nonprofits

Archive

August 14, 2016 by Patti

Knowledge in the Network

Off the shelf

Pulled off the bookshelf last month

The past few months I have been working on a few different projects for nonprofits, initially focused on network mapping or the development of a NetWorkShop, but slowly morphing into (or taking sideroads down) knowledge management. Fortunately I have a good bookshelf and a good network, and a long history of my own. A surprising number of elements came together in both cases, and I quite happily brought some lessons from the (mostly) corporate KM world into some nonprofit work.

Especially pleasing was to see an alignment between Harold Jarche’s networked learning model (recently updated and republished in his recentblog post) and the three types of social change networks from Net Gains by Madeleine Taylor and Peter Plastrik. Harold’s model is focused on learning and personal knowledge mastery and acknowledges that we live in multiple networks and that these networks have different structures:

networked-learning-model Jarche

  • Our loose-knit social networks offer us a fairly large number of informal, or weak, ties.
  • Within our communities of practice, we develop some strong ties, so the network becomes a more trusted space
  • To really get work done, our ties need to be strongest and we may need some formal structure

One version of this graphic shows little network maps illustrating whether the ties between nodes are strong or weak. Having seen this in the past, I found it this time while I was researching working out loud. What really worked for me was, obviously, the way that Harold has so neatly integrated the network foundation into the model.

Because I’ve been in the nonprofit space and the immediate client need was to introduce network concepts and network thinking, I immediately saw the connection to the Taylor/Plastrik model’s differentiation of network types as connectivity, alignment, and production. Now, the purpose of this model is to provide insight for people who are creating, building networks so the intent of the model is a bit different. (I’ve also included the key tasks for a network builder in each type of network.)

Connectivity Network Alignment Network Production Network
Definition Connects people to allow easy flow of and access to information and transactions Aligns people to develop and spread an identity and collective value proposition Fosters joint action for specialized outcomes by aligned people.
Key task of network builder Weaving — Helping people make connections, increase ease of sharing information Facilitating — helping people to explore potential shared identity and value propositions Coordinating — helping people plan and implement collaborative action

So you see that it did not take a great leap to see the similarities in these. Our social networks are all about connectivity and access to ideas; we align ourselves in communities of practice with those people who have common interests and who want to share more formally; and, when it comes time to set goals and get some work done, we need more structure and people to coordinate the work.

I love the congruence in seeing these models come together; I wouldn’t try too hard to make them agree in all aspects. What I like is that they both use sound principles from our knowledge about how networks work, the underlying principles of network structure, to inform action about using networks to enhance knowledge.

(Net Gains was written in 2006. Last year, Pete and Madeleine collaborated with third author, John Cleveland, to update and expand that into Connecting to Change the World.)

Share

Archive

September 27, 2014 by Patti

Connecting to Change the World

I’ve worked with Madeleine Taylor and Pete Plastrik on a number of network analysis projects over the past four years. They were writing  Net Gains, a handbook for network builders, at the same time that I was writing Net Work, but we didn’t meet until a few years after that. They have both continued to contribute to understanding how the intentional creation, weaving, and nurture of networks supports social change. Their clients and colleagues touch many of the influential foundations in this country.

Not long ago, Madeleine and her colleagues at Network Impact, published a Network Evaluation Guide. This (free) handbook is a great resource for people who are looking at network building as part of a social change strategy and want to be able to put measurement frameworks in place so that they will understand the impact of the network building on their work. This has terrific stuff in it, and I apologize for not writing about it sooner.

And this week (DrumRoll, please) Peter and Madeleine and their colleague John Cleveland have just published a shiny new book, Connecting to Change the World: Harnessing the Power of Networks for Social Impact. (More information is available on the Island Press website, where there is a 50% discount until September 30, so better get it this weekend.

Share

Archive

January 8, 2013 by Patti

Networks and NonProfits

I’ve had the good fortune over the past two years to see my work shift into the nonprofit space. I miss some of my corporate clients, but it has been both a rewarding and a good learning experience to participate in this other world. I’m getting ready to do a webinar [link updated 4/2 to take you to the full replay] on the 14th of January for the Leadership Learning Community. It’s titled Network Analysis (SNA/ONA) Methods for Assessment & Measurement. It’s the result of some thinking and working with June Holley and Claire Reinelt on the various things I’ve seen in the nonprofit world. June and Claire will also be sharing case studies on the webinar.

Part of what’s been interesting over the past years (as I was working on Net Work and thereafter) is the pick-up of interest in all things networks and nonprofits. I use this graphic in my workshops as a way to get people to talk about what they have (or might) read:

nonprofit reading

This is certainly not exhaustive, but it’s a pretty good list. So I have published this list (with hyperlinks) as Net Work’s NonProfit Reading List.

Two recent additions to the list (one made it into the graphic, the other not yet):

The LLC’s recent publication, Leadership & Networks (October 2012) by Claire Reinelt and Deborah Meehan. I am a contributing co-author on this paper, along with some great collaborators. The report is intended for “those who run and fund leadership programs that develop and support leadership for social change.” It highlights the importance of, and ways that, leaders in social change should be more network-aware and ways that programs can bring network literacy into their work.

