I’m finding myself a bit skeptical and confused. The success of the organizations in the article seems to come more from acting as coordinators and clearinghouses for other agencies, instead of following their former missions of providing services, which may fulfill a need but which doesn’t seem like a partnership to me. I was particularly mystified by the description of GDBA’s work. They paid the government to do the work they used to do, then the government took that money and spent it on a contract with another organization to do the work, then GDBA spent more resources on training that organization to do the work? And this makes the whole thing more efficient how? Maybe I’m missing something here.
Also, as someone’s who’s worked for a nonprofit that was involved in collaborative work, I disagree that “networks do not require more resources, but rather a better use of existing resources.” Effective networks require time and money to sustain them. If no additional resources are provided, then time and money must be subtracted from some other project. This still might be the best uses of the resources overall, but in my experience effective networking is not costless—far from it.
This comment is posted on behalf of co-author Jane Wei-Skillern:
We appreciate your thoughtful comments. The example organizations all continue to be involved in direct services, but the key difference is that they focus not only on their respective strengths, but also partner with and support others to deliver broader mission impact. Your statements about GDBA are for the most part accurate, but do not reflect the core reasons why GDBA’s network approach was so innovative and impactful. First, GDBA expanded the overall pool of funding to the visually impaired field by securing matching government funds for money GDBA was already spending on providing mobility services. Second, GDBA helped to develop the skills of other nonprofit providers of mobility services by offering (but not forcing) expertise and technical support at no charge to its former competitors. Finally, beyond supporting the development of individual providers, GDBA sought to strengthen the entire field of providers so that the visually impaired could benefit from more and better quality services whether or not they were being provided by GDBA. We also agree with your statement that networks do not come for free, but our view is that the incremental mission benefit of relative resources required is exceptionally high.
While networks are crucial to the functioning of many fields, it would be a mistake to attribute the actions of network participants to the network itself.
The three networks cited in the article all sound significant, so for example, Women’s World Banking no doubt provides great technical assistance and tools to its network of 53 microfinance institutions and banks in 30 countries. However it cannot claim credit for a “350-fold increase in the number of clients whom WWB served.” That would be like attributing all the financial activity of a Chamber of Commerce to the Chamber itself, after it had a successful period of recruitment.
This is an interesting article to read alongside the one on Collective Impact from the Winter 2011 issue of SSIR. I am part of a donor circle, and we are gradually moving away from the model of funding good organizations to deliver direct services, and towards promoting networking and collaboration between the nonprofits working in the issue area we have embraced (education of low income girls/women). We are constantly bemused by the way nonprofits working in one small geographical area, and close to each other in the programs they provide, seem to lack knowledge of each others’ operations. The more ideas we can get that will help us to help them to help themselves, the better. Thanks for the interesting read.
I also read the article on collective impact and hope to find more articles showing the work and resources required to build networks to the stage where they are working toward common purpose, which could take years to develop. In the Jim Collins book titled “Good to Great and the Social Sectors” he described a process of becoming great and a challenge of staying great.
I’ve been leading a network-building process for nearly 35 years, starting out as an effort to find others who led volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs in Chicago that I could learn from to find ideas to lead the program I had just started to lead in 1975. In 1993 I formalized this process in an effort to create a master database of non-school tutor/mentor programs in Chicago. With the list of 12o programs I was able to invite people to come together for conferences and I was able to speak more comprehensively of the need for programs in different parts of the city. These media stories show some of how the events I created to bring people together also were helping create public awareness intended to draw needed resources to all of the programs in the Directory. http://www.tutormentorexchange.net/news-pr
A key part of what I’ve always included in my messages is a map showing where programs are needed based on poverty or poorly performing schools, with an overlay showing where existing programs are located. If one borrows from strategies of WalMart, Sears, Bank of America and every other corporation with multiple store locations, our efforts can push customers (volunteers, donors, kids, media) directly to the different programs in different neighborhoods where they become partners helping those programs grow from Good to Great and then stay that way as kids move from first grade to first job.
I’ve learned much from this effort that works and much that cannot succeed without consistent funding and the commitment of others with different talents and networks than I have. Writing more about the role of network-builders can hopefully educate investors, benefactors and policy makers to value them more which would result in more resources to enable them to stay in place longer so networks can grow broader and stronger.
Provocative reading. Thank you. We are a young organization with an audacious vision, trying to figure out how best to fulfill our mission. Up to now, we’ve been focused on getting the various programs and initiatives going. Because the organization is approaching the leadership development need in DR Congo from a holistic standpoint, this means there are many layers to our work. That part of our organization based here in the US has focused on building networks and raising funds. The networks we are building, however, have been with an eye to increasing resources (financial and human). We haven’t thought about building networks from a mutual support standpoint, beyond that of shared learning. Anyone available to help us think how to apply this “networked non profit” approach to our situation?
Will look for the Collective Impact article mentioned in these comments.
COMMENTS
BY linden
ON March 19, 2008 03:10 PM
I’m finding myself a bit skeptical and confused. The success of the organizations in the article seems to come more from acting as coordinators and clearinghouses for other agencies, instead of following their former missions of providing services, which may fulfill a need but which doesn’t seem like a partnership to me. I was particularly mystified by the description of GDBA’s work. They paid the government to do the work they used to do, then the government took that money and spent it on a contract with another organization to do the work, then GDBA spent more resources on training that organization to do the work? And this makes the whole thing more efficient how? Maybe I’m missing something here.
