Free webinar March 17.  Visualizing Complexity to Realize Change:  Comparative mapping methods. Click here for more information.

We can easily be overwhelmed by the complexity of large networks where there are  many different organizations and people involved. Clearly “seeing” relationships between organizations, people, and key concepts is important for successful network strategies.

To vastly enhance and speed understanding of these relationships, I’ve worked with various forms of “mapping”.  Network maps are diagrams of lines or arrows (representing connections) and nodes (representing individuals, organizations, ideas) that can visually communicate tremendous amounts of information much more easily than volumes of text.  Here are some approaches I’ve found useful:

Web crawls

This approach maps and analyzes relationships between URLs.  This gives a picture of how organizations and issues are connected virtually that is increasingly important in any strategy.  Since URLs are usually associated with organizations, crawls quickly identify organizations working in a particular issue system.  The crawls maps links on one web-site to another webs-site.

Example: Working with a tool developed at the University of Amsterdam, we did crawls to identify networks in the global finance system for the Global Finance Initiative in order to identify key organizations and people to develop a change strategy.  Map 1 is of NGOs engaged in the global finance debate;  it suggests that surprisingly they do not have well defined relationships with perhaps the most influential players in global finance, including the Bank for International Settlements and the Financial Stability Board.

Map 1:  Web Crawl

(Click on map to enlarge view.)

Social/Organizational/Inter-Organizational network analysis (SNA/ONA/IONA)

This is classic social network analysis applied specifically to understanding relationships within and between organizations. The existence and relative importance of relationship, connections or communication flows between individuals and organizations is described by these approaches.

Example: When the Global Reporting Initiative considered its strategy for developing a South African network, we used social network analysis.  This produced Map 2, which shows distinct groups of organizations.  This emphasizes the importance of weaving the groups together, and the value of working with organizations that are well-connected in the groups.  Another product was a guide on how to initiate a network.

Map 2:  Inter-Organizational Social Network Analysis

(Click on map to enlarge view.)

Value Network Analysis (VNA)

Key roles and value outputs in an issue system are defined through VNA, helping to shift stakeholder mindset toward a network perspective beyond their usual organizational or institutional focus.   This approach has been developed by Verna Allee. It is available for immediate access and applied use at http://valuenetworks.com/.

Example: When the European Commission wanted to understand how to enhance the process of innovation, we applied VNA using the ValueNetworks.com application to produce a report with four archetypes (models) for moving from an academic idea to a product for a consumer, with important policy implications.  Verna emphasizes the importance of including both contracted tangible exchanges such as money, and intangible ones such as information.  This is illustrated in Map 3

Map 3:  VNA map of innovation

(Dashed lines are intangibles, solid lines are tangibles.  Click on map to enlarge.)

Strategic Clarity Mapping (SCM)

SCM generates a mutual understanding among diverse players’ of their respective strategies to address an issue – including their mental models about change strategies.  This approach has been developed by Jim Ritchie-Dunham of the Institute for Strategic Clarity.

Example: When CARE in Guatemala pondered the increasing poverty, despite its best efforts for many years, we used SCM to change the strategic relationships of CARE, and shift it from project-level to system-level strategies (from building wells to creating a system to build wells).  Map development is documented in a learning history I wrote.

Another examples is with Youth Employment and Sustainability (YES), a Global Action Network.  Institute for Strategic Clarity Vice President Luz Maria Puente worked with YES’ Latin American region, to support the region’s and the sub-countries planning.  It revealed both distinctions between the countries’ strategies to help them learn from one another, and identified weaknesses and strengths of their strategies.  Map 4 shows how Chile and Mexico develop entrepreneurial skills, so young people can start their own business, by providing them support through an incubator system.  This work with YES is described in a Working Paper just published today.

Map 4:  SCM Complex view of poverty

(Click on the map to enlarge.)

A key contribution of these mapping approaches is their ability to generate strategic discussions.  People can see links that they can question, and discuss how to strengthen them in a very strategic manner.  They identify key leverage points — points that will help “move” the entire system because of their connections to other points.

