Conversation+on+Network+Weaving+with+Roberto+Cremonini

=14 January 2011 CoP Convening: Network Weaving=

**Overview:** Roberto Cremonini spoke about his experiences at the Barr Foundation, specifically with regards to supporting network weaving and assessing impact.

media type="custom" key="8148682"
 * Presentation Material:**
 * Conversation Highlights:**

Challenges the Barr Foundation faced in supporting network weavers Additional comments on two of three phases of network weaving (see Slide 6 in the slideshow above) Social Network Analysis (SNA) tools Lessons learned about effective weaving: The benefits of network weavers Additional topics from the Q&A session
 * __ IDENTITY __ : Network weavers inevitably have to explain to network members who they are, who they work for, and what their role is. This was particularly challenging for the network weaver, who was hired by Barr to weave an after school sports network in the Boston area—but who initially could not advertise his affiliation with the Barr Foundation.
 * __ APPROACH __ : Weaving a network requires a fundamental shift in mindset, i.e., investing money to build relationships that lead to projects later down the road (rather than starting on a project from the get-go). This was difficult for Barr to do because it was not in line with what they normally did .While Barr had the commitment and the resolve to proceed with a network mindset, they took some missteps when operating with an organizational mentality:
 * Housed the network weaver inside the foundation, which led to the misperception that he was a foundation program officer
 * Created a Steering Committee that tended to offer solutions that were in line their organizations’ mission statements / strategies – rather than advise on how to weave a new network
 * __ PERSEVERENCE __ : The learning curve for experimenting with network approaches has been steep. Willingness to invest for the long-term has been critical to Barr’s success.
 * __ TAXIING __ : The most important activity in this phase is understanding the network’s needs, and formulating a strategy to meet those needs. Doing so requires a fundamental shift in mindset from doing / delivering to catalyzing.
 * One strategy for weaving the network is to convene people, focusing on understanding needs of specific organizations.
 * There were no concrete outcomes from the network convenings initiated by the weaver. Weavers can take responsibility for learning about the network, facilitating connections between players, and catalyzing connections-->
 * In the taxing phase, network weavers start knowing the network really well. Like a skillful VC, they know how to appropriately match people (e.g., an individual that wants to donate sports equipment with an after school program that is in need of said equipment), so that small deals move forward__.__
 * __ TAKEOFF __: At takeoff, Barr decided to engage outside consultants. Together, they developed a portfolio of tools to improve quality, scale, and sustainability of the network. This included a theory of change (TOC).
 * The TOC was developed two years after the weaver started. At that point, it was based on lessons learned. It would have been difficult to have proceeded in any other way, since the network weaver experiment was new to them.
 * Concrete results were not seen until the takeoff phase. Defining the TOC was helpful for identifying these results.
 * At this point, Barr began using Social Network Analysis (SNA) to map the network. However it would have been helpful to **use SNA from the beginning**, so as to have quantitative measures of a baseline from which to build on.
 * SNA showed that the weaver was at the center of the network and, as a result, the network was becoming less resilient. One strategy overcoming dependence on the weaver and building a healthier network is for the weaver to develop new hubs of activity and thereby nurturing a multi-hub network. This may include encouraging network members to become weavers themselves, to reduce dependency on one person.
 * It is helpful to identify “high awareness” individuals, i.e., who know many other people in the network, have access to resources, or otherwise exercise power. Weavers can look at a map and figure out whether individuals with ‘high awareness’ are good or bad for the network If they are good, they will bridge universes together. However, if they have personal agendas and are functionally bottlenecks, that can be problematic. In that case, weavers can either try to change their behavior, or they can choose a different path.
 * Network maps help foundations—and others-- develop an understanding of the overall network and give them a general overview of what the weaver sees.
 * It is really important to understand organizations’ / individuals’ self interest and what they have to bring to the table.
 * Identifying and building the capacity of key leaders who can become weavers themselves is crucial. However, the usual suspects and large organizations may not be as willing to take on the role as organizational interests can get in the way. Smaller organizations, which have more to gain in terms of access, resources, etc. from a networked approach, are often better suited
 * Grantees do not have to understand complicated network theory / language in order to benefit from the approach.
 * It is useful to have an Advisory Board that can be a sounding board for the weaver. This group should be diverse – reflective of the network participants – and should not exert too much power on the weaver.
 * It sometimes takes some external event to more effectively weave a network, or to catalyze a network to action. For example, after the Haiti earthquake, two Barr Fellows initiated a relief effort
 * Weavers offer a form of group network therapy, neutrally engaging the network in ways that aren’t possible for foundations. As neutral third parties, weavers can better understand the state of the network and, identify ways to help it grow.
 * When weavers close triangles (i.e., connect two individuals who did not previously know each other), they foster a positive atmosphere in which network members have the sense that someone is there to help. Weavers are in a position to help network members leverage under utilized resources, whether at the periphery or within the core. They can help break down inefficiencies in a way that makes people have more trust in the potential of the network.
 * The[| Barr Fellows Program]honors the contributions of experienced leaders in the Boston area who participate in a three year program that includes s a sabbatical, international travel, a series of retreats, and peer-learning. Barr has studied the Barr Fellows network (e.g., in terms of the evolving nature of relationships between fellows and the initiatives that arise from these connections) from the beginning.
 * Barr Fellows are very diverse. What network maps of the Barr Fellows show you is that initially, the fellows are separated by domain: education people are in their own world, environmental people are in their own world, etc. The only people who are connected are those involved in Health and Human services.
 * Overtime they have begun to see cross domain coordination, peer assists, etc.