Equitable Pathways to Success: Transforming Digital Education and Opportunity Matching

Digital tools are increasingly vital in addressing complex challenges such as youth skill and opportunity gaps and high unemployment in many parts of the Global South. Catalyzed by adaptations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the online interface is now increasingly relevant in education from remote learning and online certifications to job matching. 

These technologies democratize access to educational content, benefiting millions gaining internet access each year in emerging economies. As always, along with the promise they hold, there are a plethora of pitfalls. 

CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION AND OPPORTUNITY MATCHING

Numerous platforms have emerged that aim to address youth training needs, such as digital skills in IT, web development etc. They also provide key staffing for businesses and organisations struggling to identify talent in tight labour markets and to fulfill their CSR goals.

Yoma, an ecosystem of partners including but not limited to UNICEF, Atingi, UMUZI, and RLabs is one such example, connecting youth to opportunities for learning and earning in over 8 countries. The government of South Africa has also developed the SAYouth platform to address these issues and tackle the country’s unemployment crisis. Likewise, in Germany, the ReDI School of Digital Integration upskills youth with a migrant or marginalized background to accelerate integration into the digital economy.

Despite the benefits from these types of programs being globally or nationally accessible, they often struggle to localize to the needs of culturally and socially-diverse users, especially those belonging to marginalized populations.  

Delivering effective and equitable matching with opportunities thus becomes a challenge, as candidates from different countries, with different backgrounds and levels of education are exposed to and compete for the same training or earning opportunities.  

Additionally, not all opportunities can be available to every young person, and in many cases spots for learning or earning opportunities are limited. Selection processes, often ‘funnel’-based, lead to many youth being excluded due to mismatches with predefined criteria or aptitude tests specific to the job or training opportunity.

These selection structures pose two major challenges.

CHALLENGE #1 Due to the nature of the funnel, a large population of youth fail to receive benefits as they are filtered out. In doing so, this also reduces the candidate pool for employers. Each failure to match a candidate to training or opportunities can be seen as a lost chance to deliver impact - we run the risk of excluding the most vulnerable, the population we seek to reach.

CHALLENGE #2: Bias in the filtering process further compounds inequities, as candidates may be funneled out by the selection criteria for factors such as educational attainment, language skills, time availability and internet access. Even though this is a data driven approach to identifying the best candidate, there are underlying risks of bias in the selection process. For example: 

• Educational attainment achieved as a proxy for gender: in many contexts, women are less likely to reach the highest levels of schooling. 

• Time availability as a proxy for gender: women with children will have to spend their time on childcare. As such, women might be less likely to be able to commit to the requisite amount of time for training programs. 

• Language as a proxy for ability: if the selection process for training programs includes language assessments, this can filter out candidates who have a strong ability — for example in STEM subjects — but who do not get through the application process because they misinterpret test questions. 

• Internet access as a proxy for economic status: if a candidate only has limited access to the internet, they may be rejected from a training program, but this might well be as a result of their socio-economic background.

Whilst it is logical that training and career development programs look to identify candidates with a suitable CV for their programmes, it is also important to account for such biases during the selection process. 

Indeed, these challenges are not new, as the development sector has long struggled to find a balance within ICT between innovation and equity/inclusivity. So, how can we best leverage the potential of these innovations in education, without leaving the most vulnerable behind?

Revised Applicant Selection Process. Sankey Diagram

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Transitioning from Funnels to Matching

   • A strategic shift: Moving away from funnel-based selection to matching candidates with suitable opportunities can reduce dropout rates and bias in the narrow selection process.

   • Opportunity for all candidates: Rather than narrow criteria focused on a specific role or type of training, programs could evaluate candidates based on diverse skills and match them to relevant opportunities (ie. mentorship and entrepreneurship training or further skills development activities)

   • The result? A larger percentage of candidates access an opportunity and are matched to those where they can succeed. This approach is structurally designed to broaden access to opportunities for a wider range of candidates with diverse backgrounds and talents.

2. Proactively address bias with a data driven approach

   • Identify and Mitigate the Impact of Bias: A matching approach opens up more paths, considering a richer view of candidates and their context. As such, it reduces the impact of bias in underlying data and data-driven algorithms. 

   • Using Data to Understand Bias: Instead of “weeding out” candidates, aptitude tests could help counteract bias by collecting candidate age, gender, education, location, internet access, education, refugee status etc. The resulting dataset provides an opportunity to better understand the variables and structural biases that determine whether an applicant possesses the relevant skills to pass the test.

   • Exploring algorithms: Using a systems approach and data analysis, programs can develop more complex and useful algorithms that prioritize equity of opportunity for youth.

Ultimately, for programs to be transformative and truly unlock new opportunities for young people, the methodologies they use must place equity at the center. 

HOW WE CAN HELP

Although more complex, the recommended approach offers a suitable opportunity pathway tailored to the needs of each candidate. At Outsight, we build on the range of expertise offered by our network of associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand.

If your organization faces similar challenges, our strategy and facilitation services can help develop equitable data-driven approaches. We excel in systems design, empowering clients to understand and optimize complex systems for improved outcomes. Additionally, our expertise in data management, analysis, and visualization enables better decision-making and supports data-driven innovation in our clients’ products, services and business models.

We believe it is developing the kinds of complex approaches described above – leveraging our associates’ multisectoral and decades-long expertise in systems design, data and education among many others — that maximizes sustainability, effectiveness and impact.

about the authors

Denise Soesilo

Denise is an expert in social innovation particularly in humanitarian and development settings.

Maria Zaharatos

Maria is a consultant specializing in research, program design, partnership development, and organizational systems, who champions co-creation and engagement with stakeholders. Her areas of focus are green education, youth empowerment, and workforce development. She has supported various education-focused programs and organizations, including UNICEF, where she helped develop key partnerships and implementation strategy for Yoma’s scaling across the East and South African region.

If you’d like to discuss working with the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.

Navigating the challenges of humanitarian-academic collaborations

Image credit: International Committee of the Red Cross/Jacob Zocherman.

In the quest for innovation and progress, partnerships between humanitarian and development organisations (HDOs) and academia have become increasingly common. However, a recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) sheds light on the practical challenges faced by such collaborations. Authored by Louis Potter — Managing Partner at Outsight — and a group of seasoned innovation practitioners, the article critically analyses the dynamics of partnerships between HDOs and academia, emphasising the need for a more strategic and efficient approach.

Link to the Article: Read the Full Article

Understanding the Landscape

The article delves into the motivations behind collaborations between HDOs and academic institutions. Highlighting the involvement of prominent organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Doctors Without Borders (MSF), the authors acknowledge the noble intentions of these partnerships—to leverage academic research and scientific expertise to address real-world problems in challenging environments.

Identifying Pain Points

Through a critical analysis informed by workshops and interviews, the authors identify three main categories of pain points along the technology development timeline: resources, deployment strategies, and roles and responsibilities. Each category poses unique challenges that, if not addressed proactively, can hinder the success of collaborative efforts.

1. Funding and Human Resources:

   • The article emphasizes the importance of securing adequate funding throughout the project duration.

   • Challenges arise from differing expectations between HDOs and academia regarding funding sources and project scopes.

   • A lack of commitment of human resources from both sides hampers the initial stages of project development.

2. Deployment and Sustainability:

   • The success of a technology is measured by its deployment on a wide scale, yet this remains a rare outcome.

   • The article highlights the lack of profit motivation, leading to neglect in maintenance, improvement, and training for deployed technologies.

   • Questions of self-sustainability and market outreach are critical considerations often overlooked in early project stages.

3. Roles, Responsibilities, and Expectations:

   • Clear definition of roles and responsibilities is identified as crucial for successful partnerships.

   • The authors argue that the classic academic approach to technology development may not perfectly align with the requirements of HDOs.

   • Expectations play a significant role in determining the success of partnerships, emphasizing the need for transparent communication.

Moving Forward

The authors advocate for a more strategic and informed approach to collaborations between humanitarian and academic sectors. They stress the importance of comprehensive planning, clear communication, and a critical partner selection process. The article concludes by calling for a literacy in technology innovation and development processes within HDOs to ensure a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by collaborative initiatives.

Conclusion

As we navigate the complex terrain of humanitarian-academic collaborations, the insights provided by this PNAS article serve as a valuable guide. Acknowledging the inherent challenges and proposing solutions, the authors encourage stakeholders to approach partnerships with a strategic mindset, fostering a more efficient and impactful collaboration that addresses real-world challenges in a holistic manner.

Prevention of adolescent mental health conditions: is technology a possible source for good?

In 2021, in a bid to explore the transformative potential of technology in adolescent mental health, the Data for Children Collaborative with UNICEF embarked on a groundbreaking project with Outsight International, in collaboration with UCIPT and ElevateU. The first phase of this initiative, divided into seven investigative areas, laid the groundwork for understanding existing systems and landscapes crucial for developing effective programs. These areas were:

1. Systems View of Digital Health Ecosystems (Outsight International)
   This work package delved into the complex digital health ecosystem, creating system models that serve as tools to identify relationships and patterns. By adopting a holistic approach, the team aimed to avoid narrow solutions and recognize the diverse elements of a digital health solution.

