Reflecting on networks

I was asked by friend and ex colleague to share thoughts on what makes a “network” sustainable or tick? What is their lifespan usually and what brings them down?

I am not an expert in networks – I am not talking about computer networks, but networks formed by voluntary organizations, but what I have put down are some disjointed thoughts from what I have observed. If of use, good, if not, there is always the options of deleting this!

Usually a net work is formed after a “network” event, and some one comes up with a bright idea of forming a network! But many a times the why, the how, what for, how to sustain etc. are not really thought through. So, given below are some thoughts that might help us in considering issues that will sustain, tick the networks.

The Why Matters

Why or what for is the network formed, is key. What is the soft ware that holds us together? What is that overarching vision or desire that holds us together is important.

It might be a nebulous vision, and a vison has the natural tendency to remain as a jargon as times goes by unless there are people constantly redirecting us to the vision. So, such champions are key for sustaining such a vision. But equally important is the mission of the network. What is the network formed for? This common software of mission important, whatever be the hard ware of structure you form.

Is it a Learning sharing and growing together network? Is the primary purpose one of learning and growing together, it is important to articulate this.  For some in the network, it will be more of receiving, for some it will be more of giving, and in such a network of not equals, it might be important to clarify that all are equal in the network or the weakest is the most important. Because the network forces you or you agree by being part of the net work to look beyond your own needs! And such networks have a better chance of survival, if the weakest link is kept as equal or as the most important member, because till their capacities are built and met, the network must have a life!

Some networks might emerge out of funding issues, which could be varied for different networks. Some to access a common funding, that might be more of a consortium approach than a network. Others because the funding organizations require that you become part of a net work or facilitate a network. Others might become being part of a network because funders will fund only networks or consortium. When the agenda is your own self (funds) or reporting to a funder, it is likely that the net work will not sustain beyond a period or when the requirement ends.

If the net work is for a synergy to see a national or regional vision fulfilled, the net work has a chance of being sustained. The common soft ware of the vision or impact that you want to see becomes the driver. But it is important to articulate the vision and set out indicators of how to assess if we have reached or are moving towards the same, at the beginning itself. At least some tangible end points to assess despite the vision being intangible at times.

It the network is for policy advocacy by coming together, again being beyond your own needs, you will work together. But like the vision/impact driven network it is important to clarify what is the policy change you want to see and what will happen when that is fulfilled.

There might be other reasons for forming networks. But keeping the Why in front is very important. Many networks formed for learning sharing and growing have ended up as implementing net works since sustaining the net work only was possible if they took up funding for implementing programs. Such directional change, is likely to lead to competition and in the current resource limited settings and the ethos of the networks could change.

By keeping the vision clear, keeping others needs beyond your needs, being flexible in approach and the willingness to review and reflect frequently and change direction if required are principles that will sustain a network even amid resource constraints.

The How matters

Net works on one end of the spectrum, can be a loose network of individuals and or organizations. On the other end it could move towards becoming a new organization itself. But most networks are midway between these two models.

A loose set work will sustain if the vision is kept upfront, the momentum and passion is sustained, flexibility is a value agreed up on and some amount of accountability is built in. The dream of such net work should be to become a people’s movement, when the net work can cease and allow the movement to take forward the vision. The challenge comes when individual interests take over net work interests, or ownership moves from the larger group to an oligo ownership or when resources start drying up. A greater than yourself vision and willingness to spend yourself for a vision beyond yourself, is tough to sustain, but worth it, but will need champions who will constantly champion this meta narrative.

On the other end of the spectrum, a well-structured organization that has emerged out of a network, will have a life and structure of its own, because the members have agreed to give birth or facilitate a new organization. But sustaining such a new organization is tough unless the strong members in the net work or funders have agreed to sustain the same with resources or there is a business model of resource generation.

Generally, most networks are mid-way between these models – a semi structured network. It is important to clarify what the dream of the network is at the beginning itself, so that all members are clear about what they are getting into and if needed to clarify an end too!

In a semi structured model, what structure and who holds these structures matter. If it is a secretariat model, systems should be set in to see that there is ownership and engagement of all stake holders in the secretariat, though one organization might hold it for a period.  Similarly, even in a consortium model or Hub and spoke models these principles are key for sustainability of the vision and ownership. The value or keeping the weakest link as the most important member is something that must be inculcated from the beginning. Mixed group with flexible roles and built in transition of roles every X number of years should be thought through at the beginning itself.

The Methodology matters

The network activities with social media being a good platform, might end up giving too much emphasis on social media platforms alone. Excellent that this be, the face to face meetings, the relationships built, the stories of transformation shared, changed lives visualized and experienced, contribute much more than the impersonal social media platforms alone.

The Who Owns matters

Networks could be formed by organizations or institutions, affected people or a mixture of both. Organization or institution owned networks, have limited life. Organizations and institutions change with leadership change and context. They lose passion and for institutions the network can become another job to be done.

Affected people owned run networks usually have much more passion and commitment to vision, but many a times the lack of structure and accountability that institutions and organizations have and this can be a challenge.

A mixed model is good, but leaders must be careful to balance the passion of the affected people with the needed structures, at the same time make it sure that no egos are ruffled, and all pull together for the common vision.

The How Long Matters

It may be good to envision an end at the beginning itself, at the same time agreeing to keep end flexible. The end depends on the why and what for. If the networks functions so well and it becomes a people’s movement, the end is easy, people will take forward the vision themselves. If the network ends up forming a new organization that organization will have a life of its own, with all its own challenges of governance sustainability and management. In this the founding members will have roles to play but will be different from the network model.

It is the in-between model that will be challenging, deciding on how long to sustain. Net work that have lived out its life will become a lifeless net work sustaining because of other reasons than the vision. It is important to identify factors that are key to keep the network going and indicators that signal that the network is reaching a potential end.

Factors that will influence these decisions will be, whether we have fulfilled the why and what for, the emerging resource constraints, the challenge of maintaining proactive ownership, the need of keeping felt need of stakeholders important and willingness to keep the weakest as the utmost important etc. Identifying these and other issues early enough through set in evaluations and reflections are important what ever be the life of a network.