 |
|
|
|||||
I recently spoke to a donor who reviewed a batch of proposals from different groupsdifferent 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. Heres what should terrify donors: Even as funding tightens, duplicated projects still get financed while collaborative funds report backing organizations that figured out how to work together, with $23 billion in annual support. WHY WE BUILD IN SILOS First, complexity encourages focus. Its 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 proposalsgrant 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; its easier to evaluate and communicate about a single-organization proposal than to underwrite a messy, multipartner bet. Those incentives produce dozens of similar pilots, fragmented data, duplicated engineering, and wasted momentum. The cost isnt just administrative friction; its slower adoption of useful tools and weaker influence at policy tables where a unified voice would matter. EVIDENCE: JOINT BETS WIN There were dozens of AI-for-good panels and side sessions at the United Nations General Assembly this year, but no single calendar. Everyone scrambled, duplicating efforts, and wasting hours trying to track what was happening where. We published an open list of eventsa basic piece of shared infrastructureand the relief was immediate. If we cant coordinate a calendar, how will we synchronize shared models, data standards, or joint deployments across countries? This isnt abstract. Two other practical cases show what coordinated work unlocks. The Systems Transformation Hub saw several climate organizations realize they were spending most of their time fundraising rather than changing policy. They pooled efforts, cocreated a shared roadmap, and unlocked far more capital and traction than any member could have achieved alone. That shift, from isolated asks to a joint strategy, created real forward movement. Googles Flood Hub teaches a related lesson on adoption: Building a model is not the same as embedding it into systems. Even with brand and engineering muscle, tech needs coordinated deployment. Governments, local NGOs, and scientists formed a collaborative around the tool so it could be used operationallynot just demoed. That adoption work turned capability into impact. WHAT REAL COLLABORATIVES MUST DO Collaboration is not logos on a slide. It is actual working alliances built on practical choices: Shared infrastructure, not replicated widgets. Build once, deploy many timescommon models, APIs, and clear data contracts so local teams adapt rather than rebuild. Coordinated fundraising, not competing pitches. One unified ask with transparent allocation reduces transaction costs and unlocks deeper capital. Backbone governance. Someone must hold procurement, compliance, and opsthe boring glue that keeps partners moving. Shared measurement and safe data practices. Established metrics and data agreements let partners iterate and credibly report joint outcomes. Funders who reward collectives. Change scoring rubrics to favor system change, and long-term stewardship over tidy outputs. These are governance decisions. Theyre not glamorous, but they determine whether pilots plateau or scale. WEVE DONE THIS WRONG, TOO Im not writing from a pedestal. At Tech To The Rescue, we have made the same mistakes, matchmaking that at times created more iterations than systems. We also see the alternative: projects that plug into shared services, adopt common standards, and scale faster. The tech side is also unlocking quickly. Many off-the-shelf tools now cover a large share of operational needs, but that potential only becomes impact if the sector coordinates adoption. Thats why were convening partners this season to test an AI-for-good ecosystem, a minimum viable product for shared infrastructure, pooled fundraising, and collective accountability. Its operational testing, not optics. DONORS: CHANGE THE INCENTIVES Donors, this piece is for you. If you fund this space, please examine whether your forms, timelines, and scoring favor tidy, single-org asks or whether they actively reward collective proposals, backbone support, and multi-year, flexible capital. Consider creating grant lines specifically for collaboratives. Pool funds with other donors to underwrite backbone organizations; fund the integration workprocurement, ops, governancethat rarely looks glamorous but makes scale possible. Also consider directing funds toward policy, watchdogs, and capacity-buildingthe systems layer that keeps shared tech safe, accountable and effective. If your organization wants impact more than visibility, ask whether the next grant helps the sector or mainly your institution. If you build tech, ask whether your next sprint will be useful to 10 deployments, and if so, design it to be shared. We have the tools, talent, and urgency. The remaining barriers are cultural and structural: the humility to share credit, governance to coordinate, and funding models to pay for integration. Because the problems we care about wont wait while each of us finishes our own version of the same thing. Jacek Siadkowski is cofounder and CEO of Tech To The Rescue.
