Mega planning Model (Kaufman)

A Societal Value-Added Perspective and Frame of Mind[i]

Adding value to our shared society, using your organization as the primary vehicle is Mega thinking and planning. It is straight-forward, and sensible. From this shared soci­etal value-added frame, everything one uses, does, produces, and deliv­ers is linked to deliver shared and agreed-upon positive organizational as well as societal results.

This societal frame of reference, or paradigm, I call the Mega level of thinking and planning. If you are not adding value to our shared society you have no assurance that you are not subtract­ing value. Starting with Mega as the central focus is strategic think­ing and provides the data based for strategic planning.

 A central question that every organization should ask and answer is:

If Your Organization is the Solution, What’s the Problem?

This fundamental proposition—using a Mega focus—repre­sents a shift from the usual attention only on oneself, individual performance improvement, and one’s organization to making certain you also add value to external clients and society.

An Overview of the Basic Concepts and Tools for Mega Thinking and Planning

There are three basic guides, or templates, that help de­fine and achieve individual and organizational suc­cess. Each is provided in much greater detail in several books (see the refer­ences), but for our entry into Mega Planning and strategic thinking, following is the short introduction to these three guides.

Guide One: The Organizational Elements Model (OEM)

It is important to define and link (align) what any organization uses, does, produces, and delivers to achieve external client and societal value added. A tool for making sure that everything an organization, uses, does, produces, and delivers does add value to external clients and society is called the Organizational Elements Model (OEM) and is shown in Table 1.[1]  For each Element, there is an associated level of planning: strategic planning (and thinking) starts with Mega while tactical planning starts with Macro and operational plan­ning at Micro.

These elements are also useful for defining the basic questions every organization must ask and answer as provided in Figure 3.

Name of the Organizational Element	Name of the Level of Planning and Focus	Brief Description	Type of Planning
Outcomes	Mega	Results and their consequences for external clients and society (shared Ideal Vision)	Strategic[2]
Outputs	Macro	The results an organization can or does deliver outside of itself	Tactical
Products	Micro	The building block results that are produced within the organization	Operational
Processes	Process	The ways, means, activities, procedures, projects, methods used internally
Inputs	Input	The human, physical, financial resources an organization can or does use

Table 1. The five levels of results, the levels of planning, and a brief description.

These elements are also useful for defining the basic questions every organization must ask and answer as provided in Figure 3.

Guide Two: Six Critical Success Factors

Following are what provides an essential framework of this approach and for Mega planning. Unlike conventional “critical success factors,” these are factors for successful planning, not just for the things that an organization must get done to meet its mission. These are for Mega planning, regardless of the organization.

The Six Critical Success Factors for Mega thinking and planning are shown in Figure 1. Unlike many other presentations of critical success factors, these relate to any organization public or private. Most “critical success factors” discussed in the management literature refer to organization-specific factors related to their unique business. These apply to any organization and are “above” any organizational-specific factors.

FIGURE 1. THE SIX CRITICAL FACTORS FOR MEGA THINKING AND PLANNING

Guide Three: A six-step problem solving model,

A process for getting from What Is to What Should Be is shown in Figure 2. These functions include: (1.0) identifying problems based on needs, (2.0) determining detailed solution requirements and identifying (but not yet selecting) solution alternatives, (3.0) selecting solutions from among alternatives, (4.0) implementation, (5.0) evaluation and (6.0) continuous improvement (at each and every step):

FIGURE 2. THE SIX-STEP PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS: A PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING AND RESOLVING PROBLEMS AND IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES (Adapted from Kaufman(1992, 1998, 2000, 2006a, b,)

Each time you want to identify opportunities and resolve problems sys­tematically get from current results and consequences to desired ones, use the six-step process. 

This Six-step process In Figure 1 (Based in part on Kaufman, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2006) below allows the identification of opportunities before immediately moving to solve problems. The Mega thinking and planning approach does not assume that improving performance with the existing situation is automatically useful. Often, an organization can improve performance only to later discover that the performance in question does not add measurable value to the organization or to the shared society.

