Du thoughts

Social Enterprise - Define or Describe?

2011-12-02T07:45:00.000-08:00

One of the perennial questions that hangs around the world of Social Enterprise is "What is it?"

Often this is answered with a not very helpful, "It's very hard to define!"
Those that try and answer often cite the various definitions dreamed up by Government, or some Social Enterprise body.

But is a definition the best way of answering the "What is Social Enterprise" question?

Almost by definition, a definition excludes. It limits what a social enterprise can, or should be.
If something is clearly defined, it rules out the fuzzy edges.
But those of us working as Social Entrepreneurs know that it is surrounded by fuzzy edges.

Some definitions rule out Sole Traders; some dismiss profit making companies; some forbid charities to call themselves Social Enterprise.

Why? Why would we do this?
Do we want to create a super-ethical world in our own image? To claim that only we are Social Enterprises?

Perhaps a more fruitful way forward, to encourage the growth of Social Enterprise and bring more people and companies into the fold is to use description, rather than definition.

A description doesn't need to be a full description; it even can appear contradictory with another description - as a pyramid can be described as a square, or a triangle, depending on perspective.

So how would we describe Social Enterprise?

Firstly we would look at its 3 bottom lines:
People, Planet, Profit.
And ask the business to describe where they sit on a continuum from doing harm , through neutral, to doing good.

Then look at 3 aspects of their business:
Product/Service, Company Management, Profit Destination.
And ask again where they would position their business from doing harm, through neutral, to doing good.

If a company exploits people and the environment, but makes loads of profit
by offering a product that harms its users, and they treat their staff badly to keep all the profit for themselves
Then it would be hard to describe them as a Social Enteroprise.

Likewise, if an organisation does wonders for people and the environment, treats their staff graciously but makes no profit as it is simply grant funded; then it too would find it difficult to be taken seriously as a social enterprise.

Between these 2 extremes we have a myriad of companies, individuals and organisations that would all describe themselves differently.

And if, after looking at where they are from these various perspectives, they want to describe themselves as a Social Enterprise, who are you, or I to argue?

Cameron

But is it an elephant?

2011-12-01T04:46:00.000-08:00

"If you want to eat an elephant, do it one bite at a time"

This is very wise advice, for to try and stuff the whole thing in your mouth would indeed be impossible.

This is the advice given when tackling a large job, and it is just so self-evidently true that it is hard to argue against.

However - inherent in the advice is an assumption that big jobs always equal big animlas that require eating.

But what if some big jobs don't equate to elephants?
What if some big jobs equate more to the Grand Canyon that requires leaping.

You can't jump the Grand Canyon 1 metre at a time.
You have to do it all in one go, or not at all.

So while the elephant eating analogy is often true, we should remember it is not always the case.

The question to ask before apporaching any big job is therfore, "Is it an Elephant or a Canyon?" That will determine whether to do it methodically bit by bit, or with a huge run up and single leap.

Cameron

Improving Bus Services - but for whom?

2011-11-29T09:31:00.000-08:00

I am a car driver. I love my car because I can get anywhere I want quickly and easily.
But it costs a fortune and when it breaks down I am left stranded.

"No problem, I'll go by bus" thought I just the other day, so I rang Traveline to get the details.
Quickly and easily I was told the time for the next bus into Durham - 4 miles away - and they even told me how much it was - £2.10 single and £3.10 return.
Not a bad price - and it turned up bang on time.
Brilliant!

Finding £3.10 in cash in my house is not easy, but I raided the change jar of a pocketful of 20ps and was on my way.

45 minutes later I arrived in Durham having gone on a very pleasant sojourn through the villages and shopping centres west of Durham.

And here is the big problem for me - as a car driver: 3/4 of an hour to go 4 miles.
At every opportunity for the bus to head towards Durham, it didn't!

Now if there was a feeder minibus that could take us Langley Parkers up to the main road, where we could get on a big bus and head straight to our destination, stopping only to pick up passengers from feeder services along the way, it would take far less time.

