Showing posts with label Frameworks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frameworks. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 June 2016
Over the years one of the most common areas I've been requested to help with is scaling, and having advised now nearly 60 Ashoka Fellows and numerous other impact projects, I was asked by Ashoka's Globalizer team to develop a toolkit for scaling social impact based on the frameworks I'd built for assessing, planning, designing and implementing scale for projects around the world.
While there are plenty of reports, articles and case studies on how different organisations have scaled, we have few practical frameworks specifically designing to guide scaling in the social sector, so it seemed like a worthwhile endeavour. I therefore put together a step by step guide that leads practitioners through the journey of scaling, from taking the initial decision all the way through to implementation.
Growing typically involves adding resources at around the same rate as adding impact or revenue. The implications are primarily operational. If you've already increased reach to more people, more cities or even more countries, but your operating costs have gone up in a generally correlated way, then what you've really done is grown rather than scaled.
Scaling differs in that it involves adding impact at an exponential rate while adding resources at only an incremental rate. Although scaling is also commonly approached from an operational perspective, it typically has significant implications for design, not only in terms of the solution being scaled, but also for the way it is delivered.
In a sector where resources are scarce and very large numbers of people are affected by social issues, it is rarely practical to increase resources at the same rate as reach of impact. Hence why the sector focuses on scaling rather than growth, and why this framework does the same.
Growth is typically the first stage on the path to scaling. Once you've developed and proven a solution, then the next stage is to grow your reach in a direct and controlled manner in order to understand the process as well as the transferability of your solution.
Only when you've grown to a stable operational size and have understood what does and doesn't work in terms of both impact and operation, should you really start to think about scaling. This isn't necessarily what all organisations do, and many have scaled without taking this position, but the result is typically messier, less impactful and harder work than expected.
The general assumption is that the main barrier to scaling lies with access to funding, when in fact financing challenges are often just a symptomatic outcome of underlying readiness and scalability issues.
There are actually five key reasons why organisations struggle to address the real scale of need around the world.
The result is a quality improvement and risk management approach to scaling that should help you on two fronts
If you aren't sure quite how to do this yourself, then each of the main Framework questions has been further broken down into more detailed questions, instructions and guidelines. These will lead you through a journey that covers the most important factors you will need to consider and evaluate when scaling.
While there are plenty of reports, articles and case studies on how different organisations have scaled, we have few practical frameworks specifically designing to guide scaling in the social sector, so it seemed like a worthwhile endeavour. I therefore put together a step by step guide that leads practitioners through the journey of scaling, from taking the initial decision all the way through to implementation.
Scaling vs. Growth
Scaling essentially refers to a form of growth. However, there is an important distinction.Growing typically involves adding resources at around the same rate as adding impact or revenue. The implications are primarily operational. If you've already increased reach to more people, more cities or even more countries, but your operating costs have gone up in a generally correlated way, then what you've really done is grown rather than scaled.
Scaling differs in that it involves adding impact at an exponential rate while adding resources at only an incremental rate. Although scaling is also commonly approached from an operational perspective, it typically has significant implications for design, not only in terms of the solution being scaled, but also for the way it is delivered.
In a sector where resources are scarce and very large numbers of people are affected by social issues, it is rarely practical to increase resources at the same rate as reach of impact. Hence why the sector focuses on scaling rather than growth, and why this framework does the same.
Growth is typically the first stage on the path to scaling. Once you've developed and proven a solution, then the next stage is to grow your reach in a direct and controlled manner in order to understand the process as well as the transferability of your solution.
Only when you've grown to a stable operational size and have understood what does and doesn't work in terms of both impact and operation, should you really start to think about scaling. This isn't necessarily what all organisations do, and many have scaled without taking this position, but the result is typically messier, less impactful and harder work than expected.
