A story of funder collaboration for social innovation

Photo by Michael Levenston

Photo by Michael Levenston

Interviews with Dave Doig, Vancouver Foundation, Laura Tate, Community Action Initiative, and Annie Burkes, City of Vancouver

One funder put it this way; “We say we’re supporting social innovation, but I don’t think we are. In fact, our own processes may be getting in the way of real innovation!” A group of funding partners in BC, interested in the problem of social exclusion of vulnerable populations, came together to figure out a process that could help themselves, their organizations, and their grantees to develop the capacity to learn and use a systems lens for more impact. This unique funder-driven initiative identified teams of potential grantees and then provided them with the opportunity for learning and coaching to develop strong proposals for social innovation. The eight-month long process created an experimental environment over a series of four workshops on social innovation and complexity, through which the groups developed their own innovative ideas. This collaborative process (5 funders in total, 12 community groups) “was breathed into life”; with the funders living the experience along with their grantees, participating in the workshops, applying learning to innovate within their own organizations and processes in order to support innovation in the field. The end results were some organizational restructuring for some of the funders, significantly higher quality proposals from the community, with the majority of these funded in summer 2015. 

How are they achieving this kind of impact?

Being the change you want to see: “We needed to put our money where our mouth was, and lead by example.”  Not only did the funders explicitly state that the initiative was an experiment, but they participated in all the workshops to support their own partnerships’ ongoing development. They also used what they were learning as an opportunity to explore their own and each other’s internal processes, and explore how to leverage all these for the benefit of the collaboration. They discovered shared processes meant more clarity for applicants in terms of a shared definition and expectations for social innovation goals, as well as less time and resources extracted from community throughout the application process.

Finding common ground: For both the collection of funders and the groups of community organizations, there was tremendous value gained in learning about social innovation, allowing all to speak the same language for relevant idea development and assessment. Importantly, education about social innovation was also tailored to and shared with decision makers at the funding organizations to include them in the goals of common language and vision.  In addition, all quickly saw that they could leverage other commonalities related to their goals and objectives in various ways. This reduced the sense of isolation and everyone became more conscious of being part of a bigger field; not as easily side-tracked by counter-productive thinking of their work as disconnected and unique from other initiatives.

Managing risk: Learning more about each other’s contexts and realities, the funding partnership made space to openly discuss various risk factors, some shared and some quite unique, and to work together to manage those. This required a great deal of flexibility and a willingness to be explicit about limits that each had to doing ‘very new things’.  Exit points were intentionally planned, should any one organization go beyond their own limits to challenge or reshape rules and processes of their home organizations. It was helpful to have more than one way identified to keep the initiative moving forward.

What are the key challenges to this type of work?

In short, these funders say that we need an evolution of grant making. They see a need for more willingness of funders to be open to what they don’t yet know about being a good grant maker and to step outside of specific mandates for the greater good. “There’s a need to examine not only what we do but how we do it;” an external eye can be very helpful for this kind of exploration.

Says one of the funding leaders, “People need to develop muscles for this; they need to fight the fear of the unknown, break siloes. Find small steps to learn and encourage more to move into these kinds of spaces. Tell stories – small stories as well as big stories of thinking and acting in new ways. People need to know what’s possible and how to do this kind of new work.”

What does this tell us about system change?

Believing change is possible: This initiative started from a place of not knowing what we didn’t know. “We were naïve and that helped us! It just made such good sense to all of us!  It seemed completely doable! It required a low financial investment so it was a small enough scale to gain everyone’s commitment and to risk some experimenting.”  Strongly believing that your idea is “possible” helps to simply begin, instead of talking yourself out of it before you even try. Begin and be ready to learn as you go.

Impact across system scales: The initiative focused on building the capacity to change systems related to one broad issue area by focusing on education and training for key individuals. However, there was an intentional strategy to catalyze change at the individual level that would translate into change at a network and organizational level (for both community and funder organizations and networks). System change is possible when change is catalyzed across multiple scales.

Leveraging windows of opportunity: “We were openly opportunistic; we used the fact that there was growing disappointed in the quality of proposals combined with shared experiences of pressure to demonstrate more impact from our investments; this gave us a kind of permission to try something new. We chose to work with those that were at about the same place, those with whom we already held familiarity, trust and shared values, and those who were ready to go forward now, while the opening existed.”

