Are legacies good or bad??

Isn’t it interesting how a single word can have such different interpretations?

When a charity talks about a legacy, especially a large one, it is usually something that they are delighted to receive. But when an IT magazine publishes an article called “Living with Legacy”, you can be  pretty sure that they are talking about something they see as a problem. In this case, old (or very old) computer systems that are often business-critical, but expensive to look after and to adapt to the changing needs of the business. Given half a chance, many IT managers would be delighted to be rid of their legacies…

Both types of legacy are something that has been “left” to a future generation. If not well planned, both can create all sorts of unforeseen problems.

For a charity, a legacy may be tied up in restrictions that can tie the hands of the charity in using it. If too many legacies are restricted (e.g. to preserve a particular building), there may be insufficient general funds to pay for a fundraiser for other needs. An extreme example, but it illustrates the point that it can be helpful to discuss and plan a legacy with the chosen charity.

With IT systems, one problem is the technology – systems can be written in obsolete languages, to run on ageing platforms. Over time, the number of people able to understand the programs, let alone change them without causing problems, gradually reduces. While, of course, the cost of maintaining them steadily rises.

Another big problem (not just for IT systems) is foreseeing the future! When a system is built, all sorts of assumptions can be made that later turn out to be false or unsustainable.  When BT built its customer service systems (CSS), everyone just knew that telephone lines only had one end, the customer end – all lines went from BT to a customer end. So that was all that had to be recorded. Sadly, the introduction of new technology (leased lines) meant that lines now had two ends… When computer systems were built in the 1960s & 70s, no-one thought they still be around in the year 2000, so information about the year was often recorded using just 2 digits rather than 4. Which was why there were all the dire predictions about what might happen due to the “millennium bug”. It cost billions to update these long-standing legacy systems.

When you’re thinking about a new computer system to support your business (or charity, for that matter), it pays to think forward a wee bit when writing the requirements. It’s still guesswork but it’s worth considering at least a few questions about what might be. What do you expect the lifetime of the system to be? How might people want to use it in future? What assumptions might completely derail your business model or the design of your system? If BT had considered the question “what if… technology changes and lines have 2 ends in future?”, that would have saved them millions in building a completely new set of systems for private circuits. What are your “what if” questions?

Selling the outcomes, not the features

On the train back to Glasgow last week, I was writing up some notes I’d taken at the Institute of Fundraising’s Scottish Conference and was struck again by some of the similarities between “customers” and “donors”.

In marketing what a business does, customers want to know about the benefits you provide, rather than the features of what you sell or do. For example, in my case, my clients don’t usually want to know the details of the process I use for selecting IT suppliers. They want to know that they can have a great deal more confidence about the decision they are about to make about their IT.

It’s the same with donors. Donors need to know what a donation does. They need to hear about the outcomes, not the “features” of what you do. When considering charities to support, I want to hear about the difference they make to (say) wild land, rather than the fact that they employ several land rangers. I want to know about the women in Ghana who have been able to start their own businesses and how that has changed the lives around them, not about the mechanics of micro-credit. It’s not that I don’t care about how these outcomes are achieved – I do – but that’s a secondary question for me, one that comes into play after I’ve bought into the outcomes.

Net: all the donor or fundraising management systems in the world won’t help increase the level of donations to a charity if its potential donors don’t have a clear understanding of what that charity achieves with their donations.

Funding for digital media

There’ s funding available for charities and community organisations to help them use digital media to reach isolated people.

The Media Trust has £250,000 available (in a variety of differently-sized grants) to groups that work with deprived and isolated people, in a new venture called Digital Mentors. Operating until March 2011, Digital Mentors will provide funding for 26 grassroots groups in England, alongside one major new initiative and a further 40 small grants for specific digital projects. For more details or to register interest, complete their enquiry form.

Your surplus "stuff" can help others

If your business or organisation needs to get rid of “stuff” – furniture, equipment, PCs, branded clothing, stationery, whatever – by registering with Giving World Online, you could benefit a charity or other not-for-profit instead of sending it to landfill.

Giving World Online is a not-for-profit organisation which links businesses with unwanted surplus to charities and voluntary groups, and the people they work to help. All details are on their website: http://www.givingworldonline.com/.

Please remember that if you donate anything containing data (such as a PC or mobile phone), you should make sure that all data has been removed before giving it away.