Collective Impact:

Growing The Māori Economic Engine

Report for Te Puni Kōkiri Travis O’Keefe Shay Wright

November 2013

KO WAI MĀTOU? WHO WE ARE

The Icehouse is about helping Kiwi businesses to grow.

The Icehouse was founded as a trust in 2001 by the University of Auckland Business School and

other corporate partners. The vision was to establish an organisation that was all about business

growth education for entrepreneurs, business owners and managers.

The Icehouse goal is to help support and enable 1,000 businesses in New Zealand to achieve

international opportunities and success. Our Māori unit is focused on helping enable the leaders of

150 Māori businesses to be internationally capable by 2020.

HE AHA Ā MĀTOU MAHI? WHAT WE DO

The Icehouse provides expertise, networks and funding to enable New Zealand business owners

to build capability and leadership and accelerate their business growth journey. We have worked

with over 4,000 business leaders, owner-managers and entrepreneurs, from start-ups to

established businesses to Māori trusts. The Icehouse is also New Zealand’s leading business

incubator.

The Icehouse has partners such as BNZ, HP, Microsoft, Telecom and NZ Trade & Enterprise.

Our Māori unit has the support of Deloitte, Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Tumu Paeroa and Waiariki Institute.

nztiok@gmail.com s.wright@theicehouse.co.nz

Tui, tui, tuituia tātou. Whakarongo ake au ki te tangi a te manu nei a te tui, tui, tui, tuituia! Tuia i runga, tuia i raro, tuia i roto, tuia i waho. Tuia ki te here tangata i takea mai i Hawaiki nui, i Hawaiki roa, i Hawaiki pāmamao. I te hono i wairua, ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Join us so we can rejoice and unite.

I listen to the call of this bird the tui, calling, calling, let us be united!

Link us above, below, from the inside and the outside.

Link us to the human lineage origins of great Hawaiki, long Hawaiki, distant Hawaiki.

Where our souls rejoin, link us to from the beginning of time to now, to the world of light.

E tau ki runga i a tātou katoa te wairua o ngā mātua tūpuna. Nā ratou i whakatakoto te ara hei hīkoinga mā tātou ngā uri; i whakatō ki ō tātou ngākau ki ngā tikanga hei aratakingia i a tātou; kia ngākaunui ki te hāpai i ā tātou mahi katoa i roto i te pono, i te tika, i te māramatanga; me te aroha o tētahi ki tētahi. Let the spirituality of our ancestors settle upon us. They were the ones who set down the path for us, the descendants,

to traverse. They also embedded customs in us that would guide, commit, and elevate all that we do in good faith,

righteousness, and understanding, with a love for each other.

Mā te whakapakari anō i te whakaaro me ngā pūkenga, me te mahi ngātahi i roto i te ao hurihuri nei, tērā pea me whakatakoto ētahi rautaki hou kia eke ai ngā rawa Māori me tātou te iwi Māori ki te taumata e tika ana. Ki te whakapakari mātou i te hunga e whakahaere ana i o mātou rawa, i o mātou kamupene he painga tēnā mō tātou, he painga anō tēnā mō Aotearoa katoa. By developing and strengthening ourselves, and working together in this ever-changing environment, we can potentially

put new strategies in place to better manage our resources, so that they, and our people, can reach their potential. So

if we contribute the strength of our Māori business leaders, that can only be beneficial to us as Māori and to the wider

New Zealand.

Authors of the Report We thought it would be worthwhile outlining the process we took to get to the final report. Having read BERL

(Business and Economic Research Limited) research that outlined the potential growth in the Māori economy over

the next 50 years, we were aware of the potential for growth. We then scoped out what was being done to

achieve this growth goal. Despite many strategies in place to grow Māori enterprises, we found few practical and

innovative solutions that are actually successfully delivering this growth. What seems to be missing are practical

ways of taking the ideas and strategies that have been created and executing them. Te Puni Kōkiri agreed that it

would be useful to have an entrepreneurial perspective into how Government could most effectively support Māori

enterprises to grow, and so this report gives an indication into how that may occur.

Rather than coming up with another piece of research, we wanted to ensure that our report used existing BERL

research and set out an entrepreneurial method of execution that could be used to unlock the potential of the

Māori economy.

Research states that between 75 and 90 percent of start-up ideas fail, and 90 percent of strategies fail due to

execution. The method we researched and set out in this report helps overcome these challenges. To ensure a

more robust perspective, we sought the input and feedback of some of New Zealand’s top Māori entrepreneurs

and innovators. The following report is the summation of our thoughts.

Travis O’Keefe (Ngāti Porou)

Serial Māori entrepreneur and business coach. Travis has led the commercial growth of 10

businesses across a diverse range of industries including health, education, communications,

hospitality, technology, advertising, Māori and not-for-profit sectors. Travis is also a Māori

business coach with the Icehouse, working with iwi, entrepreneurs and Māori trusts. In 2009

Travis received the ‘Supreme award for Māori innovation and entrepreneurial achievement’.

Shay Wright (Te Rarawa, Ngāti Ruanui)

Shay is currently the Head of Māori Development at The Icehouse, combining entrepreneurship,

education, Māori development and community economics to develop growth pathways for Māori

business leaders and iwi managers. He is also a Board member of Teach First NZ, a leading

education initiative; and former Advisory Board member of the NZ-US Council and Callaghan

Innovation’s Māori Engagement Strategy Group.

Contributors to the Report As part of this report, we sought feedback and critiques from a small group of Māori entrepreneurs and innovators

who understand the Māori dynamic and who think differently to the status quo. They are:

Toko Kapea (Ngāti Apa, Taranaki, Te Atihaunui-a-Papārangi) Director of Tuia Group, which offers business consulting, commercial law and economic

development services. Board member of Paraninihi ki Waitotara Inc, Chair of Ngāti Apa

Developments Ltd and Director of Port Nicholson Fisheries Ltd.

Jacob Kajavala (Ngāi Tuhoe, Ngāti Ruapani)

Māori entrepreneur, owner-manager of Kajavala Forestry Ltd, and founder of Switch Kites,

which manufactures and sells kite surfing equipment globally. In 18 months, Switch Kites has

secured 3 percent of the world’s kite surfing market. Jacob is also president of the Forest

Industry Contractors Association.

Shelley Campbell (Ngā Puhi, Ngāti Maniapoto)

CEO of the Sir Peter Blake Trust. Board member of Te Pou, Le Va, Halberg Disability Sport

Foundation and Cancer Council NZ. In 2007 Shelley was the first Māori to receive a Sir Peter

Blake Leadership Award. Her previous role was CEO of Waikato Primary Health, which

provides health services to 315,000 people across the central North Island.

Toro Waaka

Rahera

Ngarimu

Robin Hapi

Hemi R

Gina R

Glen K

Greg Cross

Dame Anne S

Ganesh N

Manuka H

Chris Woods

Keith Ikin

June M Potaua Biasiny-Tule (Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Whakaue, Tuhoe, Whānau-a-Apanui, Ngāti Kahungunu)

Founder of Māori online news site TangataWhenua.com. Innovator, academic and digital

entrepreneur. Member of the Te Arawa Standing Committee on the Rotorua District Council.

Previous roles as a lecturer at Waikato University, in Parliament, for the Waitangi Tribunal, and

as Project manager of Google Māori.

David Irving Retired CEO of Heinz Watties Australasia. Chairman of Prolife Foods, AS Wilcox, AuCom

Technologies and Marstel Terminals Ltd. Co-Founder of The Icehouse in 2001, and former

Icehouse director, chairman and trustee. He has designed and developed content, presented

and mentored on hundreds of programmes for SMEs. For this effort, David was named a 2013

Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to business and education.

Grahame Christian (Ngāti Huarere, Ngāti Maru) Managing Director and shareholder of SMART Environmental Ltd, New Zealand’s largest

privately owned waste minimisation and recycling business, active across New Zealand and

employing more than 250 people. Chair of Pare Hauraki Asset Holdings, assets held on behalf

of Hauraki iwi, and of New Chum. New Zealand touch player, coach and director for 20 years.

Ian Taylor (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngā Puhi) Ian is one of New Zealand’s leading Māori innovators and was named Aotearoa Māori Business

Leader of the Year 2013. Founder and owner of computer graphics company Animation

Research Limited (ARL) and multi-media company Taylormade Media. Former Board member

of Māori Television and Innovation Board of the Ministry of Science and Innovation. Inducted

into the New Zealand Hi-Tech Hall of Fame, Companion of the NZ Order of Merit in 2010 and

North & South magazine’s 2010 New Zealander of the Year.

Contributors to the Report

“I haven’t heard much about Collective Impact before and at first glance it seems like just another

version of collaboration with some new jargon and terms, like ‘lead agency’ becoming ‘backbone

organisation’. What grabbed my attention though was the point around this approach solving the

execution challenge associated with collaboration. This is where for Māori (and non-Māori) most of

the breakdowns occur. We are keen to collaborate at the idea stage, but when it comes to ‘making it

happen together’ most fall over.”

Shelley Campbell,

Ngā Puhi, Ngāti Maniapoto

(CEO of the Sir Peter Blake Trust; Sir Peter Blake Trust Leadership Award recipient)

“This report covered a lot of ground. When I first looked at it I wasn’t excited about the prospect of

reading 25 pages, but it was well communicated and refreshing to see such an actionable solution.

Ultimately I believe it comes down to Māori picking up the ball and running with it. Currently there is

a widespread lack of knowledge and confidence. This breeds fear, which manifests stagnation. The

Government can not change this for us, we have to do it; but having Government work alongside us

as a partner will help build the confidence in ourselves and skills where a knowledge vacuum

currently exists.

Having the sincere buy-in from adaptive leaders to the Collective Impact initiative will mean that

everyone feels supported, and issues that inevitably arise are dealt with swiftly, succinctly and

honestly. This allows momentum to be maintained. I also really like the concept of investing in

economic engines because it has such a strong return on investment.”

Jacob Kajavala,

Ngāi Tuhoe, Ngāti Ruapani

(Māori entrepreneur; Owner-manager of Kajavala Forestry Ltd; Founder of Switch Kites)

“This report makes so much sense. It is an obvious, yet ground-breaking report. As Māori we are

often flooded with opportunities but are in no position to take advantage of them. Even though we

seek the same results (iwi wealth, health and self sufficiency) we often are working against each

other. This report provides us with lots to consider.”

