About
Why this exists.
A tier of the same software, paid for by someone else, given to groups that could not buy it, on rules published in advance.
01 / The argument
Capability, not charity.
A farming cooperative, a youth group and a small workshop do the same knowledge work companies do. They write down how things are done, hand over roles, track commitments, answer the same question repeatedly and lose everything one person knew when that person leaves. The difference is not the work. It is the budget line for tools that make the work lighter.
So the gap this closes is narrow and specific: price. Not expertise, not motivation, not capability. The groups we are aiming at are usually better at operating under constraint than the companies paying full price. They are short of software budget, not of competence.
That is also why small businesses and farmers are on the eligibility list. Programmes that stop at registered nonprofits exclude most of the people actually working their own way out of poverty, on the grounds of a tax status that has nothing to do with whether they can afford software.
We are not here to rescue anyone. A cooperative with a sponsored place is a customer someone else is paying for, and the relationship should read that way in both directions — including our obligation to keep the thing running.
02 / Theory of change
The chain, and where it is weakest.
Written out so it can be argued with. Each step is a claim, and the further down you go the less certain we are.
Input
Mission places funded by 3% of Irabu's profit, and by sponsors
Activity
Set-up, templates and support for the group's staff
Output
One searchable, cited record of what the group knows
Outcome
Less time re-finding information, more on the work itself
The weak link
Between output and outcome. Giving an organisation a good tool does not mean it gets used, and usage does not mean time saved. That is precisely why the measurement plan commits to reporting active workspaces and renewals rather than claiming hours saved. If the chain breaks, it breaks there, and we would rather find out than assume.
03 / The two sides
How this relates to the commercial business.
| Aspect | irabu.ai | irabu.org |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | The commercial platform business | The access programme |
| Who it serves | Companies of any size | Six kinds of under-resourced group |
| The product | Free, Pro, Business and Enterprise | The Mission tier, and only that |
| Price | Free to $19 per workspace per month, or custom | Nothing to the group; a sponsor covers it |
| Funded by | Customers | 3% of Irabu’s profit, plus sponsors on top |
| Legal entity | Exists | In formation |
They are separate sites because they are separate promises. Mixing them would mean a farming cooperative reading enterprise sales copy, and a company reading about eligibility criteria. Both would be worse off.
The conflict of interest in this arrangement is real and is set out in full on the transparency page.
04 / How we work
Five commitments.
- Say what is true today
- No future tense dressed as present tense. If something is planned, it is labelled planned. If a number does not exist, the space stays empty.
- Publish the rules before applying them
- Eligibility criteria are on the site, not in an internal document. A decision you cannot check against a written rule is not a fair process.
- No conditions on groups
- No logo rights, no mandatory testimonial, no case study requirement, no obligation to thank a sponsor publicly. Access is not bought with publicity, and neither is sponsorship.
- Dignity in the directory
- A listing describes a group’s work, never its hardship, in the group’s own words, with written consent and the right to be removed. No photographs of people, no urgency indicators, no ranking by need.
- Collect nothing we do not need
- No data on minors, and no data about the people our groups serve. Nine fields on the application form, and we have argued about each one.
- Answer everyone
- Every application gets a written decision with a reason, including the declines, and a route to appeal it.
05 / Limits
Where this programme falls short.
English only
The interface is in English. That rules out a large share of the organisations that would benefit most, and it is the single biggest limit on reach.
Assumes connectivity
The platform needs a working internet connection and a device to use it on. Where those are the constraint, free software changes nothing.
One company deep
Capacity is tied to how the commercial business performs. In a year with no profit the 3% commitment yields nothing, and only sponsors would keep places open.
Software, not money
We grant licences. For a group whose binding constraint is cash, seeds or equipment, a workspace is not the answer and we will say so rather than take the application.
A directory has to earn trust
Publishing under-resourced groups to donors can become a poverty catalogue. We wrote rules against that before we had anything to list, and they will need enforcing, not just publishing.
Talk to us.
Whether you would use this, sponsor it, fund it, or think it is wrongly designed.