L+P Business Plan - APC
ICT Learning and Practitioners Network
Business Plan
Version 1.0
October 2002
a project of
[pic]
Executive Director – Anriette Esterhuysen
Programmes and Projects Manager – Maureen James
L+P Project Manager – Michael de Beer
Business Plan Development – The Commons Group
Business Plan Review – Brody, Weiser, Burns
Acknowledgments
APC wishes to acknowledge the following people for the ideas, inspiration, information and support they provided during the L+P pilot phase and the development of this business plan:
Open Society Institute (OSI) for financial support
Stephanie Hankey, Darius Cuplinskas and Vera Franz (OSI)
APC’s members, and the APC staff team
The Commons Group
Brody, Weiser, Burns
We also wish to thank the dozens of INGOs, donors, ICT practitioners and activists, and consulting businesses who participated in our research.
Thank you for your interest and enthusiasm!
APC L+P Team
Michael de Beer
Ann Tothill
Maureen James
Anriette Esterhuysen
Table of Contents
1 Vision 4
2 Context 6
3 Market Definition 8
4 Market Needs 11
5 Service Vision 15
6 Marketing and Sales 22
7 Management and Organization 24
8 Sustainability Strategy 27
9 Finance and Budgets 33
10 Competition and Risks 37
Appendix A - Market Research Findings 39
Appendix B – Cooperative Service Case Studies 55
Appendix C - L+P Pilot Project Achievements 65
Appendix D - Bibliography 67
Vision
Over the past decade, civil society organizations have dramatically increased their presence on the global scene. From Rio to Seattle to Johannesburg, civil society has been in the public eye. But despite this increase in activity, these organizations still struggle to coordinate their work, sustain their operations and, most importantly, produce concrete social impacts. To address these limitations, civil society organizations need to embrace innovative tactics including the strategic use of information and communications technologies (ICTs).
Unfortunately, most organizations simply don't have access to the skills or services they need to use technology strategically. There is currently an ICT skills and services gap in civil society, particularly in developing countries. APC's Learning and Practitioners (L+P) Network will help to fill this gap. With a dual focus on improving the capacity of civil society and developing skills amongst local service providers, L+P will have a broad impact on the ICT capacity of the sector. Imagine a world where ...
A global coalition of peace organizations wants to raise public awareness about the nuclear weapons trade. L+P provides a virtual team to implement a web content management system and an e-mail campaigning database. Using this team, L+P is also able to provide affordable on site training and support to peace coalition members in eight different countries.
A civil society news web site for Latin America wants to offer more comprehensive coverage, as well as explore providing innovative support through the site to NGOs in the region. L+P invites this organization to join its info workers peer learning network. Staff of the organization are quickly hooked into a supportive community of practice and opportunities for expertise-sharing, capacity building and skills training.
An international development donor wants to improve the online security skills of the human rights organizations it funds. L+P creates an international team of leading security experts to develop an innovative training manual and provide local training sessions. Acting out its commitment to ‘open source economics’ and ICT sector capacity-building, L+P shares the materials created through this project freely and broadly with others in civil society.
L+P will foster an international network of local service providers who can take on projects exactly like these. The Network will offer services including ICT strategy, training, technical implementation and project management. It will also provide referrals to local service providers and produce online reference resources that can be used by civil society whenever they are needed.
In many ways, L+P will be like a broader, international version of the e-riders non-profit technical support networks that have caught on in North America. It will work with and build a strong network of organizations and individuals providing ICT services, primarily in the south. This network will strengthen the overall institutional capacity of the ICT service sector in developing countries – a crucial building block in achieving sustainable use of ICTs for development.
Even in its early years, the L+P Network will have significant impact on the capacity of civil society organizations and service providers. It is expected that L+P will undertake approximately 150 projects in its first three years of operation. This work is projected to produce $2.4 million in revenue, with $1.9 million flowing directly to local service providers. The impacts and ripple effects of these projects will be felt in hundreds of civil society organizations around the world.
Of course, this is just the beginning. L+P is poised to become a lasting, self-sustaining innovator in the area of strategic use of ICTs. In this role, L+P has the potential to create deep, long-term improvements in the overall ICT capacity of civil society.
Mission
Increase the overall impact and effectiveness of civil society by building the strategic information and communications technology capacity
of civil society organizations and improving the skills and sustainability
of the service providers they rely on
Goals
Connect civil society organizations with
reliable, socially committed ICT service providers.
Produce lasting, sharable tools and resources based on
the learning of civil society organizations and service providers.
Provide learning opportunities that increase the ICT skill base
within civil society and the service provider community.
Improve the capacity and sustainability of
service providers that work with civil society.
Impact
As outlined in detail below, L+P will pursue these goals using a
self-reinforcing service ecosystem model:
[pic]
This model will help L+P produce its intended impacts – stronger CSOs,
improved service provider capacity and lasting learning resources.
Context
This section of the document provides background information about the APC and the L+P Network. Additional information about L+P pilot phase activities can be found in Appendix C.
1 About APC
Founded in 1990, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international membership network of civil society organisations dedicated to promoting the strategic use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) within civil society. The majority of APC’s membership, and APC’s project activity, is based in the south. In the 12 years since it was founded, APC has moved from a focus on primarily technical services to a broad, holistic approach including the delivery of training, strategy, support, evaluation and web applications. APC’s current membership is focused on everything from providing training to developing open source software to conducting gender evaluations of ICT projects.
APC has always focused its efforts on better serving the information and communication needs of CSOs, particularly in developing countries. In the early years, this work included facilitating informal skills exchange between members and bringing members together to share expertise and problem-solve. As APC has developed into a serious professional actor in the ICTs for development arena, members have becoming increasingly interested in more formal shared capacity building and service delivery. It was this interest amongst APC members – as well as a growing demand for ICT advice and expertise amongst international NGOs and donors – that lead APC to develop the Learning and Practitioners (L+P) Network.
2 The L+P initiative
In early 2001, APC members made a joint commitment to create the Learning and Practitioners (L+P) Network initiative. The purpose of this Network was to increase APC’s impact both within civil society and within a broader community of service providers. Members saw L+P as a way to:
Promote the strategic use of ICTs within civil society by identifying and filling key technology service provision gaps;
Respond to an increasing demand from partner organisations, INGOs and donors who need assistance to undertake small to medium sized ICT projects;
Create independent revenue streams that would make APC and its member organizations more sustainable.
L+P emerged from APC’s own experience as a peer network of largely Southern, development-oriented service providers. It offered an opportunity to improve the capacity of both civil society organizations and the community of service providers on which they rely for support.
3 Current status
In mid-2001, APC received support from the Open Society Institute for an initial feasibility, planning and piloting phase of the L+P initiative. This phase focused on the creation of mini-networks within three areas of existing expertise – web content management, online security and information work. The learning from these pilot networks helped to define the L+P services described in this business plan. APC also conducted market research in the INGO, donor and service provider communities to feed into L+P service strategy development.
With the completion of this business plan, APC is now ready to seek financing and begin implementation of the full L+P Network.
Market Definition
This section of the document describes the types of organizations and individuals that will use the L+P Network – international NGOs, donor agencies and ICT service providers.
In order to improve the ICT capacity of civil society, the L+P Network will work with two different constituencies – civil society organizations and the technology service providers who support them. Clearly, providing affordable, strategic ICT solutions directly to civil society organizations is a big part of the capacity picture. But working directly with these organizations will only have lasting impact and ripple effects if the capacity of local service providers is also increased. It is for this reason that L+P will work directly with civil society organizations and invest in the capacity of ICT service providers who work in the civil society arena.
1 Civil society
Civil society is a vast and diverse world. According to a study by the Ford Foundation, there are over 28,000 international NGO and a further 20,000 transnational NGO networks. These organizations represent only the tip of the civil society iceberg, with the number of local NGOs reaching into the many hundreds of thousands. As an example, Brazil alone has over 250,000 NGOs. These organizations range from well-funded social research institutes to tiny grassroots environmental groups that run completely on volunteer labour.
It would be both unrealistic and unnecessary for the L+P network to focus on this full spectrum of NGOs. Large, mainstream charities in the North such as hospital foundations and research institutes are well advanced in their use of ICTs and need little help from an initiative like L+P. Small, grassroots NGOs are certainly in need of ICT capacity, but will be better served by L+P’s local service provider members than by the overall Network. L+P’s civil society constituency falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is primarily made up of international NGOs and regional networks working on social and development issues. L+P’s constituency also includes donor agencies and public sector institutions that are interested in building the capacity of these organizations.
International NGOs
The L+P Network’s primary civil society constituency will be international NGOs (INGOs) working in development, social justice and the environment. As these organizations tend to work globally or regionally, the benefits of ICTs are clear and compelling. ICTs can link remote offices, provide a platform for campaigns, and support group learning and knowledge management. INGOs also tend to work in partnership with others. As a result, improving the ICT capacity of these international NGOs has the potential to create ripple effects through informal learning within partnership networks. Examples: Amnesty, CIAT, Greenpeace
NGO coalitions and networks
L+P will also provide services to NGO coalitions and networks. Like INGOs, these groups need to coordinate work globally or regionally. They also tend to have decentralized governance and management structures. With the right ICT skills and systems in place, these organizations can often create ‘virtual offices’ that allow them to work just as quickly and effectively as more centralized, place-based organizations. They can also set up systems that automate the flow of information and documents between members. Example: WomenAction, Friends of the Earth
Donors
Donors have a vested interest in developing stronger civil society organizations. Increased capacity in civil society means that grant investments are more likely to have a lasting impact. For this reason, donors often undertake projects aimed at improving the capacity of their grantees or at least creating enabling environments within which civil society can grow and act. Recently, many of these capacity building projects have started to focus on ICTs. The L+P Network will provide services that help donors design and deliver projects like these. It is important to note that L+P does not plan to address the internal ICT needs of donors. Work with donors will be limited to capacity building and enabling projects aimed at civil society. Examples: OSI, IDRC, UK DFID
–
L+P does not expect to meet all of the ICT needs of the organizations described above. Rather, L+P hopes to play the crucial role of supporting NGOs and donors as they take on complex and innovative projects. The Network will provide organizations with the skilled strategists, trainers and technicians that are needed to both design and deliver projects. In many cases, L+P will also provide mentoring services to ensure that clients have the capacity to manage similar projects well after L+P’s team has moved on.
2 Service providers
Since the mid 1990s, there has been a significant rise in the number of non-profit organizations and small businesses committed to delivering ICT services to civil society. Driven by both a social mission and a belief in the benefits of technology, there are anywhere between 500 and 1000 organizations like this around the world. Unfortunately, these numbers do not translate into an instant ICT capacity solution for civil society. In all but a few cases, these organizations are small and are located primarily in the North. They have only a few staff and service a fairly limited region. They also tend to lack marketing capacity, management skills and sufficient ability to take on complex regional and international projects. In the developing world, there are far fewer ICT service providers, and the ones that do exist do not necessarily have a specific CSO service orientation. One of L+P’s chief aims is to build the capacity of these organizations where they do exist and nurture new CSO-oriented service providers where they do not. Once the service quality and coverage of these organizations has been improved, they will be able to play a major role in meeting the ICT needs of local civil society organizations in all parts of the world.
APC members
APC’s existing members provide a foundation for the service provider side of L+P. This membership includes 30 organizations located in 27 countries, as of September 2002. These organizations have been pioneers in the promotion of ICTs within civil society, with some of them offering e-mail and conferencing to NGOs as early as 1985.
Despite these pioneering efforts, many APC members still struggle to respond to demand adequately while at the same time sustaining their organizations. They also have a hard time finding other service providers to cooperate with when there is overflow work or work that they don’t have the skills to take on. The L+P Network will help APC members address these issues. Examples: See for a complete list of APC members.
Independent service providers
L+P will also provide support and business opportunities for small and emerging service providers who are outside the existing APC membership. These organizations range from small or medium-sized companies serving a handful of local NGOs to not-for-profits whose mission is to provide technology services to civil society. Many of these organizations are already working with APC in areas such as gender evaluation and online security.
Small service providers like these tend to work in isolation and as a result, lack camaraderie and the opportunity to learn informally from peers. They also face many of the same challenges as APC members when it comes to managing their capacity to respond to demand and dealing with overflow work. L+P will provide these service providers with a peer network and place to turn for support. Examples: NinthBridge, Privaterra
Like-minded organizations
APC regularly comes into contact with other organizations that share its interest in improving the ICT capacity of civil society. These organizations often turn to APC to provide planning and service delivery support for ICT capacity building projects. L+P will enable APC to react to these requests more efficiently and effectively. It will also provide these like-minded organizations with a way to offer their own services to a broader civil society audience. Examples: OneWorld, IICD, IISD, AMARC
–
It should be noted that market needs are different from region to region. In particular, the advent of networks like the eRiders has meant that many North American non-profits have adequate access to many of the services that are described in this business plan. While there are small pockets of expertise emerging, such as the Polish e-riders network supported by OSI, there are still major gaps in almost every part of the world. As a result, L+P will focus its efforts on both civil society organizations and service providers outside of North America. Building on APC’s tradition, the Network will place a special emphasis on working on projects and with service providers located in the south.
Market Needs
This section describes the major ICT needs and gaps faced by civil society including improved strategic use of technology and better access to reliable service provision. It also outlines the need for learning networks and capacity building in the service provider community. L+P will focus its efforts on addressing these CSO and service provider needs.
The list of ICT needs and gaps within civil society is long and varied. Many organizations need help with strategic applications like online collaboration and campaigning. Others grapple with knowledge management and internal learning systems. Still others struggle to get basic access to
e-mail, especially in rural areas and certain parts of the south. Amidst this diversity, there is no magic bullet or single project that could possibly address all of the needs that exist.
Clearly, L+P cannot and should not address all of these needs. Some of these needs can be easily met by individual service providers while others will be addressed simply through the passage of time. However, there are a number of gaps that are best addressed through a network approach such as the one offered by L+P. According to APC’s research, these gaps are in areas such as:
Access to quality services;
Management of complex projects;
Training and capacity building; and the
Development of new tools and resources.
Each of these areas represents a major barrier to the strategic use of ICTs within civil society – and an opportunity for the L+P Network. It is in these areas that L+P will focus significant effort.
See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of APC’s market research findings.
1 Civil society ICT needs
Over the past three years, there have been a number of studies released on the state of ICT use in civil society. While few of these studies focus on developing countries, there are many commonalities between the ICT skills and services gaps faced by civil society organizations – both North and South. At the same time, there is general consensus that civil society organizations around the world must confront the following issues before ICTs are used widely and effectively:
Strategic use of ICTs: Most organizations do not think strategically about the use of ICTs. Instead of thinking about technology as an integral part of a campaign or program, they think of it as an ‘add on’ that only needs to be thought about by technicians. As noted in the report Rowing Upstream in Africa, it is difficult to be strategic amidst a context of insufficient planning and resources and poor technical support.
ICT planning and strategy: There is a lack of executive IT knowledge and poor IT planning within most civil society organizations. This leads to fairly ad hoc ICT strategies and often results in the same work having to be done two or three times.
Training and skills development: Staff and volunteers need to improve their ICT skills in areas ranging from basic e-mail to database development to “managing information overload”. These skills need to be in place for organizations to use ICTs strategically within the context of resource limitations and cost constraints.
Availability of appropriate tools: In most areas, appropriate ICT tools do not exist to support organizational and communications functions that are unique to civil society. Poor quality infrastructure and telephone lines also limit the range of tools that are used – the World Wide Web is simply not a suitable platform in these contexts. There is a need for better and contextually appropriate tools to manage volunteers, run campaigns and support decentralized governance structures.
Cost of access: The cost of hardware and Internet access still pose a major barrier to civil society organizations in many parts of the world, especially Africa. There is a need for more affordable ICT services and for better cost planning within organizations.
Reliable service provision: In many parts of the world, there are not enough service providers oriented to the ICT needs of civil society. In many developing countries, there are no service providers at all outside the major urban centres. Service provider quality and capacity are also problems, even in parts of the world where there are significant numbers of service providers.
It is not sufficient just to look at whether and how CSOs are using ICTs. We know there are general issues relating to the sustainability and management capacity of NGOs which impact on their capacity for effective ICTs planning and use. Neither the problems nor the solutions relate simply to ICTs. A broad and holistic approach will be necessary before the full strategic potential of ICTs can be sustainably realized within civil society.
2 INGO needs
The needs of the international NGOs and coalitions that will be served by L+P are often different from those of smaller, grassroots organizations. Most INGOs are already online and have made attempts at using the Internet for more than just e-mail. Many have their own in house staff dedicated to information technology and web site management. However, these organizations have significant ICT needs that they are unable to meet. According to APC’s survey of 19 major INGOs and nine donors, these needs include:
Strategic use of technology: INGOs (59%) and donors (89%) believe that the ‘strategic use of ICTs’ is the biggest ICT issue currently facing civil society. When asked about their current ICT capacity, INGOs consistently rated themselves poorly in strategic areas such as information management, online campaigning and online meetings.
Access to skills and services: Strategic use of technology cannot happen until both INGOs and their local partners have adequate access to ICT skills and services (INGOs - 47% / donors - 56%). Both INGOs and donors pointed to major gaps in the supply of almost all kinds of ICT services except basic connectivity and e-mail. In many locations there is little or no choice in service providers – which means CSOs have no options and no negotiating leverage.
Management and planning: ‘Managing and keeping up with ICTs’ was also identified as a major issue (INGOs - 37% / donors - 56%). In interviews, many INGOs mentioned a ‘disconnect’ or time lag between overall organizational strategic planning and the development of technology plans.
Service provider ‘trust gap’: APC’s research uncovered a fairly significant ‘trust gap’ between INGOs and the people they turn to for ICT services. One INGO said: “It is difficult to work with providers. ... We need a one-stop-shop we can trust.” This points to two factors – the complexity of managing ICT projects and an inability on the part of many service providers to meet the demands placed on them by their civil society clients.
All of these issues highlight the need for broad, holistic, structural solutions. Building the capacity of a CSO will not happen by training one or two staff in how to use e-mail. It requires work that not only includes technology but also management, internal communications, finance and organizational strategy. It also requires investments that will improve the quality and reliability of offerings from ICT service providers who support civil society organizations.
3 Service provider needs
The service providers who will join L+P are deeply committed to helping civil society organizations solve their ICT problems. But in order to effectively serve CSOs, these providers need to increase their skills base, develop better support systems and ensure that their organizations are sustainable. Through both a member survey and extensive interviews with independent providers, APC has concluded that service providers are looking for:
Peer networking opportunities: Access to peers is the biggest gap within the service provider community. This access offers both informal learning opportunities and the opportunity to find other like-minded providers who can help with the delivery of projects. APC members rated face-to-face peer networking workshops as well as online peer networking as the most valuable forms of professional development.
Business and project opportunities: Working on projects offers an opportunity to learn and enhance skills. It also represents revenue that will help ensure the stability and sustainability of a service provider. APC’s research showed that almost all service providers would like help finding project work. For some areas of expertise, APC member interest in L+P service delivery was over 90%.
Training and professional development – APC members almost universally indicated a need for training that will improve their ability to reach out to NGOs and deliver ICT services. However, opinions about the content and method of training were far from unanimous. Some want training in management skills like marketing and finance while others are seeking to improve specific technical skills. This reflects the diversity of capacity and focus that currently exists in the service provider community.
Nurturing local entrepreneurship -- In the developing world, there is a significant absence of locally driven ICT industry. The L+P Network can go a long way towards nurturing local entrepreneurship that will feed the development of products and services that respond directly to local market needs.
These findings point to the need for a flexible, informal, demand driven approach to professional development of service providers. Learning should be focused around networks and real projects that are supported by facilitators and documentation specialists who ensure that ideas and resources are shared. Formal professional development efforts should make up a smaller portion of L+P’s activities. This focus on informal learning will allow the skill base of service providers to improve organically as L+P expands its network and takes on more projects.
4 Market opportunities
Moving forward with L+P will require a clear understanding of the biggest ‘opportunities’. These are not traditional market opportunities based solely around sales and revenue, but rather circumstances where there is an opportunity to simultaneously pursue the L+P’s social mission, build on APC’s strengths, and generate revenue for the network. APC’s research points to a number of opportunities that meet these criteria including:
Lead the way in strategic uses. With almost everyone APC talked to, strategic use was the first issue mentioned in discussions of ICT and civil society. Building on APC’s leadership in this area, there is a real opportunity for L+P to become the foremost promoter and practitioner of strategic ICT use within civil society. This opportunity includes not only work on strategic projects, but also the development and sharing of innovative new strategic ICT methodologies.
Build a CSO / service provider bridge. There is clearly a gap between civil society organizations and service providers. This is partly a communications gap – the two sides simply need to know more about each other. But the gap is also related to trust and reliability. Many civil society organizations don’t believe that small service providers have the capacity to meet their needs. By both promoting and building skills in the service provider community, L+P has the potential to become an essential bridge across the CSO / service provider gap.
Promote cooperative service delivery. Building on APC’s past experience, L+P has the opportunity to use cooperative service delivery to pull together a wide diversity of service providers dedicated to filling the civil society ICT capacity gap. Cooperative service delivery has the potential to create more flexible, responsive and affordable ICT solutions for civil society ICT problems. It can also help to build the knowledge, capacity and financial sustainability of service providers.
Work with donors to address ICT capacity gaps. There is a clear opportunity to work with donors and development agencies to address the ICT capacity issues faced by civil society. APC’s surveys show that donors are keenly aware of the gaps that exist and are interested in broad capacity building solutions. Also, donors regularly approach APC with new ideas for global and regional ICT projects. L+P could serve as a major focal point and service pool for these capacity building efforts, especially outside North America.
These opportunities provide a focus for L+P’s activities and services. They serve as a touchstone for service design and ongoing strategic planning, ensuring that L+P always strikes a balance between its social mission and the need to generate revenue to support the network. This balance is key to L+P’s ability to improve the capacity of both civil society organizations and the local ICT service providers who support them.
Service Vision
This section describes the overall L+P service delivery model as well as each of the service components that will be offered through the Network. It also includes information about the benefits that L+P services will provide to civil society and service providers.
Addressing the ICT gaps and seizing the opportunities outlined above requires a unique service delivery model. On the one hand, this model must be focused on building a movement of service providers driven by a social mission – a group of people committed to working and learning together to empower civil society using ICT. On the other hand, this model must work as a practical business that delivers high quality ICT projects for INGOs and generates enough revenue to keep the Network alive. In an effort to strike this balance, L+P will employ a ‘service ecosystem’ model where each activity supports both the social mission and the sustainability of the overall network (the ‘double bottom line’).
1 The L+P service ecosystem
L+P’s unique ecosystem model will at once address ICT gaps in civil society, build service provider capacity and generate revenue to support the network. This system includes a series of individual service components designed to meet specific constituent needs – peer learning networks for service providers, strategy and planning for INGOs, ICT tools and resources for civil society as a whole. These components are connected together in an ecosystem model that creates synergies and promotes connection between all aspects of L+P’s work. The following diagram illustrates this model:
[pic]
As this diagram illustrates, the L+P Network will not be a collection of isolated, mechanistic services. The peer learning networks will increase service provider capacity and create a pool of providers who can offer high quality services to NGOs. Services provided to NGOs will both solve the problems of individual organizations and lead to the development of new, sharable tools and resources. New L+P tools and resources will provide the foundations for future learning and service delivery projects. Incorporating a mix of free and fee for service offerings, this model will provide L+P with the tools it needs to efficiently pursue its social mission and generate revenue.
2 Service components
Where the service ecosystem provides an overall framework for the L+P learning community, the individual service components offer practical, understandable value to people and organizations that turn to L+P for help. A service provider wanting to upgrade their skills or expand their service offerings will turn to the ‘peer learning networks’. An INGO planning a new campaign will turn to the ‘strategy and planning’ service. A donor looking to improve the security capacity of its partner human rights organizations will turn to the ‘learning and training’ service for security workshops and audits. While many projects will blend aspects of multiple services, it is these individual components that will make up L+P’s tangible ‘offerings’. The following sections provide an overview of each of L+P’s five offerings – peer networks, project management, strategy, training and tools.
Peer learning networks
Service provider peer learning networks will form the foundation of L+P. Clustered around a series of ICT communities of practice, these networks provide learning and networking opportunities to service providers who join the L+P Network. They will also provide a pool of service providers that L+P can draw on to deliver the other services described below. Specific components and benefits of these peer learning networks include:
Communities of practice organized around each of L+P’s areas of expertise – content management; security; evaluation; info work; and collaboration;
Face-to-face professional development and networking events for each community of practice. This will include a mix of regional and global events;
Mailing lists and other online learning resources that connect service providers working in similar areas;
Online service provider directory that will make it easier for INGOs and service providers to find people with the expertise they need;
Service delivery teams where selected members of each peer network will form a ‘skills pool’ that can be drawn on for L+P technology and training delivery projects.
Each peer learning network will have a part time facilitator dedicated to keeping communication going and making connections between participants. Most networks will include both an online community component and a face-to-face component. APC’s experience shows that this mix of online and face-to-face interaction is essential for successful peer networking.
Peer networks have already been convened for APC’s core areas of expertise – content management, security, gender evaluation and info work. Members include a combination of APC members, organizations and individuals that participate in APC projects and other service delivery organizations that share APC’s values. These networks have membership criteria and fee structures that are distinct from APC’s overall membership structure. It is anticipated that these networks will continue to grow once L+P is fully launched.
It should be emphasized that peer learning is at the core of L+P’s work. It is a part of the Network’s social mission and provides an essential foundation for service delivery to INGOs. Given this, the bulk of peer learning services – memberships, face-to-face workshops, facilitated mailing lists – will be subsidized by income from other aspects of the network and from grants. While this is a costly component of L+P that will require up front donor support, it will ultimately build the long-term capacity of the ICT services sector. It represents a strategic investment that pays back over time.
Note: L+P members will only be invited to join service delivery teams once they have proven their skills and capacity through participation in other peer networking activities.
Project management
L+P will include a project management service that pulls together teams and manages implementation for complex ICT projects. Projects managed through this service will range from workshops created through L+P’s learning and training service to content management system implementation by members of an L+P peer network. Organizations using this L+P service component will receive:
Skilled project managers who understand CSOs and know how to ask the right questions;
Project teams that include skilled strategists, trainers and technicians with proven experience providing ICT services to civil society organizations;
Service provider referrals and help locating trustworthy ICT service providers for projects that do not need the level of coordination and reach provided by a full L+P project team.
This service will be delivered using a mix of internal L+P staff and externally contracted project managers. L+P will employ one full time Project Manager to handle small projects (less than $10K) and projects that tie into the core mandate of the network (workshops and documentation that could be recycled). Individuals or organisations from L+P’s service delivery teams will be used to manage other projects. The service delivery teams will also act as a source of trusted technical and training providers who will be invited to participate in projects managed through this service.
Strategy and planning
L+P will provide strategy and planning consulting that will help INGOs and NGO networks define and articulate their technology goals. This will both ensure that technology approaches match with the overall goals of an organization and provide organizations with the language they need to explain their requirements to service providers. Organizations using this service will receive:
Needs Assessment Consultation that helps define the ICT needs and problems that an organization is trying to address;
Project Design that outlines goals, components, costs and technical approach for an individual ICT project;
Web Site or Training Requirements that outline detailed direction to service providers who will be working with an organization;
Knowledgeable, unbiased advice about technologies and prices presented by ICT service providers.
Up to half a day of informal strategy and project definition will be provided for free as a part of the L+P sales and outreach process. The L+P Network Manager will handle this stage of consultation. Anything beyond half a day will be treated as a full-fledged strategy and planning consulting contract. Depending on size, these contracts will be handled by the in-house L+P Project Manager or by an individual or organization drawn from the service provider pool.
