Evaluation Proposal Draft

1. Problem Specifications

1a. Evaluation Problem

As of mid 2008, the second year into the institution’s operation, Fusion feels a tension between building self-sustaining social enterprises and its ultimate mission of serving the poor. Recent estimates suggested 60% of the senior manager’s time is spent on administering Social enterprise operations. Furthermore, given the challenges presented by cash flow deficiencies, most of the new (philanthropic) fund raising strategies are aligned to support the Social enterprise side rather than the Social service side. Thus, Fusion feels a significant ‘drift’ of their focus from their Social ‘mission’ in terms of its allocation of time and resources.

1b. Goals & Objectives

Overall Goals - To come up with a “formula” or a systematic set of metrics to evaluate “mission drift” which will effectively raise “red flags” before Fusion finds itself off course as a kind of preventative measure.

Overall Objectives – Create metrics model that Fusion will utilize to assess future venues

Goal 1: Understand social return on investment

Objective 1a: Quantify number of people using the service (percentage of people in the area using the service).

This data collection will give Fusion an understanding of the number of people who are effected by the services provided.

Objective 1b: Quantify what percentage of clients fall into the target market

This calculation will quantitatively determine what portion of clients using services actually fall into the four demographics defined by Fusion (children, youth, women and farmers).

Objective 1c: Evaluate impact on clients

In an effort to maintain mission alignment, it is crucial to clearly define what e-empowerment means for each clientele demographic (children, youth, women and farmers), and to further ensure that this definition is being met for each demographic. {very interesting & highly valid} We believe that this measurement will aid in determining the impact Fusion’s services have on clients.  Once a clear definition is proposed for each demographic (micro mission definitions), Fusion may find it useful to conduct a survey with each client in order to determine whether these micro mission definitions are being fulfilled.  An example of a micro mission definition for farmers may be that farmers have the ability to access the internet {this is very crucial to identify the indicators that are appropriate to context. In Sri Lanka, internet demand is the least at telecentres, thus we do not pay much attention to internet. Instead access to ‘X information, via telecentres’ would be an appropriate example} at least twice per week to confirm national agricultural commodity prices.  Our task here is to determine micro mission definitions, and to create an evaluation based upon the specialized goals (as determined by Fusion/Harsha) in mind for each demographic.

In addition to the customized survey for Fusion clients, our team believes that it may be useful to consider contrasting national statistics {very good idea, but I suspect neither we have required skills in house, nor this is feasible given the lack of detail that National statistics have; for instance National statistics are not falling into micro-regions that we needed}{I encourage you to think something different} (as collected by the United Nations) like illiteracy and unemployment of Fusion clients compared to those who live in the same geographic region, yet are not Fusion clients (the local population at large).  For example, if Fusion is able to demonstrate that the local unemployment rate is higher than the unemployment rate for Fusion clients, one could arrive that a correlation (not causation) exists between lower unemployment and being a Fusion client. {I wonder the above indicators sound too broad to capture the true size of the impact that fusion creates}

Goal 2: Understand resource allocation

Objective 2a: Evaluate human resources

Human resources are one of the most important in an organization – by measuring the effort being put in by employees, the organization would be able to have a clearer idea of where they are focusing their energies. Some measures for this include – the number of staff allocated to a project, the number of hours of work being put in by them, and the rate of pay. By viewing a breakup of these measures across various projects, the organization can see, quantitatively, how much effort they are putting into each project and may gauge if this distribution of human resources and effort is in line with their mission or not.

Objective 2b: Evaluate financial aspects (budgeting for each service)

Objective 2c: Monitor strategic/senior management time allocation

The object of monitoring this time allocation is to accurately portray what the company is focusing its energies and resources on.   Including the employment time allocation as well as other information such as the projected number of target employees, the average public cost savings per target employee, the average incremental increase in income taxes per target employee {not clear about tax aspect, we are not paying taxes, as no profit generated}, and the projected social operating expenses of the enterprise are central to developing social cash flow projections.  These projections are a valuable part of the Social Return on Investment calculation. {very interesting} This is essential to accurately gauging whether mission drift is occurring.

