1. A Global Web Enablement
Framework for Small Charities and
Voluntary Sector Organisations
Tom Robinson
Supervised by
Dr. Rachel J. McCrindle
School of Systems Engineering
The University of Reading, England
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
The University of Reading for the degree of Master of Science in
Engineering and Information Sciences.

2. Abstract
With more people gaining access to the internet every day, the web enabling of core services
and business processes is becoming essential. There is a great deal of existing research
covering techniques and approaches to web enablement for commercial and public sector
organisations, but very little that is aimed specifically at small charities and voluntary sector
organisations. Numerous studies have shown that charities often lag behind commercial
organisations when it comes to their internet infrastructure and the extent of web enablement.
This dissertation investigates the needs and issues which charities face, in order to define a
number of key web enablement aims and objectives. Some problems are unique to the
charitable sector whilst others apply to all types of organisations.
As most web applications can be accessed from anywhere in the world, globalisation
is an inherent web development issue. A number of the most common issues associated with
globalisation are examined and current best practice solutions suggested.
The Foundations, Fundamentals, Features and Future (F4) Framework is the outcome
of the research into the situation, needs and issues faced by charitable organisations. It offers a
simple but detailed framework designed specially for web enablement projects within
charitable organisations. The framework is broken down into four key stages of web
enablement – foundations, fundamentals, features and future possibility. Through the four
layers, the framework covers key business drivers, internet access and security, error-handling
techniques through to global database access and undeveloped future technologies.
The framework was developed and refined through research and work undertaken with
GAP Activity Projects, a worldwide gap year charity. To demonstrate the implementation of
the framework, GAP is used as a case study. A number of web and related applications are
developed and evaluated including an online application system, mass mailing tools and an
extranet application. The case study demonstrates a number of novel techniques that have
been developed to solve some of the problems which were faced, including the use of XML as
a data storage method and a unique form validation technique.
Although the evaluation of the framework shows that it meets well the objectives it set
out to achieve, there are opportunities for improvement and future work. A number of future
expansions possibilities are examined including the use of mobile technology and content
management systems.
i

3. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Chapter outline ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Area of work................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1. Definition of web enablement............................................................................. 2
1.3. Charities and voluntary sector organisations ................................................................. 3
1.3.1. What is a charity? .............................................................................................. 3
1.3.2. Profitability vs. growth....................................................................................... 4
1.3.3. Trustees and volunteers...................................................................................... 4
1.3.4. Size variance in charities ................................................................................... 4
1.3.5. Financial contribution of charities .................................................................... 5
1.3.6. Why do charities need to be web enabled? ........................................................ 6
1.4. Case study ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships ..................................................................... 6
1.4.2. GAP Activity Projects......................................................................................... 7
1.5. Aims ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.6. Objectives....................................................................................................................... 8
1.7. Key web enablement drivers .......................................................................................... 9
1.7.1. Competitiveness.................................................................................................. 9
1.7.2. Cost cutting ........................................................................................................ 9
1.7.3. Communication with volunteers......................................................................... 9
1.7.4. Globalisation...................................................................................................... 9
1.8. Overview of the remaining chapters ............................................................................ 10
1.8.1. Chapter 2 – Literature review.......................................................................... 10
1.8.2. Chapter 3 – Problems to be solved .................................................................. 10
1.8.3. Chapter 4 – The F4 Pyramid Framework........................................................ 10
1.8.4. Chapter 5 – Case study – GAP Activity Projects ............................................. 10
1.8.5. Chapter 6 – Summary, evaluation & further work........................................... 11
1.9. Chapter conclusions ..................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2. Literature review............................................................................................... 12
2.1. Chapter outline ............................................................................................................. 12
2.2. Previous research and studies....................................................................................... 12
2.2.1. Giving (in) to the Internet................................................................................. 12
2.2.2. Virtual Promise ................................................................................................ 13
2.2.3. Hall Aitken........................................................................................................ 14
2.2.4. Civic and community technology ..................................................................... 15
2.2.5. Developing the ICT capacity of the voluntary and community sector ............. 15
2.3. Existing models and frameworks ................................................................................. 16
2.3.1. The technology trap.......................................................................................... 16
ii

4. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
2.3.2. Application Service Providers (ASPs).............................................................. 17
2.4. Support organisations and websites ............................................................................. 19
2.4.1. Charity IT Resource Alliance (CITRA) ............................................................ 19
2.4.2. London Advice Service Alliance (LASA) Knowledgebase................................ 19
2.4.3. Making the Net Work........................................................................................ 20
2.4.4. IT 4 Communities ............................................................................................. 20
2.5. Globalisation ................................................................................................................ 20
2.5.1. Definitions ........................................................................................................ 21
2.5.2. Planning for multiple localised websites ......................................................... 21
2.5.3. Directing users to the appropriate site ............................................................ 22
2.5.4. Automatic redirection....................................................................................... 23
2.5.5. Language and cultural differences................................................................... 24
2.5.6. International characters and writing systems.................................................. 25
2.6. Chapter conclusions ..................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 3. Problems to be solved........................................................................................ 27
3.1. Chapter outline ............................................................................................................. 27
3.1.1. Similarities between business and charities..................................................... 27
3.2. Communication ............................................................................................................ 28
3.2.1. Email ................................................................................................................ 29
3.2.2. Moving from basic to advanced uses of email ................................................. 29
3.2.3. Sending bulk emails.......................................................................................... 30
3.3. Non-technical issues..................................................................................................... 31
3.3.1. Organisational culture ..................................................................................... 31
3.3.2. Fear of failure .................................................................................................. 31
3.4. Legislative compliance................................................................................................. 32
3.4.1. Data protection ................................................................................................ 32
3.4.2. Disability Discrimination Act........................................................................... 33
3.5. Globalisation ................................................................................................................ 34
3.5.1. Local infrastructure.......................................................................................... 34
3.5.2. Language.......................................................................................................... 34
3.5.3. Culture.............................................................................................................. 35
3.5.4. Design sensitivity.............................................................................................. 35
3.5.5. Legislation and currency.................................................................................. 36
3.6. Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 36
3.6.1. Variance in technology, infrastructure and security overseas......................... 36
3.6.2. Designing for technical limitations .................................................................. 37
3.6.3. Weight............................................................................................................... 37
3.7. Chapter conclusions ..................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4. The F4 Pyramid Framework............................................................................ 39
iii

5. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
4.1. Chapter outline ............................................................................................................. 39
4.2. The framework ............................................................................................................. 39
4.2.1. Development of the framework ........................................................................ 39
4.2.2. Framework model and framework infrastructure............................................ 39
4.2.3. The layers of the framework model .................................................................. 40
4.2.4. Why a pyramid? ............................................................................................... 41
4.2.5. Content of each layer ....................................................................................... 42
4.2.6. Implementing and using the framework ........................................................... 45
4.3. Foundations (F1) .......................................................................................................... 47
4.3.1. Introduction...................................................................................................... 47
4.3.2. Checklist ........................................................................................................... 47
4.4. Foundation: Internet access.......................................................................................... 49
4.4.1. Connectivity...................................................................................................... 49
4.4.2. Hosting ............................................................................................................. 49
4.5. Foundation: Email ........................................................................................................ 50
4.5.1. Spam ................................................................................................................. 51
4.6. Foundation: Security .................................................................................................... 51
4.6.1. Firewalls........................................................................................................... 52
4.6.2. Anti-virus.......................................................................................................... 52
4.7. Foundation: Software ................................................................................................... 53
4.7.1. Reduced price software .................................................................................... 53
4.8. Foundation: Data storage ............................................................................................. 53
4.8.1. Databases ......................................................................................................... 53
4.8.2. File storage and backup................................................................................... 54
4.9. Foundation: Programming platform............................................................................. 54
4.9.1. Programming environment choices ................................................................. 54
4.9.2. Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition (J2EE) .................................................... 55
4.9.3. Microsoft .NET Framework ............................................................................. 55
4.9.4. LAMP ............................................................................................................... 57
4.9.5. Using the Microsoft .NET Framework............................................................. 58
4.9.6. Recommended programming platform features............................................... 58
4.9.7. Object-oriented programming (OOP).............................................................. 58
4.9.8. XML & web service support............................................................................. 59
4.9.9. Intermediate code............................................................................................. 59
4.9.10. .NET managed code ......................................................................................... 60
4.10. Summary of foundations .............................................................................................. 61
4.11. Fundamentals (F2)........................................................................................................ 62
4.12. Fundamental: Industry guidelines and best practice .................................................... 62
4.12.1. Coding style and naming conventions.............................................................. 62
4.12.2. Standards compliance ...................................................................................... 62
4.12.3. Proprietary technology .................................................................................... 62
4.13. Fundamental: Code Library ......................................................................................... 63
4.13.1. Database access ............................................................................................... 63
iv

6. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
4.14. Fundamental: Error handling ....................................................................................... 63
4.14.1. Alerting the user ............................................................................................... 64
4.14.2. Alerting support staff........................................................................................ 64
4.15. Fundamental: Membership........................................................................................... 65
4.15.1. Registration ...................................................................................................... 66
4.15.2. Role based security........................................................................................... 66
4.16. Fundamental: Testing................................................................................................... 67
4.16.1. Browser testing................................................................................................. 67
4.16.2. User testing ...................................................................................................... 68
4.17. Fundamental: Documentation ...................................................................................... 68
4.17.1. Wikis ................................................................................................................. 68
4.17.2. Inline source code based documentation ......................................................... 69
4.18. Summary of fundamentals ........................................................................................... 70
4.19. Features (F3) ................................................................................................................ 70
4.19.1. Choosing modules and the order of development ............................................ 71
4.20. Feature: Online community.......................................................................................... 73
4.21. Feature: Sending multiple emails................................................................................. 73
4.21.1. Sending bulk emails.......................................................................................... 73
4.21.2. Centralised email functionality ........................................................................ 74
4.22. Feature: Online forms................................................................................................... 74
4.22.1. Layout and navigation...................................................................................... 75
4.22.2. Validation ......................................................................................................... 75
4.22.3. Server-side and client-side validation.............................................................. 75
4.22.4. Loose validation ............................................................................................... 76
4.22.5. Partially completed forms ................................................................................ 76
4.23. Feature: Extranet .......................................................................................................... 77
4.24. Feature: Global data access .......................................................................................... 77
4.24.1. Consolidating existing databases..................................................................... 77
4.24.2. Web enablement of databases .......................................................................... 77
4.25. Feature: Global file access ........................................................................................... 78
4.26. Summary of features .................................................................................................... 79
4.27. Future (F4).................................................................................................................... 79
4.28. Future: Mobile web enablement................................................................................... 80
4.29. Future: Mobile text messaging..................................................................................... 81
4.29.1. Economic viability............................................................................................ 82
4.30. Future: Content management ....................................................................................... 82
4.31. Summary of future ....................................................................................................... 82
4.32. Chapter conclusions ..................................................................................................... 83
Chapter 5. Case Study – GAP Activity Projects................................................................ 84
5.1. Chapter outline ............................................................................................................. 84
v

7. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
5.2. GAP Activity Projects.................................................................................................. 84
5.2.1. Who are GAP Activity Projects........................................................................ 84
5.2.2. Size ................................................................................................................... 85
5.2.3. What do GAP’s IT systems need to support? ................................................... 85
5.2.4. Offices worldwide............................................................................................. 85
5.3. The University of Reading ........................................................................................... 85
5.3.1. Student projects ................................................................................................ 86
5.3.2. Student coursework .......................................................................................... 86
5.4. Implementing the framework ....................................................................................... 87
5.5. Foundations (F1) .......................................................................................................... 88
5.5.1. Email ................................................................................................................ 88
5.5.2. Internet access.................................................................................................. 88
5.5.3. Security............................................................................................................. 88
5.5.4. Software............................................................................................................ 88
5.5.5. Data storage..................................................................................................... 89
5.5.6. Programming platform..................................................................................... 89
5.6. Fundamentals (F2)........................................................................................................ 89
5.7. Fundamental: Membership – myGAP.org ................................................................... 89
5.7.1. Login and authentication ................................................................................. 89
5.7.2. Registration form.............................................................................................. 89
5.8. Fundamental: Industry guidelines and best practice - GAP Website........................... 90
5.8.1. Removal of unnecessary scripting.................................................................... 90
5.9. Fundamental: Documentation ...................................................................................... 91
5.9.1. Wikis for documentation................................................................................... 91
5.9.2. Inline source code documentation.................................................................... 92
5.10. Features (F3) ................................................................................................................ 94
5.11. Feature: Sending multiple emails - GAP Mailer.......................................................... 94
5.12. Feature: Online community - GAP Community .......................................................... 97
5.12.1. Open source and free software......................................................................... 97
5.12.2. Implementation................................................................................................. 97
5.12.3. Integrating separate login and authentication systems.................................... 98
5.12.4. Results .............................................................................................................. 99
5.12.5. Photo galleries ................................................................................................. 99
5.12.6. Customisations ............................................................................................... 100
5.12.7. Overcoming Globalisaton issues.................................................................... 101
5.13. Feature: Online Forms – GAP Online Application System ....................................... 102
5.13.1. Flexible error checking .................................................................................. 102
5.13.2. Automatic saving without user action ............................................................ 103
5.13.3. References ...................................................................................................... 103
5.13.4. Online Application Viewer ............................................................................. 104
5.13.5. XML application forms................................................................................... 107
5.13.6. XPath for data extraction............................................................................... 109
5.13.7. XSLT for data display..................................................................................... 110
vi

8. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
5.14. Feature: Extranet – GAP Extranet.............................................................................. 112
5.15. Feature: Global data access – GAP Alumni Update System ..................................... 113
5.15.1. Alumni and the Business Partnership Scheme ............................................... 113
5.15.2. Issues with previous system............................................................................ 114
5.15.3. Key benefits of web enablement ..................................................................... 114
5.15.4. Method............................................................................................................ 114
5.15.5. Security........................................................................................................... 116
5.15.6. Storage format................................................................................................ 116
5.16. Feature: Global data access – GAP Management Information System ..................... 117
5.16.1. Web-based MIS .............................................................................................. 117
5.16.2. System convergence........................................................................................ 117
5.16.3. Legal aspects .................................................................................................. 118
5.17. Feature: Global data access – GAP Project Profiles .................................................. 118
5.18. Feature: Global file access – FTP server.................................................................... 119
5.19. Methods and tools resulting from the case study implementation ............................. 120
5.20. Chapter conclusions ................................................................................................... 121
Chapter 6. Evaluation, further work & summary .......................................................... 123
6.1. Chapter summary ....................................................................................................... 123
6.2. Summary & critique ................................................................................................... 123
6.2.1. Did it meet aims and objectives?.................................................................... 123
6.2.2. What makes the framework unique? .............................................................. 123
6.2.3. Is the framework suitable for a business environment?................................. 123
6.2.4. Benefits demonstrated by the case study ........................................................ 124
6.2.5. Scalability....................................................................................................... 124
6.2.6. Maintainability ............................................................................................... 125
6.2.7. Industry recognition ....................................................................................... 125
6.3. Challenges faced during implementation................................................................... 125
6.3.1. Email address validation................................................................................ 125
6.3.2. Online application system .............................................................................. 126
6.3.3. Automatic application form saving ................................................................ 126
6.3.4. Alumni update system..................................................................................... 126
6.3.5. GAP Mailer .................................................................................................... 127
6.3.6. User registration ............................................................................................ 128
6.4. Future work ................................................................................................................ 128
6.4.1. Globalisation.................................................................................................. 128
6.4.2. Mobile technology .......................................................................................... 129
6.4.3. Refinement and improvement of the model .................................................... 129
6.4.4. Specialisation of the model ............................................................................ 129
6.4.5. Team development.......................................................................................... 129
6.4.6. Exploration of methods and tools................................................................... 129
6.5. Chapter conclusions ................................................................................................... 130
vii

9. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Percentage of total income for Charities in different income brackets [4] ................. 5
Figure 2. The Technology Trap................................................................................................ 17
Figure 3. International gateway example ................................................................................. 22
Figure 4. Business and charity issues....................................................................................... 27
Figure 5. Data Protection Act 1998.......................................................................................... 32
Figure 6. The F4 Pyramid Framework ..................................................................................... 41
Figure 7. Direction of expansion and progress ........................................................................ 42
Figure 8. Foundations............................................................................................................... 43
Figure 9. Fundamentals ............................................................................................................ 43
Figure 10. Features................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 11. Future ...................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 12. Implementation flowchart....................................................................................... 46
Figure 13. Foundations checklist ............................................................................................. 48
Figure 14. Defence in depth ..................................................................................................... 52
Figure 15. Microsoft .NET Framework ................................................................................... 56
Figure 16. Intermediate code compilation................................................................................ 59
Figure 17. Summary of Foundations........................................................................................ 61
Figure 18. Example of wiki entry history comparison with MediaWiki ................................. 69
Figure 19. Summary of Fundamentals ..................................................................................... 70
Figure 20. Feature Planning Matrix ......................................................................................... 72
Figure 21. Example of an XML email template....................................................................... 74
Figure 22. Summary of Features .............................................................................................. 79
Figure 23. Web browsing on mobile and simple devices ........................................................ 80
Figure 24. Summary of Future ................................................................................................. 83
Figure 25. Mapping between F4 Framework and case study................................................... 87
Figure 26. Problems with proprietary code.............................................................................. 91
Figure 27. GAP's Documentation Wiki ................................................................................... 92
Figure 28. Example inline code documentation....................................................................... 93
Figure 29. Example output from NDoc.................................................................................... 94
Figure 30. GAP Mailer with addresses imported from Excel .................................................. 95
Figure 31. GAP Mailer showing message entry tab................................................................. 96
Figure 32. Using a web service to synchronise different systems ........................................... 99
Figure 33. Example of Community Server gallery image ..................................................... 100
Figure 34. Default Community Server Header ...................................................................... 101
Figure 35. Customised Community Server Header ............................................................... 101
Figure 36. Further visual customisations ............................................................................... 101
Figure 37. Error checking before application submission...................................................... 102
Figure 38. Reminder for applicant to check the page for potential errors ............................. 103
viii

10. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Figure 39. Confirmation that the page validates .................................................................... 103
Figure 40. GAP Online Application Viewer.......................................................................... 105
Figure 41. Example of online application form in viewer ..................................................... 106
Figure 42. Application Form Stages ...................................................................................... 108
Figure 43. Uses for various sections of the application form................................................. 110
Figure 44. Using XSLT for processing online application forms .......................................... 111
Figure 45. GAP Extranet........................................................................................................ 113
Figure 46. FreeTextBox control in action .............................................................................. 119
Figure 47. Benefits for GAP .................................................................................................. 124
Figure 48. Save Now button on online application form ....................................................... 126
ix

11. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Table of Tables
Table 1. Locale codes combing location and language............................................................ 24
Table 2. Examples of world writing systems ........................................................................... 25
Table 3. Basic and advanced email usage ................................................................................ 30
Table 4. Comparison of .NET and J2EE features .................................................................... 58
Table 5. Registration and linking scenarios ........................................................................... 115
Table 6. Account linking scenarios ........................................................................................ 116
Table 7. Methods and tools resulting from the case study implementation........................... 121
x

12. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Chapter outline
This chapter will introduce the area of work that this dissertation covers and look at the
overall aims and objectives. This chapter will also include an outline of the dissertation
structure and a description of the contents of the remaining chapters. Each chapter in this
dissertation starts with a short introduction explaining the chapter contents and setting the
scene.
1.2. Area of work
This dissertation begins by looking at the reasons why charitable organisations can benefit
from the web enablement of current and future business processes.
While many businesses now use the Internet as a core part of their operations, charities
and smaller organisations can find it more difficult to find the time and resources to
successfully web enable their business processes. Most previous work on web enablement has
concentrated on commercial organisations where funding and resources are less scarce than in
the charitable sector. This dissertation will look at ways in which the web, related Internet
technologies and a suitable IT infrastructure can be of benefit to charities, community
organisations and even small businesses.
After looking at the background and identifying the key problems involved with web
enablement, the dissertation introduces a framework to achieve a structured approach to web
enablement. Following an exploration of the framework as a generic approach to web
enablement there is a case study demonstrating an actual implementation of the framework.
The defining features of a charitable organisation are examined and the management culture
and other issues explored, in order to justify the need for a structured web enablement
framework such as the one described in this dissertation. The framework has been designed
for organisations that have little or no in-house computing expertise, a limited budget and
short timescales. These types of organisation are most likely to need a framework to follow, to
enable them to get the most out of their investments in technology.
Page 1

13. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
A case study of the work carried out for an international educational charity is used to
illustrate and provide evidence of the effectiveness of the framework. The charity used for the
case study is GAP Activity Projects (GAP) Ltd1, a non-for-profit charity based in Reading but
with offices worldwide. GAP is the largest gap year organisation for 17-25 year olds in the
United Kingdom.
As the Internet allows almost instant communication to anywhere in the world, there is
additional material focusing on the web enablement of a charities global operations, hence the
title of the dissertation. The Internet is a key tool in allowing a charity to increase its reach to
a global audience but there are a number of complex challenges which must be overcome, in
order for a successful outcome.
The final stages of the dissertation deal with suggestions for further work, outline
some limitations of the framework and finally look at an evaluation of the project, framework
and the example implementation.
The reason for choosing to study web enablement for the charitable and voluntary
sector is that there is a lack of information about web enablement which is specific to the
unique needs and issues of such organisations. Although there is a large amount of research
which applies to the needs of commercial organisations, relatively little is specific to charities
or gives any mention to the unique challenges they may face. There are however a number of
detailed studies into use of the internet and web technology within charities, this is covered in
the literature review.
1.2.1. Definition of web enablement
In order to justify use of the term web enablement rather than e-enablement or Internet
enablement we need to look at what the web is and how it differs from the Internet. Chaffey et
al [1] highlight the key differences between the Internet and the World Wide Web in the
following way:
The Internet
The Internet, refers to the physical network that links computers across the globe. It
consists of the infrastructure of network servers and wide-area communication links
between them that are used to hold and transport vast amount of information on the
Internet.
1
http://www.gap.org.uk/
Page 2

14. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
World Wide Web
The World Wide Web is a medium for publishing information on the Internet. It is
accessed through web browsers, which display web pages and can now be used to run
business applications. Company information is stored on web servers, which are usually
referred to as web sites.
In the context of this dissertation, web enablement is defined as the process of
increasing an organisations ability to conduct work and offer services using globally
accessible web applications. The scope of this work also includes related Internet technologies
such as email and the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), so it could more accurately be described
as Internet enabling. The reason for using the term web enablement is that the focus will be
the World Wide Web rather than the many other Internet technologies which are available.
Internet technologies are important complimentary technologies to web enablement and will
be examined where appropriate.
1.3. Charities and voluntary sector organisations
are a number of important differences between the way commercial organisations and
charitable organisations operate. One of the major differences, implied by the fact that most
charities operate as not-for-profit organisations, is the decrease in the importance of
profitability on investments. Although in many cases this is an important difference between
the two types of organisation there are many other differences which can make a difference –
organisational culture, existing infrastructure, lack of an internal IT team and differences in
priority and purpose of the business.
1.3.1. What is a charity?
To be officially recognised as a charity, the organisation must be registered with the Charities
Commission1, a government funded organisation that regulates the charitable sector in
England and Wales. Scottish charities must register with the Office of the Scottish Charity
Regulator2. There are similar systems for regulation in the United States, Australia and
Canada. The Charities Act 1993 [2] is the most recent act detailing the definitions and
structure of UK charities. There are over 190,000 charities registered with the Charities
Commission, employing over 600,000 staff and 900,000 trustees [3].
1
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/
2
http://www.oscr.org.uk/
Page 3

15. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
1.3.2. Profitability vs. growth
Charities aim to grow and to fulfil a vision or purpose, such as the development of a cure for a
disease, rather than aiming for profit. This is a major contrast to commercial organisations
where profit for shareholders or company owners is usually the main goal.
1.3.3. Trustees and volunteers
Trustees are the people responsible for administration and control of a charity. Depending on
the type and size of the charity this may include the Executive or Management Committee,
Directors or in the case of a charitable trust – Trustees and Governors. Trustees come from a
range of social backgrounds and a variety of age ranges although they must be over 18 and
there are requirements which must be met regarding previous convictions and bankruptcy
status. Trustees are generally unpaid volunteers who take on responsibilities on behalf of the
charity.
Volunteers are an essential resource for many charities. Whilst staff working in the
head office are likely to be salaried, they are often supported by numerous volunteers who
work a variety of hours and participate in a wide range of activities. Many organisations such
as Riding for the Disabled1 have more volunteers than paid employees. Volunteers are a very
unique feature of charitable organisations and must always be taken into consideration when
changing business processes or developing new tools.
1.3.4. Size variance in charities
There are currently over 190,000 registered charities in England and Wales [3]. The majority,
approximately 57%, of these charities have a recorded income of £10,000 or less [4]. Small
charities represent nearly two-thirds of registered charities but make up less than 1% of the
total charity income. The Charity Commission’s 2005 Annual Report [3] states that the largest
500 charities are responsible for over 46% of the total charitable income. The size of charities
varies as much as the size of non-charitable organisations but many of the core characteristics
stay the same. The European Union [5] defines a small enterprise as an organisation with less
than 50 full-time employees and a turnover of less than 7 million Euros.
1
http://www.riding-for-disabled.org.uk/
Page 4

16. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Charities vary in size enormously; the largest non-profit organisation in the United
States is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation1, which has an endowment of approximately
$27 billion. At the other end of the scale are small charities for local communities whose
turnover is negligible.
Many charities have wholly owned subsidiary organisations that operate as separate
legal entities and can make a profit, as long as the profit is donated to the parent organisation.
One of the largest charitable trusts in the UK, The Wellcome Trust2 has established a wholly
owned trading subsidiary, Wellcome Trust Trading Limited, to handle non-charitable trading
at the Wellcome Trust Conference Centre. GAP Activity Projects (GAP) Ltd. also has a
similar subsidiary called GAP Activity Projects (Enterprises) Ltd. The operation of a separate
legal entity removes some of the restrictions which a strictly charitable organisation must
comply with and allows a charity to fundraise by selling merchandise or renting facilities.
1.3.5. Financial contribution of charities
Non-profit organisations are growing rapidly in the UK and currently accounting for
approximately 8% of the gross domestic product (GDP). The non-financial benefits that
charities contribute to society are even greater and cannot easily be measured on a financial
scale. Charities are legally obliged to submit their accounts and annual returns to the Charities
Commission [3].
£1,001 - £10,000
£10,001 - £100,000
£0 - £1,000 £100,001 - £250,000
£250,000 - £1m
£1m - £10m
Figure 1. Percentage of total income for Charities in different income brackets [4]
(Source: Charity Commission)
1
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
2
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/
Page 5

17. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
The chart above illustrates the importance of small charities with regard to the total
charitable income. With 86% of total income for charities coming from organisations with an
income of less than £100,000 the importance of small charities is significant.
1.3.6. Why do charities need to be web enabled?
Web enablement can bring a number of benefits to small organisations, some of which would
be prohibitively expensive using traditional forms of communication. Publicity materials can
be sent around the world at a greatly reduced costs, and the organisation’s message can be
globally available to anyone with internet access. An organisation may also be able to make
gains in terms of the efficiency and speed of their operations. As the resources of small
charities are limited, it is important that they are able to make the most of these opportunities.
1.4. Case study
1.4.1. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP)1 are a Department of Trade & Industry (DTI)2
sponsored scheme to encourage and support the transfer of knowledge between academic
institutions and companies. A committee comprising academic staff, staff at the company and
Knowledge Transfer Partnership support staff, manages each partnership. The partnership
involves the employment of one or more graduates who work at the company on a fixed term
contract, with the support of the knowledge base partner. The government sponsors the
scheme by contributing up to 60% of the total programme cost. Grants includes the graduate
salary, academic support and budgets for equipment, personal training & development and
travel & subsistence.
For all organisations, and especially charities who might not otherwise be able to
afford it, a KTP scheme can be of great benefit. It allows for the employment and support of a
new employee at a significantly reduced cost. GAP Activity Projects is currently working
with The University of Reading as part of a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. GAP chose to
embark on a KTP scheme for the web enablement of its key business processes and for
greater use of IT generally. This dissertation is a result of a combination of research and work
carried out with GAP.
1
http://www.ktponline.org.uk/
2
http://www.dti.gov.uk/
Page 6

18. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
1.4.2. GAP Activity Projects
GAP offers an interesting case study as it is a large and well-established organisation with a
number of interesting organisational features, making it possible to examine the impact of
web enablement in a number of areas.
GAP has a variety of offices and partnerships worldwide. The main office is based in
the United Kingdom and employs around 30 full-time staff. Other offices are smaller, with
GAP Australia having around eight full-time staff whilst other smaller offices have as few as
one person working full-time. GAP also works in partnership with YouLead1 in Canada who
perform similar functions to the other overseas offices but are not owned or directly
controlled by GAP.
Large numbers of volunteer staff, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, are an
essential part of GAP’s operations. There are well over a 100 volunteer staff actively working
for GAP and there are many opportunities to allow them to become more involved through
web enablement. The range of ages, IT skills, locations and access to infrastructure of GAP’s
volunteers brings a number of unique challenges and complexities.
Prior to the implementation of the work detailed in the case study, GAP only had one
full-time member of staff who dealt with IT matters. This support was limited to day-to-day
maintenance of the infrastructure, and all development work or creation of new systems was
outsourced to a consultant at a significant cost. The most significant product created by
external consultancy was GAP’s ‘Core’ database, which stores and manages the majority of
GAP’s operational data. This was completed shortly before the web enablement process
began.
The basic IT infrastructure required for the framework to be implemented was not as
good as it could have been to start with, however, GAP has had a broadband Internet
connection, fairly modern PCs for each member of staff, an internal network, a large website
and a comprehensive central database for some time.
1
http://www.youlead.org/
Page 7

19. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
1.5. Aims
The main aims of the research and this dissertation are to:
1. Demonstrate the importance of web enablement in the charitable sector.
2. Examine the current state of the art.
3. Develop a generic framework to support and guide web enablement of charitable sector
organisations.
4. Show how the framework can be applied.
5. Discuss the effectiveness of the framework and ideas for expansion and improvement.
1.6. Objectives
The wider aims are to be achieved by completing the following objectives:
1. Give background information regarding charities and voluntary sector organisations, web
enablement and globalisation.
2. Compare and contrast charitable and commercial organisations so that key differences can
be highlighted and business drivers identified.
3. Outline the problems which a charity may face when dealing with web enablement.
4. Look at existing research which is relevant to the subject area.
5. Highlight the key problems to be solved, both technical and non-technical.
6. Develop a framework which deals with all areas of web enablement, from the
infrastructure through to future possibilities.
7. Demonstrate an implementation of the framework by use of a case study.
8. Evaluate the framework using the lessons learnt from case study and make suggestions for
resolving any issues or limitations.
9. Offer suggestions for further work to expand the framework.
Page 8

20. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
1.7. Key web enablement drivers
All voluntary sector organisations have a number of key business drivers which must be taken
into account when developing a web enablement strategy.
1.7.1. Competitiveness
Charities often compete against commercial organisations in the market place. Smaller
organisations also compete against larger charities with bigger spending budgets. Although
not all charities are a competitive market, those that are need to be able to keep up with other
organisations in their market area. Web enablement is an area where larger and commercial
organisations tend to be ahead of smaller organisations that have more limited resources.
1.7.2. Cost cutting
Charities are always looking for ways of keeping costs down. Traditional methods of
communication and advertising are expensive to produce and physical items cannot reach a
worldwide audience. By using the web as a marketing and communication tool, costs can be
kept down and new markets can be reached. Rather than posting documents, charities can use
email and websites to distribute material to almost anywhere in the world at a very low cost
per transaction.
1.7.3. Communication with volunteers
Many charities rely on volunteers to perform key tasks. As voluntary staff, they are likely to
be part-time, often retired and may not work in the charity’s office or even in the same
country. The web can be a useful tool for communicating with voluntary staff and integrating
them into the core of the organisation.
1.7.4. Globalisation
Many charities are either globalising their operations or looking to do so. This brings a
completely new set of challenges which the organisation must face. Globalisation also brings
many opportunities for growth and the ability to spread an organisation’s message overseas.
By harnessing the power and abilities of the World Wide Web, a charity can expand its reach
at a very low cost, provided that the technical and cultural aspects are taken into account.
Page 9

21. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
1.8. Overview of the remaining chapters
1.8.1. Chapter 2 – Literature review
This chapter looks at the work of other researchers in the areas covered by this dissertation.
There is a look at previous research and studies which have been conducted within the
charitable sector. Coverage of existing frameworks is limited, as most past work has been
aimed at commercial organisations and not charities. Charities usually have very different
aims and objectives and the methods they use must allow for this. The ability of a web
application to be globally accessible is essential for many organisations, even small
organisations that do not have any staff or volunteers overseas. As the issues surrounding
globalisation have been around since the birth of the Internet, there is a great deal of existing
work in this area. This chapter also looks at some of the key technical issues and the solutions
which are appropriate for the type of web applications discussed elsewhere in this
dissertation.
1.8.2. Chapter 3 – Problems to be solved
This chapter looks at the web enablement challenges facing charities and voluntary sector
organisations. Some of these problems are unique to charities whereas others apply to any
small organisation, particularly those with little in-house computing expertise and limited
funds.
1.8.3. Chapter 4 – The F4 Pyramid Framework
This chapter outlines a generic framework for web development, designed primarily for
charitable organisations, but also suitable for many small businesses. The framework uses a
modular approach to web enablement and covers suitable approaches and techniques for web
enablement of a number of key business areas.
1.8.4. Chapter 5 – Case study – GAP Activity Projects
This chapter introduces GAP Activity Projects, the case study being used to demonstrate the
ideas developed in the framework. It then goes on to describe how the framework has been
used successfully in projects at GAP. GAP is a non-for-profit charity which helps organise
gap year placements for 17-25 year olds. The main office employs approximately 30 staff and
there are a number of regional offices around the world. As well as paid staff, GAP also has
Page 10

22. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
nearly 200 members of volunteer staff. The complexity, size and distribution of GAP as an
organisation makes it an interesting case study for the framework.
1.8.5. Chapter 6 – Summary, evaluation & further work
In this chapter, the framework as well as examples if its use and implementation will be
evaluated. The starting point for the evaluation is the challenges faced during implementation.
This leads to an evaluation of the effectiveness of the framework itself and a discussion of
ideas for further work, expansion and refinement.
1.9. Chapter conclusions
This chapter has introduced charities and voluntary sector organisations and has highlighted
some of the unique features that differentiate them from commercial businesses. With the
exception of communication with volunteers, charities have similar web enablement drivers to
many small businesses. The aims and objectives have been outlined and these are to be the
basis for the remaining chapters.
Page 11

23. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Chapter 2. Literature review
2.1. Chapter outline
This chapter looks at the work of other researchers in the areas covered by this dissertation.
There is a look at previous research and studies which have been conducted within the
charitable sector. Coverage of existing frameworks is limited, as most past work has been
aimed at commercial organisations and not charities. Charities usually have very different
aims and objectives and the methods they use must allow for this. The ability of a web
application to be globally accessible is essential for many organisations, even small
organisations that do not have any staff or volunteers overseas. As the issues surrounding
globalisation have been around since the birth of the Internet, there is a great deal of existing
work in this area. This chapter also looks at some of the key technical issues and the solutions
which are appropriate for the type of web applications discussed elsewhere in this
dissertation.
2.2. Previous research and studies
There have been a number of studies and reports on Internet and Information Communication
Technology (ICT) use within charities and voluntary sector organisations. The majority of
these studies are based on surveys. A selection of the most significant and appropriate studies
are detailed in this section.
2.2.1. Giving (in) to the Internet
The results of Goatman’s 2004 [6] e-communications survey revealed that larger charities
tended to be more positive about the potential impact of their website. They perceived the
costs and barriers to entry to be lower than smaller charities did. They were positive about the
potential of their website and the possibilities for extension and improvement. The majority of
those surveyed used email both internally and externally, however half of those wanted to be
able to use email more, particularly as a way of spreading information. Again, larger charities
with a bigger fundraising income were more positive than those in lower income brackets.
Across all sectors surveyed, there was a concern that email could become prone to
being caught by spam filters. Intranets and extranets were found to be in use by some
Page 12

24. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
organisations although they tended to be used as internal tools, rather than reaching out to
other stakeholders. Goatman concludes that there is a wide variety of engagement with web
and email technologies but that the majority of organisations see it as having a positive future
and are anticipating making improvements in the future.
2.2.2. Virtual Promise
The latest Virtual Promise report [7] contains the results of annual surveys of charities’ use of
the Internet between 2000 and 2004. Because Virtual Promise is an annual survey, the report
is useful in demonstrating trends in terms of the speed and direction of change. The ability to
compare results with previous years distinguishes it from one-off surveys, which give less
indication of trends.
The survey found that 78% of charities now have a budget dedicated to their website,
an increase from the previous year’s 65%. This demonstrates that more charities are realising
the importance of setting aside resources for web enablement. To back this finding up, it was
also found that the number of staff employed full-time in Internet-based roles had increased.
The majority of respondents had the following features as standard features of their websites –
information, links, news, downloadable files, an email enquiry services and job vacancies.
Whilst this shows good progress, it is still static content. Whilst static content is useful and
will always be necessary, a website can be improved by having dynamic content such as
events calendars that respond to the current date and news pages which are driven by an easily
updatable database back-end.
Worryingly only half of the responding organisations had websites that conformed to
the accessibility guidelines [8] of the W3C1. There is clearly a lot of work to be done in
ensuring accessibility to website content. 64% of charities were found to be using content
management systems; this is an encouragingly high percentage for a relatively new way of
managing website content.
1
http://www.w3.org/
Page 13

25. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
An extract from the conclusion of the report, which is applicable to the purpose of this
dissertation, is quoted below.
Charities have entered a second phase regarding the Internet, moving from asking
“should we have a website?” to “now that we have a website, how can we make it
better?”
2.2.3. Hall Aitken
In 2001 a comprehensive report titled E-enabling the Voluntary and Community Sectors was
prepared by Jeremy Wyatt [9] for Hall Aitken1 under commission from the Active
Communities Unit, the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the E-Envoy.
The aims of the study were to assist with government policy development for ICT and related
matters within the voluntary and community sectors. The study comprised of a telephone
survey of 1,400 organisations as well as follow-up email surveys, focus groups, interviews,
desk research and informal discussion. Although the report is now around 4 years old it was
arguably the first large scale survey of ICT use in the sector.
The study found that organisations could improve the effectiveness of their services by
using the Internet as a delivery tool but found that the organisation needed to be suitably ICT
enabled in order to do so. Whilst most organisations were using basic ICT functions such as
word processing and email, only a few were found to be using more advanced functions such
as web based donations, online recruitment and acceptance of electronic payments.
There were concerning findings regarding the ICT infrastructure of many
organisations; the worst being that 60% of organisations with 25 to 49 employees had less
than nine computers between them. The number of organisations with an Internet connection
was found to be significantly lower at 78% compared to 94% of commerical businesses. In
general, the voluntary sector was found to be behind business in a number of key areas.
Businesses were significantly in the lead when it came to having a website, the speed of
Internet connections and the use of an intranet. This lack of infrastructure was found to affect
an organisation’s ability to take advantage of web technologies leaving the voluntary sector
behind when it comes to online promotion and online recruitment. The study followed up
1
http://www.hallaitken.co.uk/
Page 14

26. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
these findings with interviews which revealed that a lack of funds and limited knowledge
amongst some senior staff were the main causes of the lack of a suitable infrastructure.
2.2.4. Civic and community technology
Wilcox and Pearl [10] discuss what they term ‘civic and community’ use of the Internet. They
outline a number of uses for the Internet and web technology, particularly by government and
non-profits, and look at the success of projects in previous years, enabling them to identify the
common problems which emerge. They later cite Adrian Hancock of the Improvement and
Development Agency (IDEA) as stating that there are two key attributes which are needed for
successful use of technology – skills and finance. He warns that there is more to planning an
IT strategy than the initial phase and that there should be resources available to allow the
project to develop further, otherwise a project may not reach its full potential.
An interesting point made in the article is that even when a system is web enabled,
there may be some cases where the previous system needs to still be available. Even with the
large number of people who can access the Internet at home or work there may still be others
who are unable to, for one reason or another. So that these customers, donors or volunteers are
not ignored, they must be able to access services by alternative methods. If this is not
carefully considered when developing a web application, then it is likely to be problematic
later on. Even ‘online’ businesses like Amazon still have a postal address, fax and phone
number although it is not needed, advertised or made visible to most people.
According to the Wilcox and Pearl [10], one of the main lessons to be learnt from
previous projects is that there is a major skills shortage in the sector and therefore a
requirement for adequate and structured training for all staff, not just those that are developing
systems. In addition, many projects are not carefully planned or are unsuitable for the
organisation’s current internal state which can cause them to be less successful than they
could be or even to fail.
2.2.5. Developing the ICT capacity of the voluntary and community sector
The National Council for Voluntary Organisation’s (NVCO1) report [9] to the Active
Community Unit (ACU) of the Home Office contains the results of market research carried
out by independent consultants amongst the NCVO’s 2,500 members and 500 non-member
1
http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/
Page 15

27. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
organisations. They found that although 61% or organisations had Internet access, some
organisations were far more restricted. It was found that 14% of organisations only had a
single point of Internet access and 22% only had access for key staff. This demonstrates that
some organisations neglected or were unable to fund a network infrastructure to support their
Internet connection. Web enablement requires organisation wide internet access, not just
access for key staff or a single terminal.
An area neglected from many reports but covered by the NVCO is the need for risk
management. They state that whilst benefits of ICT can be very positive they can also bring
associated risks. There are a number of risks which any new way of working brings, but the
areas which are of particular concern in ICT projects are security, privacy, intellectual
property, transparency and compliance with legislation. These issues could be the reason why
some organisations are cautious about web enablement of their processes, and often with good
reason. A further conclusion, and one shared by other reports, is that there is a lack of
understanding and knowledge at management and trustee level of the relevance and benefit of
ICT and the Internet.
2.3. Existing models and frameworks
2.3.1. The technology trap
Wilcox and Grunwald [11] use the matrix in Figure 2 to explain what they call “The
Technology Trap”. They explain that in order for an organisation to make a change, such as
successful web enablement, there needs to be change in at least two dimensions of the matrix.
Page 16

28. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
Figure 2. The Technology Trap
(Source: D. Wilcox and T. Grunwald [11])
The goal is to move from “Old, Old” (1) ways of working to “New, New” (4) ways of
working. The two traps which may be fallen into, are to introduce new technology without the
organisational approach being changed (3) or changing the way the organisation works, but
not having the technological infrastructure to back it up (2).
2.3.2. Application Service Providers (ASPs)
Application Service Providers are businesses that offer services, generally via the Internet,
which customers can access remotely. The business model behind ASPs1 is to provide a
service which is complex or expensive to set up but which many organisations would find
useful. The service provider then sells access to this service for a small amount, but to a large
number of customers, and is therefore able to profit from the revenue generated and cover
their initial investment. There are many different ASPs available and they can range from
email providers to remote application providers to processor time on super computers.
For charities without the resources to have complex or expensive systems in-house, an
ASP can provide very useful services at a good price. ASP resources are usually paid for on a
1
It should be noted that the term Application Service Provider (ASP) is unrelated to the term Active Server Page
(e.g. ASP and ASP.NET) which is a development technology not a concept.
Page 17

29. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
pay-as-you-go basis. There is no need for a specialised infrastructure as most services are
accessible using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) as web pages, or Extensible Markup
Language (XML) web services.
When it comes to looking at the issues with ASPs, one of the main problems is that
there is limited scope for customisation of the service. For many customers, this is not a
problem but there may be times when the only way to get the required service is to develop
and manage it in-house. ASPs work best with services that can be used by a large number of
different organisations but which would be too expensive or difficult to be provided and
managed internally. Services that are bandwidth intensive are not always suitable for
provision as an ASP either, unless there is a suitably fast connection between the provider and
the consumer.
An example of an ASP, which fits the model very well, is a service for looking up
address details given a postcode. This is a good service for an ASP to provide as it is useful to
a large number of organisations, the bandwidth required for each transaction is low and it
would be very expensive for a small organisation to buy and manage its own postcode
database. By subscribing to an ASP such as this, a charity could dramatically reduce the time
it takes for a visitor to fill in a literature request form online. ASPs allow the organisation to
use a complex system to improve the user experience but with very little in-house expertise
other than the initial set up and linking to the ASP.
Whilst postcode lookup is a relatively basic service, there is no limit to the potential
complexity of an ASP. A more complex example is one of the many services which provide
online survey systems. These ASPs allow organisations to design and publish questionnaires
and then make the results accessible online. There is no need for the consumer organisation to
have its own website to take advantage of the system. To develop a similar system in-house
would require many resources and the total cost of ownership could be higher, especially for
smaller organisations. Larger organisations may prefer their surveys to be managed in-house
but for smaller charitable organisations, that may be a luxury which they cannot afford.
A useful guide produced by CompassPoint Nonprofit Services [12] contains a detailed
directory of ASPs which provide services either specifically for the charitable and non-profit
sector or for any type of organisation. Some examples include remote donor database
Page 18

30. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
packages, workgroup collaboration systems, event management, questionnaire providers,
payment providers and volunteer matching systems.
2.4. Support organisations and websites
There are a growing number of organisations that offer help and resources tailored for
charities and other voluntary sector organisations. Some offer commercial consultancy
services as well as free advice while others such as the Charity IT Resource Alliance
(CITRA)1 are founded by a group of collaborating organisations. There are too many
potentially useful organisations and websites to list them all but the selection below gives an
indication of the variety of help available and is a good starting point for a more in depth
investigation, based on an individual organisations needs.
2.4.1. Charity IT Resource Alliance (CITRA)
CITRA is a collaborative technology alliance formed by eight charity sector bodies – the
Institute of Fundraising2, Charity Consortium of IT Directors Group (CCitDG)3, Charity
Technology Trust (CTT)4, The Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF)5, Charity
Logistics6, smartchange7, and Community Network8. Its aims are to help improve access to
relevant and trusted IT information, people and resources and through the collaborative
alliance has a combined membership of over 40,000 individuals and organisations. The
CITRA website contains forums, white papers, polls, surveys, resources and event
information.
2.4.2. London Advice Service Alliance (LASA) Knowledgebase
LASA9 is a development and resource agency for advice and information providers. The aims
of the organisation are to make good advice available to all those who need it and to promote
the development of high quality information and advice services. Whilst the scope of their
1
http://www.citra.org.uk/
2
http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk/
3
http://www.cfdg.org.uk/
4
http://www.ctt.org/
5
http://www.acf.org.uk/
6
http://www.charitylogistics.org/
7
http://www.smartchange.org/
8
http://www.community-network.org/
9
http://www.lasa.org.uk/
Page 19

31. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
work covers more than just IT, the Information Systems Knowledgebase gives good advice on
many subject areas including accessibility, buying equipment, databases, Internet and web
development, IT management, project management, software and troubleshooting.
2.4.3. Making the Net Work
Making the Net Work is a website which provides guidance for organisations, individuals and
communities who are looking to improve or set up their online presence. The Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) funded the first project that the founders were set and later projects
have been funded by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE)1. The site
contains a great deal of information and is especially suitable for charitable organisations
looking into web enablement as it has an extensive set of links to other useful online
resources.
2.4.4. IT 4 Communities
IT 4 Communities2 allows IT professionals to volunteer their services to community and
charitable organisations. It is supported by a partnership of organisations including the British
Computer Society (BCS)3, the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists (WCIT)4
and the industry publication, Computer Weekly5. The partnership aims to increase the number
of IT professionals volunteering in local communities and to make sure that the input they
provide is effective. For charities which cannot afford their own IT staff or the often high
costs of consultants, this, and other similar services, can be of great benefit.
2.5. Globalisation
The ability of a web application to be globally accessible is essential for many organisations,
even small organisations that do not have any staff or volunteers overseas. As the issues
surrounding globalisation have been around since the birth of the Internet, there is a great deal
of existing work in this area. This section looks at some of the key technical issues and the
1
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ (formerly Department for Education & Employment)
2
http://www.it4communities.org.uk/
3
http://www.bcs.org/
4
http://www.wcit.org.uk/
5
www.computerweekly.co.uk/
Page 20

32. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
solutions which are appropriate for the type of web applications discussed elsewhere in this
dissertation.
2.5.1. Definitions
Internationalisation (i18n) is the process of design or modification of a software project so
that it can be later localised. With web projects, this is often done by separating the content
from the design so that localised variations can be made without major rewrites and
modifications of the design. The aim is to produce software that is free of any dependency on
language, culture, script, and coded character sets.
Localisation (l10n) is the process of converting a, preferably internationalised,
application so that it is suitable for another language, culture or location. This often includes
rewriting content and navigation into the target language, but sometimes involves more
complex changes such as handling special character encoding methods. If the original
application has not been internationalised first then the localisation may prove more difficult.
Localisable products separate data from code, correctly display the target language and
function properly after being localised.
Globalisation is often used to as an alternative description for internationalisation.
Globalised software is written to change the locale-specific information it uses to process data
and display information to the user based on the configured locale of the operating system, or
the personal preference of the user.
2.5.2. Planning for multiple localised websites
It is important to think about the long-term plans for the website structure, even if there are
currently no plans to have localised sites.
Country Coded Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) are the approach taken by Google and
many other companies. Each localised website is hosted at the root of its own dedicated
domain. This approach works well if the domain name is available for each of the required
localised regions. A limitation of this approach is that in some cases there may need to be
further subdivision for multiple languages. Google uses the ISO language code on the end of
the domain to resolve this complication. For example, the URL of Google Switzerland in
French is:
Page 21

33. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
http://www.google.ch/fr
Where it is not practical to obtain a ccTLD for each localised site, a common approach is to
obtain a generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) such as ibm.com and then use sub domains for
each localised site. Wikipedia is a well-known example of this. The example below is for the
International English version of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
Directory based is another common technique used by a number of sites. It is similar to the
sub domain approach, but the localised site is referenced as a directory, rather than a sub
domain, as used by IBM UK:
http://www.ibm.com/uk
2.5.3. Directing users to the appropriate site
Many sites use an international gateway page to direct users to the most suitable localised site.
The most difficult part of this is often that it needs to cater for visitors from many cultures and
languages so has to be as clear as possible, whilst also maintaining a corporate look and feel.
There are two routes which can be taken to reach a gateway page.
The first approach is direct access, so that the gateway page is held at the root of the
site. This means that when the main site URL is entered, e.g. ford.com then the first page to
appear will be the gateway page. The second option is to have a link to the gateway page
somewhere on the site’s front page. This works well where the localised sites have their own
domain names and visitors are less likely to come across the incorrect site for them. For
example, www.microsoft.co.uk goes straight to the Microsoft UK site, as it is presumed that
any visitors who have used that domain name will be visiting from the UK.
Figure 3. International gateway example
(Source: Wikipedia)
Page 22

34. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
2.5.4. Automatic redirection
To automatically redirect a user you must determine the location of the user and the language
they prefer to use. The Internet Protocol (IP) address of a visitor can be determined with each
request that a visitor makes. Geolocation software can use this information to determine the
geographical location of a visitor by comparing it with databases of the IP address ranges and
their location. Additionally the IP address can be matched against other similar IP addresses
where the physical location is known.
Unlike Internet servers, which are relatively static, home users with dialup connections
are often assigned different IP addresses and hostnames each time a new connection is
initiated. In this case the location can be hard to determine as it’s likely to change regularly,
depending on where the dialup user is. The naming conventions used by some ISPs includes
information which can be used to help determine location, for example:
Modem-226.ca.us.dal.net
With the example hostname above, geolocation software can take a good guess that
the user is connected with DALnet in California, USA and is on a dialup modem.
When a web browser makes a request for a page, the HTTP header can contain data
about the preferred language of the browsers user. This is normally based on the language
settings of the operating system, but it can be altered in the browsers settings. For example,
the header may contain:
Accept-Language: cy, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
Which means the user would prefer to retrieve a Welsh (cy) version of the page but
will accept British English (en-gb) and other types of English if Welsh is unavailable. The
variable q gives each language a quality factor, i.e. weighting between 0 and 1, where any
value over 0 is acceptable. In this example, British English (en-gb) is given a higher
preference to International English (en).
Page 23

35. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
2.5.5. Language and cultural differences
The localisation of a web application requires more than just direct translation. There are
many differences in local culture which need to be reflected in a localised web application.
For example, in Germany it is seen to be unprofessional to use lowercase text for titles and
site logos whereas in other countries this is often done to give the site a more youthful image
or to show informality.
A technical problem, which is caused by the complexities of location, culture and
language, is representing all the possible combinations. If a web application is to be localised
for different languages, cultures and locations then there needs to be a way or representing
these. The approach taken in many applications is to combine the ISO1 language code and
ISO country code, in the hope that this will be enough to distinguish between different
cultures. These combinations are often referred to as the locale – a combination of language
and location.
Code Language (Location)
en-UK English (United Kingdom)
en-US English (United States)
fr-CA French (Canada)
Fr-FR French (France)
Table 1. Locale codes combing location and language
If the location is not relevant, then language code on its own can be used. This is often
the case with scientific or academic websites where slight regional variations do not matter, so
there is no need to assign a specific country code. The problem with this approach is when
there is a need to distinguish between two different cultures where the language and location
are the same; a further level of specification is required.
1
International Organization for Standardization (http://www.iso.org/)
Page 24

36. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
2.5.6. International characters and writing systems
There are many hundreds of languages which require special characters, accents and
completely different language structures and writing systems to English. Some examples of
this are show in Table 2. Although some languages share similarities, such as English and
French, both are derived from Latin, other languages are completely undecipherable without
being learnt from the ground up.
Type Language Example1
Phonetic English/Latin
(Alphabetic)
Characters represent vowels or consonants, left-to-
right.
Phonetic Arabic
(Alphabetic) (right-to-left)
Characters represent vowels or consonants, right-to-
left.
Phonetic Russian/Cyrillic
(Alphabetic)
Characters represent vowels or consonants, left-to-
right.
Phonetic Tagalog
(Syllabic) (Philippines) Characters represent combinations of consonants
and/or vowels, each called a syllabary.
Ideographic Chinese
Thousands of ideographs used to communicate
meaning, traditionally written top-to-bottom but
nowadays left-to-right is commonly used.
Table 2. Examples of world writing systems
1
“Design will save the world” and translations sourced from http://www.artlebedev.com/studio/slogan/
Page 25

37. A Global Web Enablement Framework Tom Robinson
2.6. Chapter conclusions
Existing research and studies show that there is a clear need within the voluntary sector for
improved IT infrastructure and an increase in web enablement. The previous research and
studies carried out support this by highlighting the technology gap between commercial
organisations and charities. Although an existing web development framework for charities
could not be found, there are many support groups and communities which aim to help IT
development within the charitable sector. These can be valuable resources and worth
investigating at all stages of a web enablement programme. In terms of globalisation issues,
most of the solutions which are applied to businesses are equally applicable to charitable
organisations.
Page 26