 

 

Professional Development for a Complex World

Photo by Banff Centre  

Photo by Banff Centre

 

Interview with Julian NorrisHaskayne School of Business/Banff Centre and Lynn RandallCapacity Canada

There is a growing recognition that we are living in an increasingly complex world where technical expertise alone cannot tell us how to resolve a problem and where we are forced to deal with unexpected outcomes and emerging new trends when we try to take action. New mindsets, knowledge and skills are needed.

Getting to Maybe: A Social Innovation Residency, a new offering from The Banff Centre, brings this kind of training to people working for social change (http://bit.ly/1T200K5). Its target audience is people with a broad range of capacities and from different walks of life that share a genuine motivation to transform systems. The core premise of the program is that this can only be done in a holistic way. Therefore, the program blends many ways of knowing in order to build their capacity to perceive, understand and act in complex situations.  The first cohort of the Getting to Maybe Residency completed the program in July 2015 and it has been highly evaluated. Early evidence shows that, in addition to the impact on individuals, the program has also had a positive effect on their organizations and initiatives.

How are they achieving this kind of impact?

A holistic approach to professional development: The Social Innovation Residency grew out of the conviction that there needed to be professional development that truly dealt with a change agent as a whole. Social innovators are individuals with an enormous personal commitment to their work and that leads to a risk of burnout.  Julian Norris, a member of the design and delivery team, explains that he councils participants to,  “be really clear and centered in your purpose. Understand your own motivations around that at a quite personal level because when all of that is aligned you can move mountains and when it’s not you can create spectacular dramas”. That is why the residency places as much emphasis on inner work for participants to understand themselves and their motivations, as it does on understanding the systems around them.

Recognizing the unique needs of social change agents: Capacity Canada is another organization dedicated to supporting social innovation and community organizations around Canada (https://capacitycanada.ca). Lynn Randall stresses the need to recognize the particular challenges of the sector, for example in working with volunteers, or in their unique relationships with their clients who often have nobody else to turn to. Similarly, Norris agrees that systems changers have particular needs that need to be addressed: “If you’re just running an organization it can be your job, it’s not necessarily your life’s purpose. For social innovators there’s a much closer link between their life’s purpose and their work in the world. So although the sector can learn from other leadership programs, there is a need to develop unique training, tailored to the social profit sector.

Education and training trends: These programs find themselves part of broader intentional efforts throughout the field to support learning and skill building for the sector. Research and curriculum developed as part of Social Innovation Generation has been seeded in multiple places across Canada, like the SI Residency online modules, and the SiG knowledge hub. Innoweave is a national capacity-building program that incorporates funded coaching for organizations. Tamarack has rapidly grown its learning events in recent years. Capacity Canada offers a broad suite of programs that cover everything from board governance and key organizational skills to evaluation and mentoring, and are partnering with firms such as Axonify to look at how new technologies can make leadership training more effective and accessible.

 

What are the key challenges to this type of work?

Resources, time and prioritization of learning seem to remain the key challenges to taking full advantage of professional development training for the social profit sector. Based on his experience, Norris suggests that the sector lags behind its corporate counterparts in terms of investing in leadership training. In part, this can definitely be attributed to a lack of resources. Lynn Randall from Capacity Canada agrees, but also suggests that culture around learning within the sector needs to change. She shares that there can be reluctance for some organizations to change what they see as an already successful formula for their work, a hesitancy to engage in learning that invites scrutiny, and most of all to divert resources away from those who so desperately need them. But professional development makes organizations more effective and efficient and may hold the key to actually solving complex problems, in addition to the need to address serious symptoms.

What does this tell us about system change?

Managing complexity: Coming to grips with complexity and building understanding and skill to effectively operate within complex contexts may soon be considered as fundamental as accounting. The ability to actively and strategically manage complexity can fundamentally change the relationship between individuals, organizations and the broader system. System entrepreneurship or system leadership is becoming more widely understood as a set of capacities that can be developed to engage as individuals, organizations and networks of actors, across sectors, and actively shaping the systems they operate within. This holds great potential for tipping social and environmental systems in more positive directions.

