unprofit

I aspire to steal like an artist

Public Parks : Private Operation - Can a business model save the parks?

View California State Park Closures in a larger map

Recently, California State Parks announced its long-anticipated plans to close 70 of its 278 parks "due to budget cuts."

From the press release:

“These cuts are unfortunate, but the state’s current budget crisis demands that tough decisions be made,” said Resources Secretary John Laird. “Hopefully, Republicans in the legislature will agree to allow California voters to decide whether we extend currently existing taxes or make deeper cuts to our parks.”

As a temporary experimental "fix" for the closures, California recently approved legislation that would allow private non-profit groups to operate state parks slated for closure.

Here is the KQED Forum podcast about what non-profit management might look like for the park system.

This is one situation where I struggle to find a business model that will adequately serve the needs of the public while supporting its owners, operators and affiliates.  Some things should be left as public resources, paid for and supported by all. 

The non-profit operators that may step in as a stop-gap measure to prevent some of the closures will inevitably face similar funding challenges that the government is facing today.  Rather than receiving the money from the Government, they will be seeking equally scarce private donation. 

While this system could work in the short term, I hope politicians are able to reach compromise and agreement around state priorities.  California's parks are some of the most beautiful in the world, it would be a shame to watch them fall into disrepair.

Reset San Francisco: Transportation

California seems to be constantly struggling for money, as are many other states and institutions.  San Francisco is no exception.  As services and programs are rapidly cut, they continue to run as they were, but with less money - and therefore less efficiently.

I wonder if re-configuring the operations of some of these services could increase efficiencies and lower costs.  Of course it is always nice to have more money, but at this point in the economy, it is important to try to live within our means.

One service I am especially interested in is SFMTA's MUNI transportation system.  Recently I attended Mayoral Candidate and current SF Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting's "Reset SF" MUNI meeting where guests were encouraged to submit constructive ideas for improving MUNI. 

The event centered around a panel of 3 MUNI experts - people who work for, live near and travel on MUNI.  They were asked a series of questions gathered from the audience and they explained many of the inefficiencies MUNI faces today.

There are some positive aspects to MUNI:

• You never have to go far to get to a bus stop within the SF city limits.
• There are 11 types of transportation within the MUNI system ( I dont know if this is as positive as it is novel.

The worst things about MUNI pointed out at the meeting:

• The reliability of the system is terrible -- "might" is worse than knowing you'll be stuck. People have called SF the "city of lost time"
• Speed - you can ride a bike to your destination faster than the MUNI travels.

Phil addressed the panelists and asked them a number of questions about the MUNI system.

The thing that should be fixed first:

• Prioritizing streets to make the buses run faster and eliminate traffic delays for MUNI. Bus stop relocation and painting and enforcement of dedicated lanes.
• Change the communication/attitude of MUNI from customer to owner/rider to instill a sense of community and collaboration among MUNI riders.
• Make all door boarding a policy

What are the fastest things that can be fixed:

• All door boarding
• dedicated lanes (it's as simple as painting)

what are the hardest things about the MUNI system to fix:

• Capacity of the system
• Connecting with regional transit
• Finding new storage area for vehicles (current storage are maxed out) - enlarging fleet

MUNI is the only transportation system in the country that is contained and paid for by one agency - the city of San Francisco.  Most other systems span multiple municipalities. 

The gathering was primarily informational and a good chance for people to express suggestions and constructive ideas for improving MUNI, but it is hard to tell how many of them are reaching the people who need to hear.  Even if they do reach that level, are they reaching in such a way that they are followed through with.  Follow through is extraordinarily difficult for city agencies.

My ideas for improving MUNI are broken up into 3 parts.  Things that would be really expensive to implement, things that would be slightly expensive and things that would be minimally expensive. 

When I was thinking these things through, I didn't want money to hinder my "what if" thought process for fear of throwing out a good idea too soon.

