Home / Union Square Ventures Sessions Events / Hacking Philanthropy / Hacking Philanthropy Agenda Details
Page options

Hacking Philanthropy Agenda Details


::: Section 1 ::: How lightweight web services change the structure of markets 

  • Characteristics of hyper efficient lightweight web services
    • Ubiquitous Connectivity
    • Cheap Storage / Bandwidth
    • Leverage User Generated Content
    • User / Social Governance Systems
    • Underlying Marketplace for Attention
    • Fulfills selfish motivation for single use; yet selfish use of the system has altruistic side effects that drive growth of data and metadata.
  • How web services can change the structure of markets
    • Radical efficiencies enable radical business models
      • Craigslist, Wikipedia, Google
    • Low cost computing and ubiquitous connectivity enable new forms of media
      • Del.icio.us, Twitter, Digg

Questions for this section:

Are there other ways that lightweight web services change the structure of markets. By offering access to a data set as Google does with Google Maps or Twitter does with their API, it becomes possible for innovation to happen outside the enterprise, unleashing a lot of creativity. Is it possible for philanthropies to enable stakeholders outside the enterprise to create new services? What does a Philanthropy's API look like?

How does USV evaluate business opportunities in the web 2.0 space? Are there any characteristics that you look for on the for profit side that might be an indicator of effectiveness on the not for profit side

Is there a reverse engineering path hidden in the outline? Meaning that means cultivating social sector metadata and data to creates side effects which are produced for selfish reasons "for the system" but create altruistic drive in the individual users? Advocacy groups pushed EPA to create metadata available on toxic releases and pollution. Various environmental groups aggregate data across government sources created mashup maps (www.scorecard.org) then the existence of metadata allows new perspective which inspires action by individuals, policy makers, donors, etc. Is it a chicken and egg (data vs. API)? Or are both the data and standards for exchange there but there is not enough interest in philanthropy and the sector to create the metadata layer analysis to make it available? Traditional philanthropy doesn't believe aggregate metaview will impact local choices.

Comments for this section:

As the information content of philanthropic services increases (Kiva and Donors Choose are really information businesses) the marginal cost of providing services to additional users declines, in some cases to zero. This by itself will be a disruptive force in the Philanthropy world.

Does "fulfills selfish motivation for single use" breakdown the fundamental idea behind "philanthropy"?


 

::: Section 2 ::: Is the promise of light weight web services to improve the efficiency of existing philanthropies and social movements, or to fundamentally disrupt the current market structure, or both?

  • Improving efficiency of existing organizations
    • Internal operational efficiencies with better access to information technology and expertise
      • Get Active, nPower, Mouse, One Northwest, Net Corps
    • Use web techniques to improve current business
      • Green Media Toolshed
  •  Improve efficiencies of current market structure
    • Common metrics
    • Sharing outcomes
  • Re-inventing the market structure
    • Cutting the distance between donor and recipient
      • Kiva, Donors Choose
    • Involving the audience in the mission
      • MoveOn polling audience
    •  Involving the audience in the work
      • Mediavolunteer
      • NewAssignment.net
      • Amazon Turk
      • www.congressin30seconds.com

Questions:

There must be many other examples of values driven enterprises that combine a social mission and a profit motive. Lets try to broaden the list. Miro, Piecorp.org, the portfolio of http://www.socialcapitalpartners.ca/portfolio_portfolio.asp There must be many other examples. Lets try to come up with a list Obviously the central focus is on companies that use technology in a highly leveraged way to do well by doing good but it is useful to have lots of examples that are not obviously high tech so that we can brainstorm how technology might be applied to accelerate positive social change

Here are some other example of social enterprise:

For some more documents that cite some of the active developments in the UK as well there are some resources here: http://tinyurl.com/2a5spo

Comments:

Insert your comments here

The way in which relationships/networks/systems form in the virtual world is a key aspect of web services contribution to social change - the opportunity for new systems to emerge and ultimately make their way into the phsyical world - wesabe's api and community driven development/emergence is an interesting example.  The implications for companies like quicken/quickbooks and ultimately financial institutions are going to be interesting to watch.  While the social impact may not be absolutely at the forefront, I think it drives a mindset shift about people's personal relationship and interaction with money.  Things get even more interesting for social implications when that approach is applied. 

Another example that is emerging is looking at the implications of the way relationships form and exist online for people with disabilities.  When it's understood that quality of life is determined primarily by quality of relationships that people with disabilities have, the potential impact begins to emerge. In Canada that is also following another wave related to people with disabilities and that is the Disability Savings Plan which has the potential to pool as much as $85 B in capital for their uses and in their control.  These trends coming together and the influence of what wesabe is emerging creates the possibilities of entirely new systems to emerge. 