 

The potential of lab processes

Photo by Skills Society Action Lab

Photo by Skills Society Action Lab

Interview with Mark Cabaj, Tamarack Institute

And Here to There Consulting

Lab processes are an approach to tackling complex social problems that are growing in popularity in recent years. Such approaches bring diverse groups of stakeholders together to think creatively about problems they are intimately familiar with, in order to generate new conceptualizations, collaborations, and solutions that they try to apply in the real world. Labs like the Danish MindLab or the Government of Alberta Colab are changing the way governments work by introducing systems thinking into the heart of policy making. Solutions Lab at MaRS in Toronto is an example of a lab focused on social system challenges.

A promising Alberta process is Energy Futures Lab (http://energyfutureslab.com). The aim of the lab is to look at how Alberta can work towards creating an energy system that meets the needs of the future. This aim will be achieved over three phases that will involve building collaborations, designing interventions that will meet shared priorities, and embarking on an ongoing process of experimentation and evaluation. Although it is still in the planning phase, this lab has already begun to create new conversation. Mark Cabaj, a member of this lab team, comments that, “The network building has been phenomenal and there has already been a lot of buzz generated before the first lab is even launched.”  

How are they achieving this kind of impact?

Expert facilitation and process design: Labs need robust facilitation activities, designed to get people thinking collaboratively and critically about the system. The Energy Futures Lab benefits in this instance from having access to The Natural Step’s process called “the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development.” The Natural Step is an established international leader in sustainability and has won numerous awards for its science-based approach to facilitating whole system processes for transition towards sustainability.

High quality participation: One of the most critical elements to an effective lab process is having the right kind of participation. A lab can only succeed if its participants are able to bring a rich and diverse knowledge of the system to bear on the problem, can generate insights and solutions collaboratively, and then have the resources and authority to put ideas into practice. The Energy Futures Lab has recognized this requirement and has put a great deal of effort into a recruitment process that ran for six full months, from Mar—Aug, 2015.

Tailoring labs to different facets of the system: There are many different types of lab process with different kinds of strengths. Mark Cabaj lists at least three main types, each most appropriate for certain contexts and types of goals.

  • Social labs focus on the individual level and the role of people in shaping systems, with intensive personal transformation as the major pathway to change.
  •  Design Labs focus on aligning and adapting systems to better meet the needs of people they were meant to serve. These labs explore systems from the perspective of the different people within them.  By starting small and focusing on ground-level dynamics, these labs often work towards systems change from the bottom up.
  • Social innovation labs focus on assisting participants to better understand and work with the dynamics at play in complex problem domains.  They aim to demystify the process of systems change and facilitate the development of novel, context specific strategies that consider systemic elements like scale and windows of opportunity.

What are the key challenges to this type of work?

Labs are an emerging set of activities and Cabaj emphasizes the importance of developing a field of practice around this kind of innovation process. For example, we need to know more about what can be achieved by using different lab processes and how best to design a lab to solve a particular kind of systems challenge. Lab facilitation is a demanding skill, but we do not yet have an established body of practitioners who can set standards for how to run a lab well. In short, there is a lot of work to be done to build our experience with using and running labs, but it is unclear who will do this work. Who holds the capacity to engage with this kind of detailed practical work? How can we build this field before the momentum is lost?

What does this tell us about system change?

Standing still: To effectively deal with the complexity of systems, to deeply understand them, and to be able to develop a relevant strategy that has potential to change them, takes time and focus. Lab processes create reflective, safe spaces for thinking, making meaning, and accessing our creative energy. To support groups to stand still, effective labs are involved in gathering new data and intelligence from a broad range of sources, acting as research and development platforms; information pathways to stimulate new thinking and idea generation.

The value of diversity: Engagement of diversity of all kinds is key to creating conditions for thinking and action that can stimulate system change. Conversations and collaborations that have system understanding and change as a goal are enhanced through the intentional and sometimes creative engagement of diverse perspectives, experiences, sets of priorities, even values.  Depending on the challenge, multiple regions, cultures, sectors, disciplines, etc. can bring the required diversity of information but also acts to reveal assumptions, challenge mindsets, and catalyze insights that rarely occur when there is too much uniformity and familiarity. Some key others to consider engaging—those whom you believe to be the source of the problem, and those who are most affected by the problem.

 

Changing the way that government serves its citizens

Interviews with Roya Damabi, Government of Alberta, CoLab, and

Kate McIntosh, City of Edmonton, Director of Partnerships and Organizational Development

At both the provincial and municipal levels, governments in Alberta are changing the way they do business. As the external environment grows more complex, demand for government services is growing, and citizens are increasingly dissatisfied with the service they are receiving. Kate McIntosh explains: “We were struggling to meet the evolving needs of citizens. The answers and approaches we have used in the past are no longer sufficient because communities have grown and evolved. With these increasing demands and complexities, the necessity for partnerships is at an all-time high.”

