Skip to content

NABUUR

NABUUR volunteer opportunities in Social Actions

social-actions.png

I think I first met Peter Deitz at Web of Change, talking about his work as micro-philanthropy consultant, and his idea to mash up the actionable opportunities on all the platforms for social change. That became Social Actions, a platform where you can find things to do: join an event, sign a petition, donate to a cause, give out a loan, volunteer.

Those things you can do come from a variety of sources, like Care2, GlobalGiving, Kiva, Idealist.org, and starting this week, also from NABUUR, the online volunteer network.

netsquared.jpg

It’s the outcome of a meeting Siegfried and I had at NetSquared with Peter, Christine Egger, and Phil Klein in May this year.

Social Actions won several prizes around that time, which really got things moving faster and faster. Amidst the turmoil of migrating NABUUR to Drupal, and Social Actions stepping into a roller-coaster speed-up of development, we managed to output the NABUR volunteer tasks in RSS to feed into the Social Actions search engine.

In the meantime, Social Actions has released a “Related ways to take action” widget that you can put on your blog or website. It will suggest things you can do based on the content of the page, and I have good hopes that that will also help NABUUR tasks get more attention by being listed elsewhere. And hopefully we’ll take a next step towards a “world-wide do good” widget to give people a chance to donate, loan, or act.

Peter also has managed to keep the discussion moving about a suitable microformat to add more semantic information to such an RSS feed. That should allow for even more targeted display of opportunities to do good.

A special thanks as well to Billy and Marny and the folks at Techsoup who organised NetSquared. The groundwork for the NABUUR-Social Actions connection was laid out there, and we’ll continue to build on that 🙂

How “web 2.0” can you become in six months?

cb865d677e0c3a52dd1dbde61a25430c_MD5.png A while ago I was asked to help answer an interesting question. Imagine: you want your website (and organisatuon) to become “truly web 2.0”, and a donor is considering a sizeable grant to help you do that, under the condition that you define yourself how you will measure your “web 2.0”-ness, set your own targets for the next half year, and have reached those targets by then. What would you measure and what targets would you set?

  • Indicators: Web 1.0 metrics like number of visitors or registered users are not really a measure for “web 2.0-ness”. Amount of user-generated content maybe more. Per registered user? Number of mashups? Position in Technorati? Having an API, connecting to the APIs of other sites? Number of feeds into your site?
  • Targets: A 6-month timeframe to do the technical work and show measurable results would lead me to focus more on the infrastructure and organisational side of things. What’s a realistic target… needs to be compelling enough to get the grant, but also a pretty certain win…

I tapped into the wealth of wisdom in the Web of Change crowd. Marty Avery send me an interesting link to “Experience Attributes: Crucial DNA of Web 2.0”, an essay by Brandon Schauer of Adaptive Path. “Quite old” by web 2.0 standards (written December 2005), but very relevant to help guide our thinking and provide a bit of authority. Brandon distinguishes two sets of attributes, that together make up “web 2.0 DNA”:

  • Foundation attributes: user-contributed value, the long tail, network effects. In Brandon’s words: “They enable Web 2.0 offerings to generate and maximize value from many sources, no matter how small they may be.”
  • Experience attributes: de-centralization, co-creation, remixability, and emergent systems. Again, in Brandon’s words: “By blurring the lines that traditionally delineate supplier, vendor, and customer, these services have pioneered new value streams that can output new types of offerings, harness new efficiencies, and produce higher levels of continuous innovation.”

A quick analysis showed that the focus should indeed be on these experience attributes: the foundations were there, the basic system and processes work, things are happening. But they need to accelerate, explode, go viral. It still wasn’t hard to distinguish supplier, vendor, and customer in the current setup. We all could see new ways to offer new types of value to all stakeholders, but it was time to deliver, and the experience attributes nicely mapped onto dreams, visions, and ideas to move forward.

So with all the technical development just starting, and only some five months left to show concrete, measurable results, targets were mainly defined in terms of those experience attributes:

  • Get at least a couple of formalised partnerships to decentralize and scale up major parts of the organisational processes.
  • Get content in from a few dozen external sources, to remix with the user-generated content already there.
  • Provide new website tools to transform all of that content into compelling stories.
  • Provide new ways for people to share their experiences with their peers and promote the platform, and see them use those.
  • Double the overall amount of page views this way (ay, is this a web 1.0 metric slipping in after all?)

Ambitious goals, but more important: not just hoping on technical wizz-bang to solve things. Developing partnerships and compelling stories is far more a process and collaboration issue (and by far not easy to accomplish in half a year either, but work was already further on the way here). And if nothing else, burning some cash on advertising will provide a reasonably predictable growth of page views if needed — although I’m not supposed to take such a cynical view on these things (yet).

Designing sociality for Nabuur

Nabuur has been pioneering online volunteering since 2001, and is currently redesigning their organisation: how to put "web 2.0" into the DNA of everything that’s happening? And how to engineer that, rather than try and hope it works?

