Synthesis Report
TimeBank Toolkit project 2021
Prepared by Malcolm Fitzgerald & john gieryn for the Software Working Group of TBANZ
Too Long; Didn’t Read (TLDR)
We have interviewed coordinators of Timebanks in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our questions focussed on the activities that were the most common, the most difficult, and the imaginary tools that are most wanted.
After transcribing the interviews we used cluster and ranking methods to visual the responses in aggregate. This methodology produces “at-a-glance” results and allows rapid reiteration, allowing us to synthesise information and get high-level abstraction simultaneously.
The outcome of the process is a set of themes which we plan to address in the toolkit. While it is obviously a significant point of friction, Community Weaver 3 is not the biggest problem. With that knowledge we can confidently predict that more, or different, software will neither change nor resolve the problem.
TLDR – Key findings
We found that the motivating value for timebank coordinators is the wellbeing that comes from connecting with people in the community and nurturing those relationships. This is heart-centered activity.
The majority of their time is spent in four domains: onboarding, outreach, engagement and administration.
Coordinators felt most successful when onboarding was quicker, and more personal; when events were attended and appreciated; when administration/compliance could be performed easily. In other words, when their activity corresponds with their motivations.
Time spent in onboarding and administration domains is dominated by legal, bureaucratic, and administrative tasks that are numerous, necessary, and more or less difficult, according to the personal skills of the coordinator.
The domain of engagement encompasses and extends beyond onboarding and outreach; it is, however, harder to provide effective technological solutions for the many varied ways that people engage in that more relational aspect of the work.
What guided this work?
Who this is for
We aim to benefit:
— the coordinators, steering committees, and admins, of Aotearoa New Zealand’s timebanks
— new or old, big or small, rural or urban
— the practice of timebanking, in its many flavours
…keeping the core values of reciprocity and community – and the people who bring it to life – at heart.
Our guiding star
We are looking for some wins, now, and down the track, as illustrated here:
“Technology will not replace great teachers, but technology in the hands of great teachers can be transformational." –George Couros
More on our ‘guiding star’
Personas – Coordinators
*in the case of Anna Dunford and Kate White �in far north and semi-rural Canterbury, �Tai Tokerau & MCT, respectively
JOBS
• Conceptual (eg, visioning)
• Onboarding
• Engagement
• Administrative
• Reporting� • People coordination
Timebanks by the numbers
We interviewed
Members
Trades per month
* Tai Tokerau counts for 2 it has one higher level management structure, but multiple coordinators and wide spread), Taranaki counts for 1 (less active spread)† and Auckland Central plus Māngere count for one
† active means trades are happening on a regular basis
Who’s missing? In terms of potentially active timebanks, we didn't hear back from 6 or 7, possibly missing 2 or more nascent, just forming, ones. ‡
Who’s inactive? Three historically active have become inactive, Wairarapa, Ōtaki, & Sumner. Tākaka’s just getting going. Taranaki would have constituted several in the past, may grow again.�
‡ not counting Kainga Ora
By the numbers – continued
Paid coordinators: 87% *
Require MOJ or Police Check:
Membership fees:
Public-facing office: 69% have access †
* all percentages are calculated as percent of active timebanks (16)
† 5 (38%)* have more regular access to a (dedicated) public-facing office
Guardian angels: 25%
Weekly or monthly meetups: ~ 25%
Working bees: ~ 25%
Commute distances: 25% +
By the numbers – continued
How many active timebanks are using…
How we went about it
The member’s “signing up” journey
Activation means the phase where the member learns what they need to know to participate at the basic level
Retention means the phase where the member is getting value and is hopefully inviting friends
WoM means ‘word of mouth’
Where we will focus
Work that all coordinators are involved in:
Direct engagement with members, one to one or in small groups, is of course a big part of the work, but this is much less generalizable.
Most painful for most people
Less people or less pain
1
2
Top finding – towards the Toolkit
Many mutual aid (timebank-like) groups use low-code or no-code tools. We think the toolkit may invite timebanks to embrace this approach and even celebrate it:
We think the findings point to a “duct tape” approach, for now.
They are adaptable, don’t require high technical skills, nor large amounts of money.
…if these were duct taped to the phone
Top finding… continued
…we also acknowledge that sometimes you can shortcut or reduce friction with technology that’s been developed with you (in mind, or participating).
With these both in mind, we imagine the toolkit will be:
Analysis: Cluster and Rank
Analysis: Finding Opportunity
Opportunities (higher priority)
Findings (lower priority)
Out of scope, but worth capturing
Other resources we’ll likely include
He maurea kaiwhiria!
CW3 – improving the platform (insights & opps)
Push notifications and app (with unread indicator)
Post offer/request to social media (more useful export formats)
Automations & Integrations
Obtaining specific metrics
Better broadcast tools: content and communications
More appealing & resonant (more visual & simple, local reo…)
Less catalysing falls on coord. (relevant notifications to user, better search…)
Better tools for events (promotion)
Learning to use CW3
CW3 Configuration
Neighbourhoods
Categories
Tags
Pro-forma email
Testing email settings
Wants and Wishes
Green Fields
Muddy Waters
CW3 Configuration
Community Timebanks
Sign-up Options
Multi-user activity ( security / accounts )
Page Display Controls
Going forward
We will be looking for opportunities that will support the broader goals of timebanking for Aotearoa New Zealand timebanks. The primary goals are social and have collective benefits for the community.
In an organisation that prioritises social engagement and community well-being we want to consider what that looks like.
Maximise the productivity of the inputs from coordinators and volunteers?
Maximise the social and collective benefits for the community?
These are still business processes. They aren’t driven by for-profit motives, but the challenges are similar.
Appropriate tools: minimise administration, minimise the cognitive load; minimise the manual effort required to perform the work.
Wrong toolkit may undermine the community by taking time/energy away from the primary goals.
Going forward
Software Fees: Free options tend to present high hurdles. They may require much more manual intervention, or more advanced skills, or limit access to the more powerful features.
We should evaluate the buried costs of tools that impede the coordinators from their social and communal activity. Software fees should be valued against these buried costs, eg, opportunity lost by having staff productivity impeded by bad tools.
Where we will not go
We are not undertaking member/user-based research into Community Weaver.
We are not looking for a silver bullet. The issues do arise from a common set of needs/causes but the outcomes/desires differ so much that one size fits all solution will please and dissatisfy in equal measure.