Why we’re winding up in 2027

When I set up Connected by Data, I also stated my intention that this organisation would have a maximum lifespan of 3-5 years. We are now at the end of our fourth year, which means we have at maximum one more year to go.

It’s always interesting to see people’s reactions when they learn this. The leaders of other civil society organisations often immediately say, without me providing any explanation, “OMG, you can do that? Amazing!” People we work with often say, “That’s a shame, I wish you wouldn’t.”; other people are simply curious and come to see the rationale once I explain it.

In this post I want to explain why I set up Connected by Data this way, what I’ve learned about the trade-offs that entails, and what we’re thinking about doing next.

Working in a changing context

The first explanation I’ll give is the one I usually give to funders.

We work at the intersection of technology and society, and that intersection is always changing. When I was first putting together plans and proposals for Connected by Data in late 2021, we were having important debates about the use of personal (and non-personal) data for collective and public benefit. These came off the back of the experience of Covid, where using sensitive data about things like health, travel and finances was crucial for navigating the pandemic.

The ability for those affected by the uses of that data to have a joint say in the decisions about how it was used – collective data governance – was the thing I most wanted to explore. I also thought the evidence and argument for these approaches was already in existence (from think tanks and researchers) and what was needed was a catalytic campaign to bridge the gap between what they said we should be doing, and actual policy and practice.

Then ChatGPT was released in November 2022, after we’d been operating for about six months. Suddenly the much more pressing conversations were about the data used to train generative AI and the impacts on creative and other workers. Writing now, in 2026, everyone is having these kinds of conversations, alongside ones about digital sovereignty in a geopolitically unstable world, the systemic impacts of the democratisation of generative AI, and so on and so on. There’s very little hard evidence about anything and big differences in thinking about the correct courses of action.

Mission-driven organisations always have to walk a line between focus and adaptability. Too much focus, and your work becomes irrelevant; too much adaptability, and you get swept along with the changing context, never able to target your efforts long enough to make an impact. This is a particular challenge for those of us at the intersection of technology and society because both are changing so rapidly.

So, my rationale for making Connected by Data a fixed term organisation was to give a way to navigate this tension. I knew the problem that I’d identified in 2021 would not be the problem that existed in 2026. I wanted to give myself and the organisation the focus of the 2021 problem and be able to properly re-evaluate, including deciding on a completely different focus or approach, in 2026. Having a fixed term organisation is a way of doing that.

Part of the reason this was the best approach for us is that we’re very small. Larger and longer-term organisations can handle having a fairly consistent core capability, surrounded by projects or campaigns that run around particular issues that come and go over time. Even so, my observation is that it’s very hard for even projects or campaigns to end, and ending is important to free up attention and resources to focus properly on the next thing.

Creating the right incentives

Mission-driven organisations have two big drivers: their mission, and money. Yes, we all want to have the impact in the world that we strive for, but the reality is that we and the people who work with us need money to live. That can mean we take on projects skewed towards what funders think are the right things rather than what we believe are the right things. It can mean we are in competition with other civil society groups for those resources, so are incentivised to downplay their work. We tend to all swarm into the same areas (because those are the ones we can get funding for) but in uncoordinated ways.

But we as civil society desperately need to be coordinated, because it’s only together that we have any hope of being an effective countervailing force against the interests of industry and authoritarian governments.

Being fixed term does not at all obviate the need for funding, but it’s a way to manage those incentives that arise from money rather than mission, and instead insert incentives that mean our work is more collegiate, collaborative and mission aligned.

To work with others

Being fixed term means we can better live the maxim “one can do a great deal of good in this world if one does not care who gets the credit for it”, because we don’t particularly care about Connected by Data brand recognition. It means we are motivated to work with partners who are then able to continue work in an area as we know we’ll be moving on to other things. We actively try to put the structures in place that mean we can leave without negative impact. We make things open because why would we want to hold onto them?

There’s a flip side to this, however. Working in partnership depends on good networks, trust and social capital, which build over time. We’ve had an advantage of already bringing some of these into the organisation, but I can see that a longer lasting organisation would have different advantages with collaborative working.

It’s also not straightforward to catalyse collaborative working amongst a set of other actors. The Data and AI Civil Society Network now has almost 150 members on its Signal group, and meets monthly. I believe it’s proven useful in enabling basic coordination across UK civil society in this space. But we are struggling in our attempts at encouraging others to step forward in that network, to shape, lead, or just basically administer it. It’s hard to tell whether that’s because routine meetings aren’t that useful, or whether there’s an assumption that we will continue to do that lifting. Actually shutting down will at least remove that expectation and hopefully enable others to step forward if we have inadvertently been holding them back.

To not be led by funding

I found it easier to raise mission-aligned money early on with Connected by Data, because I knew I could scale the organisation to the money raised rather than the other way around. I didn’t have to go after funders who weren’t interested in supporting what we wanted to do. That doesn’t mean funding has been plain sailing or straightforward: the Shuttleworth Foundation, from whom I got our foundational fellowship funding, closed after two years, when usually they would have funded for three. Funders like Omidyar Network, Luminate, JRRT and the Mohn Westlake Foundation have all supported us and then moved on to other things. But being fixed term has alleviated a lot of fundraising pressure, and meant we could spend time and effort on pursuing the mission rather than finding money.

