This past week, June Holley did a brown bag lunch at the Packard Foundation on network weaving and I was lucky enough to learn from her for a few hours! How would I describe June Holley? She's the guru of network weaving and walks on water.
She gave a brilliant presentation that shared the story of footing binding in China and how using a networked approach and network weaving techniques, they were able to change the practice in a decade.
She covered some techniques of network weaving, sharing her check list of network weaving. One of the ideas that she covered is the practice of making introductions or "closing the triangle." I was reflecting on that and how Twitter can really facilitate network weaving. Here's an example:
Charlene Li posted the above tweet looking for examples of social media in schools. I immediately thought of someone in my network, Vicky Davis, who writes the Coolcat Teacher blog.
So I quickly made an introduction, thinking that they both come from different networks, but now could mutually benefit one another. My cc: to June Holley, was a little tongue and cheek or sort wink and node to the master that I was applying one of her lessons.
Another master at social network analysis and network weaving, gave me some network weaving coaching from Twitter as well - saying that it was important to let everyone know the value of closing the triangle.
So, decided to write this post! Thank you June for a fantastic and inspiring workshop!
How are you weaving people in your network? Have a story?
In our book, The Networked Nonprofit, co-authored with Allison Fine, we provide an overview of mapping your social network in Twitter and other sites using some of the social network analysis tools available.
As someone who loves to play with analytics, visuals, maps, and other geekery, I've been wanting to explore in more depth the how-to and the techniques. To take my learning deeper on social network analysis and mapping techniques and how they can be applied them to a social media strategy, I took a workshop with Marc Smith. He is a self-described "Internet Sociologist" and developer of NodeXL. The workshop was organized by colleague, Tatyana Kanzavelli
This FREE software works as an add-on template in Excel, allows you import data from Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and Email and create social network analysis maps. It doesn't require that you know a programming language, although you need to understand the basic vocabularly of social network analysis and how to translate this to your social media strategy. After all, data is only as good as it is actionable! Otherwise, you waste a lot of time creating meaningless, but cool maps.
What I liked best about this workshop and the instructor is that it wasn't on the software features. He gave context of social network analysis, explained the value proposition for using it to help you make social media strategy improvements, and walked us through some examples in the software. I learned a lot but need to spend more time with the tool and terminology - and apply it to a real world situation.
What I'd love to see is a cheat sheet that maps out the technical social analysis terms with strategy tactics so you knew which analysis run to make what decisions. Or, a guide to before/after maps so you could see how visualizing your network helped you improve strategy.
I loved getting context in workshops and Marc didn't disappoint. For
example, I learned that the first ever social networking analysis map
was created by Jacob Moreno. It looked at the relationships between players on a football team. Who liked each other, who didn't. Apparently this team chemistry is important to winning.
My notes:
People are using social media for social interaction and leaving what Eugene Eric Kim called "ant trails." Social networking analysis can track those interactions (replies, commenting, like, etc) and help you make decisions with your strategy.
Without social networking analysis, it's like a weatherman trying to predict a snowstorm without seeing a whole weather map. It gives you a 10,000 view of your ecosystem. Without this visualization, it's like three blind men touching the elephant. There's too much unstructured data (comments, replies, likes, etc) - you need to see a picture or map.
When you map your network, it tells you a story. Who is connected to whom? How are they interacting? Where are the clusters? Who are the influencers? Who are the bridge builders between clusters? Who is in the edges? Who isn't connected? Who should I spend my time responding to and cultivating? The analysis looks at frequency of interaction, relationship structure (two-way, one-way), and helps reveal structural similarities.
An individual's online social behavior and connections can be looked at against social networking analysis characteristics and different profiles or roles are then created. He showed an example of this in an online community SNA and pointed out the lurkers, conversation starters, trolls, based on particular patterns in the map.
He covered social network analysis 101 and key metrics including centrality, cohesion, density, and betweeness. That last one, "betweeness" describes how long the path is between people. There is great power and responsibility in the people have high betweeness. To illustrate this, he showed a social network analysis based on voting record of senators. Not surprisingly, it clusters into two groups, plus there a few senators who ranked high in "betweeness." Can you guess who they are?
Social network analysis help you figure out who, where, how much, and how people in your network are connected. Seeing these relationships in aggregate helps you make decisions.
How are you using social network analysis concepts to help guide your decisions in social media strategy for external communications? Have some examples? Share them in the comments.
Note from Beth: As visiting scholar at the Packard Foundation, I'm connecting with other people who are studying and learning about how networks work. A lot of the ideas resonate with using online social networks and social media effectively for nonprofits, especially in the larger frame of movement building. This week at the Packard Foundation, I had the opportunity to meet Steve Waddell whose research focuses on Global Action Networks.
One of the tools for better understanding networks are visual diagnostics and mapping techniques. This another area of Steve's interest and expertise. He co-authored a paper called "Visual Diagnostics and Mapping for Scaling Change" and we had an opportunity to discuss it. He agreed to write a four-part primer on a visual diagnostics, mapping, and social networking analysis primer and how nonprofits might use these tools for social change.
We can easily be overwhelmed by the complexity of our work. Every non-profit works with “systems” – internal ones relating to how work gets done, issue systems relating to the topic that the NGO is working to address, and mental model systems about strategy. Clearly “seeing” those systems is important for success. There are new forms of “mapping”, including social network analysis, which can vastly enhance and speed understanding of the systems. They are diagrams of arrows and nodes that can communicate tremendous amounts of information visually much more easily than volumes of text.