Surely this would be better. For me as a car driver, it certainly would.

But here is the surprising thing. When I asked a couple of my older female fellow passengers they said they would prefer to sit on a bus for an unnecessary half an hour each way than change along the way - even when I suggested that this hypothetical minibus could pick them up from home, and wait until the big bus arrived, they were not convinced.

I then asked what their response would be if this service of mine was introduced; would they complain. "No, we'd just get on with it".

So, a question is, do we need to be designing services around existing customers, or around potential new customers?

Hmmm . . . .

Cameron

Turning things the Right way up

2011-09-01T04:42:00.000-07:00

Those of us who like to think we are designer thinkers, often refer to the current "system" and that we need to turn it on its head.

But we don't need to - things are already on their head. Our job is to turn them the right way up . . .

By even suggesting that we want to turn things on their head gives credance to the current way of working; it sounds dangerous and risky to turn things upsidedown.

It also risks giving the impression that just doing it different is enough, that we simply think the current way is wrong - whereas turning things "the right way up" hopefully gives our audiences the more accurate impression that we have a positive constructive solution.

Cameron

Right Brain-Left Brain

2011-08-28T01:20:00.000-07:00

Google Chairman, Eric Schmidt, recently spoke out about the division between the Arts and Science in British education and the demise of the polymath.

Meanwhile Iain McGilchrist has written a well researched book describing the same thing. The Master and His Emissary, The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World roams across Philosophy, Psychology, History, Neurology, Art and more to make his point that Left Brain thinking has come to dominate individuals and Society......

Having dropped the names of some clever people, to get your attention and maybe add some weight ...........

The right side of the brain provides the big picture, the inspiration, the vision and to some people the Everything. See Jill Bolte Taylor's amazing stroke of insight on TED on this.

The left side of the brain specialises in the detail.

Einstein is said to have seen the concept of relativity in an instant and spent the rest of his life explaining it............

Linking the two hemispheres is the corpus callosum, sometimes seen as the bridge, though McGilchrist suggests it acts more like a gatekeeper.

Now, in a well balanced individual (back to Schmidt's polymath) the vision is passed to check the detail, the enriched vision is passed back for further envisioning and so on.

As with the individual, so with Society. And with the development of Society and the division of labour, has grown the separation of the visionaries and the mechanics.

I make no value judgement here, by the way. Just as I don't expect a plumber to sing opera (though it does happen sometimes) I would not want a bridge built by a philosopher. Horses for courses.

The point is: who leads?

Now, if we understand that the Right Brain tends to huge self belief, whilst the Left sees the (Health and Safety) dangers, then the answer is tricky and the balance of power is critical.

My point (backed up by the clever folks mentioned above and lots of others) is that the balance has swung too far to the risk averse.

Getting to some practical examples in our world of social enterprise; this is characterised mostly as a relationship between the public sector and the 3rd (4th?) sector. The current policy direction towards social enterprise diminishes the vision and passion of the sector, when the commissioning process gets to work. Where the best social enterprises spring from a need identified and a vision of delivery, the commissioning process starts with a spurious Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (more of which later), followed by a service specification generally constructed by committee and a huge wadge of paperwork with which to waste the time of anyone foolish or desperate enough to enter the game.

Power, in this process, is held by the risk averse, so we should not be surprised that it does not work very well.

If we take a look at some brilliant social enterprises, the process is different. Kids Company, for example, attracts almost no local authority funding, yet does the most amazing work on the streets of London. The Big Issue, similarly found its own way and seems to make a real difference.

The challenge for our sector, is to find the revenue streams that are not controlled by fear of what might go wrong, but drawn to schemes that may just go great!

Social Impact Bonds perhaps?

Anyway, there's my starter for discussion..........

