Why use a network? When it comes to policy-change networks, there are many reasons.
In our work with networks that aim to develop and advocate for public policy changes it’s been useful to lay out the many ways in which building connectivity–networks–can provide change agents with advantages. Here’s an analysis of the ways that building policy networks can help with each of the key steps in the policy-change process:
1. Defining the Issue. Networks can–
• Scan for/retrieve/distribute information and perspectives about issues
• Identify issues that are outside a “mainstream” perspective
• Connect to “distant” expertise that is needed
2. Articulating policy alternatives. Networks can–
• Scan for/retrieve/distribute information
• Assess hypotheses for policy change from multiple perspectives
• Connect to “distant” expertise that is needed
3. Navigating the political rapids. Networks can–
• Identify policy decision makers and movers
• Identify stakeholders/allies, including networks of stakeholders
• Build relationships that allow coalition building and “horse-trading”
• Reach/connect to decision makers and movers in variety of ways (publicly, privately, one-on-one, in mass)
• Increase presence in formal policy making bodies (e.g., government advisory boards)
• Find others to “own” the policy change and lead the charge
4. Recognizing the window of opportunity. Networks can–
• Scan for “early warning” about local policy developments
• Scan for national issue agendas and policy trends that reveal windows
• Maintain contact with key players in policy deciding processes (agenda setters, etc.)
5. Managing mobilization and implementation. Networks can–
• Mobilize critical mass of advocacy voices
• Monitor implementation and effects of policies
• Raise visibility of implementation with stakeholders and media
At Network Impact, planning starts with network-centric questions.
We’re often asked to help an existing network to plan its future. “”What should we do next?”–to strengthen or expand or sustain the network. Helping networks answer the question–devise their strategies–depends on developing an understanding of the network’s condition. Here are some of the basic questions we ask the network (by interviewing its coordinators and stewards and surveying its members).
• What’s the purpose of the network? Yes, the same question you’d ask if you were working with an organization: Vision, Mission. Some networks have multiple purposes. A network’s purpose may evolve rapidly as its members come to know each other and realize what the potential value may be. If a network says its purpose is peer exchange/learning among members, it’s worth considering that as the network matures this value proposition may by superseded others. When you know the purpose, you can also consider whether the network’s structure (shape of connectivity) is the best one for the purpose.
• What type of network is it? It’s useful to classify a network as either being a connectivity or alignment or production network. (Learn more about these distinctions in Net Gains.) These different types provide different value for members and require different “enabling infrastructure” to support members’ activities.
• What stage of network evolution has the network reached? We have two ways of thinking about the “life cycle” of a network. One is a cycle of birth-to-growth, growth-to-stabilization, stabilization-to-turbulence, and turbulence-to-either-decline-or-transformation. Start-up networks have different needs and potential from mature, stable networks. Our second framework goes back to the connectivity-alignment-production model. All networks have a foundation of connectivity, but some of the evolve into alignment networks, and some alignment networks evolve into production networks. (Learn more about this model of network evolution.) An alignment network that is expanding requires a different set of strategies than a production network that is in turbulence.
• What are its members most important value propositions? How good do they feel about the value they are getting from participating in the network?It’s essential to be clear about members’ value propositions–the motivating forces behind the network’s energy–and to know how members feel their VPs are being addressed. (Read more about identifying and measuring value propositions.)
• What degree of connectivity do its members share? And what is the “shape” of the connectivity? Connectivity is the lifeblood of a network. But connections among members will vary. Some members will connect frequently with each other. others will connect infrequently. Some will connect with many other members, some with just a few. The patterns of connectivity can be mapped and analyzed, and this becomes the basis for strategies to strengthen connectivity. With one network, we asked members if they had talked with, met with, or collaborated on a project with other members–different intensities of connection. This allowed us to map not just who linked to who, but also some of the quality of the connectivity.
