Thank you Martha, an interesting question. Answering it comprehensively is probably beyond the scope of the comment segment, but while there might be some particular challenges a large organization has to face when pursuing this open source approach, there is clearly no reason why it couldn’t adopt aspects. The main obstacle might be the effect of the large NGO’s size on how it is perceived by potential partners, with many potential partners seeking a partnership based on equality, not wanting to be the minor party. Secondly, a larger organization might struggle more to find the balance between (internal) reporting requirements and the approach’s inherent need for somewhat relaxed relationships between the parties and where one-way reporting might be interpreted as a sign of inequality. However, that a large NGO/organization can actively pursue an collaborative approach is proven by The Nature Conservancy in Tanzania, where TNC has explicitly taken this approach and taken on the coordinating and facilitating role to bring together a number of organizations with shared goals. TNC has done so by focusing on its issue-based mission (to conserve the life-sustaining lands) leveraging its expertise (and brand?), while FTK focused on its location-based mission to draw in others. TNC’s approach might be more akin to the collaborative impact approach, discussed often on the pages of SSIR. Our open source approach is a variation on that thinking, with possibly the unique aspect of being so location driven. In terms of scaling, our approach would lend itself more to replication than to scaling per se.
COMMENTS
BY Martha Newsome
ON January 5, 2016 09:59 AM
This is a very interesting article. How do you think this “open source” platform approach could work for a large NGO working or be “scaled up”?
BY Joris de Vries
ON January 8, 2016 10:02 AM
Thank you Martha, an interesting question. Answering it comprehensively is probably beyond the scope of the comment segment, but while there might be some particular challenges a large organization has to face when pursuing this open source approach, there is clearly no reason why it couldn’t adopt aspects. The main obstacle might be the effect of the large NGO’s size on how it is perceived by potential partners, with many potential partners seeking a partnership based on equality, not wanting to be the minor party. Secondly, a larger organization might struggle more to find the balance between (internal) reporting requirements and the approach’s inherent need for somewhat relaxed relationships between the parties and where one-way reporting might be interpreted as a sign of inequality. However, that a large NGO/organization can actively pursue an collaborative approach is proven by The Nature Conservancy in Tanzania, where TNC has explicitly taken this approach and taken on the coordinating and facilitating role to bring together a number of organizations with shared goals. TNC has done so by focusing on its issue-based mission (to conserve the life-sustaining lands) leveraging its expertise (and brand?), while FTK focused on its location-based mission to draw in others. TNC’s approach might be more akin to the collaborative impact approach, discussed often on the pages of SSIR. Our open source approach is a variation on that thinking, with possibly the unique aspect of being so location driven. In terms of scaling, our approach would lend itself more to replication than to scaling per se.