The result is an impressive document that can be used by many non-profit organizations, NGOs, International Organizations and even government ministries and agencies to address similar problems in their own organization.

The ”Review of Management of Internet Websites in the United Nations System Organizations“ (31 pages) focuses on website governance and strategy – and I still have to meet a web manager who doesn’t feel this could be improved.

Extremely knowledgeable

I highly recommend that you read the whole document and use it as a basis for recommendations to your own senior management - but with the added authority of  this being based on broad consensus of web professionals who are working for very diverse agencies in the United Nations System with very different mandates and budgets.

To give you an idea just how good the report is, here are two of my favourite paragraphs:

“the Inspectors have observed through their interviews and discussions, the side effects of the status quo: the website becomes a ‘dumping’ site by units within the organization. Each unit wants to have its specific message and services be presented on the website, preferably on the organization’s homepage. To avoid this ‘dumping’ symptom which would easily confuse and discourage external visitors, the organization should have a website strategy, drafted, reviewed and endorsed by its key stakeholders within its governance mechanism”

and later:

“A website editorial board will provide effective guidelines on the writing style as well as improve the quality of information published on website. (…) The Inspectors are of the view that the lack of such editorial boards leads to inconsistent, and at times, conflicting web content being published.”

What I find fascinating is that these recommendations are not presented by web managers themselves but by inspectors of the Joint Inspection Unit, who are in essence auditors with no specific knowledge of the issues and no stake in the outcome.

The question of access and authority

The report also contains a very interesting table that shows that most web managers have direct access to senior management.  However, the Inspectors also state that “one wonders whether they are given sufficient authority to coordinate various organizational units involved in the website operation.”

Requirement to report on progress

Below are the Joint Inspection Unit’s eight recommendations for website management and governance. However, in my opinion it’s far more interesting to read how they come to these recommendations. A lot of them are common sense for most web professionals. But ask yourself: does your organization have this in writing and is there a requirement to report on progress? Because that makes difference.

Please also note, that responsibility for this is attributed to the “executive head”, i.e. CEO level.

Eight recommendations

1. The executive head of each United Nations system organization should ensure that clear policies and corresponding mechanisms are adopted for the good governance and management of the organization’s website.

2. The executive heads of each United Nations system organization should ensure that the website strategy be regularly updated and linked with and taking account of the other business strategies of the organization and report on the measures taken to the governing body on a regular basis.

3. The executive head of each United Nations system organization should ensure that policies and guidelines are in place that, among other things, specify requirements and standards relating to (a) web layout and design; (b) editorial control and review of web content and (c) web accessibility.

4. For relevant, timely and high quality website content, the executive head of each United Nations system organization should ensure the implementation of a CMS which offers full support to Latin, non-Latin and bi-directional scripts and, as far as practicable, be compatible with CMS used by other organizations. When selecting an appropriate CMS, they should give serious consideration to adopting common information exchange standards and also consider the benefits of a common CMS across the United Nations system.

5. The executive head of each United Nations system organization should ensure that sufficient and sustained funding for staffing and training are allocated to website management. If such funding could not be provided through redeployment or other means, it should be reported to the governing body for its consideration in order to implement those recommendations contained in this report, which have financial implications, inter alia, CMS, staffing, training, language parity, adoption of common information exchange standards, etc.

6. The governing bodies of the United Nations system organizations should establish an ad hoc committee dealing with the implementation of multilingualism on their corporate websites. The governing bodies shall review the report submitted by the ad hoc committee on the measures and financial implications to achieve language parity on their websites and take appropriate action.

7. The executive heads of the United Nations system organizations should establish a mechanism reporting to the High-Level Committee on Management with the participation of all stakeholders, for coordination purposes and to establish common policies, standards and guidelines on websites.

8. The governing bodies of United Nations system organizations should request the executive heads to report to their next session on the implementation of the recommendations contained in this report addressed to the executive heads, in particular those aimed at reforming website governance, updating website strategy and policy, and implementing multilingualism.

Use it!

One of the reasons that many of us don’t have anything like this in our own organizations is that we feel that we don’t have time to care about the fundamentals. But with this report as a basis I don’t think it should take more than two days to adapt it for your own needs. And everybody can find that time. So don’t hesitate to use this report – your taxes have already paid for it.

Many organizations have excellent documents that hardly anyone knows about. Do you have any that you would like to share? Please leave a comment and a link!

