March 2009

More Fun with Open Source Content Management

I'm really thrilled that the Idealware report comparing 4 top-notch open source content management systems is now available. I think it will prove invaluable to nonprofits of all shapes and sizes for a long time to come and know I will be recommended reading for many friends and potential and future clients.

Even if you have already seen the CMS Showdown and the competition sites implemented on WordPress, Drupal and Joomla now that the report is out they are worth another look.

If you didn't make it to SXSW conference or haven't heard about this brilliant project - here is an excerpt from the site:

Originally presented at South By Southwest Interactive in March, 2009, the Ultimate Showdown of Content Management System Destiny is an “Iron Chef”-style competition pitting three teams of all-star Web developers from the Drupal, Joomla! and WordPress communities against each other to develop the same Web site in each of their chosen open source content management platforms.

In addition to a fascinating look behind the scenes at each teams decision-making process, there are lots of productive insights to be gained by looking at the finished products of their labors. Many of the key points in the Idealware report are evident on the demo sites and by reading the team notes.

Despite (or maybe because of) the 100 hour total development time limit, each site demonstrates its system's strengths and weakness fairly accurately or I should say in keeping with my own experiences of them. Not all of them managed to accomplish all the requirements, which points out what takes more time or work to implement for that particular system.

One thing that can be confusing is that the specifications for the site required that most of the content be available only to authenticated users. The sites for Drupal and Joomla, who were able to achieve this, seem a bit bare, especially Drupal where they didn't create any publicly viewable items in some areas. So you can't access the galleries, blogs or member listings and its a pity that there doesn't seem to be a demo user/password available anywhere to see the full sites. If anyone knows of one, I would love to take a look.

Also, sadly there was no invitation for a Plone team this time around, but if you want to see it included next time I'd suggest you contact the organizers.

Check out the CMS Showdown as a handy companion piece to the Idealware CMS report for a real world apples to apples demonstration (sort of) of how each system looks at some familiar features. And read the team notes on cmsshowdown.com for some helpful hints and tricks the they used on the sites.

Options for creating organizational social networks

I've heard it a number of times: "Our organization wants our own Facebook." After you've gone through the strategic planning, and made sure that, indeed, building your own social network is exactly what you want to do (instead of building on networks already there, which, I think is what should be done 80% of the time), how do you go about doing it? I've been working on this for a while, and here's what I've found.

You have several options:
  • Ning. This is, in fact, the option I'd almost never choose, unless this is a very short-term, or throw-away, project. Ning is a Web 2.0 startup in search of a sustainable business plan, and who knows when it will fold, or what will happen to it. The community and data is not your own, and there is some evidence that they might be using that data in social networks on their platform in ways that they shouldn't be.
  • Elgg. Elgg is an open source social networking platform that had a previous life as an e-learning platform. It's meant for developers - although it does provide an out-of-the-box social network, it takes a fair bit of work to get it looking and working like you'd want it to. And, it's a young project, so that adding custom functionality is going to be harder than with established projects like Drupal or Joomla. I've installed and played with it a fair bit, and there is a lot to like about it, but the lack of a solid developer ecosystem, and the dearth of add-on modules and themes makes it a hard choice.
  • Drupal. Drupal has a module called Organic Groups, which is incredbily popular, and there are lots of other modules that add functionality to it. Building a social network on Drupal will take more work, but since you are starting from a really solid grounding of Drupal, and can extend this site in all sorts of ways, this might be the best option. It's the option I've chosen for two ongoing projects that are creating social networks.
  • Joomla. Joomla has a number of components that provide social networking functionality, including Community Builder and Group Jive. I haven't had a chance to play with these yet, but they are worth a look, and there are some great Joomla web shops out there that can help with this.
  • Proprietary platforms. There are quite a number of proprietary platforms that can also provide a social network site for your organization. In general, these are going to be fairly pricey, and not as customizable as the open source platforms are.
Final work: look before you jump into creating a new social networking site. Careful planning and investment are necessary for success.

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.

How to Demonstrate Software

I am a strong advocate for spending the time directly with software vendor sales and technical support to explore software tools. Most software offers many more features than you expect, and have unique approaches to solving data management challenges. Often its largely on the basis of the demonstration that many of us will make a final selection of software for our needs.