• What is being transacted (what flows) between members? When you know what the network’s members are doing with each other–whether it’s a network-sponsored activity or something some members just decided to do, the network can decide whether it wants to dedicate resources to enabling others to participate. If, for instance, a national network finds that some of its members are working on creating local networks of the same sort, it can decide to help them and others do this, or it can decide not to. Members’ transactions reveal opportunities for the network to provide more value.
To help networks do some of this planning work on their own we developed a self-assessment tool, the Network Health Assessment Scorecard, which can be used by network members to provide feedback and generate a where-do-we-stand conversation within the network.
But what a network’s members care about can be complicated. Just ask the Urban Sustainability Directors Network.
Knowing what network members want from each other and want to give to each other, and delivering on these “value propositions” makes or breaks a network. “If there’s no value,” says Bill Traynor, one of our favorite network builders, “people will start to exit. It’s a self-regulating system.” That’s pretty straightforward, but actually understanding and monitoring the members’ value propositions (VPs) is quite complicated. A member may embrace more than one proposition; different members may embrace different propositions; and what members care about may change over time. Given this complexity and dynamism, it’s worthwhile to check in on a network’s value propositions fairly regularly, not just when starting up the network.
One network we work with–the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), with about 70 members, each in a different city in the U.S. and Canada–conducted a value proposition check earlier this year. It asked members about nine distinct value propositions (VPs) that had been previously identified by members during their annual meeting. First members were asked to select and rank their three most important value propositions for continuing participation in the network. Then they were asked to score how well the network had been doing in the past year on delivering on their top-priority value propositions.
The results were illuminating and significantly influenced the network’s strategy for the next year.
• Of the nine VPs, 2 collected most of the #1 priority votes: “Getting to know many colleagues with similar jobs and with whom I can share” and “Having access to trusted information about issues and models.” As the summary of findings reported: It’s all about connecting to peers and quality information. Period. Nothing is in 3rdplace even. And this result was consistent with what the members had said a year earlier–a good sign that the network was on the right track.
• When it came to those two top value propositions, majorities of the members reported that the network was “delivering very well for me.” But nearly a third of members said the network’s delivery “could be improved”–and that triggered alarm bells that led network organizers to focus on improving and increasing specific network activities.
• Looking at several of the lower priority value propositions, it was noticeable that sizeable minorities of the membership reported they saw opportunities for participation but were not using them. That finding also prompted a refocus on members who had not become very active in the variety of network activities. They were contacted to find out more about how the network could better meet their needs.
As a result of its survey of members, the network has solid baseline information about the VP drivers of the network–and was able to tweak some of its plans to boost the network’s response to what its members value. It created a new service, the “small group discussion marketplace,” because some members wanted more opportunities to interact in smaller groups.
Why qualitative studies are useful network learning tools.
Recently in Boston, I joined more than 30 other network consultants and technical assistance providers to share approaches, frameworks, tools and insights about building networks for social change. The convening, sponsored by the Barr Foundation and the Interaction Institute for Social Change, drew a diverse group (together we had experience supporting networks of different size, purpose, and developmental stage, spanning public, private, and nonprofit sectors, from the local to the global). Yet many of us had come to the same place in our thinking. Here is one of the convergences.
How, Not Why
One thing is clear: Most social change agents we work with don’t need to be convinced of the power of networks. The network conversation is already prevalent in many fields. What practitioners need/want is grounded advice that draws from sound principles but connects principles to a do-able strategy that addresses their particular case.
At Network Impact we think about this as the need for a “middle term” – the ground that connects general principles to network purpose, context and action. For example, we say that in general networks need both “bonds” and “bridges.” But some networks are just about bridges (a network that connects all the people in a community who care about substance abuse prevention) and some networks may need to focus their energy on deepening bonds at the core –before coming to consensus on a network action plan, for example.
At the convening many of us agreed that more diagnostic cases about network building would be helpful. More places to go for a “thick description” of network purpose and context that also describes a network development strategy or “fix” and the outcome. One our favorite network cases describes the development of the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance – complete with back story, challenges, strategies and examples of network work plans. Authors are Mary Wissemann and Kristina Egan.