Potaua Biasiny-Tule

Ngāti Pikiao, Tuhoe, Te Whānau a Apanui, Ngāti Kahungunu

(Māori tech entrepreneur; Founder of TangataWhenua.com)

“I totally agree with the Collective Impact concept both at a local and national level, where appropriate. We

have built our business on a model of innovation, collaboration and co-operation, working with others

including some of our competitors.”

Grahame Christian

Ngāti Huarere, Ngāti Maru

(Managing Director and shareholder of SMART Environmental Ltd; Chair of Pare Hauraki Asset Holdings

BERL Report Summary Page 1

Background to Research Context Page 2

Summary of Proposed Solution Page 4

Part One: A Solution Page 5

Collective Impact and Growing Economic Engines Page 5

International Case Studies Page 6

The Five Conditions of Collective Impact Page 8

Achieving Shared Measurement Systems Page 9

Summary of Part One Page 10

Part Two: Growing Economic Engines Page 11

Examples of Funding Economic Engines Page 12

Summary of Part Two Page 13

Part Three: Bringing Collective Impact to Life Page 14

The Preconditions for Collective Impact Page 14

The Phases to Make Collective Impact Work Page 14

Keeping Collective Impact Alive Page 16

Summary of Part Three Page 18

Conclusive Comments Page 19

Recommended Next Steps Page 19

Appendix Page 20

Q1: Govt helping to improve the leadership of Māori enterprises Page 20

Q2: Govt developing the skills and capabilities of the labour force Page 23

Q3: Govt encouraging collaboration to improve Māori scale and capability Page 25

Q4: Govt genuine engagement with science and innovation sector and Māori Page 26

References Page 28

Contributors Notes - Ian Taylor Page 29

Contributors Notes - Grahame Christian Page 30

Contents Page

1

BERL Report Summary In 2011 the Māori Economic Taskforce and Te Puni Kōkiri commissioned BERL (Business and Economic

Research Limited) to investigate the potential growth of the Māori economy during the period to 2061. The BERL

report titled ‘The Māori Economy, Science and Innovation’ models four potential scenarios. Within this, world

demand for New Zealand export products is projected to grow across a range of industries such as agriculture,

forestry, aquaculture, tourism, education and other services.

BERL’s modelling assumes innovation in the sales and marketing activities for new and existing products and

services of the Māori economy. The report findings suggest that by 2061 the Māori economy could grow by $12.3

billion and create an additional 149,600 job opportunities. The report also signifies the significant costs if a ‘do

nothing’ choice is made.

The goal of this report is to provide insights into new ways that Government could maximise its resources to solve

the many and complex challenges that we face in achieving the level of growth of the Māori economy forecasted

by BERL.

Given the number and size of the challenges, we have a view that the most pressing opportunity is to align current

organisations and service providers to help overcome these challenges. When we look at the spectrum of

services offered to the Māori economy that are supported by Government, some are effective, and many others

are ineffective but continue to receive Government support.

The BERL report highlights that for these returns to be realised, there are significant challenges that must be

overcome. Some of these challenges require legislative and attitudinal change, and some require more

effective management and funding of existing solutions. BERL prioritises four areas of focus:

The challenges call for skilful leadership and a need to build further capability.

The appropriate skills, education and training will better ensure that when opportunities arise,

people are able to take advantage of them.

Enhancements in governance, management, communications and capabilities can also arise

through collaboration with exemplar enterprises in the Māori economy.

A long-term investment and effort in developing skills and capabilities of the labour force.

The development of long-term relationships and collaborative efforts to capture gains from capacity

and capability improvements, as well as from economies of scale.

A genuine engagement between Māori enterprises and the science and innovation sector.

This requires a long-term investment, effort and engagement with science and innovation.

There is a disconnect between the science and innovation sector and the Māori economy. The

transfer of innovative and scientific knowledge from the knowledge producers to Māori enterprises

is weak, and a new focus is required to achieve a relationship that meets the needs of the Māori

economy.

Background to Research Context Te Puni Kōkiri identified a need for innovative suggestions as to how the Government could most effectively

support Māori enterprises to realise the growth potential outlined by BERL. Icehouse was commissioned to

provide a ‘thought leadership’ report that draws on the insights of entrepreneurs who are likely to have a different

way of looking at the issues faced.

Māori are described as highly enterprising, resourceful and entrepreneurial (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,

2006). Māori business people and entrepreneurs often have great ideas and the drive to turn them into

reality. They have the potential to make a difference. We define entrepreneurs as the people who can combine

fresh thinking with hard work to create positive social change. They bring new solutions and products to market,

and create jobs and wealth. They overcome barriers in developing businesses, and have lessons and

experiences that are relevant to Government in assisting with solving social and business challenges. The voice

of entrepreneurs deserves a presence in ‘thought leadership’ where practical solutions are sought. In this report

we will include the feedback of a number of well-regarded Māori entrepreneurs.

This report aims to provide a new way of looking at the challenges facing Māori enterprises and how Government

could most effectively assist in solving them. Without properly understanding the challenges that Māori

enterprises are grappling with in unlocking their economic potential, just assessing solutions would miss the critical

first step. This report is informed by dozens of literature reviews into the challenges of Māori enterprises, and by a

twelve month research project conducted by The Icehouse into business growth challenges facing Māori SME

businesses, iwi runanga, trusts and incorporations. It also draws on the insights of consultants, professionals and

service providers to Māori enterprises in education, health, business and infrastructure.

You will find this report interesting if you are looking at a new approach to supporting Māori enterprises, or if you

are aiming to achieve effective collaboration between a group of service providers that together could solve a

societal problem.

There is an abundance of research and academic review of the barriers and problems in growing Māori

businesses. This is of some value in understanding the landscape, however there appears to be limited captured

knowledge directly from the market, and few practical and effective solutions to overcoming these challenges.

The challenges often require responses that utilise skills from a range of disciplines.

In this report we will consider the challenges presented by BERL. We have distilled these into the four following

questions, and have conducted research and analysis into solving these four questions:

2

1) How could the Government help improve the leadership (Governance and Management) of Māori

enterprises?

2) How could the Government invest in developing the skills and capabilities of our labour force to unlock

the potential of Māori enterprises?

3) How could the Government encourage organisations to collaborate efforts to improve Māori enterprises

scale (capacity) and capability?

4) How could the Government get genuine engagement between Māori enterprises and the science and

innovation sector?

Background to Research Context

Bearing in mind the complexity with addressing each of the questions posed, it is unlikely that any one initiative or

service provider could solve all of the challenges. Each question has multiple aspects that need to be addressed.

For example, in answering question 3 about Māori enterprises collaborating to achieve scale, one of the main

challenges to achieving this is the politics of individuals in Māori organisation leadership roles not trusting one

another or not wanting to share returns from a collaborative arrangement.

In addressing question 4 about engagement with the science and innovation sector, we could have looked at

many different issues, such as how Government funding is allocated, the measurements of success that are

required to improve innovation in Māori businesses, or the political value for Government of funding research

institutions because of public perception.

To pick up on the first issue, Māori enterprises generally require research and innovation to help them determine

how they can improve their financial or environmental performance. This often requires market-led innovation and

commercialisation rather than scientist-led research. The challenge for Government is that currently research and

development funding is heavily skewed towards academic and research institutions. There are high political

consequences to Government in redirecting some of this funding from academic research towards business-led

innovation because it would impact on post-graduate education funding opportunities. For this reason, although

necessary to consider, it is risky for Government to do so.

If we were to construct this entire report with a deep analysis of each issue, it would require an overview of

multiple solutions and programmes relating to all problems within each question. It would be a tedious process

and produce limited value to Te Puni Kōkiri in terms of understanding simple solutions that may have the most

impact in solving these challenges.

3

Summary of Proposed Solution In shaping up this report, David Irving, former Chief Executive of Heinz Watties and co-founder of The Icehouse,

reinforced that each question posed was complex and so it was important to isolate the role that Government

should play that would create the most value for their investment. In analysing the most relevant part for

Government to solve, we concluded that it is not feasible for Government to directly address all challenges

outlined within the four questions. It would be more efficient and effective for Government to instead facilitate and

motivate other organisations to solve these challenges.

In light of this, we have provided summary responses to all four questions in the Appendix. Ultimately however,

the complexity of challenges presented in the BERL report defies the idea that any single programme or

organisation could deliver overall success. For this reason, we will focus this report on one practical solution that

can be applied across the four questions, as well as across multiple social challenges. In doing this, we will not

drill into detailed information because this is framed as a high level ‘thought leadership’ paper. There is a whole

body of evidence, further information and case studies that back up our recommendation, including examples of

where Government and non-Governmental entities are putting the suggested model into practice.

What is the one process that could assist the most?

‘Collective Impact’ is about getting a group of stakeholders across sectors to work together to achieve a common

outcome. It sets out a process for managing, measuring and ensuring commitment to a common agenda that will

solve a societal problem. Compared to other initiatives, Collective Impact requires a comparatively low level of

investment, carries a low risk of failure, and can have wide and scalable impact, maximising the value of

Government’s investment.

By utilising the Collective Impact process, Government does not have to directly solve the challenges identified by

BERL. Instead their role is to influence and enable organisations that already solve aspects of the complex

challenges to be more productive at doing so, and align their efforts to ensure impact is not isolated. In this way,

each participating service provider forms part of the solution.

Is this just another name for collaboration? Isn’t collaboration already happening?

More and more people are realising that Collective Impact is not just a fancy name for collaboration. It represents

a fundamentally different, more disciplined and higher performing approach to achieving large-scale social impact.

Many organisations attempt to collaborate, with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is not often that they begin

their relationship with a shared definition and understanding of the key problem that they are collaborating to

solve. Collective Impact initiatives have a structured methodology and process to ensure proper execution, which

is where many collaborations fail. Collective Impact therefore solves the execution challenge associated with

collaboration, and is shown to be effective on a small scale (CHF, page 9), on a regional scale (Strive, page 6), at

a national level, and at a global level (GAIN, page 6).

A vital part of making Collective Impact work is investing in the economic engines of the partner organisations.