2. Overview of Available Data Types (UCIPT)
   The project explored a myriad of public and private data resources, from social and health data to consumer and satellite data. This early exploration provided insights into the possibilities for moving towards an implementable project.

3. Review of Digital MHPSS Tools Literature (ElevateU)
   Recognizing the growing importance of adolescent mental health, a literature review was conducted to understand the impact of technological interventions. The review, encompassing 38 articles and 14 from grey literature, highlighted the overwhelmingly positive impact (98%) of technology on adolescent mental health.

4. Technology Landscaping of MHPSS Digital Tools (Outsight International)
   An effort to understand relevant digital health solutions was initiated to act as a reference point for ongoing evaluation and context-specific needs.

5. Data Landscaping and Key Informant Interviews (Outsight International)
   Interviews with mental health researchers, funders, and service providers revealed a broad consensus that technology's impact on adolescent mental health is nuanced and context-dependent.

6. Workshop Sessions (Outsight International)
   Two workshops focused on compounding factors influencing mental health outcomes, leading to the identification of three key research questions. These questions aimed to understand platform usage, adolescent interactions with online technologies, and the potential for existing platforms to adapt for better services.

7. Phase 2 Conception
   Integrating UNICEF's Measurement of Mental Health Among Adolescents at the Population Level (MMAP) approach with digital mental health interventions was proposed for Phase 2. This approach offers an opportunity for a multi-cohort longitudinal study in Jamaica, testing the effectiveness of digital tools and improving data collection methods.

In conclusion, the collaborative and human-centered approach of the project, grounded in a systems perspective, has paved the way for a comprehensive Phase 2. This ambitious next step aims to improve access to services, enhance data collection systems, and provide valuable insights for UNICEF's programming not only in Jamaica but also as a comparative study across other focus countries. As the project advances, collaboration between the Data for Children Collaborative and UNICEF will define the scope, identify partners, and secure funding, marking a significant stride towards better adolescent mental health worldwide.

How to deal with Intellectual Property Rights in humanitarian innovation

Outsight International recently supported the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in developing an intellectual property (IP) framework to help staff navigate the complex — and sometimes scary — world of IP. In this post we discuss the common concerns that those unfamiliar with the topic face when understanding their options and choosing an IP strategy.

Why is intellectual property an issue in humanitarian innovation?

Humanitarian innovation refers to the creation, adaptation, and application of new solutions to address challenges faced by individuals and communities affected by crises. These crises can include natural disasters, conflicts, epidemics, and other emergencies.

Over the last decade, humanitarian innovation has led to many new products and services being designed and implemented. These might be hardware, software creations or processes. Unlike the private sector where the end goal is to create profit from these products/services, the the primary goal of humanitarian innovation is to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of humanitarian efforts in providing assistance, protection, and support to those in need.

Although different in their goal, humanitarian innovators usually have to work with IP tools created for the private sector, which can lead to fear and a lack of clarity as to what’s the best approach to reach their goal.

This is for a number of reasons: firstly, IP is seen as an incomprehensible legal topic; second, the perceived risk of getting anything ‘wrong’ in the legal space is greatly feared; and thirdly, many practitioners in the humanitarian/development space see intellectual property rights as a negative thing, usually employed by the private sector to protect profits over people. We now breakdown these fears and try to allay them.

FEAR #1: IP is too complicated to grasp

To say that IP is not complicated would be unfair — there are indeed a lot of component parts to think about: types of IP protection, extent of IP rights, enforcement in multiple jurisdictions, contract wording, registration processes, etc. Among unacquainted innovators, the questions we often hear are:

• ‘How do we file a patent?’

• ‘Should the organisation own patents at all or should we aim to share the innovation as widely as possible for public good?’

• ‘How can we prevent others from appropriating or misusing an innovation?’

• ‘Is it worth it to spend resources enforcing patent protection in a fragile context?’

• ‘Are open source licences always the best alternative for our software?’

• ‘What is a licence?

• ‘Would all of this be the same if the innovation has been developed in partnerships with the private sector?’

• ‘What if the partner is a university?’

Despite all this confusion, IP can be simplified by thinking about options in straightforward language. At a base level, intellectual property can refer to anything created by the mind. This asset could be incorporated in a tangible creation (such as a newly invented device or a piece of art), but not necessarily (it could also be a process, a design, a trademark, or software). Intellectual Property rights comprise a range of rights over a creation, including economic and moral (being recognised as author).

