Nathaniel,

I enjoyed having this conversation on Sunday about diffusion vs. scale; benefiting an organization vs. benefiting the targeted population. When I heard about Frontline SMS my biggest concern was replicablility. Rather, I worried that it would replicate so quickly that its founders would completely lose control. Their goal is diffuse the technology widely, but without future support how can these entrepreneurs innovate in other domains.

Your point about funding sources gets right to this point. If we are working ourselves out of a job no longer in years, but in months, what new structures can insure that leaders in change can innovate in new sectors? Frontline SMS is not only a disruptive technology it is disruptive to this entire nascent field. In this sense the Paul Farmer comparison is not fair. PIH took decades to scale, and relied on human capital and organizational development. Technological innovations may not only undercut bulky old technologies and their revenue generation, but it may also undercut the very entrepreneur.

I look forward to seeing where this goes.

Charlie

This was definitely one of the more interesting discussions at GES. Not only because “scale” has been something that has been on my mind as I map out my own venture, but because of the direction the discussion went and the core issues that it raised. I’ve been thinking a lot about this the last few days, particularly in the context of FrontlineSMS:Medic.

While I worked for Development Gateway Foundation (building web-based platforms for aid management and coordination), I first faced the distinction between “scale” and “diffusion”. Coming from a business background and mindset, I saw the huge potential these platforms had both from a product standpoint, and the potential social impact (see Paris Declaration). In my mind, the strategy should have been an aggressive marketing campaign and getting this platform in the hands of as many governments as possible – more of a “scale” approach. DGF, however, took a much more organic “diffusion” approach.   
DGF largely relied on “word of mouth” – where the government of one country would tell the government of another country about this cool new way they are managing their incoming foreign assistance and how much more effective it is (etc.). Then that government would call DGF for a consultation. Granted, DGF had the benefit of working with governments, which had those mediums for dialogue.   
In the context of FrontlineSMS:Medic (based on my understanding), that medium for dialogue interlinking communities and naturally spreading the word does not necessarily exist. So maybe a step forward is developing that medium by sponsoring or co-sponsoring “rural health conferences” that bring together current beneficiaries with potential beneficiaries to discuss a range of challenges they face and the ways some have worked to address those challenges (eg. Adopting FrontlineSMS). By simply providing the setting, FrontlineSMS:Medic is not only creating that situation where horizontal diffusion can take place, but is also creating an environment for collaboration on rural health practices (great for your SROI).   
Something else that we talked about at the table was the issue of a socially responsible application of intellectual property. This actually gets to what Nathaniel mentions above about the “diffusion of innovation outside a traditional institutional model” of enterprise. In our discussion, Josh pointed to the near contradiction of “open source” (his ideal) and “enterprise” (his means). I actually think the two can co-exist peacefully by allowing the core of what you are doing (the fundamental mode of change you are trying to effect) remain “open source” while focusing the “enterprise” on value-added (eg. Access to additional resources).   
I find it extremely exciting that we find ourselves in such a young field that we have the opportunity to truly define it through the approaches we take with our own ventures and through collaborative discussion such as this.   
-Marco Puccia

Hi Nathaniel

Another great post. Although you're not specifically/directly involved in the social mobile world, you continue to bring up the kinds of topics which desperately need open discussion. I'm a huge fan of you for that.

One of the recurring themes I've found over the past few months has been the concept of "providing tools and stepping back". Some of the biggest challenges in social mobile adoption are local ownership and genuine empowerment (not as we perceive it, but as the users do). Projects which drive technology adoption from the top down (many with over-engineered inappropriate solutions, in my view) you fail to get the local engagement and ownership needed. Thirty years of development teaches us that, yet the mistake continues to be made.

Erik's comment (echo'd by Josh Nesbit via Twitter) about losing control is spot on. If anything like this is to work we need to learn to let go. Another great post from last week that you wrote (great apart from the photo!) covered this very well:

http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/unleash_and_release_the_secret_to_changing_the_world

For long tail solutions to work, by their very nature we need to "unleash and release". Trying to control these things simply acts to dampen their impact. Anyway, it should never be about us, about keeping us in work, and about building sustainable (or not) organisations around our ideas. It's about genuinely seeking to empower users, and letting them use their own skills and ingenuity to solve their own problems.

This debate is crucial, and I'm glad it's being openly discussed.

Ken

First off, Nathaniel, thanks for hitting on this topic.  It's much in need of discussion, not just among the implementors and idea creators, but by funders as well. 

From the creators angle, it's always tempting to think big - as you should.  But, I think where most of us go wrong is in thinking that "big" means centrally controlled "scale".  the incentive here is for so you can show how important you are to the equation and get more funding. 

On the funders side, there is this pressure to get behind "big" projects that you can claim all kinds of PR goodness out of.  It's a lot easier to track and measure a centrally run operation than it is one that has a multitude of users that you neither control (or might not even know of). 

I think the trick is getting our egos out of the way and trying to build something that makes a difference.  To hell with what is expected of you - take the road less traveled here. 

Make sure that those local NGOs can use it without any training needed.  Make something that might be talked about outside of your tech circles.  Create your idea, your platform, your change agent.  Let it go and see if your virus spreads.

(Lastly) There is nothing more powerful than an open, simple platform.  We see this on the for-profit side of the equation too, it's that simplicity and ease of use that let's normal people get involved.  That's when you see real change happen, when non-technical people can get involved and start experimenting on their own.  FrontlineSMS is a good example of this on the non-profit side, as is something like Microsoft Office on the for-profit (love it or hate it!). 

I actually fail to see scale as the bane of evil for social enterprise. I disagree with Erik that scale is all about ego. I think that any development practitioner (social entrepreneurs included) must approach their work as “temporary”. The ultimate goal of the work we do is to work ourselves out of a job! But in achieving that end, scale may be a very reasonable means. 
Scale gives an organization the ability to effectively get their product/service in the hands of the masses. Erik does, however, make the important point that in achieving scale one should not create dependence.

Meant to comment on this post days ago, this is a topic the FrontlineSMS:Medic team has been thinking about a lot. A few years ago I read the paper "social entrepreneurship the case for a definition." This paper argues that entrepreneurial ventures tend to create ecosystems surrounding their innovation.

I like Ken's "providing tools and stepping back" model, because I agree that local ownership and empowerment are the holy grails of this field (or social justice work in general). I like the ecosystem approach even more (or in addition to) because it emphasizes the interconnectedness of all the projects that can spring up, hopefully supporting and working with each other as often as they work with the initial innovators.

Nathaniel, I eagerly await the blog post that will explain how we should address the funding problem that might result from all this creative destruction :-).

Great conversation, Nathaniel.
My favorite diffusion example is the ReBuilding Center in Portland, Ore. I wrote about their willingness to share their business model last year in "Give Away the Store" (Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2008).
As Executive Director Shane Endicott explains: "We tell our staff that we don't have any intellectual secrets. We give everything away. It's like when the mayor gives away the key to the city; we give out the key to our organization. We want to inspire people to go home and start something like this in their own community. Personal ownership will make this model sustainable for generations."
The other factor at work here is localization. Communities that have borrowed ideas from Portland are able to make the model their own, adapting to meet local needs and take advantage of local opportunities.