Web crawls are definitely the easiest to undertake.  SNA and VNA and SCM in particular are best developed collaboratively with system participants.  With this approach, even the SCM insights and outputs are well understood.  You can find a paper comparing these methods here. And join me for a free webinar March 17 to further explore these methods;  you can find more webinar information here.

I was leading discussion by a half dozen executive directors of Global Action Networks on the topic of competencies critical to success when we turned to the question of resource mobilization.  I was surprised that none of the leaders thought of financing as a major issue for them, in comparison to the other competencies.

“But what if you think about barriers to your network really flourishing and realizing its goals?” I asked.  That moved the issue of financing to the top of the list of challenges.

The question of financing is wrapped up with stage of development discussed last week and featured in a webinar March 3.  At early stages, less money is required and the question is about finding a venture investor to explore possibilities.  Later stages require more funds and a sustainable business model.

Gathering finance information is very complicated for a network, since it requires defining what part of the network the data cover. As networks develop, most increasingly depend upon sub-parts (regional, particular program) raising their own funds.  In May last year I surveyed 11 networks[1] ranging from 8 to 15 years of age with the initial question:

What was the total income (revenue) that came to/through the Secretariat for the most recent fiscal year including funds that may have gone to other parts of the network?

The response ranged from $500,000 to $11.4 million, with the average of $3.6 million.

Sources of Income

But the finance question is also wrapped up in strategy.  Being multi-stakeholder, the networks could be expected to have tax-based contributions from government, civil society-based funding from foundations and revenue generation from services and fees.  Table 1 gives responses to the question:

Please indicate the approximate percent of funds that flow to/through the Secretariat that come from the following sources.

Most networks perceived potential conflicts of interest with business revenue generation.  One way the Global Compact addresses this is with a foundation to receive business donations;  the foundation does not fund core Secretariat costs, but only the broader network.

Reasons for Funding

Strategy also raises Secretariat-network relationship questions.  For example, Transparency International Secretariat’s role in putting together up to 30 National Chapters for joint funding proposals has recently increased dramatically from less than €1 million a year to more than €5 million.  Table 2 gives responses to the question:

Please indicate the approximate percent of the types of funding/reasons for funding.

These global networks are all really producing “global public goods”…something funded at the national level through taxes.  Substantial global network funding comes through taxes with funding from donor agencies like DFID and multilaterals like the World Bank.  However, as Ernest Ligteringen who heads up the Global Reporting Initiative commented to me, it is fitting a round peg in a square hole.  A much more robust solution must be found to do the important work of global public good financing with categorical national tax transfers or a global tax.

What are your experiences with financing?  What sort of more robust solutions should we strive for?

We depend on networks to voluntarily provide information like this, for on-going development.  If your network is not listed below as a participant in the survey, please have someone fill out the survey by clicking here.  Data is for the 2008 fiscal year, and individual responses remain confidential.  The survey takes only an hour.

Getting into the Flow: Network Development Stages Webinar to move networks ahead.  Free Wednesday, Mar 3 Details http://networkingaction.net/12.html

Networks often become “stuck” far short of their aspirations and potential. What processes can support a network itself to change, renew and revitalize?

The question is critical for networks that want to grow to their full potential.  The question was addressed last Wednesday in a webinar with The Access Initiative and last October in another webinar discussing the Global Knowledge Partnership.  And the question was the focus of a meeting that I led at Harvard Business School last February with a particular focus upon IUCN and the Forest Stewardship Council.

One useful framework to address this change challenge is “development stages”.  The diagram below describes the stages that my work suggests for global, multi-stakeholder networks…and is likely relevant to other network types as well.

(click on image to increase its size)

Stage 1. These networks typically begin as separate initiatives working on a similar problem.  They then decide to combine forces…often around a particular project, but sometimes to address the challenge in general.

Stage 2. As their collective activity grows, they create some common resources and establish a central coordinating function…often called a “Secretariat”.  With continued growth, some sub-parts of the network start to interact relatively independently to address particular issues;  often this takes the form of geographic sub-divisions or ones around a particular industry or specialized set of challenges.

