interactivecultures

Re-posted from the 4iP Who Needs The Sea? ning website

Paul Long and I wrote a bid that we thought in the interests of openness and transparency, we would make available to the wider 4IP community – and, to an extent, by doing so – we are partway towards realising the project right here.

It’s called Turned Down By 4IP:

Description
4IP provides a new architecture for dispersing funds for public service creative ventures. However, the vast majority of proposals made to 4IP will necessarily be turned down. Turned Down By 4IP provides an online community that helps reflect and develop upon unsuccessful bids, and leverage collective consultancy to not only encourage transparency and openness – but also generate worthwhile, fundable and otherwise unthinkable collaborations. We believe that the opportunity to learn from failures and draw on the wisdom of the crowd will encourage the 4IP constituency to grow and develop in a connected and Web 2.0 fashion.

Needs and Benefits
Despite apparently clear descriptions about what does and does not make up a ‘good’ 4IP bid, it seems surprisingly easy to miss the mark. Rejection notices by email are necessarily brief and do not provide any route to appeal, modify or explain a rejected bid. As a result bidders are often left disheartened, confused and perhaps resentful rather than supported and supportive of 4IP. There seems a lack of transparency and accountability.

Approach
We propose a multi-platform community enabling a ‘We-Think’ approach that will reveal patterns of approval and disapproval from the otherwise inscrutable decision-making processes at work within 4IP itself. We regard this as providing ‘tools to make trouble’ to a community of British creative professionals, inspired citizens, and the wider wise crowds – and providing them with a window through which to ‘keep an eye on money and power’.

Turned down by 4IP enables a process of Peer evaluation, and we propose a method of collectively panelbeating promising rejected bids into successful projects for resubmission. It will then provide a model for further community public scrutinty projects (Arts Council grants, RDAs, Film Agencies, Banks, etc.).

Costs will include development of the site, mobile platform integration, hosting, etc. promotion, administration, research and dissemination through public and virtual events.

Competition
To our knowledge, there are no online communities that provide the opportunity for peer feedback and evaluation of rejected grant proposals – and nor is there any genuine open accountability for the discussion of how these funds are allocated – and on what basis.

To our mind, the only competitor we may have in this respect is 4IP itself.