For social enterprises, NGOs and other impact-focused organisations, consortiums are rarely the easy path to scale. They tend to be slower, more complex and harder to manage than working with a single organisation. But consortiums can also produce solutions that are broader in perspective, stronger in legitimacy and more resilient in practice.
Take the KUWAZA child protection consortium in Zanzibar, involving Pathfinder International, ActionAid and C-Sema. Government stakeholders were more willing to back the model precisely because it came from a united front of NGOs, not from one organisation advancing its own agenda. That collective credibility helped the initiative gain traction and expand its reach.
Over the past few years, Spring Impact has supported the KUWAZA initiative and other consortiums tackling issues ranging from child protection to women’s economic empowerment, in geographies that include Bulgaria, Egypt and Zanzibar. Each brought different histories, structures and ambitions, but together they highlight important lessons about what makes scaling through consortiums distinct, and how to make this sort of collaborative effort work.
Lesson 1: Letting go of organisational ego is non-negotiable
Scaling requires focusing on the solution, not the organisation. For consortiums, this means stepping outside of institutional identity and centering the collective mission.
One effective way to build this mindset is to help partners experience the solution from each other’s perspective. In the KUWAZA child protection consortium, for example, members initially struggled to let go of “their” part of the solution. We asked them to imagine delivering the shared model in new communities, but under another partner’s guidelines. Walking through the implications — including time, costs, and measurement and evaluation — helped everyone see that too much rigidity would prevent partners from adapting the model to the communities they were working in, undermining the very purpose of the consortium. This exercise shifted the focus from “my part of the model” to “our shared solution.”
Letting go of organisational ego is also easier when the solution is not tied to one organisation’s brand. One example is the SureStart Central and Eastern Europe Initiative, a family strengthening consortium in Bulgaria involving Tulip Foundation, Center Maria, Future for Children and Club of the NGOs Targovishte. The consortium framed its work as scaling SureStart Centres, an existing concept developed by the UK government, rather than designed by any single partner. This neutral positioning allowed partners to feel shared ownership, reducing ego and building trust.
Lesson 2: Alignment takes longer — but it’s worth the wait
Achieving alignment on strategy is hard enough within a single organisation. In a consortium, it is exponentially harder, since each partner brings its own mission, priorities and perspective.
When it comes to developing a scale strategy, alignment must cover three things: the specific part of the problem being addressed, the “core” of the solution that is to be scaled, and the objectives for scale. One consortium we worked with simply could not agree on scale objectives: One member wanted to focus heavily on revenue generation, while the others feared this would make it harder to serve those most in need. Despite attempts to progress, these unresolved differences kept resurfacing and ultimately rendered the consortium unviable.
A consortium’s goals and strategy must align with each organisation’s broader strategy and budget, and this alignment must not be treated as a side project. This means buy-in needs to happen at a broader organisational level, not just among the staff involved in the consortium.
This process takes time and space, and every decision requires multiple voices, which can feel frustrating. But the slower pace is the price of building strong foundations. Once alignment is achieved, the scale strategy tends to be more robust, credible and ready for systemic impact. And strong consortiums often revisit alignment as strategies, contexts and partners evolve.
Lesson 3: Power dynamics must be named and managed
Power imbalances exist in every consortium. They can stem from funding flows, brand/IP ownership, size or influence. If left unspoken, they can undermine trust and stall progress.
In one consortium we worked with, a funder-member insisted all partners were “equal” and had equal input into strategic decisions, yet this did not match how the partnership was operating. The implementer felt unable to disagree; the funder, meanwhile, distrusted the feedback they received. The lack of transparency eroded trust and progress.
Power dynamics will always exist, but they must be openly acknowledged and actively managed. This is particularly important for funders to consider when supporting consortiums, as funding flows play a key role in enabling (or undermining) consortium dynamics. And when they’re directly involved as consortium members, funders need to be clear about their expectations, stakes and decision-making processes.
Lesson 4: Trust and structure must go hand in hand
Consortiums often thrive on personal trust and camaraderie. While this makes collaboration possible, it can also make formal governance and documentation feel secondary. Yet both are essential if scaling is to be sustainable.
Take the SureStart Centre consortium: Members have relied heavily on strong personal relationships, and this trust has been a big part of their success to date. We worked with them to build on that strong foundation, by systemising learning, clarifying key questions, and demarcating roles and responsibilities. These structures strengthened their ability to replicate and adapt the model, without undermining the spirit of collaboration that made the partnership work in the first place.
The need for structure becomes most evident when consortiums inevitably change over time. Funders shift priorities, organisations evolve and leaders move on. In one consortium we supported, the sudden departure of a consortium member left the others scrambling. Without agreed-upon exit scenarios or transition plans, scaling momentum collapsed.
The key is finding the sweet spot: enough structure to enable replication and accountability, while preserving the relational trust that makes collaboration possible.
Lesson 5: Play to strengths, avoid dependency
Clarity around roles and responsibilities is vital in any consortium — not just for delivering the solution, but also for enabling functions such as research, advocacy, fundraising and coordination. Without this clarity, progress stalls.
Roles should align with each partner’s genuine strengths, with transparency about capabilities. For example, the KUWAZA consortium leveraged Pathfinder’s deep understanding of working with government, C-Sema’s frontline expertise in managing a child helpline and coordinating response efforts, and Action Aid’s experience in community engagement, working in schools and with parents.
But partners must also guard against over-relying on others to cover their weaknesses. In one consortium we supported, a member’s dependence on another for strategy and funding left it unprepared when that partner exited — exposing how dependency can undermine resilience.
It’s also important to remember that a consortium is not a homogenous entity. Each consortium member has its own needs, capacities and challenges. Supporting scale means engaging with members individually, not only through a lead partner, to ensure that no single voice dominates and all members can contribute effectively.
Conclusion
Scaling impactful solutions is challenging even for a single, well-resourced organisation. When multiple organisations join forces in a consortium, the challenges multiply — but so does the potential for deeper, more systemic impact.
To unlock this potential, scaling through consortiums requires:
- More time upfront to align on the problem, the “core” model, objectives and roles.
- More humility from members willing to let go of control and ego.
- More intentional facilitation to balance power, manage dynamics and create neutral spaces.
- A dual focus on trust and systemisation, both of which are essential for sustainability.
For funders, social enterprises, intermediaries and NGOs, the message is clear: Scaling through consortiums is not simply about doing “more of the same” work they’re already doing. It demands different skills, expectations and mindsets — but when embraced, it offers a powerful pathway to impact at scale.
Emma Colenbrander is Managing Director at Spring Impact.
Photo credit: NanoStockk
Publisher: Source link
