I think a better concept is the bar – the level of cost-effectiveness at which it’s worth funding or working on an opportunity.
I agree. This diverts the focus from the relative amount of funding, talent, and other resources to understanding the particular opportunity at hand. It does not matter if funding is generally available but whether the grant funding applicant meets the bar.
the higher they are above the bar, the easier they will find it to fundraise … Where the bar ends up depends on (i) how many resources we have (ii) how many opportunities we discover.
Should the bar then be adjusted according to the expectations of future funding amount and opportunities’ development, both of which are dependent on the cumulative funding allocation before any time? The possibility to fund a changing proportion of ‘direct impact’ and ‘fundraising’ projects would suggest that the bar could be to an extent given externally.
At all points, additional funding has been useful, it’s just that its value has changed somewhat.
It makes sense to fund projects in the order of cost-effectiveness. One could argue that normative development, such as the (long-term) focus of the global community on highly positive impact, is both the constraint and objective. But, it cannot be directly bought by funding or gained by talent. Rather, atmosphere has to be changed. I do not suggest the term ‘atmosphere undercling’ but funding overhang with respect to talent is not accurate.
I agree. This diverts the focus from the relative amount of funding, talent, and other resources to understanding the particular opportunity at hand. It does not matter if funding is generally available but whether the grant funding applicant meets the bar.
Should the bar then be adjusted according to the expectations of future funding amount and opportunities’ development, both of which are dependent on the cumulative funding allocation before any time? The possibility to fund a changing proportion of ‘direct impact’ and ‘fundraising’ projects would suggest that the bar could be to an extent given externally.
It makes sense to fund projects in the order of cost-effectiveness. One could argue that normative development, such as the (long-term) focus of the global community on highly positive impact, is both the constraint and objective. But, it cannot be directly bought by funding or gained by talent. Rather, atmosphere has to be changed. I do not suggest the term ‘atmosphere undercling’ but funding overhang with respect to talent is not accurate.