Establish the foundation
Align on priority questions, data permissions, governance, and the people needed to deliver.
03 / Delivery & governance
Clarity at the start.Confidence in the work.
A focused question. A defined output. A clear record of how the work was done.
Explore this chapterFrom scope to learningProposed model
The work cycle
A defined piece of work.
A clear way to review it.
An initial piece of work could produce a landscape brief, evidence summary, or opportunity brief. Scope and review criteria would be agreed before work begins.
Scope
Agree the question, intended users, expected output, and what would make the work useful.
Plan
Set responsibilities, dependencies, review points, and a realistic sequence of work.
Prepare
Confirm source permissions, access, handling requirements, and the expertise needed.
Deliver
Develop and review the output. Make sources, assumptions, and unresolved questions visible.
Learn
Review the work against the agreed scope and decide what is worth doing next.
Accountability
Make the work
easy to follow.
The records connect the question, the sources, the judgment, and the next step.
A clear record at every stage.
Who owns the work
A work plan would identify the expected outputs, accountable owners, dependencies, review points, and acceptance criteria. Each item should connect to the question the work is intended to answer.
Where the information comes from
A source record would preserve origins, dates, permitted uses, and quality limitations. Access would be assigned for agreed purposes and removed when no longer needed.
How the output was reviewed
A review record would show who checked the output, how the evidence was interpreted, and which questions remain. Reported activity would be distinguished from demonstrated effectiveness.
What changed and why
Material changes, their rationale, and approval would be recorded. The work plan would identify who resolves issues, escalates risks, and responds to incidents.
What has been delivered
Reporting would distinguish completed work, next steps, and blockers. Administrative arrangements would cover appropriate approvals, financial oversight, records, and conflicts of interest for the work undertaken.
Development phases
Demonstrate value.
Deepen the connections.
Each phase should establish a reason to proceed. Evidence, delivery capacity, and agreed safeguards guide the next step.
Demonstrate practical value
Develop focused use cases, test analytical workflows, and refine outputs with participating institutions.
Deepen the connections
Expand participation and use cases where evidence, capacity, and agreed safeguards support it.
Clear responsibilities
Decisions stay
with participants.
100Fold’s role in this model is to support information, introductions, and coordination.
Information. Introductions. Coordination.
Sharing one contribution would not open the rest of an institution’s records. Permitted uses, access, and information release would be agreed for the relevant work.
Funding. Approval. Due diligence.
The model does not include a pooled fund or payment intermediary. Donors would use their chosen giving arrangements; participating institutions would retain their own funding, approval, and due-diligence responsibilities.
Scoping framework
Scoping the work.
A defined scope connects the question, context, available information, and intended output.
The question
The issue to understand and the decision the work would inform.
The context
The relevant geography, time frame, and implementation context, including the people closest to the work.
The starting information
Relevant information already available, its sources, and what could be shared with permission.
The useful output
The intended landscape brief, evidence summary, or potential introductions, with criteria for review and use.
How scope would be established
Scope, timing, responsibilities, and participation would be agreed before work begins. The available information and required expertise would determine what a useful first piece of work could deliver.