Do good. But don't spend it all at once

Gordon Brown's social enterprise vision

They do sound nice, don't they?

So I am relieved at the notes of caution being voiced, though concerned that they are being voiced up to a person for whom vision has not proven a strong suit to date, and who is not noted for his talent for listening, or indeed grasp of realities. But he does seem to know a good soundbite when he hears one.

As one who has been involved with, for sure benefitted but also suffered from 'commitments' to social enterprise, I wish more reflected the notion that 'the result is a reasonable salary and a sense that they are making a difference'. To which I might add 'delivering a healthy ROI to all involved'.

If customers don't like the product/service, and hence buy/into it, then sadly all these enterprises will become is money pits sucking funding from elsewhere. Or they will go bust.

Peter Jones' comments, rather colourfully expressed at the beginning ('do gooders' can rather set an unfortunate tone, and frankly passion for doing good can be a potent part... of the mix. See later) but more considered on reading later on, get closer to it.

Any twerp can have an idea. I know, I have. Lob in a bit of money you can, if relevant, protect the IP.

But none of this is much use if you don't flog it on. And keep on doing so.

And here is where I see a stonking great gap between stated aims, useful support and actuality. Government doesn't understand sales.

I have lost count of the number of Third Sector funds, forums, quangos and whoever, with natty offices and staffed to the gunnels, who are out there to invite you to submit, assess your plan and slip you the readies. Business Links, Chambers, Trusts, you name it. Awash with cash, seemingly concerned with the bottom line, but almost all designed to launch a box-ticking scheme, often with a pot of EU/taxpayer money, and then... get you to 'sign off' quicker than you can say 'match-funding'. And often the funding pot is pretty bare of actual serious dosh to dole out once the empires, especially often overlapping ones, have taken their cut first. It's like being bought an F-16, helped to take off and then bang, the guys in the back seat eject as 'their job is done'. You either crash and burn or get addicted to in-flight refuelling just to stay airborne.

Some do delve into the P&Ls and all the rest, but as it's an enterprise you are usually dealing in the future, with forecast guesstimates at best. And visionary thinkers are not usually too great at the numbers. So they will say what is required to be heard, and if it's at all social enough will get the launch money. As to what happens down the road...? Case closed. The caravan will have moved on.

Why can there not be more emphasis on matchmaking talents, bringing together the ones with ideas and assisting them by the introduction of a sensible complement (for every Trevor Baylis there has to be a Peter Jones whose introduction to each other will benefit both...the project... and the country), with more funding going into forging those business relationships such that a team is created to ensure that both the social and the enterprise aspects can be delivered, with returns, quickly and... sustainably. Once in profit, everyone can be happy, left to it, and support can move on to new, good works.

Or, the whole thing can be driven by targets and PR opps...

Gaurdian - Social Innovation Camp: finalists announced

Glimmers of sense, if not hope

Crunch time for social enterprises

A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.

A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html

I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.

Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.

I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html

There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.

Addendum:

SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy

Hard to s...ustain

I was at a 'do' at Hereford's Shire Hall.

It's the same place I attended for a previous council sponsored event, for Herefordshire's Hydro power future. And yet again I was truly inspired by the organisation behind it all.

For a start, I only learned of it in a local paper last week, in a section for a market town to the North of the county, labelled "Let's Go Greener". It had an email to sign up, which I did, but I never heard back. So I risked a trip anyway. Fortunately it was still happening. Unfortunately I'd got the impression it was a day-long exhibition I got pop into (who can take all day off???), when in fact it was a bunch of speeches and huddles to try and 'understand' what sustainability and social enterprise meant. Plus the main speakers had apparently come, spoke and scooted off so no one-on-one there. So I am in no real position really to comment too much.

What I do know is that the acoustics pretty much meant no one could hear anyone else. And the A/V was almost impossible to view which, in light of my PowerPoint phobia, may have been a good thing.

For the bit I arrived at it seems the county suffers from a lack of engineers and trained staff. By some coincidence, that very same evening I was at a Ross-based event where a whole load of guys in suits turned up to say how awful things were because of X,Y & Z but they were all here and listening.

One thing that has struck me is that when it comes to the rather popular catch-all of social enterprise, it is simply too broad to make any reasonable comparison between those who fall under it and what they are trying to do. When it comes to delivery and funding and discussion and, etc...how can, say, Junkk.com be equated to a guy on a grant helping with housing for drug addicts? Yet at such events we are lumped together and competing to be heard. Daft.

