ced Wiki - User contributions [en]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-08-14T12:18:17Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during Scene 1 are in front of the classroom, leaning on the front table, reading a book and standing around. We will read our lines of Scene 1 from our printed scripts that David will photocopy for each of us.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-08-14T12:17:00Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during Scene 1 are all in the classroom, reading a book and standing or sitting around. We will read our lines of Scene 1 from our printed scripts that David will photocopy for each of us.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED Presentation Workshop

2009-08-14T11:51:39Z

Janet Lumb: /* Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change */

'''Introducing change into an organization as an individual with no top-down power'''

Take a [[Advice:WikiCED Presentation Workshop|Guided tour]].

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED presentation]]
|?Minutes
|?Developer
|?Presenter
|format=table
|sort=Position
}}



== Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change ==

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED summaries]]
}}

CLEO'S CHANGE SUMMARY

SUMMARY:

Project Part I from Frances Ravensbergen’s class. Project was about organizing an event to influence

systemic change. I did an analysis paper on a project already completed, about an event that was

organized as a Forum.

The title was the Aboriginal Health and Human Resources (AHHRI): Innovative Employment and Learning

Practices, Western and Northern Forum held in Regina, Saskatchewan in the spring of 2006. This forum

was to promote Aboriginal employment in the health care sector, as well to bring together

stakeholders from the health care sector, employers, educators, unions, Aboriginal organizations and

the three levels of government.

The forum was a first of its kind in Canada and provided the opportunity for Saskatchewan and other

jurisdictions to highlight some promising practices on Aboriginal health human resources. It became

evident through the course of the forum that Saskatchewan has taken a lead to implement initiatives

that enhance and support a representative workforce. Additionally, it is significant to note that

although they had many successes, Saskatchewan’s health sector is still not reflective of the general

population; there remains work to be done in the workforce.

CHALLENGE:

In order to influence change it is important to ensure you have the right people that have authority

to make decisions and the responsibility in their area of work. One of our offices goals was to

influence change in the broader labour market system of supply and demand. To do this you need the

right people, in the right place, at the right time.

WHY CHALLENGE?:

This type of work requires stability, in order for people to evaluate and follow-up with changes in

the system, or changes in behaviours and attitudes. Involvement through community activism and

engagement for purposes of influencing change, these processes of networks, alliances, partnerships

and campaigns take investment of time and persistence. Systemic change does not happen overnight. It

takes continuous monitoring and effort over a long period of time, sometimes over many years.

(Cornwall, 2008) “...from involvement to influence, these processes take investment of time and

persistence”.

This is very difficult to continue follow-up when there is inconsistencies with people in the

positions you need to deal with to pursue your work in this area. People change careers, move on to

other job opportunities, or new political parties get elected and mandates and agenda’s change. This

is where I think the formal partnership agreements or MOU’s would be helpful, so when you need to do

follow-up you can fall back on the previous agreements to initiate working together in partnership.

== Schedule ==
* By [[Date::July 24, 2009]] - Fri. all revisions, tasks completed

* [[Date::Aug. 11, 2009]] - Tues.6 pm. meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with team minus Cleo

* [[Date::Aug. 13, 2009]] - Thurs. 6 pm. final meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with all of team

* By [[Date::June 26, 2009]] - first draft of skits and commentary.

* By [[Date::July 10, 2009]] - First run through of complete piece

* Presentation due [[Date::July 17, 2009]]

* By [[Date::July 17, 2009]] - Fri. at 5 pm, after class practice, meeting, rehearsal of final draft of skits and commentary. Meet with Eric as group to propose wiki as our paper.

* By [[Date::Aug 15, 2009]] - presentation and paper completed and submitted

[[Media:511_Affinity_Grp_Task_List.doc‎ | Word doc with task outline]]

== Todo ==

=== Group ===

* examples of introduced and potential change
* pictures: Cleo, <s>David</s>, <s>Janet</s>, <s>Katherine</s>, <s>Marie-Christine</s>, <s>Philip</s>
* Aug 11 1800h Review meeting
* Aug 13 1830 Final review (Philip to book room)
* One page summary of individual challenges

=== Individual ===

* Marie-Christine - extract points about creating change from [[WikiCED Bibliography | bibliography]], characteristics of characters, <s>send in photo</s>, <s>send in one page summary</s>, read scene 1-3 and ensure unity
* David -Wiki Manual, creating cartoon image
* Janet - Fix scene 1, write up summary of meeting,send out warnings and remainders for deadlines, send in one page summary
* Cleo - Fix scene 2, add to bibliography, send photo, send one page summary
* Katherine - <s>Shorten scene 3</s>,<s> write intro and send to team</s>,<s> send photo</s>, send one page summary
*Phillip-write history of change and resistance, send in one page summary or whole essay, send in photo, reserve library for 2 meeting dates, write brief summary of AI, read presentation to ensure an Appreciative approach

Pictures

=== Manual ===

David - First pass

Marie-Christine - add bibliography detail

Philip - Add appreciative inquiry - "what do you want more of" - tell the best experience story, reflect on the experience

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED notes]][[Date::+]]
| ?Date
|format=calendar
}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED Presentation Workshop

2009-08-14T11:50:53Z

Janet Lumb: /* Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change */

'''Introducing change into an organization as an individual with no top-down power'''

Take a [[Advice:WikiCED Presentation Workshop|Guided tour]].

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED presentation]]
|?Minutes
|?Developer
|?Presenter
|format=table
|sort=Position
}}



== Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change ==

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED summaries]]
}}

Cleo's Change Summary

SUMMARY:

Project Part I from Frances Ravensbergen’s class. Project was about organizing an event to influence

systemic change. I did an analysis paper on a project already completed, about an event that was

organized as a Forum.

The title was the Aboriginal Health and Human Resources (AHHRI): Innovative Employment and Learning

Practices, Western and Northern Forum held in Regina, Saskatchewan in the spring of 2006. This forum

was to promote Aboriginal employment in the health care sector, as well to bring together

stakeholders from the health care sector, employers, educators, unions, Aboriginal organizations and

the three levels of government.

The forum was a first of its kind in Canada and provided the opportunity for Saskatchewan and other

jurisdictions to highlight some promising practices on Aboriginal health human resources. It became

evident through the course of the forum that Saskatchewan has taken a lead to implement initiatives

that enhance and support a representative workforce. Additionally, it is significant to note that

although they had many successes, Saskatchewan’s health sector is still not reflective of the general

population; there remains work to be done in the workforce.

CHALLENGE:

In order to influence change it is important to ensure you have the right people that have authority

to make decisions and the responsibility in their area of work. One of our offices goals was to

influence change in the broader labour market system of supply and demand. To do this you need the

right people, in the right place, at the right time.

WHY CHALLENGE?:

This type of work requires stability, in order for people to evaluate and follow-up with changes in

the system, or changes in behaviours and attitudes. Involvement through community activism and

engagement for purposes of influencing change, these processes of networks, alliances, partnerships

and campaigns take investment of time and persistence. Systemic change does not happen overnight. It

takes continuous monitoring and effort over a long period of time, sometimes over many years.

(Cornwall, 2008) “...from involvement to influence, these processes take investment of time and

persistence”.

This is very difficult to continue follow-up when there is inconsistencies with people in the

positions you need to deal with to pursue your work in this area. People change careers, move on to

other job opportunities, or new political parties get elected and mandates and agenda’s change. This

is where I think the formal partnership agreements or MOU’s would be helpful, so when you need to do

follow-up you can fall back on the previous agreements to initiate working together in partnership.

== Schedule ==
* By [[Date::July 24, 2009]] - Fri. all revisions, tasks completed

* [[Date::Aug. 11, 2009]] - Tues.6 pm. meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with team minus Cleo

* [[Date::Aug. 13, 2009]] - Thurs. 6 pm. final meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with all of team

* By [[Date::June 26, 2009]] - first draft of skits and commentary.

* By [[Date::July 10, 2009]] - First run through of complete piece

* Presentation due [[Date::July 17, 2009]]

* By [[Date::July 17, 2009]] - Fri. at 5 pm, after class practice, meeting, rehearsal of final draft of skits and commentary. Meet with Eric as group to propose wiki as our paper.

* By [[Date::Aug 15, 2009]] - presentation and paper completed and submitted

[[Media:511_Affinity_Grp_Task_List.doc‎ | Word doc with task outline]]

== Todo ==

=== Group ===

* examples of introduced and potential change
* pictures: Cleo, <s>David</s>, <s>Janet</s>, <s>Katherine</s>, <s>Marie-Christine</s>, <s>Philip</s>
* Aug 11 1800h Review meeting
* Aug 13 1830 Final review (Philip to book room)
* One page summary of individual challenges

=== Individual ===

* Marie-Christine - extract points about creating change from [[WikiCED Bibliography | bibliography]], characteristics of characters, <s>send in photo</s>, <s>send in one page summary</s>, read scene 1-3 and ensure unity
* David -Wiki Manual, creating cartoon image
* Janet - Fix scene 1, write up summary of meeting,send out warnings and remainders for deadlines, send in one page summary
* Cleo - Fix scene 2, add to bibliography, send photo, send one page summary
* Katherine - <s>Shorten scene 3</s>,<s> write intro and send to team</s>,<s> send photo</s>, send one page summary
*Phillip-write history of change and resistance, send in one page summary or whole essay, send in photo, reserve library for 2 meeting dates, write brief summary of AI, read presentation to ensure an Appreciative approach

Pictures

=== Manual ===

David - First pass

Marie-Christine - add bibliography detail

Philip - Add appreciative inquiry - "what do you want more of" - tell the best experience story, reflect on the experience

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED notes]][[Date::+]]
| ?Date
|format=calendar
}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED Presentation Workshop

2009-08-14T11:50:09Z

Janet Lumb: /* Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change */

'''Introducing change into an organization as an individual with no top-down power'''

Take a [[Advice:WikiCED Presentation Workshop|Guided tour]].

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED presentation]]
|?Minutes
|?Developer
|?Presenter
|format=table
|sort=Position
}}



== Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change ==

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED summaries]]
}}

SUMMARY:

Project Part I from Frances Ravensbergen’s class. Project was about organizing an event to influence

systemic change. I did an analysis paper on a project already completed, about an event that was

organized as a Forum.

The title was the Aboriginal Health and Human Resources (AHHRI): Innovative Employment and Learning

Practices, Western and Northern Forum held in Regina, Saskatchewan in the spring of 2006. This forum

was to promote Aboriginal employment in the health care sector, as well to bring together

stakeholders from the health care sector, employers, educators, unions, Aboriginal organizations and

the three levels of government.

The forum was a first of its kind in Canada and provided the opportunity for Saskatchewan and other

jurisdictions to highlight some promising practices on Aboriginal health human resources. It became

evident through the course of the forum that Saskatchewan has taken a lead to implement initiatives

that enhance and support a representative workforce. Additionally, it is significant to note that

although they had many successes, Saskatchewan’s health sector is still not reflective of the general

population; there remains work to be done in the workforce.

CHALLENGE:

In order to influence change it is important to ensure you have the right people that have authority

to make decisions and the responsibility in their area of work. One of our offices goals was to

influence change in the broader labour market system of supply and demand. To do this you need the

right people, in the right place, at the right time.

WHY CHALLENGE?:

This type of work requires stability, in order for people to evaluate and follow-up with changes in

the system, or changes in behaviours and attitudes. Involvement through community activism and

engagement for purposes of influencing change, these processes of networks, alliances, partnerships

and campaigns take investment of time and persistence. Systemic change does not happen overnight. It

takes continuous monitoring and effort over a long period of time, sometimes over many years.

(Cornwall, 2008) “...from involvement to influence, these processes take investment of time and

persistence”.

This is very difficult to continue follow-up when there is inconsistencies with people in the

positions you need to deal with to pursue your work in this area. People change careers, move on to

other job opportunities, or new political parties get elected and mandates and agenda’s change. This

is where I think the formal partnership agreements or MOU’s would be helpful, so when you need to do

follow-up you can fall back on the previous agreements to initiate working together in partnership.

== Schedule ==
* By [[Date::July 24, 2009]] - Fri. all revisions, tasks completed

* [[Date::Aug. 11, 2009]] - Tues.6 pm. meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with team minus Cleo

* [[Date::Aug. 13, 2009]] - Thurs. 6 pm. final meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with all of team

* By [[Date::June 26, 2009]] - first draft of skits and commentary.

* By [[Date::July 10, 2009]] - First run through of complete piece

* Presentation due [[Date::July 17, 2009]]

* By [[Date::July 17, 2009]] - Fri. at 5 pm, after class practice, meeting, rehearsal of final draft of skits and commentary. Meet with Eric as group to propose wiki as our paper.

* By [[Date::Aug 15, 2009]] - presentation and paper completed and submitted

[[Media:511_Affinity_Grp_Task_List.doc‎ | Word doc with task outline]]

== Todo ==

=== Group ===

* examples of introduced and potential change
* pictures: Cleo, <s>David</s>, <s>Janet</s>, <s>Katherine</s>, <s>Marie-Christine</s>, <s>Philip</s>
* Aug 11 1800h Review meeting
* Aug 13 1830 Final review (Philip to book room)
* One page summary of individual challenges

=== Individual ===

* Marie-Christine - extract points about creating change from [[WikiCED Bibliography | bibliography]], characteristics of characters, <s>send in photo</s>, <s>send in one page summary</s>, read scene 1-3 and ensure unity
* David -Wiki Manual, creating cartoon image
* Janet - Fix scene 1, write up summary of meeting,send out warnings and remainders for deadlines, send in one page summary
* Cleo - Fix scene 2, add to bibliography, send photo, send one page summary
* Katherine - <s>Shorten scene 3</s>,<s> write intro and send to team</s>,<s> send photo</s>, send one page summary
*Phillip-write history of change and resistance, send in one page summary or whole essay, send in photo, reserve library for 2 meeting dates, write brief summary of AI, read presentation to ensure an Appreciative approach

Pictures

=== Manual ===

David - First pass

Marie-Christine - add bibliography detail

Philip - Add appreciative inquiry - "what do you want more of" - tell the best experience story, reflect on the experience

{{#ask: [[Category:WikiCED notes]][[Date::+]]
| ?Date
|format=calendar
}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation Q&A

2009-08-13T11:51:46Z

Janet Lumb: /* Participatory Learning */

== Participatory Learning ==

Participatory learning captured in wiki using AI approach.

Brief introduction of AI. TEST TEST

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY: From a post-modern or participatory democratic perspective, Gervase R. Bushe, observed in his article "When is Appreciative Inquiry Transformational" (2005) that there are two key characteristics of AI change interventions that succeed:

* New knowledge is created
* A generative metaphor emerges

David Cooperrider and Diane Whitney describe in their article "A Positive Revolution in Change" that change results from an Appreciative Inquiry focus on five key principles:

* The constructionist principle:..Organizations are socially co-constructed realities; therefore, articulate desirable collective futures.
* The poetic principle:.............We create our organization in our daily stories; therefore, use words that energize and inspire people.
* The anticipatory principle:.....The collective image of the future guides us; therefore, artfully create positive images.
* The positive principle:...........Craft the unconditional positive question to generate momentum and sustainable change.
* The principle of simultaneity:..The first question is fateful; change begins the second the system begins to engage in inquiry.

Three questions added to the blackboard and across the room for people to write on board

* a story of someone who created change in an organization
* what is change

* original question: what's important to you about change

* alternate & suggested 3rd question by Janet:
what tactics can you do, what tools can you use to encourage or create change in an organization?

* 10 mins.

Game:
Each person in class is given a maximum of 60 secs. to give their story or thoughts of the question they have contributed to on the blackboard. Janet has a 60 sec. timer & bell.

* 20 mins.

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=6
|developer=Philip
|presenter=WikiCED group
|minutes=30}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 3

2009-08-12T16:12:01Z

Janet Lumb: /* Lessons Learned */

=== Scene 3 ===

* Lessons learned - concretely relate the findings in our research and real-life projects to the skits.

== Epilogue ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?destiny}}

==Lessons Learned==

Katherine takes over the set and begins while Janet continues to figure out the puzzle pieces.

What you’ve just seen is a demonstration of the challenges that individuals can face when trying to introduce change. We've used kiwi (aka: Wiki), as the vehicle to show that organizational culture, behavior, or mindset (perceptions) are each part of the process that require an individual consider when introducing change.

While we've used humor as an approach to introducing change, there are a multitude of other tools that can be applied such as Appreciative Inquiry, workshops, story-telling, manuals, technology, etc. Engaging people through a variety of methods creates value and is an important precursor that can lead to "buy-in", and adaption to and adoption of change.

We've put together a manual - available on wiki - that shares what we've learned about change and being a change agent.

The most important thing to remember though is that there are no recipes for change!



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=5
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Katherine
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 3

2009-08-12T16:11:21Z

Janet Lumb: /* Lessons Learned */

=== Scene 3 ===

* Lessons learned - concretely relate the findings in our research and real-life projects to the skits.

== Epilogue ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?destiny}}

==Lessons Learned==

Katherine takes over the set while Janet is duc taping the puzzle pieces and begins.

What you’ve just seen is a demonstration of the challenges that individuals can face when trying to introduce change. We've used kiwi (aka: Wiki), as the vehicle to show that organizational culture, behavior, or mindset (perceptions) are each part of the process that require an individual consider when introducing change.

While we've used humor as an approach to introducing change, there are a multitude of other tools that can be applied such as Appreciative Inquiry, workshops, story-telling, manuals, technology, etc. Engaging people through a variety of methods creates value and is an important precursor that can lead to "buy-in", and adaption to and adoption of change.

We've put together a manual - available on wiki - that shares what we've learned about change and being a change agent.

The most important thing to remember though is that there are no recipes for change!



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=5
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Katherine
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 2

2009-08-12T16:09:53Z

Janet Lumb: /* Background */

== Scene 2: Puzzles ==

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}



=== Background ===
This is a set change. We will quickly add a table & chairs and sit around the table to re-establish a new setting.
The boardroom scene:

Bev: Hi everyone, I'm glad you could all make it today. It's been a few years since we started talking about kiwis and, as you know, one of our own people has been persistent following up with the notion of using kiwi to enhance our work. Today, Irene will help us to set up this internet tool for our specific needs. - Irene.

Irene: Hi all - I'm sure you've e heard me say this before that Kiwi is software based on the Web. Remember all you have to learn is a few conventions but kiwi helps to solve a lot of different problems as a group especially when including the public like our work here does. Here, I'll demonstrate. Let's go around the table and you can each let me know what will be useful for your needs. And we'll be able to work something out (as she is talking she is takes the box full of puzzle pieces and spills them onto the middle of the table)

Bev: Oh - I'll start - I need a place to share documents with everyone. Excuse me I need to go to another meeting. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Bee: I need to organize meetings for the group. Sorry, I must run to an appointment! (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Arnie: I would like to be able to easily fax these "kiwi web sites" around the world. In colour. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Thor: I want to organize a Reeducation Party! Nobody can be late. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Nancy: I want the kiwi to look exactly like my Nintendo. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in the lap of Irene)

Irene: (While pointing to puzzle pieces remaining on middle of table) Wait! I still have more questions. (Shaking head, puts head in hands. Then takes all pieces from lap, puts them on table, gets out duct tape, and begins to put something together).



{{Presentation
|position=4
|developer=Cleo
|presenter=WikiCED group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 2

2009-08-12T16:08:38Z

Janet Lumb: /* Background */

== Scene 2: Puzzles ==

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}



=== Background ===
[Set change = we add a table & chairs and sit around the table]
The boardroom scene:

Bev: Hi everyone, I'm glad you could all make it today. It's been a few years since we started talking about kiwis and, as you know, one of our own people has been persistent following up with the notion of using kiwi to enhance our work. Today, Irene will help us to set up this internet tool for our specific needs. - Irene.

Irene: Hi all - I'm sure you've e heard me say this before that Kiwi is software based on the Web. Remember all you have to learn is a few conventions but kiwi helps to solve a lot of different problems as a group especially when including the public like our work here does. Here, I'll demonstrate. Let's go around the table and you can each let me know what will be useful for your needs. And we'll be able to work something out (as she is talking she is takes the box full of puzzle pieces and spills them onto the middle of the table)

Bev: Oh - I'll start - I need a place to share documents with everyone. Excuse me I need to go to another meeting. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Bee: I need to organize meetings for the group. Sorry, I must run to an appointment! (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Arnie: I would like to be able to easily fax these "kiwi web sites" around the world. In colour. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Thor: I want to organize a Reeducation Party! Nobody can be late. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in Irene's lap)

Nancy: I want the kiwi to look exactly like my Nintendo. (Gets up, picks out a puzzle piece from table and places it in the lap of Irene)

Irene: (While pointing to puzzle pieces remaining on middle of table) Wait! I still have more questions. (Shaking head, puts head in hands. Then takes all pieces from lap, puts them on table, gets out duct tape, and begins to put something together).



{{Presentation
|position=4
|developer=Cleo
|presenter=WikiCED group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-08-12T16:07:13Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during Scene 1 are all in the classroom, reading a book and standing or sitting around. We will read our lines of Scene 1 from our printed scripts that Katherine will photocopy for each of us.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:34:28Z

Janet Lumb: /* Post kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:28:38Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:27:09Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:26:18Z

Janet Lumb: /* Post kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It helps solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group, community organizing...it is too much....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:22:32Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is another thing, it is too much, I have to do this and that ....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:20:48Z

Janet Lumb: /* Post kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is another thing, it is too much, I have to do this and that ....whine whine whine...

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:13:43Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party? Irene was telling me about it. Did you go?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is again another thing, it is all too much, I have this to do, I have that to do....whine whine whine...(Cleo improvises)

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-30T00:13:20Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around, will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen sharing openly for rest of the class to follow.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party? Irene was telling me about it. Did you go?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is again another thing, it is all too much, I have this to do, I have that to do....whine whine whine...(Cleo improvises)

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED manual

2009-07-25T16:14:40Z

Janet Lumb: /* Measuring success, learning from failure */

<center>
'''Change from within:'''

'''Creating innovation in an organization as an individual.'''
</center>

= Introduction =

This manual is designed to help individuals, working in an organization, find ways to effectively introduce beneficial change, without full “top-down” support (management, funders, other power sources). In other words, you may be working in an organization and learn about a better way to do things. Everything from suggesting a composting programme, telecommuting, to using a new Web-based communication system. Everyone else is too busy doing things the same way they always have, management has their own long term plans, but you think it's worthwhile to push for your change. This manual can help you.

This manual is particularly designed for those involved in Community Economic Development (CED). We're going to use change based on low cost technology as our lens, because thanks to the spread of the Internet and low cost computers, many opportunities exist. But aspects of this manual should be applicable to many circumstances.

Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions.

One of the technologies we'll be focusing on is wiki. Wiki is a Hawaiian word for fast, and the first wiki software was developed to support computer programmers sharing information on the early Web. Wikis allow easy publishing on the Web, including editing pages (after learning a few conventions), and can help solve a lot of different problems as a group, and when including the public. Currently the most famous wiki is Wikipedia, but many other wikis exist.

We're going to use some characters to talk about implementing change. They are as follows:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?description
|?image
}}

= Considerations of introducing technology change =

Many people dream about being a change hero, making one suggestion – [[todo::example]] and suddenly we have a successful transformation that everyone recognizes. The reality is usually far more complicated.

People have very good reasons to be hesitant about change. It's always a good idea to wait and see what other organizations, similar to yours, are doing. If you're going to try to leap ahead, make sure you have steady partners and are not compromising your organization; changing the organization's focus or making participation more difficult for some.

