Nonprofits of the Future: NGOs in 2016

Can you envision the nonprofit of 2016? How will advances in technology make the role and work of nonprofits and NGOs different?

Join the discussion and participate in a unique citizen journalism project launched by Paul Lamb, a Man on a Mission.

Once the discussion concludes, Paul Lamb will write an article to describe our collective vision(s) for the nonprofit of 2016. All contributors whose ideas are mentioned in the article will be credited, and any profits from the piece will be contributed to the Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network (N-TEN).

Here are some initial thoughts generated from the blog.

The nonprofit of 2016 will:

. Be mobile

Social service workers will roam the streets using mobile devices as their "office". Such devices will register and transfer clients from service to service so that single agency staff can be working for multiple agencies simultaneously. The distribution of services will occur in real time and come directly to clients where they are located. Clients themselves will also have the capability to register for, rate, trade, and access multiple services via mobile devices and one-stop-shopping kiosks.

. Offer instant transparency and social impact measurements

Local demographic trends and even information about individual needs will be captured daily by social service agencies, nonprofits and foundations - reporting and measuring community impact as it happens and redirecting resources appropriately.

. Become a rapid response social opportunity networks

Activities and services will be grouped and regrouped based on need, geography, and real time trends. Next generation web sites will serve as "proposal portals" to automatically funnel macro and mini-funds (donating pennies or less) instantly to priority issues or locations.

. Access free, on-demand technology tools

Each nonprofit agency/NGO will have the capability to create and self-maintain its own technology toolbox and processes using free, open source software and low cost Application Service Providers. A back and front office "nonprofit in a box" will be so user friendly and customizable that anyone, provider and client alike, can adapt it for their specific needs. Information and communications technology tools will be fully compatible with other tools and standards.

. Have direct channels to the public

Nonprofits will no longer rely on intermediary filters like the media and foundations, but will be able to communicate directly with individual donors, supporters, volunteers, etc.

Do you agree with any or all of the above? What do you see when peering into your own crystal ball? Please jump right in on the above ideas!

Victor - Jun 9, 2006 10:08 am (#1 Total: 44)


To begin with, I hope that in 2016, we won't use "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit" to describe our field. How about the voluntary sector? The independent sector? The third sector? Mission-based corporations? Social impact organizations? Public benefit corporations?

There is a great selection on a recent Think Fast on the Edge at Social Edge, "Think Fast!" #, 16 May 2006 11:17 am.

Rohan - Jun 13, 2006 2:24 pm (#2 Total: 44)

Many nonprofits and NGOs today are not as effective today because of physical limitations based on their geographic location, funding and lack of useful technology for recruitment, communications, collaborating and information sharing.

This has already began to change with the release of a new technology www.groupmembersonly.com recently.  Nonprofits organizations regardless of their geographic location are able to "network" online with each other, collaborate with each other on projects and more efficiently build their membership.

This allows a combined focused effort to solve world problems instead of singular efforts as is done today.

High end technology for mobility, communications, blogging, information sharing, fund raising, financial management, global conferencing must all be a part of this solution.  And it must be free so that all nonprofits and NGOs regardless of size or focus have equal access for their membership and the people they serve.

 

Attachments:

GroupMembersOnly.jpg (86 KB)

mykljonzun - Jun 13, 2006 4:53 pm (#3 Total: 44)
initiator


While providing direct channels of communications between nonmarket NGO's and their constituency is an admirable goal, I believe that there is an even greater opportunity for something more than just disintermediation in the future. What I envision is nothing less than the birth of NGO Democracy!

Today, new modes of networked nonmarket collaboration are sweeping the web, bringing with them the possibility of entirely new types of dynamic relationships between institutions, their volunteers and their recipients. Operational functionalities that would have been altogether impossible in the past will soon become commonplace. What number of novel strategies and non-monetary contributions lie untapped by the nonmarket sector today? If the rapid, decentralized production of Linux and Wikipedia are any indication of what is possible with volunteer collaboration, then try to imagine what will be possible by 2016!

And what of the institutions themselves? As the Age of Transparency is already upon us, the public is waking up to the fact that even the most revered of non-profits are as bureaucratic, hierarchical, and as fiduciarily-mismananged as the industrial giants represented by their boardmembers. The Volunteer of 2016 will want more say and ultimately, more power over the decision-making process of "their" institution. It's safe to assume that those NGO's that don't find a way to offer this will wantch their constituency vote with their keyboard in the same way they vote with their feet when buying consumer products.

mykljonzun@ideologi.org

Kzakama - Jun 14, 2006 1:01 am (#4 Total: 44)


This should be a discussion worth watching. 

Ed Beauchamp - Jun 14, 2006 8:53 am (#5 Total: 44)
World Tourism Foundation

We all seem to acknowledge that governments and wealthy donors or foundations can no longer carry the escalating demand of social issues.  The marketplace provides the only hope.  In 2016, NGOs will live or die via Marketplace-driven Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). 

 

 

kanter - Jun 14, 2006 9:22 am (#6 Total: 44)


I'm the evaluator on the project. It is a small network of Healthcare Advocates in a rural area. They have mobile laptops, wireless access, online enrollment tools, portable scanners, etc. and they using these tools to enroll uninsured clients. The efficiency gains have been liberating to say the least, even if anticipated. (Just the travel time to drive back and forth to client's location has been a huge savings). But, the ability to screen and enroll - say migrant farm workers where they work and have others watch and get interested - has done great work in removing barriers that "healthcare is too expensive." There are also examples of mobile health screening - includes the free health care enrollment but a nurse is also mobile with them - and able to do screenings and health education.

The network has also expanded to filling out other types of benefits applications for clients - such as foodstamps because it can be done easily.

As part of the evaluation, we have both "hard and soft" issues that we're looking. We're measuring the number of days before/after that it takes for clients to get their insurance card. But we're also looking at how the health care advocate's working style has changed and what's needed to make that change and reap the full benefits.

This is definitely the way of the future.

