Technology and learning: opportunities for advisers

 

Strategic Philanthropy

0
Aaron Spevacek

Aaron Spevacek

The transformative effect of technology on philanthropy is a frequent topic of conversation in journals and at conferences. These discussions often cover how technological innovation is changing the practice of philanthropy and the relationships between donors and non-profits. However, there is less discussion of what donors are actually learning from these new tools.

A key role of philanthropic advisers is to facilitate learning opportunities for their clients. In ‘What is success for a philanthropy adviser?’ (Alliance, June 2010), Felicitas von Peter and Michael Alberg-Seberich correctly raise the bar for advisers by saying that client learning is as important as traditional philanthropic goals such as ‘impact’ and ‘scaling’. This leaves those of us who incorporate new technology into our practices with the question of how best to use technology to facilitate learning.

Many of the learning opportunities that come from new technologies rely on tools that make communication and collaboration across geographic divides easier and/or cheaper. Sites like ooVoo and Wengomeeting make video conferences with multiple participants inexpensive while also reducing requirements for users’ computers, thereby expanding the number of people who can use the technology. Popular social networking sites are increasingly being used by foundations to share information externally, both among grantees and with staff and board members, as well as to create private ‘groups’ to facilitate internal communications. A range of other websites and software allow users to collaborate on a document or to review and leave comments on pending grant proposals. While the cost of some online grant application systems for foundations can be very expensive, there are several less expensive options that offer ever increasing functionality and sophistication.*

Opportunities for learning also come from new ways of communicating with non-profits. This can be something as simple as bringing an inexpensive digital video camera to a site visit, thus allowing non-profits to talk directly to donors who are not there in person. Donors can also invite grantees to comment on strategic giving priorities by using web-based tools to gather ideas and feedback during, for example, a strategic planning process.

Outside of relationship-building and collaboration, technology creates opportunities for learning by making information more readily available. Donors now have fast and easy access to reports and white papers about philanthropic practice and issue-area research. Blogs have enhanced our ability to engage in and advance professional debates that would have once taken place only at conferences or in journals, and dozens of websites have been created to share information about non-profits.

However, learning is not an inherent outcome of using new technology even if it makes information more readily available. An often-cited example in the US is the online publication of non-profit financial data. This has made important information much easier for donors to access but has led to the predominance of rating systems for non-profits that favour a cost-based analysis of an organization’s ‘effectiveness’ without consideration of the context in which an organization operates. A new generation of websites seek to go beyond the use of administrative and fundraising expense information to look more closely at impact, but in addition to the larger debate over how to document impact, there is still a great deal of disagreement about what information to share and how to collect it, making this a contentious and evolving facet of philanthropy.

Advisers, like any professionals in philanthropy, must update their practices to reflect new uses of technology. And we have the added burden of making sure technology is being used to facilitate client learning. Keeping three principles in mind will help advisers using information-sharing technology to ensure that the tools we recommend to our clients create new opportunities for learning.

  • Information must be contextualized. Whether it is success stories from a non-profit or data collected by government, advisers need to contextualize information provided to donors using new technologies much as they would information we share with clients in person.
  • Information must be relevant to the donor. Donors have unique perspectives that ultimately link back to their core values and beliefs. What appears to be most relevant to us as professionals in the field may not be relevant to an individual donor. By assessing the ‘fit’ of a new technology with a donor’s needs and practice, an adviser also opens up an opportunity to explore new conversations with their client and become even more familiar with their giving goals.
  • Information must be presented appropriately. The journalist’s admonition not to ‘bury the lead’ applies to new technologies as well. But in addition to asking ourselves whether the most important information is displayed first, advisers need to think about how best to display quantitative data, in what circumstances graphics or other media are truly useful and whether information is presented in a readable format. Even the medium used to communicate with clients is an open question.

A danger with new technologies is to mistake the ability to do something with the utility of doing it. Advisers may see an opportunity for sharing information that is generally considered effective but that may not be useful for certain donors for any number of reasons. With that in mind, advisers need to search for the most appropriate tools to share information and create communication. In doing so, we can create new opportunities for donors to learn.

* A recent report commissioned by Project Streamline in the United States provides an excellent comparison of seven less expensive online grant application systems.

  • Information must be contextualized. Whether it is success stories from a non-profit or data collected by government, advisers need to contextualize information provided to donors using new technologies much as they would information we share with clients in person.
  • Information must be relevant to the donor. Donors have unique perspectives that ultimately link back to their core values and beliefs. What appears to be most relevant to us as professionals in the field may not be relevant to an individual donor. By assessing the ‘fit’ of a new technology with a donor’s needs and practice, an adviser also opens up an opportunity to explore new conversations with their client and become even more familiar with their giving goals.
  • Information must be presented appropriately. The journalist’s admonition not to ‘bury the lead’ applies to new technologies as well. But in addition to asking ourselves whether the most important information is displayed first, advisers need to think about how best to display quantitative data, in what circumstances graphics or other media are truly useful and whether information is presented in a readable format. Even the medium used to communicate with clients is an open question.

A danger with new technologies is to mistake the ability to do something with the utility of doing it. Advisers may see an opportunity for sharing information that is generally considered effective but that may not be useful for certain donors for any number of reasons. With that in mind, advisers need to search for the most appropriate tools to share information and create communication. In doing so, we can create new opportunities for donors to learn.

Aaron Spevacek is a philanthropic analyst with Strategic Philanthropy. Email aaron@stratphilanthropy.com

 

Tagged in: Donor relationships Philanthropy advice Technology


Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *