Final Report
Submitted to the Indiana Department of Education
Center for School Improvement and Performance
| Howard Rosenbaum | Kim Gregson | |
|---|---|---|
| hrosenba@indiana.edu | kgregson@indiana.edu |
2.1 The CN Boards and management
2.2 Achievements and Challenges
2.1 The CN Boards and management
At the time the research was conducted, CN Boards range in size from seven to 21 with representatives from the local school districts, public libraries, local universities, local governments, local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and members of the community. The most common types of Board members are the two required by ICNA and AI regulations: representatives from the school districts and local public libraries.
Board members responding to the survey considered themselves intermediate to expert in computer skills and equally skilled in using the internet. There was more variety among Board members interviewed in person. Some had very little computer experience before becoming involved with their Boards. Others reported not having had a computer at home. Many agreed that their involvement in the development and maintenance of their CN provided them with the impetus they needed to become much more proficient in their digital skills and aware of the range of issues surrounding the presence of the internet in their communities. Some Boards are fortunate enough to have members (or members' children) with sufficient technical skills to maintain and troubleshoot their CNs. Some members reported that their Boards lacked some necessary skills, including marketing and non-profit management and, sometimes, technical skills.
Most CN Boards have worked to have their members represent a broad spectrum of the community and this seems to be a strength. Board members have been recruited through a variety of means. At the CNs visited by the researchers, recruitment through personal contact with a current Board member was a most common pattern. In one county, members saw an ad in the paper about an organizing meeting, volunteered to help at the meeting, and later joined the Board. One motivation for many people was having the opportunity to bring the internet to their towns; they saw the provision of net connectivity and access to the wealth of networked information as ways to give their children an advantage in an increasingly digital world. In another step in their transition to self-sufficiency, many Boards plan to have elections in the future to bring in new members.
Volunteerism is both a strength and weakness for these Boards. Many original Board members were either early adopters of internet technologies or willing to learn about them. They had the enthusiasm and the will go through the grant process to obtain the start-up funding and the early and difficult stage of building the technical infrastructure for their CNs. Working on their own time, they have carried their networks through the start up period and have successfully met many challenges. However, volunteerism has also led to difficulties in management particularly in resolving thorny issues and in reaching rapid decisions. Board members reported that they attempt to reach consensus on issues before voting. They have discussions at Board meetings and exchange email between meetings. If the Board does not have a quorum, decisions are put off until future meetings. This sometimes results in important decisions not being made in a timely fashion. For example, several Board members from different CNs reported that decisions about membership levels and dues collection were put off for four or five months. Several Boards have set up committees but they are not always effective because of time constraints. No one reported any dissension about important issues or votes that were not unanimous when they were finally taken.
2.2 Achievements and Challenges
Many respondents reported that they were proudest of their technical achievements. Examples included selecting and/or partnering with an ISP, getting their server up and running, and establishing good working relations with their ISPs. Some believed that they had achieved a moral victory just to have gotten started at all; competing for and receiving the AI grant was seen as an achievement.
Social achievements included building a strong diverse board, having annual meetings or open houses with large attendance, and attracting many new members. One CN has had "WebFests," gatherings intended to show off the CN to local businesses and "Get to Know the Web" sessions where interested novices could talk with more experienced users. This CN has been able to charge for these well attended workshops. Many respondents commented that placing community content in their webs was a goal that they were successfully meeting (although the content analysis described below revealed that most CNs had not yet overcome this challenge). At least three have hired coordinators or directors.
Respondents said that they were not satisfied with the state of the relationship between the CN and the community. Many believed that people in their communities did not know about them yet or did not understand what the CN was doing and found that they had to make an effort to are explain the benefits of community networking to their communities. In several cases, Board members reported that the public perception of the CN associated it with internet access and it was seen as another ISP; overcoming this perception was an important goal for several CNs. Some CN Boards have begun to explore strategies for marketing themselves, developing brochures promoting the CN and describing the range of services they offer. One brochure even had a touch of humor with a Top 10 list of reasons to join the network. Board members offered two ways for CNs to strengthen their links to the community - they could provide more information about the community to the community and include more groups in the network. Some respondents said that their communities have shown some support, indicated by the number of individual memberships and by local nonprofits seeking them out to host their pages. Others said that there was a general disinterest in the CN among non-members in their communities.
