Help me earn 60.000 USD for wecena

Wecena services are my new social venture. The US-based Echoing Green non-profit organization helps social entrepreneurs with a 2 years fellowship program and seed grants including 60 000 USD for the take-off of high-social impact projects. You can think of them as a social venture fund. I’d like to apply to this project competition so that the wecena concept succeeds at bringing corporate-grade information technology to the hands of the most innovative non-profits in France and all around the world. The deadline for this year applications is December 1st, 2008.

Readers, I need your help.

You can help by reviewing the next posts on my blog (I will use the « echoinggreen » tag, you can use this links for follow-up posts). I will post pieces of my draft application to the Echoing Green fellowship program. You can help if you are an English speaker (possibly native…) : I need you to correct my English language and style. You can help if you feel concerned with the importance of information technology and the Internet for serving the public with high-impact and broad-reach social innovations : I need you to help me making the case to Echoing Green. You can help if you like my project and would like to contribute one way or another : just tell me you support this whole stuff and share any comment or thought. If you have a couple of hours available for helping, you can even start by reading Echoing Green’s applicant coaching guide.

You can contribute in English (preferred) or in French (ça ira tout aussi bien). In case you are reading this from the wecena.com website, note that your comments have to be posted on my personal blog (link below).

Let’s start with the 1st pre-application question

Let’s start with Echoing Green (EG) ‘s pre-application tools. EG suggests applicants (me) should use their questions to prepare their application. Let’s try with the 1st question (page 6 of the coaching guide) and throw an answer…

Problem Definition, What specific problems are you focused on and can you realistically solve it?

Their 1st sub-question :

What specific injustice in the world have you seen that compels you to start a new social change organization ?

My answer:

Non-profit social innovators lack access to corporate-grade Information Technology (IT) skills and services. This is a form of digital divide between non-profit and for-profit innovators. Why would information technology be primarily made to buy more stuff or spread more advertisement ? Why isn’t it more importantly made and used for fighting poverty, overcoming disabilities, sharing education or enhancing public health ?

2nd sub-question from EG :

Who, specifically, is hurt or affected by this injustice and how does the injustice manifest itself ?

My answer:

Beneficiaries of all fields of social innovations suffer from the lack of technology-powered social innovations and from the under-exploitation of technology by non-profits. Had non-profit innovators been given resources to better use technology, the reach of their programs would have been extended, their ability to transform organizations, markets and society would have been increased. More beneficiaries would have been helped better and earlier. Unseen social innovations would have been launched and developped.

EG 3rd question for defining the problem:

Is it realistic that a single organization could address this injustice ? if not, define the problem more narrowly ?

No. We only focus on the access by French non-profits to significant amounts of IT skills and services. Accessing software or hardware is out of our scope. We also only focus on IT needs that represent at least one full-time equivalent of services and skills. Smaller needs and projects won’t be supported (at least not immediately). Direct help to foreign non-profits is not in our immediate scope but we are considering partnerships with foreign non-profits in the need of free IT skills and services when it can increase the social efficiency of our effort by supporting higher impact global social innovations.

That’s it. What do you think ?

11 réflexions au sujet de « Help me earn 60.000 USD for wecena »

  1. Ping : AkaSig » Blog Archive » Participez au wecena

  2. Ping : AkaSig » Blog Archive » What is the underlying cause of the problem wecena is trying to solve ?

  3. Ping : AkaSig » Blog Archive » What will the wecena community look like when we’ve solved the problem?

  4. IA_

    Question 1:
    Non-profit social innovators lack access to corporate-grade Information Technology (IT) skills and services creating a digital divide between non-profit and for-profit innovators. Information technology primarily used to buy more stuff or disseminate advertisement can be tools in fighting poverty, overcoming disabilities, sharing education or enhancing public health ?

    Comments:
    – Keep subject and object in same sentence if possible (lack of access creates a digital divide.)
    – Don’t ask questions in response to questions (« Why should, » « Why isn’t ».)
    – I would add descriptive adjectives and adverbs (indispensable tools, critical mission of fighting poverty,) but I will attempt to be as faithful to the original as possible.

  5. IA_

    Question 1: (Punctuation Corrections Made)
    Non-profit social innovators lack access to corporate-grade Information Technology (IT) skills and services creating a digital divide between non-profit and for-profit innovators. Information technology primarily used to buy more stuff or disseminate advertisement can be tools in fighting poverty, overcoming disabilities, sharing education, and enhancing public health.

  6. IA_

    Question 2:
    Beneficiaries of all fields of social innovations suffer from the lack of technology-powered social innovations and from the under-exploitation of technology by non-profits. Non-profit innovators empowered with better technology can expand their influence and leverage their ability to transform organizations, markets, and society. Through modern technology non-profits can assist more beneficiaries earlier and more effectively. Yet unforeseen social innovations can be developed and launched.

    Comments:
    – Use present tense in response to a present tense question, « Who… is hurt, » not, « Who was hurt. » (No « had », « would have, » use, « is, » and « can. »)
    – Avoid passive speech (« beneficiaries would have been helped, » to « Non-profits help beneficiaries. »)
    – Time-ordering of actions, which comes first (« launced and developed » or « developed and launched? »)
    – I replaced « unseen » with « yet unforeseen. » « Unseen » means not seen, « unforeseen » means is not seen beforehand. I think it gets the message across better.

  7. Sig Auteur de l’article

    IA_, I can’t believe I am already getting support for this challenge ! Maybe I know you and I can’t figure out who’s behind your nick name. Or maybe I don’t and you are just like an angel falling on me from the sky ! Anyway, your help is highly appreciated and I feel very honored to receive such an amount of attention and effort at such an early stage. I am not sure I can find the appropriate words but I didn’t expect it and I think you are getting it : THANK YOU !
    Your rephrasing for question 1 sounds much better to me than my 1st attempt. Your answer for question 2 is also mine, now ! And I’ll try to keep your comments in mind when writing down my next pieces.
    Now, I will probably have some family rest (so to speak… 4 kids at home…) during this week-end and post my next pieces Monday morning or afternoon, France time.
    Keep posting your comments !

  8. Ping : AkaSig » Blog Archive » What’s the logic of our wecena idea?

  9. IA_

    Sig,

    I wrote a note in < and %gt; but it did not display.

    Can you clarify « Beneficiaries of all fields of social innovations suffer from the lack of technology-powered social innovations and from the under-exploitation of technology by non-profits? »

    Who are these « beneficiaries? » Are they all people, people in first world societies, or are they are just people who benefit from non-profits?

  10. IA_

    Question 3:
    It is not realistic that a single organization can address this injustice, therefore we focus only on French non-profits’ access to IT skills and services. __Not sure of meaning of this sentence__ Accessing software or hardware is out of our scope. __/Unsure__ We limit our projects to non-profits requiring the equivalent of at least one full-time IT specialist. Assisting foreign non-profits is beyond our immediate scope but we are considering future partnerships with foreign non-profits __Unsure of this phrase__ when it can increase the social efficiency __/Unsure__ of our effort by supporting higher impact global social innovations.

    Comments:
    – Replace « No » with what you are responding no to.
    – Change « only focus » to « focus only. » The adverb only describes the verb to focus, and should follow the verb.
    – Replace passive speech « the access by French non-profits » with « French non-profits’ access »
    – Singular and plural issues. IT skills and services is not something that is « amounts. » It is not a group of objects than can be counted, « skills and services » is singular. It can be reworded to make it plural, listing individual skills, but it does not keep to the original text. I removed « signifcant amounts of. »
    – « Accessing software or hardware is out of our scope. » What does this mean? What exactly do you do then if its not « hardware or software? »
    – Avoid repetition. « Only focus, » has already been used and « on IT needs » was declared in the opening sentence. I replaced them with « limit » and « our projects. »
    – Avoid wordiness and adjectives without a noun. In, « full-time equivalent of services and skills, » what is full-time? A full-time employee perhaps? I reworded the sentence and added « specialist » as the noun.
    – Avoid repetition. I removed « services and skills. »
    – Avoid useless repetition. « Needs and projects » is repetative unless there is a difference between the two.
    – Avoid contractions. Contractions should not be used in formal speech. « Won’t » should be replaced with « will not. » But I removed it because I reworded the sentence because the « will » requires the infinitive « be » which isn’t necessary.
    – Avoid asides. In this case it means (…). The word yet gets the meaning across sufficiently.
    – Avoid repetition. I ended up using the following sentence: « Smaller needs are not yet supported, » but I saw that was essentially what the prior sentence stated, limiting the projects to those requiring at least one full time employee, so I just deleted the sentence.
    – Avoid wordiness. « Direct help to » can be replaced with « assisting. »
    – Be careful. Only use localization where appropriate. « Foreign » means outside of France for you, but to this US based organization it may mean outside of the US. Since you already established in the paragraph you were French-based it is not an issue.
    – Avoid wordiness. « Not in our immediate scope, » can be replaced with « beyond our immediate scope. »
    – Does « we are considering partnerships with foreign non-profits » conflict with your prior phrase « Assisting foreign non-profits is beyond our immediate scope? » Use a wording to imply a future action to avoid the conflict.
    – Avoid repetition. I removed, « in the need of free IT skills and services. »
    – What is social efficiency?

