William A. BrindleyPhilanthropic organizations across the globe all have a single goal; we want to work together to make the world a better place. The cause could be ending world hunger, poverty, disease or lack of education, but the intention is the same. The trouble lies in organizing all of those different parties who can help contribute money, resources and services onto that one unified vision. So how are NGOs starting to think like businesses in order to compete, deliver expectations and quantifiable change such that they can see a difference? How is new technology helping to produce more transparency, agility and information sharing toward this end goal?
Contributor
Download Podcast
Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify, Pandora, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud, TuneIn, and Stitcher. Find other syndication channels here or search CIO Talk Network podcast on any other app.
Explore More
- IT Leaders as Catalysts
- The IT Leader Predicament
- How IT Leaders Can Make Service Management Future-Ready
- Can IT Leaders Achieve Top Level Service And Support?
- New Normal, New IT leader…first 6 months
- How to Build The Next-Gen of IT Leaders
- The Future of IT Leadership
Transcript
Sanjog Aul [00:00:18]:
Welcome to CIO Talk Radio and Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. To learn more about the show, please visit www.ciotalkradio.com and as always, we invite you to discuss to join this discussion on Twitter #ctrlive and look for this show as #philanthropy. Today’s topic is Philanthropy and Technology Changing the World, and our guest for today’s show is William Brindley, who’s the CEO and Executive Director at Net Hope. Good morning, Bill. How are you?
William A. Brindley [00:00:46]:
I’m doing fine, thank you for having me.
Sanjog Aul [00:00:49]:
It’s honor is all ours. So ready for the Thanksgiving?
William A. Brindley [00:00:52]:
I’m getting there.
Sanjog Aul [00:00:54]:
All right. Good, good. So for this holiday season, we decided to look at how philanthropic organizations could come together and use new ideas and technologies to help make a difference in the world, but in order to achieve this, there are many goals that they have. They’ll need to think like a business if they really want to deliver. So with that mindset, the first question is, do you think like if you look at any not for profit organization, they’ve got all noble objectives and yes, we are also looking at those objectives as donors or people who are giving them grants to ensurethat money is put to proper use. Do you think as anyone in a philanthropic organization taking it as truly business revenue and to put it to best use so that the best output is provided to people who are donors and as well as the people who are beneficiaries as customers?
William A. Brindley [00:01:49]:
Yes, I think that there needs to be kind of a line of sight, if you will, to evidence, provide evidence to the donors as customers, if you will, as you say, and also the beneficiaries, the various stakeholders, in other words, and you need to have a clear model to make that happen that’s integrated and aligned with the interests of everyone.
Sanjog Aul [00:02:11]:
So would you say that the people who are providing or giving the donation, they really are not looking at line item by line item type of visibility. That’s not perhaps their request, the fact that the trust existed is why they donated in the first place? Absolutely, yes. So if that’s happening and then if it is not put to good use, then the trust dwindles and that’s why not for profits so many a times have issues in securing more donations and funding.
William A. Brindley [00:02:37]:
Well, and there’s also a lot of congestion in the competitions for the funding. So if there isn’t a trust, and trust needs to be earned then and built over time by producing results as well as building relationships with key stakeholders, then that trust dissipates and decays and you lose the opportunity to continue to work together because it’s a crowded field.
Sanjog Aul [00:03:02]:
Now you definitely said the word competition. So more and more it seems like that we’re talking about a business enterprise or it should be run like a business enterprise, but there are certain things that the people don’t need to give donation and they don’t need to do charity work. They want to. How do you make people want to do it? How are you as a business looking at that, increasing that want?
William A. Brindley [00:03:26]:
Well, I mean, like any business, you’re looking at passion, if you will, what people, what I call care about, what do they care about? Is it a disaster in the Philippines, is it AIDS in Africa, is it conservation and clean water in Southeast Asia? So there you have to say what do people care about? And then on the other axis, if you will, what are they committed enough to give to. To help in terms of philanthropic giving.
Sanjog Aul [00:03:56]:
Is it very cut and dry in terms of the end objectives versus what person gives donation? Typically it’s not been seen that way. So you might have a not for profit, having a lofty goal, saying we will help end poverty or we will make the kids more educated in or other noble objectives which are having a broad stroked definition, and I’m not sure if the people who are in the donation world or people who are donating, they really are able to make a connection between saying, am I going to give my $10? Is that going to help the world hunger?