This is the key lever to get everyone on board and buying into the goals and shared measurements, and also

helps with ensuring that the initiative partners are financially sustainable. The backbone organisation has an

important role in facilitating the Collective Impact partners’ activity, as well as helping grow their economic

engines.

With Government’s support and resourcing, Collective Impact presents a strong case for solving the challenges

that we are all trying to help solve with Māori enterprises.

4

Collective Impact and Growing Economic Engines

There are many organisations currently providing individual and isolated solutions to the problems outlined by

BERL. These have varying degrees of success. The lack of coordination and unified action means that their

impact at best achieves incremental improvement. Also, because there is no clear focus on the relevance or need

for any one initiative in the scheme of things, and each organisation is typically fighting for resources to deliver its

solutions, there is no guaranteed sustainability.

Many of the challenges raised by BERL could be solved by organisations and initiatives that already exist across

Aotearoa. For the Collective Impact model to work, we therefore need to identify and work with organisations that

have breakthrough and proven solutions. We then need to direct available funding not towards these

organisations’ services or programmes, but towards their revenue generating activities. By improving their

revenue position, these organisations are then able to focus their effort into scaling their impact and better solving

the challenges.

5

PART ONE: A Solution

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s

the only thing that ever does.”

Rahera Ohia

Ngāti Pukenga

(Ngāti Pūkenga iwi leader, Unlimited Magazine’s Top 25 Influencers in New Zealand for Innovation 2012)

Summary: Why Collective Impact as a Solution

It brings together cross-sector expertise to create shared, clear and measurable goals and outcomes.

It unites the best solutions across business, government and community to solve complex problems.

It has been proven to work internationally, nationally and regionally.

It can be tailored to meet the very specific and unique needs of Māori enterprises.

It focuses on growing the ‘economic engines’ of member organisations, enabling them to scale their

individual programmes and services.

Government has the power to enable impact of this scale by using its funding and influence.

Which parties could have a role in the Collective Impact initiatives?

Iwi entities - on behalf of their iwi members

Central Government - acknowledging their role in economic and social development initiatives

Local and Regional Government - regarding their influence around local policy and resources

Philanthropic organisations - with an interest in improving the outcomes for Māori people

Māori enterprises - who are interesting in growing, or supporting growth of others in their region

Service providers - who have the expertise and resources to contribute to initiative solutions

International Case Studies

If put into practice, Collective Impact could result in a partnership programme that has a broad impact on Māori

enterprise and entrepreneurship. Let us examine situations where Collective Impact has been effective in other

programmes that solve key social challenges:

6

Case Study 1: Strive - Cincinnati

An example of Collective Impact in action is ‘Strive’ in Cincinnati. ‘Strive’ brought together a core group of

more than 300 leaders from local organisations to tackle the student achievement crisis and improve

education in the Cincinnati region. In just four years and despite a recession and budget cuts, ‘Strive’

partners have improved student success in 34 of 53 success indicators measured, including high school

graduation rates, fourth-grade reading, math scores and preschool engagement.

The ‘Strive’ organisations include heads of private and corporate business, government, schools,

universities and colleges, education-related non-profit and advocacy groups all working collaboratively

using the process of Collective Impact. It did this by focusing the entire educational community on a single

set of goals, measured in the same way.

Consistent communication, developing shared performance indicators, discussing progress, and most

importantly, learning from each other and aligning their efforts to support each others’ initiatives was the

key to its success.

Case Study 2: Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)

A global example of Collective Impact is the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). GAIN has

helped reduce nutritional deficiencies among 530 million poor people across the globe. GAIN was created

in 2002 at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly. It has the goal of reducing

malnutrition in the developing world by improving the health and nutrition of nearly one billion ‘at risk’

people.

The development of GAIN was predicated on two assumptions: First, that there were proven interventions

that could be employed at scale to improve the nutrition of the poor in developing countries; and second,

that the private sector had a much greater role to play in improving nutrition, even for the very poor. In less

than a decade, GAIN has created and coordinated the activity of 36 large-scale collaborations, including

governments, NGOs, multilateral organisations, universities and more than 600 companies in 30 countries.

GAIN’s work has enabled more than 530 million people worldwide to obtain nutritionally enhanced food

and significantly reduced the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in a number of countries. In China,

South Africa, and Kenya for example, micronutrient deficiencies have dropped between 11 and 30 percent

among those who consumed GAIN’s fortified products. During its time, GAIN has also raised $322 million

in new financial commitments from its partners and leveraged many times more from its private sector and

government partners.

OTHER EXAMPLES

Communities That Care Coalition of Franklin County and the North Quabbin (Communities That

Care) has made equally impressive progress toward its much more local goals, reducing teenage

binge drinking by 31 percent. In addition to GAIN and Communities That Care, Opportunity

Chicago placed 6,000 public housing residents in new jobs, surpassing its goal by 20 percent;

Memphis Fast Forward reduced violent crime and created more than 14,000 new jobs in Memphis,

Tenn.; the Calgary Homeless Foundation housed more than 3,300 men, women, and children and

contributed to stopping what had been the fastest growing rate of homelessness in Canada; and

Vibrant Communities significantly reduced poverty levels in several Canadian cities.

Collective Impact has gained tremendous traction: Shape Up Somerville’s approach has now been

adapted in 14 communities through subsequent research projects and influenced a national cross-

sector collaborative. The Strive Partnership recently released its fourth annual report card,

showing that 81 percent of its 34 measures of student achievement are trending in the right

direction versus 74 percent last year and 68 percent two years ago. Its planned expansion to five

cities when the article came out has since been vastly expanded as more than 80 communities

(including as far away as the Ruhr Valley in Germany) have expressed interest in building on The

Strive Partnership’s success.

More and more people, have come to believe that collective impact is not just a fancy name for

collaboration, but represents a fundamentally different, more disciplined, and higher performing

approach to achieving large-scale social impact. As examples of collective impact have continued

to surface, it has become apparent that this approach can be applied against a wide range of

issues at local, national, and even global levels. In fact, we believe that there is no other way

society will achieve large-scale progress against the urgent and complex problems of our time,

unless a collective impact approach becomes the accepted way of doing business.

COMMUNITIES THAT CARE - a small city example

At the other end of the spectrum, the Franklin County / North Quabbin Region of Western

Massachusetts has a population of only 88,000 people dispersed across 30 different municipalities

and 844 square miles. When two local social service agencies—the Community Coalition for

Teens and the Community Action of the Franklin, Hampshire, and North Quabbin Regions—first

called a meeting to discuss teenage drinking and drug use, they were astonished that 60 people

showed up. From that first meeting, coincidentally also in 2002, grew Communities That Care, that

now includes more than 200 representatives from human service agencies, district attorney’s

offices, schools, police departments, youth serving agencies, faith-based organizations, local

elected officials, local businesses, media, parents, and youth. Overseen by a central coordinating

council, the initiative operates through three working groups that meet monthly to address parent

education, youth recognition, and community laws and norms. In addition, a school health task

force links these work groups to the 10 public school districts in the region. Over an eight-year time

frame, the work of Communities That Care has resulted not only in reducing binge drinking, but

also in reducing teen cigarette smoking by 32 percent and teen marijuana use by 18 percent. The

coalition has also raised more than $5 million of new public money in support of their efforts.

Memphis Fast Forward -

The seeds for Memphis Fast Forward were laid in 2005 when Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton

and Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton approached Memphis Tomorrow to discuss their concern that

the Memphis region did not have a strategic agenda to accelerate economic growth and improve

the quality of life of the Memphis region.

The business leadership of Memphis Tomorrow immediately joined hands with the mayors to help

co-convene the building of an ambitious roadmap to create jobs, make our community safer,

produce a better-educated workforce, and create more efficient local government. It was agreed

that the five-year plan would be data-driven and measurable, engage experts, practitioners and

citizenry in the planning and implementation, and emphasize the interlocking relationship between

public safety, education, government efficiency, quality of life and economic growth.

From those conversations Memphis Fast Forward was born. A steering committee was

established -- jointly chaired by the Memphis and Shelby County Mayors and a Memphis

Tomorrow-designated business leader; and the major initiatives of Memphis Fast Forward were

launched. Note: Healthy Shelby was added in 2012 as a fifth initiative.

There's a simple infrastructure that makes it work.

The work of the Memphis Fast Forward Steering Committee and Co-Chairs is coordinated by the

staff of Memphis Tomorrow together with staff from the Mayors' offices. Beyond that, each of the

five major initiatives is supported by its own initiative chair, a governing council or board and

a "backbone" organization which proactively engages diverse groups of people and

organizations in the planning and implementation.

Allot more examples here http://www.fsg.org/KnowledgeExchange.aspx

The complexity of solving the challenges presented and highlighted by the BERL report defies the idea that any

single programme or organisation could deliver overall success. The graph below, titled “Isolated Impact vs.

Collective Impact”, demonstrates that when well managed and funded, Collective Impact can pull together multiple

initiatives and service providers to create lasting, large-scale change.

7

Isolated Impact Collective Impact

Isolated Impact vs Collective Impact

Funders select individual grantees that offer

the most promising solutions

Non-profits work separately and compete to

produce the greatest independent impact

Evaluation attempts to isolate a particular

organisation’s impact

Large scale change is assumed to depend on

scaling a single organisation

Corporate and government sectors are often

disconnected from the efforts of foundations

and non-profits

Funders and implementers understand that

social problems, and their solutions, arise

from the interaction of many organisations

from within a larger system

Progress depends on working toward the

same goal and measuring the same things

Large scale impact depends on increasing

cross-sector alignment and learning among

many organisations

Corporate and government sectors are

essential partners

Organisations actively coordinate their action

and share lessons learned

8

The Five Conditions of Collective Impact

Research shows that successful Collective Impact initiatives typically have five conditions that together produce

true alignment between the partner organisations and lead to powerful results. These five conditions are a

Common Agenda, Shared Measurement Systems, Mutually Reinforcing Activities, Continuous Communication

and a Backbone Support Organisation. Each of the conditions are explained below in more detail.

