4-6+Convening+Open+Space+Session+3

//Open Space discussion on how to use a NW mindset to reach specific outcomes? //
There are several lenses through which we can approach the term “network thinking,” e.g.:
 * //What’s a nonprofit’s role within a coalition/alliance? What’s good network behavior? How should nonprofits organize to have bigger influence?//
 * //How can an organization Work Wikily, and what’s the mash-up between Working Wikily and social media tools?//

Framework for thinking about working with a network mindset:
 * Phase I: Activation
 * Do you need a group?
 * Of who?
 * What will you ask them do (intent)?
 * The “ask” from the network has to be commensurate with ties and affinity to the network.
 * Phase II: Aligning
 * How much?
 * Conflict resolution
 * Dealing with perverse incentives
 * Building personal relationships & trust
 * Creating a space
 * Phase III: Adaptive structures
 * There are a number of different capacities that a network needs to do well, e.g., weaving.
 * There’s a need to assess capacity needs and support them through Phase I and II.
 * //How unity is needed? At what point is it better to go with the six individuals who really want to be involved?//
 * Some funders prefer to set performance standards for joining the network.
 * Members of a network can usually agree on a goal at a scale that’s appropriate, but will often disagree on the sub-goals, i.e., how to achieve that goal. It’s very hard to find a safe space to talk about the sub goals.
 * //Is there a way to use network thinking to get beyond “let’s fight with each other?//
 * There’s a semantic issue around how we define networks and how much traction they get / whether its members can sit at the same table. Are there opportunities to catalyze interactions between seemingly “opposing” groups (e.g., marine conversationalists and sports fishermen) by not defining them in opposition to one another?
 * //“Are networks the right approach?”// may be the wrong question to ask. More important questions include:
 * //Given what you want to do, what’s the activation threshold? If it’s high, is there a way to get to that point?//
 * //Who’s doing the ask?// This will affect how people respond.

Capturing & sharing our learnings
 * “Power of the newbie”: having new people constantly flow into the network requires that members consolidate and articulate their learning to date.
 * “Book-Ending”: in order to make learnings available near real-time, it’s possible to bring action learning projects together, summarize what they’re learning, and share it online. Once that’s polished, it can become the community-made curriculum!
 * “Living” case studies: To better engage the group, it’s helpful to draw an example from one member of the group, have a conversation about their work / challenge, and specifically to inquire about their secret sauce to success.
 * Designing the CoP is an art and a science: it’s a mixture of process (relationships), content (structured conversation, providing the frame), and being able to capture it all.
 * Documenting practice is as important a tool as SNA.
 * People can make little summary videos to help bring across their point.
 * We need a “virtual institute” to capture / store / share tips for nonprofits from the field (e.g., Advocacy 101, know the data, have having an elevator speech, and build a constituency).
 * This takes bandwidth
 * A virtual center may encourage more nonprofit leaders to get training. For instance, nonprofit leaders in the Middle East were hesitant to attend State Dept. workshops… until these workshops were made available on a Wiki!
 * “Bench-building” is part of the solution to the generational gap. It’s not about one generation teaching another, but rather about mutual learning online!
 * The network toolkit is a very funky one. It involves action learning, service learning, action reflection, strategy focus, systems mapping, network weaving, etc. There’s no integrated body of knowledge, but rather a lot of learning from adjacent practices.
 * //Where’s the CoP that helps nonprofits with working wikily?//

Roles & responsibilities
 * Funders can help the group self-organize by asking people what they’re facing and putting them in touch with each other, e.g., through peer assist. These peer assists may repeat as more new people come into the group.
 * It’s important to have a weaver to weave the learning; one person cannot do it all.
 * It’s also important to help facilitate the space.
 * It’s critical for us to identify natural weavers within our respective organizations, to help push them – and the field as a whole – toward working wikily.
 * Many funders make grants aimed at strengthening networks through intervention by one or more consultants. We need to be sure that these consultants have a network- (vs. organizational-) focus.
 * Hiring consultants for single engagements is not an efficient process.
 * We need to adopt a more peer-learning model; this will be a long process, but the potential to go to scale is great.

Other comments
 * Advocacy coalition vs. networks:
 * Networks have more fluid borders.
 * Networks serve a broader purpose that may change over time, whereas advocacy coalitions to date have been very goal oriented.
 * Networks are just people and relationships — the question in networks revolves around activation potential.
 * Networks are adaptive structures. Their members have the ability to change roles (e.g., they can be leaders, boundary spanner, catalysts, or they could remove themselves from the network).
 * Systems thinking is an analytical tool for understanding points of influence within the network.

Go back to April 5-6 Convening Notes