A Foundation's Guide to Paper Prototyping

A Foundation’s Guide
to Paper Prototyping
An Emerging Approach to Surfacing Innovation
February 2016

INDEX
PURPOSE
Introductory Letter / Why Innovate?
Prototyping: A Method for Innovation
Paper Prototyping Grants
Emerging Outcomes
Value of the Approach
HOW IT WORKS
Vision, Principles, and Components of a Paper Prototyping Grant
»» THE PEOPLE
Grantees, The Rockefeller Foundation, External Advisory Partners
»» THE STRUCTURE
Scope + Selection, Resources + Funding, Timeline
»» THE ACTIVITIES
Convenings, Field Visits, Deliverables
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
9
28

Purpose
The purpose of this guide is to introduce a
promising approach to surfacing insights and
supporting innovative thinking within a field in
order to explore new and better paths to impact.

For The Rockefeller Foundation, “innovations” are products,
processes, services, organizations and markets that yield new
avenues for solving acute problems. They represent a break from
previous practice, often occurring when different points of view or
existing practices are framed, imagined, or combined in novel ways.
Innovation succeeds when it creates new pathways for solving
entrenched social and environmental problems, resulting in
lasting transformation of the systems that most affect vulnerable
populations. Our definition recognizes that innovation is an
inherently collaborative and social process. Putting innovations into
practice invariably involves cutting across organizational, sectoral,
or disciplinary boundaries. Innovation thrives where there is a cross-
pollination of ideas and a mix of actors.
At The Rockefeller Foundation, we look for breakthrough ideas
and organizations that will catalyze lasting change on the world’s
most pressing problems. As a result, we often find ourselves
exploring somewhat new spaces, seeking to simultaneously
develop relationships with existing actors and surface promising
innovations. Towards that end, this guide describes an approach
we have developed that we call Paper Prototyping – a design effort
that brings together diverse actors to devise and test new solutions
using a facilitated and iterative process.
Why Innovate?
PURPOS E
Paper Prototyping convenes experts and practitioners with deep
understanding of a given problem, supports them to think big about
novel solutions, and creates the space for them to test their ideas with
stakeholders and each other. Importantly, this approach relies on the
experiences and ideas from those closest to the problem. We have found
it to be a powerful way to support innovation and deepen knowledge, and
therefore wanted to share what we have learned with other funders. Paper
Prototyping also builds the capacity of organizations to identify, catalyze or
seize opportunities to innovate as they seek to achieve greater and lasting
social and environmental change.
Like any new approach, Paper Prototyping is a work in progress. We
welcome questions, feedback, and advice from other funders experimenting
with new ways to help solve long-standing problems.
Sincerely,
Caroline Kronley
Strategy Team
Kippy Joseph
Innovation Team
4

Prototyping:
A Method for
Innovation
PURPOS E
In developing new strategies for intervention, The Rockefeller
Foundation places particular emphasis on innovative solutions
that push the boundaries of current practice to achieve greater
impact. Learning from across disciplines reinforces the value of
using an iterative approach to designing, testing, refining, and
ultimately scaling the most promising innovations.
Drawing from the field of design, one of the ways we enact
this experimental approach is through the use of a prototyping
process. Through prototyping and other innovative approaches,
the Foundation seeks to surface more solutions more quickly while
collaboratively engaging external experts and practitioners.
We use “prototype” to refer to an early model of a potential
solution, i.e., the intended product of the prototyping process.
Prototypes describe, initially at a high level, the core innovation
or innovations around which we could build our work. “Paper
Prototypes”, the deliverables being requested in this case, are
early‐stage prototypes. They are the expression of the main ideas
and features, and the means by which to test or validate them.
They are not yet field‐tested solutions, but rather well‐developed
conceptual designs, supported where possible by learning, analysis,
and emerging evidence.
5