For the last 4 months, I have managed to either sit through demonstrations or demonstrate myself approximately 30 software packages for various nonprofit technology projects, including a number of donor database systems. Some were quite informative while others did not go so well. Here are a few of my discoveries on what makes for a great software demonstration that we as demonstration facilitators and participants can incorporate:
  • Educate the vendor: Most software tools are built to solve a wide array of business problems, even when they are narrowly focused to, say, donor management tools. Vendors lead much better demonstrations when they know their audience goals and requirements so they can focus on what is most important.
  • Educate the audience: Many participants in demonstrations do not know what to expect, and how to participate. Provide information up front about the software and the areas to cover, and invite feedback and questions before the event as well as throughout the demonstration to make sure the audience understands and is engaged.
  • Develop a script: Its very easy for both the facilitator and audience to go off track on an aspect of the system, and lose time to see more important areas. Before engaging a demonstration, prepare a script with areas to cover and questions to resolve, and keep track of time to make sure you cover those areas. Share this will all folks reviewing the tool so everyone is on the same page.
  • Phrase questions as "scenarios": Instead of asking, "how do I merge the last name of my donor to a letter", ask "how do I personalize my messages to my donors to build stronger relationships?". This is a broader question that includes the reason why you want to send personalized messages. The vendor is then invited to show the process of developing and personalizing letters, emails and other tools besides strictly mail merge, and will likely answer several additional questions in the process.
  • Get your technology ready! Software demonstrations typically require computers with internet access, ability to run web demonstration software, a working phone line, and the software to demonstrate. Most vendors will set up a system for running a web demonstration - definitely test it prior to the demo to make sure it works ok. Some demonstrations used software that was not well prepared for answering my questions, or that did not work at all initially - this is definitely not a great way to start!
  • Debrief immediately: Software demonstrations generally will not answer every question. Be sure to debrief soon after the demonstration to identify learnings, pros, cons and questions for further exploration. If engaging demonstrations of more than one software system, be sure to debrief each before demonstrating the next, as it gets very confusing to remember what each system offered otherwise.
In general, its best to approach the demonstration in the spirit of partnership, rather than as a competitive venture. Share more information rather than less to get the most out of the exchange, and to manage expectations properly.

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!)

More RSS Tools: Using Google Reader for Research and Sharing

Google Reader gets a good mention in my RSS article, Using RSS Tools to Feed your Information Needs, but deserves an even deeper dive. This is a follow-up to that article, along with my recent posts on Integrating content with websites, and Managing Content with Pipes. We've established that an RSS Reader helps you manage internet information far more efficiently than a web browser can; and we've talked in the last few posts about publishing feeds to your web site. This post focuses on using tools like Google Reader to share research .

Out of the box, GReader (as it's affectionately known) is a powerful, web-based reader that lets you subscribe, mark and share items in two significant ways. Shared Items are items that get published to a public page that you can point your friends and co-workers to. Further, this page can be subscribed to via RSS as well, so it can be republished to your web site, or integrated into a Facebook feed. Using (fake) bill 221b as an example, if you monitor for and selectively share articles related to the bill, you can easily point co-wokers and constituents to your shared page, and or republish those items in places where your audience will see them.

Shared Items are also made available to other GReader users who choose to share with you. This offers a greater level of convenience for teams working with shared research; it can also afford a level of confidentiality if you don't want to publicize a public page. Not only can you share the items you find; you can also tag them, much like you would with Delicious or Flickr, and add a note, if you have thoughts or context-setting notes to share. A function recently added GReader takes this even further - shared items can be commented on, much as a blog post can.

The last bit to add to this arsenal is a very powerful, but not terribly obvious GReader feature. The Note in GReader bookmarklet (which you can drag to your web browser's quick links or bookmarks toolbar from the GReader "Notes" page) lets you share, with comments and tags, pages that you find on the web as GReader shared items. So if you run across something that isn't in your feeds (and there's plenty of web content that can't be subscribed to), this lets you add it to your shared items.

What I've found is that, as much as I admire social bookmarking sites like Delicious, they become a lot less useful when I can store all of the pages that I find via RSS or browsing, with tags and an option to share them, in the same convenient place.

It's important to note that, as powerful as all of this is, it still lacks some functionality that similar tools have. One great advantage of using Delicious as a link-sharing tool is that you can share links specific to any tag (or set of tags). Google Reader doesn't offer multiple shared pages based on filtering criteria. And while you can add notes to your feed (without adding links), it's not as flexible a repository as a tool like Evernote, which lets you save web pages, ODFs and all sorts of documents to a single web-based folder.

Also, Google Reader isn't the only game in town. The Newsgator family of RSS readers offer similar sharing functions; some of which overcome the limitations above, as do other readers out there (please share your favorite in the comments).

What it boils down to, though, is that we now have powerful, integrated options for online research, as individuals, as teams, and as information agents for our constituents. The convenience of publishing as you discover is a significant advancement over earlier schemes, which usually involved either sending a lot of easily-lost links by email, or submitting your finds to a webmaster, who would then add them to a page on your site. This is a publish as you find approach that incorporates sharing and communication into the research process.

Next week, I'll finish up the "More RSS Tools" series with a post about OPML, the way that you make your collection of feeds portable.

Depending on Google

Google often figures in discussion about use of free or low cost software as well as of what are the boundaries of corporate commitments to Open Source. The uniformity and simplicity of Google applications give them a seductive appeal. Yet in my own use of them and in discussions with clients, they also carry with them a sense of unease.

How much can we count on Gmail, Google Docs, Calendar and the rest when their free or low cost availability depends almost entirely on Google’s continued domination of web search? “Do no evil” notwithstanding, how much can we count on Google’s commitment to privacy and security? While providing many Open Source tools, how much can we count on software whose core remains entirely closed and proprietary? Is migration of software to the cloud inevitable and a Good Thing?