Stage 3. As these sub-divisions become more numerous, dominant network interactions shift from the Secretariat, and the Secretariat itself becomes simply another node in the network with some particular functions such as interacting with global-level organizations and ensuring robust network communications platforms.

Stage 4. At a final stage, these multi-stakeholder networks themselves start to interact more often with other multi-stakeholder networks.

In the webinar, TAI’s Director Lalanath De Silva said TAI is really at Stage 2.5. It still possesses a founding Secretariat that he heads, but the network’s regional groupings are increasingly important.  TAI took a proactive approach to move into Stage 3.  However, this is a classic moment when many networks get “stuck” because people are “comfortable” with the status quo, and shifting to stage 3 involves to the Secretariat and Board “letting go” of their traditional control and the rest of the network “letting go” of traditional dependence upon the Secretariat.

To support TAI’s shift, Minu Hemmati and Bettye Pruitt of the Generative Change Community supported the Core Team in a strategic Re-envisioning process. Philip Thomas and I participated in the project team in an advisory role. The process included interviews and workshops with the Core Team (Board) and others in the network.

TAI’s change process has three Phases. The Re-envisioning was conceived as taking shape over three distinct Phases.  Phase 1 identified key issues through selected interviews and meetings with network partners, CT members and secretariat staff.   Phase 2 developed responses to the issues through interviews and meetings with a wider group of network partners, CT members and Secretariat staff.

The consultants used two “thinking tools” to support the CT in considering TAI’s strategy. One is a framework developed by Philip Thomas for the Generative Change Community.  This framework – Four Dimensions of Sustainable Change – helped structure conversations in the CT about the assumptions guiding TAI’s change strategy, the different kinds of impact TAI is seeking and seeing as the result of its work and the changes that might be necessary to make it more effective.

The other thinking tool was scenarios, described in last week’s blog.  Both tools were part of a report.  Phase 3 is in development.  It will transform the Phase 2 ideas into concrete proposals for network governance reforms while evaluating TAI’s impact.

The Global Knowledge Partnership change processes was very different and crisis-driven.  The GKP was founded in 1997 to promote the application of information and communication technologies in development (ICT4D).  The change process was stimulated by a shift in the priorities of funders who were also on the GKP Board.  They received an evaluation of the GKP in September 2008 that was very favorable, but at the same meeting announced that they were not going to be providing on-going support.

A Task Force of people with knowledge about the GKP and change expertise was established with leadership of Michael Roberts of Groupsia International.  I was engaged by the Task Force to produce a report and participate in meetings to provide knowledge about options based upon other networks’ development processes.  Mike Jensen was engaged to bring in knowledge about the trends in ICT4D and donors interests.

Over four months with GKP members there were interviews, a joint Board-Regional Coordinator-Consultants meeting, and a final Board-Consultants meeting.  Over the following month the Board announced that it would resign, two scenarios were presented for a virtual vote by members (both with a very reduced Secretariat), and new elections were held with robust participation.  The new Board held its own planning process, and although the vision remained unchanged there were significant mission changes.

One common theme through these change processes is to ensure structure reflects strategy.  A network’s successes and setbacks should produce evolving strategies that need incorporation into the structure.

Do these development stages reflect your experience? Have you transition stories?

Scenario development is a leading tool for moving large, seemingly intractable issues…and particularly useful for large change networks.  I have revisited the progress of the methodology over the last couple of months with the guidance of Rafael Ramirez at the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) of the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School.

Rafael is lead editor of a new version of the business bible on scenario development – Business Planning for Turbulent Times.  The concept of “turbulence” is one highly relevant to Global Action Networks…indeed, it may be said that they are structures to manage turbulence:  when “the shared ‘common good’ is in motion.”  That is to say when there are profound shifts in organizations’ operating environments that are associated with changing technologies and power relationships as are occurring with globalization and unprecedented pressures upon the natural environment.

Shell’s 1970’s scenario planning for the companies’ business planning is usually cited as the first large-scale use of scenario development.  The process produces plausible futures – stories about futures how they can be realized.  Ramirez emphasizes the importance of futures that are both possible and uncomfortable, in order for people to move past stuck positions and think creatively.