Learning and training
The L+P Learning and Training service will offer learning opportunities to both civil society and service providers. These learning opportunities will range from information sharing events to large-scale formal training sessions for hundreds of people. Examples of services offered include:
Formal workshops that are led by experienced trainers and have been customized to meet the needs of a particular set of civil society organizations;
Online, self-study materials that provide civil society organizations with low-cost, just-in-time learning;
Professional development workshops that provide useful, marketable ICT skills to service providers;
Peer learning mailing lists and online learning events that facilitate question asking and information sharing amongst service providers.
L+P members drawn from the service delivery teams will deliver formal workshops and seminars. The maintenance of ongoing, low-resource activities such as online self-study courses and peer learning mailing lists will be managed by L+P Network staff. With the exception of key service provider capacity building sessions, workshops will generally be offered on a fee-for-service contract basis. Workshop contracts for INGOs and donors will always break even or generate a surplus.
Tools and resources
The L+P Network will regularly produce ICT tools and resources that can be shared with both service providers and civil society organizations. These tools and resources are part of L+P’s commitment to improving ICT capacity within civil society. They also feed into and support other service components – L+P strategy, training and service delivery will all draw on the tools and resources created through the network. Tools and resources created through L+P will fall into four categories:
Plain language training materials that explain how to use helpful technology tools in a manner that reflects the culture and values of civil society;
Clear, step-by-step methodology that explains how to implement a particular technology or strategic approach;
Simple, flexible curriculum that can be used to deliver ICT training workshops;
Open source software tools adapted to meet the needs of civil society.
In most cases, L+P tools and resources will be created as spin-off outputs from another project. For example, a training workshop contract could result in the creation of sharable curriculum. Or, an extranet implementation project could lead to the development of a useful new open source tool. These tools will be reviewed by L+P and then posted for free on so that they can be accessed broadly within civil society. Where possible, these materials will be translated into multiple languages.
In addition to the creation of free, sharable resources, L+P will also offer its services as a fee-for-service contract developer of training resources and online tools. This will include research, curriculum, technical documentation and other tools sought by an INGO or a donor. These contract research and writing projects will be done on a straight fee for service basis. However, clients using this service will be strongly encouraged to make their materials available for free online if they could be of general value to civil society organizations.
3 Areas of expertise
While L+P will be capable of addressing the full gamut of ICT needs, it will place an emphasis on areas where there is both a clear demand from civil society and a strong pool of expertise within its service provider networks. Current areas of expertise within the network include:
Content management: Customization and support of web content management systems. Includes APC’s open source ActionApps platform – a collection of tools that make it easier for NGOs to manage web sites;
Online collaboration: Design and facilitation of international online meetings and other forms of online collaboration;
Security: Audits and training that help civil society organizations protect their data and communicate more securely;
Information work: Professional development in the area of creating, managing and writing for online content projects including portals and web journalism initiatives;
Gender evaluation: Gender evaluation and consulting for ICT projects.
These existing areas of expertise will help to define the work that happens across all aspects of L+P. Peer learning networks, project management and strategy contracts, documentation and resources, and training workshops will all be created around these five areas.
One of the strengths of the L+P ecosystem is its ability to adapt. L+P’s areas of expertise will evolve along with the needs of civil society, while the overall L+P service component framework will endure. The experience of APC’s members as early connectivity providers shows the value of this approach. While many members dropped their connectivity services when they were no longer needed, they were able to use their experience as a starting point for offering more strategic Internet services. Building on this experience, the L+P framework has been designed to promote flexibility and responsiveness to the changing ICT needs of civil society organizations.
4 Benefits for civil society
The L+P Network will help civil society organizations improve their overall ICT capacity. It will also offer a number of more specific benefits:
Reduced risk as a result of sound project planning and management;
Access to trusted service providers who have strong technical skills, have experience serving civil society and can work at the local level;
Better integration of ICTs into overall organizational activities as a result of improved capacity to articulate needs and describe services that are needed;
Fewer headaches for organizational managers and others normally charged with juggling the details of complex ICT projects;
Lower overall project costs resulting from diligent costing and service provider selection;
Increased donor confidence built on the knowledge that proven ICT planning and management methods are being used;
Better training materials and workshops as more and more ICT training manuals are written specifically for a civil society audience.
Over time, civil society organizations will also develop increased independence and self-reliance in the use of ICTs.
5 Benefits for service providers
The L+P Network will provide its service provider members with both learning and business opportunities. Specific benefits include:
Access to new revenue streams as L+P members join service delivery teams that deliver projects for civil society organizations;
Improved ability to respond to CSO needs as project experience, peer networks and formal professional development opportunities lead to increased skill levels;
More appropriate methodologies and processes available to help service providers plan, implement and evaluate ICT projects;
Access to other providers who are willing to share knowledge and work together on projects that require additional skills or labour;
Better retention of knowledge as documents and discussions are shared amongst L+P members.
L+P’s peer learning networks will also feed into broad, structural improvements across the ICT service provider community, especially in developing countries.
6 Value of the L+P approach
The L+P model is designed to be flexible, responsive and sustainable. The values and benefits of this approach include:
Demand driven: By focusing on enduring needs such as project management, strategy and learning, L+P is able to take a demand driven approach to filling specific ICT gaps within civil society;
Focused on real needs and gaps: L+P’s service components speak directly to the major ICT gaps in civil society – strategy, management support and quality service provision;
Provides leverage for local providers: The tools and learning opportunities offered through L+P give local providers the leverage they need to quickly improve their services to CSOs;
Built on core competencies: APC has a strong track record managing international ICT projects and providing capacity building to CSOs. The L+P Network builds on this and extends it;
Turns competition into coopetition: By focusing on the connections between civil society and service providers, L+P turns competition between members into joint service delivery opportunities.
This approach will contribute to long-term strengthening of both the ICTs service sector and civil society organizations themselves.
Marketing and Sales
This section outlines the approach that L+P will take in marketing to its three main audiences – civil society organizations, donors and service providers.
1 Speaking to civil society
It is important for L+P to clearly communicate both its value and its offerings to potential civil society clients. The following key messages will form the foundation of L+P’s marketing efforts with civil society organizations:
Primary message:
L+P provides simple, affordable, high quality tools and services
designed to meet the ICT needs of civil society organizations.
Secondary messages:
L+P’s service providers span the full gamut of ICT services --
strategy, training, research and technical implementation.
L+P is at once local and global. Our one-stop network can do everything from supporting
your head office to offering on the ground training in countries around the world.
2 Speaking to donors
The message to donors will be equally important but slightly different. L+P will need to convince donors that it will produce broad and lasting ICT capacity for civil society. It will also need to highlight the benefits of a cooperative, southern-based approach to service delivery. Key messages for donors will include:
Primary message:
L+P represents a holistic, sustainable approach
to addressing the ICT gaps faced by civil society.
Secondary messages:
L+P’s network of service providers is based primarily in the South.
Your grantees gain access to both global and local expertise when they turn to L+P.
L+P is an enterprising non-profit. It reduces dependence on donors
through a careful balancing of social mission and business goals.
Encouraging your grantees to use L+P provides a ripple effect
-- your investments help build southern service provider capacity.
3 Speaking to service providers
L+P will also need to describe itself clearly to potential service provider members. Key messages to service providers include:
Primary message:
L+P is a network of organizations and individuals
who share both your values and your interest in technology.
Secondary messages:
L+P will provide you with learning opportunities that
increase your ability to serve civil society organizations.
L+P provides a pathway to new and exciting projects to work on.
These projects can generate income to help sustain your organization.
4 Sales and marketing strategies
While effective marketing will be an essential component of success, L+P will not have a large marketing budget. The Network will need to use small-scale campaigns and piggy-back marketing to create significant impact at a low cost. Specific strategies include:
L+P web sites: The work of L+P will be profiled on a number of different web sites including and . These sites attract visitors by offering free training resources and news about ICTs and civil society. L+P should incorporate its marketing messages into these free resources wherever possible. For example, documents posted to ItrainOnline should include strong L+P branding and links to a site that describes L+P’s service offerings.
NGO conferences: Representatives of L+P should speak at NGO conferences whenever possible. APC will prepare a standard L+P presentation template and materials. Conference presentation topics should provide general educational value while at the same time profiling the value of L+P to civil society organizations. Likely topics include strategic use of ICTs, filling civil society ICT gaps and the L+P ecosystem model.
Announcements and fact sheets: L+P should release at least one announcement or fact sheet each month. These are one-page documents that profile a new resource developed by L+P or provide an overview of a technology issue faced by civil society. These documents build L+P’s brand and profile as a leader in the area of strategic ICT use in civil society. Announcement distribution should take place through a dedicated L+P e-mail list and via existing e-mail lists that have high levels of civil society readership.
On the sales side, APC already receives a significant number of service inquiries from donors and INGOs. The first three years of sales work can most likely be handled simply by systematizing the response to these enquiries and improving responsiveness. All organizations inquiring about services will be offered a short consultation at no cost. This consultation will allow L+P to determine whether to suggest a referral or propose a full scale L+P project.
Management and Organization
This section outlines the organizational structure and management systems that will be used by the L+P Network. These systems will strike a careful balance between strong, central leadership and cooperative, distributed service delivery.
Running an international peer learning community and cooperative service delivery network is not a simple task. Based on interviews with a number of similarly structured organisations working in other fields, one thing is clear – successful cooperative service delivery requires both strong leadership from a core team and the flexibility to accommodate new participants and respond to new needs (see Appendix B for cooperative business model case studies). It also requires clear systems and significant levels of trust amongst all participants. The management and organizational structure of the L+P Network has been designed to balance all of these crucial needs and values.
1 Organizational chart
The L+P Network will be composed of a few core staff who draw on the skills and efforts of a broader service provider pool. These staff will provide both leadership and continuity for the network. They will also undertake sales work and deliver small-scale projects. The following chart provides an overview of this organizational structure:
[pic]
An additional project manager will likely be added in year three (see budget). Other staff positions may be added if warranted by demand. However, the number of core staff will always be kept to a minimum in order to ensure that the Network does not begin to compete with its members.
It should be noted that this organizational chart operates within the overall context of APC – the L+P network will be the core activity of APC’s Strategic Uses and Capacity Building Programme The Network Manager reports to APC’s Executive Director.
2 Staff and contractor roles
The following is a breakdown of the major staff and contractor roles required by the L+P Network:
Network Manager: The Network Manager provides overall leadership, strategic planning and a public face for L+P. She or he is the primary point of contact for new clients and is responsible for the sales and marketing aspects of the project. The Network Manager also oversees the work of other L+P staff and contractors. (1.0 FTE)
Projects Manager: The Projects Manager develops project management systems and manages the flow of projects within the Network. She or he is responsible for building individual project teams and will act as project manager on small contracts or contracts that tie into the core mission of L+P. (1.0 FTE)
Community Learning Specialist: The Community Learning Specialist turns learning from L+P projects into sharable tools and resources. This includes evaluation, documenting ‘learnings’, promoting new materials and making connections between learning events and materials. She or he is responsible both for writing up documentation that can be shared online and for monitoring projects to ensure that learning is being tracked. She or he is also responsible for managing the Peer Network Facilitators and their workspaces. (1.0 FTE)
Peer Learning Network Facilitators: Each Service Provider Network will have a part time facilitator dedicated to the task of animating member participation and organizing professional development events, both online and face-to-face. (5 x 0.2 FTE).
Service Provider Teams: As outlined above in the Service Vision section, Service Provider Teams will be created from the broader L+P membership. These teams will provide a pool of skilled and reliable project managers, trainers and technicians who are interested in participating on L+P project teams. L+P members will only be invited to join service delivery teams once they have proven their skills and capacity through participation in other peer networking activities.
3 Project management model
For the L+P Network to succeed, it will need to consistently provide top quality project management. This means having a skilled manager who is able to balance leadership with facilitation, has experience running projects, with clear communication and strong documentation skills and habits. It also means having the skills to navigate around problems and conflicts when they occur.
Providing this kind of project management in a consistent manner will require a formal Project Management Methodology that is understood and adhered to by all L+P staff and contractors. The methodology used by L+P should include the following general elements:
[pic]
This general model will be formalized and expanded by the Staff Project Manager immediately after she or he is hired. The final APC Project Management Methodology will combine experience from past projects with proven methods such as those outlined in the PMI’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK).
It will also be important for the L+P Network to employ experienced project management staff and consultants on all projects. Examples of past project documentation should be reviewed before taking on a new project manager.
4 Anticipated challenges and solutions
The L+P network is starting out with many strengths – APC’s history of cooperative service delivery, a strong pool of service providers to draw on in the early phases of implementation and clear opportunities in the marketplace. But this does not mean that L+P is without weaknesses. The following is a list of organizational challenges that will have to be overcome during L+P start up:
|Weakness |Response |
|APC does not have a ‘sales culture’. It has traditionally |L+P will need to hire a Network Manager who is at once sensitive to|
|focused on grants and on commissioned project work. |the needs of the civil society sector and comfortable with sales |
| |and contract negotiation. L+P will also need to clearly communicate|
| |that it is a service delivery organization that charges for its |
| |work. |
|Despite experience, APC does not yet have a standardised |Formalise a standard APC project management methodology to enable |
|project management method, nor ‘standing’ capacity to |quick and satisfactory service delivery. Ensure that this method is|
|manage a flow of projects. |comprehensive, simple and easy to understand. |
|The information and communication infrastructure for |A customized intranet system will need to be set up to support L+P.|
|collaboration within APC needs to be developed to serve |This system should be database driven, allow for easy creation of |
|L&P. |new projects and include the ability to participate at least |
| |partially by e-mail (i.e., not web only). |
Sustainability Strategy
This section outlines L+P’s business principles and provides service volume and revenue scenarios for each service component provided by the Network. This information should be taken as a framework for the business side of L+P and not as final sales and revenue targets.
