Jacob Coker-Dukowitz's List: MTN

• • What a Network Is Not: A network is a distinct form of social organization.  It is not an organization, which relies on top-down authority to get things done.  Think of the typical organization’s “chain of delegation”—the board of directors delegates some of its authority to the CEO, executive director, or president, who further delegates authority to the next management level down, and so on until you reach the level at the bottom.   
    Nor is a network a market, which depends on many individuals making buy-sell transactions; these consumers may have no connection at all with each other.  
    Curiously, though, a network may contain some elements of both of these other forms of organization—and these forms contain network structures.

  • “social networks” are systems of social ties that link people to one another.  Social networks result when individuals 
    connect within specific social contexts, such as within a community of place like Lawrence, or a community of practice like doctors, lawyers, or environmentalists.  One 
    kind of social network with which we are all familiar is the personal network of our colleagues, friends, and acquaintances.  Most individuals build these personal networks to achieve personal goals.  But people who develop social networks in the civil sector, such as Bill Traynor and the Barr Foundation are doing, are after more than gains for an individual.  They develop a network in which many individuals link to achieve collective goals, to produce “net gains.”  We call this network a “social network for social ends.” 
  • 1 more sticky notes...

  • • We start with the point of view that networks provide social-change agents with a fundamentally distinct and remarkably promising “organizing principle” to use to achieve ambitious goals.  Given the complexity and  enormity of social problems, the unrelenting pressure to reduce the cost of creating and implementing solutions, and the recent proliferation of small nonprofit organizations, networks offer a way to weave together or create capacities that get better leverage, performance, and results.
• • Differing Characteristics of the Three Networks 
    
    Connectivity Network 
    Connects people to allow easy flow of 
    and access to  information and transactions 
    Desired Network Effects:
    Rapid growth and diffusion, small world reach, 
    resilience 
    Key Task of Network Builder: 
    Weaving—help people meet each other, increase ease of sharing and searching for information 
    
    Alignment Network 
    Aligns people to develop and spread an identity and collective value proposition  
    Desired Network Effects:
    Adaptive capacity, small-world reach, 
    rapid growth and diffusion 
    Key Task of Network Builder: 
    Facilitating—helping people to explore potential shared identity and value propositions. 
    
    Production Network 
    Fosters joint action for specialized outcomes by aligned people 
    Desired Network Effects:
    Rapid growth and diffusion, smallworld reach, 
    resilience, adaptive capacity 
    Key Task of Network Builder:
    Coordinating—helping people plan and implement collaborative actions. 

  • How should the network be governed?   Networks are self-governing; the members rule.  But how shall they rule?  What is decided by governance?  Who governs?
    
    What structure should the network have?
    Networks have structures or shapes—patterns of connections among their members.  Different structures have different impacts on a network’s capabilities  and operations.  
    
    What are the initial operating principles of the network?
    Networks have their own ways of functioning—“natural rules” that you violate at your own risk.  
    
    Who will build the network?
    At the beginning of a network’s development, a network organizer tends to play all of the roles involved in network building: weaver, facilitator, coordinator, etc.  But each of these roles requires different skills and, eventually, may be played by different  people.
  • 1 more sticky notes...

  • • ORGANIZING NETWORKS: SEVEN DECISIONS:
      To organize a network you have to make seven decisions that get things going.  Each decision presents choices, and to make the choice that is right for you, it helps to understand more about how networks actually work.  Your decisions are crucial, but they are also provisional or temporary; as networks evolve, their fundamentals may change.  The seven questions are: 
      What kind of network do you want to build?  Yes, there are different kinds of networks—three of them, based on our field research.  
      
      What is the “collective value proposition” of the network?
      A value proposition is the potential benefit that attracts people or organizations to participate in the network. A  collective  value proposition is a benefit that is broadly desired by members of the network.  
      
      What is the initial membership of the network?  Who is in and who is out?  
      Networks have boundaries and horizons, but their borders may be “soft”—easy to penetrate—or “hard”—impossible to penetrate.
      
