I was on my way to meet Sheherazade for a meeting with a client yesterday and thinking about how to frame my section of our interim report when I thought of Frank Gehry. A few years ago I went to an exhibit at the Guggenheim that featured his work and what fascinated me at the time was that his creative process did not start with the building, but with understanding the space and flow of the project. His early stage drawings, starting with squiggles on a cocktail napkin or random pieces of paper, were about the energy and nature of the space itself; and even after he started to design the structure, his spacial thinking would run parallel, merging finally with the design. What made me think of this is because, in our small way, that is how Sheherazade and I approach our work. Long before we produce the ultimate product we spend considerable time understanding the nature of what we are working with, what ‘flow’ looks like, what ideas underpin the project, and what matters to the people involved. In this case, the task is to build an evaluation framework for the funders of a national scale-up of a successful local project. So one of the questions we’ve been asking ourselves as we mull around in the project’s ’space’ is, what is scale-up? Is it replication? Is it a community of practice? Is it social innovation? Is there a difference between those? Does that matter? We reviewed the literature, we talked to stakeholders, and we realized that yes, those are very different concepts, and yes, it does matter. We ultimately settled on two models that capture the essential differences, one which we call replication and and the other (for lack of a better term) ‘knowledge transfer’. Continue reading ‘The Yin and Yang of Scaling-up’
Author Archive for Julie White
One of the first questions we explore with clients who are thinking about a new funding program is their tolerance for risk. And by that we mean not just whether they are willing to take a chance on an important issue or program with high potential that might not succeed, but what other factors might drive the decision (implicitly if not explicitly). For some, the primary risk issue will be the potential to have an impact on the issue itself and the opportunity cost of not succeeding. For others, like a recent corporate client, it was the impact on corporate reputation and brand image, understandable for a corporation that is just starting out in grantmaking in a volatile industry.
We probed a bit at the meeting, but later over coffee Sheherazade and I realized that what they needed was a simple tool they could use now and in the future to help them assess the risks of the options they were considering – a tool that was compatible with their overall corporate goals and risk strategy. We have found that without clarity on risk tolerance funders will either find themselves in hot water with a program or will, by default, be so cautious that their granting program does not make a significant impact.
The tool we developed balances risks with opportunity to avoid over-caution; and although it was developed for a particular corporation, we thought it would be of interest (hopefully of use) to others working in the field. Note that this tool is designed for issue or program selection, not for individual granting decisions. (We will be addressing grant decision tools in a future posting.)
So here it is, feel free to use it however you wish: Risk Tool
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.
Years ago when Sheherazade and I were working as executives at the same organization, on days when it felt like the walls were closing in on us we would take a walk over to the Royal Ontario Museum to get some perspective. Yes, there is nothing like thousands of years of beauty, drama and brilliance to get a sense of one’s place (one’s teeny, tiny little place) in the universe. We would get refreshed, and more often than not, inspired. Sometimes the only way to deal effectively with an issue or problem is to get outside the situation – the farther the better – and let solutions come to you from anywhere and everywhere.
We still use the technique when we start a new project. First we satisfy ourselves that we understand the context and expectations of the new challenge, but then we give ourselves time for non-linear, chaotic and serendipitous reflection that inevitably informs our direction. So we are always delighted to find places of inspiration – TED is one – and now another called Ask Nature. Holycrow, this is cool! The idea behind this site is based on the notion of biomimicry, that natural genius is all around, with so much to teach us. The site draws on “3.8 billion years of design brilliance… to connect innovative minds with life’s best ideas, and in the process, inspire technologies that create conditions conducive to life”. You can find answers in nature to your most compelling questions. Try it out. Go into the site and complete the question: How would nature….. and see what comes up.
And speaking of TED, according to the Globe and Mail this morning, a TED-like conference is being planned in Toronto on September 10th.
