SOCAP 2017 Impact Management Sidecar
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
$
%
123
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A
1
SOCAP 2017 IMPACT MANAGEMENT SIDECAR
2
Impact Management Sidecar: A conversation about and for the progress of the impact management field
3
CC BY-NC 4.0 Impact Management Sidecar
4
This spreadsheet is governed by a Creative Commons license. Users are free to copy, download and use this spreadsheet as they see fit subject to the cc license terms at this link:
5
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
6
7
Overview
8
Purpose of meeting: To gauge interest in a conversation about how to advance the field of impact measurement and management that could be ongoing, collectively facilitated, and independent of a need for funding.
9
Description: The sidecar meeting at SOCAP brought together 45+ practitioners who have spent considerable time working to develop the field of impact measurement and management. The attendees were (almost) all attending SOCAP, and included investors, network organizations, foundations, and companies with a shared interest in discussing the future of impact management. The discussion was facilitated using the Three Horizon Framework to envision the future of the field, discuss the status quo, and identify examples of progress.* The Impact Management Project team provided a summary of TIMP's work to date and progress. Then participants had table discussions to exchange thoughts on the future of impact management and explore the issue of areas for collective action and ways to avoid duplication while enhancing the practice.
10
Host facilitators: Social Value US and the GIIN
11
Pre-reads: See linked folder
12
13
Guide to the Notes Tabs
14
This document contains 4 tabs: (1) Meeting Summary, which contains a summary of the meeting's content and high level analysis of the raw notes from table discussions, (2) Table Discussion Notes, which contains the raw notes from table discussions, filterable by "horizon" and "tag," (3) Open Discussion Notes, which contains the raw notes from the closing group discussion, (4) Timeline, which contains entries submitted by participants during the meeting, and (5) Survey Results, which have been anonymized. Click the links below to go to that tab.
15
(1) Meeting Summary
16
(2) Table Discussion Notes
17
(3) Open Discussion Notes
18
(4) Impact Management Timeline
19
(5) Survey Results (anonymized)
20
(6) Participants on 10/10/17
21
22
Topline Summary of Meeting Discussions
23
(We provide minimal analysis below. The meeting notes are also in the following tabs in their raw format but organized to permit users to analyze them. Deliberately, those notes are not polished, so that participants in this discussion and others who could not be in the room will participate in continuing to develop these ideas.)
24
25
The issued discussed at the tables covered a wide range of topics. Based on a preliminary coding, the most common, in order of popularity, were:
26
Accountability: transparency and including diverse stakeholders in decision making
27
Coordination: coordinating participants in the system to reach a shared goal
28
Standardization: standards of goals, processes, or metrics
29
Accessibility: improving access to tools and resources
30
Feasibility: tools and processes being simpler
31
Methods: methods used to assess impact
32
Tensions / conflicts of interest: tension between the interests/needs of stakeholders (internal tensions, or tensions between two or more stakeholders in the impact investing ecosystem)
33
Funding funding restrictions or the need for additional capital.
34
35
A number of other issues raised did not fall into these categories.
36
37
When looked at by Horizon, there was diversity in practices that participants identified as needing to change, as well as the elements of a more ideal future. It is not easy to capture the nuances from the notes and the degree of consensus but the following were some of the points that came up most frequently:
38
39
Horizon 1 (current practices which need to change):
40
Concern about the gap between actual impact vs. reported impact, and weak incentives to close that gap
41
The limits of only being intentional about having a positive impact
42
The desire for more rigor
43
Various challenges in assessing impact (such as diversity of impacts, absence of standards)
44
45
Horizon 3 (elements of a better future state):
46
Common norms, conventions, standards
47
Measures / reports of impact are based on direct experiences
48
Accessible data
49
50
There were many more points made about what comprises Horizon 3. We suggest you you look at the raw notes in the following tabs.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
Main menu