At Network Impact we also continue to think about ways to engage practitioners in chronicling their own network progress. In our work in network evaluation we have begun to include a qualitative component, encouraging network practitioners to reflect on their experience and write (or videograph) stories or cases. Members of the Massachusetts Regional Network to End Homelessness produce short reflections (250-500 words) on a quarterly basis. The sum of these reflections from the ten Regional Networks offers a lot of insight about why similar network strategies work well in some contexts and less well in others.
Do you know of a good network development case story? Share it with us through a comment.
In addition to detailed cases, how about a Case Directory? The Directory would list cases with a brief summary — just the headlines — with author or source. If you decide you’d like to know more, you would contact the author/source. Our friends at Cause Communications have a case template that we use in our consulting work to describe typical network challenges and solutions.
Profile of the Challenge:
• WHO: Rural advocates organized in five regional networks and two national networks
• WHAT: Influence policy to benefit rural people and places
• CHALLENGES: Diverse sectoral interests; difficulty building effective policy action initiatives
• QUESTIONS: How to decide on policy focus? Who will lead? What is the workplan?
What Was the Network Solution?
• Clarify decision making
• Identify criteria for deciding policy focus. Possible Options:
• Self governing steering committee with action teams
• Lead organization structure
• Network Manager structure
• All require a network agreement
Let me know what you think about the Directory of Cases idea. Do you have ideas for improving the Cause template. Do you have a case written up to share? Where are there other cases on the Internet that are worth linking to? Check out the 2 cases we’ve posted.
We’re betting on network approaches to become an important way of increasing social change.
For the past six years, Madeleine Taylor and I have been working with the idea that network-building approaches offer social-change agents and organizations a powerful new way to generate impact. We’ve consulted with networks large and small; written and circulated articles and drafted a handbook, Net Gains, that thousands have downloaded for free; and provided a PDF Network Health Scorecard, also free. In the process we’ve become convinced that networks for social impact is an emerging field ripe with potential value and opportunities for development–but also with evolutionary challenges. Recently we’ve summarized our assessment of the field’s condition, as part of the development strategy for our Center for Network Impact, and wanted to share this. Your feedback is welcome.
• There is a growing interest in the use of networks as alternatives and/or complements to organizational structures in the nonprofit/social-innovation/philanthropic sector. In the wake of several highly popular books about network phenomenon and theory, a significant jump in information from academics, practitioners, and experts has occurred. The rapid and wide spread of Web 2.0, digital social networking, ensures that interest in the many applications of networks will be sustained.
• The “practice field” is in an early stage of development. In our analysis of field-building, this first stage is characterized by conceptual framing and isolated examples of practice. In the next developmental stage, networks of practitioners and a wave of innovations will emerge, but practices remain fragmentary and are often considered to be proprietary. This precedes a stage in which practitioners converge around a common frameworks, methods, and tools; integrate previously differentiated practices; and develop a professional implementation support network.
• Some portions of the field appear to be gaining greater traction than others.Several growth areas are evident:
- The use by governments and larger nonprofits of service-delivery networks to reduce costs and increase effectiveness. Emergency preparedness is one niche in which both public and nonprofit entities are redesigning their systems around network models.
- Civic/nonprofit and community use of policy development and advocacy networks, driven by the success of Internet-based political action and growing interest in engaging a wide range of stakeholders in policy decision-making.
- The use by some foundations and nonprofits of networks for integrated place-based development.
- The use by some foundations of networks as a strategy for improving the effectiveness of grantmaking and efficiency in nonprofit sectors.
- “Web 2.0” social networks, driven by adaptation of new technological tools.
• The growing demand for knowledge about using networks for social impact is both top-down and bottom-up. Top-down “design” knowledge is sought by larger, more established institutions—foundations, public agencies, and larger nonprofits—that want to increase their effectiveness, but are uncertain about the value of network approaches or how to design these approaches. Bottom-up “practice” knowledge is sought by individuals and smaller organizations that want to get smarter about the use of networks, but have little funding to pay for learning and no established learning processes they can plug in to.
