This is a CTP of initiative: Impact Hub London King’s Cross (UK)
In 2005, the first ‘Hub’ was opened in London (Islington), followed by many others all over the world. Since then, the network and the amount of local hubs has grown across the world ‘like wildfire’ (Website Impact Hub 2016). This process of moving from one local Hub to a global network does not coincide with one specific date; rather it was a process, taking place roughly between 2007 to 2009.
This process of ‘going global’ is discussed as a CTP that matters for the local IH KC, as the founder of the IH KC was also the founder of the very first Impact Hub Islington (London), as well as the founder and owner of the “Hub Global” company. The latter was set up to help open Hubs in other countries and was subject to a number of contestations.
The network was first built in 2007, when 30+ people, who aspired to open a Hub met at the first Hub in London (for an overview of the full process in more detail see Bachmann 2014, Wittmayer et al. 2015). The meeting had originally been meant for sharing lessons about the practice of hosting, however, “[…] most attendees had come to learn how they could replicate the entire Hub model” (Bachmann 2014). While the first Hubs had been set up in ways considered appropriate by their founders, there now seemed to be a need for guidance and sharing best practices: “It felt like we were grounding a global community with its first manifestation in London. So it didn’t surprise us when we got visitors from all around the world seeking to do something similar. What surprised us was the volume. Initially, we were flattered by the huge amount of interest. But practically, it became a bit of a nightmare.” (Jonathan Robinson, quoted in Bachmann 2014). “It was frustrating, because everyone had questions about the global model and we had no answers. (…) But there was no way back at that point” (Glauser, quoted in Bachmann 2014).
These questions about a global model were taking up by an interim board, which was set up in 2008. It explored different possible global governance structures and financial models – such as a movement or a franchise (Bachmann 2014). It was decided to test a social franchise model, with regular contributions by all Hubs and a joining fee for new Hubs. The money was to be paid to a global entity, “Hub World”, a limited company with headquarters in London. This company had the aim to offer central services, such as technology services to local Hubs. By the end of 2009, the network had continued to grow. A dozen Hubs had been set up and were open, while others were in development.
A major related event is certainly the foundation of the first Impact Hub in London 2005.
Another major event has been a first meeting in London in 2007, where aspirant founders met to exchange best practices and learn about how to set up a Hub (for more information see CO-PRODUCTION).
Following, Impact Hubs in São Paulo (2009), Rotterdam (2008), Amsterdam (2008) Johannesburg (2007), Bristol (2007), Berlin (2007) and elsewhere were founded in the years 2007-2009.
The setting up of an interim board for exploring and deciding upon a global governance structure and associated financial model in 2008 (for more information see CO-PRODUCTION) is also closely related to the going global of the network. The same year also the Hub World company was founded to act as service organisation for the setting up of new Hubs.
Especially the foundation of “Hub World” as limited company was surrounded by a year of contestations in 2009. It included “a cash-flow crisis, contestations over non-profit versus for-profit organizational structures, questions on how much to invest in the core, lacking speed of delivery and tension over ownership” (Wittmayer et al. 2015: 21). That this contestation was overcome was not expected: “If you ask me, the organization should have folded at that time. I have no practical understanding of why it didn’t, except for the power of a distributed network: Even if you take out some of the major nodes, it still manages to keep on working because of all the interconnected relationships. What you got was one of the most complex ecosystems that I’ve ever seen anywhere. And I’m still amazed that we managed to keep it all together.” (Brad Krauskopf, founder of Hub Melbourne, as quoted in Bachmann 2014).
The conflicts with regard to the franchise model continued. Witness to this was the fact that only few founders had signed the formal franchise contract, while others tried to negotiate specific terms, for example for being located in an emerging economy. Pooja Warier, a cofounder of Hub Bombay, commented that “The conversation shifted from being part of a movement to a kind of bargaining (…) It felt like we were lost between the economics of being a movement, a business, and a network” (Bachmann 2014).
Generally, tensions around the ownership structure were felt in more places, and there was a more widely felt impression that too few people were trying to do too much with insufficient capacity.
The founders of the first Hub in London, who were hosting the meeting back in 2007 had anticipated the interest by people from around the world wanting to establish a Hub in their part of the world.
There were however two things that had not been anticipated. Firstly, the sheer volume of people interested. As put by the founder of the first Hub: “It felt like we were grounding a global community with its first manifestation in London. So it didn’t surprise us when we got visitors from all around the world seeking to do something similar. What surprised us was the volume.” (Jonathan Robinson, quoted in Bachmann 2014). Secondly, they had not anticipated questions about a global model, in the sense that they could not provide answers at that point in time.
One of the learnings of the contestations around ownership and governance structure concerns “the alignment of governance” (Legal director). He explains: “one of the things that we’ve now changed in the Impact Hub is that all new candidates need to have founding teams. We won’t have a single founder Impact Hub now. That has partly to do with this problem [the founder owning everything], and partly to do with founder burden, which is the other side of the coin. You have founders who just try to do everything all by themselves. Founders are more likely to run out of energy and go off to do something else”.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