And one thing I would mention to some of those who 'work' for entities that do not operate to generate enough value that they can make a profit: frankly if you don't, or can't, make at least a small profit, it would be hard to call any business sustainable. So why being 'for profit' often precludes entry to/partcipation in mnay evnts in the name of sustainable communities is hard to grasp.

Sector Spectre

There's a very interesting site called Intelligent Giving, which is devoted to some critical (in the best senses of the word, pro and con) analysis of the world of charity.

I was idly having a rummage, when this caught my eye: The mysterious other Miliband

You have to register to reply, but I think can view simply by clicking, so with luck you can see the context of what moved me to comment:

I was also going to pass over the matter of this speechwriter, or indeed their height, as beyond irrelevant. Then I had a rethink. Physical attributes are, or at least should be still pretty much nothing to do with anything. But at least I can now spot a tall chap in an OTS (jargon is all) crowd and yell out the provided moniker to zero in if he responds... and isn't David Walliams role playing.

Because it does now occur to me that if this is the person penning what's uttered, I may have the whole organ grinder/'revenue collection executive' relationship backwards when it comes to getting heard, and seeing what one has to say work its way into the mouth of Blair (few more hours) babies.

Which brings us to the next point. Having been to a few events now when the billed highlight seems to be a Ministerial speech, I have to say that I am getting a tad bored with a talking head and a Power(what's the)Point parrotfest, as the inevitable provision of the notes (as created, I'm sure, by lovely chaps called Dominic) rather renders the speaker superfluous. Unless, of course, they hang around to answer a few questions (though doubtless in a whole 'not last decade', more honest, direct but still useless Brownian 'I'm not sure I accept that' /'I'm not going to allow that' style).

Or, better yet, step down from the podium and actually at least listen to a few from the floor not selected by Dom's also lovely PR colleague Pen ( I made that up), before hitting the studios to tell the country that they 'have been talking with...' and now have a real grip on what's going on at street level.

I always find the reason given for bailing as truly special: 'they'd love to stay, but they are very busy'. Which rather sends the message that those in the audience are not, and having turned up to be talked at obviously have the spare time to do so and should be grateful for providing an audience.

On the third point, I can only speak for myself as to the level of gruntlement around my sphere, with a slight sense of how others feel by actually hanging around to chat with them long after the ministerial Prius and team has offset it's way to the next non-flying visit. So I must have missed the 'up-and-coming/credible' feedback, but if it comes from a qualified, reliable, attributed and unbiased source will of course bear it in mind. Equally in assessing levels of charisma and authenticity, compared to predecessors in what confusingly (to me at least) is acknowledged earlier as a role that has not existed before. And if that role has not many purse strings, one has to wonder what it, and all those under it, are there for. Money talks. Anything else squawks.

When it comes to feeling well served by those tasked with supporting a sector I find myself peripherally part of, I'd have to suggest that while 'saying' nice is awfully spiffy, a bit more getting on and doing - efficiently, cost-effectively and tangibly where it has the maximum positive result - would be more in order.

The addition of 2000 (more?) public servants may be necessary to help effect this, but if that's the main contribution that can be cited so far, on past evidence it does not fill me with much hope that the majority of effort (and money) will not just end up, again, in a well-trumpeted process at the expense of any actual product.

I'm pretty sure that the previous respondent was one of that 2000, or a ministerial interference runner (I wonder how many in Westminster we pay to deflect us from asking questions and/or getting answers? of our political mast... servants), so it may be fun to come back to see if and what my opinion gets dismissed with.

Team.. er.. Work

Or... jobs for the boys & girls?

Just got this press release:

Office of the Third Sector appoints four Deputy Directors to spearhead new team structure

The Deputy Directors will each lead a new team, created as part of the recently announced OTS restructuring and coming into effect on June 4, and play a pivotal role in the leading and implementing the Government's approach to the third sector.

The range of skills and experience of the new appointees, encompassing considerable achievement in both public and third sectors, will help the OTS strengthen levels of understanding and partnership between the third sector and every level of government.

Now, while I am all for strengthen levels of understanding, and positively over the moon about the possibility of partnership (well, still waiting for any yet, but I'm sure it's coming), and accepting this is an exciting new sector to 'engage' with, but I do have to wonder what four new DDs and 'teams' adds up to in terms of service delivery and ROI to the taxpayer.

Just asking.