"I recently spoke to a donor who reviewed a batch of proposals from different groups-different names, different logos, but nearly the same projects. Teams had reinvented the same wheel in parallel. Individually, some of those projects might get funded. Collectively, the sector missed the chance to pool efforts and solve a larger piece of the problem. That felt wrong, not because anyone was bad, but because our systems make it easier to duplicate than to unite."
"First, complexity encourages focus. It's human to take the problem you can manage and try to perfect it. Building a consortium feels messy and risky. Second, funding mechanics favor tidy, single-org proposals-grant windows, scoring rubrics, and reporting templates push teams into solo asks. Third, survival instincts kick in: Leaders protect jobs and short-term stability. Fourth, donors often prefer neat comparables; it's easier to evaluate and communicate about a single-organization proposal than to underwrite a messy, multipartner bet."
Funding and institutional incentives encourage siloed, single-organization proposals that duplicate effort across groups, producing dozens of similar pilots, fragmented data, duplicated engineering, and wasted momentum. Complexity and risk aversion push teams to focus on manageable problems rather than build messy consortia, while grant windows, scoring rubrics, and reporting templates favor tidy single-org asks. Survival instincts and donor preferences for neat comparables reinforce solo bets. As a result, useful tools adopt more slowly and sector influence at policy tables weakens. Joint bets and shared infrastructure, such as a coordinated events calendar, demonstrate faster coordination and clearer impact.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]