Oskenontona:

The 5-D model of is one of a number of Appreciative Inquiry models. These models are easily recognizable to Organization Development practitioners as Action Research models, which they are, but through an AI lens. The five "D"s are:

*Definition..(what you want more of)
*Discovery..(appreciating what is)
*Dream......(imagining what could be)
*Design......(determining what should be)
*Destiny.....(creating what will be)

The definition phase is actually a pre-inquiry phase. This would mean only a small number of people are involved in choosing the affirmative topic. It is important therefore to pay close attention to "ground shifts" in the data gathered during the Discovery phase. Although this can be done qualitatively, Bushe notes a quantitative approach can be done by doing a word count of the Discovery phase and comparing for congruence between the most frequently appearing words and the affirmative topic. If the discovery data contradicts the affirmative topic, then the ground has shifted; a new affirmative topic needs to be identified.

Once the affirmative topic is known to have been properly identified, the two key phases are:
*Discovery:.New knowledge, images, models, or theories have been identified.
*Dream:......A generative metaphor has been created.

While many people, particularly OD people, consider carefully crafted participatory Design (action plans) and Destiny (implementation) phases as key, the [http://www.gervasebushe.ca/aimeta.htm research] done by Gervase R. Bushe has shown that transformational and sustainable change is better supported by a more improvational approach to design and destiny.

2009-07-28T15:57:48Z

Oskenontona: /* TODO */

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

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

== TODO ==

* examples of orgs using tech
* use cases of AI
* more use of characters
* round out sections that only have refs
* success & failure - link to process
* An Iroquois case history

= 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://www.gervasebushe.ca/appinq.htm#applied 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

}}

== Real world projects ==

* http://www.slideshare.net/forumone/ivan-boothe-v2 ...
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/2008/01/unions-using-fa.html
* http://www.nonprofittech.com/advocacy/
* http://www.blisstree.com/breastfeeding123/breastfeeding-advocacy-on-facebook/

themes and concrete results

tools

http://www.frogloop.com/care2blog/2009/5/14/tools-galore-in-online-communications.html

=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

2009-07-28T12:27:47Z

Oskenontona: /* TODO */

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

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

== TODO ==

* examples of orgs using tech
* use cases of AI
* more use of characters
* round out sections that only have refs
* success & failure - link to process

= 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://www.gervasebushe.ca/appinq.htm#applied 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

}}

== Real world projects ==

* http://www.slideshare.net/forumone/ivan-boothe-v2 ...
* http://www.network-centricadvocacy.net/2008/01/unions-using-fa.html
* http://www.nonprofittech.com/advocacy/
* http://www.blisstree.com/breastfeeding123/breastfeeding-advocacy-on-facebook/

themes and concrete results

tools

http://www.frogloop.com/care2blog/2009/5/14/tools-galore-in-online-communications.html

=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]]