Recently I participated in an online chat called “Why is innovation at scale so hard?" organized by the Guardian Development Professionals Network. Throughout the dialog, I was struck by the underlying assumptions that immediately color our understanding of these concepts. Many of these beliefs are so ubiquitous that no one even stops to think about them anymore. But like much conventional wisdom, they are dangerous when taken completely at face value.
Five "facts" on scale and innovation that I’d like to challenge are:
Innovation is harder at scale. Why do we assume that the little guys have a monopoly on innovation, and established organizations can only provide the infrastructure and distribution networks for scaling up? One great thing about being big is that it's easier to justify (and fund) research and development. For example in our microfinance programme, we can simultaneously run a dozen pilots testing new products and services, because we've got over 2000 branches as our playground!! It's awesome. Much easier than going from place to place trying to sell a potential partner on an idea, just to start a pilot.
Certainly some types of innovation are harder at scale--for example, many new financial institutions built on mobile payment platforms that are popping up in East Africa have a much easier time taking advantage of the technology that those more mature providers that now have to retrofit everything if they want to make the switch. Often smaller institutions have a lot to gain (and less at stake), so are more aggressive about pursuing opportunities faster. But innovating at scale is possible and happens every day. It requires different models that are often less sexy than the start-up cults of scrums and ping pong tables.
"In any programme cycle, graduating from pilot phase to delivery at scale is often the hardest part." (Guardian opening statement for the discussion) Unfortunately for development, our discussions on "scale" treat it as this great, unattainable thing. I disagree. I actually think that the hardest part is coming up with something that can work. Getting to "1" is probably more challenging than getting to "2," and getting from "1000" to "1001" is comparatively easier. What is true is that the limitations change with scale.
For example, models that rely on highly trained human resources (physicians, for example) will face challenges when they scale up in countries where doctors are scarce, because they likely won't be able to expand that resource quickly. But to me, the solution for that is to build the plan to scale into the design.This is what has made community health worker models, for example, extremely scaleable. It's a model designed for the resources and local needs that accounts for the limitations. But bad design is bad design; it's not scaling up that's the problem!
"Cross sector collaboration with an aligned strategy management system is the best hope we have yet; and can pull not only the innovators, philanthropists, but the funders to the table." (discussion participant) Innovation can't be that complicated. Thousands of years ago our ancestors were able to figure out all sorts of neat things that enabled us to survive, all without stakeholder analyses, alignment, and public-private partnership. We can make it complicated, but it doesn't have to be. I conjure up a picture of college dropouts powered by stale pizza and (cold) beer whenever I need a reminder of just how little innovation requires--other than a good idea and sufficient persistence.
NASA got us to the moon with computers less powerful than my new smart phone. The goal of our dialog should be how to make learning simpler and faster. Words like "cross sector", "aligned", "strategy" make me nervous. Scale is about getting the job done. Scale is about the size of the problems, and figuring out how to make the solutions big enough to address them. Sometimes well placed individuals picking up the phone at the right time so that certain policies get into place is what's needed (see one example from Pakistan). Other times it's about activists making causes personal and visible enough that society demands change.
Yes, sometimes it's about creating a workforce of thousands of teachers to go out and teach in schools with your name on them. But let's not limit our discussions on scale only to those who choose to grow their own institutions. Many don't, and still manage to have a big impact on the world. We need to switch our lens from "quantity directly reached" (In an earlier post I call this “the starfish mentality). Teach First in the UK has thought about this carefully; it continues to invest in its alumni network because it's another type of scale.
Big is more sustainable than small. There is some evidence that smaller firms fail more often than larger firms. But of course there’s a bit of a survivor bias there! In my mind, sustainability and size are largely independent of each other.
In the non-profit space, there are many organizations that have lasted decades, working in small pockets or on specific issues. Often they have chosen not to scale; there are things that they like about staying small, perhaps the quality of interaction with clients, or that their funding sources are relatively stable. The key is to know your limits and scale responsibility, if you decide to. When resources dwindle and organizations need to contract is the painful moment, regardless of size.