In simple terms IP rights determine who is entitled to use that creation and under what circumstances. To protect these rights, a wide range of mechanisms are available, which can be roughly grouped into three categories: legal, contractual and informal.

1. First, legal mechanisms (often referred to as formal IP protection) offer the most sophisticated safeguard, but require technical knowledge and are harder to enforce, especially in fragile jurisdictions. Among these legal mechanisms, some require a complicated registration process (e.g., patents or utility models), while others are automatic (e.g., copyright) or easy to use (e.g., copyleft or FOSS licences).

2. Second, contractual mechanisms are agreed rules embedded in partnerships, employment or consulting contracts. Some examples include confidentiality or recruitment freeze clauses.

3. Last, informal mechanisms comprise all other protection mechanisms not emerging from laws or contracts, such as secrecy, protective publication, documentation, division of duties, and many others.

Fear #2: Getting IP ‘wrong’ is high risk

One of the main reasons humanitarians are so fearful of IP is because they believe there is a right and wrong way to deal with it. This is not the case. IP clauses written in contracts are — at their base level — just a fancy-worded version of a decision of ‘who has the right to use a creation and how?’.

In some instances, this decision will be influenced by existing IP rights — for example, when adapting something existing you will be bound by the IP rights of that existing thing, or an employee contract might dictate who owns creations invented during work activities. In instances of ‘true’ invention, there is a decision to be made based on a spectrum from closed to open, which also involves an assessment of risks and trade-off.

To determine what IP approach makes the most sense, innovators should consider not only what goals they are aiming for and what resources they have, but also what risks are involved. A systematic risk assessment must be conducted considering risk for the users of the innovation, risks for the organisation and its members, risk for third parties and risks for the innovation and its sustainability.

For example, disclosed IP may be used by third parties for unintended purposes, negatively affecting vulnerable groups. Organisations should consider the diverse profile of people in terms of gender, age, location, legal status or any other personal circumstances that might put them at harm due to IP disclosure to other parties.

FEAR #3: IP protection serves profit maximisation, not humanitarian goals

Historically, intellectual property rights were developed to protect economic and moral rights of creators, with an understanding that this would also facilitate innovation and fair knowledge sharing. Patents, the most IP protection tools, were designed to control who can access innovations, which is very well suited for the patent owner to exploit the innovation and make profits out of it. However, ethical concerns may arise if access to an essential innovation is limited by economic or legal barriers. In recent years, COVID-19 vaccines reignited this debate, with many government and international organisations advocating for a waiver on patent protection to facilitate vaccine accessibility.

Within this context, it is understandable that IP raises suspicions among many humanitarian staff as a tool tailored for profit maximisation, not humanitarian goals. However, since IP rights can be highly customised, humanitarian actors can use them for their own goals as well.

Overall, humanitarian organisations aim to maximise positive impact for people affected by armed conflict and violence. The most logical assumption is that people would usually be better off benefiting from an innovation, and therefore, in principle humanitarian organisations are likely to lean towards more open access IP approaches than the private sector. Open IP approaches allow collaboration, reuse and a more efficient resource allocation in the sector as a whole.

However, even open approaches involve some kind of IP strategy and management to meet the goals of the humanitarian sector. For example, software creators may want to share their code for reuse in the sector, but they still need to make a thoughtful decision among multiple free or open licences, each with its own characteristics, as well as understand the risks, resources and trade-off associated with it.

There are IP options available to innovators which require little ongoing management. Protective/defensive publication is one such tool. This involves publicly disclosing detailed information about an invention to prevent others from patenting the same idea. While the disclosure may not result in obtaining a patent, it acts as a defensive measure to ensure that others cannot claim exclusive rights to the invention.

Developing an IP framework

To address these concerns and develop a common IP understanding within an organisation, it is recommended that organisations working in the humanitarian innovation space develop a comprehensive IP framework, tailored to the organisational context.

In close contact with internal stakeholders and informed by sectoral best practices, the IP framework serves as a clear guidance for decision making, informed by humanitarian principles, risks, and resources available.

Outsight International can help organisations to this end: having already worked on hundreds of innovation projects aiming to serve the public good and helping organisations create these frameworks. If you’d like to learn more or you think we can help, please get in touch.

About the authors

Louis Potter
Louis has a wide range of experience covering development, health, innovation, technology and research. He has worked on over 100 humanitarian initiatives and helps humanitarian organisations, universities and companies to improve innovation processes and outcomes. Recently, he has been helping actors navigate paths to scale in the humanitarian sector and strategise business models.