Also, as someone’s who’s worked for a nonprofit that was involved in collaborative work, I disagree that “networks do not require more resources, but rather a better use of existing resources.” Effective networks require time and money to sustain them. If no additional resources are provided, then time and money must be subtracted from some other project. This still might be the best uses of the resources overall, but in my experience effective networking is not costless—far from it.
BY a-b
ON November 11, 2008 08:09 AM
And if the organisation concentrates more on growth and more on cultivating their networks?
BY Jenifer Morgan (SSIR)
ON September 13, 2011 05:04 PM
This comment is posted on behalf of co-author Jane Wei-Skillern:
We appreciate your thoughtful comments. The example organizations all continue to be involved in direct services, but the key difference is that they focus not only on their respective strengths, but also partner with and support others to deliver broader mission impact. Your statements about GDBA are for the most part accurate, but do not reflect the core reasons why GDBA’s network approach was so innovative and impactful. First, GDBA expanded the overall pool of funding to the visually impaired field by securing matching government funds for money GDBA was already spending on providing mobility services. Second, GDBA helped to develop the skills of other nonprofit providers of mobility services by offering (but not forcing) expertise and technical support at no charge to its former competitors. Finally, beyond supporting the development of individual providers, GDBA sought to strengthen the entire field of providers so that the visually impaired could benefit from more and better quality services whether or not they were being provided by GDBA. We also agree with your statement that networks do not come for free, but our view is that the incremental mission benefit of relative resources required is exceptionally high.
BY Jon Pratt
ON September 22, 2011 03:51 PM
While networks are crucial to the functioning of many fields, it would be a mistake to attribute the actions of network participants to the network itself.
The three networks cited in the article all sound significant, so for example, Women’s World Banking no doubt provides great technical assistance and tools to its network of 53 microfinance institutions and banks in 30 countries. However it cannot claim credit for a “350-fold increase in the number of clients whom WWB served.” That would be like attributing all the financial activity of a Chamber of Commerce to the Chamber itself, after it had a successful period of recruitment.
BY Michelle Cale
ON September 22, 2011 04:48 PM
This is an interesting article to read alongside the one on Collective Impact from the Winter 2011 issue of SSIR. I am part of a donor circle, and we are gradually moving away from the model of funding good organizations to deliver direct services, and towards promoting networking and collaboration between the nonprofits working in the issue area we have embraced (education of low income girls/women). We are constantly bemused by the way nonprofits working in one small geographical area, and close to each other in the programs they provide, seem to lack knowledge of each others’ operations. The more ideas we can get that will help us to help them to help themselves, the better. Thanks for the interesting read.
BY Daniel Bassill
ON September 24, 2011 11:12 AM
I also read the article on collective impact and hope to find more articles showing the work and resources required to build networks to the stage where they are working toward common purpose, which could take years to develop. In the Jim Collins book titled “Good to Great and the Social Sectors” he described a process of becoming great and a challenge of staying great.
I’ve been leading a network-building process for nearly 35 years, starting out as an effort to find others who led volunteer-based tutor/mentor programs in Chicago that I could learn from to find ideas to lead the program I had just started to lead in 1975. In 1993 I formalized this process in an effort to create a master database of non-school tutor/mentor programs in Chicago. With the list of 12o programs I was able to invite people to come together for conferences and I was able to speak more comprehensively of the need for programs in different parts of the city. These media stories show some of how the events I created to bring people together also were helping create public awareness intended to draw needed resources to all of the programs in the Directory. http://www.tutormentorexchange.net/news-pr
A key part of what I’ve always included in my messages is a map showing where programs are needed based on poverty or poorly performing schools, with an overlay showing where existing programs are located. If one borrows from strategies of WalMart, Sears, Bank of America and every other corporation with multiple store locations, our efforts can push customers (volunteers, donors, kids, media) directly to the different programs in different neighborhoods where they become partners helping those programs grow from Good to Great and then stay that way as kids move from first grade to first job.
I’ve learned much from this effort that works and much that cannot succeed without consistent funding and the commitment of others with different talents and networks than I have. Writing more about the role of network-builders can hopefully educate investors, benefactors and policy makers to value them more which would result in more resources to enable them to stay in place longer so networks can grow broader and stronger.
BY Mary Henton, Congo Initiative
ON September 27, 2011 08:07 AM
Provocative reading. Thank you. We are a young organization with an audacious vision, trying to figure out how best to fulfill our mission. Up to now, we’ve been focused on getting the various programs and initiatives going. Because the organization is approaching the leadership development need in DR Congo from a holistic standpoint, this means there are many layers to our work. That part of our organization based here in the US has focused on building networks and raising funds. The networks we are building, however, have been with an eye to increasing resources (financial and human). We haven’t thought about building networks from a mutual support standpoint, beyond that of shared learning. Anyone available to help us think how to apply this “networked non profit” approach to our situation?
Will look for the Collective Impact article mentioned in these comments.