The Bamboo Project Blog

It's Not Just About "Good Enough," It's About Empowerment

My post earlier this week on disruptive innovations and "good enough" solutions sparked an interesting response from Niels Unis:

"Bamboo gives the example of micro-lending which has changed many people’s lives. What is so effective about micro-lending, among other things, is that it empowers people to change their own lives finding solutions in situations that they know and understand. This empowerment, however, is a radical idea, and much more than a “good enough” solution. Mother of Peace has built a self sustaining farm. They make their own bread. . .

What I think is at stake is that in wanting to provide the ultimate solution, we want to feed our ego, increase our power over the world. The shift in thinking is not from “perfect” to “good enough.” The shift is one that recognizes that creating more power for the powerless, ultimately empowers everybody."

I think that Niels is right on with this insight. While the original intention of my post was to share the concept of catalytic innovations and "good enough solutions," , Niels accurately points out that the power of many of these innovations may lie in their capacity to empower the powerless.

"Good enough" solutions by their very nature will not be able to breed the same level of dependence found in more comprehensive programs. They are meant to be less fully-featured, easier to use, more simplistic. They are meant to get a specific job done and in the process, they empower the recipients to be the ones to do that.

I think Niels is also right that there's a touch of ego in wanting to provide more "comprehensive" solutions. On many occasions I've worked on designing education and training programs for TANF recipients and disadvantaged youth. Time and again I've been told that these people aren't "capable" of learning like other people--that we need to set up a system that basically does everything for them because they aren't able to do it for themselves. When I've been able to successfully fight this mentality and create a more empowering, more loosely-structured program, the naysayers have always been astounded by the results. Not that it doesn't mean I don't often have a fight on my hands again the next time I push for more customer control.

So another reason for us to pursue more catalytic innovations--because they empower the people with whom we are working.

Michele

When Funding Priorities Change

An article in this morning's Marin Independent Journal about the impact of Marin Community Foundation funding cuts led me to this article on the Foundation's recent decision to change their funding priorities:

The foundation announced in June that its board of trustees had decided to split its giving equally between sustaining and initiating grants. As a result, nonprofit organizations that serve some of Marin's neediest residents will have to reconfigure their operations or face the possibility of losing millions of dollars in funding.

The change will result in a shift of more than $35 million from sustaining grants to fund new initiatives over the next four years. The foundation gave nearly $26 million to Marin organizations during the fiscal year that ended June 30.

Among the reasons they cite for their decision are the proliferation of nonprofits with similar missions and programs and the desire to have a bigger impact. Not surprisingly, this policy change has upset a lot of people from the nonprofit community. But I see it as a change that is actually moving in the right direction.

One of my all-time favorite books is Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. In it, the authors argue that in visionary organizations, there is a tension between the need to preserve the core and stimulate progress.

Preserving the core means that an organization is very clear about its organizational mission and values and sticks to the strategic and tactical decisions that support their core organizational culture. A strong core gives everyone in the organization a sense of purpose and clear guidance for making decisions and taking action.

While preserving the core is important, there's also a need to stimulate progress. Organizations will not grow and flourish if they do not continue to take new action in light of changing circumstances. Recognizing that there's a tendency to stick with the "tried and true" even when the world is changing around you, the most visionary organizations have developed policies for themselves that force their organizations to change and adapt. 3M, for example, requires that a percentage of its business each year must come from new products and services. They will never completely rely on what they've done in the past--no matter how successful--because they know that eventually this will spell their demise.

From what I can see, the Marin Community Foundation is attempting to put this strategy into practice within the nonprofit/social sector environment. They recognize that their continued funding of existing programs will ensure the continuation of the same old same old and discourage innovation or change. They want to be more strategic in their support and to drive greater innovation and collaboration. This is a bold move, one that other foundations and nonprofits themselves should consider. Ongoing change is a fact of life. Developing strategies and policies that encourage the change cycle can have great benefits and create an environment that allows changes to be more strategic and coordinated. I'll be curious to see how things turn out.

Michele

 

Creating Nonprofit Skill Networks

Lately I've been exploring the concepts of nonprofit networks here, what it takes to form and nurture connections among various nonprofits and between nonprofits and individuals. We've talked about building connectivity networks that link people to people, affinity networks that reinforce commonalities among network members and production networks that move affinities into collective action.