Paper
Prototyping
Grants
PURPOS E
Over the last two years, we’ve experimented with Paper
Prototyping grants as a way to better inform investment
decisions of the Foundation.
These grants provide funding, advising, and other
resources to a handful of implementing NGOs so that
in parallel they can develop, test, and refine different
approaches to a common problem space.
While working independently for the most part, the
approach brings grantees together to convene as a cohort
along the way, providing valuable peer feedback and
relationship-building opportunities.
The most promising concepts from these grants have
the potential to be developed into strategic options or
directions for The Rockefeller Foundation.
IMPLEMENTING
NGOS
NETWORKED
PROTOTYPING
PROTOTYPING PROCESS SHARED UNDERSTANDING
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION
Bringing leaders together to share and provide feedback on ideas helps to amplify overall
understanding of the space—pushing the thinking of both the Foundation, and even more
importantly, the field as a whole.
In awarding these grants, we wanted to:
• Get up the learning curve faster in a complex, cross-disciplinary problem space with no easy answers
• Ensure that the voices and perspectives of users—especially poor and marginalized communities
affected by a particular problem space—are integrated into the process
• Collaboratively engage external experts in strategy development
• Surface and test more solutions, more quickly
• Explore new ways of working that align with the our perspective on innovation
6

Though findings are still emerging from this new approach,
the following outcomes have begun to surface from the Paper
Prototyping process to date:
• Innovative Concepts
Through this process, both the grantees and The Rockefeller
Foundation evolved more innovative concepts with the potential
to achieve transformative impact for the poor and vulnerable
people whom we’re ultimately serving.
• Rapid Learning
We gained a much deeper understanding of each opportunity
space in a short period of time. Meanwhile, grantees were
encouraged to quickly test their ideas and assumptions through
gathering direct feedback from people affected by the problem
and other stakeholders.
• Meaningful Relationships
Grantees, The Rockefeller Foundation, and other organizations
that were engaged in the process built stronger relationships with
each other through this process—either by deepening existing
relationships or by sparking new ones. We believe that building
the capacity to innovate across individuals and organizations will
strengthen the field to solve problems together in new ways.
It’s our hope that bringing together different actors with
implementing capacity to think and learn together will yield better
solutions for the field, now and in the future.
Emerging
Outcomes
PURPOS E
“This was one of the more
productive processes we’ve
participated in.”
- Grantee Representative
“We’ve learned more than we
would have in just traditional
research-focused grants.”
- The Rockefeller Foundation Team Member
7

• Providing Paper Prototyping grants
gives organizations that are already
strong leaders in the space the support
to stretch their thinking even further.
• By asking grantees to put their ideas
out into the world before they are fully
baked, get feedback, and iterate more
quickly, the process increases the
likelihood of reaching more effective
solutions faster.
• This cohort-oriented process helps
build and strengthen meaningful
relationships between grantees and
other current and potential partners
(e.g. the Foundation, other grantees,
strategic advisors, etc.)
For Grantees For Funders and the Field
• Funders gain a better understanding
of where they can have the greatest
impact because they learn directly
from on-the-ground actors and surface
voices and perspectives that are
different from theirs.
• Provides a way for funders new
to a space to rapidly accelerate
their learning when considering
future investments.
• Testing early ideas gives more
realistic insight into the needs
and considerations required for
achieving impact.
Value
of the
Approach
PURPOS E
“This grant process
is helping us gain a
deeper understanding
of the space.”
“This process has
been incredible for
the intensity, focus,
and resources.”
8

How It
WorksIntegrating prototyping into the Foundation’s strategic process began
with the desire to innovate in challenging problem spaces in order to
achieve impact at scale. Based on our experiments with prototyping,
the following framework, principles, and key components are critical
for a productive Paper Prototyping grant.

