The relationship with major donors has historically been one of high-touch: personal relationships, one-on-one communications, individual cultivation. When it came to a nonprofit’s Web site, major donors were not a top priority. The philosophy was that the Web site was (from a fundraising perspective) predominantly for communicating mission and impact generally and raising money from the masses.  We would be meeting the major donors needs by virtue of doing the first really well.

According to a new report published by Barclay’s Wealth, the Internet has become increasingly more important to high net worth individuals.  Not only are they increasinly relying on the Web for research into funding opportunities, but also on social networking and evaluating the impact of their donations.

I haven’t completely absorbed all of the report yet, but I’m already thinking about how we will help our clients reprioritize major donors on our next Web site redesign — and thinking about new ways to engage major donors online.  The wheels are churning (and at 5pm on a Friday no less)!

Communication is a tricky thing, for most people and in most contexts. In the context of a project, communication is a critical factor in its success and the satisfaction of all of the parties involved. For a project manager, communication is fundamental to our job. The biggest communication problem we face is that we often think we have been clear about something when in reality the other person did not really understand the key point. This is a byproduct of a number of things, two of which I see all of the time: 1) The project manager’s desire to explain things in terms that are not too jarring; and 2) the limited time both parties have to transmit, receive, and comprehend a message.

Take for example a client request for something that is critical and requires an immediate turnaround, but which was not included within the project scope and will have a definite impact the on budget. The first instinct for the project manager may be to say, “This request is out of scope and you will need to approve it before we can address it.”  The client may then reply quickly, “Yes, I understand. You have our approval to move forward on this time sensitive issue.”

At the end of the month, when an invoice is sent with the additional cost, the client asks why the invoice is higher than expected.  Just saying that something is not in scope does not imply that there is a monetary cost associated with it in everyone’s mind. It is always best to be direct. In this example, the project manager should have said, “This request is not in scope, and will have an additional cost above and beyond what we are currently contracted to do. I know that this is a time critical issue – we can provide you with an estimate for you to approve, which could take some time. However, If you are comfortable with knowing there is an additional cost, we can address the issue without an estimate. If you choose the latter, is there a threshold of cost that you do not want us to cross?” By explaining everything in detail, the client has a clear picture of the implications and has the choice of how to proceed.

From this single example, you see both factors at play. The client was in a rush to address a critical problem, and the project manager was in a hurry to get resources set up to meet the need. You can also see how it is less harsh to say that something is out of scope and will require approval than it is to say that it will cost more money. This is why good project managers often seem to over-articulate everything. It is better to slow down, be clear, and reinforce what you are saying. In the long run, it will be better for everyone.

It’s been four months since Idealware put out the outstanding report “Comparing Open Source Content Management Systems: WordPress, Joomla, Drupal and Plone” and I’ve been meaning to post about it for some time now.  Laura Quinn at Idealware pulled together a collection of knowledgeable (If I do say so myself) contributors from all over the nonprofit tech field in order to produce this great resource, and it’s definitely worth the (free) download.

The report’s 60+ pages give a great overview of what you can expect from each of the systems mentioned, including:

• Ease of Hosting and Installation
• Ease of Setting Up a Simple Site
• Ease of Learning to Configure a More Complex Site
• Content Admin Ease of Use
• Graphical Flexibility
• Structural Flexibility
• User Roles and Workflow
• Community/Web 2.0 Functionality
• Extending and Integrating
• Scalability and Security
• Site Maintenance
• Support/Community Strength

Jeff Herron (Beaconfire VP) and I both contributed to the paper;  Jeff provided input about nonprofits’ needs for content management systems and about options beyond the systems mentioned.  I contributed what I could to the Wordpress section, as I have installed and configured it countless times (well, ok, not countless times, but more than I’ve kept track of), and a little to the Drupal section.

The report is free and available on the Idealware website.

If you’re like me, you just can’t hear enough about using multivariate testing to optimize nonprofit web pages. If you’re in DC on Wednesday morning, don’t miss the Bridge Conference’s early bird session on MVT (that’s 8:30 AM – don’t forget to set your alarm clock!).

I’ll be giving an overview of MVT, and Feeding America’s webmaster, Dan Michel, will give us the skinny on their latest testing. We’ll talk together about the characteristics of a successful test and how to know if MVT is a good fit for your organization.

If you’ve been thinking about setting up a testing program or are just interested in recent case studies, this session won’t disappoint.

What’s that? 8:30 AM is too early, you say? In that case, check out Beaconfire’s white paper on multivariate testing.

PS – If you’re going to be at Bridge Thursday, don’t miss Iron Chef: Battle Nonprofit

After our well-flavored and succulent presentation at NTC in April, The Iron Chefs are on the road again, this time at the Bridge Conference in the DC area. You now have NO reason to miss it!

