|
Offering recommendations to networks working on different policy
process and issues and with entirely different internal structures
and external environments is extremely difficult. Those highlighted
in this section are expected to be reflected upon as a menu of flexible
suggestions for action.
Click on the links below for more on each recommendation:
Define purpose of the network
(agency and/or support?)
Our research on networks had led us to conclude that it is crucial
for all members to agree on, at least, one issue: what is the network
for? There are about 6 functions that
the networks can carry out. But what must be first decided is what
the overall purpose of the network will be. Is this going to be
an Agency network or a
Support network?
Both are equally important supra functions. An Agency network,
however, requires very specific resources that Support networks
do not. Failing to agree on it may cripple the Agency network from
being able to fulfil its purpose. Similarly, not recognising a Support
function can see resources being unnecessarily wasted by attempting
to influence policy directly.
top
Find the right structure for
your network
Having defined the functions that networks can play, the next step
is to determine the structural characteristics (organisation, skills,
resources, etc.), or organizational practices that networks need
to follow to be able to achieve their objectives. For instance,
what type of membership does a network need to be a successful amplifier?
Is it the same as the membership needed for community building?
Most likely the answer is no. Amplifiers will benefit from outward
looking members, while community builders from inward looking ones.
I have already argued that an Agency network has a different basic
member-secretariat relationship than a Support network.
top
Develop and carryout holistic
policy influence strategies: strategic opportunism
Not all networks can afford to develop clear (almost step by step)
policy influence strategies. Some like CIES have, had the time and
resources to do so. Others, like Peru 2021 and Participa Peru work
in a rather focused environment that allows them to develop clear
approaches. Most networks, however, have to rely on ad-hoc responses
to the different and ever changing policy contexts in which they
work.
Nonetheless, in all cases it is possible to be successful. Ad-hoc
situations do not need to lead to wrong strategy choices. A look
at CIES website, for instance, reveals a very diverse set of publication
materials, news releases and strategies. They engage with their
members through research projects, workshops, and meetings' with
the media through new releases and personal and professional relations;
and with policy makers with several communication campaigns, ad-hoc
publications and policy oriented projects (often in partnership
with policymakers themselves).
CONVEAGRO's experience also shows how a response to changing circumstances
leads to ad-hoc strategies. A change in the Minister of Agriculture
may trigger many positive or negative effects. Events organised
at the network which used to be attended by the minister or his
advisors might not interest the new minister; hence the weekly visits.
Thorough research based evidence of social or economic impact of
trade policies might be regarded as less valuable than political
pressures at different stages of the 5 years each administration
has in government; hence the use of mobilisations and protests to
get their message across or draw the attention of policymakers concerned
more about the politic of re-election than of policymaking.
These are all ad-hoc responses to changing environments. Their
success depends on their strategic nature: They have been planed
with the context in mind.
More linear strategies to policy influence like the one of Peru
2021 and Participa Peru are rare. In the case of Peru 2021 this
has to do with the fact that they do not target the policy process
but rather corporations, which enjoy far greater stability. Their
basic sensitising process therefore contains the same elements regardless
of the audience. They:
- Present Peru 2021's model on CSR to key officials of interested
enterprises
- Explain and describe the basic indicators, actions and benefits
from CSR
- Offer examples of successes and 'horror' stories
- Recommend key organisations that can help them in the development
and implementation of CSR strategies
Participa Peru's policy influence process also follows a well defined
path. The strategy to influence policies at the law formulation
level and shared by all members consists of:
- Identifying the issues
- Identify other issues being discussed in Congress and all related
legislation
- Carryout research on the issue
- Develop a project based on that research's findings
- Identify key areas to be discussed by the network members
- Carryout regional workshops to discuss the key issues
- Develop consolidated proposals
- Present the proposals to Congress and policymakers; normally
through informal networks
- Carryout lobby or 'cabildeo'
The use of numbers above denotes a step by step process. However,
within each step there are a series of non-linear activities that
the network needs to deal with in an ad-hoc manner. Its systematic
approach to the process, however, allows it to be prepared for most
possible variations on their strategy.