In response, governments are changing the way they do business. The Alberta Government Colab is working to bring systems and design thinking into government. This lab has already tackled over 40 challenges and is already oversubscribed, demonstrating the demand. At Edmonton, McIntosh is trying to facilitate an evolution and change in the organization’s systems, processes, programs and services. A large piece of this work is supporting the evolution of the culture and leadership of civil servants who are passionate about serving the public and are being asked to change within systems that are not changing themselves. For example, she is using gallery walks that connect front line staff with management in a way that is sometimes totally new to those involved. For many, this kind of opportunity comes with huge excitement, but also a challenge, as it means changing fundamental patterns of work that have been in place for decades.

How are they achieving this kind of impact?

Engaging authentically with citizens: Traditional ways of engaging with citizens assumed that government needed to control the content of the conversation; but the Government of Alberta is reaching out to citizens to give them a real voice in policy-building. For example, the provincial government reached out to its citizens to create its Social Policy Framework, engaging 31,000 Albertans to set the future directions of social policy in the province (http://bit.ly/1QOwlF9). 

Challenging the culture of government respectfully: McIntosh believes in the commitment of civil servants to serve the public and recognizes the need for evolution in the systems. “I love the passion that civil servants bring to the table. I see huge opportunity for how citizens and public servants work together in the future. Evolving government systems will foster the relationship in the face of oncoming change.” Encouraging civil servants to work differently is a delicate task. It can be an emotional experience, Kate is working to help civil servants see new potential in their civil service. 

Walking the line between change and continuity: Government organizations are often large and changing the entire culture at once is a daunting prospect. An alternative is to foster systems change approaches in a small subset of government and let the rest of the organization carry on as before, but Damabi believes this is a false dichotomy. The approach of the CoLab is to be collaborative and deliberately build capacity gradually throughout the government, acting as a safe space to encourage those with interest to pursue innovative ideas and gain skills. As Damabi puts it, “To me, a challenge in government is also how to work in those in-between spaces, avoiding the pendulum swing of oppositional choices.”

What are the key challenges to this type of work?

Continuity is always a challenge in government due to changing leadership. Evolving systems need long- term vision and consistent leadership support. At the provincial level, the social innovation endowment was unquestionably a huge spur for experimentation. Though work continues, the loss of this endowment due to the change in leadership has been a blow. Those leading innovation need to be firmly supported by leadership and to have champions willing to promote and defend their work at the highest level.

Moreover, changing a culture is not just a question of commitment, but of skills and capacities as well. Civil servants will need to build their ability to understand systems, work with partners and manage risk. While building these capacities is possible at the individual level, normalizing them across the whole organization is a monumental task that will require significant investment of resources. 

How does this create conditions for system change?

Creating a safe space for innovationExperiments need safe spaces, ‘niches’, where they can be tried in practice, refined, and allowed to fail if necessary. Through to CoLab, provincial civil servants have such a safe space where they can not only experiment, but also have the help of a team of systems thinkers and designers to help them succeed.

Vision-building: By engaging authentically with citizens, government is helping Albertans to build visions of the kind of society, and the kind of government that they want. The social policy framework lays out a vision for the province and efforts to work with citizens on policy development continue. By sharing and spreading this vision the government ensures that the citizens will come to support them in creating systems change. 

Partnerships that endure: One of the benefits of collaboration is that successful collaborations endure even when the projects that led to the initial partnerships fail. Often, shadow networks of partners, working together around shared values and ideas, can sustain the process of systems change during periods when there is little impetus to change in the broader system. If change at the government level is to become realized at the broadest level, partnerships will be the building blocks that make it happen. 

 

.

 

 

A story of risking failure to achieve positive change

Interviews with Sean Ballard, ATB Financial and

Ashley Good, Fail Forward 

Fail Forward is a national organization dedicated to sparking new kinds of conversations about the value of failure for enhancing impact. Ashley Good points out that, “At first, it was important to just get people to even talk about failure! Now, the discourse is out there but the new, big question is how to do it? How do organizations go about implementing action that takes risks and values failure?” 

