Stefaan Verhulst
Essay by Adene Sacks & Heather McLeod Grant in SSIR: “In 2011, New York Times data scientist Jake Porway wrote a blog post lamenting the fact that most data scientists spend their days creating apps to help users find restaurants, TV shows, or parking spots, rather than addressing complicated social issues like helping identify which teens are at risk of suicide or creating a poverty index of Africa using satellite data.
That post hit a nerve. Data scientists around the world began clamoring for opportunities to “do good with data.” Porway—at the center of this storm—began to convene these scientists and connect them to nonprofits via hackathon-style events called DataDives, designed to solve big social and environmental problems. There was so much interest, he eventually quit his day job at the Times and created the organization DataKind to steward this growing global network of data science do-gooders.
At the same time, in the same city, another movement was taking shape—#GivingTuesday, an annual global giving event fueled by social media. In just five years, #GivingTuesday has reshaped how nonprofits think about fundraising and how donors give. And yet, many don’t know that 92nd Street Y (92Y)—a 140-year-old Jewish community and cultural center in Manhattan, better known for its star-studded speaker series, summer camps, and water aerobics classes—launched it.
What do these two examples have in common? One started as a loose global network that engaged data scientists in solving problems, and then became an organization to help support the larger movement. The other started with a legacy organization, based at a single site, and catalyzed a global movement that has reshaped how we think about philanthropy. In both cases, the founding groups have incorporated the best of both organizations and networks.
Much has been written about the virtues of thinking and acting collectively to solve seemingly intractable challenges. Nonprofit leaders are being implored to put mission above brand, build networks not just programs, and prioritize collaboration over individual interests. And yet, these strategies are often in direct contradiction to the conventional wisdom of organization-building: differentiating your brand, developing unique expertise, and growing a loyal donor base.
A similar tension is emerging among network and movement leaders. These leaders spend their days steering the messy process required to connect, align, and channel the collective efforts of diverse stakeholders. It’s not always easy: Those searching to sustain movements often cite the lost momentum of the Occupy movement as a cautionary note. Increasingly, network leaders are looking at how to adapt the process, structure, and operational expertise more traditionally associated with organizations to their needs—but without co-opting or diminishing the energy and momentum of their self-organizing networks…
Welcome to the World of “Both/And”
Today’s social change leaders—be they from business, government, or nonprofits—must learn to straddle the leadership mindsets and practices of both networks and organizations, and know when to use which approach. Leaders like Porway, and Henry Timms and Asha Curran of 92Y can help show us the way.
How do these leaders work with the “both/and” mindset?
First, they understand and leverage the strengths of both organizations and networks—and anticipate their limitations. As Timms describes it, leaders need to be “bilingual” and embrace what he has called “new power.” Networks can be powerful generators of new talent or innovation around complex multi-sector challenges. It’s useful to take a network approach when innovating new ideas, mobilizing and engaging others in the work, or wanting to expand reach and scale quickly. However, networks can dissipate easily without specific “handrails,” or some structure to guide and support their work. This is where they need some help from the organizational mindset and approach.
On the flip side, organizations are good at creating centralized structures to deliver products or services, manage risk, oversee quality control, and coordinate concrete functions like communications or fundraising. However, often that efficiency and effectiveness can calcify over time, becoming a barrier to new ideas and growth opportunities. When organizational boundaries are too rigid, it is difficult to engage the outside world in ideating or mobilizing on an issue. This is when organizations need an infusion of the “network mindset.”
…(More)
Paper by Anthony Crossman and Dov Fischer: “In the recessionary years following the 2008 financial crisis, prominent voices predicted an imminent crisis in state and municipal finances. The voices – including Bill Gates, Josh Ruah, Meredith Whitney, Paul Volcker, and Richard Ravitch – declared or implied that the road to fiscal responsibility lies in reining in the pensions and benefits of public servants. We argue that painting public employees as villains introduces divisiveness in what should be a universal goal of sound public finances. We suggest that the road to fiscal responsibility lies with budgetary transparency and widespread public knowledge of state and municipal finances. A potential key to achieving these objectives is participatory budgeting. We motivate a research question on the local government level: Does participatory budgeting increase transparency? Although it is too early to test this question on the local level, we use country-level data from the International Budgetary Partnership to explore ways to operationalize budgetary transparency in order to measure the association between participatory budgeting and budgetary transparency….(More)”
Edd Gent at E&T: “When the municipal authority in charge of Boston, Massachusetts, was looking for a smarter way to find which roads it needed to repair, it hit on the idea of crowdsourcing the data. The authority released a mobile app called Street Bump in 2011 that employed an elegantly simple idea: use a smartphone’s accelerometer to detect jolts as cars go over potholes and look up the location using the Global Positioning System. But the approach ran into a pothole of its own.The system reported a disproportionate number of potholes in wealthier neighbourhoods. It turned out it was oversampling the younger, more affluent citizens who were digitally clued up enough to download and use the app in the first place. The city reacted quickly, but the incident shows how easy it is to develop a system that can handle large quantities of data but which, through its own design, is still unlikely to have enough data to work as planned.
