Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1
Overview
1. Key findings
a. Key Definitions
b. Types of Collaborations
c. Benefits & Impact Potential
d. Risks
2. Case Studies
a. Vermont Farm to Table, U.S.
b. NUUP, Mexico
c. Indian Housing Federation
d. Seven Market Systems Innovations (selected from 80 via Rockefeller Foundation and FSG)
3. Collective Impact: Best Practices Deep-Dive
a. Timeline
b. Key milestones
c. Budget
d. Roles
e. Funder Best Practices
f. Sustainability Pathways
g. Necessary Mindset Shifts
h. Consultants
4. Recommended Next Steps
5. Appendix
a. Sources of learning and questions for this study
b. Additional areas for exploration 2
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONTEXT
● This report was created by Ashoka to understand when to adopt a collaborative approach towards systems change.
Based on examples of what has worked by others, this study was also undertaken to understand the best practices,
pitfalls, and mindset shifts needed to successfully plan for and adopt collaborative approaches.
● Five major motivations for pursuing a collaborative approach for scaling social impact despite the degree of uncertainty
about the success of such approaches include how it is
1. an effective way to tackle the nature of complex social problems. Certain social problems have the qualities of being
large-scale, multi-sector, and constantly changing, so they require solutions that have those same qualities as well.
2. designed to remain accountable to population-level impact
3. a more efficient way to optimize resources to overcome fragmented, "service delivery chaos"
4. An essential way to keep up with the pace of innovation and ensure sustainable value chains
5. a more realistic way to ensure sustained impact due to the deliberate attention to diversifying the stakeholders that
are co-owners.
(go to section)
● Three main risks for pursuing a collaborative approach for systems change include how it is
1. resource and time intensive despite uncertain success rates. Over 70% of over 100 cases considered by
comparative studies do not demonstrate clear systems impact yet. However, it’s difficult to assign a judgement
about rates of success being high or low due to having a limited sample size within varying contexts, given that the
length of time required may be longer than the cases in the sample have had, and given that it’s difficult to compare
these rates to other approaches with similar amounts of up-front resource investment - whether for profit or
non-profit
2. difficult to prove impact due to the number of stakeholders and the complexity of the approach
3. inherently difficult to achieve the best practices that have been cited as essential for success because there are
incentives and sectoral norms that are preventing collaboration from already taking hold 3
(go to section)
BEST PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS
●
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont’d)
Three mindset shifts that are necessary include
.
● 1. moving away from strategic planning to emergence
2. moving from hierarchy or individual firms to systems leadership and collaboration (see key definitions here)
3. moving away from solving complicated problems to designing with complex problems in mind (go to section)
● There are numerous shared best practices regardless of context, such as:
a. having a long-term orientation (minimum 3-5 years)
b. designing for adaptive, systems leadership
c. maintaining a lean backbone (less than 10 staff)
d. investing heavily in building co-ownership to tackle a shared problem
e. shifting traditional measurement approaches
f. shifting the role of the funder and design (go to section)
● Dedicated budget to facilitate the collaboration is necessary, although the budget size and approaches vary
depending on the context of the collaboration (from $150k to multi-million dollars)
● Design for Funding Sustainability: A few strategies for sustainability within coordinating collaborative efforts includes
staffing at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding, as well as creating a hybrid business model for
playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector. (go to section)
● There are common milestones despite the requirement of emergence. Collective impact literature describes the
necessity for an organic, constantly emerging process for tackling complex problems that no one group is able to tackle
alone. Despite this emergent nature, there were still common milestones cited within the comparative studies and
interviews (go to section); According to a review of 25 successful collective impact initiatives, the two most foundational
stages were establishing backbone support as well as a common agenda. The other commonly cited characteristics were
not always fully present. (go to section) 4
STUDY METHOD
●
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont’d)
As a short, internal study, we drew learnings primarily from a growing body of knowledge on collaborative
.
approaches, particularly via comparative case studies which were all published within the last six years. The earliest
study used was as recent as 2012. As testament to the newness of such approaches, one study noted an uptick of
approaches that identify as multi-stakeholder starting in the 2000s (go to slide). It’s important to note that collaborative
approaches are built on a rich history demonstrating that the methodology itself is not new (go to slide). What may be new is
the rapid adoption, shared language, and best-practices literature on collective impact. Insights were also drawn from a
brief literature review, interviews of experienced consultants, and interviews of social entrepreneurs in the Ashoka
network.