• The expertise about network building for social change and innovation covers the range of network theory, design, management, evaluation, and investing, but much of this relatively new knowledge is not made practical for and easily accessible by practitioners. Tools, “just in time” advice, and easily navigated information products are in demand, but there’s little capacity to respond at the scale of this demand.
• Development (philanthropic) capital is scarce. Few foundations have identified network building as a strategy that is funded (as opposed to just talked about) and there is competition among development practitioners for resources. For now, the prevailing model for field development is based on scarcity, rather than abundance, of resources.
Plastrik & Taylor talk with network maven Beth Kanter (and her video camera and blog.)
This blog post is a republished version of one written by Beth Kanter, whose blog on non-profit operations and technology is one of the more respected resources on the subject. You can also watch the video of our discussion – Net Gains Authors talk about Networks
Last week at the Packard Foundation, I finally had an opportunity to meet Peter Plastrik and Madeleine Taylor face-to-face.
I first came across their thinking and work on building social networks for social change via the resources section on the Barr Foundation web site back in 2006. Peter Plastrik and Madeleine Taylor co-wrote “Net Gains,” one of the first practical handbooks on building and working in networks for social change. Whether it is a network of organizations or individuals, this handbook provides a wealth of theory and practice on build, manage, and fine tune a network.
Peter is a president and co-founder of nuPOLIS, the Internet presence of the Innovation Network for Communities (INC), a national non-profit helping to develop and spread scalable innovations that transform the performance of community systems such as education, energy, land use, transportation and workforce development. Madeleine is co-founder and principal of Arbor Consulting Partners, a research and consulting group led by senior social scientists. We talked a lot about network practices. It was a fantastic opportunity to identify similarities and differences between building networks of organizations as well as individuals – and of course how to weave together the two.
There are many parallels to the use of social networks like Facebook. I was particularly interested in hearing their views on how to ignite a network – how it to get it started. For those who are working on social networks and looking at how to catalyze their crowds on places like Facebook or Twitter – the advice resonated. Do you know what the group’s value proposition is? Do you know what the individual value propositions are? (What’s the pork chop factor?) It’s all about building trust and relationships. It reminds me of Eugene Eric Kim’s point about networks – everybody is people. Peter and Madeleine describe networks as “platforms for relationships.” And the goal of those relationships can be learning, collaboration, policy, service delivery, advocacy, mobilizing or action.
Peter is one of those people who likes to draw his ideas and at one point he got up and drew a grid on the whiteboard about the different types of networks and what interventions are needed for success. Later, I found the chart in Net Gains. We also discussed the whole issue of network evaluation and the difficulty of measuring those relationships versus a specific impact. Also, the idea of faster tools like social network analysis that give us real time information and the need for someone who is embedded in the network as a real time evaluator. And, of course, what metrics to use.
Madeleine shared a copy of the network health scorecard, a diagnostic tool that networks can use to reflect on how to improve. She also discusses it in the video above. During lunch, we discussed the field of network building for social change – what’s needed to build this field? This is the drawing on the napkin that is described by Peter in the video. Peter and Madeleine raised some interesting questions about the use of social media and support of network’s work in a brief outline and I’ve pulled a couple of questions to chew on:
• What are the hypotheses about the differences social media can make for achieving a network’s goals – learning goals, policy advocacy goals, innovation goals, and others?
• What patterns can social media use reveal that provide strategic insight for network?
• How can social media be used to build high-quality connections, a motivating relationship between members and build trust and reciprocity?
