I realized I wasn't even sure of the exact definition of the word. Was this an actual word or something we had all invented? Apparently, it is a real word with a formal definition as follows:
Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work, or its potential to be enlarged in order to accommodate that growth.
Upon reflection, I realized that there were several situations where I was involved in projects where scaling - and the dollars that came with it - were more the end than the means. Naturally we all want to sound smart. But the next time you're considering the Big Scaling Question, it's worth asking yourself and your team a few key questions:
Will you raise more? In fundraising - and more specifically in event fundraising - we often find this notion that adding more (or scaling ) events will bring in more dollars. But too often the events we have in place become the end goal as opposed to the beginning of the donor cultivation process. We plan, work our tails off, hit our magic number and then we chill for for a few months. When we start all over, naturally we ask how can we raise more? And the answer is: Do another event. Then maybe another. But is it really better to launch another event as opposed to maximizing the quality and potential of the one in place? Are you really making the most of the new volunteers, donors and possibilities of engagement from the first? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's a question worth asking.
Will you save more? Well, this since post is about trendy stuff, might as well throw in that old classic - Synergies. If you've made the decision that another event, program or (fill in the blank) is what the doctor ordered, are there real savings - or synergies - that will go along with that decision? Can you keep the same level of staffing or will you need to hire additional staff for the new programs or events? Sometimes there are very clear synergies. For example, when you're doing multiple fundraising events, there are savings around creating and printing collateral, marketing and advertising. And these savings can translate into even more profitable sponsorship packages. Raising more or expanding your mission is great but doing it in a cost effective manner is absolutely essential.
and the winner is....
Does it really need to be scaled? Many times I've seen the #1 objective of a Strategic plan stated as "Our goal is to raise $5 million per year over the next five years. Or $1 million. Or some other number. Naturally, my next question is Why? Is $5 million the exact amount it will take to have the impact you want to have? Silence. Big Audacious Financial Goals are often another way of saying we want to scale. But have you considered Why you want to scale? Is it absolutely necessary to achieve your stated mission? If you're a community organization focused on delivering a specific service to a specific population and you're doing it well, what's the benefit of adding - or scaling it? I'm not discouraging you from being ambitious and thinking big. Just make sure you're growing for the right reasons.
PS: Here's that Huffington Article I talked about in the beginning. Check it out for a good laugh:
Huffington Post Article