Is i-genius the networking site social entrepreneurs have been waiting for?

Posted on January 19, 2007 by sse

There’s been plenty of talk in social entrepreneurship circles about use of new technology and, specifically, web 2.0 type social networking stuff. Why? Well, as is often repeated to be the case, social entrepreneurs (indeed, all entrepreneurs) thrive on networks of support, resources and opportunity. So, in the manner of a screenwriter pitching a bad film concept, the idea of a "MySpace for social entrepreneurs" has been bandied around a fair bit (OurSpace? ThinkedIn? etc.)

Now, in principle, I like this idea, and it makes sense to me. We use an online extranet with various networking features to connect our SSE Fellows with (to be honest) differing degrees of success…but it has value. So I was interested to get an e-mail from i-genius (to my old GlobalIdeasBank job address) asking me to link to it…which I guess I’ve just done.

I went to check it out, and registered to have a proper look around. Seems ok and fairly intuitive, and the kind of features you would expect. Also has an impressive list of partners at the bottom. But (isn’t there always a but)….do we need it? David Wilcox has written about this today, and I’m inclined to agree with some if not all of what he says, which is not hugely complimentary…:

"So far I can’t see how igenius does anything you can’t get from Linked in, or ecademy, or many of the other social networking sites"

"The igenius site has worthy logos along the bottom: Unesco, British Council, Ashoka, African Foundation for Development, Make Your Mark: Start Talking Ideas. No quotes from any of them, though in an email from Kim they are described as funders and partners.

I think about whether I want to be part of a network of people calling
themselves igeniuses. I don’t. I go to my profile page to de-register,
but can’t find how to. I have to write to the editor.

Perhaps I’m being cynical and unfair in my comments on igenius. If
so, I’m sorry … but the way it currently presents made me cross and
suspicious. Igenius may be a totally worthy effort, launched in a
rush, with lots more features and clarification to come."

Whatver you think about the detail of the site (which is true: it’s light on detail of who’s funding it, who’s editing and maintaining it, their motivations etc….), the bit that stood out for me from this was that it’s not doing anything that LinkedIn or other social networking sites could do for a social entrepreneur. Indeed, social entrepreneurs work across all sectors, so would they want to be siloed on their own site? And there are no real resources of value as yet…or many entrepreneur members (most seem, like myself, to come from second-tier agencies….)….obviously, some of this could be to do with the early stages, but I can’t help feeling that it’s more than this.

I was speaking to someone about another site I was involved in with an online community of 8000+ members, and we talked about this web 2.0 technology and that one, but both agreed that it was NEVER the case of simply putting the technology up and letting it happen: the important parts were "socialising" the site, interacting, engaging, involving, being open and so on; things that it is is not always easy to get right. This may be as unfair (or not) as David’s write-up, and I may well be proved wrong as it develops in the coming months, but i-genius feels a little bit too much like it wants to be closed, elitist and exclusive….and that’s not the kind of network that appeals to many working in this movement.

Luke FitzHerbert

Posted on January 15, 2007 by sse

I was going to blog today about a couple of things that the ever-reliable Senscot newsletter reminded me of (namely, the widening of the definition of a social firm, and the Triodos ethical women awards), but then, reading the paper on the way home, I read the obituary of Luke Fitzherbert, and that all faded into the background.

For those who don’t know, Luke was a stalwart of the voluntary sector, created the original guide to major trusts for the Directory of Social Change, a voice of sanity and reason…and a remarkable fount of knowledge on fundraising, administration and transparency in the sector. He was also immensely influential, particularly on campaigning for greater rigour and clarity from grant-making trusts and foundations. He was an expert witness several times on SSE programmes, most recently at our Dartington residential in 2006 (one of the few venues he could cycle to, as he liked best to do). He gave fantastic advice and distilled wisdom to those present, with his normal inspirational mix of passion and integrity: as ever, he enthused about the small and the local, about helping those who need help most, and about the practical possibilities of making change with or without funds.

[He also gave great advice and help to one of our students in particular, Dave Pitchford of Intelligent Giving: you can read Dave’s tribute on the IG blog]

The Guardian obituary in the Society section last week was followed by one in the main section today. It makes me sad that I was too busy to notice this news last week, and also sad because it reminds me of the loss of another great iconoclast of the sector, my former colleague Nicholas Albery. Also a great user of human-powered transport (though walking, rather than cycling in his case), and who also died tragically in a traffic accident.

