Tony Dye

Technology Evangelist, Higher Ground Technologies

I'm thrilled to announce that I'm significantly stepping back into the Church/Ministry IT world by joining Higher Ground Technologies. My new title is Technology Evangelist (a title I've semi-secretly wanted for years) and I have the opportunity to help churches and ministries with their technology needs.

Those of you who know me have heard me say that one of my favorite things to do is visit with, and interact with, church and ministry IT people about technology ideas, best practices, etc. Now that's my job! OK, there is more to it, but that's a start. I'll be doing some hands-on work, some account management, some new business development, some writing, some marketing, a bit of social media, and a lot of intentional researching of products for the ministry-based technology users.

I'm excited!

Higher Ground has been in this business for quite a while, and we have a lot of delighted clients. At the same time, we've been a well kept secret. Part of my new role is to change that. We want to let others know who we are, what we do, and that we can help. We're a bit non-traditional sometimes. We don't always align ourselves with the biggest, or most well-known, brand-names, but we stand behind our product choices like nobody else. Our model is primarily managed services, with the slight twist that we consider ourselves to be managed service partners. Yes, we do the heavy lifting, but we do it in a coordinated fashion with our clients. We may not visit you very often, but we are some of the most approachable, friendly, and likable people you will ever encounter. We believe in personalized service. When you call us, we're likely to know your name!

If you are in need of "just a little more" help in your IT department, or if you want to outsource a majority of what you do, we can handle either case and everything in-between. Give us your challenges, let us help make you an offer. Where others may make offers you can't refuse, we'll make offers you want to accept. Try us!

We are a leading provider of Rukus wireless equipment, Switchvox VoIP phone services, and Tereo backup services. We can help you with network architecture and engineering, remote monitoring and management, email hosting and filtering, and if you have other IT-related needs, just ask. We are here to help you be successful.

Has Your Church Considered Sermon Transcription?

Have you thought about sermon transcription for your church? If you are doing audio, then you're already part way there. But how do you search audio? And some people are just visual learners and do better with written (or displayed) words, and some need the audio and the words!

If you've tried automated transcription, you probably know that's a technology that's not quite ready yet. If you've tried off-shore outsourcing, then I guess the fact that you're still reading this indicates how well that worked out. Would you like a better option?

Yes, this is going to be a plug for a great service I believe in and do have some connection with. So, with that disclaimer, here goes

Let us transcribe your sermons each week so you can:

• Post transcribed sermons on your church website
  • Makes it easy to search through them
  • Many people love being able to read the sermons
• Have a written transcription of each week's sermon
  • Build a database of your sermons
  • Use for reference purposes

• Typically $75 per sermon
  • Easy payment options
  • Billed monthly
• Scripture and references always included
• Varying levels of editing available according to your preference
• Sermon transcription usually completed within 3-5 days (can be sooner if necessary with advanced notice)
• I simply download the audio sermon from your website or you can send it to me as an mp3, then I email the transcribed Word document back to you

Contact Margaret Salyers, Sermon Transcription, MargaretSalyers [at] gmail.com or call 606-706-5006 and receive a FREE TRIAL - your first sermon transcribed at no charge.

(Please tell Margaret you saw the reference on my blog)

Winabler Version 2

One of the most frequently accessed items on this blog is the old link to Winabler. Kerry Rogers, the creator of Winabler has recently updated it to include the enabling of Windows® menus in addition to buttons and other objects. Here's the new download location:

http://www.tinkertoys.net/downloads/WinablerSetup.exe

ChMS Selection Process Part 3 - Developing a Selection Process

A successful ChMS selection and implementation process is rarely an individual effort. It takes an engaged and equipped (and trusted) team, with a clear leader.

