I'm working on a five part series on technology and philanthropy, as I'm drafting the upcoming Blueprint 2013 industry forecast. Big trends I'm looking at are 1) mobile payments 2) the cloud 3) filters 4) new skills and 5) tech policies. What would you add?

Thx for asking, Lucy, and kudos on the forecast-in-the-works. This comes to mind: multi-org data+tech-level collaborations, although nascent now compared to where they're headed. I'm admittedly influenced by a couple of projects I'm involved with -- the Markets for Good initiative, which will launch public engagement at SoCap; and a Microsoft-funded 'sector reach assessment' for key NTAPs (NTEN, TechSoup Global, Network for Good, several NPowers). It could be a short-term trend, spurred by restricted access to funds, but I don't think so. Too many benefits coming to light as these orgs practice working together in new ways. M4G, for example, has the capacity to deeply change the sector, though its coming along very very slowly.

Christine - thanks for chiming in. I agree - I think we're about to see great new examples of coordination and inter-related sites, data, platforms. Thrilled to know you're working on MFG - I've got a blog post cooking about it.

Assuming new skills includes all the data related skills? Analysis, visualization. Also all the NetSmart skills, plus being able to deal info overload, content curation, networking, etc.

Online public engagement - civionomics -
civinomics.com

-- another is the marriage of social, mobile, and local data with business intelligence in terms of how organizations are tracking and analyzing these sources as research streams.

-- the move to real-time data - analysis, tracking, and visualization.

-- The shift to a visual society facilitated by technology tools that help us do our work.

This is a great summary - data and netsmart skills. Thanks Beth!

definitivamente la tecnologia ha llegodo a este mundo de una manera muy extraordinario ya que casi todo es tecnologia pero como todas las cosas tiene sus contra y sus pro.

Where's the +1 button for Beth's contribution, and how can I push it twice? :)

Here's the draft of the post that I've written (this post will go live on Weds, it's #4 of 5)

"We won't all become coders, but we all need to know how to make our computers and mobiles work for us and get smarter about how they are re-shaping what we share, when, and with whom. There's a sign that the general public is getting savvier on these issues - the Pew Center on the Internet and American Life found recently that more than half of the people they surveyed had either uninstalled or chosen not to install an app because of their concerns about privacy....

See next post block.

...continued from above

The technology infrastructure for data, communications, news, presentations, analysis, and sharing is constantly changing and expanding. Our practices for using data, telling stories, persuading others, and making choices have to keep up. The data sources that will be linked, omnipresent, and increasingly useful for donors, nonprofits, program professionals and board members are improving, rapidly. These include data at all levels - industry-wide, issue-specific, programmatic performance metric, and on social outcomes. Running successful programs, ...

leading organizations, analyzing funding opportunities, communicating and managing, or being an effective philanthropic professional requires people who can constantly upgrade their own abilities at data analysis and presentation, information synthesis, networking, financial analysis, and BS detection. I'm starting to think of my own professional skills like versions of operating systems - I'm a v.49 now and I'm working on upgrading myself to v.49.x. (Peter Leyden calls this "reinventing" and points to Tim O'Reilly as a model).
....

Everyone in philanthropy needs to keep learning - to keep up with the ways change is changing and to understand the design choices that effect our communities, privacy, choices, and sense of trust. Here's a great example of this type of "professional upgrading" from the Nieman Lab on Journalism at Harvard. Brian Boyer, head of app development at NPR, not only describes, but offers the syllabus for the "hacker journalism" course he sees as necessary.

...Static training programs for foundation professionals or assumptions that "past degrees are an indication of future success" won't work anymore. There's lot of news about how technology is disrupting schooling and higher education. Those of us already in the working world are experiencing this as well - the need to simultaneously do and learn. We're all beginners now.

"

Beth's additions are tremendously helpful - I'm headed back to the drawing board......

Christine - agreed. Beth stuck the landing on that one! Thanks both! (and thanks for diving into Branch with me - only way I can learn how to use these things is to use these things (smile)

And thanks to Jeffrey for his comment, which Google Translate plus my poor Spanish translate into "definitely the technology we have is extraordinary but there are both plusses and minuses to everything." I'd love to hear more about the downsides in your perspective, Jeffrey - assuming I didn't ruin your comment with my poor Spanish skills.

tranquila lo has hecho bien, tu español es bueno mas tu ayuda de el google translate, pero como decía las ventajas vienen de parte de una mejora, la mejora de un mundo mas comunicado a través de las redes sociales y de las innovaciones telefónicas, pero sin duda las desventajas son muchas por medio de el caso de las redes sociales porque a decir verdad nos alejan de la realidad en cierto caso, mi punto de vista es dejar que la tecnología fluya y que no sea tan necesaria para la vida. de hecho quería preguntarte, ¿es necesario para la vida cotidiana el uso extremo de la tecnologia?