● Ashoka network’s experience: While the majority of learnings and cases were drawn from outside of Ashoka’s network,
it’s important to note Ashoka’s own experience and bias towards collaborative approaches. Two Ashoka Fellows are
noted thought leaders and pioneers in collective impact, Jeff Edmundson and Paul Born; their work is widely cited in
collective impact. Our team also identified more than twenty notable Fellows that are demonstrating collaborative
approaches at scale, five Ashoka collaborations through the Danone Ecosystem Fund, and two ongoing initiatives that
Ashoka co-founded and have reached the stage of demonstrating impact at scale. We interviewed at least 10 leaders of
different large-scale ecosystem collaborations. Lastly, collaborative approaches are also core to the vision of our founder,
Bill Drayton, who describes how the only thing more powerful than a new idea in the hand of a social entrepreneur is
entrepreneurs working together.
●
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
● Don’t Lead with the Approach, Lead with the Context: The specific context and assets will heavily dictate what type of
collaborative effort is sought, and there should be no predetermined pathway. (go to section) When undertaking a collaborative
approach to scaling impact, there are numerous best practices of initiatives that have demonstrated success that should
5
be emulated, and adopted for the unique context.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont’d)
INTERNAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONVENERS:
Incubators of Ecosystem Collaborations, with a minimum timeline of tracking impact for 5 years .
Organizations focused on being conveners in the social entrepreneurship space are in a privileged position to look at innovation gaps, able to learn from its global networks
of social entrepreneurs to identify where a field is moving forward and where it may be stuck. Being the backbone organization itself requires very detailed involvement in
operations and consultancy, which is not a long-term fit for organizations’ whose unique value proposition is as a connector of networks. Social entrepreneurs themselves
may also not the best candidates for the backbone role since the effort is very unlikely to sustain past 2 years if the entrepreneur's organization has another primary mission
and way of working.
Thus, social entrepreneurship conveners are uniquely positioned to focus on setting up the conditions needed for ecosystem collaboration, including:
An organization such as Ashoka would build on its success in having already done so in the topics of housing in India (Housing for All) and agriculture value chain in Mexico
(NUUP).
back to overview 7
Key Definitions
Collaborative Approaches
Engaging multiple parts of an ecosystem in order to achieve positive systems change at a significantly greater scale than working
individually. Creating a “more than the sum of the parts” effect. - via Ashoka
The intentional and structured coordination of pre-existing community assets to meet needs in a systemic, comprehensive manner -
Collective Impact Literature (via Columbia University)
Market-Based:
Encouraging or leading to an economic system based on supply and demand (Cambridge Dictionary). For the purposes of this study, this
can include two different types of approaches:
1. Incorporation of income-generation or hybrid funding models (grants and income) in order to ensure sustainability
2. Shifting dynamics of a marketplace to ensure it is more equitable, participatory, sustainable, or stable.
Note: While businesses are typically interested in market-based approaches, engagement of the business sector via establishing
co-creation partnerships between “impact first” organizations and corporations does not necessarily mean that there is a market-based
model.
Systems Change:
By systems change we mean an approach of tackling the root causes of a problem by identifying and creating shifts in the systems that are
responsible for the problem. The goal is for the new state of the system to produce better outcomes on an ongoing basis. Ideally, these
better outcomes are achieved in a more efficient way than by continuously treating the symptoms of the problem. (references - creating
new equilibrium and a more detailed definition) 8
Types of Collaborations
Types of Relationships
One to One One to Many Many to Many, loose ties Many to Many, Cross-Sectoral
Terms
Includes: partnerships including Includes: Open Innovation, Includes: Open Source, Includes: Collective Impact,
co-creation and private-public, Collective Organizing, Coalition, Collaborative Multi-stakeholder Initiatives
alliances Cooperatives
Market-Based Examples:
E.g. Vodaphone Turkey, SAP, e.g. Danone Ecosystem Fund, e.g. Feeding the 5,000; Toast e.g. NUUP Mexico*,
Merck Biophma (cf Ashoka Dairy in Gujarat, Social Impact Ale* Housing For All India*
social & business co-creation Bond 9
cases) *Ashoka Fellow
Benefits & Impact Potential
The five major motivations for pursuing a collaborative approach despite the degree of uncertainty include how it is
1. an effective way to tackle the nature of complex social problems. Certain social problems have the
qualities of being large-scale, multi-sector, and constantly changing, so they require solutions that have
those same qualities as well.
