Innovation In Giving

Innovation in giving

Innovation in Giving

The Open Innovation Programme, journey so far

Nicole Wilkinson

I recently had the pleasure of meeting staff from the 10 charities that are being supported through the Open Innovation Programme as part of the Cabinet Office’s Innovation in Giving Fund to officially launch phase two of the programme.

Whilst the focus of the phase two event was firmly upon looking forward and ensuring effective delivery of the exciting and ambitious innovations that have been developed, the launch of phase two also provided an opportunity to pause and reflect on some of the learning from the development phase (phase one.)

During the course of phase one, all charities kept individual learning logs to capture key developments and reflections. Whilst these are only simple tools, they have yielded some interesting insights that, in the spirit of the programme and Nesta’s commitment to legibility, it felt valuable to share. This is by no means an exhaustive list but covers off some of the main themes that came back:

1.Open innovation is a relatively new process for many in the charity sector: Open innovation is relatively established in the commercial sector, with companies such as Kraft Foods Collaboration Kitchen being regularly cited as leading examples. However, whilst the 28 charities selected onto phase one of the programme demonstrated a genuine appetite for open innovation, this was a new methodology and way of working for nearly all of them – 64% of charities participating in the programme defined themselves as having little or no organisational experience of open innovation at the start of phase one.

This meant that for many charities, significant time investment was required to build internal buy-in, commitment and overcome (understandable) reticence about discussing giving challenges with external organisations and developing collaborative solutions to these challenges that share the risk and reward.

Encouragingly, by the end of phase one, 68% of charities defined themselves as having significant skills in open innovation, with 5% defining themselves as expert with the role of programme support identified as central in developing this (see point 2.)

2. The value of having the space, legitimacy and agency to innovate: 86% of charities defined the phase one process as very valuable for them. Within this, what emerges strongly from the qualitative insight is the value charities gained through the phase one process providing them with the legitimacy and agency needed to justify spending time working on longer term innovation. In particular, the feedback centered upon the support of a dedicated coach and Nesta enabling:

  • staff members to have new types of conversation internally – sometimes quite challenging ones – to address internal barriers
  • bring together sometimes quite disparate teams to collaborate around shared organisational giving challenges
  • the space to look outside of their organisation and engage new partners

3.     The open innovation journey is rarely linear: It’s a cliché but one that certainly appears to be borne out in phase one. We asked charities to record their confidence in achieving their phase one objectives on a monthly basis over the course of phase one. At the aggregate level across the charities in the portfolio, 95% of charities self-defined as having mostly or completely achieved the phase one objectives they had set and we see a steady increase in open innovation skills and confidence over the course of phase – which is clearly in line with what we would expect.

However, when delving into the detail of individual charity journey’s, it’s obvious that aggregate trends mask significant differences. For some, there is steady upward trend in confidence. However for others, a graphical representation of their levels of confidence over the course of phase one shows a more challenging journey with notable peaks and troughs as charities really unpacked their giving challenges and began to develop collaborative solutions to them, often through several very different iterations.

In addition, we observed that charities were often running several components of the open innovation process concurrently, rather than in linear progression. Both of these points reflect key learning from open innovation case studies in the commercial sector and that the phase two portfolio contains charities with varied innovation journey’s feels very valuable to the next stage of the programme.

4.     A flexible approach is vital: This applies both to Nesta’s model of delivery support and to the behaviour needed from charities. In particular, over the course of phase one, we saw charities explore a number of giving challenges and a number of emerging partnerships / consortiums develop to address these.

Some of these consortia grew legs and formed the basis of developing collaborative solutions. Others came together to explore challenges and ideas, before deciding to go their separate ways – often because organisation’s didn’t feel they had the right skills and experience to add value to where conversations were heading.

This birth, re-birth and sometimes death of risk/reward-sharing partnerships is inherent in the open innovation process and can be where a significant proportion of the value is derived from. Charities fed back that even if partnerships didn’t gain traction, the process of sharing ideas with a range of partners was often useful in broadening horizons and adding fresh perspectives. However, this requires flexibility to ‘ride out’ the journey which can present challenges in keeping stakeholders and internal decision makers engaged with the progress of the programme.

5.     Time can be a challenge and a motivating factor: The phase one process ran from early July through to mid-October, presenting a relatively short timeframe in which to cover significant ground, which we acknowledged from the outset may be challenging. The feedback from charities on this has been interesting – several charities have stated that a relatively ambitious, time-bound project proved useful in generating and sustaining momentum for innovation and reducing barriers such as extended internal sign-off periods, accelerating review processes and necessitating disparate team coming together.