Thinking Big:

• New Hybrid-electric / electric buses
• high tech shock system (for long buses on bumpy rides)
• eliminate flat blank walls (flat surfaces are asking for graffiti) and replace them with a textured pattern
• bigger windows/ translucent ceiling windows to let in more light
• computerized accelerator (electric buses already have these) so there are no jerks when the operator hits the gas.
• minimize loose interior parts that jiggle and make a great deal of noise
• seats that fold down from the wall and fold up when not in use (like theater seating) to create more standing room for rush times 
• Stop notification throughout bus - not just on a tiny sign in the front.
• Design the bus to be more spacious - currently it feels a bit closed in
  
• Fewer stops, more attention to the ones that stay
• Clipper card re-design / more infrastructure built up around the clipper so there will be more incentive to use it.
  

Thinking Smaller:

• Redesign all informational signs that MUNI publishes.  Currently the signs are inconsistent and take up a lot of window space that decreases visibility and is not effective (people are still making mistakes the signs warn against).
• Re-locate signs within the bus to maximize visibility and eliminate lost window space.
  
• Light bulb replacement - burnt out bulbs make the bus look old and worn out
• Regular cleanings of buses (there is no way my bus got that dirty before 9 am in the morning.)
• an official MUNI app - built by real coders and designers who know what they are doing.
• Frame advertisements so they do not clutter up the ceiling space.  Include local artists, poetry, photography in the advertizement spaces to create dialogue and community among riders.

Thinking smallest:

• Enforce dedicated bus lanes and penalize drivers who cut off buses or refuse to let them through. 
  
• Allow all door boarding - would speed up a lot
• choose a few high visibility busses and allow advertizement wrapping on them in order to bring in more revenue
• stop allowing other city departments to take money from the MUNI pot (called "work orders") - MUNI looses 66 million a year to other departments that are also running inefficiently.  Time for some tough love on other city departments.

This problem is monumental and huge, but I believe that there are enough dedicated and passionate people in SF who use MUNI and want to see it succeed. 

Then we can brag about SF being just like Europe :-)

Instead of making universities more like businesses, why not run businesses more like universities?

Recently I heard a piece on Marketplace about the University of Texas starting to act more like a business.  The University is making a big push to make professors more efficient and effective, tying their productivity to a merit pay system. 

The problem here is the definition of what "productive" means in terms of universities, professors and students.  The metrics range from the number of students taught per professor, the amount of grant money received per year, test scores and quality points given for each class, and so on.  As the conversation shifts towards making professors "efficient" it seems that the quality of higher education could be in jeopardy.

We have seen and heard about standardized testing and benchmarks degrading the public school system and unfairly penalizing teachers for factors beyond their control.  The last thing we want to do is transfer this system onto University professors.

Perhaps, in these times of transition we can take the opportunity to explore a new structure for learning.  One based less on removing people from the workforce for 4 years (putting stress on families, students, institutions and governments) and instead create institutions within business that insert high school graduates into a place where they can learn and develop professional skills simultaneously.

Today many companies are hard pressed to find the skill level required for the jobs they need completed.  They search far and wide for candidates, when capable people in need of training exist right in their neighborhood.

What if, instead of Universities trying to act more like business, businesses started to act more like Universities?

Successful companies provide a good or service that is valuable to the population or to other companies.  They receive large amounts of money for their offerings and many have a good amount to spare after expenses are covered.

Companies that ran like Universities could have a department focused on training students for the roles they would play in the company or industry.  Instruction could be 50/50 (or 30/70) theory and praxis.  Praxis would entail taking real problems and challenges within the organization and developing skills and solutions for them.  Nothing motivates learning better than real world applications and results.

Teachers would be sourced from within the organization and their time could be split or dedicated between instruction and work.

Students would apply to the school with essays, interviews and written tests.  They would be rewarded with a stipend and a contract to participate in learning/praxis with the company. 

