Laura Quinn's blog

Live Demos of WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, Plone!

For anyone who's ever asked how WordPress compares to Joomla, or Joomla to Drupal... we have your answers in demo form. It's the return of the Open Source CMS webinar!

TOMORROW (Wed) at1-2:30 Eastern, Idealware's conducting the online seminar Comparing Open Source CMSs: WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, and Plone, for a $40 registration fee. View more or register now>

We'll certainly talk through some of the information from our recent report on the same topic, but we'll spend most of our time demoing the systems and answering your questions. Heather Gardner-Madras (who is not only a blogger extraordinaire, but has actually implemented all four of these CMSs) , will show the real differences between the systems. We have a somewhat different structure for demoing than in our old one as we're interested in really honing in on the differences between the systems - she'll focus on the key elements that make up a site in each different system, and how those make a big difference in the flexibility and ease of setup in each system.

Hope to "see" you there

CRM on a Shoestring

Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) is an important concept for nonprofits. The idea is to have all your information about all your constituents together in one place, so you can see the full picture of each person's interaction with your organization. Instead of having all your donors in one system, your volunteers in another, and your event registrants in a third, you have everyone in a single system... or at least a way to sync up those systems. You can then see that, for instance, Joe Smith has both volunteered and registered for several events, and might be a good prospect as a donor.

It's a great concept, but it can be hard to implement (as Paul Hagen talks through so well in his two part CRM series). And it's particular hard to implement for an organization that's strapped for cash. What should your approach be if you're trying to get up and running with CRM on a shoestring? I see three possibilities:

Look to lower cost out-of-the-box integrated solutions
If you have a set of fairly common needs, and don't need really deep functionality in any one area, there are in fact tools that cover a wide variety of different types of interactions out of the box. Our recent Low Cost Donor Management report (published in partnership with NTEN) covered a number of them - for instance, Neon by Z2, Community Enterprise by CitySoft, Total Info by Easy-Ware, and Salsa by Democracy in Action each could be an interesting fit, depending on your needs. The idea here would be to carefully understand the full range of interactions that you're trying to support, and then evaluate the software to see if it fits. This approach won't work for everyone, though - some will find that the there's really no system that does everything they need.

Choose a system that specializes in a specific area, and configure it for others
If you have fairly deep needs in a particular area, it might make more sense to look for a system that specializes in that area, and configure in less robust functionality in other areas. For instance, if donor management is a key priority, you might choose a fairly configurable donor management system, and use add-ons and custom fields to support other interactions (Our Donor Management report talks through a number of options here). More and more systems have pretty useful custom field setups (for instance, a number allow you to log a number of linked pieces of data about a particular action - like the date, number of hours, and description of volunteer participation). This approach will yield you deeper support in one area and less sophisticated support in others - but that could make sense if that mirrors your organizational priorities.

For the time rich but money poor: CRM Platforms
The idea of using a toolset, like Salesforce or CiviCRM, and configuring it carefully to meet your needs is gaining steam. This approach can yield great results, but typically requires a sizable investment of time from someone technical to configure the platform to meet your needs. They're intended to be tailored, so often provide less out of the box. I'm nervous about this as a shoestring approach, mostly as it appears to be cheaper than it is -the costs are often hidden in setup time and maintenance. It's easy to be drawn in by the lure of a powerful system for free (neither Salesforce of CiviCRM cost anything for most organizations to acquire), and be sucked down the rabbit hole before you realize what you signed up for. But for organizations with technical staff members or volunteers who can devote the time, this can be a great low-cost approach.

What do you think? Are there other approaches I haven't thought of?

New report: Consumers Guide to Low Cost Donor Management Systems

We've did a soft launch of our most recent new report at the Nonprofit Technology Conference - but we're now eager to spread the word far and wide! If you haven't yet heard, Idealware in partnership with NTEN and NPower has just published A Consumers Guide to Low Cost Donor Management Systems (free registration required).

This report summarizes a huge amount of research - we took a look at 33 different donor management systems that cost less than $4250 in the first year. The research is broken up into two different actual reports. The first, the Consumers Guide, outlines the functionality that donor management systems provide, summarizes each of the 33 systems, recommends useful systems for each of a set of specific scenarios, a high level comparison of 10 systems, and lists consultants who can help you select or implement software. The second, Detailed Reviews, provides six to eight page reviews of each of twelve different systems.