• • Finding Ways to Create Value for Network Members 
    Connections  
    Can you connect others in the network to people that may be able and willing to help them? 
    Knowledge  
    Do you know something that may be valuable to others in the net? 
    Competencies  
    Are you able to do something that may be value to others in the 
    net? 
    Resources  
    Do you have access to funds or other resources that may be useful 
    to others in the net?
• • Roles of Network Builders 
    Organizer  
    Establishes purpose and value propositions of the network.  Establishes first links to nodes for the network.  Attracts initial resources for the network. 
    Funder
    Provides initial resources for organizing the network, supporting development of connections, alignment, and production, and coordination for the network.  May play role of initial organizer of network.
    Weaver  
    Works to increase connections among nodes, both the number of links and the bandwidth quality of links. Also may focus on growing the network by connecting to new nodes. 
    Facilitator  
    Helps network members to establish collective value proposition and negotiate collective action plans for production. 
    Coordinator  
    Helps nodes to undertake collective action for production, by ensuring flow of necessary information and other resources, development and implementation of agreements among nodes.
    Coach
    Advises organizers, weavers, facilitators, and coordinators about how best to perform their roles in building networks. 
    Steward  
    Informally helps to build the network, but as a member of the network, not as a formal position-role within the network
• • Strategies for Weaving
    • Provide network members with information relevant to their needs and interests.
    • Directly connect members to each other.  
    • Strengthen “hubs” in the network that connect with many other members.  
    • Connect members to new ideas and resources within or outside of the network.  
• •  four steps to forging a collective value proposition: 
    1. Establish a general purpose for the network.  
    E.g., to work on public policies for rural areas, to improve youth-in-transition programs. 
    2. Learn about your potential partners.  
    Find out what goals others in the potential network seek to achieve and what they need to achieve them. 
    3. Walk the “two-way street.”
    Explore with others in the network the ways you could create value for them so they can achieve their goals, and ways they can 
    create value for you. 
    4. Find the “win-win” opportunities.  
    Explore mutual, actionable goals that the network could pursue—what specific results would be good for all members of 
    the network? 
• • OPERATING THE NETWORK: MANAGEMENT ISSUES TO ANTICIPATE:
    For network builders the trick is to recognize in their networks the existence of these underlying tensions and to periodically take actions that help the network to find its balancing points.  The three tensions are over network identity, control, and change.
    * Identity—the individual self interest of a member versus the collective interest of the network.
    * Control--the distributed authority versus centralized authority of the network. Networks must balance the need of individual network members to decide and act on their own with the need for them to decide and act collectively
    * Change--the stability of the network versus adaptation by the network.   
• • * Anticipate and build the assessment system your network will need as it evolves. It’s also better to build the feedback and learning process in early, so that it is clear to the network that assessment is essential to managing the network, not just an add-on chore.
    * Be wary of rigid assessment frameworks that can stifle creative impulses and ignore emerging initiatives and solutions.  
• • Network mapping software currently in use in the nonprofit sector includes: 
    • Inflow, www.orgnet.com
    • UCINET 6 and Netdraw—a network analysis program with Netdraw, a visualization package, www.analytictech.com
    • Netminer, www.netminer.com
• • Lessons Learned: Why Not to Build a Network
    1. Some goals simply don’t require network effects.  Your goals may not be very complicated.  Or they may need a high degree of accountability and hierarchical authority. developing innovations for workforce development requires a network, but making sure everyone in the network gets paid when they are supposed to be paid does not.  Before going for a network approach, ask yourself this: “What is it about the outcome I am seeking that requires a network to do the work?” 
    
    2. Some organizations can’t handle the demands of collaborating with other organizations in a network. Organizations have egos.  You have to let go of control over things that may matter to you and work with other organizations to take care of their needs as well as yours. “unless the work is well integrated into the organizational priorities,Institutional priorities may well clash with network priorities unless they are proactively aligned.”
    