Computer systems can yield tremendous efficiencies, but they can force people to work in ways they have difficulty adapting to. There's always a question of individuals adapting to tech versus the tech adapting to the person. Good technology will consider the user experience and impact as important as the potential gain. This can be recognized by learning about successful uses of the technology, and the kind of background and processes that went into its development. Many companies and projects (potential components of your innovation) are very technically driven. Whatever clever “invention” a technical person managed to come up with becomes the focus. This may be a good model for ultra competitive commercial enterprise, but it's not so good for social organizations. Signs of a good service providers are multidisciplinary teams that include, where practical, designers, content experts, and end user representation, as well as those focusing only on the technology (hopefully with some interest in the context).

Ultimately, however, individuals and the organization will have to adapt to the way the technology works. No technology is completely flexible, so past procurement and training, some processes will need to be changed, information constrained to a system, and systems interfaced. As an individual, you'll have to consider how your innovation can be integrated (or not - [[wp:Loose coupling | loosely coupled]] system are often considered the most robust).

For example, consider the idea of organizing information. Today, it takes weeks for an information request to be processed by the city, and what you'll get is a photocopy of a document that can't be easily re-used. Many organizations have incredible struggles classifying and describing information (developing ontologies). If an organization has thousands of documents, relevant content can be more easily found in a well designed system, and individuals can serve themselves. International organizations using shared ontologies can match documents and develop sophisticated linked systems that allow consistent communications and access to information. Yet defining and restraining content to ontologies perfectly is a problem that has existed for thousands of years, due to differences in individual and cultural perceptions. It's best not to get caught up in these kinds of "wild goose chases" unless it's a core requirement, and the expertise or cues are available.

Proposing your organization prioritize developing ontologies is a task that would likely be difficult. However, suggesting your organization import key documents into a wiki, and allow "crowd sourcing" (participatory) classifying of documents, as people access and find them, can be very effective.

Sometimes, change can mean completely changing the way things are, for example replacing factory workers with machines, but it's often better to think of '''augmentation''' of people's roles, particularly when it comes to today's imperfect computer systems. In a clinic, a new system can cause patient harm if a system loses a record, but having a receptionist who recognizes patients and expects events can lead to a richer system that is safe, and personal and has added utility.

==Side effect benefits==

As new systems are implemented, organizations should be aware of the unexpected positive benefits. We're going to examine this with the [http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm cut curb effect].

When looking at technical implementations today, there is an "artificial line that views such technologies as assistive rather than normal options, products are designed for or against certain users." (http://asyourworldchanges.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/using-the-curb-cuts-principle-to-reboot-computing/)

As many are aware, navigating the world as a person with disabilities often results in frustration or complete denial to everyday services. Resolving these problems yields unexpected benefits. When a curb is cut for wheelchairs, navigation is also made easier for those with baby strollers, bicycles (where permitted) and inattentive walkers. The same is true of ramps and elevators - making a change for disabled persons improves the situation for everyone. This leads to a shift in thinking towards [[wp:universal design]] - the idea that instead of treating accessible design as an afterthought, it is instead a way to lead overall design. This provides benefits including greater access to employment, education, culture, citizenship, and information in general.

Using technology, this is enabled by the fact that most information is stored in one way or another in text format. Email is text, most organization content has a text basis. The low level format of Web pages is HTML, which accommodates accessible features. Suddenly, individuals with mobility, cognitive or vision disabilities (estimated to be [http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml 650 million people around the world], or [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071203/dq071203a-eng.htm one in seven Canadians] - not including the elderly) are on a more equal footing with everyone else - they're tremendously enabled.

Consider a well implemented Web page. Behind the scenes, presentation is separated from content. Headings are used to indicate sections. Multimedia content has a text summary. A person with vision disabilities, whether it's very common colour blindness, contrast problems, or acute focus problems, can use a variety of techniques to access this information. They can change the font size in their browser, they can replace colours. They can use a screen reader, which reads the document using text to speech, treats headings as a table of contents, and allows the individual to easily scan the page rather than forcing them to "read" it top to bottom.

This carries over to everyone - someone with a large screen or small screen (like the increasingly popular mobile browsers) can reasonably access well designed content. The work that goes into producing this page usually leads to easier information re-use and presentation flexibility.

This is not true for poorly designed content. Individuals have few ways to alter presentation. Users of screen readers have to wait through long passages of repetitive "content" that describes useless elements - the presentation, rather than the content. Mobile browsers and older computers may not be able to access the content at all.

There are no mysteries involved in why this happens. People like "Flashier" content, and companies will often hire designers specifically to create "sexy" first impressions, meanwhile using outdated or unrounded approaches to low level design. It's important to look past first impressions to make sure your content works well for everyone, and is future friendly. [http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php WCAG] is an international standard for accessible web page design.

Other potential side effect benefits include better organization of information, access to technology development funds, and transferred best practices.

==Side effect risks==

The most important risk to consider when implementing technology is privacy. Collecting masses of personal information in one place presents an incredible risk if not managed carefully. Policies and training for any individuals with access to this data must ensure it is kept off networks as much as possible, and always encrypted when not possible.

The second risk is around "intellectual property." It is an unfortunate fact that many organizations, including public and social organizations, create "proprietary databases" featured in grant applications and for other purposes. This results in silos that can be developed using public funds for social benefit, yet territorially protected from re-use. The benefits of protecting this "property" vs the benefits of sharing or building on information with other organizations must be managed legally, and using technical means, particularly considering cases where information may be published without clear terms of use.

The times are changing. Governments have a mandate to provide more low level access to information, and semantic content, shared methodologies and metrics, and more sophisticated programs enable very high level information of re-use across organizations.

As an example, in 2004 for a project, detailed information on Member of Parliament voting records was required. After research, it turned out the easiest way to retrieve this information was to "scrape" it from the Parliament web site. In 2009, faced with a similar requirement, we prepared to "scrape" it again, but a last second email to the Parliament Web team yielded all the information we needed in an easily reusable format. A week later, Parliament formally announced public availability of this data. (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/17/canadian-members-of.html) This follows trends in the US and UK that yield very real benefits in transparency and accountability.

Developments to consider in this area include [http://www.creativecommons.ca Creative Commons], a system where organizations may choose from a set of legally designed terms of use that include reuse-by-attribution, reuse-for-noncommercial-only, and other combinations. This document is released under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/ creative commons attribution, non commercial, share-alike license], meaning it can be re-used and redeveloped for any non-commercial purpose, as long as changes are shared.

Another risk is content lock in. Over time, governments, large business and organizations have pushed for the need for standard formats for data. This prevents over-reliance on a vendor and permits information re-use. If your information is hosted, make sure you have local copies of readable data.

==Guidelines for content==

In general, the following guidelines can be followed:

{|
! Context
! Application
! Result
! Issues
|-
|Personal, workgroup - information is not published online, is kept personally or exchanged via email.
|Word processor
|Individuals and groups are used to using tools such as MS Word, and they provide easy faciltiies to create formatted data
|If the content is going to be re-used in other contexts, it may be more difficult to translate the content with full support for formatting and meaning
|-
|Intranet - information is intended for a restricted group, often using passwords.
|Portal, wiki, Google Documents and other web-based systems
|With a little extra effort and occasional loss in particular features, individuals can more easily share information and edit it real time as a group
|Information has to be carefully protected if it's not intended for the general public
|-
|Public - anyone can access the content, and sometimes contribute to its development
|Web site, CMS, wiki supporting accessible HTML content. PDF for downloadable content not meant to be editable
|Information is easily shared with the public, fully including individuals with disabilities, and supporting a broad array of access methods, including mobile devices
|Until standards catch up (particularly the forthcoming HTML 5), techniques such as Flash are used for highly interactive tools
|-
|}

Many organizations rely on tools such as Microsoft Word. It's worth keeping in mind that this is expensive software with particular computer requirements. Although compatible free alternatives such as [http://www.openoffice.org Open Office] exist, complete compatibility can't be assured as new versions emerge. For the Web, HTML or PDF are the standard options for read-only document publishing.

Tools for evaluating Web site quality are http://wave.webaim.org and http://validator.w3.org/.

=How to introduce change=

[[todo::Katherine, I would like to move this from presentation to here]]
Often, creating value requires significant change. John Kotter concluded in his book "A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management" (1990) that there are eight reasons why many change processes fail and to prevent making these mistakes, Kotter created the following eight change phases model:

*Establish a sense of urgency
*Create a coalition
*Develop a clear vision
*Share the vision
*Empower people to clear obstacles
*Secure short-term wins
*Consolidate and keep moving
*Anchor the change

Individuals who want to introduce or lead change in organizations are key agents who should have the ability to connect people to their specific requirements, and must be committed to working with people during each developmental phase.

==Explaining and developing the project==

Except in the simplest cases, one of the most difficult parts of developing a project is explaining it so everyone understands it. Many people (often most) will either assume someone else is taking care of details, or will imagine what the system will be like rather than trying to follow along. Confusion and disappointment inevitably follow.

It's difficult to tune the balance balance between too much documentation and too little for each individual. The best approach is to use examples and capture key expectations of all stakeholders, and make sure everyone involved has a chance to participate.

Processes can start open ended, for example using [[wp:appreciative inquiry]] or [[wp:open spaces]] to discover what stakeholders consider the most valuable features, and should become more specific but still inclusive, using techniques such as [[wp:participatory design]].

Stakeholders include the following:

* Management, funders, connectors: They may have a high level vision and power, but if they don't try to follow the project and provide constant feedback, the result won't be as expected, or will result in wrenching course changes.

* Project team: This may include a project manager, key individuals who will be using the developed system, and implementers including system administrators, graphic and page designers, programmers, and others. Multidisciplinary teams that can work efficiently and with respect, and check in often with full communication of what they're working on, are key.

* User representation: These should provide a fair representation of the intended users of the system, whether organization members or the served constituents. Activities can range from participation in [[wp:focus groups]], formal or informal [[wp:usability sessions]], or polling advocacy groups.

Using systems like wiki can enable direct involvement in specification development for all the above.

==Including the hesitant==

Inevitably there will be some on the team who can following along. Whatever the reason, it's important to include these individuals by soliciting their comments and accommodating them wherever possible. However, some degree of “translation” will often be required. If the hesitant are served constituents, full services must be maintained with the technology based implementation as an alternative, depending on the constituency. Summaries should always be maintained between "online" and "offline" activities.

Service bureaus may help here, including low cost translation and transcription services, and services to provide telephone access to computerized services.

Let's take a look at the characteristics of our players, and how we might include them:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}

==Change processes and development==

In the past, a development process referred to as "waterfall" was often used in software development. A long specification process was supposed to lead to a shorter, more informed development process. However, with specialists doing specification no one could understand, many projects went overtime and budget (or failed outright).

Development process today has shifted more towards a process referred to as [[wp:Agile software development]]. Initially, basic examples and prototypes are used to describe the project, and multiple cycles of development, called "iterations," that ideally involved all involved persons, are used to make sure everyone sees the product, and has a chance to comment on it, before another revision cycle. This also allows constant revision of a product.

CED literature describes similar processes based on Knowing, Doing and Reviewing (Torjman, 2007).

Therefore, a preferred development cycle for a project may appear as follows:

# describe key goal (including baselines and measurements), critical budget and timing issues
# define and refine goal(s)
# research solutions and select working set
# refine goals based on working set
# implement solutions (with as many iterations as permitted)
# measure effectiveness through soft or full launch
# summarize effects
# iterate

It's important to contain each process. Keep timelines short and easy to measure. Avoid custom solutions unless they are absolutely necessary (for example, where accessible software does not exist) - specification uncertainty and usability testing results in more cost and risk.

Modern software practices also provide access to all team members to project tracking, and today Wiki based systems can be used to measure goals, tasks, timelines, responsible persons and even costs.

=Technology as a solution=

Today's typical computer use is often as an advanced typewriter. Documents are edited, saved and printed with little use of program features. Nobody thinks twice about printing out a form from a computer system, filling it out by hand, mailing it somewhere, and having it entered by hand into a computer system. Features such as inline document comments are being used, but few organizations use document sharing portals or online document editing systems such as wikis.

Today there is an emphasis on providing basic reading and math, and some training on how to use a computer, but little consideration for "numeracy" (http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/11/18/visual-numeracy-for-collective-survival/). This is not about advanced math or technical skills. This is learning to use the computer as a helpful tool, and as part of a network. In fact this training is being bestowed on individuals anyway. Spam teaches individuals to not trust all information, Facebook and other sites teaches individuals how to effectively use social media - for advocacy from topics ranging from breastfeeding, unions, regional and international concerns, groups, events and other interactions - without any strong technical basis.

The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55. (http://www.scottmonty.com/2009/07/facebook-age-demographics.html - July 2009 data). While the largest component of Internet users today (and the major focus) can be considered "advantaged," a considerable and increasing number of individuals have disabilities, are newcomers to the countries using the Internet as an inexpensive way to stay in touch, are elderly, or are organizing social causes or events, among other relevant demographics.

The digital divide is still a tremendous issue. However, proportionately, computer use among populations, whether directly through access to the Internet, using a mobile phone, or through community hubs, is comparable to other important segments of many communities.

==Consider where it is coming from==

We think of the technology we use today as new, but it has been evolving for a long time. [[wp:Hypertext]], for example – a way to create links between documents – was visualized in a microfiche based system in the 1940s (the [[wp:Memex]]). There are large cycles of introduction, reaction, revision. The entire Internet as a mass novelty, in the 1990s, resulted in the [[wp:Dot-com bubble Dot-com bubble]] shortly thereafter, as overexcited expectations were deflated.

The Internet does have to be considered one of the greatest, and most unexpected innovations of our lifetimes. No company would have created a network where anyone can publish and access information with equal ease and virtually no cost, for nearly anyone, around the world (nor could they, due to the cooperation involved). Existing companies, with their controlled, limited and metered systems, were left scrambling to react to this disruptive development.

The internet is the product of generations of scientists, visionaries, and implementers, now available for anyone to use, at the price of stepping into a limelight, encrypted or not, and taking on complexity. Using technology effectively has not been simplified. Tremendous effort can be spent putting up a web site, developing content or custom applications, training people, connecting with companies and dealing with problems, all to see minimal net benefits. This is another reason it is important to highlight the background reasons for technology to be developed and used.

It's important to have a long term plan that matches the organization's mandate and constituents, day to day changes consistent with your constituents, all the while keeping an eye out for 'disruptive' opportunities.

For example, Twitter, a current craze, is presented in the media as a way to follow celebrities, or sent brief messages about our most mundane activities. But using Twitter as a "social search" - finding individuals currently available and interested in topics important to you (including activism, fundraising, regional and sectoral issues) opens up a whole new dimension. Some organizations use Twitter (and other "social media" like the more popular Facebook) as a tool for advocacy and fundraising. [[todo:Examples]] http://www.google.ca/search?q=using+twitter+as+a+fundraising+tool

Marshall McLuhan states “We shape our tools, and afterwards our tools shape us.” New systems must be considered for their most simple and practical benefits, as well as their impact. Expectations must be managed to not expect too much out of the hype, yet still "expect the unexpected."

==This section needs a new heading==

There are a number of main applications of technology in social organizations. They range from the most practical document creating, simple, communications using email, narrow and broadcast communication and participatory means such as forums, polls and wikis.

The internet went through several phases of “killer applications,” as the world population happened across its capabilities. Majorly are the ease and (no) cost sending of email and the richness of the World Wide Web, which was originally envisioned as an intimately linked, eminently re-usable “read-write” research web, where one web site's information can be linked with another, and information shared easily. Unfortunately, commercial and individual enthusiasm (and the unreadiness of the background technology) has resulted in many messes – email can be unusable due to “spam,” and most web sites today could be easier to use as a paper brochure, and they certainly don't encourage information re-use. Tragically, universal, re-usable design has been thrown out the window in many cases in favour of glitzy presentations.

For the past few years, there has been a focus on what's called "Web 2.0" - making Web based systems more interactive, participatory. There is also a trend to move away from desktop and office solutions to hosted systems - email, word processing, and so on, are hosted on a "cloud" provided by very large providers such as Google and Amazon. The benefits are simplified management and costs to the best standards. One inexpensive bill includes an organization's email, calendaring, group discussions, document editing, web site hosting and backup - each of which can be complicated to manage on its own. The drawbacks are massive consolidation of data, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberlaw&oldid=303904691#Jurisdiction_and_sovereignty data sovereignty] issues, and an implied requirement for local internet service providers to drastically upgrade their standards to compete with the best in the world.

The next trend ("Web 3.0") is anticipated to focus on the Semantic Web. This means richer exchange of information, leading to more re-use and better searching.

We focus on wiki because it promotes one of the original ideas of the Web, easy participation, and newer developments promote easier exchange of information – for example, using another organization's data in your Web site using systems such as Semantic Mediawiki.

=Technology use in the non profit sector=

In considering technology use in the non-profit sector, "three major "themes" seemed to emerge: the perceived lack of technology in the nonprofit sector, the push to "catch up", and the unique strength of the nonprofit sector in the information age." (http://www.merrillassociates.net/topic/2001/04/technology-and-non-profits)

[[todo:reinforce these themes]]

Often, social organizations who rely on funding will have to tailor their proposals so they appear to follow external mandates. This disconnect can lead to a distortion in implementation, where no real goals are reached, or can simply lead to wasteful, pointless resources, such as unused computers or websites developed without any real motivation as organizations simply need the overhead funds available in implementation or can't reasonably focus on the benefits.

Ambivalence to adopt new technology can be around concerns of "dehumanization" of an organization, key to the unique strength (the personal trust and connection) of social organizations. It can also be observed that the creative and social uses of technology are portrayed as secondary to the technical (mathematical) and commercial applications, all focused on treating individuals as numbers. Yet social organizations that embrace implementation of technology can help define it as fundamentally useful to their causes, by aligning with trends such as fair use, access and accessibility, and focusing on developing richer profiles of people, peer connections, and organizational interfaces.

Many public and social organizations have a special mandate to consider universal design. Some countries and jurisdictions have policies or even laws mandating accessible design (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/). Yet they are often just as likely as other organizations to say "disabled persons don't use our site" (no wonder why!), or leaving consideration till the end of a project, when resources have run dry.

Finally, technology can help make social services easier to use and understand. From finding the appropriate service in the first place, to accessing its services, means are being developed and improved by government, organizations, and individuals. Where does your organization want to be on the developing social graph?

{{#ask: [[Category:Entity]]
| ?is supported by
| ?is a
| ?serves
| format=graph
| graphcolor=Yes
| graphlink=Yes
| graphname=SocialOrgs
| graphlegend=No
| graphlabel=Yes
| rankdir=TB
| graphsize=10,10

}}

=Connecting and getting advice=

In a document entitled Successful Uses of Technology in Grassroots Organization, the Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management (University of San Francisco) proposes a series of recommendations of how to introduce technological change within a small nonprofits organizations;
* Budget time and money for technology
* When possible and appropriate, involve end-users (clients and staff) in technology planning and decision making
* Recruit technological expertise to staff or board
* Build networks using board, staff and other friends
* Better utilize online resources for technology expertise
http://www.usfca.edu/inom/research/INOM-Tech%20Use%20in%20Small%20NPs.pdf

Many online resources exist in support of non profits, technology and combining the two.

Examples include:

* http://www.nonprofittech.com
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/

... and numerous topic specific groups on sites like Facebook.

speaking informally, discovering motivations - inspired

=Measuring success, learning from failure=

From [[User:Janet]]'s notes:

There can be alternate ways to measure success from a qualitative perspective. Here are my

suggestions from an appreciative perspective. Please be aware that I am using this term

appreciative freely. The suggested measurements of qualitative evaluation and success in this

paper are based on my personal explorations and therefore do not, in any way or form, reflect the

principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Here is a brief description of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Appreciative Inquiry (AI) assumes that

every living system has untapped and accounts of the positive1. Appreciative Inquiry is a methodical

discovery that a living system is at its optimum in social, political, economic, ecological, and

human terms when it is most vibrant, effective and constructive2. AI seeks to build a

transformational union between a people and it's capacities that are achievements, assets, unexplored

potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, and strategic

competencies through lived values, traditions, stories, visions, expressions of wisdom spiritual

insights, and future possibilities 3. Appreciative Inquiry questions and dialogues to imagine and

innovate about successes, hopes, and dreams instead of negating and criticizing downward into a

diagnostic spiral of despairing hopelessness4.

In working with small children who are climbing into a dangerous area, instead of saying ''don't climb there!''

Re-direct the children with a positive gesture ''Look!! Play here!''

AI's vision based approach and 4-D Model consists of stages of Discovery, Dream, Design and Doing and

4-I Model of Inquire, Imagine, Innovate and Implement 5. The SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities,

Anticipations, and Results) framework for inquiry and decision-making is a compatible AI framework to

strategic planning 6. SOAR is integral to developing strong relationships to implement sustainable

development practices7. AI's triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental stewardship,

and social equity or "profit, planet, people." provides a solid framework for measuring and

evaluating progress toward a sustainable socio-environmental-economic model with another social

construction and metaphor8.

Building evaluation capacity entails developing a system for creating and sustaining evaluation

practices9. Evaluation scholars have recommended that evaluation be more democratic, pluralistic,

deliberative, empowering, and enlightening10. Current evaluation practices are diverse, inclusive of

multiple perspectives, and supportive of the use of multiple methods, measures, and criteria11.

Evaluation Appreciative Inquiry is a highly participatory form of inquiry to address issues12.

Appreciative Inquiry and collaborative, participatory, stakeholder, and learning-oriented approaches

to evaluation emphasize *social constructivism, that is, that making sense and meaning is achieved

through the interaction13.

Suggested appreciative success indicators of a vision, design, action, or project can be measured

with point systems by examples such as how:

1. challenging

2. achievable, adoptable

3. realistic, solid

4. integrated, institutionalized

5. shared

6. interactive, active and dynamic

7. empowerment as choices, participation in decisions, dignity, respect, cooperation and a sense of
belonging to a wider community

8. equity as equal opportunity and access to natural, social and economic resources

9. sustainable in meeting needs without compromising future generations

10. internalized

11. thoroughness

12. thoughtfulness

13. respectful of oneself, others, the organization, environment

14. evolving, innovative

15. reflective of current priorities 14

Suggested appreciative accountability and success can consist of:

1. reports for recognizing and publicly praising accomplishments;

2. charts recording relative progress over time

3. anecdotal stories for publicizing successes

4. attending to those that make a difference 15

Suggested appreciative accountability reinforces responsibility of individuals:

1. to define one's working relationship with an organization as a contribution

2. to acknowledge the impact that the quality of one's work on others

3. to accept the outcome of one's actions 16

A success story, for example, is Myrada in the year 2000 of an NGO in India for managing rural

development organized a network of 11 NGOs, 804 people, 70 different organizations, 500 community-

based organizations representing about 10,000 people participating in appreciative inquiry

workshops.17 The workshops included self-help affinity groups; self help group federations, teachers

associations, watershed development associations, watershed implementation committees, village forest

committees, village health committees, children's clubs, local farmers associations, community

health groups, and others18. The number and types of committees demonstrates the engaging,

implicating and participatory approaches of AI.

