(Dear Colleagues: I just thought that you'd like to know about this
this thread on the Interider email distribution list. I think that
Rudi's query is really important. Best regards from Deborah)
----original message-----
From: Rudi von Staden <rudi
ungana-afrika.org>
Date: Jun 29, 2006 6:52 AM
Subject: [InteRider] Value of technology?
To: International eRiders <interidernpogroups.org>
Hi all,
As eRiders, we're in the business of recommending what technology
interventions the organisations we're involved with should invest in.
Very often we get frustrated because they don't commit the staff time
or budget to support our recommendations. But I also wonder how good
are we at motivating for why they should make the necessary
investments?
I've noticed three standard reasons assumed for technology
investments, whether they are specifically stated or simply implied:
1. Everybody else is using it and they're doing great!
2. It will make you more effective / efficient / productive
3. It will save you money
The first argument does not take into account the specific mission of
the organisation, their culture or their values (neither do the last
two). The second argument is weak and needs a lot more backing up
before it is connected with mission. The third argument is usually
wrong and can lead to resentment when the budget grows instead of
shrinks. Technology may be able to amplify what can be achieved with
the limited resources (human and financial) that the organistion has,
but how can you objectively put a social value on technology that is
convincing to decision makers, donors and users?
I've found Marc Osten's article on assessing the value of technology
to be the most useful guide for this (see below for the link). He
recommends testing each proposed technology intervention against five
questions:
1. How will implementing this help us to create new organisational knowledge?
2. How will it improve our ability to collaborate?
3. How will our efficiency and productivity improve?
4. How will this improve our program delivery?
5. How will our program visibility improve as a result?
I would personally add two more questions, but these could be seen as
duplications of some of the questions above:
6. How will this help us to be more aligned with our values as an organisation?
7. How will this help us to make better strategic decisions?
Hopefully, by answering these questions, and by giving an honest and
comprehensive estimate of the costs involved, the decision makers will
be more likely to support the intervention; the funders will more
clearly see the benefits and the users will realise the value. Of
course, if you can't come up with convincing answers to the above
questions, perhaps the intervention isn't such a good idea after all.
Framing technology interventions in these terms will also make it
easier to evaluate once it has been implemented. Clear benefits from
previous interventions will make it easier to motivate for future
technology interventions (and make you feel better about your work
).
My question to the list: do you agree with the value questions above
or are there other ways of measuring the value of technology? Has
anyone got results from taking this sort of approach before? Other
thoughts or suggesitons on motivating for technology interventions?
Warm regards,
Rudi
--
Rudi von Staden
Project Manager
Ungana-Afrika
Some other useful resources on the subject:
Marc Osten - So What's the Full Value of Technology?
http://www.summitcollaborative.com/npq_tvo_.html
Michael Gilbert - Are We Asking the Wrong Questions?
http://news.gilbert.org/WrongQuestions
Amy Luckey - From Improving IT Infrastructures to Achieving Social Good:
Outcomes of Nonprofit Technology Assistance Providers (NTAPs)
http://www.blueprintrd.com/text/ntap_outcomes.pdf
__________________________________________________________