Pablo Busto Caviedes
Pablo is a researcher with a legal background, who specialises in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), policy research, qualitative and quantitative data analysis. His experience includes a diverse range of social and economic development topics such as rural development, agriculture, or social inclusion.

We just started a new energy team: here's why it’s important

Extract, Exploit, Consume, Continue.

We all (mostly) universally accept that our relationship with how we all extract, use, and devour energy is fundamentally flawed and significantly problematic for the future of humanity. No longer are we in a time of hyperbolic language that starts with if, maybes and buts – we have already altered our planetary ecosystem beyond repair. As a result, themes of energy access, sustainability and transition dominate international, national, regional and local humanitarian (and wider international development) programmatic dialogues. Yet, there are significant flaws in the systems we all use to create modern, reliable and sustainable energy systems and services for forcibly displaced groups around the globe.

The specific niche the Outsight Energy Team has chosen to focus on is the integration of the lived experience of marginalized groups into actual humanitarian programmatic objectives, through the creation of socio-technical energy ecosystems. By directly connecting the conceptual and practical, the strategic and programmatic, the technical, social and everyday drivers of energy ecosystems, the Energy Team at Outsight International blends humanitarian and development approaches to provide bespoke energy ecosystem support to organizations and individuals around the globe.

Ultimately, we feel that co-design, participatory research, human centered-design, co-creation, co-design (and the multitude of other names for it) is fundamentally the right pathway to enable marginalized groups to be the protagonists of their own energy futures. Right now, focus groups and surveys seem to be infiltrating into bigger humanitarian energy systems and services but how can we all ensure that this process does not reinforce post-colonial and neo-liberal power structures that are fundamentally extractive? How can we make this process transformative for all involved?

It’s a question that does not currently have an answer - but we are working on it (and helping others work on it too).

So whilst we work on persuading institutions, founded long before we all came into this world, that the fundamental methods that they use need to change, we wanted to start building a community of clients, collaborators and team members from all over the world. Let’s bring together local, regional and global leaders to transform the sector we all inhabit. Let’s challenge ourselves and the way we work. Let’s amplify the voices of people we are trying to support. Let’s break down these power structures and be transformative rather than extractive.

Before this becomes a monologue rather than a quick read and I share our secrets with you about how we are going to create easy to use practitioner toolboxes, develop case studies and systematic evidence that can show you how we add value etc. - I will leave you with this.

Maybe thinking like this makes us at Outsight the disruptors of our sector, the ones who at the end of every meeting says, “yes, but…”. We are pushing for a sector where the voices of the forcibly displaced are embedded in every part of the discussion, and these dictate the strategic priorities to funders; not the other way round. The forcibly displaced need to be given the power to shape their own lives.

If you would like to be a part of this (just like Energypedia and others are) then reach out, send an email, post a letter, or give us a call.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND OUTSIGHT INTERNATIONAL

Dr Ben Robinson — Outsight Energy Team lead:
Ben is an energy expert engaged with critical elements of the energy transition across Asia and Africa in the Humanitarian and wider International Development sectors. He champions innovative and disruptive socio-technological ecosystems to enable the forcibly displaced, and other marginalised communities, to be the protagonists of their own energy futures. See his most recent publications here.

Outsight International
Outsight International provides services to the humanitarian and development sector in an efficient and agile way. Outsight International builds on the range of expertise offered by a network of Associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand. If you’d like to discuss working with the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.

The Hollywood Model: Dynamically built teams for creativity at scale

Outsight works with its network of Associates using the Hollywood model — a way to build dynamic teams, quickly, that are best-suited to a particular project. This can be particularly useful in the humanitarian and development sectors, where the tendency is to hire based on narrow technical competencies. But how does it work? And why is it called the Hollywood model? Dan McClure, an Outsight Associate explains more…

How many organisations can produce the equivalent of a hit movie? While it’s easy to roll your eyes at some of Hollywood’s efforts, the reality is that this industry is capable of repeatedly undertaking new and original initiatives: leveraging a myriad of different skills in the service of a complex and rapidly shifting market. Their survival and success depends on the ability to repeatedly do creativity at scale.

Until recently, few other industries had to meet similar creative demands. Most organisations — whether they were commercial businesses, government agencies, or non-profits — could focus on mastering the things they already did. A leader’s goal was to make sure things were well run and competent. Any incremental improvements reinforced established capabilities.

