Entries For: 2007
- March (24)
2007-03-29
How to evaluate and spread your big ideas
Boru Douthwaite, author of Enabling Innovation, provides tangible frameworks and guidelines to help you evaluate and spread your ideas
All the participants agreed that this session provided some good tools to move your big, innovative ideas forward. The following concepts can be used to help shape your decision making when trying to bring your innovative concepts to life: Innovation is an evolutionary process. Innovations must be allowed to circulate and be adapted by a number of different players. Innovative procedures, products, technologies, or philosophies that are held too closely and are not allowed to be modified are rarely adopted by the mainstream. Most Significant Change (MSC) is a framework designed to allow organizations to pick up innovative ideas and allow them to grow. How do we get an idea to reach a tipping point (a point in time in which adoption begins to increase exponentially and is adopted by the mainstream)? Boru suggests ten crucial steps to get your ideas past the tipping point: - Start with a plausible promise - Convince potential stakeholders you can provide something they need - Find a product champion - Find someone, usually yourself, who can drive the evolution of the idea - Keep it simple - Work with innovative and motivated partners - Be prepared to hand over your idea and allow others to let it evolve - Work in a pilot site or sites where the need for the innovation is great - Set up open and unbiased selection mechanisms - Don’t release the innovation too widely too soon - Don’t patent anything unless it is to stop someone else trying to privatize it - Realize that culture makes a difference - Know when to let go My small working group in the session also agreed that the appropriate climate must exist for a new idea/product to flourish. Introducing a new idea that solves does not solve a current or future needs will not readily be engaged. Boru Douthwaite is a technology analyst working for the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). He is the author of Enabling Innovation.
Do governments run the social enterprise agenda?
An interesting presentation that shows how connected social entrepreneurs are with both the private and public sector. A deeper and more formal interrelationship between all of these actors needs to be established. It will take time, trust, and the development of formal mechanisms and institutional champions. But, it is something we have to work towards within the next several years.
Ashoka Changemakers
Bill Drayton, Founder of Ashoka, emphasized the critical need for changemakers to galvanize masses and trigger institutional success. He asserted that this could only be achieved by escaping repeated patterns of active inertia, and by hitting the jujitsu point.
Charlie Brown, Executive Director of Changemakers, and Greg Dees, director of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke, introduced the mosaic process that aims to release embedded knowledge from practitioners to help solve the “Knowing-Doing Gap”, cited by Jeff Pfeffer.
The presentations featured Ashoka fellows and competitors were primarily involved in pro-poor social enterprises, and in many cases rural development. All of these stood out although some were unforgettable. Dr. Jordan Kassalow has worked through the Scojo Foundation to distribute reading glasses in communities as worker productivity in impoverished communities has suffered from this basic void. Scojo has empowered bicyle repairmen, basket weavers, and other low-skilled laborers to do their jobs. Simple yet powerful!
MANTRA, KTC, and Oasis were all focused on rural development and health services models. Considering 90% of the world’s poor live in rural areas, this certainly seems like we are headed in the right direction.
The Peace Competition tackled some of the most challenging and cyclical conflict issues in the world. The Peres Center is utilizing economic development and integration to help mitigate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Eric Brown of Impact Games has designed a video game to facilitate learning from multiple perspectives of the same conflict. This was a fantastic example of edutainment that enables one to step out of binding tunnel vision and into the “other” side.
The Independent Diplomat was yet another remarkable innovation in conflict prevention and management. Its aim is to resolve or prevent conflict by enabling disadvantaged and marginalised actors to engage effectively in diplomatic processes. Conflict often times occurs at the margins and such programs are useful in aiding direct impact.
The one gaping hole I saw in many of the peace models was the lack of focus on addressing behavioural problems. Conflict management is about more than engaging individuals, it is about character building, nurturing human values, and winning people’s hearts – not just their minds!
Inspiration from inspiring leaders
Overwhelming feedback that this may well have been the best session of the forum...
Systems of Innovation
Uffe Elbaek led a discussion with David Muhia, Skoll Scholar, Nina Smith of Rugmark, and Piera Morlacchi of the University of Sussex on social innovations and the environments that foster them.
Pierra Morlacchi discussed the increasingly complex systems of innovation that are moving from a study of people to systems of people. She discussed how innovation can be considered in a broader concept of the ecology or ecosystem of the world they inhabit. Following her presentation we had a chance to spend 10 minutes with our neighbours to discuss our own systems. I was fortunate enough to participate in a very lively conversation regarding the networking of social entrepreneurs and the inclusivity or exclusivity of these networks. Unanswered questions included whether the Skoll Forum itself was excluding true innovators from nations who cannot afford, or at least justify the expense of, flying to Britain.
