92587 Capacity Development briefs S h a r i n g k n o w l e d g e a n d L e ss o n s L e a r n e d Strengthening Networks: Using Organizational Network Analysis to Promote Network Effectiveness, Scale, and Accountability By Evan Bloom, Matt Reeves, Amy Sunseri, and Veronica Nyhan-Jones Networks are emerging as an important delivery mechanism for sustainable development; however, reli- able network diagnostics are necessary to ensuring accountability and quality to donors and stakehold- ers and to monitoring, evaluating, and learning from networks. In this brief, the authors examine cur- rent practice around networks for development. They describe “organizational network analysis,” a tool applied by Pact’s Capacity Building Services Group1 in multiple international settings, which can help identify opportunities and improve network effectiveness. The authors conclude by emphasizing that a networked approach can provide innovative solutions to today’s development challenges. Around the world, donors and nongovernmental costs, risks, and benefits associated with network sup- organizations (NGOs) are choosing to pursue their port activities. missions through networks of long-term partners. This WBI’s multidimensional approach to poverty reduction is an acknowledgement of the power in numbers: a has emphasized networked information and knowledge single person or organization does not have access to as a means of building more effective institutions and the same information, skills, or resources that a group an enabling environment for concrete development of people or organizations do working together. When results (World Bank, 2001). A 2007 stocktaking of WBI a networked approach is successful, the payoffs can be interventions identified 32 initiatives delivered through impressive, connecting people for knowledge sharing, networks. Networked approaches to development are improving service quality, and deepening development employed by all WBI sector teams and are operating in outcomes.2 In some cases, connecting local resources all regions of the world. through networks may also be vital for sustainability Despite the rise in networked approaches to devel- and avoiding donor dependency. opment within WBI, a degree of confusion and Despite this enormous potential, however, an honest assessment of current practice must acknowledge that 1 practitioners and donors have limited understanding of Pact is an international NGO, whose mission is to build how networks operate. This is particularly challenging empowered communities, effective governments, and responsible private institutions that give people an opportunity for a better due to the difficulties of evaluating the frequency and life. Pact does this by strengthening the capacity of organiza- quality of interactions that are often invisible. tions and institutions to be good service providers, represent their As the dialogue on networking for development stakeholders, network with others for learning and knowledge intensifies and reaches deeper levels of understanding, sharing, and advocate for social, economic, and environmental institutions are beginning to seek tools that can help justice. Interdependence, responsible stewardship, inclusion of vulnerable groups, and respect for local ownership and knowledge to provide baselines, monitor, and evaluate networks, are core values across all of its programs. as well as tools that improve network effectiveness. 2 Engel, Keijzer, and Ørnemark (2006), who summarize the To this end, Pact supported team leaders at the World arguments of Creech and Willard (2001) and Nunez and Wilson- Bank Institute (WBI) to ask hard questions on the Grau (2003). See also Liebler and Ferri (2004). AUGUST 2008 NUMBER  28 Types of Networks Many networks defy easy categorization, as they tend to fulfill multiple roles. The ambiguity of the term “network” makes it dif- ficult to pin down its precise meaning. It could mean friends, large organizations, routers along the backbone of the Internet, or as network researcher Duncan Watts points out, neurons firing in the brain. Here is a list of network types of particular interest to capacity building for development: • Representative networks are the most formal type of network associated with WBI work. These are often legally recognized, bounded groups of similar organizations or individuals that coordinate to take advantage of scale. Examples of representative networks include chambers of commerce, InterAction, and the American Medical Association. • Action networks are groups of organizations and/or individuals that coordinate in order to achieve a strategic goal—be it to scale up learning, providen services, or advocate on a policy issue. Action networks often include diverse groups of organiza- tions and/or individuals. Examples of action networks include the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability (ANSA)-Africa, Net Impact, and the Impact