If you have marveled at the peaceful transition to post-apartheid South Africa, you should know that scenario development had an important role. Over 1991-92 Adam Kahane, at the time with Shell, led development of the Mont Fleur scenarios with a group of 22 diverse South Africans at the Mount Fleur conference center outside of Cape Town.  The four scenarios developed were named with bird themes to give them life:

1. Ostrich — in which a negotiated settlement to the crisis in South Africa is not achieved, and the government continues to be non-representative.
2. Lame Duck — in which a settlement is achieved but the transition to a new dispensation is slow and indecisive.
3. Icarus — in which transition is rapid but the new government unwisely pursues unsustainable, populist economic policies.
4. Flight of the Flamingos — in which the government’s policies are sustainable and country takes a path of inclusive growth and democracy.”

The scenarios were distributed through national newspapers and presented to 50 groups.  This produced conversations that contributed to building a common vocabulary and mutual understanding about choices and how to realize the Flight of the Flamingos.

This success also contributed to founding in 1996 The Millennium Project, a think tank that applies scenario development and other tools to produce its annual State of the Future reports.

And after leaving Shell, Kahane led numerous large system applications of scenario development-inspired approaches to “stuck” problems as he wrote in Solving Tough Problems.  That includes development of the Global Action Network called The Sustainable Food Lab.  Recently Kahane helped found Reos Partners, which is working with WWF-UK in The Finance Lab on an innovative project to transform finance that also engaged ISIS.

Scenarios focus upon a question that can be exploratory – “What do you think the future might be?” or normative – “What kind of future would you like to see?”  In a recent article Wilkinson and Edinow (also at InSIS)  define three types of approaches to scenarios that are related to three types of change challenges.  From simplest to most complex, these are:

• Problem-focused: setting out to create accurate maps of the future that will enable others to reach a destination as reliably and efficiently as possible…an approach used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• Actor-focused: setting out on a journey and inviting the whole crew to help draw a map of the route that they need to take…an approach used by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development on the issue of water.
• Reflexive interventionist/multi-agent-based (RIMA): setting out on a journey in which environmental scenarios help to shape not only the route, but also the ship, its crew and the ocean itself.  Knowledge is multiple, temporary and dependent upon context.

The RIMA approach is the cutting edge to ‘wicked problems that involve sustaining collaborative action in the public interest/common good.

What are your views on, and experience with, scenario development?

If you were given 10 million euros and three to five years, how would you go about “changing the role of the financial system to better serve economic, social and environmental objectives”?  The EU is asking that question.  And that’s something that I’ve been answering with a consortium of more that 20 European universities. Our proposal went in last week.

For me, all this builds on the work of the Global Finance Initiative that I led.  Scaling Impact’s Sanjeev Khagram and I were convinced of the need for a multi-stakeholder Global Action Network (GAN) in the global finance arena that would take on the very issue the EU is asking with an EU focus.  Starting in January 2008 – just before the financial crisis and with $185,000 from Ford Foundation – we analyzed the global financial arena by further developing mapping methodologies and putting together a stewardship team that came up with a clear action strategy.

But we couldn’t get money for the next phase…because the financial crisis shrank foundations’ budgets and visions!

One exciting aspect about the EU Call is that they clearly want what I’d call a societal learning and change strategy…where financial system stakeholders will work together to (1) gain important new knowledge and perspectives that will change the way they think about the financial system, and (2) develop new social ties that provide for on-going development of new ideas, strategies, structures, and processes with regards to the financial system.

In other words, the goal of the Call is not simply to produce new reports, books and ideas…it’s about making sure the new knowledge is “held” by stakeholders and that they have the vision and relationships to further it.

The Proposal

The proposal to the EU was put together with leadership of the European Academy for Business in Society and Maurizio Zollo, Director of the Center for Research on Organization and Management at Bocconi University in Milan.  It proposes conventional research by an inter-university faculty to investigate from a multi-disciplinary perspective the historic financial system dynamics with comprehensive analysis of the reasons for the financial crisis.