Patrick O'Heffernan - Jun 14, 2006 9:33 am (#7 Total: 44)


there have been various attempts in the past to change the name of our sector from "non" or "not for profit" and none seems to have stuck. The Independent Sector organization is likely the most successful, although the Penninsula Community Foundation has also made a strong effort. Link TV is calling itself "non-corporate media" instead of "non-profit" media. My favorite is social benefit corps (SBC's) which has an official ring to it, but conjures up an image of small businesses. Perhaps the "independent sector" will get traction, since there is a national organization.

Patrick O'Heffernan - Jun 14, 2006 9:42 am (#8 Total: 44)


I just spent 3 days at YearlyKos immersed in and interviewing the members of what may become a model for the NPO sector of the future. First, it is not an NPO sector. Distinctions between .com and .org are becoming less important. The mission is what matters: wheter or not you make a living getting it done is secondary.

Second, the netroots (all thebloggers out there, as opposed to the "kossaks, who were in the building and online at DailyKos) form a bottom up, non-monlithic, self-assembling, constantly evolving, constantly inter-communicating organism. Technology plays an important role, but the real importance - and the lesson for NPOs in the present and future - is the approach to the world. The NPOs of the future and the netroots of today blur distinctions of class, party, wealth, race, gender and professionalism (although not completely) because community and activism takes place mostly in cyberspace. Yes, they raise real money. Yes, they have real meetups and do real things. But much of what is done, and will be done, is self-organized on the web by individuals who want to make change and use ideas and tchnology to gather supporters, create and fund a plan, and get it going. Gina Cooper, the 36-year old former high school science teacher who organized this national level conference with preisdential hopesfuls and a profile inthe NYT, did it all with volunteers online who did notknow one another. I think this is the vision of NPOs in the future -- rapid self-assembling communities using the internet and later technologies to give individuals the power to move many people and dollars to solve problems.

Pamela McLean - Jun 14, 2006 2:53 pm (#9 Total: 44)

I'm finding a lot to agree with in this thread and Paul Lamb's vision. In Cawdnet we take what we do with ICT for granted - but it may be worth describing as it illustrates parts of that vision...

(Hmm - I described it, and, with the description this grew too long for a post here - so I saved it to send as an attachment - and can't see how to - maybe someone could advise me or maybe attachments are not  allowed any more. What could I do to share the description?) 

My long term hope and belief is that our network - and similar "information rich" networks - will ultimately link with people who have resources - very much as Paul Lamb suggested at the start of this thread. I think it will be like e-bay in many ways. On e-bay individuals are enabled to buy from (i.e. give money to ) individuals (who are able to build a good reputation). I think there will be mechanisms like e-bay which will allow individual people (or small groups of people) to support (give money/resources) to individual projects (or small parts of projects, or people within projects) and there will be transparency and feedback of a kind never before possible (building good reputations).

Add to such a mechanism other things already in existence. Add the reality of rapidly forming transnational groups of people sharing expertise and vision. Add a growing ICT infrastructure in places like rural Nigeria. Add people who act as the interface between technology and the local communities - so that technical skills, literacy etc are not problems. (Think of these "infomediaries" as being like the high street travel agent - and think how it is equally possible to book a holiday directly online or via the travel agent/infomediary). Put all that together with a little imagination, existing networks, and some more financial resources and it's not the future any more - it could be the present.

 

tabeles - Jun 14, 2006 3:00 pm (#10 Total: 44)
president, sagacity,inc

Patrick's observations are interesting- what one needs to think about is how many and what type of organizations will exist in 2016. Non-profit is a tax designation; it is more of a differentiator than the .com, .org and similar tags only because its a legal designation. NGO's technically grew out of a United Nations designation. These flags are raised to give credibility and say little about the functionality, value or economics of these orgs.  With the web, much of this positioning will change and functionality will be the operative term.

The web is wonderful, as discussed above. It adds functionality to purpose. But it also adds competition since it is not limited by time and space or even membership. Many of these organizations aren't directly concerned with action in the field, but are more concerned with ideas; and these will find increasing competition. Organizations which provide services in brick space may find that there, too, may be competition due to the ability to more effectively deliver services with fewer people on the ground. Perchance many of those who exist within these domains may find that efficacy of technology increases opportunities at significantly lowering of costs in hard currency and personnel. Like many, in the past, they may fade into the wood work or will quickly have to repurpose themselves

 

tom abeles

tabeles@hotmail.com

pshapiro100 - Jun 14, 2006 3:29 pm (#11 Total: 44)


In 2016, nonprofits will no longer be the invisible sector. Today, our newspapers have a section for business, for sports, for religion, for entertainment -- but no section for nonprofits. By 2016, nonprofits will take their equal place as media creators. The work of nonprofits -- often the bedrock work of any community -- will be harder to overlook.

More young people will be attracted to the field by seeing first hand the rewards -- nonmonetary rewards -- associated with this work.

Community service hours will be required at all middle schools and high schools -- not just some. Dignity will be restored to those working in the nonprofit sector.

New leaders will emerge in the nonprofit sector, some of who will take a place on the national stage. Instead of having a movie star as a president of the country, we'll have someone who spent their life building and regenerating communities.

betsyh - Jun 14, 2006 3:53 pm (#12 Total: 44)

Here are a few thoughts - Online fundraising is growing rapidly.  By 2016 I think that close to 40% of all nonprofit revenue will be donated online.  Any organization that doesn't currently have strategies for ePhilanthropy needs to get moving.  I also think more organizations will allow donors to direct their donations to specific projects and there will be more collaboration among organizations for this purpose.  The Donorschoose.org website is a model that I think others will follow.  Donors want to know how their donations will be used and will demand more transparency from organizations.  There will be more websites rating and comparing organizations in the future based on how well they fulfill their missions.  A lot more fundraising will be done via cell phones and text messaging in the near future.  More organizations will have  podcasts and vodcasts.  More Executive Directors will have blogs.  There will be more interactivity and online social networking in the sector.  

