Maybe, maybe not. At the very least, in this climate of limited resources and jittery giving, traditional fundraising techniques are not serving well. We in the social issue community are rethinking how we ask, how we give and how we generate both funds and impact. The exercise of reevaluation is revolutionizing the field-- and traditional fundraising techniques are starting to look outdated.
Larry Keeley of Doblin spoke a few weeks ago at the Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab) at the Ontario College of Art and Design, about the role designers play in innovation. He called on us (designers and non-designers alike) to engage in platform thinking to conceive and prototype new futures. Within the context of design and innovation, Larry defines platforms as integrated offerings that create a unique and holistic user experience only loosely controlled by the platform owner. And even in the midst of a recession, Larry argues, there's never been a better, more dynamic time to engage in innovation and platform thinking, given both the widespread availability of tools and the current societal will to collaborate.
I've been thinking about platforms ever since that conversation. In the context of sustainable social change generally, the most effective platforms are integrated offerings that scale globally and across sectors, creating movement toward a just and equitable future shaped according to local values. Those platforms need supportive platforms that allow for dynamic and sustained resource generation and community engagement (through communication, storytelling and demonstration of impact). The following platforms look like they will emerge as the strongest ways to move the needle forward:
1) Donor engagement: Creating donor-centered infrastructure, in which donors' expectations and goals are directly integrated into the core of an initiative's mission and programs. This applies most often to high-level donors, requires active stewardship and communication-- and is akin to a partnership model.
2) Peer-to-peer fundraising: Funds are raised through grassroots networking, individual to individual. Twestival (Twitter-based fundraising for charity:water) is the most recent example of this. (Beth Kanter presents a thorough look at this effort on her blog.)
3) Open source activism: This is a phrase used by musician, activist and filmmaker Justin Dillon (Call and Response) to describe his efforts to increase participatory action and idea generation for social change.
4) Open source philanthropy: Increased availability and sharing of information in and among key stakeholders. GFEM has created a media database to connect media projects with funders on an open platform. Larry Keeley has also worked with the Rockefeller Foundation to innovate philanthropic giving and due diligence.
5) Impact investing: Creating global investment portfolios that maximize both financial return and non-financial benefits of scalable solutions to social and environmental problems. (A more grassroots example of this is HopeEquity.org, which creates micro-endowments that generate interest on capital.)
(Thanks to Michael Dila and Robin Uchida of Torch Partnership, a brilliant strategy and innovation firm and a sponsor of sLab, for inviting me to attend the sLab series. The exposure to Torch's work on cross-sector collaboration has enriched my own strategy practice. Thanks also to Jill Finlayson of the Skoll Foundation and socialedge.org, who has inspired our cross-site dialogue about issue fatigue, fundraising, media engagement and donor engagement platforms.)
Storytelling for Change: The Most Significant Change technique
Sean Howard made me aware of an innovative storytelling tool geared toward change/needs assessments, called the Most Significant Change (MSC). This technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation that can be applied across a number of social issues.
The process--invented by Rick Davies nearly 14 years ago to meet challenges associated with monitoring and evaluating a complex participatory rural development program in Bangladesh-- involves the collection of significant change stories from participants and staff at the field level, followed by systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by designated stakeholders or staff. Once changes have been captured, various people sit down together, read the stories aloud and have regular, in-depth discussions about the value of reported changes and emerging patterns of focus. When the technique is implemented successfully, teams of people focus their attention on program impact.
This is the basic process:
1. Start and raise interest
2. Define domains of change
3. Define reporting period
4. Collect SC stories
5. Select most significant stories
6. Feed back results of selection process
7. Verify of stories
8. Quantify
9. Secondary analysis and meta-monitoring
10. Revise the system
I am particularly interested in the MSC technique because of its similarities to Appreciative Inquiry, a technique for change or growth strategy and organizational design that I like within in my own strategic planning practice. Also, Sean and I have been working together to create a program geared toward systemic change, using innovations in design thinking, visualization, user experience, organizational design and storytelling. We've been researching successful models of communication and evaluation- and the MSC technique is interesting in terms of systemic change. As Sean pointed out, the MSC technique has most often and successfully been applied vertically within organizations, but there are also valuable outcomes from that can arise from bringing external stakeholders into the process, such as enhanced donor engagement and partnership evaluations, which the user manual acknowledges in its section entitled "Innovation: Network Alternatives."
(Part of this comment is cross-posted from the ResistNetwork. Image taken from Rick Davies' blog.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)