Demand Better: A new quality framework for nonprofits

-Should the third sector rely on frameworks developed for businesses? Or should are they a different type of organisation? This article is taken from sister blog Project Crimson (linky) under a creative commons licence.

What is Quality?

Before proceeding to answer the question, ‘What does managing quality mean’, it is important to develop the concept ‘quality’ for a TSO. It is also important to define the scope of the inquiry; in this essay the focus will be on establishing quality of an organisation, rather than the quality of individual process say quality HR, communications, or services. Starting from the position that any approach that seeks to construct a rigid framework encompassing the operations of a charity with a ‘high granularity’ would be needlessly complex and unfeasible, an attempt will instead be made define the hallmarks of a quality organisation.

The distinction between quality for a private enterprise and quality for a TSO is an important one since as Reeves and Bednar [1994 p419] argue
“the definition of quality has yielded inconsistent results…the concept has had multiple and often muddled definitions”, and the third sector lacks some of the more immediate feedback mechanisms for judging quality: companies that produce poor quality products, in the absence of a monopoly, are punished by the market and forced to improve or fail through competition.

However the definitions of competition for the private and third sectors differ, and many TSOs do exist as monopoly or subsisdised suppliers to particular beneficiaries. By drawing out what quality means and setting this definition against the concepts and axioms of the third sector we can discover how a charity can be more effective.

What is ‘Quality’ for the Third Sector?

>>>>continue reading at ProjectCrimson

Scaleable Twitter-based System for more Efficient Markets for a Charity Shop Network

-mashing up the ideals of freecycle and the infrastructure of twitter for the benefit of small charity networks. This article is taken from sister blog Project Crimson (linky) under a creative commons licence.

The fishermen off the coast in Kerela in 1997 showed how access to new forms of communication and the knowledge transfer it produces, can lead to more efficient markets and more profitable selling. But what does this mean for the third sector?

Well it can be argued that the pre-mobile phone fisherman of the coast of Kerela was in a similar state of information asymmetry as a present day branch of a charity shop. The charity shop’s ‘catch’ is it’s weekly donations from the local public, and much like the old fisherman, it’s market is often restricted, mostly to the same shop the good are donated. However as the fishermen learnt, better knowledge of the supply and demand in other markets led to better and more reliable profits all round.

Grounding this idea more firmly in our example of the Charity shop we will walk through a example of where this idea of communication breeding market efficiency can be put in place for a network of charity shops.

>>>Continue reading at Project Crimson

For discussion: The individual as the Micro-Corporation & the Micro-Bailout

Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Much of the criticism levelled at the various forms of bank bailout (from economists rather than tabloid writers) has decried the heightening of the moral hazard produced as a result.

In brief the worry is this: capitalism relies on individuals/colorations calculating the most efficient use of their money in a risk vs reward payoff; even though it is not a zero-sum game the creative destruction of failed enterprises is a prerequisite for continued change and growth; the motivation for managing capital (money) well is the risk of failure resulting in it’s loss; without the fear of failure capital can be employed in the riskiest regardless of the consequences; government underwriting of this fiscal and monetary collapse means that banks will calculate that in the future they will bailed out again, leading them to take on even riskier positions in the future.

That may not the most accurate or precise definition but it will do the job I hope.

Any how, the question has struck me as to the applicability of this theory to other walks of life, namely does the state create a moral hazard through employment insurance?

The only common capital we all share is our bodies and the ability to turn our activity into useful economic output. We are in effect micro-corporations (although in fact it is more accurate to say that a body corporate is actually just a legal construction of a person that is not physically manifest), and we theoretically chose how best to employ our working capital to maximise gain.

I say theoretical because often we have far less choice than we’d like. I’d choose to be the CEO of the Sutton Trust, but that option is not on the table, some people would choose to invest a few years at university in order to increase the market rate for their work through specialisation, but may not be able to make the upfront investment required to get the long term benefit.

In every day life then the decisions faced are more mundane but like a bank faced with choices as to its strategy, an individual faces different risk paths. To disagree with one’s boss at the risk of trouble, to quit one job to pursue a more exciting opportunity, to change careers to something more rewarding.

But the question arises, is there a moral hazard in that I know that if I fail, I will always receive the ‘micro-bailout’ of jobseekers allowance? In effect the state enters into a long position with me, betting that if it provides me with revenue for a while, I can restructure my CV back into a new job, and the taxes will eventually pay off the government’s investment, plus a nice return. Is one’s choice about exercising the freedom to work for whom one chooses slightly altered by the fact that one will not end up starving, unlike a medieval peasant who chooses to give up tilling the crops and instead decides they’d rather join an exciting new start-up in the crusading industry?