Often when multiple stakeholder organisations are brought together for a project,

the work is additional to their core work programme and is not given priority. To

ensure that the Collective Impact initiative is given priority, there must be a

meaningful purpose and stakeholder input into defining the problem. All

participants must have a shared vision for change, build a common understanding

of the problem and utilise a joint approach to solving it.

Large scale challenges inevitably have multiple contributing causes and

components to their solutions, all of which are interdependent. With this

landscape, it is very difficult to address these problems when there exist a number

of uncoordinated actions among isolated organisations.

Developing communication must happen continuously on and off-line, so that

there is learning and solving problems together and knowledge-sharing. This also

involves continuously adapting to changing conditions and needs in order to

deliver the target Return on Investment (ROI).

Backbone

Support

Organisation

Creating and managing Collective Impact requires one organisation to serve as

the backbone for the entire initiative. This separate organisation and their staff

must embody the principles of adaptive leadership (see page 16) and have a very

specific set of skills. Their four main tasks are to:

a) Focus peoples’ attention and create a sense of urgency

b) Apply pressure to stakeholders without overwhelming them

c) Use their competence to frame issues in a way that presents opportunities

d) Mediate conflict that arises among stakeholders

Common

Agenda

Shared

Measurement

Systems

Mutually

Reinforcing

Activities

Continuous

Communication

Does this just mean a catch-up between CEOs

every week? What about if the staff of each org

don’t really want the collaboration or are not

involved with the meetings but are expected to

do the actual work?

The use of a common set of agreed measures and reporting used by all partner

organisations to monitor performance, track progress towards goals, and learn

what is or is not working. Utilising web-enabled data collection and consistently

measuring results from a list of indicators ensures efforts remain aligned and

enables accountability and on-going learning.

Project 98 ( purpose: to create the first eco label on food in the world) was a stunning goal but the key owners were involved for defensive reasons- they really wanted it to fail but just in case it succeeded they took part- it did not succeed. One the other hand Competitive Auckland succeeded ( purpose: to improve the economic performance of the Auckland region). It succeeded because it was undertaken and led by business people with input from the public sector. The parties who were threatened were local body fiefdoms. But the business sector and the public ( we held public meetings) loved it. Ownership was the difference between these two initiatives that I chaired.

Achieving Shared Measurement Systems

9

Practitioners consistently report that achieving Shared Measurement Systems across the partner organisations is

one of the most challenging aspects to Collective Impact. The traditional paradigm of evaluating a single

organisation focuses on their isolated impact only. This is not easily transposed to measure the impact of multiple

organisations working together in real time to solve a common problem. Mutually reinforcing activities become

very clear once the work of many different organisations can be mapped out against the same set of indicators

and outcomes.

The use of a common set of agreed measures and reporting used by all partner

organisations to monitor performance, track progress towards goals, and learn

what is or is not working. Utilising web-enabled data collection and consistently

measuring results from a list of indicators ensures efforts remain aligned and

enables accountability and on-going learning.

Shared

Measurement

Systems

Use of Shared Measurement Systems: Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF)

A Collective Impact effort was used to reduce homelessness in Calgary, Canada, supported by the

Calgary Homeless Foundation (CHF). When stakeholders first came together to define common

measures of homelessness, they were shocked to discover that the many agencies, providers, and

funders in Calgary were using thousands of separate measures relating to homelessness. They also found

that providers had very different definitions of key terms, such as the “chronic” versus “transitional”

homeless, and that their services were not always aligned to the needs of the individuals served. Merely

developing a limited set of eight common measures with clear definitions led to improved services and

increased coordination. Even privacy issues, a major legal obstacle to sharing data, were resolved in

ways that permitted sharing while actually increasing confidentiality.

In this respect, putting in place a shared measurement framework will set in motion a systems change to

get alignment across the whole system. To develop the shared measurement system there needs to be

broad engagement by many organisations in the field, as well as clear expectations about confidentiality

and transparency. The Calgary homelessness initiative had a cross-sector advisory committee and a

service provider committee involved in developing common measures from evidence-based research.

These measures were then refined through iterative meetings with dozens of stakeholders before being

finalised. This shows the significant investment required into achieving shared measurement systems to

make the Collective Impact model work.

Once shared measurement exists, participants must gather regularly to share results, learn from each other, and

refine their individual and collective work based on their learning. This may involve a Partnership Council, as in

the case of GAIN, which comprises experts in the relevant fields who advise the board of directors on the learning

agenda, reviews the data to ensure its integrity, and recommends programmatic and management improvements.

The backbone organisation supports the process of learning and improving throughout the life of the collaborative.

Summary of Part One

10

BERL outlined many challenges that need to be solved with Māori enterprises. We are able to utilise current

organisations and initiatives that already exist as part of the solutions, however there is a need for these

organisations to work together. Collective Impact is a proven way of bringing together multiple organisations to

solve complex problems. It has been used for initiatives across a wide range of problems, particularly social

problems, in many different countries and at different scales.

‘Strive’ in Cincinnati used Collective Impact to improve education in the Cincinnati region; and GAIN implemented

Collective Impact initiatives across 30 countries to reduce nutritional deficiencies among 530 million poor people.

When we compare the isolated impact model of an organisation with the model of Collective Impact, it is clear to

see how and why the results are so much stronger for Collective Impact. This is essentially because of the

alignment and robustness of partners, and the constant learning and sharing of information across the partner

network.

There are five necessary conditions to ensuring successful Collective Impact initiatives. These are important to

producing true alignment between the partner organisations. One of the most challenging of these conditions is

achieving shared measurement systems between partner organisations because each tends to have their own

definition of the problem, of success, and of the way that measurement should be carried out. Constantly sharing

the results of these measurements builds stronger collective traction towards the goals of the initiative.

To motivate involvement from a somewhat fragmented group of organisations, having shared ownership of the

problem, regular communication and shared measurement systems sets up a particularly strong set of

collaborative values. To further incentivise organisations to remain involved, resources are directed towards

helping grow the economic engines of the partner organisations involved in the Collective Impact initiative (further

explained on page 11).

11

An economic engine is simply the way in which an organisation most effectively generates its revenue and profits.

From an operational perspective, an economic engine is the key ratio that an organisation could focus on that will

have the most impact on their sustainable growth. This will vary from industry to industry and from company to

company. Once this is determined, an organisation’s efforts should be focused on continually improving this ratio

(Jim Collins, Good to Great).

Economic Engines and Collective Impact

An important role of the backbone organisation is working with the organisations involved in the Collective Impact

initiative to help grow their economic engines. This will often mean increasing the financial resources available to

the company to scale its impact. It is also important to invest in developing expertise within the partner

organisations so that each partner will be better able to improve their financial sustainability. Because this service

is available only to Collective Impact partners, this provides a strong incentive for these organisations to evolve

their offerings to fit into the Collective Impact framework.

Why Grow Economic Engines?

Funding the economic engine of a certain service provider that solves a defined problem means the

amount of money flowing to that organisation is dramatically increased, and they can then use this to

resource up and scale their programmes.

Doing this will attract organisations into Collective Impact.

Ultimately it enables organisations to scale their impact.

It has been proven to work internationally and in New Zealand (see examples on page 12)

What is the Role of Government in Growing Economic Engines?

Government is a key stakeholder in any Collective Impact initiative that is aimed at realising the potential of the

Māori economy. There are four reasons for this:

Getting stakeholder buy-in is often most effective through a public-private partnership. This could involve

philanthropic and private organisations investing alongside Government to grow economic engines.

Government has a Business Growth Agenda and funds a number of work streams that enable this. The Māori

economy offers huge potential growth, however current work streams only deliver incremental gains. There

remains a strong case for Government to consider redirecting some of that funding into initiatives that delivers

the outcome and growth being sought.

Given the context of the BERL challenge, this solution would grow the export earnings for New Zealand.

There is strategic value for Government aligning the various fragmented initiatives. This is far more likely to

achieve their export goals, and would mean a more strategic and coordinated use of Government funding.

If Government were to change their funding model from directly funding initiatives to instead assisting an

organisation to improve its economic engine, this achieves a far greater leverage point and effective use of

resources. A multiplier effect often results, generates larger revenues for the organisation, which allows them

to focus their effort on increasing their scale of impact. In this sense, funding Collective Impact initiatives in the

beginning will mean that eventually there is a reduction in the amount of funding required as partner

organisations strengthen their economic engines and improve their sustainability.

PART TWO: Growing Economic Engines

“If you want to maximise the social impact of your funding, why would you buy, for example, $100,000

worth of great educational programmes for Māori leadership when the same $100,000 directed

towards that organisation’s revenue generation could help them generate $1 million to put into

funding those programmes?”

Travis O’Keefe, Ngāti Porou

(Social Entrepreneur; Supreme Winner of the 2009 Māori Innovation Icon & Entrepreneurial Award)

Examples of Funding Economic Engines

There is nothing radical about the concept of funding an organisation’s economic engine so that they can scale

their initiative. This has become an established way of operating, and there are many examples where this

approach has been successful, internationally and within the Māori economy.

Māori Case Study 1: MaiFM 88

In the early 1990’s, Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua secured a FM radio license but would have to rely on

Government funding to deliver the MaiFM radio programme. Ngāti Whatua instead decided to move from

funding radio programmes to growing their economic engine. The aim was to create robust revenue

streams to fund the programmes on MaiFM.

Management decided to seek one-off funding and use it to develop, train and resource a sales team that

could sell advertising in the marketplace, and raise even greater revenues for the company. This proved

successful and MaiFM secured retail and national advertising spending from individual businesses and

media-buying agencies. Ngāti Whatua were then able to compete as an overtly Māori enterprise in our

most competitive radio market, and MaiFM became one of our most successful commercial broadcasters.

Result: By funding their economic engine instead of seeking grants to fund their programme delivery,

MaiFM became profitable, self-sustaining, and the number one music station in our toughest market.

MaiFM was then able to participate in the skills development industry, training hundreds of Māori into

careers in commercial media - an area Māori have traditionally been significantly under-represented in.

International Case Study 1: AIDS Rides

In 1993, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Centre put up $50,000 to test the idea of the ‘AIDS Rides’, which were

community bicycle rides that raised money for AIDS services and medical research. The $50,000 was

used to fund pitches to corporate sponsors, which secured another $120,000. The organised cycling

campaign and event netted $1 million in its first year, which was a return of 20 times the original

investment. Over the course of the next eight years, ‘California AIDS Ride’ netted $20 million for the L.A.