Within a system are stakeholders that can include individuals, organizations, networks of organizations, the range of their actions, their ways of thinking vis-à-vis the issue, and the natural and man-created environmental factors that influence the system. Stakeholders may or may not identify themselves as participants in the system. One of the challenges of developing an issue system is to build participants’ identity with it; this is critical to creating effective action to realize opportunities, address needs and respond to challenges.
A core concept in systems mapping is “purpose”. Generally there are three types of purposes that are priorities for non-profits to understand.
Production System: The purpose here is the non-profit’s itself, and the maps describe
relationships and roles in realizing the purpose; this commonly models
how the organization does its work.
Issue System: This system is where the non-profit is one of many entities that are working to
address an issue such as health care, deforestation, peace, and
community development.
Mental Models: These visuals describe how people (individuals, groups) think the world works, such as theories of change, power structures, and cause-effect models in general.
Each type of mapping has specific benefits. The production system maps aid an organization to understand how work actually gets done, in comparison to formal org charts. This analysis can assist in bringing greater alignment between the two, which in turn reduces conflict and enhances productivity.
Issue mapping allows a non-profit to understand key leverage points in the bigger system it is trying to influence. These are points that, when focused upon, have a large ratio of amount-of-effort to desired-change. The focus can involve application of resources, or actually reducing resources.
The mental model mapping can uncover conflict, make it discussable, and enhance effectiveness. People can understand why someone else is doing what they are doing. Often this helps people understand that their mental model may be important, but incomplete vis-à-vis the change goal – and therefore help people’s respective efforts connect much more effectively.
These maps can include literally hundreds of nodes and arrows, or very few. Experience working with people around the world proves that even relatively complex systems with even a couple of hundred nodes can be understood by people with very limited education. Key is a participatory development process. The map illustrating this post was developed by a couple of dozen people in Guatemala from their mental models, to support CARE to vastly enhance its impact. An evaluation a year later showed that the process was transformational from two perspectives: people had significantly changed their relationships (who they were working with), and they had significantly changed how they understood their work vis-à-vis others’.
This is part 1 of a series of social networking analysis techniques. The next installment will explain two types of social networking analysis techniques, web crawling and inter-personal/inter-organizational ties.
What are your questions about system mapping and how you might use this in organization's strategy for movement building?
As Principal of Networking Action, Steve Waddell applies his 20+ years of experience in multi-stakeholder network development to address complex issues regionally and globally.
Last week, as part of my work at the Packard Foundation as visiting scholar I had the opportunity to participate in a face-to-face convening of the "Network of Network Funders," facilitated by the Monitor Institute. The most exciting moment for me was to meet June Holley face-to-face - the guru of network weaving.
Network weavers are people who intentionally and informally - and often serendipitously - weave new and richer connections between and among people, groups, and entities in networks. They also weave new and richer connections between among networks.
Note that the definition uses the plural form, network weavers versus network weaver. That was one of my ah ha moments from June's presentation and subsequent discussion. You want everyone in your network to do network weaving on different levels. Take a look at June Holley's list of characteristics and you'll quickly see that network weavers wear a variety hats - networkers, project coordinators, facilitators, and guardians. I might also add "technology stewards."
June urged us not to think narrowly about Network Weaving as a specific job description, but rather as a role. "You don't hire someone to be a network weaver. You want someone who is open to learning and a good listener and can teach others network weaving skills. You want to spread the capacity throughout the network." You extend networking weaving skills by using a peer learning model not a traditional training model.
June Holley used the metaphor of "Being Rhizomatic" and explains it as where every bud contains the nourishment for other buds. She used an image of a single tree. A single tree can be cut down or die from lack of water. But in a bamboo forest (a unique rhizome) -- the trees are connected through the roots and if one tree gets nutrients and supports others.
The image that came to mind for me was from the movie Fantasia and the scene in The Sorcerer's Apprentice when many brooms come to life from the one chopped up broom. (Go 5:49 in the clip)
June Holley emphasized the importance of self-organizing, she said "Network weavers catalyze small joint actions between groups of two or three people. She talked about the importance of online collaboration and project management tools as a way to support those self-organized actions. (My single next action step is to set up a sand box with June and others to explore some of these tools in the context of network weaving.)
She also introduced a new (to me) concept: Network Guardian. This is someone who isn't doing the day-to-day work, but thinks about how the network could be more than it is. They think about the network structure, evaluation, communication, training, opportunities, and reflection.
June also described some of the tasks that network weaving may include. One might be drawing the map of the network's connections and facilitating a discussion about what the network looks like. Angus Parker from Wiser Earth recently blogged about this in "How To Weave A Tighter Network."
One connection I made is that nonprofit social media strategists like Carie Lewis from the Human Society, Danielle Brigida, NWF, Wendy Harman from the Red Cross, Apollo Gonzalez from NDRC, Constance DeCherney from Planned Parenthood, and others are doing some form of network weaving - whether it be their Facebook or Twitter networks or possibly internally between departments. It also made me wonder whether there might be a hunger for a professional peer group of social media network weavers.
I took that idea into a small peer assist session. My question: Is there a network of peers who do network weaving for nonprofits to support external communications? For starters, I'm going to ask Holly Ross at NTEN that we have a birds of a feather table at the NTC10 or if I get ambitious I will sign up to lead an affinity group meeting. As we discussed this, I realized that perhaps the frame was too small.
Maybe we need to do some field building for nonprofit network weavers in general as well as consultants who work with Network weavers. And while this would include those who work for nonprofits on social media strategy for external communications, it would include network weavers more broadly. There might be a sub-group or interest area on technology. Maybe this conversations could take place on an existing community of practice (Iscale).
Are you practicing network weaving skills in your nonprofit or network?
What are you learning about network weaving?
What inspires you about network weaving potential?
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 is 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
