Hasan Altaf


This conversation is closed.

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.

  • thumb
    Mar 9 2013: Hasan, My immediate thoughs went to disaster relief .... I went to the web site Rating Hati relief one year later and found the chart that gave me this info. Just charties only (no countries donations or support) 3,436,680,000 was raised .... 1,111,460,000 was spent .... 2,325,220,000 is unaccounted for. As startling as these figures are the absolute worst figures are always if we allow government agencies to manage anything which is a giant agency.

    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.
  • thumb
    Mar 8 2013: The majority of issues we try to resolve in the world are not centralized in one area. We are organizations as people with similar interests. If each community focused its resources and prioritized their tasks effectively we could solve problems all over by sharing the solutions and results with other communities and organizations. Its all networks. A block is an organization in an city which is an organization in a state which is an organization in a country which is part of the world. The world doesn't have to control a block in a city it just has to share its knowledge on how to solve the problems effectively.
  • thumb
    Mar 8 2013: While there may be solid research on this point, my expectation would be that having multiple organizations rather than one keeps more different ideas and strategies in play. There is still the option of coordinated effort, idea sharing, and so forth among them.

    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.
  • Mar 15 2013: it is better to work together with as many recourse to that issue but with this arrises another problem without independent research a large one goal organization will become blind to other factors and possible waste time because smaller organizations are more tight knit and for the most part more creative
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: I don't know. It's a great question. What do you think?
  • thumb
    Mar 9 2013: I prefer lots of organisations working on the same issue in different ways.
    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.
  • Mar 9 2013: You are clearly talking about resource optimization. In my opinion duplicated functions and (human) resources is not always a waste. When the risk of overlooking critical details is high, the more independent points of view you have the better, in such cases is better to have lots of organizations working on the same issue. If the risk of overlooking something really important is low or nil, the best is to minimize the number of actors.
  • Mar 8 2013: There is a place for both. The smaller ones have the flexibility to explore new areas, techniques, and processes, but typically capital is limited. The larger ones have the structure to do more and take on larger, more well defined projects.
  • thumb
    Mar 8 2013: The prior.