But the project also proposes an action research strategy that includes:

1. Mapping social structures and developing a holistic computer model that simulates cross-system (finance-environment-social-economic-political) and cross-level (local-to-global) interdependences. This contrasts with the narrow product- and firm-level simulations used by finance that contributed to the financial crisis.
2. Engaging stakeholders. A stakeholder council will include financiers, policy makers, regulators and social-, labor-, consumer-, and environmental-activists working on finance issues.  With the researchers, the councillors will co-lead the project and engage their respective constituencies. This will be supported by an innovative social media strategy.
3. Scenario-building. Through stakeholder engagement with small focus groups around the world and larger European ones, plausible alternative futures will be developed.
4. Experimenting. Working with financial firms and other stakeholders, new approaches to such things as decision-making and product development will be tested.

Each of these four actions will further develop methodologies that will be very helpful to other network change strategies.

This approach, like the strategy proposed by the GFI, builds on the experience of GANs and the World Commission on Dams in particular.  The WCD was a 1997-2000 multi-stakeholder process to create comprehensive guidelines for the building of large dams in response to environmental and social disasters associated with large dams funded by the World Bank.  Although the diverse Commissioners reached consensus in a final report, it did not translate into agreement among the broader stakeholders‘ community, and responsibility for next steps was delegated to the UNEP that proved incapable administratively or authoritatively to effect pursuit of the Commission‘s work.

The response to the EU Call aims to overcome the WCD short-coming with its more comprehensive activities and explicitly creating stakeholder connections that can carry on the work.

How would you address the financial crisis as a large-system change challenge?

…GWP, TI, GRI, TAI, Global Compact, IUCN

In a new new study of four Global Action Networks (GANs – multi-stakeholder change networks), Pieter Glasbergen concludes that involving government is key to success. “First, mainstreaming of concepts can only be realized by governments or by their recognition of the private governance mechanism as an alternative tool to solve a collective action problem. Second, governments are also important because most GANs operate in an issue field with many competing private and public initiatives.”

However, governments are usually more difficult than businesses or NGOs to involve in networks as peers.  That’s for two reasons:  because they usually think of themselves as “being in charge”…after all, their key role is making laws and regulations with the power to enforce them.  And then there’s that thing called bureaucratic process…often part and parcel of “due process” to protect rights, transparency and accountability.

Networks have diverse strategies to involve government.  Some like the Global Water Partnership they have active control through their Board;  in others like the IUCN they are partners in governance.  But some networks simply try to avoid government in governance…look at The Access Initiative (TAI) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  They purposely don’t have any place for government in their global governance. But look a bit closer, and you see important government connections.

TAI is giving life to Principle 10 (P10) of the Earth Charter which promotes participatory processes in environmental decision-making.  Think “access to information” and “public reviews of environmental disasters”. Most countries in the world have signed onto the Earth Charter, and that’s TAI’s hook:  working with governments to realize their Principle 10 commitments. But globally TAI is governed globally by NGOs, out of concern that they must protect the integrity of their work, which includes holding governments accountable to their Earth Charter commitment.

TAI takes a “learning” approach when conducting “assessments” of governments’ performance and aims to engage governments as participants.  “TAI members recognize that governments are not monolithic; they are filled with allies and opponents,” comments Joe Foti, TAI Associate.

This leads to a diversity of TAI strategies.  One is that TAI gains government legitimacy and help because it receives funding from the government agencies such as the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  TAI country coalitions find that it usually helps the national Ministry of Environment to have civil society on its side because the MoE is usually weak on finance, political power, and science.  Judges in Argentina and the Ministry of Information in Mexico also have helpful roles.

In Thailand the TAI coalition includes an institute sponsored by the King of Thailand, which gives it legitimacy in government eyes. And in Africa, the TAI-Cameroon representative was asked to speak on the government’s behalf at a UNEP Governing Council meeting when the discussion was about adopting the draft guidelines on implementation of P10.

The GRI has developed a different strategy as it promotes environmental-social-economic reporting, by business in particular. Governments aren’t members because of a concern that they will turn the learning spaces of a voluntary initiative into a regulatory space that would reduce openness to experiment.  However, the GRI has obtained “legitimacy” with government by forming an alliance with the UN’s Global Compact to encourage companies and corporate responsibility organizations to support the synergistic platforms of the Compact and the GRI.