  

To be successful—to do and apply Mega Planning—you have to realize that yesterday’s methods and results often are not appropriate for tomorrow. Most planning experts agree that the past is only prologue, and tomorrow must be crafted through new patterns of perspectives, tools, and results. The tools and concepts for meeting the new realities of society, organizations, and people are linked to each of the Six Critical Success Factors.

The details and how-to’s for each of the three guides are also provided in the referenced sources. The three basic “guides” or templates should be considered as forming an integrated set of tools—like a fabric—instead of only each one on their own.

A Mega Planning framework has three phases:

·         Scoping,

·         Planning, and

·         Implementation/Continual Improvement.

During the Scoping phase, one may find opportunities that were not readily apparent from most reactive problem solving approaches to strategic planning. From this framework, specific tools and methods are pro­vided to do Mega Planning. It is not complex, really. If you simply use the three guides you will be able to put it all together.

 

When doing Mega planning, you and your associates will ask and answer the following questions shown in Figure 3. This also identifies the Organizational Elements in terms of the questions you and your organization should (and must) ask and answer:

FIGURE 3. THE BASIC QUESTIONS EVERY ORGANIZATION MUST ASK AND ANSWER (BASED ON KAUFMAN 2006a)

A “yes” to all questions will deliver Mega planning and allow you to prove that you have added value. . . something that is becoming increasingly important. These questions relate to Guide One that defines each organizational element in terms of its label and the question each addresses. If you use and do all of these you will align everything you use, do, produce, and deliver to adding measurable value to yourself, your organization, and to external clients and society.

Mega planning is proactive. Many approaches to organizational improvement wait for problems to happen and then hastily respond. But there is a temptation to react to problems and never take the time to plan so surprises are fewer and success is defined—before problems spring up—and then systematically achieved.

The Six Critical Success Factors in Brief

Examining each of the Six Critical Success Factors –Guide Three --to get a sense for the frame of mind (or paradigm) Mega planning provides.

Critical Success Factor 1. Don’t assume that worked before will work now.

Don’t assume that which worked for you and others in the past will work in the future. There is evidence just about every­where we look that tomorrow is not a linear projection—a straight-line function—of yesterday and today. Examples include car manufacturers that squander their dominant client base by shoving unacceptable vehicles into the market and airlines that focus on shareholder value and ignore cus­tomer value. An increasing number of credible authors have been, and con­tinue to tell us that the past is, at best, prologue and not a harbinger of what the future will be. In fact, old para­digms can be so deceptive that Tom Peters (1997) suggests that “organizational forgetting” must become conventional organizational culture.

Times have changed, and anyone who doesn’t also change appropriate­ly is risking failure. It is vital to use new and wider boundaries for think­ing, planning, doing, and delivering. Doing so will require getting out of current comfort zones. Not doing so will likely deliver failure.

Critical Success Factor 2: Use an Ideal Vision (Mega) as the underlying basis for all strategic think, planning, and doing (Don’t Be Limited to Your Own Organization)

Here is another area that requires some change from the conventional ways of doing planning. This Ideal Vision is identical for all organizations, public and private. One planning for one’s organization, simply identify which of the variables they commit to deliver and move ever-closer toward.

An Ideal Vision, Exhibit 1, identifies the kind of world we want to help create for tomorrow's child. It identifies measurable variables that can be used to (1) identify needs at the Mega/societal level, (2) provide measurable criteria for an organization’s mission, and (3) assure that everything an organization uses, does, produces, and delivers will add measurable value to all stakeholders.

EXHIBIT 1. THE IDEAL VISION (KAUFMAN, 2006)

There will be no loss of life or elimination of the survival of any species required for human survival.  There will be no reductions in levels of self-sufficiency, quality of life livelihood, or loss of property from any source including:

There  is a “gap”  between  what it is and what it should be

ü  war and/or riot and/or terrorism

ü  shelter

ü  unintended human-caused changes to the environment including permanent destruction of  the environment and/or rendering it non-renewable

ü  murder, rape, or crimes of violence, robbery, or destruction to property

ü  substance abuse

ü  disease

ü   pollution

ü  starvation and/or malnutrition  

ü  child abuse

ü  partner/spouse abuse

ü  accidents, including transportation, home, and business/workplace.

ü  discrimination based on irrelevant variables including color, race, creed, sex, religion, national origin, age, location

ü  Poverty will not exist, and every woman and man will earn as least as much as it costs them to live unless they are progressing toward being self‑sufficient and self‑reliant

ü  No adult will be under the care, custody or control of another person, agency, or substance: all adult citizens will be self-sufficient and self‑reliant as minimally indicated by their consumption being equal to or less than their production.

Consequences of the Basic Ideal Vision: Any and all organizations--public and private--will contribute to the achievement and maintenance of this Basic Ideal Vision and will be funded and continued to the extent to which it meets its objectives and the Basic Ideal Vision is accomplished and maintained.

People will be responsible for what they use, do, and contribute and thus will not contribute to the reduction of any of the results identified in this basic Ideal Vision.

From this societal-linked Ideal Vision, each organization can identify what part or parts of the Ideal Vision they commit to deliver and move ever-closer toward. If we base all planning and doing anchored on the Ideal Vision of the kind of society we want for future generation, we can achieve “strategic alignment” for what we use, do, produce, deliver, and the external payoffs for our Outputs.

The Ideal/Mega Vision is not the same as design and development but simply provides a “North Star” toward which everyone in the organization can develop their products and steer closer toward. On very simple decision criteria and time a decision to be made is objectively ask and answer will this take us closer or further away from Mega?

Mega thinking and planning is about defining a shared success, achieving it, and being able to prove it. Mega thinking and planning is a focus not on one’s organization alone but upon society now and in the future. It is about adding measurable value to all stakeholders. (Mega thinking and planning is not a tool for the actual design, development, implementation, and evaluation of organizational effectiveness but rather for scoping and setting requirements and for checking on measurable contributions and alignment. The operational analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation/continual improvement is best done by a number of excellent models and approaches, such as Bernardez, 2006a,2006b; Brethower, 2006; Gilbert, 1978; Guerra, 2003; Kaufman, R., Guerra, I., and Platt, W. A. ,2006; Rummler 2004; Watkins, 2007, among others.)

Mega thinking and planning has been offered for many years, perhaps first formally with Kaufman, 1972 and further developed in Kaufman & English, 1979, and continuing through this article. In one form another, using a societal frame for planning and doing has shown up in the works of other respected thinkers, including Senge (1990) and more recently Prahalad (2005) and Davis (2005). And this concept was introduced by Kaufman, Corrigan, & Johnson,1969 .

Appropriately, there seems to be a lessening of resistance to Mega thinking and planning; there continues a migration from individual performance as the preferred unit of analysis for performance improvement to one that includes a first consideration of society and external stakeholders; It is responsible, responsive, and ethical to add value to all.

Critical Success Factor 3. Differentiate between Ends and Means

Focus on “what” (mega/out­comes, macro/outputs, micro/prod­ucts) before “how.” People are “doing-types.” We want to swing right into action and in so doing we usually jump right into solutions (means) before we know the results (ends) we must deliver. Writing and using measurable per­formance objectives is something upon which almost all performance improvement authors agree. Objec­tives correctly focus on ends and not methods, means, or resources.

 Ends—“What”—sensibly should be identified and defined before we se­lect “How” to get from where we are to our destinations. If we don’t select our solutions, methods, resources, and interventions on the basis of what results we are to achieve, what do we have in mind to make the selections of means, resources, or activities?

Focusing on means, processes, and activities is usually more comfort­able as a starting place for conven­tional performance improvement initiatives. Starting with means, for any organization and performance improvement initiative, would be as if you were provided process tools and techniques without a clear map that included a definite destination identified (along with a statement of why you want to get to the destina­tion in the first place). Also, a risk for starting a performance improvement journey with means and processes would be the fact that there would be no way of knowing whether your trip is taking you toward a useful destina­tion or the criteria for telling you if you were making progress.