William A. Brindley [00:04:29]:
Forty years ago, my children, well, not 40, but almost. I’ve got a number of children and one’s 39. So when he was a young boy, he started to write to sponsor a child through an NGO and he had a direct connect to that child, and in those days they truly did have a direct connect where they corresponded. So there you have at the most fundamental level, if you will, a direct connect. You’re right, you can lose that as you go up the scale, if you will, and so it’s a challenge for organizations, and now you have with new internet technologies such as kiva.org and other formats, you’re able to get recapture some of that direct connect to the end beneficiary.
Sanjog Aul [00:05:16]:
So if you are looking at this connection and beneficiary, that’s always, as you mentioned, we would lose the site and many of these bigger goals have got multiple stakeholders across multiple geographic locations. So it could start getting fuzzy. Do you think people are charged up enough to say while the scale is increasing we will still try to provide that individualized or mass customization or whatever way you can actually make people feel that they’ dollars are put to specific use?
William A. Brindley [00:05:47]:
, and the betters, better organizations do just exactly that. The mass personalization where you’re able to have the overall strategic vision and goal which is of value as well as bring it down to the most personal level. So it’s a both.
Sanjog Aul [00:06:02]:
And so when you say that they do it, what would be a good example of that?
William A. Brindley [00:06:07]:
So a good example would be in microfinance. Take an organization like Grameen or opportunity international groups that focus axion, that focus on micro loans or micro insurance now often mobile payments to the poor. Well, they’re able to have a macro program, a major strategic initiative and get funding, let’s say from USA, DFID, the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller large international funders, but at the end of the day it comes down to an individual worker in Haiti who is seeking to build a small business in Haiti, for example, where they’re creating a beauty shop or someone in Rwanda who’s creating a tire repair shop and they’re getting the little micro loan that enables them to have the capital to do that. So you might have a macro program that involves a lot of major stakeholders and players, but ultimately it comes down to the individual.
Sanjog Aul [00:07:12]:
So if you were to look at the DNA of a not for profit organization, while we know that they are trying to do good and people who have joined may have this urge to give back to the community and that’s why to some extent they join. However, when you look at the very workers, whether they are employee of a not for profit organization or the ones who are connected to that organization in order to in some place in value chain to basically help the end beneficiary there doesn’t typically look like there’s a sense of urgency or some sort of checks and balances for that to get the value created timely and enough in quantity and quality for someone to say yes, I am creating a good brand which is excellence done on a consistent basis.
William A. Brindley [00:07:58]:
, I mean you lose the sort of profit initiative, if you will. I know that might be not a terribly attractive word to some, but the bottom line drives change. I mean take the best companies in the world, the Microsoft’s, the Apples, the others of the world, the tech companies, Cisco, Intel and others, they’re always driven by that bottom line or a Nordstrom or others in another sphere, you could go on with those analogies, and you look at, they’re constantly looking at the value to the end customer and if they don’t do it, they go out of business. So whereas so many of the NGOs, nonprofits, they are in many ways becoming calcified and they are institutionalized such that they’re self perpetuating, and while they may have economic pressures a lot, there isn’t that sort of harsh cold reality of a bottom line.
William A. Brindley [00:08:59]:
They have other virtues, but that’s one of the challenges. So there isn’t the proverbial burning platform for many people.
Sanjog Aul [00:09:06]:
Do you think there is something to be done in terms of the standards or compliance issues and others which will allow you to bring the business like capabilities, the sense of urgency, the accountability that you would like to see from an outside in as even as a donor to say you have 80% of your donation going into operational expenses, only 20% reaches what can you do and make it visible to us as you bring about change? That 80% goes to the donor and only 20% comes to the operational side of that philanthropic organization.
William A. Brindley [00:09:41]:
I mean there are some excellent techniques and institutions, organizations that monitor and measure and look at the so called pie chart of how much is spent on programs, how much is spent on management, how much is spent on fundraising, for example, and that’s useful, but then you get the tyranny of the pie chart, if you will, and there isn’t therefore enough investment in say the smart use of technology, which could bring about a lot to your point around business, a lot of productivity gains as we’ve seen over the last 30, 40 years in the developed world through the smart use of technology. We haven’t seen those as much in the nonprofit world because of the tyranny of what I call the tyranny of the pie chart. So that’s one dimension on that. Compliance is one angle. Visibility reporting is one area, frankly, and this may be lead to a whole series of other questions from you perhaps, but I think some of the models are threadbare.
William A. Brindley [00:10:39]:
I think a lot of these models were developed after World War II for good reason, but now I think they are getting worn out and I think we need some fresh new ways of going after the same goals.
Sanjog Aul [00:10:52]:
Actually, you stole my thunder because I was just about to ask you about innovation in this space. Not only of course technology, Of course people do technology, and we’ll come to that side of it after this first segment, but then what do you think is required for at a fundamental level, at a strategic level, at a policy level for these not for profit organizations to become more relevant? I’ll use this word, relevant. In today’s day and age when people want instant results, they want most of the work that is done and they want to watch everything that’s going on versus saying I gave you my $10 and you deal with it.
William A. Brindley [00:11:28]:
, I mean some will cope but some will not and some should not in my view. I’m pretty radical view perhaps, but I believe that a social enterprise perhaps model is and it’s evolving too, but could be a better way to go where there’s actually a different kind of charter and it isn’t registered as a say 501c3 educational charter as it would be in the United States and similarly in other countries, but rather registered as a for profit or low profit, no profit, but still a more traditional enterprise legally, but focused on a more business type model. That may may have to happen and it is happening. I know of organizations that are giving up their nonprofit charters for a for profit charter in order to be able to do more and have more flexibility and have more of the drive that I think you’re after here.
Sanjog Aul [00:12:22]:
So let’s take a quick break listeners. We’ll be right back, and then let’s start talking about how does the new wave of philanthropy look? What will evolve with the shape and form of that new wave of philanthropy? How are we going to do philanthropy going forward which will make all stakeholders happy and content? Please stay tuned. We’ll be right back.
Sanjog Aul [00:13:46]:
Welcome back. So we did talk about some of the areas in which innovation is happening. So where do you think this whole philanthropy is going, what is the new shape and form in which every stakeholder will feel good about being involved?
William A. Brindley [00:14:00]:
I think it’s multidimensional. I think that stakeholders, you now really need a sort of tri sector model. You need the corporate, you need the civil society and you need the public, the more government side of things. So you really need to have all three lenses, if you will, in order to get to the answer to that.
Sanjog Aul [00:14:20]:
And what would be that in terms of specifics? What are some of the areas in which the work is in progress?
William A. Brindley [00:14:27]:
So in terms of the. I think that you need to have more of a sort of how do we keep score kind of view. In other words, I think you, in any system like this, you need a more systems type of thinking where you’re really providing metrics. So for example, in a disaster, you need to be able to show not only the sort of civil society benefits in terms of reconstructing the telecommunications network, you have to also show how that benefited a certain number and types of beneficiaries, displaced persons, as well as you have to liaise with the governments to show the way in which the compliance and the conformity to the government and the benefit to the overall well being of the nation was accomplished. So I think, for example in the Philippines is a prime example.
Sanjog Aul [00:15:20]:
So if you were to come down to now the strategy is kind of discussed here. Now we look at the tactics, what all tactics that you think were used earlier are not going to be relevant
William A. Brindley [00:15:31]:
Anymore in technology or in philanthropy.
Sanjog Aul [00:15:34]:
In philanthropy to start with, and then we’ll get into the implementation which is going to use.
William A. Brindley [00:15:38]:
I think this is probably a truism now, but I think the charity model is thread is gone and we’re moving much more into an investing model. There are types of philanthropy such as impact investing or catalytic investing or patient capital, various types of terms that are used whereby the wall is broken down between traditional charitable giving and investing and different models and actually devices or financial instruments, if you will, are utilized bonds and other techniques to be able to invest more, if you will, and philanthropies are able to have that sort of more patient, innovative view. The Gates foundation is a great example of that, whereby they can make that kind of investment, if you will, for the long term.
Sanjog Aul [00:16:38]:
Now you use very interesting analogies where you got investment. So do you expect a venture capitalist or an angel to come and say I’m going to help you start this and you give me such returns?
William A. Brindley [00:16:50]:
Yes, in other words, and that is a challenge in terms of how do you get the different returns? Are you, is it, you’ve got the financial returns, the social benefit, sustainability, various types of lenses or metrics, the ways in which you can evaluate the different returns, and that’s a challenge, but it’s an evolving one and it’s getting quite mature. So yes, there would be pools of funds that would be invested either through a traditional philanthropic mechanism or through some of the newer models to be able to make an investment, to make a change in order to have the same kind of goal that you would have at more traditional charity.
Sanjog Aul [00:17:32]:
Now one is to of course look at the external factor and see how you can make it profitable. How do you make people invest? Now another thing is to look within and not run it. As people joke about government, that it has a thousand dollar hammer and $100 nail type of a procurement policy, and to some degree people also talk about philanthropic organization because the money’s coming easy while it doesn’t come easy, but nobody really is accountable for it. So it gets misused or it is not used to the degree that it could be in order to create the right level of value.
