(ISF) RE: Where have all the developers gone?

At the heart of this problem are a couple of widely-held assumptions among non-profit managers.

The first assumption is that somehow management of a nonprofit organization is inherently different from the management of businesses and other enterprises, and that modern business practices such as business process management and knowledge management really don't apply to nonprofit enterprises. The result is that often nonprofit managers don't know in technical terms what the processes and functions of their organizations are, and they expect someone else to do all this work for them in a vacuum. If the nonprofit manager doesn't know in technical terms how their organization functions and what information is needed to support the important functions, then don't expect an information technology specialist to do that analysis in a vacuum.

The corollary assumption to the one above is that information technology (IT) for nonprofit enterprises is somehow separate from, and less essential than, all the other management functions of the nonprofit enterprise. This is seen in an interesting way in your post. You say, "We've had a real dry spell in funding for nonprofit technology in our region." I assume that this is because information technology is seen as somehow different and less essential than all other nonprofit business functions. Nobody ever posts, "We've had a real dry spell in funding for nonprofit accounting." Or, "We've had a real dry spell in funding for nonprofit building maintenance." Or, "We've had a real dry spell in funding for vehicle maintenance." Or, "We've had a real dry spell in funding for nonprofit telephone service." Some nonprofit organizations seem to be stuck in a 20-year old time warp, when desktop computers were expensive, bal ky beasts that didn't do very much, LANS and servers crashed daily, the Internet was ARPANET, and word processors would never replace the good old typewriter. Why shouldn't separate funding for nonprofit technology dry up? IT costs should be integrated in the budget of the nonprofit enterprise as a necessary cost of doing business.

Another assumption seems to be that nonprofit IT and knowledge management (KM) is inherently different than IT and KM in other enterprises. So that a nonprofit manager needs an nonprofit information technology developer that specializes in nonprofit IT. So that an IT specialist who, for a fee, can develop a client-management system, an hourly billing system, a case tracking system, and a corporate Web site for a for-profit law firm, shomehow doesn't have the knowledge, skills, and experience to develop information technology for a nonprofit serving homeless people. Believe me, if I can develop a telecommuting plan for 300 employees in my work organization, I can develop IT services for the senior services agency and the Headstart program in my community. All I require is a manager and staff that won't go limp on me and expect me to have a system fully operational with no involvement from them, and for little or no cost.


-----original message-----
>>(A version of this item, with live links, can be found at
<http://blog.deborah.elizabeth.finn.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/14/2735813.htm
l&gt;.)>>;

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

-----original message-----
>&gt;At the heart of this problem are a couple of widely-held assumptions among non-profit managers. The first assumption is that somehow management of a nonprofit organization is inherently different from the management of businesses and other enterprises, and that modern business practices such as business process management and knowledge management really don't apply to nonprofit enterprises.>> <snip&gt;

OK, I'll admit it - I have a pet peeve. (not that those who know me are surprised.) My pet peeve is that many people think that nonprofits should be just like businesses. Yes, of course non profits have to have capable management, good fiscal practices, good evaluation and oversight, etc. And in many respects, they are like businesses, and, in some cases, lots of things that are used by for profits can be adopted for use in nonprofits. However, the purpose of a nonprofit is whatever that nonprofit's mission is. It is *not* to make a profit (that's why it's called a nonprofit, right?)

In the same way that maximizing revenue, and minimizing cost infuses for profit business practices througout, and, quite often, are the central focus of things like knowledge management, the mission of a nonprofit *should* infuse a nonprofit's practices througout. Of course, minimizing cost, and maximizing revenue are important parts of nonprofit functioning, but they should never go before mission. When the rubber meets the road, it's mission that matters. Difficult decisions need to be made at times, for sure. But mission is, well, mission - it's why the organization exists in the first place.

So, I actually don't think that business practice, or knowledge management is necessarily the same between businesses and nonprofits. I think that nonprofits need to assess decisions based on their mission, and their own best practices, and the best practices of similar organizations. "Modern business practices&quot; need to be used in nonprofits with a large dose of evaluation based on mission.

I do agree, however, that IT does need to be integrated throughout an organization, and not compartmentalized.

Peace,
Michelle

Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

I'm in agreement with everything Michelle has to say, but I think it goes a bit deeper.

Non-profits need to understand that they are businesses and have a well-defined business model that addresses their business objectives.

I think we have problems for other reasons. Since money is not major motivator, we're at a bit of a disadvantage. Money is a very powerful motivator, and it serves to narrowly define a definition of achievement. I'm fond of saying that I miss working in for-profits because, if I put aside my personal interest in supporting social good through my endeavors, it's such a clear cut motivator that it can cut through a lot of politics. With less measurable goals, it's harder to evaluate our effectiveness. And with a fuzzier sense of accomplishment, it's harder to measure individual effectiveness. In this environment, a lot of us are drawn to it because we want to help people; protect the environment, save animals, or whatever. Our personal satisfaction is results-driven. We, as a workforce, are somewhat impatient.

What measurements there are, which are usually based on grant and funding requirements, minimize the resources for infrastructure. The Guidestar equation boils down more to what percentage of your income was put directly toward mission services than it does to what you might have accomplished if you had invested more in infrastructure. This speaks right to the technology challenge - it's only in this millennia that non-profits are starting to validate technology investments. The funders are still catching up to the concept. In a business environment, the focus is on investments and returns (ROI), not this years expense statement. As long as we are judged in one year increments by the percentage of the bottom line that went to services over staffing and capital investments, we are unable to make long term investments.

And I think that speaks to the heart of the "more like a business&quot; beef. We need more five year plans, and we need to work with funding sources and constituents that will read break-even analyses and buy into them. We need to have an understanding that making long term investments in facilities and technology, while not feeling very "mission-connected" are key to improving mission-effectiveness. We need to fully embrace the idea that you can build a shack in a day, but it will be swept away in the next storm. If you spend two years building a house, it will stand through all sorts of weather.

So it's not that "non-profits have to act more like businesses." We _are_ businesses. We have to understand that and operate in manners that will support our effectiveness and sustainability.

---

Peter

Peter Campbell

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.