At Network Impact, we’ve been arguing for this for several years. A fascinating new report from the Monitor Institute picks up the theme.
The Monitor Institute’s recent (and excellent) report, “What’s Next for Philanthropy,” describes the changing strategic landscape in which foundations make their investment decisions–and urges philanthropists to adopt a new set of practices for increasing their impact that includes “activating networks.” Monitor’s reasoning: “Advances in network theory and practice now allow funders to be more deliberate about supporting connectivity, coordinating networks, and thinking about how the collective impact of all of their efforts can produce change far beyond the success of any single grant, grantee, or donor.”
Yes, indeed! Madeleine Taylor and I made this point in our first report on networks,”Network Power for Philanthropy and Nonprofits,” in 2004. With financial and intellectual support from the Barr Foundation in Boston, we identified numerous examples of social innovators using network approaches to generate impact, dissected the theories of networks, framed the practices of network building, and suggested ways that the social-change sector could accelerate and spread the use of networks to increase social impact. More recently, as we’ve seen foundations become more interested in network building, we wrote a short paper on what foundations should worry about and expect when they start investing in social change networks.
Monitor’s report offers a compelling, spot-on paradigm shift for foundations:
Simply stated, philanthropists operate today in a stressful, rapidly evolving, networked, and interdependent world.
Many of philanthropy’s core practices and principles remain essentially unchanged from the way they were a hundred years ago, when Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller first created the foundation form. As we and other observers have been noting for some time, the world around philanthropy is changing much, much faster than philanthropy itself…
…Where the cutting edge of philanthropic innovation over the last decade was mostly about improving organizational effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness, we believe that the work of the next 10 years will have to build on those efforts to include an additional focus on coordination and adaptation. Coordination, because given the scale and social complexity of the challenges they face, funders will increasingly look to other actors, both in philanthropy and across sectors, to activate sufficient resources to make sustainable progress on issues of shared concern. No private funder alone, not even Bill Gates, has the resources and reach required to move the needle on our most pressing and intractable problems. And adaptation, because given the pace of change today, funders will need to get smarter more quickly, incorporating the best available data and knowledge about what is working and regularly adjusting what they do to add value amidst the dynamic circumstances we all face.
Monitor’s summary of why networks matter in this changing world focuses on the need for greater coordination and leveraging of resources to achieve systemic impact–and what a big change in practice this is for foundations: Although the individual grant is the typical unit of analysis for most foundations, the success of any grant or organization is rarely sufficient to move the needle on a complex problem. We have all felt the irony when successful programs are lauded while the system they aspire to change continues to fail. Funders are well positioned to support connectivity and to coordinate and knit together the pieces of a network of activity that can have impacts far beyond the success of any one grant, grantee, or donor. And advances in network theory and practice now allow funders to be much more deliberate about supporting and participating in networks and in thinking about how the collective impact of a coordinated portfolio of grants can produce more significant change. These very advances in network practice–the art of building, growing, and maintaining various types of networks–are the focus of our consulting, tool-building, and research work at Network Impact.
Clay Shirkey, a champion of network approaches, sees a new revolution coming.
Here is Shirkey’s fascinating insight, offered in an interview in the June 2010 issue of WIRED:
“People have had lots of free time for as long as there’s been an industrialized world. But that free time has mainly been something to be used up rather than used, especially in postwar America, with the rise of suburbanization and long commutes. Suddenly we no longer lived in tight-knit communities and therefore we spent less time interacting face-to-face. As a result, we ended up spending the bulk of our free time watching television…
Someone born in 1960 has watched something like 50,000 hours of television already–more than five and a half solid years…”
Somehow, watching television became a part-time job for every citizen in the developed world. But once we stop thinking of all that time as individual minutes to be whiled away and start thinking of it as a social asset that can be harnessed, it all looks very different. The buildup of this free time among the world’s educated population–maybe a trillion hours per year–is a new resource. It’s what I refer to as the cognitive surplus.”
Shirkey further argues that as watching television, a solitary activity, is replaced by the use of technologies that promote social connection, there is a growing demand and ability for shared and productive activity.
“When someone buys a computer or mobile phone, the number of consumers and producers both increase by one. This lets ordinary citizens, who’ve been previously locked out, pool their free time for activities they like and care about. So instead of free time seeping away in front of the television set, the cognitive surplus is going to be poured into everything from goofy enterprises like lolcats, where people stick captions on cat photos, to serious political activities like Usahahidi.com, where people report human rights abuses.”
In short, the cognitive surplus will feed the process, already begun, of social networks of various sorts using technologies that support/enhance/ease connectivity to align around particular ideas and identities and then produce value. An idea that Shirkey explores in his new book, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.
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.
First in a series about monitoring and assessing network practice.
In our experience, people who build networks for social change are deeply curious about their network’s performance, but they are wary of the conventional evaluation “straitjacket.” They can’t imagine how a rigid assessment framework could be usefully applied to the dynamic, self-organizing network they are nourishing. And they wonder how an evaluation approach designed to assess organizational practice could possibly capture the far more complex practice of network organizing.
When we design an evaluation for a network, we do draw on conventional evaluation principles but we also use a unique network evaluation framework to track and document a network’s evolution and outcomes. We look at things having to do with networks as a distinct organizing form, such as network structure and composition: Who is connected to whom? What is transacted through these links? We also track value creation (What value does the Network produce both for individual members and for the broader constituency it serves?) and internal network conditions that contribute tonetwork health (such as complementary capacities and diversity). Although it is sometimes difficult to tease out contributing factors, we try to design evaluations that allow network builders to assess the relationship between network organizing and network impact. What difference did network organizing make and why?
One way to document the difference that network organizing makes is to compare performance across networks with similar goals and different network organizing practices. Have you had any experience with this approach? What do you think of it? What approaches are you using?
