OpenIDEO is an open innovation platform. Join our global community to solve big challenges for social good. Sign Up / Login or Learn more

Profile

Recent contributions

(4)

Contribution list

Teams

(1) View all

Recent comments

(3) View all

Thank you for your comment Mafalda and raising these two important issues of "quality" and "participation".

In order to address ensure the quality of crowdvetting, currently all companies that are vetted by the crowd are also vetted by Kiva's Portfolio Managers and Kiva's Risk Department. We make sure their feedback makes it back to crowd-vetters so they understand how Kiva approach each particular borower. Kiva must provide vetters with insight as to how Kiva is thinking about the balance of impact and risk. By improving the crowd-vetting interface and making it more interactive, we think we will be able to get them to deliver to Kiva's quality standards. Our hypothesis is that it takes about 5-10 vetting exercises and feedback cycles to get to a good level.

On the second issue, you raise an intersting point: why would vetters vote? In the initial tests, we got lots of grad students to visit the website, poke around, review application, but not votes. This was particularly true when the final question was phrased as: "If it were your money, would you lend it in this borrower?" From feedback sessions we realized that students did not want to get the "wrong" answer and preferred not to vote. The "Black box" nature of the first versions of the website got negative reviews. Now that we have more interactive conversations and encourage questions, vetters feel much more confident and comfortable stating their opinions. For example, we also changed the final question to "Should Kiva prioritize consideration of this enterprise's loan application". This help take the pressure off vetters and increased their voting rates.

I look forward to Crowd-Vetting becoming an experience that students and professionals want to highlight in their Linkedin profile. They could highlight the number of companies they have vetted, the country, regional or sector expertise they have developed, the amount of funds their votes supported and the repayment rate of their vetted portfolio. As we grow, we will also be able to add metrics to the social impact of borrowers and a crowd-vetting score that is a composite of the vetters activity on crowdvet.org

Eldy, Kiva's Direct to Social Enterprise program does operate in Indonesia. While it does not have the 80+ country reach of traditional Kiva, it does operate in 25 countries.

The crowd-vetting solution on the other hand can have an even wider reach that traditional Kiva. There are no regulations preventing people from helping other people with their minds. We think crowd-vetting presents an incredible opportunity to harness local knowledge.

We look forward to expanding the crowd-vetting program with local universities and be better placed to support local entrepreneurs who are not connected to the impact investment community but are in fact having a big impact in their communities.

link

Carlos commented on ATMs are quite accessible

Vincent, love the idea. Perhaps the parallel between voting and ATMs can be expanded to include some bank tellers (i reckon not everybody is physically able to use ATMs or have an individual preference for human interaction) and even mobile banking.

The general thrust of making voting something as accessible as a private sector service (ATMs, Food Trucks, Ipads) is brilliant. Thank you!