The other day I was researching learning management systems for a client interested in tracking staff competences and training needs. I started thinking about the need for skill networks within the nonprofit community and what would have to happen in order for us to develop such networks.

What Do I Mean by a Nonprofit Skill Network?
Very simply, a nonprofit skill network would bring together the knowledge and skills of individual staff at all member organizations and make those skills available to the members of the network. For example, a staff person at Agency A might have skills in developing organizational newsletters. This skill would be cataloged in an online location--either a database or in some other form, such as through a wiki using tagging. When Agency B needs someone to do a newsletter for them, but they lack the internal skills for this to happen, then they would be able to find the staff person from Agency A who could then assist them in implementing that project. 

Why Do We Need Nonprofit Skill Networks?
Staff knowledge and skills are the lifeblood of any organization, but this is particularly true for nonprofits. The more skilled our staff are, the more access to good information they have, the more likely we are to be successful. But many nonprofits are small. They don't have the capacity within their individual organizations to cover all the skill needs that may be necessary to create an effective organization. This is particularly the case when we venture outside of traditional program areas into more functional skills, for example, IT, human resources, marketing and public relations, staff training etc.

With the creation of a skill network, member organizations would be able to expand their capacity to access particular knowledge and skills. In some cases, I could see organizations sharing a collective pool of staff. For example, Agency A might employ a marketing person who splits her time between several members of the network. Network members who used the marketing person would either reimburse the employing agency for the staff person's time or they could trade for services, perhaps offering the use of their finance person in return.

Agencies would also be able to access specialized skills and knowledge for special projects. For example, if an organization needed to run a training on case management basics, they might be able to "borrow" a staff person from one of the other organizations to provide the training. Again, they could either pay for the use of the staff person's time or they could trade for other services.

How Would a Skill Network Operate?
The first order of business would be to find a way to catalog the knowledge, skills and abilities of staff from all network member organizations. The network members would need to agree on a common taxonomy for describing skills so that member organizations are comparing apples to apples.

Ideally, these skills would be cataloged in an online system, either a shared database or by using something less sophisticated, such as tagging. If tagging was used, I could see the creation of a network wiki or blog. For each staff person there would be a detailed biography and maybe a copy of their resume, work samples, etc. Their entries would also be tagged with the appropriate knowledge and functions. Interested agencies would then be able to access the biographies by looking under the appropriate tags.

Other issues that would need to be addressed by the network would include:

• Processes and procedures for collecting the information from staff, including what information will be collected and how it will be shared.

• Will participation in the skill network be voluntary or required for individual staff?

• Processes for accessing staff from other agencies to work on various projects

• Acceptable exchanges--will trading be allowed or would it be strictly a financial arrangement? How will the organizations handle the financial side of things?

• Who will be responsible for maintaining and updating the skill database?

Cons of a Skill Network
There would be a number of challenges to creating such a skill network, not the least of which would be getting past the often siloed, territorial thinking of many organizations. Clearly this would be a complicated endeavor with logistical and practical concerns galore. Many organizations might be uncomfortable with the idea of hiring a staff person in the hopes that they would be able to share that person with other agencies and be reimbursed for those costs. (One way around that would be to look into sharing freelance consultants who would not be employed by any single agency). For various reasons, individual staff might also object to providing their services to another nonprofit. And a significant number of nonprofits operate in crisis mode, making the idea of setting up a skill network a pipe dream they feel they have little time to pursue.

Pros of a Skill Network
For all the potential problems in setting up and maintaining a skill network, I think that there are also significant benefits that make it a worthwhile endeavor. Clearly it would expand the capacity of individual organizations to provide higher quality services. They would have access to knowledge and skills beyond their organization that could give their individual organization a new lease on life.

There's also a benefit to individual staff. In many cases, nonprofit staff get burned out from dealing with the same people and problems on a daily basis. The opportunity to provide services in their strength areas to other organizations could re-energize a tired career. They could also give staff an opportunity to stretch and grow in ways that would in turn benefit their employing organization.

Some Possible First Steps
When I'm thinking about possibilities, I tend to take them to the furthest degree. I see the end result, which can be overwhelming to a lot of people. I think there are smaller steps that organizations could take, however, to start moving in the direction of a larger skill network.