William A. Brindley [00:18:03]:
And people, I don’t, I mean I depends on your view, your anthropology. Your view of people, but I think people generally in the philanthropies are well meaning and are good people seeking to do good things and government the same, but something happens when it gets combined and it’s the, it’s the challenge of how it, it’s sort of, it’s not quite the right word but dumbs down in a way and doesn’t get optimal. So you need to shake that up and you need to take a fresh view and come up with new ways of doing things.
Sanjog Aul [00:18:34]:
Now who’s going to do that? Because if you go top to bottom, everybody is wearing that angel effect or an angel halo on their head and not thinking that we got to rally.
William A. Brindley [00:18:43]:
I think you need disruptive interventions. I think you have people like Pierre Midyar and even usaid government institution are looking at innovative ways to shake things up. I think if the donors and ultimately you kind of follow the money? If the money, the supply side, if you will, is looking at things differently and looking at new ways and new approaches, then you’ll have disruption and that’ll bring about change, and that’s what we’ve seen in mobile and many, many other technology areas as well, of course.
Sanjog Aul [00:19:19]:
So concerns that I’m raising on this show, these are not any new concerns that are being seen, and you mentioned that the government and other policymakers are looking into it. I’m sure there is a lot of looking into has happened over the years what has come out of that effort.
William A. Brindley [00:19:36]:
So I think that there are concrete examples where groups have tested, if you will, and strategy these days is a series of tests in terms of how they might take that kind of an approach. So I think, for example, in the microfinance area, which is a good one, there is a group called Better Than Cash, where a group, a collaborative group, and we haven’t talked much about collaboration. A related topic here, a collaborative group that NetHope, my organization that I’m the CEO of, helped to put together together with USAID, the Gates Foundation, Visa, Citibank, many of, a number of the NGOs, Concern Care and other organizations put together an alliance that would take a more digital approach, if you will, to the development aid process versus the more physical approach, and I can go into that in more detail.
Sanjog Aul [00:20:37]:
So when you specifically spoke about this microfinance, et cetera, all the initiatives that you mentioned, there was something that you could measure, but when I’m talking about like the world’s hunger or overall education for people, what are the possible ways to measure things like those in order for. Because this is, I mean, I’ve used this in the past, that what you don’t know enough about, you cannot measure, and what you cannot measure, you cannot.
William A. Brindley [00:21:01]:
Exactly, and so you really need design, monitoring and evaluation systems and the theory of change to begin to sort of transform the social sector. So there are groups such as nudea, which is a technology platform that can be used to empower in the organizations of all sorts that we’ve talked about, the stakeholders to collect data, to design a system, design an approach and then be able to have the kinds of metrics and reports that are needed in order to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of an investment, be it a charitable type or philanthropic type investment. So that’s one example is sort of in the data collection and systems world, which is a platform called nudea.
Sanjog Aul [00:21:53]:
And how did that data collection get analyzed and how was that output? The analytics that was created or the results that were created were used as a positive feedback for incremental changes or improvements in the whole processes and the people and the technology.
William A. Brindley [00:22:10]:
So you have, without going into too much depth, you have data, information, knowledge and what we call wisdom, I guess you might call. . So you have data, which is the unstructured pieces of raw observations and measures. The big problem in these organizations is what we call small Data, big data, of course is a topic and I’m actually on the World Economic Forum’s council around big data will be on that council meeting, at that council meeting next week in Belgium, but you have the small data challenge, which is the smallest sort of unstructured. Then you have information, of course, where it’s transformed into, that can be analyzed and, and you can see the relationships and the connections between the data that leads to knowledge which create, is created, and you therefore can start to make better decisions.
William A. Brindley [00:22:55]:
You can be more outcome based in terms of what you look at in terms of philanthropic investment or charitable giving, depending on how you look at it, and then ultimately you can have wisdom, so you can really have that sense of the future and you can start to look over the horizon, which I think helps build trust, which we talked about, which is so critical to all this.
Sanjog Aul [00:23:17]:
So interestingly, not every not for profit organization or philanthropic organization is at the same level of sophistication as Bill and Melinda Gates or Clinton foundation or anyone who has got very deep pockets? You are talking about the technology areas like big data, et cetera. We have seen organizations having a problem wiring their computer and for that they don’t have people and they have to look for outside organizations to help them with those minimal level like rudimentary level tasks related to technology, and we are talking about something which is as sophisticated as big data. So is there something being done for the not as affluent, not for profit organizations?