To refresh your memory: Using just one secret ingredient (a small nonprofit), three web teams will compete in the heat of battle, offering up exceptional tasting ‘menus’, each featuring a delicious new homepage design, a well-seasoned fundraising campaign and a perfectly balanced social networking plan. Only one team can prevail – who will it be? Come see how this unique project brought together a dozen web pros from competing firms, created amazing work for a very special organization, and taught us all the true power of our industry. We promise you won’t leave hungry.

Beaconfire’s own Ali Cherry and yours truly will be moderating this unique session at 3:30 on July 23rd and Susan Finkelpearl of Free Range Studios, Andrew Cohen of Forum One Communications, and Maureen Wallbeoff of Firefly Partners will round out the panel’s incredible talent.

Don’t miss it!

We’re excited to be working with the Nonprofit Technology Network to re-architect their website, NTEN.org. As each stage of the project is completed, we’ll share a behind-the-scenes recap about the process. First up: Card Sorting!

Card sorting is a common technique used to gather input from representative audiences about how they think about your information. Traditionally, participants are given cards representing pieces of content (or sections of your website) and asked to organize those cards in a way that makes sense to them. The process can also take place remotely, using online tools, as we’ve detailed below. When re-structuring any website, card sorting is an important step to ensure that the new site structure is as intuitive as possible for visitors.

Preparation

To create the list of items (or “cards”) to be sorted, we used two inputs:

• A content inventory, which is a list of all content/pages on the site. The list is created in a spreadsheet which clearly shows the current structure of the site and which main section each item is currently categorized into.
• A list of the website’s audiences and their primary goals or tasks. This helps to ensure that every key task is represented by a content item in the card sort, and it is crucial for usability testing (which will be a later step in our process).

We ended up with a list of 47 items that represented key content from NTEN’s website. The list was then loaded into Websort. Websort provides virtual card sorting, allowing participants to drag and drop cards into categories, then label those categories.

(more…)

Confession time. When I started designing for the web nearly 14 years ago, I pretty much made it all up as I went along. Brave souls all, we ventured out bravely into the wilderness, hoped for the best and called our mistakes “lessons learned”. Most of us survived to tell the tale, emerging stronger, smarter and a little more acclimated to this brave new world. Others just grew gills, but that’s a story for another time.

As the web industry has matured, it fascinates me that processes and best practices have developed to the degree that all of us are singing a similar song, even though we may not have all gotten the same memo. Working in the web these days feels like spending time on the Galapagos Islands. Evolving to fit our environment, we have somehow still retained the elements that make us all unique without sacrificing forward progress and growth. I always knew Darwin was a designer at heart.

So combining the passion I have for design with my desire to share what I have learned the hard way about the ways of the web, on occasion I stick my hand in the lion’s mouth and go talk to people about it.

Sharing the stage at OneWorld.net’s Web Design for Non Profits workshop with Mckenzine Lock (Senior Communications Manager, Communications and Outreach at Women Thrive Worldwide) and Shirley Sexton (Director of Interactive Marketing & Fundraising at See3 Communications) was further proof that we have learned how to speak the same language without sacrificing our own point of view. Exploring the challenges facing non profits on the web these days, we tackled the same subject from 3 different angles: as a designer who creates visual environments to support an organization’s complex ecosystem, a client who just survived a redesign rooted in best practices, and a marketing evangelist who lives and breathes this stuff every day.

And wouldn’t you know, without comparing notes or peeking at the other’s presentation ahead of time, we shared a cohesive message with our audience. Amazingly, we empowered these non profit professionals in their pursuit of a great new website for their organization, transformed their ability to achieve their goals, and left them excited to take their mission to a larger audience online.

Ain’t evolution fun? Check out my presentation here and tell us what you think!

The science of project management is commonly defined by the Iron Triangle: a triangle whose sides represent project scope, time, and resources (or cost). The concept is analogous to Newton’s Third Law of Motion which states that any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object. Whenever you add something to one of the sides of the triangle, for example, scope, there must be a corresponding expansion that occurs to one or both of the other sides of the triangle such as increased time or cost. (Of course the inverse applies too when you reduce the scope, but that’s not a scenario we see too often). Project managers are trained to tell their clients: “Pick any two.”  For instance, if time and cost are your most important factors, your scope may have to adjust to align with those priorities.

So that’s how the triangle works. How beautifully logical and scientific you say! Many a project manager instinctively latches on to this concept as the quintessential answer to keeping projects under control, expecting the client will see it the same way. Isn’t it obvious?! (more…)

Useful article in CIO about what to factor in when calculating the true cost of implementing Microsoft SharePoint.  Some of it is obvious, but there are a few things that are easy to miss.

http://www.cio.com/article/496330/How_to_Determine_the_True_Cost_of_Microsoft_SharePoint?page=5