Create an Internal Skill Network--The technologies exist for individual organizations to create their own internal knowledge and skill networks. Using wikis and blogs, individual organizations could take it upon themselves to catalog their internal staff knowledge and skills to make this information available to others in the organization. I would suggest delving deeply into what staff know--you may be surprised at the skills that people have developed in other parts of their lives that could be utilized within the organization.

Create a Skill Network with 1-2 Trusted Partners--Most nonprofits have developed relationships with other organizations already. To expand outside of the individual organization, they could reach out to a few of their trusted partners to build a smaller shared network of skills. You may already be doing this on an informal basis. However, making it a somewhat more structured process could reap bigger benefits for all members of the network. It could also create some major value-add for grant applications.

I think that there are a lot of possibilities for this concept and I'd love to hear from you about your thoughts, if you've seen anything like this being developed anywhere, etc. E-mail me or leave me a note in comments.

Michele

Need to Mashup a Google Map? Try Wayfaring

In a meeting yesterday, a couple of my clients wanted to be able to see the locations of various employers in their community on a map, but weren't sure how to do this. I knew that this was something we could do using Google Maps, but not being a programmer, I also knew it was beyond my minimal capacities to be fooling around with Google's API. So I started to do a little research and quickly stumbled upon Wayfaring. It's a nice little tool that could prove helpful if you want to create your own map.

Creating a Map
You have to register to start a map, something I did in about 60 seconds. Within about 5 minutes, I had developed my first map showing the location of several employers in Delaware County outside of Philadelphia.

The first step in the process is adding "Waypoints," which are the locations you want to include on the map. You name your Waypoint (I just used company names) and then in the next screen, you enter the street address. Wayfaring will automatically figure out the GPS location of the address and integrate it with Google so that you can see your location as a pin on your map.

If you'd like you can add tags (I had entered a few hospitals, so I tagged them as such) and you can also include notes on each location. In my case, I could use notes to put the contact information of the HR manager at each of the companies we were including on the map (with their permission of course). Once you've added your notes and tags, you hit "Done" and you've added your Waypoint.

Adding additional waypoints was just as easy, although I did run into a few situations where the site couldn't find the address I'd entered. I need to do some more troubleshooting on that problem.

Sharing Your Map
If you want to share your map with someone else, you have a couple of options. You can use the e-mail tab to e-mail your map to your target audience. You also have the option of cutting and pasting the code to include in your blog or website. In my case, I'll probably be including the map in the job search blog I'm going to be creating for the client.

Possible Uses
So why would anyone want to create their own map in the first place? I can actually see a lot of potential applications for the service. Later in the spring I hope to be working with a group of young people on an asset mapping project (we're waiting on grant money--sound familiar?). In that project, we want to gather information about the resources that are available in our community to serve the needs of youth who have dropped out of school. This tool could come in handy as a way to document what we collect. It would also allow us to easily share the information with other people in the community through the wiki and other tools we have planned.

Since we've been talking so much about networks lately, I can also see using this tool to map the location of individual network members or organizations or of various services that clients may access. Brainstorming with the network, you could probably come up with other value-add maps to create that would be helpful to network members. 

Pros and Cons
One feature I'd like to have but didn't see is the ability to use tags to screen locations on my map. In my case, for example, I've included several hospitals. It would be nice if I could use the tag to include only hospitals on my map.

There also doesn't appear to be any "Help" feature--not even a FAQs section--so if you run into trouble, it seems that you're on your own to figure it out.

That said, though, Wayfaring was pretty easy to use and I got myself up and running quickly with minimal problems. And I can't complain about the price, since it's free. So if you're looking for a simple, fast way to put together your own Google Maps mashup, you might want to take Wayfaring for a spin.

Michele

Nonprofit Networking Part 7: Creating Collective Value Through a Peer Assist Process

Recently we've been exploring the ways in which a nonprofit network can create collective value for its members. One strategy to consider is the Peer Assist, which I stumbled across on Nancy White's Full Circle Online Interaction Blog. You can watch a 5-minute animated tutorial on the process here.

