Technology Tip-Google Word Processing

by

Came across this bit of information before but forgot to write about it.

Google has a word processing program which is reputed to be as good as MS Word in terms of its features. One benefit it has over Word though is that multiple people can work on the same document simultaneously from different places. No more having to create a read-only copy if someone else is working on a document you want to view.

This has great potential for a lot of different people. Students can work on different sections of papers together while sitting side by side or in the comfort of their own homes, perhaps chatting about each segment using an instant messaging program.

Likewise for arts organizations, different people can work on different sections of a grant proposal narrative at the same time while referencing stats and language the lead writer is using. The online storage reportedly saves as information is being typed rather than at programmed intervals. Google Docs also allows people to telecommute from home or lets a traveling supervisor check on progress, proof and edit from different time zones without worrying about whether software at their destination will be compatible.

A number of years ago I was reading an article that suggested one day our personal computers would regress back to essentially being work stations again with all our software and information processing being accessed from central host locations over the Internet. It looks like that is drawing closer to being true.

On the other hand, given that Google seems to save information on every search conducted via their service, you may want to consider just how sensitive the information you are typing into their word processors and spreadsheets might be. Since most of your financial information is available on Guidestar if you are a non-profit, having that information floating around probably isn’t too big a concern. You probably want to forgo using Google Docs to write a report to a lawyer detailing financial malfeasance though.

Humbling Email Experience

by

I was over at Arts Marketing blog last week catching up on Chad Bauman’s posts. One of his January posts contained some rules for administering bulk email lists. I looked over what he suggested and felt proud of myself for coming to many of those some conclusions on my own.

The next day I went in to work and reviewed the report for an email I had sent to my Listserv list the evening before. There was a long list of email address with the error message “Excessive Spam Content Detected” I had blatantly broken the rule about not using keywords common to spam in the subject line.

Now in my defense, I always do a test email to my work and two personal email address and the email passed those spam filters. It also passed through Yahoo and Hotmail filters so following Chad’s tip about using them as tests wouldn’t have helped. My email didn’t meet with the approval of the local Time Warner RoadRunner filter and that represents a pretty large chunk of folks.

What were the offending words you ask? One of the groups of musicians we are presenting boasted in an interview that they aimed to make people lose 20 lbs. by the end of the night through dancing. Thinking this was a good hook, my email subject line blared “Lose Weight with Band X at MyTheatre.”

In the message body I explained the boast, talked about the group a little and gave the ticket information which is probably why it got through most other filters. The timing was a little humbling given that I had been so smug about having already divined the guidelines.

Knowing the guidelines and following them are two different thing though, eh? Just goes to prove you should always approach what appears to be information with which you are overly familiar with an open mind.

Little Somethin On the Side

by

There is a story bouncing around the philanthropy blogs about some shenanigans at MOMA that the IRS is looking into. The NY Times reported that Museum Director Glenn Lowry was getting quite a bit of money on the side from two board members-$35,800 to $3.5 million a year, according to Trent Stamp’s Take blog. (And the Times article which I somehow missed on first read and writing.)

The fact this sort of thing worries me is probably as irrational as people who worry about the federal estate tax. Most non-profits (and wealthy folks) will never earn enough money in a year to warrant the attention of the IRS. My concern is that governments will start sniffing around local arts organizations that appear to be doing well (though in relation to MoMA, aren’t even in the same neighborhood) with an eye to fines or rescinding non-profit status.

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette (via Artsjournal.com) had an article today about how the city was looking to tax non-profits by getting them to commit to donating a certain amount every year to the city.

Even if it is in the name of assuring good governance, the scrutiny will further burden organizations already short on resources as they struggle to prove that their greatest wish is that they had a relationship with people with enough money make non-compliance with tax code a reality.

Worse, these type of stories erode the perception among the public at large that non-profit arts organizations can be good custodians of their trust and the thousands of small donations that make a difference in the programs the organizations offer.

There are other troubling governance concerns as Jack Siegel at Charity Governance blog points out. (my emphasis)

“It is very troubling that two directors are funding side payments to an executive director, particularly if this was not widely known by other board members. We don’t know how much the full board knew. Let’s be honest, however, the executive director has a lot influence in shaping any board’s view of the institution and why the board should approve certain actions, but not others. If a couple of board members are making side payments to the executive director without the knowledge of other board members, the executive director has an incentive to emphasize his benefactors’ agenda when interacting with the full board. In other words, the executive director risks becoming a toady. As a consequence, the full board may no longer be getting the benefit of the executive director’s best or impartial judgment.”

If I Could Save Time In A Bottle…

by

…seems to be the theme of an arts manager’s life according to the APAP commissioned Conversations with the Field report I had written on earlier. People are busy trying to achieve so much that they fear they are losing sight of their organizational mission.

According to the report they are desperate for new tools and techniques to help alleviate their burdens.

“…the online information that is posted and distributed doesn’t adequately address the challenges confronted in today’s current business climate.

Therefore, many desire what they perceive to be relevant data, up-to-date news and useful statistics in their inbox. In essence, members are seeking tools that will afford more marketplace leverage and resources that will enhance their capacity to succeed in the earned and contributed income arenas.

However, when asked – in specific terms – what these improved tools and informational tools would look like, respondents were vague and impressionistic. They don’t know exactly what they want, but they believe that what they’re getting is not meeting their needs. This unease and discontent signals how the field feels that it is harder and harder to succeed in mission-delivery.” (pg 14-15)

I won’t even pretend that this blog approaches adequately addressing todays business climate. Sometimes I hardly have enough time in the day to ponder what I am going to write much less do a thorough analysis job. What I really thought was interesting about this section of the report is that people can’t specifically describe what sort of tools and information they want provided to them. They know they need help and the resources they are aware of aren’t providing it. But what form the help should come in, they don’t know.

Note I say “the resources they are aware of.” I suspect part of the problem is that they don’t have the time to review and assess–or even seek out–all the resources that are actually available.

One of the last report findings I cited in my earlier entry was that reviewing and discussing reports, initiatives and literature about the field hasn’t been valued. Now that the demands of ones time are so much greater, there probably isn’t much hope of reversing this trend. (Though the rise of forum discussions and arts management blogs might help.)

I also think that people in the field are vaguely aware of all the cheap technological tools that are appearing like social networking and video sharing sites. They have a sense that these things can be helpful, but they aren’t quite sure how due to lack of time to explore them. They know that chances are, help is out there and within easy grasp. After all, technological improvements are always newer, faster, cheaper and easy to use!

Without a deeper understanding of what each category of advancement is, hearing about all these brand new wonderful things can be overwhelming. I have a feeling that a lot of these arts leaders might be secretly wishing they had the time for someone to come in and explain it all in detail to them outlining how each tool is or is not appropriate for their organization.

It occurred to me that this all describes a segment of the population the arts are trying to reach. Reading and discussing about the arts hasn’t been valued. They hear wonderful things about attending The Lion King, The Drowsy Chaperon, the orchestra, the ballet. Their maturing income and entertainment preferences make them more inclined to attend. But they don’t have the time to acquire the tools to let them master and enjoy the experience. If only someone would explain it!

The answer is the same for both groups. Those with the information have to find a way to deliver the initial enabling tools to those who seek it. Packaging the tools in a way that makes it appear easy and appealing to access them in the first place and then motivate people to continue to acquire additional mastery and knowledge is the real trick.

How much you wanna bet that the correct mode(s) of delivery is similar for both groups and that the medium through which the time strained arts managers receive their answers is the one they will turn around and use as a delivery vehicle for their communities?