Wonderful clip Mark - you've inspired me!

Thnx for the kind words Jon.

We'll see if we can get some voting done for the video starting 1/1/08 and keep our fingers crossed.

Oh snap, baby!!!

It's 11:15am on Saturday morning here and the first conversation I had today was with one of my friends (Emma) who ranted her exasperation for 15 minutes on this topic before I got a word in!!

She now has a second friend who - with a fist full of dollars - has taken off from Europe to do "good things" in Africa .... in isolation from other almost identical programs (that partnered up, could achieve so much more just with the savings on two lots of admin. costs alone) and with no real measurable plan for future assessment of outcomes, cost-efficiency or community satisfaction/participation. (to name but a few desirable markers)

"Evangelical, Personal Mission-driven madness" was Miss Em's spin (actually it had extra words but I think Ned has a G rating so I've left them out .... plus she was very cross & uncharacteristically un-generous & harsh in assessment!!!)

Once the "debriefing" bit FINALLY finished (!) we actually managed to have a great conversation that covered so many interconnecting variables.

Maybe it's because of the way we both work (different fields but both with tight reportage/accountability & quality outcome frameworks here in Australia) and maybe it's because we've had similar experiences working away from home - consciously choosing to employ these frameworks when we didn't HAVE TO ... not sure ... but we both kept coming back to the increasingly pressing need for independent & transparent assessment and monitoring of NPO/NGO practices. (the HOW part of the What and When)

Mark - the video is great and it's a message that needs to be pushed ... let the voting begin!!

A little (well, okay a lot) long...but this thread (and reading a book about Room to Read gave me the idea add the info below to my sig file. Which now looks a little something like...

N: Mark Grimes
P: 503-502-0185
E: mark.grimes@ned.com
W: http://www.ned.com/
C: <Ned> - a better world, every day
A: 4888 NW Bethany Blvd, K5-222 Portland, OR 97229

2007 Ned Accomplishments & Milestones
59 microloans: http://www.kiva.org/lender/neddotcom 
64 better world videos: http://www.youtube.com/neddotcom
345 members: http://www.ned.com/

2008 Ned Goals & Deliverables
1,000,000 web site page views monthly
1,000 registered ned.com members
500 Better World Island monthly project revenue
150 microloans
25 good quality inbound web site links
10 ongoing monthly ned.com sponsors
7 new videos at neddotcom YouTube channel
6 <Ned> projects anywhere in the world
3 microfinance workshop sessions in Portland
2 events where five or more Ned members meet FTF
2 <Ned> thriving real world locations
2 or more totally unexpected spectacular things

Nice start! :)

Here's a few extra links that might be of interest:

• YouTube "The Davos Question" Video Flyer
• Blog - www.davosconversation.org/
• Official World Economic Forum Website
• wikipedia entry for "World Economic Forum"

>>Ned has a G rating<<

BTW, I think when needed, Ned can go all the way to NC-17

Invited this gentlemen to Ned. Seems like a Nedster kind of guy.

Mark Grimes said:

.... Seems like a Nedster kind of guy.

I think you are spot on, Mark!

Mark, I love your video!

As usual, I'll go off-topic.

Today I was reading William Easterly via PSD Blog. How The Millennium Development Goals Are Unfair To Africa (PDF)--it's worth reading. The short version: everybody involved with the MDG campaign routinely says Africa will miss all the MDGs. Easterly says--I'm paraphrasing--What's with that?

Easterly sees no particular reason to paint an unfairly bleak picture of Africa. He writes:

[I]t seems undesirable to exaggerate the "Africa as failure" image which in turn exaggerates the role of "the West as Savior" for Africa (as the MDG campaign often played out in practice).

Nicholas Kristof review of Easterly's The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good provides a longer version of Mark's succinct point in the video about the need for real measures of accomplishment.

I know Mark, Gayle and good ole Bill Easterly are saying something very wise and something those at Davos should hear about metrics. But I'm such a contrarian. When I read Gayle's: "Evangelical, Personal Mission-driven madness" I thought, oh yeah, that's me--without fists full of money of course.

Certainly I'll vote for your video, Mark, because I do think you're right and it is brilliant. I don't have a clue how to make a video anyway. But this business of "the West as Savior" and the missionary zeal, seems no simple matter, and it's driving me off point.

Over the holiday visiting I've heard, for lack of a better way to say it, the "the Pandora's box" argument against the Internet. Caution is reasonable, but I'm afraid the box is already open. The Internet is a many-to-many medium. One of the consequences is that people everywhere can mean something important to people anywhere. I'm not talking about all people, I mean person to person conversations.