    3. Some funders can’t handle the demands of investing in collaboration.   Will the funder be patient enough with the network to allow it to forge its own direction, rather than trying to impose a plan from the outside?
• • Use Variation to Strengthen a Network
    it is not necessary for everyone to agree on everything the network should do, at least not at the beginning. Different members in a network undertake joint activities—as a step toward eventually developing a collective value proposition—rather than keep struggling to find something that all want.
    
    Keep Plans Flexible
    Because networks don’t start with the sense of 
    permanence that organizations do and expect to adapt their plans as they go along, their planning horizons are relatively short. Networks tend to plan two things: projects they will undertake, one after another, and the development of the network as a whole. Network structures should be thought of as provisional:
    “Building permanent or semi-permanent structures in an environment that needs to be very fluid is a dangerous, counterproductive thing to do.”  Lawrence CommunityWorks develops “open architecture” structures that “deemphasize permanent leadership 
    positions” and “are very easy to dismantle.” 

  • OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR NETWORK BUILDING:
    Make the Network Do the Work:
    The point of a network is for the  members  of the network to collaborate to produce value.  Of course a network may hire staff—a weaver or coordinator, for 
    instance.  But those people work to build and manage the network, not to perform the network’s work, not to produce what the network is supposed to produce.   
    
    Let Connections Flow to Value
    In the discussion of collective value propositions, that value drives networks.  Network organizers should not insist on having the network do things that members don’t find valuable.   

9 more annotations...

• • Story Example: there has been doubt 
    among some in the field about whether this is 
    a “real” organizing strategy aimed at building 
    power. It is true that people come to our 
    network for many reasons. But it is also true 
    that many gravitate toward higher levels of 
    engagement – and a broader definition of selfinterest – once they are part of the network. 
    We cultivate and encourage this path toward 
    collective action, principally through 
    reflective practice – groups of members taking 
    action, reflecting on that action and then 
    taking a larger step. It is important that people 
    practice democratic deliberation in the safety 
    of a NeighborCircle or a Poder class before 
    bringing that new skill to a larger environment 
    such as City Council. The students in the pilot 
    class of Poder finished their session by 
    organizing an action, the March Against 
    Garbage, to win better garbage collection for 
    the neighborhood. This led the group to 
    question the distribution of city resources, 
    which led to questions about city budget 
    priorities and process. This in turn has led to 
    LCW’s Fair Budget Campaign, an effort led 
    by Poder graduates to reform the city budget 
    process through participatory budgeting.   Today the 900 members of LCW have 
    thousands of relationships and connections to  bring to bear on the challenge of community 
    change. We have found this to be an 
    enormously powerful force that can be 
    organized for actions and leadership roles 
    needed to reinvent our city – and other cities 
    like it. Our principal role, as an organization 
    and a network hub, is to let loose this power 
    of collective demand in the neighborhood 
    environment, a place where the suppliers have 
    ruled for quite some time.  

  • How: One of the primary characteristics 
    of a well-functioning network is the presence 
    of multiple hubs and nodes: – institutions and 
    forums that connect people to each other and 
    that can also take on distinct projects that 
    further network goals. If all the good stuff was 
    only happening through LCW, what would 
    happen to the city if something happened to 
    us? At times we make the conscious decision 
    to funnel resources to other organizations or 
    projects, again, to invest in network building 
    rather than institution building. When LCW 
    received three years of substantial operating 
    support from a regional bank, we re-granted a 
    portion of that money to several other 
    Lawrence nonprofits to help them build 
    capacity as well.
  • 9 more sticky notes...

  • • We have also 
      developed a “Communication Compact,” an 
      internal document that our board and staff, as 
      network stewards, use to support honesty and 
      ownership in verbal communication, so that 
      “word of mouth” transmission is an effective 
      method of moving accurate information 
      through the network.  

    • How: The ability of our network to broadcast 
      information: quickly to the right places 
      determines its effectiveness. Thus, over the 
      past two years we have made significant 
      investments in our database, Web site and 
      newsletter, and are starting a new effort (Example:) – Las Rutas (the ways) – in which network members 
      create a written and Web-based record of their 
      experiences for use by other members. This 
      ranges from instructions on how to organize a 
      block party to a record of the process for 
      getting better trash service. 