These questions come up about other corporate leaders that figure large in software selection and strategy these days. Google fascinates us because it has become ubiquitous and the issues easier to grasp.

If this is you, check out the Google assessment by R&D; firm faberNovel. It has the teasing title, “Why could Google die.” You can read it here: http://www.fabernovel.com/en#en/analyze/news/why-could-google-die, or you will find it easier to view full screen on slideshare

The report assesses internal weaknesses, as well as legal, strategic, and other threats. The strategic threats category caught my eye. Google faces challenges from both its large, global competitors as combined with possibilities at the other end of “disruptive technologies” from new companies. Things in software will keep changing. Time frames that you can expect a given software strategy to last continues to shrink.

Likewise, though the authors did not give it high priority, they noted that competition from Open Source alternatives could have a high impact. This in combination with the reports assessment of privacy concerns make for a large potential threat. This is likely true for most all corporate software systems, including others straddling the Open Source/proprietary fence.

Last, the report notes recent interruptions in Gmail and problems with other Google services, which many of us experienced. Yet the authors do not connect this with the difficulty or impossibility most Google users have in getting customer service. As I mentioned in this space some time ago about using free Gmail without a backup plan, this falls into the category of “no free lunch.”

Many idealware blog readers would benefit from viewing these slides, both to ponder Google as well as a framework for considering where we all stand with other corporate software providers.

More RSS Tools: Managing Content with Pipes

I'm continuing with follow-up topics from my RSS article, Using RSS Tools to Feed your Information Needs. Last week, I discussed integrating content with websites, and this week I'm going to dive into one of the more advanced ways to work with RSS content. This gets a little geeky, but it really shows off some of the sophistication of this technology.

The article provides numerous examples of RSS sources, but all in the form of web sites, blogs and web services that offer you one or more streams of information. If you want to narrow your view beyond the feeds available on a site, say, because you are only interested in Idealware posts about CRM tools or the ones written by Steve Backman, then you need a tool that will refine your search. Alternatively, you might want to put a section containing news stories relevant to a particular issue on your site, but want some control over the sources, as well as the subject matter. For this amount of control over the content you retrieve, you want to use something like Yahoo! Pipes.

Pipes is an RSS mashup editor. It's a tool that looks a bit like Microsoft's Visio, where you drag boxes onto a grid and draw relationships between them. But it's not a layout or flowcharting tool; instead, it's a visual mapping and filtering tool that lets you identify sources and then apply rules to those sources before merging them into an aggregated feed. To break that down, let's say that your goal is to either monitor talk about a bill, or, maybe, to publish a section on your web site titled "What they're saying about bill 221b" (I made that bill up). You have identified eight blogs that have good posts on the subject, and these are blogs that you trust to properly represent the issues and not, in any way, malign or confuse your efforts.

In Pipes, you can select all eight as sources, and then set up a filter to block any posts that don't reference "221b". The resulting RSS feed -- which you can then subscribe to our republish -- will isolate the posts that are relevant to the bill from your selected sources.

For example, here's that pipe that will allow you to skip Michelle, Heather, Paul, Laura, Eric and my posts and just see Steve's:

Picture 2.png

Another, more advanced example: You have an organizational Twitter feed that you want to republish to your site But you only want to publish your posts, not your individual replies. In Twitter, a reply is always identifiable by the very first character, which will be an "@" sign. Twitter RSS items arrive in the format "yourtwitterid: tweet", so any reply will start with "yourtwitterid: @". Setting up a Yahoo Pipe filter to block any result with ": @" in the text will isolate your posts from the replies. You can add a "Regex" (e.g. Search/Replace) command to replace "yourtwittername:" with nothing in order to publish just the tweet. The pipe will look like this:

Picture 1.png

If you play with Pipes (Yahoo! ID required, otherwise free), I highly recommend starting with an example like mine or this one by Gina Trapani to get the feel of it. Save your pipe, and you can subscribe to it -- it updates automatically, and you don't have to make it public for it to work.

Google has it's competing Google Mashups tool in private beta, and similar tools are popping up all over the web. I talk a lot about how RSS is the technology that allows us to manage the information on the web. Pipes let us refine it. It's great stuff.

Look for more RSS talk on OPML files and Google Reader in my upcoming posts.

Beware of NDAs

In a day and age when most technology providers - small and large - offer 30-day free trials of their software, it seems incredibly odd for a membership management provider, Association Anywhere, which recently asked a nonprofit to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). Stating that the company did "business in a very defined and focused space," the vendor actually turned the business away when we refused to sign the agreement.

I can appreciate a vendor wanting to keep its intellectual property safe and ensuring that there is a legitimate client looking at it's software, but this kind of legal clamping down on openness struck me as an affront to the nonprofit sector. Given the tight budgets in the nonprofit sector, I expect vendors (especially those which are strong) to encourage discussion about their products amongst peers. Is Association Anywhere really going to sue a nonprofit for sharing its experience with the software with colleagues or the community?

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.