1. Recognize the need for a new ChMS (sort of implied if you're reading this series)
2. Designate a project leader. Big projects like this live and die on leadership. Someone needs to be in charge. Someone needs to be the final decision maker. Even if ultimately “the pastoral staff” is going to make the call on which database to choose, the person who is the leader on the project is going to have to work through this process and make a final recommendation to the pastoral staff. The stronger the leader, the better. There will always be differences in opinion. Just because the children’s minister saw X database in person at Y church and thinks it’s the greatest thing in the history of the universe does not mean this is the right database for your church, and it certainly does not qualify the children’s minster to be able to know everything about the churches data needs…
3. Detail the failings of the current methods in use (data silos, inaccurate data, missing functionality etc.)
4. Make case to senior staff to engage this process
   1. Getting senior staff support is essential to the success of a ChMS conversion. The mandate to use the new product, and only the new product, needs to come from senior staff, not from IT or from whatever department has been put in charge of the actual selection and implementation of the new database. Do not underestimate the importance of this step
5. Begin by detailing what you utilize your current database for, if you have one. This is the baseline functionality you MUST replicate with a new system, or it will fail. For example, If you take attendance every week on a piece of paper, and enter that attendance in the system and the new system cannot handle this quickly and easily, the entire implementation will fall apart on this one simple task unless you have fully thought through how you are going to replace this day one with the new system
   1. What do people rely on from the data? Not what do they do (e.g. they enter attendance every week. That is something they do. WHY do they do it?)
   2. In many cases people are using very dysfunctional methods to accomplish a business purpose. Their natural expectation will be to replicate these dysfunctional methods in the new system. This is why you need to dig to the core of what is actually being accomplished, and then look at what the best way to do this would be in the systems you evaluate. Not looking to replicate the method, but rather the outcome
6. What are the business functions you are hoping to achieve with the new database. Not features, but business goals. Putting a picture in the database is not a business goal. Utilizing photos to provide the ability for staff to quickly and easily put a name with a face when making a phone call, or deciding on suitability for ministry is a business goal
7. Identify the key decision makers that need to be involved in the database selection process. This is not everyone who will be using the database. Not every secretary, but perhaps one heavy DB user and the office manager. You want someone who uses it day to day to help you evaluate the new solutions, and someone who is able to enforce the decision once its made. Thus for check-in you might have the children’s pastor and someone who directly oversees check-in week in and week out
8. Ask staff in general for a list of things they wish the database could do. This “second tier” of requests is helpful, but not essential. They may not realize that they want a database to do many things they do, so asking questions like “What are you using excel for currently” or “Do you maintain an online, access or filemaker database of our people? What do you use that data for” will get you better answers than just asking for a wish list. Evaluate these requests for feasibility and inclusion in your requirements
9. At this point the project leader should combine all of the various requirements and begin asking the type of questions that will be addressed ahead in this series

Thanks to Joel Lingenfelter for substantially ALL the content of this post.

Next: Part 4 -Some non-Technical Questions

Previous: Part 2 - Focus on Staff

Choosing a ChMS – Fully Functional, or Easy?

When choosing a new ChMS, people often say they need more capability; that their current product just won’t do X, Y, and Z. However, if you look really hard, many of the existing products have feature sets far beyond what most people are using. If the feature exists, but it’s not practical to use it, then I would like to claim that the feature really doesn’t exist. Per an old Apple commercial (that apparently only I remember), slightly adapted, “the most powerful system is the one that actually gets used.” If a feature isn’t used, it might as well not exist.  If a feature is too difficult to use, well, that’s the same thing.

If the user who is supposed to perform a task can’t figure out how to do it, then no matter what the spec sheet says, the product doesn’t have that feature (at least for that user). Too harsh? Please disagree. If your users can’t (or even won’t – does it matter?) go through the steps, perhaps painful, to perform a task, then the software has failed to perform the task. Call it user error if you want, but the bottom line is that the task didn’t get done. If software requires exhaustive training, but the training is forgotten, then nothing was accomplished.

When evaluating, instead of saying “does the product enable doing X,” say “Is Bob [or Jane or whomever] readily capable of performing the steps to accomplish X with this product?” If the answer to the second question is ‘no,’ then for all practical purposes, it’s ‘no’ to the first question as well! Using that simple criteria, many product checklists would be reduced to a bunch of empty boxes!

