Impact Resillience

Here you can find:

• the on-going work in the GOOGLEDOC
• publications
• white papers
• related posts
• recordings of the Zoom conversations
• framing of the questions in the Impact Resilience Foundational Lab

PUBLICATIONS

• A Simulation Exercise to Illustrate the Impact of an Enterprise System on a Service Supply Chain, James Ritchie-Dunham, Douglas Morrice, Edward Anderson, Jr., and James Dyer, INFORMS Transactions on Education, 7(3), 2007
  • simulation model used in balanced scorecards research
• Balanced Scorecards, Mental Models, and Organizational Performance, James L. Ritchie-Dunham, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2002 (replicated in 3 PhD dissertations)
  • research on the influence of systemic and linear scorecards on mental models of stakeholder values and systemic understanding and the influence on organizational performance

WHITE PAPERS

• Framework for Monitoring Impact Resilience -- 2Mar2019 -- by Jim RD
• Classic Definition of Impact Resilience -- 09Nov2018 -- by Jim RD
• What You Measure…: Uni- versus Multi-Resource Performance Measures -- 10Feb2002 -- by Jim RD

RELATED POSTS (check the search results)

• BUILD UPON blogpost

RECORDINGS OF ZOOM CONVERSATIONS

3rd Conversation @ August 1, 2019 || Video & Audio

Exploring white paper "Classic Definition of Impact Resilience"

2nd Conversation @ July 17, 2019 || Video & Audio

Exploring white paper "Framework for Monitoring Impact Resilience"

1st Conversation @ October 19, 2017 || Video & Audio

• exploring the initial framing of Impact Resilience

IMPACT RESILIENCE Foundational Lab

Brief

IMPACT RESILIENCE develops a framework and process for the strategic measures of a group’s ability to sustain its desired outcomes and experience.

Traditional impact measurement defines a baseline of outcomes and the benefits of achieving greater, more sustainable outcomes. More mouths fed, more sick healed, more liters of water cleaned. Ecosynomics 1.0 reframes strategic measurement, from scarcity-plus thinking to accomplishment of an abundance-based continuum. The costs of scarcity, of not realizing the available potential of the people present, are the costs of agreements that are at a lower level than those available to the group. Instead of thinking that it would be nice to realize a group’s potential, this reframe measures the costs of not living into this potential.

To have the impact we know we can have, we have to reduce the costs of scarcity. The higher these costs of scarcity, the lower the immediate impact and the lower the ability to sustain the impact and the lower resilience in bouncing back from challenges that emerge in life: a double hit. The lower immediate impact comes about from a lower utilization of the creative potential inherent in the group. The lower sustainability and resilience comes from the lower engagement and higher turnover of people in the lower-than-potential agreements.

Impact resilience quantifies:

1. the impact potential of a set of agreements
2. the resilience of those agreements
3. the costs of scarcity of lower-than-potential agreements
4. the co-investment required to shift the agreements to overcome the costs of scarcity
5. the Return on Impact Resilience Co-investment, the return from greater impact resilience on the investment required
6. the level of impact resilience (1-5), based on proven impact resilience, measurement of costs of scarcity, and net results, as a pathway and levels of certification
7. the scalability of the resilient impact

The process for this assessment initially builds on the Ecosynomics processes (i.e., O Process, HVMove Process) for understanding the deeper shared purpose, potential, and current reality existing within a set of agreements.

This lab’s fieldwork tests this framework and the process for working with it in settings from small groups, organizations, to large-scale societal change efforts.