Organisations join or form networks for a variety of reasons, including the need to gain legitimacy, serve clients more effectively, attract more resources, and address complex problems. But regardless of the specific reason, in a general sense, all net-work organizations are seeking to achieve some end that they could not have achieved independently . (Provan and Kenis, 2008: 240)
‘Network’ is I suspect, one of those words like sustainability, resilience and context in that it carries with it the danger that there is a common understanding about what is meant, and we rush up that Ladder of Inference without checking for shared meaning. Given that we are exploring different ways of organising we thought it might be useful to consider the notion of networks, specifically inter-organisational networks.
On the spectrum of formalised relationships, if merger/acquisition is at one end, then being part of an inter-organisational network is at the other. A network is generally fairly loose and flexible in the way that it is organised, tends not to involve the pooling of resources and its main purpose is often sharing understanding and information. It is probably something most of us have experienced and have either gained from or been frustrated by. Since February we have seen existing networks ramp up their activity, and new ones form like #ExcludedUK to address the specific impacts of the pandemic.
Not all networks are created equal and they can take different forms, the three main approaches to organising a network are:
- Centralised – driven by a lead organisation
- Decentralised – where are a series of hubs are created out of a lead organisation, a bit like CVAN with its regional networks
- Distributed – roles, resources are spread across the network so there is no one single point of greater strength
Each will obviously have its own advantages and disadvantages. If it is a time limited project that needs to take action fast, then a centralised network will probably suffice. If you want it to have a longer term change agent role then moving towards a distributed structure is likely to be more effective. The key question to ask is what will happen to the network if one of the members leave? The fewer ‘lead’ partners in the network the more likely it will be to come to an end if one or more leave. This may of course be something that is intended but it is worth considering at the outset.
One way of thinking about the purpose of your network, or one you might join, is to decide if it is transactional or transformational. Some are purely focused on information exchange, others like Participatory Arts London articulate a wider peer learning and developmental purpose.
Participatory Arts London network: A collective voice for people that design, produce and facilitate participatory arts in London. Reflecting on our practice; pursuing peer-to-peer learning.
A network may be the right form of organising when:
- The issue you want to tackle is beyond the capacity of a single organisation or individual
- The issue is complex and involves multiple stakeholders
- There are significant benefits to be gained from addressing the issue
- A common purpose and aim can be agreed
- Other methods have already been tried and have not delivered what is needed
- The organisations involved share similar values and cultures
- There are existing trusting relationships or there is the opportunity to build trust
- There are the necessary resources to initiate, develop and implement the network
- Addressing the issue will benefit from long-term collaboration
Dawn & Susan
References
PROVAN, K. G. & KENIS, P. 2008. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229-252.