What is the problem context?

A project may be new, but the network will not start with a blank slate. Any 'new' network will be influenced by a range of social and political factors (including the networking history of participants). You will need to understand these better to avoid any surprises or to decide whether the costs of using a network approach will be too high (assuming you have a choice!).

Do some homework on the issue to be addressed by the network:

Ring/talk to a colleague who knows the issue or the (potential) participants.

Think about the goals the different network members might have.

Read some of the early project documentation with an eye on the range a factors (perceptions, connections, rules) that will influence its success.

If the costs are going to be higher than any benefits, can you withdraw? Can you negotiate a different way of participating?

Is there a history of a difficult relationship with a key partner or partners?

Do potential partners have a 'culture' of collaboration?

Transaction costs increase with the amount of effort required to manage a relationship.

If potential partners do not have a tradition of collaboration, a lot of effort might need to be put in to manage the relationship.

Be wary of entering a collaborative relationship with an organisation that has not historically worked this way.

Consider an approach that has less transaction costs or do not enter the network at all.

If you enter this network you may need to establish more formal rules of interaction, or spend much more time developing informal relationships.

Who might be your allies in the process?

Given that power in networks is based on relationships, respect and other social factors, it is a good idea to be sure who your allies are, or might be, in the network.

Who is in the network that you have successfully worked with in the past?

Which potential network members understand and respect your views?

Have you talked with them to ascertain their views on the network's goals?

I'd look up [the issue] find out what the actual decision making structure is, then I'd work out those people who…I know already...who'd have the thought that I might deliver, or I might have an opinion that's worth listening to...'

'I'd also look at their position...how influential, are they on the side, are they connected or not.'

How will you enter an established network?

It can be difficult to establish relationships when you are new to a network that has spent a lot of time together.

You can establish some early credibility through your relationship with others.

If you are replacing someone, it is important that they introduce you to the network and there is a cross-over period (assuming they are highly regarded in the network).

If this is not possible, ask another respected individual to introduce you into the network (even if they just stick their head in the door and say hello).

'When I went to the meeting, the people in the room didn't necessarily know me, but one of my contacts came in to see me specifically… it was immediate (clicks fingers) the others in the room went 'ah!' she understands [this group], so that sort of thing can really help you in your job.'

'I've introduced [him] to networks...because [he is] a mate of mine, they start offby accepting him, more than if he had just rolled up by himself.'

Do you have a clear understanding of what you are trying to achieve in the network?

How do you know that a network governance approach is the best way to address the problem or the behaviours you are seeking to change?

The Outcomes Framework can assist you to think more clearly about the most effective way you can use your resources to address an issue.

A network approach might not be appropriate.

See Guide Resources No 1.

Is there a common understanding between you and your investors (or your supervisor) of the problem, and therefore the rationale for a network approach?

If there is no agreement amongst critical stakeholders on the nature of the problem to be solved (eg. what type of problem is it; simple or complex?), it will be difficult to gain support for your networking activities.

You may have to work with investors to gain a common understanding of the problem before you instigate or join a network.

If you cannot achieve a common understanding then you might have to reconsider whether a network approach is a good idea. The costs might be too high.

'We had a bunch of compliance officers going in and rapping people over the knuckles. What those officers saw was these people can't cope with this. So a few people got together...and tried to come up with outcome based solutions rather than input based things... Within twelve months of a few people putting their heads together on that one...we didn't have enough room in our conference room to fit all the people who wanted to be involved...'

Have you considered what is required to address the issue?

What are the critical issues you have to manage to move forward?

Do you have the resources to address them?

What might bring you undone?

Utilise the Outcomes Framework to clearly define the nature of the changes you are seeking to achieve, what influences them, and the resources you will need to address them.

See Guide Resources No 1.

Do you have a clear understanding of the scope of the network's action? What is negotiable? What is not negotiable?

Potential participants in the network will need clarity in the purpose of the network action in order to decide whether to join. Surprises, perceived deception, or encroaching on others' domain can damage network relationships and hinder progress.

Be absolutely clear right from the start what the 'givens' are what areas are out of bounds and what your own (organisation's) goals are in the network.

Make sure you have clear and concise story about network goals to take to potential network members.

Don't guarantee that the result of network decision making will be accepted in your agency if you cannot be sure this will be the case.

Is there understanding and acceptance in your organisation (your supervisors, your investors) of the possibility of some compromise on their aspirations? Do you know how far these aspirations can flex?

There can be significant loss of trust in Government if network decisions are overruled by your agency. Undertaking a network management approach implies a commitment to joint outcomes. Any boundaries need to be transparent from the start.

Be sure you understand what will be an acceptable outcome by investors and critical stakeholders (and where you might be able to push the boundaries a bit).

Be absolutely clear in the way you communicate this to the network.

Do you have organisational support for a network approach? Are you sure it extends beyond your immediate supervisor?

Are your investors on-board?

Research has shown that the requirements of a network approach are often not understood, or are underestimated. This can result in unexpected opposition and lack of support if stakeholders are surprised by any network processes.

Negotiate right from the start the time and resources that will be required to undertake a network approach properly. If not supported, consider other approaches.

Cultivate 'champions' in your organisation who can speak for your work and can allow you 'breathing space'.

Have you allowed enough time to negotiate the complex and contested nature of the problem?

Have you considered what administrative support and resources you might need or can access?

Managing a network takes time. The transaction costs of a network manager's role are frequently underestimated and underresourced.

Not all required resources will be evident at the start of network action, so allow flexibility.

Develop a network management plan, considering the range of resources you may need and the time you will need to manage them. Communicate the plan clearly with your managers so that there is no misunderstanding about the resources and time required.

Utilise the output of the Network
Management Workbook and the Outcomes Framework to help you with this plan.

See Guide Resources No 1

Have you considered the full range of stakeholders that may have an interest in the outcome of the network action? Are they sufficiently represented?

Insufficient democratic legitimacy can lead to conflict or outrage, and program and policy failure. All critical interest groups should have access to the network. While they do increase levels of participation, networks can still be dominated by the political elite to the exclusion of others.

Complete Step 2 of the Network
Management Workbook

See Guide Resources No 1.

'Snowball' ¨C ask network members and other stakeholders who else may be appropriate participants.

Have you considered the potential constraints on others participating?

It is important to understand the constraints (real and imagined) on other's participating

Test the imagined/assumed constraints so that they become real or non-constraints.

Direct involvement is not the only way interest groups can contribute, but indirect involvement should carry no less power.

Can other network members or other participation processes appropriately represent the views of stakeholders who cannot directly participate?

'One thing their community was saying … …the resources it takes from their end when they've got all these service providers who want to work with them…and they have to work out, well, what are their first priorities …and if those things aren't right they can't think or focus beyond that …we need to kinda get our act together and be more coordinated in how we approach them.'

Consider the range of people/resources that might make up the network. Is it diverse enough to respond effectively to the issue?

A greater diversity of interests leads to a greater bank of knowledge and ideas, increasing the likelihood of innovative solutions to complex problems. A network needs to cultivate a repertoire of resources in order to respond to surprises.

Network diversity should be commensurate with the complexity of the problem.

The flexibility does not have to be only in the direct membership of the network. Consider not only the diversity in the network itself, but think about the resources (human capital) participants are connected with that might be useful in the future.

Have you considered how you will handle a situation where a participant must significantly compromise their goals to achieve a collective goal?

Network situations inevitably require compromise on the part of most, if not all, participants. However, a perceived unfair distribution of costs or benefits can erode trust, delay action or fuel opposition to the network (within and without).

Be clear up-front that compromise is a part of a network process, but collaboration may mean progress where none was possible before.

Consider what incentives, tradeoffs, or compensation may be available if the need arises.

Think beyond the immediate network. In what other way might a compromise be reached, or benefits found outside of the formal network process?

Do you have 'permission' to lead?

Don't assume that because you are from the Government that you are by default a 'leader'. Permission to lead is implicitly given

• based on trust and respect
• and can be (explicitly) taken away.

Don't confuse political responsibility for an issue with 'ownership' of a network.

You cannot lead a true network by command or positional authority; only through trust and respect can you maintain the authority to lead.

Networks function better with multiple leaders who can share the load and bring a range of experiences and resources to address an issue.

Do the participants fully understand the implications of adopting a network approach and the changed behaviours it requires?

This is a particularly important part of the role of the network manager. Not everyone has experience working in networks where goals must be negotiated and compromises made. If members revert to old ways it will destabilise the network.

Make clear at the start the unique elements of working in networks and potential issues that may arise.

You need to build an acceptance of uncertainty into the network, and perhaps a willingness to fail first to succeed later.

'We've got people who work at the commonwealth, state and regional level, it's all, that's, my responsibility starts here, your's starts here...it's segmented, but I think where a network works really well is...if it's not segmented... …everyone has an understanding of the full picture and they do have...all-in conversations about how that plays out...'

Pay attention to the language (written and spoken) used in the network.

Networks can be founded on a discourse that does not recognise the legitimacy of other participants. For example; an elitist discourse might not see community as legitimate participants.

Planning for a network action should be a 'conversation' in which both established discourses and more novel ideas are able to contribute. See Guide Resources No 8

Seek to build some rules of interaction early in the network process.

The formal and informal rules in a network have an important organising role. For example; defining the boundaries of network action, the roles of participants, and the handling of conflicting values

Design the 'terms of reference' of the network in consultation with network members.

Find a way to frequently revisit these rules until they become standard practice.

MOUs are meaningless unless they are also supported by wide (and informal) commitment to the collaborative process.

Don't let the network become smothered by too many rules.

Be careful not to create rules that restrict the ability of the network to respond to opportunities or challenges.

See Howden (2007b) for an overview of the influence of institutional arrangements on networks.

Don't rely on formal rules alone.

Informal processes to build trust and a common purpose are just as important, if not more important, than the formal rules of a network.

The process of building trust and a common purpose should be ongoing and become a 'normal' way for the network to operate.

'It is interesting because I don't think formalising it necessarily changes the behaviours (laughs)… and I think we can hide behind the skirts of the MOU or a project plan or anything, but it still comes back to the trust and the…the behaviours…'

Are the right people being invited to the formal process?

Complex problems by definition require the involvement of a much wider network of stakeholders. Defining who should be in the network can be a difficult job.

Some political discourses do not recognise the legitimacy of inclusive decision-making.

See Guide Resource No 8.

There are no simple rules here. It is not just a case of 'the more the merrier', but a judgement about what is an appropriate level of participation.

Consider whether participants that have been excluded or left the network may be essential to network success, or may challenge the outcomes of a network process in the media, or in court.

How will you handle the 'usual suspects'?

Networks that have worked together before may require less effort to develop trust. However, such networks may seek to maintain 'business as usual', and resist new participants or ideas.

Be prepared to challenge the network to broaden thinking and resist attempts to exclude other interests.

Early in the network's life, invite a senior stakeholder/s to speak of their support for the network and its processes. BUT, make sure you know what this person is going to say!

How will you ensure support for the network from critical outside interests?

Organisational support (eg. permission, money, advocacy) is critical for network dealing with complex problems.

Work with the network to identify influential individuals who might be interested in your work or who might want what the network is developing.

Be bold and ask for introductions and connection to their networks.

Are some potentially important stakeholders choosing not to join the network?

Some stakeholders may decide not to join the network, because it is not their priority, they feel the costs are too high, or because it is in their own interests to be seen to be independent of the network.

If you cannot bring someone into a network directly, encourage those who can broker links to these groups to develop an indirect connection to network processes.

Are their incentives that might get important stakeholders to join?

Can you help align conflicting views on the goals of the network?

Can you focus the network on a common vision?

A common vision is critical yardstick by which all network action should be measured. Network members have to justify how any action fits with the 'common good' identified under the network's vision.

A common vision is a safeguard against selfinterested behaviour if it strongly captures the mutual dependency of the network.

The aim of resolving conflict is not compromise, but agreement on a common purpose and genuinely shared concerns. Respect differences, act on similarities.

Pro-choice and Pro-life groups have successfully worked together ¨C some of their tools are in Resources No.10.

Also, a 'history trip' is another useful technique for developing a sense of purpose. See the Network Management Workbook - Resources No.1.

Create smart activities to explore the world-views of network members.

Round-table getting to know you processes, or catchups over afternoon tea are often insufficient to create a shared vision in diverse networks.

Put the business of getting to know each other's world-views on the agenda. Be clear how it fits network goals.

Deepen the risk taken in these activities as trust develops.

Beware of facilitation burnout.

'There needs to be that thinking time, that exploring the interrelationship between things, the allowing time for strategy to emerge from a process of thinking and learning, bringing, purposefully bringing in different perspectives.'

Do all network members have the appropriate knowledge and skills to deal with the complexity of the issue?

You cannot command others in the network to build their skills or knowledge as you could if you were 'in charge'.

However, network members may need a minimum level of understanding or knowledge to deal with some issues, or to communicate effectively with other more knowledgeable network members.

Connect new people with those in the network with the appropriate skills or knowledge.

Suggest network members identify a mentor outside of the network.

Make active learning a 'normal' part of the network process. Learning should be part of the network culture, even for the 'experts'.

Who else is in this network space?

Networks operate in a space with other networks. Membership can overlap, as can responsibilities. If new networks arise you will need to adjust.

What other networks are in the arena. What distinguishes your network from others? How will you link with other networks? Who in your network belongs to other networks and can be a broker?

Put this discussion on the agenda.

Are you creating a history for the network?

Writing a network 'history' helps with the memory behind how/ why decisions were made and to appreciate the journey you have been on. It will also help with 'evidence' when reporting on network activities.

When decisions are made by consensus (and not by vote), it is often hard to track the path of critical decision points. Dissent is often not recorded because it might be seen as disunity.

Don't rely on meeting minutes.

Use the Network Management
Workbook (Resources No.1) to record the progress of your network, who comes and goes, how they contributed, why they were involved, etc.

Track and record decisions in the network, when, where, why and how decisions were made. Record any dissent: we are not after total agreement, only a democratic and equitable process.

Remember: healthy disagreement makes for a healthy network.

'You can make your evaluation say anything and this network has recently been evaluated and it says it's wonderful, and I just think, well as a participant I don't agree… …but you can't feed that back because you were never actually asked to even participate in the evaluation.'

Collaborative networks cannot be evaluated against narrowly defined pre-determined criteria.

Aspirations will shift in collaboration. Multiple goals will need to be aligned. The outcomes of this cannot be accurately predicted.

Early goals should be clear enough to define the scope of the network action, but broad enough to allow for the emergence of innovative solutions that may not be imagined before hand.

Don't set goals that will force the network to act before it is ready.

Many networks have learnt the hard way that the process of aligning multiple views and establishing trust often takes much more time than anticipated. Forcing agreement to meet deadlines can damage the ability of the network to meet long-term goals.

Don't set too many outcomebased goals too early.

Negotiate to set some outcome based milestones after an appropriate establishment phase.

Make sure stakeholders appreciate the process; or any inactivity might be seen as a symptom of yet another ineffectual network.

'The second generation [project] people have looked at those pilots and gone, ¡°we're not going to guarantee delivery of a project plan in the first quarter of this, we'll do that by the fourth quarter of this.¡± We've learnt something; that a lot of that networking stuff takes time...and therefore we're not going to guarantee a product until after the first year.'

Make network building a formal goal of the program or project.

Networks are the social capital of collaborative action. Effective networks reduce transaction costs and increase the knowledge that can be applied to solving complex problems.

Process and outcome evaluation should include some measure of how the relationships between network members (and to critical resources outside of the network) are being, built. eg:

• Increasing levels of trust.
• Increasing understanding of the multiple goals and perspective in the network.
• An increase in the formal and informal processes that connect network members (eg, any new collaborations between network members that can be attributed to the network).

See Appendix 2 for some evaluation criteria.

See also the Rapid Assessment Tool - Guide resources No.1.

Is the network process transparent to stakeholders outside of the network?

One of the biggest criticisms of network processes is that they lack transparency.

Participants can be captured by the network, damaging the connection (and accountability) to their own agency.

Representation by stakeholders in the network should not reduce accountability to normal democratic processes.

Don't assume network members are doing their bit and communicating with those they supposedly represent.

Encourage those who have important links to key stakeholder groups to keep their links active.

Develop a process to formalise feedback on contacts with stakeholders and to feedback network processes to stakeholder groups.

See Howden 2006 (Reference List)

Is there widespread support for the network in the hierarchy of the various network members?

Maintaining cohesiveness can be difficult if network members' managers are not supportive or are unwilling to commit to full participation in the process of network action.

Encourage key supporters to negotiate with resistant organisations to fully participate in the network process.

Organise processes to bring the hierarchy of all network members together. Ensure you have sufficient cheerleaders for your work present.

Does the network have the right mix of leaders?

Networks may need multiple 'leaders' to: manage the functional aspects internal to the network; to work at the interface between the network and their agencies; and, to manage interorganisational relations and seek resources.

Work with the network to identify key links that need to be stronger (both internally and externally) and which network members might be able to take a role in brokering the relationships.

Build the networking skills of others by explaining network management processes you are using and why.

Support learning processes that build the leadership skills of others.

Can you identify 'brokers' who might add value to the network?

Brokers are people who work in the spaces between networks and link the network to important sources of information, support and other resources.

Identify individuals outside of the network who are known to be 'good networkers' ¨C good at linking people, ideas and resources.

It might be important that these people are given a free reign and not forced to be a formal part of the network ¨C they need to work between networks, not in them. Equally it is important to ensure they are acting in the best interests of the network.

'I think these people are quite unusual, they're people who work at the boundaries, who are able to straddle boundaries between [the] Government and community, between different departments, who naturally kind of actually like...research and practice, policy and practice, those kind of things...who like translating communicating, different concepts and finding that path that makes sense of both…'

Watch your language!

Specific language forms can arise in networks that can exclude new entries or others unfamiliar with the jargon used. It is usually hard to recognise your own jargon.

See Guide Resource No 8.

Regularly check that all network members have a clear understanding of network decisions.

Develop informal (or formal) rules about the use of jargon.

Don't assume everyone is up to speed.

How will you ensure the appropriate integration of new people into an established network?

Developing a common vision builds a stronger team ¨C a positive thing, but new entries can find it hard to easily fit in.

Revisit and discuss network goals when new members arrive.

Revisit some activities used to build understanding of the world-views of network members (this will be valuable to the wider network anyway).

'I have come in to established networks where I have been able to make an early contribution, or my early contribution has been accepted, encouraged and valued... In other networks it's almost like you've got to serve an apprenticeship before people turn their heads to listen to what you've got to say...'

Don't assume everyone sees network goals and decisions in the same way.

Even if they appear to agree.

Individuals can have dramatically different perceptions of the same network. Network managers can be completely surprised by resistance to, or rejection of, what they assumed were mutually reached goals.

Check and re-check perceptions as the network reaches important decision making milestones.

Develop procedures that allow reflection on the journey of the network and points of convergence or divergence.

Utilise a network 'history' to assist the reflection (see page 26).

'More often than not when you get people together to look at a problem and then say well, I want everyone to write down what the problem is, you'll get surprised that you'll have three different problems or four different problems…if not more.'

Are the network processes encouraging effective decisionmaking and confidence amongst network members?

Networks can be conservative in every decision they make and produce watered down, ineffective outcomes so as to offend nobody.

Revisit processes that you think are supporting conservative behaviour ¨C can you change them?

Introduce a respected identity or high profile stakeholder to support innovative solutions.

Challenge the network to make 'the best' decisions and not those that make everyone happy.

Encourage constructive controversy.

The absence of controversy is just as dangerous as the presence of conflict. It might reflect the suppression of legitimate views.

Create a tradition of constructive controversy by creating formal or informal rules about making intelligent and practical dissent standard practice.

Know who has a different view and support them in speaking up, even if you disagree with them.

Challenge conventional thinking.

Customs, conventions, norms and informal rules can be important for keeping a group together, but they can at times encourage business-as-usual and stifle innovation.

Encourage someone with different views to speak up.

Hold meetings in a totally different space that is not 'home' to any of the main agencies - but is relevant to the network's goals.

Introduce a controversial report or guest.

Ownership is important.

It is important not to assume that everyone understands their role in a network and that of others.

Regularly explore the range of ways people can, and do, contribute.

Hierarchical or economic power should not be a proxy for importance in a network.

'Another network that I'm in where we struggled to get some of the key representatives… they have thought the network was somebody else's business [and] that they were invited out of politeness... So they didn't necessarily have ownership...or feeling that others felt they were legitimate participants as well.'

Maintain formal or informal processes that support the understanding of different world-views.

Electronic communication processes are not sufficient to establish trusting networks.

Convene meetings 10-15 minutes before formal start times and arrange refreshments afterward or something to encourage informal processes of reflection on formal decisions.

'So there's sort of that open environment where you can question and check and not feel silly doing that (laughs)... and encouraging diversity. A lot of that.'

'Where it seems to have worked best for me...is that it has occurred in a structured, but informal setting, where there is given time and space for people to coexist, without necessarily a formal structure.'

How is your role in the network perceived?

Being a representative of Government brings with it implied power as a potential source of funding or influence.

Participants in research for this guide reported being frustrated with the expectation that they will always lead.

In some networks it will be important that you are seen to take a back seat at times a let the others lead discussion (no matter how frustrating this might be).

It is important to separate your role in the network from the wider responsibility of your department and make this clear to network members.

Does the structure of the network encourage innovative thinking?

Open flexible networks of loosely connected sub groups are more organic and innovative than one tightly linked network.

Empower the brokers in the network to cast wide for new contacts or ideas.

Can the network be broken into smaller loosely connected task groups to address particular issues?

Can you stimulate 'creative competitiveness' by challenging different sub-groups in the network to come up with different solutions to a problem based on their own world-view? See Guide Resources Nos. 2 & 3

Is the structure of the network the most appropriate for the tasks it has to undertake?

Networks evolve and change through the different stages in programs and projects. This might affect network members differently, or suit different skill sets better than others.

Delineate phases of the network process (eg. (1) time for new ideas, (2) time to stop and complete a task or (3) time to pause to reflect) and adjust the rules (formal and informal) of operating to suit.

Find a balance between urgency and deliberativeness.

Complex problems require a different way of thinking, with emphasis on learning together and exploring possibilities ¨C things that take time. This is very frustrating for those who just want to get 'the job' done.

Manage expectations of group performance against old project models.

Reinforce the need for consensus across the network before moving forward.

Avoid the temptation to aim for regular formal 'output' milestones (particularly early in the process).

Build trust and confidence in the network.

Trust in Government and commitment to the network can be eroded if participants think that networks are just 'token' processes to placate stakeholders.

Invite a key sponsor to talk to the network to provide evidence of Government support.

Create an event where senior representatives of participants' organisations can attend.

Act as the memory and voice of the network.

Summarising what has happened throughout the network's life and articulating questions and understandings helps individuals understand the 'whole' of the network.

Speak for the network as if it had a mind and intention of its own.

Record such things as goals, actions, rationales, decision points, in enough detail to give more colour than simple minutes of meetings.

'So it's important to develop a situation where the people around the table understand the way each other sees the world, and then mutually respect each other's experience.'

'I'm not expecting that we all know whose married, single, who's been to which country or whatever...you have a bit more of understanding of the context that people are operating in and some of...the experiences or knowledge that they might bring to the network.'

Incentives to keep participating in the network are important. If they are not obvious, or unevenly distributed, critical participants can lose interest.

Two key incentives to participate in networks are the opportunity to work toward solutions that are important to agencies, and platforms for information/ knowledge expansion.

Keep the information flowing. Develop a culture of knowledge reciprocity.

Keep the collective eye on the desired outcomes, emphasising why collaborative outcomes might be better.

Celebrate achievement of collaborative outcomes.

Build social capital for the future.

Organisations with a history of mistrust can find it very difficult to work together when needed. Create a new history now by building the social infrastructure of the group.

Find ways for the network to make new links or achieve outcomes in arenas outside of the network's main tasks.

Consider processes that build relationships (trust etc.) as critical goals of the network and not just incidental.

Are there informal relationships/ rules or informal agreements that should be formalised for a network's longterm sustainability?

Formalising informal agreements make future collaborative efforts less dependent on personal relationships or leaders that are hard to replace, and stabilises situations where staff turnover is high.

Consider formalising relationships that are critical to the function of the network and may hinder network success if key participants leave. Make critical links between organisations not individuals.

Tread carefully when changing major operating rules in an established network.

Formal and informal rules in networks have evolved with the network and are often 'owned' by participants. Sudden change can be disruptive and upsetting.

Institutional reforms may best be incremental and build on existing relationships, rather than seeking to replace them

However, sometimes a radical change in the rules is needed to shake a network into action.

Build trust and confidence through achievement and celebration.

Action and achievement can build trust between network members and confidence in the network process.

Identify smaller tasks that might be less controversial but highly visible that might be achieved by the network early in the process.

Openly celebrate successes.

Sustain interest in learning new ideas.

It is important the information keeps flowing, is organised so that it is accessible, in small doses so as not to overload, and continually stimulating to facilitate thinking and expansion of world-views.

Utilise a range of electronic and other means to store and circulate information. Be creative.

Utilise the expertise in the network, or activate external expertise to stimulate thinking on complex issues.

Seek commitment to quick action.

While some participants come to networks with some delegated authority, it can really frustrate network action if participants delay decisions (deliberately or not) while seeking higher approval.

Seek to build formal (and informal) agreement about decision processes very early in the life of a network.

A 'condition' of participation might be that you will seek an answer within a short defined space of time.

Don't let success go to the network's head.

With success can come increased formality and 'turf battles' for political credit or ownership of the network, often to the detriment of the people the network has been set up to serve.

Plan on success and consider early the consequence of a significantly expanded network.

Don't forget the network processes that generate the success. Encourage regular reflection on the history of the network.

'Now that it has become quite...formal in its structures, the landholders are now distant from the management...they see it as another government structure that does things to them, rather than being part of it...'

Take time to reflect on the network.

Meetings can run so fast that you can miss important changes in the pattern of relationships or in the rules.

Being reflective is a critical skill of a network manager.

Don't assume you see everything.

Take time to reflect immediately after a meeting: What has just happened? Who was doing all the talking? How did decision making ebb and flow? Who were the influencers? Write this down.

Talk to an ally in the network who thinks like you. What did they see? Talk also to someone who sees things differently. What did they see?

Make use of the network to reduce collective costs.

Resources are limited and stakeholders have multiple needs. Networks provide a way to pool resources and provide services in a way that improves collective ability to solve problems.

Identify resource overlaps ¨C even if it is in areas outside of the network's agenda. Resource sharing outside the network can help maintain a tradition of cooperation.

Remember that the ability to take a share of the costs will vary across participants.

Who will do the basic administrative stuff?

While sharing the role of basic administration is an option, often it means a reduced level of contribution from the person taking that role.

Consider employing a neutral administrative person and sharing the costs.

Don't target junior members in the network for this role. You will reduce their ability to participate and devalue their contribution.

Reduce unnecessary meetings.

Nothing annoys some people more than unnecessary, overlong or unfocussed meetings.

Develop clear meeting guidelines (with some flexibility for informal communication and catch-up).

Consider who must be at a meeting, or whether sub-groups can meet separately.

Structure information so that people can choose what they want.

Everyone is overloaded with information and must choose what they pay greater attention to. If you don't come to the point very quickly, your message will be lost.

Keep email messages short, giving all the key messages ¨C append additional data so that it can be accessed if wanted.

Busy people mightn't find time for references. If it is important, append it. If it is not, offer to provide it later.

Structure your communication efforts.

You have limited time. Transaction costs of a large network can be crippling. Use your understanding of the various roles and needs of the network to target your communications strategically.

Consider who you should be in frequent contact with. Who has access to critical resources? Who you can send infrequent FYIs to keep on their radar. Who will help if you contact them, but tends not to initiate contact?

Don't be afraid to reduce contact with some people.

Use the Network Management Workbook to structure your communications.

Guide resources No.1.

Respond promptly.

This may be difficult in a busy schedule, but timely provision of information encourages confidence in you as a manager.

Give network members priority, but also consider the potential resources that a non-member may provide in future. Don't shut the gate on opportunities.

Are dominant individuals or cliques excluding other's views or deploying veto power to prevent certain courses of action?

Network members can declare a particular line or approach as out of order or veto the inclusion of other interests or other points of view, thus limiting the capacity of the network.

Make clear the consequences of network failure ¨C (eg. Government takeover of the decision). Introduce a high profile supporter to emphasise/imply close scrutiny.

Bring in a high profile stakeholder respected in the network to support marginal views or challenge thinking.

'When it starts to get difficult someone else comes in, so it doesn't hurt your relationship with the group or network ...they can respond, on your behalf, or DPI's behalf.'

Are members of the network ignoring other's views or suggesting processes that will affect others not in the network?

Network members not aware of the different world-views in the 'real world' around them won't incorporate them in their deliberations.

Introduce a guest speaker with a totally different perspective.

Arrange meetings in a place familiar to marginal individuals or groups.

Present a paper outlining the position of others.

'I think that will have to be very carefully facilitated because people will get involved in this process in good faith, they're giving up their time... If they get burnt by this process they won't be coming back the next time, or won't have that trust in being involved in this sort of thing.'

Are some important stakeholders refusing to work together because of bad relationships in the past?

Past difficult or acrimonious relationships can prevent a network from working effectively together, or can make reaching agreement difficult and time consuming.

Articulate network goals of agreeing to disagree to reach points of convergence.

Emphasise that some 'conflict' is actually useful if it is not personal.

Don't automatically suppress or ignore conflict.

Conflict can be an opportunity and not always a threat. Avoiding it or dismissing it will only be delaying an inevitable showdown, or suppressing legitimate views.

Constructive 'use' of conflict can build a much more dynamic group.

Conflict can be deliberately encouraged to break a persistent deadlock, the dominance of one world-view, or to stimulate innovative thinking.

Develop formal or informal conflict mediation processes that do not suppress individuals' views.

'The way you deal with the difference builds the strength of the relationship…' 'It is like any relationship, if you can get through whatever it is that's you know, making it hard at the moment, then surely you both come through that, or you all come through that with a heightened respect… …you might not agree with the person, but just respecting where they are coming from…'

Don't assume that everyone will always act in the interest of the network.

Even if you have reached a common vision there may always be someone who will use the network for their own goals.

This behaviour might not be conscious.

Regularly revisit the terms of reference.

Develop a culture of politely questioning the intention of participant's actions and whether they are consistent with the network vision goals, or whether there might be another view on the issue.

How will you manage a deadlocked or stalled network?

Groups can become deadlocked over issues where there is a refusal to negotiate on a key point. Alternatively, too much compromise aimed at satisfying all interest can lead to an ineffective or stalled network unable to make progress or innovative solutions.

Introduce an authoritative individual from outside of the network (eg. key stakeholders or subject expert) who can:

1. Emphasise the implications of failure (this might mean removal of responsibility for this action from the network).
2. Evaluate network decision and/or challenge the thinking of the deadlocked groups.
3. Or if all else fails ¨C make a decision (that the network must abide with).

This is a last resort as it disempowers the network and risks outcomes that don't adequately consider the range of interests.

'We do have conflict in our group, but it's very strange conflict. It's not overt shouting. It's just hostile disagreement. It's silent seething disagreement. I didn't even pick up on it to be honest. It was only...[someone] said to me quietly one day, 'Do you see the way he rolls his [expletive deleted] eyes?'

'Maintaining trust...that's an important thing, is people trusting you, so just... making sure you re-stock that... ...so it's just reminding [him] that in the big, bad world, he can still trust me, so it's about that, and lots of good things come out of that sort of stuff, for both of us.'

Negotiate the time limits of the formal network process.

It is important not to let a network slowly disintegrate due to lack of direction. All the work done to build relationships can then be undone.

Clearly outline phases in a collaborative project so that participants can plan their involvement or legitimately withdraw if they have no more to contribute or the network is not meeting their goals.

It is OK for a network to have down-time in which time you have regular but low level contact.

Do you have an exit strategy?

It is important that you don't just abandon the network when the project ends or the money runs out.

Be clear on the boundaries of your participation (no surprises).

Design a succession plan, perhaps including infrequent contact and ongoing support of some form, or introducing a new contact from your organisation (remember to allow some overlap time if you can).

Make time to celebrate network successes.

Formally celebrating serves to recognise the efforts put into reaching a collaborative goal.

It is important to make celebration of the successful achievement of a goal part of the culture of a network.

Include stakeholders in the celebrations to help 'publicise' key collective achievements.

Are you considering the knock-on value of network building?

Network building has value outside the bounds of a formal project. Rarely does a formal evaluation consider how collaboration has improved the wider ability of organisations to interact.

Consider the value that the network has built for any subsequent collaboration eg:

• The decreased time it will take to establish a new network.
• Any reduced reporting due to increased trust in the network.
• The improved understanding of each other's goals that will reduce the time it will take to establish a collective vision in the future.

'This time we've fired it up a lot earlier because we wasted…oh not wasted…spent a lot of time in 02-03 herding the cats I suppose. And this year we went on the front foot with our relationship with [all of our stakeholders].'

'It is a difficult one, 'cause often when you're forging these relationships, you mightn't see the benefits for a couple of years...so that's beyond your evaluation cycle or your project planning when you need to evaluate at the end of your project.'

Are you measuring the true costs of network outcomes?

Evaluating outcomes is not just a matter of aggregating judgements of network members.

Consider:

• Are the costs spread evenly across the network?
• What if the majority are happy, but others are bearing costs?
• Are some costs transferred outside of the network?
• Are there real benefits of being in the network or is it that aspirations have lowered (too much)?

How do you know the outcome can be attributed to the network?

In many cases this question is redundant: a network approach may be the only way to achieve progress on a complex and contested governance issue.

Utilise the network history (see page 26) to illustrate the network approaches used to achieve change. Emphasise where the network has succeeded where little (or no) success has been achieved in the past.

…networking is an art…I'm a novice…acknowledgment of what it takes to be effective in a network, whether it's structured or unstructured, needs to be discussed a lot more, because there is a lot of stress…

Build your leadership skills to build the network.

Power in a network is more important if it is used to 'create' a collaborative environment, not to 'command' change.

Consider building your leaderships skills taking courses in:

• Effective conversations
• Active listening
• Strategic influence
• Emotional intelligence

Spend time building your network connections

Your networks are a way to build support, through links to advocates who will promote your work and build you access to valuable resources (eg. money, information)

Allocate time specifically to thinking about and maintaining your networks

Map your networks visually (or keep a list) as a reminder of the extent of your network, and to prompt you to maintain your ties.

Use SmartDraw, Mindmapper or other software, or just use pins, labels & coloured cotton. You'll be surprised by the understanding that will emerge from mapping your network.

'VisuaLyzer' software is one formal network mapping software that seems easy to learn.

See Guide Resources No. 12

See also Appendix 1.

Spend time building your network connections (2)

Don't neglect your links to the wider network (weak ties)

Keep these ties active in the spaces between formal projects. They might be critical in the future.

You cannot possibly manage a large network of close relationships. Think strategically about whom you should have a strong link to, and to whom infrequent contact will suffice.

However, don't let too much time to lapse between contacts or you will fall off their radar.

' I'm glad I have good relationships with them, because … you get all that stuff out of the way and it's like oh, so you're doing this, great, okay...yeah, let's continue to work together.'

Broaden your information/ resource base.

If you don't know something, you might know who will know. A diversity of contacts means flexibility. There are only so many contacts you can maintain, so be strategic.

Map your information sources so you can keep better tabs on them, or know what information might be missing.

See Appendix 1.

Find a balance between frequent and infrequent contact. It is important to maintain 'weak ties' but don't make it too hard for yourself.

Utilise the social capital of key contacts and supporters.

Build your 'legitimacy' in networks if you want to be a successful manager

If you are not perceived as a legitimate leader in the network it will significantly impact on your ability to influence the network. Being the responsible/lead agency does not ensure you have the power or ability to lead. You may need to build that authority over time.

Cultivate connections to important opinion leaders and decision-makers.

Ask your connections to introduce you to people with resources important to the network.

Demonstrate the support of a departmental person in senior management, or invite them to a meeting.

Know who knows who, has what etc.

Be 'trustworthy'.

Trust takes time to build, but often it is important you develop a good working relationship very quickly. Act in a trustworthy manner.

• Demonstrate your experience and knowledge ¨C but don't exaggerate.
• Respect others' goals and demonstrate your desire to reach a mutually beneficial outcome.
• Act with integrity.

An effective network manager has to balance multiple roles.

To be effective in networks, you have to balance your own agency's concerns, and those of the network. You will have to effectively represent each role to stakeholders in the other. A constant flow of information is a 'necessary evil'.

It is easy to be 'captured' by network goals to the detriment of agency responsibilities.

Always be there. No one will represent your interest but you.

Know your organisation well, its programs, technologies, funding bases, regulations, etc. You will not be respected as valuable if you display ignorance of you organisation (or the network).

Don't play one off against the other. Networks work both ways!!!

Constantly check your assumptions.

Resist pigeonholing people based on any beliefs you might have about their likely behaviour or beliefs.

Network processes and language ¨C or that which is present in society ¨C can demonise certain positions (¡°bloody greenies¡±) and create barriers to real listening.

Be interested. Talk to individuals about their understanding of the process and decisions made in the network. Find out why.

Learn to be an advocate for alternative views, even if you don't agree with them. A dynamic conversation between different world-views is more valuable than quick progress based on the suppression of others' views.

Be patient.

Complex issues often require a long learning curve. Groups without clear authority structures require much more time to evolve an understanding of different world-views. Hurried decisions make for weak compromises.

Wait for the 'teachable moment'. It can take some time for understanding to 'accumulate' when people are dealing with new concepts and challenging problems.

Don't underestimate or undervalue the work you will need to do to build a network.

The time and effort taken to build a collaborative network is often underestimated. It is worse for the public officer if these efforts are revealed after a milestone is missed, or when a project fails.

Clearly communicate the value that will come from your networking activities and/or what can be achieved (or not achieved) given the time and financial bounds of the project.

Negotiate for more time at the beginning of networks for relationship building, without the pressure of milestones.

'I think it depends on who your supervisors are… …if you can explain why it's important…absolutely [my manager] would agree with that…it's a legitimate activity, you need to do it to achieve…so as long as you can context why it's important, and how it's gunna contribute to what it's all about.'

For a Program manager:

Don't undervalue the work of your networkers.

The skills of a good networker are partly innate, but also are built with time and experience.

Network managers work in a world of high mental and emotional stress.

Don't place an inexperienced officer in a network where there is a history of difficult political relationships.

Closely monitor the progress of all officers in difficult networks. Ensure they have appropriate physical and emotional support.

'With some of the projects that happen, you like think, 'you will be eaten alive by those people out there'…it's almost like, rude to send some of the people out that we send out I reckon.'