Category:
E-Commerce
On the heels of Starbucks’ recent announcement it will be cutting 900 corporate roles and closing 1% of its Northern American stores by the end of 2025 (after accounting for both new openings and closures), Starbucks Workers United said Tuesday that 59 of those locations marked for closure are unionized locations. Starbucks Workers United, the worker-led effort to unionize Starbucks baristas, represents 12,000 baristas in 45 states and Washington D.C., across more than 650 cafes. The closures, announced last week by CEO Brian Niccol, are part of a massive $1 billion restructuring strategy dubbed Back to Starbucks, aimed at turning around declining sales and brand image damage. Representatives from Starbucks and Starbucks Workers United declined to share details about the fate of specific locations. While we remain outraged at how callously Starbucks handled these closures, we are proud that we have forced the company to make this process fairer for impacted union baristas, said Starbucks Workers United spokesperson Michelle Eisen. These measures to support baristas show the power and strength of our union. We remain focused on organizing stores and demanding Starbucks settle a fair union contract that improves hours and staffing, increases take-home pay, and resolves unfair labor practices.” Reached for comment, a Starbucks spokesperson told Fast Company: “Given the industry-leading offer provided to all affected partners including reassignment opportunities where possible as well as generous severance we were able to quickly reach an agreement with Workers United to similarly help represented partners through this transition. This reflects our commitment to partner care.” A spokesperson for the company also told amNY that unionization was not a factor in the decision to close specific locations. Baristas from closing stores will either be offered severance packages or transferred to new locations, which has led uneasy employees to crowdsource their own list of shuttering locations as they wait for official word. The stakes remain high for Starbucks if it fails to settle a contract and workers go on strike ahead of the holiday season, which is the busiest and most profitable time of the year.
Category:
E-Commerce
U.S. job openings were essentially unchanged million last month amid economic uncertainty arising from President Donald Trumps trade policies and an impending government shutdown. The Labor Department reported Tuesday that job openings blipped up to 7.23 million from 7.21 million in July. Economists had forecast a drop to 7.1 million. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) showed that layoffs fell month. But so did the number of people quitting their jobs which is a sign of confidence in their prospects of finding a better job. The report’s measure of hiring last month was the weakest since June 2024. Job openings remain at healthy levels but have fallen steadily since peaking at a record 12.1 million in March 2022 as the U.S. economy roared back from COVID-19 lockdowns. The U.S. job market has lost momentum this year, partly because of the lingering effects of 11 interest rate hikes by the inflation fighters at the Federal Reserve in 2022 and 2023 and partly because Trumps trade wars have created uncertainty that is paralyzing managers trying to make hiring decisions. Altogether, Tuesday’s JOLTS numbers suggest that the job market remains in an awkward place: Americans who have jobs are mostly safe from layoffs. Unemployment remains low at 4.3%. But jobseekers are struggling to find work. Companies are clearly hoarding workers with the economy still at full employment, Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote in a commentary. “It will take a bigger blow than what we have seen so far to convince companies that it is safe and prudent and necessary to lay off workers.” Labor Department revisions earlier this month showed that the economy created 911,000 fewer jobs than originally reported in the year that ended in March. That meant that employers added an average of fewer than 71,000 new jobs a month over that period, not the 147,000 first reported. Since March, job creation has slowed even more to an average 53,000 a month. On Friday, the Labor Department is expected release numbers on September hiring and unemployment though the report could be postponed if a budget impasse in Congress leads to a government shutdown Wednesday. If the report comes out, it is expected to show that employers added 50,000 jobs in September, unimpressive but up from a meager 22,000 in August, according to a survey of economists by the data firm FactSet. At their last meeting two weeks ago, Fed policymakers cut their benchmark interest rates for the first time this year to support the sputtering job market. They also signaled that expect two more rate cuts this year. Paul Wiseman, AP economics writer
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||