Committing to a steady course like this requires a stable world. Unfortunately, disruptive change is sweeping through one industry after another. Even before the advent of the global pandemic, it was clear we had entered into a turbulent era where new ideas, bold action, and systemic change would be necessary to claim a relevant place on the world stage. The winds driving this change are powerful: new technologies of a fourth industrial revolution, trans-border problems like climate change, and massive societal shifts in education, economic capacity, and urbanisation.

This is a world where being good at bold imaginative change has become a necessary core competency. For that reason, it is well worth taking a closer look at what Hollywood did to prepare for a business based on creativity at scale.

The Hollywood Studio System

Organisations are built to address the type of challenge they face. When mid-twentieth century Hollywood had to produce primarily for middle America’s host of movie theaters, the studio system arose. Large integrated movie studio operations bought together, under contract, the many types of talent needed to imagine and create a movie. Actors, directors and a host of other professionals in the employ of the studio execs — establishing a model that could efficiently produce a steady stream of films for a single major distribution channel: local movie houses.

This is not so different from the approach most large commercial and public sector institutions take to professional staffing today. As projects come and go, the organisation’s portfolio of skilled individuals are moved within the organisation, perhaps augmented by consulting resources that expand or fine tune the skill set.

Assuming a stable world, organisations can align the skills they have on staff with their mix of needs.

The studios’ comfortable level of control was challenged in final decades of the century, when the movie industry faced an increasingly challenging creative environment. New competitors threatened their entertainment monopoly and audiences demanded a more sophisticated and varied fare. Movies yielded ground to TV, which gave way to cable, and has now fragmented into a host of streaming services and other specialised media platforms. The quantity and sophistication of content has rushed ahead too, with last decade seeing the number of scripted shows growing by over 150% ushering in an age of peak TV.

The industry had to produce more demanding creative work at an ever accelerating pace. The unique demands of ambitious projects made it increasingly difficult to effectively bring the talent needed for the varied efforts under one roof. While a big budget action film might be best served by one set of skills, these could quite different from those needed to successfully realise an intimate drama or scripted TV series on a streaming service.

As creative projects grew in ambition and became increasingly unique, the studio lost its role as the centralised home of talent. Thus, more projects were assembled from a pool of individuals and organisations that had specific skills and resources.

Dynamic Collaborations: Building the Right Team

This shift from highly centralised team to custom-created networks of collaborators makes sense when program efforts must be both ambitious and original. Big ambitious challenges need a wide range of different skills, so there is creative power in a model where the right talent can be bought together for each unique project.

An organisation with its own ‘studio’-style teams inevitably find it difficult to overlay their fixed set of organisation skills on such shifting needs. Mismatches and gaps quickly emerge. In some cases, additional capacity will be needed, while in others, exceptional skills will go to waste. Gaps emerge in areas of expertise either because existing staff are insufficiently skilled or because the role is entirely new.

In this turbulent creative environment, the value of a stable, highly optimised, organisational skillsets is eroded. The new Hollywood Model recognised this, assembling a tailored team for a specific initiative and then allowing the various professionals to move to another project.

It should be noted that this ability to build dynamic teams is not about fighting for the top 1% of super skilled individuals. That’s a game that large well funded organisations will almost always win. Instead, highly effective teams are created by tailoring the right type of talent to the task. Someone who might be of marginal value on one project, could be a premier contributor on a different type of initiative. Leaders don’t need to fight for the widely recognized superstars, but rather can focus on finding the uniquely right contributor.

The ability to align complex projects with diverse talent also provides creative returns to the project contributors. Practitioners with a unique set of skills can cobble together a series of similar projects where their talents are fully appreciated. It also becomes possible for those with a more vagabondish soul to diversify their work, avoiding pigeonholes by embracing a number of different efforts.

Fostering Dynamic Creative Ecosystems

As the demands for creativity at scale grow in the world, other sectors can and should look for opportunities to adopt a Hollywood Model of dynamic collaboration building. Of course, this shift comes with new demands. One of the crucial advantages of traditional self-contained organisations is that the infrastructure for managing and integrating teams is clearly defined. When Hollywood abandoned the studio system, a number of new supporting services needed to emerge to fill these ecosystem building needs.

This is not trivial work. Dynamically constructing a collaboration requires the ability to identify and validate talent, negotiate acceptable terms of engagement, and integrate day-to-day activities. Simply trawling the world talent pool for potential matches between a project and a professional creates excessive overheads for all involved.

An ecosystem of both formal and informal support for collaboration building is needed to make the model viable. Across different sectors, nimble supporting services are rising to the challenge. A wide range of approaches are emerging, ranging from bare-bones freelance marketplaces to far more sophisticated program facilitators that take an active role in execution of collaborative work.

