Help People + Operate Efficiently = Success

Ethical $tructure$ for $upporting & $u$taining Technology that Better$ the World

April Lorenzen — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:09:00 -0800

Should most technology that provides global scale benefit be provided through a "non-profit" organization?

Are non-profit organizations more ethical than for-profit organizations?

Do non-profits do a better job of maximizing the potential of technology for doing good in the world, than for-profits?

Why are some service offerings best suited to non-profit organizations?

****************
Case A: Cure for the Purple Plague in Perlivia

Let's say you uncovered a cure for a deadly malady "the purple plague" most prevalent in (fictional) third-world country Perlivia. Hundreds of thousands of victims die every year, mostly children, some with children they leave orphaned, mostly from families living below poverty level income.

The "users" most directly benefited by your technology are unable to pay for the services they need. Life and death is at stake; the opportunity for children to grow up unscarred is at stake, and the lifetime potential of these Perlivians to do good in the world is in jeopardy at best.

Individual philanthropists who may give you the money to distribute your cure - gain a dual benefit by giving you the money - only if your organization is structured as a non-profit. They do not have to pay taxes on the money they give you - and they can feel good about helping people less fortunate.

Corporations who may give you money to distribute your cure can use their involvement as a PR benefit, perhaps gaining customers by having people know they give money to some good causes.

Can you obtain sufficient revenue from those most directly benefited, to do an excellent job of getting this technology to the most people in the world who can use it?

Is it appropriate in this case to ask others (governments, private donors, corporate foundations) who don't directly benefit, to pay for those who do?

*************

Case B: Theft-proof Ink Pens

You've come up with a modification to ink pens that (magically) prevents them from leaving the area they were purchased for. The technology only works for writing instruments. It will add 1 cent to the manufacturing cost and have no impact on other costs associated with distribution of the product.

Both individuals and corporations use ink pens. So do non-profit organizations. However, of the billion (you can find out the real pen market size here: 2003-2008 World Outlook for Fountain Pens) ink pens bought per year, only a small number are mis-appropriated from private homes. For-profit corporations suffer the largest ink-pen-misappropriation cost. Non-profit organizations also "lose" ink pens - but dollar figure of the loss is orders of magnitude smaller than the loss to for-profit corporations.

Is the "user" who benefits most from your innovation able to pay for the enhanced product?

Corporations are losing a box of 12 pens for every pen that stays in the office for its useful life. Market tests show that corporations will gladly pay 12 cents more per pen - seeing the ROI on that decision as instant and worth many times the investment.

Manufacturers and distributors split 10.975 cents per pen - and your Magic Stayput R&D Lab gets 1/4th of one cent per 10 pens if you operate as a for profit. Several large knock-off pen makers also duplicate your innovation and pay you nothing. The knock-offs assume a 95% market position.

You find yourself smiling understandingly as you and your team cheer the creation of Magic Stay-Put R&D Lab's Sunbake waffler. The 1.2 million in annual revenue you get from the pen industry has allowed you to employ a fine set of ethical innovators and supply test equipment for making more products that make people's lives better.

Another option would be to form Magic Stay-Put R&D Lab as a non-profit. You could ask individuals to give to this good cause - whose primary direct benefitor is for-profit corporations who would lose fewer pens to employee theft. Or you could ask the ink pen industry to support your lab, perhaps with an annual membership at various sponsorship levels depending on size. Or you could ask the for-profit corporations (who will save through the use of your pen modification) to support your work with a sponsorship or membership annually. Or perhaps seek a government grant - the government is losing pens to employee theft too - and maybe law enforcement would be interested or counter-intelligence for possible applications in laser pens.

**********

Primary goal is getting the technology to the places it can do the most good.

Some services and products are primarily of use to businesses and organizations who are able to pay and will make money or save money by acquiring these services and products. What are the circumstances under which a non-profit organization is the most efficient way to create, deliver or sustain services that primarily benefit for-profit business?