Footnotes
1 Appreciative Inquiry
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm

2 ibid

3 ibid

4 ibid

5 ibid

6 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/

7 Anne T. Coghlan, Hallie Preskill, Tessie Tzavaras Catsambas, An Overview of Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaulations, no. 100, Winter 2003, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Weblogs, e-learning at University of British Comlumbia, UBC.
http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/mathison/Appreciative%20Inquiry

8 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/

9 ibid

10 ibid

11 ibid

12 ibid

13 Social constructivism
A social construction or social construct is any phenomenon "invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular culture or society existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follow certain conventional rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction
Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/

14 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 Kamasamudram, India
http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm

15 GTM Evaluation & Planning, Inc.
http://gtmeval.blogspot.com/2008/07/appreciative-accountability.html

16 An Accountability Culture 2006, Washing State University
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Revised_Accountability_Statement

17 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 India http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm

18 ibid

=Participating in WikiCED=
real time additions

View this document in an accessibility checker: http://wave.webaim.org/report?url=http://ced.zooid.org/wiki/WikiCED_manual&md=nils (currently with some errors to be corrected due to the graph)

[[Category:WikiCED notes]]

WikiCED manual

2009-07-25T16:11:41Z

Janet Lumb: /* Measuring success, learning from failure */

<center>
'''Change from within:'''

'''Creating innovation in an organization as an individual.'''
</center>

= Introduction =

This manual is designed to help individuals, working in an organization, find ways to effectively introduce beneficial change, without full “top-down” support (management, funders, other power sources). In other words, you may be working in an organization and learn about a better way to do things. Everything from suggesting a composting programme, telecommuting, to using a new Web-based communication system. Everyone else is too busy doing things the same way they always have, management has their own long term plans, but you think it's worthwhile to push for your change. This manual can help you.

This manual is particularly designed for those involved in Community Economic Development (CED). We're going to use change based on low cost technology as our lens, because thanks to the spread of the Internet and low cost computers, many opportunities exist. But aspects of this manual should be applicable to many circumstances.

Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions.

One of the technologies we'll be focusing on is wiki. Wiki is a Hawaiian word for fast, and the first wiki software was developed to support computer programmers sharing information on the early Web. Wikis allow easy publishing on the Web, including editing pages (after learning a few conventions), and can help solve a lot of different problems as a group, and when including the public. Currently the most famous wiki is Wikipedia, but many other wikis exist.

We're going to use some characters to talk about implementing change. They are as follows:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?description
|?image
}}

= Considerations of introducing technology change =

Many people dream about being a change hero, making one suggestion – [[todo::example]] and suddenly we have a successful transformation that everyone recognizes. The reality is usually far more complicated.

People have very good reasons to be hesitant about change. It's always a good idea to wait and see what other organizations, similar to yours, are doing. If you're going to try to leap ahead, make sure you have steady partners and are not compromising your organization; changing the organization's focus or making participation more difficult for some.

Computer systems can yield tremendous efficiencies, but they can force people to work in ways they have difficulty adapting to. There's always a question of individuals adapting to tech versus the tech adapting to the person. Good technology will consider the user experience and impact as important as the potential gain. This can be recognized by learning about successful uses of the technology, and the kind of background and processes that went into its development. Many companies and projects (potential components of your innovation) are very technically driven. Whatever clever “invention” a technical person managed to come up with becomes the focus. This may be a good model for ultra competitive commercial enterprise, but it's not so good for social organizations. Signs of a good service providers are multidisciplinary teams that include, where practical, designers, content experts, and end user representation, as well as those focusing only on the technology (hopefully with some interest in the context).

Ultimately, however, individuals and the organization will have to adapt to the way the technology works. No technology is completely flexible, so past procurement and training, some processes will need to be changed, information constrained to a system, and systems interfaced. As an individual, you'll have to consider how your innovation can be integrated (or not - [[wp:Loose coupling | loosely coupled]] system are often considered the most robust).

For example, consider the idea of organizing information. Today, it takes weeks for an information request to be processed by the city, and what you'll get is a photocopy of a document that can't be easily re-used. Many organizations have incredible struggles classifying and describing information (developing ontologies). If an organization has thousands of documents, relevant content can be more easily found in a well designed system, and individuals can serve themselves. International organizations using shared ontologies can match documents and develop sophisticated linked systems that allow consistent communications and access to information. Yet defining and restraining content to ontologies perfectly is a problem that has existed for thousands of years, due to differences in individual and cultural perceptions. It's best not to get caught up in these kinds of "wild goose chases" unless it's a core requirement, and the expertise or cues are available.

Proposing your organization prioritize developing ontologies is a task that would likely be difficult. However, suggesting your organization import key documents into a wiki, and allow "crowd sourcing" (participatory) classifying of documents, as people access and find them, can be very effective.

Sometimes, change can mean completely changing the way things are, for example replacing factory workers with machines, but it's often better to think of '''augmentation''' of people's roles, particularly when it comes to today's imperfect computer systems. In a clinic, a new system can cause patient harm if a system loses a record, but having a receptionist who recognizes patients and expects events can lead to a richer system that is safe, and personal and has added utility.

==Side effect benefits==

As new systems are implemented, organizations should be aware of the unexpected positive benefits. We're going to examine this with the [http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm cut curb effect].

When looking at technical implementations today, there is an "artificial line that views such technologies as assistive rather than normal options, products are designed for or against certain users." (http://asyourworldchanges.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/using-the-curb-cuts-principle-to-reboot-computing/)

As many are aware, navigating the world as a person with disabilities often results in frustration or complete denial to everyday services. Resolving these problems yields unexpected benefits. When a curb is cut for wheelchairs, navigation is also made easier for those with baby strollers, bicycles (where permitted) and inattentive walkers. The same is true of ramps and elevators - making a change for disabled persons improves the situation for everyone. This leads to a shift in thinking towards [[wp:universal design]] - the idea that instead of treating accessible design as an afterthought, it is instead a way to lead overall design. This provides benefits including greater access to employment, education, culture, citizenship, and information in general.

Using technology, this is enabled by the fact that most information is stored in one way or another in text format. Email is text, most organization content has a text basis. The low level format of Web pages is HTML, which accommodates accessible features. Suddenly, individuals with mobility, cognitive or vision disabilities (estimated to be [http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml 650 million people around the world], or [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071203/dq071203a-eng.htm one in seven Canadians] - not including the elderly) are on a more equal footing with everyone else - they're tremendously enabled.

Consider a well implemented Web page. Behind the scenes, presentation is separated from content. Headings are used to indicate sections. Multimedia content has a text summary. A person with vision disabilities, whether it's very common colour blindness, contrast problems, or acute focus problems, can use a variety of techniques to access this information. They can change the font size in their browser, they can replace colours. They can use a screen reader, which reads the document using text to speech, treats headings as a table of contents, and allows the individual to easily scan the page rather than forcing them to "read" it top to bottom.

This carries over to everyone - someone with a large screen or small screen (like the increasingly popular mobile browsers) can reasonably access well designed content. The work that goes into producing this page usually leads to easier information re-use and presentation flexibility.

This is not true for poorly designed content. Individuals have few ways to alter presentation. Users of screen readers have to wait through long passages of repetitive "content" that describes useless elements - the presentation, rather than the content. Mobile browsers and older computers may not be able to access the content at all.

There are no mysteries involved in why this happens. People like "Flashier" content, and companies will often hire designers specifically to create "sexy" first impressions, meanwhile using outdated or unrounded approaches to low level design. It's important to look past first impressions to make sure your content works well for everyone, and is future friendly. [http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php WCAG] is an international standard for accessible web page design.

Other potential side effect benefits include better organization of information, access to technology development funds, and transferred best practices.

==Side effect risks==

The most important risk to consider when implementing technology is privacy. Collecting masses of personal information in one place presents an incredible risk if not managed carefully. Policies and training for any individuals with access to this data must ensure it is kept off networks as much as possible, and always encrypted when not possible.

The second risk is around "intellectual property." It is an unfortunate fact that many organizations, including public and social organizations, create "proprietary databases" featured in grant applications and for other purposes. This results in silos that can be developed using public funds for social benefit, yet territorially protected from re-use. The benefits of protecting this "property" vs the benefits of sharing or building on information with other organizations must be managed legally, and using technical means, particularly considering cases where information may be published without clear terms of use.

The times are changing. Governments have a mandate to provide more low level access to information, and semantic content, shared methodologies and metrics, and more sophisticated programs enable very high level information of re-use across organizations.

As an example, in 2004 for a project, detailed information on Member of Parliament voting records was required. After research, it turned out the easiest way to retrieve this information was to "scrape" it from the Parliament web site. In 2009, faced with a similar requirement, we prepared to "scrape" it again, but a last second email to the Parliament Web team yielded all the information we needed in an easily reusable format. A week later, Parliament formally announced public availability of this data. (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/17/canadian-members-of.html) This follows trends in the US and UK that yield very real benefits in transparency and accountability.

Developments to consider in this area include [http://www.creativecommons.ca Creative Commons], a system where organizations may choose from a set of legally designed terms of use that include reuse-by-attribution, reuse-for-noncommercial-only, and other combinations. This document is released under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/ creative commons attribution, non commercial, share-alike license], meaning it can be re-used and redeveloped for any non-commercial purpose, as long as changes are shared.

Another risk is content lock in. Over time, governments, large business and organizations have pushed for the need for standard formats for data. This prevents over-reliance on a vendor and permits information re-use. If your information is hosted, make sure you have local copies of readable data.

==Guidelines for content==

In general, the following guidelines can be followed:

{|
! Context
! Application
! Result
! Issues
|-
|Personal, workgroup - information is not published online, is kept personally or exchanged via email.
|Word processor
|Individuals and groups are used to using tools such as MS Word, and they provide easy faciltiies to create formatted data
|If the content is going to be re-used in other contexts, it may be more difficult to translate the content with full support for formatting and meaning
|-
|Intranet - information is intended for a restricted group, often using passwords.
|Portal, wiki, Google Documents and other web-based systems
|With a little extra effort and occasional loss in particular features, individuals can more easily share information and edit it real time as a group
|Information has to be carefully protected if it's not intended for the general public
|-
|Public - anyone can access the content, and sometimes contribute to its development
|Web site, CMS, wiki supporting accessible HTML content. PDF for downloadable content not meant to be editable
|Information is easily shared with the public, fully including individuals with disabilities, and supporting a broad array of access methods, including mobile devices
|Until standards catch up (particularly the forthcoming HTML 5), techniques such as Flash are used for highly interactive tools
|-
|}

Many organizations rely on tools such as Microsoft Word. It's worth keeping in mind that this is expensive software with particular computer requirements. Although compatible free alternatives such as [http://www.openoffice.org Open Office] exist, complete compatibility can't be assured as new versions emerge. For the Web, HTML or PDF are the standard options for read-only document publishing.

Tools for evaluating Web site quality are http://wave.webaim.org and http://validator.w3.org/.

=How to introduce change=

[[todo::Katherine, I would like to move this from presentation to here]]
Often, creating value requires significant change. John Kotter concluded in his book "A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management" (1990) that there are eight reasons why many change processes fail and to prevent making these mistakes, Kotter created the following eight change phases model:

*Establish a sense of urgency
*Create a coalition
*Develop a clear vision
*Share the vision
*Empower people to clear obstacles
*Secure short-term wins
*Consolidate and keep moving
*Anchor the change

Individuals who want to introduce or lead change in organizations are key agents who should have the ability to connect people to their specific requirements, and must be committed to working with people during each developmental phase.

==Explaining and developing the project==

Except in the simplest cases, one of the most difficult parts of developing a project is explaining it so everyone understands it. Many people (often most) will either assume someone else is taking care of details, or will imagine what the system will be like rather than trying to follow along. Confusion and disappointment inevitably follow.

It's difficult to tune the balance balance between too much documentation and too little for each individual. The best approach is to use examples and capture key expectations of all stakeholders, and make sure everyone involved has a chance to participate.

Processes can start open ended, for example using [[wp:appreciative inquiry]] or [[wp:open spaces]] to discover what stakeholders consider the most valuable features, and should become more specific but still inclusive, using techniques such as [[wp:participatory design]].

Stakeholders include the following:

* Management, funders, connectors: They may have a high level vision and power, but if they don't try to follow the project and provide constant feedback, the result won't be as expected, or will result in wrenching course changes.

* Project team: This may include a project manager, key individuals who will be using the developed system, and implementers including system administrators, graphic and page designers, programmers, and others. Multidisciplinary teams that can work efficiently and with respect, and check in often with full communication of what they're working on, are key.

* User representation: These should provide a fair representation of the intended users of the system, whether organization members or the served constituents. Activities can range from participation in [[wp:focus groups]], formal or informal [[wp:usability sessions]], or polling advocacy groups.

Using systems like wiki can enable direct involvement in specification development for all the above.

==Including the hesitant==

Inevitably there will be some on the team who can following along. Whatever the reason, it's important to include these individuals by soliciting their comments and accommodating them wherever possible. However, some degree of “translation” will often be required. If the hesitant are served constituents, full services must be maintained with the technology based implementation as an alternative, depending on the constituency. Summaries should always be maintained between "online" and "offline" activities.

Service bureaus may help here, including low cost translation and transcription services, and services to provide telephone access to computerized services.

Let's take a look at the characteristics of our players, and how we might include them:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}

==Change processes and development==

In the past, a development process referred to as "waterfall" was often used in software development. A long specification process was supposed to lead to a shorter, more informed development process. However, with specialists doing specification no one could understand, many projects went overtime and budget (or failed outright).

Development process today has shifted more towards a process referred to as [[wp:Agile software development]]. Initially, basic examples and prototypes are used to describe the project, and multiple cycles of development, called "iterations," that ideally involved all involved persons, are used to make sure everyone sees the product, and has a chance to comment on it, before another revision cycle. This also allows constant revision of a product.

CED literature describes similar processes based on Knowing, Doing and Reviewing (Torjman, 2007).

Therefore, a preferred development cycle for a project may appear as follows:

# describe key goal (including baselines and measurements), critical budget and timing issues
# define and refine goal(s)
# research solutions and select working set
# refine goals based on working set
# implement solutions (with as many iterations as permitted)
# measure effectiveness through soft or full launch
# summarize effects
# iterate

It's important to contain each process. Keep timelines short and easy to measure. Avoid custom solutions unless they are absolutely necessary (for example, where accessible software does not exist) - specification uncertainty and usability testing results in more cost and risk.

Modern software practices also provide access to all team members to project tracking, and today Wiki based systems can be used to measure goals, tasks, timelines, responsible persons and even costs.

=Technology as a solution=

Today's typical computer use is often as an advanced typewriter. Documents are edited, saved and printed with little use of program features. Nobody thinks twice about printing out a form from a computer system, filling it out by hand, mailing it somewhere, and having it entered by hand into a computer system. Features such as inline document comments are being used, but few organizations use document sharing portals or online document editing systems such as wikis.

Today there is an emphasis on providing basic reading and math, and some training on how to use a computer, but little consideration for "numeracy" (http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/11/18/visual-numeracy-for-collective-survival/). This is not about advanced math or technical skills. This is learning to use the computer as a helpful tool, and as part of a network. In fact this training is being bestowed on individuals anyway. Spam teaches individuals to not trust all information, Facebook and other sites teaches individuals how to effectively use social media - for advocacy from topics ranging from breastfeeding, unions, regional and international concerns, groups, events and other interactions - without any strong technical basis.

The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55. (http://www.scottmonty.com/2009/07/facebook-age-demographics.html - July 2009 data). While the largest component of Internet users today (and the major focus) can be considered "advantaged," a considerable and increasing number of individuals have disabilities, are newcomers to the countries using the Internet as an inexpensive way to stay in touch, are elderly, or are organizing social causes or events, among other relevant demographics.

The digital divide is still a tremendous issue. However, proportionately, computer use among populations, whether directly through access to the Internet, using a mobile phone, or through community hubs, is comparable to other important segments of many communities.

==Consider where it is coming from==

We think of the technology we use today as new, but it has been evolving for a long time. [[wp:Hypertext]], for example – a way to create links between documents – was visualized in a microfiche based system in the 1940s (the [[wp:Memex]]). There are large cycles of introduction, reaction, revision. The entire Internet as a mass novelty, in the 1990s, resulted in the [[wp:Dot-com bubble Dot-com bubble]] shortly thereafter, as overexcited expectations were deflated.

The Internet does have to be considered one of the greatest, and most unexpected innovations of our lifetimes. No company would have created a network where anyone can publish and access information with equal ease and virtually no cost, for nearly anyone, around the world (nor could they, due to the cooperation involved). Existing companies, with their controlled, limited and metered systems, were left scrambling to react to this disruptive development.

The internet is the product of generations of scientists, visionaries, and implementers, now available for anyone to use, at the price of stepping into a limelight, encrypted or not, and taking on complexity. Using technology effectively has not been simplified. Tremendous effort can be spent putting up a web site, developing content or custom applications, training people, connecting with companies and dealing with problems, all to see minimal net benefits. This is another reason it is important to highlight the background reasons for technology to be developed and used.

It's important to have a long term plan that matches the organization's mandate and constituents, day to day changes consistent with your constituents, all the while keeping an eye out for 'disruptive' opportunities.

For example, Twitter, a current craze, is presented in the media as a way to follow celebrities, or sent brief messages about our most mundane activities. But using Twitter as a "social search" - finding individuals currently available and interested in topics important to you (including activism, fundraising, regional and sectoral issues) opens up a whole new dimension. Some organizations use Twitter (and other "social media" like the more popular Facebook) as a tool for advocacy and fundraising. [[todo:Examples]] http://www.google.ca/search?q=using+twitter+as+a+fundraising+tool

Marshall McLuhan states “We shape our tools, and afterwards our tools shape us.” New systems must be considered for their most simple and practical benefits, as well as their impact. Expectations must be managed to not expect too much out of the hype, yet still "expect the unexpected."

==This section needs a new heading==

There are a number of main applications of technology in social organizations. They range from the most practical document creating, simple, communications using email, narrow and broadcast communication and participatory means such as forums, polls and wikis.

The internet went through several phases of “killer applications,” as the world population happened across its capabilities. Majorly are the ease and (no) cost sending of email and the richness of the World Wide Web, which was originally envisioned as an intimately linked, eminently re-usable “read-write” research web, where one web site's information can be linked with another, and information shared easily. Unfortunately, commercial and individual enthusiasm (and the unreadiness of the background technology) has resulted in many messes – email can be unusable due to “spam,” and most web sites today could be easier to use as a paper brochure, and they certainly don't encourage information re-use. Tragically, universal, re-usable design has been thrown out the window in many cases in favour of glitzy presentations.

For the past few years, there has been a focus on what's called "Web 2.0" - making Web based systems more interactive, participatory. There is also a trend to move away from desktop and office solutions to hosted systems - email, word processing, and so on, are hosted on a "cloud" provided by very large providers such as Google and Amazon. The benefits are simplified management and costs to the best standards. One inexpensive bill includes an organization's email, calendaring, group discussions, document editing, web site hosting and backup - each of which can be complicated to manage on its own. The drawbacks are massive consolidation of data, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberlaw&oldid=303904691#Jurisdiction_and_sovereignty data sovereignty] issues, and an implied requirement for local internet service providers to drastically upgrade their standards to compete with the best in the world.

The next trend ("Web 3.0") is anticipated to focus on the Semantic Web. This means richer exchange of information, leading to more re-use and better searching.

We focus on wiki because it promotes one of the original ideas of the Web, easy participation, and newer developments promote easier exchange of information – for example, using another organization's data in your Web site using systems such as Semantic Mediawiki.

=Technology use in the non profit sector=

In considering technology use in the non-profit sector, "three major "themes" seemed to emerge: the perceived lack of technology in the nonprofit sector, the push to "catch up", and the unique strength of the nonprofit sector in the information age." (http://www.merrillassociates.net/topic/2001/04/technology-and-non-profits)

[[todo:reinforce these themes]]

Often, social organizations who rely on funding will have to tailor their proposals so they appear to follow external mandates. This disconnect can lead to a distortion in implementation, where no real goals are reached, or can simply lead to wasteful, pointless resources, such as unused computers or websites developed without any real motivation as organizations simply need the overhead funds available in implementation or can't reasonably focus on the benefits.

Ambivalence to adopt new technology can be around concerns of "dehumanization" of an organization, key to the unique strength (the personal trust and connection) of social organizations. It can also be observed that the creative and social uses of technology are portrayed as secondary to the technical (mathematical) and commercial applications, all focused on treating individuals as numbers. Yet social organizations that embrace implementation of technology can help define it as fundamentally useful to their causes, by aligning with trends such as fair use, access and accessibility, and focusing on developing richer profiles of people, peer connections, and organizational interfaces.

Many public and social organizations have a special mandate to consider universal design. Some countries and jurisdictions have policies or even laws mandating accessible design (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/). Yet they are often just as likely as other organizations to say "disabled persons don't use our site" (no wonder why!), or leaving consideration till the end of a project, when resources have run dry.

Finally, technology can help make social services easier to use and understand. From finding the appropriate service in the first place, to accessing its services, means are being developed and improved by government, organizations, and individuals. Where does your organization want to be on the developing social graph?

{{#ask: [[Category:Entity]]
| ?is supported by
| ?is a
| ?serves
| format=graph
| graphcolor=Yes
| graphlink=Yes
| graphname=SocialOrgs
| graphlegend=No
| graphlabel=Yes
| rankdir=TB
| graphsize=10,10

}}

=Connecting and getting advice=

In a document entitled Successful Uses of Technology in Grassroots Organization, the Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management (University of San Francisco) proposes a series of recommendations of how to introduce technological change within a small nonprofits organizations;
* Budget time and money for technology
* When possible and appropriate, involve end-users (clients and staff) in technology planning and decision making
* Recruit technological expertise to staff or board
* Build networks using board, staff and other friends
* Better utilize online resources for technology expertise
http://www.usfca.edu/inom/research/INOM-Tech%20Use%20in%20Small%20NPs.pdf

Many online resources exist in support of non profits, technology and combining the two.

Examples include:

* http://www.nonprofittech.com
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/

... and numerous topic specific groups on sites like Facebook.

speaking informally, discovering motivations - inspired

=Measuring success, learning from failure=

From [[User:Janet]]'s notes:

There can be alternate ways to measure success from a qualitative perspective. Here are my

suggestions from an appreciative perspective. Please be aware that I am using this term

appreciative freely. The suggested measurements of qualitative evaluation and success in this

paper are based on my personal explorations and therefore do not, in any way or form, reflect the

principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Here is a brief description of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). Appreciative Inquiry (AI) assumes that

every living system has untapped and accounts of the positive1. Appreciative Inquiry is a methodical

discovery that a living system is at its optimum in social, political, economic, ecological, and

human terms when it is most vibrant, effective and constructive2. AI seeks to build a

transformational union between a people and it's capacities that are achievements, assets, unexplored

potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, and strategic

competencies through lived values, traditions, stories, visions, expressions of wisdom spiritual

insights, and future possibilities 3. Appreciative Inquiry questions and dialogues to imagine and

innovate about successes, hopes, and dreams instead of negating and criticizing downward into a

diagnostic spiral of despairing hopelessness4.

In working with small children who are climbing into a dangerous area, instead of saying ''don't climb there!''

Re-direct the children with a positive gesture ''Look!! Play here!''

AI's vision based approach and 4-D Model consists of stages of Discovery, Dream, Design and Doing and

4-I Model of Inquire, Imagine, Innovate and Implement 5. The SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities,

Anticipations, and Results) framework for inquiry and decision-making is a compatible AI framework to

strategic planning 6. SOAR is integral to developing strong relationships to implement sustainable

development practices7. AI's triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental stewardship,

and social equity or "profit, planet, people." provides a solid framework for measuring and

evaluating progress toward a sustainable socio-environmental-economic model with another social

construction and metaphor8.