HOW IT WORK S
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION’S PAPER PROTOTYPING APPROACH AIMS TO
ACCELERATE LEARNING, SURFACE AND TEST NEW IDEAS, AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS.
P R I N C I P L E S
C O M P O N E N T S
V I S I O N
THE STRUCTURE
SCOPE + SELECTION
RESOURCES + FUNDING
TIMELINE
THE ACTIVITIES
CONVENINGS
FIELD VISITS
DELIVERABLES
VALUING EXPERTISE
Learn from the leading organizations already
working on the problem on-the-ground, and take on
the biggest challenges together.
DIVERSE STRENGTHS
Bring together people and organizations with unique
perspectives to inform a shared understanding and
strengthen outcomes moving forward.
ROOM TO INNOVATE
Provide the financial resources, flexible scope, and
exemplary thought partners that allow teams to more
deeply explore challenges and opportunities, take risks,
and think big.
RAPID ITERATION
Make efficient use of resources and encourage rough,
rapid, and iterative prototyping to accelerate thinking,
learning, and concept development.
VOICES ON-THE-GROUND
Bring the voices that matter most into strategy sooner.
Learn from those already in the field, encourage them to
push ideas further, and test concepts and assumptions
with real people to evolve aspirations grounded in reality.
SHARED LEARNING
Share prototypes to learn from each other and benefit from
peer critique, building and establishing relationships for
future opportunities to collaborate.
1 2 3
THE PEOPLE
GRANTEES
EXTERNAL PARTNERS
10

The People
Grantees The
Rockefeller
Foundation
External
Advisory
Partners

Grantees
COM P ONE NT S
• We brought together five grantee
organizations with long-time commitments
in the problem area, implementing capacity,
and diverse approaches to address a
single challenge related to the new
initiative space.
• Diverse approaches, geographies, and
expertise led to deeper insights and
collaboration over the course of the Paper
Prototyping grant.
• As the nature of the problem space was highly
technical, it was important to ensure that
partners had a solid foundation of expertise.
• We encouraged grantees to take risks and
push the boundaries not just in relation to their
own work, but that of the field at large.
• Grantees needed to be comfortable with
ambiguity and open and flexible to evolving
their ideas.
• Grantee organizations selected also
demonstrated they would be able to handle the
level of commitment and work being asked for.
• To provide a richer understanding of a focus
area by engaging a diverse set of grantees
with existing ‘on-the ground’ expertise
Why We Did It
• How might we give grantees even more
opportunities to collaborate with their cohort?
• At what point do we achieve diminishing returns
on collaboration in a process like this?
• What is the right balance of diversity among
the grantees?
What We Did Key Considerations Next Explorations
The StructureThe People The Activities
“The process
strengthened an
obvious connection
with another team.”
12

• The Foundation formed a team of program
officers with distinctive capabilities:
including subject matter expertise,
program management, innovation, and
strategy. One team member was dedicated
full time to the initiative.
• To provide sufficient coaching and resource
support for grantees while ensuring a range of
colleagues had exposure to the work.
• Engaging external experts as strategic partners
was key to providing consistent coaching and the
right level of support to grantees.
• Having at least one internal team member with
existing expertise in the problem space proved to
be invaluable.
• It was also important to have a full-time team
member dedicated to reviewing deliverables,
synthesizing, and making recommendations to the
wider team.
• Having a relatively small, nimble internal team
was very useful in moving an emergent process
forward productively and efficiently.
Why We Did It
The Rockefeller Foundation
COM P ONE NT S
• How could prototyping support other types of
work—both grant-making and operational—at The
Rockefeller Foundation?
“We need that type of
grant...which is one-on-
one, actively engaged
with grantee partners.”
13

• We invited external partners to join in the
process in various capacities:
»» Strategic Advisors: This team provided
one-on-one coaching to each grantee,
managed the grant process, and helped
clarify content and process understanding
between the Foundation and the grantees.
»» Academic Partner: This partner’s deep
technical knowledge supported the thinking
across teams.
»» Prototyping Advisors: This team helped
guide grantees in developing and evolving
their prototypes.
• To provide grantees with expert guidance and
thought partnership to elevate learnings.
What We Did
Why We Did It
ExternalAdvisory Partners
COM P ONE NT S
• Engaging strategic advisors to oversee the
grant process kept the grantees moving forward
quickly and provided valuable hands-on time to
complement the engagement of Foundation staff.
• Providing extended capacity made the process
more credible in the eyes of grantees.
• Having strategic advisors help facilitate
communication between grantees and the
Foundation allowed us to better respond to
problems and shift parts of the process
as needed.
• The process was customized to the needs of the
grantees and the concepts they were developing.
• It’s critical to the openness and constructive
nature of the process to bring in advisory partners
who are seen as reputable by the grantees and
who are strong collaborators and thought partners
with both the grantees and the Foundation.
Key Considerations
• Could a more standardized menu of advising support for
grantees (e.g., weekly calls, field visits) raise the quality of
thinking across teams in a nimble way while still supporting
the unique needs of grantees?
• How can we continue to improve the way we bring grantees
and other external advising partners up to speed about
prototyping to help align expectations and outputs sooner?
• Are there other types of tools or external partners that
we could offer that might offer additional support to
our grantees?
Next Explorations
“It was helpful to have
resources to bounce ideas
off who could provide case
studies and experience.”
14