Fail Forward is interested in organizations like ATB Financial. A crown corporation, ATB has grown to be the largest Alberta-based financial institution.  Sean Ballard is part of an internal unit called Emerge—a unit that exists to explore big trends on the horizon, make meaning of identified patterns, and experiment with new ideas that may (or may not) be worth investing in. Take, for example, the trend towards crowd funding: recently, Sean and his team at ATB created and tested a rewards platform for “main street businesses” that was subsequently launched through their small business group as www.AlbertaBoostR.ca. Building on what they learned from that, they are now creating and testing a crowd lending initiative where the crowd becomes part of the approval and funding, and ATB matches the funds (http://www.albertacrowdlenders.ca/). Now an opportunity to further test the model through partnering with SeedUps Canada has recently emerged; the first step was just announced! http://bit.ly/213JcI2

How are they achieving this kind of impact?

Responding to the broader context: The context is changing fast for this industry; the financial industry is being turned on its head. ATB has fully accepted that experimenting and learning quickly to do things in different ways is not a choice but a requirement in order to remain relevant and competitive; foresight is critical.

Real world experimentation: Experimenting is not a theoretical endeavor for ATB: “We want to make things real through designing and then testing ideas out in the real world, in real time, with real people.” ATB experiments with prototypes as a way to help them understand trends, activities, populations, and as a creative communication tool. Their approach to experimentation: 1) start small (enough); 2) risk early; and, 3) move fast.

Staging risk: Sean talks about learning to manage risk in a stage appropriate manner. Risk is multi-faceted and does not always look or feel the same. In early stages of exploration, there seems to be a lesser degree of risk required. As the story unfolds, the problem is clearly identified and the range of ideas emerge for consideration; thinking is risky but not as much as action. Next stages involve rolling out an execution plan, and ATB enters into these stages, consciously armed with learning and experience, moving through each part of the path, with an associated level of risk—allowing things like what to risk, what degree of risk, and for how long to risk, to continually shift in response to each step along the way.

Distributed leadership: The CEO and Board of Directors are supportive and believe that this way of thinking and acting is critically important.  The organizational leadership is deliberately and transparently moving to embrace risk. Sean believes that the individual leaders have the required mindsets and capacities and they lead collaboratively to institutionalize this as organizational culture. The leadership model that seems to best support this work is having Sean’s unit report not to one single department, but rather into a team of five senior executives, distributing authority and responsibility—and also this thinking and practice—across the organization.

What are the key challenges to this type of work?

Fail Forward is convinced that a key challenge revolves around organizational structures that usually do not provide incentives and supports for either the individual or the organization to become comfortable with risk and to learn from failure. Examples like ATB’s Emerge unit are pioneering new structures and there is still much to learn. In addition, Ashley has noticed a challenge that is more subtle: “We’re going to have to let go of tying organizational identity to our big idea which usually also means the one, best idea. The problems before us are so much more complex than that—there is so much that we simply can’t know—so we must be willing to experiment with, accepting failure as a powerful teacher, in order to see the changes we need.”

What does this tell us about system change?

Culture change: Shifting the attitudes and values of individuals and their organizations is very complex and involves culture change at multiple scales in organizational systems or broader systems. Fail Forward is a unique organization, developing growing expertise, as well as a suite of ideas, strategies, tools, resources, and models, all of which supports alternatives to the typical failure adverse culture.

Demonstrating alternatives: As part of preparing for shifting systems of any kind, it is important to support intentional efforts to imagine, test, refine, and demonstrate alternatives. The work of Emerge at ATB demonstrates an approach to not only experiment with possibilities, but also for gaining support for thinking and acting differently. These experimental activities serve to achieve a state of readiness to make the most of opportunities for positive change.

New rules: Emerge at ATB is focused on outcomes instead of rules. Shifting away from traditional rules and towards new rules creates conditions for significant change. At ATB, the new rule is that learning is the measure of success. The guiding question is “What’s a problem that we can try to solve?” And experimental solutions do not need to be tied to any outcome, except the production of learning that is important to the organization.

