Today some Packard Foundation staff who have been thinking about
network effectiveness, plus our visiting scholar Beth Kanter, got to
chat with evaluation expert Michael Quinn Patton about evaluating
networks. Our Evaluation Director Gale Berkowitz invited Michael to
spend a day at the Foundation while he was out on the West Coast.
Michael has a nice story telling approach to sharing his thinking. I
think the stories belong to his clients, but here are my takeaways.
After reading Working Wikily 2.0 he missed a continuum that goes from:
Network → Coordinate → Cooperate → Partner
Our
discussion followed along this frame. We talked about the realities of
network ebb and flow. Organizational Effectiveness Program Officer
Kathy Reich mentioned that we get the advice “build your network before
you need it”. And Michael pointed out that sometimes networks will hum
along at a lower level of activity, doing no more than sharing
information e.g., tracking state court cases to predict when the issue
could become a Supreme Court case. While the network is just
“networking” or is engaging in basic activities it is building the
trust needed for the network to activate, moving into campaign mode to
solve something.
He also talked about how sometimes there are subgroups of effectiveness
within a network. When it is time to mobilize the network it may need
to get smaller, leaving behind outliers who have a hard time
functioning in a network.
Michael has heard funders criticized
when they are slow to support a network’s activation; requiring
extensive proposal work when the network is responding to the rapid
emergence of an opportunity. Just when network members should be
devoting their attention to the window of opportunity they get bogged
down in a time consuming proposal process. Could foundations get money
out faster to already trusted partners?
Another essential
network function is to watch for a window of opportunity for
activation. So an early task is to create a shared vision of that
window of opportunity. Would it be a new health minister? a disaster?
front page headline about the issue? Other networks focus on creating a
window.
Sometimes after intense outcomes focused action the
network will settle back into just networking. Some networks stay vital
with scenario planning - what could go wrong? In addition they conduct
drills. (that is what firefighters do; they drill and practice so they
are ready for a fire) Others become a listening, or as Beth said -
sensing network.
Network Ebb and Flow – so it might looks more like this
We tried to figure out the axis for a two dimensional grid. We came up with something familiar.
One axis would be the extent to which there are identifiable outcomes. You could ask; how close are network members’ description of their shared purpose? The other axis would be process. Where are network members on process issues; relationship, trust, and understanding of each other’s niche.
This reconfirmed for me why social network mapping is tool that can be used for network evaluation. Process questions include the frequency of use of the network, who you go to get information, how important the network is to you vs. other things, how much do you trust the information you get from the network. The questionnaire could include questions that get to alignment on the purpose and hoped for outcomes also.
I came away convinced that we funders and network participants should be patient in our networks, and I am curious about work that has been done on network life cycles. Feel free to share your ideas here.
Stephanie McAuliffe is the Director of Human Resources at the Packard Foundation.
Comments