As we entrust more of our lives to big data analytics, automation problems like this could become increasingly common, with their errors difficult to spot after the fact. Systems that ‘feel like they work’ are where the trouble starts.
Harvard University professor Gary King, who is also founder of social media analytics company Crimson Hexagon, recalls a project that used social media to predict unemployment. The model was built by correlating US unemployment figures with the frequency that people used words like ‘jobs’, ‘unemployment’ and ‘classifieds’. A sudden spike convinced researchers they had predicted a big rise in joblessness, but it turned out Steve Jobs had died and their model was simply picking up posts with his name. “This was an example of really bad analytics and it’s even worse because it’s the kind of thing that feels like it should work and does work a little bit,” says King.
Big data can shed light on areas with historic information deficits, and systems that seem to automatically highlight the best course of action can be seductive for executives and officials. “In the vacuum of no decision any decision is attractive,” says Jim Adler, head of data at Toyota Research Institute in Palo Alto. “Policymakers will say, ‘there’s a decision here let’s take it’, without really looking at what led to it. Was the data trustworthy, clean?”…(More)”
“The mAgri Design Toolkit is a collection of instructions, tools, and stories to help develop and scale mobile agriculture products by applying a user-centered design approach.
Many mAgri services that have launched in emerging markets have suffered from low user adoption, despite coming from leading mobile network operators and value-added service (VAS) providers. This toolkit is one of the outcomes of a partnership between the GSMA mAgri Programme and frog, and provides operational guidance on how to bring the user-centred design approach into the product development process to better connect mAgri services with the needs of farmers and other key actors in the ecosystem….(More)”
“The Conversation, an independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists, launches its Global edition this month.
The Conversation Global will publish commentary, analysis and research from the academic community worldwide. We will engage scholars from across the world, featuring perspectives from the Global South and North on the most pressing international issues. All content will be published under Creative Commons.
The site is open and free for everyone to read.
GAO report from the Data and Analytics Innovation Forum Convened by the Comptroller General of the United States: “….discussions considered the implications of new data-related technologies and developments that are revolutionizing the basic three-step innovation process in the figure below. As massive amounts of varied data become available in many fields, data generation (step 1 in the process) is transformed. Continuing technological advances are bringing more powerful analytics and changing analysis possibilities (step 2 in the process). And approaches to new decision making include intelligent machines that may, for example, guide human decision makers. Additionally, data may be automatically generated on actions taken in response to data analytic results, creating an evaluative feedback loop.
Forum participants:
• saw the newly revolutionized and still-evolving process of data and analytics innovation (DAI) as generating far-reaching new economic opportunities, including a new Industrial Revolution based on combining data-transmitting cyber systems and physical systems, resulting in cyber-physical systems—which have alternatively been termed the Industrial Internet, also the Internet of Things;
• warned of an ongoing and potentially widening mismatch between the kinds of jobs that are or will be available and the skill levels of the U.S. labor force;
• identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as
• saw the newly revolutionized and still-evolving process of data and analytics innovation (DAI) as generating far-reaching new economic opportunities, including a new Industrial Revolution based on combining data-transmitting cyber systems and physical systems, resulting in cyber-physical systems—which have alternatively been termed the Industrial Internet, also the Internet of Things;
• warned of an ongoing and potentially widening mismatch between the kinds of jobs that are or will be available and the skill levels of the U.S. labor force; • identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as
• identified beneficial DAI impacts that could help efforts to reach key societal goals—through defining DAI pathways to greater efficiency and effectiveness—in areas such as health care, transportation, financial markets, and “smart cities,” among others; and
• outlined areas of data-privacy concern, including for example, possible threats to personal autonomy, which could occur as data on individual persons are collected and used without their knowledge or against their will.
The overall goal of the forum’s discussions and of this report is to help lay the groundwork for future efforts to maximize DAI benefits and minimize potential drawbacks. As such, the forum was not directed toward identifying a specific set of policies relevant to DAI. However, participants suggested that efforts to help realize the promise of DAI opportunities would be directed toward improving data access, assessing the validity of new data and models, creating a welcoming DAI ecosystem, and more generally, raising awareness of DAI’s potential among both policymakers and the general public. Participants also noted a likely need for higher U.S. educational achievement and a measured approach to privacy issues that recognizes both their import and their complexity….(More)”
Deutsche Welle: “A public interest organization called Crowdsource Europe wants citizens to formulate their own constitution. If successful, the document could even replace the Lisbon treaty, the campaign’s organizers say.