Essentially a type of brainstorming session that reminds me of Open Space, the Peer Assist involves an individual identifying a problem or issue to address and then inviting up to 8 people to a facilitated 45-minute brainstorming session. The "Peer Assistee" (the person with the problem) must clearly identify the issue he/she wishes to address and then the problem-solvers will ask clarifying questions and offer possible solutions to the problem. The facilitator records all suggestions on flip chart paper and then the Peer Assistee uses this information to (presumably) solve his/her problem.

You can also run a "Rotating Peer Assist" that involves 20-60 people--several people with a problem and several facilitators with the problem-solvers rotating around the room to provide input and feedback for each problem.

Both of these strategies have potential I think as activities for nonprofit networks to engage in as network-building strategies. Some possibilities I can see include:

• Having a "mini" Peer Assist as a regular part of network meetings. Potential Peer Assistees would submit their problems ahead of time and a portion of the meeting would be spent on brainstorming around one or two problems. This would have the added benefit of encouraging attendance at meetings because people both love to have their problems solved, as well as being able to offer help to others.

• A Rotating Peer Assist would be a great idea for a half-day or full-day network conference. Organizers could identify a theme for the Peer Assist problems and/or consider having Community of Practice Peer Assists that relate to various job functions, such as having a "Case Manager Peer Assist Day" where case managers could present on their problems and get feedback from fellow participants. This seems to me a far better use of time that would be infinitely more engaging than the conference activities we usually see.

• A technology-enhanced Peer Assist is another option. A wiki would be the perfect complement to the Peer Assist session. Rather than recording ideas on flip chart paper, they could be recorded directly into a specially created wiki. This would then be available for participants to add to later allowing them to provide links to other resources, sample documents, etc.

For those with higher technology comfort levels, I could also see an entirely web-enabled Peer Assist using Skype and a wiki to brainstorm.

Ongoing use of a Peer Assist process along with the use of a wiki or blog to serve as the online library of problems and solutions could be a great way for a nonprofit network to build a knowledge base that network members could repeatedly turn to in solving issues or problems. This is the kind of collective value proposition that can improve connections between members and start to build the knowledge and will for collective action.

Can you see other uses for this kind of process? Let me know in the comments.

UPDATE--Via Nancy's blog comments, Bill Harris provides some additional ideas on how to make the peer assist experience even richer, including using journaling to deepen learning.

Michele

Adding Value by Tracking Legislation

I was on the phone with one of my clients this morning who reported that she'd spent the last hour trying to find the text of a U.S. Senate bill and information on its status. Like many of us in the nonprofit world she needs this information to keep an eye on potential funding and program issues that may be impacted by legislation.

I did a quick search for her and stumbled across a nice little Web 2.0 tool, GovTrack. A 2006 Webby Award Nominee,

"GovTrack brings together information on the status of federal legislation, voting records, and campaign contributions.  The site automatically tracks legislative events and categorizes them into thousands of subjects, such as "nuclear energy" and "medicine," so that users can subscribe to follow just the events that interest them.  Events, like the passage of bills, are sent to users on a daily or weekly basis by email, or through RSS/Atom feeds."

The nice thing about the site is that individual nonprofits can keep track of federal legislation that may impact their organizations by signing up for a feed or e-mail updates in topical areas that interest them. No need to manually track a bill's progress--just sign up and you'll automatically be notified when there's action on an existing bill or a bill related to your nonprofit is introduced in Congress.

Even better, you can also easily copy code from the GovTrack to embed updates directly into your site or blog. So nonprofits engaged in advocacy can automatically notify their constituents about pending legislation as a service through their site. Or organizers of a network of nonprofits could embed the information into their site or blog as a service to members.

This is a great example of how a Web 2.0 tool can be leveraged to improve the quality of your nonprofit's information and services, adding value to a network.

Michele

Building Nonprofit Networks Part Six: Creating Collective Value with Individuals

Before I went on my little sabbatical earlier this month, I'd been working on a series devoted to Nonprofit Networking based on NetGains. In that last post, I talked about the need to create a collective value propositions in networks because it is the perception of value that makes a network greater than the sum of its parts. I had planned to next write about the developmental tasks of a network, but began to think more about collective value propositions and with whom we end up forming those.