Most of us probably have had someone try to convert us, and it's much more awkward when it's someone close to us instead of a stranger. In fair percentage of time people close give-up or scale way back on conversion related activities with people they're close to, like family members. The reason, it seems to me, is when you're close it's really important to be open to being changed by the other. And the conversion "isms" just aren't flexible enough for the normal give and take.

Sometimes "Evangelical, Personal Mission-driven madness" is just madness, but sometimes despite ourselves it leads to genuine dialog and real caring. The metrics on this sort of engagement are tricky, but I sincerely believe the dialog, the conversations, the sharing of love one to another is essential.

I noticed Christina Jordan's Facebook blurb today is:

Christina is really really full and happy her Ugandan inlaws liked the American food!

I think of a hand full of examples right off the top of my head of Nedheads and the ways we are changed by our relationships; like what the inlaws think. These sorts of things are so important and yet so hard to measure.

Mark, your "one thing" Realize that all these "one things" are connected is brilliant. The proposal for measurable results reported on by outside third parties is indisputably a good idea. I want very much for the people at Davos to see your message.

My worry is that metrics can harden positions and even act as an impediment to a sort of skepticism which allows openings to a clearer view. The sort of skepticism William Easterly provides in his Millennium Goals paper, for example. Or for the intrepid link clickers the sort of skepticism that Amartya Sen offers in his review of Easterly's book.

I take my "Evangelical, Personal Mission-driven madness" with a good dose of salt. I think all missionaries should! That goes for the Davos attendees too, so I can't help but wish they'd experience a few moments of doubt about what it means to be a missionary: for them to imagine for just a few moments how others in the world might rightly be wary of the gifts they are bearing.

Mark's sig file brought as big a smile as the video. Ned offers a chance for dialog. Perhaps the "one thing" that's most important is every "one thing" they'll see at Davos; the one thing is the conversation.

Oh John - where to start????

It wasn't MY "Evangelical personal-mission driven madness" statement but a statement made by my friend Em during a conversation/debrief we had within hours of Mark posting this thread & before I was aware of it.

That written, I actually agree with Em given the context within which she made the statement.

There is no need to re-write the general gist given it appears in the 3rd post on this thread but the pointy end is simple and perhaps not one I made as crystal clear as I could have.

Em's friend has headed off with NGO status (German registration I think) and all the taxation benefits that can bring, big bucks in her pocket & no real plan other than a personal mission to "do good things" in Africa.

SO ... her airfares are now tax-deductible as are many other expenses and yet there is no measurable and effective project plan in place on the other side of the ledger. (the accountability/service delivery side)

With all the taxation benefits or "rights" of NPO/NGO status comes corresponding "responsibilities" - and I completely agree with Mark and many, many others that (given the rapid increase in small NGO numbers over the past 18 months) some form of independent, international monitoring framework needs to be considered to ensure the NGOs employing standards of best practice - not only in community identified, needs-based service delivery but in transparent accounting and forward planning projections - are acknowledged and publicly listed along with those NGOs whose organisational practices leave a lot to be desired.

The benefits of the creation of an independent monitoring agency for NG/NP organisations are numerous and well within the scope of some of the UN sub-divisions. (UNHCR already monitors the quality & effectiveness of service delivery of all the big NGOs regarding refugees.)

As Mark pointed out, "realize that all these 'one things' are connected" ..... what one agency does in terms of transparency and accountability OR NOT directly effects the next agency and its ability to do it's work cleanly and get on with the job.

Mark Grimes said:

>>Ned has a G rating<<

BTW, I think when needed, Ned can go all the way to NC-17

Call me psychic, but I reckon you are going to regret writing that sooner than you think!! :)

Mark Grimes said:

Invited this gentlemen to Ned. Seems like a Nedster kind of guy.

Thanks a lot for the invitation. As you can see I've made an account. I might indeed be interested in participating in this community.

The coming 2 moths I will be busy with examns, but after that I might come back and spend some time here.

Greetings from the Netherlands, And all blessing with all youre work!

Johan Slobbe

Welcome aboard Johan, glad you found your way here and signed up. Thank you for the kind words, great luck on exams and hope you will find some time to spend some time here and participate...there's a great group of people here.

For those that missed above, here is Johan's video he made for the gang at Davos...

Now THAT is what I am talking about, Mark! Great video!

Gayle, I'm afraid I blather at the mouth too much. I really ought to restrain my self. I'm very sorry if I made it sound as though I disagreed with either you or Mark. I don't.

There are many reasons I believe Mark is so right in proposing the need for independent reporting. Yes, of course the pointy end of your comments are very valid and important.