One of the topics we discussed was about the skills and practices of network weavers – whether they are working with networks of organizations or supporting an organization’s network of supporters on Facebook. As Madeleine points out in the video above, a network weaver is looking at how people are connected and what value they are getting from being connected. A key skill of the network weaver is to pull out threads and pull people together. As Madeleine notes, “it isn’t about everyone being connected to everybody all the time.” A big part of the network weaver’s job is pattern recognition and that requires a sort of scanning and watching – that takes time. I also pointed out that it uses a different part of your brain and there is a need to shift mindsets to get other types of work done. I tend to map my “working the clouds” work in short, time boxed bursts. I tend to do it when my concentration is at a lower point. But, when I have to write or blog or think about something, I find more and more that I need to stop being social – not do Twitter, Facebook, or email. I also need to put classical music on my Ipod and concentrate in a different way. I’ve also found that I need to do something physical to transition between the two – like take a walk or simply walk around my desk. Peter described an interesting framework for thinking about this use of time:
- Activities that can be done while doing multiple tasks
- Activities that require quiet and doing that one task
- Activities that require several days of concentrating, creative immersion, and laser focus on that task
All in all, a great discussion about networks.
Urban Sustainability Directors hold their first annual meeting in Chicago.
Sixty-five sustainability directors from cities and counties in the U.S. and Canada came together for the first annual Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN) gathering in Chicago on September 23 to 25, 2009. Funded by the Surdna Foundation, The Home Depot Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Blackstone Ranch Institute, the USDN was formed to enable public sector sustainability leaders to learn from each other and accelerate achievement of ambitious city sustainability goals.
Mayors across North America from Vancouver to Miami are taking action to ensure that their cities are a part of the solution to global climate change. The commitment and action of these mayors has led to the growth in city staff dedicated to sustainable urban development, pursuing policies and actions from recycling and green building to green jobs and climate change planning. While this committed cadre of local government leaders has burgeoned, they have worked in isolation of each other, often tackling similar issues as their peers across the country without a national network to share experiences and partner.
While the mainstream media and non-profit environmental organizations often play cities off-of each other to see which is the greenest, these cities have joined forces to ensure mutual success and sharing of experiences in achieving urban sustainability goals to improve quality of life while solving environmental challenges, achieving cost savings, and promoting inclusive prosperity.
The fist annual USDN meeting included lively discussion of such common issues as energy efficiency retrofits in buildings, zero waste strategies, green infrastructure, and green workforce development. Members also discussed how to maximize the effectiveness of their sustainability offices at managing change. During the next twelve months, members will continue to network and support each others efforts to address sustainability challenges.
The co-chairs for the network are Sadhu Johnston from the city of Chicago, and Amanda Eichel from Seattle.
For more information on the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, contact Julia Parzen at [email protected]
by Julia Parzen
In our new “Web 2.0″ social-networking world, what’s the real promise of networks?
The three prevailing points of view toward the idea that networks offer an exciting new way of effecting social change both overstate and understate the potential social impact of connectivity.
• Analysts say that networks are an underlying structure for practically everything, and we can learn something from this for how we run society. As noted in Net Gains: A Handbook for Network Builders Seeking Social Change, “The power of networks is drawing increasing attention in mass media headlines as well as in specialized scientific literatures.” Physicist Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, in his book Linked, exemplified this point of view:
“Today we increasingly recognize that nothing happens in isolation. Most events and phenomena are connected, caused by, and interacting with a huge number of other pieces of a complex universal puzzle. We have come to see that we live in a small world, where everything is linked to everything else… We have come to grasp the importance of networks.”
• Embracers say that decentralized, highly autonomous structures–networks–are the revolutionary structures that will make society more effective and democratic. This view comes from a wide range of sources: “Web 2.0” Millenials promoting the “distributive power” of the Internet’s online networks; social movement builders opposing centralized power; and theoreticians who see a stark choice in how society organizes itself. Writing about the effort to halt the spread of swine flu, NY Times columnist David Brooks captured this either/or view:
“We face a series of decentralized, transnational threats: jihadi terrorism, a global financial crisis, global warming, energy scarcity, nuclear proliferation and, as we’re reminded today, possible health pandemics like swine flu… So how do we deal with these situations? Do we build centralized global institutions that are strong enough to respond to transnational threats? Or do we rely on diverse and decentralized communities and nation-states?… The correct response to these dynamic, decentralized, emergent problems is to create dynamic, decentralized, emergent authorities: chains of local officials, state agencies, national governments and international bodies that are as flexible as the problem itself.”