-Betsy Harman, Harman Interactive

plamb - Jun 14, 2006 5:03 pm (#13 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Folks: Really interesting discussion so far. Let me attempt to summarize some of the main points for folks just joining and then ask a couple of related questions. My apologies for any errors or omissions.

Our participants thus far see the following future trends:

-Removal of geographic barriers and the creation of a level playing field of tools  and resources regardless of the size of the organization (Rohan) 

-donors, volunteers, and supporters will demand greater transparency and “ownership” of organizations  = greater democracy (mykljonzun)

-Marketplace driven Public-private partnership model providing the only hope (Ed)

-Greater combination of diverse services in one. Example of mobility in healthcare (Kanter)

-Distinction between .com and .org becoming less important. -The mission and functionality are what will matter more. Move toward rapidly assembling communities that blur race, class, ethnicities and can move resources quickly to address a problem. (Patrick)

-Increased efficiency leads to more competition that could drive many players out of business. (Tom)

-Nonprofits emerging from invisibility and become as recognizable and highly regarded as any other sector (Phil)

-More fundraising done virtually and with mobile tools, along with more virtual and interactive communications and social networking (Betsy)

 

Paul’s Questions:

 

1)      What specific technology developments and tools making the above changes possible will have the most impact on nonprofits and NGOs?

2)      Much of our discussion is focusing on the nonprofits, but a nonprofit arises to reflect a need and serve clients. Current technologies (and our discussion) are focusing more on the organizations and not nearly as much on their reason for being - the clients. I wonder if we will see a shift as a result of increased availability of mobile devices, do-it-yourself tools and on-demand services that will negate the need for many nonprofit intermediaries? (Tom, you alluded to this) Could the traditional nonprofit as an institution be headed toward extinction?

 

p.s. Pamela and others. There is an attachment box right under each message box. You just need to click on the "browse " button, find your document and click on it to upload.

Bobcat - Jun 15, 2006 6:18 am (#14 Total: 44)
Bob Graham


Victor, Patrick and Tom have all commented on our sector using the traditional "non-profit" descriptor. I hate the word because the message it sends to donors, board and staff is that it is not only not important that the organization makes a profit (and therefore can survive, grow, and really get the work done), it is actually illegal or immoral or ...

Tom correctly points out that the uniqueness of our sector arises from our tax status. Therefore I think we should use the descriptor "tax-exempt organization". This has the advantage of accuracy, is a term that the average Joe/Jane understands, and it does not convey false messages about profits (a beautiful word when used to describe investments or jobs, but a dirty word for our sector!)

As of today, NamasteDirect will be the first kid on our block to stop using the word non-profit and will use tax-exempt instead. (Gad, I wonder in how many places on the web/in print materials/in our vocabulary we will need to stomp around!) Any other creative ideas before we get out the fire hose?

Bob Graham

plamb - Jun 15, 2006 7:51 am (#15 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Folks: While having a better name for nonprofits is helpful, it's what they do (or don't do) that's really important. With that in mind, and based on your own experiences, exposure to new technology trends, and crsytal ball gazing interests...

Can you envision the nonprofit of 2016? How will advances in technology make the role and work of nonprofits and NGOs different?

Cheers,

Paul

Bobcat - Jun 15, 2006 8:01 am (#16 Total: 44)
Bob Graham


Paul;

I hope you don't mind my making one more post on the name thing and I do realize you want us focused on the (blank) of 2016, but I took my dogs for a walk in GGPark and realized "tax-exempt organization" is not a good term. There are too many things that are tax-exempt such as home owners associations and lobbying organizations. So ... another nomination: "Public Charity".

I strongly hope that the term nonprofit is extinct by 2016 and I do think it is quite important that it is!

Bob

Pamela McLean - Jun 15, 2006 8:48 am (#17 Total: 44)

I put up a post yesterday about general trends - and didn't see how to add the attachment where I had written our specific experiences. Now I know. (Thank you Paul - how ever did I miss it - coudn't see for looking!)

So - here are our specific experiences related to "identity" and use of ICT. 

Attachments:

Paul Lamb's vision.rtf (8 KB)

Mal Warwick - Jun 15, 2006 10:15 am (#18 Total: 44)
Author, consultant, public speaker


The focus on technology in this discussion strikes me as narrow and short-sighted. Technology is only one of a great many factors that will shape the nonprofit organizations of 2016 and beyond.

I've also seen an emphasis on nonprofits that provide human services, which are only one of many fields in the social sector, and by no means the biggest. In fact, human service organizations are far more prominent in the nonprofit sector in the United States than they are in many other countries, where government is (rightly) expected to provide basic services for its citizens.

Anyone with experience in strategic planning understands that, to envision the future, it's important to take into account a wide range of driving forces in society. For example, politics, the economy, and the environment are all likely to have at least as great an impact on the shape and direction of the social sector a decade from now. Looking at technological factors in a vacuum may be diverting for technologists, but it's not meaningful.

Some contributors to this discussion have commented on the blurring lines between the "private" and "nonprofit" sectors. Amen to that. Today, organizations are formed to achieve goals that may straddle the line between a social or environmental and a financial mission. Sometimes -- often, in fact -- those varied elements of an organization's mission are inextricably intertwined.

In my recent book, "Values-Driven Business," co-authored with Ben Cohen, I've profiled several dozen ostensibly "for-profit" companies (including my own), all of which regard the social or environmental aspects of their missions as equally important to making money. In fact, many of them are making money in order to carry out their social or environmental missions. The trend toward socially responsible business detailed in this book is just one of the non-technological developments now underway that are likely to have at least as great an impact on the nonprofits of the future as does technology.

Of all the strategic planning methods with which I'm familiar, scenario planning strikes me as the most productive line of approach to look ten years down the road at the social sector. I'm currently writing a series of six or several columns for The NonProfit Times on scenario planning. Three of those columns, to appear in future months, will present different views of the nonprofit sector of 2025, a little further down the road than you're looking. If you're interested in a more widely ranging look at the future of the sector, check them out!

plamb - Jun 15, 2006 5:54 pm (#19 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Mal: You make an important point about needing to see technology changes affecting the nonprofit and NGO sectors in the context of much larger social, political, and economic shifts. But it is difficult to do all of that in such short and linear discussion in a way that is meaningful and that doesn't end up all over the map. I also think that anyone who has done a bit of strategic planning also knows that going too broad can be as ineffectual as not going broad enough.

