This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
is it better to have lots of organisations working on the same issue in different ways? or is it better to have a giant org. taking it on?
there are thousands and thousands of NGOs and other organisations tackling issues we face as a global community. Is it better if there is just one (or even a handful of organisations) instead of the thousands? it'll save on overheads build greater donor- as well as vested parties'- trust.














Charles Curt
greg dahlen 20+
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
That seems to me more like the real state of the world: we have different ways of saying the same thing; we are one, but not the same.
Robert Winner 50+
By taking a look at FEMA during Sandy and Katrina and looking at the major relief organizations and their records ... the answer is there is no trust in either and the money has disappeared on both. The facts on Katrina are being investigated by Congress and the ex-mayor is under inditment.
So how do we go about devising a funnel to country XXX that will ensure the most accurate and trustworthy means of providing support. Hati is still in recovery and New Orleans 5th district is still boarded up with billions of dollars applied to both and little or no results.
In the industrial application of your question ... the answer is always based on how much return on the dollar as compared to the R & D costs. Profit is the only factor involved.
I wish you well. Bob.
George QT
John Gianino
Robert Galway 20+
pat gilbert 50+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Depending on the issue, economies of scale, may be negligible or no longer an issue beyond the scale of the organizations involved in the effort. In other words, maybe a five person organization is too small to be effective alone or lots of five person organizations might not be, but economies of scale are reached once organizations are of some modest size.