Gay & Lesbian Centre (a return of 412 times the risk capital), and the Rides have raised more than $200

million for AIDS research. This is not bad from an initial $50,000 proof-of-concept investment.

12

International Case Study 2: Grameen Bank Micro-loans

In the early 1980’s, it was common for corporations to donate directly to entrepreneurs in developing

countries. This had no multiplier effect. The revolutionary movement of micro-financing began when Ford

Foundation provided a $800,000 bank guarantee to Muhammad Yunus’s social venture, Grameen Bank.

This was used as security to allow Grameen Bank to get risk-averse commercial banks to fund his

economic engine. With this money, Yunus has since provided billions of dollars worth of micro-loans to

unemployed people in Bangladesh and created opportunities for them to become self-employed. This

represents a huge multiplier effect.

Why Invest in more than one Organisation’s Economic Engine?

Investing into growing multiple organisations’ economic engines is important to the success of the initiative

because it motivates each partner organisation to bring their resources to bear. This assumes that the challenge

that is being addressed is multi-faceted and requires multiple organisations to each solve aspects of it.

Summary of Part Two

An economic engine is the way that an organisation most effectively generates its revenue and profits. Collective

Impact initiatives focus on growing the economic engines of the partner organisations who are part of the initiative.

This is a vital incentive to motivate these organisations to contribute their resources and effort to the Collective

Impact initiative. Growing economic engines through funding revenue generation or building capability will provide

organisations with greater resources to scale the positive work that they do. This activity is one of the critical

services offered by the backbone organisation to accelerate success.

Government plays an important role as part of a public-private partnership model alongside philanthropic and

private organisations. The main reasons for this are that Government currently funds multiple, uncoordinated

work streams to deliver their Business Growth Agenda, and a Collective Impact initiative would align this funding

to ensure a more strategic approach.

An example of achieving leverage is if a certain organisation needs to build capacity in technology and human

resources, Government could help fund this outcome directly, or could fund that company’s fundraising/revenue

generation activities. The latter would enable the organisation to raise the money itself to buy the resources. This

approach could mean that even more money is raised than is needed to purchase the resources, and it builds

revenue generating skills within the organisation. Both of these outcomes indicate a multiplier effect, allowing for

scalable impact. If Government funded the organisations work stream itself, the donation has zero multiplier effect

An immediate action that Government could take is broadening their funding criteria to allow organisations with

proven services to obtain funding towards growing their economic engines. The result of this, if successful, is a

multiplier effect on Government’s money invested because once the economic engine is successful, these

organisations can then independently fund the future delivery of their programmes.

There are many examples throughout the world, and even in New Zealand, of where this has been proven to work

and deliver a substantial multiplier effect on the initial investment.

13

“I like the concept of investing in economic engines, particularly those that can drive employment and

create high value jobs for our young people. It is essential that the growing $37 billion Māori

economy recognises the need to expand outside of the primary and service industries and into

high-value, globally focussed knowledge industries that are the future for both our people and our

country. We shouldn’t wait for the Government to lead the way here. We need to see Māori

organisation investing in economic engines of proven, successful businesses, Māori and non-Māori,

to enable them to grow.”

Ian Taylor

Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngā Puhi

(Founder of Animation Research Ltd & Taylormade Media; Māori Business Leader of the Year 2013)

“I agree that funding should be directed towards economic engines to provide capital to bring

together the parties and fund their growth. A derivative of this will be increased revenues as well as

new revenues, profits and jobs. This creates the multiplier effect. Education must flow from this

investment also.”

Grahame Christian

Ngāti Huarere, Ngāti Maru

(Managing Director and shareholder of SMART Environmental Ltd; Chair of Pare Hauraki Asset Holdings)

.

PART THREE: Bringing Collective Impact to Life

The Preconditions for Collective Impact

In order for Collective Impact to work, the most critical two preconditions are having Influential Champions and

Initial Funding.

1) Influential Champions

This is a small group of influential people who command the respect necessary to bring together CEO

level cross-sector leaders and keep them engaged. Research into Collective Impact confirms that these

champions provide the overall strategic direction for the initiative, facilitate dialogue, learning and

communication between partners and coordinate the community outreach. Mechanisms are required to

free up these champions to commit time to the initiative, and forums need to be established so they can

get together to discuss and generate opportunities. Knowing that there will be an investment into growing

their organisation’s economic engine will motivate them to be involved. Failure to do these three things

may prevent the initiative from getting past concept stage.

2) Initial funding

There must be sufficient financial resources to coordinate the project for two to three years during Phase

1 and Phase 2. Ideally this is sourced from one anchor funder who is engaged from the beginning and

who can provide the core infrastructure and planning processes. In the GAIN example (page 6), The

Gates Foundation, Canadian International Development Agency, and USAID provided the initial funding

to set up the initiative.

14

The Phases to Make Collective Impact Work

Once the preconditions are in place, our research suggests that there are three distinct phases for

a Collective Impact project.

Requires an understanding of the landscape of key players and the existing

work that each is currently undertaking.

Baseline data on the challenge that is to be overcome to develop the case for

change.

Initial governance structure that includes strong and credible champions.

Requires that stakeholders work together to establish common goals and

shared measures.

Create a supporting backbone infrastructure.

Begin the process of aligning the many organisations involved against the

shared goals and measures.

Requires that stakeholders pursue prioritised areas for action in a coordinated

way.

Systematically collect data.

Ensure a culture of learning with sustainable processes that enable course

correcting as they track progress toward their common goals (see graph titled

“Phases of Collective Impact" on page 15).

Phase 1:

Initiate Action

Phase 2:

Organise for

Impact

Phase 3:

Sustain Action

and Impact

Collective Impact builds on current solutions by honouring the efforts and contributions of service providers and

engaging them to work together. It is important to create an effective infrastructure that enables diverse

stakeholders to work together to fix a broken system. This takes time, and the first two phases of Collective Action

may take between six months and two years. A readiness assessment based on the preconditions on the

previous page will help define the time required.

15

Components for Success

PHASE 1 - Initiate Action

PHASE 2 - Organise for Impact

PHASE 3 -

Sustain Action and Impact

Phases of Collective Impact

Governance and

Infrastructure

Strategic Planning

Community

Involvement

Evaluation and

Improvement

Identify champions and

form cross-sector groups

Map the landscape and

use data to make case

Facilitate community

outreach

Analyse baseline data to

identify key issues and

gaps

Create infrastructure

(backbone and

processes)

Create common agenda

(goals and strategy)

Engage community and

build public will

Facilitate and refine

Support implementation

(alignment to goals and

strategies)

Continue engagement

and conduct advocacy

Collect, track, and report

progress (process to

learn and improve)

Establish shared metrics

(indicators, measurement,

and approach)

Keeping Collective Impact Alive

Two key structural elements enable Collective Impact initiatives to succeed and remain sustainable:

A backbone organisation

Cascading levels of linked collaboration

A) The Backbone Organisation

This serves six essential functions:

Providing overall strategic direction

Facilitating dialogue between partners

Managing data collection and analysis

Handling communications

Coordinating community outreach

Mobilising funding

The best structure is situation-specific because several factors impact on the project, namely:

i. The issue and geography

ii. The ability to secure funding

iii. A perceived neutrality of the organisation

iv. The ability to mobilise stakeholders

It is important that the backbone organisation is not hindered by regulations and policies imposed by Local

Government or Government. The backbone needs to have a clear mandate and freedom to do whatever it

takes to ensure the initiative can be carried out.

Principles of Adaptive Leadership

No Collective Impact effort can survive unless the backbone organisation is led with strong adaptive

leadership skills. These are what set great leaders apart from others in leadership positions. It is a

combination of skills, perspective and effort that allows leaders to mobilise people without imposing a

predetermined agenda, earn respect and act transparently, and not taking credit for the success of the

initiative but instead leave success to the participating organisations. The backbone organisation maintains

a balance between the leadership needed to keep all parties together and letting stakeholders own the

success.

Sufficient resources

Backbone organisations must also be sufficiently well resourced. A backbone’s funding is typically less

than one percent of the total budgets of the organisations that it coordinates and it can dramatically

increase the effectiveness of the other 99 percent of expenditures, or attract new funds to support the

initiative.

16

B) Cascading Levels of Linked Collaboration

This process begins with establishing an oversight group, steering committee or executive committee of

cross-sector CEO-level individuals from key organisations engaged with the issue and individuals touched by

the issue.

The oversight group creates the common agenda, defines the boundaries of the effort and sets a strategic

action framework. Thereafter it is recommended that the group meet regularly to oversee the progress of the

entire initiative.

Working groups are formed around each primary leverage point or strategy. Each working group meets

separately, possibly every two weeks, with communication and coordination facilitated by the backbone. The

‘real work’ of the Collective Impact initiative takes place in these groups through a continuous process of

‘planning and doing,’ grounded in constant feedback about what is or is not working.

Working groups develop their own plans for action around specific shared measures. Once plans are

developed, the working groups are then responsible for sharing progress reports and communicating their

activities to build alignment.

The backbone organisation has a role in providing periodic and systematic assessments of the progress being made

by each working group, and presents the results back to the oversight committee that sustains the common agenda.

The number of working groups and the layers of collaboration may change over time. As progress is made, some

groups may end and new ones begin to pursue new strategies defined by the common agenda. All strategies

pursued must clearly link back to the common agenda, to the shared measures, and to each other.

17

COMMON AGENDA

Cascading Levels of Collaboration

Backbone Organisation

Steering Committee

Summary of Part Three

It is important to have influential champions and initial investment to support the undertaking of a Collective Impact

initiative. Structures need to be set up to ensure the leaders can commit time to the initiative. Together these

preconditions ensure the base level of influence and resource required to transfer the initiative through the initial

stages from concept to action.

There are three phases to Collective Impact. The first is the ‘Initiate Action’ phase, where a greater understanding

of the problems to overcome and the current solutions available are assessed and better understood. The second

phase is ‘Organise for Impact’, which involves creating the backbone infrastructure and establishing a shared

agreement between the partner organisations as to the goals and measurements for the initiative. The third phase

is ‘Sustain Action and Impact’ which is when each organisation pursues its activity. Data is gathered around how

each organisation’s progress is tracking, and all partner organisations are engaged in learning and improving their

shared approach.