Building evaluation capacity entails developing a system for creating and sustaining evaluation

practices9. Evaluation scholars have recommended that evaluation be more democratic, pluralistic,

deliberative, empowering, and enlightening10. Current evaluation practices are diverse, inclusive of

multiple perspectives, and supportive of the use of multiple methods, measures, and criteria11.

Evaluation Appreciative Inquiry is a highly participatory form of inquiry to address issues12.

Appreciative Inquiry and collaborative, participatory, stakeholder, and learning-oriented approaches

to evaluation emphasize *social constructivism, that is, that making sense and meaning is achieved

through the interaction13.

Suggested appreciative success indicators of a vision, design, action, or project can be measured

with point systems by examples such as how:

1. challenging
2. achievable, adoptable
3. realistic, solid
4. integrated, institutionalized
5. shared
6. interactive, active and dynamic
7. empowerment as choices, participation in decisions, dignity, respect, cooperation and a sense of
belonging to a wider community
8. equity as equal opportunity and access to natural, social and economic resources
9. sustainable in meeting needs without compromising future generations
10. internalized
11. thoroughness
12. thoughtfulness
13. respectful of oneself, others, the organization, environment
14. evolving, innovative
15. reflective of current priorities 14

Suggested appreciative accountability and success can consist of:

1. reports for recognizing and publicly praising accomplishments;
2. charts recording relative progress over time
3. anecdotal stories for publicizing successes
4. attending to those that make a difference 15

Suggested appreciative accountability reinforces responsibility of individuals:

1. to define one's working relationship with an organization as a contribution
2. to acknowledge the impact that the quality of one's work on others
3. to accept the outcome of one's actions 16

A success story, for example, is Myrada in the year 2000 of an NGO in India for managing rural

development organized a network of 11 NGOs, 804 people, 70 different organizations, 500 community-

based organizations representing about 10,000 people participating in appreciative inquiry

workshops.17 The workshops included self-help affinity groups; self help group federations, teachers

associations, watershed development associations, watershed implementation committees, village forest

committees, village health committees, children's clubs, local farmers associations, community

health groups, and others18. The number and types of committees demonstrates the engaging,

implicating and participatory approaches of AI.

Footnotes
1 Appreciative Inquiry
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm
2 ibid
3 ibid
4 ibid
5 ibid
6 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
7 Anne T. Coghlan, Hallie Preskill, Tessie Tzavaras Catsambas, An Overview of Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaulations, no. 100, Winter 2003, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Weblogs, e-learning at University of British Comlumbia, UBC.
http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/mathison/Appreciative%20Inquiry
8 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
9 ibid
10 ibid
11 ibid
12 ibid
13 Social constructivism
A social construction or social construct is any phenomenon "invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular culture or society existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follow certain conventional rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction
Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
14 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 Kamasamudram, India
http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
15 GTM Evaluation & Planning, Inc.
http://gtmeval.blogspot.com/2008/07/appreciative-accountability.html
16 An Accountability Culture 2006, Washing State University
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Revised_Accountability_Statement
17 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 India http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
18 ibid

=Participating in WikiCED=
real time additions

View this document in an accessibility checker: http://wave.webaim.org/report?url=http://ced.zooid.org/wiki/WikiCED_manual&md=nils (currently with some errors to be corrected due to the graph)

[[Category:WikiCED notes]]

WikiCED manual

2009-07-25T16:10:25Z

Janet Lumb: /* Measuring success, learning from failure */

<center>
'''Change from within:'''

'''Creating innovation in an organization as an individual.'''
</center>

= Introduction =

This manual is designed to help individuals, working in an organization, find ways to effectively introduce beneficial change, without full “top-down” support (management, funders, other power sources). In other words, you may be working in an organization and learn about a better way to do things. Everything from suggesting a composting programme, telecommuting, to using a new Web-based communication system. Everyone else is too busy doing things the same way they always have, management has their own long term plans, but you think it's worthwhile to push for your change. This manual can help you.

This manual is particularly designed for those involved in Community Economic Development (CED). We're going to use change based on low cost technology as our lens, because thanks to the spread of the Internet and low cost computers, many opportunities exist. But aspects of this manual should be applicable to many circumstances.

Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions.

One of the technologies we'll be focusing on is wiki. Wiki is a Hawaiian word for fast, and the first wiki software was developed to support computer programmers sharing information on the early Web. Wikis allow easy publishing on the Web, including editing pages (after learning a few conventions), and can help solve a lot of different problems as a group, and when including the public. Currently the most famous wiki is Wikipedia, but many other wikis exist.

We're going to use some characters to talk about implementing change. They are as follows:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?description
|?image
}}

= Considerations of introducing technology change =

Many people dream about being a change hero, making one suggestion – [[todo::example]] and suddenly we have a successful transformation that everyone recognizes. The reality is usually far more complicated.

People have very good reasons to be hesitant about change. It's always a good idea to wait and see what other organizations, similar to yours, are doing. If you're going to try to leap ahead, make sure you have steady partners and are not compromising your organization; changing the organization's focus or making participation more difficult for some.

Computer systems can yield tremendous efficiencies, but they can force people to work in ways they have difficulty adapting to. There's always a question of individuals adapting to tech versus the tech adapting to the person. Good technology will consider the user experience and impact as important as the potential gain. This can be recognized by learning about successful uses of the technology, and the kind of background and processes that went into its development. Many companies and projects (potential components of your innovation) are very technically driven. Whatever clever “invention” a technical person managed to come up with becomes the focus. This may be a good model for ultra competitive commercial enterprise, but it's not so good for social organizations. Signs of a good service providers are multidisciplinary teams that include, where practical, designers, content experts, and end user representation, as well as those focusing only on the technology (hopefully with some interest in the context).

Ultimately, however, individuals and the organization will have to adapt to the way the technology works. No technology is completely flexible, so past procurement and training, some processes will need to be changed, information constrained to a system, and systems interfaced. As an individual, you'll have to consider how your innovation can be integrated (or not - [[wp:Loose coupling | loosely coupled]] system are often considered the most robust).

For example, consider the idea of organizing information. Today, it takes weeks for an information request to be processed by the city, and what you'll get is a photocopy of a document that can't be easily re-used. Many organizations have incredible struggles classifying and describing information (developing ontologies). If an organization has thousands of documents, relevant content can be more easily found in a well designed system, and individuals can serve themselves. International organizations using shared ontologies can match documents and develop sophisticated linked systems that allow consistent communications and access to information. Yet defining and restraining content to ontologies perfectly is a problem that has existed for thousands of years, due to differences in individual and cultural perceptions. It's best not to get caught up in these kinds of "wild goose chases" unless it's a core requirement, and the expertise or cues are available.

Proposing your organization prioritize developing ontologies is a task that would likely be difficult. However, suggesting your organization import key documents into a wiki, and allow "crowd sourcing" (participatory) classifying of documents, as people access and find them, can be very effective.

Sometimes, change can mean completely changing the way things are, for example replacing factory workers with machines, but it's often better to think of '''augmentation''' of people's roles, particularly when it comes to today's imperfect computer systems. In a clinic, a new system can cause patient harm if a system loses a record, but having a receptionist who recognizes patients and expects events can lead to a richer system that is safe, and personal and has added utility.

==Side effect benefits==

As new systems are implemented, organizations should be aware of the unexpected positive benefits. We're going to examine this with the [http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm cut curb effect].

When looking at technical implementations today, there is an "artificial line that views such technologies as assistive rather than normal options, products are designed for or against certain users." (http://asyourworldchanges.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/using-the-curb-cuts-principle-to-reboot-computing/)

As many are aware, navigating the world as a person with disabilities often results in frustration or complete denial to everyday services. Resolving these problems yields unexpected benefits. When a curb is cut for wheelchairs, navigation is also made easier for those with baby strollers, bicycles (where permitted) and inattentive walkers. The same is true of ramps and elevators - making a change for disabled persons improves the situation for everyone. This leads to a shift in thinking towards [[wp:universal design]] - the idea that instead of treating accessible design as an afterthought, it is instead a way to lead overall design. This provides benefits including greater access to employment, education, culture, citizenship, and information in general.

Using technology, this is enabled by the fact that most information is stored in one way or another in text format. Email is text, most organization content has a text basis. The low level format of Web pages is HTML, which accommodates accessible features. Suddenly, individuals with mobility, cognitive or vision disabilities (estimated to be [http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml 650 million people around the world], or [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071203/dq071203a-eng.htm one in seven Canadians] - not including the elderly) are on a more equal footing with everyone else - they're tremendously enabled.

Consider a well implemented Web page. Behind the scenes, presentation is separated from content. Headings are used to indicate sections. Multimedia content has a text summary. A person with vision disabilities, whether it's very common colour blindness, contrast problems, or acute focus problems, can use a variety of techniques to access this information. They can change the font size in their browser, they can replace colours. They can use a screen reader, which reads the document using text to speech, treats headings as a table of contents, and allows the individual to easily scan the page rather than forcing them to "read" it top to bottom.

This carries over to everyone - someone with a large screen or small screen (like the increasingly popular mobile browsers) can reasonably access well designed content. The work that goes into producing this page usually leads to easier information re-use and presentation flexibility.

This is not true for poorly designed content. Individuals have few ways to alter presentation. Users of screen readers have to wait through long passages of repetitive "content" that describes useless elements - the presentation, rather than the content. Mobile browsers and older computers may not be able to access the content at all.

There are no mysteries involved in why this happens. People like "Flashier" content, and companies will often hire designers specifically to create "sexy" first impressions, meanwhile using outdated or unrounded approaches to low level design. It's important to look past first impressions to make sure your content works well for everyone, and is future friendly. [http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php WCAG] is an international standard for accessible web page design.

Other potential side effect benefits include better organization of information, access to technology development funds, and transferred best practices.

==Side effect risks==

The most important risk to consider when implementing technology is privacy. Collecting masses of personal information in one place presents an incredible risk if not managed carefully. Policies and training for any individuals with access to this data must ensure it is kept off networks as much as possible, and always encrypted when not possible.

The second risk is around "intellectual property." It is an unfortunate fact that many organizations, including public and social organizations, create "proprietary databases" featured in grant applications and for other purposes. This results in silos that can be developed using public funds for social benefit, yet territorially protected from re-use. The benefits of protecting this "property" vs the benefits of sharing or building on information with other organizations must be managed legally, and using technical means, particularly considering cases where information may be published without clear terms of use.

The times are changing. Governments have a mandate to provide more low level access to information, and semantic content, shared methodologies and metrics, and more sophisticated programs enable very high level information of re-use across organizations.

As an example, in 2004 for a project, detailed information on Member of Parliament voting records was required. After research, it turned out the easiest way to retrieve this information was to "scrape" it from the Parliament web site. In 2009, faced with a similar requirement, we prepared to "scrape" it again, but a last second email to the Parliament Web team yielded all the information we needed in an easily reusable format. A week later, Parliament formally announced public availability of this data. (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/17/canadian-members-of.html) This follows trends in the US and UK that yield very real benefits in transparency and accountability.

Developments to consider in this area include [http://www.creativecommons.ca Creative Commons], a system where organizations may choose from a set of legally designed terms of use that include reuse-by-attribution, reuse-for-noncommercial-only, and other combinations. This document is released under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/ creative commons attribution, non commercial, share-alike license], meaning it can be re-used and redeveloped for any non-commercial purpose, as long as changes are shared.

Another risk is content lock in. Over time, governments, large business and organizations have pushed for the need for standard formats for data. This prevents over-reliance on a vendor and permits information re-use. If your information is hosted, make sure you have local copies of readable data.

==Guidelines for content==

In general, the following guidelines can be followed:

{|
! Context
! Application
! Result
! Issues
|-
|Personal, workgroup - information is not published online, is kept personally or exchanged via email.
|Word processor
|Individuals and groups are used to using tools such as MS Word, and they provide easy faciltiies to create formatted data
|If the content is going to be re-used in other contexts, it may be more difficult to translate the content with full support for formatting and meaning
|-
|Intranet - information is intended for a restricted group, often using passwords.
|Portal, wiki, Google Documents and other web-based systems
|With a little extra effort and occasional loss in particular features, individuals can more easily share information and edit it real time as a group
|Information has to be carefully protected if it's not intended for the general public
|-
|Public - anyone can access the content, and sometimes contribute to its development
|Web site, CMS, wiki supporting accessible HTML content. PDF for downloadable content not meant to be editable
|Information is easily shared with the public, fully including individuals with disabilities, and supporting a broad array of access methods, including mobile devices
|Until standards catch up (particularly the forthcoming HTML 5), techniques such as Flash are used for highly interactive tools
|-
|}

Many organizations rely on tools such as Microsoft Word. It's worth keeping in mind that this is expensive software with particular computer requirements. Although compatible free alternatives such as [http://www.openoffice.org Open Office] exist, complete compatibility can't be assured as new versions emerge. For the Web, HTML or PDF are the standard options for read-only document publishing.

Tools for evaluating Web site quality are http://wave.webaim.org and http://validator.w3.org/.

=How to introduce change=

[[todo::Katherine, I would like to move this from presentation to here]]
Often, creating value requires significant change. John Kotter concluded in his book "A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management" (1990) that there are eight reasons why many change processes fail and to prevent making these mistakes, Kotter created the following eight change phases model:

*Establish a sense of urgency
*Create a coalition
*Develop a clear vision
*Share the vision
*Empower people to clear obstacles
*Secure short-term wins
*Consolidate and keep moving
*Anchor the change

Individuals who want to introduce or lead change in organizations are key agents who should have the ability to connect people to their specific requirements, and must be committed to working with people during each developmental phase.

==Explaining and developing the project==

Except in the simplest cases, one of the most difficult parts of developing a project is explaining it so everyone understands it. Many people (often most) will either assume someone else is taking care of details, or will imagine what the system will be like rather than trying to follow along. Confusion and disappointment inevitably follow.

It's difficult to tune the balance balance between too much documentation and too little for each individual. The best approach is to use examples and capture key expectations of all stakeholders, and make sure everyone involved has a chance to participate.

Processes can start open ended, for example using [[wp:appreciative inquiry]] or [[wp:open spaces]] to discover what stakeholders consider the most valuable features, and should become more specific but still inclusive, using techniques such as [[wp:participatory design]].

Stakeholders include the following:

* Management, funders, connectors: They may have a high level vision and power, but if they don't try to follow the project and provide constant feedback, the result won't be as expected, or will result in wrenching course changes.

* Project team: This may include a project manager, key individuals who will be using the developed system, and implementers including system administrators, graphic and page designers, programmers, and others. Multidisciplinary teams that can work efficiently and with respect, and check in often with full communication of what they're working on, are key.

* User representation: These should provide a fair representation of the intended users of the system, whether organization members or the served constituents. Activities can range from participation in [[wp:focus groups]], formal or informal [[wp:usability sessions]], or polling advocacy groups.

Using systems like wiki can enable direct involvement in specification development for all the above.

==Including the hesitant==

Inevitably there will be some on the team who can following along. Whatever the reason, it's important to include these individuals by soliciting their comments and accommodating them wherever possible. However, some degree of “translation” will often be required. If the hesitant are served constituents, full services must be maintained with the technology based implementation as an alternative, depending on the constituency. Summaries should always be maintained between "online" and "offline" activities.

Service bureaus may help here, including low cost translation and transcription services, and services to provide telephone access to computerized services.

Let's take a look at the characteristics of our players, and how we might include them:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}

==Change processes and development==

In the past, a development process referred to as "waterfall" was often used in software development. A long specification process was supposed to lead to a shorter, more informed development process. However, with specialists doing specification no one could understand, many projects went overtime and budget (or failed outright).

Development process today has shifted more towards a process referred to as [[wp:Agile software development]]. Initially, basic examples and prototypes are used to describe the project, and multiple cycles of development, called "iterations," that ideally involved all involved persons, are used to make sure everyone sees the product, and has a chance to comment on it, before another revision cycle. This also allows constant revision of a product.

CED literature describes similar processes based on Knowing, Doing and Reviewing (Torjman, 2007).

Therefore, a preferred development cycle for a project may appear as follows:

# describe key goal (including baselines and measurements), critical budget and timing issues
# define and refine goal(s)
# research solutions and select working set
# refine goals based on working set
# implement solutions (with as many iterations as permitted)
# measure effectiveness through soft or full launch
# summarize effects
# iterate

It's important to contain each process. Keep timelines short and easy to measure. Avoid custom solutions unless they are absolutely necessary (for example, where accessible software does not exist) - specification uncertainty and usability testing results in more cost and risk.

Modern software practices also provide access to all team members to project tracking, and today Wiki based systems can be used to measure goals, tasks, timelines, responsible persons and even costs.

=Technology as a solution=

Today's typical computer use is often as an advanced typewriter. Documents are edited, saved and printed with little use of program features. Nobody thinks twice about printing out a form from a computer system, filling it out by hand, mailing it somewhere, and having it entered by hand into a computer system. Features such as inline document comments are being used, but few organizations use document sharing portals or online document editing systems such as wikis.

Today there is an emphasis on providing basic reading and math, and some training on how to use a computer, but little consideration for "numeracy" (http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/11/18/visual-numeracy-for-collective-survival/). This is not about advanced math or technical skills. This is learning to use the computer as a helpful tool, and as part of a network. In fact this training is being bestowed on individuals anyway. Spam teaches individuals to not trust all information, Facebook and other sites teaches individuals how to effectively use social media - for advocacy from topics ranging from breastfeeding, unions, regional and international concerns, groups, events and other interactions - without any strong technical basis.

The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55. (http://www.scottmonty.com/2009/07/facebook-age-demographics.html - July 2009 data). While the largest component of Internet users today (and the major focus) can be considered "advantaged," a considerable and increasing number of individuals have disabilities, are newcomers to the countries using the Internet as an inexpensive way to stay in touch, are elderly, or are organizing social causes or events, among other relevant demographics.

The digital divide is still a tremendous issue. However, proportionately, computer use among populations, whether directly through access to the Internet, using a mobile phone, or through community hubs, is comparable to other important segments of many communities.

==Consider where it is coming from==

We think of the technology we use today as new, but it has been evolving for a long time. [[wp:Hypertext]], for example – a way to create links between documents – was visualized in a microfiche based system in the 1940s (the [[wp:Memex]]). There are large cycles of introduction, reaction, revision. The entire Internet as a mass novelty, in the 1990s, resulted in the [[wp:Dot-com bubble Dot-com bubble]] shortly thereafter, as overexcited expectations were deflated.

The Internet does have to be considered one of the greatest, and most unexpected innovations of our lifetimes. No company would have created a network where anyone can publish and access information with equal ease and virtually no cost, for nearly anyone, around the world (nor could they, due to the cooperation involved). Existing companies, with their controlled, limited and metered systems, were left scrambling to react to this disruptive development.

The internet is the product of generations of scientists, visionaries, and implementers, now available for anyone to use, at the price of stepping into a limelight, encrypted or not, and taking on complexity. Using technology effectively has not been simplified. Tremendous effort can be spent putting up a web site, developing content or custom applications, training people, connecting with companies and dealing with problems, all to see minimal net benefits. This is another reason it is important to highlight the background reasons for technology to be developed and used.

It's important to have a long term plan that matches the organization's mandate and constituents, day to day changes consistent with your constituents, all the while keeping an eye out for 'disruptive' opportunities.

For example, Twitter, a current craze, is presented in the media as a way to follow celebrities, or sent brief messages about our most mundane activities. But using Twitter as a "social search" - finding individuals currently available and interested in topics important to you (including activism, fundraising, regional and sectoral issues) opens up a whole new dimension. Some organizations use Twitter (and other "social media" like the more popular Facebook) as a tool for advocacy and fundraising. [[todo:Examples]] http://www.google.ca/search?q=using+twitter+as+a+fundraising+tool

Marshall McLuhan states “We shape our tools, and afterwards our tools shape us.” New systems must be considered for their most simple and practical benefits, as well as their impact. Expectations must be managed to not expect too much out of the hype, yet still "expect the unexpected."

==This section needs a new heading==

There are a number of main applications of technology in social organizations. They range from the most practical document creating, simple, communications using email, narrow and broadcast communication and participatory means such as forums, polls and wikis.

The internet went through several phases of “killer applications,” as the world population happened across its capabilities. Majorly are the ease and (no) cost sending of email and the richness of the World Wide Web, which was originally envisioned as an intimately linked, eminently re-usable “read-write” research web, where one web site's information can be linked with another, and information shared easily. Unfortunately, commercial and individual enthusiasm (and the unreadiness of the background technology) has resulted in many messes – email can be unusable due to “spam,” and most web sites today could be easier to use as a paper brochure, and they certainly don't encourage information re-use. Tragically, universal, re-usable design has been thrown out the window in many cases in favour of glitzy presentations.

For the past few years, there has been a focus on what's called "Web 2.0" - making Web based systems more interactive, participatory. There is also a trend to move away from desktop and office solutions to hosted systems - email, word processing, and so on, are hosted on a "cloud" provided by very large providers such as Google and Amazon. The benefits are simplified management and costs to the best standards. One inexpensive bill includes an organization's email, calendaring, group discussions, document editing, web site hosting and backup - each of which can be complicated to manage on its own. The drawbacks are massive consolidation of data, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberlaw&oldid=303904691#Jurisdiction_and_sovereignty data sovereignty] issues, and an implied requirement for local internet service providers to drastically upgrade their standards to compete with the best in the world.

The next trend ("Web 3.0") is anticipated to focus on the Semantic Web. This means richer exchange of information, leading to more re-use and better searching.

We focus on wiki because it promotes one of the original ideas of the Web, easy participation, and newer developments promote easier exchange of information – for example, using another organization's data in your Web site using systems such as Semantic Mediawiki.

=Technology use in the non profit sector=

In considering technology use in the non-profit sector, "three major "themes" seemed to emerge: the perceived lack of technology in the nonprofit sector, the push to "catch up", and the unique strength of the nonprofit sector in the information age." (http://www.merrillassociates.net/topic/2001/04/technology-and-non-profits)

[[todo:reinforce these themes]]

Often, social organizations who rely on funding will have to tailor their proposals so they appear to follow external mandates. This disconnect can lead to a distortion in implementation, where no real goals are reached, or can simply lead to wasteful, pointless resources, such as unused computers or websites developed without any real motivation as organizations simply need the overhead funds available in implementation or can't reasonably focus on the benefits.

Ambivalence to adopt new technology can be around concerns of "dehumanization" of an organization, key to the unique strength (the personal trust and connection) of social organizations. It can also be observed that the creative and social uses of technology are portrayed as secondary to the technical (mathematical) and commercial applications, all focused on treating individuals as numbers. Yet social organizations that embrace implementation of technology can help define it as fundamentally useful to their causes, by aligning with trends such as fair use, access and accessibility, and focusing on developing richer profiles of people, peer connections, and organizational interfaces.

Many public and social organizations have a special mandate to consider universal design. Some countries and jurisdictions have policies or even laws mandating accessible design (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/). Yet they are often just as likely as other organizations to say "disabled persons don't use our site" (no wonder why!), or leaving consideration till the end of a project, when resources have run dry.

Finally, technology can help make social services easier to use and understand. From finding the appropriate service in the first place, to accessing its services, means are being developed and improved by government, organizations, and individuals. Where does your organization want to be on the developing social graph?

