MM: Tim, the first thing I want to talk about, which is germane to what you do, is human forces. And I think we should start off and talk a little bit about the origin and the ethos of The Human Stack, which is really a whole new way of thinking about how humans and technology interact and why it’s so important to think about the humans in the equation. Can you give us a little bit of back story on that?
TL: The back story is that I saw a slide on a presentation that changed my life in 2019… and it was so simple. It just said: 90% of organizations collect data. But only 5% use that data to make decisions. And those few words became a watershed moment for me. I’d already felt like there was something wrong with consulting services. With the professional services in tech, not product tech. There is an enormous amount of data collection that does not convert to decision making.
90% of organizations collect data. But only 5% use that data to make decisions.
And that statistic functionally tells us 90% of organizations have digital tools but only 5% use them, right? And so, I just stopped believing in what we were doing as technology consultants.
So, I took 6 months and hit do-over and rethought the structure of consulting. And then what? I met you [Christina Herancourt]. And what I loved about you like two seconds after I met you, was that you had recently rearchitected your entire system on the Common Data Model for Nonprofits.
I know what kind of calculation goes into a decision to re-architect a product, it’s expensive and time consuming, but at the end of the day, for both of us, our work is about quality of intent and integrity. So I felt this connection because we had both dug deep on redoing some of our work.
So anyway, I deconstructed and then reconstructed consulting from the ground up. And instead of our work simply meeting technical requirements, I imagined an outcome where clients were converting data to decision making. And I wrote a list of what clients could accomplish with this new version of consulting. Things like the ability to handle staff transitions, onboarding and offboarding new staff, training their teams on new functionality, ability to handle all tier one user support issues by themselves, managing their own roadmap, not being completely overwhelmed, and writing monthly release notes. Because if nonprofits could steward their own systems, they could increase the value of tech investments. But even more, they would increase the impact of their organizations And without realizing it I made a new methodology.
Six months ago, our first client hit a three-year mark using this methodology and they exceeded those expectations – they blew them out of the water. They have created and solved over 1,000 cases. They are doing tier one and tier two user support cases on their own. Their data is so clean it’s like you could eat off of it! They’re running reports on everything, when they don’t meet goals, they ask why, regroup and try for the next month. They create monthly release notes. They completely exceeded the high expectations I had for what they could accomplish. So, my point is that if a small nonprofit can do that, then Digital Transformation is actually about mindset and behaviour and not just about purchasing behaviour, and this should be the goal of professional services.
MM: Which brings us right to the concept you’re pioneering which is The Human Stack. So, when we’re talking then about the tech stack and the human stack, can you define them?
TL: The tech stack is all of the technology systems used by an organization to create impact. So, for example, when you implement MISSION CRM for an organization, it upgrades their tech stack because it’s an amazing product. But it’s not the only tool they are using. In fact, organizations in the modern workforce have a lot of systems. Even small organizations use between 30-50 systems. The tech stack is powerful not just because of the power of technology but because we can measure it. And I’m a big fan of the tech stack. When I work with organizations, I help them identify 3 digital health vitals on the tech stack: Solution fit, Data quality, and Utilization.
So the tech stack is the digital tools an organization has, but as we know, just because an organization has a tool, doesn’t mean it’s using it well. When I reconstructed consulting, what I set out to do was to prioritize humans over technology because, as all technologists know, the real issues are people. What struck me was the inability of consulting services to consistently create digital maturity in organizations that we worked with. We could meet technical requirements, but our customers would frequently then fail to use the system when we finished the project.
What was missing was the same level of architecture and rigor to configure human behavior as there was to configure tech behavior. And that’s because there wasn’t a place to define, refine, and measure progress. It needed its own “stack”, so I created The Human Stack.
The purpose of the tech stack is digital upgrading: the process of improving and updating an organization’s technology systems. The purpose of The Human Stack is digital maturity: the process of understanding and improving the way that people engage with technology.
The purpose of the tech stack is digital upgrading: the process of improving and updating an organization’s technology systems. The purpose of The Human Stack is digital maturity: the process of understanding and improving the way that people engage with technology.
Here’s how I explain it to my mom. Imagine that Microsoft is a car manufacturer and let’s say my old company was a car dealership where Nonprofits go to get a new CRM. I would get the upgrade all ready and configured and deliver it to their office and then they wouldn’t drive it because they didn’t just need a car, they also needed Drivers Ed. Consulting services don’t offer drivers ed. There are two functions required for success in technology. One function is acquiring the car itself—the tech stack—and the other is the ability to drive the car. And the ability to drive is The Human Stack. Nonprofits need great cars and great drivers—that’s true digital transformation.