An important step in the integration of the CN into the community is the establishment of an ongoing working relationship between the CN and local public libraries and schools. Board members did not describe any large scale projects with either community institution; this finding was supported by the analysis of CN web sites. This is understandable, given the significance of two important intervening factors, neither of which had manifested itself when the AI program was getting underway. Both factors have combined to make the establishment of good working relationships between CNs and public schools and libraries less likely to happen. First, there has been a rapid and pervasive growth of the ISP industry throughout Indiana. Second, there have been several state and federal initiatives the goals of which have been to provide direct connectivity to public schools and libraries. CNs had been expected to be the main point of physical access to the internet in their communities, offering dial up access to individuals, schools, libraries, and businesses. As ISPs moved into regions across the state, many CNs could not compete and lost the opportunity to establish relationships with public schools and libraries based on the provision of connectivity. As public schools and libraries seek state and federal monies for connectivity, the conditions of the funding programs provide them with incentives to bypass CNs as points of connection.
In most of the counties, public libraries did have computers and internet connections, some paid for with grant money obtained by the library and some by the CN. This was a basis for some Board members to claim that their CN had a good relationship with the library. One member said that the public library was aware of the CN's existence and hoped that librarians would educate library patrons about using it. Board members of several CNs did report that they were planning some training sessions in the future that would involve working with public librarians; one reported having volunteers conduct internet workshops at the library twice a month and another CN co-sponsored word processing and introductory internet classes with the public library. These instances were the exception rather than the rule.
A good relationship with the schools often meant that the school district let the CN have Board meetings in a school building or someone from the school district was on the board; in response to questions about how they would rate their relationship with the schools, a commonly expressed sentiment was that relations were excellent because the schools "donate space for CN operations." One Board member reported that the CN and the school had a superficial relationship because the schools had representation on the Board but there was little communication with school administration about the workings of the CN. Another respondent reported that the school representative had been trying to get off the CN Board for for approximately four months and could not find a replacement from the school district. In some communities CNs are attempting to work with students, who are helping to create web pages for the CN. In one case they are paid a monthly wage by the CN; another pays students a flat rate for their web work. Few teachers have been trained in the use of the CN or have been approached by Board members for partnerships or collaborative projects, although several respondents reported that they were planning training workshops for educators and were seeking closer ties with the students. Some CNs have made efforts to put school related content online. However, the analysis shows that many times this amounts to location information.
Other successes mentioned included incorporating, having set of by laws, speaking to organization in the community about the CN, and gathering content and placing it online. Goals for the coming year, in many cases, arose from having met the challenges from the past year. Many Board members plan to do more marketing of the CN locally and intend to search for other revenue sources. However, the goal that was mentioned most often was the development of more content; when asked what their three goals for next year are, one respondent responded "content, content, content."
The following is a list of challenges that Board members believed would be important in 1998:
Many respondents saw achieving self-sufficiency, specifically generating a steady stream of revenue, as the main challenge for the upcoming year. It was a major topic of discussion on the ICNA mailing list over the summer of 1997 with many complaints but few workable suggestions. There has also been little information sharing by the few CNs that have been successful in generating revenues; these CNs have tended to be ISPs or have been collecting rebates from their ISPs. One CN did offer to host a workshop on self sufficiency, but it has not occurred nor have details been discussed on the list. Many Board members described their long-term financial future as "somewhat" to "very unstable." Several Board members blamed AI's and the Intelenet commission's "changing of the rules" for their plight. One indicated that all revenue streams except individual memberships seemed to have been eliminated as possibilities by the terms of their AI grant. Board members from several different CNs reported that they had received different information when they inquired about their abilities to charge for different services and were left with uncertainties about whether, for example, they could sell advertisements or work with the for-profit businesses in their community while receiving funds from AI.
