Good For Nothing?
Why Nonprofits, Designers, and Techies Can't Talk to Each Other
By Ayça Akin

Setting the stage
Anyone who has worked with nonprofits can attest to the fact that a low budget and a lack of tech-savvy staff can hinder a group's ability to communicate its mission and affect change. But as a designer researching the use of technology to help nonprofits, I've come to understand that differences in how designers, technologists, and nonprofits see each other (and themselves) is at the heart of the problem.

There are a lot of designers and tech-savvy people out there who want to put their skills to good use and help nonprofits serve larger communities and interests. Indeed, working exclusively with clients who can afford them often pigeonholes designers into serving smaller and smaller segments of the population.

The nonprofit world is filtered for people looking to do social change, and the design and technology world is filtered for people looking to do problem solving. There is a philosophical connection between the two motivations, certainly, but flipping those filters on the two crowds yields fairly small subsets of people in each. It's like a dating site trying to match up 5-foot-tall basketball players with 7-foot-tall horse jockeys.

But venturing into the nonprofit world can be a dangerous prospect for those who live in a world where technology and innovation are essential ingredients to solving problems and creating change. As one designer who volunteers his skills recently remarked, "the challenge is that volunteers often have to work with nonprofits that don't understand the value of employing design technologies."

And perhaps here's why: The nonprofit world is filtered for people looking to do social change, and the design and technology world is filtered for people looking to do problem solving. There is a philosophical connection between the two motivations, certainly, but flipping those filters on the two crowds yields fairly small subsets of people in each. It's like a dating site trying to match up 5-foot-tall basketball players with 7-foot-tall horse jockeys.

This doesn't stop people from trying, of course, but too often I've heard stories of complete communication meltdowns between nonprofits and the volunteers employing design and technology to help them. Whether it's developing a device that enables a group to generate new data for policy arguments (Neighborhood Networks and Many Eyes are interesting examples of community empowerment), or a customized web tool that gives a group a stronger community presence (the Open Planning Project is doing some impressive work to empower nonprofits through technology), problems in communication and culture almost always come up.

These challenges should come as no surprise, since any designer/client relationship has its built-in (if clichéd) limits: Designers are asked to step outside themselves to see the world in a new way, but can never, by definition, be the client or the user. In pro bono projects—as time becomes expensive—paying attention to the unique perspectives of nonprofits is the only way for volunteers to develop sound working relationships toward making social change products effective and sustainable.

Here we have very different people trying to collaborate around a common goal, and points of friction are increased by differences in culture, language and preconceptions about one another. Like so many problems in the world, many of these differences can be overcome by simply trying to understand each other's priorities and world views.

I have conducted personal interviews with over thirty designers, geeks, nonprofits, (and hybrids between the three), in order to identify the source of these communication breakdowns. Based on my interviews, this article describes the most common problems faced by these groups when collaborating with each other.

If a nonprofit can't afford a designer for a project, does it turn to volunteers? Often not. On whether to recruit tech volunteers, designers had one thing to say: "Volunteers are not for the long-term."

A. DESIGNERS ON NONPROFITS, VOLUNTEERING, AND THEMSELVES

"You need to be honest about who you are and what you do."
Being good problem-solvers is not enough. Designers need to recognize the clear disconnect between nonprofits and techies, and to learn how to navigate it and manage different personalities. Groups that want useful tools need to be able to communicate "who they are," "how they work," and "what they need." Transparency of both the nonprofit's needs, and the capabilities of the tech-volunteers, will result in more effective project management, expectations, and outcomes.

"We're too busy moving from crisis to crisis."
There are many existing services directed at helping nonprofits in low-cost ways, often in the form of open source online tools (see TechSoup, CivicSpace, and Drupal for a few examples). While many of these options are free and pitch themselves as "easy to use," they invariably involve a learning curve. Since nonprofits are self-describedly "moving from crisis to crisis," a general sense of frustration with technological solutions is palpable. Even groups that pride themselves on being tech-savvy can't figure out many of these online tools, and either rely on spotty technical support, or worse, avoid the services entirely. It's important for designers and technologists to understand that often this is the climate they are walking into.

"Tailor-made solutions can be worse."
In addition, many of the pre-designed tools mentioned above offer technology that is applicable for some objectives a nonprofit may want to accomplish, but not all. The holes in the architecture of these tools need to be addressed through customized solutions—but according to many designers, "not overly customized," since that would involve too much handholding and troubleshooting down the line. And since a nonprofit usually doesn't have the funding for this requisite handholding, they can't even afford the designer's help to build the tool in the first place! Projects are often doomed before they even start.

"Volunteers are not for the long-term."
So if a nonprofit can't afford a designer for a project, does it turn to volunteers? Often not. On whether to recruit tech volunteers, designers had one thing to say: "Volunteers are not for the long-term." In most cases, volunteers are willing to devote their skills to a project for a finite period of time. To accomplish a project, however, you either need a core group of dedicated volunteers or compensation. As a result, technology-intensive (or simply technology-based) initiatives are hard to come by for nonprofits, as they require continuous support.

"Some of these groups are impoverished except for passion."
There is a general feeling that most nonprofit employees are rich in knowledge and passion for their group's mission, but not much else. It's interesting that there is a stigma attached to being on the technical side of things, and a feeling that if you aren't working directly on programs, you aren't "in the trenches," and are likely "less of an expert on the issues." (Here it's worth mentioning that language can particularly befuddle: For nonprofits, "program" means initiative; for architects it means layout; for software engineers, coding. There really can be different languages on the table here.) This kind of prejudice is obviously detrimental to progress, but recognizing this kind of territoriality is essential to understanding the various stakeholders.

