Non-Profit Technology vs For-Profit Technology
At a recent interview someone asked me what the difference is between non-profit technology and for-profit technology. Ironically, this is a question I've struggled with for some time, despite having been in the field for several years and having worked on this site for about 6-months. It seems to be an answer I know but can't articulate well.
My answer wasn't eloquent but it satisfied the interviewer. The answer didn't satisfy me, so I took what I came up with as seed for a larger discussion. While I'm well aware that money has a nice place in every IT person's decision matrix, it's how that money impacts the decisions that is relevant. Other factors include psychology (i.e. the for-profit staff mentality is different from that of most non-profit staff). Below is a brief over-arching list of items that I find different between the two sectors.
My answer wasn't eloquent but it satisfied the interviewer. The answer didn't satisfy me, so I took what I came up with as seed for a larger discussion. While I'm well aware that money has a nice place in every IT person's decision matrix, it's how that money impacts the decisions that is relevant. Other factors include psychology (i.e. the for-profit staff mentality is different from that of most non-profit staff). Below is a brief over-arching list of items that I find different between the two sectors.
- Money
- restricted/unrestricted funding
- discount pricing
- used/donated technology
- TechSoup
- technology grants
- Social services-oriented staff and clients
- psychologies
- schedules
- Non-profit specific services and software
- fundraising
- grant management
- Microsoft
- consultants
Labels: non-profit technology, nptech
FeedBurner
3 Comments:
There seems to be a myth in the non-profit sector that for profit companies have unrestricted IT budgets. Maybe some do, but after 10 years in high tech I've never met one. Granted, it can be a bit simpler to do a cost/benefit analysis and announce that X technology will improve revenue by Y amount. I've also seen obscene amounts of money thrown away for emotional or political reasons.
Most IT departments are reported on the corporate balance sheet under administrative cost, which is squeezed and squeezed. The markets don't like to see large administrative costs. They tend to carry an almost immoral tenor - if you're spending money on administration, you're inefficient - just like in the non-profit sector.
So perhaps there is more money, but it's anything but unrestricted.
By Anonymous, at 29 December, 2006 10:47
I don't think NPITM meant "unrestricted" in the sense of "unlimited," but rather the fund accounting sense.
In many cases, however, I think when we talk about nonprofit x (technology, HR, management) we're frequently talking about things which could easily apply to a larger group of small and medium businesses. Not that there isn't anything unique about the mission-based sector, but some of what is identified as being NP-specific isn't.
I think NPITM's list is good, though, and don't really have anything else to add at this point. It is a little tricky to wrap your head around. I think a lot of it has to do with personal idealism - NP IT folks do it in part because we support the missions of our employers/clients, just like other NP staff.
By herk, at 29 December, 2006 21:14
Couple comments:
Techsoup et.al. For all the discussion of using free and open source software, much good software is available at huge discounts for non-profits and educational institutions so that the cost approaches zero for things like Microsoft Windows Server. This means that the software choices really can be on the merits, and availability of support and all that good stuff.
Restricted/Unrestricted: Few funders want to pay for just plain administration. Often the best approach for technology funding is to include an "indirect percentage" which covers administrative costs as a budget line item in any grant application. Sophisticated and reasonable funders will expect it, as they realize that you have to keep the lights on somehow even as you are performing to the restrictions of a project.
By Larry Keyes, at 13 January, 2007 22:20
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home