Conversation+with+Marty+Kearns+on+Where+Network+Theory+Meets+Reality

=12 January 2011 CoP Convening: Network Meets Theory=

**Overview:** A conversation with [|Marty Kearns], an innovator in network centric advocacy, and Steve Downs about RWJF's work building a mass scale [|network among those working on childhood obesity] [View notes here]

**Presentation Material:** Marty utilized a handout to discuss the challenging dynamics of networks, and how we can overcome them. See the Network Strategy Overview pdf below for more information.


 * Conversation Highlights:**

Organizing advocacy networks in a 2.0 Web World: Challenges networks face in the Web 2.0 World: Understanding the “network dynamic” can help us overcome these challenges: On the importance of the individuals who make up a network: On the transition to a Web 2.0 World: Important Questions Surfaced Through the PreventObesity.net experience: : Additional comments
 * Marty is currently working on strengthening the [|PreventObesity.net]network with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)
 * PreventObesity.net is an advocacy network. Like social networks, it has a coherent purpose, culture, and norms. What distinguishes it from social networks is that it has a purpose that revolves around creating social change, i.e., reducing obesity. Strengthening advocacy networks is not just about building a web site, but rather, increasing the network’s capacity to create change.
 * **PreventObesity.net is not a website; rather, it represents a set of services, and those who use these services get hooked onto the network**.
 * Initially RWJF’s obesity initiative was focused on scaling (i.e., to engage “100,000” communities, rather than 100 or so communities that RWJF funds directly), and to have an online presence. Rather than positioning RWJF at the center, the PreventObesity.net strategy focuses on getting into the workstream of network participants, by providing the tools and funding needed to increase the capacity of the network to create change.
 * Cultivating the PreventObesity.net network will give policy leaders in this space a sizeable and resilient network to draw on when they need to.
 * The current effort to strengthen the PreventObesity.net network focuses on two tasks: (a) increasing its **size** and (b) increasing its **capacity** through self-serving connectivity, i.e., connecting people passively by creating a network space and providing them with communication tools that make their day-to-day work easier.
 * **Size**: The size that the PreventObesity.net network can achieve using today’s technology far exceeds initiatives in the pre-Web era. Information should be made available to as broad an audience as possible, giving individuals / organizations the opportunity to push this information to the edges of their networks and to increase the size of the network. For example, posting a video on Youtube results in more views than posting it on the organization’s website.
 * **Capacity**: However, addressing the challenges of organizing robust advocacy networks requires more than applying the latest technologies to disseminate information. The key is to facilitate connections between individuals in the network, using whatever tools are available (including online tools).
 * Up until recently our world was a Web 1.0 World, in which the focus was on making information widely available. Google dominated this world. We have since transitioned into the Web 2.0 World, in which the new focus is on connecting people to each other rather than generating and sharing user-generated content. Facebook dominates this world (in March 2010, Facebook overtook Google in web traffic).
 * **Network Assessment**: While we know how to connect people more using technology, we often do not understand the nature of these connections.
 * **Engagement**: We do not know how to deal with increased connectivity, and it is difficult for us to flexibly accommodate significant fluctuations in interest, particularly when an initiative goes viral (e.g., what to do if 10,000 people happen to show up to help with a campaign).
 * While a larger number of individuals can connect with the network in the Web 2.0 World, they might want to do so in very different ways (e.g., one hour vs. a whole day). Every single person who wants to do something about an issue is an asset, and every time he or she cannot engage is a lost opportunity. Organizations these days can be overwhelmed with volunteers who want to engage in different ways; they need to find ways to tap into that potential.
 * **Distributed Coordination**: What is the impact of increased connectivity on a foundation’s power / role? The network may empower many different individuals and/or groups, but how should we go about coordinating these people?
 * Figure out the workflow of (potential) network participants. The workflow is different in different contexts. E.g. for community members in a remote village in West Africa communicating via phone to find out when food supplies arrive, the outreach tool could be text messages.
 * Based on this workflow, determine what tools / services are needed to help individuals do their job more efficiently. For example, in the case of PreventObesity.net communications directors needed a press list and software to broadcast messages to others.
 * Provide these tools / services, encouraging network members to engage for self-serving purposes—and without formally becoming part of a network (as this may carry negative implications for organizational leaders who are strapped for time and other resources).