It is vital that successful planning focuses first on results (and not “how”)—useful perfor­mance in measurable terms—for set­ting its purposes, measuring progress and providing continuous improve­ment toward the important results, and for determining what to keep, what to fix, and what to abandon. This rigorous base sets the stage for another related Critical Success Factor 3 (Use and Link all Three Levels of Results) through application of the Organiza­tional Elements Model (OEM) and for Critical Success Factor 4 (Prepare objectives that have indicators of how you will know when you have arrived). The OEM relies on a results-focus because it defines what every organization uses, does, produces, delivers, and the consequences of that for external clients and society.

Critical Success Factor 4: Prepare objectives—including those for the Ideal Vision (Mega) and the mission that have rigorous indicators to tell if you have arrived at your intended destination.

It is vital to state, precisely, measurable, and rigorously, where you are headed and how to tell when you have arrived.[3]

Statements of objectives must be in performance terms so that one can plan how best to get there, how to measure progress toward it. And everything is measurable, in spite of conventional wisdom, so don’t deceive yourself into thinking you can dismiss important results as being “intangible” or “non-measurable.” [4] Increasingly organizations throughout the world are increasingly focusing on Mega-level results.[5]

Objectives, at all levels of plan­ning, activity, and results, are ab­solutely vital. And everything is measurable, so don’t kid yourself into thinking you can dismiss important results as being “intangible” or “non-measurable.” It is only sensible and rational to make a commitment to measurable purposes and destina­tions. Organizations throughout the world are increasingly focusing on Mega-level results

Critical Success Factor 5: Use and Align all three levels of Planning and Results.

As we noted in Critical Success Factor 2, it is vital to prepare all ob­jectives that focus only on ends; never just on means or resources. There are three levels of results, shown in Table 2, that are important to target and link.

There are three levels of planning and results, based on who is to be the primary client and beneficiary of what gets planned, designed, and delivered. For each level of planning there are three associated levels of results (Mega/Outcomes, Macro/Outputs, Micro/Prod­ucts).

PRIMARY CLIENT AND BENEFICIARY	NAME FOR THE LEVEL OF PLANNING	NAME FOR THE LEVEL OF RESULT	TYPE OF PLANNING
Society and External Clients	Mega	Outcomes	Strategic
The Organization Itself	Macro	Outputs	Tactical
Individuals and Small Groups	Micro	Products	Operational

Table 2. The levels of planning and results that should be linked during planning, doing, and evaluation and continuous improvement and there are three levels of planning.

Critical Success Factor 6: Define “need” as a gap between current and desired results (Not as Insufficient Levels of Resources, Means, or Methods).

Conventional English-language usage would have us employ the common world “need” as a verb (or in a verb sense) .to identify means, methods, activities, and actions and/or resources we desire or intend to use.[6] Terms such as “need to,” “need for,” “needing,” and “needed” are common, conventional, and destructive to useful planning. What? [7]

We have already noted this as Critical Success Factor 2. In order to do reasonable and justifiable planning we have to (1) focus on Ends and not Means, and thus (2) use “need” as a noun. Need, for the sake of useful and successful planning is only used as a noun, as a gap between current and desired results.

If we use need as a noun, we will be able to not only justify useful objectives but we will also be able to justify what we do and deliver on the basis of costs-consequences analysis. We will be able to justify everything we use, do, produce, and deliver. It is the only sensible way we can demonstrate value added.[8]

---

[1] It should be noted that the OEM is useful for making sure there is inclusion of each factor in organizational success; it does not actually do the alignment.

[2] These definitions of strategic and tactical are different from other conventional usage. I suggest that defining “strategic” as adding value to society and “tactical” as defining the best ways and means to achieve societal results is more pragmatic and encourages planners to justify any organizational mission in terms of Mega.

