Something for all my social entrepreneurial friends out there. It’s Bill Shore of Share Our Strength, giving his ideas for how to scale up your organisation (or just keep going) and break out of reliance on the usual funding model. The talk was at TEDxMidAtlantic Be Fearless.
There are some brilliant ideas here – may not resonate instantly for everyone’s business – but for me this kind of thinking is essential if we’re to find the level of scalability that social sector so desperately needs. I have summarised Bill’s points below – mainly for my own purpose of recollection, but also as a starter for a longer post containing more business model ideas – but watch first and see for yourself…
A few thoughts from the Parliament Week event put on by the RSA entitled ‘Do We Get The Politics We Deserve?’. The main event was a panel discussion with author Matthew Flinders, Gloria De Piero (MP for Ashfield) and Nadhim Zahawi (MP for Stratford-on-Avon, and founder of YouGov). There then followed some mini-workshops, one of which I facilitated.
You can get the low-down of the whole event on Storify, but there were some interesting outcomes from my workshop. The question asked to my group was ‘Can digital help improve our politics for the better?’, and it was really encouraging to see the attendees flock overwhelmingly towards this subject (I accept this was possibly aided by my corner being nearest the wine).
Now, we should bare in mind that this group was not scientifically picked and included people whose attendance suggested a certain engagement with politics. That said, there was a fantastic range of ages, political preferences, and digital experience, and it was really heartening to hear so much opinion so willingly offered. And personally, as a creator of digital services, I was also reminded just how important (and how easy) it is to get feedback from users when trying to solve problems.
The outcome? In short, the response was an overwhelming Yes – digital can help improve our politics for the better. But many in the group were not without their concerns. Specifically;
Digital services must be easy to use – designed for all levels (this was a bug-bear for almost everyone in the group and regardless of age!)
Digital services needs the same credibility to compete with established channels (especially surveys, for example).
And if we address those concerns, what can digital offer our politics?
It allows us to change the narrative (away from politicians’ to to one of our own)
Digital is brilliant for reaching / engaging young people and first time voters.
OK, so nothing ground breaking you could argue, but in a 15-minute session I was impressed with the enthusiasm and thought that came back – especially as the workshop was only an add-on to the main panel discussion. All in all it was yet another welcome reminder about the value of participation: from focus groups to feedback forms – don’t forget to ask the user.
Every now and then you see something so inspiring that you just need to share it. Patchwork is one of those things. Designed by the team at Futuregov, it helps practitioners across multiple agencies access the contact details of other front line staff working with the same clients – improving communication and strengthening collaboration.
The idea started developing after the Baby P case, and was designed in close collaboration with the practitioners it aims to help. It’s a brilliant example of how useful technology can be – helping practitioners do what they’re best at by giving them access to better information – not by replacing human connections, but by supporting them.
And it’s a great example of how you need to get under the skin of a problem to really understand it, learning from those who experience the problems every day. This is something Futuregov seem to have done brilliantly, and I hope the results will come in the widespread adoption of Patchwork across may other local authorities.
Watch the video below or have a look at the Patchwork website. Inspiring stuff, so do spread the word.
Last weekend I had the pleasure of taking part in Undoc Camp, looking at ways in which digital can help solve problems faced by undocumented migrant youths.
The event was organised by On Road Media, who expertly brought together people from the legal, digital and migrant sectors and, crucially, young migrants who have experienced first hand the issues we were addressing. We were divided into teams, with each team given an issue to work on.
The camp has been written about in more detail here, so for this post I just want to offer a few of the observations and learnings I took away with me.
Recognise the limitations of digital as well as its potential. What became clear from listening to those experiencing the issues as well as the legal professionals, was that it would be dangerous to try to recreate the relationship between solicitors and migrants. Digital can’t replace the complexities of human communication, so the best things we could do was use digital to facilitate it.
Use what’s there – don’t reinvent the wheel. This was one of many great pieces of advice from Carrie Bishop, who spoke to the attendees on Friday evening. Some great ideas emerged the following day, showcasing a considered balance of services already out there and adding any functionality that customised the experience for this particular audience (e.g. the Migrant Map idea). And not a ‘portal’ in sight!
The importance of lightness. Something that Adil Abrar mentioned during his inspiring talk – heavy subjects don’t have to have all the fun removed. His words must have resonated as the groups that showed designs as part of their pitch all reflected this message – focussing the tone on the audience rather than the difficulties they were facing. Within my group, we had a lot of fun and good humour which really helped bring out great contributions from everyone. And being lucky enough to win the main £5k prize from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, I’m sure we will be bringing Adil’s advice to our design approach now that we can actually take our idea to the next stage.
Change happens when we are all motivated by a common cause. No matter what people’s backgrounds and skills, when we are all bound by the same driving force we can work together and create something new. In this case, it was to help young people who face appalling problems through no fault of their own, and who need a better system to help them live better, safer lives.
We can do this. We have the will power, we have the skills, and with events like Undoc Camp we have evidence we can really do it.
The investigation into the K2 tax avoidance scheme prompted understandable outrage. But rather than questionning the morality of the individuals involved, it would be more useful to ask why people try to pay less tax in the first place. Less about individual tax avoidance, more about our society-wide tax aversion.
It’s a serious issue – apparently costing the UK £69.9 billion per year – and it’s worth remembering it isn’t confined to the super wealthy (and let’s also remember not all rich people avoid tax). While Jimmy Carr may have admitted his terrible error of judgment, the dilemma he faced (in his case “I met with a financial advisor and he said to me ‘Do you want to pay less tax? It’s totally legal’. I said ‘Yes’.”) is the same one that leads many others to take cash payments, or to pay dividends instead of larger PAYE salaries, or to invest money off-shore. Let’s face it – rich or poor, we don’t seem to like paying tax.
As debates continue to rage over public service cuts, bankers’ bonuses, and tax avoidance, the call for greater income equality is coming from some unlikely sources, especially politicians attempting to reassure a sceptical public that we’re all on the same side. While it sounds like a good thing (anything to do with equality is good, right?) do we really understand what income equality means, and the impact it can have?
Firstly, my contention is that income equality is a good thing (not least because it is has a close relationship with trust and community values, something that in turn promotes well-being and positive mental health). However, supporters of income equality will be keen to tell you that the benefits extend into almost every aspect of society – the economy, education, social mobility, life expectancy, infant mortality, imprisonment, addiction. Quite a claim. If true, why then are we not in relentless pursuit of greater income equality?
When I started this blog I knew my knowledge of social and behavioural sciences was (at best) rudimentary but I assumed I was at least aware of the main subject areas to look into. Or so I thought, until I read Difficult Conversations: How To Discuss What Matters Most by three authors who work for the Harvard Negotiation Project, and then On Dialogue by physicist David Bohm. Suddenly, the subject of Dialogue has burst onto my social change radar, and I’d like to share it with you.
In 2010 Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, gave a talk at the RSA entitled ‘Building Social Business’. It’s an inspiring talk, and among his many insightful comments he describes the social business as simply an alternative – rather than an opponent – to the organisations whose policies or services (in this case, lending money) are the source of the problem.
It’s an important mindset. A customer-focused mindset that any business needs – social or otherwise. A mindset that says instead of competing with or challenging organisations, a social business is there to offer another option for people to try – “if people are interested they will use it, if they don’t think it’s interesting it will disappear”. The role of the social business – or anyone serious about positive change – is not to challenge other organisations. It is to stand alongside them and let the customer decide.
I'm a digital consultant and creator of Vote for Policies and What One Change. I'm interested in bringing a usability-led approach to solving social problems, especially where engagement is a key factor. »