Category Archives: Network Case Study

Investing in Networks , Network Case Study , The Network Building Field

Investing in Networks Grows Funder’s Impact

Madeleine Taylor

In a blog for Stanford Social Innovation Review , Madeleine Taylor uses the case of the RE-AMP network to examine how participation in a network allows foundations to leverage their individual investment by surfacing multiple, ongoing opportunities for collaborative grant making.

W hile still an emergent grantmaking strategy, more foundations are investing in network building as an effective tool for achieving their goals and leveraging their dollars. Even so, network investing is not for the faint of heart. Foundations must consider the scope of resources required to initiate a network approach, and support the infrastructure and collaborative projects needed to produce results. Yet we see cases where foundations with modest corpuses have leveraged their charitable dollars many times over by engaging other funders as network partners, significantly increasing the pool of funding for a change initiative over time.

The team at Network Impact is interested in understanding the resource benefits and other kinds of value created through a network approach to network funding. To that end, the Garfield Foundation —a mid-sized philanthropy—kindly offered to share financial data related to its 10-plus year investment in RE-AMP .

Read the blog.

Network Case Study , Network Development

Study of Government Roles in Building an Energy Conservation Network

Peter Plastrik

We haven’t worked with many government-instigated networks, so we were quite intrigued when Andrew Peterman, a sustainability consultant for Arup, shared with us an intriguing assessment of a large-scale energy efficiency networ k of businesses engineered by the U.S. federal government: “ Balancing Act: Government Roles in an Energy Conservation Network .”  (Peterman is a co-author of the study. See his blog about the study. ) The network’s purpose: to stimulate development of a stronger market for energy efficiency.

When I talked with Andrew, we realized that most of the frameworks he used to analyze the network mirrored frameworks used in Connecting to Change the World . For example, he differentiated between the “private” and “public” goods the network created–which reflects our distinction between individual and collective value propositions that a network seeks to satisfy.

The core of Peterman’s research focused on identifying the multiple and shifting roles that the government played in the life of the network as it evolved.  The government started as the Commissioner of the network, but also played these roles: Interpreter, Marketer, and User. Peterman examined each of these roles in detail. “Each . . . possessed a different configuration of resources, motives, and relationships with other organizations . . . These roles emerged or adapted to address the disparate interfaces and needs of the network.” Andrew’s analysis provides another dimension to the evolution of a network. In our chapter 4, “Network Evolution,” we look closely at the evolution of a network’s connectivity structure and capabilities. And in our “Bonus Track” we examine the ways that a network “engineer”–like the federal government in the case Andrew examined–can engage in network building. Thanks to Andrew we can add the evolution of an engineer’s role to those frameworks.