[3] An important contribution of strategic planning at the Mega level is that objectives can be linked to justifiable purpose. Not only should one have objectives that state “where you are headed and how you will know when you have arrived,” they should also be justified on the basis of “why you want to get to where you are headed.” While it is true that objectives only deal with measurable destinations, useful strategic planning adds the reasons why objectives should be attained.

[4] There are four scales of measurement: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. If you can’t name it, how do you know it even exists?

[5] Cf. Kaufman, Watkins, Triner, & Stith, 1998:Summer, and Davis, 2005.

[6] Because most dictionaries provide common usage not necessarily correct usage, they note that "need” is used as a noun as well as a verb. This dual conventional usage doesn’t mean that it is useful. Much of this book depends on a shift in paradigms about “need.” The shift is to use it only as a noun . . . never as a verb or in a verb sense.

[7] As hard as it is to change our own behavior (and most of us who want others to change seem to resist it the most ourselves!) it is central to useful planning to distinguish between Ends and Means.

[8] Sloppy word usage is comfortable but deceptive. How can one justify a statement “we ‘need’ to do a needs assessment” when the only practical needs assessment is about gaps in results, not gaps in means or resources. Words have meaning and using the same word as a noun and as a verb doesn’t model what a true needs assessment is.

---

[i] This approach is valid in both bad and good economic times, although crises often allows one the opportunity to change planning and thinking paradigms.

Social Performance model (Bernardez & Kaufman)

(Click on the graphic to enlarge)

In order to turn social capital into value-adding social, organizational and individual performance we must consider four key steps: establishing a shared vision among all stakeholders, measuring and reporting the value added -or subtracted- by social capital and building a supportive social ecosystem.

Step 1: Establishing a shared vision with all stakeholders[1]

Defining a common purpose among all stakeholders is the most critical step for turning social capital into value-adding social performance. Using Roger Kaufman's Minimal Ideal Vision- Table 1 - all stakeholders in the ecosystem can reach an agreement in a common vision for their shared future, identifying and prioritizing needs -defined as gaps in results- and focusing efforts in all three dimensions. For each one of the MIV elements, stakeholders can identify gaps between the current and desired level -"what is" against "what should be"- and agree on their priority.

 Table 1: Minimal Ideal Vision[2]

There will be no loss of life or elimination of the survival of any species required for human survival.  There will be no reductions in levels of self-sufficiency, quality of life livelihood, or loss of property from any source including:	“gaps”  between  what it is and what it should be
q  war and/or riot and/or terrorism, and civil unrest
q  shelter
q  unintended human-caused changes to the environment including permanent destruction of  the environment and/or rendering it non-renewable
q  murder, rape, or crimes of violence, robbery, or destruction to property
q  substance abuse
q  disease
q   pollution
q  starvation and/or malnutrition
q  child abuse
q  partner/spouse abuse
q  accidents, including transportation, home, and business/workplace.
q  discrimination based on irrelevant variables including color, race, creed, sex, religion, national origin, age, location
q  Poverty will not exist, and every woman and man will earn as least as much as it costs them to live unless they are progressing toward being self‑sufficient and self‑reliant
q  No adult will be under the care, custody or control of another person, agency, or substance: all adult citizens will be self-sufficient and self‑reliant as minimally indicated by their consumption being equal to or less than their production.
Consequences of the Basic Ideal Vision: Any and all organizations--public and private--will contribute to the achievement and maintenance of this Basic Ideal Vision and will be funded and continued to the extent to which it meets its objectives and the Basic Ideal Vision is accomplished and maintained. People will be responsible for what they use, do, and contribute and thus will not contribute to the reduction of any of the results identified in this basic Ideal Vision.

Roger Kaufman's Vital Signs - described in Table 12 - provide a common framework for helping diverse stakeholders find common ground and agreement about shared goals. Using Vital Signs as a guiding star communities (Level 1) and organizations (Level 2) can establish the needs - defined as gaps in results - to be addressed and prioritized and their corresponding requirements of social capital.