2. designed to remain accountable to population-level impact
3. a more efficient way to optimize resources to overcome fragmented, "service delivery chaos"
4. an essential way to keep up with the pace of innovation and ensure sustainable value chains
5. a more realistic way to ensure sustained impact due to the deliberate attention to diversifying the
stakeholders that are co-owners.
10
Benefits & Impact Potential
CREATES NECESSARY ADAPTIVENESS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS:
“
● “[Collective Impact] is the only path forward to address complex social problems—there is no Plan B.” - Jeff
Edmundson, Defining Quality Collective Impact
● “Social problems arise from the interplay of governmental and commercial activities, not only from the
behavior of social sector organizations. As a result, complex problems can be solved only by cross-sector
coalitions that engage those outside the nonprofit sector.” - John Kania and Mark Kramer, Collective Impact
● [We need to ask] "How can social entrepreneurs magnify and accelerate the scale of their impact by looking
beyond simply growing their organizations or replicating their service models?" -Gregory Dees, Creating Large
Scale Change, Not “Can” But “How”
● “ Larry Kramer made a similar point in his article "Against 'Big Bets,’" noting that the most promising way to
promote systems-level change might not be to award large, eight-figure grants in the hope of fixing a complex
problem quickly, but rather to support a number of smaller, synergistic interventions over a longer period of
time.”-Odin Muhlenbein, Systems Change - Big or Small
11
Benefits & Impact Potential (cont’d)
DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE SYSTEMIC IMPACT:
● “A poverty reduction network identified an opportunity to reduce the number of people on a waiting list for
“ ●
affordable housing by 10% with no new investment. They identified the most housing-ready people on the
waiting list and worked with private sector landlord” - Paul Born, How to Develop and Common Agenda for
Collective Impact
By their very nature, individual nonprofit services are fragmented and dispersed, with each organization typically
serving a limited population with specific interventions. Funders then measure success at the organizational
level, not for the broader community. To be sure, these efforts are critical to the lives and well-being of individuals
in those communities and are important “pockets of-success” to demonstrate that progress is possible. But
overall, these approaches are not resulting in significant change at a community-wide level, which is frustrating
to all: taxpayers, funders, policymakers, providers and the beneficiaries themselves. -Bridgespan Group,
Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives
● When we look across the broad sweep of our case studies, what we see is less about the scaling up of any one
innovation and more about how a panoply of innovations comes together over time, interacting with and building
on each other, in order to progress the market. Importantly, these innovations reshaped not just business models
and practices, but also the formal laws, regulations, and policies that apply in the market and the informal norms
that guide the behaviors of various actors. Put more simply, we see innovation in relation to both the players and
the rules of the game. -FSG and Rockefeller Foundation, Shaping Inclusive Markets
12
Benefits & Impact Potential (cont’d)
OPTIMIZES RESOURCES
“
● It’s necessary to find ways to do more with less much of their work focuses on “doing better without spending
more”—getting funders, nonprofits, government and business to align existing resources and funding with the
most effective approaches and services to achieve their goals. -Bridgespan Group, Needle-Moving Community
Collaboratives
● Fiscal constraints have contributed to an eagerness to embrace collaboration as a means to reduce duplication
and unearth potential complements in services and support so that the local ecology will be more efficient in
generating “bang” for the available bucks. -A review of the Literature on Local Cross-Sector Collaboration to
Improve Education
● “Resource dependencies were noted as a prime motivation in all forms of public, private, and cross-sector
collaborations. They are evident in the education sector, and much of the literature on education collaborations
makes note in a general way of the challenges of securing stable and adequate resources. -Comubia University,
Collective Impact in Context
13
Benefits & Impact Potential (cont’d)
“ ●
connecting to a variety of collaborators and collaborator types. In other words, the logic of collaboration is shifting. With it, firms’
outlook, protection mechanisms, and mission are shifting too. The result? Long-term focus, less IP, and more joint strategizing.
