All posts by John Cleveland

System Change: A Reason to Invest in Networks (2)

March 23, 2015 John Cleveland

Second in a series on investing strategically in generative networks.

In an earlier blog we described three conditions for a funder to decide to invest in a generative network approach:

The funder’s goal is system change.
The funder is simultaneously pursuing multiple challenging strategies for achieving system change.
The system’s situation involves a great deal of uncertainty, and solutions are not known.

In this blog we focus on the first condition.

The funder’s goal is system change. There are many types of large-scale systems. Place-based foundations, for instance, may focus on local systems (e.g., affordable housing, education, human services) and develop strategies for improving the system’s performance, especially in how well it helps low-income members of the community. National-scale funders often focus on broad social issues, such as poverty or environmental protection, and develop strategies for affecting policies and practices at national or regional scales. Often, these issues are embedded in multiple and complex social systems. Other funders seek to change professional practice fields, such as community development, human services, or public education. Some engage with the way markets (large, complex economic systems) perform, while others invest in large organizations (nonprofits, community-based organizations, government agencies), which also are systems.

Not all funders seek system-change, but when they do, investment will most likely benefit from the adaptive and sustainable capacity of a generative network.

Social Media , The Essence of Networks

Is it a Network?

January 20, 2015 John Cleveland

There are many structures for organizing collaboration among individuals and/or organization. But they are not all the same–and we’re often asked if a particular structure is or isn’t a network. So we’ve taken the time here (and in more detail in chapter 1 of Connecting to Change the World ) to identify and differentiate some of the main structures that social activists and philanthropic funders use and support.

In general, the differences fall across a spectrum related to how structured/organized the form is. Some (like professional associations) are too organized; others are not organized enough. As we’ve said in other contexts (and explain more of in chapter 5): networks are on the “edge of chaos,” with enough organization to stay together, but enough freedom to creatively evolve; they contain autonomous agents who share common rules. In some of the collective forms we look at, the agents aren’t autonomous (too much structure); in others, there aren’t really common rules that bind them (not enough structure).

Type of Collective Organizing	Typical Distinguishing Features	Difference from a Generative Network
Coalition/Alliance of Organizations	A temporary alignment of organizations to achieve a specific objective such as electing a candidate or securing adoption of a new public policy. Usually disbands when the effort has been completed.	Narrower in purpose/scope than a network. (Some alliances reorganize as a generative network once their campaign is over.)
Membership-Based Association or Organization	Organized mainly to pool resources and provide dues-paying members with services, often for professional development or representation within public-policy arenas. Association/organization staff does most of the work.	More staff-driven, less member-to-member relationship driven, than a network. Focus is on serving members rather than members collaborating with each other.
Community of Practice	Organizations and individuals loosely align and coordinate around development, adoption, and spread of innovative practices and/or policies to address a particular set of problems or opportunities.	Participants typically lack a firm sense of “membership identity” and do not make explicit reciprocal commitments. Communities of practice often have many sub-networks.
Movement	Large numbers of people loosely aligned around a large cause (e.g., civil rights, environmental protection), their passion ignited by a personal desire to right a wrong.	Less coherent, focused, and coordinated—and much larger, sprawling—than a generative network. A movement may contain networks; networks may spawn a movement.
Social-Media Web	Alignment is around a passing cause. Online; open membership; enables many “weak ties” among participants.	Less coherent, focused and coordinated, with no clear membership expectations.

The Essence of Networks

The “Engine” of a High-Performing Network

January 12, 2015 John Cleveland

The main characteristics of a generative social-impact network–a social-relationship platform designed to generate multiple, ongoing kinds of change–include:

* Shared Purpose. Members share a collective purpose that is focused on creating social good.

* Complex Problem. The problem/opportunity being focused on is a complex one with no simple solutions, and the network is committed to working on it from multiple angles.

* Member Driven. Members set the mission and goals, make the rules, and do most of the work.

* Flexible. The structure is flexible and adaptable and changes as needed.

* Internal Market for Value. Value is determined by whether members engage in an activity or not–they “vote with their feet.”

But the “engine” for these networks lies in the connections among members. (See chapters 3 and 4 of Connecting to Change the World for much more about building these connections.) Members develop deep and enduring relationships and trust with each other; the focus of the network’s relationship building is member to member, not with staff or other providers. This “social capital” is the primary asset of a generative network. Engaging in collective activities helps to develop it. In turn, the social capital increases the efficiency, complexity, and depth of the activities a network can engage in.