So what does this mean for phase two?

So, as we set our eyes firmly on phase two, we have tried to incorporate this learning into the design and structure of programme support. This includes:

  • Running more flexible support workshops
  • Ramping up the support and coaching provision for charities in phase two
  • Continuing to run networking events bringing together a range of charities, social businesses, start-ups and social enterprise to provide space for collaboration
  • Supporting continued learning and sharing within the cohort and with the wider sector

I look forward to updating you on progress…..

Leave a reply

Innovation in Giving

Small Business Saturday: what about every day?

Theo Keane

Last week Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Business Secretary, called for the UK to adopt a US initiative ‘Small Business Saturday’, which once a year urges consumers to shop at local independent stores. And in a poll taken by the Guardian last week (January 2nd), an overwhelming majority of respondents (83%) thought it was a good idea.

I agree with them, it’s a very good idea. It offers a small but simple and effective way to celebrate local businesses and the hugely important role they play in our communities. From local communities to the more ambiguous ‘shared interest’ communities, there are inspiring examples of people encouraging local enterprise and social action: from London currency Brixton Pound to the GoodGym’s ‘runners that do good’

But here at Nesta we’re looking to go much further. Soon, we are going to launch a programme which will bring businesses and civil society groups together in new ways; exploring new modes of giving and exchanging time, resources and skills and celebrating partnerships where acting together, locally, is business-as-usual.

We want to encourage businesses to support their community in new ways, as well as asking communities to support their local businesses.

In researching and scoping the programme we’ve discovered an extremely crowded landscape. There is considerable work going on across all sectors to understand the levels and modes of SMEs contributing to their local communities, to structure the thinking around effective engagement policy and practice. There are a lot of dedicated people out there.

But what is apparent is that the brokerage system between sectors is fragmented into myriad organisations that are difficult to navigate and understand, and that employee contribution to their local communities is unknown or under-recognised by employers, particularly if it is inconsistent with the core giving agenda of the business.

What we need to do to have real impact is to make business giving and its relationship to the development of flourishing communities much more accessible, visible, relevant to and aligned with local needs and aspirations.

Digital technologies and new approaches to business giving are beginning to address this brokerage gap, and I’m privileged and excited to have recently met, and now be involved with, a collection of inspiring innovations that have emerged from the IIG second call for ideas. C, Give What You’re Good At, GoodPeople, Women Like Us and Young Philanthropy represent a diverse portfolio of projects with one common ambition: make it easier for businesses and their employees to connect with impact to the causes that they care about.

Nesta is delighted to be working with Young Philanthropy. Its model introduces young professionals between the ages of 21 and 35 to a career of giving and develops their potential as leading philanthropists. The foremost initiative is the YP Syndicate that enables these young professionals to pool their money, time and skills and invest in compelling charity projects, with the matched funding of experienced philanthropists.

Give What You’re Good At is an online platform gaining significant traction from all quarters. It matches professionals who want to give and share their skills with ambitious non-profit organisations that need them for less than five hours a week. Likewise, GoodPeople is an operating system upon which pro-bono and skills-based volunteering programmes can be run. It is a website and mobile technology that will closely match talented people with exciting opportunities to work with civil society organisations based on their skills, causes and location.

Women Like Us is a multi-award winning social enterprise that provides support to women in finding work that they are able to fit into family life. Its career swapshop will enable a sharing network and build social connections between mothers in London who need family-friendly careers. And most recently C, an online social marketplace for giving and volunteering, made possible by individual giving accounts which are funded in innovative ways. Individuals can give time and money to the charities and initiatives of their choice, using a personal ‘C account’ funded by money from government, employers and commercial product and service providers.

These platforms highlight a need and an appetite for new mechanisms and solutions to bridge the gap between the private and third sectors. We can learn a great deal from them, and we will assess their impact on addressing barriers to increased giving; stimulate their adoption and adaptation in different contexts, expand the variety of models and mechanisms that might bring closer working partnerships, as well as gaining deeper insights into giving practices by a younger generation of business professionals.

One immediate reflection is that all of these innovations enable a bottom-up approach: an opening up of the giving framework whereby employees are more empowered and rewarded for giving to the causes that they care about. This is an important development if on the one hand we want to coordinate the exchange of business capacity with community need, and catalyse increased and new forms of business giving on the other. Watch this space.

Through supporting the projects in the business giving portfolio and delivering a wider programme of activity (details to follow), one of the key questions that I will address is what effective infrastructure models can be identified that mobilise and sustain charitable giving by businesses at a local level? Our programme will endeavour to uncover innovations that answer that question, or at least propose new possibilities for a world in which businesses are energised and recognised for their contribution to the economic and social development of communities through transformational new approaches and cross-sector initiatives.

 

Leave a reply

Innovation in Giving

IIG Christmas Party

Helen Goulden

Monday night saw the gathering of nearly 200 people involved in the Innovation in Giving Fund.  We celebrated the participants who are going through to the next Phase of the Open Innovation Programme, and Minister for Civil Society Nick Hurd, trailed our new work in the field of business giving and how we will be supporting innovative new approaches to creating greater impact and sustainability within volunteer centres.

It was great to see how much energy there is for all participants across the fund to engage with each other. Charities large and small, small start-ups, businesses, social enterprises – all working toward a collective goal to increase giving in huge variety of ways.  The Year of Giving blog sets out a little the plans for next year, and there will be much more to say about this in early 2013.

As 2013 comes to a close, a huge, enormous thanks to everyone who has made the Fund work. Our tireless selection panel who have often gone above and beyond the call of duty to support the fund, the Cabinet Office for making it possible of course and all the fund’s awardees, who are showing us just exactly what  Innovations in Giving look like.

See you all in 2013

Leave a reply

Innovation in Giving

The Case for Slow Volunteering…

Helen Goulden

One of the assumptions that are lot of us make when thinking about ways of encouraging more people to volunteer is that people don’t have enough time to get involved. That the pressures of a 21st Century life mean that we are time poor; with jam-packed lives that squeeze out certain kinds of activities.

As someone who shuttles daily between work, the school gate, and suffers the 1950’s gravitational pull of family household chores and a background hum of guilt about not doing – or being – more, I can sympathise with this point of view.

The response to this belief about time poverty in a volunteering context has been to think about designing short, sharp volunteering opportunities; micro-volunteering that might only take a few minutes, or one-off opportunities that might just take an hour or so.  There are a number of initiatives which focus on flexible volunteering and micro-volunteering emerging, and of course technology allows us to accelerate this idea of micro-volunteering either through offering more opportunities online, on phones or as a route to identifying slivers of need out there in the real world.

Through this fund, we’re interested in knowing more about the potential impact of micro-volunteering, hence supporting research by the Institute for Volunteering Research to explore just this issue.

But is this assumption right, that people don’t volunteer because they don’t have the time? I wonder. I’ve been thinking that maybe we are colluding with this idea of time poverty and that the only answer is to break things up into bite size chunks, create opportunities that can be squeezed into the nooks and crannies of every day life as a route to getting more, new people into the habit of volunteering.

Let’s get off that trip momentarily and make a case for Slow Volunteering. A nod toward the Slow Movement and what it stands for…

A recent research report from the Association from Psychological Science claims that giving time away, volunteering to help others actually increases the sense of having more time. Research from Volunteering England suggests that volunteering is good for your health and according to the American Psychological Association it could actually lengthen your life – so not just that it feels like you have more time, but you actually have more time.

Being a Games Maker was a fairly hefty commitment of time. Volunteering at Kings College Hospital requires a serious commitment; one year minimum and a minimum number of hours per week – and both (and many other more intensive volunteering opportunities like the Samaritans) have turned large numbers of people away due to over-subscription.  Time poverty, in these examples, doesn’t seem to present a problem.

And at its heart it’s because these experiences foster feelings of quite deep connection with other people, an increased sense of purpose, of being needed and a more expansive view of care; care beyond our pitiful selves and quiet concerns about our own well-being, toward greater compassion toward others. That takes time. Could micro-volunteering take you to that place? I don’t know.

Leave a reply

Posted by Lynette on December 5, 2012

Innovation in Giving

The Sharing Economy Goes Global But UK Consumers Miss a Trick

Benita Matofska

It’s a busy time for the Sharing Economy as this week sees the first Global Sharing Day take place on Nov 14th with 161 partner organizations and a reach of over 60 million people in 147 countries. Created by The People Who Share, the day will see millions around the world come together to share resources, ideas, skills and knowledge from 1-2pm as part of The Greatest Share on Earth.

The People Who Share have united the leadership of the Sharing Economy including Shareable Magazine, Mesh Labs and OuiShare with partner support from collaborativeconsumption.com to put the Sharing Economy on the global stage.

But despite the fact that the emerging Sharing Economy is now reported to be worth over £310 billion globally, UK consumers seem to be missing a trick. Research commissioned by The People Who Share, carried out by Opinium and released today reveals that Britons make and save £8 billion a year through sharing but the potential is far higher.

Research among 2,000 UK adults over 18 reveals that on average UK adults save £99 and make £335 a year, primarily through sharing services such as selling second-hand goods booking or share or swap childcare services or sharing a ride. But super users of the Sharing Economy report that by using innovative tech sites like compareandshare.com  Airbnb Whipcar and Love Home Swap you can save thousands.

I for one, have seized the opportunity to share and am saving £20,000 a year. The advent of sharing sites enables the savvy to live a shareable lifestyle, by using the things that you don’t need, to get the things that you do.

Times are tough, people need to do more with less and for anyone who isn’t maximizing their resources they’re missing out. We have the technological ability to share the world; we just need to make it easier to share than not to.

Benita Matofska is Founder and Chief Sharer of The People Who Share, the company behind compareandshare.com the first aggregator of the Sharing Economy.

The full research paper can be found here: http://www.compareandshare.com/global-sharing-day/partner-activity/UK-Consumer-Earnings-from-Sharing-Survey2012

Leave a reply

Innovation in Giving, Innovation in Giving

Standing Out From The Crowd

Philip Colligan

One of my favourite things about these amazing Olympics has been the Games Makers.  That’s the 70,000 or so volunteers that can be seen across Central London and at Olympic venues all over the country.

Whether you like the colour or not, there is something inarguably cool about a bunch of ordinary people standing out from the crowd in their Games Maker kits (kudos to Adidas).  You know there’s no pretensions, no cynicism – just great people giving up their time for someone or something else.

Are they motivated by the chance to be part of something bigger; to be a part of the greatest show on earth?  Of course they are and there’s nothing wrong with that.

These people are literally making the games possible by giving up their time to do everything from directing the flows of people at tube stations to mopping up the sweat on the badminton courts.  It’s social action on a massive scale.

What’s even more striking is how the rest of us respond.  We smile at them in the street and say hello, I’ve seen people stand on crowded trains to offer their seats to weary looking Games Makers on their way home and they’ve even got battle-hardened commuters like me having conversations early in the morning as we eagerly ask them what venue they’re at and what it’s like.

A few months ago I was in Cambridge town centre on what happened to be the day of Race for Life.  That’s another huge display of collective social action, as hundreds of thousands of women run 5k to raise much needed funds for research into cancer.  It is though, much more than a fun run.  The runners dress in a uniform of pink and wear on their backs the names of the mums, aunties, sisters and friends who have suffered that disease.  It is a collective act of solidarity with intensely personal motivations on display.  Too easily taken for granted, it is a remarkable thing.

That morning we went for brunch and again I was struck by the way that the “rest of us” reacted to the runners as they started to arrive for some well-earned food.  As each woman in pink arrived, the owner of the restaurant welcomed them with a glass of fizz on the house and a little cheer went up across the dining room.

So what do the Games Makers and Race for Life have to tell us about social action and what are the lessons for the many innovators that are trying to find ways to get more of us to give our time and money to causes we care about?

First, we need to look at the potential for collective action to engage new people in giving their time for causes they care about.  It’s a reasonable guess that many of the Games Makers and Race for Life runners were first time volunteers (if anyone’s got the data, let me know) and now that they’ve taken some social action, it’s more likely that they’ll go on to do something else.

The catalyst that got them giving might have been the excitement of being part of the Olympics or the pain of losing a loved one, but the effect is the same: they have taken social action and that will have changed their perceptions of themselves (see Timothy Wilson’s excellent book on how this happens).

And you don’t need an event as big as the Olympic Games to harness the power of collective civic acts.  New York didn’t win the Olympics and it didn’t stop them mobilising an army of volunteers through Mayor Bloomberg’s City of Service initiative.  They famously called on citizens to paint over 1 million square feet of the cities roofs white to help reduce carbon emissions from air conditioning.  Now hundreds of cities across the US regularly mobilise an army of ordinary people to take social action together.