Scaling Challenges
Scaling is a critical shift in your ability to make a difference, and one that has significant implications for your organisation. There is a current trend towards rushing into scale, with a focus on quick wins, but this is a misleading and high risk approach in terms of both impact and organisational stability. Planning to scale should not be taken lightly, and it is important to put the right foundations in place if you want to ensure your ability to generate impact on a large scale without putting your organisation or the outcome at risk of failure.The general assumption is that the main barrier to scaling lies with access to funding, when in fact financing challenges are often just a symptomatic outcome of underlying readiness and scalability issues.
There are actually five key reasons why organisations struggle to address the real scale of need around the world.
- Lack of outcome oriented purpose with poor problem definition, which leads to failures in design and decision making
- Inapplicable/Non-scalable impact methodology (solution), which limits the flexibility needed to address the varying needs of new environments and demographics
- Non-systematic approaches to set-up and implementation, which limits replicability and decreases both efficiency and effectiveness
- Inflexible organisational design and lack of operational readiness, which limits ability to deliver at scale
- Poor implementation planning, and hence inadequate cost modelling, leading to challenges with raising funds or finance.
The PATRI Framework for Scaling Social Impact
At its highest level, the Framework consists of a corresponding set of five key questions that will help you scale successfully- Is your goal valid and well defined? (Purpose)
- Is your design applicable at scale? (Applicability)
- Is your model systematised and transferable? (Transferability)
- Is your organisation ready to scale? (Applicability)
- Is your implementation planning robust? (Implementation)
- P = Purpose
- A = Applicability
- T = Transferability
- R = Readiness
- I = Implementation
- Improve ability to address or eradicate issues on a large scale/systemic level
- Reduce risk of mission drift/organisational failures caused by overstretching
If you aren't sure quite how to do this yourself, then each of the main Framework questions has been further broken down into more detailed questions, instructions and guidelines. These will lead you through a journey that covers the most important factors you will need to consider and evaluate when scaling.
Thursday, 29 November 2012
One of the most common issues I've seen on the ground is clarity of, and coherence between, Vision, Mission and Strategy. This is often the root cause behind poor solution design, difficulties in achieving lasting outcomes, and challenges with raising money.
To make it easier to explain how they fit together and the order in which they should be developed, I've put together a short video that connects the dots for you.
The video is based on learnings from my work with more than 100 projects around the world. I'll try and address common issues, myths and challenges faced by social organisations in both designing for outcomes as well as delivering them.
The video is based on learnings from my work with more than 100 projects around the world. I'll try and address common issues, myths and challenges faced by social organisations in both designing for outcomes as well as delivering them.
[Note: If the video doesn't play in your browser, view on YouTube at http://youtu.be/aRcox743Dfg]
Here's the transcript with a downloadable graphic in case it makes the video easier to process:
Very simply, with social change, direction is laid down by your vision, and your mission is to achieve that vision. The trouble is that if your vision isn't clear or sensible, you end up without proper direction, and consequently without a proper basis for design. Your strategies end up all over the place, and you become very susceptible to mission drift. Outcomes lose coherence, and impact becomes a random pick n mix. Donors struggle to connect with unclear goals, and shy away from disconnected strategies. The end result as I mentioned earlier, is a struggle for survival, but more importantly a struggle to achieve the impact that is needed on the ground.
After addressing this issue a number of times, I've put together an easy DIY toolkit to help you visualise how all the pieces connect together.
Let's call it a Metamodel of Solution Design. A blueprint for your organisation. To keep it short, I'll focus here on a high level overview to show how everything connects, but I'll explore each piece and provide working examples in later posts to help make it a little more real.
People tend to start with either vision or mission, and sometimes even with strategies. In actual fact the first place to start is with the Problem Definition.
Without a good characterisation and deep understanding of the problem, none of the other aspects of solution design have any hope of being effective.
Contrary to general assumption, the problem definition is not a one-line statement. What we're talking about here is a detailed picture of the problem at hand, with data that validates and benchmarks the outcomes that indicate there is a problem that needs addressing.
