Nonprofits and Collaboration

Nonprofits and Collaboration January 25, 2007 Ed Granger-Happ, CIO & NetHope Chairman Alan Levine, CIO, The Kennedy Center Thesis Collaboration increases nonprofit impact in nonlinear ways. 2 A Definition col·lab·o·rate intr.verb 1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort. [Late Latin collabōrāre, collabōrāt- : Latin com-, com- + Latin labōrāre, to work (from labor, toil).] col·lab'o·ra'tion noun 1. act of working jointly; "they worked either in collaboration or independently" www.dictionary.com 3 A Working Definition “Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and welldefined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals.” “ The relationship includes – – – – a commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards” Mattessich, et al., Collaboration: What Makes It Work, 2nd ed., Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 2001, pg. 1 4 Stages of Collaboration 1. Envision Results By Working Individual-to-Individual • Member consortium – “List-serve organization” • Common purpose, basic trust 2. Empower Ourselves By Working Individual-to-Organization • Membership organization – “Dues and roles organization” • Structure for joint projects, intermediate trust 3. Ensure Success By Working Organization-to-Organization • Corporate organization – “Partnering organization” • Representative management, project portfolio, collaboration platform, advanced trust 4. Endow Continuity By Working Collaboration-to-Community • Charitable organization – “Sharing the knowledge” • Organization give-back, social entrepreneurship, external trust Adapted from Michael Winer & Karen Ray, Collaboration Handbook, Amherst H. Wilder Foundation , 1994 5 A Collaboration Framework Stages of Collaboration Individual to Individual Individual to Organization Organization to Organization Collaboration to Community Goal Envision Communications* Organization Legal Structure Governance Town Hall Board Board Board Other Activities Funding* List-serve, Conf. Calls Empower Web site Ensure Endow Annual report White papers Member MOU Consortium Membership Corporation Organization Corporate Corporation Organization Charitable Corporation Organization Ad hoc info Ad hoc sharing Committees; Member joint projects Dues Vendor Grants, Contracts services Knowledge Endowsharing ment fund *Cumulative factors Adapted from Michael Winer & Karen Ray, Collaboration Handbook, Amherst H. Wilder Foundation , 1994 Case Studies • ArtsWeb • The Tessitura Network • NetHope 7 ArtsWeb • A central IT organization and infrastructure shared by 11 independent organizations. • Provide each organization • Guiding Philosophy: – with resources beyond what each could obtain individually, – with the expertise and manpower to fully utilize those resources. – Back-end integration for effectiveness and efficiency – Preserve individual organizations culture, identity, and customer-facing relationships • Organizations were dependent on collaboration for their core, day-to-day operations. • Governance Model: • Budget Model: – Founding organization owned assets and staff, contractually responsible and liable to other members – Founding organization subtracted most costs it would have incurred anyway, split incremental costs among members according to size of member organization (# of users) • Stage 2 Collaboration: Individual-to-Org – Smaller organizations were better members and required more attention/resources 8 ArtsWeb • Challenges: – Perception • Does everyone get equal attention • Did the founding owner put its own needs over the members – reality just the opposite • Constantly “Selling the Idea” to new staff and management – Rate of Growth – Staff Turnover at member organizations • Additional Benefits – Communication required for collaboration around core operations led to intense sharing of ideas and new, unrelated collaborative endeavors. – Led to opportunity for major research projects that would otherwise have been impossible – Led to new opportunities for funding sources – Funders loved the collaboration and that their funds would benefit multiple organizations, eliminating individual requests 9 The Tessitura Network • Genesis: Allow broad access to specialized and full-featured CRM (ticketing and fundraising) software product developed by a not-for-profit arts organization not in the software business • Mission is to provide software development, enhancement, training and support at least possible cost • Over 150 members in 4 countries on 3 continents • Governance Model: • Budget Model: – No profit or growth incentives, no shareholder pressure – software developed by the organizations who use it for their own needs – A virtual company with minimal overhead – A not-for-profit corporation governed by a Board elected by the licensees of the software (“members”) – egalitarian, every organization has a single vote regardless of size – Annual budget is calculated and then costs are allocated according to annual revenue of each member, 5 size categories – Has spawned many smaller, Stage 3 Collaborations 10 • Stage 3 Collaboration: Org-Org The Tessitura Network • Challenges: – Growth – Diversity (size and sophistication of member organizations) – Providing software to members in multiple countries (taxes, credit card processing, privacy regulations) – Participation of Users – Maintaining a democratic enhancement process with a large user community – Budgeting for future generations of technology – Significant cost savings and better alignment vs. other commercial products – Highly-leveraged vendor relationships – Build a community around the product – Users freely share customizations and ideas • Additional Benefits – Users have a “stake” in the software, make tough choices on their own – not a traditional vendor-client relationship 11 NetHope • A consortium of 18 international nonprofit focused on ICT and collaboration – Representing $5.2B of relief, development and conservation programs in 120 countries – Taking technology to the last 100 kilometers to the challenged areas of the work in which we work • Compelling hypotheses: – We are all facing the same ICT issues – We can solve ICT problems in the field better, faster, cheaper if we do it together – We will greater opportunity to partner with technology corporations as a group than individually • Stage 3 collaboration: Org-to-Org 12 NetHope Benefits & Challenges • Benefits – Realize economies of scale – grants, purchasing – Share knowledge – an extended IT dept – Focus efforts on world’s most difficult and most needed areas – greater impact in terms of cost savings and productivity – Build local networking expertise – on-the ground experience – Lobby for in-country telecom licenses – Eliminate duplication of effort and resources – Present unified image to funding organizations • Challenges/Risks – – – – Member resources - Inability of members to pay there fair share Funding - Inability to raise project funding to support growth Funding II – designated versus undesignated funds Political - Adverse government situations 13 NetHope History March 2001 June 2001 Oct 2001 May 10, 2002 June 2002 May 2003 March 2004 Oct 2004 Sep 22, 2004 Dec 27, 2004 Jan 20, 2005 Mar 24, 2005 Stage 1 "Wiring the Global Village" paper presented to Cisco Dipak Basu 1st Cisco Fellow; July – he coins the name NetHope 1st summit, all-members meeting (7) – Cisco hosted in San Jose STC, WV, CARE, MC, CRS, Wl, CI NetHope Pilot launched, from planning to implementation 2nd summit – CARE hosted in Atlanta; new: Oxfam, Plan (9) 3rd summit – CRS hosted in Baltimore; new: CCF (10) 4th summit – Cisco hosted in San Jose -John Morgridge keynotes; new: AA, TNC, RI (13) 5th summit – Microsoft hosted in Redmond; new: IRC, HFHI (15) NetHope incorporated as public charity in Delaware NetHope engages in South Asian tsunami relief ED transition from Dipak to Molly Tschang NetHope signs long-term VSAT contract with Skylogic/Eutelsat; phase II project begins Stage 2 NetHope History April 14, 2005 501(c)(3) tax exemption application filed April 26-7, 2005 6th summit – SC hosted in Westport, CT; Charlie’s paper on “The Impact of Technology on the Nonprofit Sector” August 2005 October 2005 Nov 16, 2005 Feb 2, 2006 May 10, 2006 May 16, 2006 June 2006 Sep-Oct-06 Dec 6, 2006 New members: Heifer, Wildlife Conservation Society, Save-UK (17) 7th summit – TNC hosted in Arlington Microsoft approves $41M grant for NetHope members NetHope receives 501(c)(3) nonprofit status from the IRS Board elects Bill Brindley first NetHope CEO & ED 8th summit – IRC hosted in NYC NetHope installs 80th VSAT with Skylogic/Eutelsat as part of Phase II project New members: Opportunity Intl, Concern (18) NetHope Asset transfer from SC completed Stage 3 Oct 31-Nov 2-06 9th summit – WCS hosted in NYC Questions I Ask of NetHope 1. Are we achieving financial self-sustainability? – – – – – – – – – – Fundraising Alternative business models Balance Grants/cash, GIK, & member fees Robust project list Brokered agreements Grants Knowledge sharing Research papers Collaboration sharing Local/regional NGOs, chapters 16 2. Are we adding member value? 3. Are we giving back to the community? What works and what doesn’t • Works: – – – – – – Willingness to check your dept/organization ego at the door Pride and spirit Connecting next levels down in your organizations An on-line collaboration space Regular meetings, conference calls Hunger (understand the burning need) • Doesn’t work – Joint/sponsored vendor contracts – Town Hall governance for larger groups – Special Arrangements/Deals for individual constituents 17 Summary: Benefits of Collaboration • Realize economies of scale; Highly-leveraged vendor relationships • Knowledge Sharing • Consolidated data and resources opens up research opportunities – see the forest for the trees • New funding sources; Present unified image to funders • Constituents have a “stake” – make tough choices on their own – not a traditional vendor-client relationship – Extend expertise – Intense sharing of ideas can lead to new, unrelated collaborative endeavors. • Achieve greater impact by focusing efforts and reducing duplicative efforts • Advocacy/Lobbying: Speaking with a louder voice 18 Key Result The whole is greater than the sum of the parts 19 Questions and Comments?