1c. Client and System Conditions

Sarvodaya-Fusion’s mission is E-empowerment of poor rural communities, including children, youth, women and farmers.

1d. Logic Model:

Desired Outcome – Actual Outcome = Mission Drift

1. Inputs & Resources

Human resources

Financial investment

Senior management

Donations

2. Team Activities

Team meetings

Research on metrics

Discussions with Harsha

Feedback from Professor Michael Gordon

3. Short-term & Long-term Goals

Short-term - Create metrics model for Harsha to utilize for Fusion – Finding solid, quantifiable metrics is key to recognizing signs of mission drift.

Long-term – Avoiding “mission drift” in future venues – This will help ensure that Fusion stays aligned to their social mission, while maintaining the for-profit side of business.

4. Potential Stakeholders & Their Involvement

{all are local village community}

Children

Youth

Local villagers  (replace with Women)

Farmers

Answers for questions on VICs

Hi Ray: Following are some quick answers (mostly extracted from multiple sources).

Question 1: What specific services to the VIC’s offer?

Answer:

See the link: (Introduction to VICs) in > http://www.fusion.lk/?cat=16

Some more extracts:

The outcome of a VIC is multi-fold; VIC as one-stop information repository, they save significant time otherwise required by the villager to access same information at multiple locations, perhaps visiting distant townships. Some information such as nutrition, human right, education material helps the rural communities to assimilate knowledge on important livelihood matters. Education material such as herbarioums, seed collections provide additional support for school children. And they gradually prepare the rural, uneducated communities to interact with IT (information technology) as a tool to access information, that would be available at telecentres in neighbouring villages.

…………………..

Strategy of VIC model, which is primarily resource neutral, low tech helps to accommodate these villages which may otherwise lose the opportunity to interact with digital age. Since the emphasis is on information, rather than technology, the VIC model can provide benefits bypassing the infrastructure impediments against ICT technology transfer.

There were 59 information sub categories under 5 main categories available at VICs, which were varied among each other. Such information are collected from various sources; telecentres, government offices, NGOs, newspapers, temples etc.

Target group being the rural disadvantaged communities, VIC model managed to fit with rudimentary environments where even the village entry roads are not properly in place. Difference is reflected in a research carried out with 84 visitors at 2 telecentres and 4 VICs; where the user groups of VICs were relatively poor communities than telecentres. Amongst the users of telecenters surveyed, 100% had electricity, 68% had telephones, 49% had cell phones and 100% had televisions. Whereas, at VICs, 85% of the users had electricity, 15% had telephones, 24% had cell phones, and 83% had televisions (Kapadia, 2006).

In the same research, 56% of the respondents reported indirect economic benefits due to relatively cheep prices & travel time saving as multiple information were available in one location closer to their neighbourhood, which may have, otherwise, required to visit multiple offices (government offices, medical clinics) at far locations. Amongst others, 12% reported the benefits of internet to access job sites, government gazette, and computer access to prepare their resume for job applications (Kapadia, 2006).

VICs, were able to catalyze range of community development processes such as village mapping, human rights education, environment conservation etc. Information mapping process at VIC, enabled to surface the number of disabled people living in the same village for the time into greater attention, which subsequently helped to formulate specific support projects to them. Topics such as HIV, child labour and corporal punishment has come to the notice of village communities, as the film produced by ILO (International Labour Union) has been shown by VIC leaders (Kapadia, ). Rural school children carry out their educational projects using VIC as an educational resource centre.

VICs are managed by youth leaders, thus enable them to test, demonstrate their hidden leadership and organizing skills. Some VICs carry out fund raising events, for instance, burrowing multi-media projectors to show popular films at the village, and managed to buy phone lines, and in some occasions, refurbished computers. One VIC reported to track their village development activities (carried out by either Sarvodaya or some other NGO) using computer data bases.