    • How: If one person is passionate about a project or 
      thinks they have a solution, it has to stand the 
      test of "Resonance"If one person is passionate about a project or 
      thinks they have a solution, it has to stand the 
      test of "Resonance": : Does it capture other 
      people’s imaginations, attract their time and 
      energy? If we are hearing the same idea from 
      many disparate parts of the network, then we 
      have resonance. e. Training ourselves to 
      respond to resonance is central to developing 
      programs that have a broad base of support 
      and to successful collective actions. It is also a 
      key element in developing the habits of 
      democratic deliberation and decision making. 

    • Some come 
      together for a small project and then disband; 
      some go on meeting as a group and regularly 
      address issues on the block such as garbage 
      collection or snowplowing; others develop 
      into a Property Improvement Committee and 
      work with LCW staff on large-scale projects 
      such as an affordable housing development or 
      a local park

    • How: Let People Decide What Works: Another element of network organizing is 
      provisionality. In community building we 
      suffer greatly from dysfunctional structures 
      that persist long after they are no longer 
      useful. All our programs and committees have 
      to be seen as provisional – useful only in that 
      they get us where we need to go.  Creating an environment where no one 
      gets too comfortable in positions of power is 
      an important precondition to creating 
      accessible and accountable groups. The NeighborCircles are an example. Some 
      NeighborCircles never coalesce beyond the 
      initial three-meeting stage. 

    • How: A network needs agents who are actively 
      engaging and connecting people to the 
      network – being Weavers. LCW board 
      members, residents, allies and staff are all 
      encouraged to be Weavers.
      Definition/How: The Weaver’s job 
      is to be intentionally curious about people, 
      their interests and connections; to connect that 
      person to our organization; and to link that 
      person to one other thing going on in the 
      Network. As a team of Weavers, we also work 
      intentionally and thoughtfully to create 
      pathways to a deeper level of engagement.

    • How: The network needs many points of entry that 
      are accessible and interesting to a wide range 
      of people. The Family Asset Building and 
      NeighborCircles programs are just two of 
      these points. Because they are different kinds 
      of “doors,” we have the ability to attract a 
      variety of people who have different needs 
      and interests.  
      Then, by intentionally connecting these doors, 
      we create the linkages that are critical to 
      building a strong network.

    • 3)Poder Leadership Institute: we also work 
      intentionally and thoughtfully to create 
      pathways to a deeper level of engagement , by recommending people from 
      NeighborCircles to our Poder Leadership 
      Institute. a five-month intensive course in organizing, 
      power analysis, collaborative governance and 
      facilitation skills, culminating in a community 
      campaign or project that participants 
      implement. It is explicitly formulated to 
      develop leaders who can carry their new 
      capacities out into the wider public arena. They might run for City Council or School 
      Committee, join other nonprofit boards or 
      bring more people into city institutions and 
      decision-making processes.

    • Program:  
      1)Family Asset Building Department, which 
      offers adult programs, such as Individual 
      Development Accounts (IDAs) and English as 
      a Second Language and computer classes, and 
      holds regular networking nights where people 
      who are in various programs can gather 
      socially
      2) NeighborCircles, a 
      variation on the traditional organizer’s house 
      meeting. LCW-trained resident facilitators 
      convene a group of neighbors in a given block 
      or area for a series of dinner discussions 
      focused on getting to know each other, 
      identifying common challenges in the area 
      and developing discrete, manageable projects 
      for tackling those challenges.

• The Boston Foundation, Greater Boston’s community foundation—grantmaker, partner in philanthropy, key convener, and civic leader—coordinates the Boston Indicators Project in partnership with the City of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The Project relies on the expertise of hundreds of stakeholders gathered in multiple convenings to frame its conclusions, and draws data from the wealth of information and research generated by the region’s excellent public agencies, civic institutions, think tanks, and community based organizations. The Boston Foundation will release a biennial report, with supplemental updates and outreach, through the year 2030, Boston’s 400th anniversary.

