Difference between revisions of "Paying for Tech"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (1 revision imported) |
|||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
*dont overpromise to funder, consider what funder can contribute | *dont overpromise to funder, consider what funder can contribute | ||
*negotiation: have other party to make first bid | *negotiation: have other party to make first bid | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category: 2014 Richmond]] [[Category: Money]] |
Latest revision as of 19:01, 4 May 2016
Overview
- Aspiration offers business coaching and proposal vetting
- tech minimalism- when in doubt, leave it at
- no such thing as a self-maintaining tool
- free tools you are the product: data responsibility
- knowing who is maintaining/owning your content
- model for shit hitting the fare
- control fixed monthly costs
- evaluate $5 vs @500 monthly hosting costs
- a lot of how you pay is time
- tech is a garden, requires wedding
- beep a spreadsheet of recurring costs
- no magic budget for tech
- pizza delivery pathology:
- cook me a pizza and deliver
- tech leadership is understanding costs
- trust trustworthy people
- Aspiration helps with grant proposals
- get funders excited about impact
- wrap up tech in impact narrative
- funders dont know what tech costs.
- NPOs bottom line = survival, efficiency
- multiply what you think: $10 --. $15k
- 5 paths: eric leland
- Drupal:
- cost-sharing: be cautious of divergent needs/priorities
- make a solid document that outlines how decision get made
- lot
- every decision: are we maximizing control over our destinz
- long term contracts dont do it
- have the divorve convo before signing a contract (again control is your data)
- open source! Use it! It is social just technology subverts.
- impact measurement:
- heat: pageviews, clicks, trends, referral --. gratitude
- dont overpromise to funder, consider what funder can contribute
- negotiation: have other party to make first bid