OpenKollab

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab/topics

• Visibility of people? [6 Updates]
• The Problem Of Early Stage Funding for Social Innovators [2 Updates]
• FYI a cool list of organizational guidelines from a media company [1 Update]

ms@ms.lt Mar 16 01:14AM +0200 ^


 
Suresh,
 
Thank you for your leadership at Open Kollab.
 
My initiative "12 Questions" http://www.12questions.org is taking shape.
Here's a letter I wrote today to Jerry Michalski with my current thoughts:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/990
 
You're increasing the visibility of projects with specific questions about
their Mission, Goals, Business Models, State of Project, Collaborative
Relationships, Project Summary.
 
I'm interested with "12 Questions" to increase the "visibility of people"
with similar questions.
 
I appreciate your thoughts on synergies I might look for as I
work-in-parallel with you, or simply, ways I might help you and Open
Kollab.
 
I'm looking for customers-clients-patrons-sponsors for paid work. For
example, I could work for a venture capitalist to engage, interview and
present the answers from entrepreneurs they are thinking of funding, so
that there is agreement on the entrepeneurs personal goals, and they might
be held accountable to them, especially as they might affect the success
of the enterprises that are funded.
 
I once asked Kevin Jones of Good Capital, "How do you know what is
'good'?" and I think he did't have a definition (or it's interesting to
learn and examine!) nor do most if not all 'social venture' funders. And
this is not trivial. Consider, for example, ethanol or electric cars or
genetically modified foods or democracy or organic wines or orphanages or
condoms or school uniforms or malaria bed nets or university degrees or
Linux or DDT. What makes them "good" or not?
 
One way to think of the 'goodness' of a social entrepreneur's work is if
their entrepreneurial activity accords with their own values, indeed, if
that activity is a personal transformation which makes them more "whole"
(in the sense of Christopher Alexander and his pattern languages).
Mentally, I personally am repulsed by any model that supposes that
entrepreneurs or other leaders can live "sick" lives and thereby make for
a "healthy" world. I believe we live in a "sick" world because we have
"sick" leaders, many of whom are "do-gooders".
 
Andrius
 
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
 

 

Suresh Fernando <suresh@radical-inclusion.com> Mar 15 04:32PM -0700 ^


 
Hi Andrius,
 
See below.
 
> work-in-parallel with you, or simply, ways I might help you and Open
> Kollab.
 
> I'm looking for customers-clients-patrons-sponsors for paid work.
 
 
Me too! One of the reasons that I started the thread regarding the lack of
seed funding for social entrepreneurs is the fact that I am one of those
that am having serious trouble getting anyone to support my activity. It
doesn't seem to matter what the substance of ones model is; how much
thinking has gone into it, what others think about it etc. If one has not
'proven the concept', funders are not interested.
 
This is because their stated missions (to change the world for the better)
are trumped by their concern for convention and risk management.
 
 
> that there is agreement on the entrepeneurs personal goals, and they might
> be held accountable to them, especially as they might affect the success
> of the enterprises that are funded.
 
This sort of purely qualitative process should be a part of the mix. I
suspect that some of the funders have processes that might approximate this
but I don't know for sure.
 
I strongly believe that qualitative means such as this will be necessary in
the social venture space since the whole notion of social return is not
quantifiable in the same way that financial return is. That said, I am not
sure how ready they would be for the sort of process that you are
suggesting.
 
> genetically modified foods or democracy or organic wines or orphanages or
> condoms or school uniforms or malaria bed nets or university degrees or
> Linux or DDT. What makes them "good" or not?
 
This is a reasonable point. At some level, we need to use intuition to
determine what is 'good'. The sort of intuition that guides our decision to
support a homeless shelter instead of a coal power plant.
 
> entrepreneurs or other leaders can live "sick" lives and thereby make for
> a "healthy" world. I believe we live in a "sick" world because we have
> "sick" leaders, many of whom are "do-gooders".
 
This is one way of thinking about it. My guess is that funders see the world
more from a utilitarian perspective – the 'greatest good for the greatest
number'… whatever ones definition of good is hey will expect to see its
impact on 'society' or the world.