Don’t let anyone tell you it can’t happen here.  Team London has been around for a few years now and is building a British version of the US Cities of Service in our capital.  Perhaps it is time we created Team Swindon, Team Leeds, or Team Calderdale?

Alongside mobilising people to do some good together, we need to think more creatively about how we make giving visible and celebrated.  Games Makers and the Race for Life deploy the very simple technology of clothing – a uniform that signals to the world that you are giving your time for others.  It’s an incredibly powerful mechanism, but it’s not the only one.

Increasingly we all define ourselves to the world through social media.  Innovations like Givey and Blue Dot are exploring the potential for these new social identities to capture information about our giving habits and make it part of the story we tell to the world.

Is there a possible future where alongside telling the world about our education, jobs and favourite films, social media platforms like facebook prompt us to say what social action we’ve taken?

11 Comments

Innovation in Giving

What’s Mine That Could Be Yours?

Helen Goulden 20.07.2012

Last week I met with the brilliant Streetbank , who have developed a platform for people to give or lend stuff to people who live nearby. Sites like Streetbank, that focus on giving stuff away at a hyper local level are blossoming and there’s a strong trajectory of growth in active Street-Bankers.

Ecomodo, another Innovation in Giving Fund recipient, has developed a great model focussed on the lending of things; either for free or for a fee. And across the globe, there is a flurry of innovation around platforms which focus on renting out assets, goods and products.

We’ve seen it done to great effect through the rise of the ‘anti-hotel’ (e.g. Wimdu, Airbnb), car sharing (e.g. Zip Car, WhipCar, BlaBlaCar) and through making different use of our time through Task Rabbit. Now, there seems to be a big rise in the model which focusses on renting anything and everything to people who live close by – epitomised in sites like Ecomodo in the UK, NeighborGoods in the US and Anyhire in Australia.

Some of these rental platforms focus on peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, and some involve existing businesses renting their products in new or different ways (B2C). Some, such as Anyhire and Rentoid , incorporate both business and peer lending on their platforms.  But the common trend when you look at look at P2P lending sites is that they accommodate – and seek to service – the P2P lending of pretty much anything; from tent poles to tiaras. And what they don’t have in many cases (just yet) is critical mass in any given geographical area. Bid and borrow and ThingLoop closed down precisely because of this issue.

This presents a very steep challenge. Platforms like these rely on us shifting the nature of our attachment to the things we own and collectively building a deep pool of things to lend to others. This is a tough enough hill to climb. But they also need to build demand; to grow a pool of people who want to borrow what you have to lend – who also happen to live close by. This is a tough gig and hats off to all those making it work even in small geographic areas.  It feels like those platforms which focus on publicising the demand rather than the supply (Help, I live on Cheshire Street and need a ladder!) might cultivate more supply, more quickly.

Of course, the platforms which focus on business to consumer lending can crack the supply side of things pretty quickly; they generally have lots of stock. Californian platform Getable is a great example of this, which offers a portal for existing independent rental stores to offer their products on line. Which works well for some things…On my wandering through  Getable, I saw some great, quite high value stuff that I wouldn’t necessarily want to own but might want to make use of. But a lot of what was on offer was cheaper to buy if I was going to use the item more than once.

Which raised a big question about motivation for me. What makes me want to rent rather than own something if  – if – I can afford to buy the thing? How far can we be motivated to remodel and re-pattern our lives towards sharing more and buying less? Where are the incentives? What motivates us toward collaborative consumption of everyday items when ownership can often be (cost per use) cheaper and let’s face it, a lot easier?

Talking to some of those innovators who are focussing on free peer-to-peer giving away lending and exchange in local communities, they’re often quite clear – the motivation is the feeling of doing something good; offering something that’s needed, to someone who doesn’t have it. It’s driven by a motivation to be kind. To feel like you’ve helped someone out.   And intuitively, it feels like platforms that focus primarily on the free lending and giving away of anything and everything in local communities might get more traction more quickly than local rental sites…

In any event, it feels like there are some gaps, just waiting to be filled. It’s probably reasonable to suppose that business-to-consumer lending markets will trend toward higher value or infrequent lends (because the value of the product is higher or because ownership just makes less sense) and I suspect these innovative platforms will rub along in parallel with the peer-to-peer  services that focus on lending and giving away of a whole mish-mash of stuff at a community level.

But I guess my call-out is, what’s the next wave of innovation in this area? What kinds of things can be shared, loaned or rented regularly and easily that could have a real impact on our everyday lives?