The Guardian posted its own summary of the discussion.
Five "facts" on scale and innovation that I’d like to challenge are:
Innovation is harder at scale. Why do we assume that the little guys have a monopoly on innovation, and established organizations can only provide the infrastructure and distribution networks for scaling up? One great thing about being big is that it's easier to justify (and fund) research and development. For example in our microfinance programme, we can simultaneously run a dozen pilots testing new products and services, because we've got over 2000 branches as our playground!! It's awesome. Much easier than going from place to place trying to sell a potential partner on an idea, just to start a pilot.
Certainly some types of innovation are harder at scale--for example, many new financial institutions built on mobile payment platforms that are popping up in East Africa have a much easier time taking advantage of the technology that those more mature providers that now have to retrofit everything if they want to make the switch. Often smaller institutions have a lot to gain (and less at stake), so are more aggressive about pursuing opportunities faster. But innovating at scale is possible and happens every day. It requires different models that are often less sexy than the start-up cults of scrums and ping pong tables.
"In any programme cycle, graduating from pilot phase to delivery at scale is often the hardest part." (Guardian opening statement for the discussion) Unfortunately for development, our discussions on "scale" treat it as this great, unattainable thing. I disagree. I actually think that the hardest part is coming up with something that can work. Getting to "1" is probably more challenging than getting to "2," and getting from "1000" to "1001" is comparatively easier. What is true is that the limitations change with scale.
For example, models that rely on highly trained human resources (physicians, for example) will face challenges when they scale up in countries where doctors are scarce, because they likely won't be able to expand that resource quickly. But to me, the solution for that is to build the plan to scale into the design.This is what has made community health worker models, for example, extremely scaleable. It's a model designed for the resources and local needs that accounts for the limitations. But bad design is bad design; it's not scaling up that's the problem!
"Cross sector collaboration with an aligned strategy management system is the best hope we have yet; and can pull not only the innovators, philanthropists, but the funders to the table." (discussion participant) Innovation can't be that complicated. Thousands of years ago our ancestors were able to figure out all sorts of neat things that enabled us to survive, all without stakeholder analyses, alignment, and public-private partnership. We can make it complicated, but it doesn't have to be. I conjure up a picture of college dropouts powered by stale pizza and (cold) beer whenever I need a reminder of just how little innovation requires--other than a good idea and sufficient persistence.
NASA got us to the moon with computers less powerful than my new smart phone. The goal of our dialog should be how to make learning simpler and faster. Words like "cross sector", "aligned", "strategy" make me nervous. Scale is about getting the job done. Scale is about the size of the problems, and figuring out how to make the solutions big enough to address them. Sometimes well placed individuals picking up the phone at the right time so that certain policies get into place is what's needed (see one example from Pakistan). Other times it's about activists making causes personal and visible enough that society demands change.
Yes, sometimes it's about creating a workforce of thousands of teachers to go out and teach in schools with your name on them. But let's not limit our discussions on scale only to those who choose to grow their own institutions. Many don't, and still manage to have a big impact on the world. We need to switch our lens from "quantity directly reached" (In an earlier post I call this “the starfish mentality). Teach First in the UK has thought about this carefully; it continues to invest in its alumni network because it's another type of scale.
Big is more sustainable than small. There is some evidence that smaller firms fail more often than larger firms. But of course there’s a bit of a survivor bias there! In my mind, sustainability and size are largely independent of each other.
In the non-profit space, there are many organizations that have lasted decades, working in small pockets or on specific issues. Often they have chosen not to scale; there are things that they like about staying small, perhaps the quality of interaction with clients, or that their funding sources are relatively stable. The key is to know your limits and scale responsibility, if you decide to. When resources dwindle and organizations need to contract is the painful moment, regardless of size.
The Guardian posted its own summary of the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment