A networked response? 2013 presentation

1,544 views

Published on

This powerpoint presentation outlines the key findings from the Networked response? study published by ALNAP in September 2013. It looks at national humanitarian networks in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, as well as what findings might mean more generally for any national network.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,544
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,160
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A networked response? 2013 presentation

  1. 1. Kim Scriven, HIF/ALNAP A NETWORKED RESPONSE? 20 September 2013 l London
  2. 2. Agenda Background What we did Forms and Functions What we found
  3. 3. Networks are everywhere But what’s happening at the national level?
  4. 4. Exploring role of networks Interest in local actors Links between level? Interplay with international system
  5. 5. NATIONAL NETWORKS Our research looked at The Philippines Bangladesh Afghanistan Onlyhumanitarianor disasterresponse /DRRnetworks Onlyexplicitinter- organisational networks
  6. 6. REAL EXPERIENCES We wanted to look at Drawing on existing theoretical models
  7. 7. COMPARISON The focus was on across case study contexts
  8. 8. EXISTING WORK We used From research and policy networks, public and private
  9. 9. NETWORK Thinking about FORMS CentralisedDecentralisedDistributed
  10. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES Looking at Their presence and influence on network functions
  11. 11. FOCUS OF ACTION Looking at Support versus agency
  12. 12. Network functions Why are they useful?
  13. 13. NETWORK Working through six FUNCTIONS Community building Convening Resource mobilisation Knowledge management Implementation Amplification and advocacy
  14. 14. KEY The research points to some FINDINGS Enthusiasm from national and international actors Wide range of collaborative structures, but many exclude national actors
  15. 15. ON Key findings FORM Range of structures and sizes – few comprised solely of national actors Most have nominal equality Often formal – but this meant different things in different contexts
  16. 16. ON FUNCTION Examples of different networks trying to fulfil all six ‘functions Separating aspiration from reality a challenge Big successes: community, knowledge exchange, advocacy and channelling resources to national NGOsKey findings
  17. 17. ON Key findings FUNCTION Sustainability a challenge Need for links, but these can be undermined Instances of moving into implementation, but these are problematic
  18. 18. Success factors What makes networks work?
  19. 19. CLEAR AIMS & STRUCTURE
  20. 20. Transparent governance & the right sized membership
  21. 21. SUSTAINABLE FUNDING & EXTERNAL LINKS
  22. 22. LEADERSHIP AND PRINCIPLES
  23. 23. Kim Scriven THANK YOU 20 September 2013 l London

×