That being said, would love to hear your ideas as a tremendous innovator in the field as to how technnology is already and will continue to impact your main areas of interest? What do you see happening over the next decade that excites or scares you?

I look forward to reading and learning from your series in the Nonprofit Times.

Cheers,

Paul

plamb - Jun 16, 2006 6:31 am (#20 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Folks: An interesting presentation on Technology and the future worth checking out if you have an hour...

Renaissance Computing Institute Director Dan Reed on "Computing the Future: Looking at 2016" http://www.renci.org/news/2016talk.php

Also, a wonderful resource and watering hole for folks interested in "remixing the Web for social change" at Netsquared.org http://www.netsquared.org/

Other resources people care to share?

Thanks,

Paul

Mal Warwick - Jun 16, 2006 8:05 am (#21 Total: 44)
Author, consultant, public speaker


Humankind’s track record in envisioning its future has been extremely poor. Experts routinely fail to predict major changes. Even meteorologists can’t predict next week’s weather! This discussion is posited on the assumption that we can do better than that.

I don't think so.

But why? Why is it so very difficult to foresee the future?

** Complex systems. In recent decades, scientists have come to understand that the complex systems that guide our lives—the power grids, the communications networks, the political institutions—cannot work in predictable ways. They’re . . . well, they’re just too complicated!

** The Law of Unforeseen Consequences. We’ve also come to appreciate that even the very best of motives can lead to outcomes we just never considered. For example, heroin was invented as a way to cure people of addiction to morphine.

** Murphy’s Law. Then, of course, there’s the old folk wisdom that all too often proves true. “When something CAN go wrong, it WILL go wrong.”

** People. After all, what can you possibly expect with more than six billion ornery and unpredictable people living on the planet?

** But one factor stands out above all as a way to understand why we simply cannot expect to predict the future . . . Discontinuities.

It’s in the nature of our species to expect that our lives will continue along pretty much the same lines as they’ve followed in the past. We don’t relish change or expect it. But nature and history rarely unfold in straight lines. Consistency is a human construct. Disruption and change are the rule in our universe.

** Technological innovations can have earth-shaking impact. Not overnight, rarely overnight, but as they spread. The automobile. The airplane. Radio. Television. The Internet. What makes us think we can predict the new technologies that will come on line in 20 years, or even 10?

** Wars are our greatest disruptors. For those involved – and often for those on the sidelines, too – a war can change EVERYTHING.

** Epidemic disease can have the cruelest effects. No sooner did humankind eradicate smallpox and bring polio under control than AIDS suddenly appeared. Our war with microbes has lasted throughout the ages. We can’t expect it to stop.

** In a complex, interdependent economy, a major economic reversal can touch everyone in a society, and sometimes even everyone in the world. In the 1990s, some thought that computer technology had created a “new economics” free of recessions. Then came the dot-com bust of 2000.

** The potential for environmental change is the biggest wildcard of all. Global climate change is already affecting us in ways both big and small. But there is no scientist on the face of the Earth who can describe with confidence what its effects will be two decades from now.

I understand the point Paul has made about the value of focus. In almost any other endeavor, focus is a good thing. In approaching the future, however, I believe it's misguided. And I've just tried to explain why.

Most of the foregoing, by the way, is lifted from the first of my series of columns on the future of the nonprofit sector in The NonProfit Times.

mykljonzun - Jun 16, 2006 11:25 am (#22 Total: 44)
initiator


Paul,

I would like to introduce the participants of this discussion to an Internet project that could radically transform the potential for online consensus generation amongst heterogenous and ad hoc users.

The name of the project is called ideologi (pronounced "ideology"). Its objective is to develop a P2P communications platform that would facilitate consensus generation via peer-reviewed brainstorming games (called “exchanges”) for any subject matter (product development, political debate, entertainment, etc.) using any type of electronic media (text, images, spreadsheets, etc.) with any population of online users (intranet, extranet or public Internet) and with any number of participants (from 10 to 10 million).

A non-technical proposal of the project, along with real-world scenarios plus bibliographic material one can use to assess its viability. It is currently posted at www.ideologi.org.

So, what could this project mean for non-profit organizations? Well, it could allow them to open elements of their strategic planning to their donors, suppliers, and recipients WITHOUT producing homogenized or watered-down directives. On the contrary, it may reveal more novel solutions than any group of experts could ever produce. An excellent primer on the social theories behind this claim can be found in James Surowiecki's book, The Wisdom of Crowds.

Ed Beauchamp - Jun 16, 2006 3:46 pm (#23 Total: 44)
World Tourism Foundation

Paul-

I will present an outcome of technology from a different perspective. 

"Brand" is the greatest asset of most NGOs.  NGO Boards are extremely protective of it.  The Board's Values behind the organization make the Brand.

Consumer's want to align with these Values.  They, the Brand, presents a trust factor behind a product purchase, particularly in a remote/electronic environment.

Many/most Board's are made-up of business leaders.  These individuals can readily see the Brand Asset, but a confident method of "tracking" its use has been missing in doing public-private partnerships.

In 2016, technology will provide the secure (and flexible) tracking methodology for an NGO Brand's use.  This will dramatically change the protectionism culture of future Boards, and enable a sizeable financial return on their greatest asset.

Regards,

Ed

-  Paul, re previous posting, my apologies.  I simply assumed your audience knew a technology medium that can be accessed any where via any device, low-cost/no-investment ASP technologies, and dynamic (daily) measurement of social issues, by locality, were in the equation of Marketplace-Driven PPPs.

institute for china africa relations - Jun 17, 2006 4:25 am (#24 Total: 44)


Though it is always hard to predict the accurate trend of human development,I see the nonprofit take the centre stage of building a new social order by the year 2016. As it is presently, the non profit evolutions is sweeping through Europe and the Americans.The impact is hardly if ever felt in the developing world due to over concentration of such institutions in the western world. I forsee a gradual arousal of the consiousness of the other parts of the world with adequate push from the west and the assention of the nonprofit as the main instrument of change and a new world.

