Tag Archives: standards

guide to ethics in app & other tech tool development

I really love this and I would love to see this guide built into all hackathons / hacks4good, the development of apps4good, etc.:

Ethical OS Toolkit: a guide to anticipating the future of impact of today’s technology
Or: how to not regret the things you will build

I have only one disappointment with the guide, but I’ll save that for the end of the blog.

This is from the guide, and explains why this document is needed:

As technologists, it’s only natural that we spend most of our time focusing on how our tech will change the world for the better. Which is great. Everyone loves a sunny disposition. But perhaps it’s more useful, in some ways, to consider the glass half empty. What if, in addition to fantasizing about how our tech will save the world, we spent some time dreading all the ways it might, possibly, perhaps, just maybe, screw everything up? No one can predict exactly what tomorrow will bring (though somewhere in the tech world, someone is no doubt working on it). So until we get that crystal ball app, the best we can hope to do is anticipate the long-term social impact and unexpected uses of the tech we create today.

The last thing you want is to get blindsided by a future YOU helped create. The Ethical OS is here to help you see more clearly.

The guide includes:

  • A checklist of 8 risk zones to help you identify the emerging areas of risk and social harm most critical for your team to start considering now.
  • 14 scenarios to spark conversation and stretch your imagination about the long-term impacts of tech you’re building today.
  • 7 future-proofing strategies to help you take ethical action today.

The risk zones that the guide identifies are:

  • Truth, Disinformation, and Propaganda
  • Addiction & the Dopamine Economy
  • Economic & Asset Inequalities
  • Machine Ethics & Algorithmic Biases
  • Surveillance State
  • Data Control & Monetization
  • Implicit Trust & User Understanding
  • Hateful & Criminal Actors

The Ethical OS is a joint creation of the Institute for the Future and Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab.

The guide has lots of discussion questions that developers can explore. It’s not so much that the questions have right or wrong answers – they are meant to spur consideration of how a new technology meant to help people could be misused, something that all too many developers DON’T think about.

The guide also has suggested questions for board members and trustees to ask themselves about tech development, so they can understand the possible risks to their organizations as a result of use of the app.

My only disappointment with the guide – and it’s a BIG disappointment – is that the section on Economic & Asset Inequalities never mentions accessibility for people with disabilities. When tech tools are not accessible for people who have sight impairments, people who have hearing impairments, people with mobility issues, etc., those tools create economic and asset inequalities. It’s really inexcusable that this wasn’t mentioned even once.

Some other blog posts regarding tech4good and work ethics:

I’m a volunteer & you should just be GRATEFUL I’m here!

On a LinkedIn group, someone asked for a resource to help with volunteer evaluations (forms, policies, etc.). A couple of folks, myself included, responded with some references/resources.

And then came these two comments:

(1)
Volunteers generally do not expect to be evaluated, after all, they are doing the organization a favor.

(2)
As someone who has volunteered in over 30 organizations in a large array of positions, some with intense responsibility, if I had to be vetted each time I volunteered, I would never do any of it. In fact, if I had been appraised, they probably would have disqualified me in the first place when in actuality, I did better than some of their paid and “experienced” staff. It is not worth my time to go through that nonsense, I am a volunteer for goodness sakes. Whenever someone imposes requirements, I just walk away. I have sat on advisory boards of non-profit organizations, as well, and have been entrusted with finances, operations, etc., if they had said you will have to go through some job interview hoops, I would have just laughed and also kept my wallet closed to any further contributions.

Volunteer managers have been working to raise the standards of volunteer involvement schemes for a few decades now, often with success. Yet, there are still oh-so-many entitlement volunteers, those folks who think organizations should take ANY volunteer and whatever that volunteer offers, and simply be grateful for what they get. No standards, no quality control, no performance measurements when it comes to volunteers. To demand quality from volunteers is insulting.

For me, as a volunteer management practitioner and someone who is committed to the success of nonprofit organizations and NGOs, I’m only to happy to show those people the door. I don’t need nor want their services as a volunteer. My organization — and those it serves — deserve better.

Nonprofit organizations are businesses. They aren’t there to be nice, they are there because they are necessary. A nonprofit has a mission — to house stray animals and reduce pet over-population, to present quality, professional theater performances, to educate people about HIV/AIDS, to provide care for victims of domestic violence, to keep a local environment clean, to help family farms survive even the worst economic times, to keep a state park clean and vibrant and accessible, and on and on. For a nonprofit, that mission trumps everything else — including the egos of entitlement volunteers. Nonprofit organizations have very limited resources to meet their mission, and they cannot waste those resources waiting and hoping entitlement volunteers maybe possibly might spare some time this week to staff the information booth at the local fair or come to the board meeting or counsel clients or attend a training or coach a youth soccer team or lead a childcare class or raise the money they have committed to raise or follow the rules.

Let’s say it again: volunteers are not free. An organization has to expend a lot of time and resources to involve volunteers. Organizations have to provide at least one staff member to supervise volunteer work and ensure volunteers don’t do any harm. Staff has to develop activities for volunteers to do — activities that often would be probably be cheaper and done more quickly by staff themselves. The organization has to monitor the volunteers and record their progress to the board and donors. And they must make sure the work volunteers undertake is of the quality and type the organization’s clients deserve.

Therefore, organizations want the people who volunteer to be worth all that investment of time and money. They want volunteers to take their commitment seriously, finish what they’ve started, and continue to support the organization, as volunteers and, maybe, as donors. They don’t want volunteers who aren’t going to show up, who do substandard work, who won’t be on time, who won’t follow policies and procedures, and who will reduce the trust and respect clients, donors and partner organizations have for the organization — those volunteers not only aren’t worth the effort, they aren’t worth the damage they may do.

When I am in charge of recruiting and screening volunteers, I have raised the bar high for applications – and the higher I have raised the bar for new volunteers, the more strict I’ve been regarding standards, the more hoops I’ve required volunteers to jump through with regard to reporting and work quality:

  • the less volunteer recruiting I have to do
  • the fewer conflicts among and with volunteers I’ve had to deal with
  • the fewer volunteers that drop out mid-assignment
  • the fewer volunteers I’ve had to let go (in fact, I’ve had to fire a volunteer just once)
  • the higher the quality of the volunteers contributions
  • the happier volunteers have been (based on their comments and how long they volunteer)
  • the less time I spend trying to put together reports showing volunteer effectiveness (because they provide the information automatically; I always have the information on hand, ready when needed)
  • the less time I have to spend trying to restore the faith of clients, staff and the general public in the work of the organization, and in volunteers in general, because of volunteer missteps

Nonprofit staff should never be afraid to say no to an offer of volunteer services. They should remember that their organizations and those they serve deserve the very best when it comes to services, including services provided by volunteers. And there are plenty of people out there ready to jump through your hoops and commit to quality volunteer service — and have their own service evaluated.

A version of this blog appeared 11 August 2010

Also see:

Corporate Volunteer Programs: What Do Nonprofits Want From Them?

In defense of skills over passion

No more warm, fuzzy language to talk about volunteers!