Why can’t tech for good collaborate?

I recently spoke to a donor who reviewed a batch of proposals from different groups—different names, different logos, but nearly the same projects. Teams had reinvented the same wheel in parallel. Individually, some of those projects might get funded. Collectively, the sector missed the chance to pool efforts and solve a larger piece of the problem. That felt wrong, not because anyone was bad, but because our systems make it easier to duplicate than to unite.

Here’s what should terrify donors: Even as funding tightens, duplicated projects still get financed while collaborative funds report backing organizations that figured out how to work together, with $2–3 billion in annual support.

WHY WE BUILD IN SILOS

First, complexity encourages focus. It’s human to take the problem you can manage and try to perfect it. Building a consortium feels messy and risky. Second, funding mechanics favor tidy, single-org proposals—grant windows, scoring rubrics, and reporting templates push teams into solo asks. Third, survival instincts kick in: Leaders protect jobs and short-term stability. Fourth, donors often prefer neat comparables; it’s easier to evaluate and communicate about a single-organization proposal than to underwrite a messy, multipartner bet.

Those incentives produce dozens of similar pilots, fragmented data, duplicated engineering, and wasted momentum. The cost isn’t just administrative friction; it’s slower adoption of useful tools and weaker influence at policy tables where a unified voice would matter.

EVIDENCE: JOINT BETS WIN

There were dozens of AI-for-good panels and side sessions at the United Nations General Assembly this year, but no single calendar. Everyone scrambled, duplicating efforts, and wasting hours trying to track what was happening where. We published an open list of events—a basic piece of shared infrastructure—and the relief was immediate. If we can’t coordinate a calendar, how will we synchronize shared models, data standards, or joint deployments across countries?

This isn’t abstract. Two other practical cases show what coordinated work unlocks.

The Systems Transformation Hub saw several climate organizations realize they were spending most of their time fundraising rather than changing policy. They pooled efforts, cocreated a shared roadmap, and unlocked far more capital and traction than any member could have achieved alone. That shift, from isolated asks to a joint strategy, created real forward movement.

Google’s Flood Hub teaches a related lesson on adoption: Building a model is not the same as embedding it into systems. Even with brand and engineering muscle, tech needs coordinated deployment. Governments, local NGOs, and scientists formed a collaborative around the tool so it could be used operationally—not just demoed. That adoption work turned capability into impact.

WHAT REAL COLLABORATIVES MUST DO

Collaboration is not logos on a slide. It is actual working alliances built on practical choices:

• Shared infrastructure, not replicated widgets. Build once, deploy many times—common models, APIs, and clear data contracts so local teams adapt rather than rebuild.
  
• Coordinated fundraising, not competing pitches. One unified ask with transparent allocation reduces transaction costs and unlocks deeper capital.
  
• Backbone governance. Someone must hold procurement, compliance, and ops—the boring glue that keeps partners moving.
  
• Shared measurement and safe data practices. Established metrics and data agreements let partners iterate and credibly report joint outcomes.
  
• Funders who reward collectives. Change scoring rubrics to favor system change, and long-term stewardship over tidy outputs.

These are governance decisions. They’re not glamorous, but they determine whether pilots plateau or scale.

WE’VE DONE THIS WRONG, TOO

I’m not writing from a pedestal. At Tech To The Rescue, we have made the same mistakes, matchmaking that at times created more iterations than systems. We also see the alternative: projects that plug into shared services, adopt common standards, and scale faster. The tech side is also unlocking quickly. Many off-the-shelf tools now cover a large share of operational needs, but that potential only becomes impact if the sector coordinates adoption. That’s why we’re convening partners this season to test an AI-for-good ecosystem, a minimum viable product for shared infrastructure, pooled fundraising, and collective accountability. It’s operational testing, not optics.

DONORS: CHANGE THE INCENTIVES

Donors, this piece is for you. If you fund this space, please examine whether your forms, timelines, and scoring favor tidy, single-org asks or whether they actively reward collective proposals, backbone support, and multi-year, flexible capital. Consider creating grant lines specifically for collaboratives. Pool funds with other donors to underwrite backbone organizations; fund the integration work—procurement, ops, governance—that rarely looks glamorous but makes scale possible. Also consider directing funds toward policy, watchdogs, and capacity-building—the systems layer that keeps shared tech safe, accountable and effective.

If your organization wants impact more than visibility, ask whether the next grant helps the sector or mainly your institution. If you build tech, ask whether your next sprint will be useful to 10 deployments, and if so, design it to be shared.

We have the tools, talent, and urgency. The remaining barriers are cultural and structural: the humility to share credit, governance to coordinate, and funding models to pay for integration. Because the problems we care about won’t wait while each of us finishes our own version of the same thing.

Jacek Siadkowski is cofounder and CEO of Tech To The Rescue.

View the full article