In my previous posts, we talked primarily about networks formed with other nonprofits. There's a strong need for us to do this better and it's an avenue we need to continue to pursue.

But I believe that increasingly, our opportunities for growth, resources and collective action may lie in forming networks with individuals, particularly through the Internet. Yes, we need to find ways for nonprofits to work together better, but some of the most successful organizations right now are those that have figured out how to form collective value propositions with individuals, rather than with other nonprofit organizations. And this is possible only because of the new breed of web-based tools that have created a more interactive and participatory online culture. 

Creating Collective Value By Forming Networks with Individuals
Remember, there are four ways to create value in a network:

• Providing connections to the right people

• Sharing valuable knowledge

• Providing access to skills and competencies of other network members

• Providing access to resources that may be useful to other members

Yesterday, I shared the list of the 59 Smartest Organizations Online, developed by NetSquared, Squidoo and GetActive.  Many of the organizations on the list are there in part because they have made innovative use of the web to form more open and creative networks with constituents.  For example:

• Several of the nonprofits on the list provide opportunities for micro-donations. Kiva allows donors to lend small amounts of capital to specific entrepreneurs they wish to support, thus providing value both through creating connections between the right people and access to resources for the entrepreneurs. ASPCA and  Modest Needs are other examples of nonprofits using micro-donation opportunities to foster collective value and action.

• An example of a network that is leveraging the skills and competencies of individual members is Witness. Formed to encourage video documentation of human rights abuses around the world, Witness provides training and on-line resources that prepare people to videotape violations of human rights. Videographers can then upload their videos to the site, creating a comprehensive video library that can be accessed both by the public and by all members.

• World Changing.com is a nonprofit devoted primarily to bringing together world-changing ideas, resources and people. As their manifesto states, "WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it's here. We only need to put the pieces together." Their site uses blogging and commenting to share ideas and encourage individual ongoing conversations about ways to change the world, thus forming collective value around a wide variety of propositions.

• Freedom Toaster is an unusual South African project devoted to putting vending machines throughout South Africa that are preloaded to dispense free digital products, including software, photography, music and literature. Their site provides all of the documentation necessary to built, install, maintain and customize Freedom Toasters, empowering users to create their own wherever they want. This is a network that is basically putting the tools, resources and competencies necessary to create the product into the hands of anyone prepared to act.

To me, a big part of the message here is that technology is enabling nonprofits to pursue the creation of new value propositions and the formation of new networks. Some organizations, like the ones I mentioned above, were created in part to take advantage of the ways that web technologies now foster collective value and action. But even more "traditional" nonprofits are benefiting from engaging individuals in support of their cause through smart use of the Web. The Sierra Club, GreenPeace, The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the ASPCA have all been around for years and each is working hard to better engage individuals in supporting their cause, not just through financial donations, but through collective productive action.

I believe that success in nonprofit networking requires us to do a better job of creating and nurturing networks of nonprofits. But I also believe that long-term survival and success may ultimately lie in our ability to create new and better networks with individuals. This means we need to pay attention to how we can create value and network connections in arenas where we may never have worked before.

Michele

Building Nonprofit Networks--Part Five: Creating Value

For the past several days I've been exploring three types of nonprofit networks and the characteristics/features of each. Yesterday we discussed the need for networks to have a collective value proposition, which I promised to explore in more detail today.

According to NetGains:

"As goes the collective value proposition, so goes the network. The collective value proposition is what makes the network greater than the sum of its parts. As Heather Creech points out, 'If the network serves only as an umbrella for a collection of individual projects, it is not realizing its added value potential.' A collective value proposition is a commitment to joint value creation by network members."

How Do Networks Create Value for Members?
According to NetGains, collective value is a two-way street. Often when organizations begin to create a network, they are "organization-centric" in their thinking, considering mostly what they can get from the network, rather than what they can offer to the network. But to be successful, there must be a give and take in value creation--if everyone is there to take, there will be nothing to get. A collective interest must be forged, one that satisfies both your interests and the interests of others.

Networks can create value in four ways:

• Connections--Connecting others in the network to people who may be able and willing to help them.

• Knowledge--Bringing valuable information that others may not posses to the network.

• Competencies--Providing skills that others may need.

• Resources--Providing access to resources or funds that may add value for network members.