{{#ask: [[Category:Entity]]
| ?is supported by
| ?is a
| ?serves
| format=graph
| graphcolor=Yes
| graphlink=Yes
| graphname=SocialOrgs
| graphlegend=No
| graphlabel=Yes
| rankdir=TB
| graphsize=10,10

}}

=Connecting and getting advice=

In a document entitled Successful Uses of Technology in Grassroots Organization, the Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management (University of San Francisco) proposes a series of recommendations of how to introduce technological change within a small nonprofits organizations;
* Budget time and money for technology
* When possible and appropriate, involve end-users (clients and staff) in technology planning and decision making
* Recruit technological expertise to staff or board
* Build networks using board, staff and other friends
* Better utilize online resources for technology expertise
http://www.usfca.edu/inom/research/INOM-Tech%20Use%20in%20Small%20NPs.pdf

Many online resources exist in support of non profits, technology and combining the two.

Examples include:

* http://www.nonprofittech.com
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/

... and numerous topic specific groups on sites like Facebook.

speaking informally, discovering motivations - inspired

=Measuring success, learning from failure=

From [[User:Janet]]'s notes:

There can be alternate ways to measure success from a qualitative perspective. Here are my

suggestions from an appreciative perspective. Please be aware that I am using this term

appreciative freely. The suggested measurements of qualitative evaluation and success in this

paper are based on my personal explorations and therefore do not, in any way or form, reflect the

principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Here is a brief description of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) Appreciative Inquiry (AI) assumes that

every living system has untapped and accounts of the positive1. Appreciative Inquiry is a methodical

discovery that a living system is at its optimum in social, political, economic, ecological, and

human terms when it is most vibrant, effective and constructive2. AI seeks to build a

transformational union between a people and it's capacities that are achievements, assets, unexplored

potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, and strategic

competencies through lived values, traditions, stories, visions, expressions of wisdom spiritual

insights, and future possibilities 3. Appreciative Inquiry questions and dialogues to imagine and

innovate about successes, hopes, and dreams instead of negating and criticizing downward into a

diagnostic spiral of despairing hopelessness4.

In working with small children who are climbing into a dangerous area, instead of saying ''don't climb there!''

Re-direct the children with a positive gesture ''Look!! Play here!''

AI's vision based approach and 4-D Model consists of stages of Discovery, Dream, Design and Doing and

4-I Model of Inquire, Imagine, Innovate and Implement 5. The SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities,

Anticipations, and Results) framework for inquiry and decision-making is a compatible AI framework to

strategic planning 6. SOAR is integral to developing strong relationships to implement sustainable

development practices7. AI's triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental stewardship,

and social equity or "profit, planet, people." provides a solid framework for measuring and

evaluating progress toward a sustainable socio-environmental-economic model with another social

construction and metaphor8.

Building evaluation capacity entails developing a system for creating and sustaining evaluation

practices9. Evaluation scholars have recommended that evaluation be more democratic, pluralistic,

deliberative, empowering, and enlightening10. Current evaluation practices are diverse, inclusive of

multiple perspectives, and supportive of the use of multiple methods, measures, and criteria11.

Evaluation Appreciative Inquiry is a highly participatory form of inquiry to address issues12.

Appreciative Inquiry and collaborative, participatory, stakeholder, and learning-oriented approaches

to evaluation emphasize *social constructivism, that is, that making sense and meaning is achieved

through the interaction13.

Suggested appreciative success indicators of a vision, design, action, or project can be measured

with point systems by examples such as how:

1. challenging
2. achievable, adoptable
3. realistic, solid
4. integrated, institutionalized
5. shared
6. interactive, active and dynamic
7. empowerment as choices, participation in decisions, dignity, respect, cooperation and a sense of
belonging to a wider community
8. equity as equal opportunity and access to natural, social and economic resources
9. sustainable in meeting needs without compromising future generations
10. internalized
11. thoroughness
12. thoughtfulness
13. respectful of oneself, others, the organization, environment
14. evolving, innovative
15. reflective of current priorities 14

Suggested appreciative accountability and success can consist of:

1. reports for recognizing and publicly praising accomplishments;
2. charts recording relative progress over time
3. anecdotal stories for publicizing successes
4. attending to those that make a difference 15

Suggested appreciative accountability reinforces responsibility of individuals:

1. to define one's working relationship with an organization as a contribution
2. to acknowledge the impact that the quality of one's work on others
3. to accept the outcome of one's actions 16

A success story, for example, is Myrada in the year 2000 of an NGO in India for managing rural

development organized a network of 11 NGOs, 804 people, 70 different organizations, 500 community-

based organizations representing about 10,000 people participating in appreciative inquiry

workshops.17 The workshops included self-help affinity groups; self help group federations, teachers

associations, watershed development associations, watershed implementation committees, village forest

committees, village health committees, children's clubs, local farmers associations, community

health groups, and others18. The number and types of committees demonstrates the engaging,

implicating and participatory approaches of AI.

Footnotes
1 Appreciative Inquiry
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm
2 ibid
3 ibid
4 ibid
5 ibid
6 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
7 Anne T. Coghlan, Hallie Preskill, Tessie Tzavaras Catsambas, An Overview of Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaulations, no. 100, Winter 2003, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Weblogs, e-learning at University of British Comlumbia, UBC.
http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/mathison/Appreciative%20Inquiry
8 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
9 ibid
10 ibid
11 ibid
12 ibid
13 Social constructivism
A social construction or social construct is any phenomenon "invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular culture or society existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follow certain conventional rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction
Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
14 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 Kamasamudram, India
http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
15 GTM Evaluation & Planning, Inc.
http://gtmeval.blogspot.com/2008/07/appreciative-accountability.html
16 An Accountability Culture 2006, Washing State University
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Revised_Accountability_Statement
17 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 India http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
18 ibid

=Participating in WikiCED=
real time additions

View this document in an accessibility checker: http://wave.webaim.org/report?url=http://ced.zooid.org/wiki/WikiCED_manual&md=nils (currently with some errors to be corrected due to the graph)

[[Category:WikiCED notes]]

WikiCED manual

2009-07-25T16:09:54Z

Janet Lumb: /* Measuring success, learning from failure */

<center>
'''Change from within:'''

'''Creating innovation in an organization as an individual.'''
</center>

= Introduction =

This manual is designed to help individuals, working in an organization, find ways to effectively introduce beneficial change, without full “top-down” support (management, funders, other power sources). In other words, you may be working in an organization and learn about a better way to do things. Everything from suggesting a composting programme, telecommuting, to using a new Web-based communication system. Everyone else is too busy doing things the same way they always have, management has their own long term plans, but you think it's worthwhile to push for your change. This manual can help you.

This manual is particularly designed for those involved in Community Economic Development (CED). We're going to use change based on low cost technology as our lens, because thanks to the spread of the Internet and low cost computers, many opportunities exist. But aspects of this manual should be applicable to many circumstances.

Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions.

One of the technologies we'll be focusing on is wiki. Wiki is a Hawaiian word for fast, and the first wiki software was developed to support computer programmers sharing information on the early Web. Wikis allow easy publishing on the Web, including editing pages (after learning a few conventions), and can help solve a lot of different problems as a group, and when including the public. Currently the most famous wiki is Wikipedia, but many other wikis exist.

We're going to use some characters to talk about implementing change. They are as follows:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?description
|?image
}}

= Considerations of introducing technology change =

Many people dream about being a change hero, making one suggestion – [[todo::example]] and suddenly we have a successful transformation that everyone recognizes. The reality is usually far more complicated.

People have very good reasons to be hesitant about change. It's always a good idea to wait and see what other organizations, similar to yours, are doing. If you're going to try to leap ahead, make sure you have steady partners and are not compromising your organization; changing the organization's focus or making participation more difficult for some.

Computer systems can yield tremendous efficiencies, but they can force people to work in ways they have difficulty adapting to. There's always a question of individuals adapting to tech versus the tech adapting to the person. Good technology will consider the user experience and impact as important as the potential gain. This can be recognized by learning about successful uses of the technology, and the kind of background and processes that went into its development. Many companies and projects (potential components of your innovation) are very technically driven. Whatever clever “invention” a technical person managed to come up with becomes the focus. This may be a good model for ultra competitive commercial enterprise, but it's not so good for social organizations. Signs of a good service providers are multidisciplinary teams that include, where practical, designers, content experts, and end user representation, as well as those focusing only on the technology (hopefully with some interest in the context).

Ultimately, however, individuals and the organization will have to adapt to the way the technology works. No technology is completely flexible, so past procurement and training, some processes will need to be changed, information constrained to a system, and systems interfaced. As an individual, you'll have to consider how your innovation can be integrated (or not - [[wp:Loose coupling | loosely coupled]] system are often considered the most robust).

For example, consider the idea of organizing information. Today, it takes weeks for an information request to be processed by the city, and what you'll get is a photocopy of a document that can't be easily re-used. Many organizations have incredible struggles classifying and describing information (developing ontologies). If an organization has thousands of documents, relevant content can be more easily found in a well designed system, and individuals can serve themselves. International organizations using shared ontologies can match documents and develop sophisticated linked systems that allow consistent communications and access to information. Yet defining and restraining content to ontologies perfectly is a problem that has existed for thousands of years, due to differences in individual and cultural perceptions. It's best not to get caught up in these kinds of "wild goose chases" unless it's a core requirement, and the expertise or cues are available.

Proposing your organization prioritize developing ontologies is a task that would likely be difficult. However, suggesting your organization import key documents into a wiki, and allow "crowd sourcing" (participatory) classifying of documents, as people access and find them, can be very effective.

Sometimes, change can mean completely changing the way things are, for example replacing factory workers with machines, but it's often better to think of '''augmentation''' of people's roles, particularly when it comes to today's imperfect computer systems. In a clinic, a new system can cause patient harm if a system loses a record, but having a receptionist who recognizes patients and expects events can lead to a richer system that is safe, and personal and has added utility.

==Side effect benefits==

As new systems are implemented, organizations should be aware of the unexpected positive benefits. We're going to examine this with the [http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm cut curb effect].

When looking at technical implementations today, there is an "artificial line that views such technologies as assistive rather than normal options, products are designed for or against certain users." (http://asyourworldchanges.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/using-the-curb-cuts-principle-to-reboot-computing/)

As many are aware, navigating the world as a person with disabilities often results in frustration or complete denial to everyday services. Resolving these problems yields unexpected benefits. When a curb is cut for wheelchairs, navigation is also made easier for those with baby strollers, bicycles (where permitted) and inattentive walkers. The same is true of ramps and elevators - making a change for disabled persons improves the situation for everyone. This leads to a shift in thinking towards [[wp:universal design]] - the idea that instead of treating accessible design as an afterthought, it is instead a way to lead overall design. This provides benefits including greater access to employment, education, culture, citizenship, and information in general.

Using technology, this is enabled by the fact that most information is stored in one way or another in text format. Email is text, most organization content has a text basis. The low level format of Web pages is HTML, which accommodates accessible features. Suddenly, individuals with mobility, cognitive or vision disabilities (estimated to be [http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml 650 million people around the world], or [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071203/dq071203a-eng.htm one in seven Canadians] - not including the elderly) are on a more equal footing with everyone else - they're tremendously enabled.

Consider a well implemented Web page. Behind the scenes, presentation is separated from content. Headings are used to indicate sections. Multimedia content has a text summary. A person with vision disabilities, whether it's very common colour blindness, contrast problems, or acute focus problems, can use a variety of techniques to access this information. They can change the font size in their browser, they can replace colours. They can use a screen reader, which reads the document using text to speech, treats headings as a table of contents, and allows the individual to easily scan the page rather than forcing them to "read" it top to bottom.

This carries over to everyone - someone with a large screen or small screen (like the increasingly popular mobile browsers) can reasonably access well designed content. The work that goes into producing this page usually leads to easier information re-use and presentation flexibility.

This is not true for poorly designed content. Individuals have few ways to alter presentation. Users of screen readers have to wait through long passages of repetitive "content" that describes useless elements - the presentation, rather than the content. Mobile browsers and older computers may not be able to access the content at all.

There are no mysteries involved in why this happens. People like "Flashier" content, and companies will often hire designers specifically to create "sexy" first impressions, meanwhile using outdated or unrounded approaches to low level design. It's important to look past first impressions to make sure your content works well for everyone, and is future friendly. [http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php WCAG] is an international standard for accessible web page design.

Other potential side effect benefits include better organization of information, access to technology development funds, and transferred best practices.

==Side effect risks==

The most important risk to consider when implementing technology is privacy. Collecting masses of personal information in one place presents an incredible risk if not managed carefully. Policies and training for any individuals with access to this data must ensure it is kept off networks as much as possible, and always encrypted when not possible.

The second risk is around "intellectual property." It is an unfortunate fact that many organizations, including public and social organizations, create "proprietary databases" featured in grant applications and for other purposes. This results in silos that can be developed using public funds for social benefit, yet territorially protected from re-use. The benefits of protecting this "property" vs the benefits of sharing or building on information with other organizations must be managed legally, and using technical means, particularly considering cases where information may be published without clear terms of use.

The times are changing. Governments have a mandate to provide more low level access to information, and semantic content, shared methodologies and metrics, and more sophisticated programs enable very high level information of re-use across organizations.

As an example, in 2004 for a project, detailed information on Member of Parliament voting records was required. After research, it turned out the easiest way to retrieve this information was to "scrape" it from the Parliament web site. In 2009, faced with a similar requirement, we prepared to "scrape" it again, but a last second email to the Parliament Web team yielded all the information we needed in an easily reusable format. A week later, Parliament formally announced public availability of this data. (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/17/canadian-members-of.html) This follows trends in the US and UK that yield very real benefits in transparency and accountability.

Developments to consider in this area include [http://www.creativecommons.ca Creative Commons], a system where organizations may choose from a set of legally designed terms of use that include reuse-by-attribution, reuse-for-noncommercial-only, and other combinations. This document is released under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/ creative commons attribution, non commercial, share-alike license], meaning it can be re-used and redeveloped for any non-commercial purpose, as long as changes are shared.

Another risk is content lock in. Over time, governments, large business and organizations have pushed for the need for standard formats for data. This prevents over-reliance on a vendor and permits information re-use. If your information is hosted, make sure you have local copies of readable data.

==Guidelines for content==

In general, the following guidelines can be followed:

{|
! Context
! Application
! Result
! Issues
|-
|Personal, workgroup - information is not published online, is kept personally or exchanged via email.
|Word processor
|Individuals and groups are used to using tools such as MS Word, and they provide easy faciltiies to create formatted data
|If the content is going to be re-used in other contexts, it may be more difficult to translate the content with full support for formatting and meaning
|-
|Intranet - information is intended for a restricted group, often using passwords.
|Portal, wiki, Google Documents and other web-based systems
|With a little extra effort and occasional loss in particular features, individuals can more easily share information and edit it real time as a group
|Information has to be carefully protected if it's not intended for the general public
|-
|Public - anyone can access the content, and sometimes contribute to its development
|Web site, CMS, wiki supporting accessible HTML content. PDF for downloadable content not meant to be editable
|Information is easily shared with the public, fully including individuals with disabilities, and supporting a broad array of access methods, including mobile devices
|Until standards catch up (particularly the forthcoming HTML 5), techniques such as Flash are used for highly interactive tools
|-
|}

Many organizations rely on tools such as Microsoft Word. It's worth keeping in mind that this is expensive software with particular computer requirements. Although compatible free alternatives such as [http://www.openoffice.org Open Office] exist, complete compatibility can't be assured as new versions emerge. For the Web, HTML or PDF are the standard options for read-only document publishing.

Tools for evaluating Web site quality are http://wave.webaim.org and http://validator.w3.org/.

=How to introduce change=

[[todo::Katherine, I would like to move this from presentation to here]]
Often, creating value requires significant change. John Kotter concluded in his book "A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management" (1990) that there are eight reasons why many change processes fail and to prevent making these mistakes, Kotter created the following eight change phases model:

*Establish a sense of urgency
*Create a coalition
*Develop a clear vision
*Share the vision
*Empower people to clear obstacles
*Secure short-term wins
*Consolidate and keep moving
*Anchor the change

Individuals who want to introduce or lead change in organizations are key agents who should have the ability to connect people to their specific requirements, and must be committed to working with people during each developmental phase.

==Explaining and developing the project==

Except in the simplest cases, one of the most difficult parts of developing a project is explaining it so everyone understands it. Many people (often most) will either assume someone else is taking care of details, or will imagine what the system will be like rather than trying to follow along. Confusion and disappointment inevitably follow.

It's difficult to tune the balance balance between too much documentation and too little for each individual. The best approach is to use examples and capture key expectations of all stakeholders, and make sure everyone involved has a chance to participate.

Processes can start open ended, for example using [[wp:appreciative inquiry]] or [[wp:open spaces]] to discover what stakeholders consider the most valuable features, and should become more specific but still inclusive, using techniques such as [[wp:participatory design]].

Stakeholders include the following:

* Management, funders, connectors: They may have a high level vision and power, but if they don't try to follow the project and provide constant feedback, the result won't be as expected, or will result in wrenching course changes.

* Project team: This may include a project manager, key individuals who will be using the developed system, and implementers including system administrators, graphic and page designers, programmers, and others. Multidisciplinary teams that can work efficiently and with respect, and check in often with full communication of what they're working on, are key.

* User representation: These should provide a fair representation of the intended users of the system, whether organization members or the served constituents. Activities can range from participation in [[wp:focus groups]], formal or informal [[wp:usability sessions]], or polling advocacy groups.

Using systems like wiki can enable direct involvement in specification development for all the above.

==Including the hesitant==

Inevitably there will be some on the team who can following along. Whatever the reason, it's important to include these individuals by soliciting their comments and accommodating them wherever possible. However, some degree of “translation” will often be required. If the hesitant are served constituents, full services must be maintained with the technology based implementation as an alternative, depending on the constituency. Summaries should always be maintained between "online" and "offline" activities.

Service bureaus may help here, including low cost translation and transcription services, and services to provide telephone access to computerized services.

Let's take a look at the characteristics of our players, and how we might include them:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}

==Change processes and development==

In the past, a development process referred to as "waterfall" was often used in software development. A long specification process was supposed to lead to a shorter, more informed development process. However, with specialists doing specification no one could understand, many projects went overtime and budget (or failed outright).

Development process today has shifted more towards a process referred to as [[wp:Agile software development]]. Initially, basic examples and prototypes are used to describe the project, and multiple cycles of development, called "iterations," that ideally involved all involved persons, are used to make sure everyone sees the product, and has a chance to comment on it, before another revision cycle. This also allows constant revision of a product.

CED literature describes similar processes based on Knowing, Doing and Reviewing (Torjman, 2007).

Therefore, a preferred development cycle for a project may appear as follows:

# describe key goal (including baselines and measurements), critical budget and timing issues
# define and refine goal(s)
# research solutions and select working set
# refine goals based on working set
# implement solutions (with as many iterations as permitted)
# measure effectiveness through soft or full launch
# summarize effects
# iterate

It's important to contain each process. Keep timelines short and easy to measure. Avoid custom solutions unless they are absolutely necessary (for example, where accessible software does not exist) - specification uncertainty and usability testing results in more cost and risk.

Modern software practices also provide access to all team members to project tracking, and today Wiki based systems can be used to measure goals, tasks, timelines, responsible persons and even costs.

=Technology as a solution=

Today's typical computer use is often as an advanced typewriter. Documents are edited, saved and printed with little use of program features. Nobody thinks twice about printing out a form from a computer system, filling it out by hand, mailing it somewhere, and having it entered by hand into a computer system. Features such as inline document comments are being used, but few organizations use document sharing portals or online document editing systems such as wikis.

Today there is an emphasis on providing basic reading and math, and some training on how to use a computer, but little consideration for "numeracy" (http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/11/18/visual-numeracy-for-collective-survival/). This is not about advanced math or technical skills. This is learning to use the computer as a helpful tool, and as part of a network. In fact this training is being bestowed on individuals anyway. Spam teaches individuals to not trust all information, Facebook and other sites teaches individuals how to effectively use social media - for advocacy from topics ranging from breastfeeding, unions, regional and international concerns, groups, events and other interactions - without any strong technical basis.

The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55. (http://www.scottmonty.com/2009/07/facebook-age-demographics.html - July 2009 data). While the largest component of Internet users today (and the major focus) can be considered "advantaged," a considerable and increasing number of individuals have disabilities, are newcomers to the countries using the Internet as an inexpensive way to stay in touch, are elderly, or are organizing social causes or events, among other relevant demographics.

The digital divide is still a tremendous issue. However, proportionately, computer use among populations, whether directly through access to the Internet, using a mobile phone, or through community hubs, is comparable to other important segments of many communities.

==Consider where it is coming from==

We think of the technology we use today as new, but it has been evolving for a long time. [[wp:Hypertext]], for example – a way to create links between documents – was visualized in a microfiche based system in the 1940s (the [[wp:Memex]]). There are large cycles of introduction, reaction, revision. The entire Internet as a mass novelty, in the 1990s, resulted in the [[wp:Dot-com bubble Dot-com bubble]] shortly thereafter, as overexcited expectations were deflated.

The Internet does have to be considered one of the greatest, and most unexpected innovations of our lifetimes. No company would have created a network where anyone can publish and access information with equal ease and virtually no cost, for nearly anyone, around the world (nor could they, due to the cooperation involved). Existing companies, with their controlled, limited and metered systems, were left scrambling to react to this disruptive development.

The internet is the product of generations of scientists, visionaries, and implementers, now available for anyone to use, at the price of stepping into a limelight, encrypted or not, and taking on complexity. Using technology effectively has not been simplified. Tremendous effort can be spent putting up a web site, developing content or custom applications, training people, connecting with companies and dealing with problems, all to see minimal net benefits. This is another reason it is important to highlight the background reasons for technology to be developed and used.

It's important to have a long term plan that matches the organization's mandate and constituents, day to day changes consistent with your constituents, all the while keeping an eye out for 'disruptive' opportunities.

For example, Twitter, a current craze, is presented in the media as a way to follow celebrities, or sent brief messages about our most mundane activities. But using Twitter as a "social search" - finding individuals currently available and interested in topics important to you (including activism, fundraising, regional and sectoral issues) opens up a whole new dimension. Some organizations use Twitter (and other "social media" like the more popular Facebook) as a tool for advocacy and fundraising. [[todo:Examples]] http://www.google.ca/search?q=using+twitter+as+a+fundraising+tool

Marshall McLuhan states “We shape our tools, and afterwards our tools shape us.” New systems must be considered for their most simple and practical benefits, as well as their impact. Expectations must be managed to not expect too much out of the hype, yet still "expect the unexpected."

==This section needs a new heading==

There are a number of main applications of technology in social organizations. They range from the most practical document creating, simple, communications using email, narrow and broadcast communication and participatory means such as forums, polls and wikis.

The internet went through several phases of “killer applications,” as the world population happened across its capabilities. Majorly are the ease and (no) cost sending of email and the richness of the World Wide Web, which was originally envisioned as an intimately linked, eminently re-usable “read-write” research web, where one web site's information can be linked with another, and information shared easily. Unfortunately, commercial and individual enthusiasm (and the unreadiness of the background technology) has resulted in many messes – email can be unusable due to “spam,” and most web sites today could be easier to use as a paper brochure, and they certainly don't encourage information re-use. Tragically, universal, re-usable design has been thrown out the window in many cases in favour of glitzy presentations.