Question 2:

We came up with three major resource inputs on behalf of your organization, they are Human Resources, financial investment, and senior management allocation. Are there any other inputs that we should be aware of?

Answer: Not sure!?! (But not in my mind).

Question 3:

We were still a bit unsure about the details of the VICs. How exactly are they funded? Also you said that the village supplies a lot of the resources for the VICs. What exactly does the village provide?

Answer: (Extract)

VICs are managed as ‘Zero Cost’ operations by the Fusion. In average Fusion spends about 6,500Rs (60$US, from outside donor funding) to provide initial training and follow up guidance for each VIC. As an immediate outcome, VICs will be setup by the village community, spending village resources (in-kind as well as financial resources), to the estimated value of 7,500Rs (75$US). Over a 3 year period, their accumulated average asset (in terms of furniture, shelves, building material) value estimated to be over 20,000Rs (200$US) which are gathered mostly from donations.

The required resources are generated by community from variety of means. For instance, Village society allocate their savings to carry out some activities.

VICs are owned by the village community, and they generate the required resources (eg. from local donations), managed by volunteers thus not requiring management expenses. Utility expenses, if required are subsidized through their existing village savings and other development programs (eg village banks, village savings mobilized through micro-finance programs). Such decisions are collectively taken by the village Society (i.e. Sarvodaya Shramadana Society). Some VICs carry out fund raising events, for instance, burrowing multi-media projectors to show popular films at the village, and managed to buy phone lines, and in some occasions, refurbished computers.

(pl note above are extracted from un-published write ups which are still at draft forms).

Questions on VICs

Reposted the Questions from Ray>

Harsha,
We just had some additional questions.
1. What specific services to the VIC’s offer?

2. We came up with three major resource inputs on behalf of your organization, they are Human Resources, financial investment, and senior management allocation. Are there any other inputs that we should be aware of?

3. We were still a bit unsure about the details of the VICs. How exactly are they funded? Also you said that the village supplies a lot of the resources for the VICs. What exactly does the village provide?

Quick note – takeaway from meeting with Prof. G. 11/13/08

Research a set of metrics that would be applicable, and then analyze them for feasibility, esp. in the Sri Lankan context. Consider resources available to make these measurements.

-Pratibha

Concept Paper

How to avoid ‘mission drift’ in a nascent social enterprise?

Sarvodaya, the national NGO of Sri Lanka, is one of the biggest NGOs in South Asia, serving over 5 million people in 15,000 villages. In 1996, Sarvodaya had pioneered telecentre program in the country, by integrating ICT into diverse community development programs such as preschool education, women empowerment, human rights, microfinance, conflict resolution, environment conservation etc. Over 10 years, the same program has evolved as a unique program, thus redefined, in 2006 under the name of Sarvodaya-Fusion. The restructuring included its administration structure, program and policy structure, seeking to develop Sarvodaya-Fusion as an independent Social enterprise towards 2010. One reason was the strong urge to make it self sustainable. The other reason was to facilitate sustainability of its partner telecentres (majority belong to local owners).

Emerging Social Enterprise

Sarvodaya-Fusion has been designed as a holistic approach to ICT for Development. Keeping rural poor communities as the key target group, it delivers activities through chain of telecentres (about 600) and Village Information Centres (VIC; over 100) (rudimentary form of village based libraries). All the VICs are 100% volunteer based, set up and managed by aspired youth community leaders. They are embedded into a fabric of village based community development programs. Majority (90%) Telecentres are owned by local entrepreneurs, and sponsored by the government. Fusion provides leadership, capacity building and sustainability guidance to telecentre operators with the financial support of philanthropic donors (eg. IDRC).