So, who has intuitive, friendly, even “easy” software? Obviously, this isn't just about ChMS.

Inaugural Nashville Regional Church IT Roundtable

Thursday, October 21, will be the first ever regional Church IT Roundtable in the Nashville area. Click here for details and registration.(A full list of sites and dates can be found on the CITRT homepage.)

If you are ANYWHERE in Tennessee, northern Alabama, northwest Georgia, central Kentucky, or northern Mississippi, this will be the location for you. Of course, anyone is welcome, from any state, who wants to make a trip to the Nashville area – what a great place to be in late October!

J.Mac Brown, who will be the host for the event, offers this short testimonial:

“I have been in and around the CITRT for four years now and for me personally it has been a huge benefit and support to my job.  Each time I have attended an event I have walked away with a new tool we have implemented in our organization.  I flew back home from our National Roundtable (at Saddleback in Los Angeles) in March feeling encouraged and fired up about the role I play on our team at Fellowship Bible.”

The cost and time commitment are low but the benefit can be big.  Hope you can make it.
J.Mac Brown

This is your chance to be part of a great new beginning AND help CITRT celebrate four years. Register now!

SOHO Backup, Item 11 - Referrals

Continuing on ideas for the "Perfect" SOHO Backup System.

Previously:
1. Local Backup
2. 3-2-1 Rule
3. Off-Site doesn't have to be instant
4. Reporting
5. Backup Set Selection
6. Cloud Resources
7. Delete and Overwrite Protection
8. Archiving
9. Dedupe
10. Search Awareness

Today:
11. Referrals
As much as I want to find a backup product that meets the previous 10 expectations, there is one more major expectation, perhaps the biggest requirement. I don't want to seriously consider a product that doesn't have some positive customer history and some great testimonials. A big bonus is referrals from within the CITRT community.

For years, I've worked within organizations that had values (sometimes even written values) of "staying with what's popular," or "NOT going with leading/bleeding edge products or technologies." Sometimes we added an escape clause of "without an extremely well chosen reason." When I look back on some of my own technology disasters, they were almost all related to being too early in the adoption of a great looking new technology, or trying out something very promising, even something that had been on the market a long time, but without first talking with someone else who was using it.

How important are referrals, or references, or testimonials, to you in your selection process? Do you have any good exceptions to getting referrals?

SOHO Backup, Item 10 - Search Awareness

Continuing on ideas for the "Perfect" SOHO Backup System.

Previously:
1. Local Backup
2. 3-2-1 Rule
3. Off-Site doesn't have to be instant
4. Reporting
5. Backup Set Selection
6. Cloud Resources
7. Delete and Overwrite Protection
8. Archiving
9. Dedupe

Today:
10. Search Awareness
At first, this may seem to have nothing to do with backup, so let me try to explain. We back files up because they're important (or we think they might be), right? And if they're important, that means we might want to look at them again someday, right? Well, to look at them again, we have to be able to find them, and over time, most of us tend to lose track of all the things we've ever created. So, hopefully, we have some good form of search implemented that let's us find all that stuff that we're so careful to keep in backing up.

Often, however, we're inundated with search results because of the glut of files. If backup and search knew about each other, maybe we could have some ways to help clean-up on the fly. A few ideas:

1. If search was aware of archive storage, but could differentiate it, then it would be possible to search active storage without searching the archives. A search option (checkbox?) would allow for "also searching archives"
2. What if the search result screen had an archiving component. If a search results shows a bunch of old / inactive files, right there tag them for archive and let the backup system move them off prime storage at the next opportunity
3. Taking the above two together, the search screen could quickly become a key file-management tool. When searching the archives, the alternative "move back to prime storage" would be a nice option to have
4. For archiving purposes, one of the easy solutions is to be able to recognize files that haven't been accesses in a long time (and how long is "a long time" is probably a debatable subject). One of the ironies is that backing up a file touches it, so the date of last access is the same as the date of the last backup. Backup needs to leave the date of last access alone. As does search! Finding a file in a search result should not actually touch the file. This is probably true of most search solutions. Can we force the archive and dearchiving to leave access date alone as well?