Improving the ICT capacity of civil society is not just a matter of offering the right services and hiring the right staff. In order to fulfill its mission, L+P will need to have a sound business strategy that will generate the revenue needed to sustain the Network and its participants. L+P’s business strategy focuses on two primary streams of revenue:
ICT projects for civil society: As outlined above, L+P will deliver strategic ICT training and services projects aimed at improving the capacity of civil society. These projects will generate the bulk of L+P’s revenue and will eventually produce a surplus that can be used to cross-subsidize other L+P activities.
Serving service providers: As a part of its core mission, L+P will also provide support and professional development opportunities to its service provider members. This ongoing learning work will eventually build a strong, global community of civil society service providers. The services offered to these providers will generate some revenue of their own, but will rely on grants and cross subsidies from other L+P services to break even.
During its first two years of operations, L+P will also seek out donor contributions to cover start up costs and to help build the foundations for the Network. L+P will come close to being self-sustaining by year three, with surpluses from INGO and donor service delivery subsidizing the intentional shortfall in service provider peer learning networks. Only the cost of the community learning specialist will require ongoing grant subsidy beyond year three.
1 Business principles
One of the biggest challenges in providing ICT services to civil society is striking a balance between affordability and quality. Both donors and INGOs see cost as a major barrier to the effective use of ICTs. They’d like to see more affordable services. At the same time, quality and reliability are essential. Unreliable services are little better than having no ICT services at all. There is also an expectation that certain kinds of services will be free. Documentation, general advice, new strategies and methods – these are ‘public goods’ which are at once essential to improving the ICT capacity of civil society and impossible to charge for at the level of individual user or organization.
The aim of L+P’s business strategy is both to strike this cost / quality balance and to balance the demand for free public goods with the need for service provider revenue opportunities. This strategy is built on five principles:
Open source economics: There are an increasing number of businesses world wide that advocate – and make money from – open source business models. These businesses are founded on two premises – a) collaboration created by freely sharing software and ideas creates better, more robust products; and b) charging for services and support rather than software licenses can mean lower costs for customers and significant income for service providers. Much of the business strategy behind L+P is based on these assumptions.
Customization rather than commodity: L+P services will be customized to the needs of individual organizations and constituencies. This means that clients will always receive an affordable solution that is tailored exactly to the ICT problem at hand. It also means that service providers can turn their experience with free software and methodologies into revenue generating projects. While L+P will use the same approach over and over to create more affordable services, projects pricing will be based on the effort required and not on arbitrary software licensing or product prices.
Sharing makes business sense: L+P will use a distributed, cooperative service delivery approach that draws project teams from a pool of trusted service providers. For clients, this means access to the best expertise and access to people who are already working on the ground in all regions of the world. For service providers, it means that L+P generates new business that will help them to sustain and improve the quality of services offered by their organizations.
If it’s been paid for, make it free: Donor and INGO contracts will often involve the creation of new curriculum or an innovative methodology. Wherever possible, L+P will turn these project outputs into free, shareable documentation. This will require additional L+P staff as well as a commitment to sharing by the clients and service providers. However, this approach is both cheaper and more responsive than the traditional commissioned documentation projects.
Surplus supports social mission: Surplus revenues generated through service delivery and project management will be reinvested directly back into the broader social mission work of L+P. In practicality, this means the surplus revenue will be used to subsidize no cost documentation and online support for civil society organizations and low cost capacity building workshops for service providers.
These business principles tie directly into the L+P ecosystem model: ICT project contracts feed service provider capacity that in turn creates broader knowledge and capacity that can be drawn on for the next project. This cycle allows for continuous improvement of capacity within L+P and its network of service providers. The costs associated with this improvement are fairly low as learning happens naturally through project delivery. The L+P business cycle also provides for low-cost, ongoing market research. Both paid projects and usage patterns related to free, sharable resources provide information about the ICT needs facing civil society at any given time.
2 ICT projects for civil society
ICT projects delivered to civil society organizations will generate the bulk of revenue for the L+P network. Projects will run the full gamut of L+P services from strategy to training to the implementation of actual technical systems. In addition, L+P will take on some contracts that involve only project management and do not include any direct responsibility for service implementation. As outlined above, the majority of projects will use a cooperative service delivery model.
Service volume estimates
It is important to remember that APC already delivers projects within most of the L+P service areas. These existing projects provide a good baseline for estimating future service volume. The following table provides a three-year service volume estimate based on current activity:
|Service Volume |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|Project management |1 |2 |2 |All L+P contracts will include a project |
| | | | |management component. However, this row |
| | | | |lists ‘project management only’ contracts|
| | | | |exclusively. |
|Strategy and planning |4 |12 |24 |APC currently does a significant amount |
| | | | |of free strategy work. The aim is to |
| | | | |convert this to paying work. |
|Learning and training |3 |6 |12 |This does not include workshops that APC |
| | | | |provides to service providers. |
|Tools and resources |8 |15 |20 |While many tools and resources will |
| | | | |emerge as free offshoots from other |
| | | | |projects, L+P will also undertake a |
| | | | |significant number of commissioned |
| | | | |documentation and article writing |
| | | | |contracts. |
|Other service delivery |1 |4 |8 |These are service delivery projects that |
| | | | |do not fall under the training, resources|
| | | | |or strategy lines. They are essentially |
| | | | |technical in nature (e.g., ActionApps |
| | | | |implementation) |
Current service volume levels have been achieved with very little in the way of sales or marketing. Donors and INGOs simply come to APC because it is known as a leader in the area of civil society ICT solutions. It is likely that this ‘word of mouth’ approach will produce some degree of growth as the L+P Network begins to gather steam. However, low key sales and marketing campaigns will be required to grow project sales to the levels shown above. A sales and marketing strategy is outlined in Section 7 of this document.
Service pricing
As stated above, projects will be priced based on the amount of effort required and not based on arbitrary software license or product costs. Projects will normally be priced based on an estimate of the number of days required plus project management fees and a fixed overhead rate for contributions by L+P. The following table outlines standard breakdown between cost elements:
|Price Structure |% of overall|What these categories include: |
| |pricing | |
|Service delivery |60% |This is the actual cost of service delivery including |
| | |trainers, writers, programmers, travel and logistics. |
| | |Human resource costs are based on an average per diem of |
| | |$400. |
|Project management |25% |This represents the real cost of managing international |
| | |ICT projects including staffing, methodology, planning, |
| | |documentation and technical infrastructure. It pays for |
| | |the workings of the L&P service ecosystem to make the |
| | |project happen. This is not an overhead fee. |
|L+P service fee |15% |This fee contributes to the overall cost of running the |
| | |L+P Network including training and capacity building for |
| | |service providers who will deliver L+P services. |
Human resource costs will be calculated at an average rate of $400/day. APC’s ‘going rate’ will be $500/day, but we know this will need to be discounted regularly, so we have set the average at $400/day. This rate is based on a review of typical consulting fees charged by APC members (see member survey in Appendix A) and studies of commercial ICT service pricing (see: for an example). The proposed average rate is slightly above rates charged by most APC members but well below the median rates charged by commercial providers. These prices have been designed to be affordable to the INGOs and donors who will be the primary clients of the L+P network.
Of course, some INGOs will not even be able to afford these rates. In these cases, L+P will either negotiate a discounted rate, help organizations find grant funding or provide a referral to a local service provider. As shown in APC’s member survey, local services are sometimes available at prices significantly lower than those offered by L+P. L+P will also endeavor to construct project teams that will work in the local currencies used by civil society organizations. This will address the hard currency issued faced by many CSOs in the south.
Overall project costs
The overall cost of a project delivered through L+P will be calculated based on service delivery costs plus project management and overhead costs. The following table shows a sample budget:
|Sample Project Budget | |
|Service delivery (60%) |$6,000 |
|- Research |$1,500 |
|- Writing |$4,500 |
|Project management (25%) |$2,500 |
|L+P service fee (15%) |$1,500 |
|Total cost |$10,000 |
The value of projects delivered through L+P will vary quite dramatically – from $5,000 to $200,000. The following table provides a historical overview of project value based on the past year of APC operations.
|Project Price Ranges |Low |High |Average |Notes |
|Project management |na |$22,000 |$10,000 |Only one historical project to base this |
| | | | |on. Average is educated guess. |
|Strategy and planning |$2,500 |$15,000 |$5,800 |Based on a review of 4 projects. |
|Learning and training |$12,000 |$25,000 |$16,000 |Based on a review of 3 projects. |
|Documentation writing |$4,000 |$65,000 |$21,500 |Based on a review of 8 projects. |
|Other service delivery (tech) |$5,000 |$50,000 |$25,000 |Educated guess. |
As L+P gathers steam and builds a strong reputation, it is likely that it will be able to secure more large scale projects. The result will be a gradual increase in the average project value over time.
3 Serving service providers
As a part of its commitment to creating peer learning networks, L+P will offer memberships, workshops, referrals and other types of support to ICT service providers. These services are designed to promote learning and participation in the network. They will also help L+P create teams of service providers who can be called on for projects. Specific services and supports include:
L+P Membership: L+P membership includes access to peer networks, invitations to professional development workshops and a listing in the L+P directory. This membership is open to anyone who meets the basic membership criteria. Some members will be asked to join service delivery teams.
Professional Development Workshops: These workshops will provide an opportunity for face-to-face learning and networking amongst L+P members. Members will be charged a nominal fee for participation in workshops;
Provider-to-Provider Projects: There will be cases where an L+P member does not have the full suite of skills in-house or sufficient time to take on a local project. In these cases, the provider may ask L+P to create and manage a service delivery team on their behalf. APC will charge a project management fee for this service;
Referrals: A referral fee will be charged when a referral to an L+P member from an L+P Network staff leads directly to a project contract for that member. Both provider-to-NGO and provider-to-provider (P2P) referrals are subject to the referral fees. Only the first project undertaken through a referral will be subject to the referral fee.
Given the importance of these services in creating service delivery teams and other ripple effects in civil society, access and participation in peer learning networks will be prioritized over revenue. Nominal membership and workshop fees will be charged, with a sliding scale between South and North. However, these fees will not normally cover the full cost of delivering services. Cross subsidies from other aspects of L+P and external grants will be required to ensure that all costs are fully covered.
Service volume
APC’s ability to estimate service volume varies across each of the service provider revenue streams. Existing relationships with service providers and past experience with service provider workshops provide a good foundation for solid estimates in the first two categories. In contrast, there is little historical information on which to base estimates for P2P Projects and Referrals. The following table outlines current service volume estimates:
|Service Volume |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|L+P members |60 |120 |180 |APC members (base=25), |
| | | | |like minded orgs |
| | | | |(base=10) and service |
| | | | |providers (base=25). |
|Number of workshops |5 |6 |6 |Based on number of |
| | | | |workshops provided last |
| | | | |year |
|Provider-to-provider projects |1 |4 |8 |Educated guess |
|Contract referrals |10 |20 |30 |Educated guess |
Growth in areas related directly to service provision will be relatively slow, with the number of service team members and P2P projects remaining fairly low for the foreseeable future. In contrast, low-cost / high-benefit activities such as general L+P membership and contract referrals will grow quite rapidly once they are established.
Service pricing
There are two types of service provider fees – general fees for membership and workshops and percentage fees related to specific projects. They break down as follows:
|Price Structure |North |South |Notes |
|L+P membership |$100 |$25 |A nominal membership fee will be charged. The fee for|
| | | |providers from the south will be lower than the fee |
| | | |for providers in the north. |
|Professional development |$250 |$50 |L+P members will be charged a nominal fee for |
|workshops | | |participation in professional development workshops. |
| | | |However, we do not expect that these fees will |
| | | |actually cover the costs of workshop delivery. |
|Provider-to-provider projects |25% of |25% of |These are projects where a service provider asks L+P |
| |project value |project value |to create and manage a service delivery team on their|
| | | |behalf. |
|Contract referrals |5% of |5% of |A referral fee will be charged when a referral from |
| |contract value |contract value |an L+P Network staff leads directly to a project |
| | | |contract. Both provider-to-NGO and |
| | | |provider-to-provider referrals are subject to the |
| | | |referral fee. |
Note: future membership fees may be distributed across a wider scale with higher fees for large northern organizations.
Membership and workshop fees exist primarily as a mechanism for participants to demonstrate interest and commitment. As a result, these fees are kept low and do not reflect the real cost of offering these services. These services are subsidized by other revenue sources or through grants from donors. Percentage fees work like more traditional income streams with the intent of covering costs and generating a surplus that can be used to cover other activities.
4 No cost services
As noted in other sections of this document, the L+P Network will provide a number of no cost services that are aimed at both improving the overall capacity of civil society and marketing L+P’s paid services. These include:
Generic tools and resources: When a new resource has been developed through a project, L+P will take responsibility for refining this resource and putting it into a sharable, generic form. Over time, L+P will develop a large library of sharable ICT tools, resources and methods that can be drawn on by civil society and used as the foundation of future L+P projects. L+P will still offer fee-for-service resource development to meet specific CSO and donor needs.
ItrainOnline: As a part of its L+P work, APC will continue to participate in the ItrainOnline project. The ItrainOnline site will be used as the primary mechanism for distributing tools and L+P resources. It will also play a role in building L+P credibility and brand.
Initial needs assessments: L+P will provide up to half a day of free consultation and advice during its initial contact with a client. This service will both help CSOs identify their needs and will generate sales and referral leads for L+P.
Costs associated with these services will be covered through cross subsidies from other service areas or through grants from donor agencies. These services will indirectly generate revenue through marketing and sales leads.
Finance and Budgets
This section provides an overall budget framework for L+P as well as revenue estimate calculations for each L+P income stream.
In order to sustain itself, the L+P Network will utilize a financial model that is both flexible and scalable. This model will ensure that the Network is able to sustain itself even if revenues are lower than expected and can respond quickly if new projects come in. As outlined in the budgets below, this flexibility will be achieved by keeping staff and overhead costs low and by relying primarily on service delivery team members to deliver projects.
