Being Iterative: how to be led by results, not processes

Organisations depend on processes - they explain the way we do things.

You could think of a process as “If this happens, then do that, and then this, and then that.”

As a team our processes exist in two places:

1. the "Playbooks" (policies, documents, briefs) we produce for each area of work that's done. These usually explain how to do tasks in the most efficient way possible.

2. the systems we use, for example, trello boards that visualise the process by having lists for To Do, In Progress, Amends Required, Done.

2 types of process

As a startup, some of our processes have been tried and tested; we know that they work and they are therefore the way we want to do things going forwards.

Other tasks are experimental. We know what we want to achieve but we don't necessarily know the best way to get there. In these scenarios we want you to be experimental. Other words for this are Lean or Agile. It's about doing things as quick experiments so you can test with a small sample and then iterate or continue or expand.

An example

Let's look an example.

• Imagine your task is to bake 5 cakes at Makerble but we have never baked cakes before.

• In our playbook we might say that the process is

  • (1) mix the ingredients,

  • (2) put in oven,

  • (3) add icing decoration to the top of the cake.

• If you worked in a large company and you were just a small cog in a big machine, you would probably start by doing stage 1 for ALL 5 cakes.

  • You would do all the mixing first.

  • Then you would put all five cake mixes into the oven at the same time.

  • Then you would decorate all the cakes at the end.

• This is an EFFICIENT approach and it is fine to do this when you know exactly how to achieve the task. I.e. the process has been tried & tested.

• But in a startup we have new ideas all the time and as we've said, we've never made a cake like this before.

• So actually what you should do is follow the process from start to finish but for only ONE cake at a time.

• That way you can see the result of following the process from the first cake, and then you can iterate by amending the process slightly for the second cake if you need to.

• By reviewing the results of each cake you bake, the next cake will become better and better.

This is how startups use iteration to constantly improve and it's one of the key principles that separates Startup culture from Big Corporate culture.

Lamplight alternatives: Makerble versus Lamplight

Usability

On of Makerble’s current clients previously used Lamplight. They switched to Makerble because they found Lamplight’s UX to be clunky and not intuitive, and thought it uses less understandable terminology.

Makerble, on the other hand, is modelled after social media platforms. This means that most staff and volunteers find it easier to use than other platforms because it already feels familiar which makes it more intuitive to navigate.

Lamplight only offer 1-way SMS messaging. Makerble allows you to send a receive SMS messages and emails all on the same platform.

Lamplight does not have an offline mobile app. Makerble’s mobile app allows you to continue data collection on the go, if you are doing work out in the community, for example. Being able to access Makerble offline and on the go had been particularly helpful for our clients that work in remote areas.

Data collection and reporting

Lamplight allows you to create and send out surveys, but you have to create all your surveys from scratch. You can also create your own unique surveys on Makerble, but we save you time by having a library of frequently used surveys from a range of industries available to use.

Both on Lamplight and Makerble you can create visual impact reports. But only Makerble has built in functions that help your impact be seen. For example, once you’ve created an Impact Board you can embed it on your website and add a donation button. This allows donors to see specifics about your impact.

Salesforce alternatives: Makerble versus Salesforce

Platform design and usability

 Salesforce is designed to drive sales, not measure impact, so the terminology of the platform is not appropriate for beneficiary management. This means that you have to fit yourself and your work into the existing shape of Salesforce, where as Makerble is built and set up to fit you.

It also looks and feels like a CRM system, which can be hard for volunteers to navigate. Makerble is designed to look like a social media platform. Each contact has a self-contained “profile page”, so it is easy to access all the relevant information about a beneficiary, which ensures that you are providing them with the best possible service and assistance. There is a newsfeed where colleagues can post updates for each other. It is also a helpful place to document any anecdotal evidence about your programmes.

This social-media-like design means most people are already quite familiar with that sort of interface and can navigate it intuitively. But if some staff still struggle Makerble has a very comprehensive user guide with step-by-step instructions and videos detailing every function on Makerble.

Data collection and reporting

Whilst Salesforce does have the function to create visual impact reports using your data, on the data collection side it does not provide the same level of support. Makerble encourages comprehensive data collection throughout your programme’s lifecycle, and has a library of templates, metrics and surveys to help you along the way, as well as free information resources available to everyone.

Charitylog alternatives: Makerble versus Charitylog

Usability

A current Makerble client switched to Makerble after using Charitylog. One of the reasons they decided to make the change was that their staff found the data entry process tedious while using the Charitylog system and in their experience the interface was not very intuitive. The process of training their staff to use Charitylog was time-consuming and they found that it took their staff a long time to become familiar with the platform.

On charitylog…

An example of a screen on charitylog

On Makerble…

Makerble is designed to feel familiar from the get-go so that the time required for training is low. When you login you’re welcomed by a Newsfeed that is similar to a social network. It shows you a snapshot of the latest activity that’s happened with the contacts (clients, beneficiaries, stakeholders, etc) that you work with.

Charitylog has several useful features but some users have found that many of those features are hidden away in text-heavy menus that make it difficult to find your way around. The image below is an example of a charitylog menu.

An example of a menu interface with charitylog

Makerble has a bright and visual interface that is designed to feel welcoming to people who aren’t confident using databases. Information feels easy to access thanks to interactive menus and reporting that’s available in a couple of clicks.