I'm looking forward to the day of self-cleaning storage and easy retrieval of important information and auto-archiving of less-important information. Until then, an search-aware backup and a backup-aware search are good steps in the right direction.

Next: Referrals

SOHO Backup, Item 9 - Dedupe?

Continuing on ideas for the "Perfect" SOHO Backup System.

Previously:
1. Local Backup
2. 3-2-1 Rule
3. Off-Site doesn't have to be instant
4. Reporting
5. Backup Set Selection
6. Cloud Resources
7. Delete and Overwrite Protection
8. Archiving

Today:
9. Dedupe?
Dedupe probably means different things, and I want to address at least two of them.

First, saving space on the backup media.
This is probably the most common form of dedupe, and in it's simplest form, it means not backing up the same file twice. If the backup system can detect that the same file exists more than once, it only backs it up once and keeps pointers to the additional copies.

More sophisticated dedupe systems go beyond this by looking within files, at logical "chunks" (defined many different ways, and not saving that duplicated data but once. A common situation is to image a block of text that is used over and over in documents or email messages. A sophisticated backup system can save this chunk of text only once, and then re-reference it in all other places.

Reducing the size of the backup set by this sort of deduplication is certainly a good thing, and the manufacturers of these products have some impressive statistics on how valuable they are. I have trouble getting terribly excited about this sort of dedupe, because, IMHO, it's solving the wrong problem.

Second, eliminating duplicate source data.
To me, this is the real problem. Primary (expensive) storage often has lots of duplicated files. for instance, an "interesting" document that was distributed to a large audience may be saved multiple times. It's the same file, but it exists a bunch of times. The dedupe solution above would save it from taking up lots of backup space, but it still takes lots of *primary* space, which is the problem! A really good dedupe would attack the source, not the destination. I've seen a few, expensive, not-well-known, systems that touch into this area, but none that seem to have caught on big-time. Microsoft Exchange used to tout it's "single store" method for handling attachments that had been sent to multiple people, but in recent versions even that has been removed. Too much effort for not enough gain.

Sometimes I miss my Unix (and derivatives) days that used links to solve a part of this problem. But even that wasn't a solution. The underlying problem is that we have fallible systems (often called humans) who have a propensity to save things multiple times. It would take another system (also probably fallible) to look at all the redundancy and reduce it down on the source side. It's not hard to write software to find such duplicates (I did it many years ago in a very simple Bourne shell script), but the problem is what to do with the duplicates. People are reluctant to let systems programatically clean up for them, so the file glut continues.

Worth a quick mention: There is probably a third common case of duplication caused through emailing of attachments. This isn't a backup issue, per se, but it's an issue that's worthy of some creative solutions. Dropbox, Google Docs, etc., are some pretty good solutions, but only if people choose to use them. Some get it, some don't. How can we make this so much easier that it's automatic and the email/attachment glut self-destructs?

My opinion, unsubstantiated, is that a solution that archives "not recently used" files would tend to also solve the duplicate file problem. So, where are the products that handle this? So far, they are very expensive. That's a shame.

Next: Search Issues

You Don't Need to Take Notes

I was at a [people] networking event a few days ago, and there was the general expected sharing of business cards. One of the guys in the group, Donald, a web designer, also put out some small notepads. Now let me be clear, I don't know Donald [yet] other than to say hi, I don't know his work [yet],  but I sure like the line on his notepad:

"You don't have to take notes to remember how to use a smallbuck website."

That's exactly what I want to see in software, or in products or services of any type. "No training required," or "training so obvious you won't need notes." I know we're not there yet, but every day I see products and ideas that take us a step closer. I remember the days when one of the church management companies would not let you buy their product until you signed up for training, and it was a significant time expenditure for that training (and largely forgettable, too). It's nice that many of the newer ChMS products have a much simplified training program. That's progress!

Again, I don't know Donald, but I like his business card, too. His title? "guy in charge." I think I get it.