For the past few years, there has been a focus on what's called "Web 2.0" - making Web based systems more interactive, participatory. There is also a trend to move away from desktop and office solutions to hosted systems - email, word processing, and so on, are hosted on a "cloud" provided by very large providers such as Google and Amazon. The benefits are simplified management and costs to the best standards. One inexpensive bill includes an organization's email, calendaring, group discussions, document editing, web site hosting and backup - each of which can be complicated to manage on its own. The drawbacks are massive consolidation of data, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberlaw&oldid=303904691#Jurisdiction_and_sovereignty data sovereignty] issues, and an implied requirement for local internet service providers to drastically upgrade their standards to compete with the best in the world.

The next trend ("Web 3.0") is anticipated to focus on the Semantic Web. This means richer exchange of information, leading to more re-use and better searching.

We focus on wiki because it promotes one of the original ideas of the Web, easy participation, and newer developments promote easier exchange of information – for example, using another organization's data in your Web site using systems such as Semantic Mediawiki.

=Technology use in the non profit sector=

In considering technology use in the non-profit sector, "three major "themes" seemed to emerge: the perceived lack of technology in the nonprofit sector, the push to "catch up", and the unique strength of the nonprofit sector in the information age." (http://www.merrillassociates.net/topic/2001/04/technology-and-non-profits)

[[todo:reinforce these themes]]

Often, social organizations who rely on funding will have to tailor their proposals so they appear to follow external mandates. This disconnect can lead to a distortion in implementation, where no real goals are reached, or can simply lead to wasteful, pointless resources, such as unused computers or websites developed without any real motivation as organizations simply need the overhead funds available in implementation or can't reasonably focus on the benefits.

Ambivalence to adopt new technology can be around concerns of "dehumanization" of an organization, key to the unique strength (the personal trust and connection) of social organizations. It can also be observed that the creative and social uses of technology are portrayed as secondary to the technical (mathematical) and commercial applications, all focused on treating individuals as numbers. Yet social organizations that embrace implementation of technology can help define it as fundamentally useful to their causes, by aligning with trends such as fair use, access and accessibility, and focusing on developing richer profiles of people, peer connections, and organizational interfaces.

Many public and social organizations have a special mandate to consider universal design. Some countries and jurisdictions have policies or even laws mandating accessible design (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/). Yet they are often just as likely as other organizations to say "disabled persons don't use our site" (no wonder why!), or leaving consideration till the end of a project, when resources have run dry.

Finally, technology can help make social services easier to use and understand. From finding the appropriate service in the first place, to accessing its services, means are being developed and improved by government, organizations, and individuals. Where does your organization want to be on the developing social graph?

{{#ask: [[Category:Entity]]
| ?is supported by
| ?is a
| ?serves
| format=graph
| graphcolor=Yes
| graphlink=Yes
| graphname=SocialOrgs
| graphlegend=No
| graphlabel=Yes
| rankdir=TB
| graphsize=10,10

}}

=Connecting and getting advice=

In a document entitled Successful Uses of Technology in Grassroots Organization, the Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management (University of San Francisco) proposes a series of recommendations of how to introduce technological change within a small nonprofits organizations;
* Budget time and money for technology
* When possible and appropriate, involve end-users (clients and staff) in technology planning and decision making
* Recruit technological expertise to staff or board
* Build networks using board, staff and other friends
* Better utilize online resources for technology expertise
http://www.usfca.edu/inom/research/INOM-Tech%20Use%20in%20Small%20NPs.pdf

Many online resources exist in support of non profits, technology and combining the two.

Examples include:

* http://www.nonprofittech.com
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/

... and numerous topic specific groups on sites like Facebook.

speaking informally, discovering motivations - inspired

=Measuring success, learning from failure=

From [[User:Janet]]'s notes:

There can be alternate ways to measure success from a qualitative perspective. Here are my

suggestions from an appreciative perspective. Please be aware that I am using this term

appreciative freely. The suggested measurements of qualitative evaluation and success in this

paper are based on my personal explorations and therefore do not, in any way or form, reflect the

principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Here is a brief description of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) Appreciative Inquiry (AI) assumes that

every living system has untapped and accounts of the positive1. Appreciative Inquiry is a methodical

discovery that a living system is at its optimum in social, political, economic, ecological, and

human terms when it is most vibrant, effective and constructive2. AI seeks to build a

transformational union between a people and it's capacities that are achievements, assets, unexplored

potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, and strategic

competencies through lived values, traditions, stories, visions, expressions of wisdom spiritual

insights, and future possibilities 3. Appreciative Inquiry questions and dialogues to imagine and

innovate about successes, hopes, and dreams instead of negating and criticizing downward into a

diagnostic spiral of despairing hopelessness4.

In working with small children who are climbing into a dangerous area, instead of saying ''don't climb there!''

Re-direct the children with a positive gesture ''Look!! Play here!''

AI's vision based approach and 4-D Model consists of stages of Discovery, Dream, Design and Doing and

4-I Model of Inquire, Imagine, Innovate and Implement 5. The SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities,

Anticipations, and Results) framework for inquiry and decision-making is a compatible AI framework to

strategic planning 6. SOAR is integral to developing strong relationships to implement sustainable

development practices7. AI's triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental stewardship,

and social equity or "profit, planet, people." provides a solid framework for measuring and

evaluating progress toward a sustainable socio-environmental-economic model with another social

construction and metaphor8.

Building evaluation capacity entails developing a system for creating and sustaining evaluation

practices9. Evaluation scholars have recommended that evaluation be more democratic, pluralistic,

deliberative, empowering, and enlightening10. Current evaluation practices are diverse, inclusive of

multiple perspectives, and supportive of the use of multiple methods, measures, and criteria11.

Evaluation Appreciative Inquiry is a highly participatory form of inquiry to address issues12.

Appreciative Inquiry and collaborative, participatory, stakeholder, and learning-oriented approaches

to evaluation emphasize *social constructivism, that is, that making sense and meaning is achieved

through the interaction13.

Suggested appreciative success indicators of a vision, design, action, or project can be measured

with point systems by examples such as how:

1. challenging
2. achievable, adoptable
3. realistic, solid
4. integrated, institutionalized
5. shared
6. interactive, active and dynamic
7. empowerment as choices, participation in decisions, dignity, respect, cooperation and a sense of
belonging to a wider community
8. equity as equal opportunity and access to natural, social and economic resources
9. sustainable in meeting needs without compromising future generations
10. internalized
11. thoroughness
12. thoughtfulness
13. respectful of oneself, others, the organization, environment
14. evolving, innovative
15. reflective of current priorities 14

Suggested appreciative accountability and success can consist of:

1. reports for recognizing and publicly praising accomplishments;
2. charts recording relative progress over time
3. anecdotal stories for publicizing successes
4. attending to those that make a difference 15

Suggested appreciative accountability reinforces responsibility of individuals:

1. to define one's working relationship with an organization as a contribution
2. to acknowledge the impact that the quality of one's work on others
3. to accept the outcome of one's actions 16

A success story, for example, is Myrada in the year 2000 of an NGO in India for managing rural

development organized a network of 11 NGOs, 804 people, 70 different organizations, 500 community-

based organizations representing about 10,000 people participating in appreciative inquiry

workshops.17 The workshops included self-help affinity groups; self help group federations, teachers

associations, watershed development associations, watershed implementation committees, village forest

committees, village health committees, children's clubs, local farmers associations, community

health groups, and others18. The number and types of committees demonstrates the engaging,

implicating and participatory approaches of AI.

Footnotes
1 Appreciative Inquiry
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm
2 ibid
3 ibid
4 ibid
5 ibid
6 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
7 Anne T. Coghlan, Hallie Preskill, Tessie Tzavaras Catsambas, An Overview of Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaulations, no. 100, Winter 2003, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Weblogs, e-learning at University of British Comlumbia, UBC.
http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/mathison/Appreciative%20Inquiry
8 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
9 ibid
10 ibid
11 ibid
12 ibid
13 Social constructivism
A social construction or social construct is any phenomenon "invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular culture or society existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follow certain conventional rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction
Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
14 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 Kamasamudram, India
http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
15 GTM Evaluation & Planning, Inc.
http://gtmeval.blogspot.com/2008/07/appreciative-accountability.html
16 An Accountability Culture 2006, Washing State University
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Revised_Accountability_Statement
17 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 India http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
18 ibid

=Participating in WikiCED=
real time additions

View this document in an accessibility checker: http://wave.webaim.org/report?url=http://ced.zooid.org/wiki/WikiCED_manual&md=nils (currently with some errors to be corrected due to the graph)

[[Category:WikiCED notes]]

WikiCED manual

2009-07-25T16:09:09Z

Janet Lumb: /* Measuring success, learning from failure */

<center>
'''Change from within:'''

'''Creating innovation in an organization as an individual.'''
</center>

= Introduction =

This manual is designed to help individuals, working in an organization, find ways to effectively introduce beneficial change, without full “top-down” support (management, funders, other power sources). In other words, you may be working in an organization and learn about a better way to do things. Everything from suggesting a composting programme, telecommuting, to using a new Web-based communication system. Everyone else is too busy doing things the same way they always have, management has their own long term plans, but you think it's worthwhile to push for your change. This manual can help you.

This manual is particularly designed for those involved in Community Economic Development (CED). We're going to use change based on low cost technology as our lens, because thanks to the spread of the Internet and low cost computers, many opportunities exist. But aspects of this manual should be applicable to many circumstances.

Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions.

One of the technologies we'll be focusing on is wiki. Wiki is a Hawaiian word for fast, and the first wiki software was developed to support computer programmers sharing information on the early Web. Wikis allow easy publishing on the Web, including editing pages (after learning a few conventions), and can help solve a lot of different problems as a group, and when including the public. Currently the most famous wiki is Wikipedia, but many other wikis exist.

We're going to use some characters to talk about implementing change. They are as follows:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?description
|?image
}}

= Considerations of introducing technology change =

Many people dream about being a change hero, making one suggestion – [[todo::example]] and suddenly we have a successful transformation that everyone recognizes. The reality is usually far more complicated.

People have very good reasons to be hesitant about change. It's always a good idea to wait and see what other organizations, similar to yours, are doing. If you're going to try to leap ahead, make sure you have steady partners and are not compromising your organization; changing the organization's focus or making participation more difficult for some.

Computer systems can yield tremendous efficiencies, but they can force people to work in ways they have difficulty adapting to. There's always a question of individuals adapting to tech versus the tech adapting to the person. Good technology will consider the user experience and impact as important as the potential gain. This can be recognized by learning about successful uses of the technology, and the kind of background and processes that went into its development. Many companies and projects (potential components of your innovation) are very technically driven. Whatever clever “invention” a technical person managed to come up with becomes the focus. This may be a good model for ultra competitive commercial enterprise, but it's not so good for social organizations. Signs of a good service providers are multidisciplinary teams that include, where practical, designers, content experts, and end user representation, as well as those focusing only on the technology (hopefully with some interest in the context).

Ultimately, however, individuals and the organization will have to adapt to the way the technology works. No technology is completely flexible, so past procurement and training, some processes will need to be changed, information constrained to a system, and systems interfaced. As an individual, you'll have to consider how your innovation can be integrated (or not - [[wp:Loose coupling | loosely coupled]] system are often considered the most robust).

For example, consider the idea of organizing information. Today, it takes weeks for an information request to be processed by the city, and what you'll get is a photocopy of a document that can't be easily re-used. Many organizations have incredible struggles classifying and describing information (developing ontologies). If an organization has thousands of documents, relevant content can be more easily found in a well designed system, and individuals can serve themselves. International organizations using shared ontologies can match documents and develop sophisticated linked systems that allow consistent communications and access to information. Yet defining and restraining content to ontologies perfectly is a problem that has existed for thousands of years, due to differences in individual and cultural perceptions. It's best not to get caught up in these kinds of "wild goose chases" unless it's a core requirement, and the expertise or cues are available.

Proposing your organization prioritize developing ontologies is a task that would likely be difficult. However, suggesting your organization import key documents into a wiki, and allow "crowd sourcing" (participatory) classifying of documents, as people access and find them, can be very effective.

Sometimes, change can mean completely changing the way things are, for example replacing factory workers with machines, but it's often better to think of '''augmentation''' of people's roles, particularly when it comes to today's imperfect computer systems. In a clinic, a new system can cause patient harm if a system loses a record, but having a receptionist who recognizes patients and expects events can lead to a richer system that is safe, and personal and has added utility.

==Side effect benefits==

As new systems are implemented, organizations should be aware of the unexpected positive benefits. We're going to examine this with the [http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm cut curb effect].

When looking at technical implementations today, there is an "artificial line that views such technologies as assistive rather than normal options, products are designed for or against certain users." (http://asyourworldchanges.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/using-the-curb-cuts-principle-to-reboot-computing/)

As many are aware, navigating the world as a person with disabilities often results in frustration or complete denial to everyday services. Resolving these problems yields unexpected benefits. When a curb is cut for wheelchairs, navigation is also made easier for those with baby strollers, bicycles (where permitted) and inattentive walkers. The same is true of ramps and elevators - making a change for disabled persons improves the situation for everyone. This leads to a shift in thinking towards [[wp:universal design]] - the idea that instead of treating accessible design as an afterthought, it is instead a way to lead overall design. This provides benefits including greater access to employment, education, culture, citizenship, and information in general.

Using technology, this is enabled by the fact that most information is stored in one way or another in text format. Email is text, most organization content has a text basis. The low level format of Web pages is HTML, which accommodates accessible features. Suddenly, individuals with mobility, cognitive or vision disabilities (estimated to be [http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml 650 million people around the world], or [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071203/dq071203a-eng.htm one in seven Canadians] - not including the elderly) are on a more equal footing with everyone else - they're tremendously enabled.

Consider a well implemented Web page. Behind the scenes, presentation is separated from content. Headings are used to indicate sections. Multimedia content has a text summary. A person with vision disabilities, whether it's very common colour blindness, contrast problems, or acute focus problems, can use a variety of techniques to access this information. They can change the font size in their browser, they can replace colours. They can use a screen reader, which reads the document using text to speech, treats headings as a table of contents, and allows the individual to easily scan the page rather than forcing them to "read" it top to bottom.

This carries over to everyone - someone with a large screen or small screen (like the increasingly popular mobile browsers) can reasonably access well designed content. The work that goes into producing this page usually leads to easier information re-use and presentation flexibility.

This is not true for poorly designed content. Individuals have few ways to alter presentation. Users of screen readers have to wait through long passages of repetitive "content" that describes useless elements - the presentation, rather than the content. Mobile browsers and older computers may not be able to access the content at all.

There are no mysteries involved in why this happens. People like "Flashier" content, and companies will often hire designers specifically to create "sexy" first impressions, meanwhile using outdated or unrounded approaches to low level design. It's important to look past first impressions to make sure your content works well for everyone, and is future friendly. [http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php WCAG] is an international standard for accessible web page design.

Other potential side effect benefits include better organization of information, access to technology development funds, and transferred best practices.

==Side effect risks==

The most important risk to consider when implementing technology is privacy. Collecting masses of personal information in one place presents an incredible risk if not managed carefully. Policies and training for any individuals with access to this data must ensure it is kept off networks as much as possible, and always encrypted when not possible.

The second risk is around "intellectual property." It is an unfortunate fact that many organizations, including public and social organizations, create "proprietary databases" featured in grant applications and for other purposes. This results in silos that can be developed using public funds for social benefit, yet territorially protected from re-use. The benefits of protecting this "property" vs the benefits of sharing or building on information with other organizations must be managed legally, and using technical means, particularly considering cases where information may be published without clear terms of use.

The times are changing. Governments have a mandate to provide more low level access to information, and semantic content, shared methodologies and metrics, and more sophisticated programs enable very high level information of re-use across organizations.

As an example, in 2004 for a project, detailed information on Member of Parliament voting records was required. After research, it turned out the easiest way to retrieve this information was to "scrape" it from the Parliament web site. In 2009, faced with a similar requirement, we prepared to "scrape" it again, but a last second email to the Parliament Web team yielded all the information we needed in an easily reusable format. A week later, Parliament formally announced public availability of this data. (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/17/canadian-members-of.html) This follows trends in the US and UK that yield very real benefits in transparency and accountability.

Developments to consider in this area include [http://www.creativecommons.ca Creative Commons], a system where organizations may choose from a set of legally designed terms of use that include reuse-by-attribution, reuse-for-noncommercial-only, and other combinations. This document is released under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/ creative commons attribution, non commercial, share-alike license], meaning it can be re-used and redeveloped for any non-commercial purpose, as long as changes are shared.

Another risk is content lock in. Over time, governments, large business and organizations have pushed for the need for standard formats for data. This prevents over-reliance on a vendor and permits information re-use. If your information is hosted, make sure you have local copies of readable data.

==Guidelines for content==

In general, the following guidelines can be followed:

{|
! Context
! Application
! Result
! Issues
|-
|Personal, workgroup - information is not published online, is kept personally or exchanged via email.
|Word processor
|Individuals and groups are used to using tools such as MS Word, and they provide easy faciltiies to create formatted data
|If the content is going to be re-used in other contexts, it may be more difficult to translate the content with full support for formatting and meaning
|-
|Intranet - information is intended for a restricted group, often using passwords.
|Portal, wiki, Google Documents and other web-based systems
|With a little extra effort and occasional loss in particular features, individuals can more easily share information and edit it real time as a group
|Information has to be carefully protected if it's not intended for the general public
|-
|Public - anyone can access the content, and sometimes contribute to its development
|Web site, CMS, wiki supporting accessible HTML content. PDF for downloadable content not meant to be editable
|Information is easily shared with the public, fully including individuals with disabilities, and supporting a broad array of access methods, including mobile devices
|Until standards catch up (particularly the forthcoming HTML 5), techniques such as Flash are used for highly interactive tools
|-
|}

Many organizations rely on tools such as Microsoft Word. It's worth keeping in mind that this is expensive software with particular computer requirements. Although compatible free alternatives such as [http://www.openoffice.org Open Office] exist, complete compatibility can't be assured as new versions emerge. For the Web, HTML or PDF are the standard options for read-only document publishing.

Tools for evaluating Web site quality are http://wave.webaim.org and http://validator.w3.org/.

=How to introduce change=

[[todo::Katherine, I would like to move this from presentation to here]]
Often, creating value requires significant change. John Kotter concluded in his book "A force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management" (1990) that there are eight reasons why many change processes fail and to prevent making these mistakes, Kotter created the following eight change phases model:

*Establish a sense of urgency
*Create a coalition
*Develop a clear vision
*Share the vision
*Empower people to clear obstacles
*Secure short-term wins
*Consolidate and keep moving
*Anchor the change

Individuals who want to introduce or lead change in organizations are key agents who should have the ability to connect people to their specific requirements, and must be committed to working with people during each developmental phase.

==Explaining and developing the project==

Except in the simplest cases, one of the most difficult parts of developing a project is explaining it so everyone understands it. Many people (often most) will either assume someone else is taking care of details, or will imagine what the system will be like rather than trying to follow along. Confusion and disappointment inevitably follow.

It's difficult to tune the balance balance between too much documentation and too little for each individual. The best approach is to use examples and capture key expectations of all stakeholders, and make sure everyone involved has a chance to participate.

Processes can start open ended, for example using [[wp:appreciative inquiry]] or [[wp:open spaces]] to discover what stakeholders consider the most valuable features, and should become more specific but still inclusive, using techniques such as [[wp:participatory design]].

Stakeholders include the following:

* Management, funders, connectors: They may have a high level vision and power, but if they don't try to follow the project and provide constant feedback, the result won't be as expected, or will result in wrenching course changes.

* Project team: This may include a project manager, key individuals who will be using the developed system, and implementers including system administrators, graphic and page designers, programmers, and others. Multidisciplinary teams that can work efficiently and with respect, and check in often with full communication of what they're working on, are key.

* User representation: These should provide a fair representation of the intended users of the system, whether organization members or the served constituents. Activities can range from participation in [[wp:focus groups]], formal or informal [[wp:usability sessions]], or polling advocacy groups.

Using systems like wiki can enable direct involvement in specification development for all the above.

==Including the hesitant==

Inevitably there will be some on the team who can following along. Whatever the reason, it's important to include these individuals by soliciting their comments and accommodating them wherever possible. However, some degree of “translation” will often be required. If the hesitant are served constituents, full services must be maintained with the technology based implementation as an alternative, depending on the constituency. Summaries should always be maintained between "online" and "offline" activities.

Service bureaus may help here, including low cost translation and transcription services, and services to provide telephone access to computerized services.

Let's take a look at the characteristics of our players, and how we might include them:

{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?characteristics
}}

==Change processes and development==

In the past, a development process referred to as "waterfall" was often used in software development. A long specification process was supposed to lead to a shorter, more informed development process. However, with specialists doing specification no one could understand, many projects went overtime and budget (or failed outright).

Development process today has shifted more towards a process referred to as [[wp:Agile software development]]. Initially, basic examples and prototypes are used to describe the project, and multiple cycles of development, called "iterations," that ideally involved all involved persons, are used to make sure everyone sees the product, and has a chance to comment on it, before another revision cycle. This also allows constant revision of a product.

CED literature describes similar processes based on Knowing, Doing and Reviewing (Torjman, 2007).

Therefore, a preferred development cycle for a project may appear as follows:

# describe key goal (including baselines and measurements), critical budget and timing issues
# define and refine goal(s)
# research solutions and select working set
# refine goals based on working set
# implement solutions (with as many iterations as permitted)
# measure effectiveness through soft or full launch
# summarize effects
# iterate

It's important to contain each process. Keep timelines short and easy to measure. Avoid custom solutions unless they are absolutely necessary (for example, where accessible software does not exist) - specification uncertainty and usability testing results in more cost and risk.

Modern software practices also provide access to all team members to project tracking, and today Wiki based systems can be used to measure goals, tasks, timelines, responsible persons and even costs.

=Technology as a solution=

Today's typical computer use is often as an advanced typewriter. Documents are edited, saved and printed with little use of program features. Nobody thinks twice about printing out a form from a computer system, filling it out by hand, mailing it somewhere, and having it entered by hand into a computer system. Features such as inline document comments are being used, but few organizations use document sharing portals or online document editing systems such as wikis.

Today there is an emphasis on providing basic reading and math, and some training on how to use a computer, but little consideration for "numeracy" (http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/11/18/visual-numeracy-for-collective-survival/). This is not about advanced math or technical skills. This is learning to use the computer as a helpful tool, and as part of a network. In fact this training is being bestowed on individuals anyway. Spam teaches individuals to not trust all information, Facebook and other sites teaches individuals how to effectively use social media - for advocacy from topics ranging from breastfeeding, unions, regional and international concerns, groups, events and other interactions - without any strong technical basis.

The fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women over 55. (http://www.scottmonty.com/2009/07/facebook-age-demographics.html - July 2009 data). While the largest component of Internet users today (and the major focus) can be considered "advantaged," a considerable and increasing number of individuals have disabilities, are newcomers to the countries using the Internet as an inexpensive way to stay in touch, are elderly, or are organizing social causes or events, among other relevant demographics.

The digital divide is still a tremendous issue. However, proportionately, computer use among populations, whether directly through access to the Internet, using a mobile phone, or through community hubs, is comparable to other important segments of many communities.