Other aspects of the collaborative ecosystem evolve more organically. For example, a study of video game development, where the product is created by many different collaborators, found that within the shifting networks of contributors were informal clusters of professionals and teams that regularly worked together.

Time to Embrace of the Hollywood Model

As organisations find that their challenges are increasingly defined by disruptive change, rather than stable performance, the need to create at scale becomes more urgent. Leaders may be tempted to see this as an issue of imagination, driving them to promote ideas and innovations from within an organisation’s walls. Encouraging creative thinking certainly isn’t a bad course of action, but it fails to recognise the systemic barriers a self-contained organisation faces when it seeks to actually realise an ambitious new vision.

Reaching outward, creating a more flexible organisational structure by dynamically building the teams that tackle initiatives, opens the door to effective action on big ideas. Ideas can be more original (tapping the right unique skills) and bigger (assembling larger creative teams). This is done while still making it possible for each new initiative to pursue possibilities that are different from the program before.

This is the kind of creative capacity our era of disruptive change demands. Whether an organisation is working in business, government, or non-profit action, it’s time to take inspiration from the Hollywood Model, and break down walls in the name of creative prowess.

ABOUT DAN AND OUTSIGHT INTERNATIONAL

Dan McClure has spent over three decades working on the challenge of disruptive systems innovation. He has advised global commercial firms, public sector agencies, and international non-profits in support of their ambitious efforts to imagine and execute agile systems level innovation.

Outsight International is an organisation specialised in providing services to the humanitarian and development sector in an efficient and agile way. Outsight International builds on the range of expertise offered by a network of Associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand. If you’d like to discuss working with Dan and the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.

Making development self-sustaining: Seven essential principles

The Kit Yamoyo diarrhoea treatment kit under local production in Zambia for the local Zambian market. The kit was designed, and the local market developed, using one-off donor funding.

What is self-sustaining development and why is it important? Simon Berry — Outsight Associate — explains…

The term ‘sustainable development’ appears often in international development discussions. But what does it mean? The phrase can be used interchangeably to mean one of two things which are, in fact, very different. In the environmental sense it means ‘living within our environmental limits’ — development that ‘meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The term, however, also describes development that carries on once the resources used to create it are removed. Here, I refer to the latter form of sustainable development as ‘self-sustaining development’, to distinguish it from what one might call ‘environmentally sustainable development’.

In 2010, my partner and I started discussions with stakeholders in Zambia around transforming access to oral rehydration salts (ORS), the globally recommended treatment for childhood diarrhoea. Having established that there was local interest, we set-up a UK-based charity, ColaLife, to take the idea further. We started with a trial of the idea and went on to a national scale-up. By 2016 a locally designed and tested diarrhoea treatment kit was available nationwide in supermarkets and in hundreds of small shops. Additionally, the government were showing interest in a government-branded version for distribution through its clinics.

Donor funding finished two years ago (March 2018) and ColaLife formally completed its role in September 2018. It is early days, but all indications are that the transformation we achieved while we were involved and donor funds were flowing will continue to be self-sustaining. In fact, things have developed further with the government adopting the diarrhoea treatment kit as the standard in the public sector. The change that was created with the help of donor funding and external support from ColaLife has survived following the withdrawal of both. It has proved to be self-sustaining.

How does one achieve development that is self-sustaining?

Here are some key principles I have developed over the years while working with others on development projects that I think are crucial if you are to achieve self-sustaining development.

1. Plan for self-sustainability from the outset - You don’t achieve self-sustaining development while being forced to come up with ‘an exit strategy’ two years before donor funding comes to an end.

2. Don’t do anything that makes you or your organisation a permanent part of the solution - This is crucial and is the foundation for the other principles. If you allow yourself to become a part of the solution, then, by definition, when you leave, part of the solution will leave too! It is alarming how many ‘development’ initiatives fall into this trap, always with at least two negative consequences: firstly, the change they created while operational is not sustained; secondly, while operational they are likely to have undermined and weakened the capacity of local organisations who have the long-term responsibility for creating and sustaining the desired change.

3. Do everything through local systems and structures - If you are not to become a permanent part of the solution, then you will have to work through local systems and structures. Where these lack capacity or direction, help build the capacity, help refine or improve the direction. Above all, avoid setting-up parallel systems or structures.