Thx for sharing the draft here, Lucy (love the inclusion of "BS detection" skills). Jeffrey, to your latest point about whether these technologies are necessary, that's something I ask myself alot, too. Going to take this as opportunity to get philosophical for a minute, and then bring it back to practical. In its broadest sense, "technology" can be defined as anything we hold separate from what we identify as "self", and then (by virtue of that separation) is used by self. In that broadest sense, technology can be your hand, a piece of paper, even your brain, or even a thought that comes into focus in your brain. In its broadest sense, "philanthropy" is the expression of love for one another.

Is technology necessary to philanthropy? Yes, if you see philanthropy as a "closing of the gap" between self and other, and technology as what makes that "closing of the gap" possible. // Professionally, Lucy focuses on subsets of philanthropy and technology (nonprofit/foundation activity, and information and communication technology) and then even more specifically on where those subsets overlap (Venn diagram-style).

To your question above, is the extreme use of technology necessary for daily life, I'd say no. But is it worthwhile to extend our understanding of how new technologies can enhance our capacity to take care of one another? I'd say yes. Why would we want to miss an opportunity to do that? As long as the exploration and the investments of resources that follow are grounded in that love for one another, they'll be worthwhile.

Quick tech question .. by accident I muted this conversion via the email link - do you know how to "unmute" - can figure it out .. I'm going to check out the branch features now because I'm going to response to various chunks.

ah, darn, branch does not the same as a thread - it means bring in a new person to the that thread. wondering if they get to see the whole thread. Okay, now to content

Thank you for the kind words and inviting me into this conversation. It is near and ear to my heart.

Okay, love the BS detection - Rheingold calls it crap detection - it is one of his netsmart skills - the others are: mindfulness, attention, participation, collective intelligence, networks - here's the TOC: mitpress.mit.edu
I wrote a review of his book back over the summer here: bethkanter.org and this prompted some folks to start a book club to read and discuss - facebook.com - these nonprofit and foundation folks - so it would be a like a focus group for your thinking .... I think it is an open group

Lucy: I love your framing - as you know I've been training nonprofits how to use tech since 1992 and this has been my mantra - that you have to be a dynamic learner in real time. That the tools change or the amount of information is increasing - that what is most important is to learn how to learn. I used to be a circuit rider where I traveled around to nonprofits and supported all their needs (those days I even crawled under desks to plug in LANs). Anyway, some people would approach me as the answer person, the expert - ask all the questions without learning anything. This would annoy people, but I would show them how to use the HELP, how to keep a learning journal for their tech, how to do "shoulder to shoulder" learning.

I have been using a variation of this framing to talk about why content curation is important and how it can help REDUCE information overload. I'll email you the article - but it is because it is a new form of professional development - constant learning. It's the fact that we learn from information online from following streams and then making sense of them - seek, sense, share model. In the old days, the sense making part lasted longer in terms of building our skills and expertise. Now, it is a faster cycle because of so information coming at us. So, knowing how to use the techniques of curation, along with the tools is essential.

Here's a round up of skills related to controlling information overload: bethkanter.org

Here's the NTEN stuff - but let go get the 21st century skills links - not sure those are in there - bethkanter.org

Ah, in trying to find it, found a nice infographic that talks about how much data is being generated .. "Data Never Sleeps" mashable.com

Finally - here is the study I was looking for. These are 21st century skills - so think about the technology skills that are required to master these skills .. (4 of 10 skills)

1) Sense-making:
ability to determine the deeper meaning or significance of what is being expressed

2) Social intelligence:
ability to connect to others in a deep and direct way, to sense and stimulate reactions and desired interactions

3) Novel and adaptive thinking:
proficiency at thinking and coming up with solutions and responses beyond that which is rote or rule-based

4) Cross-cultural competency:
ability to operate in different cultural settings

5) Computational thinking:
ability to translate vast amounts of data into abstract concepts and to understand data-based reasoning

6) New media literacy:
ability to critically assess and develop content that uses new media forms, and to leverage these media for persuasive communication

7) Transdisciplinarity:
literacy in and ability to understand concepts across multiple disciplines

8) Design mindset:
ability to represent and develop tasks and work processes for desired outcomes

8 of 10 skills

9) Cognitive load management:
ability to discriminate and filter information for importance, and to understand how to maximize cognitive functioning using a variety of tools and techniques

10) Virtual collaboration:
ability to work productively, drive engagement, and demonstrate presence as a member of a virtual team

scoop.it

Where does crowdfunding fit in?

buen argumento Christine.

Howard - thanks for asking about crowdfunding - it's definitely part of the philanthropy/technology landscape. As you raised it in this context it makes me think of the skills it requires - marketing, network use, good project scoping, as well as the way it shifts the stream of funding options that other funders need to consider. I'll work it into the post - many thanks.

Beth
I've revisited the entire post because of your incredibly helpful insights and links. Thank you. I've got Net Smart on my pile and read lots of Howard's stuff online - thanks for looping this conversation to his work and for all the thinking and writing you've done on this

Jeffrey and Christine
I'm afraid my poor Spanish may be limiting me here, but the to the question of must we use technologies let me add a little bit. I fully agree that technologies run the gamut from paper and pen to all things internet. Philanthropy, I believe, draws from our is a fundamental human desire to help, which we'll do with or without any "technologies." Those technologies - such as networks of people - that fit most easily into our lives are those which I think have the greatest potential to change (positively) how we share. In some ways, because philanthropy is such a core, basic human element, it is most amenable to the simplest tech additions.

All
Thanks to all of you for "talking" - this branch can be embedded and I'll do so on the blog unless any one of you asks me not to. Thanks for your substantive contributions - which have really helped my thinking, and for playing here which has helped me learn the tool.

Lucy

Yet again looking for the +1 button, and thank you for the learning here!

tranquila lucy lo haces bien, todo el mundo tiene derecho aprender, ya pronto aprenderás y buen punto.

Gracias, Jeffrey

So, I have spent the last 22 years in nonprofit technology always trying to figure out how to use "their" technology in "our" world. I think we have largely failed in this. Actually, I think technology has allowed for only minor advances that keep social or civil society always a step behind financial or political society. Remember when Netscape Navigator had an html editor as part of the browser? Remember the Cleveland Freenet. Now the Internet is just for consumption. Sure there are edge cases of generative activity...

This move to e-money for social good scares me. (I say this as a purveyor of e-money systems at Grameen Foundation). We have seen the promise of technology as a generative catalyst pull farther and farther away from us. When we add e-money to the mix we are giving away more and more control to the center. Again, there is great promise from generative tools like p2p, local and alternate currencies...

So, how does this play into philanthropy? Technology has certainly impacted philanthropy but it is tough to say that the impact is anything more than incremental. It is most interesting to think what technology should do in philanthropy. It should drive money towards solutions but to a large it extent, technology has enabled vanity giving instead. It should enable the crowdsourcing of massively complicated answers to intractable problems but instead we turn crowdsourcing in to corporate R&D incentivized with bounties. Bottom line is that technology does not help philanthropy fund solutions to intractable problems. I think we have left that to the Gates Foundation. :)

And none of this has anything to do with technology. It's the humans who haven't learned to dream about a new possible.

Thanks for adding me in, Steve.I stumbled across this Branch at its beginning and wondered how I had not heard about this new platform;-> But to your point, I agree that to a large extent, technology, specifically crowdfunding, drives and is driven by vanity giving. In trying to crack the cycle and deve a new system of crowdfunding/giving, my team and I are constantly confronted with the "what's in it for me?" mindset, even on the team itself.

I do believe, however, that using technology as a base for aggregating funds from unusual donors is the next phase of crowdfunding. There is a need to change the perception of philanthropy from donor/recipient to community owners.

cont'

If we can acknowledge and own a problem, then we are more likely to collectively invest in its resolution, particularly if we can track how often the dollar circulates in a particular community or between communities.

In other words, we are looking to create disruptive economies of scale that seek intersectional amplification, incrementally across hundreds of thousands of participants. Digital platforms are not the only way to do this, but Web 2.0 has the potential to be the quickest and most cost-effective.

Steve and Anna

Sorry to be so slow in joining back in - I've been running around like crazy. I like the ideas you share about crowdfunding as aggregators - most tech has not yet gotten there, as you rightly point out.

That said, i don't think tech alone is a solution to vanity funding - there is another branch conversation I saw about "birthday giving through charity:water" and at what point its returns diminish... vanity is a human problem, not a tech problem!

Lucy