Economists would argue that firms comprise people and financial capital. That’s true, but, as well as funding the ordinary operations of the firm, that financial capital is used to purchase technology. For the discussion about work done, firms therefore comprise people and technology. Some, like consulting firms, are light on technology, perhaps only exploiting conventional information technology tools such as word processors and spreadsheets. The capability of others, like car manufacturing plants, sometimes comprises mainly technology, with some being described as ‘lights out’ environments where robots work, remotely monitored by a few high-skill employees.

It's the same for civil society organisations (CSOs) and volunteers. At its simplest, volunteers and technology together give the CSO capability to do work to satisfy its beneficiaries.

Defining technology by its function

We typically think of technology as artefacts. Technology is the smartphone, the motor car, the array of solar panels or the like. But it’s only when technology interacts with or is used by humans, and specifically by human systems of work, that technology has any meaning. It’s only when technology affords humans a capability that we get excited.

Technology gives humans the ability to do things that, without the technology, they would not be able to do.

Technology ‘affords’ a person a capability. An example of required capability might be, ‘the user shall be able to compute the fuel efficiency of the car as the user drives along the road’.

There’s no hint here about how this might be done using technology. The technology could be an odometer and a fuel gauge. If the user has high competence, it’s possible that they could use some mental arithmetic to divide distance by consumption. If they have medium competence, a personal calculator might also be useful. And if they have low competence, the machine may need an in-built computer and display to do the calculation and report the fuel efficiency in miles per gallon or kilometres per litre.

In each case both technology function and human competence must be specified and in these examples the balance in each of the three differs.

Technology is specified by its function. In the above high human competence case, this function might read as ‘the system shall report both distance travelled and fuel consumed’. In the low competence case, we’d need to add ‘and make a calculation of distance divided by consumption and output this result to a display visible to the driver’.

When the user competence is low, the technology function must be high for the same capability and vice versa. Technology must always be specified for a given (or assumed) human competence.

This idea of balance between competence and technology is shown in the adjacent figure.

Defining people by their competencies

Competence is the aggregation of all competencies held by an employee. An individual competency is the ability to do something, given a particular technology. The ability to do something with that technology yields a capability. Whether, of course, the volunteer does what’s wanted with that technology, thereby turning the capability into a result, is not the issue here – it’s the subject of later chapters where we add topics like motivation.

So, what gives the volunteer a competency, for a given technology? The answer lies in whether they have the right personal characteristics. The key personal characteristics that determine if work can be done are intelligence, personality, skills, and knowledge. Whilst this is an over-simplification, it’s adequate for now.

Balancing people and technology

This idea of balance shows the dilemma faced by all managers of volunteers. They must fix either technology or competence. If they engage volunteers to do work – to give a capability – they must engage them with a particular technology in mind. And if they are about to specify new technology, they must have in mind a particular group of volunteers who will work with it.

Of course, norms of society, education, industry and the third sector will dictate the personal characteristics and technology that will be developed with this in mind. Nonetheless, this balance or duality gives managers of volunteers a mechanism for change and organisational development.

Codifying knowledge in technology

Information technology is a special case and exemplifies the idea of balance because it can store knowledge. Knowledge in this case can be information that can be retrieved, processes which can be run automatically, and algorithms that can compute answers using complex maths. The three together (information technology, knowledge, algorithms) are termed ‘artificial intelligence’.

Artificial intelligence can be stored in a technology – knowledge can be codified in a machine. Artificial intelligence effectively balances all the personal characteristics of the volunteer – and not just their intelligence per se.

Implementing change through technology

The manager’s options are best illustrated by example.

Information technology is the obvious one to consider first. Many CSOs have central computer systems accessing the web to provide volunteers and managers of volunteers with basic function. There are often three elements to this web provision:

• documentation (for risk, disclosure, and recruitment management);
• management and volunteer information (statistics, policies, and help);
• scheduling of volunteers and work packages;
• event planning (templates, tools, and access to experts).

The first two are applications used by managers of volunteers. The third is key when a CSO is experiencing a demise in volunteer commitment and responsibility. Here the onus for delivery remains with the manager, who invites volunteers to offer their services at a time for a task. This benefits both manager and volunteer. And the fourth is devoted to volunteers, exploiting the benefits coming from knowledge sharing.

Provided that the manager of volunteers is online literate, with good information technology access and equipment, they can tap the huge mine of data from others. This changes the whole learning landscape and the whole notion of competence.

But it’s important to understand this new landscape. Just because a Beaver Scout Leader can access a mine of programme ideas does not mean they can run an evening event for 30 Beavers. The information from the web resource can only be converted to competence through introspection and experience. Lead volunteers must help their team members to internalise experience. Learning is seldom won by running an online computer-based training or copying what others have done.

The impact of technology on people

The balance point between competence and technology is for the manager of volunteers to select. Human competence can be changed, but only slowly. Technology can be changed in an instant (assuming, of course, that the desired technology function is presently available).

As innovation drives the development of more technology function in industry, so managers of volunteers can reduce the required competence and simply purchase ever-increasing technology function. The result is the concern from the employment world that employees think that ‘robots will steal our jobs’. It’s true too with CSOs. If managers of volunteers can’t find the people to volunteer, of if the beneficiaries’ needs can’t be satisfied by the volunteers available, extreme measures may be needed. If funds permit, and technology is available, the options may be stark: re-think the work embracing a new technology or withdraw the service or provision.

For a fixed capability, this balance is easily assessed. But in search of reduced costs and increased service and provision content and quality, managers of volunteers must seek ever-greater capability. Technology function and human competence must, in this case, evolve together.

The future of technology

And finally, a note of caution. This model assumes that competence and technology are interchangeable; that technology can always replace competence and vice versa. There are many exceptions and limitations to this. Presently debates rage in both academia and the press; debates about just what can and can’t be done with technology and what will, and will not, be able to be done in 10, 20 or more years’ time.