So I spent the day with Nabuur team members, who invited René Jansen to facilitate drilling down to the core of their activities. René is one of the authors of "The Realm of Sociality: Notes on the design of social software", a paper which won the Best Paper Award 2007 at the “International Conference on Information Systems” in Montreal, last December, and (to me, at least) introduces the concept of "sociality" as the centre of the design process.

The model uses theories of "Practice", "Identity", "Social Structure" and "Situated Experience" to define four realms of design areas to focus on. I’ve just downloaded the paper to read a more indepth explanation (and be able to explain it myself). It was a good framework to guide the discussions to a few crucial dilemmas and hard choices.

What Nabuur does

Nabuur offers opportunities to volunteer for villages and communities in developing countries: a local representative describes a project that would help improve circumstances for people in his or her community, and people anywhere on the world can contribute research, knowledge, connections, and organise resources from behind their computers. It works, and leads to wonderful results. But Nabuur needs to, and definitely wants to grow far beyond the 150 villages and 10,000 volunteers it has.

The focus used to be on the villages themselves. Last year I was already involved in a redesign that would speak more to the various personas that would use the site. The resulting website was orientated first towards "doing a task" and getting more results from the efforts of volunteers (basically focusing on Dave, a persona who wanted concrete tasks and outcomes).

But the reaction of existing neighbours was mostly negative: they felt the site was broken and "stolen" from them, and needed to be fixed (ASAP please). Incrementally improving the interface for other personas was stalled, and the team reflected on the question "what went wrong?".

A new approach

In terms of the model of René and his colleagues, the heart of the sociality around which the design revolved was shifting from village to project, and now maybe moving to the local representative or to the experience of contributing to improvement in people’s lives. A choice had to be made, and the way to do it was by determining the core social practice of Nabuur.

A social practice is "a way people do something together" (the paper probably has a real definition), and we identified and discussed four candidates:

  • Bringing supply and demand together: a marketplace of people with skills and time, and villages with work to be done.
  • Achieving something together: a project bank where people work in a team to deliver results.
  • Helping neighbours: a community where people help to address acute needs of each other.
  • Sharing stories: experiencing a trajectory together, and telling stories about it to each other and others.

Listening to the neighbours, who experienced a gap between "them in the office", and "us who do the work", the Nabuur team wants to focus on a truly social approach, positioning themselves and the whole Nabuur development among the neighbours as well. And the practice that is furthest from sterile transactions, and leads to the warmest social ties is sharing stories (around the work in villages and communities, of course, but also around Nabuur as a whole.)

"Writing our experience together"

The practice of "writing our experience together" can encapsulate actual projects being completed and results being delivered, but puts celebrating those achievements on the foreground (right now, the successes are still mainly hidden gems). It will lead to some difficult choices and self-restraint in reviewing the functional specifications: let’s really not build a knowledge repository or community of practice, but really first try to connect with existing initiatives. Only if it doesn’t exist anywhere on the ‘net, yet is crucial to work being done, and maybe even then on a site separate from the Nabuur.com site.

I’m pleased with the outcome: it aligns with many take-aways from NetSquared in May last year, and it opens many ways to improve engagement of the neighbours, and also exposed a lot more of the groundbreaking changes in how international development is done here. And looking forward to working with James and Pelle to translate this into a new site!

Your neighbor in Amsterdam

I feel privileged to enjoy another NetSquared rollercoaster ride of fun for good! I'm joining Siegfried Woldhek of NABUUR, and together with our champions and cheerleaders Kristine Mucher and Michael Brown, we're looking forward to see you join the global neighbor network: a little bit of your time and talents can help change the lifes of many people!

And since the network is the message in this day and age… I'll be in San Francisco for a few more days (until the weekend), and to cite another source of inspiration, I'd love to meet friends I know and friends I haven't met yet. Saturday night is the designated party time… get in touch, 'cause I'm not sure yet where 🙂 (hey, you could get a free stay in the kewlest part of Amsterdam)

original post

Facilitate or help?

I’ve tried to find projects that truely put the “local agenda” of the end user at the heart of their work. “Facilitator projects” that are not becoming a stakeholder, but a means to a (local) end. Giving people tools to improve their own situation in their own way, extra opportunities to be effective with their energy and ambitions.

Some of my favourites:

  • Nabuur.com: realising concrete local results with global neighbours
  • Kabissa: catalysing conversations in Africa
  • TakingITglobal: Generation Ne(x)t
  • Martus: being able to bear witness when human rights are violated
  • The Hub: another one to bear witness
  • Dgroups: involving more stakeholders in policy discussions

I like to consider myself an optimist, and browsing through the list of 150 wonderful projects reconfirms my belief that so many people are trying to do so many good things, with many potential synergies as well. It's brutal to have to bring down the selection to only 10 for my vote.

Note (2026): original content recovered via archive.org for http://www.netsquared.org/blog/rolf-kleef/facilitate-or-help