Steve Day

The dangers of "partial logic"

2011-08-27T01:26:00.000-07:00

Interesting piece on BBC website - http://bbc.in/p3AR2X - about black runners always winning the 100m. It shows how false logic affects all race relations. I suggest it is not false logic - but "partial logic". And that it infects virtually all aspects of our thinking.

Causation vs Correlation.
It can be demonstrated that global warming has increased with the decline in the number of pirates on the high seas.
Any amount of research could be carried out into the geograhical spread of pirates; the manufacture of their ships; the liklihood of their wearing of eye patches - and nothing would take away from the evidence-based fact that the less pirates there are, the more our climate warms up. It even coincides with the view of conventionial science that climate change is man-made, so all that evidence could be brought to bear to back up the pirate based theory.

With so many factors affecting everything, we must be very wary of finding patters of correlation and assuming causation.

Perspective
The term "strategic overview" is often used as if it is a good thing - and it sometimes is, for getting a strategic overview!
But it is not very good for much else.
And who is it useful for? Strategists!
But what happens when strategists sit too far away from the situation?
Well, try using Google Maps without the zoom function, and you'll soon realise how limited strategies are when trying to find your actual destination.
Strategists also make an assumption that because they don't know the issues in our communities in any detail, that we don't.
So they tell us what they do know - that smoking is bad for us; that children are getting fatter; that this community is poorer than that community . . . all the stuff that we already know - because we live here.
All that is fairly harmless, until we get to the practicalities of dealing with these problems.
From the perspective of a strategic overview, 'Michael' doesn't qualify for any business support because the town he lives in is not poor enough - despite his own, very real, personal circumstances.
Meanwhile, 'Peter' who is a lot better off can access unlimited support, because the detached house he owns outright is in a deprived village.

A Solution? - Designer Thinking?

In the world of product design, innovation and user experience are key.
From the Hovermower to the iPad, the history of product design is brimful of new ways of doing things - an all are focussed on User Experience. They are easy to use, efficient, effective, affordable and available.
They are driven by competition, with commercial advantage creating a reward for risk taking and happy customers.

And in the Public Realm?
So why do we not have this flurry of continual service improvements in the public realm? Do we need competition to bring it about?
Or can we find reward in the social advantage of meeting our non financial incentives?
Can we not get excited about seeing people living healthier, happier lives?
Why is that not enough to force us into thinking creatively - really creatively?

There is a world full of social entrepreneurs out here.
People working at community level that can draw on the strategic overview, but translate it into useable services for individuals.
People that are not stupid - that can differentiate between causation and correlation
People that can design, as well as deliver, the services at the point of need.

As the money dries up in the public sector, are those with shrinking budgets prepared to relinquish their hold over them? Or do we have to take it for ourselves?

Cameron Gordon

Changing Cafe (owners) Culture

2011-08-26T04:22:00.000-07:00

If you go to any bar, pub, cafe or restaurant in Germany, there is no standing at the bar waiting to be served.
Simply take a seat and a professional waiter will come and take your drinks order.

This is obviously better for the customer - but we believe it is also much better for the pub / cafe owner.

On Localism

2007-12-24T10:25:00.000-08:00

It has been interesting and somewhat disturbing to see the political parties jockeying for position over the localism agenda.

The Labour government has promoted the idea through the Department for Communities and Local Government, David Cameron recently gave a very supportive speech and, less unlikely, Nick Clegg has pitched his tent on the same field.

This is not so much about political debate as all sides recognising the zeitgeist moment.

Whilst we have much theoretical agreement about localism - the need to drive power further down and encourage communities and individuals to take responsibility for their destinies - practical problems abound on the ground, because empowerment implies power shifting and whilst the newly empowered welcome the opportunity, the concomitant is that some folk currently holding power will lose some of it.

Since power is closely bound up with resources, this is seen as a threat in some quarters.

The big question is how to effect the power shift.

This is, of course, the gap between strategy and local delivery.

communityNET provides a mechanism, or gearbox, to effect the change, but first we have to persuade the powers that currently be, to instal the gearbox!