What seems to be clearly a good practice in all cases is that the
process needs to follow at least four basic steps:
- Understand the context
- Identify the audience and the messenger for the message
- Develop the message
- Communicate the message
These define an overall strategy that needs to be flexible but
systematic enough to respond to opportunities: strategic opportunism.
top
Develop living institutional
memories
It is important for networks to develop an institutional memory
that transcends the individual or member and is held collectively
by the network to encourage learning and development. There are
many ways and specific tools to do this. Frequent member meetings
to discuss new research can be used to discuss policy impact strategies
which can be debated and shared among them.
Case studies of successful and unsuccessful policy impact experience
are also a useful means for systematic learning. Good case studies
can highlight best practices within a sector and context. Unlike
academic papers they do not set out to prove or disprove a hypothesis
but rather to describe a process allowing the readers to identify
what is relevant and not from them.
An after action review is another tool that can be useful to collect
key lessons learned after the completion of a project or programme.
Peer reviews can highlight issues that might have gone unnoticed
by the main actors involved. There are many other tools available
in the knowledge management sector but what is important for all
is that they must be carried out systematically. The best way of
systematizing what is known by the network is to record these events,
best practices, failures and successes in a systematic manner.
The Outcome Mapping methodology, developed by the IDRC, is a promising
option. The approach is a planning, monitoring and evaluation platform
that can be particularly relevant for research policy networks (see
www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html).
It promotes the use of journals to monitor the achievement of graduated
objectives, the effectiveness of the strategies and the organisation's
own performance. These journals, even if not thorough or scientific
evaluations, can provide a reliable and credible source of knowledge.
Learning in networks is also about aggregating the knowledge held
by the partners. In his book, 'The Wisdom of Crowds', James Surowiecki
argues that when a group successfully aggregates its knowledge they
can be wiser than any of its wisest members. A simple example: if
one was to ask 100 people to guess how many beans there were in
a glass jar then the average answer would be closer to the actual
number of beans than any of the individual answers; regardless of
the individual's intelligence. In the real world this explains the
success of betting houses to 'guess' the outcome of a race, exit
surveys to 'predict' the outcome of an election, or the FTSE 100
index to 'outperform' (in the long run) the efforts of the smartest
stock-brokers. What these have in common is that they successfully
aggregate the partial information of many (from millions to a few
hundred) different people into a fuller picture of reality. The
key point here is that the group is diverse and that all their information
is considered.
In a network, members each have partial information about the policy
context, possible windows of opportunities, research findings, etc.
the value of research networks is that they can potentially bring
all the pieces together to develop the full picture.
top
Strengthen internal relations
(member to member)
As a way of learning from the each other but also to strengthen
the network it self it is important that members develop good working
relations. There is a risk that network secretariats may become
a necessary (and only) means of communication with other members.
This can clearly hamper their ability to carryout networked research,
coordinated policy influence strategies, respond to funding opportunities
or take advantage of policy windows. CIES's insistence of networked
research is a good way of strengthening intra-network relations.
Periodic meetings like those of CONVEAGRO and overlapping thematic
and regional forums as in Foro Salud are also good practices.
Some of the social technologies mentioned below can also be used.
Net to Net or Net to Phone services for instance can reduce telecommunications
costs significantly, blogs can be used toe exchange opinions, and
many people already use chat services to ask their contacts very
specific questions without the typical delays that emails entail.
top
Develop inter network relations
Although networks find it easier to spin-off other networks, this
is a long and sometimes expensive process. Networking or developing
relations with other networks can be a profitable alternative. Our
conversations with networks in Lima suggest that they enjoy limited
links with networks or institutions in other parts of the world
or those operating globally. This is unfortunate, mainly because
these links could contribute with necessary resources, skills and
knowledge, but mostly because these networks also complain of their
lack of links with networks in other regions. The Medicam network
in Cambodia, for instance, is Foro Salud's natural partner. Although
both countries' health systems are in significantly different stages
of development, they both suffer from tropical diseases and are
emerging from fierce conflicts. The lessons learned in Peru could
be highly beneficial for Cambodians (who are, for instance, implementing
a health insurance project based on a Chilean equity model) and
donor lessons in Cambodia could benefit the Peruvian policy process
(from which many donors have withdrawn).
