Discussion 3 - Assessing Criteria of Networks
Topic to be discussed from Monday June 1 to Friday July 3, 2009
Introduction to topic:
To date, evaluators have adapted their existing "tool box" for evaluating networks. However, networks are special types of organizational forms, sharing some common characteristics that make conventional approaches to evaluation often suboptimal, thus reducing the learning potential of the evaluation process and results.
Topic Question:
When assessing the performance of networks, what are the major learning outcomes evaluators should pay most attention?
We would like to invite your comments on this question. Please read the Instructions beside before posting your ideas and questions.
THIS DISCUSSION TOPIC IS NOW CLOSED. READ THE SYNTHESIS OF IT HERE.
YET, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION RE-OPENED SO THAT YOU
AND COLLEAGUES COULD PARTICIPATE TO IT, PLEASE LET US KNOW BY CONTACTING US.
The R&L Team
. Click 
Comments
Bruce Hoppe and I recently wrote a paper that is forthcoming in Leadership Quarterly on "Using Social Network Analysis to Evaluate Leadership Networks." We identified four types of leadership networks and the types of outcomes that are associated with each type. We have created an interactive website much like this one to invite those interested in leadership, networks, and evaluation to share resources, case studies, and engage in discussion. If you are interested in the paper you may download a copy at the website. http://link-to-results.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&la...
In one my recent experiences on evaluation, I had to assess the objectives' achievement of a 4-year project funded by an European organisation which aimed at setting a research-development network in the Maghrebian region, including the 3 countries of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. This initiative came with the feeling of "again, another network!". However, one of the stricking points we learned from that networking experience is that, depending on the substance of the planning phase, a network can be oriented towards a more sustainable organisation or not. In this case, people who participated in the planning workshop 4 years before became aware that there is an urgent need to differentiate between the foundation of a sustainable network and the actual source of funding advocating the setup of the network (the European organisation). The planning workshop went on to discuss issues of institutionalisation and governance of the network vis-a-vis the issue of autonomy and sustainability of the network. Here comes the essential point of my contribution. Sustainability of networks should not be perceived as searching for "still-alive" structures or organisations. Because networks in this context are social, evaluating networking experiences should lead us to unveil the social relations and linkages that such experiences have setup and how these relations and linkages are still stronger even after funding of these experiences have ended. In the case of the aforementioned Maghrebian network, years after the European organisation's funding ended, the remnants of the network are still visible (Maghrebian research teams still develop regional projects and look for funding within and outside the region).
In this perspective, sustainability of networks must be assessed through the capacity of resettlement of the organisational structure of the network once there is a new opportunity of funding that appears, given that the social foundations are already there. I would dare to suggest the concept of "network resilience" in this context.
Networks are relatively new organizational forms. They are goal driven like other organizations however, unlike other organizations the goals of the member orgaizations often play an extremely important role in the functioning of the networks. How ought this influence be taken into account when assessing the utility or performance of a network?
(..)unlike other organizations the goals of the member orgaizations often play an extremely important role in the functioning of the networks. How ought this influence be taken into account when assessing the utility or performance of a network?
First, it is important to define network; partnerships could also be considered as networks.
Of course other organisations, member organisations, do also have objectives and the objective based approach to evaluyation is quite limited in measuring the influence of other rational within a network.
I would stress out the importance of objectives pursue by Individuals within the organisation. Objectives of individual are often misaligned with those of a given network... or organisation.
I mentionned before the usefulness of transaction costs as concept in dealing with assessing performance. The idea is simple, the more mis aligned the objectives of individuals (or other consituents) with the objectives of the network, the higher tghe trasaction costs. And this is well documented and easy to link, the higher the transaction costs, the lower the performance of a given governance stracture.
Also, because network do not have clear organisaitonal boundaries, they are suitable for transaction cost analysis. More precisly using a theory bsed framwork, such as Agency theory.
Denis