While being a great way to bring students into the professional world, it is also a valuable way for companies to scope out and cultivate new talent.

A company running this type of program would benefit from:

• A positive reputation for its support of education
• Cultivating skills specific to the organization
• Skilled workforce feeding industry competitors, driving competition, innovation and progress
• Long term relationships, less turnover, greater investment from students, employees and staff
• Diversification of employment opportunities and room for employee growth contributing to a more well rounded and productive workplace.

An alternative to this system would be to create an institution separate from the company, but supported by many similar companies in similar industries.  Students would be taught by industry professionals from various companies and they would work on real world projects and challenges provided by member companies. 

Since companies tend to be volatile systems undergoing constant change, perhaps the second model with an external learning organization makes more sense, as it is not dependent on the fate, structure or ownership of the companies supporting it. 

I hope to see this type of long term thinking emerge in business and education in the future.  If the education system remains as it is, I fear we will have to search further and wider to find candidates qualified to fill out our professional work force.

Thanks for the Love Letter!

I really like this mural painted by Stephan Powers as part of his collaboration with the Mural Arts Program in Philadelphia, 'A Love Letter For You'.

The piece reads "I BEEN A RANCONTEUR TALKING MY DREAM – I BEEN A SABOTEUR KILLING MY DREAM –  I BEEN AN AMATEUR JUST DREAMING – NOW I AM A ENTREPRENEUR LIVING THE DREAM."

It sits atop the WFIL Building in Philadelphia where Dick Clark launched American Bandstand.  The goal with the painting was to promote the entrepreneureal dream among the youth of West Philly where the neighborhood is dependent on small-business ownership. 

Powers says,

"We were under orders to make a work that “sold” the current mission of the building, to encourage entrpreneurship among the youth of the neighborhood . The word entrepreneurship almost sunk the deal, 15 letters is a problem to work with."

So they shrunk it down to 12 and went with the word Entrepreneur instead. 

The piece is so relatable.  Each of us find ourselves somewhere on this spectrum.  We're all moving towards that Entrepreneureal "life" whether it be through personal projects, projects at work or real businesses. 

This note is great encouragement to me that the road to Entrepreneurship is a mental process and that everyone can move towards it in their own way.

Thanks for the Love Letter Philadelphia!

Charity Is Supposed To Feel Good. Why Do I Feel So Bad?

Image via Lorcan Otway

"HI!!" A girl waves at me from down the sidewalk excitedly, like it's been a long time since she's seen me.

"Do I know you?"  I wrinkle my forehead, sorting through old faces in my mind. Could she be someone from high school?

"No, but you can meet me!" She says, sticking her hand out for a handshake as I get closer.

Now I see that she has a clipboard and is wearing a blue vest that says "Children International" in tiny embroidered letters.  Grumble.  While I'm more than happy to entertain the idea of sponsoring a child, and I would actually like to do so one day, right now, on a city street in front of the convention center where I wait for my colleague to go to lunch -- this is not the time.

We chat for a few sentences more and then I excuse myself, rather abruptly -- because how do you get away from those people?

It was a small blip in my day, and something that doesn't happen to me often anymore, now that I don't have to walk through a college campus every day.  The experience of being stopped on the street and drawn into a conversation with a stranger for no reason other than for them to make you feel bad that you're not giving them money is not a pleasant one.  Giving feels best when it is a voluntary act.  It's tough to want to give when someone is prodding you to do it on a timeline other than your own.

I know many people feel similar.  This time it got me thinking. It is surprising to me that this method is so successful.  An article found in The Village Voice reads:

"It's tempting to think that the army of young recruits is a sign that a new generation is joining in progressive causes. But actually, it's a sign of something else—that the pushy approach is a money-maker for nonprofit organizations. Dialogue Direct claims to provide Children International with a 150 to 160 percent return on its investment. (Children International itself, however, wouldn't corroborate that claim, saying that it doesn't discuss marketing strategies.)"