1 Budget projections
The following budget projections provide a picture of the first three years of L+P operations. They show the use of grant subsidies during year one and year two. The network becomes almost self-sustaining in year three, with grant ongoing subsidies limited to the community learning specialist salary. The sales projections in this budget are quite conservative, with year one sales based on APC’s 2002 project roster. It is possible that sales could be significantly higher than projected here.
|Income | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Projects |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|Project management contracts |$10,000 |$20,000 |$20,000 |See PM detail below |
|Strategy and planning contracts |$23,200 |$84,000 |$192,000 |See SP detail below |
|Learning and training contracts |$48,000 |$108,000 |$240,000 |See LT detail below |
|Tool and resource contracts |$168,000 |$315,000 |$420,000 |See TR detail below |
|Other service delivery (tech) |$25,000 |$100,000 |$200,000 |See SD detail below |
|Referrals |$2,500 |$5,000 |$7,500 |See referral detail below |
|Subtotal |$276,700 |$632,000 |$1,079,500 | |
| | | | | |
|Member services |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|L+P memberships |$3,750 |$6,375 |$9,000 |60 members at startup |
| | | | |including APC members. |
|Workshop fees |$20,000 |$24,000 |$24,000 |Assumes 6 workshops in year |
| | | | |one + growth |
|Subtotal |$23,750 |$30,375 |$33,000 | |
| | | | | |
|Grants |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|L+P start up grant |$150,000 |$80,000 | |Year one and two only |
|Community learning specialist grant |$40,000 |$40,000 |$40,000 |Ongoing grants needed |
|Subtotal |$190,000 |$120,000 |$40,000 | |
| | | | | |
|Total income |$490,450 |$782,375 |$1,152,500 | |
|Expense | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Staff |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|Network manager |$48,000 |$48,000 |$48,000 |Based on APC salaries. |
|Projects manager |$42,000 |$42,000 |$84,000 |Based on APC salaries. |
|Community learning specialist |$40,000 |$40,000 |$40,000 |Based on APC salaries. |
|Peer learning facilitators |$30,000 |$42,000 |$54,000 |Baseline is 5 peer networks @ |
| | | | |$6000/ea |
|Subtotal |$160,000 |$172,000 |$226,000 | |
| | | | | |
|Service providers |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|External project managers |$6,050 |$94,250 |$143,000 |Internal PMs handle $250k in |
| | | | |projects per year |
|Strategy and planning contracts |$13,920 |$50,400 |$115,200 |See SP detail below |
|Learning and training contracts |$28,800 |$64,800 |$144,000 |See LT detail below |
|Tool and resource contracts |$100,800 |$189,000 |$252,000 |See TR detail below |
|Service delivery projects (tech) |$15,000 |$60,000 |$120,000 |See SD detail below |
|Workshops for L+P members |$75,000 |$90,000 |$90,000 |See workshops detail |
|Subtotal |$239,570 |$548,450 |$864,200 | |
| | | | | |
|Other costs |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |Notes |
|Contribution to ItrainOnline |$20,000 |$20,000 |$20,000 |Maintains existing services. |
|Member extranet and lists |$30,000 |$8,000 |$8,000 |Most costs are startup |
|Promotion / travel |$6,000 |$6,000 |$8,000 |Includes conferences / creates|
| | | | |some training benefits. |
|Translation |$8,000 |$8,000 |$8,000 |For free / no cost |
| | | | |documentation. |
|Team meetings |$15,000 |$15,000 |$15,000 |Mostly international travel |
| | | | |costs. |
|Communications |$3,000 |$3,000 |$3,000 |International conference calls|
|Subtotal |$82,000 |$60,000 |$62,000 | |
| | | | | |
|Total expense |$481,570 |$780,450 |$1,152,200 | |
| | | | | |
|Surplus/ deficit |$8,880 |$1,925 |$300 | |
2 Project-related service estimates
The following tables provide a break down of sales and expenses in all of the major project-related services areas. Costs are based on a split between project management, L+P service fees and external service delivery costs like consultants and travel. This breakdown is based on a combination of expected project management and overhead costs and past APC experience with service delivery costs.
|Strategy and planning contracts |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Volume |4 |12 |24 |
|Average project value |$5,800 |$7,000 |$8,000 |
|Income from all projects |$23,200 |$84,000 |$192,000 |
|Service delivery costs (60%) |$13,920 |$50,400 |$115,200 |
|Project management costs (25%) |$5,800 |$21,000 |$48,000 |
|L+P service fee (15%) |$3,480 |$12,600 |$28,800 |
| | | | |
|Learning and training contracts |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Volume |3 |6 |12 |
|Average project value |$16,000 |$18,000 |$20,000 |
|Income from all projects |$48,000 |$108,000 |$240,000 |
|Service delivery costs (60%) |$28,800 |$64,800 |$144,000 |
|Project management costs (25%) |$12,000 |$27,000 |$60,000 |
|L+P service fee (15%) |$7,200 |$16,200 |$36,000 |
| | | | |
|Tool and resource contracts |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Volume |8 |15 |20 |
|Average project value |$21,000 |$21,000 |$21,000 |
|Income from all projects |$168,000 |$315,000 |$420,000 |
|Service delivery costs (60%) |$100,800 |$189,000 |$252,000 |
|Project management costs (25%) |$42,000 |$78,750 |$105,000 |
|L+P service fee (15%) |$25,200 |$47,250 |$63,000 |
| | | | |
|Service delivery nets (tech) |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Volume |1 |4 |8 |
|Average project value |$25,000 |$25,000 |$25,000 |
|Income from all projects |$25,000 |$100,000 |$200,000 |
|Service delivery costs (60%) |$15,000 |$60,000 |$120,000 |
|Project management costs (25%) |$6,250 |$25,000 |$50,000 |
|L+P service fee (15%) |$3,750 |$15,000 |$30,000 |
| | | | |
|Referrals |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Volume |10 |20 |30 |
|Average project cost |$5,000 |$5,000 |$5,000 |
|Income |$2,500 |$5,000 |$7,500 |
| | | | |
|Project management fees |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Standalone PM contract volume |1 |2 |2 |
|Average standalone contract |$10,000 |$10,000 |$10,000 |
|Standalone PM contract fees |$10,000 |$20,000 |$20,000 |
|L+P service fee (15%) |$1,500 |$3,000 |$3,000 |
3 Member services estimates
The following tables provide a breakdown of income from member services. As noted in other sections of the document, membership and workshop fees are nominal.
|L+P memberships |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Southern members |30 |75 |120 |
|Southern fee |$25 |$25 |$25 |
|Northern members |30 |45 |60 |
|Northern fee |$100 |$100 |$100 |
|Income |$3,750 |$6,375 |$9,000 |
| | | | |
|Workshop fees |Year One |Year Two |Year Three |
|Number of member workshops |5 |6 |6 |
|Southern participants per wksp |15 |15 |15 |
|Average southern fee |$100 |$100 |$100 |
|Northern participants per wksp |10 |10 |10 |
|Average northern fee |$250 |$250 |$250 |
|Income |$20,000 |$24,000 |$24,000 |
|Trainer costs per workshop |$10,000 |$10,000 |$10,000 |
|Coordination costs per workshop |$5,000 |$5,000 |$5,000 |
|Overall cost of workshops |$75,000 |$90,000 |$90,000 |
4 Financial management systems
For the first year, L+P will use APC’s existing financial administration systems including billing, collections and contract management. These services will be carefully tracked, and L+P will have its own bank account so that income and expense can be monitored separately. After Year 1, APC will assess the feasibility of carrying on with a single financial administrator. If this is not possible, L+P will develop its own financial management systems.
Competition and Risks
This section provides an overview of the competition and the risks that L+P will face from the outset.
1 Competitive analysis
While there are clear ICT market gaps in civil society, L+P will not be without competitors. The following is an overview of major competitors and associated competitive strategies.
|Competitor |How do they compete? |APC Competitive strategy |
|Large, global consulting companies |Have global reach and strong experience |L+P is small and focused on ICT capacity in|
|(e.g., IBM/ EDS) |with formal project management methodology|the NGO sector. This should create trust. |
| | |L+P is also more affordable than large |
| | |commercial outfits. |
|In house technical staff |Often manage and implement ICT projects |Emphasize the fact that L+P has access to |
| |within their organizations even when they |diverse skill base from service provider |
| |are of a scale that would require outside |pool and uses more formal, proven project |
| |help. |management approach. L+P can also provide |
| | |independent big picture advice. |
|Small consulting companies + individual|Have direct contact with client / are able|Focus on the fact that L+P has access to |
|project managers* |to leverage personal relationships |dozens of service providers around the |
| | |world and uses a more formal, proven |
| | |approach to project management. |
|L+P members* |A competitive tension could emerge between|Focus on projects that members couldn’t |
| |L+P and some of its members if members |easily handle on their own. Always remember|
| |route around the network or bid on similar|that one purpose of the network is to build|
| |projects. |capacity and revenue for members working on|
| | |service delivery teams. |
|OneWorld* |May try to move into ICT service delivery |Encourage One World to be an L+P member. |
| |beyond what it offers to its ‘Centres’ |Try not to compete head to head with |
| | |OneWorld on specific projects. |
|ERiders |Provide services similar to L+P in the |Limit or completely avoid L+P activity in |
| |United States and Poland, although with a |the United States. Learn from and cooperate|
| |heavier focus on core technology / less |with the eRiders as the L+P model evolves. |
| |focus on strategic applications. | |
|* These organizations should be seen as partners even though there is a competitive tension. |
The key to success will lie in a combination of partnership building and effective use of strategic advantage. Partnership and the concept of ‘coopetition’ will be important in relationships with One World, eRiders, L+P members and small consulting firms. Strategic advantage will need to be played up when competing against large global consulting firms and internal IT teams.
2 Risk analysis
The following table lists the major risks faced by the L+P Network well as related risk management strategies:
|Risk |Strategy |
|APC is not able to ramp up its project management capacity |Hire a full time staff person who is experienced in ICT project |
|quickly enough to provide this service well |management. Develop a standard APC project management |
| |methodology based on PMBOK or similar framework. Recruit |
| |experienced project managers to join service delivery teams |
|Project delays and other typical problems ruin reputation of |Develop and consistently use formal project management |
|L+P |methodology. Ensure that there are clear contracts in place with|
| |service providers for all projects. Allow for rapid dismissal |
| |and replacement of service providers who do not meet deadlines. |
|Donors feel they can’t always be giving grants to the same |Be clear that this is a service provider relationship and not a |
|organization |grantee relationship. |
|APC internal politics interfere with project delivery or |Make clear and strong separation between L+P and APC’s core |
|service provider management |activities. Ensure that L+P staff have full control and |
| |authority over projects. |
|Not enough qualified trainers during early phase of service |Actively recruit at least one L+P member with proven expertise |
|roll out |and training ability for each of the year one product focus |
| |areas. |
|L+P members do not feel that there are enough workshops to |Stress peer networking opportunities as being equally important.|
|warrant membership |Present workshops as events that are special and exclusive. Make|
| |members feel like they are getting something they couldn’t get |
| |elsewhere by joining L+P. |
|Service providers don’t want to join L+P |Aim to create real learning opportunities for most members, no |
| |matter how small. |
|Not enough business to keep members happy |Grow the service delivery teams slowly, focusing on known and |
| |reliable service providers during the early stages. |
|Online peer networking is stagnant, providing little value to|Provide resources and clear guidelines to network facilitators. |
|those who don’t go to workshops |Make sure they have the skills and interest required to motivate|
| |participation by members. |
|APC members see other service providers as a threat |Separate L+P operations from main APC activities. Make it clear |
| |that L+P membership is not the same as APC membership. |
|New service providers feel they are not treated on par with |Make it clear that all members are equal within the context of |
|APC members |the L+P network. |
Appendix A - Market Research Findings
This section provides summary data from four key L+P market research activities – a literature scan, an INGO survey, a donor survey and a survey of APC members.
Literature Scan Summary
Report prepared by Ann Tothill, APC Strategic Uses and Capacity Building Projects Coordinator
A number of studies have looked at NGO use of ICTs and at their related training needs. Most studies focus on North American (and, to a lesser extent, UK and Australian) NGOs, with a bias towards charitable organizations and the use of the Internet for fundraising. While there is a substantial body of literature on “ICTs for development”, only a handful of reports have looked at the use of ICTs in the NGO sector in less developed regions. Despite this lack of representivity, a core set of issues and needs common to NGOs around the world can be extracted from these studies. Because many of the key issues are consistently described across the literature, the sources cited are examples, not an exhaustive list of literature reviewed).
Actual ICTs use in NGOs
Although there are impressive examples of NGO use of ICTs internationally and glowing visions of the potential contribution of the Internet within this sector (indeed, some reports look only at the potential of the technologies) studies of actual use of the technologies confirm that use is limited and not “strategic”. While Southern NGOs face problems of access to infrastructure and equipment, reports suggest that NGOs from the United States to Uganda seldom realize the full potential of their existing ICTs tools.
Where available, basic tools and services – e-mail, the Web as an information resource, and “brochureware” web sites – are used (see, for example, (Kuntze, Spencer 2002, Camacho 2001, Clohesy 2001).
Use of ICTs does not widely go beyond this level, and they are not used strategically or integrated into service management and delivery.
General needs and barriers to effective use
A first set of obstacles common to many NGOs internationally relates to problems which are not ICTs-specific:
The general sustainability of NGOs (OneWorld/OSI 2002)
NGOs internal policies, structures, and management capacity. Many NGOs lack planning/management capacity, which in turn affects their capacity for effective ICTs planning and use (Kuntze, Burt and Taylor).
ICTs-related issues which are regularly reported related to factors such as cost, tools, skills, and perceptions:
Costs of access, equipment and maintenance (Wired for Good 1999, OneWorld/OSI 2002, Kamacho 2001), along with the related problem of understanding and planning for ongoing costs.
Failure to see the importance of the Internet in fulfilling organizational objectives and/or failure to translate a general awareness into effective ICTs strategies (Spencer 2002, OneWorld, Gilbert 2002, Kuntze et. al. 2002, Kamacho 2001, Jamieson 2000). This can in part be attributed to a lack of executive IT knowledge and poor IT planning (IT Resource Centre 2000).
