Assessing Network Health

1. Assessing Network Health Terri Willard, March 3, 2009 Rural People, Rural Policy Initiative Network meeting

2. Varying Starting Points • Network assessment and evaluation has grown out of a variety of evaluation traditions: • Organizational learning and improvement • Accountability to funders and stakeholders for $ spent on projects/programs • Process evaluation • Impact evaluation • None of these fit precisely when you are trying to assess network health.

3. Networks Need to Distinguish Between: The network’s operations (Form) The network’s work (Function) • Grows out of organizational learning tradition • Lack of collaboration typology makes description essential, but difficult • Focuses on goals, structures, processes, operations and capacities–and the degree to which there is a shared understanding of these • Grows out of a project/program framework • Focuses on relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability • Challenges in applying the standard definitions of these elements to network work (e.g., no difference between effectiveness and impact for purpose-driven networks) A good network assessment looks at both form and function, with an analysis of their compatibility. Does form follow function?

4. Additional Evaluation Challenges • Network Life Cycle • Networks evolve–Issues for network form and function are different in Year 1 than Year 10 • New networks must achieve balance between building trust and getting something done! • Older networks must demonstrate adaptability to changing circumstances and contexts, particularly with respect to reinvigorating leadership and maintaining relevance of work • Purpose of Network • Connectivity, alignment and production networks do different “work” • Harder to assess effectiveness and impact of connectivity and alignment networks since results are less tangible • A focus on outcomes can help all networks understand that their impact is achieved through changing the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of others

5. Assessment is easier when the network: • Has a clear goal, a theory of change, and a logical plan which connects activities to expected outcomes • Maintains organized files on its history, activities, and finances • Develops documentation on the roles and responsibilities of members, coordinators, host organizations and funders • Involves members in the development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation frameworks for itself • Engages in periodic evaluative activities, whether or not required to do so by funders

6. Network Assessment Resources • IISD: www.iisd.org/networks/evaluation • Net Gains book: www.networkimpact.org/downloads/NetGainsHandbookVersion1.pdf • Evaluation Exchange: www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange • Outcome Mapping Community: www.outcomemapping.ca • McKinsey Capacity Assessment Framework: www.vppartners.org/learning/reports/capacity/capacity.htm • Universalia Institutional and Organizational Assessment: www.universalia.com • OECD DAC Evaluation Criteria: www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html