You mention the rise in number of small NGOs. Like everything else that's a mixed bag. But one very optimistic way to take it is more community-based approaches for solving particular local challenges. I'm not sure that really addresses the situation of the person Em was talking about and her organization, but in a general way I think small can be beautiful.

I was interested in William Easterly's paper because he pointed out how the MDGs were set up biased against Africa and explored some possible reasons for that. One of his observations was exaggerating African failures is coupled with exaggerating the West as Savior.

So the point I was trying to make, drawing on that example, is that while measurable objectives are essential, there's a context that shapes the nature of the objectives premised on culturally-defined biases. In every case metrics are not neutral instruments.

Independent reporting will have to navigate the minefields of religious and cultural presumptions of the various groups they are reporting about. I think it's fair to say that the attendees at Davos have cultural presumptions and are adept at measuring and mis-measuring in in favor of their interests. No doubt they have other beliefs that are not tied so concretely to financial gain as well.

One of the better columnists in our local paper is an Australian. He got to the USA via the Vietnam War. He's a bit more conservative than I, but the tragedy of the Vietnam War is something he well understands and sometimes writes about. Another columnist is a retired State Department Africa hand. That columnist is more conservative than I, but surely fancies himself realist--one advantage of that is he doesn't make my head explode. Both seem to understand that the War on Iraq has been caused in part by "Evangelical personal-mission driven madness"--even though that's not your statement it's something good to watch out for.

You wrote:

[W]e both kept coming back to the increasingly pressing need for independent & transparent assessment and monitoring of NPO/NGO practices. (the HOW part of the What and When).

I'm sure there are better ways of doing things and worse ways, but I'm not always so wise as to know the difference. Of course I've got opinions, but it's very important to me not to be so attached to them that they are not open to question and analysis. On the other hand a certain amount of stubbornness is essential to have the endurance for ideas to grow strong.

My hunch is that the attendees at Davos are so accustomed to giving orders they have little time nor reason to ever question their opinions. I'll admit to being a bit of a missionary, but I'm a piker in comparison to the Davos class. I'm wary to call the practices of the Davos crowd "best." No doubt they're clever. Mark's video doesn't pander and it's made in such a way to be accessible to the intended audience. That Davos is asking and Mark is responding makes me quite glad.

Something quite unique about Mark's pitch is the idea to make it "financially rewarding for organizations to collaborate." Presumably the disincentive for collaboration now is the lack of standards for best practices. But another disincentive for collaboration is the different missionary positions; I mean religious, economic and cultural assumptions.

Self-interests at least has a certain predictable logic to it. Matters of the heart aren't so predictable. What seems to enable people to transcend their missionary zeal best is when others really matter to us. The conversations here at Ned allow people across different boundaries to talk and to matter to one another.

If I would make a video "dialog" is what I'd say. I think Mark's video is great. First of all I can watch it, some of the ones up so far are hard to watch. I also am so happy that Ned.com is. The idea that the people putting together the Davos conference are seeking YouTube videos is wonderful. They'll get to hear what smart people like Mark have to say. Besides that they're doing what I recommend without even hearing from me;-)

I sorted the Davos videos by searching "Davos Question." Mark's video didn't come up. Pleas add the tag "The Davos Question" to see if the search will pick up the video. It's too important to be lost; one way or another we need to figure out how to make the video get selected by search.

John, you're not the only one with a sharp intake of breath at the infamous "Em"'s comment, before reading it in context. Mission-driven "madness" has to be better than consuming lots of Cadbury's chocolate, which is what I've spent much of Christmas doing.

I would also guard against this "measurement" obsession that our countries seem to be advocating. Whilst my (limited) experience of Africa is that measurement needs substantial improvement, we certainly do not want to be allocating 40%+ of our budgets to administration, filing and paperwork, just to comfort the bureaucrats. I would favour a system which actually (in the UK) reins back administration and measurement and develops government-NGO partnerships based on trust, rather than record-keeping. The last thing we want is for the large charities to say to the funders that only they can operate appropriate measuring systems, forcing a possibly unwanted partnership between a charity and grassroots organisation, although I agree that in some cases this partnership is not just wanted, it is also a critical and beneficial development for both sides.

Certainly in Nigeria, there is a huge desire for learning and the idea of "learning how to measure" would be received extremely well, but at the moment the main funders have excluded this from their funding strategy, even though such a policy would be rolling a rock downhill. So my suggestion is much more to try to empower NGOs to measure their own success. Perhaps this could be done by "planting" measurement professionals (free of charge) into larger and more competent NGOs, who would then "seed" a crop of indigenous "measurement" trainers.