I’ve also added an as-yet unpublished paper developed by Heather Creech and colleagues for IISD (especial thanks to co-author Michelle Laurie, for sharing this). I’ve been a fan of Heather’s for some time as she has been working in the development world for many years offering insights into how networks can support sustainable development. This new publication, Performance improvement and assessment of collaboration: starting points for networks and communities of practice provides a very good breakdown of types of communities of practice and suggestions for ways to measure value created by each.

Which brings me back to the topic of the webinar: it is important to understand not just how network analysis can support nonprofits in designing and assessing networks and measuring the impact of the network, but also to understand the limitations. It’s a topic of active inquiry for me — having been so immersed in SNA/ONA for so long, I am finding that it is important to be able to understand how network maps and metrics can be indicators of outcome. That’s the new net work.

Share

Archive

July 7, 2011 by Patti

Net Work Investment

Since my book came out four years ago, I have been increasingly connecting with groups in the nonprofit sector, consulting with nonprofits, and trying to navigate the differences between enterprises and nonprofits. I have been saying, working from my gut feel, that nonprofits somehow have been sooner to “get it” about networks. There is now emerging a good body of case studies and examples of how intentional, actively supported — and funded — network building within the nonprofit space achieves remarkable results.

A recent webinar sponsored by Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO), “What is the role of Networks in creating scale?” highlighted  the work and thinking that is showing results (and is part of the ongoing learning dialogue). The panel for the webinar,  included Diana Scearce, of the Monitor Institute (co-author of Working Wikily and more recently, author of the awesome “Connected Citizens: The Power, Peril and Potential of Networks“); Roberto Cremonini of Cremonini Consulting Network (who led knowledge management and networking activities at the Barr Foundation in Boston for seven years); and Gayle Williams, Executive Director of the Mary Reynolds Babcock foundation, which is focused on alleviating poverty in the southern U.S.  Nancy Murphy, from GEO, facilitated the panel discussion and kept the remote audience engaged and interacting.

Diana set the stage by providing a framework for network thinking and development, an approach that blends traditional mechanisms for supporting social change initiatives with network-minded mechanisms:

 

Foundations like the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation and the Barr Foundation have been using the networked mindset, and these approaches, effectively, and are working through the challenges of working with multiple stakeholders and learning how to put structures in place that support networked action — and learning — that require giving up on linear thinking and working organically.

Roberto gave a terrific example of how the Barr Foundation managed its funding for Boston youth sports programs by showing, side-by-side, what Barr could accomplish using a traditional approach versus what it could (and did!) accomplish using networked thinking:

Both practitioners emphasized the emergent role of weaver, or facilitator, or “network officer” (as described in the linked document by the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, a good and detailed description of the nitty-gritty of the work required); the need to work with the entire ecosystem; and the importance of understanding accountability.   The RE-AMP Energy Network case study provides a good example of building a network by starting with a systemic analysis of the ecosystem and the use of a skilled network facilitator.

A key audience question was, “How do you measure the success of the network?” Gayle Williams talked about the network that MRBF is funding to push tax policy legislation in Alabama. I liked her answer a lot: you can look at the results, actual changes in the tax policy, but also you need to be sure that the network is always asking the questions, “who else needs to be involved?”  How are the relationships? How easy is it for people to come into the network?” The speakers all agreed that organizational/social network analysis is playing a key role in helping people “see” their networks and understand how to improve connections.

This excellent webinar is available for replay at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYudIfermUg

I have always said (and written) that a network produces value based on its purpose, and also provides value to those in it. One of the cases mentioned in this webinar is one I have some personal connections to, the Barr Fellows program which is also supported by the Barr Foundation and facilitated by colleagues at IISC. My friend and colleague Claire Reinelt recently published a case study on this program, which weaves cohorts of nonprofit leaders in the Boston area. Fellows are given 3-month sabbaticals, a shared learning experience somewhere in the global south, and the opportunity to develop “authentic, honest, and accountable relationships with each other.”  It’s not hard to imagine the value to the city of Boston of such inter-connectivity across the Fellows, nor the amazing fund of social capital that each of the Fellows has to draw on.

This work, this investment, in networks and communities is one of the areas of commonality between what we are seeing in Enterprise 2.0 and the nonprofit world. In E2.0, the focus is on communities (see my comments on Rachel Happe‘s talk at the E2.0 conference — and her talk itself, The Strategic Imperative of Communities) but I refuse to get into the semantic arguments about the differences between networks and communities. For the purposes of declaring that work gets gone, goals get accomplished, and visions achieved best through connected sets of people, it doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter what we call them when there are opportunities to learn. The big learning so far this week: E2.0 and nonprofits agree. If you want to work successfully, you have to invest in networks. Community managers/facilitators/network officers/network weavers. Whatever you call them, you need them, and you need to invest in them.

Share