Once you've got these, you need to understand the root causes behind those characteristics; in other words, understand what drives the problem.
The benchmarks in your problem definition will allow you to identify Macro Indicators, and thus the outcomes to aim for. These should be lasting % point changes on a regional level over a mid to long time-frame. Over time they will also tell you if your strategies are actually achieving anything useful, and whether or not you need to rethink.
Critically, the problem definition defines why you care, and why you set up your organisation in the first place. It is the fundamental basis for your existence as a social entity, so invest the time to get it right.
----
Once you have the problem well defined - you can then move on to Vision.
Your vision is what the problem looks like when it's fixed. Again, what is needed here is a detailed picture rather than a single statement. With this, you have the potential to inspire, and you have a proper target to aim for. You can later summarise this into a one-liner for communication purposes.
The vision also helps you define your targets. I recommend splitting it into at least three phases - a short term realistic vision, a mid-term challenging vision, and a long term aspirational one.
Overall your vision provides goals and direction. It is the fundamental basis for design and decision making.
----
Once you've got this in place, your Mission is then to address the problem and achieve the goals and targets set by your vision.
----
Your Strategies are how you will achieve the mission. In other words, how you aim to fix or eradicate the problem altogether. Focus your strategies on the root causes identified in the problem definition.
----
Roadmaps are how those strategies will be applied over the timeframes you set to achieve the mission. This is where you identify short and long term programmes, and understand dependencies and priorities.
----
Tactics are how your strategies breakdown into actions and delivery planning along the phases of your roadmap.
You are free to focus maximum detail on the short term, because the roadmap lets you understand what needs to come next. Keep your planning light for the later stages, because your blueprint will evolve as you go along.
----
Strategies and roadmaps together help define Organisational Design and operational structure, along with how they will need to scale or evolve over time.
---
Roadmaps and tactical programmes provide your Micro Indicators. These are numerical increases in size, impact or reach in short timeframes. Many organisations use these as actual impact indicators, but this is a flawed approach. All they do is tell you if you're on track with your plan. They don't necessarily mean that your plan or strategies are solving the problem in the long term, which is what your design should be aiming for.
----
Finally, your detailed tactical planning enables you to Cost your work, which then allows you to raise the appropriate financing or funding.
----
I recommend reviewing the whole conceptual framework about 9 months into an annual cycle. You should aim to adjust targets, strategies and roadmaps based on learnings and/or how the environment is changing.
Then repeat the detailed tactical planning for the next year with higher level adjustments across the rest of the time-frame where needed.
If you've taken the time to really understand the problem, your core vision and mission on the other hand should remain constant until data on macro outcomes indicates that the problem has been resolved or that it is no longer an issue.
At this point you and your organisation are ready to exit that particular space. You can then choose to close down, or switch attention to another issue. With human transformation work, you're typically looking at between 8 and 15 years as a sensible time-frame to really start seeing impact on a macro level. Resolving an embedded issue altogether will likely take you even longer. Regardless of what anyone tells you, there are no quick fixes and no magic bullets.
Many thanks to Akshay Cherian for helping me put this together, and credit to Barbara Holtmann for coining the phrase 'what it looks like when it's fixed', although I've used it here in a slightly different context.
Thanks for tuning in. Please share if you found it useful.
Here's the transcript with a downloadable graphic in case it makes the video easier to process:
Very simply, with social change, direction is laid down by your vision, and your mission is to achieve that vision. The trouble is that if your vision isn't clear or sensible, you end up without proper direction, and consequently without a proper basis for design. Your strategies end up all over the place, and you become very susceptible to mission drift. Outcomes lose coherence, and impact becomes a random pick n mix. Donors struggle to connect with unclear goals, and shy away from disconnected strategies. The end result as I mentioned earlier, is a struggle for survival, but more importantly a struggle to achieve the impact that is needed on the ground.
After addressing this issue a number of times, I've put together an easy DIY toolkit to help you visualise how all the pieces connect together.
