November 2009

In an earlier post, I talked about two challenges which fuel cloud computing: the capital and support costs of network infrastructures and desktop anarchy. I want to pick up here where I left off, with more discussion of three cloud computing opportunities.

Software as a Service probably has the most familiarity. The wispy tendrils of Software as a Service reached into my Thanksgiving this year. Usually, we don’t host, and this year we will. To reduce operational costs, frustrated with the support costs involved with email, I put the family invite list, arrival and departure logistics and food contributions up on doodle.com.

It’s off my desktop and phone system into their system--simple, collaborative, low cost, centrally maintained, reliably backed-up, eminently scalable (hopefully won’t need that for our thanksgiving), platform independent, secure (enough for this), environmentally sustainable (carbon offsets for how much we may eat).

Doodle is a light weight alternative to meetingwizard.com or more elaborate reservation systems, and though its light-weightedness caused some other problems, it helped.

Meanwhile, Linda tapped into foodie SaaS epicurious.com to supplement the menu planning. Yes, we also have the 3-ring binders of family recipes and a shelf of cookbooks. Epicurious (OK, I prefer allrecipes.com) brings a world of collaboration, search, on-demand, pay as you go to the meal planning type of project. Print magazine co-sponsor Gourmet magazine is about to close its doors, but no doubt SaaS Epicurious will continue.

Holiday photo-sharing? Facebook, Flickr, Google web albums and not bring-your-own laptop, flash drive or photo album.

At the consumer level, Google has championed this approach more than any other company. Google entices millions to leave the desktop behind and do our daily work with on Gmail, Google Documents, Calendar, YouTube, Maps, Groups and more. Yahoo and others add to the offerings.

Once you get comfortable, you may find yourself surrounding yourself with other services. You may well use a hosted pay as you go service like Basecamp, Zoho or Central Desktop to mange projects. You may use Mozy, Carbonite, Dropbox or other web based services for back-up. You may use webex, adobe connect, or logmein to provide hosted screen sharing or web conferencing services.



Going back ten years, at the corporate level, Salesforce championed the software as a service approach to managing contacts, leads, business relationships, and all things related to the sales process (and now support and other business functions). Instead of network installing Act, Goldmine, Microsoft stuff at the low end or Siebel and other systems at the high end, they invited customers to use their web service. Pay according to what you need month-to-month, and let them take care of security, back-up, support, upgrades and the like.

The SF foundation charitable donation and “starter pack” has extended Salesforce’s appeal to nonprofits as well.

As I suggested earlier, these types of services typically may get justified on cost basis. Specifically, they transform long term capital and human resources costs into operating expenses. Today’s recession favors this calculation. Instead of figuring out the total cost of ownership of a new server, new software, support costs, licensing, periodic version updates, desktop upgrades, back-up, security and other ancillary utility purchases, SaaS lets organizational planners focus on one thing—the monthly usage cost. They also favor collaborative approaches to getting things done that are not as easy or natural on traditional network installed systems.

As critical applications move up to the cloud, the desktop does not matter very much. All that matters is having a standard browser.

Yet, to get to those web software as a services, you still have you to boot up that familiar personal computer and land on your personal desktop. Google hopes to go further, turning its Chrome browser into an entire web-facing operating system. More about that another time.

For now, for most of us, the desktop still matters a lot. Most of us still do our daily work there—word processing, maybe email, maybe other stuff. It matters for installed donor and contact management systems, network accounting software, critical long time installed databases whether Microsoft Access or some giant client server application. It matters when you want to print, scan, archive, share files, and avoid malware all the while. When these issues come up, the costs in time and support in monitoring and managing desktops come into play.

IT as a service (or Infrastructure as a Service) looks at things from this end. If the premise of SAAS is to make the desktop matter less, with IT as a Service, the idea is to tame it.

IT as a service has levels and gradations. It often begins with combining and rationalizing network servers using virtualization. VMWare and other companies have popularized the idea of running mutual virtual machines on the same hardware. Many businesses and organizations today have more than one server. They may have a basic server for sharing files and printing. Another for Exchange email management. Another for their fund-raising software or other special applications. Virtualizing servers takes advantage of increased computing power to reduce the total number of servers, and focus on keeping those few up and running well.