Mark's comment about NGO partnership is also interesting, albeit in its way impractical in many cases. My feeling is that we should concentrate on rolling rocks downhill and the idea of NGO partnership is, at the very least rolling a rock on the level. I spent a long while at my last NGO working on partnership development, but it is only on rare occasions that the level of trust is high enough for a solid partnership to be developed and sometimes this ends up as a merger, in any case, which isn't really what Mark is driving at (I think). In countries, where there is a culture of corruption and mistrust, don't be surprised if people are unwilling to share their knowledge.

Partnership is a great buzzword and generally a good thing, but to me it should never be at the core of any strategy as it can be extremely discriminatory, just as much as other criteria. The idea of providing a financial motivation for partnership will only in some cases combat the mistrust that exists between organisations. Fine, if you want to strategically encourage partnerships, but this should never be an exclusive criterion for selection for funding.

I would distinguish "partnership", which is perhaps a more permanent arrangement, from temporary "joint working", which I feel almost every organisation should have in their armoury of work methodologies, so maybe this should be the terminology.

Oh shoot, I was just putting the finishing touches on a post here and apparently closed the window. I probably should take that as a hint that I'm going terribly off topic and just stop, but Ben's great post got me thinking.

I actually am a big fan of measurable objectives, and an even bigger fan of transparency. Ben is onto something really important with the terminology of "joint working."

Most of us here are familiar with Gapminder Interacting with those motion graphics makes it hard to argue that data doesn't make a difference. But Hans Rosling has often been frustrated getting agencies to make data public. There are a host of reasons that data is held close to the vest.

Van Jones' keynote address to Craigslist Non-Profit Boot Camp has been making the rounds online. Miracles is worth sharing. Jones writes:

So let's talk about your impossible dream. You need some miracles. Good luck with that. But I can give you, as a 10-year veteran, my five counter-intuitive and probably immoral success secrets.

1. Self promote
2. Steal
3. Don't Lie
4. Hate your enemies, but love your rivals.
5. Do less.

The first three really have to do with transparency, and the case for it. The fourth goes directly to Ben's concept of joint working. Jones has taken on the discipline of loving his rivals, and the habit of bragging on their accomplishments. He points out that hasn't made his rivals like him and his organization more. But it's changed how the public views their organization and how people in the organization feel about themselves. My short version is about it is "We're more fun!"

I'm sure that Mark doesn't have in mind one worldwide organization to collate and distribute all the reporting. Organizations like CCGHR Canadian Coalition for Global Health Reporting are probably more in tune with what Mark would support. And that's very much in sync with Ben's ideas of joint working. The point is we need more cooperation.

But Jones' talk made me think about transparency in a broader way than just metrics. Promoting is an important kind of transparency, especially using online tools. Ned seems very much ahead of the curve when it comes to the ways social networks can be important, but in general as more organizations use social networks the ways of being transparent are being changed.

Blogs are also quite important. I've been very happy to see Chris Blattman blogging. A recent post, Field Notes Inside the Sausage Factory is an example of the sort of conversation that may well lead to better data collection. We all can learn faster when we're sharing. I've been disappointed in Google.org's blog; I suppose I was expecting Google.org to be more forthcoming and transparent.

Pernille Baerendtsen recently completed two years working for The Danish Association for International Cooperation MS Uganda. She blogged while she worked. I remember that Solkari of Black Looks and her exchanged harsh words. Lots of people have been reading Black Looks regularly for a long while. So that sort of thing is quite public, her blog was quite public. But hanging in with the online conversation made a real difference. Perhaps one way of showing the difference is when Baerndtsen submitted her Final Report and put it online, other bloggers linked to it. The report is also more candid because she blogged.

I have no idea how MS Uganda feels about the public nature of the report. But it's the kind of transparency that will be increasingly common, and it's fits quite nicely with Van Jones' rule "Don't lie." Many-to-many media is changing how things are done, surely in many ways for the better.

Mark, to vote for the Davos videos, do we just rank them? It doesn't seem clear to me but then again it's 4:30 am here.

There "rules" say...

"The highest-rated videos will be screened in Davos (January 23-27), where world leaders will watch your videos and make responses of their own. Your idea could be the start of something big."

So I think you just need to give Davos: Making the World a Better Place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4 KI-ulJNDqY) as many stars as you feel it's worth...and that's it.

* done!

ditto!

ditto! ditto!

[Actually I did it earlier when you sent it to me on FaceBook. I tried to add a comment but it wouldn't take it ... and no, I didn't use any bad words ; ]

Meron Moroz said:

ditto! ditto!

[Actually I did it earlier when you sent it to me on FaceBook. I tried to add a comment but it wouldn't take it ... and no, I didn't use any bad words ; ]

No-one here believes you ... so go and stand in The Corner!! :)