I think we need to reappraise the ‘classic’ three sector model: NGOs, Government, Business. Leaving aside ‘you’ (part of ‘NGOs’) and hybrid models (like social businesses), I have used ‘the community in question’ as another sector and potential source or location that can power change. We often roll out the phrase “Don’t do for me, do with me’, yet the community (poor, with disabilities, the ethnic group being discriminated against, etc) is not included in the three ‘classic’ sectors. Sometimes the community is organized or represented by an NGO, but not always. Even where it is, that’s different than ‘the whole community as it lives its life’. As long as the community/group whose problem needs solving remains an object to be operated on (ideally after consulting with them, of course…!), the problem will likely remain. The challenge of course is about describing community and seeing how we operationalising this claim - it is certainly complex. But one to think about.
This article assumes that impact = size which distorts the scale conversation. the basic principle of doer and payer coupled with Cheap, Simple, Adaptable is a bit oversimplified.
To me, what’s missing is reliable (outcomes) and sustainable (systems). The ability to sustain outcomes trumps Cheap, Simple, & Adaptable when we are talking about scale -regardless of the partnerships. Focusing on cheap, simple and adaptable is selling a commodity which often is not the most impactful innovations. Scaling programs that matter must lead with reliable (outcomes) and sustainable.
Thank you for a great article and for making the distinction between growth and scale.
Decades of experience prove that franchise organizations are the best in the business at delivering products and services with consistent quality standards at scale. And it’s not hard to understand why:
• By standardizing business formats, they can be easily managed and replicated;
• As they are replicated, they scale to many locations; sometimes geometrically; and
• The larger they scale, the more they achieve economies of scale.
Well-run franchise organization are able to achieve vast scale while never becoming too large to maintain standards and in so doing are able to make quality products and services that people need and want accessible to millions of people every day.
My firm exists to help proven social businesses scale their impact through application of franchise principles.
COMMENTS
BY Norman M.
ON August 26, 2015 04:01 AM
Great Piece
BY Yonatan Glaser
ON August 27, 2015 02:29 PM
I think we need to reappraise the ‘classic’ three sector model: NGOs, Government, Business. Leaving aside ‘you’ (part of ‘NGOs’) and hybrid models (like social businesses), I have used ‘the community in question’ as another sector and potential source or location that can power change. We often roll out the phrase “Don’t do for me, do with me’, yet the community (poor, with disabilities, the ethnic group being discriminated against, etc) is not included in the three ‘classic’ sectors. Sometimes the community is organized or represented by an NGO, but not always. Even where it is, that’s different than ‘the whole community as it lives its life’. As long as the community/group whose problem needs solving remains an object to be operated on (ideally after consulting with them, of course…!), the problem will likely remain. The challenge of course is about describing community and seeing how we operationalising this claim - it is certainly complex. But one to think about.
BY Mark Fulop
ON August 28, 2015 08:25 AM
This article assumes that impact = size which distorts the scale conversation. the basic principle of doer and payer coupled with Cheap, Simple, Adaptable is a bit oversimplified.
To me, what’s missing is reliable (outcomes) and sustainable (systems). The ability to sustain outcomes trumps Cheap, Simple, & Adaptable when we are talking about scale -regardless of the partnerships. Focusing on cheap, simple and adaptable is selling a commodity which often is not the most impactful innovations. Scaling programs that matter must lead with reliable (outcomes) and sustainable.
BY Julie McBride
ON September 3, 2015 07:44 AM
Thank you for a great article and for making the distinction between growth and scale.
Decades of experience prove that franchise organizations are the best in the business at delivering products and services with consistent quality standards at scale. And it’s not hard to understand why:
• By standardizing business formats, they can be easily managed and replicated;
• As they are replicated, they scale to many locations; sometimes geometrically; and
• The larger they scale, the more they achieve economies of scale.
Well-run franchise organization are able to achieve vast scale while never becoming too large to maintain standards and in so doing are able to make quality products and services that people need and want accessible to millions of people every day.
My firm exists to help proven social businesses scale their impact through application of franchise principles.
To learn more, or share a concept that you think is ready to scale, email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Or checkout resources on the social franchise section of our website: http://www.msaworldwide.com/social-franchising/social-franchising-resources/
This article about how franchising can be used to scale social businesses, “Franchising for Benefits” provides some food for thought as well: http://franchises.about.com/od/Social-Sector-Franchising/fl/Franchising-For-Benefits-Emergence-of-the-lsquofourth-sectorrsquo.htm
BY Sabrina
ON July 25, 2018 03:41 AM
Very helpfull
BY Joyce Mukani
ON April 28, 2019 04:14 PM
Great stuff needed to scale up in nonprofit