Alliance. • Knowledge exchange and social networks are the most informal type of network for capacity development. These networks are primarily trust based and are intended to increase an individual’s “social capital” by facilitating connections, diffusing infor- mation, and increasing knowledge. Examples of knowledge exchange and social networks include Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D), Linked-In, Facebook, and the WBI Alumni Group. uncertainty remains on what precisely constitutes a of the survey are processed using a software applica- network. Many sector teams are in the business of tion3 and are presented in network maps as nodes (the working through networks without realizing it. Others organizations or individuals) and links (flows of col- may understand the business of networks, but do laboration, resources, and so on). not know how to assess and capture performance. Network metrics generated using organizational net- Meanwhile, these teams may be missing out on gains work analysis bridge the computational skills of math- they could be making by applying promising network- ematicians and physicists with the insights of sociolo- strengthening practices. The first step is to make man- gists, and economists. Each of the metrics provides agers and their program constituents aware of what deeper information about interactions across networks constitutes a network (see box). and about key actors within networks. These include the following: Organizational Network Analysis as a Tool for • Network density, calculated by dividing the num- Understanding Networks and Improving Their ber of links in a network by the total number of Effectiveness links that would exist if every node were linked to every other node. The higher the network den- One tool that shows great promise for visualizing, sity, the more interconnected are the organiza- monitoring, and understanding networks is organi- tions within the network. An intervention that is zational network analysis (see box). This approach intended to build or strengthen a network would uses a survey to gather information on collaboration expect to report an increase in network density among organizations and/or individuals. The results with time. • Degree scores describe the number of connec- tions that an individual node has. Nodes with high “degrees out” scores are those individuals or Organizational Network Analysis organizations that report having large numbers of links with others. These are the most active net- Organizational network analysis views network relation- ships in terms of nodes and links. Nodes are the individual workers and promoters. Nodes with high “degrees actors (organizations or individuals) within the network, in” scores are “connectors” that represent infor- and links are the relationships between the actors. mation hubs considered to be of high value by other actors in the network. Individual • Betweenness scores describe the extent to which an individual node acts as a bridge between oth- erwise unconnected groups in a network. Nodes with high “betweenness” scores are powerful actors with the potential to make or break overall network effectiveness—either acting as bridges or bottlenecks for information and resources. AUGUST 2008 NUMBER  28 Figure 1a: A Hub-and-Spoke Network NGOTSU SOS Children's Village Zambian Service Providers Zambian NGOs Chilangwa UNV JICA ISTT INGO KEPA MAPP Care Bi & Multilateral Sunset (Mukala) ZAMSIF Government YDO Nzelu Choma YDA HACOP Swaaz Other Monze Youth Children Development Plan in Need USAID Oxfam Matoka Network UNDP Kubalusa ZNAN ZINGO ARHA IDE TEVETA Changula GTZ ZPHAI World CHAZ Bank NAC Steadfast DFID MISA DHMT Pact Home Based Care Solwezi APC SNV DATF Thandizani ZINGO Kays Arts South One World Promotions GFC Mansa VSO Harvest Help AMARC World Panos Vision ZBCA NZP+ WCRP Chilindi Campus Youth Alive CELIM Crusades Luumbo Kawambwa Anti-AIDS Club Muzeyi Counselling Center LUFAID Liwomadi Ministry of Education Share MCDSS Figure 1b: The Network without a Hub NGOTSU SOS Children's Village Zambian Service Providers Chilangwa Zambian NGOs UNV JICA KEPA ISTT MAPP INGO Care ZAMSIF Bi & Multilateral Sunset (Mukala) Government Nzelu YDO Choma YDA HACOP Swaaz Monze Youth Children Other Plan in Need Development USAID Oxfam Matoka Network UNDP Kubalusa ZNAN ZINGO ARHA IDE TEVETA Changula GTZ ZPHAI World CHAZ Bank NAC Steadfast DFID MISA DHMT Home Based Care Solwezi APC SNV DATF Thandizani ZINGO Kays Arts South One World Promotions GFC Mansa VSO Harvest Help AMARC World Panos Vision ZBCA NZP+ WCRP Chilindi Campus Youth Alive CELIM Crusades Luumbo Kawambwa Anti-AIDS Club Muzeyi Counselling Center LUFAID Liwomadi Ministry of Education Share MCDSS Figure 2a: Weak Ties among Country Office Teams Tanzania 1 Madagascar 2 Madagascar 1 HQ 3 HQ 1 Tanzania 3 Tanzania 2 Ecuador 1 Ukraine 1 Nigeria 1 HQ 2 HQ 6 Zambia 2 Zambia 1 DRC 2 DRC 1 Cambodia 1 HQ 5 HQ 4 Ethiopia 2 Kenya 1 Ethiopia 3 