Collective value is created by the synergy of these four value options and how each individual network member finds and creates value through these options. What is critical to understand here is that it's the collective value that makes the network. Each network member must find at least one thing that they value from their membership in the network that is shared by other network members. They must also be willing to GIVE to the network in a way that creates value for the other members.

Further, network members must be willing and able to give up a degree of their own individuality and autonomy to buy into the collective vision that is created through membership in the network. Otherwise, as Heather Creech notes above, the network will not reach its true potential.

Collective Value in Connectivity Networks
Remember that connectivity networks are the foundation of all networks. They are formed to link people to people and people to information. Obviously then, the collective value propositions for those involved in a connectivity network will begin with the people and information each member can bring to the network.

Getting members to share both their information and their connections can be a challenge for network organizers. In my experience, there can be something of a "proprietary" flavor to what individual nonprofits are doing. Particularly in a competitive funding environment there's often a reluctance to share either information or connections. Yet failure to do so will doom a fledgling network to failure, as it is the access to information and people that motivates most network members in the first place.

The other issue here is how to make sharing of information and connections easy for members to do. This is where the presence of "weavers"--individuals who are in charge of making the linkages within the network and bringing in more network members--is critical. This is also where technology tools, such as e-mail newsletters, wikis and blogs, can play a role.

Creating Collective Value in Affinity and Production Networks
Affinity networks, remember, grow out of connectivity networks. They are organized around a set of shared values, approaches, etc. In other words, around a collective value proposition. Production networks then take this collective value one step further and translate it into joint action.

Affinity and production networks will continue to need the value that's created by people and knowledge. But in addition, they will also need members to create value based on competencies and resources. This is particularly important with production networks because they rely on the skills and resources of their members to get work done.

As with connectivity networks, the challenges for affinity and production networks lie in facilitating the process of sharing value contributions to create collective value. Careful attention must be paid to ensuring that individual members are monitoring "process," finding out who has what to offer to the network, and making linkages that can create new value for network members. Both face-to-face and technological strategies are necessary to accomplish this.

The Importance of Multiple Collective Value Propositions
While networks can be formed around a single collective value proposition, most networks find that they need to offer multiple  options  because different organizations will generally want and need different things. One nice example of this is Lawrence Communityworks, a network of more than 1,600 residents of Lawrence, MA:

". . . (the program) offers multiple value propositions through its many different programs for members. 'They are designed to draw people into the network,' explains Bill Traynor. 'They are doors into the network. Having many different doors is critical because it increases the chances that someone will find a reason to join the network.'"

Network organizers recognize that a key to network-building is paying ongoing attention to the value that members derive from their membership in the network. Different individuals and different organizations will find that they are drawn to the various ways they can be involved in the network, as well as the different benefits they find through their membership. The challenge is to continue to identify these needs and refine the ways in which the network is able to create and communicate this collective meaning.

In the next post on this topic, I'm going to take a look at the five developmental tasks of a network and how these play out.

Above, Original image: 'Lindsey's' www.flickr.com/photos/49502981712@N01/109450218
by: Kristine

Building Nonprofit Networks--Part Four: Affinity & Production Networks

Continuing with the learnings from NetGains on developing networks, today I want to talk in more detail about affinity and production networks.

Affinity Networks Build Alignment
As you'll recall, connectivity networks link people to people and people to information. Affinity networks build on these initial linkages to align the network around what is called a "collective value proposition." According to Platrik and Taylor:

" . . . a collective value proposition (is) a shared reason to care about each other. The individual people in the network come to share a set of ideas, language, standards or identity. This allows them to more efficiently exchange information and coordinate with each other as a group. They are more than just connected to each other, but less than focused on a narrow production goal."

The key difference between a connectivity network and an affinity network is that members of an affinity network must give up a measure of their individuality in order to align themselves more closely as a group with shared values and meaning. Affinity requires that members of the group develop enough trust for them to be willing to buy into the group proposition.

Key Tasks of the Affinity Network
In addition to continuing the weaving activities of the connectivity network, organizers of the affinity network must focus on strengthening relationships between members. They must allow members to come together regularly so that people can get to know each other to develop trust and explore their potential shared values and identity. The most effective way to do this is through face-to-face meetings. Technology can also support this process.