    Personal Comment:
    Sig, I doubt we know each other seeing as I’m halfway around the globe. I just subscribed to your blog because I read one of your technical articles written in English. I saw your request for assistance and thought it was for a good cause and an easy way to help out in flexible ten minute chunks of time. (Time is very scarce for me.) I hope I am not butchering your submission so I try to explain all changes I recommend with the reasoning behind it.

  11. Sig Auteur de l’article

    IA_,

    Regarding your use of the « less than » symbol, it gets interpreted by my weblog server as the start of an HTML tag : you can indeed put some HTML in your comments. This HTML is probably filtered because some tags are not allowed (I think). You can at least insert HTML links.

    Regarding the “Beneficiaries of all fields of social innovations » I refer to, they are all people who are the « targets » of the actions of non-profits. Echoing Green specifically asks for who benefits from my work. Usually, most applicants have a very specific target and their application gains at including details about their « market segment » (sort of…). In my case, my primary target is the social innovator, i.e. the non-profit leader who is trying to change the world. But in the end, the people who suffer from the lack of IT in non-profits is not the non-profit leader herself but the people this non-profit targets in its programs. These people in pain don’t necessarily suffer from a need for IT (digital divide) but may be suffering from the inability of non-profits to reach them because a non-profit program was not using IT for extending its reach to them. In other words, as you said, the people hurt or affected by the injustice I am trying to tackle with are the people who benefit from non-profits.

    Following your comments on my answer to question 3 and in order to clarify the meaning of some of my sentences, here is an attempt at rewording it :


    It is not realistic that a single organization can address this injustice. Therefore we focus only on non-profits’ access to IT skills and services. Giving them access to software or hardware is out of our scope. And we limit our projects to non-profits requiring the equivalent of at least one full-time IT specialist. We also primarily focus on assisting non-profits with some presence in France because of legal constraints induced by our business model. We may assist non-French non-profits with higher impact global social innovations as soon as we find a legal way to let their programs benefit from the advantages of the French tax law on donations to charities.

    Is it better ?

    You ask : « what is social efficiency ? » I think of social efficiency as a ratio that divides the social value of an action (its impact in terms of benefits to the public good) by the cost of this action. I may have said « social value », too. In industrial engineering, the term « value » is sometimes considered as the ratio between quality and cost. This « social effiency » expression may be nothing more than some sort of neologism or even jargonism (does such a word exist ? :o) )…

    Regarding your last comments : once again, thanks a lot for your very valuable assistance. I wish I can meet you some day (if ever I visit Texas or you happen to visit Paris, France !) You are not butchering anything. On the contrary, your detailed comments help me think deeper and better about what I am doing and writing. When you have some more ten min chunks of time to spare, don’t hesitate to keep on commenting my next pre-application work.

    Next steps for me are :

    • to post a couple additional pre-application pieces suggested by the Echoing Green applicant coaching guide
    • to post the application pieces themselves
    • to invite a couple of friends and relatives to join you and my in commenting, correcting and enhancing all of this
    • to send this by email to a group of business schools teachers who agreed to support my effort (I won one full day of pro bono assistance from them in a social entrepreneurship competition, this will happen this week on Friday)
    • to package everything in a consistent application to Echoing Green via their website, before December 1, 2008.

Les commentaires sont fermés.