Nina Smith presented next on her work with Rugmark in their attempts to eliminate child labour from the rug making industry in Nepal, India and Pakistan. Following her was my classmate David Muhia who talked about attempts to create not-for-profit pharma companies to innovate on and hopefully distribute ultimately unprofitable drugs for diseases afflicting developing nations.
We ended in another thinking session and talk focusing on how to innovate in our organisations. Points were made on the need for renewal and the dangerous reinforcement of obsolete systems. Furthermore the importance of outside views and fresh insights was raised and Uffe raised the notion that sometimes the most important things fly below our radar because we aren't looking hard enough. I had discussed with my group the value in not only expertise but ignorance as well as half way between the current way of thinking and a really stupid idea is often genius.
Social entrepreneurs in human rights
Social entrepreneurs shared their diverse approaches to solving human rights issues. The discussion centered on the challenges and contradictions that arise from engaging with business and governments – often the culprits of injustice – to drive change.
Innovators In Action Moderated by Jim Fruchterman of Benetech. Benetech applies technology solutions to human rights.
Nina Smith from Rugmark Foundation works to end child labor in the making of handmade rugs through a market certification program. When asked how to change the behavior of businesses to establish a more responsible supply chain, she shared three key strategies:
- Be careful how you frame the issues. Finger pointing and accusations of child slavery will only lead to closed doors.
- Do your market research to demonstrate how a change in business practices will help the company’s bottom line
- Create effective sales tools that appeal to the company and consumers. Rugmark uses its label and “the most beautiful rug” slogan to market certified rugs.
Jeroo Billimoria founded Child Helpline International - a global helpline for vulnerable children. It is built on a model she developed in India which has responded to over 10 million calls. She is now launching Alflatoun which provides children with financial education while teaching them about their rights as citizens. She encountered resistance from NGO’s, seemingly “natural allies”, who couldn’t see why finance should be part of children’s education. She approached private sector banks who got it - children that learn about budgeting, planning, and economic rights will build a sense of identity and self-reliance.
Karen Tse from International Bridges to Justice works in China, Cambodia, and Vietnam to build fairer and more effective criminal justice systems. Karen’s believes ending state sanctioned torture in the 21st century is possible. To make this happen, engagement with multiple players – from prisoners themselves to police to governments – is required. Despite frequent criticisms for working alongside entities such as the Chinese Government, she believes the driver of change will be through reconnecting people to the deeper values that shift their consciousness.
Gillian Caldwell from Witness was asked how they balance the Witness brand with those of the human rights organizations they assist. Witness captures abuses through video and online technologies - the U-tube of human rights. She spoke to the tensions in the social enterprise field between the single innovator with an idea versus and an organization like Witness that plays a catalytic role by providing a platform to raise the visibility and ability of other human rights organizations to be better advocates.
Gillian sent the group of 30 delegates off with some parting thoughts…why are there so few of us here when human rights – basic health, education, etc - is at the heart of social enterprise?
Is Social Entrepreneurship the Same Everywhere?
Do the particularities of geographic regions constrain the ability to make generalizations?
Through a series of case studies and anecdotes, the speakers highlighted the cultural and institutional nuance that make this field so dynamic. The overall picture that I derived was one of a kaleidescope. Yet even so, it appears to me that there are opportunities to understand patterns across context, which are being overlooked.
That being said, at the conference I can sense an appetite for more work in this area and motivation to pursue it.
2007-03-28
Can Social Entrepreneurship do Better Than Government?
What happens when you mix economists and SE?
This specific lecture brought in the talents of some notable Oxford economists and a social-risk theorist. The most provoking of the three speeches was given by Avner Offer, an economic historian. He argued against the notion that human beings make decisions by completely rational means; rather humans have a myopic view of value. Thus, it is necessary for the public sector to help ensure that we, as individuals, commit to solutions which pose greater long-term value. In other words, social entrepreneurs should act as the discoverers, but the State should be there to implement entitlements.
This provoked some solid argument, particularly from the very scholarly Jed Emerson, who in many ways has fathered the whole SROI discussion. I also like particularly how the moderator closed the discussion, highlighting that social entrepreneurs have often filled the gaps in the presence of a weak State (e.g. Grameen Bank). Moreover, no one can argue that SE is just an R&D lab for the State. Rather they must recognize the power of SE to reshape and redefine institutions and norms.
Design Thinking
Workshop on Design and Innovation
Sarah Stein, Debra Dunn, Perry Klebahn, and Alex Ko, all visiting from Stanford University’s Institute for Design, kicked off this session on Design Thinking by having each of our groups design water storage systems with an assortment of papers, tin foil, toothpicks and garbage bags. With creativity not lacking in this crowd, some of the solutions employed the chairs we were sitting on and appear to be fully functional – thankfully today we don’t have the opportunity to test our devices in natural conditions as we have been blessed with a day of sun in this the rainiest part of England.