This again isn’t a straightforward positive, though. Bootstrapping funding is difficult for new organisations for two reasons. First, some funders want to see existing proof of impact, and proof of good governance such as audited accounts, before funding. Young organisations obviously don’t have either of these; I was relying on my track record at ODI, with funders who knew that work.

Second, many funders understandably put limits on the percentage of an organisation’s income they can fund. (I believe the rationale is that they don’t want to leave the organisation unviable if they don’t continue that funding.) When you are starting, your income is low, and low percentages of low numbers are also low. The only way we managed to bootstrap into having a £400k-ish turnover within this short period was because of the big, unconstrained Shuttleworth Fellowship funding, and funders who were prepared to stretch their rules.

Being fixed term is also difficult from a funding perspective at the end of an organisation. Many funders want to invest in something that has long term impact, and if you’re not going to be around you’re not going to be there to continue to build on the work you did with their funding. We have had rejections from funding that we would have seen through to the end of the funding period, because we won’t be around after it, even when we had other targeted routes for continuation of that work.

Ending well

A third set of reasons for why I set up Connected by Data as a fixed term organisation was because I wanted to end it well. So many civil society organisations come to a close in an extremely stressful rush, and because of that they leave their colleagues, partners and collaborators picking up the pieces. They go through months of uncertainty, hoping for a miraculous new injection of cash, and don’t have time or resources for archiving, reflection or mourning.

Here, I am very much influenced by Stewarding Loss. As they put it:

In a world addicted to growth and permanence, the courage to close—to hospice, to dismantle, to reconfigure —is a radical act of love. And to do this with intention and care, when so much is unravelling, is one of the most generative things we can do - freeing up energy, resources, and imagination to make room for what’s truly needed now.

I have led organisations through radical restructuring. I have worked with organisations as they are closing. I have many CSO CEO friends who are constantly anxious, because they care for their teams and just don’t know how long they can continue to hold them together.

Ending isn’t bad, but uncertainty about ending is extremely destructive. It haunts you, hangs over you, gnaws at you. You can’t concentrate on having an impact with your work when you have to deal with that dread. This is why civil society leaders I meet understand my rationale for setting up a fixed term organisation so easily.

A fixed term at least provides certainty. It gives people time to find other roles (we’ve deliberately built into how we operate that we’re all part time, to provide space for taking on other roles that can ease that transition). It means we have time to pass on or archive our work thoughtfully, so that it’s not lost. It means we can celebrate and mourn together, so our closure is something we can move on from.

It is sad. I love this work and this team. I would continue working forever in this way if I could. But part of what makes this possible now is not having to struggle to sustain it. And I am absolutely convinced that more will grow from our decomposition than would if we continued.

Understanding myself

Finally, of course, there are the selfish reasons. I know that I personally thrive in newness, variety and change. I am much much happier operating in a space where I’m creating something, experimenting and drawing out patterns and lessons, than I am in doing the same thing day after day.

Organisations change as they grow. The startup phase only lasts so long. (There is a fairly well-known phenomenon that mission-driven organisations tend to experience a kind of crisis – and often new leadership – around seven years in, as they hit that transition from new to established.) Even if none of the above reasons applied, and we weren’t going to close, I personally would not continue to lead Connected by Data past this stage because I know it wouldn’t suit me and I wouldn’t be good at it.

I know I’m also far better at caring for people – supporting them to thrive and grow unbound by organisational needs – than caring for organisations. For me, organisations are ephemeral. They are tools we use to organise ourselves temporarily, but our relationships with each other last far longer and are far more important. (Others will see organisations as permanent and our involvement with them as temporary stewardship; I understand and appreciate this perspective too.)

Ultimately, setting up Connected by Data as a fixed term organisation is a choice I made because I knew it would work for me, and I was in the incredibly privileged position of being able to do so. It would not be the right choice for other people, who are more satisfied by growing an organisation and seeing it thrive as an entity. I admire those people; I just know it is not me.

What’s next?

Good question.

We’ll be publishing our annual strategic roadmap soon. Within it there are the definite wrap-up activities, such as archiving and handover, that you’d expect. But we’ve also been encouraged by our Board to explore whether there’s anything that could make use of the organisational entity we’ve created, to avoid the set-up costs of a new organisation. I’m framing these as “regenerations” in the Doctor Who sense. These frankly feel a bit like cheating; I’m wrestling with feeling like I’m avoiding the clean close I’ve argued and aimed for. Nevertheless, over the next six months we will be exploring:

• whether we could or should continue hosting collective initiatives like PAIRS, that need an administrative home, through some kind of fiscal hosting arrangement
• whether we can usefully provide a loose umbrella organisation for people working as independent consultants or practitioners around collective AI and data governance, public participation, and so on
• whether there’s any appetite from philanthropic funders for a programme to support grassroots groups who are affected by and campaigning around data, digital and AI

After these six months of exploration, we will have a clearer answer to “What’s next?”

Thanks for reading this far, and for being along for this ride. We still have a year – a whole fifth of our lifespan and plenty of time to do more amazing things – so this is not yet goodbye!

But I would love you to get in touch if:

• you want to make use of our team’s expertise over the next year – it’s your last chance with us in this configuration!
• you want to pick up and continue any of our work – we can work together on a proper handover
• you’re interested in informing or being part of any of the regenerations I’ve mentioned above – let’s discuss!
• you want to bring any of us as individuals into your organisation – we can start that transition before the year is out
• you’re interested in the pros and cons, challenges and opportunities of running a fixed term civil society organisation – always happy to chat