”Strategic use” is a generic concept, but the details of strategic use will of course be particular to the sector, type and mission of organization and so forth. Kuntze et. al. note that there is a strong focus in the North on lobbying, while organizations in the South often have a core concern with grassroots implementation. Particular countries may face specific challenges: for example, the OneWorld/OSI 2002 study reports high levels of distrust in Yugoslavia, leading to the “hoarding” of information and a lack of strategic collaboration and information sharing. In the North, the focus on fundraising may obscure other strategic uses such as relationship building (Jamieson 2002).
Appropriate software tools: a need for better/more appropriate software has been identified (Wired for Good 1999, Clohesy 2001, Kuntze et. al 2002). "More appropriate" may relate to the function of the tool, but also to the language and the cost.
Training in specific skills and the use of specific tools: many studies report that NGO staff require training in particular skills (ranging from database development to "managing information overload") and software packages.
Needs/barriers in developing countries
Some problems are more common in developing countries:
Cost, access, and quality of infrastructure can be a critical barrier to use of ICTs in developing countries. "Effective" or "strategic" use of ICTs requires, in the first instance, access to ICTs (OneWorld/OSI 2002, Kuntze et. al, 2002, Kamacho 2001)
In a Web dominated by English, the lack of content and tools in other languages – or even in accessible English is a barrier to effective use. (OneWorld/OSI 2001, Kuntze et.al 2002)
INGO Survey
The following tables summarize the data that APC collected from a survey of 19 INGOs conducted during August and September 2002. This survey was conducted both online and over the telephone.
Participating organizations
|Organization |Location |
|Fundación Acceso |San José Costa Rica |
|IISD |Winnipeg Canada |
|MISA |Windhoek Namibia |
|EDC |Washington USA |
|IICD |Den Haag The Netherlands |
|FoEI |Amsterdam The Netherlands |
|Article 19 |London UK; Johannesburg SA |
|ALAI |Quito Ecuador |
|Both ENDS |Amsterdam the Netherlands |
|Development Alternatives |New Delhi India |
|Alternatives |Montreal Canada |
|Focus on the Global South |Bangkok Thailand |
|Society for International Development |Rome Italy |
|DAWN |Fiji |
|Horizons of Friendship |Cobourg Canada |
|DevelopmentSpace |Washington DC |
|Civicus |Johannesburg South Africa |
|Documentation for Action Groups in Asia |Hong Kong |
|CIAT |Cali Colombia |
Open ended / top of mind questions
|Question #4 - INGO Sector Challenges |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |19 |
|Funding and sustainability |47% |9 |
|Use of ICTs by civil society |26% |5 |
|Impact and relevance of INGOs |26% |5 |
|Collaboration between NGOs |21% |4 |
|Getting civil society message out |21% |4 |
|Linking local and international work |16% |3 |
|Digital divide and the right to communicate |16% |3 |
|Citizen and NGO participation in decision making |16% |3 |
|Globalization |16% |3 |
|Commercialization |16% |3 |
|Poverty and human well being |11% |2 |
|Organizational focus and management |5% |1 |
|Other |32% |6 |
| | | |
|Question#5 - State of ICTs |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |19 |
|Basic connectivity + e-mail in place |100% |19 |
|We are a leader who keeps on top of ICT |32% |6 |
|Not yet using technology strategically |21% |4 |
|Moderate, with lots of room to improve |21% |4 |
|Mixed depending on office or region |11% |2 |
|Other |21% |4 |
| | | |
|Question #6 - ICT Challenges |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |17 |
|Strategic use of ICTs |59% |10 |
|ICT access and skills amongst partners |47% |8 |
|Managing and keeping up with ICTs |35% |6 |
|ICT costs and funding |40% |4 |
|Sharing and documenting our expertise |0% |0 |
|Building knowledge bases |0% |0 |
|Other |59% |10 |
| | | |
|Question #8 - ICT Gaps - Regional Differences |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |15 |
|Connectivity |47% |7 |
|Culture and language |20% |3 |
|Skills and capacity |13% |2 |
|Degree of integration into org culture |7% |1 |
|Other |40% |6 |
| | | |
|Question #9 - Areas of Planned ICT Expansion |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |16 |
|Collaborative tools / collaboration skills |56% |9 |
|ICT skills training for staff and volunteers |25% |4 |
|E-learning / online workshops |19% |3 |
|Web site development |19% |3 |
|Document / knowledge management |19% |3 |
|Online databases + CMS |13% |2 |
|E-democracy / online campaigning |13% |2 |
|Internships for training / service delivery |6% |1 |
|Using ICT to lower admin costs |6% |1 |
|Other |25% |4 |
| | | |
|Question #11 - ICT Supply - Regional Differences |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |10 |
|Yes, many regional differences across the south |60% |6 |
|Service provider quality varies dramatically |30% |3 |
|Availability of services poor in much of Africa |30% |3 |
|Most people don't know how to do e-learning |30% |3 |
|Small cities and rural areas have limited access |20% |2 |
|Online commerce still problem in south |10% |1 |
|Sometimes south is ahead of north in strategic use |10% |1 |
|Other |50% |5 |
Rating scales and pick lists
|Question #7 - Organizational use of ICT |
| |
| |1 |2 |
| |Adequate |Under |Don’t know |N= | | |
|Basic connectivity and e-mail |
| |Central |Regional |Outsource |NA |N= |
|Web site design and |15 |79% |3 |
|development | | | |
|Respondent 1 |3 |25 |$50,000 |
|Respondent 2 |1 |10 |$175,000 |
|Respondent 3 |1 |25 |$300,000 |
|Respondent 4 |1 |20 |$600,000 |
|Respondent 5 |12 |50 |$1,000,000 |
|Respondent 6 |1 |10 |$1,000,000 |
|Respondent 7 |70 |1015 |$1,500,000 |
|Respondent 8 |1 |15 |$1,500,000 |
|Respondent 9 |3 |17 |$2,000,000 |
|Respondent 10 |2 |23 |$3,000,000 |
|Respondent 11 |1 |25 |$4,000,000 |
|Respondent 12 |4 |100 |$5,000,000 |
|Respondent 13 |5 |35 |$5,100,000 |
|Respondent 14 |15 |700 |$30,000,000 |
|Respondent 15 |12 |600 |$65,000,000 |
|Respondent 16 |1 |150 |unknown |
|Respondent 17 |12 |5 |unknown |
|Respondent 18 |1 |6 |unknown |
|Respondent 19 |1 |3.5 |unknown |
|Total |147 |2834.5 |$120,225,000 |
|Average |8 |149 |$6,327,632 |
|Median |2 |25 |$1,500,000 |
Donor Survey
The following tables summarize the data that APC collected from eight donor agencies during August and September 2002. This survey was conducted both online and over the telephone.
Participating organizations
|Organization |Location |
|IDRC |Ottawa Canada |
|CIDA |Ottawa Canada |
|World Bank (InfoDev) |Washington USA |
|Hivos |Den Haag The Netherlands |
|EED |Bonn Germany |
|DFID |London UK |
|OSI |Amsterdam the Netherlands |
|UNESCO |Paris France |
Open ended / top of mind questions
|Question #7 - Overall Challenges in Civil Society |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |7 |
|Impact and relevance of INGOs |100% |7 |
|Organizational focus and management |100% |7 |
|Accountability |86% |6 |
|Funding and sustainability |67% |4 |
|Collaboration |57% |4 |
|Citizen and NGO participation in decision making |57% |4 |
|Linking local and international work |43% |3 |
|Getting civil society message out |29% |2 |
| | | |
|Question#8 - State of ICTs in Civil Society |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |8 |
|Varies widely |100% |8 |
|Global orgs better/more advanced than local |75% |6 |
|We tend to know most about those who keep on top of ICT (tend to work with most |63% |5 |
|connected groups) | | |
|Basic connectivity + e-mail in place |50% |4 |
|Not yet using technology strategically |50% |4 |
|Isn't relevant to some of our grantees - doesn't make sense to their mission |25% |2 |
|Far from where we would have hoped, by now |25% |2 |
|Few have websites |25% |2 |
|Africa farthest behind |13% |1 |
|Big urban-rural divide |13% |1 |
|HR, Women and Environmental groups tend to be the most progressive in ICT use |13% |1 |
|Has changed a lot in terms of effective use |13% |1 |
| | | |
|Question #9 - ICT Challenges |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |9 |
|Strategic use of ICTs |89% |8 |
|ICT access and skills |56% |5 |
|Managing and keeping up with ICTs |56% |5 |
|ICT costs and funding |56% |5 |
|ICT policy, regulation issues |56% |5 |
|Relevant content |22% |2 |
|Integrating with non-Internet communications methods |22% |2 |
| | | |
|Question #10 - Programs/Activities to Address ICT-related Issues |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |8 |
|Funding that goes to ICTs |100% |8 |
|Promoting an enabling environment at the macro level |88% |7 |
|Research, learning and evaluation |63% |5 |
|ICT-focused funding |50% |4 |
|ICT focus integrated into other programme areas (mainstreamed) |38% |3 |
|Research, learning and evaluation |63% |5 |
|ICT support/advice or capacity building for partners |25% |2 |
| | | |
|Question #12 - Regional differences in Using ICTs |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |7 |
|Regional variations – yes |100% |7 |
|Africa most behind |57% |4 |
|Major differences *between* countries in a region |57% |4 |
|Latin America well advanced |43% |3 |
|Asia well advanced |14% |1 |
|CEE doing well |14% |1 |
|Other: | | |
|Local organisations not as effective as international |29% |2 |
|Urban more online than rural |29% |2 |
|Varies due to infrastructure access |14% |1 |
|Varies due to language |14% |1 |
|Regional gaps: | | |
|Open Source awareness/use |29% |2 |
|Ecommerce |14% |1 |
|Email distribution lists |14% |1 |
|Understanding website needs from audience perspective |14% |1 |
|Security/backups |14% |1 |
|Needing organisation ICT champions |14% |1 |
|Collecting/sharing/monitoring information across groups |14% |1 |
|Using ICTs as part of a process of creating political will that results in action|14% |1 |
| | | |
|Question #14 - ICT Supply - Regional Differences |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |6 |
|Differences between countries in a region |33% |2 |
|Africa less developed |17% |1 |
|Supply Gaps: | | |
|Content management systems, and awareness of them, is scarce |17% |1 |
|Open source support |17% |1 |
|Local/national funding for ICT |17% |1 |
|Research into per capita funding of ICTs nationally, and into the relative impact|17% |1 |
|of that funding | | |
|Other: | | |
|Different cultures have different approaches to working together |17% |1 |
|Need awareness before you can know there's a gap |17% |1 |
|Supply may not be sufficiently accessible |17% |1 |
| | | |
|Question #15 - ICT Project Success Factors |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |7 |
|Local ownership and participation |100% |7 |
|Effective project management |43% |3 |
|Appropriate technology approach: integrating old and new technology and keeping |29% |2 |
|things simple | | |
|Ability of Internet to support secure online organising and activism |14% |1 |
|Avoiding being technology-driven |14% |1 |
| | | |
|Question #10 - Supply of ICT services for civil society |
| |Adequate |Under |Don’t know |
|Basic connectivity and e-mail |50% |3 |50% |3 |0% |0 |
|Advanced e-mail management tools |0% |0 |83% |5 |17% |1 |
|Hardware software and LAN maintenance |33% |2 |67% |4 |0% |0 |
|Online collaboration strategy and tools |33% |2 |67% |4 |0% |0 |
|Online collaboration / facilitation |0% |0 |100% |6 |0% |0 |
|E-learning software applications |0% |0 |83% |5 |17% |1 |
|Web site design and development |50% |3 |50% |3 |0% |0 |
|Web site content management tools |17% |1 |83% |5 |0% |0 |
|Online campaign strategy and tools |0% |0 |67% |4 |33% |2 |
|Internet security services |33% |2 |67% |4 |0% |0 |
|Knowledge management strategy and tools |0% |0 |83% |5 |17% |1 |
|User training |33% |2 |50% |3 |17% |1 |
|ICT strategy planning and evaluation support |0% |0 |100% |6 |0% |0 |
|Total Respondents |6 | | | | | |
|Question #20 - Interest in supporting/partnering with L&P |Percent |Total |
|Number of respondents (this question) |100% |7 |
|Unsure: | | |
|Need to see plans and how it will work with existing initiatives |29% |2 |
|As long as there is no greater admin burden thru L&P than dealing direct with APC|14% |1 |
|members | | |
|As long as it is demand-driven |14% |1 |
|Needs a sustainability strategy |14% |1 |
|How will it compete with private sector? |14% |1 |
|As funder we would not force our partners to use it; would leave it to them to |14% |1 |
|decide | | |
|Yes: | | |
|Would use L&P to link funding partners to services and service providers (e.g. |57% |4 |
|trainers) | | |
|Would offer input to L&P planning |14% |1 |
|Would use L&P to reach out to orgs that L&P serves - for sharing information |14% |1 |
|Would monitor L&P for outputs of actions that should be taken |14% |1 |
|To share knowledge between our related areas of work |14% |1 |
|For APC to be subcontracted to, to help with managing the technical assistance we|14% |1 |
|do | | |
Rating scales and pick lists
|Question #11 - Organizational use of ICT |
| |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |
|ICT-related program design including integration of ICTs into sector |50% |3 | | | | | | |
|specific programs | | | | | | | | |
|Assessment of ICT-related grant proposals or proposals with an ICT |33% |2 | | | | | | |
|component | | | | | | | | |
|ICT project planning for your grantees or integration of ICTs into |66% |4 | | | | | | |
|sector specific programs | | | | | | | | |
|Evaluation of ICT projects or any project with an ICT component |66% |4 | | | | | | |
|Other (please specify) |66% |4 | | | | | | |
|Total Respondents |
| |1 |
|c2o |Melbourne Australia |
|Ace Suares / Suares & Pronk |The Netherlands / Curacao |
|JCA-NET |Japan |
|Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet |South Korea |
|Pangea |Spain |
|BRIDGE |UK |
|GreenNet |UK |
|ComLink |Germany |
|ChangeNet |Slovakia |
|StrawberryNet Foundation |Romania |
|Green Spider |Hungary |
|BlueLink Information Network |Sofia / Bulgaria |
|Web Networks |Toronto, Canada |
|LaborNet |USA |
|Nodo Tau |Argentina |
|Wamani - CCI |Buenos Aires, Argentina |
|RITS |Brazil |
|Colnodo |Colombia |
|SANGONeT |South Africa |
Organizational profiles
|Organizations by Region | |
|Australia and Oceania |1 |
|Central America |1 |
|East Asia |2 |
|Europe |8 |
|North America |2 |
|South America |4 |
|South and East Africa |1 |
| | |
|Staff Size by Region | |
|Australia and Oceania |3 |
|Central America |1 |
|East Asia |6.5 |
|Europe |4.75 |
|North America |4.5 |
|South America |13.25 |
|South and East Africa |25 |
| | |
|Total Number of Staff by Region |
|Australia and Oceania |3 |
|Central America |1 |
|East Asia |13 |
|Europe |38 |
|North America |9 |
|South America |53 |
|South and East Africa |25 |
| | |
|Organizations by Budget Range ($US) |
|$2000-10000 |7 |
|$20000-50000 |3 |
|$100000-220000 |6 |
|$500000-2000000 |3 |
|Average Budget |$118576 |
|Median Budget |$100000 |
Rating scales and pick lists
|Value of different types of professional development methods |
|(average choices between 1 and 9) |
|face-to-face |online workshops |online peer |reference |internships |
|6.95 |4.95 |6.37 |5.16 |5.26 |
|Interest in service delivery teams |Action |Security |Org Strategy |Collab |Gender |