A related trend is to centralize and standardize the user experience. You start up your machine and then connect via Microsoft Terminal Services or Citrix into central server which then gives you a new, fresh, controlled desktop. For larger companies, creating that standardized network infrastructure makes it easier to then have IT infrastructure specialists manage everything from afar using elaborate diagnostic tools such as Kasaya.

The higher level next step is to move the whole infrastructure up to the web. If everything is centralized, virtualized, standardized, why not seek even higher efficiencies of scales by running the whole operation on someone else’s servers, where bunches of other organizations also are getting managed at the same time in the same place.

Ask you local network support organization if they have this kind of offering and compare prices with what you are doing and planning now. I recently got a major taste of this approach at a day-long business summit run by Zumasys, a West Coast infrastructure company which has helped some of our larger clients, and I see other partners heading in this direction.

Of course, like SaaS, IT as a Service come at a cost. Both point in the direction of flexibly supporting organizational expansion, especially in a recessionary era, reducing support costs, and reducing user woes and problems, and also reducing the cost of a desktop computer.

The goal is usually not to reduce on-site IT staff, but to keep that staff from burning out and to keep it focused on strategic support and innovation. By commodifying basic support issues, IT staff can focus on what is critical and distinctive about what you need and do.

Next up, the newer “aaS,” Platform as a Service.

Social networks provide nonprofits with great opportunities to raise awareness, just as they offer individuals more opportunities to be diagnosed with information overload syndrome. To my mind, the value of tools like Twitter and Facebook are not only that they increase my ability to communicate with people, but also that they replace communication models that are less efficient. Prior to social networks, we had Email, phones, Fax and Instant Messaging (IM). Each of these were ideal for one to one communication, and suitable for group messaging, but poor at broadcasting. With Twitter and Facebook, we have broader recipient bases for our messaging. Accordingly, there's also an assumption that we are casual listeners. With so much information hitting those streams, it would be unrealistic to expect anyone to listen 24/7. Geek and Poke cartoon by Oliver Widder

Twitter offers, in addition to the casual stream, a person-to-person option called direct messaging. This is handy when you want to share information with a twitter friend that you might not want to broadcast, such as your email address, or a link to a map to your house. You can only direct message someone who is following you -- otherwise, it would be far too easy to abuse. Direct messages have more more in common with old-fashioned IM and EMail than Twitter posts. You can't direct message multiple recipients, and most of us receive direct messages in our email inboxes and/or via SMS, to insure that we don't miss them.

So I took note when a friend on a popular forum posted that his organization was launching a big campaign, and he was looking for a tool that would let him send a direct messages to every one of his followers. This, to me, seems like a bad idea. While I follow a lot of people and organizations on Twitter, I subscribe by email to far fewer mailing lists, limiting that personal contact to the ones that I am most interested in and/or able to support. I follow about 250 organizations on Twitter; I have no care to receive all of their campaign emails. But i trust that, if they are doing something exciting or significant, I'll hear about it. My friends will post a link on Facebook. They'll also retweet it. The power of social media is -- or, at least, should be -- that the interesting and important information gets voted up, and highlighted, based on how it's valued by the recipients, not the sender.

Social networks differ primarily from email and fax in that they are socially-driven messaging. The priority of any particular message can be set by each persons community that they tune into. My friend thinks his campaign is the most important thing coming down the pike, and that he should be able to transcend the casual nature of Twitter conversation in order to let me know about it. And, of course, I think that every campaign that my org trumpets is more important than his. But I think that proper campaign etiquette and strategy is to blast information on the mediums that support that, where your constituents sign up to be individually alerted. If you want to spread the word on Twitter or Facebook, focus on the message, not the media, and let the community carry it for you, if they agree that it's worthy.

Sometimes it feels like the bane of my existence is my office phone. It's so bad that I rarely answer it, preferring to forward it to Google Voice where I can peruse the barely readable transcripts just well enough to filter out the 90% cold sales calls I receive. So what a pleasure it was to answer my desk phone on Thursday and have an illuminating conversation with my Microsoft Licensing representative. He called to tell me that I own some awesome benefits that come with my Software Assurance program. I'm betting that I'm not the only one who was clueless about these benefits.

Microsoft Licensing, as you know, is the little-known tenth circle of hell. It's a conceptual labyrinth of terms and conditions that was likely conceived by a team of the writers of the original "Prisoner" series with the advice of contract attorneys that graduated from law school 30 years ago and have never since seen the light of day.