Check it out, and pass on the word! It's available for free (though registration is required) at www.idealware.org/donor or www.nten.org/dms_report

Resource Roundup 5/7

Okay, it's been awhile since I've done a resource roundup for the blog - too long!

The Pros and Cons of Skype for Business (Small Business Computing)
An even handed look at how well Skype - a free service to make phone calls and video calls over the web - works in business situations.

Unified Communications Options for Nonprofits (TechSoup)
Useful overview of options to manage multiple communications methods - so to forward office to cell phones, or have voice mail show up in email

Washington Post: Fundraising Via Email Is Way More Effective than via Social Networks (FrogLoop/ Washington Post)
The Washington Post posted an article about the efficacy (or lack of) of fundraising on Causes; FrogLoop offers a useful perspective on it.

Measuring Engagement and Return on Relationships (Beth's Blog)
Beth Kanter rounds up a bunch of resources that can help you think about measuring the retun on investment for engaging constituents.

Ease of Use for Novices vs. Experts

As we're sprinting ahead on our Consumers Guide to Low Cost Donor Management Systems, one of the interesting aspects that we're considering is the ease of use for the novice vs. ease of use for the expert user.

I'm finding that not many people have really heard of the idea of expert ease of use, but it's a really important one in the usability realm. And it's particularly important when you're considering systems that you'll be using a lot. For instance, a development staff person might use a donor management system hours per day.

Most people think of "Ease of Use" as measuring how easy a system is to learn - how intuitive is the layout and terminology? Can you figure out where you're supposed to go? Are complicated things simplified with wizards and multi-step processes? Will everyone need training? That's ease of use for a novice.

The idea of expert ease of use is to measure how much the system supports the work of people who already know the system well. Are repetitive tasks made easier? Are they fast, or do they take a million clicks (things like wizards are often a downside here, as they get in the way of someone who knows just what they want to do). Do things generally seem to work the way they should, or are you always having to do weird hacks and work-arounds?

For instance, consider Adobe InDesign. I love InDesign, but no one would say it's easy to learn. Even if you know Photoshop or Illustrator, there's a ton of complexity and different functionality, as well as a whole other mental model. I always teach myself stuff from books, but with InDesign I'm stumbling and wishing I had taken a class.

But it's a miracle once you learn how to use it. Everything just seems to work just right. Page numbers? Done. Floating image with a caption on top of other text? Done. Need to bold the first sentence of every bullet point for forty pages of bullet points (a task close to my heart)? Like five clicks, and it's done. It's not optimized for the novice. It's optimized for the expert user - which completely makes sense for a tool like this, that many people use pretty much all day every day.

Contemplating Open Source CMS Security and Market Share

A couple of people, Four Kitchens for instance, have suggested that our analysis of security in our new report Comparing Open Source CMSs: WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, and Plone is less rigorous than it could have been.

First off: yes, absolutely. It could have been more rigorous. That's true of pretty much anything in the report. In fact, the major art of doing a review like this is trying to figure out how to do a useful analysis that is achievable in a human lifetime. There's always more to know, to analyze, to drill down into. So there's no question that there's more to say about security than we said. If anyone wants to do an analysis that factors in severity and response time and and history of actual exploitation, as Four Kitchens suggests, I'd love that. We'll use it in the (hopeful) update of the report. It's way beyond our current scope and budget to do.

However, folks have also suggested that the primary metric we used - vulnerabilities reported by Security Focus - isn't valid. There, I disagree. It's a rough measure, no doubt, but a useful one. The main criticism is that more popular systems have more eyes on them to generate more vulnerability reports. That's absolutely true. But the opposite is also true - there's more evil black hat folks trying to crack more popular systems, to take advantage of vulnerabilities. Michelle Murrain, our lead researcher on the report, says a lot more smart things than I could on this topic on her own blog.

And in fact, the differences are notable. Plone has two vulnerabilities reported, while all the other systems have more than 25. And the Plone community was able to give us a lot of reasons why that was. In a report like this, there's always a bit of a smell test going on. Do the numbers seem reasonable? Do they agree with what we're seeing and hearing as we talk to people? In this case, they definitely do. From all accounts, Plone is a system that was built with security as a priority. And the fact that it runs on an unusual environment makes it more of a pain to hack - and thus less likely to be hacked. And with all of that, what's our rating? Plone gets an Excellent, while everything else has a Solid. Hardly a stinging indictment.