Does the social safety net cause people to take risks, or allow them to? I have no idea but it is an interesting question

Lefties Ruin Student Unions for all?

Racisim, bigotry, and good old fashioned cotrived left vs right pig-headedness all met in the firey inferno of UCLU’s AGM on the 5^th and resulted in the kind of divisive outcome that has led generations of students to dismiss their unions as nothing more than crazy demagogues whose internecine bickering serves no purpose other than to warm chairs.

 

The debacle followed on from the very heated ULU senate meeting where ULU Presiden Jen heuesman was taken apart for her initial refusual to fulfil the most basic task of a union president, represntation of member. Having realised that the room was clear in wanting a letter condeming condemnation of OTC and other service groups, Jen constantly reiterated waffle about ‘cultural and spiritual reasons’ for not wanting to sign her name on the basis of ‘generations of pacifisim’. But this argument was swiflty dispatched by an OTC group leader who pointed out that these students groups in no war particiapted in any kind of hostile activites so the pacifism argument was a non-sequiter and entirely irrelevant to the argument.

 

In the end, and despite some desperate squeaks about ‘checking equal ops policy’ on jens part, the vote was a clear cut demand for the ‘part-time’ President of ULU to actualy do her job, the only dissent being ‘usual suspect’ SOAS. The UCL delegate to senate, Andy Fernando, was pleased to be able to bring the news of success of this motion to the AGM the following day, and was emboldedn by the near unanimity of other UL colleges supporting the pro-OTC motion.

 

So what when wrong at UCLU? In scenes reminisent of NUS conference, or the happenngs of some dysfunctional polytechnic Student Union, lies, ignorance and fear-mungering half-truths were flung around to irritte and agitate. Students on both sides of the argument were made to feel like their union was riding rough-shod over their views, and was deliberately picking a marmite issue to stir up bad blood between students.

 

The result was a tense and worked up AGM where no-one present was there to hear the issues discussed and to vote according to the arguments made. Everyone there knew how they were going to vote before they arrived. Any neutral student would be bewildered as the major component of the debating was slagging off the other side. The AGM had little to do with finding out about what students felt and how their union could represent them, and more to do with which group could mobilise the most angry people to turn up and vote their way.

The resulting mess is what drives students up and down the country from feeling that their union is there to work for them and to represent their views. It’s what makes it easy for the people we try to lobby to dismiss student unions as nothing more than frivillious and unreprentative. It’s what makes it hard to convince students to come to us with their problems. It’s what destroys a student unions sole source of ligitamacy, the trust of it’s students.

 

Maybe someday student unions will move away from dablling in geo-political issues like israel-palestine, maybe someday student unions will find the issues that unite students around a common cause, not divissive issues and minority pet projects. Someday, student unions will be the defining positive expereince of a student’s career at university, and have the prestige and legitimacy they deserve.

A response to ‘A Response’

From hanifleylabi on www.educationet.org

‘A fringe? We were the 4th biggest faction at conference last year and the 2nd largest party political ones. When talking student politics it’s conservative future who are thankfully the crazy fringe. If students didn’t care about the war then at last year’s conference every candidate serious about winning pledged support to the stop the war coalition. At my uni we filled more coaches to the recent demo than we have for 3 years. We have a bigger stop the war society than we have had for 3 years and the RESPECT sabb who stood on a fund education not war platform won by the largest number of votes apart from those running against RON.

Student RESPECT clearly does work on a wide range of issues I’m sure Gemma could vouch for that herself having worked with us in the Admission Impossible campaign, anti racism campaigns and anti islamophobia campaigns amongst some.

One of the main planks of NUS is Internationalism. We are a campaigning student led body which has historically (along with similar roganisations all over the world) taken political stances on a variety of domestic and international issues and there’s no reason to stop now. Simply because you are so stupid you cannot see the link between the struggles at home and the struggles abroad doesn’t mean the rest of us are.

In regard to NUS Extra there is no choice if you want the extra discounts. You must buy the card. If you can’t afford the card then you don’t get the benefits and this is wrong as it affects poorer students. It’s also a crap way of trying to save NUS financially and I don’t believe it’s doing too well.

In regard to Islamophobia your views come from a very white middle class background. People ARE scared of muslims and Islam. When we are told that they are seperating themselves off from society when we are told that they want to bring stoning and flogging to Britain, Jack Straw’s comments on the veil, the racist cartoons etc etc etc. You can’t go a day without reading something negative in the tabloids about Muslims. Muslims in this country and under attack and it is our duty to stand with the oppressed’