Now we come to the tricky question of how and indeed why, folks who profit from the current system, should support the new system.

Firstly, enlightened folk know that change happens anyway and history tells us that those who stand in the way of change, eventually get knocked over by it.

And the longer change is held back, the bigger the reaction when it breaks.

The reality is that moribund power is increasingly exposed as failing and ludicrous.

In previous times and in current times in other places, the breaking of moribund power can get bloody. It doesn't really matter how we feel about this - the manner of the reaction will determine the manner of the revolution.

Let's be grateful we live in Britain in the 21st century. The game is sometimes dirty and devious and debate doesn't always decide the day, but with luck, no-one will die in the struggle.

And persuasion and pensions should ease the pain. There are always OBEs and the like too !

steve

When is a Social Enterprise not a Social Enterprise?

2007-11-16T23:08:00.000-08:00

And does it matter?

We had an interesting discussion at our recent Social Enterprise Day event about the definition of social enterprise.

In general terms it doesn't really matter. We presented it as a continuum, with private business at one end and charity at the other, with social enterprise in the middle and the boundaries rather fuzzy. Of course, as with any model, it cannot reflect the full complexity and we are now thinking about adding a third dimension to show the public sector, which increasingly will position itself to take advantage of the strategic drive for more social enterprise and the resources which will follow.

In our view, this is all healthy, because the social enterprise sector can only benefit from the best folk from private business, the community and voluntary sector and the public sector, bringing their talents to bear.

Where the detail starts to matter is when we get to governance.

It is quite obvious that, in a modern society, an organisation set up to represent the interests of social enterprises and to promote the growth of the sector, will be controlled by social enterprises themselves. The alternative is the colonial option, where "those who know best", also known as "the powers that be", swan in with advice to putative and actual social enterprises then return home to the comfort of public sector security or private sector profit. If social enterprise wants advice from experts outside of the sector, it must have the choice. The default mechanism would be to first trade within the sector.

Let the medium be the message!

Back to governance and the continuum.

There are clear indicators of social enterprise to be found in constitutions and memoranda and articles of associations. Surely, the key question is: what happens to the profits?
This will separate the private from the social.

To differentiate the public sector and the community/voluntary sector from social enterprise, it is usual to look at the balance of grant and trading income. We have suggested 25% trading and moving towards more. Others go higher.

All this is detail, which needs sorting out transparently. None of it should suggest the superiority of one sector over another. Morally, we might argue that a pure charity, with volunteers and supported by philanthropy, is first in the queue for paradise. In practice this thought is muddied by the point that the biggest philanthropists at present are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet!

Back to the subject. Whilst we have some reasonable definitions of what a social enterprise is and is not, the fuzzy areas at the edge will always exist and we can cope with that on a case by case basis.

Since social enterprise is driven by the heart as well as the head, I reckon we will know one when we see it!

steve

A Vision for Social Enterprise Durham

2007-10-30T10:37:00.000-07:00

The trouble with visions, of course, is that they can turn out to be delusions.

That sobering thought must not stop the visioning - nothing new happens without the vision to kick it off.

And if the vision gets reshaped in the iteration, that's ok too, as long as we have some new ideas to knock around.

The other thing is to make sure the agreed vision gets put into a project fairly sharpish, while the vision is still fresh and relevant. The third leg of the stool is the essential process which underpins it all. When these elements are in balance, with vision giving lift, project forward momentum and process gravity, then you have a viable project.

Endless visioning with no project and process driven services are the bane of progress and all too common. That's why Du set out to fill the gap between strategy and local delivery.

Back to Social Enterprise Durham, which has been mooted as an organisation for over a year, without ever finding the vision or energy to progress into a project.

We saw the opportunity to help create a vibrant organisation, owned by social enterprises in County Durham, to promote the sector, advocate for its members at top tables, provide and broker support and training and roll out social and community enterprise centres in the towns of Durham, so that local folk wanting to do something positive with their lives and/or for their communities, have somewhere friendly and helpful to go.