William A. Brindley [00:24:00]:
So this is where collaboration comes in, where you basically can have the typically underfunded in the technology space, nonprofits. So they’re again back to the tyranny of the pie chart, therefore money, because of that and the metrics that are used, the downside of that there’s some positive that the trade off is they’re not making enough investment technology. The way out of that is to one of the ways is to collaborate, NetHope for example, was founded originally by a group of seven NGOs that while they’re front facing beneficiaries were different, say CARE, Mercy Corps, the Nature Conservancy, different beneficiaries, children, women, wildlife, et cetera. From a technology standpoint in the developing world, they needed the same things, and yet they were all underfunded. They had unstable and expensive connectivity, for example. So by pooling their resources together and by aggregating their requirements and by investing and then building an ecosystem of third party investors, Intel, Microsoft, Accenture and others, you’re able to then address those needs in a more collaborative model and you can kind of share the benefit of the platforms that are built as a result.
Sanjog Aul [00:25:25]:
Let’s take a quick break listeners. We’ll be back after the short break and look at the actual technologies and innovations that have been done in it made with cloud, the mobility, the social media, big data. So one is to basically paint a bigger picture of saying that big data can help xyz. What has been the impact? What are some of the specific steps taken leveraging each of those newer technology disruptions and innovation in order to build get the end benefit which is all we are all after to get that end benefit and what is the proof point? Please stay tuned. We’ll be right back and explore.
Sanjog Aul [00:27:02]:
Welcome back. So we did speak a little bit about big data and the different technology innovation that has happened in the area of cloud, mobility, social media, et cetera. One is to talk about it, strategize about it. Another is to look at specific proof points, and Bill, you actually anyways mentioned that the not as privileged, not for profits are also going to get support in it, but let’s look at the real value what we are after in terms of getting more benefits to the end beneficiary. That’s the end goal for all of us. So how are these technology and their implementation are being positioned towards that end goal? Towards meeting that end goal?
William A. Brindley [00:27:43]:
Yes. One of the key trends is that we’re going to need to reach people where they are with information that they are seeking in a with a means of communication with which they are familiar. So in other words they need to be able to use what they have. So what’s happening is with the proliferation of mobile technologies you’re able to reach the workers in the field that are providing health, education and other types of services, as well as the end beneficiaries themselves, and they’re able to use simple technologies, such as even SMS technologies to do texting, to show, for example, that they’re complying with adhering to a health regimen that they’re required to follow for AIDS mitigation, let’s say. So we’re using technologies, not so much smartphones, although that’s going to increasingly be available in the developing world, but certainly mobile technologies, for example, which is something that increasingly many people are, many of the beneficiaries are familiar with, as one example.
Sanjog Aul [00:28:50]:
So when we spoke about the mobile mobility, or you’re saying smartphone is not there and we have many times seen in the development countries, even they are doing better than the United States in terms of how mobile and mobility is really taking ground. So if you look at this from a global landscape standpoint, and whether you talk about cloud or you talk about mobile, so you have a way to scale without having to create more infrastructure or incremental investment. You can make everything as an operational expense versus a capital expense. Yes, exactly, and then you got big data, which actually allows you to do real time and that could most importantly be used for emergency services. So you got very good inherent traits of these technologies which could, when packaged together, could really do wonders in the way you create value. So do you think it is being taught that way or we are trying to do the best we can and that’s where we are.
William A. Brindley [00:29:50]:
I think it’s a combination of reactive and intentional. So reactively, in a disaster, we use technologies intentional, we have plans, and I think a lot of this is inexorable. I mean, I think the technology trends are going to continue. You’re right. In the developing world or mobile devices are proliferating as they get lower, lower cost, even with people that have to say, share SIM cards in certain locations where they’re, but they still have access to a mobile phone.
William A. Brindley [00:30:22]:
So you’re. Yes. So the trends are going to continue. The access points are going to continue. I think it actually, back to our earlier conversation, is going to change the actual nature of organizations that are typically the nonprofits that are delivering these services and they will move from physical aid, if you will, to digital aid. So I think there’s both an immediate and a longer term directional change going about going on.
Sanjog Aul [00:30:54]:
So now this is something that we would like to understand is that in spite of all the newer innovations, et cetera, what are the typical people process politics, Pocketbook challenges that still remain, which are not exactly chronic, but they are very inherent because of the DNA of any such organization.