The muiltinational have failed and are no longer trusted.The nonprofit is set to take their places and become perhaps the new channels of development that makes impact on the people.

tutormentor - May 18, 2005 12:33 pm (#25 Total: 44)
Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection


In early May I led a discussion on Social Edge titled Creating Networks of Purpose. You can find it here; tutormentor, "Creating Networks Of Purpose" #21, 15 May 2006 10:27 am

I agree with the comments about non profit being just a tax status. How you get resources to do your work will change and there will be new rules created to reflect the international forms of collaboration that will be growing by 2016.

I feel that by 2016 more leaders will learn to use the Internet to create networks of people and organizations focused on shared goals.

Such groups will use visual databases, concept mapping, GIS and other tools to show what part of the world they focus on, and to show their strategies for having an impact. These tools will provide greater clarity of purpose, and blueprints for action, showing the sequence of steps that must be repeated over and over, with constant improvement, to build an organization, and/or solve any significant problem.

Such groups will use traditional advertising, marketing, face to face events and networking to draw traffic to the network. However, instead of one lead organization taking this role, each member organization will share the responsibility for creating visibility and traffic in the network.

Such groups will draw revenue and resources from a broad orchestra of supporters who share the commitment to the goal of the group, and who are involved, via on-line and face to face process, in setting goals and doing the work.

The web site of each participating organization in such a network will be linked to the "blueprint" and the "map" showing what role this organization plays in the overall strategy of the organization, and in where the organization seeks to have an impact.

The total impact of such groups will be to create an understanding of vision, and an understanding that all the contractors need to be good at what they do, and have flexible revenue to do what they do.

This will lead to a paradygm shift for some of the lead organizations in this sector. Resource providers and potential partners will be looking for them, and making decisions of how they help and where they help, by what they find on the web sites of the various organizations in each community.

We're already working to create such a network of purpose at http://www.tutormentorconnection.org

isbume - Jun 19, 2006 10:03 am (#26 Total: 44)

Thanks to all gentlemen and ladies on this forum.  I am particularly delighted about the originator of this discussions.  The future of NGOs is surely going to be glorious just as we are having a glorious era of computer and internet facilities.  What will make this a reality lies in the hands of righteous men and women that are concerned about others coming together to discuss about practical solutions to the needs of their neighbours.  It is not so much that of technology and ideology. Although these will emanate from the kind of people I have mentioned.

In the future, many more individuals with zeal to make life better will design great ideas under inspiration and they will transform the activities of NGOs.  If we have more technology in the hands of selfish and narrowminded individuals, certainly NGOs will not do much.  It has to be propelled by men of altrusic disposition and practical thinkers about the needs of others in society.

I see the NGO operators moving more and more in this direction and the medium of computer will be more relevant to this ideal.  Let those of us who are on this forum be more practical than mere theoretical.

Segun Benson

evonne - Jun 19, 2006 1:06 pm (#27 Total: 44)
AMO Studio


NGOs in 2016 will be far more flexible, connecting people directly with people around the world with less need for filtering. In contrast, our current "charity" model has us writing checks and never seeing exactly what our gift enabled. Future giving will be more networked, creating direct connections between people through the social capital of a gift exchange. Kiva and many microenterprise networks are building this future today. The stronger BONDS of common knowledge and insight shared in these P2P giving networks will strengthen our ties as one international body capable of solving many issues that plague us.

As an NGO project leader I focus on finding that common language and spotlighting the best works out there. We've found tremendous Web2.0 visual environments like Second Life are greatly helping our work as an small international organization. We need every tool we can dream up to help us build new bridges, and I look forward to the day when we can get reliable and up-to-date reports from any region around the world.

I'm very excited for the mashup possibilities for geomapping visualization, datamapping tools and social networking. We have so many wonderful things ahead of us with enough visionaries on board to bring openness and greater common understanding for all of us. What we do with these tools remains to be seen, but I'm very optimistic for NGOs on edge of innovation.

plamb - Jun 20, 2006 7:21 am (#28 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Folks: Some really great ideas and recommendations. Here is a summary of the second part of our conversation for people just joining. My apologies for any errors or ommissions:

-Future is too unpredictable and complex to engage in crystal ball gazing, unless you broaden the scope to include multiple factors such as politics, environmental change, war, etc. Even then it is hard to predict accurately (Mal)

-“Universal” exchange of ideas (see: www.ideologi.org) allowing nonprofits and everyone in their world to collaborate and offer transparency in strategic planning, etc. (mykljonzun)

-in 2016 technology will provide the secure and flexible tracking of an NGO’s brand, allowing for greater trust (Ed)

-The arrival of a new social order led by nonprofits, and replacing multinationals (Institute for China Africa Relations)

-by 2016 nonprofit/NGO leaders will learn to use the Internet to better leverage collaborations and sharing among different groups. “Such groups will use visual databases, concept mapping, GIS and other tools to show what part of the world they focus on, and to show their strategies for having an impact. These tools will provide greater clarity of purpose, and blueprints for action, showing the sequence of steps that must be repeated over and over, with constant improvement, to build an organization, and/or solve any significant problem.” Such mapping will lead to better clarity of what individual groups do and what their specific role is in a network that will help the organizations themselves and supporters best allocate their resources. See: www.tutormentorconnection.org  (tutor mentor connection)

-Technology is only as good as the people who control it. If it falls into the hands of selfish and narrow minded people, certainly technology will not do much. We need to be more practical and less theoretical when approaching this issue(isbume)

-“NGOs in 2016 will be far more flexible, connecting people directly with people around the world with less need for filtering. …Future giving will be more networked, creating direct connections between people through the social capital of a gift exchange…The stronger BONDS of common knowledge and insight shared in these P2P giving networks will strengthen our ties as one international body capable of solving many issues that plague us…Web2.0 visual environments like Second Life are greatly helping our work as an small international organization” (evonne)

With regard to Mal's comments about the difficutly of future gazing, I disagree that we shouldn't take the time to engage in such excercises (even narrow in scope) just because it is a complex endeavor. Part of the reason I launched this discussion is because as a nonprofit/NGO practioner I know that most of our time is spent with our heads down trying to make things work on the ground. Rarely do we have the time for or give ourselves permission to dream and to envision a different kind of future. Without taking the time to dream and vision, however imperfect the process and outcomes, we lose opportunities to lift our heads up and see and grasp the many possibilities for positive change. Technology is just one tool on the horizon of possibilities, yes, but it is increasingly an important one.