Above all, the activity of an organization is no longer about individual wellbeing. Today, there is more and more talk about
ensuring the survival of the whole.” HYPE Innovation
“We cannot work for healthier choices and lifestyles without caring about the health and wellness of our communities. This
Manifesto embodies the Group commitment to build an alimentation revolution for the health of Danone, the health of our planet
and our whole ecosystem, the health of current and future generations” - Danone €100 million Ecosystem Fund
“
● “The other and most optimistic possibility is that the contemporary manifestations of local cross-sector collaboration, while
familiar in broad strokes, represent a new and improved version of what has gone before. Three elements of the
contemporary movement, although not in themselves dramatic innovations, have the potential to add up to a more pragmatic
and self-conscious approach to sustained incremental progress and collective learning. Two of these—the emphases on the
importance of a lead or backbone organization and a strong focus on measureable outcomes—are prominently referenced
in the collective impact literature. A third—the contemporary movement’s predilection for establishing networks to create and
sustain cross-city/district forums for sharing ideas and learning—has received less explicit attention but may prove to be at
least as important a distinguishing attribute. -Collective Impact in Context 14
Risks
“ Collaboration should never be the pathway of choice. People collaborate because they need to do so and/or benefit from it, as
collaborating is lengthy, complicated, risky, expensive and bound to fail more often than not” -Jessica Graf, Lefil Consulting
OVER 70% OF CASE STUDIES NOT DEMONSTRATING CLEAR SYSTEMS IMPACT YET
● In the comparative studies reviewed (see appendix), each generally started from a base of about 80-100 case studies that
were leveraging a collaborative approach to systems change, but found between 7 - 25 as having demonstrated systemic
impact. Assuming these had similarly rigorous standards for systems change, chose from a diverse, representative sample of
options, and from approaches that have had a chance to be active long enough to reasonably expect impact, that’s a 9 - 25%
impact success rate of efforts so far.
● However, it’s difficult to assign a judgement about rates of success being high or low from the available case studies due to
having a limited sample size within varying contexts, given that the length of time required may be longer than the cases in
the sample have been around, and given that it’s difficult to compare these rates to other approaches with similar amounts of
up-front resource investment - whether for profit or non-profit.
● One interviewee of a high-profile collaborative approach (preferring anonymity) described how the original strategy for the
coalition changed to a degree that a number of original partners no longer remained engaged. The direction changed as the
result of listening to the partners and based on the decision of the new executive director for the coalition.
16
Risks (cont’d)
DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR SUCCESS
“
“Sites without demonstrated population changes differed in some key ways.
Among the study sites, five sites had no population change. These sites had less strong implementation of the collective impact
conditions, had significantly fewer early changes related to partnerships, and had significantly fewer policy changes, practice
improvements, and systems changes within one or similar organizations. Importantly, they had also been
implemented for less time. They had also faced some specific challenges, including: difficulties establishing a common agenda;
more difficulty measuring impact; some site-specific challenges with internal processes like staffing or the backbone; or external
challenges due to political constraints, transitions, and competing initiatives.” -When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact,
Spark Policy Institute (2018)
Funders cannot ignore the possibility that by putting too much reliance on local stakeholders whose interest and vision may be
narrower and more self-serving than hoped for, support for cross-sector collaborations might end up distorting efforts. This could
happen, for example, if local partners, in their eagerness to demonstrate adherence to the prescribed model, rush to adopt outcome
measures without first engaging in thoughtful and public deliberation, rigidly pursue specific fixed outcomes at the expense of
programmatic adjustment to changing conditions, or short-circuit the development of broad and deeply inclusive coalitions in pursuit of
local elite-centered focus and coherence. Such risks are of special concern if cultivating a tighter relationship between networks and
funders preempts that between local leader and their local constituencies. -Collective Impact in Context | Columbia University
“
Signs that today’s local cross-sector collaboration efforts are merely education’s “next new thing” would be that early momentum is not
sustained, that founding enthusiasm and creativity are replaced with mechanical repetition, that initial philanthropic funding is not
parlayed into more regularized and dependable sources of revenues, that loss of funding leads to lowered expectations and loss of
appetite, that coalitions crumble with shifts in leadership, that initial collaboration is followed by bickering and a narrowed scope of true
involvement, and that rhetoric outstrips actual change with a shift from ambitious and measurable goals to more superficial initiatives
coupled with slick public relations and media strategies.” -Collective Impact in Context | Columbia University 17
Case Studies
back to overview 18
Case Study
What's at stake
For Vermont, there are over 38 million consumers within a 200-mile radius of its borders but climate change and oil addiction are
threatening the long-term viability of Vermont’s food system.
The Collaboration
Strategic plan in implementation statewide by more than 350 member organizations
The Impact
● Increases in local food purchases: from $89 million to $189 million (between in 2010 and 2014)
● 11% increase in the number of jobs in the food system, from 58,000 to 64,084 (between 2009 and 2015)(between in 2010 and 2014)
; 206% increase in the tons of food rescued from Vermont food enterprises, from 600 tons in 2011 to 1,800 tons in 2016.
