Everything Gunner said +5. The long view is critical here. I am ashamed Aspiration wasn't the first place I pointed to as a successful model, but I know Gunner will forgive me.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014, at 01:59 AM, Allen Gunn wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hey Jesse, > > Thanks for starting this thread. > > On 11/10/2014 09:35 AM, Jesse Krembs wrote: > > Dear all > > > > For a number of years now I've been ponderer the idea of ICT/IS > > consultancy organization focus on the NGO/Activists/Press (N/A/P) > > markets. The basic idea being that there should be a boutique > > consultancy group that is focused on upping the over all ICT/IS > > game of N/A/P world. > > I would argue that lumping those three personas together is your first > headache; in our experience, those three stakeholder groups have > fundamentally different need sets, infrastructures, risk tolerances, > resource profiles etc. > > And just "NGO" as a needs profile is its own long tail; for every > multinational United Way or Red Cross with substantial IT departments, > there are literally hundreds of grassroots NGOs where the person who > can type the fastest is "accidental techie" by default and tasked with > web and database planning. And in between lies a weird assortment of > outsourced, part-time and lone-full-timer IT staffing solutions which > are too often janky or worse. > > > There are some organizations out there doing this to certain > > degree, (Securing Change, SecDev Group, ONI, Tactical Tech > > Collective). But it feels like many are focused similar but > > different targets, or not sufficiently funded. And funding is the > > most key thing I believe. I don't see a standard fee for service > > model working in this market (There just isn't the money inside a > > client organization), so something else will be needed. > > > > So a couple of questions. 1: Is there already someone doing this? > > Our organization, Aspiration, is a US nonprofit focused on the "1 > level up" question of "what does an ecosystem of such intermediaries > look/work like?" And it is at present an interesting patchwork of > solution providers across the globe. > > Should you happen to be in driving/travel distance, there will be > a good bunch of folks in Oakland next week discussing related > questions at our annual conference: > > https://aspirationtech.org/events/devsummit14 > > > 2: Is there a market for this sort of organization? > > Yes and no. It's a question we have wrestled with for over a decade at > Aspiration. Some basic observations gleaned from my own travels: > > * As you allude above, the super majority of organizations that need > the offerings of such providers won't or can't pay for it; simply put, > the most common pathology is even if they have the money, they feel > institutional guilt at diverting resources from direct programmatic > investment. Don't even get me started on the non-long-term-nature of > that thinking. And alternately orgs that do have nontrivial tech > budgets tend to invest poorly the majority of the time, at least in my > experience, in part for reasons noted below. > > * Thus you are left needing third parties to fund. And that gets into > the many vagaries of NGO tech funding, which we have also studied > quite a bit. You can likely get the latest shiny mobile app or Social > Media <insert buzzword> Project funded, but getting core > infrastructure or basic opsec funded is still a work in progress. > "General support grant" is the great unicorn of NGO tech funding and > we need lots more of those unicorns. I literally thank Edward Snowden > every day that I wake up (really, thank you Mr. Snowden) because > things have gotten notably better in the 18 months since he pulled > back those curtains and institutional funders got a much clearer look > at what might be at risk from an investment and impact perspective. > > A related and unfortunate development of the past decade has been the > de facto unification of two NGO technology personas: 1) "eRiders" who > historically have focused on strategic advising of NGOs in a > values-based framework that doesn't prioritize revenue, and 2) > for-hire technology implementors/integrators (e.g. Drupal, Wordpress, > CiviCRM, Salesforce, etc shops). The seemingly turnkey nature of the > latter's offerings has effectively starved the former's market. > > The net effect is that too many NGOs get their tech advice from > vendors who are making money off them, a la John Candy in the movie > Stripes coaching his young mentee on how to play poker and then > robbing him blind. > > (Blackbaud.com is hands down the most evil manifestation of this > dynamic; they make the devil himself look like a nice old man.) > > But there are plenty of web dev shops that don't have the missions of > their clients at the top of their priority queue. We maintain a list > of "ethical vendors" that we share with those we are advising, FWIW. > > And we also offer free business advising and free proposal reviews for > NGOs globally, and it kills me every time we get a call of the form > "Was $100K too much to pay for our new basic Wordpress site? My > colleague just told me it might have been..." Face-palm. > > I don't mean to be universally disrespectful to NGOs, but I do feel at > times like I am living Groundhog Day, if I may make 2 cinematic > allusions in one post. > > I am at the same time heartened by orgs like Witness.org that both > carry out essential nonprofit mission while also innovating > technologically and teaching that knowledge forward to their peers. > But there aren't enough of those fine data points. Which is what > powers our own mission. > > SO in summary to your question: there is definitely almost unlimited > demand in the market you posit, but the "transactional" dynamics are > complex to say the least. > > > 3: How do you make the funding work? > > It's a longer answer than I'm game to type after 10pm PT, but I'm > happy to discuss off list on some audio channel. > > The short version of our answer focuses on cost reduction rather than > on fund generation: > > * We teach NGOs "minimum viable" thinking coupled with planning for > scale, so they only acquire what they actually need in the near term, > but in a configuration that isn't low-ceiling or limiting over time. > > * We teach technology planning processes that draw from community > organizing models and social justice principles so as to focus acutely > on user needs and deliver appropriate tech. We strive to simplify all > tech planning processes into "end user" language. You would be > surprised how much this can reduce costing by holding techies > accountable to explain what they are doing in non-technical parlance. > > * If it's not free/open source, it's mostly not an option in our view. > We stress the critical nature of organizations retaining control of > their technology destiny. But yes, there are plenty of places where > free/open offerings don't exist or don't cut it. > > - From there we coach on traditional and non-traditional ways to source > the needed funds. > > This approach doesn't solve all the challenges, but such processes do > reduce risk, reduce cost, and increase odds of success and > sustainability. I describe it as the project management analog of > "shrink the attack surface". > > > Any thoughts on the matter either on list or off would be > > appreciated. > > As above, hope it's useful. Been doing this work since the mid-90's > and it still mystifies me too much of the time :^) > > peace, > gunner > > > > Thank you. -- Jesse Krembs > > > > > > > > - -- > > Allen Gunn > Executive Director, Aspiration > +1.415.216.7252 > www.aspirationtech.org > > Aspiration: "Better Tools for a Better World" > > Read our Manifesto: http://aspirationtech.org/publications/manifesto > > Follow us: > Facebook: www.facebook.com/aspirationtech > Twitter: www.twitter.com/aspirationtech > > - -- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUYbPaAAoJENVj9yFHsyq3cFwIAJY5k7wtu6UnypdGJehjVT9v > H61JpovYz9gpBRU75hVhX/MptNfSEdoOzdze7t7UgTaggJTnEH+4aerN/29HVUOr > kItJvOIp4n1CCeY/4NA39h4nROP1BgjYExasNUWGE8XOoBSBJYlf2dNsF88YN9tv > 6tEWrQS3NW4VnwkdF1vl2hkZ+kuxvMcRl/R65g/0bkcbAL4I4UoHRNd/2UcjtqfE > 3mGyKw6vVh82iTG5CFwRrfQ7nsvRI2Gxc1cTdsHtkjgcULe0H7plcIQNydtVqfwA > bURvwZzfYImaf6KXA/JWkEn7xEvGRp0t0OZthXJ+xaSFsq2oKJaLa8qnQgI1mtM= > =sPNR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator > at [email protected]. -- Nathan of Guardian [email protected] -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