To keep the Collective Impact initiative alive, the backbone organisation plays a central role. It is essentially the

central hub for facilitating partner communication, data analysis, strategy, and funding for initiatives. There is a

specific skillset required of the backbone organisation; namely that it must be adaptive, transparent, and earn the

respect necessary to mobilise and influence people. Government could play a key role in resourcing the

backbone organisation, since this is an important requirement for success.

An oversight group and working groups must be established and meet regularly to communicate and coordinate

progress and give feedback on their work programme. This is important for maintaining shared alignment and

continual learning across the parties. The organisational structure of the initiative and the working groups may

change as the work programme and strategy develops.

18

Conclusive Comments By 2061 the Māori economy could have grown by $12.3 billion (from $36.9 billion) and created 149,600 job

opportunities. For this to happen, significantly more resource must be dedicated towards developing the capacity,

capability, scale, innovation and leadership within Māori enterprises, and developing the relevant capabilities of

our labour force. The ‘do nothing’ scenario identified in BERL’s ‘The Māori Economy, Science and Innovation’

report is not a viable option. Although this was clearly emphasised by BERL, many of the current solutions that

are aimed at growing the Māori economy have limited impact, and, at best, achieve incremental gains in the levels

of capacity, capability, scale and leadership within Māori enterprises.

New thinking is required into how Government can best support the development of Māori enterprises. Resourcing

Collective Impact initiatives and the economic engines of contributing organisations is an efficient, productive and

financially sustainable solution for Government to achieve the Business Growth Agenda goals. It is more efficient

since a number of quality providers are involved in a more disciplined and coordinated way to bringing their

combined resources and knowledge to help solve a specific and identified common problem. It is a more

productive use of funding because it results in a far better output with wider impacts. Government therefore has a

role in enabling rather than delivering these solutions. Collective Impact is also more financially sustainable since

it improves the economic engines of partner organisations involved, increasing the revenues to fund their

programmes. It is also more equitable because multiple organisations share in the success rather than any one

particular organisation being favoured.

Collective Impact facilitates multiple partner organisations each making a commitment to the whole initiative.

Agreement to the problem definition, the work programme and the measurement systems creates a high level of

stakeholder buy-in. Having a focus on growing partner organisations’ economic engines further incentivises them

to be involved and contribute resources and expertise.

There are many examples of Collective Impact initiatives being successfully implemented, especially in solving

challenging problems. Several have been provided in this report. A number of further case studies are available

on The Foundation Strategy Group (FSG) website, providing further information and detail.

One opportunity that exists to make Collective Impact a reality is to apply the process to a current cross-sector

project that involves Government, the private sector and Māori enterprises. One such initiative that has many of

the key features is with the stakeholders engaged in the Te Hiku Social Development and Wellbeing Accord,

signed in February 2013.

We hope that this analysis of Collective Impact has been useful in informing future decision-making around

processes and policies that Government could implement to maximise the value provided to Māori enterprises.

19

Recommended Next Steps:

1) Review learnings and best practice from a range of Collective Impact initiatives on the FSG website.

2) Develop a business case as to how the Government would implement Collective Impact initiatives for Māori

enterprises

We conducted initial research into the four questions posed at the beginning of this report (Background to

Research Context). The individual findings and conclusions for each complement our above suggestions. While

they do not include full and final analyses of the questions, they do offer basic solutions and we recommend that

more analysis is undertaken into each of these findings to determine their viability. This would maximise the value

for Government in advising Government ministries on necessary policy and strategy changes to deliver the most

impact to growing Māori enterprises.

3) Conduct further ‘thought leadership’ into the specific solutions identified for each question (refer to the

following Appendix pages 20-27)

Question 1

How could the Government help improve the leadership (Governance and Management) of Māori

enterprises?

What is the problem that exists?

Māori enterprise leaders often have multi bottom-line goals and high shareholder expectations of seeing value in

the form of opportunities, more choices and employment. Māori enterprise leaders therefore need to be more

diversely skilled and astute than leaders of purely corporate businesses.

This context means that there are many issues that need to be addressed in Māori enterprise leadership

(governance and management levels) especially to deliver on the goals of BERL’s research. Our latest research

into the challenges of Māori Trusts confirms this (as per the graph below).

There are currently fragmented solutions being provided to improve the capability of Māori enterprise leaders,

particularly in the functional and technical aspects of leadership. Few providers actually help solve the greatest

challenges experienced by Māori leaders (as outlined in the graph above).

The complex nature of these problems highlights why Collective Impact is a credible solution – because it is

motivates service providers to focus their resources and attention collectively and then work together to address

the most important challenges.

Appendix

20

Graph tabling the Māori Trust challenges as outlined by Māori Trust leaders

Rate how each of the following challenges impact the ability of your Trust to achieve its goals?

1 = No Impact

10 = Significant Impact

Source: The Icehouse:- Business Growth Challenges Facing Māori Businesses

This highlights that ‘Politics’ is the greatest challenge facing Māori Trusts. The impacts of politics

are real and substantial. Politics at a governance level inevitably stifles good decision-making,

clouds clarity and cohesion amongst the board, derails a focus on strategic conversations, creates

roadblocks that shouldn’t exist, and adversely affects the organisational culture. It is very hard to

move forward as an organisation if politics is a constant feature that determines how the trust

operates and how the decision-makers behave.

As an example, the greatest barrier to Māori enterprises realising business growth, is politics is

often created from the leadership of Māori trusts. We believe that the single greatest challenge to

overcome with Māori enterprise leadership is moving past the politics which shackles our Māori

enterprises to mediocrity and the status quo.

From the graph on page 20 we can also see that lack of access to experienced

executors appears to be a pressing issue for Māori trusts. It is likely that this challenge

will prevail as long as high political tension and poor organisational culture remains a

feature of our Māori enterprises. Many organisations are seeking high quality managers

who have strong experience, expertise and leadership skills. With multiple options

available, these great managers are not likely to subject themselves to working for a

Māori trust that has high political tension and poor organisational culture led by the

governors. These issues tend to mean that the managers of Māori trusts are under-

resourced, under-valued, and not well motivated, measured or supported effectively by

their governance leaders. These are but two of the many challenges that need

addressing to acheve BERL’s growth goal.

Question 1

How could the Government help improve the leadership (Governance

and Management) of Māori enterprises?

This would involve addressing the following:

Politics

Succession

Multiple agendas

Disciplined execution

Lack of basic businesses and technical skills

No accountability or sense of urgency for taking action

Not enough focus on self-awareness

Generational mind-sets of current leaders

There is no single organisation that is focused on providing leadership

training.

For Small and Medium Enterprises – lack of time to up-skill, particularly on

journey programmes that have real impact. ensure that Māori enterprises have the incentives and ability to continually develop and up-skill their

leaders in the appropriate areas and implement a performance review measurement system and process.

Corporate business principles and post settlement Māori entities have to operate on the same principles

because they are both gigantic monetary beasts.

The difference is that Māori iwi have an added dimension - which is where the problem lies - because

leaders of Māori business need to be so much more diverse and astute that your average corporate

dimension because they need to be thinking about how they are going to do good for their iwi members.

The stakeholders are therefore completely different. Whilst they may have similar expectations, they are

actually very different.

Appendix

21

What were the outcomes from our discussions into solutions?

With all of the challenges that need to be addressed, we believe that the greatest return on investment for

Government would be to do three things:

1) Introduce a performance standard for Māori enterprise leadership. Such standards exist in a number of

disciplines and industries. This would need to be supported by governance capability development, especially

as Māori trustees are constantly rotating. Governance training should include more than just a focus on

compliance and understanding governance roles. It should also incorporate business growth lessons around

generating more value from existing resources, building the right team to execute the enterprise goals, and

developing soft skills needed to overcome the political tensions inside Māori enterprises.

2) Further research into potential solutions for each of the challenges identified in the graph above.

3) Find credible existing providers who have successful leadership development programmes for Māori. Use a

Collective Impact initiative to get agreement to the problems and the shared goals and measurements, and

help these organisations scale their impact to grow more Māori enterprise leaders. This would mean more

Māori enterprise leaders are engaged in continuous learning and development and their progress is robustly

and constantly measured.

The rationale for these two priorities comes from Jim

Collins’ case studies and research in ‘Good to

Great’, where the performance of 1,435 good

companies was measured over 40 years and the

eleven leading organisations researched even

further to distil the key common principles of

success. This suggests that when this is done, it is

likely to result in getting the right team, who

developed the right strategy, and ensured the right

company culture and decision-making.

Mindset, self-awareness and belief in affecting growth and positive

change. Values, trust culture, Acknowledging the tensions in the

organisation and committing to work through these challenges. Aspect 1:

Attitudinal

Setting of visions, goals and appropriate strategies Aspect 2:

Strategic

Governance, compliance, processes and financial disciplines Aspect 3:

Functional

Industry specific skills, knowledge and benchmarks Aspect 4:

Technical

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

Diagram showing the different aspects of governance that need addressing

Question 1

How could the Government help improve the leadership (Governance and Management) of Māori

enterprises?

22

“You can’t lead anyone else until you can first lead yourself. I could have spent $20,000

on a piece of equipment, or on developing myself.”