::: Section 3 :::What is the minimum infrastructure needed to exploit the web?

  • Donor
    • High speed Internet
    • Modem & Personal Computer
  • Recepient
    • Cellphone?
    • Access to a cellphone?
    • Data connectivity
  • Does connectivity need to extend to a node or all the way to the edge?
    • Village
    • Recepient
  • Given the constraints - Where is the low hanging fruit?
    • Opportunities
      • Social movements in the developed world
        • Facebook cause badges
      • Philanthropy
        • Education
        • Microfinance
        • Development
        • Healthcare
    • Application architectures
      • Symmetrical - first world donors and recipients
      • Asymmetrical applications - first world donors/third world recipents
  • Where are the high leverage opportunities for infrastructure upgrades
    • Technology infrastructure
      • Cell networks
      • One laptop per child
      • Wireless banking
    • Social/Economic infrastructure
      • Literacy
      • Cellphone women/microfinance lenders

Questions:


Insert your questions here


Comments:


To operate as a network (online or on-land) there are five key elements the network must cultivate: Social Ties: Common Story: Communications Grid: Shared Resources: Clarity of Purpose: The minimum infrastructure would be a mix of things that support those elements. It also seems like feedback data and network leadership are essential but not necessarily "infrastructure".


Insert your comments here
 


::: Section 4 :::How will the web have impacted philanthropy/social movement in ten years

  • Option A - Improved efficiency but few fundamental changes
    • Infrastructure limitations
      • Slow build outs
      • Bandwidth limitations on current infrastructure
    • Social motivations
      • Donor's need to be visible (naming opportunities)
    • Misaligned incentives
      • Dominant players in current structure slow to embrace
  • Option B - Fundamentally different landscape
    • Products and services become defined by the surrounding value
      • Not what the shoes look like but where they were made, by who, under what conditions
    • Services to be competitive must harness the passion and energy of their users
      • To recruit users, business must integrate social mission into business operations
        • Google Grants become as important as Google.org
    • Google/Google.org converge with Wikipedia.org/Wikia
  • Both of the above
  • None of the above

Questions:


Insert your questions here


Comments:
I think the big change for philanthropy over the next ten years viz the web will be aggregation. Ideas, donor resources, performance/results, what works/what doesn't, and communities of interest/affinity-- all catalyzed and put in motion by the web-- will lead to more intelligent aggregation of all of the above. That, in turn, will hopefully lead to more of a meritocracy of performance and impact. Large institutional philanthropy (old and new) will be able to leverage individual giving and vice versa with great ideas, results, etc. and at the same time be more accountable to performing -- or becoming irrelevant (dinasours). Currently we are awash in fragmentation, duplication, re-invention, arrogance of financial success coupled with a lack of knowing what thoughtfull and effective philanthropy looks like (a double whammy), etc. In short, the current giving paradigm is still too ego centric (feel good/guilt) and woefully under performing. The web (2.0/3.0) may be one of the trojan horses that moves us to where we need to be with giving and doing.  

 

Progress on such a wide variety of issues and agendas is by definition messy, decentralized, independent and creative, and these characteristics are the source of its power. There are more than 1.4 million nonprofits in the US alone. What is needed is a structure designed to better harness that unique distributed power.  We have simply lacked the capacity to do that in the past. Philanthropy needs ways to harmonize the network effects of those groups and the tens of millions of supporters that fuel them. The more the sector learns about network theory, network operations while at the same time the power of those network to collaborate continues to accelerate,  we will hit a point that transforms the core strategies for organizing to make impact from a individual centered or organizational centered model to a network-centric perspective driving investments, campaign styles and organizing. In many ways industry has under gone this revolution in manufacturing, supply chains, technology, finance and logistics. Within a decade, social movements and philanthropy will catch up followed within 50 years by government.

Insert your comments here

Aggregation strategies seem key, and key to them would seem to be exploring the ABI (as opposed to API to strain our Web 2.0 analogies) of social to fiscal capital.  My guess is that once this happens, the concept of "selfish" versus "philanthropic" will be replaced by something less... binary, and we'll have a lot better understanding of how to optimize the way the two motivations work together.

    No Attachments Found. Click here to upload new file.




     RSS of this page

    Author: Union Square Ventures   Version: 1.7   Last Edited By: Union Square Ventures   Modified: 02 Dec 2008