The power of curiousity

As foundations have become more effective at seeding and developing social initiatives, the issue of scaling upward to sustain change on a more widespread basis has become a critical strategy. But scaling up is only one approach in a foundation’s strategy toolkit, reserved for those programs with significant transferable learning and a broader demand. This post is about something quite different – at the other end of the strategy continuum actually – the small, one-off grant for experimentation and innovation that may or may not lead to an on-going program, but will almost certainly result in important learning and ideally, changed systems and social perceptions.

I am not referring to the graduated grants we are used to, which start small but are intended to evolve into a larger grant, (a common capacity-building or risk management tool) or grants for small things such as conference attendance, or high-leverage grants such as micro-credit. But rather, small, focused curiosity-driven grants for the illusive ‘good idea’. For sure, almost all of us working in philanthropy have at one time or another developed an innovative grants stream. When Sheherazade and I were at Trillium we had a funding stream called ‘Really Good Ideas’. I would say we mostly got pretty good ideas, because it is hard for grant-seekers who are desperate for funding for their core programs to think about small experimental initiatives. And those with the really good ideas are often not connected to eligible organizations or don’t have the credentials to pass the review process. Also the solid, often iterative, review process that works for competitive grants can be death for the experimental grant requiring timely support and a great deal of trust and empowerment of the grant recipient. And yet foundations, particularly private foundations, with their capacity for flexibility and somewhat less requirement for public accountability are best placed to encourage and fund the experimental grant.

I was won over to curiosity as a grant driver when I was the CEO of the National Cancer Institute of Canada – discovery is the root of basic research after all. But research grantmaking isn’t a good model for small innovation, the panel review process can be very cumbersome and rigid (think word limits) and grants, although funded for a couple of years at a time, are generally for long-term work (I knew a scientist that had been studying the same yeast organisms for thirty years).

So I’ve been thinking about how to combine the curiosity of the research arena with the flexibility of the foundation sector, integrating what we might have learned over the past decades of trying to fund innovation when I came across an article by Dr BJ Fogg which really resonated. He’s talking about software development, but his notion of how innovation works in today’s networked world is relevant (and fascinating) to our work.  Think about this in your own context:

Today, the key to success is starting small and iterating, trying out many options until you get measurable success. This fast and nimble approach to innovation is relatively new. Even just a decade ago, creating a new product or service required hundreds – if not thousands – of hours, in addition to significant cost in material. This high cost meant that innovation teams needed to think long and hard about their ideas before implementing them. They would bring in experts, have lots of meetings, specify every detail of their design. That’s the old way of innovation. And many organisations, in industry and academia, still cling to this old method. If they don’t adapt soon, they will become dinosaurs, poorly-equipped for the emerging realities.

Today, innovation has a new rhythm, with the best teams launching early and iterating quickly. What drives this new method? The low cost of creation and distribution. In 
a handful of hours you can create a new website, a Facebook app, or a phone application. And you can share it quickly with the world. With no money down, you can test a new intervention using text messaging. Using new tools, the fastest way to learn what works in the marketplace isn’t by meeting and discussing but by implementing and launching. Many crummy trials beats deep thinking.

Hmm, many crummy trials beats deep thinking. What a thought! What does that mean for grantmaking? How can we use the notion of thinking clearly and iterating quickly to produce innovation in our fields of interest? What would we have to do differently?  Well, it seems to me that the key thing is the acceptance that the project that is funded is not the project that is completed.  Sort of a variation on the saying, “the river I stand in is not the river I stepped in.” Therefore, discovery grants will generally not fit into a particular funding program, in fact a good discovery grant may cut across many programs. I would think it would also require a hands-off approach on the part of the funder, enabling the grant recipient the autonomy to rapid-cycle the learning which, again, is more typical in research granting. But probably the biggest shift would be who we fund as social innovators may come from non-traditional directions and the grant recipient may develop unusual partnerships. All of this is as hard as it sounds, especially if this kind of experimental,discovery based grantmaking is running parallel to a more linear and rigorously monitored grants program.

In this regard, a great deal can be learned from the Toronto based Centre for Social Innovation,  (the ultimate iterative ‘really good idea’) whose mission is to catalyze social innovation.”We believe that society is facing unprecedented economic, environmental, social and cultural challenges. We also believe that new innovations are the key to turning these challenges into opportunities to improve our communities and our planet.” Spend a couple of hours perusing their website, or better yet if you are in the area take a tour – tomorrow.

Look also at Social Innovation Generation whose mission is to create a ‘culture of continuous social innovation.’  Great thinkers are involved with this group, including Tim Draimin, formerly CEO at Tides. (Good catch SiG!)

In the meantime, have any of you readers had experience with curiosity-driven grantmaking or know anyone who has? How was it done? How well did it work? How would you advise others?

Resources:

Read Dr. Fogg’s full article in the RSA Journal

Check out the Centre for Social Innovation

More on Social Investment Generation (SiG)

Get a brain massage by Ric Young from E.Y.E speaking on social innovation earlier this year. Hear about people who are ‘addicted to success, not problems’ and how they are changing the world.

And finally, if you ever go to Stockholm make your way to the Nobel Museum.  I spent a whole day there a while ago and then went back again. But if you can’t make it there, the website is the next best thing.  Talk about innovation!  Wander through interviews with some of the great minds of our time.