William A. Brindley [00:31:14]:
Well, I mean, you have the cascade? The classic you’ve got the leadership challenge. If I’m following, you’ve got the sort of systems challenges of the organism, if you will, of the different organizations. In other words, you have the people, the human capital. That’s always the long pole, and then you say the Pocketbook and these other things. Yes, there’s a lot of challenges, but if you have the right people, I found you can typically figure that out. Obviously, a well funded venture tends to succeed, so funding is key, but if you have the right people and the right leadership, then you’re typically able to attract funding, be it a small local nonprofit or a large international organization such as Global Impact or World Vision or Oxfam.
Sanjog Aul [00:32:05]:
Now, technology is not seen as a favorite thing for most, not for profits, traditionally. Is that changing? Because now if you were to look at, for example, supply chain, totally something different, you can only do so much at the process level. Afterwards you try to use technology to do innovation. Similarly, from a policy standpoint and people standpoint, you could do only so much. So maybe technology could be your savior. Well, I think that is how it’s been looked at.
William A. Brindley [00:32:33]:
I think that if we look at trends and you want to look out a little way, I think that technology will dramatically change the supply chain and the nature of the organization. Where instead of, for example, one major international NGO, 60 cents of a dollar is spent on their supply chain moving food and supplies, trucks, gasoline, et cetera, et cetera, that’s going to change. That’s not going to continue, and I think other the model will no longer be that type of a model, but rather they will become, instead of providing physical aid, they will be providing digital aid, if you will, and in the future it won’t be. The supply chain won’t come that direction. It’ll come from, let’s just say Barclays bank and Safaricom and Western Union and Western Union’s network of,
William A. Brindley [00:33:30]:
suppliers and of distributors and of people at the point of sale, and then the actual beneficiaries and the NGOs, the nonprofits, will be certifying and validating those beneficiaries. At the end, that will become their role as well as architecting and putting together this supply chain. So it’ll be a totally different model, I believe in the next 10 years as we look out, and technology will be critical to that
Sanjog Aul [00:33:59]:
Now, as we all know that whenever you introduce or include humans in a process, that’s where the weakest link can be. If you were to replace that while we were trying to take away jobs, but if you were to be able to automate some of the business workflows or make the collaboration a little more seamless, et cetera, et cetera, what are those opportunities that you see sitting outside and say, these are my set of projects. If I were to make the perfect model of a philanthropic organization, what all would you like to see automated versus where human intervention is absolute must?
William A. Brindley [00:34:34]:
I mean, I think you have to determine what is the distinctive unique value proposition of an organization, and then you have to say, well, how do we get out of everything else that’s not strategic to that? Do we need to be running our own data centers? Do we need to be running our own networks? Do we need to be running our own help desks? Do we need to be running our own payroll, financial processes, et cetera, et cetera. My answer would be on the technology pyramid, if you will, that you only really need to be involved directly in your ip, your intellectual property, if you will. So if you’re World Vision or Save the Children, that would be child data, for example. World Vision, I believe, sponsor, there’s 4.5 million children sponsored through World Vision. Well, that would be your treasure chest, if you will. That would be what you would protect and preserve and that’s where you would focus your talent and your resources and then you would make sure you manage the rest, but you wouldn’t own the rest.
William A. Brindley [00:35:37]:
It would be outsourced, if you will, to others.
Sanjog Aul [00:35:40]:
You are looking at the government across multiple nations, especially for the organizations who are trying to have a far reaching impact basically globally. Do you think the mindset, the strategies that an organization can put to good use, including even technology implementation, could require you to really jump through the hoops just to create uniformity and homogeneity in the way the operation is run to your benchmarks, basically to your satisfaction, so that the best value is created or you have to make compromises.
William A. Brindley [00:36:17]:
Well, I mean, ultimately you design for the end state engineering approach? You look to the end state, but you have to make compromises and adjust in the real world. So it’s a both, and I’m not sure if that helps give you the answer, but it’s nice.
Sanjog Aul [00:36:32]:
I mean, what are some of the specific areas where you would say whatever we do in the United States would be a little different? Doing it in China or India or any other
William A. Brindley [00:36:42]:
Data Is one. So the rules and laws around data. I’m on the World Economic Forum’s Council, Global Agenda Council for Big Data and data and Development in Europe. I’m going to be in Europe next week and one of the major challenges is that with the Patriot act, for example, in the United States, the rules and regulations and what can be done with data are very different in the United States than they are outside, certainly in Europe, and therefore when you talk about aggregating data and big data, it sounds easy, but it’s not, and it’s easier to talk about than to actually accomplish can be done, but that’s going to be a challenge for example.