To make that vision a reality, we are proposing a Community Interest Company, limited by shares, with voting shares available to Durham social enterprises and non-voting equity shares available to investors including those public bodies with an interest in developing the sector.

We reckon that this model is much more business orientated than the alternatives and that it will help keep us focused on trading and away from grant dependency.

And one of the main beneficiaries of the profits will be a social venture capital fund that can invest in social enterprises and be sustainable itself.

These ideas will be presented on Social Enterprise Day, November 15th, when Social Enterprise Durham will be launched.

steve

Markets - Social, Environmental and Economic

2007-08-14T02:59:00.000-07:00

The triple bottom line is a great selling point for social enterprise.

The social and environmental value generated is what attracts so many people to the sector, both from the public sector, where they often feel constrained by a risk averse culture and from the private sector, where folk often feel used as a commodity to generate money. Even if they get well rewarded financially, many people from both sectors see the limits to material rewards, especially in a world where poverty still exists alongside obscene wealth, not to mention a world that is consuming finite resources at an unsustainable rate.

The corporate world has adopted the triple bottom line too.
The cynical might suggest that this is mostly about marketing.
Certainly, private and public companies have a primary duty to shareholders.
And most shareholders want the best financial return balanced against the risk of losing their stake.
Social and environmental value in this context are a long way behind economic value and mostly only considered inasmuch as they contribute to the primary bottom line.

Recognising this reality and aware that the survival of the planet is becoming critical, governments and others have created artificial markets, where environmental values are monetised.

This is the world of carbon trading. It may be spurious, it may even be cynically exploited by the rich and powerful, but it is an attempt to change behaviours in a way that does not depend on people acting morally, but recognises that most of the world is currently amoral and acts in a rather narrowly defined, self interested way.

Social reformers are missing a trick by focusing on the consciences and moral values of people. That is generally coped with by charity and legislation that mostly focus on ameliorating the symptoms of injustice.

If charities start talking about the causes, the Charity Commission jumps on them for being "political" and if parties, even governments get serious about causes, they are accused of being "socialist" or even worse!

One answer is to create monetised social markets.
This is much easier to do than the creation of monetised environmental markets.

The effects of social dislocation are clear for all to see and a lot of work has already been done on identifying the financial costs, whether in policing, social work, health - mental and physical, prison or other budgets.

The key to the creation of the monetised social market place is whole life costing versus early intervention.

A clear example is a child who has been born with disadvantage. Depending on the nature of the disadvantage and the resilience of the child, the support available and so on, the disadvantaged child has a greater than average chance of entering the criminal justice and mental health system. The costs of early intervention, timely intervention and opportunities for intervention at every stage will almost invariably be less than costs of not intervening.

This is not new, of course. It is the rationale for schemes like Sure Start.
However, the monetised social values are not usually made specific and therefore a financial market is not created for social or private enterprise to enter. This leaves the scheme in the hands of the public sector, either through direct delivery or procurement mechanisms.

The potential for a monetised social market place is exciting, but not without pitfalls. For example, if the invest to save rationale really works, then jobs in the sectors dealing with the casualties of social injustice will decline.

This is where a new level of sophistication will be required - the linking of the social markets with the environmental markets. Fewer jobs is generally seen as a bad thing in an economic context. But if the necessary work is shared around, then a reduction in economic activity can have a positive environmental and social value.

And having more time to reflect and enjoy the simple things in life will surely generate spiritual value. I am not sure we want to monetise that though!

steve

Social Value and the Triple Bottom Line

2007-08-13T07:19:00.000-07:00

In 1994, John Elkington coined the term Triple Bottom Line which is an agenda that focuses not just on the economic value that business brings but also on the environmental and social value that it can add – or destroy. In 1998 John expanded and articulated his views in his book Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.

