Networks and partnerships may offer a perspective that may help us in understanding organisations, both large and small, and in shaping our efforts to improve their performance.
Many development efforts require forms of capacity that extend beyond the boundaries of individual organisations. ‘Jekabaara’ (see below) offers an interesting example of inter-communal cooperation in Mali. This case also suggests that practitioners have little methodological support for dealing with capacity across organisational boundaries. In extending this professional frontier, a number of key aspects will need to be addressed.
A better distinction between the different forms of networks or partnerships needs to be developed. Some have concrete objectives, a limited number of participants and a formal organisation, while others are much looser, with shifting priorities, a fluid or diffuse membership and an informal structure. Some authors distinguish between service delivery networks, social change and advocacy networks, sectoral networks, knowledge networks and communities of practice. [1] Developing an understanding of the different forms will help in discussions of differences in ways of working, leadership, degrees of formality, etc.
Jekabaara – an inter-communal partnership in Mali
The communes of Méguétan and Dinandougou, in the Koulikoro region of Mali, opted to form a partnership, with joint planning and shared resources, so they can now tackle larger-scale projects and manage them together. The success of this inter-communal partnership, the first in the region, has inspired other similar local initiatives, and has influenced national policy debates and legislation.
Networks and partnerships often perform multiple functions for the participants. They may provide information and opportunities for learning, and allow members to exert joint influence and manage their interests. They may also offer access to resources and allow for joint action. Networks seem to gain in strength and importance from the flexible combination of such functions and the ability to adjust them over time. But pursuing networks deliberately is also notoriously difficult, precisely because of their flexibility, fluidity and informality.
Networks and partnerships can not only be regarded as another scale of organisation, beyond the individual entities. They also offer a perspective on organisations that can help us to comprehend the openness and interconnectedness of what we usually regard as individual organisations. This may help us in understanding organisations, both large and small, and in shaping our efforts to improve their performance. [2]
A future issue of Capacity.org will focus on understanding and supporting networks and partnerships. [3] Readers are invited to contribute to the discussion by submitting cases, typologies, methodologies, etc., as well as experiences and lessons learned, to Jan Ubels.
[1] Liebler, C. and Ferri, M. (2004) NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World. Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, USAID, p.38
[2] The functioning of an organisation is determined not only by formal lines of authority and regulated workflows, but also by informal communication, work constellations and ad hoc decision-making processes that operate across formal organisational boundaries. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice Hall. See also:
Evans, B. et al. (2004) The Partnership Paperchase .
Saxby, J. (2004) COEP: Mobilising against Hunger and for Life. ECDPM Discussion Paper 57C. www.ecdpm.org.
Partnering Initiative (2004) The Partnering Toolbook .
[3] In the context of the DAC study on Capacity, Change and Performance, a literature review and theme paper are being prepared for the workshop ‘Networks as a Form of Capacity’, organised by ECDPM, SNV and UNDP, September 2005.
Comments