Today’s nonprofits know how to acquire technology, but they don’t know how to drive it. So The Human Stack invented “Digital Drivers Ed”.
There are two functions required for success in technology. One function is acquiring the car itself—the tech stack—and the other is the ability to drive the car. And the ability to drive is The Human Stack. Nonprofits need great cars and great drivers—that’s true digital transformation.
MM: Which begs the next question: when you’re meeting these organizations, who is typically responsible for the humans in the organization? Who’s at the wheel of the driver’s ed?
TL: Oh my gosh, such a great question. Nobody, right? That’s part of the problem. It’s up to each individual to get good at the tech. Most nonprofits get end-user training at the end of their tech project. The consultant probably recommended more time training, but the project went a little bit long so the training got cut, right? Which is honestly ok, because end user training doesn’t really work anyway. Humans can only learn about 10 things in one day and in an 8-hour training there might be 100 things, but they only learned 10 things (and one of them was their password). And they’ll spend a bunch of money on a user guide, but that’s not how most humans learn.
But to answer your question, I’m sorry, often nobody’s really in charge of it. There might be a Database Administrator, maybe a CIO, or a data team, but all of these roles focus on upgrading the tech stack not on the digital maturity of users. They look at data, and want to help their teams, but they aren’t sure how to get at the humaning of tech: creating the accountability, strategy, and sustainability for long term human success in tech.
MM: Let’s switch gears to talk about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on the human stack. One of the things that I find so interesting about the recent AI tsunami is that no one is talking about the human element. How do you think AI helps or hurts the human stack?
TL: Nobody’s asked me, and I’m a little bit surprised, but AI is the tech stack. It’s just the tech stack done well. I fell in love with ChatGPT two seconds after using it the very first time, so I’m a fan. I was like, “This thing is amazing.” So, I’m pro AI, but it’s just advanced econometrics on natural language processing. So while I love it, I don’t confuse artificial intelligence with human intelligence. AI, and I mean ChatGPT really is insanely useful to me as an individual, but it… it isn’t replacing my idea generation and creativity. Which, I think is a key differentiator—I’m not expecting it to think for me.
But this raises another point. For about 6 months I wondered if The Human Stack was actually a “real” thing, or if it was just good branding, you know. And eventually I ended up deciding that, Yes, The Human Stack is actually more than marketing because these stacks have different base codes.
The base code of the tech stack is zeros and ones. It just calculates nested if/then statements to solve for true false, right? But we… but humans aren’t like that, are we? Like we don’t calculate, we relate. And we solve for in or out as in “Am I in this group or out”? Here’s an example. I go to lots of events. And at EVERY event I wonder if people will like me. It’s like 8th grade all over, every time. And I know I’m not the only one, I’m just the only one that says it. So I say that Belonging is the base code of The Human Stack which is one of reasons I put AI on the tech stack.
Belonging is the base code of The Human Stack which is one of reasons I put AI on the tech stack.
AI does not seek belonging, it’s just calculating for advanced variables using econometrics and regressions on existing data. Does that make sense or am I being naive?
MM: No, I think it’s definitely one layer of the equation. I guess it’s one of the things I have been thinking about when I’ve been displacing other systems or tools, or as we’re changing someone’s working life through technology. It alters our day-to-day interactions and how we work. There’s a part of AI—and I am guessing here—it may cause some anxiety. Am I not going to be valued for my unique skills if they are seen to be replaceable with AI?
TL: But all of those—and I completely agree with you, all of those are belonging questions, right? At a corporate level, belonging is expressed in paycheques So like, do I have a job?
“Am I in, or out, or not?” becomes really tangible, so I think that it’s a fair question, and technology does create anxiety, and fear, and shame, and guilt at a surprising rate.
I was on a LinkedIn thread yesterday talking about that very thing. There’s a bunch of creatives and marketers saying, “Are we gonna lose our jobs someday to AI?” To which someone said, “Maybe you won’t lose your job to AI, but you will probably lose your job to someone who knows how to use AI.” And I think that’s right.
Yes, it will absolutely disrupt the market and humans do not handle disruption well. We have Chang Saturation levels, right, where disruption is higher than our capacity to deal with it? And I think for some people, the Change Saturation of AI, even as a concept, prevents them from really engaging with it. So, I’m not trying to create anxiety for people, but it’s time to start to explore AI if you’ve been avoiding it.
So I do think the AI tsunami, as you put it, is different and more powerful, but it’s making tech easier than it’s ever been. It allows you to just speak in your own language. I would say, this is the first time I’ve seen a technology shift this pervasive that immediately helps individuals at organizations. People are using it for their own work, and that level of behaviour change usually takes years to accomplish. And for those who are engaging it, it is naturally creating higher levels of digital maturity.
