Is the web -- many small pieces loosely joined - making old grantmaking practices in advocacy and democratic engagement obsolete? What does grantmaking in an interactive world look like? This is a world where we operate in communities of practice and affinity, in fluid social networks, in a public with increasing transparency and a high degree of public accountability. It is a world where media, corporations, and the political establishment are no longer sacred but subjected to thousands of people with a camera cellphone and an online voice, and where the democratization of innovation as well as everyday-people-generated content changes how we conduct ourselves not only as consumers but as citizens.

In a world more connected than ever, we are already seeing the next big social transformation - as messy and as iterative and lose as all the movements in history, with strong and persuasive visions but at best highly informal plans. 'Social change' in a connected world is based on an entirely different paradigm than that of the 'strategic plan' and clear 'year-end metrics' that funders demand. In a highly fluid, networked, and iterative world, funding by 'blueprint' becomes meaningless.

As a former grantmaker in technology and political advocacy, I have pondered and written about these questions. My work with GrantsFire, a network of grantmakers syndicating real-time grants information, is a small part of how I like the grantmaking world to be more open and transparent in real and concrete terms. My fascination with open source production, user-generated content, networks of affinity, and communications technology that allows people to self-organize are all based on my belief in the power of the collective.

With this passion and background, I believe that we have to rethink more broadly and critique how grantmakers do business in this changing world. My colleague and neighbor in my little town, David Bollier, has written a cogent analysis and primer for grantmakers on political advocacy in a networked world and has some astute observations about why grantmakers needs to change their practices.

The rise of collective knowledge, organizing networks, and the transparency that millions of eyes and voices generate is changing politics (remember Macaca?), economic paradigms, how corporations conduct business, and yet has made precious few inroads into how we, as a third sector, operate -- and that is especially true for funders.

As some wise friends have pointed out, none of the world's great social movements - abolition, suffrage, independence from colonialism, civil rights, etc - were initiated by the 'blue chip' organizations, as Bollier calls them, but emerged out of the periphery and unexpected corners.

Bollier writes: "It is important to keep in mind that many critical components [in advocacy] (people, ideas, allies, resources) will present themselves as germane, interested or useful to an organization only in the process of “living the question.” The very process of asserting a goal and working towards it helps elicit resources that might otherwise be unavailable. The process develops the relationships and catalyzes new energies. Many of these “contextual resources” cannot be known or accessed in advance. If advocacy is to be effective, it is important, therefore, that the organic process of “growing a community” be respected and not short-circuited. The criteria for success and accountability should focus on the open play of dynamic, relational factors over time, rather than on meeting static, predetermined “objective” benchmarks. Metrics should focus on the deepening of fruitful relationships and the social momentum that they foster. What matters are the quality of the new projects and ideas, the ability to recruit new allies, the caliber of those allies, and the sense of shared commitment and expectancy engendered."

This means that success metrics can not be predicted in advance and that capacities emerge. It means that funders should emphasize funding processes over products. It means understanding and funding the strength of communities and relationships - not 'facade politics" of advocacy organizations acting as proxies for constituents. It means grantmaking over the long haul as generative processes take time that build a genuine political community. It means under-emphasizing traditional messaging, branding and PR that funders so like to see from their grantees. It means funding organizations who prove to be nimble and humble and yet effective -- but highly porous, collaborative, and agile with a differet concept of "branding" as understood in that of commercial advertising that so many nonprofits try to emulate.

And how does this relate to technology funding and technology infrastructure?

It means that funders need to put serious money in the tech capacity of organizations who will otherwise be unable to take advantage of the networked environment. It does not mean heavy investments into in-house system but it means investments in people to be able to smartly take advantage of the many relatively low-cost solutions and innovations already out there -- with more coming online every day. It means heavy investments into smart and effective tech-savvy organizers who know how to use tools to do their work. Bollier points out: "Electronic networks are also changing how we may wish to structure advocacy organizations. At one time, it made sense to develop a corps of inhouse expertise,which then tried “to do it all.” But now that electronic networks make so many people and types of information highly accessible, it may make more sense to convert centralized institution into decentralized catalysts and collaborators. Lightweight administrative structures can coordinate many loosely joined modular parts diffused throughout a relevant field of action. Top-heavy, centralized institutions tend to be inefficient and inflexible in the networked environment. It is therefore important for organizations to have porous institutional boundaries and flexible capacities in order to leverage the wealth of networks. It is important that they be connected to diverse other networks of influence (personally and through online relationships), and to know how to leverage shifting circumstances in near-real time."

This requires agile, very savvy organizers who are trained and part of networks like NTEN or MobileActive to continuously learn and share lessons so to smarty adapt to the tools and tactics that work towards their causes. And funders need to invest in this space -- heavily, innovatively, with risk and savvy -- betting on horses that may not always 'win' in the traditional sense but that advance the collective wisdom of the network of advocates. Funders need to understand that communities of practice and open spaces for innovation are essential where ideas and alliances can emerge -- emerge from unexpected corners, places, and people. Bollier calls this “planned serendipity” -- "the ability to engender enthusiasm and commitment in ever-widening circles... mindful of the unsuspected pockets of wisdom, innovation and collective intelligence lurking out on the network."

Funders need to fund ideas and big hairy goals; they need to fund visionary people and the capacity of these people to take advantage of all the tools and tactics in the book and appropriate, and then invent new ones.

They need to fund networks and communications - fund the conversation and fund open processes. They need to fund for adaptations, adoption, and appropriation They need to fund multiple solutions to complex problems, fund for dialogue and interoperability, and suppoert the sharing of what works and what does not. They need to fund for emerging creativity and dissemination of great ideas, for the long haul, and solid individuals and smart processes rather than products. They need to fund with creativity and risk.

In short: Fund as if the world is changing -- because it is.