By the way, David Guilhufe also had a few comments about our Market Share analysis (buried as the last Appendix, so David gets a gold star as a careful reader). Yeah, I'm not going to hold that up as a paragon of market research. It's shockingly difficult to find any useful numbers that one can compare across systems - downloads? users? developers? Nope. Our main goal with the analysis was not to actually compare the popularity of the four systems we reviewed (and you'll notice, we didn't do so anywhere in the report), but to show why we choose those four systems as opposed to, say, Typo3 or Movable Type. And there the four stand out pretty well in the nonprofit market. David mentions that WordPress should be the most dominant - I don't know about that. For nonprofit websites, as opposed to blogs? That's what we were trying to assess...

Let's Admit It: Facebook is Complicated

These days, you hear a lot of advice like "Every nonprofit should have a Facebook page! It only takes a few minutes!" It may only take a few minutes for folks who really know Facebook well, and who already have a good sense as to what they want to do with it, but how many nonprofits fit into that category? Let's admit it: Facebook is complicated to understand, and it's not trivial to set up a thoughtful organizational presence.

It doesn't take any particular technical skills, but that doesn't make it easy. In particular, all of the different parts are confusing to understand - it's a Page! A Cause! A Wall! A Discussion! A Group! An Event! Etc, etc. Some of them are free standing, while some of them interrelate. Figuring out what each of these things are, how you want to use them, what's important about each, and then actually setting it up is not an exercise for a few minutes. It's one for hours, minimum, or potentially days.

While we're admitting things, I'll admit this: there's a personal element to this. I have trouble wrapping my head entirely around Facebook. It makes me feel old. I'm doing a bunch of research about what nonprofits are doing and can do with Facebook (for a video Nonprofits' Guide to Facebook in partnership with See3, which I'm excited about), and I'm finding it a really squishy and difficult subject. I know that I'm from the most social network savvy person out there. On the other hand, I'm a professional software researcher with tons of website strategy and implementation experience. I have to believe that I'm not the only one that finds it complicated.... or the only one surprised by how complicated it is.

That isn't to say that it isn't worth developing a Facebook strategy and presence - that depends on your goals. But you shouldn't do it only because you think it will be quick and easy.

New report: : Comparing WordPress, Joomla, Drupal and Plone

It's the detailed report that many of you Idealware readers have been asking for! We're thrilled to announce a major new Idealware report- Comparing Open Source Content Management Systems: WordPress, Joomla, Drupal and Plone (free registration required)

WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, and Plone are all free and open source systems that
can help nonprofit build and manage websites - but how do they compare?
Our 60-page independent report provides an introduction to the topic, and overview of the features that might be useful for your organization, and a very detailed comparison of the four systems.

This report also includes our new directory of the consultants and firms who help nonprofit create websites and implement these Content Management Systems.

And many thanks to the Lead Sponsors who helped to make this report possible: PICnet, our Joomla sponsor; Phase 2 Technologies, our Drupal Sponsor; Jazkarta, our Plone sponsor; and Rad Campaigns, our WordPress sponsor.

Download the report now at http://www.idealware.org/comparing_os_cms/ (free registration required)

(big sigh of relief that that's out... but a brief one, as we're also hard at work on the Low Cost Donor Management System report, due in late April!)