'It's really tricky stuff. It's highly political, and it's all about relationships. How you talk to people and how you deal with people. How you cope with people that are pissed off and upset and angry...and all those emotions. When you're out of Uni it must come as a bit of a bloody shock, I mean how would you know how to deal with all that stuff.'

'I was pretty much ready to quit three months ago.'

'I wasn't happy with my responsibility levels...and I am doing a job that I wasn't completely equipped to do.'

'I had a terrible incident where I was bullied, but I was green and young… …it was quite interesting how the bullying behaviour came about… …it really pissed me off… A couple of them called me later when they were out of the room to apologise, and it wasn't personal, it was just the organisation they represented …it's not that we don't like you… …so you've got to roll with the punches…'

'I thought, I can't network, I'm hopeless, I've got to leave this job… …and then there was realisation, OK, I'm fine…this is normal behaviour.'

Formalise the networking role.

Too often the networking role is seen as an add-on, something that is just done in the progress of doing the 'real' work of managing a complex project.

Formalise the process of networking by setting goals in your Performance and Progression Managenent Scheme (PPMS) around building and maintaining relationships.

Ensure time to manage networks is a formal part of any project or program you are involved in.

Ensure processes to build your skills as a networker are also part of your PPMS.

Strengthen links to advocates for your work.

Maintaining infrequent contact (weak ties) with influential people with an interest in your work can build your credibility in the wider network and be a source of support.

Identify people in your network that you have worked successfully with in the past (who know you can deliver) and maintain your links with them.

Identify critical opinion leaders in your network. If you cannot build direct links to them, consider allies who might influence them.

Trustworthiness

Mayer et al. (1995) note three related and interdependent factors that underpin trustworthiness:

• Ability: the perceived experience or competence of the trustee (this is obviously context dependant);
• Benevolence: the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor; and,
• Integrity: the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.

1.

Tools developed under ORL 5.1

a) Network Management Workbook (Alana Hulme)

b) Rapid Assessment Tool (Alana Hulme)

c) Outcomes Framework (Fiona Johnson)

d) More effective policy delivery- using sources of trust to realise policy objectives in contested environments (Megan Higson)

e) More effective policy delivery - aligning expectations & relations between organisations (Brigette Keeble)

2.

On the range of challenges facing public servants managing networks

Howden, PF 2006, 'Understanding and Operating in Networks: a Focus on the Role of the ¡°Networker¡±. Discussion paper for Our Rural Landscapes (ORL) program 5.1', Department of Primary Industries, Tatura.

Howden, PF 2007, 'Navigating Complex Networks: A Report on Interviews with Network Managers, a report for Our Rural Landscapes (ORL) Program 5.1', Department of Primary Industries, Tatura.

3.

General papers on networking

Borgatti, SP and Foster, PC 2003, 'The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology', Journal of Management, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 991-1013.

Cross, R, Parker, A and Borgatti, SP n.d., 'A bird's eye view: Using social network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing', Retrieved 17th April, 2007, http://www-935. ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/ibvstudy/imc/a1001262?cntxt=a100044 9

Jackson, PM and Stainsbury, L 2000, 'Managing Public Sector Networked Organisations', Public Money & Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 11-16.

Provan, KG, Veazie, MA, Staten, LK and Teufel-Shone, NI 2005, 'The Use of Network Analysis to Strengthen Community Partnerships', Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 603-613.

4.

Network conference website with papers

http://www.public-policy.unimelb.edu.au/conference06/index.html (see Mandell's paper on the 3Cs here)

5.

Books on networks and the field of network research

A little theoretical

Kilduff, M and Tsai, W 2003, Social Networks and Organisations, Sage Publications, London.

Kickert, WJM, Klijn, E-H and Koppenjan, JFM (eds) 1997, Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publications, London.

A little less theoretical (a good general read on networks)

Watts, DJ 2003, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, William Heinemann, London.

6.

General web resources on networks (including tools)

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/netgov/html/sna.htm

http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/tse-portal/analysis/social-network-analysis/

http://www.socialnetworks.org/

7.

On evaluating networks

Provan, KG and Milward, HB 2001, 'Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks', Public Administration Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 414- 423 .

8.

On the influence of institutions and discourse on networks

Howden, PF 2007, 'Institutions in Network Design', Report for milestone 3.12 for Our Rural Landscapes Program 5.1, Department of Primary Industries, Bendigo.

9.

On recent changes in governance in Australia (including the rise of network governance)

Petris, S 2005, 'Making Sense of Recent Developments Public Sector Governance', Department of Primary Industries, East Melbourne.

10.

On methods of managing conflicting groups

Jacksteit, M and Kaufmann, A 1999, 'The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice Manual', The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, viewed 9th February 2007, <http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/us/pdf/manual.pdf>

11.

Another network guide

Agranoff, R 2003, 'Understanding Networks: A Guide for Public Managers', report for IBM Endowment for the Business of Government, IBM Endowment, Arlington, VA.

12.

Network drawing software

SmartDraw

is a generic drawing program that can be used to draw networks: it is available at: http://www.smartdraw.com/

Mindmapper

is another generic network drawing program: it is available at: http://www.mindmapper.com/

VisuaLyzer

software is designed to map formal Social Network Analysis data, but can be easily used to draw simple network maps (see appendix 1): it is available at: http://www.mdlogix.com/egonet.htm

If all else fails:

'Professional Networking For Dummies'

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/productCd-07645534 61.html

Is there a difficult 'network' situation you have found yourself in that you think should be covered in this guide? (Is it something that is likely to be a problem for other networkers?)

Have you employed a particular strategy, or seen a particular strategy used that has worked well to make a network function more efficiently or effectively?

Would you like more detail on any of the sections in this guide?

Are there any general observations you would like to make about this guide?