“Crowdsource Europe is building a platform to work together with all Europeans to create a People’s Constitution, by the people, for the people,” the organizers said on their website. The goal is to create a document that captures the shared values and collective ideas for the future of Europe.
“We launched the project in May 2016. The motivation was to let the people of Europe decide what the EU should be about. Cooperation within Europe is important, but too often people don’t feel connected with the EU where technocrats decide from their ivory tower,” the project’s organizers Thomas de Groot, Mathijs Pontier and Melissa Koutouzis told DW.
“In the current representative democracy, people have the ability to vote once every several years (five years in the case of the European Parliament). After that, the possibilities for participation are very limited. As a result, many people don’t feel represented, and many people don’t even make the effort to vote for the European Parliament,” they told DW.
Crowdsource Europe’s idea of “interactive democracy” helps bridge that gap. In this concept, everyone has the ability to propose ideas and discuss them….Writing a constitution, especially the way de Groot and his partners Pontier and Koutouzis envisage it, is very easy. Interested people can log on to the People’s Constitution website (https://peoplesconstitution.eu/). A “How-to” tab explains users the ways in which they can enter their details and descriptions of laws they want added into the “constitution.”…The idea of writing a people’s constitution for all of Europe was inspired by
The idea of writing a people’s constitution for all of Europe was inspired by Iceland’s experiment in redrafting the document….(More)”
Project Breakthrough: “Mobile Internet is rapidly becoming a primary source of knowledge for rural populations in developing countries. But not every one of the world’s 500 million smallholder farmers is connected to the Internet – which means they can struggle to solve daily agricultural challenges. With no way to access to information on things like planting, growing and selling, farmers in Asia, Latin America and Africa simply cannot grow. Many live on less than a dollar a day and don’t have smartphones to ask Google what to do.
London-based startup WeFarm is the world’s first free peer-to-peer network that spreads crowdsourced knowledge via SMS messages, which only need simple mobile phones. Since launching in November 2015, its aim has been to give remote, offline farmers access to the vital innovative insight, such as crop diversification, tackling soil erosion or changing climatic conditions. Billing itself as ‘The internet for people without the internet’, WeFarm strongly believes in the power of grassroots information. That’s why it costs nothing.
“With WeFarm we want all farmers in the world to be able to search for and access the information they need to improve their livelihoods,” Kenny Ewan, CEO tells us. The seeds for his idea were planted after many years working with indigenous communities in Latin America, based in Peru. “To me it makes perfect sense to allow farmers to connect with other farmers in order to find solutions to their problems. These farmers are experts in agriculture, and they come up with low-cost, innovative solutions, that are easy to implement.”
Farmers send questions by SMS to a local WeFarm number. Then they are connected to a huge crowdsourcing platform. The network’s back-end uses machine-learning algorithms to match them to farmers with answers. This data creates a sort of Google for agriculture…(More)”
Science/Disrupt: “In a world where technology allows for global collaboration, and in a time when we’re finally championing diversity of thought, there are few barriers to getting the right people together to work on some of our most pressing problems. Governments and research labs are attempting to apply this mentality to science through what is known as ‘Citizen Science’ – research conducted in part by the public (amateur scientists) in partnership with the professionals.
The concept of Citizen Science is brilliant: moving science forward, faster, by utilising the wisdom and volume of the crowd. …
But Citizen Science goes beyond working directly with people with specific data to share. Zooniverse – the home of Citizen Science online – lists hundreds of projects which anyone can get involved with to help advance science. From mapping the galaxy and looking for comets, to seeking outAustralian wildlife and helping computers understand animal faces, the projects span across many subjects.
But when you dig deeper into the tasks being asked of these CitizenScientists, you find that – really – it’s a simple data capture activity. There’s no skill involved other than engaging your eyes to see and fingers to click and type. It’s not the wisdom of the crowd which is being tapped into.
You could argue that people are interested purely in being a part of important research – which of course is true for many – but it misses the point that scientists are simply missing out on a great resource of intellect at their fingertips.
There has been a rise of crowdsourced solutions over the last few years. rLoopis an organisation formed over Reddit to propose a Hyperloop transportation capsule; Techfugees is a Global community of technologists who team up to propose and build solutions to problems facing the increasing numbers of refugees around the world; and XPRIZE is an open competition offering winning teams large sums of money and support to solve the global problems they select each year.
The difference between crowdsourcing and Citizen Science is that in the former, a high value is placed on ideas. There’s a general understanding that‘two minds are better than one’ and that by empowering a larger, more diverse pool of people to engage with important and purposeful work, a better solution will be found faster.
With Citizen Science, the mood is that of the public only being capable of playing hide and seek with pictures and completing menial, time consuming work that the scientists are simply too busy to do. …(More)”