NNF - A conversation on network weaving with Roberto Cremonini

Network Weaving

A discussion with Roberto Cremonini about his
experiences at the Barr Foundation supporting network
weaving and assessing impact.
January 14, 2011

roberto@cremoniniconsulting.net

The Barr Foundation

•  Anonymous,
private
Family
Founda4on

•  Created
in
1997/staﬀed
in

2000

•  Distribu4on:
$45-‐$50m

•  Geographic
scope:
Boston

•  2
Trustees
and
12
staﬀ

•  No
open
applica4on

•  Focus:
Arts
&
Culture,

Educa4on,
Environment

01.14.11 Network Weaving: A Discussion about the Barr Foundation Experience 2

Why did the Barr Foundation start the
work?
•  Between 35 and 50% of children in Boston participate in
some form of after school sports program, but programs
vary in terms of focus, quality, and intensity

•  A strong body of evidence links involvement in organized
sports activities to academic achievement and positive youth
development, especially for disadvantaged youth

•  There are clear gaps in the system, both neighborhood-
based (e.g., Roxbury, Mattapan, Allston-Brighton) and
gender/ethnicity (e.g., girls, Hispanic and Asian youth)

•  Lack of information sharing and coordination hinders quality,
scale and sustainability of field

Source: Don Siegel, Re-conceptualizing and Recreating Youth Sports in Boston, Barr Foundation, 2002
http://www.barrfoundation.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=239284


Why networks?
•  Improving outcomes for youth requires systemic change in
addition to incremental change within individual organizations

•  Policy change is difficult and non-adaptive and not powerful
enough on its own to achieve long-term, sustainable change

•  Solutions for many existing challenges exist, but require a cross-
disciplinary approach to bring them to life

•  Building and strengthening social capital is critical to sustainable
change

•  Networks are a source of adaptive capacity for the sector, and
key to quality, scale, and sustainability of service delivery

•  Supporting network building is a highly-leveraged investment
that yields a strong cost-benefit ratio

Increased Connectivity = Stronger Programs and Positive Outcomes for Children


How did Barr start the work?
To encourage, strengthen,
and build network
connections across youth
sports programs,
intermediaries, and funders

in order to improve

•  information sharing,
•  program quality,
•  the scale of youth sports
offerings, and
•  sustainability of youth
sports in the out-of-
school sector.

Hired a weaver!

The theory and practice of the weaver
initiative followed a “learn as we go” approach

Cruising

Take Off

Taxiing

Goal: Understand the structure and needs of the sector

Activities:
•  Foster emergent, “bottom up” activity
•  Improve knowledge sharing
•  Catalyze and facilitate relationships development
•  Serve as capacity builder for intermediaries

2004 - 2006 2007 - 2009 2010 - present

Total Barr Foundation Investment:
•  Weaver Position & Infrastructure: $1M
•  Grants to Sector/Capacity Building: $1.16M

We used the network building process as organizing
framework
Taxiing

1. Understand 2. Use a portfolio of tools/ 3. Enable virtuous cycle,
network needs, and actions to build connections starting with stronger network
formulate strategy and improve quality, scale, and
sustainability of programs

Convene/organize forums &
foster direct connections More effective
organizations
Conduct learning/
needs assessment Report on learnings and
coordinate joint-response Stronger
network

Build/strengthen infrastructure Stronger, more
(e.g., intermediaries) collaborative
sector
Broker connections to
resources - financial and not


A key learning during “taxiing” was the need to shift
mindset and approach to make weaving more effective

From To

•  Coordinating/creating •  Catalyzing/facilitating

•  Focus on trying to find solutions to •  Focus on connecting players to
sector problems resources and to one another to
help them find answers/solutions

•  Broad scale/seeking the “one size •  More small-group connections
fits all” projects and/or initiatives

•  Focus on intra-sector links •  Looking for links between sector-
specific players and
intermediaries, other OST players

•  Developing standalone “initiatives” •  Leveraging initiatives for ongoing
connectivity

•  Impact as concrete, visible change •  Impact as connections among
players, leading to longer-term
change


We used the network building process as organizing
framework
Take Off

1. Understand 2. Use a portfolio of tools/ 3. Enable virtuous cycle,
network needs, map actions to build connections starting with stronger network
connectivity, and among network players and
build relationships strengthen network structure
with key players