Kenya 3 Kenya 4 Ethiopia 1 Kenya 6 Kenya 2 Nigeria 2 Kenya 5 Figure 2b: New Links and Connections Madagascar 2 HQ 1 HQ 3 Ukraine 1 HQ 2 DRC 1 Madagascar 1 Zambia 1 Cambodia 1 Ecuador 1 Nigeria 1 HQ 6 HQ 5 Tanzania 3 Ethiopia 2 Kenya 1 Kenya 2 Ethiopia 3 DRC 2 HQ 4 Tanzania 2 Kenya 4 Kenya 5 Kenya 3 Ethiopia 1 Tanzania 1 Nigeria 2 Zambia 2 Kenya 6 AUGUST 2008 NUMBER  28 • Centrality is a score for the entire network that brokering and supporting communication among local describes the extent to which the network relies on organizations in the network. The overall network has a a small number of bridging nodes for connectivity. high centralization score, indicating that it is exception- In a network with high centrality, the removal of a ally vulnerable to the loss of its central member, Pact. few key bridging nodes can lead to the breakup of Figure 1b shows what would happen if Pact were the entire network. Where centrality is lower, the removed from this network. Without Pact, the network network is less vulnerable to the loss of key actors splinters into numerous smaller clusters, the largest of and interactions are more sustainable. which contains only 29 participants. • Reach describes the percentage of a network that Moving beyond the hub-and-spoke model requires can be accessed within two steps by individual engaging in “network weaving” activities—the cre- members. The greater the reach of a node, the ation of new interactions among isolated clusters. better access it has to information and resources Network weavers must have the vision, energy, and within the network. data to connect with diverse individuals and groups and start information flowing among local actors, as well as external links outside the community to Network Analysis and the International introduce new information and ideas into the network Development Sector (Krebs and Holley, 2006). As a result of the Zambia organizational network The application of network analysis—for the purpose analysis and ensuing strategic discussions with project of visualizing patterns of information flow and col- stakeholders, Pact was able to redesign its program laboration among individuals and groups—is rising there to promote greater focus on network-weaving among numerous corporations, including American activities. Emphasis was placed on collaboration with Express, British Petroleum, IBM, McKinsey, and participants with the greatest “betweenness” scores. Microsoft. The use of organizational network analy- This meant developing local communities of practice sis in international development is also increasing, and quality circles (sharing and learning teams), host- including Pact’s work in mapping and supporting net- ing a “marketplace of innovation,” and investing in a works in Zambia, Malawi, Cyprus, Cambodia, Ecuador, talent locator and referral system to link civil society Bolivia, and the Philippines.4 organizations with international organizations, local Pact has found that, in many networks for devel- government, and local media. opment, international organizations play the role of Another common challenge facing network weavers convener, distributing resources and brokering col- is how to bridge the gaps among clusters of individu- laboration among local organizations. These local als or organizations that operate in different sectors, organizations in turn provide services to communities locations, and cultures. Network theory argues that and people in need. these “weak ties” that span traditional boundaries can In practice, these networks take a hub-and-spoke act as powerful conduits for generating ideas, mobi- form—the international organization in the center cre- lizing resources, and scaling up promising practices ates strong links with local organizations around the (Granovetter, 1973). periphery. Links among individual local organizations Figure 2a shows how Pact has used organizational are often weak or nonexistent. Pact’s research has network analysis to catalyze the development of found this hub-and-spoke pattern repeated in numer- boundary-spanning “weak ties” among country office ous development contexts—including Zambia, Bolivia, teams. The first map shows a baseline of collaboration and Malawi—and sectors—HIV/AIDS, conservation, among members of a global network of democracy and and governance. governance experts. The map and its associated per- Although hub-and-spoke networks are effective formance metrics shows that much of the interaction delivery mechanisms for development interventions, occurs within individual country offices. Participants they do not necessarily create the links among local from Madagascar, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of actors that would facilitate a sustainable network Congo (DRC), Kenya, and in particular, Tanzania are beyond the life of the funded intervention. Figure 1a is all closely clustered by country office and engage in an example of a hub-and-spoke