WikiCED manual

Change from within:

Creating innovation in an organization as an individual.

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 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 – indicated with individual signatures.

One of the technologies we'll be focusing on is wiki. Wiki is a Hawaiian word for fast, and the first wiki was developed to support computer programmers share information on the 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:

	Description	Image
Anti-tech Arnie	Fax machines are the height of human achievement
Bureaucrat Bev	Everything by the book, for the organization!
Busy Betty Bee	Everywhere, doing everything with no time to spare.
Innovator Irene	We can solve this problem with a few simple technological conventions
Iron-fisted RARRRR Thor	It's simple. My way or the highway!
Mélanie Hughes
Whiny Negate No No Nancy	Whiny Negate No No

Promises and risks of introducing change

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

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 are very technically driven. Whatever clever “invention” a technical person managed to come up with becomes the focus. This is a good model for ultra competitive commercial enterprise, but not so good for social organisations. Good service providers will involve multidisciplinary teams that include, where practical, designers, content experts, and end user representation, as well as those focusing only on the technology.

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. It's a trade-off between complete flexibility (doing things spontaneously) and degree of efficiency and effectiveness for specific concerns.

For example, consider the idea of categorization. Many organizations have incredible struggles with classifying and describing information (developing ontologies). Today, it takes weeks for an information request to be processed by the city. If an organization has thousands of documents, they can be more easily found in a good system, or 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 is a problem that has existed for thousands of years. 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 references are available.

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 “cut curb principle.”

As many are aware, navigating the world as a person with disabilities often results in frustration or complete denial to everyday services.

curb cuts for wheelchairs also guide blind persons into street crossings and prevent accidents for baby strollers, bicyclists, skateboarders, and inattentive walkers. The “curb cuts” principle is that removing a barrier for persons with disabilities improves the situation for everybody. This hypothesis suggests erasing the line that labels some technologies as assistive and certain practices as accessibility to maximize the benefits for future users of all computer-enabled devices. This paradigm requires a new theory of design that recognizes accessibility flaws as unexplored areas of the design space, potential harbingers of complexity and quality loss, plus opportunities for innovation in architectures and interfaces. Besides the general acceptance of computing curb cuts as a social good at an acceptable price, the traditional computing culture will benefit from a dose of understanding of the technology communities, institutions and visionaries that drive a vibrant world of persons who overcome disabilities.

Using innovation successfully

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.

	Description	Image	Destiny
Anti-tech Arnie	Fax machines are the height of human achievement		The leader of the underground organization SQUASH where members are committed to maintaining communication by fax. Of course this will prove an enormous challenge for the group since fax paper is no longer being produced. Anti-tech Arnie continues to eat burnt toast for breakfast.
Bureaucrat Bev	Everything by the book, for the organization!		Went on to create the Bureaucratic Center for Centering Bureaucracy, which increased efficiency by allowing them to organize and access information with themselves and the public, making everyone in the world a bureaucrat.
Busy Betty Bee	Everywhere, doing everything with no time to spare.		Eagerly promoted the use of kiwis through her continued involvement in the CED affinity group and her community organizing. Eventually Busy Betty Bee helped to create other affinity groups both within the CED program at Concordia University as well as within the broader population. Busy Betty Bee hopes to create international affinity groups. She helped to edit Innovator Irene’s book on kiwis, she consults for Bureaucratic Bev’s agency, she also writes funding proposals for the Blue-Chip Program and she visits Whiny Negate No No Nancy every Tuesday morning between 5 and 5:30.
Innovator Irene	We can solve this problem with a few simple technological conventions		Went on to invent more conventions for kiwis and founded an organization that trains thousands on the proper use of kiwi conventions. Her success led to a number 1 best seller “Kiwi and Community Organizing” that was featured on the Oprah show.
Iron-fisted RARRRR Thor	It's simple. My way or the highway!		Developed REBOOT a boot-camp style initiative funded by the federal government whose aim is to re-educate the general population to the effective means of organizing, data-collection, and information sharing. Iron-fisted Thor obtained special funding that is currently piloting a Blue-Chip Insertion program aimed at ensuring that people do things “his way or the highway!”
Mélanie Hughes
Whiny Negate No No Nancy	Whiny Negate No No		Had a difficult time understanding the change in her CED classmates. She cried herself to sleep every night for six months until she finally sought help. She was hospitalized in a private hospital where she received experimental treatment through the Blue-Chip Insertion Program.