Keep the ideas coming!

Cheers,

Paul

tutormentor - Jun 20, 2006 8:41 am (#29 Total: 44)
Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection

Paul, I fully agree with this statement:  "Without taking the time to dream and vision, however imperfect the process and outcomes, we lose opportunities to lift our heads up and see and grasp the many possibilities for positive change."

If non profits can find low-cost ways to harness some of the concept mapping, animation, autocad and communications and collaboration tools that are now becoming available on the Internet, it will be possible to not only create great visions, but to communicate them in ways that other people might understand them and find a way to help.

I've had too many people tell me that "I'm so far out in front of them that they cannot see me" which is why I'm so committed to  harnessing these visual tools as part of an effort to make my vision understood by those who must share the work of making it a reality. 

I wonder how many others feel the same way.

Mal Warwick - Jun 20, 2006 12:46 pm (#30 Total: 44)
Author, consultant, public speaker


In previous postings, I've argued that a narrow-gauged approach to anticipating the future such as this discussion about how technology will impact the nonprofit sector ten years down the road is an effort doomed to fail -- because it's too narrow. I'm old enough to remember the pundits and science fiction writers of the 50s confidently predicting that, by the 1990s, we'd be riding in atomic cars and live in houses cleaned by robots. They were actually serious!

I did not and do not argue that it's foolhardy to look down the road ten years. In fact, I revel in thinking about the future. I've done so all my life. However, I've learned through extended reading of history, including the history of science, that attempting to predict the future is naive. If I really want to look ten years down the road for the nonprofit sector, I use scenario planning. To my mind, this is the only approach that permits us to take into account a broad enough array of factors that we can approximate the shape and direction of future developments.

For instance, all the talk in this discussion about the impact of technology on nonprofits completely overlooks the possibility that the nonprofit sector itself will be dramatically reshaped by developments in other areas -- global climate change, for one. If sea levels rise faster than now anticipated, don't you think that there will be a huge shift in resources away from most current nonprofits and toward expanded or new services to help the hundreds of millions of people who may be threatened by rising floodwaters? And isn't that more important than how telecommunications technology might facilitate the operations of those nonprofits? And, if you want to fixate on technology, how about spending energy instead thinking about how new technology might help humanity deal with this unprecedented threat to what we so loosely call civilization?

Charles Cameron aka hipbone - Jun 20, 2006 5:07 pm (#31 Total: 44)
HipBone Games / Rheingold Associates


It looks as though I see things from a perspective that’s pretty close to Mal Warwick's.

I'd written the beginnings of a post for this item before I saw his contributions here, and offer it here (between asterisks) as another phrasing, with slightly different emphasis, of his points:

Looks into the future which assume a "steady state" continuation of current trends are liable to seem short-sighted and dated in retrospect. At the same time, the way we humans "cognize" in terms of opposites along a continuum means that our "worst case" and "best case" scenarios are both liable to be overdrawn, and "middle case" scenarios are difficult to articulate with any clarity. And none of us can hold enough facets of the multi-factorial "big picture" in mind to get other than vague hunches about the future more than a couple of years out…

Having said that, and knowing that my own suggestions here will partake of these deficiencies… From my POV, the state of NGOs in 2016 will be hugely influenced by the status of the freedom / security balance at that point -- I would have said "the war on terror", but it’s not the military aspect so much as the way global opinion shifts that seems significant to me here.

If in those ten years the geopolitics of oil is radically rewritten…

If significant climate change brings up the likelihood of mass migrations…

If Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal, falls to an radical Islamist coup…

If a successful attack is mounted on the Al Aqsa mosque by those who wish to build a Third Temple…

If immigration issues trigger a major increase in racial tensions…

If a major Mahdist movement sweeps the Shiite or the Sunni middle east…

If terrorists explode a nuclear device…

we will be living in a very different world, and what happens to philanthropy as a result will almost certainly blindside us.

That was the post I was writing as far as it went, but I’d now like to add a few other thoughts.

I believe there’s a specific sort of education we can put ourselves through that will make us better able to ride the shifting currents of a constantly re-weaving global tapestry. In my view, we would do well to familiarize ourselves with:

Scenario planning, as Mel suggests.

Concept mapping, as recommended by Dan from Tutormentor.

Systems dynamics, as presented by Donella Meadows

Questioning our assumptions, as represented by Socrates

Complexity and emergence, as they emerge from Santa Fe and Brookings

Multimodal thinking, as proposed by Edward Tufte

Dialogue, as practiced by David Bohm

That’s just a small taste of the smorgasbord of ways in which we can shake free of our blinders, and elsewhere on SocialEdge I have given more detailed descriptions and / or pointers to some of them.

There's more, but that will do for now. Mal, thanks for your persistence -- it's a pleasure to read you on these topics.

Patrick O'Heffernan - Jun 20, 2006 9:29 pm (#32 Total: 44)


Mal is right that dicussions of "the future" have a tendency to focus on whiz-bang technology and straight ahead extrapolations, when it never works that way. (Recall the scifi books you read as a kid that assumed regular interplanetary tourist space flight by 1999.) The first words out of my professors mouth in my first class on technology policy at MIT was "Technology never quite delivers on its promise, and it never delivers on its hype."