Example of Organizational Expertise of Grant Cohort for a Given Problem Space
This graph represents the diversity of expertise
that the five prototyping grantees brought to the
problem space.
(1= limited expertise, 5 = deep expertise)
EXTERNAL ADVISING PARTNER
GRANTEE 1
GRANTEE 2
GRANTEE 3
GRANTEE 4
GRANTEE 5
EXTERNAL ADVISING PARTNERS
COM P ONE NT S 15

The Structure
Scope +
Selection
Resources +
Funding
Timeline

• The Foundation clearly defined what success
looks like and the criteria for assessment.
• The grantee characteristics we selected for were:
»» Expertise: Deep knowledge across dimensions
(e.g., social, geographic, economic, political)
»» Research Capability: Ability to support
targeted analysis of solutions and inform
scoping decisions
»» Field Experience and Implementation
Access: Ability to quickly, creatively explore and
test ideas in relevant settings
»» Openness to Innovation: Willingness to
develop new or improve existing solutions,
where current approaches fall short
»» Ability to Move Fast, Iteratively, and Openly:
Can work in close collaboration with the
Foundation and its other partners
»» Flexibility: Willingness to evolve, shape, and
change perspectives based on what emerges
• The Foundation quickly recognized the need to set
clear expectations about what the intensity of the
engagement would mean for grantees.
• Being explicit that prototyping grantees were
not guaranteed follow-on funding after the term
of the grant helped filter out applicants simply
looking for funding to execute on their existing
ideas, but less willing to evolve their thinking
based on learning from the prototyping process.
• Clearly framing the problem up front was
important to help grantees to get better insights
and contextual understanding of the space at the
end of the process.
• What problem spaces does this process work
best for? When is it not a useful approach?
• How do we best communicate the process to
grantees and set the clear expectations around
an emergent process?
Scope + Selection
COM P ONE NT S
• To encourage participation from implementing
NGO’s with an openness to the flexible nature of
the prototyping process and a desire to innovate.
What We Did Why We Did It
Key Considerations
Next Explorations
“We were pushed very
far out of our comfort
zone, but that’s not a
bad thing.”
17

• The Foundation provided significantly more
than financial support to enable innovation.
• Overall support included:
»» Flexible Funding: Financial support could
be used as helpful in exploring new ideas
(e.g., hiring new team members, field visits)
»» Ongoing Coaching: Advisory support from
both the Foundation and external partners.
»» Alternative Support: Grantees were able
to use funds to seek outside guidance, for
example, legal and policy input.
• Having a flexible resource and funding
structure was crucial for the success of this
grant process.
• Many grantees felt they would not have been
able to make the faster timeline work without
the extra financial support of the grant to hire
additional resources and the capacity support
of the advisors.
• The coaching and technical support provided
equally as much value to grantees as the
financial support.
• We recognized the need to bring in an external
strategic partner to help provide consistent
coaching and credible technical support to
help grantees successfully complete the grant.
• Where appropriate as the grant reached
completion, we either provided additional
funding or helped connect grantees to other
sources of funding to move ideas forward.
• What are the ultimate cost-benefits for all the
actors involved?
• What resources are most helpful?
• How flexible should funding be to support the
exploration of new ideas and understanding?
Resources + Funding
COM P ONE NT S
• To give grantees the freedom to take risks
and explore innovative paths forward, while
being responsive to the needs of each idea.
Why We Did It
“The Rockefeller
Foundation put more into
it than most funders—
resources, outside experts,
collaboration.”
18