| |Apps | | |Strategy |Eval |
|Interested |32% |32% |37% |37% |11% |
|Interested but need training |16% |32% |32% |32% |32% |
|Not Interested |16% |21% |5% |5% |32% |
|Very Interested |37% |16% |21% |21% |21% |
APC price index
|Unlimited Dialup | | |
|price |region |count |% of region |
|high |Europe |1 |12 |
|medium |South America |1 |25 |
|med |S+E Africa |1 |100 |
|low |East Asia |1 |50 |
|low |South America |2 |50 |
|low |Europe |2 |25 |
|Low < $10/month, Medium 10-19/month, High > $20/month, |
| | | | |
|Basic Web Hosting | | |
|price |region |count |% of region |
|high |Central America |1 |100 |
|high |North America |1 |50 |
|high |S+E Africa |1 |100 |
|high |Australia |1 |100 |
|med |Europe |2 |25 |
|med |South America |2 |50 |
|low |East Asia |1 |50 |
|low |Europe |4 |50 |
|low |South America |2 |50 |
|Low < $10/month, Medium 10-19/month, High >$20/month |
| | | | |
|ActionApps Development | | |
|price |region |count |% of region |
|high |North America |1 |50 |
|high |Europe |2 |25 |
|medium |South America |1 |25 |
|low |Europe |4 |50 |
|low |South America |2 |50 |
|Low $30-100/day, Medium $140/day, High $250-350/day |
| | | | |
|HTML Design | | |
|price |region |count |% of region |
|high |North America |1 |50 |
|high |Europe |2 |25 |
|high |Australia |1 |100 |
|medium |Europe |1 |12 |
|medium |S+E Africa |1 |100 |
|medium |South America |1 |25 |
|low |South America |1 |25 |
|low |Europe |3 |38 |
|Low $35-100/day, Medium $140-240/day, High $250-400/day |
| | | | |
|Training | | |
|price |region |count |% of region |
|high |Central America |1 |100 |
|high |Europe |2 |25 |
|high |Australia |1 |100 |
|high |North America |1 |50 |
|medium |South America |2 |50 |
|medium |Europe |1 |12 |
|low |South America |1 |25 |
|low |East Asia |1 |50 |
|low |Europe |3 |38 |
|Low $35-80/day, Medium $100-240/day, High $250-500/day |
| | | | |
|Consultancy | | |
|price |region |count |% of region |
|high |Australia |1 |100 |
|high |Europe |3 |38 |
|high |Central America |1 |100 |
|high |North America |1 |50 |
|medium |South America |2 |50 |
|medium |S+E Africa |1 |100 |
|medium |Europe |1 |12 |
|low |Europe |3 |38 |
|Low $35-100/day, Medium $140-240/day, High $250-500/day |
Appendix B – Cooperative Service Case Studies
As part of the research for this business plan, APC undertook case studies of 4 other organizations involved in cooperative service delivery. This section includes summary information for each of these case studies. Client list information was reviewed for each of the organizations studied but has not been included here.
Quien Diem – Actuarial Services
Location: South Africa
Geographic scope: mainly Southern Africa
Industry / services: Actuarial
Annual revenue ($US): Total: N/A. Members are paid a fairly low flat wage. Plus, they get profit sharing every 6 months. This sharing is partly based on profits on the projects they managed, but mainly based on the overall profit of the organization.
Service offerings
General description: Actuarial consulting firm, but doing work that broadens the scope of traditional actuarial work.
Network members: 7 actuaries, 3 students becoming actuaries. All full time except one person who lectures part-time at Wits University. All based in Johannesburg.
Service list – public:
Financial modelling, statistical modelling around outcomes.
Insurance, risk management.
Service list – members: The advantage of working through Quien Diem as opposed to being a solo-actuary is the opportunity to brainstorm. Multi-disciplinary team approach. All get to be involved in broader, more interesting, projects.
Ongoing support to customers: Person involved originally does support.
Management and operations
Bidding and awarding of contracts: Primarily determined by field/specialty. For example, if the field of the bid is ‘non-life insurance’, there are only two actuaries, so they would just discuss it and based on passion for the particular job and availability, would choose among themselves. Someone would take ownership/leadership for the bid. As there is both individual and group profit sharing, there is not overly much competition for jobs.
Deadline / project management: When a project comes in, a project manager is installed. They manage everything, including specifying the work, a contract, timelines, etc.
Quality control: Peer review. Nothing goes out as an end result without a second uninvolved person look through the output. Once a week there is a discussion time, on projects and new ideas for research. For example, big project, entire team scopes it. When a unique problem comes up, whole team brainstorms. Not ‘time efficient’, but from quality and learning it brings the best of both worlds.
Management structure: Flat. All are directors/partners. No one is officially managing director. Delegate – 1 point person on finance, 1 on IT, 1 on HR, 1 on office supplies. Move to consensus, not majority. This is better but more time consuming.
Governance: Registered company. All actuaries are shareholders, roughly equal ownership.
Marketing: Mainly word of mouth. In process of building a website.
Finance
Business model: Hourly consulting rate for most projects. Sometimes discount on big projects. If a task is to investigate, hourly, as it is not clear how long it should take. But if the project is to build something specific, there can be a fixed cost. If the project will save a customer money, they have twice agreed to take a percentage of the money they save over the next 5 years.
Financing of overhead: All money goes to the company. Then people are paid. As mentioned above, people have a mixed method of profit sharing.
There are two types of overhead expenses – general expenses and project specific expenses. One thing that helps keep overhead down, is that project specific expenses end up cutting into the project manager’s personal profit sharing. Although the formula is complex, every 100 Rand of expenses will cost the project manager about 30 Rand.
Tlatolli Ollin – Words in Movement – Translation Services
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Geographic scope: globally, but most frequently employed in the Americas
Industry / services: Interpretation and Translation Services
Annual revenue ($US): abridged for confidentiality
Service offerings
General description: Tlatolli Ollin is a collective formed to offer quality interpretation and translation services to social movements and non-governmental organizations, as well as serve as an income-generating initiative for its members. Tlatolli has also tried to encourage civil society community to understand the importance of translation in good cross-cultural communication, to budget for it, and to respect interpreter working conditions. Based in Mexico, Tlatolli offers Spanish and English services most frequently, as well as Portuguese, French, and Italian. Tlatolli’s clientele is predominantly from the NGO national and international community and academic circles.
Network members: The Tlatolli Ollin collective has seven formal members, all of whom are either interpreters or translators (6 women, 1 man). [This group is currently geographically dispersed in central Mexico, and, in the past, the United States.]
We have two office administration staff (2 women) and 2 house technicians (1 woman, 1 man). We have a close circle of professionals (4 women, 1 man) who identify with Tlatolli and its clients and who form our main work pool together with the members. In addition we have a broader work pool of interpreters and translators when the need arises.
Service list – public:
Written translation in multiple languages
Simultaneous, consecutive interpretation in multiple languages
Interpretation equipment rental
Audio equipment rental
Style correction
Service list – members:
The Tlatolli Executive Committee (2 people, one man/one woman) receive a monthly stipend (around 300 US each) and a small percentage of yearly profit. This team is involved in the every-day running of the business and are our legal representatives.
Tlatolli Ollin soci@s (members) and their children receive private health insurance. There is no profit-sharing among members in general. However, members get first picks on jobs (i.e. easier jobs, jobs in their area of interest or that fit with their other activities for thematic or calendar reasons). This is important because no members work only with Tlatolli; they combine it with other monetary and activist responsibilities.
Office employees are on payroll, and technicians are paid per job. Although not considered “members” they do receive “bonuses” when the company does well – a very big part of Mexican culture.
Ongoing support to customers: We have regular clients, but do not provide “follow-up support”. Networks tend to re-hire us for their regular meetings to ensure quality and continuity.
Management and operations
Bidding and awarding of contracts: We categorize clients according to social movements, NGO, academics, government institutions and businesses and bill on a fixed sliding scale in these areas. What we pay to interpreters and translators is a fixed rate, approximately 70% of the NGO fee for interpreters and 85% for translators.
For simultaneous interpretation, all job announcements and assignments are communicated in a weekly internet bulletin among members, who announce interest and availability. Frequently there is no “competition” for a job because we are all employed in other activities; however, when there is conflicting interest, we have clear criteria (based on skill, even income distribution, personal needs, etc.). Increased competition for jobs has been a concern cited for not having more members.
In terms of paying interpreters and translators, non-member interpreters enjoy working with us, even though we pay less than the regular market prices, because we pay them in a timely fashion (thanks to having office staff who do footwork) and because our events are “more interesting”.
Deadline / project management: This is only applicable for written translation, and is always a difficult factor, mostly because clients want immediate turnaround. This affects quality. We bill more for “urgent” jobs.
Quality control: In written translation, we only permit translations by native speakers. This means we have exceptional quality compared to other agencies. In interpretation, we test all interpreters before hiring them and grade them according to skill level and thematic areas. In terms of developing new talent, we try to partner “strong” interpreters with newer ones who might have the skill but not the experience necessary for the work. We only work with interpreters who have good team skills, to provide mutual support. We share glossaries and texts to better prepare for events. We have a philosophy of “communication” rather than literal translation, not changing concepts but communicating the ideas effectively, whether it be in written or oral work. This appears to be a preferred style in social movement work.
Management structure:. The every-day supervision of, and involvement with, the business is handled by the executive committee and our two office employees. The executive committee receives a stipend for its additional involvement. Any “major” expenses or decisions are passed on to the members assembly; or decided via email when the members cannot meet.
Governance: The members assembly meets four times a year in face to face meetings, or more frequently if necessary. This is a change in structure – previously the members assembly met more frequently (monthly and sometimes weekly) but there was no executive committee; notably we almost went bankrupt (we needed more management, less governance!) The members who are not in the executive committee collaborate in different degrees in promotional and organizational activities.
Marketing: Most promotion is via word of mouth, people who attend big conferences where they hear our interpretation, or folks who have read our translations.
Finance
Business model: As mentioned above, we have a sliding scale fee system, our lowest rate being applied to national NGOs and, in the case of social movement organizations, negotiating based on ability to pay. Since what we bill is in great part paid out to translators, it is hard to be as flexible as we’d like. We now have our own equipment and that helps in negotiating prices downward, especially for social movements. However, we still bill below national market prices and far under international market prices for interpretation and translation.
Financing of overhead: To get started, all members had to pay into the collective in the early nineties to be formally recognized as members. To keep building the initiative, members until recently earned the least amount compared to external interpreters and translators, rather than having the “benefit” of being the member in monetary terms. Only in the past few months do our payments equal that of our “close” work pool colleagues; the larger work pool is paid more because of market demands.
Office expenditures and personnel are covered mostly by equipment rental and profit from simultaneous interpretation. Of note, perhaps relevant to any service business in current times, is that we are in the “red” half the time; only in the past two or three years have we had a cushion big enough to survive off of in the slim months. Prior to that, members gave loans to keep the collective afloat in hard times. Having office staff to deal with the intricacies of doing effective billing in Mexico has been crucial to our survival and distinguishes us from other “agencies” (thus the good turnaround in paying translators.)
3 Zhaba Facilitators Collective
Location: Amsterdam/Prague/Budapest
Geographic scope: mainly eastern Europe, occasionally worldwide
Industry / services: facilitation and organizational development (mainly for grassroots organizations working for environment, development, and social justice)
Annual revenue ($US): Zhaba itself, approx. $8,000, including facilitators’ income through Zhaba, an estimated $34,000
Service offerings
General description: Zhaba is a collective of facilitators, helping mostly grassroots organizations in organizational capacity building. Zhaba uses the transformational approach to facilitation, empowering individuals and organizations in defining their own agenda and goals.
Network members: The collective consists of eight facilitators, who all work as individual freelance facilitators.
Service list – public:
Community action planning and strategy development,
Facilitators Training
Gender Relations
Information and Communication Management
Meeting Facilitation
NGO Management
Project Evaluation
Burn-out prevention
Other aspects of organizational capacity building
Online library of materials available to organizations.
Service list – members: sharing materials, experiences, peer network, a kind of “income insurance”, and access to joint projects.
Ongoing support to customers: The work is done in the form of projects. There is no formal follow-up support after the project, although facilitators often stay in touch with organizations for longer time, and provide incidental answers and help.
