Yesterday I flagged up the fledgling Friends of Key Hill Cemetery website and noted that it could do with a bit of adjustment, in the hope that a community-minded webhead would offer some support.
Today, on the back of various lists, D of D’log adds a suggestion to the d’logue by going to 11 on a list of ten things he’d like to see happen around town and on the cyberwebs.
No.11. An open online list of professional creatives, based in and around the city, who are willing to consider requests from genuine non-profits for free or low-cost “for the public good” work.
I was kinda thinking of a solution the other way round. It’s better to crowdsource parts of a solution rather than lay a given burden on any one expert. While a directory of services is a good thing to have in any case, I’m thinking that a given charitable group would stand to gain more specific support if they published a list of things they want to do, and that tasks could be picked off by any number of people. It means that while a group might not get everything they need, they’d get at least some of it, which is more than groups tend to get when it’s an all-or-nothing prospect.
The idea would be quite similar to a barter exchange.
An example that comes to mind is that of website setup and design tasks, which range from the relatively simple stuff to more complex things that require more comprehensive knowledge. For instance, while I could help someone set up a basic webpage, blog or even a Content Management System like Drupal, I wouldn’t be able to tweak a Drupal installation.
If a voluntary group needed something a bit more sophisticated than a default setup, the tasks could be split among several people, so that no one person was pressured into being the sole support provider.
A scheme to coordinate this sort of thing would be relatively easy to set up. Applicants would answer a series of questions and set out their requirements in discrete lists. These could then be selected piecemeal by people in a position to offer support.
A broader advantage is that this approach seeds a community. Let’s call it item no. 12 on a list of ten.
Whereas central government and national support services for charities are good at putting certain resources about, they have neglected a range of crucial skills and resources, thwarting the efforts of smaller, newly established groups. Councils are left to fill in some of the gaps. In Birmingham this has included the Birmingham Voluntary Service Council (BVSC), B:CEN, the Community Chest funds, and others. Some of those services and funds have assisted with things like IT skills, but there still seems to be a critical gap in access to support.
Returning to the example of a Drupal installation - suppose my voluntary group were offered support for that task, with the stipulation that we then help others as the need arises. Over time a web of skills develops that raises the level of expertise among the people who need it, and who then sustain the community through their efforts.
If the resource gap were substantively addressed by regional experts in the manner I’ve described, Birmingham would have developed a model for communities around the nation. Kinda makes sense for the city of DIY entrepreneurs.
{ 2 } Comments
The crowdsourcing idea is a good one, but I’m thinking that non-profits with time-sensitive and mission-critical needs (and perhaps not much project-management skill) and perhaps also vulnerable client groups, may prefer to deal only with one firm and have them handle any outsourcing that might be required.
Although certainly there might be an initial online crowdsourcing of ideas to solve a particular _problem_. Thus the non-profit might simply pitch _the problem_, rather than the sort of exact solution they already had in mind for it. And out of that group solution-generation process might come some viable and comfortable working collaborations among the creatives.
From the perspective of a creative firm, though, I was thinking more of the sort of difficult/challenging project that might get them a good spread of publicity in the local press and trade press, rather than small-scale ‘behind the scenes’ things like setting up websites and weblogs, which is more within the scope of the local volunteer bureaus.
I see the sense of that for the conditions you’re thinking about. I wonder though if part of the idea is already covered through existing mechanisms. I’m thinking that any non-profit that’s in a position to have some of the characteristics you mention is also in a position to bid for resources through existing channels. Not that they shouldn’t have an even wider set of options….
Our respective ideas are aimed at relatively distinct segments of the community. I noted that you weren’t referring strictly to voluntary groups, but that’s one segment that really is underserved, so I wanted to focus on it. So there’s still plenty of scope for both ideas to develop!
Post a Comment