The UN Global Compact is playing this role with other networks as well, such as Transparency International.  The Compact is an initiative with businesses to align their activities with UN principles.  The UN imprimatur of the Compact opens government doors for the networks, without taking on other baggage.

The Global Compact – a multi-stakeholder network “of” the UN – has one of the most interesting government strategies of any global network.  “We knew it was important to leverage the good parts of the UN – the ideas of peace, development and human rights – and yet avoid falling into the trap of the machinery,” says Compact Executive Head Georg Kell.  “But how to do it, we didn’t know.  It evolved over the years.”

Today the Compact has public advocacy and executive branch support through the role of the Secretary General as Chair of its Board;  it has the legislative support of the General Assembly and protection from undue individual country influence through a resolution of support the GA passes every two years;  and it has access to the vast UN system at the national and global levels through an Inter-Agency Working Group that includes the UNEP, the UNDP and other UN agencies.

What are your experiences and strategies networking with government?

Announcement: TAI recently undertook a network-wide process to review and redefine its approach, strategy, and governance.  The process will be the topic of a webinar with TAI’s Director and the change process leaders.  Join us on Feb. 17, 6:00am US/Canada Westcoast;  9:00am Eastcoast; 14:00 UK, 15:00 Europe, 21:00 Philippines/Malaysia.  Go to https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=831&password=M.D319BCA09CFB90E9673E7225D80F0E

Invitation to a new blog by Steve Waddell.

Question: Why are you launching yet another blog?

Response: Because I am having incredible conversations with people who are working in big change networks and, with their blessing, I wish to share their knowledge with others.  Over the past six weeks I have interviewed Transparency International leaders Peter Eigen and Cobus de Swardt, IUCN Director General Julia Marton-Lefevre, Fair Labor Association CEO Andre van Heerden, Executive Head of the UN’s Global Compact Georg Kell, the Stop TB Parternship Executive Secretary Marcos Espinal, and Global Reporting Initiative Chief Executive Ernst Ligteringen.  They’re all facing very similar challenges, and sharing their knowledge can speed up the learning about how to create effective networks, and reduce repeating mistakes.  It can make connections between people who have similar questions, so they can share on the blog or between themselves.

Question: Do I really need one more thing to read?

Response: This blog will be weekly, about 500 – 750 words, designed for a quick scan to see if it is relevant enough to read, circulate to others, or put in a save file. You might actually decide to replace something you are currently reading regularly -:), if this blog provides the value that it aims to provide for people working with multi-stakeholder, big-system change networks.

Question: What’s special about these networks?

Response: First of all, they have tremendous potential to make really important contributions toward addressing the issues that they focus on.  They can do things that other strategies, such as inter-governmental processes, can’t.  Second, they are pioneering a new form of organization…a new strategy…to address critical issues.  Knowledge about developing their effectiveness is comparable to the 1850s when the corporate form was emerging, the 1930s when the welfare state was emerging, and the 1960s when civil society organizations were greatly diversifying and expanding.  Those forms of organizations have schools and universities devoted to their development.  This blog is making a modest contribution in that direction.

Question: It all sounds a bit academic…

Response: The best ideas always come from people grappling intimately with the issues – in this case people working in the networks, making a difference using network strategies.  My work and this blog will focus upon bringing forth those real-life ideas and experiences.  Sometimes the most powerful way to do this is to simply share others’ stories;  other times it is to summarize them in a conceptual framework to make sense of trends and to help you see what parts are particularly applicable for you.  And of course this blog is not simply about what I have to say…it aims to stimulate comments and conversations and connections between others and give a space for all to have their say.

Question: So could you give me a more concrete example of a planned blog topic?

Response: Sure.  How about the question of “who” is a “member” – or do we even need members? How can we mobilize the resources necessary?  Some of the key questions this blog will explore are presented in the figure below, which presents challenges to develop the core competencies that a network needs to be effective. (For more on these core competencies, click here.)  Register in the sidebar to get the blog regularly.  Tell me what questions or thoughts you have in the comment bar below!  And please forward to others you know who might like to subscribe to this blog.