When participating in a seminar on partnerships sponsored by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, I noticed that people were using the terms “network”, “partnership” and “organization” inter-changeably.  This created a lot of confusion.  Consequently I developed the table below to help distinguish between the concepts and identify important implications for organizing.

Others may use the terms differently. Some may consider what are here referred to as “partnerships” as what I mean when I write “network”.  Partnerships are defined as task oriented – they have a relatively limited and well-defined objective such as producing a report or constructing a water system.  The main rationale behind them is to coordinate activities, resources and skills.  There are perhaps as many as a couple of dozen participants – a small enough number for people (or organizational representatives) to know each other and coordinate activities.  They are organized on a hub and spoke model, with a central coordinating committee or organization of some sort.

In contrast are inter-organizational networks that may have thousands of participating organizations and tens of thousands of people from those organizations participating – many more than can possibly know each other.  They come together because they are participants in a system that they want to move in a certain direction – they want to create greater “coherence” between their activities.  For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) wants to move all stakeholders in the “forest and forest-product system” in a direction that supports sustainable forestry practices.  This includes forest companies, manufacturers of forest products, retailers of those products, environmentalists, the forest communities, consumers, financiers and others.

But the FSC’s success is not dependent upon its ability to engage every stakeholder organization as a participant.  In fact, building upon the “tipping point” theory popularized by Malcom Gladwell, FSC probably can achieve its goal with only a minority of stakeholder organizations participating.  Its goal is to influence the whole system by engaging enough stakeholders so that it can change the rules of the system and the way it operates.  The “system” is very diffuse, and does not have any particular organizing focus although many organizations would be sub-network nodes, such as commercial timber company associations.

Of course FSC doesn’t have any formal power to enforce the rules (standards), but as adoption of them grows organizations that don’t follow them will find themselves locked out of some opportunities such as access to some customers.  (Over 50% of forestry products consumed in the UK are now FSC certified.)

One important complication is that big networks like Global Action Networks (GANs) are inter-organizational networks, but they have many “partnerships” within them working on particular projects.  For example, the Global Water Partnership has local partnerships working on a particular water basin.  But a GAN also is an “organization” in the form of what is usually referred to as a Secretariat.  This central node has staff and a reporting structure that is no different from other traditional hierarchies.  Larger GANs also have similar regional “organizational” nodes.

This usually is confusing for GANs.  They must be networks, partnerships and organizations.  They must understand which is doing what, and why;  they must be able to apply the appropriate “organizing logic” in each situation.  They must be excellent at managing Secretariat staff, at coordinating partner projects, and creating coherence for the network as a whole.

You may also be interested in a book that was produced by the Dutch symposium: Partnerships, Governance And Sustainable Development:  Reflections on Theory and Practice.  The Chapter co-authored by me and Sanjeev Khagram is available here.

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.