[This post is part of my draft application process to the Echoing Green (EG) fellowship program. You can help me earn 60.000 US dollars for the take-off of wecena.]
EG 2nd pre-application question: Root Cause Analysis: What is the underlying cause of the problem you’re trying to solve ? see page 7 of the applicant coaching guide.
1st sub question :
What are the obvious symptoms / apparent effects of the problem ?
My answer :
There are 2 apparent symptoms or effects of our problem:
- there is a lack of technology-based social innovations compared to both existing social challenges and to existing non-social innovations
- most non-profit organizations under-exploit the capacity technology can bring them when trying to transform society, organizations and markets
2nd sub-question from EG :
Why is it so ?
My answer :
The cost of IT professionals is much too high for non-profit budgets. IT man-days are too expensive on free markets.
3rd sub-question from EG, trying to get deeper to the root cause of our problem
OK. But why ?
My answer :
IT service companies sell expensive services and donate very limited amounts of pro bono services. They usually ask for payment, even when pro bono services would bring them more indirect value at no cost. These donations could indeed be of no cost for donors in France because of an extremely favorable legal framework.
4th EG sub-question on this, getting even deeper to the root cause :
Why is it so ?
My answer :
Non-profit organizations do not offer IT service companies opportunities to donate pro bono services at low (or no) cost and with the promise of a high social impact that will also bring real value back to the donor in the form of reputation, talent retention and better recruitments of fresh engineers.
5th step suggesteed by EG :
Based on this, what’s the root cause of your problem ?
My answer :
Non-profit organizations don’t have appropriate skills and knowledge for creating, marketing and managing an offering to IT service companies that would present pro bono service donations as a compelling solution for addressing the need these companies have to prove their « corporate social responsability » at low cost. Moreover, most non-profit organizations lack the IT management skills that would allow them to collect, deliver and exploit such pro bono donations at a sustainable cost.
We’ve got our root cause (I think). But EG wants to asks a last :
Why ?
My answer :
Legal frameworks encouraging and facilitating IT pro bono services are nowhere as favorable to donors as in France. But some of these laws were passed recently (2003, updated in 2008) and are still under-used and unknown by many potential donors and recipients. Moreover donor-to-recipient intermediation costs for the delivery of pro bono services are high. And such deliveries are complex to adapt to the business constraints of both corporate donors and non-profit recipients : IT service companies want their engineers and consultant to commit to profit-making long-term missions and can’t afford to miss commercial opportunities because of commitments toward non-profit projects. Competition is fierce and consultant profiles are too often seen as « replaceable » with one another. And because of low budgets, non-profits rarely attain a critical mass of IT needs that would let them justify launching such innovative partnerships.
So what ? EG suggests we end with deriving …
What are the implications for your work ?
My answer :
Wecena proposes an integrated IT pro bono services donation channel that exploits the French labor and tax laws at their best and for the highest benefit of public good. By only focusing on the non-profit needs for IT services and skills, we accumulate experience and efficiency both in how to market our donation proposal to the IT industry and in how to let non-profits exploit such donations at their best, despite their lack of IT management skills. This focus is also critical to maintaining relatively low intermediation costs.
More precisely, IT donors aren’t asked to commit individual consultants to a given project but to commit to a certain amount of service donation to non-profits. This can generate extremely high staff turnover (individual consultants leave projects as soon as they are assigned to a new commercial mission). But this allows projects to benefit from a continuous flow of skilled professionals to be then turned into online volunteers. As a consequence of this, projects have to be carefully selected on the basis of how resilient they can be to extreme staff turnover. And corresponding project management tools and methods must be offered to non-profit leaders.
Ping : AkaSig » Blog Archive » Applying to the Echoing Green fellowship program
1st Sub Question:
There are 2 apparent symptoms:
1. compared to existing social challenges and %lt;?%gt;non-social %lt;/?> innovations, there is a lack of technology-based social innovations
2. most non-profit organizations under-utilize the capacity technology can bring them when trying to transform society, organizations and markets
Comments:
– Redundancy removed: « or effects of our problem »
– Changed position of « compared to both… »
– Removed « both »
– Removed « to existing, » although it is correct parallelism removing the text results in correct parallelism too.
– What is a non-social innovation?
– exploit has negative connotation
Legal frameworks encouraging and facilitating IT pro bono services are nowhere as favorable to donors as in France. But some of these laws were passed recently (2003, updated in 2008) and are still under-used and unknown by many potential donors and recipients. Moreover donor-to-recipient intermediation costs for the delivery of pro bono services are high. And such deliveries are difficult to adapt to the business constraints of both corporate donors and non-profit recipients : IT service companies want their engineers and consultant to commit to profit-making long-term missions and can’t afford to miss commercial opportunities because of commitments toward non-profit projects. Competition is fierce and consultant profiles are too often seen as “replaceable” with one another. And because of low budgets, non-profits rarely attain a critical mass of IT needs that would let them justify launching such innovative partnerships.
Comments:
Replaced « complex » with « difficult. » « Complex » is an adjective describing a noun, it seems you needed an adverb to describe the verb of « to adapt. »
IA_,
Regarding non-social innovations, I mean tech innovations which aren’t with a social purpose per se (say, web 2.0 mashups for instance). There are lots of technical innovations which are not socially-driven. And there are also lots of social innovations which are not based on new technology. At the crossing of these two areas, there are not many socially-driven technology-based innovations.
I guess our first « symptom » should be 1. Compared to existing social challenges and technical innovations, there is a lack of technology-based social innovations.
Thanks for your note about the negative connotation « exploiting » has. I thought this connotation only existed in French. :)
Once again your reviewing is much useful to me. I didn’t know complex could not be used as an adverb.
Once I am done with this Echoing Green stuff, I think I will translate the result of our work into French and I will post it on the wecena.com website as part of the marketing material I intend to make available there for French IT firms and nonprofits.