Revenue centres

There are 7 telecentres owned and directly managed by Fusion, as revenue making centres. They offer ICT courses and IT services as fee based services. Operations are line managed towards pre-set economic targets though they are still serving rural & semi-urban communities. Initial investments for these telecentres were from donor funding, yet, since April 2007, they were (along with another 3 centres, which subsequently dropped) were taken to new enterprising format. During 2007 /2008 budgetary period, these centres managed to reach 30% of the annual targets, and generated 25% (4.5 million Rs. SL) of the core budget of Fusion management. For 2008/2009 target was set to reach 42%.

Knowing that alone is not enough to make required volume of finances; Fusion had expanded its Social enterprise ambition to other potential opportunity windows (600 of locally owned telecentres). During 2007, Fusion had carried out a systematic social enterprise planning process with selected operators of those telecentres. Objective was to recognize appropriate ‘marketable’ services to generate revenues to sustain telecentres (in general), and also to derive reasonable revenue to sustain overall fusion. The year long, participatory planning process, facilitated by an outside expert consultant (NESsT), had involved telecentre operators as participants. By the end of 2007, Fusion recognized ‘Certified’ ICT Courses (as a value added service) to be offered at telecentres, and the business model, course material, resource institutions has been identified. At this moment, this program is being launched.

Mission Drift

Mission of the organization is e-Empowerment of the poor rural communities, including children, youth, women and farmers. During first 9 months of its operation (in 2007), Fusion estimated to be saved 1.2mil Rs. (SL), to the rural communities, as Social Returns, by offering ICT courses and IT services to about 24,000 rural people. This calculation was based on the price advantage offered to the communities, who otherwise had to pay higher prices to receive the same services from privately owned ICT centres located at townships (yet excluded commuting time advantage etc. for the same rural communities). Nevertheless, this is only an entry-point calculation (subject to considerable errors) to pursue Fusion’s ambition to develop systematic, more credible impact assessment models.

As of mid 2008, second year into institution’s operation, Fusion spends significant proportion of resources into Social enterprise operation. Fifteen out of 38 full time staff members are fully engaged in Social enterprise work. Recent estimates suggested 60% of the senior manger’s time spent on administering Social enterprise operations. Furthermore, given the challenges presented by cash flow deficiencies, most of the new (philanthropic) fund raising strategies are aligned to support Social enterprise side than Social service side. Thus, Fusion feels a significant ‘drift’ of their focus from Social ‘mission’. I.e. time and resource allocations to monitor social impact, VIC operations, management of volunteer carders (estimated to be 130) are further plunge. Furthermore, Fusion begins to feel the tensions (generated due to perception differences) presented by entirely socially oriented staff members of the mother organization, Sarvodaya, who work in parallel at the same villages (where Fusion works), all across the country.

Fusion is uncomfortable with this situation, on one hand. And, on the other hand, it feels confident and happy about entrepreneurial gains, which provides independence to carry out its activities, especially without being dependant on donor organizations. Yet, it feels the urgency to build-in appropriate performance measurement tools, monitoring systems that can help the management to balance between its main social mission and economic ambitions.

Research problem; how to avoid Mission Drift?

‘Is Fusion losing its original Social mission, in the pursuit of economic goals?’

Or else, ‘is Fusion adjusting to more economically sensitive, yet socially grounded – new mission?’. These are the conceptual questions Fusion struggles to find answers.

Then ‘Can we employ measurable performance indicators to verify the performances and mission?’, ‘What would be those indicators?’, ‘How to employ them?’. Those are the practical questions raised.

Fusion welcomes academic research and intellectual questioning to help through the present course of constructive tensions in transition.

29 Oct, 2008.

Useful sites:

Sarvodaya-Fusion: www.fusion.lk,

Sarvodaya: www.sarvodaya.org

Sarvodaya-USA: www.sarvodayausa.org

Sustainability research – www.sustainabilityfirst.org (of telecentre.org)

Contact:

Dr. Harsha Liyanage,

Managing Director, Fusion

Visiting fellow, telecentre.org, IDRC.

smilingharsha@gmail.com