1 / 23

A Context for Shared Services A NetHope Perspective March 19, 2010 Ed Granger-Happ

A Context for Shared Services A NetHope Perspective March 19, 2010 Ed Granger-Happ NetHope Co-Founder and Chairman. Stuck!. Moral of the Story. We cannot get the capacity gains we need in NGOs without working together more and sharing commodity resources We cannot go it alone!.

williamslynn
Download Presentation

A Context for Shared Services A NetHope Perspective March 19, 2010 Ed Granger-Happ

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Context for Shared Services A NetHope Perspective March 19, 2010 Ed Granger-Happ NetHope Co-Founder and Chairman

  2. Stuck!

  3. Moral of the Story We cannot get the capacity gains we need in NGOs without working together more and sharing commodity resources We cannot go it alone!

  4. Interesting Times • Save the Children (US) • Canceled raises (2 years) • 10%+ HQ staff cuts; early retirement packages • CARE (Atlanta) • ~70 staff laid off, including ~60 people in HQ • Salary Cuts: executive by 10%; other staff by 4% • World Vision (US) • 50 staff laid off ~ 5 % US workforce; Eliminated 25 vacant positions • Reducing benefits (retirement match down 50%; co-pays up) • Freezing salaries/Canceling raises • Ford, Kellogg, RWJ Foundations • Offering buyouts to 30-50% staff • Closing offices and cutting travel • Museums and Art Orgs • Layoffs; furloughs; and program scale-back/elimination

  5. IT Departments Have Been Hit Hard • US NGOs with mandated cuts: 79% • Average cut from IT Budget: 24% --US NGO-CIO Cost Cutting Survey, April 2009

  6. NGO IT Strategy: Moving the Agenda Up the Pyramid Competitive or Leading BENEFICIARY “Differentiating” Beneficiary & Field Facing PROGRAM “Improving Program Delivery” Increasing Impact for Beneficiaries OPERATIONAL “Helping the Organization Run” Efficient Donor & HQ Facing FOUNDATIONAL “Keeping the Lights On”

  7. The Problem: NGOs invest a fifth of corp. IT 5x 18x 4x 7 7

  8. IF 57% of ERP projects don't realize their ROI (Nucleus Research) 66% IT projects fail (Standish Chaos DB) NGOs spend a 20th what corporations do (Tuck survey) And we are spending donors’ dollars THEN We must find a better way... Non Profit IT Departments Can’t Play the Odds 8

  9. Key Conclusion: we can’t do it alone Even if we tripled IT spending, we will still be playing catch-up for just keeping the lights on. And… 9

  10. Keeping the Lights-On is Irrelevant It’s more a commodity each day “We can't get close to what Google and Amazon can do in their data centers” –Peter Cochrane

  11. We Need to Push the Pyramid at Both Ends Get in Competitive or Leading BENEFICIARY “Differentiating” Beneficiary & Field Facing PROGRAM “Improving Program Delivery” Increasing Impact for Beneficiaries OPERATIONAL “Helping the Organization Run” Efficient Donor & HQ Facing FOUNDATIONAL “Keeping the Lights On” Get out

  12. NetHope is Broadening Its Strategic Reach NetHope is addressing the bottom and top of the strategy pyramid Prime Members Domain (e.g. development programs) New NetHope growth area (e.g. ICT4D) 1 NetHope began in quadrant 1, for example providing connectivity to members Beneficiaries 3 2 Primary growth area for NetHope leveraging strength in quadrant 1 2 Customer Secondary NetHope Domain (e.g. Shared Services) Primary NetHope Domain (e.g. Phase II VSATs) 3 NetHope’s supports and enables through technology but does not provide programs to the beneficiary since this is the members’ role Members 4 1 4 Secondary growth area for NetHope Vertical (e.g. program sectors) Horizontal (e.g. tools & platforms) Strategic Thrust

  13. Bottom line? What if we got so good at cutting IT costs we had nothing left to move our mission forward? We would perish as irrelevant IT

  14. Turning the Question Upside down What would it take to be the most relevant IT departments we can be?

  15. NetHope Vision – Collaborate & Connect Connected Together, Changing the World To be a catalyst for collaboration in the International NGO community and enable best use of technology for connecting in the developing parts of the world

  16. Moral of the Story We cannot get the capacity gains we need in NGOs without working together more and sharing commodity resources We cannot go it alone!

  17. Further Reading • Blogs: http://eghapp.blogspot.com/ http://granger-happ.blogspot.com/(Dartmouth Fellowship) • Web site: http://www.fairfieldreview.org/hpmd/EGHprofile.nsf • Email: ehapp@nethope.org • Twitter: @ehapp • And the book: Managing Technology to Meet Your Mission, chap. 11.

  18. Questions?

  19. Appendix

  20. Are we moving in the wrong direction? In this recession, the trend is to retreat to lights-on operating mode and focus on driving out costs

  21. So what type of IT are we going to be? • Are we going to be about only saving costs or saving twice the children? • That fundamentally is the key, the hinge on which NGO IT strategy turns. Increasing Impact to Children

  22. And we get great about lesser things “Many IT organizations have great landings, but at the wrong airport.” --Dave Aron, VP of Research, Gartner Group, CCitDG Conference, October 8, 2009

  23. Closing the Productivity Gap: A New Calculus A back of the envelop calculation for taking a $5M IT department in a $200M NGO to $23M 56%

More Related