Source: When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018) 19
Case Study (cont’d)
Source: When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018) 20
Nuup.co | Mexico page 1 of 3
About
NUUP bridges smallholder farmers to buyers to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing. It’s work is
centered around the pillars of collaboration and Communication, facilitating different types of social enterprises, NGOs, and
companies to collaborate with each other, information flows, providing information about prices as well as also purchasing
conditions, and transparency, creating a scoring system of what it’s like to work together.
Key Milestones
● 2008 - 2012: Initiatives launched by Ashoka and partners to improve the livelihoods of small-scale farmers through “Hybrid Value
Chains” ( Walmart, Danone, Gamesa part of Pepsicola, V Por Mas Bank, RootCapital and Mexican social entrepreneurs)
● 2013 -2104: Accenture conducted a pro-bono study for Ashoka, interviewing key players from social enterprises, NGOs and
companies (purchasing teams of WalMart, Dannon, and many more buyers) to understand what their challenges were when
accessing markets
● 2014: Collaboration workshop hosted by Ashoka to co-design an intervention model: NUUP was born
● 2015: NUUP launched with USD 120,000 for 1 year of funding to launch. Spin off from Ashoka.
● 2016: Expanded to 5 full time people with half the team focused on data and technology, and the other half to facilitating
partnerships
What's at stake
In India, more than 19 million families do not own their own home for reasons such as not being able to afford what is
available in the market even when they have a steady source of income, or due to not being able to prove their income due to
informal jobs. However, the estimated demand for affordable housing in India translated to market value of around US$250
billion. The Indian Housing Federation (IHF) brings together real estate developers, housing mortgage providers and CSO’s
to ensure millions of Indians with low-income can begin to own their own affordable homes.
The Journey
● 2009: Startup - Initial design, mapping of stakeholders, and partnership funding from the Hilti Foundation for four years
● 2010-2013: Pilot by Ashoka, brokering new relationships that enable the development of 16,000 affordable homes
● 2014: Re-design of strategy. After reviewing results from the pilot, finding ways to reach the full scale of the market, which is the millions
of people who didn’t have an income statement to prove they had income and quality for the mortgage needed to afford a home
● 2015: Re-launched as a separate organization, the Indian Housing Federation; funded at $500k by the Tata Trust Fund and an additional
$150k in funding.
● 2016: Scaling - Began government partnerships to shift housing policies and create impact at scale; confirmed a partnership with the state
of Assam to build 200,000 homes and beginning collaboration with India’s central government to shape housing policy. Establishing 625full
time staff, including a director and CEO. Sources: Interview Vishnu, April 2018, Housing For All director, Ashoka staff | “Affordable Housing in India”, June 2014
page 3 of 3
Key Ingredients for Success
● Strike the Balance between Convening, Execution, and incubation: Collaborative approaches must strike the right balance between
between setting up the conditions to enable change versus primarily delivering on the intended change. The different activities that IHF
balances between include:
○ Convening & Identifying Patterns: IHF plays a critical role in identifying patterns on gaps and opportunities based on offering
thought leadership, convening of stakeholders, and facilitating the co-creation of solutions.
○ Execution: IHF has also found that it needs to create initial proofs of concept as well as getting hands on with negotiating and
supporting on the delivery of new collaborations in order to reach greater scale of impact. Navigating this balance between
setting up the conditions to enable change versus actively creating the conditions is a constant but necessary balance to
navigate.
○ Incubation: IHF has also found it critical to find new CSOs that can carry forward initiatives that have passed initial proof of
concept, such as pilots they created to create better data on the marketplace or to educate customers on the new, affordable
home mortgage options. This is critical to ensure that IHF, as a collaboration convener, can continue to stay focused on finding
new ways to solve social problems at scale.
● Plan to Invest Heavily in Building trust: Collaborative approaches must invest dedicated time and resources for building trust between
new partners. IHF found that the path for CSOs and private companies to become equal partners requires careful facilitation. it was
only possible to bring new parties to the same table for collabrationfter co-creating something tangible together and delivering value to
each partner.
● Keep focused on scale: It’s critical for collaborations to take take account, and adjust its strategy based on asking whether it has
reached the salce of market. When IHF paused to evaluate its impact, it shifted its strategy to include partnerships with government
and the influencing of policy. Its next shift includes searching for partners that can extend credit at the scale of $100 million in order to
meet the demand at the scale of millions of homes.Sources: Interview Vishnu, April 2018, Housing For All director, Ashoka staff | “Affordable Housing in India”, June26
2014
Case Studies: Market Systems Innovations
“When we look across the
broad sweep of our case
studies, what we see is less
about the scaling up of any
one innovation and more
about how a panoply of
innovations comes
together over time,
interacting with and building
on each other, in order to
progress the market.