The other key task in an affinity network is helping members to forge their collective value proposition. To some extent this will happen as a natural result of contact with one another. But, this is a process that usually must be helped along by network organizers. In part this is because while individuals and organizations may have a lot of ideas about what the network can do for them, they tend to think much less about what value they can bring to the network.

Production Networks Develop for Specific Purposes
A production network builds upon the connectivity and affinity networks that have previously been developed and transforms them into joint actions for specialized outcomes.

The types of joint actions that production networks typically take include:

• Generating particular goods and services

• Advocating for particular polices or causes

• Innovating to jointly address particular social issues

• Learning about and spreading specific best practices

• Mobilizing support

• Building the capacity of local leaders or organizations

Structure and Activities of a Production Network
The structure and activities of production networks depends on their specific purpose. For example, networks that form to build public support will need to focus on rapid growth and "spreading the word." Therefore they are likely to be more loosely structured with many communication hubs that can quickly and efficiently move information through the network. On the other hand, a network that forms to provide after-school programming to urban young people may be more tightly structured with fewer organizations involved and much closer collaborative agreements developed.

Developing an effective production network requires that members be very clear about the specific purpose(s) of the network and the roles of network members in achieving that purpose. It also requires the development of connections and alignment. Production networks do not develop overnight in response to an RFP or other funding opportunity, although this is often they path that nonprofits take in forming a network. Work must already have been done around connecting members to one another, developing high levels of knowledge and trust, and creating alignment around common goals and values.

The Collective Value Proposition is Key
For all types of networks, but especially affinity and production networks, the development of a common value proposition is critical.  It is only through the creation of common value that you will gain the full effects of a network and be able to continually engage network members to achieve group goals.

In my next post on this topic,  I'm going to talk a little more about creating common value because it is such a key strategy for moving networks forward. Unfortunately, lack of attention to developing common value is one of the major reasons why many networks get stuck.

Michele

Nonprofit Networks Part Three: Using Technology to Build Connectivity

Yesterday we discussed connectivity networks and how they are the foundation of all collaborations. As you'll recall, connectivity networks link people to people and people to information. They are characterized by loose ties between people and they tend to form around "hubs" or people who are able to connect people to other people and to relevant information.

All networks, especially connectivity networks, are strengthened by face-to-face interactions. These in-person connections help people form more trusting relationships with each other and they are often the most effective way to conduct certain kinds of work. In this post, however, I want to talk about how I believe technology can support the creation and development of connectivity networks.

Two Major Elements to Connectivity Networks
To form strong connectivity networks, you must have two key elements--a strong informational/navigational element and people responsible for nurturing the connections between people and between people and information. In other words, you need useful, valuable information that people are looking for and you need at least one person to help them connect with that information and with other people in the network who can also serve as sources of information and connection.

It's important to remember that relevant, timely information and access to "the right people" are the major currencies of connectivity networks. People and organizations want to join  networks that connect them to these two things. Further, they will not maintain their connections to a network if they do not have access to good information and helpful people.

Supporting the Spread of Information in a Connectivity Network
The explosion of the Web has created an associated explosion of information. It has also created new tools for gathering, managing and sharing information in ways that are more meaningful and useful. For nonprofits wishing to create connectivity networks, these two developments create great opportunities.

What Information Should You Be Sharing?
To create your connectivity network, consider who it is you want to bring together and what kinds of information they may need. Think about:

• Potential gaps in information needed by network members

• Opportunities to put information needed by different organizations into a central repository to be shared by all network members.

• Sharing of best practices and common resources. 

• Consider creating communities of practice among people with common issues and needs, such as a case manager network or a network of grant writers and then focusing on their information needs.

 

One example of what we're talking about here is told in NetGains:

Chris Lynch has spent three years weaving together the hundreds of organizations that provide after-school sports programs for youth in Greater Boston. His work was supported by the Barr Foundation, which was concerned that thousand of youth were not being served, especially urban youth and girls. Lynch's assignment was to start connecting the scattered after-school sports organizations to each other and to resources they could use. In early 2006, he published the 25th e-newsletter of Sportsnet, part of a website that provides information to network members and facilitates communication between members.