Impact measurement

Charitylog is a provider of database software. If you want to improve the way that you measure your programme’s impact, you might find that Charitylog doesn’t have the expertise to provide you with advice on surveys, outcome frameworks or Theories of Change you can use to better achieve your outcomes. By contrast, Makerble has a library of impact surveys, outcomes, indicators and logic models that you can add to your projects in a couple of clicks.

Makerble has a library of surveys that are ready for you to use across your projects, programmes and services

Future-proofing

Some organisations have found that Charitylog is not future-proof. If the work you do is likely to remain very much the same over time, then charitylog may well be sufficient. But if you’re expecting to gain new funders (who have additional reporting requirements), launch new programmes (which require additional forms) or change the way you work over time (e.g. adding automations to reduce repetitive tasks or integrating with other software you use), you might find that you start to encounter Charitylog’s limitations.

Makerble is easy to adapt. You can create new forms, add new fields and apply those forms to new or existing projects. The library on Makerble shows you all of the fields you’re using and the forms which they appear on. This helps you avoid duplication and means that as your organisation grows in complexity, your system is able to keep up. 

Reporting

Charitylog provides limited visual reporting, comprising mostly of lists and tables.

Example of a report from charitylog

Makerble is designed to give you quick access to your data. There are interactive filters that let you specify the results you want to see

On Makerble you can filter your results by almost any datapoint on your platform

Makerble lets you easily create custom tables that let you customise the datapoints you want to display in a table.

The purpose behind Makerble is to make people feel proud of their impact. That’s why the Makerble is full of progress, charts and interactive dashboards. The intention is to inspire users to explore their results for themselves and learn from them so that they continually improve.

Reporting dashboards on Makerble are interactive which inspires users to explore data for themselves and reflect on their results.

Charitylog provides database and case management software. If your staff are adept at using databases and if you’re work is unlikely to evolve over time, charitylog could prove to be a great solution. Whereas if you have some staff and volunteers who aren’t expert at database systems and if you’re planning to grow, Makerble is likely to be a great partner as you scale.

Makerble's impact evaluation of the HEAR Networks NetEquality project

In 2021 Makerble wrote an impact evaluation report for NetEquality. NetEquality is a programme funded by the National Lottery Fund and delivered by a group of charities with HEAR Network as its lead partner. NetEquality’s is to explore and develop new digital ways for equality organisations to collaborate.

There are hundreds of grassroots organisations in London that support and advocate for marginalised people who experience inequality in some way. Many of these organisations are under-resourced, and while they occasionally collaborate with other organisations, typically they work independently and disparately, thus not reaching their full potential. The purpose of NetEquality is to remedy that.

The NetEquality partners had been exploring the idea of “netmapping”, a way of visualising data to display connections between entities. Early feedback from equality groups was that they were interested in the idea of visualising their connections but they found the netmapping software difficult to use.

Makerble’s evaluation sought to answer the question: How could the NetEquality programme create greater impact? To understand the impact of the programme we conducted interviews with partners and people from grassroots equality-focused organisations.

We found that people’s experience of NetEquality was overwhelmingly positive and there were no explicitly negative comments made at all. The main benefit seemed to be simply bring together people who are passionate but often working alone or against the “system”.

The main specific NetEquality work respondents spoke about was the netmapping tool. People had mixed experience with this. Many thought that a shared up to date information resource was a wonderful idea but had plenty of queries about the reality of the process to built the resource and the tools they had seen up to that point. The biggest issue that was brought up was accessibility.

The partners were excited about the idea of helping their members work together to pursue equality and some emphasised that this would be a long-term project and an iterative building process. However, the project seemed to lack a clear sense of direction, as evidenced by the absence of a theory of change.

Makerble made a series of recommendations on how NetEquality could further its impact in the future, from taking on board feedback on creating a more user-friendly tool and bringing in product development expertise, to truly accepting the iterative process of development and embracing the work-in-progress editions of the netmapping tool.

Makerble's report on Moving On Up Collective Impact Partnership

In 2021 Makerble wrote an evaluation report on Moving On Up Collective Impact Partnership. Moving On Up is a programme funded by Trust For London and City Bridge Trust, with support from the Black Training & Employment Group (BTEG).

The concept of Moving On Up rests on the idea that improving employment outcomes for young Black men is not something that any one organisation or fixed set of partners can achieve alone. The challenge requires a collective approach in which organisations work together in ways they have never done before. That is the essence of MOU’s Collective Impact Partnership. While the organisation has other strands of work, the focus of Makerble’s evaluation was their Collective Impact work.

The Moving On Up programme operates in two boroughs, Brent and Newham, by bringing together BTEG staff, local authorities, and voluntary, public and private sector organisations.

The evaluation answered two key questions. Does the collective impact approach improve employment outcomes for young Black men? And, could the collective impact approach be applied to other target groups and in any geographic location?

Makerble found that some young Black men participating in Moving On Up’s programme had a better journey into employment than they would have done otherwise, as partners are sharing training and job opportunities with each other, which is unlocking a series of benefits for their programme participants. Moving On Up is also helping young Black men feel more encouraged by giving them access to a wider range and volume of opportunities. Respondents said they felt encouraged even when a job opportunity does not work out. Overall the participants tended to see a real distinction between Moving On Up and other organisations, some particularly appreciated that Moving On Up offered personalised support, was caring, and supplied better jobs than they were able to obtain through job brokerage service alone.

 Also, the partner organisations felt that funders were more interested in the success of the programme overall rather than the performance of individual organisations. Organisations that used to compete for funding were now collaborating and discussing funding opportunities with each other.

Makerble’s report made recommendations for future improvement. You can read the executive summary here.