After this kickoff project we all watched a few short movies about innovation with a particular focus on the value of rapid prototyping. “Innovation is not an event, it is a process.” In the words of yesterday’s speech on innovation by economist David Galenson, we will be partaking in experimental innovation as opposed to conceptual innovation. The key steps as presented are Understand, Observe, Point of View, Visualize, Prototype, and Test. We were to place particular emphasis on prototyping as we worked on the project, viewing prototyping as an iterative process with a plethora of feedback channels. “The value of the prototype is in the conversation and imagination that it inspires.”
We broke back into our teams to do some mind-mapping around water storage, looking to see what creative ideas were so inspiring that we drew them to the edge of our whiteboards. My team, which was comprised of people doing such diverse things as launching a social venture fund, working on corporate CSR, and working with street kids in Cambodia, was most surprised by our idea to use playground toys as pumps – attempting to tap into the human energy/capital to contribute to the community’s water system.
In the end, each group’s solution was so unique, with some being tangible and some more theoretical, that everyone went away inspired by the thought that there are always multiple solutions to a single problem.
Design Thinking
Social Entrepreneurs in Education
Lunchtime session with 5 panelist discussing how they change the educational system in different countries to allow the poor and deprived to get a good, useful education.
Masterclass: Social Entrepreneurs in Health and Environment
A session structured to provide delegates with an opportunity to interact with Skoll social entrepreneurs to gain insights, approaches, impact and examples of success.
Innovators In Action Moderated by Jim Fruchterman of Benetech.
The short, one hour session began with a brief introduction from each of the panelists:
Andrea and Barry Coleman run Riders for Health, an organization that is trying to overcome the fact that Africans are dying of preventable diseases simply because they can’t be reached. They have created a reliable transportation system to many of the villages in Gambia and Zimbabwe to improve healthcare delivery.
Mindy Lubber, of Ceres, has focused her efforts on climate change. She wants to understand how to use capital markets to make a substantial change to the way we see sustainability. She is trying to get policy makers to discard the old paradigm of the economy versus the environment by reframing issues into a way that will engage corporations. She is interacting with corporate boards to re-shape their view of climate change as not just a political issue but as a real financial risk to their organizations.
Vera Codeiro is a Brazilian physician who believes in improving the health of her patients by helping to solve some of their underlying social issues. Her organization, Renascer, aims to help those living below the poverty line by focusing on five areas –education, income generation, health, housing and nutrition.
Blaise Judga-Sato is improving the delivery of healthcare in “the last mile” of Mozambique by upgrading transportation, cold storage, quality control and staffing at approximately 250 health clinics. His team at Village Reach is using a blended financing model by injecting the proceeds of a for-profit gas company to help fund the activities of the not-for-profit activities health clinics.
The moderator of the session was Garry Cohen of Health Care without Harm. Health Care without Harm works to ensure that health care providers and health care facilities are operating in an environmentally responsible manner.
Questions from the floor:
One delegate asked what it takes to become a Skoll Foundation winner. Blaise Judga-Sato and Garry Cohen both commented that it is beneficial for organizations to have a minimum level of development before approaching a foundation for funding. They agreed that such funding should be used to scale up a project after it has already proved to be successful on a smaller scale.
Another question asked the panelists how they handled working capital requirements in an uncertain cash-flow environment. All the panelists agreed that good business planning is extremely important. Some strategies for dealing with fluctuations in revenue were to diversify for-profit revenue streams, diversify non-profit donations, and build an endowment that will provide the minimal level of working capital requirements.
One delegate pointed out the importance of differentiating between growth capital and normal revenue streams. She said that it is crucial identify all shortages of revenue that will need to be made up by donations and build them into the business plan. She noted that if you are losing money in the growth stage things are only going to get worse when you get to scale.
Perceptions from the media briefing
- cares less whether SE stays or goes.
- We need the impact BUT Gordon Bloom mentioned that there’s a value in mobilizing the business field through the use of language
- Competition vs. cooperation – Emerson argue that theres value in organizing metrics so that you can mobilize capital and have positive competition – otherwise you have capital . Gordon Bloom emphasizes that cooperation is just as critical.
The Witness Hub - A "You Tube" for Human Rights
A Wikipedia style community for Human Rights
Valid questions were raised about checking content for authenticity and the dangers of fraud. Though the hope is that this will be done by the community this requires a critical mass of people or it will go unchecked. There was also some concern that established institutions, particularly the media, might feel threatened by this. And most importantly concerns for the safety of those involved were raised. I felt that this point is very relevant and was largely left unanswered. Is there a danger that a medium to raise awareness will turn these people into targets for corrupt institutions?
