Yes, but there is still overlap in their work! It makes sense for orgs to find their nieche, but my stronger claim is that even if they didn’t, it would still be good to have double the amount of fieldbuilding orgs, assuming they are doing good work.[1]
This is dependent on funding availability, though—the background assumption here is that funders (OP) can’t give away money fast enough for some kind of fieldbuilding work (such as MATS)
If MATS was struggling for money, I would rather have them get the marginal dollar than another org that is doing something very similar but at an earlier stage. (but you could argue against this. One might want to invest into something speculative if they think it has the potential to outperform MATS on the long run)
Yes, but there is still overlap in their work! It makes sense for orgs to find their nieche, but my stronger claim is that even if they didn’t, it would still be good to have double the amount of fieldbuilding orgs, assuming they are doing good work.[1]
(I think people who think this is wrong have the intuition of fieldbuilding being a zero-sum game, while in reality, we have a large amount of untapped talent, and orgs just don’t know how to reach them.)
This is dependent on funding availability, though—the background assumption here is that funders (OP) can’t give away money fast enough for some kind of fieldbuilding work (such as MATS)
If MATS was struggling for money, I would rather have them get the marginal dollar than another org that is doing something very similar but at an earlier stage. (but you could argue against this. One might want to invest into something speculative if they think it has the potential to outperform MATS on the long run)