Table 2: Vital signs

Vital Signs (Kaufman)[3]	Social capital requirements -examples-
First level: basic survival for all people q  Self-sufficiency - Poverty will not exist, and every adult person will earn at least as much as it costs them to live unless they are progressing toward being self‑sufficient and self‑reliant	q  Organizational capital: self-sustainable business ecosystem, viable productive organizations providing jobs
q  Zero pollution - no permanent destruction of the environment	q  Institutional capital: effective rules and governance of common pooled resources
q  No deaths or permanent disabilities from what is delivered	q  Institutional capital: consumer protection rules and institutions q  Organizational capital: safe products and services
q  No starvation/malnutrition resulting in incapacity	q  Organizational capital: self-sufficient organizations, sustainable jobs, efficient healthcare systems q  Relational capital: family and community care, effective healthcare and education (higher HDI levels)
q  No partner or spouse abuse resulting in incapacitating physical or psychological damage	q  Relational capital: stable, well integrated families, family life, community support
q  No disease or disabilities resulting in incapacity	q  Relational capital: family and healthcare support
q  No substance abuse resulting in incapacity or dependency	q  Relational capital: family and support groups (AA, church)
q  No murder, rape, crimes of violence, robbery or destruction of property	q  Institutional capital: rule of law, property and civil rights, effective law enforcement q  Organizational capital: self-sustainable business providing jobs above poverty level q  Relational capital: community engagement and participation, family support, high HDI levels, turning around "anti-social" relational capital
q  No war, riot, terrorism or civil unrest resulting in incapacity of individuals or groups	q  Institutional capital: rule of law, property and civil rights, effective law enforcement
q  No accidents resulting in incapacity	q  Organizational capital: safe products and services
q  Citizen quality of life	q  Institutional capital: rule of law, property and civil rights, effective law enforcement
Second level: Organizational survival 1.       Continued funding based on measurable positive return on investment	q  Organizational capital: effective, competitive organizations providing superior client experiences, products and services, high DBR and IEF levels q  Institutional capital: rule of law, protection of contracts and investment
2.      Programs, projects, activities and operations that meet all performance objectives while adding value to first tier requirements	q  Organizational capital: strategic alignment, Mega-focus

Step 2: Measuring social capital's value added: making a double bottom line business case[4]

A wide variety of indicators such as the market price of mailing lists, sales referrals, brand names or multi-billionaire social networks IPOs can provide a glimpse of the mostly underreported and under-measured value of intangible assets such as social capital. Our performance-centered approach brings this intangibles into the social and organizational balance sheet by using social and organizational performance results as dependent variables for measuring and analyzing the social and economic impact of different forms of social capital interventions considered as independent variables.

At the microeconomic level, organizations and communities can monetize the value added or subtracted in a double bottom line business case by social and antisocial capital factors and interventions - from improving communities' civic engagement, quality of life, employment and rule of law, to customer and stakeholders' relationships to organizational culture, effectiveness and responsiveness - at three different levels of performance: value added to society (Mega level), to organizations (Macro level), and to products and services delivered by social capital interventions (Micro level)[5].

This performance-centered approach links and aligns social capital interventions to specific and measurable social and organizational results, accounting for its value as an asset or liability in double-bottom line business case. Using this methodology, governments, organizations and communities can monitor and manage the effective utilization of new and existing social capital and control the progress and return on investment on turning around "anti-social" capital.

The double bottom line business case – see Table 3 for a generic example - has three top lines: 

(1) a Mega top line - reflecting value added to consumers, shareholders, environment and community -, 

(2) a Macro top line - reflecting revenue, cost savings and assets appreciation (and reduction of liabilities) for organizations - and 

(3) a Micro top line - reflecting the number of products and services delivered, the time and work involved - in interventions to create social capital or turning around antisocial capital.

The indicators included in each category of the three top lines described in Table 13 summarize a wide variety provided by current research[6]. 