Jacob Kajavala

Ngāi Tuhoe

(Owner-manager of Kajavala Forestry Ltd; Chairman of XXX)

Appendix

Mindset, self-awareness and belief in affecting growth and

positive change. Acknowledging political tension in the

organisation and committing to work through these challenges. Aspect 1:

Attitudinal

Setting of visions, goals and appropriate strategies Aspect 2:

Strategic

Governance, compliance and financial knowledge Aspect 3:

Functional

Industry specific skills, knowledge and benchmarks Aspect 4:

Technical

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

Strengths Opportunities

Increases the likelihood of success for large Māori

enterprises who have significant primary industry

assets to contribute more to the export value chain

Has the ability to deliver quick results

Ensures consistency of leaders’ performance

Cost-savings through optimised operations

Easy to implement due to standards already

existing in other industries

Stronger likelihood of Māori Trust boards focusing

more attention on strategic governance

Creates a competitive advantage among those

enterprises who adopt the standard

Makes Māori enterprises more competitive

Reduces business risk, which protects Māori

shareholders

Better decision-making likely to result in better

returns for Māori whānau

Establish an organisation to uphold the

standard for Māori leaders’ performance

Improves collaboration between Māori

organisations and industry groups

More Māori enterprise leaders qualified in

running an organisation

Creates pathways for young Māori interested in

becoming Māori enterprise leaders

Will improve the ability of Māori enterprises to

partner to achieve scale

Weaknesses Threats

May clash with shareholder autonomy over

selected leaders

Requires an organisation to focus on routinely

measuring, educating and operating the standard

More shareholders, particularly older owners

wanting to maintain the status quo

Lack of Māori at the level required to meet the

standard

Challenges with policing the standard

SWOT Analysis for this proposed solution:

Introduce a performance standard for Māori enterprise leadership

Question 1

How could the Government help improve the leadership (Governance and Management) of Māori

enterprises?

Question 2

How could the Government invest in developing the skills and capabilities of our labour force to unlock

the potential of Māori enterprises?

What are the problems?

New Zealand and the rest of the world is facing exponential population growth and rapid technological

advancement that is replacing human labour. This causes growing unemployment, particularly among youth.

When this is coupled with an under-delivering education system, Māori enterprises and Māori whānau face

serious problems in the future. It is not possible for Māori enterprise leaders to accomplish their goals if the labour

force they employ are not skilled appropriately, or are not interested in the jobs within their organisations.

First Problem:

Many Māori youth are unemployable. Māori youth are overwhelmingly not remaining engaged with education long

enough to become qualified for roles beyond semi-skilled labour. We must ensure that Māori on a mass basis

become more engaged with the core subjects in secondary school education. If we are not able to do this, then

the current status quo of disengagement of young Māori will continue and will mean a lack of appropriately trained

Māori to service the whole skill-based sector of employment.

A Solution to First Problem:

Find ways to unleash the untapped potential and capability that sits within our Māori labour force. This starts with

determining how to adapt the secondary education system to better engage non-academic Māori so they can fully

participate in learning. This could be done by creating a taskforce of attuned people who have an understanding

of business; the corporate environment; the education system; and teaching Māori people. All four skillsets must

be present in the taskforce members for them to have a wide appreciation of the different sectors. This group

could then be supported to undertake market research into what young Māori expect from the education system,

why they expect it and how they would like to see education delivered. From this information, a Collective Impact

model could be used to create shared goals and measures, a work plan, and solutions to solving the engagement

problem.

Second Problem:

Māori enterprises often have an aspiration of providing employment for their people, yet the majority of Māori

business interests are in the primary sector, and levels of employment in these industries will continue to fall with

the advancement of technology.

A Solution to Second Problem:

The way to offer more employment and returns to Māori enterprise owners is for people to add value to our

primary industry assets, increase our collective scale, and sell the outputs on the global market. This represents a

move towards the two ends of the value curve. At one side of the value curve is the pre-production design and

development and skills. At the other end are activities that are close to the market such as marketing, sales and

post-sales service. Developing the skills and capabilities that will allow our labour force to participate in these

activities will improve the ability for Māori enterprises to make this a reality. These new activities will then

stimulate whole new industries of job opportunities. The types of skills to invest in are therefore in innovation,

commercialisation and international sales. Government should identify and resource providers that can train

people in taking existing resources and generating more value or outputs from them.

23

Appendix

The education problem is that

teachers teach to a curriculum,

without explaining the importance or

relevance to young people being able

to achieve and actually fulfil their

aspirations

Dividend is not going to work.

Employment opportunities are the

vehicle that will be most effective. But

Māori don't want to employ Māori.

Reason that they may be deemed as

lazy is because they cant be

bothered, because they don’t have

the background to give them the

initiative, because they never turned

onto the education system

Iwi should be giving value to whānau in terms

of providing jobs. Goal for governance needs

to be thinking about how they are going to

create jobs for their people. But if Māori trusts

do not want to employ their own people

because they are lazy, then they need to try

and unleash the huge potential sitting their

that is waiting to be untapped in terms of

Māori capability. Doing this starts all the way

back at school - the education system needs

to evolve so that Maori can participate to a far

greater extent on a mass basis. What

percentage of Māori are actual school

leavers?

We don't have enough people who

understand the workforce scenario and the

education system.

If we do not solve these challenges then

we will see no growth in the Maori

economy, yet a continually growing

population base.

Allocate funding towards on-

the-job training, cadetships and

apprenticeships. A credible

approach that is successful in

Sweden is ... More training

should be done onsite because

it builds more robust and

experiential learning. This has

also been able to show value to

employers so much that they

are also funding the training of

their labour force.

Second Problem:

Government funds technical

institutes, industry training

organisations and wananga to

develop the skills and capabilities

of our labour force. Currently there

are no outcome indicators, reviews

or measures of effectiveness of

these courses or training providers,

and so we can not validate which

are successfully developing the

necessary skills and capabilities of

contributing members of our labour

force.

Solution to first problem:

Ensure there is an organisation that

is tasked and resourced with

tracking labour force workers

throughout their journey

Identify existing organisations

that have training programmes

that do this well and that could

be adapted to suit the Māori

market characteristics.

Question 2

How could the Government invest in developing the skills and capabilities of our labour force to unlock

the potential of Māori enterprises?

SWOT Analysis for this proposed solution

Creating a taskforce of attuned people who are able to create an education model for Māori that is more

engaging, relevant and employer demand driven.

24

Appendix

Strengths Opportunities

It solves a systemic issue being lack of skilled

and capable labour force participants

If successful it would have scalable impact

across the country

It would not be expensive to fund

It draws from multi-disciplinary skills

This would solve an international challenge

Government could co-invest with philanthropic

entities to fund the taskforce

It could be appropriate for non-Māori youth also

It could revolutionise the way that education is

delivered in New Zealand

It is likely to result in less crime, less social

welfare payments, more employment and more

tax revenue for Government

Weaknesses Threats

There is no guarantee that it will directly result in

any improved education statistics

It will not in itself unlock the potential of Māori

enterprises

The current education system may see it as a

challenge and resist it

Selecting the wrong people who do not have the

full or appropriate insights

Motivating the right people to join the taskforce

If the wrong process was used, it would be

ineffective like many other reviews

Question 3

How could the Government encourage organisations to collaborate efforts to improve Māori enterprises

scale (capacity) and capability?

What is the problem?

There are multiple providers currently aiming to improve Māori enterprise scale and capability. Most of the talk

about collaboration does not result in action to make this happen. Often this collaboration is ineffective because it

is not well supported, resourced or prioritised, and there is no disciplined approach to ensuring execution. If we do

not achieve scale, we fail to recognise the leverage, this creates, and jeopardise sustainability. Fragmentation

and disaggregation means missed opportunities, and could eventually lead to loss of Māori assets and equity.

What is our proposed solution?

Out of all of the solutions we looked into, Collective Impact demonstrates the best model as a solution for

Government to increase scale of capability and capacity of Māori enterprises. Collective Impact, as mentioned in

the main body of the report, is more than just collaboration. Shifting from isolated impact to Collective Impact

represents a fundamentally different, more disciplined and higher performing approach. For it to work, there

needs to be more than just greater collaboration or public-private partnerships. It requires a systemic approach to

progressing shared objectives among aligned organisations. It also requires a new set of organisations that have

the facilitation skills and resources to assemble and co-ordinate the specific elements and relationships required

for Collective Impact.

SWOT Analysis for this proposed solution

Supporting, resourcing and implementing Collective Impact initiatives

25

Appendix

Strengths Opportunities

Is a win-win-win scenario for those involved

Solves multiple and complex challenges

Is not favourable to any one organisation

Is an effective and efficient use of resources

Low risk

Well proven in many different contexts

No known policy changes required

The necessary resources already exist

By including a focus on growing the economic

engines of partner organisations, Government

would then no longer have to fund the delivery of

their programmes

Local Governments and not-for profits are

already exploring it

Ministry of Social Development have begun

investigating it

Weaknesses Threats

It has low exposure and therefore requires multi-

sector marketing and awareness of its value and

how the process works

It requires trust and honesty from multiple

organisations

If the backbone organisation is a local

Government or Government organisation, then

the risk increases around internal policies and

processes stifling operational effectiveness

New Zealanders are working longer hours than other OECD countries but are less productive, research by the Productivity Commission has found. 23 September 2013 New Zealanders are working longer hours but are not as productive as their counter parts in the OECD, a study has found. Research by the New Zealand Productivity Commission released on Monday found New Zealand has poor productivity performance at economy and industry levels. The findings highlighted the need for policy to support productivity and for firms to have a clear focus on improving productivity, the study's authors Paul Conway and Lisa Meehan said. "On average, New Zealanders work about 15 per cent longer than the OECD average and produce about 20 per cent less output per hour worked.“ In Australia, there had been remarkably similar employment growth to Zealand since the mid-1950s, but firms across the ditch had been much more successful at converting input to output, the study said. "This has been a key driver of the increasing income disparity across the two trans-Tasman economies." Some New Zealand industries, including telecommunications, media, finance and insurance "punched above their weight" in terms of productivity. While others, including construction and some of New Zealand's scientific and technical service industries were less productive. Productivity is the efficiency with which resources such as labour and capital are converted into outputs of goods and services. Improving productivity allows countries to enjoy higher living standards, including in health, education and the environment, the study said. "So while productivity growth contributes directly to higher incomes and material standards of living, this matters to the extent that it enhances the wellbeing of New Zealanders."

Question 4

How could the Government get genuine engagement between Māori enterprises and the science and

innovation sector?

What is the problem?

Each year more than $1.5 billion is invested by Government into the science and innovation sector. The problem

is not with the level of funding into research and development. It is about focusing this money in the right way to

get the desired results.

Government’s science and innovation services offered to Māori enterprises are solving the wrong problems for

them. They are not creating the most value for Māori enterprises. If the services represented a good opportunity

and solved a real need then there would be less engagement issues between Māori enterprises and the science

and innovation sector.