I only met Luke a couple of times, so don’t profess to have known him well. If you did, and wish to leave a tribute, you can do so via the DSC website…where you can also make a donation to a fund in his honour. The ever-growing page of tributes and condolences demonstrates the impact he had on a huge number of lives, and how sorely he will be missed.

repliki zegarków
repliche orologi italia

What is a system social entrepreneur?

Posted on January 8, 2007 by sse

Stumbled across an interesting new blog just before Xmas, entitled The Shaftesbury Partnership. It’s a name that conjures up any number of interesting possibilities, but is in fact a kind of ethical business consultancy working primarily with what it calls “system social entrepreneurs”. The people involved include Nat Wei, co-founder of Teach First, and programme director of Future Leaders (recently featured in the Guardian).

So what is a system social entrepreneur? I think it’s worth pasting up their entire post on this:

“Social entrepreneurs are those who take
aspects of entrepreneurship most commonly but not exclusively
associated with the private sector, using it for social good. In its
most enhanced form, the business model underlying such entrepreneurship
includes an element of income self-generated from the social economy.

There are two main types of social entrepreneur (though on rare
occasions both types can appear in one person): community social
entrepreneurs and system social entrepreneurs. Community social
entrepreneurs are locally based, working at grass-roots level. System
social entrepreneurs have both the skills and the inclination to grow
initiatives to national size, affecting the entire system. System
social entrepreneurship tends to take a strategic top-down approach
working on issues that governments and the public see as some of the
most intractable and challenging, but by working with community
entrepreneurs on a grass-roots level it hopes to make real impact as
well on the ground reaching parts that governments and other
traditional agencies find harder to reach.

For large-scale social improvement (in the public sphere and
elsewhere), both community and system entrepreneurs are needed, working
together to address poverty.”

It is the differentiation between ‘system’ and ‘community’ social entrepreneurs that I find most interesting here. Some might argue there is an element of elitism here (note that community social entrepreneurs don’t have the ‘skills’ or ‘inclination’ to take things national / scale up, according to these definitions; giving them the opportunity to learn those skills, and gain confidence and ambition to use them might be a thought), but there is also more than a grain of truth. Certainly Teach First and Future Leaders have been strategic, top-down approaches to addressing unmet needs, and appear to be working well (I met Brett Wigdortz, the CEO of Teach First, at a conference recently and was impressed breitling kopior with him and their work). But the division seems slightly too stark to me here, and perhaps over-emphasises the ‘rarity’ of community social entrepreneurs who start local but grow to become national.

Think of Anita Roddick who started with one shop in Brighton, or John Bird, who started with a monthly publication in London. Or, more recently, Colin Crooks, who started Green Works with one small local outlet. Whilst it is true to say that the majority of SSE Fellows are what might be termed ‘community social entrepreneurs’, there are certainly a fair proportion who would probably balk at that term. Also worth noting that our recent evaluation (by the New Economics Foundation) addresses this point:

“Sometimes SSE fellows are described as being simply local community activists working for local people solving local problems. This evaluation aims to contribute to the debate as we find that whilst social entrepreneurs are working locally they often face challenges produced by processes beyond their immediate sphere of control. Some fellows are seeking to counteract disempowerment by ‘scale jumping’ to assert their specific concerns and actively seek to shape and change public policy at local and even national and international levels.

There is also danger that the ‘local-people-solving-local-problems’ view may strengthen a dangerous assumption that social enterprise is the panacea that will solve social ills on the ground, thereby relinquishing responsibility for addressing these ills directly, or more importantly their underlying and systemic causes.

The SSE programme is designed and delivered in a way that is sensitive to the diverse needs and attitudes of the students who are striving to achieve positive change for communities. The spirit of the SSE experience is in the way it seeks, through the endeavours of its students, to reverse trends of social exclusion, poverty and disempowerment at local, national and international levels. SSE guides students through a process of personal transformation, organisational development and by supporting a community of social entrepreneurs as part of a network that can work on a long-term basis to create wider and lasting change.”

The other interesting point for me is that the description of a system social entrepreneur here sounds very much like strategic social innovation, rather than person-led social entrepreneurship involving risk, opportunism, personal responsibility, challenging the status quo and so on….but then perhaps going down that road is too stark a differentiation from my side as well. The bottom line is that we need entrants to this movement from all backgrounds, working at all levels to solve complex problems; and working together where it brings benefits and improved results.

Welcome to our social enterprise blog. Here you'll find news, views and updates from the School for Social Entrepreneurs.