Ignored Outcomes and Missing Impact of Scaling Deep

According to the typology based on J. Gregory Dees’ Scaling Theory (Dees et al. 2002; Dees et al. 2004), there could be two types of the diffusion process of social innovation, which are Scaling-Out oriented or Scaling-Deep... [ view full abstract ]

According to the typology based on J. Gregory Dees’ Scaling Theory (Dees et al. 2002; Dees et al. 2004), there could be two types of the diffusion process of social innovation, which are Scaling-Out oriented or Scaling-Deep oriented. Every case can pursue both orientations of diffusion at the same time, but most cases can be classified as either of them by examining what is the most characteristic aspect of the case.

It is relatively effortless to describe, measure or analyze Scaling-Out oriented cases, because the result of the magnification of the impact can be observed in most cases. For the same reason, impacts of Scaling-Out oriented cases can be quantitatively measured. Such results of social impact measurement or analysis would be good evidence of outcome of business or activities, and it is useful for implementing bodies of business/activities to fulfill accountability and/or raise funds or contributions especially when the measurement method is associated with conversion of monetary values like SROI analysis or Social Impact Bonds framework. However, organizations which are able to conduct social impact measurement by themselves or independent specialized agencies will be limited to ones of a certain size, so that one can argue that many of scaling-out-oriented cases has reached a certain scale both organizationally and fiscally.

On the other hand, regardless of how innovative the case is, it is difficult to observe and measure the outcomes or impacts created through strongly Scaling-Deep oriented social innovation. There are often ignored outcomes and missing impact, however, it does not mean that the Scaling-Deep oriented cases create no impact at all, or that the Scaling-Deep oriented activities and organizations cannot reach a certain scale.

If one can present such easily underestimated outcomes and impact in an objective way, the true worth of Scaling-Deep oriented activities will become properly understood not only by the direct beneficiaries but also by the potential service users, contributors, policymakers, and any other people in the local community. How can we identify, describe, or explain the outcomes/impacts of scaling-deep-oriented cases?

According to Watanabe and Tsuyuki (2009), the diffusion process of social innovation often goes through three phases of idea creation, establishing sustainability, and diffusion. These three phases compose one whole story of social innovation with a number of episodes. In addition, Tsuyuki (2009) pointed out that the social entrepreneurs play an important role through various communication channels when the diffusion process moves toward the next phase, even if the case is pursuing scaling deep. Then, how can social entrepreneurs exploit communication channels to make the true worth of Scaling-Deep oriented activities widely known and understood?

It seems that scaling-deep-oriented cases are more common in the field of face-to-face services, rather than in the field of production and sales activities. In the field of social welfare for example, it is assumed that the Scaling-Deep oriented cases create mainly qualitative changes. These changes are significant but usually occur very randomly and individually so that they are hardly captured in a quantitative way.

I would like to document the presence of such ignored outcomes and missing impact, through workshops and discussions in cooperation with two Scaling-Deep oriented organizations providing face-to-face welfare service. One is an NPO for persons with disabilities, and another is a social welfare corporation for needy persons. Through workshops, we will describe individual stories of change in an original logic model format and discuss what really matters in each story. Based on these discussions, we will organize one common story, and present a key role of social entrepreneurs, the role as a storyteller in the diffusion process of scaling-deep-oriented social innovation.

References:

Dees, J. Gregory (1998) “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’”, seminal white paper, developed with support from the Kauffman Foundation, revised 2001.

Dees, J. Gregory and Anderson, Beth Battle (2003) “Scaling for Social Impact: Exploring Strategies for Spreading Social Innovations”, Pre-Conference Workshop, North Carolina Center for Nonprofits.

Dees, J. Gregory; Anderson, Beth Battle and Wei-skillern, Jane (2004) “Scaling Social Impact: Strategies for spreading social innovations”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2007, pp. 24-32.

Dees, J. Gregory; Emerson, Jed and Economy, Peter (2002) Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing the Performance of Your Enterprising Nonprofit, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Rogers, Everett. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition, Free Press.

References in Japanese:

Tsuyuki, Mayako (2009) “A Study on Business Models of Job Assistance for Challenged People and the Diffusion Process of Social Innovation”, Doctoral Thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology. 

Watanabe, Takashi and Tsuyuki, Mayako (2009) ”A genealogical study on social entrepreneurship and social innovation and challenges for social entrepreneurs in Japan”, ESRI Discussion Paper Series No. 215, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, May 2009.