The article also states that "10 percent of new sponsors sign up on the street, says Dolores Kitchen, a spokeswoman for the organization."  That is an incredible number granted that most of us skirt around them on the street, avoiding eye contact.  Canvassing has got to be a tough job.  The reporter for the Village Voice spoke with canvassers who said that people are very reluctant give money, that they must be very persuasive.

It is clear that the tactic of canvassing is highly financially successful for the organization.  However, I wonder if any canvassing organization has done any perception analysis or talked to the people who signed up on the street to see how good they feel about their experience.  My guess is they would hear some shocking news.

The problem with canvassing is that it difficult to scale.  If you want to reach more people, you need to hire more canvassers, who need managers, who need offices.  This is possible yet expensive.  Organizations supporting these types of causes have incredible opportunities, using modern communication technology, to create exponentially scaling recruitment methods.

This is an organization that could rethink its business plan and focus on constructive, scalable and profitable ways of generating funds.  Here are a few of my brainstorms:

• Upsell through subscription based services (pandora, magazines, food boxes)
• Offer something of value that is relevant to the donor, it could be as simple as a well made website and weekly updates. (market research would be needed for this).
• Reach potential donors on their own time (schedule meetings, lunch, coffee breaks) similar to NY Life (life insurance).  Never underestimate the power of a relationship.
• Create a program for children/families to sponsor a child and make an international relationship. Encourage an educational component about geography, history etc.

One commenter on the Villiage Voice article suggests another good idea:

• Use canvassers as awareness spokespeople.  Create a system that allows the spokesperson to get credit when a Donor signs up online or through mail.

Charity is defined as: The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.  When a canvasser harasses you about your coffee tab or student loan payments, and you give in because you feel too guilty to walk away, that is no longer charity.  I hope canvassing organizations spend some time considering this, and begin to consider more profitable, scalable and positive ways to dialogue with donors.

Read the entire Village Voice article here.

 

 

Quality Economy

Galco's Soda Pop Stop: Small Business, Real Choice

"My thought had always been that what I wanted to do was to do business with other businesses my size.  To help them to become unique businesses."

via chow.com

On the Radar: Collaborative Consumption

infographic made by the venture fund Collaborative

As the Internet comes into its own and realizes its full potential, it acts as an influential vehicle for culture change. 

One major change: sharing.  We are taught to share from the moment we gain the dexterity to grab.  We are scolded for keeping our things to ourselves... usually until we are in middle school.  After 13 or so, sharing looses its importance and we are encouraged to save our money, protect our things, and mark our territory. 

There have long been communities that have practiced egalitarian living.  Believing that we are better off when we help each other, egalitarian communities deliberately group together and pool resources.  While this idea makes many Americans squirm, the idea of Collaborative Consumption is beginning to gain traction. 

Sharing is making a comeback!
Though not an exhaustive list, all of these startups and websites aim at consuming collaboratively and efficiently. 

Car Share

• Zipcar
• Getaround
• RelayRides
• Whipcar

Parking

• Park At My House
• VeePark

Stuff

• Zaarly
• SnapGoods
• Urban Edibles
• LendList
• NeighborGoods
• Neighbor123

Home

• Airbnb
• Good.is encouraging Yard Share
• DomuSwap
• HomeExchange

Music

• Soundcloud

Code

• GitHub
• Sourceforge

Ideas

• Twitter
• StumbleUpon
• Delicious
• Digg
• Reddit

Rather than buying more more more, we can share share share.  Using pooled resources, we make extra money, get use out of our things that rarely get used and save ourselves expenses for goods by borrowing them when we need them.

Read: Infographic of the Day: A tour guide to collaborative consumption (Co.Design)

Prosumerism: local creation of mass products

Kevin Kelly shared this article about production by consumers. This phenomenon gives me hope that I might be right about human beings and creativity. I am often regarded as naive for believing that people are inherently creative. That is a debate for another time.