Nonprofits want maintenance all the time, on demand; techies want more diversity in clients and less long-term commitment to projects.

B. TECHIES ON NONPROFITS, VOLUNTEERING, AND THEMSELVES

"Nonprofits are high maintenance."
The frustration that tech-savvy helpers feel about working for nonprofits is not hard to pick up on. According to most, nonprofits want maintenance all the time, on demand. On the other hand, techies want more diversity in clients and less long-term commitment to projects. These perceptions are widespread, and it's difficult to find a balance in expectation and commitment that satisfies both parties. This is perhaps one of the most challenging divides between the two groups.

"Nonprofits have no clue what's involved."
Many nonprofits don't understand what the realization of their ideas requires—both in terms of technology implementation, and in terms of the potentially high billing costs involved in maintaining a project after its launch. High turnover in nonprofit staff makes it even harder to sustain projects and finish them in a reasonable time frame, since new personnel and rotating project managers can result in the infamous refrain, "Well, let's step back and take another look at what we're doing here." Dreaded words to any techie deep into the code.

"There is often a confusion about scope and value."
Many techies remark that when approached by a nonprofit with a particular need, it's rarely clear to them what that need exactly is. From the other perspective, when a volunteer approaches a nonprofit, they often encounter resistance because the nonprofit "can't recognize when you're offering them something useful." This represents a gap both in project definition and perceived value—absolute basics in any work engagement. Is there any wonder difficulties arise?

"We don't always want to be saving the world."
I've asked many geeks whether they would volunteer their skills to help a nonprofit with a project. What often came back was "techies don't want to save the world, they just want to work with interesting datasets and on challenging projects." A facile posture perhaps, but one that points to a useful truth: A tight project brief without the philosophical, existential, or cultural ramifications threaded throughout can help techies simply get started. As any designer knows, the greater the number of constraints, the easier the project is to dig into.

"Technology has the capacity to change the world."
In contrast, of course, not all tech-minded people are uninterested in making the world a better place. Far from it. There are plenty of bright-eyes out there, heeding a calling to do good, and for whom the added layers of positive action are precisely the ingredients that will bring out their best work, and, perhaps, get them to stick around a little longer. (Uh, that maintenance part again!)

When it comes to succeeding as an organization, most nonprofits argue that the ability to communicate its mission in a clear and compelling way is a top priority. It was interesting to see how much effort actually goes toward this goal, however. And it's not much.

C. NONPROFITS ON DESIGN, TECHNOLOGY, VOLUNTEERS, AND THEMSELVES

"Communicating the mission is at the top of our agenda."
When it comes to succeeding as an organization, most nonprofits argue that the ability to communicate its mission in a clear and compelling way is a top priority. It was interesting to see how much effort actually goes toward this goal, however. And it's not much. Design and technology can contribute a great deal to effective communication, but nonprofits must learn how to leverage these tools toward their own goals.

"Growth is a luxury."
It's amazing to see a group run without someone there to write grants, track contributions, send out email announcements, maintain a website, organize events, or develop new programs, but most do. Sadly, the great majority of nonprofits seem to focus more on maintaining than they do on growing. Again, design, tools, and technology can help a group get off the treadmill, but it takes a change in mindset to see past "growth as a luxury."

"Technology is a big, scary monster."
Most nonprofits are confused about technology—what it really is, what its potentials are, and what their own capabilities might be in managing it. Nonprofits are often unable to understand the different language that "techy people" speak, and this leaves them vulnerable to not getting what they want, paying too much for what they get, and not being able to maintain tech-dependant tools on their own. Fear is an overriding factor here, and helping non-savvy groups understand design and technology systems is the best way to turn them into sustainable partners.

"There is no time to think or explore."
Many nonprofit groups lean on the energies and talents of volunteers. However, much to my surprise, nonprofits are often so consumed with keeping afloat that even when an enthusiastic volunteer comes up with a great new idea, it's very difficult to get off the ground. Nonprofits are overstretched, and are sometimes forced to discourage outside people from helping them. This is both ironic and tragic.

"Even when the work is done for you, it's put on the shelf."
In the same vein, a lot of groups I spoke with had had the experience of a talented tech-volunteer building them something they ultimately didn't use. In effect, even after the volunteer had built what they considered an "amazing prototype," it died on the shelf. And no wonder: the nonprofit had no capacity to implement it. Internal resources and commitment need to be devoted to any kind of technology project to see it through, and too many are begun, then abandoned—to everyone's disappointment (and resentment).

 

Further thoughts
I've tried to outline some of the common postures of designers, techies and nonprofits above, but ironically, making generalizations about these groups can do even more harm. And certainly, one bad experience can prejudice any future engagements, leading to antagonistic opinions about a lot of diverse people. Understanding the challenges that nonprofits face can temper such generalizations perhaps, in the same way that understanding the challenges that designers face, and the motivations that techies embrace, can help nonprofits appreciate what should ideally comprise a powerful support system.

If we are only able to design for people who speak our own language, then the true power of design has been severely diminished. Recognizing frustrations is one step, but opening up in order to see the source of these frustrations is actually more important. In the words of Dan Saffer, experience design director at Adaptive Path, "We must withhold judgment in order to make later judgments more sensitive." For nonprofits, designers, and technologists, part of that sensitivity will come from understanding the differences in their cultures, languages, and frames of reference.

Ayça Akin is a Master student of Communication Planning and Information Design at the School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University. She can be reached at aakin[at]cmu[dot]edu.