Importantly, these
innovations reshaped not just
business models and
practices, but also the formal
laws, regulations, and policies
that apply in the market and
the informal norms that guide
the behaviors of various
actors. Put more simply, we
see innovation in relation to
both the players and the rules
of the game.”
27
Source page 8-9: Rockefeller Foundation, FSG (2017)
Collective Impact Deep-Dive:
Best Practices
back to overview 28
Best Practices Overview
There are numerous shared best practices regardless of context, such as:
a. having a long-term orientation (minimum 3-5 years)
b. certain milestones, particularly establishing a backbone organization and common agenda
c. dedicated budget to facilitate the collaboration is necessary, although the budget size and approaches vary
depending on the context of the collaboration (from $150k to multi-million dollars)
d. maintaining a lean backbone (less than 10 staff)
e. investing heavily in building co-ownership to tackle a shared problem
f. shifting the role of the funder
g. shifting traditional measurement approaches
h. designing for adaptive, systems leadership
29
Requirements: Timeline 3-5+ Years Initially
No exact path
The exact timing and nature cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.
“
Long term orientation is necessary
-How Collective Impact Addresses Complexity | FSG | (2013)
“
The factor of time seems essential to determine MSI [multi-stakeholder initiative] performance: the
longer the process unfolds, the bigger the chances for success as well as the chances that success is
gradually undermined. -review of 17 international cases | Ownership dynamics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives | Third World Quarterly
| (2018)
Many issues collective impact initiatives take on can take 10+ years to address, given how deeply rooted the issue is,
and so see the timeframe as a guide and not a given.
--via 18 years coaching experience How to Develop a Common Agenda for A Collective Impact | Tamarack Institute (2017)
“ and none for fewer than three years. Not surprisingly, the study confirms the often-stated belief that
collective impact is a long-term play, not a quick-win game.”
-review of 25 initiatives | When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy Institute (2018)
I encourage networks to write a 5-year community plan. I know [...] many are used to developing 3-year strategies. [...] It
takes a year to really implement the plan. By year 2 you move toward peak outputs. Year 3 and 4 are peak output years
and when you get most of your results, and year 5 is for wind-down, transition or renewal. [...] -How to Develop a Common 30
Agenda for A Collective Impact | Tamarack Institute (2017)
Key Milestones .
Collective impact literature describes an organic, constantly emerging process for tackling complex problems that no one group is able to
tackle alone. Despite the emergent nature, common milestones cited within the comparative studies and interviews included:
32
Requirements: Budgeting Estimates (anecdotal)
The estimates cited by 4 interviewees vary widely, with local efforts cited as lean as a 5 person team in Latin America at $150,000
(NUUP-Mexico) per year (with at least 3 years before launching activities and five years before evaluating impact) to 30 person,
multi-million effort. Regardless, investing in a bridge-builder function is repeatedly cited as critical. As John Kania of FSG said, “If
you don’t think of someone who is thinking about the ecosystem then it dissipates quickly.”
(optional) Capacity Building Can help to identify and would train backbone to continue after they $320k - $1.2 million
Consultant for 8 months - 2 years withdraw, including training on how to be sustainable 33
Requirements: Sample Roles
Backbone Working Group Business Sector
Team must focus on on the following roles: Working groups are most successful
• Convening: A leader brings and keeps partners when they constitute a representative
together and maintains a cohesive vision for the group. sample of the stakeholders. This leads
This person could be the head of the local community to emergent and anticipatory problem
foundation, a university president, a nonprofit leader or solving that is rigorous and disciplined
a public official. The backbone organization (the and, at the same time, flexible and
organization that is responsible for the collaborative’s organic. -source: Embracing
operations) leader also plays an important role in Emergence, FSG
keeping the collaborative efforts coordinated and
moving forward.
• Facilitation: The collaborative needs a day-to-day
person to maintain momentum, guide participants to the
right questions and facilitate the group towards
agreement and action.
• Data collection: Collaboratives frequently take
responsibility for data aggregation and analysis.
Depending on the extent of the data, a dedicated
analyst may be required. Some collaboratives use staff
from a participating organization or hire staff or outside
consultants to fulfill this capacity.