How to introduce change

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 and funders: 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 expect, 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 employees or the served constituents. Activities can range from participations in wp:focus groups, formal or informal wp:usability sessions or polling advocacy groups.

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, alternate services must be maintained, with summaries of technology based interactions.

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

	Image	Characteristics
Anti-tech Arnie		believes that technological advancement is a synonym of dehumanization resists technological advances feels good in a familiar environment doesn’t know technology and can’t imagine its uses and benefits for himself believes technology is too complicated change might result in a situation where he needs to readjust and where he will lose control over his environment can be convinced if change is presented in a way he will realize it is not so complicated and that he can have some benefits
Bureaucrat Bev		is very organized and structured likes when things fit in a frame, are systemized lacks creativity and autonomy from the administration of her organization change can mean disorder to her believes the use of rules, regulations, and formal authority guide performance will adopt change more easily when it is a top-down approach can be convinced if change is presented to her as if it will be part of her existing system, that it will have “rules” regulating it
Busy Betty Bee		has a very full agenda; likes to have busy schedules believes what she is involved with to be the most important things wants change to be simple and easy to implement because she has not time to lose over adapting to a new situation change and new ideas must be presented has if they were ready to be implemented actively engaged in work, often zealous has difficulty understanding the benefits of change because she doesn’t even have time to realize a changing situation is presented to her can be convinced if the changes proposed can improve her ability to do things, to lighten her agenda (so she can take on more tasks!)
Innovator Irene		wants to bring change within an organization self-motivated, curious, dedicated and interested in new ideas that can increase efficiency and improve the work environment believes work is a multidimensional environment where every aspects are connected and intertwined is creative and tries to find ways to convince colleagues to buy in needs to manage expectations and include as many people as possible
Iron-fisted RARRRR Thor		has a firm view of things, he is hard to convince, is close-minded believes he has the right way of doing things and even thinking will not change his positions unless he is shown it can have benefits for him will adopt change in his own way
Mélanie Hughes
Whiny Negate No No Nancy		likes complaining and being negative about change and life in general doesn’t know how to articulate her opinions, thoughts feels like everything is complicated, useless or unimportant expresses her fear of change by whining can be convinced of adopting a change if we find answers to her complaining or find the incoherence in her whining discourse

Change processes

CED waterfall agile

1. describe key goal (including baselines and measurements), critical budget and timing issues
2. define and refine goal(s)
3. research solutions and select working set
4. refine goals based on working set
5. implement solutions (with as much iteration as permitted)
6. measure effectiveness
7. summarize effects
8. iterate

avoid custom software vs accessibility

Technology as a solution

We think of the technology we use today as new, but in reality most of it has been around, in different forms, 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 lifetime. 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 were left scrambling to react to this disruptive development.

The internet is the product of generations of scientists, strategists, and implementers, now available for anyone to use, at the price of stepping into a limelight, encrypted or not, and taking on complexity. Today, the decisions an organization faces when using technology are as complicated as ever. 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.

For example, Twitter, a current craze, represents the latest version of the wp:Echo chamber, a metaphorical space where “information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission ” - but this time, with more identity. Twitter is presented in the media as a way to follow celebrities, or sent brief messages about the most mundane activities. But using Twitter as a "social search" - finding individuals currently available and interested in topics important to you (including activism, fundraising and sectoral issues) opens up a whole new dimension on this tool, which can enable and connect, as well as being a way to stay in touch with some constituents.

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

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 design has been thrown out the window in many cases in favour of glitzy presentations.

Wikis promote 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 Freebase and Semantic Mediawiki.

go past using tech as typewriter

don't expect more than what is offered

keep it simple

technology as a threat

Technology use in the non profit sector

practical, advocacy communications curb cut principle

Many public and social organizations have a special mandate to consider universal design. Some countries and jurisdictions have policies ore even laws mandating accessible design (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/). Yet they are just as likely as other organizations to say "disabled persons don't use our site" (I wonder why!), or leaving consideration til the end of a project, when resources have run dry.

government money, focuses

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 speaking informally, discovering motivations - inspired

Participating in WikiCED

real time additions