Foster direct connections &
facilitate group convenings More effective
organizations
Conduct learning/
needs assessment Improve information flow
& spread of best practices Stronger
network
Map network structure Build/strengthen
and connectivity
Stronger, more
infrastructure (e.g., collaborative
intermediaries)
sector
Broker connections to
resources (financial and not)


Sports network: before and after (Spring 2006)

•  Efficiency* = 4.67 •  Efficiency = 3.84

•  Resilience* = 8.19% •  Resilience = 7.97%
•  Approximately 450 nodes
•  Goal for efficiency is 3; for resilience is close to 20%; balance between the two is important

Engaging key individuals with higher than average
connectivity was critical to network resilience

Sports high awareness individuals

A caveat on measuring network impact

“When measuring a decentralized
network, it’s better, as the saying goes,
to be vaguely right than precisely
wrong.”
-- The Starfish and the Spider

That things are happening beyond a weaver’s view or control
(and thus not measurable) is a good indicator that the weaver is
doing his/her job well … the network taking on a life of its own is
sign of success

Beyond data, several qualitative outcomes observed

Specific needs •  e.g., Training provided on key topics such as fundraising, or
scholarships provided for arts supply membership or youth
identified and met development training

Information flow •  e.g., Newsletters help increase awareness of network happenings;
ideas and information shared through getting to know you visits;
improves some sharing of ideas across newly-connected players

Best practices spread/ •  e.g., SPARK in place at CLCs
innovations emerge

New collaborations •  e.g., Networking for Outcomes group has gelled well and
beginning to self-organize; stakeholders coming together to
form or grow pursue alternative space ideas for the arts

New hubs/new weavers •  e.g., Investment in strengthening GoodSports; identifying and
planning to convene high awareness individuals
stronger intermediaries

New resources •  e.g., BU tied into sports network for coaches training; increased
awareness of available resources
(crossing boundaries)


Key lessons about effective weaving

•  It’s about networks, not network
•  Understanding organizations/individuals self-interest
•  Weaving requires a mix of tools and approaches, and these will
evolve over time
•  Identifying and convening key “leaders” to spread the weaving
•  Weavers don’t need to use network language when talking to the
field
•  Traning/support is critical for weavers, e.g., on facilitation,
managing collaboration
•  Mapping tools should be used early and on an ongoing basis
•  Need to develop peer group, mentor(s), sounding board
•  Location and affiliation do matter
•  Clear expectations (and metrics) for weaving are critical

Measured by inflow

Network Building Metrics Observed by weavers/SML
Measurement TBD

Weaver Network level Sector-level
Outputs
activities outcomes outcomes

•  Identify needs, •  Sector map •  Statistical network •  Higher quality
assets and existing •  New connections strength measures : programs
networks •  Between weaver •  Awareness delivered to youth
•  Share knowledge and network •  Influence •  More children
and ideas members •  Diversity served
•  Make individual •  Among network •  Resilience •  Underserved
connections members •  Integration groups better
•  Convene diverse •  Boundary spanning served
groups to stimulate connections •  Observations of other •  More integrated
new thinking and smart network indicators delivery (tied to
•  Synthesis of needs and
connectivity •  Innovations emerge higher quality)
ideas for projects to
•  Connect network and spread across •  Greater capacity of
meet them
members to network sector to respond
•  Convenings of diverse
potential resources •  Natural collaboration to/survive change
participants
•  Spot new ideas increases
•  Projects facilitated by
and leaders and •  Intermediaries stable
weavers in process
support their and playing valuable
growth/spread •  New resources brought roles
•  Build capacity of into the network •  More voices get to
•  New/stronger
intermediaries table for issues with
intermediaries
sector-level impact

Key lessons about the value added by weavers

•  Understanding what is going on in the sector. A different, deeper
sense of honesty -“we’re not talking to a foundation”
•  Making the sector feel “There’s someone here to help me”
•  Breaking down market inefficiencies (there are resources out there,
but people cannot access them)
•  Making it easy for organizations to work on small collaborations in a
fragmented field
•  Building/supporting infrastructure bottom-up, from what already
exists in an emergent way
•  Creating relationships that are more sustainable and will lead to
new projects

It takes time to get the big impact and less if one recognizes that the “small things”
are valuable even if “small things” are difficult to track


NNF - A conversation on network weaving with Roberto Cremonini

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to NNF - A conversation on network weaving with Roberto Cremonini

Similar to NNF - A conversation on network weaving with Roberto Cremonini (20)

NNF - A conversation on network weaving with Roberto Cremonini