Applying Metrics to Social Innovation: Clayton Christensen's commentary on the Obama's Office of Social Innovation
Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School, writes a fascinating article in the Huffington Post - The White House Office on Social Innovation: A New Paradigm for Solving Social Problems. In the article he argues that the key to supporting social innovation is with a keen focus on metrics. He argues that we need to be 'bottom-up' and focus on 'disruptive innovations.' He questions governments role in supporting social innovation and questions why social innovation should be the domain of the nonprofit sector.
I agree with a bunch of what Christensen is saying in this artlce. I think that, although challenging, that the nonprofit sector has to get a better sense of their metrics. But not the metrics that the funders necessarily want, but rather the real, true human outcomes of our work. They are rarely the same. These metrics need to balanced with human stories that reveal the true impact of our work.
Christensen goes even further and argues that the social sector should be compensated according to their outcomes. He would suggest that an NPO would get more government investment if they produce better results. Conceptually, I kind of agree, but you know, the devil is always in the details. The minute that someone starts using the work metrics, we start thinking that 'bigger is better' and this just isn't right. A great university education is not about how many people graduate or the job placement rate but rather about the quality of work and value that that student brings to the world. Tracking these kinds of outcomes is much more challenging.
Another area of concern is the one that I tend to harp on a lot lately... this whole idea of scale. The new US Office of Social Innovation has allocated $50m to roll out and help to scale successful social innovations. Okay, okay.... I get it... good ideas need to move around and get picked up by others... but I worry about the danger of 'one size fits all' thinking.Just because something works in one community, doesn't mean that the carbon copy will work in another community.
Thinking like traditional business may very well get us into the same kinds of trouble that our whole planet is in now - bigger is better, scale up, the giant pyramid scheme with financial transactions that are completely disconnected from the means of production. I think that the social innovation sector can do better than that. I think that we can hold the artisanal quality of the small and leverage the power of networks and good ideas to bring about social change.
The US Office of Social Innovation is a good start, but for it really to work, I think that it will also need to look at...
- how do good, new ideas bubble up from the bottom to be explored at the community level?
- how do we bring intentionality and community wisdom to solving our problems?
- how we remove the policy and administrative barriers to enable social innovation? too often it is government policy that stands in the way of progress
- how do we leverage the possibilities in the space between sectors - for profit, non profit and government
- how can we foster the social innovation trends: hybridization of the sector, web-based thinking, collaboration, happiness and the power of local
Anyway, lots to think about... but I think that it is fair to say that this is just the beginning of a much larger conversation about what we need to do to enable social innovation here and around the world.
I am off to a great meeting next week - the Social Innovation Exchange Summer Institute with 100 leading social innovators from around the world toi explore how social innovation can help to get us out of our current economic mess. I will be blogging all about it... stay tuned.
Tonya
Comments
Scale
Tonya, look forward to your blogs from the SIX Summer Institute.
Wanted to add my perspective on scale. The issue, I believe, is not bigger is better but if we are focussed on impact then THAT is what we want to "scale". I don't believe anyone is suggesting we can just franchise what works in one community and import it without any customization to another. That has never worked for all the reasons we know.
I also struggle with the concept of social impact metrics (stay tuned for our website/ podcast and whitepaper on this issue to be released later this month as researched by Dr Gillian Kerr) but we can't ignore the call for metrics - we just have to suggest what we feel the appropriate metrics should be. Not an easy task but I know we are up for it
- Allyson
SiG@MaRS
Metrics and Scale
I agree that we can't ignore metrics..... CSI just finished a major study of our social, collaborative and economic impact as a shared space for social innovation... we are hoping to have it published in the fall (these things always take time). I found the exercise very helpful for refining our service, our programming and our strategic direction... but the point that I think is super important is.... 'whose metrics?'
Too often in the nonprofit sector we are told what to count. I would argue that they are using the wrong metrics. Every time I fill in a Trillium application I am asked how many volunteers work with CSI. I am asked how many dollars this grant has leveraged. Then, I am given more money to answer the question - how did I spend the money?
Never has a funder paid for me to assess the real social impact of my work. I have been in the sector for over 20 years. Evaluation consultants are consistently stumped when you ask them to assess the impact that an initiative has had in the world. Particularly when you are in a 'complexity inspired' framework... the question of what you can claim as an impact is even further loaded.
Which is all to say... whose metrics? and for what purpose?
On the issue of scale, I know that you and I agree generally about customized local solutions.... but I think that there is much more here. I want to make three points about scale....
1. Even so-called localized solutions of franchises are inherently tied to the mother franchise in most situations. There is a tradeoff between a big brand and a stronger sense of 'ownership'.
2. Too often these localized solutions are still controlled by the mother franchise... they control the means of production and make it far more difficult to adapt and flexibly respond to local needs. Control of the brand extends deep into operations.
3. You and I may have a sense of this, but I would argue that the forces that be, still don't get it. Forgive me for this, but I must say that a couple of years ago there was a 'social innovation' program that, at least conceptually, looked a lot like the $50million that the USOffice of Social Innovation has just launched.... okay, no where near the money, but the program was aimed at rolling out good ideas that had succeeded in one community, out across Canada.
So here is how it went....
a) you have a good idea and a working model in 1 location
b) you have 1 year to simultaneously replicate it in 5 other locations all at once, all before March 31st (less than 12 months).
What is wrong with this picture? - Exactly who in their right mind would be stupid enough to replicate in 5 locations at once without first figuring out what one replication would/should look like? There was no time for learning, no space for adaptation, no place for a community to even articulate what their local needs were.
To me, this is the danger that the US OSI will need to grapple with. They are already constucting a program that requires matching funds and using the existing systems to deliver the program.
It is also a challenge that we need to grapple with... not that we have the money.. but we do, I think, need to seriously think about what scale should look like and for whom. Just look at what Jamie Kennedy is faced with now as he expanded beyond what he could manage.
So, altho you and I may have a sense of this, I think that there is still a lot more work to be done to understand that the mission needs to be linked to the model linked to the type of scaled impact that is right for the initiative and right for the world. Just a thought....
Todays rant : )
Tonya
ps. glad that someone is reading my blogs :)
Post new comment