Sheherazade and I were in the middle of the first meeting with a potential client recently, discussing an innovative idea that he wanted us to assess. We asked if he had a strategic plan for the organization as a whole to provide context for this project, and he said, “Oh yes, I’m one of those people who need a roadmap.” Two thoughts collided at the same time. First, we wouldn’t have described him as someone who needs a detailed roadmap, he’s a pretty dynamic and accomplished guy; and second (as new GPS converts) we wondered if the notion of GPS wasn’t a better metaphor for planning than roadmap – more fluid, adaptive and end-focused. We three had a little fun with that for a while, but later Sheherazade and I gave it a more thought because we are always looking for new ways think and talk about strategy.
So what would be different if we thought ‘GPS’ rather than ‘roadmap’? Well, the most obvious difference is that with a roadmap the journey is integrated with the arrival: it’s generally plotted out in advance, leaving not much room for chance: the assumption being that success requires compliance. With GPS you have to know where you want to end up, but the route itself can vary depending on traffic, detours or whether you decide to take a little side trip on your way. Or, of course, miss your turn because you are busy looking at the view, sipping on your low fat, half-caf latte (does the voice that says ‘recalculating’ for the third time sound a bit slower and louder each time, or is that just me?). The point is that you can look around, maybe even follow the sign to an unexpected museum, farmer’s market or scenic view where you can peer into the distance with a telescope for just a quarter. And then still have a route that will get you to where you are going, wiser and fresher.
So it is with good planning.
I am excited to report that Sheherazade received the North York Women’s Shelter 25th Anniversary Hope Award at its annual Mother’s Day Hope Gala. The Hope Award recognizes extraordinary women who have led the way in inspiring others to take action. Sheherazade was presented with the award for her outstanding commitment to advancing the cause of women and girls, a cause that runs deep in her family as this excerpt from her acceptance will attest: “My grandmothers were pioneers who, in their 20’s, left India in the early 1900’s to follow their entrepreneurial husbands who had settled in Africa. They broke every known assumption or stereotype I have ever heard about the role of Muslim women. They adapted to their new environment with energy, fought snakes and lions, helped to establish new settlements, lived their lives out loud, and advocated vigorously for their daughters and for those less fortunate in their communities so their families could have a better quality of life in their new homes. They understood the very fundamental truth of the interdependence of individual, families and communities.”
Anyone who knows Sheherazade knows she lives the truth of this interdependence. As Executive Director of the Royal LePage Shelter Foundation she helped transform the company’s charitable impulse into a national community investment strategy in support of shelters serving women and children fleeing violence. As well, Sheherazade is a long-time volunteer and board member of the Canadian Women’s Foundation, supporting their work to end violence against women, move low-income women out of poverty and empower girls with confidence. She is also a member of the National Committee of the Aga Khan Foundation Canada that seeks to address the root causes of poverty through gender equity.
Congratulations, Sheherazade.
News last week that two ‘lions’ in our field – Patrick Johnston of The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation and Charles Pascal from Atkinson Foundation – are stepping down from their posts gave Sheherazade and me pause for thought.
First, of course, is what wonderful contributors both have been to our sector. Patrick’s national leadership is well known and pervasive, and his experience strengthened Gordon Foundation’s role in water sovereignty among other important issues Gordon addresses. Sheherazade and I are fortunate to have the Foundation as a client, so we know first-hand the reach and impact their work has had on behalf of all of us. We know that Patrick will bring the same thoughtful perspective to his next challenge of examining the role of CIDA.
What can be said about Charles? His work at Atkinson has been both broad and deep, and a whole generation of children in Canada will benefit from it. We agree with him that his next steps are bound to be interesting, and we expect to hear the drumbeats alerting us to wherever he goes.
Charles’ comment that he is ‘leaving the space for someone else’ is provocative. We all know that leadership turnover is important and healthy for individual organizations (as well as for individuals, for that matter) and for the sector as a whole, but it raises serious issues for organizations.
