Bureaucrats, darkmatter, Administrators
1,459
edits
WikiCED manual: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Change from within:''' | '''Change from within:''' | ||
| Line 12: | Line 10: | ||
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. | This manual is particularly designed for those involved in Community Economic Development (CED). We're going to use change based on low cost technology as our lens, because thanks to the spread of the Internet and low cost computers, many opportunities exist. But aspects of this manual should be applicable to many circumstances. | ||
Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions. | Our references include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry Appreciative Inquiry], an organizational development process designed to engage individuals within an organizational system in its renewal, change and focused performance. We're also going to reference CED approaches, current software development methodologies, and our own experience and opinions – 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
Most people would 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. | Most people would 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. | ||
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 | 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= | =Using innovation successfully= | ||
People have very good reasons to be hesitant about change. | 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. | ||
{{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]] | {{#ask: [[Category:Play Person]] | ||
| Line 62: | Line 68: | ||
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. | 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. | |||
==Change processes== | ==Change processes== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 102: | ||
# summarize effects | # summarize effects | ||
# iterate | # iterate | ||
avoid custom software vs accessibility | avoid custom software vs accessibility | ||
==Access== | ==Access== | ||
| Line 98: | Line 113: | ||
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. | 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). | 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 111: | Line 128: | ||
go past using tech as typewriter | go past using tech as typewriter | ||
don't expect more than what is offered | don't expect more than what is offered | ||
| Line 118: | Line 133: | ||
technology as a threat | technology as a threat | ||
=Technology use in the non profit sector= | |||
practical, advocacy | |||
communications | |||
curb cut | |||
principle | |||
government money, focuses | |||
=Connecting and getting advice= | =Connecting and getting advice= | ||
http://www.usfca.edu/inom/research/INOM-Tech%20Use%20in%20Small%20NPs.pdf | 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 | |||
=Measuring success, learning from failure= | =Measuring success, learning from failure= | ||