Clearly if there is no need for "charity" - a charitable non-profit is not the appropriate form. There are not-for-profit industry associations. One purpose they may serve is to show no favoritism to any one company in the industry, and act as a unifying force or buffer for a variety of players in an industry to aggregate or exchange information.

Other services and products will require substantial funding to get them to people or organizations who cannot afford them. Here, a charitable non-profit may be an appropriate form.

In many cases, profit from sales to for-profits can be used to also support getting the technology to those who cannot afford it. The same technology can be sold to for-profits (who gain ROI from the purchase) and also distributed through a non-profit organization to those for whom paying doesn't make sense. Government, foundation, industry sponsorships and private giving can help fund the non-profit arm.

Inefficient Venture Capital and Alternative Models for Helping People

April Lorenzen — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:56:00 -0800

T or F: While pursuing investor dollars, innovators stay focused on making their product or service the best it can be and the thought they wake up with every morning is how to do better at helping people today

T or F: As the innovation interacts with users and requirements inevitably shift as new ways to help people are illuminated - investors encourage innovators to mold the business model to what is best for helping people.

T or F: Once the product or service is succeeding at helping people, investors obtain their ROI in the way that is most supportive of the product or service continuing to help people.

The "You're an Idiot" Barrier to Technology Transfer

April Lorenzen — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:47:00 -0700

Four types of people are going to talk to you, if you are in a position where you could apply technology in a practical manner to help people: User, Idiot, Gatekeeper, and Innovator.

Ordinary User - knows nothing and has no capacity to judge the appropriateness, security risk issues, brokeness or workability of new technology at solving problems they experience. May be useful because he is typical of the people who experience the problem that could be solved.

Idiot - an insane, often annoying person who tries to convince you that he knows something and/or has a solution (which will never work, for reasons you worked out in the toddler-hood of your understanding of this areas of technology.) See FUSSP.

Gatekeeper - knows everything - I mean really does know everything up to speed, state-of-the-art about this area and believes there is nothing more (at least not yet.) May be very resistant / selective about capacity to add info. For the sake of this discussion, Gatekeeper includes the roles of Critic, Devil's Advocate, Peer Reviewer, Implementor, Analyst. Gatekeepers have resources either in themselves or through their control/influence of other resources - to take ideas and put them to work helping people.

Innovator - has a valid concept that extends beyond present state-of-the-art or even present speculation / theorizing, which you could adapt to apply to helping people.

Because you are of type Gatekeeper and constantly torturously for years have spent endless amounts of time with type Idiot - you assume Innovators are Idiots.

This slows down the process of getting appropriate technology applied to the people who need the help.

Uncovering an anti-phishing user interface frauds cannot digitally fake

April Lorenzen — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:08:00 -0700

What is the one thing a fraud cannot copy?

Element 1. Something personal to the individual user.
Examples: a personal photo or a personal sound recording of their pet, child, loved one or self. Selected by the user, not by the software maker or application server, not by the third party trust authority.

Should the Outbound Index be Expanded to Serve a Global User Base?

April Lorenzen — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:08:00 -0700

My primary goals are:

- Make sure all revenue generating emails arrive to the business and get seen

- Employees waste very little time each day on emails such as spam, viruses, scams - energy or actions which may harm or at least do nothing positive for the business

The Outbound Index was conceived and designed to function on a global scale. It has been in use for several years in the service of business customers

What do I want out of all this?

April Lorenzen — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:56:00 -0700

Help people - and have the support I need to do an excellent job helping people.

Helping people includes helping ...

Litigating Market Domination vs Taking the Best Care of an Idea

April Lorenzen — Sun, 22 May 2005 07:41:00 -0700

As I have studied how IDEAS are handled in all of these communities - my mind has changed about the value and appropriateness of patents and litigation. I have come to believe that it is the person or company who "takes the best CARE of an idea" - who should, and automatically does -get market share on an idea.

Help People + Operate Efficiently = Success

April Lorenzen — Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:47:00 -0800

How a five year old girl who trips circuit mains and defies an elementary teacher by checking out "Boy's books" about electronics from the school library grew up to write this blog.