I suggest we look at NPOs more realistically- they are basically reactive organisms, fighting for resources to survive, and responding to an ever growing set of overwhelming problems, including being subverted by those that cause the problems. NPOs will expand, but not in any strategic or predictable way.

This pessimistic world view leads me to believe that we face a future in which NPOs struggle with varying degrees of succes to hold the world together. This assumes that governments will become increasingly less able and willing to serve the public welfare, or will lurch between public good, private profit, incompetence and war. NPOs will expand to meet challenges, with no strategy or plan, will grab what new technologies that become available, and will carve new and unexpected roles in society as some institutions, like education and government, fall behind and others like religion and corporations move into new roles for their own benefit.

The wild card in all of this is people. No one can predict the emergence of history changing individuals like Ted Turner or Wangari Mattai. Powerful ndividuals will emerge unpredictably in the NPO world either in response to problems or to create new opportunities. These individuals will create forms and energy in the NPO sector that we can neither predict nor understand now. Doesn't mean we shouldn't ask the question, but don't bank on any aswers.

ravichandra - Jun 21, 2006 12:00 am (#33 Total: 44)

 

I am delighted to be part of this wonderful discussion, and I believe that this is a challenging theme not just for the participants, but also for the organizations involved.

I guess the first thing that would happen is the merging of the two worlds ‘the profit and the non profits’. People with great passion are contributing to the healthy growth of the both these worlds, and it is only in recent times that the cross learning between these great giants is on and is expected to reach unusual heights during the months and years to come. One may well imagine the results of the combined efforts on the face of the globe. Especially with the impact of IT and internet technologies, and the incomes growing in the hands of millions of younger men and women.

 

The second most important thing I see happenning is the way the most important community stakeholders are getting organized, and building institutions for their growth and development. This is sharply in contrast to those deicated individuals around the world struggling and building institutions -on behalf of the poorer communities they work with. This rise in the level of awareness and capabilities on the part of the poorer communities (leading to critical knolwedge empowerment and institutional development) will force intermediary individuals and NGOs to redefine their roles an mandates.

 

All the above changes interestingly would be fastened by the technological breakthrus.

 

Ravi

K.L.SRIVASTAVA - Jun 23, 2006 9:05 am (#34 Total: 44)
Researcher and Consultant,Hyderabad,INDIA

 In view of the present trends, I visualize following situation in coming 10 years:

(a) Unlike the scene in the corporate sector, most successful NGOs will continue to be small in size and flexible in their operations. Thus NGO sector will provide relatively more fertile ground for entreprenurial thinking and innovations. 

(b) The NGO-to-NGO networking will prove to be highly beneficial and will grow substantially.

(c) Cross-sector partnerships (i. e. public-private-NGO partnerships) will also flourish and benefit the society.

Thanks,

KL 

 

Oleg K - Jun 24, 2006 12:35 am (#35 Total: 44)


Prediction? This is, of course, not a stage for prediction. It is a stage for expression of the movements that people see around them, both the ones that arouse concern and the ones that arouse optimism. This is not a futile game, even though any major event (such as a war) may topple trends and tendencies. What is important, however, is to understand the virtual forces at play at any time, and how they may be activated. If you think of a major war destroying much of the resources for technological development that are available to the world today, it is highly probable that the moves taken to rebuild after the end of a war, would not start from scratch, but from forces and capacities present before the war (or other disaster).

Virtuality Understanding these forces, that are at work even though they are only visible through their effect, or through effects that have since destroyed or altered themselves, is working with virtuality (in the philosophical sense of the term, not the narrowly technical one).

Understanding virtuality is essential to any kind of positive change. It is not enough to classify (identify differences and the elements you want to change), or potentialize (educate, train, coerce, build). If your goal is not simply to reproduce, you need to be able to work through virtuality. The essence of virtualizing is that you work as if something that is not visible to the world was already real. In fact, when you do this, the world already starts to change, and the virtualizing moves into forms of actualization. As actualization occurs, the force of virtuality does not disappear - thus, the capacity for virtualization is not linked to its actualisations, but persists within a different dimension, like a force would (think of the force of electricity, that does not go away, no matter how much electricity we use; even when the earth withers away, the force of electricity will still be present as virtuality).

Why is this relevant? Because I believe that in the future, what will distinguish us from the past, is the development of the capacity for virtualizing or virtual thinking and action derived from it. In the history of our civilisations, the other two regimes have dominated (classification and potentialisation). If the question of the future of NGO's is to matter, I think this is the issue. We are one of the sectors in which this capacity may be developing the most. So, in 10 years, this will be a major issue for NGO's, replacing the ideas of potentialisation that have dominated the age of the rise of democracies. In 50 years, this may be so widely spread that the role of NGO's will have changed again. But in 10 years, I think this just might be what we are trying to teach ourselves and the world.

Does that make sense? Sorry for being philosophical, but that is my language. Hope I have been readable anyway.

Great initiative, this definitely challenges our abilities to virtualize.

Oleg Koefoed

Philosophical Creator

Gravitations - centre for active philosophy, Denmark

http://www.gravitations.org

plamb - Jun 24, 2006 9:36 am (#36 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Folks: Interesting to see the VERY different viewpoints of people, from the positive to the negative, from the technical to the philisophical...here is an attempted summary of the most recent rounds of postings:

-“If non profits can find low-cost ways to harness some of the concept mapping, animation, autocad and communications and collaboration tools that are now becoming available on the Internet, it will be possible to not only create great visions, but to communicate them in ways that other people might understand them and find a way to help.”(tutormentor)

-This discussion is too narrow. Need to do scenario planning to make it useful (Mal)

-importance of considering impact of global security and militarism/terrorism on the Concept mapping, Systems dynamics, Questioning our assumptions, Complexity and emergence, Multimodal thinking, Dialogue (hipbone)

-NGOs are reactive, and therefore will not expand in any strategic or predictive way. The wild card is the emergence of new NPO leaders who will do things we can’t even imagine now.(Patrick)

-Two trends: the merging of nonprofits and for profits, and the rise of community stakeholders organizing and building their own institutions. Both of these will challenge NGOs to redefine their roles. (ravi)

