In our previous blog post we examined the perspectives from different stakeholders in the Expert Group. Understanding what the value of the SESO development framework is for them.
Today we are moving closer to the important step of translating the theory of the framework into practice. This was done through the so-called Learning Lab, a place for open, practice-informed dialogue around the SESO development framework, exploring how it resonates with SESOs’ experiences, challenges, and operational realities.
To ensure a high level of engagement during the sessions we decided to start off with a kick off session to highlight the purpose of the SESO development framework and the purpose of the Learning Lab. Followed by 3 sessions each focussing on one core question.
Session 1: Mapping what matters: Identifying core and peripheral factors for SESO Development.
In our first session, we initiated a collaborative exercise to map 13 key factors influencing the success and sustainability of SESOs. This process began by positioning these factors along a scale of importance, sparking a dynamic discussion about what truly lies at the core of a SESO’s development.
One of the central themes that emerged was the role of adaptability and access to markets. The group questioned whether access to markets should be considered a core operational factor—particularly when revenue streams are derived from grants, funds, or philanthropic sources, which might not fit traditional market definitions. Some argued that such access is more accurately viewed as a growth factor, suggesting an evolution in SESO maturity where engagement expands beyond funding bodies to include diverse stakeholders, institutions, and even customer segments.
At the other end of the spectrum, factors such as organisational culture and digital maturity were placed in the “nice to have” category. Yet this placement wasn’t without challenge. Culture, in particular, prompted debate: Is it peripheral, or is it foundational? One perspective highlighted culture as a vital, if often underestimated, factor for survival—shaping what an organisation values, how it reacts to challenges, and how it galvanises collective action and resilience.
To deepen our understanding, we transitioned to plotting the identified factors within a quadrant, assessing both their level of influence and their quantifiability. This step introduced further nuance, especially around government support. Participants emphasized the importance of differentiating between local, regional, and national policy environments, and also recognising the dual direction of influence: both the support provided to SESOs and the capacity of SESOs to shape policy. The latter, notably, presents a much more complex challenge to measure.
Ultimately, the exercise reaffirmed that while all 13 factors play a role in a SESO’s development, there is a clear distinction between what is core and what is supportive. Though perspectives varied, recurring patterns in the group’s mapping helped illuminate which areas demand early focus and strategic investment. These insights lay the groundwork for SESOs to align their priorities more effectively, especially in the face of evolving social, political, and market conditions.
Session 2: Tailoring assessment methods to organisational maturity and context.
During our second session, we delved into the crucial question of how best to assess the development of Social Economy Support Organisations (SESOs). One of the central discussions focused on selecting assessment methods that suit different factors and organisational contexts, ranging from self-assessment and proxy indicators to mixed-method approaches.
A recurring theme was the importance of organisational agility in adapting to change. Effective assessment isn’t just about gathering data—it requires understanding why that data looks the way it does. Combining self-reported insights with evidence-based validation creates a more nuanced, trustworthy picture. This mixed-method approach allows organisations to interpret results within their unique context, making it easier to adjust strategies and measure both tangible progress and lived experiences.
For less tangible but equally important factors—such as adaptability to change or organisational culture—traditional measurement tools can fall short. Here, development evaluation methodologies offer a more flexible and responsive framework, enabling real-time learning and adjustment. Approaches like grading methodologies to evaluate supportive environments also emerged as promising tools, striking a balance between structure and local interpretation.
Meanwhile, more concrete factors like access to markets benefit from established analytical tools such as SWOT, PESTEL, and competitor analyses. These methods provide clarity on external influences and internal strengths, helping SESOs benchmark their positioning and uncover opportunities to differentiate themselves strategically.
An important part of designing assessments is mitigating validation bias. Crafting unbiased questions, benchmarking against external standards, and inviting feedback from stakeholders outside the immediate constituency—such as funders or external partners—offer critical reality checks. This openness can reveal blind spots and build more balanced and credible insights.
At the heart of any assessment lies self-reflection. Support organisations must regularly ask themselves: Is the support we provide truly helping social enterprises thrive? Reflective practice not only ensures alignment with the real needs of social enterprises but also fosters more effective and empathetic support systems.
Equally vital is understanding how respondents identify themselves in relation to their organisation and the assessment topics. This awareness helps tailor the language and framing of assessments to better resonate with participants and reflect their perspectives authentically.
Engaging those who provide input also requires clear communication about the value of their contributions. Showing how feedback leads to tangible changes builds trust and encourages ongoing participation. When gaps are identified, transparent conversations with stakeholders about responsibility and solutions help foster collective ownership of progress.
Finally, recognising the different maturity stages of SESOs is essential in prioritising which factors matter most at any given time. Similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, foundational elements like stable funding and operational capacity must be secured before organisations can focus on more advanced goals such as strategic partnerships or policy influence. Tailoring assessment tools to reflect this maturity hierarchy ensures relevance and supports a more effective development journey.
Session 3: Designing inclusive and effective methods for data collection.
In our final session, we turned our focus to a critical question: What is the best way to collect meaningful and usable data when assessing the development of SESOs? The discussion explored the balance between utility and usability, particularly across varying stages of organisational maturity.
One key insight was the importance of tailoring methods to the context. For emerging SESOs with limited staff capacity, traditional methods like lengthy surveys may be too burdensome. In these cases, more observational and conversational approaches—such as workshops, interviews, or informal dialogues—are not only more realistic but also more insightful. As organisations mature, more structured tools like self-assessments and guided feedback mechanisms can be gradually introduced.
Another crucial point was the need to capture diverse perspectives. The way a tool is perceived can vary significantly depending on a participant’s role—what resonates with a CEO may not reflect the experience of someone involved in frontline support. Mixed-method approaches help bridge this gap. Starting with broad surveys to gather general insights, then following up with targeted focus groups, allows for a richer comparison between quantitative trends and qualitative depth. Real-world testing remains vital to validate findings and identify areas for refinement, while lighter-touch methods like social media polls can supplement feedback in dynamic, accessible ways.
Facilitating focus groups, however, presents its own challenges. Participants often come with varying levels of familiarity, which can lead to unequal contributions. Providing shared resources beforehand and ensuring all participants have equal access to context is key to levelling the playing field. Building trust is equally important—creating a space where participants feel safe to share openly, while respecting privacy and anonymity, ensures a more honest and inclusive process.
Accessibility should be embedded into tool design from the beginning. This includes making tools mobile-friendly, catering to varying levels of digital literacy, and understanding the motivations of different groups. Financial incentives can help increase participation, but care must be taken to mitigate any potential biases they may introduce.
In conclusion, selecting the right data collection method is not just a technical choice—it’s a strategic one that must account for inclusivity, accessibility, and organisational capacity. This session has provided valuable clarity and direction for shaping a thoughtful and adaptable assessment model to support SESO development at all stages.