Related posts:

1. Book review: “Damned Nations”
2. Non-profits and social media: how to leave the competition behind
3. How a traffic-jam app could help with crisis mapping

Here are six reasons why I disagree:

1. There is a difference Oprah and an NGO

„Take a look at the top 100 twitter users in terms of followers. (…)None of them are non-profits. (…) Is the work you’re doing not important enough to follow, or is it (and I’m betting it is) paralysis in decision making in the face of change?“

Seriously? This is like saying it’s NPRs fault that so many people are watching Fox News. Or that the New York Times is  to blame for the success for the National Enquirer. It is a fact that people will always be drawn towards gossip and celebrities. We might lament that fact and wish that they put their time to better use but escapism is an important media function and one that most of the time is better served by light gossip than by the things that most non-profits focus on. And that’s ok.

Not everybody wants to spend his spare time thinking about, for example, the Convention Against Torture. In fact I’d argue that one of the reasons we are getting money from private donors is exactly because they don’t want to deal with this kind of thing. They give us the money so that we take care of it and they can watch Oprah without a bad conscience.

2. We are bigger than you think

A lot of major non-profit organization, like Doctors without Borders, Unicef or the Red Cross Red Crescent, have offices all around the world. In many cases, each of those offices will have their own presence on social media networks. This makes sense in order to reach people with localized messages, in their local language. The Norwegian Red Cross for example has a very active Twitter presence in Norwegian and a Secretary General who even tweets himself. The Syrian Arab Red Crescent posts local information in English and Arabic and Unicef Brasil in Portuguese. And that’s exactly the way it should be.

3. The importance of conversations

Admittedly the total number of all our Twitter-accounts might still be smaller than Ashton Kutcher’s flock followers. And yes, I would prefer it to be bigger. But we should keep in mind that social media is about conversations and not broadcasting.

By favouring specific content channels over a one-size-fits-all approach we are able to serve and connect with our audience better. That is not a weakness, that is a strength.

4. Online is not always the answer

“Where are the big charities, the urgent charities, the famous charities that face such timely needs and are in a hurry to make change? Very few of them have bothered to show up in a big way. (…) It’s easy to buy more stamps and do more direct mail, scary to use a new technique.”

I’m a huge fan of online fundraising. But it’s not always the right answer. I recently spoke with representatives of a big, rich European Red Cross Society and they told me that most of their individual donors are over 50 years old. In addition, independent statistics for that country show that many of the people in this age group aren’t comfortable with using online media and that there is an enormous amount of mistrust regarding the security of online transactions.

During that meeting we spoke about online fundraising and discussed ways to use online tools to attract new and younger donors. But if direct mail works and brings in money – why would I advise them to abandon it?

5. Eager for improvement

“Non-profits, in my experience, abhor change.”

Almost any response I have read about Seth Godin’s post said “Others are worse!” While that might be true, I don’t even accept the premise because it is simply not my experience when dealing with our 186 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

I’ve recently been to a big meeting of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement where my workshop was packed with representatives from almost 50 different countries, all eager to learn about social media, to exchange experiences and to discuss how they can use web based tools to solve concrete problems. The point is, they are investigating how these tools can help them do their job better – not how to make changes for the sake of change.

6. Not being first is not always bad

I would agree with Seth Godin if he had said that a lot of non-profit organizations, particularly the big ones, are slow to accept new technologies. However, that can be a good thing. I don’t think non-profit organizations have to be early adopters. I think that it’s quite alright for us to watch and see for a little while while the for-profit organizations take the first steps and figure out what works and what doesn’t. After all, if a for-profit organization fails in their endeavours then normally only money is lost. If a humanitarian organization invests money into a failure, then the money spent on that failure will not be available elsewhere and as a result a family somewhere in the world not might get a mosquito net or a child will not get a vaccination. That’s a big responsibility.

Obviously that argument cuts both ways. In cases where a technology is proven and can save money it should be adopted as soon as possible. We are for example increasingly using WebEx instead of face to face meetings. Another good example is the recent launch of an elearning platform (is open to everyone) that will help us cut costs for standardized trainings.

On the other hand, I’m glad that we never invested anything into Second Life, when that was the next big thing a few years ago. Waiting and only investing in technologies that have proven themselves is just good and responsible management.

Seth Godin says he’s upset. Well, so am I!

What do you think? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts.