• Our Theory of Change
• • Building community demand for results, by mobilizing residents and stakeholders around an equity agenda creating opportunity for families and transforming neighborhoods.   The Network is about higher aspirations, and about providing both the expectation of a better future as well as the connections and collective power to pursue it.
   
  • Creating new connections to systems and organizations by creating new avenues and approaches for interacting with systems that otherwise pose barriers.
   
  • Transforming the environment to sustain the change, creating family-centered, equitable, results-focused systems that work for all families.
   
  • Holding ourselves and others accountable for what we say we are doing in community.

• • • Provocateur – This can be an informal or formal role, and is filled by the person or people who can ask the un-askable questions, challenge the group when it is reaching agreement too easily or getting too comfortable and safe with its work.  The intent is stimulate new and bold thinking.
    • Implementer/Prototyper – Implementers are not simply putting into action a “strategic plan,” but running with nascent and promising ideas, experimenting and honing as they go.  We often find prototyping occurring at the “edges” of larger projects in the form of new partnerships and conversations going off and trying out new things.
    • Weaver – (taken from Network Weaving) “A weaver is someone who is aware of the networks around them and explicitly works to make them healthier (more inclusive, bridging divides). 

  • • Convenor – The convenor is the person or group who has “convening power,” the social capital and connections to pull people together and some of the resources to support the initiative (money, space, technology) and build the network.  In our IISC practice, convenors are often foundations, municipal governments, and community-based organizations.  Their role includes championing the cause, raising awareness, and making the initial and ongoing invitation to come together.
    • (Process) Designer – The “process design team,” in IISC’s practice, is comprised of a diverse group of people representing different parts of “the system” who have an aptitude and appetite for mapping out a pathway of and individual activities (meetings, research, stakeholder outreach) that help to move a wider group of stakeholders from vision to action.   They are charged with, and delight in, the creative endeavor of fashioning experiences that enliven and bring out the best in people, including the creation of space for difficult conversations and strengthening connections.
    • Facilitator – The facilitator is a person or team responsible for stewarding the process, for holding the space for difficult conversations, listening to the wisdom of the group, helping to build alignment and agreement, and balancing structure with openness for  emergence.

• A Taxonomy of Big Data sources and technologies
  For this process let’s define the two buckets for organizing your Big Data – the sources for Big Data, and the technologies to mine those sources. 

   

  Here are the Top 10 Big Data source types and the corresponding mining techniques that might be applied to find your gold nuggets.

• • s “a network of informal interactions 
    between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or 
    cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity”

• • Social movements are collective actors in which
    coordination takes place through informal networks between formally independent actors, who all
    identify nonetheless – if with variable intensity – with a common cause. They are contrasted to
    coalitions, organizations and communities, that are driven by different logics of action

• • 3. : the decision to 
    join collective action is influenced by the action of other participants. In other words, they  
    emphasise a function of social networks which I call the decision-shaping function

  • 2. , networks play a mediatory role  by connecting prospective participants to an 
    opportunity for  mobilization and  enabling them to convert their political consciousness into 7
    action.
  • 4 more sticky notes...

  • • , creates an initial disposition to participate. 

    • Once 
      individuals  have been integrated into formal or informal networks, they find themselves in an 
      interactive structure that enables them to define and redefine their interpretive frames, 
      facilitates the process of identity-building and identity-strengthening, and creates or solidifies  
      political consciousness towards a given protest issue

    • identities are created and shaped through social relations

    • Three Functions of Social Networks

• Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and advocacy groups.
• In the post-war period, women's rights, gay rights, peace, civil rights, anti-nuclear and environmental movements emerged, often dubbed the New Social Movements ^[4] They led, among other things, to the formation of green parties and organisations influenced by the new left. Some find in the end of the 1990s the emergence of a new global social movement, the anti-globalization movement.