we campaign for social change via social media tools, but is also driven by the social change we seek—there’s a back and forth, an exchange, a partnership in the two.  I also think that examining this idea in a place where the 3 areas create a very clear Venn Diagram, like India, invites a wide range of voices to the conversation.

Let’s take an example:
Recently, I had the opportunity to connect with some Ashoka Fellows from around the world to help train them on the uses and applications of social technologies in their social impact work.  One of the participants was Pratima from Shelter Associates in Pune, India.  They “work with the urban poor, particularly women in informal settlements to facilitate, and provide technical support to, community-managed housing (slum rehabilitation) and infrastructure projects.”  In their work, they’ve used GIS mapping technology to create a visual story, a guide, and clear data about areas of poverty and city planning.  The GIS and online mapping technology existed before their project, but Shelter Associates were able to leverage it in a way that helps them advocate for and support work to make changes.  But, their continued use of GIS for social change can contribute to the development directions of the tools (they are using Google Earth).

There are so many examples we could include.  Do you have one you’d like to share?

Tools: Builders and Users
This is also a great opportunity to continue the conversation that’s started spreading around the web about the relationship between organizations and activists using social media tools in their work and those building the tools.  With recent events like Causes leaving MySpace and ideablob shutting down, social changemakers have had to re-evaluate the way they select and use “free” social media tools that they cannot control.  I have been thinking lately about how we can create a space where changemakers, activists and organizations can be part of a conversation with the developers and the funders of tools to ensure that development is open, all contributors are aware of the plans and limitations in any agreement or tool, and so on.

It’s only an budding idea, though, so I’d love to hear your feedback!

As I said in the interview, I can’t imagine what technologies will be in use 25 years from now.  I hope that we can actively co-create a global community that is more just and sustainable where innovations aren’t driven by social change needs.  But, if we aren’t there yet, I have no doubt that the majority of innovations and inventions around the world will leverage technology as a tool and aid in either campaigning for the social changes still needed or the tools to implement necessary change and advancement.

—–

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public are hosting Tech 4 Society, a conference exploring technology, invention and social change, in Hyderabad, India, in February 2009. Find out more about the conference here. This blog post is an entry in their competition to find the official blogger to travel to and cover the event.

Published on November 24, 2009 by Amy Sample Ward. 1 Comment