The Problems and Perils of Scaling
Pamela Hartigan of the Schwab foundation leads a discussion on scaling social entrepreneurship ventures with Ashok Khosla, Mechai Viravaidya and Mel Young.
The most interesting points of the talk came once it was opened to general questions. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the point of how to replace a founder and to reduce their importance such that the business is sustainable beyond their exit. This is another area of sustainability that perhaps is not originally considered. Many of the participants gave accounts of their own experiences including one who told of how in a social venture she founded in the U.S. there was constant discussion of her exit plans so that the idea of the business existing beyond her was a comfortable one.
This discussion changed into the ambitions of scale including extending on Ashok's point of whether it is truly desirable. Social ventures are not often well suited to a monolithic structure governed by a large central bureaucracy. A viral distribution of local and motivated groups may be a much better approach. Touched upon, and perhaps only really hinted at, is the danger that social ventures suffer from the same temptations of the private sector: expansion beyond their reach in terms of both geographic expertise and core competency. I firmly believe that despite the good intentions of the social sector there still exists in some individuals a kind of hubris and empire lust that can very easily lead to the extension of social ventures beyond a level that they are sustainable and therefore lead to their downfall.
Are There Really 3 Sectors?
A look at the talks of Meng Zhao, Ignasi Marti, Marie Lisa Dacanay and Xiaolan Fu on the nature of social entrepreneurship and the intersections of public, private and the third, social, sector.
First up was Meng Zhao, DPhil student at Oxford, who discussed his research on innovation and institutional change in the context of China. He presented some very interesting points on the interactions between governments, NGOs and social entrepreneurs, particularly points about how the government acts not only as a maintainer of the status quo and therefore a potential detriment to SE activity, but also as an enabler of change. Critical, it seems, to the success of NGO led social entrepreneurship in China is the increased communication and networking between these groups and the government as it both mitigates the barriers that may exist and enhances the pace of change which facilitates SE activity.
Ignasi Marti, a visiting DPhil Student at Oxford, presented some very interesting points on the nature of poverty and the role of institutions, actors and markets in Bangladesh. He discussed how institutional voids leave many groups on the outside of markets for reasons beyond material poverty; gender inequality and power imbalances are equally exclusionary forces. I personally took interest in his comments on how even micro-finance is out of reach of the "ultra-poor".
Next up was Xaiolan Fu from the SL Programme for Technology and Management for Development. The crux of her presentation was on sustainability of social entrepreneurship activities and how without profitability there is little sustainability. Points regarding the increasing use of conventional business models in SE ventures were raised as was the idea that the best technology for a job is not always the technology available in developing areas.
The last presentation was by Marie Lisa Dacanay of the Asian Institute of Management who discussed emerging social entrepreneurship models and cited a variety of examples from countries including Thailand, the Philippines, and India. The most interesting challenge raised in my opinion was from the example of Bina Swadaya, an Indonesian NGO that is 90% financed by its subsidiaries. They face ongoing tensions between their business and social aspects, perhaps a problem that any social entrepreneurship enterprise might face if there is much separation between the constituent parts.
All in an interesting session. Are there three sectors? I'm not any closer to an answer, but it seems clear that relationships are growing closer and lines are certainly blurring.
Lunch Topic: Conflict Zones
An emotional presentation by social entrepreneurial veterans from the worlds toughest crisis zones.
Delegates from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US, and South Africa spoke to issues about the dangers and difficulties of working in conflict zones.
Moving Capital
Great session that included innovative ideas like social investment banks, social enterprise financing as credit issues, and how to incentivize environmental returns.
Social Entrepreneurs in Rural development
An engaging and animated lunchtime session which explored privately targeted innovations to aid rural development such as treadle pumps and those geared more toward community development such as the empowering training provided by Bunker Roy’s "Barefoot college"
Innovators In Action Moderated by Jim Fruchterman of Benetech.
During the discussion, each panellist espoused the relative virtue of their respective disparate approaches to empowering and developing inhabitants of rural communities in Africa, India and Latin America.
Bunker Roy described the work of the “Barefoot College” in providing training that equips women between the ages of 35-55 with the necessary skills that empower them to tackle the problems that exist within their rural communities. One key element of this approach is to educate through practical, hands on learning by doing rather than by learning with paper qualifications as the end goal. The benefit of this is that it prevents migration to urban centres.
Partnering with Business
A lively discussion featuring social entrepreneurs, private sector professionals and funders. Those present on the panel were: Sophia Tickell (Sustainability), Blaise Judja-Sato (VillageReach), Christopher Elias (PATH), John Schaetzl (GE Asset Management), Hannah Kettler (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Duncan Learmouth (GlaxoSmithKline)