Sanjog Aul [00:37:24]:
So taking it beyond the boardroom or beyond those events that you’re going to, what are some of the things that can be done by the stakeholders and the leadership and even the individual workers so that a portion of it can start getting implemented? Because what again is happening is we are living the reality at the same time the donors dollars are not being put to the best use they can be.
William A. Brindley [00:37:49]:
, yeah. So I think there’s a kind of three prong strategy that I would utilize to answer you. The first is I would deliver on current technology initiatives and I would do do them well. In other words, things that are really useful to providing data collection platforms in Kenya, for example, for home health workers by an organization such as care, which is a real project, so they have a very good project, wouldn’t change anything. I would deliver on that, show that it works, learn lessons from it and then have that as sort of credibility building that technology can be put to good use. The second is I would build capacity for the future and that is around the human capital and that means ICT skill building. NetHope has put in place, for example the NetHope Academy because it’s one thing to have the technology, but the laptop could be used as a doorstop instead of for good use in a country such as say Malawi. So you need people with skills.
William A. Brindley [00:38:58]:
So the second thing I would do would be to invest in skills and a lot of that’s going to be newer skills and, and skills in countries and locations around the world where it’s very difficult to get skilled people. So you have to make an investment in that and that again we’re working with Cisco, the Cisco Academy, with Microsoft and their E Learning and others to build that up through our NetHope Academy, for example. The third is I would design and look to the lighthouse through the fog and say where do we go from here? Where’s the future taking us and I would pause it that it’s moving us to digital aid and away from physical aid, and we need to migrate and move towards that vision over the next number of 10 years.
Sanjog Aul [00:39:40]:
I would say if you were to inventory the weakest or weaker links in the value chain, which ones would those be? But before you kind of, maybe you’ll get a minute to think about it because we’ll just take a quick break. We’ll be right back and then see what is it that we could do to start removing those weaknesses so that we are maximizing our potential. Please stay tuned, listeners. We’ll be right back.
Sanjog Aul [00:41:08]:
Welcome back. So, well, the weaker links, it’s not that they want to, but they are, but what do you do with those weaker links so that we maximize our potential?
William A. Brindley [00:41:19]:
I think you look at the first
Sanjog Aul [00:41:22]:
of all what they are. I mean the question was which are they?
William A. Brindley [00:41:25]:
That’s exactly what I was struggling with. I think we need to first say what they are, and I think people, processes and systems. Typical traditional sail points and we’ve talked a lot about people, human capital. That’s I believe the most important processes are important. People tend in, in nonprofits to overdo that in my view and it becomes a light, takes a life of its own, but it’s useful, and I think you need to have clear processes and then systems which of course is our main focus here, and I think in the systems world, I think you need to take out the traditional vested interests around technology, for example, running one’s own data centers and get out of that altogether, for example.
William A. Brindley [00:42:15]:
And that’s an inhibitor, I think, because that if you use a lens of strategic cost management, the Money you save by getting out of that and the efficiencies you get could be redeployed to more strategic ends.
Sanjog Aul [00:42:30]:
Are there any sore points that you see in this whole value chain on how we do good to others and how do we deliver philanthropy, which have come up again and again in which you feel some collective intelligence is required, we have to put our heads together to get over.
William A. Brindley [00:42:46]:
Well, let me go back. I think that there’s a predicate to this and that is that the philanthropies typically aren’t that interested in funding technology. I naively thought when I came from Wall street to run this organization, I was at Citibank I came in to run as my third career long story, which I won’t bore your listeners with. I thought, well, I’ll go to these organizations that were philanthropy started by large by tech individuals that were tech savvy, that made their money in the tech world. They’ll fund technology because Net Hope is a tech play. Well, I found the opposite. There’s almost a phobia about technology for whatever reason, and there are many I’ve now found out. So I think the first thing is to begin to convince thought leaders and others in the media, such as yourself, around the value of technology, which will create the environment for changing that.
William A. Brindley [00:43:43]:
We’ve just done major research, for example with Accenture, and published an ebook on technology in emerging markets where we interviewed 25 thought leaders and surveyed 300 and some different corporate, government and other individuals in order to get the right kind of grounding for this. So I’ll stop there, but I think that’s one key part which is you need to shift and get when grants are made, you need to have technology be a key part of that, and there needs to be specific grants made to technology.