The easiest way of contacting these regional or national networks
is via global networks such as the one being developed by the CSPP
at the ODI; or the partnerships created by DFID's Development Research
Consortiums (DRC). These link Northern based research policy institutions
with Southern based ones with the objective of developing policy
oriented research on key issues (e.g. migration, chronic poverty,
health, etc.).
top
Integrate consultation with the
grassroots and policy influence
Following on a best practice by CONVEAGRO, it is important to keep
up with the needs of the grassroots and use this information to
guide the development of the message to be conveyed to policymakers.
Doing so guarantees that policy recommendations have real and measurable
impact on the poor but, almost as important for a network, it strengthens
its own credibility before its members as their legitimate representative.
Failing to consider and incorporate their recommendations, concerns
and ideas can lead to a weakening of the relations between the members
and the network and a threat to its sustainability. Some of the
individual members of CIES (remembers that CIES members are organisations),
for instance, do not feel represented by them and hardly ever collaborate
with their networked initiatives -their expertise is hence lost
for the other members. This is in partly due to the fact that CIES
relies on its own institutional members' capacity to engage its
staff in the network; and from it being such a wide reaching network.
Use new social technologies
Developing strategic opportunistic approaches to policy influence
and knowledge management systems is, unfortunately, expensive. For
networks that already struggle for the basic resources to run their
everyday activities, these recommendations might be difficult to
follow. There are, fortunately a great deal of new resources available.
The rise and fall of the dotcom ventures has kick-started the development
of new (and mostly free) social technologies that are only slowly
beginning to be used in the development field. I will not go into
much detail here, but for example, Outcome Mapping journals can
be kept via a weblog (and online diary); which can also pose as
an interactive website and a very effective communications tool.
More well known social technologies are e-groups (or d-groups),
online newsletters or email discussions.
A great aggregating tool is the wiki technology. Wikipedia is an
online open encyclopaedia which allows multiple users from all over
the world (anyone with a computer) to contribute to it. You can
add, delete edit or link anything you want. Private wikis can allow
the members of a network to aggregate their knowledge by contributing
to each other's research, opinions or strategies without having
to engage in long email chains or costly workshops.
Some of the most popular social technologies available are:
- Weblogs
- The wiki
- Photo Sharing
- On-demand publishing
- e-groups or d-groups
- e-lists
- Online learning platforms
- Net to Net or Net to Phone services (like Skype)
- GIS (Geographic Information Systems)
- Google Earth
- Search engines
- Chat
- RSS
top
The role of the 'ayayero'
In Latin American Popular music there is always a point in a song
when the mood calms down and the tempo slows down to a waltz. After
a few moments, when the audience is beginning to get used to the
new rhythm, someone, in the crowd or in the band, steps up and shouts:
"Ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay!" And the music livens up again and
people get up on their seats and the dance kicks-off. This is the
'ayayero', in Peru, or 'gritero' (literally, shouter) in Colombia.
The 'ayayero' is not just some enthusiastic musician or a publican.
S/he has been charged with that responsibility and has had to prepare
well for it. Being an 'ayayero' requires not only an excellent understanding
of the music itself, but also of the audience and its mood that
particular night. They must be able to identify 'amateur ayayeros'
in the audience (who will pick up his lead right away); choose the
right moment to change the tempo of the music (either prolonging
the waltz or cutting it short). More...
Back to Networks Study index
|