Software Assurance is the tax we pay on our MicroSoft purchases that allows us to upgrade to the newest versions without paying upgrade fees (as long as we've paid our software assurance fees, of course). I assume that this is of interest to Idealware readers because most of us pick up a lot of our MS software from Techsoup Stock, and the Techsoup Stock donations come with Software Assurance, not without.

But Microsoft isn't evil; they're just bureaucratic, and every now and then a few smart people step up out of the morass and do things that I appreciate. These Software Assurance benefits include:



This isn't fluff. We've been paying full price for Office at home (more than we do at work) and I've purchased E-Training on MS products and an MSDN subscription (fairly equivalent to Technet) because I had no idea that I already owned them. It makes me feel much better about what seemed like a pre-emptive insurance program that makes me commit to the next version of MS products before I'm ready to make that commitment, at times.

Of course, this is smart business for Microsoft. With Google announcing that their Google Apps offering will be on a feature par with Office within a year, and OpenOffice under active development as a pretty comparable alternative, you don't want your business customers to get too comfortable with those free alternatives at home. It's just surprising to me that, for years, this was buried in the small print section of eOpen, and not broadcast widely. So I'm doing MS a favor and blowing the horn on this one.

To access these benefits, log onto eOpen (which I hope you're using to manage MS licenses!) and once you've signed in and clicked "unhide licenses", find your last Techsoup order (or a similar large purchase) and open it up. The very first link in the license detail should be "Start and Manage your Software Assurance Benefits". Clicking on that will pop you to a paragraph that includes a link to the "Software Assurance Benefits Management Tool". Click on that to get the benefits. The more MS software you've bought, the more tedious this will be: there are benefits associated with each Software Assurance purchase, so you'll need to register this way for every relevant order. But it sure beats paying for these things at Best Buy!

I, like most nonprofit staffers I imagine, both love my job and always have a mountain of work to get through. So, with that in mind, I am always looking for ways to be as efficient as possible - things that will hopefully increase effectiveness at the same time. As indicated in previous posts, I am a relatively new to the web2.0 world (although, I have been using Facebook since you had to log in at THEfacebook.com), I'm guessing I'm not the only one a little timid to experiment with new tools, so I am compelled to share when I've had a great experience. If I can do it, so can you! Last week, I wrote a post about how useful Delicious is to keep resources organized - I'm still in awe of that one. Now, for the next tool of my affection: wikis.

A couple of months ago Laura Quinn, our Executive Director, asked me look into using a wiki to help with version control when having people review our upcoming Field Guide to Software for Nonprofits: Fundraising, Outreach, and Communications. With over 35 sections on different types of software systems, and many people volunteering to review, we knew it could be a versioning nightmare if we were just emailing around Word docs with comments.

I did a little bit of research first, reading Peter Campbell's post on how wikis are becoming more relevant than (gasp!) Word, and Jeremy Wallace's article on using wikis for internal documentation. I then poked around Wikispaces (since the We Are Media wiki is using the platform, it seemed like a good choice) a little before jumping in.

It took basically zero technical skill for me to set up, once I remembered that I needed to copy and paste into notepad from Word before then pasting into the wiki. We created nearly 40 pages in a couple of hours. The most difficult thing was crafting the directions for the reviewers: we wanted them to comment at the bottom of each page instead of directly in the text.

Wikispaces also made it easy to change the privacy settings so that only members could view and comment. This was important to us. Since the Guide will be sold, we can't let everyone access it for free. I could then invite people to be members so that they had access. One thing to note is that our reviewers were pretty tech-savvy, and many had clearly used the tool before.

Once we had everyone's comments, it was easy to revise directly in the wiki. We used Google docs to track who had made a final internal review, being shared between me, Laura, and the writer working on the project, Chris. As of today...the draft is being put into layout as I type!

There honestly weren't really any downsides to using the wiki to help in this review process. I guess the one thing that could have been difficult is that since people can use an alias, it could be hard to track exactly who is making what changes or comments. We got around this by asking that people put their name above their comments.

I feel like there should be more negatives to make this a more balanced post...but I can't think of any. I'm a wiki convert!

I'm curious about other people's use of wikis, especially on a larger scale. This was pretty controlled. Do you have any experience using wikis for large-scale version control or project management? Please post your thoughts and experiences in the comments section.