What's Online

It is incredibly rewarding working with non-profits (NPOs) to help them leverage the power of technology so that each donated dollar goes further in helping the people/causes their organization serves. A common misunderstanding is that NPOs have different technology needs from for-profit enterprises (i.e. companies) because of their emphasis on service rather than profit. I would argue that that is only true when both are failing to effectively utilize business technology. There are indeed unique ways in which NPOs and companies get it wrong, but there is a single foundational approach to getting it right, however distinct the final structure may end up appearing from the outside.

Think about a technology system designed by a coder versus one designed by a business analyst. The coder is always going to envision a coded solution whenever they encounter an area where an interface based solution isn't obvious to recreate an existing business process. The BA however is always focused on process, not mechanics. Therefore the BA is more likely to examine the reasons the interface and business process are not in synch and flesh out ways to bring them into alignment. Often what this reveals is a redundancy or conflict within the business process that had not been identified before the new technology was implemented. Sometimes a coded solution is necessary to make the interface fit the business process, but more frequently the technology reveals a shaky foundation.

I came across the following video when on Twitter looking at a non-profit tech related hashtags, and that is what got me thinking about how NPOs also need to focus on process first and foremost as the foundation of any new tech adoption. Otherwise you just find you can more efficiently execute bad policies and return inadequate results with fewer staff members, but no greater ultimate success. You just churn out more paperwork, more reports, more X, but do not do anything to increase the flow of effective communication, prevent or at least solve problems more quickly and effectively, spread an accurate message of your mission to those who would support it, collect financial support and track it accurately, and organize volunteer efforts most efficiently.

The video below focuses on this with regard to social media (spreading one's message through free social media), but the core idea could be applied to all areas of NPO utilization of technology:



Whenever I do a business technology system implementation for an NPO at some point I find myself making the case for more time up front on the Business Process Review. It is always hard for them to at first understand why we can't just recreate for them what they are already doing, only now within an online system that doesn't require an in-house IT department or any VPN connections for remote staff. In the end though, I simply won't take a project that doesn't have a sufficient block of hours devoted to examining the process and planning for a better one that takes advantage of the technology we are implementing as much as we can plan a way to do. That's the week you invest up front to make sure you don't find yourself needing another project a year later, once your initial pain points with in-house tech are long forgotten, to re-design the SaaS system so that it truly takes your operations to a new level of effectiveness.

Labels: Non-Profit_Tech

As air travel gets more and more expensive and workforces get more and more decentralized, businesses find they have more and more reason to use online services to conduct meetings, demo products or services to potential customers, and share information with anyone possessing internet access.

Let me begin this review by saying that I really wanted Zoho Meeting to be the ultimate winner in my "battle of the online meeting services." Everyone likes to root for the little guy, and I was hoping to cut my $49/m service bill down to Zoho's very attractive $24, while simultaneously bumping myself up from 15 max meeting attendees to 25. If only.

I was even willing to overlook the fact that conference calling wasn't fully integrated. I signed up for a free conference calling service through InstantConference and was all set to start sending out that number as my static conference call number for all meetings. My clients would even prefer that, I argued, not having to call in on a different number each time we would meet. (Actually I may still wind up using that free service for any meetings that don't require screen sharing.)

But then I sent out a meeting invite to another one of my own accounts so I could test the service. That was the end of my consideration of Zoho as a meeting interface for my corporate clients. Here is what the email I received (which a client would receive) looked like:

Not only is the graphical presentation cheesy (what's with the psychedelic green?) but there is more screen real estate dedicated to promoting Zoho Meeting than there is to providing meeting information. The Toll-free number provided for calling Zoho Support is highlighted way too much, particularly given that there is no call-in number integrated into the service. It would be likely some people would call that number thinking it was the conference call number.

If you start a meeting using a different technique (instead of start now, schedule for later) you have the chance to put in text that includes whatever number you want attendees to call in on, including the option of using the Rondee service which Zoho recommends. The problem is that this information is still not nearly as highlighted as the tech support number. Is Zoho that convinced that someone is going to need to use that number during the meeting, or are they just that focused on promoting their company regardless of the impact on their users?

My company's reputation is simply worth more to me than $25 a month. Which brought me up to the next least expensive option, either GotoMeeting or ReadyTalk, both costing $49/month on a month-to-month service plan. Both are pretty similar, with the key difference I found being that Ready Talk limits you to 14 particpants, including the presenter among the 15 max participants, while GoToMeeting allows you to actually invite 15 people, plus the organizer. That may seem like a small difference, but having to tell clients that only 15 people can attend the meeting is limiting enough as it is. So why 14? Can Ready Talk really not afford to let that one last computer synch in so that they can be competitive with GTM?

I wish there was an individual user plan with GoTo that would allow me to invite 25 participants. To get that you have to have a corporate account with at least 5 organizers. For most companies that will be the option they will take, as it is definitely the best available option if you can make use of it.

Citrix, the makers of GoToMeeting, also offer a service called GoToWebinar that can have up to 1000 participants, and costs $99/month. When you consider the potential revenue generated from the unlimited number of such a webinars one could hold each month for that price, it is a real winner. Also, when you purchase GoToWebinar, you get the meeting service included for free, for your smaller meetings.

Unlike Zoho, both Ready Talk and GoToMeeting include integrated, free conference calling. A unique phone number and access code is provided for each meeting, and there is also the option of using VOIP calling features so that every participant can call in for free using their web phone. Both also integrated scheduled meetings into Outlook Calendars or iCalendar, so you get meeting reminders just like any other meeting in your Calendar. Lastly, you can record any meeting and publish to the web so that people who couldn't attend can view it later.

Moving up the price scale we come to the mother of web meetings, Cisco's Webex. What do you get by choosing Webex instead of GoTo or Ready Talk? Everything provided with either of those, plus 25 max participants per meeting, and a monthly price tag that is $20 higher.

For any business with at least 5 staff members organizing meetings, GoTo corporate is the way to go. You get the 25 participant limit, all the cool features of online meetings, and pay $20 less per month per user than with Webex. If you fall into the in-between, needing 16-25 participants in some meetings and having 4 or fewer people in your company who need to organize meetings (as opposed to simply attending those organized by other staff members), then Webex may make sense.

Here's the breakdown of key factors:

I've been using GoToMeeting quite happily for the last couple years, and though I had hoped to cut my bill in half by switching to Zoho, I'll be sticking with GoTo. It is the most respected and pervasive meeting service out there aside from Webex, and is a reliable, cost-effective option for showing whatever is on your screen to anyone anywhere who has internet access... even working with 3G smartphones.

You can get a free 30 day trial of any of these software services to check them out for yourself. (Webex's front page currently says it is a 14 day free trial, but if you navigate through the site you see you can find several 30 day trial links.) Let me know what you think of them yourself when you do. Happy meeting.

Labels: Recommended_Apps, SaaS