Yes, Eric, in many ways, the tool is the easy part compared to the the culture change necessary to bring data-driven thinking into an organization. One of the things I saw while running Groundwire was that among the client organizations we served, there were some who had stuff who really understood the power of the databases that we were helping them put in place in their organizations. Not to generalize, but many of these folks were younger, and we found that an hour invested with one of these individuals was worth more than ten hours on someone else. They got it. They understood the power of what the tools could deliver.
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.
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.
Gideon Rosenblatt says:
Yes, Eric, in many ways, the tool is the easy part compared to the the culture change necessary to bring data-driven thinking into an organization. One of the things I saw while running Groundwire was that among the client organizations we served, there were some who had stuff who really understood the power of the databases that we were helping them put in place in their organizations. Not to generalize, but many of these folks were younger, and we found that an hour invested with one of these individuals was worth more than ten hours on someone else. They got it. They understood the power of what the tools could deliver.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.