Information and communications technologies drive this revolution, note the authors of Working Wikily: How Networks Are Changing Social Change, a Packard Foundation report:
“New tools and technologies… are changing the way we communicate and connect… The changes can be seen in the way people are working together to create and disseminate knowledge through platforms like Wikipedia; in how people solve complex mathematical problems or write very stable software, as with Linux; and even in purely social activities, like sharing photos on Flickr and meeting new friends on MySpace… Wikis and other social media are engendering new, networked ways of behaving–ways of working wikily–that are characterized by principles of openness, transparency, decentralized decision-making and distributed action… People are beginning to use these same tools and approaches to create social change too–organizing new forms of political expression, social action, and community building.”
• Skeptics say that, sure, networks are a different way of organizing work, but do they really do better than organizations? This comes from founders and managers of the many existing social-change organizations, as well as from philanthropic funders looking for more impact. “How do we know whether networks really work?” ask the authors of Working Wikily. Does the strength of networks “translate into real social impact in communities.” This is not just a reflexive fear of the new or the jarring implications of shifting to decentralized organizing; it is a serious concern about the effectiveness of network models and the not-insignificant challenges of designing, building, and managing networks.
At Network Impact, our point of view includes each of these—analysis, embrace, and skepticism—within an overarching framework. Yes, networks are real and omnipresent. Yes, they create impressive effects. And yes they can deliver better results—but only in some, certainly not all, situations.
More importantly, we believe that the development of networks to achieve certain effects and benefits in certain situations is an emerging practice of specialized knowledge, skills, tools, and activities that can be learned, applied, and improved. This network-building practice benefits from knowledge about how networks work “in nature.” It can have large-scale, transformative effects of the sort claimed by Web 2.0 visionaries and decentralization advocates. It can offer comparative advantages to the organization-centric approach—but whether it does depends on many factors that have to be understood. In some cases, networks can replace an organization-centric approach; but in others, networks link organizations together, rather than replacing them; and in still others, especially when using standardized processes in a stable environment, organizations continue to rule. (As nuPOLIS partner John Cleveland says: “You don’t want to rely on a network to produce your weekly paycheck.”)
We’ve been working with networks–policy networks, advocacy networks, learning networks, production networks–for about five years, while also reading and learning about network theory. And we work as a network: nuPOLIS is a creation of the Innovation Network for Communities, designed with a small core and far-flung networks that produce social innovations. In the process, we’ve learned that:
• Networks are emergent, but can be designed and planned.
• Networks are decentralized and complex, but can be managed.
• Networks are dynamic, but can be assessed.
Now, with Madeleine Taylor as the lead entrepreneur, we’re developing Network Impact to develop a comprehensive network-building practice for social change. NI will provide tools, such as the network assessment scorecard already posted. It will conduct a learning agenda, offer network planning, assessment, and building services. Stay tuned.
Answering some basic questions about the network can yield a useful diagnosis.
As I’ve designed networks and coached network builders, the question always comes up: How can we know how the network is doing? In some ways, the answer is complicated. There are different types of networks and networks evolve through different stages–factors that should be taken into account. But it’s also true that some things about networks hold for any network at any stage of life.
Working with colleagues at Cause Communications and nuPOLIS, and testing ideas with the marvelous networks of Rural People Rural Policy, an initiative of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, we’ve developed a handy Network Health Scorecard. With just 22 questions and a 1-5 scoring system, it focuses on key aspects of any network: purpose, performance, operations, and capacity. It’s designed for group use–network members answer each question and then discuss their answers–or on your own.
Try it and post comments to let us know how it worked for you so we can improve this tool for network builders.
Madeleine Taylor is the lead entrepreneur at Network Impact and a principal in Arbor Consulting.