Evaluating Open Source Systems is Hard

Our report Comparing Open Source Content Management Systems: WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, and Plone will be out shortly - within a week or so. It's been a particularly difficult report, in a way that has me thinking about the challenges for any nonprofit who's trying to evaluate complex open sources systems. In particular, it's very difficult to definitively know what these systems do or don't do, because:
  1. They're complicated to figure out. The main way that you're expected to evaluate an open source system is by trying it out. Even assuming that it's straightforward to get the system up and running in a trial version, this is a problematic method. It's great to evaluate some things - like ease of use - but it's hard and time consuming to try to figure out more advanced functionality. For instance, if I wanted to understand how three CMSs compared on support for a "related items" feature, I have easily an hour or more of learning ahead of me for each system to assess this by reading documentation and playing with the systems. For this OS CMS report, we spent about three times as long evaluating each system than we did when evaluating grants management systems - which are also very complicated.
  2. It's easy to miss functionality when you're trying them out. It's hard to definitively say that a system *doesn't* do something just because you can't figure it out. We ran across this in a number of places in our evaluation, even for simple functionality - for instance, after a robust review by two different people, we thought one of the systems didn't let you easily put an image into the text of a page. But, as was caught by our fact-checkers, it in fact has some pretty slick functionality for that... just in a hard to find place.
  3. But it's hard to know who to ask. In traditional software selection, you'll typically define a list of requirements, and then ask the vendor to talk about or demo the system. If I wanted to do the same to choose between Joomla, Drupal, and Plone, it's hard to even know who to ask. We had the luxury of official contacts for each system for this report, provided by each systems' governance body... but that's not a workable approach for most typical nonprofits. Could I get a consulting firm to do a detailed demo of the system they're suggesting I implement? Likely, but what if I'm looking to implement myself? Or could pay a consultant to specifically demo or answer questions? Probably, but that's a somewhat weird request, and you might have trouble even finding someone to do this. You could no doubt hire a firm specifically to do a software selection, but at a cost... Most methods would become expensive quickly.
  4. All the systems *can* do anything. Even if you can find knowledgeable and upstanding folks willing to answer your questions, it's darn hard for them to know all the answers. First off, no one knows all the plug-in modules for their system, so it'll take anyone some research. And for complex open source systems, most of them can do anything, somehow, so it's really not a question of whether but how. Will I need to write code? Will I need to rely on an obscure plug-in? How hard is it to in one system as opposed to another... which is the type of thing that hardly any consultant who specializes in a particular system can tell you, as they're just to steeped in their own system to usefully compare it to others.
  5. It's hard to hold the people you ask accountable for their answers. So #4 assumed that you can know that the people you're asking are "knowledgeable and upstanding." In practice, it's really hard to be sure of such a thing. And it's hard to construct a mechanism that holds the consultants who are answering your questions accountable if their answers turn out to be incorrect or not the whole answer. You can probably do it, but it's not trivial.
It's an interesting and challenging problem. I think open source advocates are often too quick to dismiss the utility of a vendor in the mix, and software selection is clearly a place where a vendor has utility. (This would certainly include the folks who are providing hosted versions of these open source systems - they're a vendor with the same benefits as any other).

Being able to easily get a vendor to demo their system, show you their support for the features that are important to you (knowing that it's their job to know - or find out - all the answers), and then to write the most critical answers into your contract is darn useful. It would be really useful to try to figure out the equivalent for an open source system - though I don't know what it would be.

Software for Collaboration

Everyone suddenly wants to collaborate! For some reason (I suspect it's related to the economy, though I haven't pinned down exactly how) my phone is ringing off the hook these days with people who want to talk about how software can help teams collaborate. This is a nebulous area - what people might mean by collaboration differs, and the software that might support them varies a lot on their goals - so we've been working a bit on breaking it down into the types of software that might help.

Here's our initial breakdown (with thanks to Hershey | Cause Communications, with whom we're working on a comparison of these software types).

For Informal Conversations and Presentations
  • Conference Call: Multiple callers on one phone line (i.e. Freeconferencecall.com)
  • Video Conferencing: Conference call with a video display component (i.e. WebEx or hardware solutions)
  • Online Conferencing: Conference call with an online component, such as slides, documents, videos and/or demos (i.e GoToMeeting or WebEx)
For Information Sharing
  • Email Discussion List: Email group that lets participants easily email everyone in the group (i.e. Electric Embers or Yahoo Groups)
  • Existing Social Networking Sites: Online networking sites where users can create profiles and connect with others (i.e. Facebook or MySpace)
  • Collaborative Documents: Users share and edit documents online, either in real-time or over time (i.e. Google Docs)
  • Remote File Sharing Tools: Mechanisms to allow users to access and edit a pool of shared documents (i.e. Basecamp or Groove)
  • Message Board: Online forums focused around questions and answers (i.e. vBulletin or phpBB)

Longer Term, Structured Collaborations
  • Online Project Management Tool: Users share documents, calendars, tasks, and structured conversations (i.e. Basecamp, Central Desktop)
  • Online Community: Users share profiles, documents, calendars, message boards, and more (i.e. Ning or KickApps)
  • Wiki: Collaborative website, where all who can view can also edit (i.e. Confluence or MediaWiki)
  • Blog Network: Community of linked blogs where users interact with posts and feedback (i.e.WordPress or TypePad)
What do you think? What have I missed?
Syndicate content