A University president (an incredibly well-read, experienced, really bright thought leader) shared with us a story about American business, especially MANUFACTURING, as it existed 50 years ago. (He told the story much more eloquently, but these are the shorthand notes.)
The ‘outcome’ paradigm replaced the old model by changing the PROCESS (re-engineering around measurement and statistics, etc. Think Edward Denning and Elijah Goldratt.)
The goal was to stabilize the consistency of the PROCESS to minimize and eliminate the BAD STUFF.
Here’s where he went with that regarding EDUCATION.
The old INPUT model goes back 500 years (University of Bologna, etc.) Nothing’s changed. Same pedagogy. Teacher. Student. Classroom. If you fail, you’re gone. Throw out the bad. Keep the good. Be ‘proud’ of the number of students you don’t accept and the number of students who don’t make it.
In education, a new model of OUTCOME-BASED would look at the entire process so that everyone makes it.
INPUT VS. OUTCOME. For Impact leaders, social entrepreneurs, change agents and Development/Sales should think about how this applies to the way we ‘RAISE MONEY.’
The old INPUT-BASED model is all about activity, cultivation, marketing, annual fund, chasing mice.
The new OUTCOME-BASED model (certainly our For Impact model) is all about:
- Writing ‘TRIPLE NET CHECKS’ to the organization from the Development Operation.
- A laser-like focus on RESULTS/OUTCOME … not on activities, special events, donor acquisitions, chasing mice, etc.
- Do only those things that have dramatic, quantum leap, transformational results. (Chase antelopes.)
P.S. A very, very senior development officer actually told the Vice President that the institution needed to “spend the next five years totally focused on building up ANNUAL FUND.”
Can you imagine doing that in ‘business?’ Let’s sell a bunch of little stuff to a lot of people … so that five years from now those people can buy more and bigger stuff. We’d be out of business.