==Consider where it is coming from==

We think of the technology we use today as new, but it has been evolving for a long time. [[wp:Hypertext]], for example – a way to create links between documents – was visualized in a microfiche based system in the 1940s (the [[wp:Memex]]). There are large cycles of introduction, reaction, revision. The entire Internet as a mass novelty, in the 1990s, resulted in the [[wp:Dot-com bubble Dot-com bubble]] shortly thereafter, as overexcited expectations were deflated.

The Internet does have to be considered one of the greatest, and most unexpected innovations of our lifetimes. No company would have created a network where anyone can publish and access information with equal ease and virtually no cost, for nearly anyone, around the world (nor could they, due to the cooperation involved). Existing companies, with their controlled, limited and metered systems, were left scrambling to react to this disruptive development.

The internet is the product of generations of scientists, visionaries, and implementers, now available for anyone to use, at the price of stepping into a limelight, encrypted or not, and taking on complexity. Using technology effectively has not been simplified. Tremendous effort can be spent putting up a web site, developing content or custom applications, training people, connecting with companies and dealing with problems, all to see minimal net benefits. This is another reason it is important to highlight the background reasons for technology to be developed and used.

It's important to have a long term plan that matches the organization's mandate and constituents, day to day changes consistent with your constituents, all the while keeping an eye out for 'disruptive' opportunities.

For example, Twitter, a current craze, is presented in the media as a way to follow celebrities, or sent brief messages about our most mundane activities. But using Twitter as a "social search" - finding individuals currently available and interested in topics important to you (including activism, fundraising, regional and sectoral issues) opens up a whole new dimension. Some organizations use Twitter (and other "social media" like the more popular Facebook) as a tool for advocacy and fundraising. [[todo:Examples]] http://www.google.ca/search?q=using+twitter+as+a+fundraising+tool

Marshall McLuhan states “We shape our tools, and afterwards our tools shape us.” New systems must be considered for their most simple and practical benefits, as well as their impact. Expectations must be managed to not expect too much out of the hype, yet still "expect the unexpected."

==This section needs a new heading==

There are a number of main applications of technology in social organizations. They range from the most practical document creating, simple, communications using email, narrow and broadcast communication and participatory means such as forums, polls and wikis.

The internet went through several phases of “killer applications,” as the world population happened across its capabilities. Majorly are the ease and (no) cost sending of email and the richness of the World Wide Web, which was originally envisioned as an intimately linked, eminently re-usable “read-write” research web, where one web site's information can be linked with another, and information shared easily. Unfortunately, commercial and individual enthusiasm (and the unreadiness of the background technology) has resulted in many messes – email can be unusable due to “spam,” and most web sites today could be easier to use as a paper brochure, and they certainly don't encourage information re-use. Tragically, universal, re-usable design has been thrown out the window in many cases in favour of glitzy presentations.

For the past few years, there has been a focus on what's called "Web 2.0" - making Web based systems more interactive, participatory. There is also a trend to move away from desktop and office solutions to hosted systems - email, word processing, and so on, are hosted on a "cloud" provided by very large providers such as Google and Amazon. The benefits are simplified management and costs to the best standards. One inexpensive bill includes an organization's email, calendaring, group discussions, document editing, web site hosting and backup - each of which can be complicated to manage on its own. The drawbacks are massive consolidation of data, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberlaw&oldid=303904691#Jurisdiction_and_sovereignty data sovereignty] issues, and an implied requirement for local internet service providers to drastically upgrade their standards to compete with the best in the world.

The next trend ("Web 3.0") is anticipated to focus on the Semantic Web. This means richer exchange of information, leading to more re-use and better searching.

We focus on wiki because it promotes one of the original ideas of the Web, easy participation, and newer developments promote easier exchange of information – for example, using another organization's data in your Web site using systems such as Semantic Mediawiki.

=Technology use in the non profit sector=

In considering technology use in the non-profit sector, "three major "themes" seemed to emerge: the perceived lack of technology in the nonprofit sector, the push to "catch up", and the unique strength of the nonprofit sector in the information age." (http://www.merrillassociates.net/topic/2001/04/technology-and-non-profits)

[[todo:reinforce these themes]]

Often, social organizations who rely on funding will have to tailor their proposals so they appear to follow external mandates. This disconnect can lead to a distortion in implementation, where no real goals are reached, or can simply lead to wasteful, pointless resources, such as unused computers or websites developed without any real motivation as organizations simply need the overhead funds available in implementation or can't reasonably focus on the benefits.

Ambivalence to adopt new technology can be around concerns of "dehumanization" of an organization, key to the unique strength (the personal trust and connection) of social organizations. It can also be observed that the creative and social uses of technology are portrayed as secondary to the technical (mathematical) and commercial applications, all focused on treating individuals as numbers. Yet social organizations that embrace implementation of technology can help define it as fundamentally useful to their causes, by aligning with trends such as fair use, access and accessibility, and focusing on developing richer profiles of people, peer connections, and organizational interfaces.

Many public and social organizations have a special mandate to consider universal design. Some countries and jurisdictions have policies or even laws mandating accessible design (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/). Yet they are often just as likely as other organizations to say "disabled persons don't use our site" (no wonder why!), or leaving consideration till the end of a project, when resources have run dry.

Finally, technology can help make social services easier to use and understand. From finding the appropriate service in the first place, to accessing its services, means are being developed and improved by government, organizations, and individuals. Where does your organization want to be on the developing social graph?

{{#ask: [[Category:Entity]]
| ?is supported by
| ?is a
| ?serves
| format=graph
| graphcolor=Yes
| graphlink=Yes
| graphname=SocialOrgs
| graphlegend=No
| graphlabel=Yes
| rankdir=TB
| graphsize=10,10

}}

=Connecting and getting advice=

In a document entitled Successful Uses of Technology in Grassroots Organization, the Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management (University of San Francisco) proposes a series of recommendations of how to introduce technological change within a small nonprofits organizations;
* Budget time and money for technology
* When possible and appropriate, involve end-users (clients and staff) in technology planning and decision making
* Recruit technological expertise to staff or board
* Build networks using board, staff and other friends
* Better utilize online resources for technology expertise
http://www.usfca.edu/inom/research/INOM-Tech%20Use%20in%20Small%20NPs.pdf

Many online resources exist in support of non profits, technology and combining the two.

Examples include:

* http://www.nonprofittech.com
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/

... and numerous topic specific groups on sites like Facebook.

speaking informally, discovering motivations - inspired

=Measuring success, learning from failure=

From [[User:Janet]]'s notes:

There can be alternate ways to measure success from a qualitative perspective. Here are my

suggestions from an '' appreciative '' perspective. Please be aware that I am using this term ''

appreciative '' freely. The suggested measurements of qualitative evaluation and success in this

paper are based on my personal explorations and therefore do not, in any way or form, reflect the

principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Here is a brief description of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) Appreciative Inquiry (AI) assumes that

every living system has untapped and accounts of the positive1. Appreciative Inquiry is a methodical

discovery that a living system is at its optimum in social, political, economic, ecological, and

human terms when it is most vibrant, effective and constructive2. AI seeks to build a

transformational union between a people and it's capacities that are achievements, assets, unexplored

potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, and strategic

competencies through lived values, traditions, stories, visions, expressions of wisdom spiritual

insights, and future possibilities 3. Appreciative Inquiry questions and dialogues to imagine and

innovate about successes, hopes, and dreams instead of negating and criticizing downward into a

diagnostic spiral of despairing hopelessness4.

In working with small children who are climbing into a dangerous area, instead of saying ''don't climb there!''

Re-direct the children with a positive gesture ''Look!! Play here!''

AI's vision based approach and 4-D Model consists of stages of Discovery, Dream, Design and Doing and

4-I Model of Inquire, Imagine, Innovate and Implement 5. The SOAR (Strengths, Opportunities,

Anticipations, and Results) framework for inquiry and decision-making is a compatible AI framework to

strategic planning 6. SOAR is integral to developing strong relationships to implement sustainable

development practices7. AI's triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental stewardship,

and social equity or "profit, planet, people." provides a solid framework for measuring and

evaluating progress toward a sustainable socio-environmental-economic model with another social

construction and metaphor8.

Building evaluation capacity entails developing a system for creating and sustaining evaluation

practices9. Evaluation scholars have recommended that evaluation be more democratic, pluralistic,

deliberative, empowering, and enlightening10. Current evaluation practices are diverse, inclusive of

multiple perspectives, and supportive of the use of multiple methods, measures, and criteria11.

Evaluation Appreciative Inquiry is a highly participatory form of inquiry to address issues12.

Appreciative Inquiry and collaborative, participatory, stakeholder, and learning-oriented approaches

to evaluation emphasize *social constructivism, that is, that making sense and meaning is achieved

through the interaction13.

Suggested appreciative success indicators of a vision, design, action, or project can be measured

with point systems by examples such as how:

1. challenging
2. achievable, adoptable
3. realistic, solid
4. integrated, institutionalized
5. shared
6. interactive, active and dynamic
7. empowerment as choices, participation in decisions, dignity, respect, cooperation and a sense of
belonging to a wider community
8. equity as equal opportunity and access to natural, social and economic resources
9. sustainable in meeting needs without compromising future generations
10. internalized
11. thoroughness
12. thoughtfulness
13. respectful of oneself, others, the organization, environment
14. evolving, innovative
15. reflective of current priorities 14

Suggested appreciative accountability and success can consist of:

1. reports for recognizing and publicly praising accomplishments;
2. charts recording relative progress over time
3. anecdotal stories for publicizing successes
4. attending to those that make a difference 15

Suggested appreciative accountability reinforces responsibility of individuals:

1. to define one's working relationship with an organization as a contribution
2. to acknowledge the impact that the quality of one's work on others
3. to accept the outcome of one's actions 16

A success story, for example, is Myrada in the year 2000 of an NGO in India for managing rural

development organized a network of 11 NGOs, 804 people, 70 different organizations, 500 community-

based organizations representing about 10,000 people participating in appreciative inquiry

workshops.17 The workshops included self-help affinity groups; self help group federations, teachers

associations, watershed development associations, watershed implementation committees, village forest

committees, village health committees, children's clubs, local farmers associations, community

health groups, and others18. The number and types of committees demonstrates the engaging,

implicating and participatory approaches of AI.

Footnotes
1 Appreciative Inquiry
http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm
2 ibid
3 ibid
4 ibid
5 ibid
6 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
7 Anne T. Coghlan, Hallie Preskill, Tessie Tzavaras Catsambas, An Overview of Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaulations, no. 100, Winter 2003, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Weblogs, e-learning at University of British Comlumbia, UBC.
http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/mathison/Appreciative%20Inquiry
8 Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
9 ibid
10 ibid
11 ibid
12 ibid
13 Social constructivism
A social construction or social construct is any phenomenon "invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular culture or society existing because people agree to behave as if it exists or follow certain conventional rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction
Appreciative Inquiry
http://www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au/
14 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 Kamasamudram, India
http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
15 GTM Evaluation & Planning, Inc.
http://gtmeval.blogspot.com/2008/07/appreciative-accountability.html
16 An Accountability Culture 2006, Washing State University
http://wiki.wsu.edu/wsuwiki/Revised_Accountability_Statement
17 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Beyond Problem Analysis: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Design and Deliver Environmental, Gender Equity and Private Sector Development Projects, Trip Report 3: July - December, 2000 India http://www.iisd.org/ai/myrada_report3.htm
18 ibid

=Participating in WikiCED=
real time additions

View this document in an accessibility checker: http://wave.webaim.org/report?url=http://ced.zooid.org/wiki/WikiCED_manual&md=nils (currently with some errors to be corrected due to the graph)

[[Category:WikiCED notes]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-25T15:27:00Z

Janet Lumb: /* Post kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around and will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party? Irene was telling me about it. Did you go?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is again another thing, it is all too much, I have this to do, I have that to do....whine whine whine...(Cleo improvises)

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-25T15:26:41Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around and will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party? Irene was telling me about it. Did you go?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is again another thing, it is all too much, I have this to do, I have that to do....whine whine whine...(Cleo improvises)

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-25T15:26:11Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around and will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and Janet yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene, Thor, Bee stand at the door.

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party? Irene was telling me about it. Did you go?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is again another thing, it is all too much, I have this to do, I have that to do....whine whine whine...(Cleo improvises)

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation scene 1

2009-07-25T15:25:47Z

Janet Lumb: /* Pre pre pre kiwi party */

=== Scene 1 ===

* experimenting process, engaging around change

== Players ==
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]]
|?image
|?description
}}



The setting is based on our SCPA CED classroom and work settings. The scenarios are inspired by the enthusiasm and resistance to change.

=== Pre pre pre kiwi party ===

All characters during all of scene 1 are in the classroom, reading a book, standing or sitting around and will read their lines of scene 1 from the projected WikiCED screen.

Bee: I’m not so crazy about this kiwi idea. I already spend too much time in front of my computer. With the school work AND figuring out… I am really not so sure…

Nancy: I hate computers....whine whine whine (Cleo improvises)

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Janet + friends sings Rocky horror ''Let's do the time wharp again ''and Janet yells out ''months later''.

=== Pre pre kiwi party ===

Bee, Irene and Thor walks in and stays in class and Arnie, Nancy walk in together to grab a paper and walk out the classroom.

Arnie: Y'know, this technology thing ''sounds'' great, but the last time I tried to use a computer, it burned my toast badly.

Bev: I am DEFINITELY really interested because we could participate remotely in meetings in the evening and on weekends and holidays, also on lunch breaks and while showering, with the right equipment.

Nancy: Bev that is easy for you to say whine whine whine (Katherine improvises)

Janet + friends sings '' time wharp song ''and moves and someone yells out ''years later''.

== Pre kiwi party==

Irene, Thor, Bee stand at the door.

Irene: That's not exactly what kiwi is about.. It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public... How about I have a kiwi party to try to make this all clear?

Thor: Excellent, more control means greater efficiency.

Bee: Sure, but I'm only free Tuesdays between 5 and 5:30 in the morning.

Bee and Thor stay in room.
Janet + friends sings '' time wharp '' song while someone yells out ''months months months later''.

=== Post kiwi party ===
Bee and Thor are hanging out. Nancy, Arnie walks into classroom.

Bee: Hey Thor, How was the kiwi party? Irene was telling me about it. Did you go?

Thor: I didn't go.. if we're going to use computers, we should all be assigned one and given training and enforcement until we do things the proper way.

RARRRR!!!!!!!!!...I already told everyone. My way or the highway. It is easy.

Arnie: Maybe we should start with the basics.. I heard we can use computers to send faxes.

Thor: They should be sent to a reeducation class until they do things the proper way, be fired or quit. It's simple.

Irene: It's software based on the Web, you have to learn a few conventions, but it helps you solve a lot of different problems as a group and when including the public.

Bee: It sounds like it might be helpful for our affinity group, and really help my community organizing.

Nancy: yah but Bee, the affinity group is one thing, community organizing is again another thing, it is all too much, I have this to do, I have that to do....whine whine whine...(Cleo improvises)

Irene: You have to make sure to include those people using different means, not just the kiwi.

Thor: They can be reeducated.

Arnie: Couldn't we do all this with the fax machine?

Bev: Yes, we definitely should do it. Bureaucrat Today says everyone else is doing it (holds up a copy of Bureaucrat Today with a caption "Kiwis: Everyone else is doing it.")



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=3
|presenter=WikiCED group
|developer=Janet
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:WikiCED presentation]]

WikiCED presentation intro

2009-07-23T11:59:29Z

Janet Lumb: /* Intro */

== Intro ==



Our group, WikiCED is pleased to demonstrate what it might look like for an individual who wants to introduce or create change in an organization. Today our group will use technology as the vehicle to demonstrate challenges and opportunities around introducing change.

Before we start though, I’d like to share with you a few examples of individuals who created change in organizations
for example:

Brett in EyesteelFilm creating OpenSourceCinema.org, a video remix community a wiki film, Re-Mix that continues to be made on line,

Germaine Wong, ex-NFB producer who bypassed NFB institutional norms and regulations so when a proposal din't fit, instead of saying no or surrendering to the regulations,she somehow...found a way and unlike any other Canadian city that had an NFB studio or office, managed to create a relationship and strong link between NFB and the Montreal based Asian Canadian film makers.

Sharon Fernandez, Canada Council for the arts, ex-Equity Officer transformed the system, initiated a new program for culturally diverse arts organizations in record time, ensured that equity be top priority so she reported directly to the head of the Canada Council, fast tracked culturally diverse arts applications in 2001 benchmarking equity expectations

*Philip will start with a brief history of change and resistance
*Then our group has prepared a special presentation for you
*We will follow this with a participatory learning session which will include each of you co-creating and contributing to WikiCED, a manual that covers each of the areas we will talk about today along with links to many other resources
*And lastly, before we leave today, David will help ensure that everyone has an understanding of how to access the manual that we will have created together in real time.



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=1
|presenter=Katherine
|developer=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation intro

2009-07-23T11:56:22Z

Janet Lumb: /* Intro */

== Intro ==



Our group, WikiCED is pleased to demonstrate what it might look like for an individual who wants to introduce or create change in an organization. Today our group will use technology as the vehicle to demonstrate challenges and opportunities around introducing change.

Before we start though, I’d like to share with you a few examples of individuals who created change in organizations
for example:

Brett in EyesteelFilm as a web activist initiating a wiki film, Re-Mix that continues to be made on line

Germaine Wong, ex-NFB producer who bypassed NFB institutional norms and regulations so when a proposal din't fit, instead of saying no or surrendering to the regulations,she somehow...found a way and unlike any other Canadian city that had an NFB studio or office, managed to create a relationship and strong link between NFB and the Montreal based Asian Canadian film makers.

Sharon Fernandez, Canada Council for the arts, ex-Equity Officer transformed the system, initiated a new program for culturally diverse arts organizations in record time, ensured that equity be top priority so she reported directly to the head of the Canada Council, fast tracked culturally diverse arts applications in 2001 benchmarking equity expectations

*Philip will start with a brief history of change and resistance
*Then our group has prepared a special presentation for you
*We will follow this with a participatory learning session which will include each of you co-creating and contributing to WikiCED, a manual that covers each of the areas we will talk about today along with links to many other resources
*And lastly, before we leave today, David will help ensure that everyone has an understanding of how to access the manual that we will have created together in real time.



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=1
|presenter=Katherine
|developer=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation intro

2009-07-23T11:55:50Z

Janet Lumb: /* Intro */

== Intro ==



Our group, WikiCED is pleased to demonstrate what it might look like for an individual who wants to introduce or create change in an organization. Today our group will use technology as the vehicle to demonstrate challenges and opportunities around introducing change.

Before we start though, I’d like to share with you a few examples of individuals who created change in organizations
for example:

Brett in EyesteelFilm as a web activist initiating a wiki film, Re_mix that continues to be made on line
Germaine Wong, ex-NFB producer who bypassed NFB institutional norms and regulations so when a proposal din't fit, instead of saying no or surrendering to the regulations,she somehow...found a way and unlike any other Canadian city that had an NFB studio or office, managed to create a relationship and strong link between NFB and the Montreal based Asian Canadian film makers.

Sharon Fernandez, Canada Council for the arts, ex-Equity Officer transformed the system, initiated a new program for culturally diverse arts organizations in record time, ensured that equity be top priority so she reported directly to the head of the Canada Council, fast tracked culturally diverse arts applications in 2001 benchmarking equity expectations

*Philip will start with a brief history of change and resistance
*Then our group has prepared a special presentation for you
*We will follow this with a participatory learning session which will include each of you co-creating and contributing to WikiCED, a manual that covers each of the areas we will talk about today along with links to many other resources
*And lastly, before we leave today, David will help ensure that everyone has an understanding of how to access the manual that we will have created together in real time.



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=1
|presenter=Katherine
|developer=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation history

2009-07-22T12:06:42Z

Janet Lumb: /* History */

== History ==

CHANGE IN THE NORTHEAST WOODLANDS

A STONE-AGE PERSPECTIVE
RATINONSIÓN:NI

We used to cut trees

And build long houses

With stone axes
AHSERÓN:NI (1608)

The French man came

And the Dutch

Axes of iron
TAIETEWATATENONHWERÁ:TON

We greet one another

Every day

We are thankful
TAIONWISERAKÉ:RON

It was an ice age

The land was covered

We waited
WÁHTA NIIOHSANÓ:TEN

The trees returned

It was a maple

The first one
TSI KARHAHRÓNNIONKE

In the forest

We hunted

The wild animals
TIONHNHÉHKWA

They came

Our three sisters

We planted
SAIOHONSÁ:SEKE

The earth is new again

When corn is planted

Society is reformed
IAH TE KARIHWÍ:IO

Plow with iron

Women are oppressed

We use hoes
NIAGARA (1812)

American invasion

Brock dies losing the heights

The battle is lost
TEYONINHOKARÁ:WEN (1812)

50 Mohawk rifles against

2000 American muskets

Canada saved
LITTLE BIG HORN (1876)

Sioux with 16-shot Winchester

7th cavalry with single shot Springfield

Resistance to change
CANASSATEGO (1744)

Treaty of Lancaster, Virginia

Our schools do not harm us

Yours do
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (1744)

Thank you we must decline

We offer our schools

Step-by-Step

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=2
|presenter=Philip
|developer=Philip
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation history

2009-07-22T12:05:39Z

Janet Lumb: /* History */

== History ==



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=2
|presenter=Philip
|developer=Philip
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation intro

2009-07-21T19:48:15Z

Janet Lumb: /* Intro */

== Intro ==



Our group, WikiCED is pleased to demonstrate what it might look like for an individual who wants to introduce or create change in an organization. Today our group will use technology as the vehicle to demonstrate challenges and opportunities around introducing change.

Before we start though, I’d like to share with you a few examples of individuals who created change in organizations
for example:

Brett in EyesteelFilm as a web activist

Germaine Wong, ex-NFB producer who bypassed NFB institutional norms and regulations

Sharon Fernandez, Canada Council for the arts, ex-Equity Officer who fast tracked culturally diverse arts applications in 2001 benchmarking equity expectations

*Philip will start with a brief history of change and resistance
*Then our group has prepared a special presentation for you
*We will follow this with a participatory learning session which will include each of you co-creating and contributing to WikiCED, a manual that covers each of the areas we will talk about today along with links to many other resources
*And lastly, before we leave today, David will help ensure that everyone has an understanding of how to access the manual that we will have created together in real time.



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=1
|presenter=Katherine
|developer=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation intro

2009-07-21T19:47:46Z

Janet Lumb: /* Intro */

== Intro ==



Our group, WikiCED is pleased to demonstrate what it might look like for an individual who wants to introduce or create change in an organization. Today our group will use technology as the vehicle to demonstrate challenges and opportunities around introducing change.

Before we start though, I’d like to share with you a few examples of individuals who created change in organizations
for example:
Brett in EyesteelFilm as a web activist
Germaine Wong, ex-NFB producer who bypassed NFB institutional norms and regulations
Sharon Fernandez, Canada Council for the arts, ex-Equity Officer who fast tracked culturally diverse arts applications in 2001 benchmarking equity expectations

*Philip will start with a brief history of change and resistance
*Then our group has prepared a special presentation for you
*We will follow this with a participatory learning session which will include each of you co-creating and contributing to WikiCED, a manual that covers each of the areas we will talk about today along with links to many other resources
*And lastly, before we leave today, David will help ensure that everyone has an understanding of how to access the manual that we will have created together in real time.



== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=1
|presenter=Katherine
|developer=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change

2009-07-19T12:09:25Z

Janet Lumb: /* TEAM SUMMARIES */

===SUMMARY===
* Project -Janet

- to create a 10 year succession plan for a multi-disciplinary Asian arts Festival community organization to develop social, political health targeting economic health to resolve the dilemma of a volunteer co-founder and artistic director

*CHALLENGES

-requires strategic plan, long term plan, short term plan and action plans before a succession plan
-due to being stretched beyond capacities, under-resourced and over-extended, volunteers and staff are available to task oriented daily necessities
-how do community organizations manage time to make plans when organization is in crisis management and immediate priorities are required to maintain daily tasks and functioning such as, production, organizing, coordination, presenting, orientating etc.

*WHY A CHALLENGE?

-nature of community work, as volunteer based and extracurricular for those who are key instrumental players in organization but are occupied elsewhere to earn their living
-government shuffling of responsibilities of NPO to the citizens

‘’In an age of downsizing in government, Canadians are increasingly turning to the not-for-profit sector to provide collective responses to community needs. ‘’

(Keith G. Banting)

"Devolution" is a word used a great deal these days among non-profit funders and leaders. Essentially devolution is the shorthand word for a strong trend of cutbacks in federal funding to nonprofits. ’’

(Carter McNamara)

Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change

2009-07-19T12:08:04Z

Janet Lumb: /* SUMMARY */

===SUMMARY===
* Project -Janet

- to create a 10 year succession plan for a multi-disciplinary Asian arts Festival community organization to develop social, political health targeting economic health to resolve the dilemma of a volunteer co-founder and artistic director
CHALLENGES
-requires strategic plan, long term plan, short term plan and action plans before a succession plan
-due to being stretched beyond capacities, under-resourced and over-extended, volunteers and staff are available to task oriented daily necessities
-how do community organizations manage time to make plans when organization is in crisis management and immediate priorities are required to maintain daily tasks and functioning such as, production, organizing, coordination, presenting, orientating etc.
WHY A CHALLENGE?
-nature of community work, as volunteer based and extracurricular for those who are key instrumental players in organization but are occupied elsewhere to earn their living
-government shuffling of responsibilities of NPO to the citizens
‘’In an age of downsizing in government, Canadians are increasingly turning to the not-for-profit sector to provide collective responses to community needs. ‘’
(Keith G. Banting)
"Devolution" is a word used a great deal these days among non-profit funders and leaders. Essentially devolution is the shorthand word for a strong trend of cutbacks in federal funding to nonprofits. ’’ (Carter McNamara)

Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change

2009-07-19T12:07:33Z

Janet Lumb: Team Project Summaries

===SUMMARY===
* Project Part I -Janet

- to create a 10 year succession plan for a multi-disciplinary Asian arts Festival community organization to develop social, political health targeting economic health to resolve the dilemma of a volunteer co-founder and artistic director
CHALLENGES
-requires strategic plan, long term plan, short term plan and action plans before a succession plan
-due to being stretched beyond capacities, under-resourced and over-extended, volunteers and staff are available to task oriented daily necessities
-how do community organizations manage time to make plans when organization is in crisis management and immediate priorities are required to maintain daily tasks and functioning such as, production, organizing, coordination, presenting, orientating etc.
WHY A CHALLENGE?
-nature of community work, as volunteer based and extracurricular for those who are key instrumental players in organization but are occupied elsewhere to earn their living
-government shuffling of responsibilities of NPO to the citizens
‘’In an age of downsizing in government, Canadians are increasingly turning to the not-for-profit sector to provide collective responses to community needs. ‘’
(Keith G. Banting)
"Devolution" is a word used a great deal these days among non-profit funders and leaders. Essentially devolution is the shorthand word for a strong trend of cutbacks in federal funding to nonprofits. ’’ (Carter McNamara)

Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change

2009-07-19T12:01:23Z

Janet Lumb: Team Project Summaries

SUMMARY
Project Part I -Janet
- to create a 10 year succession plan for a multi-disciplinary Asian arts Festival community organization to develop social, political health targeting economic health to resolve the dilemma of a volunteer co-founder and artistic director
CHALLENGES
-requires strategic plan, long term plan, short term plan and action plans before a succession plan
-due to being stretched beyond capacities, under-resourced and over-extended, volunteers and staff are available to task oriented daily necessities
-how do community organizations manage time to make plans when organization is in crisis management and immediate priorities are required to maintain daily tasks and functioning such as, production, organizing, coordination, presenting, orientating etc.
WHY A CHALLENGE?
-nature of community work, as volunteer based and extracurricular for those who are key instrumental players in organization but are occupied elsewhere to earn their living
-government shuffling of responsibilities of NPO to the citizens
‘’In an age of downsizing in government, Canadians are increasingly turning to the not-for-profit sector to provide collective responses to community needs. ‘’
(Keith G. Banting)
"Devolution" is a word used a great deal these days among non-profit funders and leaders. Essentially devolution is the shorthand word for a strong trend of cutbacks in federal funding to nonprofits. ’’ (Carter McNamara)

WikiCED

2009-07-19T11:59:04Z

Janet Lumb: /* Topics */

== Topics ==

[[Appreciative Inquiry]] (AI)

[[Knowledge management]] and [[Use of Wiki in groups]]

[[Affinity Team Project Summaries Related to Change]]

[[Change management]]

[[CDJKKMP Bibliography]]

[[CDJKKMP Presentation Workshop|Presentation Workshop]]

== Members ==

* [[User:Cleo|Cleo]]
* [[User:DavidM|DavidM]]
* [[User:Janet|Janet]]
* [[User:Katherine|Katherine]]
* [[User:Kathleen|Kathleen]]
* [[User:Marie-Christine|Marie-Christine]]
* [[User:Oskenontona| Philip]]

[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED

2009-07-19T11:56:48Z

Janet Lumb: /* Topics */

== Topics ==

[[Appreciative Inquiry]] (AI)

[[Knowledge management]] and [[Use of Wiki in groups]]

[[Affinity Team Summaries Related to Change]]

[[Change management]]

[[CDJKKMP Bibliography]]

[[CDJKKMP Presentation Workshop|Presentation Workshop]]

== Members ==

* [[User:Cleo|Cleo]]
* [[User:DavidM|DavidM]]
* [[User:Janet|Janet]]
* [[User:Katherine|Katherine]]
* [[User:Kathleen|Kathleen]]
* [[User:Marie-Christine|Marie-Christine]]
* [[User:Oskenontona| Philip]]

[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation Q&A

2009-07-19T11:51:10Z

Janet Lumb: /* About */

== Participatory Learning ==

Participatory learning captured in wiki using AI approach.

Brief introduction of AI.
Three questions added to the blackboard and across the room for people to write on board

* a story of someone who created change in an organization
* what is change

* original question: what's important to you about change

* alternate & suggested 3rd question by Janet:
what tactics can you do, what tools can you use to encourage or create change in an organization?

* 10 mins.

Game:
Each person in class is given a maximum of 60 secs. to give their story or thoughts of the question they have contributed to on the blackboard. Janet has a 60 sec. timer & bell.

* 20 mins.

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=8
|presenter=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=30}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation Q&A

2009-07-19T11:49:44Z

Janet Lumb: /* Participatory Learning */

== Participatory Learning ==

Participatory learning captured in wiki using AI approach.

Brief introduction of AI.
Three questions added to the blackboard and across the room for people to write on board

* a story of someone who created change in an organization
* what is change

* original question: what's important to you about change

* alternate & suggested 3rd question by Janet:
what tactics can you do, what tools can you use to encourage or create change in an organization?

* 10 mins.

Game:
Each person in class is given a maximum of 60 secs. to give their story or thoughts of the question they have contributed to on the blackboard. Janet has a 60 sec. timer & bell.

* 20 mins.

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=8
|presenter=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=25}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation Q&A

2009-07-19T11:48:27Z

Janet Lumb: /* Participatory Learning */

== Participatory Learning ==

Participatory learning captured in wiki using AI approach.

Brief introduction of AI.
Three questions added to the blackboard and across the room for people to write on board

* a story of someone who created change in an organization
* what is change

* original question: what's important to you about change

* alternate & suggested 3rd question by Janet:
what tactics can you do, what tools can you use to encourage or create change in an organization?
-10 mins.

Game:
Each person in class is given a maximum of 60 secs. to give their story or thoughts of the question they have contributed to on the blackboard. Janet has a 60 sec. timer with a delicate gong.
20 mins.

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=8
|presenter=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=25}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED Presentation Workshop

2009-07-19T11:28:24Z

Janet Lumb: /* Individual */

'''Introducing change into an organization as an individual with no top-down power'''

{{#ask: [[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
|?Minutes
|?Developer
|?Presenter
|format=table
|sort=Position

}}

'''Total minutes: {{#ask:[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]][[Minutes::+]]|?Minutes|format=sum}}'''

[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]

== Schedule ==
* By [[Date::July 24, 2009]] - Fri. all revisions, tasks completed

* [[Date::Aug. 11, 2009]] - Tues.6 pm. meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with team minus Cleo

* [[Date::Aug. 13, 2009]] - Thurs. 6 pm. final meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with all of team

* By [[Date::June 26, 2009]] - first draft of skits and commentary.

* By [[Date::July 10, 2009]] - First run through of complete piece

* Presentation due [[Date::July 17, 2009]]

* By [[Date::July 17, 2009]] - Fri. at 5 pm, after class practice, meeting, rehearsal of final draft of skits and commentary. Meet with Eric as group to propose wiki as our paper.

* By [[Date::Aug 15, 2009]] - presentation and paper completed and submitted

[[Media:511_Affinity_Grp_Task_List.doc‎ | Word doc with task outline]]

== Todo ==

=== Group ===

* examples of introduced and potential change
* pictures: Cleo, David, <s>Janet</s>, Katherine, Marie-Christine, Philip
* Aug 11 1800h Review meeting
* Aug 13 1830 Final review (Philip to book room)
* One page summary of individual challenges

=== Individual ===

* Marie-Christine - extract points about creating change from [[CDJKKMP Bibliography | bibliography]], characteristics of characters, send in photo, send in one page summary, read scene 1-3 and ensure unity
* David -Wiki Manual, creating cartoon image
* Janet - Fix scene 1, write up summary of meeting,send out warnings and remainders for deadlines, send in one page summary
* Cleo - Fix scene 2, add to bibliography, send photo, send one page summary
* Katherine - Shorten scene 3, write intro and send to team, send photo, send one page summary
*Phillip-write history of change and resistance, send in one page summary or whole essay, send in photo, reserve library for 2 meeting dates, write brief summary of AI, read presentation to ensure an Appreciative approach

Pictures

=== Manual ===

David - First pass

Marie-Christine - add bibliography detail

Philip - Add appreciative inquiry - "what do you want more of" - tell the best experience story, reflect on the experience

{{#ask: [[Category:CDJKKMP notes]][[Date::+]]
| ?Date
|format=calendar
}}

WikiCED presentation Q&A

2009-07-18T22:19:33Z

Janet Lumb: /* Participatory Learning */

== Participatory Learning ==

Participatory learning captured in wiki using AI approach.

Brief introduction of AI.
Three questions added to the blackboard and across the room for people to write on board

* a story of someone who created change in an organization
* what is change
* what's important to you about change

-10 mins.

Game:
Each person in class is given a maximum of 60 secs. to give their story or thoughts of the question they have contributed to on the blackboard. Janet has a 60 sec. timer with a delicate gong.
20 mins.

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=8
|presenter=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=25}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED presentation Q&A

2009-07-18T21:55:52Z

Janet Lumb: /* Q&A */

== Q&A ==

Participatory learning captured in wiki using AI approach.

Brief introduction of AI.
Three questions added to the blackboard and across the room for people to write on board

* a story of someone who created change in an organization
* what is change
* what's important to you about change

-10 mins.

Game:
Each person in class is given a maximum of 60 secs. to give their story or thoughts of the question they have contributed on the board. Janet has a 60 sec. timer with a gong.
20 mins.

== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=8
|presenter=CDJKKMP group
|minutes=25}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED innovation example

2009-07-18T21:50:19Z

Janet Lumb: /* Utilisation de la technologie comme moteur de changement social */

= Utilisation de la technologie comme moteur de changement social =

Il existe plusieurs exemples d’initiatives où la technologie joue le rôle central dans la promotion de changements sociaux. L’utilisation d’internet permet de mobiliser rapidement des gens en plus de créer un espace où ces derniers peuvent interagir. Au Québec, le covoiturage doit son essor à la toile; les gens peuvent se rencontrer virtuellement et s’entendre sur une heure et un lieu de départ! Internet, dans une perspective de mobilisation, peut également donner des résultats surprenants. Des campagnes ont connu d’importants succès suite à la publicisation sur la toile; des gens de partout dans le monde ont la possibilité d’être solidaires et d’appuyer des campagnes sur des enjeux spécifiques. Le e-campaigning permet autant à des organisations locales qu’internationales de faire valoir leur cause; ce fut notamment le cas pour Greenpeace et Citoyens pour la nature.

==Auto-partage==

Deux entreprises québécoises se démarquent remarquablement au niveau de la promotion de l’auto-partage. Allo-Stop et Amigo Express œuvrent depuis plusieurs années déjà à rendre le transport collectif accessible, simple, efficace et agréable.

===Allo-Stop===

Allo-Stop a vu le jour en 1982, alors que deux jeunes femmes se demandaient ce qu’elles pouvaient bien faire pour la société et les jeunes en particulier. Au fil des discussions liées au voyage et à l’auto-stop, l’idée de relier les automobilistes avec les passagers émergea et l’entreprise démarra.

À l’origine, les deux femmes n’avaient aucune ressource financière, mais pleine de bonne volonté, elles décident d’ouvrir un petit comptoir à l’arrière d’un café. Au bout de quelques mois, elles ouvrent un deuxième bureau à Québec et poursuivent leurs efforts pour convaincre chacun des nouveaux membres.

Avec les années, le système s’améliore. Les passagers comme les conducteurs appellent les bureaux régionaux pour faire connaître leurs besoins et leurs heures de départ. Toutefois, avec la clientèle toujours grandissante, le besoin de développer une autre méthode de mise en contact se fait sentir. C’est alors qu’un site internet est créé et permet aux voyageurs de transiger directement en ligne, réduisant ainsi le temps d’attente. Ce changement important a permis à Allo-Stop de rester compétitif dans le domaine du covoiturage au Québec et regroupe actuellement 60,000 membres.

===Amigo Express===

Créé en 2006, Amigo Express devient alors la première entreprise de covoiturage interurbain à fonctionner principalement en ligne. L’entreprise connaît une bonne entrée sur le marché, résultat notamment du prix de l’essence qui ne cesse d’augmenter, de même que les inconvénients reliés au système téléphonique d’Allo-Stop.

L'entreprise propose aux participants d'évaluer la ponctualité et la conduite des conducteurs, permettant aux passagers de participer au contrôle de la qualité par des profils personnalisés. Amigo Express propose également du covoiturage événementiel qui consiste à valoriser les spectacles, festivals et autres événements.

Ces deux entreprises ont eu recours à la technologie dans le but de provoquer un changement social ; soit celui de réduire l’utilisation de la voiture « individuelle », de promouvoir un mode de transport écologique et durable en plus de favoriser les échanges sociaux. Ces deux entreprises démontrent à quel point l’utilisation d’internet facilite la mise en contact des personnes et la création d’un réseau interurbain de transport collectif.

== E-campaigning ==

Les campagnes menées sur internet sont une pratique de plus en plus courante pour les organisations réclamant une justice sociale, économique et environnementale. Utilisées par la majorité des grandes organisations internationales; dont Greenpeace, Amnistie internationale, Oxfam International et même par des organisations provinciales ou locales, les campagnes internet permettent de sensibiliser une masse importante de gens sur un sujet particulier.

Par le passé, de vastes campagnes internationales ont été organisées, menées et gagnées grâce aux technologies de l’information. Qu’il soit question de mines anti-personnelles, de changements climatiques, de pauvreté, de forêts vierges et de protection d’aires menacées, ces campagnes permettent souvent d’obtenir des résultats rapides et concrets. Elles permettent de conscientiser rapidement une masse critique de la société civile afin d’espérer que celle-ci prenne position et agisse en faisant pression sur les décideurs. Ces campagnes proposent une action simple que les internautes peuvent poser et l’impact du e-campaigning se trouve dans le nombre de ces actions posées presque simultanément.

===Greenpeace===

Greenpeace a lancé en mai 2008 une grande campagne internet contre le géant Unilever. La compagnie était le plus grand acheteur d’huile de palme, utilisée dans la fabrication de savon. Cette utilisation contribuait à la déforestation de l’Indonésie, où les palmiers sont nombreux. En trois semaines seulement, Greenpeace récolta grâce à une publicité dérisoire de Dove, plus de 115,000 signatures en ligne. Suite à cette action, Unilever s’engagea à accepter un moratoire sur la coupe de ces arbres et à faire pression sur les autres grands acheteurs d’huile de palme en Indonésie, tels que Kraft, Nestlé et Proctor & Gamble.

===« On dort comme une bûche! »- Citoyens pour la nature===

Citoyen pour la nature est une initiative parrainée par Nature Québec et la Société pour la nature et les parcs du Canada (SNAP Québec). Elle a pour mission d’informer et de mobiliser les citoyens afin de résoudre, collectivement, l’enjeu des aires protégées sur le territoire québécois.

En 2006, alors qu’au Québec, le réseau des aires protégées ne couvrait que 3,4 % du territoire québécois, ce qui représentait un écart considérable comparativement au reste du Canada ainsi qu’à la moyenne mondiale. L’urgence d’agir afin de protéger notre biodiversité se faisait bien sentir. C’est alors que Citoyens pour la nature lança une pétition en ligne, appelée « On dort comme une bûche! » ayant pour but de forcer le gouvernement du Québec à prendre des mesures concrètes en faveur de la biodiversité.

En quelques mois seulement, plus de 200 000 signatures ont été récoltées, ce qui poussa le Premier ministre Jean Charest à s’engager à doubler les aires protégées au Québec. C’est finalement en mars 2009 que le Québec atteint sa cible de 8% d’aires protégées sur son territoire, dépassant même légèrement cet objectif pour atteindre 8,12%.

Le travail réalisé par Citoyens pour la nature avec sa pétition n’est bien sûr pas la seule source de pression, toutefois, il contribua certes à faire savoir au gouvernement que la population était bien en faveur de mesures concrètes de protection des écosystèmes.

Site internet d’Allo-Stop. www.allostop.com Site visité le 22 juin 2009.

Site internet d’Amigo Express. www.amigoexpress.com Site visité le 22 juin 2009.

Site internet de Greenpeace. « Unilever rises to the challenge ». http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/unilever-challenge150508. Site visité le 23 juin 2009.

Site internet de Citoyens pour la nature. http://www.citoyenspourlanature.com/fr/accueil/index.asp. Site visité le 23 juin 2009.





== About ==

{{Presentation
|position=6
|presenter=cancelled
|developer=Marie-Christine
|minutes=5}}

[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]

WikiCED Presentation Workshop

2009-07-18T21:46:17Z

Janet Lumb: /* Individual */

'''Introducing change into an organization as an individual with no top-down power'''

{{#ask: [[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
|?Minutes
|?Developer
|?Presenter
|format=table
|sort=Position

}}

'''Total minutes: {{#ask:[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]][[Minutes::+]]|?Minutes|format=sum}}'''

[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]

== Schedule ==
* By [[Date::July 24, 2009]] - Fri. all revisions, tasks completed

* [[Date::Aug. 11, 2009]] - Tues.6 pm. meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with team minus Cleo

* [[Date::Aug. 13, 2009]] - Thurs. 6 pm. final meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with all of team

* By [[Date::June 26, 2009]] - first draft of skits and commentary.

* By [[Date::July 10, 2009]] - First run through of complete piece

* Presentation due [[Date::July 17, 2009]]

* By [[Date::July 17, 2009]] - Fri. at 5 pm, after class practice, meeting, rehearsal of final draft of skits and commentary. Meet with Eric as group to propose wiki as our paper.

* By [[Date::Aug 15, 2009]] - presentation and paper completed and submitted

[[Media:511_Affinity_Grp_Task_List.doc‎ | Word doc with task outline]]

== Todo ==

=== Group ===

* examples of introduced and potential change
* pictures: Cleo, David, <s>Janet</s>, Katherine, Marie-Christine, Philip
* Aug 11 1800h Review meeting
* Aug 13 1830 Final review (Philip to book room)
* One page summary of individual challenges

=== Individual ===

* Marie-Christine - extract points about creating change from [[CDJKKMP Bibliography | bibliography]], characteristics of characters, send in photo, send in one page summary
* David -Wiki Manual, creating cartoon image
* Janet - Fix scene 1, write up summary of meeting,send out warnings and remainders for deadlines, send in one page summary
* Cleo - Fix scene 2, add to bibliography, send photo, send one page summary
* Katherine - Shorten scene 3, write intro and send to team, send photo, send one page summary
*Phillip-write history of change and resistance, send in one page summary or whole essay, send in photo, book library for 2 meeting dates, write brief summary of AI

Pictures

=== Manual ===

David - First pass

Marie-Christine - add bibliography detail

Philip - Add appreciative inquiry - "what do you want more of" - tell the best experience story, reflect on the experience

{{#ask: [[Category:CDJKKMP notes]][[Date::+]]
| ?Date
|format=calendar
}}

WikiCED Presentation Workshop

2009-07-18T21:36:05Z

Janet Lumb: /* Schedule */

'''Introducing change into an organization as an individual with no top-down power'''

{{#ask: [[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]
|?Minutes
|?Developer
|?Presenter
|format=table
|sort=Position

}}

'''Total minutes: {{#ask:[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]][[Minutes::+]]|?Minutes|format=sum}}'''

[[Category:CDJKKMP notes]]
[[Category:CDJKKMP presentation]]

== Schedule ==
* By [[Date::July 24, 2009]] - Fri. all revisions, tasks completed

* [[Date::Aug. 11, 2009]] - Tues.6 pm. meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with team minus Cleo

* [[Date::Aug. 13, 2009]] - Thurs. 6 pm. final meeting, rehearsal, run through etc. at Concordia U. library or 2nd Cup on de Maisonneuve & MacKay with all of team

* By [[Date::June 26, 2009]] - first draft of skits and commentary.

* By [[Date::July 10, 2009]] - First run through of complete piece

* Presentation due [[Date::July 17, 2009]]

* By [[Date::July 17, 2009]] - Fri. at 5 pm, after class practice, meeting, rehearsal of final draft of skits and commentary. Meet with Eric as group to propose wiki as our paper.

* By [[Date::Aug 15, 2009]] - presentation and paper completed and submitted

[[Media:511_Affinity_Grp_Task_List.doc‎ | Word doc with task outline]]

== Todo ==

=== Group ===

* examples of introduced and potential change
* pictures: Cleo, David, <s>Janet</s>, Katherine, Marie-Christine, Philip
* Aug 11 1800h Review meeting
* Aug 13 1830 Final review (Philip to book room)
* One page summary of individual challenges

=== Individual ===

* Marie-Christine - extract points about creating change from [[CDJKKMP Bibliography | bibliography]], characteristics of characters
* Janet - Fix scene 1
* Cleo - Fix scene 2
* Katherine - Shorten scene 3

Pictures

=== Manual ===

David - First pass

Marie-Christine - add bibliography detail

Philip - Add appreciative inquiry - "what do you want more of" - tell the best experience story, reflect on the experience

{{#ask: [[Category:CDJKKMP notes]][[Date::+]]
| ?Date
|format=calendar
}}