The folks at Aspiration Tech are doing this survey to see how nonprofits choose the software they use. There was a fascinating discussion that came out of the announcement of this survey over at one of the email lists I subscribe to.
At the same time, board member Scott Griffiths is toying with the idea of attending a Penguin Day on Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS, in the techie jargon of the day) in Austin where he lives. He sent me some pertinent questions about Worlds Touch and how we fit into the FLOSS scene.
Here's our conversation, which includes some remarks from Rudi von Staden <[email protected]> about how he sees the situation of software, proprietary and not.
Scott: Suppose I went to the Penguin Day deal. I realize you would like me to network there... but as to the open source software aspect... what should I know about that.
Trish: Open source is an approach to writing code for software that allows others to see how you have constructed your programs and applications and databases, and because of that, gives others the opportunity to modify, edit and change what you've done. That makes software adaptable for different situations-- the health care clinic can use the same client management software as the social services nonprofit if they can fiddle with the code.
Open source software is often freeware. That means that nobody is asking a nonprofit to PAY for the software. Often, they ask you to pay if you want them to come in and install it, modify it specifically for you, troubleshoot problems and train your people how to use it.
This means that the rest of the world can afford to have this software, especially if it is run on open source operating system LINUX. This means that they aren't on their knees in front of Microsoft. It means that they don't have to be using pirated software, which they all are, and because of the situation in the world today, Microsoft can't really clamp down on them, but one of these days, it will. The chaos in the marketplace will give way to some level of control, if not order, and these people will find their files can't be read and their programs won't work.
FLOSS, as Free/Libre Open Source Software is called, is an effort to undermine Microsoft's stranglehold on the market, get nonprofits out of the piracy business, get them aligned with a more democratic and socially conscious and less capitalism/exploitation model of doing business.
Scott: What do we use now? Why?
We use what our clients have on their machines, so far, which means pirated Microsoft programs. The migration to a totally different operating system, the technical support required, etc. is far beyond our capability, so far. Also, there is an issue with the level of technological awareness and saavy and expertise our CLIENTS can muster. The people into FLOSS in the states and Europe are the techie activists, generally people who have been computer geeks since grade school. Unfortunately, they often find it difficult to imagine why FLOSS would be mystifying, difficult or too complex for our folks in the third world. Microsoft is widely used, widely understood, there's lots of training out there, funders know what they're getting and so don't feel too nervous.
FLOSS is a good-hearted effort to stem the tide of Microsoft's greed. It makes really good sense for developing countries and poor people. But it wasn't taught in MY college, and the boys at my school who knew this stuff thought anybody who didn't pick it up by themselves on weekends instead of in a university classroom was a total WUSS and not worth their time or energy.
Scott: Aside from the networking thing... what might I learn there that might be useful?
I think networking, meeting the people who are both dedicated social activists (like you) AND techies might be an excellent experience. Since you are not only a dedicated social activist but a dedicated skeptic about technology's ultimate usefulness to the "street," this is a good topic to have your thoughts on. Of the points on the list of "what you can learn," there are a couple you could check out and report back to us on:
* Introduction to Free and Open Source Software for Nonprofits
* Local resources and who’s-who in the Austin Free/Open Source community
* Helping techies and non-techies communicate
* Funding, financing and sustaining an Open Source project
These look to me like less techie jargony and possibly of interest to Worlds Touch.
Scott: I need a speil on what Worlds Touch does.
Trish: Send 'em to our newly refurbished web site: http://www.worldstouch.org!
You: Are we adaptable on this issue? Last thing I remember you thought Microsoft was the way to go as that is what folks already had. Is this still so? What would change that?
We are as adaptable as our clients. Unfortunately, our clients are MUCH less adaptable than we might want them to be. Most of the nonprofits in the developing world that I know see a computer as a typewriter that you can print stuff from. They are afraid they might "mess something up" if they touch it too much. Computers make them feel not very smart.
Actually a guy named Rudi on one of my lists said it loud and clear:
Rudi, speaking about NGOs and their choices of software (close to the subject we're addressing now):
My perception is that you could class organisations into two categories - those that have realised the benefits of technology (aware) and those that are just using technology as a form of stationery (unaware). The former case would realise that technology can be customised to meet their specific needs through a process of selection and modification while the latter would go down to the local (or not very local) computer store and buy a computer or software. The decision would probably be based on cost rather than on features, or possibly because one of the staff members received some training in a particular software package once. This is an issue of education and general awareness. There's nothing in their environment telling them that there are other options.
Here are some factors that I think negatively affect the process of software selection in most NGOs (those that are technologically unaware):
- They have very little exposure to the Internet (which is where a great deal of the research process usually takes place)
- There are few peer organisations that are implementing technology in particularly innovative ways
- Technology is generally expensive and therefore not pervasive
- Internet connections are usually dial-up which SERIOUSLY limits what you can download for free or otherwise. Dial-up connections are also charged by the minute which means that spending long hours researching different technologies or software options is a significant consideration.
- Computer stores are generally small and have limited selection (or are large with limited selection and uninformed assistants).
- Technology planning or total cost of ownership are not familiar concepts. A selection process would probably be seen as an unnecessary expense. In any case they would probably only think there is one package available for a specific purpose.
- Software options would often be determined by training that was available or had been received by staff members (who may or may not still be there)
- Piracy might also be a significant consideration. Software selection might then be determined by what's available informally from friends or contacts. My sense is that there is a trend away from piracy though.
Comments