• We asked grantees to do a lot in a very short
amount of time—test, learn, and iterate on a
concept in just six months.
• Grantees were expected to jump into the
beginning of the grant period less than two
weeks following the grant approval.
• Although the fast pace presented challenges for
grantee organizations, they rose to the occasion
and found it invigorating and valuable.
• Overall, there was a need to find the right balance
between providing adequate time to produce
quality work and driving organizations to surface
useful insights and understanding faster.
• Many grantees felt the strain was hardest at the
very beginning between grant approval and the
beginning of the grant period. They struggled to
form their teams, clear schedules, and create
dedicated time with such a quick turnaround.
• Having all the grantees on the same timeline was
important for creating shared learning experiences.
• What is the right balance on how quickly we
can advance through the process and still
support quality thinking?
• How might the process work if grantee
organizations were on personalized rather
than synchronized timelines?
Timeline
COM P ONE NT S
• To encourage grantees and The Rockefeller
Foundation to rapidly advance ideas and
understanding by articulating and testing early
and imperfect ideas with real users and other
stakeholders, and then quickly iterating on
them—with a focus on learning and insights
rather than perfection at each stage.
Why We Did It
“The fast timeline helped
progress ideas quickly.”
19

3CORE PROCESS 6 months
+
+
DELIVERABLE Grantees prepared iterative articulations of
their concept, incorporating new learnings over time.
FIELD VISIT Grantees invited the Foundation or strategic
partners to come experience and better understand their work.
CONVENING Grantees were invited to a common location for
shares and feedback discussions.
Paper Prototyping
Grant Timeline
HOW IT WORK SCOM P ONE NT S 20

The Activities
Convenings Field Visits Deliverables

• We brought representatives from each
grantee organization, the Rockefeller team,
and external partners together for a series of
three two-day, in-person convenings.
»» Convening 1: Kick-off
»» Convening 2: Interim sharing and
feedback sessions
»» Convening 3: Final sharing and reflections
• Convening activities included in-person,
closed advising sessions, open peer-critiques,
and shared cohort discussions on broader
learnings and recommendations.
Convenings
COM P ONE NT S
• To cross-pollinate ideas and encourage more
thought-sharing between grantees.
Why We Did It
• Convenings were highly valued by grantees.
They appreciated the time and space to give
and receive feedback with their peers.
• Peer critiques were structured so that all
teams had a chance to present their concept
in its current state, share what they had been
learning, and detail how that was influencing
their next iterations. Peer teams then provided
feedback on what they liked about the
concept, what questions it surfaced, and how
they might suggest building on the concept in
future explorations.
• Office hours during the convening provided
teams with expert one-on-one coaching and
advising for teams in a more private setting.
• Grantees appreciated having the time and
space for both large group discussions and
one-on-one feedback during convenings.
• How can we make the convenings even more useful for
the grantees and The Rockefeller Foundation?
• How would the process work without the cohort model?
• What would be lost from not having convenings?
• Are there ways to bring even more of the grantees’
internal team into these collaborative settings?
• Would it be helpful to hold some of the convenings in
different locations (e.g., on-site near one of the grantee’s
field locations for shared contextual learning)?
“It’s not usual to have the
luxury of all the same sector
experts in one room.”
22

FieldVisits
COM P ONE NT S
• Field visits were an optional activity for
grantees and included either a Foundation
team member or external partner joining
grantees on contextual learning visits.
• Field visits provided benefit to both grantees
and the Rockefeller team because they enabled
mutual learning about the field context and
deeper engagement with the prototypes.
• One major concern of grantees was being
respectful of the stakeholder relationships they
were building and setting clear expectations
that their concepts may or may not get built.
• Field visits ranged in how immersive they were.
Even small visits could provide useful findings
and inspiration.
• How might we build in more field visits without
increasing the time or planning burden on the grantees?
• How can we best support grantees in seeking valuable
and realistic feedback from stakeholders, while
respecting their need to navigate and nurture those
trusted relationships?
• How might field visits to other industries and related
contexts help provide outside inspiration for new ideas?
• How can we build in components to the field visits that
support storytelling?
• To reveal deeper understanding of the problem
space and the communities affected.
• To provide grounded feedback from potential
users and stakeholders to help grantees better
evolve their ideas.
Why We Did It
“Going into the field
shifted our assumptions
of the problem.”
- Strategic Advisor
23