MM: That’s true and I guess the only thought I had about it was, yeah, does the pressure then increase in an already pressurized sector where everyone does, you know, 10 jobs to do even more because now tech paves the way to be even more productive.
TL: I wondered the same thing. I don’t think so, and here’s why: I think it helps to decrease your decision load, right? For someone like me, with ADD, who has very little executive function, ChatGPT is a game changer as an adaptive technology for me so that I can do things as easily as others and be more productive.
And we haven’t even talked about this, but you know, I’ve had a single simple theory of change which is: data becomes information, information becomes insight. And I used to say the only point of technology is just to make better data-driven decisions, data- informed decisions. But I think I’m adding a second wing to that because there’s a second function which is that tech should help us connect to each other. To the degree that it is helping us do that, it serves an incredibly valuable purpose and I think we kind of forget…like you and I are talking from miles apart right now having a very cool conversation effortlessly because of technology.
Theory of change which is: data becomes information, information becomes insight.
MM: Let’s move from the human to the economics and the competitive forces because this is totally in your wheelhouse. Lately, I’ve been thinking about the difference of framing a donation as something that a donor gives versus something a donor buys or purchases. A donor is utilizing their purchasing power to drive the work they want to see done in the world. Nonprofits have the same battle for discretionary dollars as retail, and discretionary spending is going down right now because of market forces like inflation. I know you’ve talked about how data can translate into dollars, so I wanted to ask you for your thoughts about storytelling and how nonprofits can really move that forward with what they have potentially at their fingertips.
TL: I would make a small language change — I wouldn’t say it’s a purchase. I would say it’s a trade-off and the reason that’s important is because when you start looking at trade-offs, you start entering values’ conversations in a way that purchasing doesn’t get at.
The question is whether they’re actually getting less benefit than they are expending, right? And that only resolves itself if they feel like the trade is worth it. And that’s really important because you can start to upgrade that conversation to, “what is the cost of not having this impact?” And what I’m saying there is, I think it’s really important for us to tie into the incentives that are native to humans.
And without data, it becomes really hard to express that impact. It will actually be a benefit to the person looking at the trade–off, and I think with the numbers, with the data, you can tell a completely different story.
MM: Storytelling is really what fundraisers do, to bring individuals closer to the organization, right? To spend those discretionary dollars. Are nonprofits battling for wallet share say for example between their monthly coffee spend versus the monthly gift?
TL: I think they are. I think most of them are.
MM: Do you think that nonprofits think of themselves in that way?
TL: Well, here’s what I think. If they accepted those terms and tried, they would fail. They’re competing not with other nonprofits, but what they’re competing with is values and ideals out there right now.
MM: I like the idea of how you’ve kind of framed it about values and ideals, and I really do think people purchase to have the affiliations they want in life. And technology surfaces information that helps us find insights, which in turn helps cultivate and curate stories.
TL: Oh, yeah, that’s an exciting idea! I just gave a talk on this about user expectations rather than user experience because what you’re saying is exactly right. One of the things I see in technology and in both marketing and fundraising is conversation about customer journeys, and these customer journeys end up being about customer experience, but the silent part is that it’s about creating customer emotion.
The gap between your expectation and your experience, that’s where emotion comes from. If you want to double down on your emotion, create a wider positive gap between the expectations and the experience. And I feel like conversations are not accessing expectations in a way that they could; if I were to say anything about storytelling, it would be to focus more on customer expectations.
The gap between your expectation and your experience, that’s where emotion comes from. If you want to double down on your emotion, create a wider positive gap between the expectations and the experience.
And you and I have discussed before the fact that we’re in a different economy, not just a different industry. And in this economy, the currency is influence, not cash, and it’s easy to think that fundraising is just about cash. In turn they forgo all of the influence levers they could be pulling on organizations, or donors, or constituents, which could be creating capital in a way that they could capitalize on.
The power of story is the influence it creates, and in the Impact Economy where influence is currency, story goes further than in the nonprofit space.
And in this economy, the currency is influence, not cash, and it’s easy to think that fundraising is just about cash.
MM: So, if we have readers’ heads spinning, hopefully in a good way at the end of this conversation, how can people engage with you and The Human Stack?
TL: Well, thank you Christina, as you know I’m a huge fan of you and your ongoing work in the digital space for nonprofits!
So, the easiest place to find me is on LinkedIn. And I love meeting new people, so find me on LinkedIn! DM me and let me know you read this interview and we can connect!
Also there’s a free digital health quiz on our website — it takes less than six minutes and the questions make it so easy; your score will be automatically calculated alongside customized feedback so you can learn more about your own tech and human stacks. To learn more, go to thehumanstack.com.