Expanding on my previous post on micro-funds and the social venture commons, here are few more pieces on what I see being the core elements of the Social Venture Commons.
First, I see the commons containing three interdependent realms:
- conversations
- connections
- accomplishments
Accomplishments are the product and desired outcomes of every venture. They are also a great catalyst of conversation. Conversation, in turn, is a great catalyst of connections – connections to ideas, resources, people etc. And connections, in turn, catalyze accomplishments – new resources to help get things done better, faster, etc. Of course it’s not that linear but I do sense a compelling interrelationship and even flow there.
From the participant perspective I see the main players are:
- ventures (those tackling issues directly, those that invest in those ventures, and those that serve them)
- individuals (those that are directly involved in the ventures, and those that are individually engaged or interested in ventures or their accomplishments)
A the center of this is this idea of portfolios. Ultimately, whether you are a venture or individual in any of the above category, you are building a portfolio of accomplishments. These can be accomplishments that you are interested in and those that are you are contributing to. It’s much more granular than the organizational level and if the connections and conversations link back to the accomplishments it could be a very interesting ‘portfolio’ incredibly rich with meaning and relevance to the ‘owner’.
The pracitcality of how this will unfold will emerge over time – from doing more than anything – but this seems like a good starting point. There are also a couple of other core components that are operationally important to engage or nurture the connection between key players in the community. These include things like facilitating the creation of ‘forum groups’ – a central component of the Entrepreneur Commons and other networks like Enterpreneur’s Organization, Young President’s Organization, and World President’s Organization. And for investors (of all kinds) there is the ‘transaction commons’ with resources to support efficient and cost-effective investment transactions. While important I think they seem to be subsets of this overarching rationale – a rationale that seems new but comfortable for me.
To build on this I would say that ventures are stories that emerged from conversations and take a life of their own within the community at large.
So really maybe what the process (what I think you call components) would be:
– conversations
– stories/ventures
– accomplishments
– social capital
And then around this process you have individuals, who are the original storyteller and the contributors to the story, because the story is compelling and they adhere to it. Bo Burlingham in his book “small giants” compare entrepreneurs to artists, who give life to an idea through a medium that is business instead of graphic arts or music or other. The accomplishments build up into Social Capital for the individual who contributed to it.
Example of Social Venture networks as you describe them:
– change.org
– neo.org
Building on related concepts I am experimenting with this: http://www.axiomenta.com – concepts to start conversations that will hopefully lead to good stories and accomplishments.
Neo.org and Change.org are examples that are rooted in the non-profit world, because it is a very obvious vertical, and a space where action is much needed, but I believe that there is value is trying to enable a similar better process for social businesses in a more broader sense of the words. Entrepreneur Commons is on a parallel trajectory trying to fund the stories/ventures that are selected, by those who participate in the conversation, as stories (and of course the associated storyteller/entrepreneur) with potential.
Marc, thanks for the detailed response.
I like the picture you paint and the artist metaphor. The process too
is one that makes sense to me and you've helped pull out one of the
distinctions by referencing change.org and neo.org – and that is that
in the social venture commons the accomplishments of primary interest
are the accomplishments in developing the ventures themselves. In that
sense it is a bit more like tradevibes.com. What's also important to
me is that there is the full 'progression' – or maybe better
'engagement' – of each of those dynamics in the process we're seeing
which is well beyond the scope of tradevibes. This will likely result
in deeper engagement by fewer people than most of the other sites rely
on. Somewhere in between those sites and the entrepreneur commons
model with the initial draw being the funds and their ventures which
seed the community.
And one side note – when I say social ventures – I consider a broad
scope from project to for-profit business as I see organizational mode
and structure as design issue rather than a relevant categorization
for this.
Very helpful… thanks!
There's another piece that occured to me – I'm interested in the portfolios of impacts being the result of the accomplishments that were facilitated… e.g. not just a collection of things I want to be associated with, but a collection of things that have come from things that I directly contributed to. And if this contribution is coming through supporting the accomplishments of the ventures in building their ventures that then achieve the impacts, then the contribution went directly into building the capacity of the venture to do more of what it just did… which means higher leverage contributions. Rough wording – but helpful for me. Will clarify in the next iteration of things…
There's another piece that occured to me – I'm interested in the portfolios of impacts being the result of the accomplishments that were facilitated… e.g. not just a collection of things I want to be associated with, but a collection of things that have come from things that I directly contributed to. And if this contribution is coming through supporting the accomplishments of the ventures in building their ventures that then achieve the impacts, then the contribution went directly into building the capacity of the venture to do more of what it just did… which means higher leverage contributions. Rough wording – but helpful for me. Will clarify in the next iteration of things…