They might not be present or vary on each specific case -as we will see in the three practical cases discussed later in this chapter-, depending on the specific metrics that apply. In specific applications, generic indicators -such as increased revenue or reduced negative impact- can (and should) be broken down in more customized metrics[7] -such as tourism revenue or reduced damage to property- in order to increase traceability and keeping managers and officers accountable.

Table 3: Double bottom line business case (example)

(Click on the graphic to enlarge)

In the Table 3 example, Micro-level interventions are measured in different units - DBR or IEF rating points, employable workforce, direct and indirect jobs, housing units, reduced crime and incarceration rates - that can be translated into economic impact based on available local research - such as the cost of incarceration, the amount of property lost to crime or the increased business and community revenue generated per point of improved DBR rating or per average new investment.

The business case for social capital presents two bottom lines: the first or conventional bottom line ( reflects the net result for organizations: . The second or social bottom line ( factors also the net result for consumers, shareholders, environment and communities .

Mega-level indicators such as jobs, health, housing, self-sufficiency, and unemployment are monetized using existing social research – such as the impact of demographic changes, institutions and relational capital in societal and organizational performance and costs - and economic data – such as average wages, economic multipliers, social costs of “non-quality” such as welfare, unemployment insurance or damage to property or environment.

When a direct indicator of an “intangible” is not available, the business case can use “proxy” metrics –like the wage cost of down time provoked by preventable illnesses[9].

A low or negative social ROI indicates that the social capital intervention may actually subtract value to its intended beneficiaries, -as in the case of failed welfare and foreign aid programs[10], while a low or negative conventional ROI indicates that the social capital intervention is not economically sustainable.

Used as a research framework, the double bottom line business case facilitates collecting and monitoring all critical variables data for testing each social capital intervention turning a 5-year social capital development process into a experimental design with controlled variables allowing the application of time series analysis and other advanced research methods[11]. Using the double bottom line business case as a common scoreboard, different stakeholders can track and align their goals and metrics.

Step 3: Align and organize social capital factors in an effective social ecosystem[12]

The experience of successful creation of value-adding social capital -from Silicon Valley to Singapore to China's Special Economic Zones to India's digital cities around the Indian Institutes of Technology- shows that positive social change comes faster in smaller, entrepreneurial ecosystems operating as innovation's "greenhouses" with supportive institutions that can more rapidly showcase results, inspiring emulation rather than imposing change.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems can be designed and developed addressing and complementing the three dimensions of social capital with specific subsystems[13]. Intellectual Capital and contracts protection, infrastructure and common pooled resources (CPR) management can provide adequate institutional capital; market, finance and logistics support supply organizational capital; security, education, housing and community development foster relational capital (Figure 2)

Figure 2: Managing social capital through business ecosystems

(Click on the graphic to enlarge)

Multiple social capital factors and interventions can be aligned by developing a shared vision among all stakeholders[14] based on the perspective  of the shared "costumers" of their social and business ecosystem[15] - such as residents, visitors and patrons of multiple businesses in the community.

Using this integrated framework, multiple organizations and institutions in Colon City, Panama, coordinate interventions for improving the city's social capital and turning around "anti-social" capital - from recovering and turning gang members into tourist guide and waste management jobs to involving former squatters into re-housing and hospitality projects.

Using a cross organizational flowchart as shown in Figure 3 multiple business can organize in  value chains serving shared customers. Each organization participating in a value chain providing part of the products and services required for a common customer -in the case of Colon City,  visitors and residents- can visualize how their products and services must contribute to the shared customers' experience in coordination with others.

The cross-organizational flowchart tracks the economic flow, tying residents' income, jobs and organizations and investors revenue and ROI to shared customers consumption and spending. Multiple organizations can also visualize their participation in one or more value chains supporting the customer experience.

Figure 3: Aligning social capital interventions in Colon City, Panama

(Click on the graphic to enlarge)

References

• Bernardez, M. & Kaufman, R. (2010) Turning Social Capital into Social Performance. NOVA