Deliverables
COM P ONE NT S
• We asked grantees to submit four deliverables:
»» Deliverable 1: Define the problem space,
geography, stakeholder map, what change is
needed, and how the idea will solve for it.
»» Deliverable 2: Describe the prototype
details, learnings, and if the idea and level
of confidence has shifted.
»» Deliverable 3: Detail feedback received,
thoughts on scalability, and the “no regrets”
POV of how they would move the idea forward
with additional funding and resources.
»» Deliverable 4 (as a cohort): Publicly share
learnings for the field at large.
• In each deliverable we asked grantees to
detail the engagement they had with people
experiencing the problem, especially the
poor or vulnerable. Deliverable 1 included
a detailed stakeholder map to ensure a
comprehensive and inclusive approach
to engagement.
• Deliverables were intended to build on one
another and highlight shifts in thinking.
• Advisors helped grantees prioritize and focus
on the most interesting directions as they
moved their ideas forward in order to leverage
their energy most effectively.
• Paper prototype deliverables served as low-
fidelity versions of the concepts teams could
quickly test with stakeholders to evolve the
concepts. If taken further, these ideas would
be refined to higher levels of resolution.
• How can we make deliverables useful for grantees,
while still getting the information that the
Foundation needs?
• How might more formal peer reviews of
deliverables work for grantees?
• What if we invited grantees to go beyond paper
prototypes and produce more tangible prototypes?
How much more might they do and learn?
• To capture grantee’s evolving thinking and
facilitate feedback and support.
Why We Did It
“There’s pain doing the
deliverable, but it’s worth it
for the process of thinking
through the problem and the
outcome.”
24

Executive
Summary
We expect each partner to commit to expanding their own
thinking and assumptions, rather than simply “building on
what has come before.”

The Rockefeller Foundation has been
experimenting with Paper Prototyping
Grants as a way to surface innovative
thinking and improve the way the
Foundation uncovers insights to inform
how they focus their large-scale funding
and support of initiatives.
Paper prototypes are conceptual, early
ideas articulated on paper, rather than
built out physical prototypes, in order
to gather initial feedback from the
people affected by the problem and
evolve ideas.
Purpose
Emerging Outcomes
• Innovative Concepts
• Rapid Learning
• Meaningful Relationships
EXEC UT IV E S UMMARY
For More Information
CKronley@rockfound.org or
JJoseph@rockfound.org
Paper Prototyping Grant Framework
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION’S PAPER PROTOTYPING APPROACH AIMS TO
ACCELERATE LEARNING, SURFACE AND TEST NEW IDEAS, AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS.
P R I N C I P L E S
C O M P O N E N T S
V I S I O N
THE STRUCTURE
SCOPE + SELECTION
RESOURCES + FUNDING
TIMELINE
THE ACTIVITIES
CONVENINGS
FIELD VISITS
DELIVERABLES
VALUING EXPERTISE
Learn from the leading organizations already
working on the problem on-the-ground, and take on
the biggest challenges together.
DIVERSE STRENGTHS
Bring together people and organizations with unique
perspectives to inform a shared understanding and
strengthen outcomes moving forward.
ROOM TO INNOVATE
Provide the financial resources, flexible scope, and
exemplary thought partners that allow teams to more
deeply explore challenges and opportunities, take risks,
and think big.
RAPID ITERATION
Make efficient use of resources and encourage rough,
rapid, and iterative prototyping to accelerate thinking,
learning, and concept development.
VOICES ON-THE-GROUND
Bring the voices that matter most into strategy sooner.
Learn from those already in the field, encourage them to
push ideas further, and test concepts and assumptions
with real people to evolve aspirations grounded in reality.
SHARED LEARNING
Share prototypes to learn from each other and benefit from
peer critique, building and establishing relationships for
future opportunities to collaborate.
1 2 3
THE PEOPLE
GRANTEES
EXTERNAL PARTNERS
27

A Foundation's Guide to Paper Prototyping

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to A Foundation's Guide to Paper Prototyping (20)

More from The Rockefeller Foundation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Foundation's Guide to Paper Prototyping