Sanjog Aul [00:44:17]:
Looking at the external factors which would actually include any government policies or the way we interact with the giving parties, which are the donors, et cetera. What do you think that we could do in order to make the environment more conducive for not only, of course to get more in terms of your revenue, which is more like donations, but also able to take majority of what was given and it is put to good use versus getting trapped in the red tape and spending money there?
William A. Brindley [00:44:52]:
I think that a lot of this, and you probably are picking up on a theme here. I think a lot of the old ways of thinking are gone and you need new leadership to be able to address that kind of a thing. I don’t think there’s any one answer to that. I think it depends, and that means you have to have wisdom, and in order to do that and ferret that out and sort it out, you need people or leaders who are able to have that kind of wisdom, if that helps.
Sanjog Aul [00:45:20]:
So if I was your lobbyist and I had to go to Washington and say, this is how I want to, exactly. So if you were to do that, do you think there would be certain areas in which you would like to help have me make some noise in order for it to become something, create a better environment for greater good?
William A. Brindley [00:45:39]:
I mean, I think obviously the topics of the day around transparency, open data, unstructured data, the internet, not taxing the internet, there’s all kinds of things now that isn’t the world that I sort of play in, if you will, or work in. So I try to steer around that. Life’s too short, but I think, to answer your question, that would be kind of one area where I would focus is on reducing the barriers, taking, if you will, a more libertarian view on that, and not have the government kind of micromanage or socially engineer how things work. I really think that’s key. I think also creating an open environment where openness is there for innovation and a lot of the government, again lobbying the government to foster that kind of innovation, I think is key.
Sanjog Aul [00:46:35]:
Now, what is your, I would say, overarching goal as an organization yourself, to bring in terms of benefit to the rest of the not for profits. What is it that you’re trying to accomplish?
William A. Brindley [00:46:49]:
So first of all, we are a member based organization. So international NGOs joined Net Hope and we just added our 41st international NGO. So we have groups in conservation, in disaster response, in international development, in 180 some countries around the world. So in my organization, one of the things is the benefit, the value that’s created through the sharing of information and insight, as well as the hard benefit, if you will, of actually working together to build platforms and tools that can be shared. So there’s the soft benefit of collaboration, if you will, and the hard benefit of building scalable projects and programs and tools. So that’s one aspect of what we do. The second is we are designed to give back to a broader community beyond our community. So for example, I just mentioned that we’re, we put together a white paper, a point of view on technology in the emerging world, and we are presenting that to the World bank, to the United nations, to the World Economic Forum, to the Social Innovation Summit, to the Clinton Global Initiative, and on and on so that the wealth if you will, of the knowledge that was resident and latent within NetHope and its members can be shared more broadly and be made more explicit.
William A. Brindley [00:48:14]:
There’s sort of a give back, if you will. We’ve done the same thing around our information with disasters because Net Hope has developed a lot of insights on the smart use of technologies in disasters. Similarly, we published and shared around that. So those are kind of two of the dimensions.
Sanjog Aul [00:48:31]:
So this is the last question for you. What is your advice to the not for profit leaders and other stakeholders, whether they’re in government, whether they’re in policymaking, or the folks who have been there and have a strong influence in the way philanthropy is going to be handled going forward? I would what’s your appeal and advice both?
William A. Brindley [00:48:53]:
Well, I mean humility is one thing I think learning therefore. So listen and learn and be a sponge to pick up most of the leaders in philanthropy and in the nonprofit sector, civil society and government. Most of the leaders are mid career to late career and therefore haven’t aren’t digital natives aren’t humble in terms of the aspect of tech. I don’t mean humble personally, but just in terms of people that are learning people. They tend to be knowing people because they built up a lot of knowledge. So to me it’s a lifestyle thing. It’s more of being in a position, a posture where you’re truly a sponge and you’re willing to think non traditionally about what it is that you’re doing. So that’s the starting point and I could go on from there if you like.
Sanjog Aul [00:49:44]:
On behalf of the show and our listeners, I’d like to thank you so much, Bill, for sharing your thoughts about philanthropy and technology, how we use the two together to make sure that we bring about a positive change in this world. Great.
William A. Brindley [00:49:56]:
Thank you very much for the time today.
Sanjog Aul [00:49:58]:
Thank you so much again and listeners. Please like us on Facebook search for CIO Talk Radio and be sure to follow us on Twitter. Thank you again for listening to CIO Talk Radio Radio. This is Sanjog all your talk show host till next week. Take care and God bless.