Let's call it a Metamodel of Solution Design. A blueprint for your organisation. To keep it short, I'll focus here on a high level overview to show how everything connects, but I'll explore each piece and provide working examples in later posts to help make it a little more real.
People tend to start with either vision or mission, and sometimes even with strategies. In actual fact the first place to start is with the Problem Definition.
Without a good characterisation and deep understanding of the problem, none of the other aspects of solution design have any hope of being effective.
Contrary to general assumption, the problem definition is not a one-line statement. What we're talking about here is a detailed picture of the problem at hand, with data that validates and benchmarks the outcomes that indicate there is a problem that needs addressing.
Once you've got these, you need to understand the root causes behind those characteristics; in other words, understand what drives the problem.
The benchmarks in your problem definition will allow you to identify Macro Indicators, and thus the outcomes to aim for. These should be lasting % point changes on a regional level over a mid to long time-frame. Over time they will also tell you if your strategies are actually achieving anything useful, and whether or not you need to rethink.
Critically, the problem definition defines why you care, and why you set up your organisation in the first place. It is the fundamental basis for your existence as a social entity, so invest the time to get it right.
----
Once you have the problem well defined - you can then move on to Vision.
Your vision is what the problem looks like when it's fixed. Again, what is needed here is a detailed picture rather than a single statement. With this, you have the potential to inspire, and you have a proper target to aim for. You can later summarise this into a one-liner for communication purposes.
The vision also helps you define your targets. I recommend splitting it into at least three phases - a short term realistic vision, a mid-term challenging vision, and a long term aspirational one.
Overall your vision provides goals and direction. It is the fundamental basis for design and decision making.
----
Once you've got this in place, your Mission is then to address the problem and achieve the goals and targets set by your vision.
----
Your Strategies are how you will achieve the mission. In other words, how you aim to fix or eradicate the problem altogether. Focus your strategies on the root causes identified in the problem definition.
----
Roadmaps are how those strategies will be applied over the timeframes you set to achieve the mission. This is where you identify short and long term programmes, and understand dependencies and priorities.
----
Tactics are how your strategies breakdown into actions and delivery planning along the phases of your roadmap.
You are free to focus maximum detail on the short term, because the roadmap lets you understand what needs to come next. Keep your planning light for the later stages, because your blueprint will evolve as you go along.
----
Strategies and roadmaps together help define Organisational Design and operational structure, along with how they will need to scale or evolve over time.
---
Roadmaps and tactical programmes provide your Micro Indicators. These are numerical increases in size, impact or reach in short timeframes. Many organisations use these as actual impact indicators, but this is a flawed approach. All they do is tell you if you're on track with your plan. They don't necessarily mean that your plan or strategies are solving the problem in the long term, which is what your design should be aiming for.
----
Finally, your detailed tactical planning enables you to Cost your work, which then allows you to raise the appropriate financing or funding.
----
I recommend reviewing the whole conceptual framework about 9 months into an annual cycle. You should aim to adjust targets, strategies and roadmaps based on learnings and/or how the environment is changing.
Then repeat the detailed tactical planning for the next year with higher level adjustments across the rest of the time-frame where needed.
If you've taken the time to really understand the problem, your core vision and mission on the other hand should remain constant until data on macro outcomes indicates that the problem has been resolved or that it is no longer an issue.
At this point you and your organisation are ready to exit that particular space. You can then choose to close down, or switch attention to another issue. With human transformation work, you're typically looking at between 8 and 15 years as a sensible time-frame to really start seeing impact on a macro level. Resolving an embedded issue altogether will likely take you even longer. Regardless of what anyone tells you, there are no quick fixes and no magic bullets.
Many thanks to Akshay Cherian for helping me put this together, and credit to Barbara Holtmann for coining the phrase 'what it looks like when it's fixed', although I've used it here in a slightly different context.
Thanks for tuning in. Please share if you found it useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Posts (RSS)
Posts
All Comments