Hello, Gideon. Welcome to Markets For Good. The Taro Works example does point a way out of..."most social change organizations are simply not in a position to ground their evaluation efforts in broad-based data like what you are describing."
I'm talking more to the insight behind the solution than to the solution itself.
What I appreciate is the first recognition of the ROI calculation – implicit, explicit, whatever - and going from there. Data isn't free. There is room for much more investigation of ways to facilitate getting the info we need, especially when it's out there waiting on just another thoughtful way to get it.
Sheetal Singh of Techsoup makes an excellent case on the point in an earlier post: http://www.marketsforgood.org/making-data-an-afterthought/. She says: "We realized that when you are working with small organizations in constant crisis mode, thinking about data is a luxury. If we wanted the agencies to track and share data, we needed to give them a really good reason to do so." Read more for her examples of how to address that.
That's ROI and data thinking, not as a mental exercise, but infinitely more appropriately - on behalf of an organization doing effective work that could be made easier or better, as Steve demonstrates with the VisionSpring example.
On your last point: I remember growing up in Oak Cliff (Dallas, Tx) and all of us in school, church sharing an inside smile at the people and orgs who arrived for one intiative or another not recognizing that kids worldwide can easily differentiate the look that said “subject” from the one that said “partner.” We treated each accordingly. - Eric, Conversation Curator, Markets For Good.
Steve, what you are talking about is important. From my experience, most social change organizations are simply not in a position to ground their evaluation efforts in broad-based data like what you are describing. Several years back, I ran a mission-driven consulting group that helped sustainability nonprofits with technology and engagement. We worked hard to get them to focus on measuring the effectiveness of their engagement efforts, but the one question that would come up again and again was: how do my results measure against other, similar organizations?
In other words, organizations need context, a backdrop against which their data takes on real meaning. And that is what I find exciting about the work you are doing at Grameen Foundation.
I am not very familiar with Markets for Good, but I will share an anecdote from a conversation with a friend just yesterday. He was talking about gathering data about homeless people, and noted that it was one thing to gather their data and quite another to gather their opinions.
Data comes from subjects. Opinions come from partners.
[...] when one of the information intermediaries expresses their worries about Markets For Good, as in Laura Quinn’s excellent post identifying a long list of challenges and inconsistencies in the funder-driven demands for better [...]
Text and Images are available under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Unported 3.0 License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Eric J. Henderson says:
Hello, Gideon. Welcome to Markets For Good. The Taro Works example does point a way out of..."most social change organizations are simply not in a position to ground their evaluation efforts in broad-based data like what you are describing." I'm talking more to the insight behind the solution than to the solution itself. What I appreciate is the first recognition of the ROI calculation – implicit, explicit, whatever - and going from there. Data isn't free. There is room for much more investigation of ways to facilitate getting the info we need, especially when it's out there waiting on just another thoughtful way to get it. Sheetal Singh of Techsoup makes an excellent case on the point in an earlier post: http://www.marketsforgood.org/making-data-an-afterthought/. She says: "We realized that when you are working with small organizations in constant crisis mode, thinking about data is a luxury. If we wanted the agencies to track and share data, we needed to give them a really good reason to do so." Read more for her examples of how to address that. That's ROI and data thinking, not as a mental exercise, but infinitely more appropriately - on behalf of an organization doing effective work that could be made easier or better, as Steve demonstrates with the VisionSpring example. On your last point: I remember growing up in Oak Cliff (Dallas, Tx) and all of us in school, church sharing an inside smile at the people and orgs who arrived for one intiative or another not recognizing that kids worldwide can easily differentiate the look that said “subject” from the one that said “partner.” We treated each accordingly. - Eric, Conversation Curator, Markets For Good.Gideon Rosenblatt says:
Steve, what you are talking about is important. From my experience, most social change organizations are simply not in a position to ground their evaluation efforts in broad-based data like what you are describing. Several years back, I ran a mission-driven consulting group that helped sustainability nonprofits with technology and engagement. We worked hard to get them to focus on measuring the effectiveness of their engagement efforts, but the one question that would come up again and again was: how do my results measure against other, similar organizations? In other words, organizations need context, a backdrop against which their data takes on real meaning. And that is what I find exciting about the work you are doing at Grameen Foundation. I am not very familiar with Markets for Good, but I will share an anecdote from a conversation with a friend just yesterday. He was talking about gathering data about homeless people, and noted that it was one thing to gather their data and quite another to gather their opinions. Data comes from subjects. Opinions come from partners.Special Topic: Markets For Good & Beneficiary Insight says:
[...] when one of the information intermediaries expresses their worries about Markets For Good, as in Laura Quinn’s excellent post identifying a long list of challenges and inconsistencies in the funder-driven demands for better [...]