 * Monitors how these tools / services are used and act on this data to strengthen the network. For example, in the case of the communications directors, RWJF could see messaging sent out across the network and analyze which issues are most salient.
 * In order to maximize how much data they get from the network, organizations should consider adopting a fee-for-service model: people never complain when something’s free, but when they pay then they begin to comment. This information can help improve the network.
 * Tapping into this potential source of learning from the networks may require a political, cultural, even legal shift in the way funders operate.
 * ** Using technology should not be the goal. Rather, the focus should on finding the right “hook” into the workflow ** (i.e., what tech tools and services will further how far networks can go).
 * There is a need to provide the right information to right people at right time. But, there has not been enough emphasis placed on figuring out who the right people are
 * For RWJF, determining who the “right people” are has required changing their privacy policy. While RWJF did not previously share information / aggregate data on individuals who signed up for their newsletter, they decided to collect and mine data from PreventObesity.net– and to monitor what they surfed for / where (e.g., are they looking for people in Atlanta?). This makes it possible for RWJF to gauge interest in certain topics, to inform individuals of grants / events that would be of interest to them, to make connections between network members with similar interests, etc.
 * Members are to access their profile – and to delete it if they no longer want to contribute to the network (i.e., if they want to get out of the network).
 * Network participation is open to all. However, the data gathered through the site is only accessible to network leaders. Members of PreventObesity.net have access to leader information, while “leaders” in the network have access to individual member information and can send out inter-network emails.
 * Understandably, this approach may not be suited for certain fields in which there are safety and/or confidentiality concerns, e.g., the human rights.
 * Unlike like Google or Facebook, however, RWJF does NOT collect information for commercial purposes.
 * PreventObesity.net members has created a map of the movement that depicts the “boots on the ground” (the people vs. policy gaps) . Individuals can to add themselves to the map, in a way that automatically updates e all other maps. The more this map is used, the more people sign up, and the more valuable it became as a go-to source for what is happening on the ground. Similarly, the more leaders there are engaged, the more leaders want to join.
 * Acclimatizing to a Web 2.0 World required significant learning on behalf of RWJF, not only in terms of technological tools, but also in terms of internalizing the value proposition of networks
 * From the get-go, there needs to be clear management support from the top. This has been facilitated at RWJF by their ‘Web 2.0 Philanthropy’ initiative which has engaged staff across the foundation, including communications, policy, and management. Communications knows what the right frame is to get people excited; policy helps create the charter; and management needs to balance creating the charter and sending out the perfect message. All three pieces are crucial for any such transition.
 * The transition to a Web 2.0 World involves a steep learning curve. RWJF has had to balance new learning (e.g. use of social media) with parallel program work, and to ascertain that learning benefitted its program work.
 * In order to help funders to take on network-minded initiatives, it may be useful to focus on the results of a networked approach, rather than the process.
 * In order to do so, RWJF is tracking the following: (1) viewing (website hits), (2) following (email subscriptions), (3) sharing (forwarding or re-twitting), and (4) participation – and how these ratios change over time.
 * Foundation staff receive dashboard printouts (e.g., number of website hits, what viewers looked at, and how many are on e-alert) to track progress on these metrics. Determining what to measure for each of these metrics can be a challenge.
 * Every network is different; this is why it’s important to do a network assessment first. On the flip side, it would be great if we could have a tool – for example, “20 questions to ask before we say ‘Yes!’” – to help us make the decision on when to fund
 * How to support distributed discussions?
 * How important is branding versus bringing in others and having them take ownership?
 * How to approach network management, i.e., controlling the network to prevent it from doing dumb things vs. allowing it to act in distributed fashion?
 * RWJF owns the PreventObesity.net network. It’s still an experiment and there are open questions around if/how it will be self sustaining. Potentially, the network could own / co-opt the legal structure through joint purchasing, online advertising, and charging people to download names.
 * Whether or not pieces the PreventObesity.net model can be used to increase the capacity of networks in other advocacy domains depends on that network / domain. PreventObesity.net is open source, and is built using creative commons – that’s not the issue. The issue is understanding the network you are stepping into (e.g., understanding the work flow patterns, what data network members have, what tools/services they need). This is why network assessment comes first.