Although many companies find the economic and environmental issues relatively easy to understand and address it is the social value element that appears to be difficult to manage.
This is where I believe that Du can add real value because founders Cameron Gordon and Steve Day understand that most of the time it's the system that causes the problem, not the people in the system.

Du’s Service Design takes ideas and turns them into strategic outcomes by working not just with those supplying the product/service but by involving the end-users. This process helps identify any end-user concerns and can also help to highlight issues that may not have surfaced in the initial planning stage.

Although Du’s service design process can be used my almost any type of business perhaps it is in the Community, Voluntary and Public Sector where Du’s approach can add value. People, in general, are more likely to support and use a service in which they have a stake. Everyone has an opinion from who should be the next England football coach to how often the local bus should run. It is when services are just imposed on them that people feel undervalued and this can lead to suspicion about hidden public service agendas, etc.

So, Du’s service design process may be a good thing for the end-users but what about those within the business who would traditionally be doing the work; should they feel threatened? I don’t think so because by bringing in Du they will have more time to focus on their strategic planning roles. The learning that Du will bring from working with the client and the local communities will be of benefit to both sides. The client will be able to incorporate perhaps unforeseen concerns and issues into its strategy and individuals within the community will gain some ownership of the new service.

If people own something they are more likely to look after it, e.g. if children plant a school garden it appears that they are less likely to vandalise it.
It is often the system that causes the problem, not the people in the system.

Pauline Short
Du Marketing Associate

There's no need for any comment on this one

2007-08-10T02:32:00.000-07:00

From BBC Wiltshire today:

"A pensioner has been told she must stop tending a public flower bed unless she agrees to wear a fluorescent jacket, put up warning signs and use a lookout.
June Turnbull, 79, of Urchfront near Devizes, has nurtured the blooms on the plot for eight years.

But now she is being told to obey health and safety rules after being spotted by a county council official.

Mrs Turnbull said: "They can send me to jail if they like - I just want to be left alone to do it."

Cameron

RES, GVA, GNH and other TLAs

2007-08-07T02:25:00.000-07:00

The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) for North East England has, unsurprisingly, a strong emphasis on economic growth.

As with any government strategy, things have to be measured, and since it is much simpler to measure what can be counted, Gross Value Added (GVA), has been selected as the main indicator of progress in the region.

Underlying this main driver of the RES is an assumption that economic growth is a good thing per se.

Yet, elsewhere in the RES Action Plan, we find a reference to One Planet Living, though very little action is proposed to achieve it.

One Planet Living is a concept for environmental sustainability, that suggests that current European rates of consumption require three planets. Our choice then is to colonise two more planets or radically reduce our consumption on this one. In the USA, five planets are required and countries like China, currently at one planet level, are driving towards unsustainability.

In this context, GVA only perpetuates the problem. We need to reduce economic activity in a managed way, if we are to play our part in ensuring a future for our children and grandchildren.

The Unique Selling Point (USP) of our region is that we are not as hooked on conspicuous consumption as our overheated compatriots in the South East. We can use our relative economic backwardness as a positive and start to develop more sustainable indicators like Social Value Added (SVA) and Environmental Value Added (EVA).

Perhaps the best three letter acronym (TLA) is Gross National Happiness (GNH), an indicator devised in Bhutan, which proposes four pillars: equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment and establishment of good governance. The measure has room for improvement in its translation from Bhutan to Britain.

Wellbeing studies consistently show that whilst poverty has an adverse effect on happiness, increased wealth has no impact after a certain point. Happiness or contentment are most likely to be achieved when people have the sense that they have some control over their lives - and this is much, much more than adding economic value. Working together to find ways to live sustainably and leave something for future generations has the potential to give us the best TLA of all - PoM (Peace of Mind).

steve

Welcome . . .

2007-08-04T01:42:00.000-07:00

These are the personal thoughts and musings of Du Directors, Associates and Friends on just about anything

enjoy.