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 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.

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. Resolving these problems one step at a time yields unexpected benefits. When a curb is cut for wheelchairs, blind people can use sidewalks more easily. Navigation is also made easier for those with baby strollers, bicycles 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.

Using technology, this is enabled by the fact that most information is stored in one way or another in text format. Email is text, Web pages are generally text. The low level format of Web pages is HTML, which accommodates accessible features. Suddenly, individuals with mobility, cognitive or vision disabilities (estimated to be 700 million people around the world, or 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 content. 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 site works well for everyone, and is future friendly. 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 were information may be published without clear terms of use.

Modern developments to consider in this area include 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 so on. This document is released under a 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 an easy way to keep 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 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.

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.

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

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

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 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 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 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. 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."

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

For the past few years, there has bee 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. The drawbacks are massive consolidation of data, 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 Freebase and 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)

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 and peer connections.

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.

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