LOGIN
contact@onradar.uk
Your radar for grant funding and charity relationships
Charity leaders sometimes discover other charities, other organisations or even individuals that are operating in the same space. When this happens, it can be tempting to consider the binary option about whether to compete or to collaborate.
From a public benefit perspective, competing can often feel counter-intuitive, since it potentially means diverting resources away from core charitable activities and instead putting them towards competitive strategies. Collaborating can also be difficult as there may be conflicting perspectives about priorities. Similarly, people running charities can have an emotional connection to the cause and to the organisation itself, which can inadvertently be a barrier to collaboration.
When debating the relative merits of whether to compete or to collaborate, it is worth remembering there are two other options worth consideration. The first is to do nothing, i.e. to carry on as usual. This might seem odd, but if there is significant demand that is far from saturation, then multiple charities may be desirable.
The second option is coopetition, which is about two competing organisations choosing to cooperate on certain matters, where it is mutually advantageous. If this does not sound plausible, then consider the model of food courts in shopping centres. Competing restaurant chains and food outlets choose to locate together in one place, often with communal seating. The idea is that the food court becomes the place to go when people want to eat, irrespective of what food they prefer. Through this strategic collaboration, all the food companies benefit from higher customer footfall, but the individual companies are still competing. The same is true of shopping malls where competing clothes stores are within the same mall.
Reflection Questions
0204 507 4143
