Dear friends,
I think I tend to agree with you, but I believe the reasons for some of this are much more systemic and, perhaps, much more complicated. In fact, rather than ignorance, or lack of motivation, or simple "if it ain't free, it ain't for us" thinking, I believe sometimes it just may be a rational choice; a rational choice given a nonprofits mission and funding, economics, and .. well... the true cost of things. Combine that with a sector that has few market incentives to change; a fear of change, no incentive to train, and is, in fact, change adverse.. well.. perhaps it's a rational choice.
"What," you say. "How could it be a rational choice."
The answer is simple - but complicated. [ain't that life] - but here's a chance for me to wax prophetic and a spare 10 minutes to do it.
You see, I think the incentives in nonprofit organizations - especially when seen through any sort of lens coloured by for-profit measures - are perverse. By incentives, I mean the economic reward systems [in the classic sense of economics] that drive the allocation of resources; human, capital, or other. When you look at the reward systems [including funding], coupled with a mission-driven focus, the seemingly insane choices may be a little more sane than you think.
Moreover, you and I, we with a technology bent, tend to forget what these nonprofits are all about. They are not about efficiency, or innovation, or the like. They are about feeding people, or finding housing, or educating folks, or saving the raccoon. Technology of any variety is not an end. It is merely a means. And, if that means is not clearly easier... well, the choice may be in fact rational to eschew it for the tried, the true, or the comfortable; better something is "good enough" than waste time and effort (not to mention the accompanying staff angst) on replacing your 3x5 card file with a database you don't understand and requires a new PC every three years.
Being mission-driven means that if you have a dollar to spend - you'll spend it on program, not on efficiency or technology or whatever. Admittedly, it is extremely short-sighted. But most organizations are short-sighted - for profit or non. But a short-sighted for profit is focused on quarterly returns - and even that can drive some innovation. A short-sighted non-profit is focused on mission to the exclusion of all else.
In a commercial entity, you see, there are direct feedback mechanisms that reward innovation and efficiency. They incent change, they incent innovation. They incent the adoption of technology - usually to cut costs (and many times technology does that by cutting human costs, by the way). If they don't work, you're out of business (or you change your name and try a rebranding strategy).
In a nonprofit, there are no such mechanisms. In fact, in looking at some nonprofits, there are reverse incentives to innovate, to be "more competitive" or to be more efficient- despite lip-service otherwise.
One of my favorite examples from bygone days was the economics (efficiency) of fax broadcasting systems. When these systems were shiny new, I was working with lots of nonprofits. I'd always take a look at how they were shipping out things like "action alerts" or press releases, or the like. Nine times out of ten, they were faxing them - usually with a person dedicated to the task of feeding the machine, pressing the buttons, and the like. It would tie up a person, tie up a phone line or two, and take hours upon hours to deliver the hundreds or thousands of faxes.
I'd propose a fax broadcasting solution - simple technology really - just fax to a single number, and have some big-fax-machine-in-the-sky do the rest. To me the economics were simple. People cost money; and using a human (and their brain) to do the mindless task of sending out faxes was a real waste of resources. A fax broadcasting system would cost X-cents a page. To me, it was a no brainer.
To the nonprofit... - well, you'd be amazed. You see, if I freed up that person, what would they do? Or, that person was an intern - devoid of economic cost (or so they thought). Paying 10-cents a page was a fortune compared to the cost of "free" intern. The incentives are perverse.
Now.. on top of the economics of the whole thing - there is the history. You and I - well, I hate to say it, but it's true ... we've over sold, under budgeted, and downright misestimated the true cost of technology for a long time. Sure, there are discounts on this or that, and you can get things cheap. But the old adage that technology costs are 10% hardware, 20% software, and 70% wetware still holds true. Trouble is that 70% cost is there whether you mention it or not. It's not a formula for budgeting, it's a formula that warns you not to underestimate the true cost of change.
(although I think since coined, I've decided to reverse the hardware/software costs when I use the 10/20/70 rule. Originally, I think it might have been 10% software, 20% Hardware, etc. Hardware got cheaper. Regardless, the true costs - the real costs -- are all still in the human stuff).
What is true, is that the wetware costs are usually woefully underestimated. So, while you might get free software (e.g., via TechSoup Stock) or discounted hardware, there are still substantial human costs in development, training, implementation, hand-holding, etc, etc.
Those 70% wetware costs are what still have me not-quite-convinced about FOSS technology (free/open source software).. FOSS is nice, but, at least in my mind, it only hits 10% of the costs (at least in project startup costs - these never-ending software assurance/upgrade/maintenance costs are driving me batty). And, on top of that FOSS seems to have more FUD - making the decision-making, the risk taking, of the rare nonprofit that does see the value, that isn't so near-sighted, all that more difficult.
My 2 (cents that is).
Gavin
-----original message-----
>>;So one thing that I am realizing in working in the nonprofit sector and having just recently done a presentation for a class that I am currently taking, I realized that people have a really skewed way of viewing the cost of technology. When I tell people that there are low cost providers for Nonprofits or ways to get discounted and/ or free equipment or training, people don't get it. They think every database is tens of thousands of dollars and that isn't the case. They also think streamlining something into one systematic process into a database isn't possible, again because they think it will cost to much time or money. It just seams to me that nonprofits limit themselves. That they think just because they are nonprofit, that they can't do and/or have certain things. There is this misconception of cost and the lack of understanding that you don't have to be rich to do these things. So, I was just curiuos if other individuals felt this way as well and/or what can the
sector to to combat this attitude.>>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
.