When we first started thinking about network evaluation we found the work of two Canadians very helpful: Heather Creech and Terri Willard through the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
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.
Second in a series about monitoring and assessing network practice.
Lately I’ve been giving a lot of thought to network adaptation – and, from an evaluative perspective, how best to capture the trajectory of networks with multiple, emergent activities and connections. In open and rapidly evolving nets, of course, members often need real-time information to make effective decisions. But, even in relatively stable nets, organizers want to know about the results of their catalyzing efforts. So many networks begin with a deliberate effort to weave new connections, but few build in the means to systematically gauge the effect of such efforts over time.
Pete Plastrik and I continue to be interested in learning more about how to monitor patterns of network engagement and action in networks whose members use 2.0 digital media to connect and communicate. BTW we have learned a lot about this by following some of the conversations that Beth Kanter hosts on her blog. In other networks with known membership, we’ve had some success combining qualitative methods (e.g. interviews and member journaling) with member surveys.
Truth to tell, all-member surveys that we’ve developed took a lot of time to design. But most have been “baseline” surveys that cover a lot of ground in order to catch up on the network’s evolution. Such surveys can be followed up with shorter surveys to a subset of members (say, 20% per year). I recently learned that this has been the approach of the Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation in tracking their network of more than 400 fellows.
Have you designed a network survey? What kinds of questions did you include? What did you learn that was useful? Post a comment here.
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
Building an Internet platform that links rural networks into a force for public policy change.
When the Kellogg Foundation started investing in getting grassroots networks in rural areas to work together to develop and advocate for rural-friendly government policies, it envisioned the creation of “a shared platform that helps coordinate research, learning, tool and resource development, expertise, and communication.” In other words, using the Internet to build a new collective capacity by connecting, learning, and aligning thousands of rural-based organizations, and helping them to collaborate and organize at vast scale.
To help turn that vision into reality, the Innovation Network for Communities developed a concept paper about what such a user-driven digital platform might look like and how it might be built. Although the idea focused on the particulars of supporting rural policy networks, we suspect that it has application to other network building situations.
Our starting point for the concept was what the platform is supposed to help people do. We imagined that “RuralUS.net” (a working name for the Web site) would help individuals, organizations, and networks interested in and engaging in rural policy change to:
• Find, learn about, and connect with each other, and then strengthen links.
• Align and organize in digital communities of varying size, shapes, and duration around shared characteristics (e.g., geography, age), interests, and identities.
• Access expert resources (digital modules, news feeds, webinar training, etc.) for developing policy change capacities and efforts.
• Collaborate in the production of policy change (e.g., identify opportunities; develop policy agendas; develop policy proposals; generate advocacy; etc.)
• Evaluate ideas and information by assembling collective points of view digitally (based on voting, Web page rankings, member- or user-community recommendation “engines” like Amazon.com’s “others like you have purchased…,” etc.)
The platform, we proposed, ”will combine the functions of a more traditional ‘trusted source’ Web site that provides users with reliable information, tools, and expertise with those of a ‘user-sourced’ site that engages users in peer-to-peer accessing, generating, sharing, using, and archiving of information.” Users would be able to:
• Build online personal social networks nationwide relevant to their concerns.
• Engage in “rapid learning communities” focused on learning about rural policy issues of immediate importance to them.
• Search for and access a wide range of expert materials, tools, and advice concerning specific rural policies; how to build policy change networks; and other topics;
• Generate peer-to-peer knowledge about and tools for policy-change processes and specific policy issues.
• Archive and share their experiences as rural policy change makers.
• Digitally access relevant meetings and conferences (e.g., regional planning meetings).
• Readily access and share news from the rural policy frontlines: news feeds, blogs.
• Build their policy-change capacities, such as in communications for policy advocacy.
• Create a user-generated “early warning” system that identifies and alerts others about changes in local, state, regional, tribal, federal policy opportunities.
Of course, what capabilities should be built into the platform depends on what the potential users say they need and would use. To get some sense of the potential look and functions of the user-driven dimension of RuralUS.net, we looked closely at a number of Web sites, including:
www.govloop.com– online community for government employees created by Steve Ressler, a federal IT employee, about 5 years ago. “I wanted an online forum to connect all my various groups and to connect with government employees across agencies. I wanted an informal place where people could gather, share their ideas, and ask other questions. A place that could serve as a repository for both current and future government employees as they start and grow in their career.”
www.techsoup.com – technology resources for nonprofit organizations. “TechSoup.org offers nonprofits a one-stop resource for technology needs by providing free information, resources, and support. In addition to online information and resources, we offer a product philanthropy service called TechSoup Stock. Here, nonprofits can access donated and discounted technology products, generously provided by corporate and nonprofit technology partners.” (Site is 10 years old; unique monthly visitors: 109,880.)
www.changemakers.net — Supported by Ashoka Foundation. “Changemakers is an initiative of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public that focuses on the rapidly growing world of social innovation. It provides solutions and resources needed to help everyone become a changemaker and presents compelling stories that explore the fundamental principles of successful social innovation around the world. Changemakers is building the world’s first global online “open source” community that competes to surface the best social solutions, and then collaborates to refine, enrich, and implement those solutions. Changemakers begins by providing an overarching intellectual framework for collaborative competitions that bring together individual social change initiatives into a more powerful whole.” (Unique visitors monthly: 25,797)
www.socialedge.org – supported by Skoll Foundation. “Check what our expert bloggers have to say about social entrepreneurship: practical advice, inspirational stories, name dropping… Every week is a new story on Social Edge.” (Unique visits monthly: 21,662)
Point us to other examples that you know about. Let us know your thoughts about designing digital media to promote social change.