Very interesting post. I agree with your conception of the fundamental mismatch between the objective of development project and the search for scalable replicable models that will bring on this required change. Also I think you are asking a set of relevant questions, which might result in a better match:

-For one you mention the need for a language to describe models, so that you can compare (for instance McDonalds with a social franchising idea)
-Secondly there is the issue of replicability of models. Will a tactics that led to a viral campaign in on setting lead to the same in a new setting?
-Lastly you mention the need of a design approach, a method of progressive learning, rather than providing immediate solutions. What would this approach look like?

It is my observation that you’re asking classical questions relating to business model innovation. How can your project organization create, capture, and distribute the impact value you want to achieve.

I am working on a design methodology to design business in development projects in such a way that they are geared to searching effectively for business models. This is done with simple tools like the business model canvas which is very easy to adopt once the logic is displayed and very empowering. I used it for instance in a project on smallholder tea certification in Kenia (http://bartdoorneweert.posterous.com/quick-scan-of-business-models-for-certificati)

The essence of what I’m trying to do is to take methodology for developing startup companies, and applying that to the context of value chain development. This puts the focus on SEARCHING for a scalable, replicable model, and designing project impact metrics that support search, rather than starting a process EXECUTION as if the project already has a validated model. This is where much goes wrong in development projects, and why it is so difficult to understand what works and doesn’t work for whom, and under which conditions.

If you’re interested in my learnings, and application of my design methodology, then I can refer you to my blog where I share my insights. It contains a post which is specifically relevant to your blog post here called “private sector development and the pivot”: http://valuechaingeneration.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/private-sector-development-projects-and-the-pivot/

If you’re interested I hope that you will be available to discuss what such an approach might mean for your work. And who knows, we might be able to trial a design workshop in in the context of a project definition you might be working on. In any case, I’m looking forward to your thoughts!

Bart

• The model needs to be straightforward and codified. Saving for Change provides a simple solution to high priority need for villagers, a safe, convenient place to save, easy access to income smoothing loans over the year, and a lump sum of capital at the end of the cycle to help women put food on the table during the hungry season before the next harvest. SfC is easy to understand because it is built on long established traditions of savings circles and holding each other accountable. Since each group is entirely run by the members as you say it is “profoundly democratic and empowering.

• The box is not “locked down” as you say. Each group can evolve their group as they see fit. While all groups adhere to the same basic principles in the first cycle groups tend to change over time, changing their rules, taking on a village leadership role, linking with other development actors and initiating group projects.

The franchising of the Savings Group model while superficially similar to giant franchise operations such as McDonald’s and Subway is less formal and ultimately entirely community based and controlled. Once the genie is out of the bottle program evolves organically as group leaders choose without reference necessarily to a specific methodology or brand.

How did a methodology that started in a few villages in Niger evolve into a Savings Group movement that at last count has grown to six or seven million group members in some seventy countries?

The INGOs have had a critical role. The major players are Care, Oxfam America/Freedom from Hunger/Stromme Foundation and Catholic Relief Services, but seeing the relevancy and simplicity of the model other INGOs have joined such as Pact (whose Women’s Empowerment Program in Nepal representing a separate invention of the methodology), Plan International, Aga Khan Foundation and recently many others.

NGOs that implemented the program through the INGOs are increasingly mobilizing their own funding and running their own programs while new NGOs are downloading the methodology or taking training courses and starting their own ventures.

Showing the resilience of the methodology most groups continue functioning on their own without outside support. Even more importantly group leaders and trained village level volunteers continue to form new groups and support existing ones.

This is what I call the amoeba model of microfinance since each group has within it all the genetic material it needs to run itself and to replicate. The ideas spread virally within villages and as the word spreads through markets and through villagers traveling to other villages.

If support for Savings Groups were to disappear tomorrow the movement has reached a critical mass and not only will the groups survive and evolve the ideas imbedded in the methodology will continue to spread. This, to me, is the test of a successful development intervention.

http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/economic_growth/assets/features/our_frugal_future_lessons_from_indias_innovation_system