 

 

A story of cross-cultural partnerships

Interview with Nelson Mayer, Executive Director Alberta Native Friendship Centre Association (ANFCA)  http://anfca.com

Interview with Nelson Mayer, Executive Director

Alberta Native Friendship Centre Association (ANFCA) 

http://anfca.com

Multiple partnerships across organizations with common and/or connected goals in communities, has been fundamental to achieving impact for the ANFCA. Executive Director, Nelson Mayer believes in the power of partnerships to catalyze positive change at many levels. One outstanding examples is the Grande Prairie Regional College and the Grande Prairie Friendship Centre who partnered to open the only on campus Friendship Centre in Canada. This centre provides effective supports to Aboriginal students from all over the north who come to study at GPRC. It is an accessible, culturally appropriate, safe space, tailored to students who are far from home and in a totally new environment.  Initial positive impact was clear as students reported an enhanced experience at the college which translated into increased retention; more aboriginal students successfully graduated from college programs. But over time, the extent of the impact has been much more than expected.

https://www.gprc.ab.ca/services/aboriginal/friendshipcentre.html

How are they achieving this kind of impact?

Commitment To Making Time: At the individual level, invest the time to meet face to face and to stay engaged through the process required to be ready to truly partner. At the organizational level, work with Boards to gain understanding so that they will approve dedicating time to partnership building; their ongoing support is critical and so they need to understand and agree with the long-term benefits.

Focus On Relationships: System entrepreneurs hold a deep focus on relationship—between people, organizations, ideas and resources in the system. They bring a strategic yet genuine sense of empathy, honesty, patience and determination to their work. In Nelson’s experience, it pays to be ‘brutally honest’ about your intentions and your understanding of both the opportunities but also the challenges. Change takes clarity and patience: “Hold on to your vision for what’s possible, keep a focus on relationships, wait until the right time presents itself; don’t give up!”

Tune Into Positive Patterns: “An Elder once taught me a lesson about choosing to be positive. He gave the example of daily weather reports and how the emphasis is usually on bad weather, as in: There’s a 25% chance of rain today. Well, he said, that also means that there’s a 75% chance of sunshine—don’t forget that!” We tend to focus on what doesn’t work, what needs fixing. But we need to focus more on recognizing what’s working well; figure out how to replicate that.

Incentives For Partnering: The national Friendship Centres network has created awards of excellence where the criteria highlights what they’ve learned about what makes the most effective centres; one of the number one things proven to support excellence, is a diverse range of partnerships in their communities.

What are the key challenges to this type of work?

Time, Honesty And Empathy To Heal Long-Standing Divides: According to Nelson, when establishing a partnership, time must be invested in building genuine relationships. The long-term benefits need to be ‘sold’ and the danger of operating in isolation need to be revealed.  Time is needed to truly understand each other, to be comfortable enough to be honest with each other, to feel safe enough to address trust issues and the suspicion that lies under the surface. On all sides, previous negative experiences exist that get in the way; these must be acknowledged and plans co-created to avoid similar negative outcomes. 

More on creating conditions for system change

Pay Attention to Emergence: Surprisingly, 37% of students engaging in the activities of the Friendship Centre at the College are non-aboriginal. This is significantly enhancing the relationships between non-aboriginal and aboriginal students. It is now acting as an educational and awareness resource that is supporting integration and relationship building across cultures through, for example, the annual Spirit Seekers Conference.  New understandings are developing.

Scaling Out (replication): The ANFCA recognizes an important opportunity when a new, grassroots idea demonstrates its worth; it needs to be studied, documented and shared with other communities as quickly and effectively as they can. Nelson says, “We (aboriginals AND non profit sector) have been so often studied and given recommendations by external “experts”; while this can be helpful sometimes, we need to own our creativity and expertise and when we find something that works we need to discover why and how and have processes in place to harvest that learning, share with others, and support effective scaling to other contexts and for bigger goals.”  The organization works hard to pay attention to what’s working and supports and replicates, adapting to each unique community.

Scaling Up (changing the system): In this and other ANFCA partnerships, the first motivations are often focused on the grassroots scale, the day-to-day, technical aspects of how to do their basic work as effectively as they can. But they also keep their eye on the bigger picture; for them, these partnerships lay the foundation for important coalitions that may be able to work at broader scales, including working for positive change on some of the following:

  • Cross-cultural awareness and relationships, as in the college example (changing belief systems);
  • Information sharing, as in gathering statistics on Metis participation on behalf of the Metis Nations of Alberta (changing knowledge resource flows);
  • Coalition building in support of policy advocacy (changing authority flows);
  • Advocacy at the provincial government level for enhancing the collective resource base (changing financial resource flows).