3 Comments

Posted by Lynette on July 20, 2012

Innovation in Giving

Giving against the grain?

Nick Webb 12.6.12

A striking characteristic of many round 1 innovations is the effort put into getting the mechanics of giving right – that’s to say how to successfully tap into giving motivations, ‘onboard’ users in large numbers and make the process of giving simple and efficient. As a supportive funder, Nesta certainly wants to see the projects it backs succeed in a tough and well-trodden marketplace.

The challenge of getting this right makes me think about a deeper test: how to create innovations that go with, not against, the grain of contemporary culture. A cynic might say that the act of giving suffers from connotations of ‘worthiness’. A deeper criticism, I think, would be that it is somehow ‘on the margins’, an ‘add-on’, an ‘afterthought’ in the hierarchy of everyday concerns. The ‘chugger’ invading your personal space, disrupting the familiar flow of your journey from A to B, the work colleague asking politely for sponsorship to run yet another marathon (or even triathlon!), the act-of-God disaster that tugs us only momentarily towards a bigger drama.

This test is just as much about engaging givers on their home turf (go to where they already are online at Facebook!) as it is about fitting in with people’s core activities and concerns. A good example is payroll giving. I think this is powerful because it embeds the act of giving firmly within one of the building blocks of life – work – rather than leaving it sitting uneasily on the margins. It makes giving habitual and structural, not occasional or incidental.

My reflection is really that a great deal depends on the cultural and social place of giving, both now and in the future. Giving has always been part of the public imagination and social fabric of this country. Think of the vast sums raised by charities every year (estimated at £11BN, yet dwarfed by the estimated monetized value of volunteering time), or the incredible acts of individual giving that have helped to shape our public realm and preserve our rich heritage (National Trust). How far are we able to insightfully describe the place of giving in modern culture?

Perhaps much current innovation in giving is coming from ideas that tap more effectively into age-old human motivations; specifically, the evolutionary urge towards cooperation and reciprocity. There is now a burgeoning of successful innovations that support sharing rather than one-way direct giving, or that involve clear return for the giver, for example in social recognition and stronger social networks. If this is true, then we might have cause to be optimistic that giving will flourish as an ingrained element of our personal, social and civic identities, going with the grain of how we want to live and work.

But, of course, I’d be interested in your views!

1 Comment

Posted by carrina on June 12, 2012

Innovation in Giving

Legibility

Philip Colligan – 01.06.2012

The search is on for more potentially game-changing innovations in giving.  Last week (29 May) we launched the second open call for ideas for the Innovations in Giving Fund.

You can find details of the call here, including a short note with some reflections and feedback on what happened in the first open call at the end of last year.

Why publish feedback in this way?  We had two objectives.

The first was to share our experience and reflections with innovators that might be thinking about applying to the Fund.  We received 448 applications to the last call for ideas, which involved a huge amount of effort by the people who applied as well as the Nesta team that had to sift, score and select them.  In that process, lots of knowledge was generated. Rather than attempt to give feedback to all those that didn’t make the shortlist individually, we decided to try to pull together common themes and messages and share those more widely.

If you’re thinking of applying to the Fund, I hope that you find the note useful.  Please let us know either way.

The second reason is a more general shift towards openness – or perhaps more accurately, legibility – which we’re trying to make in the work of the Lab.  The excellent Bryan Boyer from our Finnish sister organisation Sitra puts it far more eloquently than me in his blog post on the subject, but it’s about going beyond openness and sharing what we do in a way that can be understood, interrogated and improved by others.

Our work to support social innovation is necessarily emergent and evolving.  This is still a relatively young field and often, we’re designing entirely new ways to find and support innovators through our programmes and funds.  Wherever we can, we build on experience and knowledge – both our own and from others.  We want others to do the same and that puts a responsibility on us to be legible. 

It also relates to another change that we’ve made to our approach to programmes recently.  When you apply for a Nesta programme now – you’re likely to be asked to do so in public – whether through a video or summary of your idea posted online.  I know that some people have found that difficult, but generating and orchestrating knowledge is one of main ways in which we think we add value to the world.  Getting innovators to share their ideas helps build a body of knowledge about where the energy and focus is in a field, as well as inspiring others and leading to new collaborations. 

It also means that we have to work harder to explain how and why we take decisions to back one idea and not another.  That has to be a good thing.

Click here for more information on the Innovation In Giving Fund

8 Comments

Posted by carrina on June 7, 2012