Board members of CNs that were not ISPs reported that they did not have any regular revenue flows established. Several said that they were faced with very bad contracts with the ISPs in their communities. One Board member reported that his/her CN had a contract where they paid their ISP over $40,000 a year for access and support, including the cost of a systems administrator. In exchange, the ISP would let people pay $5 per month to the CN if they so desired. This meant, according to one Board member, that the CN would need over 900 paying members a month to break even. One talked about disbanding because of the problems the Board had with their ISP and their inability to attract another ISP for many months. Another Board member reported having serious problems collecting the rebates due from their ISP. To generate revenues, some CNs were starting to set up membership plans with different levels for profit and non-profit organizations, individuals, and families.
Many respondents indicated that they were worried about the financial stability of the CN and recognized the need to become self-sustaining, but reported that their Boards had not really begun to develop any plans or take any actions to move in that direction. Board members said that they would like more information about marketing, pricing, grant availability and grant writing, but claimed not to know where to obtain it. Many mentioned that they would like to know what types of revenue-generating initiatives other CN Boards were pursuing. Possible sources of revenues mentioned by respondents included sponsorships from both local businesses and nonprofit organizations, the sale of advertisements, and charging for training seminars, digital services, and web design. CNs that are their own ISPs were able to offer a wider variety of benefits for membership including virtual site hosting and vanity email. Only one Board member reported that her/his CN had successfully competed for another grant.
Board members discussed other challenges they have to meet. Many believed that they had been slow to gather content, a sentiment supported by the content analysis of their web sites. They realized that they were not making effective use of volunteers. Some members reported that their Boards were not working together as effectively as they would have liked. Not all of the members were working as hard as they could have been and some respondents thought these members should be putting more effort into the development of the CN. Some problems that the respondents experienced came about, they believed, because they did not have the technical, business or legal experience that they needed and did not have easy access to advice and assistance.
One interesting challenge mentioned by several Board members had to do with a scenario they thought was waiting to happen to CNs hosting member web pages - the posting of controversial material on their web sites by CN members. Many CNs did not have a policy in place to handle this scenario although one had faced and resolved the problem by asking the owner of the page to remove the material found offensive by other members. Fortunately, the situation was resolved without incident. Some respondents stated flatly t hat they had serious reservations about interactivity, particularly chat areas and mailing lists, because of the potential problems raised by the posting of offensive material. They wanted to be very clear about the CN's liability in the event that this scenario arose.
None of the CNs seemed to have plans in place for evaluating their progress. Many had not thought about the value of setting performance benchmarks and collecting data about their operations. Respondents thought that they could use participation rates for evaluation - membership, page and hit counts, and the number of nonprofits with content available online. Some reported that they wanted to make use of server log statistics, although these were difficult to obtain. Several respondents indicated that their CNs had feedback forms online for users to give suggestions, although they also said that the forms were not being heavily used. Many stated that it was too early to think about conducting any evaluations.
The respondents seemed to have a limited idea of who their typical users were and what these people were doing online; most respondents did not have a sense of what their users wanted from the CN. Some Board members saw themselves as typical users and believed that other people did the same kinds of things online that they did, such as searching for information and web pages about their hobbies or travel information. One respondent thought the people were using the system to search for information about the community when it was convenient for them. Several respondents mentioned that people use the system for email, which is a service provided by their ISP rather than the CN.
Boards communicate with their users through messages on the CN home page, newsletters, and announcements in the local media. One CN used inserts in membership bills. Several mentioned emailing announcements to their users. One Board member said that the CN's users called or emailed the webmaster when they had problems with the system. This network has volunteers who periodically dial in to the modem bank as a way of checking that the CN is providing reliable service.
In the CNs that are not ISPs, there is much less of a direct connection to users because the CNs do not have membership programs; there is no easy way for community members to develop a sense of ownership of or participation in the CN since the interface appears to be that of the ISP. These Boards have few mechanisms to contact their users except for posting announcements on the CN home page. Consequently, these CNs do not have a clear idea of how many people use their system from month to month, how many new users they have, or why people stop using the network. These Boards seem to be operating in a vacuum, putting up the content that they think is important. Since they have no evaluation or feedback system in place, they do not know if the content they are providing is what the people really want to see online.
Use this tool to move to any other section of the report or back to the Table of Contents. Select a section and press "GO!"
| This page prepared by Howard Rosenbaum Last update: 12.1.98 |
hrosenba@indiana.edu
| You are here:
http://memex.lib.indiana.edu/hrosenba/www/research/commnet/find2.html
| | ||