Management and operations
Bidding and awarding of contracts: In general, facilitators bring in their own work, and can call upon each other to pool resources. There is a “core team” of four facilitators who keep an overview of who gets what projects, and sometimes try to direct in bringing facilitators to projects if Zhaba is approached directly. Leading principle is to provide all members of the collective with a certain level of income certainty, to be able to be facilitators.
Deadline / project management: Zhaba in itself does not provide project management, this is up to the individual facilitators.
Quality control: Quality control is mainly through the acceptance procedure to become part of the collective: aspiring members have to have shown quality in their work, and adherence to the principles and values of the Zhaba collective. They also have to communicate with other members of the collective in a good way. Usually, it is after a few experiences with a potential member that the collective asks this person to join.
Quality control is also done through “peer review”: correspondence between facilitators and their clients is also sent to a joint mailing list, and evaluations of projects are shared with others and actively commented upon.
Management structure: There is no real management, apart from awarding contracts when Zhaba is approached directly. This is done by a core team of four facilitators who historically have the strongest link to Zhaba as collective.
Governance: The Zhaba collective is registered as a Dutch “foundation”, and governed by a board of nine people worldwide, mainly on the basis of proposals brought in by the facilitators. The board is intended to provide very high-level guidance in the working principles of the foundation, and have a strategic view on how Zhaba and its members can operate in the field of civil society organizations.
Marketing: Marketing is mostly done by the members themselves, by word of mouth and using print materials and the Zhaba website. There are plans to improve using the website as a marketing tool. The name Zhaba is used as a sort of “quality brand”.
Finance
Business model: Zhaba facilitators work on the basis of a two-tier fee system, aimed at providing the members with an income at a “small NGO level”. Small community organizations pay a low daily fee of $200, big organizations and commercial enterprises pay a $625 per day fee. Usually projects are done on fixed-price, based on an estimate of the amount of facilitator time that goes into it, plus expenses.
Financing of overhead: Facilitators pay 20% of their income to the collective. The income of the collective is used for administrative costs, to insure against non-paying clients, to provide travel reimbursements to some meetings, and to offer discounts to important target groups or projects.
4 Commons Group, Inc. – Internet Strategy
Location: Toronto, Canada
Geographic scope: International
Industry / services: ICT strategy for non-profits
Annual revenue ($US): $150,000 - $180,000
Service offerings
General description: Commons Group, Inc. provides ICT strategy, planning and management services to non-profit organizations in Canada and around the world. Typical projects include conducting market research, writing business plans, developing web site requirements, program design for donors, web project proposal writing, multi-vendor project management and conducting project evaluations. Most Commons Group projects are collaborative in nature, involving multiple stakeholders or whole sectors of the non-profit world.
Network members: Commons Group has two types of members – partners and associates. Partners are part owners in the company and work primarily for Commons Group. There are four partners. Associates are freelancers or partner companies who work with Commons Group on a project-by-project basis. There are 10 associates or associate companies.
Service list – public: The following services are listed on the Commons Group’s web site:
Consultation and Market Analysis: Interviews, focus groups and surveys that capture user needs for web sites and online services projects.
Strategy and Planning: Practical planning, strategy and support in areas such as project financing, product development, web site content management and social marketing.
Project Start-up Management: Hands on project management that relieves clients from the hassles of hiring vendors and managing day-to-day project implementation.
Research and Analysis: Market research, competitive analysis and environmental scans that help clients understand trends and opportunities.
Service list – members: The services offered to partners and associates are primarily marketing related. For example, Commons Group all sales work partners on behalf of the whole network. Members are profiled and promoted on the Commons Group web site and are provided with a corporate e-mail address. Commons Group also provides insurance and access to the Government of Ontario Vendor of Record system for its members.
Ongoing support to customers: Given the nature of its services, Commons Group provides little in the way of after sales support. Work is done on a project-by-project basis, with teams disbanding at the end of a project. However, there is a fair bit of repeat business that allows past teams to come together for the same client again and again.
Management and operations
Bidding and awarding of contracts: Contracts are handled centrally by the four partners, with work going to the partners before the associates. The partners pass work on to associates when additional people power or specialized skills are needed on a project.
Deadline / project management: Projects are managed using written workplans and project charters. Tasks are sometimes distributed and managed via Microsoft Outlook. All projects use formal project management / planning techniques such as those outlined in the PMI Project Management Body of Knowledge.
Quality control: In most cases, the core Commons partners act as project leads / managers. As a result, a Commons partner approves all materials before they are sent to clients.
Management structure: The overall organization is managed in a fairly informal / collective manner. Partners pick up projects and lead them as they emerge. Where there are load issues, partners discuss who will take on a project.
Governance: Governance and strategic decisions are made by the partners / owners of Commons Group.
Marketing: Marketing is done on an informal, word-of-mouth basis backed up by the Commons Group web site. The only significant ongoing sales and marketing work is the writing of proposals for specific client projects. These are almost always solicited directly from the client and are rarely written in response to open RFP calls.
Finance
Business model: The Commons Group works almost solely on a fee for service basis where clients are charged for consulting time. About half Commons’ projects are completed on a fixed-rate consulting basis (one price for the overall project). The other half of projects are completed on a time and materials / hourly consulting basis. Both partners and associates are paid 80% of the fees collected for their work.
Financing of overhead: Partners and consultants contribute 20% of all fees billed into a common pool to cover costs such as insurance, general marketing and financial administration. Surpluses created through this overhead pool are either reinvested in the company or given to partners as dividends (although this hasn’t happened yet). There is no formal mechanism for covering the overhead associated with sales costs / proposal writing.
Appendix C - L+P Pilot Project Achievements
During the feasibility phase of L+P, APC made significant progress and achieved noteworthy results in all of the ‘service component’ areas of the L&P service ecosystem, working through our core areas of expertise.
Peer Networks
Information Workers
Online information workers consultation to discuss what is really involved in building information communities online. (March 2001)
APC ActionApps online consultation to exchange experiences, problems, solutions and product development recommendations among APC’s community of ActionApps providers. (June/July 2002)
APC Content Exchange team convened to implement a collaborative news exchange service among APC members on selected issue areas. (March 2002)
ActionApps Service Delivery Network
ActionApps service provider team of member staff with a diverse range of ActionApps expertise – marketing, AAs customization, programming – to collectively respond to internal and external service delivery requests
Secure Online Communications
Support network of secure communications practitioners – security experts, trainers, materials developers – sharing a workspace for advice and input to service delivery opportunities
Project Management
ItrainOnline: Leading the implementation team of the ItrainOnline ICT support and training materials portal site, in partnership with OneWorld, Bellanet, IICD and others
Multimedia Materials Tool Kit: Leading a collaborative process to produce a multimedia training kit – this comprehensive suite of interactive, multimedia learning modules will cover organizational, management, content production and issue-based training for community multimedia centres, information service providers and community radio stations.
Secure Online Communications: Developing online security training curriculum, materials and convening a training team for human rights organizations in Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine
Strategy and Planning
SEE Networking Support : Assisted MKOE with planning and in-person delivery of a regional ICT strategy meeting of CSOs in South Eastern Europe
CIAT Information and Communications for Rural Communities Project plan for how to assess connectivity options and develop a rural farmer-research communications strategy for one community in Latin America (May 2002)
Learning and Training
Face-to-face information workers workshop that provided project planning training, information sharing and networking for 30 participants – from within and beyond APC. (March 2002)
Face to face workshops for APC Council which provided APC members with learning opportunities in a wide variety of areas including marketing, ActionApps development, Internet rights, and CSO portal management. (November 2001)
Secure online communication workshops that provided 12 human rights organizations in Central Asia with training on how to use the Internet securely. (January and February 2002)
Gender Evaluation Methodology regional training workshops for 15-20 participants in Latin America, Asia and Africa (July – November 2002)
Tools and Resources
“Participating with Safety” secure online communication guides developed in collaboration with a panel of leading online security experts. Sponsored by OSI. (January 2001)
ICT skills development and materials portal site () developed in partnership with OneWorld, Bellanet, IICD and others. (launched November 2001, continually being developed/updated)
Gender Evaluation Methodology (GEM) website which houses the latest version of APC Women’s Programme’s GEM tool. (prototype tool launched September 2001; updated regularly)
Community media skills development materials for technical, management and issue-based training workshops. Developed with AMARC through sponsorship from UNESCO and Rockefeller Foundation. (in development – to be completed by February 2003)
“Understanding Civil Society Portals” guide which includes civil society portal case studies and practical tips for portal builders. (March 2002)
Market Research and Report: surveys of INGOs, donors, ICT service providers and key actors in the ICT4D arena; focus groups; an indepth ICTs and civil society literature review (January – August 2002)
Appendix D - Bibliography
The following is a list of papers, articles and research reports reviewed during the preparation of this business plan:
ICT and Civil Society Literature
Armstrong, Peter (Ed.) Unlocking Economic Opportunity in the South through Local Content. G8 Dotforce. March 2002. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Barndt, Michael. "Local Nonprofit Organizations at Work: A Composite view of a community presence on the World Wide Web." University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. 1998. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Boeder, Pieter. "Non-Profits on E: How Non-Profit Organisations are Using the Internet for Communication, Fundraising, and Community Building." First Monday July 2002. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Burt, Eleanor & Taylor, John. "Information and Communications Technologies: Reshaping the Voluntary Sector." 1999. ESRC. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Camacho, Kemly. "Global Development Gateway: Needs Assessment Report for Civil Society Organizations." Fundacion Acceso. 2000. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
-----. "The Internet, A Great Challenge for Civil Society Organizations in Central America". 2001. Fundacion Acceso. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Clohesy, Stephanie J. e-Philanthropy, Volunteerism, and Social Changemaking: a New Landscape of Resources, Issues, and Opportunities. 2000. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Last accessed 28 Sept.
2002. .
-----. e-Philanthropy v. 2001 - From Entrepreneurial Adventure to Online Community. 2001. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Dugery, Jacqueline. Coming of Age in the Information Age. 2000. PEW Charitable Trust. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Esterhuysen, Anriette. "Networking For a Purpose: African NGOs Using ICT." Rowing Upstream. Project for Information Access and Connectivity. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002
.
Gilbert, Michael. Disconnected: The First nonprofit email survey. 2002. Gilbert Research. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Greene, Stephen G. "Astride the Digital Divide." The Chronicle of Philanthropy 1 Jan. 2001. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002 .
IT Resource Centre. Enabling Technology Funding: Issues for Grantmakers (and Grant seekers). 2000. IT Resource Centre and the Chicago Community Trust. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002.
.
Jamieson, Doug. "Relationship-Building in the Networked Age: Some implications of the Internet for Non-profit Organizations." The Philanthropist Jan. 2000. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002
.
Johnson, Martin. "Non-profit Organisations and the Internet." First Monday Feb. 1999. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002 .
-----. "Second Internet Survey of Non-Profit Organizations." Wesley Mission, Australia. 2001. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Kuntze, Marco, Rottman, Sigrun and Symons, Jessica. "Communications Strategies for World Bank and IMF Watchers." 2002. Bretton Woods Project. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002.
.
Landesman, Cliff. "Nonprofits and the World-Wide Web". 1995. Internet
Nonprofit Center. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Levey, Lisbeth. Rowing Upstream. 2002. Project for Information Access and Connectivity. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
McConnell, Scott. "A Champion in Our Midst: Lessons Learned from the Impacts of NGO's Use of the Internet." Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries Vol 2. May 2000. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002 .
Madon, Shirin. "International NGOs: Networking, Information Flows and Learning." Development Informatics Working Paper Series. 2000. Institute for Development Policy and Management. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
OneWorld/OSI. The Use of Information and Communication Technologies by Non-Governmental Organizations in Southeast Europe. 2001. OneWorld/OSI. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002.
.
Rodgers, Jayne. "Ngos and e-Activism: Institutionalizing or Extending the Political Potential of the Internet?" 2001. Paper presented to the ISA Hong Kong Convention of International Studies, 26-28th July 2001. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Ryberg, Richard, Mowry, Donald, Saxrud, Keri and Amy Welbourn. "Nonprofits in the Information Age." 12 Aug. 2002. Digital Divide Network. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002.
.
Spencer, Tessa. "The Potential of the Internet for Non-Profit Organizations." First Monday Aug. 2002. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002 .
Surman, Mark. From Access to Applications: How the voluntary sector is using the Internet. 2001. Volunteers Online. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002.
.
Wired for Good. Wired for Good - Technology Survey Final Report. 1999. Center for Excellence in Nonprofits. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
ZEF Bonn. Information and Communication Technologies for Development. 2002. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit. Last accessed 28 Sept. 2002. .
Donor Funding of ICTs
Ford Foundation. Grant Summary. 2002. Last accessed 29 July 2002.
Foundation Center. "International Affairs, Development, Peace, and Human Rights 1998". Last accessed 29 July 2002.
-------. "Top 50 Foundations that Give Internationally, 1998". Last accessed 29 July 2002.
-------. "Top 50 Non-U.S. Recipients of U.S. Foundation Grants, 1998". Last accessed 29 July 2002.
-------. "Types of Support". 2000. Last accessed 29 July 2002.
-------. "International Grantmaking II: An Update on US Foundation Trends: Highlights of the Foundation Center's 2000 Study." Last accessed 29 July 2002.
-------. "Foundation Yearbook Highlights". 2002. Last accessed 29 July 2002.
-------. "Top 25 IT Donors" 2002. Last accessed 29 July 2002.
OECD. "Donor ICT Initiatives and Programmes as collected by the OECD-DCD and IDRC as of February 2001." Last accessed 2 August 2002.
UIA. "International organizations by year and type 1999." Last accessed 29 July 2002.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- small business plan samples free
- small restaurant business plan sample
- software development business plan template
- start up business plan samples
- startup restaurant business plan sample
- business plan purpose statement example
- free business plan download pdf
- free business plan examples for new business
- free business plan examples
- free business plan samples pdf
- business plan pro
- business plan software