Currently ‘research and development’ is overly focused on research outputs. Research has become a goal in

itself rather than being a route to helping Māori enterprises. This mismatch exists because research and

development grant requirements are often created by scientists for scientists. This perpetuates an inherent bias

towards research solutions and the science community rather than what is sought after by Māori enterprises.

26

“Innovation doesn’t come from one person, it comes from a culture, a community, a way of

thinking and being. Carrying innovation to the market needs a bigger community with

different skills.”

Ian Taylor

Ngāti Kahungunu

(A pioneer in special effects and former television personality; Founder of Taylormade, 2013 Māori Business

Leader of the Year; Companion New Zealand Order of Merit)

Appendix

Vision Matauranga example

For example, the current Vision Matauranga funding from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

aims to:

Help increase connections and collaborations between Māori organisations and individual researchers and

research organisations;

Support the development of individual researchers who undertake work with Māori organisations;

Increase, strengthen, and improve knowledge transfer between researchers, stakeholders and research

users to unlock Māori innovation potential

The programme places skilled researchers from a research organisation to carry out a work programme with a

Māori enterprise. It does not directly fund development experts to work with Māori enterprises and foster an

understanding of commercialisation that could unlock Māori knowledge, resources and people.

Cumulative Value Creation over 10 years

“Māori businesses often do not fit the mould of the science and innovation system, making it difficult

for them to get funding. Rather than trying to squeeze ourselves into a Pākehā perception of science

and innovation, we have to sell what makes us different and why that difference is important.”

Ian Taylor, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngā Puhi

(Founder of Animation Research Ltd & Taylormade Media; Māori Business Leader of the Year 2013)

“I agree that current research funding sitting in isolation in academic institutions is a barrier.”

Shelley Campbell, Ngā Puhi, Ngāti Maniapoto

(CEO of the Sir Peter Blake Trust; Sir Peter Blake Trust Leadership Award recipient)

SWOT Analysis for this proposed solution

Allocating more funding towards development initiatives rather than research

27

Appendix

Strengths Opportunities

Improves the science and innovation

engagement with Māori enterprises

Aligns to Government Business Growth Agenda

– business led rather than science led

Results in tangible outcomes

Low cost for the Government to implement (for

example a framework exists for the Capability

Development vouchers)

Creates word of mouth because it solves an

identified need/challenge

Once the business development experts are

engaged, they can identify areas of science that

are relevant and necessary to exploit the real

commercial opportunities identified

Improves the productivity of the science industry

Results in more scale, consolidation and co-

investment among Māori enterprises/iwi around

identified opportunities

Assists Māori to determine higher value chain

areas that they can own and manage

Greater potential for new Māori exports

Weaknesses Threats

Research institutions would need to build

development capability

Not as efficient, productive and sustainable as

the Collective Impact model

Science and research industries incentivised to

maintain the status quo

Bureaucratic bias towards science led initiatives

as opposed to business led initiatives

Question 4

How could the Government get genuine engagement between Māori enterprises and the science and

innovation sector?

The recommended actions for Government:

1) Validate the Māori enterprise market needs to inform science and innovation services that can unlock Māori

knowledge, resources and people.

2) Allocate more funding towards development initiatives to achieve a better return on investment than funding

research. Many iwi enterprises have assets, and are keen to look at developing them, but they do not have

the expertise to progress such strategies (supported by graph on page 20). What is required is a grant that is

geared up to support a development expert to work with the Māori enterprise to identify how they might best

develop their resources.

Business and Economic Research Limited, (2010), The Māori Economy - A sleeping giant about to awaken?

http://www.berl.co.nz/economic-insights/economic-development/maori-economy/the-maori-economy-a-sleeping-

giant-about-to-awaken/

Business and Economic Research Limited, (2011), The Asset Base, Income, Expenditure and GDP of the 2010

Māori Economy

Business and Economic Research Limited, (2012), The Māori Economy, Science and Innovation

Building Innovation progress report (2012)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda/building-innovation

Dan Pallotta, (2013), The Way We Think About Charity is Dead Wrong

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

GEM, (2006), The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Aotearoa New Zealand

http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/719

Grameen Bank, A Short History of Grameen Bank

http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=114

James C. Collins, (2001), Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...and Others Don't

Larry Keeley, Doblin (200), Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs

http://issuu.com/doblin/docs/tentypesofinnovation_bookpreview#embed

Stanford Social Innovation, (2012), Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work

Stanford Social Innovation, (2011), Collective Impact

Te Hiku Iwi Development Trust, (2013), Social Development Accord for Te Hiku Iwi in the Far North

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1306/S00372/social-development-accord-for-te-hiku-iwi-in-the-far-north.htm

Te Puni Kōkiri, (2003), Hei Whakatinana I te Turua Po: Business Success and Māori Organisational Governance

Management Study

http://www.tpk.govt.nz/_documents/governance/tpk-hei-whakatinana-2003.pdf

The Icehouse, (2013), Supporting Māori Businesses to Grow to Internationally Competitive Standards

http://www.theicehouse.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/TPK-ICEHOUSE-Maori-alumni-feedback-Feb-2013.pdf

The Icehouse, (2013), Business Growth Challenges Facing Māori Businesses

Travis Bradberry, (2009), Emotional Intelligence 2.0

Foundation Strategy Group, Knowledge Exchange webpage (examples of Collective Impact)

http://www.fsg.org/KnowledgeExchange.aspx

28

References

Ian Taylor, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngā Puhi (Founder of Animation Research Ltd & Taylormade Media; Māori Business Leader of the Year 2013)

At school in the 50’s and 60’s I was never taught the truly inspirational stories of our ancestors - how they traded

across the globe, how they explored one third of the planet, or how they traded seal skins with China over 200

years ago. We lost a generation of stories that should have inspired us and given us a sense of our place in the

world. I have a sense this is changing; we are reclaiming those stories. Now it is time for iwi to rebuild our pride

and relevance and look at creating new opportunities for our young people to take on the world.

Employment

A silent epidemic facing the world is youth unemployment. In New Zealand, 14 percent of Māori are unemployed.

Māori businesses have an opportunity to do something about it. It is time that we stepped up and started taking

control of the issue, with or without the Government. The challenge we face is that employment growth will not

come out of our traditional industries. It will take time to build, but it is critical that we start investing in the new

industries that will create high employment. Everywhere we invest has got to be about creating high value jobs for

kids from the age of 18-25, because if we don’t we’ll lose them.

If we do have a legitimate Māori economic engine, then let’s make sure that we use it to create new kinds of

industry opportunities in the knowledge based economy; industries that excite our young people. Māori are good

at putting our distinctiveness into property development and tourism. Now let’s go for the next level, and find

companies that can create high value employment for our rangatahi. To excite our youth at school, they need to

see that there is a pathway to employment for them. We need to focus on creating jobs that fit the skills of Māori,

and then lift these skills so we go to the next step as well. If our Māori economic engine is used for the purpose of

creating jobs in future-focussed industries, then this will have the added benefit of achieving Government priorities

around employment.

Economic Engines

I like the concept of investing in economic engines, particularly those that can drive employment and create high

value jobs for our young people. It is essential that the growing $37 billion Māori economy recognises the need to

expand outside of the primary and service industries and into high-value, globally focussed knowledge industries

that are the future for both our people and our country. We shouldn’t wait for the Government to lead the way

here. We need to see Māori organisation investing in economic engines of proven, successful businesses, Māori

and non-Māori, to enable them to grow.

As long as we make sure these businesses are in industries that can thrive in the future. They can add value to

our existing primary industry businesses, and create new and yet-to-be recognised opportunities in knowledge

based industries as well. If we pull we off we will generate new money, new work and new jobs.

Collective Impact

Given the priorities of Māori organisations, it is important to simplify our targets and goals, make them human, and

make them understandable.

Science System

Māori businesses often do not fit the mould of the science and innovation system, making it difficult for them to get

funding. Rather than trying to squeeze ourselves into a Pākehā perception of science and innovation, we have to

sell what makes us different and why that difference is important.

29

Contributors Notes

Grahame Christian, Ngāti Huarere, Ngāti Maru (Managing Director and shareholder of SMART Environmental Ltd; Chair of Pare Hauraki Asset Holdings)

I have read the document and provided suggestions from an entrepreneurial, rather than academic, perspective.

Whilst we are trying to build a ‘Māori economic engine’ and employment for our people, as a people we have to:

Address the “institutional apathy” and psyche that we have fallen into.

Change our mindset from being the victim to victor.

Agree that we will no longer accept our over-representation in all of the wrong statistics, i.e. crime, single

parent families, obesity, health, unemployment, alcohol, drugs, smoking.

Expose the criminals and drug suppliers amongst our whānau, hapū and iwi as a signal of progress.

Celebrate educational achievement and getting a job as a measure of success, and stop finding reasons

why we cannot do these.

Embrace role models off the sports pitch such as business people, educators and people who have made

good choices (whilst forgiving those who haven’t).

A key to a successful initiative would be to ensure that the right people are on the bus within the stakeholder

organisations. My limited exposure to iwi organisations suggests that there is a massive void in terms of their

success and internal capability. The desire of some iwi to elevate themselves and their people does not address

the issue of capability. So as stakeholders in these initiatives, they can possibly only be as good as the people

that are appointed to the management roles. With lack of skills and limited experience, some of the initiatives may

not be properly executed.

As part of building effective teams, Māori should not be afraid to have “outsiders” in the team. There are many

non-Māori who love working in Māori organisations and have a huge amount to offer, particularly as they do not

come from a grievance background, they are not burdened with the past, and often work altruistically.

There are too few skilled Māori who are thrust into leadership roles, and consequently wear too many hats and are

burdened with expectations. This often means they get totally burnt out and become less and less effective.

Often Māori organisations do not trust each other, and are unprofessional, grasping and appear disorganised. This

prevents a lot of business owners from wanting to partner with iwi, even if it suggests a sensible business

opportunity.

Where possible, iwi organisations should be developing relationships with Local, Regional and Central

Government (i.e. like Ngāi Tahu is doing), and should be working closely with them on their future annual and long

term plans. Early alignment will see these parties build Māori interests into their long term and aspirational plans.

Funding will then be allocated to these activities and many of these parties will provide land, buildings and funding

for initiatives that will drive economic development. This is safe money.

30

Contributors Notes

31