Lottery approach has increased Nesta scheme’s diversity and reach, say Laurie Smith and Bernardo Maza
In January, staff at the innovation charity Nesta gathered in the main meeting room to watch senior staff draw balls out of a lottery machine nicknamed Duflo, named after Esther Duflo, the Nobel Prize-winning French economist who pioneered the use of randomised controlled trials in international development.
There was a festive atmosphere but genuine stakes. The lottery was being used to allocate grants for Nesta’s Explorations Initiatives fund, which allows staff to develop ideas that are seen as too far out or risky for the organisation’s normal work, to try something different from the day job or develop an interest or skill.
Previously, funding for Explorations Initiatives was distributed by a panel of senior staff, but in this year’s round, we gave away the money at random.
We did this for three main reasons. First, traditional funding applications can be really time-consuming. Second, peer review of grant funding is at risk of bias. Third, the current model can penalise new ideas as reviewers tend to favour research in fields closer to their own.
Randomised funding can reduce bureaucracy and bias, and increase the chances that less orthodox ideas are picked. It is especially suited to small, exploratory grants in emerging fields—like the Explorations Initiatives, which give winners up to £5,000 and three months to complete their projects.
It’s an increasingly mainstream tool. The New Zealand Health Research Council allocated its Explorer grants via a lottery; Nigeria has run a successful programme of randomised grants for entrepreneurs; and Germany’s Volkswagen Foundation partially randomised its ‘Experiment!’ grants.
Take a chance
Evaluating the new model, Nesta’s Innovation Growth Lab found an increase in the diversity of proposals and proposers. The share of female applicants increased by 15 percentage points and the proportion involving external collaborations roughly doubled.
We also reached deeper into the organisation, seeing more proposals from people who were not physically located near the team that runs the scheme. Outputs diversified, too, with a move away from reports towards articles, blogs, prototypes, videos and other media.
These gains can probably be attributed to a combination of randomised funding, a lighter-touch application process and the lower commitment required of applicants.
Our approach has inspired a similar scheme at Natural England, which advises the UK government on the natural environment. It’s a recognition that good science and evidence projects can come from anywhere in an organisation.
The Explorer teams have produced some impressive outputs. From a digital voice assistant to help with awkward conversations, to plans for a festival of the future for young people, Nesta staff have shown just how creative they can be when given resources, space and the right support.
Even those projects upended by the coronavirus pandemic responded with imagination and flair. Plans for walking tours of urban sounds transformed into explorations of noise pollution in a silent city. Workshops to facilitate activism through craft pivoted to mail-order embroidery kits to help homebound people manage their anxiety.
Lockdown prevented explorers from exhibiting their work in public. So instead, we displayed them in a dedicated Slack Channel, visited by more than a quarter of Nesta staff, and conducted an afternoon viewing in a shared spreadsheet, inspired by Marie Foulston’s party in a Google doc. We had so many visitors the spreadsheet started booting people out, resulting in a virtual queue.
Everyone’s a winner
The new-look Explorations Initiatives taught us five things. First, many of the teams behind this round of initiatives came together after funding had been allocated. This has proved successful, so we recommend others who might want to conduct their own similar scheme to encourage this approach, although not to require it.
Second, sustained support before, during and after the programme from the staff running the scheme significantly improved the success rate, delivery and quality of outputs.
Third, securing staff time is as important to delivery as money. Others thinking about taking such a scheme forward should consider how to formally secure applicants’ time. This will strengthen the initiatives and probably increase the number of applications.
Fourth, we could make future evaluations easier by collecting the relevant data on applicants and proposals at the time of application, rather than in retrospect.
Finally, schemes to harness staff innovation can generate impressive results. The programme has been hugely popular, and so seems a good way of fostering a culture of creativity, building cross-organisational cohesion and alliances, and attracting and retaining smart, creative people.
Laurie Smith and Bernado Maza work on Nesta’s Explorations team