Scale can be achieved by formulating and diffusing an idea or concept. Precipitating a major shift in a given field creates a wide-ranging and lasting impact. This shift changes the way people think about their work and carry out their programs.

Creating a new doctrine is different from other forms of scale because it seeks to infiltrate broadly by changing the conceptual and intellectual frame surrounding a particular field, be it early childhood education or drug treatment. A successful effort at doctrine building will lead to a wholesale reevaluation of a field’s standard operating procedures and operational assumptions. While an operational model may be associated with a new doctrine, new ideas can and do triumph in the absence of clear applications.   

Pursuing scale through doctrinal shifts is appealing to funders for a number of reasons. Unlike other modes of going to scale, this approach is not limited to the boundaries of the organizations receiving funding. It is possible to propagate an idea or theory and to change service delivery models without spending money on implementation, but one should be able to point to at least one concrete application of the doctrine.

One key to successful paradigm building involves to be the penetration of small networks of policy elites and nonprofit leaders. Once an idea or concept is embraced by opinion leaders, it can filter throughout a field quickly. Influential doctrines have emerged from think tanks and university researchers and from practitioners who can articulate a clear theory supporting their work.

One significant shortcoming to this approach to scale is that the outcomes of such efforts are very hard to predict. Sometimes ideas and frameworks emerge as powerful tools for transforming practice, but ultimately find no audience or willing adopters. Other times, second rate ideas spread like wildfire within fields and are broadly adopted. The process of spreading a doctrine is not amenable to a great deal of control.

When a particular initiative or service model proves successful, many dissect the essential elements of this model in order to reconstruct the effort elsewhere with different personnel and under different circumstances.  Replication is one way to achieve scale, a technique that has been tried and tested in the business sector over a long period of time. 

Replication can proceed in two quite different ways:
- (1) within the organization through a set of more or less closely linked chapters or through a franchise system linking independent organizations;  or
- (2) outside the organization through independent efforts to create similar programs.

The chapter or affiliate way of replicating services has proved critical to the expansion of many of the older and more established service organizations and civic associations. Opening chapters in cities around the country enables an organization to achieve scale quickly yet maintain some degree of control through centralization. Often, chapters are established in a hub and spoke arrangement, in which funds and resources flow back and forth between the center and the periphery.

One obvious problem with this approach is that it can be difficult to achieve uniformity and consistency across chapters so that the message or mission is clear and consistent.  Not surprisingly, one of the biggest questions that this approach raises is the amount of autonomy that should be granted to the chapters or affiliates. Some organizations have successfully implemented loose confederations, while others have long operated tightly controlled networks.

The competing franchise approach to replication is based on the simple assumption that once a model has been established, the real work involves copying and multiplying the model in as many places as possible. Franchising has become popular with younger social entrepreneurs who see this model as providing swift action. By licensing a “brand,” nonprofits can go to scale quickly. A key challenge of the franchise approach is locating skilled people who are capable of taking a model into a new city or community and implementing it. The brand name must be protected by some form of quality assurance. Achieving consistency and measuring quality are both difficult propositions in the nonprofit sector, however.

There are some clear difficulties to both chapter and franchise replication.  Replication is not an approach that can easily be initiated or directed by funders.  Although funders may be able to foster some replication through the use of grants and incentives, most externally directed replication efforts will struggle with the vast unruly and idiosyncratic tide of nonprofit organizations that resist imitation and convergence. While some innovations and ideas have been replicated, large numbers of projects are unable to find any takers, even when they have shown great promise. Replication may rest on the shaky assumption that nonprofits are amenable to cookie-cutter duplication.

Moreover, some funders who experimented with replication strategies discovered that some initiatives successful on a small and local scale defy replication when they are taken out of their initial contexts. This seems especially true when the nonprofit is working with disadvantaged populations, where trust and credibility are crucial.

Replication also ensues if the philanthropist creates a pilot or model program and then allows government or other funders to take the effort to scale. The philanthropist Eugene Lang, for example, had the novel idea of “adopting a class” of middle school students at the inner-city school he attended years ago. Lang promised all the students in one grade that if they worked hard and stayed in school, he would guarantee to pay for their college education. When the New York State got word of this offer, it did not take long before a scholarship program was devised for other disadvantaged students.  This proved to be problematic. Critically missing from this public sector imitation was the direct personal involvement that was a central part of Lang’s innovative educational gift.