network showing col- relatively minimal interaction that spans the boundar- laboration among organizational participants in one of ies among clusters. Pact’s capacity development programs in Zambia. This Headquarters (HQ) staff also play a vital role as particular network analysis was undertaken midway brokers within the network, relaying knowledge and in a five-year program. The first map shows that Pact has succeeded in con- 3 Two commonly used organizational network analysis soft- necting with local organizations, facilitating the flow ware packages are InFlow (www.orgnet.com) and UCINet (www. of information and resources throughout this 60-node analytictech.com/ucinet/ucinet.htm) network; however, Pact also plays the central role in 4 Bloom, Kummer, and Reeves (2006). resources among the group’s diverse regions. In the References most extreme case, interactions between democracy and governance experts in neighboring Kenya and Bloom, E., E. Kummer, and M. Reeves. 2006. Building Tanzania are brokered by the headquarters (HQ5) Dynamic Local Service Provider Communities: A node residing in Washington, D.C. Value Chain Approach. USAID, Office of Private and By connecting country-level experts through learn- Voluntary Cooperation, Washington, D.C. ing labs and a community of practice, Pact was able to Creech, H. and T. Willard. 2001. Strategic Intentions: “weave” new connections into the network (see figure Managing Knowledge Networks for Sustainable 2b). These new ties span geographic boundaries and Development. International Institute for Sustainable facilitate idea and resource exchange in new and pow- Development, Winnipeg, Canada. erful ways. This example both highlights the power of Engel, P., K. Keijzer, and C. Ørnemark. 2006. organizational network analysis as a tool for under- Networking for Learning: the Human Face of standing interactions within networks, as well as the Knowledge Management. ECDPM Policy Management power of deliberate network-weaving strategies for Brief #18. European Center for Development Policy developing sustainable networks that support flows Management, Maastricht, Netherlands. of information, ideas, and resources among diverse Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” stakeholders. The American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–80. Krebs, V. and J. Holley. 2006. Building Smart Conclusion Communities through Network Weaving. http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf. Liebler, C. and M. Ferri. 2004. NGO Networks: Innovative solutions to development problems Building Capacity in a Changing World. USAID, require adopting a network mind set. But the con- Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, siderable benefits of networks cannot be easily Washington, D.C. achieved without acknowledgment of the “science of Nunez, M. and R. Wilson-Grau. 2003. Towards a networks” and the analytical power of organizational Conceptual Framework for Evaluating International network analysis. If an organization or a manager Social Change Networks. Monitoring and Evaluation has not considered the strong possibility that they News, Cambridge, United Kingdom. are already deeply affected by network dynamics, World Bank. 2001. World Development Report 2000– they are missing out on ways to improve perfor- 01. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. mance and enhance sustainability. High-performing networks are a perennial challenge. By their very nature, networks require management of complex Peer Reviewers relationships and often require upfront costs that should ultimately yield higher returns and more Michele de Nevers, Senior Manager, Environment leveraged resources in the long run. Making real Department, The World Bank, inroads is possible by ensuring that managers under- Nora Dudwick, Poverty Reduction Group, stand these network principles and have tools at their The World Bank, disposal to meet their responsibilities as stewards of Alexandre Marc, Acting Director, Social networked initiatives. Development Department, The World Bank About World Bank Institute (WBI): Unleashing the Power of Knowledge to Enable a World Free of Poverty The World Bank Institute (WBI) helps countries share and apply global and local knowledge to meet development challenges. WBI's capacity development programs are designed to build skills among groups of individuals involved in performing tasks, and also to strengthen the organizations in which they work, and the sociopolitical environ- ment in which they operate. WBI Contact: Mark Nelson; program manager, Capacity Development Resource Center Tel: 202-458-8041, e-mail: mnelson1@worldbank.org Ajay Tejasvi; program coordinator, Capacity Development Resource Center Tel: 202-458-4064, e-mail: anarasimhan@worldbank.org Visit our website for more information and download the electronic copies of all Capacity Development Briefs at http://www.worldbank.org/capacity AUGUST 2008 NUMBER  28