-3 things: 1. most successful NGOs will continue to be small in size and flexible in their operations. Thus NGO sector will provide relatively more fertile ground for entreprenurial thinking and innovations. 2. NGO-to-NGO networking will prove to be highly beneficial and will grow substantially. 3. Cross-sector partnerships (i. e. public-private-NGO partnerships) will also flourish and benefit the society. (KL)

-importance of “virtualizing the future” (working as if something that is not yet visible to the world is actually real). In the future we will have greater capacity to do this. (oleg)

In pondering the above points, I am curious if anyone has come across some good scenario planning for the future of nonprofits that DOES take into account the role of new technologies specifically? Also, most of our discussion has been about how to look ahead and the results of technology-driven changes and not so much about specific tools that will get us there (or not). Tools that are either in existence or under development. We did talk a bit about mapping, for example. Any additional thoughts, resources, and SPECIFIC technology tools/trends to share and expound upon?

Great stuff all, Thanks!

Paul

alaoui - Jul 2, 2006 11:33 am (#37 Total: 44)

Hi Dear Evonne,

I'm from morocco,

I'm happy to send you this MSG,

I'm working in social projects :

* Street children : www.adim-kids.org   Rabat        Morocco
* Invalid persons ( handicap)                Ouarzazate Morocco

and I'm Inventor ( Gold medal Renawable energy) and others inventions that I can't make,

I'm technical artist decoration,

But I have great financial problems 

How can you Help me Please,

Thank you,

best regards

excuse my English langage, I speake French very will,

Alaoui

alaoui232@hotmail.com

Kevin Danaher - Jul 5, 2006 10:04 pm (#38 Total: 44)

JJSOmaha - Jul 6, 2006 8:45 pm (#39 Total: 44)


At United eWay we're working on developing technologies to engage the next generation of volunteer through the SMS/text messaging technologies that are out there.

We've recently partnered with Mobile Accord out of Denver to help us work towards these goals.

Imagine being able to contact and engage volunteers through your cell phone, a medium that many of the next generation is already used to using.

I'd be open to hear your thoughts and suggestions on this method of contact.

plamb - Jul 7, 2006 3:06 pm (#40 Total: 44)
Paul Lamb

Kevin: Thanks for you mention of SMS/text messaging as an interesting new tool. As you know from your own experience with Mobile Accord, text messaging offers a convenient means for mobile phone users to get involved in political and advocacy campaigns, register to vote (see: http://www.mobilevoter.org/), and donate money. Companies like Pay Pal ("text to give") and the major wireless companies are also jumping on board because they see this is a sweet revenue opportunity.

The trends we are seeing now seem to be just the tip of the iceberg. As usual, young folks are picking things up more quickly and driving rapid adoption of new technologies. It won't be long before we will all be doing our banking and making purchases via our cell phones and other mobile devices.  

What is really exciting in the social sector, is the up and coming ability to use such mobile technologies to engage volunteers and supporters, identify and interact with location-based services, and provide assistance on the ground. For example, instead of agonizing over whether to hand a homeless person on the street a quarter, many people might feel more comfortable "texting" a dollar to a food account to a local grocery store or restaurant.

Lots of interesting possibilities on the horizon...

Cheers,

Paul

Michael Bosse - Jul 10, 2006 10:09 pm (#41 Total: 44)
Equal Access

Working at an INGO I am amazed by how little international outsourcing of business processes and use of international based staff for third country projects occurs in the INGO sector.

If organisations like CARE, OXFAM etc.. can deliver goods and services to the most remote areas of the globe in a disaster situation and maintain regular, large offices in developing countries, why have large INGOs been slower than corporations who have limited developing world operations to shift business processes to cheaper places to do business? Why do INGOs retain the majority of their technical expertise in staff/consultants who are OECD nationals and live in North America/Europe? Why are donors resistent to using third country nationals to do development work rather than someone more expensive from London or Washington?

There are exceptions - notably Action Aid which shifted from the UK to South Africa and makes a point of differentiating itself on this basis. See: http://www.actionaid.org/index.asp?page_id=1120

There are practical reasons: It can be very difficult for, say, an Afghan to get a visa for Nepal or vice versa - about 20% of our efforts to use our international staff in third country projects are delayed/cancelled due to visa challenges. Finding the ICT infrastructure and expertise can be difficult. Developing world locations are often less stable. However, I would suggest that the trend of large HQ staff for INGOs in Washington, Atlanta or even the Bay Area may be waning.

Atlas Service Corps - Jul 24, 2006 5:11 pm (#42 Total: 44)

In 2016 NGOs will be integrated into a true global citizen sector where best practices, talent, and services cross borders with ease to efficiently and effectively serve the needs of the world community through international partnerships and collaboration. An integrated global citizen sector will facilitate a global partnership for development.

Michael: You are not the only one who has noticed that the NGO world has fallen behind the business world in capturing the gains created by globalization through the transfer of knowledge and people across borders. And it is not just that "third country nationals" would be less expensive than "OECD nationals," but we have failed to take advantage of the value NGO leaders from the developing world possess. NGOs in the developing world are sometimes much more effective at efficiently using scarce resources, empathetic development, and finding innovative solutions. An NGO leader working in a drug treatment center in South America  would have a lot they could teach a nonprofit organization in Washington, DC working to combat drug addiction. The West should be more open to a type of global cooperation for development that is less near-sighted than the idea that the rich countries have all of the answers and the poor, all of the problems. A more robust view of international cooperation will bring more solutions to the fore.  

cdearing - Jul 31, 2006 12:19 pm (#43 Total: 44)
Carla Dearing

Yes, the tools will be cheap, customizable and more user friendly but the big revolution will be outsourced servicing for most front office servicing and all back office servicing.  This will bring sorely needed scale to the market for better technologies and will help some of the other practical weaknesses in the sector such as lack of management expertise, lack of technology expertise, high turnover of trained employees, training challenges, underresourced operations, ...  The sector may remain as fragmented as it is now but key parts of operations will be consolidated.

---