• Communications: Someone must manage internal and -source: Business Aligning for Students: The Promise of
external communications to make sure that participants Collective Impact | Harvard Business School (2015)
are kept well-informed. Collaborative leaders
intentionally highlight the progress of partners, as
opposed to seeking credit for the collaborative itself, and
coordinate communications with partners to seek
opportunities to advance the collaborative’s agenda.
-review of 12 successful collaborations out of 80 |
Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives | Bridgespan
Group (2012)
•Fundraising: the backbone requires someone at the
right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding
or to a hybrid business model for playing a brokering role 34
between corporations and other parts of the sector.
Funder Best Practices
“
Investing in Backbone Staff & Infrastructure is Critical
“Collaboratives require funding both to maintain their dedicated staff and to ensure that nonprofits have the means to
deliver high-quality services. Even though the first job of most collaboratives is to leverage existing resources, in
every truly needle-moving collaborative we studied, there was at least a modest investment in staff and infrastructure.
This investment often included in-kind contributions of staff or other resources from partners.”
Source: review of 12 successful collaborations out of 80 | Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives | Bridgespan Group (2012) 35
Funder Best Practices (Cont’d)
“
Track Grant’s Multiplier Effect
“Strive, for example, has a $1.5 million annual budget but is coordinating the efforts and increasing the
effectiveness of organizations with combined budgets of $7 billion. -Collective Impact | FSG (2011)
36
Best Practice Tip: Sustainability & Funder Exit Strategy
Design for Funding Sustainability: A few strategies for sustainability within coordinating collaborative efforts
includes staffing at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding, as well as creating a hybrid
business model for playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector.
37
Best Practice Tip: Sustainability & Funder Exit Strategy
“
Hire for Roles Dedicated to Fundraising
"[A resource that is typically necessary is a] good, experienced director who is full time and is able to talk to top
managers of big companies and development agencies and that can bring a budget for investment of multi-millions"
-Simon Brossard Interview, co-author of Toilet Board Coalition Lessons Learned by Hystra
“The East Lake Foundation provided the funding and personnel for the initial two-year planning phase, which
culminated in the replacement of the public housing project with a mixed-income development. Three of its seven
non-programming staff members dedicated to fundraising and a fourth focused on marketing and communication, the
Foundation is able to attract resources from a variety of major partners. -Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives
“
Set sustainability as an objective
“Sustainable funding itself becomes one of the collaborative’s key objectives, as does “funder discipline”—sticking
with the plan rather than developing individualized approaches or continuing to fund activities that aren’t part of
the strategy. -Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives
39
Necessary Mindset Shifts
Three mindset shifts that are necessary include
1. moving away from strategic planning to emergence
2. moving from hierarchy or individual firms to systems leadership and collaboration
3. moving away from solving complicated problems to designing with complex problems in mind
40
Necessary Mindset Shifts
41
Necessary Mindset Shifts (cont’d)
“
Design for Emergence and for Complex, not Complicated, Problems
“Inspired by the long arc of change in each of the case studies, this approach also acknowledges that the market
systems we engage with have already been evolving and will continue to evolve. When we approach a market
system, we should not think that we are bringing change to an otherwise static system. In reality, we are joining a
system in motion, at a point on its journey, and with a range of possible future paths and outcomes. Certainly, we
should not fall into the trap of believing that the first day of our intervention is also the first day of change for
everyone else in the system. - Seven market-based systems change examples, selected from 80 - Shaping Inclusive Markets | FSG and Rockefeller
Foundation | (2017) Chart: Approach Must Match the Type of Problem
45
source: Collective Impact in Context
Conveners for Collective Impact/Backbone Organizations
46
Recommendations
back to overview 47
Recommendations
● Don’t Lead with the Approach, Lead with the Context: The specific context and assets will heavily dictate
what type of collaborative effort is sought, and there should be no predetermined pathway. (go to section)
● Design for Funding Sustainability: A few strategies for sustainability within coordinating collaborative efforts
includes staffing at the right senior level and dedicated roles to diversify funding, as well as creating a hybrid
business model for playing a brokering role between corporations and other parts of the sector. (go to section)
48
Recommendation: Lead with Context, Not Approach
Many interviewees stressed the importance of understanding the specific context of stakeholders an
initiative is trying to engage with, along with what incentives and motivations initiatives might have for
collaborating together (pooling resources or influence, exchanging learnings, creating value chain
efficiencies, etc.)
“
Learn from templates but avoid ‘standardized’ application...design in favour of applying the principles...
tailored to the situation.” - Global Development Institute
Source: Global Development Institute 49
Recommendation: Collaboration Dimensions to Consider
50
Example: How Context Influences Strategy
Source: M. Cabaj 51
Excerpt: Alternatives to Collective Impact/Multistakeholder Initiatives
back to overview 53
Study Method
● As an short study, we drew learnings primarily from a growing body of knowledge on collaborative
approaches, particularly via comparative case studies which were all published within the last six years; the earliest
study was as recent as 2012 and one study noted an uptick of deliberate, multi-stakeholder approaches starting in
the 2000s (go to slide). A study 2018 study by ORS Impact and Spark Policy Institute (link) was an especially rich source
of specific best practices,and was based on in depth study of 25 initiatives shortlisted from 200 recommendations.
It’s important to note that collaborative approaches are built on a rich history of such approaches and the
methodology itself is not new (go to slide) even while the adoption, shared language, and best-practices literature appear
to be new. Insights were also drawn from a brief literature review, interviews of expert consultants, and interviews of
social entrepreneurs in the Ashoka network.
● Ashoka network’s experience: While the majority of learnings and cases were drawn from outside of Ashoka’s
network, it’s important to note Ashoka’s own experience and bias towards collaborative approaches. Two Ashoka
Fellows are noted thought leaders and pioneers in collective impact, Jeff Edmundson and Paul Born, and their work
is widely cited in collective impact. Our team also identified more than twenty particularly notable fellows that are also
demonstrating collaborative approaches at scale, five Ashoka collaborations through the Danone Ecosystem Fund,
and two ongoing initiatives that Ashoka co-founded and have reached the stage of demonstrating impact at scale.
54
Learning Questions for This Study
What are collaborative approaches that are able to engage multiple parts of an ecosystem in order to achieve positive systems change at a
significantly greater scale than working individually? How, if at all, should our partnership undertake the same?
With this definition in mind, the qualities we would look for in particular include:
i. Collaboration across multiple actors in an ecosystem
ii. Common problem to tackle
iii. Shared focus on positive systems change/large scale impact
55
Related Terms
[The collective impact model] while compelling and currently dominating the contemporary
“ discourse, is not the only possible or possibly valid approach for pursuing cross-sector
collaboration -A review of the Literature on Local Cross-Sector Collaboration to Improve Education | Columbia University (2015)
Initiative (underline indicates initiatives with strong
literature/momentum)
-Alliance
Central Team
Anchor facilitators
Backbone
-Adaptive Leadership
-Coalition Convenors
-Co-Creation Co-ordinators
-Collaborative Facilitators
-Collective action Host
-Collective impact
Lead Organisations
-Community revitalization
Steering Committee
-Comprehensive community initiatives (CCI via prominent
foundations and Clinton administration) Market systems innovators
-Continuous improvement Orchestrators
-Cross-Sector Collaboration Secretariats
-Ecosystem of shared value
-Market Systems Innovation (via Rockefeller Foundation)
-Multi-stakeholder initiative (via Sustainable Development
Goals)
Open Innovation source: Bridgespan Group p. 17
-Networks
-Performance accountability
-Shared Value
56
Source of Learning 1: Comparative Studies
1. 25 initiatives - When Collective Impact Has an Impact | ORS Impact, Spark Policy
Institute (2018)
3. 30 funders and implementers - More than the Sum of Its Parts: Making MSIs Work |
Global Development Institute (2016)
5. interviews with 70 business and Collective Impact (CI) leaders and the first national
survey of CI initiative leaders and business participants, Business Aligning for Students:
The Promise of Collective Impact | Harvard Business School (2015)
59
Tool Example: Designing Learning for *Complex* Problems
62
Acknowledgements
Study Team: Analysis by Reem Rahman; Thought Partnership by Carla Rivero, Dani Matielo, Maria Zapata, Nadine
Freeman, Stephanie Schmidt and Valeria Budinich;
Thank you to the generous time and insights of interviewees: Chris Underhill (Basic Needs) Giovanna Lauro on behalf
of Gary Barker (Promundo), Jessica Graf (Lyfil Consulting; Toilet Board Coalition), John Kania (FSG), Malu Luque (NUUP),
Rikin Gandhi (Digital Green), Simon Brossard (Hystra), Tristram Stuart (Toast Ale), Vishnu Swaminathan (Co-Founder of
Housing for All)
Report made possible via support by the Swiss Development Corporation and Hystra
May 2018
back to overview 63