Another example is the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, which has created interactive hunger maps showing the locations of hunger resources throughout the city.
As described in a recent TechSoup article,

"(Through this project, they sought) to compile a comprehensive list of all known soup kitchens in the area, but also to facilitate collaboration and communication between local pantries to help them reduce duplication of efforts, better target their limited resources, and unite in their public-advocacy efforts."

The key is identifying the kinds of information that are considered useful, relevant and timely for your nonprofit network. Think about the information you wish you had. Ask other potential network members what information they think is missing or too fragmented to work with.

How Do You Gather and Share the Information?
Newer web technologies provide great opportunities for both finding and sharing the kinds of information that will build a strong connectivity network.

To gather information, consider using tools such as Google Alerts and RSS feeds to keep yourself updated on the latest news and stories from around the Internet. Find blogs that are written by knowledgeable people in your nonprofit field and get in the habit of reading them to find useful information you can share with network members.

You must also be prepared to go "off-line" for valuable information. While there's a lot of information readily available online, great sources of information in the nonprofit world will also be found in print materials, at meetings, and in other "real-world" interactions.  In fact, some of your most valuable information may be "hidden" within your individual network member organizations and the key may be finding ways to move this information into a shared, central location that is accessible to all.

To share information, you have many options. Like Chris Lynch above, you might start with an e-mail newsletter and a basic network website for sharing links to resources and to other members of your network. Blogs, wikis and "mashups" provide other options for sharing information in ways that can be more useful and relevant for your network members. You can also use tagging or social bookmarking as strategies for sharing information on common topics.

Supporting the Development of Community in Your Connectivity Network
The other major component of a connectivity network is the development of connections between people and organizations. It is critical to recognize that connections between organizations are based on the connections between individual people.  To foster connections between nonprofit entities, you must foster connections between the individuals within those organizations.

Remember that the creation of community in a connectivity network depends on the work of  "weavers." These are individuals who are like the hosts of your network party. They introduce people to one another, explain the culture of the community, and help people connect to the information they are looking for. Weavers pay attention to process and to ensuring that there's ongoing access to good, relevant information available to the members.

How Can Technology Help Build Community and Make Connections Between the People in the Network?
The development of community is based on interactions with other people. While sharing information (as we described above) can start to help network members develop a sense of common needs and approaches, simply providing information to members is not going to build community. This requires 2-way communication that allows network members to "talk" with other members.

Obviously in an ideal world, these interactions would take place face-to-face. But limitations of time and location can be a barrier to in-person interactions. Technology allows us to overcome these barriers. It also allows connectivity networks to form between organizations and people that might otherwise be isolated from one another. These connections are often the source of great innovations and growth.

There are a few technology options that can start to build that sense of community:

• E-mail is probably the simplest strategy. Weavers can use e-mail to answer individual questions and to connect network members to one another, suggesting, for example, that one member of the network might be a valuable contact for another. E-mail listservs (like Yahoo Groups) can further support this community development as individual members are able to interact with the entire group for advice, information, etc.

• A network blog is another potential option. Network members can easily contribute articles and resources. They can also use comments to respond to the information that members share and to begin conversations that may be followed up via e-mail or through other means.

• A wiki may be a great tool to develop if your network needs to create a repository of shared information. Wikis are excellent ways to share resources and best practices. They make it easy for members to add their own content and comment on the content added by others.

• Using photosharing with sites like Flickr allows network members to  post pictures and information about themselves and their organizations. This creates a new kind of connection as members are able to "see" other members and what they do.

• More "advanced" users of technology may want to consider developing and sharing relevant podcasts or using tools such as Skype to generate free, online phone calls between members. Use of social networking sites like Care 2  or MySpace may be another strategy to consider, depending on the members of your network.

The technologies a network selects to support the development of community will depend on the needs and capacities of the network members. It also depends on the level of commitment the network is willing to make to developing and supporting the growth of community.

It's critical to remember, though, that more "advanced" networks--the ones nonprofits rely on to get work done--first require the successful development of connectivity networks. Failure to pay attention to the initial development of connectivity will create a very shaky foundation for later collective action.

In my next post on this topic, I'm going to go into more detail on the development of affinity networks, which build on the foundation of connectivity to create a common value proposition.

Michele