Thus while it is tempting to think that replication model involves the simple multiplication of existing programs and institutions, in reality, this process is more labor intensive. Embedded in many successful programs is the vision and commitment of an individual. When the program is replicated in other sites, this personal connection is often missing and the organizations may pass from being an expression of one person’s values and beliefs to a more instrumental attempt to produce certain public benefits.

Under this definition, the coordination problems inherent in the nonprofit sector’s division of labor and proliferation of programs is overcome by bringing under one roof an integrated set of activities and interventions.  Comprehensive community-based initiatives are seen as a remedy to the problems of categorical funding, one that aims at “system-wide” reform. 

Comprehensive community initiatives began in the twentieth century with the settlement houses.  From Hull House to the modern community-focused initiatives launched by large private foundations, there does not seem to be any decrease in this type of initiative. The belief that comprehensiveness is the critical ingredient to scale emerged from years of experience with isolated project funding. Seeking to create synergies by funding integrated sets of services, many donors see scale as being closely linked to building a dominant local presence.

Viewing scale as comprehensiveness is thus embedded in the idea that program linkages are as important or more important than the creation of new programs. By focusing resources in one geographical community, some funders see bridge building as the best way to create a sizable presence and a more fundamental and lasting impact.

Achieving scale by weaving together disparate programs and efforts into a cohesive whole requires that four important problems be overcome:
• First, inter-agency collaboration requires that difficult governance issues be worked out so that all parties can work together productively.
• Second, this approach emphasizes the goals of inclusion and diversity, and those leading such an effort must show leadership in this area and be sensitive to the heterogeneity of many community groups, programs, and networks.
• Third, comprehensiveness depends on the effort gaining legitimacy and support from the grassroots, not only from community elites.
• Fourth, any focus on collaborative strategy must address the issue of sustainability and the development of new funding streams.

Inevitably, due to the size and ambition of many of these programs, government is often involved, which can be a source of support or frustration

Going to scale in this sense is thus roughly equivalent to program expansion and reach.  When a pilot or project is launched, the goal is often to take it to scale by funding it at a higher level and by bringing the program to more people.  There is a sense that a good program can never serve enough people.  As soon as an initiative seems to achieve significant results, one of the first impulses of nonprofit managers and funders alike is to ramp up the effort and find a way to identify and serve more clients.  In the past, the ultimate ambition has often been to get local, state, or federal funding after a launch with private money. 

There are a number of powerful forces propelling nonprofits and their funders toward program expansion:

• First, funding scale as expansion appears fair and equitable in that it rewards past performance.  Funding decisions can be justified by the results that are actually achieved.

• Second, growing a program will allow it to achieve greater operational efficiency, as the marginal cost of administration decreases as the program expands.

• Third, this approach creates incentives for nonprofits to develop and deliver successful projects.  If nonprofit managers know that funding to grow their programs is dependent on how well their programs work, they will work harder to make them succeed.

• Fourth, it allows funders and recipients to work together over longer periods of time than they otherwise might under typical project funding. 

Nonprofit organizations are especially comfortable with the idea of scale as program expansion. It represents a natural way to evolve a nonprofit from a small community organization to one that has a broader presence and impact. For nonprofit managers, aiming toward scale as program expansion is important. Because general support funding is scarce in some fields, program growth is essential to achieving some level of financial stability. Growing programs is seen as equivalent to professional success and can be a key to advancement. Moreover, the financial incentives in the sector provide a strong correlation between budget size and salary, with managers earning more depending on the scale of the program they oversee. As both a signal of success and as a tool for advancement, scale as program expansion is thus attractive to many nonprofit organizations.

From the perspective of the funder, allowing an organization with a proven track record to expand its operations represents both a high return activity and a relatively low-risk proposition. After all, the nonprofit has already demonstrated its ability to implement a given program. All they are seeking is funds for program expansion so that they can do more of one particular activity.  This is a proposition that can be considerably less risky than the design and creation of a new initiative.