4. Build a ‘smart partnership’ to guide planning, testing and scale-up - It follows that you will need to work in partnership with local stakeholders. However, it is important how these partnerships are formed and operate. It is important that partnerships are formed around a shared vision not around an organisation or an individual. When this is done successfully, it promotes engagement, ensures shared ownership of the vision and helps ensure that the partnership will survive the departure of any single member. We call partnerships formed around a vision ‘smart partnerships’. From the outset, be open and inclusive: invite everyone in, as part of a process where a broad membership can self-select their level of engagement. Some may go on to become implementation partners, while others may continue as a broader consultative group.

5. Self-sustaining development should fit with government policy - If it doesn’t, seek to better align plans or work with government to influence or advocate for policy change. It is unlikely that any initiative that doesn’t fit with local policy will be self-sustaining.

6. Engage your intended beneficiaries from the very outset - This sounds obvious but it often overlooked. It is essential to operate on the basis of what you know people want, rather than on what you think they need.

7. Be invisible - The urge, on the part of donors and development agencies, to brand everything they fund or support is overwhelming. However, this must resisted as it completely changes how the intervention is perceived. For example:

This was the original artwork for the billboard for the promotion of the diarrhoea treatment kit - Kit Yamoyo – at the start of the scale-up in Zambia.

In a second phase of marketing a USAID project, run by JSI, agreed to fund additional billboards but insisted on having their logos on the billboards and these ended up looking like this.

This was a mistake. Inherent in ColaLife’s self-sustainability approach is that any donor assistance should not be permanent. This approach is not compatible with donor branding being on any customer-facing aspect of the intervention.

Integrating these principles into your project

Undoubtedly, many of these principles may require a more extensive level of planning and analysis than was originally thought necessary, yet there is no such thing as too much preparation. As explained by Dan McClure (another Outsight Associate) in his blog post on ‘Mastering the art of hard problems (and avoiding the rush to easy solutions)’ — mapping the complex systems and stakeholders involved with a problem or possible solution is essential in order to ensure that these principles can be integrated efficiently into development initiatives. Do not be scared to think big and think ahead early on in order to ensure you’re not putting out fires or having to re-orientate the project at significant extra cost further down the line.

Investing in the right things at an early stage — system design thinking, researching the existing structures, analysing the problem, and stakeholder engagement — will ensure a project stands a much better chance at becoming self-sustaining and, thus, create a greater positive impact for beneficiaries.

ABOUT Simon AND OUTSIGHT INTERNATIONAL

Over a 40-year career Simon has been a leader in the voluntary, private and public sectors. He has lived and worked in South America, the Caribbean, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the UK. He is an expert on self-sustaining development – development that out-lives the resources that were used to achieve it.

Outsight International provides services to the humanitarian and development sector in an efficient and agile way. Outsight International builds on the range of expertise offered by a network of Associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand. If you’d like to discuss working with Simon and the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.

Should NGOs be more empathetic in partnerships with the private sector?

Over the past few years, I have focused a lot on improving partnerships between the private and nonprofit sectors. This has involved work for Medecins Sans Froniteres (MSF) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) among others, assessing what’s worked and what hasn’t from previous collaborations between sectors.

For MSF, this culminated in the Innovation Partnership project report, offering an improved step by step towards scaling innovation and leveraging MSF’s respected brand favourably in the private sector. The report can be found here.

During this work, I also authored a blog piece after facilitating a workshop for the MSF Scientific Days in London entitled ‘Does MSF need a more intelligent/empathetic approach to partnerships?’. Please check in out and get in touch if you have any comments.

I am also currently working with the EPFL EssentialTech centre to improve collaborations between academia and the nonprofit sector, following a workshop that was held earlier this year. We hope to have an article on the key pitfalls to avoid in such collaborations published in the coming months.

If partnerships between the development/humanitarian world and other sectors if of interest to you, please get in touch!

About Louis and Outsight International

Louis is one of the Co-founders of Outsight. He has a wide range of experience covering development, health, innovation, technology and research. Having worked in in the field with Medecins Sans Frontières as well as with other NGOs, he is well acquainted with the practical realities of delivering impact in the field. In recent years, has been helping organisations to improve innovation processes and outcomes. In particular, this has included managing projects focused on improving healthcare provision in hard-to-reach contexts through new technologies. He is an experienced facilitator and has been closely involved in efforts to improve collaborations between the nonprofit, academic and commercial sectors in recent years. He is based in Lausanne, Switzerland, and received his MSc in Global Health from the Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

Outsight International is an organisation specialising in providing services to the humanitarian and development sector in an efficient and agile way. We build on the range of expertise offered by our network of Associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand. If you’d like to discuss working Nicola and the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.