This “virtuous cycle” of positive feedback is the engine of a high- performing network.

Network Evaluation

Profiling a Network

October 27, 2014 John Cleveland

We’re often asked to check out an existing social-impact network and to provide advice about what its next steps might be. Sometimes a potential funder wants to know this, sometimes network leaders are asking for the assessment.

In our book’s chapter 6, “Know Your Condition: Taking a Network’s Pulse,” we describe the key elements of an in-depth assessment: understanding the network’s connectivity, health, and impact. But often a network doesn’t have much of the data that would help you to conduct such a probing evaluation, or what’s being asked for is a “quick (and cheap)” assessment.

One tool we’ve been developing is a “Network Profile”—the information you’d gather step-by-step that would help you to take a “snap shot” of a network’s situation and start a good dialogue with the network’s leadership. We think the Profile can be especially useful for a funder who’s looking at multiple networks and trying to figure out which ones to invest in.

Category	Information	Details
*Network Background*	Network Name	Formal name of the network, if it has one
	Origins	How the network came to be formed Who the original network organizers were What motivated them to create the network
	Start	What year the network started
	Stage of Development	Emerging Developing Mature
	Network Type	Trade Association Professional Association Peer Learning Network Alliance Campaign
*Network Description*	Purpose	What is the Network’s reason for being?
	Membership	Who is eligible to be a member? What are the requirements of participation, once you are a member? How many members are there? Get a membership list. What is the desired end size of the network?
	Value Propositions	What are the benefits of membership? What is the collective value proposition? Are there specific projects or initiatives the network is sponsoring? (Get descriptive materials.)
	Operating Principles	Are there specific principles/rules that guide the network’s culture?
	Network Coordination	Who manages the network? How does the network support interaction between members? What are the dominant forms of interaction? o Connecting o Aligning o Producing
	Resources	What is the network’s funding model?
	Governance	Who decides what the network will do? How do they make decisions?
	External Relationships	Are there specific organizations with which the network maintains strategic relationships? Who manages these relationships?
	Assessment	How does the network monitor its condition and performance?
*Network Opportunities*	Market Positioning	How does this network fit into the overall field of urban climate resilience? Are there specific aspects of field development it can most contribute to?
	Projects	Are there specific projects that the network is seeking support on?
	Partnerships	Are there opportunities to connect this network with other networks to maximize impact?

Network Evaluation

How Do You Know When You Have a “Generative” Network?

October 8, 2014 John Cleveland

Our book is focused on the design, development and management of “generative social impact networks”. It is pretty easy to know if a network is focused on social impact or not – their mission, values, and activities tell you whether the strategy is targeted on social good or some other kind of outcome. But figuring out whether it has the genetics of a “generative” network is much more difficult.

We are engaged in a current project with a national foundation to do a network mapping exercise for them in a few targeted areas of urban sustainability. Part of the question they are trying to answer is: where are the generative networks that can be supported to advance this field? We started with a list of over 100 networks and have been narrowing down the list. Since we have worked with some many “generative” networks, we assumed that it would be easy to tell which fell into that category – we had the “I’ll know it when I see it” attitude. But it has been much more difficult than we expected.

There are some types of networks that are pretty easy to screen out – your traditional trade association, professional association and issue campaigns as an example. As well as the “group activities masquerading as a network” – the NGO-driven distribution systems with relatively little member-to-member interaction. But beyond this, it turns out you need to know a fair amount about the network to figure out which ones have generative genetics. So we created a list of criteria for the analysis. This is our working list at this point in time:

Shared purpose. Members share a collective purpose that is focused on creating social good.
Complex problem. The problem/opportunity being focused on is a complex one with no simple solutions and the network is committed to working on it from multiple angles.
Member-driven. Members set the mission and goals, and “make the rules” and members do most of the work.
Relationship-focused. Members develop deep and enduring relationships with each other; the focus of relationship building is member to member, not staff or other provides to members
Flexible. The structure is flexible and adaptable and changes as needed.
Internal markets for value. Value is determined by whether members engage in the activity or not – members “vote with their feet.”
Decentralized. Decisions are highly decentralized.

Ultimately, it all boils down to understanding the member experience in the networks – what the culture of the network is. (OK, so the Collins and Porras “Built to Last” hypothesis applies here too!) And for that, eventually you have talk to some of the members.