By Shane Thacker

(This is part one of a two-part feature on technology planning tips. The second part will appear Nov. 29.)

Technology plans are good. That's what we have been hearing from almost everyone we have talked to about the best ways to pay for an increase in an organization's technical capacity.

A good technology plan is a primary key to establishing any sort of organizational technology strategy, along with being a valuable tool for indicating to funders just how serious and knowledgeable a nonprofit might be when it comes to getting money for technology.

However, while making the decision to put a plan together can be easy for an organization looking to develop strategically, knowing how to actually put the plan together can come a little harder.

To help make things a little easier, we talked to a couple of experts that have made careers of helping nonprofits construct good technology plans. From those experts, we compiled some of the tactics they recommend for building a lasting, successful plan.

What is a technology plan?

Much as nonprofits, documents can have missions to fulfill. Budgets help keep the organization out of financial trouble. Organizational charts give people some idea of who makes which decisions. Unlike nonprofits, though, documents cannot establish and maintain their own mission. A document's worth is bound up in the "sense of mission" that the organization's staff and others put into it.

In order to have an effective technology plan -- one that is capable of helping to accomplish its "mission" -- an organization must give that plan some meaning through defining its purpose and even its existence. How the organization sees the plan that it is developing affects how the plan will perform in the future.

We asked Denise Joines, executive director of ONE/Northwest, an organization that specializes in helping environmental groups understand and use technology, and Joe Matuzak, director of Arts Wire, which performs similar functions for arts organizations, how they would define a technology plan.

For one thing, it helps if the organization regards the plan as being an important part of its overall strategy, says Joines.

"[A technology plan] is a guiding document for an organization's direction. It outlines the specific steps you could take and keeps you firmly on the road to your goal."

For Matuzak, a technology plan has to be defined as something that can last, flexible enough to change with the needs of the organization and stringent enough so that it can offer guidance.

"It's a detailed, written document that looks at how technology impacts the organization in terms of how it impacts the mission," Matuzak says. He also sees a technology plan as a living organism, ready to grow and change with the organization.

Making sure the plan has coherent goals that the organization can follow is crucial, Matuzak says. Relating technological growth to the larger organization also is. That's why Matuzak recommends that a mission statement be included in the plan to relate it to the wider activities.

For both, making sure that the technology plan is taken seriously throughout the organization is an important step for the planners. The organization needs to see the technology plan as a vibrant, central document that can keep them on the path if followed, even when circumstances change.

Both Matuzak and Joines say that a good plan is able to change with the organization. A plan can only be valuable if the organization looks at it as an instrument that can guide them through change, providing scalability to cover various possible futures.

Technology planning is like marketing or membership management, Matuzak says. None of them are processes that have an end point, and organizations would do well to remember the continuous nature of tech planning.

Who does the planning?

Who does what can be one of the most contentious issues in any organization. When it comes to technology planning, choosing the wrong people or creating the wrong organizational dynamics can lead to the downfall of any organized effort.

Both Joines and Matuzak say that teams are the best way to go when it comes to technology planning. A team approach allows more people from around the organization to buy in to the new plan and also allows the plan to benefit from the experience of all kinds of technology users.

One common mistake that is often made when it comes to putting together a technology plan, Matuzak says, is using only one or two people to put together a plan without any input from others.

They suggest the team be made up of a representative mix of people from inside and outside the organization. While each nonprofit would have to determine what an appropriate representation might be, given the personnel on hand, both of our experts have some specific recommendations for the make-up of an effective team.

Joines recommends that the team be pulled together from both the people very familiar with the organization's technology and technology in general and from the everyday users of that technology. Technical solutions won't work unless the entire staff can handle the new technology.

Joines also points out one specific person who needs to be on the team in order to actually accomplish the plan:

"A director has to be involved and convinced that the plan is a good idea," she says, pointing out that a technology plan has less of a chance to work if no one with decision-making power is willing to back it.

Matuzak also sees the team as ideally being made up from users and experts as well. He further suggests that using someone from the community who knows technology and the organization well might be a good idea for nonprofits that have those resources.

Coming from a similar stance as Joines when it comes to involving decision-makers, Matuzak points out that organizations often have that "pivotal person" who needs to be convinced of the plan's worth. Putting that person on the team allows them to express their concerns early on in the process and can make them feel like they had a part in making the plan.

Matuzak warns against organizing a team exactly the way the rest of the nonprofit is organized, though. While it is good to have a director on the team, for instance, that director may not be the best person to be the head of the team, he says.

What is in a plan?

If a nonprofit puts together a potentially successful team to build a technology plan, that team then has to answer the question of what the plan should look like and what should go into it.

While the elements of a successful technology plan suggested by Denise Joines and Joe Matuzak will be listed in Part 2 of this article, it is important to note just how many elements that each conception of a good plan structure has in common.

For instance, in order for the plan to be useful -- both to the organization and for potential funders -- it is vital that it incorporate some means of relating the technology to the organization's mission and efficiency.

Without that link, an organization is likely to start buying technology for technology's sake, without any real idea of how the new tech will help it actually do its work. That is, if the organization can get funding for the new technology in the first place without showing why it is needed.

Another point of emphasis, both by Joines and Matuzak, is the need to consider staff training and to make that a part of the overall technology plan.

While it seems like a technology plan is just about the technology, it is actually an overarching document that describes the technology's implementation and use. As a result, taking the time and costs of staff training, as well as the staff's ability to learn the new technology, under consideration is a necessary step towards a technological goal.

Too many organizations have found that a new computer system can actually reduce productivity, if no one knows how to use it efficiently.

In a related matter, Matuzak points out that organizations need to establish beforehand how job roles will shift when they bring in new tech. How will the dynamics of the workplace look?

Finally, another point that is often forgotten is that of being able to actually perform the change. Buying the right equipment for rock-bottom prices doesn't really help if it ends up going to the wrong people or never getting used at all. Who needs the equipment, when and what will they need to use it effectively?

Matuzak's suggestion of a timetable for change helps here, as does Joines' recommendation that the organization figure out who gets what beforehand.

(Part two of Shane Thacker's story will appear Nov. 29.)

Shane Thacker can be reached at
shanethack@mindspring.com