You might also want to take a look at these two responses – and comments – to Seth Godin’s post:

• Beth Kanther: Seth Godin’s Non Post About Nonprofits: Deers in the Headlights?
• Allyson Kapins: Does Millions of Followers Mean You’re Changing the World?

Related posts:

1. Non-profits and social media: how to leave the competition behind
2. Completely wrong assumptions about technology in developing countries

If you ever wondered whom you vote for if you were German – try the “Elect-O-Meter“.

Does asking for a minimum wage make you a Leftie in Germany?

Missed chance for social media

What I find a really disappointing about this years version is that it (still) misses any kind of social media integration. There isn’t even a “share on Facebook”-option which to me means that the bpb is failing at least part of it’s mandate. I mean there’d be so many great things you could do with this tool, the easiest being:

• Tell your friends about the “Elect-O-Meter”
• Status-Update/Tweet: “I just tested my political preferences. Take the test and don’t forget to vote”
• Status-Update/Tweet: “According to the Elect-O-Meter I’m closest to <name of party>. Take the test”
• Embed-version

Especially considering that less and less young people go and vote, I think this would really have been a good chance to make people think about whom they should vote for.

Different countries, different political labels

Btw: The bpb is a highly respected, non-partisan organization and this applet is being embedded by media partners all over Germany. Personally, I have to say I always find it highly accurate. So, give it a shot and see whether, if you lived in Germany, you’d support the Greens, or the Christian Socialists (which are conservative in Germany), the Pirate Party (sic!) or The Left. I always find it interesting to see how different the political spectra’s are in different countries. What might be left in one country can be conservative in another and vice versa.

Related posts:

1. Liberia: Ushahidi to monitor elections
2. New project: Social Media in Emergencies Guidelines

Emergency Items Catalogue

One of the things I love about my job is that I constantly find out about incredibly useful or smart things that people have come up with. Right now I’m in awe of the the new Emergency Items Catalogue (www.ifrc.org/emergency-items) that was just released by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Metric? Imperial? Who cares?

Imagine you show up at a disaster and you’ve brought a few pumps and hoses. What are the odds of you being able to connect you stuff to that of everyone else? If you used the specifications from the Emergency Items Catalogue to purchase your equipment, then the odds are quite high. Because of the size of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement it can set standards.

2,000 items you need in an emergency

Essentially a group of dedicated people with a very high threshold for boredom got together and specified the details of 2,000 items that are commonly used in an emergency. From adhesive tape to scalpels to generators to … hoses. It’s a job I wouldn’t wish on anyone, but for which I have the uttermost respect.

Standardization is you friend

Even if you don’t need to connect your stuff with that of anyone else, standardization is your friend. For one thing you can be sure what the industry standard is. But more importantly you can tell a manufacturer what you want in a way that makes sense to the manufacturer. If for example, instead of saying “I need 500 blankets” you can say “I need 500 blankets that follow these exact technical specifications” you are far more likely to get what you expect.

Google Books and DocStoc

The Emergency Items Catalogue has been available online for years. But in my opinion not enough people know about it or are using it outside the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement. To change that, the logistics department has given it’s go-ahead to add the PDF-version to Google Books and Docstoc once they have been finalized (in about two weeks). It’ll be interesting to see what people do with these documents once they are out there.

Related posts:

1. Behind the scenes of the American Red Cross Digital Operations Centre
2. Online training: Tech Tools for Emergency Management

What I like about it is that Rebecca Leaman doesn’t focus on the cool and trendy but on the workhorses that help to run any organization. Here is her list of categories:

• Accounting, Time-Tracking, Invoicing, Billing
• Fundraising Software, Online Payments, Donor Management
• Mailing List Management, Email Marketing, Newsletters
• Events Management, Registration, Scheduling
• Membership Management, Contact Management (CRM)
• Discussion Forums, Online Communities
• Website Builders, Blogs, Content Management (CMS)
• Website Analytics, Data Collection, Tracking Tools
• All-In-One Solutions for Non-Profits

Many of the products are US-focused which might make some parts of the list – I’m thinking of the fundraising tools in particular – unsuitable for nonprofits outside the United States. But I found many of my favourites in the list and definitely recommend bookmarlking it. You might not need this list this week or even this year – but next the time you are cursing <that software> you might want to go back to that list and see whether there isn’t a better alternative.

Related posts:

1. Online training: Tech Tools for Emergency Management
2. Posts worth reading: from social media ROI to digital storytelling
3. Completely wrong assumptions about technology in developing countries